Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2)

War Claims of Northern Methodists Settled by Ecclesiastical Black-Mail—Military Mitres and Episcopal Shoulder-Straps—The Difference—The “Stanton-Ames Order”—“The Great Episcopal Raid”—“Special Order, No. 15,” from Major-General Banks—Official Board of Carondelet Street Church, New Orleans, and Bishop Ames—Episcopal Power then and Ecclesiastical Criticism now—Popular Verdict—Abandoned (?) and Embarrassed Churches and Ecclesiastical “Bummers”—Church Extension in the South—Letters and Extracts—Bishop Clark and “Church Extension Meetings”—Does the End Justify the Means, or Success Satisfy the Demands of Modern Ethics?—Property Acquired by the M. E. Church in the South in a few Years—Four Hundred and Eight Churches, Eighteen Parsonages and Eight Literary Institutions in two Years, worth $446,659.00, all in Five Conferences—Opinions of their Leading Men and Journals—Hon. John Hogan, of St. Louis, Scuttles the Episcopal Ram—Order from the War Department, with President Lincoln’s Endorsement—Possible Deception—Rev. Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, Sues for the Churches of Louisiana four Months—McKendree Church, Nashville, Vacated, “by Order from Bishop Simpson”—Memorial of the Holston Conference M. E. Church, South, to the Chicago General Conference, and How it was Treated—Action of Chicago General Conference—“Stanton-Ames Order” Duplicated for the Baptists—Conclusion—Sensible Warning from the St. Louis Anzeiger.

Both the purpose and plan for the seizure and appropriation of the property of the M. E. Church, South, contemplated a much wider range of territory than the State of Missouri. The M. E. Church, North, had done too much to put down rebellion; had entered too heartily into the struggle, sent too many men to the front, put too many orators on the stump, offered too many prayers from her pulpits and altars for the success of the Union armies and the destruction of all rebels, and had supplied too liberally the moral and material sinews of war, to lose a golden opportunity. The M. E. Church, South, had many fine churches, with costly furniture and garniture, in the chief cities of the South; and were they not rebels—all rebels? What rights have rebels that loyal men are bound to respect? Were not Southern Methodists traitors above all others? The Federal Government, as represented in Generals Grant, Sherman, Butler and Banks, could confiscate, seize and appropriate the property of chief rebels in the South, and especially that which had been, or could be, used in the interest of treason or rebellion; and why could not the Federal Government, as represented in Bishops Simpson, Ames, Clark, Kingsley and the great body of the M. E. Church, confiscate, seize and appropriate the church property that had been, or could be, used in the interest of treason and rebellion? Rebel chaplains might preach in them, rebel soldiers might be quartered in them, rebel hospitals might be made of them, and in them the great rebellion might receive moral support. What reward for loyalty had been specially set apart for the M. E. Church? What the price of her prayers, her sermons, her money, her men? Another, and that the smallest Protestant Church in the land, had the best army and navy chaplains—had the lion’s share of appointments. Did not the M. E. Church, South, inaugurate rebellion in 1844? And when the force of the Southern Church is broken by the military arm—when her great centres are broken up and her property confiscated or destroyed, and loyal men preach a loyal gospel from her pulpits, and teach loyalty in her halls and institutions of learning, then may it be hoped that the moral and political heresy will be exterminated with the heretics. Make the M. E. Church a part of the military arm of the Government; invest the Bishops with ecclesiastico-military authority; supply them with transportation, supplies and military escorts; make Department Commanders subject unto them, and if the great rebellion is not put down, the great national Church will be put up, and the property of traitors will be converted to loyal uses. The centres of population and power in the South will be put under loyal training and discipline, and a moral result will be reached which “military necessity” demands. All moral questions down in the presence of a war measure so manifestly right and proper. Military necessity has no conscience in the presence of a gigantic rebellion. What religious difference between a military and an ecclesiastical raid upon the property of rebels? Will the Government and the Church ever quarrel over the spoils of conquest, whether gained by an Episcopal General or a Military Bishop? Episcopal shoulder-straps and military mitres may well lose their distinction in a common cause against a common enemy.

