The General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church met in Buffalo, New York, May 1, 1860, and remained in session during the entire month. Great expectations were entertained by many respecting its action in case of the appeals from the Genesee Conference. It was fondly hoped and believed that this august body, with its constituency from all fields occupied by the Methodist Episcopal Church, would give proper respect to the appeal cases, and would so thoroughly sift the administration of affairs in Genesee, by which so many preachers and lay. men had been unjustly excluded from membership, as to result in the disapproval of that administration, and in the reversal of the Conference action in case of the expelled preachers, who had appealed to this the Supreme Court of the Church.

     They were the more hopeful because of the fact that fifteen hundred lay members of the Church within the bounds of the Genesee Conference had signed memorials and petitions which were. to be presented to the General Conference, respectfully urging that body to give the Genesee Conference difficulties a full, fair and impartial investigation, and apply such remedies as in their wisdom might be judged proper.

     While many were thus hopeful as to the final issue, there were others who seemed to have sized the situation up more accurately, and who predicted that the same influences which had wrought so disastrously and cruelly in Genesee, would also be present ill combined force at the General Conference, to blockade and turn aside the course of justice, and that those influences would ultimately prevail. Perhaps this class was in the minority, but theirs was the clearer vision and the surer judgment. The results at the General Conference fulfilled their predictions most fully.

     When the petitions from Genesee Conference were presented, the delegates from that Conference professed much anxiety to have the matters sifted, by a thorough examination of all the facts connected with the Genesee Conference administration. “We have done right,” said the Rev. James M. Fuller, “and are not afraid to have our conduct looked into. We want the troubles probed to the bottom.” Having thus prepared the way, he then moved that the petitions be referred to a special committee of nine, to be appointed by the chair.

     The friends of the petitions regarded this as virtually a move to forestall an impartial investigation, and so opposed and defeated it. The matter was then referred to a special committee to be composed of one from each Conference, each delegation to select its own member. The Committee was duly appointed, and all the memorials and petitions relating to the case were referred to it. This committee was generally regarded as able and impartial, and this inspired the confidence that right would triumph, and that justice would prevail at last.

     Matters went on quietly for a few days. Then the Rev. William Reddy presented a resolution authorizing the committee appointed to consider the Genesee Conference difficulties to investigate fully the nature and origin of those difficulties, and, in order to this, giving them access to all the official papers, and the power to avail them. selves of any reliable information, at their discretion. The delegates from Genesee stoutly opposed the resolution. James M. Fuller insisted that the General Conference would be transcending its constitutional powers in undertaking to overhaul the papers of Genesee Conference, or to appoint a special committee to pry into the proceedings of that body. He declared his Conference “would not submit, unless compelled to it, to any Star-chamber investigations !“ His attitude was directly the reverse of what it had been a few days before, when these matters were under consideration. Why, it is difficult to explain on any other ground than that then he had hope of getting a committee more suitable to his purposes. He finally moved that the special committee be discharged, saying that in politics he was a State’s Rights man, and in religious matters a Conference Rights man! The expression sounds like a covert appeal to the pro-slavery sentiment of the body to aid him in the defeat of the purpose for which the special committee had been appointed.

     The Rev. Henry Slicer, of the Baltimore Conference, was soon on his feet, and “supported Mr. Fuller’s motion, in a violent speech, of the plantation style.” He talked glibly, echoing what Mr. Fuller had said about “Star-chamber proceedings,” and contending for 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 Conference, indorsed Mr. Fuller’s position, and spoke in favor of discharging the special committee.

     Dr. Peck then moved the previous question, which carried, thus cutting off debate and inflicting what is sometimes coarsely but appropriately called, “gag rule,” and that before any representative of the petitioners from Genesee had been permitted to speak a word in favor of continuing the committee. The committee was then discharged.

     The same influences had evidently been secretly at work in the General Conference, since the appointment of the special committee, that had operated for several years past in the Genesee Annual Conference to thwart the ends of fairness and justice. These influences had operated in the direction of turning delegates in favor of the ruling majority of the Genesee Conference, thereby practically effecting a prejudgment of the case. At least suspicions of corrupt combinations were engendered in many minds. The confidence which had earlier been inspired that justice would be done was shaken. The memorials and petitions which had already been referred to the special committee, were now referred to the committee on Itinerancy. This committee had about all the routine business to look after for which there was time; and it is probable that the chief memorial was not even read before that body. Nothing like the full, fair and impartial investigation asked for was had. Instead of such a proceeding, the matter was passed over in the same farcical manner as had characterized the so-called administration of Discipline under the “Regency” power during the whole period of the Genesee Conference difficulties. This seems to have been what was intended, on the part of the Gene-see Conference delegates, from the beginning.

