The Grenada sentinel. [volume] (Grenada, Miss.) 1868-1955, 1915-01-22

that the things he picked up and printed about Bishop waterhouse
an affirmation. and f he did this statement will be given further at
t "nr On % o, ,ars Sp h we n; may ,N as ; wei, say to toni him ~ %0r S,' that whd'e srd
printed aspersions which he cannot prove, and the basis OF which, if
show by overwheIming testimony to be be- utterly false,
g Brother Lawrences effort to treat this question as if it
have his own opinion will not avail either for him or the hidden ira,
that he was merely voicng the opinions Of three or four men, but
the whole tenor of his utterance was to the effect that the public
n %,fS' r aSssPi is 1t no aeS on rely Of "SDS P1 n rse Tissue ,s ~ ~ne Of ne F 9as ""'9 TheTe
t mus' acts c t al and u utsera &c" Which, h GO to o' constitute a"' them. am and We DEFY
Brother Lawrence and those for whom he has essayed to speak to
tered tered that will support upsr their accusations nS Unless they do this the
public will have a right to set them down as calumniators, who have
made hurtful statements concerning an irreproachable Chrstian|
minister which are not true, and which they have not the courage
-. Brother Lawrence says that he hopes that we will at least
eoneede that his purpose was good and he claims to find comfort j n
have known him only casually. and such, we did state, had been our
p paa' Surprising ii i IHh%' W Y ~ 'ai T not so Sc }a as s as to- wSo %i~ ; ! N q "sS
his Christian experience and we prefer not to enter the realm of
we do not hesitate to say that in this instance he has, without provo.
cation. gravely wronged a true and noble Christian minister and that
his conduct in doing this has been highly reprehensibe; that, in our
opinion, he has fallen below the standard Of reputable journalism
ins with his fellow-meTn. We do not Believe that he can find among
those who attended the recen. session of the North Mississippi Con-
ing more than $50 preachers to their fields Of labor. half dozen O. e11 mem
ss 81 So Nv which he has scattered over os !" the State Of Mississippi is Ti'' If
he thinks he can do so, let him make the attempt and adduce their
names. ..
y. In his opening sentences. our brother appears to evnce
some surprise that VS. should have taken his defamatory editorial
hands. Did he mean it as a joker Does he think it is a trivial
and honored Chief pastor Of his lis Church im' a : State IN "" Which oe he is IS
largely a stranger to the masses of the people, and thus impair his
the next few months? Iii S never a light and insignificant matter
so oeme to to M aa%sse 5is sn 'sp oateh "p Of ,h en ssp s19a ma on three lt we er T feuf
men, to the effect that in his administration of affairs as the Secre-
Brother Lawrence had been almost coarse in his arrogance and
needed to see himself as others see him., and to get down from his
and publish these accusations in the New Orleans Christian Advo-
cate. we dare say that he would be in high dudgeon about it. And
IT, when he asked US tor the specifications IN the case and the names
of our informants. we were to beatEsbout the bush as he has done
we venture the assertion that he would characterize our conduct
"o'n nsa Bro 1shere Taw n " ! Statement eSaIae that the mos mor 1e ,.s ' brethfen
testify to the exemplary spirit and conduct of Bishop Waterhouse
quickness with which he caught up and published ugly aspersions Of
him, when he might have had overwhelming testimonials to the con-
in his last statement he does not make the least acknowledgement
of the wrong that he has done the Bishop or express the slightest
hwhs e a man places in public print a statement damaging to to
one "as of three thm 1To go &c add d1a the proof ITO to sustain 81 a it; e, or + give We
No one of these things up to the present has been done by Brother
right, or will he continue to shift and evade2 This is the issue
which now squarely confronts him."
DIR. Meek knows who is responsible for this controversy being
continued.
We think our editorial of January. l, was conciiatory in spirit
and should have satisfied the most exacting critic of u position.
70 prolong this controversy, which has been precpitated by others,
pan do OUT church no good. OF course if there is no differentiation
Between the individual acts of a Bishop in the Methodist church and
he church itself then OIL hvnotbesis is WRONG and we have reasoned
y u wrong premise.
We unhesnatingly assert that Dr. Meek loyalty to the Method
ist church does not exceed ours; we were rocked in a Methodist era
die and are thankful that all of our children, six in number, are
among its members. But we have never found anywhere in its teach.
ings the lesson that free speech should be denied.
The future of the church and the perfection of its work are far
more important than the elevation O, the success or even the good
name OF one of its members. be he high or low.
We most respectfully submit that we did not bring into question
Bishop Waterhouses honesty, his integrity or the purity of his life
If his demeanor at Starkvlle justified the criticism of the brethren
heretofore referred to. he is not the first man high in authority who
Numbered Or who was not duly mindful of those Immediately under
him. Nowhere do we read that it is sacriigious to point out errors
in the conduct of a Bishop.