MORE PREACHERS EXPELLED.

The next session of the Genesee Conference was held at Brockport, in October, 1859. The efforts made to kill the influence of those whom they selected at the last Conference to make examples of, had most signally failed. These expelled preachers had never been more cordially received by the people than during the year.

The Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Advocate teemed with inflammatory appeals to their adherents to crush out what they called the "Nazaritism" yet remaining in the Conference. The dominant party of the Conference came together prepared to adopt any measures which their leaders proposed, to finish the work of extermination which they had commenced. Their ill-feeling was intensified at the sight which they witnessed when they came together.

In the outskirts of the village, in plain sight, and almost within hearing of the church, Fay H. Purdy, a well known evangelist of the M. E. Church, had commenced a tent meeting which was to continue during the session of Conference.^* A large pavilion, capable of  holding three thousand people, was spread. Around this were several rows of family and society tents. To this meeting were gathered a large number of intelligent, devoted, earnest Christians, who were stigmatized by the dominant party as "Nazarites. "

It was evident at the opening of the Conference that extreme measures would be adopted. This expectation was not disappointed; yet, the audacity of the majority in trampling upon human and divine law, exceeded the anticipations of those who had the highest opinion of their capacity for wrong-doing.

According to the constitution of the M. E. Church, an Annual Conference has no legislative powers. It may execute such of the laws of the Church as may fall within its province, but it can make no laws. Nor can it give to any enactments of its own the force of laws by affixing to them a penalty. Its powers are executive and judicial.

Yet this Conference, the second day of its session, passed five " resolutions "—the first four of which were aimed against fraternizing with the expelled preachers, and against " holding in an irregular way, or in countenancing, by taking part in, the services of camp meetings, or other meetings thus irregularly held.

The last resolution provided, " That if any member of the Conference be found guilty of disregarding the opinions and principles expressed in the above resolutions, he shall be held to answer to this Conference for the same."^**

These resolutions were made a test in the examination of character. Those preachers who would agree to be governed by these resolutions were passed; those who would not, were put on trial unless they would locate.

It is said that Bishop Simpson, who presided at this session, gave to these "test resolutions" his emphatic endorsement and support.

In accordance with the spirit of these resolutions, Bishop Simpson ordered several preachers who had come from other Conferences to assist Mr. Purdy in his meeting, to take no further part in it. Some obeyed, but Rev. D. W. Thurston, the presiding elder on Cortland district, Oneida Conference, continued to labor in the meetings. Bishop Simpson called him before a committee and admonished him, but the admonition was not heeded.

Under ' the operation of these resolutions, Rev. J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth were located. Revs. Loren Stiles, jr., John A. Wells, William Cooley and Charles D. Burlingham, not being willing to submit to this tyrannical assumption of authority, were expelled from the Conference and the Church.

The charges against Rev. L. Stiles, Jr., were as follows:

I hereby charge Rev. L. Stiles, Jr.,

1. With falsehood.

In testifying in the case of B. T. Roberts, at the session of our Conference held at Perry, Oct. 6th, 1858, that he did not receive or read the proof sheet of a document printed at Brockport, signed Geo. W. Estes, and entitled New School Methodism," and " To whom it may Concern;" and, in the case of J. McCreery, Jr., occurring at the same Conference, testifying that he did receive a paper purporting to be the proof sheet of such document with an accompanying note explanatory of its nature, and did read it, or a portion of it.

2. With contumacy.

1st. In receiving into his pulpit, and treating as a minister, an expelled member from this Conference.

2nd. In going into the bounds of F. W. Conable's charge, and there holding meetings and organizing a class, contrary to the admonition of his presiding elder.

J. B. WENTWORTH.

The first charge was made simply to try to blacken his character. But there was no show of proof to sustain it, and the majority were so far restrained that they voted this charge not sustained. God would not let even them affix this stain upon His servant. Of the first specification under the second charge there was no proof whatever. It was shown that once during the year Rev. B. T. Roberts was at a general quarterly meeting at the M. E. Church at Albion, of which Brother Stiles was pastor. One evening, after Rev. B. I. Ives preached, B. T. Roberts, by his invitation, exhorted. But in defence of this, it was shown that he had at that time drawn up in due form, a regular exhorter's license ! Mr. Roberts was treated simply as an exhorter and nothing more ! He was not called upon to perform and did not perform one of the functions of " a minister !"

This second specification was admitted to be nominally true. Holley, N. Y., is a large village between Brockport and Albion. There had been no Methodist society and no Methodist preaching there for a number of years. When I was stationed at Brockport, I occasionally preached by invitation at Holley. I went to Albion from Brockport, and still now and then preached in Holley sometimes in the Academy, and sometimes in the Presbyterian church. After Mr. Stiles went to Albion he kept up these occasional appointments at Holley. The interest increasing, and souls getting converted, Mr. Stiles formed a class, which, we may add--has grown into a prosperous church, which has built one of the finest edifices in the place. No objection was made, until after the work of expulsion was begun, and " occasion " was sought against Mr. Stiles. Mr. Conable had no appointment at Holley, and never had. His nearest appointment was about three miles away. Mr. Stiles' appointment to preach was generally on a different day and hour from his. Mr. Conable had a small number of members two or three living at Holley. But they did not have him make an appointment at their place.

It was not claimed that these members at Holley did not contribute, as usual, to Mr. Conable' s support. So that Mr. Stiles, in going to Holley to preach, interfered. in no way, either with his appointments or his salary.

It was not attempted to be shown that Mr. Stiles had violated any provision of the discipline. On the contrary, he read from the discipline from the rules for a preachers' conduct: " You have nothing to do but to save souls: therefore spend and be spent in this work; and go always not only to those that want you, but to those that want you most." This was precisely what he had done —nothing more and nothing less.

On such a charge, thus sustained, the majority voted to expel from the Genesee Conference AND THE M. E. CHURCH, Loren Stiles, Jr., one of the most devoted, eloquent, gifted, noble-hearted men then in the ministry of that denomination.

Of all the Methodist papers, official or independent, there was but one that spoke out in condemnation of this violent, illegal action. Yet a few years later, when Rev. S. Tyng, Jr. was mildly censured by the authorities of the Protestant Episcopal Church, for preaching in the parish of another clergyman without his consent, the Methodist papers, with much warmth and zeal, condemned such an encroachment upon personal liberty !.Yet there was this difference: Mr. Tyng's Church had a plain law, forbidding the act: the Methodist Church had no law forbidding its ministers to do as Mr. Stiles had done. Mr. Tyng preached in the immediate neighborhood of an Episcopal church. There was not a Methodist church or preaching place within three miles of the place where Mr. Stiles preached ! Mr. Tyng preached at the regular hours for service. Mr. Stiles preached generally on a week-day evening, when it did not interfere with any preacher anywhere.

