V> .V' :-.-o*'' r.'b S^^ ^.. V^' O^ -^r.. ■.V << .^' ■\ ,x v., >.^" %. %^^''^^^ 4^,.^.<'^'r.^ ,V' * A^^' ' ^ .A ,0o ^•\6^ ^.<^' ,^^'% s- ,^ ^.'i'^ A' ./> ' . . s ^ A ,^^>' ^ '^ '"^^ <^ ' -.0 <. " » -7- ■> V 11 \V C^. •' » 1 \ ^^ x\-^' ':s.. "^.c^ ,\' '^^ ^-S %-; *?* .^'^ ■^^ .^^' .^^^. ^ '%^- o -■ • A ■ ^' \^ V -^^ .^^^ -> y .^ ^^.. "^ ^^ ~'/^ ^'&^^' '^^^ METHODISM AND SLAVERY: WITH OTHER MATTERS IN CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH; BEINO A RE VI OF THE MANIFESTO OF THE MAJORITY, IN REPLY TO '^''^^^Sl^^lr?^^''^ MINORITY, OF THE LATE GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST E. CHURCH, IN THE CASE OF BISHOP ANDREW /X ^Y H. B. BASCOM, D. D. ^^ PRESIDENT OF TRANSYLVANIA UNIVERSITY "The unjust judge is the capital remorer of land-marks." Lord Bacoit from it." Sir Thomas Moore. ^ ' examine the sparks, which irregularly fly FRANKFORT, KY. HODGES, TODD & PRUETT, PRINTERS. 1843. c/ Entered according to an Act of Congress, in the year 1845, by the Author, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the District of Kentucky. « • pi' KEVIEW, &c. The more ostensible merits of the controversy, in the case of Bishop AnJreio, have received a degree of publicity, through the medium of the Press, which seems to super- cede the necessity of any great extent or minuteness of preliminary statement, in onler to approach the subject fairly and without disadvantage, in an attempt to understand it and estimate its merits, whether as it regards the parties in controversy, or the Church at large. All the material facts and principles, involved in the controversy, pro and con, stand out with sufficient prominence, in the Protest of the Minority and Reply of the Majority; and the facts and reasonings, or rather assumptions and conclusions of these Documents, may be considered, as furnishing the proper issue between the parties, and the true text of the discussion, upon which we enter. And as the subject of sepa- ration, as It regards the North and South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, turns main- ly, upon the question of slavery, not as connected with the case of Bishop Andrew, but i/ in Its broader and more general aspects, I shall principally confine myself to the appro- priate topics, indicated by such limitation. Appeal to other matters, such as the pro- ceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew, and kindred developements, will be resorted to by the way, as legitimate methods of proof and illustration, in relation to the facts and principles involved in the discussion. Believing that a careful analysis of the whole movement, on the part of the late General Conference, in the case of Bishop Andrew, will show that the assault upon him, was but a masked battery, intended to conceal the real point and object of attack, I shall rely less upon the extra-legal proceedings in his case, than upon other aspects and relations, in which the subject presents itself." In the instance of the struggle alluded to, it was obviously, on the part of the North, a contest to settle a principle unknown to the constitution and laws of the Church, and the case of Bishop Andrew was made the occasion and pretext, to bring the matter to trial. The prosecution of Bishop Andrew was a moot case, the determination of which not ac- cording to law, but in the chancery of party tactics, was to lead to the ulterior results of additional legislative action, on the subject of slavery. The whole course of the majority shows clearly, that they did not consider Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery, as an offence in the judgment of law, but as something that ought to be an of- fence. They thought it fit to constitute an offence, and labored long andl.ard to accom- plish it. It was an extra-legal movement, to accomplish a purpose unkno.vn to the law, and an act, therefore, the manner of which was as unlawful as the matter. It was seeri and felt, that no statutable process could be sustained against the Bishop, and hence a resort to expost facto legislation, and by consequence, an invasion of constitutional right. In the case of Bishop Andrew, we have a judicial sentence, in the shape of a ^- declaratory judgment, based not upon law, but upon opinion over-riding law— the -sense" of the General Conference, as to what law ought to be-as to what^must become law, before the North wall cease to agitate the subject of slavery, and add to existin- en- croachments, upon the rights and peace of the South. The authority of the General Conference to enquire into the conduct of Bishop Andrew, and deal with him according to law and rule, no ore questions ; it was the undoubted right of the Conference. But when a lawful authority, proceeds to unlawful demands or action, and hy means equally unknown to lavv and usage, the claim of authority, by the trespass upon right, is vitia- ted, and the procedure becomes null and void; and this we conceive to have been the case in t!ic instance of Bishop Andrew. Not only was Bishop Andrew arraigned, but under the hallucination of the absolutism of the General Conference, the law itself was ar- raigned, and ajpai-t from its arbitrament, the judgment of a majority became the only rule of action and standard of right. We propose an examination of the subject, hav- ing for its object, a simple statement of the reasons and facts, which compelled the South to assume the position and take the stand they did, with regard to a separation of the general or federal jurisdiction of the Church, in order to avoid the more serious evil of utter division and disunion, throughout the whole Church. We may have conceived of the case too strongly, and whether right or wrong, in our convictions, it seems proper that our conduct and the motives by which we were actuated, should be presented in their true light. As distinguished northern men, are as far from agreein^f among them- selves, as the North and the South are, with regard to the real character of their own action, we ought certainly to be judged, with some share of the indulgence, currently reciprocated among the sub-divisions of the Northern party. Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, in theRepIy to the Protest, say the action in Bishop Andrew's case, was no trial — was not judicial in any sense — was not intended or thought of as a trial. Dr. Bond and others, say this is all a mistake— an utter misconception of the facts. They assure tlie Church and the world, that it xoas a trial, and exhibits all the essential elements of judicial action. A third party make it a mere executive "regulation." The Protest, written before the light of these contradictions had been shed upon the South, assumes, that to charge with delinquency and institute enquiry, is a judicial process, inasmuch as there is the implication of jurisdiction, Jaw, responsibility, and judgment, and re- gards the procedure as extra-judicial, because the whole invoice of grievances, was un- known to existing law— designed to regulate the whole subject matter of complaint. The Protest was presented with the full conviction, that under semblance of conformity to the constitution and law, an unlawful use had been made of both, to accomplish what was not contemplated by either. The General Conference of 18*36 say, in their official address, in allusion to the subject in question, "every man should be presumed to be innocent, until proved guilty, before some competent tribunal." Of what was Bishop Andrew found guilty, and in view of what law? The only lavv which could possibly be invoked with any semblance of justice, was known to protect him, and yet party opinion triumphs over lavv and justice, and like the irresolute Pilate, they first declare him innocent, and then, arraying the act against their own decision, they pro- ceed to scourge him. In comparing the law and the conduct of Bishop Andrew, we can find no adequate cause for tlie action in his case. We believe the real cause lies deeper and dates farther back. Why was law declined, and opinion, and Northern and foreign popular feeling appealed to, against Bishop Andrew! Having a law on slavery, even the non-prohibition of the act charged as an offence, rendered it lawful, apart from the fact, that express provision of law covered the case. The Discipline expressly provides, that where circumstances remove a case from within the province of the general principle, no individual shall suffer from any application of the law. In Bishop An- drew's case, that which the law excepts in terms, is made the sum of his offence. What the law declines exacting, and actually dispenses with, is made the sum of duty. We would not arraign motive, and can readily conceive how passion may be excited into sentiment, and aversion roused into activity, leading to the most unhappy results, while the actors are unconscious of the real character of their own course of action, or the evils they inflict. It did seem to us, at the time, and subsequent events liave been but too vvell calculated to confirm the impression, that liostility to the South was the moral typo of the whole movement, and that it was intended to teach us that a Northern altar must hereafter sanctify the gifts of the Church. The majority could not consider the conduct of Bishop Andrew as morally wrong, for they not only allow, but expressly authorize it, in the case of his scriptural Peers — the Eldership, or College of Presbyters. They could not regard his conduct as officially wrong, for they publish to the world, that there is neither prohibition nor requirement, connected with the oflice, in the shape of law, and hence infer, that the kx nan scripta of Northern prejudice, on the subject of slavery, must be the standard of judgment, aud conslitute the tenure, by which Bishops of the Methodist Episcopal Church, are hereafter to hold ofSce. But further^: the abstract principles and favorite dogmas of abolitionism, in the Me- thodist Episcopal Church, had had their day of disturbing notoriety, and were re^^arded by the South, as nearly defunct, until quickened into activity and dramatized, by the anti-slavery party of the late General Conference. It was the conviction of the South, that this party, dissatisfied with the conservative principles upon which they had for- merly acted, found themselves, as a body, without principles upon which they could act as they wished, and it became necessary that they should adopt new ones. It is not assumed, that there was any formal coalition between the Abolition and anti-slavery parties ; it is believed that this was not the case. But there was, at the same time, a mingling of parties for specific action — to accomplish given purposes, in which the par- ties were deeply if not equally interested. The policy and movements of the old con- servative party, while in a state of preparation for action, during the early part of the Conference, seem to have performed the functions of a kind of Lazaretto, at which abo- litionism did brief quarantine, and was then accredited as ancient Methodism, at least for the time, and so far as the case of Bishop Andrew was concerned. There was at least a spasm of harmony, during which the parties were one in aim and action. Both united in declaring that an offence which violated no law of God or man, and was re- cognized by both as consistent with christian and ministerial character. Each was prompt in claiming for the General Conference absolute control over both the formation and the execution of law. They acted together in asserting the claim of jurisdiction pro salute anivicc, without license of law or sanction of precedent. They clung to- gether and fought for the sanie results, under every change of colour, until their pur- pose was accomplished. They united in requiring Bishop Andrew to do what the law of the Church did not exact, and the laws of the State in which he resided, expressly forbid — in other words, they agreed to punish the Bishop for doing what the law of the Church allowed, and for vol doing what the law of the State prohibited. We bespeak the patience and candor of the reader. The freedom, and it may be thought boldness of censure, in these brief preliminary statement:}, cannot be judged of fairly, except in con- nection with the facts and evidence, we submit, in support of their truth, and in vindi- cation of the course and policy of the South, in the premises of this unhappy contro- versy. Intending an examination of all the principal topics in controversy between the North and South of the Methodist Episcopal Church, no particular analysis, either of the Pro- test or the Reply, is deemed necessary, except as we proceed in order, to a review of the whole ground occupied by both. The first general topic claiming attention, is the compromise character of the general law of slaven/ in the Methodidist Episcopal Church ; its assumption by the South in their Protest, aod its denial by the North, in their Rejoinder. To prevent misapprehen- 6 sion, it may be well to state hero, and once for all, iliat tlie term compromise is used in the Protest, in its most ordinary popular acceptation, in connection with legislation, to denote a mutual agreement to adjust ditficulties, in tlie shape of a legal arrangement some general rule or law, upon the grounds of mutual concession and forbearance, by the parties legislating, acting as the authorized representatives of the more primary parties, immediately interested. Before proceeding, however, I must ask to be in- dulged, while I otfer some preliminary views and statements, with reference lo the gen- eral subject, and my connection with it, without which I cannot be properly understood, either by my friends or enemies. Involved in this controversy somewhat prominently, by the force of circumstances, rather than any voluntary agency of my own, I am anx- ious to place it in the power of both my friends and enemies, to judge me fairly, and beyond this. I have nothing to invoke or deprecate with regard to either. At the first session of the Ohio Conference, after the division of the old Pioneer Western Confer- ence, I saw and heard, for the first time, that extraordinary man. Bishop Asbury, who, in an elaborate address to the Conference, on the afl^airs of the Church, glanced at the then recent session of the first Delegated General Conference, May, 1812, and spoke of the advantages likely to result, and enlarging upon the various interests of the Church, East, West, North and South, he remarked, that in all these sections the Meth- odists were one — every where the same people ; and added, that at one time he and his venerable colleague. Dr. Coke, had greatly feared, that in this country, slavery in the South, and the opposition to it in the North, would divide the Church ; but he warmly congratulated the Conference, that the evil they had dreaded, had passed away ; that the North and South, in the General and Annual Conferences, had, by mutual concession and forbearance, settled down upon common ground, and had agreed to be governed by law — the Discipline of the Church, in all they said or did on this dangerous and exciting subject. " Do this," said he, in tones of commanding but affectionate authority, "and you will save the master and slave, the bond and the free, the North and the South.'' The impression I received from listening to this address, was strengthened and render- ed indelible by a private discussion, to which I listened, during the same Conference, in which some young preachers maintained, in opposition to Bishop Asbury, that slavery in every shape, and all slave holders, should be banished from the Church ; and the great and good Samuel Parker advocated the necessity of a compromise course, and de- fended the views of Bishop Asbury, in his address. Apart from my distinct recollec- tion of these facts, I kept a kind of journal record at the time, of nearly every tiling that interested me, and in view of both, I make this statement, as substantially correct. Before this I had vaguely regarded slavery, in all its possible forms, as a foul blot upon the Christian name, and the remarks of Bishop Asbury, and the arguments of Parker, gave me the first distinct impression — led me lo the first rational enlarged view of the subject of slavery, in relation to the Methodist Episcopal Church, I had ever entertained, and will remain with me to the close of life. Three years after, at the fourth session of the Ohio Conference, Sept. Ibl5, I heard Bishop Asbury preach the funeral sermon of Dr. Cuke, and in enlarging upon the Apostolic zeal and extensive usefulness of tho Doctor, as an " American Methodist Bishop," he alluded to the manner in which the Doctor's usefulness had been "curtailed in the South," in his own phrase, by his imprudent zeal and movements in reference to slavery. " We thought," said the Bishop, '• we could kill the monster at once, hut the laivs and the people were againsx. us, and we had to compromise the matter, or lose the South." I cannot pretend to give entire the precise language of the Bishop, but such was the substance — the plain import of what he said ; and connected as it was, with wliat I had heard him say before, I could not fiirget it, especially as my admiration of tiie man, amounted to almost idolatrous veneration. I was perhaps the more struck with the Bishop's remarks, as I had that year been preacher in charge of a circuit in Virginia, where the subject had necessarily engaged my attention. There are those living, who know that the recollection of such incidents would be likely to be indelible witii me, from the flict, that at this Conference, but for the stern interposition of Bishop Asbury, my unimportant career as a Methodist travel- ing preacher, would probably have terminated. Crushed by what I regarded (right or wrong) as tlie unfeeling scrutiny of the Conference, I had addressed a letter of withdraw- al to the Conference, through my friend Rev. David Young, upon the reading of which, Bishop Asbury said : "Give that poor boy to me, I'll take him and be responsible." Bishop Asbury thus became my friend and protector, at a time when I greatly needed both ; and let no one be surprised tiiatl treasured up and preserved, what others, differ- ently circumstanced, may have forgotten. After traveling nearly four years in the Ohio Conference, I was, in the autumn of 1816, transferred to the Tennessee Conference, of which I was a member until 1821. During this whole period, a fierce controversy was i raging in that Conference, on the subject of slavery and abolition, the Abolitionists having a decided majority. The course and practice of the majority, went to settle the principle, that no slave holder, whatever might be the law of the State, in the case, or | his claims in other respects, should be received into the traveling connexion, and no ' preacher, traveling or local, admitted to ordination, until he had first in fact emancipa- ted his slaves. The minority contended that such a course was inconsistent with, and in violation of, the rights long secured to slave holders, in States where emancipation was impracticable. The struggle was long and bitter, continuing from year to year, and at the Tennessee Conference in 1819, the minority, acting under the advice of Bish- ops McKendree and George, protested against the course of the majority, and appealed to the General Conference of 1820. Upon the presentation of the Protest in Confer- ence, Bishop McKendree presiding, admitted it to record, against the declared will of the majority, and took occasion to address the Conference at great length, on the course of the majority, and the subject of slavery in general ; and as the interference of the Conference with the subject, had excited no little distrust and jealousy in the public mind, Bishop Mtlvendree requested that he might be heard by some of the most influen- tial citizens of Nashville, in which the Conference sat; and at his request, I introduced into the Conference the Honorable Felix Grundy and Oliver B. Hays, Esq., who listen- ed to the address of Bishop McKendree with intense interest, and declared to the Con- ference, that according to the address, the law of the Church was not, as they had been led to suppose, in conflict with the laws of the State. In this address. Bishop McKendree glanced briefly, but clearly at the whole range of the legislation of the Church, on the subject of slavery, and took great pains to show that while the Church sought to remove the evil of slavery, from within its own limits, where it could be done consistently with the laws and welfare of society, it did not, in any instance, abridge the rights of ministers or people, where law and the convention- al understanding and interests of society pursuant to them, rendered emancipation im- practicable. He reviewed, in a summary way, the various and often conflicting regula- tions of the Church respecting slavery, from the early days of Asbury and Coke, down to that period, and showed that the apparent inconsistency, on the part of the Church, was owing to alternate party ascendency, as it regarded the North and the South. His whole address went to show, and he repeatedly affirmed it, that the question was one that could only be managed by concession of parties, and that the existing laws of the Church, were the result of such mutual concession, and that at the General Conference 8 of 130S, they had sulemnly agreed lo iek the subject alone, in General Conference, and allow the annual Conferences to regulate the matter within their own limits. He stated he had hoped that this act of compromise, with others, and the final action in 1816, would save the Church from any serious trouble, but he saw it would not, and declared his purpose to propose to the next General Conference, to deprive the annual Confer- ences of the power given them in ISOS, and to establish one uniform law to govern the whole Church. Accordingly, he and Bishop George, privately advised the minority of the Tennessee Conference, to memorialize the General Conference to that effect. Bishop George addressed the Conference, approving the views of Bishop McKendree, and assur- ing us, he should concur with him in reporting the unauthorized proceedings of the Tennessee Conference, and in asking tiie General Conference to repeal the law of 1803. The Memorial of the minority, praying the repeal of this law, as advised by the Bishops, together with their representations, led to a discussion in the General Confer- ence of 1820, which resulted in the repeal prayed for. In the final conflict between the majority and minority of the Tennessee Conference, on this subject, the venerable Phil- ip Bruce took an active part, and fully and most unequivocally sustained the views of the Bishops and the minority, and addressing the Conference, by request, as a living witness in the principal transactions alluded to, he was even more minute and e.\act than Bishop McKendree, in showing that the whole legislation of the Church had been in the spirit and form of compromise, and that if this compromise was departed from, JMelhodism must die in the South. The same view of the subject was avowed and ad- vocated bv the never-to-be-forgotten Valentine Cooke, who was present, and called up- on for his opinions and testimony. Barnabas McHsnry, of whom I once heard Bishop McKendree say, if he were allow- ed to choose his successor, as senior Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Mc- Henry would be the man, was a member of the Tennessee Conference, and assumed and argued not only the virtual compromise of the law of slavery, between the Northern and Southern portions of the Church, but the absolute necessity of this or some kindred adjustment, to prevent division and ruin. These men were all opposed to slavery, and had no connection with it, and yet they unyieldingly maintained the ground assumed in the Protest, on this subject. It is proper to add, that Thomas Logan Douglas was the only man in the minority of the Conference, who was in any way connected with slavery. The minority numbered about twenty members of the Conference, and being oppressed and trodden down in the struggle, referred to, they naturally turned to men of ao-e, wisdom and experience in the Church, for counsel and direction, and especially to ascertain the real character and purposes of the law of slavery, and more particularly the opinions and conventional understanding, in which it had originated; and being one of the minority, and frequently called upon to act as one of its organs, I was necessarily led to a somewhat extended, if not critical acquaintance, with the whole subject and controversy. I was in the habit, for years, of consulting, whenever I could have ac- cess to them, the venerable men who had grown up with American Methodism, and who were therefore well acquainted, not merely with the facts, but with the reasons of Ict^islation on this subject. From them I learned, wiiat I believe to be the true history of the creneral rule on slavery, which found its way into that summary code of morals, known as the " General Rules" of Methodism, without the sanction of a General Con- ference, being introduced by Bishop Asbury and his council, in 1783 or '9, and first published in the latter year, and was intended as a response of tlie Church to the pro- vision in the Constitution of the United States, then just adopted, for the abolition of th« slav« trade ; the council deeming it proper, that wliat the Constitution looked tor- ward to prospectively, should beat once fixed upon as peremptorily binding upon all mem. bers of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and hence the prohibition — " buying of men, women, or children, (usually stolen and plundered from Africa, and brought to this country for the purpose) with the intention to enslave them." The language of Coke and Asbury, in their notes on the Discipline, sustains this view of the subject. Speaking of this rule, they style it, "a small addition, which the circumstances of the States required," evidently alluding to the recent prospective prohibition of the slave trade in the Constitution of the United States. No part of this recital, which I introduce with great reluctance, but could not omit without subjecting my motives and conduct to misconstruction, is intended in any degree to reflect upon the character or piety of the majority of the Tennessee Conference. The most of the men who took part in that controversy, are now in their graves, and so far as I know, no cause of quarrel exists between any of the survivors. I will only add in this connection, that as McKendree, George, Bruce, and Cooke, had frequent interviews in council, with the minority, my recollections may have confounded, in some instances, what they stated on these occasions, with their statements before the Conference. That I quote their opinions correctly, I am entirely confident. Beside my general connection with the subject, during the hotly contested struggle in the Ten- nessee Conference, I was a member of the committee which drafted the Protest, and also of the committee which drafted the memorial to the General Conference, just allu- ded to, and hence it was the more necessary I should acquaint myself with all the sour- ces, and avail myself of all means of information in my power, while at the same time, I should be the more likely to recollect and preserve the information I had obtained. And accordingly, I have in my possession copies of the Protest and Memorial, numer- ous letters received during the contest and subsequently, bearing upon it, together with other papers and documents, enabling me to make these statements with the perfect knowledge that they are substantially correct, and entitled to the confidence of all con- cerned. In this way I imbibed my first and early notions of the compromise character of the law of the Church on slavery. I am not at all careful or tenacious about words or phrases. My object is to make it appear to the satisfaction of the candid and well informed, that for the last thirty years, I have been taught, and taught too by the ablest masters in our common Israel, that the whole legislation of the Church, on the subject of slavery, but especially from 1800 to 1816, originated in mutual concession and com- promise, between men representing the Church, North and South, and therefore, that the law of the Church is, ipso facto, a compromise, as assumed in the Protest of the Mi- nority at the late General Conference, the principles and the positions of which, it is the object of this publication to defend. If I am in error, I have become involved in it most unintentionally, and without any personal interest, by which a man of common sense could have been influenced, during any part of the thirty three years to which tliese statements refer, and all my convictions assure me, if I am in error, I have been misled by such men as Bishops Asbury, McKendree — and George, Philip Bruce, Robert Cloud, Barnabas McHenry, Valentine Cooke, Leroy Cole, John Littlejohn, William Burke, Samuel Parker, William AUgood, John McGee, Thomas L. Douglass, and many others, equally entitled to credit, with whom I have been in intimate intercourse, and whose opinions gave character to my own. That these men regarded the law of the Church on slavery, as something very different from a "simple decree" of the General Conference, and as the result of vexed and protracted deliberation, at different times, terminating finally, in a compromise of conflicting opinions, in the shape of a rule or law, is a matter about which I can never doubt, because in every instance I bad the in- 2 10 formation directly from themselves, and could not have misunderstood them. By the part I took in advocacy of the conservative grounds of the Discipline, in relation to slavery, from 1816 to 1821. mixed up, occasionally, with other incidental matters, my position became extremely unpleasant, and at two different times, Bishop McKendree proposed to relieve me, by making me his travelling companion in his annual tour of the continent. This I declined ; but in 1821, requested him to transfer me to some other Conference, proposing to go wherever he chose to send me, and he accordingly transferred me to the Baltimore Conference, and stationed me in Pittsburg, assigning the state of things I have detailed, as the reason of my transfer. During the whole period of the General Conference of 1824, I was conGned by extreme illness, in Wash- ington City, and toward the close of the session, Bishop McKendree visited me, and in a long interview with him, he glanced at the difficulties in which I had been involved in the Tennessee Conference, adverted to the slavery question, expressed his conviction that the subject, as further compromised in 1810, and left upon the common ground of that arrangement, by depriving the annual Conferences of all legislative power over the subject in 1820, would secure the peace of the Church. In proof of this, he stated, that the subject had produced very little excitement at the General Conference then in session, and he trusted the question was conclusively settled. I have added this last item, because it is by several years of later date, and tended strongly to confirm all my previous views of the opinions entertained by Bishop McKendree, on this subject. I have also heard Bishop McKendree state, and have had the statement from others, that at the General Conference of 1608, or perhaps 1812, a measure was brought forward, on the subject of slavery, and would probably have carried, had he not declared to llie Conference, that in the event of its adoption, he could not attempt to administer the gov- ernment in the South ; when it was abandoned. It is a well known fact, also, and within the recollection of living witnesses, that at the General Conference of 1798, when a motion was made to exclude all persons from the Church in any way connected with slavery, McKendree, Tolleson, and others, resisted it with the most unyielding deter- mination, on the ground that the act would exclude Methodism from the South. In a let- ter before me, a venerable member of that Conference, and who goes vvith the North on the subject in controversy, says, "the motion was ably debated on both sides, all, I think, agreeing that slavery is a great evil. The ground taken by Wm. McKendree and James Tolleson, the strongest opposers of the motion, was that by passing it, we should shut up our access, not only to the slave holder, but also to the slave, so that we could do them no good, soul or body, for time or eternity. Here are two evils, (it was urged by McKendree and friends,) and we ought, (by way of compromise.) to choose the least. The motion was lost." But more of this in other places. I have introduced at some length, and at the hazard, perhaps, of incurring the charge of egotism, my own personal connection with this controversy, not as argument, but to show how, as a Methodist Preacher, every way unconnected witli slavery, I was led to imbibe the doctrines and opinions of the Protest on this subject, and I think it must be perceived by every one, that my present position is a very natural, if not necessary consequence of what has gone before. I repeat, however, that to place it in the power of others to do me justice, is the only thing, so far as I am personally concerned, about which I am at all solici- tous, and in order to this, I have, perhaps, already said enough, and it may be, more than was necessary. It has always been understood in the South, that in all tiie conflicts in the Church, respecting slavery, there has been a sullicient number in the General Conferences, ad- hering to Northern policy, to uarry any measure they chose, but that in a great many II instances at least, they have been restrained by appeal and remonstrance, from the South, and have compounded and compromised, as assumed in the Protest, and as we shall proceed further to prove. Before proceeding further, however, it may be proper to state, what the good sense of the reader could hardly fail to suggest, that in speaking of the North and South in this controversy, it is intended not to speak of all persons — the entire people North or South — but only so far as the North and South have spoken out and acted in the premises. In so far as any portion of the people, North or South, may be unrepresented by the avowal and action to which we allude, they are not inclu- ded in these designations ; and where it is meant to include them, the connection will sufficiently explain. It is necessary to add, too, that I shall use the term abolition, in the plain, obvious and general sense, in which I have always understood and used it, to denote any interference or meddling icith the question of slavery, contrary to the inten- Hon, and beyond the provisions of law, civil and ecclesiastical — that is, the law of the land and the law of the Church. All persons so acting, I regard as Abolitionists, and shall so call them. On the other hand, the principles and actions of those who seek the re- moval or regulation of slavery, in strict and respectful accordance with law, as above, I have always regarded and spoken of as conservative in character and tendency, and shall do so in this discussion. In an approach to additional sources of information — more stictly historical evidence — especially the official and accredited testimony of the Church, the reader need not be reminded, that the history of the controversy in question, has yet to be written. We have little else than scattered elements — isolated materials and fragmentary notices, scattered here and there throughout immense masses of authorship and publication. All is, to a great extent, without form and void, and a brief examination of the general sub- ject, is impossible. Facts and principles may be condensed, as was attempted in ihe Protest ; but proof is challenged, and must be furnished, or the South be found at fault, in the controversy. Our appeal is to the truth of history and the evidence of facts, and both must be met and set aside by a more convincing array of opposing proofs, before our cause is discredited. Any amount of criticism and disparaging remark, may be brought to bear upon particular parts and aspects of the subject, without in any way af- fecting the force of the argument attempted. Had it been practicable to discuss the subject fully and fairly within a more limited compass, it would have been greatly pref- erable, not only in the way of saving the cost of no little labor and research, but also in view of popular general impression. We found, however, that an extended induction of facts and particulars, was indispensable, and no very obvious classification of them practicable, without much more time than we have been able to devote to the sub- ject. Beside, the subject is a peculiar and intractable one, and an appeal to discur- sive methods of examination appeared unavoidable, for the plain reason that but little can be known of the real character of law, the true philosophy of legislation in any case, without some adequate knowledge of the practical reasons and circumstances, in which it had its birth ; and hence the course we have been compelled to adopt, and the impossibility of any very brief or condensed view of the subject. I have always been taught, that the compromise character of the law of the Method- ist Episcopal Church, was clearly inferable from tiie history of its legislation on the subject. It has always seemed to me impossible for any one, not under the influence of strong prepossession, to look at the ever recurring change of position, purpose and poli- cy on the part of the Church, respecting slavery and abolition — its various, and often conflicting rules and regulations, at different times — its frequent suspension, repeal or modification of such rules — the constant attempt to meet the exigency of circumstances 12 its unwillingness (o hazard the issue of carrying out its severer acts of legislation — its uniform refusal, for sixty years, to close the door of the Church against slave hold- ers, and yet irresolutely attempting all the time, to make emancipation a condition of membership afterward, when it was perhaps thought the terror of punishment, combined with other causes, might operate to secure submission. I repeat, I have always thought it impossible to look at the subject in these aspects, without perceiving that the Church, in all its legislation, has felt a resort to concession and compromise, indispensable to uni- ty and success, in connection with the North and the South. I am still more strongly than ever of the same opinion, and consider the debates and action of the late General Conference, and even the Manifesto of the Majority, in reply to the Protest, as addition- al proof of the assumption. If it be true, as distinctly affirmed by Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, that the North has been conceding to the South for fifty years — if it be fur- ther true, as distinctly admitted, that the South has conceded to the North, although not, if we choose to admit what they assume, to the same extent — yet as both parties have felt the necessity, and acted upon the principle of concession, reciprocally claimed, how does it happen, we have no compromise as the result of such concession, in the legislation that followed? legislation and its judicial construction being the only form in which the parties could concede? Can men or parties concede right and claim, in legislative or judicial intercourse, and meet upon common ground, not the choice of either party, except as a preferred evil, without acting upon the ground of compromise? If this be possible, by whom has it been shown? The parties, by which we mean pro and con, those who thought and felt differently, on the best mode of treatment and rem- edy, as it regards the evil of slavery, took into view the adverse grounds they occu- pied, and that the general interests might prevail over the lesser and conflicting ones, they agreed to meet and act in view of average right and justice, between the adverse claimants. The whole drift, both of the language and logic of the Protest, goes to show, that in calling the law of slavery a compromise, we reasoned from the concrete to the abstract, knowing as we did, if its authors could be believed, that it had its ori- gin in mutual concession and forbearance. As it originated in the necessity of trying emergent circumstances, its compromise character was taken for granted, inasmuch as the law itself became, of necessity, the abstraction and generalization of the conflicting facts and interests, difficulties and concessions, connected with its original enactment, in separate parts, at different times. Any tolerably accurate appreciation of the rela- tions of the parties, must furnish satisfactory proof to the most common discernment, that the existing law of the Church could have originated in no other way. The legis- lation on slavery, by consent of parties, took circumstances and consequences into the account, and whatever may have been its form, as each party yielded in some things, and refused to yield in others, and both finally met in the adoption of the same general rules, the legislation in fact, was a compromise. It is admitted that the language of the Protest varies from the common phraseology of the Church on the subject, and we were led to use it. because, in our judgment, the crisis which gave it birth, rendered it necessitry that the principles involved should be more clearly defined, and better under- derstood. Should it turn out that we have wronged the truth of history, let the proper correction be applied. It is confidently believed, however, that the evidence we submit, in support of the Protest, will satisfy the discerning and unprejudiced, that no novel principle, assumption or speculation, unknown to our fathers and tiie American Meth- odism of the last half century, can be found in it. The very first minute, rule or regu- lation, the first act of legislation on the subject of slavery, by the infant Conference of lay preachers, in 1780, is both in language and temper, a compromise. Great as the IS evil is charged to be, it concedes that even traveling preachers were slave holders, and merely requires a promise of emancipation ; and with regard to all other slave holders in the Church, the Conference simply advises them to free their slaves. If they did not in- tend compromise, in view of the civil rights — the interests and feelings of the South — why receive slave holders at all, either as members, or as local or traveling preachers? In the instance of what is declared to be crime, by every law of Heaven, man, and na- ture, why merely exact promises, and advise, instead of requiring emancipation before receiving them at all? If in the loose, extravagant language of the rule of 1780, slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man, and nature — is hurtful to society, contrary to the dic- tates of conscience and pure religion, and doing to others what we would not they should do to us, that is a criminal and ungodly practice, inhuman and unnatural withal, as most expressly affirmed, what must be thought of the piety and usefulness of preachers and people, thus living in open and declared violation of the laws of God. man, nature, society, and conscience, as well as the precepts of pure religion and social justice ? What must be thought of law makers and Church rulers, who thus denounce practices as grossly in- iquitous and immoral, while no actual abandonment of the evil is necessary, either to church membership or ministerial office'' The persons and the practice are both placed under the angry ban of the Church, and yet continued in connection with it, as if it was thought necessary to baptize the evil, in order that the means of its extirpation might be brought to bear the more effectually. And yet, after this unmitigated denunciationi when, three years later, the subject next comes up, local preachers only are named, and it is deemed best to try them another year, to see whether, after four years advising, the result will not be different, and if not, it is gravely stated it may (and of course may not, as it turned out) be necessary to suspend them. Why this hesitation and de- lay? Was it or not seen and felt, by the excellent men composing these early Conferences, that they had acted prematurely, and that they could not carry out the principles and measures they had avowed and adopted, without ruin to the objects and mission of ]\Iethodism in the South ? Unless this was so, why is an evil so unmitigated, so ut- terly at war with the moral order of Heaven and earth — so inconsistent with any, the least degree of moral uprightness, borne witii for a moment? And especially \vhy are persons involved in it, allowed to enter the Church, and even the ministry, when curse and defilement are assumed as the inevitable consequence ! Without intended compro- mise, how can we reconcile the faith and practice of our fathers ? In 1784, at the reg- ular Conference, the local preachers in Virginia, holding slaves, are allowed another year to reflect upon the matter; that is, five years after the first warning! Does this delay betoken compromise or not? At the called Christmas Conference of the same year, we have a series of enactments, the tone of which is equally decided as to the mor- al wrong of slavery. These are expressly admitted to constitute a new term of mem- bership, unknown to the general rules of Mr. Wesley, and came in with the new organ- ization of the Church. Still, fearful of consequences, the law is suspended before it is published, and slave holders have another year for reflection, and in Virginia, where the Church was numerous and strong, they have two years more, extending the proba- tion in Virginia to seven years. If in this no compromise is seen, six months after we have a further and more formal suspension of all the rules on slavery, until the next Conference, when it is declared tiie rules shall be enforced. Tliis, however, was not done, and during twelve long years, the suspension continues, and the whole subject is allowed to sleep, and confessedly, because of the great evil done in the South by its agi- tation. In 1796 we have a new code or set of rules, but obviously of the same compro- mise character with former ones, as explained by the practice of our rulers. Slave 14 holders are still admitted to ministerial order and official station, upon security given that they will emancipate in future. The laws of the State, and the circumstances of individual cases, are to be consulted and deferred to by presiding elders and preachers in charge, in judging of the nature of the security required. And, as if doubtful whether this was not too stringent, upon the reinonstrances of McKendree and others, from the South, they compromised the wliole matter farther, by authorizing the yearly Conferences to make whatever regulations they judge proper, respecting the admission of slave holders to official stations in the Church. Masters are allowed to hold slaves for a term of years, to remunerate themselves. Preachers and people are called upon for information and opinions on the subject, to be sent up to the next Conference, that the preachers, instead of their hitherto imperfect knowledge, and conflicting and versa- tile opinions and purposes, may have full light upon the subject. Such are some of the difficulties and details of the still incipient, unsettled compromise of the Protest. In 1800 there is still further modification and compromise. A traveling preacher is allow- ed to hold slaves, where emancipation is not practicable, in conformity with the laws of the State in which he lives ; and to get at the subject more directly, without coming in conflict with the civil authoritities, it is found necessary to interfere with the legisla- tion of the States in which slavery exists. The Annual Conferences are instructed to memorialize the Southern Legislatures, and urge them to pass ''general emancipation" laws. Committees were to be appointed, too, to aid the traveling preachers in " this blessed work." An application of this kind, to the Legislature of Georgia, gave birth, in 1800, to the celebrated law of that State, prohibiting emancipation in any form, ex- cept by Legislative enactment. The application was deemed obtrusive and dangerous, and the Church, in this way, has prevented the emancipation of thousands of slaves in Georgia, as well as other Southern States, by provoking State legislation, which render- ed it entirely impracticable. While this business of petitioning Legislatures, and re- monstrating with them, was going on in 1800, it was suddenly found necessary to com- promise this matter too, or give up the South, and the plan of petitioning was abandon- ed accordingly, and atonement was offered for the indiscretion, in the shape of apologies and explanations in beljalf of the Church, especially after a Southern Grand Jury had, upon presentment for a violation of the laws of the State, found a true bill against ona of the Bishops of the Church, Dr. Coke, on account of tlie active part he had taken, in the movement now referred to. In 1804, the compromise character of the law of the Church respecting slavery, be- gan to assume a more distinctive form. Li view of the firm position and vehement re- presentations of Southern Preachers, RIcKendrep, Lee, Tolleson, and others, that the existing rules would no longer be borne with, private members are allowed to sell slaves into perpetual slavery as the dictate of "mercy and humanity," without Church censure, and all slaveholders of the laity, in North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, and Tennessee, arc exempted from the operation of even the new rule, entirely. The rules of 179G and 1800, relating to interference with legislation, are repealed, and the Conference goes so far as to haznrd, for the first time, in its rules and regulations, the distasteful admonition of the New Testament, that slaves should obey their masters and consult their interests. At the next General Conference, however, the admonition was expunged, as oflx-nsive or uncalled for, and nothing of the kind has appeared in our le- gislation, or marred our statute books since. Li 1808, the compromise is still more fully developed. Every thing relating to slave holding among private members is expunged from the Discipline, and each annual Conference is fully authorized to make its own regulations, relative to buying and soiling slaves. That this was done upon demand 15 and remonstrance from the South, will not be denied, and how tar it goes to prove tlie compromise of the Protest, let men of sense determine. In 1812, the comi)romise, to which the good men of 1780-3-4-5, were driven, by the force of circumstances, in the very face of their own rules, and despite their cherished opinions and policy, receives a still more conclusive form, in the shape of a direct concession m terms, upon the ur- gent representation of Southern men, that the laws of the States are so diverse on the subject of slavery, that no general rule can apply, and hence a renewal of the grant of right to the annual Conferences, to control the whole subject as tliey saw proper. It was then agreed by the North and South, that the legislation of the Church must con- form to that of the States, and emancipation not be required by the Church, where it was opposed by law and public opinion. This fair and manly adjustment of a grave Church difficulty, I heard Bishop Asbury explain and commend, only four months after it oc- curred, as the great bond of union beticeen the North and the South. In 1816, we have the last of a series of kindred measures — the final act of legisla- tion, alluded to in the Protest, as completing the compromise between the North and the South. "No slave holder, shall be eligible to any official station in our Church here- after, where the laws of the Church in which he lives, admit of emancipation, and per- mit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom." Ergo, "any slave holder, (so far as slave- ry alone is concerned,) shall be eligible to any official station in our Church, hereafter, (and of course whether as Deacon, Elder, or Bishop,) where the laws of the Stale, in which he lives, do not admit of emancipation, and the liberated slave is not permitted to enjoy freedom." This is a plain grant of law, and as such it satisiied the South. The South has always been satisfied with it. Nothing more has ever been asked by the South. It is the open infraction — the gross violation of this law by the North, of which we complain, and to which the South will not submit. Take now the law of 1800, the two regulating the entire traveling connexion and local ministry — "When any traveling Preacher becomes an owner of a slave or slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our Church, unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State, in which ho lives." Hence, "no traveling Preacher, becoming an owner of slaves, by any of the tenures recognized by law, in slave holding States, will be subjected to a forfeiture of his ministerial rights, if legal emancipation be impracticable, in conformity with the law of the State, in which he lives." With this, the South is equally satisfied, and by it we are willing to abide. We only complain of its violation by the North. And so of the general rule, as a prohibition,— "The buying or selling of men, women, or chil- dren, with an intention to enslave them." If then, a man shall not buy or sell man, woman, or child, with intention to deprive them of liberty, or reduce them to a sitate of slavery, he cannot violate the general rule. And with this too the South are perfectly satisfied. These rules fairly interpreted according to their most obvious meaning, as by the General Conference of 1840— interpreted as they would be in any intelligent Court of Equity, afford all the protection we need. The construction, however, placed upon them, the two former especially, by the last General Conference, virtually repeals them, and it is against such nullification we protest. Believing as we have shown, and shall further show, that the legislation of the Church on slavery, especially since 1800, originated in concession and compromise, call it by what name you will, the South have always relied on it as a solemn compact, based upon the good faith of the parties, and re- gard the violation of it, by the late General Conference, as inconsistent with fidelity to the obligations of a grave public engagement. 