The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-12-08
For the New Era.
REV. II. J. THoMPsoN's REPLY TO

REV. II. j. THOMPSON'S REPLY TO
CIV"
Mr.. Editor "A copy of your paper Of The 9Th
ult.. has been placed in my hand, since my arri-
val IN Accomac. in which correspondent signing
himself W., in letter protesting To he a reply
to Mr. Garrison headed Accomac, No a. makcs
some charges against me, which | consider un.
just, and which some of my friends here think
require correction. ] hope. therefore. yonr cour-
esy, and of justice will secure to this reply
an insertion.
There are some things in VS. letter, previous
to the introduction of my name, which require
nulice from me. w. insinuaes that Mr. CARR.
son consults his " elders" and :. ubedient To
the different orders of his church submissiveIy
subscrlhes himself to whatever they may die
tate" Nov if, in the ahnye insinuatnn he re.
iers to me. as is here supposed, pronounce it
"ntieriy untrue"
| have not seen the second letter of Mr.. G :,
and therefore cannot say how clearly he refutes
WIS arguments bat from the letter of W..
presume it must have been very effective first
as WIS positions were exceedingly vulnerable :
secondly. his temper and courtesy have suffered
This, probably, may account for his diligence.
and ingenuity in searching for some ground of
accusation against me he felt the modification of
defeat, and, presumlng me Ia be the real, though
hidden agent, he turns from Mr.. G.. To myself,
and tries hard To place me in false position :
and 10 nsul, my feelings. 1t is too plain not to
he that he tries TO conceal his defeat, am,
come out as best he can. 1t seems pity to dis
turb him yet, as he forces me into yonr columns
in self defence, | beg to notice his last article in
few points.
w. still adheres to his notion ofa line bu state
boundaries. as provided in DR.. Capers's resou
ti0ns. He says. Z" w. does nut say that the Gen
era Conference resolved, proposed, or provided
any such thing, he only says it resoiUed or,
which is the plain meaning of his expression. a
resolution offered to the General Conference
to divide the Methodist Episcopal Church in
these United States into two General Confer
ences." sc. Now. cond any man have imagn
ed the meaning of w. from his words. unless he
had told US? He said it was resolved by the
General Conference, and when il is denied. he
says ha only meant that 90 resolution was ofer
ed,' but which the Conference never adopted I!
And this same w. writes the above with all the
apparent gravity of one who expected his explana-
ton to be received and talks of quibbling!
w. insists that the committee of nine did re-
port, substantially. the resolutions of Dr. Capers
and offers prnuf that they refer to g line OF
division" and that no line then existed except
in those res ulinns. Bul how line could exist
dividing the church which had only been written
in a resolution, " offered eterred to commit
tee, and by that committee declared pnconsiilu-
tional is hard to discover. Ii is true, the Journal
does not give the report of the committee To whom
Dr. 5 resolutions were referred it may have
heen because ii made verbally; but I very
distinctly remember, that one of the committee
reported that, the opinion of the committee the
Conference had not the power TO adopt them -
| The Snnthern delegates then presented "a decIa-
fi0n, signed by them, which was referred Ia
anofher committe, (see page 100. of the Journal
of 1914, ) and become the basis Of their action in
preparing, and reporting the plan of separation.
w says 90 the committee, | repeat it, refers to
line of diyison!' Very ifue bnt not 10 the
one he strangely supposes, found in huse dead
resolutions but that which should be formed by
the Northern boundary of The uniting Confer
enceS, if the Southern Annual Conferences, should
form themselves into distinct ecclesiastical con
neciun-ths 1DGs formed when the MeIh0dis
! Episcopal Church South, was organized by the
| Louisville Convention, and the Northern limits u
! the Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri Conferences
was the line those Conference stations and 50
ceiies, therefore, on that line, had the right Il
adhere South, by majority of votes. The Con
ference bounds are fixed by the Discipline as w
can see, if lie will take a little trouble to look
W. is the first writer have seen. during this
controversy. who has advocated such line a,
| DR.. CapeTss resolutions specify his articles mus
give no little amusement TO The brethren Of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South.
w, after quoting a part of The resolution %
the committee, speaking of the Northern bounda
~ of such connections, says: What connec
ton Why tie Northern boundary of the South
en Methodist Conferences or connection &" com
posed Of the slave holding States" BY this con
slrucun, w runs his line to the State Of Penn
sylvania hut the whole rests on the graIuilou
construction. or Interpretation Of w, quoted from
the defunct resolutions Of DR.. c., " composed o
The slave holding States" II seems w. cannu
relieve himself from that fiction Of the magina
lion. ] need not follow w any further; TN
reader cannot fail to see through the whole mat
ter will, therefore, hasten To that part Of hi
letter which refers to myself, by name, and which
has called forth this reply.
w says thy q" vote" in the General Confer
ence, to repeal the resolution Of the preceding
Conference, prohibiting the reception Of negr
testimony. in church trials, against white person
! renders ne " exceedingly obnoxious to the South
and all men Of Southern feelings" Mr.. T
voted 10 repeal these resolutions or in other words
he voted 10 admit negro testimony TO place tb
| -
| Since writing this communication, have seer
| and read Mr.. G.'s second letter, aud fully concu
in the opinion, which find generally prevails il
| Accomac, ,hat bis RECITATION Of WIS arguments Il
| complete. WIS lsst letter does not honor much thu
! undertaking Of his readers.