Will the Methodist editors explain why it was wrong for the Episcopal Church to censure Mr. Tyng—and right for the Methodist Episcopal Church to expel Mr. Stiles from the ministry and the church, for the same act—when all the points of difference were in, favor of Mr. Stiles?

CASE OF REV. C. D. BURLINGHAM.

We extract the following from: A statement by C. D. Burlingham to the Genesee Conference, * responding to a charge and specifications, preferred against him by the Rev. D. F. Parsons.

BROCKPORT, Oct. 15, 1859.

Charge, ` Contumacy.'

1st specification: 'In receiving an expelled member of the Genesee Conference, into the church on trial without confession or satisfactory reformation.'

I received Benjamin T. Roberts on trial, in Pekin, Nov. 7, 1858, in a general society meeting, pursuant to a unanimous vote, without his confessing the alleged crime, for which he had been expelled.

My reasons for so doing are:

1. I believe that there are exceptional cases, in the application of the rule of discipline referred to, because if the strict letter of the rule must always control in the cases of applicants for admission on trial, then it follows that an innocent person, who has been wrongfully expelled, can never be re-admitted into the church. If the " reformation," or moral state of the applicant is satisfactory to the administrator and the society, or if they believe him to be innocent, and he meets all the conditions of membership, his admission, I judge is in harmony with the rule.

I understand Bishop Baker to confirm this view: see Guide Book, page 159, paragraph 9. "When a member or preacher has been expelled, according to our form of discipline, he can not afterward enjoy the privileges of society and of the sacraments in our church, without contrition and satisfactory reformation; but if however, the society becomes convinced of the innocence of the expelled member, he may again be received on trial without confession;" the principle in the conclusion, covering of course both cases, " member or preacher," in the premises.

2. I believe that such admission into the church could not remove the ground of his appeal to the General Conference, because that body, I judged, could act in the case, only on those points submitted in the appeal; he being responsible for his subsequent acts to his Conference, should the General Conference reverse the decision by which he was expelled.

3. The next day after the expulsion, the appeal having been notified, the question of his admission into the church was discussed informally, by Bishops Janes and Baker, and the presiding elders. The point was not, can he be received by confessing the alleged crime, for of course that would remove the ground of his appeal; but the question was, can he be received on trial, and not injuriously affect his appeal. Not one of those seven officers of the church took the position, that there was anything in the Methodistic law to prevent his being received. No one of them, who spake on the subject, was clear in his mind, he said, as to the effect of such an act on his appeal. Those aged and experienced presiding elders —for some of them were such,—with the two Bishops, were in doubt on the question, showing at least, that such a question had not, then, been definitely settled, in the administrative rules of the church, as intimated by our president a few days since.

Subsequently, Bishop Janes, as Brother Roberts informed me, when I first met him in Pekin, said to him, that he had not lost confidence in him, and that he could join the church again or words to that import, leaving that distinct impression on his mind.

I put this and that together, and connecting both with advice from some eminent ministers, within and without our Conference bounds, and after receiving all the light then accessible to me, I received him on trial. A few weeks after, as per letter of Bishop Baker to me several months later, the Episcopal Board met at Chicago, and settled, as I understand, the principle of administrative law, that is to govern in such cases. This decision having been published, at least editorially, and announced by Bishop Simpson, a few days since, we all now understand it; though some of the younger members of this body have assumed, in their speeches, that they had understood it, even before they were admitted into full connection in the Conference, because they had read the book of discipline. But I confess that I was in doubt on the question, a year ago; and, having occasion to act in this 'case, with such light as dawned upon me, I did what I thought was right and proper.

4. A fourth point in this argument is a case, perfectly analogous, in reference to the principle of receiving a person on trial 'without confession,' etc., of more than ordinary notoriety, that transpired within our Conference bounds. A prominent member was expelled. He appealed. The quarterly conference, for some informality, sent the case back for a new trial. He was expelled the second time. Under the instruction and advice of the deeply experienced presiding elder of the district—a man of profound erudition this expelled person was received on trial, without confession, in a charge a few miles distant; and then took a letter and joined a new charge, nearer his home, without either changing his residence, or confessing the crime for which he had been expelled. This administration may have been correct—I do not know, because I do not know the whole case; but, if correct, it is so on the ground of my first reason herewith presented; and if correct, then it covers in a moral point of view my act of receiving ' without confession,' etc. Of course, a wrong administration in that case will not justify a wrong one in another case. But when wiser men than I am are allowed thus to practice, without being treated as contumacious, surely I ought to have the benefit of such clemency.

5: After I had learned from an authentic source—Bishop Baker what was the Episcopal decision that would apply to this case, and might remove the ground of his appeal; after consultation with Brother Roberts, who has expressed from time to time a desire and purpose to prosecute his appeal, and with some eminent ministers who have the confidence of the church, and who may act as his counsel in the case, I have obeyed the implied advice of the Bishop, and granted the request of Brother Roberts, by discontinuing his probationary membership in the same manner he had been received. The conclusion then, from these five points, each and all, is summed up in few words: There is not can not be —a shadow of contumacy, either in principle, motive, or act. I assert most solemnly, the purity of my intention and motive; and the character of the act is to be judged in the light of the points I have made, especially the first and third. The first covering fully the reception ' without confession,' etc.; and the third covering the reception while the appeal is pending. The fourth point is an illustrative precedent, the benefit of which I am entitled to receive. The fifth point, in connection with all the others, furnishes evidence of not a perverse, but a teachable spirit, not resistance to and contempt of, but submission and obedience to the rules, and decisions, and authorities of the church.

Second Specification.—' On. giving said expelled member license to exhort, at the time of such reception on trial'

On the recommendation, nearly unanimous, by the same general society meeting that voted for his reception on trial, and on the same occasion, I gave him a license to exhort.

As the discipline recognizes exhorters as members of quarterly conferences; and probationers cannot be members of a quarterly conference; I stated in the certificate I gave him that he was a probationary member; assuming thereby that a person, suitable in other respects to officiate in the capacity of an exhorter, might do so, before he, as a member of the church, could perform official acts, as a member of quarterly conference.

