The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-04-17


90 that the meaning will not be equivocA
Dr. McCuSroK insisted that Mr. Ferris really "a
Of rule. Mr. Ferris wanted change the letter
Of the rule, and he Dr. McC) wanted every vote
upon the question. The Speaker ssd openly and fsry
that he was opposed to change IN the rule, and he
best VIM He hoped that the Of justice OF the
New York Conference would reject the substitute He
the majority of the conservative conferences had rejected
IT, The voice u the Conference would be strong
any change Of rule, and he vas therefore, anxious
have them vote sgans the Erie resolution Every m Al
who was IN favor OF the substitute eec,usly voted In
fsvcr OF change Of the rules and every who spoke
pu e r The
Mr. FERRIS and Others corrected the Doctor
They did not 90 go except Rev. Mr.. whea,ley.
DIR. MCCIlNTocK resumed-He charged that those who
voted for the OncDba rule FAVOR Of change of
the rule o. the scplue The CINCINNATI resolaons pro
opposed change rule which would make i. pro-
hbtory They haa all been in the fog about mean pg
Of the substitute The utter mpossbllity Of getting at
Indebtedness should lead the progressives to pause
When the tune came to alter the law, the words would
come pphgly up - they did TO Milton whom composing
Para Lost Til then let them stick to the old law
be opposed TO excluding shareholders from the CHURCH.
because the discipline excluded buyers and sellers OF
slaves ana women logeers There need, there
FORE changing the rule What had they 70 do with the
laws Of the southern StatesS No law in Maryland pre-
vented slave from reading the Word Of God, but there
was such law in Virginia
BRo1nKR said there law in Virginia preventing
TIE TO tearh people 20 read the Bible.
Dr. NADAL said the only law In the statute book Of vir-
eiuiA under the head Of unlawful assemblies"
which prevented number OF Eve persons meeting for
The purpose OF learning TO read.
Dr. HcCINIocK-I remember that that is 80 but the
Law does not prevent the master from teaching his slaves
In hH own house He was opposed 70 any new rule, be-
Cause was uptcrpturaL II was contrary 10 the New
Testament be knew had warrant In the letter Of the
New Testament. Nowhere In the New Testament could
any man nnd his warrant for a law to exclude all slave
holders from the church Of God 1t could not be
there THIS ccnld be found there that and slave
holders together were admitted into the church God
On that he would stand, and until they got new tesla
nent as veal rs new discipline, he should never
rnt to any such change Of their rule as the one
proposed The proposed change was ncons silent with
the whole current Of church history Brethren that
proposed such law a. that proposed innovation upon
the whole Of church Legislation ages OF the
world In ell ue up TO the present day He opposed the
change because IL deviation from the course OF
weetysn Netnodsm In England in the Wee. Indies and
American Methodism. John Wesley received slaveholt
ers into bis church and he Numbered anaihsmss
seanst slavery fierce and terrible any thai bad
beer uttered from that day to this I. contrary 70
the New Testament and TO the whole current Of
history say sny stakeholder when be proeet TO DO
converted " You shant into the church - He
willing to stand bebiui wesleys Tremendous thoughts
slavery but he also willing 70 stand beside his clear
consistent, evangelical practice, and - follow tha Tue