Mexico weekly ledger. (Mexico, Mo.) 1855-1956, 1886-10-14

correspondence OI the Ledger.
MExIcs, NO.. Oct. 8, 18S6.-Mr.
Turner comes again with about the
same augmentation as before but
'ails, as he has through the entire
to bring any rebutting |
evidence to offset the historical facts
have introduced from the most re-
liable annals of Methodism. To
prove his first article contrary to the
facts, that is, that Methodism, IS rep
by members of the Southern
Methodist Episcopal Church in Mis-.
souri,, is the result Of q secession or
schism, l have presented to the
reader the decision of the Supreme
Court of the United States In the
great appeal case. and the decision Of
the Cape May Commissioners, as re-
ported by Mr.. Daniels illustrated
history of Melhodism, and statements
Of the history of Methodism by
Bishep McTyeire and others of equal
merit and then by the great ''peon OF
separation" enacted as an ordinance
of division by the general conference
of 1874. He simply comes before
his readers with his assertion of
denial and refers you again to the
convention of 1S45, which was called
persuant to the plan Of the general
conference of ls44 which was friendly
and mutual, and tries again to thrust
upon you the preposterous statement
that the Southern Methodist people
have no right to share any Of the
honor Of the old Church before she
became two, the ''old' the meanwhile
dividing herself into two grand
divisions thus losing her identity,
dying that the two might live; the
old Church ending with the ordinance
Of division, her mantle falling upon
the two lovely daughters, and as
Bishop McTyeire has well said in his
history. that leach is the old Church
in its spheres" So it may be seen that
neither the Southern nor Northern
branch is secession. And so con-
clude if the Southern branch is a
secession, so is the Northern branch
secession. What is Brother Tur-
ner's assertion that the plan of sep
aration was not authority for the
division worth, when the Supreme
court of the United States with all
the facts in evidence before them de-
clared most positively that the general
conference of 1874 was competent to
divide the Church, and that article
called the "plan of separation" was
the highest authority for the divlsion'
II not, why should they vote it will
} such unanimity and by such an over
whelming majority. The restrictive
rule to which he refers which required
a three-fourths majority vote of al
the annual conferences to change i
: was not with reference to the plan o
separation itself, but was with refer
ence to the pro rata division Of tn
e property and funds, which / Wi
n prove, if he denies, by the histor:
: itself. To be sure the general cor
d ference had right to divide her bod
into two separate and distinct eccle
siastical connections or jurisdictions
: and if it had been carried out IN goo
e faith by both sides of the line
e would have been as the lamente
Bishop Morris said once tLat ether
;, would have been no more disturhanc
about it than there would over th
h division of an annual conference b
e vote of the majority of that hody.
g Brother Turner mistakes the animr
. of the whole transaction. He tall
~ as if it were a disunion, etc. No sue
: thing he ought to read again an
Is see that when the committee OF mir
rs was appointed to devise means an
= ways for a peaceable adjustment ,
: the troubles then existing, an amen
= ment was offered by Rev. j. b. M
!, Ferrin TO the resolution for the q
We pointment of the committee for 81
adjustment of those difficulties, th
q in case they fail to be able TO devi
5, q plan for the adjustment of 50
F. difficulties, that said committee
be that case should arrange for mutu
he and friendly separation which was,
nd believe, unanimously adopted. Al
,el the plan as quoted in my form
lis article was brought in and its ado
he ton was moved by DIR. Elliott, of I
Vs. Northern side of the house, and "
~ argued at length very ably pro q
all con, and was finally brought to
'at vote and carried, 135 yeas to ls ma
in And yet Mr.. Turner has the effro
ol- cry to tell US that ''it never co,
nd have been the act of the majorit,
dit And now in his great ignorance,
He with the intention to pervert the ia
dy of history, he sticks to his slsn'
ed that the Southern Methodist Chul
is great secession"
He says he did not contract
furnish the brains to comprehend
eti. articles" No, sir; it is hardly to
supposed that he had any to sps
for really it seems he did not h
:, enough to comprehend bis srtit
= himself. You know how hard il il
=, take the dimensions of thing tina
absolutely without foundation, bt
- or parts. He says l attempted