My reasons, then, for giving him such a license, are:

1. That he might, in a regular and orderly way, exhort the people religiously.

2. I believed that he was really a probationary member in good standing, legally; and the Bishop's opinion, given five or six days ago, confirms this view; and, therefore, in that respect, there was no impediment in the way.

3. And though the discipline makes no provision for investing probationers with official powers, except it be an implied one, perhaps, indicated by the words, ' member of society,' as required in the church relations of a local preacher, (discipline, page 42); and the words, " member of the class," in that of an exhorter, (discipline, page 66); a distinction in words, in the two cases, implying, perhaps, we say, that full membership is required in the former case, but not in the latter. Yet the law of usage,—possibly founded on this distinction that I have noted allows and sanctions, in some cases, such administration as mine in the case before us: Rev. Bishop H. B. Bascom, D. D., was authorized to exhort, while on trial.

A leading member of the Oneida Conference, eight or ten years a presiding elder, says he has known many similar cases, several under his own administration. And some of the older members of this Conference say they have known numerous instances of the same, from the period of their connection with the church down through its administrative history to the present time. I have known several such instances.

On these grounds, and not contumaciously, I gave B. T. Roberts license to exhort, in the form and manner I have stated. The idea of setting up my own private judgment in this case, and my personal convictions in opposition and resistance to the solemn decisions of the Conference, when sitting as a court, has never found its way into my thoughts or heart to be cherished for a moment. My private opinions in this whole case are solely my own property, under God; but my official and administrative acts in the case have been performed in view of my responsibilities to the Conference as a judicial body, to the Bishop, and to the whole church.

If my administration was incorrect under the first or second specification, or both, it is certainly not an error of the heart; and surely, I ought not to be regarded as contumacious because I am not wiser: I know I intended to do, and I thought I did, for the reasons stated, just what ought to be done, in view of all my responsibilities.

Third Specification.—' In attending and assisting in a so-called ` General Quarterly Meeting,' held in Ransomville, some time in February last, within the bounds of the East Porter charge, and at the same time of the regular quarterly meeting of said charge.'

On this specification; I say I attended such a meeting at Ransomvile, and' the following facts will show that I did not do it contumaciously against the Conference, nor contemptuously against the presiding officer of the district, as implied in the specification:

1. In the light of the statement presented, I regarded Brother Roberts as authorized, at that time, to hold religious meetings where there was an opening, with the consent of the people and authorities of the locality; and, therefore, under such circumstances, I did not regard it as improper to be associated with him and others in religious worship.

2. The Wesleyans had invited this meeting to their church; our people, as I understand, having neither church nor preaching appointment in the locality.

3. I never knew or dreamed, until this bill was presented me, that Ransomville was in East Porter charge, having understood that it was in vacant territory, between Wilson and Porter, and about the same distance from Pekin, my charge, as from either of those places.

4. The small pox was prevailing,• to some extent, in our place, and our meetings were suspended; and, under such circumstances our brethren deemed it proper to meet with other brethren in some locality where they would violate no church order, and be likely to do some good in the name of the Lord; and I was with them a part of the time to do a little work and to • see what such people were doing, as then and now, I can say, I know but little about such meetings from personal observation.

5. This meeting happened to occur on the day of the quarterly meeting of the Porter charge. I had nothing to do in getting up the meeting or fixing the time, but I have good reason to believe the appointment was made in ignorance that ' the other meeting was to be at the same time. When it became known that the Porter meeting would beat that time, it was too late to change the time of the other; but, as I understood from brethren with whom I conversed, knowing nothing of the localities myself then, that the circuit meeting would probably be held in connection with Youngstown, or at some point six or eight miles from Ransomville. I judged the one would not interfere with the other; and, therefore, I attended said meeting. It was a source of regret to me that the two meetings were to occur at the same time, for the reason that, possibly, the Porter meeting might be in the eastern part of the circuit, in the more immediate vicinity of Ransomville, and it might be thought that this meeting was designed to interfere with that, which was not the case. Of course, there is no occasion for me to stop and try to show that there is here no contumacy in spirit or act. I am not the man to interfere with the pastoral and gospel work of other men, in their respective charges. I generally have more than I can do nearer home ; neither can I knowingly and intentionally encourage others to do what I would not do myself. Brethren, I have endeavored to notice and meet every point in the Bill; and though I admit some little partiality for my client, I must say, in all candor, there is not, there cannot be, in your convictions in the case, the shadow of any evidence to sustain the charge; that though all the specifications are nearly literally true, there is not in the case the slightest degree of contumacy."

To the mind of every candid person, this Yhust be a complete defence. But the majority of the Conference paid no attention to it, and as they had the votes to do it with, they voted him guilty, and inflicted upon him the highest possible penalty in their power expulsion from the Conference and the M. E. Church. This was the limit of their ability.

CASE OF REV. WILLIAM COOLEY.

" I hereby charge Rev. Wm. Cooley with contumacy.

First Specification. In receiving into his pulpit and treating as a minister an expelled member from this Conference.

Second Specification.—In violating the wishes and requests of his brethren, as expressed by resolutions passed by them at this session of our Conference against affiliating with expelled members from this Conference.

J. B. WENT WORTH.

BROCKPORT, Oct. 14, 18592

On the first specification, the defense said, " I admit that. B. T. Roberts once addressed the people at Kendall village, and J. McCreery did once at West Kendall, from the pulpit. We had a four day's meeting at Kendall; Brother Roberts came to the meeting, but not by my request, and exhorted once. I invited him to take part in the exercises,. and to exhort.

Brother McCreery came to a two day's meeting at West Kendall. I did not invite him to come. He went into the pulpit and addressed the people, as he said, on his own authority.

Rev. A: D. Wilbor called. —I am Brother Cooley's presiding elder. I had a conversation with him about receiving expelled ministers. I inquired if he had thus associated with them. He admitted what he has here admitted, in substance; I admonished him. This conversation was since the commencement of the present session of this Conference.

Testimony on the second specification. The defendant here admitted that he had preached at Purdy's' camp-meeting, but had not taken part in any irregular meeting, as he knew of. He preached, before the resolutions of Conference were passed.

Rev. R. E. Thomas called Were you present at the ***Nazarite camp-meeting down here? I was. Did Brother Cooley take part in it? He sat on the platform; he knelt and prayed.

Rev. C. Strong called. —I was present at Purdy's camp-meeting a few times, as a spectator. Saw the defendant there two or three times.. He appeared to be taking part in the exercises during the time of prayer-meeting or when a great deal of noise was being made, in what I should call the general hallooing and clapping concert.

