THE APPEALS.

In the Methodist Episcopal Church, the General Conference is the Court of Appeals, in the case of ministers.

Of the General Conference held in 1860, large expectations were entertained. It was not doubted by the people at large but that justice would be done in the several appeals that had been made for their decision. At first, everything looked favorable. Fifteen hundred members had petitioned them to give to the Genesee Conference difficulties a fair, full, and impartial investigation, and to apply such remedies as in their wisdom they might judge right and proper. When these petitions were presented, the delegates from the Genesee Conference professed to desire a rigid examination into all their acts.

" We have done right," said Rev. James M. Fuller, " and are not afraid to have our conduct looked into. We want the troubles probed to the bottom." At the close of his speech he moved that the petitions be referred, to a special committee of nine, to be appointed by the chair !

As it was apparent that the object of this motion was to prevent an impartial scrutiny into Genesee Conference affairs, after an animated discussion it was voted down, and the matter was referred to a special committee, to be composed of one from each Conference, each delegation to select its own member. The committee was appointed, and the petitions and memorials were referred to it. All felt that the committee was an able and impartial one, and confidence was strong that justice would be done at last.

A few days after this committee was appointed, the Rev. William Reddy offered a resolution authorizing this committee to investigate fully the nature and origin of the Genesee Conference difficulties, giving them access to all the official papers, with power to avail themselves of any reliable information, at their discretion.

This resolution was stoutly opposed by the delegates from the Genesee Conference. James M. Fuller denied the power of the General Conference to overhaul the papers of the Genesee Conference, or to appoint special committees to pry into their proceedings. His Conference " would not submit, unless compelled to it, to any star-chamber investigations !" His tone was exactly the opposite of that which he had assumed a few days before, when he doubtless expected to get a committee of a different complexion. He moved that the special committee be discharged ! He said that in politics he was a state's rights man, and in religious matters, he was a Conference rights man.

Rev. Henry Slicer of the Baltimore Conference, supported Mr. Fuller's motion, in a violent speech, of the plantation style. He talked about " star-chamber " proceedings, and maintained the right of Genesee Conference to be let alone. F. G. Hibbard, W. H. Goodwin, W. Cooper of the Philadelphia Conference, and G. Hildt, of East Baltimore, spoke in the same strain.

Dr. Peck moved the previous question. Debate was cut off, and the committee discharged !

It was evident to the dullest, that in the interval since this special committee was appointed, powerful influences had been secretly at work among the delegates, in favor of the controlling party in the Genesee Conference. Suspicions of corrupt combinations were aroused in the minds of many. The memorials and petitions which had been referred to this special committee, were referred to the committee on Itinerancy —a committee which had all the routine business to do that it could well attend to; and it is doubtful if the chief memorial was even read. Nothing that could be called an investigation was had, and the matter was given the go-by, as was doubtless intended.

The action of the General Conference in an appeal case that came before it, from one of the Ohio Conferences, weakened still further, confidence in its integrity, as a body. A member of that Conference had been expelled, the daily papers said, for licentious conduct with nine young ladies of his congregation. When a knowledge of his guilt came before the public, he left that part of the state, and went into business. His presiding elder wrote to him to come back and stand a trial. He did so. Both were high Masons. This presiding elder was elected a delegate, we believe. Such was the reputation of this expelled preacher for his profligate manners, that though he had formerly been stationed in Buffalo, it was said that not a Methodist family was willing to receive him. His appeal was heard, and he was. promptly restored !

Meeting Brother Purdy soon after this decision was announced, we said to him, " There is. hope for us. A W. has been restored."

" O ! " said he, in his peculiar way, " That won't help your cases any. A. W. has been loyal ! He has not even had family prayer or asked a blessing since he was turned out. He has been loyal! "

We endeavored to have our appeals come before the Conference as a body. We knew that in the selection of a committee, our opponents would have every advantage. They knew how the members in general stood affected in relation to the issues that were between us. We did not.

A Court of Appeals was organized. It consisted of one delegate from each Conference, selected by the respective delegations. The right of challenge for cause was awarded. to both parties. At least two-thirds of the whole must hear each case, a majority of whom should decide it. Their decision in all matters coming before them was to have the same force as the decision of the General Conference, as a body.

