Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1859-12-27
An indignant clersyman--The Church
ana Slavery.

About two weeks ago we wrote and pub
lished an article headed "The Church Pros
pairing the way for Disunion," which treated
briefly Of the slOvery question in the Meths
odist Church prior to 1874, and the action Of
the General Conference that year, that vir-
tually severed the ties Of Union between the
north and south, of Methodism. The sub
ject was suggested while we were engaged
in tracing to a respectable source, the "in-
auenees' which have maialy operated to
bring about the present alarming crisis in
this Government Our purpose was to show
whore the first real danger OF dissolution
Of these Uuited States originated; how and
by whom 1t originated how it might have
been ayerted; that the Church, when repre-,
sented exclusively by her ministry, cannot
always be depended on for wisdom Of coun
sci or prudent action that the iOOrld may do
wrong sometimes by following in the foot
steps of the Church; and we believe we sue.
ceeded in pointing out deplOrable error in
the action of the Methodist ministers, for
the avoidance of the church in al time to
como.
We have been advised, from different
points Of the compass, that the article to
which we here allude, has caused much dis,
satisfaction in ministerial places, We ex-
pected this The clergy are not all above
suspicion Of human weaknesses some of
them lay more stress upon the exactness of
their ministerial acts than they do upon
their department as christian gentlemen;
their desire for ministerial distinction pos,
sibly undOrlies their piety, and they make
sad work Of their mission" There were
just enough of this style of ministers in the
Methodist connection to divide the church.
A gentleman of the clerical persuasion,
by name George w. Harris, has given our
article on 1.-THE Church Preparing the Way
for Disunion" a oursory reading, and in
yesterdays Dayton Journal, he informs us,
among other things, "what he thought about
it, He starts out with the proposal to
properly set forth our "gross ignorance, or
wilful perversion Of facts" and in pursur
ance of this, be informs us that "tho matter
referred to- (the separation of the NJ &,
Churth north and south) occurred at New
York, and not at Baltimore, as we had it,
As to the question of place, we were in err
ror, but as to time, and the event treated Of
in our former article, we were correct The
reverend gentleman lays much stress upon
our mistake about the place where the Gen
eral Conference of 1874 was held, and would
have the public conclude, from this unimi
portant error that our whole article was
n.isstatement
We will not again notice the subject Mt
length for we have already given the mate
rial points we will merely note some of the
points made by the Journals correspondent,
and we will be brief as possible.
He suys "the General Conference did moi
divide the church" The General Confers
ence, by Its action on the slavery question,
put the southern ministry and membership
in condition of inferiority, and proper
regard for their selfrespect made It neees-
sary that q separation should take place.
A committee was appointed, and "plan
Of separation" was agreed upon, in which
tho property of the church was to be divi
ded, justly, between the north and the
south. We do not remember the language
Of the "plan,' nor do we remember its de,
tails; we aim only to give tho sense Of it. In
their action the Conference did virtually
dissolve the union Of the church; it was
done on the slavery question; and these are
the material facts, underlying our former
article.
Harris says, phlegmatiCally, "The Gene
raj Conference did not degrade the portion
Of the church south of the Mason & Dixon
line for years by petty annoyances, In the
shape of snufiling resolutions &o. We
did not say it did. Mr. Harris peryerts our
language here, We did not hint such a
thing We were not speaking of the Gen,
Conf in that connection; we were speaking
of church meetings, quarterly conferences,
and annual conferences in the north, though
we did not particulariEe; we named the
church north. The General Conference,
however, did seek to degrade the southern
ministry and membership, but in dife
rent way. II would not permit minister
(Rev. Mr.. Harding,) good man, to preach
because he married lady who inherited
slaves it asked that he manumit property
which did not belong to him; property
which, had it been his, the laws of the State
did not permit him to manumit, unless hC
removed 1t from the state and became sure,
ty Tor it during life Because he could no
perform these impossibilities, he was degra-
ded.
Again, Bishop Andrews married a lady
who inherited slaves; he was required to
manumit tho property of his wife, or cease
the exercise of the Episcopal functions
Harris says the Bishop became the oWaer
of slaves, which is false. Now, in the case
of these southern ministers it was not claim,
ed they we're bad men; they were noted as
good men, and successful ministers of Christ.
They were in the south, and among south
ern institutions, and their position they
could not help. All the while northern
ministers were laundering against slavery;
clamoring against the "sin and curse;p out
raging the feelings Of the southern member
ship, and seeking to degrade them through