I did not see B. T. Roberts there at the time of the sacrament, but at other times. I saw J. McCreery on the stand. I saw him come forward to the communion. A man I have heard called Purdy seemed to supervise this meeting.

Rev. K. D. Nettleton called. —I was present a part of the time during the sacrament and tent-meeting.

I was a spectator. Saw McCreery partake of the sacrament with the ministers. A man administered the sacrament, at the first invitation, whom Mr. Purdy called a presiding elder of the Oneida Conference by the nanie of Thurston. Saw defendant and McCreery go forward to the sacrament. Saw defendant take part in the exercises, , and also expelled ministers.

Rev. B. F. McNeal called. —I was present at the sacrament on Tuesday evening of this week, as a spectator. Defendant and J. McCreery were there; I saw defendant, and McCreery, and a large number of ministers go forward to the sacrament, and immediately took my departure. A man they called Thurston presided at the sacrament..

Cross-examined. There were from twenty to thirty ministers present at the sacrament.

Rev. A. D. Wilbor called. The tent-meeting was not held by my consent, but against my wishes.

Cross-examined. —I have given no public expression to that effect. I did express my disapprobation at the preachers' meeting at Le Roy. The defend-ant was not there. I think the notice of the tent-meeting was published in the Northern Christian Advocate. I supposed the meeting to be held within the bounds of the Brockport charge.

Rev. B. M. Buck called. Was Purdy's meeting in the bounds of your charge? Yes. I objected to this meeting to Purdy. I say. the notice of it.

Cross-examined. —I have no personal knowledge that defendant knew of my objections to Purdy's meetings.

Rebutting Testimony.

Rev. A. D. Wilbor called. —I did not, inform defendant previous to the commencement of this session of the Conference, that his course was objectionable.

Cross-examined. —I admonished him the second or third day of Conference; it was before his character was arrested.

Rev. A. L. Backus called. —I received Joseph McCreery into the church on probation, the second Sabbath after the adjournment of the last Conference. I dropped him the first Sabbath after the Bergen camp-meeting.

Cross-examined. I did not license him to exhort or preach, or any thing of that kind."

Direct testimony resumed:

" I did not give public notice that I had dropped him. I did report him dropped by name."

Rev. C. D. Burlingham's testimony, taken in Brother Stiles' trial and admitted in this trial: ‘l gave B. T. Roberts license to exhort, having first received him into the church as a probationer, which was the second Sabbath after the last Conference.' "

Soon after his expulsion, the Rev. Wm. Cooley wrote respecting his trial, the following notes:

"1. The second specification was added after the trial was commenced, and altered twice; and at the suggestion. of Bishop Simpson. was most of it with-drawn, to prevent Brother Purdy's testimony, which would have made his meeting a regular one, because he had Rev. E. M. Buck's consent to hold the meeting when he did.

2. Brother Roberts exhorted at Kendall in the forepart of the Conference year, and the presiding elder, Rev. A. D. Wilbor, was four times on my circuit to hold quarterly meetings during the year, and had opportunities to admonish me of my great error in allowing Brother Roberts to exhort the people to serve God, and never passed a word with me as to this being an irregularity or wrong until the second or third day of this session of Conference. It certainly looks as though the design was not to check irregularities, but to find some occasion against me.

3. When my trial was nearly through, leading Regency ministers came to me, and said if I would locate, I might go out with clean papers, as a local preacher, to preach the Gospel. But I felt I had lived in all good conscience, and had done nothing to forfeit my Conference relations, and could not take any such responsibilities on myself.

4. Great efforts were made by the dominant party in the Conference to get me to subscribe to the " Five Puseyite resolutions," passed by the Conference, with the understanding that if I could do this, my character should pass; but I could not ignore my manhood, and obligations to God to obey him rather than man, so much as to bow down to that idol, set up by men. So I was expelled, first from Conference, and then from the church; but God has been with me every hour since, saving and keeping my soul in glorious freedom, and I am enabled to say, " But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear unto myself so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry which I have received of the Lord Jesus to testify the Gospel of the grace of God."

"APPEAL OF REV. JOHN A. WELLS.

To the members of the M. E. Church and all persons who respect the rights of humanity and religion.

Dear Brethren: Allow me to present to you a candid statement of the facts in reference to my expulsion from the M. E. Church.

The Journal of the Genesee Conference for Oct. 13, 1859 contains the following record:

' Resolved. That John A. Wells be expelled from the Genesee Conference and from the M. E. Church.'

The charges which furnished the occasion for the above action are as follows:

I hereby charge Rev. J. A. Wells with

1st. Contumacy in recognizing as a minister, by admitting to his pulpit, and holding religious meetings in connection with B. T.' Roberts, an expelled. member from this Conference.

2d. Disobedience to the order of the church, in going into the bounds of other brethren's charges, and holding religious meetings.'

(Signed,)                                                                         S. M. HoPKINs.

Dated, BROCKPORT, Oct. 1, 1859..

It would be tame, indeed, for me to say that I am dissatisfied with the above action of Conference. A blow has been struck at the vitals of Christian liberty. I do not feel that I am guilty of contumacy, or disobedience to the order of the church; neither if I were guilty to the extent of the specifications could I believe that the severest penalty known in ecclesiastical discipline ought to be inflicted on me. I now make my appeal to you, and hope to be received. and treated in accordance with the verdict which your candor and religion shall render.

I admitted on my trial, that I had permitted B. T. Roberts to speak in my pulpit; and that I had attended and took part in religious meetings conducted by him. Also, that I had preached in a few instances within the bounds of other brethren's charges. There was nothing material proved in addition to this.

I showed in my defense,

1st. That B. T. Roberts, since his expulsion had been admitted to the M. E. Church on trial, and licensed to exhort, and as such I had received him. Bishop Simpson had decided that an error or irregularity on the part of an administrator of discipline does not invalidate the title to membership of a person received into the church. So that Brother Roberts was legally and properly a member of the M. E. Church on trial. Whether his license to exhort given him by Rev. C. D. Burlingham, he being recommended to do so by the unanimous vote of the. society at Pekin, was valid or not, according to the. letter of the law, it was at least a good reason in favor of my allowing him to speak. I could not forbid a man to speak in my pulpit who came with such recommendations. If there is contumacy in this, it must consist in a refusal of absolute subjection to the will of the Buffalo Regency, and not in resistance to the reasonable authority of the church.

