TWO EXPULSIONS.

Bishop Simpson says in his article on The Free Methodists," " In 1858, two of the leaders were expelled from the Conference."

Of one of the two men referred to, this is a. mistake. Joseph. McCreery, though prominent in the holiness movement in the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church, was never a leader in the Free Methodist Church. He was opposed to. the organization. With regard to the penalty, the statement is only half true. The men referred .to were expelled, not only " from the Conference," but also " from the Church." Why did not Bishop Simpson tell the whole truth? Was he unwilling to have it appear that the laws of the M. E. Church, as then administered, were like the laws of Draco, and punished the slightest offense, or even no offense, with death? Or, worse still, like the edicts of Nero, which tortured men for being Christians?

What heinous offense had been committed, that the highest penalty known to ecclesiastical law was thus inflicted?

At the close of the Le Roy Conference, the victorious party published far and wide that Brother Roberts had been convicted of " immoral conduct." They left it in this vague manner, intending to convey the impression that he had done something very bad.

George W. Estes was at that time a prominent member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, on the Clarkson. circuit. He was a man of intelligence, and of influence in the community in which he resided. He had been an efficient worker in the revival meetings which we held at Brockport, and was alive in religion. With many others, Mr. Estes felt that a great wrong had been done by the Conference, and by the vague, insinuating reports published of the offense for which B. T. Roberts had been convicted.

Mr. Estes, without my knowledge even, published over his own name, and at his own expense,, in pamphlet form, my article on New School Methodism," and a short account of my trial. We give Mr. Estes article entire, omitting the charges on which we were tried by the Le Roy Conference, and which may be found in this book, beginning on the' 150th page.

" TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN.

The foregoing ^*article, in the Northern. Independent was made the subject of general consultations in private caucuses of the Buffalo Regency, held in a room over Bryant & Clark's book store, at Le Roy, on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings of the first week of the Conference; the result of which was the Bill of Charges given below. The manner of committing the feebler of the preachers to the condemnation of Brother Roberts in advance, was on this wise, as related by one present. One of the chiefs of the Regency, acting as chairman, asked: ' What shall be done in the case of Brother Roberts? All in favor of his prosecution raise your hands!' The immortal thirty' raised their hands, and a few presiding elderlings. The chairman then delivered a flaming exhortation to unanimity that they must be united enough to carry the matter through, or it would not do to undertake it. After sundry exhortations, the vote was taken again, and a few more voted. After another season of fervent exhortation, a third vote was taken, in which all, save one, concurred; and the trial and condemnation were determined upon. Beautiful work this for godly, Methodist preachers, deriving their support from honest, religious societies among us ! We put their Bill of Charges, with all its ingenious distortion of facts, on record here before the people as follows:  (See page 150.)

For several years past there has been the annual sacrifice of a human victim at the Conference. It has been a custom. The religious rites and ceremonies attending this annual lustration assume a legal complexion. The victim is immolated according to law. E. Thomas, J. McCreery, I. C. Kingsley, L. Stiles and B. T. Roberts constitute the ' noble band of martyrs' thus far. Who is selected for the next annual victim is not yet known. The midnight conclave of the ` immortal thirty' has not yet made its selection. No man is safe who dares even whisper a word against this secret Inquisition in our midst. Common crime can command its indulgences—bankruptcies and adulteries are venal offences but opposition to its schemes and policies is a ' mortal sin '—a crime ' without benefit of clergy.' The same fifty men who voted Brother Roberts guilty of ' unchristian and immoral conduct' for writing the above article, voted to readmit a Brother from the regions round about Buffalo, for the service performed of kissing a young lady in the vestibule of the Conference room during the progress of Brother Roberts' trial. ' Nero fiddled while the martyrs burned.'

Brother Roberts' trial if it deserves the name of trial was marked by gross iniquity of proceedings. There are no regular Church canons in the M. E. Church to govern the specific manner of conducting trials. All is indefinite. A glorious incertitude and independence of all legal regulations prevail. The presidential discretion must of necessity have large latitude and range, either high or low, as prejudice or policy may incline. Thus, when a witness was. asked if he knew of a private meeting of about thirty preachers at Medina during Conference; he answered ' Yes.' When asked for what purpose they met, he answered for ' consultation.' Here the prosecution perceiving that all this secret caucusing at the Medina Conference to lock out the prayer meetings, arrange the appointments, oust out presiding elders, etc., etc., were likely to be brought out, objected to all the questions in the case which were not exactly covered by the verbal terms of the specifications which they themselves had artfully framed. And their objections were sustained by the Bishop. Every question as to the meetings of the ' immortal thirty' —their doings and teachings were objected to and ruled out as irrelevant to the specifications.

