The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1868-08-07
Concerning the Methodist EptscOpai
church I'm Virginia.

occasion. D.
Concerning the Methodist Episcopal
Church I'm Virginia.
Editors of the Richmond Dispatch:
observed in the Norfolk Virginidn of
the 3lst ultimo an article headed " Plan
to Rob the Church," clipped from your
paper. On reading the piece found lit
tie that is true, but great deal that Is not
true, according to my understanding OF
matters. Allow, if you please, then,
friend of the very much-abused Methodist
Episcopal Church to be heard in her defence
in this instance. >,
You are aware that you have said some
very hard and ugly things about this
Church. And you know, also, that it is
taken for granted by great many news
| paper readers that editors are necessarily
we'll posted on all subjects on which they
write, and always write what they know to
be true-thus making the responsibility OF
an editor commensurate to his influence.
While this may be true with regard to the
| masses. it has come to be known to some
that editors do sometimes overstate matters
to such an extent as to preclude the posi-
bility of credence in all who are not brlm-
full of prejudice. Your remark, for in
stance, that "the bishops and preachers of
the Methodist Episcopal Church are no bet
ter than horse-thieves and bounty-jump-
ers' is SO sweeping and ridiculous that so
far from being believed it reflects heavily
upon its author.
Ny object in this paper is more particu-
larly to give a fact or two concerning this
| question of church stealing, of which you
| speak, and of which we have heard so much
of late in Virginia.
cannot believe that the editors of the
| Disputch assumed the general ignorance OF
their readers on this subject, and then
shamefully concealed facts and wilfully
misrepresented the whole affair for polltl-
cal purposes. say cannot believe this,
| for two reasons
lst. From my personal knowledge Of the
general character of the paper and the
hitherto good reputation of its editors; and
I'd. The sword welded to wound if not
to dcmolish the Methodist Episcopal Church
cuts deep in direction not intended, as we
shall show.
My conclusion, then, is that the Dispatch
has been grossly imposed upon by some one
on whom it has relied FIR its information
and by sort of Divine overruling you
have turned your logic upon those whom
you defend.
But to the question of "church-
ing" in Virginia. The Dispatch says:
"The people who build these houses of
worship and who support the preachers are
the rightful owners Of the meeting houses.
No honest man could attempt TO dispossess
them on atechnicality."
With this text before us, let us examine
the case. Now, vi, give YOU facts. See
if they agree with what you have heard.
Up to the beginning Of the war the Bal
timorc Conference of the Methodist Eplsco-
pal Church flor there was no other) occu-
pied almost the whole of the Valley of Fir
GINA; while the Virginia Conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church South
occupied the eastern part of the State. AT
the close of the war it turned up that three
fourths, or at least q majority, of the mem
bers of the Second-street Methodist Episco-
pal Church South in Portsmouth, Va,
wished to reUnite with the old Methodist
Episcopal Church. The question here ma
turally arose as to whether this majority
could carry the property with them from
one denomination to another. The EptS-
coDal Methodist, then edited in Richmond,
Va, by Rev. D. S. Doggett, D, D., and Rev.
J. L. Edwards, of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church South, took the ground
land so did others) that as the house
was decided to the Methodist Episcopal
Church South the title could not be
effected by the withdrawal of one or all.
That those who leave, forfeit all claim to the
property and if even ell the class or
society should go, the property would still
belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church
South, and she would claim it at all hazards.
This, ] believe, is the substance of the
argument. The house was consequently
given up to the Methodist Episcopal Church
South, and the minority Of the members,
although the majority, which vas large,
gave in proportion to their number towards
building the house and supporting the
preacher" according to the text.
Now, about the right or wrong Of this
matter, shall say nothing at present; you
may judge.
About this time another case of the same
class or kind came up, but it happened to
be on the other side. e., In the Valley Of
Virginia, some societies and parts Of socie-
ties belonging to the Methodist Episcopal
Church wished to join the Methodist Epis-
copal Church South but the churches and
other property of these societies were oil
decided to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and had been from time immemorial, almost
Here, you see, the question comes up again,
Can the members coming to the Methodist
Episcopal Church South bring the property
from the Methodist Episcopal Church with
them Have you not heard the old adage,
that " what is sauce for the goose is sauce
for the gander"? And would you not say,
upon parity Of reasoning, that if the deed
OF the Methodist Episcopal Church South
controlled its property, the deed of the
Methodist Episcopal Church could do the
case was managed After claiming and
getting possession Of property upon the
ground simply that it was decided to the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in order to get
possession Of houses of worship in the
Valley decided to the Methodist Episcopal
Church from the first days of Methodism,
the Legislature Of Virginia passed bill
prepared, l think, by Mr.. Baldwin-actu-
ally invalidating the title of the Methodist
| Episcopal Church to her property. And,
| disregarding the face of the deed altogether,
said that bare majority Of the members
should control the property. Now, can you
explain to me on what principle of equity
the Methodist Episcopal Church South can
claim all property decided to her in Virgil