The Liberator (newspaper)/September 18, 1857/Dishonorable Conduct
Dishonorable Conduct
Mr. Garrison:
Sir,—Enclosed is a copy of a vote passed by the Trustees of the Second Methodist Episcopal Church in Dorchester, August 21st, 1857. Please put it on record in The Liberator.
The facts are these:—The meeting-house was built about six years ago. Abolitionists and others (besides Methodists) contributed largely for its erection, with the understanding that it would be opened occasionally for reformatory evening meetings. The house was seldom applied for by Abolitionists—only a few times in six years. It was once used for a largo political meeting by the American party. It has been used for an Old Folks’ Concert, with an admission fee at the door. Last year, application was made for the house one evening for a lecture on Anti-Slavery, to be delivered by the Editor of The Liberator. It was at once refused by the minister, on account of the religious views of the lecturer. A few weeks later, the house was fitted with gas pipes, and a tax laid upon the pews, to pay for gas fixtures and repairs. Abolitionists and their friends protested against the injustice of taxing persons for apparatus to light the house, who did not wish to attend their (Methodist) evening meetings, and who were refused the use of the house for an able and efficient anti-slavery lecturer, on account of his religious views; and they refused to pay the tax. Soon after this, the Abolitionists were informed, by the President of the Board, that the trustees had voted to let them have the house four times a year for anti-slavery meetings, and that Mr. Garrison would be admitted to the meeting-house, if we thought best to invite him. Then one of the applicants for the use of the house paid his tax on three pews. A few days after, the Secretary of the Board of Trustees sent him the following notice.
Port Norfolk, Sept. 13, 1857.H. W. B.
Sir,—At a meeting of the Trustees of the Second M. E. Church in this place, held August 21st, 1857, they voted to let you the use of the church, for the purposes named by you, with the following provision: that the house shall not be used for the promulgation of come-outer sentiments, or principles derogatory to our doctrine and discipline.
(Signed,)Thos. B. Richardson,
☞This is a remarkable instance of Methodist honor and fair dealing! In order to obtain money of the Abolitionists to enable them to build a meeting-house, the Methodists at Port Norfolk agree that their house may be used occasionally for anti-slavery and reformatory purposes. On application for it, that we might lecture therein on the subject of slavery, the minister (Rev. Mr. Wood) refuses it on account of our religious views! Subsequently, to obtain more money of the Abolitionists in that place, a vote is passed, granting us the use of the house unconditionally; but, finally, a proviso is annexed, (the author of which, we understand, is A. B. Merrill, a lawyer at No. 10 Court street, in this city, who, though he may be a Methodist, is not connected with the church,) which is an insulting reflection upon us and our anti-slavery friends in Port Norfolk, and a most dishonorable dodge. Such conduct, among mere ‘worldly’ men, would be regarded as knavish; but the Methodist brethren at Port Norfolk have a moral standard of their own, and, while acting on the jesuitical doctrine, that ‘no faith is to be kept with heretics,’ assume to be specially concerned for the cause of pure and undefiled religion! This pious double-dealing should be a warning to Abolitionists generally, of the hazard they run of being cheated and swindled whenever they agree to aid in the erection of a sectarian building, on the promise of being permitted to use it, now and then, for the furtherance of the holy cause of emancipation.
A word as to come-outerism. It is only another name for secession, withdrawal, separation, for righteousness’ sake. Every Protestant sect has acted upon the doctrine, in its own case. Christ and Moses, prophets and apostles, were come-outers. How did Methodism originate but in come-outerism? Let the Methodists at Port Norfolk go back to the Established Church, and acknowledge themselves to have been heretics, before they undertake to denounce ‘the promulgation of come-outer sentiments’ in the cause of the enslaved in our land. They know that the whole difficulty, in this case, lies in the fact, that the Methodist Episcopal Church North is a slaveholding and slave-breeding Church, in spite of its ‘doctrine and discipline’; and they are afraid to have the truth spoken, as all are who are consciously in the wrong. Before reflecting upon the good faith and fair dealing of the Abolitionists in Port Norfolk whose pockets they have picked, let them evince by their conduct that they understand what belongs to common morality, and the binding nature of a contract.