     The conflict that had been raging in Western New York was well known throughout American Methodism generally. That this conflict had now reached a crisis in which the determinations of the General Conference were to decide whether the Methodist Episcopal Church should thenceforth stand committed to the uncompromising principles of spirituality which Methodism was originally raised up to promote, or whether it should become an apostate type of Methodism, “having the form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” was clearly perceived by the spiritually-minded in various parts of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Many were the members in all the various Conferences who awaited the decisions of this august body, on the appeals that were to come before it and the issue involved therein, with gravest apprehensions.

     It soon became apparent, however, after the General Conference had got under way far enough to manifest its true temper and spirit, “that the spirit of early Methodism had departed from that venerable body, and another spirit than that of the fathers—the spirit of a worldly, ambitious, temporizing policy—ruled the hour.” It became more and more manifest that the secret-society delegates from the North and those of a pro-slavery character from the South were making common cause, whereby the former were to help the latter in side-tracking the Rule against slavery, by substituting therefor an excellent but powerless advisory paragraph in the Discipline; and the latter were to help the former in their final effort to dispose of “Nazaritism.” At all events appearances indicated that, by some kind of understanding between them, Baltimore delegates were helping delegates from Genesee, and Genesee delegates were helping those from Baltimore, to carry their respective points.
 

     “The action of the General Conference in an appeal case that came before it, from one of the Ohio Conferences,” says the Rev. B. T. Roberts, “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.’

     “‘Oh,’ 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 have heretofore stated that Messrs. Roberts and McCreery, after being expelled, united with the Methodist Episcopal Church again on probation. As their action in this particular is one of the grounds on which the General Conference based its final action in the appeals, it is proper that it should receive further consideration in this connection.

     The question, “What shall we do in the meantime ?“ was pressing heavily upon those young men who had been expelled, as their appeals could not be considered until the General Conference should meet two years hence. They were comparatively young men, full of life and vigor, feeling clearly their call to preach the Gospel, and deeply anxious to do all they could to win men for Christ. To the day of their death they avowed that they had no thought or idea of forming a new Church. They were lovingly devoted to Methodism, and had unfaltering confidence in the integrity of the Church as a whole. They believed the General Conference would disapprove and rectify the administration of the Conference which had expelled them. But they did not wish to stand idly waiting for two years, nor could they feel at liberty to engage in secular employment. They sought advice from men of age and experience, in whom they had confidence, before deciding upon their course of action.

     As Mr. Roberts left the Conference after his expulsion, Bishop Janes cordially shook hands with him and said:

     “Do not be discouraged, Brother Roberts—there is a bright future before you.”

     Later he received a letter from the Rev. Amos Hard which contained the following:
 

     At the session of the Genesee Conference held at Perry, October, 1858, while the character of several brethren was under arrest, I had with Bishop Janes substantially the following conversation:

     “Would the joining of another Church by an expelled member invalidate his appeal?”

     He replied: “I would prefer not to answer that question tonight, as I do not call to mind the action of the General Conference in the case of John C. Green.”

     I then asked, “Would it affect his appeal if an expelled member should join our Church on probation?”

     He replied: “I do not think it would.”

     The Rev. William Reddy, who was at that time a prominent minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church, who had served as Presiding Elder with marked success, and had also served several times as delegate to the General Conference, and was highly esteemed for his piety and judgment wherever known, also wrote Mr. Roberts, advising him concerning this matter. The following is a copy of his letter:
 

GENOA, Oct. 29, 1858.

DEAR BROTHER ROBERTS:

     Let me freely speak to you. The General Conference will not be under such an inflammation as was the Genesee Conference, and I think they will judge righteous judgment. At all events, I am glad you exercise your rights and have appealed; and I am glad you appealed from last year’s sentence, because this year’s is founded on the last.

     But now as to your course until General Conference: I think I would do one of two things—either join on trial at, say Pekin, where you labored last year; or not join at all until after General Conference. It occurred to me since reading your letter, that you had better not join or attempt to join even on probation; but as to relation, remain where you are until the appeal is decided.

