Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-04-03
.Of THE SAME FAITH
Two Baltimore Conferences to Meet
Here Tomorrow.
OCCASION OF INTEREST TO MEMBERS
History Of the Organizations and
Cause Of Separation.
ESTION OF VERY

| Methodist Episcopal Church will assemble
| in annual session in this city tomorrow
| morning, already stated in The Star
! The sessions of each conference will prob
| ably occupy one week and will doubtless be
| an occasion of rare interest among the
| Nethodists of Washington and vicinity.
| The original conference, which had grown
| steadily from the organization of the
church. was divided in 1857. At that time
| the work was arranged in eleven large dis
/ trictS. five of them lying wholly or partly
| in the state of Pennsylvania. The confer
| ence then numbered 357 preachers and had
| a church membership of % 1893 By the di-
| vision the East Baltimore conference was
I formed, embracing the Pennsylvania terri
| tory, upper Maryland and part of Balti-
| more city. The western part of Maryland,
| including several strong stations in Balti-
| more. the District of Columbia and the
Virginia territory, remained in the Balti-
more conference.
The Issue of 'S1.
The great crisis which had been approach
ing for years and which led to the with
drawal Of the conference from the juris-
diction Of the Methodist Episcopal Church
came TO an issue in 1861. Even after the
division of 1857 the Baltimore conference
occupied a difficult and delicate position.
1t was on the border line between the free
and the slavehoding states. Many of the
lay members in Maryland and Virginia
were Shareholders, but the conference had
kept the ministry free from all connection
with slavery. 1t sought to avoid any d.
rect interference with that Institution and
aimed to carry the Gospel to master and
slaves alike. 1t had frequently, by the
most emphatic resolutions, declared its op-
position in every part and particular to the
proceedings of the abolitionists in the north.
1t had repeatedly declared that it would
hold no connection with any ecclesiastical
body that should make non-slaveholding a
NF tl
would stand by and maintain the discipline
as 1t had existed from the beginning. AT
the general conference held in Buffalo, n.
Y. in May, 1860 the blow fell. That body
inserted q new chapter into the discipline,
virtually making the non-holding of slaves
test of church membership. 1t pro-
nounced slavery contrary to the laws of
God and nature. inconsistent with the Col
den Rule and with that rule in our disc-
pine which requires all who desire to con-
tinue among us to do no harm and avoid
evil of every kind"
The Baltimore conference. with hundreds
O. its best and trucst members connected
| with slavery, could not fail to take cogni-
zance of this action. Were they to stand
with sealed lips and suffer themselves to
be branded as violators of the laws of God
and of their own church? From every
part of the conference the voice of solemn
and indignant protest was heard. Preach
erS and laymen everywhere met together
and adopted resolutions appealing to the
annual conference to redeem its pledges by
Withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the
general conference that had taken this ac-
| ton.
The Fateful Occasion.
Under such conditions the annual confer
ence assembled in Staunton, Va, March 10,
1861. All felt that the issue was now square
ly drawn. A vital principle was at stake
| They must either submit to what they con-
| sidered the unconstitutional and oppressive
4 -
| off allegiance to that body. Bishop Levi
Scott presided. One hundred and twenty
| one members answered to their names at
| the calling of the roll Men of commanding
ability and great force of character were
present to lead In the debate which would
shortly follow. DR.. John S. Martin was
Reelected secretary. Early In the day Rev.
Norval Wilson presented a memorial from
a convention of laymen. held in Baltimore
in the preceding December. relating to the
action Of the general conference. This
convention was composed of one hundred
and eighteen of the most prominent lay
men of the conference. They passed a res
olution asking the conference ito redeem
the pledges given from time to time to our
people, and sunder a connection now mere
ly nominal. which is full of strife, and posi-
lively death to all hopes of peace or the
advancement of Christianity in our midst
Other memorials were received and read,
and made the order of the day for the
next morning at 10 o'clock.
AL the appointed Tune the conference
proceeded to consider these memorials The
members at once sought to secure all pos
sible light as to the proper Interpretation
Of the new chapter in the discipline. No
less than fourteen law questions were
propounded TO the bishop He answered
them with all the tact of trained parlia-
mentarian. He declared that. In his judg-
ment, there was nothing in the discipline
that would prevent the reception of
stakeholder into the church; that would
justify the arraignment and expulsion of
a slaveholding member. or that would bar
the ordination OF a travelling or local
preacher who was a STAKEHOLDER. In an
swer to the question: Does not the ac-
ton of the late general conference on the
subject of slavery, as embodied in the new
chapter. relate to slavery as 1t exists in
the Methodist Episcopal church," he an
swered that the new chapter assumed that
slavery. as defined in that chapter did
not exist at all III the Methodist Episcopal
Church.
Made Their Own interpretation.
The sentiment of the conference concern
| ing the action Of the general conference
| was soon very clearly and emphaticaliy
expressed. With all due respect for the
presiding bishop. they claimed the ripht