Before this tribunal our appeal cases were presented.

My first case, in which I appealed from the decision of the Genesee Conference, reproving me for saying, in my article entitled " New School Methodism," what I do not say, was entertained. After hearing the documents read and the case presented, the committee were equally divided on the question of affirming the decision of the General Conference ! They stood evenly balanced in judgment whether a Methodist minister should, or should not, be held responsible for the perversion which his enemies might put upon his language ! In civil courts the Judge instructs the jury to give the prisoner the benefit of a doubt. In this religious court the Bishop decided that a failure to acquit was a conviction, and therefore the sentence of the Genesee Conference must stand affirmed !

When the next appeal case came up, I began to exercise my right of challenging for cause, members of the committee. Two were set aside. I was not then allowed to challenge any farther, though I assigned as the cause, that those objected to had published hostile articles against me in the papers. My objections were over-ruled. I have been credibly informed that it was the evident unfairness of the committee towards me in the outset that made one Bishop vacate the chair, because he did not wish to be a party to the wrong.. A Bishop of strong pro-slavery proclivities took his place.

Our opposers evidently felt that so great was the lack of evidence to sustain the charges on which they expelled us, that even this committee could not be depended upon to sustain their verdict. Notwithstanding all their professions of a desire to have the action of the Genesee Conference reviewed by the General Conference, they directed all their energies to prevent the appeals from being entertained. They had already secured the discharge of the special committee appointed to investigate Genesee Conference affairs. If now they could shut out the appeals, their action would stand unexamined and unrebuked by the highest authority in the church. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved -- John iii., 20.

The efforts at suppression were successful.

The majority voted not to entertain 'my appeal from the verdict of the Genesee Conference, sentencing me to expulsion from the church. Why the same committee should hear my appeal from the sentence of reproof, and, a few days later refuse to entertain my appeal from the sentence of expulsion, remains among the unsolved mysteries.

As their final decision was announced, I said, " I APPEAL TO GOD AND THE PEOPLE."

As the appeal cases came up one after another, the. committee voted not to entertain them, with the single exception of the appeal of Mr. Burlingham.

Bishop Simpson, who took a lively interest in these proceedings, assigns as the reason for this action, " As they had declined to recognize the authority of the church, and had continued to exercise their ministry and to organize societies, .the General Conference declined to entertain the appeal."

These statements are NOT TRUE. We had not declined to recognize the authority of the church. Our bringing our appeals was a recognition of its authority. So was also the act of joining on probation. I do not know a single particular in which we failed of a proper recognition of church authority.

We did not " continue to exercise our ministry." We did not perform a single function peculiar to the minister of the Gospel. We married none we baptized none we did not administer or help administer the sacrament of the Lord's supper. We did no more than the discipline of the M. E. Church says is expected of all Who have " a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and to be saved from their sins," —manifested that desire, as it says we should, by "doing good " to the souls of men, " by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all 'we have any intercourse with." That was all we did. Was the Bishop unwilling that we should, when out of the church, make an honest effort to save our souls

In one sense, we did not organize societies—in another we did. In the sense of a local church, connected with other local churches we did not organize any. But we did organize " praying bands " after the model furnished in the old discipline, and similar to the " holiness bands " now becoming somewhat common in the M. E. Church.

At Buffalo, when we went there, there was a Free Methodist Episcopal Church in which the seats were neither rented nor sold. It was located on 13th street; and was owned by Mr. Jesse Ketchum, a Congregationalist, who freely gave the use of it to the Methodists. It was a mission feeble in numbers and influence. Mr. Edward P. Cox, who was put in charge of the building by Mr. Ketchum, invited us to hold a meeting there one week day evening when there was no appointment. We consented. The presiding elder, and other preachers told Mr. Cox that if he permitted us to speak there, they would take away the preacher and the missionary appropriation. Mr. Cox was an Englishman, and was not to be driven in that way. He said "they could do as they liked; the house would be open for Mr. Roberts at the time." They were as good as their word. As common humanity would dictate, I looked after these deserted ones, held meetings in the church, and many were saved. A free-seated church was needed in Buffalo, and had we been restored, the society would doubtless have been taken back with us.

Mr. Stiles had formed a church at Albion, but as he took no appeal he had a perfect right to do it.

