The Rev. William Cooley’s case also requires attention, since he was one of the preachers whose ecclesiastical head was sacrificed at this session of the Conference. The following complaint was lodged against him:
 

     I hereby charge Rev. William Cooley with contumacy.

     First specification.—In receiving into his pulpit and treating as a minister an expelled member of this Conference.

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

J. B. WENTWORTH.

Brockport, Oct. 14, 1859.

     Regarding the first specification the defense admitted that B. T. Roberts had once addressed the people at Kendall village, and that Joseph McCreery once addressed them at West Kendall, in both instances from the pulpit; that they had a four-days’ meeting at Kendall, which Mr. Roberts attended, though not by his (Cooley’s) request, and that at this meeting “I invited him to take part in the exercises, and to exhort ;“ also that Mr. McCreery came to a two-days’ meeting at West Kendall, uninvited, and while there “went into the pulpit and addressed the people, as he said, on his own authority.”

     The Rev. A. D. Wilbor, his Presiding Elder, was called, and testified to having had conversation with Mr. Cooley about permitting expelled ministers to speak from his pulpit, and said Cooley had admitted to him in substance what he had just admitted on the witness stand. Mr. Wilbor also testified that he admonished him, but admitted, before his testimony was concluded, that this admonitory conversation had occurred since the commencement of the present Conference session. Strange that he had not seen fit to take up disciplinary labor with the defendant before!

     Under the “second specification” the defendant admitted having preached at Mr. Purdy’s camp-meeting, but declared he had not taken part in any irregular meeting that he was aware of. He also testified that his preaching at Purdy’s meeting was before the “Resolutions” were passed by the Conference.

     The following extract from the printed report of the trial gives the sequel to the proceedings under this specification:
 

     Rev. R. E. Thomas called.—Were you present at the [1] Nazarite camp-meeting down here? I was. Did Brother Cooley take part in it? He sat on the platform; he knelt and prayed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     Cross-examined.—I have given no public expression to that effect. I did express my disapprobation at the Preachers’ Meeting at LeRoy. The defendant was not there. I think the notice of the tent-meeting was published in the Northern Christian Advocate. I supposed the meeting to be held within the bounds of the Brockport charge. -

     Rev. E. M. Buck called.—Was Purdy’s meeting in the bounds of your charge? Yes. I objected to this meeting to Purdy. I saw the notice of it

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

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

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

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

     Cross-examined.—I did not license him to exhort or preach, or anything of that kind.

     Direct testimony resumed: I did not give public notice that I had dropped him. I did report him dropped by name.

     Rev. C. P. Burlingham’s testimony, taken in Brother Stiles’ trial and admitted in this trial: “I gave B. T. Roberts license to exhort, having first received him into the Church as a probationer, which was the second Sabbath after the last Conference.”

     Soon after his trial and expulsion, Mr. Cooley wrote the following comments and explanations concerning it, which are inserted here because of the additional light they throw upon the case:  

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

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

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

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

     Who that reads the account of Mr. Cooley’s trial, and his subsequent statement concerning it, which has never been denied, can regard the action of the Conference in the case in any other light than that of Star Chamber proceedings? Was not the trial the barest mockery of justice, and the penalty an indication of persecuting wrath such as was a burning disgrace to the nineteenth century?

     The last case of expulsion we are to consider as having occurred at this session is that of the Rev. John A. Wells. He was a man against whom nothing reproachful could justly be found, or was ever sought, until it became manifest that his sympathies were with those whom the majority of his Conference sneeringly and contemptuously called, “Nazarites.” Then occasion was both sought and found against him sufficient, in the minds of the “Regency” faction, to warrant declaring him contumacious, and dealing with him accordingly. Following his trial and expulsion, he published an appeal to the general public which set forth the main facts in his case so clearly that we can do no better than to transcribe the most of it here:
 

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

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

     The Journal of the Genesee Conference for October 13, i859, contains the following record:

     “Resolved, That John A. Wells be expelled from the Genesee Conference and from the M. B. Church.”

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

     “I hereby charge Rev. J. A. Wells with—
“1st. Contumacy—in recognizing as a minister, by admitting to his pulpit, and holding religious meetings In connection with B. P. Roberts, an expelled member from this Conference.

“2nd. Disobedience to the order of the Church, in going into the bounds of other brethren’s charges, and holding religious meetings.

(Signed,)                        “S. M. Hopkins.

“Dated, Brockport, October 1, 1859.”

