The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-11-03

monty designated rs free States, and those in
which Slavery exist" and for the purpose of a
more exact designation Of which those States are
TINS c"nprehsndad 10 The two General Confer.
ences. The 81 res 'ln'ion says. Thu Southern
General Conference. should comprehend The States
ut virginia. Kentucky. and Missouri, and the
States lying %s"ntherly thereto" And the North.
ern General Conference shall comprehend those
States lying north Of these States. Now. nj.
Though. there is not that legal precision and exact
accuracy OF language and description in the Jour
nal of The proceedings in this assemblaoe of Meth.
odisi Preachers, as we find in nnr Legislative on.
ac'menis, yet the line Of division mentioned in
the rrp'rt "f the committee. TO whom these reso.
iut'"ns were referred. plainly had reference Ia
tina, line marked out in the resolutions. under
which they were acting. II is true, il would
nave been more technical. and less capable Of
misunderstanding or DEMONSTRATION, if they had
specifically reported the line of division az reed
upon. instead OF referring 10 the line of division.
where there was none, except the one described
IN the resolution under which they were acting
nut inasmnch MS we are bound to suppose thew
meant something, we must suppose they referred
10 the line, referred To in the resolution. That
they meant, though rather inaptly and unarii6ci-
ally done. to incorporate this part of the resolu.
ton, descriptive of the boundary of the two Con-
ferences, into their report.
Now, | very confidently submit ii to a candid
public to say, whether the argument which "W.n
has thus submitied is not q fair one, and does not
sustain INC position he originally assumed. But.
why is MIR. Garrison so anxious TO show that il
was not in the report adop,ed, but in the resolu.
lion offered, that this line of division was
hxed upon. Ii does not make his case any better.
out worse indeed, so far as the interests of the
South are concerned, prefer his construction to
mine. The report of the adnnted by
me General Conference, and to be found at page
100 OF the journal, says: "That should the
Annual Conferences in the slare holding States
md II necessary to unite in a distinct ecclcsiasli-
cal connection, the following rule shall be obse,v-
ed with regard TO the Northern boundary of sucb
connection" What connection 2 Why the
Northern boundary of the Southern Methodist
Conference, OF connection, IS CONFUSED If Inc
slave holding States" Now by this cons,,nc
ton, which am very willing to adopt, if more
agreeable to Mr.. Garrison; we not only get the
whole OF Virginia, and of course Accomack. which
is The bone OF contention between us but we also
get Delaware and Maryland in the Southern
Conference. If this be true, and | submit tina,
1t is a fair conclusion, from Mr.. Garrison's posi-
ton, then w" surely is right when he saws.
there is no need of The church in Aceomack yot.
ing which side they will go TO for if our North
ern boundary runs up TO the Pennsylvania line.
then the churches in Accomack are surely =. in,e.
terror" churches, and as such, have no RIGHT IN
vote under the plan of separation as | have alrea-
dy shown in a fnrmer number, but belong bv nos;-
~ ~ 'p''ti CUCJ conferences INK
again, MIR. Garrison and our Northern friends
generally, insist that the division should be by
conference.-the the question is not what sbouid
be done, but what was done. If, however. The
division be by Conferences, which for the sake of
the argument we might admit, to which Ger
eral Conference do the Philadelphia, the Balti-
more, and the Ohio Conferences belong? To the
Northern General Conference do our Northern
friends insist? If so, they do not belong so bv
geographical position, because they lie partly in
in the slave-holding States, as well as partly in
the States commonly designated as free States,
and therefore may as well be said TO belonp to tho
Southern General Conference as to the Nnrtbern
Moreover, we are told thai in feeling, the Phila-
delPhia Conference 10 which we are invited 10 adj
here, is with The South if so, we may claim from
the assumption of our Northern friends. that the
Philadelphia Conference, and Accomack which
they insist composes a part of it, both from posi-
ton and feeling belong to the South. From eve
~ view then which we are capable of taking of
the subject, we conclude that Accomack is. and
OF right ought to be, of the Southern General
Conference.
The reply of Mr.. G.. attempts to expose the
entire tallacy OF as he is pleased to term
it, in relation to the removal of Bishop Andrew
and MI. Harding, from their ministerial position
IN the church. In his first article, he CHALLENGES
proof OF a single instance, where, {" any man has
been refused admission into the church or expelI-
ed from it, because he was a sIa yeholdern 1,bis
assertion " W.. was not disposed to controyert.
so long as 1t was confined in its application ato
the case of priunte members.' But if the 70.
mark was applicable to official members, he ones-
toned It's correctness, and cited the cases of the
gentlemen above referred to, to substantiate his
position. From his last letter il would seem
that this plain answer 10 his allegation, has NOT
been rightly understood by Mr.. Garrison. An
oblIqnity of vision. common 10 those persons.
whose reason is impaired by the influence Of OK.
cited feelings and distempered Vaccinations. bas
doubtless prevented him from viewing il in that
clear aud steady light, which is absolutely re-
qnisite 10 its being correctly understood II was
me intention o" w" TO assert that the action of
the General Conference, tended TO DEPRIVE Bisbon
A., and Mr.. H., of their right of membership in
the church. If he understands the Discinline
correctly, slaveholding is not forbidden to private
members, therefore, he must not be understood as
saying that the Conference intended to expel
'nese gentlemen absolutely from the church. In
abiding TO them, he designed to prove that thew
had been degraded from their official position
that they had been expelled, suspended, deposed.
or removed. | care not what term ia used IN e1
press the idea, from their respective stations in
The church. But Mr.. G.. denies that Bisbop
andrew was " suspended from the exercise of his
bPisc"paI functions" and attempts TO show that
the action OF the General Conference did moi have
ms effect. Now, as a lover Of truth, a professor
OF that religion which prohibits any thing like de-
c,epiIon, as a man who pretends TO deal fr,rly and
'mpartintiy with the public, he ought to have
stated, that there was much difference of opinion.
as TO the construction of that vote, which we con-
tend virtually dePoses Bishop A.. A few regard
the resolution as only advisory. A larpe ma;aritv
Of the church. and especially those. with whom
Mr.. G.. is connected, contend that it is mandatorv
in lis character, and that the suspended Bishon
has no discretion as to the exercise of his Office.
" w" thinks that he can prove conclusiveIy that
u was the sense Of The General Conference that
ne was suspended. The resolution adopted in
TPtPTpOcn IN fLic caco ira. - c,tf,.n. ~ ~