CHURCH TRIALS.

The old method of settling religious disputes Was, for the stronger party to burn the weaker at the stake, or throw him to the wild beasts. Persecution was one among the practices of heathenism which Constantine brought with him into the Christian church.

Through the influence of Christianity, the spirit of persecution has been restrained to such manifestations, as. slanderous reports, social ostracism, and expulsion from the church. But the spirit is the same in all ages.

The first of the partisan trials in the Gene-see Conference that took place, was that of the Rev. Joseph McCreery. He was a man of great originality, remarkable talents, and at that time deeply devoted to God. He was quiet in his manner in the pulpit, but we have seen, under his preaching, large congregations stirred to the highest pitch of excitement. He had a way of his own, of saying things, so that the people both understood and remembered them: Under his labors occured extensive and thorough revivals of religion. His father was a Methodist preacher; Dr. Samuel Luckey was his uncle, and he prided himself on his Methodist lineage. We never knew a more devoted adherent of the M. E. Church. His course re-minds us of an Irish girl, whom her Catholic mother had driven from home, because she had been among the Methodists, and become converted.

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

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

In 1854-5, he was stationed on the Lyndonville circuit. The church was very much run; down in spirituality,. and he went to work in. earnest for its recovery. He read and explained to the society the General Rules. He said he did not wish to take advantage of the ignorance-of any one, as some might not have known what they were doing when they joined the M. E. Church. He would therefore give those who did not wish to be governed by these rules, an opportunity to quietly withdraw. None left, but all pledged themselves to keep the rules. He broke up the choir or as he ex-pressed it " Drove out the doves who were billing and cooing in the gallery," and introduced congregational singing. He preached with fervor; so great was the interest, that even when' the snow-banks were higher than the fences, the people came for miles to attend the meetings. A great revival took place.

Dr. Chamberlain, a superannuated preacher, had his residence on a farm in this circuit. He was a strong man, of a metaphysical turn of mind, cold temperament, and undemonstrative in his manners. He was an advocate of the "gradual " theory of holiness. Encouraged by large appropriations from the superannuated fund, he suffered himself to be made prominent by the dominant party in Genesee Conference, in their open attacks upon those they called " Nazarites." His zeal was also quickened by the fact, that his wife, a noble woman, of strong mind, and deep, uniform piety, openly, avowedly, and very decidedly, identified herself with those who were proscribed, as " Nazarites," and -afterwards expelled.

During the year that the Rev. Mr. McCreery was on the circuit in which Dr. Chamberlain resided, the doctor wrote down a long list of the odd, characteristic expressions, which Mr McCreery had uttered in the pulpit.

As a specimen of Mr. McCreery' s sayings, we give the following. In describing church festivals then in vogue, he said: "A whiskered and blanketed black-leg will come along, and pay his quarter for the privilege of fishing a rag-baby from a grab bag."

In stating the opposition he met with in trying to bring the church back to its former simplicity and spirituality, he said: " Some of the younger boys have taken my mother, the Methodist Church, in her old age, painted her face and curled her hair, hooped her, and flounced her, and jeweled her, and fixed her up, until we could hardly tell her from a woman of the world. Now when I have taken the old lady, and washed her face, and straightened out her hair, and dressed her up in modest apparel, so that she looks like herself again, they make a great hue and cry, and call it abusing mother."

Dr. Chamberlain read to the following Conference, the sayings to which he objected, and arrested the character of the Rev. Joseph McCreery. The latter read to the Conference, the " Nazarite Documents," and his character was passed, subject to an examination before his presiding elder, of any charges which might be preferred against him.* The Rev. Loren Stiles was his presiding elder, and when the charges were presented, he ordered the trial to be held at Lyndonville, where the, alleged offences were committed, and where the witnesses lived, though It was outside of his district. At the opening of the trial, the prosecution objected to the ruling of the .chairman, and refusing to go on, the trial was abruptly brought to a close.

At the next Conference, at Medina, charges were brought against Loren Stiles for his ad-ministration in this case.

They were prosecuted by Thomas Carlton, and James M. Fuller.. At the request of brother Stiles, we acted as his counsel, and Mr. Stiles was acquitted.

The so-called " regency," up to this time had control of only two, out of the five presiding elderships, and as they had only about thirty preachers in their secret meetings, they could not control enough votes to secure his conviction. They however, as we have stated, by threats made to the Bishop, succeeded in getting both Mr. Stiles, and Mr. Kingsley, removed from the presiding eldership, and men of their own appointed in there places. At their own request, Bros. Stiles and Kingsley were trans ferred to the Cincinnati Conference. The charges against Rev. J. McCreery were with-drawn, and resolutions reflecting upon him, adopted in place of a conviction.

