New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-12-19
METHODIST MINISTER'S AND THE THIRD
TERM

The furry in the papers about Bshop
Haven Recommending President Grant for n
third term in Boston the other day. and
about hia being Endorsed by two hundred
Methodist preachers, is fair sample of
demagogue sensatiUnalism in the news
paper line.
We await further light upon what was
actually said and done, before expressing
our opinion. But one thing we are sure of
is that much more Is made of this matter
by the Democratic papers of the country,
than the facts warrant. Bishop Haven hac
his pronounced views personally upon the
subject, but we do not believe that he seeks
or desires to have the Nj thodist Episcopal
Church in Boston UT anywhere else, take q
part as a church, in either securing or de-
teating the denomination of Grant.
Bishop Simpson ia reported as saying. in
Philadelphia, last Monday, that "he depre
Gated any attempt to connect the church
with political nominations or elections" In
this, Bishop Simpson speaks the mind of
the church, including, we have 10 doubt,
Bishop Haven himself.
We see nothing improper in the action
of Bishop Haven. If President Grant
has won his good opinion, he has per-
feet RICH. to express it. There is nothing
in his office of bishop of the Methodist
church, nor in his mission as Christian
minister, which deprives him of the right
or excuses him from the duty to take a
lively interest in the political and civil
welfare of his country. 1t is not at all
likely that he would take advantage of his
holy Office to impose his opinions in civil
matters as necessary articles of faith. He
certainly has not done SO, however much
ill-natured editors may have sought to
thus interpret his meaning.
Yet we find many of the papers in the
Democratic interest trying to create big
sensation out of the favor able notice
which Bishop Haven gave the President
at Boston. These journalists do not care
tobacco stopper for the church and
scarcely more for their country. They
live by deluding and deceiving the pub
lie, and find the bishop good game in the
nickel making business. He is the re-
ligious superior of large district of
Southern territory. The communicates
of his church are generally Republicans,
and it is quite natural that he should be
one himself. The ministers of other de-
nominations do not believe it inconsistent
with their sacred calling to mix up very
bad system of politics in their prayers,
and they sometimes rebel at using the
name of the President of the United
States in their prescribed and stereotyped
prayers. We have even seen them on the
stump making speeches to the masses,
and encouraging an organization having
for its sole object the persecution of one
class of American citizens. While,
therefore, the Democratic clergy are per-
mitted to appear in hostile controversy,
must those who adhere to the Republican
side remain passive and silent. Are
ministers of the Gospel required to sur
render their rights as men, as in
dividual citizens, unless they preach
Democracy? We think not. They sarely
ought to be allowed as much latitude in
private life as the other clergy claim in
the pulpit. If the New Orleans parsons
may speak and pray IN behalf of the
White League, and open their churches
to observe local events, however disgrace
full and tragic, or offer up special prayers
for the success of forty or fifty politicians
who go to Washington on mission con-
nected with scrambles for Office, surely
Bishop Haven may pay deserved COM
pliment to President Grant in Boston
without throwing the New York Herald,
the Cincinnati Commercial, the New Or
leans Picayune, ct id genus omne into an
apopletic fit.