Springfield globe-republic. (Springfield, Ohio) 1884-1887, 1885-07-08
THAT GENERAL CONFERENCE RE
PORT.

THAT GENERAL CONFERENCE RE
PORT.
The candidacy OF a Methodist minister
for political Office so high in the political
world as Governor of Ohio who at the
same time holds his position as a pastor,
and also, at the same time presents to his
church what appears to be an official COM
mand for the members of that church to
vote for him. is peculiar and unusual and
such would be highly question.
able procedure and must expect to
be- met by some kind of protest by
people not wholly subservlent to the dicia
ton of the rulers Of the church. That
the Methodist church should present such
spectacle is all the more strange because
Of its well known doctrine of the complete
separation of church and state. That
early after the nomination OF DR..
Leonard for Governor, the GLoBE-REPuB-
Lie should contain in its columns manly,
christian and highly assuring utterauce
that the Methodist church cannot be
dragged into the political arena, is not at
all strange.
| A Methodist" in former issue, tells
4
the people just what the General Confer.
| ence meant by lis resolution on Prohibi-
ton, with strict reference to the fact that
these resolutions could not bind the mem
bers of that church to the partisan Prohi-
biton party OF Ohio or any other State.
They only refer to the prohibition Of in
toxicating liquors. and leave to the ntelli-
gence of that progressive and intelligent
body OF Christian people to choose their
own means to bring it about.
The following from Another Method
ist" only substantiates what our former
Methods" has said, while it essays to
controTert the position taken:
To the Editor OF the GIobe-Republic:
In your issue OF Yesterday "Methodist
thinks that the action of the Methodist Gen.
eral Conference is "enttled to respectful CON
sideration," but it is no part of the statutory
law of the church, and care binding on the
consciences OF those only who voted for
them
| This is certainly strange reasoning, and
has the appearance Of an effort to release a
conscience from the demands o a high moral
| obligation. The question il, was the action
| OF the General Conference rgh,2 Does
Methods" assume that the Conference de-
| liverance on Prohibition was an error, and
does be repudia,e n2
| The Conference said, speaking for the
| whole church: I'VE are unalterably opposed
10 the enactment OF laws that propose by Ii
| cense, taxing, or otherwise, TO regulate the
drink traffic, because they provide tor lis
continuance, and afford no protection against
its rayages, We hold that the proper atti-
tude OF Christians toward this traffic is one
| Of uncomprotnising opposition"
Does Methodist" repudiate that doctrine :
Although not binding as rules OF the
Church" this action should have great
weight with all loyal Methodists and impose
| quite as high an obligation as a political con-
vention, presided over by n wholesale liquor
dealer, not few of whose members were
saloon keepers, and that resolved in favor Of
"measures for the regulation and taxation OF
tn liquor traffic"
| "Nethodist" says that ia the last DAYS Of
protracted sessions, resolutions of all sorts are
RUSHED through with little or no considera,
ton" D 'es he mean to say that this action
| OF the Conference was piece Of party legis-
ls,ion, and should therefore be repudiated by
The church, Was it the first instance in
which General Conference spoke in favor
Of Prohibition Is Prohibition a new doc
trine in Me,hodismf II methodist" will
consult paragraph SO Of his Discipline he will
find that the General Conference
has put into the body Of the discipline " here
il is law, this expression; ave therefore re-
gard complete legal prohibition
Of the traffic In alcoholic drinks as the duty
of civil government
This action OF the Conference was not one
Of the call sorts" resolutions, "ru he'd through
with little or no confederation" but one that
was thoroughly m4tured by special COM
mittee and passed by the body with but one
dissenting vote, and that one vote was given
because the report was not sufficiently radi-
cal. And as may be seen by II reference to
the Conference Journal, the resolution was
passed on May goth, being the seventeenth
day of the session, and full week before the
Conference adjourned.
True the action does not presume to "dc-
tate" but 1t does express the opinion that
our people "should not permit themselves to
be controlled by party organizations that are
managed in the interests of the liquor
trafRc." Does "Methodist' rspudiate this ad-
vice2 Does be not repu late il when he acts
with party that is 10 favor of regulation by
taxation2 AsoTHER METHODIST, W. g.
The indications are that President