An exposure 
 
 Ue' THB 
 
 BUAMB 
 
 UL RELIGIOUS PERSECUTIONS, 
 
 BUFFERED BY 
 
 HE€ A. PICKENS AND OTHERS, 
 
 AT THE HANDS OP 
 
 11 
 
 REV. WILLIAM MICKS, 
 
 Pre Is j ding elder in holston conference, 
 
 11 Truth crushed to earth, will rise agaiu» 
 The eternal years of God are hers.'' 
 
 B7 JOHN PARIS. 
 
 Vch 
 
 r.RBENEMIXE, TENS- 
 'PR I.N Till) AV THE 
 
\ 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 Why has this Pamphlet" been written ? The answer is, lo de- 
 fend the truth, and place it in her proper position before the com- 
 munity ; and, likewise, to expose the malicious conduct and action* 
 of a reckless man, in his attempts to injure and destroy the char- 
 acter and reputation of one or more, whose life has been long 
 and well known in Buncombe and the adjoining counties. 
 
 It is well known that Rev. Wm. Hicks, has written, published, 
 and circulated in this part of North Carolina, at least three differ- 
 ent Pamphlets, one Circular, and one Newspaper article, making 
 in all five different printed publications — in each one of which he 
 boldly attacks and traduces the moral, religious, and ministerial 
 character of a venerable Minister of the Gospel, of more than 
 forty years standing, Rev. A. Pickens. 
 
 This aged Minister has been long known, and well known, and 
 much approved wherever he has been known. But acting; his part 
 as a conscientious christian, he had the misfortune to offend Rev. 
 Wm. Hicks, Presiding Elder, of Holston district. This Presid- 
 ing Elder, finding himself involved in difficulties in the Church 
 and community, and lacking magnanimity to free himself there- 
 from, honorably, resorted to the shameful trick of publishing 
 attacks upon the character and standing of the old j Minister, no 
 doubt plotting thereby, and preparing the way to effect his expul- 
 sion from the Methodist Episcopal Church South. He not only 
 succeeded in this effort, but he also effected, through his co-labor- 
 ers, the expulsion of one or more similarly situated to Rev. A. 
 Pickens. 
 
 Not being satisfied with the exclusion of these persons from the 
 Church, he has still persecuted them, by publishing in his Pamph- 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 feta the details of their trials, in order to make the impression 
 abroad that they had justice done them, but such scandalous perse- 
 cution bv, ng too intolerable to be borne, are exposed with perfec 1 
 freedom in this Pamphlet. 
 
 It would have been best for the writings and Pamphlets of this 
 noted defamer to pass unnoticed, but for the fact that they may still 
 be read after Rev. A. Pickins is no more. It is, therefore, right 
 tjjey should meet the public exposure they merit. For — 
 
 "Tie who steals my purse, steals trash, 
 But he that filches me of my good name, 
 Robs me of that which not enriches him 
 But makes me poor indeed." 
 
 The government of the Methodist Episcopal Church has been 
 compared to " a wheel within a wheeV> — this Pamphlet showa how 
 easy it is for a Presiding Elder, or an itinerant preacher to grind a 
 subject, by an upper wheel operating upon a lower. Rev. A. 
 Pickens and Maj. A. H. Brittain, are cases in hand. All the testi- 
 mony brought forward in this work, has been furnished by Mr. 
 Hicks himself in his Pamphlets and letters, except a written copy 
 or the charges made against Rev. A. Pickens, which I did not even 
 record, but used Mr. Hick's printed version. If I have done Mr. 
 Hicks injustice, any where, upon any point, it has been because I 
 have misunderstood his own published documents and Pamphlets. 
 If this Pamphlet contains any errors, they are of my head and not 
 cf my heart. Rev. A. Pickens, A. H. Brittain, nor any body else, 
 are not responsible for any thing contained herein. I am the only 
 and absolute author, and claim the entire responsibility for every 
 sentence or paragraph in thi.5 Pamphlet. Wherever it may come, 
 it is my work and no other man's. And I hereby grant authority 
 to any man, and all men, wheresoever, and whensoever, to print, 
 publish, sell, vend, distribute, and circulate the same according to 
 their good pleasure, in oider that truth may be defended, and erro^ 
 and injustice exposed before the world. 
 
 JOHN PARIS, 
 
 North Carolina Conference, 
 
TO THE PUBLIC. 
 
 The reader is, perhaps, aware that rumor with her venom' 
 pus tongue, and ruthless tramp, will often travel five miles 
 while truth is putting on her slippers. Four different docu- 
 ments or publications having already gone forth to the public, 
 from the pen of the Rev. W. Hicks, in vindication of the 
 "Reem's Creek Division of Sons of Temperance,*' &c, in 
 which documents the reader can easily discover a great lack 
 of that "charity which hopeth ail things, beareth all things, 
 believeth all things," and a barbarous effort is visible, on the 
 part of said writer to tarnish the reputation of one or more 
 individuals, who had been longer known, and better known 
 than himself, and equally as favorably known, in Buncombe 
 and the adjoin'ng counties. 
 
 These four different publications, possessed of the character 
 which they bear, seem to demand a repiy in order that truth 
 may be placed in a proper light, and her position defended. 
 
 The first pamphlet in question, written by the Rev. gentle- 
 man, is entitled, "Exposition and Vindication of the princi- 
 ples of the ' Oorder of the Sons of Temperance,' or objections 
 to the 'Sons,' answered f and brings to view a difficulty that 
 occurred in the Methodist Episcopal Church South, at Salem 
 Church, Buncombe County, of which the following is Rev. 
 Mr. Hick's account : "Accordingly, about the second week in 
 July, 1850, a number of persons met at Salem Church. — 
 There and then, the first effort was made to get a " Reem'a 
 Creek Division." After the writer had made his speech, he 
 
requested any person present who might feel opposed to the 
 measures which he had advocated, to come forward and givt 
 his editions. # # # Brother Pickens, (whom the writer 
 always respected, from the time he made his acquaintance, 
 and still respects, and feels determined to respect, while his 
 grey hairs adorn him, as a Methodist preacher of long stand- 
 ing,) took the floor, and urged a few objections to the 4 Order 
 of the Sons.' Those objections were briefly answered by the 
 writer, and all things passed off well enough. Right there, 
 however, the controverspy commenced," &c. Here, then, is a 
 •plain statement of the origin of all this difficulty. 
 
 Rev. W. Hicks makes a speech in favor of the " Order of 
 the Sons of Temperance," and then invites Rev. A. Pickens, 
 44 whom he always respected, and feels determined to respect,,* 
 to "come forward and give his objections." He accepted the 
 invitation, and gave his objections. Hence the difficulty be- 
 gan. (See pages 4 and 5, of the pamphlet quoted) "And 
 with whom did it commence ?" asks Mr. Hicks in his second 
 pamphlet, entitled "The way the Wind Blows;" (page 3,) and 
 answers his own question thus : "With the Rev. A. Pickens* 
 than whom it was thought temperance had not a warmer friend 
 any where, as he had been for years battling in its cause, 
 against all intoxicating drinks ; he had organized many Tem- 
 perance Societies ; had presided at many Temperance meet- 
 ings, and was President of our meeting, as above stated, and 
 had gone so far as to substitute vinegar for alcohol in dissolv- 
 ing his camphor! With him the controversy commenced, for 
 he threw the first stone." 
 
 Is not this a most ridiculous position assumed by Mr. Hicks? 
 Look at the case gentle reader, and tell us, can you agree with 
 ibeRev. gentleman in opinion? 1st, he made a speech. 2nd, 
 
7 
 
 He requested any person present who might feel opposed to 
 the measures, to come forward and give his objections." Rev 
 A. Pickens, being invited, came. He gave his objecti^/s, — 
 Rev. W. Hicks tells us Rev. A. Pickens " threw the first stone," 
 The iacts iri the case contradict the assertion. Rev. Mr. Hicks 
 appointed the meeting, a nd spoke first — he assumed the posi- 
 tion. He called upon Rev. A. Pickens, (or any one else,) to 
 speak, who replied, assuming the negative. And, strange to 
 tell, in the face of his own declarations, he asserts, " with him 
 (A. Pickens,) the controversy commenced, for he " threw the 
 first stone." Wonderful testimony indeed!! The writer both 
 contradicts and condemns himself ; and every reader who 
 reads the pamphlet through, will plainly perceive that Rev. W. 
 Hicks, himself, began this controversey, and Rev. W. Hicks 
 has had a very active hand in keeping it up. He has struck 
 the first blow, and then to shield himself from the consequen- 
 ces, endeavors to assume the amiable attitude of self-defence. 
 
 The next item that we shall stop to notice in Rev. Mr. Hick's 
 pamphlets is, the desecration of Salem Church, by the female* 
 meeting there on a certain day to make regalia for the "Sons." 
 Pretty work indeed ! the house of God turned into a work- 
 shop!! and that work was not for the benefit or relief of the 
 poor — nor to enable the church to send the Gospel to the hea- 
 then or the destitute — but to make regalia for the order of the 
 Sons! What an outrageous desecration!! Rev. Mr. Hicks 
 tells us in his second pamphlet, " that Church has been dedica* 
 ted to temperance as well as religion" This is shocking lan- 
 guage indeed, to come from a Minister of the Church o( 
 Christ! That Church has been dedicated to the worship of 
 Almighty God, and to no other purpose under the heavens. 
 A Division room of the "Sons" may be dedicated with pro- 
 priety to temperance and religion," but a house of worship is 
 
3 
 
 a house dedicated and devoted to the worship of God alone*, 
 Could not these young ladies have met at some private house 
 among^their friends for the purpose of making " regalia," and 
 thereby'ivoided wounding the feelings of the members and 
 friends of the Church ? Certainly it would have been easy to. 
 have done so. But iio — - it was agreed that the house of God 
 should be used as a work-shop for that day. It is written,' 
 u My house shall be called a house of prayer," but no where 
 is it called a work-shop. Rev. A. Pickens had furnished the 
 land on which this house had been built; he had been one of 
 the foremost in getting it up, in order to have a place in which 
 himself and neighbors might worship without let or hindrance. 
 His head had grown white in the service of Christ and his 
 cause. His zeal knew no abatement, and his principles coald 
 not compromise with any thing that militated against what 
 he conceived to be the true interests of the cause of godliness ; 
 therefore this old veteran could not consent for the house of God 
 to be used either as a work-shop to make regalia, or as a Divis* 
 ion room for the " order of the Sons." The name of Jesus, 
 with him, >vaa "high over all." 
 
 Tbis aged Minister was one of the Trustees, but as the Rev. , 
 lilr. Hicks tells us, a majority of the Trustees had agreed for 
 the house to be used as desired by the Sons, it seems the old 
 brother's feelings were not to be either regarded or respected 
 in the case; and for his fatherly admonition to the young 
 women, for meeting there to sew, a labored effort is made by 
 the Rev. pamphlet writer, to ihrow odium upon his old chris- 
 tian brother for whom he had professed so much respect and 
 regard in the cutset. Alas! alas!! What a tendency poor 
 human weakness has, when sinkings to "catch at straws! 
 What crude inconsistency does it exhibit in a christian^ 
 Minister? 
 
. Some ot the Trustees of Salem Church had been consulted 
 about the use of the house for the " Order of the Sons" and 
 Rev. Mr. Hicks tells us a majority had given their consent. 
 But, admitting this to be the case, such consent did not,- it 
 could not satisfy the community, or a great part of the mem- 
 bership of the ; Church ; and yet, in the face of this dissatis- 
 faction, our Presiding Elder and his friends, undertook to 
 appropriate the house to the use of the " Order of the Sons.' 
 The temperance principles of Rev. A. Pickens, none can 
 doubt, who reads Mr. Hick's account of them. All must ad- 
 mit him to be a tee-to-tale r of the highest order. But, let it 
 be borne in mind by the reader, that there is a selfishness, and 
 exclusiveness, to be found among the " Order of the. Sons," 
 that is unknown — entirely unknown, among our temperance 
 societies. The exclusiveness that exists among them, is of the 
 same order of exclusiveness, as that which exists among the 
 orders of " Odd-Fellows," and " Free-Masons." Like the last 
 named orders, they have their regular fund for mutual benefit 
 &c., &c, temperance being 1 only one of the conditions upon 
 which an individual retains his membership among them. 
 For disclosing the secret transactions of the Division, a strict 
 temperance man may be expelled therefrom; for failing, or 
 refusing to contribute to the common fund his regular dues, a 
 good temperance man may be expelled. Therefore, we are 
 bold in the assertion, that the " Order of the Sons," assimilate 
 too much to the "Odd-Fellows," and "Free-Masons," to pass 
 themselves in this enlightened land for a temperance society 
 proper. And who would, for a moment, assent for "Free- 
 Masons" and "Odd-Fellows," to organize in, and conduct 
 their regular business ' meetings in a house devoted to the 
 worship of God alone? Rev. A. Pickens and many of his 
 religious brethren could not, and did not; and, forsooth, their 
 
 B 
 
10 / 
 
 Presiding Elder, virtually assuming the character of a clerical 
 dragoon, assails him and them in a most uncharitable manner, 
 in two pamphlets, and one newspaper essay, and one printed 
 circular. Oh shame ! where is thy blush ? 
 
 To show off this Methodis tparson's good breeding as a gen- 
 tleman, and christian politeness towards his veteran brother, 
 and senior in the ministry, whose head has been whitened by 
 the frosts of many winters, we shall quote one sentence from 
 page 4, of his second pamphlet. Here is the quotation : 
 
 " Amusing thought, that the Rev. A. Pickens, and the dram- 
 drinkers of the neighborhood, met, either by express under- 
 standing, or by a strange influence, which moved preacher 
 and drunkard alike, to fly to the rescue of the church against 
 the Sons of Temperance, having among them Methodist 
 preachers !" 
 
 The indecency of this sentence, coming from the pen of Rev. 
 W. Hicks, is comment enough. Methodist preachers in some 
 instances, have proved themselves to be no better than they 
 ought to be. Does the reader want proof in the case t The 
 proof is furnished by Mr. Hicks himself, in writing the sen- 
 tence quoted above. 
 
 Matters having arrived at such a crisis, in February, bwing 
 to the dissatisfaction which the proceedings of the " Order of 
 the Sons" had produced upon the minds of the members of 
 the church, that it became apparent that many would with- 
 draw therefrom, unless the excitement produced at Salem 
 Church could be allayed, the Sons appointed a meeting to be 
 held at Flat Creek, on Feb. 15th, 1851, " and thus prevent the 
 calamities mentioned above." At this meeting, the Rev. W, 
 Hicks offered a preamble and resolutions for adoption, which 
 he called the " Olive-branch of Peace." These resolutions 
 were discussed pro et con, and according to Mr, Hick's ac- 
 
11 
 
 count, were rejected by a majority of the meeting, although 
 adopted by the vote of the Sons. The resolutions suited the 
 Sons, as they were offered by them, hence they could afford to 
 vote for them. But what is so startling and strange is the 
 very contradictory account Mr. Hicks publishes to the world 
 about the rejection of them by those opposed to the Sons, in 
 all of which there is a studied effort, apparent on his part, to 
 affect the moral and religious standing of Rev. A. Pickens, 
 Maj. Britain, and others. A low piece of work indeed for a 
 professed minister of the religion of Christ to be engaged in. 
 Mr. Hicks attempts to make quite a parade in about ten pages 
 of his second pamphlet about the rejection of these resolutions 
 which we now propose to notice in a brief manner, in order 
 to expose the course pursued by him and his party, in order 
 to accomplish their purposes. 
 
 According to his own account this meeting was appointed 
 by the " Sons." The opposition attended, and entered into 
 the discussion with their opponents, (we will not say enemies,) 
 as the other party had done with them at a meeting held on 
 Flat Creek, a short time before. Mr. Hicks on behalf of the 
 Sons, offered his four resolutions one of which embraced 
 .seven items — they were debated and adopted by the meeting. 
 Hear what Mr. Hicks says himself: " To be sure, the plan was 
 adopted by the Sons and a few others, despite the efforts of 
 the leaders in the opposition. A large majority of the audi- 
 ence did not vote at all. But as one of the rules adopted for 
 the government of the meeting, stated that those who did not 
 vote on any motion, should not be counted pro or con ; the 
 compromise was farily adopted." — (The way the wind blows 
 page 10.) 
 
 Here then we have his plain, unvarnished statement. Every 
 
12 
 
 reader may understand it. He tells us "the compromise was 
 fiairly adopted." And again, on page 17, of the same pamph- 
 let, he says not one of the opposition " voted for it." In the 
 
 next place see how this author of strife and contention wrig^ 
 gies to work himself and party out of their unpleasant predic- 
 ament. See his words on the last named page. " But it may 
 be asked why did we not abide by the compromise ? We 
 answer, 1st. We did not intend it to be a compromise unless 
 it could hold our enemies as well as ourselves." 
 
 • Who, we ask, has ever read of such duplicity as this, and 
 that too, published: to the world by its author? Look it full in 
 the face, gentle reader, and tell us how it looks coming from a 
 Methodist parson ? First, he tells us that according to " one of 
 the rules of the meeting, those who did not vote on any motion 
 should not be counted pro or con." Secondly, he tells us the 
 resolution or the plan was adopted by the Sons and a few others. 
 Thirdly, he tells us " we did not intend it to be a compromise, 
 unless it could hold our enemies as well as ourselves." This 
 will not do Mr. Hicks. Fair dealing Sir, would certainly de- 
 come a Methodist parson best. And, according to your own 
 account of this voting, and adoption of the plan, you leave us 
 to understand, Sir, that you intended fair play — designed no 
 humbuggery— we therefore insist that these resolutions which 
 you and your friends adopted at Flat Creek meeting, are bind- 
 ing upon you with all the force of a moral obligation. No 
 Sir, it will do you no good to flounder. The compromise 
 "with its complicated foldings" will hold you fast, and an 
 honest community will do you justice." Your position is a 
 most pitiful one. You and your friends, by your ill-timed and 
 indiscrete steps, have worked up confusion and contention in 
 the church and community, and you are lacking in magna- 
 nimity and charity to allay it in the true spirit of Christianity, 
 
13 
 
 Pride may say take no steps backward — but Christianity says 
 "IF meat make niy brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while 
 the world standeth." Your own actions, Sir, tell in this case. 
 You have made things worse by the unmanly and unholy step 
 you took to bring things to work your own way. You under- 
 took to stigmatize, and by ridicule to bring into contempt, the 
 gray hairs and hoary head of that aged and respected minis- 
 ter of the gospel, Rev. A. Pickens, by assailing him in four 
 different publications, and imputing to him that confusion of 
 which your own publications prove you to be the author 
 You have disgusted the community and rent the church. 
 You have attempted to sacrifice your aged brother Pickens in 
 the ministry, for whom you expressed so high a regard in your 
 first pamphlet, but found yourself too weak to effect your pur- 
 pose. Your actions are recoiling upon your own head, and 
 you are about to reap tb f e reward of your labors. But pardon 
 us, Rev. Sir — we are not done with you yet. As you have 
 manifested a fondness yourself for writing, we hope you will 
 be patient. We now arraign you before the public for that 
 puerile, unmanly, unfair attack you make upon those who 
 refused to vote with you and your friends at the meeting at 
 Flat Creek, on Feb. 15th, 1851. 
 