16 In l!ri2n, the only action of the General Conference respecting slavery was to take from the Annual Conferences the authority to make their own regulations on the sub- ject ; and this action was had in view of the Memorial already alluded to, from a mi- nority of the Tennessee Conference and the representations of Bishops McKendree and George; in connection with it. In 1824 the general law of slavery was left untouched. So also in '28, '32, '36 '40 and '44, except, that by construction, the last General Con- ference changed it entirely, and so undermined all the securities of the South, and re- duced us to the necessity of resistance, as an act of self-preservation. As the general rule, the course of legislation on this subject has always been a conservative, middle one, between Northern and Southern convictions and interests. The necessity of union was always strongly felt, and this interest prevailed, but not until either section or par- ty, North and South, had yielded highly cherished preferences, on the ground of conces- sion and forbearance. And not only is it susceptible of the clearest historical and logi- cal proof, that the law of slavery has always been a virtual compromise, but the whole administration based upon existing law, from time to time, has been such in fact, be- cause accommodated to the ever-varying circumstances, under which it has been ap- plied. If not, why has the law, in so many instances, as we have seen, been permit- ted to remain a dead letter — a mere brutum fulmen, when it came in conflict with cir- cumstances and developments, rendering its exercise inconsistent with the more general reasons and causes, which gave it birthl We are reminded, however, that all this is de- nied both by the writers and signers of the Reply, (it was the joint production of three different writers, only one of whom signed it,) and it may not be amiss to vary the evi- dence on this subject. The Protest assumes a legal compromise, in the absence of its forms, and the Reply quietly assures all concerned, that it is an absurd fiction, un- worthy of credit. This denial, without a word of proof, is offered as quite sufficient to overthrow the Protest entirely. The summary endorsement of the quintuple alliance of Northern editors, was of course superfluous. If it should be made appear, however, that legislative compromise is by no means uncommon, but in fact of frequent occur- rence, and notoriously one of the most ordinary forms of party stipulation, it will at least tend to prepare the way for a fairer estimate of the mass of evidence we have yet to present, on the subject in dispute. The well known political balance of mutual rights and interests, as secured in the Constitution of the United States, between the North and the Soutli, has been recognized as a compromise, since the foundation of the government, without any direct evidence, however, of any thing resembling compro- mise, in the Constitution itself. A conventional understanding has, during this whole term, existed between the North and South, to the effect, that in the admission of new States into the confederacy, the number of free and slave States shall be equal, or as nearly so as practicable ; and this has been invariably appealed to, as a compromise not to be disregarded by either party, without the imputation of implied dishonor, although no express contract exists to this effect. The evidence is found in the Constitutional history of the country. When the Congress of the United States, in 1820, decided up- on a proposition from the Hon. H. Clay, that no slave State should be admitted into the Union, North of latitude 36 30, and the North agreed to admit Missouri, and settle the slavery question as then agitated, upon the basis of such a prospective arrangement, it was then, and has ever since been, regarded as a compromise, reasonably and fairly bindin"- the South against any attempts to extend slavery beyond this line, and the North against meddling with the question, by opposing tiie admission of slave States South of it, unless they should exceed in number the free States North. However in- formal, this conventional arrangement, it has always been understood and recognized as 17 a compromise, which saved the Union of the States, both by the people of this country, and throughout the civilized world. Mr. Madison informs us, that a measure introduced into Congress in 178"3, was car- ried through and became a law "by compromise," and yet, in the reported proceed- ings of Congress, the evidence is not found upon the Journal. Mr. Madison also in- forms us, that in settling the question in the Congress of 1783, in what proportion slaves should come in as a basis of representation, the question could only be settled by compromise; and yet the compromise does not appear upon the face of tlie record. In the Convention for the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1787, there was a special conventional compromise, as Madison, Hamilton, and others, assure lis, between the North and the South, respecting commerce and slavery — the Northern confederates needing what it was the interest of the South to withhold, but the North insisting, the South yielded, in view of a similar concession to tliem in favor of slave- ry. The evidence of the fact, however, does not appear in the Constitution, but else- where ; although it is as certain, as it is likely to become important in the history of the country. The West India Emancipation bill is known and recognized in the de- bates of Parliament, and British history, as a compromise; and yet as a law it wears the aspect of a simple decree, and is only known as a compromise, because it was an adjustment of a difficult question between the West India Planters and the Imperial Legislature, upon the ground of mutual concession. Even Magna Charta is shown by Hallam, Godwin and others, to have been a compromise, and as such has given char- acter to British legislation ever since, although the form of this celebrated instrument does not indicate the fact. The existing government of France is recognized by philo- sophical statesmen, as the great compromise between the absolutism of one part of the nation, and the republicanism of the other; and it is strictly true that the government of Louis Phillii)pe is a compromise arrangement, although it may not appear upon the Statute book, or in the Cabinet archives. During a period of near a century before the American Revolution, a conventional understanding existed between the colonies of this country and the English government, that while the latter had the right to regu- late external taxation, duties, and imposts, connected with the colonies, the undoubted right belonged to the former, to regulate all internal taxation ; and a well defined com- promise to this effect, without any formal stipulation, had become so incorporated with the convictions and feelings of the American people, that its violation by the British ministry, instantly decided the colonies in favor of revolt. The question of slavery, in British India, has long been treated by the Parliament and Press of England, as a com- promise arrangement — one party insisting on its abolition, and the other resisting it, as subversive of British sovereignty in that quarter of the globe. The policy of the gov- ernment has always been regarded as a compromise, while mere legislation has given the subject no such aspect. The adjustment of the great Tariff question, between the North and the South, in 1832, is known as the Compromise act of Congress on the sub- ject, and yet, upon its face, it is a simple decree of national legislation. Speaking of English compromise grants, the Crown, the Nobility, and the Commons being parties, Hale says : "The concessionof these Charters was in Parliamentary form." Dr. Bangs and Bishop Emory, both style the suspended resolutions of 1820, usually known as the Presiding Elder question, a compromise; yet no evidence of the fact ap- pears upon the face of the law, and it is evident they reasoned in the case, as we have in the Protest, the law was a compromise because it originated, as did the law of slave- ry, in the mutual concession of antagonist parties. The proposition of the Bishops to th« late General Conference, to postpone th« whole question in the case of Bishop An- 18 drew until 1848, was regarded and has since been represented by both parties as a com- promise measure, witliout being so shaped or styled by its authors. Dr. Emory, and subsequently the Bishops, in an official address, and more recently Dr. Elliott, repre- sent the conventional agreement of the traveling ministry, to labor where the Episco- pacy may appoint, and the people to submit without any claim of right to select their pastors, as a compromise in the Constitution of the Church, and which cannot be viola- ted without high moral blame, but certainly without any formal stipulations to this effect. By analogy then, the circumstances of conventional understanding and legislative adjustment, being the same or similar, is it not with the most perfect and entire pro- priety, the Protest speaks of the compromise law of the Church, on the subject of slave- ry? Nor in doing so, was there any thing constrained or far-fetched. It is a conclu- sion so natural and necessary, in view of the premises, as furnished in the history of the Church, that the only wonder is, that men claiming enlarged information could be prevailed upon to risk its denial. It is urgently assumed in the Reply, that the North has always been conceding to the South, as it regards slavery. The question arises, have they done so, except as it was just and right? Have they sacrificed principle and duty, by concession? If not, the just claims of the South to the concessions made, are admitted by their own acts in the case, and the result is compromise. We have seen, and shall have occasion further to see, that in order to the very existence of the law of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church, compromise. was an indispensable condi- tion. Without it the law could not have been. In a conflict of necessities, the parties legislated upon the principle of mutual accommodation. Neither party had what they desired, each gave up what they were anxious not to part with, but agreed to unite, upon what they could obtain, in the adjustment, without disunion, and this social guar- anty, in the shape of public law, has been looked upon, in the South at least, as a com- promise, because concession was known to be its basis, and because, without such a re- ciprocal modification of different and opposing elements, interests, and wishes, no law could have bound the North and South together. The Bishops in their General Confer- ence address, 1840, say, "it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our peo- ple in all the States alike," and certainly it is not less impossible to do it in the case of the ministry. The only reasons involving conscience or principle, apply alike in either case. And accordingly the law of the Church has always been different in its applica- tion to different States, and we are thus presented .vith the necessity, the reasons, and the fact, of compromise, as assumed in the Protest. The sum.of the whole legislation on the subject, has been essentially conventional in character and bearing, and although without any formal ratification by the parties as such, has been in fact a compromise arrangement. Dr. Bangs says, "the several modifications of the rules on slavery, from one General Conference to another, until the present time, all partake of a similar character," (that of compromise,) "intending lo record the o_ppos?7zo?i of the Church to the system, and to adopt such measures to mitigate its evils, and finally, if possible, to do it away, as wisdom and prudence should suggest." Speaking of the legislation of 1784, the Dr. says, "even this gradual process couU not be carried forward, without producing k greater evil than it was intended to remove," and adds, that the law "was suspended," (the Church finding it necessary to compromise,) "in favor of those more wise and prudent measures, which the Cliurch has ever since used, and is ready to use, for the extirpation of slavery." Even the zeal of Dr. Coke cooled in contact with the reasons and necessity for compromise to which we allude. "On his second visit to Aaerica. Dr. Coke was convinced he bad acted indiscrettly, and he cons(?nted (when 19 pressed by the South,) to let the question ot emancipation alone." "He proceeded ia such an intolerant spirit of philanthropy, that he soon provoked violent opposition." "His mistaken zeal and the unfavorable influence his opinions and course had, on the subject of slavery in the South, are matters of history." — Dreiu's Life of Coke, Souths ey^s Wesley, Coke's Journal. The General Conference in their address to the British Conference in 1840, say, "under the administration of Dr. Coke, emancipation was urged alike in all the States, without reference to laic or public opinion — the attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the Dr. himself. While iherefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation, in those States where the laws permit it, and allow the freedman to enjoy freedom, we have refrained from conscience sake, from all intermeuiing with the subject, in those States, where the laws make it criminal.''^ Would truth permit the last Generel Conference to make such a statementi They add, "the question of the evil of slavery, is a very different matter, from a principle or rule of Church discipline, to be executed contrary to and in defiance of the laws of the land." There is perhaps no single word in the English language, so fully expressive of the meaning of the General Conference in this statement, as the single word compromise, if we take into the account, with the course of action indicated, the reasons which ob- viously led to it. The General Conference says, of both the ministers and members of the Church, "with their rights as citizens of these United States, the Church disclaims all interference." Apply this to the Southern ministry and membership, connected with slavery, where emancipation is impracticable, and what does it expressly authorize thera to assume, on coming into the Church, or any grade of the ministry] By wliat means could it be made clearer, that the General Conference pledges, that the legislation and practical government of the Church, should be such, as not to conflict with the rights of citizenship in any of the States. How v;as this pledge treated by the late General Conference, especially in the case of Bishop Andrew? The General Conference of 1836 declared, "such is the diversity of habits, thoughts, manners, customs, and do- mestic relations, among the people of this vast Republic, and the diversity of the insti- tutions of this vast confederacy, that it is not to be supposed an easy task, to suit all the incidental circumstances of our economy to the views and feelings of the vast mass of minds interested." Is it not intended, that the facts brought into view, shall desid- erate the necessity of compromise, in order to prove its reasonableness, as it actually ex- isted in the law of the Church? Again they say, "we pray that brethren, will at least give us the credit of having acted in good failh, not having regarded private ends or party interest, but the best good of the whole family of American Methodists." The allusion here to parties, "parly interests" and "good faith," may tempt some to think, that both the language and sentiments of the General Conference had been plagiarised into the Protest. They add, "we assure you, we have adopted no new principle or rule of discipline, respecting slavery, since the time of the apostolic Asbury, neither do we mean to adopt any. There are States in which slavery exists so universally, and is so closely interwoven with the civil institutions, that both do the laws disallow of eman- cipation, and the great body of the people, (the source of laws with us,) hold it to be trea- sonable, to set forth any thing by word or deed, tending that way^ As it would be •wrong &nA unscriptural io en^iCi a rule of discipline contrary to the Constitution and laws of the State, on this subject, so also would it not be equitable or scriptural, to confound the positions of our ministers and people, so different are they in difl^erent States, with respect to the moral question which slavery involves." The good sense of these passages, will command respect every where, but when we come to apply them in the case of Bishop Andrew, we are Gompelled to see, that the requirement of the late 20 General Conference was both disallowed and held to be treasonable both by the laws and people of Georgia — was contrary alike to its "Constitution and laws," if the last mav explain the first, and therefore, by authority of the General Conference of 1836, not only "wrong," and "inequitable," but "unscriptural," albeit, it is in bad taste and worse odour to invoke scripture to this effect. They say further, "we have been less or more agitated with the perplexing question of slavery, interwoven as it is, in many of the State Constitutions, and left to their disposal by the civil compact, which binds us together as a nation, and thus put beyond the power of the legislation of the General Government, as well as the control of ecclesiastical bodies, could you have perceived all its delicate relations to the Church, to the several States, and the government of the United States, you would have sympathized with us more tenderly." Contrast with this language, the rash and reckless proceedings, (so we are compelled to regard them,) of the General Conference of 1844, and who can help being struck with their irreconcila- ble dissimilarity. Here is a most "perplexing question," "interwoven" with some fif- teen "Slate Constitutions" — at the ^'disposal" of these States alone, and this too by the stipulations of the national compact — "beyond the power of the General Government, or the control of ecclesiastical bodies," — "delicately" connected with "rly decided the Church in favor of a compromise course. Wiien, at the General Conference of 1808. the Bishops were au- thorized to ordain colored persons, iree or slaves, to the ofliceof Deacon, it was deemed unadvisable to publish the fact, nor was it published uulil nine years after. Lee says, "most of the Preachers were opposed to its being made public." Why this deference to Southern opinion and feeling, unless the Church had rssolved on a course of corapro* 25 mise treatment! Dr. Bangs says, "they found it necessary to relax in their measures ao-ainst slave holders, without, however, attempting to justify the system itself." Lee says of these early measures : " It was going too far, and calculated to irritate the minds of our people, and not to convince them." He adds : " Long experience has taught us, that the various rules that have been made on this subject, have not been at- tended with that success which was expected. "We are well assured they never were of any particular service to our societies." He informs us : " Dr. Coke met with much opposition in the South, owing to his imprudent manner of preaching against slavery. No doubt the Doctor, at the time, thought he was doing right, but afterward, when he printed his Journal in England, he acknowledged he was wrong in preaching publicly against slavery in Virginia, where the practice was tolerated by law." The General Conference of 1796, apparently in doubt about what had been done, calls upon the whole Church, to give, in any form they might prefer, tlieir maturest thoughts on slavery; and yet Coke and Asbury, in preparing and publishing, by request of this Conference, their notes on the Discipline, say not one word in explanation of the section on slavery. The creneral rule, respecting which there was no diversity of opinion, they explain, but pass over the vexed question, which tjien, as now, was giving the Church so much trouble — that is, how we are to attempt correction, without increasing the evil? Was not this very silence a concession to the magnitude of the difficulty 1 The probability that the general rule was inserted by order of the Bishop's council, is strengthened by the fact that the slavery question was allovved to slumber — was not agitated at all, from 1785 to 1796. In the year 17S9, the date of the rule, there were eleven Conferences, all quite small, as we learn from Lee, Bangs, and others. No one of them could claim any thing like conventional authority, and this fact, connected with the preceding one, renders the supposition above almost certain ; especially when connected with what we have before stated, and the silence of Conference history on the subject. Dr. Durbin says : "The Church has gradually made concessions to the necessities of the slave holding States— our fathers wisely made them, on the ground of necessity — the Methodist Church could not have existed at all in the South, without them." An analysis of the Doctor's concession, shows that the majority of the North conceded, up- on the just demand of the South, and that the South and North, in asJdng and making the concession, sought the common unity and good of the whole, and the Doctor thus gives us, in part, the true compromise of the Protest. Dr. Bangs assumes that the Methodist traveling ministry " pledge themselves to each other, not to violate those conventional obligations, under which they i)ave reciprocally bound themselves, as ar- ticles of faith, and rules of moral, religious and ministerial duty. Against these they are not at liberty to speak, preach, or write. Without the redemption of this pledge, there can be no peace or union." How far, and with what force this applies to our compromise argument, and our reasoning on the subject of conventional pledges, in the shape of legislation, will be seen at once, without remark from us. On the subject of slavery the Dr. says, "at almost every General Conference, some enactment has been made for the purpose of regulating slavery— of modifying or mitigating its character, with a view ultimately, if practicable, to do it away. It is manifest, that the making rules for the regulation of a practice, is in some sense to pronounce, that the practice is not, in itself, considered independently of all concurring circumstances, a moral evil in the sight of God. To legislate for a thing is to sanction it, though the manner of holding the thing may be considered either unlawful or inexpedient." This is the true compromise doctrine of the Church. The legislation of the Church has aimed at the regulation of the practice in question. This implies not merely toleration, but as Dr. 4 26 Bangs says, some degree of "sanction." The Church has never legislated, in view of regulating Drunkenness, Profaneness, Gannbling, Theatres, and Grog-sliops. Every as- pect in which the subject comes up, proves the folly of any attempt to place slavery in the same category with these. The wliole history of Methodism, disowns the classifi- cation as absurd, and in the language of the General Conference, "unscriptural." On the general view of the subject we have taken, hear the venerable Bishop Hedding, whose reasoning has never been influenced by a Southern sun or Southern sympathies. He says, "the Church has permitted her members to hold slaves, where the laws of the land are such that they will not allow of emancipation, without subjecting the emanci- pated person to be again enslaved. The right to hold a slave, is founded on the rule 'all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.' That there are many such cases among oiir brethren of the Southern States, I firmly believe. If I did not believe it, I could not do the duties the Church requires me to perform, when I attend the Southern Conferences. If I had not believed it in 1824, I could not have accepted the cliarge committed to me, when I was made one of the Superintendents of the whole Church, including slaves and masters. They believe that to emancipate their slaves, would be breaking the rule, 'do as you would be done by.' We cannot convince them by censuring them. Other means must be used if ever they are convin- ced. But that they are wrong in principle, cannot be proved, unless you can produce a precept of the Divine law equal to this, 'thus saith the Lord, thou slialt not own a slave.' But this precept is not in the Bible. Will you say slavery is condemned in the parts which compose it. This is true of the slave trade, of the system, and of all the injus- tice and cruelty inflicted on slaves, but it is not true in circumstances, where the best possible thing a man can do for his slaves, is to hold, protect, feed, and govern them. Will you say, 'undo every burden and let the oppressed go free;' but the people I have described are 7tot oppressed by their owners. If their present owners should set them free, they vvould be oppressed by others. They are now held to protect them from op- pression, and to own them is the only way to protect them. The Church has never said there could be no circumstances, in which a man could own slaves, and yet be in- nocent—nay, she has said the contrary." Since the organization of the Church in 1784, he represents her as "teaching those who could put away their slaves, on our Lord's rule, to do so, and also teaching those who could not thus release them, to conduct to- wards them as the Saviour directed." He suys "the address of the General Conference on slavery in 1800, was the occasion of a vast amount of injury both to them and the work." Speaking of the entire history of the Methodist Societies from their first es- tablishment to the orgari:;ation of the Church in 1734, the Bishop remarks, "Mr. Wes- ley and his preachers did not, at that time, believe it was a sin to hold slaves, where the laws were such as to prevent their continuing free after being manumitted. The language they employ clearly shows that it was their opinion that their people might be innocent in holding slaves, where tlie laws did not permit emancipation on christian principles. Mr. Wesley never said one word, that I can find, against a christian man's holding his slave in circumstances wliere ho could not put him away without injuring him. And the fact of his allowing some of his preachers and members to hold slaves in this country, for several years before our Church was organized, is sufficient evi- dence to my mind, that he saw that notliing better could bo done for the slaves, circum- stanced as those owners were, than to hold, feed, protect, and govern them. While this state of things continued Mr. Wesley ordained a Bishop and two Eiders for this coun- try, sending tliem over to organize his preachers and societies into an Episcopal Church, at the same time appointing Mr. Aabury joint superintendent with Dr. Coke, wJien he 27 must have known, thai many, both of his preachers and members in this country, held slaves." Again, "I have been severely condetnned, for expressing an unwillingness, to put a resolution to vote, in an Annual Conference, tending to censure our brethren in the South, for doing the same thing which Mr. Wesley allowed their fathers to do, when in connection with him, and when, also, he possessed the full power to prevent their donig so, or to expel them," Methodist Societies were formed in the West In- dies about the time they were in the United States, and Bishop H. remarlcs, "tiiey were under Mr. Wesley's superintendence, and from the best information I have been able to obtain, slave owners were admitted into those Societies. Mr. Wesley believed St. Paul permitted Philemon to be a member of the Churcli at Colosse, ichile he held Onesi- mus a slave. That Dr. A. Clarke, Mr. Benson, Dr. Coke, and Mr. Watson also believed that the Apostles permiited slave owners in peculiar Circumstances, to be members of the Church of Christ, is a fact too plainly declared in their writings, to admit of a doubt. These authors must have believed, that the Apostles knew, that the christians of their day were under such laws or circumstances, that the only thing such of them as held slaves could possibly do for them, according to our Lord's rule, was to hold, protect, feed, and govern them. They all believed that in some circumstances, men might own slaves and yet be christians. Though the Methodist Episcopal Church always permit- ted slave owners to remain in her communion, where they could not put away their slaves without violating the Saviour's rule, she labored hard and long, by various rules and resolutions, and other efforts, all within the great principles above laid down, to prepare the way for, and finally to accomplish a universal emancipation, especially in the Church. But she found, the more she exerted herself on this subject, the more hin- drances were thrown in her way, by legal enactments, popular excitements, and by per- secution. She found that, by trying to release the bodies of the slaves, she was hindered from using the means to save their souls, and that instead of removing their burdens, she was made the occasion of increasing them. The Church found herself driven to this alternative, either to cease using direct means to accomplish universal emancipa- tion, or abandon the largest portion of the Southern country." That is, the Church was driven to compromise, as the only possible mode of doing any thing to accomplish the object it had in view. Bishop H. says, "she determined to do all in her power, to save both slave and master. By these" (compromise,) "measures, the Church has held n, powerful influence over thousands of both colors— she has prevented a vast amount of injuries, which otherwise," (without such compromise,) "would Iiave been inflicted on the poor slaves. The civil government of that country, (the South.) is not in the hands of the Methodists, and further, if they were so disposed, to attempt to control it on this subject, would only hinder their great work, and bring heavier afflictions on "God's suff'ering poor." Let our Lord's rule be enforced, till the rulers and the great body of the people, of both colors, feel its influence, and then will the great Jubilee come, and it is my opinion, it will not come before, unless it be brought about by luar, blood, and revolution. You cannot fail of perceiving, that I am on the ancient Methodist ground, in relation to this subject— the ground trodden by Wesley, Coke, Clarke, Benson, Wat- son, Asbury, Whatcoat, G-arrettson, and many other wise and holy men, who now rest in Heaven." In review of the whole, the Bishop says of the Church, "she has chang- ed her measures," (intending compromise,) "from time to time, as the changes of circum- stances seemed to require, but never her principles." This is enough— we want no more. This extract of manly and luminous statement and reasoning, from Bishop Hedding, is a true and living picture of "Methodism and slavery," and well worthy the attention of the whole Church; nor is there any thu:g in it, variant from the mass of opinion and 23 evidence, we have submitted from the standard writers, the Bishops, and the General Con- ferences of the Church. It is emphatically the doctrine of the Church, the creed of Methodism respecting slavery. It was upon the compromise principles of the Bishop's argument, that Dr. Coke became the owner of slaves, by actual and deliberate pur- chase, as superintendent, under Wesley, of the West India missions. It was too, in precise accordance with this general view of the subject, that the General Conference of 1840 said, '-as emancipation, under such circumstances, (that is, in States wliere it is not practicable, so as to secure the enjoyment of liberty to the freed slave,) is not a requirement of Discipline, it cannot be made a condition of eligibility to office." None need be told, that contrary to this official assurance, the last General Conference did make emancipation, under the very circumstances described, a necessary condition of such eligibility. Again, the Conference says, '-an appeal to the policy and practice of the Church, for fifty years past, will show incontestibly, that whatever may have been the convictions of the Church, with regard to this great evil, the nature and tendency of the system of slavery, it has never insisted upon emancipation, in contravention of civil authority, and it therefore appears to be a well settled and long established prin- ciple, in the polity of the Church, that no ecclesiastical disabilities are intended to ensue, either to the ministers or members of the Church, in those States where the civil au- thority /ori/rfs emancipation." In relation to this grave decision of the General Con- ference, who can help seeing that the General Conference of 1844. directly contradict- ed, contravened and laid it aside, while ecclesiastical disability, under the precise cir- cumstances excepted, was officially decreed. Thus proving, as charged by the Protest, that the good faith of the General Conference of May last, is placed in a very question- able point of view, in the cases of both Harding and Bishop Andrew. The General Conference of 1840 declares further, "that in the Discipline, we have two distinct classes of legislative provision, in relation to slavery, the one applying to owners of slaves, where emancipation is j)racticable, consistently with the safety and interest of masters and slaves, and the other, where it is impracticable, without endangering such safety and these interests, on the part of both. In the latter case 720 disability attaches on the ground of slavery, because the disability attaching in other cases, is here remov- ed by special provision of law." Contrast this declaration with the action of the late General Conference, and that action will be found, a direct violation of an express guaranty by the highest authority of the Church. The same General Conference con- tinues, "may not the principles and causes, giving birth to great moral and politi- cal systems or institutions, be regarded as evil, even essentially evil, in every primary aspect of the subject, without the implication of moral obliquity, on tiie part of those involuntarily connected with su^h systems and institutions, and providentially involved in their operation and consequences? May not a system of this kin3, be jealously re- garded, as in itself more or less inconsistent with natural right and moral rectitude, without the imputation of guilt, and derelict motive, in the instance of those, who without any choice or purpose of their own, are necessarily subjected to its influence and swayl" And if so, in the case of slavery in the United States, what but a com- promise course can be pursued by the Church, without a direct invasion of civil and religious rigiits, growing out of long established relations, consecrated by the sancti- ties of conventional adjustment in the great national compact] About the mere term compromise, I am not disposed to contend — in fact care nothing about it. It was used in the Protest as typing the truth of history, and so used wo yield nothing assumed in the Protest. The use of the term may not have been familiar in tiie North. But that it has been in familiar use, among well informed Methodist 29 preachers and laymen in the South, for a long term of years, I know to be the fact, and certainly did not know, when the Protest was written, that this was not the case in the North. I had heard it used, as I have shown, for more than thirty years, by fluhers end leaders of the Church; and not dreaming that either the term, or the fact it was used to type, would be questioned in any quarter, it was used without consultation with auy one. To what purpose, and with what claim to historical correctness, the question has been mooted by the Reply, and in one or more of the Northern papers of the Church, let those concerned determine at their leisure. A Northern man who was in the;General Conferences of 1796, 1800, 1804, and 1S08, says, in a letter before me, "when we met in General Conference, May 1808, and the report came from the South, what great injury had been done to the progress of religion among the slaves and the free, the Norlli and Soulh mutually agreed to compromise on that subject, and every thing relating to the question of slavery, (as to private members,) was stricken from the Dis- cipline, and each Annual Conference authorized to form its own rules and regulations on the subject of slavery," (in relation to the preachers.) "Why the compromise of 1808, was ever violated, or by what influence the right of each Annual Conference was taken away, I am not able to say. The course pursued from 1812 to 1844, comes within your own knowledge." Another member of all the General Conferences from 1793 to 1»08, says, in a letter with reference to the legislation of 1804, and an attempt to adjust the difficulties of the Church on the Slavery question, "we got the compromise act passed:" and, again, "the compromise act passed at that time, I think was sufficient to satisfy every one up- on the subject, North and South." Another member of every General Conference from 1796 to 1312, and who sides with the North in this controversy, remarks, in a letter re- ceived from him, "as to the conservative rules, I have no recollection when they were not; for what else could wo do? We had no right to make rules in opposition to the laws. As to its being middle ground, on which the North and South met, by way of compro- mise, I always thought it ground on which we met of necessity, not choice." Still they met there, and the fact of compromise is admitted. Another says, "surely it is manifest that the whole course of our legislation on Slavery has been a compromise. The constant effort, indeed, from the beginning, has been to establish and enforce the Old England and New England doctrine and practice of abolition ; but it was ever found to be impracticable, and while abandoned in practice, it was still contrived to keep on record the testimony of that creed." No comment is necessary to show the value of such proofs, as establishing the main position of the Protest on this topic. These men speak of different compromise acts, and the Protest assumes these diflTerent act^s often changed and modified from 1800, but especially 1804 to 1816, as constituting, in sum, the compromise law of the Church on Slavery. The reasons of the legislation, to which these men allude, are distinctly recognized by the General Conference of 1840. "It must be expected that great variety of opinions and diversity of conviction and feeling will be found to exist in relation to slavery, and most urgeotly call for the exercise of mutual forbearance and reciprocal good will on the part of all concerned." With opin- ions so variant, and conviction and feeling so diverse, how can men live and act togeth- er in peace and unity, unless upon the ground of compromise? Before dismissing the topic of compromise, we have other important views to submit on the subject. We maintain, that the moral character of slavery in the United States connects, essentially, with its civil and political aspects and relations, and that apart from the latter, the former cannot be justly conceived of. Every where in the Bible, and it is brought to view directly or allusively in hundreds of instances, slavery is re- 30 garded as a civil regulation, and all ecclesiastical interference should treat it as such. In tiie United States, slavery is mixed up with organic State relations, and involves ori- ginal jural rights. These relations and rights are ordained and declared by the Con- stitution creating the Government of the United States, to be both Federal and Nation- al, pertaining in part to the States confederating, and partly to the Nation, as compos- ed of the contracting parties. The rights arising out of the relations in question, as it respects Slavery, are, by constitutional arrangement, under the protection of the fed- eral power and supreme law of the Nation, and any citizen, or association of citizens, invading these, in any form, or so acting as to reduce their force or value, is, incontes- tibly, guilty of a civil, and we maintain by consequence, amoral trespass. By the com- pact of the constitution, slavery is made an integral part of the basis of Federal and National representation, and this as mucli by tlie act of the North as the South. Against their wishes and remonstrances, especially Virginia and Georgia, it was introduced in- to the Colonies under the high sanction of British I;aw. It is strictly and essentially of jural origin in the United States, and based in the government of the country upon the legislation of National Sovereignty. It is an accredited principle — a well known condition of the national couipact, without which it is equally well known no Union of the States, North and South, would or could have taken place. Slavery is only provin- cial in view of geographical locality ; in all its more important aspects it is Federal and National in its relations and bearings. Viewing the North and South, as each a collec- tion of States, they have long existed distinct historical parties on the subject of slave- ry — parties by constitutional and legislative arrangement — parties by compacts of law, and different and opposite judicial determinations proceeding upon them : each legislating about the negro, slave and free, not only in diverse, but antagonist directions— opposed more or less in interest, feeling, policy and purpose; and is it supposed that the Metho- dist Episcopal Church could diffuse her influence, and marshal her 500,000 ministers and members on either side of the line without the existence, if not formal organization, of parties? The conflicts in every General Conference since 1792, prove the existence of such parties in the Church; and their separate principles have been developed and modified, from time to time, by various forms of repeated practical application, until they have expanded, North and South, into something like distinct systems, involving belief and feeling, strong and tenacious, and deeply interwoven with the practical life and social existence of the people. It has been a result as proper as it was natural and necessary, that the Church, in each of these great national sections, has not been ar- rayed against the policy of the State, but more or less conformed to it. In the Metho- dist Church, the parties in question have always been distinguislied by other character- istics than those already mentioned. The Northern division of the C.'uirch has been, to a great extent, a mcvement party, while the Southern has been stationary and conserva- tive. That the South has been most impulsive and excitable, is admitted. They have an interest at stake, not felt in the North. But that the South has ever attempted agi- tation, or engaged in discussion or controversy on the subject of slavery, except in self-defence, or when assailed from some quarter, uill hardly be assumed by any one. In the history of attempts at legislative change, it will be fotmd that nearly every pro- position for new and further interference has come from the North, while the South has generally simply resisted. The North has proceeded from one extreme and extrava- gance to another, in the denunciation of slavery as a wrong, an evil ; the South admit- ting and feeling it to be an evil, entailed upon them by the ancestral governments of the country, and asking for a remedy that would not be a greater evil. Bleanwile, Southern Methodism has done, even for the frsedum of the negro, a thousand fold more \l an Northern, beside what has been done for the earthly con,rort and final happiness of he slave, as such. The Church, Hke the State, has always presented dual antagonis- tic forces-different primitive types of action, North and South, on the subject of Slave- ry, and until lately, a third force or type distinct from each, but partaking- more or ess of t e character of both, has come in as a bond of mediation and intercourse bet^veen th two, an hold.n. both in check, has given vigour and balance to the social or^an" zatum. But this third conservative power having- coalesced with the more ext^emo Northern party, not as abolitionists, it may be, but acting with them as a common force or party against the South, the equilibrium is destroyed, and the necessity of sep^ araionhas been unequivocally avowed by both parties in General Conference assem- bled. I ,s admitted as a general rule, as it regards State relations, that the x\orth has ostensibly acted upon the principle and policy of concession toward the South respect- ing slavery ; but this was originally for a bonus consideration-was matter of Federal contract, without which the South would not have confederated at all. Did the North concede to the South? So did the South to the North, which found its indemnity in Sou h- ern concession m relation to navigation and commerce, and the provisional n^bt of di- rec taxation, in view of the National revenue. If it be said this latter rightlias rare- ly een asserted, stil it does not affect the argument, fl.r the North has' had gr ,y n 0^ than its equivalent m other respects, especially i„ ,be preferred advantages^of t e tr ff arrangements o the government and country, ever since the adoption of the en! itution, so t at the North has fully realized its own price for the concessions p re - Tr ™liir" '" '-^^ " '''-' '- - - ^'- -' — - ^- very When therefore it is recollected that every fraction of concession we have had from h Wh, IS in redemption of a conventional pledge, the primarv conditions of wl i" hav been realized to t e letter, by the North, the obligations of the South mav app a the ess oppressive as the North refused all concession that did not tend, directly or ind rectly to promote Northern interest. In view of this compromise arran.emen tte North and South are mutually bound to compliance with the stipulations specif ad unless e North pursue a course in relation to slavery, tending to damage So tler'n in res , he South is certainly bound, in honor and good faith, to do nothmg in anvway calculated to reduce the value of what was offered, as an equivalent for Northern con- cession in relation to Southern slavery. And as this matter is vitally connected wh ^;::: s:;^:::::;' ;:^:;;" '--' -'— ^^ -- ^^ --- - ---^^ The abolition of slavery in Pennsylvania took place in 17S0, and other portions of e x^orth were strongly inclined, from various reasons, to a similar course T e ab ohtion movements ot England, about this time, in connection with the exciteme t and movement in Pennsylvania, and further North, operated as motives-as i u 1 t" with the English Methodist Preachers, recently come to this country, to ag aTt e question in the infant societies they had raised, and of course controlled ; and ceo ing y, in the first year of Pennsylvania abolition, we have the Jlrst .