Year: 1875

As~ss0@N Va sAAo 9A@4Ops


We have received the following letter rom
one of the most distinguished and consden-
tious members of the Methodist Chuch,
whose name, if it were known, would bethe
highest guarantee of the sincerity of his con-
victions:-


To THE EDITOR THE HERALD


AS Methodist glad you have taken up ne
foolish and uncleHcal action Of Bishop Haven at Bosbn
regard 10 a renomination OF General Grant Bish'p
Haven known in Church energetic, restless
and extremely injudicous man. Many who admic
his ability have profound distrust OF his judgmen,
and he does not in any represent the sentiments
OF the Methodist Church, could no influence tp
denomination to even any appreciable degree.


The fact that the Presidents family are Methodist
has given the clergy of one Church unusual preten
sions to influence in the White House, and this they
have used, and in some cases. as was inevitable, mis-
used, clergymen being mortal They do not like 70
give II up Access to those who hold political power
and influence over them is very pleasant thing t
elergymen, II is, probably, TO other men. Butts
great many of our laymen, and not few OF our best
and abest clergy, have with alarm the tendency
OF favorte preachers and bishops of our Church
to their influence over the President,
and through him upon tho departments for political





sincerely hope the successor of whom the President
spoke in his Message the other day will be hard shell
Baptist 1t would be calamity to the Methodist
Church If he should prove to be Methodist or
especially favorable to that denomination. AS for
Bishop Haven, his work hes believe, in the South
ern States and would be well If he would attend to
It, When he turns ministerial gathering in Boston
into political meeting he is certainly not in the line
OF his duty. So thinks yours, respectfully,


NEW YORK. Dec. 0, 1875 METHODIST.


"a Methodist" does injustice to Bishop
Haven in attributing to him alone the action
of the meeting of the Methodist clergymen
and laymen in Boston. We do not doubt that
the criticism Of the Bishop as IAN energetic,
restless and extremely injudicious man"
is correct because our correspondent knows
whereof he speaks But he must see that
Bishop Haven was really minor actor in an
extraordinary drama. The first allusion to
President Grant as saviour of the people"
came from another divine, and Bishop
Havens speech was simply sonorous en-
dorsement of what had been laid
down by the speaker who preceded
him. The Convention then, by unanimous
VOTE nominated President Grant for
third term. The person who put this motion
was the Rev. DIR. Bates. AS if to show that
this movement is not distasteful to other prel-
ates, we note that Bishop Simpson, in an
interview with a correspondent of Phila-
delphia paper, while deprecating Bishop
Havens interference in politics." adds
quietly, ''All can say is, that if President
Grant be reelected the people will have done
wisely" First we have Bishop of the
Methodist Church whose field of labor is in
the South. Then we have the assent of an
other Bishop who stands close to President
Grant and whose family has received sub
stantial favors from the administration Then
we have convention composed of nearly
three hundred clerical and lay members of
the Methodist denomination. They all unite
in presenting General Grant for a third term.


Suppose that Cardinal McCloskey had
presided over meeting of Catholic laymen
and priests, and had made a speech singing
out President Grant or any other public
man as .the saviour of the country" and
nominating him for third term. Sup
pose that resolutions to that effect had
been adopted unanimously" what would
have been the response on the part of
the Protestants throughout the Repub-
lie? What would we not have heard of
Jesuit intrigues," Of ''the interference of
the Pope" of ''priests mingling in politics"
of dark schemes?" Would not the country
have famed like prairie fire from Maine to
California, and should we not have had a re-
vival of all the old Know Nothing, anti
Catholic, native American excitements?


The difference is that the priests who are
now interfering in politics are Methodists
and not Catholics. Morally there is no diff
ference at all. But, as we have said, sup
posing Cardinal McCloskey had made the
demonstration of Bishop Haven, what would
be the condition of the country now?