New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1870-09-25
lCo0municated.l
CHRISTIAN EQUALITY vIN0ECAxRD.

II
In the REPUBLICAN,, recently, statement
of "Facts fer our People was published,
which was signed BY the writer and six.
teen other ministers of the Methodist Epis.
copsl Church in Louisiana. To this state
ment a reply was made by Bishop Keener,
of the Southern Methodist Church, through
the columns of their official paper. In his
reply the writer is named and certain prin-
ciples discussed, which .justifics the reioinder.
now made on public, rather than personal
grounds.
| The Facts for our People" stated the
ecclesiastical equality of all in our church,
and these facts were authorized to he pub
ilshed by preachers meeting, at which
Rev. "A. Ross was chairman pro tenn. He,
Bishop keener, stigmatizes as a "grief,"
and thereupon denounces placing China
men, Indians or Africans over the white
races Having thus, even as chairman pro
TEN, summarily disposed of :" Father Ross,'
the Bishop comments ON s. Drs Matlack and
Daily with great vigor, but small ability, Of
denunciation.
He says: "We condemn and abhor their
efforts to mix up white men and negroes,
enthusiastically, politically, and socially"
g Ii we did not think them to be at heart
| better than their professions, we should turn
! from them with unconcealed loathing. But
these gentlemen say q great deal in this
direction they do not mean"
The "unconcealed loathing' of the Bishop,
which he thus makes contingent on honesty
and integrity, the writer must accept and
endure as best he can! Our present action
is not as the Bishop alleges-"out of re-
spcct to popular sentiment"-but, pursu-
ant to old views of church order, first en-
bodied in l84S(and observed constantly since
that, in words as follows: ''The general con-
eferenc shall not make any distinctions in
the rights and privileges of our ministers and
members on account of ancestry or color"
wesleyan Discipline, page 3O.) And now
to the principles discussed:
"One statement of facts" says the Bishop,
represents that typhoid condition Of the
conscience, and base fear of public opinion,
which places the negro on PEDESTAL and |
processes for him admiration, which h., /
neither credits to others nor feels to be due \
to himself" Again ave are against their
theories, if either in Church or State they /
place the negro above the white man"
Yet again: 1--WE want neither Cinnamon,
Indians nor Africans placed over the white
races" And, finally, the stereotyped eli
max is employed, thus: "a moral dis
aster-the indissinguishable mixture and
Of the white race with the
negro!"
And all this is characterized as "the
wickedness Of attempting to break down
that social distinction which nature, God,
and the Lest interests of mankind have so
far prevented" c) "A disrespect to the
deeply implanted instincts and wholesome
repulsions of nature" All of which is an
attempt at the self-protection which the
thief practised who cried Justify. stop
thief" to direct attention from himself.
This may be shrewd dodge, but it is
neither logical nor honest for tie stern
argument Of facts, the pie-bald face of
society around us, the continued lax mo-
'ality engendered by slavery-;Ll demon
,lidIt tNut SOCidl ulSJluCLlO0S were
broken down long, long ago: that the
wholesome repulsions Of nature" were
generally laughed to scorn: and then and
here ensued this same '.indistin gu;shable
mixture and m.scegenatiOn So that, it is |
N the Bishops side of the cage all this rel |
'roach and shame and crime belong.
A narrative from an eyewitness NAV | ,
Illustrate. Two white ministers. who ard
low bishops, sat in Il quarterly conference OF
MOI IN np1n iD< !, o.
iavery. Candidates for admission to church
were under consideration. One ,
vas known to be the kept mistress of white
nan. The cOlOred brethren objected TIC
vhite presiding elder explained the case {
She was the same as a wife, only the law {
id not allow marriage" etc. But the i
brothers" shook their heads. Finally one
Din the white kchurch, would you receive |
i'm, Id like to know" No answer was .
iven. but the other white minister ex s
laimed: "Hes got you there ~ And now meh !
+ this class, if not the same men. are per-
ect enthusiasts in behalf of their suddenly s
nperiled ''social distinctions wholesome
epulsiOns," and all that!
Is this piety or pretense They know {
hat slavery and its inequality OF condition =
the races. and they did not
ry out. in alarm as they now do under the +
ew condition of freedom and equality Of c
atura1 rights. Do they really credit their Y
wn statements Or. are they only valued | f
3 available material for present service!
There is a mischievous flavor Of extrava- r
ancenay, more, an exhibition OF sophisti- Il
al feud, in the entire article Of Bishdp
leener. Our document was based Oh tile s
ngle idea of ecclesiastical equality and n
iscusscd only-the purity of Christian min /;
tiers and church members, before the
liars OF God. If opposed to that, WHY not n
~ SO. But to that, the Bishop does not a
ntagonize a word. What he does oppose =
o one advocates. He bravely stuffs a scare :
'Ow-a man of straw, and then DISCHARGES
is ecclesiastical cannon at it charged to the I,
uzzlc! Mark his words: Eve are against g
acng the negro ADORE the white mani"
We want no Cinnamon, Indians nor Afri- |,
ms placed 0rer the white races :" (Which
aces the negro on pedestal, and profess es "
II him admiration etc. "Just hero We s
ant our foot" a
Very well, Bishop. just as you please :"
bout your foot And SO far as we care n
Dbl can keep your foot there forever. and a.
, another St Stylites at his post. Not the
st jog will we ever give your footing a
aving no thought of "a pedestal to nut "
he negro or any other man 'above" or a.
,ver," as a point of 'admiration" we ha I've q,
} controversy with you. Take your own Il
ne. Stay as long Us you please the e. N
hen you have something else to do go c,
I'd do it. Only be frank and admit Il lat b.
'ur arluous watching at the foot Of that
pedestal was IL seIfimposed talk.
Id really unnecessary. This the public g,
lows, if you do not. 9,
But extravaganza and sophistry are not Vi
g worst things in the Bishops article. He n:
axes statement, which. in whole and in 10
'rt, is without foundation in fact. lie ii
VS. that the General Conference of dur ri
urch in 1868 refused the offer of l4O boo ca