-ule m Zot am ng the Methodists in Europe or America, religious zeal being quickened by the po! htica excitement and agitation of the times. A very dissimilar state of things exist- ing at the time, in the South, from that in Pennsylvania and the North generally tl movement was resisted there, alike by Church and State, and hence tlfeTrlfi;,! f parties m both, which have continued ever since formation of rafcorntion 'nsrih "' '" ^-^^''"^-» '" — ks, that -"at the time of the Fede- ral Convention. 1.87, the experience of the States South of Pennsylvania, was such as 32 ,0 produce distrust of their Northern brethren, as to the safety ofthor property in s"a es" Rawle on the Constitution, referring to the same period, observes '.was no eaVy task to reconcile tl>e local interests and discordant prepossessions of the differ- ent sections of the United States, but the business was acconiplished by acts of c^ Tion and mutual condescension." Mr. Madison says, "the Convention found difiicul- ie ot to be described. Mutual deference and concession were absolute y necessary H^d thev been inflexibly tenacious of their individual opinions, they -uM never lia^^ concurred ; it was difficult, extremely difficult, to agree to any general .y tern. Wi h oui (CO cession as to slave property,) the Southern States never woul ave en red int^ t Union of America." Defending the compromise of the Cons itution Gove - nor H ndolph says, "the Southern States conceived their property (in slaves) o be se- cu e by this arr n .ement." Patrick Henry, arguing the necessity ol a const.tutiona Jarantv o hind the North, states "a decided majority of the States-of Cong.^ss-is Nor h--th laves are South." Chief Justice Tighlman, of Pennsylvania, in a decision ff tie S preme Court of that State, says, "whatever may be our private opinions on U.e sJit of slavery, it is well known that our Southern brethren would not have con.ent- become parties to the Constitution, unless their property in slaves l-d - secur- ed." Chancellor Kent, speaking of this constitutional arrangement observes it u^s tit result of neccssitv, and grew out of the fact of the existence of slavery in a por- tr f c u ry. The evil has been of too long standing, and is too extensive and o cep root'ed to be speedily eradicated, or even to be discussed u.thout grea Lament rand discretion." The Hon. H. Clay stated, in debate in the Senate of the U uTd S tes, ..he Constitution of the United States never co.ld have been formed up- on the principle of investing the General Government with authority o ^^^^^ stitution of slavery at pleasure. It never can be continued for a single day, if the ex Ice of such power be assumed or usurped." Speaking of the general subject of !averv as sanctioned bv the Federal Constitution, the American Quarterly Revie^v says, "'the slave holding States (alone) have the right, the power, and the capacity to '^TL'whoirciin'ent of political and judicial opinion, in the entire history of the gov- ernment treats the subject as originally adjusted, and only susceptible of being man- led by compromise. The Hon. D. Webster asks, "if we begin to d sturb ike la.nce oTLL, (on the subject of slavery,) where shall we stopl" Justice Shaw, o Massa- chusetts «ays, "the Constitution of the United States partakes both of the nature of a treatv and of the form of a government. Before the adoption of the Constitution, the States were, to a certain extent, sovereign and independent, and were m a condition to settle the terms on which they would form a more perfect union. The constitution of the United States regards the States, to a certain extent, as sovereign and independent communities, with full powers to make their own laws and regulate .heir own policy, and fixes the terms upon which thoir intercourse with each other shall be conducted. Slavery is not contrary to the law of nations. The Constitution affords effectual security to the owners of slaves. The States have a plenary power to make all laws necessary for the ro-^ulation of slavery, and the rights of slave owners, while the slaves remain within their territorial limits." Every Northern man, every abolitionist even, where- ever found, as a citizen of the United States, is a party in solemn and public treaty with every Southern man-every slaveholder-as the other party, not to disturb the right of nroperiv in this respect, nor in any way thwart tiie intended purposes of its constimtion- a guar nty ; and by how far this may be done, by so far the obligations of good uith and citizens. ip arc not only departed from, but violated. Justice Story says, "the slave 33 holding- States insisted on a representation strictly according' to numbers; the non- slaveholding States contended for a representation according to the number of free per- sons only. The controversy was full of excitement, and was maintained with so much obstinacy on each side, that the Convention was more than oncR on the eve of dissolu- tion. At length the present system was adopted by way of compromise; it was a ne- cessary concession to thespirit of conciliation on which the Union was founded. View- ed as a measure of compromise, it is entitled to great praise." And certainly those who fail to act upon it, (whether in or out of the Church,) are entitled to great blame. The Hon. Edward Everett says, "it was deemed a point of the highest policy, by the non-slaveholding States, notwithstanding the existence of slavery in their sister States, to enter with them into the present Union, on the basis of the constitutional compact. That no union could have been formed on any other basis, is a fact of historical notori- ety, and it is asserted in terms by Gen. Hamilton, in the reported debates of the New York Convention for adopting the Constitution. This compact expressly recognizes the existence of slavery, and concedes to the States where it prevails, the most import- ant rights and privileges connected with it. Every thing that tends to disturb these re- lations, is at war with its spirit, and whatever, by direct or necessary operation is cal- culated to excite an insurrection among slaves, has been held, by highly respectable legal authority, an offence against the peace of the Commonwealth, which may be pro- secuted as a misdemeanor at common law. Our Fathers, the Adamses, the Hancocks, and other eminent patriots of the Revolution, although fresh from the battles of liber- ty, and approaching the question as essentially an open one, deemed it, nevertheless, expedient to enter into a Union with our brothers of the slaveholding States, on the principle of forbearance and toleration on this subject." Dr. Frost says, "it was a compromise of conflicting interests." Chief Justice Parker, of Massachusetts, holds the following language with regard to the slave holding States : "They might have kept aloof from the Constitution. That instrument was a compromise. It was a compact by which all are bound. We then entered into an agreement that slaves should be considered as property. Slavery would still have continued if no Constitution had been made." Chief Justice Robertson, al- luding to the adjustment of the slavery question in the Constitution of the United States, says, "it was the subject of a sacred compromise, which it would be neither safe nor just for either party, without the other's consent, ever to disturb." Alluding to the same subject, the Edinburgh Review observes, "American Statesmen labored, from the first, under two great difficulties, against which they have struggled on, by compromise and evasion — we mean the questions arising out of slavery, &c." Chief Justice Jay confirms the general opinion, "the Convention who formed and recommended the new Constitution, had an arduous task to perform, especially as local interests, and, in some measure, local prejudices were to be accommodated. Several of the States conceived that restraints on slavery might be too rapid, to consist with their particular circum- stances, and the importance of union rendered it necessary that their wishes on that head should, in some degree, be gratified." How they were consulted, and what ad- justment took place, we have seen. Alluding to this topic, the Rev. Mr. Freeman, of the North, remarks, of the compromise of the Constitution, "it concerns rights of pro- perty secured by the Federal compact, upon which our liberties mainly depend. It is a part of ths collection of political rights, the least invasion of any one of which would, of course, impair the tenure by which every other is held. When the Federal compact was formed, the entire abolition of slavery was a favorite object with many, but they knew that this or the Union must be surrendered. They had no alternative but to leave it as they 5 34 found it existing intlie South, or fail of the great desideratum of a Union of the States. The legal construction is, that the South, who hold slaves, retain the right of exclusive regulation over them ; which right the United States cannot touch." He adds, "any measures, on our part, of a coercive nature, or calculated to disturb the domestic ar- rangements of the South, would be a violation of our political contract, and of good faith. Whatever we do, should be so done as not to put in jeopardy the peace of the slave holding States. It is not enough to say that the Constitution is violated by any action endangering the slave holding portion of our country — a higher law than the Constitution forbids this unholy interference." A judicious observer remarks, of the gradual abolition of slavery in the United States, "in undertaking a work of this mag- nitude, compromises will be found as necessary as they were in forming the Federal compact." An influential English Journal has recently attempted to prove, at length, that the "only barrier to general emancipation, in the United States, is the Federal Un- ion, which defies alike humanity and reform." Testimonies to this effect might be mul- tiplied indefinitely, but it cannot be necessary. Such, then, is the true position of the North on this question, nor can they separate tiieir moral from their civil relations, as paities to th^ Constitution : they are all, by deliberate consent, connected with slavery, and if they get rid of it, without the consent of the Southern States, unless these shall violate the national compact, they get rid of truth, honor, and good character, at the same time. It is, too, a well understood prin- ciple of law and morality, in the construction of compromises, that the temper of the parties which led to compromise, remains one of its conditions; and either party of- fending, in this respect, violates an important obligation contracted in becoming a par- ty. Let this be applied to the slavery question, and its application will be seen at once. Legislative contracts are common in all governments, having the force, some- times, of treaty, and sometimes of compromise, and often both. That this is the char- acter of the national'compact, binding every citizen, church members as well as others, it would be worse than stupid to deny. That the result of all legislation in the Meth- odist Church, has been a standing la^D of forbearance, conformably to civil obligation, has been shown with equal clearness, thus showing that tlio compromise of the Protest has been the household law of the Church ever since the subsidence of the first aboli- tion excitement, under the early English Preachers. Abstract law, involving compro- mise, can only be carried into effect by acts of kindness, and the ministry of the affec- tions, without which it is a lifeless text, unexplained by living example, and must fail to accomplish the purposes of its enactment. This view of the subject applies equally to North and South, and should be well considered by both. It has been repeatedly decided, and is a commonly received truth, both in common law and equity jurisprudence, that a simple decree, in form of law, may be proved a treaty compact or compromise, by showing the original relative position of tlie parties interested, and the obvious indications of purpose and intention as inferable from the external circumstances, leading to the action assumed and admitted. Law, viewed in the light of reason, purpose, motive, should always be explained by the context ; that is, the circumstances giving it birth. This is what the Protest meant by the reasons of law, instead of the strange misconceptions of the Reply. In abatement of the force of this reasoning, it has been urged, with some show of plausibility, tiiat, mixed up with the compromises of the Constitution, was the conventional understanding, that the South should address itself to the work of emancipation, after 1>0S, as it had not done before. In reply to this, three facts are especially worthy ot notice. Lst, A perma- nent provision of the Constitution contemplates and authorizes a d;lTerent result, ^d' 3f5 What is assumed, was long' and tenaciousJy exacted as a condition of Union, and per- emptorily refused by the South, whether in whole or in part — the South refusing to con- federate, unless the control of ihe difficulty siioukl be left to the States directly involv- ed in it, without the rightof other States to interfere in anyway. But, 3d, It is well known that a large portion of the South were favorable to gradual emancipation, provi- ded any disposition could bo made of the free black population, consistent with the welfare of the States giving them freedom. It was early ascertained, however, that both the old and the new free States were inexorably resolved to exclude the free black population, as far as possible, from their limits, and throw the whole burden upon the South, although the slave trade of the North had been the principal means of filling the South with slavery; and this state of things imposed upon the South the necessity, and gave them the right, of managing this most difficult question in the best way they could, in view of the common welfare of all concerned. On this subject, Mr. Webster remarks, "In my opinion the domestic slavery of the Southern States is a subject within the exclusive control of the States them.selves, and this, I am sure, is the opinion of the North. Congress has no authority to interfere in the emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, in any of the States. This was so resolved by the House of Representatives, when Congress sat in New York, in 1790, on the report of a committee consisting almost entirely of Northern members, and I do not know an instance of the expression of a different opinion, in either house of Congress, since. The servitude of so great a portion of the population of the South is undoubtedly regarded at the North as a great evil, political and moral, but it is re- garded, nevertheless, as an evil, the remedy of which lies with those Legislatures, (Southern,) to be provided and applied according to their own sense of policy and du- ty." General Washington, in urging the adoption of the Federal Constitution, in vie v/ of a Union of the Stales, says, in language which should never be forgotten, "I do most solemnly believe that this or dissolution awaits us, and is the 07ily alternative." Let this language of Washington be borne in mind, in connection with the fact, that the reasons and necessity which influenced the judgment of Washington, in 1787, have been increasing in number and weight ever since. Must not every person of ordinary discernment perceive that compromise is the great conservative principle of both the political and the social system in the United States, and so far as the Church or ecclesias- tical legislation shall fail to conform to this principle of Union, the Church must bear- rayed against the State, and hostile to its most vital interest, so far as these may be dependant upon such Union. The subject of slavery being, as all must admit, compro- mised in the Constitution of the United States, and all citizens of all the States, free and slave, being parties to the compromise, all law, and of course any possible form of ecclesiastical jaw, not in harmony with this arrangement, must infringe the guaran- ty of the great national compact. If it be said the Church is a voluntary associa- tion, with fixed conditions of membership, it does not affect the reasoning, for every such compact necessarily :5ubject to the higher, is, in itself unlaufid, unless in confor- mity with the greater over-riding it, and to which every citizen of the United States is a party. It is not intended to denounce the motives or conduct of those who may be opposed to the Constitution, in this respect, provided they do not resist its control, or seek to change it by improper means. But it is intended to say, that those who act so as to do the one or the other, cannot be regarded as good citizens. It is meant to say, that any attempt, by the Church, or ecclesiastical authority, to contravene civil law or in- validate civil rights, is not only without warrant from the Bible, but pours contempt upon the word of God, and the admitted obligations of the christian profession. Slavery in the 36 Southern States, viewed as limited confederating sovereignties, is local and provincial ; but as it regards the Union of the States, it is Federal and National, by contract of the Con- stitution itself; and every essay, individual or social, by Churcli or State, to unsettle the compromise of that instrument, reduces the value, and endangers the perpetuity of the Union. And that large portions of the Methodist Episcopal Church are beginning to act no unconspicuous part in this respect, (however unintentionalh',) is a prevalent opinion in the South, and when it is disavowed, let the grounds of this opinion be set aside by sat- isftictory evidence ; and until this is done, all denial will be mere declamation. Unless the national pledge of the Constitution, binding every citizen of the confede- racy, is violated by the North, there is no likeliliood of disturbance, or revolt by the slaves and free negroes of the South. If disturbance and revolt should take place, it will be upon direct or virtual invitation from the North ; and that the North may have no reason or pretext for such a course, it greatly, imperatively, behooTes the South not to withhold from the North, any consideration, claim, or indemnity, authorized by the compromise of the Constitution. I would invoke the South to cherish its honor and consult the interests of the whole Union in this respect. That general emancipa- tion, if pressed upon us by the North, would lead to revolt and conflict, admits of no doubt. In the proportion, therefore, that individuals, political parties, or churches, ehall lend themselves to a course of action calculated to bring about such a result, and the consequent disunion of these States, by aggression upon Southern rights, in the same proportion will history hold them accountable for the treason. It is a grave sug- gestion, and we ask that it may be gravely considered. If the North cannot proceed much further, without danger to the South, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, shall continue to encourage aggression, after the fashion of the late General Confer- ence proceedings, and prior Methodist movements in the North, wiiat must be consid- ered the true attitude of the Church, with regard to her pledge in the Constitution of the United States, to say nothing of her own abused legislation on the subject? Who will fail to perceive, that, in retreating from the evil, by a peaceful separation of juris- diction, the South are seeking to prevent an issue to which the North are pushing us with unrelenting purpose? We ask not the North to approve slavery. We do not ask them to cease warring against it, so far as such war may be protected by right. But we do ask the North to respect justice and good faith, in connection with the ori- ginal compact, and subsequent compromises, binding the North and the South together as one great people. The fact will obtrude itself, as we proceed, upon the common sense of every reader, that the same specific reasons, calling for a compromise adjust- ment in our political, require it in our ecclesiastical relations, North and South; and the numerous proofs of this Review, drawn from a great variety of unrelated sources, will show that the result has been the same with regard to both. Accordingly, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, while the existing law, from time to time disapproved the system of slavery, it distinctly offered the overture, that, under specified circumstances, slave holding should not be urged in bar to any of the rights and privileges of the mem- bership or ministry, and hence the compromise, so stoutly denied by the Reply. From the suggestive character of much of the reasoning we have introduced, the discerning reader will have perceived that the compromise argument of the Protest may be viewed with advantage to its evidence, in other points of light. Even tiie common law of so- ciety, regulating social intercourse between the North and the South, since the abolition of slavery in tlic former, has been one of compromise, without which, such intercourse must have been as unpleasant as limited and inconvenient. And how handsomely and generously this law has been acted upon, by the Storeys, the Wobsters, and the Everetts, 37 and intelligent thousands in the North, (upon whom, and their like in the South, de- pend the hopes of the country,) none need be told. It is Religious Fajialics and Polil- ical Demagogues, whose vandal abuse of the law of comit}', between the North and the South, is working the ruin of our Constitutional Union. But again : all law is a con- tract, and equivalence of consideration is presumed to be the motive determinintr the parties, necessarily existing under every government, to consent and submission. Dis- turb, then, one of the contracting parties in the possession and use of the equivalent, always implied, so that expected advantage is not realized, and the result is a violation of contract, and an impairment of right. Let this principle be applied, in the case of the Southern Methodist slave holder, say Harding or Bishop Andrew, with the legislation and assurances of the Church full in view, and can the conclusion be resisted, that the Church is disposed to meddle with rights and principles, guarantied by the stipulations of law, contrary to public assuran- ces given by the Church] Justice Story says, "any law which enlarges, abridges, or in any manner changes the inleniion of the parlies, (in contracts, whether of law or otherwise,) resulting, (by fair inference,) from the stipulations in the contract, neces- sarily impairs it." He adds: "a grant made by a State to a private individual, (and of course by a Church to a minister or member,) and accepted by him, is a contract, and cannot be revoked by any future law." So also, "a charter granted by the State to a company, is a contract, and equally binding to the State as to the grantee." Take now the "law," the "grant," the "charter," of the Methodist Episcopal Church, pledging that under circumstances specified, her Southern ministers and members, shall not be dis- turbed by the Church with regard to the slaves they may so hold, and compare it with the action and avowed policy of the Majority in this contest, and what is the inference? Apply the above well known principle of law and equity, to the contract character of the legislation of the Church on slavery, which is a property as well as a moral question, and will it not be seen, that the Protest on this subject, is but too full of truth and rea- son] We introduce, on this subject, for the purpose of proof and illustration, numer- ous analagous principles, facts, and cases, not merely to prove the doctrine of the Pro- test, but also to show, with what claim to candor and acquaintance with the subject, the Reply opposes to it the most confident denial, and treats the whole topic, as scarcely worthy even the sneer of superior information, with which it is dismissed. Havino- al- luded to ihe property aspect of the question, it is not unworthy of notice here, that it would seem to have been the purpose of the Church, to give it secular and civil, rather than the high moral rank claimed for it, by the late General Conference, inasmuch as the section on slavery, in the Discipline, is excluded from the moral part of it, u-here it was once found, and comes in under the head of "Temporal Economy of the Methodist Episcopal Church," ostensibly at least, treating the subject as one involving the legal relations of property, a.ndilhereforG not within the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical law. Bat that the Church has claimed, and continues to claim, the authority to interfere with the civil rights of her ministers, as it regards slave property, it is useless to deny, and the difficulty and delicacy of such claim, must always connect with the fact, that by spe- cial compact and deliberate compromise, in the Federal Constitution, such rights are placed beyond the reach of any kind of infringement, without an invasion of constitu- tional right. No other species of property in the nation, is in the same category. By this time perhaps, the reader will be pretty well prepared to decide upon the force of one of the principal positions of the Reply, that the warranted protection of the rights of slave holders, by the constitution and laws of the United States, and the States res- pectively where slavery exists, can be no ground of argument in this discussion. It 38 may be seen that wliilein some States the citizen is not, in others, as in Georgia, he is ••required" to Iiold slaves— that instead of simply "allowing" a citizen to do so, when- ever he becomes tiie owner of slaves, they throw about him legal constraint and imniu- nily, at the same time. Legislation upon the principle of mutual accommodation, has always been regarded fis a legal compromise. The Reply admits a struggle in the Church for sixty years. No struggle of course, could exist without parties, and finally the parties meeting on ground, not the first choice of either, the result is compromise. Unable to see by means of the same optics, on the subject of slavery, how was it possible for the Nortli and South to unite and co-operate, except on the ground of compromise? The very showing of the Reply, furnishes the premises from which, in part at least, the conclusion of the Protest is drawn. A slight examination of the Protest will show, thai it was not in- tended to speak of any special statute or enactment, but of the purpose and spirit of general law, declared by special acts at different time?, and adjudications had upon them as giving the character of a compromise to our legislation. All these, with their various relations, reasons and bearings, are brought in, in aggregation, and compromise is assumed as the result. In charging upon the Majority want of good faith, in dis- regarding this compromise, it is plain the Protest intended, and we still think most justly, to represent the law as a declaration of trust, the object of the trust created, be- ing the protection of character and right, imder icell defined circumstances. But the Ma- jority proceeded to withdraw the protection and destroy the relief afforded by law, and in- stead of the protection and relief pledged by law, actually infict the ivrong it was the purpose of the law to prevent. On the final legislation of the Church respecting slave- ry, Dr. Bangs says, "various enactments had been passed from one General Conference to another, willi a view to regulate the practice of slavery in the Methodist Episcopal Church— an evil this, which it seemed impossible to control, much less to eradicate from the ranks of our Israel. From the organization of the Church in 1784, slavery had be€*n pronounced an evil, and a variety of expedients had been resorted to for the pur- pose of lessening its deleterious tendencies, where it seemed unavoidably to exist. Finding, however, tliat the evil was beyond the control of ecclesiastical law, as to its erad- ication from the Church — the General Conference so modified the section in the Dis- cipline on slavery, as to read" — as it now does. This is the faithful language of his- tory, and gives a clear idea of the compromise action of the Church, in the management of this most impracticable difficulty. "Such may, through the force of circumstances, be- come the state of society, that great moral evils may be tolerated, where the conviction is clear, that acts of prohibition would produce evils far more extensive and far more to bo deprecated. So damaged, or disordered, or complicate, by the practice or misfor- tunes of a former age, may become the very texture of society, and so peculiar the re- lations, which as a people we sustain to each other, that an immediate and entire correc- tion of the evil, may be impracticable ; and that, therefore, neither individnnls nor so- ciety, are bound to attempt it." — Plea for Africa. "We do indeed tenderly sympathize with those portions of our Church and country, where the evil of slavery has been en- tailed upon them, where a great and the most virtuous part of the community, abhor slavery and wish its extermination, as sincerely as any others ; but where the number of slaves, their ignorance and vicious habits generally, render an immediate and univer- sal emancipation inconsistent alike with the safety and iiappiness of the master and slave." — General Assembly Presbyterian Church. The remedial compromise course re- commended in these extracts, involves the principle intended to be protected by the law of exception, as distinguished from that of the general rule, in section lOlh of the Dis- cipline. The argument of the Reply, is without any semhlance of pertinence or force, in all those cases coming under the provisional exception of the Discipline, that is, where emancipation is impracticable, without an evasion or violation of law, and these were the very cases to which the Reply was confined, by the premises of the argument. The laws of nearly all the Southern States, forbid emancipation ; it is the civil duty of the citizen not to attempt it ; and in many of the States, as in Georgia, severe penalties ac- company the prohibition. Is this true of the absurd and offensive examples urged by the Majority as analagons? Does Southern !aw forbid the voluntary discontinuance of the theatre, the grog-shop, the card tabic, or race course? If not, what becomes of the sophistry by which it is gravely attempted to overthrow the reasoning of the Pro- test? Although the slave is not a citizen proper, yet the common denunciation that he is a mere chattel, &c., betrays alarming ignorance or want of candor. He is directly recognized as an inhahiiant, and is represented as such in the National Legislature. He is an inhahiiant in charge, under the guardianship of a citizen proper, and this civil relation is created and protected by the supreme and municipal law of this country. Both create an essential ditference between property in slaves, and all other kinds of property, and hence the absurdity as well as injustice of the position above. Was it competent for a free and sovereign people, in organizing a government for themselves, to decide that they would have among them, by allowing them to remain, a class of human beings, introduced into the country without their agency, by subjecting them to the kind of inhabitanci/ just described? If yea, then what right has a Church to med- dle with such civil arrangement? Is the right derived from their own civil relations? We have seen, that any original right they may have had, has been surrendered by con- tract. And what is their religious right? Before any can be established, they must first prove a right to resist civil authority, and also a right, secondly, to abolish the re- lation in question. If nay, be the answer— then the Church is in conflict with the gov- ernment, and government, rather than the civil relation established by it, becomes the proper object of attack, and all interference with the subject is beginning to assume its legitimate character of opposition to government and civil authority. Great declama- tory stress is laid upon the inconsistency of slavery, with the freedom and equality as- sumed in behalf of all men, in the Declaration of National Independence, and the high character and insulted shades of the signers of that instrument, are invoked in argu- ment and declamation, against the allowableness of slavery as an element of the poli- tical organization. This Declaration was the noble deed of a noble band of patriots, and was considered as binding the nation, because the act of their representatives. It sliould not be forgotten however, that the same and kindred conscript fathers, were the authors of the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution of the United Staters, in both which, they acted upon the declared principle, that the people of the confederating States, could never become one nation, without a compromise, fixed and conclusive in its terms, on the subject of slavery, and the ichole people, North as well as South, rati- fied an arrangement to this eJJ'ecL Why such frequent and flippant appeals to the De- claration, never intended as a rule of action, to the utter disparagement of the Consti- tution, ordained as d/je^/eai rz«'e o/ arii/Dn «)///» all concerned.' The Declaration com- mits the people to general principles only, the Constitution binds them to a given course of conduct. It is their own act, not that of their representatives merely. It is the covenant oath and witness of their national existence, honor, and safety ; and the man who can violate this covenant stipulation, as elsewhere explained, under cover of 40 Church relationship, creed, conscience, or party organization, is an unworthy and dan- gerous citizen of the United States. And every Church attempting to control the ques- tion of slavery, upon any other than the compromise principle guarantied, yj^rt soIe?jini, by the whole people of the United States, is guilty of an attempt to unsettle a principle, upon the adjuslment of which, the original fact of confederation turned exclusively ; and such Church fo acting, must prove dangerous to the union of the United Stales. The true doctrine of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as avowed and published up to the last General Cunference, has been, that tolerating slavery, in the membership, she has required her ministers, in view of orders, to free themselves from slavery, if connected with it, where it could be done consistently with the laws, and the welfare of the libe- rated slave. Beyond this the Church has not gone. Vie have shown this to be, in substance, the opinion of the Bishops and of the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840, in their official addresses. Evidence to the same effect, has been brought to bear from a great variety of sources, all tending to present the legislation of the Church on the subject of slavery, in its true and proper light, as based upon the principles of conventional compromise in conformity with tlie civil compact betvveen the North and the South. We have seen at every step, that there has been real and bona fide compro- mise, although nominal baptism to this effect, may have been wanting. We regard, too, the legislation of the Church, as we have exhibited it, not only as rational and safe, but as much more accordant with the Scriptures, than the plans and projects to which it stands opposed. If we survey the entire aspect, in which the whole subject is pre- sented in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments ; if we turn to the fathers of the first four centuries of tlte christian era, as likely to reflect in their writings, the decisions of Inspiration in the case ; if we take the occasional notices of profane histo- ry on the subject ; it will be seen, that while the moral code of Judaism and the genius of Christianity may stand opposed to slavery, as one of the many forms of civil oppres- sion, and inconsistent with our conceptions of natural right, and the promised regene- ration of human society, there is, nevertheless, in all these records, a distinct recogni- tion of the jural origin of slavery, and its necessary connection with civil polity, and we no where, in any of them, meet with the language of denunciation and overthrow, with regard to it. There is no attempt to alter or disturb the relation, but simply to prescribe and inculcate the duties arising out of it, and revealing the retributions con- sequent upon any and every abuse of it. Indeed the whole subject as discussed by Christianity and managed by the primitive Ciiurch, is presented as one, not to be con- trolled or disposed of by either, except in due subordination to the civil authority, and the regulations of law, in which it has its origin. And in this great primary fact, we see, in principle, the true prototype of the conflict of laws, and consequent compromise treat- ment of the question, about which wo have had occasion to say so much. Contrast this with any true picture of modern abolition and anti-slavery, and in what do they agree? Heaven and Hell are scarcely less resembling. The one is a quiet garden scene, the other a stormy Pontus, "casting up mire and dirt." In connection with the general argument of the preceding pages, it is important to call attention again to the judgment of the General Conference of ISiO. At this Conference two large committees wore appointed on slavery and abolition, one the usual standing committee, consisting of a member from each Annual Conference, the other a special committee of nine members of the body, upon the well understood controversy, known as the "Westmoreland case." In addition to the matters referred to this latter committee, by resolution of the Conference, the committee were respectfully requested, by all the Bishops in coun- cil, when it was ascertained that the general committee did not intend to do so, to pre- 41 sent a full and analytical vieic of the whole law of the Church on slaver u, particularly in relation to the rights of the different grades of the rainistrv, as affected by slave hold- Jng, so that all discordant vie^-s and discrepancies in adnimistration might, if possible, be conclusively adjusted and settled, by authority of the General Conference, and the committee had this specific object in view, in making the elaborate report from which we have already made several extracts. The report was adopted with great unanimity, in fact without a negative voice in the body. This report was looked to as settling the diftculties It was intended to remove, and was fully relied upon by the South, as secu- ring all they desired in the premises. The decisior. of the General Conference, to which we ask attention, is too precise and unmistakable in language and meaning to admit of misconstruction, without an intention to deceive. -While the g-eneral rule (law,) on the subject of slavery, relating to those States, whose laws admit of eman- cipation, and permit the liberated slave to enjoy freedom, should be firmlv and constant ly enforced, the exception to the general rule, (law,) applying to those States where emancipation, as defined above, is not practicable, should be recognized and protected, v^iin eqna] fir7nness and impartialiti/.'' ''Therefore, -Resohed by the severed Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That under the provisional exception of the general rule (/a«.,) of the Church, on the sub- ject of slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere ownership of slave property, in Slates or Territories where the laws do not admit of emancipation, and permit the libera- ted slave to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal earkier to the election or ordination of ministers to the VAKWVs grades of office, known in the ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and cannot, therefore, be considered as operating any forfeiture of rightinricicot such election and ordination.