The appropriateness and force of these reflections will appear in the following well authenticated facts.

What has been called, by way of distinction, the “Great Episcopal Raid,” had its announcement and authority in the following order, issued from the War Department of the Federal Government, and known as the

“To the Generals Commanding the Military Departments of Mississippi, the Gulf, the South, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, etc., etc.:

“You are hereby directed to place at the disposal of Rev. Bishop Ames all houses of worship belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in which a loyal minister who has been appointed by a loyal Bishop of said Church does not officiate. It is a matter of great importance to the Government, in its efforts to restore tranquillity to the community and peace to the nation, that Christian ministers should, by precept and example, support and foster the loyal sentiments of the people.”

Thus armed, Bishop Ames started on his Episcopal raid upon the Southern Methodist Churches, taking with him and picking up along the route down the Mississippi a goodly number of “loyal ministers.” The details of his exploits in the South, seizing and appropriating to the uses of a “loyal religion” the churches of others would not be appropriate to this work, but will be left to the history of these strange times in their appropriate localities.

In Memphis, Tenn., Vicksburg and Jackson, Miss., Baton Rouge and New Orleans, La., the Episcopal General found and possessed himself of fine and costly churches. In the latter city he called the Official Board of Carondelet street Church together—the largest, finest and wealthiest Southern Methodist church in the city—and formally demanded the surrender of that and the other Southern Methodist churches in the city to him.

They objected, and in their objection set forth that “Bishop Ames, as an officer of another Church, had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them.” He replied that he “claimed no ecclesiastical jurisdiction over them any more than over the Catholic or Episcopal Churches, but that he came with an order from the United States Secretary of War, and an order from General Banks, Department Commander at New Orleans, and by that authority he demanded the surrender of the churches.”

They replied that, as they “held the property in trust for the use and benefit of the M. E. Church, South, they could not voluntarily give up that trust. If they did so it must be under the stress of a compulsion they had no power, civil or military, to resist—the Bishop would have to compel them.”

Whereupon the Bishop obtained a military force, and the churches were taken, just as Memphis, Vicksburg, New Orleans and Richmond were taken.

An extract from the Special Order of Major-General Banks, then commanding the “Department of the Gulf,” will show the light in which this church-seizing business was viewed by the military authorities as a moral “war measure.”

“V. In accordance with instructions contained in a letter from the Secretary of War, under date of Nov. 30, 1863, all houses of worship within this Department belonging to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, in which a loyal minister, who has been appointed by a loyal Bishop of said Church, does not now officiate, are hereby placed at the disposal of the Rev. Bishop Ames.

“Commanding officers at the various points where such houses of worship may be located are directed to extend to the ministers that may be appointed by Bishop Ames, to conduct divine service in said houses of worship, all the aid, countenance and support practicable in the execution of their mission.

“Officers of the quartermaster’s and commissary departments are authorized and directed to furnish Bishop Ames and his clerk with transportation and subsistence, when it can be done without prejudice to the service; and all officers will afford them courtesy, assistance and protection.

“By command of Major-General Banks.

Under this “Special Order No. 15” the Bishop was put in possession of many churches, his ministers protected, and this general superintendent and representative of the M. E. Church and his clerk were furnished transportation and subsistence by the Government as a “war measure.”

This involves more than that Church will admit, now that military protection from the judgment of enlightened Christendom will not avail, and now that ecclesiastical criticism is as unsparing as ecclesiastical presumption was then reckless. The corollary that the M. E. Church made distinct and aggressive war upon the M. E. Church, South, and hence claimed belligerent rights to capture and hold the property of the enemy in perpetuity, or until formally given up under treaty stipulations, is a very unwelcome and uncomfortable position to those whose religious consciences were not destroyed by a “military necessity.” Strenuous efforts are required of the pulpit and press to break the force of the popular verdict of the people upon the religious and ecclesiastical aspects of this “Episcopal Raid.”

