Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1890-05-30
CHURCH AND STATE.
NJ. Z. Church South Prohibition Church, but
the Individual Member or Preacher Can
Vote as He Pleases.
SANTA ANNA, TEX, May a. 1870.

SANTA ANNA, TEX, May "a, 1890.
Editor Gazette.
see that THE GAZETTE in common.
with other daily papers in and out of the
state of Texas has been Indulging in crit
icism of the general conference of the
Methodist Episcopal church, South, or
rather criticism on certain resolutions
passed by that conference at its session
held in the city of st. Louis this year,
and having observed the uniform spirit
of fairness on the part of THE GAZETTE
to publish both sides and all views of any
public question, I offer the following for
the benefit of THE GAZETTE and its
readers:
/. The general conference is the only
law making power in the church, and
where general conference action is for
INFLATED into law, is authority, unless it
should be discovered and determined that
such action was not in harmony with the
Apostles Creed, the Holy scriptures
and the twenty five articles of relig-
ION.
In addition to such legislation as may
be deemed necessary, prudent or expedi-
ent, the general conference may,
and frequently does, pass res
oIutions expressive of the sense
of the members of the general confer
ence, when said resolutions are never in
corporated into the discipline, and there
fore never partake of the nature and
effect of church laws. The prohibit
ton resolution passed by the
general conference is not South
ern Methodist church law, and
serves no other purpose than 10 show
that majority OF the members of the
conference voting on said resolution
were prohibitionists. The NJ. E. church,
South, is unqualfiedly committed to
temperance as q Christian virtue. No
one expects to find in the ranks of the
members of that church q solitary man
who Will advocate the Incorporate or
unnecessary use of whisky. But the
church has no more right TO say which
side of the prohibition question
preacher or member shall vote on than
it has to say which side of the tariff
question said member shall vote on.
And to say that Christian must vote as
he prays does not apply with any more
force to prohibition than it does to the
tariff, to the railroad commission or the
usury law. The legitimate legislation of
the general conference is confined to
matters that affect the spiritual, educa-
tional and business interests of
the church. 1t can no more
legislate on state questions than
Texas could pass laws for the govern
ment of the citizens of South Carolina.
The member of the Methodist Episcopal
church, South, is expected and required
to be temperate man, and the law of the
church against drunkenness is as much
against tine excessive and unnecessary
use of opium or any other intoxicant as
it is against the excessive or unnecessary
use of whisky. But when it comes to
the wisest or most eXpedient method for
the regulation or suppression of the sale
of such intoXicants by the state, the
Methodist, like any other citizen, is
answerable, not to the church. but to
his own conscience. From reading the
proceedings of the general conference l
am as fully convinced as any one else
that there was rather a reckless regard
upon part of a majority of the members
for terms and expressions susceptible of
misapplication and misconstruction upon
part of those not we'll acquainted with
the attitude heretofore assumed by the
church towards politics and political
questions. And the comments of the
secular press have impressed me with
equal force as to the fact that the
average secular newspaper correspond
ent is sadly in need of information
in regard to what it takes to constitute
church interference in state affairs.
If our friends of the secular press will
only take pains to read the address of the
bishops they will find that the "College
of Apostles'' formally declares against
any interference upon part Of the church
in politics.
The NJ. E. church, South, is and has
always been ga prohibition church,
as the general conference resolution de-
.clares; that is, the church has always
prohibited its members using intoxicating
liquor as beverage. AS to how the in
dividual member or preacher shall vote
upon the question of prohibition, state,
county or precinct. is matter the
church has nothing to do with, never has
End never can have.
~ JNo. C. S. BAIRD. 4
* zXf.;.. - arot1lsts NJ