ae ”

 
 

Goruell University Library
Ithaca, New York

BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE

SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND

THE GIFT OF

HENRY W. SAGE

1891
“Hii
THE
DEBATES

OF THE

GENERAL CONFERENCE,

OF {THE M. E. CHURCH,

May, 1844,

¢O WHICH IS ADDED A REVIEW OF THE PROCEEDINGS oF
SAID CONFERENCE,

Br Rev, LUTHER LEE anp Rev. E, SMITH.

 

NEW YORK:

q
PUBLISHED BY 0. SCOTT,

FOR THE WESLEYAN METHODIST CONNECTION OF AMERICA.

 

L. J. McINDOE, Printer.
PROCEEDINGS

GENERAL CONFERENCK.
OF THE M. E. CHURCH,

IN SESSION AT NEW-YORK CITY, MAY 144.

{REPORTED FOR THE TRUE WESLEYAN. |

Hip

ORGANIZATION OF THE CONFERENCE.

Wednesday, May 1.

Yesterpay and this morning nearly all the delegates to the Con-
¥erence now in session in this city, arrived. They come up from
a wide extent of territory, to represent a Connection, and deliberate up-
on the intcrests of a denomination, confessedly larger, and more rapidly
increasing, than any of all the others in our favored land.

The appearance of this assembly is quite imposing, and commands
respect. ‘The associations that crowd the mind, while gazing upon these.
venerable and devoted ministers of the denomination, by whose instru-
mentality many of us first drew the breath of spiritual life, are soleni
and yet thrilling. Here are fathers who commenced their spiritualilabor
of love when reproach and want were the sole rewards of their fi.
They have toiled on through obstacles sufficient to embarrass, turn«aside
and overwhelm men of ordinary nerve, and success has crowned their
efforts in'an unparalleled manner. They have, we may think, incorpo-
rated with the moral elements of their edifice, principles at war wit,
stern justice dnd uncompromising right; the ill effects of which are
but too apparent already, and may occasion protracted anxiety*and ulti-
mate confusion. But “honor to whom honor” — they have made nobls
sacrifices, and produced glorious results. They should have the credit’
4

Here too are young men, and those of middie age, whese talents, if
directed in other channels, would secure to them higher distinction, and
greater emolument. They have less to contend with, and more to en-
courage them., They, to some extent, inhabit the cities their fathers
have builded, and eat the fruit of vineyards already planted; yet not
‘without continuing to enlarge the edifice, and cultivate assiduously their
vast inheritance. No more envious desire is felt by me, than this, that

“they may be “led into all truth,” and hasten to consummate the great
purpose of Wesleyanism, ancient and modern, i. c., “'To spread scriptu-
ral holiness over these lands.” :

The opening services were introduced by reading the [oly Scriptuls
by Rev. Bishop Soule, Then was read and sung the beautiful hymn
commencing 2

‘

“ Draw near,iO Son of God, draw near.”

After this, prayer was offered by the Rev. Geo. Pickering, of the N. E.
Conference, followed by Dr. Capers, of the South Carolina Conference.

The Secretarics of the lust Gencral Conference were then called for-
ward, and the delegates presented their credentials, after which, Thom-
as B. Sargent, of Baltimore Conference, was clected Secretary, and J.
lJoughtaling, and Kenny, of Pittsburgh, city, (not a member of the
Gensral Conference) were elected Assistant Secretaries. On the last

 

nomination an interesting and spirited discussion ensued with reference
to encouraging preachers not’ members of the General Conference, in
being absent from their work. It was very readily obviated by those ac-
quainted with the provision made, and a remark was made by some one
trom the West, that the proposition to have u Western man Assistant
Secretary, scemed to be rather unfuvorably received by some.

The rules of the last General Conference were read and adopted.
fixing the hour for beginning the session cach day, elicited 2 pleasant
interchange of thoughts on carly rising. Peter Cartwright thought that
it might be that some of the preachers loved to lay abed in the morning.
He wanted them to-begin early. He had walked two miles this morn-
inggaud got here by eight o’clock, and was willing to do it every day.

Voted. to request the Bishops to deliver their address this morning.
Bisnop Soule said they were not yet prepared. It was deferred for the
present, ‘

Farly, of Virginia, offered a set of resolutions, providing for various
committees, . They were adopted, providing for the following: A com-
mittee on Episcopacy, of one from each Conference — one on the Itin-
erancy — oneon Boundaries, and one on Missions, of the same ‘size —
5

one on Education, of seven members—one on the Book Concern, of
hine members— one on Temperance, of seven members — one on the
Bible cause, of’ seven members— one on Sabbath Schools and Tracks,
of seven members — but no one named the appointment of a committee
on Slavery.

In view of having the doings of the Conference known to the church
generally, and to prevent the people from having the doings reported to
them only through the medium of unauthorized sources, it was voted to
appoint a committee, to whom’should be referred the question of em-
ploying a reporter, and the: Publication of the doings of the Conference
daily, in an Extra Christian Advocate. The committee is Early, of Va.
Dr. Bangs, of N. Y., Dr. Capers, of S. C., Dr. Elliott, of O., and Moses
Hill, of Me. Avresolution pxoviding for the publication, in pamphlet
form, of the Minutes of the last General Conference, and the reported
dojngs of this, was also referred to the same committee.

The death of Bishop Roberts was feelingly referred to, and a sermon
will be preached at some future time during the session, the subject bo-
ing referred to the Bishops. The Bishop remarked that if there was no
objection made to it, the’ largé committees provided for would be ap-
pointed by the nomination of the various delegations from the several
annual conferences.

None of the committees provided for are yet announced, except the
one on reporting and publishing the doings of the Conference.

Just before the adjournment this morning, Bishop Soule requested an
extension of the time a few moments, that he might offer a few remarks.
This was agreed to, and the following comprises the substance of his
address. .

“It has been customary at or near the commencement of each Gener-
al Conference, for the superintendents to deliver an address. This cus-
tom has been approved hitherto, and by reference to your doings this
morning, it is manifest that you wish this custom should be adhered ts.
We have an address prepared. Weare ready to communicate it to You.
To-morrow we shall present it. But we wish to say that it is desired
by us toaddress the General Conference exclusively. We desire that
youshould sit with closed deors during the time occupied by the delivery
of the address. For this there are several sufficient reasons.

“It is an address to you. You may not desire its publication. If it is
published, we desire that it should go before the publie as we deliver :t,
But if it is delivered to a promiscuous audience, it will be reported par-
tially and incorrectly, And you have noz yet fixed upon a reporter, by
6

whom it would be reported authoritatively. This is our request — for
. the reasons given.”
it was thereupon satel: to sit with ciosed doors while the address is
- being delivered. So your readerscan have no information .of what is
contained in the address for the present. Butas it respects the privilege
.of reporting the doings of the Conference, there will be no difficulty, as
saby errors that may occur, if serious, may be obviated by the authorized
version, that will doubtless be given. This will secure to your reporter
an unmolested seat within hearing of the deliberations.
- The Conference adjourned about 1 1-2 P. M. to-day. Lc. M.

:

Thursday, May 2

Tne report of the first day’s session was written in such a hurry, to
secure its arrival in Boston early enough for insertion, as announced,
that it was impossible to throw in any incidents, to enliven the mere
narrative of business transactions. I send now a few sketches for the
entertainment of your readers.

On the motion to elect Wesley Kenney assistant Secretary, a pleasant
end spirited discussion was engaged in for a few minutes, in substance
zs follows.

T. Spicer, of Troy Conference, wanted toknow whether brothe,
Kenney had a good voice, as that was indispensable. Bishop Soule
sail he would go sccurity for voice. H. Slicer, of the Baltimore Con-
ference, thought an important principle was involved in his election.
Wot being a member of the General Conference, we give encourage-
ment, by choosing him, to preachers being absent from their work,
whch they should be at’ home attending to it. If none of our own body
were competent, there might be a necessity for such choice from with-
out. Fvoted against it om this ground ata previous General Confer-
enre, and shall for this reason go against itnow. A brother from the
West thought that some brethren were very sensitive when a western
man is named for office. He thought that brother Kenny could be as
well spa red from his work as the brother from Baltimore, who had served
ihe General Conference in 1836 and 1840 in the same capacity, though net
a momber of the body. H. Slicer here arose, and said that no vindica-
tion was necessary, though he would observe, respecting the brother al-
luded to, that he was in Cincinnati on a visitto his widowed motken
7

for two or three weeks in 1836, And being stationed near Bultimore,
in 1840, he was able to serve the Conference the whole time, and attend
to his wotk on the Sabbath, besides. J.B. McFerrin (Ibelieve it was )
in a pleasant tone, réther calculated to excite merriment than any worso
feeling, remarked, that “they must mave precious little to doin that re-
gion, where all the work was performed on the Sabbath! It may fur-
nish subject of inquiry hercafter, as to their mode of laying out the work
there.” Slicer explained, that the Sabbath work only was referred to
by him; which observation rather took off the edge of what the other
had said, although the pleasantry produced thereby was generally man-
ifest.

During the first day, the main part ofthe business talk was performed
by the Southern delegates, who seem to have quite a faculty for taking
the lead. ‘heir personal appearance compares well with that of others
from the West and East. Few men have a more pleasant and inviting
appearance than Dr. Capers. With a countenance peculiarly mild, #
pleasant voice, lively manner of speaking, and finely moulded features,
he is always listened to with pleastre. I presume that the Supreintend-
ents especially were gratified, witha compliment he paid them, whilo
referring to the quadrennial investigation to which their administration

is subjected.

«wy repeat it,” said he, “ their administration is inquired jnto — not
their character. For with all the charity peculiar to Metihodisin, we
take one thing for granted, that is, that the character of our Bishops
is beyond suspicion. Men who have sustained themselves so honorably,
for so many ycars, before being elevated to their present cxalted and dig-
unified stations, are above suspicion. J believe, sir,” addressing the pre-
siding Bishop (Soule ); “there is no provision in our Discipline for the
examination of their character?” ‘There is not,” he replied. “ And]
hope,” resumed Dr. Capers, “that there never will be.”

The Doctor preached last evening in Allen Street Church. Those
who heard him, speak well of his effort. It lacked energy somewhat,
but abounded in mild and beautiful expressions, well received from the
sweet tones of pious sentiment that breathed thr roughout. Such are the
representations given to me this morning. I give this to the readers of
the True Wesleyan, respecting Dr. Capers, that they may know that all
slaveholders are not men of sour mannersand for bidding aspect. Would
that it were so, then would the crying evil be speedily destroyed.

Morntne. Being absent, I can only report by heresay. Bishop

Hedding presided. The Bishop’s address was not commenced uutil af-
8

ter 10 o'clock. All the travelling preachers were admitted to hear it
On motion to allow the local preachers to remain and hear it, 50 voted
in favor and 80 against. They did not seem to relish this exclusion very
well. But there was nothing, I am told, in the address that would seem
to require closed doors; and as it was ordered to be published forthwith,
we can all soon read and understand. I will forward a copy soon as
issued. The various portions were referred to appropriate committees.

I neglected to say yesterday, that all the Bishops were present. They
are JosHus Sous, Exiszan Heppine, James O. Anprew, BEVERLY
Waceu, Tuomas A. Morris.

The report of Bishop Andrew having married a slaveholding lady is
correct, But that he is a slaveholder, may not be confidently asserted
now, for itis probable that the possession of them is enjoyed solely by
his lady. I am credibly informed that the slave property is entailed
upon the heirs, by their father, her first husband. She holds them, it
is said, as their guardian, without any absolute control over the question
oftheir liberty or bondage. But if he isa slaveholder, it is impossible
to show that any criminality is involved, while the right to hold a slave
under any circumstances is justified by the golden rule; and such is the
doctrine of the Church, I believe. Now, this may be one of the justifi-
able cases. I don’t see why not. There is more sensation among cer
tain men in this region, about his connection with slavery, than there is
reason for. Indeed, if it is as first reported, itmay be one means con-
ducive to quiet and conciliation ; for the South need not then be so te-
nacious for the election of a slaveholding Bishop, for they will in that
case have one without the excitement and risk consequent upon such
an experiment. And the north can rejoice in the fact, that a slaveholder
has’ not been elected to that office ; though the joy may be mingled with
sorrow unfeigned, by a great many.

Eveninc. This evening H. Slicer preached in the Forsyth Street
Church. Subject: The character and privileges of the good man.
Text: Ps. xci. 14, 15. His style is unique. With an easy flow of lan-
guage — apposite quotations, scriptural and classic, he associates an ear-
nest and adrupt manner, accompanying his expressions with suitable
gestures, that are always in place and seldom over-wrought. It remind-
ed me of the days of my boyhood in my native place, Baltimore, from
whence he came. It was Southern in every respect. Warm, clear,
forcible, right ahead. Give me the Southern style ifI am to héar, or a
Southern heart iff am to preach. It’s none of your abstract, critical,
metaphisical, wire-drawn, go-to-sleep-quick sort of operations, But it’s
id
here’s-at-thoff, right-and-left, stoym-the-citadel, take-it-hy-force procdss.
But [ presume your yeaders will think that’s enough of the sort. So I
yield on this point.

Friday, May 3.
‘7 o’cLock, A. x. I Jearn the following additional items of yesterday’s
proceedings :— 7 BS

John Early, of Va., from the Commitice appointed y esterday, present-.
eda resolution to the effect that the editors of the several official Meth-
odist papers, together’ with those of Zioy’s Herald and the Northern Ad-
vocate, be a committee to employ a Reporter, ‘fix his compensation, and
revise his report of the proceedings of the Conference for publication.

“The resolution was s adopted, and Mi. R. A. West was ‘appointed official
Reporter, :

Rev. John Reyson and Rev. Auson Green, Representatives of the
Canada Methodis st Church, having arrived, came within the altar‘and
were foruially introduced to the Conference by Bishop Nedding. Rev,
Egerton Rey son, atiother Representative appointed by the same body
‘was not present. :

Dr. Bangs offered to. present a: letter from the Delegates appointed by
the Methodist Episcopal ‘Church of. [Upper] Canada, and also an yad-
dress from the Wesleyan body in England, but after some diecussion,
the Confer ence decided to postpone these imatiers for the present. ,,

On motion, af 1. Bangs, the Presiding Ulders of New York, Long
Island and Newark Districts were constituted a Commitice to take
charge of the appointments for preaching during the session of the Con-
ference. _

The following Standing Committees were appoin sted, the first four
consisting of one member from each Conference, nominated by the
delegates :.

1. On Eriscovacy. R, Paine, J.T, Mitchell, P. P. Sanford, F. Up-
ham, P. Crandall, M. Hill, E, Scott, T. Spicer, G. Baker, E. Bowen, ©
Luckey, J. J. Steadman, John Spencer, J. B. Finley, J. WH. Power, Geo,
Smith, A. Eddy, B. T. Crouch, J. Stamper, Wm. W Redman, T. String -
field, G. W. D. Harris, J. C Parker, John Clark, Wm. Winans, J. Boring,
Wm. J. Parks, J. PHeonN James,’ samiaiaae! J. Early, A. Griffith, 8.
ae Winner. Yi ae i

2, Oy Irwerancy. J, B McFerrin, Cc. Hees: M. Ridievdbon, J.
10 \

Lovejoy, H. Nickerson, Wm. D. Cass, J. Covel, Jr., A. Adams, J. M. Sny-
der, G. Fillmore, G. W. Clarke; Wm. Hunter, 2. Connell, Ed. Thonip-.
son, Elijah Crane, James Havens. H. W. Reed, J.- Van: Cleve, Win. Pat-
ton, Ed. Stevenson, E. F. Sevier, S. 8. Moody, W. P. Ratcliffe, Little-
ton Fowler, J. Lane, Wm. Murrah, J. E. Evans, W. M. Weightman,
Peter Doub, J. S, Porter, W. A. Smith, John Davis, I. T. Cooper.

3. Gn Bounnariss. P. Rice, L. Scott, S. Benton, G. Pickering, E.
Robinson, §, Kelly, i M. Weaver, W. W. Ninde, D. A. Shepherd, J. B.
Alverson, J. Bain, J. Drummond, C. Elliott, A. Poe, J. A. Baughman, J.
Miller, B. Weed, Peter Cartwright, J. M. Jamieson, W. Gunn, S. Patton,
T. Madden, W. McMahon, Jolin C..Parker, Littleton Fowler, Green M.
Rogers, Greenbury Garrett, J. W Glenn, Charles Betts, H. G. Leigh,
Thomas Growder, H. Slicer, Thomas Neall.

4, On Missions. N. Bangs, J. A. Collins, Abel Stevens, D. S. King,
Geo. Webber, J. Spaulding, J.T. Peck, A, D. Peck, N. Rounds, A.
Abell, T. Goodwin, Robert Bo, Joseph M. Trimble, Elmore Yocum,
Alvin Billings, Edward R. Ames, J. Sinclair, Newton G. Berryman,
Jerome C. Berryman, H. H. Kavanaugh, Thos. Siringfield, A. L. P.
Green, Thomas Joyner, A. Hunter, J. Clark, B. M. Drake, J. Hamilton,

L. Pierce, W. Chapers, J. Jameson, L. M. Lee, J. T. Thompson, J. R.
‘Shaw. .

- 5, On rue Boox Concern. William Winans, Alfred Griffith, John
'B. Stratton, Thos. Crowder, Wm. H. Raper, Elias Bowen, Calvin W.
Rutter, Charles Betts, George Webber

6. On Epucation. H. B. Bacom, John Early, Robert Paine, John P.
Durbin, Charles Elliott, P. Akres, Stephen Ollin, Mathew Simpson, A.
B. Longstreet, Homer J. Clark, Charles Adams, S. Seager, J. T. Peck.

7. Ox rue Expense or Dzxzeares. | Charles B. Tippett, Chas. D.
Cahoon William Patton.

8. On Temperance. Henry Slicer, Marvin Richardson, Zachariah
Connell, Phineas Crandall, Wm. Murrah, Nelson Rounds, Wm. Run-
nells.

9, On Sunpay Scnoors anp Tracts. Fitch Reed, Alex, L. P.
Green, Leoniadas L. Hamline, Geo. W. Brush, John 8. Por ter, James EF,
Evans, John Hobart.

10. On tHe Bisiz Causz.  Lodick Pieree, Samuel Lucky, Jared
Perkins, Levi Scott, G. W. D. Harris, John H. eas Edmund Ww.
Sehon.

Rev. Abel Stevens, of the Providence Conference, was admitted to-a
seat in the General Conference, i in place of Rev. P. Poweeng, ‘who is not,

m

and maynotbe here, aay
a “A

Conference opened with the usual: services. Rev..J. B. Finley, of
Ohio, led in the devotional exercises,. Rev. Messrs. Wright:and Swan-
zy, of the Cincinnati Book Room, Pitman, Missionary Sect., and Bond and
Cole, of the Advocate and Journal, were. allowed seats, and to partici-
pate imthe discussions that referred: to the-subjects' in which they -were
specially interested.

The New York Book Room Committee reported. The. whole capitol ;
invested is $692,468,22; Debts due the concern $429,000; including
$42,000 due the Advocate and Journal. They express a desire that alb-
the productions of the gifted sons ofthe church should be issued : from: -
the denominational. concern, instead of being sent forth, as in many in-
stances is now the casé, from other publishing establishments. The re-
port was referred to the appropriate::committee.

Order of the day being petitions, memorials: and appeals,— they were:
called for. .

ANTI-SLAVERY PETITIONS PRESENTED. ;

Provipence Conrrrence.— By F. Upham. A: memoiral from the
Conference. Upham called for its reading — read by the secretary.

A good deal of interest was manifested at, this stage of the: proceed-
ings. Some pleasantly indulged in, and'some: smiles that didnot look’:
very cheerful.

Secretary. Is'this from the Conference? ’

Upham. Yes sir, from the Goriference.

‘The secretary proceeded to read,’ while a very’ respectful) attention.
was every where given. It was an able document, well read.

Slicer. Is it necessary: forthe whole document’ to be read? Alt our
‘time will be taken’ up in reading, #f'all are read. Ihave a memorial that
will take the secretary more.than an hour to read.

A Southern brother hoped it would be read to the ‘end'of the chapter !~

Upham. I hope it will'all be'read, y

‘Crowder. [hope'so..too, for: weshall: probably. know: from: this,‘ alk.-
that ‘is contained in every other of like character.

Drake; ‘of Mississippi, hoped that' whatever disposition might be made |
of other documents, every.merhorial, from an annual conference would
beread. entire! : ‘

Slicer. had! meved'to lay: it on the table, but: kindly withdrew his: mo~
tion, ‘

The reading proceeded,: The document was very able,and presented
the whojg,anti-slavery cause flistinctly to view, and laid much. stress up-

.

t
‘

12°

on the fact that in the Roman Empire the destruction of slavery and
overthrow of idolatry were coeval events ;:arguing thence, that slavery
is an institution of heathenism, and a concomitant of ‘idolatry.

It referred to the advocacy of slavery by some with impunity, while
others who have opposed it are grieved at their treatment, being of an
opposite character. The bad influence of the system of slavery, in the
interests'of the Northern church, especially in the hands of the recent
seceders, was made a prominent ground of complaint. The seceders
were charged with attempting to subvert the economy and ‘destroy the
edifice that they once labored to build, &c. &c.

The memorialists distinctly disclaimed ‘insisting upon thie sentiment,
that every slaveholder is necessarily a sinner. and ought to execute a deed
‘of emancipation regardless of circumstances. But they would have ev-
ery slaveholder in the church held responsible to the utmost extent .of
their power, over the laws perpetuating slavery. And where there .are
no laws forbidding it, they would hold them under obligation to emanci-
pate immediately! :

It closed with resolutions against slavery —the Baltimore resolution
of 1840, the election of a slaveholding, Bishop, and a hope expressed,
that the church,would be speedily freed from her connection with sla-
very, and stand out before the world fair as.the,moon, bright as the Bum
and terrible as an army with banners!

When the reading was finished J. A. Collins, of Baltimore, rose and
moved its reference to a committee of. one from each annual conference,
to be called the committee on slavery, to whom_all,such. memorials
should be referred.

Cass, of New-Hampshire Cantirenge, moved to amend by having sev-
eral délegates nominated. This was admitted. | Carried.

Dr. Capers felt mortified, as a Methodist , preacher, that such a docu- .
ment should come fram an annual conference. He. wished it was a
more respectable document. He seemed astonished that brethren
should, from:time to time, send up documents to this body, which seem-
ed to say we are pro-slavery, “and-loved the system for the - system’s.
sake.” And the General Conference had acted as if it were appropri-
ate for/them to act on the. subject embraced. He was glad. to hear noth-.
ing of a committee on slavery yesterday and the day before, and he
must move to lay the motion: for sucli:committee on the table. This
was seconded. ,

J. A, Collins explained his reason for moving the committee. The
document was highly “exceptionable i in language and form, but it was
ay

Le

from an snnual conference! He regretted the agitation prevalent in
certain sections, and thought we should manage to quiet the excitement
the best way we can. Refer the matter to a committee. They can re-
port or not, as they see fit. The committee are fast settling down upon
the principle, that reception, reference, &c., was attended with the least
difficulty.

Dr. Capers again spoke, and referring to that part which spoke of a
slaveholding Bishop, disclaimed having any special personal interest in
the matter, for, said he, “I am no more a candidate for Bishop than any
other slaveholder.”. He would not, however, be understood as treating
‘disrespectfully.the memorialists referred to. But he thought the Gener-
al conference knew better than any subordinate body, and when an an-
nual conference so far mistake what is right as this has, they do not de-
‘serve any special respect, while at the same time, to receive their memo-
rial, hear itread and lay it on the table is respect enough.

J. G. Dow. “I hope brethren will be calm on.this subject as on ev-
ery other. Let this memorial be investigated and reported on.” Some-
thing further was said by him, of the gentlemanly 1 manner of brethren
thus far, on the other side, with a hope that nothing would: interrupt
good feeling. ,

J. Early, of Va. Something i is said about | treating the memorialists with
respect. Respect, sir, does not involve, necessarily, compliance with
the request made. Soit seems to me. I would recommend that we
have presented in order, first all the petitions, memorials &c. to come
before us; then, when we know what we have to do, we shall be betier
prepared to provide the committee that may be necessary. If ev-
ery one gives rise to discussion as presented, we shall never get
through. I moved the appointment of a Committee on slavery in 1836,
ana again in 1840 :— not because the questions involved were not set-
ted, sir, for they have been settled long since, and settled to the satisfac-
tion of the South! ] After repeating what he had before said about the
course to be pursued, he resumed.] We ask no favors, sir. But ifa
spirit of compromise and forbearance is not now manifest, it may result
as they who now press these subjects upon us do not anticipate. But I
have no objection to the appointrment of this committee. I would suggest
to Dr. Capers the propriety of yielding his objections to receiving the
meinorial, and referring it.

Dr. Capers explained, that he did not oppose receiving thé memorial
We have received it, and treated it respectfully, though it be laid on the
table.

* 2
14

tlere Br. D. S. King, of Bestiitign rose to speak in reply to Dr. Capers.

Bishop ArXlrew. - I think'the debate is out oforder. ‘ i

P, Crandall. I don’t understand the motion. Is itto lay the memo-
rial on the table, or the motion for a committee on .slavery ?

Bishop Andrew. “The motion: is referred to.” [ But the: motiory to
lay:on the table had so few votes, that it was declared lost, without tak
ing the other side of the question.]

Dr. Bangs moved a suspension of the order of the day, to provide for a
Committee on Slavery.

Bishop A. -,“ One.of-the same effect is. now before us.” -‘

Dr. Bangs. “ Will Br. Collins withdraw his?”

3. A, Collins. “I can’t withdraw.” The question was now taken .on
ordering the appointment of the committee, and carried by an over-
whelming majority. ha

_Dr. Toai here rose and moveda pécolatien providing. for icon appoint-
ment of a Committee on slavery. _ )

J. A. Collins. “Has not such a vote just been taken?”

Bishop A. “Yes, there has.”

P. Cartwright now. rose. Every body looks rlewed when he. rises,
and the Bishops involuntarily grect him witha smile, forhe always lets
fall some pleasantry that chases away the uneasy feelings which creep
over them sometimes, in the warmtli of debate.

Bishop A. “ Br. Cartwright has the floor.”

“Ps Cartwright. “If the brother will: only hold still [looking round
and smiling at the one who wss striving to obtain the floor.]. Iwill let
him go on directly. Tam always short.” To this introduction he added
a few admonitory ‘remarks ahout patience, kindness, and similar goed
things, and sat down. ate

The President inquized if there was any motion now before fis, ee
erence.

.iSlicer moved that the President appoint the committee ‘ordered
on slavery. To this it was remarked by some one. “ It i is a violation of
our rules.” He then withdrew his motion.

‘The Bishop inqired if od ‘were any more memorials from t the Provi-
dence'Conference.

Upham replied, “Yes, sae anda member came, forward with, scale
er J. Lovejoy then preseated another, and F. Upham yet another.

The Bishop remarked that it was customary to state the subject, place
and signers .of memorials and petitions.

‘Upham. 4 Ithought they did not care about hearing a great deal
"a oitt it, and therefore I did not trouble them with it.”

,

1
15

J. Early, of Va. “We want to hear all about it, It is no trouble to
know what we are doing.”

‘F. Upham then presented memorials from Elm Street Church, New
Bedford ; Fall River ; Chatham, signed by 107 members; S. Smithfield ;
Pawtucket, signed by 126; and Cumberland. '

ANTESLAVERY PETITIONS PRBSENTED.

From tax New Enerann ConrErence. From Lowell ; N''Br rook-
field, 75 names ; Holliston, 95 names ; S, Brookfield, 55 names} St. Paul’s
station, Lowell, 192 names ; Spencer, 26 names.

D.S. King presented a meniorial from Chelsea, Mass.

By James Porter. ‘One from Lynh Common, adopted first hy the
board, and then by the church unanimously and signed by the stewards.
Also one on Temperance from the same source. The letter was read,
It prayed ‘for a restoration. of the 8th section of the Discipline, amended
so as to prohibit the use and traffic in spirituous liquors, except by apoth-
ecaries and druggists, restricting them to such salesas were necessary
for medicinal or scientific purposes.

ANT£SLAVERY MEMORIAL FROM MAINE CONFERENCE. —

E. Robittwgn presented the: memorial from the: Maine Conference..
Being very short, he wished it read. Ifthere was no objection, the:
Bishop said it would, be., None was made. The Secretary read it.
It was comprehensive and pointed. «

Hf. White moved, that the reading ‘he cdispensed: seit in every case, ex-
cept ta state the contents, &c.: a :

J. Porter hoped. wat one of each kind, at least; would be eal entire.
White agreed to this, but the motion failed.

ANTI-SLAVERY PETITIONS FROM N.H. CONFERENCE.

S. Chamberlain presented various'petitions, from tighteen different
places, signed in all by 937 names ; but he read the names so rapidly and
low, that I could not take them down. :

J. Perkins presented memorials from N. Carolina and Unity.

S. Kellyjpresented memorials fromthe’ following ‘places, with the
number of names attached : Newmarket, 107; Methuen, 71 ; ‘Poplin,
79; South Newmarket, 147; Porson, 43; B. Salsbury, 48 ; Greer-
land, 34 ; — in all, 529.

W. D. Cass presented scsi as: feities casiek 72; Epping,
60; Seabrook, 70; Great Falls, 200; Rochester 117; E. Sanford, 44.
16.

BLACK RIVER CONFERENCE.
One memorial from Victory circuit, ‘on slavery.
PITTSBURGH CONFERENCE MEMORIAL.

By R. Boyd. One praying the reiteration of the sentiment entertain-.
ed in 1785 on slavery, and against the colored testimony resolution ; and
praying for the restoration of the rule of 1796 on buying and selling
slaves, and making it obligatory on all our people to emancipate grad-
ually, except where the slaves desire to remain. He also presented me-
inorials from Claysville, Grand, Washington, Norwich, Shockton, Cam-
bridge, and McConnelsville, — Sumerville and Camden Circuits. The

number of names on all of these was, I believe, twelve or thirteen hun-
dred.

\ OHIO CONFERENCE.
‘One from Marrietta station, signed by 38 persons, against slavery.
ROCK RIVER CONFERENCE.

John Sinclair presented a memorial from Rock River station, signed _
by 8&4, against slavery..

There were several resolutions deena from the Iowa Conference,
one of which-referred to slavery — but Idid not ascertain the particu-
lars — and the same of the Indiana Conference, which, I believe, was a
concurrence with what the New York Conference had adopted.and sent
round to various Conferences. Mr. Murrah responded for the Alabama
Conference — “We are content to let well enough alone.” ~

A memorial was presented by the Texas delegate, on the subject of
establishing a book depository in that country. Referred.

When petitions from the Mississippi Conference were called for Mr.
Winans said, “ We are too well satisfied with Methodism to ask for any
change.”

Bishop Soule presented an abstract of a document some one had laid
on the table which seemed to be a complaint from Dr. Waller, of Rich-
mond, Va., against some things done by the Virginia Annual Conference,
and the course of the editor of. the Richmond Christian Advocate.

It gave rise toa spirited discussion on the question of reference.
The Virginia delegation contended very strongly and ably against any
recognition of it, as an informal document, coming in an unconstitution-
al manner. On this side of the question, Winans and Dr. Durbin spoke
with effect, as also. Smith, Karly, L, M. Lee, and others, Doct, Bond,
loa, by spontandous ‘consent, addtessed the Conference on the coustitu-,
tional question.

H. Slicer of Baltimore, however, favored the recognition and refer-.
cuce, and managed to nullify the effect of Winans, Durbin and Simith’s,
ABepehes 30 effectually, that the several parts of Dr. Waller’s memorial
were referred to the several committees appropriate. ~

J. Early, of Va., in opposing, urged the imposibility of mecting the
question fully, | invélved in the complaint, without consuming the tim:
needlessly, which might be better employed, and declared o_ the refer-
ence urged. acknowledged’ the propr iety of doing what we have no

right to do. Here he glanced off'at the Providence memorial, and went ©

into a tremendous dedlamation, on the subject of southern feelings and
views, in opposition to the abolitionists. He seemed to forget what he
commenced about.

W. Winans ‘called ‘him to order,'but he thought he was in order, as
most men-are very apt to. 9° 7!

Il., Slicer, in replying, made'a slip of the tongue that iiduced some
meriment, from the ineongruons associations it presented,

“ Sir.” said he, “my brother's allusion to the memorial was ‘exceed-
ingly unfortumate, as far as-his argument is concerned, The memorial
trom the Providence plantation (!') has [here several laughed outright,
and the speaker pleasantly begged pardon and proceeded :] been refer-
red already, as I think. this should be.” Aye, though I, ifthe “planta-
tions” could be heard on this floor— if the wrongs of the peeled and
dying slave could; be ;couched in the language of his own tears and
eroans— if their riesito an avenging God could be echoed within these
walls, instead of, being alarmed at the mere bugbear of abolition, which
the prejudiegs of some men here’ conjure up at their pleasure, they.
would, start at the: sight; of ‘a: fleshless skeleton, consumed and _ lifeless,
because of oppressions and wrong endured in bondage —a shudder at
the sound of swelling wrath, threatening to involve a guilty nation and
delinquent chureh i in angry judgements, ... -

But lam epi my own thoughts, instead of their doings, so I re-
sume: Bede We i

The discussion: embraced among :other things the-question, ‘Are the
children of believers only, proper subjects of infant baptism? During
the discussion, H. Slicer expressed his doubts about the rightfulness:of”
previous General Conference action in making baptism essential to
snembership, And W. A. Smith declared it as his-opinion, that the pro-
visions of 1836 and 1840, requiring baptism and a bekef in our doctrines
essential conditions of membership, esa violation of the restrictive
18

rules, and unconstitutional. This called up P. P. Sanford,'who went :
into an argument to prove their constitutionality, which occupied all the
time, and was succeeded by announcing the appointments for the eye-
ning, and the sabbath ensuing. ; "

After the benediction by Bishop Andrew, the Conference adjourned.

Ne

Saturday, May 4.
* ‘The morning session was opened with the usual religious services, by
Henry White, of Philadelphia Conference.

The minutes were read, amended in some small matters. The order
of the day was suspended. to hear the Address of Wesleyan Connec-
tion of England. It wasread. No allusion was made tothe subject
of slavery by name — plead impractibility as an excuse for not sending
adelegate. Hoped for acontinuance of friendly feeling, spoke of Bish-
op Soule’s visitas exceedingly agreeable, from his “kind spirit,” “ lively
interests,” “ copious information and able public instructions.” Gave a
passing compliment to his companion, Thomas B, Sargent.. Entered
into a full statement of the doctrines peculiar to Methodism, and hinted
atthe danger of being governed by worldly motives of expediency
from fear of difficulty, &c. &c. It uttered very good sentiments, but
it struck my mind as haying about as much directness in its style as
is manifest in ordinary diplomatic correspondence, and no more.

Its reference to-a committee of three for publication, with instructions
to answer it, was agreed to, as a matter of course, for nobody could feel
reproached by it, which is more perhaps than could be said of a pre-
vious document from the same source, that shared a different fate.

The committees on revisal and on the publication of a social library
were announced, Onthis P. Crandall called for the committee that had
been ordered on slavery.

Bishop Waugh. “It can be announced at the proper time, in regular
order.”

Some remarks were now made about preventing the disturbance oc-
casioned by vehicles passing the street, which gave occasion for some
pleasantry between members on the subject of loud speaking.

Dr. Bangs proposed announcing the committee on slavery, and named
George Peck.

Dr. Capers did not suppose that the General Conference had given
Dr. Bangs any instructions to do what they were unprepared for now.
19

P, Crandall hoped fox, the immediate appointment of the committee
on slavery, But others said that some of the delegates had not met,

and were not prepared. Hence it was waived.
: ‘

PETITIONS AND MEMORIALS ON SLAVERY.

A lengthy though uninteresting discussion tool place on the dispo-
sition to be made of communications sealed, addressed to the General
Conference, which resulted in a vote that they be placed. in the Presi-
dent’s hands, and a brief of their extracts be made by him to the Con-
ference, . .

Memorials were presented as follows: —From Philadelphia, one
against the colored testimony resolution —52 signers. From the Troy
Conference, by T. Spicer, several on slavery. The Conference action
on the same subject, being 37 to 37, was presented by another. From
the N. H. Conference, by J.G. Dow. From nineteen different places
memorials signed by 1547 names.

E. Scott presented memorials from three places, signed in all by 173
names. Also three memorials from the N. H. Conference, which he de-
sired should be read. The Bishop said " no objection is made they can
_be read.

Br. ——, from the South thought unless there was something pecu-
liar in the argument, that they have not yet heard, they ought not to be
read. Hehad no sensitiveness, however, about it. Another thought
they ought to be read, being annual conference documents. Some one
moved to dispense with the reading.

S. Kelly. They are short and respectful. Better poy them.
E. Robinson. They might have been most all read by this time:

We will consume more time than it would require to read five times as
many.

H. Slicer thought the courtesy already extended on this matter should
secure the reading of the New Hampshire memorial. If it is too long
or disrespectful we can cut short the reading of it. Hoped it would be
read. ;

T. Crowder, of Va., disclaimed any desire to occupy the time of the
Conference, but expressed a hope that the motion to dispense with the
reading would prevail. ‘“ There are other reasons than those named by
our brethren. ‘These memorials are ona subject of controversy between
the North and South. If the discussion be entered upon, there should
be an open field and fair play for both. But these memorials contain
the arguments on one side of the question, while it would be out of or_
der for us to reply to them by presenting our views. We have no chance
20
to answer them. The fact of their reading being announced to the pub-

lic, without the fact of opposing views uttered at the same time, W ill ;

make an impression altogether ee to them and unfavorable. to
us.”

The question ‘was taken, and lost by a large vote; so the memorial
wasread. © 5 : \ ,

The memorial uxged,,in a very respectful, though decided and earnest
manner, that some clearly-defined position would be assutaed by the
General Conference on the subject of slavery, alleging, as ‘their solemn
conviction, that if something was not done, in advance of the past action
of this body, and to rescind the injurious acts of its last session, great
mischief to the church would follow. The memorial referred to the
seceding brethren who had gone off recently. Of ‘course’ they were
complained of but the apprehension was expresséd, that in the event of
nothing of moment being accomplished by the Conference, 'the small -
rivulet toward which the turbid waters of secession’ are how drawing
off, will become a mighty river, resistless and overwhelming in its’
course.” [That’s eloquence, illustrative and unexceptionable.]

W. A. Smith, of Va., moved a resolution to instruct the Committee
on Slavery. After some conversation he waived his motion, being out
of order. : 4 ‘ .

' Two other sneioriale’ were then read from the N..H. Couterence.
One was on the connexion of the missionary cause with slavery, re-
Inonstrating against employing slaveholdérs as missionary sectetaries or
missionaries. 'The other on the colored testimony resolution. I should
judge that these three documents were from the pen of Elibu Scott, of
N.H. Without even excepting his allusion to seceders, these documents
are-a credit to his head and heart.

W. D. Cass, of N. H., presented an anfi- slavery memorial from mem-
bers of the church.

P. Crandall presented two from Worthen Street Church, signed by 34,
and ‘from ——— ——, 38’ names,

J. Porter presented one from the church at Lynn, Wood End, —and
one from Gloucester signed by 100, ‘W of whom were probationers.

Cc. Adams presented memorials, with number of signers as follows:
from ° , 29; Greenwich, 36; Belehertown, 76; Ludlow, 26; Athol
Bh: 8. Wilbraham, 25; N. Wilbraham, 90; . Springfield, 95
name$; rel onesigned by 35 students of the Wesleyan University, and
all members of the “M..E. Church.

From the city of Pittsburgh, (I believe ) memorials against slavery, .
“black resolution,” “and asking for a definition of the rule of slavery, .

 

and

 
21.

signed by 46, 41, and 45 names. The action of the Conference on Tem
perance and Slavery was announced, concurring with N. ¥. Conference
resolutions.

E. Robinson, of Me., presented eight memorials, places and signatures
as follows: » 50; Prospect Circuit, 22; Penobscot Circuit, 32;
Exeter Quarterly Conference, Montville, 60 ; Exeter 120; Bowdoinham,
36. Another was presented, ( didn’t hear what.)

D. B. Randall, of Me., presented memorials from
ta, 100; Industry, 31. . .

On the same subject, one from within the bounds of the Erie Confer-
ence, signed by 81 persons. One from within the bounds Black River
Conference, asking that the sense in which slavery is declared an “evil ”
by the Discipline may be defined, —23 names to it.

Silas Comfort, of Oneida Conference, presented oné against the color-
ed testimony resolution. Nothing could be more appropriate than this,
as he was the man whose appeal from a Southern Conference, in 1840,
gave occasion to the adoption of the resolution which has caused so:
much excitement.

The resolution of the Genessee Conference against the colored testi-
mony resolution was presented. Also one from Cineinnati, against sla-
very, presented by J. B. Finley, and the Ohio Conference, resolution on

altering the rule on slavery, I believe, as proposed by the N. Y. Confér-
ence,

Appeals were now called for.

‘The appeal of Francis A. Harding, from the decision of the Baltimore“
Annual Conference, by which he had been suspended from the ministry,
was presented — made the order of the day for Tuesday next, at 10
o’clock. The cause of susponsion was not stated. Another appeal,
from a Br. ‘Frazee, who had been located, was presented, to be
taken up when the other was disposed of.

Dr. Bangs obtained leave to present an addyess from the Methodist.
Episcopal Church in Upper Canada. They represented. themselves as
numbering 8880 members, having increased about 1300 during the past
year. Their work is divided into twe. Conferences, four districts, and!

 

 

, 150; Augus-.

 

thirty seven circuits and stations. Yt was moved that the delegates from . ,

the Canada M. E. Church be invited to-take seats in the Conference, but
gave place to a motion to lay on the. table, to be taken up Monday ‘mor-
ning next, immediately after reading the journals. This was done at.
the suggestion of A. D. Peck, in view of hearing from the brethren of”
the Canada Wesleyan Methodist: Church now, present, who might, have
something to say touching this.matter.
22
’ . ;

P. Crandall moved an extension of, the time to nominate a committee
on slavery,

J. A. Collins objected, as some of the delegations were not ready,—
Baltimore was not.

P. Crandall was assured by one of their number that they were. A
yew words passed between several members, and the motion to suspend
prevailed. a

The committee was then sanoniioeal ‘by ihe different delegations, be-
ginning with New York and proceeding i in the order i in which they stand
on the general minutes. :

Commirrre on Siavery. — Geo: Peck, Abel Steyn Tis. Porter, E.
Robinson, C. D. Cahoon, Te Seymour, A.D. Peck, Silas Comfort, A.
steel, J. J. Steadman, J. Wakefield, J. Ferree, E. Thompson, E. Crane,
A. Wiley, J. T. Mitchell, Peter Cartwright, W. Patten, Wm. Gunn, T

Strihgfield, A. S. P. Green, Win, McMahon, Wm. P. Ratcliff, L. Fow-
Jer, G. M. Rogers, Dr. J. Boring, Pierce, HA. C. Walker, P: Daub,
Win. A. Smith, Géo. Hilt, Wm. Cooper, Thomas Sovereign.

Conference adjourned. .

 

. Monday, May 6

Religious services as usual began the session, Rey. Thos. Neal of N.
J., led in the exercises.

After reading, correcting ‘and approving the miuutes, the resolution
inviting the delegates from the M. E. Church of Canada to take seats
was “aalied up.

A.D. Peck inquired for the General Conference journals of 1886, to

see the action then had on this matter.

Dr. Bangs then gave his reasons for the motion, arguing that their or-
ganization was nearer assimilated to that of the M. E. ‘Church in this
country, than was the Wesleyans of Canada, whose representatives had
been recognized by the General Conference ; and the ‘Wesleyans of Can-
ada had abolished Episcopacy, and recognized | but one order in the’
ministry. - He thought it would be perfectly consistent to recognize any
cvangelical body of christians who would send delegates to this Gener-
al Conference.

Dr. Luckey accor rded perfectly with Dr. Bangs’ remarks, “ unless, in-
deed, this body of Methodists claim to ‘be the legitimate M. E. Church,
with a view of supplanting those whomwe have recognized.” Its refer--

7
23
ence to a committee was. moved. Many were in favor of entering at
once npon the matter, in open conference, for various reasors given.

A. Griffith’ said, “In 1836, being one of the committee on this same
subject, I know that we did not.act on it, because of a capital defect in
their organization, and contention and strife | among the churches in
Canada; and we thought we could not until they had gone home and
settled their difficulties among themselves.”

J. B. McFerrin made some remarks about the three deneminations of
Methodists in Canada, which seemed to imply that the same relation
was sustained by those the Conférence had’ recognized, an those now
asking to be received.

Mr. Ryerson arose and stated that such was not the fact. The relation.
of the body he vepresented to the English Wesleyans, was acknowledg-
ed by’ them to bea fraternal one. And he had letters from leading men

in the Sritish Connection, requesting them to send delegates to their
Conference.

He gave a history of the ground on which their connection was dis-
solved, as referring wholly to some local matters. He said that if this
body was recognized here, the English Wesleyans would be as much sur- ,
prised as:if the Ranters or Bible Christian's were to be admitted to this
body by delegates.

Respecting the relation of Mr. Ryerson and his bréthren to the En-
glish Wesleyans, Bishop Soule added his testimony to the correctness.
of Ryerson’s remarks. The subject was referred.

J. Early, of Virginia, called attention to an error in the official report
of last week. It made him to say, with reference to Dr. Waller’s me-
morial, that “if the-allegations in this memorial be regarded as true by
this Conference, the South would swing off in a body, and if the ques-
tions therein referred to were not settled, that our’ members would go
off by thousands.” He made that remark about the memorial from
Providence-Conference, and not as here reported —although it was
while speaking on Dr. Waller’s motion he “referred to the Providence
memorial {plantation, zis one had called it] in illustration of his position.”

F. Upham, who stood by his side, spoke up in a decided manner, and
with a tone of manly indignation at the slight thus manifested. “Ihope
that when. the Providence Conference is referred to it will be called by
its proper name.”

“ Amen!”, shouted ‘a warm-hearted New Su glindon.

J. Early said he:spoke it in kindwess,-and meant nothing disrespectful.

Doct. Bond:thought that the committee of supervision could set that
right, without Conference action. ;

Bs
24 |

H. Slicer, of Baltimore, here rose and called attention to the report
which put in his mouth a charge against the Conference of infidel sen-
timent, in these words: “The action of the Conferences of 1836, and
1840 is directly in the teeth of the whole Bible.” I said, “Jn the teeth
of the argument on this floor! ”

“The reporter whom we have employed has alse gone out his way in
the Commercial Advertiser, to make an attack on me, by saying that I
am in the habit of violating the rules. I have no acquaintance with the
gentleman, but I have some acquaintance with the laws of deliberative
bodies, and believe that I conform myself to them. Other gentlemen
spoke several times in violation of the rule, but he alluded to none of
them, but makes a fling at me alone. It is possible he may have a
prompter ; if so, he may divide my remarks between himself and his
prompter. v ;

A request was made for the reporter to explain. When about taking
the vote, several voices were heard protesting against submitting the
question at all, and it was not taken.

J. Perkins thought they had other work to do that claimed their atten-
tion, than to contend with reporters. Let brethren mind their own bu-
siness and go right on.

H. Slicer, with all deference, though otherwise.

J. B. McFerren said we have only to do with the committee of the
Conference, and nothing at all to do with the reporter of a political
paper.

H, Slicer had nothing to say about the reporter of a political paper,
but the reporter whom we have employed. He may make a literal re-
port, if he pleases, of all say here. But if he comments sarcastically,
he ought to be held responsible to correct wrong impressions.

Doct, Bond said the reporter of the Commercial was not known to
this body. Somebody asserted that H. Slicer did not know certainly
who the reporter of the Commercial was. To this Slicer responded,
“ Br. Lane told me it was the same person who reported for thé Con-
ference.” ; ,

A Southerd takabee remarked that ordinary cases of error in reports
might be corrected by suggestion to the committee of supervision. But
in this case that was not sufficient. Ifthe reporter employed by ‘this
body chooses to write for other papers and reflect upon members on this
floor, against whom he may be prejudiced, he can do it certainly, and we
have a right to suggest the employment of another reporter, But Ido
not deny the right of any reporter taking notes of our doings, and re-
porting and publishing his views of our proceedings. ,
25

Several men called for the order of the day. Amid some confusion,
‘Wm. Cooper moved to instruct the committee of supervision to supply
another reporter. Some one of the Southern members, in rather au:
authoritative tone, declared his'niotion ‘out of ‘order, and seemed dispos-
ed to crowd him off. With some good degree of energy, Mr. Cooper
said, “If I am out of order let the chair say’so.”

Bishop Morris. “You are not in order.”

W. Cooper looked round towards those who wanted.to put him down
beforehand, and remarked, “when you tell me Iam out of order I sit
‘down willingly, but I take my seat for no’other man'‘on this floor.”

J.G. Dow moved to suspond the'order of the day to offer the breth-
ren an opportunity to be indemnified for the misrepresenitation they had
had inflicted upon them.

J. A. Collins disapproved the remark as'much as any one on the floor.
Tt was out of place, improper and disrespectful. But it was aslight re-
mark, and he hoped that they would have more regard to the dignity of
this body, than to proceed gravely to any formal action upon so trival an
affair. He repeated, in the most earnest manner, “Inthe name of the
dignity of this highest judiciary of the church, I hope that we will not
proceed to act against a man who has no voice on this floor.”

Doct. Bond here rose to say that the reporter regretted the remark,
and would not be guilty of the like offence again,

H. Slicer then remarked, that he would not have voted for the mo-
tion providing fer another reporter, as he felt assured the gentleman
would not repeat the offence.

On motion, it was voted that Rev. E. 8. James be invited to take a
seat and participate in all discussions relative to the Bible ceuse. Mr
‘James is secretary of the American Bible Society.

The report of the Book Agents was then presented by P. P. Sand-
ford, and read by the Secretary. I noted only a few items. The sub-
scription list of the N. Y. Advocate and Journal is no larger than it was
four vears ago. [I thoughtthat the more than one hundred thousand
members added last year had been of little advantage to this department
of the Great Concern.] Their S. S. Advocate has $000 subscribers,
‘The profits of the last year’s business wes $44,000. Amount appropri-
ated to meet the table expences, &c., of the Bishops, for four years
past, $13,900. Sum appropriated towards Bishop Soule’s expenses to

“urope, $1701. ‘The report complained of great losses from bad debts,
and serious embarrassments from the discount upon southern and west-
‘ern moneys. ;

3
26

Various reports ee this, of no interest to the general ‘reader,
that I omit naming. | i

Memorials were resented as follows. . One by a member of the
Providence Conference, recommending the propriety of distr ibuting the
Conference funds to those who were most needy. ‘One from Maine, ou
slavery. J. Perkins, of N. H., presented several — from Winchester,
Kittsdale, Gilford, Putney, Wethersfield, N, Windsor, and Wilmington.
8. Kelly, of N. HL, presented three, on the same subject. [During this,
Yobseryed W. A. Smith giving particular attention, and wondered what
interested him so greatly.) These last named were from Durham, New-
amarket'and South N ewmarket, ‘and were signed by the official 1 meni-
hers, and nearly all the others.

W. A. Sutith now spoke. “I would ask those brethyen if they have
any ‘further memorials on this subject. Ihave ‘observed these same
brethren on every day submitting memorials when their conference is
called. And they seem desirous of oceupying a part of the time in this
way, each day.”

J. Perkins replied, “We are receiving them every day, a eannot
siy whether we shall have any more or not.” é

J. B. Houghtaling presented a memorial from Exter cireuit, Troy Cen-
ference, praying that all slaveholdersin the Church may be obliged to
have their slaves taught to read, end give them the fullest religious
privileges,

A memorial ¥ was preserited from New York Mills station, signed by
the official members, on slavery. Also the vote of the Onedia Conter-
ence, in favor of requiring emancipation in certain States. The vote of
tho Onedia Conference was reported to be 57° for, 39 against. Also in
favor of rescinding the Colored Testiniony resolution, and altering the
General Rule on Slavery. :

From N: O. Conference a memorial was forwarded, dened by.a num-
‘ber of travelling preachers, praying a modification of the rule on allow-
ing members of other churches to partake of the Lord’s Supper.

An appeal by J. S. Lenn from the action of the Genesee Conference
locating him, was presented. Laid on the table for the present.

Two quarterly conferences in Kentucky sent ina memorial on the
subject of ministerial support. Referred toa committee of seven.

from the Holstein Conference some papers were presented on slave-
ry. J. Perkins inquired if it was a memorial. The ‘person presenting
them replied, “No, sir. We might have obtained a memorial, howev-
er, if we wished it.” ‘These papers were votes of non-concurrence with
the anti-slavery resolutions of the New York and Genesee Conferences ;

&
27
but conenvrenee with the vote of the N. ¥. Conference to ‘restore Mr.
Wes.wy's rule ou temperance. It was stated that the committee recom-
monded non-concarrence in this also ; but the conference - acted other-
wise. , ‘

Another momorial was presented from the same region, praying that
it be provided, ‘that a P. Elder may appeal the case of a local preacher
to the annual conference, who in his jndgemebt may have been unjust-
ly acquitted,

J. B. McFerrin presented the votes of the Tennessee Conference on
various matters. ‘They refused to concur in the New York and Gen-
esce Conference anti-slavery resolutions, by a unanimous vote.

On the Temperanee question, they stood 76 against, and _ one in favor
of Mr. Wesley's rule.

At this moment the boy came in with a huge bundle of Extras, hav-
ing the proceedings printed on, Instantly all was confusion, and rush-
ing toward the altar, where they lay. To prevent the interruption thus
occasioned, Doctor Bond gathered them up, and retreated toa distant

‘part of the house, followed by some of the members, pell mel}.

Dr. Luckey, addressing the chair, proposed adjourning, if the mem-
bers intended to occupy themselves reading the minutes.

The, Virginia Conference votes, non-concurring on the subject of
slavery and the temperance rule, were now reported by J. Early.

‘What with the reading and rustling of newspapers, and the slamming
of doors by persons going.out, there seemed more than usual confu-
sion, and one member suggested the possibility of being compelled to
sit with closed doors, . But littie attention was paid to it, however.very
inuch to the satisfaction of your reporter, whose presence, by the way,
is the occasion of some little interest to a few, who look at and point
out to others the locality of the Wesleyan reporter. .

A, Wiley, of Ia, moved that it be regarded by this Conference as an
interruption of its business, to distribute papers, &c., during the session.
Dr. Luckey thongh it might be prevented without a formal vote, —as it
had no second, it received the go-by.

Dr. Bangs and W. A. Smith offered a resolution, authorizing the pay-
ment of all expense of postage ineurred by the members during this
Conference. J. B. Finley moved to lay it on the table, and it was with-
drawn.

:
1

W. A. Smith and L, Pierce then offered a resolution, instructing the
Committee on Slavery to reply directly. to the positions assumed, argu-
ments advanced, and facts a oe in the memorials before them. Wi.
A. Smith spoke.
28

“ We have, sir, since 1836, been flooded with memorials on the sub-
ject of slavery, from the annual and quartely conferences, in the East-
ern, Northern, and North Western (in some instances ) parts of our
Chureh, as.also. from individual memorials of the private membership.
‘lhe simple fact of memorials being presented on this subject is of triv-
ial importance, in itself considered, for it only shows the active interests
of the ministers who present the memorials. It is no indication of the
views and feelings of the body of the people.

“I have come to the knowledge of a fact lately, bearing upon this
point, that deserves to be known. One of our brethren, a minister
from the! South-west recently visited the North, and spent some time.
‘The ministers of our Church would not open their pulpits to him, alleg-
ing as a reason for not inviting him to preach, that the prejudices of the
community were so strong against a slaveholding minister, that it would
not be tolerated.’ Nor would these ministers come and hear him preach
in the pulpit which was opened tohim. Finally,the members over
whom these very ministers had charge, demanded that he be allowed to.
preach and by their importunity obtained for this slaveholding brother
a hearing, and he was favored with crowded audiences, as long as he
remained there.

“Yrepeat it—we know only what Methodist ministers think and feel
fyom these memorials.’ They lead on the people in this matter, who, but
for them, would: not trouble us on this subject.

“ A case in point occurred with us, showing this fact. A number of
quarterly conferences memoralized or a given subject: And it was as-
eertained that it was the result of a Presiding Elder’s influence, who
presented the matter at each of his appointments, and obtaineda suffi-
cicnt demonstration to answer his purpose. This. was an expression of”
his wishes only, though expressed by memorials from a number of quar-
terly. conferences. Why, sir, signers may be obtained to any thing, if
you will take the trouble to solicit them. To illustrate this, I will give
an anecdote. In the city of Albany, while conversing on this subject, a
person alleged: that he could obtain 500 signers toa petitionto hang a
reputable minister of the Gospel! A stake of $50 was deposited in
experiment, — and in a few days they were actually obtained.

“Tain sorry, sir, to know that some of these memorials are so rabid
on this question. But it isa source of congratulation to know, at the
same time, that they show the interest of those mainly who present
them, and but few others. We could have brought up memorials here
from our people, sir, on this question, if we desired ta, do. it, in, any
29

quantity ! — filled with insulting epithets and degrading remarks, calcu-
lated to wound the feelings of our Northern brethren. But we scorn to
stoop to such a contemptible mode of action. They have doutlessa de-
sign, and an eff-ct in view.

“Well, sir, what has been the custom respecting these memorials ?
‘The action had has in every case avoided the issue. Every report made
has been occupied in settling differences of opinion between the ultra-
abolitionists and the anti-slavery men. While the true issue, that be-
tween the South and the memorialists, has been avoided.

“Qn this subject there are three parties. The ultra-abolitionists at
‘the North and East, the anti-slavery men of the Middle States, and
what is called the pro-slavery party at the South. The anti-slavery men
assume to stand between, as conservatives. They ask to be chairman,
and want to manage the whole subject. And they have managed it, as
I have stated already. [am sorry to know that a few have been quieted
by such stuff. But I never have, and I never will. .

“These conservatives, sir, are like the two-wheeled cabs in your city,
when the horse is taken out they always drop down on one side!

ee Well, what has been. the operation of these reports which have con-
tinually siaved off the true issue of this question. Why, sir, from time
to time they, have been dosing us with still stronger portions of these
offensive prescriptions. ‘General Conference after General Conference,
ihey come pouring in upon us. They are read, referred, and the ques-
tions at issue still are dodged: In this way, we are continually plied
with arguments on their side of the question, lengthened out and listen-
ed to with attention and respect. And when attempts have been made
to reply, what effect has been produced? I can recollect but one soli-
saty instance in-which a patient hearing has been given us, and that
was given to Dr. Capers at our last General Conference. ,

“The rules have been suspended time and again, to afford us the op-
portunity to hear torrents of sbuse poured upon us. But when remarks
were offered on the other side, the cry has been heard over and over
again, ‘Your fifteen minutes are out! In this way the South has been
dogged continually. By the scheming of these conservatives, the South
has never been heard fully ‘in their defence, nor have they through you
been heard by the country on this question. What We want now is that
the question be met fully and fairly:

“These memorials contain violent attacks upon our Southern Mission-
ary Secretary, because he isa slaveholder. Let them look this straight
in the face. ‘They also contain unwarranted and violent attacks upon
Bishop Andrew for the same reason, [Nors.— The memorials do not
30°

mention either Dr. Capers or Bishop Andrew. They only remonstrate’
against electing to the office of Missionary Secretary or Bishop any one
who isa slaveholder. If this remonstrance is ‘an unwarrantable and
‘violent attack upon Bishop Andrew,’ he must be a slaveholder, — and
my previous remarks on his relation to those slaves‘are erroneous. [I
regret this fact as a Christian minister.] |

W. A. Smith continued. “Now, sir, we no longer wish to be afflicted:
and reproached in this manner. And’ we.cannot with propriety consent
to be trifled with any longer, as we have been in the action of the Con~
ference. If you'are against us, say so; as honest men. Act straight-
forward in-this matter. And though you disagree with us, we will love
you the better for being candid. But. yon may rest satisfied that we
cannot be trifled with any longer. True; I only utter my views, yet I
think this is the sentiment-of all our southern brethren.

“The brother from Baltimore who moved the appointment of this:
committee on slavery, did it in such a way as to imply that this was a
convenicnt way to get rid of the whole matter.”

J. A. Collins. “The matter was not so presented by me. When the
matter comes up I'l] be to the mark.”

W.A.Smith. “I have no doubt that the brother from Baltimore will
be found up to the mark,— but the printed report of his remarks makes
him to say, ‘The committee can report as they see fit,/— which implies:
what I have said.”

J. A. Collins. “I am not responsible for what this publishes. Ido
n't care whether they represent me as standing on my head er my heels!”

P. Crandall now spoke. “Mr. President—Iagree with the brother
from Virginia. [Cries of ‘louder, ‘can’t hear!*] Pll make you hear,
raid he, then in a louder tone he proceeded, “I agree with the brother
from Virginia, as to the-course to-be pursued by the committee.. All the
questions embraced in these memorials ought to be met fairly aud square-
ly. Ihope they will be in the form presented in the memorials,. That
is what we wish, for these memoridlists. are sincere. Ido not agree
with that brother as to matter of fact, however. I may be allowed to
know as well the relation of the private naembers of the memorials and
the subjects embraced therein as he'can, and better too:. He is mista-
ken. The ministers do not take the lead. The ministers:do not keep
pace with the members in this movement. So tardy, in their opinion,
has been the action of the ministry on this question, that some members
have left the church, and more will leave, unless they move more vigor-
ously. They are sufficiently abolitionized— the people. It may be oth-

'
‘
ol

erwise in the West; but in New England, the mass of the}people take
the lead.

“He is in error, too, about the Southern men not having been heard
on the floor on their side of this question, patiently and fully. Iremem-
ber that brother Smith himself had such a hearing, and Br. Winans, Br.
Crowder and others, and 1 presume he will not complain thet he had
such a hearing this morning.” ,

J.G. Dow. “I must also correct the mistake with reference to New-
Hampshire. We are driven up to it by. the people — we are pushed on
to this subject. I have a private letter now in my possession from the
private membership, urging me to present, without fail, the memorials
on this subject.” |, :

Il. Slicer, of Baltimore.. “I claim, sir, to be a conservative. But I
differ widely from the member from Virginia, with regard to the onc-
sided action of the General Conference for the last.twelve years. It
has not been one-sided. It has been conservative. I hold more, sir;
TI hold that this Conference is a conservative body: I hold that the Dis-
cipline is conservative. It does not say that slavery is a nationaFand so-
ejal blessing! That is the ultra doctrine on the one side! I don’t say
that is the doctrine of the brother from Virginia, however, nor does it
say that. slavery is a sin under all circumstances. “And that money in
any way connected with slavery, pollutes what it comes in contact with
—and that our missions to the poor colored man of the South — among
the aborigines of the West, and upon the shores of Africa, sir, should
be abandoned, unless they can be sustained by money free from con-
nection with slave labor. That is the ultra doctrine on the: other side!
We claim to stand between thesc extremes. We deny that the produce
of slave labor pollutes whatever it comes in contact with, and tha’ sla-
very is a sin under every circumstance. We deny, too, that slavery is a
national and social blessing. We know that our southern brethren
would have difficulties in the way of freeing their slaves. There are
incumbrances in the way of emancipation, either immediate or gradual.,
Slavery is a difficulty, an incumbrance, every where and always, And
they are thus incumbered not by their own action solely.

(He here referred to the acknowledged and almost exclusive control
that in times past the North had. over the slave carrying trade, by which
the South beeame possessed of that which now is an incumbranee to
them. He proceeded: ) :

“There are at the North many splendid mansions and ‘wealthy es-
sates, purchased with the avails of the abominable slave trade, by which
men, women and children were stolen from their native land — take
'. 32

by violence from the graves of their ancestors — torn away rudely from
the hearth-stone of their childhood — and doomed to wretchedness-and
wo. The.North sold, the South bought; that is the only difference be-
tween them. The South do not ask that the estates procured by the
profits of this horrible traffic of the North be confiseated ; they only
ask that while Northern men live in the peaceable enjoyment of their
share of the gain, that they be allowed-to manage their own-affairs and
let the system work out its own results, under the auspices of a good
Providence, associated with the influence of the gospel. And had it
not been for the unealled-for, the unfortunate interference of the North,
the very results they aim to accomplish would have been greatly ad-
vanced. But I say to those brethren from New England, that their con-
tinued agitation has abridged end cut off the privileges of the slave. If
the wise counsels of the General Conference of 1836 had been heeded,
the issue of this question would have been nearer at hand. The sub-
stance of that counsel was, “ hands off;” but instead of that it has been
AGITATION — AGITATION — AGITATION, producing no benefit to the South,
while it actually embarrasses those devoted men, who are laboring in
the cotton fields and rice swamps of the South, who are praying for the
same thing that you labor to bring about in this mistaken way. °

“ And now let me say, that if ever we are brought to that period in
aur history as a church, when under the influence of chafed and excited
feelings, which this agitation on.the one hand, and the flings at conser-
vatism, to which we have listened this morning, on the other, are well
calculated to inspire, — that period, I say, when we must part and dis-
solve our ecclesiastical connection, the death-knell of the Union is cer-
tainly given; for I am well persuaded that no power has more to do
with binding the remote parts of our country together, than the itiner-
ancy and general superintendency of the M. E. Church,

“Tf the brethren of the North wish to petition or speak on this sub-
ject, they have an undoybted right to do so. Let them be heard —their
memorials referred and acted on as the Conferenee may be disposed.
We must have compromise on this matter. We cannot live without
compromise as a denomination. . If it had not been for compromise, the
States represented in this. body could never have been connected.

“For myself, though born, and for the most part educated in.a slave-
holding State, I never had any connection with slavery. I never mean
to have. Inever expect to have. To these New England brethren I
say, Forbear. “The Discipline cannot be altered. The General Rule on
lavery cannot be altered.” And I beseech the brethren of the South
not to mix up the Temperance question with this matter. But I believe,
33

that from an apprehension that the proposition to alter the rulc on Tem-
perance would be an entering wedge to the question of slavery, and for
no other*reason, it was voted down all South.”

W. D. Cass rose and re-affirmed the necessity of acting as they did,
from the feelings of the’people. “But if the ministers did take the lead,
which Was not true, however, it would he a credit to them to be found in
the front ranks of this and every other great moral reform. They ought
to be opposed to every thing that was opposed to Ged and religion.
And it-had not been shown, and could not be shown, that in opposing
slavery they were opposing religion. Mr. Wesley says, no man has a
right to hold property in another.” [He proceeded to discuss the mer-
its of the question, arguing against the right of property in man, when
P. Crandall called the attention of the chair to a point of order.]

W. D. Cass said the North had been attacked. He was defending the
North, and hoped he would net be interrupted. [Tere P. Crandall said,
“J hope that J will always be interrupted when not in order.” ‘The-
Bishop decided that it was not in order to discuss the merits of the-
question on a motion to instruct the committee.]

W. D. Cass. I did not mean to trespass on the rules, I only followed’
the track of those who took a wide range. But I am no conservative.

The Discipline is not conservative, which will be, shown in the proper:

place hereafter.”

Tt was now moved to lay on the table the motion to instruct the com--

mittee: how to repoyt.

A member of the Conference said he hoped they weuld instruct the:
committee, if they thought the committee did not know howto perforin
the duty assigned them. “I wantall here to say out what they have to-
say, fully, frankly, fairly.” :

C. Adams. “Mr. President”

“ Let brother Adams be heard,” cried some one.

C. Adams. “Ido not intend to make a speech. But I think it is due:
to the abolition brethren who have presented memorials on the floor, to

 

throw back the unpleasant imputation cast upon them. I hope they
will throw it back from whence it came. The brother is mistaken, sir ;
we are pushed on by tle people. They have taken the lead in this
inatter, And I now say, that the imputation that these memorials owe
their existence solely to the action and agency of the preachers, ought to
be thrown back: and it is thrown back! [The vote was taken. to lay
on the table the motion to instruct, which would seem to say that those
voting for it wished to.avoid the issue urged by the South. It was car-
ried by 10 majority — 88 voting for, and 78 voting against it, ‘Tho sbo-.
34

.

litionists cenerally vote dto lay on the table. Only three, whom I knew,
voted to instruct, and thus give the South what they claimed — an issue
upon the question. Those were James Porter, Schuyler Chamberlain,
and Elihu Séott, After the vote was announced, W. A. Smith said,
“ That is a confirmation of my doctrine.”

After this some uninteresting items of’ nen were | and
the Conference adjourned.

Tuesday, May 7.
Sravery!— Wa. A. Suiru’s Speecu on an Aprrat rrom Baurimore
ConFERENCE.

After the Conference was opened as usual this morning, and some
ordinary topics of interest had occupied their attention a few moments,
the order of the day was callen up. It wasthe appeal of Francies A
Harding, from the decision of the Baltimore Annual ~Conference, by
which body he had been suspended from the ministry. The case, as
stated from the journals of-the Conference, is this. When his name
was called in the Annual Conference, as is customary, it was objected
to him that he had become connected with slavery by-marriage. A
committee was appointed to inquire into the particulars, who reported
that he had married a lady, who owned five slaves, viz.,éHarry, aged 52,
Maria, 50, John, 22, Hannah, 13, and Margaret, aged 2 years. The com-
mittee reported the following plan of emancipation : John to be free at
28, Hannah at 28, and the issue of the females to be free at the time of
their mother’s emancipation. .Of the two older ones, it was thought
that their age was a consideration, in view of which, their bondage
would not be a violation of the Discipline. They also required him to
give a pledge that le would comply with the instructions of the com-
mittee, during the conference year. , That part of their report refer. ring
to the two older ones, was by vote struck out, and the report was
adopted.

¥. A. Harding announced the impractibility of compliance.

J. A. Collins moved that he be suspended.

‘#°. HL Slicer moved its reference to a committee of five to give further
opportunity of settling the matter. The committee were Rev. Messrs.
Slicer, Davis, Broom, Myers, and Rozell. They reported as having en-

' tirely failed in attempting to induce compliance from this pbrotker.

LA Collins moved that he be suspended until the next confererce
35

or until he gives information to the Episcopacy of having complied with:
the instruction before-named. He signified his intention to appeal to
the General Conference.

The Bishop read the Discipline, which refers to appeals. Deep and
serious attention prevailed, for an important issue was now to be made,
involving the whole question of slavery. The Conference voted to ad-
mit the appeal of this brother. Wm. A. Smith now rose and appeared
for the appeallant. In a calm and subdued manner he commenced, —.

“Mr. President, — In opening this case, it may be appropriate for me
to make some personal allusions to ‘myself. From the position in which
Istand in relation to slavery, and the use that has been tade of my
name in various journal§ in the North, itmay be suppésed that I enter-
tain hostile feelings towards those brethren who may have. enlisted in
the ubolition digcussion and agitation. But I disavow any such feelings
towards them. It is true that my opinions have been made up for
years upon the question involved ; but my opinions have not been al-
lowed to excite in me unehristian feelings towards any man on this sub-
ject. Iregard myself as an anti-slavery man. Iam opposed to slave-
ry. But Iamnotan abolitionist in any sense of that term. And in my
views and feelings, I differ not with all my Southern brethren in the
ministry and out of it. "The gense in which I am au anti-slavery man
will be explained in my future remarks,

“JT do not know but I may be defending an abolitionist. ‘In the prin-
ciples by which Br. Harding bas been actuated, and the course he pro-
posed pursuing, 1 am not sure that I would agree with him. Indeed,
I think he goes as far as any of my brethren from the Eastern or West-
ern conference could or would go in his circumstances. It.is not then
from sympathy with this brother’s views on this subject, that I come be-
fore you in his behalf, but from a sense of justice to an’ injured broth-
er: for I believe honestly, that he has been deeply wronged by the Bal-
timore Conference.” " 3

[ He here recapitulated the ‘particulars of his case, sina alleged that
the records of the Conference were not so full as required by the Dis-
cipline, and he must therefore rely upon the honest memory of the mem-
bers from Baltimore, wliom he requested to correct him if he should
mistake any fact in the case.]

The ground of his argument then was stated. 1. Under the laws of

- the State of Maryland, he was notthe owner of a single slave, and of
‘course could not do what the Conference required, as he had.no slaves
to emancipate. 2. If he had been the possessor-of slaves, the laws of
the State in which he lived are such as to constitute the holding of them
36

no Violation of the Discipline of our church, Under the first head, he
stated that he had pledged before the Conference, in his own name and
in the nanie of his wife, that he would have them removed to Africa or
‘to a free State ; and he now says he is ready to do it at any time, with
their consent, But he was unwilling to sunder the tenderest ties of our
nature, separating parents from children, and husbands fyom their wives.

‘Here Br. Griffith, of Baltimore Conference, said he heard no such
pledge from Br. Harding, or it would have been satisfactory to him. Br.
Gere, of same Conference, being called up, declared that he did hear it
distinctly stated by him, more than once or twice.

J. A. Collins said he did not wish to interrupt Br. Smith, but no such
pledge reached his ear. Iasked him if the consent of the slaves to go
to Liberia could be obtained, and he said, No!

J. is Gere admitted that he said, “with the consent of his wife and
the slaves.” .

H. Slicer. “Thad some connection with this case too, and yet have
no recollection of anything being said about a free State before the Con-
ference or committee. The whole matter was plac¢d upon the issue of
their consent, to go to Liberia.”

J. A Collins again remarked, “ he placed their freedom to go to Libe-
ria on two irs: the consent of his wife, end the consent of the slaves.”

Another member of the committee in his case, remembered distinct-
ly having labored with him on this point,— and telling him he was not
a native of that county —and he could have his appointment in Penn-
#ylvania, where he could do as required by the Conference; “but I have
no recollection of his saying anything himself about a free State.”

Some of the members here objected to this oral testimony being ad-
mitted, as out of order.

Bishop Soule remarked that he only allowed it “at the instance of
Br. Smith.”

W. A. Smith said. “ What redress have we, sir? The Baltimore Con- ~
ference ought. to have recorded all these matters, great and small, and
then we should have been able to gather from their records, what we
now are receiving orally. But they have not done it!”

J. A. Collins remarked, “ There was no trial, no testimony adduced
no witnesses examined. He admitted the fact, giving testimony against
himself. ”

Several threw in remarks, some of whom the President reminded,
‘that as they were not members of the Baltimore Conference, it was
more proper, at this stage of the proceedings, that they should not in-
37

terfere’; the case was being oponed, and Br. Smith now only wanted tes
timony, which of course it was presumed none had to give, who were
not of the conference named.

W. A. Smith here remarked, that he did not know but he was willing
to debate the matter with every member on this floor! He certainly
had no objection to it,

President. “But I can’t admit that.”

W. A. Smith. | “I suppose not, sir. 1 now say, the Discipline requies
that a correct record be made of the procceding, in any and every case.
{ J. A. Collins said, ‘ That’s admitted’ ] The Baltimore delegation ad-
mit that. There, stickg a peg down tlicre! Now, sir, the testimony of
Br. Gere has much to do with this case. Br. Griffith says, ‘If he had
said so, I should have been satisfied.’ Therefore the merits of the case
turn upon the circumstances of his refusal to comply with the require-

‘ments of the Conference. To know what these were, we rely upon end

refer to the journals, and they are silent altogethcr on this point. Now
T ask, who shall suffer on account of the acknowledged imperfection in
their records? the appellant, who ‘is thereby embarrassed in coming
before you? or the Baltimore Conference, which is clearly in the wroug?
This brother is entitled to oral testimony, as from no other: source is it
possible to obtain what is necessary to the prosecution of this appeal.
And now I will refer you again to the oral testimony of Br. Gere, He
has a ‘distinct recollection ’— he ‘ clearly remenibers’ that this Br. said,
‘that with the consent of his servants, he stood pledged himself, end
would pledge for his wife, that the nee the Conference should
‘be complied with.”

Here J. A. Collins asked Br. Gere, “Did is pledge for his wife 2

Br.Gere. “He said, 1 pledge on my own account, end in behalf of
my wife. I may be mistaken, but that is the impreesion sticking in my
mind.”

Another remarked, “ We were all deeply interested, and would have
recollected it, if such a statement had been made. But I do not recol-
lect, nor have I any impressions of such a remark about a free Etate on
my mind.”

On this, W. A. Smith eine “H{twenty brethren do not ssudllent
the statement, and one does, their testimony can avail nothing, in oppo-
sition to his, It is not at all surprisingto me, sit, that my brother Col-
lins, who was deeply interested in the matter, as the records chow, ard
constituted as he is, which by the way is sitwilar to my own peculier tem-
perament, (this was said very pleasantly, )I say itis not any wonder he

Wid not hear the remark! These brethren were interested. to carry out
4
+

38

their own purposes in this mattor, and it is not surprising that they do
not recollect now all that was said, although I again repeat, there was
one, who did distinctly recollect it. And how many more members of
the Baltimore Conference heard the remark, I cannot say. Doubtless,
we might have the same testimony from many more of them, if they
were here. But I shall assume from the testimony already before you,
that he said it.”

Now commenced a conversation between one and another, while Mr.
Smith, with remarkable patience, submitted to the interruption without
i least complaint.

' Dr. Bangs thought he onglit to confine himeelf to the record. Iv the
records are deficient, let the rceords be quashed, and sont back to the
Annual Conference. He insisted with much earnestness “pon this
course.

Mr. Ecrly, of Va., thought that the Baltimcre Conference would have

the same opportunity to cimplify, that Br. Smith was now improving;

and there was no cause of complaint. “Tassure you, sir, and I assure
these brethren, that Br. Smith docs not wish to take any advantage of
you. So far from seeking any acvantege, from what I knew of the
raan, and from what I know of his preaching, he is willing you should
have every advantage: and if ke cannot beat you with ull your advan-
tages over him, he coes net wish to beat you at all.”

After some furthcr remarks from the President and others, he resum-
ed, “I will now reed to yon an opinion from Senator Merrick on the
questions, Did he own slaves belonging ‘to his wife, and if so, did tho
laws of the State allow of emancipation? [The opinion of the Sen-
stor was clearly in the negative, going to show, that by recent enact-
ments of the Legislature of Meryland, the husband has no control
over the property of his wife: and from old statutes was demonstrated
the truth of Mr. Smith’s cssertion, about freeing them on the soil. He
then continued :] “But so busily employed were these brethren, in
“laboring ” with this brother, to usc the. Quaker expression of one of
them, that they seem rot to have noticed these legal opinions, any more
then they did bis pledge to send his slaves to afree state. You will .ob-
serve, sir, that they were appointed a committce to investigate, and they
report ebout not being able ‘to bring him to terms \? and in view of
this, a motion was made by J. A.; Collins and R. Emory, to suspend
him. Tlis appeal from that suspension is now presented before you.
Thaveé gone into this brief view of the case now, and will simply pre-
sent further, at this time, the ground of his appeal. itis this: No. rule
of Discipline has been violated, express provision being made for such

¥
7 ’

t
39

eagis as his; and therefore the decision of the Aunual Conference is
his cuse was unauthorized and should be reversed.

“Tfit bs the pleasurt of the Conference, that Ishould now procecd
to enter fully into the case, lam ready to do so _ or, if it be deemed best
that the Bultimo.. delegates now octupy the floor in review of what 1
havo said, allowing. m? to respond, Iam willing for that. 1 do not wish
to forestall anything that may bo necessary, to stite the case fully and
fairly.”

4. A. Collins hoped tat Be. Smith would] proceed at-once are justes
ashe chooses to go, “To this we ar? ready aud wiilins to cons*nt.”

The President remar'ee], “ Lot-itbe distinctly understood, that Br.
Smith is at liberty to proceed just as far as he thinks proper, with the
liborty of resvoading to the other side, waich will close the pleadings
in this case.”

By, ——— wished to state a fact that woald sct the matter right
about By. ifarding’s pledge, “There were two cases before the Annual
Coafersnce. Br. Hiusingburgh’s case was one. He did pledge him-
self to send his slav23 toa free State. But I haveno recollection of Br.
Wirding miking,any such pledze. Ithivk it is probable that Br. Gere
in his mind’referred Br. Hansingburgh’s'remark to Br. Harding’s case
and this originates the mistake.”

“AN!” said W. A, S.nith, “so it mist follow, asa mutter of course,
that beeuse"this*brotier does not reeollect it therefore those who do
aveinistucea! (fe now procesds. to arin? the question, quoting an
opinion giveu by Judze Keen or King, showing that this brother had
no slaves to liberate.) Why, sir, the Couforence required him to man.
umit proparty that he had not in his possession and never had! Just
as consistent would it have boon, to have required, him to have unhorsed
tho first Methodist preacher hemet in the road! Or more properly, they
might jist as well have required him to. manumitthe slaves of every
man in the State! Sir he had as much right to the horse, bridle and
ardlle bigs of his beethren—or to the possossion of every slave i
Mvyland! And Tam ata lossto know how, in the name of patienca,
the Sdtimore Conferense could justify themselves in their action on
this case.” [At this point, J. A, Collins, wuo sat in front of the speak-
er, looxed up pleasantly and said, “ We'll show you, by and by.” “Well,
Tam ghd to hear it. Ishul b> happy to hear it now, or at any futuro
tims. Bat to.me it is so marvellous, that in contemplating it, my eyea,
do ——[Here I lost the close of the sentence.]

& Tie,se202] ground of my argument is this:—If the positions as-~
sun2d, respecting tae relation of this brot!zr to those slaves, is doubted,
40

— though I cannot see how it is possible to doubt or deny them; — yet
1 say, if doubted, ] then argue that the provisions of the Discipline are
in his favor, as the laws of Maryland are such as it specifies, in justifica--
tion of holding slaves under certain circumstances. And I shall show
you, presently, that the General Conference have recognized the prin-
ciple here assumed by me, inthis case!” [ After reading various ex-
tracts from the laws of Maryland to the same effect as before noted, he
then remarked:}] “If the holding of slaves is justified by the laws of
any State in this Union, Maryland is that State! The true issue, then,
between this brother and the Baltimore Conference is this. They re-
quire him to do what the laws of the State of his birth and residence .
forbid! He refused to do this, but was willing to make such an arrang-
ment with those slaves as was consistent with the laws of the State.
But because he would not go in the very teeth of the laws, this brother
. was'suspended from the ministry, and ‘his ministerial reputation and
personal character was perilled, and is now in jeopardy! Task, sir,
will the General Conference countenance this action of theirs,— or will
they not rather stand by their brother in this his time of need? [He
then referred, in a particular and detailed manner, to the case of cer-
tain local preachers resident in Virginia, but, within the bounds of the
Baltimore Conference, who were refused ordination by said Confer-
ence, on account of holding slaves, The report of the committee to
whom their appeal to the General Conference of 1840 was referred,
was cited to show that the General Conference, by.adopting that report,
had endorsed the doctrine which he had set forth in this case. This
report set forth explicitely, that tho holding of slaves in States such as
the Discipline pointed out, (section on Slavery,) formed no legal or
constitutional objection to election and ordination to any grade of office,
in the minestry of our Conference.] Now I ask, in view of the solemn,
sanction of the General Conference to the principle here set forth, was
it to be expected from the Baltimore Conference, that they should re-
new their unconstitutional action, and trample under foot the decision
of the General Conference and Discipline of the Church, by requiring
a brother, as in this ease before us, to violate the provisions of the Dis-
cipline, and his own conscientious feelings ? What he proposed to do,
IT have before stated. What more would humanity ask? And what.
more could religion sanction, under the circumstances ?

“But I would have you notice particularly one thing in their require-
ments, They required him to hold two of those slaves in perpetual bon-
dage! Jask the attention of our Eastern and Northern brethren to
that, Stick to your principles and professions on this subject, and I ask,
At

e2n you sustain the Baltimore Conference in en act of theirs on thia
question, so much at variance with your views of right? What more
could you ask then what he proposed to do ?

“ Further —The couduct of this brother was perfectly consistent with
the spirit of the Discipline. By that I mean, the evident design anc ten-
dency of its provisions on slavery. I hoki, sir, that the Disciplire is
conzervative on this question, Much has been said about conservatism
on this floor. Before Thave concluded. [think it will appear more clear-
ly to your minds than now, who the true conservatives are. Dhol, siz,

_ that Lam aconservative; if Iam not, let it be shown, And if cny man
refuses to stand upon the open, broad, and common platform where
plice muyself} I deny to him all right and title to the name. And ie, sir,
T give you tho ground on which I stand, inrelation to Slavery. I bold,
sir, that the re of the Disc*pline is true! What isthe ground thero
etated 2 Hoarit! ‘What sbull wo do for, the extirpation of the nvin 6:
BLAVERY 2? — Wo are as much asever persuaded of the Evin of shivery!?
Tha’s my doctrine, sir! Slavery is an evil! [This he uttered in a
reics of thund2y, and struck the table so violently with the Disciplinc,
that the little book alaost jumped out of its cover!] 41 aay itisen
evil, beeause Tfecl itto be an evil. » Who that has rot breethed a south-
ern nir can sxy the same? Who knows how the shoe pinches, but ho
who wears it? This sontiment 1am net cehamed to own, ror to pro,
alain ao the house top, here or elsewhere. This isthe brood open ground
of tho Discipline, Tt is not the corservatiem, Fowcver, that is — to
be représente by the exbs of your city, which, if the horse is ren oved,
always let down on one ‘side! No; sir. Conservatism proper inyolyes
principles accommodating to both sides of a contcsted question, ‘This
ig it. Slavery is 2 great evil, but not necessarily a sin! Poth sidca ero
look ned at ja this. Those who sock for its extirpation, and aro thera
who are compelled to submit to it, An svowaland muintensnce of this
position we demand at your hands. This is to occupy Disciplincr
ground, This is practical conservatism, —a difcrent thing : thegest cr
from the one-sided doctrine and practice referred to.

«“ We know slavery to be en evil. We ecknowledge thet we feel it to
be an evil. Butwe are compeiled to submit. ~The wrong has Leen in
flicted upon us, and inflicted upon us by those very brethren ficm the
North who now withhold from us their sympathics and prayers, end »-
fuse to pity us und help us, in this our time of need. Their interierence
has prevented our deliverance from it, and perpetuated the wrong for

oake: hare turn
an unlimited period i in time tocome. [The speako. hore turned round,
: xe :

 

 
Wh Xe! 42

and said, ‘ Br. Crowder, when was the great debate in the Virginia Lege
islature?’ Crowder, ‘In 1831.’ He then assumed the common and
unaccountable position which has been assumed by every person on
that side of the question for years past, that the modern anti-slavery ag-
itation embarrassed and prevented a movement that in fact was begun
and ended before abolitionism had an existence. As the argument is
; familiar to your readers, I will pass it by, and gave you an illustration
that told finally upon the congregation.] Yes sir, unfortunately, at the
very moment when the bow of promise spanned the moral heavens,
cheering the servant and child of God with the hope of seeing speedily,
the hour long expected, so ardently desired, a dark cloud was seen ris
ing in the north. True, it was no lorger than a man’s hand in its com:
moncemert, but soon it grew and spread until the entire hemisphere waa
covered witlr blackness and darkness, and Virginia was clad in sack-
cloth, and mourning and sorrow prevailed over the land, Thus was
the tide settling in so strongly in favor of emancipation rolled back to an
indefinite distance, yet I ana persuaded that in this matter the hand of
the Lord was seen overruling for good, what I hardly knew whether to
designate as the error or wiekeduess of the abolitionists! God only
knows which! But at the very period to which I refer, communications
were received from distinguished colonists in Liberia, removstrating
against the cliaracter of the emigrants sent out, urging us to stay our
hand, and send only such as were fit for freedom, or they would be rv-
ined and undone! . This was a wise and sage remark, not perhaps the
result of philosophic investigation, but the spontaneous promptings of
the colored man, in view of. the stubborn facts before him.

“There is an important ‘principle involved, that I can illustrate better
sby an allusion familiar to all. If the amount of ignorance and vice that
now annually is poured in upon us from the old world, had been poured
jn upon the colony at Jamestown, Va., or that of Plymouth Rock, this
vost republic, that has struck its roots deep in the soil, and spread its
branches from Maine to Mississippi, and from the Atlantic almost to the
Pacifie Ocean, would never have had an existence! But now, having
acquired strength and stability of character, our country is able to re-
ceive this floodtide of emigration, and thus far our political power and
character Femains unchanged. And God grant that it ever may! and
that Time, in its rapid roll, may see continued and perpetuated, our civ-
3) and religious liberty, .

“ The application of my remerk is this : Had Virginia carried out the
project she began in 1831, and poured upon the infant colony the masa
of ignorance and vice which is embodied in her slave population, that
43

colony would have been reduced ere this, to its original state of heathen-
ism and corruption. And what prevented it? The abolition excite-
ment? Thanks to the abolition excitement that we have a flourishing
colony there, that is destined to be, during the next fifty or one hundred
years, a home for every slave in America who chooses to go there. I
know that the abolitionists never designed this. Their action in refer-
ence to the colony is well illustrated. by the hand that witha dagger
‘aims a death’ blow at the heart, but fails to reach its aim, and only opens
an abscess in the side, where was concentrated the elements of disso-
lution and death, and thus relieves from danger that had threatened tho
existence of their victim, Ihave therefore no quarrel with my aboli-
tion brethren. I believe God ‘thas used them, and will yet use them, for
the accomplishment ef a great deal of good! [ Amen! shouted many
voices} ]

“T return now to inquire again, who are the conservatives? Do you
wish to know where the conservative is to be found ? There he sits!
{ pointing to Doct. Bond, who sat in front of him.) He is a true con-
servative. His course'in flie Advocate and Journal proves it; that pre-
sents to us the true doctrine of conservatism. ‘ Slavery an evil, but not
necessarily a sin.’ { Stick a pin there, says your reporter. Thut refer-
once to Doct..Bond is in effect a nomination and election of the next
four years as Editor.] But I heard a different‘idea on this subject, from
2 quarter that I was not expecting it, on the subject of slavery. Tho
brother from Baltimore (Slicer) stated two extremes. One of them!
pronounce a Gad-dishonoring doctrine! Slavery, it was said, ‘is re-
garded by some as a great national and social blessing!’ I never heard
that doctrine from a minister until [ heard it on this floor! I appeal to
my southern brethren, if they ever heard such a doctrine advanced by
a minister in all the South?” { “No, never”!! was responded as with
the voice of many waters.], “Did you-ever hear anybody utter such a
sentiment, wlio had sense enough to get upon his horse and carry a bag
of grain to the mill? I have been a resident of the South for forty-one
years, and have béen now nearly twenty years a preacher, but I never
heard such a doctrine until I heard it here, from one from whom I cer-
tainly did not expect to hear it. And one too, who professes to be a
middle man, standing between two imaginary extremes of his own con-
trivance, as agreat mediator, with his hands on both! [ Laughter among
Southern men.] Sir, there is no middle ground between us and the
abolitionists. On the question of slavery, the southern confei ences oc-
eupy the middle ground, as I have shown. But where is that brother?
Sf not with the ultra abolitionists, I am sure I cannot tell where he is,

‘
44

for there is no ground of difference between us and them on which to
stand. There is no shading off here, sir, atthe margin of guilt, butthe
bold and abrupt step from right to wrong.’ The difference then is this,
and this alone. And in order to pass from one side to the other of this
question, a wall must be scaled, high as heaven itself! ‘To those who
claim to be with us, and not in reality with the abolitionists, I say, if
you really belong to us, come and sit down by our sido, and do not place
us in a position of extreme distance, between which and some other
extremity you are pleased to place yourselves! J repeat it. Our posi-
tion is this, Slavery is an evil to be submitted to only because we must.
That’s common sense, — A’n’t it, Doctor? [turning to Doct. Bond, to
which he nodded assent.} And to be submitted to only, until we can
get rid of it, and that should be as soon cs practicable. The ultra abo-
litionists deny our position, and maintain that it is necessarily a sin, un-
der all circumstances. Now I regrct to declare it,—yet my honest con-
victions are, that the ection of the Bsltimore Conference sympathizes
with all the principles of ultra abolitionism. And while at the same
time I can shake hands in my heart with my Baltimore brethren, Ido
say, that their action in this case could only be bascd upon the priuei-
ple that slave-holding is necessarily asin. Inew come to nctice the
arguments of the abolitionists, by which the evident assumption of the
Baltimore Conference in this case is sustained. ;

“1, Slavery is wrong in the abstract. Now, sir, I ask, what is Slavery ?
Slavery is a concrete act! And what is meant by slavery, abstractly
considered? If it means anything, it means aside or awey from its cir-
cumstances. But I ask what conception we can have of any thing, asido
from its circumstances, that is dependant upon those circumstances for
its existence? Slavery is a thing of circumstances! What do we know
of right or wrong abstract from circumstances? It may be said that by
slavery in the abstract is meant, the overt act. But the overt set is in-
separable from the circumstances of that act. They constitute the overt
act itself. There is no such thing, we repeat, as slavery, elstract from
jts circumstances, They are one and inseparable. Is slavery defined
to be government by physical force? If that’s what you mean by slave-
ry, then it is assumed that government by physical force is wrong in the
abstract, or aside from the circumstances attending it. But will any
man undertake to sustain this position? Then I inquire if it will be
contended that the government by physical force of the residence in the
jail at Sing Sing is wrong? O no! you will say, ‘because of the cir-
cumstances of their detention. Circumstances then determine the .
aharacter of the act;.and what is true of an act under one set of cir-

é
ad

cumstances, is false under other circumstances, In one case it may bo
wrong, in the other right. For instance, murder is taking life. If done
in accordance with law, it is right — if in violation of law, or with mal-
ice forethought, it is wrong. Thus it is of slavery, which is justificble
or wrong according to circumstances.

2. What is wrong in itself, can never become right by perpetuation. This
is false, for if there be na way by which claims, having their origin in
wrong, may become valid in time. to come, by contrivance or perpetuity,
then is there no rightful claim or ownership to landed estatc, the world
over! For all such claims had their origin in wrong and injustice, in
the firstinstanee. Scargely a human government on earth, but had its
‘origin in robbery, oppression and wrong. And if wrong can never as-
sume the aspect and character of right, then must injustice and wrong
remain forever attached to ell such clans as I have specified. [The
speaker then referred to the N orman conquest of England — the settle-
ment of America, making an exception in favor of Virginia, to prove
his position, taken above.] The principle, in its application as above
clicited, it this, sir. Things originally wrong, become right, when to
redress the wrong would inflict greater evil than good upon the com-
munity. Wrong becomes right, I repeat it, when greater mischief than
good will follow a recognition of the rights so long withheld. With
some practical remarks, I shall conclude. No one will deny that Abre-
ham was a slaveholder, or that the Jews held slaves, under certain cir-
cumstances, by Divine sanction. So that in one instance it was right!
Now God would not have sanctioned it at all, unless circumstances do
make it right. What the circumstances were we know not, but we are
bound to allow the fact from the words we have in the Scripturcs.
[ The existence of Slavery in the days of Christ and his apostles, and
their course respecting it, was there argued at some length, showing
the parallel between the course they pursued, and that which the south-
ern church carried out :— except, however, one thing. He did not ar-
gue that any of the apostles held slaves. After pointing out the proper
course to be pursued on the subject of slavery, he resumed.]

« Allow that it was wicked for men to wash their hands in their broth-
er’s blood, on the coast of Africa, and by perpetuating the horrid trefi'c
in this and other lands. Allowing this, I insist upon it that the hand of
‘God was in it, How many thousand have been taken from the darkness
and degradation of heathenism in their own land, have been illumina-
ted by the light of truth in this country, and being soundly converted,
are found clothed and in their right mind, at the feet of the Saviour.
With confidence J declare it as truth, thet their condition is a thousand
AG

times better than it would have been if they had remained in their own
land, and never been removed to this. For there is very little ‘reason’
to believe that the seme amount of effort to redeem Affica, that has
been made, would ever have been put forth, had not her condition and
claims upon Christian philanthropy been placed before us es it has been,
by the existence of slavery in our midst. Lask, sir, where is the nvan
with'an honest he art, that can say that it would have been better for
Africa, had her sons never bee n held in slavery.” [The speaker then
Prescied whit in his view was the prospective condition of Africans
in this country. Tt was their ultimate colunization in Africa or scme
part of this country, Ife then referred to his own labor among the ne-
groes of the So not ashamed to have it known that he was the
“negro’s preacher.” He then pointed out the duty of the M. 5. Church
on this question, alleging, that in making laws for the government of
her members on this question, she was assuming a politico-ecclesiasti-
cal cueracter. He argued at some length, and With much ability, that
the opposition of Southern brethren to making laws on this ‘question,
originated in their anUpathy to a union of Church and State. €ome of
his remarks were exceedingly severe upon those ‘ministers who toke cn
active part in politics. On the fecling manifested by Souther Metho-
dists jn view of lez slating on slavery, referring to the chjection abeut
Church and State, he said, ] “ Don’t be surprised then, when you sce
your Southern brethren look anxious, scowl deikly and spevk in eainest,
when you talk of lecisleting on slavery. If you really wish to do us
good, and be a blessing to the black man, I will tell you how to accom-
plish it. Bue’.le on the proper armor of the gospel minister, and come
home and work with me, vide by side. Co with me to tLe cabin of the

 

slave and wipe the tear from the sorrowihg face of afgiction. Stand
by his dying couch, and tell him Jesus died thet he might live. Exalt

gn
let both come and weep beneath its shadow! I know, sir, that in my re-

before thd admiring gaze of slave and master the consecrated c5 02s, ond

marks Tha vo wandered from the strict limits of the . “question, T have
done so for an obvious 3 'ecson. But I return.” :

[ He then closed hy some remarks, urging the irjestice cf svsteining
the decision of the Baltimore Conference, and thereby injnring irrepar-
ably “the unfortunate brother for becoming connected with on emille
Tady who was unfortunately, though toa very limited extent, connected
with slavery.” The appeal case wes then made the order of the dz
for to-morrow, immedi:.tely ofter reading the jourrel.]
47

Wednesday, Hay &

The Conference was opened as usual, Journal read, cerrected and ap-
proved. After a few remarks from various members, J. A. Collins rose
and said, “ Mr. President, the Baltimore delegation have requested me
to perform the dity of replying to the prosecution of the appeal, which
was so ably presented by my friend from Va. It is not without some
diffidence that [rise to defend one of the oldest annual conferences in
our connection. One that has stood by the Discipline, through weal
and through wo; and has contributed much to promote the interests of
our church, and has remained until now entirely untarnished, pure, and
above suspicion. Her best defence I ain pursuaded would be to let her
own acts speak in their proper language,

“ The question involyed in this casc, is one ef great interest and im-
portance. ‘The subject of pro-slavery and abolitionism, has fora long
time agitated and convulsed the ecclesiastical and national councils of
our country ¢ and the case before us has connected with it, and will
bring up before us the whole question, distinctly and clearly. And much
_care, discretion, prudence and freedom from excitement is necessary to
manage and settle it aright. And I pray God that I may be enabled so
to conduct the case on my part, as will result in his highest glory, and
the intercsts of the church. | ne

“T was glad to hear the remarks of my brother from Va., on the evil
of slavery. And I cannot forbear congretulating him on.the fect of his
conversion to anti-slavery opinions. Until yesterday, I did not suppose
such was the fact. Sir, I was delighted to hear tlhe warm and zealous
manner in which he denounced slavery, and reiterated the sentiments
of the Discipline on slavery; and also the prempt cud hezrty response
uttered by the southern brethren in the. negative, when asked by the
speaker if they hed ever heard slavery designetcd a Licssing. I ws
much pleased, sir. But for the life of me, I could not Lolp thinking of
the Resolution of cn annual conference, decleiirg “slavery, cs it exists
in the United States, not a morau evil.”! Iskould like to krow what
kind of an evil the brother from Virginia ccnsiders slavery to be! And
notwithstanding the anti-slavery sentiments sa weimly irsisted upon
and responded to yesterday, it will not be fergotten by memLe:s of this
General Conference, that lengthy, labored, and able specches were
made upon the floor of the General Conference in 1836 avd 1240, in fa-
vor of slavery, by members of the deligation from Va., to which that
brother belongs, defending it, from the word of Gcd, and regarding it
as a Divine institution. And I remember that Professor Simms hea
written a work ayowing the seme opinicn. Ue is professor in Rendolph
' 48 \

!
,

Macon College, is he not? —( turning to W. A. Smith, who nodded as-
sent.) And although my friend said; that no one who had sense endugl
to get on a horse and carry a bag of grain to mill, had ever advocated
the sentiment that slavery was a blessing, yet, sir, the President of a
Methodist College has advocated such a sentimént, and I suppose he
has sense enough to goto mill! Still, Iam glad to hear what I have
heard.

“But there is a drawback upon my pleasure. My friend, while
speaking on what he truly called abstractions, which by the way, are
doubtful in sentiment, and dangerous, if prosecuted to their results, |
has involved himself\in a contradiction, by saying that slavery is an evil,
and yet arguing that it becomes a good, by force of circumstances. I
would not misrepresent him, however. Ialso understood him distinct-
ly to avow his abhorrence of the abominable slave trade, and at the
same time argue that slavery, which was the result of this very detest-
able slave trade, is right as it now exists in this country. There was
another drawback to my pleasure. With all’ his strong expressions
against slavery, before he had got, through his abstractions, he pleced
‘hunian beings on the same ground as landed property, regarding them
‘a8 goods and chattels, Isay these are drawbacks to the pleasure I
realized ; yet he calls himselfa conservative. I give him full credit for
his conservatism, as far as it goes. ~

“J shall not pretend to follow my brother through all that he has said,
though I listened with a great deal of pleasure to his eloquent and able
speech,Yor the very sufficient reason, that much of it does not refer to
the case. Indeed, sir, if the case before us had been tainted with the
small pox, two-thirds of his'speech would never have caught the dis-
ease.” [The speaker then revicwed what had been said in complaint
of the records, and insisted upon their correctness and completeness,—
denied that F.‘A. Harding had ever proposed sending them to a free
State, for that would have been satisfzctory. He then proceeded to ex-
amine the arguments adduced from the laws of Maryland, and the pro-
visions or the Discipline. IHeshowed that no law existed in Maryland
to prevent any man from freeing all/his slaves on the soil; for if he Wid
not obtain their consent to go, or provide for their remaining according
to law, the sheriff could take them up; and they would not be sold into

perpetual bondage, as in Virginia, but simply be removed against their
consent. “A man once fee in Maryland can never become a slave
_ again!” said the ‘speaker. He then proceeded to animadvert upon the
law of 1843, which makes the woman ‘equal to the man, which he
‘thought was covitrary to the Scripture. The contemp! ated” law  gainst
49

free colored people, that passed through the lower House, and reached
the Senate the same session, and-was there quashed —he pronounced
it “an enormity suited only to the genius of Algiers in her worst acts.”
He then proceeded to examine the -position that F. A, Harding had
‘no power over the freedom of these slaves.] ‘“ But let the law be what
it may, about the property of the wife, it does not destroy the power of
the’husband over that property; it only gives her a jot claim with
him, so that the husband cannot dispose of it without her consent; and
with her consent, he can dispose'of it. Now, sir, I'do not believe that
-an affectionate, amiable and pious Jady will consent that her husband
‘forfeit his standing in the ministry, or jeopardize his reputation, for the
sake of a few negroes. Will she love the negroes more than her hus-
hand? [ Here some one complained that his remarks were a reflection
‘on the lady.]

J. B. Finely hoped that Br. Collins would “be allowed to proceed
‘uninterrupted, as Br. Smith had.”

W. A. Smith was anxious that “ he shouldbe allowed to say anything
‘he thought important to his cause.”

J. A. Collins resumed: “I deny the allegation! What I have said is a
‘eredit to the ladies! They love tneir husbands so dearly, that if their
husbands wished it, they would consent to any sacrifice. They will.
never jeopard a husband’s reputation for the possession of a few ne-
groes! I spurn the idea of insulting the ladies! They are and always
have been, the better part of creation. And I have always been a lady’s
man from the time I was fifteen years old until now! [This was said
in a merriment-inviting manner, and was followed by much good bu-
mor apparent on the part of the ladies who crowded the gallery. He
proceeded :] “I repeat it, sir, it is a libel on the ladies,to deny what I
assert of them. We all know, however, the propensity of our species
from the earliest period. When Adam was interrogated as to his dis-
obedience, he tried to place the responsibility on his wife’s shoulders.
“The woman thou gavest to be with me.” I always thought that was a
dastardly act, and I still think so of any man who acts in a similar man-
ner. In this case, the effort was not. made to induce the wife to relin-
quish her claim, and censeut to the freedom of the slaves. It could
have been accomplished readily. Why, sir, if one-half the pains was
taken to promote this result after marriage, that is taken in coaxing and
wooing them before wedlock, there would be no difficulty at ‘all!
{ Laughter.] But he did not wish to free them. That’s the secret.
And I suspect the man of being a slaveholder in his heart who makes
‘any such plea. Iknow that if he wanted to have them freed, his wife

5
50

would not have stood in the way one moment. He ought net to have
brought that plea.

“Tt is astonishing to hear the difficulties of emancipation in Marylend
urged with so much earnestness. We might suppose emancipation was
entirely out of the question! but instead of that, under the very laws

“quoted and expatiated upon at such great length here, by the advocate

{or the appellant, under these laws, I say, slaves have been and yet will
bz freed. I will. give a case. M+. Cornelius Howard, the brother of
Col. Howard, of Baltimore, who pore the statdard of his country so
bravely in the face of her foes, during the revolutionary war, has’ left all
his slaves free by will. ‘How was it possible that he should be able to
accomplish what is represented to be soimpracticable? I will tell you
the secret: he wanted to do it! ‘The wish is always farther to the
thought.” [Here Thos. B. Sargent-said, “It was during the past year ;
he died in February last.” The speaker cited the case of a Br. Blake,
who was objected tu by the Conference on the same ground, and freed
his slaves last year.] “(And yet the appellant pleads a want of power
to emancipate in Maryland, because of the laws! Sir, facts transpiring
every day prove the contrary. There was nothing that rendered it im-
practicable or impossible. I am persuaded that the Baltimore Confer-
ence acted right, and that this “Conference will confirm her decision ;
because Mr. Harding could, but would not comply with its require-
ments.

2. “The next ground assumed is the sanction of the Discipline. As-
suming that emancipation could net be accomplished, it was then urg-
ed that the provisions of the Discipline were in favor of the appellant,
I asked the prosecution, why he could not free those slaves? but that
question was not answered, and it cannot be answered. So fer from
being sanctioned by the Discipline of our church, even by implication,
he has violated one of its express provisions. And I insist upon it,
that the Baltimore Conference, for this act, deservethe thanks, rather
than the sneers of the church. It wasa noble and fearless ‘carrying
out of principle, to take the stand they have taken, in the face and eyes
of aslaveholding community. But to the Discipline. On this part of
the argument we. need: deliberation. It isa fundamental point. The
relations in. which slavery is contemplated by our Discipline are three-
fold: in its connection with private members, local preachers, and trav-
elling preachers. The only rule respecting private members, is in the

General Rules, if we can call that a rele on slavery, that is there found.
ji has respect merely to the traffic in slaves. Private members may in-
herit slaves, receive by gift, or marriage, or issue of those already pos-
5]

sessed —but cannot buy or sell, without violating the rule. Within
these limits, there is nothing to take hold of them, in our Discipline ;
and all will admit that the Discipline is sufficiently broad, latitudinarian
und mild. Nothing is said of the duty of emancipation applying to
private members. But of official members, or local preachers, the
book speaks of the duty of emancipation; only, however, where, or in
such States as will allow the liberated slave to enjoy freedom on the
soil. This, you see, is a tighter knot, as it were, on this question. But
the strongest twist, the tightest knot, is found in the provision respect-
ing a travelling preacher. If he shall ‘by any means become the own-
er of a slave or of slaveg,’ he is required to execute a deed of manurnis-
sion, ‘conformably to the laws of the State in which he may live.’ There
is nothing said about their enjoying freedom, It comes down upon
the travelling preacher with a stronger influence, compelling him to
manumit, And there is wisdom in the regulation, making a difference
between the provisions respecting the travelling and local ministry.. By
the power of transfer, wé may be removed froma slaveholding to a
hon-slaveholding community ; for we are but birds of passage, subject
‘1o removal at the pleasure of the Episcopacy ; and no travelling preach-
er has a right, nor ought to have aright, by any means,to disqualily
himself for the itinerancy. Yet any travelling preacher’ who becomes
the possessor of slaves does disqualify himself for the work!
3. “ The next point in the argument of my friend from Virginia was,
a construction he gave tothe doings of the last General Conference.
I need only say, that referred, to local preachers, to show that any de-
ductions therefrom as bearing upon this case, are wholly inapplicable,
from the single fact, that the provisions of our Discipline are entirely
different.” [His remarks on this point I shall not report at length.
Suffice it to say, that he convicted his opponent, in this instance, of
haying fixed the attention of, the Conference upon a provision of the:
Discipline that had nothing to do with ‘the case, and keeping out of
sight entirely that which had. After re-affirming what he had previ-
ously said of the conduct of Mr. Harding, (for he didn’t call him broth-
er once,)and of the action of the Conference, he proceeded : ] “The
conscience of the cppellant was introduced, as an argument in his fa-
vor. He had better let thatalone. If I was disposed to speculate upon
conscience, I_would say, that conscience will sometimes become streteh-
ed tremendously by one’s interest. We have all heard of the highway-
man in Italy, who could rob and murder without remorse, but who was
very much afflicted in his conscience by having eaten some meat one
slay during Lent! 1 wish the appellant’s conscience had been at work

a
52:

\ before he put usin the position we are now compelled to. occupy:
towards him, *

“My friend from. Virginia, rejoiced over one item in the report of
the Conference committee in this case, as if he had found a great spoil!
Will the Secretary please read from the journal the last clause of the
report?” [The Secretary here read what referred to “the old ones,”
&c., which Mr. Smith had pointed out as an obligation to hold two in
perpetual bondage.] ““ That’s it,” said Mr. Collins. “He chuckled over
that greatly. He forgot to tell this Conference that this very clause was
struck out by the Conference before they would adopt the report! Will
the Secretary please read a little further?” [The Secretary read to
where they struck out that clause, and then. sat down. Mr. Collins re-
sumed :] “My friend forgot to tell you that we amended the report by
striking out those very words before we adopted it. But suppose it had
been adopted as first reported, Let me remark in reference to that sup-
position, that these two old ones had passed the age at which the law
makes provision for even the possibility of freedom, unless under cer-
tain very perplexing provisions. But itis sufficient to say, that by
striking out that clause, and thus making no exception, the Conference
required the emancipation of all the slaves.

“One reason in justification of the appellant was, the spirit of the
Discipline. It is rather a hard thing to define spirit, sir ; and my friend
certainly did not trouble us with much metaphysics on that point. He
said that the Discipliné was conservative on the question of slavery.
On this question, I insist that the Discipline isnot conservative; it is
opposed, and only opposed to slavery. Nothing in the Discipline sanc-
tions slavery at all. He ridiculed our claims to conservatism. But we
do hold, in fact, a conservative .position between the pro-slavery party
in the South, and the ultra-abolitionism of the North.” ['The speaker
enlarged here. Ineed not follow minutely.] There was one thing’
that sounded strangely in his remarks, He alluded to what he called a
happy and ‘providential interposition of the abolitionists. It had pre-
vented colonization, he said. _[Here W. A. Smith demurred. *: Collins
paused. J. P. Durbin interposed a remark to the effect that “Br. Smith /
said that, their interference prevented the ruin of the colony.” Mr.
Smith said something about allowing him all the advantdge he wished
tor in his gladiatorial exhibition. Mr Collins disclaimed the design of
playing the gladiator, and Mr. Smith rose promptly and acknowledged
hjs error in making the remark he did, but thought the brother had
fallen into a dream, “ and nothing would wake him up but a good sound
fall.” Mr. Collins resumed :] “Ido. not design initentional error. The
53

'

part] perferm in this matter, is froma sense of duty, in deferce of the
Baltimore Conference, and Tam all auxiety for the result; and yet Lam
persuaded that a correct view of the case only is necessary to induce
this body to dismiss the appeal. I think I can say, I know it will be
csmissed or affirmed.

“Sir, we were not ignorant of the laws of Maryland relating to this
case, Our action was had in full view of these laws. We simp ly eer
ed according to the universal practice of the Baltimore Conference in
like cases. Our records have been before every General Confvrence,
end never have they said that our action was contrary to the Discipline
of the church; and heyee the action, of the Baltimore Conference is +s
anuch approved in these doings, as the action of any conferenee in the
Connection. ;

“The ground of my defence of the decision of the Baltimore Cor- -
ference is this: 1. The appellant violated the Discipline of the churcii.
He can comply with its provisions, if he will — but he wil] not. There-
fore he was suspended. _ Indeed, he seemed to court martyrdom in tis
matter. His conduct was rude, exceedingly, before the, Conference,
und he denounced that venerable body, as a set of ultra abolitionists,
for dealing with him as they did.” [The Bishop here remarked, that
what he was now saying referred to nothing that was in the record, and
he thought it rather irrelevant. Mr. Collins replied, that he had beer:
drawn into it, from the course the prosecution for the appellant had
pursued, by citing what Mr Harding had said and done before the Cur-
ference, which was not on record either,]

“The second ground of my defence is, in view of the fact, that FP.
A. Harding entered into this relation and connection with slavery, v oL-
untariy! fhe could plead the necessity of circumstances, there might
be some mitigation. But his eyes: were wide open on this matter; lie
was a volunteer. Bear thisin mind! He knew that no slaveholder
had ever been received on probation, or been elected to deacons’ or ei-
ders’ orders ; and he knew that they never could be. And for him to
w#ecure admission and ordination, in accordance with our principles and
usages, and then enter upon the relation to slavery which he did, and as
he did, I hold before God to be a breach of his sacred trust as a minis-
ter of Jesus Christ. It was a high offence. And why did he act thus,
when there was no compulsion whatever? Why did he throw this ap-
ple of discord among his brethren? Ay! in the very face of his breth.-
ren? IT pronounce it again asolemn breach of trust. Why, sir, ne
Methodist preacher has aright to do as he pleases, not even in the deli-
ate matter of matrimony.

Ez
54

«The appellant was aware, moreover, of the laws of Maryland favor-
ing manumission ; he knew the course pursued the year before, by the
Baltimore Conference. 1 will now call your attention to the journal in
that' case: the case of Br. Hansingburgh.” [ The Secretary here read a
report of the committee in bis case, which hadin it some admirable
anti-slavery sentiments. The report made it his duty to free himself
from all connection with slavery, but forbid his transferring the right of
property, either by salé or otherwise. Until he complied with this, his

‘ordination was deferred.] “He knew all these things: and with his
eyes wide open, he married these slaves! A knowledge of these things,
if nothing else could, should have deterred him. And when he was
involved in this connection with slavery, his refusal to comply with the
requisition of the Conference, was downright contumacy. Yet he did
not hesitate to involve his brethren, and the church of God, in this dif-
ficulty. His conduct was a violation of his ordination vows, twice tak-
en. He promised reverently to obey those who had the charge over
him, with a glad mind following their godly admonitions. Yet he has
manifested a contempt for the judgment of his brethren, whose godly
admonitions he had vowed to follow. If there ever was a case of vio-
lation of ordination vows, his is one!

“ Again: he has rendered himself unavailable to us asa travelling
preacher. He is of no use to us as aslaveholder, in the non-slavehold-
img portions of our Conference. And the hands of the Episcopacy
would be more tied, and their duties more embarrassing than they now
are, if we were to consent to have two classes of preachers, i. e., slave-
holding and non-slaveholding, in our body. This would be a difficulty
added to the many that already exist, and moreover, tends directly to
locality in the ministry, by confining one class of men to a [particular
section of the work. Sir, by involving himself, as the appellant has
done, he has forfeited the true genius and spirit of itmerancy, and we
were obliged to get rid of him. I pray God to fill his place with a man
better suited to ourwork. I beg the Conference to look at this point
particularly. It alone is sufficient to warrant the ‘action of our Confer-
ence in this case.

“ The last reason I will give, in justification of the Baltimore Conven-
tion decision, is this.. The position she assumed in this case has always
been her position. She has never sanctioned the connection of her
members with slavery. Every expedient has been tried, but in vain, to
foist in slavery among her members. They have been obviated and
exposed. She has maintained her ground in all time past, and she
means to maintain it in all time to come. And call it what you please
55

we believe that we are standing upon the old Methodist basis, where
the glorious principles of Methodism first planted her, in this country,
by the labors of her able and godly founders. We insist upon it, that
the Discipline of our church is opposed to slavery, and the Baltimore
Conference is opposed to slavery! On this question, we have listened
to a definition of conservatism, which is certainly the strangest I ever
heard of. If that brother be a conservative, I dont know what conser-
vative means. He is convinced that slavery is a great evil, he says, and
yet he would have it perpetuated and extended. I beg him, in the name
of God, not to force it upon us. Why try to force it on us, if they are
what they profess to be ?—upon us who don’t want to touch it. And
we have not been driver! to our position on the subject of slavery, by
the abolition excitement at the North. We are maintaining our origin-
al position on this subject. Our relative position is as the breakwater
to throw off the force of the northern stream of excitement that would
bear down upon the South with too great violence. I know we have
been sneered at and satirized. All the force of sarcasm has been spent
in striving to make our opposition appear ridiculous. But, sir, we stand
where Asbury stood, and where our fathers stood. In the observance
of these principles we hope to live; in their defence we fare willing to
die. We will give them up for no man.

“The difference between our conservatism and the conservatism of
iny friend from Virginia is great. He is opposed to slavery, and yet
willing to perpetuate it— force it where,it never has been —and upon
those who don’t want it. I can’t understand why he wishes to accom-
plish this. If that’s his conservatism, we don’t want any thing to do
with it — we don’t wan’t it, and by the blessing of God, we won’t have
it.” [After some remarks on the perils of the colonization cause — the
views of the Baltimore Conference on slavery, as being nota sin always
—the noble acts of many of its members in freeing their slaves, &c.
&c., the speaker expostulated as follows: ]

“ And now I ask the members of this Conference, if they will throw
this man back upon us? Pause before you do it! Deliberate calmly
ere you take this step. Are you prepared to make another slave-hold-
ing Conference? for, if this man is thrown back upon us against our
wishes, and in.the face of our deliberate and repeated action on this
question, we are hereafter numbered, in spite of ourselves, among slave-
holding Conferences. Will you thus humble us in the dust ? Will-you
desecrate the ashes of our fathers? ? Will you put us in the dust at the
feet of this appellant, and say by that act, you shall be a slaveholding
Conference? L[hope not. How easily in a short time could our Con-
56

‘

ference be overrun with slaveholding members, by haying our young
men, as they come up from year to year, marry Southern lJadiest wuo
possess slaves, and thus change the entire character of the Conference.
I pray you forbid it. Let us oppose the encroachments of slavery: nor
allow another foot of the domain of Methodism to be intruded upon
by it. If this yowng man does not value his standing asa Christian
minister, more than he values his connection with slavery let him have
his choice. If he values these slaves more, let him go and live with
them.” [The speaker then made various remarks apologetic, with ref-
erence to his manner of treating the subject, which breathed a Christian
and magnanimous spirit, and sat down.]

Bishop Hedding, “If the members of the Baltimore delegation have
anything additional to offer, they will now do it.”

H. Slicer then rose, and proceeded to explain some matters associated
with the Westmoreland memorial on the local preacher question.

T. Sovereign objected to the range of the remarks, as irrelevant.

Mr. Slicer replied, that he could not get at the matter involved, with-
out the reference he was now making, as he by no means intended to
take the course of a good man once, who, when he commenced his ser-
mon, said, he should not take any text in particular, but preach up and
down the Scriptures! [Laughter.] Yet he thought that the advocate.
for the appellant had wandered all over creation! We then referred to
the happy influence of an anti-slavery ministry in the section of Virgin-
ja within the Baltimore Conference, compared with the influence of the
slavetrading priesthood of the Roman Church in another neighborhood
“and also compared with the influence of a Methodist Conference in
the vicinity, that tolerated slavery in her ministers.

He then traced the progress of emancipation from the North East
towards the South, and wanted to know if the brother from Virginia
would put back this movement by opening the door for the increase
and perpetuity of the evil of slavery. For he could not perceive, in all
his brother had said, “that he held to emancipation in any sense.”
Then referring to the appellant, he spoke of the solicitude many felt for
him, and the entire absence of sympathy or kindness on his part. He
.charged upen him an utter contempt and disregard of his brethren.
Bishop Hedding thought, as his conduct was not a matter of record, no
allusion to it was in order. Mr. Slicer admitted that, but insisted that a
thousand things in this discussion were not on record. After present-
ing the subject in some further remarks, he declared-positively that they
might “send this case back twenty times, and we will not change our
course respecting it.”
57

A. Griffith spoke next. He called attention more especially to the
fact that a part of Virginia was embraced in the Baltimore Conference.
And notwithstanding the difficulty that is urged in controlling slavery
in Virginia, we have kept clear of it among our preachers on that very
soil, and cultivated it more successfully than the preachers of the Vir-
ginia Conference have cultivated their part, although they allow of Sla-
very in the members of their Conference. Other remarks were offered
by him, corroborating statements previously made by Collins and Slicer.

W. A. Smith. “Before the Baltimore Conference delegation close
their remarks, I would remind them of a point they have omitted. They
have failed utterly to prove that this brother isa slaveholder. I hope
they will not pass it by.»

J. A, Collins. “He admitted that before the Conference. He never
pretended to deny it for a moment.”

F.A. Harding. “I did not admitit. Idenied it plainly.”

J.A.C. “What! did his Presiding Elder object to him? Will the
secretary read the journal? [Secretary reads.] :

W.A.S. “It doesn’t say he was possessed of slaves, but, ‘connected
with slavery.”

J. A. C. “What is the difference, pray? He announced that he,could
not comply with the requisition of the Conference.”

W.A.S. “It was impossible, as he did not own any slaves.”

J.A.C. “There are various ways of being connected with Slavery.”

W.A.S. “Yes— for instance, as you are.” [ Laughter]

J. A.C. “His connection was the control and direction of these
slaves, and the possession of the procecds of their labor and toil.” This
shuffling off upon the woman isa species of meanness unexpected. It
is a mere special plea — a technical difficulty,a quibble. It is whipping
the devil round the stump. Or in the more classical rendering of mod-
ern terms, as quoted by a preacher once, “It is the castigation of his sa-
tanic majesty around the radical remnants of a tree.”

T. F. Sargent. “He admitted that he was a slaveholder before the
Conference. He never once denied it. This is all an afterthought.”

JAC. “Of all- things, this quibbling could not be relied upon by
any good cause. I will show you indontestibly that he never denied it.”

Bishop Hedding. ' “Jg the Baltimore delegation through ? ”

J.A.C. “Notthrough, sir! Did he not offer to send those slaves to.
Liberia? How could he do that, without acknowledging his ownership
in those slaves? Sir, we are not here asa set of quibbling lawyers!
did not his advocate put it in the plea here, that he was willing to free
them, and send them toa free state or to Liberia? [He then read the

\
58

law proving joint ownership, and then resumed, ] I am sorry to know
that they have resorted to this quibble.” [After somejother remarks,
the subject was deferred for the present, and the question of attending
the Anniversary of the American Bible Society to-morrow, was discuss-
ed until the hour of adjournment. ] 2

’

eR

Thursday, May 9,

The Conference assembled this morning at the usual hour. Rev. Dr.
Elliott took the lead in devotional exercises,

‘A communication from the Board of Managers of the American Bi-
ble Society, inviting the Conference to attend the anniversary of that
Society this forenoon, was received and read by the Secretary, where-
upon it was voted to accept the invitation, and to adjourn for that pur-
pose at half past nine.

An Epistle from the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Canada, was of-

. fered and read. It was in the usual form of such communications, and
represented the Church in Canada to be in g highly flourishing condi-
tion. Their literary institution has lately been endowed as a College,
and $2000 a year secured to it from the Government. ‘The Eyistle was
referred to its appropriate Committee.

Mr. Ryerson, one of the Canada delegates, gave notice of his inten-
tion to address the Conference at a future time.

Mr. Power, of North Ohio, offered a resolution instructing the proper
committee to inquire into the expediency of so altering the Discipline
us to prescribe a uniform course of study for licentiates. Referred.

Mr. Crouch of Kentucky offered two resolutions; the first instructing
the Committee on Itinerancy to inquire whether the Lord’s Supper is
administered with sufficient frequency, and if not, tosuggest a remedy ;
the second providing for the appoitment of a Committee of five to draft
a Pastoral Address to the Methodist people. Adopted.

Mr. Porter, of the N. E. Conference, presented a resolution instruc-
ting the “Committee on Missions t6 inquire into the expediency-of so

altering the Discipline, Sec. 3, Part IL, as to require the appointment of '

Missionary Stewards on each Station and Circuit, to take charge of Mis-
sionary affairs. Adopted. Adjourned.
59

Friday, Me yf.

The Conference met and was opened as usual at the appointed time.
Nearly the first business was the reading of a letter from the Missiona-
ry Secretary of the Wesleyans in England, authorizing Rev. Messrs.
Ritchie and Case, of Western Canada, to attend the General Conference
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, now in session, as representatives
of their Missionary work.

Messrs. Ritchie and Case were then introduced to the Conference,
who received them standing. Mr. Ritchie then addressed the Confer-
ence at some length. He attributed the necessity alleged by the English
Wesleyans, for not sending a delegate to this body, to the disastrous iu-
fluences that Puseyism was exerting upon the country, and to keep it
in abeyance required the presence of every man in the connection. He
spoke of the great influence that was exerted by the Wesleyan Connec-
tion upon the body politic.

This missionary work, he said, embraced 250 central missionary sta-
tions. They, have in the field 370 missionaries. And although their
missionary expenditures exceeded any previous ycar, being an outlay of

‘ one hundred thousand pounds sterling, yet these means were.adequate,
and the whole was met by the liberality,of the people.

He expressed a hope that a delegate would be appointed by the body
to attend the Wesleyan Conference. Mr. Case followed in a few words,
congratulating himself upon the pleasure of meeting with the venera-*
ble body with whom he had once been connected.

The report of the Committee on’ Missions was now introduced. It
proposed forming an Indian Mission Conference, embracing that section
of the country bounded North by Missouri, South by the Red River, East
by the Mississippi and Arkansas River, and West by the Rocky Moun-
tains, — embracing a territory extending 450 miles from North to Soutk,
and 150 from East to West. -It contains 21 Indian tribes — about 60,-
218 souls. There are 14 missions, and 7 Indian and 20 white preachers
employed ; and also about 31 native exhorters and local preachers, and
1000 S. 8. scholars, They have three manual labor schools in ‘success-
ful operation. Various arguments were offered by the committee, i in fa-
vor of said conference, which also submitted the following resolution :
“That there be established an Indian Mission Conference, ( bounded as
above, and that it shall be entitled to all the rights and privileges of oth-
er annual conferences.” [Query. Why was the Liberia Annual Con-
ference founded upon a basis so different ih 1840? That was to have

all the rights and privileges of other annual conferences, except (!) that
of being represented in the General Conferences. Why this difference ?
60

Was it because a majority, if not the whole of their faces were black ?
Perhaps not. Can you tell, Mr. Editor ? ]

After a few remarks from several members, the report was laid on
the table for the present. Dr. S. Olin appeared and took his seat. Ev-
ery indication now gave evidence of the approach of a great struggle
on the subject of slavery, as connected with the “ Appeal case.” The
solemn dignity that sat enthroned upon the countenances of the South-
ern men and the Baltimore delegation, — the lively interest every where
‘expressed in the cheerful faces of the New England men and abolition-
ists, — and the half and half mingled expression of hope and fear as to
the issue of this great question, which the Northern men not abolition-
ists manifested, —all conspired to give an imposing aspect to the scene,
that failed not sensibly to impress the audience that filled the seats upon
the lower floor and crowded the galleries, —among whom were found,
as of course you'll find them every where, those with cheerful smiles
and pleasant looks, to throw around the arena of strife itself the sooth-
ing and checking influence of angel’s guardianship. At this juncture,
the combatants were seen, as persons in such relative positions often
are, before the deadly strife begins, in closest intercourse. Mr. Smith
walked up to J. A. Collins, and shook him cordially by the hand. “ Ah!”
thought I, “ Mr. Collins, you’ve got to take it now. There are breakers
ahead! Look out!”

Allow me at this time to present before the eyes of your readers the
two men, whose remarks to some extent they have already read. Jonn
A. Couns is a person of middle stature, with black hair, small, sharp
features, and rapid in his movements and style of speaking. He is full
of energy when speaking, has a clear voice, but fails in the management
of it, and soon becomes hoarse. He is rather discursive in his style,
and lacks in logicalacumen. But his remarks are pointed, and his re-
bukes withering. The excitable temperament of his nature, while it
prevents that clearness and concentration of thought, so desirable in se-
curing the conviction of all his hearers, at the same time prompts to
the utterance of many apposite thoughts, and led him to a range of
feeling end expression, on the subject of Slavery and slaveholding min-
isters, that few expected to hear. He evidently forgot the caution that
many would have observed, i in his reference to slaveholding ministers,
in view of their presence. I thought he would “ wake up some.sleeping
lions,” as Smith afterwards said,— and it proved true. But of the other.
Wn. A. Surrx is above the middle stature. His frame is large, well
formed. He is somewhat bald. His expression of countenance is
commanding, and his voice heavy. He is a master ‘spirit. The South
61

vould not have chosen a man who would more truly represent the char-
acter, or more ably plead their ceuse. He is truly an eloquent
speaker, and although my prejudices as an abolitionist sided with Mr.
Collins, my judgement decided that W. A. Smith altogether his superi_
or, in his power of eloquence, and ability for argument,

For a few moments before the pleading on thiscase was resumed,
Messrs. Smith and Collins were seen in close consultation. Mr.
Winans proposed, “that Br. Smith take the platform within the altar,
that all who were in the gallery might see as well as hear the speaker.”
This was agreed to. Mr, Collins then rose, and in a very courteous
manner, announced his sense of the magnanimity of Mr. Smith in al-
lowing him to occupy iffe time of the Conference in some further re-
‘aris, though he could have no claim or right to any such privilege.
As I have given quite a full account of his first remarks, I shall present
merely an abstract of these. Mr. Collins proceeded to disabuse the
Conference in relation to certain remarks which he understood were
current among the members of the Conference. It was reported that
the Baltimore Conference had on its list of members several Slavehold-
‘ers. Ho declared this to be untrue. All preachers holding any connec:
tion with Slavery had. been brought to the bar and required to execute
deeds of emancipation. Several cases of this sort were mentioned.
If the laws against emancipation had been ten-fold stronger than they
were, the Conference would have taken the same course in relation to
brother Harding. They could not alter their course in this respect at
the demand of the Legislature. He reiterated in the strongest terms
what he had said on the previous day, that the obstacles in the way of
emancipation were not insurmountable. Slavers were often set free,

‘and were not molested. He did not knowa single member of the Meth-
odist Church in Baltimore who was a Slaveholder, and public sentiment
was strong in favor of freedom. He contended that the pretence now
set up that Mr. Harding was nota Slaveholder, because the slaves in
his possession belong to his wife, was an afterthought, no such defence
having been made before the Baltimore Conference. The laws of the
State were produced, to show that he wes a joint owner with his wife,
and Mr. Collins contended that the arguments which had been urged
to show that he ( Mr. H.) was a slaveholder, were equally valid to prove
that his wife was not, and that the Slaves were consequently free. The
absurdity of this course of reasoning he thought must be manifest to
all. In conclusion, Mr. C. reminded the Conference that this was not a
local question, but one of life and death to the whole Church. If the
decision of the Blatimore Conference were reversed, it would be im:
‘

62

possible to keep the Church together. Would the General Coniérence;
for the sake of enabling. Mr. Harding to keep in his possession five Ne-
groes, shake the very Foundation of the Chureh ? ? He begged his South-
ern, brethren to pause before taking such a step.

Mr. Davis, of the Baltimore ‘Conference, endorsed the statement of
Mr. Collins in relation to the case of the preachers who had been con-
nected with slavery. During the thirty years which he had been a
member of that body, i it had never allowed atravelling preacher to hold
Slaves.

Mr. Griffith said he bad been a membér of the Baltimore C onfer-
ence thirty-eight years, and during that time the body bad never toler-
ated Slavery ; and he hoped never to. see the time when it would.

Mr. Slicer said that Mr. Dyerly, whose case had -been alluded to, be-
came possessed of Slaves by his father’s will and that he offered $700 té
buy the freedom of the husband or wife of one of them, in order that
ell might be free together ; but finding that he could not accomplish his
wishes, rather than embarrass the Conference, he asked and recéived a
location.

in the course of the discussion this morning, J: A. Collins said, he
understood “ that Br. Smith alleged, that I was connected with Slavery.
I here declare before all present, that 1am in no way shape or fash-
ion connected with slavery!” —W. A. Smith. “Do you not hire the
Jabor of Slaves?” J. A. Collins“ That's not being counected with
Slavery: But J don’t even hire slaves now, 1 hire free persons alone.”

At another time, while appealing tothe South, Mr. Collins said.
“ Don’t thrqw this man back on us. You will not commit yourselves,
and we will maintain our position.”

J. Early. “Yéur position is a wrong one.”

JA. Collins. “We've always “been wrong then. Our fathers have
been wrong. And some of you were once wrong, for those views have
been entertained by some of you.”

As Mr. Smith’s first remarks have also been presented fully, and yey
contain the merits of the question on his side, I only forward an abstract
of. ‘his second speech dwelling mainly upon what he said on other
topics but indir ectly connected with the case before the Conference.

Wm. A. Smith took the floor and made his final plea for the appel-
lant. He would like'to come at once to the Fmerits of the case, but
there were some preliminary matters which required notice. He had
been congratulated ¢ on his conversion to the doctrine that Slavery i is an
evil. When and at what altar did this conversion take placé? Method-
ints generally knew and felt when they were converted, but he confess:
63

ed that he knew nothing of it in this case. H. He had said, tobe sure, ip
1832, that Abolition was then in its egg state, and that, if the General
Conference would put its foot upon it, it could easily crush it; but, if it
was warmed with the smiles of our approbation, it would hatch a scor-
pion to bite and devour us. The dessolation which had followed this
Apollyon, had more than justified all that he had said. In 1836,he con-
fessed he had not the nerve to stand up and declare his seutiments in
the face of the interruptions to which speakers on his side were ex-
posed. In 1840,he had spoken on the question: and if it could be
shown that any thing in his speech on that occasion was inconsistent
with what he had utteged the other day, he would confess himself to
have been converted, He had not altered his opinions in the least, but
stood now precisely where he had stood from the first.