But even if Bishop Simpson' s statements were true, they would not constitute a valid reason why our appeals should not be heard upon their merits. We were only claiming the rights that were solemnly promised us by the M. E. Church in its book of, discipline when we united with it. In the very constitution of the church is an article which says of the General Conference:

THEY SHALL NOT DO AWAY THE PRIVILEGES of our ministers or preachers of trial by a committee and of an appeal.

This prohibition is general. It does not say they shall not do it in some particular way, but they shall not do it at all. It does not say they shall not do it under some pretexts but they shall not do it under any pretext whatever. They shall not do it by hostile enactments, or by precedents, or by arbitrary refusals to hear appeals.

The only condition contained in the discipline was in these words—" Provided, nevertheless, that in all the above mentioned cases of trial and conviction, an appeal to the ensuing General Conference shall be allowed if the condemned person signifies his intention to appeal, at the time of his condemnation, or at any time thereafter when he is informed thereof." There is only one condition here expressed. No one claimed that this condition had not been met. If there is any meaning in language then, a General Conference administering these laws had no right to refuse to allow an appeal. In doing it, they violated, in the interest of wrong, the plainly expressed written constitution of the church.

This law did not give a General Conference original jurisdiction over preachers. They had no right to try us, but our appeal cases. The question for them to decide was: Were those men fairly tried according to the discipline? Did the law and the facts justify the verdict of the Genesee Conference in these several cases?

If we had violated the laws of the church after our expulsion, then the Genesee Conference could, if we were restored, try us for such violation.

Nor should our appeals have been injured by our joining the church again on probation. A few years previous to these difficulties, the Chautauqua Presbytery deposed a minister. He joined the Methodists; after awhile was licensed, and preached among them several years. The Presbytery afterwards becoming satisfied of his innocence, restored him to his ministerial standing, though he was at the time an accredited minister of another denomination. They told him they wished, as far as they could, to repair the wrong they had done him, and he was at liberty to remain in which ever church he chose. He went back to the Presbyterians.

Concerning these appeal cages, the Rev. William Hosmer wrote:

The General Conference assumes powers which do not belong to it, when they make the right to have an appeal heard depend upon anything the appellant has done since the decision from which he appeals.

In doing this, they must first try the appellant upon his general conduct since his trial from the decision of which he appeals, in order to determine. whether his appeal shall be entertained or not ! But the Discipline does not give the General Conference original jurisdiction over any of the ministers except the Bishops. They have no more right than Judge Lynch has, to try a preacher unless his case comes before them on an appeal, and then they must be confined to the testimony taken in the lower court.

If the conduct of an expelled preacher pending his appeal, has not been correct, let him, if unjustly deposed, be restored, and then he is responsible to his Conference for his actions while suspended. The General Conference is authorized to try appeal cases, but not preachers. For them to undertake to do that, is an unwarrantable and odious assumption of power.

What does the right of appeal amount to, if the security of its exercise depends upon the prejudice or caprice of a majority of a committee !

The appeal of Mr. Roberts should have been heard, because the majority was committed against him BEFORE ANY COMPLAINT WAS MADE OR CHARGE PREFERRED.

There is' nothing guarded with greater jealousy by the common law, than the impartiality of juries. A person put on trial before its tribunals, may challenge all day " for cause." Let it be shown that the jury had, by any acts, committed themselves before the trial, and the verdict, would be set aside.

The necessity of an impartial jury is as great in ecclesiastical as in criminal trials when character, as when life is at stake. The credit of religion, as well as the security of the individual, demands no less. A verdict obtained by connivance, or by partisan excitement, is none the more to be respected because it was rendered under religious forms, by men professing godliness.

It is well known that at the time of these trials, the Genesee Conference was divided into two parties; —that this partisan feeling, which had existed for years, was wrought up to the greatest intensity that at the Conference which instituted the first of these trials, the party opposed to the appellant for the first time became a majority, several of the opposite party having been transferred to other Conferences and that it was by this accidental, excited and thoroughly partisan majority that Mr. Roberts was tried. This being the case, and the trial resulting as it did, if there ever was an instance where the corrective agency of an appellate court was needed, that case was the one under consideration.