- Here is a solemn declaration, to the Church and the world, explanatory of an existing law, by the supreme judicial authori- ty of tne Cnurch, gravely announcing, that simple slave holding or ownership of slaves in States and Territories where emancipation is not practicable, and the liberated slave no. allowed to enjoy freedum, is not, in any way, a legal barrier to election and ordina- tion, and cannot operate any forfeiture of right, on the part of any minister of any grade, (Deacon, E.aer or Eishop,) in the Methodist Episcopal Church. And yet Drs. Durbin. Peck, and Elliott, ns solemnly declare, that the Church has always let it be known that slave holding, even under the provisional exception of the law, would, in the case of Bishops operate the forfeiture of right, which the General Conference stipulates, by formal decision, shall not take place, in the instance of any grade of ministers. And accordingly, without any change of the law, and in the very face of the above declara- tion of right, the last General Conference did, directly and outrightly, and under the precise circumstances specified, as rendering such action impossible, what the publiclv pledged faith of the Church had said, four years before, should not be done. Whether this amounts to the want of good faith, assumed in the Protest, let the good sense and upright feeling of the Church and world determine. Let us now turn to the back ground of tlie picture. It is more than two hundred years since the introduction of slaverv into this country under the exclusive direction of the British government. The colonies had no will or agency in bringing about this result, and it is a well known fact, that it was in contra- vention of their wishes. During this entire term, slaves have been reco..nized and held as property, under all the forms of government known to the country, Tnd the Church. should not Jorget. that it was the christian governments of Europe," in the 16th and 1/th centuries, by which slavery, as a civil and domestic institution, was re-introduced and re-established among civilized nations, after its nominal abolition amon^ the Wes- 42 tern Gothic nations of thnt continent. And the christian European powers did, too, what had never been done before; they restricted ttie doom of serviuide to a sinj^le par- ticular race, and linked the destinies of slavery, in the system they established, with the nesrro family. That it was an outrage, is felt and admitted by all. That all have a right to seek the removal of the evil, is as readily admitted. It is, however, so in- terwoven with the very existence and life blood of a large portion of society, in this country, that it has long been a desideratum hoio this can be done, without the introduc- tion of greater evils. We have seen that the people of the non-slave holding States, have no right to attempt to control the question, in any form. Their right to appeal and remonstrance, provided they do not resort to means calculated to agitate and excite, and thus inflict direct injury upon the South, is not denied, it is believed, in any quar- ter. As a riglit of comity, it is admitted. All attempts, however, to compel or force the South, by exciting the popular mind, trying to produce disaffection among slaves, and so disturbing the social system, as to impair the value of conceded rights, and en. danger the common welfare, are barred by the Constitution, and will always meet with prompt and determined resistance from the South. But further, Iiowever it may be re- gretted, it cannot be disguised, that negro slavery now exists, connected with reputed inferiority of race, and the incurable disability of color, and both tending, however un- reasonably or unjustly, to perpetuate the evil. Unhappily in the enslavement of the negro, the worse than misfortune, the universal ignominy of color, adds to the hard- ship of servitude, and becomes a part of his evil destiny, even where that servitude is exchanged for nominal freedom. In this melancholy state of things, the outrage upon natural right, which all slavery implies, is made to derive countenance and support from nature herself, for it is but too true, that hitherto, all races of men in all time, have united, however wrongfully, in decreeing to the negro a separate social condition, and by consequence, destiny. Even when mixed up with other races, the negro has not been allowed to mingle. And it is a very singular fact, that the English, whether in Europe or America, have cherished the principle of exclusion, to which we allude, be- yond any other race known in history. Slavery at one time, was general throughout the colonies and afterwards States. But there were physical and invincible reasons in the North, why slavery should not obtain there, in the way and to the extent it did South. It was introduced and tried, but did not u-orkwell. The severity of the climate, poverty of the soil, and a necessary appeal, at an early date to manufactures and commerce as the staple pursuits of productive en- terprise, and to jwhich slave labor was found inapplicable, all tended to expel slavery from the North. The slave was soon found to be a bad bargain, upon the hands of the si^rewd producer. The constant influx too, of European adventurers, English, Irish, Scotch, Dutch, Swiss, and so of the rest, filling up the North to avoid competition with the more regular system of slave labor South, soon rendered Northern slave labor un- profitable, by the superiority and greater cheajiness of free labor, so that tiie political economy of the North alone, was quite sufiicient to either emancipate the Northern ne- gro, or send him a slave to the South. It was the interest and policy of the North, to get rid of the negro. It was a speculation worthy of Northern sagacity. Not so with the South. As early as the first instance of Nortiiern abolition, the slave question was one of lifeand death with the South. It was then and continues to be, vitally connected with the tenure by which life is held, and the order of society maintained. The greater value of the slave South, had been a centripetal force gradually attracting the slave from the North, for a long term of years, until wiien emancipation began, there was found but a small number to be got rid off*. Tiieir sale to Southern purchasers, had greatly 48 thinned the North of slaves as "unprofitable servants," and prepared the way for the emancipation of the balance. Northern humanity, which forbade the sale of the negro within the limits of Northern States, did not forbid his transportation and sale in the South, and to this process, the North owes a large share of its boasted freedom from slavery. Reasons have always existed in the South, both for the introduction and continuance of slavery, which never existed in the North, and it was as much the interest of the North to abolish slavery, as it was of the South to retain it. It was a business arrangement, resulting from motives of interest and policy with both, the South having the additional plea of its own safety to urge in the case. The North knew that to abolish slavery, was to banish the negro. The South knew that to abol- ish slavery, was to turn the negro loose, in countless numbers, without restraint or control. Its abolition North presented no danger, tlien or in prospect; but it is admit- ted on all hands, that its abolition South, at any time, for at least sixty years past, would have been attended with the most imminent danger. Even were the Southern States to try the experiment of keeping in slavery the present generation, while making legal provision for the freedom of the next, it would establish a principle, in the view of the mass of slaves, which would give birth to an amount of impatience and irritation, en- dangering the safety of the whole South. What was safe and laudable in the North, would have been suicidal and ruinous in the South. The inutility of slavery mino-led with and strengthened the religious convictions of the North. One of the fundamental principles of all slavery, the interest of the master, was attacked in the North, and made its appropriate impression. During all this period, however, emancipatiun in the South, without the removal of the negro, would have been, not Southern but National madness, for it would only have disposed and prepared the two races for mutual de- struction. Any state of things, tending to disturb the existing relations between the races in the South, and which does not at the same time, contemplate the removal of one, must lend to the destruction of one or both of them. Since the foundation of so- ciety, the white and black races have never co-existed, under the same government on equal footing, and never can. If the two races, as is entirely certain, cannot mingle, they must, as it regards equality of intercourse, wholly separate, and where the num- ber of blacks is considerable, such separation without removal is impossible, except in a state of slavery or civil discord. The whole order of society in the United States, must be first subverted and then re-modeled, before the negro can, by possibility, derive and enjoy the same benefits of society with the white man. It is incontestiblv true of the whole North, from Maine to Illinois, that in the proportion the legal distinctions between the white rnan and negro are abolished, new barriers to any thing like equality of intercourse, are studiously thrown up by the white population, by means of which, the negro is re-enslaved, and more hopelessly doomed, to all the disadvantages of both caste and condition. The whole course of the North, for half a century, proclaims their purpose and policy, not to mingle with the negro, and yet they are incessantly pursu. ing a course, the object of which is to compel the South to mingle with them, for this the South must do in some form, or else keep them in slavery, unless they can be removed. The repugnance of which we speak, is invincible. Nature, not less than the habit and the associations of ages, has established visible and indelible signs and reasons of separa- tion. If we subdue and overcome the mere fact of servitude, the evil remains, as it re- gards the actual condition and welfare of the negro, and in most instances is increased beyond estimation. Wherever they are found, the free negroes of this country are de- prived of all the more important privileges of social humanity, and are literally suffer- ing a debasement, in every thing except the name, worse than slavery. At every con- 44 tact with society tlipy are repulsed and put down. Their very color renders thein alien to all about tliem — to every other race. They have no country, and unprepared by their previous destiny to obey the voice and submit to the dictates of law and reason, few of them act as though they had any property in themselves. Thousands oF them perish annually for want of the protection and supply realized in a state of slavery. After an experiment of fifty years in the North, no elevation of the*>negro character, no im- provement of their condition has taken place. As slavery recedes the prejudice against the negro increases. All the non-slave iiolding States, and especially those where slave- ry has never existed, are intolerant even of the presence of the negro. Look at the im- partial humanity of Ohio and other free States, whose laws e.xclude not only the slave but tiie "free and equal" negro, and deny him not merely the right of holding property but even of residence. It is unlawful for any citizen of Ohio to employ a negro {free of course,) to do a day's work to keep him from starving, unless he shall have first given security, both for maintainance and good behavior. The whole movement of the North — the entire policy of the free States, has been a system of death to the negro. In their miserable freedom, so called, they have died at the rate of two to one, in a state of slavery. Interest or humanity may abolish abstract slavery, but the interposi- tion of omnipotence seems necessary to relieve the negro from the weigiit of disabili- ties beneath which he is crushed. The declaration of his freedom is a fraud in every State of this Union. Both prejudice and law proclaim it impossible, in the existing state of things. The ordinary eligibilities of citizenship are no where his. The white man and the negro may not separate, as to the "bounds of habitation," but they do not, cannot combine. They may be together, but to mingle is impossible. The dis- tinction, for example, as it relates to color alone, appears so founded in an invincible law of nature, that in no instance, in the history of civilization, has it yielded to the influence of circumstances. This may be all and utterly wrong ; our business is with the" fact only. Kindred reasons and argmnents maybe multiplied indefinitely. Dis- proportionate, inadequate compensation for labor, is assumed as a fundamental ele- ment — one of the chief disadvantages of slavery, and it is an argument principally re- lied upon by abolitionists, of every sect and color, and yet it is susceptible of the clear- est demonstration, that the slave of the South, (in an annual estimate,) gets more than the free negro of the North; and, by the showing of the Northern argument, is less a slave. Every victim of injustice is a slave, and such is the negro every where in the North. Crushed by the indirect tyranny of law, and the intolerance of public opinion, he is the miserable victim of all kinds of injustice and hard- ship. And what must be the sober decision of history with regard to those who pity the negro until he becomes free, and then starve him t'l death? The mooted question of negro rights and worth, and his title to Nortliern sympathy and pro- tection, are dropped the moment the tiegro beconies free, and appeals to the North- ern cowr/ of errors for the promised boon of equal, social and political rights. Notwithstanding all the paraded humanity of the North on the subject, no actual abo- Hlion of slavery has ever taken place in the United States. The proclamation to this ef- fect is an ifnposilion upon the civilized world. The servitude of the negro, and the in- justice and hardship of his lot have nie^rcly changed their form. The legal principle of slavery is aholishod in the North, but all New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, &c., do not contain a single negro who is free, in the sense of the Declaration of Amer- ican Independence — not one. No where does the negro meet the white man — no where is he met by him upon terms of equality. There is no civil, social, domestic, or even religious intercommunity of enjoyment or sufiering. They are deprived of the most 4o important riglits of mankind. Both by law and public opinion tliey arc condemned to hereditary degradation and misery. Their liberty is a lie and a cheat. h\ what do they find themselves free, except to be neglected, scorned, and trodden nnder foot. Preui- dice, manners and custom, turn aside and bear down the fruitless provisions of legisla- tion. There is that constituently interwoven with the popular feeling of the American people, in relation to the unfortunate negro, which law can never efface. It is even true, that the prejudice against the negro increases with tiie progress of emancipation. Take any of the jN'orlhern States — that which nearest approaches the Utopia of mod- ern abolitionism, and notwithstanding the affranchisement of the negro in law, if a white person marry a negro, infamy is the result. Free negroes, with very few e.xcep- tions as to places, dare not avail themselves of the rigiit of suffrage, even where it is allowed. They are no where credible witnesses against white persons — (the attempt . of the late General Conference to make them such, notwithstanding.) There is not a State in this Union where a negro is essentially an equal party in an action at law. Where is the negro admitted as equal peer and compatriot with the wliite man J Wliere as juror, judge, or counsellor"? Is there any office of trust or honor to which he is el- igible"? What school receives the two races together, without being placed under pub- lic ban! Can the negro's money procure him a scat at the Theatre or Opera, without some signal of his inferiority offered in atonement to those who ,vish it to be under- stood they but tolerate his presence, albeit they have siconi him free and equal! What hospital or poor house receives him, e.xcept apart from the privileged white sufferer, without, it may be. half the sense or virtue of the negro"? Even ihe Church assigns him a distant seat and ditTerent altar. The grave itself perpetuates tiie distinction, by disowning the fellowship of his dust. In life and death alike, he is proscribed and trodden under foot as an alien and outcast, and his degradation is thus made to accom- pany him to the very gates of Heaven. And all this is true to a much greater extent in the North than in the South. The free negro North is used — allowed to live, if he can, and at any rate is at perfect liberty In die, but no where is he protected, encour- aged, and rewarded, in all the liberty-loving North. Parado.xical as it may seem, there is nothing resembling sympathy and equality of moral relation between the races, e.-c- cept in the South, where the one, in the proportion of seven in ten, is enslaved to the other. Here, to a great extent, the children of the two races grow up together, and, as a general rule, cherish for each otiier, in greater or less degree, interest and attach- ment. Similar reasoning applies to the houseJiold circle, as it regards adults. There is a natural sense of obligation and kindness, on the one hand, and of dependence and gratitude on the other, leading to many of the kinder offices of human intercourse, without which the heart must be utterly desolate. I do not claim for the South that this view of the subject applies to all slave holding individuals and fiimiles. There are but too many exceptions to the rule, and I shall not attempt to protect them from the execration they deserve, for neglect and cruelty in relation to their abused and suffer- ing slaves. Nor do I intend to charge upon the North, or free States, that tliere are no individuals or families who treat the negro as he deserves. I speak only of the general rule, in both cases, and am anxious to give full force lo ihe exceptions, both as it regards number and weight. Individuals and families in the South have, doubtless, acted infamously toward their slaves, and continue to do so, as individuals and fami- lies in the North have, and continue to act, towards their hired and apprenticed ser- vants, and formerly toward their slaves also. Most cheerfully do we bear testimony, that individuals and associations in the North have, in many instances, acted nobly to- ward the negro, whether free or slave. What we ask, is, that the exceptions, in both cases, may be fairly contrasted with the general rule. 46 The abolition of slavery has been extensively agitated, three several times in the United States. The first was about the time of the formation of the Federal Govern- ment. Shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, numerous abolition petitions reached Congress, under the administration of Washington, praying the interposition of the General Government. They were respectfully received and referred to an able committee, as all such petitions should be, and tiie report of the committee was, thai the Genera] Government had notliing to do with the subject — no right to inierfere in any way, as the matter belonged wholly to the slave holding Slates, without any right, on the part of individuals, societies, churches, or the free States, even, to meddle with it. And so the matter was disposed of, apparently lo the satisfaction of all concerned, and the excitement died away. The next abolition era, connects with the admission of Missouri, thirty years after, when Ihe compromise to which Me have alluded took place, and again settled the ques- tion. The third movement followed that of England, in relation to West India Slave- ry, and has continued ever since, although the movements — the emancipation proposed here, and that which took place in the West Indies — are utterly unanalogous. Here, the negroes are in the midst of us, locally mixed up with a great people, being to the white population as one in three. There, they were scattered among a cluster of dis- tant islands, and were twenty to one as to number, rendering an expensive military force indispensable to safety, in each island. Had four millions of negro slaves been mixed up with the people of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, does any sane per- son suppose they would have been emancipated by the English Parliament? Or rather, is it not certain they would not have been, unless their instant removal had been pro- vided for? It is an instance, therefore, of the most stupid injustice, to attempt to rea- son by analogy from the one to the other. Long before any appeal was heard from the North, the voice of the South was emphatic in tiie denunciation of negro slavery. The colonies of Virginia and Georgia, and even South Carolina, boldly remonstrated against tlie impolicy and inhumanity of the slave trade, and its consequences, when they knew their tSoiercign was a smuggling slave merchant, dividing the spoil with a large num- ber of his own subjects, and those of other nations. The South too, has always shown itself more ready than the North, to get rid of the negro by removal and colonization in Africa, or elsewhere, if it be found practicable. The great mass of Southern slave holders resist general emancipation, not because it is inconsistent with their interest, viewed as a question of political economy, but because they know it to be utterly incom- patible with their safety. Upon the consequences of tiie immediate, indiscriminate emancipation of the slaves of the South, or emancipation by any other than very grad- ual methods, I am not disposed to dwell. All sober minded men, however, indulge the apprehension, that were the slaves tlius let loose, they might be led to think and feel like the negroes of St. Domingo, butchering the whole European population, in grati- tude fur the decree of the French Assembly of 1791, dei;laring them "free and equal" to tlie whites. Who does not know, that every rash movement of the North endangers the safety of the South, and compels further resort to precautionary measures of safe- ty, thus subjecting the slave to an abridgement of right and enjoyment which had never been thought of but for the gratuitious obtrusion of Northern interference. It is already perceptible, that in the West Indies, unless other systems of servitude, the new lijpes oj slaxery already introduced, should check tlie tendencies of the eman- cipation act, imposed upon the Islands against tiieir consent, the European race, yield- ing to the negro, is likely to become extinct. And should the North impose a similar emancipation upon the South, in violation of the compromise of the Constitution, 47 among the immediate and necessary effects, sooner or later, tlie breaking up of the American Confederation, and the destruction of the nesfro race in the South must be numbered. Look at the Maroons of Jamaica : ever since their freedom they have utter- ly abandoned themselves to universal idleness, with all its attendant evils and vices, ob- durately refusing to labor, under any circumstances, even to prevent starvation. The bloody insurrections too, in the Island of Barbadoes, in 1816, taking into the account, causes and consequences, is a comment to the same general effect. Improvidence and idleness, vagrancy and crime, are the notorious fruits of emancipation in the United States and the West Indies. Crime, in tlie United States, among free negroes, is in something like tenfold proportion, compared with what it is among Southern slaves, nnd the moT\.a.]i\y is 7nnre than double. Our criminal and medical statistics abundantly attest these facts. A pretty extensive acquaintance with more than half the Statps of this Confederacy, and about an equal number. North and South, has led me to believe thai the slaves of the South are better conditioned and better satisfied than the free ne- groes of the North ; and, as a general rule, are better informed, especially on the sub- ject of their moral relations. And, also, that they are well disposed, and inclined to virtue and morality, greatly beyond those of the North, or the free negroes of the South. The latter too, do much better in the South than in the North. Two reasons have long operated accordingly, in driving free negroes from the North, where they properly belonged, to the South. First, the repulsive inhumanity of the North, in so treating them, that they have preferred seeking shelter in the Southern States. And, secondly, the fact, that even the free negroes, so injurious to the Southern slave inter- est, have generally fared better in the South than in the North; and thus a large pro- portion of the freed slaves of the North, especially from 1790 to 1830, subsisted, in fact, on Southern charity. About three millions and a half of slaves are now part and parcel of the population of the United States. They are here in our midst, and must be governed, and must have support. They were originally entailed upon us, against our will and wishes, by the mother country, during our colonial existence; but being here, they must remain and be controlled, unless some plan can be adopted for their removal. Remaining, how can they be governed, except in a state of slavery? livery State in the Union is dis- posed to cast off the few who are free. Every where their presence is regarded as an evil, if not nuisance. The South will not emancipate except upon condition of remo- val. The North will not consent to receive even a fair proportion of them, should they become free; and what is to be done with them? Tlieir gradual emancipation and re- moval has never been objected to by the South ; and carried out upon the principles of the original compromise of the Constitution, never will be. We say to our common country, /;-ee us of the danger, and ice consent to the removal of the evil. In this view of the subject, three questions press upon us : — our own good, in the slave States; the good of the negro, free and slave ; and the common good of the coun- try. In our deliberate judgment, those who are conducting the Northern crusade against Southern slavery, have no eye to either, or having any such end in view, have been infinitely unfortunate in the selection of means, and the temper displayed in the use of them. If the clamorous censors of Southern policy are the true friends of the negro, why do they, in the same breath urge emancipation in the South and legislate to exclude the negro from the free States? Is it merely intended in this way to annoy the South by a violation of the plain duties of citizenship, or are they willing to be under- stood as conceding that there is no chance for the negro except in the South? 4S In any analysis of the fads of history and experience, connected with the general abolition movement und.er discussion, we are naturally led to judge of the principles and motives of those embari^ed in the movement, from their moral and religious char- acter and course of action in other directions and aspects. And as citizens and subjects of Great Britain have been very actively concerned for the last twelve or fifteen years in getting up and carrying on the great anti-slavery and abolition excitement in the Northern States, it will be proper to devote some attention to the moral character of the movement in both countries. In doing so, however, it is not intended, in speaking of Great Britain, or the Northern States, to include all persons, or the entire people of either. But as the more moderate and conservative portions of the people, in the one and the other, have not seen proper publicly to separate from the movement parties in question, by formal disapproval and condemnation of their course, it cannot be expect- ed that we should do more, by way of excepting them., than they have done themselves. That the movement in this country was set on foot by foreign (British) influence, has been so extensively avowed by the Church, that no proof of the fact can be called for. It has been assumed in Episcopal and General Conference addresses. It has been dis- tinctly avowed, again and again, in the official papers of the (hurch at New York and Cincinnati. It is elaborately declared to be the I'act, by Dr. Eansrs, in his Plistory of the Church. It was repeatedly avowed by American speakers, in the famous meeting of malcontents and agitators on this subject, ever since praying to be known as "the World's Convention." The fact is notorious, and will not be denied. As the United Stales preceded England in the abolition of the slave trade, and was the first of civil- ized nations in an attempt to redress the wrongs of Africa, admitting the equally noble conduct of England in doing the same a short time after, England can claim no credit on this score to which we are not equally entitled. We ask attention to British policy jn other aspects connected with slavery. Look then, at the British Government abol- ishing slavery in the West Indies, but pursuing a wholesale system incomparably worse in her East India possessions. The British Asiatic Journal says, "the whole of Hindostan, with the adjncent possessions, is one magnificent plantation, pecpled hij more than one hundred millions of slaves, belonging to a company of gentlemen in Eng- land, whose power is far more unlimited than that of any Southern planter over his slaves." In the very act of West India emancipation, it is distinctly declared, (see section 41.) that the slavery of other parts of the British Dominions was not to be in any way affected by the act. Beside the slavery just noticed in connection with the East India Company, there is a well known government system of slave ownership in Mala- bar, the Islands of Ceylon, St. Helena, and othe.- places, where the English Govern- ment is a notorious slave-factor — a regular jobber in the purchase and sale of slaves. The system is carried on, enlarged, and perpetuated, by the purse and bayonet of the Government. — Asiatic Journal and Parliamentary Debates. Numerous English author- ities might be cited, to show that England determined to sacrifice her West India Col- onies to bring the ];roductions of the Ganges and Barompooter in competition witli those of the slave holding portion of the United States and the Brazils. The British Government has formally sanctioned the entire Hindoo system of slavery. The same sanction has been extended to the Maliomedan system, by which the Government has become a pander to both, spread out among a liundred and fifty millions of British sub- jects in India. England has gone farther. She has, actually, by the origination of a separate, independent slave trade, established, in India, a //urr? system of her own, by the activity and vigor of which, the children of Africa and others, are being annually enslaved by tliousnnds. An English witness, Dr. Bowcring, affirms, of British subjects 49 in India, "the entire population of this vast empire are subjected to the n>ost degrading servitude — a deeper degradation than any produced by West Indian or American slave- ry. Thpy are perishincr by thoiisands and hundreds of tiiousands from famine, while the store houses of the East India Tlompany are filled with bread, wrnns: from the soil by a standing army." "Uncounted multitudes sell themselves and children into slavery by permissinn of the British Government." — Parliamentary Papers, 1839. The same authority declares, that "an external slave trade, hy importation, including all the at- tendant horrors of a regular system of kidnapping, is carried on." The Duke of Wel- lington remarked lately, in the House of Lords, "slavery does exist in that country — domestic slavery in particular, to a very considerable extent; yrt I would be careful how I interfered with the matter. I would recommend your Lordships to deal lightly in the matter if you wish to retain your sovereignty in India." McNaughton says, "thousands are at this moment living in a state of hopeless, unauthorized bondage. They h^ve sanctioned the free importation of slaves into their territories from foreign States." Sir Robert Peel lately made the charge, and oifered the evidence, in the Na- tional Legislature, that "British Merchants are, even now, deeply and extensively en- gaged in the slave trade." That country too, is at this moment engaged in a new sys- tem of English negro slavery, by \he forcible capture of negroes in Africa, compelling them to apprentice themselves, by the insulting mockery of legal forms, for a term of fourteen years; and whether this be with or without nominal security as to their free- dom at the expiration of the term, it is essentially a violation of the compact of nations, relating to the slave trade, and a species of legal, but real piracy, by no means in bad keeping with other demonstrations of the English Government in the selection and use of means and measures for the purposes of national aggrandisement. Finding, too, that they cannot rely upon the labor of the free blacks, emancipation in the West In- dies has been succeeded by another experiment — the enslavement of the Hill Coolies of India, to take the place of West India freed negroes. Both these systems of slavery are now in operation for the benefit of the West Indies, and other tropical portions of the Empire. The legalized kidnapper seizes ihe hand of the poor captive on the banks of the Gam- bia, and compels his signature to a fraudulent indenture, about which he knows no more than the monkeys chattering in the woods about him, and he goes to the West Indies a slave, to prove the practicability of ample production, notwithstanding the emancipation of his predecessor! The Coolies,' a poor, swarthy, degraded caste of la- borers in India, existing in great numbers, and generally in a state of starvation and suffering, are prevailed on to go to the West Indies, and when they reach there, as apprenticed slaves, the negroes of the Antilles refuse all association with them, as more degraded than themselves. In India they are oppressed beyond the means of subsistence, and in 1838, five hundred thousand of them perished of famine in a single district. This state of things will always be sufficient to secure emigration, and sup- ply the West Indies with slaves. No corner of the British Empire can be pointed out in which there is not worse slavery, in some shape or other, than in the United States. Who can help seeing that the fetters were struck from eight hundred thousand negroes, in the West Indies, only to be fastened upon as many European sufferers, of the labor- ing classes, at homel It has been more than intimated, in numerous English publica- tions, and the Debates of Parliament, that speculations upon the reflex bearings West India emancipation is to have upon the fate cf our Southern negroes, and especially in connection with the production of our Southern staples, rice, cotton, tobacco, and sugar, will go far to explain the philanthropy of the West India emancipation act. 7 50 England has betrayed and avowed her policy, and explained her motives in too many forms, to admit of doubt as to the intentions of government. That thousands of the good people of England saw in it nothing but good will to the negro, we readily admit. But when we see England, as we are compelled lo, piiining and starving millions, by a system of oppression inconceivably worse than the slavery of the United States, we must be allowed to judge of motives by other tests than mere profession. How does it happen that England is so deeply interested in the fortunes of Southern slavery in this country, and at the same time so unfeelingly inattentive to the cry of millions of her own suffering subjects in British India'! Why so readily excited into activity by car- icature appeals in behalf of the American slave, while the living cry of her own en- slaved and starving millions does not affect her? Why are the Cabinet, at Washington, as well as the people of the United States, favored with remonstrance and homily on the subject of civil oppression, while an unheeded voice is hoard pealingf through the diameter of the Globe, from Cuddalone, Tanjore. Madras, the Bengal Presidency, and other parts of outraged India, asking in vain for redress? We only quote British history when we state, that in two famines alone, occasioned solely by the forced exclusive mo- nopoly of the grain trade, immense masses of human beings — all subject;; of British mili- tary despotism, equal in number to the tchoJe negro pnpulaiion of Lhe United Stales — per- ished from sheer starvation, while within reach, in the English granaries, in both in- stances, were locked up and guarded by military force, ample means of subsistence and supply for all these murdered millions, and only and yet inexorably withheld from motives of pelf and cupidity, in view of enhanced price! The acute and discerning Southey says, of the great mass of the English poor, "they are deprived, in childiiood, of all instruction and enjoyment. They grow up without decency — without comfort — without iiopc — without morals, and without shame. They bring fortii slaves like them- selves, to tread in the same path of misery." The North British Review remarks, "there is fair ground to question, whether, notwithstanding the existence of slavery, with all its attendant evils, there be a larger proportional amount of ignorance, crime, and misery, in the United States of North America, than is to be found in Great Bri- tain and Ireland. The abolition of slavery in America would be a far greater triumph of principle, humanity, and courage, than was the emancipation of slaves in the Bri- tish Colonies ; its abolition there would be much more honorable. The physical con- dition and general treatment of slaves in the United States are better than they were in our West India colonies previous to emancipation. Our countrymen, in general, have treated the Americans unkindly and unfairly. It would have been hopeless to have ex- pected West India proprietors to have emancipated their slaves without compulsion. We are very doubtful whether, if slavery had stood in the same relation to us it does to the inhabitants of the Southern States of America, there be even now enough principle, hu- manity, and courage, in the community of Great Britain to have effected its abolition." It is well known that quite recently the English Government passed an "order in coun- cil," for the transportation of one hundred thousand negroes from Africa w Demarara alone, and offers a bounty upon the head of every negro brought into Sierra Leone for trans- portation to the West Indies; tiius hrihing the African to make a slave of his fellow. It is true these poor creatures are called apprentices — being slaves in fact. There is not one fifth part the amount of slavery in the United States there is in the British Em- pire. In fact, England owns more slaves, detached from the soil, (not serfs or vassals,) than all other civilized nations put together. Allison, in his History of Europe, avows the opinion of Ireland, that "it would be a real blessing to its inhabitants, in lieu of the destitution of tVei.'dom, to obtain the protection of slavery." Murry, the English 51 traveler, says, of the slaves of the South, "if they could forget that they are slaves their condition is decidedly better than the great mass of European laborers." The London Quarterly Review, speaking of West India emancipation, says, "the results of that experiment are extremely doubtful. Let us heicare of increasing the suspicion that we are willing to urge our example on the United States, from motives not of philan- thropy merely, but in part at least of mercantile calculation."' It has been avowed in England, since 1840, in twenty different forms, especially in leading political journals, that British tropical production cannot compete with American, until the American sys- tem of slavery is undermined. These journals have invoked attention to facts, so cu- rious and instructive, that we shall be excused for noticing a few. Our sources of in- formation are all English. It has been urged that the cotton ])roduction of America, North and South, amounts to some 800,000,000 pounds, the result of slave labor, while England is unable to reach 150,000,000 pounds, in all parts of Iier dominions. The annual production of Ameri- can sugar is stated, upon the same authority, to exceed that of England in the propor- tion of 10,000,000 to 4.000,000; and it isalledged that a similar disproportion obtains with regard toa/Ztropical products. The English press has announced that the annual pro- duct of fixed American capital, based upon, or otherwise connected with slave labor, is about 220,000,000, while that of England, vested in the production of the staples to vvhicii slave labor is applied, in North and South America, does not exceed 50,000,000. It is declared, that England cannot look upon such results with indifference, and that she must right herself by some means, among which it has been more than intimated the subversion of the slavery system of the South was a desideratum. At one time it has been urged upon the attention of England, that the advantage enjoyed by America, in consequence of the large amount of slave labor, must lead to a corresponding extension of commerce, growth of manufactures, with increased national wealth and strength. At another, it has been pressed upon the notice of the Northern States, that it is their interest to unite with other countries in subverting the exisling system of Southern production ! And, apprehensive that the North might have sagacity enough to see, that drying up the sources of Southern production must instantly and fatally cripple Northern commerce and manufactures, with which those of England would be immedi- ately brought in competition, prostrating the North as effectually as the South may be ruined, it has been attempted to show, that Northern capital and labor might accom- plish, in the South of this country, what the home argument seems to concede is not likely to be accomplished in English Southern colonies ! We would not be invidious. We are anxious to reason correctly on the subject; but we cannot perceive what con- nection there is between such appeals and suggestions, and \.\\q ostensible objects of En- glish philanthropy and Northern abolition, respecting Southern slavery. Such a poli- cy, if ever adopted and acted upon, will as certainly destroy the elements of our social strength and greatness, as that the Union of the States cannot survive it. A member of the British Parliament declared, recently, "the greater proportion of the people of England demand the immediate emancipation of slaves, in whatever quar- ter of the world they may be found." He should have added — "let charity begin at home." Another member of Parliament says, "we will turn to America and requir- emancipation." It is to be hoped he meant, after freeing the last million of their own slaves ! In this way foreign arrogance is reading us homilies on immediate emancipa- tion, when even foreign ignorance must have known that all the emancipation we have had, in Mexico, Chili, Buenos Ayres, Colombia, St. Domingo, and the West Indies, was gradual, not immediate. The slaves of Mexico, so often quoted as an example of 52 immfediate abolition, had lo purchase their own freedom by labor, at an ad valorem esti- mate, requiring generall}" twelve or fourteen years labor, and in many instances much more ; so that myriads of them were only emancipated by death. It is quite unnecessary to say, that deeply as the South umy feel interested in the question of prospective emanci- pation, nothing will be yielded to intimidation at home, or from abroad. The London Athenffium appeals warmly and directly to the North, in favor of "the duty and policy of instant abolition." The London Herald, a government paper, says, in anticipation of a conflict with the United States, "are Texas and Oregon to become the principal military stations of a power which has at its command the Lakes, the St. Lawrence, Halifax, Bermuda, most of the West India Islands, and, above all, the terrific war-cry of negro emancipation!" The language attributed to the Duke of Richmond, whether true or not, as an utterance of his, must be regarded as full of interest, because in ac- cordance with so much that is known to be true on the subject to which it refers. "The Sovereigns of Europe have determined upon the destruction of the Government of the United States, and have come to an understanding upon the subject, and they will event- ually succeed by subversion rather than conquest. It is (this country) a receptacle for the bad and disaffected population of Europe ; and the European governments favor such a course. This will create a surplus, and a majority of low population, who are easily excited. All the low and surplus population of the diiTercnt nations of Europe will be carried into that country. They will bring with tliem their principles, and, in nine cases out of ten, adhere to their ancient and former governments, laws, manners, customs, and religion, and will transmit them to their posterity. Discord, disunion, anarchy, and civil war \wi\\ ensue, and some popular individual will assume the gov- ernment and restore order, and the Sovereigns of Europe, the emigrants, and many of the natives will sustain them." We leave facts to speak for themselves on this sub- ject, whether in confirmation or correction of such speculations. The manner in which our country is almost literally belted by British possessions, and surrounded by British influence, is known to every one. Take the range of the British West India Islands, from West to East, include the immense territory recently acquired of the government of Central America, and by means of which they will al- ways be able to command, the Ithmus of Darion, uniting North and South America — pass thence to New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Canadas, New Britain, extending nearly to the Rocky Mountains, and to complete the chain, Oregon is claim- ed, from its Northern limit to its nearest approach to the Mexican boundary. In this vast region, a scattered population of nearly 100,000 are already subject to British law, with an immense military post at the mouth of the Columbia, thus commanding, not only the outlet of all our Northern Lakes, but occupying the key of the Pacific, with a view of controlling tjje trade of the Sandwich Islands, Java, the Spice Islands, China, &c. England is a friendly power, and should, by all means, be treated as such, to the extent her conduct will allow. She is, however, a rival, and 7)iai/ become an en- emy. And by how far she has manifested a disposition to interfere with the internal policy of this country, especially in relation to slavery and commerce, should certainly be watched and resisted. The whole press of tiie country, political and religious, has been nearly unanimous in declaring the abolition and anti-slavery movement in the United States, to be of foreign English origin. The same has been avowed by the British and conceded by the abolition press of the United States. Is or is not all this sufficient, to place this country upon its guard? Grant that it is the duty, and would be wise in the people of the United States, to attempt by fair and constitutional meth- ods, to free the country of slavery, why this foreign interference and tampering — why 53 this courting and coaxing of foreign countenaace and co-operation, by tlie organized anti-slavery associations of this country? What must bethought of American citizens who ally themselves with foreign combinations to disturb and agitate the country, and on a subject and in a way, necessarily tending to dissolve the union of the States.' One English Journal says, "the people of England will never rest until slavery is termina- ted in the United States." Another says, "slavery can only be reached through the Federal Constitution." Such is the text ; and the comment is a constant effort in Eng- land, more or less disguised and respectful, to array the North against the South on the subject of slavery, and then in turn the South against the North, in the matter of her own free trade propagandism, with which the South is presumed to be in sympathy. We would not be ill-natured, but we ask attention to the facts. Again: why a constant effort of the English press to exagerate the disabilities and sufferings of the American slave, while similar and in many instances, inconceiveably greater oppression and suf- fering among British subjects, are kept entirely out of sight? Should not a country so long and inveterately in the habit of claiming prerogatives, and exercising rights, not de- rived from either God or man, which is known to have expended much more blood and treasure, in invading the rights of others, than in defending her own, be a little care- ful in the extension of censorship over the morals of other countries'.' A nation whose annual custom it has been for ages, to transport thousands into perpetual slavery, in dis- tant penal colonies, not merely for crime fropcr, but for offences committed only to prevent starvation, and by which no one was injured to the amount of a shilling, such as stealing a pheasant or shooting a hare, might afford to be a little more considerate a little less officious, in meddling with the defective codes of other countries We are willing, never reulctant, to have bared to public gaze, theabuses of vlmerican slavery but England ought never to do it without a faithful depiction of the atrocities she knows to e.xist, by license of her own government, in different parts of the Empire. For ex- ample, when lecturing the United States on the evils and horrors of Southern slavery, she should enable us to judge of her impartial clemency, in connection with practices not unlike those falsely charged upon the South of the United States ; the historv and philosophy of her transportation system ; the elements of her gigantic plan of convict civilization; the degradation, the slavery, the exile, the hunger, the toil, the filth, the nakedness, the exposure; the bayonet, the hand cuff, the cat o'ninetail, the leo- chain the gory scourge, the military guard, the blood clotted triangle, the chain-gan"', the iron hearted task master, the night watch, the blood hound, the gallows ; castaway un- wholesome food, which has circumnavigated the globe, saline petrefactioiis, called meats, and old as Her Majesty at that, devoured in the wooden night box and convict cave; British subjects sold by government as slaves to the highest bidder, and bought by British christians ; scourgers appointed by law ; the double government cat; government licensefor fifty lashes; labor during fifteen hours of the day, with the thermometer not un- frequently at 125! And the benignant authors of all this, our reprovers on the subject of slavery! I should be ashamed to write the above, were it not thai every phrase in ihe fidure, is horroioedfrom British larv and EnijUsh 'witnesses. With no wish to dispar- age the virtue and worth of England, a single question explains all we have in view: Why are the English meddling only with American slavery, without attending to their own kindred and even worse systems of degradation and suffering, found in every divi- sion of the Empire, and provoking the remonstrances of the civilized world? Why such care for us, and sympathy with the Southern negro, while enslaving and mal-treat- ing the negro and other unfortunate portions of mankind elsewhere? Why so reckless of the fate of 40,000,000 of slaves in Russia, in connection with the Greek Church? 