 1st. We begin with your attack upon " old brother Pickens" 
 and Maj. Brittain, by comparing them to Pilate and Herod. 
 I quote from your book " The Way the Wind blows," page 
 12. You say, " one can hardly avoid thinking of a similar 
 reconciliation that took place when Jesus was to be crucified. 
 4 And the same day Pilate and Herod were made friends to* 
 gether ; for before they were at enmity between themselves.' 
 Pilate and Herod laid aside their enmity towards each other 
 that they might make common cause, against Christ. The 
 
14 
 
 Parson and Major greet each other as brethren, and seem to 
 1 be of one heart and of one mind,' in a crusade against the 
 Sons." 
 
 Now, Sir, the spirit and character of the sentence quoted 
 above, give us an exhibition of your principles, and will illus- 
 trate your character as a christian man before an impartial 
 public. Rev. A. Pickens has been known longer, much longer 
 than yourself as a minister of Christ. He has labored more 
 for the cause of godliness than you have, and it ill-becomes 
 you, as his junior, to compare him to Pilate, who delivered 
 Jesus to be crucified. Pilate, the heathen Roman governor! t 
 Did the spirit of Christ prompt \ou to this act, or was it an- 
 other spirit that I refuse to name ? Will you be so good, Sir, 
 as to read Romans 8th chap. 9th. verse? 
 
 2nd. We now come to notice the design had in view which 
 you impute to those who refused to vote upon your compro- 
 mise resolutions at the Flat Creek meeting. These motives, 
 Sir, you lay down upon pages 14, 15, 16, and 17, and indeed, 
 some of them are too bad to name. According to your own 
 statement, your compromise resolutions had not been voted 
 ior by any of the opposition, whom'you so often, and so un- 
 feelingly \ in your writings call u our enemies ; v a few had 
 voted against some of the items, but many of them had not 
 voted at all. Your plan was not accepted by them, and for- 
 sooth, in your pamphlet you denounce them as calling for 
 " confusion, contention, excitement, crimination, and recrimin- 
 ations, divisions, withdrawals from church," &c Now, Sir 
 we put the question to you plainly — were they not freemen as 
 well as yourself? and in refusing at your meeting to vote for 
 or adopt your plan, did they commit themselves at all upon 
 these vague abstractions, which you standing in your ministe- 
 
15 
 
 rial oflice, have stooped so low, as 10 rake up and impute to 
 them? No, Sir — you know they did not. Ali that old-fash- 
 ioned honesty can say of them is this : they refused to adopt 
 your written plan, at the time, under the circumstances. This 
 sadly mortified the Presiding Elder, the creature of a Bishop. 
 Km\ behold the ribaldry that flows from his pen, in order to 
 show off their character as bad men !! But the end is not yet. 
 Hear us calmly. If freemen in refusing to adopt your plan, 
 indirectly place themselves, in the position which you say they 
 did, your plan (hen, was nothing but a clap-trap, a humbug, 
 and worse than a humbug, and should have been rejected by 
 every body, even yourself. 
 
 3rd. We next come to notice your article in the "Ashevillc 
 News," of June 5th ; 1851. In that article you tell us that you 
 did use "some severity for the first time," when ;you met for 
 the third time, those persons whom you had so often called 
 "our enemies," in your two former pamphlets. Severity for 
 the first time II What is severity ? Read those two pamphlets 
 and then tell us what is severity!! If scurrility, bilingsgale, 
 abuse, and defamation contained therein do not constitute 
 severity, we know not what can be severity. And those two 
 pamphlets were written before he met the people called "our 
 enemies," the third time. Parson does not the truth look you 
 very sternly in the face just here ? Truth is a very pretty thing 
 and ought to suit your purpose ; but, your misfortune is, you 
 have written too much. Had these two pamphlets nothing to 
 do in reference to past discussions? It would be passing strange 
 if they had not. 
 
 4th. We now come to a piece of severity that is seldom 
 equalled now-a-days. There stands a paragraph in your 
 Newspaper essay, having no connection at all, as we conceive, 
 with other members of &aid essay, in which you advertise all 
 
16 
 
 readers, that Maj. A. H. Brittain. had been brought before the 
 church upon charges and found guilty; and, though you 
 state that " before the trial commenced, he read a paper which 
 declared the connection with our church of some six or seven 
 members dissolved." in a few sentences afterwards, you give 
 Jhe information that Maj. Brittain was expelled. This, Sir, 
 appears to be a new piece of clerical severity. For a Presi- 
 ding Eider, to advertise in a political paper, the trial and ex- 
 pulsion of a layman, is certainly without a parallel in our 
 country. You also inform us this was done, "on the following 
 charges, in substance : 1st, Contempt of the constituted author- 
 ities of the church. 2nd. Inveighing against our book of 
 Discipline, where it provides for ministerial suppoH; and, 3rd. 
 A violation of an agreement for the peace of the church? 
 These were the charges in substance, you tell us. Why did 
 you not give us the precise specifications when you felt your- 
 self at liberty to publish? Then you would have told "the 
 truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," and thereby 
 have made no wrong impression. But we take your own 
 account of this transaction, as we propose to fight you first, 
 with your own " am munition? and we declare that you had 
 no earthly right, neither by Holy Writ, nor by your own book 
 of IHscipline, to try Maj. Brittain, or to expel him. 
 
 1st. Any member of church has a right to withdraw, or ex- 
 patriate himself from the church, as in his judgment seems 
 best. 
 
 2nd. Maj. Brittain had exercised this right by formallv 
 withdrawing from the M. E. Church South. Hence, you tell 
 us of a man who was found guilty and expelled, who did not 
 belong to the church. This is certainly patent right severity!! 
 Certainly there must have been a great desire to destroy the 
 Major, at least his good name. But to the charges. 
 
1* 
 
 1st " Contempt of the constituted authorities of the church" 
 By "contempt," I suppose you mean disregard. First. Every 
 member of the church, we presume, acts towards the authori- 
 ties, upon the convictions of his own judgment as to what 
 duty requires in the case. Second. The authorities may sup- 
 pose themselves entitled to more honor than their brethren con- 
 cede to them. Third. The authorities of the church whe n 
 they undertake to chastise for such an offense as this, become 
 judges in their own case, although they are fallible men, 
 
 2nd. " Inveighing against our book of Discipline where it 
 provides for ministerial support." By " inveighing" we un- 
 derstand, to "speak against." First. We reply that Major 
 Brittain was an American freeman. Second. As such he had 
 a clear right to express his opinion concerning any law of the 
 State, or any rule of the church to which he belonged, no 
 law of God forbidding, nor any express rule of discipline. 
 
 3rd. "A violation of an agreement for the peace of the 
 church." By " agreement," we understand a " proper contract 
 or treaty made with the proper authority. First. We answer 
 to. this, no rule of discipline required him to enter into any 
 Such contract, with any church authority whatsoever. Second* 
 If he entered into any such contract, he had as much right as 
 any one else to judge of what constituted "the peace of the 
 church," and if he honestly foresaw that the interests of "pure 
 and undefiied religion*" were about to suffer from his silence, 
 it. became him as a christian, to break from any "agreement*' 
 into which he had been humbugged — for " there is a point at 
 which forbearance ceases to be a virtue." 
 
 Now, Sir, in all these things it is clear that Maj. Brittain, 
 offended against no express rule of discipline, nor revealed 
 
 law of God. And, hear it oh! heavens? and give ear oh! 
 
 c 
 
16 
 
 earth ! the man that had withdrawn formally from the church f 
 was tried upon these fiimsey allegations, bearing upon their 
 face no charge of immorality whatsoever, and then published 
 to the worlcl as expelled ! ! But some man must be sacrificed to 
 sustain Mr. Hicks, and the lot fell upon Maj. Brittain. 
 
 5th. Next in order comes your remarks concerning the or- 
 ganization of the church at the Ridge Meeting House, on the 
 24th of May. And here, Sir, permit us to pronounce your 
 conduct in this case to be altogether unworthy of your coat, 
 and entirely inconsistent with your profession as a christian. 
 We come to the point. You inform us in these words, of the 
 proceedings of said meeting: "At that place, and at that meet- 
 ing, the seceders undertook to organize. I know not that they 
 did organize, but tbey did something.'* In *he second sentence 
 following, you positively assert, "they organized without the 
 direct aid of any preacher — that is if they organized at all." 
 
 Now, Sir, '.we understand from your pen that they did organ- 
 ifce, but you seem altogether unwilling to acknowledge it as 
 such. For why ? Because it would seem from your language 
 they had not the direct aid of a preacher. Wonderful dis- 
 covery indeed! A body of christian people organize them- 
 selves into a church, for the purpose of worshiping God, ta*« 
 ing the Bible as their only rule of faith and practice, and yet 
 you have the brazen -effrontery to ask in your 11th paragraph, 
 "Are they a church ? Were they scripturally organized into a 
 Church? Who did it? # # # # They are no church> 
 nor will any intelligent minister acknowledge them as such, 
 nnless they get out of that ' patch. 5 " Pretty bold position for 
 & man of your caste to assume, unless he carried more " am- 
 unition" than you do. I now answer your questions : 
 
 1st They are a church to all intents and purposes. 2nd. 
 They were scripturally organized 3rd. Any minister of piety 
 
and {earning will acknowledge them as a church, William 
 Hicks to the contrary, notwithstanding. 
 
 2nd They organized upon scriptural principles, because a* 
 Christ's freemen they had the undoubted right to do so. By 
 that same right they had the authority to choose their own 
 minister, This was the practice of the primitive church, ac- 
 cording to Lord King, and Morheirn. (See their accounts of 
 the primitive church.) 
 
 3rd. The "aid" of any preacher, whosoever, could have 
 given no validity to the organization that it does not possess- 
 Upon christian faith they acted for themselves in the premises ; 
 hence the perfect validity of the organization. Every Presby- 
 terian minister, we think, will acknowledge this. But Mr. 
 Hicks must be excused just here. His ecclesiastical school- 
 ing has been in a church in which the laity are not regarded 
 as possessing any ecclesiastical rights at all. When has a 
 layman sat and voted in any one of the legislative depart- 
 ments of the M. E. Church, North or South ? Never. When 
 has a layman voted for a delegate to an annual or General 
 Conference of the M. E. Church, South or North? Never. At 
 the Conference which met at Baltimore, on the 27th of De- 
 cember, 1784, which was composed of none but a few travel- 
 ing preachers, together with Dr. Coke, and Mr. Asbury, these 
 few itinerants, without even consulting the laity, or inviting 
 one to take a seat among them, organized the M. E. Church. 
 Rev. Jesse Lee, says, in his history of the Methodists, page 
 94 ; " At this Conference we formed ourselves into a regular 
 church, by the name of the Methodist Episcopal Church." 
 Now, according to this language, under the circumstances, 
 we might suppose that either these few self-constituted legisla- 
 tors had full authority over the laity, or that they formed the 
 church of the preachers alone. 
 
20 
 
 4th. The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was or^ 
 ganized at a Convention of travelling preachers at Louisville 
 Kentucky, in 1845. Not one layman was admitted into thait 
 body— or even voted for a delegate to that body. Why was* 
 all this so ? Because it is not admitted that they have any 
 rights in the premises. Rev. Mr. Hicks belongs to this school 
 of ministers, and therefore cannot perceive any legality in the 
 act of christian laymen organizing themselves into a church. 
 How, Sir, is it possible for one occupying the post of Presid- 
 ing Elder, to be such a novitiate in theology, or tyro in eccle- 
 siastical history, as not to know that the more than fifty per- 
 sons who united themselves together at the Ridge Meeting 
 House, as christians, for the purpose of worshiping their 
 Creator, legally organized themselves into a church, although 
 it was not done according to the exclusive principles of that 
 establishment to which you belong ? 
 
 5th. You tauntingly say, " he who dares to acknowledge 
 them as a church, will show his ignorance of what constitutes 
 a New Testament Church, and will offer a high insult to the 
 ministers and members of the M. E. Church, South " Won- 
 derful, indeed ! Why, Sir, you are one of the last men on earth 
 to talk in that wayo Look at your own church. How was it 
 organized ? 
 
 6th. You assert in your own natural way, "they are a fac- 
 tion, but a church they cannot be. What minister will take 
 charge of them? Will any ? If any be tempted to do so, let 
 bim know that he must have much ammunition for the war." 
 What language is this to flow from the pen of a minister of 
 the gospel of peace! But above all, what a position ib it for a 
 minister to occupy ? Why, Sir, in the first place, you are un- 
 willing for them to receive the regards to which a christian 
 & ociety is certainly entitled, as though you had formally cursed 
 
2* 
 
 it 
 
 them, with beh, book, and candle. In the next place, you 
 would deter any minister from taking the oversight, and de- 
 claring unto them the word of eternal life — and who, I ask, in 
 heaven above, or in earth beneath, or in the waters under the 
 earth, can agree with you in these things, except it be him 
 who is called in fhe Greek, Apollyon, but in the Hebrew 
 tongue, hath his name Abaddon? 
 
 These people now have a minister, and are recognized as 
 a regularly organized Methodist Protestant Church, and we 
 thank you for the admonition that we "must have much am- 
 munition for the icar" Perrnit us to assure your reverend 
 highness, that you shall not be disappointed upon that score, 
 if you wish to wage a war upon us. ,; You have supplied us 
 With a goodly amount in your different publications, a part of 
 which we have used in these pages; but, apart from this we 
 have a large supply to draw upon from the magazine of truth. 
 Open your batteries as &oon as you please—we are ready. 
 > Mr. Hicks, be patient — we are not dene with you yet. — 
 You have been engaged in destroying ths fair standing of 
 men in this part of the country, whose religious lives have been 
 as pure and spotless as yours; therefore, do not complain, if 
 we exhibit you to the world, as you exhibit yourself. 
 
 You were opposed to the secession and organization of a 
 church at the Ridge Meeting House, (Mt. Zion,) indepen- 
 dent of your jurisdiction. It was composed of men who 
 came out from the M. E. Church, South, being determined to 
 think and chocse for themselves in ecclesiastical matters. — 
 They formed themselves into a church, as they had a right to 
 do, and, although you voluntarily asked the question in your 
 publications, " what minister will take charge of them ? Will 
 any ? If any be tempted to do so, let him know that he must 
 have much ammunition for the war." Yet, they concluded, 
 
21 
 
 . v « 
 
 (like christian people are wont to do,) to send for one, and 
 agreed to send for a minister of the Methodist Protestant 
 Church, to take charge of them, in order to their being regu- 
 larly received into the communion of that church. A minis- 
 ter agreed to visit them in this, their time of need. One 
 might have thought irom your profession, that you wqujd have 
 been glad that these people should have had the gospel preach- 
 ed to theo ; at least, that you would attempt to throw no bar- 
 rier in the way. But not so. You here, at this poir.t of the 
 controversy, commit an act sufficient to make a popish Bish- 
 op blush. An act standing alone in its shame, finding no 
 parallel in all protestantism. What is that act ? Without hav- 
 ing any acquaintance with the Methodist Protestant minister 
 or ministers who were to come over to the Ridge Meeting 
 House to preach to the new organized church, in August, you 
 even went so far as to address them, (though strangers tp you) 
 a letter in order to deter them from receiving that church into 
 * l christian fellowship.'' This letter was handed to the minis- 
 ter on the road side, when on his way to Mt. Zion. It lies 
 before me, and for the benefit of all men, I here copy its un- 
 blushing address: 
 
 "Buncombe, Co. N. C. \ 
 August 13th. 1851.' j 
 
 To the ministers of the Methodist Protestant Church who 
 may attend the meeting at the Iiidge, (Mt. Zion M. H.) in this 
 county — instant." 
 
 Our ministers were astonished to receive an epistle by the 
 way side, from the hand of a stranger, opening its harrangue 
 in such an ambiguous strain. But upon reading the third 
 paragraph of this extraordinary document, the whole veil waa 
 lifted, and the mystery was explained by Mr. Hicks himself 
 Hear him. 
 
23 
 
 * We have learned that you intend to take these seceders 
 into christian fellowship with your church, and give them a 
 pastor. This is our apology for writing you. We are at a 
 good understanding and the best of terms with your church, 
 nor do we wish it to be otherwise. But, otherwise it must be» 
 if you take these factionists under your pastoral care." Now 
 Mr. Hicks, you pass for a minister of peace, and here you 
 have laid aside the common rules of good breeding and po- 
 liteness that regulate the intercourse of gentlemen, (and cer- 
 tainly should ministers,) and rudely obtruded a menace or 
 threat upon two btrange preachers, (whom, perhaps, you had 
 never seen,) of a rupture of a good' understanding between 
 churches, if they ventured to "take these seceders into chris- 
 tian fellowship." What did this mean? Why was your ani- 
 mosity still raging against the little band of christians com- 
 posing Mt. Zion church, that you wished them excluded from 
 the advantages of ministerial services and the ordinances of 
 the gospel ? Again, I ask ycu, Sir, had you, acting the part of 
 a little Pope, on American soil, cursed this little band of con* 
 scientious American christians, with bell, book, and candle? 
 and did you consider them as excluded from the covenanted 
 mercies of God, that you thus labored to divest them of such 
 gospel privileges, and means of grace, as they might be able 
 to avail themselves of/ Ah! Sir, actions speak louder than 
 words — and here we have your actions before us — but the 
 end is not yet. The preachers heeded not your rude epistle, 
 although you had gotten the signature of Jas. A. Reagan, 
 Preacher in charge of Asheville, to strengthen your own au- 
 thority, or to give it weight in the case. 
 
 Again, in this famous epistle of yours to the (to you un- 
 known) ministers, you shamelessly present another menace, 
 by asking the question, "and, is it so, that principles of close 
 
24 
 
 communion are about to be introduced into the Methodist 
 family ? Yes if you take those factionists it is even so." Very 
 well, Mr. [Hicks— if you desire it, so far as your authority 
 may go, it may be possible for you to establish it, so far as. 
 your ecclesiastical dictum may command respect. Oh Pope- 
 ry! On what soil, and in what clime has thy rude spirit not 
 been breathed? 
 
 The reader might suppose that this Rev. gentleman, the 
 writer of so many publications, and author of the letter just 
 noticed, would have quit off, for a season at least, and let the 
 church at Mt. Zion do the best for themselves that they could ; 
 but not so — for it is written "one sinner destroyeth much 
 good... §o we find him still pursuing his old trade, doging 
 the Mt, Zion church, and assuming the character of a public 
 persecutor, , Alas ! for the minister. 
 
 The churcji.at, Mt. Zion, drew up a petition to forward to 
 the Quarterly Conference, of Cleveland Circuit, of the M. P. 
 Church, praying, the Quarterly Conference to receive the Mt- 
 Zion Church into, the Methodist Protestant connexion, as a 
 regularly organized Methodist Protestant church, according 
 to discipline. This petition was signed by 54 persons mem- 
 bers of the society. But it seems Mr. Hicks, although defeat- 
 ed in all his efforts, was not willing to abandon his old 
 trade of persecution by letter writing. Accordingly, he ven- 
 tures to address a most extraordinary epistle to the Quarterly 
 Conference, which he safely forwarded to that body, and was 
 read in open Conference. The object was to defeat the recep- 
 tion of the church by the Quarterly Conference. As he had 
 failed before, he also failed this time. The Quarterly Con- 
 ference was made up of men who knew how to do the busi° 
 ness of the church, without the aid of a Presiding Elder.— 
 
25 
 
 That Rev. Mr. Hicks may be fairly seen, we will give 8ome 
 extracts from this famous epistle. 
 
