The violent course pursued in the trial and expulsion of Roberts and McCreery, and in the general persecution of the so-called “Nazarites” which followed, naturally created wide-spread excitement, not only throughout the Conference, but as well in the “regions beyond.” Both the religious and secular papers took the matters under discussion, and nearly all save those which were conducted or utilized in the interest of the “Buffalo Regency,” unqualifiedly condemned the action of the Genesee Conference for its oppressive and unrighteous course. Various official bodies throughout the Conference also passed resolutions strongly expressing their disapproval of the outrages the Conference had perpetrated against innocent and holy men.

     At length the laymen within the Conference bounds became thoroughly aroused, and felt that something must be done on their part to check, if possible, such oppressive and cruel measures. Isaac M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, Niagara County, N. Y., was the first to suggest the definite line of action to be pursued, namely, the holding of a Convention of representative laymen from all those societies within the bounds of the Conference who were opposed to the oppressive measures adopted and pursued in dealing with the men who had been expelled.

     Mr. Chesbrough bad been a Methodist for half a century or more. He was a man of much intelligence, sound judgment, unswerving integrity, large experience in practical affairs, and who was generally held in esteem and veneration by all who knew him. “He was always ready to succor the distressed, to encourage the desponding, and to stand by the oppressed. He saw quickly through mere pretensions, abhorred shams, and was not afraid to act up to his convictions.” He was one of God’s true noblemen, a man such as would be an honor to any community, to any Church, to any nation, in any generation, or in any age.

     Mr. Chesbrough’s proposal met with general approval. Accordingly a call for such a Convention as he suggested was issued, bearing the signatures of more than one hundred of the leading laymen of the Conference, representing twenty-two circuits and stations. In response to this call one hundred and ninety-five representative laymen, from forty-seven circuits and stations, met in Albion, N. Y., December 1, 1858, to hold a Convention for the purpose of deliberating as to the course to be recommended and pursued in view of existing conditions.

     The Convention was preceded by a Laymen’s Love-feast, which was held in the Methodist Episcopal Church the first evening. This was a meeting novel in its character, but attended with much of the Holy Spirit’s presence, and hence was a service of much interest.

     The Convention proper was held in Kingsland’s Hall, the first sitting following the Love-feast, at 8: 30 p. m. After appropriate devotional exercises the organization was effected, by the election of the following officers: Hon. Abner I. Wood, president; Isaac M. Chesbrough, George W. Holmes, S. C. Springer, O. C. Sheldon, J. H. Brooks, George Bascom, and C. Sanford, vice-presidents; S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle, and J. A. Latta, secretaries.

     A committee on resolutions was appointed, consisting of S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle, 0. W. Estes, S. 5, Rice, John Billings, A. Ames and J. Handly; also a committee on finance, consisting of Nelson Coe, Claudius Brainerd, S. P. Briggs, S. S. Bryant and George W. Holmes. Addresses were made by several, after which the Convention adjourned until 9: 00 a. m. the following day.

     At the second sitting, after devotional exercises and the reading of the minutes, the following Call was read, as setting forth the object of the Convention:
 

     There has been manifested, for several years past, a disposition among certain members of the Genesee Conference, to put down, under the name of fanaticism, and other opprobrious epithets, what we consider the life and power of our holy Christianity. In pursuance of this design, by reason of a combination entered into against them by certain preachers, the Rev. Isaac C. Kingsley, and the Rev. Loren Stiles, Jr., were removed from the Cabinet at the Medina Conference; and the last Conference at Perry, after a trial marked by unfairness and injustice, expelled from the Conference and the Church two of our beloved brethren, Benjamin T. Roberts, and Joseph McCreery, for no other reason, as we conceive, than that they were active and zealous ministers of our Lord Jesus Christ, and were in favor with the people, contending earnestly for those peculiarities of Methodism which have hitherto been essential for our success as a denomination; and have also dropped from the Conference two worthy, pious and devoted young men, viz., Frank M. Warner and Isaac Foster, who, during their Conference probation, approved themselves as more than ordinarily acceptable and useful among the people; and also, at the last session of the Conference, removed from the Cabinet Rev. C. D. Burlingham, the only remaining Presiding Elder who opposed their sway. For several years past they have also, by consummate “clerical diplomacy,” removed many of our worthy members from official relation to the Church, for no other reason than that they approved of the principles advocated by these brethren.