Complaints of a serious character were made against three of the prominent preachers of the so-called regency party of the Genesee Conference of the M. E. Church.

One of these complaints was as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The socalled regency party now became desperate in their measures. The question between the two parties had, to some of the leaders of one of these parties, become a question of life and death.

Their desperation increased when they found at the next Conference, that the Rev. Messrs. Stiles and Kingsley, in accordance with petitions signed by over fifteen hundred of the members, had been re-transferred to the Conference.

They saw that something must be done to cripple our influence, or they were still in danger of being called to account for their misdeeds. They hired a hall, and without ever being suspected, held secret meetings at night. They had now control of the presiding elders, and by letting the young,. and the unacceptable preachers understand that their appointments depended upon which party in the Conference they identified, themselves with, they succeeded in getting a majority of the Conference into these secret meetings. Then they voted, IN THIS SECRET CONCLAVE, Composed of the men who were to sit upon the jury, and whose votes were relied upon in advance to secure conviction, to bring charges against B. T. Roberts and W. C. Kendall !

My article on " New School Methodism," had just been published, and the charges against me were based on that.

I arose in Conference, and said: " I have no intention to misrepresent any one. I do 4 not think I have. I honestly think that the men - referred to, hold just the opinions I say they do. But if they do not, I shall be glad to be corrected. If they will say they do not, I will take their word for it,. make my humble confession, and, as far as possible, repair the wrong that I have done. I will publish in the Northern Independent, and in all the church papers they desire me to, from Maine to California, that I have misrepresented them."

But no one said that I had misrepresented them. They had been at great pains to get their majority, and now they must use it. As one of the preachers said, " Nazaritism must be crushed out, and we have got the tools to do it with !"

They went on with the trial. There was little to do, as I admitted that I wrote the article. In my defense I showed:

1. That it is an undisputed principle of common law, that in all actions for libel, the precise language complained of as libelous, must be set forth in the indictment.

" An indictment for libel must set forth the very words; it is not sufficient to aver that the defendant published a certain libel, the substance of which is as follows."—Brightley's Digest, Vol. II, page 1681.

" In an action for libel, the law requires the very words of the libel to be set out, in order that the court may judge whether they constitute a good ground of action.—Sergent & Rowlin's Reports, Vol. X, page 174.

2. That if you make a man responsible for the construction which his enemies put upon his words, you might condemn any man that ever wrote. Nay, you could on that principle, condemn the Saviour himself. He said that " All that came before me were thieves and robbers." Noah, Job and Daniel came before him. Therefore he slandered Noah, Job and Daniel, by calling them thieves and robbers. In fact our Saviour was condemned for the construction which his enemies put upon his words.

3. I showed that in t11 the important specifications they not only had not given my words; but they had perverted my meaning. I claim the ability to say what I mean. That the contrast between their charges and my words may be the more easily seen, we give both in parallel columns:

I explained to them so clearly that the dullest could not fail to see,

1. That men may " act as an associate body," who do not " exist as an associate body." It was true that they had a regularly organized " associate body," but I did not know it, or even suspect it, and so I did not say it.

2. That men might have a difference about what is " fundamental," about " the nature itself of Christianity," without any of them being " opposed to what is fundamental," or to the nature of Christianity. In point of fact, the Calvinists and the Arminians—the Unitarians and Trinitarians do so differ.

3. That there is a wide difference between " liberalism," " possessing charity," and looseness of religious sentiment."

4. That saying " the following sneer is not unworthy of Thomas Paine," is by no means equivalent to saying, " They sneer at Christianity in a manner not unworthy of Thomas Paine."

5. That in saying they mean by " holiness " the same as " evangelical ministers " of the other Protestant churches generally do, is by no means charging them with being " heterodox on the subject of holiness."

6. That the article from which I quote, fully sustains all I say upon the point involved in the sixth specification.

7. That in showing that if certain views of religion prevailed, " the lodge must supercede the class and the love-feasts," I did not charge them with attempting to do it, but that this would be the logical result of the teachings that I was reviewing.

8. That in calling their revivals " splendid revivals," I simply quoted from an editorial of their own organ.

9. That in saying they " treat with distrust all professions of deep, religious experience," I simply told what was notoriously true. I heard one of these preachers say, " When I hear a man profess holiness, I feel for my pocket-book." Another said, " If I should find Jesse T. Peck's book on " The Central Idea of Christianity," in my house, I would take it with the tongs and throw it into the fire "

Yet with the matter thus plainly before them, a majority of the Conference voted these specifications, (except the 4th, which was with-drawn) sustained. In doing that, every man of them voted as time what he knew to be false. We can not come to any other possible conclusion. They were not ignorant men who did not know what they were about. They were not acting hastily over a matter they did not understand. The case was fairly laid before them. They deliberately voted that I wrote what they knew I did not write.