 It is dated: " District Parsonage, N. C, Aug. 28th 185V 
 A nd addressed, " To the chairman and members of the Metho- 
 dist Protestant Quarterly Conference.''' After giving an ac- 
 count, in his natural style, of the difficulties on Reem's Creek* 
 among the Methodists, concerning the order of the Sons of 
 Temperance, and intimating that circumstances might lead 
 him to address the Annual Conference cf the Methodist Pro" 
 testant Church, North Carolina District, upon the subject if 
 his appeal or admonition was not heeded, he proceeds thus : 
 " There is another view which should be laid before you.— 
 One of the party. A. H. Brittain, was expelled from our church 
 not for opposing the Sons merely, as he and some others talk, 
 but for his wicked abuse of preachers, (wonderful!) and in- 
 veighing against our Discipline, # # # # Another, 
 A. Pickens, was in a state of suspension, by committee, for 
 falsehood, encouraging schism in, and secession from the 
 church, and an effort to injure his brethren in the ministry." 
 This last clause, " an effort to injure his brethren" we invite 
 special attention to, because we have examined the charges 
 and specifications, (a copy now lies before us) and no such 
 clause, directly or indirectly, is found contained therein. N6' 
 such an allegation was made against Rev. A, Pickens, nor 
 will the records show such a thing, and yet this same Presid- 
 ing Elder, this Episcopal Methodist parson, has the unblush- 
 ing effrontery to write such a thing to the Methodist Protes- . 
 tant Quarterly Conference of Cleaveland Circuit. Surely 
 
 Shakespeare must have had such a character in his eye, when 
 he wrote : 
 
 "Man, proud man, dressed in a little brief authority, 
 Plays such fantastic tricks before high heayen, 
 As mike the angels weep." 
 
This notable letter \yriter continues : " All these are likely 
 to be received (as I am told,) into your church, and the last is 
 to be the pastor of the Ridge, and other congregations. Is this 
 so? Alas! if it is, Ts your church going to say, (by actor 
 otherwise,) that those men are not guilty, as charged? Better 
 hear the testimony first. This you will see I judge. The 
 public shall be enlightened on the subject, if the Lord spare 
 some of us." This letter was signed " William Hicks." 
 
 Well, after all, this same William Hicks, has written and 
 published so much, and had shown such a disposition to 
 meddle with the good name and reputation of men whose 
 standing was as well, and as favorably known as his own, 
 that the Quarterly Conference could not believe his report, and 
 despite all his rude threats, the church; at the Ridge Meeting 
 House, (Mt. Zion,) was regularly received, numbering 54 
 members, 33 of whom were females. What a mortifying 
 event it must have 'been to the notable letter writer, thai these 
 people should now be able to receive the ordinances of the 
 gospel. And now, Sir, we suppose that if you have designed 
 to make your word good, you will establish your threatened 
 system of close communion. Let us see. How will you un- 
 dertake it ? Popery will hardly flourish well upon American 
 soil. Bear that in mind. 
 
 How frail is poor human nature ! How easy is it for some 
 men to act the part of tyrants! And what an illustration of 
 this, has the Rev. Mr. Hicks furnished us in the whole course 
 of his proceedings, as brought to view in these pages I He 
 figures proudly, and loudly, and boldly, before us. He affectg 
 to show something of the wisdom of the serpent, but nothing 
 of the harmlessness of the dove. He speaks, writes, and 
 threatens, with all pompous authority of a Romish priest, but 
 
27 
 
 exhibits none oi that "charity which hopeth all things, bear- 
 eth all things ; believeth all things" IJe professes to be a 
 minister of the gospel, a herald of salvation, whose business 
 it is to promote peace and good will upon earth, but perse- 
 cutes even grey-headed christians ; stigmatizes and labors to 
 blacken the character, and destroy the good name of men, who 
 are as well and as favorably known as himself. 
 
 We have seen him in his career, commence his crusade 
 against that grey headed minister, Rev. A. Pickens, first by 
 his hints and innuendoes ; Secondly, by his published pamph- 
 lets. All this failing to accomplish or effect his desired object, 
 he using his subaltern, Rev. David Sullins, summoned him 
 to stand church trial upon allegations which are well known 
 amongst this community, to be of the most frivolous character, 
 and to stand this trial too, before David Sullins, who was the 
 judge, selected the jury, and Was also active prosecutor in the 
 case!! and whilst the old minister was at home sick, unable 
 to attend, Judge Sullins and his court expelled him from the 
 churchy as the judge was pleased to publish abroad ! A judge 
 with power to select the jury, and also act as prosecutor and 
 witness in the case!! And all this done too in republican 
 North Carolina!! But was there any republicanism in such a 
 proceeding? Surely none — not a particle. But it is so easy 
 to convict in this way ! therefore, the judge accomplished his 
 object for once. The man may have gloried in this act, but, 
 alas! alas!! how debasing to the minister ! 
 
 Citizens of republican America, can you, in the fear of God, 
 approve in your consciences of such conduct as that exhibited 
 by this clerical aristocrat? Can you tolerate in your feelings, 
 such principles and such practices as he has been acting out 
 among us ? Principles and practices, perfectly consistent with 
 a Romish Priest, or Jesuit, but always abominable and dis- 
 
28 
 
 •gusting when visible in the course of a professed minister el 
 the religion of the meek and lowly Jesus. Why was the soil 
 of our native land baptized with the blood of our fathers ? 
 Was it not to purchase liberty, civil and religious ? Was it 
 not a high price too, paid for such liberty ? Religious liberty 1 
 How sweet the word!! How dear-bought that right! Let no 
 man invade it. None but a tyrant will, for none but tyrants 
 are the enemies of liberty. 
 
 But hark! what do I hear? Tidings of another pamphlet! 
 Yes, another pamphlet. From whence does it come ? And 
 why does it come ? It comes from Rev. William Hicks — and 
 it comes because he has heretofore failed to destroy the reli- 
 gious reputation and standingof Rev. A. Pickens, or to im- 
 pair, the confidence his religious friends and neighbors have 
 Jong reposed in him. Therefore, this is the third pamphlet, 
 besides a circular, and one Newspaper essay, that Mr. Hicks 
 has aimed at that old minister. Verily, Mr. Hicks must be 
 in a predicament — for, certainly no man having truth on his 
 side, has ever been compelled to resort to so many publica- 
 tions to defend his own conduct among his neighbors, and 
 against a neighbor who does not live more than two miles off, 
 when the old minister has never. had, up to this time, the first 
 paragraph published concerning W. Hicks. 
 
 But, here lies the mystery : Hick!s pamphlets have recoiled 
 on his own head, and in his madness and confusion, he wrig- 
 gles and flounders to save himself by. traducing that old and 
 well known minister of the gospel, Andrew Pickens, and hear 
 his plea — oh, wonderful to tell! he says in the introduction to 
 his third pamphlet, £1 have but two objects. First. To disa- 
 buse the public mind, so that the innocent be not blamed un- 
 justly — and, Secondly. The promotion of God's cause, as ths 
 
uUirnatum "*' Now, let any man read this same pamphlet 
 over and tell us then if he can, as a christian man, how either 
 God's cause can be promoted thereby, or the public mind dis- 
 abused. Why so far as the author is concerned, this pamph- 
 let is a disgrace to the minister, and a reproach to the christian 
 religion. The cause of God promoted by villifying Rev. A. 
 Pickens, a minister of more than forty years standing, Maj. A. 
 H. Brittain, and P. W. Edwards? But this is one of Mr. 
 Hick's methods of promoting the cause of God. His third 
 pamphlet, which we now proceed to notice, is entitled "The 
 Pilot's hand proffered but would have been more appropri- 
 ately named, if it had been called by its author, the "Dirt 
 Cart f for it must be apparent to every reader, that it abounds 
 with the back-alley slang, from the beginning to end. A man 
 of good breeding, would write as a gentleman ; but no gen- 
 tleman was ever possessed of a fondness to villify and traduce 
 the character of a man who was better known, and longer 
 known than himself, dfld whose usefulness had been s>o much 
 greater than his own. Of Mr. Hick's raising, we know noth- 
 ing. But his conduct is before us; and, inasmuch as actions 
 speak a stronger language than words, we can only judge the 
 tree by its fruit. Mr. Hicks labors throughout his third pamph- 
 let, as he had done in all his others, to pouj.fuil vials of his 
 wrath upon the head of Rev. A. Pickens. Rev. A. Pickens 
 had offended his ilev. Highness, and therefore, there could be 
 no mitigation of his offence. The case reminds us very much 
 of an anecdote we once heard : 
 
 A man went to the priest to confess his sins. He confessed 
 to many of various shades of character and grade of offense, 
 and the priest readily forgave each sin and offense against 
 
 * On page 23, he says : " I have been driven to make this publication in. 
 self-defence." jilas! alas!! 
 
30 
 
 every body, as he proceeded in detail But, at length, says 
 the man, "I have stolen a ram." -'From whom did you stea: 
 it," demanded the priest ?" " From a priest " replied the man, 
 " From what priest did you take it?" he was asked. " I stole 
 it from you," replied the man. " That is an awful sin," replied 
 the priest, "to steal from me." "You cannot be forgiven.; 
 there is no forgivness for you, and you are certain to be 
 damned." So in the case of father Pickens, he has offended 
 the priest, the Presiding Elder, therefore, he becomes worse 
 than all other sinners. In this third pamphlet of Mn Hick's, 
 which we now proceed to notice, the author becomes guilty of 
 a piece of work of which we have never known a minister of 
 the gospel of peace to be guilty. No, nor have we ever heard 
 or read of such a thing before. An act so derogatory to the 
 character of a minister of the gospel of Jesus! 
 
 The act is this, and bespeaks its own shame. Rev. W. 
 Hicks publishes in his famous pamphlet what he is pleased to 
 call the " charges and specifications* together with the evi- 
 dence given, as well as not given, in the case of Rev. A. Pick, 
 ens. And now, in defense of the truth, we shall proceed to 
 take up and examine these charges and show by the evidence 
 as brought forward by Mr. Hictts himself, that the accused 
 was innocent of the allegations, and if blame falls upon Hicks 
 and his party, we hope they will not blame us for it, but will 
 settle the case with the " offended priest." Here, then follows 
 the proceedings. 
 
 "Charges against the Rev. A. Pickens." 
 
 " The Rev. Andrew Pickens, L. E., in the Bumsville Circuit, 
 Methodist E. Church, South, is charged as follows, viz : 
 
 1st. With falsehood. 
 
 Specification. In denying that he publicly charged that 
 some of the members of the Reem's Creek Division of the 
 
31 
 
 Sons of Temperance, had been guilty of the " blackest crimes}' 
 and had "stated things about him which tfiey knew to be false." 
 
 Before we proceed to the next specification, we shall weigh 
 the evidence upon this, and thus proceed in Retail. 
 
 Now be it known, that Mr. Hicks had, in June, 1851, writ- 
 ten and published a "hand bill" in which he declares, that he 
 was ready to prove, "1st. That the Rev. A. Pickens made the 
 heavy charge above named, against some of the Sons in this 
 community, on the 5th ult., in the hearing of a considerable 
 assembly." 
 
 Again, on page 24, Mr. Hicks says: "It is fair to presume 
 that the hand bill was made the basis of charges against father 
 Pickens." Well, so far, so good. But here is more light still 
 upon the case. Hicks informs us in a certificate of his own, 
 written to be read or used upon the trial but which was not 
 brought forward, (no doubt for the benefit of his own reputa- 
 tion,) that upon the day of the trial of PAaj. Brittain, he told 
 Rev. A. Pickens, that "the time had come when he must 
 church me, or I would church him." Said certificate is given 
 by Mr. Hicks, on page 29, of his pamphlet. 
 
 Now then, the case comes plainly before us. Hicks has 
 told Rev. A. Pickens, "you must church me, or 1 will church 
 you." Hicks has published this same specification, No. 1, 
 which comes foremost in the charges in the famous " hand 
 bill." The hand bill is disbelieved by many, and its allega- 
 tions regarded as falsehoods. Hence the reputation of Hicks 
 becomes endangered, and he of course, must fall, if A. Pick- 
 ens cannot be destroyed. But it is resolved to sacrifice the 
 old white headed minister — that would stay the falling repu- 
 tation of the Presiding Elder. The hands are all ready, and 
 the plan is soon made out. Rev. David Sullins, preacher lit 
 charge, cites Rev. A. Pickens to trial, but no name is append 
 
3;^ 
 
 ed to the citation as accuser, and we are left with the evidence 
 before us furnished by the Presiding Elder to regard Wni M 
 Hicks himself, as the real prosecutor, and David Sullins as the 
 pliant cat's paw in his hands; a most natural conclusion this ? 
 for travelling preachers are indebted to ihe Presiding Elder 
 for their appointment, so far as favorable ones are concerned. 
 
 But a very few days were allowed brother Pickens to pre- 
 pare for trial according to W. Hick's account, for says he> 
 "about the last of July, the Rev. David Sullins cited the Rev' 
 A. Pickens to attend at Salem Meeting House., on the 6th day 
 of August, to answer to the above charges, before a committee 
 of Local Elders." 
 
 Bnrther Pickens being confined at the time by a spell of 
 sickness, was unable to attend. Of this fact, David Sullins 
 was well aware, but having his overseer's work to do, he went 
 ahead. 
 
 . A committee was formed of Rev. Jacob Weaver, Rev. John 
 Reynolds, and Rev. J. L, Burnett. 
 
 The committee [then heard the exparte testimony, or one 
 side of the case, and suspended the Rev. A. Pickens until the 
 ensuing Quarterly Conference, when brother Pickens, having 
 recovered, to some extent, his health, appeared before that body 
 and produced his testimony. 
 
 Now, in order to defend truth against falsehood, in review- 
 ing the specifications and testimony, we shall produce Rev 
 Picken's testimony, which he presented before the Quarteily 
 Conference, upon each point in the case as tried before Da- 
 vid Sullins. 
 
 We now proceed with the charges and evidence. In order 
 to keep the reader's mind well guarded, we shall cite again the 
 specification, already written down on another pagp. Here 
 il is : 
 
as 
 
 * * * ■ '. t » - • 
 
 * Specification 1st In denying that he publicly charged that 
 
 some of the members of Reem's Creek Division, Sons of 
 
 Temperance, had been guilty of the "blackest crimes? and 
 
 had stated things about him which they knew to be false** 
 
 Now for the testimony. 
 
 "Evidence for the Church." 
 
 '•No. 1. Rev. John S. Weaver, was examined. He was 
 questioned as to a charge that Rev. A. Pickens had made 
 against members of Reem's Creek Division, to wit: that they 
 had been guilty of the "blackest crimes" He answered that 
 Rev. A. Pickens '.old him that he did not make the charge. 
 A certificate given by J. S. Weaver, was then read, concern? 
 ing the above charge, and he was questioned as to his writing 
 it. He answered in the affirmative. Here is the certificate: 
 
 "We do hereby certify that sometime since the trial of A. 
 H. Britain, we called on the Rev. A. Pickens for an explana- 
 tion of the heavy charge made against some of the members 
 of Reem's Creek Division, at the aforenamed trial, and he, 
 the said Pickens, denied having made any such charge; but 
 stated he only meant such things might be done, as he named; 
 and he also said that he had not reference on that occasion to 
 anything particularly, or to any body; and added that he had 
 not explained to brother Hicks, that he had reference to any- 
 thing. J. S. WEAVER, 
 
 W. C. GARRISON. 
 
 June 19th, 185l: , 
 
 " No. 2. W. C. Garrison, was questioned as to whether Rev* 
 A. Pickens had denied making the charge against the Sons of 
 Temperance, as set forth ; who answered that he was in con* 
 pany with Rev. J. S. Weaver, and conversed with him in bis 
 testimony, He also acknowledged the aforesaid certificate to 
 be bis" 
 
 i 
 
34 
 
 Our remarks. Let the reader bear in mind that the certifi- 
 cates of these two gentlemen bears date, June 19th, and the 
 charges served on Rev. A. Pickens, is dated, July 25 — there- 
 fore, it becomes at once apparent that this certificats was not 
 written out for the trial, but must have been made out for 
 some other purpose ; at least if written for the trial, its date 
 proves that it was written before Rev. A. Pickens was chaiged* 
 But be it as it may, its character for purity, stands arraigned 
 by all the circumstances. 
 
 But in what character did J. S. Weaver and J. C. Garri- 
 son visit Rev. A. Pickens, at his house, and "call upon him for 
 an explanation of the heavy ctuir-ge made against some of the 
 Reem's Creek Division V They could not have done so in the 
 character of members of the M. E. Church South. If they 
 did, they were "busy-bodies in other men's waiters f> for such 
 an allegation would not concern the church, but the Sons only. 
 If they called in the character of the Sons of Temperance, 
 and wrote out their certificate, thirty-five days before the 
 charges were preferred against Rev. A. Pickens, why here is 
 weighty proof of deep corruption and malice aforethought on 
 their part, and hence their whole testimony should be set aside 0 
 For as much as the certificate bears date thirty-five days be- 
 fore the charges, it might.be supposed that, let the certificate 
 be written under what circumstances it might, they would still 
 adhere to it when called upon on trial. 
 
 Now bear in mind gentle reader, that Rev. A. Pickens is 
 not charged with designating any particular person among 
 the Sons. But here lies the mystery and secret of the whole 
 affair— Mr. Hic/cs pamphlets, one of ivhich had been published 
 by the Sons, were by many, regarded as containing false state- 
 ments, particularly concerning Rev. A. Pickens, the influence 
 of the Presiding Elder being on the wane, when he heard the 
 
old man in his speech, in defence of Maj. Brittain, use such 
 an expression as this, which was testified to by fifteen witnesses^ 
 viz: "there have been things published against me as Hack as 
 midnight, and brethren you know UP Mr, Hicks takes the 
 alarm, for guilt needs no accusor, and forsooth, attempts to 
 show that the old white headed minister meant some of the Sons 
 as the authors of such baseness. No doubt he felt so. 
 
 But how had J. S. Weaver and J. C. Garrison heart) that 
 Rev. A. Pickens had charged the Sons with the "blackest 
 crimes" that they questioned him on the subject? From W 0 
 Hicks, undoubted^ for he was the first one to alledge such a 
 thing, according to his own showing. 
 
 Fortunately for the cause of truth, Mr. Hicks has seen pro- 
 per to publish in his third pamphlet, a certificate which he 
 says he had given, but was mislaid at the time of trial. Here 
 it is. Now watch it closely. Some truth leaks out through it. 
 
 "July SOlh, 1851. 
 