     Therefore, in view of these facts, and others of a similar nature, we, the undersigned, hereby invite all our brethren who, with us, are opposed to this proscriptive policy, to meet with us in Convention at Albion, on Wednesday and Thursday, December 1st and 2nd, to take such action and adopt such a course as the exigencies of the case may demand. Brethren, the time has come when we are to act with decision in this matter. The Convention will commence Wednesday evening, at 7 o’clock, by holding a laymen’s love-feast. We hope our brethren who are with us in this matter will attend.

     Following the reading of the Call the matter of enrolment was taken up, and the names of one hundred and ninety-five laymen were given in as being in full sympathy with the purposes of the Convention.

     The committee on Resolutions then reported as follows:
 

     As members of the Church of ‘Jesus Christ, we have the deepest interest in the purity of her ministers. To them we look for instruction in those things that affect our everlasting welfare.

     Their ministrations, and their example, influence us to a far greater extent than we are perhaps aware of. As Methodists, we have no voice in deciding who shall be our respective pastors. Any one of a hundred, whom those holding the reins of power may select, may be sent to us, and we are expected to receive and sustain him. We may, then, properly feel and express a solicitude for the purity of the ministry at large, and especially for that portion of it comprising the Genesee Conference, within the bounds of which we reside.

     In the New Testament, we learn that the Apostles—enjoying, as they did, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost—were accustomed, on important occasions, to consult the brethren at large, and to proceed according to their expressed decisions. We claim that reason and revelation both, give us the right to form and express our opinions of the public actions of the ministers who occupy our pulpits, and are sustained by our contributions. In theory, at least, we, as Protestants, deny the doctrine of Infallibility. It is possible for a majority of a Conference to be mistaken; it is also possible that they may take action which is unjust and wicked. We believe that Conferences, as well as other public bodies, may err, and that their acts are proper subjects of criticism, to approve or condemn, as the case may demand; and that individual members, for an honest expression of their convictions, ought not to be rewarded with proscription or excommunication: otherwise, concealment and corruption would be the order of the day.

     We look upon the expulsion of Bros. Roberts and McCreery as an act of wicked persecution, calling for the strongest condemnation. It was also a palpable violation of that freedom of speech and of the press, which is guaranteed to all by our free institutions.

     The facts, as we understand them, are these: For years past, among the preachers, there has prevailed a division, growing out of the connection of some with secret societies—a diversity of views upon the doctrine of holiness, and the holding of different views of the standard of justification.

     Writers of the Regency party published, in the Advocate and other papers, articles doing great injustice to those who were trying to keep up the old landmarks of Methodism. Their partisan representations were producing their designed effects. Many felt that the time had come when a representation of the other side ought to be made.

     Accordingly, Rev. B. T. Roberts wrote an article under the title of “New School Methodism,” setting forth his views of the questions at issue. The candor and good spirit of his article is apparent. We have ourselves heard different preachers, in sympathy with the “Regency party,” set forth views similar to those ascribed to them in “New School Methodism.”

     For writing this article, a charge of immorality was preferred against Rev. B. T. Roberts. Re stated in open Conference, to the parties who accused him, that if he had misrepresented them, he would correct and publish his mistake. No correction was made: no one claimed to have been misrepresented.