Occasion had been taken, in view of the response of his Southern
brethren to the doctrine that Slavery, is an evil, to congratulate them
also on their conversion, The resolution of the Georgia Conference in
1839, that “Slavery is not a moral evil,” had been relied upon to show
that the South did not assent to the sentiment of the Discipline, “we
are as muchas ever convinced of the evil ‘of Slave ry.” The Georgia
Conference meant only to assert that Slaver 'y Was not a sin—not to de-
ny that it is an evil. The latter doctrine was as heartily believed by the
whole South then as it is at this moment.

“No, sir! Irepeat it, we are not converted, ‘We cannot even say ‘where-
as I was blind now I see’ And before that brother from Baltimore is
half’ dove with the South, he will find out that we need converting
over again. Ispeak ofthat brother, by the way, notas the Rev. J. A.
Collins, but as the personification of the Baltimore Conference in this
case. And I assure him again that we are not converted enough to an-
swer his purposes. * * * * And now to his demand of ultra abo-
litionism. On the assumption that he believes slaver y to be nccessari-
Jy a sin, and on that alone, can his ‘proceedings and remarks be justi-
fied.. What excuse can he have for the attack he made upon the rep-
utation of that brother, but this opinion ? [ Collins denied having done
so, and said he only insisted upon his unacceptability as a slaveholder.]
“The difference is only a logical one, the same, in fact, as I said.
Nothing but the assumptions T have named would justify him. But }
know his private sentiments do tally with his assunptions in this case.
And I am not surprised at his assumptions in favor of his Conference.
[J. ‘A. Collins. “I have no other’ sentiments than those I uttered here.
They were my. true feelings.” ] “ Well, Tam sorry for it. JI was trying
to plead his cage ‘for him, the best ITknew how. But the remarks he
64

nade throughout symbolized with modern abclitionism. He talked of ,
the “dark subject” and the “foul stain”! [Here the speaker became
furious. His eyes flashed fire. With flushed cheek anda voice of.
thunder, he looked at Collins and exclaimed, ] What dark subject, sir,
do you know of, connected with my Conference? What ‘foul stain’
is found. upon the pages of its history? Yes, sir, and he besought this
hody for God’s sake not to.drive the Baltimore Conference to take rank
with a slaveholding conference! ‘Take rank’!! My dear sir, what do
you mean? What do you mean, sir, by this insinuation? ‘Will breth- -
ren never wake up from their dreams of security? Is there to be no
compromise among us on this question? Will they sleep on alwsys,
insensible to their danger, untilthe magazine shall burn beneath their
feet, and strife, dismemberment and disolution inevitably -follow? Let
them beware! Ler THEM BEWARE, Sir, how they outrage our feel-
ings!

“<¢ Take rank? with Virginia! The Virginia Conference is a noble
body of men—none more so. What do you mean by taking rank
with Virginia? Who are you, sir, to hold such language towards me!
What is the noble elevation to which you have attained, to come from
which, you must needs stoop to reach Virginia! Sir, I excuse it with
all my heart, for those expressions were only the scum and filth that
has come floating down upon them from the upper and nether streams
of abolitionism. For I was not an unobserving spectator of the ex-
pressions and emotions that responded to those exclamations from a
certain quarter of the house. But they cut harshly across the tenderest
cords of many a heart, and itis only at his peril that such language
can be used towards those of his brethren who have been afflicted by
them. He spoke of his Conference as being the back water of the con-
uection, and spoke truly ; for his speech proves that they have received
into their bosom the drift wood, saw dust and mud ,(!) that has come
floating down from the upper and nether springs of ultra abolition-
isin!”

This will give your readers a specimen of the style of this champion
of the South. ButI will not write out further remarks on this matter.
Thus much is necessary. Nothing more on this point. He labors hard
at the close of his speech to prove the illegality and unconstitutionality
of jeopardizing a man’s membership in an annual conference_ for hold-
ing slaves, —and in the course of his remarks dealt out to Bishop Mor-
rs the foliowing rebuke. “Task by what authority a Methodist 7 Bishop
sits in the chair of an annual conference, and allows them to suspend.
a man from the ministry for an act not recognized by the Me thodist Dis-
"65

.

cipline as acrime? ['The Bishop'declared that it was for violating the
rule in discipline on travelling preachers holding slaves.] It is not so,
sir! The Bishop is mistaken.’ It was not discipline he violated, but
the usage of the Baltimore Conference ; which usage is contrary to dis-
cipline! [J. A. Collins thought he was assailing the Bishop.] I deny
it, sir. Tam not assailing the Bishop. But I give warning, that here-
after, at a proper time, I shall submit the question to the board of Bish-
ops, arid demand an answer to'the question, —by what righta Meth
odist Bishop sits in the chair as president of a conference, and allows
of suspension from the ministry for holding slaves, as in the case before

”” Some other remarks followed, and the Conference adjourned,
i * f . #

 

*

Saturday, May il,

The Conference opened as usual, Various committees reported,
W. A. Smith wished to offer a few remarks that he should have offered
yesterday. Quite a lively and protracted discussion ensued, and finally
the permission Was obtained. He procceded to remark that insinua-
tions had been made against the personal charecter of the appellant,
and that evinced a conviction that the case wes a hopeless one, by his
opponents, if allowed to rest on the true merits of the case. It hasbeen
insisted on in doorsand out.”

I. Davis. Ihave not attempted any such thing,

A. Griffith. And he knows that no one of the delegation have.

W. A. Smith. To my aged brother, who charges me with saying
what I know to be untrue, I ——

A. Griffith. Idid not charge you with an untruth, I said that you
knew the Baltimore delegation had not done so, .

[Here a multitude of voices, regardless of order and decorum, were
heard loudly exclaiming. “We never heard any thing like it” ‘Tremen-
dous confusion ensued. A few voices were heard above the din, say-
ing, “Iheard he was unaceeptable,” After order was restored,]

J. Early moved that the decision of the Baltimore Annual Conference,
by which Francis 2. Harding was suspended from the ministry, be and
hereby is reversed. \

J. P. Durbin called for the minutes of the Baltimore Conferenze in
ahe case.

A. D. Peck moved the yeas and nays, without debate.

L Sovereign wanted to know if it wasin order to lay the motion on
ahe table ?
66

Bishop Morris replied that nothing was in order now but to vote. So
at it they went.

The result was a’ follows. — Yeas 56, nays 117.

; YEAS.

Rock River Conference — John Sinclair.

Illinois Conference — Peter Akers, Jonathan Stamper, Newton G. Ber-.
ryman.

_ Missouri a Wm. W. Redman, Wm. Patton, Jerome C. Ber-
ryman.

Kentucky Conference— Henry B. Bascom, Wm. Gunn, Hubbard H.
fKavanaugh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, George W. Brush.

Alston Conference — E. F. Sevier, Samuel Patten, Tho’s Stringfield,

Tennessee Conference —J. B. McFerrin, A. L. P. Green, Tho’s Madden.

Memphis‘ Conference — George W. D. Harris, S. S. Moody, Wm. Mc-
Mahon, Thomas Joiner. ‘

Arkansas Conference —John C, Parker, Wm. P. Ratcliff, Andrew
Hunter.

Texas Conference — Littleton Fowler.

Mississippt Conference —Wm. Winans, B.M. Drake, John Lane, G.
M. Rogers.

AMlabame Conference —Wm. Murrah, Jessee Boring, Greéhbury Gar-
ret, Jefferson Hamilton.

Georgia Conference— Lovick Pierce, George F. Pierce, W. J. Parks,
John W. Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. B. Longstreet.

South Carolina Conference—Wm. Capers, Wm. M. Wrightman,
Charles Betts, Hugh A. C. Walker.

North Carolina Conference — J ames Jameson, Peter Daub.

Virginia Conference — John Earley, Leroy M. Lee, ‘Wm. A. Smith,
‘Thos. Crowder.

Philadelphia Conference — Henry White, Ignatius Cooper, Wm. Cooper.

' New-Jersey Conference — Thomas ens Thomas Sovereign.

Total Yeas, 56. '

NAYS.

New-York Conference — Phineas Rice, Charles W. Carpenter, George
Peck, John B. Stratton, Peter P. Sanford, Fitch Reed, Samuel D. Fer-
guson, Stephen Martindale, Marvin Richardson.

Providence Conference — John Lovejoy, Frederic Upham, Sandford
Benton, Paul Townsend.

New England Conference—James Porter, Dexter S. King; Phineas,
Crandall, Charles Adams, George Pickering.

Maine Conference — Moses Hill, Ezekiel Robinson, Daniel B. Randall,
67

Charles W. Morse, John Hobart, Heman Nickerson, George Webber..
New Hampshire Conference — Elihu Scott, 8. Chamberlain, Samuel!

Kelley, Jared Perkins, Justin Spaulding, Charles D. Cahoon, Wm. D,
Cass.

Troy Conference — Truman Seymore, John M. Wever, James Covel,
Jr., Tobias Spicer, Seymore Colman, James B. Houghtaling, J. T. Peck.

Black River Conference — A. D. Peck, Aaron Adams; Gardner Baker,
Wm. W. Ninde.

‘Oneida Conference — John M. Snyder, Silas Comfort, Nelson Rounds,
David A. Shepard, Henry F. Row, Elias Bowen, David Holmes, Jr.

Genesee Conference — Glezen Filmore, Samuel Lunkey, Allen Steele,
Freeman G. Iibbard, S. Seager, Ala Abel, Wm. Hosmer, J. B. Alverson.

Erie Conference — John J. Stedman, John Bain, George W. Clark,
John Robinson, Timothy Goodwin.

Pittsburg Conference — Wm. Hunter, Homer J. Clark, John Spencer,
Simon Elliott, Robert Boyd, Samuel Wakefield, James Drummond.

Ohio Conference — Charles Eliott, Wm. H. Raper, Edmund W. Sehon,
Joseph M. Trimble, James B. Finley, Leonidus S. Hamline, Zechariah
Connell, John Ferree.

North Ohio— Edward Thompson, John H. Power, Adam Powe, El- .
more Yocum, Wm. Runnels.

Michigan Confenence— George Smith, Elijah Crane, Alvin Wiley,
Edward R. Ames, John Miller, Calvin W. Ruter, Aaron Wood, Augus-
tus Eddy, James Havens.

" Rock River — Bartholomew Weed, Henry W. Reed, John T. Mitchell.

Ukinois Conference — Peter Cartwright, John Van Cleve.

Missouri Conference — James M. Jamieson.

Texas Conference —John Clark.

Baltimore Conference — Henry Slicer, John A. Collins, John Davis, Al-
fred Griffith, John A. Gere, John Bear, Nicholas J. B. Morgan, ‘Thomas.
B. Sargent, Charles B. Tippet, George Hildt.

Philadelphia Conference — John P. Durbin, Thos. J. Thompson.

New-Jersey Conference — Isaac Winner, J. S. Porter, John K. Shaw.

‘Total nays, 117.

ABSENT.

New-York Conference — Nathan Bangs.

New-Hampshire Conference — John G. Dow.

Tennessee Conference — Robert Paine.

Philadelphia Conference — Levi Scott. — 4,

EXCUSED.

New- York Conference — Steven Olin. — 1,

The Secretary anncunced the vote.
68

J. Early called for the reading of the names in connection with the
vote, so as to correct any error that might be found in any case.

This was done. I looked at the Bishops to see what I might conjec-
ture their feelings were in view of the crisis, for crisis it was, that they
were now passing. Hedding was calm. Waugh seemed thoughtful.
Andrew had absented himself at the moment. Morris, who presided,
preserved his dignity ina becoming manner. But Soule looked anx-
ious, as if expecting an afterclap. The South took it calm as summer's
evenings be; but it was the calmness that precedes the whirlwind of
passion, and the earthquake of power.

E.R. Ames, of Indiana, inquired if that vote settled the question.

Bishop Morris said, .“ the vote in effect sustains the decision of the
Baltimore Conference.”

Smith of Virginia, thought not. It is a refusal to reverse only. It
yet remains to affirin the decision of the Conference, or send it back
for a new trial.

Davis of Baltimore, hoped that the decision of the chair would be
respected.

Smith. “Surely the Baltimore delegation won't go off with the mat-
ter settled in this way, by implication merely. Many voted not to sus-
tain, who intend to vote for sending it back for a new trial.”

Said Collins, “You can’t argue the question now.”

A. Griffith spoke, but I couldn’t hear what he said.

Smith excepted to the decision of the chair.

W. Capers. “I appeal from the decision.” Seconded.

The President stated the question. é
Smith wanted to make a remark, but was put down by cries of
“ Question !” “Question!” “Order!” “Question!” “ Well, go ahead,”
said he. a

Dr. Capers demurred.

The President stated the point distinctly, so that those voting to sus-
tain the decision of the chair understood that they were voting that the
decision of the Baltimore Conference should be sustained.

Smith said he was satisfied.

A hand vote was taken, and doubted by some. A rising vote was
called for, and was to sustain the decision of the chair, 111—not to
sustain, 53. So that more than two-thirds of the Conference, twice
over, voted in éffect, to sustain the Baltimore Conference in the stand
she had taken against slaveholding ministers.

Wm. A. Smith asked to have his “ protest. spread out upon the face
of the journals, against the decision of the chair. A correct decision
69

has not, been given; and I wish my protest recorded upon those jour-
nals, as a beacon of warning to the General Conference, for el! time to

come, to prevent injusticé, and trampling under foof the rights of a mi-
nority in the dust.”

IL. Slicer, of Baltimore. “I voted in the majority. I wish the vote
reconsidered, that all may show just where they are on this matter. It

any who voted in the majority wish to send this case back to us, we
wish to know it.”

Collins moved ‘to lay the motion to reconsider on the table. Lost.

H. Slicer hoped they they. would take a direct vote. 5

E. R. Ames moved to affirm the decision of the Baltimore Confer-
ence. Ruled out. te

Dr. Luckey believed the decision of the chair correct. He charged
the brethren from the South with trifling with the Conference, by in-
sisting’as they did that the vote was not a direct expression on the ques-
tion at issue.

Somebody thought all discussion out of order, now. [At this time,
Bishop Soule is leaning on his elbows, his face covered in his hands, u>
if in deep and anxious thought.]

J. Early rose, and in his own peculiar harumscarum style of remarks,
put it on to Dr. Luckey for his “ insinuations.”

The Doctor explained. But his cxplanations invariably “darken
counsel by words without knowledge,” and excited the undisguised con-
tempt of the South.. :

J. Early thought they might as well let it pass, though he belicved that
decision fatal to the church and some of the men who have urged it on.
How far its fatal effects are to act upon the church remains to be seen ;
but it is not hard to divine.

P. P. Sanford would grant Br. Smith’s wishes.

H. Slicer withdrew his motion to reconsider..

Dr. Capers renewed it,

“ You were not in the majority,” said one, “and can’t move it.”

The President said here, “ The case is finished.”

Sanford moved to grant Br. Smith’s request.

Green, of Tennessee. “I now give it clear up that the case has gone
against us; but I want to be set right, if Iam wrong. I believe the de-.
cision of the Bishop wrong. I wish the opinion of the Episcopacy in
their joint capacity.” :

Sanford, “Tobject.”  \

Green, “What don’t you object to?”

Sanford. “Is it in order to submit any such law question after tha
General Conference has decided and disposed of the case?”

4
70

Bishop Morris. “The Episcopacy don’t claim the right here of deci~
ding any questions but questions of order.”

Wiley, of Indiana, here called the attention of the aha to the, motion
of Br. Smith’s request, and, made some remarks to the effect, that they
ought to give his protest a place on the journal, unless it was objection-
able in language. On this, the lion was roused.

W. A. Smith. “TL allow, sir, that if I should prove myself wanting
in that respect that is your duc, and that is due to mysélf, my protest
would not and ought not to be allowed a place on your journals; but,
sir, Y cannot imagine that the gentleman who just spoke, would i in his
heart suppose that I, or those who will be associated with me in the
drawing up of this document, would so far forget what is due to our-
selves as gentlemen or as Christian ministers. We shall doubtless
bring out in that document, sentiments and forms of expression pecu-

liar to our position. The Conference may like it or they may not like -

it. They have the votes who disagree with us, and they can say wheth-
er or not it shall be recorded. If they don’t wish to grant our request
when the document is read, let them say so. For I tell you in advance,
( turning fiercely towards the Conference,) I tell you in advance, that
you won't like it. The views presented therein, oy the position you
have assumed, will be such a rebuke upon your conduct, that it will
burn your cheeks, unless they are insensible to shame!” [ This outra-

'

geous denunciation was responded to by cries of “Order!” “Order!” « «

“ Such insult we won’t hear!” accompanied by confusion that equalled
the palmiest days of Southern chivalry on the floors of Congress, with
this difference, however, that those who were abused and outraged,
clamored for the right.] 3 ‘

Smith, with a great deal of sang froid, desired the Conference to keep
cool and take it patiently. ;

E. R. Ames, of Jn., said, “It’s very easy for one who is heaping insult
and abuse upon others, to advise them to keep cool. Te can very well
afford to talk about keeping cool! ”

Smith resumed: “The day was, sir, when a clamor like this would
have unmanned me, and thrown me off my guard. ‘But it’s too late in
the day now, sir, let me tell you. No storm of excitement that you can
raise on this floor, or elsewhere, can stop me in my course. Sir! you
might as well undertake to chain the lightning —or to confine the
winds in ocean’s cave. Proud in the majesty of truth, noble in her de-
fence, and the defence of my country ” [“ Are you defending the
country?” cried one.] “The cause of the chureh is the cause of my
eountry and of my God. But I repeat it, that document shal) be a

 
71

awift witness against you as long as you have ability to read, or mind to
comprehend the truth. I tell youagain, it won’t suit you, ; { Order! Or-
der!] Well, put we down,:if you have power ;“but I mean to resist
with my might the usurpations of a majority, the most lawless and reck-
less tyranny ever exercised over man.” ,

On and on he went, in the most furious manner, with none to oppose,
until S. Chamberlain, from .N. H., sprung to his feet, and in a clear
shrill tone, sharp as the sudden crack of hastening thunder, stopped the
tornado for a moment, while he said, “Such language 3s insufferable.
I will not consent to sit and hear it. J object to its further continuance ;
and if there’s any power to preserve order, 1 hope it will be preserved
by the chair.” * .

All the effect produced, was a moment’s pause, and Smith resumed
again. Pointing with his finger at Chamberlain, and sneering contemp-
tuously, he said, “ He can’t make ‘ Old Virginny’ go, no how he can fix
it!”

But the President decided that “Br. Smith is not in order,” and he
halted in his wild career. After remarks froin several, action on the

‘ protest was waived, until it should be presented.

Memorials, petitions, éc., were called for.

Benton, of Providence Conference; presented one on slavery. That
part referring to a slaveholding Bishop — its reference was objected to
by G. F. Pierce, of Georgia, who declared that“ those who presented
these memorials had stated to the committee, that uo action was desired
by the memorialists ; they were only intended for out-door effect!” It
‘was further declared, that the committee had decided not toreport upon
them.

This, Dr. Peck, the chairman, denied. Said he, “The committee
have not said they would not report.”

Crandall rose to speak. \

Early, of Va., got the floor. He was willing to refer memorials, if
sincerely made ; but if no action is desired, why waste the time of this
Conference ? why hazard the peace of the church by agitation on so
great a question ?

An evident misapprehension of the fact was now had by many with
reference to the memoriols; and several’ Northern and Eastern mer
strove to obtain the floor, while the extra steam, generated in
Southern bosoms by the incendiary action of the General Conference '
in the Baltimore case, was throbbing for vent; and vent ithad, as you
readily will find, by the following narrative giveng a taithful view of

A Scene or creat Exesrement!
72

W. Wynans. “Sir, order must be preserved.” |

J. Early. “ As these memorials are designed merely for home con-
wlimption, sir —and only to affect the — the — the — radicals, and not
meaning to have any effect producing action here, they do not deserve
any respect, sir. What do they mean sir? When we stcpt upon this
Conference floor, we supposed these questions were settled. If not,
if there is any prospect of a new state of things, we want to know it,
sir. If we are to be disturbed, tell us sonow and here. We will say
what we think; and if union does follow ‘this agitation, then let it be
laid to the credit of those folks down East, — I beg pardon, T mean di-
vision. We love union, sir. We will make any sacrifices for union,
and shall consent to division only from necessity ; but we pray you tell
us, at this stage of the question, what we are to expect? and if we
must, then we will go back whence we came, and tell the aged men
whom, we represent, — and the young men who crowd around us like
olive branches, —the thousands of converts who crowd our altars—
and the slaves who are attached to our household, — we will go back,
sir, and tell thei our union is atan end.”

E. Robinson, of Me., denied that he oy any one else had said that the
memorials against a slaveholding Bishop did not desire action. They
did desire it. But they did not ask for any rule or law to be enacted in-
ihe Discipline. That’s what he had before stated.

Memorials were now presented by F. Upham— from Providence
West, 76 ; Duxbury, 42 ; , 82; Eastford, 51,

Mr. — “We can’t hear for excitement.” And true enough,
such a hub-bub and bustling, talking and disputing, all over the Con-
ference, never saw. As the honest Irishwoman said of her drunken
husband’s conduct: Sure it’s not my own Johny that does it, but the
liquor that’s in him.”— so I thought, “It’s not Methcdism or Methodist
preachers, but slavery that’s kicking up this fracas.”

Dr. Capers here referred to a memorial from N. Y. city, prssented by
a member in 1840, and thought these might be similar, and therefore
‘objected to reference. But they came, — one ect New London district,
Providence Conference, 150 names.

W. Cooper. “If any new poinis are mooted, read it, sir. Read it,
we'd like to hear them.”

Here the member presenting it, S. Benton, let it fall to the floor,
while he held one end of it. There it hung, a trophy of abolition zeal,
and an object of southern anxiety, Benton proceeded to comply with
Cooper’s request. Iadmired his coolness. He was stating that they
protested against a slaveholding Bishop.

 

 
73

*Stop, sir! Stop, sir!” said Cooper, screaming at the top of his voice.
But Benton went on.

Cooper then proceeded to drown by noisy declamation, what he

_ could not shake off by authoritative command, and he succeeded ; for

by this time he seemed beside himself, and raved as if possessed, about
the abuse and insult thus heaped upon the Conference.

P! Crandall rose toa question of order.

W. Cooper, [looked at him any how but lovely, and pointing his fin-
ger contemptuously, | “I can’t yield the floor to that man, sir on any
question! If I wasan ultra abolitionist ”>——

P. Crandall, “Irise 9n a question of order, sir, and I demand to be
heard.” * :

Cooper. “Talking about order, is he? Why sir, he is the most
disorderly man on the floor.” [ Laughter all over the house.]

Crandall. “TI do not care to notice any remark he may offer concer-
ning me. But I wish, sir”—

Here Dr. Boring of Alabama, from the Committee on Slavery, re-
peated what Pierce had stated of the memorials not wishing action, by
some one before the Committee. The President thought that what
transpired before the committee ought not to be brought out now, Breth-
ren should wait until the report was presented. i

Dr. Boring. “But the committee cannot and will not report. ”

E. Robinson now rose and repeated what he had said in reply to
Early, denying Dr, Boring’s statement.”

Boring re-asserted it as the statement of Robinson himself, and ap-

pealed to Wm. Cooper to prove that he said, “ our object is the "practi-
‘eal result.”

Robinson. “I deny having made any such statement.”
Bisnor Soure’s Remarxs.

At this juncture, when all was hurly-burly and point blank contra-
‘diction, andthe thermometer above “ boiling heat,” the Bishop rose.
Never did his slow, measured style do him better service. “I am sorry
that brethren’ misunderstand each other They ought not to misunder-
stand each other certainly. But Itake it for granted, and this Con-
ference must take it for granted, Iam sure, that when a brother rises in
his place to present a memorial, it is of course presented to the Gen-
eral Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church. Now I do not be-
lieve thatany brother will present a memorial here upon any subject
that does not ask for action. I then suppose that these brethren under-
stood that action was called for. Why'do these memorialists present

their requests to us, if they desire no action ?
7
74

“Tam not prepared to believe, that memorials will come up fromt
New England, that would be a mere mockery of this body — from ‘ my
own, my native land’ My country will not insult this General Zon-
ference by such conduct.

“T advocate the doctrine of receiving and treating respectfully memo-

- rials to this body and to every other body. Iwould never consent to
shut out memorials addressed in respectful language. I expect these
memorialists want you to act. They will expect you to act. If any of
the memorialjsts say they do not want action, then you know of course
that the memorial does not claim your attention.”

Mr. Winans, of Mississippi, said he was a Southern man — an ex-
treme Southern man — and he believed the memorials were intended
for serious effect. We were bound to believe that those who signed
these petitions spoke their sentiments. He claimed that all memorials
should be heard, candidly and fairly considered. Why object to their
reception? If they were important, they could not accumulate too fast;
if unimportant their number could do noharm. For his own part, he
shrunk from no investigation —he was prepared to meet every ques-
tion fairly in the teeth— and he hoped that all objection to the recep-
tion of the petitions would be withdrawn or voted down.

G. F. Pierce reiterated his statements about the memorialists, and E.
Robinson repeated his denial, which was confirmed by many Northern
members.

In the midst of great confusion, Peter Cartwright got the floor. Now
every body looked pleased, and begun to feela little cooler. The
speaker began, “I do beseech brethren not to off at half cock! ( Laugh-
ter.) Several have told us they were very cool. Well, Ihave kept
cool myself, that is considerably cool for me. But Ido think, sir, that
if come of them were iron. instead of flesh and blood, if they were
.threwn into the water they would fiz-z-z a geod deal! ( Loud laughter.)

This discussion is too premature. Time enough when the committee
make their report. We're at it alittle too soon, though I know we
must move quick to keep up with the’ age! I think the” committee
have done pretty well, at least I should say so, if was n’t on it, and con-
sidering it’s a dirty business! It’s a hard case to manage, any way you
can fix it, this thing called Slavery.” After other remarks, he closed
with saying, “I hope weiwon’t blink the question, and if we must fight,
why let us have a chance in the committee to fight a good, decent

Methodist preacher’s battle!” This speech excited no little merriment,

and carried off a gdod deal ‘of thunder and lightning from the Confer-

ence. \
75

After this the offering of memorials preceded. From Stafford, 90;
Tolland, 11; Provincetown, 52; ,42;— by F. Upham, who said,
“They all ask for action.” From Millbury, 77; Saxonville, 53 3— by
P. Crandall, who declared, “ These are all sincere.” C. Adams presen-
ted the action of the New England Conference, concurring with the
New York Conference resolutions on ‘Temperance and Slavery, — and
also the action of the Conference, recommending such a change on the
distribution of Conference funds, as to supply only those who were in
. need, Resolutions respecting slavery, from the Maine and Troy Con-
ferences, also were presented. Cass, of N. H., presented two memo-
rials, signed by 58 and.90 persons ; also from St. Paul's station, Lowell,
185 ; Nashua, 108 names ; — others besides these, that I could not ascer-
tain.

Bishop Soule presented a request fromthe Editor of the Christian
Apologist, (German paper, ) for liberty to visit his native land, having
in view mainly the promotion of the cause of Methodism. He favored
it himself. The request was referred to the proper committee. After
this, resolutions were presented from various Conferences, as follows :
— Michigan, concurring with the N. Y. Conference on Temperance and
Slavery ; non-concurring with the Genesee on slavery. Illinois, ditto ;
New Jersey, ditto ; Texas concurring on Temperance only. Mississippi,
non-concurring ‘each subject; Mabama, ditto; Georgia, ditto; S. Carol
na, ditto.

Dr. Capers presented a report of the publishing committee of South-
ern Christian Advocate. It lias 3800 paying subscribers.

J. B. Finley presented a motion, requesting that the General Confer-
ence might be furnished with an estimate of the salary and travelling ex
penses of the three Missionary Secretaries. Carried.

The appeal of Mr. Frazee, from the Michigan Conference, was made
the order of the day. for Monday next.

Conference Adjourned.

 

Monday, May 13.
Conference assembed as usual. Most of the session was ocupied
with matters of little importance tothe general reader. Part of the
morning was occupied in presenting memorials on Slavery. From
Providence Conference, one signed by 47, by S. Benton; and one from
Centreville, by P. Townsend. From Hubbardston, 77 names, by Cran-
76

dall, who said, “They ask for action.” From Saugus and vicinity ; from
, 88; Willamsburg, 48 ; , 63; , 100;— by J Porter.
“Allcall for action.” This frequent reference to the blustering of
the Southerners, induced the Bishop (Soule ) to say, “That is taken
for granted.” From Readfield District, Me., one from 9 quarterly con-
ferences, and signed by 102 official members, —by the Presiding El-
der, Mr. Nickerson. Also several from 8 or 9 stations, signed by 499
names. From New Hampshire Conference, resolutions on Temper-
ence and Slavery. From Black River Conference, a memorial froma
circuit. The Genesee Conference, Resolution on slavery. And alsoa
memorial from Heborn. circuit, by J.B. Finley. From the Indiana
Conference, 3 memorials from Winchester circuit, signed by 148 per-
sons. Here Bishop Soule rose and made a communication that had re-
ference to himself personally, by presenting a letter from Paris, France:
he asked its refereace to acommittee. It wasread. It came from the
President and Secretary of The African Institute, informing the Bishop
of his nomination as an honorary member. The Bishop said that it
was patronized by various crowned’ heads of Europe, and distinguish-
ed men of every nation, — no American being on its lists but Hon. Dan-
iel Webster. Its object was the colonization of Africa, and the aboli-
tion of the slave-trade. His design in submitting it to them was to ob-
tain their advice as to the propriety of accepting the honor intended
him. A committee was moved. Dr. Capers opposed it and thought it
a private matter, of which the Bishop was competent to decide, with-
out the advice of the General Conference. [And so thoughtL] H.
Slicer differed entirely in his views of the matter, and regarded itas
one involving probably momentous results either of good or evil. The
Bishop. here rose, and speaking of the “ special, important and respon-
sible relation he sustained to the M. E. Church of America,” declared
himself “not at liberty, at his own private instance, to become connec-
ted with any association out of the M. E. Church, none at all. Neither
Freemasons, Odd Fellows or no such societies, without your knowl-
edge.” [The mind that could seriously entertain, and give utterance
to such sentiments, I will only say is not to be envied.] Dr. Capers re-
marked, — “TI am sure, Mr. President, I cannot be concerned in design-
ing any disrespect to yourself, or disesteem towards this Conference on
what I have said or may say on this matter. [Here the Bishop bowed
to the Doctor, ina way that effected more dignity than I thought a
mortal man could bear up under, and disclaimed any such idea.]
“ But,” proceeded the Doctor, “I do think the mode of action proposed.
is giving too much gravity and importance for the state of the case and

 

 

 
77

the nature of the thing.” [That’s my views exactly.] I therefore pro-
pose a substitute, which will be an expression of the mind of your con-
ference as to your competency to decide this question for yourself. Dr.
Durban however favored the first move, —said he. “If in committee
we find that this ‘Institute’ designed in any way to affect the question
of American or domestic slavery, we shall keep you out of it.” Dr. Ca-
pers’ substitute was lost by a large majority—and then the matter was
referred to the Committee on Episcopacy.

A memorial from various preachers in the N. O. Conference, was
presented, proposing a plan of Home Colonization for free people of
color, and those who may be freed hereafter, — praying the action of
the General Conference in its favor. A special committee was
moved for, but it was referred to the committee on slavery, as its ap-
propriate destination.

The Rock River delegation presented a memorial praying the Gen-
eral Conference to take upa collection on behalf of the Milwaukie
Station, Wisconsin Territory, to aid in building a new ,meeting house.
This led to a long discussion pro and con. =

After this came up one of the most ludicrous memorials I ever listen-
edto. It asked for the next session of the General Conference to be held
in St. Louis. To induce this it gavea grave view of the geographical
position, relative importance, imports and exports, &c. &c., specifying
the number of bushels of wheat sold, the number of hog’s throats that
had been cut, (!) the lard rendered, et cetera et cetera !

Dr. Durbin, next stated that he hada petition from the American
Temperance Union. Not in order.

Dr. Bangs here introduced Rev. Dr. Lyle, of the Protestant Episco-
pal Church to the President, and he introduced him to the Conference
Of course, there was a short speech from the’ Doctor.

Dr. Durbin then presented a resolution requiring the preachers to
present at once all petitions and memorials they may have in their pos-
session. This was amended by Dr. Luckey, so as to say that no more
petitions and memorials upon general subjects will be received after
this week.— Passed.

The Appeal of Bradford Frazee was taken up and the whole time
eccupied with discursive remarks until the session closed without any
action.

G
78 »

Tuesday, May 14,

The session this morning was for some time quite uninteresting ‘to
the general observer.

D.S. King presented memorials on slavery from Sheldon; 19— E.
Cambridge, 40 — Gloucester, 119.

Bishop Hedding presented a memorial on the Sabbath.

The case of Bradford Frazee was next called up. He had been lo-
‘cated by the Michigan Conference against his consent, from a misap-
‘prehension of his wishes. Their decision was reversed.

At this period I was conversing with a preacher from New England,
who was expressing his belief that the General Conference would make
clean work this time on the question of slavery. This I have hear re-
peated over and over again, in view of the decision of the Baltimore
appeal case. Indeed, it has been affirmed confidently that Bishop An-
drew would not go from this city a Bishop. Here, allow me to say,
that the fact of his being a bona fide slaveholder is now no more a ques-
tion of doubt. He said to a sub-committee from the committee on Epis-
copacy, that he had been a slaveholder for ten years! In view of this
acknowledged fact, it has been confidently predicted that one of three
things must follow. 1. He must relinquish his slaves. 2. Or resign
his Episcopal office. 3. Or finally, be arraigned and deposed. To all
this I have said nay, verily. He will not ke allowed by the South to do
either. Before they will submit to that they will go off and take him
with them, as their senior bishop. Well, what did we have this very
morning, but a proposition by Dr. Capers, seconded by Dr. Olin, which,
if agreed to by the Conference, will stave off the issue, on every point
noted in the anti-slavery memorials; or, failing in that, give a convenient
opportunity for the South to move of en masse! But give attentionnow
while I detail the preliminaries of the proposed

PaciFricaTION or SLAVERY.

Dr. Capers presented a resolution which “in view of the distr action
and agitation that has so long pervaded the church on the subjects of
Abolition and Slavery; and ‘in view of the relative position of these
subjects in the present General Conference,” proposed that a commit-
tee of three from the North and three from the South be appointed, who
shall confer with the Bishops, and submit to this Conference a plan for
the permanent pacification of the church,” to report within ten days.
Mr. moved to amend by inserting “Three from the East.” The
amendment after some remarks was laid on the table. The question
was called for, but Dr. Olin obtained the floor. “Sir, the proposition

!

 
79

.

before us is presented in the spirit of conciliution, though I cannot say
in the spirit of hope. Success in promoting the result contemplated is
possible, I grant; but I fear hardly probable. A dark cloud has come
over us, so dark that I have no hope, unless God interpose by his good
providence. It may be that my position or relation to the two extremes
of the work, to the two extremes of this question, may give me some
advantages in obtaining a correct view of this important issue, which
now distracts and threatens us with ruin. Iam well acquainted with
the feelings of my brethren on both sides of this question; and I must
confess that I see no very encouraging ground of hope. It seems to
me, sir, that both sides are committed to maintain the position and the
principles they now mainfain. And yet there are important principles
at stake, intimately associated with the integrity and perpetuity of our
institutions as a church, that no brother from the South, or no brother
from the North will dare disregard. But this question has assumed an
aspect which now threatens to be unmanageable. My heart, in view
of it, is deeply affected. I never felt on itasI do now. We meet on
this floor as opponents, — we speak as men of opposite interests. Be-
ing away on a sick bed part of the time, Ihave taken no part in the dis-
cussions that have transpired here. My opinions and attachments are
not committed. But I say it candidly and deliberately respesting the
North and the South, that I do not see how my Northern brethren or
how my Southern brethren can consistently yield the ground they have
assumed. If the Gencral Conference does not speak out distinctly on
the points at issue, I cannot see how these brethren can go home to their
several conferences without having all around them excitement and
convulsion. With very few exceptions, all our preachers at the North
will maintain at all hazards the unity of our system. They ardently de-
sire it. Will my Southern brethren believe me in this? [ Many res-
ponded affirmatively.]

“ Your Northern brethren have suffered a great deal for the cause the
two years past. Now, if both will come together — unbosom yourselves
freely — tell the whole truth — keep prejudice and party spirit away
from your counsels — it may be that they will be led to feel the com-
mon, dire necessity, and good and lasting results of haymony and peace
ensue, ;

“To the North I may also speak.. If you succeed in inducing this

teneral Conference to affirm anything that is tantamount to the assum p-
tion that the simple fact of holding slaves is a disqualification for the
ministerial office —— and if the brethren of the South concede it, they
might as well go to the Rocky Mountains, asto go home to their people.
“80

‘They are compelled to maintain their position. O! sir, what shall we

‘do? If we must differ in sentiment and action, for God’s sake let our
spirit be right. If we must part let us part in good feeling. © If we can-
not have union, let us have peace. If we must part, let us part in peace.
Let us pray over it. Ican hardly speak for emotion, and yet I must
speak. Dear brethren, are we to push our principles to the breaking:
up of our great Connection? Do we meet for the last time? I fear it,
sir, —I féar it. Isee not how either can make sacrifices without com-
promising the principles they adhere to.”

[ This address was delivered with the most touching tenderness of
manner. It produced great sensation. The Southern men, more es-
pecially, were moved to tears. The overwhelming majority against
them in the last test vote, and their own threats of division, so long per-
sisted in, has driven them to a position that they hardly know how to
maintain, and their dependence upon union is keenly felt, and the ne-
cessity of relinquishing it is matter of unaffected regret. I may be re-
garded as a prejudiced partizan of an antagonistical sect, necessarily
hard-hearted and unfeeling, which I disclaim, however; but I will say,
that the emotion manifested, and the tears shed, affected me but little.
Why did they weep? Suppose division ensued, what then? Would
these Southern men lose their power to preach, and forfeit their oppor-
tunity for laboring as they now labor? No. The same is true of the
North. The only cause of grief, then, was this: the ecclesiastical edi-
fice they are building would be less lofty and overpowering in its influ-
ence upon the country. So far as Iam concerned, as a Wesleyan, their
division is not desirable ; their union is much more; hence, in saying
what I have, it is unbiassed by prejudice.]

Dr. Durbin next spoke. “ My feelings, in view of the scene present-
ed this morning, are very different from those of my brother who has
just spoken. I see light dawning upon this question. The scene be-
fore us, and the proposition now made, afford me strong hope. I cling,
sir, to the hope of unity unbroken. This has been my feeling from my
first arrival in the city, as expressed everywhere to my brethren in pri-
vate conversation. They have said that it was ‘hoping against hope.’
My reply has been, that Abraham succeeded in that. The ground of
my hope is seen in the tenderness manifested here — in the spirit of sac-
rifice every where now prevalent, and moving to the sacrifice of every
thing except ulterior principles. This is the ground of my hope.

“ My brother said, and said truly, that union is hopeless, if we settled
‘jt here that the helding of slaves was a disqualification for the Christian
aainistry in any and every circumstance. We are not agoing to say that,
81

s

sir. We never have said it. We cannot say it, sir. We have. confi-
dence in the wisdom and goodness of the men who will be on the pro-
posed committee, and we believe that they will propose a plan iuto
which we can merge our discordant views. And we believe that by the
advice of the Episcopacy and the influence of prayer, we shall yet unite
ina planof conciliation. Our gallant vessel sir is not to be loosed from
her moorings. There is too much at stake. Too kind a spirit ,reigns
here. We shall yet see brighter and better days. Iam glad to have
two days intervening. Let those be days of prayer. They will mark a
new era in Methodism.” [He spoke of the influence of the Connec-
tion on the union of the States, the difficulty in the English Wesleyan
Connection, and closed thus:] “If, during the days that shall intervene,
before this Committee reports, any words are spoken on this topic, Jet
them be words of peace. It is in my heart to say, sir, cursed be the
man who will; in that time, utter a word calculated to influence the
minds of any one.” »

B. M. Drake, of Mississippi, spoke for some time, deprecating divis-
ion, and doubting if it ever would take place. Hoped the M. E.
Church, the strength of whose union was every where known, would
not be first to break up on the question of slavery. He depicted, in
glowing and eloquent language, the dreadful result upon the nation —
the gratification of the devil, and the jubilee in hell. — As little was

said by him that was peculiar, I pass over my notes with this brief sum-
mary. Several claimed the floor. It was obtained by P. Crandall, who
said, “I claim to have as much of the spirit of conciliation, as any other
man on this floor. And to those brethren who have preceded me,
whose power over the understanding aud emotions are so manifest, J
attribute the best and purest motives. But I hope that in every act we
do in this Conference, we will first know what we are doing, and why
we are doing it. I would not, for the world, drop a single remark cal-
culated to disturb the holy feeling which pervades this. Conference
and the congregation, I am as deeply interested as any one can
be, to bring about a right state of things on this question. All who
know me, know well that my course on this subject has been designed
to prevent any division in the Church on the question of Slavery. We
have had difficulties, deep and intricate, to pass through in the Eastern
States. But sir, there was one thing, said by one of the speakers, that I
do not agree with. It was thought that the position of the South and
the North was similar upon this question., I don’t think this is the true
coloring of the matter, Not exactly the truth. There is certainly a
shade of difference —a dark shade, I think; and as a representative
82

from one of the extremes, I claim to know something more of our posi-
tion than others can, Sir, we at the East are placed above a voicano:
Our enemies, whose operations are directed to the overthrow of our
system, and the destruction of our societies, proceed upon the under-
ground rail-road plan, [A favorite illustration of his, but rather stale.].
We see, now and then, the smoke of the volcano issuing forth from small
tissues, and it may come upon us, in all the violence of an eruption,
when we are least expecting it. I have learned one thing. [ Look out
now for a developement! ] WhenI discover a brother, who has be-
come cold and backslidden in religion — whose liberality is [ word lost ]
in all contributions to sustain the institutions and ordinances of the
Church, whose reigning principle seems to be supreme selfishness,— all
of a sudden wake up, as if under the influence -of the grace of God
sent down from heaven; when I see him warm and active in the dis-
charge of duty, liberal in his contributions and benevolent in his plans,
my suspicions are excited towards him. I fix my eye upon that man,
I warn the members of the society against him! [ Does charity, which
“thinketh no evil,” prompt this? Or the divine injunction, “Speak
evil of no man?” } That man is preparing the society for an explosion.

“The occasion of the excitement in our region, is alledged by the
people to be this. Slavery is in the Church. She tolerates it. The
General Conference tolerates it. Well, sir, we have to meet -it, We
do the best we can. And to pacify the people, we are obliged to say of
your action in this body, what we thought true but have found to be false
since coming here! Division is talked of; but by whom? Tas any
Northern Conference [ and I include the Baltimore Conference ] brought
any thing before us about division? I hoped never to see the day, when
division should be named in this body. The ministers at the North do
not desire division. I do not desire it. J will go to the verge of pvinci-
ple to prevent it. I love the union, and toil and pray for its continuance.
But if those matters presented before this body by our people are ‘not
met fairly, and settled according to the view our people have of what is
right, they will go off from us in troops! We can’t prevent it. The
underground movement will succeed against our best endeavors. These
men have a secret correspondence going on continually all over the
country, They know their men — they know their societies ; and eve-
ry thing depends on the Geneaal Conference.

J. Clarke, of Texas Conference, here interrupted him by a call of or-
der, for discussing the question of division.

Mr. Crandall thought the resolution touched thst point. Loud cries
of No! no! no! came from all parts of the house. Mr, Crandall said
83

“If out of order, 1’ll take my seat.” The secretary read the resolution.
The Bishop ( Hedding ) said, “I think you are wandering from the quer«
tion.” The good Bishop, did’nt happen to think of it when Dr. Olin,
Dr. Durbin and Mr. Drake were speaking, nor did any of the Southern
men happen to notice it. Strange! wasn’t it? A little desultory con-
versation occurred, and his time was extended; but a few words only
were added, and he sat down.

J. Early, of Virginia, spoke. He favored the appointment of a com-
mittee — thought that if the abandonment of principle was not required,
the Southern members were ready for any personal sacrifices for the
sake of the beloved institutions of Methodism. » He hoped the commit-
tee would be appointed without a dissenting voice.

W. A. Smith, of Virginia, approved the plan proposed. Disclaimed
ever having cherished the desire for division. Never believed it would
take place. He had uniformly and steadily avowed that sentiment.
“'The South never desired division, nor will she consent to it, if it can
be avoided. And this is the sentiment of the whole Southern Church.
[ Dr. Capers responded to that as true.] They never will, unless forced
to it. I don’t believe we will be forced to it. This General Conference
will not compel any such result for slavery. Divide, sir? There is no
need of division— no necessity at all, Nor need we to stay together to
prevent war in the country. [Here J. G. Dow, of N. H. called the
speaker to order, for the same reason that Crandall was. And if an
Kastern man had not thought of it, nobody else would; for North,
West and South seemed to take it for granted that nobody but Yankees
ever got out of order on this subject.] Mr. Smith continued a few mo-
ments and closed, hoping that negociation would effect a compromise.
A few unimportant refarks were made by several, when the appoint-
ment of the committee was agreed to hy a unanimous vote. The com-
mittee was appointed by the chair. They are Dr. W. Capers, Dr. S.
Olin, Dr. W. Winans, J . Early, L. L. Hamline, and P. Crandall. -

Paciricarion Brrt.— On Tuesday last, a committee was appointed
by the Bishop to take into consideration the subject of harmonizing the
church on the slave question. This appointment was preceded bya
somewhat lengthy discussion, which will be given to our readers next
week. We publish the following from our reporter, in advance of our
dates. Our reports next week will be full of thrilling interest. The
Church is on the verge of'a volcano! If the abelitionists maintain
their ground, there must be a split; if they do not there will be seces-
sion. The following brethren constitute the committee : — Capers, Olin,
Winans, Early, Hamlin and Crandall.
S41

" The compromise which such a committee will. pr abehly origintte,
may be easily conceived of, as yielding but, little that is peculiar to the
South, while it will, without compunction, give up all that is worth hay-
ing, to abolitionists in the North. Three of them are slaveholders,
Dr. Olin, i in his remarks to- day, identified himself with, the South in
the contingency of a division. L. L. Hamline has never been identified
with the abolitionists. And one solitary abotitionist is on at,the fail
end, to fill up the required number; but what is he “among so many.”
Now, kind reader, look at the cominittee, and reflect a moment. They
were appointed to prepare a compromise, in view of slaveholding prac-
tices, on the one hand, and abolition excitement on the other; and for-
sooth, the opponents of abolitionism have five out of six on the commit-

So that the interests and views of one of the parties to be recon-

ciled, are only of one-sixth the importance that is attached to the views
and interests of the other party, the constitution of this committee be-
ing evidence in the case. Take into the account, that the Bishopsare
bona fide members of that committee, and;you may well imagine’the
reason why the whole South were so full of conciliatior and gratified,
‘to-day.

The present is the moment of crisis. In the language of Dr. Durbin,
jt is “an era in the history of Methodism.” ‘True: and what will be its
record in future days? Answer, It will be referred to, as the “era”.

‘when a mutual and honorable division transpired, or when a sacrifice of

principle and right was consummated, to thé utter dishonor of truth and
righteousness. For the plain point at issue is this, as stated by the South
to Northern abolitionists: You must compromisr YOUR PRINCIPLES,
OR WE WILL Divipe THE Cuurcn. There is no middle ground, and
these are the two sides of the question. How the issue can be avoided,
T cannot conceive ; and of the integrity of the Eastern abolitionists on
the General Confer ence floor, I have a high opinion. They will stand
hy the people, by whom they are “ pushed and driven up to the work.”
After transacting some’ business of minor importance, the Conference
adjourned. From 12 to 1 o’clock to-morrow will be devoted to prayer
in view of the present Sue of the church on the question of slavery,

Wednesday, May 1 15.
This morning a few memorials on slavery were. ‘presented. The
most absorbing business of the first part of the session, or as far as miany

!
85

members were concerned, was the reading of Tur True Westeyax!
Quite asprinkling of them was to be seen all over the Conference. 11
was really refreshing to see from the gallery the vignette of John Wes-
ley looking out upon his professed sons. It excites a-gréat deal of in-
terest, Iassure you. At this moment I see two or three heads together
on one paper. Dr. Bangs and Dr. Capers were so busy that one or two
votes passed without their notice. ;

Various propositions were made, providing for alterations in the Dis-
cipline of minor importance. J. Spencer and J. Drummond presented
one, providing for striking out the clause prohibiting official members
of the church from carrying on the traffic in ardent spirits,
because it implied that private members had the right. From a mis-
apprehension of its design, some very good temperance speeches were
made against it by Dr. Bangs, H. Slicer and others. It was finally with-
‘drawn. Drake of Mississippi proposed to strike out the requistion as
‘a qualification for membership, belief in doctrine, so as to] conform to -
the Wesleyan principle as stated in the general rule: “One . condition
‘only is required, &c.” Several appeal cases were named, but defer-
red for the present. Green of Tennessee, spoke of a manuscript in his
possession written by Philip Bruce, a veteran Methodist Preacher now
in Heaven, He thought it ought to be examined, and if deemed wor-
‘thy, published. It was consequently referred to the Virginia and Ten-
nessee delegates.

Most of the morning was occupied in the discussion of the proposi-
‘tion to form an Indian Mission Conference. It was lengthy and void
‘of interest to the general reader, and I shall not be guilty of a repeti-
tion of the sins already _ committed by the speakers, by inflicting it on
-your readers. The hour of 12 having arrived, the members laid by
every thing else to attend the service of a General Conference Prayer
Meeting.

Genera, ConrereNce Prayer MEETING.
Bishop Andrew vacated the chair to Bishop Soule, who was to con-
‘duct the services. The Bishop read the hymu commencing
“Giver of concerd, Prince of Peace.”

and said “Brother Richie and brother Early will be so good as _ to lead
in prayer, after we have sung. Before singing, he made some affecting
remarks about visiting the tombs of the Wesleys, and the probsble in-
terest their departed spirits now have in what is transpiring with the
‘connection they founded. With deep and uneffected emoticn; he cb_.

8
86

served, “O! if spirits glorified around the throne may be supposed ta
weep, surely their tears would fall upon us at this hour.” And then
with an effort to speak, though almost choaking with emotion, he said
or rather sobbed, “My desire long has been, that I might sleep with
my fathers, ere the time arrived, if come it must, when this body of
Christian men and Christian ministers should consent to sever the
bonds of their ecclesiastica] union.” .

They'then sung, and Mr. Richie of the Wesleyan Connection, and
Mr. Early of Virginia, prayed with feeling and with fervor. This was
sueceeded by singing part of the hymn. The fourth verse of which is,

“ Even now we think and speak the same,
, And cordially agree,
United all through Jesus name,
In perfect barmony.”

Prayer was offered ‘by P. Crandall, of New England, and W. Wi-
vans of Mississippi. Then Bishop Hedding gave out the hymn _begin-
ing.

“God moves ina mysterious way.”

He requested Dr. Capers of South Carolina, and G. Fillmore of' the
(Genesee Conference, to pray. Before singing, the venerable man ina
very moving manner observed, “This is the tenth general Conference
that we have witnessed. Many dark clouds have hung over us. But I
never saw so dark a cloud as that whieh spreads above us now. On
other occasions we have tremiled with fear, for the unity of our con-
neetion. But the occasion of _ difference then has been mainly among
the preachers. He referred specially to 1808, when Asbury succeeded
in getting the preachers together in gr oups, and by weeping and pray:
ing together with them, affected a reconciliation. But now the people
more than the preachers, are engeged against each other. The North
demanding of ua the adoption of mezsures to prevent their ruin, while
the South declare by the brethren who represent them here, that those
useasures, if adopted, will prove their certain ruin. And now breth-
xen,” said the old man with tears.in his eyes, “ What shall we do? The
ynatter is at such an issue that man cannot controll it. Our hope is in
(tod alone.” The services were then concluded by prayer,

I looked upon this meeting with deep interest. I sympathized with

them. It was indeed asolemn scene, - Perhaps, and yet I ‘star ce can

Lope the South will yield. If so, the North will gain a triumph for the
slave. Iwould it might bé'so. My feelings as a man, a minister of
Jesus Christ, induce this wish. Nay, more: my feelings as a Wesleyan
prompt me to hope against hope, ‘that it will beso. - Fer as a Wesleyan,
87

Tum attached to principles, not sect. We wish the true, abiding inter-
ests of the slave may be secured, by all of every name. And those
who may have been unkind enough to think that our aim is solely to
upturn the church will find out their mistake, if that church takes sides
unwavering with the slave, and for his cause. Their disappointment
will be as complete, and their insinuations as groundless as that of
Abel Stevens in his remark about our ‘reports of their proceedings.
By the way, members of the .General Conference have kindly assure:
me that my reports are more to the life than any that have been made.

en on Rn ee nn

Thursday, May 16.

The Conference commenced as usual. The proposition of Dr. Bangs,
to admit the representatives’ of the M. E. Church in Canada, was yes-
terday vdted down. The Committee on Missions reported against
establishing a German Mission Conference, as recommended by the
Bishops, They favored the formation of Districts independent of Con-
ference boundaries, to embrace exclusively the German population.
The proposed visit of Rev. Mr. Nash to Germany, was also favored by
the Committee.

Dr, Capers inquired if any pecuniary responsibility was assumed by
the Church, in reference to this agency to Germany. '

Dr. Luckey supposed that as it was truly a missionary agency, the ex-
pense should be met by the Missionary Treasury.

H. Slicer thought it required more reflection than had yet been be-
stowed on it, and moved to lay the matter on the table. Agreed to.

Dr. Peck, from Committee on Revisal, reported several items of local
interest and importance..

Bishop Soule, from the committee on a plan of pacification, request-
ed a longer time to. prepare for their report to the Conference. Grant-
ed.

Dr. Capers assured the Conference that the committee were anxio:
to hasten the report, and that it was a matter of pain to be unable to
report now.

J. Early remarked that their report would in all probability, be ready
by to-morrow, or Saturday at fartherest.

Petitions, memorials, &c., were called for. From New York, “was
presented — one from the Methodist 8, S. Union, asking an alteration
in their Constitution, — one from the official members.of the church in
88

this city, asking for the next session of the General Conference to be
held in New York city.

From New England, by P. Crandall, three memorials ‘were presented
on Slavery —from Fitchburgh, 177; Leominster, 34; Ashburham, 31..
On presenting these, Mr. Crandall referred to the remarks made
a few days since, and ‘the impressions that seemed to obtain
quite extensively in the Conference, that the Eastern delegates kept
back part of the memorials in their possession from time to time, in
order to prolong as much as possible, a work they knew to be annoying
to some of their brethren. He could speak for one, “I have presented
each day at the proper time, allthat have been in my possession that
day. Some of our brethren are too suspicious. ‘Thcre is no one among
the Eastern delegates who desires from day to day to annoy this Con-
ference any way. I do hope that such suspicions will not be indulged
in towards us. As we receive these memorials we «present them; and
while the door is open to us, we shall continue to present them every
day that any come into our possession. We are, in this; performing
what we consider a solemn and constitutional duty.”

From Maine, on Slavery, by J. Hobart—from Hampden, 57. He
had another, he said on the Annexation of Texas! Great laughter and
confusion succeeded this annunciation. “Tl explain,” said he. “They
ask this Conference to speak out against it; because, if consumated, it
will tend to the perpetuation of slavery.”

» P.P. Sanford. “I move you, sir, that the memorialists have leave to
withdraw their memorial.” This was seconded by a clamorous. re~
sponse from all parts of the house.

Bishop Waugh. “Let me state the question brethren.” After stat-
ing the question, he announced, “ Br. Cartwright has the floor.”

P. Cartwright. “I wish to amend the motion sir so as to say, that it
be referred to Washington where it properly belongs.” But as no one
seconded his very clever amendment, except by renewed outbursts of
laughter, it was passed by, and “leave'to withdraw” voted, I believe
manimously. [Just at this time, one of the Pittsburgh delegation, |
believe it was, probably J. Drummond, sent me a note correcting my re-
port of last week. It was as follows: “Sir,—The memorials from
McConville, Norwich, Coshocton, Sharron Cambridge, Washington and
Claysville circuits, Pittsburg Conference, and from Mazietta station,
Ohio Conference, were presented, not by R. Boyde, as you report, but
by J. Drummond, to whose care they were committed by the memori-
alists, either directly or through the preachers of those circuits.” I
hereby express my aan to that Br. for the correction, But my man;
89,"

uscript left blank immediately before the specification of those mcmo-
rials, because I knew not the person’s name who presented them. The
blank was filled up by somebody, — printer, or editor, — with the pro-
noun “ He.” We desire however, and shall endeavor, that the character
of our reports shall be agreeable to the title of our paper, The Trvr
Wesleyan.” 1. c. m.]

From New Hampshire, by J. G. Dow; a memorial on slavery. On
presenting it, he said: “I received this since I returned home, with a

special injunction to present it, And as the servant of the church, 1

comply.”

After receiving an invitation to hold their next session at Louisville,
Kentucky, and attending to some uninteresting items of business, an
appeal case was called up, which involved some delicate matters too
sacred for vulgar ears I suppose, and all but the ttavelling preachers
were requested to retire. Being a modest man, and not wishing to
array myself against the powers that be, although a travelling preach-
er, Ivery cheerfully took up the line of march and retired.

AR RN

' Friday, May 17,
"The fore part of the session this morning was occupied by the ciae
of yesterday, and of course the reporter was notin. After that was
finished the doors were open. Just as I enter ed, Bishop Soule was re-
porting on behalf of the committee on pacification. The amount of
his report was that the committce had made no progress, ! ‘and that it
was their unanimous request, that the members from the Noith meet in
the ‘upper part of this house at 3 o’clock P. M. to-day, and the members
from the South inthe vestry of this house atthe same hour. From
this it is evident, that the question of slavery is more difficult even than
was first supposed. What the result of this convention will be, [ shall
not conjecture ; I leave it for my successor, who will’ be in attendance
during the time that will be occupied with this matter,
Tt will be proper for me, in this connection, to refer to an interview {
had with Wm. A. Smith, of Virginia. This morning, | he came up into
the allery, in search ofthe Wesleyan reporter, and was introduced to
me by Br. Hoes. After expressiny his pleasure at the fullness and fuith-
fulness of my report of his speech on the reception of anti-slavery peti-
tions, declaring i it ‘the most fair and correct report that had gone out! to the
public” he wished to see my report of his’ spaeeh on the appeal Cause.

I gave hip a copy of it, He then reinarked, that he wished me distiict-
: 5 zB

\
90

Ty to understand, that he was not responsible for his speech as reported:
officially. For although he would not attach any blame to the reporter,
who had been worked almost to death, yet he insisted that the report
did him injustice. “Now,” said he, “Iam aware that your friends will
make use of my statements in that speech; but I wish them to know
that I do not hold myself responsible only for my speech as I shall pre-
pare it for publication.in pamphlet form, with the proceedings of the
General Conference.” In order that his disclaimer may be known, and,
the object he contemplated be attained, I refer to it in this way, and in.
‘this connection.

An appeal case from the Baltimore Conference, of but little interest
or importance, came up this morning, and was speedily disposed of
The Committee on Revisals reported an additional item to Sec. vii. of
the Dis. page 92,1 believe which would in effect exclude any person
from the church guilty of the use or traffic in ardent spirits. ‘This gave-
rise to a brief but lively

Discussion on TEMPERANCE.

A. D. Peck, in presenting the report, said, “It will not be. doubted,
that the General Conference can with propriety insert such a clause in
the discipline of the church. The act contemplated is already forbid-.
den by the General Rules, in the prohibition, ‘do no harm,’ ‘avoid evil
of every kind? For it will not be denied, that the history of this traffic
isarecord of ‘harm’ done to the body and the soul— to wives and
children, and to the community in ‘general —an irreparable injury to:
every relation which a man sustains either to God or his fellow men.
It only remains for us to give the crime its appropriate classification,
[ After a repetition of the same thought several times, he remarked: ]
“One Conference has already decided to act in accordance with the
provision of this clause. In this manner only can we ever hope to rid
ourselves of the dishonor and disgrace, as a church, that necessarily at-
taches to us on account of our connection with the business.” [Some
other unimportant remarks followed, and he sat down.]

Ww. A. Smith moved that it lie on the table, merely in view of having
it taken up under different circumstances. He disclaimed the intention,
of avoiding the discussion involved. “That,” said he, “is not my way
of doing business.” The motion was lost.

W. A. Smith. “I dislike very much, or I should say, that I regret’
very much, that the Conference should not, through courtesy at the re-
quest of a member, consent to defer this matter toa period deemed
more favorable for its proper investigation. But if I am hurried into.

‘
91

this discussion, although admonished, by the indications around me,-of
the probable disposition that the Conference will make ofthis proposi-
tion, I shall do the best I can to oppose its adoption.

“It proposes, sir, to incorporate a provision, that looks ultimately to
the dismemberment of all who will not comply therewith. Do I under-
stand it correctly ? Correct me, if I do not.”

Dr. Peck. “It merely proposes to classify the act with other wrong
acts, that are named in connection with their results.”

W. A. Smith. “ But it is to result in dismemberment.”

A.D. Peck. “Not unless the offender refuses to reform.” °

W. A. Smith. “Yes: so I understand it. Now sir, l would ask by
what authority this Conference can proceed to introduce into the Disci-
pline a new term of membership, without the consent of the annual
conferences, as provided in the restrictive rules. Four years ag6 this
was attempted, in a constitutional way, but failed, because the annual’
conferences did not consent. [Here Dr. Bangs and others denied the
statement. Mr. Smith explained this statement by referring to Dr. Tom-
linson’s report, and proceeded.] _ “I do not object to meeting this ques-
tion fairly and squarely. But the present movement, if I should adopt
the language of a certain location in New York, might be called per-
haps a “fluxion.” It is a measure of policy that seeks especially to avoid
the constitutional destriction, And Tam uncompromisingly opposed to
any attempt to change our Diseipline, directly er indirectly, except in
conformity with the provisions of the Discipline. If a constitutional
inajority of the Annual Conferences have not voted for an alteration, so
as to make the traffic in ardent spirits a test of membership, then we
have no right to make any such law inthis body. The question before
us, sir, is not whether that traffic is right or wrong; but whether we have
authority as a body, to make the prosecution of that traffic atest of mem-
bership. -

“ Again, sir, the brethren supposed this traffic to be a great evil.
Scarcely a man of reflection will deny that! Reference was made also:
to the great reformation that has been witnessed in our land. True, sir!
A great moral reformation bas transpired, producing wonderful effect.
But it was without the aid of any legislation by the Methodist Church.
The ball of reformation has been struck, and it has reached the farther-
est section of the country. The cause of Temperance has not needed
any such auxiliary in its work. It does not require it now. And it will
be found, that great as the evil complained of confessedly is, this prop-
esition will be no remedy for it.

‘Iremirk again, sir—this is in effeet a general rule. And. however
92
desirable it may be regarded by many, it is not admissible, for reasons
previously.given. And now L ask, what.is a general rale? The Disci-
pline defines it to be such as God’s ‘Spirit unites on all truly awakened
hearts’ Now I appeal to this body to say if this proposition, which is
in effect a ‘general rule, is one of that kind. If so, sir, what is the
fact respecting our forefathers, who have preceded us in laying the foun-
dations of our ecclesiastical edifice. Was this written upon their hearts ?
Then they violated its injunctions, for many of them whom we are all
proud, or happy I should ey, to honor, were in the habit of using ar-
dent spirits moderately. , Are you prepared to charge upon them the
violation of conscience enlightened by the spirit of God?, I trust not.

“The use of intoxicating liquor is not a crime of the nature of drunk-
enness or adultery, which every one knows to be written on every truly
converted heart. This is an evil only to be felt.and realized so far as the
light of truth may shine upon the mind in reference to its practical
character.”

[ The fifieert minutes allotted now elapsed. An ineffectual effort was
new made to extend the time] J. A. Collins proposed to defer it and:
make it the order of the day to-morrow. A. D. Peck was opposed to
any interruption of the discussion. J. A. Collins thought it would be
better digested by to-motrow. W. A, Smith remarked, “It comes with
avery poor grace from those who have their plans and arguments all’
arranged to urge immediate action, when the opponents of the measure
are unprepared. Let me take my own time to prepare in favor of any
measure I may wish to secure, then I will show you a willingness to ac-
commodate that you do not manifest. I would do it from a noble gen-
erosity of soul that Iam proud to manifest.” To this A. D. Peck repli-

ed, “ When we have made special preparation for a discussion, we will
defer any subject cheerfully. But although we might be conscious of
nobleness and generosity of soul, we would not make any special annun-
ciation of it, lest we should fail to make our mendes believe it! [ Laugh-
ter.]

Dr. Bangs was in favor of deferring the discussion until they had
heard whether a majority in the several Annual Conferences had voted
in favor of changing the “ General Rule.” ‘

H. Slicer. “TI did not know that the subject was coming up. I have
made no special preparation for the discussion therefore. It was said
by those who are opposed tc this provision or the use and traffic of ar-
dent spirits in 1840, that the general rule, as it then was, without any al-
teration, was sufficiently strong and comprehensive to reach all offen-
ders. Now we are taunted with the constitutional inconsistency of urg-
93

‘mg a clause merely explanatory of the rule, cs they then profvssed. :6
understand it. It is probable that when the Committee on Temperance
shall report, it will appear that the effort to alter the general rule has
proved a failure. Then, if the South was sincere in what they said in
1840, and will act in accordance with it now, we shall agree to put jn
this explanatory clause. We shall present an unbroken front, a firm
phalanx, in favor of the measure. And I have’ little doubt that when
my brother Smith has slept over it, becomes cool, and sober second
thought resumes its power, he himself will cheerfully unite with us in
voting for‘its adoption. [The speaker then gave a detail of facts res-
pecting the General Conference of 1840, in failing to change the “ Gen-
eral Rule,” showing that‘a constitutional majority of'the Annual Con-
ferences and a vote of two-thirds of the constitutional quorum present
and voting, was in favor of the change; yet its adoption was prevented
by a decision of the Presiding Bishop, that two-thirds of the members ,
elect of the General Conference was requisite. And although the ma-
jority had the power to reverse the decision, they did not, and although
near 1700 travelling preachers asked for it, the general rule was not re-
stored. In reference to the report of Dr. Tomlinson, he. said.}

“ And what is the history of that report? Why, sir, it did not find
any favor over in Kentucky. For you will see by the vote of that Con-
ference since, that 79 voted to restore Mr. Wesley’s rule, while only one
opposed. Who that one was who stood alone in his glory, Ido not
know, nor do I care.

«The truth is, sir, that Methodism has not opened its eyes just now to
the enormity of the evil of intemperance. Methodism was right a
hundred years ago. But we have gone back. John Wesley, who is,
under God, our father as a connection, was in advance of his age on
this question. The history of the’ rule on Temperance, if known would
be a curious affair. The original rule is found in the Wesleyan Disci-
pline, and in Mr. Wesley’s works, and yet is not in our Discipline. The
history and mystery of this rule, if it could be divulged, would, I repeat,
be a curious affair. ‘

Mr. rose to a question of order. .

President. “Please state it.”

Mr. . *T wish to know if it is inorder to interrupt a brother
while speaking and” —

W.A. Smith. “Never mind. Let them go on. They have loaded
their guns and want to be firing! After they have expended their am-
munition, we will look after the killed and wounded.”

Il, Slicers “We don’t seek to kill any body, Mr. President. We

\

 

 
94

#

scek to save life, by putting out the fire of Methodist distilleries. [He
here read a beautiful extract from Dr. Fisk, consisting chiefly of ex-
clamations of surprise at the anomalous character of a rumselling
Christian.] He then.proceeded. “My brother,wants moral suasion.
Well, sir, 1am willing to extend any amount of succor in the form of
moral suasion, to lift the poor drunkard from the gutter even. But for
the drunkard maker I would have applied all the power of legal sua-
sion. We abstain totally so as to give the force of our example to sus-
tain the thousands of‘ reformed men who now crowd our churches: for
the Temperance Reformation has cleared the heads and steadied the
hands of many who have been led to see their need of religion, and
have embraced it. Now we wish to give all the force of the example of
the church in favor of this cause. But at the present time, in Ohio,
there are no less thar! five distillers in one Methodist class! { Here some
one said, “I doubt it.” And others responded, “So-do1”] “ Well,”
said Mr. Slicer, “ I knew it would sound rather grating upon the ears of

‘some. But I have the proof of my statement on the floor, and can pro-

duce it, if'demanded. Against all such traffickers, whether they sell
by the hogshead or the gill, we wish to stand arrayed, and if possible
turn back the burning tide that is let loose upon the land, wathiersng ev-
ery green thing, and hasten on the time when the fires of the last diss
tillery shall go out forever!” Other remarks followed, short and unim-
portant, and the Conference adjourned.

Here ends the chapter of my reports.
Lucius C. Matzacx.

[ Correction. —1 should have placed D. B. Randall of Maine with the
few abolitionists who were willing to give the South the issue they de-
manded last week. I, C. M.]

Saturday, May 18.
This morning I took my seat as reporter, Br. Matlack having closed
his services on yesterday. As Br. M.’s report has been very correct,
and has been acknowledged by many members of the Conference to be
the best report of the speeches made, I cannot flatter myself that I can
win so high a degree of popularity for myself, but I will do the best I
can, and will strive to do justice to the Conference, and to the speakers.

individually. Le
After the Conference was opened this morning with the usual formal-
ities, a call was made for reports. Ag no other committee presented
95

any report, Bishop Soule reported for the committee on a compromise
between the North and South. The report was, that no terms of a com-
promise could be agreed upon by the committee, and, on motion, the re-
port was accepted and the committee discharged. Thus ended the plan
for a compromise between the extremes of pro-slavery and abolition,
over which anxious thoughts and tearful prayers have been spent. The
report was received with no apparent emotion in the Conference, still,
it may be that it was that calm which preceded a storm. A few days
will determine.

P. P. Sanford called attention to an error which had been reported
tor the Commercial Advertiser, for which their own official reporter also
reported.’ The error had been copied into many of the other papers
with editorial remarks, greatly to the prejudice of the Book Concern in
New York. This error consisted of a substitution of the report concern-
ing the Concern in New York, for the report concerning the Concern at
Cincinnati, so as to give Cincinnati the credit of the New York Con-
cern, and New York the credit of the Cincinndti Concern. Mr. S. said
the same error was printed in their own official report, but that it was
detected in season to be corrected. The report of the committee to
whom had been referred the subject ofa Statistical Chart of Methodism
proposed to be published by Rev. J. H. Young, was taken up. The re-
port was highly in favor of Mr. Young’s proposed work, recommending
its publication in book form rather than ina chart. The report conclu-
ded with a resolution instructing the book agents to publish it. After
remarks by several speakers, on motion of Dr. Bangs, the whole subject
was referred to the book agents, to publish as they saw fit.

A resolution was offered, instructing the Committee on Revisals to
inquire into the expediency of striking out that clause in the Discipline
which authorizes the preacher to refer the trial of members to the quar-
terly meeting conference, when he differs fromthe committee as to the
guilt or innocency of the accused. On motion, it was laid on the table.

So much of the report of the Committee on Missions as related to
‘German missions was then called up. That part of the report which
recommended the formation of German districts, without reference to
the conference boundaries, after considerable discussion of but little in-
terest, was adoped. Another portion of the report recommended that

‘the request of Rev. Mr. Nash, a German missionary: in Ohio, to be al-
“lowed to visit his native country, should be granted. -Dr. Bangs called
for the reading of the communication from Mr. Nash, containing his re-
quest and a statement of the object he had in view. The reading being
objected to by Rev. J. T. Peck, a vote was taken and the communice-
96

“tion ordered to be read. Mr. Collirs said that-as secretary of the com-
mittee, he had left the communication at his room, and the subject was
laid upon the table to give him time to obtain it.

Mr. Reed presented the resolutions of the New York Conference on
the subject of Slavery and Temperance.

On motion, a committee of five was ordered, to whom should be re-
ferred ail papers touching the histery of any of the deceased Bishops or
other preachers, and to whom all preachers and people were requested
to communicate any papers or facts in their possession. Said commit-
tee to report to the next General Conference.

Mr. Cass of N. H., offered a resolution to go to the Committee on Re-
visals, touching the action of the quarterly conference, when the preach--
er refers the trial of a member to that body, the precise character of
which the reporter did not hear, owing to too much noise about him.
it was laid upon the table.

Mr. Collins having returned with the communication from Mr. Nash,
it was read and a discussion followed on the motion to adopt so much
of the report as related to Mr. Nash’s visit to Germany.

Mr. Hamline took the floor in support of the mission. He said the
subject was one of great importance ; as there was a constant influx to
this country from Germany, it was important to get correct information
before the people, before they came here. He said the Governor of a
great State said, not long since, Your system alone enables you to keep
up with the Pope. The Catholic Bishop, who is the agent of the peo-
ple, says to his priest, Go to the Rocky Mountains, and he obeys; and
the Methodist Bishop says to one of his itinerants, Follow him, and at
once he is upon his heels. Mr. H. said it-would not do to send him asa
missionary, though that was the real object; he must go in the charac-
‘ter of an editor, as that would excite no prejudice.

Mr. said he deeply regretted Br. Hamline’s injudicious speech,
for he considered it such. His speech would be reported, and by to-
‘morrow would be put into the hand of Bishop Hughes, and he would
write to his friends in Germany, and stir them up against Mr. Nash in
advance of his arrifal, and would represent that Mr. Nash was a mis-
sionary in disguise.

 

Mr. Hamline said legal difficulties were his only objection to sending
him as a missionary ; he wished it known and understood that he went
for religious purposes. The motion was adopted, ,

It was then moved that the book committee at Cincinnati estimate the
expenses and pay it out of the book funds.

,
97

Dr. Capers objécted on the ground that the constitution forbid such
use of the funds of the book concern.

Dr. Bangs replied that they had a right to pay editors, for that was
‘done every year; to deny that right would be to deny the book commit-
tee the right of carrying on their own operations. Mr. Nash went in
the character ofian editor, and therefore it was constitutional to pay
the expenses out of the book funds.

Mr. said they had paid the expenses of the delegates to Gen-
eral Conference, and that was as far from having constitutional authority
as the object now under consideration.

Dr. Capers replied that he knew they had appropriated funds to pay
the expenses of the delegftes, but he thought they had stretched that
business too for already; they had been stretching, and stretching, and
he thought they had stretched far enough in that direction, and he was
‘opposed to stretching any more. However, he said, the remarks of Dr.
Bangs had relieved him on that point. As Mr. Nash was to go as an ed-
itor, it was doubtless constitutional to pay him out of the book funds
‘But he preferred to call him a missionary; it was a higher object than
‘was implied by the term agent or editor.

_A motion was made to restrict the expe nseg to one Raunt dollars
“but was laid on the table, and the resolution was adopted. “Tho whole

\

 

report was than adopted.

Dr. Bangs then suggested thatthe reporters should not report all that
had been said ‘on the subject.

Dr. Capers said he might have some delicacy on the subject, so far as
concerned his language and style of expressing his thoughts on the sub-
ject, but as to the thoughts themselves, he was willing the world should
hear all he had said.

A resolution was then introduced, to give one copy of all the books
published at the Book Room to each college and seminary under the
control of the M. E.Church. Mr. Winner, of N. J., moved an amend-
ment, by adding and to every Methodist preacher whois in the regular itin-
erant work. A motion was made to lay the amendment. on the table,
and was Tost. .

Mr. said he hoped some one would speak: in favor of the
amendment, and speak powerfully. There is, said he, no reason for the
resolution, which is not equally good for the amendment. Who gotup
the Book Concern? Wasit our literary institution? It did not ac-
knowledge any such parentage, or doubtless it would be ready to ad-
minister to its parent. The preachers were the father of the Concern;

they had started it, supported it, and watched over its,interests: men
9

 
98

“who had worn themselves out in the cause of Methodism, travelling

over mountains and through vales:: On what principle does the resolu-
tion propose to give the books to the literary institutions? Is it asa
just due — then does justice require ‘that they should be given to the
preachers. Is it as a charity —it would be a greater charity to give
them tothe preachers, many of whom are unable to purchase. Ifa
liberal donation is to be made — the- preachers need it most, many of
whom have but a few dollars, and same a few coppers.

Dr. Bangs doubted the constitutional power to make any such appro-
priation of the funds of the Book Concern.. He said they- published
books enough, so that one copy of each publication would amount to
twenty dollars‘ per year; and as there were about four thousand preach-
ers, it would cost eighty thousand dollars per annum to give each preacher
one copy! If it was made to include all the works that have been
published and are now on hand, it would cost two or three hundred
thousand dollars. He hoped the Conference would not put their hands
in and take out such an amount of funds.

Mr. = said he hoped we should not follow the example of Con-
gress. They were provided with stationary at public expense, and they
classed a variety of things under this head, guns and other articles, and
called it all stationary. .One member, who had voted an amount of
money into his own pocket, was called to an account by his constit-
uents, when he returned home, to whom he replied, if your gun snaps
once, you would not break it to pieces, but pick your flint and try
again. He thought if the object was to spread light, a better use could
be made of the funds. It was holding out an inducement for Conferenc-
es to get up institutions forthe sake of obtaining the boon. The reso-

 

olution was laid on the table.

A resolution was then offered by W. W. Ninde, of the Black River
Conference, directing the Committee on the Book Concern to inquire
into the propriety of securing an engraving of a portrait of the late Rev.
Squire Chase, for,the Quarterly Review. After some little discussion,
the motion was withdrawn. °|

A resolution was then offered, instructing the Committee on Revisals
to inquire into the propriety of increasing the amount of the preachers’
salaries. Laid upon tlre table.

A resolution was offered, instructing the Committee on Revisals to
consider the propriety of inserting in the Discipline a rule forbidding
the preachers re-baptizing such as have been baptized in infancy, or by
‘sprinkling or pouring. Adopted.

A resolution was ‘offered, instructing the Committee on Sabbath
99

Schools to consider the. propriety .of the appointment of a board by the
General Conference, to take charge of the Sabbath School department,
and of withdrawing from all other associations. After discussion, it
was laid upon the table. , “ei
Conference adjourned.

3

e
Rae on ne RAR t

' Monday, May 20.

The committee to ‘whom was referr ed the memorial of W. J. Waller,
of Virginia Conference, reported. The ‘report was, that it was unne-
cessary to answer the i inquiries of the memorialist; that the Virginia Con-
ference erred in admitting “the appeal of a layman; and that there was
nothing in the condiret of the editor of the Richmond Christian Advo-
cate that required the interference of the General Conferenee. Laid
upon the table. ,

Bishop Soule addressed the Conference in relation to Rev. Mr. Sar-
gent, who was his travelling companion in Eur ope. He said Mr. Sar-
gent served him to the utmost of his ability, as a son in the gospel, and
attended his 5 person constantly, not being absent from him one night
in six months. He conclided by stating that Mr. Sar; gent drew no sal-
ary while absent, and suggested that the Conference should make some
compensation. The subject was referred to the delegation of the Bal-
timore Conference, to which Mr. 8, belongs.

An address ' was presented to the Conference ‘from Dr. Bond on the
subject of the publication of Coke and Asbury’s Notes on the Disci-
pline, asking that they might be published and bound with the Disci-
pline. After being opposed * by D. A. Shepherd, Dr. Bangs, ‘and Dr.
Peck, the subject was laid on the table.

Mr. Collins, of the Been ‘Confer ence, then introduced the follow-
ing resolution: 7 ® \

“ Whereas a réport is in circulation that one of the Superintendents
has become connected with slavery, and whereas this Conference has a
right to know the fact in the ease, therefore '

“ Resolved, That the Committee on Episcopacy examine into the case,
and report the facts to- morrow morning,”

Bishop Hedding rémarked that arule of discipline required that in
the General Confer énce every thing be considered as in the immediate
presence of God, and especially at this time, and on this subject, was
it necessary for every one to be careful not to speak any word which
could not be met at the bar of God and which would be calculated to
injure any part of the church.
100

Mr. Collins remarked that he did not offer the resolution witha
view to injure the church, and he would try to indulge in no words or
feelings which he could not meet in peace at the last day.

Mr. Dunwody thought the committee would not be prepared to re-
port so soon as that, as there was a wide difference of opinion among
them, which would produce considerable discussion. |

Several persons replied that it would be of no use to discuss the sub-
ject in the committtee, as it would have to be discussed again in the
Conference. The facts were all that was necessary to report. The
resolution was then adopted. So we areto have this case to-mor-
row morning, but what will be the end of it, who can tell ?

So much of the report of the Committee on Revisals as relates to lo-
cal preachers, was then taken up. After an unimportant discussion it
was Jaid on the table, for the purpose of taking up the report of the
committee to whom had been referred a memorial, asking the General
Conference to fixa course of study for local preachers. This last re-
port proposed several important alterations. It provided that when
exhorters are licensed, they shall be directed to the course of study
which shall be prepared by the annual conference for local preachers.

Dr. Pierce, the younger, opposed to this part of the report, on the
ground that it would not be carried out. He was opposed to loading

' the Discipline with provisions which were never likely to be executed.
If this was adopted, it would prove acomplete farce.

Mr. Slicer opposed the report. He said it was an infraction upon
the original principles of Methodism to require a literary qualification
for exhorters.

J. T. Peck, of the Troy Conference, replied with much spirit and
effect. He said that if we would improve the ministry, we must lay
the foundation right and see that candidates commence their improve
ment with the commencement of their public labors. It would be no
dishonor to the church to require a higher degree of intellectual culture
‘for exhorters than what had been heretofore required. He thought the
doctrine that ignorance is the mother of devotion, would do better for
another communion than for the M. E Church.

Dr. Bangs opposed it on the ground that to require a literary standard
for local preachers and exhorters, would eut off all these classes among
the colored people in the South. They are useful among their own
color, but cannot be required to, make any literary improvement. He

closed by moving: tolay the whole subject on the table. His motion
was lost.

Mr.

 

supported the measure, and declared that he could not
101

see one of the difficulties in the way, which others thought they saw

-Mr. Winans opposed with spirit. Ife declared that the measure was
opposed to, and subversive ofthe whole genius of Methodism. There
were now anumber of doctors of divinity in the church, who would
have been excluded, had such arule existed when they were intro-
duced. He thought the old plan was the best: a plan which had as-
tonished the world, by showing that the wisdom of the world is not
necessary to preachthe gospel. If Ged called men he would license
them, whether they could read or not. Some of the best preachers
could not read when they commenced: preaching. Mr. W. moved a
postponement, which was lost.

Mr. Power, of Nortl* Ohio Conference, supported the measure.
He replied to the objection that it would cut off the colored exhorters
and preachers, by saying’ that the annual conferences could judge of
that for themselves. The conferences would prescribe the course of

atudy, and would suit it to circumstances within their own bounds. If.

some of the conferences in the South arfd West could not carry out the
system, it was no reason why other conferences should not be favored
with it, who could, and who were anxious to carry it out. He said,
when any improvement of the kind was attempted, it was the course
of same, to set up the cry of old fashioned Methodism, aud John Nel-

_son; but he said the times had altcred. He did not doubt that John
Nelson was a usefiil man, though unlearned; nor did he doubt the pol-
icy of the church in those early times in licensing such men: but, said
he, in those times the distinction between truth and error was so plain
that any mind could see it, -but now_it was otherwise; error had be-
come learned and subtle, and had even put on the eppearance of an cn
gel of light.

Mr. Griffith said he was quite embarrassed, as Br. Winans had said
what he intended to say, and said it better than he could. He was op-
posed to the measure. If they-had come there to fix a standard of lit-
erature to which a man must come before he can’ be licensed to preach,
let us go at it like men; let us lay the foundation broad. Let it be set-
tled that no man can preach among us, until he has read so much Lat-
in and so much Greek. But what should be done with the colored
population ? It would dostroy the work among them. Te hoped they
sheuld not forget the rock from whence they were hewn, or the pit
from whence they were digged. God-had enlled many men to preach

_the gospel who did not know one letter from anothcor, and it was rot
for them to say they should not have a license.

J. Perkins, of N. H., said there was no force’ in the objection that it

1
, 102

would embarrass the colored people, as it was Jeft to the annual confer-
ences to prescribe the course of study. Each conference could suit it-
self; if colored people could not obtain an edueation, the conference
within, the bounds of which they live would prescribe no course of
study for them, but that’ was no reason why something should not be
done for those parts of the work where it was called for. It left every
conference to suit itself, and he thought. they ought not to find. fault
with that. '

Mr. Wiley, of Indiana, said the abe were anxious that something
should be done on the subject.

J. Finley, of South Ohio Conference, who had been trymg for some
time to obtain the floor now succeed, and said he was glad he had got
his bag to the hopper at last, and as it was not very large it would soon
yun through. He was willing to go for the improvement of the local
preachers, but he thought they had better let the exhorters alone. Some
of them could not read a word, and yet God blessed their labors, and
sinners were converted. He thought it right for the annual conferences
to fix some standard for candidates for deacon’s and elder’s orders, be-
cause these offices were conferred by them, but they had no contro!
over exhorters and local preachers, and had better let them alone.

Dr. Capers opposed the report on the ground that the most friendly
feeling did not now exist between travelling and local preachers, and
he thought it would tend to increase jealousy.

Mr. Ferguson of New, York, explained the report. He said it did not
touch exhorters, further than to require that their attention be directed
t> the course of study prescribed for the preachers; it did not contem-
plate making them responsible for an acquaintance with these studies.
He stated further, that it did not touch those who are now local preach-
ers, but was to be regarded as a rule for future action in making lotal
preachers. Ue added that there was no reason to apprehend dissatis-
faction on the pat of the, local preachers and laity, for the proposed
change originated in a quarterly meeting conference.

J. Porter, of New England, supported the measure. He said exhort-
ers, when they were licensed, desired to be put in possession of the
studies which they ought to pursue to promote their usefulness. Some
would not study anything, they were all for the power, but cared noth-
ing about the letter; but those who study, and would be benefitted by
the proposed measurs. Dr. Capers opposed; he said it would: jgive him
great pain to have that measure adopted by the Conference,
ciple involved was a fundamental one in Methodism.
to fixing any standard of literature for local preachers,

The prin-
He was opposed

x
103

Mr. Early, of Virginia, opposed on the ground that it would produce
an impression that there is a general dissatisfaction .with the policy of
the Church. He had never known so many changes proposed before.

That part of the veport relating to exhorters was then.laid upon the
table, and the part respecting local preachers was recommitted.

Another, report of the Committee on Revisals was then taken up,
which recommended such an alteration as to make local preachers lia-
ble to be arrested and tried, where the offence is committed, though
their membership be on some other and distant charge. After consid-
erable discussion of but little interest, it was recommitted.

A report was then taken up, which recommended such a change as
would prohibit the Bishops from appointing a preacher a Presiding El-
der for more than four years in succession. They can now be appointed
to the same district but four years, but the present change is designed
to prevent their holding the office but four years,

The change was opposed by Dr. Capers. He said that the proposed
change struck at a vital principle of Methodism. Some call Presiding
Elders a fifth wheel, but he thought: them a very essential wheel. In
some conferences the change might not embarrass, but in others it
would be otherwise. In some conferences there were not men enough
capable of filling the office to allow of the change proposed.

Mr. Early, of Va. opposed it on the ground that it would produce the
impression that rotation in office is essential. He also declared that it
would touch a vital principle of the whole system, the Episcopacy.

Mr. Finley of South Ohio, opposed the change. He had hoped nev-
er to see the day when there would be the least pointing towards the
suspended resolutions of 1824; but he thought the proposed change

-looked that way. The Bishop, he said, was the best judge who could
All the office, and to whom the interests of the Church can be commit-
ted with the greatest safety. The Conference adjourned without taking
any vote on the subject,

Tuesday, May 91.

Minutes read and approved.

The Committee on the expenses of the delegates, reported that if the
surplus fund in the hands of the delegates from the Georgia, Virginia,
and South Carolina Conferences were paid to then, they could relieve
brother J. D, Patton of the fifty dollars of which he had been robbed
belonging to this fund, and still pay all the expenses without drawing

\
104 >

on the book fund. Dr. Sargent, the younger, of Georgia, moved that
the delegates of the Georgia Conference be allowed to settle with their
own Conference. He assigned as a reason that the Georgia Conference
had passed a resolution that they would not receive funds from the book
concern to pay the expenses of the delegates, and this was stated to the
people when the collections were taken up. The Chair pronounced
the motion out of order at that time, as the report was befere the house.

The report was then laid upon the table.

The Committee on Revisals reported on several points which had
been submitted through petitions, resolutions and otherwise. The sub-
jects were the restoration of preachers that have been expelled ; the tri-
alof preachers and of appeals; requiring the number of churches to
be reported as well as the number of members; conference funds, and
‘regulations concerning superannuated preachers. On all these points
the Committee reported against the changes asked for, and the report
was adopted. :

The report recommitted yesterday on the subject of the-trial of local
preachers, was then presented. The report provides for the trial of -a
local preacher either where he belongs, or where the offence is com-
mitted, when it is committed away from the charge to which he'belonge.
it was adopted.

‘The Committee on Itinerancy, to whom was referred sp much of the
Bishop’s address as related to that subject, reported. This report des-
cants upon the importance of the itinerancy, notices some indications of
its decline in some sections, recommends every effort to check all such
tendencies, recommends the continuation of the Presiding Elder’s office
as of vital importance, proposes that the Bishops appoint none to that
office but efficient men. They should not be superannuated men, nor
business men merely, but good pulpit men, capable of taking part in
prayer meetings, and they should spend several days on each charge ct
the time of quarterly meeting, by which every quarterly meeting would
be rendered a protracted meeting; this would save the preacher the
trouble of obtaining other help. ‘The report concluded by recommend-
ing several alterations,

1. That a presiding Elder, after being on a District four years, shaft
not be returned to it under six years.

2. That no district shaH contain more than twelve charges.

3. That a preacher shall not be appointed to the same station more
than two years out of six, nor more than four years out of six in the
same city. The report lies over one day, by a rule of conference. ,

The Committee on Bpiseopacy reported, recommending the appropri-
105

ation of ninety dollars to pay the travelling expenses of Bishop Roberts,
who has died since the last General Conference.

The same Committee reported on the case of Bishop Andrew, in ac-
cordance with instructions given yesterday. The committee presented
a written statement of thb Bishops, detailing the facts of his connection
withslavery, which are as follows:

1. Some years since an old lady willed him a slave to be sent to Libe-
ria when she should be nineteen years old, if she was willing to go,
but if she was not willing, then he was to keep her and make her as free
as the laws of the State would allow. When she became nineteen years
old, she refused to go to Liberia, and consequently remained with bim.
He derives no profit from her, she, lives in her own Louse upon his land,
and always has been and still is-free to gotoa free State when she
chooses.

2. The mother of bis former wife willed her a slave, a boy, and as his
wife died without a will, the slave by the law of the State became his,
but he is willing to let him go to a free State, as soon as he thinks him
capable of providing for himself, or so soon as he has security that he
shall be provided for. Ile cannot emancipate him in the State, as the.
law forbids it. :

3. His present wife had a number of slaves; he did not consider.
them hers, and was unwilling to become the legal owner of them; he
therefore had: them secured to. her by a deed.of trust. He has no legal
control over them, and his wife could not emancipate them if she wished’
to.

Such were the simple statements of the reports, and on motion of Mr.
Collins, it was laid upon the table, and made the order of the day for to-
morrow.

The report concerning a course of study for local preachers, recom-
mitted yesterday, was again presented in an amended form, and lies over:
one day.

A communication was then read from Doct.’ Bond, in which it was
stated that » report was in circulation that the Northern members of the
General Conference had laid a plan to.force the South to secede, and
that Doct. Bond’s name had been given as authority for the report. Jt
was moved and carried that the Doctor be heard on the subject.

He said the report: came to his ears last evening for the first time.
He pronounced it false as far as he was concerned. He had never heard
aman from the North, East, or West, intimate any such thing. He
said the motives which the story assigned for such.a course were more
unworthy than the plan itself, if it existed. He was the Jast man to be
106

‘

knowing to such a plot and not expose the treason. The day when the
cloud that now rested upon the ark of their Zion should be raised,
should be a jubilee with him and his family; he would teach his chil-
dren to observe it, and they should teach it to their children, that it
might be remembered jor generations to come.

Mr, Sehon,of Ohio said that there was no calamity which’ he should
80 deeply lament as secession or division at this General Conference,
and should such a thing take place, they would all lament it with tears

the rest of their days.

‘Dr. Bangs said that it had been reported: ‘that a plan was laid by the
North to force the South to secede, and then seize upon the funds of the

‘Book Concern. He pronounce it false, and declared that he did not be-
lieve that any such plan existed, or that there would be any division.

Mr. Dow of N. H. and Mr. Smith of Va. both attempted to obtain the
floor. Mr. Early moved that Mr. Smith have leave to speak, as no one
could speak without liberty, there being no motion before the house.
The motion was put and carried.

Mr. Smith said, if he was implicated he would say nothing, as he kad
no doubt*he had friends enough to speak for him; but as the report did
not implicate him, he would say a word for those who were implicated.
He said the question had not been met, in the remarks that had been
made. He had never heard that any plan had been formed before Con-
ference, or even since Conference he did not believe there had been;
but things had been said by some in their personal addresses to Bishop
‘Andrew, which went to prove that they were determined to pursue a
course which would drive the South off.’ They have said what implies
it; and if they will deny it, we are prepared to prove it.

A motion was then made that Mr. Dow have liberty to speak, upon
which Mr. Dow rose and addressing the chair, said, “ Sir, I rose to speak,
and addressed the chair, and he gave me his eye, but he gave the floor
to another, and [have nothing further to say.” The motion that he have
liberty to speak was then withdrawn.

Notices were then given that there would be a meeting of the North-
ern delegation in the afternoon at four o’clock, and that certain brethren
from the South would attend it, and all were invited, if they were dis-
posedto come in. Dr, Capers then gave notice that the Southern dele-
gates would meet in the basement at three o’clock. These were under-
stood to be meetings preparatory for the order of the day for to-morrow.
There was obviously deep excitement while these things were transpir-
ing.

Bishop Soule then addressed the Conference in relation to the life of
107

Bishop McKendree, which a former General Conference requested him
to write. He commenced by saying that when he spoke in that body,
he spoke to be heard by that body, and he did not care to be heard by
any but the members of the General Conference, and he should speak
jno louder than was necessary to be heard by them. [Quite a compli-
ment to the spectators.] The Bishop,then made his communication,
which was, that he had not written the life of Bishop McKendree, and
could not and attend to the duties of his Episcopal office.

Bishop Waugh then ‘made a few remarks on the subject of granting
the floor when claimed by different persons, which were sug gested, no
doubt by the remarks of Mr. Dow.

Mr. Bangs then offered a resolution, which was adopted, that Bishop
Soule be requested to give.to the Conference at some convenient time,
an account of his travels in Europe.

The delegates from the Methodist Church in Canada took leave of the
Conference in an address, Mr. Ryerson addressed the Conference first,
and then Mr. Green.

Dr. Luckey followed them by a few remarks.

The appointment of the committee to receive all papers concerning
the lives of the deceased Bishops and, preachers was called for. The
report was reconsidered, and so amended as to make the committee
consist of one member in each Conference, to be appointed by the del-
egates of the several Conferences respectively. ,

Report No. 2, from the Committee on Revisals, was then taken up.
This was the report under discussion when the Conference adjourned
yesterday. A motion had beex made ,to indefinitely postpone, which
was debateable ; to stop which a motion had been made to lay the first
motion gn the table, pending which, the Conference adjourned. The
motion to lay on the table was first put, and lost, and the discussion was
then resumed on the motion for indefinite postponement. The report
recommended that the Bishops be restricted, as not to be allowed to
keep the same person in the ‘presiding elder’s office for more than four
years,

Dr. Peck took the floor. He said he did not rise to advocate the
measure recommended in the report ; but he did not like to see a report
which had passed through a committee, disposed of so hastily as that
had been attempted to be disposed of, He wished to state the ground
on which the committee had made suchi a report. It was on the rec-
ommendation of two respectable annual: conferences. It was a fact, in
the opinion of many, that an evil existed which needed correcting. . The
oflice was greatly embarrassed in some conferences: some persons had

1
108

held the office for fifteen years. The reasons were not known, of
could not be appreciated, and it was a bad influence on the men and on
the office. With these remarks he was willing to leave it with the Con-
ference to dispose of it as théy pleased.

Mr, Winner remarked that hé would say nothing, were it not that thé
measure had been recommended by his conference ; and believing ‘the
change called for, he felt it his duty to make some remarks upon the
subject. He would reply to what had been said on the otlier side yes-
terday. It had.been objected that it would lead to rotation in office.
Well, he could not see what danger there was in that. He might not
guess why brethren were opposed to rotation in office, but ‘he would
guess that it would not hurt our purity or harmony, to equalize the joys
and sorrows of our glorious itinerancy. Addressing the Episcopacy,
he said; brethren appear to fear that we shall come in contact with your
very highly respected and venerable selves. I have no doubt but they
are sincere, but their fears are misplaced. We are Bishop men. We

believe the Bishops would lay.down all their power, if the interests of _

the church would admit of it. The Bishops wanted no power only

what would enable them to act for the best interests of the church —

what would enable them to treat them all alike, giving them all an equa}

chance to improve their minds, improve their gifts, and getan equal

amount of bread and butter. [Laughter.] We who never were, and

never expect to be presiding elders, are told that the office isa hard

one ; that it is full of trials, but empty of honor and dollars, It may be

so, but one thing I cannot understand, and that is, why they should be

so willing to bear such a burden so long. Some had held the office

for twenty-five years. Why should they hold on so long? He could

not tell, but he was inclined to believe they found honey in the cup after

all. He said they respected the fathers, they loved and venerated’ the

Bishops, but they did. not and never expected they should believe in

the system of keeping the same men in office until they were worn

out. 7

Mr. Winans opposed the change. He said he did not wish to speak

for the sake of the benefits of rotation in office. The question with
him was, what is for the glory of God. Nor would he meet the insinua-

tions that had been thrown out, that presiding elders opposed it for the

‘sake of the office. He was opposed because the change ‘was not ‘nec-
essary ; the Bishops were not bound to keep a presiding elder ‘in office
more than four years, or more than one year, or more than six months,
if they saw cause for removing. There could be no call for it then,
unless it were on the ground that the Bishops asked to be released from
7

ea
i

109

‘the responsibility of determining how long it is proper to continue a
_presiding elder in office ; and turning to the bishops, he said, with great
force, we are unwilling to release you from that responsibility ; we gave
you that office for the purpose of exercising that responsibility. We
are willing to leave it, and we think it ought to be left, to your godly

.judgements. Many conferences would be ruined by the change; he

could not speak for the conferences where they had multiplied their
preachers into a great disposition to the membership: but in the South
-and West, where the circuits and districts were large, and the preach-
ers but few, he knew the proposed change wort greatly embarrass the
work,
} Mr. Cartwright was opposed to the proposed change. He regarded
/ the mesure as belonging to the family of little brats that have been his-

' / sing against the Episcopacy for the last twenty-five years. He sgid he

?

had been greatly depressed in his mind because he could not raise him-
‘self into the notice of the Episcopacy. He had never asked for the
office of presiding elder; he had always taken this office as he would
take his cross, When I see how many flippant young men there are,
with learning and towering talents, who think themselves so capable of
filling the office, I say to myself, what a poor old man Iam tobea
presiding elder. But then he said there was some consolation in re-
flecting that these newly-fledged young men were not all they thought
they were. [ Laughter.] He was opposed to the measure, because it
would lead to too much change. Ifthese young men were put in of
fice, it would soon be found that they would not answer, and the old
men would have to be called back, and unnecessary changes would be
‘the result. He said rotation in office would do very well in politics,
_ might answer very wellas the watchword of a political party: but
~ hoped the church of God was not to be turned into one of these stark
naked republics. [Great laughter.] He knew how to make allowance
for the restlessness of young men; and it was the hardest work in the
world to make himself believe that he was getting old; however, he .
had once been young, and knew how young men felt. They feel, said
he, that we are in their way; and if they could pile us ypon’ a wheel-
barrow, and roll us off the'track, I have no doubt it would brighten their
prospects. [ Great laughter.] He did not know where the conferences”
in this section got so many tall, talented young men. In the Valley
‘of the Mississippi it was otherwise ; and if they would come there, he
‘would, with the consent of the Bishop, give them his office world
without end. [Laughter.] And when they got there, if they did not -

like the country, he would give them a pitch towards Oregoti or Cal.
10
110.

ifornia, where they could raise a colony, and be kings over their own
world,, [Great and long laughter.]

Dr, Bangs thought he might be allowed-to speak, as he had beena
presiding elder but five years in his life. He was opposed tothe change.
He thought it would greatly embarrass the Episcopacy, and injure the
work.. There were many preachers who were good presiding elders,
that would not do for other posts. He thought the difficulty would not
be.so great to find men for presiding elders, as it would to fill other im-
portant posts, if the chauge prevailed. x

Mr. Portdr, of the New Jersey Conference, said an evil existed from
a long continuance of the.same person in the office, and it ought to be
eured.in some way. He said it was injurious to the office and the men
who fill, it; to.the. preachers and the people. Some men, he said, might
discharge the duties of the office acceptably and profitably to preachers
and.people for twenty years; but he believed there were but few who
could do it. The evil had been felt, and they had spoken on the sub-
ject. It was time to wake up and do something on the subject; for if
they did not, next General Conference would hear a louder voice.

J. B. McFerrin, of Tennessee Conference, said he was not a_presi-
-ding elder, but he hoped the measure would not prevail. It was impos-
sible that it should be carried out insome of the conferences, - There
were not ordained men enough in some of the conferences to admit of
20 frequent changes. He had been informed that in one instance, an
‘ordained man could not be found, «nd aman was put in charge ofa
district, who was not ordained. He said there was one way to cure as-
piring young men, and tliat was, to put them in ‘presiding elders, and.
you. would hear no more fiqm them after they had the office one term,
Ue said the cry.had been, that the Bishops had too much power; but
he, hoped they would exercise more power, and put out and put in pre-
aiding elders.as the.interests of the church required, and there. would.
he no need, of the proposed change. ;

Mr. Slicer, of the Baltimore conference, was in favor of the proposed
change; he was notin favor of the suspended resolutions, to which
allusion had been made; nor did-he see that there Was aby connection
between them and the measure now proposed.. He believed that-ad-
ditional guards and restraints were necessary. If the arguments proved.
any thing on the other side, they proved toomuch. It was urged that
the Bishops were the best judges in the.case, and it ought to be left to
their godly judgments. If this proved.,anything, it proved that, the
whole subject-should be left to the Bishops without any restrictions. The .
_Boltimore Conference was not-bebind in their attachment to Episcopa+

'
lil

cy ; it was the old battle ground on that subject and he thought it was

not time for old presiding elders to throw out that this movement way’
radicalism. He said he did not believe the office was desirable, but
somehow, mon generally liked to‘hold on upon it. He could not tell
how it was in Miss., but he knew that while presiding elders staid on
good districts their full time, four years, two years was as lohg as they
could be kept upon poor districts, He had no doubt that they bear the

office as a cross, and yet it looked a little strange that they always ‘bore
it longer on a good district thgn on a poor one; it might he the godly
judgements of the Bishops that made the difference. He could tell ‘his
brother what he had seen, and what perbaps may have happened in
Mississippi: a man sometimes gets a farm and lécates his family upon
it, and does not miove them for many years; he ean travel a distri¢t any
where within a hundred miles. There may be some log-rolling among
the presiding elders; if the presiding elder'is not in conference when
his character is examined, and his usefuluess inquired into, his fellow
presiding elders aie present. So when a man’s time is out upon a dis-
trict, it is asked what shall be done with him, when another ‘presiding
elder suggests that he would be the right man for his district, and of
course, he must go to the district thus vacated. ‘Thus by log-rollitig,
‘they may keep each other in office. He said there were cases in which
men had kept their fumilies located in one city for fourteen yeats, Ho
Did not believe in this way of doing business. If the office was as hard
as they pretended, shift it from one to another, and Jet them take turns
in wearing the saddle, and in carrying the bridle. He would reply to
what had been said, that men would do for the office that could not fill
another place. This, he said, was the curse of the whole concern.

No man was fit for a district who was not fit for any circuit or station.
A man might be capable of presiding in the quarterly meeting confer-
ences, and attending to the businéss ; but if ‘he was not capable of sup-
plying a circuit or station, the people would riot be interésted or profit-

ed by his visits, and he repeated, that the appointment of such a man

to the presiding eldership was the greatest curse of the whole concern ;
jt was enough to break the office down before heaven and earth. Mr.
flicer added that he had no hope that the resolution would prevail,
but he believed jt would, if all the presiding elders in the Conference

would ask to be excused from voting. [ Laughter.]

The hour having expired, the Conference adjourned.
1i2
Wednesday, May 22.

A papore was prosented from the Committee on Sunday Schoolé-and
Tracts. It. was a long document, and occupies common ground in the
main. Itlies over according to rule.

The. Book Committee also presented a report which lies over.

The order of the day was then taken up, which was the report on
Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery.

Mr. Griffith, of the Baltimore Conference, presented a resolution of
the following import :;

Whereas, it has been the uniform policy and undeviating practice of
the M. E. Church not to ordain a slaveholder a bishop, and whereas,
James O. Andrew, one of the bishops of the M. E. Church, has be-
come a slaveholder, thereby rendering himself unable to discharge the
duties of a general Supreintendent, and whereas, he was nominated *y
the South, and was supported by Northern votes, and wagihot connect-
ed with slavery at.the time of his election, therefore

Resolved, That Bishop Andrew be respectfully and affectionately re-
quested to resign.

Mr. Griffith said he hoped they should all avoid any improper feeling
during the discussion. He had spent the prime of his life and the
strength of his manhood in the service of the Church, and he had nev-
er seen or known such a state of affairs before ; their position was pe-
culiar,and he hoped they should meet the crisis like men, and like
Christians. He also hoped that they would understand the true issue,
for there was. danger of misapprehending the nature of the case, and.
the principles involved. He said that men are wont to throw a kind of
mystery around the office of a bishop. It was not so in the beginning,
but since the third century, a cloud of, mystical glory had been thrown
around the office of bishop, behind which men must not look but with
awe. But whatever others considered a bishop, we do not, and cannot
consider him in any other lightthan as the highest officer of. the Gen-
eral Conference. He wasthat, and no more than that. Look at the
origin of the office among us and we shall be confirmed in this view.
Look to John Wesley, who was probably not able to disabuse his own
great mind of the prejudices of his education until the day of his
death, and we find nothing in the man, or in the office he created,
above an elder or presbyter. Look to Mr. Asbury, who did more to
spread and establish Methodism than any other man has ever done in
America, and we see that he refused to accept of the appointment of
Mr. Wesley to the office, until he was elected by the General Confer-
ence. This all proved that from whatever source the minister, as such

‘
113

derived his office and authority, the bishop derived -his from the Gen-.
eral Conference ; the General Conference was the author of the bishop,
and the bishop was the creator of the General Conference. Nr. G.
said, at the tiine the General Conference created the offiéé, they were
not a representative body; all the preachers met together to consult and
make rules; but as they.increased in numbers, this was found to be in-
convenient, and hence the present mode of a representative govern-
ment was established. When this was done, the body of elders restric-
ted those who should be delegated, that is, the General Conference, de-
claring that they should not do away the episcopal office, but while they
thus restricted the Conference, they reserved to themselves the right of
abolishing it altogether whenever they shall see fit. This proves that
the office has been created by the ministers among themselves, and tha’.
they can do it away when they please; andif they can do the offico
away altogether, they can certainly do it away with reference to an in-
dividual who holds the office ; and if the Conference has a right to take
away the office for improper conduct, which, is not an immorality, they
have a right to ask the bishop to resign.

Mr. G. repeated that he lioped the true issue would not be overlook-
ed. We are not, said he, trying an impeachment; no charge of immor-
ality is preferred, it is simply a question between the conference and
one of its officers, The question is, has the conference a right to reg-
ulate their own officers? Suppose oie becomes alienated jn mind so
as to disqualify him for the work, would not the conference have a right
to remove him, and put another in his place ? If so, they could do it
for any other embarrassment which disqual'fies h’m ‘or the duties of
the office. Musta man disqualified be continued uiti a charge of im
morality can be brought agaiust him? Hethous1t not. At this poin:
jt was announced that the speaker’s time was out.

Tt was then moved to suspend the rule limiting the speakers in time
during digcussion of the subjgct under consideration.

Mr: Early, of Va., hoped the motion would prevail. He wished to
hear all the North had toe Mr. Slicer, of Baltimore, hoped the mo-
tion would not prevail. If it did, they might all write to their families
that they would be at home on the fourth of July.

Mr. Collins hoped the rule would be suspended; the subject he said,
was'all important, and they ought to have a free discussion.

Dr. Olin said that snore was involved than appeared in the special
issue of the resolution. He was sorry to hear brethren drop expressions
which implied that the mind of the conference was m:.de up: He wish. .
ed to hear all that can be said on both sides, and hoped the restric-
114

tion would be taken off. . He had a vote to give, and he could not give
that vote without first giving his reasons. It wasa question they had
got to. meet another day, and it was not best that they should: act with-
out understanding the reasons, and without taking time to express
them. ;

Mr. Spencer, of Pittsburg, said he wished a free discussion as much as
any one, but he thought it would be better to give allthe members a
chance to speak, than to have one occupy four hours, and the rest say
nothing, for which reason he hoped the restriction would not be taken
off. i & :

Mr. Winans, of Miss. hoped the restriction would be taken off. He
said it was nota trial, that there were no charges preferred. He wished
the spectators to undsrstand that.

Mr. Winner, of N. J., hoped the restriction would not be taken off.
He said the debate could be free without, they could suspend it in par-
ticular cases when it should-be necessary. _

The vote was then taken, and the restriction was taken off.

Mr. Griffith then resumed his argument. He said the ministerial of-
fice does not involve the appeal of Bishops; it is true a man must be a
minister to be a Bishop, as none but a minister can do the work of a
Bishop; but being ordained a Bishop does not confer any additional
ministerial power on even the rights and office of a Bishop a man is
madea Bishop by the election of the conference; .he is chosen as the
chief of his equals, and as a minister he is no more than an equal, but
as an officer of the General Conference he is more. They are not an
order seperated from and above elders. By the resolution we do not
touch Bishop Andrew asa minister, but only as a Bishop. . You know,
said the. speaker, that he has disqualified himbelf for the work, owing:
to the excitement that prevails on the subject of slavery, and let him:
resign and give place for another. If I believed he could be accepta-.
ble to the people, I would not' put a hand upon him;I love him, and I
respect him as a Bishop, but he.has voluntarily taken upon himself an
embarrassment whieh disqualifies him for the work of a general super-
intendent. Mr..G. entreated the Conference to keep the true issue be-
fore their minds ; we have been embarrassed in our work by an officer,
and the question is, can we not correct the difficulty? Let it be under-
stood that his character as a minister is not before the Conference, we-
propose to act with reference to him only as an officer of this body.

Mr. Longstreet, of Georgia, moved to amend the preamble by striking
out the words, “ become a slaveholder,” and inserting in the place, “ be-
come connected with slavery.” The amendment was admitted. ,
115

Dr. Luckey called for the reading of the document, and it was read?

Bishop Soule then addressed the Conference. He said, I rise with a
perfect calmness of spirit as I ever possessed on any occasion in my life.
FE have been the subject of mental distress, but the time of my bitter-
ness has passed by. After having done what I can, and prayed to God
to preserve peace, I have committed it to a supreintending Providence,
and shall wait the result with perfect calmness. Ihave no personal
interests whatever to secure. I am willing to be immolated, but I can-
not be but upon the altar of the M. F. Church; J cannot be immolated
on the altar of the North nor on the altar of the South, but only upon
the altar of the whole Church. The Bishop said he had not risen to
touch the question, but to suggest to the body some considerations
which might have an influence on the mode of conducting the discus-
sion. I speak to men of age and of thought, who have analyzed hu-
man nature, and canvassed civil and ecclesiastical polity, and what is
more, 1 speak to Christian. ministers. I speak also to young men,.
whose time and opportunities Have not.been so favorable for ‘grappling
with these great questions. Now you will allow me to say that I hope
to hear the voice of age and experience. I beseech you, by the love
you bear to our Zion, by a voice from the tomb of Wesley and of
Asbury and of all the fathers, be calm, be cool, be deliberate. You are
before several tribunals. You are before the tribunal of the spectators
in the gallery, and if they cannot judge of the merits of the question,
their enlightened minds will judge you, and decide whether or not you
manifest a Christian spirit. We stand distinguished; no Protestant de-
nomination but our own, I believe, has any legislation on the subject of
slavery. You are also before the tribunal of the whole church, and the
‘chureh will judge your actions and your spirit on this occasion. You
are before the tribunal of public opinion; statesmen and civilians will
judge you. And by what rule will they judge you? Not by the rule
that shall be applied at the judgement of the last day, but by the Dis-
cipline will they judge you, by the legislation of the church will they
compare your decision. Ihave only to add —and I will take my seat
not without solicitude and deep anxiety, but perfectly calm —conduct
with decorum. I love to hear hard arguments in soft words. Argu-
ments are proportionately strong as they are conveyed in soft words,
The power of an argument does not lie in loud speaking. A loud voice
indicates passion. Meet and refute arguments if you can, but do it in
a Christian spirit; then, whatever report may go out, it willbe that we
have conducted like Christians.

Dr. Durbin called attention to-the report of the committee on whict
116

the resolution before the house was based, forthe purpose of having it
understood that the Bishop did acknowledge that he did become a le-
gal slaveholder. ; !

P. P. Sanford, of N. Y., said in order to prevent all unnecessary dis-
cussion, it was necessary to keep the true issue and the reasous for it
in view. The only debateable point was the expediency of making the
request to Bishop Andrew'te resign. The right to make the request
could not be denied. What they might see fit to do after, was not now
under consideration. He believed it expedient to make the request. In
a majority of the conferences, unless something was done, he said,
they must sustain gréat loss; it cannot be prevented. If nothing is
done, our enerhies will exert a powerful influence to destroy our belov-
‘ed Zion ; it was on this ground and this only, that he wished to rest the
expediency of the matter. He looked to another quarter with strong
desire to prevent evils that might follow the measure proposed ; he
would be glad to wave it if he could, and leave Bishop Andrew as he
now is, one of the Bishops of the M. E. Church, but it cannot be done
without great evil to the church. To prevent evil in the South, he wish-
ed to have it done with a full and unequivocal declaration that the ae-
tion does not effect the ministerial character of the Bishop. I do not wish
brethren who live where they are embarrassed with slavery, to enjoy
any the less privileges on that account, but we are compelled to the
‘measure to prevent our enemies from getting un advantage, but I can
assure our brethren that we do not undervalue the Christian and minis-
terial character of Bishop Andrew, or any of them, on account of their
being embarrassed with slavery.

r. Winans, of Miss., said. he must put in a disclaimer against what
the Bishop’s remarks might imply, namely, that if he spake loud he
would be ina passion. He must speak loud; it was natural to him.
Bat still he was perfectly calm; he did not know but it was the calm of
despair. He said he did not pretend to deny that they shad a right to
ask Bishop Andrew to resign. He should raise no argument on that
point. If one of the Bishops was alienated in mind, as the brother from
Baltimore had supposed, they would have a right to request him to re-
sign, Whether he was capable of giving an answer or not. Nor did he
deny the right of every brother to give his reason for this novel course
in the history of Methodism. But he claimed the right of criticising
their reasons. He would try to use hard arguments, and not hard
words, or if he was compelled to‘use some hard terms, he would try
not to do it with hard feelings. He said he should not now reply to the
arguments that had ‘been advanced, but examine the resolution itself.
117

He affirmed that the doctrine of the resolution was not true. It was
not true that there was any usage of the church against the election of
aslaveholding Bishop; it was a fact that a slaveholder never had been
elected to that office, but that did not make out a usage, for tliere might
be various other reasons why it had not been done, disconnected from
slavery ; it might be that there never had been a man among slavehold-
ers fit for the office in other respects. Sectional feeling, aside from
slavery, might have prevented it. He said a number of Northern men’
were rendy and willing to vote for a slaveholder, which could now be
proved, and that at the General Conference in 1832, one would have
been nominated and doubtless elected, had it not been for the inter-.
ference of some of the Baltimore delegation.

Mr. Winans said the preamble was also untrue in fact. It was not
true, as it asserted, that Bishop Andrew was nominated to the Episco-
pal office by the South. He had no doubt some voted for him, but they
were such as were drawn over into the conspiracy against the rights of
the South, but the South voted for another man. He said, pointing ta
Mr. Pickering, the oldest member of the Conference, and from N. E.
Conference, that venerable man nominated Bishop Andrew. Mr. P.
said it was a mistake. He did not do it. Then I have always labored:
under a mistake, said Mr, Winans, and stand corrected. Well, there
are a number of men now on this floor, of the North, who were then
ready to vote for a slaveholder; deny that if you can. And but for in-
trigue, a slaveholder would have been elected. We slaveholders escape
being made a Bishop by sleight of hand. Now let us look at the case
itself; what are the facts? In the first place, Bishop Andrew became a
slaveholder against his own will; he had no part in it, no volition. An
old lady willed him a slave girl, to be sent to Liberia when nineteer.
years old, if willing to go, but if not willing, he was to keep her and
make her as free asthe law of the State would allow. Well, when she
was nineteen years old she refused to be sent to Liberia. This was a
case which might look strange to brethren of the North, but he under-
stood it: a girl nineteen years old, and with considerable intelligence too,
chose to be a slave rather than be sent to Liberia, or even rather than
to leave the State, for she refused to.go to a free State. The second
case was the same, a boy had been willed to his wife, not to him, and as
his wife died without a will, he became the heir. But both of these
slaves were free to go when they pleased. If this made Bishop Andrew
a slaveholder, he was such before the last General Conferenee. If all
this disqualifies him now, it disqualified him then.

Let us now examine the last. case. He has married. one of the most,

i
118

4

interesting women, a woman of whom Dr. Pierce said, she was fit fer a
Bishop’s wife, if ay woman living was fit for a Bishop’s wife. But she
owned slaves, and he refused to own those slaves, and secured them to-
her by adeed of trust. He made the condition of those slaves no worse
by marrying that interesting woman. Was he bound to take her prop-
erty because he took her hand? It cannot be shown that he injured the
slavés by becoming their legal owner by marriage for a few hours, un-
til he could deed them back again. He married the woman, and then
replaced her property just as it was. For all this the Conference are
about to ask him to resign., And why do they propose to do it? The
argument is, it is expedient. Let me then meet this argument of expe-
diency, with expediency on the other side of the question. By sucha
vote you will render it necessary, absolutely necessary, for a large por-
tion of the church to

 

I fear to pronounce the word, you know
what Imean! You will fesanl a large portion to separate from the
church, or abandon their labors. A state of things exists by law, which
will drive us to such a course. No preacher can go back and resume
his work; they shall be cut off from.the people, and denied intercourse
with the slaves for whose good they labor. ‘Balance this with the se-
cessions which you fear in the North, and are you sure that your expe-
diency is well founded? ~ Pause before you strike the fatal blow.’ The
time may come when you will see ‘cause to weep that you cut off—‘for:
we will not go unless we are cut off; you may, I say, see cause to weep
that you cut off 1300 preachers and 450,000 members by one vote,— for
the-vote you now propose will do it. Throw out of the question the
interests of the master, let thege hateful and pealed and despised crea~
tures go, but let the bleeding interests of the slave plead. Here the:
speaker became very much affected as he said, Hear me this once, itmay
be the last time; I assure you that abolition excitement has already cut
off our communication with many of the slaves, and darkened their
prospect for the salvation of their souls, and if you pass that vote you
will complete the work and throw over: these unfortunate beings the
blackest of darkness forever. ;

Mr. E. Bowen, of Oneida Conference, said that the Iast speaker’ had
overlooked one important fact in relation to Bishop Andrew’s having
been a slaveholder at the time of the last General Conference, and that
was, the Conference did not know that he was a slaveholder. ‘He said
further that he was willing to vindicate Bishop Andrew from crime, and
indeed no charge of crime or immorality was brought against him. We
deprecate disunion, said Mr. B., and when we consider the influence it
may have pos the civil instiutions of our country, that it may lead to&
119

«lisunion of country in civil matters, we shrink back. But still if we must
have disunion in some form, he thought secession was better that schism,
and he was sure that unless something of the kind was done, we must
have schism in the Northern Conferences. It was, he said, a choice
between two evils. He said that it does appear that Bishop Andrew
had rendered himself unacceptable as a general superintendent: He
intended to occupy disciplinary ground, for he believed that the Gen-
eral Conference had control power over every officer, and should, on this
ground, vote for the resolution. ;
Dr. Pierce, of Georgia, said he had Jong been known to the church as
a delegate to the General Conference, but it was also known that he was
never forward to enter the list of debaters; he had very seldom done it,
and had never done it only when some important question was pend-,
ing, which involved the interests of the church, compelling him from a
sense of duty to come forward and exert what influence he could. He
said thirty-tine years had rolled away since'hie gave himself to that box
‘dy of ministers, and he! was the oldest éffective minister in Georgia, and
might be allowed to give his opinion. He would speak now at this ear-
ly stage of the discussion, because some , were disposed to construe his
silence into a belief that he was more willing to yield the question in
debate than the younger men from the South. It was not so: he was
the last man that would yield; he would enter his protest in his last and
dying words against the measure. He fully endorsed what Mr. Winans
had said, that the South would uot and could not submit to the meas-
ure. He did not assume the opinions of the South; he knew and ut-
tered their opinion. When.you pass that resclution, you touch a princi-
ple fatal to the union of the church. To ask Bishop Andrew to resign ;
because he is a slaveholder, is to ask the South to yield a vital principle ;
it goes to subvert:the doctrine of the New Testament. St. Paul said,
« All things are lawful, but all things are not expedient.” Now, though
it may be lawful to ask Bishop Andrew to resign, yet it is not expedient.
Show that Bishop Andrewyhas violated any law, and we will yield the
point ; but that has not been attempted. , Is he to be put down without
having violated any rule of the church? to be offered a tribute to expe-
diency ? To sacrifice him is to violate a fundamental principle of the
church, and to violate a- fundamental. principle cannot be expedient.
“Can it be expedient for one part to do what is inexpedient for another
‘part? It cannot be, so long as the heavens are above the earth! What
‘evidence is there that the proposed.action is expedient? There is none,
‘only assertions that the North will not receive: him as a Bishop, there
‘will be secessions, and the church will be. divided. Now I hope these
120

‘evils will not be so great as they are represented, but whether‘they are
‘or not, that is not the question. The question is, what is the rule of the
church? If you can show, by the conservative principles of discipline
that Bishop Andrew has done wrong: if you can show that he has vio-
lated one of the conservative principles, you will clearly place us in the
wrong ; but until you do this, your argument of expediency must rest
on the wrong of those who demand it, and whose demand you think
renders it expedient to sacrifice the Bishop. Put your finger on the rule
that he has violated. But this matter will not end here, and you may
hereafter look to. the vote now pending, as the first knell in the dirge of
departed joys. Iam the oldest preacher in the Georgia Conference but
» one, and I can say that I never wedded my heart more to my damily
than I did to the M. E. Church; 1 have labored to promote her interests,
and have watched over them with deep solicitude, and am constrained
to say, that the agitation of the slavery question has done more evil than
all other questions put together. Could you uncap hell, and expose the
misery of the damned, you would this moment hear the groans of those
who were driven from the M. E. Church, and consequently ‘lost their
souls in consequence of an attempt to enforce an anti-slavery Discipline.
Itis a civil matter: and to attempt'to make ‘ita subject of discipline, is
to interfere with civil affairs. We have no more to do with it than we
have with the tariff. In 1836, I desired to enter my protest on the jour-
nal against the act which I then considered the commencement of a
process which has ripened into an open declaration, that slaveholding is
a disqualification for the highest office in the Church ; but as no South-
ern man had any ambitious designs in aspiring to the Episcopacy, I
waived it and went into an election. If there was ever a time to pass
such a rule, that time is not now. It will never do; it cannot be sub-
‘mitted to. No preacher that would lie down under such a rule, under
such a degradation, is fit to be a Bishop. But you ask,. what shall we
do? Go to your people and tell them that you could not touch that .
thing, and do what you can to lay the excitement, and trust in God, and
he who has blessed and prospered the church, will continue to do so un
der the same course that has heretofore been pursued.
Dr Bangs moved to have an afternoon session.
Mr. Smith opposed it. The motion, however, prevailed.
Dr. Capers then moved an adjournment, which was lost.
Dr. Durbin moved a reconsideration of the motion for an afternoon
session.
Mr. Slicer opposed a reconsideration.
Mr. Winans advocated a reconsideration. He said that afternoon ses-

1
121 ;

‘sions hindered rather than helped.. Too close application produced a
nervous sensibility, unfriendly to the harmonious dispatch of business.
‘The motion was lost.

Dr. Capers renewed his motion for adjournment which prevailed.

Afternoon. Session.

Bishop Soule in the chair. Prayer as usual.

A motion was made to lay over the order of theday until to-morrow,

J.T. Peck opposed the motion. He said they were not ready for any
‘other business, and should not be until that question was disposed of.

Mr. Collins was in favor of laying it over. If it could be allowed to
rest until to-morrow, he said there might be some new light on the sub-
ject from a quarter not looked for. The motion was lost, and the dis-
cussion was resumed.

Mr. said, after the Bishop’s just remarks to young men, he
would not presume to speak, were it not for his connection with an im-
portant branch of the work. He was no slaveholder, though he had
been a slaveholder since he had beena Methodist preacher. He did not
emancipate his slaves because he believed they would be better off;
but whether they were better off or not, he was better off. He said, I
did it to promote my own happiness, because I thought I. should feel
better not to be a slaveholder. Iam well acquainted with slavery, and
am not prepared to say that all who differ from me are sinners. I he-
lieve some of them are the most holy men in the church. Ido not be-
lieve that the time has come for general emarcipation. Considering the
question in the light of the Discipline,as Ido, I must vote against the
resolution.

Mr. Coleman, of the Troy Conference, said he must give his vote
for the resolution ; but he did it not as the cnemy of the South, but as
ther friend. He said he had opposed abolition to the extent of his abil-
ity, every where he had found it, in the Conference and out of the Con-
ference. He-had from the beginrfing been opposed to that unfortunate
body of men, and he was-still opposed to them. He had always oppos-
ed Zion’s Watchman; it was sent to him, and the second number he
‘ordered the postmaster to return, refusing to have any thing to do with
it. Ihave been abused and treated as a traitor for defending the South
against the attacks of the abolitionists. I know that the South have
been abused by the abolitionists: they have been singed and scorched
by abolition fire; but we bave done what we could to defend them,
But if we give them a slaveholding Bishop, it will overthrow the South-
ern church, it will be to open their bosoms to ‘the shafts of abolition.
‘There are two Northern men on this floor, who have done more to de-

 
“ 122

a

fend the South than they all. If you give us a slaveholding Bishop, you

take away our power to defend the South — it will be gone forever. We
have fought abolition, and we thought we had got it under before Con-
ference ; the disturbers have principally left, and we were enjoying a
quiet slumber; but I fear this discussion will wake it up again. We
‘have fought battles the South know nothing about, with this dreadful
spirit of abolition; I have done it myself. If the South favor the union

they must not press a slaveholding Bishop upon us. Give usa slave- .

holding Bishop, and the whole North will be gunpowder, and there are
those who will apply the match; it will make abolitionists of lundreds
of the preachers and thousands of the people, and our enemies will

_8cize upon it and blow up the people. If the South secede, they. will

expose themselves the more to the shafts, as we canuot defend thei
then. They will unspike those cannon which we have spiked with
our blood. Ihave lain awake at. night, when nature required sleep.
We know some things have been done and said wrong, but we can bear
tiem; we can Ict the South tread upon us, because they have been so
il treated and abused by the abolitionists of the North.

Mr, Smith of Va., said he did not rise to make a speech, but merely
to correct an error into which the last speaker had fallen. It was that
he and his coadjutors had been warring up to this time for the South,
against the abolitionists. He said the abolitionists had never troubled
their operations —they were to them as harmeless as children’s play.
We never so understood it, that they were fighting for us— we know
better. In 86 they told us, that among therm all these evils followed,,
ind entreated us to Iet this subject clone for their sakes, In this way
they succeeded in silencing the Sovth, but not with my consent. I un-
derstood them, and have-fiom the beginning, and have been as true as
the needle to the pole. I donot dispute the brother’s good will, Ido not
cuestion his honesty in what he has said; but his sympathy is misplac-
ed. The South have no need of it, they have nothing to ask on this
score; itis the North that needs sympathy, if they are as divided and
distracted as they represent themselves to be, on the verge of ruin, if
this resolution ig not passed.

T. Stringfield, of Holston Conference, opposed the resolution. , He
objected to it—1. Because it undertook to dispose of the Bishop, and
cet him out of the way, without assuming the responsibility of doing
vo, It only requested the Bishop to resign, while it was -intended to
throw the responsibility on him, in appearance at least. It was intend-
ed to compel] him to resign, while it only bore the form of a request,
throwing the responsibility of retiring from the office on himself. Why

4
, 123

did they take such an indirect way of coming’at it? It should be done
openly, and should appear to be done by the General Conference, as it
really is. If Bishop Andrew is removed from office, it will be the
work of the General Conference: why then should they shrink from
the responsibility, of doing it directly, and undertake to accomplish it
as though the Bishop removed himself by resignation ?

2. Mr. S. objected to the resolution, because it is inexpedient. A
better man could not be found, aside from the fact that he is connected
with slavery, and this under the circumstances, was no objection to him
in that part of the work, which fell to his lot to perform. If he is com-
pelled to resign, some one must take his place. Who then will take
his place? A Southern man will not; and will a Northern man go there
and step into his shoes, and preside over him and the rest of the preach-
ers insulted with him? The man whose feelings would allow him to
do it, is not fit for a Bishop. The only safe course which we can take
is to adhere to the Discipline; if we do this, God will overrule all for
his good. It cannot be done so as not to appear after all to be done by
the Conference: why then try to cover itup? Act openly and honest-
ly, and leave the event with God.

Mr. Crowder, of Va., next obtained ‘the floor. He said those who
support the resolution place all on the ground of expediency. They al-
so most distinetly declare that it is not to affect him as an elder — that
he may enter upon the work as such, and preach the gospel, and be
useful. This concession, so clearly and unequivocally made, is of vast
Amportance,

1. It is an admission that Bishop Andrew has-violated no principle of
morality. The standard for the christian ministry, as contained in our
book of Discipline is, that a man must be going on unto perfection,
must be groaning after it, and must expect to be made perfect in love in
this life. All this is required in order to enter the ministry, and then
he must be annually examined by a standard which requires him to be
blameless in life and conversation, Now when we consider that this is
the standard fora Methodist minister, the concession that Bishop An-
drew is not to have his ministerial character touched, is an admission
that he has violated no principle of morality, that at least he is going on
unto perfection, groaning after it, expecting to be made perfect in love
in this life. :

2. The concession that Bishop Andrew’s character es a minister is
not to be touched, is an admission that he has violated no rule of the
Methodist Discipline. If ministerial character is not touched, he must
be blameless. To pretend, therefore, thet he has violated any rule of
124.

discipline, is to say {tliat the Discipline contains: rules which ministers:
and Bishops may violate and still be blameless.. But if he has violated
any rule of Discipline, let it be shown which of the rules he has viola-
ted, and let.the measure be based upon the violation of that rule. But
this.is not and cannot be done. It is clear then from the concessions
of the opposite side, that Bishop:Andrew has violated no principle:of
morality, or of the Methodist Discipline. The procedure against him,
is based wholly upon expediency; this appears both from facts and the
admission of the party that proceedagainst him.

The next point to be examined is the natyre and origin of this ex-
pediency. How came this expediency to exist? And on what ground
does the expediency rest? It did not originate atthe South; the South
has always occupied the same ground she does now. Her’ policy has
been from the beginning to adhere to the Discipline, and she has now
violated none of its rules, as is admitted. This expediency has had its. .
origin in the North; this is also admitted. Did it then grow out of
the gospel of Christ ?- Certainly not, if the speakers on the other side
may be believed; for they tell us that they have opposed and fought
“the dreadful spirit” which renders the measure expedient. Did the
expediency grow out of our economy ? Certainly not, by the conces-
sions of the other side. If it be the legitimate issue of our economy,
why have they opposed it, and still disavow its parentage, as they have
done, over and over again. It has its origin aside from religion; it is
the offspring of a spirit, which if we were to judge from their descrip-
tion of it, might be called legion, [ There are legions of angels as well
as legions of devils, and some may think abolition is the former.— Re-
porter.] but which they call abolition, These positions have all been
admitied by the brother from Troy, [Mr. Coleman.] Nor has the ex-
pediency grown out of the civil polity of the country, but is opposed
to it. Tie question then is, Shall we, as honest men and as Christians,
yield to an expediency growing out of such circumstances? Let it
never be said, Yield to an expediency, admitted to have arisen out of
what is aside from, and opposed te the economy of the church, while
the person to be sacrificed on the altar of this expediency is admitted
to be on the platform of the church, and to have violated none of her
rules. I repeat it, never!

