The independent press. (Abbeville C.H., S.C.) 1853-1860, 1858-09-03
Dress.


Quite spicy debate took place in the
Methodist General Conference, lately held
in Nashville, on Il proposition to amend the
"Discipline" of the church by striking out
the rules respecting dre4s. The article on
that subject has the following passages
Receive ,noneinto the church till they
have left off superfuous ornaments. X II
Give no ticket to any that wear high heads
enormous bonnets, ruffles, or rings. "Thc
putting on Of gold and costly apparel is also
~ another place, reckoned among sins to
be avoided" q.
"The Rev. Mr.. Lush, of Mississippi, the
mover Of the resolution to strike out, con.
tended that the law was dead letter, aud
that it was a 'scandalous inconsistency that
the precept and practice of the denomina.
tion should be SO widely at variance with
each other Such was the laxity Of admin
Fistralion, that candidates wonl be received
into the church though loaded down with
a weight Of gold under which they could
scarce walk The speaker was very Sc.
we're upon bis brother ministers for wearing
gold spectacles. He said the glass would
magnify just us well if set in iron or steel
He denounced gold studs, gold watch,
chains, gold-headcd canes and diamond
brcastpins with much fervor.
"Another speaker was for bringing the
practice Of the people up to the standard
Of the Discipline, instead of accommodating
the Discipline to the practice Of the people
He thought it very ridiculous to admit that
supertluity Of dress was wrong, and than
expnnge the rule because people would not
comply with it.
'Another contended that the rule agains:
'superuous ornaments did not apply lc
such things as speclaces and walking canes
He agreed, also, that even if these things
were forbidden, there was not word in
Scripture against the use Of them by nen-
that the prccept applied exclusively to III,
women"
"The Rev. Dr.. Leo. Of Virginia was ii
favor OF expunging. He admitted that ht
bad to use his gold spectacrs to see what
was in the Discipline. He did not under
stand, and never had understood it. What
ornament was superilnous Who coull
say at what precise point ornaments ceased
to be allowable and become supcrtious? Ii.
ridicnled that We might carry as many
'"ch'y 0o'lar So'u pieces IN our pockets as
wo please, but if We should stick little bit
Of it in the bosom, somebody would b,
greatly scandaised. He always found
enough TO do in preaching about more i'm
portant matters, without descending to these
triiles.
Another member from Virginia protest
ed against DIR. Lees speech going forth a:
an exponent Of the sentiment OF th4 Method
lists of that State.
Tho Rev. Mr.. Deems deprecated the
tendency to superf1uity in in dress. but wa:
in favor Of abolishing the rule. lie repre-
sented it as lifting IL straw to the whirlwind.
1t might do for the regulation of societv
but for the church to assume to be tho
mantua-maker, millner and tailor for bel
mcmbers, was contemplate dissertation o
of her sacred office lie WAS in favor O
getting the true sap to circulate through
the tree, so that it should put forth healthy
leaves, but did not believe in pulling off thi:
leaf and that, &c.
"Atter considerable discussion, the subicc
was indefinitely postponed"