Having been charged for affirming the existence of an associate body of about thirty preachers in the Conference for purposes indicated in his article, he was denied to elicit the facts in justification, which he could have proved by thirty witnesses. This right, which any civil or military court would have allowed him, was denied. Of course, where witnesses refuse to testify, and the judge refuses to compel them to do so, there was no. use wasting time in defense. Brother Roberts refused to continue the defense.

Also a commission to take testimony was sent to Buffalo. But when they arrived' they found an emissary from the Conference had been sent on before them to take charge of the Advocate office, who refused to sell or lend, or suffer to be transcribed, any of the copy of the papers or articles bearing on the case, and who put everybody ' on the square' to refuse testimony. Having no power to compel witnesses to testify, the Committee returned with such testimony only, as honest men voluntarily offered; which will be hereafter published.

A venerable Doctor of Divinity read the ' auto-da-fe' sermon, (prepared for the victim of the previous year) wherein he consigned, in. true inquisitorial style, Brother Roberts, body and soul, to hell. This was done in his most masterly manner, evincing no embarrassing amount of idiosyncrasy or other mental cause for superannuation. This venerable D. D., though nominally superannuated, and an annual claimant of high rate upon the Conference funds, is nevertheless quite efficient in embarrassing effective preachers in their work, by concocting ' bills of information' and ' bills of charges;' and. pleading them to hell for the crime of preaching and writing the truth. Whether his plea will enhance the amount of the superannuated collections for the coming year remains to be seen.

It was moved that the vote in Brother Robert's case should be taken by the yeas and nays; but the same spirit of concealment and dread of light, fostered by secret society associations, prevailed here also. Like some in the olden time, they " feared the people," and voted down the motion. The vote to sustain the charge of " unchristian and immoral conduct," for writing and publishing these strictures on New School Methodism, was fifty-two to forty-three; being a majority of nine. Several members of Conference were absent, and several dodged through fear of the presiding elder influence upon their appointments.

The following preachers, as near as can be ascertained, voted to sustain the charge: I. Chamberlayne, G. Lanning, E. C. Sanborn, H. May, D. Nichols, M. Seager, R. C. Foote, G. Fillmore, A. D. Wilbor, P. Wood worth, R. L. Waite, H. Butlin, S. M. Hopkins, E. E. Chambers, G. W. Terry, J. Latham, H. W. Annis, Z. Hurd, T. Carlton, J. M. Fuller, W. H. Depuy, D. F. Parsons, S. Hunt, J. B. Lanekton, J. McEwen, H. R. Smith, S. C. Smith, G. Smith, L. Packard, C. S. Baker, W. S. Tuttle, J. McClelland, J. 'G. Miller, J. N. Simpkin, S. Y. Hammond, A. P. Ripley, H. M. Ripley, M. W. Ripley, E. L. Newman, A. Plumley, B. F. McNeil, R. S. Moran, E. M. Buck, J. J. Roberts, S. Parker, F. W. Conable, J. B. Wentworth, S. H. Baker, J. Timmerman, K. D. Nettleton, G. Delamater, W. C. Willing.

Another significant fact was apparent in the case the power of the presiding eldership. Quite a number of preachers would not vote at all. Too honest to aid the conspiracy, and too cowardly to face the loaves and fishes " argument presented by the siding elder influence, they sat still and saw the condemnation of the innocent, when they might have prevented it.

The influence of the Book Concern had its effect upon the case. It has become a maxim in politics " that the debtor votes the creditor's ticket." So some indebted to the Concern discreetly ,refrained from voting at all; while two preachers, having refused to attend the private caucuses of the conspirators, and to pledge themselves in advance to vote for the condemnation of Brother Roberts, were scandalized with a public report of delinquency, in open Conference, by the Book Agent.

But it was the influence of the slavery question which was paramount in the case. The episcopacy is understood to be conservative on that subject, and "to refer to it judiciously in all the chief appointments." Hence the Buffalo regency in these days (notwithstanding high professions lately to the contrary, on the eve of election of delegates to the late General Conference) is also eminently conservative on that subject; and must needs commend itself to the central episcopal sympathy by great zeal against the Northern Independent. Its associate editor in this Conference must be black-washed in revenge for the temerity of the people in subscribing for the paper. They could not wreak their vengeance on the people, except by proscribing one acknowledged, above all others in the Conference, to be the PEOPLE'S MAN.