But what is to be accomplished by the measure, if it be carried? Is
it the freedom and salvation of the slaves in the South? Our reply is,
that it is not the best way to bring about such aresult; it will tend only.
to increase the evil by increasing suspicion already awake, and by ar-
raying the North and South more jand more against each other. |
125

thiuk my colleague made a mistake in saying that abolition did not
harm the South. He thought it had done much harm. [Mr. Smith
explaincd that he did not mean to say that it had done no harm to the
slave, but that it did not injure them by distracting and dividing the
church as_it did in the North.] See what abolition has done ,in the
South with reference to the post office, and in many other respects. If
you pass that resolution you will strike another blow at the union; you
will sever the affections of ministers who have been united in a com-
mon fellowship, and strife and bitter feeling will be the result. And if
the result will be such in the church, what will be the effect produce!
upon those who are not under the sanctifying influence of grace ? They
would be excited, and @reat damage will be done to the influence of
the church and the interests of the slave. Pass that resolution and the
South can never lift her head again, for it involves a principle that pro-
scribes all her ministers, by implication at least, and says to them that
they must keep within their own limits, that they will not be received
and acknowledged in the North by the church to which they belong.
And when the church shall be thus divided, one of the strongest ties
will be severed that holds the Union together, and that wil be broken
up next, and our common ceuntry will be dissolved -into warring el-
ements, Let that be noted; a dark and portentous cloud hangs over
this nation in view of the resolution you propose to pass. Let the Bish-
op remuin where he is, one of the Bishops of the M. E. Church, and if
the abolitionists of tlre North will not receive him, let him labor where
he can, where he is wanted, where he is loved and respected as a Bish-
op of the M. FE. Church. In all these remarks I have none but the
kindest feelings towards those who differ from me on this subject: I
love you, brethren, and if’ you should be called from earth this afternoon,
Thave no doubt you would goto glory, and if we were all taken, I
have no doubt that Bishop Andrew would be found among the blessed
redeemed and saved. 1 not only believe this, but you believe it, you
have acknowledged it in your remarks, you declare you have nothing
against him asa Christian and a minister, but only as an officer of~the
General Conference. How then can you do such a thing as to degrade
that good man, gdod by your own concessions? I ask, how can you do
it? Ithinkit a fearful expediency. God has been with us and greatly
blessed us in the South as well as in the North, and we have done a
great work, and God will be with us still, if we will keep to our appro-
priate work, and trust in him alone, as our fathers did,and not provoke
‘him to leave us by resorting to worldly expediency to protect our-
selves against threatened calamities, and to promote that work, the suc-
cess of which depends alone upon the blessing of Ged.
K
126

Mr. Spencer, of the Pittsburg Conference, next took the floor and
supported the resolution requesting Bishop Andrew to resign. He said
it had been urged that we have no Discipline, but if this was sound,
there were many things which a Bishop might do which would destroy
__ his usefulness, for which he could not be touched. Suppose he had
married a colored woman, it would have destroyed his influence, and
yet according to the argument, he could not be touched, for we have no
rule against marrying colored women. Jt has been said on the other
side, that we ought to walk up square to the work, and not take this in-
direct way of coming at it. It is said we should bring a charge against
the Bishop, if he has done wrong. Well, we might have walked up to
it directly, and I fear we may have to do so yet. But we do not wish to
‘embarrass him in his ministerial character; we are willing the brethren
should have him as an elder, and: let them take him and let him do what.
good he can, but do not let them keep him a crushing load upon the great
wheel of our Episcopacy. Let me state one fact: it was acommon re-
mark among the people of my charge; whatever you do, do not give us
a slaveholding Bishop; but lo, we have already got one. And I assure
you, if we go back with one, we may just as well disband, the church
will leave us by thousands. But we are in danger of being disturbed by
an innovation upon Methodism, by putting a slaveholding Bishop in the
chair. Some have petitioned against the election of a slaveholding
Bishop, but I thought it unnecessary, and I told the people I did not be-
lieve it necessary ; I did not believe the South would ask a slaveholding
Bishop, but behold they have already got one. And what is more, we
are told he was made a slaveholder against’ his will. I maintain that
this cannot be; no man can be made a slaveholder against his will. But
the slaves were willed to him; be it so, is any man compelled to, accept
of. what is willed to him? Certainly not. But he becomes connected
with slavery also by marriage. Will it be said that that was without
his consent and against his will? Is aman as grave asa Bishop, and
old enough to be a grandfather, to fall into.a chicken-fit of love and’
marry a woman, slaves and all, and then tell us that he became a slave--
holder against his will? If he took the slaves with the wife, it is no less
true that he took the wife with the slaves. We are told that he does not
own them, that he has.secured them to his wife bya deed of trust. This
is doubtless true, but it only proves that there was a time when he did
own them, for he could not secure them to her by a deed of trust unless
they were his inlaw. I look upon it as a fearful innovation upon Meth-
odism to introduce slaveholding into the Episcopacy. But suppose ru-
in comes upon us in consequence of the resolution before the Confer-
127

ence, suppose the church is divided, and suppose the union is dissolved,.
on whom must the responsibility rest? Not upon us, but upon those
who have made it necessary to take such a step. But it is objected to
on the ground that it rests upon expediency. Turning to the chair, the
speaker inquired, what put you in office but expediency’ And we shall
let you be there no longer than we think it expedient so to do. The
Episcopacy itself rests upon expediency, as all the world knows. Its
warmest fiends have never claimed any higher authority for it than that
it is expedient, ‘We are told that the course proposed involves the
principle of an expost facto law, but I cannot see itso. An officer has
pursued a course which has pressed these evils upon us, and it requires
no expost facto law to remtove the evils. Had the question been brought
before the, Conference in a different form, I might have discussed this
. point more in accordance with the resolution, but it has been discussed
by others as though the resolution was to displace Bishop Andrew, and
I may be permitted to take the same course. Now we have a law
which empowers the General Conference to expel a Bishop for improp-
er conduct. But what is improper conduct? The common law de-
clares that murder is a crime, but the common Jaw does not define what
murder is; this is done by special statutes. So in this case, we have a
general law which says that a Bishop may be expelled for improper con-

duct, but it does not define what improper conduct is, and hence, it
must be, left to the judgment of this body to decide. It is clear then
that the Conference have power to expel the Bishop, if they judge his
connecting himself with slavery improper conduct, he knowing when
he did it what the state of feeling was in the church, and what the con-’
sequences would be. Now as the Conference ‘can expel, they can take
away his office, for the greater includes tlie lesser.

The consequences of this action have been spread before us, and we
have been tald that could we uncap-hell we should hear the groans of
those who were driven from the church and went to perdition in conse-
quence of attempting to enforce a Discipline against slavery. Suppose
it be so, the reply is that if you give us a slaveholding Bishop you will ,
drive thousands from the church, and they loose their souls in thé same
way, and then could we uncap hell at some future period, we should
hear the groans of those who went to hell on account of having a slave-
holding Bishop, We will offset this against the other. But the broth-
er from Georgia, in his remark that former attempts to enforce a Disci-
pline against slavery, did so much harm virtually admitted that the church
is not whet, she once wason this subject. “This has been brou ght against
us by some Northern men, who disturb us, that the chureb has gone
128

back, and the remark of the brother from Georgia proves it. If some
warm spirits in the South go off, it will be known that they are pro-sla-
very and they could never carry the body of the Southern Church with
them. Let Bishop Andrew return to the South as an elder, unimpeach-
ed in his ministerial character, and labor and do what good he can ; and
let it be understood that the Conference has done ng more than to car-
ry out her Discipline, and no very serious difficulties will follow. But
it is said that he cannot emancipate his slaves, and therefore he is allow-
ed to hold them by the Discipline. This might be true of him as an el-
der located in that country, but it is not true of him as a Bishop, for a
Bishop isa Bishop of the whole church, and may take up his abode any
where. He can move toa free State by which his slaves will be free.
Suppose I lived in a neighborhood where I was compelled by the habits
and principles of the people to hunt squizrels and play ball on the Sab-
bath. ‘ Would that be a sufficient excuse for me to practise these things
so long'as I could live elsewhere and attend equally well to the work
assigned me?

The expediency of the measure lies just here, if we havea slavehold-
ing Bishop, we are ruined at the North, but if we pass the resolution,
the South will not be ruined if our br ctaren do what they ean to pre-
vent it.

Mr, Early, of Va., made a few remarks, the whole of which were not
distinctly heard, there being some confusion in the house. He said he
did not rise to make a speech; he would not reply to the speech of the
last speaker: it: was not worthy of areply. He rose to disabuse the
public mind, by saying that Virginia owned no such son: she would ac-
knowledge no such son; anf he would say to the Bishop, if he sent him
to Eastern Vir ginia, he ould not be received, nor his doctrine. [ Cries
of “ personality!” “ personalities ! Lee

Some one moved an adjournment. [ Cries of “no!” “ne! aye ok

Bishop Soule, from the chair, said it was impossible to keep order
when so many Spectators were crowded within the bur; he had no au-
thority to keep the community orderly, but only the members of the
Conference, and he had given up the idea of keeping order.

The motion for a adjournment was then put and carried,

Sa

 

' ‘Tharsday, May 93,
Minutes read and approved. Discussion resumed on the resolution
requesting Bishop Andrew to resign.

_ Dr. Bangs said be was'a member of the General Conference in 1808,
Jag

when the Constitution of the church was formed, and had been a mem-
ber of every General Conference since. He had ‘of course been in
many discussions which had been conducted with much zeal and inter-
est. The presiding elder question was one of great interest. But he
had never witnessed one digcussion conducted with so mueh calmness
and Christian spirit as this, and felt fully assured it would not terminate
in a division of the church,

Dr. B. said he would reply to a few points in the speech of the broth-
er from Miss, (Mr. Winans. rs ‘Tt had been contended that the church
had no usage against the election of a slaveholding Bishop, but he con-
tended that what had never been the practice of the church’ must he
contrary to usdge. But the brother said it like to have become a prac-
tice. Well, he doubted that, It was said that the election of a slave-
holding Bishop was defeated by management, which must be a mistake.
He said the mover of the present resolution went to a Southern man, at
the General Conference of 1832, and asked him if he would emanci-
pate his slaves he should, be nominated for a Bishop, and received fot
an answer that he cotld not. The same person nominated James O.
Andrew.

He said he wished to correet a mistake of the brother from Virginia,
who had said that it was 2 abolition that had produced the present state
of things; he said it was not abolition, but the old anti-slavery feeling.
He did not wish to allude to abolitionists or slaveholders ; he loved botk..

Dr. B. said that there were many things that ‘might disqualify a Bishop
for his office and work. Suppose Bishop Hedding should adopt and main-
tain the sentiment that slavery isa sin under all circumstances that would,
disqualify him for a general superintendent, because that sentiment
would not be borne in one portion of the work. He would in sueh
case vote requesting him, to resign, Suppose Bishop Hedding should
go South and marry a colored woman. —[ Cries from different parts of
the house, Not possible, not possible, it can’t be done. Bishop — Or-.

der, order, order, br ethren. Dr. Bangs continued] Suppose he should

marry a colored womak in the North then, for that was possible, it:
would be so unpopular and excite so much prejudice, as to disqualify
him for his work, and it would be necessar 'y that he should resign ard
another be put in his. place. ' And yet it could not be maintained that
any law would be violated, in the supposed cases He maintained that
the Bishop had acted inexpediently, if he had violated no law. St. Paul
said he would eat no more meat while the world stood, if it made his
brother to offend. This was the rule by which the Bishop ought to
have acted, or it.was the rule which he had violated. He knew the;

x
130
- § ’
stat of feeling, that his becoming a slaveholder would make his broth-
er to offend or render him unacceptable to bis brethren as a Bishop.
Suppose we admit that he had no will in the first two cases, still it can-
not be pretended that he had no will in marrying. This point he said
had been made clear by the brother wko opened the case, (Mr. Griffith.)

The speaker said there was a plain difference between an elder and
a Bishop. The resolution docs nothing, we do not wish to devy any
thing to abridge the rights of slaveholders as ministers. They wished
to avoid the two extremes of abolition on one hand, which affirms that
slaveholding is a sin under. all circumstances, and the introduction of
slavery into the Episcopacy on the other. He did not believe that
slaveholding isa sin under all circumstances. The New York Confer-
ence had fought that doctrine boldly, and he would be willing now to,
declare by a resolution, that to hold that slavery was a sin under all cir-
cumstances would be a disqualification for a Bishop. It was well
known that that sentiment could not be tolerated in one section, and
hence it would disqualify a man for a general superintendent, and the
same was true of slaveholding.

Dr. Capers said he was not in to hear the brother who had just taken
his seat, but he had been informed that he had referred to a Southern
preacher, by which he supposed himself to be meant. He was told that
Dr. Bangs should have said that a member of the Baltimore delegation
atthe General Conference in 1832, went toa Southern preacher and
asked him if he would emancipate his slaves if hé was nominated for a
Bishop, and received for an answer that he could not. This, said the
speaker, I am told is understood to refer to me, and I have only to say
in reference to it, that it strikes my ear for the first time. I say I never
heard of that before; no, never ; I say, never, NEVER, NEVER!

Dr. Bangs said, if’ it be so, I stand corrected, but I understood a broth-
er to state that.

Mr. Davis, of the Baltimore Conference, said he objected to bringing
members in personal contact in that way. He said he was requested

-by the Baltimore delegation to have a conversation with Dr.. Capers ‘
that he asked the Dr, if it would be practicable for him to free himself
fromslavery ? He told him atthe samme time that they preferred him to
any other man, were it not for that difficulty, and that the Dr. told him
that he was doomed to remain a slaveholder, in view of which we pre- -
ferred another man.

Dr. Capers replied that he understood that the remarks of Dr. Bangs
were calculated,to produce the impression that J was inquired of if I
would emancipate my slaves if I were nomixated by. the Baltimore del-
131

egation. Now I can assure the brother that, he cannot, he shall not
love me more than I will love him, yet I must say that he must be in er-
ror in this thing. Icannot have forgotten. If brother Davis was set
to me by the Baltimore delegation, he forgot to tell me that fact, and if
the Baltimore delegation thought they could tamper with mein that way,
they knew me not.

Mr. Davis said the remarks of Dr, Capers entirely changed the fuce
of the subject; he did not go to himin the name of the Baltimore dele-
gation, as sent by them.

Dr. Capers said the brother came to him and said the Northern breth-
ren know that we are entitled to a Bishop, and they had a conversation
ou the subject., In the foriner election I supported the clection of Bish-"
op Soule, and as strongly opposed the election of Bishop Hedding, and
to prevent the like difficulty, he begged that they might confer together
on the subject. The nomination of Bishop Andrew was the result, but
nothing that he did could effect the law or be construed into a usage.
Itgave him great pain to know that he was regarde:| by his brethren as
a man-stcaler, and what he did was dene from feeling. But he was
sure that he never received any proposition of the kind from the Balti-
more delegation. After all, he said that as poor and unworthy, and
slaveholder as he was, he received forty votes that could not be carried
for the man he had nominated, and these votes did not come froin the
South nor from the West.“

Mr. Winans, of Miss., made a few words in explanation, and proposed
toask Mr. Davis a question.

Dr. Durbin rose to a point of order, but his remarks were not heard.

Mr. Winans to Mr. Davis— Do you know that for months before the
Conference in 1832, arrangements were made by the Baltimore delega-
tion to elect a Southern man that was not a slavebolder?

Mr. Davis —I knew that arrangement was made to defeat the clec-
tion of a slaveholding Bishop. :

At this point confusion reigned. The chair demanded order, and
called the speakers back to the question.

Mr. Pickering explained, and said he never nominated Dr. Capers, as
had been asserted, but if he wes free from slavery he would receive an
appointment from iim as quick es from any other man.

Mr. Finley now obtained the floor, and offered a substitute for the res-
olution before the house, the:substance of which is that Bishop Andrew
be requested to desist from exer cising the office of general superinten-
dent until he shall be free from his connection with slavery. Mr. F.
proceeded to support his substitute. He first stated what he considered
132

“two undisputed facts ; first, that the Bishop had become connected with
slavery ; and secondly, that it would hinder him in the discharge of his
.duties as a general superintendent, He then inquired what it was
necessary to do to remove the embarrassment. He affirmed that it was
not necessary for him to be impeached and suspended. Nor was,it
necessary for him to resign. All that was necessary was for hiin to
cease to exercise the Episcopal office until circumstances shall so change
as to deliver him from the embarrassment. He loved himasa Christian,
as a Methodist minister, and asa Bishop, and did not want-him to re-
sign. After consulting the best friends, not of North or the South, but
the best friends of the general superintendency, he believed the substi-
tute wauld be all that was called-for ; i it only asked him to desist from
the exercise of his Episcopal office until he should be treed from this
embarrassment.

Mr. Spencer moved to | the substitute by making it read, “un-
til he shall free his slaves.”, He may become disconnected with slavery
by selling them, or by conveying them to some one else by a deed of
trust. / 1

The chair decided that it was not in order to amend a substitute.

Dr. Olin then took the floor for a speech. He said his health was
poor, that he was elected by his conference with the knowledge before
them that it was doubtful whether he would be able to give full attention
to business. Thus far he.had been in his place, but the two sessions
the day before had materially affected him, and it was doubtful about
his being able to attend so strictly in future. This led him to desire to
address the Conference at that time, for he wished his sentiments known

on the subject, and he feared he. might not have an opportunity to ex-
press them unless he did it at, that time. He said his relation to the sub-
ject was not peculiar. His present position and relation to the church
and the public, not only tended to render it deli¢ate for him to touch the
subject, but with it was connected his former ahd most tender relations.
[ In allusion to the fact that his former wife had slaves when he married
her.] Some, he said, might suppose that he was so hemmed in by cir-
cumstances that he could not act. He would not say that he should not
be influenced by them, for that he could not know; men might not be
aware how much their action was modified by circumstances, but he
would try to do his duty i in the fear of God. Without pledging himself
to carry out all that might follow from the adoption of the substitute,
or grow out of it, he would say he was glad the substitute had been
offered. The original resolution he regarded as a very unfortunate one,
though he loved and venerated its author, He was not prepared to say
133

:
“that the Discipline of the church, in part or by’construction, contained
any provisions against the election of a slaveholding Bishop. Suppose
Virginia has been allowed to furnish a President for these United
States for 40 years, and all the other States for only 12 years, will it be
sound to urgé that fact as a usage, deducing from thence a rule of ac-
tion that Virginia is to have the President in that proportion for time to
-come? Nothing could be more fallacious, It would only prove that
Virginia had been able to secure a majority of votes for her man. A
majority would always control that matter, and sufficiently control it so
long as votes were left free and unrestrained. As they bad no rule or
usage on the subject which could be constructed into a rule of action,
‘so he was opposed to making any, and therefore could not vote for the
_ preamble of the original resolution. He did not like the issue that the
resolution presented, it would imply that Bishop Andrew was not de-
‘sirable as a Bishop, which was not the fact, for no man had better dis-
charged the duties of his office, and no man was more generally beloy-
ed. He did not think itthe best way to constrain him to resign, as
some will say has been done if the original resolution be passed.

Dr. Olin said he supposed they came together with the best prospects
‘of a harmonious session, and he had no doubt that all had come with
the best prospects, whatever might be the result. He did not come
until the second week, and knew nothing of phe difficulty until a broth-
‘er whispered it in his ear as he sat in his seat. Its announcement
alarmed him; he gaw at once their difficulty was great, if not insuper-
able. He well knew the consequences that must follow, usless some-
thing was done; he had taken great }uius to inquire and find out the
real state of feeling among the people at the North, and he was satis-
fied that great evil awaited them; it wus the unanimous testimony that
the subject would be unmanagezble aiid ovcrwhelning, if they returned
to the people with u slavelolding Bis! ap. For information he had vot
gone to the abolitionists, but to the opposers of the abolitionists. Suill,
I hope they have overrated the evil. The difficulty has come upon us
unexpectedly, aud from a quarter we looked not-for it; it has broken
upon us like a clap of thunder trom aclearsky, aud we must mange
it for the good of the Church, the best way we can. Ido not know
that we can touch itto make it any better, and if, uot, we must leave it

to work its own cure.

The Conference is limited by constitutional ,restrictions, and i” we
cannot touch it without going beyond the record, we had better go
home and weep over itus a judgement from God sent to chasten and

purify us. But still, limited us we are by the constitution, [ belie ve
12
134

something can be dome. We cannot do away the Episcopacy, but we
can limit its powers. The Conference cannot tou.h the min’s‘crial
character of one of its members. The Conference cannot, ought not
to infringe upon the rights and immunities of the ministers of any
part of the; work. If we towch the rights of the South, we shall soon
see a disunion. _Some’may doubt that they have a right to hold slaves,
but Ido not. Those who ‘doubt that members and ‘ministers in the
South have a right to hold slaves by the constitution of the church may
be very good men, but they are bad Methodists. if I believed as. they
do I would reform the church, and if I could not do that withir a rea-
sonable time, I would do. as some of our friends have, secede and join
‘some other church, or organize a new one to suit myself. Ido not be-
lieve slaveholding is a disqualification fora Bishop, and I will never
‘give-such avote. If I‘have ever seen men possessing the qualifications
of a Christian minister,the piety, and zeal, and love, and temper, and
devotedness of a Christian minister, it has been among slaveholders.
1 was a slaveholder and minister myself, and had it not been for the

act that the climate did rot agree with me, Tshould doubtless have
been a slaveholder still. It would not be good policy to pass a vote to
exclude slavelolders from the ministry in future; it would not be for
the good of the master or the slave. If ever saw a man that was fit
for a Christian Biskop, a man possessed of ardent piety, of an enlight-
end mind, of a selfSacrificing benevolence, and of a deep humility, that
man is James O. Andrew. Ihave known him long and well; he was
the companion of my youth, Ihave been sick in his house, and his
former wife, now gone to glory, wasmy nurse. Had I a thousand votes
to give, I would give them all for him for a Bishop in preference to any
otherman Iknow. With the exception that he is a slaveholder, I think
him the best of all Iknow. IJ believe he has done most for the slave.
[have heard him speak on the subject of slavery at camp-meetings,
with a boldness that astonished me. Iknow of no mansave one that
has done so much for ‘the slave. If it is thefi. necessary to take action
‘on the subject, deal with lim tenderly. If you cannot act without call-
‘ing in question the rights‘of Southern preachers, better not act at all,
‘better meet any evil than to violate the constitution and trample | upon
“the rights ‘of any portion of the-church. But I believe you can act, at
least to some extent. You cannot censure a brother who _is on consti-
‘tutional ground. Under the circumstances, it is not the Bishop, but the
‘North that has got off the platform. Still you may pass a resolution
‘that it is the will of this Conference that Bishop Andrew, against whom
“there is no charge, refrain from: the exercise of the functions of the
135

Hpiscopacy until the difficulty be removed. Better days may come,
the difficulty may be removed soon. Let mighty prayer go forth from
this Conference, and let the brethren who fear go much difficulty, not
excite sit, but strive to lay the. feeling; let those who occupy the ex-
tremes on both sides do this, and much of the evil feared will be pre-
vented. The Bishop will do all. he can to relieve us; he will make a
sacrifice of every thing in his power but principle. Suppose Dr. Peck
had done some act, not wroug.in itself, but which, from the state of the
public mind, tended to injure the circulation of the Quarterly Review,
we would not impeach him, but simply say, you do not answer our pur-
pose.

In the case before us, we must not do any thing by way of punish-
ment. There must be sacrifice and suffering somewhere, and it must be
borne, Let what must be done go forth asa prudential measure, and
not as performed upon constitutional ground. There is great danger of
excitement in thé South, and at the North a dozen conferences cannot be
kept together if nothing is donc. There must be action that will satis.
fy them, or that will at Jeast hold out the hope that the difficulty will. be
removed. The South has one advantage over the North ; they can hold
together, and the people will rally round them to a man, but i is other-
wise in the North. ;

If Thave an interest in the work any where, it is in the South, There
was I converted to God; there did I commence my ministry, and if
we must be divided, there will my thoughts often wander, and of them
shall T think; and for them shall J often pray who are far away. { Tears
gave witness to the deep feeling of the speaier.] But I believe we

can send out a declaration that the South will believe, if it does not eall
their rights in question. 1 2

One word concerning abolitionism: and I can assure my brother of
the South that this measure does not, proceed from. abolitionists, proper-
ly so called. New York Conference is not and never has been an abo-
lition conference. Troy Conference is not an apolition conference. The
Methodists in the North do not generally-favor abolitionism, technically
so called ; they do-not hold that slavery is a sin under all cireumstances.
Nor do they favor slavery asa system. The community has imbided
abolition principles from reading the public press, aside from any con-
nection with the agitation of the subject in the. church, and the Meth-
odists partake of it just as all the community partake of it. A question
will be put to me: will you adopt a, measure which will injure that
part of the church which has always stuck to the Discipline, to save
that part which has agitated itself with matters foreign to the princi-
136°

ples of the compact? Let me say, in reply: to this, that four-fifths of
the delegates from the Northern Conferences:are not abolitionists. New
York Conference never meddled with it, further than to prevent its
members from taking part in the abolition agitation. The man on my
right { Dr. Bangs] has been loaded with abuse for his efforts to prevent
the progress of abolition in the church. Let no one say we are not
consistent Methodists; let no one say we brought this evil upon ous-
selves; let no reporter record it, and let no tongue tell it! I was sorry
to hear the brother from Virginia [W. A. Smith ] say that they did not
thank us only as common Methodists for what we had done for ourselves
in opposing abolition ; the men who now urge this measure are those
who have been called pro-slavery, and who are called pro-slavery still
by implication. The Dr..said he had occupied more time than he in-
tended to, and would not trespass longer upon their attention.

Mr. Drake of Miss., next olteined the floor. He said that no man, he
believed, had a higher regard, for the unity of the church, than brother
Finley, who had presented the substitute, and he had no doubt he pre-
sented the substitute to pyoriote unity. Nor did he doubt that the
speaker last up desired most ardently the unity of the church, and he,
would not intentionaliy say.one word himself to endanger the union.
But he felt constrained to say that the substitute was no better than the
original resolution, they both were the same in principle, and would
prove the same in effect if adopted. To request the Bishop to desist
from the exercise of his Episcopal funetions, under the circumstances.
of the case, must have the same effect as to request him to resign; and
to request him to resign was the same as to vote him out of office.
Now what is the meaning of the resolution or the substitute ? if either
of them shall be adopted, what will it say to the church and the world?
{t will say that a slaveholder cannot be a Bishop, notwithstanding the
Discipline, wuich clearly allows preachers to hold slaves where the law
will not allow of emancipation.

One speaker, in the prosecution of his argument, has represented
the Bishop as a mere agent, and has illustrated the case by an editor ap-
pointed by this Conference. Now I cannot see the Bishop in this light;
there is a wide difference. An editor may be removed at pleasure,
without any impeachment, or even stain upon his character ; but it is
not so with a Bishop ; you cannot put him-out of office without staining
his Episcopal robe. It cannot be done without being done against the
Discipline and the Bible. A Bishop cannot be suspended without a
charge, or without having done something affecting his moral charac-
ter. But it is not pretended that Bishop:Andrew has done. any thing
137

for which. his ministerial character is or ought to be impeached. I dread
a division of the church as much as any man, and yet 1am compelled
to say tliat Bishop Andrew must remain as 3 he is, or the church will be
divided. The South will never secede, but will be cut. off wheu the
division takes place. But there is one way in which the Bishop may
remain, if the North express their real sentiments when they declare
that they have nothing against him as a Christian and a minister. The
last speaker said that the South are united and would go together to a
inan, but that the North would be divided. I ask then, if. to save a part,
a small part of the North, you will adopt a measure that will drive off all
the South? Letthe br ethren who hold these sentiments, that Bishop
Andrew, by becdining. connetted with slavery as-he-has, Has nos brought”
a blot upon his moral or ministeriat character, —and every speaker
has avowed the sentiment,—let these, brethren, I say, take strong
ground against division, and fearlessly defend what they. avow in this
Conference, when they return to their people, and. but few will leave.
Shall we then lose the whole of the, South to save a part, ‘a small part.
of the North? When tlie Bishop question was settled, next would
come the repeal ‘of the colored testimony resolution. All expected _
that, Would there not then be an effurtto cut off all elders that hold
slaves ?— for as they may be transferred, the same principle that is ap-
plied to the Bishop may be applied to them,
Mr. Drake concluded his yemarks by adding that he should like to see
a substitute presented, stating ithe substance of what he should like to
have adopted in the place of what was before the house. The pream-.
ble set forth the sectional differences between the North and South, as
the basis of action; and the action itself was a division of the church
into Episcopal districts, each.to have its own Bishop, provided that a
Bishop should not preside more than eight years in the same district.
Mr. Slicer, of Baltimore, said he belonged to the class called conser-.
vatives, and should go for the substitute of Br. Finley. He should go
for that for the sake of the slave, as well as for the sake of the North.
Fe said it did not give all the ground to either party. It took a ground
between the two extremes of both. It would suit all south of New Eng-
land, and all north of Virginia. These middle conferences, he said, had
been a kind of breakwater, to keep out the extremes of abolition on
one oe and the extremes of ‘slavery. on the other. North of these
conferences, we might hear it affirmed that slavery is a sin under all
circumstances, and in the far South, you wight hear it affirmed that sla-
very is a great social and political blessing. :
Mr. Slicer said, if h2 wished to break up the union, he would go for
i
138

the ‘suggestion of the last speaker. [ Mr. Drake.] _ The- general’ super=.
intendency, in his view was the strongest band of union; it was the life:
blood of the system; and if the work was divided into Episcopal dis-—
tricts, as suggested, thé system could no more live than the human body
could live and flourish in health, with the several ‘limbs corded so as to
3top the circulation of the blood. It would be acting upon the Presby-
terian doctrine of elective affinity, a principle upon which some of their
ecclesiastical bodies were organized; but it was a principle which
would not work in Methodism. To adopt the suggestion, would be to
take a long step towards diocesan Episcopacy. He thought it not
best or necessary, to say that a slaveholder cannot be a Bishop; a slave-..
holder could be a Bishop: and they should have a slaveholding Bishop,
if ever the time should come when a majority should want one: he was.
willing to leave it to the majority to say who should be Bishops. He
thought the illustration of Dr. Olin did not meet the case. Virginia
might have had the President as supposed, without constituting what
might be called a usage, but more was true of the church: jhe had re-
fused to elect a slaveholder to the office of Bishop, because he was a
slaveholder. But though under‘the circumstances of the church and:
the country, it was not best to elect a slaveholder to the office of Bishop,
no one but a man of one idea, would contend that there could be no
cage of slaveholding without immorality. For, said the speaker, there
are men of one idea. No matter what the idea is: a Miller idea, ora
Morus Multicaulis speculation idea. None, I say, none buta man of one
idea will pretend that slaveholding is in every case a disqualification for
the Christian ministry, or for all civil office. There are some who
maintain that Slaveholding is a disqualification for civil office : such I
call men of one idea. He should go for the, substitute, because it was-
theanilder course ; it only required him to refrain from the exercise of
his office, until he was freed from the embarrassment ; and the moment
he was freed, he was a Bishop, and could enter upon the work of a gen-
eral superintendent. Young as he was, having been a travelling preach-
er for only twenty-three years, he would venture to give his opinion.
{f circumstances would admit of it, he would hold up both hahds to do
nothing, and let the Bishop proeead withont Jet or hindrancé. The
speaker said the North was compelled to violate the Discipline by build-
ing pewed meeting-houses, and in allowing the men and women to sit
together; whereas, Mr. Wesley says, let them sit apartin allcases. This.
pew business, he was sorry to say had got as far south as Baltimore.
Again, the North had their bass-viols, and their’ seraphims, and their or-
gans. Buthad Bishop Acdrew infracted the: Discipline? ‘He said, no;
139
+

no man could lay his finger on the passage in the Discipline that he isd
violated. What, then, has he done? I answer, he has offended against
the great law of expediency. While the North Violate the rules as
above stated, let them remember the circumstances which embarrass
our brethren in the South on the subject ef slavery. Tet the substitute
be adopted, and not ten men would rise up againt it; and as far north
as Pennsylvania, the Bishop would be acceptable with two-thirds, if
they were not to touch him. Mr. Slicer closed by observing that the
Bishop’s case was not the same in every respectas-that which had been
appealed from the Baltimore Conference.

Mr. Crandall, of New England Conference, next obtained the ficor.
He said he did not agree with the last speaker in every respect. He
did not suppose the brethren fromthe South would retract the smallest
point, or move an inch to meet them, were they disposed to comprom-
ise. Mr. C. said neither the resolution or the substitute suited him.
Me appreciated the motives with- which they had been presented; he
had no doubt it had been done with an honest view to preserve the
union of the ‘church; but he did not suppose the South would thank
them for it. Ie should have voted for the resolution with all his heart, -
liad the vote been taken upon it, notwithstanding his objections to it.
He supposed it was the best there was any hope of getting. And he
should shave voted for the substitute, had not so many objectionable
speeches. been made in support of it. He said that Dr. Olin had said
many things that had met with a hearty response in his bosom: 3; but be
said other things in which he thought him mistaken. He presumed he
did not intend to mistake anything, but had failed of being correct for
‘want of an opportunity to obtain. correct information. He understood
the Dr. to say, that the right of our Southern hrethren to be slavehold-
ers, and Methodist ministers at the same time, was not denied ; whereas,
there were hundreds in the North who denied it.

Dr. Olin explained; he said he did not say that there were none who
denied it; but he gave it as his own opinion of the Constitution, that
. they had that right.

Mr. Crandall resumed, and said, that the constitution did not include
that part of the Discipline which relates to slavery. The ténth section,.
as it is explained, gives them that right; but that is not the constitution,
but legislation, or statute law.

Dr. Olin explained again, by saying that he usedthe term constitution,
to signify the whole Discipline, including all its provisions.

Crandall resumed, and said. he understood Dr. Olin to say, that those
who held that Southern preachers have no right to bold slaves, were
not fit to belong to the church.
| 140
: ‘

Dr. Olin explained, by saying that he had ‘said no such thing. He
said they might be very good men, but bad Methodists; by which he
meant no more than that however good they might be in heart, for he
did not doubt their good intentions, they were nevertheless, in that thing,
off the Methodist platform.

Mr. Crandall added, that he was glad for the explanation, for it mate-
rially.changed the face of the subject in his view, and on the whole, he
could vote for the substitute. ; .

Mr. Cass, of N. H., next took the floor. He said, if he understood
the question, it was, to remove Bishop Andrew from office, on the
ground of ‘expediency, and not for a violation of any rule of the church,
or of morality. The ground of this expediency, he understood to be
the supposition, that some of the ‘people will secede if he is suffered to
remain, and not that itis wrong to be a slaveholder. To such a proce-
dure he objected ; for it could not be right to displace the Bishop to ac-
commodate the wrong views and feelings of any part of the church.
The general opinion in the North, he understood to be, that slavery is
wrong in the nation and ia the church. If this be so, it calls for the re-
moval of Bishop Andrew, if he be a slaveholder. If you can make out
that he is not a slaveholder, or if you can prove that slavery, as he is.
connected with it, is not wrong, then this whole procedure against him.
must be wrong. I assure the Conference, that the action proposed, upon
the ground that it is proposed, while the Bishop is expressly Cleared:
from all blame, will not satisfy a large body in the North. Let this Con--
ference say that it is not wrong to hold slaves, and we of the North.
stand upona voleano, and we shall be blown up. All had admitted that,
something should be done; but they had better do nothing, than that
which is good for nothing; they might as well do nothing as to do that.
which has got nothing in it. Idonot ask, at this time, that the Confer-
ence convict him of immorality, but only thet they say, he has done
wrong. He married in view of the facts; he was not so obseure an in-
dividual as not to know the state of things that existed. Suppose I
should do what would disqualify me for the work assigned me; would
T not be dealt with as having done wrong? Can they say that he has
done right in producing all this excitement? We have heard much
about a storm, and about a dark cloud hanging over us; J ask, has he
done right in raising this storm, in spreading this dark cloud over us, in
detaining us here so long away from our work, and in producing an ag-
itation that cannot fail to be felt thr ough the whole country? With all
my veneration for the Ep piscopacy, and I have no objection to it, 1 must
say that I think he has done wrong. When you admit that slavery is
141

right, then you may write Ichabod upon. our banner. The resolution:
does not speak out in language that will satisfy those whom the action is.
designed to save, It is said that the Southern brethren will go off, if
we press this point. Well, nullification is not a new doctrine either in
church or state ; General Conference after General Conference have we
heard this, but they are not gone yet. They say what they know, that
the South will go toa man. Howdo they know? Have they consulted
and learned the opinions of all the membership? It is presumed thet
the South know it all, and that the north know nothing. We know that
four conferences would vote unanimously, not to receive a slaveholding
Bishop. He believed the North would go off generally ; though he had
been let into no secret on the subject: he only gave it as his opinion.
Mr. Cass remarked that Dr. Olin had said that they were bad Metho-
dists, and had better go off as others had done.

‘Dr. Olin explained ; all he said, or meant to say, was, that those who
denied the rights of Southern preachers, secured as they were by the
Discipline, and who could not wait to have the Discipline altcred in a
constitutional way, had better go off as some others had donc. He said
that slaveholding was not a constitutional disqualification for any grade
in the ministry. This was what he meant and all he meant, and he
wislied to be understood; he might have expressed himself not so clear-
ly as desirable, as brethren appeared not to understand him: he had
spoken without any preparation. He knew they did not design to mis-
represent him. 7 :

Mr. Cass resumed, and said, that it had been argued that the Confer-
ence could not do away the general superintendency. This, he thought,
proved that Bishop Andrew must be removed. Tis connectisn with’
slavery would, prevent his discharging the dutics of his office i in a large
portion of the werk; his superintendency, therefore, could not be gen-
eral: and to let him remain was to do away the general character of the
superintendency.

The speaker said it was of no use to skim over the subject, it would
be far better to go to the brethren and meet the questionat once. The
simple question is this, is slavery, as connected with this mah, right or
wrong ? John Wesley says that “men-buyers are exactly on a levil
with men-stealers.” [Several voices cried, “ He has bought mo men.” |
Mr. Cass continued: Mr. Wesley says, “ But you may say I buy no men,
T only use those left me by my father. So far is very well, but is it
enough to satisfy your own conscience? Tad your father, have you,
has any man living a right to use another as his slave? It cannot be
even setling revelation aside. J strike at the rest of this comolicated
142°

villany. J absolutely deny that’slaveholding is consistent with any de-
gree, of natural justice, to say nothing about mercy.” The speaker ad-
ded other similar quotations from Mr. Wesley, which appeared to pro-
duce some sonsation in a certain section of the Conference. Ife then
added, we have been told that this distracting measure would make the
sainted spirit of Wesley weep, if spirits could weep over the woes of.
earth ; but he would weep over our connection with slavery.

The hour of adjournment having nearly come, Mr. Cass gave way for
a, motion to extend the session five nuinutes, for the purpose of allowing
Mr. Early, of Va., to make a few suggestions. This left Mr. Cass in
possession of the floor for to-morrow ‘morning. Some confusion fol-
lowed — Cass complained that he could not make a speech, being thus:
broken off, and having to begin at both ends. [ Laughter.] Mr. Dow
interposed in behalf of Mr. Cass, supposing he was cut off by giving
Mr. Emly the floor, The Bishop explained, that no time was taken
from Mr, Cass; but five minutes had been given to Mr. Barly after Mr,
Cuss would of necessity be done, by the arrival of the hour of adjourn-
ment, and that Mr. Cass would have the floor by right in the morning.
Mr. Early proceeded to occupy his five minutes.

He proposed a plan on which he thought the difficulty might be settled,
which was that they should lay the whole subject on the table, and let
the delegates go home and lay the difficulties before the annual confer-
ences, aud let them give their views and elect delegates with reference
to this subject, and instruct them, and let them meet ina special Gener-
al Conference one year from this time, and settle it. And if they can-
not then agree, let them come empowered to divide in peace, and let
them do,jt in a manner to respect themselves and to be respected by
others. He said he could not do any such thing, for he had not the pow-
er, but he appealed to those who had the majority, if some such meas-
ure would not be honorable.

dr. Early having concluded his remarks the Conference adjourned

 

Friday, May. 94.
Areport was presented from the Book Committee on’ periodicals,
which recommended the continuation of all the General Conference pa-
pers, and the adoption of the Northern Advocate, published at Auburn,
N.Y., by Rev. Mr.. Roby. The report was adoptéd. So the Northern
Advocate is hereafter to be published for the General Conference, and
is to be ealled the Northern Christian Advocate.
143°

The Committee on Episcopacy reported two items. ; First, requesting
one of the Bishops to preach the funeral sermen of Bishop Roberts
some time during the Conference. Secondly, that they saw no reason
why Bishop Soule might not be governed by his own discretion in rela-
tion to the appointment tendered him by the African Institute.

Mr. Crandall said hé had a paper in his possession which he wished
to go to the Committee on Episcopacy, and moved to suspend the order
of the day, that he might present it

The Conference wished to know what it was, before they could judge
whether it was best to suspend the rule.

Mr. Crandall said it was from an old and respectable member of the
New England’ Conference, and that it related to the administration of
one of the Bishops.

Bishop Soule said he heped the Conference would receive it, and,
have itread and referred. He should exceedingly regret if the Confer-
ence should refuse to receive any paper touching the administration of
one of the superintendents. .

Bishop Waugh sail he presumed he knew who it was from, and to
what it related. It related; he supposed, to himsclf, and he hoped the
Conference would receive it.

The order of the day was suspended, and the paper was presented.
It was from Rey. Joseph A. Merrill, of the New England Conference
and related to Bishop Waugh’s having ordained a slaveholder, or a man
‘whom he supposed to be a slaveholder, at the time,, living in a State
where the laws would admit of emancipation.

A motion was made to refer it to the Committee on Episcopacy.

* -P. P. Sanford opposed the reference, on the ground that it was no
cause of complaint, if it was true ; for the Bishop had no discretionary
power. It was his duty to ordain such men es the Conference elected,
and he had no right to refuse to ordain them.

Several others spoke to the same import.

Dr. Bascom said the'man referred to was his neighbor, and that he
‘was not a slaveholder at the time nor at the present time.

The Bishop said there should be some proof; he did not remember
the conversation described in the paper.

Mr. Randall, of Maine Conference, said he was present at the time
referred to, and that he understood the Bishop as Merrill did.

Mr. Collins, of Baltimore Conference, said it was an infamous paper,
and he hoped the Conference would vote that the author have leave to
‘withdraw it. A .

Mr. Slicer, of the same Conference, said the persons did not do their
144 :
duty. He read from the Discipline the call which the Bishop makes for
objections when he is abont to ordain a man, and stated that they ought |
‘to have gone forward in the name of God, and forbidden the ordination.

Having neglected that duty they had no right to come here with it.

Mr. Randall said he did not know atthe time that the law of Kentucky
allowed of emancipation, or he should have objected at the time.

Mr. Paine, of Tennessee; said the Bishop would have had.no right to
have refused to ordain the:man if he had objected, as the objection must
have been founded upon what could not have been unknown to the

" Conference.

- My. Cranch said they were in the habit of doing right in the Ken-
‘tucky Conference, on slavery in particular. There were some old men
in the Conference, who made it their business to watch that subject.

The motion to refer was withdrawn, and it was voted to return the
-document to Br. Merrill.

The order of the day was then taken up.

The Bishop announced Mr. Cass as being entitled to the floor. *

Mr. Cass declined, and Mr. Pierce the younger, of Georgia, obtained
‘the floor.

Mr. Pierce said he could not promise, as some had, new light on the

S

~ubject, nor did he feel so solicituous as some, about a discussion;
for he considered that-question already settled, by action on another
~question. He proposed to animadvert upon the manner in which the
measure had been supported. It was by a kind of legerdemain logic
‘that thy proved their positions. Abstract propositions were assumed,
which no one could or wished-to dispute, and then an inductive pro-
cess was pursued, by which they arrived at final conclusions that had
nothing to do with the premises, but which were the offspring of pre-
-eonceived opinions, and could be connected with the premises by no
logical process whatever, reductive or inductive. He said one great
source of their sophistry lay in reasoning upon it as upon an abstract
question, whereas it was a particular question, involving the rights of
the South. Te said it was part of a plan which had been devised, slow
in progress of developement, but sure in result if not resisted, to de-
grade and disfranchise all the Southern preachers. He said if there
‘had been no petitions sent to that Conference, the case would have been
different, and the action of the South would be different; but as it was,
they could not view it only in connection ‘with all‘other action on the
‘subject of' slavery, and all action proposed on the subject; it was con-
nected with the Baltimore appeal case. That had settled the principle
with reference toa particular State, and defined the duties_of the an-
145

‘nual conference with reference to that state. But the Baltimore case
was local in actual bearing ; but the case now before the Conference
would make it general. To pass the resolution would be to take up
‘the principles of the Baltimore case, and apply them to all the slave-
holding States. This must revolutionize the church in ‘its polity, if not
repealed. The present resolution was of the same character, the same
in principle as the Baltimore case: it was collateral. in design and ef-
fect with that. Say what you will about expediency; and enter what
disclaimers you may, it will be regarded as an infraction of the disci-
plinary rights of Southern preachers. He did not believe so much
cvil would be the result to,the church in the North as was represented
if nothing is done; he believed the middle ground men could control
itif they would. The difficulty appeared to exist among the preach>
‘ers more than among the people: persons who were called by the
upostle, meddlers with other men’s matters. Are we told ‘that New
England will suffer? And who but New England has produced the
excitement, and given existence to the evil now dreaded? and shall
they.now be saved from it by destroying the South? Let New Eng-
land secede: I would to God she would.secede, rather than that resolu-
tion should pass, and the whole South be ruined. Let them all go!
What is New England that she should demand so much at our hands?
She has been a thorn in the flesh for the last twenty years —the mes-
senger of Satan to buffet us. If she will not desist from her course of
agitation, it would be a blessing to the church if she would secede ; we
should then have peace. We are at peace in the South; we dwell by
the side of still waters, and feed in green pastures, andthe God of peace
is with us.

But will you get rid of division, if you succeed by the passage ¢ of that
‘yésolution in putting down secession in the North? I think not; the
very measure you propose will inevitably produce division in another
direction; the preachers and people even in the North, will still be divi- .
ded; and division once begun, where will it end? Methodism will
change its character, Episeopacy will be repudiated, itinerancy will de-
cline, and Congregationalism will take its place, and we shall see men
standing in the market places, who will answer, when asked why stand
you here-all the day idle, because no man hath hired us. If I consult
ed Southern interests alone, I should court division; but I look to the .
interests of the whole. Suppose you pass that resolution, what will be
the condition of Bishop Andrew? He must be a Bishop in duress, in
bonds. What will you do with him? He is a Bishop, and cannot be
‘appointed to a circuit or station: and who will receive him as their

13
146.

preacher ? The North, you say, will not. Will bis friends, who are
_ opposed to the measure, znd who will look upon-it as an infraction of
Boupnn rights, and a degradation of the Southern ministry? I think
they ¥ would not receive the man who would submit to such oppression.
Did I not think others more capable to speak upon the subject than my-.
self, I would trespass upon your patience by the hour. Lassure you the
union ends if the Bishop is not suffered to pass without having a blot
tixed upon him hy this Conference. It is admitted by the other sidu,
that he is pure and spotless, that he isevery way qualified for the Chris-
tian miuistry, and that he is every way qualified for the office he fills.
What do brethren’ mean by such remarks, while they are pressing a
measure to degrade him? Are they heaping garlands upon the victim
before they have bound him for the sacrifice? Will'you immolate such
a man upon this altar of perdition, and shall we sit still and see this
we man sacrificed? It must go out as a question of right; the sim-
ple question is, has he a right to hold slaves ly the Discipline of the
church? If you pass that vote, you say that he has no right to hold
tlives; and in so saying, you condemn: every slaveholding minister in
the South. Pause, brethren, I entreat you, pause before you take a step
so fatal to the interests of the Southern church.

A. B. Longstreet, of Georgia next obtained the floor. He said it was
the first time he evei*attended the General Conference, and he thought
it would be the last, if they’ held together, for he thought he should
never consent iocome cgain. He wished to say one word to the major-
ity. Tie said the history of ail churchcs was nearly the same. While
churckcs have been contented to occupy their appropriate sphere and
attend to the preaching of the gospel, and opposing and rooting out all
evil by the simple preaching of the gospel, without attempting to in-
terfere with the civil power, their success wes wonderful; heathenism
melted away under the power of the gospel]; darkness was scattered
hy the light of truth, aud heathen temples fell to the grc:nd, and their
idols were given to the moles and the bats. Their rules were then few |
and simple, but as they increased they formed what you eall the
church, and they soon begun to incorporate human legislation with the
divine law. The speaker'said he had not time to give ‘the history of
the Romish Church, but he ‘would say, after she once began to resort to
human devices and human power to build up the church, the progress
was rapid until every monstrosity of which the hurfan mind could
conceive was palmed off as by divine authority. First, a man became
a Bishop, thena Bishop over a Bishop, then he claimed a power over
sin, ad finally divine supremacy. Such was the progress of the first,
1i7

anlonse pace church; and if you believe that, aside from grace, y ou
are mide of sternor ‘or purer material, you are mistaken, Can you

read your own reeords, and not sec that you are rapidly on your way
to that church? Will you do what Christ tolerated? Will you forbid

those that cast out devils? for you will not deny that slavehotders have

heen successful preachers. I fear you are about to do this, Ihave

feared you would undertake to reform the world by other principles

thau the gospel, and what will then support the interests of Method-

ism? What but Christ can support, and will you abandon this trust

and resort to your own expedients? Sooner give Methodisin to the

winds than sustain it by such measures. You have enacted one rule

against slavery, and now that rile constitutes you a court above’ all the
civil authority of the couutry. The speaker said he must enter his pro-,
test against all new tests of members!ip and ministerial character.
Some would make slavery a test ; some would have a temperance test,
und some would have an education test; but he protested against them:
all, He had no bitterness in his heart to that abolition brother, point-

ing to Mr, Cass, of N. H. ‘Where arewe? The truth is doubtless be-

tween ux somewhere. When Methodism commenced it found slavery

in the country, and it protested against it, and that was more than Christ

did; it was more than the apostles did; they went beyond the Bible.

The church commenced ‘her opposition to slavery by exhibiting those

pure principles of the gospel which could not fail to show the wrong

of slavery, if it be en evil. She then, however, taught the doctrine of

voluntary emancipation only, and they were successful in it; hundieds

were emancipated, and they loved one another, the slave received his

liberty asa gratuity, and was thankful to the master for it, and it increas-

ed the band of friendship between them.

The speaker then took up the rule on slavery, and read and comment-
ed upon it. When ‘any travelling preacher becomes the owner of a
slave or slaves, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our church,
uuless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of such
slaves. This was going a great ways, but the South loved the church
und dreaded division. This was the begining of the encroachment
upon their rights, aud they submitted to it for the sake of peace. But
soon came enother rule, which required the preachers to enforce the
necessity ‘upon masters of teaching their slaves to read the word of God.’
And again the: South submitted for the sake of the union of the Chureh.
Soon came znother rule, conferring upon colored preachers and official
menibers, common rights and privileges in the quarterly conferences.
[ See last See. of the Discipline.] To all these advances the South has
148
\

submitted, only protesting against such and all of them, as injurious to-
them and the interests of the colored ‘people in the South. We
have thus far yielded to every exaction, and. yet you give us no
credit, and represent us as constantly encroacliing, upon the North,
You do not know what we have suffered on thissseore. And after all
this you are not satisfied yet; for the last ter years petitions have been
pouring in upon us. At each General Conference on come these slave-
ry petitions, and a committee must be appointed, and those petitions must
be referred notwithstanding the petitioners admitin these very docu-
ments, that they appeal to a body that has not the power necessary to af-
ford the desired relief, At last-one of the highest officers of the church,
Bishop Andrew, had become connected with slavery, and he felt the
difficulty growing out of this constant agitation of the subject so great
that he had made up his mind to resign, but before he took the step he
felt it his duty to consult with those who were in the same circumstan-
ces with himself, and every man of them told him it would never do;
they could never submit to it, it would’crush and ruin us. We cannot
lie down and see our rights trampled upon. If slaveholding disquali-
fies him for the office of Bishop, it disqualifies him for a ministér; and
if it disqualifies him, it disqualifies us all, and our constitutional rights
must stand or fall with his: and can we expect to be silent and see
him crushed, knowing that we must be the victims of the next motion
of the wheel. Pass that resolution, and our rights are stricken to the
ground. It gives us great pain to place the Bishop in such circumstan-
ces, but we cannot help it. In the spirit of magnanimity which belongs
to him, he would have resigned had he alone been the sufferer: but our
rights are identified with his, and we must resist any further encroach-
ment. .

But what is the bearing of the argument-on the other side. . So far as
mere words are concerned, you have treated us kindly, but there is an
eloquence in actions and positions which outweighed them all and those
actions and positions goto impeach Bishop Andrew. He has been
driven from his place for days. Does Christianity require submission
of the South to all this, and is it to be wondered at, if under such cir-
eumstances the South should not weigh these smooth words in golden
scales. What means this motion requesting his resignation, if you have
as high a respect for the Bishop as you declare in words? During a
whole day in debate on the motion, not one speaker took the ground
taken in the resolution, and before you gave us time to speak, or before
the Bishop himself had been heard, the motion requesting him to re-
sign is changed, for a substitute which requests him to refrain.
149

from the exercise of his office until this impediment is removed.
i know not what force your request is intended to possess, and until
this is defined I must regard it as an eutering wedge for final expulsion.
I should like to see the sentiments of the speakers, as expressed in
their speeches, put intoa preamble to the resolution, and presented to
the public. Would they be willing to meet itin that connection? It
woulderead thus :-—

“ Whereas, Bishop Andrew is a man of God, of ardent piety, pure
aud spotless character; a bright and shiuing light in the Church; and
whereas he is eminently qualified for his office and universally accepta- -
ble in those conferences-where he has been called to labor and preside ;
and whereas we co uot belicve that he has, in becoming connected
with slavery, violated any rule of the Methodist Discipline, or sinned
against God, and whereas we do not believe that slavery is sin under
all circumstances, nevertheless as he has become connected with slave-
ry, from mere motives of expediency,

“ Resolved, That it is the wish of this Conference that he cease from
exercising the functions of his office till this impediment be remov-
ed”

{. there one man in the Conference that would be willing to meet it
in that forms? Will you embody it ina resolution as [have given it,
and send it out to the world as your decree? And yet this is the issue
presented in the case. Where is the discontent to allay which it is nec-
essary to sacrifice Bishop Andrew? In all his intercourse he had not
found one, who for himself was not willing to receive Bishop Andrew.
Why would not the bishop be received as well asthe slaveholding del-
cgates were reccived in the city of New York. Idare not speak of the
kind and affectionate reception the Southern delegates have met wita
in this church, lest should be thought a flatterer, but I will gay their
kindness has given them a seat in the warmest chainber of our aftev-
tions. Is it the people then that will not receive Bishop Andrew be-
eause he isa slaveholder? You send us out to preach and we have
crowded houses; and we have seen some of you who manifest such
great sensibility on the subject of a slaveliolding Bishop, shedding tears
of sympathy, and mingle your tears with ‘those of a slaveholding
preacher. Ihave lately been in New England, and even there was 1
kindly treated by the _people, and I am satisfied that it is not the peo-
ple but the preachers that are nnwilling to receive Bishop Andrew, if
any body is unwilling to receive him’ ‘ :

Now tet me inquire what the Bishop does that renders it so muc’s
more objectionable to have him connected with slavery than’ otLer

M
150

preathers. Does it disqualify. him for the work he is required to per-
form among you, when he attends-your conferences? He presides in
your conferences, and will any one say that it disqualifies him for that
work? He ordains your preachers, and does it disqualify him for that
work, since you acknowledge that he isa good and worthy minister,
and that'the power to ordain belongs to him by right of order? He
appoints the preachers, and does the fact that he is connected with
slavery disqualify him for that? There must be some secret, some mys-
terious disqualification which we cannot learn from the brguments.

Let me inquire whether we are to submit to a wrong popular opinion
or feeling. If Lunderstand you, that must be, the ground of your ar-
guments, That Bishop Andrew is a good man anda good minister,
no one has yet denied, and if he is a good minister, his rejection must
rest upon the fact that popular feeling is against him. Such has been
the argument from the beginning. Carry out this principle, and where
will itend? Suppose the popular feeling gets up against wine at the
sacrament, then, by this argument, you must put itaway. Iwasa tem-
perance man when, every Methodist was opposed to me, and this confer-
ence would have voted me down on the temperance question, but now
you wish to pass a rule which will expel all who have any thing to do
with spirits. It appears to me that you are making fearful progress.

I wish to advert to the consequences which must follow from the’
doctrine of the resolution. “I understand the doctrine to be, that if a
‘Methodist preacher marries a woman who holds slaves, hé should be
deposed. Let me then say that there are but few educated women in
the South who do not hold slaves, and the consequence is, that Method-
ist preachers must not marry, or they, must come North after their
wives. Isthis to be adopted as the sentiment of this conference? I
do not know, [looking up into the gallery, which was filled with ladies,]
J do not know that the fuir of this land would be willing to accept of
such an advantage, but it would be of great advantage if Methodist
preachers were worth having. [Laughter.] But there are various
ways in which persons living in the midst ofslavery may become slave-
holders, without any desire for it on their part. No man can live ina
slaveholding community, and possess the common relations and live in
the common associations of life, without being liable every day to be-
‘come legally possessed of slaves. Business men fail, and he may become
possessed of slaves as a creditor, and, to say he would nottake them
under such circumstances would be saying he would not do business-
Friends may die and leave them a part of an estate to be settled, and

they must be disposed of ja the settlement of the estate, for they can-
151

not be emancipated if the estate is involved, and if it is not, the Isw
forbids emancipation, and some of the heirs may not be of age, so as
to render it possible to dispose of the estate in law. Now I understand
the doctrine of the resolution to 'be, that ifa man in any way becmes
connected with slavery, it is a disqualification.

And here it is necessary that Ishould notice the construction that is put
upon the rule in the case. Jt has beencontendcd that if it be possible
in any way to get rid cf slaves, the rule is violated, or that itis a ground
of complaint if he does not. But is this the rule ? Not a word is said
about getting rid of them in any way, but only about executinga legal
emancipation conformably to the laws of the state in whiclr he lives, if
it be practicable. It has been shown that it is not practicable for Bishop
Andrew to execute a legal emancipation ; such a document could not
be admitted to record. But it has been said he may move out of the
state. This may be ; but is it.the law? Does the expression “ execute
a deed of emancipation conformable to the laws of the state in which he
lives” mean move out of the state? The logic is this: the Dicipline re-
quires a preacher to emancipate his slaves according to the law of the
state in which he lives, therefore he’ must move out of the state or be de-
posed. Was this the understanding any of us had of that clause when
we joined the church, and when we took orders in the church ? it must
be seen that the law means no such thing, and you have no right to
go beyond the lay of the compact. ;

But you go further than this and say that a man ought to avail him-
self of the control the law of the State gives bim over the property of
his wife, for the purpose of sending it away,at the North; yea, it has
been argued that he should avail himself of the warm affections of the
wife which gave him a contro] over ler heart and will, to dispossess her
of what was hers by law. I have often seen the consequences of that
law which gives the husband cont ol over the property of the wife,
while by another principle he has conirol over her heart. Her patrimo-
ny has often been launched forth in business, and swallowed up in the
whirlpool of speculation, and she, who had enough to have made her
comfortable, has been reduced to poverty and wretchedness. Are you
prepared to say that you will require a Methodist preacher to avail him-
self of the control he has over the wife of his bosom, on account of the
love she bears to him, to obtain possession of that which the law gives
to her, to dispose of it with bettering the condition of the slave, merely
to dissolve a legal relation which you admit is not sinful ?

But where is your power to suspend Bishop Andrew without impeach-

ment? You'have no power to do awgy the general superintendency,
7 4
152

and if you suspend the Bishop, you will do it away, so far 2s Le is con-
aened, for he will still be a general superintendent in office, without
ee ming the work of general superintendent. :

You propose to suspend him until he is free from the cpeegeeei
which I suppose means until he shall emancipate his slaves. This,
maintain, it is impossible that he should do. Suppose he could get a
from the first two cases, the third has been made the strongest. These
slaves are not his: it was understood before they were married that they
should not be his, and since they were married, that understanding hax
heen put into a legal instrument, by which the title is vested’in her,
Now it is a universal principle of law, that all contracts are binding every
where, according to the iatent and meaning of the law where the con-
iract is made. Those slaves canno! therefore belong to Bishop Andrew, ,
and he can have ho right to emancipate them, nor would a change of
loeation alter the case; for should he remove to the hot-bed of aboli-
tionism, the obligation in the case would remain the same, As the con-
tract was made in Georgia, he is, and must be bound by it according to
the meaning and intent of the law of Georgia. Did I say hot-bed? J
will take it back, lest I offend. JI will say the pristine purity of New
England abolitionism, cannot now absolve him from those obligations
which were formed, not under New England Jaws, but under the-laws
of Georgia. As he cannot now emancipate his slaves, if you suspend
him until the embarrassment is removed, you su spend him for ever.
The position of Bishop Andrew is covered by the rule of the chureh, in
its plain common sense meaning, and the measure must and will be re-
garded as a violation of the law, and hence an infraction of rights; for
we are entitled to all the law gives us,, until the law is repealed. J en-
treat brethren to remember what a small infraction of right once led to
the decapitation of the king of England, and the setting up of the Pro-
tector. Our motto is, let justice be done, though the heavens rush.

But you say he might have emancipated. his slaves when he was first
matried, because the law pronounced them his as soon as she became
his wife. But he did not consider them his, and it was understood _be-
fore, that they should not be his. But he could'not even then have
emancipated them, for if he had made out a deed of emancipation, the
Jaw of the State would not have admitted it to record, but would have:
pronounced in null and void. But he did not do it but deeded them
back to his wife, and it cannot now be helped. Suppose he had sold
them, it would be’ beyond his power to undo the act; he might repent,
but it would be impossible to recal the act. If he were able, he might
do as one «id, sell his slaves and come North, become a flaming aboli-.
153

tionist, and then go and buy them back: but to require this, would be-
to involve all who have ever trafficked in slaves. We ought to’ tread
lightly upon the ashes of the dead. Nearly all have in.some way been
involved in the traffic.

But, brethren, let me say that I do not know how to meet you, you'
have so many opinions among yourselves. Same of you contend that
slavery is a sin under all circumstances, and others embrace an oppo-
site sentiment. Would it not be well to settle these matters among
yourselves, before you undertake to settle our, matters. Some of you
call yourselves middle men, and you claim to occupy a position between
the abolitionists of the North and the strong slavery mén of the South.
You tell us that you love both, and lay one hand on the shoulder of the
North, and one hand on the shoulder of the South, and hold us. It ap-
pears to me that you put one hand on the shoulder of the North,’and
with the other take hold of the throat of the South. You tell us you
love us. Well, we pray you do not in one of your spasms of love
choke us to death. '

I must notice anctker point. The delegates of the Baltimore Confer-
ence said they would set aside the decree of this Conference, if the Con-
ference set their decision aside and returned that man upon their hands
aslaveholder. Then they entreated you, do not do this thing, for if you
do we Shall be constrained to spit in your face. They avowed that-
they will do just as they please on the subject of slavery, and if so why
may we not do the same? We may take our Bishop, regardless of your
resolutions requesting him to resign, and when you call us to an account,
we can tell you we have only carried out the doctrine of the Baltimore
Conference. If this be correct doctrine, we are independent of you, —
but the doctrine is new to us, we have always submitted to your decrees.

This Conference is doubtless influenced by the petitions that have
been presented from the Northern conferences. Well, we could present

 

counter petitions, were we disposed: we could oresent the name of ev-
ery member from the Potomac to the Sabine, They would all pray you
not to meddle with the subject. ,

One word concerning the Episcopacy. I believe a Bishop is made 2
Bishop for life, and must remain for life, unless removed by impeach-
ment. One brother said, if a Bishop should become an ab@litionist, he
would vote requesting him to resign; but I could not do it, unless. 1 con-
sidered abolitionism 2 sufficient ground of impeachment to expel him.

Vc might uot respect him for his abolitionism, but we would respect
the office, and receive him as a Bishop, did he not trouble us with his
peculiar views. I respect the Bishops, and I will’ sey to that one who-
154

declored that he did not wish to survive the integrity of thé church, tat
when division shall be rife, when strife shall prevail, when the most bit-
ter contention shall rage among Christian brethren, :and when the un-
sanctified passions shall be roused into a storm, and the interests of our
own fair and beloved Zion laid waste, we wil] pour our tears upon his
rent and anguish smitter bosom. And in that hour we shall enjoy the
tonsolation of knowing that we never agitated the sybject.

This is not the course holy men of old persued on these subjects. St
Paul did not pursue such a course; he sent Onesimus back to his mas-"
ter, Philemon, from whom he had aMeued This does not look as though
he made it a point to interfere with the eivil relations; as though he he-
ieved that no man could be a slaveholder and be a Christian. Dr.
Clarke admits that Onesimus was a slave, and be remarks that it is
wonderful that this short epistle, containing no essential doctrines, and
no general directions to the church, should have been preserved. And
while other epistles have-been disputed this has never been by any part of
the church. But now it appears plain to me, why this cpistle has been
preserved ; it isthat nien may sce that it is possible to Lold slaves and go
to heaven, Thave not got much religion, but Ihave got enough to lay down
all that comes between meand heaven. | Convince me that it is a sin to .
hold a slave under the circumstances, and I wiil yield. fall should turn
their slaves loose at once, it would be a great evil: it is therefore better that
the relation should be preserved. This Bppeats to have been the opin-
ion of Si. Paul, and hence he sent a runaway slave home; and an angel
did the same by Hagar. You cannet, brethren, lay your finger on a text
that says no man can sold slaves and be a Christian. “The man whom
the Saviour declared had the greatest faith he had found ia all ‘Israel,
was a slaveholder. He said, Lama man in authority having servants
under me, “This, Dr. Clarke renders, “ having slaves under me.” The

parable of the ungrateful servant is another illustration. Wis master or-
4 him sold and payment to be made. This shows that a man mey
be sold, and that, of course, he may be property.

The speaker closed by exhorting the Conference to come back to the
principles upon which they began, and stop this church legislation about
things that belong to the civil powers; to do what they can to ieach the
sinve, and4eave the evil to work out its own cure,

A motion was mace for an afternoon session.

A motion was then made to lay that motion on the table, which was lost

A motion was then made to amend the motion for an afternoon ses-
sion so'as to confine it to ordinary business, Jetting the discussion in pro-

‘gress rest. This was also lost. Mr. Winans a against an afterioolt
155

session. He said it was the young men that voted against the motion ic
Jay upon the table. He presumed it was not because young men had a
\:ss regard for the interests of the church, but because they did not feei
the pressure of continued application to business as old men did. He
felt confident it would be a loss of time in the end. They were not
able to continue so many hours in close application to business, -without
becoming exhausted. They should all be better prepared to hear and
weigh argument to-morrow morning.’ If we press the discussion forward
‘we shall get up an excitement unfriendly to a calm and thorough discus-
sion, ‘

Charles Adams, of New England Conference, said he agreed with the
last speaker, the subject had assumed a serious aspect; he had given up
all idea of going home, and had written a letter to his family that they
need not expect him before July.

The motion was withdrawn, and the discussion resumed.

J.T. Peck, of the Troy Conference, said he did not rise to reply to the
lust speaker — he was too old a man to be replied to by one as young as
himself; there were, however, Le supposed, men of equal years whe
would pay due respect to the able arguments of that gentleman. My
object, said Mr. Peck, is, to pay. some attention to the arguments of the
young gentleman who addressed the Conference this morning, [Mr.
Pierce, of Georgia.} The gentleman remarked that the supporters of
the resolution lad resorted to a sort of legerdemain logic, and that this
consisted in the statement of abstract propositions, from which conclus-
ions are drawn that have nothing to do with the-propositions. But he
gave us no instance in which this has been done. It would certainly
have been very appropriate and logical, and very much to his cause,
could he have done it; but as he did not, and as he isa learned man,
we will call that part of his speech beautiful declamation, and let it go,

He charges us with making it an abstract question. What he means
by an abstract question, I do not exactly understand ; but if he meane
by its being abstract, that it is to affect the Bishop merely and not affect
the rights of other Southern preachers, that is precisely our view of. it.
But he insisted that it is a practical question. Well, I will let him have
it his own way, and join issue on this ground. Let it be remembered
then, that we have never hada slaveholding Bishop, and the issue is
easily made up, andit is this: shall we change? He said the question
had already been decided. What then are we doing here, if the case
hus already been decided ?

Mr. Pierce explained that his meaning was, that it had been decided

prospectively.
1560

Mr. Peck replied, a retrospective settlement of the question would
‘ave been a novelty indeed. I ask again, if it has been settled even pros-
pectively, what are we doing, and why are we debating it? But others
differ in opinion from the gentleman on the subject. I will admit that

‘it has some features in common with the case referred to; but in other
respects it was different. But whether the two cases were the same or
not in all points, he trusted his friend would allow that there was differ-
ence enough to furnish a rallying point upon which they could debate
it, and decide it again. He insisted that it was the design of those who"
supported the measure, to disfranchise all Southern preachers. And
how came he to understand our design? Why does he leave our argu-
ment and look after our designs? | Does he find jit easier to answer our

‘designs than our arguments? We design by it to disfranchise all the
Southern preachers! No such thing will be the result of the passage of
that resolution. ‘ No such thing is designed by the supporters of it. 1
feel called upon to disclaim any such design in behalf of all tha confer-
ences, North and East. I never heard such’ a word from any man, nor
do I believe there is a man in the North that has any such wish in his
heart. All we ask is, to have the matter put back where it was at the
beginning, and where it remained, up to the time when Bishop Andrew
became connected with slavery. The argument of the brother from
Georgia, by which he proves that we intend to disfranchise, must be this:
u Slaveholder carnot be a Bishop, therefore a slaveholder cannot be a
preacher. This does not follow: The argument rests upon the false
principle, that a man hasa right to be a Bishop, which is not true. No
men has a constitutional right to be a Bishop as a man hasa right to be
a preacher, or as a probationer has a right to admission into full con-
nection, Who'can claim the right of being a Bishop?

But the resolution does not say, in effect, that a slaveholder connot bea
Bishop, and I do not wish to say any such thing: I do not even wish to say:
that a rumseller cannot be a Bishop; though I think it would be very

improper to make a rumselling Bishop. It is not necessary to say that a
slaveholder cannot be a Bishop, that matter will be settled by the election,
and will be safe left in the hands of the Conference. I hope it will never
become necessary to say what is requisite fora Bishop: the Conference
can judge what qualifications are necessary, and who possesses them, and
will come to the best and safest conclusion by being left to a free elec-
tion. Then when the Conference finds a man that will answer the
purpose, they can ‘use him, and reject such as will not answer. Seces-
sions have already taken place, and if we return home with a slayehold:
ang Bishop, still larger secessions will take place.
157

The speaker said Mr. Peck, made some allusions to New England on
this subject, which I was sorry to hear. 1 prefer the: language of some
other brethren from the south. “Let New England secede,” was the lan-
guage. Never! it must not be. That brother should know that the South

. cannot get half way to New England. They will find Baltimore a formi-
dable obstacle in the way : and could they pass her, they would find New
York stillin the way, and’when they should get to New England, they
will find that she will present an impregnable wall which will defy their
assaults, It is not a question between us and New England; we differ
not in sentiment, but only in measures, and she appears destined to roll,
the wave over the entire Nor then States. Let New England go! Never!
New England is the land of the Pilgrims; the latid where Methodism
‘was first planted by Jesse Lee ; the land that has produced a Soule anda
Wedding. Iam proud to refer to it as the land of my birth. We will hot
ict her go. When it cones to that, the South will find us side by side
with her in battle ; nor will we allow her to vex us to let the South go:
slic cannot provoke us to it. I would say to the brethren from the South,
we love you, and we cannot give you up. We love you for your piety,
but most of all for your adherence to the Discipline. We love you for
your conservatism, though itis ultra. We will not let you go, if you will
live with us upon the same principles upon which we have lived and la-
bored together for the last forty years.

At this point, the hour having arrived, the Conference adjour ned, lea-
ving Mr. Peck on the floor.

Saturday, May 25.

Bishop Morris in the chair, Prayer by A. Wiley, of Indiana Confer-
ence. % 3

The Book Committee made a report, which was laid upon the table.

The Committee on Itinerancy reported that they had examined with
care the journals of the several annual conferences for the last four
years, and found them correct with but few exceptions. Among the
exéeptions were the following named :-

The Ohio Conference had not a full record of the trial of one of its
members. ,

New Hampshire Conference had passed a resolution, which required
the same certificate of widows living without the bounds of the Confer-
ence, inorder to draw on the funds, as is acini of a superannuated

preacher.
14
L586

Baltimore Conference settles with the preachers according to the
ainount of deficit, and not according to the whole claim of cach preacher
The Black River Conference passed. a resolution, instructing the
preachers to bring rumsellers to trial. andexpel. them, under the General
Rule, which requires us-to do no harm.:

The report concluded, with resolutions for the adoption ¢ of the Canter:
ence, suited to meet and correct these-several cases. Laid upon the ta-
ble. :

Dr. Peck reported an address to the Canada Conference, which was
adopted. oO

The Commiitee on Episcopacy reported that they had examined the
character and administration of the Bishops. for the last four years, and.
found them worthy of ajl approbation, excepting so much as hed alreedy
been. reported with reference to Bislop Andrew. . Adopted.

The order of the day was then taken up, and J. T. Peck, who had the
floor when the Conference adjourned, resumed his ar gument. .

Mr. Peck said he would have been glad to have finshed his remarks
yesterday, and imperfect and unfiaished as they were, he would havo
been willing to have left them without another word, had it not been
for the opinion of frienda,. to whose judgement he was always willing
to submit. Ten years, said the speaker, ardour glorious itinerancy
and our time honored Episcopacy will have expired! The confidence
which has heretofore been reposed in these glorious institutions will
no longer be able to support them; the arm of God which has been
beneath and round about us will be withdrawn, and the light of Meth-
odiam, itinerant Methodisin, which has enlightened the land, and which
thas begun to break upon the heathen world like the refulgence of morn,
‘will be extinguished! Only ten years before all this is to transpire!
Being only a child in these matters, Iam led to inquire into the cause
that is thus to interrupt our progress, and put an end to our prosperity.
What is-the resson assigned for all this? The plain reason, when
‘stripped -of' all its ‘drapery and divested of all the rhetorical flowers
‘with which speakers have adorned it, is simply this, and no more than
this, we are about to say in this Conference that the Episcopacy and
slavery cannot be united! I repeat it, all this is to come upon us be-
cause we do not choose to havea slaveholding, Bishop! JT esk, then
the cause why such results will follow such a measure. Will the system
lose any of its. purity 2 ? Will it have any less simplicity? Will it have
-any less of sits almost supernatural adaption to the wants of the world?
What essential principle will be taken. out, ‘or what corner ‘stone will he
removed by refusing to haveaslaveholding Bishop? Because we will
159

not consent to trammel on officer with on emLerrarsmert peculiar to a
single limb of the tree of Methodixm, must the whole tree be bent down?
Will the act disrobe it of any of its beauty or render it any the lees
rich and abundant in ‘its fruit ? a

If God forsake us we,are ruined beyond recovery, hopelessly ruined.

Bat will God be angry with us because we refuse to have a slavehold-
ing Bishop. God hax not been engry with us for the last fifty years,
though we have been so careless as-to live without aslaveholding Bishop.
The brother's prediction on this subject, that all: these evils are to come
‘upon us if we refuse to have a slaveholding ‘Bishop; appears to mic to
partake largely of the character of romance,’ ‘and I know not hor to ac-
count for it upon the pritciple of the legerdemain logic of which my
fiiend spoke. When the argument is reversed; and it is insisted thet
the General Conference should not forsake the old paths by introducing
slavery into the Episcopacy, it is sound, end the reasons rest upon 4@
firm foundation.

Therg is one peculiarity in all the eae of our Southern brethren,
which I feel called npon to notice. They constantly call upon us ta pause
be‘ore we take‘another step. There are circumstances when it would
be the height of wisdom to pause and reflect before action, but this ap-
pears not to be one of those cases. Suppose my neighbor should move
his fence on my land, and I require him to move it back, and he begins
to cry, Pause! I beseech you to pause before you take another step in this
business! J say'to him, It would have ‘been, well for you'to have paused

‘before you moved your fence upoa my land, and it will be time enough
for me to’ pause when you shall have moved itback. The application of
this is plain. Has my neighbor moved his fence ? Or in other words, has
the aggression commenced on the part of the North or the South? —I
use the term aggression in its softest sense. — The whole history proves
that the aggr ession has been on ‘the part of the South. Have we eversaid
you have not equal yights with the’North?'Have we once invaded your
rights, or suffered the abolitionists to invade your rights, since abolition-
‘ism had its being? If we have not held an even balance, we have more
reason to‘ask the pardon of the abolitionists of the East'than the slave-
holders of the South. If we have received abolitiou petitions, we have
not granted tlieir requests. The causes that have produced the present
state of things have been beyond our control, but are they any the leas
portentous to us because we cannot control them? We have no right
to elect a Bishop for the North or the South. This has been admitted
by a distinguished brother ‘of the South. We cannot limit the Confer-
ence to any section in the election of ‘Bishops, and we cannot limit the
i 160

Bishops themselves to any section, and hence the Conference must'se-
lect men who are available for every part of the work. Here I would

say, Pause, set no bounds, say not that we must have a Southern man or

a Northern man. Let the office be given to the man who is the most

available, all things considered.» We have difficulties to meet among

friends and foes on this subject, and I think we shall only increase them

by attempting to settle any general principle. Leave the question free

with the General Conference, let the Conference be left free to elect a

slaveholding Bishop whenever a majority shall think a slaveholder the

best man and mostavailable. There is no objection to electing a slave-

holding Bishop, abstractly considered ; the objection is not to electing,

but to having a slaveholding Bishop. There is no objection to electing

aslaveholding Bishop but what grows out of the objection to having one.

Bishop Andrew will pardon me if he be present, for alluding to this del-
icate subject ; I would not do it, did not the argument require it. Ta

effect the case is the same, as though the General Conference should elect

aslaveholding Bishop. We cannot then take this responsibility, knowing

as we do that it will not be for the good of the church.

Had I entertained any doubts of the magnanimity of our Southern |
bretheren, their course in frankly. avowing their real sentiments would
have removed my doubts on the subject, but still there is one feature
in their mode of discussing this subject, to which I cannot reconcile my
feelings. They cannot forget that their missions are under the control
of men who have common sympathy with us, which naturally suggests
to their minds the consequences of division; but why should they con-
tinually dwell upon the subject of a division of the Church?’ Can it be
that they intend by this course to frighten us from a free discussion of the
subject? Itis enough to frighten any man as they present it, almost
enough to drive us away from our moral principle, but that must not be.
Let me entreat them to let that slumber for a few days, until we look the.
subject before us full in the face, and settle it. I cannot bear to think
of it. And it has been more than intimated from both the North and
the South, that civil division may ‘follow as one of the consequences of
the proposed measure, I see at once before my mind a division of the
civil union and our republic broken up, and its elements warring with
each other. I see our Southern missions broken up, ourselves so divi-
ded and distracted as not to be able to sustain our foreign missions. I
see the barriers to Catholicism remove, and its fearful influence sweep-
ing éver our country. I beg brethren to let these matters sleep, while
we calmly settle the question before us. Onethought more. Br. Green
asked what would be the relation of the Bishop if the resolution passed
161

and what would be done with him. Why ask that question when we
declate we do not touch his’ moral character, or his ininisterial charac-

ter. ‘Why ask that question, when the whole South lies open before
him, through the whole of which he is greatly respected and beloved.
We have been asked if we were adorning with garlands the victim we
intend to immolate ? We answer no, we do not intend to immolate
Bishop Andrei. It is due to him, to the South, and to ourselves, to de -
clare that we do not touch his ministerial character ; the vote is designed
only to effect his dffice. We love and venerate Bishop Andrew, and
hence it gives us the greater pain to touch him; we would not lay a
hand upon him, but we know the consequences if we donot. Situated
es We are, compelled to fict against the man whom we all love atid vener

ate, to save the Church, our Southern brethren ouglit to respect us for
the courage with which we walk up and take hold of it, Every tender
feeling af the soul is stirred within us, and all our regard for the man
‘increases out’ difficulty. We need your sympathy and your prayers,
when driven by necessity, for nothing but necessity’ could drive us to
such a measure. The lust speaker said there: was sympathy in the Con-
ference, and sympathy i in the gallery : that sympathy was found in female
virtue, Ifso, let it ee, for we need it, Iet that sympathy flow for us
and our beloved Bishop. ' It will find its'expression in the North, in view
of the necessity by which we are compelled to.act.

Imust ask pardon for tlie emotion with which I referred to New
England last evening. There are’ many associations connected with
New England calculated to awaken cimotions in my seul. It isthe land
of my fathers; itis the land of two of our Bishops; the land of Dr.
Olin’s nativity 5 itis the land of our’ fallen and lamented Fisk. Can
we be silent and {cel no emotion, when called upon to give up New
England, while her ‘heavens are yet radiant with the mild end lingering
glory of our once beloved but now szinted Fisk ?

I have only to add in conclusion, that I love the M. E. Church; I
fove her doctrines, her government, her episcopcicy, her officers, ‘her
whole cconomy ; and I feel disposed to stick to the old ship yet. She
may have to encounter storms, she is new cuveloped in’ élouds and
storm, and is tempest tost, but she will yet safely resch'the barbor.
Another vessel thay come up elong side, she may rise in beauty and
spread her canvass wide to the breeze, but brethren, ‘look well to ber
ballast before you leave the old ship to go ou board. I close with:‘the
oft repeated exclamation, “Don’t give up the ship.”

‘Mr. Pierce, of Georgia, wished to explain, He said- he should’ be
glad to reply, but be could not de thet but by courtesy. He had been

N
: : 162

‘

_.accused of reasoning upon the principle t that a man has a constitution-
al right to be a Bishop. He remarked that he did believe a bishop bad °
a constjtutional right to be a bishop , the whole length of term for
which he was elected, unless he forfeited that right by some viclation
of the rules of the Church.

As to what he-had said about the secession of New England, he
thought that she owed him a great debt- of gratitude for his remarks, .
as they had furnished a subject so well suited to the peculiar talent of
the last speaker, by whom she had been so ably defended. But when
he said let, New England go, he meant no more than that i it would be
better for her. to secede than to sacrifice Bishop Andrew, an innocent
man, who had violated no rule of the Discipline, upon the altar of
-pseudo expediency.

By the epithet, nervous excitement, whieh he applied to New England, ;
le meant abolitionism. If all were engaged in that, he ment all. He
admitted that New England had produced noble sons. Dr. Olin: was
one of them, and he should venerate him, whatever his vote might. be
on the question pending. :

Mr. Pierce concluded. his explanations by saying that not withstand.
ing his speech had so dreadfully shocked Mr. Peck’s nerves, he hoped
his explanation would notruffle a hair upon the crown of his head. This
remark caused a hearty laugh, and both parties appeared to feel the
. better natured for it. ;

Mr..Green, of Tennessee” Contienes, next obtained ie floor, and
spoke against the resolution. He said he was not in the habit of crowd-
ing himself upon the attention of others, but it was cominon to dis-
charge the light guns first, and then bring on the heavy ordnances after-
wards. He would get out of the way @s soonas possible, for he knew
others wished to speak. , He was not grey, nor did he wear a furrowed
face, but still he was among the fathers of the Church. When he went
to his first circuit, he left home’ with a mother’s blessing, who wasa
Methodist before any one in that Conference was born.. He had been
a Methodist thirty years, and twenty years had he been in the ministry.
Lam not a minister, said the speaker, of the South nor of the North,
but of the whole Church. /

, Lhope you will bear with me, brethren, and allow me to be a Ijttle
desultcry. I wish to talk a little about a division of the Church. My
feelings for the last two days have been beyond whatI can. describe.

Tam not generally thought to be an alarmist. I was never frightened.
before in my life. Ihave been among bears, wolves, panthers, and.
wild cats, and thought Thad. been. scaved ; — but I am now convinced
163

I never was, for Inever felt before.as I have for the last two days. 1
never thought of any thing but of serving the clurch, and it may be
that this has come upon me for a punishment for being proud of the
church. Isaw the church- stand out’so prominent, and heard wise
statesmen say that it was the cement of our political union. I have
heard them say our preachers were the men who were the real work-
ers in the vincyard of the Lord: that some of them were not very good
writers, but they all knew how to make their mark. But what have 7
seen the three past days? T have viewed her in enother point of light:
I haye seen her laboring at sea; the mighty billows lift her Ligh, the
yawning gulf threatens to swallow her up, the tempest howls, the swiit
winds drive her through the mist and spray and gloom that settle upon
the brow of the stermy night; she feels not licr helm, and fearful rocks
lie in her course, upon which I see her about to break! A» I have
contemplated these things, my heart has quailed within me. Jam-no
orator, no president, no doctor, no lawyer; J] am only a plain Methodist
preacher, and can talk to you only in a plain, common sense style. ]
‘ain not only a preacher, but Tam aa philanthr opist 3 T never saw a man
for whom I had not the fecling of a brother, of whatever country or
complexion he might ‘be. Tam known and published in my own coun-
try as a-peace man. I would say to the men opposed to the South,
that I have never said much on the subject of abolition, but [ have
thought much, Ihave read the account of West India emancipation :,
Thave lived amid slavery in the South, I have attended abolition meet-
ings in the North, and have taken the papers and known all about it. _
But [ must speak tothe main question. It appears to me that Dr.
Bangs, brother Sanford and others who have spoken, are all wrong. 1
have been astonished above measure at the position they have taken,
that a bishop may be dismissed at pleasure by the General Conference.
The illustrations that have been introduced are very unfortunate. To
rank a bishop with a book agent, or an editor, is an extreme to which
I did not believe brethren would go. There isa wide difference; the
book agent and editor are merely appointed to the office but the bishop
is inducted into his by the solemities of a separate ordination. Let us
look at the ordination service. The person to be ordained bishop is
- asked the. following question :— “ Are you persuaded that you are truly
called to this ministration according to the will of our Lord Jesus
Christ?” To this the candidate is required to answer, “Iam so per-
suaded.”
Can any one make himself believe that such a question. can be an-
swered in sucha way by an denest and reasonable man, if it be con-
164

sidered at the time a mere appointment to an office from which he may
be dismissed at pleasur e,without impeachment? Ifthe illustration be
to the point, it would be just as proper to make the book agents swear
that they believed that they are called to their office according to the
will of our Lord Jesus Christ. Again, when a bishop i is ordained, the
ordaining bishop laying his hands on the head of the candidate, says:

— “Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of a bishop in the
Church of God, now committed unto, thee by the imposition of our
hands, in the name of the- ‘Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

Such language does not suppose ‘that a bishop i is a mere officer of the
General Conference, to be dismissed at pleasure, without, impeach-
ment. : .

Again when an editor or book agent is appointed, it is done fora
given period of time, at the expiration of which he is re- -elected, or
another oné élected in his place but a bishop is not elected fora limit-
ed time, and is never re-elected.

Again, when one of these bishops becomes infirm, so as not to dis-
charge the duties of the office, you do not dismiss him from the office

as you do a book agent or an editor, but he remains a bishop still.

‘It has been ‘asked if bishop Hedding should marry a colored woman,.
if the conference would not have power to ask him to resign? The
answer is, if the Discipline made ‘provisions for such marriages ‘under’
certain circumstances, and the bishop’s marriage could not be preved:

to be contrary to those provisions, the conference could not call liim to:

an account for it. The Discipline does make provisions for slavehold-
ing under certain circufstances, and these are the very" circumstances
under which: bishop Andrew is a slaveholder.

Another case will serve as an illustration. Suppose the bishop should
become a wine dealer: if the Disciplive provides that preachers may
be wine sellers under some circlimstances, you must first. prove that
‘the bishop’ s case is not provided for in law, before You can sustain any
charge against him. It cannot then be shown that bishop Andrew has
violated any part of the Discipline; but‘on the other hand, itis cleat
that the circumstances under which he holds slaves are precisely the

_ circumstances provided for in the Discipline.
’ Brother Peck brought an illustration of a fence, which he supposed
‘to have been ‘moved from’Ats proper place. But I would ask him where
he finds any fetice tunning through the church. "Is it in the New Tes-
tament? Is itin the Old Testament? Is it in the Discipline 3 ?"’ Oy, is
it in the action of the General Conférence ? It is in none of them ; there
‘ag no fence running through the church! but there isa glorious fence
me

165

running round the whole of it. Brother Pock says, suppose my nejgh-
bor moves the fence upon my land? Let we tell the brother, with
reference to the church, he has no land of which he can claim the ex-

_clusive right. The land is all'‘mine in common with the whole church.

I claim a right to the whole land, because I am a minister of the whole
church. But I can give the brother a better illustration, Suppose
the church has four doors through which men may enter into the epis-
copacy —a north door, and east door, anda south door, and a west
door; and SUppose no ono bas conc iute the svuth dour since it Wne
opened, all the bishops have come in at one of the other doors. My
brother starts up and says that door shall be shutup, no one has come
in there for in so long a tine, it shall be shut up. That is the natuye of
the argument. : E

But it is ‘all based upon expediency. Now it appears to me such an
act cannot be expedient. It cannot be expedient to resert to such an
expedient. It cannot be expedient to go contrary to the book. It isa
measure founded upou principles which do not belong to Methodism
proper. And I cannot see why this expediency should exist in relation
to the bishop, any more than all slaveholding preachers. I meet breth-
ren, and they shake hands with me as though they loved a slaveholding-

«Minister. I go into the free States, and they invite me into the pulpit,

and I have a right there, for methodist pulpits are open to all duly an-—
thorized methodist preachers. But why should they refuse to admit
bishop Andrew any more than unworthy me? It will be seen that the
principle of the resolution will cut off all preachers whenever applied.
Pass that resolution, and it will not be four years before all Methodist
preachers will be compelled to free their slaves to get into Northern pul-
pits. The same expedicucy will be argued. It is now insisted that as
the bishop isa general superintendent, he must not, be connected with
slavery, which renders him unacceptable to a part.of the chureh, but if
will then be argued that the preachers are the property of the wholo
church, and as the bishop has the power to transfer, lie may fiud it ne-
cessury to draw on one section to supply another; the preachers there-
fore ought not to be connected with any thing which will render them
unacceptable in any part of the church. Now, as slavery does rerder
the bishop unacceptable: in the North, if brethren tell the truth, it cxr-
not fail to render the preachers unacceptable i in the North, and you have
just as good an argument for cutting off all slaveholding niinisters ss
you have for deposing bishop Andrew. Again, for all that] know,
tle General Conference will always be held in a free State, which: will
render it necessary for the preachers to: be free from all ecnnectiou with

»
166

slavery that they may fill their appointments and be acceptable ayiong,
the people.
Bat I wish to take another view of the subject. It has been adinitted
" thet the General Conference’ can elect'a slaveliolding bishop, justwhena
juajority shall think best. That there is no law against this, has been
adinitted over and over again. The point then is ibis, enn the Genera!
Conference punish bishop Andrew for a connection with slavery, which
connection would not bave rendered it unlawful for them to elect hin,
and he sustained itat the time? I should net be willing to let that go
to the world as my position. ;
When the bishop was elected, it was dene with refvrence to his lo-
cality. Bishops have families, or onght to have ; and it is not éxpected
that their families will itinerate: hence, it was expected that bishop An-
drew would reside in the South, — he was elécted with that expectation.
And it must have been known at the time, that he would be liable to be-
come a slavcholder. He did pot pledge himsel/ not to become a slave-
‘holder. One said, no men.could make hima slaveholder without his
consent. Note the point that he was not pledecd, and then listen to the
following fact. In Nashville, there was a black man who was a slave
and a preacher. Jfe was owned by an old man, who was pious, and
who allowed him all the liberty he wanted, but he was uneasy, for the
master was old, and he was afraid he would die, and that he would fulf
_inio bad hands. He tricd to get free; the master was willing to give
him his freedom, but the law forbade it. Tlis case was carried to the
court, but the court refused to grant him free ‘papers. It was then car-
ried up to the legislature, and they refused to act in the case. Thus it
was not possible for him to get free without leaving the State, and'that
he was not willing todo. One day, the speaker said, be went to his
secretary, and i.! it he found a paper, and inquired of his wife how it
came there, and received for an answer that the old negro preacher
brought it therefor him: and on examination he found it to be a bill of
sale of the old negro himself. It was duly executed and on record, and
the man belonged’ to him. Thus he became a slaveholder ‘without his
consent. The old negro had tried in vain to get frée, and fearing his
present master would die, who was willing to free hin, he meant:to do
the best thing he could for himself{, and believing him to be a good 'na-
tured fellow, he put himself into his hands. This was in September,
and I did not see the old man, who was preaching among the colored
people, until the next August, when he explained why he had done-as
he had. I never received one cént forthe old man’s services, thouglrhe
ig my property i in law. All the advantage to meis,when he is gick, they
167

‘call on ms. to pay the doctor's bill; and when he gets in jail, as he is
goiug about preaching, they know where to find me, to pay his jail ex-
penses and take him out. Will any one deny that I was made a slave-
holder without my consent? Or will any one say that the relation I
sustain to slavery ig sinful ?

But it cannot be dnaintained that. Bishop An drew is a slaveholder in
moral principle. He i is anxjous to,get rid of them as soon as possible.
The slaves that belonged to his wife. never were his in a moral point of '
view, for before he was married, it was,understood that they should not
be his, The act on paper, it is true, was delayed until after they were
married, to make it lawful. The understanding was that she should
continue to hold the servants, and to make thein lawfully bers. It was
necessary that they should first be. married, and then he deed them back
to her, as he could-not do it before marriage. Much has been said about
the original intention in the election of Bishop Andrew, and of the set-
tled policy of the church not to have a slaveholding Bishop, but ] must
say I never heard of such an intention or policy before this Conference.
Who, I ask, is looked upon as the apostle of Methodism in this country ?
Tsuppose you would name Asbury first, and next to him you would
place Bishop McKendree. I was his frieud and companion ; I stood
oyer him in death, and ag his spirit was about to depart, as his-eye grew
din and his voice sunk toa whisper, I caught from his last aspiration
‘that motto, “ All is well.” Let me say, he who is now a saint, whose
robe is now whiter than the mountain sow, once! made up his mind
‘to buy asiave. Yes, Bishop Mciendree once made up his mind to buy
a slave, and would have done it, had he not been pursuaded off of the
notion by Elijah Reed aud myself, What was the object he had in view
in buying a sluve 2° It was not.to make him a slave, but as he was com-
pelled to have some one to wait upon him, and as he found it extremely
alifficult to hive a slave, for he could hire no other that would be faithful
and attentive, he resolved to buy one and educate him to suit himeelf.
And what argument did we use to per’ unde him not to purchase a slave j ?
{t was not that it would be a sin to buy a boy and greatly i improve his
‘condition, but that if his brother’s servant boy could not be made obedi-
ent und faithful, bis own could not. The truth is then, Bishop McKen-
-dree was a slaveholder in his intention, but Bishop Andrew i is aslavehold-
er,without intention. To condemn Bishop . Andrew, will be to condemn
him. Will you disrobe him now and condemn his sainted spirit? Will
you take off, his Episcopal head ?

‘But you ask what harin it can doi in the South to pass that resolution.
You may do up a portion of arsenic in a small piece of paper, but is it
168

any the less poison because it is done up so small and nice? I will tell
you how it will operate. I go to my circuit, and meet the friends, and
Iso to the camp-meeting, and there I meet with the people, and they
will inquire about what the General Conference did, and when they hear
of ‘the case of Bishop Andrew they will say to me, you came back a
minister only because the General Conference could not lay hands on
you. ‘There was one as good and pure as you upon whom they could
lay hands, and they disrobed him. The peeple of the world will say,
“ The old Bishop got used up by those abolitionists at the General Con-
ference.” What shall I.say? Shall J condemn it? If I do they will
reply, You belong to the same‘church, do you not? If I justify it, the
people will condemn me. I would rather be transfixed to some sun-
burnt rock, and be flayed-to flinders, than to undertake to work in the
South under the influencé of that resolution. ,To submit to it would:
' disable me to serve the South, and those who pass the resolution can-
not serve the Soyth. Do not ask me to do this, it cannot be done. I
do not say you cannot pass that resolution, you can do it, for you have °
a majority, but I cannot submit toit. I cannot submit to it if I would;
the Southern preacher who would connive at’it would be forsaken,
shunned and despised. Suppose the present Bishop be removed from
office, a new one must take his place. From whence'will the new
Bishop come ? No southern man can take the office, and step into the
shoes of Bishop Andrew. No Southern man would take it, no Sonthern
man could take it under the circumstances, Will you then send a
Northern man to step into Bishop Andrew’s shces, when you shall have
voted him out? The moment he should come Sou h, it would be said,
this is one of the men who voted against Bishop Andrew, and has ta-
ken his place. Tassure you it would be difficult to sustain such a man;
we could not, we would not dare to do it. I must hue to the line, let
the chips fly where they will. You pass that resolution, and you cut off
intercourse between the North and the South. When Northern breth-
ren have come South, there has been suspicion and prejudice against
them, and I have always defended them, and plead their cause, and
things have passed along smoothly, but the moment you pass that reso-
lution: you will close my mouth, you will seal my lips, that J ‘cannot
speak without involving myself. Pass that resolution, and you will fix
a gulf between the North and the South, as wide as the gulf between
heaven and hell. \
Such are my feelings, that I have wished since I have been here, I
had died before this day. I am sorry that] was elected to General Con-
ference. Yet'our case is not entirely hopeless; it is possible that we
169

may outlive this storm. But I fear, and if we do come out, it will not
be without damage: we shall lose some canvass, and some of our spars
and masts will be carried away. May God help us. If a Bishop was
an abolitionist, as has been supposed, and if the book of discipline pro-
vided for abolitionism under some circumstances, as it provides for sla-
very, I would say you cannot take away his office. I ama peace-maker
and am willing to compromise so fur as Ican. It is for the sake-of the
unity of the church that I would do it. If Bishop Andrew ‘is a Metho-
dist, le must not ‘blame me for being a Methodist, and for going as far
as I can to preserve Methodism. The North is in trouble, and so far-us
these evils have been produced by the abolition discussion, may God for-
give them; I hope, however, these brethren have had nothing to do with
it. But evils exist, and our inquiry should not be so much what has
‘produced them, as, what can be done to cure them, and preserve the
church. The South can come a little-~she has already come a good
deal, and-she can come a little more. Ihave said there is no rule
shutting out a slavehelding Bishop, and we may pass that gap without
shutting it: butif you pass this resolution, you will shutthatup. Sup-
pose you do noi clect a slaveholding Bishop, I can bear all that, if
you will not put it in the book. Suppose you repeal the colored tes-
timony resolution, and I now expect you will: Ican bear allthat. Sup-
‘pose you pass a resolution, declaring that you are sorry that Bishop
Andrew has become connected with slavery: 1 could bear that, —I-
can bear any thing thatcan be borne: cut off my hand, put out my eye,
sever any of my limbs, and I can bear it, tosave the body; but do not
‘cut out my heart, for I cannot then live. Methodism has but one heart.
‘Say you are sorry that Bishop.Andrew is connected with slavery, but
that you have no constitutional power to touch it, ashe has violated
no rule of discipline. Some of you can'do this; you have told me
so, that this would enable you to satisfy all that you know; but the
great difficulty is way off yonder, somebody has told you. Will you
then cut down this beautiful tree because you hear it reported that
some of the distant branches will fall off if you do not cut the tree
down, Let me entreat you to do'all you can to save the church. Go
us far as you can, and donot be afraid to declare and defend the truth.
Bishop Andrew is not a slaveholder in the sight of God. He comes
the nearest to an anti-slavery man of any one I know in the South; he
goes further than you would dare to go were you in the South. Well,
he does not go quite as far as you think he ought to go; and in this,
you only differ from him because you d6 not agree with him, and it is
a matter of opinion after all. Do not pass that resolution: come a lit
. 15
170

i

tle. Ido not know that I could stein the influence of what 3 have pro-
posed, when 1 get home, but 1 will try and do the best Ecan; buti am
sure I cannot meet the resolution in the South. My veins have been so
long fiiled with “Methodism, that itis hard for me to give up and see the
ehurch broken to picecs.

Brethren, how can you do this thing, if you beltes what you say?
You say, he is a good.man, that he is a good minister, that he has, dis-
charged his duties ably and faithfully, as a, Bishop, and that you love
and respect him asa brother and a Christian. How then can you
sacrifice him, to-soothe the excited feclings of others, whose | feelings
towards him you must admit are wrong, if yours are right? Will you
suy it will not injure him much? It will compe! his children to write
deposed, upon his ton:b-stone; the world will look upon hin as dis-
graced, and our enemies will seize upon it to stir up the people, aud
cxcite prejudice against us. In conclusion, brethren, as you declare
your belief, that be is a pure and innocent man, let mejask if you will
do as Pilate did, who said, “Take him and crucify him, for I find no
fau't in him.”

Dr. Bangs made an unimportant explanation.

Mr. Baker, of Black River Conference, moved a re-consideration of
the vote suspending the rule liniting speakers to fifteen minutes. He.
said he did not wish to cut off discussion, and hoped the delegates from
the Sou th would have full time to give them the advantage of their
strongest reasons in favor of their side of the subject under consider-
ution, but he thought the discussion would be couducted to better. ad-

vantage under the fifteen minute rule.

Dr. Capers opposed the motion. He said he was glad to hear the.
brother say that he did not want to cut off discussion; he thought when -
brethren urged, expediency es the rule of action in so important a case,
is does not become them.to wish to cut off discussion. If greater evils
are threatened in the North and East from uo action, than are threat-
ened in the South from the action proposed, and if this is the ground
of action, you ought, to give us this one chance for a hearing on the sub-
ject of our difficulties, that your people may hear us through the report
They have heard, 1 know not what, but they have never heard-us, On

the other hand, you ought to give us who wish to hold on by our fin-

ger nails, so-long as we can find any hold at all, the.full force of your
strength, ‘that we may have your arguments to carry to our people
when we return, that they may understand the ground of the action,

Sir. Early from Va. also oppesed the motion. to reconsider,

My, Porter, of New England Conference, opposed the metion. He

a
171
sail that they had had much discussion in which commendations had
haen heaped upon the South and upon Bishop Andréw beyond measure.
Ife said if half that has been said to them is true, God has not another
class of men equal to them on the face of the earth. ‘But New-Englahd
had been traduced and caricatured, and no one had spoken in her de-
fence save onc brother yesterday, (Mr. Peck } and he apologized for it,
this morning, and took it back. } 4

Mr. Collins interrupted the speaker, to remark that brother Peck to
whom he referred, was absent, and that he felt it his duty to say that he
thought he misunderstood brother Peck, for he did not understand him
to retrdct anything he saidof New England. .

Mr. Porter resumed: } understood him in his apology to say that'ho
referred to New England as he did because it was the lanil of his fath-
ers, and because two of the bishops were reared there, and not hecause
New England is entitled to consideration for what she ix. 1 am not rr.
ious‘to speak on the main question, but'T desire the privilege of detend-
ing New England. We wish a chance to defend ourselves.

Mr. Slicer of Baltimore'’said he would vot say one word on the sub-
ject, if he had spoken half an hour, bit ‘he kept within the prescribed
limits. If we go on in this way, we shall find ourselves without quo-
rum before the important business of the conference is finished; some
will be sick and some will be absent. You cannot keep brethren here.
At the rate we are going on, we shall have’to remain here-until July.
Most of the time, he said, ‘had been occupied by the brethren from the
South, and he hoped it would continue to be. If a brother was makin;
a good specch, they could give him liberty to-go beyond ‘his time, but
he was opposed. to-sitting there to have brethren give their history ‘from
childhood by the two hours and-a half. ‘He'was for restoring the rule
limiting biethren to fifteen minutes. Mr. Collins of Baltimore was ‘op-
posed to the motion. He did not like the plan to reconsider, and then
extend the time to popular speakers. The-tendency of that will be to
cut off what the majority does not like. He was opposed to puttingthat
power into the hands of a majority. Mr. Randall of Maine said he
thought they ought to restore the fifteen minuté rule. If brethren wish-
edto make long speeches for effeet elsewhere, they had better write
them out and publish them, and not detain the conférence to hear them.
We from New England do not need more than fifteen minutes to an-

gwer all that has been said on the other side worthy of notice.

The motion to restore the fifteen minute rule was-then laid upon the
table, and the conference adjourned.

-“
172

Monday, May 27.

Conférence opened as usual.

James Porter of New England asked the privilege of making an ex-
planation. He said-that he was mistaken in what he said on Saturday,
that brother Peck apologized for his defence of New England. He saw
from the reports that he apologized only for the warmth with which he
made the defence, and not'for the defence itself.

Mr. Winans of iiliss. wished to explain concerning a former explana-
tion. On the subject of the difference in the statements of himself and
brother Davis of Baltimore, concerning the nomination of bishops in
1832, he had made an explanation on a former day, in whichthe said
that memory was very treacherous. This, he said, father Pickering
understood to apply to him, but this was not his meaning; he meant
that that brother was right, and that the memory of those who had in-
formed him was treacherous. But he regretted to say that his explana-
tion had {appeared in but one paper, the Hearald, and that report
of it was every thing but true. The Herald, instead of niaking him
say that memory was treacherous, made him say that brother Davis
was very ‘treacherous, that he had always been a very treacherous man.

The order of the day was then taken up, which was the czse of Bish-
op Andrew.

Mr. Hamline, of Ohio, took the floor. He did not propose to make
a speech for the purpose of giving new light, as some others had, but
mainly for the purpose of calling attention to the real issue before the
Conference. The subject, he said, had taken a very wide range, and he
thought the speeches had gone far beyond the real issue. He remarked
also that he had not one word to say for his name, not one word for
the gallery, nor had he one word for the spectators; his only object was
to draw the attention of the Conference to the real question. He said
the resolution suggested two questions, namely:

1. Has the Conference power to do the thing proposed to be done?

2. Is it expedient that they should doit? What have we to do with
the expediency of the measure, inquired the speaker, until we have set-
ued the legality? ,Can any thing be expedient which is not lawful? 1
think not. He would call attention to the first question. Has this Con-
ference power to pass that resolution, is that power inherent in the body,
is it infered from its relation to the church, or is it 2 power -expressly
granted in the constitution? If the relation be regarded as mandate-
ry, to pass it requires the power to suspend or depese, JI shall now at-
tempt,to prove that the General Conference has.the: power both to sus-
pend or depose. My first argument is drawn from the exact. analogy
173

which such a power in the General Conterence bears to all the features
of Methodism. Every officer in the church, from the highest down to
a class-leader, can be removed with or without cause.

1. Class-leaders can be removed by the preacher’ in charge, with or
without cause. It is true no man would remove a leader without a
cause in his own mind ; but then the preacher i is under no obligation to
render any reason why Ge removes a class-léader.

2, Exhorters and all unordained preachers can be retmoved without
any charge or impeachment, The quarterly conference can put them
all out of office by refusing to vote for them fora renewal of their li-
cense.’ Norcan it be required to render any reason why the license is
not renewed.

3. The pbegelier in charge can be removed from office at pleasure by
the Bishop or by lis under officer, the presiding elder. Pastor is an
office from whieh a minister may be removed without affecting his min-
isterial character; and it may be done by the Bishop or presiding elder
without rendering a reason fox so doing. ‘This may be done not only
at the expiration of the time for which the preacher is appointed, but it
may be done at any time during’ the interim, as the higher officer ‘pass-
es through his field of labor. It maybe done too, without putting him
in another charge, but he may ‘be 'eft without charge, may be placed
the second preacher on a charge, who is not a pastor.

4. The presiding eller may be dismissed in the same way. You.
‘Mr. Chairman, have the power to appoint and dismiss presiding’elders,
bat will you‘do this, he is your inferior only in offi¢e. The presiding
elder is as high a minister as you are, but not so high an officer; hence
you can say to him, go into the ranks, take the charge of that station,
or labor as the second preacher on that’ circuit.

5. Thold that a Bishop is accountable in the same way to the Gen-
eral Conference. Are we to hold all the officers so strictly accountable,
and leave the bishops unaccountable? Is he to be placed beyond the
reach of the power of the General Conference to touch bis office or
correct his official conduct, without impeaching his Christian and min-
isterial oharactcr 2 “Will the improprieties which do not furnish ground
‘for impeachment, work fess evil than the improprieties of subordinate
officers ?

The manner of carrying- out the above principles is worthy of notice.
"The above officers are all removed by a single agent; the cluss-leader
ix removed by a single agent, the preacher in charge; the exhorters and
local preachers are removed by a single agent, the quarterly confer-
ence; a preacher in ‘charge is removed by a. single agent, the Bishop
174

or in his representative the presiding elder; the presiding elder is-re-
moved by asingle agent, the Bishop. Has not this Conference then
power to control the Bishop, who centrols all infprior officers, in the
church ? The ‘Bishop’s power extends downward throngh all the grades -
of officers, until it reaches the class-leader ; and, to render the chair com-
plete, must not, the Bishop be responsible in the same sence to the Gen-
eral. Conference, which is the source of all this power? What relation
does the General Conference sustain to the whole body? Some sup-
pose the same as Congress sustains to the State Legislatures. The con-
stitution not only creates but determines all officers, and fixes their
powers and term of office.’ It isa universal rule that all executive
officers, whose term of office is not fixed by the constitution, hold their
office during the will of the appointing power. There is in the consti-
tution no time fixed for which a Bishop is elected to office; and hence
he holds his office during the pleasure of the appointing power, which
is the General Conference. ;

It should be understood that what the General Conference can do
with the action of the annual conferences, is not constitution but law.
All those parts of the Discipline that the General Conference may alter
without the action of the General Conference, is not constitution but
statute law. The General Conference has legislative, judicial and ex-
ecutive potvers. Every member of this body isa legislator ; but you,
Mr. Chairman, are not a legislator, for you have no vete. The judicial
power of the General Cenference is supreme. If you make a judicial
mistake, we have the power to correctyou. Your high seat isa place
of complete disability; itis like the position of one in the gallery,
looking down upon the scene to approve or. disapprove in his heart,
without the power to take part in the same, or to control the issue.

But the question will be raised, is the judicial power of the General
Conference supreme? Is it asked how this power is supreme? J an-
swer, just as the Croton river is supreme over all these little fountains
and streams that extend to every part of the city. The river is the
source or fountain which pours its water into the first reservoir, ten miles
out of the city; from thence by a conductor it is emptied into the
second reservoir, five miles out of the city, and so on untilit is con-
veyed to every part of the city. The General Conference represents’
this river ; the Bishop is one reservoir, the presiding elder is another,
the preacher in charge another, and the class leader another. I will not
say that a Bishop is the officer of the General Conference in all respects,
but in some respects, and so farand no farther can the General Con-
ference control him, without an impeachment of his moral or minis-
175

terial character. He is tie officer of the General Conference, because:
he is elected by the General Conference. Itis not the annual confer-
ences that elect the Bishop; all the preachers together cannot elect a
Bishop, nor can the delegates elect a Bishop until they are organized
into a General Conference; it is the Conference. There is this diffe:-
ence between the constitution of the United states and the Discipline or
the M.E. Chureb. The former describes what the government may
do, while the latter declares what the General Conference shall not de.
The practical difference is this. The constitution of the United States,
by declaring what Congress may do, leaves all the rights and powers not
therein named, to the people; while the Discipline, by declaring
what the General Conference shall not do, has left all the rights and
powers in the hands of the General Conference, which are not therein
taken away or prohibited. You see, therefore, thes the powers of the
General Conference are very great; it may do every thing not prohib-
ited by the restrictive rules. The General Conference cannot do away
the general superintendency, but they may refuse to elect another Bish-
op, until the last of the now existing Bishops shall be laid in the grave.
The General Conference can also greatly abridge the powers of the
Bishops. They can take away all their powers save one, namely; the
power to ordain. i

The appointing power of the Bishops is not a constitutional, but a le-
gal power; it may therefore be taken away. You know my views, that
I would not take away this power, or rather deprive the church of such
a blessing, but still the Conference has the power to do it. The confer-
ence may resolve that it has power to do the thing proposed in the res-
olution before the house, and what it can resolve to do, it can do without
so resolving. This applies directly to the question at issue. The rule
empowering the Genexal Conference to expel a Bishop for improper con-
duct, is not a part of the constitution, but a statute law, which has been
-enacted by the General Conference under that constitution. Now the
power to expel has not its foundation in that statute law, but in the con-
stitution, for if the constitution does not confer that power, they could
have no right to pass the law giving themselves the power. It should
also be remarked that the power to expel involves the power to depose
or to suspend, and as this power is derived from the constitution, and
not from the special logislation defining that power as belonging to the
General Conference — it follows that the Conference must have the con-
stitutional power to depose or suspend. Thé Conference must have the
same constitutional power to pass a rule for the deposition or suspension
ef a Bishop, that they had for the enacting of the law for the expulsion:
176

ofa Bishop. Now comes in the doctrine laid down, that what the Con-
ference ‘has power to resolve to do, it has power to do without so resolv-
ing, and as the Conference has power to pass a law for the suspension
or deposition of a Bishop, it must have power to suspend or depose-a
Bishop without first passing such a rule. Some suppose that the rule
authorizing the Conference to expel a Bishop for improper conduct, does
not authorize the Conference to suspend or depose him. The reply to
‘this is, that we have the power to do it-from the constitution, ‘indepen-
‘dently of that rule. The General Conference made that rule, and they
have the same power to make a rule for the suspension of a Bishop that
they had to make that rule forthe expulsion of a Bishop. And the con-’,
stitution must give the power to suspend a’ Bishop before they can have
power to pass a law for the suspension ofa Bishop. The General Con-
ference therefore lias power to suspend or depose a Bishop. The Con-
ference can do every thing that is net forbidden, and this is not forbid- ,
den.
‘ Nor can the Conference divest itself of its proper constitutional pow-
‘ers by its own legislative acts, as some suppose it has done hy the pas-
sage of the law which-is plead in jurisdiction of Bishop Andrew’s con-
‘nection withslavery. Suppose Congress:should pass a resolution that it
has no power to regulate commerce or to levy a tariff, they could pro-
ceed next day to do these things just,as constitutionally as though they
had not passed these xesolutions. They could do it even without stop-
ping to reconsider, for the constitution must be paramount to any reso-
lutions the body might pass. The same principle will hold good in re-
Jation to the “eneral Conference. ‘Suppose the General Conference had
gone so far as'to puss a resolution affirming that they have no power to
suspend or depose a Bishop, they could do it notwithstanding. It might
appear inconsistent, but it would not alter the constitutionality of the
act. Suppose the legislature should resolve that they have no power
to pass a certain law, and then should pass that law would it render the
law unconstitutional? Not in the least. Ifsuch a law was brought in-
to court, on a plea that the resolution of the legislature rendered the
law unconstitational, the court would not hear the plea. Their inqui-
ry would not be whether the legislature had resolved that they had or
had not power to pass such alaw, but whether the constitution actually
gave them power to pass the law, independently of the resolution. The
constitution is above all resolutions, and so is it in this case’; you can-
not divest yourselves of the power which the constitution gives you.
* Suppose a father, on leaving home, should say to hig eldest son, you
“taust not whip the children, but you may do every thing -else to keep
177

them in order. This would not only authorize the son to do every thing
not forbidden to preserve order, but it would bind him to do, and it would
be treason not to do, all he could to preserve the peace and order of
the family.

Butthere is no such resolution as I have supposed, forbidding thé
proposed action, but one on the other side. The rule says the General
Conference shall have power to expel a Bishop for immoral conduct.
One word on the language of the rule, Why is the word expel here
used, and not depose or suspend? It is doubtless because the office is
so high that an impropriety in the conduct of a Bishop would be atten-
ded with so great evil that it was thought best to grant the largest power
to correct. But it should be understood that it does not bind us to ex-
ercise all this power. We may carry it out in full or in part. It has
been argued that the power to expel does not include the power to re-
prove, censure, suspend or depose, but this is absurd. Suppose a son,
on proposing to walk out, should ask his father how far he might goa. ’
The father replies: You may go ten miles. The son is about starting
off, when some one proposes to him to go five miles. No, says the son,
father said I might go ten miles; he did not say I might go three or fre.
I must go ten miles or not go at all. Iam inclined to think you wotld
respect such a son for his regard for his father’s authority, more than
you would for liis intelligence.

But it has been urged that it is improper to distinguish between the
matters and morals of the office. But the rule speaks of improper con-
duct. Thisexpression may have no refrence to the mind, but means
any thing thatis unfitting the office, and there may be many things that
would render a tan unfit for the office of Bishop, which would not in-
yolve crime.

The speaker said'he would not touch the question of the expediency
of the proposed action, only in a general.way. The language of tha
Discipline, “If they see it necessary” they may expel bim for improper
conduct, means, if they see it expedient. If crime was intended ty.
improper conduct, it would not be said “if they see it necessary ” they
may expel him, for this would imply that the General Conference might
not'see it necessary to expel a Bishop for crime. If they see it necessa-
ry, means if they see it expedient. I trust I have shown that the Cor-
ference can depose a Bishop. I will not say Bishop Andrew, but a
Bishop. If there was even a resolution to the contrary, still the Confer-
ence could act and carry out all the power the constitution gave them.
If the Conference cannot depose a Bishop, or dismiss him from office
for improper conduct, alarming consequences must fellow. Every man.

\ \
178

oa this floor ig his peer in office asa minister, and ye the possesses a pow-
et by the suffrages of this Conference, more fearful ‘far than the power
to depose. The Bishop, who is, bit an elder in ministerial order, has
three thousand elders under his control for four years, during the inter-
vals of the Ganeral Conference, to appoint to their fields of labor ac-
‘cordiag to his own judgment, and io change as often as he may think
hast; and is it to be supposed that the General Conference has confer-
‘red such a fearful power without holding the officer to the strictest ac-
countability 2. And can it bé supposed that the Conference cannot dis-
eharge or remove such officer for impropriety which does not involve
crime or even imprudence. I do not say that the Conference can re-
move a bishop from the ministry. No man can be removed from orders
for impropér conduct, An elder, deacon or private member, ‘cannot be
expelled for improper conduct, until they,have been labored with and
their continuance in the fault amounts to obstinacy, but they can be put
out of office, if not useful; a presiding elder can be put out of office if
not userul, without affecting his ministerial character.

Tf any one will contend that a Bishop may ho expelled for improper
conduct, which dozs not amount to an immorality, and yet that ro de-
gree of punishment can be inflicted below expulsion: that he cannot bo
deposed, or simply put out of office, they will find but [ttle support for
their opinions either in the language of the Discipline, or common metb-
od of construing law. The language of the Discipline is, they have
the power to expel him for improper conduct, if they'see i necessary.
The supposition is, then, that the General. Conference may not sce it
necessary to expe] a Bishop for improper conduct. What then is to be
-done, if the Bishop is guilty of improper conduct, for which the Gener-
al Conference do not see proper to expel him? The argument is,
that they can do nothing with him: cannot reprove, cannot suspend,
cannot depose, but must let his improper conductalone, until it is great
enough to justify his expulsion from the church. But the verv Janeuage
implies that they may see fit not to expel, but to deal with him in-sonie
more gentle manner. The.greater always includes the lesser, and as
they have power to expel, they have power to do less than expel: they
may reprove, suspend or depose.

Twill now say one werd on the subject of expediency, but as I re-
marked, only ina general way. Before.this'Conference shall exercise
this power, which I trust I have shown it does possess, it sliould consid-
er well the alleged improper conduct, noticing all its bearings and ccn-
sequences. They should inquire, first, has the Bishop acted improper-
ly? hey should inquire, what will be the éonsequences? Will the
Neer

179. =
¢onsequences be local, or will they reach-to every part of the ehurch ?
low great, and how wide, and how lasting will be the evil? The Bish-
op’s feelings should not be forgotten; his dignity asa minister of God
his qualifications, and his endearment to all his friends, should be taken,
into the account. If the bisliop committed the supposed itnproper con-
duet blindly, you ought to deal- tenderly with him, but not’to sacrifice
the interests of the church. Whether the measure now pr oposed is
necessary to save the church, I will not say, you must judge. { only
say, you have the power to act, if you judge it necessary.

Bishop McKendree said, when contending against radicalism, that a
Bishop may be deposed frem office for improper conduct. Let not this
Conference say, they have not power to depose a Bishop: that a Bishop
cannot be depased or put out of office, without being expelled. Wh:cn
you shall say that, then shall I tremble for the Episcopacy, which I rev-
crence. Let us not say, that the ground taken against radjcalism is now
abandoned. :

Mr. Comfort, of Oneida Conference, next obtained the floor. Ye said
he lad thought the debate would change no man’s opinions, but now
thought the last speech might change the opinions of some. He said
the Conference itself’ could uot do away the general superintendency,
and tho law was oxpress, but'it' a Bishop cease from travelling at large
uimong the people, without the consent of the General Conference, he
shall not exercise the Episcopal office in our church. Now, said ‘the
speaker if the Bishop has disqualified bimself to trave) at large, by his
connection with slavery, he cannot continue to exercise the office, unless
it-be by the consent of the General Conference. One fact will show
that he hasat least embarrassed himself, which is, that he came here
with the purpose of resigning ; this shows that he supposed himself to
be embarrassed,

Dr. Capers said-it was not tric that Bishop Andrew came to the Con-
ference with the design of resigning.

Mr. Comfort replied,-if that be not so then so much of my argument
fulls to the ground.

Dr. Capers expluined. He said:the Bishop did not come to the Con-
ference with the design of presenting his resignation, but that after he
got to Conference, and found whut the'state of feeling was, he did pro-
pose to resign. But he affirmed the Bishop had no such intention when
he came.

Mr. Comfort resumed, and said that he would read his authority. He
then-read-from the Richmond Christian Advocate, an extract of a letter
froin, Rev. L. M. Lee, the editor of the paper, who is a member ‘of th:
180

Conference, in which it was stated that the Southern delegates unani-
mously refused their consent to the resignation of Bishop Andrew. He
said those who resisted the purpose of the Bishop to resign, are respon-
sible for the consequences, if the church should be divided.

Mr. Comfort said the General Conference had no power to divide the
church ; as Congress had no power to divide the United States, so the
General Conference has no power to divide the Church. The member-
ship might be divided, but they cannot divide the property. On what
principle can the Book-room be divided? Shall it be divided accord-
ing to the number of members in each section? “One-fourth of the
inembers in-the Suuth cannot enjoy the advantages of the Book Concern,

Mr. Simpson, of Indiana, called the speaker to.order, on the ground
that it was not in order to discuss the principles of a division of the-
church under that resolution.

The chair said the speaker was not more out of order than others
had been, and he should allow him to proceed; the debate had taken a
wide range.

Mr. Comfort proceeded to say that one-fourth of the members in the
South could not enjoy the advantages of the book room. [Some one
sang out, They have got souls!”] I know they have got souls, but how
ean they enjoy the advantage of the book room, so long as they cannot
read, and are not allowed to be taught to read ?

Mr. Simpson renewed his call of order, and appealed from the decis-
ion of the chair; andthe motion being about to be put, the secretary
called for the point of order in writing, and there was a pause, while
Mr. Simpson went forward and wrote it out. When it was presented in
writing, the chair said as the question was then stated, he must reverse
the decision.

Mr. Comfort resumed his argument. He said the argument of expe-
diency weighed heaviest on the side of the North, because the South
were a unit on the subject of slavery, and of course would not, like
the North, be divided among themselves. I know how it is with slave-
holders, having spent five years in a slaveholding state, and J am sure
the people will not resist the return of the entice on account of the
proposed action of this conference. If a man be known even to be
opposed to slavery, they will bear with him, if be does not agitate the
subject among them. Mr. C.’said if the South should secede on the
subject of slavery, their position would be an insupportable one, —the
moral and religious sense of the world would be against them. His
fears had been alarmed and his feelings had been beyond description,
but on mature reflection he had come to the conclusion that there would
be no' division, that they could not divide.
181

‘Dr. Smith of Va. next took the floor, and made a long speech against
‘the resolution. He said that while he had listened to the able argument
of his learned friend from Ohio, (Mr, Hamline ) he was sure he had
never felt greater cause to regret that he was not eloquent, or that he
could not command the words of persuasion ; but they belonged not to
him. I feel that if I fail in-my argument on the law, it will be an en-
tire failure, for I have nothing else to rely upon. Talent, eloquence,
and a majority, are all against me.

The substitute now before the house, I consider more objectionable
than the original resolution, for it contains all the principles contained
in the original, with this difference; it contains a constitutional objec-
‘tion which that does not. It was not, lam sure, the object of the- ven-
-erable author ofthe substitute to render the subject more difficult, but
‘such was the fact in the case. The substitute he thought peculiarly un-
fortunate, as it has placed the whole question on the ground of expedi-
ency or propriety, and not upon any law supposed to have been violated
or specifically authorizing the procedure. I propose ta view the ques-
tion in the light of ,the law of the case. .

Before I enter upon my argument, I must be indulged in some prelim-
inary remarks in reply to the learned brother from Ohio. One essential
point in his argument rested upon the analogy between a bishop and all
subordinate officers, who were held responsible. ;

I admit the responsibility of all subordinate officers as stated, but the
analogy, when apdlied to the bishop, fails,— he is not responsible in the
sense that subordinate officers are, hence, his powers, duties and re-
sponsibilities are al. defined by law, and he can beheld responsible only
by and for the violation of that law.

Another essential point in the argument of the learned brother from
Ohio, was that this Conference possessed supreme legislative power.
This is denied in whole and in part in the report made by the late
bishop Emory, and adopted by the Conference and published to the
world. In that décument the General Conference denied that it'pos-
sessed any legislative power. Now as the argument of the gev.tleman
rested wholly upon these two points, tae analogy between the respon-
sibilities of subordinate officers and a bishop, and upon the legislative
power of the General Conference, and these points have been merely
assumed, and do not exist in fact, the whole argument falls to the
ground.

I will now come to the point which all the speakers have named on
the other side, which is that the bishop has acted improperly in becom-

ing connected with slavery, and ought to be disfranchised. I wish the
16
182

issue which I make to be understood. Ido not deny that this confer-
ence has power to expel Bishop Andrew for improper conduct, if it
can be proved that he has been guilty of improper conduct; but I deny
that the, facts alleged sustain the charge or justify in any degree the pro-
cedure in the case. What are the facts? The general fact is thet
‘Bishop Andrew is connected with slavery. The particulars present
three cases.

1. He had a slave willed to, him for the purpose of beta sent to Li-
bera, at a given age, if she should be willing to go. But she refused to
go, in which case the will provided that she should be made as free as
the laws of the state would allow, and that has been done. Itis not

“ pretended that the bishop exercises any control over her, but itis in
evidence that she is at liberty to go toa free state just when she sees
fit. :

2. A slave had been willed to his former wife, and as she died with-
out a will, that slave became lawfully his, but did he claim it as his
property in moral right? By no means, he had declared to that con-
ference that the boy might go to a free state so soon as he should judge
him capable of providing for hiniself, or so soon as security be given
him that he should be provided for. "There is no slavery, then, in either

‘of’ these two cases.

3. Bishop Andrew has married a wife who cwned slaves, and this is
made the strong ground of complaint. But Bishop Andrew did not in-
tend to become the owner of those slaves; he refused to become the
owner of those slaves, and all that can be laid to his charge is that he
suffered them, to pass through his haud. It cannot be said, then that
Bishop Andrew is a slaveholder in any offersive sense. The relation which
Hishop Andrew sustains to slavery does not contain the essential attri-
butes of slavery. What is necessary to constitute a mana slaveholder
in the moral sense of the term ? .

1. He must receive a slave in some way, with the design of making
a slave of such person, or of holding him asaslave.

2, Such holder must neglect to free his slave, when he has an oppor-
tunity. Neither of these are true of Bishop Andrew. In what point,of

Tight will the community look at it? They will see and understand that
it is for the mere relation that Bishop Andrew has been dishonored.

But let me next inquire in whose behalf this isto be done? The
parties in the case are,

1. Thirteen conferences from the South and a part of the fourteenth,
for a part of the Baltimore conference will feel their interests identi-
fied with the South. Such then is one party. a

6
183

2, Several conferences at the North are the other party, Some of
these will secede in whole or in part, if Bishop Andrew is not disfran-
chised, and others will refuse to allow him to preside in their bodies.
These are the parties in the case, and the party of the South is definite-
ty understood, but it is not so with the other party, itis more difficult
to define it and to determine its locality and its numbers. Who are
they that wili secede or reject the bishop, if he is not deposed? “Will
the Baltimore Conference secede, if Bishop Andrew is not deposed ?
Certainly not. Will the Philadelphia,Conference secede? Not they,
though no doubt some of them would rather have a bishop not covnec-
ted with slavery. Will New Jersey Conference secede? There may
be a few individuals who would leave, but the body would not even in-
dulge the thought of secession. Will New York Conference? Will
they declare to the world that a mere nominal relation of one of the bishoys
to slavery so corrupts and pollutes the whole church that they cannot
remain in it? ‘They will never do it. Will Ohio Conference secede ?
I think not, as a body or any considerable portion of them, but I regret
to say that there arc men in that conference who would go thus far. I
once read a spcech from the learned brother from Ohio, who has fa-
vored us with such an eloquent argument on this occasion, which speech
was never outdone by O. Scott. That speech has never been retract-
ed. That brother may go so far as to say that a mere nominal relation
of one of the bishops to slavery puts such a blot on the Methodist es-
cutcheon as to require him to fly from all connection with the church
to escape the pollution. Will Indiana Conference secede? Will HMli-
nois Conference secede? I presume the brethren here from those con-.
ferences will not say they believe there will be a general: secession if
Bishop Andrew is not deposed. They may regret his connection with
slavery: I regretit; but they will not leave the church. Who then
will secede? There may be a fewin some of the more Northern and
Eastern conferences, who will secede if they cannot have their own
way on the subject of slavery. They have said mney would, and we are
bound to believe them.

But another question. presents itself here ; where are they going? O!
if they cannot have their own way they will join O. Scott.

( Cries of no! no! no! never! were heard in different parts of the
house. J am glad, said Mr. Smith, to be corrected, but still Iam con-
strained to inquire on what ground they are going to secede, if Bishop
Andrew is not deposed? The petitions no doubt explain the ‘ground
on which secession is to take place. These petitions must be supposed
to embody the principles and feelings of those who will secede. Now,
184

let me say that these petitions contain essentially the same principles ag
those advocated by O. Scott and his compeers.. Will any brethren un-
dertake to explain the difference ? Allis silent now! Let me repeat
it then, thatif you are not to join O. Scott, you are to secede upon the
same principles that O. Scott did. If you do not like your company,
you must not blame me, for I did not put you there.

Dr. Luckey, of the Genessee Conference, at this point started up, and
inquired, What do you:do with us? Do you intend to class us with the
seceders ?

 

Mr. Smith answered, Be seeate Dr., and I will do ‘you justice ina
few moments. This reminds me of what once happened with Bishop
McKendree. That venerable man was once preaching a sermon in
which he took: occasion to bear down very severely upon tavern keep-
ers, who extorted from travellers by charging a great price for their
grain for their horses. While he was doing up this class of sinners, a
man interrupted by saying, “If we do charge ahigh price we give
them a long time for payment.” “You had better held still,” said the
bishop, “I was only discussing a general principle, why need you apply
my remarks to yourself?” Iam discussing a general principle, said
the speaker, and if it applies to my good friend from Gennesee, he has
made the application. Ihope there will be no wincing onthe part of
the conference under my remarks, for I can be driven from my position

_ only by arguments, not by dictation. But to resume my argument, the
party opposed to the South are those who intend to secede if they can-
not have their own way onthe subject of ‘slavery, or who intend to
proscribe Bishop Andrew by conference action. The ground taken by
this party is the same as that taken by O. Scott; it is the same doctrine
that was advocated by O. Scott in the General Conference of 1836,
which doctrine that body pronounced wrong, and declared that to ad-
vocate it was unscriptural and imprudent, and now, only eight ‘years
Jater in the history of the church, the same General Conference pro-
poses to take these same proscribed principles and make them the rule
of action, and sacrifice one of the bishops upon their altar. Iam now
prepared to define the parties. The South is already defined and un-
derstood. ‘As antagonists to the South,I will place all who intend to
secede, and all whose principles lees them to desire to proscribe Bishop
Andrew. 4

But this leaves the Middle Conferences not included in either party.
Where shall we class Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York Confer-
ences? They are an umpire between the two parties. They claim to
be conservative, but I eannot allow them that title, the South are the
185

only true conservatives. They are an umpire, and on them rests the
responsibility of deciding the question. It is admitted that evil must
befall the South or the North and it is for these Middle Conferences
to say whether that evil should fall upon the North or the South. Some
have represented these Middle Conferences as a party in the case, but
I do not so view them, but look upon them as the jury that have got to
decide this important cause between the parties. Let me then address
myself to the delegates of these conferences, and entreat them to con-
sider what a fearful responsibility rests upon them. If injustice is
done to the North, it will be you that will do it, We of the South may
be prejudiced, but we have not the power to decide for ourselves. If
injustice is done to the South, you will do it, not the Nofth. The North
may do it in an incidental, but not in acriminal sense. - If they err, their
error is to be attributed to their position as a party and not to their in-
tentions, but you are ina position to judge impartially.

Let us then state the issue upon which you have got to make up your
judgement. The argument on the other side is that they have a right
to depose Bishop Andrew, and therefore they are bound to do it be-
cause it is expedient. We deny their right to depose the bishop upon
the principles on which they propose to doit. Itis nota questiou of
original right or of abstract right, but is a question which the Confer,
ence should settle by their own law; and if the law does not give us
the argument and protect Bishop Andrew, we do not ask such a decis-
ion at your hands. But upon what does the expediency of the meas-
ure rest? It is not impropriety of conduet that is made the ground of
action. What then is the expediency of the action made to rest upon?
Iris simply this: the bishop has made himself unacceptable to the party
that seek to put him down. Is this a sufficient reason, without refer-
cnce to the ground of the dissatisfaction, without i inquiring whether the
cause of dissatisfaction is their fault or the fault of the bishop? Sup-
pose a number of the conferences had become wrong in doctrine ; sup-
pose they had become Millerites, in consequence of which they would
not receive any of the bishops, would that justify the act of putting
down all the bishops: ? Would any other error embraced by confer-
ences, which mightrender a bishop unpopular with them, justify the
conference in putting down such bishop? Whose fault is it that
the bishop is not acceptable to these Northern conferences? If it is
the bishop’s fauit, we say let him go; we will not contend a moment, if
it can be proved that the bishop has violated the rules of the Church.
But if it be the fault of the party that Bishop Andr ew is not accepta-
ble, he must not be sacrificed, whatever happen to the party in error.
186

But how shall we settle this question, and come toa just decision who
is in fault? This question is to be answered by asking, another: who
is upon the platform of the Discipline, and who is off of it? This
question answered, and we shall see who ought to suffer, if’ suffering
there must be. Is the bishop or the party opposed to him on the
ground of the Discipline? An answer to this question is what I will
now attempt to give.

_, Wehere make an appeal to the Discipline itself, and we maintain

"that section ten, is in its own nature a compromise measure. This be-
ing a compromise act, it settles what is and what is not exvedient, and
what is the doctrine and what is the usage of the Church on the subject
of slavery, and we have no fear that any one of the other party will at-
tempt to prove that Bishop Andrew’s position is not in striet conformity to
that general law of the Church. The history of that act has an impor-
tant bearing on the subject. ~The first we find of this Church legisla-
tion on the subject of slavery, is in the Minutes of 1780, where we have:
the following question and answer.

“ Quest. 16. Ought not this Conference to require those travelling
preachers who hold slaves to give promise to set them free ?

Ans. Yes.”

