Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1886-08-26
souTHERN sfErKoDrsNI.
uses Which Led TO a Disruption
and a. Plea for Reunion.

south has written DOCK eutltlou Ane
T";on of the Churches" says the PhiIa-
iolnh,a Times, which is not 80 much q
tistory of the description of American
wo,hodlsm as a plea for reunion. While
Wv nretending to write history, DR.. Brua-
nor brings together many historical facts
De ,raat interest, most OF which will be
NV TO the general reader. The Metho-
Sist Episcopal church in the United
Ststes was organized in 1884. Scarcely
was this organization effected when
the first schism in the body occurred.
The leader of the schismat-
los was noted and influential
| Virginia preacher, named O'Kelley. He
| had become dissatisfied with the admin
| isration of Mr.. As5ury, of whose au-
| tbority he was jealous, and he demanded
| hat any preacher who was dissatisfied
with his assignment to circuit should
have the right to an appeal from the
bishop to the conference. The question
| was considered at Baltimore IN 1892, at
the first conference held after the organi-
zation of the church, Bishop Coke pre-
siding. After long debate the question
was decided adversely to O'Kelley's de-
mand, but even before it was finally de-
termjned O'Kelley and his sympathizers
seeded from the conference and Or
ranzed a new church, which was
known as Republican MethodIsts.
At the time of this schism
American Methodists numbered 1858,
hut as the schism spread over Virginia,
through part of North Carolina and into
kentucky, its disastrous effects upon the
church became apparent. Previous to
4 that time Methodism had been able to
double it's membership every four years,
81 but in 1897 the flock had decreased nearly
100000. Subsequently there were other
g. and smaller schIsms, one Of which oc-
Cured in the Carolinas, where the revolt
8 was headed by William Hammett, who
y set upa church which was known as
q "Primtlve Methodists." These dissen-
q siOns and divisions were only prelnde
s to the greater separation which occurred
Il in 1S44-5. resulting in the withdrawal of
the Methodist Episcopal Church South
strOm the Methodist Episcopal Church.
1t was slavery that brought about the
great disruption OF Methodism. The Rev.
James o. Andrew, Southern preacher,
4 bad married wife who owned slaves.
When he was made bishop this fact
rendered him unacceptable to many
Northern Methodists. The North had
nothing against Bishop Andrew as man
and minister. Indeed, he was IA much
beloved by the MethoGists at the North as
in the South. 1t was conceded that he
was man worthy to fill the episcopal
office by his disinterestedness, his love Of
the church and his unreserved advocacy
Of the interest OF the slave; but the Moth
was resolved that it would not accept
a slave-hOlding Bishop. give us
manded MIR. Peck, of the Troy
Conference, at the General Conference of
1874, which was held in the city OF New
York. On the part of the South the
Northern sentiment was looked upon as a
purely abolition movement, and 1t was
resisted as such. BY vote of Ill to 60
the Bishop was requested not to exercise
the functions OF his Office until the slave
holding impeachment was removed, and
this vote was the wedge that split the
church. This Virtual suspension of
Bishop Andrew led to an immediate pro-
test on the part of the South and the
formal presentation of a plan Of separa.
|uon. The General Conference agreed TO
Ia division of the church into two
bodies and the Methodist Episcopal
Church South at once proceeded to
Organize upon the basis agreed upon.
Subsequently, q t the General COME, ence
HELD at Pittsburg in 1913, it was declared
That no power existed in a General Con-
ference to pass an act providing for di-
vision of the church, and the plan OF sepa-
{ration was declared null and void. By the
terms OF the original compact the MethO-
dist Episcopal Church South wac to nave
4 the unmolested pastoral care of all the
Societies, stations and conferences ad-
herring to the Southern church, while the
Methodist Episcopal church bound itself
4 not to organize churches or societies
within the limits of the church South. An
agreement had also been arrived at in re-
gard to pro rata division of the church
property. There were some restrictive
clauses, one of them providing for divi-
sion of the property belonging to the
Methodist Book Concern. This provision
was not voluntarily fulfilled, the claim on
Il the part Of the old church being net only
that there could be no legal separation,
4 but that the terms of the plan OF separa-
4 ton had not been adhered to by the South
ern church. The questions were tested
by proceedings at law and decided In
& favor of the Methodist Episcopal Church
South by the Supreme Court of the United
States in 1864.
The Southern view of the division OF
1874 always has been that separation was
not schsm. The "irrepressible con-
llct' had begun, The aim pending crisis"
& Oyerbung the land. The antagonisms
over the question of slavery were irrecon-
clliable, but until the plan of separation
was agreed upon almost unanimously In
lbe first gush of Christian charity and
fellowship 1t was not to be expected that
Northern Methodists would be pleased
Win their action when they came to sleep
upon 1t. Ii slavery was n sin, then they
mad been compromising with sinners.
thousands of Methodists felt that
IL was compact that ought
never to have been made
and that could not be kept. The worst
eature OF it to Northern MethOdists, who
nsd the eternal interests of the slaves al
neaIt, was that the old church had VoluD-
,,srliy shut itself out from the South.
Methodlsm had always been opposed to
slavery, but here was separate Metho-
ulst oody with a recognition of slavery
one OF its teuets. Naturally what
nao been done In the name of Christian
peace and brotherhood led to the aIIena-
uon OF brethren that was all the more bit
ol because separation and exclusion had
Doeu mutually agreed upon. The North
aeEretted That 1t had conceded separation
anu tne South, too, felt aggrIevsd and
"ouhded because 1t had only obtained
3ylparauon when it desired that the ques-
4 w ylyn OF slavery should not be raised at all.
"uereVer II was possible in the south
altar was set mp against altar even before
ne war. This led TO conflicts which the
var %aI ana much to aggrayate. and which
'O1ay stand in the way OF reunion.
H NDuIIng the war and since, Southern
V1uoulst ministers had hard time OF IL,
4 ~ pVDSialiy III East Tennessee. One day
U,o e new w Ii. Dugan, "Union man."
ae arrested by Confederate soldiers, and