The New era. [volume] ([Portsmouth, Va.]) 1845-1847, 1846-11-03
For the New Era.
NUN w.
AccoMAcK COUNTY, Oct. I(

AcCoMACK COUNTY, Oct. 10, 1916.
1hF. Edaor Il see In your paper of the LIST of
October, an article from MIR. Garrison, which he
STYLES a reply to the articles of wv" of the
18th and Goth of August last. This article NAV
pass Tor a reply, but certainly cannot be reoa rded.
by rejecting men, as an answer 10 those commune
cations. He has been very slow in giving 10 the
puoiic even this very lame attempt at an answer
TO - WIS" positions; but this will not appear
strange to those who know the distance he has to
go TO import, not only the raw material, but TO
have 1t manufactured. Mr.. Garrison is Young,
and like a prudent man should do, he consuIis his
elders before appearing in the public prints, and
%ooedIent to the different orders of his church.
snomIssively subscribes himself to whatever thew
may dictate. 1t is a pity, that one SO confiding
should be So wofuily misled, as | think will
show he has been, before | conclude this article.
But, MIR. Editor, | will not consume more of your
Time IN a personal reference to Mr.. Garrison
VIII proceed at once to a consideration of the sub
Ject IN hand. Yon will remember that Z" w" in
one of his articles referred to, says "That i,
was resolved in the General Conference of 1914.
that the Methodist Episcopal Church in these
United States and Territories, and the Republic
of Texas, shall constitute two General Confer
ences, to meet quadriennally, the one at some
place South, and the other, North of the line.
which divides the States commonly designated as
free States, and those in which Slavery exists"
Now, is this truo2 Mr.. Garrison says ii is not :
but | beg him to remember, that there is a vast
difference between barely asserting a thing to be
untrue, as he often does in his articles, and prov
ing it to be so. He says, the public will be sur
prised to learn, that the Genera Conferences
never proposed, resolved. or provided, as "W."|
states they did" Now, w does not say tina,
the General Conference "resoIued, proposed. or
provided" any such thing he only saws, :. il
was resolved" or which is the plain meaning Of
his expression, a resolution was offered 10 the
General Conference to divide the Methodist Epis-
copal Church in these United States into two
General Conferences, &c. This, he repeats is
true, and he proves it by the records Of the Con
ference, published in the Journal of 1914, page
So. 1t would make this communication too long
to quote the whole proceedings but he desires
the public to refer TO the Journal and sre for
themselves, whether Mr.. Garrison, or he is en-.
deavoring to mislead them.
w. utterly denies having stated in his
communication, that the resolutions of DR.. Gamers
were proposed, resolved, or passed by the General
Conference. 1T was his intention in quoting them
TO show that the plan of division as adopted. was
necessarily and directly based upon them, and
that unless accompanied and explained by them,
the meaning Of the General Conference could moi
he precisely ascertained from the plan itself, con-
sidered as an abstract, isolated instrument. 1t is
true that he says, 9" will quote The very Ian
guoge,' and goes on to say, G It is resolved, &c."
But his only object was to show that the term,
" line of division" used in the I" PLAN but not
defined by it, could not be understood, except by
direct reference TO the resolutions of DR.. Capers
Dat of charity To- the General Conference, as an
assemblage Of learned men, wv" wished to
believe that they designed 10 devise a rational
mode of separation. But he contends that, if
we consider the " plan of division by i.7elf, and
without reference to these resolutions, il was pre-
pOsterous in the extreme. But why this quib.
bling about words by Mr.. Garrison Is he afraid
TO meet the subject in a manly way and discuss
the substance of what was done by the General
Conference in 1874, and accepted and ratified bv
the Louisville Convention Of lS45? Even admit
for the sake Of argument, that the resolutions r..
ferred to, were not interpolated, SEQ nomine." in
the report of the committee TO which thew were
referred, still they were substantially reporied and
adopted by the General Conferences. for. in their
report, which was adopted they referred TO a
|" line of division" See Journal, page 1876. Now
where is the " line Of division q" Where was il
adopted and marked out2 | would be very glad
to have a reply from Mr.. Carlton, or any other
elder IN his church, whom he chooses to endorse.
This " line of division" before the action Of the
General Conference did not exist, the church was
a unit there were many houses of worship, but
one Methodist Episcopal Church, many Annual
Conferences, but une General Conference. super
vising and directing the whole. Where was this
" line Of division between The North and Sputb 2
If it existed before the plan Of separation, PROMISED
or reported by the committee to which il was r.
feTed and adopted by the General Conference.
whence the necessity Of that plan and actual sdsp
taiion Of a g division line ~ The idea is ridicn.
lous, and the argument but a contemptible opibble
10 escape the truth. That committee in their