     The charges were sustained by a majority vote, though- in the specifications he was accused of having written what no honest construction of his words would bear. It was eagerly published, far and wide, that this useful preacher had been convicted of “immoral and unchristian conduct.” To satisfy the general anxiety and desire to know in what the “immorality” consisted, one of our number published a second edition of “New School Methodism,’ the charges, specifications, and a short account of the trial. For circulating this document, these two brethren were tried at the last Conference, for “immoral and unchristian conduct,” and expelled. One witness, and one only, Rev. J. Bowman, testified that Brother R. handed him a package of these pamphlets for circulation, but which he never circulated.

     Had the specifications been proved ever so clearly, they would not have constituted an offense deserving of censure. Upon such grounds were these men of God, Brothers Roberts and McCreery, expelled from the Conference and the Church. It would have been reasonable to have supposed, that common malignity would have been satisfied with deposing them from the ministry. But such was the malevolence of those controlling a majority of the votes of Conference, that they could not stop short of the utmost limit of their power. Had they not been restrained by the civil law, the fires of martyrdom might have been kindled in the nineteenth century, in Western New York.

     So trifling was the accusation against these brethren, that in all the efforts that have been made to vindicate those voting for their condemnation, no one has attempted to show that the testimony justified the decision. Their only defense is, “If these men did not deserve to be expelled for circulating the pamphlet, they did for promoting enthusiasm and fanaticism.” If so, why were they not tried for it? Where is the justice of trying men for one thing, and condemning them for another?

     In reference to this charge of “fanaticism and enthusiasm,” we feel prepared to speak. Our means of information are far more reliable than that of those preachers who bring the accusation. We have attended the “Camp-meetings and General Quarterly Meetings,” against which a special outcry has been made as the “hot-beds of enthusiasm.” We have sat under the preaching of these brethren who are charged with promoting these disorders —have heard some of them by the year. We know what Methodism is; some of us were converted, and joined the Church, under the labors of her honored pioneers. We speak advisedly, then, when we say that the charge brought against Brothers Roberts and McCreery, and the class of preachers denominated “Nazarites,” of promoting fanaticism, is utterly false and groundless. They are simply trying to have us in earnest to gain heaven. Instead of attacking the Church, they are its defenders. They preach the doctrines of the Methodist Church, as we used to hear them preached years ago; and through their instrumentality many have been made to rejoice in the enjoyment of a PRESENT AND FULL SALVATION. We cannot say this of their opposers. The Regency affirm that they preach the doctrines of holiness. We have yet to hear the first person who has, of late years, experienced this blessing through their instrumentality. On the contrary, we believe some of them have put down the standard of justification, far below what Methodism and the Scriptures will warrant. Whether, therefore, we consider the ostensible, or the real cause of the expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery, the act calls for and receives our hearty and earnest condemnation.

     Nor can we pass by, as undeserving of notice, the course pursued by the “Regency party,” whenever complaints of a serious character have been brought against any of their number.

     Reports that some of them have been guilty of “crimes expressly forbidden in the Word of God,” and involving a high degree of moral turpitude, have been current. Complaints have been made, and though the proof of their guilt was deemed ample, yet they have been summarily dismissed, and in such a way as to discourage all efforts to bring to justice, before the Conference, any of the Regency preachers, no matter how wicked and Immoral he may b~.

     Whether in their secret meetings (the existence of which they at first so stoutly denied, but afterwards attempted to defend, when they were fully exposed), any combination, expressed or implied, was entered into to screen their guilty partisans, and persecute their innocent opposers, we have no means of knowing; but it appears to us such has been the result. That we can have confidence in the Christian character of those whose votes are given to condemn the innocent, and to screen the guilty, Is impossible. We also strongly disapprove and condemn the course taken by the dominant party in keeping out of Conference young men of approved piety, talent, and promise simply because they have too much Christian manliness and conscience to become the tools of designing and ambitious men. We are true, loyal, God-fearing Methodists. We have not the slightest intention of leaving the Church of our choice. We believe the evils complained of may be cured, and for this purpose we will leave no proper means untried.