The authority thus given to Bishop Ames had a much wider and a more general application than his personal operations. This gave the sanction to the church seizures in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, East Tennessee, and all through the South. The Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church and their ministers penetrated the South in every direction, and were keen on the scent of abandoned (?) churches and other property of the M. E. Church, South. They went to the large cities and railroad centres; got possession of churches by military order or otherwise—“honestly, if they could, but”—they got them, and then went out in every direction in search of abandoned, embarrassed and libelled property which they could seize and appropriate to the uses of a “loyal Methodism.”

While this plan was being executed in the South the “Church Extension Society” in the Northern States and the “Missionary Society” were furnishing the material aid necessary to support the preachers, buy up old church debts, force sales and bid in the property for the amount of the debt, and thus possess themselves of property for “less than half its value.”

To show how the business was carried on, see the following extracts from a letter of one of their missionaries in Alabama—Rev. W. P. Miller—to the Corresponding Secretary of the Church Extension Society of the M. E. Church, published in the Western Christian Advocate of Jan. 1, 1868:

“There are two churches that I could secure with a little ready money. Can you help us in time of need?

“1. A church, 45 by 55, a plain frame, covered with shingles, good floor, with seats and pulpit, but not ceiled; built during the war, but has never been paid for.

“Last year I raised two hundred and fifty dollars, leaving one hundred and fifty unpaid. The man who owns the land and built the house says if we pay him the hundred and fifty dollars he will give us a deed, but we are so prostrated that we can not do it now. If we fail others will do it, and we will be shut out of doors.

“Another church, 40 by 50, in general description like the first. * * * This house was also built during the war and partly paid for. The builder built on his own land, and was to convey the title when paid for. He died in the war, but his widow says she will give us a deed if we will pay her the balance, one hundred dollars. Please help us, if possible, in this case also.”

They held “Church Extension” meetings in all the Methodist churches in the Northern States to raise funds to meet just such emergencies. An account of a “Church Extension Meeting,” held in Indianapolis, Ind., is given in the Western Christian Advocate of February 19, 1868, soon after Mr. Miller’s letter appeared. The following is an extract:

“At Ashbury chapel Bishop Clarke preached with great power, and in conclusion set forth the claims of the Society. He presented the wants of three Churches in Alabama—one could be saved for fifty dollars, another for one hundred, and a third for one hundred and fifty. The Bishop asked the Church to aid these societies of loyal Christians struggling for an existence, and Asbury most cheerfully responded in a contribution of three hundred dollars.”

Upon the same subject the Northwestern Christian Advocate of March 18, 1868, says:

“When the Church Extension Society was first organized, in commending the new cause to our people, the Bishops in their address said ‘We know of no agency in which the contribution of our people can accomplish a greater amount of good.’ At a later date Bishop Clarke, after a careful survey of the field, and especially of the South, put the case in stronger terms, and said: ‘I do not know where else a man’s money can be used with such certainty of sure and large returns.’”

He then mentions as an illustration the churches reported by Rev. W. P. Miller, and says: “The money was forwarded to Bro. Miller and he has written to the Corresponding Secretary the results, as follows: ‘I have invested the means you sent me, and have secured the two churches of which I wrote; title all right. The churches are frame, and are worth here about $1,000.’”

The Missouri and Arkansas Conference, held in Louisiana, Mo., March 7, 1866, adopted the following:

“Resolved, That the preachers be urged to exercise personal supervision over such church property not yet secured to trustees, urge the churches to select trustees, and when this can not be done, to petition the County Court to appoint such officers.” (Pub. Minutes, p. 36.)

The Louisiana and Boonville Church property cases are in illustration.

All the Bishops and all the Conferences of the M. E. Church endorsed the work of Church Extension in the South, just as it was carried on by Mr. Miller, Mr. Drake, Mr. Pearne, Dr. Newman and their associates, and the plan was successful.

In the philosophy of some men the end justifies the means, and success satisfies all the demands of modern ethics. It will not do to question every wealthy man or wealthy Church too closely as to how their property was acquired during the war. It is enough for the curious to know that they have property, and to hope that they have consciences as well.