* ‘This was the first ground taken by the Church, and it was a requisi-: ,
tion upon the preachers, requiring them unconditionally te emancipate
their slaves. It was not subordinate to the law of the land. The Min-
utes of 1784 contain the following on the subject of slavery.

“ Quest. 12. What shall be done with our friends that will buy and
sell slaves ?

Ans. If they buy with no other design but to hold them as slaves,
and have been previously warned, they shall be expelled, and shall be
permitted to sell on no consideration.

Quest. 13. What shall we do with our local preachers who will
not emancipate their slaves in those States where the law will admit it?

Ans. Try those in Virginia another year, and suspend the preachers
in Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

Quest.. 22. What shall be done with our travelling preachers who
now are, or hereafter shall be possessed of slaves, and will not manu-
mit them where the law permits?

Ans. Employ them no more.”— These regulations remained until
‘what hds been called the Christmas Conference, in 1784, when the
whole subject was again brought under review, new measures ‘devised
and adopted. The measures adopted at this Conference required the
unconditional manumission of slayes as a condition. of membership,
187

which was regarded by the law-makers asa new term of member
ship.

Dr, Smith here read a few lines of the act in question, and then re-
marked that he would omit reading it as it was long, and only state the
contents or substitute, but as it is important and will doubtless be ncow
to most of the readers of the Wesleyan, the reporter takes the trouble
to transcribe the entire act.

“ Quest. 42. What methods.can we take to extirpate slavery ?

“ Ans. We are deeply convinced of the impropriety of making new
terms of communion for a religions society already established, except-
ing on ths most pressing occasion ; and such we consider the practice
of holding our fellow cfeatures in slavery. We view it as contrary to
the golden Jaw of God, on which hang all the law and the prophets,
[ The discovery by a Bishop, that slaves may be held in accordance with
the golden rule, was reserved to be classed among the logical and mor-
al wonders of this improving age —Reporrer.] and the unalienable
rights of mankind, as well as every principle of the revolution, to hold
in the deepest debasement, in a more abject slavery than is ‘perhaps to
be found in any part of the world except America, so many souls that
are capable of the image of God. :

“We therefore think it our most bounden duty to take immediately
some effectual method to extirpate this abomination from among us;
and for that purpose we add the following to the rules of our society,
viz:

“1, Every member of our society who has slavesin bis possession,
shall, within twelve months after notice given him by the assistant, [ prea-
cher in charge, ] (which notice the assistants are required to give, and
without delay in their respective circuits, ) legally execute and record an
instrument whereby he emancipates and sets free every slave in his pos-
session who is between the ages of forty and forty-five immediately, or
at farthest when they are forty-five.

“ And every slave which is between the ages of twenty or twenty-five
immediately, or at farthest at the expiration of five years from the date
of such instrument.

“ And every slave under the age of twenty, as soon as they arrive at
the age of twenty-five at fartherest.

“ And every infant born in slavery, after the above mentioned rules
are complied with, immediately on its birth.

“Q Every assistant shall keep a journal, in which he shall regularly
minute down the names and ages of all the slaves belonging to all the
masters in his respective circuit, and also the date of every instrument

©
188

executed and recorded for the manumission of the slaves, with the name
of the court book and folio in which the said instruments shall have been
recorded ; which journal shall be handed down in each circuit to the suc-
ceeding assistant. '

“3, Inconsideration that these rules form a new term of communion,
every person concerned who will not comply with them, shall have lib-
erty quietly to withdraw from our society within twelve months succeed-
ing the notice given as aforesaid: otherwise the assistant shall exclude
him from the society. ,

“4, No person so voluntarily withdrawn, or so excluded, shall par-
take of the supper of the Lord with the Methodists, till he complies with
the above requisition.

“5 No person holding slaves shall, in future, be admitted into soci-
ety or to the Lord’s supper, until he previously complies with these
rules concerning slavery.

“N. B. These rules are to affect the members of our society no far-
ther than as they are consistant with the laws of the States in which
they reside.

“ And respecting our brethren in Virginia that are concerned, and
after due consideration of their peculiar circumstances, we allow them
two years from the notice given to consider the expediency of compliance
or non-compliance with these rules.

“ Quest. 43. What shall be done with those who buy or eell slaves
or give them away ?

a Ans. They shall be immediately expelled, unless they buy them on
purpose to free them.”

Upon this act Dr. Smith reasoned as follows:

From this it will be seen that the churches at that time required un-
conditional emancipation as a term of communion, and that twelve
months only were allowed to consider upon it before the members must
comply or leave the church. Virginia only was an exception to the rule,
and she had two years grace instead of one, for old Virginia was always
precious in the eyes of the brethren. This emancipation was required,
‘whether the emancipated slave could enjoy freedom or not. But this
law was never carried out; it was found to be so impracticable, and its
execution so threatened the exist nce of the church, thatit was suspen-
ded in 1785, about six months after it was enacted, as the following note
appears in the Minutes of that year.

“Tt is recommended. to all our brethren to suspend the execution of the

minute on slavery till the deliberation of a future Conference, and that
an equal space of time be allowed all our members for PAE SERN
when the minute shall be put in force.”
189

From the suspension as above given, nothing appears to have been:
done on the subject until 1796, In the Minutes of this year we have the
following : —

“The preachers and other members ef our society, are requested to
consider the subject of negro slavery with deep attention till the engu-
ing General Conference; and that they impart to the General Confer-
ence, through the medium of the yearly conferences, or otherwise, any
important thoughts upon the subject, that the Conference may have full
light, in order to take further steps toward the eradicating this enormous:
evil from that part of the Church of God to which they are united.”

Tnow ask particular attention to the bearing which this history has
upon the question. First, they made a rule which made emencipation
an absolute condition of membership ; this they found worked badly,
and suspended it at the expiration of six months. They then sent the
question down to the annual conferences, and to the membership for
advice, and asking for light on the subject, and then next ycar, in 1800.
they adopted the present rule as the result of this general inquiry into
the subject, which rule has not been changed froin that day to this. {t
is found in the Discipline. — Sec. x. Ans. 2.

“When any travelling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or
slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his. ministerial character sin our
church unless he execute, if it be practicable, a legal emancipation of
such slaves, conformably to the laws of the State in which he lives.”

From the very nature of this rule, and from all the cirer mstances at-
tending it, it must be regarded as a compromise. It had been preceded
by one that worked badly and had been suspended ; it was the result of
general inquiry on the subject, and by a comparison of all the conflict-
ing views which were brought up to Conference from the different sec-
tions of the work, it was made what it is. At the same time it will be
seen that it entirely changed the ground of the church on the subject
of slavery, making it right for ministers to hold slaves, where the laws
do not admit of emancipation. In what point of light can it be regard-
ed but as a compromise? ‘ The rule does not meet the views of either
party asa whole. The South opposed all legislation on the subject, he-
lieving that any thing on the subject would bea damage to their opera-
tions in the south; but the North insisted on legislating against slavery.
The’South admitted that the rule was right in principle, but insisted that
to put it in the Discipline would embarrass them, and the rule was made
what it is by way of compromise. The present rule on the subject,
touching the case of private members was adopted in 1816, which is
the first answer to the question in the Discipline. AndifT am not right
’

#

‘ 190

in the statement I am about to make, there is a brother on the fioor [Dr.
Bangs] who was present and who can correet me. I appeal to him for
the truth of the remark, when I say that the position of the South was
that there ought to be nothiug in the Discipline on the subject of sla-
very, and that all legislation on the subject by the Church would do no
good, but great damage to the Church and to the slaves. But stillas the
North insisted on action upon the subject, the South yielded a part, and
‘the North yielded a part, for the sake of the Union, and the comprom-
ise act which is now in the Discipline was the result.

T have not made these remarks because the law is wrong.in principle,
the South never opposed it upon principle, they admitted that the law
was right in principle, but opposed it because it was impracticable, and
because it would injure us in the South. Nor do I make these remarks
because I wish the law repealed, but to show how much the South has
yielded for the sake of compromise. And for every inch we have yield-
ed, we have suffered in the South, Bishop Asbury once said that all the
rules they had ever adopted on the subject of slavery, had not enly done
no good in the South to the church or the slave, but much harm to both,
The South always said, give us no law on the subject, but the North
thought otherwise, and the difference was compr' omised as I have shown.
The North insisted that the General Conference should say that slavery
is an evil because it is true that it is an evil, but while we admitted that
it is an evil, we insisted that it was not best to say it and put it in the
Discipline. We yielded for the sake of union.

But the North had seceded from the common ground, and say that
slavery is not only an evil, but that it is a sin under all circumstances.
This is going beyond the law; the Discipline does not say that. The
Discipline declares what is proper and what is not proper for ministers.
This is settled beyond a doubt by a second answer. The law provides
thata preacher shafl forfeit his ministerial character on becoming a
slaveholder, unless he execute a deed of emancipation, if it be practi-
cable. This proves that no preacher can be allowed to be a slavehold-
er where emancipation is practicable ; but it proves as clearly at the
same time, that a preacher has a right by the law to hold slaves where
emancipation is not practicable. Tere then we come at the terms of the
compromise ; ; the South bound themselves not to hold slaves, as minis-
ters, where emancipation is practicable, and the North agreed that they
sia hold slaves where emancipation jis not practicable.

Should the South now send up their petitions to the General Confer-
ence, praying this body to blot the rules concerning slavery from the
book, they would depart from the principles of the compromise. The
191

North, by sending their petitions here, praying to have the rules made
more strict, or additional rules enacted, would no less violate the prin-
ciples of the compromise. All such petitions ought to be laid upon the
table, or returned to the petitioners, so long as the compromise act is
suffered to remain upon the page of the Discipline. The only right and
honorable way of getting at this subject is, first, break'up the comprom-
ise by repealing the law.

My next business shall be to examine the principles upon which this
effort against Bishop Andrew is made to rest.

1. It is urged on the ground of expediency. The bishop has render-
ed himself unacceptable ; he has done it ina disciplinary way, and those
who are dissatisfied with him, are dissatisfied on account of what the
Discipline tolerates. If then the bishop is unacceptable and is still up-
on the ground of the Discipline, the evil must ‘fall upon those who are
dissatisfied with him, as they and not he, are off of the common ground
‘of the Discipline. They are dissatisfied because they have got down
trom the compromise ground. If inen can be bound by their own leg-

sislation, this Conference is bound to the principles of the compromise,
by bonds as strong as withes of Sampson and hooks of steel. What-
ever form or name you give this-procedure against Bishop Andrew, it is
and must be extrajudicial, and would be so pronounced in any court ot’

justice, was it to be carried there for a final decision.

2, The ground has been taken that Bishop Andrew has violated the
policy of the church, by becoming connected with slavery. Some say
settled policy of the church. If by the policy of the church he meant
the views and feelings of a majority of the voters, there may be some
truth in it. But in this view of the subject, he will not be convicted of
the greatest crime that was ever committed. I will present those speak-
ers who have dwelt upon this point with a dilemma. ‘Those who voted
for Bishop Andrew as 2 Southern man, did it upon the principles of the
compromise act, or they did not; if they did vote for him upon the
compromise principles, he was elected upon the ground of the comprom-
ise act. In this view it is a sufficient reply to the charge of having vio-
dated the policy of. the church, to say that he is still upon the principles
of the compromise act, he stands this moment upon the ground upon
which he was elected. If they did not vote for Bishop Andrew upon
the principles of the compromise, they deceived the whole South. And
by publishing the compromise act to the world as containing the princi-
ples by which they would be governed. on the subject of slavery, they
«deceived the world by not acting upon those principles.

3. Another consideration that has been urged to convict the bishop i is,

\

/
f
192 :

that he has violated the common law of the church. This point has
heen.so fully met by others, that it is necessary for me to say but little.
It will not be denied that common law is always subordinate to statute
law, and can be plead only in the absence of statute law. But in the
case before us, we have statute law, clear and pointed, and it is admitted
that it would be lawful for this Conference to elect a slaveholding bish-
op, if a majority chose to have one; the existence of a slaycholding
bishop must therefore be conformable to the statute law of the church,
and what the statute law justifies, the common law cannot condemn, un-
jess common law is made to nullify statute law.

.4, It has been urged that-Bishop Andrew was nominated to the Epis-
copacy by a Southern brother as a non-slavehiolder, and that therefore
his subsequent connection with slavery is a breach of an implied pledge.

To meet this point, I must allude to the allusions which have been
made to him and his wife, as delicate as these matters are. They have
been alluded to, and the bishop’s present wife has been brought before
this Conference. I do not know that I ought to wonder at this, for I
have had an opportunity of reading some of the conference journals
since I have been here. I found the record of the trial of a member of
an annual conference for having made an engagement to marry a sec-
ond wife while his first wife was yet living ; and he was suspended from
the exercise of the ministerial office for one year. Men who deal thus
anust be expected to make plain allusions. The bishop has violated his
jinplied pledge, by marrying one of the most worthy women in the
‘country, because he was nominated to his office by a Southern man.
That man was Dr. Capers, and the transaction has been explained, and -
{ understand it as I never understood it before. I never before under
stood Dr. Capers’ delicacies in relation to the subject, and thought him
false to the interests of the South, but I am now satisfied that he was
not, and Iam not prepared to say I should not have done as he did,
had I been placed in the same circumstances.

But to the point. Where are we to look for the implied pledge ?
Bishop Andrew never gave any pledge not to become connected with
slavery. No such pledge was asked of him; and if it had been, he
would not have given it. No other man made such a pledge for him:
nor does his present position violate any obligation implied in his elec-
tion. He was elected with the expectation that he would remain in the
South; and it must have been known, that living in the South, he was
liable to become connected with slavery, without even any design on
his part. We who misunderstood the motives of Dr. Capers, opposed
the electron of Bishop Andrew; and what argument did we use? It
193

was this: that nothing would be gained by electing him instead of a
slaveholder ; because, as he was expected to reside in the South, he waa
liable at any time to become a slaveholder. To this it was replied, that
if he becatne a slaveholder in the order of providence, they could bear
it better than to make a slaveholding Bishop by their own act; and you
of the South ought not to oppose it, if you are likely to get a slavehold-
ing Bishop by the means. In the light of these facts, J ask, where is
the implied pledge, which some pretend he has violated? I have now
examined every ground that has been urged against the Bishop, and I
ask if you will now, in the light of all these facts, depose and afflict and
degrade as pure a heart gs beats in a human breast? O shame, where
is thy klush! How will you meet the American public with the extra-
judicial proceeding? Will you, can you demand of that man, to give
up his ordinatien vows, in which he pledged at the altar of truth and
‘holiness, as with the oath of God, to discharge the duties and perform
the work of a Christian Bishop? Will you demand all this without
even charging him with improper conduct? The moment you do this,
you demolish the platform of the compromise, and strike down the un-
jon of the church.

But you say, you do not intend or desire any such results, and I be-
lieve you. There may be exceptions, but I believe all you say of your
good feelings and wishes towards the South ; but what good does all this
do us, so long as you insist on doing what will ruin us in the South?
Will the disaster be any the less because you do not intend or wish it?
Suppose a man to approach a magazine of powder with a blazing fire-
brand in his hand ; he says I wish no harm to any one, I do not even de-
sire that your nerves should receive a shock from the report; but still
insists upon applying the firebrand tothe magazine: will his good in-
tentions and kind feelings prevent the ruin, or heal the torn limbs,
and gather up the fragments, when the magazine has exploded and
sent in the direction of the four winds? I appreciate the remark, sir,
that you ( Bishop Soule ) made, that you could be immolated only upon
the compromise act. _

Mr. Collins said the Bishop did not say, compromise act, but the in-
terests of the church.

Bishop Soule said neither had got his language exactly. He said he
‘could not be immolated but upon the union of the wholechurch. You
may call it compromise or what you please.

Mr. Smith resumed. The compromise act is the basis upon which
whe union of the church rests, and upon which alone it can stand.

I will offer a remark on what hes been said upon the restrictive rule,
194.

which forbids the Conference to dovaway the general superintendency.
I cannot see how that rule will be endangered, or how-there will be
any tendency to do away the general superintendency, if the Bishop is
fiot driven from his point and field of labor by the proposed action of
ho Conference. But I can see how it may be done away by the pass-

age of the resolution now before the Conference. Yon are about to
ask the Bishop to desist from the exercise of his Episcopal functions,
not because he is disqualified, or because he has committed crime, but
beecuse be is uot acceptable to some parts of the.church, and because,
you say, some of the conferences will net allow him to preside in their
bodies. Do this, and the South will refuse to receive one from the
North. Where then will be your geueral superintendency ; ? How
inueh better it would be to pursue the course proposed ‘by a brother ou
Saturday last. Let this Conference say that they regret Bishop Au-
drew’s connection. with slavery, and request him to free himself from
‘such connection as soou as possible. And having szid thus much,
‘leave it to the prudence of the Episcopacy to make sucha division of
‘the work as will not bring the conflicting elements in contact. If the
parties cannot meet on this ground, what is the position ? It is this:
while the Episcopacy is in the slightest degree connected with slavery,
however innocently on the part of the Bishop, for itis admitted that
Bishop Andrew is imnocent, the church.is im such an unhallowed.con-
nection with slavery, as to render the touch polluting. From this very
position it must follow thatthe church cannot be pure until she is free
from all slavery. What then must be the, result of such a position in
the South? It will at once present the whole denomination as an abo-
lition church, and cannot fail to embarrass all in the South who might be
disposed to remain connected. with it.

1. It would degrade the ministry in the South, and not only endee
them suspicious, but contemptable i in the estimation of the community,

2. In the more southern States, it would close the door against.our
missionaries.

But as I understand ie Capers designes to speak upon this point, I
will leave it to him. Sooner than submit toa measure that would so
hedge up our way, it would be the duty of this Conference to divide. Not
the. duty of the South to secede or divide, but the duty of this Confer-
ence to divide. It would be prudent for this Conference to settle the
principles of an amicable division, Ido not mean to say that this Con-
ference can constitutionally divide the. church, but steps can be taken
which may result i in a peaceful division, The, mass of Southern men

will hold on to the union: they are anxious for its.continuance ; but only
195

upon the principles of the compromise act; but if you pags this resolu-
tion, yeu virtually blot that act from the book. May it uot bea stroke af.
policy to induce them to submit for the sake of their interests in the church
property? Let me say that the South does not intend to give up her:
right in the property; when the hour comes, I warrant you old Vergin-
ia will put in for every dollar that belongs to her. And when the ‘ime
comes to test it, an injunction will be served on the Book-room, so that
a book cannot be sold until the court shall have decided upon the case.
But will a majority withhold our part of the funds, when a division be-
comes necessary ? I cannot believe that. We can show that the South
has put more money into the Book room end the missionary treasury
than the North, and I have no fears that the majority will withhold our
rights. There will be no resort to law on the subject, it will not be
necessary ; I feel confident that the North wiil lave too high a seuse of
honor to attempt to withhold our portion ef the funds.

Much has been said about a division cf the political Union, asa re-
sult of a division of the church ; but ¥ lock for no such fearful conse-
quences as have been described. We live in'an age of too much light -
in a civil point ot view, to go to war about negroes. Ff it should ever
come to q political division of tie country, i: willbe settled by other
means than implements of war. What we have most to fear i is, the
lawless spirit of mobs, and nota civil war between States. All these
frightful pictures of the consequences of a division o:' Jie union, are the
productions of political alarmists. /

Notwithstanding my ardent love for the union of the chureh, I am
constrained to say that the measures pursued, to say nothing of the case
of Bishop Andrew, must result in a division of the church. ‘The ab-
olition excitement has been manufactured in the church, and the Gen-
eral Confrence is lending its influence to give increased influence to
the operation. How long shall the church be polluted by this disturb-
ing spirit ?. How long will the Southern portion of the church submit
to this perpetual agitation? Let us adhere to the principles of the
compromise, and all will be well; but break up that compromise, and
division will follow.

I did design to pursue a course of rémarks of a different character,
and address myself to those whom I suppose are governed by a mista- ;
ken love for the colored race: but Ihave already talked longer than
was my purpose, and will yield the floor.

Mr Hamline made a brief explanation in relation to some allusions
made to him by the last speaker. He said his argument did not involve
Bishop Andrew as a man, or:a minister, but as a Bishop. "He said the

\
196

abolition speech which he had. been accused of making was a coloniza-
tion address, delivered before the abolition excitement commenced, and
was published by the Colonization Society with high commendation:
end that the principle remarks that it contained against slavery were ex-
tracts from Thomas Jefferson. /

Mr. Collins of the Baltimore Conference, next obtained the floor, but
gave way for a motion to adjourn.

Tuesday, May 28..

The Committee on Itinerancy presented areport No. 4. This report
related to instructions that had been given them to inquire if the sacra-
ment of the Lord’s supper wes administered in the congregations as
regularly and as frequently as it should be. The result of their inqui-
ry was that in the cities and large towns there is no deficiéncey, but in
the large country cireuits, and the new sections of the work, there are
some deficiencies in the administration of the sacrament. The com-
mittee recommended that the Lord’s supper be administered in every
congregation, wliere it is practicable, once in the month. The Com-
mittee on Episcopacy reported in part. This report recommends such
an amendment in the rule providing for a committee to estimate the ta-
ble expenses of the bishops, as to require the committee to report to
the annual conference for their approval or amendment. The report
also recommended that, an additional amount be allowed tc Bishops
Soule and Morris, of 300 dollars to the former, and 250 dete to the
latter, over the estimate for the last two years.

Mr. Sanford then made a statement concerning the publication of the
journal of 1840, which had been ordered, which called forth some dis-
cussion of no general interest. The order of the day was then taken
up, viz., the case of Bishop Andrew.

Mr. Winner of New Jersey moved that the vote on the case be ta-
ken at 12 o’clock this day. Mr. Winner supported his motion. He said
all had got their minds made up and were tired of the discussion, and
enough had been said to bring the subject clearly before the €onfer-
ence and-develope its merits,

Some one at this point rose on a question of order, if it were in or-
der for a member to make a motion when another member was euti-
tled to the floor, as was Mr. Collins, he having been.on the floor when
the conference adjourned. The chair said all that had been said and
done since they had done presiding and receiving reports, had been.
197

out of order, but he thought he would not arrest the course if no one
object to it. .

Mr. Collins then being pronounced as entitled to the floor, commenc-
ed his speech. He said he had full confidence in the statements of the
brethren ftom the South, concerning their difficulties and the evil that
would befall them if that resolution pass. He also said that he be-
lieved what the North said in relation to their difficulties. The truth
is, said Mr. C., we havé arrived at a fearful crisis in the history of the
Church: there were rocks on either hand, and they were in difficulty
from which he feared they could not escape. Icannot see how we are
to get through in safety, yet I still hope that some spirit will yet come
to the rescue and take the helm and conduct us through some middle
channel. I hope some middle ground may yet be found, upon which
the difficulty can be adjusted.

Whatever I may say, J wish to be understood that I intend no disre-
spect to the yenerable man who, from the nature of the case, must be
more or less the subject of my remarks in the debate. Nor will 1 con-
sume time with minor matters, but at once commence my argument by
attacking the argument on the other side on the subject of tue usage of
the church. I think the illustration drawn from the election of presi-
deuts very tnfortunate. JTadmit that the election of most of the pres-
idents from slaveholding States does not prove a usage in the case, but
the argument in support of the usage of the church not to elect a slave -
hording bishop, rests upon stronger ground. Within the last G0 years
the church bas cleeted nine bishops not one of whom has been a slave-
liolder. During the same time the nation has’ elected nine presidents,
five of whom have been chosen from slave states, and four from free
states, This presents the practice of the church as a settled usage, if uot
in the light of common law.

Judge Longstreet, [Rev. Mr. Longstreet, member from Georgia, ]
said the speaker remarked that the M. E. Church had taken longer
steps towards the Papal power than any other denomination.

Mr. Longstreet explained; he did not mean that the church had
already gone such fearful length in the way to Rome, but that she had
beguu in this legislation about civil matters, and that the passage of the
present resolution would be another step of fearful length added to her
course, which he thought a dangerous one. She commencedas Rome

did,
Mr. Collins resumed by saying, J assure you and all the world that

there is no danger from that quarter. The whole tendency is directly
the other way, the whole tendency is to diminish the power of the Epis-
g
198

copacy. The bishops once had more power than they now have, and.
the preachers once had the power to expel members from the church,
but that has been given up. There is no tendency in the chureh to ir-
responsible power, and I will undertake to prove, in opposition to any
man who will dispute it, that the polity of the M. E. Church is more in
accordance with the institutions of the country than any other church.
polity in the land.

[If Mr. Collins wishes to try his strength on such a question, I will
lend my humble services as his opponent, and will undertake to prove
that the government, of the M. E. Church is arbitrary and opposed to
the genius and spirit of the institutions of our country, slavery excep~
ted.— Luruer Lre.]

Judge Longstreet objected to the resolution, because, as he affirmed,
its passage would be the infliction of punishment without atrial, or the
presentation of any form of charges, as provided for in the Discipline.
It should be borne in mind that the discipline providing for the appoint-
ment of a committee, and prescribing a form of trial for an accused
bishop, is applicable when the bishop is put on trial for his moral char-
acter, which is not the case here. If he were tried according to the
argument of the brother, his moral character would be involved, but we
are not trying the bishop's moral character. We do not propose to
touch his moral or ministerial character, but only deal with him as an
officer of the General Conference.

Mr. Longstreet argued that the measure would be en infraction of the
general superintendency, but directly the reverse of this will be the re-
sult. A bishop is bound by the law of the ehurch to travel through the

church at large, and hence when a bishop renders himself unacceptable,
so that he canuot do it, the law is infragted. To district the work and
confine a bishop toa district, would be an infraction of the rule. A
Methodist bishop is not a bishop of one State, he is not confined to one
State and cannot be bound by the local laws of the States, and may
therefore locate himself where the laws are suited to the cir cumstances
of a bishop of the M. E. Church.

Much has been said on the subject of the compromise, but I deny the
existence of any such compromise, and will dispute it below zero.
There is no compromise in the constitution of the Church. The con-
stitution consists of the restrictive rules, and the general rules. No
compromise is found in them, and as it is not in the constitution, if it is
found elsewhere, it must be an infraction of the constitution. There
can be no such thing as a compromise in the Church. A compromise
zup poses two parties, but the Church is not two, but one. There wasa
199

¢ompromise in forming the constitution of the United States, and it is
found in the constitution. There were two parties in that compromise,
they were the slaveholding and non-slaveholding States, and the com-
promise consists in the principles of representation agreed upon, by
which the South are represented for three-fifths of their slaves. But
there is no such thing in the Church. When the rules against slavery
were first enacted, the South had the majority; the North was then
einall, and then the Conference went further against slavery than now.
In 1800, the Conference drew up and sent out addresses on: the subject
of slavery. The Church was opposed to slavery from the beginning,
but when she commenced, there was no law in the States forbidding
emuancipgtios, and the Church pressed her doctrine of voluntary eman-
cipation until the States took up the subject, and enacted laws to pre-
vent emancipation. ‘This change in the laws -of the States, led to@
ehange in the rules of the Church, not a change in the principles of the
Church.. So far as changes have been made, it has been to favor sla-
very, and it has been done as an act of kindnessyand not as an invas
inp of Southern rights. The Methodist Church las always maintained
that slavery is a great evil, and tolerates it only because she hus no con.
trol over it. :

The brother from Va.,[ Dr. Smith, ] denied that the General Confer-
ence possesses any legislative authority. If this be true, I wish to know
how his compromise law got into the book? If it was not put there by
legislative authority, we have a rizht to strike it out just when we please.
If it be contend d that the law which is plead in justification of Bishop
Andrew’s connection with slavery, secures him a right to his ministerial
character in view of tlt relation, I grant it with all my heart. I never
did, and £ never will give a vote that will deny the ministerial character
to slavchofders, wliere the }.w will not admit of emancipation. 1 depri-
cate the character of some of the petitious that have been presented to
this Conference, refleeting upon the charaeter of Southern brethren. I
should consider it one of the greatest calamities to grant those petitioners
the thing for which they ask.

The Harding case is not the same as the bishop’s case, as some have
asserted, He could have emancipated his slaves, and it was upon this
principle that I voted against him ; but in so doing, I had no thought of
disfranchisiny slaveholding ministers, where they cannot emancipate. ]
am willing to-day to vote them all their rights, and their ministerialchar-
acters, and I could do it with all my heart, I could not pass over this
and not notice the Baltimore case. I should be unworthy of my birth
should I do it The Baltimore Conference has been assailed by the
200

Southern press, and held up to the public contempt as guilty of trickery
and heartless treachery to the South. But what have we done? We
only keep slavery out of the travelling ministry. The progress of sla-
very has been first to get into the membership, then among the official
inen, then into the travelling ministry, and then into the episcopacy.
We have refused to let it into the travelling ministry, and this is our
crime, Abolitionists can be forgiven, and be called honest men, but we
can never be forgiven.

But have we any law justifying the proceedure against Bishop Andrew ?
He is liable to a charge under the law which makes a bishop amenable
to the General Conference for improper conduct.

1. Bishop Andrew knew, when he was clected, that no slayeholder
could have been elected at that time. And knowing this, he went and
connected himself with slavery, the very thing which he knew would
have prevented his election, if he had been connected with it at the
time. Is there nothing wrong in this? Dr. Capers declined the nom-
ination because he was a slaveholder. :

Dr. Capers said he was very sorry to be so often referred to in con-
nection with a subject necessarily so delicate to him. He hoped he
should not be dragged before the public any more in connection with
this subject.

Mr. Collins resumed, and said,

2. Bishop Andrew connected himself with slavery, knowing thet
the great majority of the preachers and people were opposed to having
slavery connected with the suprintendency. The Bible says that “a
bishop must be blameless,” and I doubt whether a bishop can be blaine-
jess when he does what he knows will give offence to the greater por-
tion of his brethren. Mr. Prsident, you must allow me to avail inyself of
your authority on the meaning of the term “improper conduct” for
which a bishop may be expelled. “The General Conference may ex-
pel a bishop, not only for immoral but improper conduct, if they see it
necessary. Improper conduct in our Discipline means a small offence,
below a crime.” — Hedding’s Address, p. 12.

Isthere nothing then improper in the bishop’s connection with slave-
ry? There was never a day when a slaveholder could have been elected
to the Episcopacy, and this Bishop Andrew must have known, and
hence to charge this proceeding upon recent excitement, and spread it
before the public in this aspect, will be to go to the public with a false
issue. A distinguished brother at the South, if the newspapers did not
veport him incorrectly, had stated that he would give his sufferage to-a
Northern man for a bishop, on condition that he should come to the
201

South to reside. This all goes to show that it was known and felt at the
South, that a slaveholder would not be acceptable as a bishop to a ma-
jority of the Church, and with this knowledge before him, Bishop An-
drew became connected with slavery.

3. By this act of the bishop, the M. E. Church has had her councils
distracted, her harmony disturbed, her union threatened, and her foun-
dations shaken to their very centre. Nor is it true that this commotion
has been raised by-the case of Mr. Harding; that was local in its effects,
but this is general, and affects the whole Church, and has already shaken.
her very foundations. Is not that which results in such disaster to the
church, improper conduct in a bishop ?

4, If the bishop remain in his office, it will be necessary to change
one essential feature of the superintendency. The Church will have to
be divided into episcopal districts, and Bishop Andrew must have a dis-
trict assigned him suited to his circumstances, and the general character
of superintendency will be broken up. - This the constitution forbids,
and the Conference has no power to do it. If, then, the General Con-
ference cannot do away the general character of the superintendency,
an official cannot have the right of doing what will render it necessars
for the Conference to do it away. Bishop Andrew has rendered him-
self unavailable to a large portion of the Church ; and however capable
he may be of superintending some part of the Church, he cannot super-
intend the whole Church, or all parts of the Church, and therefore can-
not be a general superintendent, and the General Conference cannot
keep him without a violation of the Constitution. It is due to Bishop
Andrew to say, as has been said, that he came here with the purpose of
resigning and relieving the Conference of the embarrassment.

Bishop Andrew rose and explained,, by saying that he did not come
to the Conference with the expectation of resigning. I had no expecta-
tion of meeting the state of things which exists here, when I started for
the Conference. When he got as far as Baltimore, he heard that he
was to be deposed or suspended, unless he resigned ; and when he got
to New York, he learned that the decree had gone forth that he must
be deposed unless he resigned. Dr. Bond, in an editorial in his last pa-
per, had made him the scapegoat upon whom now depended the des-
truction or salvation of the Chureh. He said, God knew it was not so.
If he could restore peace to the Church, he would doit. If his resig-
nation would restore peace to the Church, he would resign ; but it would
not. He said he never had any particular fondness for the episcopal of~
fice, and he was sure he could not now, as it ‘had been held up to that
Conference, and he pitied the man who. could remain in it, or accept cf
202

it at their hands. If his resignation was necessary to secure the peace
of the Church, he would make it at once, and return home and labor as
he had done among the slaves, and strive to save those upon whom
their pretended friends were inflicting suffering and ruin.

Mr. Collins continued. I believe every word of what Bishop Andrew
has said; I believe him to be a pure man. There is not a man on the
Episcopal bench that 1 love so ardently as 1 do Bishop Andrew; I re-
peat it, I love him more than I love any other bishop. I believe that all
our Southern brethren are true, and } believe what they say of the evil
that will result to them from the passage of the resolution.

But I wish to speak concerning the authority of the Conference to
act in the case, and to do what the resolution proposes. If Iam wrong
on this subject, I have been misled by high authority, for I have derived
my opinions from the best authority. If there is no law directly on the
subject, there must be a power in the General Conference to meet the
case, and there can be no officer of the body above the General Confer-
ence. A bishop is amenable to the body, and as he possesses no power
above an elder, which he does not receive from this Conference as its
officer, the Conference must have power to control the subject, and may
not only expel, but may curtail his power or transfer it to other hands.
Here the speaker introduced Mr. Wesley and Mr. Dickson, an English
Methodist minister, as authority. The reporter is unable to give the
language of the extracts which he read, but they were such as satisfied
the speaker that a bishop is an officer of the General Conference, and
may be dismissed from office at the pleasure of the Conference, with-
out any impeachment of his moral or ministerial character. The speak-
er continued: The above extracts settle the question that a bishop is.an:
officer of the General Conference, and that he may be removed every
year and a new one put in his place. I would never speak lightly of the
office or the officers, but such are my views of the constitutional ques-
tion. It is equally clear to my mind that no law which this Conference
has enacted can be plead as a barrier in the way of such action, for the
conference itself is the power and source and fountain of law.

In the constitution of the United States all the power that is not grant-
ed to Congress, is reserved to the people and the states, but in the con-
stitution of the church all the power that is not reserved to the people
and annual conferences, is granted to the General Conference ; the'con-
ference therefore can do every thing which they think the interest of
the church demands, so long as they do not violate the restrictive rules. .
If it is then clear that the conference has power to act, let us see if it
is not their duty to act. When a bishop cannot go every where and
203

work to advantage in all parts of the church, can he be a bishop in the
sense of the Discipline, page 29 ?.

“Tt a bishop cease from travelling at large among the people, shall he
still exercise lis episcopal office among us in any degree ?

<“nswer. If he cease from travelling, without the consent of the Gen-
eral Conference, he shall not thereafter exercise the episcopal office iu
our church.” Has not Bishop Andrew placed himeelf in circumstance’
which will compel lim to cease from travelling at large among the peo-
ple? There is a plain difference between the circumstances and labor
of a bishop and those of a preacher, which should not be overlooked.
There appears to be a reason for the rule on slavery relative to travel-
ling preachers, which does net exist in the case of bishops. A travel-
ling preacher is more local in his sphere, he is the member of an annu-
al conference of prescribed limits, within the bounds of which he must
labor, unless transfered to another section of the work by the episcopacy.
This view shows that preachers are subject to the civil law of the sever-
al states which regulates slavery, and hence the rule, to meet their case ;
but the same necessity does not exist in the case of the episcopacy, for
a bishop is not a member of any annual conference, but is at liberty to
-select his own residence, and hence need not be controlled by the slave -
laws, which are local in their operations. I conclude, then, that the rule
in the tenth section does not relate to bishops, but only to travelling
preachers.

I have spoken longer than I intended, and am now more embarrassed
than when I began, in relation to the proposed action in the case. Iam
greatly embarrassed by the remarks of Dr. Smith, who calls upon us of
the middle conferences to act as an umpire in the case, and administer
equal justice to the parties. My difficulty is in knowing where to draw
the line, or to determine what is the real issue between the parties. If
the line is drawn and the issue is made up upon the petitions, I must go
with the South. I can never vote to grant the things asked for in those
petitions. J believe to grant the petitions would be to inflict a great ca-
lamity on the Church and the slave. Iam not among those who be-
lieve that slaveholding is sinful under all circumstances, nor do I believe
that immediate emancipation is required at the hand of the master, or
that would be for the good of the slaves. On the whole, my opinion.is
that the best thjng that could be done would be to let the M. E. Church
alone on the subject; let the preachers alone. . If any thing can be done
for the slave, it. cannot be done by violent measures, and we ought to be
careful not to throw a firebrand into the South. Our brethren in the
South are doing a gocd work, and we ought not to.throw any thing in
abeir way. ,
204

Since the commencement of the discussion, I have heard a harsh
note, and it has fallen heavily and with a grating sound upon my ear; it
4s the note of disunion. I wish to say, once for always, that I can take
no part in the work of dividing the church. If you begin the work of
dividing, it will not stop with the South; when a division shall have ta-
ken place between the North and South, the spirit of division will then
but just be waked up, and it will come down upon the whole church
with desolations of ruin. When the unity of the M. E. Church shall
be broken up, I can no longer consider it an honor to be a member of
her communion, or a minister at her altar. When I consider how great
we have become, and how far and wide we have extended, not only the
influence but the blessings of Methodism; and then think of breaking
up, to the great ‘delight of the world, giving occasion of triumph to our
enemies, and exciting the contempt of common infidels, my heart sick-
ens within me. Are we met for the last time, and shall not the M. E.
Church be represented in General Conference again as one body? Are,
these venerable men, [turni.g to the bench of Bishops] who are the
connecting link and strong bond of union, to see the institutions and in-
terests over which they have presided and watched with such deep so-
licitude, scattered to the four winds, amid their efforts and tears and
prayers to preserve and perpetuate them? When you take such a step,
then will sound the knell of Methodism’s departed glory! I dread noth-
ing more than division; I do not wish to part with these brethren; I do
not wish to meet the consequences of the strife and family fends that
must follow a division. Iask then, cannot some common ground be
struck out, upon which all can meet, where the North and South and
East and West can unite? Asa middle man, I can meet on any ground
upon which the extremes can come together; but if I am compelled to
a vote in the case, with my views of both the law and the circumstan-
ees, I must say, “I love Czsar, but I love Rome more.” I will close my
marks, after suggesting the following as common ground upon which it
appears to me all might meet. Ido not offer it-asa motion, but only
throw it outas a suggestion. .

Whereas the Rev. James O. Andrew, one of the Bishops of the M.
E. Church, has become connected with slavery; by marriage and other-
wise, and whereas a large proportion of our ministers and membership
fo many of the annual conferences are known to have always been op-
posed to the election of a slaveholding Bishop, believing that such an
event is in contravention of the Discipline, which contemplates the

Episcopacy es an itinerant general superintendency, and calculated also
to strengthen the bonds of slavery; and whereas the peace and unity
205

of the church in the non-slaveholding conferences will be liable to seri-
ous interruption from the connection of Bishop Andrew with slavery,
without some definite action of the General Conference in relation to-it,
Therefore,

J. Resolved, That the members of this General Conference are con-
strained to express their profound regret, that the Rev. James O, An-
drew, one of the general superintendents, has become connected with
slavery, in view of the fact, that while thus cireumstanced, he cannot
perform the duties of his office acceptably to a large proportion of the
ministers and membeis of our church.

2. Resolved, That Bishop Andrew be, and he hereby is affectionately
and earnestly requested to take the necessary measures to free himself
from his connection with slavery at the earliest period: practicable with
in the ensuing four years, '

3. Resolved, That all the matter pertaining to the appeal of Rev. Si-
las Comfort, tried at the General Cofiference in 1840, be erased from
the journal.

At the conclusion of the above speech, Bishop Andrew arose, and ad«
dressed the Conference as follows: —

Brethren, I have endeavored to listen to the arguments that have been
urged on both sides of my case, and to listen candidly ; and all’ who
have any knowledge of the passions and sympathies of human nature,
must know that 1 have felt most acutely during the protracted discus+
sion. I have vacated my seat and retired back, because I considered
myself on trial; and Ihave kept silent with the exception of the re-
mark J made this morning by way of explanation. I have no quarrel
with any who have taken part in the proceeding: they have all treated
me as kindly as I had any fight to expect. Ihave no contention even
with my abolition brethren; though I think their opinions false and
mischievous, yet I can believe them honest, and can treat them with the
same courtesy which they have extended tome. I thought it was due
to myself to make a few remarks before the vote should be finally ta-
ken, which I hope will soon be done. The discussion has now heen
protracted a week, and I think a week is long enough for one man to
be shot at.

I never aspired to the Episcopal office, and never thought of being a
Bishop until my friend, Br. Hodges, now in heaven, sought an interview
with me on the subject, and requested that I should consent to be nom-
{nated. I was unwilling for many reasons. I had no love for the office ;
I was with a conference that I loved and thatloved me. And what was
Tto gain? A-separation from a happy honie, from an affectionate com-
206

panion,.and from children more beloved than life. But my friend urged
me, and Tat last consented, with the hope of a failure; and one of the
happiest events in my life would it haye been, had it proved a failure :
tor then I had not seen this day. ButI was nominated and elected. No
one asked me if I was a slaveliolder; no one asked me my principles on
the subject: and no one dared to ask a pledge of me, or it would have
len met as it would have deserved. But one man spoke with me on
the subject, and that was Br. Winans, who told me that he could not
vote for me, because he believed me to have been nominated under the
impression that I was not a slaveholder.. I never was a believer in the
secret will of God, as some used to preach it; I believe in the revealed
will of God as it is found in the Scriptures. So I believe in the reveal-
ed will of the church as contained in the Discipline; and J took office
upon the broad platform of that book, and I believe its provisions cover
my case. ‘I supposed it was expected that I would reside at the South,
und residing there I must of coursé employ Southern help of some sort.
My wife could not do the work; Icould not do it, and hence I was com-
pelled to hire some one to doit. If I did not own slaves, I must hire
slaves of those who did own them. In this way, I could hire for but a
year at atime, and, of course, servants would feel but little interest in
me, and J of course would have less influence over them. Under such
circumstances, I believe less sin would have been committed had I
hought slaves; but still I forebore to purchase, But at last I came into
the possession of slaves as J have stated, and I became a slaveholder
without.my consent, and without power to help myself.

{t is known to this Conference that 1 have been called to pass through
deep affliction; I have buried the companion of my bosom and the
mother of my children. On this subject I need not speak further than
to say that 1 needed a wife, and I needed one who would bea mother
to my children. I found 4 woman that suited me, and | married her
voluntarily, as I trust all do, and as all should who enter into such con-
nections. I did it in the fear of God, and God has blessed the union.
I. might have avoided allthis by resorting to a trick, but I would not do it,
A. person who supports the measure against me, asked me why I did not
have them secured to my wife with an annuity settled upon her chil-,
dren, and thus put them beyond my legal control? My reply was, I
would not resozt to any trick; if I could not stand upon my principles,
in view of the naked facts in the case,1 would fall, I commenced my
labors in the ministry when I was but eighteen years old, and Iam now
tifty, and J have not made property by my ministry; I knew therefore,
slculd Ibe taken away, I had nothing to leave to my wife to make her
207

comfortable after I should be gone, and those slaves were her only de-
pendence in such case, and I did not feel disposed to deprivé her of this
only source of support should I be taken away. I have laboréd for the
good of the colored man; when but a youth I taught them in a Sabbith
School, the first of the kind I ever heard of ; and I think I may safely
say, that no one has dome more with so little means. And now, after
all, [stand here accused of having inflicted a great evil upon the Church.
Thave nothing to disguise. ‘T now say that I could free those slaves, so
far as is consistent with the laws of the State that they should be free.
They are legally the property of my wife, but should I say that I wished
to emancipate them, she,would not object. But how is it to be done ?
‘They cannot be emancipated in the State. To what free State “then
shall I take them —and what is to be their condition there? Some of
them are already old and worn out, and are no longer able to labor for
their support. How are they to be provided for” Others have always
lived with my wife, and are so attached to her that they would not con-
sentto leave her. Under such circumstances I can only let them re-
main, and treat them as the Gospel requires. One person said to me
that if he were in my place, he would clear himself of the embarrass-
ment, if they all went to the devil; but I dere not act upon such a prin-
ciple. Those who know me, know that I ¢annot be controlled in my
actions by property, interests or the love of money.

Such are the facts,and such are my views and fxelings. I bave no
concession to make, —JI will make none. I throw myself upon the
book which I believe provides: for and justifies my position. If the
Conference thinks me unworthy to fill the place I occupy, you can send
me back from whence you took me, when you called me to fill the post.
Tean go back and labor for the slave, as I have done.

it has been said that I am not acceptable to the preachers and people.
This may be true, and still no one be to blame for it; for I know I can-
not preach much. But as it is said that Iam not acceptable to our peo-
ple, Iam led to ask who our people are? [believe Iam acteptable in
the South, hence the South canfot be our people, in the’ estimation of
those who use the term. I may not be acceptable with those who in-
sist on the freedom of the bodies of the slaves, let what may become of
their souls. I believe Iam acceptable through the whole South, still,
you can dispose of me as you like; I make no plea for mercy ; I do not
wish to go on labor where Iam not acceptable. I might have supposed
myself acceptable in this city, if I had been left to judge from what J
witnessed among the people, but I may not be acceptable among the
preachers. Ido not wish to lay hands on the heads of those who feel
208

themselves polluted by my touch, No one of the General Superinten-
dents does or can go through the whole connection; and if you should
seo fit to let me remain, I have no doubt my colleagues will know enough
not to send me where I am not wanted. I have only to add further, that
E wish you would change the i issue, and take the vote to depose me di-
rectly, and take the vote without further delay, for I have been in sus-
pense long enough.

Mr. Sehon, of Ohio, said it was not owing to any want of interest on
his part, that he had not spoken before. Jam, said the speaker, buta
young man, and old men have occupied the floor. It is the first Gener-
al Conference I ever attended, yet duty to those who sent me here re-
quires that I should say something, for I must vote, and I must give my
reasons for the vote I shall give. 1 know Iam liable to have it said of
me, that I am converted to the South; but if Iam converted, my con-
version is not anew one. I hold the same sentiments now that I have
from the beginning. The sume views which I expressed in letters
which I wrote from the South in 1841, and which you, Mr. Watchman,
did me the honor to engrave upon your high tower. [ As this was pro-
nounced the speaker pointed most significantly at the reporter, who had
his seat in the centre of the front gallery, and who returned the compli-r
ment by one of his best bows.] The speaker continued: it is by these
zame principles I wish to stand or fall. If my people will not receive
me with the open avowal of my sentiments, Twill fall. And I will ex-
_press my opinions so that when I sit down, the Conference will not be
ata loss to know which side I am on, as they must have been in the
caso of the last speaker, [ Mr. Collins.] J am opposed to the original
resolution, and the substitute. Imay be asked if Iam opposed to my
own substitute, as my name was attached to it. My answer is, when I
put my name to it, it had another form; and it has been altered with
my name to.it, without my consent’ or knowledge. If, after all this, it
be insisted that I am converted, I will try to strengthen the brethren.

I admit that this Conference can try and suspend, or expel a bishop.
But is this a trial? In my view it.hag none of the forms of a trial; and
if it is designed to produce the results of a.trial without its forms, it is
all illegal. -If it be called a trial, I should prefer, with the Bishop, to
have the issue changed to. direct suspension, Brethren have talked
about another substitute to conciliate, but none has been presented.
Why do they not give us something of this character if they intend to?
I believe that no ground of action is safe which is not clearly founded
upon the letter of the Discipline. It is true I voted i in the Convention
ef non-sjaveholders to request Bishop Andrew to resign : but it was
209

before any action was had, and subsequent investigation has convinced
me that that was wrong.

I occupy a peculiar relation to slavery. My father I believe to be a
very good man, and yet he is a slaveholder. I was born in Virginia,
and reared amid the institutions of slavery, but I removed to a free State
where 1 wish to live and die, I have freed more slaves than any other
man on this floor, I took them from Virginia to Ohio, but it is now
doubted whether Ihave really bettered their condition. But what can
the Bishop do with his slaves? It has been said that the Bishop is not
acceptable on account of his connection with slavery. This may be
true of New Ilampshitre, but he would be welcome to any of the pul-
pits in Cincinnati or Philadelphia. I am willing to meetithis statement
before the people. I know they wifl give the Bishop a place in the
warmest chambers of their bosoms. I am bound to the South as strong
ag With the withes of Sampson. There are the graves of my ancestors.
J have only to add that the proceeding is inexpedient, because it will in-
jure the slave. ,

Mr. Winans said he wished to speak, and he wished he was better
prepared than he was, for owing to indisposition he should not be able
to do justice to the cause he felt it his duty to advocate. Entertaining
the views I do, said the speaker, I feel it my duty to speak, notwithstand-
ing all the emnbarrassments that press upon me. The Conference basa
pledge in my g general course not to be tedious, for I never make long
speeches.

I shall attempt to examine .the fundamental law of the ‘Discipline as
applicable to this case, and reply te the argument of the learned broth-
er from Ohio, (Mr. Hamline.) If I understood his arguments; they rest-
eid upon three propositions, viz., that the General Conference had su-
premie legislative, judicial and administrative power. On the subject of
the legislative power of the General Conference I will not quarrel, for
it looks too much like quibbling to deny that the General Conference
has some sort of legislative power, notwithstanding the General Con-
ference once denied it. Nor will I contend about the judicial power of
_the General Conference, if by itis meant a power to apprehend and
trya bishop. ‘This in‘not disputed, and I Lope no false issue will be
mace on this point. Waring these points, I come to the proposition that
the Conference has supreme administrative power. I understood the
brother to say that the Conference possesses absolute and unlimited ad-
ministrative power, DoI do him justice? If not, let him speak.

Mr. Hamline said he was not disposed to interrupt the speaker during
his remarks; if he was misrepresented, he would make the correction

~when he bad finished his remarks, R
210

Mr. Winans proceeded and said, the brother may rest assured that I
will not intentionally misrepresent him; I wish however that he had cor-
rected me if J am wrong, but as he declines, I must proceed to answer
him as I understand him, and though I fight a man of straw, I shall
buffet it with all my might. ;

T absolutely deny that the General.Conference has any original ad-
ministrative power; it isa creature with delegated attributes, and no
other. What are the deligated powers of the General Conference, and
where are they to be found? They must be in the book of discipline,
where J should have supposed a Methodist preacher would have looked

' for them, instead of exploring the region of metaphysics. The dele-
gated power of the General Conference is a power to make rules and
regulations for the Church. If this Conference has plenary power,
may God save the Church *{ Amen! responded fiom several voices, }
Has a mero majority of this Conference, composed as it is of great men,
and sober sometimes on some subjects, unlimited power over the officers
of the Church? And can it, in the exercise of its administrative pow-
er, administer its own unwritten will as law, before it has first been
framed into a rule or regulation ? The power of the conference is to
make rules and regulations for the Chureh, and for the government of
the officers of the church. But where is the rule or regulation of the
Conference for dismissing a bishop from his office without impeach-
ment, or where is the rule or regulation contraveried by Bishop An-
drew’s connection with slavery? The conference can make rules and
regulations under certain restrictions, and can then enforce those rules
upon such officers as are dmeanable to them, and beyond this their
power does not extend.

There is no rule authorizing this proceeding. The rule that author-
izes the conference to expel a bishop for improper conduct does not au-
thorize this, The argument of brother Hamline, that if the major bo
granted the minor follows, is not true in, this case. Power to expel a
‘bishop does not include the power to reprove, or to suspend, or to de-
pose without expulsion. What would be a reproved bishop, and what
would be the respect that a reproved bishop could command? If the
bishop has conducted himself improperly, let him be expelled. It is
dangerous to infer one power from another ; especially in the adntinis-
tration of law and justice, no penalty should be inflicted for which thero
is notan explicit warrant in the law. We cannot safely infer the power
so suspend, from the power to expel.

But what is the rule of judging what is and what is not jmproper
eonduct ? Is it this or that brother’s opinion of propriety, without refer
211

ence tolaw? The rule in this case is this — the conduct of the bishop
is disapproved of somewhere, and therefore is improper. I could not
have made myself believe that the stress of circumstanecs could have
induced men to adopt such principles of aetion, Let this be adopted,
and any man’s conduct can be rendered improper by getting up a dissat-
isfaction with it, and every agitator is at full liberty to got up an excite-
ment and to manufacture infernal fires to scorch and burn the vitals of
the church and the world. I would not dare to trust my character in
the hands of this conference, held accountable for the propriety of my
conduct, if. they are to make popular sentiment, as it may exist in differ-
ent localitics, the standard of propriety.

But another rule has been urged, which.is that Bishop Andrew was
elected asa non-slaveholder. Suppose he was elected asa non-slavehol-
der, it does not effect the constitutionality of the question. If it would
have been constitutional to have ‘elected him as a slaveholder, or to have
elected any other slaveholder, that settles une question, and his connec-
tion with slavery cannot be unconstitutional now. The effort to make
out a usage out of the fact that there never has been aslaveholder elec-
ted to the Episcopacy, appears to inc to be a weak affair. There has
never been a bishop elected from Mississippi, but I deny that it is against
the usage of the Church to elect a bishop from that conference, ner
will there ever he any such usage, if a bishop should never be elected
from that conference. The factis a mere yegation, there is no usage in
the case. A practice grows into a usage only when it is pursued by
common consent; but the results of popular and contested elections
never become a usage. Time has been when a slaveliolder wanted
only onc vote of an election to the Episcopacy. But suppose Bishop
Andrew was elected as a non-slaveholder, is he responsible for the se-
cret motives with which northern men: voted for him? He made no
pledge on the subject of slavery, and lic knew his rights on the subject,
according to the general laws of the Church.

But it has been said that the Section on Slavery does not relate to
bishops, but to travelling preachers. I admit that there is a special law
for bishops, but that does not take them out of’ the general laws for trav-
elling preachers, A bishop is a travelling preacher, and the law isa
general law, including all travelling preachers. “ When any travelling
preacher’ becomes the owner of a slave,” is the language of the law, and
ean it be denied thata bishop is comprehended in the term “ any trav-
elling preacher?” If the bishop is not to be tried by that law, by what
law is he to be tried? There is no other law on thé subject, and if that
does not relate to the bishop, there is no law touching his case, and
where there is no law there is no transgression.
212

The brother from Baltimore ( Mr. Collins ) demurred at the use of the
term compromise, because there was not two parties concerned in the
transaction. Well, he illustrated the nature of a compromise by the
action of the convention which formed the constitution of the United
States, and the slaveholding and non-slaveholding states were the parties
inthe compromise. Let me say, then, that the United States are one
people, and it isas easy to see how slaveholding and non-slaveh olding
conferences could be parties in a compromise, though all one church,
as it is to see how slaveholding aud non-Slaveholding states could be
parties ina compromise, all belonging to the same nation underjthe
same general government. When the compromise act was passed the
South had a majority in the General Conference, and yet they were so
generous as to yield to the views of the Church, but now the North has
a majority, arethey as magnanimous? A certain great man near New
York said months ago, that the South had got all the concession from
the North they would ever get. Now let me say that concession has all
been the other way, from the beginning. We have seen our interest
cramped from time to time, and have borne it, not always patiently I al-
low, but we have borne it for the sake of the unity of the Church. But
we can go no father without ruin. Whei the South had a majority, she
said to the North, Here, let us now settle our differences upon this com-
mon ground. The North has a majority now, and she is like the cuck-
oo, who only wishes to get its head into the nest of thesmall bird, but
was not satisfied until she had crowded the other bird out and got pos-
session of the whole nest. ‘

When the Methodists first begun to take action<ion slavery, there
were no laws in the States against emancipation, and the work was go-
ing on, but the Methodists thought it went tco slow, so they put their
shoulder to the wheel to help it on, and the legislatures chained the
wheel, and I am sorry to say the chain is being riveted on by misguided
zeal — I will not say wicked zeal. But after all that you have done, you
are not satisfied yet, but now insist on deposing Bishop Andrew. Let
this go to the world, let it be published in the South, and what will our
declarations amount to that it is not connected with the abolition move-
ments. Jt will be seen that the M. E. Church sympathizes with aboli-
tion, though she may not be fully baptized into the reform of the no-
government principles. You are this moment up to the hub in abolition.
Why do you seek to depose Bishop Andrew? The only answer is that
he is connected with slavery, and if he i is convicted it will be a declara-
tion that all slavéholding isasin or a disqualification for office in the
Church, and what more do the abolitionists demand? I do not wonder
213

that the abolitionists have given over their cause in perfect confidence
into the hands of the Conference. There will be a general shout among
the abolitionists, if this resolution passes. Can the abolitionists deny it ?

Mr. Porter from New England and Mr. Randall from Maine said they
did deny it.

Mr. Winans continucd : All they ask will follow from this resolution.
It will be scen that there can be no reason, founded in right and moral
principle, for putting the bishop down for his connection with slavery,
which will not go just as far towards providing that all slaveholding min-
isters should be deposed, and that slavery should be put out of tho
eburech. The resolution is therefore a thorough-goiug abolition measure.

I cannot forgive the Baltimore delegates, because they claimed to be
conservatives while they were destroying conservatism. Of what are
they conservatists? Not of the church, for they are plunging a dagger
toher very vitals. It is not tosave the church from extremes that they
are conservatives, for they sanction one extreme. If they are conserv
atives, they are conservatists of abolition. I repeat it: I cannot forgive
the Baltimore Conference delegates, unless they will take back the as-
sertion that they are conservatives. I love the Baltimore Conference ;
Iwas born there, and first met in class there; but when they take me
by the beard-to kiss me and then,stab me, I will not say, ‘and you too
Brutus, but I am constrained to say, and you too.Collins among them ?
{ Applause] A distinguished brother from Baltimore had represented
himself as Jaying one hand upon the shoulder of the abolitionists and
the other upon the shoulder of the slaveholders, with a view to hold on
to both, and as loving both. It looks to me, however, as though one
hand was on the shoulder of the North, and the other hand hold of the
throat of the South, and I would say, Do not in any of your spasms of
love choak us to death. If they will vote injustice upon a brother whom
they dare not charge with crime, can never believe them when they
say they are conservatives. I do not charge the motives of the Balti-
more brethren, I am willing to allow that they may be honest, and de-
sign only the good of the Church.——I have spoken too long for my
strength, and perhaps too loud for the rules of a Methodists preacher :
but I would debate till January, if Ihad strength, rather than see the
Church broken to pieces and held upto the scorn cf the world, I
would rather not return to my wife and children for a year, than to see
the church ruined, and it will be ruined if you pass that resolution.

After a few words of explanation by Mr. Hamline, Mr. Finley of
Ohio said he had a desire to speak and give his reasons for introducing
the substitute, He said he represented a respectable conference, and
214

they had .confided the interests of the M. E. Church to him. He said
he had been taught from the beginning that the Discipline contained no
conservation for,slavery. The Discipline declares that slavery is a great
evil, and we cannot suppose that it is conservative towards a great evil.
It is, however, a conservative document, it has a conservation for the
men who are involved in slavery. I am sure I shall be borne out by my
conference and the people, that I amon the old ground, and I cannot be
driven from it. Our Southern brethren can make me cry, but they can-
not convert me. The Discipline does not tolerate slaveholding only
where the law forbids emancipation; where they can free their slaves
and do not, they can be cut off. So far as the Discipline goes, so far I
go for Southern rights, and I go no farther.

There are two principles involved in the substitute which I wish this
Conference to sanction.

1. This Conference has the power to discharge a Bishop when he in
any way is rendered incapable of carrying out the principles and secur-
ing the ends for which the Episcopacy is constituted. It has always
been my doctrine, that when a Bishop Lecomes old and infirm he ought
to resign. Bishop Roberts tendered his resignation to the General Con-
ference in 1836, and I voted in favor of accepting it, because I believed -
in the dictrine, and because I wanted to secure the precedent. What
were the reasons which that venerable man offered for tendering his
resignation ? «They, were, first, that through age his strength failed him
so that he waste able to perform the work of a Bishop, and carry out
Y fijnciple of a general superintendency. Secondly,he was sensible
oe mental powers were failing, and he wished to retira. from his

sponsible position before he got wise in his own opinion, as old men
“are apt to when they begin to fail. Ifa Bishop be disqualified from
any other cause, the principle is tlie same.

 

2. The principle of connecting slavery with the Episcopacy is involv-
ed in the resolution, and its passage or rejection settles the question
whether the Church is prepared to receive a man as a Bishop who is
connected with slavery, there being nothing else against him. I have
been astonished at the reasons that have been rendered by brethret. in
this discussion. Jt has been said that when the Methodists began to
tke action on the subject of slavery, the laws admitted of emancipa-
tion in all the states, but when the church began to legislate on the sub-
ject, the states passed laws forbidding emancipation. I know how it
was in the West, I commenced there when there was but one man be-
sides myself, and that was old brother Cartwright, and he has converted
all the West. The Methodist preachers used to preach against slavery,
215

and slaveholders used to seold some, and still they would come to hear
us and feed us. When I was on the Indian mission I came out into the
settlement among slaveholders, and they wanted I should preach, and I
told them I would, but I should preach against slavery. No, a brother
sald, we want you to tell us some anecdotes about those Indians. The
people came together, and I preached, and J told them about the wick-
edness of slavery. ‘When I had got done, the brother said, “ Brother
Finley, you are the most wilful man I ever say, you will have your own
way.” At first they tried to stop us by turning their pop-gun law against
us. There was old brother Young, he used to preach against slavery.
He was a fearless, zeulous man, and they used to call him the Westeru
war-horse. Well, he got taken up for preaching against slavery, and
was fined ten dollars. He said he could not pay ten dollars, and he ha-
ted to go to jail. A brother stepped up and paid the fine, and told him
to keep on preaching against slavery, and he would pay his fine again,
if they fined him. There was Cartwright and Axley, and others that
used to preach agaius slavery in those days. Now I will tell you
how it was that the church commenced taking ground against slavery.
The preachers began to get slaves, and we opposéd it. We had hoped
that the Gospel would do away slavery, but we saw it would not, if the
preachers became slaveholders.. Iam not able yet, brethren, to sev
how it is that the Gospel can ever do away slavery, if preached by slave-
holding ministers. Bear with me, for I must speak plainly ; must we
become connected with an evil to exert an influence against it? Can
we promote the cause of temperance by becoming connected with rum-
selling establishments ? ? Icannot so understand things, brethren. 1
say we used to preach ‘against slavery, and I believe the gospel would
have abolished slavery before this time, if the preachers had not become
slaveholders. When they became slaveholders they ceased to preach
against slaveholding, and next they begun to oppose others who contin-
ued to preach against slaveholding, and next they begun to oppose oth-
ers who continued to preach against slavery, and that was what pro-
duced the present state of things. That this is the true history of the
state of things, Cartwright is my witness, _ [ Laughter.]

1 can say, brethren, that I am free from slavery. I was born in a
slave State, reared amid slavery, but as soon as 1 was old enough I fled
from it, and went into the wilds of Ohio, and dug out a trough and
pounded hominy, and hunted racoons and bears for a living, and I say
I am clear from slavery;

But we are told that slaves are held out of charity to them. It is to
me a singular charity that would take me and own me, and sell me end
216

make me work for others for nothing, all my life! Do not be offended;
brethren, J must tell ‘the truth, if it takes all the hair off my head. You
say you hold slaves for their good, that you treat then as your children.
Do you then put your children under overs¢ers, to be driven witha whip
from Monday morniug until Saturday night? Do you teach your chil-
dren that it is better to be a slave than to be free, and that it wonld be
a deed of charity to hold and use them as slaves are held and used? I
cannot swallow all this, it will not ge down with me. ;

I cannot compromise my principles. When I go back to my confer-
ence and the people, no one shall say that I compromise my principles,
und when I amin my grave, no one shall write upon my tomb stone that
{ ever compromise one ‘of my principles. Icannot see how’ the fias-
wage of that resolution can be such a great and awful affliction to the
South, It appears to me that it is the least we can do. Less than that
will not answer, You may call me an abolitionist; well, I am one, but
not a radico abolitionist. If the South can show a better way to meet
the case, discharge our responsibilities, and save the Church, I shall be
glad to unite with them in it, but until such better way is pointed out, I
must go for the resolution before the house.

Mr. Winans made a few remarks, followed by Mr. Sehon, who com-
mented in few words on the histery of the resolution before the house,
when the Conference adjourned by expiration of the ‘time.

Afternoon Session. — Bishop Waugh in the chair, Religious services
by H. J. Clarke, :

Mr. Cartwright took the floor for a speech, and the Conference laugh-
ed in anticipation of what they appeared to think he would say. The
speaker proceeded as follows are

Mr. President, 1 cannot say “Oeh, and i in what little I do say, 1 cannot
be ardent, eloquent or logical. ¥ ‘dc not wish to offend any one; and
indeed I am rot much afraid of it, for I hardly ever do offend any body.
The discussion has taken a very wide range, and the speakers have scat-
tered worse than an old yawger. Many of the speeches have not come
within four miles of the question. and so wide of it have they generally
been, that perhaps T ought to ask par don for alluding to it at all. From
the long and able debate on the subject — and since yesterday morning
there have been some pretty respectablé speeches — I presume the con-
atitutionality of our pr oceeding is the main point at issue, for the law
has been examined and explained from a private member up to the
honorable bench of bishops. It is my object in the few remarks that I
may make, to disabuse the minds of the Conferenee of some of the un-
measured assertions arid heterodox opinions that have been advanced

and defended.

 
217

Tt has been the order, in discussion, for speakers to commence their
speeches by telling their experience, and I hope I shall be borne with if
I pursue the same course, for I always did like these experience meet-
ings first rate. But bro. Green has so used up every term in the Eng-
lish language, that when I search for one or two, I find them missing.
-And by the by, he must be a very wonderful man, for he has been among
Indians, and panthers, and bears, and wolves, and wildcats, racoons, and
woodchucks, and was never scared before he came to this Conference.
1 admire his courage, but his religious experience was not just like mine,
after all. If so happens, unworthy as Iam, that I am one of the old
preachers, I joined the western conference in 1805, which was then
one of the seven conferences in the United States. The debate about
Methodist law and Methodist usage has brought to my mind some of,
my earliest recollections, and they have not been painful recollec~
tions. I was born in Amherst County, on James River. I hope my
dear brother from Old Virginia (Mr. Early ) will not repudiate me, for
that would make me feel bad. JI emegrated to Kentucky among the
bears and wildcats and Indians, about which my friend talked so eloquent-
jy. I know all about them; and had he been compelled to stand as I
have in the open fiéld, with Indians firing from behind every tree in the
neighborhood, he might have been scared before he came to this con-
ference — but that is not important. The first Methodist preacher I ev-
er heard or have any recollection of, died not long since in the South}
he baptized me, dnd I have no doubt he was well known tothe brethren
from that section. Now my experience differs from the history{some
of the speakers have given of this vexed question. Inever heard of a
Methodist preacher who was not opposed to slavery from stem to
stern, and they opposed it in all good conscience in public and in private.
And as reference has been made to the unsettled state of the ques-
tion, I wish it understood that during all the discussions and excitements
on the subject, the early history of the church does not furnish one in-
stance in which a Methodist preacher advocated the right of slavery.
We have heard much about the compromise. Our Southern ‘brethren,
insist that it is legitimate, that it was regularly:adopted and baptized aa!
a child of Methodism, but it appears to me that what they describe as a
compromise is a whining, cross little brat. When what is called the
compromise was adopted there was not an advocate for slavery on the
floor; there was not aslaveholder on the floor, A brother’ says the
South has yielded more and more, until the North has grown so bold
as to attempt to degrade the bishop, and hurl him down from his dig-

nity. Ido not so understand it,— as I have said, the preachers were
19
: 218.

once all opposed to slavery. I have. suffered for the slave, I hcve heen
in prison for preaching that slavery is a sin, but still Idid and would
preach it, Ihave thought they could not pasa a law which. would so:
Liud me, that I could not squeal out of one corner of my mouthagainst
oppression. J have been through one.seven years’ contest on this sul
ject, and have seen judges and law books brought upon;the, fioor of the
Conference to screen ministers from the law of. the Church. Take the
original. organization of the church, aud conipare it with our present
position, and see which has encroached, the North or the South. Where
was the church in 1805, when she declared that not an attribute of God
could be reconciled to slavery?— but now we are contending ubopt
slaveholding dishops.

But the constitutional. power to do what is proposed { is the great point
Well, if we have rules for the government of all grades, until we come
to the bishop, and have uo rule to touch him by expulsion, we are ina
woeful condition. From a class leader up, all other officers may be dis-
placed because they are not useful, without any charge of immoral con-
duct, and if we have no such power to, deal with a dishop, our econ-
omy is defective. J was never a favorite with the bishops, though I
helped make those on the bench; yet Ihave never had cause of com-
plaint. Treceived appointments under Asbury, and wes always ready
to go any where, and could make a hard circuit a good one. 1 have no
spite to vent against the Lishops. Iwill forbear to notice Bishop An-
drew’s connection with slavery, but I must notice some of the doctrines
that have been advanced by Southern brethren. After being, killed
dead and buried in the cause of liberty, as ] have been, I cannot back
out, if they do call me an abolitionist, as they,are disposed to call the
whole North. We have been told thata men living in the South is
liable to become a slaveholder against his will. Can any man believe,
in his sober mind, that men become slavehelders against, their will, and
that they cannot get rid of it. It looks tome more like humbuggery
than anything else. I once had the misfortune to become aslaveholder
by heirship. T-could have plead the disabilities of the law, and have
plead in truth, and with a certainty of nceting with sympathy, but I did
not do.so, Iwas resolved to be like Ceesars wife, above suspicion on
the subject of slavery. I took them to a free State, set them free, gava
them land, and built them a house, and they raised more bread end
meat than Tcould, and have made more money than I ever did by
preaching the Gospel. I only name this as an offset to what has been
gaid on the other side about men being g made slavebolders against their
will, A Mcthedist preacher can free his slaves in Kentucky, hy giving
219

security. The law requires security, and it is right it should, abd some
ofthe brethren who looked somewhat to the flesh pots of Egypt, besi-
tated about emuncipating their slaves in view of the security required,
und [stepped in and took the responsibility. I stand this moment se-
curity for no less than two hundred. There is one thing 1 hurl hack
with the contempt it deserves ; it is this calling every man that will not
chime in with their views an abolitionist, and their perpetual assertions
that if this resolution passes we shall be an abolition church. It is not
true; Fam on the old Methodist ground, but I thank God I have 1.0
modern abolition blood in my veins,

‘Thave one thing more to say, and that is that I hope brethren will
not get fiightened ut the glow-worm. Let the South take fire if they
will ; we have seen it lighten and heard it thunder before, and the world
has not come to an end yet, as Mr. Miller predicted. Brethren talk of
division, and appear to think of frightening us from our principles.
‘This looks to ine like sickly nonsense. We will not leave the old ship
Zion, we will stick to the church. We kuow nothing of those magh-
zines of powder that brother talked about. I wonder if he is not aftaid of
seeing ghosts when he is:alone in the dark. I hope wéfsball hear no
more about this frightful division. Ido not believe in a division, and
have not from the first. Suppose I should leave the M. E. Church,
she would not miss me any more than an ass would miss a gnat off his
horn, Venerable names and sainted bishops have been dragged in to
show how near the church has come to having a slaveholding bishop.
Well, J may say in reply to all this, that “a miss is as good as a mile.”
One man came within one vote of being elected, but then, for want of
that one vote, he was not a bishop. It has been said that bishop Me-
Kendree intended to purchase a slave. In reply to this, I have heard
that venerable man suy five hundred times, that if he owned a thou-
sand slaves, he would not die a slaveholder. I must be allowed to no-
tice the array of mighty ones we have to contend with on this sub-
ject.

One brother, [Mr. Green, ] and he must have a tremendous disposi-
tion, said he would fight any way, on his feet, or on his knees, or on his
hack, and would never yield any way we could fix it. Well, I do not
wish to fight with that brother, but he will have fighting enough to do
before he gets through.
| There is my learned brother from Georgia [Mr. Longstreet ;] he di-
verted me much with the Latin he quoted. He is no doubt a Chris-
tian and a gentleman, but his Latin reminded me of a man in one of
the Western States, who was appointed a constable and sent witha
220

warrant to apprehend an individual whe concealed himself in a swamp.
‘So the young officer returned his warrant, and to show himself very
learned he wrote his return on the back in these words :— “ In swamp-
um ef non comeatum.” I must also pay my respeetsto the little learned
brother, [ Mr. Pierce, ] who was so gentle as not to disturb the hair on
‘the head of a man perfectly bald. [J.T. Peck.] What 1 would say
is this that when we get warm and heated in debate, we are apt to say
things we would not say when we were cool. As to myself, I am al-
ways cool and good natured. But you know, during this discussion, we
have been threatened. Ido not like this, for I never threaten unless I
get out of temper; and then nobody will be scared because I threaten.
‘Now we have been threatened with division and all that sort of thing.
Now I love the little brother, but I hope he will not drive us as the old
fellow drove his swine.

Thereis one other speaker who deserves my respects, [ Dr. Smith.]
He is a very great man, and full of courage, and threatens us with pro-
tests that shall burn upon our cheeks before the American people and
American church, and with injunctions, and I don’t know what all.
Now I have &o doubt that brother has great courage, moral and physical,
but I shall venture to pronounce a eulogy upon him. It is this: — Da-
vid slew the lion and the bear, and killed Goliah—Samson slew the
Philistines with the jaw-bone of an animal, hip and thigh, and Alexen-
der conquered the world, but thou hast excelled them all. It has been
said that no good has been done by the action of the church on the
subject of slavery, that no slaves have been emancipated by it. Now
Y know that statement is not true. Ionce heard a venerable bishop
gay that when ultra abolition should subside, an influence will be felt
behind which will free the world. I know that much evil has been
done by the ultra discussions at the North, butI am not accountable for
that, nor is my conference responsible for it. But there are ultra men,
in the South as well as in the North. One word about New York. 1
was opposed to the conference coming to New York. .New York was
opposed to ultra abolitionism, and I came here to represent an annual
conference that was also opposed to this ultraism. I must refer to the
noble stand taken by the Baltimore Conference, and I hope they will
not allow themselves to be scared from their principles. J have seen
the design of the attacks upon them, and who can help seeing it? 1!
have felt for them. Who does not know that these brethren are upon
the old Methodist ground? But the brother says he cannot forgive them.
Well, I hope they will not need his forgiyeriess, that they may go to
heaven without it. I know how they are connected with slavery, and
221

the difficulties in their way, but in spite of all the eloquence and pow-
er of their opposers, they will come out unsinged and without the smell
of fire upon their garments.

If the general rules are to be respected which clearly condemn slave-
ry, and if the restrictive rules with them are the constitution, I cannot
see why this Conference may not regulate and control every officer. 1
hope we shall let our votes tell, and not: dodge the question.

After Mr. Cartwright had concluded his remarks,

Mr. Crandall, of New England, moved that the debate be closed and
that the question be taken at half past five o’clock this afternoon. Mr.
C., said in support of fis motion, that the bishop himself wished it de-
cided, and he thought the Conference ought to respect the bishop’s
wishes. He said the debate had now progressed for six days, and be
could see no prospect of its ever closing, if they were to continue it ur-
til all varties bad said all they might wish to say. The South had oc-
cupied most ef the time, and with that he was satisfied. He believed
that the vote should have been taken at the close of the bishop’s re-
marks, He wished to give Lim a@ll,;the advantage the nature of the
case would allow, and he did not believe there had beena time, or.that
a time would again come, when the side to which he was opposed
svould conioand as many votes us it would have done at the conclusion
of the bishop’s remarks. ‘

Mr. Early moved to lay Mr. Crandal’s resolution on the table, which
was lost.

Dr. Capers then opposed the resolution. He said they needed all the
Jight and help they could get, and the subject was very far from being
exhausted. Ve said the North had a majority and could pass the res-
olution, and the vete would be one determined by geographical lines.
Under such circumstances he thought the majority ought to allaw them
the greatest freedom of discussion, and ought to give them their strong-
est argument fer the proposed action,

Mr. Collins raised a question of order, claiming that the motion wes
out of order, because there was no rule for the previous question. The
chair consulted with the bench of bisheps, and stated that two of his
colleagues thought the motion out of order, and the other doubted.
For himself, he saw nothing disorderly in it, but to settle it he would
decide the motion out of order, and if any one was disposed, an appeal
could be taken.

Mr. Houghtaling of Troy cee The decision of the chair was
sustained.

Mr. Sti:mper, of Illinois, next obtained the floor, and emai

R
222

speech; but it was some time before the house becatne sifficiently still,
and the speaker’s voice sufficiently elevated, to enable the reporter to
hear. The first sentence that struck his ear sufficiently distinct was as
follows: —

I am opposed to the resolution ; I believe it to be radically wrong, and
extra-judicial ; it is, in my view, a violation of the great compromis prin-
ciples upon which the policy of the church has been settled. Iam an
anti slavery man; I never owned a slave, and my father before me never
owned a slave, and I never expect to own a slave; yet 1am convinced
that it cannot be avoided in some circumstances; it has been found by
actual experiment that we cannot get along without allowing slavehold-
ing in some circumstances. It was this that led to the adoption of thé
compromise act ; and we should have done well, prospered, and been at
peace under this provision; but for the ultra abolitionists of the North.
The State of Kentucky would have been free this day, but for the bad
influence of modern abolitionism. Men in that State bad entered into
an association, and signed a constitution which bound them to emanci-
pate all that were born after a certain date, and the work was going on ;
but at this time, abolition came down upon them like a storm, and swept
away the hopes of the slave, and put back the cause of emancipation
fifty years. If the abolitionists, instead of attempting to ply their loug
guns to shoot the South, would look after their own poor at home, it
would be better for all parties. Look at the condition of the colored
people in Philadelphia and Cincinnati ; they have been driven away, hun-
dreds at a time, without a shelter or a home. What then would be the
effect if all were emancipated at once? Where would they all finda

- home? Let them all be made free, and they will melt away like snow.
General and immediate emancipation would ruin the whole colored
population.

The difference of opinion is not concerning the nature of slavery, but
concerning the best manner of getting rid‘ of it. It is a fact which
should not be overlooked, that there are more colored members of the
church in the South than in the North, which shows that the South is
not behind the North in efforts for the moral culture of the colored
race.

“The law question has already been discussed beyond my abilities;
upon that therefore, I will say nothing. But 1 must oppose the reso»

, lution, because it will hinder the work in which our Southern brethren
are engaged, and shut up the door of salvation to the poor slave. It id
easy for men to cry ata distance; the battle cry has no terror when
‘there is no foe near ; but, brethren, will you, dare you go there and la-
223

bor for the good of the slaves amid the cotton fields and rice swamps ?
If my conscience was 60 tender on the subject of slavery, I would go
where itis and oppose it. But if you will not go, do not prevent oth-
ers from doing what good they can. J would say to the South, do not
give up; do not leave the old ship; stick to her; she laborsamid storms
now, she is billow-tost and tempest-driven, but she will outride the
whole, and the heavens shall become clear, and the elements calm.
This is to try us; and let us endure it patiently, and it will end in
good.

Mr. Dunwody, of South Carolina, next obtained the floor: but before
commencing his speech he gave way for a motion to adjourn.

Bishop Soule gave notice that he desired to make some remarks be-
fore the questiou was pushed toa final close. Thisled toa considera-
ble discussion concerning the right of the Bishops to, sperxk at pleasure
and the propriety or impropriety of their mingling in the discussions of
the Conference, the whole of which resulted in the passage of a resolu-
tion inviting all the Bishops to speak on the question before the house
before the final vote sliould be taken

Wednesday, May 9.

No reports from committees being presented, the case of Bishop An-
drew was declared to be in order.

Mr. Randall, of Maine, moved to suspend the order of the day, to
give him an opportunity to offer the following resolution.

Resolved, That whenever in the judgement of a member of the Con-
ference, any subject has been sufficiently discussed, it should be in or+
der for him to move that the question be immediately put: that this
motion shall be decided without debate; and if adopted by a majority
the main question shall then be taken in the following order: First on
the substitute if there be one, and secondly, on the amendment, and
finally, on the original motion.

‘This motion was a signal for a storm; and amid the clamor of many
voices, some one moved to lay the motion to suspend the order of the
day on the table, which was lost.

Mr. Winans then opposed the motion with great spirit; he said, if
the object was to save time, they would find themselves mistaken. Wo
can debate this two days, and we will do it before it shall pass. You
have driven us upon a precipice; and standing as we do upon its last
verge, you refuse to. hear us, but intend to thrust js off by the previous
224

question. Here are men of sense, who have labored to build up the

church for ten, twenty, thirty and forty years, and who wish to speak,

and. you propose to put it in the power of & young man. to rise up and

say, you shall not be heard. Is it said that itis not known which side

has the majority! It is known; were itnot known, there would be

none of these efforts to cut off debate and force the question upon us.
. These motions all come from one side.

Dr. Smith next made himself heard by the chair; and though he as-
sumed an air of calmness, he was evidently wnuch excited. He com-
menced by saying, Iam in my right mind, am perfectly healthy in body,
and can speak three days in opposition to the motion, and will do it be-
fore it shall pass.

J.T. Peck rose'to a point of order, and asked the chair if the rule
limiting speakers to fifteen minutes was suspended on any subject but
the main question concerning Bishop Andrew.

The chair said it was not— that the fifteen minutes rule was-in force
on all other subjects.

Then, said Mr. Peck, Br. Smith can soon speak out his fifteen min-
utes, and some of the rest of us can havea chance in.

Much confusion, and several things said not undersioced by the report-
er amid the confusion of tongues.

Dr. Smith resumed, and said he would speak out his fifteen minutes,
The Conference, said Dr. S,, will accumulate nothing but discredit to
itself by adopting the course proposed. They will notsave much time
after all; it will take away the constitutional rights of brethren, as the
representatives of conferences. Some conferences have not been
heard, and will not be heard, if that resolution passes. The adoption of
the fifteen minutes rule virtually says, that every man may speak fifteen
minutes if he desires it! You may just as well say to the minority,
you can go home, you have no businesshere. My fifteen minutes are
out, and one whole hour has’ been consumed.

Mr. Slicer said he would vote for the resolution, if the mover would
consent to amend it, so as to give the Conference poyer to stop dis-
cussion by a vote of two-thirds. He thought to put that power in the
hands of a mere majority, might prove oppressive. ne men have pow-
er, they are apt to use it,

Mr. Randall said he would admit the amendment of Mr. Slicer. He.
added that he was sorry that his motion had produced so much ex-
citementand.led to the consumption of so much time.

The motion to suspend the order of the day was then put and carri-
ried, and Mr, Randall’s motion as amended was presented.
225

The reading of the resolution was called for: and on its being read,
Dr. Bangs, who that moment came in, moved to strike out two-thir ds,
and insert a majority. This produced another excitement.

Mr. Early opposed the motion; but his remarks were not heard by
the reporter.

Dr. Bangs obtained the floor in defence of his own motion to amend,
and after speaking about fifteen minutes, amid frequent interruptions,
he withdrew it, and the original motion was adopted.

Mr. Dunwoody, of South Carolina, was, now declared to be in order,
having had the floor at the hour of adjournment lastevening. He com-
menced by saying, :

I feel it my duty to speak on a question so momentous as the one now
before the house; I owe it to the South Carolina Conference. The
preachers of that conference sent me here, because they believed the
-subject of slavery would come up in some way, and because they be-
lieved I understood the subject. The debate has taken a wide range,
and brethren have been allowed to pursue a very general course in the
discussion, and I trust I shall be allowed the same liberty, asI design to
say nothing only what has an important bearing on the subject. I shall
attempt to oppose the resolution on the following ground.

J. It is unscriptural. \

2. It is contrary to the discipline of the Church; and,

3. It will be evil in its consequences.

If I understand the resolution, it is designed to cut off Bishop An-
drew wholly from being Bishop. It is desgned to say, in effect at least,
that no slaveholder can be a bishop. And why can no slaveholder be a
Bishop? It is because slavery is supposed to be a great moral evil.
This renders it necessary to say something on the nature of slavery. I
have no doubt the North is mistaken concerning the opinions of the
South on the subject of slavery. They call.us pro-slavery. We are not
pro-slavery. JI am opposed to slavery.

There are three parties in the Conference. _ first, the abolitionists, who
hold that slavery is a sin under all circumstances. Secondly, conserva-
tives. Abolition is too strong for them; they do not helieve that slavery
is a sin under all circumstances ; but still they think they must do some-
thing; they must legislate in the church against,slavery. The third class
differ from the second only in point of measures to get rid of slavery.
They ‘hold that the only measures which they can consistently employ,
as ministers,and as a church, is to preach the gospel to both the master
and the slave. This is my doctrine; it is indeed the doctrine of all the
South, :
226

I believe slavery to be a moral evil. My reason is, the Scriptures
forbid it. Nothing ean be plainer than that Joseph’s brethren sinned
when they sold him into Egypt asa slave. Another scripture which
proves slaveryto b3 a moral evil is the history of the Israelites in Eeypt
Vengence fell from heaven upon the Egyptians for the sin of slavery.

I believe that the African slave trade is a moral evil. It had its origin
in covetousness, .and unless religion prevents, it must bring a dreadful
scourge upon the nation, Mr. Jefferson said that he trembled for his
country, when he remembered that God is just. But the North, and
New England in particular, is deeply involved. She has heen the prin-
ciple agent in the slave trade. She employed many vessels in the traf-
fic, and having got through and put the money in her pocket, she turns
round and attempts to set the world on fire with abolition, But I ur-
derstand her; her abolition excitement is intended to favor her more
grave political schemes, ;

Thelieve also that the domestic slave trade between the States is a
great evil. Ido not say where one neighhor buys a slave of another,
but there are men who make a bnsiness of it. They come to Virginia
and buy up droves of slaves for the more Southern market, and hus-
bands and wives, and parents and children are separated in the opera-
tion. But Ido not believe that slavery is a moral evil in every case.
.Give me all that the Scriptures will allow, and I will do the same by
you. That the Scriptures do justify slavery under some circumstances,
is, to me, perfectly plain. The fourth commandment proves that slave-
ry is right. “Thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy scm, nor thy
daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle.” Here
servants are classed with other articles of property. The tenth com-
mandment is another instance in which Ged gives his’sanction to sla-
very. “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet
thy neighbors wife, nor his man-servant, nor his niaid-servant, nor his o7,
nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s,” — Here ‘servants are
classed with house, oxen, and all other articles of property,

Abraham was a slaveholder, and had many servants that were Worn in
his house, and that. were bought with his money. Hagar was a slive,
and when she was roughly treated by her mistress, she fled. But the
angel of the Lord appeared to her, and what did he do? Did he do as
the abolitionists do, help-her to fly from her mistress? He did not; he
gave no countenance to the modern abolition doctrine, He called to her,
“ Hagar, Sarah’s maid, whence comest thou, and whither-wilt thou go?
And she said, “I flee from the fate of my mistress, Sarah.” © And the
angel of tle Lord said unto her, “Go pack! return to thy mistress, and
Bet

submit thyself into her hands.” St, Paul, in his cpistle to the Gulatlats
sanctions the same view of, the subject, by referring to Hager as a bond
woman, and to Sarali as a free woman, to illustrate the law and the Gos-
pel. Jacob was also a slaveholder, for he had men and maid servants.
A [lebrew could not be a servant but for seven years, or until the Jubi-
lee at farthest; but the beathen could be made slaves for ever, as we
learn from Lev. xxv. 44, 46;—“ Both thy boud-inen and thy bond-wo-
men shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shallye
buy bond-inen and bon d-women, * * * * They shall be your
bond-men for ever.

Another instance of Bible slavery we find j in the case of the Gibeon-
ites, who deceived the children of Isracl. They were taken for bondmen
und were made hewers of wood and drawers of water. God cannot
provide for th: existence of moral evil, but we see that God has provi-
ded for the existence of slavery; slavery, therefore cannot be a moral
evil. sot

i will now notice the New, Testament, and we shall, there find as clear
u sanction of slavery as we have in the Ola Tcatament.

Rom. xiii, 1, 2. —“ Let every soul be subject to the hig her powers, for
there is no power but of God:, the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power: resisteth the ordinance of
God: and, they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.”

In connection with the aboye text, 1 beg you to consider the twenty-
third article of our religion, which says, that “The president, the cou-
gress, the general assemblies, the governors, and councils of State, as
the delegates of the people, are the rulers ot the United States of Amer-
icu.” To this is appended a note, which says, “As fur as-respects
civil affairs, we believe that it is the duty of Christians, and especially
Christian ministers, to be subject to the supreme authority where they
aay reside, and to,use all laudable means to enjoin obedieuce to the
powers that be.” Do men know what they are doing? Look at the
subject.as now before us. The Bible commands us to be subject to the
higher powers, declaring them $o be ordained of God, and that whoso-
ever resists them, resists the ordinance of God. and must receive dam-
nation. Our own articles of religion. recognize the general government,
and the governments of the several States, as such powers ordained of.
God, and commands obedience to them. Now the Southern States
have ordained slavery, and to resist it. is to violate qur own articles of
religion, to violate the word of God, and resist the ordinance of God,
und purchase damnation. I repeat the question — do men know. what
they are doing? It appears to me there is a grand evil heres , Paul says
228

if we fedist we must receive damnation! Whata diletntna are those in,
who make such an uncompromising war upon slavery, and yet pretend
to be Christians and Methodists!

The great apostle of the Gentiles, who was blessed with the light of
inspiration, did not see slavery to be such a great evil as modern aboli+
tionists pretend to have discovered it to be: Philemon was a slavehold-
er, and Pail] sent back Onesimus to him, who was his slave, and who
had run away from him. He sent him back with a letter, beseeching
Philemon to’ forgive him, but he did not say one word about his eman-
cipating him. St. Paul also taught the right of slavery in the sixth
chapter of the first epistle to Timothy, “Let as many servants as are
under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the
uname of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have
believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren ;
but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, parta-
kers of the benefit.” Two things are implied in these words.

1. The text implies a clear sanction of the relation of master and
slave; the relation is recognized, and the authority of the master is
sanctioned, and the obedience of the slave is enjoined.

2. The text teaches that a slaveholder may be a brother beloved, and
a partaker of the benefit, and if so, slaveholding cannot be a sin, unless
God sanction sin, unless a man can be a sinner, and a brother beloved
anda partaker of the benefit at the same time.

This is the doctrine of Wesley, Coke, and Clarke, who all agree that
slavery did exist in the apostolic Church, and that Christianity was nev-
er designed to cancel the civil right of men, or to absolve them from
their civil relations and obligations. How these men could rail against
slavery, is more than I'can understand, after they had made such ad-
missions. Clarke is obviously inconsistent with himself, when he says
that perdition itself has scarcely an adequate place of punishment for
slavery.

There are other texts which refer to slavery: —the case of the cens
turion is one, who said he was a man in authority, having servants un-
der him, and he said to one go, and he goeth, and to another come, and °
he cometh. This man was a great slaveholder, and yet Christ said of
him, he had not found so great faith, no, not ia all Israel... Dr. Clarke
renders this text, “ having slaves under me,” &c.

A Roman officer said to Paul, “ With a great price obtained I this lib:
erty ;” but Paul said, “I was born free.” There is one view more which
T wish to give of this subject. Slavery is clearly recognized’ in the
Scriptures, and rules are laid down,?.regulating the relation, between
229

master and slave, This it appears to. me could not be, if the relation is
asinfulone. For instance, Paul speaks of marriage as bonorable, and
he lays down rules for the regulation of those who sustain this relation ;
but there are no rules for the regulation of those who live in adultery
and fornication. God cannot regulate these relations, because they ar:
crimjnal: he can only forbid them. So if the relation of slavery was
sinful, God could not give Jaws to regulate it as he Las done, ‘but coula
only forbid it, When Paul was under an arrest, and accused of the
Jews, he appealed to Cesar, which shows not only the rightfulness of
Cwsar’s authority but that it was the highest.” So ig the civil authority the
highest authority now,"and Bishop Andrew must submit to the laws of
. Georgia,and can be held accountable to and be judged by this Conference
only so. far as is recongilable to the laws of the State in which he lives.

2. Iam to show that the resolution is contrary to the Discipline of the
Church. The general rule forbids buying and selling ; but Bishop An-
drew has neither, bought nor sold, and therefore has not violated this
rule. If any part of the Discipline is violated by Bishop Andrew’s cen-
nection with slavery, it must be the 10th section, which has been pro-
vided expressly, for the regulation of travelling preachers in their con-
nection with slavery. This rule does not forbid travelling preachers
becoming slaveholders; it provides for it, and only holds them respon-
sible to emancipate their slaves when and where it is practicable. But
has it been proved that it is practicable in Georgia? This cannot be

. pretended, and until this is proved, the Bishop stands justified by tho
Discipline of the Church?

But: Bishop Andrew is not a slaveholder, in ithe 1 strict sense of the
term. A pious lady gave him a slave by will, for the purpose of being
sent to Liberia, if she would consent to go, and_she refused ; and of
course she fell upon his hands. The will gave him no power to send
her without her consent, and of course he could -anly Jet her remain.
But he.does not claim her as his property, he derives no benefit from
her labor, and she is perfectly at liberty to leave him and go to a free
State at any time. Is this being a slaveholder in a wicked sense? Is
this a violation of the Discipline? ?

The next case is that ofa little boy which was willed to his former
wife by her mother. .This can not constitute, him a slaveholder, be-
cause he does not wish to hold the boy. as a slave ; he is willing he
should be free-at any moment, and will give up all claim to him any
moment he can be assured that he will be provided for.

There is one other-case; bishop Andrew has married a wife that was
a slavcholder, and by, such marriage he has become pobaected oats cla-
230

very. We are commanded to judge not according to appearances, but
to judge righteous judgmert. What was theré improper in his conduct
wen he married that woman? It cannot be maintained that there was
anything wrong in it, unless it be wrong to hold slaves under any cir-
cumstances, in which case the charge lies agajast the Discipline of the
church, and not against the bishop. It cannot be denied that the wo-
man had a right to hold those'slaves before le married her, according
to the law of the church; her slaveholding ‘could therefore have been
no legal or moral disqualification in her; and it cannot be denied that
the bishop had a right to choose his own companion, provided he did
not choose one disqivalified by some rule of discipline or morals, and
she was not thus disqualified, for the law of the church justified her
connection with slavery. We are plain common sense men at the
Louth, we admit, but we do not deny the slave the right of choosing his
own wife, and it appears to us ‘that a bishop should have as much right
of self: -judgment i in the case as a slave.’ But the doctrine of expedi-
ency is plead against the bishop, which will bé met by showing,

3. That the proposed measure will be evil in its results. The ground
upon which the expediency of the measure is made to rest, is that the
bishop is not acceptable to some of the conferences. But is-a want of

‘acceptability a reason for deposing a bishop, without reference to the
ground of such want ‘of acceptability ? Suppose ‘a bishop be every
thing that he should be, and is still unacceptable hecause the people ara
wrong, is he to be put out of office on account of the errors of the peo-
ple? Is the Church of Jesus Christ to be governed by a corrupt public
sentiment, so far as to depose officers who are good and pure, because
they are riot acceptable? But it is argued that a bishop is a mere offi-
cer, and like an editor or a book agent, may be put out of office when
he does not answer the design of the oftice, without referetice to the cause
of his failure. This to me is anew doctrine, it has béen got up to meet
this case. I never heard of it before. A simple reference to the ordi-
nation service will show the absurdity of such a position. The follow-
ing question is proposed to the candidate, and the sollowine answer re-
quired. ,

Quest. “ Are you persuaded you are truly called to ‘this ‘ministration
according to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ ?” ° "

Ai, “Lam so persuaded, e os

Is an editor or a book agent made to say that he believes that’ he is

‘ called to his office according to ‘the will of Christ? And if he is called
to this ministration according to the ‘will of our Lord Jesus Christ, can
you disnsiss him from it without impeaching his moral’ character?
231 ,

Again, the ordaining bishop laying his hands upon the head of the
candidate, is required to say, “ Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and
work of a bishop in the Chureh of God.”

If there is any meaning in this, it means that men are called to the
olice by God, called by the Holy Ghost, and yet after thus inducting a
man into office, by which you say he is called of God, you propose to
dismiss him without an impeachment of his moral character. God
calls hin and you admit it, and yet you say he shall not obey the call.
Before you dismiss a bishop in this way, you had better blot the ordina-
nation service out of the book of discipline. .

‘The measure you propose cannot fail to destroy the episcopacy. No man
fit for the office could be induced to take it, if it be held by sucha tenure,
and the office would die away from the church. [In this Mr. Dunwedy
misjudged of human nature. Such is the love of place, of office, and
of power, that men will accept of themon any terms.. If they'do not
exactly suit, they know that the tendeucy of power is to accumulation,
and they hope to improve the office by a wise administration, of which
they always think, themselves capable.. Reporrer.] I would not.
accept of the office on such terms, were I ever so well qnalified for it..
Again, the measure cannot fail to make dreadful disorder and confusion
in the church, It is said some of. the conferences will not receive him.
What confusion is here? ‘No one denies that he is a good man, no one
pretends that he is not in every way qualified for the office; no one pre-
tends that he has violated any rule of the church, and yet you are about
to displace him because some of the conferences will not receive im.
If he has violated any rule, or does any thing, morally wrong, why do
you not impeach him, which will put an end to the controversy so far
as the constitutionality.of the proceeding is concerned? And if he
has, not violated any rule, nor done anything morally wrong, why will
not the conferences receive him? The reason is, if we are to believe
them, they are afraid of this dreadful. secession. The brethren from
New England said they were upon a great volcano which was ready to
explode beneath their feet. I would ask, then, did not they create that.
voleano? . Did not they first kindle and blow up its fires? I aim sure
we of the South did not.

But after you shall.have put, Bishop Andrew down, ne will you do?
Who will take his place ? Will you then elect an abolition bishop,
and send him to the South to preside over us? _Will be be received
there? ‘To say nothing about the church, would he not be in danger
from the resentment of the populace, under the circumstances, who be-
long to no church, and: who care for no religion ?
232

Our brother should ee that an abolitionist cannot be received in
the South, any more then a slaveholder can in the’ North. You may
say you will not send the South an abolition bishop in the place of Bish-
op Andrew, but a conservative. We do not know how to ‘understand
these brethren: they declare that they love the South; in words they:
are all honey, ‘but in action they are against us, It looks to me like the
old doctrine of decrees. Men used to preach that God ‘had decreed all:
things, that he had made a decree of election and a decree of. reproba-
tion, and then would preach God’s universal love. You say: you love
us, you believe we are good men, that you wish us. to enjoy equal rights
and privileges; but when you act, you act upon the principle of the old
reprobation decree,'and then you preach to us again universal love and
union. We cannot understand you.

But what is done, cannot be undone, he is married, and his - wife;'
though a very worthy woman, owns slaves, He cannot free them if he
would, She cannot free them if she would, for the law will not allow:
of it. Bishop Andrew can do nothing to disconnect himself with slave--
ry, upless he leaves his wife. Would you have him do that? That
would be a violation of the law of God and man, for which-you would:
justly’ depose him, and yet you are about to depose him for being’thus.
connected with slavery. It looks to me likeold fashioned’ Calyanism,
which represents God as decreeing all things, and then commanding
men to obey. You have already commanded Harding todo what he
cannot do. These men are not the authors of slavery, nor can they
contro] it. Their fathers introduced it; and you punish them’ for it.
This is contrary to the word of God, which says, “Ye shall have ‘no
more occasion to use this proverb in Israel, the father’s havé eaten sour.
grapes, and the children’s teeth art seton edge.” Suppose the wife, in
whom is the legal title to slaves, will not consent to their emancipation,
is the husband therefore to be deposed from the ministry ?

Twenty-four years ago abolition was not heard’ of, and then the Gen-
eral Conference said that a slaveholder should hold no official station in
the Church, where’ the laws will admit of emancipation. My mind
was then made up, for I was then led to ‘examine’ the subject, which I
had not before done. The North said it wasa great moral evil, and
must be put out of the Church. I then saw that if it was admitted
that it isa moral evil, we should have no ground to stand upon, for we
could not defend a moral evil, or defend ourselves: in the practice of
moral evil. I brought Scripture to prove my views, that itis not‘a
moral evil in all cases; but they would‘have their own saa Jaw or no
law, Gospel or no Gospel.
233

But to come. back to the point, who will you send to take the place
of Bishop Andrew, when you shall have put him down? None of the
friends of Bishop Andrew will consent to take his place. Send anoth-
er man, and the conference will say he shall not’ preside. If you say
he shall preside, you may as well say a slaveholder shall preside, and
save the trouble of putting Bishop Andrew out, as to say an abolitionist
ahall preside in a slaveholding Conference. You have got the power to
act because you haye,the majority. Remember that Solomon made the
yoke heavy, but his son said he would make it heavier, taking the coun-
selof the young men, and a revolt wasthe result. And what followed?
They grew weaker and weaker, until they were carried away into cap-
tivity by their enemies. If you keep within the restrictive, rules, we
have nothing to fear, but if you push this matter, as you propose, we
cannot be responsible for the results in the South. The South is already
awake and alarmed. I have just received a letter from my Presiding
Elder, in which he says, that in view of the accounts he receives of tho
proceedings of the General Conference, he expects I will be on. my
way home to attend a Southern conference before his letter would reach

_me. Pass that resolution, and the people will say, withdraw ftom such
a body, or you shall not preach to our slaves. ‘Pass that resolution, and
you forge us from you, and eeparate us at one blow from the Church,
and with us, a large portion of the country, and not less than 450,000
members. You say by the passage of’ that resolution that we shall nev-
er have a slavehoiding bishop. And do you suppose that we will, that
we can submit to such disfranchisement and oppression? I assure you
that you will rend the Church if you persist in this measure. There is,
there will be, there can be no union upon such terms, The union of
husband and wife is the most happy relation, but even this! connection,
if it.can be preserved only by living i in a perpetual quarrel, had better
he disolved; and so with the union of North and South, if we must
live in perpetual atrife, as on the present occasion, we had better sep-
urate at onee. If you keep us down, you must remember that “oppres-
sion maketh a wise man mad.” You may think we are too foolish, not
wise enough to get mad at oppression. Well you will drive the South
to take ground on Confereuce rights, on their reserved Tights. You
have done it already, for you have laid your bands upou our Bishop.
If the civil, power had no right to interfere with the priests, so.tha
priests have no right to interfere with the civil power, This is what
you are now doing. The State of Georgia haa made laws for the resuin-
tion of slavery, and you are now attempting to regulate it contrary to
the lawa and provisions of the State, You have got up an excitemant,

2 T
234

and you sec that the result js strife and division. Now we know that
religion produces peace but’ your abolition éxcitement produces strife
and disunion ; it cannot threfore’be religion, Wé in the South preach
to the slaves, “ Obey your masters,” arid labor to get both converted.
You can shfely say to Bishop Andrew 'not to preside in the North, for
you have Séripture for that. We read, “If the spies ‘of the ruler rise
‘up against thee, leave not thy place.”

We are brought to see a dreadful state of the Church, and what tlie
end will be, I cannot tell.’ It’ may’ ‘be sent to’ purify us,’ and I wish f
‘could hope that it ‘will end as well'as that. I cannot give up my hope
of the M. E. Church, so log’ as it is written, “on this rock will I build
my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

You have the majority, and ‘can pass sucl resolutions as you please,
but I exhort you by the efforts that are being made in the South for the
‘salvation of both the master and the slave, to a spirit of moderarion.
We are a minority, you can vote us down, but then our principles define
our position, from which we cannot.be driven.

Bishop Soule next,addressed the Conference. He said he had no so-
licitude concerning when he should speak; he only wanted a calm time,
aud he believed tie present was as calm a time’ as would present itself.
He desired also that the committee of publication would let him see his
‘speech before it was givén to the public, if it was to be réported and
published with the other speeches.

T am perfectly calm in my feelings, I was never more calm in my life;
and I trust it is not the calm that precedes a storm ; nor is it'the calmof
indifference, but the calm that arises from settled conviction\and ‘fixed
‘principles. If I could believe with the brothér® from Pittsburgh, that
we have got all the light on this subject that we ¢an have, or if I be-
lieved with the brother from New England, that no man’s vote could be
changed, I do not'say I would not speak, for though I do not wish to
speak for honor, there are periods in the life of every man who holds
important trust, when his influence must not be neutralized by the laws
of association. I involve no man by what I say on this occasion. The
South are not involved by what I may say; the North are not involved

’ by what I say ; 1 ask no man to be responsible for my opinions. Breth-
ren have manifested great solicitude to vote; this would do, brethren, if
a vote would settle the difficulty. Is it not possible that, notwithstand-
ing all the time that has been devoted to the subject, and all the enlarged
views that have been called forth, action‘at this moment would’be alto-
gether premature? Society has more to fear, has suffered more in all
ages, from the passions of men, than from calm and sober investigation,

1
‘235

and patient inquiry, Ihave nothing to fear from calin and patient in-
vestigation, but I have every thing to fear from the rage of excited pas-
sions. '
The sound ‘of an alarm trumpet may go forth from within these
walls — the sound may be borne on the wings’of the wind, and carried
by the whirlwind over the length and breadth of these lands; but when
the sound of alarm shall have died away, when the elemeuts that may
have been startled from their slumber and put in motion, shall have
settled into the calmness of inquiry, a voice will be heard, wafted on
the counter breeze ; and though that voice be not heard amid the thun-

‘der, the earthquake and* the whirlwind, it will be heard as the storin
dies away, and the first sound that will full upon the ear of awakened
reason, willbe, '“ What is the cause?” It will then bé the province of
reason and sober reflection to furnish the answer. The answer is now
before us, if we will butsee and consider it; it'is spread out before usin
a plain statement of facts by Bishop Andrew himself. I have not beard
any brother from the North or from the South, (and I listened to all
that has been said, ) intimate that there are any other facts having any
bearing’ on the merits of the case before you. I take it for granted then

‘that we have the entire facts before us, and that these facts: are the
cause of all the alarm that has spread, or may spread through our le-
loved Zion and over the continent.

Will the Conference indulge me while I read an extract from the ad-
dress of your general superintendents at your last session ?:

“The experience of more than half a century, since the organization
of our ecclesiastical body, will afford us many important lights and land-
inarks pointing out what is the safest and most prudent policy to be
pursued in our onward course as regards African slavery in these states,
and especially in our own religious community. This very interestin:

_ period of our history is distinguished by several characteristic features,
having a special claim to our consideraticn at the present time, particu-
larly in view of the unusval excitement which now prevails on the sub-
ect, not only in the different Christian Churches, but also in the civil
body. And first,-our general rule on slavery, which forms a part'of the
constitution of the Church, has stood, from the beginning unchanged,
as testamentary of our sentiments on the principle of slavery and the
slave trade. And in this we differ im no respect from the sentiments of
our venerable founder, or from those of the wisest and most distinguis!.-
ed statesmen and civilians of our own and other enlightened and Chris-
tian countries. ' Secondly, in all the enactments of the Church relating
i slavery, a due and respectful regard has been had to the laws of ‘the
236

States, hever requiring emancipation in contravention of the civil ‘au-
thority, or where the laws of the States would not allow the liberated
slave to enjoy his freedom. Thirdly, the simply holding © or owning
slaves, without regard to circumstance, has at no period of the existence

of the Church subjected the master to excommunication. Fourthly,

rules have been made from time to time, regulating the sale and pur-
chase and holding of slaves, with reference to the different laws of the
States, where slavery is tolerated ; which upon the experience of the

_great difficulties of administering them, and the unhappy consequences

both to: masters and servants, have beet as often changed. or repealed.

“These important facts, which form prominent parts of our past his-
tory asa Church, may very properly lead us to inquire for that course
gf action in future which may, ‘be best calculated to preserve the peace
and unity of the whole body, promote the greatest happiness of the :
slave population, and advance generally; in the slaveholding communi-
ty of our country, the humane and hallowing influence of our holy re-
ligion. We cannot withhold from you, at this eventful period, the sol-
emn conviction of our minds, that no new ecclesiastical legislation on
the subject of slavery at this time will have a tendency to accomplish
these most desirable objects. And we are fully. persuaded that asa
body of Christian ministers we shall accomplish:the. greatest good by
directing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of the first teach-
ers of Christianity, to bring both master and servant under the sancti-
fying influence of the principles of that Gospel which teaches the du-
ties of every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them by the
strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of tho
condition of the slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this, in
our calling as ministers of the Gospel of Christ, as by employing our
whole influence to bring both him and his master to a saving knowl-
edge of the grace of God, and toa practical observance of those rela-
tive duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired apostles?

“Permit us to add, that although we enter not into the political con-
tentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation, nor with the
administration of the laws, we cannot but feel a deep interest in whatev-
er affects the peace, prosperity and. happiness of our beloved country.
The union of these states, the perpetuity of the bonds of our national
confederation, the reciprocal confidence. of the different members of the
great civil compact ;—in a word, the well being of the community of
which we are members, should never cease to lie near our hearts, and
for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the
Almighty Ruler of the universe.
a

237,

“ But can we, as ministers of the Gospel, and servants of a Master
‘ whose kingdom is not of this world,’ promote these important objects:
in any way so truly and permanently as by pursuiag the course just.
pointed out. Cun we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to.
our country than by laying aside all interference with relations author-
ized und established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly
and faithfully to what specially appertains to our ‘ high and holy calling ;’
to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the Gospel, in application
to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society? By a
diligent devotion to this evangelical employment, with a Kumble and
steadfast reliance upon thé aid of divine influence, the number ef ‘be-
lieving masters’ aid servants may be constantly increased, the kindest
sentiments and affections cultivated, domestic burdens lightened, mutu-
al confidence cherished, and-the: peace:and happiness of society be pro-
moted. While, on the other hand, if past history affords us any cor-
rect rules of judgment, ‘there is much cause to. fear that the influence
of our sacred office, if employed in ‘interference with the relation itself,
and consequently with the civil institutions of the country, will rather
tend to prevent than.to accomplish these desirable ends.”

Thave read this extract, that the members who were not in the Jaat
General Conference, and all who hear me this day,\that have not seen
the address itself, may understand what ground I and my colleagues oc-
cupy: on the subject under discussion. Idesire that this document may
stand recorded, with my. name attached to it, till I sleepin death ; I de-
sire to leave it as a legacy to ‘my children and my children’s children
even to the latest generation ; and could.J do it, I would leave it asa
Yégacy to the Church, as a-rule of action on this subject when J shall
be no more. I want no man to write my epitaph: I will write it my-+
self. I want no man to write and publish my biography; I will do that
myself, so far as I think it necessary for the benefit of Le and! ‘of
importance to the Church of God: :

On. reading the life of my: venerable colleague, who bas gone from
earth to heaven since the last General, Conference, I regretted that this
document, as it stood connected with his name, did not appear in that
memoir. I thank the author of the History of the Methodist Episcopal
Charch, I refer to Dr. Bangs, for having preserved this document in that
history. I met itin Europe, and I was glad to meet it there. I never
wish my name detached from it: no never! When this was written,
your superintendents believed they expressed the sentiments of the pas-
toral address of the General Conference at its previous session, and we
think so still. Now, I have only to say, before I’ proceed to the main
238

object of my remarks, that I desire'that no undue influence may be ex-
erted from the peculiar relation which I sustain to the church. Sym-
pathy may have too great an influence when it is brought to bear upon
great principles. My sympathies have been roused during this discus-
sion, but ithas been done by a condition of my suffering brethren of
the colored race ; and a view of their condition never fails to do it. No
matter where I meet the man of color, whether in the South or in the
North, with the amount of liberty he enjoys, the sympathies of my na-
ture are allawake for him. Could I restore bleeding Africa to freedom,
to independence, to all the rights of man, I would most freely do it;- but
this I have not the power to do: you have not the power to do it. And
if I cannot burst the bands of the colored race, I will not strengthen
them. (If I cannot extend to him all the good I desire to, it is no reas-
on why I should withhold from him the few benefits I have it in my
power to bestow upon him.

But I cannot withhold the remark, that with the mental and physical
labors of the relation that I sustain to the church, I could not have been
sustained, I could never have supported myself, had I not settled down
upon principles which were, in my view, as strong as truth,,and as
changeless as the throne of God. ' It has been by a constant recurrence
to these great principles, that I have been able to sustain myself in the
discharge of what I supposed to be my duties, growing out of my rela-
tion to the church, and not merely as an officer of this Conference.
These principles have sustained me in the city, and in the desert waste ;
they have-sustained me in the North, and they have been my support in
the South; they have upheld me in the quarters of the black man, and
in the huts of the red man. Shake me from these principles, and I am
done: I shall then have no support equal tothe burden and must sink.

But what are these great principles? Is itthat the Methodist Epis-
copal ‘Church depends upon me? No, sir: her interests rest not upon
my shoulders; she cando much better without.me, than I can without
her. But the point is this: if the supreintendents ‘are to,be regarded
only as the officers of the General Conference of the M. E. Church,
aud consequently, as officers of the M. E, Church, liable to be deposed
at will, by a simple majority of this body, without the form of trial,
there being no obligétion resting upon the Conference to assign a cause
wherefore, I say, if this doctrine be a correct one-all Ihave to say
hereafter will be powerless, and must fall to’ the ground. But I must
be allowed to say, strange as it may seem, although I have had the
honor and the privilege of being a member of the General Conference
of the M. E. Church ever since its organization, — though [ wasa mem-
239

ber, of the convention of ministers that organized it, Ihave heard this
doctrine advanced for the first time, either in the General: Conference,
in an annual conference, or among the wide-spread. membership of the
Church, Of course, it struck me as a novelty. I desire to understand
my landmarks as a Bishop of the M. E. Church — not the Bishop of
the General Conference — not the Bishop of any annual conference,
but the Bishop of the M. E. Church. I thought that the constitution
and laws of the Church, that her statutes and regulations, the many
solemn vows of ordination, and tle parchment which I hold under the
signature of the departed dead, — I thought that these defined my land-
marks, and prescribed my'duty, In my operations, I have acted under
the impression that these were my directions; and it affords me great
consolation this day to stand, at least in the judgment of this body, to
which {hold myself responsible, and before which, Iwill always be
ready to answer to any charge that may be preferred against me,— I
say, it affords me great gratification to have stood for twenty years ac-
quiited in the discharge of the. high trust commiitted to my hands; and
I here desire to offer my acknowledgments to the Episcopal committee,
for the report they have brought to this body, and to the Conference,
for their cordial acceptance of that report. Isay, Ido. it with senti-
ments of gratitude ; and itis the more cordial to me, in view of what
may yet be to come. Now, sir whether this Conference is to sustain
the position on which I have acted, or not, they are very soon to decide,
by a vote upon the resolution before them; I mean, they are to settle
the question, whether: it is the right of this body, and whether they
have the power to depose a Bishop of the M. E. Church; whether they
have a right to depose my colleague, to depose me, without a form of
trial. Without specifivation of wrong, and by almost universal accla-
mation over this whole house, that Bishop Andréw has been ,uublame-
able in his Christian character, without blame in his ministerial ‘ voca-
tion: that'he has discharged his official duties faithfully, with usefulness
and universal acceptability and good faith; with this declaration before
the church, the community, and the:world, will this Conference occupy
the position, that they have power to depose Bishop Andrew, without a
form of trial, without charge, and without being. once called upon to
answer for himself in the premises? What he did say was solani
on his part..

Well, brethren, I had supposed that special provision had been made
for the trial of a Bishop. The constitution has provided, that no preach-
er, no person shal] be deprived of the right of-trial, according to the
forme of discipline, and of the right of an appeal; but if I understand
240

the doctrine advocated, it is that youmay. depose a Bishop without,form
of:trial; you may depose ,him without any obligation to show cause,
and therefore he is the only minister‘in your church whio has not, an
appeal, It seems to'me that the churelr has made special provision
for the trial of a Bishop, for the reason that a Bishop has no appeal.
.You will remember that this whole thing is going out to appear before
the world, as well as the church. I wish to know my landmarks, to
find out where I stand; for Ido not hesitate to say, that if my .stand-
ing, and the relation in which I have'been placed to the M. E. Church,
under my solemn vows of ordination, is to stand on the voice of a sim-
ple majority of this body, without the form of trial, and-without an ob-
ligation to show me the:cause why 1am deposed, I have some doubt
‘whether there is a man on this floor who would be willing to. stand in
my place.
You see, brethren, that the passage of that resolution will not affeat
‘Bishop Andrew alone. Ido not involve my colleagues :I do not speak
for them: I do not know how they. may view the subject ; but I say, the
passage of thatresolution will not affect Bishop Andrew alone! Breth-
ren will atonce perceive the peculiar. situation’ in which I am placed.
Here are my brethren from Ohio and from other conferences. We have
been together in great-harmony and peace; there has been great union
of spirit every where; but I said at the begining, there are periods in
the history of every man occupying any important station in, society,
when his individual character and influence cannot be neutralized by
the laws of association. You must unmoor me from my ancherage on
the basis of this book, [the Discipline ;] you must unsettle me from
the principles, my settled and fixed principles } but from those I cannot
‘be shaken by any influences on my right hand or on my left: neither
‘the zeal of youth, vor the experience of hoary age shall move me from
my principles. Convince me that lam wrong, and I yield. And here
it may be necessary to make a remark in relation to what [have before
‘said, for it seems to have been misunderstood. I said, you may immo-
late me, but you cannot'immolate me on a Southern alter; you cannot
immolate me on a Northern alter;-I can be immolated only upon the al-
‘ter of the union of the M. E. Church. Whatdo'I mean by the union
of the church? I mean,.call it-compact, call-it compromise, call it.con-
stitutional discipline, call it what you please,— I mean, on the doctrines
and provisions of this book, and I consider this'the bond of union to the
-M.E.Chureh. “i
T hold that the General Conference of the M. E, Church hasan indis-
sputable power and tight to atraign at hertribunal-every Bishop: to find
241

them guilty of any offence with whigh they are charged, and. to expel
them. Iam always ready to appear before this body, to answer any
charge that may be lodged: against me ; I recognize fully, the right ofthe
General Confirence to call me to au account, But not for myself, not
for those men on my right hand and on my left, [ the other Bishops,] but
for your sakes and for the church of God, of which you are members
and ministers, let me ask you, Jet me entreat you, not to rush upon the
resolution which is now before you. Posterity will review our actions ;
history will record them ; and whatever we may do here will be spread
out before the. world,. and the eyes of friends and enemies will be fixed
dpon it. In this view, I was not surprised to hear brethren say, “ Pause
brethren: I beseech you to pause!” nor-was I surprised to see men of
mind and thought approacn the subject with fear and trembling. Breth-
ren apprehend that there are great difficulties connected with this suk-
ject: they apprehend that fearful consequences are to take place, on
whichever side of the question they shall move. Ifthe resolution be
passed, the South consider that they shall be involved in jrretrievable
ruin. Refuse to pass thefresolution, and ihe North consider the conse-
quences perilous to them.

Permit me to say that Ihave some personal acquaintance both with
the North and South; I think I have been able to cast an impartidl look
over these two great departments of the chureh. I may err in judg-
ment, but I apprehend that the difficulties may not be as insurmount-
able'as brethren have apprehended them to be. I know that some of.
my brethren of the North are involved in such a way that I cannot see
how they can compromise this question. ‘If I understand them, it in-
volves, in their view, a principle. I will compromise with no man when
a principle is involved in the compromise. What is that principle ? The
men that avow it are doubtless as honestas any men on this floor ;1 know
them: in them’ there is no guile. But what is the principle? It was
advanced by my worthy brother Cass the other day. He cannot com-
promise the principle, and you must convince him that it is wrong, be-
fore he can yield it. The principle is, that slavery under all cireum-
stances is a sin against God.

Mr. Cass explained, by saying that he did not say that slavery was a
sin against: God under all circumstances, but that it was a moral evil.

Bishop Soule proceeded by saying, Iam glad to be corrected. That
is not brother Cass’s principle then; his principle is, that it is a moral
evil, but not & sin under all circumstances. I am glad to hear this state-
ment, for it greatly increases my hope that we shall have a compromise,

Now, notwithstanding brethren have thought, and with perfect sincer-
2l
242

ity, that they were ready to act on the resolution, and have been ready
for some days, I cannot but believe that action at this time might be pre-
mature. I will offer one or two reasons why I think the Conference is
not prepared for action on the resolution,

We have received a large number of petitions and memorials on the
subject of slavery, and have refered them to a large and judicious com
mittee, to examine and report thereon. That committee has not yet re-

ported to this body, and when that committee shall report on a subject:

=O intimately connected with the resolution, is it not reasonable to sup-
‘

yose we may have some additional light? You will know the number .

of petitioners in each annual conferenees . You will kuow the relative
proportion of these petitioners to the whole nunyber of the M. If. Chureh
within these conferences. You will then know. the whole number of
petitioners, and the preportion they bear to the whole community of
Methodists. So far as I was able to learn the contents of the petitions
in the hands of your committee, they relate to subjects not local in their
character, which do not concern the petitioners merely, but which con-
cern every member of the M. ©. Chureh, North, Bast, South,and West,

and the report of your conimittee may throw mueh light on the. subjeet. ,

{ beg leave to suggest that the views of the great body of Methodists
cannot be fully represented here on , the aeead issue imvolyed in the
resolution, and if this be a subject iu. which all the ministers and mem-
bers are equally interested, is it safe to proceed in sb important a mat-
ter without a more certain and {ull understanding ef the, views of the
the whole Church, in her ininistry and membership, than we can have
tro:n the views of individual members: or from the memorials? Cam

the delegation from.New York tell us what are the views of the great

hody of Methodists within the bounds of the New York Conference?
\Viile we have been occupied with this case, it has been spread before
the whole Church; there has been eufficient time for the people to
epeak, and yet we have bad no memorials from this city where we are
giitiug, .Why have we not received meniorials from Philadelphia, Bal
timore and Boston? We lave had no memorials on.the special isue
cf the resolution. The people have had time to'speak since the ease
was opened, and yet there lias been no expressioii ‘on their part as I
lave heard. Under such circumstances will you hesitate to suspend ac-

tion on the subject involved in the resolution? I beg the brethren to’

go a little further. I will go with my brethren to Ohio, Iam a resi-
deut in Ohio, Ihave some acquaintance in that State, both -with the
preachers and membership. These delegates may have a more exten-
sive ucqueintance, ard dcubtless can say more, ~~ but I should not.care
243

to say on the floor of this Conference, that the propose act would meet
the approbation ‘of the great botly of the ministry and membership in
Ohio;—I dare not say that.’ It is however sufficient to say that the
Church has net known the subject, and of course has expressed no
opinion on the subject. Isettle down then upon the supposition, as
the basis of my position, that we have not, ‘and cannot have the views
of our ministers and people generally, so fully expressed as to render
it safe for us to act on so important a question with reference to what
we may judge to be their wishes. Ot 8

It appears to me that the adoption of that resolytion will depose
Bishop Andrew without the form of a trial—it looks so tome. Ido
not sate such a course safe for our community ; ; 1 do net believe ic

safe for you; T will leave myself out of the question, What then shall
be done? What can bedone? This question’ wakes up the attention
of every thember of the Confurence. Can it be possible that the Mf. EE.
Church is in sucha state of excitement,—in such a state of, 1 was
about to say revolution, that we dare not send outa simple statement of
facts to the annual conferences and churches every where through our
community, and wave all further action’ ou this subject till another Gen-
eral Conference ?

I said almost at the commenceinent of these remarks, that [am not
afraid of the delibere itions of men, if they will but coolly deliberate ; but I
am afraid of the passions of men when they, are excited and act without
deliberation. Can it be possible that the simple fact that Bishop An-
drew holds an office asa bishop of the M. E. Church four years longer,
with a full, clear, and simple statement of the facts i in the case, spread
out before the enlightened ‘body of this great Methodist community —
1 ask, i is it possible that this will produce an earthquake 3 ? Tam not
prepared to believe it.

Permit me to make one more suggestion. The pr ovidence of God
directs the whirlwind and tlie storm ; ‘clouds and darkness may bo
round about him, but justice and judgement are the habitation of
his throne. Let us be careful that we ‘do notlifta human arm to impede
the work of prov idence. God may remove this difficulty out of the
way ; it may be so ordered by divine Pravidence, that Bishop Andrew
may pass away from these scenes of trouble and. excited passions, long
before another General Conference shall assemble, It is the solemn
conviction of my mind, that you had better stay further action on the
subject, and send out, officially, a plain and simple statement of the
facts to all your cowferences and societies, and let it be read everywhere,
and then we may hayea further expression ef opinion: at the next
244

General Conference, upon which we can safely act. You must know
what I have already. stated, that with the principles I have advanced,
and the avowal I haye made of.my opinions, of my own sentiments
on the subject, it will not be Bishop Andrew alone that your vote will
affect. In so saying, I implicate neither of my colleagues, on, my. right
hand or my left; but I say the decision you are about to make will not,
cannot affect Bishop Andrew alone, The resolution | says, that the , Con-
ference can, by a simple majority, depose a Bishop without a form of
trial, and without being under obligation to render a reason or show
cause. It is then not Bishop Andr ew alone, but the principle that is
involved ; 3 it involves the office : ‘it involves the char ge: it involyes the
relation.

I have given to you what in my sober and deliberate judgement, is
the best and safest for you to pursue. I thank | the Conference for the
attention they , have given me. Ithank the spectators 1 for their attention.
T very well know, I can but know, that the position I occupy im relation
to the principles involved, may seal my fate. Isay I know that the
decision of the Conference is about to make may seal my fate. Let
me go: but I pray you, do not let go of sound principles; hold to
your principles; and with these remarks, 1 submit the whole to your
decision under God’s direction.

-Tflernoon Session.— Bishop Soule in the chair.

After religious exercises, it was inquired if the other Bishops wished
to speak in compliance with the invitation of the Conference, as the.

Sonference had adjourned at the conclusion of Bishop Soule’s remarks,

Bishops Hedding and Waugh said they had no remarks which they
desired to make at that time but they: wished to reserve the right
extended to them, if they should at some future time desire to im-
prove it,

Dr. Durbin then ose the floor, and spoke in favor of the reso-
lution. He said he regretted that he was compelled to make his
remarks during an afternoon session, but he must speak then, or he
doubted whether he should be able to speak at all. My ill health, said
the speaker, as well as other circumstances, would have led me to de-
sire the opportunity of speaking in the morning; but if the Conference
will give me their attention, I will make the best Ican of my cireum-
stances. Iam sorry to believe that some ‘of the speakers are under the
influence of a practice which prevails in Congress : that of making
apeeches to affect the people elsewhere. My object . is to endeavor to
remove some of the erroneous impressions, which it appears to me,
have been made diteing the discussion,

BAS
245
It was rem itked by Judge Longstreet, that in our legislation we are
on.our way a Hoye. and that during every step in the progress of
Roman corruption, there was a pure minority that raised the standard
of opposition. A majority went with the chureh i in her departure from
the simplicity ‘of the truth, - but, a minority was always opposed to the
‘introduction of Povish cor ruptions. For mys self, I can see no force i in
this remark ; Tecan see no application u to he nade of it, unfcss it be de-
signed to ‘illustrate the principle, that the legislation of the M. BE. Chureh
on the subject of slavery, i is analogous to the corr upt action of the. _prim-
itive church, by, which it run into the -gorruptions of Popery, and that
the, minority in this Conference repr esent that pure. minority that OF-
posed the corruptions | of Popery. But will the brethron say that in this
age, and amid the institutions of this country, it is safer to ba govern-
ed by the. judgement of the minority, than by the majority 2 If he will
not say this, his argumeut falls tothe ground. I wish we stood before
God, and before. the world, as pure on every other point, as we do in

view of our lezislation against slavery.

But there is another impertant point on which I think our aciion has
been greatly ‘misrepresented, We are represented as arraigning the
Jaws of sovercign states, and as sitting in judgement upon them, to
confirm or annul them by gur ecclesiastical decrees. Jt has been even
affirmed, that by our vote,in the Harding case, we condemned and set
at naught the laws of the State. This we deny, Idid not vote upon
any such principle: nor do I beligve a person can be found, voting with
the majority in that case, who voted upon.any such prjuciple. There is
but one legal point involved in all these.cuses; and that is not, iz the
law right or wrong, nor.is it shall the law be regardcd as binding upon
us, or may it be broken: as good citizens, we hol ourselves bound to
obey the laws of the State.. The only poipt is this: 9s it or is it not
practicable, in view of the laws of the State, for the ministers to emanei-
pate their slayes? If we say, that in view of the law, it is not practica-
ble te emancipate, we do nat judge ard condemu the law; if we say
that it is: practicable, we do not condemn the law, but only judge the
ease hy the law, Iyoted in the Baltimore case on the ground that i¢
was practicable for Mr, Harding to emancipate, his slaves; and in so
doing, I did not vate to sustain the usage of the Baltimoze Conference,
as has been charged, but to sustain the great law of Methodism ; but
had the law of the Siate rendered emancipation impracticaLle, my vote
would have been different; ferin that case the law of Methodism vould
yot have required emancipation, ,
246

There is another point which I feel constrained tu notice. We are
told by our Southern brethren, to agree among ourselves on the sub-
jeet of slavery, before we undertake to fix a standard for them. There
are differences among us; there may be fifty different opinions among’
the Northern men on this floor, respecting the best method of getting
rid of slavery ; but on the simple question, Shall we, or shall we not
haye a slaveholding Bishop? we are all of one heart and one mind.
This is the simple and the only question now before the Conference.

But, sir, are we alone in our differences of opinion? Strange state-
ments have met my ears, as brethren from the South have discussed
the subject. Are there no differences of epinion manifest in the posi-

tions occupied by Longstreet, Dunwody, ‘Winans and Crowder? Long-
street, denied that slavery is a moral evil; Winans admitted that it is a
great evil, and thought we did the South injustice in calling them pro-
slavery; Dunwody labored to justify slavery from the “Bible ; while
Crowder said slayery was a great evil, and contended that the only
point in dispute is, what is the best method of getting rid of it:
he maintained that the best way is, to preach the gospel; he affirmed
that Methodism will cure it if we willletit alone. But will Methodism
cure anything but an evil? Let those who advocate slavery from the
Bible answer. Brethren should not undertake to press us with our
differences of opinion, untit they can show a better agreement among
themselves. I differ as much from the abolitionists as I do from the
pro-slavery men; lama conservative. The ground we occupy is, that
slavery is a great evil; our brethren in the South are involved in this
evil, and let us oppress them no more.

I have no sympathy with that spirit of modern abolitionism that con-
demns the whole South as robbers, thieves and man-stealers; I can
regard their bitter words of denunciation only as words from the bot-
tomless pit. 4 know all about slavery. Ihave been in the South, seen
it for myself, and I am ready to do battle against abolition to the last.
I never will while the civil institutions in the South remain what they
are, say that slavery is asin under all circumstances. Such a posi-
tion would break down the church in the South. Methodism could
not live in the South, were not Methodists allowed, under some
circumstances, to hold slaves. Where are the Quakers in the South,
who made slaveholding a disqualification for membership? * Their
house is left unto them desolate. You may find here and there a Qua-
ker, but they are few; they have no societies, and they do not and can-
not flourish. So would it be with the Methodists, were they to take
the same ground on the subject of slavery, and cut off all slaveholders
247

from their communion. Methodism has always been a child of Prov-
idence, and has made the best of those dispensations which it has had
no power to prevent or control, The ground occupied by the church
from the beginning is, that slavery is a great evil; but in its flexible
character, it has yielded so far as has been necessary to secure its own
success and usefulness, and no further. This is the prineiple upon
which we now act; we go upon the supposition that it is not necessary
to connect slavery with the Episcopacy to secure the ends of Method-
ism in the South. '

We do not wish or design to impute any wrong to Bishop Andrew
as a man, a Christian, gr as a minister, but we go upon the principle
that we are to yield to slavery no further than is absolutely necessary.
We have heretofore yielded to it as far as necessity required, and now
the simple question is, Is it necessary to rivet slavery upon the North
by connecting it with the Episcopacy? I think not and therefore I go
against it.

I cannot suppress my disposition to makea remark or two on the
Bible question of slavery. The brother from South Carolina [ Mr. Dun-
wody ] quoted scripture to prove that slavery is a moral evil, and also
to prove that it is not a moral evil. Some may think they see a contra-
diction in this, but 1 am inclined to the opinion that the two positions

can be reconciled. But I must say that when I have the Scriptures |

quoted to sustain slavery, I start back with a kind of indescribable
horror. The case of OneSimus has been appealed to, asa case of slave-
ry clearly defined in this Bible language and justified by the Christian
principles. Now let me say, I-do not believe that Onesimus was a
slave. Of him Paul said to Philemon, —If he oweth the aught, put that
on mine account! Can achattel, a piece of property owe? It is im-
possible, and as St. Paul supposed Onesimus might owe Philemon, he
could not have supposed him to have been his slave. Again Paul says,
of the reception of Onesimus by Philemon,— “ Not now as a_ servant,
but above a servant, a brother beloved.” This shows that the apostle
did not send him back as a slave, as had been supposed, “>>”
The law which God gave on Sinai has been appealed to in proof
that man may own his fellow man. Because houses, servants and oxen
are all classed together in one command, it is inferred that they may all
alike be property, but. it should be remembered that the wife, sons and
daughters are also in the same manner classed with servants an oxen;
why not then infer that our wives and children are property. As to
bondmen and bondwomen of which we read in the Bible, they were
persons held to service in some way, but they were not slaves in the
248
sense of American slavery, Iti is then ‘lene that there wos some sort
of slavery or servitude among the Jews, but i it is “equally cléar that it
was not of the nature of American slavery.