54 Why so unmindful of the slavery of Italy, Austria, Spain, and Portugal, found in the bosom of the Papal Church, while laboring so disinterestedly for the purity of the Amer- ican Churches, as it regards the evil of slavery? Of a hundred millions of negroes, found upon the bosom of our world, no three millions existing together, in any country, can be pointed out, enjoying any thing like one half the physical and moral advantages enjoyed by the slaves of the Southern States; and why is it so much sympathy is felt for the few, thus circumstanced, and so little interest cherisiied in behalf of the remain- ing millions, at least in no better, and believed to be in a much worse condition] Dr. Durbin, fresh from the great theatre of abolition ethics, and known to be an acute observer of men and things, says, "the truth is, that iinder the present working of British inslitulions, the mass of the people are slaves, ajid the few are masters, without the responsibilities rf masters. The physical condition of the greater part of the slaves in the Southern States of A7nerica, is better than that of millions in England and Ireland — iheir 7noral and intellectual condition cannot be worse." Plainly, the millions of the common mass of England and Ireland, are more truly and miserably slaves, than the negroes of our Southern States. Now will it or not, be the "sense"' of the Majority of the late General Conference, that the Wesleyan Methodist Preachers, the Buntings, the Newtons, the Jacksons, and Dixons, who certainly rank witli the "masters" and not with the "slaves," and who "travel at large and oversee the work" Wesley left to be superintended by them, shall "desist" from the exercise of their functions, as "over- seers of the Church of God," until this "impediment" is removed, and the millions of English and Irish slaves are freed, whether they can be or not? And until they do this, can they be regarded as any better than poor Bishop Andrew, who was made a slave holder without his consent, by the "working" of similar "institutions?" But further, for the consideration of our trans-Ailantic friends. It is known to them — to all, that large portions of the children of Africa, have existed in a state of slavery for 3,000 years, and it is equally well known, that unconnected with all other races, one portion of the negro race, since the earliest dawn of history, has been enslaved to another, and that in greater proportion too, than to any other race. There are ten, perhaps more than twenty negro masters in Africa, to every white one in the United States, and own- ing ten, if not twenty times as many negroes. And it is also true, that those portions of Africa, where the slave trade with the white man is unknown, are the most inveterate slave regions. It has been estimated, that something like nine tenths of the whole six- ty millions of Africa, are in fact slaves. The English can doubtless account for the origin and existence of American slavery, as they are the authors of it, and are now battening upon its gains. But liow will they account for the state of things in Africa? And why so much zeal in this direction and so little in that? In all the negro islands, (many and populous,) of the Indian archipelago, the negro is enslaved to the negro. Why tco, are the negroes of this and every other country, St. Domingo and the other West India Islands especially, so utterly and proverbially indifTerent to the condition of their fellow negroes in slavery? In no instance have they, as a people, made a move for the freedom of the negro, or manifested any general solicitude on the subject. Does there or not, appear to be some deep and primary reason for such startling results? Grant that England and the North can satisfactorily explain the matter, so far as they are the authors of American slavery ; still, is there not much beside this, which needs to be explained? Why a destiny so untoward, for every portion of the African race, for now a term of at least 53,700 years? All our hopes and fears centre in the conviction, that whether for good or evil, or it may be a mysterious dispensation of both, the ha7td of God must ccnuect witJi such a destiny! Similar reasoning applies to the Northern division of our own country. New Eng- land capital, combined with the acquisitive ardor and daring enterprise of her hardy sons, gave birth to a large proportion of the v.-hole amount of American slavery, as well in the South as North. An almost incalculable amount of Northern capital, is at this time invested in Southern slaves. The hundreds of Northern men, annually settling in the Southern States and Territories, are known promptly and without hesitation, to become slave holders ; and the Simon-pursism of Church and State — of Pilgrim and Pu- ritan — fresh from the most approved nurseries of abolition zealotry, yields to the sug- gestions of convenience and interest, in enlarging and upholding the system of Southern slavery. Even temporary residents in the South, from the North, and belonging to Northern Churches, become slave holders in instances not a few. Indeed very few of the New England and Northern Clergy, taking the range of all denominations, emi- grate South, without becoming slave holders, as soon as they find themselves able. And a great many, the ov/ners of slaves in the South, sell them there, and return North to live, it may be, in ease and affluence, upon the "price of blood," in the parlance of anti- slavery ethics. And in this connection, the Northern Methodist Church, and especially the Ministry, are entitled to notice. With motive we have nothing to do, except as general conduct must be regarded as being its only true exponent. What is had in view, therefore, by the ceaseless increasing agitation of the slave question, must be judged of by the character and conduct of the agitators, in other respects — particularly in relation to vice and the vicious, in other departments of evil and classes of evil- doers. In this regard, it is pertinent and important to enquire — are they equally zealous and as intolerant in reference to other forms of evil, as in the case of slavery"? Are they as intolerant of other forms of slavery as of negro slavery? Is it oppression they hate and would destroy — oppression in all its forms and wherever found? Do they seek out and relieve the enslaved and oppressed of every relation and condition — the wife, defrauded of her rights in a state of hated servitude — the oppressed child, crushed beneath the unfeeling brutality of parental despotism — the hired servant, wronged and borne down by a tyranny, to which necessity subjects him — the miserable slaves of un- protected apprenticeship — the unfortunate debtor and inmate of the poor house, deprived of unforfeited rights by the inditFerence and obduracy of public and popular feeling? If such be their conduct, we are not at liberty to question their motives as anti-slavery reformers for the benefit of the South. But by how far such is not their conduct, we impugn their motives, as at least of very doubtful character. When the benefit of the slave is sought, by cursing the slave holder, we cannot admit the plea of good motive, and must consider hostility to the South as the real cause of the movement. Millions in the civilized world are the victims of a legal and social despotism, incomparably worse than Southern slavery. They are more ignorant, have less control of their per- sons and actions, have less to eat, and food of a worse quality, they are worse clothed — they work harder and longer, in every twenty four hours, have less contentment, less motive and emulous feeling, and in every respect, are in a state of debasement more utterly hopeless than American slaves. And why is it, feeling and sympathy are not manifested in their behalf, in a manner corresponding with abolition sympathy for the Southern slave? What interest is felt or manifested for the millions in the civilized world, now in a stale of vassalage or villenage, two systems of slavery, equal at least in evil and injury, to the system of American slavery. Not equally zealous with re- gard to other social evils, what must be the inference, as it regards their motives? And how as it regards crimcl Take the vices rife and dominant on every side of them. Look at the commonness and insolence of impiety, stalking all about them. Bhsphe- 56 my, prof:\noness, (Irunkenness, Sabbalh breaking, dishonesty, lying, and defamation ; and so of the whole tide of human abomination, rollinrr op before them ; are they equal- ly jenlous and exncling, iu their attempts to sn])press these7 And if not, what is the inference again'! Is there not a manifest inconsistency, between their clamorous ag- gressive movements, as it regards slavery, and their v/ant of zeal and activity in the suppression of general popular crime, every v/here surrounding them? If conscience and religious principle were the exciting causes, one human interest would not be es- poused at the manifest expense and to the great detriment of others. Why this frenzi- ed sentimentality — this delerium of opinion and feeling on the subject of slavery; com- bined with such invincible Sadducean torpor as to other and worse forms of oppression and vice, and especially proverbial indifference to the moral and immortal wants of the negro? Notwithstanding the thousands of free negroes within their limits, all the abo- litionism, love of the negro, hatred of slavery, all tlie perverted facts, distorted state- ments, declamatory defamation, and in some instances honest and able appeals, connect- ed with an interminable array of newspaper and pamphlet warfare, conventions, meet- ings, lectures, agents, and importation of foreign aid — all these within the wide spread territory of the New England, Providence, Maine, Vermont, and Hew Hampshire Con- ferences, have not brought a solitary negro into the Methodist Episcopal Church, at least to remain there long enough to be reported. So say the ministers of the current year. How, why is this? Here is the negro — the free negro in the free and happy North. Here too are his own dear friends — his patent benefactors, laboring as above for his good, day and night, and even the Sabbath not intermitting the struggle, and yet. Heaven favored as he is, in the very Goshen of the moral world, with a superfluity of blessing for himself, and the popular curse, piled mountain high upon his oppressor, the incorrigible negro is not converted — none of them can be got into the Church — no, not one! Turn now to the Troy, Black river, Erie, Oneida, Michigan, Rock river, Gene- see, North Ohio, Illinois — nine Conferences ; in all these we have less than a thousand negroes in the Church! What does it mean ; how is it to be explained? How does it happen, that the free blacks in the non-slave holding States, have been so very limited- ly benefitted and influenced by a ministry, so indefatigable in the abuse and denuncia- tion of slavery? Is it because the negroes have discernment enough to see, that their wordy benefactors have really never done any thing for the good of the negro, soul or body — that they do not care for the negro — that they are not the true friends of the ne- gro? Why drive a trade with the sympathies of those they find themselves able to ex- cite and agitate, but leave the poor negro to turn their abstractions and declamation, to what account he can — that is none at all, involving good of any kind? Who of these have volunteered to appear in the South, to instruct, console, and cheer the negro, amid the hardships of his lot? Addressing the very men of whom we are speaking. Bishop Hedding says, "if you feel as much for the slaves as our Southern brethren do — if you arc willino- to labor as hard and sufl'er as much for the benefit of the slaves, as those brethren do, pn andhdp them ; there is work enough there/or you «//." This noble and yet blistering challenge was thrown out by the Bishop seven years ago, but no one of these intrepid and devoted reformers of the Church, has appeared in the South for the salvation of the negro. They remain at home, and content themselves with fiery ha- rangues and blustering paragraplis — revolutionary conventions and seditious reports, and we need scarcely add, that sucii cheap displays of humanity and showy exhibitions of feelino-, costing nothing but words, can never deceive the negro or tiie friends of the necrro in the South. But it may not be amiss to enquire, what has been the real value of emancipation to the negro, sny in the I'nitcd States and West Indies, where well un- 67 derstood experiments have been made, in due form. Ever since emancipation in St. Domingo, the mulattoes and blacks have been in a state of active Iiostile array against each other. The British Foreign Quarterly says of the former, "they were ignorant, covetous, lazy, proud, vindictive, and cruel, and almost totally destitute of moral feel- ing-," of the latter, "they saw the doors of their cage open, and like tigers, slipped out to rend and tear." Since their emancipation, the proportion of illegitimate births in the Island, has been increased to three in every four. The habitual invincible worth- lessness of both races, has continued, with very little variation, ever since they obtain- ed their freedom, and may be very justly estimated by the famous Code Rurah, by which labor was made compulsory to lessen the amount of theft, robbery, and starvation, in this model Republic of emancipated negroes. The same Journal informs us, sustained by other authorities, that not only in Hayti, but all the West Indies, even in Jamaica, whenever a fire, or any calamity of the kind takes place, the emancipated negroes in- variably look on in stupid sullonness, without any attempt at assistance, and frequently indeed, the first flash of a conflagration or heave of an earthquake, is the signal for plunder. The production of St. Domingo, since the emancipation of the negroes, has been reduced as 150 to 15. Thousands of sugar plantations, have been utterly aban- doned by the free negroes, because they found the Banana and other spontaneous fruits, would keep them from starving whether they worked or not. Professor Wilson, of Edinburg, says of England "she has forced upon the West India Islands, the monstrous project of negro emancipation — a step which has already reduced to one half, the pro- duction of those fine colonies, and given a blovv to the prosperity of both the negro and European population, from which neither can ever recover. It soon became manifest tliat the negroes would not work." In the Island of Cuba, from 1775 to 1827, fifty two years, the increase of the free black population, was only 246, while that of the slave population was 547. A similar state of things, has always been presented, in the United Slates. Are privation and extreme suffering, favorable to rapidity of increase in population? If not, what must be the inference? The effects of emancipation and the condition of^ free negroes in the United States, are matters too well known to require proof or illustration with the well informed. In Massachusetts, only one seventy fourth part of the entire population is African, and yet one sixth of all their convicts are negroes. In Connecticut, one thirty fourth are negroes, furnishing one third of all the convicts. In New York, one thirty fifth, and one fourth of the convicts in the city prisons are free negroes. In New Jersey, one tiiirteenth furnishing one third of all the prisoners. In Pennsylvania, one thirty fourth and over one tiiird of all the convicts negroes. One fourth of the whole expense con- nected with the prison systems of the entire North, is incurred by crime committed by one twentieth part of the population. The same is strictly true with regard to the pau- per expenditureisof all the Northern States. Facts of this kind can never become so stale as not to be startling. We glance at them for a single purpose only ; it is to show that amid all the appliances and under the most hopeful influence, of anti-slavery philan- throphy, the degradation of the negro continues unchanged, and may be seen in all the innumerable forms of indolence, vice, and misery. In Virginia, where no legal barrier prevents, in a population of 40,000 free negroes, less than 200 are found to own a sin- gle foot of land. And the same is true in about the same proportion, in all the States, slave and free. A well informed Northern Clergyman says, "every State seems to cherish a disposition to he free from a free black population. In all the walks of life, in every society, upon every path which lies before others, to honor, and fiime, and glory, a moral incubus pursues and fastens upon them. There appears to exist, in the S 58 breasts of white men, in this country generally, a prejudice against the color of the African, which nothing siiort of Divine power can remove. It is thought by many at the North, that immediate emancipation would render it necessary for the whites to ex- terminate the blacks, or abandon the Southern soil." — Comer on Slavery. Dr. Fisk boldly maintained, throughout the hottest of the abolition contest, in the East and North, that either immediate emancipation, or emancipation at all, without removal, would be worse than slavery, to all concerned. Dr. Pliillip attempts to account for the unmitigated aversion to the color of the African, so universally prevalent in the United States, especially in the North, by ascribing it to the injuries, we as a people, have in- flicted on that unfortunate race. Our only concern at present is with the fact, showing that the negro has no chance to rise or improve in this country. A Northern author, in an admirable "Plea for Africa," declares, "the humanity of slave holders in the Southern States, has far exceeded the feeling indulged toward the blacks in my native New England or the Middle States. A much kindlier feeling is indulged towards the blacks at the South than at the North." The whole current of evidence on tlie subject tends to show, that the reprobate South is the only section in the United States, where any considerable attention is paid to the wants of the negro. Of the free negroes of New England, of Connecticut, of New Haven even. Dr. Bacon enquires, "are they not, in the estimation of the community, and in their own consciotisness, aliens and out- casts, in the midst of the people." Dr. Dana, of the North, says, "there are princi- ples of rcpvlsion between them and us, which can 7iever be overcome." The unfortu- nate negro may cease to acknowledge a master, but cannot deprive himself of the con- sciousness, that he belongs to a degraded class, which as a class can never rise to equality with the white race about him. The North has inspired the negro with ex- pectations above his condition ; duped him with hopes he can never realize, and dis- gusted him with a lot, from which he can never escape, and from which the North has done nothing to enable him to escape. The city of Baltimore, presents probably the largest and most intelligent mass of free persons of color, found in the United States. A large number of them are per- sons of reading and reflection. These in an appeal to the citizens of Baltimore, and through them to the people of the United States, say, "we reside among you and yet are strangers — natives, yet not citizens — surrounded by the freest people and the most republican institutions in the world, and yet enjoying none of the immunities of freedom. Difference of color, the servitude of most of our brethren, &c. will not allow us to mingle with you in the benefits of citizenship. As long as we remain among you. we shall be a distinct caste — an extraneous mass of men irrecoverably excluded from your institutions. Though we are not slaves, we are not free. We do not and never shall participate in the enviable privileges which we constantly witness." Judge Black- ford says, "they are of no service here, (free States,) to the community or themselves. They live in a country the favorite abode of liberty, without the enjoyment of her rights. To all these the black man is a stranger." "Here the features, the complex- ion, and every peculiarity of his person pronounce upon the ransomed slave another doom." — C. on Slaverij. "If liberated and left among the whites, they would be a constant source of annoyance, corruption, and danger. They could never be trusted as faithful citizens. Each would regard tiie other with painful suspicion and apprelien- nion. It is essential to the interests of each, that they be sepnratcd." — Dr. Miller. "The romcval of the folored populnticn is, I tliink, a common object, by no means con- fined to the slave States ; the whole Union would be strengthened by it, and relieved from a danger whose extent can scarcely be estimated." — Chief Justice Marshall. "A polit- 59 ical evil which we have inherited — a stain to be washed from the national escutcheon." — Gov. Vronm. "Ourselves, our children, our land, and every beloved institution of our country, are deeply involved" — Bishop Meade. "The free black whom prejudice con- signs to a moral debasement in the North, is as deeply injured as the slave who, in the South, is hold in physical bondage. The mass of crime committed by Africans is greater in proportion to numbers in the non-slave holding than in the slave holding States, and as a general rule, the degree of comfort enjoyed by them is inferior. They are destined to be forever proscribed and debased by our prejudices." — B. F. Butler. "The breath of opinion poisons all their efforts. They feel it is impossible to contend with the whites. They call more loudly for our sympathy than their brethren in bon- dage." — Rev. Mr. Beslor. Tliat part of the Protest which shows the whole Church, North as well as South, to be plainly and unavoidably connected with slavery, is not noticed by the Reply at all, although a great portion of its reasoning turns upon this point entirely. The boast of the North, generally, of freedom from slavery, is equally fallacious. Where are the descendants of the tliousands of slaves sold by the progenitors of Northern abolition- ists in the Southern States and West Indies? Sold and deeded by them into perpetual captivity, how is the slave trading North to get rid of the evil? What are these aboli- tionists doing with the "price of blood" thus left them by their sainted sires? In work- ing out their freedom from slavery, what of the poor Pequod Indians enslaved by them at home, and shipped in large numbers to the Bermudas, and there sold into intermina- ble slavery? Who owns, and is consuming the millions in the North, acquired by ac- tual, regular, and protracted merchandise, in the souls and bodies of men, connected with the slave trade between the periods of 1650 and 1845? How are the children of a slave holding and slave trading ancestry, who have consigned thousands to perpetual servitude, from mere motives of gain, to rid themselves of ihe moral relations and ef- fects of slavery? How many now engaged in spreading the evangelism of anti-slave- ry, have resided South, owned slaves, not by inheritance or in right of marriage, but by purchase, have bought low and sold high, and returning to the North, are now living on the proceeds of slavery, and weekly contributing, in their own patent phrase, the "price of blood" in the diffusion of abolition abuse? Dr. Dana says, "let us not ima- gine, for a moment, that we, in this Northern clime, are exempt from that enormous guilt connected with slavery and the slave trade which we are so ready to appropriate to our brethren in distant States. In New England are the forges which have framed fetters and manacles for the limbs of unoffending Africans. The iron of New Eng- land has pierced their anguished souls. In New England are found the overgrown fortunes — the proud palaces, which have been reared up from the blood and sufferings of these unhappy men. The guilt is strictly national — national then, let the expiation be. Let the whole country confess its guilt." New England and foreign slave mer- chants filled the South with slaves, aided by the sanction and participation of the Bri- tish government. The oppressor's gold has enriched the North as well as the South. The truth of history speaks in the lines of Mrs. Sigourney — "The frown of deep in- dignant blame bends not on Soiithern climes alone. To dark slavery's yoke severe, our father's helped to bow the neck." If the whole matter in question be fully and fairly examined, the North may find itself as deep in debt to the justice of God, as even the South ; and as it regards the slave trade, infinitely more so. How many more or less than a score of Northern vessels, with men and capital in necessary proportion, are at this moment engaged in the slave trade between Africa and the Brazilian ports alone? Who is ignorant of the amount of Northern capital engaged in the slave trade with the 60 Island of Cuba, after the opening of the port of Havana to foreign slave vessels, in 1789, and still further in 1791? Immense portions of the wealth of the North have been acquired by means of slavery and the slave trade; and slavery, in the light of means connected with the end, is now interwoven with the whole civil and social econo- my of Northern society. It cleaves to the soil, the homesteads, the churches, the grave- yards, liie colleges, the schools, the political economy, and religious enterprise of the land. The real difference between the North and tlie South appears to be, the one holds the slave, and the other the price of ti)e slave. The one has the power to obey the com- mand of God, respecting the slave, and is, of course, responsible for the use of it. The other bartered the slave and the responsibility together, for gold, and by way of educing good from "evil," secured a preferred equivalent for the one and tlie other. The Southern portion of the Church, having any connection at all, are connected with slavery under the high and direct sanction of law; and how will it be made appear that such connection is criminal, while a multiform connection with slavery is found in the North, in direct violation of tiio constitution and laws of the United States, in some if not all of its aspects, and yet not criminal! Slaves, recognized as property, by express provision of the supreme law of the land, are, in instances almost innumerable, decoy- ed or stolen from their owners, secreted, protected, and aided in effecting their escape, although after being thus stolen or decoyed off, they are as really and truly slaves, and the property of others, as though nothing of the kind had occurred. Wherever they are found, in Northern States, they belong, by right of law, and the pledged consent of every citizen of the United States, to those from whom they have been stolen, or in- duced to escape, and no lengtii of residence. North, affects the title of the owner. In this way, all engaged in this species of abolition, or in any way furthering or approving it, have a direct connection witli slaves and slaveiy, in open violation of law ; that is, they take, or otherwise aid, in depriving the owner of his property, without his knowl- edge or consent, and thus, in defiance of law, connect themselves with slavery by means of theft and robbery. We should like to know how this class of "men-steal- ers," (such by the constitution and laws of the country,) can escape the charge of con- nection with slavery, or how they expect to dissolve such connection ! Entailed upon the South by means of British policy and Northern commercial enterprise, how does it happen that the curse of slavery is to be borne by the South alone? What baptism has washed the stains of the original lepers? By what vicarious arrangement have their sins been fastened upon the South, as the scape-goat by which they are to be borne away? How many Northern Methodist Preachers were ordained by Bishop Coke, du- rino' his connection with slavery in the West Indies, between 1788 and 1792, and how has the Northern Church got rid of the evil llnis entailed upon them? All the superior Councils of the Church, since 1780, have consi:»ted, in part, of slave holders, and al- ways found in many of the Annual Conferences; slavery has been mixed up with all the federal relations of the Church for 05 years, and how is the Church to rid itself of this taint? The evil in the South has its warrant in the law of its production ; in causes over which we had no control, and with tlie existence and operation of which, those who now abuse us most, English and Northern abolitionists, are more intimate- ly connected than all the world beside. The North is a stockholder in the slave trade as truly as the South, and can never cease to be one, until U\g gains, by means of it, in all the successive accumulations of principal and interest shall, to the last cent, be expended in efforts to remove the evil they have inflicted on this country, on Africa, the countries of South America, the Islands of the West Indian Archipelago, and other portious of the globe. 61 We have seen that slavery is, to all intents and purposes, a national arrangement. The wl ole nation was originally concerned in its introduction and prevalence among us. The whole niition consented to its legal perpetuation, hy its formal recognition in the Constitution of the United States. It could only become national, in the Union of the States, by consent and contract of the North. All statesmen and jurists treat it as a national concern. A Northern reviewer snys, "the evil is ours as well as theirs; we are ready to appropriate it all to our Southern brethren, but we have no power or right thus to wash our hands. From the North have gone ships, and seamen, and tra- ders in human flesh, that have been polluted by the inliuman traffic, and the 'pieces of silver' gained by them have been apportioned to the North: the North have shared largely in the accursed spoils." Is tl;e North ready to consecrate these gains to the removal of the evil? Until this is done, if no longer, the North remains, of necessi- ty, connected with the evil, as they have merely excininged the slave for his value in the shape of other capital. Suppose too, the North were called upon, as the means of atoning for the evils inflicted upon the nation, by the importation of intoxicating li- quors, and other demoralizing means of gain, during the last two hundred years, to sacrifice the amount of property now connected with the slave system of the South, say 800,000,000 of dollars, which they require the South to yield, and be thankful that tl)ey are let off so lightly ! What requirement of God or man would secure such an alienation of property on the part of those who exact it of the South, in propitiation of Northern displeasure, on account of the evil of slavery] If not prepared for anything of the kind, may they not learn a lesson of forbearance toward the South, especially as they contributed so largely toward the establishment of the property system of the South'? How will it be sliown that it is either honest or honorable in the North, while enjoying the advantages of the national compact, to demand back the price they were once so gbd to pay for it? In what sense slavery is national, and in what provincial only, has been shown with sufficient clearness in this discussion. And as slavery, within specified limitations, is a principle of public policy, those who assail it as an outrage, can only do so by assailing the civil compact uniting the several States of the confederacy. Or, turning to the provincial aspects of the question, they give their local views and policy an extra-territorial application, contrary to, and in violation of Ihe federal treaty rights of American citizenship; and in doing so, must, of necessity, act in bad faith. We are glad to know that thousands in the North, opposed to slave- ry, are not disposed to disturb the South by any agitation of the subject ; and by how far they discountenance agitation in this, or any other way, the South will accord to them the justice and generosity to which their conduct entitles them. Nor can we perceive what damage or disreputation would accrue to the Scribes and Pharisees of abolition and anti-slavery, were they to take a lesson from the conduct of this portion of their fellow citizens, and especially from that of Christ and his Apostles on this subject. In the application of this reasoning, Methodism is no exception to the general rule. The impurity, the hated leprosy is spread all over the North by the constitution and laws, and by consequence, stipulated consent and established usages of the Church. The action of the last General Conference, if carried out, will prove but an anodyne, not a remedy. Much else will remain to be dune. Pragmatic pertinacity in excluding slavery from the Episcopacy, say the Executive Department, while it is allowed to re- main in the General and Annual Conferences— the Legislative and Judicial Departments of the Church, deemed by the majority of so much more importance— will always ap- pear to the impartial and well-informed, as ridiculous as it is absurd and inconsistent. 62 Who can help being struck with the contrast between the conduct of Prophets and Apostles, in relation to the evil of slavery, and the course pursued by the Northern abolition and anti-slavery party or parties of the Methodist Episcopal Church? Slave- ry, perpetual hereditary slavery, existed in the Jewish, and also in the Christian Church, and slaves and masters, under Divine direction and influence, constituted portions of both, and in both, at different times and in various ways, God himself interposed and legislated for the regulation of the evil — for such it seems to us it must have been re- garded, and might have been, without affecting our reasoning. All this was true and yet no directions given — no movement authorized or indicated, towards its overthrow. It was directly connected with, and was a part of the civil polity, in both instances. In the one it was expressly authorized, and in the other distinctly recognized, as a civil and domestic arrangement, giving birth to important social and moral obligations, and while its abuses are denounced, no attempt was made to interfere with it, as a concera of State. During the personal ministrations of Jesus Christ and his Apostles, the whole Eastern world was full of slavery, in ils worst forms — in forms confessedly worse than any in the United States, and comprehending, it has been estimated, one entire half of the population of the East ; and yet inspiration is silent, except in the specification and enforcement of the relative duties of master and slave, without one word in condemnation of the relation out of which the duties arise. Must not St. Paul and his associates have been familiar with the "Ergastula tota'^ of Juvenal — entire work houses crowded with slaves, and dotting nearly every road side of Greece and Rome] Were they ignorant of the fact, that slavery, even negro slavery, had existed in the countries and colonies of Greece for ages before the christian era? Were they strangers to the fact, that ihe Roman Empire was full of slavery? Had the slave mar- kets of ihe Imperial and Provincial capitols, never attracted their attention? Did they not know that the mines of the Empire alone, for a series of ages, occupied upon an average, annually, some 50,000 slaves? Were the facts attested by Seneca, Pliny, Strabo, and others, that many Roman citizens owned whole legions of slaves, unknown to theml And yet we have seen, and shall further see, what their example was, and how little it resembled the conduct of which we complain? Every word on the subject from either, vindicates the idea and the fact, that slavery is a civil relation, with which Christianity does not meddle, and as such is not to be interfered with on the part of the Church. From Moses to Christ, slavery, perpetual slavery for life, existed in the Church, even in connection with the Priesthood in all its grades, and God, equal and infinite in wisdom and goodness, specified, explained, and enforced its relations. Not only did the He- brews hold slaves, by Divine permission, but by the same warrant, they were permitted to transmit them to their children, as hereditary property. There is no prohibition of slavery during the Old Testament history, nor is the relation of master and slave any where charged as a social or moral wrong. In the Jewish polity, it is not merely tole- rated, but as the prevailing custom of the early Eastern nations, which God did not see proper to deny to the Jewish nation, it was retained and adopted as one of the institutes of a polity, established and published by Himself, as sole legislator. And this is not merely conceded, but currently assumed and asserted, by the whole stream both of Jew- ish and Christian comr.:entary. Nor are Methodist commentators any exception to the rule. It is admitted and taught by all our standard expositors, not excepting Dr. Coke, who in his commentary, whatever he may say elsewhere, admits that slavery by Divine warrant, was made a part of the political constitution of the Jewish Common- wealth. Ignorance alone will deny, that slavery pervaded the whole Eastern world, at the introduction of Christianity, and yet the legislation of the New Testament, no where 63 condems the relation or the system, but is limited to conservative regulations, designed to prevent abuse, and inculcate duty, in relation to all connected with the system, whetlier as masters or slaves. Non-resistance to the law of servitude as a civil ar- rangement, submission and fidelity on the part of slaves, are exacted as matter of christian duty, and for the emphatic reason "that the name of Gud and his doctrine be not blasphemed," as by those, who teach tlie right of resistance and non-submission, in the premises. The same duty is urged, in view of the solemn motive, that the slave may "adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour," a part of the "doctrine of God our Sa- viour," being, that as the master owes protection, support, and kindness to the slave, as such, so the slave owes obedience and all fidelity to the master, in his character of master. A still more explicit reason, assigned in the New Testament, is, that such obedience, so performed by the slave, is necessary to the Divine approval, as matter of plain duty, growing out, of the civil condition of the slave. Every critical student of the New Testament, is well aware that there is not in it a single sentence, nor any series of them, from which induction can logically deduce the inference, that the sim- ple owning or holding of slaves, is inconsistent with the word of God, or christian character. How is it then, that so many have become "wise above what is written," and are so far in advance of the revelations of infinite wisdom, on this subject, as to represent slavery under any circumstances, as one of those monster vices — a Giant abomination, which (according to some,) Christianity has refused to pollute her lips with, and has left to be destroyed by extra-scriptural efforts, or if such be not the po- sition, (according to others,) then let us have the warrant from the word of God, un- der which they presume to act. Difference of opinion and feeling on the subject, we do not complain of — this is to be expected, but when it comes to cursing and outlawry from the pale of all the virtues, then those who so treat us, must produce Divine war- rant for what they do, or stand exposed to the charge of arraigning the wisdom and the word of God. By a denunciation of slavery as the sin of sins, the disciple charges the Master with infidelity to His commission, for by a most unaccountable oversight, the great Teacher, and the inspired expositors of his declared will, failed to intimate, that it was a sin at all. Those we oppose in this argument, make the christian profession a reason for dissolving the relation of master and slave, contrary to the unequivocal teaching of the New Testament, which enjoins the duty of greater fidelity on the part of the christian slave, because tiie master is a christian too, and they brethren in Christ, and in this way our opponents deface rather than adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour. The New Testament teaches tiiat this doctrine is adorned, when the slave renders a ready and cheerful obedience, in view of his relations as a slave ; modern menders of the Divine message teach, that it is best done by disobedience, theft, robbery, running away, or placing themselves in a position to be stolen by their benefactors. The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave, from motives of honesty and uprightness, lejt the name of God and his doctrine be blasphemed ; the reformers in question, how- ever, blaspheme both the name of God and his doctrine, by inculcating directly the con- trary course of conduct. The New Testament requires that kind of obedience which counts "the master worthy of all honor" — that is, in the relation of master. It directs the slave not to be careful about his servitude — "care not for it," although freedom is to be preferred, when it is offered by rightful authority. It also teaches the slave to render service to his master "as unto Christ" — "not to steal but to show all good fidel- ity" — ?,nd finally, most solemnly requires all ministers of Jesus Christ, "to teach and command these things,'''' and assures the Church and the world, that those ministers who fail or refuse to do it, "do not consent to wholesome words, even the u'ords of the Lord 64 Jesits, hat fire proud knowing notliing — doting about questions and strifes of words-^ whereof cometli envy, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, destitute of the truth, from such withdraw." Here is a picture too fearfully attractive not to be noticed. A picture drawn by omnicient discernment, and every word of it originally applied to the subject of slavery and abolition. We are not ignorant of the extent to which sneer and banter have been appealed to, to deter all concerned from any thing like a scriptural examination of the subject. Tiiose who resort to such a course, doubtless perceive, that whatever warrant they may have for their conduct from other sources, they have none from the word of God. They no doubt feel, that they are teaching Prophets and Apostles instead of learning from them! The Church that claims authority to excommunicate, or in any way punish or disparage the claims of a man merely because standing in the relation of master or owner to a slave, treats the lan- guage and analogy of the Bible on this subject as obsolete, fjr in the Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testament, the relation is recognized as existing in the Church, every way and essentially distinct from that of hired or indented service, and in a way further, showing the relation to be allowable by Divine permission. God informed his people, under the old dispensation, that they might hold slaves either for a term of years, or for life, as a "perpetual possession" and "inheritance" for their children. The permission is expressly given in various forms. Under the new dispensation, He has not only f\tiled to say they shall not do so, but proceeding upon the fact that they did, and the assumption that they would. He simply instructs them, how to treat their slaves, and explains to them the kind nf service they may reasonably expect from them. The cruel, unjust, and even unkind master, should be disowned by the Church, as also the faithless slave. The humane and considerate master and the faithful slave, liave as good a right, according to the Jewish and Christian Scriptures, to membership in the Church of God, other tilings being equal, as any class of mankind whatever. The practice of the Church for more than thirty centuries, has been in accordance with this statement. Biblical scholars need not