That the M. E. Church has property in the Southern States in churches, parsonages and literary institutions is an admitted fact. That nearly all, if not all, of this property has been acquired in a very few years, and years, too, of great poverty and destitution through the South, will not be denied. Now, take the following facts and figures:

The Tennessee Conference was organized Oct. 11, 1866, with thirteen churches valued at $59,100. At its second session it reported thirty houses of worship and one parsonage. The Georgia Conference, at its organization, Oct. 10, 1867, reported forty-nine churches. The Mississippi Conference was organized in 1866 with five churches, and at its session held in December, 1867, reported forty-seven churches, five parsonages and eight institutions of learning. In 1866 the South Carolina Conference reports no churches, but at its session in Charleston, February, 1868, reported forty-nine churches and six parsonages. The Holston Conference was organized by Bishop Clarke in 1865 with 100 churches, valued at $31,250. At its session in October, 1867, just two years after, it reported 203 churches and six parsonages. These five Conferences, with an average existence of two years, report 408 churches, eighteen parsonages and eight institutions of learning, at an estimated aggregate value of $446,659. The increase up to 1868 will reach largely over half a million.

Others may ask where and how they acquired so much property in so short a time, and amongst a people desolated and torn by war and impoverished even to beggary and want by the sword, the torch, the pestilence, the famine, the floods, the drouth, the Bureau and the reconstruction.

The policy of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as announced in their great official organ, the New York Christian Advocate, and carried out as far as could be by their emissaries in the South, was to “disintegrate and absorb the M. E. Church, South.”

Dr. Newman, editor of the New Orleans Advocate, said in the New York Methodist, of May 23, 1868:

* * * “And we solemnly hold that it would be of incalculable advantage to the South, and the cause of Christianity therein, if the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, should cease to be.”

Upon the reunion of the two Churches, Dr. N. E. Cobleigh, of Athens, Tenn., in an article in the Northern Christian Advocate, of April 1, 1868, says:

“The Church property, too, of which we have taken possession in the South, must be given back to them (the M. E. Church, South,) before they will consent to treat upon the subject.”

Dr. Daniel Curry, editor of the New York Christian Advocate, said before the Preachers’ Meeting of New York, in May, 1866:

“Wherever we have taken churches the policy has proved bad. The first act of the Church, South, toward us, after this, was a charge of church stealing—a high crime before the law. We did not mean to do wrong, but it has put us in a bad position.”

The New Orleans Advocate, of Feb. 10, 1866, says:

“We have seen a letter from Bishop Ames, which was dated Baltimore, Md., Jan. 20, 1866, and which contained this glorious news: ‘The President has issued an order putting us in possession of 210 churches and 32 parsonages, which the Rebel Methodists in Virginia have occupied during the war.’”

This was “glorious news” to Dr. Newman, himself occupying at the time a church obtained from “Rebel Methodists” by this same Bishop Ames upon an order from Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War. These Bishops had a summary way of getting possession of other people’s property. The cry of “Rebel Methodists” and treason against the Government from them and their tools could always move the Government officials to issue such orders as would put them in possession of the property of rebels. But whether the rebels themselves were crushed out or made better by the transaction, are matters about which little was said.

There is yet another aspect of this general question worthy of note. While Bishop Ames was in the South prosecuting under War Department orders his great scheme of ecclesiastical piracy, and the many smaller ecclesiastics were similarly engaged in other portions of the conquered provinces, steps were being taken to forestall the Bishop when his ecclesiastical ram should be directed against the “Rebel Methodists” of St. Louis. Hon. John Hogan, member of Congress from St. Louis, went to Washington and made representations to the President of the facts in the case, and when the good Bishop reached St. Louis he was met by an order from the War Department, with an endorsement from the President of the United States, repealing his Stanton order and putting an estoppel upon his proceedings, especially in Missouri.

