Cincinnati daily press. [volume] (Cincinnati [Ohio]) 1860-1862, 1862-02-11
The Case of Union ChnpeI-BIshop Norris,
HInIcmnnf-
LFrom the Western Christian Advocated

ment Of the case Of Union Chapel, Cincin-
natl. This is deemed necessary to correct
various rumors, propagated verbally and
through secular papers, calculated to mis-
lead brethren at distance who have no
means of correct information in the premises.
| shall not infict on the reader protracted
correspondence, but will furnish briefly the
material facts Of the case, and leave him to
form his own conclusions.
Union Chapel never was decided to the
Methodist Episcopal Church according to her
Discipline, but was, by consent of parties,
for years furnished with pastors from our
Church, and generally such as the Union
Chapel brethren selected from abroad, and
had them transferred for ther especial ac-
commodation. This occasioned trouble.
Other city charges demanded that the prac-
tice Of allowing Union Chapel to designate
her own pastors should be discontinued, or
that the same privilege should be extended
to them. Who would blame them for such
demands
Their Committee of Correspondence re-
quested us at the last Cincinnati Confer
ence, 10 leave Union Chapel to be supplied,
with the avowed purpose of continuing to
employ Rev. William A. Snively, of East
Baltimore Conference; but neither my ad-
visers nor deemed that arrangement ad-
missible on Methodist principles. We,
therefore, declined it, and appointed Rev.
G. G. Crum, pastor Of Union Chapel
minister, in our honest opinion, we'll adapted
to that position, he having filled acceptably
many of the most important stations in the
Conference. But he was rejected by the
official meeting of Union Chapel, and sub
sequently his rejection was approved by
majority of members, at meeting called to
consider the case. And, in addition to all
this, the Trustees went so far as to lock up
the church against brother Crum and the
Presiding Elder, at the hour of public serv-
ice on the Sabbath. Not wishing to hold
Doctor Crum to his pastoral obligation, un-
der such embarrassment, l released him,
and have since given him another charge.
In view of these facts we concluded the
time had come when the brethren of Union
Chapel should understand, that if they de-
sired to remain under the jurisdiction of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, and be sup
piled with pastors from her ministry, they
should conform to her rules and usages; ; or
if they preferred to provide for themselves,
they could do so as an independent organi-
Zation, but not as part of the Methodist
Episcopal Church. The official members of
Union Chapel had pronounced the office of
presiding elder a useless thing, and refused,
last year. to pay any part of the claim of
Elder Young. Under these circumstances
advised Elder Young to leave Union Chapel
off his plan, not to employ any local supply,
and not to hold any more quarterly meet
ings there, till they conformed to Methods
tic principles. He has acted accordingly.
and Union Chapel is without any legal pas
tor as Methodist Church. This was re
garded as proper course for US to adopt
in this peculiar case.
After the brethren at Union Chapel had
been distinctly informed us to the course
we intended to pursue the Official Board
proposed that we should transfer brother
Snively, and appoint him to Union Chapel,
as final settlement of the entire difficulty.
The effect of compliance would have been to
relax church discipline, and practically
though not in form, to carry out their plan
of choosing their own men and measures
irrespective of rule and order. l. 1t was
contrary to the instructions of the General
Conference of 1860 on special transfers.
2. We had no room for transfers in the
Cincinnati Conference. 3. 1t favored the
practice of pre- arrangement between
charges and pastors, which, in my judg-
ment, is contrary to the rules and regula-
tions of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and should be discouraged as far as posi-
BILE by all concerned. Finally, such pro-
cedure could not fail to seriously impare the
efficiency of our itinerant system. For the
foregoing reasons we declined compliance
with the request.
Since that received an unofficial letter
from worthy member there, inquiring rs
TO the terms ON which Union Chapel could
obtain legal pastor, and through him l
stated our terms definitely, which were
briefly these: l. That the official and
private members should jointly agree that
hereafter they would receive and support
such ministers of the Episcopal Church as
her regular appointing authority should
from time to time appoint to the pastorate
of Union Chapel. 2. That they would re-
ceive such presiding elder as should from
time to time be appointed to the district
including Union Chapel, and pay their
proper proportion of his claim, according
to Discipline. 3. That the Trustees of
Union Chapel should guarantee to such
regular appointees, whether as pastors or
presiding elders, the free use of the pulpit
Let it be observed, we did not as rumor
says, require a new deed or reconveyance
of the property, but simply the use of the
pulpit, which, under the existing title, they
secure to ministers of their own choosing,
and could secure to those of our appoint
ing, if they would. No response to these
propositions has been received. We have
no other terms to propose. Union Chapel
is in position Of insubordinstiOn, and if it
remain so till next Conference, it will be
left off the list of Conference charges, and
cease to appear on our official minutes.
But for loyal members who may prefer re-
naming under the pastoral care of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, to being iden-
tilted with an Independent concern, there
is an easy and effectual remedy that is, to
transfer their membership to such ether
city charges as they may choose.
T. A. MORRIS.
SPRINGFIELD, o., Feb. 8. t.r-