The infamous Brockport Resolutions against the Nazarites, were tacitly endorsed by the Conference in its refusal to entertain the question of official administration involved in their passage. This is their reward for their spaniel loyalty to the Northern Advocate, and every other thing that wears the label of " law and order," affixed by a pro-slavery administration. It is stated that two or three Nazarites voted with the Regency against the publication of the slavery report in the Independent. Surely it must be true of them, as reported, that they court persecutions and rejoice in being killed off at every Conference. Their strong hold upon the popular mind can not long survive their further blinking the slavery issue. We shall see.

So, brethren in the membership of the Genesee Conference, you see we have a clique among us called the Buffalo Regency conspiring and acting in secret conclave to kidnap or drive away, or proscribe and destroy, by sham trials, and starvation appointments, every one who has boldness to question their supremacy in the Conference. By threats of insubordination,. and farcical outcries of strife and division, they frighten the episcopacy to give them the presiding eldership power, with its patronage of appointments, and having that, of course they ,command the Conference vote, so far as they dare for fear of the people. We are fast losing our best men. The fearless champions of true Methodism are being cloven down, one after another, in our sight; and we sit loyally still, and weep and pray, and pay our money, yet another and another year, hoping the thing will come to an end.

A thousand of us asked the Bishop to rid us of this incubus, which is crushing us into the earth. " We will do the best we can," is the stereotyped reply to our loyal entreaties. How many more victims must be immolated, how many societies must be desolated, while the episcopacy is making up its mind to grapple with this monster power, which is writhing its slimy folds around the church of God, and crushing out its life? The episcopacy, which alone has the power, having failed to redress our grievances and rid us of this unmethodistic and foreign dynasty, there is no remedy but an appeal to personal rights. The remedy of every member is within his own reach. For one, I shall apply that remedy. For me, while looking on those preachers standing to be counted, (no wonder they objected to the yeas and nays) in the vote to condemn Brother Roberts, at LeRoy, I made up my mind that not one of them—preacher, presiding elder or superannuated—should ever receive a cent of my money, on any pretense or' by any combination whatsoever. I shall punctually .attend church at my own meeting house—prayer meetings, class-meetings, love-feasts, and all the means of grace; but if one of those men come there to preach —I can't help that—that is not my business. But I shall neither run a step, nor pay a cent. And if, as has been told, all the domestic missionary appropriations in this Conference are varied from year to year made and withheld to suit the pockets of Regency men appointed to them —this, as long as it continues, will absolve me from obligations to that cause. The same of the superannuated fund, so long as it is controlled by that dynasty: I agreed to support the M. E. Church as a church of the living God; not as the mere adjunct of a secular or political clique.

GEO. W. ESTES."

I never saw this article until some time after it was published, and was in no wise responsible for its publication. But Mr. Estes —a man of means, an exhorter in the M. E. Church, was responsible, and like a man, he assumed the responsibility. At the last quarterly conference in the year, the question of the renewal of his license came up. The presiding elder asked George W. Estes if he was the author of that pamphlet? He replied that he was. Without a word of objection, the presiding elder renewed his license as an exhorter, and soon after went to Conference, and voted to expel me from the Conference and the Church, on the charge of publishing this very pamphlet. The following charge was preferred against me:

CHARGES. I hereby charge Benjamin T. Roberts with unchristian and immoral conduct.

SPECIFICATIONS.

First, Contumacy: In disregarding the admonition of this Conference, in its decision upon his case at its last session.

Second, In re-publishing, or assisting in the re-publishing and circulation of a document, entitled " New School Methodism," the original publication of which had been pronounced by this Conferenee " unchristian and immoral conduct."

Third, In publishing, or assisting in the publication and circulation of a, document, printed in Brockport, and signed, " George W. Estes," and appended to the one entitled " New School Methodism," and containing among other libels upon this Conference generally, and upon some of its members particularly, the following, to wit:

1. " For several years past there has been the annual sacrifice of a human victim at the Conference."

2. " No man is safe who dare even whisper a word against this secret inquisition in our midst."

3. " Common crime can command its indulgences; bankruptcies and adulteries are venial offences; but opposition to its schemes and policies is a mortal sin—a crime without benefit of clergy."

4. That " the same fifty men who voted Bro. Roberts guilty of unchristian and immoral conduct, voted to readmit a brother for the service performed of kissing a young lady."

5. That " Bro. Roberts trial was marked by gross iniquity of proceedings."

6. That " on the trial, a right which any civil or military court would have allowed him, was denied."

7. That " a venerable doctor of Divinity read the " Autodafe " sermon, wherein he consigned in true Inquisitorial style Bro. Roberts body and soul to hell."

8. That " this venerable ` D. D.' is quite efficient in embarrassing effective preachers in their work and pleading them to hell for the crime of preaching and writing the truth."