The following order was obtained by Mr. Hogan from the War Department, with President Lincoln’s endorsement exempting the churches of Missouri from seizure under Mr. Stanton’s order:

“Sir: I am directed by the Secretary of War to say that the orders from the Department placing at the disposal of the constituted Church authorities in the Northern States houses of worship in other States is designed to apply only to such States as are designated by the President’s Proclamation as being in rebellion, and is not designed to operate in loyal States, nor in cases where loyal congregations in rebel States shall be organized and worship upon the terms prescribed by the President’s Amnesty Proclamation.

“I am, sir, very respectfully,

This order bears the following endorsement in Mr. Lincoln’s own proper hand:

“As you see within, the Secretary of War modifies his order so as to exempt Missouri from it. Kentucky was never within it; nor, as I learn from the Secretary, was it ever intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them. Even in that view I fear it is liable to some abuses; but it is not quite easy to withdraw it entirely, and at once.

That is a damaging disclosure. Were Mr. Stanton, Secretary of War, and Mr. Lincoln, President of the United States, imposed upon and deceived by these high Church dignitaries? The famous Stanton-Ames order “never intended for any more than a means of rallying the Methodist people in favor of the Union in localities where the rebellion had disorganized and scattered them!” Was it ever used for other purposes? How about the Churches seized and appropriated by authority of this same order in cities and communities where the Methodist people had never been disorganized and scattered, and where “the Methodist people” intended to be “rallied” had never been organized—never even had an existence?

It did not require Mr. Lincoln’s sagacity to see that such an order was “liable to some abuse,” but it does require a good deal of effort to believe that even Northern Methodist Bishops could deceive the Government, and then pervert and “abuse” an order from the War Department. But we are forced to accept the facts in the case.

The action of Mr. Hogan and his success in defeating the purposes of Bishop Ames gave hope and courage to others, and in June, 1865, Dr. Keener, of New Orleans, went to Washington and made a formal and most earnest application to the President and Secretary of War for the restoration of the churches in Louisiana to their rightful owners.

He remained in Washington prosecuting his almost hopeless mission for four long, weary months. After this wearisome prosecution of what seemed to be a forlorn hope, the President (Mr. Johnson) gave the order and restored the property, which the Northern Bishops could have restored with the stroke of a pen. This gracious favor was obtained from the President much upon the principle of the widow and the unjust judge: “And there was a widow in that city; and she came unto him and said, avenge me of mine adversary. And he would not for awhile; but afterward he said within himself, though I fear not God, nor regard man, yet because this widow troubleth me, I will avenge her, lest by her continual coming she weary me.”

So it was the Churches, at least some of them, were restored. “And will not God avenge his own elect which cry day and night unto him? I tell you, he will avenge them speedily.”

Enboldened by success, others made application to the President for the restoration of their churches. Upon such application the churches in Vicksburg, Miss., Memphis and Nashville, Tenn., were given up.

In regard to the latter a Nashville (Tenn.) correspondent of a Northern Methodist paper says:

“Things are moving slowly, as far as our church is concerned. Upon an order from Bishop Simpson, we vacated McKendree last week, and are now holding services in Masonic Hall. Our congregations are small, but we hope for better times. * * * * Our dear Southern brethren of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, persuasion are flocking back to their old haunts, and hold up their heads as if they were not guilty of the blood and suffering of the past four years.”

“Upon an order from Bishop Simpson” they vacated McKendree, after they had been put into it and occupied it so long upon an order from Bishop or General somebody else. But who “ordered” Bishop Simpson? Why did he require his brethren to “vacate McKendree?” For the same reason that Dr. Newman vacated Carondelet street Church, New Orleans, and the churches in Memphis, Vicksburg and other places were vacated.

Others may detail the “pious fraud” upon the churches at Knoxville, and Athens, and other places in Tennessee, while the general subject only requires here a notice of the Memorial of the Holston Conference, M. E. Church, South, to the General Conference of the M. E. Church at Chicago, in the spring of 1868, and the notice taken of it by that General Conference. The following is the

“To the Bishops and Members of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, at Chicago, Ills., May, 1868:

“The undersigned were appointed a committee at the session of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South, held at Cleveland, East Tennessee, in October last, to memorialize your reverend body, and to set forth distinctly the wrongs which we are suffering at the hands of agents of the M. E. Church within our bounds; and also to entreat you to devise some means by which an end may be made to these outrages, for the honor of Methodism and for the sake of our common Christianity.