I showed in my defense,

2. That not one of the preachers on whose charges I had preached, had ever by word or by letter, intimated to me that they were displeased with my preaching within the bounds of their charges; and also, that my presiding elder had never admonished me never to do so. If I was expelled for that, it certainly was a crime that none of the men who claim to be injured thought enough of to speak to me about it, though months elapsed between its commission and the Conference.

I contend that I am expelled from the Church for no crime whatever; either against the word of God, or the Methodist discipline. In these things for which I was expelled, I have not violated my obligations to God, nor transcended my rights as a Methodist preacher.

I am not blamable in receiving Brother Roberts as I did. I received him and treated him as an exhorter. It was not proved that I did more than this. His relation to the church, and the license which he held, fully entitled him, according to the discipline. and usages of Methodism, to all the respect which I paid him. But I had higher reasons than these for doing as I did. I had for many years regarded Brother Roberts as a devoted servant of God, eminent for his usefulness. I really believed that his expulsion from the Church was only the result of hatred aroused by his faithful denunciation of sin, and that he was, in the sight of heaven, as much a servant of God and a minister of the Gospel after his expulsion, as before it. I could not do less than receive him. To have forbidden him to speak in my pulpit, would have been a sin against God that I would not bear in the judgment, for all worlds.

2. I have not sinned in preaching within the territories claimed by other preachers. Simply preaching the Gospel is all that I did. I was not charged with doing more. So that the solution of the question, Has one preacher any right to preach on another's' territory? will make me guilty or innocent. The commission which God gave me is, Go into all the world." I was ordained an elder in the church of God. Now if there is anything in our Church order, limiting my right to preach to one small charge, and shutting me off from any particular place, let it be shown. In joining the itinerant ranks of Methodism, we do so far surrender our right of choosing our field of labor as. to allow the president of the Conference to appoint 'where we shall preach. But we do not so surrender our rights that he, or any other power on earth can appoint where we can not preach. To make such a surrender would be treason against God. The discipline provides penalties for the preacher who refuses to go to his work, but it is nowhere made a crime to preach the Gospel off from his charge.

I have foreborne to speak for others who are my companions in the same tribulation, partly because I left the seat of the Conference before the adjournment, and do not know how far the work of decapitation had proceeded, and partly because I prefer that they should speak for themselves. The charges against eight preachers were nearly the same as those on which I was condemned, viz contumacy and disobedience to the order of the church.

The Conference, on the second day of its session, adopted a series of resolutions which amounted to an ex post facto law, according to which every preacher's character was to pass. Every preacher who was supposed during the year past to have violated the code contained in the resolutions, had his character arrested. No man could pass until he had testified his penitence for having violated them, (before they existed) and promised tc observe them in future.

To what extent this persecution will be carried the future alone can reveal. The majority of the Conference are evidently determined, by raising the mad dog cry of " Nazaritism," to drive out of the church all who have religion enough not to endorse their measures. What others may do I cannot tell, but as

for myself, I am yet firmly attached in heart to the M. E. Church. I believe her doctrines and love her discipline. I have appealed to the General. Conference. I shall get back into the Church again if I can.

BELFAST, OCT. 20, 1859.                                                                                                                                    J. A. WELLS.

Of these expulsions, the editor of the Northern Independent spoke in brave, just terms of condemnation in an editorial of Oct. 20,.1859:

"THE GENESEE CONFERENCE.

Last week we referred to the trials going on in this Conference, and expressed an opinion that they were pernicious. It is now our painful duty to record the result of these most infatuated proceedings. Up to the time of this writing, four of the best members of the Conference have been expelled, both from the Conference and the church. We have known ecclesiastical blunders before, but never one so great as this. We do not care to repeat what we have already said of these trials, nor' do we wish to enter into the controversy further than to note what we think to be a very dangerous perversion of Conference authority.

Every man of common sense knows that contumacy is not necessarily a crime; and hence if the defendant had been guilty of all that was charged upon him, there was no occasion for his expulsion. Contumacy is often a virtue. It may be a minister's duty to comply with the rules imposed by a majority, or it may not; all will depend on the character of the rules—if right, he may keep them; if not right, he is bound to disregard them, or peril his soul. When Conference action is just and wise, it becomes' obligatory; but when it is unjust and foolish, the obligation ceases. Else an Annual Conference, becoming perverse, might decree that all its members should abstain from praying, and the decree would be binding. As such a conclusion is absurd, we are obliged to reject the premises on which it rests, and hold that Conferences have power only so far as they keep to the right. So much for the merits of the case, even if contumacy had been among the things forbidden by the church. But the fact is, we have not, and never had any rule making contumacy a sin. It is not an offence, either named, or contemplated by our discipline. It is a crime unheard of in the annals of Methodism—a miserable aping of the most questionable and dangerous prerogatives ever exercised by secular authority.

That a preacher may be expelled for ' improper tempers, words, or actions,' is true, and if the charge had been made for either or all of these things, it would at least have been right in form, and might have been tried on its merits. But a trial for contumacy is quite another thing, and altogether beyond the record. In making these trials rest upon this basis, no Conference has, in fact, established a new law, and given sovereign power to every straggling resolution that may chance to be passed. Not to obey a perverse resolution, would be very far from evincing 'improper tempers, words or actions,' but it would certainly be ' contumacy.' Hence the unpardonable liberty taken in departing from the words of the discipline, and manufacturing this new test of character.

This style of administration assumes an importance far beyond the individual instances of decapitation which have already occurred. Acting on the same principle, the Genesee Conference, or any other Conference, has only to pass a resolution that no member shall take the Northern. Independent, or act as agent for it, and the work is done—thenceforth, whoever gets a subscriber or receives the paper into his house, is guilty of contumacy, and destined to be expelled. Thus this unfounded assumption seizes upon the press, sweeps away every vestige of personal liberty, and makes the minority of the Conference the veriest slaves. It is true, the Conference has not yet given the principle on which it is acting this particular application, but how soon it may, none can tell. At this session, the members have been forbidden to attend all meetings not regularly appointed, as will be seen from the third and fifth resolutions of the following series:

Resolved, 1st. That the safety and prosperity of a Church can only be maintained by a solemn deference to its councils and discipline, as legitimately determined and executed.

2d. That we consider the admission of expelled ministers, whether traveling or local, to our pulpits, and associating with them and assisting them as ministers, until they have, by due process, as described in the discipline, been restored to the fellowship of the church, as subversive of the integrity and government of the church, directly tending to the production of discord and division and every evil work.