9. That " there is a clique among us called the Buffalo Regency, conspiring and acting in secret conclave, to kidnap, or drive away, or proscribe and destroy, by sham trials and starvation appointments ; every one who has the boldness to question their supremacy in the Conference."

10. That " the fearless champions of Methodism are being cloven down one after another in our sight."

11. That " the aforesaid members of this Conference are a ` monster power,' which is writhing its slimy folds around the Church of God and crushing out its life."

Signed,

DAVID NICHOLS.

Perry, Oct. 11th, 1858.

Rev. Thomas Carlton and Rev. James M. Fuller acted as counsel against me.

From the threats which had been made, I was satisfied they would seek occasion against me. As a specimen of these threats, I give the following from Rev. S. C. Church, an old presiding elder, and one of those noble-minded masons who felt indignant that masonry should be used to control the affairs of a Conference of ministers. Brother Church wrote:

" During the last session of our Conference, at ' LeRoy, I was conversing with Rev. H. Ryan Smith, about the remark made by Rev. B. T. Roberts on the floor of the Conference, to the effect that the Committee on Education was packed.

Smith said, " One more such statement will blot Roberts out."

In the same conversation, he said, " You had better' take yourself out of the way, or you will be crushed."

CARYVILLE, OCT. 20, 185 7.                                                                                                                SAMUEL C. CHURCH.

To meet the coming storm, I requested Rev. B. I. Ives, of the Oneida Conference, to act as my counsel; and he was present for that purpose. But the Bishop positively refused to allow it.

As a majority of the Conference claimed to be slandered, in their individual character, and as I knew by this time that they had virtually voted, in their secret meetings, to condemn me, I asked that the trial might be had before another Conference. I quoted to them the wise provision of the civil law:

" The venue may be changed to another county when the defendant conceives that he cannot have a fair and impartial trial in the county where the venue is laid."

I showed them that not one man of the majority would be permitted, under similar circumstances, to sit on a jury in a civil court, if twenty-five cents only were at issue. I quoted:

" If the law says a man shall be a judge in his own cause, such law being contrary to natural equity, shall be void, for Jura naturae sunt immutabilia; they are leges legum. Natural rights are immutable. They are the laws of laws."—Hobart's Report, page 87, Day vs. Savage.

I felt that, in a case where my reputation and my standing as a Christian minister things dearer than life were at stake, I was entitled to a fair trial.

This request was also refused.

As a last resort to obtain anything like a fair trial, I urged that a committee might be appointed to try the case, as provided for in the Discipline. I told them I would prefer to have it tried by a committee so small that its members would feel a personal responsibility for their action, even if the committee were composed of those who were most strongly committed against me, than to have it go before the whole Conference, where they could hide behind one another.

This request was also refused.

All this, we know, sounds more like the proceedings of the English " High Commission " in the days of James the Second, and Charles the First, than like the doings of a Conference of Christian ministers, presided over by a godly Bishop, in the nineteenth century.. Macaulay says of those commissioners, who covered themselves with infamy, and sent many a godly minister to beggary or to prison: " They were themselves at once prosecutors and judges."

But the facts that we here relate have never been called in question.

Under these circumstances, the trial proceeded. My friend, Loren Stiles, assisted me most heartily, and made an eloquent plea in my defense.

The prosecution did not make the. slightest effort to prose that the Estes pamphlet was slanderous, or that its statements were untrue. To do this was a task from which they shrunk. It was easier to take it for granted. So at the outset it was assumed that the pamphlet, the avowed author of which was still an official member of the M. E. Church, was so wicked in its character, that to aid in its circulation was a mortal offense.

The prosecution secured the attendance of the printer who issued the Estes pamphlet, though he had to go about seventy miles across the country to get to and from the Conference. But when they found he would tell the truth in the matter that B. T. Roberts had nothing to do with publishing the document in question they did not call upon him to testify.

All the testimony that was given to prove the charge and the three principal specifications, was by Rev. John Bowman and this testimony was impeached. It was also, in the essential point of assisting in the publication of the pamphlet, contradicted by Geo. W. Estes. John Bowman testified as follows:

" I have seen this document entitled, ' New School Methodism,' and ' To whom it may concern,' signed Geo. W. Estes,' before. I first saw it on the cars between Medina and. Lockport. Brother Roberts presented it. to me; several were presented in a package; there were, I think, three dozen. Brother Roberts desired me to leave a portion of them at Medina, conditionally. He requested me to circulate them; he desired me to leave a portion of them with Brother Codd, or Brother Williams of Medina, provided I fell in company with them. I put a question to him whether they were to be distributed gratuitously or sold. He said he would like to get enough to defray the expense of printing, but circulate them any how ; he desired me not to make it known that he had any agency in the matter of circulating the document, if I could consistently keep it to myself. I do not know where Brother Roberts got on the cars. My impression is, we were traveling east. I do not know as anything more was said about the payment of printing them; my recollection is not very distinct; he mentioned he had been at some considerable expense."

