Grand Rapids morning telegram., 1885-03-09
REV. POWERS'S REPLY.
Reason for Saying What He Did Con.
Corning Rev MIR. Rork.


To the Editor Of TaE TELEGRAM.
Permit me to reply briefly to the card of
the Rev. II. NJ. Joy, which appears in Satur-
day evenings issue of The TELEGRAM. The
account which your. reporter gave of my
sermon at the Opera House last Sunday
evening was not, and it was not intended 10
be, exact and complete, in respect to either
the thoughts which l advanced, or the langu-
age which | made use of on that occasion.
II was but an abstract simply of a discourse,
which was spoken freely, and which con-
sumed an hour in its delivery. The Rev. Mr..
Joy, therefore, should have communicated
with me before he ventured to hold me re-
sponsible for the correctness of the para
graph which he has criticised. As a matter
of fact, / did not say that the
Rev Martin V. Rork was excommuni-
Gated, or excluded from the
Methodist church for any cause whatsoever:
but l did say that the Michigan conference
of that church, meeting in this city in Sep,
1871, deposed him from its ministry. Whe-
ther such deposition left Mr.. Rork in good
standing as a layman IN that church, leave
my brother Joy to declare. | also said that,
40 far as / had been informed, this deposition
was the result of disbelief on the part of
Mr. Rork in the resurrection of the material
body My authority for this statement was
three-fold: First, common report here in
Grand Rapids to-day. | have heard this
story great many times since | came TO
this city. and always il has been told me in
the same way. Ii Is very generally believed,
at least. that Mr.. ROrk was not permitted to
preach any longer in the Methodist church, be
cause he had ceased To believe in the resur-
ra.fs.,r ~ tho r.hvaicai bofv Sacoud- the
report which was made in the Grand Rapids
newspapers at the time of the action of the
conference in the case of Mr.. Rork. Before
accepting this common story as true | looked
over the iie oftwo of the newspapers of the
city for the month of September, 1877, and
from them / learned (and apparently the
statement was by authority that the charge
against Mr.. Rork was 'cOntumacy," and
'he specification under that charge was dis
belief IN the resurrection Of the material
body No other charge or specification was
even hlnted ut IN the report that was gwen
10 the public. Third the word
of Mr.. R0rk himself. When l
questioned him about this matter, as | did
some time ago. he gave me to understand
that IL vas his heresay with regard TO the
resurrection that exciuded him from the
Methodist ministry. IL was, therefore. on
this three fold ground that felt justified in
making the statement | did la-t Sunday
night. concerning the case of Mr.. kork.
Now. If there are other reasons besides
tins one, why Mr.. Rork was deposed from
the Methodist ministry. ~ ne Rev. Mr.. JOY
now declares. think those reasons ought to
be publicly stated. They must have
been. All Of them, Of theological
nature. for Mr.. JOY adds to his
explanation that none Of the charges
against him a. g.. against Mr.. Rock reflect
ed IN the least upon his moral character.
The Methodist church allows large liberty
20 the private beliefs Of her members,' says
the Rev. Mr.. Joy Yes. but what degree Of
liberty does that church allow 70 the beliefs.
bubiiciy expressed. Of it, ministersY Per
taps # Mr.. JOY WoaId tel ~ What the six
other charges were against Mr. k0rk. All OF
which were far more grave IN their charac-
tar than the ore named. a. he asserts. then
we should be in a better position to answer
tins question than We are now.
The remarks which the Rev. Mr.. Joy
makes about me. personally. IN connection
pifh this suhiect. pass over without com
meut II. P0vERs.