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

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

     I showed In my defense,—

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

     I showed in my defense,—

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

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

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

3. I have not sinned in preaching within the territories claimed by other preachers. Simply preaching the Gospel Is all that I did. I was not charged with doing more. So that the solution of the question, Has one preacher any right to preach on another’s territory? will make me guilty or innocent. The commission which God gave me is, “Go into all the world.” * * *

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

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

     To what extent this persecution will be carried, the future alone can reveal. The majority of the Conference are evidently determined, by raising the mad dog cry of “Nazaritism,” to drive out of the Church all who have religion enough not to indorse their measures. What others may do I cannot tell, but as for myself, I am yet firmly attached in heart to the M. E. Church. I believe her doctrines and love her Discipline. I have appealed to the General Conference. I shall get back Into the Church again if I can.

J. A. WELLS.

Belfast, Oct. 20, 1859.

     The reader now has all the essential facts connected with the trial and expulsion of these four devoted, able and effective preachers of the gospel from the Genesee Annual Conference and the Methodist Episcopal Church, and therefrom can form his own opinion as to the spirit which instigated the trials and pushed them to their final conclusion. Was it hatred of sin? Was it love of righteousness? Was it zeal for the purity of the Church? Or, was it that same spirit of intolerance which, in earlier and ruder times, persecuted even unto martyrdom those who would not consent to be enslaved to their fellow men in matters of opinion and of conscience 2 What does the world not owe to those who, through the ages, have lived, labored and suffered as the pioneers of freedom to think, speak, act and worship in accordance with the dictates of conscience?

     The editor of the Northern Independent, in reviewing the expulsions from the Genesee Conference, wrote with his accustomed vigor and fearlessness a critique which, we are persuaded, has met the approval of candid readers generally. In the issue of October 20, 1859, he said:
 

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

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

     That a preacher may be expelled for “improper tempers, words, or actions,” is true, and if the charge had been for either or all of these things, it would at least have been right in form, and might have been tried on its merits. But a trial for contumacy is quite another thing, and altogether beyond the record. In making these trials rest upon this basis, the Conference has, in fact, established a new law, and given sovereign power to every straggling resolution that may chance to be passed. Not to obey a perverse resolution, would be very far from evincing “improper tempers, words or actions,” but it would certainly be “contumacy.” Hence the unpardonable liberty taken in departing from the words of the Discipline, and manufacturing this new test of character.

     This style of administration assumes an importance far beyond the individual instances of decapitation which have already occurred. Acting on the same principle, the Genesee Conference, or any other Conference, has only to pass a resolution that no member shall take the Northern Independent, or act as agent for it, and the work is done—thenceforth, whoever gets a subscriber or receives the paper into his house, is guilty of contumacy, and destined to be expelled. Thus this unfounded assumption seizes upon the press, sweeps away every vestige of personal liberty, and makes the minority of the Conference the veriest slaves. It is true, the Conference has not yet given the principle on which it is acting this particular application, but how soon it may, no one can tell. At this session the members have been forbidden to attend all meetings not regularly appointed, as will be seen from the third and fifth resolutions:

[The resolutions are omitted here, as they have already appeared on page 221, to which the reader is referred].

     These resolutions are well enough, considered as merely declarative or advisory, but regarded as the ultimate law of the Church, they are a grievous outrage on the rights of every member of an Annual Conference. Annual Conferences may advise, and may execute laws already made, but they are not law-making bodies, and consequently cannot pass a resolution having the force of law. But if a man be expelled for non-conformity to a rule made by an Annual Conference, then Is an Annual Conference, in the very highest sense, a law-making body. An Annual Conference may expel a preacher for violating the Discipline but not for violating one of its own rules. Were it not for this necessary restriction, each Annual Conference could make laws ad libitum, and the lawmaking power of the General Conference would be a nullity. Surely, in view of the above resolutions, every Methodist preacher may ask, Have we an organic law? Or, are we at the mercy of a bare majority, however obtained and however disposed? If a simple Conference resolution is law, we are without a Constitution, and in that respect worse off than a temperance society, or any other voluntary association whatever. It will be conceded by all, that an Annual Conference has no more right to make laws than a Quarterly Conference, and what would be thought if a Quarterly Conference should pass a series of resolutions, to be kept by all its members, under pain of expulsion? Such a thing is unprecedented, and yet would be quite as legal as the penalties threatened in the foregoing resolutions.

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

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

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

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

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

     The following is the resolution regarding the Northern Independent, together with the comments of one of the corresponding editors:
 

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

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

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

     Three of the expelled brethren at once gave notice of appeal to the General Conference; but Mr. Stiles, who appears to have had a more correct idea of what the action of the General Conference would be than the others, said it was no use to take an appeal, and therefore he should waste none of his time, and incur none of the strain necessary, in the prosecution of an appeal, as he had no hope whatever that the General Conference would do justice in the case. He saw an opening before him to carry on the work of God independent of the Genesee Conference, which had so unjustly treated him and his brethren, and he chose to accept his expulsion and enter the open door to a new field of opportunity.