     One patent remedy is within our reach—the power to withhold our supplies. We are satisfied that no matter how strongly we may condemn the course of the Regency faction, they will not amend, so long as they are sustained. Besides, we cannot in conscience give our money to put down the work of the Lord. Therefore, we wish it distinctly understood, that we cannot pay one farthing to preacher or Presiding Elder, who voted for the expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery, only upon “contrition, confession, and satisfactory reformation.”

     It may he thought, by some, that such action on our part is revolutionary. But from the following extracts, it will appear that we are only exercising our undisputed rights in a constitutional way.

     We are giving unquestionable proofs of our loyalty to the Church, by thus endeavoring to correct one of the most oppressive and tyrannical abuses of power that was ever heard of.

     We trust that none will think of leaving the Church; but let us nil stand by and apply the proper legitimate remedy for the shameless outrages that have been perpetrated under the forms of justice.

We quote from an Essay on Church Polity, by Rev. Abel Stevens, LL. D. This book has been adopted by the General Conference as a text-book in the course of study for young preachers. Hence it is of the highest authority.

     Dr. Stevens says, “Church Polity,” page 162: “What check have the people on this machinery? It is clear that as the preachers appoint the Bishops, and the Bishops distribute the preachers, the people should check the whole plan by a counterbalance upon the whole ministerial body. This is provided in the most decisive form that it could possibly assume, namely, the power of pecuniary supplies. No stipulated contract for support exists in the Methodist economy. The Discipline allows a certain support, but does not enforce it; and no Methodist preacher can prosecute a civil suit for his salary. The General Conference disclaims all right to tax the property of our members.

     “A Methodist Church has no necessity, in order to control or remove the preacher, to prosecute him by a tedious and expensive process at law, but simply to signify that after a given date HIS SUPPLIES CEASE. He cannot live on air; he must submit or depart.

     “This would be a sufficient guarantee, certainly; and this check applies not merely to a specific prerogative of the ministry, but to the whole ministerial system. The lamented Dr. Emory thus states it:

     “‘We have said that the Methodist Episcopal Church possesses effective and substantial security against any encroachments of tyranny on the part of her pastors. For the sober truth is, that there is not a body of ministers in the whole world more perfectly dependent on those whom they serve than the Methodist itinerant ministry. Our system places us, in fact, not only from year to year, or from quarter to quarter, but from week to week, within the reach of such a controlling check, on the part of the people, as is possessed, we verily believe, by no other denomination whatever.’”

     Dr. Bond, in his “Economy of Methodism,” page 35, says: “The General Conference have never considered themselves authorized to levy taxes upon the laity, or to make any pecuniary contribution a condition of membership in the Church. Our preachers are totally dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the laity; and we thereby have over them a positive and absolute control; for whenever their flocks shall withdraw their support, the preachers will be under the necessity of abandoning their present pastoral relations, and of betaking themselves to some secular occupation. The traveling preacher who depends for bread, both for himself and family, upon the good-will of the lay brethren, can have no temptation to any unwarrantable or odious exercise of authority over them.”

     In “Ecclesiastical Polity, by Rev. A. N. Fillmore,” page 166, we have the following: “Methodist preachers have no means of enforcing the payment of a cent for their support, for although the Discipline provides for a certain allowance, it furnishes no means to obtain it; and there is no article even to expose a member to censure for neglecting or refusing to contribute for the support of the Gospel.”

     Thus the right to withhold supplies, upon good and sufficient reasons, is conceded and urged by standard authors of our Church. That such a reason now exists, must be apparent to every one that is not entirely blinded to the claims of justice and humanity.

     Nor can we approve of the action of the Bishop, in appointing to the office of Presiding Elders, men who participated in the proscriptive measures of the Regency party. We think that station ought to be filled with men who are in sympathy with the life and power of godliness, and who are laboring to promote it. We look upon the Church as an organization established to aid in securing the salvation of souls, and not mainly to raise money.