be told, that in the Hebrew and Greek of the Old and New Testaments, terms denoting the s/ai'fi fro/»er, by general consent of all commentary and criticism, and clearly beyond doubt distinguishing the slave from the hired or any other kind of servant — thus forming two separate and well defined states of servitude, are used several hundred times, and frequently in direct contrast in the same sentence, and that in both langnagcs, and both divisions of the Bible, they are distinguished and kept separate, by the use of different terms, without any confusion of meaning or application. They need not be told, that in the New Testament as in the old, the one relation is recognized as existing in tlie Church, as well as the other, and that there is no prohibition of the one any more than of tiie other. Tlie distinction between ruler and subject, parent and child, husband and wfe, is not more distinctly main- tained by the use of different terms, than that between the slave proper and the hired ser- vant oT the Scripiures. If this be not so, let the contrary be shown. Let it be made appear, that the ^^Eved" and ^^Saukeer", (slave and hired servant,) of the Hebrew Scriptures — the '•'Douhus" and *^ Misthotos," (.v^rneand hireling) of the Greek of the Septuagint and the New Testament, with their almost innumerable compounds and formations, as well as other kindred terms, with their compounds and derivatives, used to denote the same contrasted relations — let it bo shown, that all these, so used in several hundred places, do not mean the opposite civ i] and domestic relations of slavery and freedom — of compul- sory and voluntary service. But if not, and the Bible is found teeming with such evi deuces and distinctions witli regard to slavery, wliiie the very Decalogue re::ognizes the relation, and it is re-published in the sermon on the mount, let it be admitted that th9 65 evil of slavery is to be judged of in view of other tests than its condemnation in the Bible. Were the Bible silent on the subject, the case would be very different. Other means of judgment would, of necessity, have to bo appealed to. But the Bible is not silent. Heaven has legislated on the subject, and beyond that legislation no man or Church can go, without a departure from the word of God. The Methodists have avowed the belief to Heaven and earth, that what is not taught in the Bible, cannot be made a condition of salvation, and by consequence cannot be essential to christian character or ministerial qualification. Let the Bible then, come in as a witness on this subject, and let its decision be conclusive of the controversy. This must have been the design of Heaven, or the subject would not have been introduced there. We may fight and divide, and fight after division, until weary and wasted, and it must come to this at last. Slavery as a question of moraUty, can only be settled hy an appeal to the revealed icill of God. Here, and on this ground, must the decisive battle be fought. Let this then be the issue. The Divine will being revealed on the subject, in the Scrip- tures, ichat is ilJ If we misunderstand the great register of our faith, let us see our wrong. If we lack information, enlighten us. If by fair exegetical argument, the contrary of what we assume can be shown, we pledge ourselves to submit. But should it appear that the Bible recognizes the jural and social relation of master and slave, as a concern of civil government, with which the Church has no right to interfere, beyond the inculcation of duty and the correction of abuses incident to the relation, then we are compelled to maintain, that those who denounce the relation itself, as criminal and inconsistent with christian character, "teach for doctrine the commandments of men, and pervert the oracles of God." We repeat, here is the tru3 issue, and let it be met. The early attempts of the Church, or portions of it, to interfere, so as to disturb the civil and domestic relations between master and slave, are directly condemned by near- ly all the principal early and later fathers. Ignatius, Chrysostom, and Jerome especial- ly, denounce the practice as unchristian. Ignatius says, "despise not tlie slaves, neitlier suffer them to be puffed up, but to the glory of God let them serve with greater dili- gence, that they may obtain of God a belter liberty. Let them not desire that their liberty be purchased by the Church, lest they fall under the slavery of their passions." And accordingly it was decreed, by one of the ancient councils of the Church — "if any teach, that by virtue of religion or christian instruction, that the slave may despise his master, or may withhold his service, or that he shall not serve his master with good faith and reverence, let him he anathema" Such views of the subject are not offered to show that slavery is not an evil, but to show that it is not, (unless the relation be abused to criminal and unworthy purposes,) evil in the sense and to the extent assum- ed by a large portion, perhaps the majority of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Where slavery obtains, without being a civil regulation of the State, without the sanction of public laic, as was the case in Massachusetts, from its introduction until put down by the Judiciary, our reasoning does not, and is not intended to apply. If evil be applied to slavery in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, in the sense in which it is applied to drunkenness, prof^ineness, &c., as contended by some of our General Conference organs, then the Church has deliberately connived at vice and ungodliness, in both the ministry and membership, for the last half century and more, and must be looked upon as not less guilty and degraded, than she would have been, had she allow- ed her ministers and members to be drunkards, swearers, and Sabbath breakers. If this be so, the Church has been dishonest and unprincipled, in every period of her his- tory, and those holding such an opinion, to be consistent, can only award her the curse of Heaven, and the scorn of Christendom. The term evil, however, in the Discipline, 9 66 is used in no such sense. Such a construction would not only prove the Methodist Church unworthy of confidence, but the great head of the Church general, Prophets and Apostles, the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, the principal fatiiers and writers of the Church, since the days of inspiration, would be equally included in the condeiination ; for we have seen that all these have steadily and formally recognized the state and relations of slavery, even perpetual hereditary slavery, and have specifi- cally legislated and given direction, not for its overthrow, but for the regulation of the duties and obligations arising out of sucli state and relations. Taking the slavery of the United States, and certainly we have proved it to be such, as a long established civil regulation of jural origin, interwoven with all the successive formsof government, and the very structureof society, unless it can be shown to be inconsistent with the word of God, and so forbidden to the christian, we maintain that any authoritative inter- ference with the relation by the Church, is a usurpation of right that ought to be resist- ed. We have seen at length and undeniably, that the judgment of our chief pastors, the Bishops, as given at difi^erent times, and fully sustained by repeated and formal de- clarations of the General Conference, directly rejects the supposition that the relation in itself is disallowed by the word of God, and therefore sinful. All the Bishops joint- ly, Bishop Hedding, Dr. Bangs, two successive General Conferences, and other author- ities, have been adduced to show that since the early abolition of the Methodists in the United States, this has never been the doctrine of the Church. In matters of con- science she has, by her own official avowal, no right to legislate, except what she de- rives from the Bible. — See Vr. Emorifs report in 1828. Whence her rigiit then to de- nounce as morally wrong, a civil relation, recognized and tolerated in the Jewish and Christian Scriptures'? The recent General Conference declared the slavery question to be one of conscience, and as the subject is discussed in the Bible, which we receive as "the only and sufficient rule of faith and practice," we ask for the warrant of the Ma- jority in taking the stand they have on this subject. One of two things we claim, in the abused name of God and his word: — either furnish the warrant we call for or treat us on this subject as we are treated by the Bible and its author. We do not mean to say that the Bible favors slavery, or that slavery is not an evil ; what we insist upon is, that the Bible treats it as a jural arrangement in human governments, which the Church has no right to assail or disturb, beyond proper efforts to bring master and slave into the fold of Christ, and urge upon both the faithful performance of their rela. tivc duties, that in this way, principle and conviction may operate their appropriate re- sults. This was God's ancient method in the Patriarchal and Jewish ages, and that of Christ and his Apostles under the new dispensation, and vve insist it will be found to be the only efficient means for the e>:tirpation of the evil. Beyond this the Bible is neither for nor cr^a/nsi slavery. There is no jJro-slavery — no anti-slavery in it. The relation is recognized and its duties clearly pointed out, and at the same time all abuse of the relation is denounced as sin and punished accordingly. Whatever the zeal and fanaticism of modern enlightenment may decree or .say, no other method of treatment is found ill the Bible or authorized by its ethics. Having in various forms brought the subject to the notice of the Churr'j, as requiring his interpo.«iiion, why is God not per- mitted to express his own will, and explain his own law and purposes'? Sacredly pled^:- ed to abid'j by these, as found in the Scriptures, have or have not the high engagements of the Church been broken in connection with the facts brought to notice in this Re- view? How tiic legislation of the Church has been treated, wo have seen in extenso. Can further proof be needed to show that civil law has been declared, in effect, null and void, in its assertion of iho rights of citizenship? In the case of Bishop Andrew, for example, his personal rights as a citizen of Georgia, are legislated away by the sum- , mary process of resolution. With no law of the Church to authorize it, as themselves admit, the Majority place the character and conscience of Bishop Andrew in the i'^-- "- ^'-^-'^ <'f P'-csi. c>^nt ot the Lnited Stales, or in an attempt by chancre to destroy the compromise of the Feceral Constitution. The election of President, should the incumbent even bea thor- ough-going abolitionist, could not be brought "to bear asainst slavery,- except by lat- ./•^^ methods, and very indirectly, and by no means with certain effect at all, and in hlThis ir ''T'" r^^''^^"'^^' ^^ — ' -'PP-e that this was what the editor J ad his eye upon, when he penned the monitory sentence we have just quoted. The a lusion to have fitness, and be of any force, must have been to the fact formally avow ed in other Northern Methodist Papers, that it is not unlikely the three hundre'l ttiol sand votes of t e Northern Methodist Episcopal Church ma,, from a sense o "..di.tv ", and to satisfy the conscience of abolition and anti-slavery, yet be brought to bear upon a hange of the national compact '. against slavery;" that is, receding from the origi- nal condition of Lnion, as it regards slavery, and of course dissolving the National Confederacy, as all know this would be the result. Unless we have misunderstood this and similar intimations, the South can hardly have been premature in deliberatino- upon the necessity of separation. ° ^ The attempt in the Reply to magnify the state of dread and apprehension in the Nort , as it regards a slave holding Bishop, is really surprising. How could the North dread, w at they knew they had the power of preventing, by having an actual major y of more than two thirds in the General Conference? All the annua] and quarterlv Con^ ZToi; t-\""f'" -d individuals who petitioned against the election of a slave holding Bishop, knew the whole alarm or excitement on the subiect. if anv had originated North, and that there was really, not only no danger, but ^o possibility of the e ection of a slave holde-, should Northern men be opposed to the election of one - and the Reply maintains, in behalf of the whole North, that such opposition has al ' ways been as universal as notorious in every period of the Church's history. The Re ply must intend to maintain the legal ineligibility of a slave holder, or else that the" legal abstract right, had become a dead letter by the prevalence of Northern opinion adverse to law ; and in either case, no real alarm conld have existed North, and we are perfectly satisfied none did exist, and that the whole was intended for effect The Northern movement was merely intended to present an array of bavonets arrainst'.lave- ry, m any and every shape and aspect, and at as many points as po'ssible. Antagonism and aggression, in view of the existing order of things nSeciin. slaverv, marked dl the petitions presented at the last General Conference. The peLiUoners present no actual personalgrievances under which they labor, as creating the right of petition. The nVht S8 exercised is a right of war, and the declaration accompanies its assertion, in the Ian- crna-re of the petitions themselves. The Reply claims these petitions as a ground of action acrainst Bishop Andrew, he had sinned, not against the law of tlie Church, but against Northern "sentiment." But why does not the Reply give us the whole truth in the premises, so that what they report might be explained by what they stress? Whv not frankly inform the Church, (for they knew it to be true) that a much larger num'ber of petitioners than that against a slave holding Bishop, demanded an absolute separation of the Church from all slavery and slave holders, in all the forms of the one and relations of the other? Why did not the Repliers tell the Church, what they well knew that the separation of the Episcopacy from slavery was not the thousandth part of what was prayed for] Was it just or candid-did it comport with fair dealing not to do so^ Why were these facts separated, "the one taken and the other left? And why have the Northern Advocates pursued a similar course? So far as the petitions are authority, or furnish motive for action, the Mojority have declared themselves ready to unchurch the whoie slave holding portion of the South, provided it is stoutly petitioned for If such petitions may be a cause of action in one case, why not in another? Does not the silence of the Reply, as to the main object of the petitions, furnish the South with just ground of alarm as to their future safety? Why, too. did the slavery committee, to whom all these petitions were referred, endorse the policy of such a course, by the omission even to intimate, that there existed any difficulty in granting all that abolition prayed for? Why such a studied ominous silence? Were they not bound to report upon the character of these petitions? Wliy did they fail to do so? Why did the committee decline letting it be known, by a full and manly report, that the^e petitions could only be granted by new legislation on the subject of slavery, en- tirely subversive of existing law? Why withhold all opinion as to the real charncter of the petitions, and the reasons and motives of their presentation? Why was all they did report, against the South, who had not infringed the Discipline in any respect, and in favor of the North, whose movements indicated a fixed determination not to submit to it. 11. In one paragraph the Reply tells us, that the vigilant caution of the Church from the very institution of Episcopacy, had been directed to the great object of securing its purity, bv the exclusion of slavery ; and in another it is indignantly affirmed, that the virtuous'dead, North and South, had never drmmed even that such an evil as slavery could ever find its wav into the Episcopacy. The logic of the Reply is, that an evil never thought of had been vigilantly guarded against for sixty years. If the last state- ment be true, what did the caution in question amount to, and of what force is the as- sumptioni If the watchful apprehension did exist, as both affirmed and denied, why no prohibition of law, as the Reply would show? If Bishops are excepted in the ap- plication of a special statute relating exclusively to the rninidry, does not their non- inclusion by the law, upon every fair principle of judicial construction, authorize the relation, for sustaining which. Bishop Andrew was punished? The Reply assumes, at least by concession, that no disciplinary provision-no law of the Church covered the case of Bishop Andrew; and it is alleged that the Conference hence treated it as a "practical difficulty," for the removal of which they were compelled to "provide.' The Majority thus not only admit, but avow their action to be extra-legal ; and if so, was it not by lotrical necessity, extra-judicial? But to return; why all this wide spread epidemic dismay in the North? There is no legal off-cnce, the Majority being judrres, and as a law-abiding portion of the Church, how could they be alarmed^ Un- less" they intended going beyond the provisions of law, and thus drive the South to re- 89 si stance, why feel uneasy? Moreover, if the Majority, before the emergency in ques- tion gave birth to so many rare inventions, regarded themselves as having tlio un- doubted rig!)t to displace a Bishop and "give his Bishopric to another," even without trial or enquiry, what ground was there for the foreboding apprehensions of the Reply? Whether we look at the North, therefore, before or after the knowledge of Bishop An- drew's connection with slavery transpired, the assumed alarm and fidgety preparations of the abolition portion of the Church, prove the existence of purpose and pre-arrange- ment, to disturb the long settled question of slavery, beyond any thing that had pre- ceded. Such purpose has been since avowed by the proper representatives of the aboli- tion party, and how far seconded and sustained by the anti-slavery party, is sufficiently shown in other parts of this Review. The Reply cliargcs, that Bishop Andrew had deliberately or heedlessly placed himself in direct and irroconcilable conflict with the sentiments of a majority of the Church. In relation to tiiis, we enquire, how far the law of the Church may be presumed to reflect its sentiments? It can never be made appear that Bishop Andrew's conduct was in conflict with tlve law, and if in conflict with tlic sentiments of a majority of the Church, then the law is no index of the opin- ion of the Majority, and is in fact an imposition upon the credulity of the law-abiding portion of the Church. And further, the Reply itself shows, that without either de- liberation or heedlessness, without any will or choice of his own, Bishop Andrew had been tlie owner of slaves for many years before his late marriage, and in a State where emancipation is not only unlawful, but even the attempt is rendered criminal by the laws. Hud he not married, the result in every material aspect of the subject would have buen the same. The charge, therefore, is without foundation in the facts of the case, the Repliers themselves being witnesses. It was most confidently affirmed in the case of Harding, that the only question was, was h pradicahle for him to emancipate his slaves? All present will recollect, that in debate this was given as the only principle upon which the true issue was to hinge. The bare statement, however, to say nothing of the absurdities to which it leads, tor- tures and misrepresents both the spirit and language of the law. This, so far from being the only question, was but one of three constituting the ?nain question. 1st. Was it at all practicable for Harding to emancipate his, or rather his wife's slaves? 2d. Could tliis be done conformably to the laws of the State in which he lived? And, 3d. Being in fact and legally practicable, could the liberated slaves enjoy freedom in Maryland] Grant that an aflirmative answer ougr.t to be given to the first of these questions, still, as such an answer cannot be given to the second and third, the majority either of the Baltimore Conference or of the General Conference, had no more right, bij the law of the Discipline, to require the emancipation of Harding's slaves, than they had to run them off North, by way of giving them their freedom, that is, had no right at all, in virtue of the law. That they uprightly believed they had such right, at the time of action, is cheerfully conceded in relation to both. Another argument in Harding's case seems to have found great favor in high places, a3 it may be made, it was no doubt tlionght, to answer the purpose when all others fail. It is assumed, that Harding miglit at least have relinquished his own right of property in his wife's negroes, and so freed himself from slavery. Beside, Ihat legal contingen- cies might destroy this argument altogether, it should be borne in mind that such a quasi species of emancipation is utterly unknown to the law of Maryland, and there- fore not legal, and of coarse could not in any way have affected the state of servitude in which the negroes would still be left. It must have occurred to every one too, that such a course would not have met the requirement of the Discipline at all, for the Dis- 12 90 cipline disavows emancipation as a requirement of law, except where the liberated slave is permitted to enjoy freedom. The argument in question, however, sophistical "IS disingenuous, does not liberate the slave in tact or form, in whole or in part; free- dom, therefore, in any sense, is out of the question, and such an act by Harding, would have been without the sanction of civil or ecclesiastical law, and could not be approv- ed, it seems to us, by humanity or common sense. We are thus driven to the conclu- sion, that as the principal conditions of the requirement by the law of the Church, were barred by the civil law in Maryland, both the Baltimore Conference and the Gen- eral Conference violated the letter and intention of the Discipline, in exacting emanci- pation of Harding. The recent showy and confident attempt to make appear that the cnndilion respecting the enjoyment of freedom by the liberated slave, does not apply to traveling preachers, is utterly set aside and overthrown by the reasoning and construc- tion of law in the addresses, both of the Bishops and of the General Conference, in 1836 and 1810, and especially by the judicial decision of the latter in 1840. in the Westmoreland case, and cannot be urged except in direct conflict both with Episcopal and General Conference authority. The argument above, therefore, so far as it may turn upon this item, remains unaffected by the attempt alluded to, and shows our con- clusion to be fairly made out. Harding was suspended contrary to the plain letter of the law. That the same was true in the case of Bishop Andrew, we have seen at length. The bonds imposed upon the Bishop had never existed before they were prepared for the occasion. The Majority sought no vindication of violated law, no redress of injur- ed right. The true cause of action, was the rifeness of abolition and anti-slavery opin- ion and feeling beyond the anticipation, and contrary to the provisions of law. It was Northern violation of law which rendered the attempted degradation of Bishop An- drew expedient. The Reply labors hard to make it appear, that the Church had al- ways declared and acted upon the principle, that the Episcopacy or a Bishop could in no event, be allowed to have connection with slavery, and yet Dr. Durbin, in debate stated, as did others in substance, -'in passing this resolution wemake a clear declaration against the connection of slavery and our Episcopacy, a declaration which we cannot avoid making if we would, and ought not if we could — a declaration which the world will approve." But if according to the Reply, the declaration was as old as the Church , and well understood by every body, why this formality in re-declaring it] The fact is, it was a declaration of claim on the part of the Majority, not only in open conflict with law, but in utter disregard of trust and confidence created by recent official declarations to the contrary. The whole movement shows the party was aiming at the introduction of a new principle, and the declaration and principle being both new. it was seen that their novelty, not less than inconsistency with existing law, would surprise and star- tle, and hence the necessity of explanation, by way of conciliating the Church, in view of the new order of things about to be introduced. The real difficulty then, existed in others, not in Bishop Andrew, and for tlie wrong of others he was called to suffer. The Majority evidently acted upon tiie maxim that the law was behind the age, and that it would not do for the Church to be in the same category, and hence the rapid stride, the furlong in a breath, with which they moved forward to the accomplishment of their pur- poses. It may not be amiss to enquire why the South are charged with pro-slavery, without being charged with any specific violation of law? Is it intended to say iho law is pro-slavory] Or, if not, and we hnve violated tiie law, why is it not shown wherein and after what manner. We do not so treat the North. We show in what they have offended and departed from the law and order of the Church. Our char- I 91 ges are specific, and the proof accompanies them. We invoke attention and chal- lencre scrutiny, with regard to the one and the other. Are the scriptures and the law of Ihe Church the standard by which we are judged] If tiiey are, those who charge us with pro-slavery, must sliow wherein we have offended against these, and failing to do so, no other proof is needed to sliow the injustice and malignity of the charge. In a word, the wrong inflicted upon the South by the falsehood of the charge, is scarcely a greater outrage Than the defamatory manner in which it has been presented. A specimen of Northern consistency may be found in the fact, that Bishops Soule and Andrew are held to a most rigid responsibility for alledged disobedience to the wish- es of the General Conference, in that, the latter, at the instance of the former, consent- ed to assist his senior colleague in the labors and duties of his late Southern tour, in doincr which, he did only what the General Conference told him to do ; that is, exercise Ills own judgment as to the propriety of performing any work or not. For these acts Bishops Soule and Andrew are denounced in no measured terms, and it is more than in- timated that exemplary punishment awaits them at the next General Conference. Meanwhile, Northern writers, talkers, declaimers, editors. Annual and Quarterly Con- ferences, leaders' meetings, societies, «fcc., are found impugning the wisdom and ar- raicrnincr the action of tlie General Conference in every form of undisguised and scorn- fufrebulie, without any intimation of either responsibility or punishment, because, for- sooth, it is found practicable to hide the contempt they pour upon the General Confer- ence ip this respect, by attempts to defend it in others. Why liability in the one case, and immunity in the other? The action of the Conference, on the Plan of Division, de- nounced by the North, as absurd and unauthorized, was united in by every member of the whole body, except twelve, taking the vote on the 3d resolution as the test vote of the body That approved by tiiem in the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, was a strictly party movement, on the slavery question, and solemnly protested against by every del- egate from thirteen Annual Conferences, beside being opposed by the votes of one halt the Delegation from the Baltimore Conference, two thirds of the Philadelphia Delega- tion, a majority of that from Illinois, with several others from New Jersey, New York, Michigan, Ohio, and Ilock River. Fifteen Annual Conierences condemned the action in the'^case of Bishop Andrew ; the vote of one was neutralized by an equal division, and five divided unequally. And the result is, upon this most ditficult and delicate question, the Annual Conferences confederated in the General Conference, divided six- teen to fifteen, the North having a majority of one. It is true the Delegation from Tex- as, two in number, divided, as did that of Baltimore; but it was admitted by the Dele- gate who voted with the North, that in doing so he did not represent any portion of the Texas Conference. The Annual Conferences, therefore, all absolutely equal in their ricrhts, divided as above, and those who are now attempting to sustain the action of the General Conference, in Bishop Andrew's case, know tliat fifteen Annual Conferences disapproved it, while the action, adopting the Plan of Separation, about which we have so much pragmatic dissent and turbulent abuse, was not opposed by a single Annual Conference, and by only twelve scattering votes of individuals ! And yet we are told, respect for the General Conference, as the Representative Council of the Church, com- pels the conduct we have under notice ! The conduct of a bare, the leanest possible ma- jority, counting by Conferences, is defended with all imaginable zeal and ability, as the voice and actio^'n of the Church, and, at the same time, the almost unanimous action of the whole body, providing for a peaceable "division of the Church," on "constitution- aP' principles, is denounced and libelled as the work of -divisionists"— the project of a "Southern clique." 92 Since May last, sixteen Annual Conferences have ofllcially endorsed the doctrine and positions of the Declaration and Protest, without qualification or exception, and yet ever and anon, a knot or club of Northern abolitionists or anti-slavery arrUators num- bering scarcely as many individuals, are permitted, in tlie papers of The Chu'rch to ban and defame them as a "clique" of schismatic "separatists." If there be any vir- tue which can sufler such wrong, such wantonness of injury, without resentment, the Soutn certainly stands in need of it. Would we had the patience and meekness of the sainted John, who, under similar treatment, was content to say, leaving- the quiet max- im to explain itself, "no lie is of the truth." But to return. We wish to know, (to restrict the general view, here taken, to a single point,) why Bishops Suule and An- drew are to be punished for supposed disobedience to a simple wish of the Majority e.x- plained by themselves, to mean anything or nothing, as Bishop Andrew n:iaht happen to understand it, or they find it convenient to decide, while Editors and others, equally the Agents of the Conference, are promised not only impunity, but even reward, in re- sisting an express and binding "regulation" of the General Conference, havino- all the force of law? We risk the opinion, that no General Conference, having any respect for the decencies, to say nothing of the graver sanctities of judicial procedure, will ev- er attempt to arraign Bishops Andrew and Soule for practical dissent from its wishes, without, at the same time, arraigning the whole corps of Editorial and other Censors', who have been in such officious hr.ste to inform the Church and public, that the Gene- ral Conference of 1844 had so damaged the interests of the Church, that their inter- ference, in contravention of its action, and contempt of its authority, became necessa- ry, to save the Church from ruin ! We have not been unmindful of what will be re- torted here, that we of the South resisted the same authority, in the case of Bishop Andrew. This is admitted as ostensibly true, but the reader who travels over the ground of this discussion with us, cannot help perceiving, with the facts and evidence before him, how utterly unresembling are the positions of the parties, and how impos- sible it IS to compare them, as standing in anything like the same relation to law and right. We resisted the disturbance, by adverse Northern opinion and action, of civil and ecclesiastical rights and relations, established both by the law of the land and of the Church, and the possession of which had been formally guarantied to us by both. Thcnj resist the will of the Majority without any plea of law, or show of right, be- yond that of private judgment. They not only nullify law, shown not to be inconsis- tent with the constitution, but they destroy the Legislature itself, by the virtual, but plain declaration, that no law of ihe General Conference can bind the Church without its /or?na2 previous consent. In our case, the reasons of law override its forms. The occasion accredits the right of resistance, and we vindicate its assertion by the emer- gency of the circumstances under which we act, and hence the difference, both as to the moral and the constitutional grounds of action. In the instance of the two great points upon which theNortn and Soufli divide, Slave- ry and Episcopacy, the Reply, in the first case, denies to Bishops the character of Trav- eling Preachers proper; and, in the second, insists they are merely such, with the ad- dition of hc'iug laiants at will, as officers of the Genera! Conference. The sage induction by which the Manifesto attempts to show that the Protest main- tains the General Conference to be a creature of the Episcopacy, is inkeeping with its general claim to fairness of argumentation. It is plainly the purpose of the Protest to show, that because, according to law, we cannot have Annual Conferences, (and by con- sequence no General Conference, unless in extreme cases,) independently of the Epis- copacy, it docs not, therefore, follow, that the General Conference is the creature of 93 the Episcopacy, aUhough there is quite as good reason for assuming' it, as there is for assuming the Episcopacy to be a mere creature of the General Conference. The Reply, in pressing upon our notice the uniform repugnance to slavery, in the high places of the Church, has signally failed in giving us the true and proper rela- tions of "Methodism and Slavery," and exhibits a sad paucity of proof with regard to the manifestation of the kind of repugnance so very confidently assumed. Beside the many unmanageable facts and perplexing inferences already noticed, tending to discred- it the ultraism of the Reply in this respect, there are other items of no niean signifi- cance, which ought at least to be explained. The General Conference of 1828 sele'cted, with great unanimity, a Southern slave holder as their Representative to the British Conference. It is well known, too, that at the General Conference, in I8o2, more tiian forty Northern votes were given for a Southern slave holder as Bishop, and given too, against a Southern man, proposed for the same office, who was not a slave holder. These, and kindred facts, all go to show, that until the recent marriage of abolition and anti-slavery, for grave family reasons, (a union of effort for particular purposes, as elsewhere seen,) the Church has been in the habit of selecting men for office, and appointments of trust, without reference to their connection with slavery, it being well understood that no slavery was found in the Traveling Ministry, except under circum- stances where, according to law, no forfeiture of right could ensue. All this, howev- er, is utterly misunderstood or misrepresenled by the Reply. That Jesse Lee was the owner of slaves, when designated by Bishop Asbury for the office of Bishop, and came within a single vote of being elected by the General Conference, is, lam informed, sus- ceptible of proof. It is also affirmed that he was such, when, at an earlier day, he planted Methodism in New England. Bishop McKendree never attempted to disguise his solicitude for the election of Thomas Logan Douglass as Bishop, although he knew him to be an extensive slave holder, in a State where emancipation was impracticable. Southern men, holding slaves, have, at different times, been supported for the Episco- pacy, by Northern votes, ever since the organization of the Church. The manner in which the Reply repels the charge of '-extra-judicial" proceedings against Bishop Andrew, will be recollected by all. The charge is, that Bishop An- drew was proceeded against "out of the ordinary course of legal procedure," such be- ing the common and obvious meaning of the term ; and the Reply, after denying the charge in various forms, takes great pains to show why the Bishop could not'be°dealt with according to law, and why it was necessary to meet the emergency "out of the ordinary course of legal procedure." The gross fallacy of the pretension, that the General Conference has the right to do anything not expressly forbidden, publishes its own refutation the moment it is looked at. So soon as we apply it to the division of General Conference jurisdiction, this argument of the Majority is, by themselves, de- nied as futile. While Bishop Andrew is on the tapis, the "Croton river" overflows its banks, but the moment division comes up, it is dried in all its streams. When Episco- pacy is in the way, the General Conference has all power, even the sovereign lawlessness claimed for it by Bishop Hamline ; but whenever it is shown that such supremacy must give to the body claiming it, the right to divide the general jurisdiction of the Church, we are instantly informed, as we have been in twenty different shapes, that this right belongs not to the Traveling Ministry, hut the 'people— the Laity. The reader, by ad- verting to our reasoning elsewhere, will perceive at once, that in theory, this is a rev- olution in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is deprivino- the Traveling Ministry of rights and powers always claimed by them, and investing°them in the people, where it has always been obstinately contended they do not belong, and 94 by whom they cannot be claimed, except upon the principles of a revolutionary radi- calism. This concession of the General Conference Press, '-by authority," for tempo- rary party purposes, may bo found to contain the seeds, and furnish the type of a des- tiny not dreamed of in the philosopiiy of the Majority. What is conceded now, and in this case, may be claimed hereafter, and acted upon in others. The argument is a Del- phian blade, cutting more ways than one.. When we come to apply it, the General Conference is as much the creature of the people as a Bishop is the creature and facto- turn of that body. The strangely doubtful— the equivoque position in which the resolution of Finley, with the subsequent explanation, left Bishop Andrew, made in every practical sense, the mere discretion— ihe unll of Bishop Andrew, the sole law of determination, both with regard to the moral character of his conduct and the propriety of exercising or de- clining to do so, the functions of his office. And yet for adopting the rule of action prescribed by the Majority, the Bishop is to be further punished. The Bishops inform- ed the Conference, by way of asking for "oificial information," that in their judgment they had "no discretion to decide" upon even the kind of relation Bishop Andrew sus- tained to the Church. The Conference tell them they are right, they have no discretion in the case. The Conference declare all is confided to the discretion of Bishop Andrew, and that what he may resolve upon is the law of the General Conference, "whether in j^jjy" be may work or let it alone, "and if any in what work" — he may choose any work he prefers— "be employed," sees fit to occupy himself, (for no directions are given the Bishops,) "is to be determined by his oiim decision and action, in relation to the pre- vious action of this Conference in his case." Should Bishop Andrew decide he is sus- pended, he may be expected to decide against taking work, although the Conference leaves him at liberty to work, should he see proper. Should his "decision" be that the Con- ference has merely advised him, and left him to do as he may think best, still the whole ■matter is left to himself, and the necessary alternative construction is, that the decision of Bishop Andrev/ is the law of the General Conference. And the question now arises, can the General Conference, with any show of right, punish Bishop Andrew for doing what they expressly authorized him to do— that is, work or let it alone, at his own dis- cretion. Can he be punished for obeying their own law? Or rather, was not the law- such, (the Bishop's own will,) as to render disobedience impossible! And what then is he to be punished for? A writer in the Western Advocate, who strikes hut hides the hand, informs us the next General Conference will let us know what he is to be punished for. This however, can hardly be. When the manifesto was presented to the Confer- ence, it contained a very significant menace to this effect, but the Majority refused to sanction the amenability of Bishop Andrew in this respect, as assumed by Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott, and the latter accordingly proceeded to strike it out. This was after the report had been made and was in the possession of the Conference. Other items too were stricken out by Dr. Durbin, some icith and some without the consent of the committee or Conference. Tliat this was not done, as has been alledged, to oblige the South, is perfectly obvious, for many other things pointed out and animadverted upon as particularly objectionable, were not stricken out, and it is plain those items only were expunged, which it was seen wore indefensible and likely to discredit the argument and cause of the ^Majority. It can hardly be necessary to call attention to the unfair use which has been made of the fact that Southern men, upon a motion from the North, voted to have tlie Reply re- corded upon the Journal and printed. The motive of Southern men in doing so, will be ncrceived bv all. Th Majority had ordered their explanation of tho action had in 95 Bishop Andrew's case, in the shape of an extended report bj' distinguished leaders of the party, but were unwilling to assume the responsibility of adopting it. The South challenged the Majority to accredit the report, either by its adoption or by attaching their signatures to it. Tkcy refused to do eitiier. Wishing to have ready access to it, and have the Church made acquainted with it, although notoriously disapprovino- its contents, several Southern men voted to record and print it, as a summary of the doc- trines and opinions of the Majority, respecting slavery and Episcopacy, which the South believes to be alike subversive of the unity and General super iniendency of the Metho- dist Episcopal Church. The Reply insists that the readiness and unanimity with which the Slajority consent- ed to the plan of separation, is a practical refutation of the charge of the Protest, that the Minority had been subjected to the party control of a dominant majority. Suppose we look at later demonstrations by tlie North. What kind of treatment has the South received from the great mouth piece, the government organ of the Northern party, the Christian Advocate and Journal, to say nothing of others? We are privately assured it is true, from different sources, that it misrepresents bot!i Northern opinion and feel- ing, as certainly and even offensively, as all know it to have misrepresented the Gen- eral Conference and the South ; still it speaks for the Churcii North, and will, no doubt, continue to do so. The perfect silence of book agents, book committees and the North- ern Conferences, must, of course, be understood as their endorsement of its policy and tactics, and they are accordingly responsible, not for every thing the paper may contain, but for its main 'position and obvious purpose in this controversy, as authorized to speak^for the Church, and it requires no great discernment to see, that important results may follow from the fact, that the original position of the Majority has been denied and reiersed, and its public solemn obligations scorned and cancelled by its official oro-an, thus rendering it more imperiously necessary than before, that the Southern Conferen- ces be independent of the Northern, beside the proof it furnishes of the original neces- sity of division. A single fact noticed elsewhere, and that can never be forgotten by the South, speaks volumes on this subject. Papers published under the authority of the General Conference, have stated distinctly and repeatedly, in the gravest forms, that the only reason why the South seeks a separate organization, is because tliey insist on having a slave holding Bishop, and cannot be gratified while in union with the North, We have shown this statement to be as notoriously false in fact, as it is injurious in its purpose and effect. The whole history of the difficulty publishes its want of truth not less than the malevolence of its origin, and the express language of the General Conference is falsified without disguise, by the imputation. The Conference in provi- ding for separation, avowedly acted in view of "various reasons enumerated" in the declaration of the Southern delegates, and the only reason of our Editors is not even one of the several alluded to, in any sense or shape whatever. The fact is, the Reply mistook both the character and temper of the North on this whole subject, unless both are miserably misrepresented by the official press. Those men who believe all slave holding to be morally criminal, and are resolved to rid the Church of .ill slavery in every respect, are infinitely consistent compared with those who seem to think slavery involves very little difficulty on moral grounds, but is most disastrously evil when it becomes mixed up with the difficult tactics of sectional interest and party expediency. The fact is, to be at all consistent, Methodism in all the non-slave holding Conferences, must occupy the old common ground of the legal tolera- tion of slavery in all grades of the ministry, in States whose laws do not allow the emancipation and subsequent freedom of the slave, or must take new ground, and ex- 96 elude it from the ministry, and by consequence, as we think, from the membership alto- gelher. The Chnrc-h South can admit of no distinction — no inequality of right in the ministry, without disreputation and overthrow. Where emancipation is practicable without evading or violating civil law, and the freed slave is allowed to enjoy freedom in the State of his domicil, should Southern ministers fail to emancipate, let tliom be punished. But where this is not the case, and v^'hilethe law of the Church remains as it is, we will not submit to punishment of any hind, and it need not be expected of us. The old compromise, as we have understood it, is the only ground upon which we can stand in the South, and by how far we credit Northern assurances and defer to South- ern opinion, it is unlikely we shall ever occupy that ground again. Under these cir- cumstances, geographical division, (as to general jurisdiction,) with the exceptions re- cognized by the General Conference plan of separation, seems to be the only pacific remedy. For this the South, with a greatly less number of exceptions than was ex- pected, is ready ; and sliould tlie North, under the influence