     At the urgent request of the Albion people he returned to that village, whereupon the members of the Church and congregation who were in sympathy with him, and who “loved righteousness and hated iniquity,” at once rallied about him, still believing him to be an earnest and holy man of God. They were overwhelmingly in the majority, and, according to equity, were entitled to the Church property. But when trouble arose over the question, instead of pressing their claim in Court they chose rather to avoid giving offense and cause for complaint, and “took joyfully the spoiling of their goods.”

     The friends of Mr. Stiles relinquished their claim to the Church property, and then proceeded, with much expedition, to erect for him a Church building, with a main audience room about 55 x 101 feet, a lecture room half as large, and four large and commodious class rooms, besides a spacious vestibule, hall-ways, etc., the largest Church edifice in the town. Here he continued to live and labor, in a community that loved him dearly, until, in the midst of his days, he was summoned from labor to reward. His memory was deeply enshrined in the hearts of his people, some of whom still survive, and all of whom ever mention his name in a spirit of reverent and deep affection.

     The Church which he organized after his return to Albion took the name of the Congregational Free Methodist Church. Later Mr. Stiles attended the Convention at which the Free Methodist denomination was organized, assisted in the forming of its Discipline, and heartily cooperated in the election of B. T. Roberts as its first General Superintendent. After the formation of the new denomination the local Church he had organized in Albion joined it in a body.

     Mr. Stiles was not permitted to give many years of service to the Free Methodist Church, however. The strain to which his sensitive nature had been subjected through the indignities he suffered at the hands of the Genesee Conference was too much for him. He was taken down with typhoid fever, which assumed a malignant type from the start, and never recovered. “He was greatly blessed in his soul when he was taken sick, and to this he often referred, even during spells of delirium,” writes Mr. Roberts. “One evening, as we were watching with him, he thought he was in the hands of a secret society committee, and cried out, ‘Brother Roberts, I want you should go out and tell the committee that I am ready to die in two hours, or one hour, or even this minute. The Lord has greatly blessed me, and I shall go straight to glory.’ The day before he died he said to his physician, ‘ALL IS RIGHT.’ He grew gradually weaker, and, without a struggle on the 7th of May, 1863, his pure spirit passed away to the realms of bliss.”

     The funeral of this noble man of God was attended by an immense congregation, the main audience room of the Church, which had a capacity of over 1,000 persons, was filled, and hundreds were outside, unable to gain admission. The Rev. William Hosmer, who had long been his fellow soldier in the warfare against all sin, preached on the occasion, an eloquent and impressive sermon, from Hebrews 11: 27—”He endured as seeing Him who is invisible.”

     The Rev. Charles D. Burlingham, at the time of his expulsion, had been a member of the Genesee Conference nineteen years, and had proved himself an earnest and effective preacher, and an acceptable pastor as well, on the various charges he had served. He had also filled the position of Presiding Elder with general acceptability for four years. He is said to have been “a preacher of more than ordinary ability, original in his style, clear in his reasonings, and happy in the use of illustrations.” His labors, however, had been excessive, and he was now “left broken in constitution, with a large, dependent family, and no means for their support.”

     Later Mr. Burlingham was restored to the Conference, though in a way which many considered as evidencing the injustice of the Genesee Conference almost as clearly as did his expulsion from the Conference and Church. He was called to his reward in 1874.

     The Rev. Mr. Cooley had for seventeen years proved himself a diligent, useful and acceptable itinerant preacher when called to share the fate of others who had been expelled for their earnest advocacy of the principles of primitive Methodism. He has been described as “a quiet, peaceable, unoffending, upright man ;“ “a clear, Scriptural, searching preacher,” who “generally had good revivals on the charges on which he labored.” But these qualities were not allowed to stand in the way of sending any man to the ecclesiastical guillotine by the Genesee Conference of the Methodist Church in those days, if the crime of “Nazaritism” could be proved against him.

     The Rev. John A. Wells had been a member of the Conference but seven years when called to meet his fate in expulsion on the charge of “contumacy.” He had been successful as a minister, however, and had shown himself an able and practical preacher, a man of studious turn, wholly devoted to the work of God, without guile, and of unbending integrity. He finally united with the Presbyterian Church.

[1] Referring to Pay H. Purdy’s Tent Meeting.