If there is any analogy between an ecclesiastical court and a civil court, then the necessity was even greater than we have stated, and so far from not entertaining the appeal, the court should have annulled the previous trial, and sent the case back for a new investigation, if a trial was judged to be necessary. But, admitting the validity of the action of the court below, we see not how it was possible for this appellate court to refuse to entertain the appeal. The hearing of cases is not optional with such a court an appeal always lies if the party appealing gives due notice of his intention, and is on hand to prosecute his claims. Not to entertain an appeal is, therefore, a palpable dereliction from duty; and, in this instance, it was equivalent to saying that, so far as these expelled brethren were concerned, there should be na appellate court in the M. E. Church thus practically annihilating one of the most important branches of our judiciary, and rendering it forever impossible to correct the errors of the court below. Well might the appellant stand aghast at such treatment, and make his appeal to God and the people. The judicial infatuation which has rendered it necessary to transfer this and other like cases, from an earthly to a heavenly tribunal, we deplore, but cannot help. The deed is done, and, with all its appalling consequences, the record must go up to God. We have the satisfaction of knowing that we have not been awed by authority, nor terrified by threats, into silence in the presence of such wrongs. The senseless, shameless cry of "Nazaritism," we fling back with the hearty contempt which it merits. Those who indulge `in this low style of abuse, should remember that there 'are people in the world who are not afraid of slang, and who will not desert the innocent because malice, for the accomplishment of its own purposes, heaps upon them disparaging epithets. To defend the injured should be regarded as a virtue, not as a crime; and whatever the meaning or the madness of persecution may inflict, we had far rather share it with the oppressed, than betray them to the clutches of a relentless tyranny."

The action of the General Conference, in the case of Rev. C. D. Burlingham, was a still greater insult to justice and to common sense. His case was sent back for a new trial when there was nothing to try ! But we prefer to give the comments of the Northern Independent on the case:

That the Court of Appeals, constituted by the last General Conference, did not do its work so' as to secure either divine or human respect, is a conclusion forced upon us by every view we have been able to take of the subject. Gladly would we pass by these judicial proceedings without further notice, if it were allowable, but they are of too serious a character, and will be found too far reaching in their consequences, to admit of silent acquiescence. Ecclesiastical courts are not famous for liberality and justice, but we believe the courts of Methodism have not generally sunk to the level indicated by the trial of these appeals.

First in order, was the case of Rev. C. D. Burlingham. He was expelled from the Genesee Conference, and from the M. E. Church, for doing three things:

1st. Admitting B. T. Roberts into the church on trial.

2d. Licensing him to exhort.

3d. Officiating with expelled preachers at a general quarterly meeting held in a Wesleyan church, at the same time that his presiding elder was holding a regular quarterly meeting in the same charge, about three miles distant. Mr. Burlingham admitted the facts alleged, but pleaded other facts in justification.

These were the only offences with which Mr. Burlingham was charged.

After his expulsion, he waited silently for the General Conference. He did not preach, nor lecture, nor exhort—did not attend meetings held by expelled preachers—but did penance up to the session of the General Conference. He should have been restored on the ground of having expiated his guilt, if he were guilty of any ordinary offence, if on no other. When his appeal came up, Mr. Fuller, who has been chief prosecutor in all these trials, challenged several of the committee who had manifested a desire to have Genesee Conference matters fairly investigated. Though the General Conference, in constituting the committee, or Court of Appeals, had given to parties the right to challenge for cause, yet Mr. Fuller, after the first instance, was not required to give cause, but challenged as many as he chose, and they were set aside. He simply said of the challenged, that " he considered them prejudiced."

Mr. Olin, of the Oneida Conference, managed the case for Mr. Burlingham with consummate tact, and great ability. His plea was a masterly effort, and carried conviction to the minds we believe, of all who heard it, except the committee. They sent the case. back to the Genesee Conference for a new trial. This we regard as a remarkable decision. Neither party asked for it. We never heard before of a case being remanded for a new trial, unless there was some alleged informality in the court below, or defect in the record, or unless one or the other of the parties claimed to have new testimony which could not be introduced into the first trial. But nothing of the kind was intimated in this case. There can be no new testimony, for Mr. Burlingham admitted all the. facts with which he was charged.