 "1 was at the church trial of Maj. A. Brittain, and heard 
 the Rev. Andrew Pickens state in his defence of said Brittain, 
 (in alluding to the Sons,) that they had been guilty, (this was 
 the idea,") [mark that language gentle reader, he says it was 
 the idea, not the ivords used,] of the " blackest crimes," and 
 "stated things about him which they knew to be false," I told 
 him at the time, that I would hold him responsible for the 
 charge, and that if he had reference to the " Way the Wind 
 Blows," I would prove every word of it to be true." [See 
 how this Presiding Elder attempts to bring the difficulties of 
 tbe Sons of Temperance, into the church.] u When the Rev° 
 J. A. Reagan requested the audience to withdraw from the 
 church, for the committee to make out its report, I took brother 
 Pickens around the church, and called on him to explain to 
 what he had reference when he made the above charge. I 
 
n 
 
 ^hen told him that the time had come when he must churebk 
 me, or I would church him, that I would rather he wou!4 
 thurch me." [Alas ! alas ! ! for the rights of a church mem* 
 ber.] "In reference to my demand for an explanation, he al- 
 Juded to things which had been written about him. I told him 
 the charge which he had made was very severe, and repeated 
 part of it — the " blackest crimes." (I had written down the 
 charge made, immediately after he made the statement.) He 
 said "what do you understand to be the blackest crimes V' 
 I answered, " murder, adultery, and such like." He replied* 
 ^and lying." I said yes, and "wilful lying." I then asked 
 him "if he thought any of us, (the Sons) had wilfully lied?'* 
 (Mark that gentle reader, the Sons are cunningly brought in 
 though they had not been named. Guilt cannot be still.] He 
 did not answer the question in a direct manner, [Here a little 
 truth at once leaks out,] but proceeded to point out certain 
 items in our pamphlet (above mentioned,) which he said were 
 false c One was where the pamphlet charges that he made an 
 attack on certain young ladies, by enquiry and reprimand, 
 page 3rd. Another was where the pamphlet speaks of a com- 
 pany of approvers to the Sons, as being at the church when 
 
 the Sons arrived. — (Page 4.) Another was where the pamph- 
 let represents or rather conjectures, [Hear that will you — conr 
 
 jeciures! What a dodge!!] that the said Pickens and the 
 company met by " express understanding," to oppose the Sona 
 and are spoken of as a party in contradistinction to the Sons. 
 —(Pages 4th and 5ih.) And another was, where the pamph- 
 let represents the said Pickens and Maj. Brittain as making 
 friends. — (Page 12th.) These are the items to which he re- 
 ferred, in explanation to me, when such explanation was de- 
 manded. [Let the reader notice this last sentence particular- 
 ly, for we shall sift it.] He afterwards gave the same expla- 
 
n 
 
 nation (in substance) just above the road leading from this to 
 Cc}. Alexander's near the little branch, beyond A. j. Gill's. 
 He represented that these items were false, and when I asked 
 Jiim time and again, if he believed I had wilfully lied in 
 writing those items? he would not answer, either yes or no; 
 put still stated that they were false. [Notice that gentle reader, 
 ike old preacher would give no explanation.] With regard to 
 the first item, (page 3rd,) he said he made no attack upon the 
 young ladies as charged. With regard to the second, (p. 4th) 
 he said he did not suppose that the "company in question 
 was nearer than Andy Gills, when the Sons arrived." In ref- 
 erence to the third, (p. 4th and 5th,) he thought it unjust, (this 
 was the substance,) to associate him with dram-drinkers and 
 drunkards, as the pamphlet did ; (all decent men would think 
 so too,) and said there was no understanding among those who 
 met there, that the Sons were to be opposed, or that he was 
 going to oppose the organization of the Sons at the church; 
 but finally said, that Gill may have known that he was going 
 there that evening, \yith regard to the fourth, (p. 12th) he 
 said that he and Brittain had never been enemies, and, there- 
 fore, could not haye made " friends " (Many other things were 
 said, which do not bear on the point under consideration — the 
 most of which I could state were it necessary.) The forego- 
 ing I regarded, at the time, and have done ever since, as an 
 explanation of the heavy charges made against the Sons in 
 his defense of Brittain ; [Mark this sentence reader, he says 
 be regarded it as an explanation of the heavy charge, &c, but 
 dce3 not say it was given as such. Alas, for such testimony.] 
 as I called for an explanation, and he gave the items of the 
 pamphlet, (already referred to,) in reply to my inquiry. 
 
 I certify that the foregoing is substantially correct, and I am 
 persuaded that brother Pickens knows it to be so. 
 
 WM. HICKS." 
 
Who has ever read such a certificate as the one above ?— 
 Now we propose to show that the Rev. W. Hicks is guilty of 
 falsehood, by what he has recorded wi'h his own pen, and if 
 he does contradict himself, of course his testimony should be 
 set aside as false. Let the reader judge. 
 
 This certificate of Mr. Hicks, is recorded in his pamphlet 
 in order to sustain the 2nd specification of charge 1st., but was 
 written out to sustain several of the allegations, the first more 
 particularly, as the reader may see. Rev. Mr. Hicks it seems 
 was present at the trial and gave evidence before the commit- 
 tee. Here is his evidence : 
 
 "Rev. Wm. Hicks was questioned, as to whether the Rev. 
 A. Pickens did make the explanation, who says that he did; 
 and that lie said he had reference to certain items in the 
 pamphlet entitled the " Way the Wind Blows," which items 
 were mentioned by Rev. Wm. Hicks, to the committee." 
 
 Here then the reader will find this testimony of Mr. Hick$ y 
 given before the committee, does not agree with his certificate 0 
 Let us now sift his evidence, and see what it really does weigh. 
 In his certificate he says, "in reference to my demand for an 
 explanation, he alluded to things which had been written 
 about him.'' Mark that reader, Mr. Hicks says/' he alluded 
 to things which had been written about him." Now I ask 
 what man of truth or of common sense, would, or could call 
 an allusion, an explanation, when an explanation had been 
 demanded? None would dare do it. Again, Mr. Hicks says 
 in the same part of his certificate, "1 then asKed him if he 
 thought any of us, (the Sons,) had wilfully lied ? He did not 
 answer the question in a direct manner." Here then reader is 
 evidence offered us, that should fully prove to every unbiased 
 mind, that Rev. A. Pickens did refuse to make an explanation, 
 to Rev. W. Hicks, when the latter demanded it of the former. 
 
39 
 
 Again. W Hicks does not dare to tell u c , neither in hU cer« 
 tificate, nor in the testimony before the committee, that Rev. 
 A. Pickens either said, or admitted, that any reply that he 
 made to W. Hick's demand for an explanation, was even any 
 portion, part, or syllable of explanation. And yet this same 
 Methodist Presiding Elder, has the daring effrontery to say 
 before the committee, "he did? But, hold on Mr. Hicks, we 
 are not done with you yet. We will draw the noose a little 
 tighter. In order that you and all the rest of mankind may 
 see the ugliness of your own testimony, we will arraign its 
 contradictions here, in three verses, as though it were framed 
 in a glass for inspection. 1 begin with the certificate. 
 
 1st. "I took brother Pickens around the church, and called 
 on him to explain to what he had reference, when he made 
 the above charge. # # # 1 then asked him if he thought 
 any of us (the Sons,) had wilfully lied. He did not answer 
 the qnestion in direct manner." 
 
 2nd. I asked him, time and again, if he believed I had 
 wilfully lied, in writing those items? He would not answer 
 yes or no, but stated they were false. # # # The forego- 
 ing I regarded at the time, and have done ever since, as an 
 explanation of the heavy charge made against the Sons in his 
 defense of Mdj. Britlain." 
 
 [Now to the testimony before the Committee.] 
 
 3rd. "Rev. Wm, Hicks was questioned as to whether the 
 Rev. A, Pickens did make the explanation, who says that he 
 did, and said that he had reference to certain items in the 
 pamphlet, entitled the " Way the Wind Blows." 
 
 Now, what jury of impartial men, would, for a moment be- 
 lieve the testimony of such a witness as we have shown Rev, 
 W. Hicks to be? None. His testimony would be set aside* 
 and scattered to the winds as unworthy of credit. But we 
 
46 
 
 drop him for the present and take up other evidence in the 
 case. Let the reader bear in mind that Rev. W. Hicks is the 
 first man that complained of Rev. A. Picken's remarks in his 
 defense of Maj. Brittain, And Mr. Hicks stales in the fore 
 part of his certificate, that he, (Pickens,) said (in alluding to 
 the Sons,) that they had been guilty, (this was the idea) of the 
 " blackest crimes." Mr. Hicks does not say that such was the 
 language, but he says, "this was the idea." Now mark how 
 the witnesses chime in, and see how the scholars attempt to 
 outstrip the schoolmaster. 
 
 No. 3. " The certificate of the Rev. James A Reagan, was 
 read, which testifies that at the trial of A. H. Brittain, the Rev. 
 A. Pickens did make the charge, that some of the members of 
 Reem's Creek Division, had done, or been guilty of things of 
 the "blackest crime, and stated things about him which they 
 knew to be false," 
 
 Neither date nor signature is attached to this certificate.— 
 Who ever heard of such a paper among religrous people ! Its 
 very character should kill its credit. 
 
 No. 4. " The certificate of Samuel Smith was read. We 
 do hereby certify that we were at the trial of A. H. Brittain, 
 in last month, and heard the Rev. A. Pickens say, (in alluding 
 to the Sons, as we understood him,) that they had done, or 
 been guilty of things, of the blackest crimes, and stated things 
 about him which they knew to be false. 
 
 S. SMITH, and others. 
 
 June, 1851." 
 
 Our remarks. The above certificate all honest men ought 
 to condemn, for the following reasons: 1st. It bears date in 
 June. 2nd. Rev. A. Pickens was not charged uri&l 25th July. 
 3rd. The certificate of course was not written to oe presented 
 tupon the trial, if fair play was intended, for it bears date be- 
 
fore the charges, 4th. The words l ' and ot/ie are .add ed on 
 by 'Mr. Hicks after Mr. Smith's name, but he does not give the 
 quotation credit. Therefore, this certificate proves nothing 
 but the trick of a party, and is entitled to no credit in its 
 place. , 
 
 No. 5, "Philip Hunter was questioned as to, whether .the 
 Rev. A. Pickens made the above charge ; to which he an§wer= 
 ed in the affirmative. To further questions as to the precise 
 words of the charge, he answered that his understanding was 
 that they, (the Sons,) &c, had been guilty of crimes of the 
 blackest dye? &c. 
 
 j Our remarks. Observe how this witness attempts to chime 
 in with Mr. Hic^s, nor does their testimony agree— -for Hicks 
 said in his certificate, he " heard the Rev. A. Pickens state in, 
 his defense of said Brittain, {in alluding' to the Sons) that they 
 had been guilty , (t,his was the idea,) of the blackest crimes." 
 And now Philip Hunter when questioned, as to the precise 
 words of the charge, answers that ,tie understood those words 
 to be, i( they had been guilty of crimes ^of the blackest dye?-— 
 Neither does* their witnesses agree. Therefore, Philip Hunter's 
 testimony should bo set aside, for the scholar has outstripped 
 the schoolmaster. 
 
 No. 6. <( J. R. Weaver was questioned, who corroborated 
 the above charge." 
 
 No. 7. Allen Fox was questioned, who corroborated the 
 above charge." 
 
 Our remarks. ; We cafl the reader's special attentiop , to 
 these two witnesses just quoted. W. Hicks says in his pamph- 
 let they *< corroberated the above change" and marks,, with quo- 
 tation point?, the whole sentence as though quoted from the 
 minutes of trial. Now, if the Secretary to the committee of 
 trial did pen down the evidence of these two witnesses pre* 
 
42 
 
 cieely as quoted by Mr. Hicks, it certainly furnishes conclu- 
 sive testimony of the deepest corruption possible on ; the part 
 of the committee and its chairman — for a Secretary has no 
 earthly right in taking down testimony to say what is "cor- 
 roborated" and what is not. That right belongs to the com- 
 mittee alone. The business of the Secretary is to record the 
 testimony as given, and not to assert what is proved, or " cor- 
 roborated" So, upon tKe principles of common justice, what 
 is recorded of these two witnesses should be set aside. 
 
 No. 8. " H. P. Corn was questioned as the same charge 
 who corroberated the same ; and also testified that the certify 
 cate of " Smith and others," is substantially true." 
 
 Our remarks. A very apt witness! But what sort of com- 
 pany do we find him in? The Secretary again says, he "cor- 
 roberated the same, and also testified that the certificate of 
 "Smith and others, is substantially true." The committee 
 should have said this, and not the Secretary. Nor had the 
 committee a right to say so until all the evidence in the case 
 had been heard. Where such foul corruption is shown, the 
 evidence of H. P. Corn, should also be set aside. 
 
 No. 9. " Rev. J. S. Weaver was questioned as to the truth 
 of the charge, who stated that in the course of his defense, he 
 spoke of his (Rev. A. Pickens') own case, and then said in 
 reference to the Sons, that they had been guilty of the " blackest 
 crimes" &c. 
 
 No. 10. " P Roberts was questioned, as to whether the Rev. 
 A 'Pickens made the aforesaid charge, who testified to the 
 same." 
 
 No. 11. V0\ C. Garnson was questioned, who corroberated 
 the same." 
 
 Our remarks: ban the reader tell what the witness, P. 
 Roberts did testify 1 No, he cannot. The Secretary says, "he 
 
43 
 
 vyas questioned concerning the afore said charge, who testified 
 to the same." But the reader cannot tell what the whole com- 
 mittee thought of the evidence, nor have we any knowledge 
 of one word he said. We have nothing but the Secretary^ 
 opinion. Here we also find J.S. Weaver, and W. C. Garri- 
 son, called up a second time to testify upon this same specifi- 
 cation, in addition to their joint certificate. We trust we have 
 already shown good reason why they should not be heard as 
 witnesses in this case. 
 
 No. 12. W. P. Bassett, also testified to the truth, substan- 
 tially of the same." 
 
 No. 13. " W. R. Baird was also questioned as to the troth 
 of the charge, before set forth, and also testified to its truth/* 
 
 No. 14. " T. J. Weaver wab questioned, who corroborated 
 the same." 
 
 No. 15. "A. G. Haren likewise testified to the same." 
 
 No. 16. "R. H. Davis was also questioned whose iestimo" 
 ny agreed with the above." 
 
 Our remarks. Who can tell what these five witnesses did 
 say? No man can tell. Who weighed their testimony and 
 deeided what they proved? Or with whom they agreed or 
 disagreed? Of course that would fee the sole business i and 
 right of the committee. But here, from the very minutes of 
 trial quoted by W. Hicks, we find the Secretary, instead of 
 giving the testimony of the witnesses boldly asserting what 
 they " corroheratea 1 " or proved. 1 have read the minutes of 
 many a trial, but never have read of the like of this before. 
 Surely a committee of Barebone's Parliament, would never 
 have been guilty of so foul and unjust a procedure! There- 
 fore upon the principles of justice a 1 nd right already laid down 
 we insist that the testimony of these last witnesses, five in 
 number, should be discarded, for the great word of the Secre* 
 
44 
 
 if 4 
 
 tary, " coYroberatedy comes in so readily, that it would appeal 
 there was nothing left for either' the committee, chairman, or 
 the rest of mankind, to! do, 'or ask, anything more than take 
 Mr. Secretary's judgment of opinion concerning the points. 
 Oh justice ! Whither hast thou* .fled ! ! 
 
 We have gone through with the evidence presented by the 
 church upon- this specification, and we shall now proceed to 
 lay down the evidence brought forward by the defense upon 
 the same point at the Quarterly Conference. Let the reader 
 weigh it well. ' ' : * t( ;i 
 
 For the Defense. 
 
 u September 5th, 1851. I hereby certify that 1 was at the 
 trial pf A. H. Brittain and heard all that the Rev. A. 'Pickens 
 said on that occasion, in the Meeting Housed and I did not 
 hear him use any personality whatever: I Heard him* * pay he 
 was charged with the blackest crimes, and ^6u know ^ rt, waiv- 
 ing his hand towards Hicks and Reagan. v ; ' 1 
 
 J. B. WEAVER." 
 
 " I do believe the sum and substance of the above is correct 
 according to my recollection! 
 
 ROBERT LATHAM." 
 H I was at the trial of A. H, Brittain, and Was present at the 
 time that Andrew Pickens made his statement, and the above 
 is correct according to my hearing s 
 
 THOMAS O. ROBERTS." 
 " I agree with the above certificate. By me, 
 
 A. ROBERTS." 
 
 " I agree with the above certificate. 
 
 J. M. PADGETT." 
 " I was at the trial of A. H. Brittain, and was present at the 
 time that Andrew Pickens made his statement, and I do be- 
 lieve that the above is a true statement. 
 
 WILLIAM FOX, Sen." 
 
45 
 
 "September ll//t, 1851. This }s to certify that I attended 
 the church trial of a! H. Britta'in. A. Pickens addressed the 
 committee, to the 'best of my recollection, in explaining one of 
 the charges, to wit : the''bringing the ministers into disrepute ; 
 he said it made no difference what might be published against 
 him — he supposed 'they did riot call him a minister, for there 
 had been tilings published agains^him as black as midnight 
 darkness. Then waiving his hand towards the Elder, and 
 several others, sitting near him, stating — " brethren you know 
 it," He did not personage them as Sons of Temperance, nor 
 did he express what publication He lia'd reference to. This is 
 given by me, ANDREW J. GILL." 
 
 Our remarks. Nowhere are sevWn witnesses who have 
 testified in behalf of the did minister,' and they airpointedly 
 bear a most united testimony, that brother 'Pickens 1 used no 
 personality whatever. Now look back and read ovfer the tes- 
 timony of Mr, Hick's witnesses, arV& find tnem sa^ih'g he had 
 reference to the Sons" but not "one solitary orie r among 
 them dares to tell how that reference was madejor wfiat' words 
 he used to make the reference!! The fact is, simply mis, they 
 no doubt felt guilty ; from their connexion with 1 those scanda- 
 lous pamphlets, they couM not have felt otherwise, particular- 
 ly Hicks, for guilt canaot be still, and often bedomes its own 
 accuser. Is it not even so in this case ? Does not the evidence 
 fully bear us out in the opinion ? 
 
 " Being called on to state what I heard about the trial of 
 Maj. Brittain, and the remarks made by Andrew Pickens, he 
 there said there had been things published about, or on him, 
 as black as midnight, and you know it — waiving his hand to 
 the eastern side of the house. 
 
 September 8th 1851. R. H. PICKENS." 
 
 September 9th 1851. I was at the trial\of A. H. Brittain, 
 
46 
 
 and was in the house at the time that the Rev. Andrew Pick- 
 ens made his statements, and I, dp not believe that he used any 
 personality. 1 was one of tltje committee, and have a right to 
 know. ALFRED ANDERS." 
 
 Our remarks. Listen to t^ese two witnesses, how pointedly 
 they tell the tale — particularly ttye lajst one, Mr. Anders. He 
 was one of the committee on Maj. Brittain'-s trial. Brother 
 Pickens was addressing that committee when his language 
 gave offense to Hicks and company, therefore, we must sup- 
 pose he was paying strict attention to what was said and yet he 
 says, U I do not believe that he used any personality." How 
 on earth then, could brother Pickens have made a c .' reference 
 to the Sons?" 
 
 f l hereby certify that 1 was at A. H. Brittain's trial and. 
 heard A Pickens speak, and heard him express himself i,n this 
 way — that things had been published against him as black as 
 midnight darkness; but did no£ say who had done it. He 
 did not personate any body at all. 
 
 GEORGE N. GILL." 
 "September Wi, 1851. 1 do hereby certify that 1 was at 
 the church trial, Reem's Creek, when Maj. Britton was tried, 
 and heard Rev. A. Pickens speak, when he charged that things 
 had been published against him as black as midnight, but did 
 not say who had published them. He did not say any man, 
 or set of men, but said his brethren knew it. 
 
 JOSEPH P. ELLER." 
 " I agree with the above statement, 
 
 WIKLIAM J. FOX." 
 September Wth, 1851. I hereby certify that I was present 
 on the occasion iuwhich the Rev. Andrew Pickens is censur- 
 ed for accusing the Sons of Temperance of publishing things 
 against him, as black as midnight. 1 was not onlv present 
 
47 
 
 but paying special attention, and give it as follows : that he t 
 the Rev. A. Pickens, addressingfi#ie committee, stated there 
 were things published against him as black as midnight—-; 
 and brethren you know it — without naming any sect or order 
 of people. Given under my hand. This was my understand- 
 ing of the matter. . t , A. H. BRITTAIN." 
 
