Before the time arrived for the second Laymen’s Convention at Albion the Genesee Conference had sent a number more of its preachers to the ecclesiastical block. Two of them, J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth, were disposed of by locating them. Four others, namely, Loren Stiles, Jr., John A. Wells, William Cooley and C. D. Burlingham, were “expelled on trivial, trumped-up charges, after the mockery of a trial, at the Conference held at Brockport, in 1859.”

     This session of the Conference was held in October, less than a month before the time fixed for the holding of the second annual Laymen’s Convention. During the year no stone had been left unturned, no opportunity had been unimproved, by the “Regency” faction to destroy the influence of the men expelled at the preceding session. All these efforts, however, had ended in signal failure. Notwithstanding the fact that those men went forth to labor for God under the ban of Conference expulsion, and stigmatized as both “unchristian and immoral,” they were never more cordially received by the Christian public, nor did they ever have a wider and more effective hearing, than during this year. The blessing of God followed them wherever they went, and “the word of the Lord grew mightily and prevailed.”

     The determination to crush out “Nazaritism” had never been more manifest, or more iniquitous in its methods and measures, than during this year. The Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Christian Advocate more than maintained their usual reputation for the vilification of all such as would not bow with servile deference to the will of the dominant faction. Their columns teemed with articles of the most inflammatory character appealing to their constituencies to make an utter end of the Nazaritism” still remaining in the Conference. Hence, when the session met, the majority had come together ready to execute any measures proposed by their leaders, in order that the work of extermination might be consummated.

     This spirit of bitter hostility was kindled to a consuming flame by the demonstration which they witnessed on convening. The Rev. Fay H. Purdy, a well-known evangelist of the Methodist Episcopal Church, had pitched a large tabernacle in the outskirts of the town, yet within sight and almost within hearing of the Church where the Conference was to be held, and was engaged in a series of evangelistic services which were to continue throughout the Conference session. The tabernacle would accommodate about 3,000 people. About it were several rows of family and society tents, occupied by “a large number of intelligent, devoted, earnest Christians, who were stigmatized by the dominant party as ‘Nazarites.’” This clearly showed that “Nazaritism” was not so nearly extinct as its enemies had hoped and supposed. It was not even weakened, much less destroyed.

     The defenders of vital godliness in the Conference were aware from the beginning that extreme measures would be adopted at this session, and were ready to face whatever might be their fate. However, for unblushing audacity, for Jesuitical diplomacy, and for Pharisaic madness, in trampling upon the rights of members and dishonoring both human and divine law, the action of the majority far exceeded their anticipations. The capacity of the “Regency” for injustice in the name of righteousness had been underestimated. It was supposed that they would at least feel under some obligation to honor the Constitution of the Methodist Episcopal Church, yet even this was ruthlessly overridden. That Constitution allows to the Annual Conferences no legislative powers. The General Conference is the only properly constituted law-making body in Methodism. The Annual Conferences may execute such of its laws as, by constitutional provision, fall within their province; but they can neither legislate, give to their own enactments the force of law, nor affix penalties for their violation. To attempt any of these things is to usurp the prerogatives belonging to the General Conference alone.

     The Genesee Conference at this session, however, usurped the authority of a law-making body, and, on the second day of the Session, passed the following “resolutions,” the first four of which were intended to force the preachers who sympathized with their expelled brethren to cease from public manifestations of such sympathy, and the fifth of which was designed to make any who should violate the enactments of the first four answerable to the Conference therefor, and subject to expulsion:
 

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

2nd. 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.

3rd. 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.

     Having passed the foregoing resolutions, the Conference proceeded to make them a test in examining the characters of the preachers. The characters of such as would promise to be governed by the resolutions were passed, while those who would not so promise were put on trial and expelled, unless they chose to locate. Bishop Simpson presided over the Conference session, and was reported as having given the test resolutions his emphatic approval. Having passed these enactments, and that with the Bishop’s approval, the Conference was now prepared for desperate measures in dealing with “Nazarites” and “Nazaritism.” As to what those measures were to be, the sequel will unfold.

     Acting in harmony with the spirit of the test resolutions the Bishop ordered a number of preachers who had come from other Conferences to assist Mr. Purdy in his meetings to refrain from taking further part in them. Some of them did as ordered; but the Rev. D. W. Thurston, a Presiding Elder from the Cortland district of the Oneida Conference, still continued to labor with Mr. Purdy as before. The Bishop called him before a committee and admonished him, but the admonition was unheeded.

     It was evident that the test resolutions had been adopted as a convenient measure for bringing “Nazarite” preachers and their sympathizers to punishment. Accordingly, under their operations, J. W. Reddy and H. H. Farnsworth were located, while Loren Stiles, Jr., John A. Wells, William Cooley and Charles D. Burlingham, refusing to submit to such tyrannical rule as the Genesee Conference had assumed, were placed on trial and expelled from the Conference and from the Church.

     The following is a copy of the bill of charges prosecuted against the Rev. Loren Stiles, Jr.:
 

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

I. With falsehood.

     In testifying in the case of B. T. Roberts, at the session of our Conference held at Perry, October 6, 1858, that he did not receive or read the proof sheet of a document printed at Brockport, signed George 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.

II. With contumacy.

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

2. 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. WENTWOETH.

     The first of these charges was evidently made as an attempt to smirch his reputation and “blacken his character.” For lack of evidence, however, it could not be sustained, and the majority were constrained to vote him acquitted of that charge. Thus was he providentially preserved from having the stain of falsehood put upon him by his enemies.

     Regarding the prosecution of the second charge and its specifications General Superintendent B. T. Roberts has left on record the following, the truth of which has never been called in question so far as we can ascertain:
 

     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 defense 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 smaller 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 preacher’s 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 ? [1]

     The Rev. Charles D. Burlingham was another who was required to answer before this session of the Genesee Conference to a charge of “Contumacy,” under which were three specifications, intended to sustain the charge. The charges were preferred by the Rev. D. F. Parsons. Mr. Burlingham prepared a paper and presented the same to the Conference as his defense against his accusers. It was entitled, “A Statement by C. P. Burlingham to the Gene-see Conference, responding to a charge and specifications, preferred against him by Rev. D. F. Parsons.” The following extracts from it are submitted as giving the best available light on the case:
 

BROCKPORT, October 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, November 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.

     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. 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 hounds, and after receiving all the light then accessible to me, I received him on trial. 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. lie appealed. The quarterly conference, for some informality, sent the case back for a new trial, lie 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 The fifth point, in connection with all the others, furnishes evidence of net 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 can not 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 f or 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.

     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.

     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 Ransomville, 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 be at 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 Ransomvilie, 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. 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.

     Does not the foregoing commend itself to the reader as an admirable and complete defense? Does it not breathe the spirit of candor and genuine piety, as well as of loyalty to the Church? Would not such a statement have cleared him before any unprejudiced deliberative body, secular or religious? And yet such was the state of things in the Genesee Conference that his defense was listened to as an idle tale; and, having predetermined him for judgment, and also having the votes with which to execute their purpose, the majority voted him guilty, and then inflicted upon him the severest punishment within their power—expulsion from the Conference and from the Methodist Episcopal Church! How much further they might have gone had the law permitted, can only be conjectured.

[1] “Why Another Sect?’ pp. 222-225.