The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1869-01-30

"Answer. Yes.' = .e~rsstts rkEaa
l Please note the men who thus answered
were many OF them Virginians and MARY
4 landers, possibly more Of the former than
of the latter. v,-yr,,. - .o..f,r.
ance held in SUSSEX county, Va., at SHss,s
nrsnchfna-hcuse, May 9th, and adjourned
to Baltimore on the 9th. we f,na .ne na.
Ibershipoft the Church II, 740, and inc Plsaon-
ers 81. = The tenth question OF 'isiS eoni''
ence isl ,gaA-nasa ~ s-aRrsa z. fi .as.8saE 81
+ awbat shall be done with our local preach
ers who hold slaves contrary " .ne ia ~ .
which authorize theiI iieoao Az ' - '
o 90 Answer We will try them another year.
In the mean time let every assistant deal faith
/ fnIiv and plainly with every one, and report
| To the next Cont erence. It may be necessary
10 suspend them" IS p 49, 70 - "a. ~.--g rs
This was very energetic action for men
born in the midst OF slavery, as these early
preachers mostly were. But one year there
after they speak with more energy still.
The Conference met again at ERis's preach
ING house in Virginia April 80, 1854, and
adjourned to Baltimore, where 1t closed
May 2sth. The twelfth question Of that
Conference is so -sL'l - a.'. = zatTgE"z
"what shall we do with our friends that
will buy and sell slaves 3. AE5E ,IA
{" Answer If they buy with no other design
than to hold them as slaves, and have been
previously warned. they shall be expelled, and
permitted to sell on no consideration srsg
Thus began the struggle of these devoted
men-not thirty gears ago as you state, but
near ninety years ago, and your fathers
| were in. that struggle. Some OF the OLD
men OF Virginia well remember these giants
Of right and truth in their prime. Nor
did they struggle without opposition, for at
every step Of the Church history we see
the advocates Of "the institution " at
tempting to entangle her, and seal up her
testimony and place her light "under
bushel.'t Nor did those men labor In vain,
for, as you state, West Virginia attests their
power-though dead, they yet speak. And
not West Virginia alone, but the great
Northwest was mostly evangelical by these
Virginians, Marylanders and Pennsylva-
mans. many of them bold anti-slavery adj
yocates: but as these fathers we're removed
by death, their sons in the Gospel did not rise
to their stature in true greatness and 1nde-
pendence. They were, IN southern LOCAL.,
ties. blinded and bewildered by advocates OF
{" the institution - and dazzled by the se-
ductive splendor of its dangerous wealth
they sank before its power and surrendered
the testimony Of their fathers. The rest Is
known. ..,..
They attempted to extort from the Church
an endorsement of the institution lin the
highest Office thereof in the case of Bishop
Andrew. They failed in this, and produced
o schism in return. By questionable means
and pretenoe they extorted plan of divi-
sion from body of men who had no power
to make such plaza body of delegates
who were bound by the strictest restrictive
rules from doing any such thing-which
restrictive rules could not be lifted by any
other means than three ourths vote OF
the Annual Conference which made and
sent those delegates to the General Confer
ence at New York in 1874.
You say this plan of separation was
agreed upon. Permit me to correct you.
II ,oas not agreed upon; it was proposed to
the Annual Conference by two-thirds vote
of the General Conference, but those or
ganic bodies refused to agree to it or adopt
it; it did not receive the three-fourths vote
necessary to make it an agreement. The vote
when gathered and counted lacked no less
than TWO HUNDRED AND slXTY-NINE VOTES
of the needed three oarthS. The Annual
Conference, by very decided vote, reject
ed this unreasonable and wicked plan Of
sectionalizing the Church of God, and de-
priving it of its catholic nature.
The Importance of this three-fourths vote
of the Annual Conferences may be shown
even in this southern latitude by the late
abortive effort Of the Church South - to
escape from its unfortunate name. Until
recently "the Church South " retained the
old mode of legislation in the Conferences
which they derived from US. Their propo-
sition to change their name had, therefore,
to be submitted to the Annual Conferences,
but when this was done it was rejected by
less than fifteen votes. 1t did not receive
the needed three-fourths vote by fourteen
and three-quarters, as will appear from the
following statement:
"The meeting of the bishops of the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church South held 1T Nash
vile, April 16, was attended by every member
of the Board After canvassing the returns
from the several Annual Conferences on the
constitutional questions submitted to those
bodies, the bishops officially announce the de-
feat Of the change of name dred the adoption or tay
deIegution OF course this settles the ques ton.
The following is the official record copied from
the journal of the Episcopal College:
On change Of name, l,577 votes have been
cast-yeas, 100; nays, 400: The Affirmative
vote being less than the required three fourths,
this question was pronounced lost. ~
Such was the Insignificant number Of
votes that defeated a change Of name !;
whilst in 30 important q decision as that of
dividing the, Church of God, the effort
failed by two hundred and sixty-nipe votes.
This is the true state of the case, and
the reason why the book agents of the Me-
thodist Episcopal Church refused to divide
the personal property of the General Con-
ference and Church at large the real es-
tate of the Church was not then brought
into suit mean the church house and
parsonage; for they were held by trustees
of congregations for specified objects named
| in the deeds. The book agents had no
right to divide the book concern with an IL
legal body. @ @ /
Suits were brought, however, by the
| Church South for part Of this property.
They lost their case in Ohio, and gained it
in New York. But how did they do this
You may ask when the constitutional three
:, fourths vote was wanting Ask not how
such thing can be done when courts are
bent on doing it. Judge Nelson threw out
that part of the evidence in the case that
related to the three sarths vote for by no
other means could the thing be done.. He
therefore boldly marched up to the great
obstacle and threw it out of court. The
case, thus emasculated, was appealed by
the book agents at New York, and, as might
have been expected, was confirmed by the
Supreme Court.
But that court had no power to fix geo.
graphical limit to Gods Church. You say,
"the court held that the plan of separation
,oas binding IN lao upon both the parties to
it. Under this plan of separation the