If I have understood brethren, it, has been contended that the North
has been crowding the South more ‘and niore on the subject: ‘of. ‘slavery ;
té use their own language, have been putting on the screws tighter and

tighter. Sir, the facts in the ease are directly the reverse of this, as the
history of the church shows. The highest ground was taken : against
slavery at the very organization of the church, and from that day to
this the North lias been yielding to the South; not that the North is
Jess opposed to slavery, but from the increasing necessities of the South.
To say nothing of the vehemeiit denunciations of slavery hy Mr. Wes-
ley, it has been admitted thut the effects of Dr. Coke’s anti- -slavery has
not yet wholly subsided in the South. In 1784 unconditional’ emanci-
pation was requiréd as aterm of. meinbership. The moral sense of the
preachers then triumphed over expediency, and they enacted stronger
rules than they could enforce, of which six months experience ‘con-
vinced them, for at the expiration ‘of that period the rule was suspend-
ed. Slavery was too strong for them, and they were compelled to yield.
I do not say our fathers did wrong in suspending that rule. I believe it
ought to have been suspended, though abolitionists so bitterly condemn
the measure now. From that time to this, the North has been yielding.
From being more thah ever convinced of the great evil of slavery, they
‘become as much as ever convinced. ‘In 1796 slavery was a crying evil;
in 1804 it was softened down to an evil, and in 1808 all that related to
elaveholding among private members was stricken out. T might advert
to other points in proof of my position that the eburch has gradually
made concessions: to the necessities of the slaveholding states, but I
have said enough on this point. 1 do not complain of it, for I believe
necessity demanded it. There is one ciréumstance, however, counected
with this fact which I must not fail to mention. It is this, Methodism
commenced in the South, and when it was mostly there, when the
South had the power in their own hands, the strongest measures were
taken against slavery, and as Methodism increased in the’ North, and
threw the majority into the hands of the northern portion of the church,
the rules on the subject of slavery have been softened down and open
opposition to slavery ‘has been less violent and more under the controt
of a soundexpediency. Ffow far from the real facts in the case is it
then, that the North is putting the screws upon the South. But wheth-
erthe North has been’ putting the screws on the South, or the South
beon putting 'the screws upon the North, some policy bas brought about
249

a state of things under which the South say they stand firm upon the
discipline of the church. They declare that all they ask is to enjoy the
right which the discipline gives them as it now is. ' .

I must be.permitted at this point to inquire what there is in the cir-
.cumstances of the South, rendering it necessary to connect slavery with
episcopacy? Will they derive good enough from such connection to
balance our evil? This is the simple question after all, Does necessity
require a slaveholding bishop in the South? Our Episcopacy is com-
mon to the whole church, to the North as well as the South, and its con-
nection with slavery willbe construed intoa sanction of slavery, beyond
what can be infered from the connection of the ministry with slavery
whose fields of labor are confined to slaveholding sections of the coun-
try. This will fearfully disturb the church in the North, while Ican see
no necessity for the measure inthe South. Is it, can it be contended
that there is a necessity in the South for a bishop to hold slaves in order
to do his work there ?

T repeat it, this is the real question ; and if you can prove to me 'that
the necessity in the South for a slaveholding bishop is greater than the
necessity of the general church to keep the Episcopacy disconnected
from slavery,— if you will give me two votes, I will vote for aslavehold-
ing bishop with both hands.

Our southern brethren, in some of their speeches, have grounded
their claim to a slaveholding bishop upon the fact that the Episcopacy
is not for the South or for the North, but for the whole Church. The
premise is true, and it is this very fact that renders the subject of a slave
holding bishop uncontrollable at the North.

I have been sometimes grieved and sometimes amused to hear our
Southern brethren argue that the evil in the North is not so great as it
is represented to be. They fancy the people in the North are not so
much opposed to slavery after all, because they, as slaveholding minis-
ters, are so kindly received, and treated, and listened to, when they
preach, with so much interest, and evem with tears. They may unde-
ceive themselves by making an appointment to preach a pro-slavery
gospel ; let them give out that they will preach in vindication of slavery,
and they will hear no applause ring through the assembly ; they will sce
no tears of sympathy glistening in the gladdening eye. Why are they
listened to when they preach, with applause and tears? Because they
have been taught that our southern brethren are not pro-slavery in prin-
ciple and feeling, because they believe them connected with it from ne-
cessity, regarding it asan evil, and because the many revivals under. the
labors of slaveholding ministers has taught them slavery is not necessa-
250)

rily sinful under all circumstances. Our southern brethren are not sin-
ners; this we have already said in the Discipline, and I am ready to re-
peat it as ‘often as necessary ; I do not believe that they are sinners be-
cause they are slayeholders, under all circumstances of the: case. ‘But
that is not the question. The question is, shall slavery ‘be connected
with the episcopacy? Sir, I was impressed with your remarks this mor-
ning on the subject of the excitement, arid of that calmness with which
we should.meet the issue. Sir, it has come upon us unexpectedly ;none
of us were ‘looking for it. When I was in Washington on my way to
this Conference, a gentloman remarked that Bishop Andrew had mar-
ried a lady who was possessed of slaves, and had thereby ‘become a
slaveholder. The report as it'spread did not come’like the booming of
cannon, that announces a nation’s joy, ‘a nation’s’ victory, or a hation’s
glory. “Is it true?” was the only expression heard, and.that ina half
suppressed tone, but which was yet so deepas to be clearly the offspring
of the deepest solicitude. Yet the feeling rose slower and stronger than
feeling ever rose before. I can never believe Bishop Andrew dreamed
of such consequences, As I came fiom Washington, “Is it true?” was
the inquiry every where made in tones and with looks that evinced the
deepest anxiety. No mau spoke of consequences; no ‘man said, Drive
him out of the Church. “Is it true?” was the only inquiry every where
heard. Some have called it a firebrand, but I never saw men more cool,
more self-respectful, and more respectful to the cause of all this difficul-
ty. When a young man made an exciting: speech, I said to Dr. Capers,
The battle has come. Every man appeared to feel more than he ex-
pressed. A committee of compromise was called for and appointed,
and all eyes were tufned to it, as the. Bhipaceele mariner looks for' the
light, but no light came.

I will-‘now make a few remarks on the power of the General Confer-
ence over the case, and Tam constrained to say, ‘that if these remarks
could have been made before your remarks this morning, they would
have produced more effect than they now will. But high, sir, as yon
are in office and strong as were your arguments, I am constrained from
a sense of duty to say, “Come, and let us reason together.”

Does the office exist among us of divine right? If itbe maintained
that the office exists of divine right, it changes the whole economy of
our Church, and I have not an argument to offer. But, sir, I have never
viewed: it in that point of light. The ordination service has been ap-
pealed to in proof that a bishop is something more than an officer.
‘Our simple question settles this point; is that ordination service, as
used by us, to be understood in the high church sense, as it is used and
261

understood by the church of England from whence it was borrowed?
Tf not there is no force in the argument drawn from it, and it must fol-
Jow that a bishop isno more than an officer under the coutrol of the
General Conference. I designed to say sométhing on the ground of
expediency, butthat word has been so tortured and abused, that I will
call it discretion. On the 25th page of the History of the Discipline, we
read, as quoted by the-author from the general minutes of 1775, “ We
thonght it best to become an episcopal church, making the episcopal
office elective, and the elected superintendent, or bishop, amenable
to the body of ministers.” .'This certainly settles the question that the
office was made elective,and if so the conference must have power
to displace a bishop by simply going into an election, and electing an-
other man in his place, whenever they shall see fit todo it. But the
bishops were.made amenable to the body of the ministers. When a
bishop is made ameniable to the General Conference, it not only
gives the Conference power toexpel-him, but it includes all that is below ;
they can therefore depose him, censure him, or dismiss him from oflice
for want of adaptation to it, without touching his Christian and ministe-
rial character. I do not understand the resolution as some of my breth-
ren profess to understand it; I do not understand its design or effect is
to depose Bishop Andrew, yet, be thatas it may, I must vote for it, mak-
ing my protest in the face of the world, that I do not vote to depose the
bishop, but thatit is my opinion that he ought to desist from the exer-
cise of his episcopal office until he is disconnected from slavery. If I
am pressed to a yote, and Ican be pressed to it only by the South, by
their refusing to yield what they can yield, —I say if Iam pressed to a
vote, I must vote in favor ‘of the resolution, even if itdoes depose the
bishop; yet I willinsist that such is‘not my view of its meaning and
force. Iwill appeal to the common sense of the world’; { will appeal
to the author’s language — to Dr. Webster’s Dictionary, and by that I
will:prove that:in voting for that -resolition, Ido not vote to depose
Bishop Andrew: ’ Any way to get at the truth, for the truth is what we
want, and let us search it out. We shall not be likely to come at it by
an appeal to the passions, nor let us think-of finding it upon the princi-
ple upon which men sometimes get married in a hurry,and then repent
at Jeisure. ppt Moh a? 3 ,

But Ihave not done with the constitutional question. But, sir, I do
not desire, I would not disturb the sleep of the departed, or call them
from their honored graves to testify on this floor as some have done.
I know not what they would say or do, were they here with us amid
our present strife and warcfare, from which they have so happily es-
252

eaped; but Imay be permitted to read’ what they.wrote when they were
yet with us. Rev. John Dickens, the most intimate: friend of Bishop:
Asbury, in a pamphlet published in 1792, with the sanction of the Gen-
eral Conference, thus ansWered a question proposed by Mr. Hammett,
on this' very point: — “ Now: who ever said the superiority of the bish-
ops-was by virtue of a. separate ordination? If this gave them their
superiority, how came they to be removable by the Conference? We
all know that Mr. Asbury derived: his official power from the Confer-
ence, and therefore his office is at their disposal. Mr. Asbury was thus
chosen by the Conference, both before and after he was ordained a bishop;
and he is still considered.as the person of their choice by. being respon-
sible, to the Conference, who have power to remove him, and to fill his
place with another, if they see it necessary. And as he is lable every
year to be removed, he may be considered as their annual: choice.”

Bishop Emery states that this may: be considered as expressing the
views of Bishop Asbury in relation to the true and original character of
Methodist episcopacy ; and he gives it.the sanction of his own autbor-
ity by quoting and using it in the 12th section of the Deferice of our
Fathers. :

I have now given my views of the constitutional question, and I trust
Ihave sustained my opinion by good authority; andI have only to re-
gret that it differs from the opinign you expressed this morning. I know,

" sir, that my judgment thrown into,the opposite scale with yours, is but’
as a feather against a thousand pounds; but still it is my judgment, and
like other men, I prefer my own. But while: Icontend that the Con-
ference has power to dismiss a Bishop from office, or to take away his
office without affecting his ministerial, character, I am the ‘last man
that would sanction the exercise of that power without just cause.
Should any man attempt to lay aside one of these ‘Bishops without
cause, who would not resist the attempt? You would: then.find us all |
shoulder to shoulder, and man, to man, to’ protect the: object of the at-
tack. But, sir; clear as ] amin my convictions of the truth of my po-
sition, I must confess that, in view of your remarks. this morning, : it is.
with deep feeling that I utter my sentiments. Under the influence of:
those remarks,,I felt that for a moment, a:dimness came upon my men-
tal vision; the feelings that were in that moment inspired, were not
calculated to give power to my reason, or greater independence to my
judgement. When I remember that you said that the passage of that
resolution would not affect Bishop Andrew alone: that, we were given
distinctly to understand, that the passage of that resolution might carry
you down with it, and perhaps carry: down all the Bishops, it has a
253

bas a tendency to silence my torigue; but it cannot, it shall not darken
my understanding or pollute my corscierice. ' : :

What remains is, to'make an application'of the doctrine I have ‘ja-
bored to establish to the resolution before ue,'called the substitute. We
have been repeatedly told that it is in' fact a proposition to depose Bish-
op ‘Andrew. Sir, we do not so regard it. -I do not'so regard it; the
venerable man who’ moved it does not so regard it: Tam sure he does
not, I know him well, and know his mind on. this question. | Let us
read the resolution, and hear it speak for itself. ‘

‘* Whereas; The Discipline of ‘our church forbids the doing of any-
thing calculated to destroy our general. supreintendency: and whereas,
Bishop Andéw' has'bécome connected with slavery,iby marriage and
otherwise, and this act having dvawn after it circumstances which, in
the estimation of the General Conference, will greatly embarrass the ex
ercise of his officé as general superintendent, if not in some places en-
tirely prevent it, therefore, A :

Resolved, That it is: the sense of this: General Conference, that he
désist from the ‘exercise of his office so Jongas this impediment re-
mains.” a , ae ee ke me | ;

Now, sir, this action is not proposed without cause. The reason is
stated in the preamble, and. is based upon undeniable facts. But what
does the resolution propose ? Is it expulsion? | Is it deposition? Is it
‘suspension ? | No, sir, it is none of these; 'the resolution ‘doés not pro-
pose to lay Bishop Andrew under any legal disability ; it proposes mere-
ly to express the sense of this Conference in-regard to what Bishop
Andrew ought to do: jn view. of the circumstances in which he. has
placed himself; and having made the solemn expression of the opin-
iow of the Conference, it‘ leaves’ Bishop Andrew to act as his sense of
duty shall direct. If.D.am pressed to vote. in the present aspect of the
case, I must vote for the . resolution, and shall throw myself upon the
popular and powerful bearings of conscience to be sustained. If it be
the sense of the.Conference, that Bishop Andrew should. desist. from
the exercise of his office, is there a man on the other side of the house
who will say that we ought not to pass the resolution? [Some one an-
swered, “ Yes,” ] Some one responded, “yes;” but I cannot take his
‘word as an expression:of the feelings of the South; there.is too much
magnanimity there to allow of such an answer. , Will..they say we
ought not to do what we believe it to be our solemn duty todo? We have
opened our bosoms, we have thrown aside our shields, and bid you
‘make your mark upon our hearts: and after all this, we think we ought
to pass that resolution 5 ‘and can you. compel us to withhold - honest
254

expression of our opinions? I fear there is a mean feeling somewhere:
a feeling that finds motives for action in objects below the elevated
moral. sentiments that should govern a Christian.

We have been threatened with injunctions and law-suits. about the
p:operty. Injunctions may be laid; upon nine hundred presses butno in-
jimction can be laid on one honest conscience. That Book Concern
was once burned down, and I grieved over its destruction ; but gladly
would I see it destroyed again: gladly would I welcome. the first flash
of light, that should proclaim the destruetion of the buildings, presses,
types, paper, plates, and all, if it could place the Church back where
it was only six months age. But all are not insensible to threats of in-
junctions: some have already been alarmed, and one brother said, don’t
press the matter. Now, I have no doubt such an injunction, might be
got; but let me say, no such. injunction can be sustained. I do not
know but there are judges and lawyers wicked enough to-rejoice over our
division and strife, and it may please the world: we,can hardly tell how
far depravity may go. Milton, in his Paradise Lost, represents Satan as
rising above his peers from his floundering hell, gratified with a reign
in the infernal prison more than with the servitude of heaven. But let
me repeat, that no such injunction can be sustained: the Book Con-
cern is not a corporation, and, cannot be held responsible as such in
Jaw. The only thing that can be done in law is this: if injustice is
done to the character and interests of Bishop Andrew, be can prose-
cute the voters individually for his personal damage. s

[Here the speaker made some remarks on the doctrine of general
tendencies, in which he introduced as au illustration, his right to satis-
faction, should some one slay his first born, which he applied to the
case in point; but the reporter’s notes being taken with a pencil, have
lheceme so defaced on this very page, as to render them almost entirely
iHegible. To supply the defect, reference was had to the official report,
when it was found that it contains no trace of the paragraph, As the
paragraph contains some nice points in morals, on which great minds
differ, the reporter prefers to omit it wholly, rather than to risk a trans-
jation of his impaired notes. Why the official report contains no allu-
sion to the paragraph he knows not.]

I wish, sir, to call attention to a proposition which was made in the
Yommittee oi’ Pacification by a brother from the South. The proposi-
tion was, in part, “ that Bishop Andrew should not be required to pre-
side in any conference in which his connection with slavery would ren-
der him unacceptable.” Now, sir, here is clear acknowledgement that
there is difficulty in the connection of Bishop Andrew with slavery ; the
255

proposition contains a verbal admission that the Bishop has rendered
himself unacceptable to numbérs of the annual conferences. If the
Conference will keep this admission in mind, we will compare it with
that part of the constitution which forbids our doing away the general
superintendency. Jt must be wrong for one of the Bishops to do whet,
if done by them all, would destroy the general character of our super-
intendency ; so, oti the other hand, it must be wrong for this Conference
to do for one of. the Bishops, what woild destroy the character of our
superintendency if done for them all. Suppose you’ were to become an
abolitionist, so as to exclude you from the South: another may do some-
thing which will render jt necessary to confine his labors to the West.
Now, if we are to comply with the proposition to let Bishop Andrew re-
main in the South, ‘to accommodate lis connection with slavery, on the
same principle, you have a right to become an abolitionist, and demand
that we allow you to remain in the North: and another may be confined
to the West, and our general superintendency would be broken up. Itis
clear then, that as the General Conferente cannot do away the general
superiitendeney, they cannot allow one of the Bishops to do what would
necessarily do it away, - ‘if all were to act upoti the same principle. 1
would not confine this principle toaconnection with slavery, which dis-
qualifies a man for the North’ and East, 1 ‘would apply it’ to any thing
which might disquality 4 man for any part of the work. Let it be an-
nounced, sir, that | you have declared yourself an abolitionist, and you
will findva | paper there, stronger than ‘the one that has been lodged
against Bishop Andrew.

Sir, it gives me pain to come to a direct ' vote ‘on this ‘question ; ; Lain
free to declare that I would avoid i it i Ieould, 1 have looked lorfg for
some way to escape it. Ihave hoped that our Southern brethren would
consent to some terns on which the matter might be settled, Istill hope
they will. Let but the intimation be given, that the Bishop will discon-
nect himself’ from slavery as soon as convenient, within any reasonable
time; let but the South say to us, if you will postpone further procged-
ings in the case, we will take care of i it, and see that the church. shall
not suffer’ further damage, the announcement would be received asa
message from heay en, and we would trust your word ‘and your religion
that it should be done, and ask no questions when, how, or where you
would deal with the case.

I nist refer to Bishop Andrew’s own document, in which he makes
a statement of bis own case. It does appear to me that it is clear from
his own showing, that he knew that slaveholding was not coinpatibl v
with the Cpiscopal office. He states distinctly, that be was unwilling
256

to become the owner of the slaves, Why ,was,he unwilling to become
their owner, , had he been a member of the, Geor ‘gia. Conference? I.
think, he would not; and if his unwillingness to become. the owner of
those slaves, grew out of the fact,that he was a. Bishop, there must have
existed in his,mind a perception of the incompatibility of, slaveholding
with.the Episcopacy. - I cannot make myself believe that the Bishop
looked to a permanent connection of slavery, with the -Episcopacy. d
wish. to separate all I say from Bishop Andrew as a man : and a Chris-
tian minister, and only look to the general consequences of his connec-
tion with slavery. I will here say that 1am not particular as to the
manner of disposing of the case, so that it be disposed of in some way.
Iam willing to do anything so far as manner. vis concerned, but I can
never, consent to a permanent connection of slavery with the Episco-
Pay,

LT ‘will close my remarks by saying that ‘the proposition which was
made byditother Early, from Virginia, a few days since, to send. the
aatter to the churches, would satisfy me, if it were properly. matured
and agreed to. If I understood you this. morning, you distinctly recom-
mended this plan. I am i inclined to the opinion, that ‘the North would
agree to such a disposition of the question, if if the South would meet us
upon this ground. I will therefore submit it as a distinct proposition
for consideration.

“ Resolved, That the case of Bishop Andrew be referred to the
Chureh: and that the judgement of the next "General ‘Conference be
deemed, and taken to be the voice of the Chureh, whether Bishop An-

-drew shall continue to exercise his functions asa general supreinten-
dent in the M. E. Chureh, while he sustains his relation to slavery as
stated i in his communication to ‘the Conference’as r report ted by the Com-
mittee on. Episcopacy.”

I have only to add, that ifour - eouthons brethren will give us a pledge
that they will abide by the judgment of the next General ‘Conference,
under the above resolution, it is all that I as an individual will ask.

Dr. Smith of Virginia made an explanation: ‘concerning ‘his threat-
ning the conference with a protest that should burn ‘with shame upon
their cheeks. He ‘said he would take that expression back. He said it
had been stated that the South dare not secede. He said, neither party
wished to secede, and as for the South, he would pledge’ for them that
they would not secede. They had no intention of it; if they were
separated, they had got to cut them off, Dr. Smith said he felt himself
called upon to ‘make a remark in explanation of his response to Dr.
Durbin when that brother was speaking. ‘Dr. Durbin pr oposed the
257

question, “If we think we. ought to pass that resolution will our breth-
ren from the South say they would not have us do it?” and I answer-
ed, “ yes,” and the brother commented upen my answer ina manner

which demands an explanatien of my views. Ido not believe that
because a man thinks himself right, that le is therefore right. Nor am
T at liberty to consent to the action of another, because he thinks it his
duty to act thus, when I think his action is wrong. However lionest our
northern brethren may be, and however strangely they may be moved
to this act hy a sense of duty, I believe them wrong, and duty forbids
Ine to consent to the act, and requires me to protest against ‘it to the
last. Suppose a man thdught it his duty to kill me —for the passage of”
that resolution will be death to the South—aud he puts the ques-
on to me, “if I honestly believe it to be my duty to kill you, will you
say that [ ought not to do it?” Ianswer, to be sureJ will say you
ought uot to kill me. Ithinuk I ought to live, and of course I think your
impressions of duty are all false, and that you ought not to execute
them.

Dr. Durbin replied that he thought the case would be better illustra- -
ted by the sentiments of the Jewish high priest who said that it wags
expedient that one should die for the people, and not that i whole na-
tion perish. vi

Dr. Capers and Judge Longstreet made a few remarks, whiel? were
not understood amid the noise that began to prevail, after Which the
vouference adjourned.

4

Thursday, May 3°.
Bishop Tedding in the chuic.
Prayer by Mr. Upham of Providence Conference. He prayed for te
abolition of slavery. ®

The cominittee on correspondence reported au address to the Wes-

“Jeyan Conference of England, which was read and reconmitted witha
view to some trifling alterations which were desired.

The committee on the Book Concern reported finally. The principle
items of the report were the following. Against the establishment of a
depository in Texas, and recommending that books sont to Texas be
put at sixty per cent discount. Recommending a reduction of the price:
of books generally as far as the safty of the concern will warrant. Rec-
cofmending .the cstablishment of a funcay Schoo! p: per at Cincinnati

v
258

Recommended to strike out of the Discipline the words, “ General Book
Steward.” But the most important thing recommended } is, the reor gan-
ization of the Book Committee i in New-York. Tnstead of making ‘the
stationed preachers in the city ‘of New-Yor i that committee, the report
proposes to make the committee consist of the editors and ‘of six travel-
ling preachers, to, be appointed by the conferences to which they belong
as follows :— Two from New-York, two from Philadelphia, and two from
New-Jersey conferences. The same regulation is recommended i in re-
lation to the Cincinnati concern, and the committee is to ‘be elected by
the Ohio, Kentuckey, and Indiania conferences, each two members.
These committees are to shave power to suspend an editor, until a meeting
of the bishops can be called, anda majority of the bishops may suspend
until the next General Conference. The salaries of the agents and ed-
itors to be fixed by a committee of the Gener al Conference, to report to
the Conference for their approval or amendment. Lays. upon the table
one day. After the above report was read the order of the day was tak-
en up, which was the case of Bishop Andrew.

Dr. Capers obtained the floor and commenced a speech in opposition
to the resolution. The speaker said, Mr. Pr esident, there is one aspect
of the subject which in my view is very important; ‘the church is one,
and I cannot see how it can be otherwise than one, Every word that
lias been uttered calculated to divide us in feeling, and effection, has
given me great pain. Different views and feelings Have been entertained
at different times and on different subjects, and when we have inter-
changed thoughts, and these differences iiave come in contact, they have
been felt, but we have desired to keep whole, and thus far the love of
union has been sufficient to hold us together. Jam sure that if I could
do any thing to promote the union of the whole church, heaven knows
I would do it. And however different my views may be ou the subject
of slavery, it can be no cause why Ishould unnecessarily afflict my broth-
er’s feelings; 1 am just as willing he should enjoy his own views as] am
togenjoy my own. :

The church} is one, the ministry is one, and the Episcopacy i is a part of
that ministry. T rejoice in the unity of Methodism, that we have one
doctrine, and one discipline ‘for the North and the South and the East
and the West. ButI must say that I have been surprised to hear breth-
yen talk and argue as though the position of Bishop Andrew was an ex-
tension of slavery over the North. How can it be pretended that slavery:
is extended by Bishop Andrew’s connection with it? Or how is it riv-
eted upon the North, as some say? Howi is the evil of slavery the least
increased by Bishop Andrew? The Bishop never sought to become a

4
\
259

slaveholder, does not now desire to be a slaveholder, for the sake of sla-
very; he became a slaveholder in the first instance, by the death of a
pious old lady in Augusta, and all the North, are involved in sin! There
is no more slavery, than before, no more slaveholders, and it is no worse
for the slaves than it was befor ‘e. It is not possible for me to see how
slavery will be extended over the, North by not passing that resolution.
Ido not wish to ‘extend slavery; God, knows, Ido not wish to extend
slavery over the North or over, the South, or any where else. I wish
every slave free, but what does it ayail to wish? It will not. do to make
the good wishes of slaveholders or the abolitionists the ground of ac-
tion. It is not possible tp sec how a slaveholding bishop can involve
the whole church, more than any other slaveholding minister, The
law of the church does recognize, slaveholding in the ministry as right,
at least in certain cases, and does the fact that a man is a bishop alter
the essential moral character of the act? A ‘member may be a slave-
holder ; 3a deacon may be a slaveholder, an elder. may be a slaveholder,
and a presiding elder may be a slaveholder, and what more is a bishop?
Spell the word and. see, A bishop i is nothing but an elder in ministerial
order. In this sir I am as high as you. Are you a minister? So am I.
Are you an, elder: ? So am; and you are no more than an elder as
a “minister. It is ‘contended that a bishop, as such, is but an officer of
this General Conference, ta be removed at pleasure. I wouldask those
who advocate this doctrine, ; if the officer of the Conference is more sa-
cred than the minister of the Conference, or minister of Jesus Christ,
so that the one may be permitted to hold slaves, and the North will
wash their hands and say, am I not pure, when, if the other touches
slavery, the whole church is polluted? Our ministry is.one, and is as
much the ministr y of the whole chur ch as the episcopacy is the episco
pacy ofthe whole church. It is not possible for me to see how the
North can be involved in the pollution of slavery by Bishop Andrew’s
connection with it, in any sense in which ‘they are not already involved
throughout the length and breadth of the whole church. We all have
the same rights in the South as in the North, and in the North ag in the
South; we are one church, and every member has all the rights of a
member in any portion of the church., A member of the South, slave-
holder as he may be, may take his ticket and come to the North and
claim his seat in the love-feast and at the sacrament, and you‘gan not
constitutionally debar him. The ministry is one, and the same hands
that ordained northern preachers ordained slaveholders, and if the.touch
of slavery by the episcopacy is‘so polluting, the whole church is already
stained and defiled. To attempt to keep clear from slavery on the. part
260

of the North, under our present organization, is vain ; it cannot be done
only'by cutting up the ministry and then scattering the membership to
the four winds of heaven. Under the present constitution, you cannot
reject a brother who may come to you ‘with his note of recommendation
in his hand. ‘The church is one, one in the General Conference, one iu
the ministry, and one in the membership. God never put ‘but onc heart
in a may, but Methodism is all heait.

Much has been said abotit the aggression of the South on the North.
It has also been suid that the strongest measures were enacted against
slavery when the South had the majority. But it so happens that words
changé in their meaning’ and force. What is meant by the South 2
What was the South in 1784 when the strongest measure was adopted : 2
And what was the North then. Where did the men of the North and of the
South dwell in those days? Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia had no
existence then. In 1786 Georgia and South Carolina constituted the
Southern extremity. What is now principally called the South had no
existence then; Maryland and Virginia were the centre of the world, so
far as methodism was concerned. I appeal to my aged brethren if uny
thing was known of North and South in the Methedism of those days ;
these terms came up in latter days, and I shall be thankful to God if
they prove not to be evil days.

What were the laws of the States where Methodism then flourished ?
The bright mogyning of New England Methodism had not then dawned.
There were then no laws against emancipation, and hence, Methodism
could act against slavery without being disloyal. Methodism never was
disloyal till now, never sought to break up civil government. I am sor-
ry North and South ever came into existence, and I am for the South
only to be loyal; my conscience will not allow me to war upon the civil
government. Much has been said about the rule of 1784, which re-
quired unconditional emancipation as a term of membership. But at
the end of six months it was suspended, and this has been counted as a
great concession to the’South. But the truth is, there was then no
North or South. Good ministers love both the souls and bodies of mien,
but they Jove their souls first, and when they found that the law they
had enacted for the good of their bodies, injured their souls, they ‘sus-
pended it in six months, Still there was yet,no North nor South in the
church $ there was then no Book Room, no Discipline. I was born be-
fore there was any Discipline. The first General Conference was held
in asale loft. We had then no such spacious galleries to accommodate
spectators ; we did not have to close the doors to prevent being throng-
ed; the civilian was not there; we were not a great people then, and
261.

the world knew not and cared not what we did. In 1800, the comprom-
ise was made i in which it has been said concessions were made on ‘both
sides. Compr omise isa dangero ‘ous word, and it describes a transaction
by which no good was ever obtained from God or man, It has also
been remarked ‘that the Conference ordered addr esses ‘to be drawn up
for the gradual emancipation ¢ of the slaves, to be laid before the legisla-
tures, and the abandonment of, this object was another gr eat concession

to the legislatures, and I ‘regret, that I did not preser vea copy of i it, but t
did not; I can however asstire you, that Scott never wrote or published,
a more violent, incendiary and disloyal document. Some of the preach-

ers would not circulate them because , they believed they would | only do
harm, Among these was Geor ge. Dorr. He said he could not and he.

would not be the bearer of, such a communi ation to, the people of his

char, ge, ‘He preached i in Charleston, and the e paper | found its way there.
and cost him much trouble. _ They, came in some way to brother Har-
pers Store, Brother Har per ‘did ;pot intend to circulate ‘them, but one
got out in some way and produced a great excitement. The people
charged the, bringing of the papers into town on poor Dorr who had
done all he could, to oppose them, 1 saw the mob as I was goig down
town collected around Harpers, and inquired what was going on, and un-
stood they were going to duck the preacher, who had been preaching
in the old, blue meeting house. But it so happened that Dorr was not at
Harpers. The ‘excitement art rose SO high, and the feeling became so ‘deep
and general, ‘that it became necessary to ‘expurgate all that related to
slavery from the copies. of ‘the Discipline that. were sent to South Caro-
lina. Methodism was introduced into South Carolina under the most
favorable circumstances ; there were no pr ‘ejudices against them as was
the case in New England and some other sections ; there were no rival
sects in every town and neighborhood to oppose, and the people were
every where friendly and. anxious to hear them, and by pr udent manage-
ment they might have taken the whole country. Yet such was the bad.
influence of their opposition to slaver ry 1 that they soon got to be looked
upon worse than Mormons are now looked upon.. My father and my-
self were censured because I joined them, ‘At was considered a deeper
reproach on the family than it would now be should my son join. the
Mormons. ieee

It has been urged that Mr. Wesley was an abolitionist, and that he,
went to the full extent, of 1 modern abolition against slavery. If it be s0,
he also went equally as strong against republicanism. But what did
he oppose in his opposition to slavery and republicanism ? Did he op-

 
262

pose the acknowledged civil authorities ? Never. When we became a
nation, and our independence ‘was acknowledged, he ceased his oppe-
sition to our republicanism. We have the best reason for believing
that Mr. Wesley 1 never intended such an > to slavery as would,
be an interference with the civil authorities. . Durbin ‘referred to
Mr. Hammett. This man was the particular a of Mr. Wesley,
with whom he used to correspond most freely. He had a large bundle
of letters from Mr. Wesley, which, at his death, was consigned to my
father. He made Mr. Wesley believe that he was a good man, slave-
holder as he wes known to be. Hammett was the intimate friend of
Mr. Wesley, and my father was the intimate friend of Mr. Hamett, ind
though it is not characteristic of me to weave in much of self, I must
be allowed to tell what I know on this subject. What then do I know?
I know that in all the correspondence between them, Mi. Wesley nev-
er said one word to Mr. Hamniett against Lis being a slaveliolder, and
Mr. Hammett never said one word to my father on the subject. But
how do I know all this? I know it froma table conversation I had
with my father on the subject of this dreadful abolition. *Z shall never
forget the rebuke I received from my father in that conversation, In
the conversation I remarked in opposition to slavery, that as soon as]
should become of age, [ was determined to go to a free state. My fath-
er replied, and his look as he spake was a rebuke to me, “that is un-
worthy of a lad who owes as much to his father as you do, And then
he added that Mr. Hammett was a good man and he was a slavehold-
er, and that he had often assured him that Mr. Wesley had no objection
to the members of the church holding slaves in that State.

Dr. Durbin said that a bishop is constituted by his election and not
by his ordination ; if not so we must take the high church seuse of or-
dination, Now Ict me say, I cannot understand why this consequence
follows of a bishop auy more than of a priest. WasI made an elder
by election or by ordination? Ianswer both were necessary. When
I was elected, I was elected, to the office, but when I was ordained, I
was inducted into the office to which I had been elected. My ateation

was necessary in order to render it ‘consistent, according to ‘conven-
tional rules, that I should be ordained, but it was not ‘until I was or-
dained that I became possessed of the powers and functions of the
office. Jt is clear that an elder is constituted by ordination, If then
because a bishop is constituted by ordination, and not simply by elec-
tion, we must take the high church sense of ordination, does’ it not
follow that because an elder is constituted by ordination, we ‘must take
the high churth sense of ordination with reference to elders, It ap-
263

pears to me that men must be hard pushed for arguments when they
take such ground. But may we not, without adopting the high church
views of ordination, suppose there may be some special grace in or-
dination. If to escape high church vicws we must conclude that there
is no special grace attending ordination, why do we keep up the form,
aud why does the ordaining bishop, laying his hands upon the head of
the candidate, say, ‘‘ Receive the Holy Ghost for the office and work of
a, bishop in the church of God, now committed unto thee by the impo-
sition of our hands.” Note, the office was not committed to the candi-
date when he was elected, but is “now committed unto thee 3” it was
not committed to him by his election, | but is committed “ by the tmposi-
tion of our hands.” .

But Iam opposed to the resolution because it is, in my view, adverse
ta a sober view of the soundest principles of the M. E, Church. The
coustitution contains the faith, morals, and governing power of the
church. The articles of religion: contain the faith of the chureh; the
general rules contain the morals of the church; and the restrictive
rules contain the governing power of the church, and these three
branches constitute the constitution. Tt will be seen on examination,
that this conference can have no power to set aside the gr ‘eat objects of
church organization, but only to adopt such measures as are in accor-
dance with the principles of the constitution, that may appear calcula-
ted to secure the end. We, acting under that constitution, can have no
power to violate any ¢ of the principles of the constitution. The first
great principle recognized by the constitution, is the supremacy: of the
Scriptures:

Art. V. “The Holy Scriptures contain al] things necessary to sal-
vation, &c.”

Next to the ‘Scriptures, the constitution of the M. E. Church admits
the supremacy of the civil government:

Art. XXIII “ The president, the congress, the general assemblies
the governors and the councils of state, as the delegates of the people,
are the rulers of the United States of America, &c.”

You will see the force of this. Ithank Dr. Durbin for saying that it is
not the design of the majority to interfere with the civil law, and 1 hope
you will be careful not to do what you do not design to do. He said
every brother voted in the Baltimore case on the gronud that the law of
Maryland does admit of emancipation. Suppose the law does allow of
emancipation, that the thing is practicable is altogether another matter.
But the facts are, as they were Spread before the conference, the law
forbids emancipation, but public feeling is against the law so as to
264

enable men to violate it with’ impunity. Suppose ‘the civil law says
one thing, and popular feeling says another to the rey erse of what the
law 7 SAYS, which side ought the chureh’ to take? Shé"is bound’by her
own constitution, “by ‘the | twenty third article of ‘her religion which
‘she has published to ‘the world as her standard ;'to rally around ‘the
law. a do not wish to prejudice the people, against Methodism as was
done i in 1800, nor do I wish the coriference to take a position out of
which the abolitionists can make as much capital'as they have out of
the colored testimony resolution of 1840. It appears to me the’ confer-
ence should act in view of ‘the state of things that is known to éxist ‘in
Georgia. ' Suppose wrong ‘exists in Georgia, will you’ undettake to
control it, not by} the laws of Georgia, by wiih the bishop must be gov-
erned, but by. your own. rules! ? This is making your ‘laws parartiount
to the laws of Georgia, and in that you do not own the authority of
Georgia; as you have pledged t to the public i in your articles of religion, to
do. Look at ‘the subject i in the light of the state | of things ‘ that exists
in Georgia. . ‘Suppose you pass that resolution, and ‘then = we retum
home ; the bishop returns to, Georgia deposed and we are called upoh
to tell why 1 the bishop. has been deposed. We state the facts by saying
that “ the, bishop, as you know, had become connected with slavery,
and the General Conference thought it would not do to have the epis-
copacy: connected with slavery. | We would not have you suppose ‘that
the General Conference, believes that, al] slaveholders are ‘necessarily
sinners), they are very | ‘far from . that, they, do not believe that Bishop
Andrew is a sinner, they believe him and ‘acknowledged him to bea
good map, a good minister, and a good bishop, but then the abolitionists
make such a terrible noise about slaver 'y ‘that they insisted that if some-
thing Was, Hot done with Bishop Andrew, they would nearly or quite bri eak
up the chureh. “What would be the reply i in Georgia to this simple
staternent of the facts, The reply would be, “Is this your church? Is it
governed. by such considerations, and does 1 it act upon such’ principles?
If so, it is dangerous to our safety.

Can your General ¢ Confer ence, So under the influence of the abolition- ~
ists, /stretch out its long arm ‘and take hold of men in Georgia and try
them,, not by. the | laws of Georgia, but by the prejudices of New-Hamp-
shire 2.. When: I,shall g gO back, 1 cannot see how I can justify the act
without placing myself in opposition t to the civil law,

But, my greatest and most mighty | objection t to the resolution i is found:
ed upon the, interests, of the slave. T have received information from
the South of the excitement that j is being Kingled by’ your proceedings

against Bishop Andrew, and that excitement, if not checked, will, you
265

may rest assured, desolate the’ church in those sections. When you
shall have awakened a suspicion that we cannot be trusted, who will
preach to the slaves? Who will then look after their perishing souls ?
We cannot then labor among them and be useful. Will ‘the abolition-
ists go? Will those who support the resolution go, after they shall have
voted down Bishop Audréw, the best advocate the colored man ever
had in the South? I assure you, bretliren, there are thousands of souls
in the South, who live or die by your decission in this case. We have
but just got over the trouble of former action against slavery on ‘the part
of the church, We have labored long and hard, and sweat and prayed
for it, and just as we begun to see thé door opened to us again; just as
benightning prospects invite us to whightening fields of harvest, are we
destined to have our prospects blasted for another half century, by the
action of this Conference. In South Carolina our missions among the
slaves do not lie in Methodist: communities; there are but two Metho-
dists in the state connected with the slave missions, but they are suppor-
ted by men high in character and influence, congress men, and judges,
and gentlemen of high standing are their supporters, and we have gained
their confidence and have free access to their plantations, but pass that
resolution and you will close the door against us. If you, brethren, think
we are taking it too easy in our labors among the perishing slaves on
those sunburnt plantations, and in those sickly rice-swamps, come down
and take a through or two with us. We will welcome you to our cabins,
and there is enough to be done, if you do not hedge up our way.

We come not to you to ask concession, but we come to you upon our
knees and in tears to plead the cause of the perishing slave, and we be-
seech you for his sake as you regard the poor, as you pity the wrongs of
the slave, as you love his soul, do not pass that resolution. Ican never
forget the first time when I went to preach to the slaves. Here the speak-
er became very much affected, and wept as he said, For the first ser-
mon J ever preached to the suffering and despised slave, I should have
been ducked by a number of men who collected for that purpose, but
for a relative who had not religion enough to prevent his threatning
what he would do to them if they touched me. I appeal to my aged
colleague [Mr. Dunwody ] who knows the state of things in South Car-
olinia, for the truth of what I have said, and for the truth of the remark,
when I say that if you pass that resolution you will put us back in our
work and blast our prospects.

But brethren, we shall not abandon the slave, if you will throw diff-
culties in our way we shall overcome them as best we can; we go it
through prisons, dungeons and even death. [ The speaker’s is stream-
266

ing with tears.] The first missionary that went upon those sickly plant-
ations, died the first summer, but another took his place, as the number
of laborers has increased, and the lost are being saved and brought home
to God. Do not shut the door against us. Do not shut the door of hope
to the slave. I forbid it! in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, } forbid
it! in the name of souls I forbid it! Do any thing to us, but do not take
the gospel from the perishing slave.

Dr. Peck next obtained the floor. He said he had itoned until he was
tired. I have, said the speaker, listened with such fixed attention, and
with such deep solicitude, that I have rendéred myself incapable of dis-
charging my other duties. We may sit here and listen to a discussion
of the supposed consequences to follow the action, to the end of time
for apy thing that Isee. But we have already spent too much time on
the subject, and we are so near the time when we must adjourn, that
further discussion looks to me like a positive evil. Ihave desired to say
something, but I saw no possibility of being heard, if Ishould wait for all
io get through who wish to speak; and now, after having got possession
ot the floor, I can hardly take the responsibility of consumeing more
time on the subject. If I enter upon the argument, I should probably
speak the session out, and perhaps longer, but I will yield the floor if
the vote can now be taken. I hear from all quarters murmurings of dis-
satisfaction, and it is approaching the spirit of amob, and we shall have
it if this discussion is not stopped. Bishob Andrew wishes the discus-
sion closed and the question taken.

The previous question was then moved, and the question being taken
by yeas and nays, and resulted as follows; yeas 98; nays 80. As it re-
quires a vote of two thirds to sustain the call for the previous question,
it was pronounced lost.

Bishop Hedding then rose and remarked that he would take the lib-
erty to suggest to the conference, that it would be well not to have an
afternoon session, that the bishops might consult and discuss, if possi-
ble, some plan of compromise. He would also ask, in case the confer-
ence saw fit to adopt the suggestion, that they would renew the appoint-
ment of a committee of compromise to consult with the bishops.

Dr. Durbin said he hoped no committee would be appointed ; if a com-
mittee was appointed, it must have upon it Northern men and Southern
men, and you put a Northern man on the committee, and he is a Nor-
thern man still; and you puta Southern man on it, and he is a Southern
nian still. He hoped it would be left to the bishops, and that if they

wished to consult with any brother they wonld send for him. He
thought as the bishops were better acquainted with the whole work,

4
267

North and South, East and West, they were the best committee that
could be obtained. The question of a committee was dropped and on
motion the further consideration of the whole subject was postponed
until to-morrow morning.

The conference then proceeded to other business, and on motion, the
report of the committee on the book concern was taken up. On mo-
tion so much of the report as recommended striking the words “ or
general book steward” from the discipline,where they occur, was adop-
ted, after which the conference adjourned.

ne re A

Friday, May. 31. .
Bishop Soule suggested a change i in the minutes, of the word “ Church my
for “Connection,” where it occurred in,the minutes of the letter to the
British Conference which was read yesterday.
The committee on Boundaries reported.
The committee on the Bible cause also reported, after which the
order of the day was called for, it being the case of Bishop Andrew.
Bishop Waugh presented the result of the deliberations of the epis-
copal board in the following document: .

SLAVERY, AND BISHOP ANDREW'S CASE.
To rne Generan Conrerrence or THE Metuopist Epriscorau

Cuoreu: ’

Rev. and dear Brethren — The undersigned respectfully and affec-
tionately offer to your calm consideration the result of their consultation
this afternoon, in regard to the unpleasant and very delicate question
which has been so long and so earnestly debated before your body.
They have, with the liveliest interest ; watched the progress of the dis-
cussion, and have awaited its termination with the deepest solicitude.

As they have pored over this subject with anxious thought by day
and by night, they have been more and more impressed with the aifi-
culties connected therewith, and the disastrous results which, in their
apprehension, are the almost inevitable Ree THEE of present action
on the question now pending before you. To the undersigned it is fully
apparent that a decision thereon, whether affirmative or negative,
will most extensively disturb the peace and harmony of*that wi e
ly extended brotherhood which has so effectually operated for good
in the Uuited States of America and elsewhere, during the last sixty
years, in the developement of the system of active energy, of which
ninion has always been a main element.
268

They have, with deep emotion, inquired, can any thing be done to
avoid an evil so much deprecated by every friend of our common Meth-
odism? Long and anxiously have they waited for a satisfactory an-
swer to this inquiry, but they have paused in vain. At this painful
crisis, they have unanimously concurred in the propriety of recommend-
ing the postponement of farther action in the case of Bishop Andrew,
until the ensuing General Conference.

It dees not enter into the design of the undersigned to argue the
propriety of their recommendation ; otherwise, strong and valid reasons
might be adduced in its support. They cannot but think that if the
embarrassment of Bishop Andrew should not cease before that time,
the next General Conference, respecting the pastors, ministers and peo-
ple of the several annual Conferences, after all the facts in the case
shall have passed in review before them, will be better qualified than the
present General Conference can he, to adjudicate the case wisely and
dispassionately. Until the cessation of the embarrassment, or the expi-
ration of the interval between the present and the ensuing General
Conference, the undersigned believe that such a division of the work
of the general superintendency might be made without any infraction
of constitutional principles, as would fully employ Bishop Andrew in
those sections of the church in which his presence and services would
be welcome and cordial.

If the course pursued on this occasion by the undersigned be deemed
a novel one, they pursuade themselves that their justification, in view
of all candid and peace loving persons, will be found in their strong de-
sire to prevent disunion, and to promote harmony in the church.

Very respectfully and affectionately submnitted.

JosHua Soute,,
Exiau Hepprne,
B. Waueu,

Tuos. A. Morris.

The document being read Mr. Collins moved its adoption.

Mr. Finley objected to the motion, he was not prepared for that mo-
tion without more time to reflect upon the communication from the
bishops. Some one moved that it lay upon the table one day. Con-
siderable confusion, several talking at onee. Call for order. It was
then moved that the document be printed and lie upon the table until
to-morrow morning. Some one whose name the reporter did not hear
amid the noise, opposed the motion. He said every body’s mind was
made up, and that no other business could be done until this question
wags settled. ,

Dr. Bangs opposed the postponement; he said he believed they could
269

do batter by some other plan. He thought they had better refer it toa
committee of nine, three from the South, three from the North, and
three from ‘the middle.

Mr. Slicer said it was not necessary to lay it over or to have another
committee. They had had one committee of nine and they had done
nothing, and now we have left it to the bishops, and comes from the
‘North, South, ast, and West as much as it could by being referred to
acommittee. Tle appointment of a committee might delay it three
days. He thought it might be made the order of the day for three and
a half o’clock this afternoon, in which case it should be printed imme-
diately. *

‘Mr. Hamline was in favor of a:committee.

Mr. Collins said he had no need of a committee himself, but as_oth-
-ers had called for one, he thought it was due to the bishops and all con-
cerned to refer the document.

Mr. Winner suggested that it would be better to amend the motion to
lay it on the table until to-morrow morning, by: cokes tine half past
four this afternoon. :

Mr. Draper said that would defeat the object, as they wished to con-
sult, and it would not give them time to meet by delegations.

Dr. Bangs said he would not speak if he was sure the matter was
about to take the right direction. He was sorry to hear mention made
of calling meetings by delegations. After such meetings should be
held, they would be worse prepared than now to settle the question.
But if they could have a committee, and come together like brethren,
something might be done.

Mr. owen said he did not wish to be hurried to a conclusion. He
said ithad already been*discussed Jong, but now it assumed anew as-
pect. He wished it might be referred to a committee consisting of one
from each delegation.

Dr. Olin hoped a committee would be granted and time given to
consult. He said they must be governed by the law of necessity, and
it was necessary in order to know where the necessity lay, that they
should understand how it would effect each section. He should be
glad to hear from every section, if it was fsatisfictory, or if it was so
far satisfactory as to prevent the greatest evil. ‘

The vote being about to be taken, a division of the question was
called for. The vote was then taken on the first member, which was
to print the document, and was decided in the affirmative.

Mr. J. T. Peck said he never did speak when he believed the right

ting would be done without, He was jn favor of pastponement, but
Ww
270

opposed to a committee. He said every, committee they had had on

the subject, involved it in greater darkness, and he had learned, to look.
for nothing but darkness. We are worse off now than we were twen-
ty-four hours ago. Hope is about dead in my heart, for I see nothing

to inspjre hope. The document before us presents one point, and one

only, and that is, shall we of the North, give up all we have said and

done? Others must act for themselves, but Icannet do it. I will

stand by my principles, or by them I will fall.

Mr. Cartwright said he had learned never to despair when in difficul-
ty. He wanted to examine the document and then he wanted to note
upon it. He thought no further committees were necessary.

Mr. Peck of New Hampshire said he was willing it should be post-
poned. He was not afraid of light, and he thought there was not much
danger of any greater darkness than they had already had. He said the
change it gave to the subject would enable those who had already spo-
ken, to speak again, which would give them the advantage of two speech-
es. He wished to speak on the subject as it had been heretofore presen-
ted, but before he could have an opportunity the subject was likely to be
changed.

Mr. Dow from New Hampshire hoped the issue would not be changed
until New England should be heard.

The vote was then taken and it was carried to postpone until te-mor-
row morning.

Dr. Durbin then moved to take up the order of the day, which was
Mr. Finley’s resolution on Bishop Andrew, called the substitute,

A. D. Peck of Black River Conference thought that would be indeco- |
rous after they had postponed the communication from the bishops on
the same subject. The motion wag withdrawn, but was immediately re-
newed by another person.

‘Mr. opposed the motion. -He said it was certainly disrespect-
ful to the bishops under the circumstances of the case. On motion it
was laid upon the table.

A motion was then made to reconsider the vote suspending the rule
limiting speakers to fifteen minutes. :

Mr. Randall of Maine opposed the motion. He said New England had
been reproached and abused, and he wished to defend her. If our
friends are prepared for it, —I mean our brake-water friends, [ Baltimore
deligation,] we are ready to take the vote and go home and meet the
consequences.

We know what those consequences will be. You have the testimony
on the floor in petitions and otherwise. If they were willing to hear

 
271

New England, after having discharged so many heavy guns at her, do
not limit us to fifteen minutes, after you have assailed us by the two
hours. ,

Mr. Early said he felt called upon to remind the brother that the mo-
tion did not come from the South.

The motion was withdrawn.

A communication was presented from a member of North Ohio Con-
ference, and refered to the committee on Itinerancy.

The report of the committee on the Book Concern was then taken up.
It will be recollected that this report proposes an entire reorganization
of the Book Committee,by which the power will be principally taken
from the New York Conference.

Dr. Bangs opposed the proposed change.

Mr. Bowen from the committee cxplained the views of the committee.

P. P Sanford opposed the report as being revolutionary in its char-
acter.

Mr. Early. of Virginia said he was surprised at the tenacity with which
Dr, Bangs and Mr. Sanford clung to the present system. What is there,
said the speaker, so alarmingly revolutionary in the report? Rearly, it
proposes to take away the privilege of the preachers, stationed in the
city of New York to constitute the Book Committee. Indeed! I did not
know before that it was a privilege, but if it be so, Isay let some one else
enjoy it at least a part of the time. Brethren are honest in the opinion,
that the present system creates a monopoly in New York. It is clear to
my mind that so large a committee constituted in the manner that that
committee now is, must tend to hinder the operations ofthe concern. It
cannot fail to give some manageing spirit a cliance to effect personal ob-
jects. But one of the strongest objections to the present plan is, the com-
mnittee, as now constituted, is not responsible to the General Conference.
‘They in a great measure control the operations of the concern, and yet
the General Conference has no control over them. Put an able and prac-
tical man ut the head of that concern, and free it from the clogs of that
committee, and it will be more efficient than it has ever been. It is a
fact, brethren, that the concern is behind other establishments with less
capital and less than half the advantages. Every preacher is a sub-trea- be
surer for the concern, which gives it an advantage over every other es-'
tablishment of the kind in the country, and yet in point of enterprise it
is behind many.

Mr. said the question was simply this, shall we make ‘those
who possess the power bear the responsibility. The Editors alone are
responsible to the General Conference, but they have not.the power to

 
272

say what shall and what shall not be published ; while the preachers sta-
tioned in New York, who possess this power are not responsible to the
General Conference for the manner in which they exercise it. He did
not suppose that it was necessary to impeach the preachers of New York
in order to secure the desired change, but if the New York bretbren in-
sist that that must be the course, he for one was ready to go into the ex-
amination. The editors are our officers appointed by this conference,
and yet they are controlled by the Book Committee, which is not appoint-
ed by, or responsible to the General Conference. I ask in the name of
consistency, if it is right and proper that our officers should be control-
ed by men, whom we cannot control ?

Dr. Bond made a few remarks which were not distinctly heard.

Dr. Peck said he thought there was room forimprovement. He gave
a little account of the operations of the present system, and showed
how things are done in the committee now.

It was then settled by vote, that the book editor should be responsible
for all the works issued from the press, and that he shall have a veto
power when works are recommended for publicatien.

Au item in the report was then considered, which makes it ‘the duty
of annual conferences, when a preacher asks for a location, to inquire
if he is iadebted to the book concern, and if he is, to take measures to
secure the debt before granting him a location.

Mr. P. Rice, of New York opposed it on the ground that under it,
some preachers never could be located. He said a preacher would only
have to get indebted beyond his power to pay or give security, and he
cannot be located under the proposed rule. He thought the best and
only thing that could be done would be not to allow a preacher to draw
on the Book fund while he was indebted to the concern, and to apply
the amount of his claim on the debt untilit should be paid. After con-
siderable talk the conference adjourned.

Afternoon Session. — The reporter was unable to attend, and employ-
ed Br. A. Moran to attend in his place, from whom he received the fol-
lowing minutes of vroceedings. ‘

A communication was received from Mr. Hunter concerning eight
hundred dollars said to be bequeathed to the M. E. Church, and which
the Executor refuses to pay over. It was referredto the delegation from
the Arkansas Conference,

‘That portion of the Report of the Book committee which relates to
the Richmond Christian Advocate was taken up. The reportirecom-
mended the continuation of the publication. The report was adopted.

The report of the committee on the Book Concern, No. 6, was taken.

1
273

up. This is the report which recommends a reorganization of the Book
Jommittee, proposing a committee of six, from the New York, Phila-
delphia, and New Jersey: Conferences, two each.

P. Rice, of New York, moved to strike out New York conference and
insert Troy or some other conference. He said the people in New
York were not willing to support a minister who should neglect his
charge to attend the Book Committee. He said it was an important
committee, and needed to be a learned one, and he hoped a learned
conference would furnish them.

Mr. Early took the last speaker at his word and moved in earnest to
amend by striking out New York and inserting Troy. The amendment
was put and lost.

P. P. Sanford said he did not wish New York conference to have any
power or responsibility in the matter. New York conference has no
controversy over the Book Concern; her connection with it is a dam-
age rather than an advantage. He was opposed to the proposed plan
of constituting the committee, and if it prevailed, he hoped preachers
from New Jersey would be placed on the committee instead of New-
York. Some of them had said the concern would be safer in other
hands. He thought the concern originated with the travelling preach-
ers, and that it was their exclusive property. The report contemplated
having four editors, and gs the rule now stands, they might all be men
not connected with the M. E. Church. He doubted the right of the
General Conference to put the property into the hands of the four edi-
tors. He thought that editors should be travelling preachers, that it is
unsafe, yea dangerous, to place any other than a travelling preacher
there. When the day comes that the concern is put under the control
of other persons not belonging to the travelling connection, you may
note its downward tendencies. He wished the responsibility entirely
taken from the New York conference. :

Mr. Early thought a change in the Book Committee was desirable,
and ite hoped it would take place.

Dr. Winans was in favor of having six preachers on the committee,
one from New York, and the others, one from each of the five nearest
conferences.

Mr. Earley opposed on the ground that it would be difficult to get a
committee together thus constituted.

Dr. Winans replied that his object was to divide the responsibility.

Mr. Slicer argued in favor of the proposed change; he thought the
New York conference had toe much control over the concern. He was
in favor of revolution, it was the preperty and interest of all,and should
274

be more directly under the control of those who are accountable to the
General Conference.

Without coming to any decision the conference adjourned.

Saturday, June 1.

The committee on the expenses of the delegates reported. The sub-
stance of this report was that they had deducted Patton’s loss from the
whole amount of the collections paid over, and that they desired that
the delegates having funds in their hands, should be instructed to pay
them over to the committee, in which case the funds would be equal to
the expenses. .

Mr. Pierce of Georgia, moved that the delegates from Georgia con-
ference, after paying their own expenses, and paying fifty dollars to meet
Patton’s loss, be allowed to retain the balance and settle with their own
conference. His reasons were, that the Georgia conference believed it
unconstitutional to draw on the Book concern to pay the expenses of
the delegates, as had been done, and that they had resolved not to doit,
if there should be a deficiency in the collection. With this story they
went tu the people when they took up the collections, which was the
reason why their collections were so large, and as the Conference cid
not adopt and act upon those views, they ought to return the balance to
their own conference. The motion caused considerable discussion, in
which Crandell, Pickering, Early, and others participated. It was final-
ly adopted, and then the report was adopted as amended.

Mr, Slicer from the committee on Temperance reported. This report
was on the returns of the vote of the annual conference, to whom had
been submitted a proposal to change the general rule on Temperance,
from its present form to its original form as it came from Mr. Wesley,

“which requires a three-fourths vote of all the annual conferences, The

com mittee reported that the whole number of votes was 2501, of which
1861 was for the change, and 640 against it, This come short 16 votes
of the requisite majority: So the rule is unchanged.

The committee also reported some resolutions in favor of Femper-
ance.

Dr. Smith said he wished the Conference, at the present time, would
settle the question whether it required three-fourths of the votes of
each annua) conference separately considered, or whether three-fourths
of the aggregate vote of all the conferences collectively considered was
sufficient, This was responded to by cries of vote, vote, from several
275

directions; whereupon the report was laid upon the table‘and made the
order of the day for Tuesday next.

The order of the day now coming up, which was the communication
from the Bishops on the case of Bishop Andrew,

Bishop Hedding rose and addressed the conference as follows: —

It has been my practice all my life, when I have made a mistake, to
retract it as soon as possible. And it is with this view that I wish tu
withdraw my name from that paper. I signed it freely, without being
persuaded to it by others, but I have since come into possession of fact=
which have changed my mind. I signed it,

1. With the hope that*it would be a peace measure, but instead of’
that it appeais likely to beeome a bone of tontention.

2. I signed the paper with the hope that it would meet with a gener-
al approval of the body, but I have now no hope of that, and therefore
I wish to withdraw my name. As it has not been acted upon by the
conference, I suppose I have a vight to withdraw my name, but if this
is doubted, I will submit it to the conference to say whether I shall have
the privilege of withdrawing my name or not. :

Bishop. Waugh said he should not think it necessary to speak, but for
the remarks of Bishop Hedding. He said he assumed the same, con-
nection to the paper, but he must still let his name remain upon it. He
came slowly into the méasure, and when he signed it, he considered ita
last resort; he had but little hope and should not be disappointed if it
did not succeed ; but he thought best to letit take its‘course. He should
regret if it should cause a long debate. If I believed it would cause
two day’s discussion I might withdraw my name, but I do not feel call-
ed upon to withdraw now.

Bishop Morris said he had nothing to say, further than to remark that
he wanted his name to stand there as an evidence that he had done
what he could to reconcile the parties and keep peace.

Bishop Soule said, I can give assurance that.my colleague was not
imfluenced to the measure; he went intoit as freely as I did. I put my
name to it with the same views that my colleague did, and have not
seen cause to change. I wish my name to remain attached to it; it has
gone out from the Conference, and being spread before the community,
and I cannot, I shall not now withdraw my name from it.

Dr. Bangs moved to lay it on the table with a view of taking a direct
vote on Mr. Finley’s substitute.

The yeas and nays were called for on the motion, and resulted in 95
yeas, to 83 nays.

” Dr. Bangs said they had done all that could be done to effect a com-
276

promise and hope had entirely fled; it had fled from the South, North,
East and West, and he believed wisdom and prudence, Christianity
and brotherly love, demanded that they new decide it as soon as possi-
ble. He believed no material change would he affected in the final re-
sult by further delay.

Dr. Winans said the South were of one mind to en nfertain the com-
promise.

‘Dr. Bangs said he meant no comparison between the North and
South, At this point a question of order was raised, whether the sub-
stitute was before the house, as they had only laid the Bishop’ S com-
munication on the table bet had not voted to take up the substitute.
it was then moved to take up the substitute, which had been so long
under discussion.

Mr. Collins was opposed to the motion to take up. He wished to
hear a proposition from Dr. Durbin, as he had been informed that he
had one to make. The substance of the proposition was stated, but it
did not appear of consequence enough to arrest progress.

Mr. Blake opposed the motion to take up, with great spirit. He said
they had sent outa Raven and he had returned empty, and they had
sent out the Dove, and now was the window of the ark to be closed
forever, and leave it no resting place within our wide spread Zion?
We have had discussion, said the speaker, on almost every subject;
slavery in the abstract and slavery in the concrete, science, matrimony
and politics. The speaker procéeded with great zeal, but entirely wan-
dered from the point, and was frequently called to order, and after
saying many things, took his seat. ,

Judge Longstreet’opposed the motion. There is yet hope, said he,

and let us cling to it. Dr. Bang’s reasons from despair, but dees he not
know that no proposition has come from the North. Let them make
one. Whatis time in comparison with the interests of the church? If
the vote is taken now, all hope will be closed. Let us hang on though
the storm rages — “Dont give up the ship.” We are not prepared to
act, many are in doubt whether the resolution is imperative or only
advisery, and cannot be prepared to vote until this is understood.
_ Mr. Paine said he was a man of peace, he had ever been a man of
peace, and he deeply regretted all the unkind words and denunciations
that had been uttered by either party. "He said the South which he
represented felt calm, but they felt their difficulties. He said all they
asked was to go back and stand upon the same ground they did when
they came before their constituents. He hoped the North could find
some ground on which they could stand too, but if no common ground
can be found we must take our stand firmly.
277

Mr. Porter, of New England, said he also was a man of peace, and
the Conference he thought was for peace. If any wanted proof of it,
they might look at the efforts that had been made for about two weeks
to effect a compromise. ,They wanted to be one people. They had
done every thing that could be done, and had come-to the conclusion
that there was no ground on which they could meet. The South say
they cannot move, and the North say the substitute is as little as they
can do and live, and that it is doubtful if they can succeed with that.
They can live with nothing less. Less will destroy us. If we have a
new proposition we shall discuss it for days and then come back to the
substitute at last. We had better adopt it at once, and go home and
inake:the best of it we can. “I do not like the previous question, and I
hope the conference will come up’ freely and teke the question without
being compelled to it by the previous question.

Mr. Mitchell wished-the resolution might be amended so ‘as to give
Bishop Andrew liberty to proceed in his official work, so soon as a 1na-
jority of the several annual conferences should give their consent.

Mr. Evans moved the previous question on the motion to take up,
which was sustained by avote of: two thirds. The motion was then pyt
and carried. : ‘

This brought the main question before the house for discussion.

Bishop Soule said he had reason to apprehend that brethren entertain-
ed erroneous views concerning his position when he addressed the con-
ference on the subject. I wish to correct it, said he, before‘you act on
the substitute. A large proportion of my remarks did not touch the res-
olution, only on the ground that the resolution is mandatory, suspending
Bishop Andrew. Brethren must perceive that most ofmy remarks were
entirely irrelevant if-the conference is not engaged in a judical act. So
I looked upon it, and soJ look upon it still. If Iam wrong I wish to te
right. There is a wide difference between giving advice, and a judicial
decree, 1 wish to be correct, and therefore I recall what I said, if the
resolution is not’ mandatory.’ I was led to that view by Judge Long-
street. When he was speaking, he said he believed that the resolution
was inandatory and that it was designed to suspend Bishop Andrew ; he
then called for light, and said he should so understand the resolution if
no one corrected him, He paused and-no one did correct him. Other
brethren said they understood it to be judicial, suspending the Bishop.
If I have understood the argument, it has proceeded upon the ground
that it is not admissable for slavery to be connected with the Episcopa-
cy. This being the case, the resolution would not relieve the difficulty,
unless it be a judicial suspension, for if it be mearly aos would

.
278

not seperate slavery from the Episcopacy, ae Bishop Andrew would be
a bishop still7and might pracela in his as if he did rot see fit te
follow the advice..
The previous question wes moved Ly J.T. Peck. Great excitement
prevailed through ithe Conference. .
The yeas and nays were called for on the call for the previous ques-

tion, but they were ‘not ordered, and the previous question was sustained
by count.

The yeas and mays were or réered on the main gestion and resulted

as Follows.
: WEAS.

New-York Conference—-Nathan Bangs, Stephen Olin, Phineas Rice,
George Peck, John B. Stratten, Peter P. Sandford, Fitch Reed, Samuel
D. Ferguson, Stephen Martindale, Marvin Richardson. ;

Troy Conference—Truman Seymour, John M. Wever, James Coyel, Jv.
'Yobias Spicer, Seymore Coleman, James B; Howtaling, Jesse T. Peck.

Providence Conference—J.. Lovejoy, F. Upham, Ss. oo Paul Towns-
end. % “

New-Hampshire Conference — Elibu Scott, J. ata, Saml. Kelly, 8.
Chamberlain, John G. Dow, J. Spaulding C. D. Cahoon, Wm. D. Cass

New-England Conference—J.. Porter, D. 8. King, P. Crandall, C. Ad-
ains, G. Pickering.

Pittsburg Conference—W in. Hunter, H. J. Clark, 3. Spencer, S. Eliior,
R. Boyd,-8. Wakefield, J. Drammend. |

Maine Conference—M. Hill, E. Robinson, D, B. Randall, C. W. Morse,
J. Hobart, Heman Nickerson, G. Webber. if

Black River Conference—A. D. Peck, A. Adams, G. Baker, W.W. Ninde,

Erie Conference—J. J. Steadman, G, W. Clark, J. Robinson, T. eos
win.

Onedia Conference—J.M. Snyder, 8. Comfort, !N. Rounds, De A.
Shepherd, H. F. Row, E. Bowen, D. Homes, Jr.

Michigan Conference —E, Crane, A. Billings, J. A. Baughman.

Rock River Conference — B. Weed, H. W. Reed, J. T. Mitchell,

Genesee Conference — G. Fillmore, 8. Luckey, A Steel, F. G. Hibbard,:
S. Seager, A. Abell, W.. Hosmer, J. B, Alverson.

WN. Ghio Conference —E. Thompson, J. H. Power, A. Poe, E. Yocum,
W. Runuells.

Llinois Conference — P. Akers, P. Cartwright.

Ohio Conference—C. Elliott, Wm. H. Raper, J..M: Trimble, J. B
Finley, L. L. Hamline, Z. Connell, J. Férree.

Indiania Co- ference —M. Simpson, A. Wiley, Ex R. ‘Ames, J Miller,
279

C. W. Rutter, A. Wood, A. Eddy, J.. Havens.
Texas Conference J, Clark. : ‘
Baltimore Conference —J. A. Collins,* A. Griffith, J. Bear.
Philadelphia: Conference J. P Durbin, * Scott.
New Jersey Conference — 1, Winner, J. 8. Porter, J. K. Shaw — 110.

; | NAYS.
"Noe York. Conference — C, W. Carpenter.

_ Michigan Conference —G, Smith. .

Rock River Conference —J. Sinclair.

Atinois Conference — J. Stamper, J. Van Cleve, N. G, Berryman.
Kentucky Conference —H. B. Bascom, W., Gunn, BH, H, Kavanaugh,
E. Stevenson, R. J. Crouch, G, W. Brush.

Ohio Conference —E. W, Selion. :

Missouri Conference ~—.E. F. Sevier, S. Patten, T. Stringfield.

Tennessee Conference —R, Paine, J. B. McFerrin, A.L. P. Green, T.

Maddin.
North Carolina Conférence — J. Jameson, Peter Doub, H. G. Leigh.

Memphis Conference —G. W. D. Harris S. 8. Moody, William Me-
Mahon, T. Joyner.

“irkansas Conference — J, C.. Parker, W. P. Ratcliffe, A. Hunter.

Firginia Conference — J. Barly, T. Crowder, W. A. Smith, L. M. Lee.

Mississippi yen Wm. Winans, B. W. Drake, J. Lane, G. M.
Rogers. «.

Texas Canis —L, Fowler. i

_ AMabama Conference — J. Boring, J. Hamilton, Wm. Murrah, G. Gar-
rett.
Georgia "Conference — G. F. Pierce, Ww. J. Paros, L. Pierce, J. W.

Glenn, J. E. Evans, A. as ah se
S, Dumwody, H. A. ©. Walker. i
Baltimore Conference — HL. Slicer, J. A. Gere, N. J. B. Morgan, T. B.
Sargent, C. B. Tippett, G. Hildt.
Philadelphia Conference —'T. = I Thompson, H. White, W, Cooper.
New Jersey Confer ence — Thomas Neal, Thomas’ Sovereign —68. .
Sick 2 — Baltimore Conference — Jobn Davis. ©
Philadelphia Conference —J. T. Cooper. ,

The following i is the preamble: and resolution as adopted hy the above
vote.
Whereas, The Discipline of our dime forbids the doing of any-

thing calculated to destroy our general superintendeney: and whereas ,
Bishop Audrew has become connected with slavery, -by marriage and
otherwise, apd this act having drawn after it circumstances which. in

a

+ With the intention of moving a reconsideration.
280

the estimation of the General Conference, will greatly embarrass the ex-
ercises of his office as general seat if not in some places en-
tirely prevent it, therefore,: + ih ;

Resolved, That it is the sense of this: Gace (State: that he de-
sist from the exercise of his office so long as this impediment remains,’

Dr. Smith said the vote that had just been taken, merely adopted the
preamble and resolution as a substifute, and that it br ought i it before the
house just as the original had been, yet to be discussed upon its merits
and adopted.

Mr. Early made some remarks not understood, there being consider-
able noise and excitement.

Mr. Porter of New England, said‘ the substitute was accepted by the
aathor of the original motion, which put itin the place of the original
and of course no motion was necessary only for final adoption. Further,
be said that Mr. Slicer moved an amendment, which was pronounced
.out of order .by the chair, because a substitute cannot be amended after
it was received and put in the place of the original motion. This view,
that the resolution had been finally adopted, appeared to be the view of
the Conference, for the subject was dropped without further remarks,

Dr. Pierce of Georgia then rose and stated that it would be remem-
bered by the Conference, and by the spectators, that they of ‘the minor-
ity had from the commencement insisted that if the resolution was a-
dopted, they would enter their protest ‘without a dissenting voice ora
faltering step. I am the oldest delegate from the southern Conferences,
end therefore, I rise to give notice that we intend to present our protest
against the proceedings in the case of Bishop Andrew, to be recorded
on the journal. We intend it to be one of the most manly and yet chris-
tian documents that has been given to the public, and we intend to put
our names to it to be handed down with it.to posterity. We are

~ ©Calm as summer evenings be.”

You have done what you thought you had a right to de, and we are
satisfied. We thought otherwise, but you having a majority have adop-
ted your own views, and we. must submit until suitable redress can be
had. This question must be settled by other tribunals organized for that
purpose, I have always felt bound by the discipline ; Inever had an
anti-methodistical feeling, but I say this in review of what it was, or
what it has been understood to be, and not in review of what it is sought
to be made. I reflect not upon brethren, we are willing to give you the
eredit of doing what you think right. But we believe that when the
elouds shall have passed away, and when the whirl-wind of excitement
shall have settled in the calmness of sober reflection, the voice of public
281

\

sentiment will come up booming over the land, and pronounce the ver-
dict in our favor. For this we wish to enter one of the most manly and
nervous protests that was ever entered upon a public journal:

Dr. Winans said the vote had placed the southern delegates in an
awkward position, with reference to participating in the further pro-
ceedings ofthe conference. They were unprepared to act urtil they
could have time for reflection and consultation, and to relieve them he
moved an adjournment.

Mr Early said something which was not understood. More than a
half a dozen on the floor and all talking at once — general confusion —
motion for adjournement put and pronounced carried by the chair —
doubted —a count ordered by the chair—cries all over the house let
us adjourn, The chair, pounding most tremendously upon his table
put the vote again, and directed the secretary to count, and the motion
prevailed and the conference adjourned.

Monday, June 3.

Mr. Slicer presented the following resolutions :

Resolved, That it ia the sense of this Conterence that the vote of Sat-
urday last, in the case of Bishop Andrew, be understood es advisary
only, and not in the light of a Judicial mandate.

Resolved, That the final disposition of Bishop Andrew’s case be post-
poned until the General.Conference of 1848, in conformity with the
suggestion of the Bishops’ Address presented to the Conference on
Friday the 3lst of May.

Mr. Slicer said he did not intend to make a speech on his motion,
and he hoped in would not cause debate, but he thought it due to all
parties concerned to explan the resolution, as it was differently under-
stood by different persons. Without an explanation, it was like the Dei-
phie Oracle, liable to any explanation which each individual migi:t see
fit to put upon it — suit his own views or taste.

Dr. Peck said he hoped the mover would consent to delay action on
the resolutions for a time, as many of the members were absent, and
the resolutions were of great importance.

Mr. Shcer said he had no objection to a postponement for an hour or
two, until absent brethren should get it.

Mr. Early said the conference could vote on the resolutions without
debate, as he presumed they would be willing to do, and then give ab-

sent members an opportunity to record their votes when they came in.
x
282

Mr. Sanford opposed the resolutions with earnestness and much feel-
ing. He thought it entirely out of character for-the conference to pass
a resolution, after discussing so long, and then have to pass another res-
olution to tell what the,firstone m2ant.. It. was, in his view, a novelty.
If we adopt this course, some one else may start up and ask for anoth-
er resolution to explain the last, and so we may go on ad infinitum. . He
hoped the conference would not dishonor itself, by making any such
explanations. He was frank to confess he had not exactly. liked the
preamble and resolutions from the beginning, though he voted for them,
and he was willing to leave them to speak for themselves...

Mr. Slicer explained his object. He said he had no doubt there were
many others, who were in the same predicament of Mr. Sanford, lhav-
ing voted for the resolution, thought they did not “ exactly like it,” and
it was the object of his proposed.explanation, to make them like it bet-
ter or worse.

Mr. Steadman moved te lay the resolution upon the table, for the
present. The yeas and nays were called for and resulted as follows:
Yeas 75; Nays 68,s0 the motion to lay upon the table prevailed.

Dr. Capers offered a resolution for altering the restrictive rules, so as
to enable the General Conference to divide the church funds, and pro-
posing certain principles for the division of the: church, and the erec-
tion of a southern General Conference. | .

On motion of Dr. Bangs, the resolutions were waea toa commit-
tee of nine, under instructions to report as soon as. practicable. The
following persons constitute the committee: Dr. Capers, Dr. Win-
ans, Thomas Crowder, James Porter of New England, Glezen Fj)-
more, Peter Akens, 8. 8. Hamlin, John Davis, and P. P. Sanford.

A communication from the bishops was presented, calling the atten-
tion of the conference to the evils arising from building: expensive
houses of worship on credit. It w as refered toa committee of five,
consisting of A. Griffith, J. B. Finley, George Pickering, T. J. Thompson,
C. W. Carpenter

Dr. Peck opposed a ‘esolution providing for the publication of the
Journals of the General Conference, of 1840, and 1844.

L. M. Lee moved to amend by striking out 1840 and inserting 1800.
After some discussion the amendment was laid upon the table and the

original motion was adopted.

Mr. Porter of N. J. offered aresolution proposing a change in that item
in the discipline, which authorizes the preacher to refer a trial to the
quarterly conference. The design of the proposed change is to limit
the quarterly conference in such cases, to the simple power to order a
new trial. Lies over one day.
283

Mr. Crouch offered a rosolution fixing on Friday next at one o'clock
as the time of final adjournment. This caused considerable discus-
sion, and was finally withdrawn.

{t was then on motion, resolved that the reporters be requested not
to publish the resolutions of Dr. Capers proposing a division of the
church. :

On motion of Mr. Drake, his resolution was taken up, proposing to
strike out of the discipline that’ elause which requires members, on
joining the church, to give satisfaction of the correctness of their faith,
Chap. 2, Sec, 2.

Mr. Sanford opposed tle motion with great earnestness. He thought
tlie rule was important because the articles of religion were defective, not
embracing all the fundamental doctrines of the Gospel. ‘ He said there
was no article directly asserting the resurrection of the body. Without
the rule proposed to be stricken out, men may be constitutionally ad-
mitted to the church who deny some of the fundamental doctrines, and
are we to haveachurch, the members of which do not believe the cat-
dinal doctrines of Christ? Such a church would not be the church of
Christ. I have been disputed on this point; a Unitarian once told me
Thad ‘no right to reject him. Therule proposed: to be stricken out was
inserted in 1840 and the reason why it was put in the book was, it was
thought different constructions might be put upon our system. This is
not the day to open so wide a door when errors of every description
are afloat around us, and seeking admission into every religious com-
munity.

Mr. Crowder thought that the clause might cause some difficulty,
growing out of a diversity of administrations, but that difficulties could
weigh nothing in comparison with the importance ofthe rule to be
stricken out. He contended that the article was no new term of men-
bership, as some had supposed. It required men to be baptized, but
that was not new, for it was one of our articles of faith before.

Dr. Smith said he felt a deep interest in the subject. He believed
when the rule was put there in 1840, and he still believed, that it con-
stituted anew term of membership contrary to the constitution of the
church.

Another objection in his mind was, it made the reception of a candi-
date depend upon the will of the pracher, for he might examine the
candidate wrong, and thereby render it impossible for him to answer
the questions. He admitted that the object was a good one, but he
thought it could be attained in another'way without a violation’ of the
constitution. Members should be required to believe the cardinal doc-
284 ,

trines of Christianity, but he made this a condition of baptism, and at-
tended to it when he baptized them. Those, baptized’ in infancy he
required to take the baptismal vows upon them when they we receiv-
ed into the church. He proposed to them the questions in the baptis-
mal eervice, all except the last.

Dr. Bangs read the rule, and remarked-that he thought the last clause
unnecessary. He proposed to amend it so asto make it read, “ give
satisfactory evidence of their belief in our articles of religion.”

Mr. Finley said if the.examination was left to the judgement of the
preacher, the questions asked might not be understood, but if the ques-
tions themselves were in the discipline, there could be no mistake,—he
therefore prefered Smiths plan.

Mr. Kavanaugh was opposed to the whole concern, the present rule
and the proposed amendment. He said they were the mostunited and
enlightened people on the face of the earth, holy Mathew not excepted,
and they were in need of no such standards.

Dr. Winans opposed the whole. . He said no community has been so
perfectly one in faith as the Methodists, and this he thought was be-
cause they had never gone into an examination of private views, Un-
dertake, said he, to bring every man tothe same standard, and as you
screw them up, you will find little difierence exists, and as you labor to
screw them out of these little differences, they will attach greater im-
portance to them, and become proud of their opinions, as they are op-
posed. The best way was, in his view, to bring the preachers to one
standard and Jet them preach one ‘doctrine, and let the people alone.
Tutroduce new rules and tests and you will introduce a fire brand. That
it was entirely unnecessary, he would appeal to Dr. Smith, and ask him
if he had found one in all the examinations which he had made, who
did not answer in the affirmative ? He would not execute the new rule
if it was suffered to remain, or if some other one like it was put in its
place; he would throw himself upon the conference for protection.

Mr. Slicer was opposed to the whole. He quoted the general rule,
which says, “ There is only one condition required of those:who desire
admission into these societies, u desire to. flee from the wrath to come,
and to be saved from their sins.” He said it was the best theology in
the world to desire to flee from the wrath to come. But if you attempt
to introduce the iron’ bedstead, you will defeat the object you have in
view. It has been the glory of Methodism that while it has maintajned
the unity of the faith, purity and peace, it has done it without requiring
men to.be graduated by an iron creed. If men do not see and think
just as we do when they join us, they get right in a little while, but you
285

undertake to screw them up to’an inflexible standard, and you will only
confirm them in their little differences. He said the rule as it is in the
book, is a dead letter in his country; not ene in ten, if one in twenty
attends to it. What could a man do at the conclusion of one of our
great revivals, when he has 250 probationers to admit? It would take
him a week to admit them all by that rule.

Dr. Pierce supported the rule as it is now in the discipline, and op-
posed the motion to strike it out, He explained the rule and attempted
to show that it is plain, simple, and important. He was the author ot
the rule, and must be expected to defend it, for he was quite as much
impressed with its necessity now, as when he introduced it. He thought
he had seen an increasing evil, that of gathering every thing into the
church. The preachers appear to think their main object is accom-
plished if they can succeed in throwing the net over all that pray and
feel.and make-a noise. If brethren are right, I have remeined a child
up to this time. I have always thought we were never to receive any
who negleeted any of our articles of association. The speaker said he
could not see so many hobgoblins in the way of the rule as some oth-
ers pretended they saw.

Dr. Bangs moved the previous question, which was sustained, and
the question being taken on the motion to strike the rule out of the dis-
cipline, it was lost.

The report on boundaries was then taken up. This report caused
considerable discussion, which was of no general interest, and the re-
port was adopted item by item, nearly as it came from the committee,
but before it was-finished the conference adjourned.

Afternoon Session. — Bishop Hedding remarked that mere business
was before the conference, than could be done before the final adjourn-
ment, and he thought it would, be wise in the conference to attend to
those items which must be done, ;

Mr. Tippet.of the Baltimore delegation, to whom had been referred
the case of Mr. Sargeut, reported in favor of paying. Mr. Sargent six
hundred dollars, as salary for the time he spent in visitmg Europe with
Bishop Soule. The report was adopted. The committee on the evils
of building expensive churches on credit, reported in favor of altering
the discipline on church building, so as to require the preachers and so-
cieties to discountenance persons coming among them to beg for mon-
ey to build or pay for churches. in other places;: unless: they are recom-
mended by an annual conference. Lies over one day under the rule.
The report on boundaries was then taken up, and a long discussion
followed on a proposition to divide the Texas Conference, after which
286

the | Proposition was adopted. The report having been now. all adopted
hy item, it was adopted a as a whole. It makes forty conferences in all,
Conference adjourned, |

Tuesday, Tone 4.
The committee on expenses of delegates made their final, report, as
follows:

Whole amount of expenses, - ~ e g9467,75 ;
Whole amount of collections, 9610,97
Leaving a balance of - - - $143,22

The report was adopted.

Dr. Peck from the committee on slavery reported in part, the follow-
ing resolution.

“ Resolved, That the resolutions pursued at the General Conference of
1840, on the subject of the testimony of colored persons in ehneeh tri-
als, be, and the same ure hereby repealed.”

Dr. Winans moved to lay, it on the table for the present. He said his
design was not to give it the go-by but simply to delay it until they
should be informed what was likely to grow out of the proposition in
the hands of a committee for a division of the church. Hf the church
was to be divided, it would be better to leave this matter for each divis-
jon to dispose of in their own way. The motion to lay upon the table
was lost.

Mr. Collins moved to amend by adding, “ and all that relates to the
appeal of: Rev. Silas Comfort.” His design, he said, was to sweep from
the journals all that related to that unfortunate affair.

Mr. Early said he hoped they should :not mutilate the journal.

Dr. Winans said as there was now pending a proposition to divide the
church, he thought it would be better to wait.

Dr. Peck said, the committee supposed no influence could now grow
out of the Comfort case. :

Dr. Bangs moved that it be laid over until ‘he committee on division
shall report, which was adopted,

Mr. McFerrin from the committee on Itinerancy reported sustaining
the North Ohio Conference in its refusal for a certain reason, to pay &
member the amount of his.claims on the Conference funds. Adopted.

Dr. Capers asked liberty for the committee on division to sit during
conference hours.
 

287

Mr. Sanford opposed. Leave was granted.

Mr. Sanford asked to be excused froin sitting on the committee. Re-
quest reflised.

Mr. Sanford ‘said important business was being transacted in which he
was interested, and he wished to know if that Conference had power to
order him off that floor. He should not go, , /

-J. T. Peck moved to take up the order of the day, which was the ré-
port of the committee on temperance. Ot

This was opposed by Mr. Collins but the motion prevailed.

The report was read, and in it’ was a clause which refered to the re-
port of the committee on revisals, approving of that clause which pro-
poses a'change in chap. 2, sec.7. The change proposed js as follows.
The words included in brackets are to be added. oa

“ But in cases of neglect of duty of any kind, imprudént conduet, in-
dulging sinful tempers or words, disobedience to the order and disci-
pline of the church, [or the manufacturing or vending of intoxicating
drinks,] First, let private reproof be given,” &c.

Though this amendment is-contained in another report, the present
report contains such an allusion to it as to test the adoption of that when
it shall come up. Several brethren discussed the recommendation
which it contains, to adopt the resolutions of the American Temper-
ance Union, which report was adopted.

Mr. Collins opposed the reference to the other report, which it con-
tained, proposing the change above given,

It is, said the speaker, an attempt to evade the restrictive rule, by put-
ting into the discipline, in another’ place, what you have failed to put in-
to the general tules for want of a constitutional majority. The general
rule cannot be altered without a three quarters‘vote of all the annual
conferences, and you sent this question down to the annual conferences,

and it was returned without the requested majority. Again, you sent it
down ‘to the annual conferences, and-again it has come back without the
constitutional majority, dnd now you'propose to put the same thing that
you have been all this time laboring to obtain, in the discipline without
such majority. The fact that you propose to put it in another place,
does not make it any the less unconstitutional. Such a step will shake
the foundation of the constitution. I am in favor ofthe change, but not
in an unconstitutional way.. After it has failed to obtain the constitu-
tional majority, it would appear strange indeed for us just at this mo-
ment, to find out that we do not need the majority we have failed twice
to obtain.

‘

Mr. Collins closed with a warm exhortation to beware how they in-
fracted the constitution, .
288

Mr. Early opposed, after which the further consideration of the report
was postponed, ,

i + 3 ar: trae

J. T. Peck, then moved to take up so much of the report jof the com-
mittee on revisals as relates.to temperance. This was the very thing
that had, just been the subject of a while the other report was
under consideration.

Mr. Early moved asa eribiatibets that aay, take up the report of the
committee on the Book Concern. This most clearly was out of order,
for our other. subject cannot be a substitute. The chair entertained the
motion however, and no one. raised the question of order.::

Some one moved to, lay the substitute on the table. Lost.

Mr Butler hoped the substitute would prevail, as the report on tem-
perance proposed to be taken up, he regarded as unconstitutional.

Mr. Slicer opposed the substitute and advocated taking up the report
relating to,temperance. He spoke with warmth and force, and appeal-
ed to a report made at a previous session by Dr. Tomlinson in reply to
what had been said on the constitutional question.

The substitute prevailed. This vote brought. up the ee of the
committee on the Book Concern, aud gave the subject of temperance
the go-by.

That part of the report which seedaniende’ that books be sold at 60
per cent. for the Texas market was first considered, which caused a long

1

discussion. : :
Mr Sanford opposed. He sid another part of that report recom-
mended a reduction of the prices of books generally, and when that
should be done, 60 per cent. discount, would be 40 per cent. below the;
tirst cost. If you wish to make ‘Texas a present, do it openly. The
measure proposed will do more harm than to gives Texas all the books.

she needs, It would do harm by making the impression that books

cost less than what they do. a
Some one remarked that .if they were allowed to purchase at 60 per

cent. discount, they, would have to pay 20 per cent. duty, and that would
reduce it to 40 per cent., which was the same as others purchase, only
the Texas friends had them sent at their own risk.

A. D, Peck enquired why it would not do to put the books to them -
the same as others, and then allow them a draw-back 6f the duty what-.

ever it might be.
Mr. Bowen suggested that it would be better to say that they should

be allowed to purchase at cost. F
Mr. Fowler, one of the delegates from Texas, said he thought adraw- -

back of the amount of the duty would answer.
289.

This plan was adopted, so that Texas purchasers of Methodist books,
are allowed a draw-back of the amount of the duty charged u upon them
by the Texas government.

The next item in the report recommended having buildings put upon
a vacant lot, which belongs to the book concern, and was adopted

The next item recomended a reduction of the price cf the books, and
and was adopted,

The next item recommended the publication’ of a cheap. edition of
the standard works. This caused much discussion.

Mr Sanford opposed. He said that it was not possible for them to com-
pete with other establishments by publishing’ cheap works. They all
allowed’ but a very small profit to retailers, but’ Methodist preachers
would not sell books so.

Mr. Lane of the Book Room spake against the proposition, in which
he labored to show that Methodist’ books are now as cheap as others,
in proportién to their contents.

The item was laid upon the table.

The next item gave instruction to the editors of the news-paper de-
partment of the church to guard against the insertion of long obituary
notices. This led to a long discussidn, and various propositions to
amend. -A substitute by Dr. Durbin was finally adopted, the substance
of which'is that the editors shall not insert obituary notices of more
than two squares in length, leaving it disoretionaty with the ‘editors in
the case‘ of memoirs. é

The next item provides that agents, editors and missionary sécretary
located 'in'New York, may have the privilege of belonging to such con-
ference as they may select, with the consent of the presiding bishop.
‘The old rule makes them members of the New York conference. This
was adopted.

“The report of the Book Committee laid upon the table, on Friday last,
was next taken up. Itconcerns the Book Committee in New York and
Cincinnati.

Dr. Bangs vindicated the Book Committee of New York. Answered
the charge that the committee ordered the publication of his History of
the M. E. Church, without having read, by saymg that the Manuscript of
the first volume wasjread before the committee, by which they weré en-
abled to judge of the whole work:

Mr. Early replied, after which the vote was taken, and the new plan
was adopted, by which the control over the Book Concern is taken from
the New York conference. The same reform was adopted at Cincinnati.
The item was also adopted which directs the General Conference to fix
290

the salaries of agents and editors, or to appoint acommittee by whom it
shal] be done. Conference adjourned.

SR A ee

; Wednesday, Jane 5,

The committee on-correspondence made.a second report, it, being an
address to the British Conference once presented and recommnitted.

Dr. Luckey objected to an expresrion in it, which he thought implied
that christians are sanctified by the Spizit alone, without the Word.

A long discussion followed, and the report was finally adopted with-
out amendment.

The committee on Missions reported, Thig report is Jong aud pro-
poses several changes i in the plan of operation, ,

It was moved to suspend the rule requiring it to ie over one day and
to act upon itimmediately. Dr. Winans opposed, and Mr. Early aup-
ported the motion, and it prevailed.

Much discussion followed of too little general interest to entitle it to a
full report.

Mr. Simpson opposed all organizations of the nature of missionary
societies, and contended that the church should do, the work that these
societies were designed to do.

Mr. Finley opposed the item which provides for the appointment of as-
sistant missjonary secretaries, One was all that they ueeded, and he
did not believe they needed any. The editors could do the business, in
his view.

Mr, Slicer called for the expenses of the secretaries for the last four
years. The General Conference should know what they cost, before they
were prepared to vote. *

Mr, Ames, the Western secretary, said he hoped there would bea
thorough investigation, for he believed there was a great laxity, and a
want of proper records, He came to the conclusion to resign, and wrote
a letter of resignation which he read to the conference, giving his rea-
sons. After he had written that letter, he was persuaded not to present
it. His salary had been $1000 per annum, and his travelling expenses
which were to be added to his salary had been heavy.

Mr. Collins moved to strike out the clause which authorized the ap-
pointment of assistant secretaries. He said their secretaries had cost
$20000 for the last fow years, This created dissatisfaction among the
people.
291

Vr, Bangs opposed the amendment, bit it prevailed, and that portion

of the neyo was adopted’ which limits the society to one corresponding
secretary. '

So much as relates to the ee of collecting funds was refered toa se-
lect committee of five. ‘

Dr. Capers returned the resolution concerning the division of the
church, to the secretaries’ table, saying that the cornmittee could agree on
nothing which they believed would be acceptable to the conference.

Mr. Cartwright moved that the committee on episcopacy be instructed
to report to-morrow morning, how many ‘bishops need to be elected, and
that their election be made co order of the day for Friday next.

This caused a warm discussion and great excitement in the conference.
The motion was resolutely opposed by the South. The arguments were,
that the committee could not report until they were instructed concern-
ing the relation Bishop Andrew was to sustain to the work. They must
know whether he was to be one, before they could report how many
more would be necessary. :

The motion was jaid upon the table, after which the conference ad-
journed,

Afternoon Session. — The balance of the report concerning missionary
operations was presented again and adopted.

Judge Longstreet in behalf of the Southern delegates presented the
following document.

The delegates of the Conferences in slaveholding states take leave to
declare to the General Conference of the Methodist Episdopal Church,
that the continued agitation on 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 Bish-
op Andrew, which resulted, on Saturday last, in the virtual suspension of
him from his office of superintendent, must produce a state of things in
the South which rendersa continuance of the jurisdiction of the Gener-
al Conference over these Conferences inconsistent with the success of
the ministry in slaveholding states.

ie Vege Conference — John Early, W. A. Smith, Thos. Cowper, Leroy
ee.

Kentucky Conference —H. B. Bascom, William Gunn, H. H. Kavan-
augh, Edward Stevenson, B. T. Crouch, G. W. Brush.

Missouri Conference —W. W. Redman, William Patton, J. C. Berry-
man, J. M. Jameson.

Holston Conference — E. F. Sevier, S. Patton, Thomas Stringfield.

Georgia Conference —G. F. Pierce, William J. Pats, L. Pieree, IW
Glenn, J, L. Evans, A. B, Longstreet.
292

North Carolina Conference — James Gunnison, Peter Doub, B. T. Blake.

Winois Conference — J. Stamper. iS adocme A 5 Rae

Memphis Conference — G. W. By Harris, Wm. MWMahan, Thomas Joy-
ner, 8.8. Moody. ... 0 i

Arkansas Conference — — John ¢ C. Parker, William P. Rati andrew
Hunter.

Mississippi Chagthesicn —Walines Winans, B. M. Drake,. seh Lane, G.
M. Rogers.

Texas Conference — — Littleton Fowler.

Alabama Conference — Jesse Boring, Jefferson Hamilton, W. Murrah,
G Garrett.

Tennessee Conference — ee et aon, McFerrin, A.L.P. ircent
T. Maddin.

South Carolina Cine Ww. i William M. Wightman,
Charles Betts, S. Dunwody, H. A. C. Walker.

This caused a long and heated debate, so much like many already giv-
en, as to be omitted without great loss to the reader.

The document was finally refered to a committee of nine, consisting
of Paine of Tennessee, Filmore. of Genesee, Akens of Illincis, Bangs
ot New York, Crowder of Virginia, Hamlin of Ohio, Winans of Missis-
sippi, Porter of New England, and Sargent of Baltimore.

A report was presented and adopted onthe Episcopacy; by which the
committee that estimates the table expenses of a bishop is required to
report to the annual conference, subject to their action.

It was directed that the report on Bishop Andtew’s case be journalized.

A further report from the committee on the Book Concern was acted
on, the most important item of which “was a recommendation to grant
$2500,00-to the Richmond Christian Advocate to help it out of debt.

Mr. Sanford moved to lay this on the ‘Tall. Lost. The item was
then adopted. :

Mr. McFerrin moved to instruct the committee of nine, to whom the
declaration of the. Southern preachers had been refered, if they could
not settle the difficulty, to bring in a plan for a penrediled ievision. of,
the ehurch.

J.T. Peck opposed. He could neither recommend: or approve of a
division:

My. McFerrin supported it. He did not like to be forced.to go off
and erect a Southern church; he prefered a peaceable division.

Mr. Early supported the motion. He said they had come to a point
where they must divide, and he challenged the North to méetthem and’

divide in peace and good feeling. He made an ‘appeal to the old men
in behalf of a good natured separation, «:

The resolution was adopted, Carat adjourned,
wy ee

293
Thursday, June 6,

The committee on slavery made their final report as follows.

The Committee on Slavery beg leave to present their final report.

After a careful examination of the petitions and memorials commit-
ted to them by the Conference, they find petitions from nine Annual
Conferences. The remainder are from the people, and in all contain
over 10,000 signatures.

The leading topics presented in the various petitions are as follows:

1. The petitioners pray that the resolutions on the testimony of per-
sons of color, passed at the last General Conference, may be rescinded.

2. that this body would not elect a Slaveholding Bishop. And

3. That the General Conference would take measures entirely to sep-
arate Slavery from the. Church.

Upon these points your Committee deem it inexpedient for the Gen-
eral Conference to take any action further than that which is recom-
mended in their first report. ,

Your Committee have also received a statement of the votes from
several of the Aunual Conferences upon the alterations proposed to be
made in the General Rules upon the subject of Slavery. No evidence,
however, has yet reached the Committee that the constitutional num-
ber of votes in the Annual Conferences has been obtained to make any

. ulterations in the General Rules upon the subject of Slavery.

All which is respectfully submitted.

Geo. Pecx, Chairman.

The above report was adopted without opposition. .

Bishop Hedding then made a short address respecting himself, his
health and ability to labor. He gave a history of his.itinerant life, brief
but touching, and concluded by saying that he did not consider him-
self able to perform full labor, but was willing to do what he could, if
he could be left free to jndge, and decline more than his health would
allow him to perform. He came to the conference with an intention
of resigning his office, but he should not tender his resignation at pres-
ent under existing circumstances. He is 64 years old, or will be to-mor-
row June 7,

The committee on Sabbath Séhools reported. It provides for an edi-
tor of Sabbath School books, and recommends that scholars contrib-
ute one cent per week, haif to be expended ia the school, and the other
half to be paid to the Treasury of the S. Union of the M. E. Church.
After laying one item upon the table which provided that superintend-
ents, being members of the church, should be members of the quar-
tely Conference, the report was adopted.

Mr. Early then asked liberty to present the protest in behalf of Dr,

¥
294

Bascom who was chairman of the committee that had peepared it. Leave
being granted, Dr Bascom read the protest. ee

The protest having been read, on motion, Dr. ‘Olin, Dr. Durbin and
Mr. Hamlin. were appointed a committee to pr epare a reply to the pro-
test to be recorded’ with it. | - pin

A motion was tiade to take up the report of the’ committee on ia
erancy. ENG

A.D. Peck moved as a substitute that the report on slavery ‘be taken
up.

The chair decided that the subsntale was out of order, by which he
yeversed the action of one of the other bishops who put just such asub-
stitute. ae

It was then moved to lay the motion on the table which was lost.

The motion prevailed to take up the report of' the commettee on Itin-
erancy. i

This report recommends several i impor! tant changes, which may be
noticed without giving the ‘detail.

That a presiding elder, after having been four years on a district, shall
not be returned to it under six years. Adopted.

That the bishops be not allowed to put more than twelve charges i ina
district. This caused considerable discussion, was amended by strike-
ing out twelve and inserting fifteen, and was then adopted.

That preachers after being two years ona charge, shall not be return-
ed to the same charge under six years, and shall not be continued in
the same city more than four years in succession, and after having been
four years in a city, shall not be returned under four years. Adopted.

Conference adjourned.

Afternoon Session. — A report from the Book Committee of small mo-
ment was adopted. ‘

P. P. Sanford presented a report from the Missionary Society of the
M.E. Church. The secretary commenced reading, but soon got stuck,
not his fault, he was a first rate reader — while he was seeking help, a
motion to lay it on the table was made and lost.

The secretary still stuck — Moved té'refer it to the committee of pub-
lication, which was carried.

Levi Scott offered the following resolution, viz;

Whereas, the Committee on Episcopacy do not find it practicable to re-
port the number of Bishops necessary to be elected at this Conference;
and whereas, the report of said committee is not essential to the action
of the Conference in the. premeses ; therefore,

Resolved, That this Conference elect two additional. Bishops, ssid that
205-

to-morrow (Friday) at 10 o’clock be fixed as thé time ‘for electing said
Bishops and the other gereral officers of the Church. fo

This was stoutly opposed by'the South. The main argument was
that they were not prepared to act until they hear rl ‘from ‘the’ bishops,
and learn how many of the present number were effective, ‘and what
was to be the relation of Bishop Andrew.

Mr. Cartwright supported the motion in'his usual stile which makes
every body laugh but himself. ways

While the discussion ragea with great fury, the > following w was present-
ed by Bishop Soule in behalf of the board of bishops, |

To the General Conference :

Rey. ann Dean Bretiken: — As the case of Bishop Andrew } inavoid-
ably involves the futtire atfon of the “Superintendents, which, in ete
judgement, in the present position of the Bishops they have no discres-
sion to decide, they’ respectfully request of. the General Conference off-
cial instruction in answer to the ‘following: questions.

First. Shall Bishop Andrés" shame remain as it now stands in the

Minors; Hyinn-book and Discipline, orbe struck offof those official ree-
ords ?

Second. How shall the Bishop obtain his support as provided for
in the Discipline, or in some other way?

Third. What work, if any, may the Bishop perform, and how shall he
be appointed to the work?

JOSHUA SOULE, ,
ELIJAH HEDIYN, G, |
B. WAUGH,
THO.'A. MORRIS.
After much discussion, ‘and many attempts to evade, coming to a di-

rect vote, the following resolutions were adopted i in answer to the doc-
ument, being forced through under the previous question.

1. Resolved, as the sense of this Conference, \that Bishop Andrew’s
name stand in the Minutes, Hymn- -book and Discipline as formerly.

2, Resolved, That the rule in relation to the support of a Bishop?and
his family applies to Bishop Andrew.

3. Resolved, That whether in any, and in what work Bishop Andrew
be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and action in re-
lation to the previous action of this conference in his case,

The yeas and nays were ordered on all three of the above resolutions,
and were taken as follows:

First resolution —r yeas 153, nays 18,

Second resolution — yeas 153, nays 14,

Having proceeded thus far, J.T. Peck moved a substitute, for the
third resolution, which was Jaid upon the table.

ot ‘
>

296

Mr. Winans opposed the resolution on the ground that a bishop had
no right to choose whether he would travel or not. He said the two
votes already passed acknowledged him to be a bishop unimpeached,
and the world would go regard it. He congratulated the south on hav-
ing obtained a slave-holding bishop, and on having obtained his recog-
nition by the General Conference.

Mr. Cartwright said he hoped the brother would not shout before he
got happy. Mr. Collins moved a substitute which was laid upon the
table. ‘

Mr. Sever offered a substitute which was laid upon the table. Great
excitement now reigned.

A motion was made to adjourn, which was lost.

The previous question was then moved and sustained, and the vote
being called on the resolution stood thus:

Yeas, 103. Nays 67. The South voted against the resolution.

A motion was then made for adjournment which failed.

The motion providing for the election of bishops, which was under
discussion when the document from the bishops was presented, was
now called up.

Moved to lay it on the table. Lost.

Previous question moved. Lost.

Moved and carried to adjourn.

ne ne

James Porter of New England asked liberty to change his vote on

' the first resolution defining the position of Bishop Andrew. Liberty

being given, he voted in the negative. Mr. Adams of the same confer-
ence asked and obtained the same liberty.

F.G. Hibbard of the Genesee conference, asked liberty to with-
draw his vote, and to enter in place of it, a protest against being com-
pelled to voté This was the most strange request over made, for if the
vote was withdrawn, the protest would be uncalled for, yea ialse. The
Conference did not grant his request. Several items cf business done
of little importance.

The resolution under discussion when the Conference adjourned, fix-
ing a time for the election of bishops, was called up. Some discussion
followed, and the previous question beirg moved, and sustained, the
resolution was carried, to go into the election at three o’clock this after-

noon.

The report of the committee on’ slavery was then taken up.

»

\
297

Mr. Mitchell advocated striking alf ‘from thé Journal that related’ to
the appeal of Silas Comfort. uh :

Dr. Peek said if any brother from the South could say that the Com-
fort case, as it stood upon the journal would’ Be prejudicial to them, he
would consent to amend the report, so as to strike it all out.

Judge Longstreet ‘of Georgia' opposed the motion to amend, s0 as to
strike out the record of the Comfort appeal, '

The vote: was taken on the report simply to repeal what related to
colored testimony, and it was adopted. Yeas 115. Nays 40.

Mr. Scott offered a resolution affirming that the church stands the
same now on the subject of eolored eatin as it did prior to 1840,
Laid upon the table.

Moved by P. P. Sanford and ‘seconded’ by Judge Longstreet, that
Bishop ‘Andrew be furnished with a copy of all the papers relating to
his case. Carried.

The report on a course of study for candidates for deacon’s and él-
der’s orders, was taken up and discussed, and finally adopted. It di-
reets a four years’ course of study to be prepared by the Bishops, and
published at the Book Room.

The report of the cominittee of nine on division was presented and
read as follows: 2

Whereas, a declaration has been presented to this General Confer-
ence, with the signatures of fifty-one delegates of the body, from thir-
teen annual conferences in the slaveholding states, representing that, for
various reasons enumerated, the objécts'and purposes of the Christian
ministry and church organization cannot be successfully accomplished
by them under the jurisdiction of this Senetal Conference as now con-
stituted ; and , ;

Whereas, in the event of a''separatidn, a contingency to which’ the
declaration asks attention as not improbable, we eésteem it the duty of
this Generat Conference to meet the'emergency with Christian kindness
and the strictest equity ; ‘therefore, i

Resolved, By the delegates of the several atmual Conferences in
General Conference asserabled,

Ist, That should the delegates from’ the Conférerices in the slavehold-
ing states find it necessary to unite in d distinct ecclesiastical connec-
tion, the following rule’shall be observed with regard to'the Northern
boundry of such connection. All the societies, stations and conferen-
ces adhering to the church in the South, by a vote of the majority of
the members of said societies, stations: and conferences, shall remain
under the unmolested pastoral enré of the Southern church, and the
298 .

ministers of the M. E. Church shall in no wise attempt to organize
churches or societies within the limits of the. church south, nor shail
they attempt to exercise any pastoral oversight therein, it being under-
stood that the ministry of the South reciprocally observe the same rule
in relation to stations, societies and conferences adhering by vote of a
majority to the M. E, Church, provided also that this rule shall apply
only to societies, stations and conferences bordering on the line of divis-
jon and not to interior changes, which shail in all cases be left to the
care of that church within whose territory they are situated. .

2 That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and.office in
the M. E. Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that church, or withous
blame attach themselves to the church South.

3d. Resolved, by the delegates of all the annual conferences in Gen-
eral Conference assembled, that we recommend to all the annual con-
ferences, at their first approaching sessions, to authorize a change of
the sixth restrictive article, so that the first clause shall read thus —
“They shall not appropriate the produce of the book concern, nor of
the chartered fund, to any purpose other than for the benefit of the trav-
elling, supernumerary, superannuated and worn out preachers, their
wives, widows and children, and to such other purposes as may be de-
termined upon by the votes of two-thirds of the members of the Gen-
eral Conference.

4th. That whenever the annual Conferences, by a vote of thres-
fourths of all their members voting on the third resolution, shall have
eoncurred in the recommendation to alter the sixth restrictive article,
the agents at New York and Cincinnati shall, and they are hereby au-
thorized and directed to deliver over to any authorized agent or appoin-
tee of the church South, should one be authorized, all notea,and book
accounts against the ministers, church members or citizens within its
boundaries, with authority to collect.the same for the sole use of the
Southern church, and that said agents also convey to the aforesaid agent
or appointee of the South all the real estate and assign to him all the
property, including presses, stock and all right and interest connected
with the printing establishment at Charleston, Richmond and Nashville,
which now belongto the M. E. Church.

5th, That when the annual Conferences, shall have approved the
aforesaid change in the sixth restrictive article, there shall be transferred
to the above agent of the Southern church, so much of the capital and
produee of the Methodist book concern as will, with the notes, book
accounts, presses, &c., mentioned in the last resolution, bear the same
proportion to the whole property of said concern that the travelling
; 299

ministers in the Southern church shall bear to all the travelling mitis-
ters of the M. E. Church; the divisioh to be made on the basis of the
number of travelling preachers in the forthcoming minutes.

6th. That the above transfer shall be in the form of annual payments
of $25;000 per annum, and specifically in stock of the book concern
and in Southern notes and accounts due to the establishment, and ac-
cruing after the first transfer mentioned above; and until all the pay-
ments are made, the.Southern church shall share in all the nett profits
of the book concern, in the proportion that the amount due them, or in
arrears, bears to all the property of the concern.

7th. That be and they are hereby appointed commissioners to
act in concert with the same number of commissioners appointed by
the Southern organization, (should one be formed,) to estimate the
amount which will fall due to the South by the preceding rule, and to
have full powers to carry into effect the whole arrangements proposed
with regard to the division of property, should the separation take place.
And if by any means a vacancy occurs in this board of commissioners,
the book committee of New York shall fill the vacancy.

8th. That whenever any agents of the Southern church are clothed
with legal authority or corporate power to act in the premises, the agents
at New York are hereby authorized and directed to act in concert with
said Southern agents, so as to give the provisions of these resolutions a
legally binding force.

Oth. That all the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
meeting-houses, parsonages, colleges, schools, conference funds, cem-
eteries, and of every kind, within the limits of the Southern organiza-
tion, shall be forever free from any claim set up on the part of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, so far as this resolution can be of force in
the premises. ;

10th. That the chureh so formed in the South shall have an equal
right to use all the copyrights i in possession of the book concerns at
New York and Cincinnati at the time of the settlement by the com-
missioners.

Resolved, That the Bishops be respectfully requested to lay that part
af this report requiring the action of the annual Conferences, before
them as soon as possible, beginning with the New York Conference.
ROBERT PAINE, Chairman. ..:

 

New York, June 7, 1844.
\

The order of the day was then taken up, which |was the election of
Bishops. The Conference had balloted twice without electing any one,
and were about proceeding to a third trial when the reporter left this
300. -_ a

seat in order to secure. his passage in a boat, homeward. Thus ends his
lab ors for this campaign, and.a hard one ithas been, Some errors have
; occurred which a intended to, have : re sorrentod at, the,close, bat so much

must bee exc caged. from going over: vhs, Tous ‘and. weary columns to hunt
them, out. He believes i it generally gorrect, and if any small .mistakes.
should be detected, the excuse will be found in the,factthat-the reporter
had his seat in the, galler y, where .there was, often; much, noise, and
where some persons, for some purpose, often, crowded him, and some-
times attempted to crowd him out of his seat, Whether or not they
took this hint from a certain editor, wha, though he has been in kings’
palaces, published to the world, that the reporter of the True Wesleyan
ought not to be allowed a place in the General, Conference, others, must,
judge. But it is finished. ‘ Lorser Lee.
[ The following is from the M. E. Official Report.)

Mr. Peck:moved:to suspend the rules, in order‘to take up the special
order of the-dey, which was carried. :

The conference then proceeded to ballot for the election of two bish-
ops, which resulted as follows. Whole number of votes 176. Neces-
sary to a choice 89, , a

: Ist 2d.
Rev. E. S. Janes,...........00008. OG ite ciereverecsiicn 102
— L. L. Hamline,............... ED hess Sidincessheest a 90 *
— Dr. George Peck,....... tac aOR Paine iO!
— Dr. H.B. Bascom,........... 6OGs cevescass 262
— Ae Fy Wrighity, e602 2s ciesee vols DG ess cases = «20
— Dr. Elliott,............2268. «aro
— Dr. Bangs,......6. cece ee eeeee 2
eo Mi, Ames, cece isecee areieine 3 eesteye 1
— Mr. Pitman, ..... Fs vanavatica Bvctaaiale AO Seis vehiere es Sebratane 1
— Dr. Durbin,........ WO Scitech Relve ose 2
— Dr. Olin,.......... av cde doak 1B wanes cuit ed

On the second ballot it was ascertained that there had been more
votes cast than there were voters, and the ‘balloting.was declared void.
Dr. Capers mover that E. S. Janes be declared duly elected a bishop
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. ‘This was objected to by several
y members, and the motion was withdrawn. The conference then pro-
ceeded to ballot the third time, each member coming up and depositing
his ballot as his name was called.
Whole number of votes,......+ Se cunatsteede cds 176 ©
Necessary to a choice,.......-- 4 Miaahinle Panels BD
301

 

Rev. E. S. Janes,........- jena eau 99
— L. L. ‘Hamline,........ eset agiaiee meme 102
> DE GaP CCK oc cic teiiwcs auton ves valine: 74
— Dr. H. B. Bascom,.... ja oat ite a Sane 52
— J. F. Wright,................ wis oatbaisiers 17

ee Dr. Clings de cael isle teense cecwaede 2
— Dr. Durbin, .2.....- NES Sacaee ES Gia teece 1
— Dr. Bangs,......- (Sughd a Paes sarees 1
ae Mr Ames) Seis Pesahuies exteeaaesacmerwas 1

The President then announced ‘that Leonidas L. Hamline and Ed-
mund 8, Janes were dufy elected Superintendents or Bishops of the M.
E. Church. Conference theh meliouened

f
‘

FN en one

 

 Satarday, Jane 8

The special committee on the best plan for increasing the mission
flinds reported in substance as follows: —

The committee appointed to devise a more uniform and efficient plan
of raising funds for missionary purposes recommend the establishment
of a Conference Missionary Society, auxilary to the Missionary Society
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, which Conference Missionary Soci-
ety should annually jtransmit to the corresponding secretary a report of
its operations, and the amount of funds collected.

That the presiding elders should bring the subject of missions before
the quarterly meeting conferences, each of which quarterly conferences
should appoint a committee to assist the presiding elders in their plans
for raising funds, such as preaching sermons, holding meetings, &c.

That itshould be the duty of preachers in charge of circuits and sta-
tfons to organize one or more missionary societies, auxiliary to the mis-
stonary society of the annual conferencé, to take up amissionary colleo-
tion in each congregation within their respective charges, to appoint in
each class a missionary collector, to collect from the members one cent
e week, &c. :

That the quarterly conferences shall fill up vacancies in the mission~
ary. committee ; that the said committee ‘shall, at least once a year, hold
missionary meetings within their respective charges; and that in the ex-
aminations of the preachers at the annual conferences, a reference be
had to the faithful performance of: their duties in reference to- the mis.
ajonary cause. ‘

The committee on the Chartered Fund reported on the communica-

tipn of the Rev. John A. Gere, in relation to a legacy left to the Charter
26.
302

ed Fund by the Rev. Thos. Keys,. That report recommends that the
communication be refered to the trustees of the Chartered Fund. The
report was laid on the table.

Dr. Bangs then preseuted the following report from the select com-
mittee on the. Sabbath :-—

The committee appointed on the Sabbath beg leave to report —

That they have taken into consideration the object of their appoint-
ment, and are prepared to say that they consider that the divine appoint-
ment of one day in seven for holy purposes cannot be questioned by
any believer in divine revelation. They, therefore think it unnecessary
to enter into any argument to establish this point, it being se plainly re-
vealed and so obviously promotive of the health, comfort, and more par-
ticularly of the religious enjoyment of mankind. Hence it is a matter
of joy to behold the efforts that are put fourth by various religious de-
nominations in our country, by the formation of associations, the hold-
ing of conventions, and the use of various other means, to promete the
due observance of the Cliristian Sabbath. \ ‘

Had they time the committee could say much on this subject, .but
they must content themselves by observing that they are glad to find
from the documents submitted to their inspection, that the Christian
public is waking up to the importance of renewed exertions to put, down
the desecration of the holy Sabbath, and thereby induce the peaple gen-
erally to a right observance of its obligations, and also to find that our
public men, the owners of steamboats, of railroads, and other, public
conveyances, are becoming more und more favorable to, the promotion
of this object. . “at

The committee conclude their report is offering to the consideration
of the conference the adoption of the following resolutions :—

Ist. Resolved by the delegates of.the several annual conferences in
General Conference assembled, That it be earnestly recommended to
all our preachers and people to use their best exertions to promote the
due obsorvance of the holy Sabbath, by co-operating with the: variqus

associations that have been formed jor this purpose. aa)

‘2d. Resolved, that it be the duty of all.cur preachers to enforce, Spe
quently from the pulpit the divine obligation which all are under to keep
the Sabbath day holy; being fully convinced that were this precept blot-
ted from the decalogue, and men left without the restraints which itim
poses, religion and (of course) morality would cease to exert their saving
and hallowed influences. Respectfully submitted.

‘Signed, N. Baxes Chairman.

Adopted.

Mr. Paine moved to s:wpend the rules in order to take up the report
303

of the committee of nine. He thought it necessary to dispose of the
inmost important business ‘first, and the nepart of this committee he con-
sidered of vast importance,

Dr, Bangs concurred as to the importance of this report, of which he
thought the conference must have been convinced, simply from hearing
itread. If the other business were first disposed of, the number of
members then left would be small. He hoped, therefore, the confer-
ence would take up the report.

Mr. Cartwright thought it was natural or constitutional somehow to
make difficulties. Now they could live a hundred years without that re-
port, but the election of conference officers must be attended to,

Mr. Crowder said Mr, Cartwright might not feel so sensibly as he and
those with him did on the subject of this report, but every menther ought
deeply to feel its importance, for while he believed they might live a
hundred or a thousand years with tbat report, he was equally sure they
could not live without it. : .

Mr. Porter said there were brethren there whom they would see vo
more when the election was over. He deemed the report as important
as any that had been before that body, and wished to meet it in the cool
of the morning understandingly and sincerely.

The motion to suspend the rules was carried, and the report taken up
and read. 2

Dr. Elliott moved its adoption, and would explain his views on the
subject without attempting to approach debate. ‘We bad had the oppor-
tunity of examining it, and had done so, narrowly, He believed it would
insure the purposes designed, and would be for the best interests of the
Church. It was his firm opinion that this wasa proper course for them
to pursue, in conformity with the Scriptures, and the best analogies they
could collect from the ancient Churches, as well as from the best orgar-
ized modern Churches, All history did not furnish an example of so
large a body of Christians remaining in such close and unbroken con-
nection as the M. E. Church. It was now found necessary to separate
this large body, for it was becoming unwieldy. He refered to the Church-
es at Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, which, though they contin-
ued as one, were at least as distinct as the Methodist E. Church would
be if the suggested separation took place. The Church of England was
ene under the Bishops of Canterbury and York, connected and yet dis-
tinct. In his own mind tt had been for years perfectly clear that to this
cenclusion they must eventually come. Were the question that now un-
happily agitated the body dead and buried, there would be good reason
for passing the resolutions contained in that report. As to their repre-
304

sentation in that General Conference, one out of twenty was bute
meagre representation, and,to go on as they had done, jt would soon be
ane out of thirty. And the body was now too large to do business ad
vantageously. The measure contemplated was not schism, but separa-
tion for their mutual convenience and prosperity.

Dr. Pain said, the committee wished a verbal alteration made. In ‘tai
fifth resolution “ preachers”? were spoken of in the southern Church,
and “ ministers” in the northern. Nothing was said there of the Cha»
tered Fund —the committee had prepared the pupae additional res-
lution to meet the omission :—

12. Resolved, That the Book Agents at Naw Vouk be dir ected to mak
sich compensation to the conferences South for their dividend from thi
Chartered Fund as the commissioners,to be provided for shall agree upon.

Mr. Crowder. Is it dividend, or capital ?

Dr. Bangs. It must be dividend— the capital cannot be touched.

Mr. Griffith had a few words to say in relation to this extraordinary
measure, against which he would record his dissent if he stood alonp
inthe matter. He contended that if to pass an act that was against the
law be termed extra-judicial, then this measure was extra-legislative
They dared not refer this question to the annual conferences, which the
coustitution required them to do, but they put it on a very different is-
sue, viz., When a majority of that conference thought it expedient, then
the annual conferences were to be applied to, to make a distribution of
the property of the body. They put it in the power of any body of
men to reorganize themselves and make adistinct body whenever they
chose. He denied that any one had a right to divide the M. E. Church, .
He wanted to know if they were sent here to divide the M. E. Church
If there was any such authority he had not seen it.

Again, the report went to disfranchise them of their common right t
choose where they will belong. To be sure it granted to certain border
circuits to say where they would belong, but those interior it compelled
to submission, giving them no choice if they wished to be members of
the M. E. church, whether it should be northern or southern. Wherb
was the authority for all this? Where that liberty of conscience of
which no man could be deprived ? The man who would dare to deprive
his fellow man of the rights of conscience was a tyrant, whether hp
might be a member of the Methodist Episcopal General Conference ay
a Pope. He hoped the ayes and. noes would de called, that the peoplp
might know which delegates sent there for other purposes had consent
ed to the separation of the great body of the M. E. Church.

Mr. Cartwright felta little embarrassed ; ne the usual ecancuaaices 4
305

he felt when he spoke before his superiors, but he was embarrassed, in
the first place, because he saw his southern-brethren coming up to this
measure in one solid phalanx; and, in the second place, because he saw
lawyers and doctors, to say nothing of scribes and pharisees, lending
theif aid to it. He was also embarrassed because they were on the eve
of final adjournment, andif all were as anxious to retire as he was, they
would have gone home long ago. They had boasted, as the public
newspapers and your records will show, that the M. E.. Church is one
and indivisible —a unit, They had not had any schism, and perhaps
they would not have anynow. He thanked God that in the radical agi-
tation he was one of the ‘noble twenty-six who'stood up against the a¢-
tion of the Baltimore Conference in that matter. He would rather die
himself than kill the Church. He thought the measure was ae
one, and that it robbed both the North and the South of their rights. He
spoke of the South and then of the North, and said if any of the North
wanted to go with the South he would say with all his heart, Amen; let
them go, and God speed them. He thought it would create war and
strife in the border conferences; he knew it to be an easy matter to take
it in this lumping, gulping way, and to swallow it altogether, but he
chose to go right in the outset, and while he disclaimed their right to lord
it over the people, he also disclaimed their right to rob the people,

He then refered to Dr, Elliot. He had defended the doctor but afew
days since, but the doctor had exceeded him in his eloquence to-day.
Nevertheless he claimed to have as much common sense as Dr. Elliot;
and though his sense might be common, he trusted that it was not “un-
clean.” ‘The doctor had passed bver musty books, and had gone back
to the “days before the flood,” or shortly after, to find examples. The
M. E. Church was the creature of Providence, and he wauted to kiow
why the doctor’s faith failed him when they entered upon this ocean of
slavery. Now he thought Providence had always undertaken for them.
They had been Ishmaelites, every man’s hand against them, not only in
the world, but in every political manufacturing shop, but upborne by
the majesty of truth and the baptismal fire of the Holy Ghost, they had
outridden the storm and were not wrecked. From the time of O’Kel
ley downto the last Scottite disturbances, God had provided a trash-trap
to take the scum away. He had trusted God before, and he was not a-
fraid to trust him again. He thanked God that the M. E. Church was
not a prison, where they were obliged to stay, but there was a door in,
and a door out. He was opposed to this measure, because it would set
a bad precedent, and would have a tendency to break the Church into

a thousand ramifications. If they had come up to their conferences in
Zz
306-

view of this state of things, the case would have been altered entirely,
but he knew that some parts of the interior had never heard of sucha
alate of things, and it would be a difficult matter to satisfy the peopl
that we have not acted in advance of the Discipline and constitution,
He contended that they had no authority conferred upon them, eith-
er directly or indirectly, to divide the Church. As one of the southern
members had said to him emphatically, so. he would say to them now,
Pause before you go too far, pause —and if you will not do it for ours,
do it for your own sakes. He was willing to go for this proposition,
and this alone, to lay the whole case before the people during the next

‘four years, and if the next General Conference came up instructed ®

enact this measure, they will have some excuse for doing so. He had
discharged his duty in the fear of God and man, ahd he would go home
with a quiet conscience.

Dr, Paine said that he approached the subject with friendly feelings
toward all, and with solemnity on account of its importance. This had
been pronounced a revolutionary measure. There is notin any govern
ment 2 provision made to divide itself, and consequently it must be dore
by violence, or in a peaceful manner by common consent. The case of
Bishop Andrew had thrown them into a peculiar attitude. He could
not say what was the state of feeling in his conference, but those breth-
ren who live nearer have heard from their people, and they hear that
they are very much excited. Unless steps of conciliation were taken,
of which he saw no prospect, the possibility of separation could not be
denied, and this measure was taken that it might be effected pleasantly.
He did not know for certainty that separation would take place, that it
would become positively and imperiously necessary. He ardently hoped
it would not. The South generally did not desire it, they were unwik
ling that it should take place; and for himself, he could honestly say,
that the most painful circumstances through which he ever passed, ex-
cept the pangs of conviction and repentance before God, were those
connected with this subject. The South bad resorted to this measure
toavoid 2 greater calzmity. Hf on arriving at home, in order to keep
down faction, and prosecute harmoniously the great end of the Metho-
dist ministry, they formd it necessary to act upon this measure, they
should feel sound to do ii; ead cut of love to Methodist doctrines and
institutions, to the souis of ren, and the honor of their common Mas-
ter, carry out the provisicus of this emacunent. Put they would not
thus act unless diiven to it, The separation wcu:d not be etfected by

. the passage of these resolutions through the General Conférence. ‘They

tiust pass the annual conferences, beginning at New York, and when
307

they came round to the South the preachers there would think, and de-
liberate, and feel the pulse of public sentiment, and of the members of
the church, and act in the fear of God and with a single desire for his

glory. Let not brethren suppose that because they hailed from the
South they were pugnacious and schismatic. They were not reckless
men, but men of Ged and Christians. They had no revolutionary de-
signs, but desired to go home to their people, prepared to satisfy their
demands, and because they loved souls they wished to prepare for the.
worst. They should be one people still until it was formally announted,

by a convention of the southern ehurches, that they had resolved to ask
an organization in accordance with the provisions of the report. Twelve
or eighteen months would transpire ere thay could act in the premises,
by which time the feverish excitement —if feverish excitement it be —
will have passed away. The South, however, felt seriously apprehen-
give, that the necessity even now existed. Yet he repeated they were
not schismatics, no “trash-trap” was to catch them. He hoped the
brother did not apply that offensive term to them.

Mr. Cartwright. I did not.

Dr. Paine continued. They were not revolutionists, and though the
press —some of them, and these perbaps were letter-writers — had
dealt in vituperative remarks; he called upon them to bear witness that
their discussions had proceeded with marked kindness and courtesy
generally, while in committee not one unkind word had been uttered, or
an unkind feeling existed, Brethren who had heard from their peovle
were alarmed at the increasing dissatisfaction among them, ‘and all the
southern brethren desired was to have some ground to stand upon when
they got home. He could wish the discussions now to be at an end,
and that they should go home to pray, to think, and deliberate. Breth-
reu had placed them ina sad dilemma, for they had practically disputed
the equality of their rights. The brethren say, that they put their dis
sent upon this; he wished they, had put their dissent npon the acts that
had brought them to this, and that they had believed them when they
told them of this state of things. As to the allusions that had been
tade to border warfare, he could only say that the measure had been
prepared as a peace measure. If they were inclined for warfare, the
south had talent enough to enter upon it. If they (the south ) were to
call a mass-meeting in this city, and state their wrongs, they would be
able to enlist almost universal sympathy on their behalf, and the city
and the churches would be agitated; but this the south deprecated.
They strongly deprecated it; this measure had been concocted in a
spirit of compromise and fraternal feeling, in the hope of preventing *
308

agitation and schism. Let no man interrupt the fraternal “and loving
spirit they sought to establish, but let them enter upon the question in
the fear of God, and let their brethren be assured the south entertained
no bitter or hostile feelings in the premises. i

Dr. Luckey said that on some:subjects he had no objection to a little
levity, but he thought this of too grave and serious a character. It was
8 serious and eventful movement, because they had come to a very se-
rious and eventful crisis in the progress of Methodism in this country.
He regarded the resolution as provisionary and preliminary, settlihg
nothing at present, but providing in an amicable and proper way, for
such action as it might hereafter be necessary to take. He hoped such
necessity would never arise, and that southern brethren would not firid
it necessary to leave them. Reference had been made to secessions,
&c. But was it not better that they should separate than have a contin-
uation of strife and of warfare ? The danger apprehended by his friend
from Illinois existed only in the fires of his imagination. He (Dr. L.)
had said privately and frequently, that if the separation were necessary,
it ought to be amicably and constitutionally effected, and there was no
intention of doing it otherwise. Allusion had been made to the radical-
ism that had disturbed the church some years ago, but that had no affin-
ity with the present case. He granted that Mr. Wesley had contended
atone time for the unity of the Methodist body throughout the world,
but he subsequently saw it necessary to permit ‘the connection in the
United States to separate, and had it not been for the best ?

Dr. Bangs explained the composition of the committee, as formed by
three from the south, three from the middle states, and three from the
north. They were also instructed, by a resolution of the conference
how to act in the premises; that if they could not adjust the difficul-
ties amicably, they were to provide for separation if they could do so
constitutionally. ‘Under such instructions the committee went out and
proceed to interchange their thoughts upon the subject. Great difficul-
ties arose, which were revolved in their minds, and after two days of
close labor, after minute inspection and revision of every sentence, they
had presented this report, from which the conference would see that
they had at least obeyed their instructions, dnd had met the constitution-
al difficulty by sending round to the annual conferences that portion of
the report which required their concurrence. The speakers who have
opposed that report have taken entirely erroneous views of it. It did
not speak of division —the word had been carefully avoided through
the whole document — it only said, “ in the event of a separation taking
place,” throwing the responsibility from off the’shoulders of the’ Gen-
309

eral ‘Conference and upon those who should say that such a separation
was necessary. He hoped the time would never come. But what was
the true course for men br ought into difficulties? _ Why, there was an
old adage —and_ he knew not that it was any { the worse for its age —
Of two evils choose the least —the choice wes etwas the violent sep-
aration of the South and its peaceable and amicable separation ; and
which was the lesser evil? He need no answer, for the response was ak
ready in every man’s breast. Objections bad been made on the ground
of the resolutions interfering with liberty of couscience on the pert of
the members, by forcing them to take a position which they might nos
wish to take. That was"a gr oundless objection altogether. ‘The laws,
discipline, doctrines, government, all would be the same, and they
ghould be as warm in their affection ‘toward each other as they were
now. [Amen, in.a very earnest and feeling tone from De. Ca pers.}
Allusion had been made to the course pursued by Mr. Wesley, in reg
érence to the Methodist Church in the United States. The same would
apply to the Methodist Bocieiite in Ireland, They had an independent
conference. 7

Several voices. No, no. _

Mr. T.B. Sargent. They have a separate relation, just as the govern-
ment of Lreland differs from the governinent of England, — it is indeed
adapted to the civic government.

Dr. Bangs. That is just.what we want. The South ask a separate
conference, adapted to the institutions of that portion of the country.
Another evil was that there was a diversity of sentiment among tlm
border conferences; if the line proposed by the resolutions were drawn
it would lesson the evil and perhaps remove it out of the way altogeth-
ér. He ( Dr. B.) had been traveling preacher about forty-four vears,
and gloried in the belief that the M. E. Church was one; he had done
allin his power to keep it so. He hoped that the providence of God
would overrule the present adverse circumstances for good, but i? they
must separate, was it right to deprive their brethren of the south o+ their
just rights? Would it be right for the majority ta deprive the minority
af one iota of their rights, temporal or spiritual ? He would not do it,
and he hoped the conference would come to a unanimous adoption of
the report.

Mr. Filmore explained still further the constitution and labors of the
committee, and went on to say that the design of God in Taising up the
Methodists was to spread Scriptural holiness through the land. The
brethren from the South say, they fear they cannot go on doing this un.
der existing circumstances. The North say, if they yield any of the
310

ground they have taken, they shall throw impediments in their own
path in carrying out the same object. Now Methodism, as the child of
Providence, adjusts herself, as she has always done, to the circumstan-
ces of the case — she proposes that, if these fears prove well grounded,
they divide into bands, and go on spreading holiness through their res-
pective territor ies; their strife, he believed, would be to excel in straight-
forward Wesleyan Methodism. The resolutions do not say that the
South must go, will go, or that any body wants them to go; but simply
make provision for sucli a contingency, and provide that in such case
they shall have all necessary munitions of war for carrying on their ho-
ly enterprise. He did not think there was a man among them who
would dare to lay bis head upon his pillow, if he held from his southern
brethren one cent of their common funds.

The report had cost the committee three days of close application,
and the sub-committee had worked by night as well as by day. Every
sentiment in the report had been sifted, and every word weighed, and
the committee had brought it in understanding what it was. He was
aware it was the work of human hands; but let that General Confer-
ence propose fifty amendments, and fifty to one they would amend it
for the worse. ~

Mr. Finley could see in the report no proposition to divide the church.
If he saw such a preposul he should stop at the threshold. Nor did he
see any thing unconstitutional in it. The constitution did not require
them to send abroad a proposition to divide the Church, and it would
therefore be unconstitutional to send such a proposition to the annual
conferences, And now he expected his brother from Illinois, ( Cart-
wright ) and himself, would tear the blanket between them, they having
got hold on opposite sides.

‘The parties voting on each side of the great question stood precisely
alike. There was a great gulf between them, and he wished there
was middle ground on which both could stand. His heart would have
gladly moved further if he could have secured what he wanted; but'he
and his friends had gone as far as the safety of the work would allow
them. There was one point that had not been touched yet. Mr. Wes-
ley separated the American Church from the English Church. And in
1824-8 there was an application made by the Canada Conference to set
them off as a distinct Church ; and the General Conference told them
they had no power to do go, but gave them liberty to do just what they
now proposed to do with the South. They agreed, that if they went
off, and set up for themselves, we would authorize one of our Bishopa
to ordaiz a man for them, if they should elect one to the episcopacy.
311 '

Mr. Cartwright’ We did not give them any part of the funds,

Dr. Bangs. The New-York Conference gave them $10,000

Mr. Finley.. The General Conference voted that the New-York Con-
ference should make that division, and we are now doing nothing more
than we did then,

A call being made for the seaging of the Journal on this point,

Mr. Hamline took the fioor, by consent, until the journals were exam-
ined. He explained the actjon,of the committee in reference to the
sixth restrictive article. : When the first committee met they had be-
fore them a paper, which proposed a new form or division of the
Church. The committee thought | there were difficulties in the way of
such a proposition. One provision was to send it to the annual confer-
ences, but that was unconstitutional and revolutionary in its character ;
and when their votes came back the General Conference would have
no more authority than they had now, , Why then send it? The Book
Coneern is chartered in behalf of the General Methodist Episcopal
Church of the United States;.and if they did separate until only one
State remained, still. Methodism would remain the same, end it would
still ve the Methodist E. Church of the U.S. But if they sent out to
the annual-conferences to alter one restrictive article it would be con-
stitutional, aud to divide the Book Concern so that they might be honest
men and ministers, The resolution goes onto make provision, ifthe
annual conferences concur, for the security and efficiency of the south-
ern conferences, for the Methodist Church, would embrace them in its
fratertial arms, tendering to them fraternal feelings and the temporali-
ties to which they were entitled, . And the ¢ommittee thought 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 brethrer,
if they found they must.separate., God forbid that they should go asan
arm torn out of the body, leaving the point of junction all gory and
ghastly! But let them go as brethren. “jbeloved.in the Lord,” and let
us go und preach Jesus to them, and they.come and preach Jesus to us.