 "1 ivas at A. H. Britain's trial, and heard Andrew. Pickens 
 speak, and the above is my understanding of the matter, and 
 I paid strict attention to what was saip 1 . , 
 
 . D. HUNSUCKER " 
 
 ■ . . ■ \ . ■: . • 
 
 September 11th 1851. Whereas, Andrew Pickens is charg- 
 ed with falsehood, in denying that Jie publicly charge t d some 
 of the members of Reem's Creek Division, Sons of Temper- 
 ance, had been guilty of the blackest crimes, and had stated 
 things about him which the> knew to be false ; w,e the under* 
 signed, on a certain day, were at the trial of Maj. Brittain, and 
 did hear the Rev. A. Pickens complain of hard treatment, and 
 unjust assertions, and they knew it; but he personated no 
 man nor set of men. As to his charging the Sons of Tem- 
 perance, (the Reem's Creek Division) with the blackest crimes 
 is unjust and untrue. We would be hard to be made believe 
 that the said Andrew Pickens would be guilty of falsehood 
 on any occasion whatever. Some of us have known him for 
 thirty y ears and more, and have been well acquainted with 
 his public and private life, and have never heard one charge 
 of immorality charged against his character to the present day ; 
 and we think we are not partial towards him. We are not 
 members pf his church, nor of his society of the christian 
 order. We profess to be Presbyterians : and went on that day 
 merely as spectators, to hear the trial of said Brittain. Here- 
 unto we freely ahd independently subscribe our names. 
 
 GEORGE PENLAND, 
 G. G. HUGHES, 
 JAMES BALLARD." 
 
48 
 
 Our remarks. The above certificate is most certainly a 
 " clincher" and of course Will settle the question with all im- 
 partial t minds. Our only astonishment is this, that Mr. Hicks 
 should (be so ^ull as to publish to the world, testimony that 
 .wftuld prove his. own conduct to be so unworthy of the minis- 
 terial office, ahd thereby, enstamp shame and reproach upon 
 his very ijame. But, alas! how blind is poor fallen man!! 
 Buncombe pounty, N. C, September 12th, 1851. 
 
 " Being called onj I do hereby certify that I was present at 
 A. H. Brittain's trial alj Reem's Creek Church, and heard all, 
 as I believe, that passed there, publicly ; and I am well aware 
 that in the remark, made by Andrew Pickens, concerning 
 some publications whlcji he said were as black as midnigh^ 
 was not directed particularly fo the Reem's Creek Division, 
 according to my understanding ; and I cannot be deceived 
 from the fact that a certain publication ( of Edney's, in the 
 * Messenger," rushed itself upon nry mind, as one particular- 
 ly alluded to. Given under my ha^d and q^ate above, 
 
 VpLLJAM PICKENS." 
 
 rt September Wth, 1851. I do hereby certify that J. S. Wea- 
 ver, and W. C. Garrison, came to our house and interrogated 
 my husband about some things that he.jiad said at the Meet- 
 ing House, on the day of A. H. Brittain's trial. X S. Weaver 
 
 asked my husband who or what he filluded to when he made 
 the expression. My husband said he knew what they were after 
 and would not say that he had reference to any thing or any 
 bod). J. S. Weaver asked him if he did not tell Hicks, that 
 lie alluded to his pamphlet — and he told him no. And 4- S, 
 Weaver did not ask him any thing about the Reem's Creek 
 Division, nor Sons of Temperance. 
 
 D. A. PICKENS." 
 Out remarks. The testimony of the defense here closes on 
 
49 
 
 the specification' under consideration. Nineteen witnessed 
 have testified by certificate on this point, and they all give a 
 most united and harmonious testimony — a testimony that car- 
 ries an overwhelming conviction of truth to every honest mind. 
 Hicks and company, introduced but fifteen witriesses to sus r 
 tain this specification, and the reader has seen how vague and 
 contradictory their testimony has been. And now* tell us* 
 gentle reader, are you not surprised that Davy Sullin's com- 
 mittee should have pronounced this specification sustained! 
 Recollect what it charges upon brother Pickens. "Denying 
 that he publicly charged that some of the members of the Reem's 
 Creek Division, Sons of Temperance, had been guilty of the 
 blackest crimes, and had stated things about him which they 
 knew to be false." Where now do you find one of the fifteen 
 witnesses for the church even daring to say that he named the 
 Sons of Temperance ? Not one of them would do it. Even 
 Hicks himself, would not do it. He simply encloses in brack- 
 ets these words : (" in alluding to the Sons") He could not 
 venture to say brother Pickens named the Sons. And Rev. 
 J. S. Weaver, in his testimony simply tells us Rev. A. Pick- 
 ens spoke u m reference to the Sons" But neither of them tell 
 how, or by what words or language the " allusion,' ' or "refer- 
 ence" was made to the Sons. Could not do that we suppose! 
 They had gone far enough as it was. But behold Davy Sul- 
 lin's committee pronounced Rev. A Pickens guilty of the 
 charge upon this vague and contradictory testimony, one- 
 sided as it was, and then when the case went up to the Quar-i 
 terly Conference, and the testimony on both sides of the alle- 
 gation was heard; behold that body, in despite of the clear, 
 weighty, and overwhelming testimony for the defense, con- 
 firmed the verdict of the committee below!! But the candid 
 reader may ask how could the members of the Quarterly Con- 
 
50 
 
 fere nee do such an act as that, when the weight of evidence 
 bears so strongly and conclusively in behalf of the innocence 
 of the accused ? The answer is this : there is a wheel within 1 
 a wheel ; thus it was irk this ease. William Hicks is a Presi- 
 ding Elder — David Sulliris, a travelling preacher— ten mem- 
 oers of that Quarterly Conference were Stewards and Class 
 leaders, and were made such, and could hold bhHce and ap- 
 pointment only by authority of the traveling preacher in charge. 
 Every Methodist reader knti ws the Presiding Elders are the 
 Bishop's council in stationing the preachers ; hence they are 
 dependent upon the Presiding Elders to secure them good ap- 
 pointments. The Stewarts and Class-leaders being appoint- 
 ed and removed to and from office at the will of the preacher 
 in charge, it is qliite an easy matter for him to fill those places 
 with men wh6 will obey his will and do his work. In this 
 case there are three wheels. 1st. 'the Presiding Elder. 2nd; 
 The traveling preacher. 3rd. I'he Stewarts and Class-leaders; 
 The work to Be done is to crush Rev. A. Pickens. The firsi 
 wheel turns, and it moves the second. The second turns and 
 it moves the third— and all moving together the work is done 
 in fipite of proof or no proof. Take care reader if you be a 
 Methodist, that you do not offend one of the upper wheels, if 
 you do, you may be crushed by that wheel turning upon and 
 movitfg the lower one. These things are done in America bf 
 tyrants > who love power. Thus our readers will perceive by 
 ibe evidence that we have adduced that the first specification 
 in trial was sustained according to neither truth nor justice ; 
 and the reader c£th readily perceive that the "head and fro^l 
 of the old miriteibrt offending? was contained therein. There- 
 fore, the whole thai is fairly underminded by our exposure of 
 the foul means tfsed in the examination of the first specifica- 
 tion to make falsehWd pass for truth. 
 
51 
 
 But, does the reader want to see a beautiful speck of Hick's 
 foul play 1 If so, we will show it. He sa,ys, on page 46 of 
 bis pamphlet : 
 
 *' 1st. I remark, that the testimony adduced by father Pick*, 
 ens was illegal ; for he h#d not given, Rev. David Sullins no-, 
 tice that he was going to, take certificates to ufee in his defense- 
 I made this known, to the (Quarterly Conference." Now let 
 the reader look back to the evidence brought before the Com- 
 mittee of trial, by Hicks and Sailing, a,nd there is the certifi- 
 cates of J. C. Weaver, W. G. QarjisoOj, "S. Smith and others" 
 all dated in June, the month before broker Pickens w?,a 
 eharged — did they give him notice that they wouldi obtain 
 1,hese certificates to bring in on, trials No Sir — these were 
 obtained sometime before th$ cij^;ges were made out. Don't 
 be alarmed friends, here is something a little blacker still. 
 
 Looking forward to the other specifications, we find certifi- 
 cates brought in by the prosecution, bearing the following sig- 
 natures, and dates. : 
 
 1st. Certificate signed by Sara^h, Coulter, W. C. Weaver, 
 and E. E. Blackstock, dated "May 21st 185J." 
 
 2nd. Cer^ficate signed by Harriet Blackstock, and Marga- 
 ret M. Weaver, dated " May 21st 1851,." 
 
 3rd. Certificate by Thomas B. Dula, dated «23rd June,, 
 1851" 
 
 Who, we ask, gave Rev. A. ^ickens notice that these certi*. 
 ficates would be taken so long time before he was ch^ged, to, 
 be used upon his trial ? The answer is, nobody. Yfall, if rule, 
 required brother Pickens to give tyav id, Sullins notice that ho. 
 would take certificates to use in his defense, o£ course the, 
 same rule would require D^vid Sullins to ; give ^ev. A. Pick-, 
 ens notice that he wouJ<J| take certificates to use against hin\ 
 on the trial-stilus you see, gentle reader* that if there was an>; 
 
52 
 
 illegality on the part of the evidence of brother Pickens, there 
 was any amount of it on the part of the evidence brought in 
 by Hicks, Sullins, & Co. Gentle reader, take a. survey of Mr. 
 Hicks in this matter and tell us how he looks. After this ex- 
 posure, we now proceed to the next item in the charge. 
 
 " Specification 2nd. In denying that he told the Rev, Wm. 
 Hicks to what he had reference, when he made the public 
 charge, above alluded to, and also saying that he had refer- 
 ence to nobody particularly, nor to any particular thing, when 
 he made the said charge." 
 
 Now then for the evidence. Here it comes. 
 
 No. 1. "Rev. J. S. Weaver was examined, who said that the 
 Rev. A. Pickens denied ever having explained to the Rev. W. 
 Hicks, to what he had reference," &c. 
 
 No. 2. W. C. Garrison, stated that Rev. A. Pickens denied 
 that he ever explained to Rev. W. Hicks, and that he said he 
 had reference to no particular person or thing, as set forth in 
 the certificate given by him and Rev. J. S. Weaver." 
 
 No. 3. " W. R.Baird stated that the Rev. A. Pickens ex- 
 plained to him that he had no reference to him, but to the pam- 
 phlet previously published, and those who endorsed it." 
 
 No. 4. Rev. Wm. Hicks was questioned as to whether the 
 $ev. A. Pickens did make the explanation, who says that he 
 did, and that he said he had reference to certain items in the 
 pamphlet entitled " The way the Wind Blows," which items 
 were mentioned by Rev. Wm. Hicks." 
 
 Owr remarks. As it regards the evidence of ihis last wit- 
 ness, Hicks, we believe it is well known that when a witness 
 contradicts himself in court, his testimony is always set aside. 
 We have already shown how Hicks contradicts himself. Let 
 \he reader compare the evidence he gave in above, with his 
 certificate recorded with the testimony upon the first specific^ 
 
53 
 
 tion, and the want of agreement between, the two will a,t once 
 kill the credit of both. This contradiction we plainly set forth 
 in our review of evidence upon the first item. 
 
 Baird says, "Rev. A. Pickens explained to him that he hacj 
 no reference to him, but to the pamphlet previously published, 
 and those who endorsed it." Admitting this witness to state, 
 the matter strictly true, it has no weight or application what- 
 ever to the specification before us, for it is " denying, that he. 
 told Rev. Wm. Hicks to what he had reference" &c, and to 
 make an explanation to W. R. Baird, does certainly afford no ( 
 proof that he made one to Wm. Hicks. What stuff!! The 
 testimony of J. S. Weaver and W. C. Garrison proves nothing 
 at all upon this specification, inasmuch as Hick's testimony is 
 discredited by his own contradictions. But mark the result. 
 The committee with all this before them found brother Pick- 
 ens guilty in this specification also. It was no up-hill work 
 with them to do so. 
 
 "Specification 3rd. In telling M. C. Weaver, E. E. Black- 
 stock, and Sarah Coulter, on the day that some ladies met at 
 Salem Meeting House to make "regalia," that he did not 
 |inow that any thing of the kind was going on at the church, 
 till he met the girls, M. M. Weaver, and H. J. Blackstock above 
 the church ; whereas, he told the two latter that he had heard 
 that something of the kind was going on there, and thought he 
 would come over and see about it." 
 
 NOW THEN FOR THE EVIDENCE. 
 
 " Mary C. Weaver was called upon, and questioned as to 
 whether the following certificate is hers ; to which she replied 
 in the affirmative, and declared it to be substantially true.— * 
 The certificate was then read. It is as follows :" 
 
 "May2lst 1851. 
 
 We do hereby certify that on the day that we and others 
 
54 
 
 met at Salem Meeting Honse, for the purpose of making re- 
 galia for Reem's Creek Division, the Rev. ^ndrew Pickens 
 came to that place some time in the evening, and meeting 
 with us near the churqj], he enqu.Jre.fj of us what we were 
 doing there. We informed him that we h#cj met $o make re- 
 galia for the Sons of Temperance. Upon whicji he said he 
 had not heard of it till he met the girls, (M. M. Weaver and 
 H. J. Blackstock) above the church, and that fye was surprised 
 at Jacob Weaver and John Weaver, and the rest of the Wea- 
 vers, for allowing such doings in the church, that he had giv- 
 en that land to build a church on to worship God in, not idols. 
 He asked us if the Sons intended to paganize in the church. 
 We told him they did, and also told him when they expected^ 
 to do so. He said he would meet them there, intimated tljiat, 
 he would oppose the Sons in organizing there, and askedj us 
 to attend. 'Cjne of us asked him how he could oppose the or- 
 ganization in the church, when the rest of the trustees were 
 willing for the Sons to organize there. He said he had given 
 the land, and that he did not intend to allow of such doings 
 there. We tried to reason him out of his perplexity, for we 
 believed that he was angry, as his voice and language indica- 
 fed. He said if he could see that the Sons were doing any 
 good, he would feel better reconciled, "v^e pointed to some 
 who had been reclaimed from drunkenness, (one especially,), 
 to which he replied, "yes, and he gets drunk" 
 
 SARAH COUNTER, 
 
 M.C. WEAVER, 
 
 E. E. BLACKSTQCK." 
 
 "The witness was then further questioned : Did you under* 
 stand this to be a reproof? Answer. I did. [Wonderful in- 
 deed—what is a reproof?] Did you consider the whole as a 
 strong reproof? Ans. I did. When was this ? Ans. A few 
 
55 
 
 days before the Division was organized here; and I told tilrri 
 when the Division would be organized." 
 
 Our remarks. Who can possibly find any thing like u a 
 reproof? or u a strong reproof? in the preceding certificate ? 
 Yet, no doubt, any company of young girls, being found as- 
 sembled in a house dedicated to the worship of AtrKighty God, 
 and engaged there in sewings as though it were d work-shop,* 
 would feel reproved, if fodrid there, and asked by an aged 
 minister of the gospel what they " were doing there. 19 
 
 " We do hereby certify that on the evening of the day that 
 we, and others, met at Salem Meeting House, to make regalia 
 for the Reem's Creek Division, the Rev. A. Pickens met us 
 near the church, and asked us what we were doing there. — 
 We told him that there was a sewing there" [Who ever heard 
 of a sewing in the house of God before !] He said that he 
 had heard that there was someihing of the Kind there, and 
 thought that he would come and see about it — that the church' 
 was not built to sew in, but to worship God in. We believe 
 he was mad, for he trembled while he talked. 
 
 Harriet blackstock, 
 
 May 21st, 1851. MARGARET M. WEAVER" 
 
 Our remarks. 1st. We object to these two certficates sign- 
 ed by the five young women, because they bear date, moro 
 than two months before the date of the charges, which proves 
 most clearly, that they were not ivritteri to be read on the trial. 
 But William Hicks, no doubt thought they would do. 
 
 2nd. We do most eriiplhaticaity deriy that they sdstain the 
 specification. Let the reader look back and read the specifi- 
 cation — and then we will give this testimony in a nut shell. 
 Here it is. 
 
 Rev. A. Pickens met H. J. Blackstock and M. M. Weaver, 
 haar the church, and asked therri what they were doing there: 
 Thejr say, " we told hirii that there was a sewing there." " He 
 
56 
 
 said that ho had heard there was something of the kind there; 
 and thought he would come and see about it." Again He met 
 Sarah Coulter, Ms Ci Weaver, and E. E. Blackstock. They 
 say he asked " what we were doing there." They repiy, " we 
 have met to make regalia for the Sons of Temperance." 
 
 Now then for the points. Here we find a negative evidence 
 mat sweeps away the positive like chaff flies before the wind. 
 The first party tell him "there was a sewing there." But is 
 that all they tell him? We think not. Did they not tell him 
 what kind of sewing or work the sewers were doing? They 
 bo doubt did. For the conversation which he had with the 
 other three girls, which is not contradicted at all, shows plainly 
 that they did — that there was not only "a sewing there," but 
 that they " were making regalia for the Sons" He said to 
 the first set of girls, " that he had heard that there was some- 
 thing of the kind there." But who will for a moment believe 
 that if he had known what that "something" was, that he 
 would have gone to the church, to see and know, what it was ? 
 No body. He had heard a rumor of something of this sort, 
 going on, but not being willing to believe every rumor afloat, 
 he went himself in search of truth, that he might know the 
 truth. And when the second company of girls told him they 
 " w r ere making regalia for the Sons of Temperance, 1 ' he could 
 speak the truth faithfully, and say " he had not heard of it un- 
 til he met the girls above the church." Every body knows 
 there is some difference between the phrases, " a sewing there," 
 and "making regalia for the Sons of Temperance" Even so 
 in this case. But, inasmuch as it was the business of David 
 Sullin's committee, and William Hick's Quarterly Meeting 
 to find Andrew Pickens guilty, the reader need not be surpris- 
 ed that they pronounced the old minister guilty of this charge 
 
57 
 
 also. But who else, we ask, could have done it upon such 
 flimsey testimony as the above ? 
 
 " Charge second was called up." 
 " Specification 1st. His manner of preaching at the Ridge ? 
 also at Ivy and Flat Creek." 
 
 Our remarks. Hear oh heavens! and give ear oh earth !! 
 Has such a specification ever been written against a minister 
 of the gospel before ? Tried for his manner of preaching ! 
 Alas! Alas!! The accusers or enemies of the prophet DanieL 
 were hard put to it, to find something against him that they 
 might accuse him to the King. But could bring no charge 
 only concerning his manner towards his God. But here is an 
 old minister of about forty years standing accused for his 
 "manner of preaching" Now then for the evidence. 
 
 " H. P. Corn was questioned as to whether he understood 
 the Rev. A. Pickens to encourage secession from the church, 
 at the Ridge Meeting House. &c, by his preaching. He 
 stated that the Rev. A. Pickens, after preaching, gave way to> 
 Wm. Fox, sen., saying he could proceed as he pleased, &c. 
 and that he did not tell Wm. Fox, sen., that he ought not to 
 create a schism in. or produce a secession from the church ; 
 and that he remained in his seat while Wm. Fox, sen., called 
 for those who wished to leave the church — and that after some 
 forty had withdrawn, he (Pickens) dismissed the congregalion? 
 He further stated, that he believed there was an understanding 
 between the Rev. A Pickens and Wm. Fox, sen. 
 
 Question by Rev. J. Weaver. "Did old Mr. Fcx say for 
 what reason they were going to leave the church ?" Ans. "He 
 did not — but I understood it to be on account of the Sons, &c. 
 Que?. "Did brother Pickens allude to secession from the 
 church ? Ans. No— but I believe there was an understanding 
 among them." 
 