3d. That we disapprove and condemn the practice of certain members of this Conference, in holding in an irregular way, or in countenancing by taking part in the services, of camp-meetings, or other meetings thus irregularly held.

4th. That in the judgment of this Conference, it is highly improper for one preacher to go into another preacher's charge and appoint meetings, or attend those that may be appointed by others in opposition to the wishes of the preacher in charge, or the presiding elder.

5th. That if any member of this Conference be found guilty of disregarding the opinions and principles expressed in the above resolutions, he shall be held to answer to this Conference for the same."

Referring to the resolutions, he says:

"These resolutions are well enough, considered as merely declarative or advisory, but regarded as the ultimate law of the church, they are a grievous outrage on the rights of every member of an Annual Conference. Annual Conferences may advise, and may execute laws already made, but they are not law making bodies, and consequently cannot pass a resolution having the force of law. But if a man be expelled for non-conformity to a rule made by an Annual Conference, then is an Annual Conference, in the very highest sense, a law making body. An Annual Conference may expel a preacher for violating the discipline, but not for violating one of its own rules. Were it not for this necessary restriction, each Annual Conference could make laws ad libitum, and the law making power of the General Conference would be a nullity. Surely, in view of the above resolutions, every Methodist preacher may ask, Have we an organic law? Or, are we at the mercy of a bare majority, however obtained and however disposed?

If a simple Conference resolution is law, we are without a constitution, and in that respect worse off than a temperance society, or any other voluntary association whatever. It will be conceded by all, that an Annual Conference bas no more right to make laws than a quarterly conference, and what would be thought if a quarterly conference should pass a series of resolutions, to be kept by all its members, under fain of expulsion? Such a thing is unprecedented, and yet would be quite as legal as the penalties threatened in the foregoing resolutions.

Are we then, says an objector, to endure the evils complained of in the foregoing resolutions? Not necessarily. There are other and milder remedies than expulsion. But even if the General Conference itself should make a rule prohibiting the things forbidden by these Genesee Conference resolutions, we should doubt the utility of the measure. Some things are better for being let alone. Not many ages since, the civil law undertook to regulate religious opinion; but after much blood had been shed to no purpose, it was found that toleration was better than legislation. So also in the operations of Methodism, it may perhaps be found that forbearance is a better cure than law.

It may be a sin, and a sufficient cause for expulsion, to treat an expelled minister as though he were yet a minister, but our Church has nowhere affirmed the fact. All the discipline says on the subject is, that after an appeal has been had—mark that —a " person so expelled shall have no privilege of society or sacrament in our Church, without confession, contrition, and satisfactory reformation." Here is the sum total of the penalty to be inflicted, but none of it is fairly due until the appeal has been heard, for until then the trial is not ended the case has not yet reached the highest court. In civil law, the execution of the sentence awaits the action of the appellate court. We do not hang a man because the jury finds him guilty, but wait till the final hearing of the case before the highest tribunal. Following this analogy, a minister expelled by an Annual Conference, is at most barely suspended, and though not eligible to an appointment, may, nevertheless, not be wholly excluded from the courtesies due to ministerial character. It was this view of the case, joined with a full conviction of the injustice of the sentence, and modified also by the fact of the actual readmission of the the expelled persons into the church, which induced treatment of which complaint is here made. What relates to invading other charges is too trivial for notice.

These cases of expulsion will, no doubt, go up to. the ensuing General Conference, where they are quite certain to be reversed, if they can be fairly heard. Some have intimated that the expelled brethren must be very cautious, and do all honor to the act of their expulsion, by remaining silent until their appeal is acted upon. We are glad that even in this respect there will be no little breadth to the question. If, after their expulsion, they labor on—not as Methodists, but as men—and do what good they can, it ought not to be imputed to them as a crime, nor in anywise prejudice their appeal. They still have what God and nature gave them—the right to speak and to act as men and as Christians; Methodism takes away only what it gave. The gift of life, the divine commission, and the assurance of pardon, are all from a higher source—a source over which Conferences have no control.

We are convinced that a principle is involved in the administration of that Conference which, if unchecked, must be fatal to Methodism. Our Annual Conferences would be converted into so many petty tyrannies, alike injurious to men and offensive to. God. Majorities would become simply machines for the extirpation of progressive sentiment.

Since the above was written, we have received the following from Brother Roberts: ` A resolution was passed on Saturday against any of the members of Conference acting as agent for the Northern Independent.' Now, we all know what such a resolution means in the Genesee Conference. —Every preacher. who dare act as agent for us, will be expelled for contumacy. Thus the war has commenced openly. It. will now be known whether Methodists are slaves or freemen.

We give the resolution relating to the Independent, with the comments of one of the corresponding editors:

' Resolved, That we disapprove of any member of this Conference acting as agent for the Northern Independent, or of writing for its columns, or in any way giving it encouragement and support.'

The above is of ' striking significance,' from the fact that the ' regency ' has recently put on General Conference authority, and has become a law making body. Every man who disobeys this resolution, does so at the peril of his ministerial office, and his membership in the M. E. Church. It would be as clear a ease of ' contumacy' as any for which the brethren were expelled, to whom we have referred. The " regency," be it remembered, are legislators, jurors, judges and executioners, and wo be to any member of the Genesee Conference who shall be found in any way giving it (the Independent) encouragement and support.'

Dr. Hibbard is in raptures over the ' extraordinary proceedings of Genesee Conference,' and especially over the passage of the resolution against the Independent. ' That was manfully said,' he exclaims, ' it ought to inspire all its sister Conferences,' etc. It will inspire with supreme disgust, all sister Conferences who are not steeped to the lips in pro-slaveryism and popery."

Mr. Stiles, having attended the Methodist Theological Seminary at Concord, and having been about a good deal, one year stationed at Cincinnati had a more correct idea than the other expelled preachers, of the justice to be looked for at the General Conference. He said it was of no use to, take an appeal, and he should not waste the time and endure the strain of prosecuting an appeal; for he had no hope whatever that the General Conference would do justice in the matter.

He returned to Albion at the urgent call of the people. Members of the church and congregation, who " loved righteousness and hated iniquity," rallied around him. They were so largely in the majority that, according to equity and according to the laws of the State, they were entitled to the church property; but they chose rather to give no cause of complaint, and " took joyfully the spoiling of their goods." His friends gave up the church property. With great expedition the people put up a large edifice for him at Albion, where he lived and labored, and died in the warm affections of the community.