On the contrary, I proved from George W. Estes, that I had nothing whatever to do with its publication.

Mr. Estes testified as follows:

" Brother Roberts had nothing to do with publishing, or assisting in publishing the document under consideration, to my knowledge, and I presume to know. He had nothing to do with the writing of the part that bears my name; I do not know that he had any knowledge that its publication was intended; he never gave his consent that the part entitled " New School Methodism," should be republished by me, or any one else, to my knowledge; he was never responsible for the publication, either in whole or in part; he never contributed anything to the payment of its publication, to my knowledge; I intended that so far as sold, it should go to defray the expenses of publication; I never sold him any."

Cross-examination:

I never forwarded, or caused to be forwarded, any of them to Brother Roberts; I never gave him any personally; I do not know of any one giving or forwarding him any. I never gave orders to any one to forward Brother Roberts any, to my knowledge."

In regard to circulation I offered the following testimony:

Rev. Russell Wilcox called:

I am a local deacon of the M. E. Church in Pekin. I am intimately acquainted with Brother Roberts, the pastor of the church in Pekin. I do not know that he has ever circulated this pamphlet anywhere; I first saw it after I left home, on my way to this Conference."

Rev. J. P. Kent called:

"I did ask the defendant for one of these pamphlets; I wished to see one of them, and I asked Brother Roberts if he could let me have one ; he said he did not circulate them, but he had no objection to my seeing the one he had. This was a few weeks ago, at the Holley or Albion grove meeting; perhaps it was about the first of August."

This is all the testimony that was offered to prove the specifications the testimony of one man, and this testimony was impeached by several members of the Conference. Even John Bowman says his recollection was not very distinct. No wonder. But George Estes was very clear in his recollection, and very distinct in his statements.

The fact is, I had nothing to do with the publishing of the pamphlet and took but little interest in it. I was busy with other work.

We ask in the name of candor, ought this testimony thus contradicted, to have convicted any man? Did any honorable Court ever give a verdict of condemnation on so slight an apology for a shadow of evidence? Many of the Conference appeared to care nothing for the testimony. Some were out gathering chestnuts, and having a good time generally, while testimony was being taken, but came back in time to vote the charge and • specifications sustained !

Desiring to have light thrown on many of the points raised in the Estes pamphlet, I examined a large number of witnesses on these points. Thus we proved that they held secret meetings; and other matters, to some of which we have already referred, were brought to light.

The pleadings were finished at an early hour in the evening. Such was the impression made that the leaders of the opposition did not dare to take the vote that evening. They feared that they could not secure a conviction; so they adjourned held their secret meeting

and worked their courage up to the point where they could come into Conference the next morning and vote the specifications, and the charge sustained. They then voted expulsion from the Conference and the church !

As a sort of justification, some have alleged that I was expelled because I tried to prove the allegations made by Estes, true. But that only shows the injustice of the majority of the Conference in a still stronger light. What ! Condemn a man for a crime of which he was not even accused ! Speaking of the trial of Rev. B. T. Roberts in 1857 and 1858, the Rev. C. D. Burlingham says:

" It is a notorious fact that those verdicts are not based on testimony proving criminal acts or words. Several who voted with, and others who sympathize with the 'majority,' have said, ' Well, if the charges were not sustained by sufficient proof, the Conference served them right, for they are great agitators and promoters of disorder and fanaticism.'

There you have it. Men tried for one thing and condemned for another! What iniquitous jurisprudence will not such a principle cover?

Why not try them for promoting disorder and fanaticism? Because the failure of such an effort to convict would have been the certain result. "^**

In looking back upon the action of the Conference, I can account for it only on the theory that the leaders' of the so called Regency party did not feel safe as long as we remained in the Conference.

Personally, I had no reason to suppose that I was unpopular. I was on good terms socially with all the preachers. My appointments had always been all that I could have desired. Twice during my last trial they gave me such tokens of respect as I have never heard of being paid by a court to a man, while they were trying him for a criminal offense. Once during the progress of my trial, they adjourned it over a day to hold a funeral service in honor of Rev. William C. Kendall, who had died during the year. By a unanimous vote of the Conference, which spontaneously saw the fitness of the selection, I was appointed to preach the funeral sermon to the Conference, which I did, with two Bishops sitting by my side.