§5 
 
 Our remarks. The testimony of this witness we honestly 
 think should fairly acquit the Rev. A. Pickens of every charge 
 that was brought against him by Hicks, Sullins, & Co., for the 
 plain reason that the witness told not what he knew, (for he 
 knew nothing to tell,) but he only told what he believed. And 
 the company in the prosecution have the brass to publish it 
 to the world as evidence. 
 
 Now in a court of justice, where justice is the object had in 
 view, a witness is not allowed to tell, in giving in his testimo- 
 ny, what he believes or supposes, but only what he knows. — 
 But justice not being the object of Hicks, Sullins, & Co., pri- 
 vate opinions would pass in their "church court" as evidence? 
 if they could only destroy their victim thereby. Of course, 
 when we have such evidence of injustice and corruption as 
 this case affords, public opinion should enstamp the seal of 
 condemnation upon the whole procedure, as it would upon the 
 blackness of despotism. 
 
 " J. R. Weaver was questioned. Did you at any time hear 
 brother Pickens favor secession from the church ? Ans. I think 
 I did, in the sermon at the Ridge, before alluded to. Did you 
 understand or believe that there was an understanding between 
 Rev. A. Pickens and Wm. Fox, sen., at that meeting ? Ans. 
 1 so understood it, &c. Did you suppose that he alluded to 
 the Sons? Ans. I did." 
 
 Our remarks. The last witness seems to have been accept- 
 able to the prosecution although he knew nothing. 1st. He 
 was twice asked the question as to what he believed and sup- 
 posed, to Rev. A. Pickens favoring secession from the church. 
 To each of which he gives an affirmative answer. This plain- 
 ly shows that Hicks, Sullins, & Co., Wanted opinions and 
 suppositions for testimony. Now suffer us to illustrate. Sup- 
 pose William HicKS should be indicted in Court for stealing 
 
59 
 
 n sheep, and Andrew Pickens should be called in as a witness 
 against him, and the Counsel for the State should ask the wit- 
 ness the following questions in order to convict the accused: 
 
 Counsel. — " Did you at any time hear William Hicks favor 
 stealing a sheep ?" 
 
 Witness.— "1 think I did." 
 
 Counsel. — "Did you understand or believe that he stole a 
 sheep?" 
 
 Witness. — " I so understood it, &c." 
 Counsel. — " Do you suppose that he alluded to stealing a 
 sheep?" 
 
 Witness.— "1 did." 
 
 Would it not be worse than mockery to call such testimony 
 f evidence ?" Now what friend to justice would not call such 
 a procedure a perfect mockery ? Every body would condemn 
 it. But the reader can see that we have used in this supposi- 
 tion, the identical form of questions put by the committee to 
 J. R. Weaver. Let William Hicks make the application. 
 
 u T. B. Dula was then questioned. Did you ever under- 
 stand the Rev. A. Pickens to favor secession in his sermons? 
 Ans. I did. He was then questioned as to the following cer- 
 tificate. He said it was true. Here it is. 
 
 "Buncombe Co. N. C. 
 
 "As I am requested to give the course pursued by the Rev. 
 A. Pickens, at a meeting of his at Flat Creek School House, 
 and to give words spoken by him, I think, [behold he only 
 thinks I] that when he got to his appointment, it was about 
 twelve o'clock. He walked into the meeting house, and after 
 the congregation began to seat themselves for the services to 
 commence, Thomas O. Roberts came in, stepped to the pulpit, 
 took the said Pickens out to where there were others, an<j 
 from every appearance they were holding strong consultation* 
 
60 
 
 After some half hour, or more, the said Pickens returned and 
 commenced his services. After reading his text, he conveyed 
 the idea that there was a time, not very far ahead, when he had 
 his fears no man would be allowed to preach unless he had a 
 classical education, and only a few would be allowed to read 
 the scriptures. He said that there was a people that chose 
 men to preach for them that would please their own carnal 
 dispositions. He said there were parts of the scriptures that 
 had been so translated as to destroy their proper meaning. — 
 And he said that before he would do as some were doing, he 
 would be burned at the stake. He also spoke of some altera- 
 tions having been made in our Discipline. He also spoke of 
 being badly imposed on, and he said that there was going to 
 be a trial made to see if there could be a society formed there. 
 He also stated that it had been said that they could not form 
 a church. He then said that there was a church not far distant 
 that they could attach themselves to, and that he was going 
 too, but he intended to go step by step. I assure you that every 
 unprejudiced person there that day, could see that his object 
 was to cause a separation in the church. The meeting, I think 
 was on the 8th inst. This was the conduct, and these the 
 words, or in substance, by brother Pickens, on the occasion. 
 Certified by me, this 23rd June, 1851. 
 
 THOMAS B. DULA." 
 
 "The witness was further questioned : Did you understand 
 him to say that, he would go out with them?" Ans. "1 under- 
 stood him" to say that he was where he had been, and would 
 go out step by step." 
 
 Next comes the certificate of E. E. Blackstock. 
 
 " I do hereby certify that I was at Flat Cieek on Sunday, 
 the 8th of June, and heard uncle Andy Pickens say that he 
 approved of the course the seceders had taken, and that he 
 was of them and with them. 
 
 E.E. BLACKSTOCK." 
 
61 
 
 — " William b ox, sen., was men examined. He was asked if 
 brother Pickens ever favored secession at Flat Creek ?" He 
 answered in the negative. "Did he ever, at the Ridge, or any 
 other place, encourage such a thing?*' Ans. "He said at the 
 Ridge, that I could do as I saw proper," &c. "Did you un- 
 derstand him to be in favor of the seceders ?" Ans. " He would 
 like to slay in the church if he could enjoy himself." " Did 
 he ever reprove you?" Ans. "He did not." "Do you look 
 upon him as being in favor of the seceders?" Ans. "No — not 
 more than he is of other congregations with whom he meets.'' 
 Our remarks. Who would suppose upon reading the pre- 
 ceding testimony, that any committee of christian men would 
 have ventured to give it as their opinion that the specification 
 was sustained ? But, strange to tell, they done so, and pro- 
 nounced the old man guilty. Now suppose we were to ad- 
 mit that there was evidence to sustain the allegation (which 
 we will never concede,) was there any thing at all immoral in 
 such a course of conduct? Not at all. He had a right to 
 favor secession from the church if his judgment and con- 
 science led him to regard it as best — a natural right which 
 every American holds, and the fact that a man has become a 
 member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, does not 
 and cannot divest him ol it unless there is a gag-law in that 
 church. 
 
 " Specification 2nd. His statements at Flat Creek, in which 
 he said that he approved of the course of the seceders, and de- 
 clared that he was with them, and was coming out " step by 
 step." 
 
 " Evidence before the committee," so says Mr. Hicks. — 
 What is it? We may suppose it is the testimony of the wit- 
 nesses called up on the last specification. Now let the reader 
 compare the two specifications together, and he will find tbev 
 
are one in reality, and the questions put to the witnesses go to 
 show that David Sullins and his committee so regarded them. 
 |}at in order to make an impression that the faithful old min- 
 ister^ whom they were now about to sacrifice as their victim, 
 was a very great sinner, it suited their purpose to make two 
 speciftcanons out of one, and of course, if testimony would 
 sustain one it would the other, and if the committee found him 
 guilty in one, it was bound to do so in the other. So much k>r 
 the company in the prosecution. 
 
 " Specification 3rd. In advising A. H. Britlain, (if nat 
 others,) to withdraw from the church, and from his society, be- 
 fore he, (Brittain,) was tried." 
 
 "H. Barret was examined. Question. Did you ever hear 
 the Rev. A. Pickens advise secession ? Ans. " 1 heard Maj. A. 
 H. Brittain say, that he and others would leave the church, and 
 that Rev. A. Pickens was at liberty, and would be their preach- 
 er, &c." 
 
 " Marion Fox was asked if Rev. A. Pickens ever advised 
 secession, or if he advised A. H. Brittain to leave the church ? 
 Answered in the negative." 
 
 " J. R. Roberts, examined, He stated that he never under- 
 stood Rev. A. Pickens to advise secession — that he thought his 
 course favored secession." 
 
 Our remarks. Here we have to record something wonder- 
 ful indeed ! Rev. Mr. Hicks tells us that u the evidence in sup- 
 port of the 3rd specification was not thought to sustain it, either 
 by the committee or the Conference" How could this have hap- 
 pened? But listen to Mr. Hicks again. He says, il .t]iere was 
 one certificate in hand, which would have proven it true, but 
 owing to certain circumstances, it ivas not read" Wbat a 
 pity it was not read ! ! What could those " circumstances" have 
 been ? Could it have been a true or false certificate ? Let the 
 reader judge. 
 
" Charge 3rd was taken up? 
 
 "Specification 1st. By publicly saying those ministers be- 
 longing to the order of the Sons are such as that he was not 
 willing to receive the Lord's Supper at their hands — thereby 
 impressing the minds of the laity, unfavorably towards those 
 ministers." 
 
 Now to the testimony. 
 
 "J. & Weaver was examined. He stated that the Rev. A a 
 Pickens said that he was unwilling to receive the Lord's Sup- 
 per at the hands of a minister who is a Son of Temperance.' , 
 
 " Rev. M. M. Weaver examined. He stated the same sub- 
 stantially as above, but thinks he alluded to brother Hicks, 
 because he is a Son of Temperance, to the prejudicing the 
 minds of the laity." 
 
 " T. J. Weaver examined. He stated that he believed the 
 above (corroberated) as set forth." 
 
 " J. R. Weaver examined. He stated substantially the same 
 
 with J. S. Weaver, &c." 
 
 P. Roberts examined. He said that he made the state- 
 ment." 
 
 " J. R. Roberts examined. Were you at Flat Creek ? I 
 was. Did you hear the same ? I think I did." 
 
 Our remarks. Suppose Rev. A. Pickens did utter every 
 word charged against him, and testified to by these witnesses, 
 it could not be condemned upon any Bible principle. He 
 was a minister as we'll as William Hicks or any other man. 
 He had a conscience too, as well as others. If he conscien- 
 tiously believed Mr. Hicks to be unworthy to administer the 
 Lord's Supper, he had a right to refuse it at his hands ; and 
 as a free and independent citizen of Republican America, he 
 had in common with all other men, a right to give his reasons 
 for either his opinions or actions, when and where he saw 
 
proper, in a religious point ,cf view. Therefore, as Hicks, Sul- 
 lins, & Co. brought Rev. A. Pickens to trial upon this speci " 
 fication, it was done without either Bible or Disciplinary au- 
 thority. But they were the men that could do it. 
 
 " Specification 2nd. By charging both publicly and pri' 
 vately, that some of those ministers, viz : the writer of the 
 Reem's Creek pamphlet, and the ministers who endorsed its 
 contents, as well as the lay members, had been guilty of stating 
 things about him which they knew to be false — things of such 
 magnitude as led him publicly to represent them as the 
 " blackest crimes." 
 
 . " Evidence before the committee," says the Secretary. Now 
 let the reader compare this specification with the first, under 
 charge the 1st., and he will find that it is only a part and 
 parcel of that same item ; therefore, the same testimony is 
 relied upon to sustain it, and therefore, the minutes say " the 
 evidence is before the committee." Now, inasmuch as we 
 have shown that the first specification is false, by overwhelm- 
 ing testimony, that scattered the evidence of Hicks, Sullins, 
 <& Co., to the winds, like chaff, of course, this specification 
 just read, can only be regarded by the reader as false also, 
 when there is no testimony by which it can stand. We now 
 introduce to the reader the 3rd and last specification. 
 
 u Specification 3rd. By endeavoring to make the impression 
 on the mind of many, that certain items in the pamphlet above 
 alluded to are false, thereby inflicting an injury on all those 
 engaged in its publication and especially upon, the writer of 
 the pamphlet. DAVID SULLINS, P. in C, 
 
 of the Burnsville Circuit." 
 
 July 25th, 1851. 
 
 Our remarks. The reader will find this last specification 
 nearly as the former one, and covering precisely the same 
 
4 
 
 ground, and hence it becomes apparent at once that the point 
 had in view, by bringing these two specifications, was to ac- 
 quit Rev. Wm, Hicks of the allegations that existed in the 
 community against him, concerning his pamphlets, for it was 
 commonly reported and believed, that his first and second 
 pamphlets contained statements incompatable with truth. 
 
 Hicks ought to have been brought to trial for these publica*- 
 tions, but how is a. local minister to get at a Presiding Elder 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church? They are far removed 
 from the reach of a local minister. Conscious of their own 
 authority and safety, they can traduce the good name of a lo- 
 cal minister, and if he only complain that injustice has been 
 done him, why, forsooth, he is arraigned for trial and charged 
 with "inflicting an injury on all those engaged in its publica- 
 tion and especially upon the writer of the pamphlet." 
 
 We now proceed to notice Mr. Hick's remarks upon certain 
 points which he says are involved in, or come under the 2no! 
 specification. But surely he would have done as well to have 
 said they come under the 3rd, and those under the 3rd to have 
 come under the 2nd. But here the points are jumbled togeth- 
 er. As we find them so we must use them. Under this head 
 Mr. Hicks says : " We are now brought to the examination of 
 those items in the pamphlet, entitled " The Way the Wind 
 Blows," which father Pickens says are false; and in doing so 
 has sought to injure all who were concerned in its publication 
 and especially the writer. Those items are particularly re- 
 ferred to in my certificate. See that and the following : "Iifira 
 1st., of those denied by father Pickens, is on page 3rd., whe r © 
 he is represented as attacking certain young ladies, in rather 
 an ill hurr.or, by "enquiry and reprimand." [Turn back 
 reader to the young ladie's certificates, and you will find they 
 «ay nothing about an " attack," or " reprimand" Stick to thfc 
 
Hi 
 
 truth, Mr. Hicks.] Item 2nd., is on page 4th, where the 
 pamphlet speaks of certain opposers to the Sons, as being at 
 the church when the Sons went there to organize their Divis- 
 ion. Item 3rd., is on page 5th, where it is said that the Rev 
 A. Pickens and others, of questionable character, met at the 
 church, either by express understanding, or by a strange in- 
 fluence, &c. Item 4th, is on page 12th, where it is represent- 
 ed that the Rev. A. Pickens, and Maj. A. H. Briitain made 
 friends, &c. Let the reader keep these items in view and 
 weigh the testimony." 
 
 Our remarks. Will the reader please turn back and read 
 the two certificates of the five young ladies, and he will find 
 from their account, that the behavior of Rev. A. Pickens to- 
 wards the "young ladies" in question was entirely compatible 
 with the office of the gospel minister. Three of them say, 
 "We tried to reason him out of his perplexity, for we believed 
 him to be angry, as his voice and language indicated." The 
 other two say, " we believe he was mad for he trembled while 
 he talked." Now, in all candor, what did Rev. A. Pickens 
 say to these young ladies that could by any fair construction, 
 be regarded as the language of anger? Nothing at all. If he 
 used such language, they do not tell what it was. It would be 
 very natural for young women, particularly if sensitive, when 
 being found engaged as they were, to be told by an aged min- 
 ister of the gospel, that the house of worship was not made to 
 sew in," to feel that their conduct had given offense, and to 
 suppose that such a gentle admonition proceeded from anger. 
 Mr. Hicks says in his first pamphlet, that Rev. A. Pickens, (if 
 we do not mistake his language,) "made a rude attack upon 
 the young ladies."* 5 Now this is what is denied on the part 
 
 , * " An attack on certain young ladies by anquiry and reprimand," — Hicks 
 Cirtificats* 
 
of the accused, and if the reader will turn fcack to the testi- 
 mony ol the young ladies, he will find from the evidence they 
 arTord themselves, that upon the occasion alluded to, every 
 word and action of Rev. A. Pickens, was precisely such as 
 would be becoming in any minister of the gospel, under the 
 circumstances. For who would not feel excited in his feel- 
 ings upon finding a house of worship for which he had done 
 much, desecrated by being prostituted to secular purposes, 
 such as a house to sew in, particularly if he had in his heart a 
 zeal for godliness? What impartial christian with all this 
 weight ol testimony before him can doubt for a moment that 
 Rev. Wm. Hicks done justice to truth, when he asserted that 
 Rev. A. Pickens made "a rude attack upon the young ladies.'* 
 Therefore, so far as this is concerned, his pamphlet ought to 
 stand convicted of falsehood. 
 
 "Item 2nd., on page 4th, pamphlet called "The Way the 
 Wind Blows," speaks of certain opposers to the Sons, as being 
 at the church when the Sons went there to organize their Di» 
 vision." 
 
 Our remarks. Let the reader bear in mind that we only 
 have Wm. Hick's version of the statement in his 2nd pamph- 
 let, which is said to be so objectionable. Not having the 
 famous document at hand, we only take what he says in hi* 
 3rd pamphlet for our guide ; as to his accuracy in statements 
 we presume the reader has already made up his opinion. 
 
 Now Mr. Hicks, bring up your testimony. Here it is. 
 
 " Wm. R. Baird was examined. He states that when the 
 Sons arrived, with others for the organization of the Division, 
 that Rev. A. Pickens was in the pulpit, and others about, or in 
 the church." 
 
 Our remarks. This witness proves a little too mtych. ^e 
 states positively that Rev. A. Pickens was in the pulpit, but the 
 
<* others," he speaks doubtful about For, say* he, they wer* 
 4 about or in the church." If he knew they were "in" the 
 church, he knew they were not about the church. If he knew 
 they were about the church, he knew they were not u in the 
 church." So he tells a lame tale at best. But don't forget, 
 gentle reader, that Mr. Hicks, in his pamphlet, had said they 
 (the opposers to the Sons,) were in the church, and in writing 
 down the evidence of this witness, he underscored the word 
 * in" in order that the printer might print it in italics, as he no 
 doubt believed that would make it at least took stronger. 
 
 u Rev. M. M. Weaver examined. He stated that when he 
 and others arrived, there were a good many persons at, or 
 near the church, some of whom were supposed to be in the 
 opposition. He said that he heard them speak in opposition." 
 
 "A. G. Haren, stated that the above was substantially true." 
 
 Our remarks. The last two witnesses testify that there were 
 a good many persons at, or near the church, some of whom 
 were supposed to be in the opposition. " At or near," differ 8 
 from " about or in " But let them settle the matter themselves. 
 Bring up the next best witness. 
 
 ' * R. B. Vance examined. He stated that when he and oth- 
 ers arrived at the church, the Rev. A. Pickens was in the 
 church, and that others came in immediately after." 
 
 "J. T. Weaver examined. He stated substantially, what 
 the last witness did." 
 
 Our remarks. The last two witnesses won't do. They 
 sustain not the pamphlet, Mr. Hicks. Call up better hands to 
 the bar, or your pamphlet must take a trip on the " under- 
 ground rail road." 
 
 "Two certificates were read as proof, as follows: We do 
 hereby certify, 'hat when the greatest number of those who 
 became members of theReem's Creek Division, (at the time 
 
of its organization,) together with some of the members of the 
 Asheviile' Division, got to Salem meeting house on the even- 
 ing that the said Division was organized, there was a number 
 of persons at the church, the most of whom were known to be 
 dram-drinkers and drunkards, and opposed to the Sons of 
 Temperance ; in addition to some three or four who had met 
 there some time brfore the hour fixed upon for organizing, to 
 fix up the church a little, these latter were friendly to our 
 order. R. V. BLACKSTOCK, 
 
 N. 5LACKST.0CIC. 
 
 May 21st 1851" 
 
 "We do hereby certify, that when we got to Salem meeting 
 )iouse, on the evening that Reem's Creek Division was organ- y 
 ized, there was several persons pretent^ known to be dram- 
 drinkers and drunkards, and opposed to the Sons. 
 