Dr. Bond said, he had paid attention to the reading of the report, and
understood the intention of the committee to be to provide for peace
and love, and harmony still to be perpetuated in the great Methodist
family. Such is the declaration, and. he hoped such was the sincere inten-
tion of that report. As to the constitutional objection, he presumed thar
no one there would contend that there could have been any constitution -
al provision for the separation of one part of the church from another ;
and if the necessity of the case now required it, it could only be justi-
fied by the adage, that “nevessity has no law.” In carrying out the
312
Provision becessary for such an adjustment, those who framéd thé re-
report were compelled to assume the right to prevent ‘churches and so-
cieties from deciding according to elective affinity. And hence it has
provided that societies or chuiches in‘ the ivterior conferences who go
aff, or who remain, cannot change their relation to the conferences where
they are found. They 'only’ justify this or'the ground of hecessity, to
avoid the agitations that would grow out of a different ‘state of things,
Why, then; (asked Dr. B.) if the object is to procure peace, and to pre-
vent conflicts — why then does it provide for a border warfare from Del-
. #ware to the Ohio River, and how much further my geography does
not supply data? ‘The Philadelphia Conference has all the slave terri-
tory of Delaware, Maryland, and ‘two counties of Virginia; and every
one who will be’left to say how fat the bordét extends, and all that por-
tion of the country must be’ agitated with the question as to what con-
ference they Deine to! 1 When you get to the Baltimore Conference,
you have ten counties below the Blue Ridge, and all the valley of Vir-
ginia, and here again must be carried ona‘border warfare! Again, the
Ohio Conference, and the Pittsbur gh takes i in parts of is and will
be exposed to the same bor der warfare!

Now the brethren cannot suppose; that while the warfare exists on
the borders, the interior will be at peace, or that we shall love each. oth-
ex as we ought. The same disastrous state of things will exist beyond
the Ohio River, and in every territory where slaveholding and non-slave-
holding conferences lie contiguous to each other. You therefore pro-
vide for a border warfare in the resolutions of thatreport. I do beseech
brethren to weigh well this matter and that they adhere. to the con-
ference lines as they now stand, and then we shall have peace. ‘There
will be perhaps a little agitation, but nothing of moment unless the
preachers make it. If we must come to this separation — which I have

never liked, and which I had hoped never to see in my day;— yet, if we
must come to it, let us provide for peace through the churches, and part
fn such a spirit that wé can continue to co-operate in the great work in
which we are all engaged, and let us not pass resolutions which will
perpetuate border warfare and strifé.

If it be necessary to abridge rights, which you have just as much right
tp abridge on the borders as in the interior, the necessity is the same in
ome case as in the other; and it is as absolutely necessary to prescribe
the relations along the borders as in the interior. I hope this has:been
averlooked by the brethren who have brought in that report; perhaps
in making out these resolutions they have taken the worst course arbi-
tRators can take, splitting the difference. This is always a bad plan where

‘
319

a great principle is concerned, as one Mde'must be right. I remember. :
an-anecdote of ‘Dr. More’s, respecting some travellers'who were descen- ‘
ding the ‘Alps, and were told by their guides, at a certain part of under-
crust in the déclivity, to give the reins to thé mules, with the assurance
that they would safely slide down. ''One, however; perceived a tree that
seemed to:be in his path, and he thought: he would meet the difficulty -
half way, and guide his animal’a little, and by thus splitting the difference
he ran against the tree. Now, sir, if you! ‘attempt to split the difference,
youtun againét'the tree. I'go for ' any ‘measure’ Of peace; ‘plt ¥ think
if we pass this our people will accuse us of 'the abridgment of their
rights and privileges’ fet the sake of upholding! an abstract principle.

Mr. Collins said, he belonged to a patt slaveholding and a ‘part non-
slaveholding country. He it connection with'others sought some com-
mon'‘greund, on which they tould’all meet and'unite in kind and fra-
ternal feelings: They were not able it'seertied to come to’ that ground.
He had mentioned at the’ tithe of the vote on Bishop Andrew’s case that
he'should move'a reconsideration ; and he had done so with the inten-
tion, that if any measure’ ¢ould' be proposed which would render that
action unnecessary, they might reéall it. “He had seen no such’ measure
\yet, and therefore had not moved areconsideration. He thought the re-

‘port contained the best proposition uhder'the circunistuncdss and they
were not prepared to throw out ‘any thing which would tend to heal the
breach. He hoped they would not come to’a separation at all. The -
southern brethren'had taken such gidund Before them, ‘and they ‘were
well known to be men of integrity, as well as talents and piety, and‘had
taken'a'strong hold upon their people, ¢o that‘ if the evil could be aver-
ted he believed it would be. But, if it must come, ‘let there be a pro —
rata division of 'the concern. ‘The preachers would Have’ to let the mem-
bers decide the question for themselves.

‘Mr: Porter said the cominittee had presented'that report as the best
thing that could be done under the circumstantes. The time was com-
ing when separation must take place. The difficulty was greater now
than it was four years ago, and would increase. If there were defects
in the document, they'could arrest it in the annual conferences. The
South could take no action tipon it'until the annual conférences had de-"
cided respecting the sixth rule: and ‘if, when they got-howe, and calm-
ly and deliberately examined it, they found ariy thing radically wrong, -
let them stop ‘it in their arinual conferences. The ‘document would be
printed and published, so'that they would hive ample opportunity and
better than they could possibly have now of judging of its real merits.

On motion, the previous question was tried and voted for, by 146 ayes, ©

a7
314

and 23 noes. . But Dy. Paine moved a reconsideration to make an amend- ,
ment, by striking out delegates and inserting conferences; alter which
Mr. Sanjord obtained the floor, and, opposed: the passage of the report
and resolutions, _ He said the amendment, did not affect the views he
entertained respecting the measure. . He wasaware that heghould stand |
in a very. small minority, but that did not at all affect his yletermination.
He had no wish to throw brethren into circumstances requiring a sepa-
ration ; nor did. he desire, if separation, were really and ubsolutely nec-,
essary, to refuse then their portion of the property, of the Church,, But
there wag in his estimation, a great difference between telling brethren
when they had separated they should have their portion, and opening the
door and ‘inviting them to separate. Of the latter character. he believ-
ed this measure. When they had taken their course, it would be time
enough to tell thei .what they would do. If they had seperated, how-
ever, he must be convinced that they, did it of necessity, lu.his opinion
the course now proposed was an encouragement to separation. Wirly
these views he should record his name in opposition to the whole pro-
cedure. He must do so, 'so far as he had a personal responsibility, as
‘the only way in which he could clear his own conscience in the sight
of Heaven in respect to this measure. eae
The conference then adjourned to half past 3 o’clock. ag
-dfternoon Session. <Aiter some explanatory conversation, Dr. Peck
avd Dr, Elliott were placed on the committee on the,.protest of the
‘Southern Conferences, vice Dr. Hannline elected to the episcopacy, and.
‘Dr. Olin gone home. a ee s
“The report of the committee of nine was then, taken up, aud adopted .
as far as section nine. : ‘
On section 10 being read, Mr. - ‘Randall Moved an amendment tothe
eflect that the Chureh in the South shouldshave a common right 10 use
the copy-right of any works in the possession of the conference. at the
time of the settlement ofthe pecuniary affairs by the commissioners, .
Adopted . rs io ante aah
Dr. Durbin. He had been laboring under a misapprebension inthe
matter of this report, He had-understood that. this action was to eoni-
mence in the South, if after the Southern bethren returned home, they
found it necessary. But, by the resolution, i it was: contemplated to begin
this aetion next week at the New York Annual Conference.,,:, This had
its, disadvantages. The leading conferences would haye to, decide un-
der the existing state. of excjtetnent; and then it was possible, when the
brethren returned, to their: people, they might find this. arrangement
unnecessary. He, would amend so. us to commence this action at the

af
1

315

South. There might be difficulties at present in getting the reqinsite
number of votes; but when the South Had taken action, and thus proved
its necessity, there wotild be’additional reason for the brethren in the
North being in favor of it.’ He would substitute New Jersey Confer-
ence for New-York. Be SE i
Dr. Paine said, the brother thst have greatly misunderstood him if
such was the impression he had received from his speech, or else he said
‘what he didnot design ‘to say. He said that’ thé’ subject would’ go round
before it came to the South: _If'this ametidment were adopted, it would
be twelve months ‘before it was laid’ before all the annual conferences,
andut least twelve months more before it'was settled. Whereas if it be-
gun at once, in twelve months" time they should Know whether they ‘had
leave peacefully to séparate, He hoped it would not be postponed.
The matter had been adequately ‘Yeprestrited,

Dr. Capers said he’ appreciated Dr. Durbin’s object and motives, and
wished that the Church at home was as cnlni’ as the Doctor seenied to
apprehend; but it Would at once be'seen by bretliren that this was a cem-
proinise measure, designed to ‘effect that peaceably which otherwise he
‘feared would be done violently. ‘Every mail increased thie apprehen-
‘soln of the southern brethren. If the ‘General Conference would put
their plan into such operation as Would show that they meditated action
upou the subject, it woulll materially’ ‘tend to measures of peace aiid

‘tranquility. the brethirent did not know the statd of things in the South
He should feel thankful to God if that portion of the Church could be by
‘why meins preserved’ from vilent disruption. T he southern brethren
had; he knew, taxed the charity of the brethrén componing that confer-
éuce in their atiitements relative to their position with their people.
was thought they spoke without caltniess and deliberation. The truth,
however was, that they stooid like meh at the death. Ifthe conterence
suspened aerion téo long, it would ome too late, atid’ would not save
them. O! that they could pour some oil on the' troubled feelings of the
‘South! O! that they could’ cause these waves to be still! He knew of
nothing so likely” to do this as the piissage, ee and a as brethren, of
the resolution now before them.

Me. Ruter, appreciating the feelings ofthe South, wished to amend the
amendment, by substituting the Kentucky Conference for the New-Jersey
Conference, which he understood to be the first conference in the South.

Dr. Winans gave the history of the matter it cormittee. It would ‘be
observed that there was ‘only one provision of the whole report that weut
to the annual conferences; ‘ahd that merely authorized, should | occasion
occur, the proceeds 'of’ the Book Coacern otherwise than was now ap-
316

propriated. They were not sending round to the annual conferences any
proposion in which the action of the South in reference to the separation
was concerned, ,, The only preposition was that they might, have liberty,
if necessary, to organize a, separate conference ; and it was important
that the South should know, at an early period, that they had such liber-
ty in order to allay the intense ex¢itement pebich prevailed in that por-
tion of the work. Poe tie 4 bo bbe

. Dr. Durbin at this stage of the pr cpetines trie ie amendment.

Dr. Luckey then moved, to strike out,“ New-York,” , eR a

Mr. Hamline would state the views of the committee, on the subject.
, They had carefully avoided presenting any resolution which would em-
brace the idea of separation or division... The article which was refered
to the annual conference had, not negessarily any connection, with divi-
sion. It was thought, as, complaints were abroad respecting, the pres-
,ent mode of appropriating, the, proeeeds of the Book Cone¢ern, it would
-be for the general good ;that,the. power to, appropriate such proceeds
should be put in-the power of a twe-thirds vote, instead of in the, power
of a mere majority, thus making i it more difficult to make a, wrong ap-
propriation. And the oecasion of this report was taken hold, of by the
committee to make it, more difficult tg misappropriate the funds, in which
they believed they should serve both the particular object of. the report
and, the general good of the M.. E. Church.

Mr. M’Ferrin presumed that there. were none there who would with.
hold from, the, South, their share in. the . Book. Concern; and he. therefore
could not see what-harm there could be in passing this resotution, which
he believed would go through the | anny ual, conferences almost without a
dissenting voice... And:if after if, came, round t tothe South, they say it
unnecessary fo, organize a separate conferenge, why, then no mischief
would have been done, _ And ag it could do us no harm, but must and
would do them great good, he hoped there, would be no opposition to it.

Mr, Coleman, supported the amendment.

Mr, Fillmore said he yas not, prepared to Stand thet and say what
his conference ‘would: do with the resolutions when they came, Defore
it, but he was quite sure his epnference would do what, was just and
honest toward their brethren:,, He. would fur rther remark that the, yiews
of the committee had-been fully and clearly explained. Their design
was to. put a restriction upon. the General, Conferenoe, and sto, make a
two-thirds vote. necessary to all appropriations of the produce ef the
Book Concern,,instead of a majority ouly..,.J The, whole of the southern
_ delegates who shad, spoken at all had declared dt to be theix honest con-
vigtion that the cause of God required immediate potion on the,part of
317

the North; and if they were convinced that immediate action would re-
lieve the South, they all went‘for relief.

Mr. Drake ofsposdd'the amendment. i

The original resolution was then adopted. ee

Dr. Bungs moved | Mint the blank in the 7th resolution be filled. A-
adopted :

“Dr. Bangs, Dr. Peck,'and Mr. inte} were appointed as the cotimis-
sioners on eas part of the General Confecnce, and the report wag a-
aoped:* tp Sela d i ETS

On motion of Dr. Winans, the secretary was instructed to furnish
“Mr. Early with an authenticated copy of the report, and the declaration

ne report was based fipon,

‘On motion of Dr. Luckey, the Bishops were requested to ‘ordain the
newly-elected Bishops on Moiiday, at 11 o’clock in the forenoon.

Mr. Drake offered a resolution that the papers and periodicals under
‘the | patronage ‘of the Gerietal Conference be requested not to say any
thing on thé exciting subjects that have agitated thia conference, “Tha
motion was laid on the table by a large majority,

“Mr, Early moved that they now proceed with'thé order of the day,
viz, the election of officers, Adopted, And the conference adjourued.

Pe Mea! ha

PRO] pane pess prerenen an eapm aay

‘Monday, June 10.

On motion, the business of the couferenee was suspended until alter
the ordination.

By ten o’clock the galleries of the church were filled with spectators,
in expectation of the ordination service, and before eleven o'clock the
space beyond the bar was filled. The: ‘bishops elect were in the house
‘jn the early part of the morning, grave and thoughtful.

Bishop Soule addressing the audience said, He presumed that the con-
ference and qll persons assembled would be deeply impressed with the
occasion on which they were entering. He hoped all would compose
themselves as far as possible, and entey jpto. the ae of prayer for
svhich the occasion so loudly called,

Six chairs having been placed in front of the abe Mr. Hamline, at
the invitation of Bishop Soule, took his seat, with Mr. Pickering: on his
right and Mr. Fillmoye on bis left. Dr, Janes followed, alsa taking his
seat in front of the altar, with Dr. Pierce an his right and Dr, Capers on
his left. Bishap, Waugh offered up the introductory prayer and read

a
3L8

Acts xx, 17-85., Bishop Morris read the, Gospel, Jobn xxi, 15, and fol
lowing verses, and Mathew xxiii, 18, and following versetr:
Mr. Pickering then presented Mr. Hamline to. the episcopacy, and;Dr.
Pierce presented Dr. Janes, each,saying. as /he, did 50; “We present this
holy. man to be ordained a bishop.” BishopSoyle then offered up prayer
and put the usual questions to the candidates, which were answered by
them with much solemnity and. feeling, -Mr,. Hamlipe,being powerfully
affected, even to tears... sige cera it Me ae
The deepest silence and almost hallowed feeling pervaded the large
_assembly. Bishop, Hedding, haying offered the prayer following the ex-
amination, the candidates knelt before the alter, and the Bishops united-
ly laying their hands on each successively, Bishop Hedding pronquneed
the awful, and, thrilling words,, “¢ Receive ye the Holy-Ghost” &e,, and
delivered the ordination charge, the, candidates, as upyal, pach placing

: his yight band, on the Bible, oat eeimite. 0. Sanaa ade ih tt
.., The bishop then offered up the, congluding prayer and, benediction,
"after which, the bishops respectively, gavg the right hand of friendshipso

their newly elected brethren, who. were condpeted within the alter and
took their seats on the Jeft of the president, Bishop Waugh, who then
occupied the chair. yf jag Pty Tes ca teeta !

The ordination being over, which occupied exactly half an hour, the
conference proceeded with their business.

The nomination of an editor of the Sunday School Advocate gave rise
to some discussion.

A resolution, was passed some days ago, on the recomendation of the
Sunday school committee, providing, an editor for the Sunday school
exclusively. An opposition was now made by Mr. Colling,to ithe nom-

. ination. of such editor, and supported. by. several of the, members,:;

Dr. Peck, Mr. Fitch Reed,:and Mr. Early strongly, pressed,.the,abso-
lute necessity. of such an appointment, and of a general improvement in
our Sunday school literature, as,several schoals were compelled, er

- exhausting our catalogue, to go to other denominations for, beokad

:Mr.:Collins. pressed his opposition, on the authority of Dr. Bond.and
“Mr. Sanford, both of whdm said. the: office was unnecessary... ss
‘Mr. Crowder was: insfavor, ‘and a motion, that had heen,.made, by, Mr
Green, to reconsider the vote appointing such.editor, was laid on the ta
ble. se MG ter tye at ‘ Ak

. Mr. Green then moved the reconsideration of the

”
a

‘Vote appointing a0

| assistant editor.to.the New-York Christian Adyocate and. Journal, with

a view, it was understood, to-give the Sunday school department toMt.
he : ;

4 * ee a ae ‘ sf
Coles. PHAR) Hy cy gis ; mea eoo8 Ak ‘
: Z
G3l9

_.4 Dr. Bangs wag in favor of the,reconsidemtion. He thought an assis-
tant editor.to a. weekly paper quite unnecessary... 1. dao f-weZ, to
;, Dr. Bond explained:the duties of, each editorial department, and said
it was jmpossible for, one editor alone to. conduct that paper successful-
ly. But the assistant, editor might also attend to the Sunday;school. de-
partment, and any deficiency jin that department wags not the, fault of
Mr. Coles and himself, who had. neglected no, mannyscriptthat had been
sent to them. But-they had sot,wnderstaod that they were;to,previde
original matter. He would take upon himself to say:that the Sunday
School Advocate ;was the best, paper of the kind.in the. United States,
and he would say it freely, because the credit was pot fue to himself.
Te take away one..of the editors of the New-York Christian Advocate
and Journal would be to place it, in great jeopardy.,,, The senior editor
had to supply the editoyials, to.read,a great part of, the mgnuscripts,inot
only, those which went into.the paper, but also those which. were rejec-
ted, attend to the exchange lists, furnish the foreign and domestic intel-
«digence, &¢.,,8ec,, Who then, was to attend to the,other matters pertain-
ing to tie;paper, such as making selections, arranging ,the articles, a-
bridging, the obituary, notices, examining the proofs, &c., &c. Still they
could do.all that was wanted in, the way,of Sunday school books. j,.

» Dr. Winans thought an assistant editor was-necessary. All the great
papers, had two or more editors,, The N..Y. Christian Advocate and _
Journal was the leading paper of the connectigy, and supplied much of
the matter for their other papers. . It ought to. combine extensive infor-
mation, and extensive original, views. -But,he was not opposed to hav-
ing an editor for the Sunday, schao],department,, though he, thought if
all the editors did, what. they ought to-do, there were plenty. of. them.

br» Mr. Early. was)in, favor, of veconsideration, and of having only one

1.editor, as with their other Methodist, paper.. ot op beaeotblas 1999

im, Dr. Bangs xose and_spoke for.a-few minutes strongly against having
an assistant editor, when the: houy.of, adjournment having come, ,,the

I conference adjqurned to half past three. yi scud ui bes isles 16%

sukt Afternoon Session. — Mr. Redman, moved that the Book Agent,be di-
rected to pay to Wm. Patton ths sum of $15, to defray his expenses
while sick. Adopted. yj.tuxt ah sedate lei Yoon Ft

_ The business before the conference when. they,adjourned, viz — the
dispensing with the assistant editor of the, Christian Advocate— was
taken up. atid th 6 Pg el morn,

ai Dr. Bangs pursued his remarks, and moved that there be one editor
for the Advocate, and one for the Sunday school books.,,,.The confer-
ence at length decided to appoint an editor for the Sunday.schoo! de-
320

partment, atid Messrs. D. P. Kidder, of New-Jersey, Joseph Longking,
of New-York, J. Kennaday, of the Philadelphia Conference, and Abel
Stevens, of Boston, were putin nomination. Mr. Kidder was ‘elected.

‘Mr. Porter moved the appointment of a committee to estimate the éx-
‘penses ofthe book: agents,” dditors, &c. On motion the salaries were
ordered to be fixéd for four years, and a ‘committee selected from the
locality of the respective’ Book’ Concerns. :

New York Committee — A Griffith, P. P. candiped, imac Wisney
James Porter, Dr. Bangs. ota aio

Cincinnati Committee E. W. Behon J.B. Tinks, Te Crouch, P.
Cartwright, W. H. Raper. me

A motion was then made'to fix ‘the Place ‘of meeting for the next
General Conference. Invitations wére read from New-York, Philadel-
phia, Baltimore, Louisville, St. Louis,’ Pittsburg, &e. :

Mx. Brush, advocated Louisville, and Mr. Cartwright soit taihibes
of Pittsburg. Thé'vote was in favor of Pittsburg. 7

So the General Conference are directed to meet in Pittsburg in 1848.

Several other resolutioris were offered and disposed of. Among thém
was one recommending that the anuual conferences be instructed to
take into consideration the propriety of reinstating inthe Discipline Mr.
Wesley’s rule ngainst drunkenness, or buying or selling spirituous liquors,
or drinking them, unless in cases of extreme nécessity. It was adop-
ted — ayes 99, noes 33.” y

Mr. Early offered a resolution,—

That it requires two-thirds of all the members of the General Confer-
ence to alter or recommend a chinge in the restrictive rules, '

The resolution was lost, the vote béing ayes 50, noes 90.

Bishop Soule mentioned to the conference ‘that he held in his hand
a letter addressed to the Bishops. It was signed ‘by Dr. Bascom, and
referred to the ‘protest recorded by hint ‘and’ fifty other members Rea
the vote of the conference in Bishop 'Andrew’s case.

For himself, and in behalf of his colleagues, Bishop Sonle requested
that the letter might be spread upon the ones to accompany the
protest.

The Case of Bishop Andrew. — Dr. Durbin obtained Teave to read the
report of the commbittee appointed to prepare a statement of ficts in
relation to the action of the’conference in Bishop Andrew's case. |

Evening Session, — The report of Dr. Biepin which was under con-
sideration when ‘they adjourned, was taken” up, and a motion for its
adoption made,"

Mr. Crowder could not let that motion pass without expressing his

‘
B21

sentimentson the subject, |,As the.matter.stood before that report was
brought in, he had. hoped, that they, wight yet avoid division. .The pas-
sage of that report would, sender division..ineyitable. : They had no
choige left. And; there were statements,jn.that report which were .con-
trary to fact. ;, Before that hour he-had never;heard that the characters of
clags-leaders were exgmined- into at the quarterly conferences. .There
were statements also in reference,to. Bishop ,Andrew which bad never
been made, known to the conference before, and onthe general question
. of the .connegtion of slavery with the M. E, Church, there were positions
. taken by that report tothetryth of which he could not subseribe. -, The
document he could not but Tegard.as an insult to the whole South. Mr.
» C. then repeated, with much earnestness and, warmth, his convictions
as to, the eyil.and disastrous consequences, that, would, result from the
publication pfisugha docyment by the. General Conference, and declar-
ed he shguld.not be surprised at its leading to a civil war, so utterly. did
it-deny. the rights and ae upon the feelings of all the. ee
tates, po, BP st ie <i i
Mr, Early, begged, die eine hastily to aap this report. “same
‘Shoaghivhie brother from, Virginia was excited ; for himself he was calm
and. collected, but he never hadisuch sad and-fearful, forebodings as he
had experienced since he,came into thateyening session.. He denounced
as a thing unheard of before in the M. E.. Church, the examination into
the character of a .class-leader at, the quarterly conference. ; Already
-the South was in a flame in, consequence of.,the, past action, of that con~
ference, and this reply to the protest was calculated more than anything
sto increase ithe, dissatisfaction of.the Southern churches. - He denied
the right of a majority to take sucha course. The eyes.of the, brethren
3, had never. fallen upon a page where the; protest of;a minority was so
-treated,, And.the report. mistgted fats,,..[hyee dectorsiof the M. E-
Church game before.the, world and proclaimed, that. the characters of
class-leaders were pxamined into by the.quarterly conferences! He nev-
ar heardsugh.a,statement before. |... tin gai Ae a
Hitherto things had gone on as pleasantly » as they could expect, ex-
cept the exhibition in the;gle¢tion of the editor of the Richmand Chris-
tian Adyocate, which might be fun. to them, but tothe, South was death.
After all it was said.to be founded, only in a little mischief. He should
have been rejoiced to have gone home prepared to say thatthe brethren
down. east. and, these. of. similar sentiment jhad by common. consent
agreed, toa division, of the Church, and that being free- fiom this diff.
., aulty-of slavery themselyes, they were. prepaged(to aid,the- South in any
measure which would relieve them frqm. thejn diffioulties ;. and thus they
322

should:remain members of one family, and love: as brethren. Yet the
South was'in-a high state of excitement. ‘Ile (the speaker ) had now in
Lis pocket a letter from one of the first merchants in Richmond, men-
tioning the fact, that the excitement was such that the most influential
men-in the city declared in the public market thatif those men'who
had denounced Bishop Andrew and the South were to ‘visit 'that city it
would be impossible to secure them safety from the indignation of 'the
“people. A mass meeting had been held, and it was ‘said''that when
‘gentlemen applied for admission they were refused on the ground that
it was a meeting of the society alone. ' Let that protest go forth as it
was, and he could tell the two doctors and the president of one of their
universities that they had sounded the death-knell of the ‘union of the
Church! Adopt it and enter it upon your records, and ‘to all intents
and purposes this would be the case. He expected to shake hands with
many whom he loved, but with whom he now met for the last time in
General Conference. Let the circumstances connectéd witlr the'action
of the conference in relation to Bishop Andrew go forth with all his
heart, but it was unparalleled that such a reply ‘should’ be’ made toa
simple protest. What would be thought, if in the supreme courts of the
United States, or in'the courts of England, when one of the judge’ had
entered his protest against any decision, the otbers should Bae a
lengthened reply to stich a protest ? 4
Dr. Bangs rose toa point of order. He inquired whether it was in
order to debate this matter. The protest’ was allowed to go quietly
upon the records.
‘ Bishop Wough reminded ‘him that a motion was malls for spreading
it upon the journals. ea
Dr. Longstreet said the difference in the two cases was obvious, It
was the right of the minority, which the majority could not control, to
place their protest upoti the journal. It was not the right of the conter-
ence to appoint a committee to reply to the protest.” -
Dr, Peck wished to make an explacation, which would relieve the
difficulty. . a
Dr. Longstreet did not mean to make an elaborate speech, but to state
some facts that ought to go forth to the world in connection with these
extraordinary proceedings. Some of the facts oonnected with the case
the committee had either forgotten to state, or had stated in such a way
that they would make a false impression. The first question was, What
was the report designed for ? There could be but one or two interpre-
tations put upon it. Either it: was designed to convict Bishop Andrew
of duplicity, or to present to the public the grounds on which the decis-
323

ion of the conference had been made. And he would ask whether it
was fair, equitable; or just, to argue for twelve days.on one state of fucts ;
arid then, after. their decision was made, to bring in a report.of another ?
All these legal inferences they had nothing to do with. ‘They must-take
the statement of Bishop Andrew, remembering too that ‘he had selemn-
ly declared: before them, that he could not in:his: conscience deprive
his wife of her property, simply: because he had married her. Suppose
all the things which they pretended to have found out since, were true,
and.that Bishop Andrew was the owner: of the slaves, would it be fair
to bring that'matter in now? . It was not once.said in all that report that
he could emancipate them." He ‘boldly asserted that Bishop Andrew
did not own the slaves. If he should get:in debt, they might possibly be
tuken for his debts, and thatwas suggested. to him but there is no fear
on. that point, for he don’t intend to go.in debt. But it is‘not true that
tho slaves belong to him. How far his.creditors might assert a claim
to thenr might be .a grave question ; but as between his children and
his wite in case of his death he’ maiutained that they would go to her,
aud not to his:children. If he had violated their: discipline, they were
bound to dismiss him. But he had not done so, and they had not at-
tempted to prove that he had. 5. ‘

Dr. Snith said, that creditors in Georgia had eaulees ee over and
above children and heirs. AS gpl ied

Dr. Elliott thought the course proposed by the committee was dgrec-
able’ to the strictest, rules. The minority had’ a right to present their
protest without debate, and the majority had an equal right to present
their reply to that protest without, debate. \

Dr. Smith called for a case. in proof. :,.. |

Mu. Collias said, the repert, was not a protest, but necessarily a docu-
ment coming from a committee... ,,. |, : iw

Mr. Slicer inquired whether it was in order to insert and oes a doc-
ument before it was adopted... ,.,.,-, Gx a

Bishop Waugh thought the conference had a right to tied own judg-
ment, ‘They might. decline to.adopt,, but might wish to Spread it on the
journals, and present it before the public:, _,

Mr..Ames also defended the report, on the ground that, other ecclesi-
astical tribunals pursued the same course the conference were following.
in this case, and which they ought to ,bave adopted in. former actiona of
theirs on individual cases... 04:

Mes = an
Dr. Durbin said, the committee did. not look upon the. protest in.-the
minority.as a protest, but as an elaborate’ argumentation of the:, case,

and they thought that.a minority had no right-to an. argumentation in

art
324":

their protest. «In this-he spoke’ the sentiments of iis former colleagues
in committee, Des, Olinahd- Hamline.»:Phey. also: thought the majority’:
expected them: to reply to.iti: He and-his: present colleagites would:
however consent to.the omission ‘ftom their report of some: of its: fed+/
tures, which shad; been. strongly: objected to.:: One .was an: assertion,:'
which the oppasition had/pointed outas unhedrd: of before:on the con-
ference. flovr, that the character of class:leaders was examined: im the ‘
quarterly conference; andthe -other a.sappositious cas¢ as to: Bishop’.
Andrew being called up at the next Genéral: Confetentey if hé contin-
ued to exercise ‘is functions. -He never:dreamt of ‘such'a thing as that
the majority would adopt the report, but that they! would place it on the
journal. by theside of the protest, without debate. He did not. think'
that the protest would go out to-the world,: and:he was sorry that it had
ever been putiin print. , Ifsit-had not been published, then there would
have been no-necessity for printing this’ reply. i eae go Ge
Dr. Peck : said he consented to the erasure of that part ofthe report,
not: because he: relinquished the principle, but because he thought it.
might perhapsthe better to leave.it out of the teport. He-also consent-
ed to the alteration of. the statement as.to the:dlass leaders.'- : vet
Dr. Smith said he did not pretend to very accurate information on the
subject of the rights.of minorities to present’'their protests, &c.; but it
was the first time in his life that he had heard that the protestants’ had -
no right to the arguinents! on which their protest was founded. : He‘de-
nied that Dr. Olin, whose literary reputation he felt bound to defend in
his absence, could by any possibility have uttered the sentiments which
Dr. Durbin had attributed to him in reference to the right ofa majority"
‘in regard toa protest. Dr. D. must: have misundeétstood*' Dr. Olin, be-
cause that gentleman had,: only a short time before he left;:' expressed
exactly the contrary opinion to him in reférence to:a protest he'( Dr.'S.)-
was ther preparing:’ He did'so in reply to ani inquiry, fully and'cleaily,
and out of regard to Dr. Olin’s reputation he could not let Dr. Durbin's
remarks pass Without this reply.’ ‘He argued that theré was‘ 1io ‘ile
cessity to pass’ a resolutio# to enter that’ paper on the journals for'the
moment the President received’ that paper it'was to be enteredon the -
journal. There was no need to order it to be ‘printed, for that ‘would
be done under a former‘order of this conference. ‘He:contended' that
the’ object of the motion was to bave the report‘adopted by this confer-
ence. ,That was what he wanted them to do, for it was what they. be-
lieved. Heiwanted them to sign their names to ‘that paper, and
let. it go out to-the world. | They:had ‘attempted to gull the public ‘long
enough, and:he now : wanted them to show their hands, and tell the five
325

hundred thousand Methodists at the South what they intended to do.

Mr. Perkins here moved the previous question, and Mr. Crowder call-
ed for the ayes and noes; and the motion to spread the yeport on the
journal was carried, there being in the affirmative 116, and in the neg-
utive 26.

It being new a very late hour in the evening, and the conference anx-
ious to adjourn sine die, having been so long absent from their charges
and their families, the remainder of the night was taken up by the adop-
tion of reports, and the passage of sundry resolutions. The following
is the routine : —

Report on missions taken from the table and adopted.

Drs. Peck, Bangs, and Bond were appointed a committee to prepare
the revised Discipline for publication.

Mr. Early offered a resolution, that in case a separation of the Church
should take place, tle Liberia Mission Conference be included in the
southern division. Laid on the table,

The report of the cominittee on the Bible cause was taken up and
adopted.

Dr. Duckey offered aresolution leaving Bishop Hedding at liberty to
perform only so much work as his health will permit. Adopted.

Mr, G. F. Pierce offered a resolution declaring that the conference,
by ordering the reply to the southern protest to be placed on the journ-
al, had sanctioned and indorsed that reply. Laid on the table.

Mr. Wightman offered a resolution, that the Bishop, who may preside
at the next meeting of the Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama Con-
ferences, shall appoint a superintendent of the missions among the col-
ored people within the limits of these conferences. Adopted.

Dr. Bascom, from the committee on education, submitted a brief re
port, which was adopted.

Mr. Slicer submitted resolutions thanking the secretary and assistant
secretaries for the faithful manner in which they have performed tneir
duties, and also thanking the Methodists of New-York City for their
hospitdlity to the members of the copference, Adopted.

Mr. Smith presented a protest, signed by himself against the action
of the conference in the case of Francis A. Harding. The Chair deci
ded that Mr. Smith had a right to put this protest on the journal, if he
wished to do so. From this decision Mr. Collins took an appeal, aud it
was reversed by a large majority, when it was voted that Mr. Smith
have leave to withdraw his protest,

Mr. Dow offered a resolution expressing tie thanks of the conference
for the use of the church in which the body had held its session, and in-

. 28
326

structing the Book Agent to settle with the trustees and the sexton.
Adopted. \

A vote of thanks was passed to Daniel Drew, Esq., for his kind offer
to convey thé Northerh and Western members in the people’s line ot
steamboats to Albany, free of charge.

On motion of Mr. Cartwright, the journal of ihe evening’s pr' ‘oceedings
was read and approved; and then, at a quarter past 12 o'clock, ‘after
prayer by Mr. Dunwody, of South Carolina; the conference adjourned

sine die.
' REVIEW
OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE LATE GENERAL
CONFERENCE OF THE M. E. CHURCH.
INTRODUCTORY.

Observing minds, who have any knowledge of the events which led
to the late secessions from the M. E. Church, resulting in the orgattiza-
tion of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, and of the present state
and progress of the principles upon which the new movement is foun-
ded, will not doubt that there was a connection between these things,
and the action of the lute General Conference on the subject of slavery.
If then our existence and operations gave being to such proceedings,
and if.they were, as no one can doubt, designed to affect us, and oper
ate as a cheek to our future progress and suceess, we are at once inter-
ested, and have not only an undoubted right but a good reason for re-
viewing those proceedings, and spreading before our readers their true
designs, character and probable results. The proceedings, as a whole,
cannot be interpreted creditable to the common understanding of the
actors, only by reference to the peculiar cireumsanees in which the Con-
ference found itself on coming together. ‘The eburech embraces. in its
widley extended communion, the two extremes on the subject of slavery :
those who believe that slavery is an institution of divine origin, wearing
the seal of God’s approbation, and those who believe that it is sin under
all circumstances, disqualifying those who practice it for membership in
any Christian church. To legislate for a community composed of such
opposite elements so as to give satisfaction to-all parties would be a diffi-
‘cult task under the most favorable circumstances, but in this case it was
greatly embarrassed by the peculiar position of the parties and the po-
sition of leading individual actors with reference to the parties. In the
North they had not recovered from the alarm produced by the trump of
secession, which had first sounded only about eighteen months previous-
ly, aud: which, to appearance, was heard with as much consternation aa

»though it had been a signal for the crack of doom. As secession was
urged mainly on the ground that slavery was tolerated in the Church,
and az the anti-slavery feeling, out of which this grew, was rapidly in-
328

creasing and spreading in community. there was no hepe of checking
it by opposing the principles which led to-it, andthe only measure that
could promise success, was to admit the wrong of slavery in the Church,
and promise te correct it, and then make the hope thus inspired, that the
Church would be soon freed from slavery, the ground of an argument

why men ought not to Jeave it. In carrying out this plan of opposing
secession, large promises were made to the anti-slavery portions of the

Church, that great things should be done against slavery in the next

General Conference. While this-tended to put off secession for the pres-

ent, it deepened the anti-slavery feeling, and ripened the feeling that se-

cession would be right if nothing should be done at the General Con-

ference.

While the above operation was going on in the Nerth, the South were
given to understand that secession was doing nothing, only ridding the
Church of a few restless “radico-abolition spirits,” whe had made-al# the
trouble, and that having retired from the Church in despair, they should
have peace, and rest from the abolition strife. Thus the Conference
came together, the Northexpecting that more would be done on the sub-
ject of slavery than had ever been attempted before, while the South ex-
pected less, having been told secession amounted to just enough to re-
lieve the Church of the disturbers of the patriarchal institution. To in-
crease the embarrassment, the question of slavery was in two different
ways thrust into their deliberations, which defied their skill to evade or
power to resist. The appeal of Mr. Harding and the case of Bishop:
Andrew compelled the Conference to act on the subject, and to do it so
a8 to give satisfaction to the North, who had been promised that every
thing should be done, and, at the same time, satisfy the South, who had
been assured that nothing would be done, was not an easy task. Such
were the circumstances under which the General Conference. found
themselves, and their object appears to have beea so to run between the
two parties as to please neither, and thereby drive neither off; to-do this
they had to exert their skill to see how little they could do, and still do
something on one hand, and yet see how much they could do, and stilt
do nothing on the other hand. This is the best apology we can make.
for the do-much-do-nothing action of the last General Conference, and
_after these brief remarks on the circumstances in which they were placed
we will proceed to examine the action itself. We will examine the pro.
ceedings of the Conference in the order in which they transpired.
829

" SECTION 1 , te

The first tase was.tie appeal, of Mr, Harding from ie ieeian of the
Baltimore Annual Conference. This was an appeal from a judgment
of suspension from the functions of the ministry, on,a charge of having
violated the rule.of Discipline on the subject of slaveholding by the
ministry. The rule may:be. found in the Discipline, eee Sec. 10.
Ans. 2d, and reads as follows :— i

“When any traveling preacher becomes the owner: of aslave or slaves,
i any means, he shall forfeit his ministerial character in our church,
unlegs he execute, if it be, practicable, a legal emancipation of sucli
slaves, conformably to, the laws of the State in which he lives.”

The simple facts.in the ¢ase were, Mr. Harding. had .married a lady
who was'possessed of. slaves, by which he became.connected with slave-
ry. ‘The case was, in..itself, a simple one, turning wholly on one ques-
tion, namely: Was it practigable for bim to emancipate his slaves in the
sense ofthe rule? If jt. was practicable, he was candemned by the law of

: the Chureh ; if it was not practicable, he stood acquitted by the law of the

Church, .. This being the pointon which the merits of thecase depend,
it is necessary to review the action with reference to this point, in order
properly to understand the amouat of true anti-slavery contained in it.
Our readers will bear in mind. that the object of this review is Tot so
much to exhibit the legality or illegality, the merits or demerits of the
action “f the Conference upon general principles, as to ascertain how
far the action of the Conference had its origin in, and was a develope-
ment of the true anti-slavery principle. The question with us is nat so
much whethew the proceedings were Methodisticaily lawful, as whether
they were truly anti-slavery. Yet it cannot fuil to be seen, that the cor-
rectness of the proceedings in view of the Methodist Discipline, must
have a bearing on their anti-slavery character in the minds of those con-
corned. The action aud decision in the case were Methodically right
or wrong, and if in our review, we reason concerning its anti-slavery
eharacter uper the supposition that it was Methodically correct, cur op-
ponents may assume that it was wrong, ard so evade th3 force of our
conclusions; and if we reason upon the supposition that it was Methad-
ically wrong, which ix our opinion, cur opponents will assume that it
was right, and in that way escape onr conclusions, Under these circum-
stances, to avoid making our conclusion vest upon an argwment to
prove the legality or illegality of the proceedings, in view of Methodist
law, about which Methodists themselves dij Ter, we will test the anti-
slavery character of the proceedings an both suppositions, which will

b

ais Shei Gb
330,

leave no chance for either party to escape without meeting the true is-
sue, We will show what the anti-slavery character of the proceedings
was, if they were right by the law of the Church, and what the anti-
slavery character of the proceedings was, if they were unlawful, or not
sustained by the law of the Church.

Suppose then the majority of the Conférence were right in their de-
cision in the case of Mr. Harding; suppose the law of the Church and
the facts in the case warranted such a decision, what then is its anti-
slavery merit? We say there is no anti-slavery merit in it; by it the
Church has not advanced one step in anti-slavery from her former po-
sitions. If the decision was according to law, then it must be true that
it was practicable for Mr. Harding to emancipate his slaves, for the law
‘requires emancipation. The only merit that can be claimed from this
act, is that of carrying out the rule of the Church, and if it'be insisted
that this was doing any thing against slavery, more than has heretofore
been done, the following consequences must follow :—

1, The Church has heretofore negleeted to enforce this part of her
Discipline, and has suffered traveling preachers to hold slaves when it
was practicable to emancipate them. Ifthe Church has heretofore en-
forced this rule, and not suffered preachers to hold slaves, when eman-
cipation has been practicable, the fact that she has now done it in asin-
gle case, entitles her to no new anti-slavery character, and furnishes no-
proof that she has taken one step in anti-slavery in advance of her for-
mer positions. Nor does the action in this case, justify the assertion
that the General Conference did any thing against slavery, in the sense
in which it was promised and expected ‘before the Conference assem-
bled. When-the preachers said to those who were inelined to secede,
Wait, and the General Conference will do something against slavery ;
and when the people said, We will secede if nothing is done by the next
General Conference against slavery, the meaning was that the Confer-s
ence should do semething more than had been heretofore done; but if
the Church has beenin the habit of enforcing this rule, nothing was done
in the sense in which something was promised and expected, so far as
the Harding case is concerned; absolutely nothing. No advancement
then can be claimed in anthlavery from the Harding case, only upon
the supposition that the Church has heretofore neglected to enforce the
rule in question, and allowed of just such slaveholding as that for which
Mr. Harding has been suspended, which of itself will be no great cred-
it to the Church, but which will contradict the oft repeated assertions.
of Bishop Hedding and other leading ministers, that Methodists hold
slaves in the South only so far as the laws prohibit emancipation.
331

2. If it were a fact that the action of the General Conference in the
Harding case was the result of increased anti-slavery in the Church, on
the ground that the rule had not been previously enforced, it follows.
that the minority, embracing all the delegutes from slaveholding States
insisted on a continued violation of the rufe, and for the right of minis-
te1s to hold slaves in violation of law and justice both. Ifthe decision
was according to law und fact, then the South went against the law ;
andifit was practicable for Mr. Harding to emancipate his slaves, then
the South went for the toleration of clerical slaveholding when it is
practicable to emancipate, for they went for the toleration of Mr. Har-
ding’s slaveholding. And H this‘action, on the part of the North, was
taking an advanced position im anti-slavery, on the ground that the rule
had not been enforced in past time, it follows thatas oft as abolitionists
have asserted that the Discipline is a dead letter on the subject of slave-
ry in the South, they have told the truth; and as oft as these opposers,
among whom have been bishops and leading ministers, have contradir-
ted them, they have told what was not true. If the action was according
to law, no new anti-slavery merit can be claimed only on the ground
that slavery has heen wout to trample upon the law, and that the in-
creased anti-slavery has now for the first time put it in foree, which ab-
solutely contradicts all the positions and assertions of the opposers of
abolition in the church, for they have from the beginning, and with one
accord, affirmed that the Discipline was enforced on the subject of
slavery in the South; and they have accused the abolitionists in the
Chureh of falsehood and slander when they affirmed that the rules were
-not enforced against slavery. Will they take all this back, admit that
these rules have been trampled upon by slavery, up to this date, and
justify usin our positions, for which they onee condmned us? We shall
see. They must do all this, in order to screw out any new anti-slavery
merit from the Harding ease, if they claim that the action was just what
and no more than the law of the Church required.

Such are some of the consequences which must follow the position
that the action of the General Conference in the Harding case was ac-
cording to the law of the Church and yet anti-slavery beyond the for-
mer positions of the Church, and we see not how our opponents can
evade these consequences, without giving up the claim of any new anti-
slavery merit.

They may assume that the action was lawful, and that it was a step
in anti-slavery not before taken, on the ground that the law was never
before violated, calling for such action. This is perfectly supposable,
but takes away all claim to new auti-slavery merit. In such case there
332

was n6 more anti-slavery in the action than in.the law, and of course.no
more in the conference acting than in the conference that made the law;
while the fact that the law had not-been violated up to this time, and
has now been violated, proves that there is more pro-slavery: in the
Churéh than there has heretofore been. In such case the action is not
an evidence of increased anti-slavery, but the result of increased prce-
slavery; itis slavery therefore that has advanccd in the Church, and not
anti-slavery, if this be the ground of.defénce set up-against the above
reasoning and conclusions. ,

Another view of the subject may help to settle the anti-slavery mer-
its of the action of the Conference in the Harding case. The question
at issue is not so much whether the decision was arti-slavery, as wheth-
er it was something new, in advance of the former anti-slavery of the
Church. This point may be settled by ascertaining what ‘would have
been the position of the Conference, if the action had been withheld, or
the decision had been different. We reason upon the supposition that
the action was lawful, that is, no more than what the law required. Then
the facts are, Mr. Harding became a slaveholder in violation of the:Dis-
cipline, for which his annual conference called him to an account and
justly aud lawfully suspended him, and be appealed to the General Con-
ference, which boldly confirmed the decision, and this is claimed as a
great advance of anti-slavery. But could the Conference have done
otherwise? To be sure the Conference might have rejected the appeal,
as they did the appeal of Silas Comfort, in 1840, but in so doing, they
would have violated law, as we believe they did in that case. But could
they not, on.the hearing of the appeal, have decided otherwise, and re-
versed the decision of the. Baltimore Conference? Most surely they
could, but not without violating the law, for the express purpose of sup-
porting a man, a minister, in slaveholding, aud that too in violation of
the rules of the Church. Can an act which could not have been omit-
ted without such fatal pro-slavery consequence, he urged as proof of a
great anti-slavery advancement? If the Church cau claim new anti-
slavery merit because she refuses by a solemm decision to sustain cler-
ical slaveholding in violation of her own rules, she must just have es-
eaped from a state which would have enabled her to do such a dark
deed, Will our opponents take the consequence? The Conference
could not have decided otherwise, without committing the above speci-
fied crime, and if the fact that they did not commit that erime is the
result of increased anti-slavery, they must have heretofore been pro-
slavery enough to have done it,

Ons more exhibition of this view of the subject, and we will dismiss
333

it. Those who maintain that the decision of the General Conference in

the Harding case was according to law and facts, cannot claim that it.
proves any new anti-slavery feeling on the part of the Conference. The

Conference in that trial acted in a judicial eapacity, and not in Jegisla-
tive capacity; hence the decision was net an expression of their views
of the moral character of slavery, but of what was the meaning of the

Discipline. In making up their decision two points, and two only, wero
involved, namely: Has Mr. Harding done the thing laid to his charge,
and if so, is it a violation of the law of the Church? The question was
not, Is the slaveholding of Mr. Harding morally wrong, but is it a viola-
tion of the Methodist Discipline ? The decision, if they acted as hon-

est judges, was graduated by their views of the Discipline, and not by
their views of the moral character of the slaveholding. The question
was, Has Mr. Harding violated the law? aud not, Is the law right or
wrong? If members believe such slaveholding to be right, still they
were bound to condemn the accused, if they believed it a violation of
Discipline. On the other hand, if members believed such slaveholding
to be wrong, still they were bound to clear the accused, if they believe

the Discipline tolerated it. ‘To deny this would be to say that in Church

trials, men are not bound to condeinn or acquit, as the law of the Church
condemns or acquits, but that they are at liberty to disregard the law,
and be governed by their own opinions, as the law inthe case. It is
clear therefore, that no action of the Conference, in a judicial capacity,
can be taken as furnishing the least evidence of the pro-slavery or an-
ti-slavery feeling of the members, so long as we suppose them to aim
at being governed by the law in the case. To suppose that the decision

was the result of increased anti-slavery sentiment and feeling, is to sup-

pose either that the Conference would at an earlier period have violated

the law to have sustained clerical slaveholding, or else, that their new

anti-slavery feeling carried them beyond Jaw, and led thein to condenm
Mr. Harding contrary to law, whereas we are now reasoning upon the
suoposition that the judgment was aecording to law. =~

We will rest this part of our argument here, feeling confident that
we have shown that the action of the General Conferenee in the appeal
of Mr, Harding, furnishes not the least evidence of inereased anti-sla-
very on the part of the Conference, on the supposition that such action
was according to law and facts.

It remains to examine the anti-slavery character of the proceedings,
on the supposition that they were not sustained by the law of the Chureli,
This is the position taken by the Southern delegates ; and all who voted.
in the minority, did it from a real or pretended belief that the law of

amin
334

the Church did, sustain just such slavelolding as that for which Mr.
Harding was tried and suspended, and we suppose they will ¢laim that
the Conference became so infected with abolition as to condemn slave-
holding in violation of their own laws. We.agree with the South in
this opinion., We believe that the, Discipline of the. Church does sus-
tain just such slayeholding as that for which Mr, Harding was condemn-
ed, but we are not disposed to argue this point, as itis not in the least
essential to our present object. But we do not: believe that the General
Conference were led to the decision from being infected with. abolition,
It.was uot becguse they were infected, but because they were afected by
abolition. , The demand was so loud at the North for anti-slavery action
aud so many were talking of leaving the Church, if eomething was not
done against slavery, acontrary decision would have been fatal to many
parts of the Church. This they knew, nor will they now deny it, and
without charging any one with wilful perversion of law, we know,that
great interests have a great influence over men’s views of constitutions
and Jaws, and under such influences the majority’ screwed up their
minds to the belief that thé Discipline authorized the suspension of Mr.
Harding for slaveholding. We believe that if there had been nothing
to lose,at the North bya different decision, the conference would have
seen the law differently.. This is not assuming that they were . wilful
hypocrites, but only that they were men and acted like nen. But about
this we will not contend; the only question about which we are careful
is, how much true aceey merit is the Conference entitled to claim
for the decision in the Harding case ? and this question is not ta be set-
tled between usand the North. We have shown that they are entitled
to no anti-slavery merit, if the decision went no further than the law
required them to go, and we will allow the, North all the anti-slavery
they may fec] disposed to claim as the result of such action, upon the
supposition that the decision went against slavery beyond what tie ruie
in the case warranted, if they will take along with such merit the fol-
lowing consequences which must be inseperable from it.

1. If the anti-slavery merit consisted in going beyond the rule, then
must the rule be pro-slavery. If the rule goes against slavery as far as
13 right, and still their anti-slavery consisted in going beyond the
rule, their anti-slavery must have consisted in going beyond right.
Was not that “wtra?” If then they claim anti-slavery merit on the
ground of going against slavery beyond the rule, it follows either that
they were wrongfully opposed to slavery to prevent | secession or, else
that the rule is wrongfully deficient in opposition to slavery, and that
they made it so to please slayeholders, and to keep them} jn the Church.

varied
an

%, To claim that the Conference showed its anti- slavery hy going a-
guinst slavery bey! ond the law, would be to claim ‘for that exalted body
the high rank of liars and hypocrites, for they debaied and yoted upon
the prinelpte that the slay cholding of Mr. Harding was a violation of the
Discipline, and that therule’ imposed | a forfeiture of his minister ial char-
acter. This they proclaimed over and over again. Now if our Epis-
copal brethren will set upa claim to anti- slavery merit with such con-
sequences staring them i in the face, we will not envy them, though they
claim that, the Jast General Conference entered the sunelum sanctorum of
anti-slavery, and dwelt, amid its inner glories during, the whole of its
protracted session. But we do not aiippone that any Northern man will
attempt to maintain ‘the anti- -slavery char acter of the Conference upon
this ground, yet we thought it safe to call attention io the consequences,
that would follow, if en attempt should be made to escape the conelu-
siotis at whieh we have arrived on the supposition that the decision was
no more : than law required, by fleeing i jn this direction. Wi e trust wei
shave now shown, that there is no evidence of advance in anti- slavery to
he foynd i in the decision on the appeal of Mr, Harding. "That decision
was according to or not according to law; if it was according to law, we
have slniivat that j it was no advancement i in anti- -slavery, and if it was not
according to law, it, was Worse than no advencement i in anti- -slavery ; no
new anti- slavery merit cant therefore be claimed from that action. “We
haye now done with this case, ‘excepting one remark, which we teserve
to be made i in connection with the case of Bishop At drew, in whic h
poiut of light they both present the same aspect. a

SECTION, IL,

VHE CASE OF BISHOP ANDREW. ':

'
i

Haying, in the preceeding section, ‘exemined ‘the action of the late
General Conference of. the M. E. Chureb in in the Harding ease, we enter
upon a review of the tase of Bishop Andrew, which i is next in order in
the proceedings which, are claimed to he the anti- slavery action: of the
Conference. This was obviously the most important case. The Har-
ding case was Jocad j in its character and effects, for though the decision
was adverse to slavebolding by, the ministry, « and made too upon princi-
ples which, if generally applied, ‘would veto all clerical slaveholding, yet
as the application of those principles is with the annual conferences, the

General Conference having no jurisdiction in the case, only in the case
"336

of an appeal from the decision of an annual conference, and as such ap-
, Deals can be taken only when the annual” conference forces the princi-
ples against a minister, and not when they refuse to doit, the slavehold-
ing conferences had nothing to fear from that decision, so long as they
could command a majority among themselves in favor of the patriarch-
al institution, But the Bishop’s case was much broader in its effects,
and involved principles which the annual conferences could not con-
trol among themselves, but which west wholly with the General Conféer-
ence; hence, when this question was touched, the trumpet of alarm was
blow n by slaveholders, the ery of division was set up, and tke requiem
of the martyred unity of the ¢ hurch was heard in the wailing of a
thousand voices pouring their funeral tones in the nation’s ear. Notin-
deed because any thing had been done or was likely to be done against
slavery as it has existed in the Church from its organization, but because
an obstacle was thrown in the way of its future advancement to higher
degrees and higher henors. Slavery being absolute in its dominion over
the victims of cruelty, avarice and lust, knew not how to endure re-
straint, or to be crossed in its ambitious designs: and having entrenched
itself in the pale of the Church, and secured to itself the peaceable pos:
session of ull the houors of the common rank of hely order, with un
abated ambition it aspired to the dignity of a mitred head. It was on
this point, and this only, that the action of the Conference in the case of
Bishop Andrew conflicted with slavery, and here it met it firmly and ef=
fectually. There was, nothing in the action of the Conference which
disturbed slavery in any of its honors, rights and immunities heretofore
enjoyed in the Church, and though it did not depose the Bishop, yet the
action, as a whole, and especialy the character of the debate, prospec-
tively and for ever hedged up the way of slavery to the episcopal throne.
This was all, and it was more than it could bear.

If the,above view of the subject be correct, and we think it is, the ac+
tion of the Conference in the case of Bishop Andrew, was not the re-
sult of increased anti-slavery on the part of the Conference, but the re»
éult of new claitues set up and new depredations committed by slavery ;
ad the division of the Church, if it takes place, will not be the result
of an attempt to condemn slavery in the Church, or to put slavery out
of the Church, but the result of a simple refusal to give slavery a higher
rank and increased influence and honor in the Church ; and if so the
claim of new anti-slavery merit set up in view of this action is without
foundation. This,we have no doubt, we shall be able to show to the
satisfaction of the candid reader.

In order fully to understand the merits of the case, it will be necessa-
337

ry to consitler the facts alledged against the bishop, the principles upon
which the Conference acted in view of these facts, and the results at
which they arrived.

THE FACTS ALLEDGED aGarnst Bisnor ANprew.— The facts are set
fourth in the Bishop’s own statement, and upon this statement, made by
the Bishop himself the whole proceeding against him was based. The
simple facts are, the Bishop had become pussessed of slaves in three
ways, or by three distinct acts,

1. By the will of an old lady, who bequeathed to him a single seve
a mulatto girl, in trust, to be sent to Liberia when nineteen years pf age
if she should be willing to go, and if not willing, to be made as free as
the laws of the State of Georgia would allow. She refused to go, and
he complied with the condition of the will, and made her as free as the
jaws permitted.

2. He became legally possessed of alittle boy by the death of his for,
mer wife. The boy had been willed to his wife by her mother, and sha
dying intestate, by the law of the State, the boy became his. He de-
clared that he set up no claim to these two slaves in moral right, but was
willing they should be free if they chose it, and if he could be assured
the boy should be protected and provided for until he shall be capable
of taking care of himself.

3. The second wife was possessed of slaves when he married her,
and he being unwilling to become their owner, and the law not allowing
vf emancipation, he deeded them to his wife, by a deed of trust, soon
after their marriage.

A few remarks may be proper on the Bishop’s connection with sla-
very. Weare no apologist for’ slavebolding in any of its forms; we
believe that it is sinful under all circunstances, and proclaim our belief
upon the house top, and would be glad to write it upon the. wings of
the winds in letters of fire, as they issue from the chambers of the
North and spread themselves over the South to fan its sultry plains,
But still we do not believe that the connection of Bishop Andrew with
slavery was criminal, if tried by the rules and common sentiments ‘of
the M. E. Church. If you test it by the law of the church, and by the
only laws or all the laws on the subject, it is right. The general rule
which forbids “ buying and selling men, women and children, with an
intention to enslave them,” does not condemn the Bishop, for he has
neither bought nor sold. The rule directly on the subject of clerical
staveholding, most clearly endorses every principle involved in the
Bishop’s connection with slavery. This rule, as was seen in the prece+
ding section, makes ministerial slaveholding depend upon the practica-

a
338

bility. or impractigability. ¢ of emancipation, and of course iLassumes. that
it may sometimes be pr actieable a1 and sometimes impr acticable to eman-
cipate. Now no ole can deny that if there are uny circumstances in
which it is impracticable to,cmuneipate slaves, those, are the very cir-
ciunstances in which, the Bishop found Limselfa slaveholder, His res-
idence i is far removed’ from the free States and the Jaws of Georgia, in
which he ‘resides, as effectually hedge Up | the way of emancipation as
‘the laws of any other State m the Union. | The Bishop therefore. was,
in our view, entitled to the full protection of the rule ;which, provides
for ‘slaveholding by the ministr y, where emaneipatipn is not practicable,
“This was urg ged by the delegates from the South, and was attempted to
be met by, the North in two ways. d
It was insisted that a Bishop, having no loee 1 eber #e,- bat ‘beings

general guperintendent, could select his own piace of residence, zt
henee, might free himself: from the diflicu! ity by remoying: to a; place
where emancipation would he, practicable,‘ Thig we regarded, when
we listened, to the debate, as failacious, for the following. among other
reasons te k
Ji. The tule does hot ta ake the power to move out of the State into
the accoun fs as one of the circumstances npou which dts, Gunde nor
ides it make the act of removing from the State, when it is, practicable,
one of the conditions of ministerial character. | When,, therefore, Dr:
Durbin and others. reasoned from the power of the, Bishop to. move out
of. the State, | they reasoned . from what i is not in the, law, and. made a

rule of action for the Bishop which the law does nee make, ae fis
2. If the law did require the Bishop to move out of the State to free

ite slaves, because Jit was practicable for him to do so,.then in case he
; failed. to comply, the rule absoltyely required a forfviture. of. his, muiniss
terial character; for ‘that j is, the pebalty and the, only penalty for its. vio-
lation : yet it was affirmed over and over again, that they designed, to
leave his ininisterial character untovebed, ;
3. aAg the rule says nothing about, moving out of the, Sites when it is
practicable, but only requiring, in terms, ermancipation “ conformably to
the laws of the State in which, he lives, if by.. construction it: is made.to
require, emancipation by removal from the State, “sf it be practignble,”
it must require the same, of all. travelling preachers, If, then, South:
ern preachers hold slaves only from necessity, growing ont of. their lo-
eaOn in States. where the, law, forbids emancipation,, how, perfectly
practicable: moust it be to free.the ministry fsom slaveholling, by trans:
ferring those ‘who, are, made slaveholders. against their wills, to free
Miates, and transferri ing others. from. free States, to take. thejx, place.
339

e

This thé Bishops have'the power fo do; atd'if the work was kept up,
and fot suffered to run bebind, it would fot Yeqttite more transfers each
yéur thad would keép up’ a healitiy itineraticy. “The practicability in
the éase of a preacher, Ae be greater thah in the case of a Bishop,
heenttse, as the preacher is‘ subject to disciplmary rémoval ev ery year s
andthe Bishop uever'subjcet to'duch' removal, he must be stipposed '
to gather ardund him more perinanent local mieten We wondered
that such minils ai Dr. Darhitt should condeseend to ‘emply such sopli-
istry 3 but great mhén are still but men, especially when ‘they have a n bad

‘nist! to manage. *

' A'sddond ground of defence set up hy ‘the North against shatanes
tection Which the rule in question throws over Episcopal slaveholding
was, that the rule dors. not relate to Bishops at all, but only to travel-
Jing preachers, “This position ‘Was, sustained simply ¢ on ‘thie ground that
there was another section in the Discipline whidh makes special provis-
ion for the trial of a Bishop, and that therefore this cannot be applie ae
ble'to a Bishop.

This point was made by ‘all the principal speakers in the majority ;
and we must confess we were in doubt whether they really believed it,
or. whether i it was ‘only « one of those intentional sophisms in which con-
trov ertists are ‘apt to indulge to ‘perplex and confound an opponent,
when he cannot be refuted. This view of the majority was clearly
wroug, froin the following considerations. 2

‘1, There is another seetion which a as clearly and specially provides
for the trial of a ‘travelling preacher, as there is that provides for the
trinlof a Bishop, ‘and this must prove as much against the applicability
of the rule to the ohe as to the other. The truth in the case is this: the
rule for the trial of a ee i. Sec, 4." and the rule for the trial of
preachers generally, Chap. See. ©, merely settled the mode of proceed-
jug in each’ case, how the court is to he organized, and by what rules it
is to be governed; hut they do not t define, in’ all respects, what is criftie
and what is not crime, this heing decided by the artitles, the general”
riiles, and such special ctactinents as the General Conference has pro-
Vided: while the rule ‘ on “slavery udder consideration is one of those
special enactments, not in the Icast affeeting the’ mode of trial pre-
seribed in the other tules, but siniply defining ‘how far slaveholding i isa
eriine, decreci ing ‘that if should be an ‘offence’ couly’ when emancipation
ix practicable. | It defines not how a preacher ora Bishop shall be tried,
but for wat they shall he fied, andi Js applicable to all classes of preael:-

weet

ers,

2. If this rule is not applicable toa bishop, so as to protect him id
340

e
slaveholding where emancipation is nof practicable, it cannot be applied
to him so as to condemn him, where emancipation is practicable. Now
as this rule is professedly against slavery, and as it is the only rule in
the Discipline which touches the case of clerical slaveholding, if it be
not applicable to a Bishop, there is no rule in the Discipline which does
forbid Episcopal slaveholding,and theBishops may become slaveholders
without violating any rule of the Church. To make the rule condemn
a Bishop, should he hold slaves when he might emancipate them, you
must allow him its full protection when emancipation is impracticable.
3. the language of the rule, by its own force and meaning, includes
Bishops. “When any travelling preacher becomes the owner of a
slave,” &c., is the language. The simple question is this: Is a Bishop
a travelling preacher, in the sense of the rule? We say yes, for the
words include Bishops by their own force, and we must understand
them to be used tn the proper, grammatical sense, unless there be obvi-
ous reasons for another construction. Travelling preacher is a generic
term, which comprehends a number of species. No one can deny that
as the word is here used, it includes’ elders, deacons, and licentiates:
and by its proper meaning, it also includes Bishops. " A mere licentiate
is a travelling preacher: a deacon is no more than a travelling preach-
er: an elder is no more than a travelling preacher: and a Bishop is cer-
tainly no less than a travelling preacher: and we cannot see that he is
any more. What gives greater force to this view is some of the deba-
ters in the majority apply another rule to the Bishop, which is arule for
preachers, showing that preacher includes Bishop, when that view fa-
vors their side of the question. In Chap. 1 Sec.9, the following is found
as the fourth direction given to a “ preacher.” “Take no step toward
marriage without first consulting with your brethren.” As the Bishop’s
difficulty mainly grew out of his late marriage, this rule was applied to
him with peculiar force by several of the speakers against him, which
supposes a Bishop is bound by the rules of a preacher; and if bound
«by them, he must be entitled to their advantages. We think that the
above is sufficient to show that Bishop Andrew was no offender against
the Methodist Discipline, nor did his accusers pretend that he had vio-
lated any express rule of the Church, We believe, as we have said
above, that the rule of the Church fully sustained Bishop Andrew in his
slaveholding; and though in a moral point of view, they did not deal
with him so severely as the crime of slaveholding deserves, yet in the
light of the Methodist Discipline, the whole proceeding against him was
unlawful and oppressive. If we were to appeal to the common senti-
ments of the Church, as they have been expressed by leading ministera,
Bishop Andrew would stand acquitted.
341

Take one instance, as we must be brief: upon this point. Bishop
Ueddine’s “ golden rule-arguincnt” is to the point. He savas,“ The
rigbt.to hold a slave is founded: upon this rule: whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.” We do not under-
stand the: Bishop to design. this as a justification of slaveholding as a
system, but only so far as the laws vender emancipation impossible with-
out making the condition of the slave worse. ‘The. Bishops argument
amounts to this: such are the regulations, wrougs,:and cruelties of the
system, that in many. cases it is for the best good of the slave to be held
by kind, Christian masters, rather than by unlawfut emancipation, to be
throwa into: the hands of cruel infidels. Let us then test Bishop An-
drew’s case: by this argument. - Ef this argument be sound, the man who
hus a rightito held a slave by the golden rule, mast-be bound to hold
him. Jt canvot be right by the rule, unless it comes within the mean-
ing of: the rule; and if it comnés withia the meauing of the rule, then
the rule commands it, and'it.cannot be omitted without sin. Now for
theapplication, Bishop Andrew’s'slavcholding was ‘doubtless just such
as is contemplated hy Bishop [iedding’s golden rule argument, and,
therefore, it must be rights andl rigit, it must be binding on the Bish-
op to, hold his'slaves,and 'to emancipate them would be to violate the gol-
denrale, This being the case, the. Conference procecded against him for
What was his duty to do, and for what be could not omit.doing: without
violating the golden rule. This was driving the Bishop into a strait place,
to require him to desist from the exercise of his Episcopal office, or sin
against the requisitions of tae golden rule. .The Conference has got to
shoulder, this couscquence and carry it off, or repudiate Bishop Hed-
ding’s golden rule argument,

It will not do for.the Conference to attempt to escape this conclusion,
so fatal to the morality of their proceeding egainst Bishop Andrew, by
xaying it was not of the kind .of slaveholding contemplated by Bishop
Hedding in thatargument, for sucha defence would involve them in a
worse dificulty., What the golden rule justifies it commands, and what

-it does not justify it condemus; if therefore the Bshop’s slavery was not
justified by the golden rule, it wascondemned ‘by it, and must have been
sinful, and yet the Conference did not treat. hin as, guilty of the least
immorality. ‘The speakers declared over and over again that he was a
pure man, and that they did not wish to touch his Christian and mibiste-
rial character. If ‘then his slavery was not such as is contemplated hy
the golden rule argument of Dishop Hedding, it was wicked slavehod-
ing, and according to the General Conference, a man may practise wick-
eduegs, and still be a pure Chtistian and an unblemished minister, so
342

long as such sin is not connected with the Episcopacy. It was not to
Bishop Andrew’s slavehulding the Conference objected, put to its con-
nection with the Episcopacy. If then it was nof such slavery as the gol-

den rule sanctions, according to Bishop Hedding, the Conference had no

objection tu sin in the ministry, so long as it was not connected with the
Episcopacy, and if it was such slavery as the golden rule justifies then
they required the Bishop to violate the golden rule by emancipating his
slaves, which the golden rule required him to hold.

Nor will it avail any thing for the Conference to say that Bishop Hed-
ding’s golden rule argument was not intended for Bishops, but only for
preachers and members, for this would suppose the Church has two
codes of morality, one for the members and preachers, and another for
Bishops. The Bishop’s argument founded on the golden rule, does not
consider slavery as a question of expediency, but as a question of mor-
ality to be settled by the moral law; and hence his argument must ap-
ply to Bishops, unless it be maintained that by virtue of office they are
exempt from the claims of the moral law. We can very easily conceive
that the Conference might make one set of rules of expediency for
preachers, and another for Bishops, but that they are or can be under
different laws of morality is not supposable. The fact that a man is a
layman, a preacher ora Bishop, does not alter his moral obligation to
his fellow being in the case of slaveholding, so far as that obligation
depends upon the golden rule. Suppose a case: — A slaveholder who
holds his slaves under the sanction of the golden rule; of course the rule
requires him to hold them. He receives license to preach, is ordained,
and finally becomes a bishop ; his obligation to those slaves remains the
same through all these changes, and he is no less bound to hold them
by the golden rule as a Bishop than he was asa layman. The right to
hold slaves by the golden rule is made to depend upon the condition of
the slaves, and not upon the condition of the master; hence it can be
changed only by a change of the condition of the slaves, upon which
it depends; it cannot be shifted by a change in the office of the master,
upon which it does not depend. These remarks show that if there is
any truth in Bishop Hedding’s golden rule argument, it must constitute
a general rule of morality for all classes, for bishops as well as for oth-
ers; hence the above difficulties cannot be avoided by saying that the
golden rule argument was not’ intended for Bishops. The conclus-
ion, is, that ifslaves can be held by the golden rule, as Bishop Hed-
ding contends, there can be no doubt that such is the character of slave-
holding by Bishop Andrew. If it was such, they required him to violate
the golden rule; and if it was not such, it must have been sinful, and
343

they offered to tolerate him in the sin, if he would only cease to act
as a Bishop and take his rank as a preacher or presiding elder. We be-
lieve the sentiments of Bishop Hedding are the sentiments of the
Church generally, with the exception of the few whom the officials
call modern ultra abolitionists; hence we say the slaveholding of Bishop
Andrew was no violation of the law of the Church, or of what bas been
advanced by Bishops and Jeading ministers, which stands uncontradic-
ted as the sentiments of the Church in relation te slaveholding.

The same view is sustained by the procecdings of the Conference’
the resolutions themselves do not accuse the Bishop of any violation of
Methodist law, or of any law of morality, As we are devoting this sec-
tion to a consideration of the facts in the case alledged against Bishop
Andrew, and having considered them as set forth by the Bishop him-
zelf, we will now notice briefly the Conference version of them as set
forth in the resolutions. Mr. Griffith’s resolution, which was first jn-
troduced was based upon the following points set forth in the preamble.

L. it asserted that Bishop Andrew had become a slaveholder.

2. It had been the settled policy of the Church and invariable usage.
not to elect a slavcholder to the Episcopacy.

3. Asa slaveholder, he could not discharge the duties of a Bishop in
the non-slaveholding portions of the Church,

4. Bishop Andrew was nominated in 1832 by the South as a non-
slavelolder.

a
5. The present period is most unfavorable to the conncction of sla-
very with the Episcopacy.

Upon these facts, real or assumed, a resolution was based requesting
Bishop Andrew to resign. It is worthy of remark that there is not the
least intimation that the Bishop had violated any law of the Church.

There are five different reasons conjured up for the Bishop’s resig-
nation, not one of which is founded on any rule of the Church, or any
rule of Christianity or morality, or on any want of qualification in the
Bishop. Is there not something dark in suclia proceeding? Let us
look at these reasons.

1. The Bishop has become aslaveholder! But there were, previous
to this, thousands of members, hundreds of ministers, and many presi-
ding elders who were slavcholders, for whose slaveholding the laws of
the Church provided. Why then this alarm ?

2, It has been the settled policy and invariable usage of the Church
not to elect a slaveholder to the Episcopal office. There is no such
written policy, and every one knows that if it exists it has not been sef-
aled, for the South have been all the while contending and striving for a
alavoholding Bishop, while hundreds of Northern men petitioned this

MN 2 pli

 
344

very conference against the election of a slaveholder to the Episcopacy-
Yow. false is the assertion that: such was the settled policy of the Church,
when one partyin the :Churchiis striving: for: the thing, and one oppo-
site party are so fearful that'they will succeed, that they are holding
conventions, passing resolutions, and getting up petitions to prevent it!

3. The Bishop cannet perform the duties of his office in the nou-
sluveholding portion of the Church acceptably. But itis not intimated
whether his'want of acceptability: is the fuult of bis connection with
slavery,.or the fault-of: those who will not reccive him. It is known,
however, tliat, the sentinient of the North, which renders: the Bishop
unacceptable, has been opposed by tuese very men who: proceed against
the Bishop. They having done all they could to. put down and: crush
this sentiment, and: having failed ia thei attenrpt, they turn round and

crush the Bishop iu subserviency to the very principles. they have op-

posed and sought to destroy!» What.a lovely gem consistency is!, And
what a rare exhibition of it we here heve! , : a

4, the. Bishop was elected.as. a man from slavery. But the Bishop
declared, that he was elected without a pledge not to becoine a slave-
holder the next day, and without even 'being asked a question on tlie
subject, and uo inan presumed to contradict him. , Ae

5. The present period is most unfavorable to the connection of
slavery with the Episcopary. «. Prineiples have not changed, and ‘the
peculiar unfavorableness of the period is the abolition influence which
‘the Church has opposed and’ failed to subdue, as remarked above.
What a cringing before what the Church has” from the beginning con-
demned as ‘perverted: and w ieked _pablie sentiment! Such are the
facts in relation to the, first, resolution introduced against Bishop Ar-
drew, but it was too strong meat, and a substitue was offered of amild-
er character.

The following is] Mr. Finley's substitute, which was ‘admitted by the
original mover, and after discussion, was ¢ adopted by the Conference.
*~ «Whereas, the Discipline of our Church forbids the doing any thing
_ calculated to destroy our itinerant geveral super intendency,. and where-
‘age as Bishop Andrew has become connected with slavery by marriage
and otherwise, and this act faving drawn after it circumstances which
will, in the estimation of the General Conference, greatly embarra ss the
exercise of this office as an itinerant general superintendent, if not in~
some places entirely prevent it; therefore,

Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Conference, that he de-
sist from the exercise of this office so Jong as this impediment remains.”

“This, in our view, is a very strong document to be adopted. by, 80

ss a iv
345

grave and wise a body as the General Conference of the M. E. Church,
Upon it we submit the following remarks.

1, Itis not true that “the Discipline forbids the doing any thing cal-
culated to destroy our itinerant general superintendency.” If there be
any such prohibitation we should be glad to have it pointed out, but we
affirm there is no suchrule which contains any such prohibition. We
suppose the author of the resolution had his eye on the restrictive rule
which forbids the General Conferenee to do “ away Episcopacy or de-
sroy the plan of our itinerant general superintendency ,” but this does
not make the resolution true. That restrictive rule orily forbids the Gen-
eral Conference to do it on its own responsibility, it being a delegated
body, but the Annual Conferences may, if they see fit, empower the Gen-
oral Conference to destroy Episeopacy, that is, abolish it. If it be in-
sisted that the Discipline does forbid the doing any thing calculated to
destroy the general superintendency, we reply that in the same manner
and to the same extent, it forbids such an appropriation of the beok fund,
as was directed by that same General Conference in the case of a divis-
jon, provided they could obtain the consent of the Annual Conference,
for which purpose they sent the bill down for their approval.

2. The preamble to the resolution asserts that Bishop Andrew’s con-
nection with slavery has “drawn afterit cireumstanees which will
greatly embarrass the exercise of his office.” This is also false in fact.
There were circumstances which embarrassed the office connected with
slavery, but those circumstances were not produced by the fact of his
connection with slavery, as the lasguage implies. The only circum-
stances, then, which embarrassed 1L.is office on account of his connec-
tion with slavery, are found in the anti-slavery principles and feelings of
the non-slaveholding conferences, and we deny that the Bishop’s mar-
riage with slavery drew these priuciples and feelings after it. Theso
existed before his marriage, and his connection with slavery had no in-
fluence in producing them. When we saya man's action has drawn
after it certain consequences, we mean that his act, as a course, has pro-
duced these consequences. The language of the -preamble supposes
that Bishop Andrew's connection with slavery produced certain effects,
which are called “cireumstances drawn after it,” and that these cireum-
stances embarrass his office, whereas there are no intervening circum-
stances between his connection with slavery and the embarrassment re-
fered to; the embarrassment was ‘direct from his becoming a slaveliold-
er, and not that his connection with slavery produeed certain circum.
stances, and those circumstances embarrass him. The embarrassment

Ss this: the non-slaveholding conferences will not consent to receive a

2 cial
346

slayeholding - Bishop, and, to: this; they were as -mucli opposed sbefore
they knew the Bishop was a slavcholder as they were afiér the fact was
known. abe only point of light in which this is important, is as antil-
lustration of what crooked work men make,when they-dare not tell the
truth, or whan they act, apd at the same time dare not give, the real reasons
for ; What they do. Had the preamble, to the resalution expressed the re-.
al eee on which the resolution, rested, it would not have; said. that
Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery “having drawn, after it cir-
cumstances which will greatly, embarrass the exereise of his office,” but
it would have said, se Whereas, Bishop. Andrew. has hecome connected
with slavery by marriage and otherwise, and, whereas the,abohtonists
have succeeded in prejudicing the Northern , portion of the Church

against s slaveholding, to. such a degree, that, he cannot, as a slaveholder,

contie to act asa Bishop without great damage to the interests of the
Charch, as a number of the Confer: ences will ,cither reject him entirely

or secede ftom, the Church, therefore, _ ,,, aia Gee po

Resolved, That. it is the sense of this General Cooference that he de-
sist from the exercise of his office”, .

Sieh a resolution would have set.forth ‘the facts just as ies existed
but such a statement the Conference.dared not to make. .Though the
speakers were compelled ‘to fake this ground in the debate, yet they
dared not say it in the, resolution, on account of the effect..which an
honest avowal of the facts would be likely to produce in the Souta, for:
they labored to prevent division by concealing the real state of things
from the South. And in attempting to give a reason for. the resolution,
without expressing the real facts in the case, they have cither used Jan-
guage that means nothiag, or else that means what is. not trae. . Instead
of saying that the Northern Conferences or some of, them, will not sub-
mit to have a slaveholdirg Bishop, they,say that “Bishop Andrew has
become connected with slavery, and this act having drawn afier it. cir-
curnstances which wil] greatly embarrass the exercise of his office,” &e,
What a mighty Igbor of words to say nothing, er to. say something £0
that no ,oue can know and prove from the language employed, what
was really intended to be said, or what,ideas existed in the mind: of the
author. ., Why did not the Conference express by a specific name the.
state of things: or facts, intended to be represented by the almost un-
meaning “expression, “has drawn afte rit circumstances?” Whoknows
what thege cireumstances are from rekding the, resolution ? Is the, Bish-
op’s attention required at home to take care, of his slaves? or has he’
become so ‘entangled with the business of 1 the world by ,bevoming a
slaveholder ? or does some other, gircumstange embarrass his office ?
Who can know from the resdlurien? 2
317
SECTION 1H.

BISHOR ANDREW’S CASE CONTINUED.

Tn iis preceding section we considered 'the ‘facts in the case ot’ Bislta
op Andrew, 'The.next spointito.be considored is the principle’ upoh
which the .Conference: acted in view of these facts, The following
questions. suggest: the facts to Ve arrived at in'this inquiry. Did the
Couference deal with Bishop ‘Aindrew as they did from the love of anti-
slavery principles, and with a design td promdte them ? and if not, whay

was the objdct aitmed.at by: such actions? 9" GN a

‘We do not believe the love of amti-slevery had any thing to'do with
the proceedings in the case:of Bishop Andrew, nor do we believe that
the: atlyuncement of the cause of anti-sluvery formed any part of ihe
object aimed.ad to be-seeured by-those strange proceedings. In making
this remark we gpeak-of the Conference as a:whole we do: not deny
that there inuy have been some ihdividuals-who sought the promotion
af the interests of the slave, and this:evern is hard to believe, for such
was the course dfithose who claim to, be abolitionists that it is not easy
to reconcile it with sound anti-slavery principles. ’ That the action a+
gainst the Bishop was ‘not-the result of the love of anti-slavery, and was
not designed to promote it, appears from.the following eonsiderations.

1.,The procecdings were' not professedly based: upon anti-slavery
principles. The resolution called the substitute; which was finally adoy:
ted, has not one word of true anti-slavery in it. True ‘anti-slavery has
its foundation ina belic! in the sinfulness of' slaveholding, and yet there
is not ove word in all that document which intimates that slaveholding
is sinful, The preamble afirms.that Bishop Andrew has become ccn-
nected with slavery, but it does not affirm that it is a‘sinful connection {
it does not intimate or imply any sucn thing, but to. the revérse. Jt af-
firms that the act of connecting himself with slav ery “has drawn after
4 cirédumstances which must greatly: embarrass the: exercise of his oft
fice 3’ but this language doesnot mean or imply that the connection is
sinful, but to the reverse, and must. be conclusive evidence'that those
who ure satisfied with that declaration,ido not believe'Bishup Audrew’s
connection with slavery is sinful. Such were the circumstances’ as to
call for.a direct declaration of the: sinfulness of:that connection,’ if it
were believed to be sinful. The Conference declared its opinion that

the Bishop ought.to-desist from the exercise‘of his office on account of
jis connection withslavery. For this'a reason is given ; a reason found
in such connection, and of course if there existed a belief that it was
sinful, .this would.have been the first and only reason. It is the’first rea-
348

kon to be rendered, because it is more important than any other reason
and it is the only reason, because when a thing is sinful, no other reason
against it can be necessary with Christians, The fact therefore, that the
sinfulness of Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery is not rendered
as a reason for the action in the case, is proof that the actors did not be-
lieve it to be sinful, That there was no intention of even intimating
that slavery was sinful, is clear from the language employed. To sup-
pose that the Conference intended to be understood by the preamble.
and resolution, to mean that Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery
is sinful, would be tu impeach their common sense. Understand them
to mean thatthe connection with slavery was sinful, and you make them
express themselves after the following manner. When they mean to say
‘or communicate the idea that Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery
is sinful, to express it they say it has “drawn after it circumstances
which will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office.” Can any one
believe that the Conference used such language to express the sinfulness
of slaveholding? Surely not. When they mean to say that the Bish-
op’s conduct is sinful, do they express it by saying it has drawn after it
circumstances? And do they really mean gravely to affirm, that sin
will greatly embarrass the exercise of his office? We think not. It ia
clear that the ground of action set forth in the preamble and resolution,
ds not the sinfulness of slavery, and that the actors do not believe in the
ainfulness of that slavery practised by Bishop Andrew, and the conclu-
sion fs, the action did not spring from the love of anti-slavery principles
or from a desire to promote them.

All genuine anti-slavery action proceed from a belief in the sinfulness
of slaveholding, but the action against Bishop Andrew did not proceed
trom a belief in the sinfulness of slaveholding, and therefore it was not
unli-slavery action. y

. The repeated avowals of the speakers, and the general scope of
their arguments, prove that the action did not proceed from a belief in
the sinfulness of Bishop Andrew’s connection with slavery, nor froma
Jove of anti-slavery, or a desire to promote it. There are several facts
which confirm this position, some of which we will briefly, yet distinct-
ly state.

(1.) They declare their full confidence in the moral integrity ond pu-
rity of Bishop Andrew. Mr. Collins said he loved Bishop Andrew asa
-man, asa Christian, as a minister, and as a Bishop ; he loved him more
than any other mau on the bench of Bishops. He believed he was a
pure man. This he could not have said if he believed his connection
with slavery was sinful. Dr. Olin said if he had a thousand votes to
349

give for a Bishop, ‘he woultl ¢ give them all! for Bishop Andrew, ‘with the
exception of his connection with slavery, and for that he did not wish
to touch His Christian and ministerial character. This he could not
have sid, if he believed his ecannecnon with slavery was sinful. Other
speakers repeated over atid over ¢ again ‘the same sentiment. ”

(2.) The whole argument, on the part of the North, proceeded not up-
on the principle of the sihfulness of’ slavery, but upon thé constitutional
power of the Getieral Conference to put a Bishop out of office without
‘even charging liim with sin, or aty crime. All the speakers ftom the
South made the ikgue the right of slavel: solding in the case of Bishop
Andrew ; but no Northern r nia joined issue with themon this point, which
they wold have done had'they becn acting ujon anti-slav ery principles.
The great battle, so far as the North carried on the w ar, was about the
power of the Conference to do what they proposed to do, The South
did not contend for the moral right of° slaveholding i in the circumstari-
ces of Bishop Andrew, which the North did not deny; but’they joined
issue with the North on the constitutional question, and here the battle
raged fierce and long. The South did wot deny the’ pow er of the Gen-
eral Conference to deal with a Bishop for sin of any kind, but'they de-
nicd the constitutional power of the Conference to deal ‘with the Bish-
op as proposed, without charge dnd conviction of sin, or a dereliction
from duty of some sort, his being the case, they might have endéd
the dispute at ondé on the constitutional question, by simply saying that
they regarded the Bishop’s connection with slavery as sinfil. Thére
would then have been nothing;to dispute about but the simple point of
the sinfulness of slaveholding, and if, a’ some tell us, the Church is an-
ti- -slavery, there would have been but little room to dispute about this,
Itis clear then, from this cousideration, that they did not regard the slave-
holding of Bishop Andrew as sihfuk It would betray too great a want
of common sehse to suppose that they would have contended co long
for the right of requestitig Bishop Andtew to desist from the exercise of
his office, without crime an his paint, when the very act for which they
wished to do it was, in their view, sinful, and yet that they should never
otice urge ‘such sinfulness as d reuson for their action.

‘(3 They express their entire’ satisfaction with the slaveholding of
Southern preachers as it exists, Where the laws will not admit of eman-
eipation, which proves that their objection to the slaveholding of Bish-
op Andrew was not’ founded in a belief in its sinfulness, or in any love
of anti-slavery principles, It was affirried’ over and over again,‘ that,
theif objection was not to slavcholding i as practised by Southern minis-
tere, buf only to its connection with the Episcopacy. Rev. J. T. Peck

30
350

of the Troy Conference, said if they would, only yield on the question
of a slaveholding Bishop, they would goon together in peace as they
had for the Jast for ty years. Jt was also slated by « others that if the Bish-
op, would give up his office as Bishop, he might coutinue to labor asa
ininister or a presiding elder, and be useful. There can be no diflerenee
in, moral principle, whether slaveholding be practised by a Bishop, a-pre-
siding elder, a common pastor, or a layman jand henee, as, the. Confer-
_ence offered to tolerate, him in his slaveholding in any relation in the
Chureh but thar of Bishop, and asked nothing of him. but to desist from
the exercise of, the Episcopal office while he remained a slaveholder, it
is clear that their proceeding against him. did not originate from anti-sla-
very principles, which know no difference. between slavery i in the hands
of a Bishop, an elder, or a Jayman., If there was any opposition to sla
very in it, it was such as is confined to the Episcopacy, and would act
so far only as to abolish Episcopal slavebolding. Is that entitled to the
name of anti-slavery? Will such principles and proceedings be re-
ceived as satisfactory anti -slavery by any true. anti- slavery man, whose
hated of oppression and whose love of liberty are as diffusive as uni-
-versal.1 humanity? We cannot believe it; it will satisfy none but such
as-seck, for nothing more than an apology for being satisfied, whose souls
have been withered and blighted by the sear ching spirit of sectarian big-
owwy. We have one more general cousideration to urge why the action
iu the case of Bishop Andrew did not proceed from anti-slavery prin-
ciples, + ! i
3. The remedy proposed ‘was such as no honest ami-slavery man would
propose in such a case, We use the term remedy instead of punish-
inent, because the Conference deny that their action was punitive, The
Bishop is clearly a slaveholder, and, has become such in three different
ways. Now what.does this pure-minded auti- slavery body propose as
_arenedy for this Episcopal slaveholding ?. “e By their fruit ye shall
“ kuow them,” and what is the anti-slavery fruit of this wonderful anti-
slavery body ?
(1.), flue Conference claimed the right to, expel the Bishop, i they
saw it necessary, but no one proposed. this, so that there was not anti-
slavery enough in the Conference to conceive the thought that slavehol-
ding isacrime, or a disqualification for membership ina Christian
Church, or for the Christian ministry. How much anti-slavery is there
in that sentiment which holds that slaveholding is consistent , with the
purity of the Christian ministry? | The answer is, Justas much as there
was in the action of the General Conference in the case of Bishop An-
drew.

. ae % we
Bt et ‘
351
(2.) ‘They did not require Bishop Andrew fo cease, 2 from slaveholding
asa eondition of his future standing in the Church andi in the ministr Va
(3.) The Conference did not,even censure or reprove the Bishop for
slaveholding » for no vote of censure or reproof was passed or even pro-
ppsed. Soe :
(4) All ‘that the Conference did from the fulness of its anti- -slavery
heart, was to say, as a ‘mere matter of opinion, that the Bishop ought to
“desist from the exercise of his office so long a8 this impediment 1 re-
mains. This j is the remedy ; and this is called anti-slavery ! How
must the anti-slavery heart of f thar: Conference have swollen, and throb-
bed, and beat, with such a mammoth anti- slavery sentiment, and how
must it have felt relieved, when after ten days protracted labor it deliv-
ered itsolf of the simple expression of opinion, that the Bishop oiight
not to exercise his ‘office, while 1 he remains a slaveholder, throwing, this
anti- ‘slavery child of so many throes and sorrows at the feet of the
Bishop, unarmed by the force of law, and unprotected , ‘by a parent's
authority, to be disposed of as the mercy of his slavebolding reverence
should dictate, leaving the Bishop free to pick up and pity. the little
harmless thing, and lend an ear to its feeble authoritative cry, or to neg-
lect it as unworthy of his notice, orto crush it as one would crush the
young of a viper ?, We can say nothing worse, nothing more severe of
those who can call this anti- slavery action, than that we pity them !
awul we can wish nothing worse to come upon, than that they muy feel
the mighty principles of real anti-slavery taking hold of their hearts and
stirring up the fountains of their souls, only i in the degree that we. felt
them when they ‘severed the ties of sect, became stronger than the re-
gards and flatteries of many friends, and triumphed over the love of pop-
ularity in the Church and in the community. ;
if then, as.we have shown, the action in the case of Bishop Andrew
did not result from the love of anti-slavery principles, and was not de- »
signed to promote them, our last inquiry on this point is, upon ‘what
principles did the Conference act? This may be soon answer ed, and upon
good a authori ity, _ They acted from what is commonly called expediency ;
and the i inquiry y was not, what is expedient for the cause of the Slave,
but what is expedient i in the work of promoting the sectarian interests
of the M. E. Chureh. That there were men in that Conference who
see and feel the evil of slavery, and have the interests of the, slave (AL
Jeart, we do not deny, but that the Confer rence was, governed by a re-
gard for the slave we do not, we cannot believe. We cannot believe it,
because the actors ‘assigned another reason for their action, which they
hod no cause to feign, If we are to regard them as honest, the simple
352

object was, not to relieve the slaves of the South, but to: pacify the abo-.
litionists of the North, and ‘prevent | seoession. Thig:i is obvious from
various considerations, 9° pe

‘I. In the debate, the i issue was never placed between the master and
thé slave, as it would have been, had the 'niain object of’ the Conference
been torelieve the slave; but the issue was placed’, between the North-
ern and Southern divisions of the Church. "The South did plead the
interest of the slave as a reason why the re esolution should not be adop-
ted; but the North did not urge the interests: ef the slave as a reason
why’ the resolution ‘should be adopted; they urged the interests of the
North in opposition to the interests of the Sou’ h, ‘inchuding both master
and'slave, as plead by Southern delegates. Had the object of the ma-
jority been to, relieve the slave, they would have p plead the interests of
the slave; but this they did not ‘plead, but plead the interests of the
North, and. therefore their object ey ONS the interests. of the
North.

2, The resolution over which this wonderful Heiaee was held, makes
no allusion'to. thé interests of the slaves, but it is founded upon the
evils likely to be wrought in the Nor thern por tion of the Church. ‘Tt af-
firms, not that slaveholding i is wrong, not that the Bishop's Ss connection
with slavery will increase its evil or perpetuate it, ‘but that it will great-
ly embarrass the exercise of the office, if not in some places. entirely
prevent it. Where does it embarrass or prevent the exercise of the
Episcopal office! 2" In the South? No, but in the North, and in that
portion of the North where anti- ‘slavery prevails most. | It i is clear then
that the action was taken to pacity the abolitionists of the North, and
prevent the dreadful, work of secession 80 fearfully begun, from going
any further. rae ,

3. If any far ther proof was necessary we have it in the repeated dec-
larations made by: the disputants during’ the discussion, ‘They declared:
over and over again, that unless something was done, ‘there would be
great secessions in, some of He Norton Conferences; this they | re-
gretted ; they had done what they could to oppose it, but it had become
vncontrolable, andif Bishop Andrew remained as ie was, a slavehold-
er, and ‘the Conference took tio action in the’ case, the ‘Churth would be
broken up in some places.” Mr. Spencer said they might ‘ as well go
home and disband. Dr. Olin said the’ ‘thing would become perfectly
unesntrolable, and nearly all the’ Nor thern’ speakers, i in” some way, ‘de-
clared the same sentimeht, ‘but’ we need not repeat the discussion’ which
our readers have seen and read, If there i = any ‘dependence’ to be pul

upon what men say, the object of the aotian ia the « case ‘of Bishop ‘An-
te Sy SP bP oyegna cae fa
353
drew was to prevent secession, for this they ‘declared by the -principal
agents in such. action. And so fearful were they that they should not
be under stood, and that they should be suspected of, being actuated by:
abolition sentiments, Vat they denied being abolitionists, declared their
disbelief i in the abolition doctrine that slaveholding i is sinful under all
circumstances, and further avowed their belief that immediate abolition
would be the greatest, calamity that could be ‘inflicted upon, the slaves,
Such was the anti- slavery action of the General Conference i in the case
of Bishop’ Andrew. We have yet ‘to examine the result. at which the
Conférence arrived in'this case, but this must fuewish matter for anoth-

er short section.
ap

SECTION IV.

BISHOP. ANDRE W's CASE CONTINUED.

Having shown in preceding’ sections what were the fucts in this case
and upon what principles the Conference acted in view of these facts
it only remains to consider in this, thé result to ‘which those principles
conducted tem. The conclusion is soon told i in ‘the following words:

“Resolved, That it is the sense of this General Confer rence, that he

“idesist from ‘the exercise of his Office so long as this impediment re-
mains.”

This is the wonderful child of many sorrows, that cast mighty throes

“antl pangs; ‘and had it come into the woth!) gifted with the ro of
apeech,’and had it inquired of his father, “ What hast thou hegotien : pe
and‘of its mother, “ What hast thou brought forth?” there Was not one
in that Conference who could have answered the question. Those who.

‘sustained the resolution knew very well that it was so indefinite as taset-
tle nothing,'and that it could be made of no practical use but by con-
struction, and in this way it would suit almost any purpose, for jt meant

‘nothing of itself’ Thiere was'a reason for this. Phe object was to, run
between two extremes, and so run as to drive. neither off, and to effect
this they adoptéd a résolution which meant, nothing only’ by constr uetion
that each party might construe it to. suit thetgclves. In the South it
could be ildeoetal to be merely advice, - and: in the North i it could be
understood to be'a Command, deposing the ‘Bishop. The preachers
could explain’ it to an abolitionist to. mean a great, deal, and to a Prossla-
very man to mean but avery. Ite. We have: been ‘informed fone ¢ case
in which a member, who has. always been ver y bitter against, abolition,

‘complained to a preacher, who,is proud ta be-called anabalitionist, that

; d
354

they had abused Bishop Andrew, b but this abolitionist so explained j it as
: to satisfy him, and then at another time ‘be _attempted to to explain it so
* ‘as to ‘satisfy the abolitionists. “That we are’ ‘right i in ‘saying. that the 1 reso-

ution ‘settles nothing | but by construction we will now rove, The reso-
ution now as an ‘authoritative meaning, b b cause ‘the ‘Confer ence gave
‘it one after they had adopted it, but until they gave it a ‘construction ‘by
authority, it ‘meant nothing cirtainly, and might mean almost, any. tl thing
by construction. But to the proof that it was indefinite, ck

“1, Tt was debated upon f false prineiples, grosying out of a _ misappre-
hension, ‘of the: force and bearing of the resolution. ‘The a question
‘debated was the power of the Conference to depose a Bishop, or dis-
miss him from office without crime or impeachment. This was the point
on which all the great men spent ‘their energies. Mr. Hamline, now
Bishop, in his very able pa agree confined himself to this point. Dr.
Durbin alse made this point the most prominent feature of his argument’
Now why was all this, if it was understood that the resolution was not
intended to depose or dismiss.the, Bishop from office, nar, yet to impose
any binding restraint upon him in the exereise of hig office, more than:
is implied in advice, to be, followed or rejected as the judgment, of the
party advised dictates. Ting South, we have no doubt, honestly, thought
the resolution. intended to depose, the Bishop; and hence they so argued
the question, and. the N orth had to ‘meet them, for they ‘did not like to
say that the resolution meant no such thing, lest they should defeat, its
object at the North, and.Jest they, should defeat the resolution, for they
could agree among themselves on nothing definite, Such a resolytion
as th t could be carried, because one would vote for it understanding it
in one way, and another would yote for it.understanding it in .another
way. This discussion asa whole, must be considered as a fair,index
to the understanding the Conference had of: the resolution, and.if so,
there was no settled and authoritative, meaning, to it, for it was.debated
in all points of fight, and i in view of, all sorts of considerations,

2. “When the vote was. taken, some men found: jt necessary te explain
“their Position, by saying t that, they understood the: Tesolution to mean so
and 80, ‘and that they could, not vote for it only in, view, of this construc-
tion, which. shows that they. apprehended that some others understood
it differently. They must have conceived that the reslution did, pot
clearly express the views with, whieb they voted for it, that it was likely
to be understood as saying what they did nok mean to say by theixivotes ;
and henee,. in giving, their, ‘votes, they. found it necessary to. tell’ what
they. meant hy! their votes. _ Among, this class, was Rev. P. Rice, ef the

Wow York Conference, a man t not, to be. suspected. of a want.ef cam-
355
mon discernment, and hence the: defect must fiave been imthe resusu-
tion, * id ond bhiee sathodinil g tad ieniloila moane on bosiients
_ 3 The publig journalg- generally. misunderstood the resolution, anc
‘xioke of it as though it deposed, the Bishop. Among them sverg the
editors of the, New, York, Tribune, and of. the Boston. Moruing Chroni-
cle; and even the sharp-sighted editor of Ziou’s Herald foi) inte this
mistake. gale puedh tyes gag th ok grdeiaaruy lo wh ivan
.q 4 The Bishops themselves, who presided over the Conference while
the resolution was discussed aud adopted, did uot .know its forec and
meaning, and could got determine from the resolution itself, in what
position it placed Bishop Andrew,..and as theiv. action muat.be affected
by it, they declared themselves unable to proceed until ihe general Con-
ference would tell then: what effect the adoption of that: resolution had
on the standing of the Bishop.. Can any one:nccount for thig without
impeaching the resolution as obscnre, or us meaning nothing, or im-
peaching the intelligence of the Bishaps.- We trust, however, ne-one
will gall in question the jeomriorigenseof. the Bishops; it is perfectly
plain that.the resolution amant.nothing definitely, and yet that it might
be made to mean different things. by conatruction, yqsh gist ese bru
i, In view of the above: faets we have get to look to the explan-
ations given of the resolution, to learn certainly the result arrived at,
ante this, paintiwe, wilknow direct the reader’s attention. ' The simple:
question is, Is the result anti-slavery ? is it a result to which enlighten-
ed anti-shavery'principles would lead?*'We think not. The truth is,
the action of the Conterence has mot touched the Bishop ina legal point
of view. It was not even legal advice. The. Conference did not say
we advise, or he is hereby ‘advised, or resolve that he'be advised, but
ouly “that it is the sense of this Conference that he desist from: the ex-
ercise of this office.” This is nothing but the expression of an opinion,.
expressed not direetly to Bidhop Andrew, but concerning him, atid itis,
as defined by the Cenfererice, not onty devoid of all legal force; but it ix
not legal advice, for it is not adtlressed to him as advice. If we should
refer back to the reason wpon which the opinion is founded, which has
been considered, we should find that itis not an anti-slavery reason
Voes it intimate that he should desist fron: the exercise of his office be-
éause slaveholdingvis.wrong ? Not a’ whisper of this. ‘Does it even
imply that he should desist from the exercise of his office out: ‘of pity to

(the lave? . Not in tlre least. “Does it say or imply that itis because

' the exercise of his!office will strengthen slavery : ? By no means,’ Phe
aonly reason is, slavehotding greatly embatrasses the éxercise ‘6f his of
fice, and therefore the Conference are of ojjinion that it wotild be bat-
356

ter for him to desist from’its exercise. The reasoti is not only Métho-
distical, a reason which none but a Methodist could have, but it is even
confined to the Episcopal feature: of Methodisnr, and'is'hot a reason
against slaveholding members, deacons, ‘elders, and presiding eldets ;
yea, no reason against a ‘shaveholding’ world, and therefore’ it’ cannot be
a true anti-slavery'reason, That it'camé short even of its professed
object, that of preserving the Episcopacy free from slavery, istoo plain
tobe denied, It neither: rémoved stavéholding from the Episcopacy, or
the Episcopacy from slaveholding; it neither put ‘slaveholding ‘away:
‘from the Bishop, or put'the Bishop away from the Episcopacy; butlef
‘them in union, as i found them, and’therefore it came short of its pto-
fessed object. Tsis appears from-two facts. °

1. The explanation given in answer to the Bishop's inquiries: fully

eonfirms this view. The Conference passed: three: resolutions: touching
_ the case of Bishop Andrew, as follows: — oe oe

“1, Resolved, As-the:sense-of this Conference; that Bishop Andrew’s
name stand in the Minutes, Hymn-Book, and: Discipline as-formerly.

«2. Resolved, That the rulevin:relation: to the» oe of a Bishop
and his family, applies to Bishop: Andrew. .

“3, Resolved, That whether/in any, and: in: what saci Bishop An-
drew be employed, is to be determined by his own decision and
action, in relatien to the previous. action cf. this Sollference in -his
case.”,, #

These resolutions prove that the: enatieas action of the Conference.
hind neither deposed or restrained-Bishop Andrew. The first resolution.

settles the fact that he is still a Bishop, for it places his name as a Bish-
_op on the .official. and public record of the Church. If he be nota
Bishop, then does that resolution order false records to be published to
the world. m4

The seeout resolution dues that -he has still ;contmued* to him the
bving of a, Bishop, to be communicated te him through a:channel pro-

__ vie ed only for Bishops. The General Conference contd not constita-
constr ant money through the.rule referred. te, to-any but a Bishop
within the sense and: meaning of the constitution.ef the Ghureh.

The third resolution settles the question that-the Bishop isnot res-
trained in the exercise of his office. The question of his: labor is left
to the decision of his own judgement. The-effeet.then of the action of
the General, Conference, is not to take, away. any of hisypowers and
riglits, but to extend them. He has: just-as. muych,right.and power to
perform the work of a Bishop as_ ha had before, if é-choeses. to attend
toit, while he has an extension of right, by which he is authorized to.
357

choose for himself what work he will do; hence he may take it into his
head. to act, the part of a presiding elder, and live on a Bishop’s pay ; or

mecre

he may take a ‘circuit 0 or a station and live on a Bishop’ s pay; or he may
choose to act the part, of a local ‘preacher, or to act no part at all, that
is, do nothing, and he violates no obligation imposed pon iis by the
General Conference, and ‘still las his living secur red to him as one. of ‘the
Bishops of the M. E. Chureh,

2. The exposition given in the reply’ to the ‘Southern’ pr otest fully
confirms the above view. The documént j is full of 7 proof, but we wilt
cuntent ourselves with gne ¢ or two extracts, which shall he of a decisive
character, ‘The reply says. of the proceedings: tO

“Such was the prevalence of moderate counsels, thatt no pr opesal was
made either to impeach or punish.” :

«The action of the Conference y as neither judicial nor punitive, It
neither achieves nor intends a deposition, not 80 much as alegals suspep-
sion, Bishop Andrew is still, a Bishop 1s and should he, agaipst the ex-
pressed sense of the General emus, prpeped i in the discharge of
his fuuetions, ‘his official acts would ‘he valid.”

‘his language is 50 plain and dirdet as io render comment usclcss.
Short i is the extract, it contains the following points —

1, No proposal ee made to impeach or punish the Bishop.

2. The action of ‘the Conference was not judicial ; “that i is, it was pot
a proceeding according to the ate of law, and did not possess the fore ce
of legal proceedings.

"3. Tt was not punitive ; that j a it did not inflict any punishment.

4, Tt did not achieve the deposition of the Bishop ; hei is not therefore
deposed. 7 " 7 a ou
5. It did not aghieve a legals stispension at the Bishop ; ; hei: is ‘therefore

ata

cars!

  

“not suspended.

 

qe get Pod td -

“fe It did not intend toetivet ¢ either He deposition « or the legat suspen
sion of the Bishop, ey! ee
ie It. is affirmed that t ‘the Bishop i is silat Bishop.

. It declares - that should, he proceeds tc to do ithe w aia a Bishop, h ‘his

acts eal be valid.
All these ‘things are said by the General Conference, and are sufficient
to prov e that nothing hus been done against Bishop Andrew for his ‘slavi e-
holding, ‘and that the M. E, Chureb’ has a slaveholding Bishop, clad in
the full fimetions of The Episcopal, 0 office. What then has the Confer-
“ence done a inst! ‘slavery im the cpse of Bishop “Audrew ? Nothing ; ;
absolutely nothing. They have notin a judicial, legal, or ‘Punitive sense,
touched either the Bishop or his slav cho ding. oe wae

.

 

Pfs
We have now done with, the case of Bishop Andrew, with one, ex-
ception. We remarked at the conclusion of our review of the Harding
case, that there was one aspectin which it ‘was to be viewed i in common
with the Bishop's case, and in this point of Jight, we would consider
them together. We will now redeem that promise. ‘The point to which
we allude i i this: In what sense can the: action in these cases be consid.
was sanieeds in many sections, to ca ie aoe yiiee and to
prevent secession? Can those who have said they would leave the
Church if something was not done, accept of the ‘action in these ae
cases, as something done? We think ‘not, for the following reason:

The action in these two cases grew out of new cireumstances, which
did not exist, or which were not known to exist at the time something
was demanded and promised, and therefore the action growing out of
these,cases can form no part of what was, demanded, promised, or ex-
pected. W hen men ‘said the next General Conference will do something
against slaver Vy they did not mean that they. would do what has been
done in the cases of Mr. Har ding and Bishop Andrew, for they had no
knowledge that these cases existed, and hence the action in these cases
cannot be regarded in the light of a fulfilment of the promise t that some-
thing shall be done. Again, when men said, if something was not dons
against slavery in the next General Conference, they would leave the
Chureh, they did not méan the action had in these cases, for they did
not know that any such action would be necessary ; it is therefore po
part of the work to be performed | asa condition of, thelr remaining in
the Church. So far, therefore, as promises and expectations were con-
cerned that something would be done, nothing can be found in the ae-
tion of the Conference i in these two'cases to meet those promises and
expectations. Let us firther make this plain by an illustration. Sup-
pose some of our citizens engaged in commerce had petitioned Congress
for some years on the subject of indemnity agaiust French spoliation ; i

_ the fact of their loss by French plunderers i isnot denied, but Congress
neglects to attend to it, By and by the plundered party become rest-
less, and threaten to seek new political associations, ‘or ta put men in of.
fice who will attend to their rights, and some already have struck for re-
for m, when those in office take ihe alarm and say, “If yeu will not de-
sert us, we will certainly do something for you next time Congr ess inects.”
But Congress comes together, and the, expectations of those who ara
calling for redress are high, when lo! the alarm i is spread thatnew dep-
redations have been committed, and Congress merely takes some gen-
tle measures to prevent the like oceurrence again, not securing full in-
359

vite

demnity for the last spoliations, and not even asking for one cent for the
uld spoilations concerning which they promised to do something. The
question now is, | Has Congress redeemed the pr omise to do something
for these men?» “They | have not. This is precisely, the case with the
last General Conference. Mucli had been promised against slavery
but new cases arise, slavery i is found to have made new depredations,
and in view of these, something i is done, something which was not thought
of at the time ; something was promised, and this i is claimed, as the uc-
tion promised.”

It is clear, then, that so far as tha: cases | of Mr. Harding and Bishop
Andrew are A nothing that was promised and expected | has
been done, ‘and the Church i is not us well off on the subject of slavery
us before, for she h has a ‘slaveholding Bishop, and that she never had be-
fore,

a

SECTION V.
YWE REPEAL OF THE COLORED TESTIMONY RESOLUTION AND PETITIONS.

We now come to the last action of the Conference which, j is claimed
to be anti-slavery. We mean the repeal of the colored testimony reso-
lution of 1840. On this we would remark. that we ne no fault to
find with the action as far as it goes, but we complain that it does not
go far enough to entitle it to the name of anti- -slayery action, when it is
cousderetl ia in ‘connection with its histor y; and the cir cumstances of the
case. Let us examine the facts, and, then we shall see the anti-slavery
merit, if there i is any in it.

The facts are these : —

1. Rev. Silas Comfort, at the time a member of the Missouri Con-
ference, admitted a colored person to testify i ina chureh trial against a
white person.

2 For ‘this conduct he was arrested at the next session of the confer,
‘ence, tr ied, and pronounced guilty of mal-administration.

3. He appealed to the next General Conference, and the Conference
heard the appeal and reversed the decision of the Missouri Annual Con-
ference. *

4. ‘Slayeholders valine a storm and threatened to divide ‘the Church,
and declar ed that they could never go back to their people with that de-
cision. upon the Journal of the General Conference.

5. The General Conference reconsidered the case, and _Tejected the
appeal of Silas Comfort, by which the decision of the Missouri Confer-
ence, declaring it to be mal-administr ation to admit the testimony of a

pe at!
36%) " a «
sy fay Sod ote canta ad onde

tolored person i in the trial of a, white person, was left untouched a and
unappealed, from, and, the ight to appeal frou it denied, “nantes

6. The Conference tl then passed, I,the colored testimony resolution, | by
which they said the admission of such. ‘testiniony is inexpedient and
unjustifiable, ak ahem trad Rats

Here the matter rested for f four _years, until the last ( General. Confer-
ence repealed, the resolution. We have no objection | to admit the full
force of the repeal, all that any ‘honest man ean claim, viz, that ‘the
Church i is as well off as it was before that resolution was adopted. We
think no ous will claim. more. Will any one pretend that ‘the Church
is better ' off for having res sted for four years, utider the ‘disgraceful col-
cored testimony ‘resolution 5 oA As ‘well might 2 aman claim io be “better
off for having committed sin, seeing he has now repented and ceased to
commit the same crime. 'The passage of that resolution was a sin
rgainst God and man: and onthe supposition that the Conference has

ut

repented. of it, we are not able,’to see that they are any better off for
having committed, it., Granting then all that can be claimed, viz., that
the Church is just where it, was before. the Passage of that resolution,
and how does she then stand on the ‘subject of color ed testimony § ? We
maintain that the repeal of that resolution does not reach the case of the
isfranchised colored people: i it does not in the least secure to them
the right of bearing testimony 1 to the tr ruth. against a white sinner jn a
church tri ial. Se eral views anay, ba taken which will: lead us to this

ver dy

conclusion.

1. it cannot be -oreraded that ‘die ‘repeal of the resolution has restor-
ed tothe colored man any more than its passage took | away from him.
Did, the passage of that. resolution take away the right of giving ‘testi-
mony ina church trial ? th theory it ‘did, but in practice it did not sand
hence its repeal only Yestores it in theory and not in practice, The
right was not practically enjoyed b before the passage of that resolution,
hus is evident fiom the fact that the first act of admitting such testimony
was judged and, pronounced to be mal- administration ; and as it was not
practically enjoyed before the passag ge of the resolution, so ‘its repeal
does not secure the ‘right, without further guards thrown around the
colored man, which the Gener, al Conference has failed to extend to him.

The colored man is now just where he was before the resolutic ion was
adopted, to a Tegal point. of view; and as the right was denied him then
#0 he has no security for its enjoyment, now. What the passage of the

 

resolution took away, its repeal has restored, and it cannot be claimed
that it has restored | any more ; but its passage ‘did not take away the right
of the colored man to testify in church trials, and’ therefore its repeal
!

361

cannot have restored that right.

2. The repeal of the colored testimony resolution, under the circum-
stances, does not of itself legally secure the right to which such resolu~
tions stood opposed, The repeal of that resolution does not lay the
preachers and annual conferer:ces under any stronger obligation to grant
the right in question, than they were before the résolution was passed ;
and as they did not grant it then, so they cannét be expected to grant it
now. Nor have they any reason to believe that the General Conference
jntendcd or expected they would grant it any more than formerly. There
was not an expression,by way of discussion, in the process of repealing
the resolution, that implied that any different practical course was ex-
pected from what has already been parsued. Had the Conference re-
pealed the colored testimony resolyson with asincere desire and expec-
tation of restoring the disfranchised colored people to the right of giv-
ing testimony in church trials, sow easy would it have been to have said
so, They knew, and the wopd knows that they knew that the right in
question had been withheld before the adoption of the offensive resolu-
tion, and that it would be withheld after its repeal; and yet they have
ieft the subject withousa word of disapproval. Why did they not say
as much in favor of #e admission of colored testimony, as they said a-
guinst it in the reseinded resolution? The reason is, the whole proceed-
ing was heartless: it wasa part_of the two-faced policy which charac-
terized the whole proceedings of the Conference, it was to do right in
form in tho eyes of the North, to prevent secession, without bringing
righteous principles to bear in fact upon the corruptions of the South,

The legal bearing of the General Conference in the case of Silas
Comfort’s appeal, fully and forever settles this question. It has been
shown above, that all that can be claimed is, that the repeal of the reso-
lution leaves the question just where it was before it was adopted. What
then was the legal aspect of the subject at the time that resolution was
brought forward? The important facts have been stated above. Rev.
Silas Comfort admitted the testimony of a colored person, for which he
was called to an account by the Missouri Annual Conference, and was
tried, and convicted of mal-administration. He appealed to the General
Conference, and they finally decided not to hear the appeal. This left
the decision of the Missouri Conference in full force, and at the same
time took away all right and power to appeal from it, so that it must
stand. This was the state of the case when the resolution was adop-
ted, and hence this must be the state of the case now thatit is repealed.

The legal state of the question is this: if a preacher admits colored
testimony, he may be called to an account for so doing, be convicted of

31
362

mal-administration, and the General Conference will not hear his appeal
or interfere with such decision of the annual conference. ‘The rejec-
tion of colored testimony, therefore, has the sancticn of the Genezal
Conference, which was given to it when the Conference refused to
hear an appeal from the decision ofan annual conference, which deciar-
ed it wrong to admit such testiinony, Every slaveholding conference
can with perfect safety, yea, under the full protection of the General
Conference, granted in the rejection of the Comfort appeal, convict ev-
ery minister of mal-administration, who shal! dare to admit the testimo-
ny of a colored person. The Missouri Annual Conference decided that
toadmit the testimony of a coiored person in church trial is mal-ad-
ministration, and the question being brought before the General Confer-
ence, they refused to hear it, which left the Missouri Conference undis-
turbed in its decision, and of course tiat and every other conference are
zt full liberty to repeat the decision as often as cecasion may require.
From this it is clear that the annual confeienées are at full liberty to re-
jret the testimony of colored persons in cbtirch trials, if they choose so
to «lo, anu the only influence the repeal of the colored testimony reso-
lution has on this right of the annual conferences, is ts extend it throsgh
the whole Church, whereas that resolution limited it to those parts where
the law of the State excluded such testimony from civil courts. The
colored testimony resolution declared that it is inexpemient and unjusti-
finble to edinit the testimony of colored persons in church trials where
the civil law excludes such testimony from courts of justice. This says,
by implication at least, that their testimony shall be admitted in chureb
trials where the civil Jaw admits it, but the decision of the Conference
in the Comfort case, upon which the question fell back when this was
repealed, does not even go as far as the civil law. The question now
resis upon that decision, which is that an annual conference may con-
vict a preecher of mal-administration for admitting a colored person to:
testy m a church trial, and wheia conference does so, no appeal shalt
be allowed to the General Conference. This. authorizes those confer-
enees.to exclude colored testimony where the civil law does not exclude
it, for the power of the annual conference in the case depends upon
the facet that there is no appeal from its decision, and if there is no ap-
peal from ihe Missouri Conference, there is none from the decision of
the New-York or New-England Conferences. Thus it is seen that the
repeal of the colored testimony resolution, instead of restoring disfran-
chised colored people to their rights, has actually put it within the pow-
er of the annual conferences more extensively to rob them. But we
‘would not be wrisunderstood on this point; our own opinion is that the
363

slave or the free colored people have not been practically injured by the
passage of the colored testimony resolution, nor do we believe they
will be benefitted or injured by this repeal. Men must have learned but
little of the spirit of slavery, if they suppose it will be restrained 'by
such resolutions. Right is obviously more sacred than Jaw or mere re-
solves, and as slavery is the clearest violation of right, of the most sa-
ered of all the rights of man, it cannot be expected that it will regard
church discipline and conference resolyes when they come in its way.
Such being the case, we do not believe one colored witness mcre has
been rejected underghe colored testimony resolution, and we do not be-
lieve one more will be admitted in consequence of its repeal. The truth
is, in slave States colored persons have never been heard as witnesses a-
gainst white personsiin church trials, and they will be excluded still, noiv
that infamous resolution is repealed. :

But if the ahove views are correct, it may be asked why we have made
so much more about the colored testimony resolution. We answer ze
have never complained of the resolution, on the ground that its exist-
ence practically injured the slave; no men cen put his.finger upon a
sentence we have ever written upon this ground. We complained of it
because it was a wicked bowing down to slavery; becanse it was a vi-
olation of the lew of Christ, and because it exhibited deep corruption
on the:part of the Conf:rence. On these points its repeal has not filly
relieved us, for we have no evidence that one individual concerned has
¢ehanged his mind on the moral right of that resohuion. There has
doubtless been a greater change in the votes, than there has heen in the
principles and moral feelings of the voters. Men of the North, who vo-
ted for thatresolution, never did believe it morally rightia principle ; we
do not believe a man can.be fond who dare say he does now, or ever
did, approve of the principle of that resolution. They voted for it out’
of expediency, to prevent a division of the Church, lest the South should
secede, and they voted.to repeal it out of expediency, to prevent a di-
vision of the Church, lest there should be secessions in the North. We
should be glad to find the first man who has changed his mind concern-
ing the moral right of that resolution. Is there a Methodist preacher in
the non-slavcholding States, who was so ignorant in 1840 as not,to know
that such a resolution was a violation of the law of God ?

We will add but one remark on this subject, upon which so much
has been said and written. Whatever may be claimed as an anti-slavery
victory, on the ground of the repeal of the colored testimony resolution,
must have been won ag a pro-slavery victory on the other side in 1440.
Tf the repeal isan anti-slavery triumph iu 1844, its adoption must have
364

been a pro-slavery triumph in 1840. If, by repealing this resolution, the

Conference did something against slavery inl844, then by adopting it the
Conference did something for the support of slavery i in 1840. If those
men who voted for the repeal of the rule in 1844, have thereby shown
themselves to be anti-slavery, then those men who voted for its adoption
in 1840 proved themselves to be pro-slavery. Among these is Dr. Peck
at the head of the department in New York. Was he pro-slavery in

1840, with others that might be named? If he was, then it cannot be
denied that the Church generally was pro-slavery at the time, and if he

was not pro-slavery when he voted for the colored testimony resolution,
when the Conference did not perform any anti-slavery work when they

repealed the same resolution in 1844. With these remarks we will

leave our old friends to glory over the anti-slavery.triumph in the repeak
of the colored testimony resolution, if it is pleasing to ther to glory in

their own shame, for just as they alee the glory of 1844 they deepen.

the shame of 1840.

Anti-Slavery Petitions.

We come now to the concluding point in our review, so far as action
against slavery is concerned, namely, the anti-slavery petitions which
were sent to the Conference, praying for action against slavery. These
petitions were from two sources, Annual Conferences and: the mem-
bership of the Church. Nine Annual Conferences and ten thousand
members petitioned the General Conference to take action against sla-
very. It will not be denied that these petitions expressed the sentiments
of the anti-slavery portion of the Church; from them, therefore, may
we learn what was promised and what was expected to be done in the
Conference against slavery, so far as any thing was promised and ex-
pected. So far asthe Conference granted what was prayed for, so far
they did something in the sense of the promises and.-anticipattons con-
cerned’; so far as they did not grant the prayers of ‘the petitioners, so.
far they did nothing, for doubtless they petitioned for what they wanted
for what they expected,and for what had been promised to keep them
from seceding. Three things were prayed for.

l. The repeal of the colored testimony resolution. What this has
secured for anti-slavery we have seen above, and need not review it in
this place. The petition was granted, but not so as:to secure the object
had ir view by the petitioners. If they were honest in presenting these
petitions, which we will not call in question, the design was to secure to
colored people the right of bearing testimony to the truth against white
affenders in church trials; and: it has been shown above that the Con-
forence has-utterly failed to de it, Hence, while they have, in form, res
365

pouded to the petitions, they have, in fact, not touched the real object
of the petitioners. To have met those petitions, under the -circumstap-
ces, the colored testimony resolution should have. been fepcaled by a
counter declaration, which should not only. bave nullified the resolution
“of 1840, but which should have also nullified the declaration of the
Missouri Conference, and made it the duty of preachers to admit such
testimony, and of the Conferences to protect them in so doing, instead
of leaving all the Annual Conferences at liberty to pronounce them guil-
ty of mal-administration, whenever they dare to take the padlock off
the lips of a colored ynan in trials of the professed Church of Jesus
Christ. We repeat, that if the petitioners were honest and intelligent,
they could not have contemplated less, than this, and yet the Conference
made no approach to this needful reform. &

2, The petitioners prayed the Conference not to elect a slaveholding
Bishop. Tho Conferonee, it is true, did not elect a slaveholdcr to the
Episcopate ; they had no occasion to, having one without to their hearts
coutent, But did the Conference do any better than to elect a slave-
holding Bishop? We think vot. They may have done better in the
eyes of expediency, but we are sure they did not in moral principle,

(1.) Bhey foydd that they had aslaveholding Bishop already on hand

when they cee together, and yet no man complained that there was
any viclaton of moral principle in the Bishop’s slavchalding; they de-
clared 4im to be a pure man,a good minister, and more to be loved than
any ther Bishop on the bench.
A?.) They suffered him to remain a Bishop and a slaveholder, which
was in moral principle the same as to have elected a slavcholder to the
Episcopete. When the petitioners prayed against the election of a
slaveholder to the Episcopate, their prayer was not founded upon obiec-
tions to the act of electing a slaveliolder, but to having a slaveholdine
Bishop. Now, there was none elected, yet they Aave one, the Conter-
euce therelore suffered the very thing to exist against which those peti-
tious weredireeted, For tle General Conference to suffer one of their
Bishops te hecome a slaveholder and still remain a Bishop, claiining as
they did the power to expel, depose or suspend, and yet doing neither,’
was nv better in moral principle than to have elected one, J; this thing
therefore the petitions were disregarded, and nothing prayed for can be:
said to have been done.

3. The petitioners prayed the Conference to take measures entirely to
separate slavery from the Church. — It will not be pretended that any
action was had on this class of petitions, more than to report against
thei, against granting the thing prayed for, and adopting such report
366

without discussion. We here have not only the fact that tue Confer-
ence did nothing but we have their positive declaration against doing
any thing. The committee reported on these petitions against ae
measures to separate slavery wholly from the Chureh, andthe Confer-
enceadopted the report. The Church is then opposed to taking meas-
ures to separate slavery from its communion. Can any action satisfy,
which does not contemplate the entire separation of slavery from the
Church? Let those concerned answer this: The following is a resolu-
tion adopted by a Methodist Anti-Slavery Convention held in Boston,
Mass., Jan. 18, 1843.

“Resolved, That slavery being-a sin, and this sin in the M: E. Chureh
and the Church a unit, nothing short of a SPEEDY and ENTIRE sep-
aration of slavery from the Church. can satisfy the consciences of honest
and faithful abolitionists.”

After waiting more than ayear, these brethren who adopted that res-
olution, petitioned the General Gonference to separate slavery entirely
from the Church, and the Conference declares that it is inexpedient to
take any such action. Are they satisfied, are their consciences at ease,
or have they ceased to be “ honest and faithful'abolitionists,” for “speedy
and entire separation of slavery fromthe Church” is cut of the ques-
tion, so far as the action: of the General Conference is concerned,
Whete are the mighty men:that voted for that resolution ? Crandall,
Porter, Adams, Hatch, and a host ofothers? Up, arouse those leeping
consciences, which cannot be satisfied but bya sprepy and ENTIRE sep-

aration of slavery from the Church. If slavery is separated from the

Church. very soon, it will be by the action of slaveholders, against the
avowed principles and wishes of those with whom you will be left in
loving communion! We trust ithasnow been shown that nothing was
done in the last General Conference worthy to be called anti-slavery
action, nothing which ouglit to “ satisfy honest abolitonists.”” What re-.
mains is to notice the-plan of division.

 

SECTION VI.
DIVISION OF THE CHURCH—CONCLUSION.

1. It is worthy of remark that, if the division takes place, of which
we have but little doubt, it will be a Southern measure. The North:
have not sought it, they have not desired it, they have labored to pre--
vent it, and have declared over and over again, that it would be an un-
wise and disastrous measure. The division does not take place because
the North are not willing to live in communion and fellowship with

a
367

slaycholders, as heretofore, but because the South will not longer re-
main in connection witl: non-slaveholders, among whom there is a very
small sprinkling of “modern abolition.” The North had promised
them, from time to time, that abolitionism should be put out of the
Church, and they did all they could to get it ont, this was openly avow-
ed inthe General Conference; it was declared that they had “fought
with the dreadful spirit of abolition,” and Dr. Bangs was more than
once referred to as having suffered every thing but martyrdom in oppo-
sing abolition. But alas! the effort failed, and the South became satis-
fied that abolition would never be put out of the Chureh ; their last
hope had now failed, for they had hoped that secession was likely to
do what opposition could not; that when “Scott, Sunderland & Co.”
eceded, abolition would be drained off, but it was now obvious that
secession, instead of getting abolition out of the Church, was manufac-
turing nominal abolition in the Church, tentimes as fust as the seceders
could have done by remaining, and the South do not distinguish be-
tween the name and the vitality of the thing. They saw, morcover,
that the Northern members, with all their protestations against abolition
were compelled to succumb to its influence in. many particulars, as the
only successful method of opposing the seceders. This destroyed all
- hope-of remaining in peaceful connection with the North, as the North
declared themselves compelled to. take positions hostile and injurious to
the South, against their fvelings, from pure necessity, to prevent the
Northern povtion of the Caurch from “going over to the seceders in

troops.” These circumstances led the South to strike for a division.
But it may be asked what led the South to be so early in the work of
division, if nothing was really done against slavery, as we have main-
tuined in this review, and as has been absolutely asserted by Dr. Bond
in the great official? The answer is plain, though slavery was not in-
jured, it was offended ; though no encroachment was made uponit, as it has
heretofore existed. in the Church, positions were taken which put an
end to its long cherished hope of being able some day to walk in at the
Episcopal door, and' receive a mitre prepared on purpose for the head
of slavery. No one, witnessing the proceedings of the- Conference,
could doubt that slavery could no longer hope to be elected. to the Epis-
copacy in the regular way, and the fact that they had a.slaveholding
Bishop in the person of James O, Andrew, was of no avail in their
minds, since this fact had ledto the painful discovery that no slaveliol-
der could be elected tothe Episcopacy. Slavery was not injured in
any of its positions heretofore held in theChurch; but it was insulted and
that was more than it could bear. To speak in the use of legal terms
368

there was an assault but no badiery ; hard words were used, but hands
were uot laid upon slavery. It is perfectly plain that the North did not
desire division, and that they did nothing to.offend the South, beyond
what they felt themselves absolutely compelled to do to resist the influ-
ence of secession in the North; and if division is the result, the South
will be its author, it will be emphatically their measure.

2. The North are responsible for the terms and principles of the divi-
sion: the North are as clearly the author of these, as the South are of
the division itself. The South could say to their constituents, should
they complain of the terms, we did the best we could, the North had the
majority, and that majority opposed toa division, and we were com-
pelled to accept of such terms as they would give us, or none at all;
but the North cannot plead any such excuse, for they had the power in
their own hands, and could dictate just such terms of division as they
saw fit. If there is then any thing wrong, any thing pro-slavery in the
terms proposed, the fault is justly chargeable upon the North.

We will now examine the principles of the plan of division adopted
by the General Conference. There are many objections which we
might urge against the principles of the division provosed, but we will
confine our remarks to a few prominent ones.

1. Itis essentially pro-slavery. It fully recognizes the slaveholding
Christianity of the South. This is done in several ways. It is done on
the plan of division, which is to give all the border conferences and
churches the right of deciding to which party they will be attached, the
Northern portion binding itself, when a majority has decided io go with
the South, not to take the pastoral charge of the minority, or erect any «
churches within their limits, This fully recognizes them as a Christian
fellowship, within whose limits they have no right to act, within
whose limits they cannot rear churches, but upon the principle of
schism. This certainly fully endorses their Christian character, and to
endorse the character of a slaveholding Church, is to cndorse slavery
as practised by that Church,

The second resolution, providing for the preachers in case of a divis-
ion, fully endorses the Christian character of the Southern divisiow.
Tt ready as follows:

“Resolved, That ministers, local and travelling, of every grade and
office in the M. E. Church, may, as they prefer, remain in that Church, ,
or without blame atiach themselves to the Church South.

Here is full liberty given to ministers of every class to join the slave-
holdiug Church. [tis true, they have no power to prevent them, from
so doing; itis well that they have no such power, but they have the
369

right of moral suasion, and it is their duty to use it, if slaveholding is
wrong. But they have pronounced that tojoin a slaveholding Church ix
right, for they have said that they may do it “ WITHOUT BLAME.”
If then they may do it “ without blame,” it is not morally wrong to join
a pro-slavery, aslaveholding Church.’ There was just so much anti-sla~
very as that in the last General Conference, and no more. But would
they say as much as that for anti-slavery secessionists inthe North? By
no means, it isa great sin to leave the M. E. Church and join the anti-
SLAVERY SECEDERS, but men may WITHOUT BLAME LEAVE THE M. E.
CHURCH AND JOIN THE SLAVEHOLDING SECEDERS! So much worse is it
in the eyes of Episcopal Methodism, to secede from an abhorrence of
slavery, than from a love of slavery; fur they can call the division noth-
ing but u secession on the part of the South, and the world knows that
is for the sake of slavery. Highly elevated, morally sublime and glori-
ous must have been the anti-slavery of the last General Conference,
when itactually consented to the rightfulness of secession for the sake
of slavery, for the purpose of preventing secession on anti-slavery
ground!!! It is clear that they were so much opposed to slavery that
there was but one thing to which they were more opposed, and that was
anti-slavery.

2. We object to the plan of division because it violates the terms of
their commission as ministers of Jesus Christ. The Northern division
claming to be the M. E. Church, have bound themselves never to extend
their labors and their organization south of the dividing line that shall be
agreed upon by a majority vote of those who are to constitute the bor-
der societies. What right had they to enter into sucha contract? If
they are ministers of Jesus Christ, they must acknowledge the obliga-
tion of that command which says, “ Go ye into all the world and preach:
the gospel to every creature,” and yet in direct controvention of his
command, they have agreed, yea, bound themselves by a sclemn treaty
that they will never extend their labors into one half of this great re-
public, will never preach the truth there, will never erect churches there
will never send missionaries there, to enlighten the ignorant and to seek
after the souls of the lost and perishing. ;

Will it be said that this contract was entered into with the understand:
ing ‘that the Southern portion of the Church would look after these in-
terests? To this we reply,

(1.) That the best that can be made of it is, that they have handed
over one half of the nation, for the safe keeping of their souls, into the
hands of a slaveholding Christianity.

(2.) They have no security that Christianity will be maintained inany
370

of its vital forms. A purer Church than that which exists in the South
has fallen and become utterly dark and corrupt, aud should the South de-
part from the doctrines of the Church, and the forms of religion, the
North are still pledged not to go there to erect other churches, and re-
plant the living tree of Christianity. If any have doubts on this point,
the following extract from the contract will settle it.

_ “All the Societies, Stations and Conferences adhering to the Church
in the South, by the vote of a. majority of the members of said Socie-
ties, Stations and Conferences, shall remain under the unmolested pas-
torial care of the Southern Church; and the ministers of the M. EL
Church shall in no wise. attempt to organize Churches or Societies with-
in the limits of the Church South.”

3. The plan of division, in our view is highly oppressive on the mi-
nority of those societies on the line, who may choose to go with the
Southern party. Suppose a society of two bundred members should
vote to attach themselves to the South, by a vote of one hundred and
one, the ninety-nine are compelled to go with slavery or be separated.
from all the forms of Methodism, unicss they committ the horrible sin
of joining “ Scottites,” or join some other denomination. If the minor-
ity, in the above case, should secede from the body and refuse to go with
slavery, the ministers of the M. E. Church cannot take charge ef them ;
they can obtain no Methodist Episcopal preaching, but in violation of
this solemn treaty ; and hence they must be compelled to adhere to sla-
very, join the Wesleyans, [“Scottites,”] cr abandon Methodism. We
should be glad to know whence the Conference, composed wholly of
ministers, acquired the right of signing away the laity by majority votes.
after this manner.

We have no doubt, when the dividing line is drawa, it will be a har-
vest day for Wesleyanism on the frontier, and we hope we may be in cir-
cumstances to improve it.

There are other objections which might be raised against the plan of
division, but we will not enlarge, for if the above do not expose its ab-
surdity, and stamp its authors with disgrace, it would be perfectly use-
less to say more. We will therefore proceed to conclude our review.