At another time during the trial, the anniversary of the American Bible Society was held, and by another unanimous vote, I was appointed, to preside at this public meeting ! Was this in imitation of the old idolaters who first crowned with garlands the victims they were about to sacrifice; or, was it rather the natural homage which men often instinctively pay to those whom they know to be right, even while they persecute them?

Against Rev. Joseph McCreery charges and specifications were preferred essentially the same as those against Rev. B. T. Roberts. They were signed by H. Ryan Smith.

We copy the following from Mr. McCreery' s account of his trial:

" Died Abner as a fool dieth."-2 Sam. iii, 33.

Rev. J. G. Miller was appointed to assist in conducting the prosecution.

The defendant declined any counsel. He had not been summoned to his real trial which had been going on in secret for several nights past in the Odd Fellows Hall, in Perry, and did not think it worth while to trouble any one to act as counsel in a judicial farce.

The prosecutor said they had concluded not to traverse the items of the Bill of Charges; which had occupied so much time in the preceding trial. We will limit the case to the two main points of the Publication and the Circulation.'

The defendant replied they might omit the whole,. if they chose—or any part they pleased. He was not at all particular about the matter. It would save time to forego the trial and vote the verdict at once. I appeal to the General Conference. The Bishop remarked that the notice of appeal was pre-mature.

Revs. C. P. Clark and W. Scism testified that defendant had circulated the Estes pamphlet. The prosecution here introduced as testimony, a card about three inches by two; of rather dingy appearance, and seriously nibbled at one corner; and marked on one side with certain ominous and cabalistic letters and figures. *  *

The card was grabbed up by S. M. Hopkins as stated in his testimony, and carefully kept unto the day of doom. The defendant had traveled the Parma circult, one of the best and most Methodistic in the Conference, for the two years previous, and Hopkins had been sent on by the Buffalo Regency, to watch Brother Abel, and pick up something that might be used in this conspiracy against the defendant. For this service, his masters voted him sixty dollars out of the Conference funds; under the pre-tense that this faithful discharge of duty had lessened his receipts to that amount. On canvassing the Conference, it was found impossible to get a majority committed against Brother Abel; and there was also lack of adequate ' help in the gate' to warrant the undertaking. Carlton, who was at the bottom of all this trickery, (all the while as sober and solemn as a saint) did not think it policy to attack him seriously. The character of Bro. A. was merely arrested, slurred a little, and allowed to pass. So this card was the only available crumb of Hopkins' scratching and picking. After being, duly testified to, as herein followeth, it was marked ' R' with commendable gravity, and solemnly filed among the documents of this persecution.

Rev., J. B. Wentworth called. Are you acquainted with defendant's hand-writing? I am. I have received letters from him. It is my opinion that this card is in his hand-writing. I am quite sure it is.

Rev. J. M. Fuller called. Are you acquainted with defendant's hand-writing? Ans.—I am, sir. I have no doubt this " card is in his hand-writing. I can't say when or where I first saw this card; it was a few weeks since.

Rev. S. M. Hopkins called.—Did you ever see this card before? Ans.—Yes. I saw it first in the pulpit of the M. E. Church, in Parma Centre, about the middle of last November. There was a four day's meeting there, called by some a general quarterly meeting. Defendant was there. I saw the Estes pamphlet at that meeting; there was an abundance of them. I saw, as near as I could judge an hundred or an hundred and fifty copies. I bought some from a carriage in which Sister McCreery rode, and also Sister Fuller, who had been living with them. I did not see the defendant come to the meeting; but on inquiry, I judged it to be his carriage.

Cross-questioned.—I first saw the card lying on the kneeling stool in the pulpit. I considered it an important document. I thought it might shed light on the fountain whence these fly-sheets came. I am not positive whose buggy the fly-sheets were in. I bought eight copies from the arm-full that was brought from the buggy by Sister Fuller; to whom I paid the money. I do not recollect the exact price I paid. Brother Estes was at the meeting. I do not know whether they were sold on his account or not. Sister Fuller seemed to do the business; whether the money went to Brother Estes or somebody else, I cannot say. I bought a dollar's worth. Part of them I found in the house of Brother Dunn. I paid all the money to Sister Fuller. I do not know that she was living at Brother Duels at the time; she was at the defendant's house during Conference. I soon found these pamphlets in almost every Methodist family on the circuit.

Ques.—Did you send a copy to any Methodist by mail?

This question was objected to by the prosecutor, who remarked that Brother Hopkins was not on trial for circulating the document. Though a hundred were engaged in a crime, it would not excuse any individual participant.