     This Convention originated among ourselves. The first suggestion was made by one of our number. Neither the brethren expelled, nor any of the members of the Conference, had anything to do whatever with calling this Convention. We mention this fact, because the insinuation is frequently made, that the people can do nothing except at the instigation of the preachers. We are not papists—requiring to be instructed by the priesthood at every turn, what action we shall take, or what papers and books we shall read.

     We assure our ministerial brethren—both those who have been thrust out of the Conference, and those who remain, who are devoted to the work of spreading Scriptural holiness—that they have our ardent sympathy; and as long as they employ their time and talents in endeavoring to promote the life and power of godliness, we pledge ourselves cordially to sustain them, by our influence and our means, whether they are in the Conference or not. Therefore,— Resolved, That we have the utmost confidence in Brothers

     B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreery, notwithstanding their expulsion from the Conference—ranking them as we do among the most pure and able ministers of the New Testament.

     Resolved, That we adhere to the doctrines and usages of the fathers of Methodism. Our attachment to the M. E. Church is earnest and hearty; but we do not acknowledge the oppressive policy of the secret fraternity in the Conference, known as the Buffalo Regency, as the action of the Church, and we cannot and will not submit to the same. We hold it as a gross maladministration under the assumed sanction of judicial forms.

     Resolved, That the laity are of some use to the Church, and that their views and opinions ought to command some little respect, rather than that cool contempt with which their wishes have been treated by some of the officials of the Conference, for several years past.

     Resolved, That the farcical cry of disunion and secession is the artful production of designing men, to frighten the feeble and timid into their plans of operation and proscription. We wish to have it distinctly understood that we have not, and never had, the slightest intention of leaving the Church of our choice, and that we heartily approve of the course of Brothers Roberts and McCreery in rejoining the Church at their first opportunity; and we hope that the oppressive and un-Methodistic administration indicated in the Pastoral Address as the current policy - of the majority of the Conference, will not drive any of our brethren from the Church. Methodists have a better right in the Methodist Episcopal Church than anybody else, and by God’s grace, in it we intend to remain.

     Resolved, That it is a matter of no small grievance and of detriment to the Church of God, that these preachers, in their local pastoral administration have deliberately set themselves to exclude from official position in the Church, leaders, stewards, and trustees, members of deep and undoubted Christian experience, because of their adhesion to spiritual religious Methodism, and to supply their places with persons of slight and superficial religious experience, because of their adhesion to a worldly-policy Methodism.

     Resolved, That we will not aid in the support of any member of the Genesee Conference who assisted, either by his vote or his Influence, in the expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery from the Conference and the Church, until they are fully reinstated to their former position; and that we do recommend all those who believe that these brethren have been unjustly expelled from the Conference and the Church, to take the same course.

     Resolved, That we recommend Rev. B. T. Roberts and Rev. J. McCreery to travel at large, and labor, as opportunity presents, for the promoting of the work of God and the salvation of souls.

     Resolved, That we recommend Brother Roberts to locate his family in the city of Buffalo.

     Resolved, That in our opinion, Brother Roberts should receive $1,000 for his support during the ensuing year, and Brother McCreery should receive $600.

     Resolved, That we recommend the appointment of a committee of fifteen to carry out the above resolutions, each of whom shall be authorized to appoint collectors as they may deem necessary; and we also recommend the appointment of a treasurer, to whom all moneys received for the purpose shall be paid, and who shall pay out the same, pro rata, to Brothers Roberts and McCreery, and receive their receipts for the same.

     Resolved, That a copy of the foregoing preamble and resolutions be forwarded to the Northern Independent, with a request that the same be published.
 

S. K. J. CHESBROUGH, Pekin,
WILLIAM DOYLE, Youngstown,
GEORGE W. ESTES, Brockport,
S. S. RICE, Clarkson,
JON N BILLINGS, Wilson,
JONATHAN HANDLY, Perry,
ANTHONY AMES, Ridgeville,

Committee on Resolutions.