CONCLUSION,

Perhaps we have already taxed the reader’s attention to the full extent
of his patience, and even beyond endurance, but still we cannot consent
to close a review of so important a matter, without submiting a few re-
marks suggested by a consideration of the whole subject.

1. We have before us, in the proceedings of the last General Confer-
3r1

ence, a clear illustration of the absurdity and utter futility of expediency.
when it is allowed to take the heli in the place of principle, and con-
trol the counsels of the Church on great moral questions, That the
Conference was governed by expediency will not, cannot be denied ; it
was confessed in debate too mauy times to be forgotten. But what was
the object of this expediency? It was to avoid touching the great ques-
tion of slavery: and so far as they were cothpelled to touch it, to do it
in such a way as not to produce excitement and division, Could they
have managed so as to have done enough against slavery to satisfy the
abolitionists, without doing 80 much as to alatm or offend slaveliolders,
the end of their deepest s solicitude would have been gained. The ef-
fort was not to know what is right, what does the cause of the bleeding
slave demand, what will please or offend God, but what will prevent
secession, and keep the Church together, liolding abolitionists and slave-
holders in sweet communion. Such a course might succeed, if God
had no counsel to fulfil, and no principle to vindicate: but as it is, “He
taketh the wise in their own craftiness.” Nothing is more common,
when men of worldly expediency have got their plans all laid, and are,
in their own imaginations, Just on the point of realizing the end of their
expedicney efforts, than for God to empty the contents of this horn of
confusion ‘into their counsels, and the elemehts wake from their sleepy
calm, the conflicting principles which have been tampered into the em-
brace of each other, and bound together by the treacherous and frail
cords of expediency, commence their warupon each other, and the
whole concern is at once exploded by the action of its own discordant
clements. Such was the case with the last General Conference. If the
leading journals of the Church told the truth, they expected one of the
most peaceful sessions, for they proclaimed this on the eve of the as-
sembling of the Conference. They doubtless applied their expediency
principles, and had calculated in what forms they should have to meet
the question of slavery, and settled it in anticipation. The most formi-
dable shape in which they could foresee it was, in the petitions: and
yet these were disposed of without a struggle. It is therefore reasona-
ble to suppose that if no unforeseen troubles had come upon them,
they would have had a peaceful session as predicted : but there were
two shapes in which slavery made its appearance in the midst of their
counsels, as unexpected, and yetas horrifying, as would have been two
unblessed ghosts sent to them from the nether world. Still they appli-
ed their expediency principles, and refused to meet the great principles
of the moral right of slavery, or rather its moral wrong; they fought
not for principle, but for positions to which they laid no claim but that
372

of expediency; they divided: and when posterity shall inquire the
cause, the faithful historian will give thé answer by saying they were
one in principle, but split on matters of expediency ; yielding principle
for the sake of union, they resorted to expediency to promote it, and
by it they weve divided.

2. The expediency course of the General Conference resulted, as
might be expectéd by all who believe in a distinction between right and
wrong, in a God and iu a controlling Providence: that is, it resulted in
a sacrifice of moral character, without securing the end for which the
sacrifice was made. The Northern portion of the Church occupies an
unenvible position ; they have yielded all to slavery in principle, for the
sake of union, and have lost the advantages of the union after all. How
much better would it have beeh for the majority to have stood up for
right, and met the consequences; they would then have been no more
than divided, and division would have been no worse than it now is,
while they would then hare possessed the advantage of an elevated
moral position, It was most certainly a fearful measure to hazard the
division of the Church on an expendiency measure ; but had principle
been assumed instead of expediency, the position would have justified
itself in view of any consequences, for nothing can be plead in opposi-
tion te right. When a church can be divided by an adherence to truth
and sound principles, to divide it can be no crime: but to divide a church
by a measure which is urged only from motives of expediency, to say
the least, is a doubtful business. Had the Conference declared their
belief in the sinfulness of slavery, and taken ground in favor of its im-
mediate abolition, making its abandonment a condition of membership,
the same as any other sin, they could have lost no more on the score of
division than they now have, while they would have saved their princi-
ples, their character, and their consistency, which last they sacrificed by
offering up the union of the Church on the altar of expediency. Their.
course exhibits what error always exhibits, great inconsistency: and
strange indeed it is, that those involved in it are so slow to see the awk-
wardness of their position. Can any thing present a greater extreme
of inconsistency than the position of the last General Conference?
They did for expediency what they would not do for principle; they
paid a greater price for expediency than they were willing to pay for
principle; they yielded principle on the question of slavery, through a
fear of dividing the Church, and then clung to what they confessed to
be nothing but expediency, with a tenacity which cleft it in twain!

3. When they were discussing their great principles of expediency,
upon Which they hung the union of the Church, they dwelt largely up-
373

on the consequences of division. It was then fearfully disastrous, yea,
ruinous, absolutely ruinous! Some venerable men prayed not to live
to see their great and glorious Church divided. But the work is in
progress, the fatal blow is struck; come it must, and come it will; it
hasteneth! Are they willing to die? Ordo they wish to live a little
longer, that they may see how it will work after it is divided, before
they depart? Jt was declared that with a division of the Church the
glory of Methodism would depart: that division would not stop with a
simple line between the North and South: that division would follow
division, until wicked men should rejoice, and devils grin over their ruin.
Are we now to look for all this? Or were these mere rhetorical flour-
ishes, pious frauds, designed to awaken the fears of the timorous and
prevent the evils they foretold? We will not decide upon the correct-
ness of these predictions, but leave the matter to be explained by the
events of the future, hoping and praying that whatever the result may
be, God may be glorified, the overthrow of slavery be hastened, right- ,
eousness and peace be promoted among men, and the Redeemer’s king-.
«lom be established in the earth: Amen. Lutuer Les.

REVIEW OF THE M. E. GENERAL CONFERENCE.

———

BY REV. FE. SMITH

 

Dear Br. Scortr, — Permit me to call the attention of the readers of
your paper to the action of the late General Conference on the subject
of slavery. Immediately after the secession of yourself and ‘others, a
zealous effort was made to rouse the Northern portion of the M. E.
Church to the sinfulness of slaveholding ; and for this purpose , three
very spirited Methodist, anti-slavery conventions were held in quick suc-
cession, and the ground was openly taken, that if the General Confer-
ence of 1844 would not take some decided step to put slavery out of ‘thé
Church, abolitionists would be bound to leave it. And assurances were
given, that something would be done which would be satisfactory to the
anti-slavery portion of the Church; for which reason, they were urged
not to leave the Church until after the session of the Conference, © The
abolitionists were induced to petition the Conference, and encouraged
to believe that great results would follow; and after having gotten their

names to petitions, they, were then told that it would be treating the
32
ri

374

General Conference with disrespect to leave the. Church before they
heard what that body would do with their petitions. In a word, every
effort was made that could be well made, to keep the abolitionists from
leaving the Church ; no means were left unemployed: which promised
success in the work of preventing secession. : os nas

But now that the Conference is over, what must he done ? Mako the
people believe, if pozsible, that something has indeed, ; been done,, to
found a hope on, that all will soon be accomplished . whic) h they desire,

This effort is already begun: I-propose to review calmly the action
of the Conference, and invite ihe anti-slavery Episcopal Methodist por-
tion of your readers to consider with atteution this (lo them) most im-
portant subject. cx ;

We learn froin the Report of the Sounanee on Slavery, that nine an-
nual conferences, and about ten thousend members of the Church sent
petitions to the General Conference. These petitioners prayed tor three

, ieings. 4. The repeal of the resolution of 1840, on colored testimony.

2. That the Conference would not elect a slavelolding Bishop. And 3.

That they “would tcke meusures entirely to separate slavery from the
Church.” To the action of the Conference on these petitions, more
than to any other act of thet body, we must look to find what was done.
The committee reported in part in fuver of the repeal ef the black reso-
lution, which was adopted, On the sixth of dime, they presented their
fna! yeport, which was adoptcd. The adopted report holds this lan-
enage: “Upon these peints, [not electing a slave-holding Bishop,
and taking measures to retove slavery from the Church, and the
repeal of the black rcsolution,| your cornmittee deem it inexpedi-
ent for the General Confercnee to take any section further than that which
is recominended in their first report.”— (That vas the repeal ef ins black
resolution.) ,

The General Conference did not elect 2 slaveholding Bishop, but they
did say that it was inexpedient'to ‘take any action, of give any pledges
on thet subject. Tt was inexpedient to take any action on that part of
the petitions. This question is sil left open. They would not say, we
wall wot elect a slaveholder — that a slavoliolder ought not to be a Bish-
op. And it would have been ivuly Inexnedient to say that a slaveholder
ought not te be a Bishop, while a slaveholder was a Bishop. It was al-
xo inexpedient to take ¢ any Meénsires to remove slavery frony the Church,
What then, I inquire, did the Conference do to remove slavery from the
Church? Let the General Conference answer: “It is inexpedient.to
take any action on this poini.” So far from removing slavery from the
Church, they declare that it is inexpedient even to make'a beginning :
so that part of the subject — the great pert, remains untcuched, Novw,
- ‘
“OhD

1 inqure, what did the petitioners gain? ‘The repeal of the black reso-
lution, which places the Church where it was before 17-10, with the ex-
ception of having pro-slavery action in the case of Rev.S.Comfort remains.
And this will have but little effect; for the testimony of colored persons
will not be received at the South, except in avery few places, and sla-
very remains in the Church uutouched, in all its length and breadth;
yea, more, with the declaration of the Conference, that it is inexpedient
10 do the smallest thing to remove this foul plague spot from the Church
of the living God. This-is the true state of the ease; and the action of
the Conference on the subject: of removing slavery: froin the Church ;
yea, all the action. , :

The subject of slavery was forced on the Conference in the order of
its business, and it is claimed*hat anti-slavery gained much through these
means. J.et us extunine these claims, The case of Mr Harding, of the
Baltimore Conference, was the first. .The history- of this case .is this:
He had married a slaveholder in the State of Maryland, where he could
free the slaves that hie thus became possessed of: The Conference re-
quired him to comply with the provision of the Discipline made in 1800,
and ‘free his slaves. He refused. They suspended him, andthe Gener-
al Conference confirmed the suspension — confirmed the execution of a
law made in 1800.—See History of Discipline, pp. 276-7. Now, was
this taking any new ground on slavery? Surely not. The Baltimore
delegation, in asking the General Conference to confirm the.decision of
their conference, did-not ask the General Conference to place that con-
ference on new ground,’ but to let them stand where they had stood for.
forty-four years, on the laws of: the Discipline, and as long.as any of’
them could recollect, on the usage of the Conference. If the General
Conference had not confirmed the decision in Mr. Harding’s case, they
would have placed the Baltimore Conference on new ground — ground
more favorable to slavery than any ever occupied by that body. But as
it is, the Baltimore Conference stands where it has stood for the last for
ty-four years. ‘This is the true state of the case.

There are two other points in the case of Mr. Harding, which will
throw light on the subject. .

L The year previous, a candidate for orders had married a slaveholder
and for so doing, the conference refused to ordain him, unless he would
free the slaves thus obtained, which he refused.to do. This, Mr. Har
ding saw, that a preacher could not obtain ordination after marrying a
slaveholding wife —In a word, could not have a slaveholding wife and
holy orders, if the wife was obtained ‘first. So he obtained the orders
.’ first, and then a wife — took this plan to haye both. His conference es-
376

teemed it a trick, and determined not to be tricked by him: and so
brought the law of 1800 to bear on him and degraded him from the
ministry by the operation of that law.

2. A large part of the Baltimore Conference is in the State of Penn-
sylvania: and a slaveholder would not be received well in a free State;
and more, if he took any of his slaves with him, they would be free in
six months; hence, slaveholders would have to be stationed in the slave-
holding portions of the conference, which would trammel the itinerancy,
and the conference therefore determined not to have a slaveholder in
their ranks. And on this ground they have stood for many years; on
this ground they asked the General Conference to allow them to stand,
end their request was granted. But though the Baltimore Conference
will not admit a slaveholder into their ranks, they are not by any means
an anti-slavery conference. Local preachers and private members hold
slaves. I know one preacher who owns about 60 slaves, or he did own
that number when I knew him; and I knew many members who own
slaves — one who owns about 70. These local preachers and private
members are fellowshipped by the conference and esteemed good and
holy. The Baltimore Conference takes ground against slavery in but
one respect — the case of travelling preachers; and in that case, not be-
eause a slaveholder cannot be a good man and a good minister, but be-
cause, in the conference, in would unfit him for their work — disqualify
him to go to all parts of the conference. This is the true state of the
case. From all which it is as plain as anything can be, that while sla-.

. very has been made to stand still in the case of Mr. Harding, anti-slavery
has not been permitted to advance a hair’s breadth. .

The case of Bishop Andrew comes next. It appeared from his own.
statement, that last winter he married a slaveholder, and thus became
possessed of slaves; but that previous to that time, he had been pos-
seased of two slaves. The laws of Georgia authorize married women
to hold slaves in their own right. He conveyed the slaves obtained by
his wife back to her by a deed of trust, or to a trustee, for ‘his and her
joint benefit; so says the reply to the protests; but the two he owned
previous to his marriage, he still owned in his own right. This was,
and still is, his connection with slavery.

The Baltimore Conference was the first to move in the matter; and
Rev. A. Griffith and J. Davis offered a resolution requesting the Bishop
to resign his office. Rev. Messrs. Finley and Trembell, of the Ohio
Conference, offered a substitute in these words: “That itis the sense of
this General Conference, that he desist from the exereise. of his [the
Episcopal] office, so long as this impediment [slavery] remains.” Mr.
377

Spencer offered an amendment to the substitute, holding the Bishop
hound not to free himself from slayery by selling his slaves, but by free-
ing them. Mr. Finley refused to accept the amendment, and the chair
decided it out of order, and Mr Finley’s substitute was adopted, without
restricting Bishop Andrew in any respect, as to the manner of getting
Jree from slavery. ‘

We would have supposed that as the (Sates, thought that the
Bishop’s holding a right to slaves unfitted him for the office of a Bishop
they would certainly have entertained the praposition to prevent.him
from transferring that right to other, and, in all probability, worse hands,
But not so: the restriction obtained no favor 3; and the Bishop was left
free to convey his remaining slaves to his wife, or,a,trustee, in trust, as
he had done those he obtained by her, or free himself from them in any
other way ; and then he might, in the judgment of the Conference, act
as’ Bishop.

After this resolution was adopted, various opinions were entertained
as to its character. Some!thought it mandatory, and hence, a virtual
suspension : others advisory, and not judicial in.any sense. The Bish-
ops themselves did not know how to understand, it, and .on the 6th ot
June, addressed a note to the Conference, asking official instructions o1.
the following points: ;

1, What was to be done with Bishop Andrew’s name? wasitto stand
where it formerly stood, or be stricken aff the official published recards
of the Church ? :

2. How was Bishop Andrew to be paid ?

3. Whether he was to do any work; and if any, what work? and
how should he be appointed to it?

In answer to these qttestions for official instruction, ths Conference
‘passed the following resolutions :—

1, “ Resolved, as the sense of this Gaueet Conference, That Bishop
Andrew’s name stand in the Minutes, Hymn Dou and Discipline as
sear oe

“ Resolved, That the rule in relation to the spout: of a Bishop and
me family, applies to Bishep Andrew.”

3. “ Resolved, That, whether in any, and in what wk Bishop An-
drew :be employed, is to be Jeft to his own decision and action in relation
to the previous action of the Conference.”

The first and second resolutions were passed by a vote of over 150 to
less than 20: so the vote was not a sectional one; and the third by a vot>
of 103 to 67%, Here ended the action of the Conference on the Bishop's
eaeqt fram which it appears that his name stands asa Bishop of the |

F
378

M. E; Church by an overwhelming majority of the Conference: that he
is to be paid as a Bishop, as the others are, and the matter of his work
is left to his own decision; but he is to be paid his Episcopal salary,
work or no work. Then he is still a Bishop, and receives a Bishop’s
pay, Without being bound to do a Bishop’s work. He may remain with
his wife and take care of her, and even sell his and her slaves, and draw
his episcopal salary into the bargain ; he is still a Bishop.

But should this be denied, the proof is at hand, proof still more poin-
ted than the above, that he is not only a Bishop in name and in pay, but
in fact. The Southern delegation presented a protest against the action
of the Conference in this case. The Conference appointed a commit-
tee to prepare a reply to said protest, which was done, and the reply en-
tered on the journals, by a vote of 116 to 26. This reply, thus adopted

» by an overwhelming majority, holds this language : “ The action of the
General Conference was neither judicial nor punitive; it neither achieves
nor intends a deposition, nor so much as a LEGAL susPeNsion. BISHOP
ANDREW IS STILL A BISHOP: and should he, against the ex-
pressed sense of the General Conference, proceed in the discharge of
his funetions, his official acts would be valid.”

On the resolutions ordering Bishop Andrew’s name to stand where it
formerly did, and his salary to be given as formerly, Mr. Winans, of Mis-
sissippi, made an exulting, or rather a shouting speech, in which he said:
Now we have an acknowledged slaveholder in the Episcopacy, by an
overwhelning vote of the General Conference.

Now I inquire what has anti-slavery gained m the action on Bishoyr
Andrew’s case? He is left todecide whether it is proper to do any work
or not: but “ Bishop Andrew is still a Bishop, and in the pay of the Church
at liberty to make his own decision what work he will do, or whether he
will do any. He is in one respect better off than his colleagues : he may
remain at home with his wife, and take care of his and her slaves, and
draw his salary in the mean time, while they have to forsake the joys of
home, and suffer the privations and endure the labors peculiar to this of-
fice. But should Bishop Andrew do any thing — ordain any, his ordi-
nations would be valid. Previous to the present General Conference,
there was:one spot inthe M. E. Chureh where slavery could not stand —
the Episcopacy: but not so now. Previous to that Conference slavehol-
ders were members, elass-leaders, trustees, stewards, exhorters, local-
preachers, travelling-preachers, presiding-elders, editors, and one a mis-
sionary secretary ; now, another step is gamed: slavery has reached the

. Episcopacy: a slaveholder is a Bishop, to all intents and purposes. his
is the all and the end of Bishop Andrew’s case.
379

So the action of the Conference has ordered the name of an acknowl-
edged slaveholder to stand as Bishop on the official records of the Church
to draw his salary, and decide his own work. This is the sum of this
elaimed suspension.

But the reason given for what was done, or rather the nothing that
was done,— for this paradox presents their acts more correctly then any
thing I ‘can think of,— is most remarkable. No one pretended that sla-
very was a sin in the bishop’s case; no one that his soul was polluted by
his connection with it. Why then give it asthe seuse of the Conference,
that he ought not to act as bishop until he free himself from no wrong—
from no defilement? We may ask why? Why ?—To prevent northern

_ abolitionists from leavitg the Church, and going to its enemies, i. c., the
Wesleyans. What was done was not done to punish Bishop Andrew
but to keep the abolitionists in the Church, and thus prevent them from
“ going to the enemies of the Church.” That wasthe word. The whole
was a inere act of policy, to make abolitionists believe the Conference
had done wonders, when in fact they had done nothing. And the Con-
ference, after acknowledging that the Bishop was a pure man, admitted
that one of the highest officers of the church, whose shield remained un-
defiled, might be made a sacrifice, to or for the sin of abolition, on. the
alter of expediency, or by its right name, policy, to keep persons from
leaving the Church who held doctrines contrary to the Church... This is
the most extaordinary ecclesiastical act that stains the pages of history.
1 know uot which to be most surprised at, the reasons given for the act,
or the act itself. The reasons were the antagonisms of all correct prin-

‘ciples of action, and the act itself a mere pretence, a most unsubstantial
shadow.

To sum up all, the Report of the Committee on Slavery placed tl:e
Church a little nearer slavery than she was before 1840. ‘The action on
Harding’s case, left her where she had stood for forty-four years; and
that on the case of Bishop Andrew has allowed, by an overwhelming
yote, slavery to step up into the Episcopacy, and stand higher than it
ever did before. In the first and second cases, slavery proper lost nothing ;
in the third it was permitted to step into the Episcopal throne. This is
the mighty triumph of Northern principles boasted of. The Church has.
gained a great loss and disgrace. She stands now far below where she
stood previous to the late General Conference. i

The fourth case is that of the division of the Church. This is point-
ed out as the deliverer of the Northern portion of the Church from all
participation in the disgrace and sin of slavery. I have not room in this
article, already long, to examine all the provisions of this plan; and Will
therefore call attention to the part which ‘provides for the division.
380

* Resolved; by the delegates of the several anrual conferences In Gen-

eral Conference assembled, that should the delegates from the confer-

‘ ences in‘the slaveholding States find it uceessary to unite ina distinca
ecclesiastical connection,the following,ruLe shall be observed with regard
to the Northern boundary of stich connection. All Societies, Stations |
and Conrerences adhering to the Church South, by a vote ofa major-
itu of the members of said Societies, Stations and Conrerences, shall
remain under the unmolested pastorial care'of' the Southern Charch ;
and the ministers of the M. E. Church shall in no’ wise attempt to organ-
ize churches or societies withia the limits of the Chnrch' South, nor shalt
they ATTEMPT to exercise any pastoral oversight: therein; it being un-
derstood that the ministers of the South reciprocally observe the same
rule in relation to socieTIES, staTIONS, and CONFERENCES adhering by
vote of a majority to the M. E. Church ; provided, also, that this rule shalt
apply only to the societies, stations, and conferences bordering on the line
of division, and not interior charges, which shall in all cases; be left to
the care of that church within whose territory they are situated.”

We see from this provision that the line is not determined; but that
the societies, stations and conferences bordering on the line of the free
and slave States, are to determine the line by a vote’ of the: majority of
these societies, &c.

There are four annual conferences on this line, part in the free States
and part in the slave States;— Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and |
Ohio. The majority of these conferences are authorized to take ue
whole North or South, fix the line of separation by their lines, not by
the lines of free and slave States. “Thea each station, by a majority of
votes shall determine which division it shall belong to, and then each
society shall do the same thing, and thus is the dividing line to be form.
ed. The majority in all cases shall determine where the minority shall
belong. So far as the action of the ‘four annual conferences is concerned,
it will doubtless be in favor of the North. “Then comes the action of
the societies within the bounds of those conferences ; nine-tenths of these
will doubtless vote to remain in their old conferences ; and- this will also.
be the case with the stations, and nearly if not all the societies and ste-
tiens in the bounds of these annual conferences will thus go to the Nor-
thern division of the Church ; and thus the Northern Chur ch will embrace
a portion of Virginia, and the entire States of Maryland and Delaware,
together with the slaveholding local preachers and members in their.
bounds, and both divisions of the, Church be slaveholding ; and yet the

_ division is to satisfy - -abolitionists ; 3 divide the Church, and put slavery
into both divisions, which will be the case beyond all doubt, if the
38]

Church divides. The North does not ask the division to get clear of
slavery. They close their reply to the protest, expressing ahope “thas
the M. E, Church may still continue as one body.” The North wants
no division on account of slavery, or anything elsé. The South propo-
ses the division, and in a way that they will be free from abolition, and
leave the North in connection with slavery, and the North agrees.
This is the true statement of the case. And yet abolitionists are to be
satisfied with this division which frees the South from them, but does
not free them from slavery. fark, the division is to accommodate the
slaveholders, not the abolitionists. The slaveholders ask it; the aboli-
tionists do not. The party agreeing to the reply, 116 in number, hope
the South, with all these slaves, will still remain in the Church. And
mark further, the majority of the societies, stations and conferences are
to determine where the whole society shall go; and the minority is not
permitted 10 separate from the majority, except in case of a preacher,
which is provided for in another place.

When the line is thus formed, the preachers are bound not to from
societies out of the bounds of their own divisions. Each division is to
remain unentered by the preachers of the other division ; so that the
preachers of the Southern Church cannot come into the bounds of the
Northern Church to organize the slaveholders into a society, which have
been carried captive in the division by the majority, into a society or
church, neither can those of the North go to those who may have been
carried into the captivity of Southern Babylon, to organize them into
societies. Their barps must then centinue to hang upon the willows
But this is not all. The whole South, slaves and masters, are delivered
over to the ministry of the slaveholders, and their coadjutors forever.
The abolitionists of the North are bound never to preach deliverance
to the captives, or the opening of the prison doors to them that are
bound. Now I inquire, what such a division will do for the slave, or for
the master? Those who hold the opinions of Mr. Wesley, Dr. Clark
and Watson on the subject of slavery, that it is “ the sum of all villan-
ies,” “a crime for which perdition has scarcely any adequate punish-
ment,” shall never preach Wesleyanism in this particular, heyond Ma-
son’s and Dixon’s line. A Northern Church is to be formed, containing
slaveholders, which can never do any thing for the slave; which cove-
nants not to go and preach the gospel to him ; and this is to keep aboli-
tionists in the Church. This is the opiate that is to quiet all the excite-
ment of tbeir consciences, The whole South is to be given up to the
ministry of the oppressors, and the North still remain in fellowship with
slaveholders. Such a division would be more, much more disgraceful
382

to the North than their present connection, So that when we come to
throw off the mask of the action of the Conference, we see plainty
that every ‘turn they took, they 1 made bad worse, except in the case of
the black resolution.

— Uf there was any necessity or occasion fore Methodist organization
free from slavery, before the meeting of the General Conference, thaa
necessity or occasion has been increased by the action of that body ten
Sold ; and all friends of the slave, pure religion, and Wesleyan Methodism,
are called, with a much louder voice, to come out of her who trades in
siaves and the souls of men, and binds herself never to go and preach
the gospel to those souls, than Phd were previous to that time.
: i. Sura

‘Colismbus, Ohio, July 9, 1844.
PROCEEDINGS»
GF A CONVENTION OF THE SOUTH AND SOUTH-WEST-
ERN METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, CONVENED AT

LOUISVILLE.
Levisvitie, May Ist, 1845.

This body met in the 4th street church in this place, this morning at
nine o'clock, and proceeded to the work of organization by calling Dr,
Pierce of Georgia to the chair pro tem, and the appointment of Rey. ‘T.
N. Realtston, of Kentucky Conference, secretary pro tem. The Rev.
gentleinan delivered a brief and pertinent address to the convention,
urging thatthe present crisis demands more than ever the fervent
prayer of faith, That it beeame them to invoke divine aid to enable
them to be wise and faithful, and in accordance with long established
usage tho services of the session would be opened by reading a portion
of holy writ, singing and prayer. Ue then read the 2d chapter of Phil-
ipians — and gave out the hymn commencing, “ Come Holy Spirit, heav-
enly dove,” &c.

‘The prayer was appropr jate — assuming the division of the Church
to be inevitable, and asking for the special blessing of God upon the
Church South, —that he would endow the convention with wisdom, f-
delity, and unity, that in meekness and gentleness they might uct in ac-
cordance with the sentiments contained in the chapter they had just
heard, and be qualified more abundantly than ever to spread Scriptural
holiness over all these lands, Prayer being ended, Dr. Capers suggest-
ed that means be instituted to ascertain the members present. Dr. Bas-
com suggested that the delegates present hand in the certificates of their
election from the Southern Conferences, i in their order, beginning with
the Kentucky Conference —the members present responding to their
names, as called by the secretary.

During the calling of the names Bishops Soule and Andrew came in-
to the convention, and-were greeted witlr great warmth by many of the
brethren, as they passed along the aisle, and were conducted by Dr. Ca-
pers and others to seats in the altar, on the left of the president and sec-
retary pro tem. Bishop Soule is in usual health, and appears remarkably
well. Yet tho most casual observer cannot fail to perceive that he is
384

not atease. Solicitude and anxiety are strongly depicted in his counte-
nance. Bishop Andrew seems as well content as ever, and looks on
with his usual coolness. Bishop Soule attested the election of the dele-
gates from the Georgia couference, the certificates not having been for-
warded to Louisville. ; ;

Dr. Capers said that the motion he was about to make accorded so
entirely with his feelings, and was so entirely in unison -with the char-
acter of the convention now in session, that he felicitated himself in he-
ing permitted to present it at this early hour — that the venerable Bish-
ops now present be invited to preside over the deliberations of this con-
vention. He said that the peculiarity of our economy should exempt
us from the election of a president in the presence of our’ Bishops.
That there is no body in our convention in which they have a right to
vote, but they are competent to preside anywhere, from the General
Conference down through annual and quarterly conferences, to a lead-
crs’ miceting, and even had a right to enter and lead a class if so dispos-
ed, He would not, however, urge or do anything that would involve,
them with their Northern brethren. ‘We shall all be glad to have them
preside, and he would:therefore offer a motion to invite them to preside,
in such order as might suit they convenience, and as they might ar-
range the work between themselves.

Judge Longstreet of Georgia, said that he had written a resolution on
that subject, which, with leave, he would present, viz:

Resolved That the Bishops now in attendance be requested to preside
&e.

Dr. Capers remarked that we are now acting in view of the whole
Church, in view of all Christendom, and for the review of all posterity.
Many eyes are upon us, and we should so act as to prevent evil talk.
We do not know what may be said of us, but we do know thatal]l man-
ner of evil will be alleged against us. We shall be styled radical, &c.
&c. We stand here this day as old fashioned, unreformed, unreyolu-
tionized Methodists, and therefore wish to see at the head of this com-
mittee those venerable men, whom we are accustomed to see in our An-
nual and General Conferences, so that the world and the Church, the
present and the future, may see these men presiding over all our delib-
erations.

Judge Longstreet said le fully accorded with the views of Dr. C.
Weare here as the delegates of the Annual Conferences which we rep-
resent. They are our Bishops and ministers of the Methodist Episco-
pal Church —and as they preside over the Conferences we represent,
they should preside over us, inasmuch as those conferences are here by
385

delegation. J trust they will not refuse — they know bow to preside,
are acquainted with all the facts which have led to this convention, and
to the peculiarities of gur condition, We wish them as our officers to
preside over this Methodist meeting, and hope they will feel no reluc-
tance whatever. Dr. Payne of Tennessee, approved the sentiments ad-
vanced. He said that we have met by at least the indirect authority of
the General Conference. They left us to act at our discretion on a
great connectional question, according to the plan of the committee of
nine, and the presiding of the Bishops will do much good, and can do
noevil, Most vf the Conferences in. the South invited the Bishops to
attend, and we ask for what?) They have no yote. We do not intend
to do any thing that isswrong. -We, will only do what the late General
Confesence récommended to be done. :

B. T. Croutch of Kentucky approved the remarks of his brethren.
The Bishops are at our head. They are Jooked up to by all, as the
guides and guardians of all that properly belongsto us. They natural-
ly care for the Church — for the whole Methodist family, whether they
live in the North or the South, and we bave met to dispose of a difficul-
ty of the Church, of the whole Church, of which they are the general
superintendents; and we are here in accordance with the act of the late
General Conference, and it is fit and proper that they should be invited
to preside.

John Early said we should be extremely cautious how we proceed.
We were so at New York when we prepared the protest. The Gener-
al Conference sanctioned our meeting. .We were cautious in preparing
our circular to the Southern Churches. All hitherto has been done
with the utmost caution. We are not to care what ignorant or preju-
diced persons think, write or speak, concerning us. We must go straight
forward in our duty, turning neither to the right nor the Jeft. We have
not met here to discuss the question of division or no division, but to
consummate our instructions the, best way we can,, according to the
plan of the committee of nine and by theauthority of the General Con-
ference.

We intend. to identify the Bishops now present with us, and ourselves
with them, and in so doing who shall dare to hold the rod over the head
of the venerable man at your left, Mr. President, or the beloved Bishop
by his side? And if they do, what do we care for it? Let us not fear
what others may say, or do. | We should not inquire what others may
think, but invite the Bishops to preside, and thus associate ourselves
forever. Bro. Stringfield said he wished to say a word to one impor-

tant point — viz, we are Episcopal Methodists. We believe in and in-
‘ 33
386

tend to have our Episcopacy, and therefore he was in fuvor of the mo-
tion. A brother, whose name we did not get, suggested an amendment
to the motion so as to include all tue Bishops of the Church who may
attend. Mr. Longstreet refused to alter the resolution, inasmuch as
some other Bishops ay attend, whom We would rot like to have preé-

side. ogous EY ae

Dr. Capers thought it'best to let it alone. If other ‘Bishops attend,
the convention can by vote invite them to presidt, If Bishop Morris
should come, the Bishops would feel at perfect libeny to invite him to
assist. The resolution’ pertains to thé Bishops now ‘present, and was
due to them. He liked friends to. help him it time of need —to lay

hold when he’ began to strain on the log, and they deserve thebest bow
of the convention for meeting so promptly with them. The wotion
was then put and carried unanimously. Bishop Soule asstred the con
vention that he felt a deepand abidmng interest in all the matters per-
taining te the convention, He would say, in perfect harmony with his
colleague, that he' wished the convention to proceed to-day as at pres=
ent organized, to-morrow we will make a communication to the .con-
yention. oe

Mr. Early moved that the convention adopt for its government the
rules of the last Genera! Conference. Question was not put.

Mr. Early was then nominated as secretary of the conyention.

Dr. Wm. A. Smith of Virginia, opposed the nomination, on the ground
that Mr. E. owed higher, and more important and solemm services to
the Churéh, and was in favor of the appointment of seme ‘one who is
not a member of the convention, as every delegate was expected tobe
athis post and do his duty — duty infinitely inore solemn and impbr-
tant than the mere inechanical work of redueing to records the duings
of the convention. He hoped that the ‘Rey. T. A. Sargent, of Balti-
more Conference, would consent to serve them, as he had rendered s0
much service to the late General Conference in that’ wae This Mr. 8.
“was understood to decline. : es

Dr. Capers dissented from Dr. Smith ; he never had considered ita
degradation 'to be oppointed secretary to an Annual or General Confer-
ence, but rether an-honor. Hoped we should not be compelled to ‘go
out of the body for a vecretary, and ‘thus put the convention ‘under pro-
scription. ‘

* Mr, Early thanked the brethren ne the honor me intended him, but
begged to be excused. oa

- A-number of the brethren were nominated, and after sche ballott-

jogs Rey, Thomas O. Summers, of Alabama, wes elected secretary of
the convention, aud T.N. Rollston, of Kentucky, assistant,
387

Dr, Capers submitted some remarks on a resolution which had been
introduced by another, to forma committee” to ascertain whether
competent reporters can be. procured and to.devise means to defray the
expenses, Ie urged:attention ta this matter at an early date; and es-
pecially as to the means. for defraying the expense,. reminding the
brethren that they had no. book concern to resort to.

‘Mr, Early said that he wished the doings of the convention to be
spread fully and freely before the public eye. A.large portion of ,the
ebureli every where are ignorant of the grounds, of our action. We
jhave been misrepresented and refused redress, so much so, that, preach-
ers have been found who have put the question to churches for, their ac-
tion in this wise —“ are. you. fer division or against jt?” — and hence
many have heen deceived as to the true question. As,to funds,. there
are men here whp will see there shall be uo lack on that score. Let
reporters he employed. j i,

Dr. Capers said we could not get a perfect sence the speeches de-
Fix eredhere. The report of the late General’ Conference demonstrate
it, Those reports show that some men made very clever speeches,
while otiers are shown up to poor advantage. He said that some extra
features of a speech might get localized, such as finger ends — hair on
the head of a bald man, &c., but some how or other, the bone and sin-
ew of many of the speeches was Jost, and it is impossible to procure a
full representation; seid he thought some of his speeches had some
eommon sense to them, but really when they came from the hands of
ihe reporters they were so meagre and ill favored that he could hardly
recognize them as his progeny at all. Mr. Earley thought we would
have advantages here which we had not ia New York. Local preju-
dices would not operate against us here. ‘

Dr. W. A. Smith said he was in favor of employing reporters by all
means. They present most potent motives to speakers to keep dumb.
The thought that what I say is put down, and there must stand, and I
be reviewed in the light of what I have said, garrulous as Iam reputed
to be, and doubtless am, this thought would hinder me much. He
thought that generally men who speak least at General Conference are
most likely to be re-elected ; besides our position is peculiar and delicate
Ast as to ourselves. We must provide that we be represented as we
are — or others will do it for us, J must go on my own hook, and stand
hefore the church and commufiity in such form as I exhibited; then [
take the respensibility. 2d, we are bonnd to provide reporters in be-
half of the public ; we owe ittothem that we show the grounds of our

‘contemplated action; they must know our ground before they can tol-
388

erate our claims or vindicate our position, 8d, we owe it to the chureh
to'spread our reasons calmly, and freely and fully before them. The
Church; North, East, West and South does not know the ground of our
action. How cotild they? The editors ef the Church papers have
misrepresented Church action and individual sentiments; have pub-
lished false statements and refused to publish correetions. Again, there
miay be a Southern organization; in that event posterity must be pro-
vided with facts which will speak out for us when we are dead and
cannot speak to the then living. The grand reason why there has been
so much contention relative to the meaning of the varying legislation
of the Church on the subject of slavery from A. D. 1784, is to be found
in the fact that no reporters were employed, and thus the whole matter
is debateable until now.

Mr. Early consented to strike out the clause providing for means to
defray expenses for reporting, and a committee was appointed on re-
ports, compose of Rev. Messrs. Early, Bascom, Paine, Bond, English,
Hamilton, Wightman, McFerrin, J.ee and Brush.

‘Mr. Early moved that the secretary be authorized to procure a suita-
ble book or books in which to record in permanent manner the doings.
of this convention, and remarked that the book should be of a kind
that would correspond with the character of this convention, and be of
service as a book of record of ‘the doings of the General Conference
when formed.

Mr. McFerrin thought that a book might be purchased that would
answer the purposes of the convention without the expense of from
$15 to $30, as stated by the secretary. Besides, he objected to ineor-
porating in resolutions or speeches references to a General Conference
not yet formed. He thought it best to do one thing ata time, and at-
tend to things as they occur. He thought that by the time they needed
a book for the new General Conference, books will be cheaper.

Mr. LeRoy M. Lee wished to know what disposition the convention
would make of the papers of the convention in New York, held after
the adjournment of the General Conference, committed to his care, and
now completed and ready for delivery. Some one replied that they
would: be engrossed in the book which would be purchased, and
form apart of the history of the case. | No.action was: had‘ on this
point.: ;

Mr. Early moved to appoint a committee to report rules for the gov-
ernment of this convention; the following persons were appointed —
Longstreet, Capérs,Wm. A. Smith. Dr.'Capers said that many

things had been done in a hurry: to-day —he was sorry ‘to see it and’

\
389

\
was sorry that some things were done. :).Was anxiaus to know wheth-

tr our Bishops will grant our request and vreside over the convention.
Convention then adjourned, to meet to,morrow morning at half past
eight o'clock.

Mr. Dunwoody engaged in prayer, in which he begged the Lord to
give them and the Church in their cate unity of seutiment. From the
drift o his devotions we inferred that unity among the delegates and
Charch in the South was the desideratum w ished for rather than pos-
sessed. The delggates are nearly all preseut, ‘upward of 100 we sup-
pose. They cling with great tenacity to the report of the committee of
nine, by which they, profess to he governed, They appear tobe firm in
their purpose to divide. The general impression’ is, that division it
some shape will be the result, . 4 ‘e

The following is-a list of the delegates present:

Kenrucky Conrgrence —H. B, Bascom, DD., Edward Seexmnean,
IL H. Kavanaugh, B. T. Crouch, Win. Guon, G. W. Taylor, G. W.
Brush, J.C. Warrison, B. H. M’Cown, J. King, J. James, and T. N.
Ralston.

Missouni— A. Monroe, fesse Green, J. Glanville, W. Browning, W.
Patton, J. H. Linn, Thos. Johuson and J. Boyle.

Horstox — Creed Fulton, ai K. Catlett, T. Springfield, R. M. Ste-
vens and T, Sullins.

Vineista —T: Crowder, J. Early, W. A. Smith, DD., L. M. Lee, H.
#. Cowles, D. S. Daggett, A. Poun and A. Dibrell. . ,

Norta Carouiwa —8. 8. Bryant, J. Tr, Brame, H.G. Leigh, B. T.
Blake, P. Doub and R. J. Carson.

' Mempats — M. Brock, G. W. D. Haris, WW. M’Mahan, T. Joyner, A
Davidson, W. L. M’Alister, and T. Smith.

‘Tryvesset —R. Paine, DD., J. B.M’Ferrin, A. L. P. Green, F. E.
Pitts, A. F. Driskill, J. W. Hanner, J. Boucher, T. Maddin, F. G. Fergu-
won and R. L. Andrews, : ,

Mississrpr1 — L. Campbell. >

Arxansas —John Harrell, J. Custer, S, Tr, Truslow, ang J. C, Paiker.

Inpraw Missrox — D. B. Cuinming and E. T. Peery.

Sourn Carouina — We Capers, DD., W. M. Wightman, tL A.C.
Walker, &. Dunwoody, B. English, W. Smith, & Vy. Capers and R. J.
Body. :

Georeia — J. Borring, L. Pierce, DD., J, W. Glenn, J. E. Evang, 8.

nthony, J. B, Poyne, A. B. Longstreet, LL. D. and J. Brong.

Fioxips —P. P. Smith and T C. Benning.
390

Azasama — J. Hamilton,‘DD,; J. Boring, DD., Thos. O. Summers,
T. H. Capers, E. V. Levert and'E. Callaway.
Texas —~ L, Fowler and F. Wilson.

Lovrsvit1e, Friday, May 2.
"Convention was ‘opened. by] Dr. ‘Capers. He read the ‘second chapter
of Galatians, and gave out the hymn commencing,

“Unless the Lord conduct the plan,” &c.. ‘

The prayer was:appropriate: : ‘Considerable discussion took plate res-
pecting the title of the'convention. They'styled themselves a conven-
tion;of delegates from, &c. elected by said Conferences on the basis of
the plan of division warranted by the late General Conference. After
some conversation, they: found that the’ “ plan” was a plan for separa-
tion, and not for division, which seemed to be quite a discovery, and not
very palatable. They seemed to be aware that there is a great deal in
aname. Messrs. Early and Longstreet presented reports. One on re-
porting for the press.; The other on rules for the convention. Both
were accepted. 1 :

Bishop Soule said, “Long as I have presided in the eonvercils of the
church, I have seldom, if ever, felt as I feel now. The occasion is one
_ of deep interest and solemnity. The results of the doings of the con-
vention will be all important, to all the interests concerned, whether we
consider them in reference to the world at large, the political, union of
these United States, or the Church of the . living God. You should
therefore act with the, ytmost moderation and deliberation. It is known
to all who are acquainted with our affairs, that J, have entertained and
announced the opinion, ever since last May, that, the aetion of the Gen-
eral Conference, on that oecasion, would ultimately sever the Church.
This opinion was not formed hastily, but was the result of a careful
analysis of that action, and the connection between causes and effects.
Jn this opinion I was novand am not alone, and nothing that has oc-
curred since has altered my opinion. - I deeply regret, the present dis-
astrous condition of the Church, and have labored, as much asin me
lieth, to confine the evil within as narrow ‘bounds as possible. I have
urged the brethren in the South to keep close to, and carry out strictly
the plan of separation —a peaceable and amicable separation —as
made and provided by the General Conférence, so ‘as to leaye the way
open for a free and friendly intercourse between all the branches of. -
great Wesleyan family.
391

And 1 beg this convention'to keep strictly within the plan of separa-
ration. I rejoice ta find the Southern Conferences firm and ardent in
their devotion to Methodism, as delivered to us by our forefathers. I
move not out of the record of the discipline, and am not to be moved
from its firm foundations. You are here in the same spirit.

Be ye:
steadfast, immovable.

Your present convention and future course grow
out of ‘the peculiarities of your condition, and in view of the peculiari-
ties you will act as sound discretion warrants. I have duly considered
your request o f yésterday, invi.ing me to preside in this convention, and
having scanned the course in all its bearings“ on the present and the
future, after every view, I can take of it, T have deliberately decided ta
ticcept your invitation, And I take great pleasure i in saying that in
this decision I’ “have the entire approbation of my worthy colleague,
Bishop Andrew ; my worthy. colleague Bishop Morris, now present,
deems it inexpediént for him to participate in this work, and cannot |
harmonize it with his sense of duty, in view of his relations, I appre-
ciate his reasons, and justify his determination, which, so far from less-
ening him “in the estimation of any one here or elsewhere, should
exalt him'in the estimation of all. I will therefore serve you as best I
may, for the glory of God and the salvation of souls.

The Bishop then took his seat, amidst an enthusiastic expression of
delight from the convention, variously manifested — even to stamping
with the feet. ‘The Bishop performed his part of the ‘affuir with his
usual dignity, and the convention seemed elated and delighted, and pro-
ceéded to business with increased avidity and confidence.

Several ‘motions, variously modified, were presented to the conven-
tion by Rev. Messrs. Early, Smith, Capers and others — amounting to
the creation of a committee, ‘composed of two members from each

‘ Conference, to consider ‘the éntire ground of our difficulties, the Hard-
ing & Andrew cases, plan of separation, and the best methods of se-
curing the objects for which the convention met j that this committees
hold its sessions privately, exeliding all from its counsels ‘who are not
members of the convention. —

Mr. String field opposed this last feature’ ‘of the measure, contending
that all efforts at "secrecy would only tend to create suspicions. That
all the South needs is light on the subject. The motion however pre-
vailed. - .

"Dr. Capers v withdrew the motion, saying that he wished these points
well investigated and carefully guarded. We have been —not to use
the harsher ‘word falsely — but at least strongly represented, both-in
New York and Cincinnati, by the editors of the Church papers at those
392

points, as influenced to our action by the delegates on their return from
Gener al Confer ence, and by the preachers j in their intercourse with the
people., . aa

Dr. Capers presented a motion to raise a committee of one from each
Conference, to inquire into the Harding and Andrew cases ; the state of
the yote in the Southern Conferences ; the plan sacuaniany the action
of quarterly | meeting Conferences, and the’ spontaneous action of the
primary meetings of the people. ‘

Dr. Smith opposed the motion, inasmuch as the groud « of it was cov-
ered by the resolution they . had just passed,

Dr. Capers moved, that a committee of nine be, created to mature a
pian for the future maintainance of the missionary operations in the South
to be presented to ihe Annual Confer ences of the South and Southwest.

Judge Longstreet was opposed to the measure as ‘premature — we do
not know as yet what we are ourselves — nod this step he deemed en-
ad premature.

Dr. Capers said the missions were degraded, and if we wait, for the
former committee to perform its Herculean Jabors, before any arrange-
ments are made for the support of ourmissions, by a plan peculiar to
our new or ganization, brethren at that late period would become impa-
tient to return homme, and thus this department would be neglected. ,

fr. Early was in favor of the measure, In 8 or 10 days we may re-
ne a plan of separation and consummate it, and then if the missiona-
ry department is not ready it would be a° serjous evil. I will not vote
for any separation at the loss of any of the peculiarities of Methodisin.
i love and, will have her doctrines, discipline ana institutions.

Judge Longstrect said there was no difference between. him and Bros.
Capers and Early, but he deemed the action premature. We are as yet
in our clirysalis state — we are not yet formed. We have not got our
bones and muscles and sinews. And suppose we should find it unnec-
essary to organize, and go back to the old Church. (Several voices here
cried out, “ who is the old Church ”) And if we do organize, is it cer-
tain that we shall make the General Conference omnipotent as the old
one, competent to make and unmake at pleasure, and leave the bare will
of the majority the exponent of its powers? If there is no reform ou
the subject of General Conference power, if its powers be not defined
aud established, so that we can know whatit is and what it is not, we
will dissolve into our original elements, and establish what we do know,
and not leave General Conference powers to he defined by mere major-
ities. He thought the measure premature and therefore he sliould op-

pose it,
393 \
\

Dr. Capers rose, much excited. Said he 'was very sorry to hear the
remarks which had just been made. The views presented and the as-
sertions made involve entirely new doctrines to mc. In all my inter-
corse with Southern preachers these sentiments have never before been
broached ; if they prevail he desired to be done with the concern. He
wanted no‘reform on the constitution. Weare true Methodists ; we find
no fault with her at all. All we complain of is that our Northern breth-
ren will not let her float on her own bottom and in her own seas. We
are on the old ship and we will not give her up. If she sinks we had
rather go down with her than leave her. Some persons have started
novel doctrines with respect to her, and where they got them or what
they are I do not know #whether Latin, Greek, Hebrew or Indian. Be-
fore God and man — inside and out—TI am a Methodist, just as much
soas when God converted my soul. Could I invoke from heaven the
spirit of Francis Asbury I would assert to him that Iam now as much
as ever a Methodist.

Judge Longstreet said, The sentimnts of Dr. Capers are mine exactly,,
only I want that Latin and Greek and Hebrew translated, so that we
can all know what it is, and not lie in the hosom of majorities to come
up as spectres and terrify and tyranize at will, Ido not regrct my speech
atall, bitt am very glad it has occasioned the remarks from Dr. Capers.

Dr. Bascom said that the true question is, will we have time, if we con-
clude on a new orgarization, to attend to all these matters after we come
to that conclusion? Several committees must be appointed on books,
literature, periodicals, and the property question.

The question of committees on missions was then put and adopted.

Dr. Bascom wished a committee of two from each Conference to con-
sider, not Mr. Harding’s case and Bishop Andrew’s—.a plan of separa-
tion, &c. but to inquire into the necessity and propriety of a new organ-
ization, according to the plan authorized by the General Conference,
We have no use in this question for Harding and Andrew.

Bro. Lee then moved to reconsider Early’s resolution.

Mr. Smith was disposed to agree’ with Dr. Bascom, until he spoke of
Harding and Andrew’s case, saying we had no use fer them. We have
much use for them; they are necessary to make out our case to the com-
munity, and this necessity is increased by the fact that facts have been
misrepresented on one hand and suppressed on the other. Yes sir,

plain and endorsed facts have been misrepresented or suppressed both
in New York and in Cincinnati; by papers of our Church; and thus thou.
sands are ignorant asto the position of those who have been called the
Ieaders in the South. And hence we have not that measure of sympa~
394

thy, on the border nor even in Louisville, which we expected, and whieh

the facts when known will produce. J know that Kentucky is only on
this side. of the Ohio river, yet sir, Kentucky will be erect when shies
has,had the opportunity to understand this subject. The report of the.
committee: must contain atrue history ofthe Harding.and Andrew eases,
We can’t do without them, no inore.than we can:do Without our vener-
able Bishop... eo 4 ; ; Vy

Dr, Bascom explained that. his robaleiieh sini aced tliose cases.

-The resolution was then reconsidered. Gs» “ =

Dr. Exrly moved that a committee of: two from ein aioe Confer-
ence represented be appointed, to consider the necessity and propriety
of a new organization, and the best means to carry out the. plan ef the
General Conference. : ‘

Boe, Crouch presented fleataay oes, fain several circuits, addressing
divers questions to the convention, which he was permitted to present.
Jst. Is there ground to hope that our Northern brethren will so com-
promise this difficulty as.to secure the rights of Southern ministers and
members? 2d, If dt is determined: necessary to form a new organiza-
tion, will or will not this convention agree to refer the consummation of
it until the next Ganeral Conference shall have acted on the premises ?
3d. Ef the-Church South decline the jurisdiction of the General Confer-
ence, can the Methedist Episcopal Church continue its being and juris-
diction in the South? These papers were referred by Dr. Bascom to the
committee on arganization. The papers in the hands of L. M. Lee.
were ordered to the same committee, and to be recorded in the book to
lve purchased for the convention, The convention passed the residue
of the session in prayer. i

Thus you see that yesterday was indeed the day of developments.
The course of Bishop Soule lias strengthened the hands of the South
uud severed the last attenuated ligament, which bound the convention
to the Church,, The firm course of Bishop Morris, in opposition to their
special request, greatly alloyed their satisfaction. Many of them confi-
dently. boasted that he was with them, and exultingly spoke of triumph
under the Episcopal trio.

The highly imprudent remarks of Judge Longstreet gave. them great
distress and mortification. But truth will out— the reforming revolu-
tionary feelings, prematurely (for them) developed by him, exist exten.
sively, and show that the great evil and peculiarity of the day is rampant
in the Chureh, viz;“ 4 spirit of insubordination lo duly constituted author-.
uy.” They are moving right on tothe workof separation. It is evident
that the leaders have laid out their course, and will accomplish the cher-
ished purpdse of their hearts, Yet their course déés hot meet with pop-
ular favor. I verily believe’ thet they have got before the spirit of the

times ; community is convinced that slavery is indeed a great and alarm-
‘ing e¥fil, and only tobe endured, net cherished, by men in whose bosoms
beat the hearts of freefnen:

The seal of reprobation is set heavily upon it, and ¥ were it associated
with Seraphim and Cherubitn, open to huian vision, it would 3 not sane-
ufy it; its deiormiities would only be seen in stronger contrast or create
the suspicibn that Satan had this transformed hinself for diabolic ends.
Thus ani Mtelligent lawyer of Kentutky — whose prejudices and sympa-

‘Thies are all w ith the Sough dryly remarked the other day —* ft is pass-
ing strange to See troops of preac hers of the Gospel assembling to sanc-
tify and perpetuate slavery.” | And he’ was not char zeable either with
‘the crudities of abolitionism i in its indiseriminate and headlong course.

 

; Saturpay Moraine, May 2d.

Rev. J. Had 'y opened by reading scriptures, singing and prayer.

John Early moved that the convention adjourn till Monday morning,
inasmuch as thoy must have a report from the cominittce on organiza-

tion before further action can be had. Motion was withdrawn.

Judge Longstreet offered a'resolution to the effect that no memorials
will be.received atier next Tuesday. Mr. Early modified it so as to say

thatthe convention , would not delay action. for mentorjals after that
period.

Dr. Capers deemed it expedient (he said that was a geod word,though
it had been much abused), thet an authenticated report from the commit-
tee on organization should bé prepared by competent persons. He had
‘great confidence in the committee on reports, but from the very nature
of the case they must be imperfect. It would be more than human for
them to, give a perfect report — catching it with interruptions as they
needs must do. He therefore moved to reconsider the Vote on reporters.

Mr. Wightman said the duty of the reporters is to report the _proceed-
ings of the convention — their acts: and doings, nor their r poeeches if
‘there i is any omission he would thank : any br other to point it out.*

Dr. Capers said that as far es he was “concerned he did not take any
exceptions, but was free to say that he wished nothing had been report-
ed officially ‘of Bishop ‘Soul’s speech, or that a perfect copy bad been
given to the public. We ‘have not come here to make crack speeches to
Ammortalize ourselves, but fo do the business of our mission.

My. Ferrin said the resolution only required them to report a synop-
396

.

ais of the doings of the convention. I regret that the report of Bish
op Soule’s speech is so short., | have a fuller one written out, which
IT will publish if it is desirable. After we get through business here we
will publish our journal, As to the speeches of the brethren, we left
them on the balmy air, to be gathered, up as*best they may be.

_L. M. Lee said he thought it was the duty of the committee ( of which
he was one ) to report the acts and doings and not the speeches of mem-
bers. The convention had only allowed them $25 to pay reporters
with, and defray expenses, Small allowance, indeed — and what could
they expect from that? It reminded him of the servant girl who mar-
ried a hunehback — when her mistress expressed her surprise, the girl
replied, ‘‘ What could a person do with only five pounds?”

Besides, we find it very difficult to report speeches of members —
when Dr. Capers speaks he flashes sun-beams all around him, and we
cannot catch the fugitive rays— when others speak they perplex us
vastly — their ideas and words are so large that they overwhelm us
and we cannot extricate ourselves. The ideas of others again are so
small that we cannot detect or catch them at all. If you will give ua
more funds we will do the best we can with them.

There are difficulties in this matter — but you have three editors on
the committee, and they will grapple with them; and you know that wo
editors are used to being linked — we will do all we can.

Mr Green of Tennessee moved that Bishop Soule be requested to fur-
nish a copy of his speech for publication ; then we shall have neither
more nor less. Carried bya rising vote.

The names of the members of the missionary committee were then
announced.

FOURTH DAY.

Monpay MORNING, May oth.

Convention opened with the usual exercises by Dr. Winans. ;

Dr. Winans moved the following resolution: —

Resolved, That the committee on organization be instructed to inquire
whether or not anything has transpired during the past year to render
it possible to maintain the unity of the Methodist Episcopal Church un-
der the same general conference jurisdiction, without the ruin of South-
ern Methodism.

He said the resolution implied that one year ago a state of things ex-
tsted which decided that the union could not be continued without ruin
| 397

to Southern Methodism. This assumption is necess ary to warrant our
convention and Justify | our course, Not is it expedient, ‘but i is it neces-
sary to our being tliat we divide? Is the assumption true? Yes, it is so
plain that argument is useless, “Every one who is familiar et the
South knows that slavery is so interwoven with the texture of society
that no church can disentangle itself from it —if desirable, it is not
possible. The vatious mutations of society will bring it upon them.
Publie opinion ‘Tallies | ar ound’ jt with watehful vigilance. If any men
array themselves against it they are disqualified for usefulness in civil,
political or religious life. We all know that Dr. Coke’s misguided anti-
slavery influence has eye many doors aguinst Methedistn and does yet,
although the church has changed her policy.

When the late General Conference took an open opposition to slave-
ry ‘they rendered it impossible to maintain Methodism, in the South.
The preachers could have borne the outrage on their rights, being used
to sacrifices, but they were thereby disqualified to spread Scriptural ho-
linegs ovér these Southern lands, This they stated to the ‘majority —
are they not sustained by the Sotith? Listen to their voices. Their er-
ror was that they bore too long the outrage and effront. Who is to judge
of its necessity? If they would not believe the delegates, let them
hear the’ members of the South. Shall the Christian Ady ocate and
Journal or Dr. Elliott decide the matter? They view things through a
distorted medium; through the medium of their prejudices, interests
and commitments. They are incompetent, The South alone can judge
in this matter, and her ‘verdict is that union cannot be sustained except
at the ruin of the South. The General Conference justified and provi-
ded for a peaceful separation. The case demands the severance and
we shall be wanting in fidelity ta our flocks in, the South if we pause
a moment. .

Let us inquire whether any thing has occurred since then ‘to alter
this necessity. Nothing. The South has not indicted submission. We
know of but one man in New Orleans, 1 in Natchez, and 3 in Mississippi,
who are opposed to division. This is a great array indeed to justify us
in drawing back from the peaceful step of separation. Twelve or fifteen
conferences rc presented here present the same aspect. No hope from
the South then. But the property question has been urged. I will not
say that those who started it are governed by interested motives. But
suppose the worst — that every par ‘sonage and church and college would
be sacrificed. should we pause a moment for this? No. The man
who would propose it would deserve to be branded with infamy forever.

ButI do not fear such a result.
34
There is equity in theland. Its eye will not be blinded or its ear closed
to the voice of truth. We shall hold all our property by as sure a ten-
ure as any in the M. E. Church. But that point cannot be settled here.
Compromises have been proposed. Las any come from the majority ?
If so what does it imply? Why, that we must quietly lie down and
take the chastisemeut that Mother Church may choose to inflict. The
North is composed of far seeing Yankees. They know we eannot- be
hoodwinked, and though they have shouted over the prospect of com-
promise, they have been sparing in proposals, as Yankees are wont to
he. “We must submit to the present and prospective degradation of
the eldership of the Chureh. And they will not elect an abolition Bish-
op.” Wonderful concession! “An almighty tall concession, that,” as
Kentuckians say. Ihave no objection to an abolition Bishep in the
South. His heart may-burn within him on slavery till his bones ache.
He will be innoxious there.

If he isa prudent man, and will counsel with prudent men, he will
keep the peace, J will warrant you. Who or what is au abolitionist ?
He isan abstraction — you cannot measure him — he changes gs fast
as French fashions —a mere ideality. He is one who acts on the prin-
ciples of an abolitionist. ‘The majority of the late General Conference
were abolitionists, as we understand the term.

That slavery is sinful in all circumstances is the radical idea of aboli-
tionism. Now how can we find out this abstraction, lying away down
in the core of a man’s heart? A mere ideal abstractionist. I pity the
man’s brains who penned the compromise in hope of suecess—any
African among us would detect its fallacy. Another proposal, which
caused a shout of glory, is presented, viz: a proposal to let slavery be
inanaged by us exclusively. But the majority deny that there is or has
been any compromise, and if there were, it is repealable by a majority
when they please. But the futility of this is seen in that this comes
from the South. Tas the North responded to it favorably ?

No sir, no —they will not give such a, pledge, if it were adequate to
such an emergency. And is this all the hope we have of union? Some
wish us to pause but not draw back — I would be glad to pause ten or,
fitteen years if need he — yea to lay my life down if I could secure so
desirable a result as continued unity. But what reason have we to
pause — Will the South depart from her present position? No, never.
Is there a growing disposition to conciliate on the part of the North?
Do yon find it in the New York papers or in Dr. Elliott’s late editorial ?
No, they take higher ground than ever, and present a firmer front than
ever before, Why then wait? If we reason from the past to the fu-
ture, we cannot pause.
399

If we neglect this rule, we may pause and rue it. Some say wait
till the General Conference, Why? will they get better? or will we
be able to whip them? No, neither, — never. They have got the ma- ’
jority and they will keep it. They can make a four weeks circuit out
of two appointments. We cannot whip them. We can out-speak
them but we cannot out-vote them. Besides they cannot recede; it
would hurt their tender consciences. If we wait till another General
Conference they will conclude that they have triumphed, and will ulti-
mately prevail. Are we prepared for this? No, Let the committee
on organization strain their cycs in every direction and if they can dis-
cern a cloud as big as a man’s hand, let them shout glory ; I will be as
glad as any one. But that does not exist. If we pause we must sub-
mit to the despotism which imposed our degradation on us.

Dr. Capers said he knew of no proposition from the North. There
may have been some anonymous ones ; but they are not worthy of being
noticed here. The General Conference authorized a plan of separation,
if the necessity existed for it. While the South were speaking out on
that necessity, the Northern Conferences have only the more aggravated
our condition. The General Conference are abolitionists as explained by
Dr. Winans. I never heard any sentiments in the South adverse to the
action of the minority in the late General Conference. Indeed they
complained that we were too tardy ; we should have left and come home
immediately, One fortnight more would have ruined some of our mis-
sions. The Ponpon missions were just saved, and that was all. Tama
Methodist — all that is in me, that is good, came through her instrumen-
tality. My mother was a Methodist, and I love the cause. Methodism,
our good mother, hasalways had something to trouble her — radicalism
— the presiding elder question —and now slavery. On the question
of presiding elders the West and South umted and saved the Church ;
if New England had succeded I verily believe that, ere this time, we
would have been without a Bishop. The late General Conference ac-
tion was radicalism, and now rnin threatens her again. Yet I hope for
the unity of the M. E. Church, and that hope rests upon our firm,
prompt, absolute separation. This may seem paradoxical, but it is my
view of the matter. We do not wish to go back to the General Confer-
ence to fight, For my partI do not believe in the late General Confer-
ence Episcopacy. “ Bishops are on a par with editors, agents and class-
leadegs.” The mockery of holy words ina meaningless ordination ser-
vice. We cannot resign ourselves to be sent any where into the bands
of a man whom God did not give us as a Bishop — but only a Bishop as
the Genera] Conference constitutes and gives us one. No sir, we will
400

ies
stand as high as preachers as ever we did, and we will place and hold
you, venerable sir, (Bishop Soule) as high as God placed you by his grace.

They may push us off the log. »but they cannot push us out of the ter-
ritory of Methodism. ‘Thus acting, , the time will come when we shall
have overtures from the North — for very § shame’s sake. ‘they will make
them, a therefore think jve had better not retard the committee on or-
gahization by instructions. '

Mr. Crowder stated the contents ‘ofthe. resolution. We are responsible
to public opinion for our course: we shall shield ourselves by making
the i inquiry. We owe it to the/Northern brethren —we owe it to some
few in the South,, who think we ought to pause, These must be sooth-
ed and made to ally with us— We must demonstrate the imperious
and palpable necessity of this course to North and South, I helieve the
time has come when we inust take this step. I have never hesitated i in
my mind a moment since the late General Conference.

Mr. Spear moved that a committee’ be raised of one from each ie
ference to inquire into the powers of this convention and report as soon
as possible. ait —

Dr. Capers opposed it. The former committee will attend to this.

Dr. Early opposed it. It was withdrawn.

Mr. Drake, of Mississippi Conference, presented a resolution to in-
struct the committee on organization in the event of separation to pro-
vide a plan for the re-union ‘of the Church, so as to secure the interest
of the South and at the same time meet as far as may be the views of
our brethren in the North. We may not be able to do this immediately,
yet we hold many views in common with our brethren inthe North, and
union is desirable in the South. Division is deplored by both North and
South. It is possible therefore to have union. I do not now. speak of
the terms of union. ‘Ihave, ‘however a plan, and my hope is, that the
North will move to us. : ;

Judge Longstreet said it is an erroneous view that we are going to di-
vide the Church any farther than her temporal economy and jurisdiction
are concerned. We have quarr elled about slavery y for near ly 50 years.
We are going to separate on that subject now, and this will produce
peace. The Bishop who attended the late’ New England Confer ences
said they were remarkably peaceful sessions, and why ? Because they
had ‘nothing to say or do o on slavery. But tlie Church will not let us alone
like the screws in mechanics, they hold all ed have and get more at
every turn. ’

“Messrs. Ferrin, Green and others opposed the resolution on the ground
that if they passed it, it would be endorsing it by the resolution, =e

ai 4 ‘
401

Mr. Early was in favor of the resolution. Tle South only needa light
Bishop Hamline and Dr. Olin admitted that we were on the edge of a
precipice and could not advance or recede. Hence the plan of separz-
tion by the committee of nine. I will read extracts from it. (Reads.) I
should think that Dr. Bond and Dr. Elliott had never seen this plan. How
different their tone from that of the plan: We conclude that the neces-
sity of the separation, as refered to in the plan, does now exist, and we
liave been sent here to consummate it. We will have no change in our
doctrines, discipline or usages, and we will leave the door open till judg-
ment day, if necessary.

We wish for a fraternal separation, and the liberty to manage our own
affirs, The discipline contains a compromise. Let the North come
and say, we will let you alone, and we will hail it with a shout. If the
abstract question, “ Will you divide,” bad been presented to the late Gen-
eral Conference, they would have answered in thunder—No. I hope
the resolution will pass, and we go home and Jet the controversy die,
The Southern members have spoken out. In the North they have not
been permitted to speak ont. During my stay in Cincinnati, on my way
here, the Mayor of that city, Mr. Spencer, said that the people are igno-
rant of the facts in the case, and advised us to pause, saying, we will get
up a press here in Cincinnati to inform them on this subject, and I will

 

give 500, and brother will give $500 more, &c. &e. We must
enlighten the people, and I am in favor of leaving the door open till the
day of judgment, if you please.

Messrs. Stringfield and Monroz were in favor of the motion — it was
adopted.

Dr. Winans said he wished to present a supplement to his speech this
morning. Many feared that the separation contemplated would tend to
sever the political union of these United States. If.so it assumesa very
important aspect. Yet if I believed it would, still 1 would vote just as [
shall, for with me principle outweighs expediency. I would vote for di-
vision of the Church if it would divide the union of the states. But I
think differently. I verily believe that we shall strengthen the union of
these United States by dividing. I will submit a few reasons in favor of
this point. The influence of abolitionism on church and state has only
been procured by agitation.

The people of the M. E, Church would not have risen up, as they have
done, were it not for the agitation which has been effected. Agitation,
agitation, agitation has heen the watchword and reply. The union of
our Church would not have been jeoparded but for agitation. Now this
agitation must lay hold of some strong principle, feeling or interest ia
402

the bosom of the man addressed, or the agitator will have labored in
- vain. They have found that their’ appeals must be to religious feelings ;
must be planted on the ground of religious pr inciples i in order to effect
any thing. Religion must be desecrated to their evil purposes, or they
will not succeed. : 7
They say to the members in the North that we ministerd ‘and people
are’ stained with the guilt of slavery. "You their fellow members i in the
North are identified with them. You of Passamiaquoddy bay — New
Hampshire —Vermont’and Conneticut. You share their guilt by con-
nection with them, and thus they produce an agitation by involving them
in the guilt of slavery. Now what will be the effect of separation ? Why
it will take away the hold of the agitator on personal eases. He may
rant as much as he can about the guilt and horrible evil of slavery, as he
styles it, and convince them that it is all he holds it to be. What then?
This audience will feel nothing. They will say, we share not in their
sins, and have no inter est in common with'them. But it is our connex-
‘ion with them that gives force to the sentiment that the states should di-
vide. We should not then pause in our course. Our condition justifies
us. We should at once sever from the’ jurisdictional ‘authority of the
General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church.
Dr. Smith, of Vir: ginia, said he wishicd’ to lay i a motion on the table, to
be considered to-morrow morning, viz.

Resolved, That we cannot sanction the action had in the late General Con-
ference, on the subject of slavery, by remaining iq connection with that
body, without great injury to the Southern Methodists; ther efore ifthere
appears to the committee on organization no hope of recession on the
part of the North, that they report in favor of a separation ‘from the j jue
risdiction of the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Chureh.

Made order of the day for to-morrow.

 

FIFTH DAY.

Turspar Mornine, May 6th.

Services’ pened with the usual exer cises by Mr. Harris. ,

A member of the Alabama delagation wished tocorrect a false rumor
to the effect that his delegation are opposed toa separate organization.
On the contrary they were instructed not to return without effecting a
separate organization. Without it we cannot have access to the people.
With one voice they demand a ‘separation.

Dr. Capers corrected the report of yester day’s proceedings as found
in the Louisville Courier. He remarked, I never said that the majority.
proclaimed themselves abolitionists. | They have said just the reverse.
403

But we cannot discern the difference between their action and ablition-
ism.

Dr. Smith said, it isimpossible to cbtain a perfect report of our
speeches, &c. Mr. Lee, Winans, Longstreet and‘others made remarks
of similar import, "3

Dr. Smith, of Virginia, then called: for the reading of the resolution
reported i our last. He requested the convention to indulge him in a
few remarks relative to himself. The Christian Advocate and Journal
and the Western Christian Advocate, have greatly misrepresented me.
Dr. Bond has represented me asa very intemperate man, and he hes
represented the Southern delegates as returning home to agitate and in-
flame the.church.. I was*charged with the authorship of reputed inflam-
uiatory and ungodly resolutions passed im Norfolk. The gentlemen
who passed those resolutions informed Dr. Bond that I was absent trom
Norfolk when they were framed and presented. Yethe refused to pub-
lish the correction. Dr. Bond:and his echo in Cincinnati, Dr. Elliot, are
hostile to me; for what purpose I know not unless it be to destroy my
influence. I care but little for it—I am known at home —TI hope you
will judge by the facts and arguments I may present.

Dr. Smith called attention to the case.of Harding as being in direct
opposition to the civil policy of the land, that policy is to discourage the
iucrease of free colored.population. For proof of this he referred to
the laws in relation to social and civil disabilitics of the free ‘people of
color in' Ohio, New York and other free states — and said that the slave
states only carried ont the same principle, as is found in the laws of
Maryland, Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia. In this
last named state the laws do not admit of manumission, and no clerk of
any county is allowed to admit to record any deed of manumission, or
will, by which negroes are liberated.

Our church rules are to be interpreted according to the 23d _ article of
our religion —they mus? be interpreted consistently with the civil poli-
ey of the land. Why then did General Conference deerce as they did
in the case-of Harding? The act of the General Conference was in
violation of the rule of discipline which covered his case, as harmoni-
zing with the civil policy of the country. Now we. cannot submit to
this without injury to the country which protects us. The decision of
the late General Conference has the force of law, and necessarily so in-
terprets the discipline as to require every minister and member who
puts himself in the condition of Harding or Andrew to manumit his
slaves.

If we submit, this interpretation of the law must be binding over
404

the whole church. Presiding elders must see that the preachers in
charge appoint no one as class leader or steward or trustee who isa
slave holder. Bishops must see that no one be ordained as deacon or
elder who is so involved. Bishop Janes so decided in the Kentucky
Conference, at his late visitation, declaring that if he did ordain a slave-
holding candidate he would be liable to impeachment at the next Gen-
eral conference. »

Mr. Gun, of the Kentucky Conference, explained that his conference,
had always refused to elect: such person, inasmuch as the laws of his
state do admit of emancipation, now what would be the result of such
a procedure in the South? It would speedily end Methodism there.
Tier hallowed fires would be extinguished on every hill top. As minis-
terg We must turn out all slaveholders in the condition of Harding and
Andrew, or violate our solemn ordination vows. Suppose we do not
administer these laws thus expounded, we then are nullitlers — disorgan-
izers, and are chargeable with the grossest infidelity.

We would be unfaithful to the country if we submit to this effort of
the church to overthrow the civil policy of the land. If the general con-
vention wishes to subordinate the laws of the country to her tribunal,
why does she not assume and hold Cresar’s seat at once? The reason
is the same that prevents the Pope from reigning here —she cannot —
dare not do it. She was, however. declared, in effect, that she will make
the South submit. This is her settled policy. They have made the
churelt of Christ a secular concern, and as we would not see her come
down from her lofty sphere to grapple with angry politicians. As we
love our country we cannot submit to the arrogant pretensions of our
rulers, As an ecclesiastical body they may notbe charged with political
treason, but they are guilty of moral treason, worse and more to be
dreaded than that of Aaron Burr and Blennerhassett — for it involves’
ultimately the taking up of arms by a maddened and infuriated sct of
men,

Their course is thus treasonable in the extreme. The position of the
Generel Conference, in aiming to give law and policy to the state, is that
which urges us to declare trumpet tongued our opposition. Through
this very door Papal Rome spread ruin over the world. She attempted
to subjugate the civil policy to her code, and she succeeded to an alar-
ming extent, as a suffering world well knows, and the General Confer-
ence are rapidly treading in her steps. Now sir, we will not bear this
yoke —a yoke which will soon be as heavy as that imposed by British
Puseyite Episcopalians. So deep is the feeling in the south that we
would not be permitted to send delegates to the General Conference, for
405

if we continue to go there, and agitate this matter, this political union
will not last twelve years. Most of the agitation of this subject iu the
Jand has its origin in Northern Methodism. Petitions to Congress have
been but the spawn of the discussions on the General Conference floor.

The confusion will never cease till we separate. But it becomes us
to inquire whether there is any prospect that the majority will recede.

_ Majoritics are but popular tyrannies — worse in some respects than a
monarchy ; if the monarch will not suit his. coyrse to the views and in-
terests of his people he can have his head taken off but not so with a
majority; there are no means of redress but to throw off, allegiance.
We cannot contend with a plurality of votes, and this is the position of
the South. Will the N orth then recede from.the ground they occupy ?
No, there is no jhope of that — They tell us too that they are sustained

_by their constituents, and if they should recede where would they re-
cede to? Ifthey were to revoke the action in the case of Harding and

Andrews that would not restore to.us the confidence of the South,
which they have taken away. What then would. be satisfactory to the
South ? Why plainly to come back to the ground they have long since
left viz. Scriptural ground on this suhject— say what you will of the
right or wrong of slavery, this is the true ground —* Let servants obey
their masters, &c. And ye masters be kind to your servants” &c. this
must be the ground they must come to if they compromise. Will they
doit? I thiuk not.

The plan shouted over by (De: Bond — recommended by Dr. Durbin
and priginated by Dr. Booth, possessing nothing of the nature of acom-
promise but the name. No mutual concession nor guarantees of future
safety, We may not elect a slave holding Bishop. Now what is an
abolitionist? Take. aview of the unde finable ‘and indescribable Dr.
Filiott and then go to the Baltimore Conference — the break water Con-
ference truly, filled with logs &c. in glorious contusion. Now go on
East and then turn aud bring up in Missouri, and you will have found
the camelion has not nore hues and changes than this self sume aboli-
tionism. We would have to reccive the man the General Couference
would give us, and he would never be a Southern man—our side of
the obligation would be very definite and theirs as indefinite ax the ca-
melion’s hue. This is Dr. Bond's diplomacy — the green wiile by
which he jutends to bind the unruly South. This may do for children
but not for men — it may do for grown up children not for Kentucky or
the South. Politicians have regarded the churches of the land asthe
great bonds of political union to.the states. “Arid to none have they
looked with as uch confidence as to the Meteodist Episcopal Church.
406

That day has passed by. When last we met on the floor of the Gen-
eral Conference, North, South, East and West, we met there as gladia-
tors, sir, to send out the sound of battle that shall never cease till the
civil policy bows to the majesty of the General Conference. Shall wo
submit to this? No, sir, you might as well ask me to lay down my vir-
tne and integrity, and go home beggared in character, having lost all
that is worth living for. We say as the cat did to the kite in the fable.
When borne aloft the cat began to ply her claws upon the kite. The
kite said, “T will let you go if you will let me go;” but the cat said
“No, put me back where you took me from, and then I will let you go.”
So “ put us back,” we say ‘to the North, and then let us alone, and we
will let you alone. We have, however, the plan ofseparation of the late
General Conference, and we have a right to with draw without censure,
as provided in 1828. Nor should we be called schismatics because we
throw off the misrule of tyrants, and carry with us all that is essential
to Methodism — Protestants separated from Rome.

The Methodist Episcopal Church from the Church of England. The
Canadians from us, and we from the Methodist. But it is said we shall
lose our property. Suppose we do, money is not an element in this af-
fair. Dr. Bond and Dr. Elliott, and Bishop Hamline and a yankee law-
yer from the East, who lives in Beltimore called D. C., have tried to
throw difficulties on this point, and along the borders trouble may
arive, yet we believe no Court in this land would be long misled. +

The plan ofseparation in the 9th article contains a release to us from
the General Conference of all the right they have in property. The
right of property is in the members of the M. E. Church, in the neigh-
borhoods where jocated. The General Conference cannot release that,
because it does not possess it, but all thé right it has, as specified in deed
page L67 of discipline, they have already relinquished in the plan of
separation. Besides, in separation we do separate from the Methodist
FE. Church? 1st. The membership. 2d. The Episcopacy or general
superintendency.

The M. E. Church has existed since 1784. The General Conference
only dates back to A. D. 1812 — hence the Methodist E. Church existed
28 years before the General Conference had an existence, and it would
still exist after 15 Conferences, or more, snall have withdrawn, not from
the Church, but from her control— yea, the Methodist Episcopal
Church would exist if the General Conference were annihilated ; hence
it follows, that the property is deeded to the M. E. Church, and not to
the General Conference. The right of the property is in the member-
ship, and will enure to us in the South, and all the right the General
nference had to the pulpits, &c. She has already relinquished to
2Southern organization in article Sth of the plan of separation as
ade and authorized by the General Conference in May last, and such
ill be the result.

The above is a synopsis of tle speech of Dr. Smith, it was considered
i the organ of the Convention + Lut little other business having been
ane beside to-day, Conference adjourned till Wednesday moruing.

SIXTH DAY. ,
Wepnespar Mornixe, May 7.

Religious service by Rev, Mr. Crowder, of Virginia.

Dr. Pierce of Georgia, took the floor, and having ealled for the 1 cad-
ig of the resolution to which Dr, Smith spoke yesterday, he proceeded
» remark, that it was always a great trial for him to speak in a deliber-
tive assembly. that his difficulties were increased by the opinion that
iscussion on the topics of the resolution is premature, and that we
hould wait forthe report of the committee on organization. He
hought differently. THe wislicd to discuss this subject with great solem-
ity und deliberation, These inatters are sometimes defended with so
nuch warmth and violence and with so many personalities, that many
vho night have been won are repulsed. Dr. Smith has fully aud ably
rgued out the principles that govern us. I will content myself with
rraying facts before the people.

After our return from New York, months elapsed before our people
vould forgive us for staying an hour in General Conference after the vir
ual deposition of Bishop Andrew by that body. But the steps we took
here, and the certainty of'a speedy separation only, enabled us to live.
And we will uot be countenanced in our return home if there is any
tbatement in this process. I say this, not for cifect, but asa fet. Bur
nay we not hope for a compromise from the North? Will they not re-
ede? assure you, I have not the least expectation of any recession or
sompromise and security that would be satisfactory. The factis that
when this question is stripped of all its trappings it is evident that Nor-
thern brethren make this a matter of conscience; therefore there can
and will be no compromise.

The popular doctrine is that a majority of votes must settle affairs
and thus imake their decision law: aud as the North have, and always
will have, the balance of power in their hands — will matters grow any
hetter ? No, sir, never. They are in the mejority — their consciences
tell them they must purge the church of slavery, and posterity will de-
mand of them why they did not do it, Thus they feel and therefore
408,

ae

thits they act. Why then should this convention or the Scuth falter in’

this matter? Every man that has a Southern location and a Southern
heart im him will see that itis not safe’ for him to remain with them.
The cause heing sufficient, the sooner the South goés'the better. The

desolating tempest Which bas ravaged our country, and howls over the’

South, will the sooner lull away into the bosom of brotherly affection.

Lam the oldest efficient man on this foor. Tintimately understand
the vexed question of slavery and abolition, and I say fearlessly that the
agitation of this subject has, done us.more: harm than hell-with all its
legions. We told them it would manacle our hands,and form a chasm
between us and the population. We always told them this. Not asin-
gle exception to this remark. And the. Southern delegates: certainly
best understood their own loealities. Did they belicve that the dele-
gates would lic? Yet they hurled ruin among us by their acts. Be-

sides, the South were placed under. prescription as regards the offices:

in the gift of the, Geueral Conierence. We felt it, and drew up a pro-
test which would have been presented as far back as 1832, but for the
request of-a valued friend. Aud the first opportunity they had: they
showed thein inveterate spirit iu deposing Bishop Abdrew. An act
above law and without law, or the forms of trial. We are unwilling to
be the victims of secret laws. We cannot'submit to the crection of a
caste in the eldership of the:church;.ow ministry would not be res-
pected a moment afterward.’

We are willing to suffer for righteousness’ sake, but not. because we
live North or South. We farther charge a want of fairness in the offli-
cial papers with 'regdrd to us. We-can prove this by documentary evi-
dence from: the immediate: vicinity of these presses. Théy represent
that-we are making this disturbance for the support of our beloved

Bishop Andrew, and thus they make the impression that our devotion .

is to a man and not to principles — and then they infer that it would be
a less evil for' Andrew to resign than to divide the Church on account
of one man. This is a‘false issue. .I will now say advisedly that if at
the late General Conference, or now, his resignation would settle the
difficulty, he would resign. Yea, he offeredto do it. But that sacrifice
would not lay the fearful spirit that has arisen as a terror to the
South. The true ground is that Andrew’s case was covered by the law

of the church, and that they tried to remove him from office notwith- «

standing. “ Phy :
As a “dernier-resort” we have been told that the plan of separation

of the late General Conference is null and void because the constitution
of the church does not contain any such provision, Therefore the
409

oenference has uo right to make that plan and therefore itis uncon-
‘stitutional and not binding, This isa specious argument and apparently
‘conclusive, But we would. ask, since the Church of God in its various
branches was formed, did any branch ever make provision for its own
‘division? No sir; and if we wait till constitutional and statuary laws
‘are made for our separation, we shall find ourselves bound by an ada-
mantine chain. In the. nature of the, case, no law can arise bet the law
‘of necessily —and civil, political ‘and ecclesiastical laws must yield be-
fore that jaw. Just now methinks I hear a whisper. passing round, the
import of. which is, “ Convince me of that necessity and I will go with
you in this matter.” Iwill prove it to you ‘then. Ina confederation of
‘conferences, the delegates of the South, who know best what is neces-
‘sary, rise in their places and. declare that fact. Does not that prove it?
Real abolitionists would swear jt on a coffin that such legislation aa
would save and suit the South would ruin the North,

We told them that their action would dig suth a chasm between us
‘and the Southern population as cotild not be spanned with a bridge, on
which it would be safe for us to vente. And such legislation as would
suit the North would be ruin to us. Now can you wish any better
reason for separation than the impossibility of united legislatiqn, with-
‘out ruin to the North or South? I deeply sympathize with those in the
slave states who live along the border. I hope that preachers, mem-
hers and citizens may be har monized and go with us. Many of them
do not think that the time has come to divide. They say, let the major-
ity have time to think and review, and with accumulated light rejudge
this matter in 1848, Others say; we can live in our presént position as
well as in the “ Church.” But we ask, are you disposed to sustain the
action had in the case of Harding and Andrew? - Is it safe for you to
remain under their jurisdiction? Can you promise yourself prospec-
tive peace? Can you live and preach and pray and sing and }qve and
die together with your brethren, part in one organization and part im
another? No, there is no way for peace but to go with us.

If you open. your ear or heart to them you will give them a place in
our territory to bombard us from. Now we do not want cross firing.
Will you then doso? You may not indeed endorse every item of our
views — but if the main essential principles we embody are by you en-
dorsed, then come under our flag. Two or three complainers can do
much harm. You should come out and say that the majority did wholly -
right or wholly wrong. Let others do as they will, I go with the Soutb-
You may put me done for one. Some people love, next to their wives,
our common Methodism ; therefore they are unwilling to meipiole from
\ ALO

her. Now Methodism does not consist in numbers or location.
Sn We find j itin, Canada, in’ England and America, JT go for the Motho-
ist, ‘Episcopal Chureb. I will not give up ‘one of her articles of reli-
gion, if you argue with, 1 me till anoary. “And I now advertise ‘you that
af you, wish to find pure ‘Methodism ; you will fia it in the hohest South.
We are not ied about with divers ‘and str inge doctrines, T assiire
you. , Her int nerant features, too, will be there, ‘with better guards than
have of late, been. thrown ar ound them. Do. you “helipve Goa will be
more glorified, more souls saved, if we live together in this firé than'if
we lived on both sides of it? _No! Let us then divide for the salvation
of souls and. the glory of ¢ Jod, And 1 believe, too, that it will most ef-

fectually secure the political union of hese United States, thfus to set a

CURR g

 

 
 
 

No.church can pr osper while i i contention ona ‘vital prinviple: It is
a dreadful thought, that a preacher, _whose c crown is begemnied * With
souls, but who has inherited a few slaves, or received ‘them’ with his
wife, should therefore. be excluded. from his privileges in the Church.
I verily believe that if, we now promptly separate,” four years ‘will close
the controversy, and if we travel North we shalt freely be admitted itito
their pulpits, We. shall not be belligerent Parties, My remarks are
foy the public. Tama pacific but decided man. ‘I desire to use goft
words and hard, arguments, and will close iby asking ‘Kentucky if she
believes our principles to go with us in the practice.

Dr. Capers presented facts relative to the early introduction of Meth-
odism jnto North Car olina, and its speedy destruction’ by thé'abolition
sentiments of Bishop Coke yand to show that they now only had advess
to the. slaves by, the ‘sufferanes of their masters. If the’ Southern
preachers stay, in connexion with, General Conference, they" will bé!éx-
cluded from their fields of labor. _ Necessity i is our law, and it compels
us to separate: Dr, Elliott says we made the necessity. ‘No —it waa
made before we were born, z and we ‘cannot control it. It has been’ sup
posed that Mr. Calhoun. has, through me, ‘instigated the separation for
political purposes., } hear this in séveral places, Well, if there isa
necessity to divide, he, or.I did not create that necessity — and this col-
jusion has only been imagined. Dr. Bond does not charge'that it is sd
—pbut it is merely imagined to be so. This j is the first’ meeting T have
attended. and. have had no part, in making t the ‘necessity — that is sponta-
neous—stern and unmanageable. I feel. very solemn now and in my
place here I believe that there is no act which I could’ do — not an’act
hat would send.me soul and body t to ell —‘that would be 80 injurioust

to my Redeemer and his cause — so injurious to my fellow men— as to
“Sie 2g)
Att
vote for our. continuance under the jurisdiction of thé Genéfal Confer-
ence of, the | Methodist t Hpiscopal. Chur ch. 1 had better comniit murder,
stain my,hands \ with the blood of 1 my. own brother, than’ hang! on the
General Confer ence, Tn the. former case you ‘would, call me a wretch and
brand me > with infamy. But then the Chureh would hot suffer. ‘Tf’ you
send me back to North Carolina, to say to them ‘and the South ‘that

there is no occasion or necessity to separate, you ‘make me a miserable

minister of misery to them,
{

2 et!
_SEVENTH DAY.
uty) ADHURSDAY Mornine, Max 9th,,
‘B.'T. Crouch opened with religious services. , ae ‘
Mr. eel moved that a committee on finance be appointed, to re-
ceive our interest in the proceeds of the Book Coacern and charter fund,
nd mature a finane

 

Ul'systemn’ for the ‘Southern organization, He said
that the) corimittee on or, ganization will Pats anew plani in a few days.
‘that we cannot get our ‘portion of the capital until some Northern An-
nual Conference takes action in our behalf and three- fourths ‘of the
Gonter rences and two-thirds of the General Conference grant it. “Hence

Me 2g ‘ ies $ ake

 

we must ‘wait at least. ‘three year

“Dr, Drake moved for the appointment of a committee to confer-with
t 1€ Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Chureh i in reference
to their p proper ty in the India missions.

xt ie

“Dr. Longstreet pated, it as premature. We. are not organized yet,
ard ‘it would be, incongruous to appoint a committee four days before
we organize. Withdrawn.

Mr, Early wished a committee on our relation to the American Bible
Society; he:proposed this‘in order: to save time, .as the ‘committee on
organization will ina few days report.a: plan for the organization’ of the
Southern M. E: Church; and if -we-never organize it will do no harm to
appoint the. commiittee.... en RN a :

Mr. Green said Wwe must adopt the dis¢ipline and then these matters
will’ bé therein provided for, ‘unless we find’ that’ We have legislative
powers — which I conceive we have not: Nor can ‘Wwe ‘complete our
‘organization until a General Conference of the South is convened.
Mr. Early said he merely wished'to recommend friendly relationi’ be-
‘tween the society and the neW or ganization, "You have a right now -to
organize without a ‘General Conferencé.' This 1 havé not doubted for

ey

mouths.
412

Dr. Capers opposed it as premature and it was withdrawn.

Dr. Campbell of Mississippi, then ealled up the resolution to which:
Drs. Smith and Pierce had spoken and said — We are not following
what are atyled leaders in the South ; nor are our leaders dictated to by
the slaveholding nabobs of . that region. No, Sir—we went before
them — we acted as we did before we heard from the nabobs. If our
delegates had returned from New York without having. taken the steps
they did, we should have been shut out of ‘the fields we occupied. If
we now submit we are ruined. He said it was necessary to fix the geo-
graphical lines, to keep each party separate, or confusion would be the
result, There are in my‘district one hundred thousand slaves and only
one missionary for them all; but many doors are opening, and more
calla for preachers than we can supply; but those calls will cease and

those doors will be closed if we do not act promptly here and separate
at once.

I cannot look homeward if such action is not had here. Many are
hesitating — but why? Ionce hoped for a compromise and looked ev-
ery way for light, but beheld darkness. The heavens were blackened
and Northern thunder bellowed back despair to allmy hopes. We must
act now, and sever the last attenuated thread that unites us.

Dr. Pierge, of Georgia, (the younger,) said, Thad supposed that all
doubts as to the necessity of our immediate organization had been ban-
ished from all minds; that no dissenting voice would distract the una-
nimity of this body relative to a present or prospective separation. If
a case in the eldership of the church is certain —if the action in the
case of Harding and Andrew be not reversed — then I suppose all wilk
gay, sever at once and forever. Now the true question is, is there any

likelihood that the majority will do this? I think not—they did not
act rashly.

We all know that committees were appointed, besides much infor-
mal conversation and consultation as to the “ modus operandi ” of reach-
ing Bishop Andrew, so as to wed abolitionism and conservatism —a
union not founded in love. They did not fallin love at first sight,
.though the courtship was quick and they acted out the doctrine of im-
mediate annexation. When the grand rally came they showed that
they had not reckoned without their host. The matter was stoutly de-
bated three weeks, and when. the day of trial came, there was no fal-
tering on the part of the majority. They met our protest promptly, and
appointed a most able committee to reply to it. Those then who ex-
pect them to retrace their steps are miserably deceived — pride of opin-

ion and intellect is involved in their position, and the piety of their
hearts prompted their course.
413

If they aré men they will not retract; as Christian men ne cannot,
nenane they deem their cones involved.

"Dr. Winatis told you truly that their’¢ opposition, to “this sum of all vil-
antes? ag ‘they significantly call slavery, i is part and parcel of their pie-
ty. and itis esseiitial to them, as. wey desire is clean hands and a pure
‘heart ” to use all’ due Yemedies against it. But their zeal against slavery
is intimately cohiieéted with the long cherished opposition to Episcopa-
‘cy — with inatice “aforetliought, I was about to say, they ‘have linked
these two subjects togetlhier, ‘and they labor paclduously to reduce a Bish-
op to'a level with ‘ati editor or ‘agent, They have laid violent hands on
‘this éonsdcrated bfhiée i in the Chureh ‘of God. itis downright radical-
ism. told them ‘that their course ‘would terminate Episcopacy i in ten
“years.” They’ are’ inviovaters. The history of the Chureh shows that

“but few features of Methodism remain’ in the North — pewed churches

‘organs, fiddles,' Standing up to’ pray, dispensing with bread’ and water in

love feasts, and speechiés i in love feasts more like 4th of July t toasts. ‘than

any thing elke, show liow' they have departed from’ Methodism ; you
“Yay call | thesa little’ things but they slow the spirit. Ihave ‘décumen-

«ary evidlénce from an abolitionist of the purest water to, show tliat we
ate Tight in this matter of stipposing that thiey will not retract; that they

‘ Cannot perecive slaveholiling ‘to ‘be wrong ina Bishop and ‘right ina

qiresiditig elder,’ de mémber. That eye a believe that it’ is always

atid éevdry-where' sinful. °

‘te Phe thhss‘agree with the? rh thajority or they do not: Ifthey do not
then we can bave no‘ eorfidence in thé majority, for they represented
“that the mass do'agree with them.. If they'do agree with the majority
thén'thist rhajority will notrécede.. They regard slavery as the compen-
dium of ail calamities, tli¢iresiduum of all‘abominations, tie desperate
concottion of the brains of Satan., Yet with all their squeamishness of
¢ohscience they do-not- refer this question to the Bible, the great test in
morals, They quote Washington, Madison, Jefferson, &c. but noi the Ho-
ly Bible. A Southern préac -hér, passing on a steanibeat up the beauti-
ful Conniecticut'river, went on deck to ruminate while the lovely moou-

Hehe illamined'the enchanting scenery, and’ soon heard a trio ia deep

«dnversation on abolitionism. At last they asked him-what he thouglit

of thematter. He told thein that'his opinion would not be canonical,

as he was a bona fide slaveholdes ‘himself, and 4s he had not heard them

quote the Bible as-authority in their conversation, he su pposed that they

were disciples of Fanny Wright. “Oh no,” one said, “ Tama prea¢h-

ev myself,” and referred to'the others ‘for’ proof. ‘But the gentleman

“ ‘tpid him, “you can’t come it over me that way, n0. how you can fix it;
ty
ALA

I don’t believe a word of your being a preacher, for you never qnote the
Bible.”

When I was in New York, one day, a number of abolitionist preach-
ers surrounded me, thinking I was green and they could make game of
me. One of them said, “ What do you preach down there?” I said,
“the Gospel, ” “What do you preach the whote Gospel ?” I asked
him what he meant, and he. repeated the query. F asked him what he
meant by the insulting question. “ Why,” says he, “do you preach that
part of the Bible which says, ‘cursed be he that parteth man and
wife ?’” “No, sir,” said I, “for the best of all reasons, too; it 3s not
in the Bible.” It has been said we wish to establish a pro-skavery
Church. Now I cannot master enough charity to believe that those
who make this charge believe it themselves, Our day is one of great
improvement we make the sun take our profiles; Morse has made the
lightning our post-boy, and A. C. has made the stars of heaven to pub-
lish nightly that we are forming a pro-slavery Church.

This is not so, We cannot control civil institutions in the South, and
it is not our business to denounce or defend slavery. In Georgia we
regard it as a pulitical evil and great curse. Our business is not to riv-
et chains on the body, but to tear them from the soul. With the sword
of the Spirit to attack the arch fiend and deliver enthralled souls, and
bring thern out of the kingdom of darkness, redeemed and sanctified to
God. Dr. Coke’s ill-judged course sent two generations to the grave
without the Gospel, on Eddyston [sland and vicinity. We have great
difficulty now in establishing our few missions, which, like green spots,
dot the wilderness around. And shall we deprive the Negroes of the
Gospel by refusing to throw off allegiance to the General Conference ?
In several instances we have had to labor hard to convince slaveholders
that we are not officially bound to seek the extinction of slavery, as our
discipline asserts, before we could get their permission to occupy their
territory as missionary ground.

Our prospective separation has opened more doors in Alabama than
we can enter; more fields than we can occupy. Now if the prospect
of separation has done so much, how much more will its consumma-
tion effect. And what wide spread ruin will be accomplished if we falter
in our course as to separation. How can we, who are sent especially to
the poor, delay a moment in declaring our independence and unfettering
ourselves that we may serve Christ’s suffering poor? Our mission is to
the blacks, and I long to see Methodism rise in her untrammelled might
— in the plentitude of her sympathy — and ‘bear the boon ‘of heaven's
mercy to the down-trodden-slave. Ours be the privilege to kneel at the
415

hed side of the diseased:and dying, to point their otherwise heathen eye
to the light which beams from the face of the Saviour of sinners,

I beseech you stay not the .hands of those ,;who are entering upon
these fields, already white to the harvest; those reapers who are gather-
ing sheaves for the garner above, J heard a man say that he would
“free his slaves if they went to the devil.” But I believe that slavery
with the gospel is better, infinitely better, than freedom. without it; for
the soul is more than the body, and eternity’ more valuable than time.
We cannot then compromise this matter. If the news should go from
this convention that there is trepidation here, it would be desolating to
the South. And should we fail to organize, it would be as destructive to
Methodism as the earthquake or volcano. Our Churches would be aban-
doned, Our doom written., The case settled. I'wish the news to fly
that we have separated, to gladden the hearts of masters and slaves.
My individual opinion is that we need not and should not desire a pros-
pective re-union with the North. Still I am willing to leave the door
open, as it is familiarly styled here. Yes, keep it open to them as we
do the door into the Church, and receive them when they are convinced
of their sins —. confess them “and desire to be saved from them.” Even
then we must take them, on trial, or by a satisfactory certificate shéwing
that they are cured of their present monomania, and are willing to leave
civil matters as they do civil governments, without direct interference-
The Northern legislation and policy are ruin to us, and we separate or
perpetrate an outrage on the Church and the Sourty, in a crusade that is
uawarranted by the Bible or by Christ or his Apostles, As for me I go
for separation without-.delay. The statements in the Western Christian
Advocate, about meetings in the South and bere to sustain the M. E.
Church, are insulting and untrue, and show. that security to our charae-
ter requirers a new organization,

 

EIGHTH DAY.
Fripar Moraine, May 9.
Bishop Andrew offered some remarks relative to his present position,
He said he had acquired a painful notoriety within the last ten months.
That he had given no pledge that he would not become a slaveholder
when he was elected Bishop. Repeated substantially his address at the
late General Conference. Said he did not believe that his resiguation
then or now would secure tranquility to the Church.
. He affirmed his ardent love to, and spoke of his labors for, the slaves,
and their love to: him;.and declared his willingness to free his slaves
whenever he shall be convinced that he could better their condition by
“At

80 doitig.") Did not anticipate that’ thé! Genetil'Confeterite would!’ nike
so much ado kbout'it as they have done. AniYnadverted ot! thosé wHo
“priblished'to: ‘the world private édiversatidis held ‘in wnsiigpedting
faiendsbip ‘and freedom. He said he ltdd’ bought a farn’ and put them
‘on'it, to ebin their own bread and clothing, abd find’ him in his as aYe-
umuneration for-his expenditures 0 on ca pasa is but an outline’ of his
addttess.'! Se Boag a pe ea
Judge gee went over much of this grotind’ alréady’ reported.
Gave ahistorical sketch of the action had inthe cases of Harding ahd
‘Andrews, with an irregular rimnifig comment?’ said ' that the majority
had changed'the term‘owné!* of slavees ‘for'the! phrase “connexion
withslivery? After a Jong rut he' perceived and acknowledged that
* he had abatidoned ‘all systém in his'remarks.” ‘“He called the General
Conference an inquisitorial despotism said that all'the offices in their
hands would be distributed accordiig to the feelings of the North; and

the South must be‘under a prosetiptive oppression. That they niustal--
ways be impotent in‘the' General Conference because hopelessly ‘in the:

“minority, and no way Tetnaihed for ‘them to'secure their rights but by
‘a Stein resistance to the very first encroachments.’ ‘He contended that
thete could be no compromise, ahd“urged' them to act promiptly in'send-

ing forth their “ddelaration of independence ;” and wound’ up by urg--

ing those on the bordérs-not to seck a homie ii the bosom of ‘the pure’
North; that was: nonpiace for them.’ That they would be victitnized if
they did, etc., ete.. Ed ,

‘Mr. Maréuinepresented a written declaration that no private effort
was making in-Louisville :to:oppose:the organization of the’ Southern
Church, signed by the pastors and local preachers, and correhorated by
the delegations: We icharitably!think that he misunderstood the para-
graph in the editorial of the Western‘Christian Advocate of this week,
which we considered his remarks.

\

Se
f eee ’

9 NINTH DAY.
Guat he ast OS -Sarurpay Moanixe,’May 16th.
‘as — Longstreet resumed the topics:of yesterday ; ‘said that the'ac-
_ ton.of the-General Conference implied that preachers must consult the
General Wonference before they marry —a right te investigate their pri-
. vate affairs— required the husband td take avantage ‘of ‘his wife’s afiéc--

tions — alienate her property by setting her slaves free ; or required her-

. removal to a free state, where the laws would do it for: her.. Deprived.

preachers of the privileges: of citizens, and-when married, if thereby.
, connected with slavery, compelled them, to spread their reasons. before -
AI7
the public. Now this will bring Methodism into contempt in the South—
will cause parents, brothers and friends to rise up against such squan-
dering of property — will fill cur eivil courte with lawsuits — prevent
preachers from ‘marrying ‘where they know or are known; will drive
preachers fiom’ the South, and ruin the Church there. -

They tell us indecd that it is the settled policy of the Chureh hot to
have slaveholding Bishops — therefore it is not lawful. If so, then Gen-
eral Confererice has not as yet been convened in slaveholding territory,
ergo it is not lawful for it'to’sit there; because General Conference has
some legislative jurisdiction and executive power, therefore it is omnip-
otent —.can leave a Bishop nothing to do, and yet leave him a Bishop ;
and so may a lamp post’ Asa pastor may remove a class-leader, so
General Conference may remove a Bishop, summarily, albeit they do.
not show the place in the discipline where the General Conference has
‘the pastorial oversight of the Bishops. That as they make him they can
unmake him — i. e. carpenters have built Louisville, therefore they have
aright to burn it down. All these things and more are implied in their
action, Does General Conference make a Bishop?’ No. When did
Mr, Hamline take his seat on the bench of Bishops, when he was elect-
ed or nominated by the General Conference ? No, sir. Not till he was
consecrated by it to the ordination service of the Church,; as whem the
President presents a person as Minister to a foreign state, the Senate
confirms the appointment. _ Power of election and: nomination in, the.
General Conference does not imply power to. remove.

The General Conference passed a resolution in 1840, that slavehold-
ing is no barrier to any benefit or privilege in the church; and yet vir~
tually deposed Bishop Andrew because he. became connected’ with ska-
very. The origin of the power of General Conference was then sought
after. He referred to Mr. Westley’s called Conference of his preachers,
not to vote, but ta advise with them, and to his pewer to send themwhere.
he deemed best. He sent Pr, Coke into, this country, and gave him
power to ordain Mr. Asbury, Bishop, who wished the Conference to
elect him,. merely to know how he stood in thei affections. They did:
not claim the power nor did he concede it.

Now here began these monstrous powers of the ‘General Conference,
and their present aspect is entirely unlike primitive Methodism. But
we complain most of the manner in which we have been treated. We
have been unable to obtain a decision whether this act in regard to.
Bishop Andrew was mandatory or advisory. We tried various ways to
have the matter settled ; but they objected to define their propo sed ac-
tion; first, for fear of losing voteson the one hand or the other; and
ie

4\8

secondly, to censtruct a trap, in which to catch Bishop,Andrew. . If be
ceases to travel, punish him at. net, General Conferenge,,,. . ,
If: he does take work, arraign him for, :contymacy in. yinlating she
“ sense” or rather, nonsense of ithe. majority. of the, General, Conference.
Dr. Bond atraigns Bishop Soule for inviting Bishop Andrew. to, work
and. Dr. Elliott:saysthat Bishop-Soule by presiding in this convention
has. cut the:Tast attenuated thread” that bound, him to the, Methpdist
Episcopal Church,.,, Now. will you dissolve ,this convention, go. a
and. throw no. shield around, these Bishops who have so, nobly egme to
our restue, and leave them. to the majority of | the next General, Confer-
ence, who will arraign and censure them, if they do, no, more? o There
Jwas also a want of candor in, the, Se of las we ae complain,
and whieh I. hope never to see. again. | . oS
‘While we argued, expostulated, wept inl prayed, fey: were ile mys-
feta and cool as. the centre; seed, ‘of 3 a cucumber. We wish and a ask
them to deal frankly with us ; but they will not. Do you wish us to zo
back under such jurisdiction ? . We, wish to do justice, however, and say
that the Yankees are candid, They tell us they, intend to free the Church
of slavery, believing itto be sinful, Yes, there, is candor among the
Yankees. But Dr. Bond .keeps back the truth, I honor them. mauch,
though they sadly mistake and are ruining the ( Chureh and state... I here
proclaim that their act in respect to Bishop Andr ew was mandatory ; 3 on
the supposition that the powers they ¢ elaim, for the General Conference « do
actually belong to it, which claim I reject, and therefore they achieved,
his disposition, jf their claims were valid. No matter whiat language
they: use, if they are supreme in power ‘their a sense” is law, and they
will make it so appear, i if we let them bring these Bishops before them.
Is there any hope of, compromise. ? No. sir. if we propose it,, ag
some think we should, we should appear ina ridiculous light. The
world will laugh at us. We came here, sir; not to compromise, but” to.
organize, . We tried to. compromise in New-¥ ork. Our Bishops | tried
iit, all. tremblingly desirous te to have’ it done, or have action delayed; they
gave it up, and we all gave it up as lost. ' It is not desirable: that wo
should. We have gone, to far to retract. If" you ‘do you will! never get
a shilling ¢ of your property ; the sympathies that exised betweeii ‘us are
destr' oyed, friendly feelings | have fled, and bitterness abound. © Our ‘for-.
mer friends have failed US 5 2 and with these ‘facts | in’ view will you “get
“your Bishops into, this predicament, and leave them under such ¢ cir cuin-
stances, | when they depend upon you to rally around them — will you
haw stand and beg for peace and compromises ? ? No, no. iy
We shall not. ‘endanger the political union of the United States by sep--

be
AIS

ie
aration. Wesleyans in England and Methodists in Canada fraternize us
and do not interfere with us, and why ? You do not bring slaveholders
within their jurisdiction.: In General Conference we are harrassed:with
petitions on ‘slavery.!: Sixty-two were. presented the first day of last Con-
ference — some for modern Episcopacy, .&c. How long must we be
thus tortured — called men-stealers, and be classed with drunkards, &c.?
Do' you wish to send us back te be lacerated again and again ? We stood
it till: we saw the head df the Church about to be struck off, and. could
stay nd longer, '* @ur Bishops. have quadrennially allayed rising strite,
poured oil on the waters, and begged us to wait, and, wait, and wait, aud
wait. "We did till pati¢nce was entirely: exhausted), ...)., i

Inthe meantime the Church had nourished a viper in jts, bosom, which
ut last rose in its might and stung its head, and ,sent its. venom through
wery part. ‘Now 1 want. to-get back to old fashioned, Methodism, which
sent its messengers of peace and.leve to minister its blessings, not. only
tin the Sabbath: but every .day, bring peace with them, to every hoyse,
nor’ Icavitig it withouta prayerifay, the blessing of God upon it., I am no
sectarian, but [ love Methodism. —1 boast of a Nolley who perished i in
the' wilderness while im pursuit of the lost, sheep purchased by, the Sav-
jor’s blood. ‘Died upon his knees — frozen to death in the wilds of the
West. "The moaning forest winds ¢hanted his funeral dirge, The un-
sillied ‘snow was his winding sheet, and,the sturdy forest oak his monu-
ment. Here I would invite allof every name to come, and view what I
deem an embodiment of the character of, a minister, of Christ; and eve-
ry heart will feel, and every tongue reply Amen, Give us this, pure
primitive Methodism, awd we will;be,content.

This‘is the substance of the gentleman's speech, which will probably
be ‘presented more in detail in the. Louisville papers.

Mr. Dunwoody said he thought the South was so unanimous s that, there
would be no need to speak on this subjeet, Although much has ‘been
said still the subject is not exhausted. And the merits of it have hardly
been touched, Different opinions exist relative to the moral character
of slavery itself, The majority say that it is a moral evil in every case
and under alt circumstances. We say not. The main body have always
considered it as a moral evil, hence the general rule and 10th ‘section of
our discipline on the subject. I believe it is a moral evil in some cir-
cumstances but, not in others. Let our ‘appeal be to the Bible.

st. then, I believe slavery was a moral evil in the case of the Hebrews
who were enslaved, by the, Egyptians, and God sor ely punished the Egyp-
tians for their sinfulness. 2d. The African slave trade was founded in
eovetousness, oppression and ‘wrong, and i is therefore sinful. 3d. ‘The
t

420

slave trade between these states for gain and: item ei is Laing Yet
‘I believe that slavery‘is not always:sinful. By the Bible, in the 4th com-
mandment, it is recognized’ by God’s own authority —also in the 10th
vommandment we are forbidden to covet our neighbor’s servant as much
as to cdvet his wife. | “He ,

Now this holy decalogue, or ae law, is not to be abrogated, but is
to stand forever, and it recognizes the principle’ of slavery. The Old
‘Testament aows ‘us that’ Hebrews might be made slaves for six years,
at farthest, till the great jubilee; if beld after that it was morally wrong.
But of the heathen they might buy servants to be their possession for-
ever —to go as an inheritance to their children, no provision being made
for their liberation. Thus we see that the principle if slavery. was estab-
lished and sanctioned hy God when the Jews lived undera government
called a theocracy, because its laws were specially enacted by him. ;

Now here is a syllogism for: an abolitionist. If: slavery is a moral
evil God cannot sanction‘it: But God -has sanctioned it — therefore it
is not a moral evil. Again God could never authorise the practice of a
moral evil. Put God authorised slavery, therefore slavery is not a
moral evil. God requires us to be subject to the powers that he — the
civil power—and he that resists shall receive to himself damnation.
Now our civil powers'tecognise slavery. Aud our discipline requires
us to be subject to the civils powers. But the General Conference re-
quires us to do what we cantiot do. Now we have been wrong all along ;
our duty is to let state affairs alone —and slavery is an affair of state.
But is slavery a moral evil aé to the church ?- ‘No; Paul. ‘says, in his ler-
ter to Timothy, “let as thany servants ” &c., doing them service ' ‘because
their believing masters: are faithful’ and beloved and ‘partakens: of the
benefit. ae ‘ sek 5

All our commentators translate the word slaves, and see inconsistent-
ly oppose 2 and revile slavery. Abraham was a slaveholder and he has
gone to heaven, for Chr ist says so— “J shall sit down with Abraham,”
&ec. The centurion was 4 slaveholder and Christ says he had not found
ao great f faith, no not in Isr ael. So far from its being morally wrong, we
find that although it’ existed i in the days of the Apostles, they never
found avy fault with it, They, pointed out the duties of husbands and
wives, parents and children, masters and slaves. They’ were to obey
their masters from their heart, and masters were to forbear threatening.
Peter says they must obey pot ‘only the good and gentle masters but also
the fro ward -, hence masters may be good and’ gentle.

Now if it is morally wrong to hold slaves, it is morally wrong to live
jn wedlock, for the duties of each state are prescribed by God. Now God
21

does not describe the duties of adulterers and robbers, because their
practices are morally wrong, but God does prescribe the duties of wed.
lock and masters and dha Paul says, “If thou art called, beings a
slave, care not for it; but if thou mayest be made free choose it rather?
i.e, it isnota matter of much i importance. Philemon was a slaveholder
when Paul sent Onesimus back to his master; he says in his letter,
“Now being conyerted he will be a profituble servant.” But not one
word about emancipation. Thus the scriptures authorize the practice
ofslavery with regard to the Church. It isa state affair and the Church
has nothing to do with it.

.The Apostles appointed the duties of slaves to their believing masters
and the presumption is that they were allin Church fellowship. TFletch-
er says we must not oppose the natufal current of affairs or we shall on-
ly dam it up for a time, and the overflowing flood will ultimately bear all
before it and spread desolation around, We have acted thus in regard
to slavery and now we see the results. We have abandoned the word
‘of the Lord, and henee this evil is come upon us, Abolitionists dread
the Bible.

It is as the terrors of death te them. In 1820 we had a discussion of
slavery in General Conference, I saw that if we admitted it to bea
moral evil we had not an inch of ground to stand upon, and hence I
threw difficulties in its way from the Bible and stopped it. History does
not record a single instance of persecution of the Apostles or others for
preaching against slavery. In 1836 abolitionists were so feeble in Gen-
eral Conference that Rozell and I and others agreed to let them alone
measurably, but alas in 1844 the conservatives went over and joined the
abolitionists, and the only way they have to prove it morally wrong is by
abstract reasoning. Ihave proved that itis not morally wrong by
the Holy Bible. Our general rule is very weak, for how could I enslave
{i, e. deprive of liberty) a slave? IfIwere 4 private member I could
buy slaves in the Methodist Episcopal Church with impunity. It is also
very unequal in its operations respecting persons.

The tenth section is also oppressive. If it is sinful in ministers it is
also in membership. Besides, if a man becomes a minister he thereby
loses his rights as a citizen, which ought not so to be. Paul pleaded for
his rights as a citizeu. I don’t believe any man is bound to emancipate
even when civil laws admit of it, because the Bible does not re-
quire it. Many years ago I became the owner of two female slaves —
one died—the other became the mother of twelve children, and
raised three grand children. Now must I set them free and thus sepa-
tate husbands and wives? No; here I take Bible ground again,

36
422

Abolitionists are consistent but their premise is falée, Slavery is not
a moral evil. We appeal to the Bible God has sanctioned it. Let us
now glance at conservatives. There is io difference between them and
abolitionists at all, only they don’t want to lose all the South. They
wish to get slavery out of the ministry, and canse that ministry to bear
against slavery in the membership, and thus extirpate it. This showed
in last General Conference that abolitionism is their child. When Sole-
mon called for the sword to divide the living child, the real mother cried
out, “ spare it,” and so Solomon knew which was which. So when ak-
vlitionism was to be killed by the Harding and Andrew cases being sus-
tained, the conservatives cried out “spare it,” and thus we kuow who it=
father is.

Their cases were covered by the rule of discipline, but the rule of ex-
pediency was brought in. Episcopacy too is to be undermined. Bishop
Hamline says a Bishop is no more than aun editor, although he is re-
quired to avow that he is culled of God and by the will of our Savicur
to this office. Yethe must resign when popular clamor says so, and so
the conservatives and abolitionists joined hands and elected Hainline
Bishop, and all their action has only made slavery harder than before
and the South has risen up as one man and said “disxolve the Union.”
| love our unity but it cannot be preserved.

The bone of contention is among us and the prospect is cloomy on
every side; the people in the North have risen up agaist slavery, and
the people in the South have risen up and suy “divide.” Tf it was only
in the ministry we could inanage it. I fear for the Baltimore Confer+
ence — for Philadelphia, Pittsburg, Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and Mis-
souri Conferences. The contention is commenced and when ‘sill it end ?
‘The conservatives and abolitionists will divide and the prospect all round
is indeed gloomy. Alas for our beloved Zion. Secylla is on oue and,
Charybdis on the other, and the waters of strife roll between 3 the Bible
alone will guide us safely through. Holy Spirit, open our eyes to sce
the safe way and may the time soon come when the watchmen shall sce
eye to eye. %

Dr. Capers said he wished it distinctly umlerstood that their complaint
is against the late General Conference and not against the discipline.

 

TENTH DAY. .
Monpay Moryina, May 12th,
The convention met pursuant to adjournment.
Dr. L. Pierce opened with the usual religious services,
Mr. Brock of the Memphis Conference, presented the following mc=
423

morial from the mayor of Memphis, Tennessee. which was read end
laid on the table for the present, viz :

Ata meeting of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the town of
Memphis, held at the City Hall, May 5, 1845, the following resolutions
were adopted. Be it

Resolved, By the Mayor and Aldermen of the town of Memphis, that
they look with great interest to the establishment of the Methodist book
concern in the South, and they esteem it a privilege and a duty to contri-
bute to the extent of their ability to secure its location in this city.

Resolved, That this ‘board, believing the City Hotel in this city (which
cost about thirty thousand dollars) to be a suitable building for said book
establishment, and believing that said property will be purchased by in-
dividual subscriptions and such appropriations as the corporation will
make for the purpose, and donate to the Methodist Church, if said book
concern is located here. Be it therefore

Resolved, That the Corporation of Memphis will make a liberal dona-
tion for the purchase of said City Hotel property, or any other site which
may be preferred or thought to be more cligible, provided said book con-
cern be located at this place. J. J. FINLEY, Mayor.

O. D. Watson, Recorder.

On motion of Mr. T. C. Benning, of Florida Conference, and*E. Ste-
vensén of Kentucky, a committee on book concerns was adopted.

On motion of Mr. Harris the memorial from the. mayor of Memphis,
together with the accompanying resolutions, were refered to the coni-
mittee on the book concern.

Mr. McFerrin presented a memorial from the quarterly conference
of the Book street charge, Louisville district, asking the location of the

book concern to be in this city, which was read and refered to the same
comunittee,

The resolution offered by Drs. Smith and Pierce was then called up,
and Dr. Paine, of Tennessee, addressed the audience.

Dr. Paine remarked in rising, that he wished to present to the consid-
eration of the convention a few remarks connected with the great enier-
gency which called them together. He held a relation to this subject
which enabled him to know much of the causes which led to the pres-
ent posture of affairs, having been chairman ofthe committee in the late
General Conference which prepared the report on the subject of separa-
tion, He entered into a brief history of the origin and progress of the
difficulties of the church on the subject of slavery, statin g what the true
position of the South is at present. He maintained that separation was
the best and only means of meeting an emergency, which, however the
cxuses leading to it may be deplored, had nevei theless to be met in right
424

temper. A necessity was undeniably found to exist on both sides, both
North and South. He reviewed graphically the efforts made ‘at the Gen-
eral Conference of 1844, by both parties, to compr omise the difficulty.
The result was a failure, which left the practicability of | compromise in
hopeless despair.

He proceeded to vindicate the character of this movement from the
imputations of schism and secession. He declared that separation which
the South contemplates could not be regarded as a schism or secession ;
cither in a theological or popular sense. He quoted from I. Cor. J, 10,
to show that schism was a movement in achurch, disturbing its peace
and destroying its harmony ; whereas our separation contemplates no
such object, but, on the contrary, is meant to put an end to disturbances
already existing in the communion, by the establishment of a new juris-
diction, which was meant to change only the federal relations of the an-
nual conferences, North and South. But are we secessionists? Seces-
sion, according to its radical import, is an act by which an individual
withdraws himself from the communion and fellowship of a church,
without the assent or concurrence of the church, taking upon himself
the whole responsibility of the act. But is that our position ?

We do not take ourselves Som the fellowship of the great Wesleyan
family, but by the actual consent and formal concurrence of the general
conference with a surprising unanimity of action on the part of the ma-
jority. In that action we find our magna charta. And besides not only
a vast majority of the general conférence, but a decidedgnajority of the
preachers of the annual conferences, so far as they had been called on
to act, had given their assent and sanction.

He adverted to documentary evidence. Did the South desire to se-
cede? Did they proclaim any such intention even when driven to the
last extremity? Did their protest contemplate secession? He quoted
many passages from that instrument to sustain this position. Did the
resolution instructing the committee of nine “to devise a constitutionay
plan for a mutual and friendly division of the Church,” offered hy a South-
ern man and seconded by a Northern, contemplate anything like seces-
sion? Was the new organization regarded in any such light by the re-
port which that committee brought in? He read copious extracts from
speeches made by the most prominent Northern men, when the report
was before the conference for adoption. Drs. Luckey, Bangs, Hamline,
Filmore, all of them spoke in most decided terms on that oceasion; all
of them approved the report on the ground that it provided for an ami-
cable adjustment. of difficulties in the only practicable way.

And now the North —no not the North, but tho senior editor, brands
425

ne as srceders! Could the South have been induced to support the
“plan of division,” if they had understood that when the time came to
earry out in good faith the provisions of the “plan” they were to be
stigmatized as secessionists? This would have been a case of Punica
fides with a vengeance. ''The Methodist Episcopal Church in the United
“tates had separated from the jurisdiction of the Wesleyan conference.
where was the secession in that case? Northern speakers themselves
had put the present movement on preciscly the same ground. The re-
port refered to was not indeed just what the South wanted; but the
best the South could get. .Dr. famline wrote the report, evety word of
it, and le hoped he would stand up to the last in its defence. He was
coudident that, he (Bishop Haniline) at least, would not wield his influ-
ence ngaiust what the committee meant to do— would never join in the
silly clanior about secession., Dr. Bond had indeed opposed the plan at
the tune.

His dificutry was not placed on constitutional ground, but he consid-
ered the iling inexpedicut because it would produce difficulties along
the border. "Chis prediction he was himself carrying out with a ven-
veatice., Ho hud foretold difficulties and strife, and had himself done
nore than any one clse to produce strife. Along the whole border,
where the Souther pepers had no circulation, he, the said senior editor,
had seattcred “ fire brands, arrows, and death.” Nay, he had dared to
pronounce the soleuin act of the general conference a nullity, while he
was cating the hread of the general conference, and pretending to act as
its agent aud officer! —a subordinate, bound to carry out the honorable
pledge atid intentions of that body, and at the same time waging war
against their expressed wishes and designs!’ Bond ouglit . to be im-
peached.

He had araigned Bishop Soule for inviting Bishop Andrew to assist
hinv in visiting the Southern Conferences, where the latter was most
acceptable; white he (Bond) with high-minded arrogance undertook to
nullify the whole plan of the general conference. He (Dr. Paine) would
tell Bond, and the brethren of the North, that if they could not have a
peaceable separation, tiey would have separation any how, and sey:are-
ration, ino, op the very plea of the committee of nine, whether thet
plan was called araullity, or we were branded as seceders or vot. The
editor's poliey evidently was — divide and conquer, Thesecurity against
his machinations is to be feund in the good common sense and piety of
tle people, Thus it is seeu that neither the protest nor the declaration,
nor the resolution of instruction, uur the report of the committe of nine

contemplated a secession,
426

He enlarged upon the absurdity of the provisions made in the report
if we were to be considered seceders. Was the like ever seen in the
world before, that the legislature of a church set itself gravely and ear-
nestly to make special arrangements and advantageous provisions, both
ecclesiastical and pecuniary, for a set of seccders? And although the
constitutional vote by which the property might be divided, had not
been given by the annual conferences, that yet he ventured to predict,
with confidence, that we should yét obtain every dollar of our property -
There was justice and magnanimity enough in the North to secure to us
our pecuniary rights. When the existing excitement had passed away,-
and the still small voice of conscience should.be heard, he, for one be-
lieved that the North would let us have our equitable claims upon the
common property. They would do it from principle. If not, public
sentiment.would compel them. %

He proceeded to notice some objections. It had been alleged that we
should be a pro-slavery chureh. But how stood the facts? The South
was satisfied with the book of discipline as itis. The North were not
satisfied, and had made an aggression on established compromises. We
resist those aggressions. How does this make us pro slavery? They
invaded the principle of equal rights and privileges, North and South
We maintain that the South has no right to relinquish the ground of
cqual privileges and prerogatives. Their action had always prescribed
the South by the omnipotence of the ballot-box; but the principle had
never been avowed before. Now proscription was avowed and declared
to be the policy of the church, and to this the South could not and
would not submit. To doso, would be to give up at once the Metho-
dist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding states.

The fact was we had the same constitution, the same organic princi-
ples, the same doctrines as ever. This was no new form of Methodism:
We had the old usages, forms, and ceremonies; the old preachers,
some of the old bishops, and the old unalterable principles of Christian-
ity. Under the out-gushing impulses of the old spirit, as soon as our
contemplated organization was completed, we should go forth, every
man animated with unconquerable zeal, to spread the old scriptural ho-
liness over the land. However it might be with the Northern church,
he held that the Southern church would be true to the grand, original
sole design of Methodistic organization — universal love to God and
man — spiritual, religious ends and purposes, unmixed with political de-
signs, unwarped by secular tendencies.

Let the history of the early church teach the world the danger of
large ecclesiastical bodies interfering with civil relations and political
427

ends. The gospel of Jesus Christ contemplated no such purposes.
Ile warned Northern and Western brethren, if any such were here, that
we intended to bring Methodism back to its original, spiritual ends and
designs. On this subject, we intended to live and die by the doctrines:
of the “Protest.”

It was said that this movement would produce dissensions and strife.
The resolutions of Southern meetings had been blamed as intemperate.
He did not mean to say that, under a sense of injury, the South had not
occasionally said strong things. But had not Northern editors and wri-
ters far exceeded every hard thing which the South had said? Person-
al vituperation had begn unsparingly employed by them. ‘They made
every thing personal. How had the noble champion of Southern rights
been treated by Dr. Bond? As he (Mr. P.) saw that his fricnd Dr. Bas-
com was not in the louse, he would speak more freely. A man, hon-
ored universally by his Southern brethren for his talents, virtues and
most valuable services, had been made the shining mark for Bond’s en-
yenomed shafts. Dr. Bond talks of radicalism! It could be proved
that his name stands appended to a petition to the General Conference
in 1824 for lay delegation. To be sure, he was converted over to the right
side bofore the final catastrophe came. Yet, if report speaks truly, he
was won over by a quid pro quo consideration. Is he the person to taunt
Dr. Bascom with former opinions ?

After deposing, ina summary manner, of the allegation that the
Southern men. were ambitious of the honors of the church, he glanced
at the objection that the present movement was unconstitutional. "But
who, he asked, was to be the judge of the constitutionality of this
thing? The bench of Bishops have not pronounced it unconstitution-
al. The annual conferences have not. The general conference itself
had elevated to the episcopate the very speaker who claimed for it all
power in heaven and earth, but what was reserved to the annual confer-
ences in the restrictive rules. .

The general conference then claimed the power, and exercised the
power involved is the provisions of the plan on which we are acting.
Shall Northern editors adjudicate this matter? Preposterous idea —
presumption indescribable! The fact was, Methodism claimed, and did
actually possess, a self-adjusting energy. It adapted its economical
rules and jurisdictional principles to the world as it found it. It exist-
ed in monarchical governments, it was found in republics, it made its
Jodgment in the West Indies, in the East Indies, in every latitude, in evy-
ery zone; and everywhere it was the conservator of existing law; of
order, of public peace. It is no friend of discord — O’Connellizing the
428

masses of society, but it goes forth to soothe the scrrows it eannot pre-
vent ;,to alleviate the burdens it cannot remove ; to guild the dying hours
of the poor sufferer in life’s pilgrimage, and point the dying. eye to the
glories of immortality. Dr. Paine sat down amid loud cheering fromm
every part of the assembly.

The Bishop appointed the fullowing gentlemen as the committee on
the Southern book .concern.

Wm. Winans, E. Stevenson, M. Broek, H. A. C. Walker, T. Crowder
Thomas Johnson.

Ou motion the convention adjourned.

ELEVENTH DAY.
Turspay Moraine, May 13.

The convention ict pursuant to adjournment.

The\Presidcut culled for, memorials and reports of committees; no
response. we

The resolution offered by Bix Smith and Pierce on a former occasion
War then called up, and Mr. Crewder of the Virginia conference, rose
und said:

He spoke under great embarrassment. He was aware that the ground
had Leen occupied in the able speeches whieh had preceded. Never-
theless be felt it to be his duty to set forth his views on the subject
which bad agitated the church throughout the length and breadth of the
land. His object’ was to show that the purpose of the discipline’to
extripate.the great cvil of slavery could not be carried out by the course
of the abclitionists. He was free to acknowledge, with his brother
trom South Carolina, (Mr. Dunwoody,) that slavery under some circum-
stances was enevil: yet he had properly said that under other circum-
stances it was tot an evil. Indeed the Bible did not condemn slavery
as a sin, as it now exists among us. St, Paul has elassed kidnappers
with the most flagrant offenders ; and it was in view of this principle
that the general rule inhibiting the buying and selling of men, women
and children, with the intention of enslaving them, was introduced j1:-
to the discipline. Upon. this ground he was determined to stand forev-
er; and le was persuaded that in this sentiment every member of the
convention concurred with him.

This principle ( kidnapping} led, ia the first instance, to tbe slave
trade, which is pow sought to be put down by all nations. This ig what
he understood slavery to be in the abstract, and this is what the disci-
pling assumes to be wrong, and what the gospel proposes to exXtirpute,
429

and Christitinity to destroy. Slavery, in the concrete, was an evil in
many particulars, but it ig a necessary evil, and ‘therefore it cannot be
regarded asa sin. We'must manage the subject in the best possible
manner. Hence, our discipline adapts itself, in the regulation of this
matter, to the laws of the state; this is the ground the Mecthodist Epis-
copal Church took at the beginning, and this is the position which we
intend still to maintain in the South, Mr. Crowder procecded with
scriptural and moral aspects of the subject at some length; after which
he reviewed the policy of the abolitionists aud the late General Confer-
ence. He argued the necessity of a separate organization, effirming
that we intend to maintain sound Methodistie doctrines and usages in
all our movements.

Mr. Brush, of the Kentucky eonference, presented memorials from
the Wesley chapel and Fourth and Eighth street stations, in relation to
establishing the book concern in Louisville, which were referred to the
committee on the book concern,

Mr. Evans asked for privilege to offer a resolution — leave was grant-
ed, and he then submitted the following

Resolved, That, in the judgment of this convention, it is not necessa-
ry that the general canses and necessities for a separate organization
should be discussed any longer, unless some members from the border
conferences should think it proper to do ee) in order to represent their
portion of the church correctly.

Mr. Evans, in support of lus resolution, said that all thé leading or
main questions had been fully discussed, and thought therefore, it was
time to bring the arguments to a close. He was afraid an improper
impression had already gone abroad. The public mind would be im-
pressed with the idea that we had a great conflict over the resolutions
now pending, and that it was difficult to har monize the views of the
members of the convention; when, in fact, there has been great una-
nimity of feeling and sentiment in all our deliberations. We wished,
however, the members from the border conferences to be heard, provi-
ded they had a desire to speak.

Mr. Brush said, so far as he was concerned, he had no particular de-
sire to speak, nor did he believe any of his colleagues, had any special
inspiration, prompting them to address the convention. They had held
a caucus and proposed to select some member of their delegation to rep-
reseut the views of Kentucky, yet they were a little: fearful to make an
election, lest the fact of designating a special speaker should drive away
the spirit. They had, therefore, concluded to: await the moving of the
spirit. They had as fine speakers in Kentucky as could be produced
A30

in any other country. "Fle Kentuckians were orators by n ature and by
education, and the twelye were all speakers except Dr, Bascom, who.
scldom spoke save in the pulpit. They employed him in writing, be
therefore had not the time to speak; but, sir, as to the remaining eleven,
they can speak equal to Brother Crowder, Dr. Smith, or any member of
the convention.

Mr. Kavanangh said lie was notin the mecting to whieh his brother
alluded, and did not therefore understand that there was a determina-
tion upon the part of the delegation from Kentucky not to speak. He
had been pleased with the course the discussion had taken — the senti-
ments expressed by the brethren from the South proper accorded with
the views of those from the border conferences. And he was fully sat-
ixfied we owed it to God and the church to separate. It is true, said
Mr. Kavanaugh, the: border conferences had been greatly agitated ; but
sir they can bear more than the extreme South. In the contemplated
separation they went with the Seuth because the South went with the
discipline. They were disposed to be Methodists according to law and
usage. He said principle identified then with the South, and with the
Sonth they would stand, live or die. He said that weare obliged to be
a border conference, whether the line of separation run onthe one side
or the other; if it runs North then it identifies them with the South, just
where the principles involved should locate them; if it ran South, our
Position would be extremely awkward; we should be considered trait-
ors to the interests of Kentucky, and the North, so far from welcon-
ing us, would look upon us as intruders, and as having transferred our
odium upon them — the odium of that villany of all villains ; and thus
we should be left where the early history of our own land always placed,
them, on the “ dark and bloody ground.”

There was no choice, Mr. Kavanaugh: said, left them; they must
he identified either with the North or the South. So faras he was con-
concerned, he intended to follow principle and cleave to, the doctrines
of Methodisin. ‘Mr. Kavanangh briefly traced the history of church
legislation on the subject of slavery up ta the late General Conference.
Upon the action of that Conference in the case of Harding he dwelt
with peculiar force and emphasis; he showed that it was a triumph of

‘prejudice over law. Up till the time the vote was taken, he had been
filly satisfied that the decision of the Baltimore conference would be
reversed, and le had so expressed himself toa friend. What then was
his astonishment when the General Conference, by such a vast majori-~
ty, affirmed that decision. Upon Mr. Early’s motion to reverse the decis~

ion, he wag astounded. -The roll began at New York. N. Baugs (the
43

first name on the list) was absent. P. Rice responded xo! It fell like
thunder upon his ear, and thus through ‘the whole list of Northern,
Fastern and Nothwestern conferences, the rioes‘continued to roar like
peals of thunder, till he was completely overwhelmed. \ From that mo-
anent he was alarmed and felt that tlie South had nothing to expect.

Mr. Kavanaugh briefly and in the most graphic manner sketched the
history of the proceedings ‘of the General Conference in the case of
Bishop Andrew, and the injurious influence they had exerted upon the
South. We regret that we have rot Yoon for the whole of Mr. Kavan-
augh’s eloquent and logical address. His allusions to the patriotism of
Kentucky, aud to the doyalty of Kentucky Methodists und tue acd
purpose to adhere to the laws of tbe laud and the discipline of te
church, were most Louching, producing the finest effect upon the auai-
enve.

