The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-03-20
Reported forthe Daily Exchanged
PRO CEEDLNGS OF BALTIMORE CON-
FERENCE At ST4UNTON, EA.
FIFTH DAY.


STAUNToN, Va, March Is.
Conference met at 8 A. NJ. Religious exercises
by Rev. Thos. Myers. The minutes were read and
approved.
Rev Bishop Scott presented the report of Dick
inson College, signed by President Il. NJ johnson,
The paper was read and referred, after which DR..
]. addressed the Conference.
Rey.B. Hough, Tract Agent, presented bis report,
| which was read and referred.
NJ. May and G. C. Calvert were examined and
admitted to Deacons orders.
A committee of three appointed on the af.
fairs of the Metropolitan church of Washington.
The order of the day was taken up.
| Rev. George W. Israel addressed the Conference.
| His position embarrassing. He LETT his home
with great reluctance, but seeing the Importance
of the crisis he felt his duty and desire to discharge
it, Isolated from his brethren by a farmers lile
he had not been privileged to mingle with the min
istry and compare views. We have reached fear
| full crisis in the history of the church. The two
| questions are: How can we maintain the unity of
! the ministry? How can maintain the unity of
| the membership? Some propose simple repudia-
tion-some the exclusion of the chapter but these
measures are revolutionary. An Annual Confer
ence has no right to repudae the decisions of the
General Conference, if they constitutional |
hold the decision of the last General Conference to
be unconstitutional 1t violates the restrictive
rules.
Congress can only exercise delegated power, but
the General Conference exercise d.. po..ers
except such restricted. The first restrictive
rule forbids the General Conference to alter our
doctrines. Does not the chapter partake of
the nature of doctrine? Is it contrary to es-
tabIished doctrines, does it differ from them?
What is doctrine? doctrine is a declaration of
belief in regard to any matter taught in the bolv
Scriptures. Is not the chapter declaration of
our belief? owe believe" the words of the
chapter. 1t is adecaraton of belief on the author
| ity of the Bible He believed the nonconcurring
Conferences to be the Methodist Episcopal Church
perse. He did not believe the new chapter to be |
law; but, far worse, doctrine which forbids
minister to take the ordination VOWS which require
him to believe the doctrines of the Church; and
only yesterday Rev. E. F. Hetrick declined ordina-
ton on this very ground, and returns to his people
unorddned. He could not cOnscientiouslv VOW TO |
receive false doctrine.
Bishop Scott is well fortified in his decision that
the chapter is the doctrine of the church on the
subject OF slavery Is this false chapter?
How can the decision Of the highest authority of |
the church be dsregarded and nullifed by an An
nual Conference? The doctrine is binding upon
our consciences. How are to meet this question?
| We are called upon to decide whether the Word of
God does condemn the holding of slaves If we
believe not we cannot remain under the admins
tration of the General Conference If it can be
proved that the holding of slaves chattes is con-
trary to the Bible, will stand up for the Bible
against popular clamor. The Northern Conferences
have done, by revolution, what thev could not do
constitutionay; and affirm that we, the Lon-con-
curing Conferences, do constitute the onv le0iti
mate branch of the Methodist EpiScopol Church. He
! hoped that some member of the Episcopal Board
I would see our position in this light, and become
our Joshua to lead us forward The Bible does not
condemn the simple relation OF master and slave,
and this has been the great principle of our Church
in al her legislation upon this subject. We must
decide this matter by solid argument, and not by
mere defamation. We must meet the question on
the truth or falsity of the doctrine proclaimed bv
| the General Conference.
This is not all the General Conference has DONE
They have also by false Interpretation of the
general rule, censured every STAKEHOLDER in the
church, and convinced all such that in the opinion
| of said body, they acting in hostility to the
law of God-of humanity, &c. We cannot re-
| ceive slaveholding members under the discipline,
and doctrines Of the church. If class leader be-
| eves the doctrine of the new chapter, and pro.
bationer does not, how said probationer be
received if not recommended by his cass-eader?
| There is bar placed to the admission into the
church of any man-slaveholder or'not-who will
| not subscribe to the doctrine of the new chapter
| The General Conference has made an anti-slavery
| discipline to meet with pro-slavery practice. 1t
strikes out all provision against the ordination of
slave-hoding minister's even where the laws las of
the District of Columbia) admit of emancipation,
and yet close the doors of the church to all slave
| holders others who do not believe in the doc
| trine of the new chapter
We have a foundation upon which to
stand. We throw ourselves back upon the violated
Constitution of the church, as the only ground on
which the broken fragments of the church can be
reunited. Our Epscopacy, if legitimate is our
own, and does not belong to the revolutionary
General Conference. We leopard our property
our abby any other position. He not afraid
to submit the question any of the Courts of the
United States. In the solemn hour ofnight he had
been led to these conclusions. He stood solid
rock. The Laymen's Convention has given US a
Observation-Disclosures, let accept it.
''Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head"
| Raw Tsasc GihSon .haliarad that in oil
the principles entering into compact recog-
niZed as the life of the compact, and that the vio-
lation of that compact, by majority, does not
bind the minority to submit to its action. Also
that such revolutionary action invests the minority
with all the powers of the organic body, otherwise
constitutions are mere things of paper. The
question is :: Does the late action of the General
Conference bring into Methodistic economy a
new doctrine He illustrated this principle by a
failure of an effort to engraft emancipation into
, the Church, under Bishop Asbury. Also in 1886,
} By orrin Scott Co. In 1856 an effort was made
to entrench this principle into the Constitution,
and that effort failed. They brought into the
Church in lSG0 that principle, which they could
never bring into it before because of its unconst-
, tut!onality questioning of this gives the
majority carte blanche to any unconstitutional act.
r Mr. Ginson established this principle by refer
ence to the position taken BY the Protestant Church
against Rome, although the Romish Church had the
great majority. III we are not the N. L. Church on
, this principle then Rome may claim Justly to be
the Church of God, and it is our duty to accord to
her claim. he referred to various maiories in the
ancient councils. The Council of Trent affirmed
that Professionalism was heresy, and consigned the
soul of its believer advocate to utter damnaton
The argument led to recognition of any majority
as the compact itself, even though the maj iority
violates the elements of the compact. He traced
the analogy between the principle of Arius and the
principle of 0rrin Scott. The majority was not the
Church. Athanasius and his followers constituted
the Church then, because he and they held the
faith. SO we, on this principle, claim to be the NJ
Z. Church. Athanasius and his followers claimed
TO be the Church on this principle, and they stood
. in persecution, and brought back the majority to
! : the faith of the Gospel. Did the majority then
coustitutute the Church, and Athanasius hereto?
= He proceeded to notice, secondly, relation to
I, this great heresy. This new dogma has been es-
n tablished Must we acknowledge the majority that
created it to be the Church Then all the safe
guards OF faith and doctrine are gone. What guar
q antees have we against the perversion of any doc
n trineI They have announced doctrine not only
er In IN violation of the Constitution of the United
states, OF the decisions of the Supreme Court, bu
10 10 eirect violation of the laio of Odd If the
IN lority oil the General Conference can alr our re
iations to society, &c. they can by majority also
change our relation to the Courts &c. and still re
main in their integrity the Methodist Epiacopa