“Our churches have been seized by ministers and members of the M. E. Church, and are still held and used by them as houses of worship.

“To give the semblance of legality to these acts and of right to this property, trustees have been appointed by the authorities of the M. E. Church; and these churches are annually reported by your ministers in their Conference statistics.

“From these churches our ministers are either excluded and driven, or allowed only a joint occupancy with your ministers. From some of them our ministers in their regular rounds of district and circuit work are excluded by locks and bars, or by armed men meeting them at the doors; from others they are driven by mobs, and threatened with death should they attempt a return; at one a presiding elder and a preacher in charge of the circuit, at a quarterly meeting appointment, were arrested and marched fifteen miles amidst indignities and insults; at another, an aged and godly minister was ridden upon a rail; at another, the same man found at the door bundles of rods and nails, and also a written notice prohibiting him from preaching at the risk of torture; at another, a notice was handed to our preacher, signed by a class leader in the M. E. Church, in which was the following language: ‘If you come back here again we will handle you;’ and, true to the threat, on a subsequent round, not two miles from the place, this worthy minister, as he was passing to his appointment on the second Sabbath in February last, was taken from his horse, struck a severe blow upon the head, blindfolded, tied to a tree, scourged to laceration, and then ordered to lie with his face to the ground until his scourgers should withdraw, with the threat of death for disobedience. All this he was told, too, was for traveling that circuit and preaching the gospel as a Southern Methodist preacher; from another, the children and teachers of our Sabbath School were ejected while in session by a company of men, who were led by a minister of the M. E. Church.

“Our parsonages, also, have been seized and occupied by ministers of the M. E. Church, no rent having been paid to us for their use.

“Thirty-six hundred dollars, appropriated upon our application to the United States Government for damages done to our church at Knoxville during the war, were, by some sleight-of-hand movement, passed into the hands of a minister of the M. E. Church. This money is still, held from us.

“In other cases, school and church property of our’s on which debts were resting has been forced upon the market by agents in your interests, and thereby wrested from our poverty and added to your abundance.

“Members of the M. E. Church constitute, in part, the mobs that insult and maltreat our preachers, while ministers of the same Church, by words and acts, either countenance or encourage our persecutors. In no instance, so far as we are advised, has any one for such conduct been arraigned, or censured even, by those administering the discipline of your Church.

“We could specify the name of each of these churches, and the locality, were it necessary, in which our ministers and people are either permitted sometimes to worship, or from which they are excluded and driven by locks, threats, mobs and bloody persecutions. Their names are in our possession, and at your disposal. About one hundred church edifices are held in one or another of these ways, with a value of not less than seventy-five thousand dollars.

“Of this property, it should be added, some was deeded to the M. E. Church before 1844, and the rest, since that time, to the M. E. Church, South. That it is all claimed by the M. E. Church in East Tennessee we suppose to be true, or it would not be reported and received in their Annual Conference statistics. That it belongs to the M. E. Church, South, we suppose also to be true, inasmuch as all deeds since 1844 have been made to us, and all the remainder were granted to us by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Church suit; unless the ground be assumed by your reverend body that when Lee surrendered to Grant the M. E. Church, South, surrendered also to the M. E. Church all her property rights. Surely if the United States Government does not confiscate the property of those who are called rebels, the M. E. Church, in her highest legislative assembly, will hardly set a precedent by claiming the property of their Southern brethren.

“But it may, perhaps, be said that we have been sinners, rebels, traitors, touching our civil and political relations to the Government. If this be so, we are unable to comprehend by what authority we are to be punished by the M. E. Church, since for our moral obliquities we are responsible alone to God, and for our political crimes only to the United States Government.