     Considerable discussion followed the reading of the report, particularly regarding the exact purport of certain of the resolutions; but the nature of the discussion was such as to bring about a general understanding and agreement, after which the report as a whole was adopted.

     The earnest and dignified utterances of the foregoing report, adopted by such a respectable body of God-fearing men, produced a deep impression upon the community. Besides giving an account of the officers elected and of the business done by the convention, the Orleans American, by way of editorial comment, expressed itself regarding the doings of the occasion as follows:
 

     On Thursday morning the Convention proceeded to business. The discussions were Carried on with animation, in a good spirit, and with marked ability. The action of the Convention was harmonious to a degree that we had not anticipated. It was composed of able men who had set themselves to work in earnest to correct what they believed to be a great evil In the administration of Church affairs. Whether the course adopted will produce the desired result remains to be seen. The number in attendance was much larger than anticipated, all portions of the Conference being represented. W. G. Colegrove came from Smethport, McKean Co., Pa.; G. C. Sheldon from Allegany, and James Brooks from Olean. There was a large sprinkling of gray heads in the Convention. Prominent among the old men was I. M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, who first suggested the holding of a convention, a noble looking old gentleman, formerly from Baltimore. Mr. Jeffres, of Covington, also won golden opinions by the pertinency and ability of his remarks.

     In accordance with the recommendation of the Convention, Messrs. Roberts and McCreery gave themselves to laboring through out the Conference in the name of Christ and for the furtherance of His kingdom, conducting religions meetings as laymen, and laboring as best they could for the salvation of their fellow men. They were careful, however, to state that they claimed no authority from the Methodist Episcopal Church to hold such services, but that they did so because feeling called of God to such labors for the salvation of souls, and on their own responsibility as men and as Christians.

     Since their expulsion these brethren had again united with the Church on probation (believing, for reasons to be shown later, that it was right and proper for them so to do), and had received licenses to exhort; but the presiding officer at a subsequent Church trial had decided that they were not members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, even on probation. Besides announcing that they were proceeding in their work as men feeling called of God thereto, and on their own responsibility as men and as Christians, Mr. Roberts published the following in the Northern Independent:
 

     It seems to be a question among the doctors whether I belong to the Church or not. I did the best I could to stay in; and when I was thrust out without my fault, I tried to get back, and really thought I had accomplished it, but the president of a recent Church trial, which trials, by the by, are becoming quite numerous in Genesee Conference, decided that I was not a member, even “on probation.” As this was a “judicial decision,” an “act of administration,” of course it settles the question. But in or out, I trust 1 may still be permitted to entertain “a desire to flee from the wrath to come.” Our excellent Discipline specifies as among the fruits of this desire, “instructing, reproving, and exhorting all we have any intercourse with.” This, then, is what I am doing. The Lord has opened a wide door, into which I have entered. I disclaim all authority from man, but simply “instruct, reprove and exhort,” because I believe He has called me to it, and He blesses me in it. Everywhere we go, large and attentive congregations listen to the Word with apparently deep interest.

     It is speaking within the bounds of moderation to say that, following developments at the Laymen’s Convention, and the entrance of Roberts and McCreery upon their work as advised by the Convention, the “Regency” men became greatly excited. Their excitement found expression at first through the columns of the Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Christian Advocate, which seemed to vie with each other in pouring upon these excommunicated men, and upon the detested “Nazarites” in general, the vials of their wrath and abuse. The editor of the former journal had appeared inclined to treat them kindly for a season, but now a decided change had come over him. Writing regarding his course Mr. Roberts says:
 

     Dr. Hibbard treated us with great consideration until a clear majority was obtained against us. Then he went to every length to vindicate every act of the majority, and to create public sentiment against those whom they had proscribed.