Do these facts, mentioned above, constitute a crime, for which an able minister, of spotless reputation who has served the church for over twenty years, devoting the vigor of his manhood's prime, in self sacrificing efforts to promote her interests, should be expelled? Then let the General Conference say so, that all who henceforth enter the Methodist ministry, may understand that they are expected to lay their manhood in the dust, part with the right of private judgment, and yield a servile unquestioning obedience to all the behests of their ecclesiastical superiors.

Was Mr. Burlingham, through party malignity, treated unjustly? Was he wrongfully deposed from the ministry, and excluded from the church? Then the General Conference should have restored him. This was due to him; it was due to outraged justice it was due to the M. E. Church, whose discipline, confessedly more susceptible of abuse than that of any other church in this country, has been used for the purpose of inflicting ecclesiastical oppression without a parallel, in the nineteenth century.

But the General Conference, through its committee, or Court of Appeals, after gravely listening to the testimony and pleadings, sent the case back for a new trial, without a motion to that effect, from either party. What, we ask, is there to try? There can be no issue on the facts these are admitted.

But Mr. Burlingham contends that these facts 'do not constitute a crime for which he should be deposed from the ministry, and excluded from the Church.

The Genesee Conference has said that they do. Here is the issue—who shill decide? The discipline vests the power in the General Conference—the body to try appeals. The case was properly brought before them, and they have sent it back, for the Genesee Conference to decide over again. What an absurd decision ! What an insult to Mr. Burlingham, and to common sense ! Suppose the views of law and justice entertained by the. Genesee Conference remain unchanged, and the same sentence be again pronounced against Mr. Burlingham, and he again appeals. After waiting four years for another General Conference, if he still survive, there will not only be the same reason for sending the case back for a new trial as now, but the additional one of precedent. Thus, this mockery of justice may continue ad infinitum.

This looks more like the tiger playing with the victim he intends to devour, than like a body of Christian ministers, bound by every consideration that can influence to right action, to ` judge righteous judgment.'

Another fact is worthy of especial notice. Though the decision in the case was not asked for in court by either party, yet it is precisely what partisans of the regency party of the Genesee Conference have been endeavoring for months to persuade Mr. Burlingham to consent to. These efforts were continued up to the morning of the day on which the appeal was heard. Yet neither in their pleadings,. nor at any time while the appeal was being heard, did the counsel for the Conference signify their wish that the case might be remanded for a new trial. At whose suggestion was it done? When was the suggestion made? Was there any collusion in the matter ? It is impossible for us to answer these questions. View it in whatever light you may, the whole case has a dark and suspicious aspect.

Perhaps some clue to an explanation of the strange proceedings in relation to the Genesee Conference appeal cases, may be found in the action had upon the slavery question.

The Genesee Conference has heretofore been one of the strongest anti-slavery Conferences in the connection. The proscribed party have, from the first, been uncompromising in their hostility to slavery in the Church and in the state.

The Genesee delegates to the late General Conference were on6e regarded as anti-slavery; what they are now their votes will show. We asserted last fall, that the Conference had become pro-slavery, and gave as proof the fact, that while it condemned this paper, it refused to take any action against slavery. The truth of our inference was denied by .some, but the recent course of their delegates' has made our words good. When the important question was decided in the General Conference upon a change of constitution, so as to prohibit slave-holding in the church, the delegates of the Genesee Conference voted against a change, and their vote turned the scale. And when the Genesee Conference matters carne up, the border pro-slavery delegates voted solid with the representatives of the majority of the Genesee Conference. This may be' all fair. It may be that men who, four years ago took the stump to keep slavery out of the territories, have suddenly become cons winced that it should be nestled and fostered in the bosom of the church ! We should like to know by what arguments they were converted, and when it was done ! Was this a part of a scheme to keep slaveholders in the church? Did the border delegates understand that if they voted as desired by the Genesee delegates, they would reciprocate the favor, and assist them in their extremity ? Or did this strange coincidence come about by chance?

How came the General Conference to take such action? It seems incredible that so large and respectable a body could be guilty of so great injustice. We answer:

1. The charge of doing any specified wrong is not met by claiming or conceding general respectability for the body which did it. The Congress which passed the Fugitive Slave Law was a highly respectable body. President Fillmore, who signed it, was a highly respectable man. Yet that law made every free man at the North liable to become a slave-hunter or a law-breaker.

