LAYMEN' S CONVENTION.

These violent expulsions naturally created intense excitement all over the Conference. Articles upon the subject appeared in many of the papers, religious and secular, nearly all, except those written in the interest of the majority, condemning the action of the Conference. Quarterly conferences and official boards passed resolutions expressing their sense of the great wrong which had been committed.

At length, Isaac M. Chesbrough, of Pekin, Niagara County, N.Y., suggested the. holding of a convention of representative brethren from those societies within the bounds of the Genesee Conference which were opposed to its oppressive action.

He was an old Methodist of fifty years standing, a man of great intelligence, sound judgment, unbending integrity and large experience in the world. Ile was always ready to succor the distressed, to encourage the desponding, and to stand by the oppressed. He saw quickly through mere pretensions, abhorred hypocrisy and shams, and was not afraid to act up to his convictions. His proposal met with general favor. A call for a convention was made, signed by over one hundred of the leading men of twenty-two circuits and stations.

In answer to the call, one hundred and ninety five leading men, from forty-seven circuits and stations, met at Albion, December 1st, 1858, for the purpose of holding a convention. A layman' s love feast was held in the M. E. Church the first evening, which was a service of great interest. The Convention was held in Kingsland Hall.

HON. ABNER I. WOOD was chosen President; I. M. Chesbrough, G. W. Holmes, S. C. Springer, G. C. Sheldon, J. H. Brooks, George Bascom and C. Sanford, Vice-Presidents; S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle and J. A. Latta were chosen Secretaries.

A committee on resolutions was appointed, composed of S. K. J. Chesbrough, W. H. Doyle, G. W. Estes, S. S. Rice, John Billings, A. Ames and J. Handly. They brought in a report setting forth in plain terms the grievances of which they complained, which, after being ably discussed, was unanimously adopted.

In speaking of the expulsions, they said:

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

In reference to the article written by Rev. B. T. Roberts, which was made the basis of the Conference action, they say:

" The candor and good spirit of his article is apt parent. We have ourselves heard different preachers in sympathy with the "Regency party" set forth views similar to those ascribed to them in " New School Methodism."

Respecting the "fanaticism" which these men and others were charged with promoting, they said:

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

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

Of the impossibility of bringing accused Regency " preachers to justice, they said:

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

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

From standard works written in defense of the Methodist polity, they show that, while in that church the laity had no voice in making and administering the laws, yet they were understood to have had an effectual remedy against clerical oppression, in their power to withhold support from unworthy preachers.

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

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

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

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

We quote from an Essay on Church Polity, by Rev. Abel Stevens, LL. D. This book has been adopted by the General Conference as a text book in the course of study for young preachers. Hence, it is of the highest authority. Dr. Stevens says, 'Church Polity, page 162.' What check have the people on this machinery? It is clear that as the preachers appoint the Bishops, and the Bishops distribute the preachers, the people should check the whole plan by a counterbalance upon the whole ministerial body. This is provided in the most decisive form that it could possibly assume, namely, the power of pecuniary supplies. No stipulated contract for support exists in the Methodist economy. The discipline allows a certain support, but does not enforce it; and no Methodist preacher can prosecute a civil suit for his salary. The General Conference disclaims all right to tax the property of our members.

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

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

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

' Dr. Bond in his Economy of Methodism page 35, says;

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

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

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

In describing the origin of the Convention they say:

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

The following were the resolutions of general importance adopted.

" Resolved, That we have the utmost confidence in Brothers B. T. Roberts and Joseph McCreery, not withstanding their expulsion from the Conference, ranking them, as we do, among the most pure and able ministers of the New Testament.

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

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

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

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

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

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

These earnest, dignified utterances of this large, respectable body of Christian men, produced a profound impression upon the community.

The Orleans American, of Albion, in an editorial of Dec. 9, 1858, besides giving an account of the officers, and of the business done, said:

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

In accordance with the recommendation of this convention, Brother McCreery and myself went throughout the Conference, in the name of Christ, holding meetings, and laboring for the salvation of souls. But we were careful to state that we claimed no authority. from the M. E. Church to hold meetings that we did as we were doing, at the call of Christ, on our own responsibility as men and as Christians. We not only announced this in the public congregations, but in the March following our expulsion, I published the following in the Northern Independent:

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

But it is not too much to say that the dominant party were greatly excited. The Buffalo Advocate and the Northern Advocate seemed to vie with each other in pouring upon us, and upon all who gave us aid and comfort, a steady tirade of abuse. Or. Hibbard treated us with great consideration until a clear majority was obtained against us. Then he went to every length to vindicate every act of the majority, and to create public sentiment against those whom they had proscribed.

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

By means of these organs, and such other papers as, through secret society influence they could control, our opposers kept flowing an incessant stream of exaggeration, and misrepresentation.

A prominent member of the East Genesee Conference said of them in the Northern Independent:

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

The editor of the Northern Independent, who could not be awed into silence, spoke of the Conference action with his wonted courage and sound sense. In one of his editorials, he said:

"THE ADVOCATE'S COURSE.

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

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

Rev. Hiram Matteson, D. D., wrote:

" who does not remember that just before the last General Conference Brother Hibbard had several long articles in the Christian Advocate, in advocacy of the very doctrines that he now calls ' Nazaritism.' "

Rev. C. D. Burlingham said:

The Advocate is doing its best to maintain its current reputation. For misrepresentation and abuse the Northern Christian Advocate is fully entitled to the palm. Zeal, intense zeal is usually a prominent trait in the character of a young convert.".