Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1845-06-05
[ For the GAG ellie.


the FIRE. We are informed the property was insured
---------------
For the Gag cite.
Mr.. EDIToR-As your editorial, aud
considerable portion of the paper Of last
week, was devoted to the division of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and the
causes which have produced il, the I'M
designed, being impressed with the belief
from the tone OF expression and partial
accounts current, that erroneous impress.
sions have gone forth, desire the favour
of being allowed TO make some explanato.
ry statements.
perceive by your editorial, that you,
with others, err IN relation TO the char
acter and action Of the Convention held in
Louisville. This Convention was author.
lied by the General Conference Of dele
gates representing The waole Church in
the United States and Texas. The SC.
ton oil tina, body in reference to Bishop
Andrews caused the delegates represent.
ing the Annual Conferences OF the South.
ern States 10 enter their solemn protest, in
which they declare that they canno. pur-
sue their ministerial duties in the South,
with profit TO Master and Slave, while the
General Conference of the whole Church
holds Jurisdiction over them. That body,
having confidence in the integrity and
piety of the Southern Minister, laid down
plan upon which separation should
take place, whenever it was determined
by the Annual Conferences South that
such was necessary to the prosperity OF
the cause which it was their business to
promote. The thirteen Annual Confer
ences South, elected delegates to the Lou
isville Convention and they have, accord
ing to the plan proposed, set up an indie.
pendant organization. You state--"li
we understand the matter rightly, the ac-
ton OF the Methodist Convention at Lou.
isvlle as not final" In this you mistake
the plan of separ alton makes the act OF
this Convention final. But there are Sc.
veral Conferences whose jurisdiction ex-
tends over slave and free territory, such
as The Baltimore Conference which is in.
cluded in parts OF Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania these are termed the bor-
der Conferences; they had no represen-
,aiion in the Convention, but the plan OF
separation provides that the ministry and
laty shall have choice of divisions with
out blame or reproach.
OF course those sections Of these border
Conferences which contain slave. hold.
ing population, will not submit to The pc.
culiarties of Northern government, and
may come under the Southern organlza-
ton retaining all the pecullarliies OF
ecclesiastical poIity, doctrines and usages,
with no other change than TO exclude
from the executive and legislative depart
men,s of The Church the power of agltat-
ing the subject of slavery.
Another error which seems TO have
misled many in this angry controversy,
is the impression that the legislation Of
The Meth dist Il. Church has aimed to
abolish slavery, and favoured the abolition
views Of Northern fanatics. The Church
has always declared that she has nothing
to do with the ciuiI relations Of our vast
country: and in those sections where
slavery has an existence--where the Con.
ferences include all slave ter'itory--her
mins ters have held Slaves without being
objected to any disciplinary regulations.
The action Of the late General Conference
arose from prudential considerations. -
Bsnop Andrew was the bishop Of the
Church North as we'll as South, and as
a. IS HE
the whole Union that he bore as intimate
relation to ono section as another, it
was thought that his usefulness woulj be
considerably abated il not destroyed,
while he continued to hold Slaves. These
were the considerations which induced
the General Conference to request him TO
rid himself Of has Siares; and il was this
step q the General Conference which in.
duced the Southern portion of the Church
to take the course which it has that the
members may not be hindered IN then
operations among bota Slaves and Mas
tiers.
The South looks upon the fanaticism OF
the North as sirocco that is destined 10
sweep over their fair heritage with death:
any connection therefore with the Church
whose legislative department is even sns-
pected of favourlng Abolition views,
would cripple the operations o! ministers
more particularly; and while we cannot
attribute any other than honest purposes,
in this fatal action Of the Church North,
we are sorry that policy should be so
unwise and fatal in its results. 1t was
not an Abolition movement,--anti.A boil.
zionist headed the action in the case OF
Bishop Andrew! The very men who led
10 the majority were those who have held
the rod in terrorem over Abolitouists.
They sought the peace of the Churches
they endeavoured to get bone OF con.
tention away that Northern fanatics
might not increase their opposition--such
were the men and such their motives
10 regard to the South, they have been