He assisted in forming the discipline of the Free Methodist Church, and gave his hearty efforts to secure the election of its first General Superintendent.

He was of too sensitive a nature to endure the strain to which the indignities he suffered at the hands of the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church had subjected him.

He was taken down with the typhoid fever, and the disease assumed from the first a malignant character. He was greatly blessed in his soul when he was taken sick, and to this he often referred, even during the spells of delirium. One evening, as we were watching with him, he thought he was in the hands of a secret society committee, and cried out, " Brother Roberts, I want you should go out and tell the committee that I am ready to die in two hours, or one hour, or even this minute. The Lord has greatly blessed me and I shall go straight to glory." The day before he died, he said to the physician, "ALL IS RIGHT." He grew gradually weaker, and, without a struggle, on the 7th of May, 1863 his pure spirit passed away to the realms of bliss.

His funeral was attended by an. immense congregation the large church being filled, and hundreds standing outside, unable to gain admission.

The Rev. William Hosmer, his fellow hero in the battle against all sin and wrong, preached an eloquent, impressive sermon from 'the text, " He endured as seeing Him who is invisible. Heb. xi, 27.

The concluding part of his sermon was 'as follows:

" We have no words adequate to this occasion. He who lies before us, stricken down in his prime, was a living illustration of greatness produced by the presence of God. He did and dared, as none do or dare who are not conscious of Divine aid. Eminent as he was, in intellectual ability, and surpassingly eloquent in his pulpit ministrations, he never forgot himself for a moment, nor appeared other than the most humble of men. Anxious only to do good, absorbed with the duties of his high commission, and admonished by the feebleness of his system, that his period of labor might be short, he gave the world an example of self-abnegation and tireless industry worthy of an apostle. When the Genesee Conference withdrew its sanction from his ministry he felt no lack; God was still with him and he asked no more.

Besides, the pressure which was upon him the

woe is upon me if I preach not the Gospel 'was much too great to admit of interruption from slight causes. His call was from above, and he well knew that men could not revoke it. Following the apostolic example, he preferred to ' obey God rather than man. With others of his fellow laborers who had been similarly maltreated, he entered at once upon new church relations of such a character as promised to help and not hinder his efforts for the salvation of men. Here he soon found that the things which had happened to him, ' had fallen out rather unto the furtherance of the Gospel.' The Chief Shepherd and Bishop of souls, instead of granting a discharge from service, had done for him what had previously been done for Luther and Wesley, namely, enlarged his pastorate by removing the trammels of ecclesiastical authority.

How well, how successfully, how self-consumingly he labored in the extended field thus Providentially opened, you all know. You know also that amid the severe trials to which he was subjected, his reputation was stainless—not even the breath of malice itself could soil a character so essentially pure. Mysterious indeed that we come today to lay in the grave one so well prepared to live, one so rich in gifts, so useful, we had almost said indispensable to the church and to his family. But the ways of God are not the ways of man; and what we know not now, we shall know hereafter. We must not complain that his sun went down at noon—rather let us glory that it sunk in the full splendor of meridian 'brightness. That life which has afforded an opportunity to do and to suffer so much, can not be regarded as short, nor can that death which simply opens the gate of heaven, be considered as premature."

Charles D. Burlingham, at the time of his expulsion, had been an effective preacher of the Genesee Conference nineteen years. For four years he had filled with acceptability the office of presiding elder. He was a preacher of more than ordinary ability, original in his style, clear in his reasonings, and happy in the use of illustrations. He. had labored beyond his physical ability, and was left. broken in constitution, with. a large, dependent family, and no means for their support.

He was restored to the Conference by means which showed the injustice of the M. E. Church almost as forcibly as his expulsion. He continued to preach for fifteen years, yet never regained his former vigor and strength; but seemed a crushed, broken-hearted man. He died in 1874.

William Cooley had been seventeen years a diligent, faithful and acceptable preacher. He is a quiet, peaceable, unoffending, upright man. He is a clear, Scriptural, searching preacher, and generally has had. good revivals on the charges on which he has labored.

He is now preaching in the Free Methodist Church in Iowa.

Rev. J. A. Wells had been seven years a successful preacher in the Genesee Conference. He was a good, able preacher, studious in his habits, entirely given up to the work of God, a man of honest intention and unbending integrity. He is now, we believe,. pastor of the Presbyterian church at Springville.

THE LAYMEN'S CONVENTION held its second annual session in the Baptist church, at Albion, Nov. 1st and 2d, 1859, Hon. Abner I. Wood was chosen President; George W. Holmes, John Billings, Jonathan Handly, Edward P. Cox and S. C. Springer, Vice-presidents; and S. K. J. Chesbrough, Stephen S. Rice, Wm. Hart and Thomas Sully, Secretaries.

The Convention said:

" When we met last year in Convention we trusted that the preachers, whose course was the cause of our assembling, would be led to repentance and reformation. But our hopes have been blasted. The Scripture is still true, which saith, that ` evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.'

That we have the right to take into consideration the public acts of a public body to which we are intimately related, cannot be denied. That such consideration has become our duty we are well satisfied. Our Lord has given us the test, ` By their fruits ye shall know them.' What has been the fruits for the past year of the party in Conference, known as the ' Buffalo Regency?" Have they been such as we should expect from men of God? We are pained to be obliged to bear testimony to the fact that some occupying the place of Methodist ministers have used their influence, and bent their energies to put down under the name of ' fanaticism,' what we feel confident is the work of the Holy Spirit.

