The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-09-24
For the New Era.
AccoMAcx CouNrv Sen,. ia lsa6

once, and but once more. to your ,rring cores
Pondent w. He premises that there is not need
OF misrepresentation misstatement. and vet his
last pieces like the former, abound in both. The
main point ne attempts proving is that Accomack
county, by the plan of separation, belongs to the
Southern Church, and the course he takes to do
1t Is STRANGE, STRANGE indeed. He asks. what
was the plan OF separation proposed by the Gene
raj Conference Of 1874, and accepted bv the
Southern Conferences assembled at Louisville 2
lie continues, will quote the very language IL
,ods first rcsoired, THAT the Methodist Episco
pal Church in these United States and Terrific.
rles and the republic of Texas, shall constitute
TWO General Conferences to meet quadriennalv
the one at some place South and the other North
OF the ttne which divides between the States com
monty designated free States and those in
which slavery exists" He continues. I" 10 is
then pror,ded. That the two General Confer
ences aforesaid, shall have jurisdiction as follows
Inc Southern General Conference shall compre
bend the States of Virginia Kentucky. and Mis-
souri,, &c. The Northern General Conference to
comprehend all the States and Territories, lying
North OF the States of Virginia. Kentucky, and
Missouri, as above" W. continues it first d.
vides the Methodist Episcopal Church into two
General Conferences, by fred lire and assigns
10 each jurisdiction over particular States, not
CONFERENCES. and Virginia not in part, but in
whole, is assigned to the Southern General Con
ference. we have quoted thus that the public
might have what W. calls his proof still before
them, and after such confidence of assertion
and professed enhibit Of The doings of The Gene
rat Conference Of 1914, The public will be sur
prlsed to learn that the General Conference neuer
proposed, resolued, or provided, as w. states
they did, yet from these totally mfounded pre-
misses, w. draws his arguments. 1t is a rule in
reasoning where the premises are false all the
conclusions drawn from them, ara Of the same
character. The plan above. quoted by w.
was presented to the General Conferences by Dr.
Capers. but ,cas not passed By them. See print
ed Journal of the General Conference, (Which
nave IN my possession recording the doing of the
Sd OF June. The Conference referred the resolu-
lions to a committee of nine. with instructions to
report as soon as possible. See Journal as above
lhat committee did not so much as report or re-
commend these resolutions to the General Con-
ference for their adoption
On the Sth of June that committee reported
the plan, the only plan and all the plan of sepa-
ration ever passed by the General Conference
See Journal as referred to by w. page 50 That
plan is entirely different in fixing the division line
from the one proposed by Doctor Capers which
w. says acds passed. will quote the first reso-
luton which marks ont how and where the divi-
sion line shall be fixed, 50 Resolved by the dele
gates OF the several Annual Conferences in Gene
raj Conference assembled: That should the dele
gates from the Conferences in the slavehoIdinp
states Ind 1t necessary TO unite in distinct Ec-
cleslasical connection. the f0llo,cng rule shall be
Observed with regard to the Northern boundary
OF such connection. AL the societies. stations,
and conferences, adherng to the Church in the
south by cote of a majority Of The members of
said societies, stations and conferences shall re-
main under the unmolested pastoral care of the
Southern Church, and the Ministers of the Me
thodist Episcopal Church shall in no wise attempt
| to organize churches societies. within the limits
OF the Church. South, nor shall they attempt TO
exercise any pastoral oversight therein. it being
understood that the Ministry of the South recipro-
cally observe the same rule in relation to stations
societies, and conferences, adhering by yote of
majority to the Methodist Episcopal Church pro-
vlded, also, that this rule shall apply only to so
cieties. stations and conferences, bordering on the
line ot division, and not TO interior CHARGES which
shall IN all case be left to the ire of that Church
within whose territory they are situated" This
is the rule the only rule, and all the rule, fixing
the division line, passed by the General Confer
ence. or recognized by the Louisville Convention.
See the Journal of the General Conference, and
the published doings of the Louisville Convention.
thus 1t will be seen that the assertions of w
concerning the division line. have still no better
foundation than his fruitful imagination, or
something else equally unsoLid Why w puts
forth such statement, | am at loss to coniec-
ture. lie volunteering 10 write for the nstruc-
ton of the community, and the direction of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, in AccOmack y ought
to know the difference between presenting the
resolutions of Doctor Cspers, TO the General Con
terence, ,Ohtch Uas The fact. and their being
passed by that body. tUhich traS not done See
Journal as above. He can probably explain the
reason why he has made such an entiretv incor-
rect statement to the public concerning the dvi-
sion line agreed on and recommended (f diyi-
sion did take place. by the General Conference.
Having thus shown the entire .failacy of the
| premises of w. on This point need not pursue
his arguments on this matter. as they necessarily
share the fate Of the premises from which thew
are drawn, and OF course must fall to the ground
his foundation when tested by truth wing given
way. w declares" that his sole object is to make
tatr and Impartial statement of all the difficult
ties involved in this subject" | hope when he
makes any more statements concerning this mat
ter they will be fair and impartial, and that he
VIII at least begin to try 10 accomplish his ayo,o
ed object w. takes exception to the declara
ton . that single instance cannot be Produced
where any man has been refused admission into
the church or expelled from it because he was 2
saveholder" This he says, if il applies To
oihcal members is asSurediy untrue" and what
does he bring for proof? Why first that Bishop
Andrew was suspended from the exercise of his
Episcopal functions. Now had this been the
case, N""ich we VIII Show presently it was not J
surely eUen ". ought TO know The difference
1eeween sUSPENDING from the exercise of his
Episcopal functions and eGpelling him from the
church, Tor had the Bishop been suspended from
the exercise OF Episcopal functions he would still
oy the laws OF the church not only have been
member bot Presbyter in the Methodist Eplsco
pal Church competent to preach, administer the
sacraments, and to do all the work Of travelling
minister In this effort he makes most signal
failure :" attempting 10 prove my declarations
assWealy untrue. Secondly, he brings the case