2. This General Conference had in it a large number of Masons and Oddfellows. When it is known before hand that the Secret Society question is to be made an issue, it is an easy thing for those belonging to these societies in the various Conferences of the M. E. Church to send an unusually large proportion of their friends to a General Conference.

3. In the discipline of the M. E. Church are important rules which the preachers not only openly disregard, but teach the people to disregard. On dress, their rule forbids " the putting on of gold and costly apparel;" in practice they generally put on both, often beyond their means, and many preachers defend the practice. In church. building, the rule required them to be plain and cheap; the practice was to build as expensively as credit, and means not unfrequently obtained by pew-selling and church gambling, would permit. The result of " holding the truth in unrighteousness " is the demoralization of the conscience. The law of present expediency comes to be the rule of conduct. Policy takes the place of conscience.

4. The General Conference at Buffalo was held just before the breaking out of the civil war. The Nation and the Church were greatly agitated on the Slavery question. With many, it was the great question before the General Conference of 1860. The Genesee Conference had for years been classed as a radical abolitionist Conference. The Baltimore Conference was considered on the point of religious experience, committed to old-fashioned Methodism, but was at the same time the champion of the slave-holders in the M. E. Church. At the General Conference at Buffalo, the delegates from Baltimore and the delegates from Genesee, when these issues came up, talked and voted lovingly together. Herod and Pilate became friends. Baltimore helped Genesee to dispose of the "Nazarites;" and Genesee helped Baltimore to substitute for the rule against slave-holding, some good, but powerless advice. We do not say there was any bargain to this effect ' --we have no proof of it—but we do not believe that at that late day the Genesee delegates were really converted to pro-slavery doctrines. Nor do we believe that the border delegates were converted to the religious theories of the Genesee delegates. They still invite Fay H. Purdy, who was called the ring-leader of " the sect called Nazarites," to labor in that section.

The appeal cases were referred to a committee. Thomas Carlton had visited the Conferences as book agent, and was acquainted with the delegates generally. That he could exercise an influence in the selection of the Committee of Appeals is easily seen. That he would not scruple to do it is evident from the case mentioned by Dr. Bowen, in which Thomas Carlton bore a prominent part, as counsel for a so-called Regency preacher, accused by one of the members of the church of gross, intentional dishonesty. Before the trial commenced, Mr. Carlton had the parties agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrators. Each party was to choose two, and the four were to choose the fifth. Mr. Carlton selected two preachers; the other party, two highly respectable laymen. They could not agree upon the fifth. At length Mr. Carlton suddenly remembered that he had seen on the hotel register, (it was at Niagara Falls), the name of a preacher from New York. He would help them out. All agreed upon him. The case was heard and the preachers gave a most unrighteous verdict against the laymen. This fifth man was afterwards found out to be Thomas Canton's brother-in-law, whom he had brought there on purpose.

Of the truth of what is here affirmed there can be no question. Yet, in that case there was nothing like the inducement to unfairness that there was in the cases appealed from the decision of the Genesee Conference.

As touching the effect of the action of this General Conference held at Buffalo on the slavery question, we quote from the American Wesleyan, of March 27th, 1861:

"OFFICIAL EXPOSITION OF LAW.

In the Baltimore Conference, recently in session, the following questions were proposed to Bishop Scott, and answered by him. We are glad that after so much evasion as has filled up the history of the M. E. Church upon the anti-slavery attitude of this body, we are at last in possession of an official decision, too plain to be misunderstood. Here are the points look at them ! A slaveholder can be' admitted a member of the church,, ordained, and hold slaves for gain, and there is no discipline in the church by which to arraign him, or object to him. Can anything be more abhorrently plain than this?

The following questions were presented to the chair, and promptly answered:

1. Is there anything in the discipline which, in your judgment, would be a bar to the ordination of a local preacher holding slaves ? Answer No.

2. Anything in the discipline which, in your judgment, would operate against the admission of a slave-holder into the church? Answer—No.

3. Anything in the discipline that would justify an administrator in arraigning a slaveholder? Answer —No.

4. Is there any process authorized in the discipline by which a member can be brought to trial who holds slaves for gain? Answer —I know of no such process.