The course pursued by some of our preachers, in expelling from the church, members in good standing, and high repute for their Christian character, because they attended our Convention in December last we look upon as cruel and oppressive, and it calls for our most decided disapproval. What does the right of private judgment amount to, if we can not exercise it without bringing down on our heads these ecclesiastical anathemas? To our brethren who have been so used, we extend our cordial sympathy, and we assure them that our confidence in them has not diminished on account of their names being cast out as evil for the Son of man's sake. The action of the majority, in expelling from the Conference and the church, four able and devoted ministers, and locating two others, upon the most frivolous pretexts, is so at variance with the principles of justice and our holy. Christianity, as to cause minor offences to be aggravated, when they would otherwise be overlooked. The charge against each was the convenient one of contumacy.' The specifications were in substance, the receiving as ministers those who were expelled at the previous session of the Conference, and for preaching in the bounds of other men's charges. Where in the Bible, or in the discipline, is ` contumacy,' spoken of as a crime? It is a charge generally resorted to for the purpose of oppression. Let whatever the dominant power in the church may be pleased to call ' contumacy' be treated as a crime, religious liberty is at an end. There is not an honest man in the Conference but may be expelled for ` contumacy,' whenever, by any means, a majority can be obtained against him. There is not a member of the M. E. Church, who acts from his own convictions of right, but may be excommunicated for " contumacy," whenever his preacher is disposed to do so. Let some mandate be issued that cannot in conscience be obeyed, and the ' guilt of contumacy is incurred. The Regency party not only expelled devoted servants of God for contumacy, but did it under the most aggravated circumstances. An Annual Conference possesses no power to make laws. A resolution with a penalty affixed for its violation, is to all intents and purposes a law. The Regency passed resolutions at the last session of the Conference, and then tried and expelled men for violating them months before they had an existence ! That any honest man can entertain any respect for such judicial action is utterly impossible. The specifications were in keeping with the charge. The first was for recognizing as ministers, the expelled members of the Conference. The charge was not for recognizing them as Methodist ministers; for the expelled brethren did not claim to have authority from the church. They acted simply by virtue of their commission from God. If a man believes he is called of God to preach, and God owns and blesses his labors, has he not the right thus to warn sinners to flee the wrath to come? At the second Conference held by Wesley, it was asked, ' Is not the will of our governors a law?' The answer was emphatic—` no not of any governors, temporal or spiritual. Therefore if any Bishop wills that I should not preach the Gospel, his will is no law to me. But what if he produced a law against your preaching? I am to obey God rather than man.' This is the language of the founder of Methodism. How it rebukes the arrogant, popish assumptions of some of the pretended followers of Wesley.

The second specification was for preaching in other men's charges without their consent.

Where is there anything wrong in this?—What precept of the Bible, what rule of the discipline is violated? Does it not evidence the faithful minister of Jesus, burning with love for souls, rather than the criminal deserving the highest censure of the church? Methodist ministers are bound by their obligations to serve the charges to which they are appointed by the Conference: but they do not promise that they will not preach !any where else. On the contrary, the commission from Christ reads, ' Go ye into all the world and preach the Gospel to every creature.' The discipline says, ' You have nothing to do but to save souls; therefore, spend and be spent in this work; and go always, not only to those who want you, but to those who want you most. Observe, it is not your business only to preach so many times, and to take care of this or that society, but to save as many as you can; to bring as many sinners as you can to repentance, and with all your power to build them up in that holiness, without which they cannot see the Lord.' On this ground, were these men of God, as we esteem them, Revs. Loren Stiles, Jr., John A. Wells, Wm. Cooley, and Charles D. Burlingham excommunicated by the Regency party of the Genesee Conference at its last session. Fidelity to God will not allow us to quietly acquiesce in such decisions. It is urged that we must respect the action of the church. But what is the church? Our 13th article of religion says, ' The visible church of God is a congregation' of faithful men, in which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered.' The ministers then are not ' the church.' If ministers wish to have their acts respected, they must, like other men, perform respectable actions.

These repeated acts of expulsions, wrong as they are in themselves, deserve the stronger condemnation from the fact, scarcely attempted to be disguised, that THE OBJECT is to prevent the work of holiness from spreading among us—to put down the life and power of godliness in our churches, and to inaugurate in its stead the p3aceable reign of a cold and heartless formalism. in short, to do away with what has always been a distinctive feature of Methodism. If the work which the men who were expelled both this year and last, have labored, and not without success to promote, be ' fanaticism,' then has Methodism from the beginning been ' fanaticism.' Our attachment to Methodism was never stronger than it is at present, and our sympathy and our means shall be given to the men who toil and suffer to promote We can not abandon, at the bidding of a majority, the doctrines of Methodism, and the men who defend them.

The course of the Regency in shielding members of their faction, create the suspicion that a stronger motive than any referred to lies at the foundation of their remarkable action, the principle of self preservation. It may be that the guilty, to prevent exposure, deem it necessary to expel the innocent. Their refusal to entertain charges; and their prompt acquittal of one of their leaders, though clearly proved guilty of a crime sufficient to exclude him from heaven,. look strongly in that direction. The recent public exposure in another Conference of one of the founders of the Regency party, who took a transfer, to escape from well founded suspicion, shows how a minister may pursue, unconvicted, a career of guilt for years, when ` shielded' by secret society influences, and willing to be the servile tool of the majority.. —For the evils complained of we see no other remedy within our reach, than the one we adopted last year: WITHHOLD SUPPLIES. To show, that such a remedy is ` constitutional' and ' loyal,' we have only to refer to the `proceedings ' of the Convention of last year and to the authorities therein quoted."

The Convention unanimously passed resolutions expressing the utmost confidence in the preachers who had been expelled, assuring them of the sympathy of the people, and encouraging them to " continue to labor for the promotion of the work of God and the salvation of souls, and added:

" That, in Order to keep our people who are being oppressed by the misrule of the dominant faction in the Genesee Conference from being scattered, and finally lost to our church, we recommend our brethren in the ministry to gather our people into Bands, and to encourage them to union of action and effort in the work of the Lord."

A committee was also appointed to prepare a memorial to the General Conference asking for a correction of the abuses complained of in the action of the Genesee Conference.

A few weeks after this LAYMEN'S CONVENTION was held, a letter was circulated among the so-called " Regency. " preachers, encouraging them in their policy. To the copy that has been furnished us, no name is appended; but the author of the original is understood to be no less a personage than a Bishop. We do not assume to know, but we give a copy of the letter, and the reader can form his own judgment ill the case. To us it certainly reads as if written by one who felt that he had a right to speak with authority.

" January 3, 1860.

DEAR BROTHER:

A happy New Year to you. My advice is decided that you should remove every leader, who takes part in the Albion Convention, or any of a similar character. Do not be deterred by threats of difficulty, or of leaving the church. Better have no members than disorderly ones.. The world is wide. Sinners are numerous. We will go with the Gospel to them, and God will give us fruit. I repeat then, by all means, stand firmly by the action of the church. Remove every leader who arrays himself against it, no matter what may be his influence, or how great his usefulness, or how it may affect your congregation, or how it will result in the end.

As to private members, I would do nothing while they do not engage in opposition meetings. But if they get up and sustain meetings for expelled preachers, or resist church action, J would cite them to trial, after proper admonition.

Let me again assure you, that the safety of the church is in straight Forward action."

Yours truly,

** For these resolutions see page 245

*** Referring to Fay H. Purdy's Tent Meeting.