 J. M. ISRAEL, 
 
 W. W. McDO'WKLL, 
 
 J. G. SAMS." 
 
 May 30th 1851. 
 
 Our remarks. We object to these two certificates, because 
 Ibey both bear date about two months before the date of the 
 charges ; of course this proves most conclusively, that they 
 were not written for trial; but if written for trial, proves that 
 the foulest corruption was practised. But suppose we admit 
 for a moment that the certificates were fit to be presented on 
 trial, what do they prove with regard to the item under con- 
 sideration ? Why, just about nothing. We are not told who 
 the "opposers" of the Sons of Temperance were, and one of 
 the witnesses, Rev. M. M. Weaver, speaks of " some who 
 were supposed to be in the opposition." Every thing is lack 
 ing here to make out the case. 
 
 1st Who the "opposers of the Sons of Temperance " were. 
 
 2nd. When did the opposers arrive? 
 
70 
 
 3rd. Who were the Sons, and at what period did they ar- 
 rive ? 
 
 The proof is plain that Rev. A. Pickens was there at the 
 time and place stated, but' that is all that the evidence will 
 bring up to the light of truth. The Sons, it seems, came in 
 different companies, hence there is a vagueness here, that Mr! 
 Hick's evidence fails to unravel, and the result is, nothing at 
 all is proved, except that Rev. A. Pickens was at the church 
 when the Sons arrived, which no body denies. 
 
 But let us listen to Mr. Hicks himseif on this point, and see 
 how he "wriggles? and "'flounders? cm page 39. "The evi- 
 dence adduced in support of the above item, shows that when 
 some three or four, who were friendly to the Sons, went to 
 Salem Meeting House to fix it up a little, on the evening that 
 the Reem's Creek Division was organized, there was no one 
 there but the Rev. A. Pickens, [this has been admitted all the 
 time,] that when another company (and larger than the former) 
 those persons in the opposition were "ai 1 and " war" the 
 church ; and when another company arrived, some of those 
 opposers at least, were "in" the church, so says Wm. R. Baird, 
 (not so; Wm. R. Baird does not say "opposers? he says 
 " others"] and W. W. McDowell told me the same. I got my 
 information from the last company (I suppose,) hence in writ- 
 ing my first pamphlet, 1 said those persons were " in" the house. 
 This was said to be a mistake by father Pickens, in the pres- 
 ence of some who arrived with the first two companies andj 
 they did not correct it. Hence, when I wrote the second pam- 
 phlet, I stated that those opposers were "at" or "near' 1 the 
 church when the Sons arrived, and appended a note, correct- 
 ing my first pamphlet, in this particular. I also corrected it 
 in the second edition of my first pamphlet. But father Pick- 
 ens said the second pamphlet was false, ii* representing that 
 
71 
 
 the opposers were there (or near) when the Sons arrived, If 
 the above testimony does not prove that those persons were "at 
 or near the church," when the Sons repaired to that place to 
 organize their Division, then the pamphlet is wrong in so re- 
 presenting it, and not eke." 
 
 Our remarks. Mr. Hicks finds himself sadly in confusion 
 on this point. Neither he, nor his witnesses have defined who 
 the opposers of the Sons, were nor have they told what consti- 
 tutes an " opposer to the Sons." If a man takes the field open- 
 ly, by writing and speaking publicly against them in order to 
 block up their way as a fraternity, of course, we must regard 
 him as an opposer — but if he only holds or entertains senti- 
 ments the opposite of theirs, and does not take the held of ac- 
 tive, public opposition against them, it would be unjust to call 
 such "opposers." But Hicks has ensnared himself here, by 
 his effort to make two specifications of one. The testimony 
 on the next item will show off his tactics, and as he has failed 
 to prove his point in this item, let us follow on to the next. 
 
 "Item 3rd, Pamphlet " The Way the Wind Blows," page 
 5th, where it is said that the Rev. A. Pickens, and others of 
 Questionable character, met at the church, "either by express 
 understanding') or by a strange influence " &c — Hicks. 
 
 Now then, come up to the bar and testify and we will attend 
 to your talk. 
 
 "A. G. Haren stated that there was an understanding that 
 the Sons were to be opposed in their organization, and that he 
 came to see the fun of it. He also stated that he met Litteral, 
 the Gills, P. Black, and others, and that some of them were 
 dram drinkers, and that they said that they knew Rev. A. 
 Pickens was at the church." 
 
 Our remarks. This witness "can't quite come it:' Not 
 one word does he tell that will bear upon the item. Not one 
 
ii 
 
 word does he tell about "an express understanding," or 
 * strange influence " His testimony would have fitted better 
 if put in at some other place. 
 
 "The certificate of A. A. Williams was read. I do hereby 
 certify that I was at the corn shucking at A. .!. Gill's, on the 
 day that the Reerri's Creek Division was organized at night» 
 and heard the company say that ihe R°v. A. Pickens was go- 
 ing to oppose the or ganization that hight. 
 
 May 29th, 1S5L" A. A. WILLIAMS. 
 
 Our remarks'. Now gentle reader notice the manner in 
 which these t\vo l&st witnesses testify. They do not tell what 
 they know about ?he "express understanding," or "strange 
 influence," that Mr. Hicks say brought Rev. A. Pickens and 
 the dram drinkeis together to oppose the Sons, but they only 
 tell what they had heard. Alas! for the cause of Mr. Hicks! 
 
 "Certificate of R. H. Davis, which he said was true, was 
 then read as follows : I do hereby certify that I was at the 
 corn shucking at A. J. Gill's on the day that Reem's Creek 
 Division was organized at night, and there heard the compa- 
 ny (several of them) say that the Rev. A. Pickens was to be 
 at the church that night, to oppose the organization, and that 
 they were going over to see that he got fair play. Some of 
 them said that they would fight— that blood would be spilt if 
 they undertook to put uncle Andy out. 
 
 May 29th, 1851." R. H. DAVIS. 
 
 Our remarks. The two preceeding certificates are of the 
 patent right order of Hicks, Sullins, & Co., that is, the dates 
 show that they are much older than the charges — they bear 
 date, May 29th, and the charges are dated July 25th. Al- 
 though these certificates were born out of wedlock, and desti* 
 \ute of legal parentage, still they prove nothing. Not one 
 word do they say about an "express understanding" between 
 
73 
 
 Rev. A. Pickens and any body else to meet at the church to op- 
 pose the organization of the Sons ; nor do they even name any 
 "strange influence" as operating, that brought them together. 
 They only tell what they heard some body say ! t Hearsay evi- 
 dence admitted on the trial of a minister of the gospel, in the 
 Methodist Episcopal Church, South !! Why, surely, religious 
 and ministerial character must be quite common and low in 
 that church, that Madame Rumor is psrmitted to come into 
 court and prattle with her noisy tongue! But something had 
 to be done to save Mr. Hicks from sinking, and this was about 
 all that could be done — it was the best evidence he had, if it 
 was the common hearsay-tattle of the neighborhood. But wa 
 suppose that in Cavy Sullin's court it was quite a lawful com- 
 modity. 
 
 Let us have more testimony. Here it comes". 
 
 " Certificate of James H. Weaver, was read as follows: I 
 do hereby certify that A. J. Gill and I, were talking a few days 
 before the Reem's Creek Division was organized, about the 
 propriety of organizing in the church. He (Gill) remarked 
 that Andrew Pickens, as one 61 the Trustees, would oppose 
 the meeting, for the purpose of organizing a Division in the 
 church. I said that if pickens was in the church when they 
 assembled, and did not give way for them, he wotfld be forced 
 out of the bouse. Gill said that there would be more to be 
 forced out besides Pickens ; and added, that if ha (Gill) were 
 there, and they undertook tb fore* any body out, there would 
 be blood spilt ; that he had a right to go into that church, and 
 would ask no man any odds, 
 
 May, 1851 J. H. WEAVER." 
 
 Our remarks. This is another patent-right certificate. — 
 Look at its date ; that tells a tale. But what does it prove ? 
 Nothing, but what A. J. Gill said. It doe* not even prove 
 
74 
 
 that A. J. G ill's information came from any reliable source at 
 all. For any thing the reader knows A. J. Gill may have 
 dreamed what he says about Rev. A. Pickens ; and no man 
 can avoid dreaming, and some men tell dreams. The above 
 certificate is full of Hicksism, from beginning to end — that is 
 proves nothing. 
 
 " Certificate of Joshua Haren was read as follows : I do 
 hereby certify that to my own knowledge, it was well under- 
 stood by the people of this neighborhood, that the Reem's 
 Creek Division was to be opposed in its organization by the 
 Rev. A. Pickens at Salem Meeting House, and that I sent 
 him word by his daughter, a few days before the time of or- 
 ganizing, to stand up to his rack, and not let them organize 
 there. — that I would be with him there. — and the day after the 
 organization he said to me, ' 1 thought you were to have been 
 here yesterday evening.' My opposition was from prudential 
 reasons." his 
 
 JOSHUA X HAREN. 
 
 July 30th, 1851. mark. 
 
 Our remarks. This last certificate is quite a novel thing 
 indeed to read in committee in order to prove there, that Rev. 
 A. Pickens and others (dram-drinkers or drunkards I believe 
 Mr. Hicks means) met at the church by " express understand- 
 ing" or by a " strange influence." He says, " it was well un- 
 derstood in the neighborhood that Rev. A. Pickens was to op- 
 pose the Sons in their organization," but he does not tell how, 
 or by what means this was known. As to an understanding 
 between Rev. A. Pickens and others on this point, he tells no- 
 thing — for, we suppose he knows nothing. 
 
 He does indeed say "it was well understood by (he people 
 of this neighborhood that the Reem's Creek Division was to 
 be opposed in its organization by the Rev. A. Pickens, at Sa- 
 
75 
 
 lem Meeting House,' 5 and that he had " sent him word to stand 
 up to his rack," but all that proves nothing as regards the 
 specification. He does not pretend to say how this under- 
 standing about the opposition to the Sons was effected — wheth- 
 er or not, it was " express? And any word he might see pro- 
 per to send to Rev. A. Pickens can have nothing to do in the 
 matter. The reader then can see that the entire testimony on 
 this point is nothing but Hicksism and chaff, in toto. 
 
 "Item 4th, of the pamphlet, where it is represented that the 
 Rev. A. Pickens and Maj. A. H. Brittain made friends." 
 
 Now then, come up gentlemen, and we will hear your talk. 
 
 " Allen Fox examined. He states that Maj. A. H. Brittain 
 took offense at a sermon Rev. A. Pickens preached at Flat 
 Creek. He thinks they are now friendly." 
 
 "The following certificate was read: 1 do hereby certify 
 that for some twelve months previously to the time that Maj. 
 A. H. Brittain spoke against the Sons at Flat Creek, he and 
 Rev. A. Pickens were at enmity. W. T. BRITTAIN. 
 
 July 2nd 1851"' 
 
 Our remarks. The last two witnesses don't quite come up 
 to the point. They do not pretend to tell us how they knew, 
 or by what they knew the parties to be at varience, and as to 
 come up to the point, and tell us when, where, or how, they 
 made friends they do not — they entirely dodge off. 'Tis true, 
 Mr. Fox tells us, "he thinks they are friendly." But that is 
 nothing to the point. Suppose I should say I think Mr. Fox 
 has three fingers more |on one hand than the other. Every 
 body knows that could not be regarded as evidence. Even so 
 with Mr. Fox's testimony. 
 
 P. Roberts examined. He stated that Rev, A. Pickens and 
 Maj. A. H. Brittain were rather at enmity after the said ser- 
 mon was preached." 
 
76 
 
 Our remarks. What reasons had Mr. Roberts for saying 
 those two persons u were rather at enmity V He does not pre- 
 lend to tell us. Did they ever make friends ? He says nothing 
 about that. 
 
 "Rev. M. M. Weaver, J. T. Weaver, and J. R. Weaver, ail 
 stated that they knew nothing of the facts, as stated by the 
 foregoing witnesses." 
 
 Our remarks. The above is all the evidence produced upon 
 trial before the committee, to sustain the specification. Who 
 oould, with such chaff, then, as the above testimony affords, 
 have pronounce^ the item in the court, sustained or proved ? 
 But, do not be surprised gentle reader, Mr. Suilin's committee 
 j^eclare it as their opinion that it was fully sustained. Won- 
 derful indeed ! But Wm. Picks said of the testimony, 4< the 
 above is ample.'' Let us then not be surprised. We now 
 proceed to notice a certificate produced by the defense before 
 the Quarterly Conference, when the case was brought up there 
 for final adjudication. The witness is Major Brittain himself 
 who of course knows what is what in the case. Hear him. 
 
 u This is to certify that tjiere never was a cross, or hard 
 word passed between myself ar}d the Rev. Andrew Pickens 
 in our lives, to the best of my recollection. We neither had 
 a falling out nor a making of friends. 
 
 August 5th, 1851. A. H. BRITTAIN." 
 
 Our remarks. Every body who reads this certificate of the 
 Major, must regard it as conclusive, Hicksism to the contrary 
 notwithstanding. But Mr. Hicks, it seems, had another certi- 
 ficate which he did not deem proper to present when the case 
 came up in the Quarterly Conference, but he has seen fit to 
 put it in his pamphlet. Perhaps the reason why it was not 
 brought before the Quarterly Conference, is to be found in this : 
 " Caution is the parent of safety." Here it is. 
 
77 
 
 "September 11th 1851. I do hereby certify that from all I 
 have seen and heard, at different times, the Rev. A. Pickena 
 and A. H. Brittain were in a state of the most bitter enmity 
 for no short length of time, and that what the Rev. W. Hicks 
 has written concerning their enmity is true to the letter, and 
 cannot be gainsayed. In witness whereof, I subscribe my 
 name. 1 MIRA B. BRITTAIN." 
 
 Oyr remarks. This certificate does not tell us what was 
 "seen? or What was " heard" One thing is evident from its 
 language, and that is, it was written to save and defend the 
 falling reputation of Wm. Hicks. And we are fully persuad- 
 ed that Mira B. Brittain never penned it, although she may 
 have signed it. In every respect it is chaff, as applied to the 
 case. And as it was read neither before the committee nor 
 the Quarterly Conference, it could have had nothing to do 
 with the decisions made in the case. 
 
 We have now gone through with our review of the whole 
 amount of evidence produced against and for the accused t 
 both before the committee and also before the Querteriy Con- 
 ference, except one certificate signed " Wm. Edwards," pro- 
 duced by the defense before the Quarterly Conference. As 
 the evidence against the accused, is such as to satisfy every- 
 body of innocence of the accused upon the point, we deemed 
 it useless to pen down Mr. Edward's certificate. 
 
 Now then, reader, you have heard all this array of testimo- 
 ny drought up against Rev. A. Pickens, the old gray headed 
 minister, of forty years standing, and you have looked at it, as 
 we have been reviewing or analyzing the same ; and now you 
 are brought to the verdict of the committee. But don't be sur- 
 prised ! Do not be surprised ! ! They had their work to perform* 
 Wm. Hicks must be saved or he must sink. If a victim could 
 not be sacrificed, poor Mr. Hicks would be a ruined man. 
 
78 
 
 Now then, let us hear the verdict of the committee of Hicks, 
 Sailing, & Co. Here it comes in all its shame. 
 
 u We, the committee appointed to investigate the charges 
 prefered against Rev. A. Pickens, beg leave to make the fol- 
 lowing report, viz : after weighing and duly considering all 
 the testimony in the case, we agree that the evidence fully sus- 
 fains the charges. JACOB REYNOLDS. 
 
 JACOB WEAVER, 
 J. S. BURNETT. 
 
 R. B. Vance, SecP 
 
 Well now, gentle reader, you have read all the evidence in 
 the case and heard in conclusion this most extraordinary re- 
 port of the committee — no doubt, but you are more than as- 
 tonished to find that these three committee-men had the effron- 
 tery in this community, to say in their verdict that "the evi- 
 dence fully sustains the charges" But, mark you gentle 
 reader, they had their master's work to do and must not shrink 
 from the task. Major Brittain had been sacrificed, but still 
 William Hicks was not redeemed from his ridiculous dilemma. 
 Another, and older victim was needed. Rev. A. Pickens was 
 the man. He must be sacrificed upon the altar of Hick's am- 
 bition, or the Presiding Elder must sink. The men were se- 
 lected for the work, and the work was done. Here is its his- 
 tory. Alas! Alas!! for religion, when such deeds are done 
 by men professing to wear its sacred mantle. If such con- 
 duct, or such actions had taken place in Barebone's parlia- 
 ment, some apology might have been framed for it, on account 
 of the darkness of the age, or the ignorance of the times, but 
 in this case, it must be evident to the mind of the reader, that 
 malice is the only plea that truth will admit. 
 
 Let the reader bear in mind that this shameful church trial, 
 so called, took place on August 6th, 1851, while Rev. A. Pick- 
 
79 
 
 ens was confined at home by sickness. He was suspended 
 by Rev. David Sullins, until the next Quarterly Conference 
 which was to meet on the 13th of September, before which 
 time brother Pickens seen proper to unite himself with a soci- 
 ety of Seceders, who had organized themselves into a Meth- 
 odist Protestant Chnrch, according to the constitution of said 
 church — and said church with its minister, was regularly re- 
 cognized and received in a few days afterwards, by the Quar- 
 terly Conference of Cleaveland Circuit, as a constitutional 
 Methodist Protestant Church, duly organized, Wm. Hick's 
 letters of menace, to the ministers, and Quarterly Conference* 
 to the contrary, notwithstanding. 
 
 On the 13th day of September, 1851, the Qnarterly Confer- 
 ence for Burnsviile Circuit, met, and in addition to the report 
 of the committee who had acted on the trial of Rev. A. Pick- 
 ens, Rev. David Sullins handed in another charge against the 
 accused. Here it is. 
 
 " Charge 4th. With contempt of the constituted authorities 
 of the church." 
 
 " Specification 1st. In preaching between the time he was 
 cited to trial, and the time of the investigation of his case by 
 the committee." 
 
 u Specification 2nd. In preaching since his suspension by 
 committee." 
 
 Our remarks. Does a mere citation to trial upon an accu- 
 sation, strip a man of rights and privileges without any trial, 
 in the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ? If it does, we do 
 ! not understand very well the use of trying a minister, as accor- 
 ding to the strange doctrine, his functions had been taken 
 iaway from him by the mere citation. What wonderful pow- 
 ers these traveling preachers of the Methoeist Episcopal Church 
 'South, claim and exercise ! But from what had been devei- 
 
so 
 
 oped upon our review of the proceedings of the trial in the 
 committee below, the reader no doubt is prepared, very well, 
 to understand this last charge in the Quarterly Conference* 
 Rev. Wm. Hicks, tells us in his 3rd pamphlet, that " A. G* 
 Anderson and Rev. Jacob Weaver, were then examined with 
 regard to the truth of the fourth charge prefered against the 
 Rev. A. Pickens." He does not inform his readers what these 
 witnesses said, but simply tells us their testimony "was con- 
 clusive of the fact, that the Rev. A. Pickens had preached as 
 so charged ;" but in the hurry of business, after the session had 
 been protracted to a late hour at night, the vote was not taken 
 on those specifications, and the general charge. So the charge 
 rests." This is strange business indeed, as the testimony had 
 been heard ; but, perhaps, as the arrangements of Hicks, Sul- 
 lins, & Co., were sufficiently settled to secure the old minis- 
 ter's condemnation, they thought it a useless vote, to vote on 
 the last charge. Mr. Hicks again tells us : 
 
 " The evidence being closed, for and against brother Pickens 
 he (the said Pickens) proceeded to make his defense in person. 
 After which, the preacher in charge, made a speech in behalf 
 oi the church, and the accused replied." 
 
