Staunton vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1860-1896, 1876-09-08
CHRISTIAN FRATERNITY.

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN MfS1IoOio-
CuuRCuEs-HISTOR OF THE OLD DIS
pUrE-TuE OFFICIAL ORDER FOR TIL
SETTLEMENT OF THE CHURCH PROPER
TY QUESTION TO TAKE IMMEDIATE EFF
FECT-WHAT is UNDERSTOOD BY FRA
TERNAL RELATIONSHIP ORGANIC
UNION,
&C., &C., sc.
The establishment of fraternal relation!
between the M. E. Church South and thu
M. E. Church North, which has created
nomination, made its results visible in thiS
city, Monday, by the reception by Rev. DR.
Jno. S. NJ artin. pastor of the Methodist
Church. of the official notification that the
settlement about church property would
take immediate effect. Our reporter had
an interview with DR.. Martin, who has
been for many years the secretary of the
Baltimore Conference M. E. Church South,
and who is as well informed on the subject
as any man in the county in either the
Southern or Northern Church, and obtain
cd from him an interesting history of the
origin of the disagreement, the reconcilia-
ton. and the present status of the two
churches.
"They charged, said DR.. Martin, Gin the
North, that it was slavery that was the
cause of the separation, but the real cause
Of it was extra judicial proceedings in the
case Of Bishop Andrews, in 1914, and that
from expediency they did what they had
no right to do"
Reporter-What was it they did to the
Bishop?
THE CAUSE.
DR., Martin-He had married a lady OWL
ing a large number Of slaves, which he
made over to her in her own right. This
was in the incipiency of the anti-slayery
feeling, and made Bishop Andrews OBJ
jectionable to the New England and other
conferences AS you know, our bishops
were not diocesan, but superintendent
supervising the work of the church in
large districts; for instance, Bishop Dog
gett, though he resides in Virginia, has a
territory which includes Texas and other
States. So some of the conferences OBJ.
jected to Bishop Andrews visiting them
There was no charge whatever against his
moral character, and the utmost courtesy
characterized the proceedings with refer.
ence to him. 1t was a question of expe-
diency whether the Bishop should continue
to visit the conferences. The general con-
ference adopted resolution making it op
tional with the Bishop. In discussing this
it was evident that there would have to be
a separation as to Jurisdiction. Resolu-
ton followed resolution, looking to g
settlement, but there was no agreement
The Bishops brought in paper to hafmo
nize the general conference, but the New
England delegates dissented, and Bishop
Hedden, the resident bishop of New Eng
land, withdrew his signature.
SEPARATION ARRANGED FOR.
At last a committee Of nine from the
North and South, of which, Rev. L.
L. Hamilton, of Cincinnati, formerly a
lawyer of distinction, was chairman.
reported a plan for peaceful separation.
Dr. H. said in the report 1--WE do not want
the limb to go out CORY and CHASTITY, but
as part of us, beloved 1t provided for
distinct ecclesiastical organization at the
option Of the Southern delegates, and the
only change in name proposed, was that
the Southern Church should be called the
methodist Episcopal Church, South, y The
"South" being used only to designate 10
cality The plan provided for a pro rata
distribution of the proceeds Of the book
concern, and also for the free and full
possession of the churches, cemeteries:
colleges, printing presses, for and by the
church in the South. This plan Wa
adopted by the general conference, com
posed Of delegates from the North ant
South, with only q few dissenting voices
One Of its features provided for the sub
mission to vote of the annual conference
the provision for a change in the restric
tive rule, for the distribution Of tht
proceeds of the book concern, that being
a constitutional feature.
TROUBLE
now commenced arising, some few sug
costing doubts as to the validity of tn
plan and the constitutional power of tn
General Conference to adopt it. Crimina
ton and recrimination followed. A reso
luton offered by Mr.. Drake, of Miss, tina
nothing in relation to this subject shoul
appear in the religious papers was adopted
but was not regarded, and the religion
journals Of both sections teemed with con
troversies on the subject. The annual con
ference failed to give three-foul tbs yot
in favor of changing the restrictive rul
and the Sou hern churches appealed to til
u. S. Courts for their rights in the pr
ceeds of the book concern and gained tina
point.
SEPARATION.
In 1S45. the Southern Conferences met
convention at Louisville, and there the
carried out the plan for distinct ecclt
siastical organization and formed a geners
conference OH tine same plan as the one 8
the North. There were then two distinc
ecclesiastical organizations, the M. I
Church, and the M. E. Church South. Th
Southern Church then sent Rev. d.
Lovick Pierce, of Ga, as fraternal dele
gate to tender fraternal resolutions to TIL
Northern General Conference in session
Pittsburg, in 1S4S. They were rejected
and their bearer said, II came to preser
to you the fraternal feeling of the churc
[ represent, My offer lies with you.
cannot be repeated by the Church Sout
until you answer it.' The Pittsburg cor
ference then formally adopted resolution
annulling the plan of separation, whic
they had no right to do, being but one c
the parties to it, and the plan having bee
adopted by the delegates from North an
South at the general conference in 1874
The action of the Pittsburg Conferenc
Tho Gontborn (1rnro1, cobicr,