of counsels, adverse to the pledge of the General Conference, refuse to fulfil its contract, the question will be left to work out its solution in a different vvay, uninfluenced by Editors or correspondents, North or South. We write and talk of union, as if it were matter of choice by the par- ties to have it by mere dint of proclamation. But irhere is that of which so much is written and spoken, to so little purpose] Soberly, where is our ?i?!io?2? "The North saith, it is not in me, and the South, it is not in me!" Split assunder by a moral con- vulsion despite ourselves — involuntarily sundered by the throes of an earthquake — already apart and each asking what the other cannot yield — clinging to opposing prin- ciples vital to existence, as the parties recede from each other; the question is, how may the least evil result from what has taken place? No longer one, and finding it impossible to agree, is there any reason why we should deslroij one cvioUier, by way of proof that we ought not to have been separated? If the ends for which we came to- gether, can only be accomplisiied by separation, and this we have solemnly declared as it regards the South, and the truth of the declaration is increased by every day's expe- rience, v.?hat must be the suggestions of both duty and interest? And what must be the inevitable inference as to constitutional competency to divide the general jurisdiction of the Church, in an emergency of this kind? On what grounds is it doubted? With what show of reason or force of argument can it be questioned? The proposed division, so far from exciting political alarm and alienation in the South with regard to the North, will tend directly to prevent the one and the other. Five thousand ministers and five hundred thousand members South, tamely submitting to Northern encroacliment on the subject of slavery, would immediately and beyond doubt endanger the union of the States, but when it is seen tliat the rapidly increasing thous- ands of Southern Methodists, will not submit to this, all cause of alarm in connection with the Ciuirch, is removed at once. If while the civil condition and relations of the South are constantly assailed by the Church North, Southern Methodists had not re- sisted, but allowed the interference to proceed from one extreme to another, the Metho- dists being largely the most numerous denomination in the South, there would have been just reason, perhaps, to fear that the South might be driven to means of self de- fence, endangering the harmony if not union of the confederacy. Already, however, the resistance of the Southern Church has given a tone of confidence to Soutliern feel- ing, greatly lessening the danger in question. It is not unlikely, from the present signs of the times, and we accordingly predict, that the Presbyterian Church in the South, will soon be cion. Both parties, it is well known, intended to provide for a separation, without another meeting of the General Conference. The Plan of Separation aulliorizes the Southern Conferences to judge of the necessity of separation, and furnishes the highest warrant of the Church for a separate organization, if it be deemed necessary. The South asked lliat the Conferences in the slave holding Stales might be set off un- der the jurisdiction of a separate General Conference, with a view to prevent the ar- ray of the Nortli and tlie South against each other, at every General Conference, (as now organized,) on the subject of slavery. A constitutional division of general juris- diction was prayed for, all other organic relations remaining the same. It was suppos- ed, that, as the General Conference possess^cd full power to make all regulations for the welfare of the Cliurch, deemed indispensable, and not inconsistent with the con- stitution, that the right of extreme necessity autiiorizcd tiie South to ask, and the North to grant the separation in question, and such an arrangement was mutually agreed to by tiie parties. It was not thought, by either party, that ihc constitution had made provision for such a separation, but by belli, that so far as necessity, in view of the 103 good of the whole Church demanded it, it could not be inconsistent with the constitu- tion, the primary design of which is to promote such good. Hence, the Conference ordered that a "constitutional'- plan of separation should be devised and reported by the appropriate committee, which was done accordingly, and was adopted by the Confer- ence in due form. The Northern votes in favor of this plan were more than double the number given from the South. The North, with almost absolute unanimity, declared, that should the Southern Conferences decide in favor of it, such separation of jurisdic- tion should take place, in right of such special grant. All the sixteen Southern Con- ferences have so decided, and the numerical dissent in the Traveling Ministry has been less than one half per cent. The condition, tiierefore, upon which the Majority of the General Conference pledged the North to a separation, having been most fully and un- equivocally realized, the North is committed to the issue without any possible chance of honorable retreat, unless with the consent of the South. That this whole transaction, both in its form and subject matter, has been grossly distorted and utterly misrepre- sented by General Conference organs, whether viewed on 7noral or legal grounds, is a position not likely to stand in need of proof. The almost innumerable statements and declarations, that the South proposed to "sepa rate //-om the Church," was understood to be a "secession," and to "go off as no longer any part of the Church," are not only unjust and untrue, as it regards the Soutii, but a libel upon the ojjicial action of the Ma- jority of the late General Conference. The General Conference gravely and explicitly instructed the committee of nine to "devise a constitutional plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church'' into two great departments. North and South, in the following words : — '^Resolved, That the committee appointed to take into consideration the communication of the Delegates from the Southern Conferences, be instructed, provided they cannot, in their judgment, devise a plan for the amicable adjustment of the difficulties now existing in the Church on the subject of slavery, to devise, if passible, a constitutional plan for a rauiual and friendh, division of the Church.'' j j Here is our warrant. And ler it be noticed— 1st. That it is proclaimed by the Gen- eral Conference, that they did not think a constitutional division impracticable. And, 2d, That, in reporting the plan, under instruction, tiiat it should be constitutional, there is no intimation from the committee, or otliers, that it Vv^as not so. If the men who adopted the above resolution, and also sustained, by their votes, the plan of separa- tion reported by the committee, acting under the instruction given, intended that the separation should not be constitutional, and in pursuance of law and order, but in fact a "secession," operating a forfeiture of Church rights, as now avowed by official agents of the Conference, then we cannot for a moment hesitate, nor do we believe public opinion will, in pronouncing it a deliberate fraud practised upon the South, against the purposed mischiefs of which the South is amply protected, both by ecclesi- astical and civil law. The General Conference is, in the face of Heaven and Earth, committed to a ''constitutional" and friendly "division of the Church," mutually agreed to by all the Annual Conferences represented in the General Conference. The South are no more "divisionists" than the North. The true sponsors of division are the men who voted for the resolution, and the report in question, and they are held to the re- sponsibility involved. No plea of oversight, with regard to the use of terms, can be urged by the Majority, for a Souliiern man, fearing it might create an insuperable diffi- culty, moved to strike out the term "constitutional," which the Conference promptly refused to do, and by retaining stressed the term, as one to which no little iiiiportanc'e was attached. The Majority, therefore, are pledged to the result— a constitutional di- vision of the Church, and any and every effort to the contrary, tending in any way to 104 prevent such a result, involves the faith and honor of the Conference. The General Conference action, as above, binds the CAwrc/j, inlaw, as well as on'^the score of hon- or and good faith. It is a plain legislative contract, by the supreme legislative power, upon which the South relied and acted, and should the North determine not to keep faith in tlie premises, a new issue is formed, and tlie question arises, whether the decep- tion attempted to be imposed upon the South does not righlfuUy transfer the identity of the Methodist Episcopal Church to the party keepin?^ good faith in the transaction. Dr. Elliott and others maintained, (and every man who voted for the resolution and report above, must have thought so, or trifled strangely both with his conscience and reputation,) that the plan of division reported by instruction could be carried into effect consistently with the Scriptures and the Discipline, and of course constitutionally. The Northern party are bound to a division, precluding all idea of "secession," if truth, honor, and law can bind them, and retreat is impossible, without a sacrifice which must make them poor indeed. In all the proceedings in the case, the one distinct intelligible idea, mis- understood by no one, was a peaceful, constitutional division or separation of the Church. All idea of separation from the Church was distinctly disowned and repudi- ated ; and the falsehood of the charge is proved by the express language of the Gene- ral Conference, in the shape of authoritative instruction. This position, in view of the evidence supporting it, cannot be in the least affected by a thousand denials, how- ever painfully unpleasant it may be, to see the truth of history, as found upon the jour- nals, and in the debates of the General Conference, contradicted by men, who them- selves did, what they affirm was not done at all! That the action of the General Con- ference was designed and understood to be "constitutional," is inevitable, however that- action may have been perverted and misrepresented since. In the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840, it was the opinion of those bodies, with but few exceptions, that it was competent for the General Conference, as proposed by the lamented Cox, to set off the infant Church of Liberia as an independent Methodist Episcopal Church, as had been done before, in the case of Canada. The question of constitutional right, in all these cases, is one and the same, and must, certainly, with the advocates of General Conference incrrahility, (if not with others,) tend to strengthen our argument. What- ever name it may suit Northern editors or writers to give the proposed Southern organ- ization, such organization is clearly and irrefutably authorized by the General Confer- ence. That body agreed, by stipulations, plain and unambiguous as any requirement or prohibition of the decalogue, should the Southern Conferences so elect, to set them off and allow them to organize a separate ecclesiastical establishment, as an accredited por- tion of the great Methodist family in the United States, into which it should be lawful for any member, minister, or Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church to enter, with- out censure nr dlsahility of any kind. And to deny this, in the face of tne evidence, accessible to all, is worse than fatuous. It is true the plan contemplates a change of the Gth restrictive article, in order to a division of the funds, and the consent of the I Annual Conferences, to this effect, is recommended by the General Conference, but no such consent is made necessary by tiio plan to legalize the organization, should the South find it necessary to orginize. If the three fourths vote of the Annual Confer- ences is not obtained, it only affects the fur.d question, without, in any way, vitiating tiie general movement. Should the South see proper to organize without such security, the risk of course is incurred by the South, as to the fund, but the arrangement, as a whole, remains unrsffected by the failure. The fact is, there will be no risk finally, as several of the Northern Conferences will, at their first meeting after the formation of a separate Southern connexion, if they redeem the pledges they have given, vote for 105 the change of the restrictive article, and so rer,.ove the difficulty. So far, there ore, no obstacle exists to the new organization. It is urged, however, that the -S^ts c laame , upon the basis of the contract, have been forfeited by the S.>uth, because SouU em pa- pers, meetings, &c., have held severe language with regard to the North. Tins may be true, but as equally severe language has been held by the North against the South any tolerably fai^ examination of this matter, wUl satisfy any one that there as be n Jae as much forfeiture of right North, as South. If th>s vzew of the subject shou d ever assume the shape of a duect issue, it will not be difficult to show on wh.ch s de the line truth and facts have suffered most from distortion and misrepresentation Such a plea can avail nothing. The charges of the South against the North are in the Protest, and were formally preferred before the plan of separation was agreed to^ A war of editors and writers cannot affect the legal position of parties. Ihe plea, to lave presented even a show of reason, should have been ong.nally urged upon the g old of the Protest itself. We are strongly persuaded the Northern Conferences generally, would be unwilling to resort to such a plea, however partizan advocate., and perhaps a few Conferences, may be induced to turn it to what account they can. Were the Local Ministry and membership admitted to a participation in the legisla- tion and government of the Church, by its constitution and laws, the proposed division luhouttteir consent, would, it is admitted, vitiate the whole procedure, ^u - J -j cannot affect either the cccle.iasliral or legal rights of the parties. We speak of hing s they are, not as they ought to be, if any should think them not right. Not only h s the General Conference twice formally declared that all such right, as to Local Preach- ers and the people, is barred by the conslUuUon, but these bodies themselves have glo- ried in proclaiming that they have no such right as that assume f-/'^!- -/^;;;|;- n.ent to which we are replying. That any, all constitutional right of the kind i. denied to any portion of the Church, except the Traveling Ministry, see report o the General Con- feience of 1824, also, Dr. Emory's Report in 1828, Dr. Bond's Appeal and o her docu- mentson the same subject, published by authorify of the Church, in all which it is de- finitely assumed that the Local Ministry and Laity have barred their natural right, if they ever had any, to all participation in t}.e governing porcer ^^^ C^^/^J' ^^ J?' rentional arrangement, and that loyalty to Methodism, the peace and good of the Church, and especially The existence and success of the general itinerant system imperiously enu ^ at t e, should not seek to disturb an organic adjustment, so vital to the in- ere stsof all concerned. Noro, however, the Northern Majority are attempting to ouse. and exci.e to action, the stupendous popular force which it was th.^ conten ed would inevitably destroy the Church. Why this change Is ^^ pr-ciple o poh y Is the old doctrine discarded, or is it a mere ruse, intendea for temporary effect when e o d order of things is to be re-asserted^ The true question is, have the confedera- n. Annual Conferences a right to say. by their Delegates in General Con erence as- embied. urgent reasons demanding it, that instead of a single federal jurisdiction as now by -Ins of one General Conference, they will divide this jurisdiction into "he ne North and the other South, and let two General Conferences, -th equal poves and privile.es, within their respective limits, be the organs of federal ac ion, instead of one as heretofore] And, as the Local Ministry and membership have always been ae- M tlX'^t of representation, both in the Annual Conferences and the General Con- fei, we are curious to know how the Majority, without a change of organic law. an invest them with the right to resist the action of the one and the other upon the question of dividing a jurisdiction from which iAey have always been carefalyea:clu- LT How does it happen that the concurrence of these portions of the Church, denied 14 106 all participation in the government, by the constitution and the laws, is now necessary to the constitutional action of bodies officially declared to be independent of them, by conventional compact, in their right to govern the Churcli? Did the proposed separa- tion affect the moral ];iws of Methodism, or the moral relations and interests of Meth- odists, as Church members ; did it involve any change as to fa ilh or morals, ordinan- ces or ceremonies, did it touch the elements of christian character or fellowship, did it propose any material change of government or discipline, the case would be different, and the primary moral rights of the great body of the Church would stand out with commanding appeal. But nothing of the kind is proposed. It is simply a modal change, affecting only a single feature of government. All the moral laws and the Discipline of the Church remain untouclied. The Annual Conference system and the Episcopacy, the Itineracy, and, in a word, the whole moral and ecclesiastical machinery of Metho- dism are to remain as before. The only change thought of by the Southern Delega- tions in the late General Conference, was a division of General Conference jurisdic- tion, leaving all else unaffected by the change. This, and this only, is specifically set forth in the Southern "Declaration." And this, and this only, is specifically responded to in the "constitutional" plan of division adopted by the General Conference. And the truth of history, the irresistible evidence of facts, intelligible to the plainest un- derstanding, will not belong in making it appear, that those who, under the simulated pretence of defending the General Conference, have represented the South as aiming at the disruplioji of the Church, and a separation from it, either do not understand the subject themselves, or are resolved that others shall not. They are either ignorant of the facts in the case, or perversely misrepresent them, with intention to deceive. We state what we know many North, as well as South, avow themselves compelled to be- lieve. How far men may rely upon their own pre-conceptions and prejudices as cor- rect, and proceed to affirm and dogmatize upon such authority, without examination, and thus falsify the truth of history, and even the publicity of official acts and records, without intendivg to do it, is a matter about which we shall not pause to specujate. Those interested can solve the question at their leisure. Meanwhile, the evidence ac- cumulating upon the subject, may, at no distant day, form an element of history as cu- rious as it will be valuable, and a chapter certainly not more humiliating than it will be found irrefutable. The North arranged, approved, and adopted the plan of division, conjunctively with the South. They had a majority of two-thirdsboth in the committee and the Conference. That their honor and good-faith are pledged to carry it into effect, is a position faw, it is believed, will be prepared to question. They cannot recede with any claim to truth or fairness. The act was a stipulation m form, and cannot be re- called. It is matter of history, and cannot be denied. The plan of separation is a plain contract, and any attempt to evade it, by either party, would involve shameless dishonor. The Majority arc bound, if they can be bound by any pledge man can give to man. All who attempt to frustrate and defeat the plan agreed upon, are at least, resist- ing the action of the General Conference. The opposition to the plan, ostensibly urg- ed upon the ground of constitutional difficulties, commands respect, so far as these dif- ficulties are pointed out, and assume the shape of argument, and it has been our aim, in this discussion, to meet and dispose of such difficulties with fairness and candor. The outcry and declamation we have nad on this topic, are perhaps best answered by show- ing in how many ways those who are thus trying to excite alarm, have eiiher so offend- ed themselves, or have witnessed the viulatii.n of the constitution and laws of the Church, by others, without any apparent sense of obliquity or disapproval. But too many have furnished evidence that their difficulties, in this rejpect, are strangely one- 107 sideJ, and connect with whatever contravenes their wishes. For example, the doctrine of the Majority, as represented by the Reply, and also by Bishop Hannlineand others, is, that it is constitutionally competent for the General Conference to do any and every thing not forbidden by the restrictive rules, and by taking this broad position, which they cannot deny, ir is declared competent for the General Conference to authorize, as they did, a separate Southern organization, as all know this is not denied to the Con- ference in the restrictive rules. Their own exposition, therefore, of constitutional right, is at war with the present doctrine of the party, unless misrepresented by their own official organs. Among the many logical fatuities brought to view in this controversy, may be ranked the attempt to show that the term separation, in the plan adopted by the General Con- ference, was used to denote not what it properly means, but "secession." The mean- ing of the terra will be determined at once by an examination of the "declaration" of Southern delegates— the resolution of instruction and the report of the committee of nine, adopted as the plan of separation. In their brief and unpretending declaration, the delegates from the Southern Conferences simply inform the General Conference "that the continued agitation of the subject of slavery and abolition, in a portion of the Church, the frequent action on that subject in the General Conference, and especially the extra-judicial proceedings against Bishop Andrew, must produce a state of things in the South, which renders a continuance of the jurisdiction of this General Confer- ence over those Conferences inconsistent with the success of the ministry in the slave holding States." The obvious and only meaning of this language is, the Southern Con- ferences cannot succeed in the great objects they have in view, while controlled by the abolition and anti-slavery majority of the North, and the reasons why they cannot, are clearly specified. Is there any thing revolutionary or schismatic in this? Does the declaration lack manliness or moderation of either tone or temper? Upon this declara- tion the committee was raised, and acted under the following instruction : Resolved, That tlie committee be instructed, to devise, if possible, a constitutional plan for a mu- tual B.ud friendly division of the Church." That is, a "division of the Church" so far as prayed for— releasing the Southern Conferences from the control of the Northern majority, by allowing them a separate organization. Both the declaration and the reso- lution are in strict conformity with the closing sentence of the Protest, "it is believed, it will be found practicable to devise and adopt such measures and arrangements, pres- ent and prospective, as will secure an amicable division of the Church upon the broad principles of right and equity." Thus showing what kind of division only was had in view. The committee did not ask to be released from the instruction given. They did not intimate that they could not perform the duty assigned them. They reported under the binding control of the instructions received, without giving notice in any form, that they had found it either necessary or expedient to swerve. If they did not intend their report as a "constitutional plan for the division of the Church," they be- trayed a solemn official trust and deceived the Church North and South. The Majority, when they had it perfectly in their power, refused to release them, as we have seen, from the "constitutional" restraint ; and under these circumstances, they cite the thirteen Southern Conferences as representing in their Declaration, "that for various reasons enumerated, the objects and purposes of the Christian Ministry and Church organiza- tion, cannot be successfully accomplished by them, under the jurisdiction of this Gen- eral Conference as now constituted.'' Showing that the sole difficulty was connected with the federal jurisdiction of the General Conference, and that a division of this so as to place ui from under the oppressive control of abolition and anti-slavery, was all 108 that we prayed for. Hence the committee say, "in the event of a separation — a con- tingency to which the declaration asks attention, as not improbable, we esteem it the duty of this General Conference, to meet the emergency with christian kindness and the strictest equity," So also, "should the Annual Conferences in the slave holding States, find it necessary to unite in a distinct ecclesiastical connection, the following rule shall be observed with regard to the Tiorthern boundary of such connection.'' It is a geographical division, in view of securing a separate and independent jurisdiction in the South. The report decides that all Societies, Stations, and Conferences, belonging to either side of the lino of separation, shall so belong by simply "adhering by a vote of a majority." If so to adiiere South is ''secession," why not North, as precisely the same expression is used in both cases? So "adhering" tliey are to remain under the unmolested pastoral care of the Church "adhered" to. Ministers on either side the line are expressly forbidden to attempt, in any way, tiie formation of Churches or Societies upon the other. "Interior charges s/ia/Z ire aZZ cases, be left to the care of i/iffi Church within whose territory they are situated." "Ministers, local and traveling, of every grade and office in the Methodist Episcopal Church, maij as they prefer remain in that Church, or without blame, attach themselves to the Church South." Thus most clearly showing that the Southern division was to be recognized as a Church proper, not less than the Northern^ The report calls the boundary "the line of division." It speaks of the proposed Southern division, as "a distinct ecclesiastical connexion" — "the Church in the South — the Southern Church — Church South — that Church — the Southern organi- zation — the Church so formed — the Conferences South." The latter even after separa- tion, are recognized as rightful claimants for a portion of the chartered fund. The di- vision of the book concern is a transfer upon the ground of admitted claim. Now is it possible that all this could take place among men of sense and upright purpose, if it bad been intended the South should be a ''secession." We regard it as impossible. Meanwhile we have seen that nothing has occured since, to change, alter, or nullify in any way, the stipulations binding the parties. The general view we have taken is fully and fairly sustained by the debates. Dr. Elliott said of the plan, that "it would insure t!ie purposes assigned, and would be for the best interests of the Church — was a proper course for them to pursue in conformity with the Scriptures — all history did not furnish an example of so large a body of christians remaining in such close and unbroken con- nection ; it was found ?7eces.sa/-v//o separate ; the Churches at AntiocI), Alexandria, and Jerusalem, were as distinct as the Methodist Episcopal Church would be if the sugges- ted separation took place; to this conclusion they must eventually come ; the measure contemplated was not schism but separation for their mutual convenience and prosperi- ty." Rev. Mr. Griffith, hostile to the whole plan, urged among other things, that it gave no choice to interior charges, "if they wished to be members of the Methodist Epis- coval Church, whether it should be the Southern or the Northern." Dr. Paine, Chair- man of t!ie committee, spoke of the South as likely to find it necessary to "carry out the provisions of this enactment" — of a Southern "convention" resolving on an "organ- ization" in accordance with the provisions of the report; the measure had been con- cocted in the spirit of compromise and fraternal feeling, in the hope of preventing agi- tation and schism." Dr. Luckey said "he regarded the resolution, (the first,) as pro- visionary, providing in an amicable, proper way, for sucli action as might hereafter bo necessary ; if the separation were necessary, it ought to be amicably and constitution- ally effiscted, and ihere was no intention of doing it otherwise. Mr. Wesley saw it necessary to permit the connection in the United States to separate." Dr. Bangs says of the committee, Wwg a mcnaber of it, "they were instructed by a resolution of the 109 Conference, ^otiJ to act in the premises. They were to provide for separation, if they could do so constitutionally — they had presented this report, from which the Conference would see they had at least obeyed their instructions and had met the con stitutiimnl diffi- culty, by sending round to the Annual Conferences, that portion of the report which re- quired their concurrence, The Laws, Discipline, Government, all would be the same. The South asked a separate Conference, adapted to the institutions of that portion of the country." Rev. Mr. Fillmore, another member of the committee, remarked significant, ly, "Methodism, as the child of Providence, adjuyts herself as she had always done, to the circumstances of the case ; she proposed that if these fears (of the South,) proved well groum]ed, t.hey divide into lands, and go on spreading holiness through their res- pective territories; the plan simply makes provision for such "contingency." Rev. Mr. Finley could see nothing '■^unconstitutional'''' in the plan. "The parties stood pre- cisely alike — there was a great gulf between them and he wished there was middle ground on which both could stand. Mr, Wesley separated the American from the English Church; the General Conference gave the Canada Conference liberty to do just what they now proposed to do with the South ; wo are now doing nothing more than ive did then. Bishop Ilamline, also of the committee, alluding to the first resolution, which gives character to all the rest, said, "the committee thoughv it could not be objected to on the ground of constitutionality. He for one, would wish to have his name recorded affirming them to be brethren, if they found they must separate. The article referred to the Annual Conferences had not, necessarily, any connection with division as agreed by all." Rev. Mr. Porter, one of the committee, said, "the time was coming when separa- tion must tnke place. The difficulty v/asg^rea/er now than it was four years ago, and would increase." Dr. Winans, of the committee, declared, "the only proposition was that they (Sjuth.) might have liberty, if necessary, to organize a separate Conference, and it was important that they should know at an early period, that they had such liber- ty." Finally, hear Drs. Durbin, Peck, and Elliott : "The proposition for a peaceful separation, has already been met by the General Conference, by a vote which would doubtless have been unanimous but for the belief that some entertained of the unconsti- tutionality of the measure;" thus declaring that the General Conference had made what was regarded by nearly all, as a "conslitutionar' provision for the separation of North and South, into two distinct ecclesiastical connections. A recent perversion of the facts of history, in the Western Christian Advocate,":is worthy of notice in this connection. It is broadly affirmed that the committee, upon Dr. Capers' resolutions, took the ground that no division of the Church, as to General Conference jurisdiction, could take place constitutionally, and the inference is thence pressed, that a constitutional separation of the Northern and Southern Conferences, could not have been thought of in the instance of the plan finally adopted by the Con- ference. In reply, it will be proper to observe: 1st. That the plan of Dr. Capers was that of an individual, and was brought forward by the Dr. upon his own responsibility, without the knowledge or concurrence of the Southern Delegations. It was a proposi- tion from Dr. Capers to the North and South equally. The committee very generally agreed, that the subject coming up in this form, presented serious, if not insuperable difficulty. It must not be overlooked, that the proposition from Dr. Capers preceded the Southern declaration, which gave a new aspect to the whole subject. And we now state what will be abundantly proved whenever it is necessary, that leading men of the Majority, in and out of the committee under notice, assured Southern Delegates, in and out of the committee, that the question of separation could not be approached by the General Conference, safely and constitutionally, except upon a declaralion of gritvaiice 110 by Ihe Southern Delegations, and assured us if such declaration were made, it would be in their power to, extend to us the relief prayed for, that is, that the Southern Conferen- ces might be from under the control of V.,e Northern Majority— this being nil we want- ed. Upon the basis of this assurance, a brief, informal, but explicit declaration was presented, and the well known committee of nine appointed, and instructed to report, if practibable, a "constitutional plan" for the "division of the Church." It was too, to be a "?nw/«a? and /WcHr^/i/ division." The constitutional difficulty as to power and right, was presumed to be removed by the declaration, which placed the proposed separation on the ground of necessity, as the great objects of the ministry and Church organiza- tion could not, in the South, be carried on without it. The actual grounds of the ne- cessity being set forth in the declaration of thirteen Annual Conferences, was supposed to change entirely, the constitutional aspects of the question, and give the committee and Conference right and power beyond any tiling presumed by either party, in the case of Dr. Capers' resolutions, and hence the instruction given to report a "constitutional plan." It follows, therefore: 2nd. That any attempt to infer the allodged unconstitu- tionality of the plan adopted, from the opinions of the committee respecting the plan of Dr. Capers, is unfair and unauthorized, in view both of the logic and the facts of the case. The grounds of action being essentially different in the two cases, the reasons and motives influencing men of sense, cuuld not Iiave been the same, and accordingly what was deemed unsafe and impracticable in the one, was agreed to as safe and advi- sable in the other. And the whole objection being thus obviated, the preceding reason- in^ remains in all its force, in favor of the constitutionality of the plan of separation ViS^proJecled and sanctioned by the Majority. Bishop Soule, speaking of Finley's resolu- tions, says, "not a doubt remained with me. that the adoption of the resolution would result in a division of the Church:' He adds, "measures were finally adopted by the Conference, providing for a peaceful and equitable separation between the North and the South." Dr. Olin says, "the piovisional plan of the General Conference was avowedly based on an anticipated necessity expected to result from the state of public senti- ment at the South, and from the peculiar relations of the Southern Church to existing institutions. The only wish expressed or manifested was tliat the two great divisions into which our Israel hereafter must be organized, should occupy positions the most fa- vorable to the discharge of their high obligations to the world and its Saviour." This is a faitiiful report of what actually took place. It is a statement strictly conformed to the facts of the case, and future developements wilh'sustain its truth, despite a thousand malignant editorials and other efforts vainly attempting to make it appear that the South was to leave the Church as a secession. Every true friend of Methodism will read the following burning sentence from the same pen, with prophetic interest: "I shall look upon the'' Methodist Episcopal Church asforever dishonored— I shall look for somesigjial mark of the Divine displeasure, if after sufficient time has elapsed, to test the insuffi- ciency of all plans of compromise, she shall decline to adjust on equitable terms, all the quest'ions that must arise from the separate organization^ There is one other view of this subject, to which we should call attention. Great consequence has been attached to an argument against division, on the ground that unless the Annual Conferences, by a three fourths vote, shall authorize the General Conference, that body has no right or power to act at all in the premises. This argument is good for nothing, because it can- not apply, unless it can be shown, that the question of separation is covered by the res- trictive rules, and as this will not be attempted, it further follows that it was entirely and constitutionally competent for the Annual Conferences to act as they did, through their representatives "in General Conference assembled." As the separation proposed Ill is not prohibited by the constitution nor by law. and the General Conference has full power to make rules and regulations necessary to the common welfare of the Church, if that body believed separation necessary to huch welfare, (as they must have done or would not have provided for it,) the claim of constitutional right seems to be a neces- sary inference, and thus strengthens the general argument. Moreover, this whole question as to constitutionality, is varied by the peculiar char- acter of its subject matter. Were it a question of either faith or morals, properly, (although not included by the restrictive rules) we should be inclined to prefer (not- withstanding constitutional right) that the Annual Conferences, rather than their Dele- gates in General Conference assembled, should settle it. (A novel dodrine or practice not inconsistent with the "Articles of Religion" or "General Rules," would be of the kind we mean.) But such is not the character of the question. The true original is- sue between the parties is, a difference of cpininn, political and religious, as to'the law- fulness and conseijue7it moral character of a civil relation, created and protected by the supreme and municipal law of the country; and the right, further, of ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church to sustain this relation, without detriment to their other relations and interests, whether as citizens or as professors of Christianity. On this question the Nation and tlie Church, as the general rule, divide territorially, as the States admit or exclude slavery. The slave States being a minority, and the same being true of the Southern division of the Church, both originally refused to leave this question unsettled, and to be at any time determined by the Majority, and sought pro- tection, the first by the treaty provisions of the federal constitution, and th/second, by attempts from time to time, as fully shown in these pages, to procure the enactment by the Church, of such conservative and permanent laws, as would be most likely to secure to the South the ends of social justice. As therefore, it is the first and most fundamental function of every constitution, to achieve the objects of the organization to which it relates, and the moral unity and enlarged influence of the Church must rank among these, if it be found, as no one can doubt, after the solemn attestation of six- teen Annual Conferences, tli.it the course of the Majority, (being little more than one half of the Church,) must necessarily injure and depress the Minority, we repeat, these things being so, the right of remedy must accrue under the constitution, even where the consent of the Majority is wanting. Wc introduce this argument to show, that were the Church North to adopt the malign advice of its public organs and special agents, and attempt to drive us off as a secession, it could not do so. Not having vio- lated any law of the Church, as even our revilers admit, and not intending any chango with regard to its Faith, Morals, or Discipline, the constitution protects us and we rest secure. In the event we are treated by the North as threatened by the conspiracy of the Press against General Conference authority and Southern interests, beside the means of redress left us, we shall have the proud and cheering cons^-iousness of high vantage-ground in being chargeable with no Punic stain in retreating from theoblig'a. tionsof a plain public engagement, or trifling with the sacredness of a grave, oftickl trust. In such a cause, and so sustained, we can afford to suflTer. The civil condition and relations of the societies in North America, are assigned by Mr. Wesley as the ground of "separation" between the British and American Metho- dists. The same reason specifically was assigned in the instance of the Canada "sepa- tion." In both these instances, the Church was "divided" by the highest authority in it. If the reader will turn to the Declaration, Protest, and Debates? so often alluded to, he will find that a precisely si7nilar reason is urged as the sole ground of the sepa- ration now pending in the Methodist Episcopal Church. It is asserted, however, that 112 there is "no necessity of division," and it will bo proper to notice by whom and upon what grounds this is assumed. Did the General Conference leave the question of ne- cessity to be determined, as it has been by the dogmatism and impertinence of the Pressi The "Southern Conferences" were constituted the judges by express enact- ment and stipulation in the plan of separation. The sixteen Southern Conferences have decided the question with unprecedented unanimity. The question has been set- tled bv the tribunal to which the General Conference referred it, and of course by the only one having any right in the premises. The "Southern Conferences" had hy con- sent and contract, of parties, the sole arbitrement of the question. Any attempt, there- fore, to control the result by Northern interference, is not merely a gratuitous meddling with the subject, but a breach of good faith. Certainly when the General Conference left the decision wholly and absolutely with the Southern Annual Conferences, and pledged themselves to abide the result, it was not expected that the intrusive dictation of the Press would thwart their purposes, by appealing the case to a different tribunal. The defence of the action of the Majority in their course against slavery was to be expected, and is not excepted to on the ground of right, but the attempt as we have ex- plained at length, to defend the action of the Conference in this case, and yet rmpugn and set it aside in the other, although equally bound to defend both, is such a manifest abuse of official trust, such an outrage offered to the good sense and virtue of the ap- pointini^\eni]y \\\\\\civW\o.\\, it shall not he required of anypersonor class, as the condition of Church privileges or ecclesiastical relations. The deliberate and undoubted violation of this pledge by the General Conference of 1844, taught the South- ern portion of the Church, that the larger division of it North, had abandoned the legal compromise of the Discipline upon whicli the South had so long and confidently reposed, and that the /ufwre re/aiions of the slave holding and non-slave holding Conferences, would have to be adjusted upon a diff'erent basis. This conviction produced the Protest, and after protracted and anxious deliberation, the parties "in General Conference assembled," mutually agreed upon a "constitutional plan" of separation, giving to each division distinct and independent jurisdiction. In offering some remarks in the shape of an outline argument upon the rights and powers of Episcopacy, and the General Conference, respectively, before we close, it is not intended to touch the theological argument distinguishing a Bishop from a Presby- ter, nor yet to discuss the scriptural rights and claims of a Christian Bishop, but mere- ly to fix the place, and ascertain the true relations and consequent constitutional riglits of a Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as the chief executive ojjicer known in its government. The difference of opinion on this subject, between the North and the South, the Protest and Reply, turns entirely upon the strictly ecclesiastical relations of a Bishop in the government of the Church. About the scriptural character of a Chris- tian Bishop we may differ in 0|)inion, but have no dispute. The incipient controversy, likely to become as serious, in many respects, as that on slavery, iiinges, in every ele- mentary sense, upon the Bishop's proper constitutional participation in the governing power of the Church. In the theory of Methodist Church government, as found in the Discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and variously explained and illustrated in the history and publications of the Church, Bishops are regarded as a third order in the ministry only, in view of ihe'iT governing powers as church or ecclesiastical rulers. They are a third order, not in the institution of the Christian Ministry, as derived from Christ, but in the structure of the government which claims to be divinely authorized, 127 because consistent with the doctrine and practice of the New Testament, without being required by it, to the exclusion of other forms of government. Or still more explicit- ly, the present controversy turns upon the distribution, by the organic laws of the Church, of the necessary powers and attributes of every government, between the Episcopacy and General Conference. No question arises as to what ouglU to be the distribution of power, but the inquiry is absolutely restricted to the fact of distribution, as the government is known to have been organized and administered. It does not de- volve upon us, nor would it be at all in place, to show in what respects the govern- ment might have been more consistently or advantageously adjusted. The only ques- tion is, how has it been adjusted in point of fact? What are the constitution and laws, and what is the evidence of practice and usage, as it regards the existing conflict of right and claim between the Episcopacy and the General Conference] After what man- ner, by whom, and for what purposes was Episcopacy introduced and established] How, and by whom, and with what power and rights was the General Conference or- ganized] In what relation do they stand to each other] What are the proper func- tions of each] In what defined relation, especially, does each stand to the legislative, judicial, and executive power of the government] These and similar topics become the true text of discussion, apart from all speculation as to how things might have been better arranged. We offer no defence of Methodist Episcopacy. With the abstract right or wrong of its theory wc have nothing to do. Whether it have more or less power than it ought to have, is a question not mooted at all. What is the theory, and what the vested power and rights of the Episcopacy, by our present form of constitu- tional government, is the true and only question. It is charged in the Protest, and be- lieved in the South, that the late General Conference invaded riglits originally secured to the Episcopacy as a constitutional trust, and over which the General Corference has no control, except in its judicial capacity, upon conviction of misconduct, and forfeit- ure of right. We have never doubted, for a moment, that the General Conference transcended its powers in action, and avowed principles and opinions subversive of the constitution and government of the Church. This opinion is not confined to the South. Many, among the old and the wise of the North, entertain it, and are not without fear and anxiety as to the future. In the very cursory examination we shall be able to give this subject, we sjiall do little more than attempt to indicate the data and trains of reasoning connected with the conclusions we avow. The Majority of the late General Conference claim, in behalf of that body, that it is the source of Episcopal power in the Methodist Episcopal Church. This claim will be found in the Debates, the Reply, and in all the Northern Advocates. It has been put forth with significant minuteness in a hundred different forms. Taking rank among the notabilities of Bishop Hamline's really able and eloquent speech, it has continued to maintain its prominence down to the last hebdomadal effusions of the Northern press, and some great men have gone so far as to give notice that vows are upon them to sacrifice even life, if it be necessary, upon the altar of its defence ! We trust, however, tliat such costly sacrifices will not be found necessary. Meanwhile, let us attend to the claim itself. What has been the doctrine of the Church on the subject for the sixty years of its existence] The testimony of Dr. Coke, the first Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, is, that "Mr. Wesley was recognized by the whole body of American Methodists as the fountain of our Episcopal office." Dr. Emory says, "Mr. Wesley did institute an Episcopacy for the American Methodists." The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine says, "the Episcopacy itself was of Mr. Wesley's en- acting.''