 "The decision of the committee in the case of Rev. A. 
 Pickens, was confirmed ; and, on motion, the said Andrew 
 Pickens was expelled from the Methodist Episcopal Chnrch, 
 South. Whereupon, the Presiding Elder announced the said 
 expulsion to the Conference in clue form ; and A. Pickens, 
 stating that ho would not appeal to the ensuing annual Con- 
 ference, the Presiding Elder, demanded his credentials, which 
 he refused to surrender." 
 
 Signed, W. HICKS, P. E. 
 
 DAVID SULLINS, P. C. 
 J. H. R. PATTERSON L. D. 
 THOMAS GIBBS, L. E. 
 
si 
 
 eLisha garland, l. p. 
 
 J. C. KEENER, St. 
 riAVID PROFFIT, St. 
 
 j. w. Mcelroy St. 
 
 A. G. ANDERSON, St. 
 
 IRA CROUD ER, C. L. 
 
 R. F. BAKER, St. 
 
 H. P, CORN, C. L. 
 
 GRAY BRIGGS, St.' 
 
 MICHAEL KELLER, C. t. 
 
 GUTHRIDGE GARLAND C.L. 
 J. W. McEliIoy; Special Secretary. 
 September lWi, 1851." 
 
 The preceeding array of names in the form of official sig- 
 hatures, are appended to the final action of the Quarterly Con- 
 ference, as if to impart solemnity to the occasion ; and, fortu^ 
 nately for the cause of truth and justice, the public thereby 
 are enabled to find out who the characters are, that had the 
 bnblemishing effrontery thus to undertake to sacrifice the aged 
 fanfiriister of forty years standing upon the alter of Wm. Hick's 
 iwalice, in order to save him from that dilemma in which his 
 own conduct had placed him. We will simply remark here, 
 Uiat Rev. A. Pickens had no right to take an appeal to the 
 Annual Conference, because he belonged to another com- 
 munion at the time, and upon the same ground he had no 
 right to make any surrender of credentials upon the demand 
 of Wm. Hicks. 
 
 The reader has now gone over the history of these proceed- 
 ings, and there is but one more item relating to the trial to 
 which we are disposed to call attention, and that is the manner 
 in which the committee of trial, and also the Quarterly Con- 
 ference were eompo.-ed. 
 
 1st. The committee of trial was composed of three ideal 
 preachers, chosen by the preacher in charge, who was; aisd the 
 
S2 
 
 prosecutor, as well as judge in the ease ; the accused having 
 fw right to object to any one of the number upon any grounds. 
 This is old Methodist discipline. 
 
 2nd. The Quarterly Conference was composed of fifteen 
 members including Wm. Hicks, and David Siillins, and teri 
 of the body were Class-leaders and Stewards. Now let it be 
 borne in mind that Class-leaders are always appointed and re- 
 moved by the preacher in charge, at his will and pleasure, and 
 no man allowed to say yea or nay, and the Stewards are al- 
 ways nominated by the preacher in charge, and eleCtedVby the 
 Quarterly Conference, it becomes at once apparent that in the 
 Methodist Episeopal Church, the preacher in charge will find 
 ho difficult]/ in making out a majority to carry any measure 
 he may desire. And therefore, upon this same principle, the 
 reader will be able to find the key by which to unlock the 
 mystery of the result of the trial of Rev. A. Pickens. 
 
 The conduct of Wm. Hicks has been prominent through- 
 out these pages. We first find him lauding' the purity of the 
 character of Rev. A. Pickens. In the next place we find him 
 endeavoring to shift the blame from his own shoulders, and 
 striving to throw it on the shoulders of Rev. A. Pickens. In 
 the next place we find him figuring away in trying to sacri- 
 fice Maj. A. H. Brittain, a member of church, in order to save 
 himself from the odium which his conduct was bringing down 
 upon his own head. Again, we find him all the time printing 
 and circulating pamphlets and circulars, traducing and villi- 
 fying men better than himself* All these things making his 
 own case grow worse, we find him at last bringing about, and 
 effecting the trial and expulsion of Rev. A. Pickens. And, 
 finally, although wearing the office of a minister of the gos- 
 pel> when all modesty had been lost, and all refinement of 
 feeling had been abandoned, we find him, condescending to 
 
as 
 
 the level of a scavenger of scandal, by publishing in Ms 
 pamphlet the trial and so-called expulsion of Rev. A. Pickens 
 (the minister so much his superior in usefulness,) and circula- 
 ting the same through the country to the prejudice of that ven», 
 erable, long-tried, and well known man. Is not this narrative 
 sufficient to cause the blush of shame to suffuse on the cheek 
 of every lover of justice or religion? Alas! for the church! J 
 Alas for Christianity when her ministers thus abandon their 
 calling. 
 
 We regret that we are compelled thus to record the miscon- 
 duct of one whose actions should have been in unison with 
 his office, byt striving' to do justice to the truth, and defend tlie 
 innocent, we have written what we have written- Hick's pamph- 
 lets and circulars were too numerous in the country, and too 
 little identified with either truth or justice, to suffer them to 
 pass without a reply. Hence we have written. 
 
 But one more item of Hick's 3rd pamphlet will be noticed 
 and then we shall close. It stands on page 52, and reads 
 thus: 
 
 "It would seem that the North Carolina Methodist Protest 
 tants thinks that a minister once made cannot be unmade ex- 
 cept by themselves ! Have they not compromised the charac- 
 ter, and integrity of their church by their course in Buncombe? 
 But an apology suggests itself; a large number of their min- 
 isters and members were where the Quarterly Conference of 
 the Burnsville Circuit left father Pickens, when the Methodist 
 Protestant Church took them up, and it is natural and meet, 
 that they extend to him a '.brother's hand, and a brother's wel- 
 come.'" 
 
 Our remarks. This paragraph is false and slanderoias.-r 
 And I declare its character to be such before the world. The 
 Methodist Protestant Church in North Carolina numbers some 
 
84 
 
 thing over 5,000 mem^rs. The ministry belonging to th£ 
 Annual Conference numbers 29. I think I am acquainted 
 with every one of them personally. And I here declare from 
 rny personal knowledge, that but two of them only, were re- 
 garded or looked upon as expelled by the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church from her fellowship. One of them, Rev. C. Drake, 
 was expelled thus : he had adopted the sentiments of the 
 Methodist Reformers, and desired a change in the government 
 of the church, so as to admit of republican principles in the 
 system. This was an offense. Suspicion had not blown her 
 foul breath upon his moral character. But the preaaher in 
 charge came around, called for the class-paper, made a new 
 one, leaving off the name of the minister, and called him ex- 
 pelled ! ! Was he expelled Mr. Hicks ? (See history Methodist 
 Protestant Church, page 220.) The other one to whom we 
 alluded was expelled, but we know nothing about the trans- 
 action. Here then is one minister among us turned out by 
 the "scratch law," and another that had been expelled, I know 
 not how, nor for what. Mr. Hicks pretends that Rev. A. Pick 
 ens was justly expelled from the ministry. I deny it, and I 
 suppose numbers of the communicants in the Methodist Epis- 
 copal Church do the same. He came into the Methodist Pro- 
 testant Church in connection with a constitutionally organiz- 
 ed church, received by the Cleaveland Quarterly Conference. 
 But the shameful featnre in Mr. Hick's statement, is the asser- 
 tion that "a large number of the ministers and members of 
 the Methodist Protestant church, were where the Burnsville 
 Quarterly Conference left Rev. A. Pickens." Well, we have 
 to say there were two ministers— the case of one has a place 
 in history. — and we have heard pf only two laymen, Maj. A. 
 H. Brittain and P. W. Edwards. 
 Now then, in conclusion, if these four persons form 
 
8«, 
 
 pRGE number of the ministers and members" of the Metho- 
 dist Protesrant church in I^orth Carolina, Mr. Hick's declara- 
 tion is trjie — but if not, bis assertion is false and slanderous. 
 
 Now in conclusion., gentle reader, what think you of the 
 government of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South ? Have 
 you not seen in this narrative how easy it is for the itinerant 
 ministers, in whose hands the whole power is lodged, to carry 
 any point they choose. If they wish to expell any member, 
 or local minister, in order to get him out of the way, they can 
 select their men to do it, and he had.no right to object, to any 
 committee-men on his case — his worst enemy may sit upon it 
 and he cannot have him removed if the preacher in charge 
 wishes him to sit. Is this the republicanism of America ? No, 
 sir. It is despotism. And if republicanism be right in State, 
 it is also right in church. If despotism be wrong in State, it 
 ^s also wrong in church. 
 
 Reader, pause and consider. You are an American. Our. 
 fathers fought and bled for liberty both civil and religious, and 
 we are their heirs. Let us then, love both alike, and contend 
 for. blood bought republicanism, both in church and State, for 
 tyrany is hateful^ and despotism dbom'mahle, wherever found, 
 and may heaven forbid that our shoulders should ever support 
 fitjier. 
 
v. 
 
APPENDIX- 
 
 I wish it to be distinctly understood that when we met at 
 Salem Church, on the day of A. H. Brittain's trial, it was td 
 attend to the business of the church, or at least that was ex- 
 pected by the greater pan of tHem that were there — but it was 
 soon discovered that Hicks and Ragan, and others, cared but 
 little for the church, so they could get the Sons of Temperance 
 promoted. I will now show the reader how they treated A. 
 H. Brittain. In the first place, Maj. Brittain presented a res- 
 olution at Flat Creek school-house, when there was a meeting 
 there for the purpose of compromising the difficulty, as Hickti 
 said that had lasted sufficiently long. At that meeting Maj. 
 Brittain gave iticks his sop. He there took up the Bible and 
 proved that he had violated the law of God, arid then took the 
 Discipline and showed where he had violated the rules of the 
 church, and alter they had gone through the debate, the Maj. 
 then presented some resolutions, and had them adopted. The 
 offensive one was: "Resolved, that we will not support any 
 preacher, (naming the various denominations,) that will gb 
 into reveling and idolatry. I believe the whole assembly voted 
 for its passage except Hicks and Jacob Weaver, (perhaps one 
 br two more, but I am not certain that there were any more.) 
 Is it reasonable to suppose that there is, in Christendom, a mart 
 that would oppose that resolution ? Does not his and Weaver's 
 conduct prove to the world that they were guilty of such con- 
 
2 
 
 duct? How much like Hal and his prophets!! Major Brittairt 
 did not speak evil of the ministers of Christ, but ministers of 
 idols. He did not enveigh against discipline; but against those 
 who violated the rules of discipline. Instead of enveighing, 
 he was trying to protect the rules. Here, let it be observed^ 
 the power that belong to the ministers of trie MethodiBt Epis- 
 copal Church, wri'en they become offended, those who give the 
 offense, have but little chance ; and those who will keep iri 
 favor with the Preacher, can do what they please, and iC is 
 hard to get them out of the church. 
 
 Let the reader examine the charges. Husk's say3 in sti'b* 
 stence, but the question is; what produced the substdrice! 
 What did Britlain say ? Hicks says in substance. It brings 
 to my mind what the reader may find recorded iri 2nd Thes- 
 salonians, 2nd Chapter, 4th verse. He seems to think that he 
 can make a substance out of nothing. 1 think trial the reader 
 is puzzled to find out upon what those charges are founded— 
 or what evidence the committee had to find him guilty. The* 
 fact is he was cleared by the comrriiffee, bdt in substance was 
 found guilty by Ragan ; for, if I arri riot mistaken, (and I do 
 not believe that I am,) the corrimittee had cleared him on the 
 two first, and was aboiit to clear hirri of the third, but Ragari 
 said to them that if they did hot find him guilty on the last 
 charge, he would keep them there all night, and one of therri 
 lived 12 or 13 miles from the place, and had to go home that 
 night, and it was then getting dark. I learned this from one 
 of the committee. 
 
 It was contrary to all laws, both civil and divine, and I 
 heard Hicks tell A. H. B attain, that Ragan had no rule for 
 staying with the committee. But Preachers have tneir owri 
 
 way of doing business. 
 
3 
 
 When the evidence was given in, they called on J.S. Weav- 
 er to plead in behalf of the church. I then objected to that 
 course, by saying that the Preacher in charge, if he wished to 
 do so, could give the committee such instruction as he might 
 think was proper to give them ; but Hicks said, " I say it shall 
 be so," or words to that effect. A new thing under the sun for 
 a Presiding Elder to act as Class-leader, and Circuit Preach - 
 ef, and be Judge in class, and circuit, and Quarterly Confer- 
 ence, and to be his own witness. I wonder who could not 
 prove every thing he wishes, when he can write out his own 
 certificate, and w r rite certificates for others, and get them to 
 sign them, just to suit his own purposes ? 
 
 Hicks complains of Maj Brittain and myself, trying to injure 
 
 him. Did any person ever hear Brittain or myself say a dis- 
 respectful word about him till after he had commenced his 
 diabolical crusade against us, in trying to destroy my charac- 
 ter as a minister of the church, and because he could not do it, 
 he thought he would try the sympathy of the people, by com- 
 plaining that he was a stranger. Ought he not to have known 
 how strangers ought to behave themselves in order to be re- 
 spected, and not act like some run-mad simpleton, that had 
 been raised where people did not know how they ought to 
 behave ? But, I suppose he must be excused, for it seems be- 
 cause he is Presiding Elder, every body must pull off their 
 hats and bow to him. Major Brittain and the old minister 
 had too much sense, then, to disgrace themselves to satisfy such 
 a creature as Wm. Hicks. I have lived to be old and gray- 
 headed, and have seen a great many things, and a great many 
 men, but I never have seen a bet of men so completely under 
 the controle of the scarlet beast on which the woman sat, as 
 Hicks and his party was, and to thirst for the blood of Saints 
 under the pretence of doing good. Hicks complains of my 
 
trying to injure him. I call to the heavens above, and to the 
 earth beneath, to bear witness if I dirt not give him every evi- 
 dence that a man of God could ask, to prove to him that I 
 regarded him as a minister oi the gospel, unlil he commenced 
 his crusade to try to sacrifice my standing and my character 
 and the character of my family, and because I undertook to 
 defend myself, he then commenced, like the suborned man, 
 Acts vi. 11, 12, 13. I suppose he thought he would bring the 
 difficulty to a close, by stoning me to death ; but in that he 
 was mistaken — I am still at my post, and there I hope to be 
 found when the Great Head of the Church shall send hie 
 angel to bring my discharge. But 1 suppose Hicks and the 
 Weavers, and others, thought they would drive me away, as 
 they could not entice me away, and get the glory of baign 
 popular themselves. This one thing I can say, that 1 never 
 tried to rise on the downfall of others. Hicks talks much 
 about his compromise. I still told him that I had no com- 
 promise to make, for 1 did not believe that I had done any 
 thing that had interrupted the church, and those things that 
 had interrupted the church he had brought there, and ought 
 to take them away, and all things would be right again.— 
 But that was not what he was after — but to coinpell me and 
 
 others to snbmit to the Sons of Temperance. This I did not 
 feel willing to do, for I never felt bound to submit to the Son* 
 of Temperance. Although I might have spent ray opinion 
 in full about the Sons, what was that to the Methodist Episco- 
 pal Church ? Is it not my duty, as a minister of Jesus Christy 
 to preach against every thing that I thought was wrong? If I 
 am sent of God to preach, am I not commanded to "cry aloud 
 and spare not?" But I suppose Hicks thought that the Sons 
 of Temperance was too holy for me to meddle with, but would 
 be pleased if 1 would lift my voice against the Baptist, or 
 
f 
 
 i 
 
 Presbyterians, and destroy their moral character, even if U 
 was by falsehood — he wovUc) have stood by me, and defended 
 me, but we must infer that he esteemed the Sons of Temper- 
 ance higher than the church,. I ask why he did not suppose 
 that I alluded to Methodists or Methodist preachers? that 
 would have seemed more consistent with good sense, and then 
 bring me to trial for a breech of Methodist rules. But Hicks, 
 as little sense as he has got, happened to think that if he took 
 the course of justice and truth, his Baal and his prophet* 
 would be put to death, therefore, he had recourse to stratagem 
 and falsehood, and that he well knew, and so did his party, 
 and I believe all the country around believed it to be the case. 
 
 I will now give the reader the sum and substance of my 
 speech ; as it cannot be expected that I could give it verbatim? 
 I will give it so as the reader can discover what gave the of- 
 fense. When J. S. Weaver commenced his defence of the 
 church, according to my best recollection, he said that he 
 would have to go to "soap-making," and I suppose that his' 
 mother had taught him that the first ingredient that was ne- 
 cessary, is lye. I suppose he thought that Hicks had provided 
 all the materials, and he bad been taught the rules of compo- 
 sition by his mother. He could maka " soap," but she had not 
 learned him the rules of composition. After he had made his 
 remarks about "soap-making," he took the Bible, and read 
 about "speaking evil of dignitaries," and then took the Discip- 
 line, and read "speaking evil of Ministers, and Magistrates," 
 and then tried to impress the minds of the committee, that he 
 (Brittain) was guilty. After he was done, Brittain called on 
 me to speak. 1 then took the floor, and after some prelimin- 
 ary remarks, I took up his arguments and followed him 
 through them, and I believe I satisfied the committee that 
 Brittain was not guilty of the charges. I then commenced 
 
my remarks w) ich gave the offense. I said to them., notice 
 the dilierence made between myself and them. I was there 
 and heard v. hat way said, and I took no offense, for I knew ; 
 that I was not guilty, and if they are not guilty, they need not 
 be offend u, but, said I, they may say what they please about 
 me, ane? things that are as black as darkness, and they pay no 
 uttenti Ai to rny character— they do not bring them to trial for 
 speaking evil of me. At that time Clicks rose up and asked 
 me who I alluded to ? J said to him, sit down till I am done? 
 tl at is the way you always do when I am speaking ; I said to 
 iimthe second time to sit down, but he still stood there, with 
 his indignant looks, and said he did not know that any body 
 or any of the members, (I won't say which) had said any thing 
 about me. T do confess that I was astonished to hear him 
 say such things. I then thought I would bring him -to his 
 recollection — I still faced the committee, and said "they have 
 silk! things about me not only as black as darkness, but as 
 ijaefc os rfiidnigt darkness f -and 'hen turned a little more 
 iring him, and with the gesture o: my right hand towards 
 mm, said, " ynu know it ; 5: aud when I said this Hicks fell 
 like Dagon. before ,the ark, and I suppose Jacob Weaver * ' 
 thought I; is ''Dagon was ruined — hi bellowed him one of the 
 bulls of S.ishon, and several more 01 their party sprang to 
 their fret, and acted, as I w^s informed, as though they inten- 
 ded to use violence ; but ItXajor Brilton and some of my gooaV 
 friends, who had known me all their life time, or a great* 
 while, stepped to my batik and taught them by signs, the pro- 
 priety ol behaving themselves. Some of them were of the 
 Presbyterian crd After they had got settled, I then went 
 on with my remarks, and closed by saying I had often heard 
 it said to touih a galled horse and he will flinch, particularly 
 if you touch lllm on the galled place.