     Then, as to labor, you feel, and others believe, that God has called and commissioned you to preach the unsearchable riches of Christ. The Genesee Conference has said you should not preach under their authority; but you have not lost your Christian character, nor has their act worked the forfeiture of your commission from God. I would then go on and preach and labor for souls, and promote the work of the Lord, under the avowed declaration that you do it, not as by the authority of the M. E. Church, but by virtue of your divine call. Then, whoever invites your labor or comes to hear you, they alone are responsible. You violate then no Church relation, because you have none. You violate no Church order, for you are not now under Church authority. You are simply God’s messenger. I would not exercise the functions of a minister, for that implies Church authority and order, and that you have not. I would not officiate at meetings nor administer the Sacraments, as a minister. But I would preach because God calls—I would receive the Sacrament of the Supper, if invited and permitted, because Christ commands. I would forego the other points for the sake of your appeal, and to show that you are not so very contumacious. This very course, I doubt not, will increase sympathy for you, and increase your influence, and if you are restored, will put you on higher ground than ever. Meantime I would avoid reference as far as possible to your opposers and oppressors, as though you were fighting them. “Contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.” “Let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls unto Him in well-doing, as unto a faithful Creator.”

     I do not see why you may not in that way promote the work of real holiness, and the salvation of sinners. Go where you are invited, and where the door opens, not in the name of the M. E. Church, but simply as a man of God to preach the Gospel. Who shall forbid your doing this?

     But keep yourself from appearing to set yourself in array against the authority and order of the M. E. Church, while you claim the constitutional rights of an expelled member. I believe God will bring you out like gold, tried in the fire.

     Dear Brother, excuse my liberty. These are but suggestions coming spontaneously from a brother’s anxious heart. I praise God that He keeps you.

Yours faithfully,

WILLIAM REDDY.

     After duly considering the matter Mr. Roberts and his friends generally thought he had better join the Church again on probation. As they viewed the case this would show loyalty to the Church. Furthermore, it would be almost impossible for him to hold meetings without worshiping now and then with some of those preachers in the Conference who were in sympathy with him, and, as he viewed it, his holding a relation to the Church would shield them from censure. He says:
 

     We could not, in conscience make confession for what we had been expelled—for we felt we had done no wrong. So we adopted Bishop Baker’s construction of the Discipline:

     “When a member or preacher has been expelled, according to due form of Discipline, he can not afterward enjoy the privileges of society and Sacrament, in our Church, without contrition, confession, and satisfactory reformation; but if, however, the society become convinced of the innocence of the expelled member, he may again be received on trial, without confession.”

     The Church at Pekin was the one he served last. The members there were so fully convinced of his innocence that they unanimously received him on probation.

     Mr. McCreery was also received on probation, almost unanimously, by the society at Spencerport.

     Having been received into the Church on probation, they each received from the societies they had respectively joined, license to exhort. Under the authority of these licenses they went out into the work of God, holding meetings wherever there were providential openings. Deep religious interest attended their labors wherever they went.

     Many souls were led to Christ, many believers were quickened and sanctified, and a general awakening occurred among the people. All these things were regarded as against them, however, in the consideration of their appeals.

     The following paragraphs regarding the appeal cases are from “Why Another Sect ?“
 

     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 Genesee 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 ease 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 overruled. 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 3: 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.

     Whatever may have been thought regarding the merits of “New School Methodism” at the time of its original publication, does not the action of the General Conference of 1860, regarding the appeals from the Genesee Conference, fully justify, at last, the contents of that article? Did not that body, by its action in these cases, virtually commit itself and pledge its patronage to “New School Methodism ?“ Its action affected the whole Church. It produced “an epoch indeed in the history of Methodism; since it involves nothing less than a radical change in the system: a change which supersedes the Methodism of Wesley—’Christianity in earnest’—and replaces it with a smooth, formal, fashionable religion, whose very insignia and watchword is popularity. [1]

     It seems, too, that the historians of the Methodist Episcopal Church have felt under the necessity of veiling the action of the General Conference in the appeal cases under statements that are either absolutely untrue or decidedly misleading. Bishop Simpson is especially at fault in this respect. He took an active interest in the proceedings, and must have known that the plainest canons of the Church were ignored, and that justice was defeated by its professed friends. Yet in referring to those who had appealed from the action of the Genesee Conference, in his “Cyclopedia of Methodism,” he says: “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.”

     In this quotation there are several statements that are not true. In the first place, the appellants had never “declined to recognize the authority of the Church.” Nothing of the kind was ever proved against them. The very fact of their appealing to the General Conference was a recognition of the Church’s properly constituted authority. The same may be said of Roberts and McCreery in their act of uniting with the Church on probation after their expulsion. The statement of the Bishop is a sweeping one, yet no instances are given, and for the reason that well-grounded instances were absolutely wanting. In no single particular had they failed of properly recognizing the authority of the Church.

