The Milan exchange. (Milan, Gibson County, Tenn.) 1874-1978, 1876-08-31

been realized. by divine guidance, as
we trust. We have been able, 'aifel
frank interchange of. views and,eray.
erful endeavors, TO harmonizs all. dit,
ferences and to arrive at the desired
contamination Of a unanimous agree,
ment Of complete fraternity. '..s-'.-
AT the beginning Of our ,constIlta-
tons one great question seemed &c
overshadow all others. 1t concerns
the relation Of the two churches to each
other and to Episcopal MethodiSm.
To this important matter ovT' most
earnest thought and prayertuI Geiib>
eratioDs were first directed, and tho
result attained occasional an inter-
change Of rejoicing and congratula-
tiOns between members Of the JOINT
commission We adopted, without L
dissenting voice, the following dec!ar-
ati,n and basis Of fraternity
THE BASIS OF FRATERNITY.
As to the status Of the Methodist
Episcopal Church and Of The Metho-
dist Episcopal Church.. South, and
their coordinate relation us legitimate
branches of Episcopal Methodism, each
of said chmc e is alegitImate branch
Of Episcopal Methodisnlin the United
States, having common origin ii
the Methodist Episcopal Church Or,
ganized in 1871 and since the organ
ization Of the. Mcthedist Epi>copgI
Church, South was. coUSlmmated in
1915, by the voluntary exercise Of the
right Of the Southern annual Confer
ences and ministers and members to
adhere to that convention, it has been
an evangelical church, reared on scrip.
tural foundations, and her ministers
and members with those Of the Meth
odist Episcopal Church, have consti
tuted one Methodist Family, though
IN distinct ecclesiastical conventions.
1t was next Incumbent upon'us "a
consider the question concerning the
conflicting claims to Church property
and some special eases that coyld not
conveniently be referred TO the.0per:.
ton of a general rule. There were
two principal questions toLe ee4is;der
ed with regard, to Cnurvii property in
Dispute between locai. $qcictiei Of TIC
two chuiches-the fist as 10 the Legal
ownership Of said PROPERTY, and The
second as to whether it viii 'colSist
with strict equity and plumvtei Chris
! tian harmony OF the cause OF religion
! to diSpossess of these socl-ticsNpw Is
ing church properly which was o!ig!-
nally intended for their Hse and .oeGu,
pancy, and Of which they have ne.
quircd possession, though they may
/ have lost tie legal lite IL It ~ tlci,
transfer from one chaitll-t6 snl1th-r.
/ We have considered papers IN .rltcIs-
es that have been brought 10 4HE-4o-
tee. These arose in the toi,QEiag
States: Virginia, West Virginia,
/ Maryland, Louisiana, North cE]rufina
/ and South Carolina. .,:-..
In respect to some Of these caSes.wl
have given particular dircctionS, bur
for all other cases the joins c0ninis-
sion adopted the following rules ICr
adjustment Of adyersccl#ime tochurch
/ property. ' '"%
CHURCH PROPERTY.
Rule /. In cases not adiudicatcd by
the joint commission, any society, OF
either Church, constituted according
to its Discipline, now occupying the
/ Church property, shall renlaia p pos
session thereof, provided thar where
there is now in the same place I soci-
ETY. of more members attaeipQ to the
other church, and which has Hitherto
claimed the use Of the FF0Perrt', the
latter shall he entitled to Possession.
Rule 2. F0ra>much as we Aaye no
power to annul the decisions respect
ing church property made by State
courts the joint commission ordain in
respect thereof: |. that i'll cstSca' la
which such decision has been. p4nde,
or in which there exist>an agreement,
the same shall be carried cut IN good
faith. 2. that in commlWi,ies where
there are two societies, one belonging
to the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and the other tG the Methodist = pis,
copal Church, South, which have
adversely claimed church prePefty, it
is recommended that witlioEt detay
they amicably compose thoi-aGi:trr-
ences, irrespective Of the strict iegat
title, and settle the same accortT8g to
strict Christian principles, the eDitirs
of a particular case, and, so FIR as
practicable, according 70 the iTinci-
pies of foregoing 3'ulc; but II such
settlement cannot be speedily nEade,
then the question shall be referred for
equitable decision to three arbitraioIS,
one to be chosen by each claimant
from their respective societits s. and tie
two thus chosen shall select Il third
person not connected with either Of
said churches, and the decision OF any
two shall he final; and third, that in
communities in which there IS but enc
society,rule first shall be faithfully OBJ
served in the interest of peace ana fra
ternity.
Rule 8. Whenever necessary to car
ny foregoing rule into effect, the
legal title TO the churchproperty shall
be transferred.
Rule /. These rules shall take eff
feet Immediately.
FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.
In order to further promote the
peaceful results contemplated 10y this
Joint commission to remove as far a.
may be occasion, and especially TO
forestall all further occasion for hos
tility between the two churches, we
recommend to the members Of both as
wise rule OF settlement where prop
er is in contest and one or both are
weak, that they compose their differ
ap,saS in tho sanon communion sud In