Browsing named entities in The Daily Dispatch: March 20, 1861., [Electronic resource]. You can also browse the collection for Orange Scott or search for Orange Scott in all documents.

Your search returned 5 results in 4 document sections:

to the gentleman from Albemarle; but time was valuable, and if every gentleman occupied three days in the exposition of his views, he could not see when the Convention would be ready to adjourn. Mr. Staples, of Patrick, hoped the committee would rise. The Convention could resume the consideration of the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongahela, and thus no time would be lost. On this ground, Mr. Hall withdrew his objection to the motion. After some further remarks by Messrs. Scott of Fauquier, Early and Branch, the question was taken on Mr. Holcombe's motion, and decided in the affirmative. The Committee then rose, and the Chairman reported progress. Taxation, &c. The President stated the pending question to be on the resolutions of the gentleman from Monongahela, (Mr. Willey,) and that the gentleman from Marion was entitled to the floor. Mr. Haymond said he had not intended to address the Convention to- day, but as a resolution had been adopted
The President and Gen. Scott attended church Sunday forenoon, at the church of the Rev. Mr. Hynes.
The Daily Dispatch: March 20, 1861., [Electronic resource], Farewell of Mr. And Mrs. Crittenden. (search)
Farewell of Mr. And Mrs. Crittenden. --Hon. John J. Crittenden and wife left Washington, Monday, for Kentucky. The lady guests of the National Hotel gave a farewell entertainment on Saturday night to Mrs. Crittenden, at which General Scott, Members of the Cabinet, Judges of the Supreme Court, many Senators and other prominent persons were present. During the evening Judge Nelson presented Mrs. Crittenden with a magnificent bouquet in a neat little speech, and Mr. Lovejoy, of Boston, conveyed the parting sentiment of her friends in a brief address.
-I now say the contrary. The Chapter, I think, is not law. I grant this. But this rule of doctrine is far worse. Bro.Heterick has said, this morning, to you, "I can't take on myself the ordination vows." He said right. This is a doctrine. Bishop Scott well gave this as his decision. He said, that "it claimed to be the doctrine of the Church. " The General Conference makes this claim. Now, let us inquire, is it a true doctrine, or a false doctrine? If it be true, you must carry it out.--Ielse. Does the New Chapter bring in a new doctrine? Let us go to history. In the early Methodist Church they tried to bring in emancipation. Bishop Asbury says that the Church is not ready, and the Church threw it out as ruinous. In 1836, Orange Scott & Co.--not our Bishop; [laughter]--tried it again. They failed. In 1856 it was tried again, according to the Constitution, and failed. --In 1860, in another way, they brought into the Discipline a doctrine repudiated until then. This was ne