“It may also be asked, what jurisdiction has your General Conference over these deeds of injustice? No civil jurisdiction, we are aware; but your reverend body does possess a moral power of such weight that, if brought to bear in East Tennessee, there would be an end to these acts of oppression and cruelty. A word of disapproval, even, from your Board of Bishops, or the publication in your Church papers of some of the above cited facts, with editorial condemnation, would have done much to mitigate, if not entirely to remove, the cause of our complaints; but we have neither heard the one nor seen the other. Why this has not been done is believed by us to be a want of knowledge of these facts, of which we now put you in possession. Familiar as we are with the condition of things in East Tennessee, and with the workings of the two Methodisms there, we are satisfied that your body could, by judicious action, remove most, if not all, of the causes which now occasion strife, degrade Methodism, and scandalize our holy religion. We, therefore, ask—

“1st. That you will ascertain the grounds upon which the M. E. Church claims and holds the property in church buildings and parsonages within her bonds in East Tennessee, as reported in her Holston Mission Conference statistics.

“2d. If in the investigation any property so reported shall be adjudged by you to belong of right to the M. E. Church, South, that you will designate what that property is, and where; and also instruct your ministers and people to relinquish their claims upon the same, repossess us, and leave us in the undisturbed occupancy thereof.

“3d. Inasmuch as your words of wisdom and of justice will be words of power, that you earnestly advise all your ministers laboring in this field to abstain from every word and act the tendency of which would be the subversion of good order and peace in the communities in which they move.

“In conclusion, allow us to add, that in presenting this memorial to your reverend body we are moved thereto by no other spirit than that of ardent desire to promote the interests of our common Redeemer by ‘spreading scriptural holiness over these lands.’

“Members of the Holston Conference of the M. E. Church, South.

“April, 1868.”

This memorial, so respectful and dignified, and upon so grave a matter, was referred, without being read or printed, to a select committee of seven. And though presented and referred early in the session, no further notice was taken of the it, and the committee did not bring in a report until the very last day of the session and just before the final adjournment. The report of the select committee was read amid great confusion, and passed without debate by a very small vote, but few of the members of the General Conference feeling interested enough either to listen or vote.

The Daily Advocate, of June 3, 1868, contains the following account of the affair, with the report of the special committee as adopted:

“The report of the committee on the memorial of the Holston Conference was presented and read, and, on motion, adopted.

“The report as adopted, is as follows:

“Your committee have had before them a memorial from a committee of seven appointed by the Holston Conference, of the M. E. Church, South, stating that our ministers and people within that region have seized the churches and parsonages belonging to said Church, South, and maltreated their ministers. The statements of the paper are all indefinite, both as to places, times and persons, and no one has appeared to explain or defend the charges. On the contrary, we have also before us, referred to our consideration, numerous affidavits from ministers and members of our Church, in various parts of this country, evidently designed to refute any charges that might be presented by this committee of seven. It seems from these papers that as soon as the federal power was re-established in East Tennessee whole congregations came over to the M. E. Church, bringing with them their churches and parsonages, that they might continue to use them for worship. It also seems that much of the property in question is deeded to the M. E. Church, it being so held before the secession of the Church, South. We have no proof that any in contest is held otherwise. The General Conference possesses no power, if it would, to divest the occupants of this property of the use or ownership of it, paid for by their means, and would be guilty of great impropriety in interfering at all at this time when test cases are already before the courts. If, however, we should proceed so to do, with the evidence before us largely ex parte, it is true, but all that, we have, the presentation of the memorialists can not be sustained. By personal examinations we have endeavored in vain to ascertain what foundation there is for the affirmation that our ministers and people encourage violence toward the ministers of the M. E. Church, South. We believe and trust there is no foundation for the charge, for if true, it could but meet our unqualified disapprobation. Our own ministers and people in the South suffer severely in this way, and sometimes, we apprehend, at the hands of our Southern brethren, but neither the spirit of our Master, the genius of our people, nor our denominational interest could allow us to approbate in any parties the practice. We are glad to know that our brethren laboring in that region had their attention early called to these matters, and we content ourself with repeating the sentiments of their address to the people. It was in effect as published in the Knoxville Whig, by authority of at least four presiding elders; and several other members of the Holston Conference, as well as often stated from our pulpits in the South, and through our Church papers in the North, that violence toward the preachers and people of the Church, South, is unwise, unchristian and dangerous. Our preachers and people in the South, so far as we are apprised and believe, have all and ever held this position on the subject. We recommend the following:

“Resolved, That all the papers connected with this matter be referred to the Holston Conference, believing as we do that this Conference, in the future as in the past, will be careful to do justly, and, as much as lieth in them, to live peaceably with all men.

