The Cleveland leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1865-1865, 1865-08-26
-RELIsIoU, TNTELIIeENCE.
Reconstruction 0fthe sOutherE Church
FOvements by Different DenOmi-
THE METH0oIsTs.

THE M~ETHooIsTs.
The organs of the Methodist Episcopal
Church are discussing the question wheth-
er 1t would not be proper to invite the
Southern Methodist Church to come back
in a body to the old fold. Those who are
in favor of this plan would make the ad.
mission Of the entire Southern Church de-
pendent only on . declaration OF loyalty
and the adoption Of the present discipline
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The
plan was first suggested in . letter from
W. B. Crichlow of Murfreesboro Tenn
to the Nashville Union, and it has been adj
vocated by the New York Methodist
Among those who believe in the practica-
bility of the scheme we mention the Rev.
DR.. Newman Of New Orleans, who, 81 SUI
p~erintendent Of the Methodist interests in
Louisiana, has had an opportunity of be-
coming familiar with the conditions and
prospects of the Southern Methodists, and
Gov. BroWnloW of Tennessee, who, in re-
ply to 9 clerical friend in North Carolina
q loyal minister Of the Southern Methodist
Church, expresses the opinion that the i'm
migration Of Northern Methodists into the
South will hasten the organization of an
AuhA OOAAOA0AOCG Va bAO mOAAO4A1b GPAsOO-
pal Church in every Southern State, and
thus prepare the way for the reunion of
the two churches, which in his opinion, viii
and ought to take place.
Whatever attitude the Methodist Epis
copsI Church may ultimately choose to OBJ
serve with regard to this plan, it already
seems to be certain that the southern Meth
odist Church has made up her mind 70
reject promptly and Internationally any
terms which the Northern church might
possibly resolve to offer. The church is
just now busily engaged in recognizing
her scattered forces, and is agsin drawing
them up in battle array. Three Of her
orgsns-the Southern Christian Advocate
st Macon, Georgia; the NORTH Carolina
ChTiStiGn 1dUoeGte at Raleigh, and the
Episcopal Methodist, are again in full ope-
ration, and preparations have been made
to revive IS soon as possible all the other
papers. The spirit of all these papers
leaves no doubt that the leading men in
the South are still as intensely pro slavery
as be'ore and during the war, and, there
tore, determined 10 prevent by all mSano
within their reach the progress of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, with her
strongly snti-slavery discipline, in the
Southern states, or 3 fusion Of the two
churches. The Episcopal Methodist ex-
presses the opinions OF these men very
clearly and forcibly when it says:
"a formal reunion with Northern Meth
odism is to be deprecated as the most iniol-
cradle calamity that could befsll our
Southern Zion. To consent to it upon the
terms suggested, we must allure our prin-
ciples, sacrifice our position of usefulness,
consign the memory Of Our brethren and
fathers to infAmy, pronounce the sen
tence of self-condemnstion upon our whole
communion, and accept q feature in the
moral discipline of q dominant church
which dooms to death and dsmnAtion all
who have been connected with what it de-
nominates 'the great evil'-'the detested
sin of slavery"
The nsiority of the bishops will IN
doubtedly use their whole influence to the
same end. Bishop Pierce, in sletter which
is published by the Atlanta I~ntSUigenccr
of July 18th, discusses the question wheth-
or an eventual offer from the Methodist
Episcopal Church for reunion should be
accepted, and he predicts that the "nOrth-
err Methodist will make no such offer
except upon terms so degrading and re-
pulsive as to preclude their entertainment
much less their acceptance" He gives
it as his deliberate judgment" after much
reflection, that the Southern Methodist
Church should maintain her present or
gsnizstion.
Another of the bishops, Andrew, has
since officially announced that the bish-
ops of the Methodist Episcopal Church
Eo,kh mill p,aaf az Go1yr1,h,, naor.sa -,
August l6, and has requested all the An
nual Conferences TO meet this fall or win.
ter, to elect delegates to the General Con-
ference which IA to meet April /, 1866.
Although the membership Of the Southern
Methodist Church has been greqtly reduced
in every State, especially by the loss of the
colored congregations, and in some States,
ne nIlsoOuLl oL0 E1nn0ssor, kI Ake lee. e
. ---rhar Of ereu~oh aE-isATaGh1H 1sskz1
q sufficient power of Conference among the
majority of the members of the church to
secure, at the approaching General Con-
f~ereDces, q representation of ellthe Annual
Conferences. The southern Methodist ps-
peFs are particularly delighted with the
proceedings of s meeting of preachers and
members of the Missouri Annual Confer
ence, who resolved to consider the
maintenance of q separate and distinct
ecclesiastical organization of the Meth.
odist Episcopal Church in the South as
of paramount importance and an i'm
perative duty. As 8 still more important
move in their favor tbOJ huif q meeting
held .InnA-ooth aud Both, at Staunton,
Virginia, by those ministers of the Balti-
more Conference of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church who are stationed in Virginia.
These ministers, with many Of those sta
toned in Maryland, showing % tendency
towards secession from their church when
the General Conference of 1860 adopted a
strictly n ti.slavery rule. They refused,
however, to join the Southern Methodist
Church, and kept up, throughout the war,
q separate organization. ~ OF %
At their recent meeting st Stsunton,
they resolved not only to continue their
separate organization, but-still regarding
themselves as the Baltimore Conference Of
the Methodist Episcopal Ohurch-to re &C.
cupy gradually the entire territory of the,
Baltimore Conference in Maryland. 1t
can not be doubted that they will ulti-
mately unite with the Southern Methodist
Church. ea i-F geo g. -alt
E GIG o. Il BAPTIsps. -.-
MI C.-kL,-- A IL T.L-- -