I was sentenced to be reproved by the chair. I received. the reproof and appealed to the General Conference.

When the appointments were read out I was sent to Pekin, Niagara County. It was about the only part of the Conference in which I was a total stranger. To my knowledge I had never seen a single person belonging to my new charge.

Before I reached my appointment a prominent preacher of the opposite party had taken pains to inform them that their preacher had been convicted at the Conference of " immoral and unchristian conduct." This was also published without explanation, in the Buffalo Advocate. Of course the people were hardly willing to receive us. We doubt if any itinerant ever had a colder reception. Even Father Chesbrough,. one of the noblest of men, and staunchest and most loyal of Methodists, at first thought he would not even go to hear me. preach. " What have we done," he exclaimed, that a man convicted of immoral conduct should be sent as our preacher?" When the first, Sabbath morning that we preached there came, as he always attended church, he concluded to go, saying, " It can do no hurt to hear him once, any way." Returning from church, his son said he rode in silence over a mile and then said, "Well, Sam, I know nothing about the man, but I do know that what we have heard today is Methodism as I used to hear it in the old Baltimore Conference, and as I have not heard it preached in western New York."

Soon, a powerful revival of religion broke out, which, notwithstanding the marked indifference of the presiding elder and the open opposition of two or three of the official members, swept on with increasing power through-out the year. One of the stewards, -dissatisfied because the young people were getting converted so thoroughly as to lay aside their jewelry and their finery, while we were holding revival meetings in the church, started prayer-meetings in his house across the street. We paid no attention to them and they soon died a natural death.

Though the district camp-meeting was held but three miles from us, the presiding elder never mentioned the subject to us. But we attended, and, much to his dismay, had one of the largest tents on the ground. For three days he did not. once open the way for testimony in any public meetings before the stand, doubtless for fear that some of the Pekin pilgrims would tell what God had done for their souls. At last a sister, free in Jesus, broke through, and the tide of salvation began to run. In the intervals of meetings at the stand we kept them going in our tent, and many were there converted and many sanctified to God. Of the work on the circuit this year, a beloved brother wrote for the Northern Independent as follows:

"It can not be denied that we received to our church as our pastor, a man whom The Advocate informed us was tried and found guilty of ' immorality;' and judging from the articles which have appeared from time to time in that paper. it would seem that his opposers think ' if we let him alone, all men will believe on him;' and the only way to destroy his usefulness is to pursue him with ' slanders ' and persecutions.' A recent article in The Advocate, which descends to language unbecoming one. Christian speaking of another, is hardly worth noticing, as the shafts hurled at Brother Roberts fall far below him. The statement, however, that he was not returned to Niagara Street Church on account of his unfitness, will do well enough among those who have never heard from Brother Thomas all the facts in the case, which, thank God, there are many who understand as fully as the editor of The Advocate, and who dare to tell the whole truth when called upon.

In view, then, of all these things, the grand question to be answered is this: Has the church prospered under his labors, and has God honored his labors by bestowing his blessing upon them? We feel glad to say thatthe church, has prospered, through the blessing of God, during the year. And all the honor and glory we lay at the feet of Jesus, for without him his children can do nothing.

Though we have not been favored during the year with the ' able, impressive and appropriate prayers,' that some of the other churches have been, we feel thankful that we have had ' the effectual, fervent prayers of the righteous man, which availeth much.' Notwithstanding the many reports which have circulated to the contrary, God has been at work among the people. Between fifty and sixty have professed conversion; about forty of whom have joined on probation. The preaching has been plain, simple and pointed, and in accordance with the doctrines and discipline of the Church. The consequence has been, very many of. the members of the Church have been seen at the altar of prayer, some for justification, some for sanctification. Quite a number have publicly professed to have received the blessing of sanctification. Without an exception, every aged member in our Church has rejoiced to see the return of the days of Wesleyan Methodism, with its uncompromising and earnest spirit.

When Brother R. came among us, our Sunday noon class numbered about fifteen; now the average attendance is, and has been for some time, from seventy-five to eighty. Our prayer-meetings and week evening class meetings, and they occur every night in the week at various points on the charge, have been bet-ter sustained through ' haying and harvesting,' and have been more interesting than for years past. The Sunday School has also reached a point in attendance and interest never before attained in its history. There are scores in the Church to-day, who feel to thank God for having sent him among us.

S. K. J, CHESBROUGH.

SOUTH PEKIN, Sept. 24, 1858."