The defendant wished to show that every body had circulated the pamphlet. No one ever dreamed of crime or contumacy in doing so. Both Regency and Nazarite preachers, men, women and children, did it with all the freedom they would an almanac or Fox's Book of Martyrs. The charge of contumacy for doing what every body else did, was a ridiculous farce. Seven hours ago, at the bidding of his masters, this witness stood up and voted Brother Roberts expelled from the church, on the charge of circulating this pamphlet; and has pledged himself in secret conclave to do me the same service a few hours hence. Now, I wish to say by implication, that the criminality in the case is an after thought; a fiction fabricated for the occasion. Other witnesses have volunteered to tell what they did with their packages. I wish to know what the witness did with his dollar's worth.

The witness stated that he had had a bill of charges served on him, exactly like that against the defendant; in fact it was the identical bill with defendant's name erased, and his own inserted in its place.

The Bishop decided that the witness could not be required to answer so as to criminate himself.

Ans.I think I did the church no harm in what I did with the copies I bought; I had the best interests of the church in view.

The testimony of Brother Estes was substantially the same that he gave in Brother Roberts' trial, to wit: That he alone was the responsible author and publisher of the pamphlet bearing his name. He did not forward a copy to defendant for proof reading. He had no recollection of ordering the printer to do so. He presumed he ordered it to be sent somewhere, to some body. As the Conference had seen fit to assume that the publication was a crime, he should not put them on the track of any more victims by saying to whom he ordered it sent. Several laymen saw it before it was published. Some advised the publication, and some dissuaded from it. He had been threatened with a civil prosecution for the publication. He was ready for it any day. He alone was responsible; and he was ready and able to prove all he had published, in a civil court, whenever he should be called upon. Everbody had circulated it.

Testimony for the defense:

Rev. S. Hunt called. Have you seen in the Buffalo Christian Advocate, a notice of the proceedings of the last Conference in the case of Brother Roberts?

Ans.—I think I read a reference to it. (Here Bishop Baker hastily left the chair, and Bishop Janes took it.)

Ques.—Did that paper give the charge and specifications of the trial? This question was objected to as irrelevant, by the prosecutor, who said, ' We are not trying newspapers here.'

Defendant: ' But we are doing the next thing to it —we are trying a pamphlet. Now I wish to show that newspaper falsehood is justification for pamphlet truth as an antidote. The trial of Brother Roberts had become a notorious newspaper fact. The Buffalo Advocate had published ex parte reports, white-washing one side, and black-balling the other. And when it was asked, as it was concerning one guilty of something like the same crime, eighteen. hundred years ago, ` Why, what harm hath he done?' the only response of this organ of the Genesee Conference Sadducees was: unchristian and immoral conduct ! On this text, furnished by a judicial trickery of the lowest grade, the changes were rung; while the thing he did was carefully kept out of sight. Truth demanded the re-publication of " New School Methodism," that people might know what sort of writing it was that was so criminal. And a justifiable curiosity demanded a faithful expose of the several Carltonian modes of reasoning employed by the masters of this judicial ceremony, to bring the Conference to this strange verdict of ' Immorality,' in the case. The defendant claims it his right to show this in justification of the facts charged in the indictment.'

The objection was sustained by the Bishop. Whereupon all further defense was silently declined.

Thus the defensive testimony amounts in all, to two questions and one answer.

The prosecutor made a grandiloquent plea. The defendant answered not a word.

The defendant was voted guilty of the specifications, and of the charge.

And he was expelled from the Conference and from the Church, by the usual number of votes - 50.

SYNOPSIS OF THE VOTE.

Regular Regency men,	33
Presiding elderlings,	15
Serious ninnies, affrighted with the bug-bear of Nazaritism,	2
Total vote for expulsion,	50
Members who voted against expulsion,	17
Members of Conference who did not vote at all,	53
Total who did not vote for expulsion	70
Total number of members,	120

It will be noticed that a remarkably large number of the preachers did not vote. Carlton had managed to have it carefully whispered around, so loud that all could hear it, that the Bishop was going to make the appointments of the preachers according to their standing up for the church; i.e. the regency faction, in this eventful crisis. All the presiding elders were fast friends of the church :  i.e. the tools of Carlton, Roble & Co., except one; and he was removed at this Conference, and expelled at the next. The skillful rattling of the loaves and fishes in the market baskets labelled P. E. did the thing. It worked both ways; gaining both votes, and blanks, or no votes.

This accounts for a large number who would not vote wickedly, and dare not vote righteously. The appointing power is omnipotent; and he who has the faculty of fawning, or bullying, or deceiving it into his service, can do or be anything he pleases.

Each of us gave notice of an appeal to the General Conference.