^ In the Minutes and Discipline of 1780, the Episcopacy of the Church is ex- 128 pressly said to be derived from Wesley "by regular order and succession." Dr. Emory says, "if the ordination of Dr. Coive, (as Bishop,) was not an ordination proper, and not a mere appointment to office, it was certainly a very solemn mockery — a trifling with sacrtd things.'" Dr. Sangs sayr,, "the Methodist Episcopal Church was organized under the direction of Mr. Wesley," Dr. Coke distinctly informs us he acted, in the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, ''under delegated authority from Mr. Wesley." Mr. Wesley having ordained one, and provided, by formal commission, for the ordination of the other, says, "I have appointed Dr. Coke and Mr. Asbury Joint Siiperintendants." The Discipline speaks of "letters of Episcopal ordination" receiv- ed from Mr. Wesley, and also informs us that the Conference of 1784, when the Church was organized, ''received" Coke and Asbury as their Bishops, appointed by Wesley, "being fully satisfied of the validity of their Episcopal ordination.'''' In the ordination credentials of Cuke and Asbury, there is no allusion to any power or right, as derived from the American Preachers, by election. Dr. Elliott says, that "Mr. Wesley having full power a^ndi perfect right to do so, provided for the American Methodists a plan of Church government and Church offices.''^ He says, Wesley was "the acknowledged Bishop of the connection in America." He says, "we had no possible chanceXo obtain an Episcopacy except from Wesley." He speaks of Wesley as the "leading agent" in the organization of the Metiiodist Episcopal Church. He says the American Metho- dists appealed to him "as their Bishop or Chief Presbyter," with right to govern them. He declares Wesley "ecclesiastically called to this Episcopal work." He maintains that o? rule was introduced "for the trying of TrTveling Preachers who might be accused of being guilty of -improper conduct,"' and the definition of what is meant by "improper conduct," is "being guilty of some crime expressly for- bidden in the word of God, as an unchristian practice, sufficient to exclude a person 19 146 from the kingdom of grace and glory." The legal use of the phrase has, beyond doubt, covered all the forms of moral delinquency, since its first introduction into the Dis- cipline. The rule for trying a Bishop in the intervals of General Conference, adopted eight years after the first, was obviously intended to supplement and explain the first rule, as both defective and indefinite. Coke and Asbury explain the phrase in the same way ; they say Ihe various means of trial to which all of us are subject, which applied to Bishops, is without truth or meaning, unless our construction be correct, as but one mode of trial would be left them, upon the construction we oppose. They also clearly assume, that any charge of "improper conduct" against a Bishop, to be follow- ed by censure or disability of any kind, can only be acted upon in due "form of trial." As the explanatory synonym of the phrase "improper conduct," they say '■Hyrannical or immoral conduct," as authorizing "severe censure" and a "change of men." "They are conscious the Conference would neither degrade nor censure them, unless they (Bishops) deserved it." "They are subject to be tried." "No Bishops on earth are subject to so strict a trial." "They are as responsible as any of the Preachers." The iAea.0^ judicial trial, pervades the whole comment. Finally, they'fepeak of Bishops as liable to be "expelled the Church" (not their office merely) on the charge of "improper conduct." From all which, it must result inevitably, not only that the construction put upon the phrase by the Majority, is an utter mis-statement of the law. and perverts it entirely from its orignal meaning and intention; but that all the ingenuity and arti- fice expended upon the labored attempt to show that a Bishop of the Methodist Episco- pal Church may be laid aside, divested of office, or even expelled the Church, for con- duct not involving moral delinquency of any kind, must fall to the ground, without claim to any thing like reason or credibility. If correct in our premises and conclu- sions, the former of which will be found in the law and history of the Church, and the latter we think legitimate and necessary, it will be perceived at once, that the principal warrant of the Majority in the prosecution of Bishop Andrew, is utterly destroyed. They had no such right, discretion or warrant, as contended for, and proceeding against him as they did, not only invaded law and right in his case, but adopted a prin- ciple of action with regard to others, placing in manifest jeopardy, the dignity and val- ue of the Episcopal office. It may be proper to recur to the question of amenability. About the fact that a Bishop is amenable to the General Conference for his moral and official conduct, there is no dispute. We contend, however, that a Bishop is not amenable so as to be in the hands or power of the General Conference, afl^ecting his office or the exercise of its functions, as specified and secured in the constitution, except for conduct coming under the judicial cognizance of that body, by license of law pursuant to the constitution. To this extent he is strictly amenable, and should always be held so. The amenability we oppose, is a claim of right by the General Conference, to hold a Bishop responsible to the judgment or opinions of that body without reference to law, inasmuch as it is the supreme council of the Church, and its will must be law at any time. In support of this theory, great reliance is placed upon a recent statement of the Bishops, to the eff'ect, that the authority of the whole executive administration proceeds from the General Conference. If this be conceded, it does not conflict with our reasoning. Still it is quite certain the Bishops did not mean what it is attempted to make them mean. They knew that the original investment of power in the executive department, say Episco- pacy, was not by the General Conference or body of Preachers; they had no such power to part with, but inasmuch as the constitution invested in the General Conference the right to select the incumbents of the Episcopal office, with the additional right to rcgu- 147 late the Episcopal charge, provided they disturbed noihiwg essential to Episcopacy or its plan of superintendency, as a pre-ordinate power and department of the government, it is entirely proper for the Bishops or any body else, to speak of the authority of the executive administration as derived from tiie General Confeience. Limited and under- stood as above, it is true, and doubtless best that it should be so. We would not have it otherwise. Meanwhile, the vested right of the chief executive officers of the gov- ernment, are protected by the constitution, which merely makes the General Conference the organ of investment wiihoMl right to disturb or recall, except for improper conduct .manifestly defeating the ends of the investment, and then only in virtue of the judicial trust committed to the Conference by the constitution. Hence in the same connection the Bishops speak of their responsibility to the Conference as a "judicatory" and "con- stitutional tribunal." When they speak of their "superintending agency," they must mean under the constitution and not the General Conference, in any conclusive sense. They knew ih^legal subjection of the General Conference to the constitution, to be the same as theirs, and therefore, that any claim of control except such as we have speci- fied, could not be admitted by them, without the betrayal of a constitutional trust. Hence again, they speak of "all things being done in every official department of the Church, in strict conformity to the constitution and the Discipline." That the Bishops did not mean a subjection to the General Conference, the test of which shall be the mere will of that body, apart from the constitution and laws, stands out in intelligible relief, in the same connection from vvhich we have quoted. They say, "the primary objects of MetV official department in the Church, were \o preserve, in the most effectual manner, an Itinerant ministry — to maintian a uniformity in \hQ goxemment and discipline, in erery department." The kind of responsibility they readily admit is that for which we contend — "responsible for the discharge of the duties of their office,''^ is their language; "the office," they add, "you have committed to us." While the Bishops knew themselves responsible to the General Conference for their conduct, both as individuals and officers, tiiey knew equally well that they were not dependent for right and prerogative, as they derived these from the constitution, independently of the General Conference. It is certainly not very complimentary to the intelligence of the electors, to suppose they would make men Bishops so grossly ignorant of the constitu- tion as to suppose that the rights and powers of the Episcopacy depend upon the Gen- eral Conference. Sandford, speaking of Episcopal responsibility to the General Con- ference, says, "a Bishop is responsible for his christian, morale and official conduct." Dr. Bangs says, "he is amenable to that body for his moral and official conduct." Dr. Elliott says, "from them" (we have shown in what sense only,) "he derives his powers, and to them is accountable for tiie exercise of them. Also, "He is accountable for the proper discharge of his duties." Dr. Bangs assumes that "those who invest another with ecclesiastical orders, on condition that he possesses certain qualifications and continues to discharge the duties of his office, have a power and a right to divest him of it when- ever Ae /a j7s ^o/wZ/jZ these conditions." Bishop McKendree says, "I consider myself justly accountable, not for the system of government, but for my administration, ready to answer for pas/ conc^wci." Dr. Elliott, in vindicating a Bishop against the absurd idea of any except legal responsibility to the General Conference, declares, "if they had no Discipline to bear on his case, then he could not break their laws, as they did not exist." Sandford accounts for the Bishops' amenability to the General Conference by remarking, "it possesses judiciary powers respecting the Bishops." Bishop McKen- dree, reasoning expressly upon the responsibility of "Bishops, Elders, &c." affirms, "the suspending power is clearly restricted to such crimes as are expressly forbidden 14S in the word of God." The Bishops have recently said of themselves, tliat "they are amenable to the General Conference not only for their moral conduct and the doctrines they teach, but also for the faithful administration of the government of the Church, according to tlie provisions of the Discipline." These and innumerable other declara- tions to the same effect, constituting the staple opinions of the Church on the subject of Episcopal amenability to the General Conference, show, with a conclusiveness which cannot be affected by argument or sophistry, that the new theory of the Northern school, is in all its essential parts and tendencies, subversive of the old, and directly at war With the constitution of tiie Cliurch. No man can read the arguments and avowals of those to whom the new theory is justly patented, without perceiving that there exists, and always must, the most invincible repugnance between the commonly received doc- trines of the Church, and the innovations it is so boldly attempted to substitute in their place. We say substituted in their place, for the two theories cannot co-exist in practice. Coke and Asbury remark, "if ever through improper conduct the General Conference looses confidence, in any considerable degree, (in the Bishops,) they will upon evidence, &c." And again, "if ever the Episcopacy evidently betrays a spirit of tyranny or par- tiality, and this can be proved before the General Conference, &c." Showing that both of the last arguments submitted, are fully sustained by the Bishops. They understood improper conduct to mean misconduct of any kind, such as "tyranny, partiality, im- moral conduct," and they further and distinctly let it be known, that the "evidence" and "proof" of trial "before the General Conference," is the only mode of testing the is- sue. We have already noticed for another purpose, unequivocal evidence that the vievir we take of this subject is correct. "The letters of Episcopal ordination" held by the Bishops say, "set apart, consecrated, and ordained, to the office and work of a Bishop, so Zyng' as his spirit, practice, and doctrine are such as become the gospel of Jesus Christ, and he shall submit to and maintain the Discipline and order" of the Church. A claim of right then to disturb, remove, or degrade, while the Bishop submits to law and order, and maintains them in administration, involves the claimants in the charge of falsehood as well as faithlesness, for in the "letters" above, they are sacredly pledg- ed to the contrary of what they claim. But these "self imposed" restrictions, remova- ble at will, are supposed fully to secure the General Conference against all legal em- barrassment. The expedient is, so says the argument of Bishop Hamline and others, if a law be needed the General Conference can, in a moment, make it for the occasion. And the result is, the restrictions restrict no body — nothing. The Conference has un- limited license — there is no restriction at all except as the resolves and acts of the Con- ference at different times, become the antipodes of each other, and limit by ol)struction. Let this claim be applied to the assumed legislative, judicial, and executive supremacy of the General Conference, and in theory we have as veritable a tyranny as ever existed on earth, and the only safety of the Church will be in the intelligence and virtue of the men composing the body. They may not do wrong, may not oppress, but that they have, so far as this theory of government is concerned, as good a right to do wrong as to act otherwise, no one can doubt. Dr. Bangs says, "the acts of the General Confer- ence are tried by the restrictive regnlaticns, which define and limit their powers." The Dr. certainly doos not mean that they are their oum triers, but that their acts are to be tested by (lieser'jles, and the other departments act in accordance with tlie conclu- sions at which they arrive in the case. The President presiding over the deliberations of the body, by appointment of the constitution, is there for the several purposes, as has been seen, of general oversight— as the representative of the Church at laro^e in its 149 various departments and interests — to preside and moderate in the sittings of the body, and always respecting and asserting its rights, nevertheless superintend there as elsewhere. He is not there for the direct but auxiliary purposes of legislation and ju- dicial procedure. Hence, in judging of the acts of the body, his position is materially different from that of the elected — the local and sectional delegates of the body, and the reasoning which would apply to them, cannot apply to the constitutional head of the assembly. He is in the body, with constitutional right, to further the objects of its appointment. We have shown, in various ways, that the imposing pretence that the Church met in 1808, to frame a constitution, can only mean, so far as the truth of history is con- cerned, that it was the purpose of the Episcopacy and Annual Conferences, as the prop- er contracting departments and parties, not to allow the project of a Delegated General Conference to go into effect without adding to the constitution, proper restrictions and limitations, with regard to the rights and powers they would be likely to assume. It was the specific object of that Conventional Conference to prevent the preferment of any such claim in behalf of the General Conference, as that against which we are now protesting. The imposition of these restrictions was eminently the condition upon which a Delegated General Conference was alloiced to exist at all, and yet this body, thus limited and restricted, claims to determine whether they will abide constitutional restraint, as imposed by others, or not rather create constitutional prerogative as tliey may stand in need of it. And to render this sliding scale of constitution and law eve- ry way facile and easy of management, it is assumed that the only restrictions upon the General Conference are "self-imposed," and may, of course, at any time be over- ruled bv prerogative! These are the miserable inventions, such the sans culotic radi- caliim, for protesting against which we are denounced as reckless "divisionists," en- gaged in a crusade against the unity of the Church, which they themselves had destroy- ed, while we were praying them to withhold their hands ! We appeal to facts. Let the developments of this Review, and others equally important, be calmly and careful- ly weighed, and we are content to abide the issue. In every aspect in which we are able to view this exhorbitant claim of General Conference power, we regard it as ab- surd and dangerous. There certainly must be something in the constitutional struc- ture of the government to check and counterbalance such a state of things. And, in part, as we have shown, wg believe beyond cavil, such check and resistance must be found in the Chief Executive OtKcers of the Church. We do not mean power to con- trol the General Conference, except so far as to check and moderate, and keep it within tiie limits of the constitution. When it is obvious, for example, that an act of the Gen- eral Conference is subversive of constitutional right, it is the plain and undeniable du- ty of the Bishops, as constitutional officers of the whole Church, to resist the wrong in a proper manner, and not give sanction and currency to a grave constitutional abuse, by transforming a legislative or judicial error into an executive general evil. In this way the subject vvould be brought, in due form, before all the departments of the Church, equally independent, under the constitution, and the proper correction of the evil would, in due time, be the probable result. If Bishops are allowed to have judg- ment and conscience in the premises, how can they act otherwise than as we suggest? When the General Conference, in the judgment of the Episcopacy, have not only fail- ed to represent the constituent bodies electing them, but so acted as to inflict deep and permanent injury upon them, are not the Bishops, as having the general oversight of all, allowed to dissent, and in a proper and respectful manner appeal the case for rem- edy to other departments of the Church? It is not intended to claim that any express 150 grant gives full and perfect right to this effect. It is_^not alluded to as matter of right, except upon high moral grounds, connected with the reasons and aims of government. The power of the suspensive veto, at least, must be found sorneichere in every good gov- ernment, in evei-y government, in fact, which is not a tyranny, or liable to become one at any moment. If practicable, we prefer that the power of check and balance should be found in each department, with regard to the rest — any other; but if this be not practicable, owing to the peculiar form of the government, or is wanting for any other reason, the right will, of necessity, often accrue in extreme cases, and, from the nat- ural operation of cause and effect, to the Executive department, much more frequently than the others. When we say of necessity, we mean, it is often necessary to accom- plish the objects of the constitution, and when this is the case, the right is inherent in the system, whether it exist as a formal grant or not. It is well known to have been the opinion of Bishop McKendree, that without the exercise of this power, as occasion may demand, the executive branch of the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church could not maintain its effectiveness. It will be recollected by many, that Bishop Mc- Kendree, upon a time, firmly and peremptorily refused to ordain a man elected to El- der's orders, by the New York Conference, because, as he alledged, they had infringed the constitution in his election, and, as a constitutional officer, he refused to endorse the proceeding. We have seen he acted upon the same principle in 1820, with regard to the "suspended resolutions ;" and it is known, that in 18:24 he had a measure brought forward, the object of which was, to give to the Episcopacy, subject to proper restric- tions, the right of the negative we are noticing : not with any view to lessen the final power of the General Conference, but to protect the rights of the Episcopacy and An- nual Conferences, and secure an effective well balanced administration of the govern- ment. This view of the subject is introduced merely by the way, to bring before the reader the rights and powers of Episcopacy, not on scriptural grounds, but as an ele- mentary principle of the government of the Church, and vitally connected with its ef- fective administration. Under the belief, formerly, that the claims of Episcopacy, in the Methodist Episcopal Church, both as it regarded ordination and jurisdiction, were prescriptively based upon divine scriptural right, we rejected the claim as destitute of any thing like fair or reasonable warrant. When led, however, to examine the subject in the light of a conventional arrangement, in the original organization of the Church, and subsequent adjustment of the different parts and powers of the government, the whole subject of necessity assumed a different aspect, and approval or disapproval turn- ed upon the subject matter of two simple questions : 1st. What are the rights and pow- ers conventionally secured to the Episcopacy, and by consequence constitutional, in the government of the Methodist Episcopal Church? And, 2d. Viewing the ecclesiastical system of the Church as a. grand missionary organization, are these rights and powers necessary to secure an effective administration of the government, and tlie ends pro- posed by the system? Having satisfied myself with regard to the first, and answered the second affirmatively, I immediately adopted the general views I have since enter- taiT.cd, and with which I am involved in this controversy. Since the termination of my connection with tiie former controversy, seventeen Annual Conferences, whose ad- ministration has been approved by five successive General Conferences, (of all whicii I have been a member,) have extended to me official public approval, as wortiiy of their confidence and that of the Churcli. I have proofs in my possession, that durinf the whole period in question, I have had the friendship and confidence of the first men of the Church, East, West, North, and South, always including a decided majority, if not the f»ntire bench of Bishops. Under these circumstances, and not to extend a notice of 151 myself, to which I am driven by gratuitous insult and injury, I must be permitted to say to my recent vilUfiers through the medium of the press, that if, at whatever addi- tional expense of truth and decency, it will be any gratification to their malignity to proceed further with their abuse, humble as lam in reputation and resource, I can af- ford to let tliem. If we understand the claim of General Conference power, it is that all the power of the government is in its hands. It is true the restrictions are admitted to throw some difficulty in the way, but it has been seen that the removal of the difficulty is conve- niently provided for. If we do not misconceive the recent revelations on this subject, the doctrine is, that the power of government 'proper is in the General Conference, un- divided with, unmodified and unmediatized by any other department of the system. It would be an easy task to show that hundreds of postulates and assumptions, and long trains of reasoning, of Northern origin, during the last ten or eleven months all tend to this, and we cannot help thinking, it is our deliberate conviction, that a claim like tliis, to make, execute, and judge, in relation to all laio, is as preposterous a claim to absolutism in the structure of government, as any known in history. The reason is obvious; there is no mediatizing, qualifying power in any other branch of the govern- ment. Now whether the supposed binding force of the restrictive rules be admitted or not, we have seen and shall have occasion further to show, that this claim of power is subversive of the only theory of government we have, and is likely soon to result n consequences greatly injurious, if not fatal to its usual vigor of administration. [ have had no communication with any of the Board of Bishops on the subject, but am perfectly satisfied from my knowledge of the men and their general views, that a ma- jority of them are of the same opinion, and regard the government, in this respect, as .n a course of revolution, which mayor may not be arrested and turned aside from the irimary objects had in view, by the movers and supporters of the project. It will thus be seen, important issues are involved beside the slavery question. The spirit of change and innovation is abroad. Distinct spheres of authority in the Church are in conflict. Immense masses of mind and feeling are antagonizing in different directions. The swell of the earthquake is beneath us. Under such circumstances, how, by what organ or organs is the Church to act, in remedy of the evils already upon us? What can a General Conference do? A General Conference brought on our misfortunes. Its action in regard to Andrew and Harding, as the pretext for more decisive, and as we have proved, unconstitutional and lawless movements against slavery, has destroyed the confidence of the South. The North, under the dictation of the Press, are rapidly placing themselves in direct hostility to the General Conference, on the question of separation. What then could a General Conference do? Precisely what the Baltimore and Illinois Conferences expect them to do, re-assert the lawfulness and necessity of the proceedings of the last General Conference, on the subject of slavery, and by new legislation attempt to nullify its contract with the South, as to the division of the Church. All Delegates would be elected upon strictly party grounds, and all action iiad in view of party purposes ; I mean the great objects of the parties respectively, on the two great questions, slavery and separation. I see no power or likelihood of rem- edy, but the high moral certainty of increased evil by such an arrangement. The par- ties North and South are being so compactly formed and firmly pitted against each other, that it is entirely probable a majority of the old Delegates would be returned, and if not, men of the same sentiments and feelings beyond doubt, and it requires but little discernment to see what the result would be. I have from the first, believed that mere General Conference Agencj, can avail nothing toward an adjust meut of the diffi- culty. 152 At tho close of the General Conference my hopes of adjustment were connected with the Annual Conferences and the Episcopacy, but the Annual Conferences are now com- mitted North and South; Bishop And reiv is a. Rebel, nnd Bishop Souk a. Tyrant by proclamation, and the tone of my hopes in these directions is greatly lowered. Still, I am individually disposed to favor any plan of adjustment likely to give us a state of things preferable to the present. J will go in for testing or trying any measure of ad- justment or compromise, by means of General Conference, Annual Conference, or E-piscopalinlerposiiion, the only constitutional methods to which we can appeal, as the government precludes the Local ministry and people, beyond the right of advice and re- monstrance. I will go in for any or all of these, provided it can be done without af- fecting the ultimate obligation of the contract now existing between tlie Northern and Southern Conferences, on the subject of separation, should the attempt fail. This is certainly /(j//- and just in regard to both parties. Let us be assured, then, upon the basis of reliable slipxilations, that such effort or efforts at compromise, shall not, in the event of failure, afTect in any way the validity of the General Conference plan of sepa- ration, by operviUr.ga forfeiture of right, or destruction or abatement rf obligation in relation to it, and I will favor compromise in any constitutional form in which it is at all likely to succeed. If the unimi of the Church be the object, no man can object to this. So far, however, as an attempt at adjustment is intended to release the Norlli or South from the contract in question, or may tend to place in jeopardy the interests of that contract, I am bound in truth and honor to resist it. I repeat, however, that if assured as above, that in the event of failure, the parties North and South are to /ct/Z hack upon the rights and obligations of the contract in question, I will wait any length of time, will perform any labor, will do or suffer to any extent, suggested by the reason or fitness of things, to place the Church where it was on the 1st of May, 1844. JMeanwhile, committed as I am in company with the Southern Delegations in the late General Confer- ence, and every member of the late Kentucky Conference, (save one) to principles and issues, plain and unambiguous, found in the Declaration and Protest, the Southern Ad- dress, the provisional arrangements for the Louisville Convention, and the ofiicial re- corded action of the Kenlucky Conference, and from which there is no honorable retreat, except upon avowal of a change of opinion and conviction, upon the merits of the ichole subject, I cannot consent to any course or measure, the effect of which will be to unbind the North and disfranchiseihe South, in view of the obligations and rights of the plan of separation. Any thing short of this I am ready to support. I know manv who approve the general course of the South are opposed to any conclusive action by the Convention, fearing it will preclude the hope of future adjustment. Such persons have our respect and sympathy. But it is worthy of grave enquiry, whether such action, to the extent of formal organization to go into effect contingently, is not the only available method of getting at compromise at all, unless the South arc prepared to compromise by uncon- ditional submission, to exparte dictation. This last conclusion and course have, i)eyond all doubt, been resolved upon by small portions of the Church in Kentucky, and else- where upon the Southern border. Whether the same indifference to the principles and interests involved in this controversy, will mark any considerable portion of the Church, remains to be seen. That it is the purpose of many to call and clamor f(>r compromise, who merely wish the South Xo forfeit their rights unHer \he couiract of separation entered into by the ])tirlies of the last General Conference, is well known and understood, and against this intrigue and such treason, it is lioped the South will be suflicicntly guarded. In a word, we would say to the North, we are ready to abide the contract between us. in the shape of a legislative onactmeut of the General Con- 153 ference, or if there be any hope of compromise, we will ogree to suspend the fulfilment of its stipulations, until the trial is fairly made, and should the attempt fail, both par- ties must abide the issue of the General Conference plan of separation. The claim of unlimited arbitrary power by the General Conference, is so offensive to the genius of our government, we know not how to dismiss it ; and convinced as we are that a virtual co-ordination of powers among the departments in the general ad- ministration, is essential to the stability of the government, we must ask the attention of the reader to some additional arguments. We have shown that by the whole amount of the Episcopal power of the government, the claim in question is of necessi- ty reduced, as thai is incontestably proved to be an elementary power of the govern- ment, not only before the General Conference existed, but from the organization of the Church, and before it had a Presbyter in it. As the General Conference did not cre- ate the Episcopal office, so it never had the power to fill it. It may select a person to fill, and in case the Church has no Bisiiop, may select Presbyters to consecrate one, but this right and power of consecration are not derived from the General Conference, but from the power of ordination in the Presbyters, derived from their oicn Episcopal ordi- nation. In consecrating a Bishop, they represent not the General Conference but the Episcopacy, the Bishop or order of Bishops, from whom they essentially derived the right and power they now exercise. Add to this, what is in proof in the general argu- ment, that the constitutional (I do not say scriptural) validity of the consecration, turn- ing in a very material sense upon the prescribed form of consecration, which form is a part of the constitution, exists, and is of binding obligation, independently of the General Conference. This ground, too, of General Conference claim, so cxultingly relied upon, is further overthrown by the fact, that in the consecration in question, the General Conference has no ivill or discretion of its own, except in the mere matter of saying who is to be selected for the office. The constitution tells them that they "shall elect," and that the Elders "shall ordain.'' It is not the Conference but the constitu- tion which directs how the Episcopal power of ordination is to be exercised by Presby- ters, in a case of extreme necessity. The constitution is careful to show that no Epis- copal r^ivver (instead of all, according to Bishop Hamline,) belongs to the General Conference. When our first Bishops say they are at the "mercy" of the General Conference, and also the "little Conference" or committee of nine for the trial of Bishops, they do not mean, as we have proved by their own declarations, that no laiv is interposed between them and the General Conference, but that the Conference, as the tribunal to try them, could keep or break the law by a just or unjn^l application of it, and hence ywa7cia%, they were fully in the power of the Conicicnce. The old General Conference, however, had a vague claim to power in this respect, which the present delegated General Conference does not possess, the amendment to the constitu- tion in 1808, expressly restricting it. The General Conference has no power over a Bishop on the groiind of prerogative, not a particle. The power they have bv the Constitution we do not object to ; it is asserted in the Protest and admitted by the whole South. Take the sum of Episcopal powers :— the right to preside in the General and Annual Conferences; to fix and control the appointirient of all the Traveling Preach- ers ; the exclusive right to ordain ; the power of the general executive administration, in the intervals of the Conferences especially; to travel at large and superinteiul the spiritual and temporal interests of the Church, throughout the entire connection, to- gether v/ith the incidental rights and powers necessary to accomplish those objects. These are all protected by the constitution, and without its violation the Gen?ral Con- ference cannot reach them, so as to "cha.nge, alter or destroy." The only power re- 20 154 cognized by Bishop Hedding, in the positions quoted from him on this subject, which can possibly affect our reasoning, is in the body of TrateUng EMers, and cannot be brought to bear upon the constitutional claims of Episcopacy, except as before shown in this argument. The inferences from Bishop Hcdding, confounds the body of Travel- ing Elders with the General Conference, as a representative council of the Church. The constitution keeps them separate. If it be said this council represents the Eiders in question, it is sufficient to notice in reply, that it equally represents the Deacons, and is no more a delegation from the Elders than from the Deacons, so that the one cannot be substituted for the other in argument, without a misstatement of facts, as well as logical confusion. The inference of power here, from the premises assumed, is further invalidated from the fact, that the power claimed never did belong to either the body of Traveling Elders or the General Conference, and could not therefore be cededoT invested by either. After the institution of Episcopacy and its full investment with all its present rights and powers, that can in any way be deemed essential, it was conventionally agreed to deposite the right to elect Bishops, and the judicial power to try them in case of delinquency, wnth the General Conference, and this is the only controlling power the General Conference has in the premises. The facts of history indeed, compel us to go farther than this : it is not only true that our Episcopacy did uot originate with the Eldership, but it is equally true, as just seen, that it is perpetuated by them to a very limited extent only, for 1st. The General Conference is the Repre- sentative Body of the Deacons as well as Elders, and 2d. Its power to perfttuate is but auxiliary, being confined to mere election, which invests no right of any kind in the person elected, beyond saying he may be invested with right and power by those having authority to make the investment, after election by the General Conference. Thus showing, that in every representative sense the Deacons divide the power assum- ed, with the Elders, and that in both, and after all, it is merely adjunctive to a more substantive power, which the constitution has bounded as a separate sphere of action. The protest in assuming Episcopacy to be a co-ordinate branch of the government, in- tended to convey the idea usually conveyed by such phrase, that it is an independant department, a separate sphere of executive power and action, standing in the same re- lation to the constitution that the General Conference does, that is to say, as the Epis- copacy cannot constitutionally invade in any way, the rights and powers of the Gener- al Conference, so the General Conference has no constitutional right to touch, in any form, the vested rights of the Episcopacy. The co-ordination we assume, is not to be judged of by any estimated equality of powers, when the different departments are sim- ply compared with each other, but in so far as they are independent nf each ether, in their relation to the constitution. This is the view of the Protest, and we show it to be the doctrine of the Church. The very language of the constitution avows it in the 3d restrictive article. When Bishop Hedding speaks of the body of Traveling Elders having power to "reduce, limit, or transfer to other hands" Episcopal power, he is not speaking of General Conference power, but merely of the constitutional right of the Annual Conferonces to change the form of government, and do away Episcopacy en- tirely. This however, is Annual not General Conference power, and beside, it no more belongs to Elders than to Deacons, as wc have seen. We ask attention to this fact as materially affecting the adverse argument. All the authorities urged by the Reply to the Protest, except the misconceived opinion of Bishop Hedding, are inapplicable and out of place, because based upon the old order of things, before the powers of the Gen- eral Conference were restricted in 1808. 155 Powers before conceded, notconstitutionalljs or in any accredited form, but apparent- ly by common general consent, were in 1S08, expressly denied to the General Confer- ence by a constitutional limitation of the powers and rights of that body. On this ac- count, much that is said by Coke and Asbury, in their Notes on the subject of General Conference power oyer the Episcopacy, is now entirely inadmissible as an exposition of law. and it is the sheerest "sophistry" to appeal to it as such. The same is true as to the opinions of Asbury and McKendree, in 1808, as quoted by the Rev. J. Young, and similar quotations made since in the Northern papers, from Dickins and Watters. These concessions all date back to an order of things not in existence since 1808, and can, therefore, have no weight whatever against the force of our general position on this subject. All the power now found in the General Cnoference over the Episcopacy, amounts to nothing more than that Bishops are legally and strictly responsible fur their conduct as Ministers and Bishops, and that it is competent for the Conference to lay them aside, by judicial process, whenever they shall be found guilty of misconduct either as men or officers, which obviously requires it. This power the Conference ought to have, and it is enough to control the Episcopacy and prevent the introduction of any serious evils into that department. We are unyieldingly opposed to any power in the Episcopacy by which the Church can be oppressed, but we are not less opposed to any such power in the General Conference or else where. To prevent such a result is our only object, and we essay to do it not by proposing any thing new, but by showing that what our positions desiderate, is already found in the government. We do not claim as much power for the Episcopacy as belongs to the General Conference. We are con- tent that the Episcopacy shall have incomparably less power. Let that body, as the legislature and high Court of Appeals, be "supreme" in the parlance of the Church. All this may be so and yet our reasoning be correct. The co-ordination of the Protest, so far from meaning the alledged "supremacy" of the Reply does not denote even an ap- proach to fgj^fl/i'y of power, and in jurisprudence is never used for such purpose. It means simply, existing independently of oilier departments by the organic laws of the government. In the same way geographical departments may, and often do, in Church and State, exist under the same organic laws, and in this sense the Kentucky Confer- ence applies tlie term "co-ordinate," to the proposed Southern organization, and laio and fuhlic opinion will sustain the construction. Such an organization, should it take place, will not be claimed to be the Methodist Episcopal Church, as before stated, to the exclu- sion of the Northern division, but authorized by that Church to exist under rt/^ 27s organic laws without the exception or change of any one of them, it will be to all the iments and purposes of Church unity, a "co-ordinate" division of the collection of Ministers and people in the United States, known as the Methodist Episcopal Church. This Church has no corporate or other unity except what arises from having the same creed, liturgy, laws, and moral discipline, and as none of these are affected by the division pro- posed, the real unity of the Church cannot be affected by the contemplated change. The unity contended for by those who, renouncing the authority of the Church, have thrust themselves into the place of the General Conference, and are attempting to dogmatize the Church into submission, is without meaning or application, beyond the mystic charm of a mere name. Upon the principles of reasoning they adopt, there can be no union between them and the British. Irish, and Canadian connexions of Methodists, for these, with the same faith, liturgy, moral laws, and Discipline, are not the Methodist Episcopal Church, and must, therefore, be aliens, by the logic brought to bear upon the South. If the union so lustily fought for, without being defined or made intelligible, be moral and spiritual, the mere name is nothing, but applies to all christians of what- 156 ever nnme. If it be the union of a multitude with the same faith, the same rites and ceremonies, claiming to be subject to the same organic laws and moral regulations as to life and conduct, then all the denunciations against the South, as "seceders and schismatics," must be traced to something less sacred than truth and principle, for these can lend no support to the injustice and outrage under which we are suffering, without even being charged with offense against any law of the Church, and for only proposing to do, what the hiffiiest authority of the Church has declared all who choose may do "WITHOUT blame!" Were we offenders equally with the North ; had we violated the constitution and laws of the Church ; had we dishcmored its ojicial pledges and trifled whh lis most sacred stipulations ; had we assailed ihe constitutional tenures of office, and claimed the right of takin^ c^ 0> >' s^ ^^A v^ v^^... '''H .. . o ' AV ,0 .# ^^ "^. ■^"^ ->. <-^ ^ , ^ ■«> ,A •v^ •:>. ^. "^A v^ '^ vO o ^ \ ^■ .■> ,0- X, y \ -■ % / ■=6- ^^" -- •" '' 1 1 -Vu a '^ oV ^ * « * •< -■' — ■-'\'yi. ■'- -^ > ^0 O. t A' ,j> ci' ^. C^ v^^ "^^^ o> V V . N 0- „ '/ . '^ '^^ .^' ,-<^ - "^-^ A>J"^ .'^F?^^' ^0 O, .^^^ ^•s* --^r..^^' .^^ ^^^ a\ . o i< c ^ '^ V 8 1 ^ <- \^ .0 c- ^ -• - '^^ X' .0^' >V '-i /.-•'. <-- ^V v-^^ ..^H^ •■•, "^^ .\v' %^^' .x^^' ''^-^. < 'o.y^^ <} ^^ c ^ <• * ^ <. . -' ^A v^ V .r. ^^.^ ,^5 -n^. A\^ . I -^ A^ O '^ T » '^ s!> -T^c iiiiii' ill i