“Your committee have also had before them a letter, published in various Southern journals, and signed by S. F. Waldro, being dated from Chicago, and presuming to state the objects and intentions of the Methodist Episcopal Conference in the prosecution of its Southern work. We are also informed that several similar letters have been published in the South. No effort that we have been able to make has enabled us to discover any such person in this city. Certainly no such person has a right to speak in our behalf or declare our purposes, much less does he declare them correctly. We recommend that the paper be dismissed as anonymous and unworthy of our further consideration.

“J. M. Reid, Secretary.”

The War Department at Washington issued an order similar to the “Stanton-Ames Order,” in the interests of the “American Baptist Home Mission Society,” requiring all houses of worship belonging to the Baptists in the military departments of the South, in which a loyal minister did not officiate, to be turned over to the agents or officers of the American Baptist Home Mission Society, and ordering Government transportation and subsistence to be furnished such agents and their clerks. Dated Jan. 14, 1864.

This was a new mode of warfare, and will ever stand upon the historic page as humiliating to enlightened Christian sentiment, as it is forever damaging to the spirit and genius of American institutions and the true interests of Messiah’s kingdom on earth.

While American citizens are generally unwilling to be instructed in the higher civil and religious interests of this country by foreigners, yet it will not be denied that many of the finest, shrewdest and wisest journalists of the country are from foreign lands.

As a befitting close to this part of the subject, and a wise warning to the politico-religious fanatics who think little of the effect of their reckless disregard of the sacred relations of Church and State, an extract from the St. Louis Anzeiger, a German paper of much character and influence, will be appropriate.

It is upon the general subject of the Administration running the Churches, as developed in the order from the War Department creating Bishop Ames Bishop of a Military Department, and authorizing him to take possession of the Methodist churches of Missouri, Tennessee and the Gulf States. It says:

“Here we have, in optima forma, the commencement of Federal interference with religious affairs; and this interference occurs in cities and districts where war has ceased, and even in States, like Missouri, which have never joined the secession movement.

“Doubtless the Federal Government has the right to exercise the utmost rigor of the law against rebel clergymen, as well as against all other criminal citizens; nay, it may oven close churches in districts under military law when these churches are abused for political purposes; but this is the utmost limit to which military power may go. Every step beyond this is an arbitrary attack upon the constitutionally guaranteed right of religious freedom, and upon the fundamental law of the American Republican Government—separation of Church and State. The violation of the Constitution committed in the appointment of a Military Bishop—one would be forced to laugh if the affair were not so serious in principle—is so much the more outrageous and wicked, as it is attempted in States which, like Missouri, have never separated from the Union, and in which all the departments of civil administration are in regular activity.

“This order of the War Department is the commencement of State and Federal interference in the affairs of the Churches. It is not a single military suspension or banishment order, which might be exceptional and for a temporary purpose. It is not the act of a General who, sword in hand, commands the priest to pray for him, as we read of in times long ago. It is far more. It is an administrative decree of the Federal Government, appropriating Church property, regulating Church communities, and installing Bishops. A similar order has been issued for the Baptist Church of the South.

“If this is the commencement, where will the end be? The pretense that it is merely a proceeding against disloyal clergymen will deceive nobody. Bad actions have never wanted good pretenses. With the same right with which the Secretary of War makes Bishop Ames chief of a Church in the South he may also interfere in the affairs of all other Churches, or even dissolve any Church at pleasure. We ask again, Where is the end to be? and what principle of American constitutional law will remain if freedom of religion and of conscience is at the mercy of any commander of a military post?”