     Moreover, it is not true that “they continued to exercise their ministry.” It was never shown, and can not be shown, that they ever performed a single function peculiarly belonging to a Christian minister pending their appeals. They refrained from marrying people, from baptizing, from administering or helping to administer the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and from exercising any of the rights formerly belonging to them in virtue of their ordination either as Deacons or as Elders. They labored in public meetings, and that with great success, but they did it as any layman of the Church might do, and in accordance with the Discipline, which, in the General Rules, says, “It is expected of all who continue in these societies that they shall continue to show their desire to flee from the wrath to come, by doing good” to the souls of men, “by instructing, reproving, or exhorting all with whom they have any intercourse.” That is what they did, and all they did. This is all the Bishop or others could ever point to as instances of their “declining to recognize the authority of the Church.” Hence the action of the General Conference practically declared it to be a crime for a minister who has been expelled from the Church, and has appealed, to engage in honest efforts to save lost men and build up believers in the faith, pending his appeal.

     As to the Bishop’s statement that they continued “to organize societies,” it is at least misleading. One who did not know otherwise would naturally suppose from this statement that these brethren, pending their appeals, had either organized regular Methodist societies, or rivals to the Methodist societies. Neither case is correct. They organized “Bands,” as was originally provided for by the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and quite similar in most respects to “Holiness Bands” and “Holiness Associations” that have become quite common in the Church in later times. These “Bands” were not “societies” in the Disciplinary sense of that term, and yet they were associations for conserving and promoting the essential principles of original Methodism. Nor were they rivals of the Methodist “societies,” but simply organized “Bands” of earnest Christians, whom the Methodist Church had proscribed, organized with a view of keeping them from being scattered, until such time as the administration under which they had been thus proscribed should be reviewed and passed upon by the General Conference.

     When Mr. Roberts went to Buffalo to labor, there was a Free Methodist Episcopal Church, in which the seats were neither rented nor sold, located on Thirteenth street. The building in which they worshiped was owned by Mr. Jesse Ketchum, of the Congregational Church, who allowed the Methodists to use it gratis. The society at this place was merely a mission—few in numbers and weak in influence. Mr. Edward P. Cox, an intelligent English. man of considerable means, had charge of the building by Mr. Ketchum’s direction. He invited Mr. Roberts to hold a meeting there one week night, when the Methodists had no appointment with which it would interfere. The invitation was accepted. Mr. Cox was at once informed, by the Presiding Elder and some of the preachers, that if Mr. Roberts was allowed to speak there, the preacher would be removed, and the missionary appropriation withheld. Mr. Cox, who was not a man to be turned from his course by threats, especially when confident that he was in the right, replied that “they might do as they liked; the house would be open for Mr. Roberts at the time.” The appointed service was held, and, good as their word, the Presiding Elder and ministers saw that the preacher and the missionary appropriation were both taken away.

     Mr. Roberts then continued to look after these sheep without a shepherd. Would common humanity have dictated that he do less? He held meetings in the Church, which were blessed to the salvation of many souls. A Church with the free-seat system had been started there, and was much needed in Buffalo at that lime; and, had the appeal of Mr. Roberts been entertained and he restored to membership in the Methodist Church, in all probability the Thirteenth street society would have returned to the fold with him. Owing to the appeal being turned down, the final result was otherwise.

     In the meantime Mr. Stiles had organized a Congregational Free Methodist Church at Albion, but as he had taken no appeal, he had an undoubted right to organize, where, when and what he pleased, his action could not properly be included in the Bishop’s charge.
 

     “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,” says Mr. Roberts. “We were only claiming the rights that were solemnly promised us by the 1W. B. 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 committee and 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 f or 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 a while 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 whichever Church he chose. He went back to the Presbyterians.” [2]

     To all unprejudiced minds who are acquainted with the polity of the Methodist Episcopal Church the foregoing argument will be conclusive. It matters not what crimes a man may have committed after his appeal from the decision of a lower to a higher Court, the Appellate Court has no jurisdiction in his case over anything but the appeal, and must try that on the merits of the case, the same as though the appellant had been perfectly law-abiding pending his appeal For his later violations of the law the Court of original jurisdiction must initiate new proceedings, and prosecute according to statute. Otherwise appeals would be utterly useless.

[1] Bowen’s “Origin of the Free Methodist Church,” p. 227.
[2] “Why Another Sect?” pp. 288.290.