     The statements which he published in his paper about the proscribed party of the Genesee Conference were so incorrect, that Rev. W. Hosmer, who aimed to tell the truth, wherever it might hit, and who could not bear duplicity, gave him, in an editorial of January 29, 1859, this reminder: “We hope he will remember that even an official Editor is under some obligations to speak the truth.” [1]

     Thus, by the means of these publications, assisted by such others as secret society influence enabled them to control in their interest, the opposing majority continued to send forth an incessant stream of exaggeration, misrepresentation, and barefaced falsehood for the defamation of these objects of their scorn and hatred. So glaring and shameless were these periodicals in the foregoing respects that a prominent member of the East Genesee Conference felt constrained to say, somewhat sarcastically, perhaps, of one of them, through the Northern Independent:
 

     If the Advocate and the clique whose servile and mercenary organ it is, will only keep from praising us, we shall consider ourselves most fortunate. Their abuse is the highest eulogy. Their commendation would be insufferable. With any marks of their approbation upon us, we should, as Cain did when he was branded, go out from the presence of the Lord, crying, “My punishment is greater than I can bear.”

     Moreover, the Editor of the Northern Independent, a man of convictions and equal courage to avow them, and whom Church authorities could not awe into silence when he believed he ought to speak, wrote of “The Advocate’s Course” as follows in one of his editorials:
 

     The Editor of the N. C. Advocate is driving furiously at the “Nazarites.” As if the unfortunate brethren designated by this slang term had not been sufficiently persecuted, he pitches into them with characteristic bravery and acumen.

     He affects to believe that such a thing as a Nazarite society once existed; other people, however, know better, and his historical developments pass for nothing. By the way, the Editor writes on this subject with little discrimination. He seems to forget that among the most unbearable of things is the triumph of official arrogance over fallen virtue. He should know that the man at whom his shafts are principally aimed, is his equal, in every way, and his superior in learning, in talents, and in all the higher elements of ministerial character. We say these things the more freely, because we have never been a defender of the Nazarites. We have deemed it our duty to let them defend themselves—a work which they are well able to do. Our columns shall always be open to the persecuted. Two papers—the N. C. Advocate, and the Buffalo Advocate, are fully occupied in the noble work of extirpating these brethren, and to shut our columns against them in this extremity, would be a depth of meanness to which we care not to descend. We have not attacked the Regency, as the dominant party of the Conference is termed. One act of the Genesee Conference we have condemned, because it seemed to us both unwise, and unjust, in a very high degree. Others may approve of the expulsion of Brothers Roberts and McCreery If they please, as this is a free country; but we shall have our own opinion of that matter, together with its cognate difficulties. In dissenting from a majority of the Conference, we occupy no partisan relation —it is an independent judgment of a particular occurrence. All oppression, whether at the North or the South, whether of black men, or white men, is alike wicked, and deserves our cordial detestation. We claim that men should have a fair trial, and that an arbitrary, high-handed way of disposing of them, Is only a fresh display of the same rampant spirit of oppression that has kept the African trodden down for ages. But the most singular thing in all this is the remarkable prowess of Brother Hibbard. Whenever the ecclesiastical guillotine cuts off a man’s head, he immediately squares himself, like a knight errant, and assaults the dead carcass. He is terrible—against such a foe, Luther and Knox could not equal him.

     Other men of prominence in the Church did not hesitate to speak out in unequivocal terms regarding the reputation of the afore-mentioned periodicals for exaggeration and misrepresentation in their utterances regarding the “Nazarites” and “Nazaritism.” The Rev. Hiram Matteson, D. D., wrote: “Who does not remember that just before the last General Conference Brother Hibbard had several long articles in the Christian Advocate, in advocacy of the very doctrines that he now calls “Nazaritism”? And the Rev. C. D. Burlingham expressed himself as follows: "The Advocate is doing its best to maintain its current reputation. For misrepresentation and abuse the Northern Christian Advocate is fully entitled to the palm. Zeal intense zeal is usually a prominent trait in the character of a young convert.”

[1] “Why Another sect?” pp. 202, 203.