But what should we do in the mean while? We were both twenty years younger than we are now, full of life, and energy, and anxious to save our own souls and as many others as we could. Neither of us had any thought of forming a new church we had great love for Methodism, and unfaltering confidence in the integrity of the body as a whole. We did not doubt but that the General Conference would make matters right. But we did not like to stand idly waiting two long years. We' took advice of men of age and experience, in whom we had confidence.

As I left the Conference Bishop Janes shook hands with me cordially and said, " Do not be discouraged, Brother Roberts there is a bright future before you yet."

Rev. Amos Hard in a letter still before us wrote:

"At the session of the Genesee Conference held at Perry, October 1858, While the character of several brethren was under arrest, I had with Bishop Janes substantially the following conversation:

`Would the joining of another church by an expelled member invalidate his appeal?'

He replied: 'I would prefer not to answer that question tonight, as I do not call to mind the action of the General Conference in the case of John C. Green.'

I then asked, 'Would it affect his appeal if an expelled member should join our church on probation?'

He replied: ' I do not think it would.'

                                                                            (Signed,                                        Amos HARD."

The Rev. William Reddy was then among the prominent ministers of the M. E. Church. He was a successful presiding elder highly esteemed for his piety and sound judgment. He had been several times a member of the General Conference. He wrote as follows:

" GENOA, Oct. 29, 1858.

DEAR BROTHER ROBERTS:

Let me freely speak to you. The General Conference will not be under such an inflammation as was the Genesee Conference, and I think they will judge righteous judgment. At all events, I am glad you exercise your rights and have appealed; and I am glad you appealed from last year's sentence, because this year's is founded on the last.

But now as to your course until General Conference: I think I would do one of two things either join on trial at, say Pekin, where you labored last year; or not join at all until after General Conference. It occurred to me since reading your letter, that you had better not join or attempt to join even on probation; but as to relation, remain where you are until the appeal is decided.

Then, as to labor, you feel, and others believe, that God has called and commissioned you to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. The Genesee Conference has said you should not preach under their authority; but you have not lost your Christian character, nor has their act worked the forfeiture of your commission from God. I would then go on and preach and labor for souls, and promote the work of the Lord, under the avowed declaration that you do it, not as by the authority of the M. E. Church,. but by virtue of your divine call. Then, whoever invites. your labor or comes to hear you, they alone are responsible. You violate then no church relation, because you have none. You violate no church order, for you are not now under church authority. You are simply God's messenger. I would not exercise the functions of a minister, for that implies church authority and order, and that you have not. I would not officiate at meetings nor administer the sacraments, as a minister. But I would preach because God calls —I would receive the sacrament of the supper, if invited and permitted,. because Christ commands. I would forego the other points for the sake of your appeal, and to show that you are not so very contumacious. This very course, I doubt not, will increase sympathy for you, and increase your influence, and if you are restored, will put you on higher ground than ever. Meantime I would avoid reference as far as possible to your opposers and oppressors, as though you were fighting them. 'Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.' " Let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls unto him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator.'

I do not see why you may not, in that way, promote the work of real holiness, and the salvation of sinners. Go where you are invited, and where the door opens, not in the name of the M. E. Church, but simply as a man of God to preach the Gospel. Who shall forbid your doing this?

But keep yourself from appearing to set yourself in array against the authority and order of the M. E. Church, while you claim the constitutional right of an expelled member. I believe God will bring you out like gold, tried in the fire.

Dear Brother, excuse my liberty. These are but suggestions coming spontaneously from a brother's anxious heart. I praise God that he keeps you.

Yours faithfully,

WILLIAM REDDY."

On the whole we thought, and our friends thought that we had better join on probation; this would show our loyalty to the church. It was hardly possible for us to hold meetings without sometimes worshiping with some of the salvation preachers in the Conference. Our holding a relation to the church would, it was thought, shield them from censure.

We could not, in conscience make confession for what we had been expelled for we felt we had done no wrong. So we adopted Bishop Baker's construction of the discipline.

When a member or preacher has been expelled, according to due form of discipline, he can not afterward enjoy the privileges of society and sacrament, in our church, without contrition, confession, and satisfactory reformation; but if, however, the society become convinced. of the innocence of the expelled member, he may again be received on trial, without confession."

The society at Pekin, which I served last, were convinced of my innocence, and unanimously received me on trial.

Joseph McCreery was received, also unanimously, on probation by the society at Spencerport.

We received, each of us, from the society which we had respectively joined, license to exhort; and we went out, holding meetings as providence opened the way. There was a deep, religious interest wherever we went, and many, we trust, were converted, and many believers sanctified wholly, and the people generally awakened to a sense of their eternal interests. 

** "Outline History," page 40, Sec. 21.