{n conclusion Mr, K. assured the convention that Kentucky, though
in sowie iustauces misled hy desiguing men, yet in the end sue would
be tound right side up. wAddressiug bituselt to his Southern brethren he
sald, while ticy muintained principle ‘ie would always be auuud ui
thew ranks, "iheir people should be bis; where they went he would
go; where they died be would die ; with then he wouid be buried, wc
with them he would rise in the morning of the great day, When truth
and purity would nicet their just reward,

aur Duingficld, ot Holston coutereuce, Messrs, Patton and Monroe,
of Missouri, followed, showing the position which their conferences oc-
cupied in relation to the great question. We have norooin for their re-
narks. ‘They all, however, showed their warm adherence to the South
and assured the conveution that, though they had been somewhat dis-
\urbed by internal divisions, in the end their people would go en masse
with, their Southern brethren,

Messrs. Gunn and Harrison, of the Kentucky delegation, each added
a few remarks, the first defining his position. He said it might be found
in his votes, as recorded in the.journal of the last General Conference,
aud inthe protest and ‘declaration to which he had placed his signature,
Me, Harrison, from the Augusta district, stated to the convention thet
sore differences of opinion existed in his work, and he feared that in
the end there would be some discord,
432

TWELFTH DAY,
WEDNE SDAY Moryine, May H.

The convention met pursuant to adjourument.

The president called for reports, _

The Rev. J. Karly, chairman of the committee on finance, presented
a report, which was read and ordered to be printed for to use ae the
convention,

Dr, Capers, chairman of the committee on missions, submitted their
report, which was read, and _by motion, was jaid on the table for the
present.

The president called for memorials and petitions. .

Mr, Hanner presented a petition from the quarterly conference of the
McKendre charge, Nashville, Teun., asking the attention of the conven-
tion to Nashville, as a suitable place for the location of the contempla-
ted book concern, and inviting the convention to select that city as the
seat of their first general conference. —

On motion, the consideration of the resolution pending at the hour of
adjournment yesterday was resumed.

Mr. Pitts, of Tennessee, addressed the convention briefly, Though
not of a border conference, Mr. P. did not wish the main question to
pass without a few remarks from him. He was not a member of the
general conference of 1844, he therefore felt the greater solicitude to
approve the action.of the magnanimous miuority in that body.

Me. P. said the merits of the subject had been ably discussed. There
were a few points; however, which he wished to notice, that bad not
been specially dwelt upon by aby of the preceding speakers, He al-
luded to objections which had been urged to a separation — not by our
enemies, but by some of our doubting friends. It had frequently been
asked, why so hasty:to consummate our plan of division? By reference
to the history of our action, it would be seen that the South had evinced
any other spiritthan that of rashness. There was a point where for-
bearance ceased to be a virtue; we had reached that point now. Here
Mr. Pitts gave a succinct statement of the numerous efforts of tbe
Southern delegates to preserve the union, of the Church at the last Gen-
eral Conference, showing that all thesé were staved off by the majori-
ty; and even the proposition of the bench of bishops for postponement
the last star in the heavens, had been beclouded by the action of the
majority, who discourteously laid their communication on the table.

The minority had been driven by stern necessity, not by a sickly par-
oxism of expediency. He feared, by the way, that he should never
love that word expediency again, If we hesitate, he would ask if we
433

ould hope ever to secure the co-operation of the majority in the work
of division? If, said he, we again submit this question to the major-
ity, they will rescind or expunge the last vestige of the plan from the
records aud send us adrift without a single plank of hape. This is notan
unheard of thing in the majority. One Gencral Conference could easily
remove the landmarks established by,the other. Instance the address
of the Bishops to the General Conference of 1844, the report of the
committee-on the Westmoreland memorial, and the resolutions regula-
ting the testimony of colored persons., Mr. Pitts pursued his argument
with force and pathos, closing with a declaration of his firm purpose to
adhere to true Methodism as set forth in the discipline and maintained
by the Church in the South. ,

Mr. Brock, of Memphis conference, said he represented a border con-
ference. It was bounded on the North by the Ohio, extending down the
Mississippi river 360 miles or more, includiug a fine country, chivalrous
people, many Cliistians, and a great many negroes. He said the sub-
ject which hed agitated the church had been fully canvassed in the pri-
mary meetings, quarterly conferences, and the annual conference, in all
of which there had been great unanimity of sentiment and action. His
connection with that conference had been short, and therefore he heg-
ged to refer the convention to the statements of his colleagues, wl.o
had been pioneers of Methodism in that country and had suffered much
and labored. long in the cause of Christ among that people.

Mr. McMahon said it had not occured to him, until now, that he rep=
resented a border conference ; he thought the resolution precluded him
the privilege of speaking. Jle had thirty-three years ago preached the
gospel at Jeffersonville, just across the river, in the Governor's house ;
by solicitation he came to this city when there were but five male mem- -
hers in the place. Ue had been taken from Ohio by Bishop McKendree
to clear him of the abolitionists., He wes thought to be a good hand to
manage theslave question in Kentucky, and therefore he hed been
brought to this state, wliere he preached to the master and the slave,
and from that time to the present he had labored specially to promete
the salvation of the African race. And really he thought the negroes
Joved him as well as they loved Bishop Andrew.

Mr. Gunn made a few remarks, by way of explanation, refering to
the address of Mr. Pitts.

Mr. Crouch, of Kentucky, addressing the chair, inquired, Mr. Presi-
dent, may I say a word? I have no speech to make, but I will simply
remark: Ist. That] ama Southerner, a thorough Southerner in feel-
ing and church policy. 2d. I was the first one of the ae dele-
434

gation, in the late General Conference, to take ground with the farther
South. 3d. From that ground I have never removed a hair’s breadth ;
nor have I had any reason in the least to recede. 4th, When my con-
stituents shall calf on me for the reasons of my course in thia conven-
tion I will present them. 5th. When it shal? ajypear to me that the cou-

* vention cannot get along’ with business and do things correctly, with-
ovt my counsel, I will give all the Jight } have; but until then J am wil-
ling to keep my seat.

Rey. Dr. Smnith, of Virginia, proposed that the question be now taken
on the resolution offered by him some days since. Dr. 8. said he woald
take this occasion to remark that the protracted discussion on this res-
olution was net because of any materja) difference of opinion on the
main question (as the remarks of the speakers would show) which had
brought the conventiun together, bat to meet the wishes of many who
were iu attendance, who were seeking information, which information
had heen withheld by those journals of the ehureh to which they had
access. The business of the convention had been assigned te appro-
priate committees, who had been ditligently prosecuting their duties,
and in the meantime it bad been the pleasure of the convention to in-
dulge this laudable desire for correct knowledge on this subject.

This object had vow been attained, and the principle committee would
probably report to-morrow, and he, therefore thonght we might close the
discussion aud take the question on the resolution. He affirmed, in con-
clusion, that the discussion has not been maintained beeause ef any ma-
terial dissension among the inembers of the convention. If in this he
was wruig, he challenged public contradiction: No one offered a cor-
rection.

Mr. Harris, of Memphis conference, said, though for many years a
member of the General Conference, he fid seldom occupied the floor.
It was not for want of interest in the proceedings of that hody, for he
regarded himself’ as respouding to the claims the church had upon him
in that relation when be watched and voted upon all subjects ¢ fleeting
its interests, He fully confirmed the statements made by his colleagues
Messrs. Brock and MéMahon, In reference to the unanimity of sentiment
and action existing #tmwong the people in that conference. He only
knew of two dissentibg voites in the whole extent of their work.

Mr. Catlett of the Hulston conference, said that in view of the action’

of the Baltimore conference, a portion of their work might be consid-
‘ered border. They were separated from the Baltimore conference hy
New-River, and all alotig the margin of that strerm the peoy'le enter-
a ms . ‘ . . .
ateined the same views on the subject of divigicn. He s:'d they were
A435

thoroughly Methoiistical in their principles, and le wished very much
that something might go out from that body that would correct any un-
due prejudices that might exist in their minds iu refereace to what would
be their position in the event of a separation.

After soine desultory remarks, Mr. Evans, of Georgia, withdrew his
resolution, and Dr. Smith’s resolution was called up and read. When
the vote was about to be taken, Mr. Boyle arose in his place and said
that he had come to this convention with cherished impressions that a
separation was not necessary, but since he iad listened to the discus-
sions and heard the representations of the brethren from all parts of the
South, be was fully satisfied that the‘separation was inevitable. He should
therefore vote for the resolution, and felt it due to himself to make this
avowal, believing that it was understood by the delegation from Missou-
ri that though the necessity with them might not be so imperious, yet,
making cunimon cause with the South, it was the interest and duty of
Missouri to go into the Southem organization.

Mr. Green, of Missouri, said he had been for a Jong time a member
of the Missouri conference ; he claimed to understand the sentiments of
that people; and he did believe that the interests of Methodism in that
region required the separation. Mr. Green, in an animated address, sus-
tained the doctrines of the resolution. Having concluded his remarks,
the question was taken and passed with one dissenting voice.

The following is the resolution.

Resolved by the Delegates of the several Annual Conferences in the
South and Southwestern States, in General Convention assembled, That we
cannot sanction the action of the late General Conference of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church, on the subject of slavery, by remaining under
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of this body, without deep and Jasting in-
jury to the interests of the church and country; we, therefore, hereby
justruct the committee on organization that if, upon a careful examina~
tion of the whole su)ject, they find that there is no reasonable ground
to hope that the Northern majority will recede from their position and
give some safe gueranty for the future security of our civiland ecclesi-
astical rights, they report in favor of a separation from the ecclesiasti-
cal jurisdiction of the said General Conference.

On the passage ef the resolution, Bishop Soule observed that the vote
was very remarkable for its unanimity.

On motion the convention adjourned, with benediction by Bishop

Soule. :
436
THIRTEENTH DAY.
; Taurspay M ORNING, May 15th-
The convention, met pursuant to adjournment.

The president called for reports —no’ response. He called for peti-
uions and memorials.

Mr. Brush, of Kentucky; presented the following memorial from the
muyor and om council of Louisville :-—
Lovuisvitie, May Ith, 1845.
Rev. Gro, W. Tica:

Ata meeting of the Mayor and Council of the city of Louisville held
this morning the 14th inst. the following resolutions were adopted
mnanimously, and the undersigned were, on motion, requested to hand.
you a copy of the. same,, to wit;

Resolved, That L. L. Shreve, J. I. Jacob, W. D. Dinwiddie, J. M.
Delph, P. Maxcy, W. H. Grainger, C. M. Strader, W. W. Fry, Curran
Pope and P. Butler be appointed a committee to inquire into the expe-
diency of tendering to the Methodist convention suitable inducements,
for the location ‘of their book concern in the city of Louisville; and,
provided they shall deem it expdient to act on this subject, to report
some suitable plan of action in the premises.

Varther—Resolved, That we tender to said convention assurances that
we would hail with pleasure the. location of the said book establish-

ment in our city, and our kindest wishes for the entire success of the
enterprise.

With sentiments of esteem, e:
We are, respectfully, etc.,
F. A. KAYE, Mayor.

Mr. Brush also presented a memorial from the citizens of Louisville,
with two hundred and fifty signatures, and one from fifty-eight lawyers
of Louisville —-all asking the location of the contemplated book concern
in this city.

On motion, the convention resolved itself intoa committee of the
whole, for the purpose of considering the report of the missionary
committee. Mr. Early was called to the chair and the report read.

After some discussion upon the Ynerits of the report, the committee,
on motion arose, reported progress and begged leave to sit again.

Dr. Bascom, chairman of the committee on organization, presented
and read their report, which occupied one hour and three quarters.

On motion, it was ordered that one 2 nina copies be printed for the
use of the convention.

: Dr. Winans was excused from serving on the book committee and
A. L. P. Green was appointed to supply his place,
437

Dr. Puine was excused from serving on the committee on education
aud G. F, Pierce was appointed to fill his place.
‘On motion the convention adjourned.

 

FOURTEENTH DAY.
Fripar Monntne, May 16.

Tae president inquired if any of the conimittees were in readiness
xoreport. None presented. Memorials and petitions were then called
for, but none were presented,

The convention resolved itself into acommittee of the whole, and
vesumed the consideration of the reporton missions,

Rev. Mr. Green, of ‘Tennessee, spoke to the question of location, and
gavé his reasons for preferring Nashville to Petersburg, Va., and stated
facts in relation to the sounduess of the banks and merchants of Nash-
ville, which he represented on as solid a base as the Blue Ridge. The
people were wealthy and hospitable —and more than all, they were
characteristically liberal. He instanced the factthat some of his breth-
ren had invited Bishop Soule to make it his place of residence — and
that the people had made a contribution of over three thousand dollars,
asa fund for the erection of a house forihe Bishop. Rev. Mr. Green
urged many considerations which induced him to prefer Nashville.

Rev. Dr. Longstreet said it was not ef much importance what point
was selected, as after the establishment of the book concern, the chief
mission station would take its place alongside of it

Rey. Mr. McMahon obtained the Boor aud addressed the eommittee
ina strain of quaint humor that was productive of much merriment,
He preferred Meinplils above all other points uamed, It was unques-
tionably the finest point iu the world for starting from. From thence,
said he, you may set-out at all seasous of the year for any point of the
universe. Mr. Mé¢Mahon spoke of the liberality of the citizens of Mem-
phis. He instanced the fact that when a call had been made on the
friends of mission for subscriptions, ove noble minded man of Mem-
phis responded — though net a wealthy man —lhe pit his hand into bis
pocket, and took out $500 for that object. He did not hesitate to name
this good man, (for he did not believe the reporters would notice it)
At was brother Banks who had acted thus nobly.

The nominater.of New Orleaus withdrew his noinination.

The Rev. Mr. Berryman (not a metnber of the convention) a mis-
sionary, was invited to make® statement in relation to payments to mis-
gionarics. ‘These payments are made quarterly, by drafts) These were
generally sold to merchants in the vicinity of their stations. It is of

x
438

little ruoment where you locate your missionary treasury, so that it is
convenient to get them cashed (by the merchants who buy them) and
go East to make their purchases. It is bot always the case that those
who purchase our drafts are Methodists. |

Rev. Mr. Monroe said, fron the representation just made, he would
withdraw St. Louis. :

Rey. Mr:Early said he desired to make a few remarks in perfect goo
nature. In reply to what: had been advanced by'Mr. Greén in relation,
to the amount raised in Nashville for the venerable Bishop Soule. (3300
dollars) Mr. Early said if the Bishop would come to: Virgiaia, that con-
ference would raise him G000 dollars, and that was a fair offset. {n ref
erence to Nasliville, Mr, Early’ said, the arguments of Mr. Green were
conclusive why that city should not be selected. He had it from: the.
casiicr of a Louisville bank, that Kentucky money was better in Nash-
ville than Tennessee money (when out of bank.) My. Early said he
was perfectly satisfied that Nashville .was not a favorable point of lo-

cation.

Bishop Soule, in rising to address the committee, said he was not
confident of the propriety of his saying anything upon the subject. It
was not his intention to speak of localities — that was a matter of minor
consideration with him. The object was oné altogether of a financial
character, and he should treat it as such; as a financial object, it should
he, discussed and viewed in all its bearings of advantage and disadvan-
tage to the Church and its financial operations. We should not give it
a location on any other principle or from any other motive. Jk will be
admitted by all that we cannot use bullion for a eurreney — we must
use paper, either in the form of blank notes, post notes .or bills of ex-
change. All great financial operations are adjusted with this species of
eurrency.

Our great missionary operations must all be carried on by one or allof
these methods. Were J, said Bishop Soule, in the Indian country,Arkan-
sas, Florida or Texas, to make a draft on the tleasurer in New York for
twelve thousand dollars, and hand it over for disbursement, it would be
worthless if the agent could not get it cashed. He does so, by selling it
{at, perhaps, a premium) to a merchant going to that city. It is taken
on, deposited in bank, the treasurer is natified, and he pays it. Asa
body of Methodist preachers, we are not merchants; and he had often
thought that a body thus constituted were not very well qualificd for car-
rving on large financial operations. Not that the ministers of theMetlio-
distChurch were in any respect wanting in all those high and lofty quali-
ties which distinguish a moral and religious class — but from their pecu-
439

liar position and separation from secular enjoyments, They are distin-
guished for high moral principle.

The plain question for your decision is, where can the location hy
miade to the greatest advantage ! ? Merchants and those most conversant
with the course of trade, tell us that Neav York, Philadelphia and Balti-
more are the great central points. It appears to me, then that in fixing
your location, a due regard should be had to the point South and West
which will most naturally combine advantages i in connexion with this
fact. The establishment of your treasury should be made with refer-
ence to these supposed advantages. If you establish it at Nashville or
Petersburg all your drafts will have to be sent thither for payment.
Uuder the case Supposed, of my draft being given tothe West, and
then cashed by a merchant going to New York, it will have to be trans-
mitted for collection and weal eure toadiscount. There is another cou-
sideration. Wherever you establish your book concern there, it appears
to me, should be your treasury. It may happen that the treasury will
be obliged to draw on the book concern, the funds of which are app!i-
‘euble to the necessities as it is the property of the church.

Rev. Mr. McFerrin gave the committee notice that should Louisville
be selected he would move for a dissolution of the Southern Christian
Advocate concern and establish it at Louisville. It could not be sus-
tained if separated from the mission station.

Rey. Mr. McMahon said‘ be would, in view of what had been suid,
withdraw Meinphis. .

Rev. Mr. Harrell said he bad Jong labored in the missionary field.

Ilis disbursements had amounted to $30,000, and he had never lost a
dollar in exchange. The negociation had been principally in New
Orleans.

Dr. Smith begged to call the attention of the committee to an aspect
of this subject of startling interest, and that might ove day produce
disastrous consequences; I allude, said he, to the. disposition, so uncer-
emoniously displaying itself—-a disposition to move every thing West
of the mountains — book concern— missionary society and all. He
was no oracle, but would take occasion to warn the committee against
acting on this principle, or giving occasion to awaken the fear that the
principle of mere majorities should control every thing. This, said he,
was the principle which had already cloven down the liberties of the
Church, and caused the genius of union to stand at Northern altars, asa
suppliant for indulgence! As he did on another occasion, in General
Conference 1832, warn the majority of that body, so he would now
warn them.
440

This calamity in the Southern Church: was now in its egg state; now
you can put your foot upon it and crush it; but if you breath upon it
the warm breath of your aporobation, it will hatch a scorpion that will
sting you to the heart. Those admonished had not heeded the counsel
and division was the result. He warned them against a policy which,
he felt sure it was notin their purpose toindulge. [These remarks were
uttered with great earnestness, and produced corresponding sensation. ]
He concluded by urging the claims of Petersburg. She was entitled
to consideration. It was a question of finance. Less loss would be
incurred in negociating crafts. There were the lay men in Petersburg,
who were not only competent to manage it, but whose liberality was
equal to the emergencies to which the society would often be subjected.
This latter point he insisted on atlength. It would, he said, often prove
a point of friction, It was important to have men to manage it whose
enlarged and liheral views and feelings would prove equal to the many
occasions, in the affairs of the society, that would put them in re-
quisition.

Rey. Mr. McFerrin said he deeply regretted to hear these remarks,

Dr. Longstreet said he was a Southerner and he would therefore
apeak, as his brother, Dr. Smith, had desired them to take warning.
This warning was certainly in time, for the action has not been had.
He conld not but think the alarm was unnecessary. In taking the mis-
sionary and book concern you take a deal of trouble. He would riot
object to this— but he did object to take their papers along with*sthe
other concerns. These be desired rightly divided. He wanted to be
heard through them. He regretted the warning of Dr. Smith because
he thought it out of place.

Dr. Smith said he deeply regretted that any thing had fallen from him
to disturh the feelings of any brother. He explained, (and we believe
very satisfactorily to all) his reasons for springing counsel on so delicate a
subject, and with so much earnestness. He said the committee seemed
bound by a sort of mesmeric attraction to Nashville or Louisville as the
proper place of location. Nor even his revered friend and colleague
from Virginia (pointing to Rev. Mr. Early), honored by age and unusu-
al experience in financial matters, could get a hearing. He resolved at
all reasonable hazards to break this spell of attraction. He had accom-
plished his object. The claims of Petersburg had been heard. Even a
speech in support of his doctrines had been elicited from the venerable
Bishop Soule.

" In the mean time he had taken occasion to »dmonish them of an im-
pertant and ‘{elicate matter, whic should not be disregarded. He did not
441

desigu to express an unkind distrust of the ruling majority in these ca-
ses, The claims of Petersburyli had been now fairly bgard. Te was
satisfied. If they should think proper to vote against Petersburg, no
man could more readily acquiesce. In the mean time he hoped they
would not only profit by his suggestions, but give us the missionary so-
ciety East of the mountains.

Bishop Andrew, in rising, said (humorously) be would be obliged
to the committee to tell him what latitude and longitude they were in.
— (Some one answered Petersburg.) Very well, be that as it nay, it did
seem to him, he said, that a great deal of time had been uselegsly con-
sumed on a subject of minor importance. He had not heard Charles-
ton named, and yet, said the Bishop, Charleston is one of the most lib-
eral Conferences ‘in the connection. There would be a manifest pro-
priety in a pecuniary point of view in making that the parent station.

In allusion to the manner in which the various points had been urged
in a pecuniary point of view, Bishop Andrew remarked (jocularly) that
the contributions of the blacks under charge of the late Charleston
Conference exceeded’ that of the largest Conferences either in the Seuth
or West, and that atnong them they might probably find some pretty
good managers — but in deference to the brethren of the South Caroli-
na delegation, he would not press that point. His only object in rising
was to say that, in his humble judgment, the convention was consuming
the time unprofitably. 4

The vote was now demanded from all sides of the, house.

The first place nominated was Petersburg. The question to make
that place the parent missionary station being put, only 18 rose in its fa-
vor. Louisville was next in order. For making this city the pareut
station, a large majority of the convention arose. ~

The chair announced the vote to be in favor of constituting Louis-
ville the parent station of missions.

The points for two assistant treasurers were then decided to be
Charleston and New Orleans.

The report was read asamended in committee of the whole, adopted
and on motion the committee rose and reported the sume to the con-
vention, Bishop Soule in the chair. On motion by Mr, Lee, the report:
was laid on the table until the report on organization shall have been
disposed of.

On motion the convention adjourned.
442

FIFTEENTH DAY.
Sarurpay Morntine, May 17th.

The cenvention met pursuant to adjournment,

Dr. Bascom presented a communication from Frankfort, relative to
establishing a paper in that place, which was on motion refered to the
cominittee on the book concern.

NEW ORGANIZATION,

On motion of Mr. Early, the report of the committee on organiza-
tien was called up, and the first resolution read, which is as follows:

Be it resolved by the delegates of the several annual conferences of the Meth-
odist Episcopal Church in the slaveholding States, in general convention as-
sembled, That it is right, expedient, aud necessary to erect the annual
conferences, represented in this convention, into a district ecclesiastical
connection, separate from the jurisdiction of the General Conference, of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, as at present constituted ; and accor-
dingly, we, the delegates of said annual couferences, acting under the
provisional plan of separation adopted by the General Conference of
1844, do solemnly deelare the jurisdiction hitherto exercised over said
annual conferences hy tie General Conference of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, entirely dissolved: and that said annual conferences shall
he, and they hereby are constituted a separate ecclesiastical connection,
under the proyisional plan of separation aforesaid, and based upon the
discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church, comprehending the doc-
trines, and entire moral, ecclesiastical, and economical rules and regu-
Jations of said discipline, except only in so far as verbal alterations may
be necessary toa distinct organization, and to be known by the style
and title of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

Mr. Early then moved its adoption.

Mr. Lee-moyed that the ayes and noes be taken, which was concured
in, and the vote stood :—

Ayes 94. Nays 3. Messers Gunn, G. W. Taylor and John C. Har-
rison.

The second resolution, which is as follows, was read and, on motion
of Mr. Crowder, was adopted:

Resolved, That while we cannot abandon or compromise the princi-
ples of action, upon which we preceed to a separate organization in the
South, nevertheless cherishing a sincere desire to maintain christian-
union and fraternal intercourse with the ehurch North, we shall always
he ready, kindly and respeegfully, to entertain and duly and carefully
consider any proposition or plan, having for its object the union of the
, 443

two great bodies in the North and South, whether such proposed uniow
be jurisdictional or connectional.

Ayes 97, nocs none.

Mr. Early presented a farther report from the committee on organiza-
tion, which is as follows: ‘

Resolved, That this convention request the Bishaps, presiding at the
ensuing session of the border conferences of the Methodist Episcopal
Church, South, to ineorporate into. the aforesaid conferences any socie-
ties or stations adjoining the line of division, provided such societies or
stations, by a majority of the members uecording to the provisions of
the plan of separation as adopted by the late General Conference, re-
quest such an arrangement.

Resolved, That answer second of third section, and chapter first of the
book of discipline, be so altered and amended as to read as follows:

The General Conference shall meet on the first day of May, in the
year of our Lord, 1846, in the town of Pittsburg, Virginia, and thence
forward in the month of April or May, once in four years successively,
and in such place and on sueh day as shall be fixed on by the preceed-
ing General Conference, &c.

Resolved farther, That the first answer in the same chapter be altered
by striking out the word. twenty-one and inserting in its place the word
fourteen,

All of which is respectfully submitted,

JOHN EARLY, Chairman.

The first resolution was adopted ; ayes 97, noes none.

The second resolution was adopted; ayes 97, noes none.

The third resolution was adgpted ; ayes 97, nves none.

The entire report was then adopted unanimously.

The report of the committee on finance was ¢alled up. After some
discussion, Dr. Capers offered the following resolution as a substitute,
which was adopted:

Resolved, That it appears not to be necessaty at present to appoint
cominissioners or agents, as provided for in the plan of separation a-
dopted by the late General Conference. Nevertheless we recommend
the same to the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal‘Church,
South, os proper to be done so soon as it can be with effect.

~ MISSION PLAN.

On motion of Mr, Speer, the report of the committee or missions
was called up and read.

Dr. Smith moved to strike out Louisville and insert Petersburg, Vir-
ginia, which waz lost. ,
441 :

Ds. Puine then moved to strike out Louisville and insert Nashville,
Which was also lost.
The report was then adopted, which is as follows:

The committee to whom was referred the subject of providing for the manage-
ment and support of missions, respectfully report — <
That in view of the present aspect of our missionary field and our

position in relation to them, the whole subject refered to — always
interesting and important —— hecomes eminently vital and essential, and
your committee, having passed in review the. conditions and prospects
of the several missions belonging to the Southern division of the church,
and examined with due deliberation and intense solicitude the questions
which have arisen as to the ‘means of supporting them, have arrived at
the conclusion that, though in other circumstances it should seem plaus-
ible to change materially our system of finance, it is best for the present
1o introduce no changes but such as are necessary to conform our mis-
sionary system to our church organization. And we deem itto be reas-
on enough for this conclusion, that were changes. made which might
prove advantageous after they had become familiar to the numerous per-
sons to be moved by them, they would, at their introduction, be less
productive for the waut of familiarity, and the present juncture impera-
uvely requires a plan for immediate production.

Your committee, therefore, do respectfully offer the following resolu-
tions as specifying wliat is requisite to be done at the present time, and
as comprehending, in connection with what is provided in the book of
discipline, all which to them appears suitable in our circumstances.

1. Resolved, That until a general conference of the annual confer-
ences represented in this. convention shall have ordered other wise,'the
Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the city of
Louisville shall be regarded as the central or parent society ; said soci-
ety having previously changed its title and adopted a constitution agree-
ably to the purport of these resolutions.

2, That the board of managers of the central soviety aforesaid shall
appoint two assistant treasurers, of whom one shall be a resident of the
city of Charleston and the other of the city of New Orleans, to whoni

moneys intended for the general treasury may be remitted and who

shall make quarterly exhibits to the treasurer, at Louisville, of their re-

ceipts and disbursements severally. .

3. That the board of managers of each annual conference auxiliary
‘supply the demands of the missions of its annual conference, as far as
jt can be done, notifying the bishop or president of the conference of
any deficiency, for which he may draw on the general treasury at Lou-
445,

isville, or on one of the assistant treasurers at Charleston or New Or-
leans ; and in case there be a surplus with any of the conference socie-
ties the treasurer of such society shall forthwith transmit it. to the gen-
eral treasurer or one of the assistant treasurers.

4, That the bishops be requested to aid the central board with their
counsel as to the appropriation of the funds, and that the brethren, Al-
exander L. P. Green, Jerome C. Berryman, Benjamin M. Drake, Little-
ton Fowler, William Capers and Hubbard H. Kavanaugh be a commit-
tee for the same purpose.

5. That the missions connected with the Southern division of the
church must be sustained, and, with the blessing of God they shall be,
and, that this may be done with greater facility, it is enjoined on all
missionaries to make quarterly reports of the work in their missions
through one of our church papers.

All which is respectfully submitted,

May 14, 1845. WM. CAPERS, Chairman.

Mr. McFerrin stated to the convention that the citizens of Louisville
had authoized him to say that the expenses of the bishops in attending
this convention, together with all the expenses incurred in printing
‘documents for the use of the members, would be met by them,

Mr. G. F. Pierce moved a vote of thanks in return, which was passed
by a rising vote. 5

On motion, the convention adjourned until3 o’clock P. M.

AFTERNOON SESSION,

Turzr o’Crocx, P.M., 17.—The convention met pursuant to ad-
journment, Bishop Andrew in the chair—prayer by Rev. F- Wilson, of
Texas conference. .

FINANCE REPORT.

Mr. Early, from the committee on finance, presented the following
report, which was adopted :

The ‘committee on finance recommend the adoption of the following
resolution, viz:—

Regolved, That the family expenses of the bishops be equally divided
among the fifteen annual conferences of the Methodist Episcopal Churcit
South, and paid in the same manner that their quarterage and travelling
expenses are now paid.

REPORT ON EDUCATION.

Mr. G. F. Pierce presented and read the report of the’ com mittee ont
education, which was adopted, with the exception of one item relative
to the Transylvania University, which wasrecommitted for farther con-_

sideration.
30
446

REPORT ON THR BOOK ROOM.

Rev. A. L. P. Green, chairman of the book committee, submitted
their report, which was read and adopted. It is as follows:—

The committee to whom was refered the subject of a ase concern
and periodicals, after taking the matter into mature consideration, res-
pectfully beg leave to report:

Your committee take great pleasure in saying, to the convention, that
quite a number of memorialsand petitions, together with kind and lib-
eral offers of pecuniary contributions, have come into their bands.
From the town of Memphis we have received a very flattering propo-
sal, consisting in a large brick building, formerly occupied as a tavern,
which is said to have cost some thirty thousand dollars, (though its pres-
ent value we would notattempt to estimate, } together with the expres-
sed wish and desire of alarge number of the citizens of the town and
neighborhood, that our contemplated book concern should be located at
that blace, pledging themeselves to aid and assist the enterprise to the
utmost of their ability. “

We have also received several petitions from the citizens of this city,
(Louisville) praying its location here, and setting forth the claims of this
place to your consideration; and farther assuring us that, should the
book concern be established here, a considerable amount of funds can
and will be raised in aid of such establishment.

We have been favored with a memorial from the city of Nashville
setting forth the claims of that city as every way suitable for such an
establishment. :

St Louis hasalso been presented to your comimittee as anxious for
the location of suid concern, and asin every way eligible for the same.

While your committee are of the opinion that any one of the above
mentioned places i is worthy of such an establishment, and rejoices to
learn that our friends inthe South and Southwest feel so deep an in-
terest inthis auxiliary in promoting the cause of God and the best in-
terests of mankind, yet it is the opinion of your committee that, as there
will be a _general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South, in Petersburg next May, vested with full power to establish a
book concern, and as farther developments may be yet made with re-
spect to the most eligible point within our boundary to locate such an
establishment ; —

Resolved, therefore, That while we consider a book concern as indis-
pensable to the prospects of the Methodist Episcopal Church South,
yet we deem the establishment of one at this time premature ; neverthe-
less we recommend the appointment of two book agents, whose duties .
447

shall be to receive propositions for the location of the book concern,
and also to receive monies and contributions to build up the same, and
to report to the general conference to be held at Petersburg next May.

Resolved, That we recommend the ministers and members of the
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, to continue for the present to patror -
ise the Methodist book concerns at New York and Cincinnati.

Resolved, That we recommend our friends generally that they patron-
ize our periodicals, viz: Southwestern Christian Advocate, Southern
Christian Advocate, and the Richmond Christian Advocate, as every
way worthy of our support.

All of which is respecfully submitted.

i A. L. P. GREEN, Chairman.

The convention proceeded to elect two agents when John Early, of
the Virginia conference, and John B. McFerrin, of the Tennessee con-
ference, where chosen. :

A communication from Brother Tal. P. Shaffher, relative to the pub-
lication of the ‘proceedings, speeches, &c, of the convention, was, on
motion of Mr. McFerrin, referred to the committee on the book con-
cern.

On motion, the convention adjourned until Monday, at half past eight
o'clock, A. M.

 

SIXTEENTH DAY.
% 7 M onpay, May 19.
The convention met pursuant to adjournment.

: BOOK COMMITTEE. ‘

The President called for reports of committees, when Mr. Green, cf
Tenuessee, chairman of the book committee, to whom the communica-
tion of Tal. P. Shaffer, of Louisville, was referred, submitted a very
elaborate report, saying that they had censidered the proposition before
them, and that they did not doubt the ability and integrity of Mr. Shafi-
ner to publish a valuable work to the church, but they regretted very
much that they could not recommend the convention to accept of the
proposal, upon the ground of its not being expedient for the church to
‘alienate the right of the proceedings, &c., of this convention, and be-
lieving that such a work is necessary to be issued for the benefit of the
church, the would offer the following resolutions, which were adopted.

Resolved, That the editor or editors of the South Western Christian
Advocate, with A. L. P. Green, F. E. Pitts and John W. Hanner, be
appointed a conimittee to be called the publishing committee, whose
duty shall be to compile and publish a work, or book, which shall be?
called The History of the Organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South.
448

Resolved, That said work shall contain a full account of the acts and
doings of the late general conference of the Methodist Episcopal Char¢h,
in the cases of the Rev. James Osgood Andrew, D. D. one of the bishops
of the Methodist Episcopal Church, aud Rev. F. A. Harding, of the
Baltimore conference, together with the speeches in the above mentioned
cases.

Qd.. The protest of the minority against the progeedings of the con- ,
ference in the cases mentioned above,

3d. The declaration of the delegates from those. conferences within
the bounds of the slaveholding states.

4th. The addresses of Bishops Soule and Andrew before said confer-
ence. ;

5th. The plan of division by the committee of nine.

6th. The address of the Southern delegations to the church in the
South,

7th. Action of each and all the annual conferences in the bounds of
the Southern organization on the subject of division, or a separate South-
ern organization, together with the vote of each conference, in their
respective resolutions.

8th, The addresses of Bishops Soule and Andrew before this con-
vention, the manuscripts to be furnished by themselves.

9th. The acts and doings of this convention, together with the speech-
es which have been delivers

Resolved father, That the following brethren, members of this body,
be and are hereby requested and expected to furnish the publishing com~
mittee, within one month from this time or date, a manuscript copy of
their speeches before this convention:

Dr. Winans, Dr. Capers, Dr. Smith, Rev. John Early Dr. Pierce,
Rev. G. F. Pierce, Dr. Longstreet, Dr. Paine, Rev, T. Crowder, Rev. H.
H. Kavanaugh, Rev. A. Monroe, Rev. William Patten, Rev. Joseph
Boyle, Rev. William McMahon, Rev. F. E. Pitts, Rev, William Gunn,
Rev. John C. Harrison, and Rev. S. Dunwoody,

The committee. on publication shall also be at liberty to publish such
other speeches as may have been reported with sufficient correctness to
justify their publication. -

Resolved, farther, That the journals of the convention, with all memo-
rials, petitions, reports, and papers, be placed, for the present, in the hands
of the publishing committee, to enable them to compile the contempla-
ted work.

Resolved, farther, That Dr. Wm. Capers and Wm. M. Wightman be
appointed to address a circular letter, in the form of a pastoral address,
4A9

‘to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and said letter shall form a
portion of the contemplated work.

Resolved, farther, That should any thing which is' not referred to in
this report occur to the publishing committee, which, in their opinion,
is of interest and properly belonging to the contemplated book, they
shall be at liberty to use such matter.

Resolved, farther, That the establishment of the Southwestern Chris-
tian Advocate shall incur for the present the cost of publication, but
shall have the first claim in the sale of the book until the money expen-
ded in the publication is refunded, after which the profits of the work
shall belong to the Methodist Episcopal Church, South.

NEW ORGANIZATION.

On motion of Mr. Early, the report of the committee on organiza-
tion was taken up.

Mr. Gunn stated that since the report had been printed, he had read
it attentively, and subscribed to the doctrines it set forth. He had vo-
ted inthe negative on the first resolution, and with that qualification he
would now vote for the entire report. And now, said Mr. Gunn, that
the plan of separation has been adopted and a distinct organization de-
termined ‘upon, he wished it distinctly understood that he would use his
influence to promote the peace of the church. He should repudiate ev-
ery thing like sub-divisions among our people,

After some ‘conversation as toa few verbal expressions, the report wis
‘adopted —

Aves — Messrs. Bascom, Stevenson, Kavenaugh, Crouch, Gunn, Brush,
King, ' James, 2Ralston, Monroe, Green, Glanville, Browning, Patten,
Linn, Boyle, Johnson, Catlett, Springfield, Stevens, Sullins, Fulton,
Paine, of Tenn., McFerren, Green, of Tenn., Pitts, Driskill, Hanner,
Boucher, Maddin, Andrews, Bryant, Leigh, Blake, Carson, Doub, Brame
Brock, Harris, McMahon, Joyner, Davidson, McAlister, Smith, of Men-
phis, Truslow, Custer, Early, Crowder, Smith, of Va., Lee, Penn, Dog-
get, Cowles, Dibrell, Campbell, Jones, Drake, Watkins, Winans, Fow-
ler, Willson, Alexander, Hamilton, Boring, of Ala, Capers, of do., Lev-
ert, Calloway, Summers, Garrett, L. Pierce, Glenn, Anthony, Longstreet,
Boring, of Ga., Payn, of do., G. F. Pierce, Sanford, W. Capers, Wight-
man, Walker, Dunwoody, English, 5. W. Capers, W. Smith, Boyd, P. P.
Smith, Benning, Peery and Cummings.

Nors — Messrs. Taylor and Harrison, of Ky.

Mr. Early, from the committee on organization, reported the follow-
ing resolutions for adoption, viz:

Resolved, That Bishops Soule and Andrew be and they are hereby
respectfully and cordially requested by this convention to unite with,
450

aud become regular and constitutional bishops of the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, upon the basis of the plan of separation adopted
by the late General Conference.

Adopted unanimously.

To this resolution the bishops responded.

Loursvinte, May 18, 1845.

Dear Breturen —In answer to the inquiry of the committee, I
would state that I feel myself bound, in good faith, to carry out the of-
ficial plan of the Episcopal Visitation as settled upon by the bishops in
New York, and published in the official papers of the church, till the
session of the first General Conference of the Methodist Church, South ;
from which time it would be necessary that the plan should be so chang-
‘ edas to be accommodated to the jurisdiction of the two distinct Gen-
eral Conferences, When such General Conference shall be held, I shall
feel myself fully authorized, by the plan of separation adopted by the
General Conference of 1844, to unite myself with the Methodist Epis-
copal Church, South, and if received by said church, to exercise the
functions of the episcopal office within the jurisdiction of said General
Conference. .

Iam, my dear brethren, yours, very affectionately,

JOSHUA SOULE.
_Louisy11ze, May, 1845.

Dear Breturen —I decidedly approve the course which the con-
vention has taken in establishing the Methodist Episcopal Churclr
South, believing, as I do most sincerely, that it will tend, under God’s
blessing, to the wider spread and more efficient propagation of the gos-
pel and of the grace of God. I accept the invitation of the convention
to act-as one of the superintendents of the Methodist Episcopal Church
South, and pledge myself, in hamble dependence upon Divine grace, to
use my best efforts to promote the cause of God, inthe interesting and
extensive field of labor assigned me.

May the blessing of God be upon us mutually, in our various fields of
action, and finally may we all, with our several charges, be gathered to,
the home of God and the good in Heaven.

Affectionately, your brother and fellow laborer,

JAMES 0. ANDREW.

The second and third resolutions were read, when an animated dis-
cussion ensued, in which Dr. Smith, Dr. Longstreet, Mr. McFerrin, Dr.
Winans, Mr. Doggett, Mr. Lee, Mr. G. F. Pierce and Mr. Blake took
part
451

The hour having come the convention adjourned till 3 o’clock, P. M*
AFTERNOON SESSION.

Three o’clock P.M. May 19.—The couvention met pursuant to adjourn-
ment, Bishop Soule in the chair. ;

The consideration of the resolution pending at the hour of adjourn-
ment in the forenoon wasresumed. After a fewremarks from Mr. Ear -
ly and Dr. Capers, the resolutions were withdrawn.

The following resolutions were adopted unanimously, viz.

Resolved, That should any portion of an annual conference, on the line
of separation, not represented in this convention, adhere to the Meth-
odist Church, South, according to the plan cf separation adopted at the
late General Confererfce, and elect delegates to the General Conference
of the Church in 1846, upon the basis of representation adopted by
this convention, they shall be accredited as members of the General.
Conference.

Resolved, That a committee of three be appointed, whose duty it
shall be to prepare and report to the General Conference of 1846 a re-
vised copy of the present discipline, with such changes as are necessary
to conform it to the organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
South.

Dr. W. Capers, W. M. Wightman and G, F. Pierce were appointed
said committee.

G. F. Pierce presented a farther report from the committee on educa-
tion, which was read and adopted.

W. Gapers presented and read the pastoral address, which was read,
adopted, and ordered to be printed.

Dr. Capers presented the following resolutions, which were unani-
mously adopted by a rising vote.

Resolved, That we cherish an affectionate sense of the very kind obli-
gations under which we have been laid to our triends of this city for the
Christian hospitality with which we have been entertained at their houses
during the session of this convention ; and that our prayers to God shall
not be wanting for their prosperity and spiritual welfare.

Resolved, That we entertain a grateful sense of the Christian liberality
of those churches and pastors of this city who have invited us to their
pulpits; and that we will not fail to remember them as brethren at the
throne of Grace.

Dr. Winans offered the following, which was unanimously adopted
by a rising vote:

Resolved, That the thanks of this convention be tendered to Bishops
Soule and Andrew for the able and inspertial manner in which they
452
have perfor med the laborious and responsible duties of the chair dur-
ing the session of the convention. .

Whiteford Smith offered the following resolution, which was adopted
by a rising vote:

Resolved, That we devoutly acknowledge the superintending provi-
dence of God over this convention, and rejoice in the harmony which
has prevailed in all its deliberations and decisions.

T. N. Ralston offered the following, which was adopted.

Resolved, That in the judgment of this convention those societies and
stations on the border within the limits of conferences represented in
this convention, be constructively understood as adhering to the South
unless they see proper to take action on the subject, and in all such ca-
ses we consider the pastor of the station or society as the proper person
to preside in the meeting.

Dr. Smith offered the following, which was adopted :—

Resolved, That the pastorial address be printed, and that such border
charges or societies as may feel themselves called upon to make an elec-
tion between the Northern and Southern divisions of the church be
and are hereby requested to have the pastorial address of the convention
read before the society, or the several societies of the charge, before
voting on the subject.

After prayer by Rev. John Early, the members of the convention
joined i in singing that beautiful and appropriate hymn —

“ Our souls by love together knit”

The convention then adjourned sine die, with the benediction by Bish-

op Soule. _ e et %
FIRST GENERAL CONFERENCE.

OF THE

WESLEYAN METHODIST CONNECTION

OF AMERICA.

oer

[Rerortep By 9‘c, MATLACK.]

 

This body of Christians and Christian ministers met in Cleave land,.
Ohio, Wednesday, Oct. 3, 1844, at 10 o’clock, A. M. As:many were not
present, a temporary organization only was entered into. The meeting
was called to order by Edward Smith, and Luther Lee was appointed
President pro tem. Levi Woodsom was appointed Secretary pro tem.
The roll of the members was made out in part, and it was announced
that L, Lee would preach in the evéning. The meeting then, adjourned.

In tho afternoon the Confeyence Was. orgauized fuily, Orage Scott
was elected President, He however declined serving. After various.
éxpressiong of unwillingness, the Conference accepted his resignation..
Ona o d or third ballotting, Luther Lee was elected President.
Being he chair when the vote was announced, the president rose.
and remarked,

“Tt is not necessary to say, that Iam embarrassed by the announce-.
ment just made. If a speech, were necessary, Iam not now qualified
to make one. I can only’say, ‘that, looking to the Divine Being for aid, I
will endeavor to serve you to the best of my abilities. When. we shall

‘have appointed a secretary, the Conference will engage in religious ex~
ercises suited to the occasion, The Conference will now attend to the.
election of a secretary by ballot.” ;

At the first ballot, L, C, Matlack had the most votes for secretary, but
there wasno choice, He declined being a candidate for the office, anc
a second balloting resulted in the election of Robert McMurdy.

The President then called on Br. Boucher to read the Scriptures, Af-
ter singing, Br. Boucher and Cyrus Prindle united in prayer, A hearty
response was given to the supplications put forth, especially in repeating
the Lord’s Prayer. A holy glow of religious feeling pervaded the Con.

3
454

ference, which promises to guide the deliberations of this body toa
happy issue. When the Conference resumed its business, it was voted
that Lucius C. Matlack be appointed Conference reporter. Committees
were appointed on Revisals, Boundaries, Pastoral Address, Slavery, Tem-
perance,:Education, Missions, Peace, and on the Annual Conference
Journals, After announcing the meetings of various committees, the
Conference adjourned to meet at 8 o’clock, A. M.

The following names are on the committees.

On Revisals. — L. Lee, Vid. Smith, P. A. Ogden, 8S, Bebens, Wm. H.
Brewster, C. Prindle, Thos. Freeman, R. McMurdy,.L. C. Matlack, J.
Byington, George Swift, G. Pegler, '

Books and Periodicals. — L. C. Matlack, J. W. Walker, J. Boucher, V.
Meeker, J. Horton, L. King, A. R. Dempster, J. Watson, R. McMurdy,
Wm. P. Essler, H. McKee.

Boundaries. — R. Bennett, H. McKee, Thos, McKeever, S. H. Chace,
G. 8. Baker, O. Scott. ,

A Pastoral Address. — C.-Prindle, E. Smith, J. Boucher.

Slavery. — E. Smith, L. Lee, Wm. M. Sullivan.

Temperance. — Wm. H. Brewster, J. W. Walker, P. A. Ggden.

Missions. — L. Lee. L. Woodgen) R Brandriff, Wm. P. Essler, J. Hor-
ton, L, King,

Peace. —J, Walker, C. Woodruff, L. C. Matlack.

Itinerancy and Conference Records. —R. Gardiner, M. Har ‘a Wm. M.
Sullivan, H. McKee, L. Lee, O. Scott.

Religious Services. — Edward Smith, J. Horton, Wm. M. Kise ran.

Observance of the Sabbath, —S. H. Chace, J. Young, G. Swift.

 

Seconv Day. Tuurspay, Oct. 3.

The religious services were conducted by Wm. M. Sullivan, of Mich-
igan. The minutes of yesterday were read. Memorials were called for.

Levi Woodson presented a copy of the English Wesleyan Hymn
Buok, with a request from Thomas Marshall, of Pittsburgh, to select a
larger number of hymns therefrom, in case a second edition is ordered
to be published. .

P. A. Ogden presented one from a lay delegate, who was detained by
sickness. Jt requested changes in various items in the Discipline.

R. McMurdy, from the Miami Conference, read from the minutes of
that conference various matters for the | consideration of the General
Conference. i

Wm. M. Sullivan, for the Michigan Conference, presented memorials
on various matters pertaining to the administration of the Church,
455

Wm. H. Brewster, for the New England Conference, read various pro-
posed revisions, which were referred, as were the others, to a
committees. 7

J. Horton presented a memorial om J. N. Mars, a colored man, ask-
ing for an expression of the Conference on the appointment of colored
men to serve churches of white members. Referred to a special com-
mittee.

C. Prindle, from L, King, on alterations of the Discipline,— a resolu-
tion of the Champlain Canterenee on revisals. Referred.

J. Watson presented memorials — one from an unstationed minister,
on having unstationed preachers ordained by any two or three elders, in
special cases. .

The President supposed it might be called -forth by the action of the
New York Annual Conference, in declining to elect to orders some who
were not in attendance.

From the same — two memorial on secret oath-bound societies, in fa-
vor of prohibiting members from j joining such societies. Referred.

The President presented a memorial signed by 40 names, from Frank-
fort circuit, on the same subject. Referred.

J. M. Walker, for the Alleghany Conference, presented the action
thereof against secret oath-bound societies—in favor of a Western peri-
odical, and of fixing the time of admission to the ministry.

H. McKee presented one from Keesville, on admitting tothe Lord’s
Supper among us those who belong to pro-slavery churches, Referred
to a special committee. R. Bennett, J. Horton, M. Harker are the com-
mittee." *

Some discussion now occurred on the question, “Are the circuits and
stations entitled to as many lay delegates as they may recommend
brethern to the travelling ministry?” It was but of small interest.

Isaac Winans, some time a presiding elder of the M. E. Church, was
invited to an honorary seat in the Conference, by a unanimous, rising
vote. He thanked the Conference, and took a seat within the bar.
He is now the pastor ofan independent church. ,

Orange Scott, J. H. Vincentand E. Smith were appointed a com-
mittee on the memorial of J. N. Mars. AndR. Bennett, J. Horton and
M. Harker were the committee no, admitting members of proslavery
churches to the communion.

The subject of unstationéd preachers elicited an ariecrashin discus-
sion, on the subject of qualification for orders.

Edward Smith urged the importance of requiting the sane literary
qualifications.
456

©. Scott redid the following answer to a question from the Michigan
‘Conference, ‘on whatis valid ordination. “ The Wesleyan Discipline
requires that a brother to be ordained shall first be elected by an an-
nual conferérice, and be ordained by the president, or an elder appointed
for that purpose by the conference, assisted by one or more elders,
‘either atthe conference or during thé interval of conference: and any
‘deviation from this regulation we consider disorderly and improper ;
though ordinations otherwise performed may be valid, provided the per-
son be elected to orders by an annual conference.”

L. Woodsén thought it better to defer thé further consideration: of
‘this matter at presént, as the subject will be brought before us by the
Committee on Revisals. / ;

C. Prindle thought the answer of Br. Scott contrary to the facts, as
set forth in the Discipline.

Wm. H. Brewster read the amendment proposed by the New Eng-
Jand Annual Conferenéé, showing that the wholé niatter would be be-
fore the Committee on Revisals.

O. Scott thought that all questidns from the annual conferences
should be answered.

The President thought the answer proposed did not touch the ques-
tion. Other remarks were made, and the mover read an amended form
‘of the answer, which Br. Sullivan, of Michigan, thought would meet the
‘question,

S. G. Chase concurred in the sentiment.

J. Young thought so tod. He thought too much stress was Jaid on or-
‘dination, He regarded’ it as a mere acknowledgment of ministerial
character. It did not confer any thing on a person which he did not
inherently possess before. The opposite he regarded a Popish error, and
a prevalent error in the Christian Church. He would not go into the
‘argument, but tecommended indulgence on this quéstion.

R. Bennett inquired if matriage, performed by a’ preacher thus or-
dained, would be Valid according to the provisions of civil law, which
required that it be peforméd according to the “ order "of the several
churches?

J. Worton and D. Scott both remarked, tliat if this answer was adop-
ted, it would be expressive of our “order,” and his objection would be
obviated.

R. Benhet thought it did not meet the case, héwever.

The President made a brief observation, inquiring for the point im-
mediately under consideration.

He was followed by C. Prindle, who submitted that the remark of Br.

x
457

Bennett might not be apprehended clearly. It had reference not to a
was the form to be observed in ordination, but when is ordination val-
id? This is the point. He thought Br. Young’s apprehension of our
laying great stress upon ordination, es imparting any virtue to the candi-
date, was without foundation. He expressed himself quite undecided
on the importance of laying on of hands at all. s

After other remarks, Lewis Woodson made some very interesting
observations on the powerful influence of a correct standard of minis-
terial character. He thought a,fixed arrangement for ordination would
be of’ great advantage to the cause of true religion. The opposite wouiu
prepare the way for the admission of men unqualified for the min-
istry. ,

O. Scott read an amended form, which he humorously remarked, was,
he believed, the seventh amendment, and of course it must be now
nearly perfect.

L. C. Matlack recommended the adoption of the answer as inserted
above, leaving off the sentence closing the paragraph. Two reasons
were offered. First, the last sentence, viz,: “ Though ordination other-
wise performed may be valid, provided the person be elected to orders
by an annual conference,” is indefinite. It expresses no opinion, but
suggests a bare possibility. Second, if it is definite, it is really objec-
tionable. A growing spirit of laxity and indifference to proper distinc-
tion in the community is now too prevalent, especially respecting the
ministry. It should not bea common pasture ground, without enclosure.
In the answer, you propose to enclose the ministry, but the sentence ob-
jected to, was leaving down the bars of the fence, in his opinion.

The Président made some remarks on the question before the Confer-
ence.

Wm. M. Sullivan, called fora division of the question, leaving the part
objected to by Br. Matlack, to be voted on separately.

E. Smith thought that the enclosure was complete, and was better suit-
ed to the case than any thing we can-devise.

The question was then called for on the first part of the answer. It
was voted unanimously.

C. Prindle proposed a substitute for the latter part of the answer, to
wil: — “Hereafter, no ordination contrary to this order shall be regard-
ed as valid.”

Jt was, after discussion; wopted as an amendment, and then laid on
the table, leaving the answer adopted as suggested by Br. Matlack,

Other questions on the same subject were presented, and declared
fully answered by the minute just adopted.

On motion, adjourned. 40
458

The discussions have been characterized by much harmony of feels
ing. We anticipate unity aid expedition in the transaction of all our

business. Lc. Mw.

Tuirp Day. Frrpay, Oct. 4.
The Conferehce commenced as usual, with religious services. The
Minutes were read and corrected. Some discussion was called forth.
respecting the business first in order. George C. Baker was introduced
to the Conference, and admitted to an honorary seat in the body. This
Br. has been a member of the Erie Conference of the M. E. Chureb,
but is now pastor of an Independent Church. O. G. W. Bingham, the
delegate from the Western New York Annual Conference of the Meth-
odist Reformed Church, came forward on invitation of the President,
to nfake his official communication. He remarked —
“Tconfess that it is with feelings of diffidence and embarrassment, I
' occupy the position I do before you, on this subject. At the same time
it is with pleasure and feelings of much interest that I oceupy this posi-
Hon before you. lam aware that the circumstances around me, toucb-
ing the subject of my commurication to this body, involve questions of
great and imposing interest. It must be known, that on the subject of a
union of our body with the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, there is a
difference of opinion between us on the: principles of Chureh Govern-
ment only. We have availed ourselves of the privilege of appointing a
delegation to this body in order to acquaint you with the terms on which
we are reaciy to ‘unite with you. But what we communicate refers on-
ly to the Western New York Annual Conference. This subject was
brought before ts at our late session in Leon, Sept. 18, 1844. Our Con-
ference appointed two to investigate the subject. They found objections
to the Discipline, which Fshall mention duriug my remarks.
lt may be well to observe here, that at the time of the secession cf
the Protestant Methedists from the VW. I. Church, previous to the form-
ation of their Discipline, many of our members and ministers left us
znd joined them. They hoped that such principles would be settled
down upon in the final revision of their book of Discipline, as should
harmonize with our opinions. Instead of this they found themselves
farther off in-principle than they had thought or dreamed of. Many of
them Jeft and came back to us, Others backslid. Confusion and dis-
aster followed. And our people have lezrived a lesson. They feel
more cautious in making such moves. We cure desirous of being safe
in this matter, and securing to ourselves a Republican form of Church
Government, Our cause of grief was the existence and power of the
459

Episcopacy in the M. E. Church. And our objections to the Wesleyan
Discipline are on the ground of its apparent Episcopal features. + We
don’t say it really is Episcopal, but to us it seems to be so, This sub-
ject was discussed in ‘our Conference by Br. Brown, Br. Gale, and an-
other preacher of the Wesleyan Connection, who were delegated in
our Conference.”

The President inquired, “ By whose authority ‘were they appointed.”

The sgeaker replied, “ I cannot inform you, sir.”

President, “I believe they were sent’ by a quarterly Conference
merely.” ‘

The speaker proceeded, “That was the case Ibetieve, Iwill now
name the objections we have tothe Discipline of your Connection. We
object to the 8th article of the Elementary Principles. We think it as-
sumes a’ superiority of the ministry over the membership, as though
there was something inherently superior to other men, To the Articles
on Religion we have no. objection. The General Rules we approve.
The Constitution of the General Conference is agreeable to our minds.
To the Annual Conference we have an objection, which might be obvi-
ated by an explanation of the Discipline in this case. I think that our
plan is inconsistent with the dignified station of ministers, It will be
inquired what is meant by full connection? ‘What does it refer to?
‘The Church or the Conference?’ An explanation of this matter will
be satisfactory probably to all our people. To the Judiciary Rule, No.
10, we have an objection. It gives an elder in charge power to ‘arrest
an elder, prefer charges and preside over the committee whom he may
appoint, to try and suspend the -person charged with crime. And al-
though he may challenge any member of the committee, that commit-
tee may throw out his challenge and compel him to trial.” (Here several
introduced a few observations, showing that the actual operation of the
rule, as it was understood, would be less objectionable than he suppos-
ed. He expressed himself relieved by the explanations of the breth-
ren.) “The form to be observed at the Baptism of infants was object-
ed to, but not seriously. It seems to disallow of the baptism of the
children of unbelievers. I hope, however, that this and every other
difficulty will be removed by your revisions. We donot design to
bribe or induce you to come down to our notions, or in any way com-
promise your sentiments or principles. But we want to secure to our-
selves the privileges of a democratic and republican form of Church
Government. But I assure you of the fact that with this secured I am
in heart, hand and head, a Wesleyan.”

Br. Bingham closed with this remark ; and there followed a dialogue
betwéen him and others,
460.

Chase. How many ministers and members are there in your Confer-
ence ?

Bingham. I cannot inform you; though it was reported at our late
session.

Ogden. I never saw their Discipline. Have they a General Con-
ference ?

Bingham. They have, sir, both Annual and General Conferences ?

——. Do your people believe in baptizing infants of unbelieving

parents, or only those who are of regenerated persons ? :

Bingham. I cannot say what their belief is. :

Matlack. I thought you said they objected to our form of baptism,
because it recognized the children of believing parents only.

Bingham. I ought not to have said that. They were not opposed to it.

Other question. were introduced respecting the sentiment and prac-
tice of the Methodist Reform Church on Slavery and Temperance.

Said Br. Boucher, “ What istheir sentiment, and position onslavery ?

Jt was said they have no churches at the South.

E. Smith. “Br. Boucher and I are Southern men, and we know

 

what Southern pro-slavery is. It is bad enough in all cénscience ; but
I'am well satisfied that Northern pro-slavery is worse, a great deal.”

O. Scott was much pleased with the frankness of the brother in sta-
ting ‘his objections, but wished that he had: in all cases named the
ground of objection. He had not however, and ‘this made it necessary
to ask questions. Are the delegates to your General Con ferences
elected from among the members and ininisters indiscriminately, or is
the choice limited to a given proportion of both classes? To this Br.
Bingham said —

“T supposed you te be familiar with our economy, or T should have
been more explicit. Our people desire the Conferences to be purely
delegated bodies from the churches. They choose either laymen or
ministers.

O. Scott. Then a Conference might be composed of three-fourths
jaymen or three-fourths ministers. Would they then object to our
plan of equalizing the representation of both classes ?

Bingham. They dislike our own, plan and yours too, —but would not
object seriously to yours. :

Here Br. Brewster observed—“I have some interest in this matter
specially. Iattended one of their Conferences at Rehoboth. It was
composed of ministers entirely, I believe. I did not feel satisfied with
it; uor did they themselves. We talked over it until midnight.

The President. I attended one of their Conferences lately, A half

e

a
461

diy was spent in asking and answering questions. This peculiarity,
among others was talked of, I learned there, that the Conference
might be made up of all ministers or all laymen. Some, objected to us,
because we allowed laymen to be in our Conference by special provi-
sion. But this seemed to be admitted, that whatever is absolutely nec-
essary toan ecclesiastical body must be pr ovided for. We agreed
that as the ordination of ministers was the province of the ministry,
their presence in the Annual Conference was necessary, as laymen
could ot ordain. And therefore the certainty of a presence
should be provided for.

Bingham. Our usage is better than our Discipline. ,

President. No doubt of it

Bingham. But such a case has never occurred, as some have
supposed possible. Our ratio of representation is one for every twenty
members, Usually the minister is chosen und one or more laymen.

Br. Pillow rémarked that temperance was not always agreeable to
the opponents, of slavery. Some English brethern in New York city,
united with the Wesleyans on anti-slavery ground, but le(t us when they
knew what were our principles on the subject of temperance.

Matlack, “I would inquire if the Discipline of the Reformers makes
temperance ‘a test of church membership gt

Scott. “if they approve our General Rules, of course they would
then adopt our test it order to become united withus.”

Prindle — proposed. to refer the subjcet.of this communication to a
special committee,

Brewster thought it would be more appropriately placed in the haids
of the Committee on Revisals. This was agreed to, and tt was referred.

The Committee on a Buok Concern and Periodicals reported in fa-
yor of the following items. J. Securing the transfer ofthe True Wes-
leyan and Book Concern, now in the hands of Orange Scott, to the
General Conference of the Wesleyan Connection, 2. Establishing but
oue paper under the control of the Conference. 3. Selecting Cleave-
land, O., as the location of the paper and Book Concern, 4. Endeavor-
ring to raise $10,000 to invest as stock. 5. Giving the supervision of
the Concern to-a committee of 12: six of them tobe members of the
aunual conference within whose bounds it is located, and six laymen
from the immediate vicinity. ,

The report was accepted, and laid on the table, to be taken up to-
morrow. While it was under consideration, E. Smith remarked, “ We
will be better prepared to act after thinking the matter over out of Con-
ference awhile. And indeed J am informed that there will be a propo-

M
462

sition made from our Eastern brethren that will astound the Conference
and entirely derange this entire plan. There are to be important devel-
opmepts, brethren, I assure you candidly.”

Matlack. “Don’t alarm us now, Br. Smith!”

President. “You seem to try if you can’t scare us!”

Smith. “O no, brethren, I merely wish to let you know that the agi-
tations are not all originated in the West.”

These remarks were made in a manner which affected great serious-
ness, but were, in fact, mere pleasantry. For many of us knew the
matter referred to, which was far from heing the occasion of any un-
pleasant apprehensions. ;

Br. Horton made a remark respecting it, suggesting the probable top-
ic referred to.

“Let me tell Br. Horton,” said Smith, “that he can’t come within
fifty yards of it.”

To this Br. Matlack suggested that “It is rather poor compliment to
Br. Horton’s knowledge of what is going on around him, to say that he
don’t know of this wonderful affair that is to be developed from the
Fast.”

“ Well, the reason is, that he has been so long on the way, he may not
have heard the news by the last arrival,” said he; “and I am not sure
but that the affair will have a Northern rather that an Eastern origin.”
What the topic is will be made known during the discussion to-mor-
row,

The Committee on Revisals proceeded to make a report. Quite ae
interesting discussion was brought on respecting the unordained preach-
ers. The committee recommended that the electoral college be made
up in part of representatives to be appointed by the unstationed preach-
ers and ministers of the several circuits and stations. It now allows
only ministers or ordained men to have such representatives. |

To adopt the recommendation or retain the present provision, was
the ground of discussion. Some supposed all unordained preachers to
be laymen, and were therefore represerited by the lay delegation, and
eligible to’election as representatives of laymen. Others thought them
to be of the ministry, and not represented unless they had a voice in
selecting the representative from the unstationed ministry, and being
themselves eligible to election as delegates. The subject was finally
yecommitted, and after a few remarks on other matters, the Conference
adjourned. When the subject is again introduced, the discussion will
be fully reported. ,
463

Fourtu Day. Saturnay, Oct. 5.

After the usual services, and reading of the journal, the report, of the
book committee was taken up.

Br. Scott offered as a substitute, a more lengthy and detailed report,
which differed from the first in these particulars. It proposed that only
one paper besides the True Wesleyan be established by authority of the
General Conference, — and that one to be established West somewhere
to be called Tue Wesievan or tHe West. Its editor to be appointed
by the General Conference, if constitutional; provided that its financial
responsibilities be not assumed by us.

For the location of the general Concern, Boston, Mass., was recom-
mended, with depositories at Cincinnati, Pittsburg and Syracuse. The
committee having supervision of the Concern to be: the preachers sta-
tioned at Boston, Providence, Lowell, aud Duxbury, with as many lay-
men inthe vicinity. The editor and agent to be ex-officio members of
the Book Committee. Five, to constitute a quorum for ordinary busi-
ness; but in case of removal from office, a majority must be present
and vote for it. The stock often thousand dollars to be raised in shares
of $100 each, the interest of which is to be paid yearly in books at
wholesale prices or in cash, and the principal at farthest in eight years.

Br. Essler inquired,“ Why is that substitute introduced ?”

Br. Scott answerd, “Itis more particular and detailed.”

E. Smith thought neither explicit enough. But before determining
at all on these reports, we must decide two things. First: Will we
take the concern on our hands? Second: Shall it be located at Boston
or Cleveland? (“Orat New York,” said a brother.) “ Or at New York,”
responded Smith,

The first item of the substitute was adopted as an amendment; and a-
greed to unanimously, and this was, to secure the transfer of the whole
concern.

On inquiry as to the debts of the Concern, and its value, Br. Scott re-
marked, “Ishall transfer it free from all debt. The whole value of the
stock in books is about $1500.”

The second item, providing for but one church paper, was now taken
up, but on motion deferred to determing the question of location. This
was the third item, On this brother Scott made the following brief re-
marks: “Iam in favor of Boston for several reasons. First. The
communication between that city and Albany is direct and uninterrup-
ted during the year. But from New York city to Albany we are embar-
rassed by the freezing of the river. Second. The concern is now at
Boston, where rent is cheap ; commodious rooms in the very building
A64

now occupied may be obtained, and all expenses less than in New York.

‘Thwd.’ We have presses and types now in use, almost if not quite as
cheap as we could work our own, if we possessed them. And we are
not able now to buy them.

Fourth. Paper is from ten to twenty per cent. cheaper than any
where else. And finally the credit of the ,establishment is now fixed,
and whoever is appointed in charge, will find no difficulty to begin with,
in the business with paper makers and others. For these reasons, I am
in favor of Boston, as the most‘advantageous location, in our present
circumstances. a

E. Smith followed. ‘The liberal heart deviseth liberal things, and
by liberal things shall it stand.” I desire to be thus influenced and thus
sustained. To establish our concern, where it will become necessary
to remove it; should we increase rapidly during the next four years, is
not devising liberal things. And Iam persuaded that such will be ‘the
case if we select Cleveland. There can be no doubt, Mr. President,
that with the common blessing of Heaven, we shall swell our numbers
immensely during the ensuing four years. It will become necessary to
have two concerns under the control of the Church, to supply the wants
of our people. But in order to secure this success, we must avoid pla-
cing upon our Jacoh’s staff the compass of expediency to guide us in
or movements. We must make no compromise with sin. But follow-
ing the example of ancient Israel, prepare the way of the Lord by dig-
ging dowa the high hills, and leaving the valleys, thus casting up a high
way, on which we shall march straight forward in the path of duty.

“Now sir, if the middle of the Connection be selected as the loca-
tion, there it must remain in all time to come, or be the occasion of
great difficulty in future years. But if Boston be selected, we may in
four years, if desired, establish another concern in the West. I had
thought of a plan, which I may name now as well as at any other time.
My plan was, to get up two concerns at this Conference. An Eastern
and Western one, and let them run races. We would try to beat the
Yankees, if we can. (Br. Scott said, ‘You can if you will, Ihave no
doubt.) Tdon’t know about it. But we should try hard for it, any how.

“Tf, sir, the plan proposed is adopted, we could have branches jn sev-
eral places, to and from which conveyance would be easy: enough.
‘Say Boston, Pittsburgh, and Cincinnati. These would do pretty well,
{ think now. But I have one remark further. Cleveland is shut out
from some parts of the countty, three or four months in the year, in
consequence of the obstructions in the canals and lake. From Boston
you can reach Buffalo at all seasons of the year direct. And by New
465

York city, through Philadelphia via Pittsbutgh, you could reach the West
by the large teams, during the most unfavorable season of the year.
And this transportation is almost as cheap as canal freight. Some sea-
sons the Ohio river is open to Cincinnati nearly all the year, and indeed,
last year it was not closed more than a week.

“Iam not devoid of Conference pride. And when the first report
was made, I was up a little to think that the Allegheny Conference was
to be the centre of our operations. But the interest of the great work
is paramount with me, and I am in favor of Br. Scott’s report or sub-
stitute.

“ And now I will do what I never have done, and ask Br. Scott if {
have not made a better speech for Boston than he did.”

This was pleasantly answered in the affirmative. A question occupied
the President’s attention for a few moments, when, on the urgent re-
quest of several members, he was induced to take the floor, after calling
E. Smith to the chair. A few remarks were made by Lewis Woodson
complimentary of the Yankees, but questioning their ability to make
Boston the centre of business, however, they might desire it, as it
was notso naturally. But he gave way to hear the President’s re-
marks.

The President observed —“I came to this Conference with the fixed
determination to get along, if possible, without much debate or strife
on any question except compelled there to maintain a good conscience.
The question now before us is as Well calculated to elicit debate, as any .
one to be before us at this session. But I should not have felt myself
called upon to take any part in this discussion, had not my name been
mentioned with a request that I should say something upon it. I donot
propose, however, and shall not propose to engage in a struggle for vie-
tory. It would be useless. Though a man of some courage, Iam not
brave enough to spend my strength in a struggle, where the odds are
so fearful that success is hopeless. When West and East unite, what
can the centre gain by contending. The two extremes have combined
their strength to establish the paper and Book Concern in the East.
And for what? Is it because that location is best suited to the interests

-of the whole Church? No, sir! But that another paper and Book
Concern may be gotten up with less embarrassment in the West. And
a speech with this avowed design is applauded as the better speech in
favor of Boston! (Much pleasantry was expressed here.) Now sir,
with the East and West, thus at agreement, is there any encouragement
jor me to attempta speech on the subject. (‘Go on—go on — go
ahead, was heard from various quarters. And he continued his re-
marks thus —)

. ‘i
466 ‘

“TJ will notice what was urged by Br. Scott. He assumed first, that
living is cheaper in Boston than in New York. (‘I know it, said Br.
Scott.) He is a wiser man than | am, for I don’t know it. My opinion
is, that living i is higher. All vegetables are higher priced, and this is

true of all flesh! (Laugbter.) See we area nation of flesh eaters.
The greater facilities are also ur rged. Now although there isa railroad
from Albany to Boston, yet the travel is not in that direction from the
West, but to New York city. The Boston busitiess papers make this
complaint. For nine months the river is open to New York, and a rail-
road is now under way, which, when completed, will be a far better
mode of communication than Boston can possibly be. It was argued
that Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati may all be reached direct
from Boston ; but it will be borne in mind, that to get to these places
you must go through New York city. Every argument on this score is
then more in favor of New York than Boston, as itis nearer by two or
three hundred miles. (Here E. Smith said, ‘1 made no speech against
New York.) But these arguments were adduced in favor of Boston.
And this is the extreme of the East. The jumping-off place of New
England, unless you should move it down among the Cape Cod come-
outers.

Will this extreme location accommedate the centre? Now you may
be induced to believe it by smooth stories or any thing else, but itis not
so. Of all the religious papers published in New England; I know of
no one that circulates in N. York but the True Wesleyan. And if you
locate a paper in the extreme East and in the West, you cannot force
the circulation of either in the centre. (Br. Scott observed, “we circu-
late 1000 copies of the paper now in the centre of the work.”) That is
true; but its circulation is sustained there only with the confident expec-
tation that at this Conference it would be removed nearer the centre of
operations. But when you shall have said that the Concern shal] be
placed in the East in order to secure the establishment of another,
Weat, it will require more resolutions than you have there, to prevent
the getting up of another paper. New York is the great centre, by
nature. Papers from that city circulate freely in New England, but it is;
not true that New England papers circulate in New York. New York
can accommodate New England better than New England can accom-
modate New York. I hope you will not be made to believe it is best
now to remove East, by any soft- sayings about the next four years. This
is only a bait held out, a faint glimmering of hope of something better.

Lam tired of being urged to act “just this once more.” If ever the
Concern should “be moved, let it be moved now! Jhaye thrown out

. *
467

these brief hints. Ihave nothing more to say. I shall not vote, or pro
test, or complain, or threaten. But I wish to say and do, only in view
of a sense of duty to myself, to God, and the world.

Wm. H. Brewster acknowledged himself to be prejudiced in favor of
New England. But his feelings had been expressed by Br. Lee, in ref-
erence to disposition and motives, He had opinions peculiar to himself,
respecting a Book Concern. But‘as we have voted to have one, Jam
persuaded that New York is the best place, and J shall vote for New
York city. (Br. Scott responded from his place,“So will I,” and Br.
Matlack also.) And after expressing a renewed ussurance of its superi+
ority, he was followed by E. Smith. “My arguments, sir, were just as
good for New Yorkas Boston. And I would just as leave have it in New
York, and as the black man said, ‘a little leave-er too !”—(Laughter.)
After speaking of it as the centre,—

Lewis Woodson observed, that it is in a commercial point of view
truly so.

Others were disposed to think differently, and Judge McKeever.verv

, pleasantly remarked, ‘the brethren don’t seem to have their centre im
the middle | ”

- Br. Smith closed by expressing himself cleanly and decidely in favor
of New York city, with the prospect of another yet, in the West.

“QO yes,” said Br. Scott, “in four years’ time.”

“It may be,” said Smith, “that we will before that. But just go on
now with this for the present.”

'C. Prindle declared he had little choice between Boston and New
York. He was satisfied that even with the river frozen up, we could
reach Albany direct trom N. York, by Bridgeport, L, L, and the Hous-
atonic rail road.

J. Horton, “ I wish to saya worll or two. I ama Yankee, full blood-
el. (Any body would guess so to look at you, said Br, Prindle, pleas-
antly.) I possess strong local feelings, andthis may perhaps be a weak-
tess. But I am uot prepared to admit that Boston is that little, inferior
place, some are disposed to make it out. If we have regard to its loca-
tion on the sea board, it is the centre‘in fact. And in addition to what
“has been said by Br. Scott of its advantages, I would suggest, that we
have just entered upon the extensive territory of Maine, which presenis
a promising field for Wesleyanism. We are also in connection with,
the Weslyaps on the other side of the water, by means of steam navi-
gation. We receive European news sooner than any other city. For
we have got ahead of you in that, and we intend to keep ahead toc. | It
tay be well for me to say that I never heard of the new plan until Br.
A68

Scott read |t this morning. It came upon me as the first aznouncement
of our movement did on Br. Smith,— Like a clap of thunder in a clewi
day. Now among the reasons in favor of Boston is this: that Br. Scott
has had the experience of two years in the city, and knows it to be
adapted to the best interests of the Connection. And I will put Orange
Scott’s experience in matters of business, against any man East or
West. Besides, we have a constant line of travel from Albany to Bos-
ton. Many Western men come there to do business. They are con-
atantly increasing in number. The cars are coming in filled with trav-
ellers daily. A railroad is in process of erection between Boston and
Verinont, that will bring the Champlain Conference immediately in con-
nection with Boston. It is the Fitchburg railroad. The business of
printing cannot be done better than we have it done in Boston. Our
printer is a most.excellent man with the press and types. I will put,
him against any other inthe nation. [P. S.— Mr. Printer,—I will record

here my testimony, that you manage my MS. to my entire satisfaction.

‘Thank you. L. Cc. M.]

* New England, sir, is to America what Scotland is to Europe. We
ave surrounded by iron walls of prejudice, that we must break down
ere we triumph. Standing as we do in the Thermopyle of the work,
with the icebergs of prejudice around us, we ask for the instrument by
which,we may overcome and prosper. With the great strength now
possessed by the centre, and the acknowledged ability of their men, we
have no fear of their success! (Much good humor manifest.) But, sir,

‘the healthful condition of the body requires that the circulation be pro-
pelled to the remotest extremity.” (“Is not that the reason we find the
heart placed near the centre,” asked the President, witha lurking smile

in his countenance. The hit was so palpable as to excite a good deal
re

of pleasantry.)

Q. Scott again rose and said, “I came to the Conference opposed to
the removal of the concern, Hearing two Bock Concerns talked of, and
believing we could not sustain them, I was in favor of removing the
one to a central position, But on thinking it over, I changed my mind.
My remarks in favor of Boston, would apply to New York, with a few
exceptions. And those might be obviated. (After inquiring of Lee
aud Smith respecting the price paid by them for their printing, he said
that the work might be done as cheap possibly, in New York as in Bos-

' ton.) But Ishall vote for Boston first, and then for New York.”

Br. Scott spoke of its being new to him. Ican ouly say that I went
to bed thinking of the subject last night. J awoke this morning at three
o'clock, and this:plen was in my mind. I rose, lit my lamp and wrote
469

it out, lest something should escape my mind, and then retired
to rest again. Now, althougha Yankee, and prejudiced in fayor of New
England Wesleyanism, I esteem as highly. the Wesleyanism. of the
West, With other remarks he closed. :

Br. Chace, of Ohio, would agree to vote for New York. This would
harmonize all.and accon:modate the West, perhaps to their satisfaction.

Lewis Woodson said, “ When speaking of the centre, political econo-
mists do not refer to the surface or geography of the earth merely, But
to the population, money, influence, &c,— that seeks a centre, peculiar
to itself We are much indebted to the Yankees, 1 know. They teach
us some excellent lessons, and we thank them. They shaw us how ta
take care of the fip-penny-bits, and pennies too. But a Southerner
hardly knows what a penny is. I seldom saw one, till I came North.
If in trading you should offera Southern gentleman a penny or pennies
in change, many of therm would feel insulted.” (The speaker was once

a slave.) oon

After ‘speaking of the agréeable circumsténces under which he’ could
travel in the ‘West, he remarked, “but when I atrive at New York, if f
.ask the captain of a Boston boat, Sir, where shall I be accommodated
on the way,’ he will tell me, “You miust stay upen deck all night, and
when we take the cars, you must ‘go in the ‘Jim’ Crow!’ But, sir, while
Tama man, I will never go to any city that’ requires of me such degra-
dation asa monition of éntrance there. No, | sir, much as I wish to see
Boston with its jnteresting Localities, and ‘although in the city of New
York as I have been, I will not disgrace myself” by utidergoing the pro-
cees required. (( General approbation, ) My dear Br. Horton told us
about Maine, with ‘its extent of territory. Yes, sir, the province of
Maine, with its forésts of pitie wood and wide expaiise of sandy plains! |

:(Laughter.) But where are the people, the money, the’ business, that
would entitle it to a rivalship With the West, or constitute Boston the
centre of business.? Iti is very true that when we want spars, masts or
heavy timber, we go to Maine. But who would think -of going there
to ascertain what is the centre of" business operations ?”

J. Horton was not willing that Boston and New England should have
such a bad name. ’ “The Br. speaks of prejudices in New England.
against his race and people. That is why we wish the ‘paper, so as to
battle effectually with it, But I referred ‘to denominational prejudices.
However, we havé no more of prejudice against his people than New
York. Massachusetts passed a law forbidding such distinctions, in the
public conveyances. I believe New York has not, nor yet Ohio. (‘We
do not need it here. They allow us equal privileges, said Woodson..

41
Arn

“Besides, the necessity fur a law shows how strony and inveterate is thé
prejudice in’ Massachusetts.) It was submitted by the President, that
this discussion was’ not strictly-in order, though bllowed thus far. |. |
J. Horton desired, however, to throw off the aspersions. cast upott
New Engldnd. ‘ He would ‘not feel: himself worthy of the name of a
New Englander if he sat silent. “We-have’ now'the Jéad in moral and
religious influence. That supremacy-ave intent to sustain. ) 4-1 of
‘'L. Woodson: “I meant no aspersion. I-would not be guilty of it.
My'temarks were rather a joke than sober charge of wrong and outrage.”
E:'Simith. “I wish to be rid of all ‘sectional ‘feeling, and take - the
motto of Garrison— sO ey 1

‘My country i is the wide, wide world,

SO ya9e8 tae 0

My countiyrhen det ty

 

 

The. question was Toudly called for. ‘ The vote was taken, and EW
Yor« Crry was selected as the location of our Church paper and Book
Concern, by an almost unanjmous Vote.. The clause limiting it * for ‘the:
next four years” was ‘then stricken out, and New Xen made the per
mngnent logality, .: 4), ,

_ The itera providing, for ¢ one » Chur ch ‘paper beside, the. ‘True Wesleyan
was, taken up. It was moved to recommit.

J. Horton favored immediate action,

_ Br. MceMurdy; of Ohio, wished time to confer with Western brethren ”

Bry Chace, also ‘thought. more, time needed, LN

Br. Woodson spoke of, Pittsburgl’s advantages, and. referred to its
great t trade i in iron, ( Laughiay-) ; “And also expressed | his fleep i interest
and sympathy with the colored | people, of the country. ‘He thought
thejr well being identified with the publication ‘of a paper West, now
that the. True Wesleyan i is located J in the East. %

C. Prindle thought that according to Br, Woodson’ 's pe evious remar ks,
New. York should. be called the centre, ‘anit’ not the East.

Br. Young thought that in view of, the reasons alleged for placing ivi in
New York, which hhave been endorsed, by the action of the, Conference,
it.is now too, late to, consider the question, | of having a more Western
paper, Weare too weak to bear the burden of two papers,, ‘Our Yan-,
kee. friends are not apt to ‘do that thing, oT hey count as they go. So
should we.. The report | is as, good as, it can, be. We, need, not recommnit,
it. Your discussion ‘about whether you would establish your paper at
the East end or West end, or in the middle, reminded me of a,contro-
versy at the table about the best way to break an egg shell. Some e were
for breaking it at one end and. some for the other, but for my, ‘part it”
makes little difference w hethier ‘the e egg is broken at the end or in the

ROA EW RS a ie

 
AT1

middle, so that I.get the contents. (Laughter.) That is my mind about
the paper and Book Concern. be uinetbry Poa re

“O, Scott ‘said, “If the: design of referring it isto secure a paper on in-
dividual responsibility under the patronage of the General Conference, it
is unnecessury:! For that isnow secired. ‘And if at is designed. to rec-
ommend our assuming the responsibility, I am cpposed to.it, and so. are
-many others dolibtless, 0 a oe leva bY

Br. Pegler favored it only: to-fucilitate buisness. Now we have two re
ports, — the original and the substitute. Refer both and return the one
agreed upon by the Committee. © - :- - pad Gt

E. Smith moved its recommittal aad ‘ie addition of O. Scott to ethe
‘Committee. Voted. ruin oa He ewe : .

‘Gomuuhitte on Revisals reported... ‘The electoral callege is to be com-
posed as heretofore, with the addition of a proviso: “That when there
4s but one unstationed minister on a-eitcuit or station, he shall bea meni-
ber of the cdllege of electors” «All ustationed ministers are to be hon-
orary inembers of the annual conference, and if engaged in the pasto-
val Work, as 6pecified inthe unstter to Ques. 3, Sec. ix., may be: received
into full connection in the conférence...» «,

‘This was under discussion when the Caniusites adjourned, to meet
at 9-o’elock: Monday mornings, This is ome hour Jater thaw. usual, m
view of the absence of several; brethren frqm the city during the Sab-
en not return until alter, eight, o’elack. Monday.

,

“the exercises of the ‘Sabbath ' were deeply intéresting. We had a
prayer: -meetitig at half past 5 @elock, A.M.” At 8 o'clock, Br. Essler,
of Michigan, aeaee. on —* Thisi is my beloved, and this is my friend.”

By. Lee preached at 100 "clock, from— *T am tot ashamed of the
“gospel of Christ. ” In the’ afternoon, Br. Horton preached on faith,
from —_“ Faith without works is dead.” are at 7 P. M., Edward &mith
‘preached on Preparing the Lord’s way” His illustritions were most
‘forcible and convincing , especially when seicinng the mountain obstu-
cles to be removed, ee
, ‘Beside these services in the Weslevan chapel, Br. Lee preached for
the Baptists at two °° ‘clock, ‘P.M. At the Bethel church, Br. Brewster
preached at ten A. M, and Br, Pegler at two P.M. Br. Scott spent the
Sabbath and’ ‘preached | ‘at Chagrin Falls, about sixteen miles ‘distant,
Other appointments also. were supplied by our brethren, out of the city.

We have public service in our Chapel every evening. The congrega-
tions are very good, and very attentive. , oe Fe

This evening we ‘tae an abolition meeting to be addressed by Br.

‘Smith, and perhaps others. —“s
AT2

idee Firta Day. Monpar, Oct. 7.
Commenced with religious exercises at nine 9? clock. !
Report on Revisals again i apieoiaged the subject of unstationed min-
isters. %

Lewis Woodson proposed that they have a vote in iia election of all
persons to elder’s orders, :

Br. Scott inquired, “Is any thing contemplated but election to orders,
or does it propose to give them a vote on ‘receiving. men into the sta-
tioned ministry ?”

‘Woodson. “TI do not see the distinction now.”

President gave a word of explanation.

Chace thought it not in order, nor of sufficient importance if in order.

Lewis Woodson thought it was of importance, and indeed it was ;
he thought it most essential to the interests of the ministry.

O. Scott. “If we agree to allow them to vote in some cases, they
could with pertinency ask,— * Whyiniay we not vote on all questions ?”
Though all know that Iam not opposed even to that, as all will reeol-
Ject who heard my remarksat Utica. But it seems to me better to leave
it without exceptions or qualifications.”

E. Smith remarked at some lengeth on the relation of unstationed min-
isters. Objections were urged by him to the amendment because it
proposes to give every question respecting the ministry into the hands
of the unstationed ministers. This would give the appointment of pas-
tors, not to the people’s representatives and the pastors, but tp those
who have no common sympathies with either. But Iam in favor of
allowing them to. vote on the admission of persons to ‘the ministry, or
to elder’s orders, which i is the same thing,

L. Woodson said, “Of course Iam interested, and so are others iis
have spoken with me on this subjact. I desire it, in order to unite the
opposite parties. Though we ought not to have parties, Indeed, I do
not think we have any ministers who have no common sympathies with
pastors and people.”

Judge McKeever. “What is the relation of those ministers who
perform half pastoral, labor? ? Do they come up as members of the Con-
ference, independent of the stationing committee ?”

President explained that their arran gement wit the church or chureh-
es they serve, would not be deranged by the stationing committee.

Br. Boucher. “ Did I undersand the Chair to say that the Conference
had power to put such a man to another station ?”

The President made some explanatory remarks,

E. Smith. “ The annual Confexence is not compelled t tg receive any
473

man: -but if they do, they approve the arrangemant, So that the sta-
Jioning conrmittee don’t have’ him in theirhands, as he’ was stationed
hy the. Conference when they received him.”

The: ¥6te was: taken, and the amendment of Br. Woodson was lost.
. "Lyndon -King, objected to: the’ phrase about’ dtivading the limits of
stationed ministers, or any charge anees oe He moved to strike
out. Motionlost;- (' 5 + 3 ee

Voted, to adoptthe item as reported, °° ': !

. President remarked on the necessity of despatelrs He thought busi-
ness must remain unfinished unless we are 1nore expeditious. He gave
various advicés\appropriate: to the better performance of our business.

I.. Cs Matlack, moved that the Conference fix on Thursday, 10th inst.,
‘ras-the time of final adjoumment. neg) 6 Pe
“QO, Scatt sugeested ‘Tuesday, 15th inst. ‘But it'was withdrawn after
some conversation. Be ce
Br. Pillow! indved the uppointme nt of a’committee on the expense
of delegates. Wm. H. Pillow, J.‘ Hortou and Br. Fritcher were ap-
cpointeds: >) a gh ae a

Br. Horton inquired if the committee’ were authorized te draw upon

€

any fund ? os : ae ey

“Yes; said Br. Smith, “if you can find any.” ° 4

* You may claim all the funds'you can get hold aehanestiy said the
President... .. so ie age ate a
' Committee'on Revisals reported farther, various items of ordinary in-
terost. It was proposed among other things, to'specify ‘onee a quarter,
“rdspeeting the duty of preachers visiting the classes. It was not adop-
ted, as we would not tolerate such a limited attention to class-meetirigs,
on the part of preachers. a 3 a

» Eligibility to orders was reported’ to be preaching three years, and
passing a satisfactory examination on'the course'of study. This applies
to stationed and unstatianed ministers. Jt was unanimouly «adopted.

ae JFhe President. presented a petition, praying for action on the ques-

«tion ef allowing our people being attached to secret oath-bound societies
Tt was from the Orleans circuit, N. Y. Conference, signed by 39 persons

-» "The committee on admitting to our communion tables members of
pro-slavery churches, reported through their chairman, Br. Horton.
After. presenting the views of the committee, the report closed with
the folowing ‘resolution : —

..Resalved, That. while we are if possible more than ever convinced of
the rightfilness of our position as a Connection, in adopting and main.
juining the principle of non-fellowship with skvehalders, and while we

© x
474

admit that there are many professed Christians go pro-slavery in charac-
ter that, they ought not to be, admitted to fellowship in our churches,
nevertheless, we regard it as a matter which requires no further legislative
action than. that which isalready provided for ia our excellent Discipline.

On this E. Smith observed, “1 am prepared to vote for the report. But
there is one point that is not introduced there, of some importance to
the issue. Can Wesleyans consistently receive the sacrament ina pro-
slavery church? That is the point. We have left pro-slavery churches
because we cannot fellowship them. Now ifwe go back and take
from them the sacrament, we tender the ‘most emphatic expression of
our Christian fellowship. It iselearly a departure from the fundamen-
tal principal of our organization. This suggests a nice question, however.
If it is wrong to fellowship a pro-slavery church thus ourselves, can it
be right to fellowship any who do this wrong act, by receiving them to
ourcommunion table? I take the ground that ifa Wesleyan Methodist
fellowships a pro-slavery. church thus, he ought to be disciplined.
And yet itis right to admit members of a pro-slavery chureh to our
communion, This may appear to be contradictory.. Buta few remarks
will present my reasons for this sentiment.

There is a principle involved in the qualification for admission to the
communion table in the various denominations, that they, and- perhaps
some of us overlook, A fitness for the communion in Charleston, S.C.
givesa right to it any where throughout the country, in the same denom-
ination, Hence, if I fellowship a pro-slavery church by communing
with them, I fellowship all who commune there. J recognize the Chris-
tian character of that ehureh, and its authority asa churchofGod. This
is decidedly wrong, But ifan individual comes to us to receive the
sacrament, we only fellowship him as an individual Christian, That
person fellowships our whole Chureh, We fellowship him alone. I
believe it to be a fixed prineiple af Wesleyanism not to commune with
pro-slavery churches,”

Br. Essler, of Michigan, desired to make a bricf'remark. He was un-
willing to be indentified with the sentiments of the last speaker, or in
any way endorse the lastremark he had made,

The President remarked that “no brother on this floor is responsible
for Br. Smith’s speech. ”

“Yet,’’ continued By. Hassler, “ if there isa repcrter here for other
papers, that last remark will be set forth as the undisputed sentiment of
Wesleyans respecting other churches, unless disclaimed by us. Now]
do not believe it,” (“Amen!” said Br. Brewster. }

The resolution and report were adopted,

‘
AT5

C. Prindle presented a preamble and resolutions in favor of dividing
the Wesleyan Connection inte an Eastcrn and Western General Con-
ference. ‘The question to be submitted to the various annual Conference
hereafter. He sustained his proposition by saying, —“The sentiments
here expressed, are ‘the lronest, sober convictions of my mind, that I
hnve cherished for at least nine years past. I firmly believe their truth
ao be unquestionable. And the advocacy of these: sentiments while a
member of the M. FE. Church, secured to me more dis-favor than all
other causes combined. :

“They are not opinions which I have adopted hastily, nor from any
impulse or influence realized since our organization. The preamble
‘simply expresses my-sentiments as nearly as they can be ina few words.
§ have several reasons for my desire for a division. First the supervie-
ion of so vast a territory is inconvenient and really difficult. Our peo-
ple are dispersed over an arca 2000 miles.in extent. The distance to
travel, the time occupied, and the expense incurred, all unite to prevent
the attendance of many who are appointed to this General Conference.
The same difficulty -will be realized in all time to come, especially
nmong the laymen, who will not consent to neglect their business for so
long atime. And this will prevent the developement of an important
principle. in our organization.

“There is every rcason to believe that the West will have the prepon-
derance soon, if they have it not now.. And many of us will be going
that way this ycar, and others talk of it'next year. [ Amen. Come on,”
said Br. Chase, of Ohio.} And we think the present the best time to
divide. We are now in perfect harmony. We meet, and shall part in
peace. No expulsive influence is felt; no sectional feelings divide us ;
and if-realized, it will be merely a matter of convenience. And FE be-
lieve we would secure greater cfliciency by being two Conferences in-
stead of one. J think the same principle which is true in temporal con-
cerns will hold good in ecclesiastical matters. It is this: when a man’s
business extends itself beyond his control or supervision, he is embar-
rassed, and on the verge of bankruptcy.

“Finally, I believe there was nothing in the pure ages of the Church
that was anything like our organization, as to extent of territory em-
braced. Other remarks will be given when it is called up for further
deliberation. For the present I close.”

His proposition was for the present laid on the table. ,

It was voted to request Br. E. Smith to prepare his tract, “ The bible
against Slavery,” for publication by the Book Concern.

Br. McMurdy suggested the propriety of giving historical data for
his historical statements, ‘
A76

Br. Smith remirked, that his first edition “ was written on board.stéam-
boats;.and away from my library. If another edition is desired,4 will

‘do as I intended. to do some of these days: i. e., append notes to the
pamphlet, giving authorities for all. my statements.”: ,

- On motion of C. Prindle, it was voted, that at the opening of the ses-

‘sion this:afternoon, the presidents of' the conferences were requested to

give a,statement of the work in their respective conferences, igh ais
. Adjourned. oie oi Rae i
AFTERNOON SESSION. a
. The first business after the opening was, to hear: from the different -

-conferences.; The statements were of lively'interest, and showed a re-

. markable increase in numbers; strength, and influence for good. I ape

the following brief of the brethren’s remarks.
Mlegheny Conference. E, Smith. This conference has doubled -its

“ainembership ‘and stationed this year 45 preachers. The: membership

numbers 2300. \ a me
‘Miami Conference. P. A. Ogden, In 1843 this conference numbered
500 in the membership. This year it reports 2400: hagang aitone: haat
quadrupled im one year. It stationed 42 preachers.« :
. Michigan Conference., Wm. Mi Sullivan. [The President - pabdine ‘ab-
set.] This conference was organized in 1841, previous to the Eastern
secession, and united with the Wesleyans at Utica. It stations 22
preachers. The membership is 1300,. « “ ; ‘
New England Conference. J. Horton, There-are 36 preachers sta-

tioned, and 2400 members on the various circuits and stations.

Champlain Conference.. C. Prindle. In‘1843: they had 1000, now 2500
members. Within a few months, more than 300 were added -by con-
version,

New York Conference. L. Lee. At the first session of this conference,
four months since, the membership was 3500. | They have 60 stationed .
preachers. :

Including preachers, stationed and unstationed, supposing their nuni-
bers equal, the Connection is in all 15,000 members.

The proposition of Br. Prindle was now taken up for’ consideration.
He read it, specifying the proposed division line as a “blank” yet to Le
filled. ma : : ; ‘

Br. Scott hoped it would all become a blank‘by the action of this con-
ference, and then. proceeded to oppose it for various reasons. Among
them was, the chilling influence upon the Connection.’ He would’ pre-
fer that two entire annual conferences should be annihilated. It would
be a smaller loss, and less injurious. The prejudices of our members
477

are all in favor of a united communication. The proposition only show-
ed the liability of the best minds and noblest hearts to run jato extremes.
It opposes large organizations. But we are small. It deprecates a de-
velopment of power and undue’influence. Well, when we have tried
it four years, we will see if a ‘little horn, or any thing like Episcopacy
showes itself, and put it down. Or if we deem it convenient to divide,
we will be able to start two organizations, as strong as the one is now,
if not stronger. Now, a division will make it necessary to have a double
expense incurred on every score, , Br. Scott regretted his absence when
it was introduced, as he did not hear, and did not know the reasons for
proposing it, “ But,” said he, “the embarrassment in the way of assem-
bling from a distance ¢annot be a reasen ; for in five days we can reach
acentral point from the extremities of the nation. And if we are able
to reach here now, paying our own.,expenses, we can more easily ac-
complish it when our people become able to pay our expenses for us.
The plan is essentiully Congregational. If we adopt this, we may 2s
well go for Congregationalism throughout, and every man take care of
himself, preach. the gospel, and get to heaven on his own hook,

Br. Essler suggested that the mover be. kindly requested to withdraw.
But Br. Prindle. would not yield “ even to so polite an invitation,” he
said, ‘

Br. Brewster. “1 have.some remarkes to offer,and I embrace this
opportunity, for I may nat get another. I do not see the evil of division.
The plan for a division is mercly prospective ; and I am in favor of it,
if it was immediate. I want this conference to say just that to all around
and to say itnow. It won’t harm us to say so,” He thought it would
prevent a result to which all. denominations arrive, that is, a quarrel and
violent rupture. The absence of the. laymen — the. ‘clerical character
of the Conference necessarily — Eastern and Western peculiarities or
prejudices were refered to as arguments against the union of so vast an
extent of territory. He ¢losed with declaring he should be extremely
happy if the pian should be adopted, but remarkeu pleasantly, “1 don’t
believe it will however. (Laughter.) But it may by and hy be more
favored.”

I. Smith said he had been trying to form an enlightened opinion,
since in private conversation he first heard of theiy plan, But be waa
as the black yuan said, “ A kind, o’ sorter and nota kind o’ sorter,” in
its favor. (Chace.., “I hope you are more not a kind o’ sorter.”) And
Iam more convinced than not convinced. He proceeded to disclaiin
the influence for evil that some feared and dwelt upon the wants of the
West, and their ability to have another paper and Book Concern, ond
478

sustalu'the one at Néw York too. The competition would occasion &
healthful rivalship.’ He Henpertr was nat strenuous, and ‘le a little
on both sides, : : “
' Br. Chace, of Ohio, rembnstrated warmly against the ‘thought of sep-
arating, even for convenience. He ‘should regret it exceedingly, if agredd
upon. For we should: “then no loriger be’ identified as oné: band of
brethren. : Wa a a
€. Prindle advocated the plan “less with the hepe of suecess “than
with a design to bring the subject before your minds ‘for consideration.”
' Having reported his remarks at: ee when cg it, I shall pass
them briefly here.

Judge McKeever argued that the itinerent- amd missionary ’ character
of our Church — of Methodism — would be seriously impaired by rec-
ognizing the’ principle of that plan, It was essentially Congregational-
ism. This he argued with ability. Be Ai Se Ea Se

J. Horton deprecated the consequences of ‘limiting either seotion to 4
part of the country. He showed tlie relation of our contemplated Book
Concern to the Church — its inability-to harm her'interests—and the
real advantages of unian ; ey in view of: ‘the influences combin-
ed against us, ‘ ee oes ‘ fe

Br. Boucher urged the importance of union in sustaining thei itinerant
features of the'Conneetion. He dreaded separation. _ :

H. McKee opposed division, “We have not yet fairly, defined our
position, And ere we finish our Book of Discipline, shall -we separ-
ate? T hope not, We have a great union against'us. We should/main-
tain the strength of union on our side also.” + -- Po thy wah ET

Lewis Woodson ‘opposed the plan. Speaking of the power of the
M. E. Church, whose whole influence is against us he-said, “A presi-
ding ‘elder once said to me,If we go against the ‘elevation of your peo-
plein this country, it cannot be accomplished. ‘Do you know our pow-
er? “No sir, I said, ‘ Well,’ said he, “from the Bishop’s ‘chamber in
New York, we can 'touch the head of every ‘Methodist‘in the nation.
- through presiding elders, preachers and class-leaders, all of whom are
ina direct line connected with the Bishops by the appointing’ power.
Do you see our power » said he. ‘I saw it and really trembled’” The
necessity of union wae then urged mostardently, and the desire express-
ed. that we yet might meet in one General Conference in old Kentucky
or Virginia, and bear the glad shouts of the ransomed blacks, who even
‘now know the names of Scott, Prindle; and others as their faithful
‘friends, es gm ie

Br. Swift, of Michigan, remonstrated with much feeling and cffort
A479
agaihst séparation. ; He told the deep thrijling interest which causetl
thejr hearts to bound within them, when in Michigan they heard: of
Wesleyanism int the East. And they would not consent'toa separ ation
on any consideration. But I have no fear, it cannot preyaih i

A general desire was expressed to hear the President, wht yielded
reluctantly to take the floor, , He xemarked —
ff Did J believe sit was possible that the, ,proposition should prevail, all
reluctance would be removed, and I should speak — and speak forth the
contents of my head and heart and soul! It:has been argued that its in-
fluence would,be dangerous, from the, history of other great organiza:
tions. .Butthey were carried, ¢ jen pnder diffetent circumstances, and con-
wolled by other influences... Clerical authority was supreme. With us
laymen may. control,, _ The: allusinn, to the early church goes as much
against Annual Conferences as the union of this. General. Conference.
‘Qne feared the influence of the Book Concern. But the example he
cited was a case ‘where the establishment was in the hands of ministers
under the control of,a concentration of Bpiscopal, power. It is alto-
gether different under the new dispensation Br. Prindle said that two
could be set up as easly as one. ( Prindle. 1 said that two could be
sustained. . Br. Smith ,said two could be, sustained as easy as one. I
didy’t know but. it could. ) Thank you. Then, I have you boih. ( Smith:
I don’t know that I said that exactly. 1 saitl we could get more for two
than one.) . Very wel). Ejther way will help my argument. Let us
hold together and have hoth!

“ As to the laity who are not here, Tain. soivy for their absence. But
let,me, assure, this Conference, that if they had thought such a plan
would be proppsetl. here, they ¥ would have been presenttoaman. From
the cold borders of the lakes, and all along ihe eastern extreinities of
New England, they would have come leaping from every rocky cliff, to
remonstrate and vote against division. x

_After other remarks, | the President closed by saying, « The eyes of the
slave. and, the: slave’s friends are upon us. Our union is their only hope.
They contemplate it as the star of hope. Blot it out, and the wail of
their poor broken hearts will come up from all the land of oppression,
in reproachful accents, saluting our ears. 2

The vote was now taken, and 3 voted i in favor of Br. Prindie’s ‘prop-
‘osition and 32 against it, So we are one and invisible. ,

After this the Conference adjourned:
480

SIXTH DAY. Turspay, Oct. 8.

The Conférence ‘opened as ruaus ‘The minutes were read and
amended. y

The President explained about a decision respecting Br. Young. He
supposed he had injured his feelings, through misapprehension.

Br. Young disclaimed any such feeling, and complimented the Con-
ference on their generosity and: epee fcenng ‘towards the laymen’ gener-
ally. a iB

‘Comiiiittee on Books and Periodicals continued their report: embra-
cing, among other items, the per centage on books — appointment of
one editor and agent — the committee of the Concern to be: the preach~
ers stationed at New York, Philadelphia, Albany, and Troy, two unsta-
tioned ministers at New York, and an equal tiumber of layrnen inthe:
city of New York —the editor and’ agent to be members — seven con-
stituting a quor es -the J uvenile’ Wesleyan to be resumed pees, next,
if encouraged. 7 he Sale e

This was largely discussed, atid many things’ were said ‘in its favor:
And it was voted to' tesuine it'as sdoh as peHnEle after the General Con-
ference.

O. Scott presented a motion: te appoint’ a committee to secure the
transfer of the paper and Book Concern, and also apport an editor and
an agent for the Concern. ;

They were appointed by nomination at lar ge, and’ election viva Voce.
They are the following. J. Horton, Wm. Blakeniore, oe Mt eet
Seth Sprague, Jr., Leonard Huntress.) | :

They now bineeiled to elect a Book Agent. ‘On the first balloting,
it was ascertained that thirty- ene Votes were cast. And Oranee Scorer
had thirty-two votes. a

The ballot for Editor resulted in thie choice of LuTner Tee by oe
out of 37 votes.

J. W. Walker offered a resolution in favor’ of instructing the Com-
mittee on Revisals to report a rule of digcipline, prohibiting our mem-

bers from being nnited uate any. secret, oath- bound societies in any

respect.
O. Scott moved 2 amend by striking out “ prohibit,” and inserting

* advise.”

Br. Young called attention to the point, thatif it bea sin totake such
an oath, or be associated with societies of that kind, we cannot adopt
advice for prohibition. He argued that it was an cath to do we know
not what. The circumstances and associations were referred to, as
most contradictory and inconsistent with Christian cliaracter. The sel-

ah
A81

fishness af Masonry was dwelt upon at some length. He thought con-
sistency demanded that we should go against this as well as slavery.
O.-Scott wished to withdraw his ameridimenit, and substitute a motion
proposed by Br. Smith at the Utica Convention.
E. Smith. “It won’t do now.”
After reading it, the speaker sat down.
E. Smith opposed the substitute. Not sure that it was the same. He
would approach the subject calmly. He observed that he was instruc-
ted to go for a rule of discipline just such as the first resolution proposed.
Forty-four of his conference voted for, and none against it. Memorials
have been ‘presented from within the bounds of the New York and
Champlain Conferences. He deprecated the position in which he was
placed, on this question, by the editor of the True Wesleyan and its
correspondents, But it had secured to him'a more extensive knowl-
edge of facts on this subject than any other man on this floor, What
the Masonic oaths are, we may know from the testimony of the Grand
Lodge of Rhode Island, under oath, If desired, I can produce them,
from the lowest to the highest order. They swear their life away at
every step they take. On this I join issue.
The testimony in the case of the New York examinations, in the
courts about Morgan, were cited to show that Masons went to jail rath-
er than violate their masonic obligation. Shall this merely be advised
against? But if persisted in, what is the penalty? He knew the em-
barrassment of his position in the Conference, for fearful odds were
‘against him. But nine-tenths of the Wesleyan Connection West are in
favor of my sentiments. Thus sustained, I plant myself, unmoved by
any fear. After quoting the testiniony of a Methodist preacher, he ci-
ted the testimeny of one who belonged to a lodge in New England, and
is nowa member of the Wesleyan Church, who related to bit the fol-
lowing incident. During the exhibition of Mr. Allen, in New England,
showing the ceremonies of masonry,a person who had been expelled
from the lodge for drunkenness, said his representations were true. ‘The
lodge devised a plan to have him made drank, decoyed to a dangerous
ravine, thrown into the river, and have the coroner’s jury find a verdict
of death by drunkenness. And this all occurred just as they planned..
After dwelling at some length on the subject, the speaker concluded by
saying,

, Now, we only ask you to prohibit men from becoming masons, and
provide further, that those who do belong, refrain from attendance upou
the meetings and processions of lodges. This is what our brethren do
now for themselves. And why will they not yield to this?” Other re-

marks were offered, and Br. Smith was followed by i
482

Br McMurdy, who disclaimed personal feeling, He was willing to
yield to those whose consciences prompted them to act in this matter
for with him it was not matter of conscience to attend lodges. But he
could go not quite as far Br. Walker’s resolution went. Not because it was
personally offensive, but from its being more than my constituents will
allow. This would be unjust, as in fact it would establish a new test of
membership without submitting it to the churches of the Connection to
speak their agreement through the annual conferences. He admitted
masonry had persecuted others. Bunt versecution was not essential to
masonry : it was only accidental. With other remarks, respecting his

pastifears of Br. Smith’s designs, and earnest desires tor directing our
energies against all sin, the speaker closed.

Br. Matlack thought the resolution was in fact a test of membership,
and must be carried down to the annual conferences.

Br. Scott, among other interesting remarks, observed, that “the oati
of inasonry was understood, and explained, to involved nothing which
would violate the duty we owe to God and man. And if anything
should be required contrary to these duties, masons are absolved from
their obligation.

Br. Woodson asked Br. Scott to repeat that remark. He had stated
the same thing on the authority of a gentleman from Scotland, belong-
ing toa masonic lodge ; but it was denied by many. Iam glad to have
it on your authority. Our brethren have confidence in your testimony,
and J am glad to hear it.

Br. Brewster confessed himself deeply interested. The conscience of
others are interested beside anti-masons. Good men, of undoubted
Christian, character, are united with these societies. He was unwilling
to have it passed, for he should leave the Conference with feelings of
the deepest pain. With many other interesting remarks, he closed.

Br. Essler thought that the resolution and substitute were both ultra
radical. The adoption of either would be suicidal to the interests of
the Church. ‘

Br. Walker, of Alleghany, was opposed to secret, oath-bound socie-
ties, on the ground that any such associations were in themselves wrong
independent of the oath or the persecutions they authorised. Jesus
Christ has given us the plan of the only lawful beneficial society, with
every direction for the management of its affairs. He gave way for an ,
adjournment.

t
AFTERNOON SeEssi0N,

Br. Walker gave way, though he had the floor, to a motion, laying his

‘resolution on the table, to take up a substitute prepared by Br. Prindle:
It reads,
483

“Secret Oath-bound Societies.

“ Question. Have weany directions to give respecting secret oath- |
hound societies ?”

“Answer. We will on no account tolerate our ministérs and mem-
bers in joining secrets oath-bound societies, or holding fellowship with
them, as in the judgment of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, it is
inconsistent with our duties to God and Christianity to hold such con-
nections.” . 7

This was adopted by a vote of 22 affirmative,:andJ4 negative. A
difference of opinion was entertained and expressed, on the character
of the resolution : some regarding itag mandatory, others advisory. It
was not explained.

The meeting of the next General Conference was determined upon.
It will be held in the city of New York, on the first Wednesday in Oc-
tober, 1848,

The Committee on Revisals reported an addition to the fourth judi-
ciary rule, specifying the privileges granted to the accused. Also to the
eight judiciary rule, providing that some one else shall preside in the
trial of a church member, when the pastor prefers the charges.

The vote on Br. Prindle’s resolution was recorded by yeas and nays
at the request of a brother, by special vote of the Conference.

Voted to instruct the Committee on Revisals to report an article on
Holiness, to be added to the Articles of Religion, after heing passed up-
on by the annual conferences.

Br. Scott moved to reconsider the vote on Br. Prindle’s resolution,
which was carried, after some discussion. He then offeyed an amend-
ment, submitting a general rule in the language of Br. Walker’s resolu-
tion of the morning. After being discussed some time, it was with-
drawn, and Br. Prindle’s moved again, with an appendage, submitting it
to the annual conferences for confirmation. This was warmly discuss-
ed until the hour of adjournment. Br. Smith was on the floor when

we adjourned.

 

Srevenra Day. Wepenspay, Oct. 9.

Coriference opened as usual. The amendment of Br. Scott was the
subject under consideration.

Br. Smith went into a history of the anti-masonic, question, as connec-
ted, with the Wesleyan Connection and showed the obligation he was
under, from conscientious views and special instructions, to press a rule
of discipline. The subject was fully presented before the Conference by
the speaker, who closed by an assurance that nothing more would be
484

asked, and nothing less will be received by us than what you voted yes-
terday. ,
Br. Essler inquired if secret societies not oath-bound would be included ?

Br. Smith said it did not reach their case, but only those who enter

secret societies, and bind themselves by oath to keep the secrets of the
fraternity.

Br. Horton cited the case of engravers employed by calico printers,
under oath to keep the secrets of their employers.

Br, Smith said it was not a case coming under the rule.

Br. Pillow cited the case of Rechabites and Sons of Temperance.

Br. Smith said he was unadvised of their character. It was a new
case. He was not advised on that matter. One thing he would say.
“Masons come under this rule, and I think Odd Fellows do. Of these
others I know nothing. I did not know that there were any such beings
in the world.” With other remarks, submitting the point to be decided
he closed.

The motion to adopt the amended resolution was laid on the table
in order to reconsider the vote adopting the amendment.

On motion to reconsider, Br. Scott occupied some time in explaining
the connection of this question with the Wesleyan Connection, and its
present position before the Conference. He argued at length in favor
of the amendment, submitting the question to the annual conference and
the next General Conference, if it be the sense of the Connection, estab-.
lishing it as a test of membership. The absence of the Mastern and
Northern membership was urged as a reason for deferring final action
now.

Other remarks were made by different brethren, and the amend-
ment was laid on the table, and the original resolution was adopted.

Br. Wheelock, from Wisconsin, was allowed an opportunity to rep-
resent the condition and prospects of Wesleyanism in his region.

Br. Swift,of Michigan, was excused from attendance, in view of busi-
ness engagements that could not be deferred. ,

The questions and propositions of the Miami Annual Conference were
taken up. They are,

1. Can a deacon from another church exercise the duties of his of-
fice in our Connection? Referred to Committee on Revisals.

2. To authorize the election of the delegates by the churches, in-
stead of the. quarterly conferences. Referred to Committee on Revisals-

3. Will we admit in our church unbaptized persons ? ,

4. Will we express an opinion on the use of slave-labor produce ?
Referred to a special committee,-—L. C. Matlack. J, Boucher, $ eld,
Chace.
485

5.Can a Wesleyan Church, without the consent of its own conference
become united to an adjacent conference? Referred to Committee on
Journals,

6. Cana Wesleyan preacher become connected witha neighboring
conference without the consent of his conference ?

7, Can a president recognize us a Wesleyan Church, one within the
bounds of another conference, without the consent of its own confer-
ence or the president of said conference ?

'8. Is it constitutional for an annual conference to accept any church
into the Connection without an approval of its character by a quarterly
conference ?

9, Is it constitutional for an annual conference to receive a church
entirely outits limits, contrary tothe expressed wishes of the conference
to which it pertains? Questions 5, 6, 7,8, were refered to Committee
on Journals, .

Committee on Sabbath Schools reported resolutions, which were adop-
ted as follows:

1. It is the duty of all our ministers, by their example and precept, to
prevent as far as possible their people from light and worldly conversa-
tion, and from visiting, or receiving formal visits from their friends on
the Sabbath day.

2, That we urge upon our people regular attendence on the preach-
ing of the word, Sabbath schools, and Bible classes, on the Sabbath.

3. That we discourage the transporting of the mail, taking out of the
post-office papers and letters on the Sabbath, or filling any office which
requires the violation of the Holy Scriptures.

4. We advise and recommend to all our ministers, the importance of
-bringing this subject as often as may be consistent with other ministeri-
al duties, before the several congregations of which they may be pastors.

On motion of E. Smith, the following was added.

Resolved, That we will not tolerate any of our people in becoming:
stockholders in Sabbath breaking companies or corporations.

The Conference then adjourned.

AFTERNOON SESSION.
Atter opening, the Committee on Peace réported as follows.
: The duty of Christians on the subject of Peace.

Christian duty can only be determined by an appeal tothe law and to
the testimony. Other standards are assumed however by many. The
right to decide our duty by the circumstances of the case, or the sup-
posed results of action, has been argued by learned and wise men.
The consequence is, the jurisdiction of actions which debase and dis-

9

‘
A86

,

troy mankind, and dishonor God. Among these wicked acts, is the
practice of war.

Duty on this question is clearly set forth in the laws of Christianity,
as the following extracts will show. “Love your enemies. Bless them
that curse you. Do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that

- despitefully use and persecute you. See that none render evil for evil
toany man. Recompense to no man evil for evil, but overcome evil
with good. Lay aside all malice. Be gentle, showing all meekness to
all men. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
father forgive you. Forgive, if ye have aught against any. God hath
called us to peace. Live in peace.”

It need only be observed, on these provisions of Christian law, that
the observance of them would prevent, not only the practice of offen-
sive and defensive war, but it would prevent those dispositions of the
mind and those customs which tend to foster and perpetuate the war
spirit. [And such is our opinion of Christian character, that we believe
the practice of war in any of its forms, or those customs which tend to
foster and: perpetuate the war spirit, should disqualify any person for
membership in the Christian Church.] ‘

L. C. Mariacx,
J. W. WaLKER,
C. Wooprurr.

After a spirited discussion of a few minutes, which promised: to be
quite protracted, the debate’ was closed by an agreement to drop off the
sentence in brackets.

The Committee on Revisals continued their report. The items are
not reported. They will be discovered by comparing the new and old
editions of the Discipline.

The following were appointed the Book Committee, to have the su-
pervision cf the Boox Concern at New York until the next session of
the New York Conference. The ministers are, O. Scott, L. Lee, D. Har-
ris, J. Maltby, A. Moran, 8. Hoes, M, Bates, L. C. Matlack, The lay-
men are, Wm. H. Pillow, Daniel H. Sands, Thomas Jackson,
Boone, Stillman, A. Skiddy.

The Conference adjourned. :

 

 

 

Erenta Day. Tuurspay, Oct. 10.
After the opening of the Conference, Br. Matlack offered the follow-
ing, which was adopted without debate by a unanimous.vote.
Whereas opposite opinions are entertained on the power of the Gen-
eral Conference, as specified in the restrictive rule, therefore,

‘
487

Resolved, That the restrictive rule shall be amended by adding, © nor
sball they adopt any rule which establishes a new test of membership.”
Nevertheless, the final adoption of this amendment shall be submitted
to all the yearly conferences, and become a law when approved by two-
thirds of the whole number of votes given in the yearly conferences.

Resolved, That all the yearly conferences be required to act at their
next session, upon every amendment to the restrictive rule, whether it
emanate from the General of a yearly conference.

The Committec on Books, &c., reported.

Br, Scott read a docusnent on the Book Concern, which will be found
jn the Discipline to be issued. Among other items not before reeom-
mendcd,.the editing of the Juvenile Wesleyan was made the duty of the
Editor of the Wesleyan organ—Br. Lee. This was agreed upon in
order to greater cconomy.

The committee on using the produce of slave labor, reported as
follows :

It is obligatory upon all truc Christians, that they should, in every pus-
sible. way, withhold their support and countenance from the system of
slavery. This course of action is more especially to-be expected from
those who have, by withdrawing from church fellowship with slavehold-
ers, exhibited their abhorrence of slavery; end it becomes a serions
question, that deserves particular attention, whether we can kuowingly
use the produce of slave labor, whcre it can be avoided, without incur-
riog guilt in the sight of God. Without assuming to determine this
question, we unite in recommending, as our opinion on the practical
question involved, tiie following resolution.

Resolved, That we advise all our members. and mivisters to refrain
from the use of slave-labor produce, and to vive special encouragement
to every effort to supply the market with producis of the labor of iree-
men. :

Qi motion of Br. Horton, it was voted, that, Whereas William A.
Smith, D. D., of Virginia, las challenged Doct. Bond, of New York, to
a public debate on the subject of slavery, thercfore,

Resolwwed, That in case Doct. Bond, shall decline to accept said cha]-
lenge, Rev. L. Lee be requested to accept suid, challenge at his. earliest
convenience.

Adopted by a unanimous vote, with expressions of strong approbation.

The Committee on Missions reported. It will be published here-
after.

Br. Scott suggested the propriety of publishing the report of the pro-
ecedings of the Methodist Episcopal Church, as reported in the True
Wesleyan.
488

A brief and spirited discussion occurred on this proposition. 1t was
finally voted to recommend such publication.

The Committee on Temperance reported. It was, after a slight
amendment, adopted. .

On Temperance.

The committee on Tmperance beg leave to report the following.

Holding as we do a high position in the Church, and in the world, on
the subject of Temperance, we feel ourselves called upon again to re-
cord our testimony on this important matter. We lament to learn, that
to some extent, in some sections of the country, intemperance still pre-
vails, and that numbers who once enjoyed the benefits arising from tem-
perate habits, have again relapsed into their former state of wretched-
ness and degradation. We also observe with pain, that many of the
churches of this land, in some parts of the country, have sunk into a
state of stoical indifference on this great question ; and viewing ourselves
not only as a Reformed, but as a Reforming body, therefore,

1. Resolved, That we will not tolerate the manufacturing, buying, or
selling or using intoxicating liquors, unless for mechanical, chemical,
or medicinal purposes.

2. Resolved, That we urge our ministers and members to engage more
arduously in the advocacy and spread of temperance principles.

3. Resolved, That we recommend our people to refrain as far as poss-
ible from encouraging and supporting those establishments, commonly
known as hotels, &c., based on anti-temperance principles.

4. Resolved, That we recommend all our ministers and members to
abstain from all useless, needless and hurtful indulgences, that their ex-
ample may become more salutary, and that they may have more means
to employ in useful and benevolent enterprises.

“J. W. Wanker.
W. H. Brewster.
P. A. Oapen.

Voted, To publish the reports of the last General Conference of the
M. E. Church, as reported in the True Wesleyan; also, the review of
said Conference by Smith and Lee. :

Br. Horton presented the following protest.

Protest of the Minority.

The minority in the vote taken on this subject, (secret oath-bound so-
cieties,) request to be permitted to enter their protest against the pro-
ceedings of the Conference in the case, for the following among other
reasons.

1. We regard the act as not strictly constitutional ; ( having, itis believ-
489

ed, the nature of the general rules, ( inusmuch as it wae passed without
the concurrence of the several Annual Conferences, as provided for in
such cases, and by consequence is uull and void,

2. It willbe regarded as establishing a new test of membership to the
churches, such as the Holy Scriptures do not authorize. To say the least,
he principle upon which the act proceeds, is of doubttul character, name ~
ly, that all secret, pledged or oatl-bound agsociations are morally-wrong
and therefore sinful. 5

3, We protest against. itas establishing a precedent in the action of
the Couference, pregnant with the most disastrous consequences to the
Connection. If its charter may be violated at one time, it may at
another. *

4, We regard it as infringing upon the rights of Annual Conferences
and of individual societies ; and that too, when one of the principal de-
signs contemplated in the origination of our Connection, was to secure
to these rights the utmost possible permanency.

Had the act of the Conference simply advised —or in the strongest
possible manner recommended, we should have cheerfully coneurred, and
in it rejoiced. But it represents that as an intolerable evil, of which, to.
say the least, there is the strongest reason to doubt, Signed by

J. Horton, O. Scott, J. Boucher, Wm. H, Pillow, P. A. Ogden, Wm,
P, Fessler, G. Pegler, H. McKee, Wm, H, Brewster, R, Brandriff, R.
McMurdy,

‘On the above it may be proper to suggest two. things. The unani-
mous vote of the General Conference on the motion of Mr. Matlack res-
pecting the restrictive rule, plainly sets forth the {et that the constitu.
tion of the church, as it is now, is not violated, by the General Confer~
cence in adopting tests of membership even, And the General Confer
ence unanimously desire, that the constitution should be altered so as to
forbid the General Conference from exercising such, authority. Tn the
secoud place, the action of the General Conference is misapprebended
by the protest, It did not say any thing like this: “ All secret, pledged
or oath-bound associations, are morally wrong and therefore sinful.”
The language. of the resolution, and the explanations given, as reported,
explicitly set forth this sentiment, only with-reference to fraternities,
which are secret and oath-bound! The main speaker in advocacy of the.
resolution applied it distinctly to Freemasonry only. He thought ‘the
Odd Fellows were included, but made no application of it to Rechab-
ites, Sons of Temperance, &c., because he knows nothing of them. Tt
may be remarked finally, that some who voted for the resolution dic
not regard it asa test of membership in any case. And no one ad=
490

vocated the sentiment that present membership in a Masonic lodge, dis
qualified a man for membership in the ehureh,— Reporter.
AFTERNOON OF THURSDAF :

The report of the Committee on Revisal was taken up and continued
during the session. Various interesting amendments were made, which
ure not very important to the reader in this connection, as he may find
them in the Book of Discipline hereafter, All the questions of thrilling
interest have keen settled, The business is drawing to a close rapidly,
The discussions are brief and rapid ; too much so to be of interest, and
hence they are not noted. The Conference adjourned to meet at half
past seven o'clock, P. M,

 

Evenine Session. Tuurspay, Oct. 10.

The first business was the adoption of the following resolution —

“That this Conference heartily approve of the course generally pursued
by the ‘True WEsLErYAy,’ since its commencement ; and that the thanks
of this Conference be hereby tendered to the Rev. Oraxer Score,
Editor and Proprietor of the True Wesleyan, for the manly and Chris-
tian manner in which he has set forth and defended Weslyan Metho-
dism.” :

A unanimous rising vote was given on this question, A resolution
was introduced recommending Br. Wheelock, of Wisconsin, to the syin-
pathies and henevolence' of the Wesleyan Connection, on behalf of the
far and feeble bands of Wesleyans in that Western country.

The Committee on Conference Records reported. It presented an
encouraging view of the practical operations of the itinerancy of our
Chuch., A few exceptions were taken to the proceedings of one Con-
ference, It gave rise toa brief discussion, but finally the exceptions
were stricken out, '

The questions proposed by the Miami Conference, were now consid -
ered and answered. The pastoral address was read by Br. C. Prindle,
and adopted. The Conference now adjourned to meet to-morrow mor-
ning, at 8, A.M. Being urider the necessity of leaving for Michigan, I
was denied the privilege of witnessing and reporting the last. items of
pusiness transacted. Br. Brewster will attend to it by request.

' : L, C. Matuacx,

CrurayeLann, O. Ocr. 10.
491

The General Conference of the Wesleyan Methodist Church tlosbel
its sitting Friday noon, the 11th inst. The whole business of this body
was done up with as much despatch at could consist with its extent
and importance. A great amount of business was done. Harmony
and good feeling pervadeil the body. The Conference exhibited and
illustrated the fact that ministers and laymen can work together in the
highest councils of the Church, with the most perfect propriety and safe-
ty. We are well persuaded that laymen were a8 much interested in
every thing promiotive of the welfare of the Church, a8 ministers could be.

We left Cleveland on Friday evening, at about 11, and arrived at But:
falo on Saturday afternoon, at about 4 o’clock. We spent the Sabbath
at Buffalo, with somé six other brethren. Not choosing to be idle, some
six sermons were preached by the brethren during the day in different
places. We came down by Niagara Falls: and leaving Rochester on
Thursday morning, about 8 1-2 o’clock, and riding day and night, reach=
ed Boston on Wednesday evening at 7 o’clock, travelling the whole dis-
tance of 450 miles in less than 36 hours.

J. Horron.

Br. Brewster never made any report of the last half day’s proceed:
ings, that we know of. ’ PUBLISHER:
REPORTS.

REPORT OF FELLOWSHIPPING MEMBERS OF PRO-SLAVE>
RY CHURCHES.

The cotnmittee to whom was referred the above subject, beg leave to
say that they have had the same under consideration, ‘and present the
following as their matured opinion. The memorial presented to the
Conference proposés to it the following question. “Is it lawful and
right to admit individual members to the Lord’s Supper in our church,
who beldng to churches which we consider pro-slavery in precept and
example?” Your committee are inclined to the opinion, that the above
question presents one of thdse nice points of Christian practice on
which it would be difficult to legislate — that the vase is one that comes
mere propetly under ivdividual church or pastoral discfetionary action.
‘Our position as a denomination or a Christian Connection, is that of non-
fellowship with slaveholding. This position does not require us to de-
vide that all members of pro-slevery churches must on account of this
membership, be tiecessarily pro-slavery in character.

The question of the moral dereliction from duty of individuals, in
‘consequence of membership in buch churches, must depend upon cir-
cumstances of which this Conference cannot have full knowledge, and
therefore cannot decide. There are doubtless many persons now mem-
bers of churchés not decidedly anti-slavery in character, who are nev-
ertheless in spirit true friends of the slave. Their want of information
and the power of the circumstances under which they are placed, may
be such as to preclude the possibility of their acting intelligently and
decidedly on the non-fellowship principle. We may, on account of our
superior light, regard them as acting inconsistently with strict Christian
propriety in retaining membership in churches somewhat pro-slavery ;
but then we may not be able to decide how nearly they act up to the
light they possess. They may be accepted of God, though somewhat
incousistent in anti-slavery practice. We should not grieve those whom
God has not grieved. Nor should we attempt, in our Connectional capa-
‘city, to make rules to méet that endless variety of cases which may
‘come under individual, pastoral or church supervision. We readily ad=
493

mit that there may be, that in fact there are many persons, members of
pro-slavery churches, who are so pro-slavery in character, that they
ought not to be admitted to the Lord’s Supper in our churches: but
then these cases most properly come under pastoral or church cogni-
zance.

Your committee, therefore, in acting under the best light which they
possess, ask to be permitted to present the following resolution, to be
adopted by this Conference.

Resolved, That while we are if possible more than ever convinced of
the rightfulness of our position as a Connection, in adopting and main-
taining the principle of non-fellowship with slave holders, — and while
we admit that there dre many professed Christians so pro-slavery in
character that they ought not to be admitted to fellowship in our church-
es, nevertheless, we regard it as a matter which requires no further leg-
islative action than that which is already provided for in our excellent
discipline. J. Horton,

M. Harxer,
R. Benner.

REPORT ON MISSIONS.

The Committee on Missions beg leave to submit the following Re-
port:

1. That they esteem the cause of Missions of the first importance to
the Church of Christ, and especially to her ministers, as constituting an
important part of their appropriate work.

2. The missionary work naturally divides itself into two parts,—Home
and Foreign.

3. We recommend that the work of Home Missions be left for the
present to the several’yearly conferences within which, or nearest to
which it may lie, as already partially provided for in our Discipline.

4. In the present infantile state of our Church, we do not believe she
is able, as such, to engage in the work of Foreign Missions to any great
extent: but we believe that there are many persons not connected with
us asa Church, who would be willing to contribute to a Foreign Mis-
sion not connected with slavery. Therefore, in view of this, and the
fact that many of our own members will contribute to Foreign. Missions
whether our General Conference will or will not take an interest in.
them,— we recommend the establishment of one general Treasury, i into
vee all moneys for Foreign Missions shall be paid.

5, We recommend the establishment of a Board of Foreign Missions
to consist of seven, to be located in New York and vicinity, whose du-
43
494

ty it shall be to employ missionaries, appoint them their work, pay them
their salaries, determine the appropriation of, all moneys, superintend
geverally the whole work of Foreign Missions, and report their doings
annually to each. yearly conference and to the Gener al Conference.

6: We recommend that all the ministers and ‘preachers in our Con-
nection, having charge, to preach at least one sermon in each church of
each charge during the year, in favor of Foreign Missions, and to take
up a collection for their support,

7, And we further recommend that the General Conference advise
the several churches throughout our Connection. to hold a monthly
concert of prayer for the success of missions, on the first Sabbath eve-
ning of each month,

8. The Committee have learned that some of our yearly conferences
have already engaged i in Foreign Missions, but not beyond the bounds
of our own continent. Of this your Committee approve; but in view
of thé relation which our Cotinéetion sustains to the colored population
of the United States and of the world, we recommend that measures
be taken to establish a mission at some eligible place on the continent
of Africa, at the earliest convenient period.

9. In view of their adaptation to the climate, we recommend the se+
lection and qualification of persons ‘of Aftican extraction for the mis=
sionary work on that continent, .

Lewis Woopson,
Jotruam Horton,
W. P. Ester,
R. Branprirr,
G, Peeier.

REPORT ON EDUCATION.

The Committee to whom was referred the subject of Edueation, beg
leave to present the following report: :

Your Committee are deeply impressed with the importance of this
subject. The cause of Education is the cause of God. Science is true
ly the handmaid of Religion.

itis not a sentiment of this period that “ Ignorance i is the mother of
devotion.” No charge, at this day, could be produced against St. Jerome
that he had read Homer, or penitent confession demanded of the doctor
of Larbonne, that, among his other sins, the muse of Virgil had made
him weep for the woes of Dido. The time is past when the works of
Tacitous may be condemned to the flames from a Papal chair, because
495

they encourage infidelity. The time is past when Livy is tobe expelled
from Christian libraries on account of Livy’s superstition.

This is the age of reason, god- -like reason: investigation, close, scru-
tinizing and patient investigation i is at work. The result is every where
seen. Long and fixed, yet erroneous opinionsare yielding to its influ-
ence, Sentiments which had become a part of the very organization of
Society, are in process of rejection. Corruptions which were deeply lo-.
cated ( incurably, the mass said,) in our political and ecclesiastical sys-
tem, making them little else then one mass of gangrene, have been at-
tacked, probe has been applied to the seat of the disease. The disease,
though desperate — the remedy,. though strong but curative —the pa-
tient debilitated, yet, under the care of experienced nurses and skilful
physicians, we proyounce our patients —our social systems, convales-
cent, and can safely predict a speedy recoyery and certain restoration
to all the functions of a regenerated and invigorated existence.

To throw away this figure, there isa bright, a glorious prospect be.
fore us especially, as Wesleyan Reformers. . Iniquity and corruption
have yielded to our attacks, and whereyer we plant our standard, vic-
tory crowns our efforts. _ But we need. to fortify our territory, extend
our conquests and urge | the victorious contest even to the last and strong-
est entrenchment of the enemy. In our glorious warfare we must rely
upon our commander and upon the instrumentality wlieh, fie affords
us. Among these, the preaching of the word in its fulness and in the
demonstration of the Spirit, is undoubtely chief, The press will yield
great assistance, These we are exerting with success. But there is
another instrumentality, which we are by no means at liberty to despise.
We allude to the cause of literature, _ sound, sanctified learning. While
we would not make mere literature a test for the ministgfial calling, we
would make it an ornament to the ministerial character — we would re-
gard itas affording increased means of usefulness toits possessor. The
world — our work especially — is demanding an educated ministry. If
tve cannot supply this demand, others will.

We have already a share of professional men in our ranks, who high-
ly prize the benefits of education themselves, and who are deeply inter-
ested in the education of their own families and the community at large.

Our members, generally, from the causes which have made them
Wesleyan Methodists, have learned to appreciate the benefits of educa-
tion. The literary wants of our, denominational community are already
demanding means of supply.

But there is a pegled, degraded and seunibned class, who have hitherto
been, to a very great extent, excluded from the schools and seminaries
496

of our land. For these we need institutions, men and pecuniary assis-
tance. 5

Your Committee rejoice in the assurance that the spirit which led to
the establishment of the Kingswood School, in England, is the spirit
of Wesleyan Methodism in this country. Several of our yearly confer-
ences have already taken measures for the establishment of Confer-
ence Seminaries ; and in one or two, Wesleyan schools are already in
successful operation.

The New England Conference has established a Seminary in Dracut,
Mass., under the name of “The Wesleyan Institute.” Teachers are
employed, and the Seminary is in successful operation.

Our brethern jn Michigan have taken the preliminary steps for the es-
tablishment of a Conference Academy, with a fair prospect of success.

A committee was appointed at the last N. Y. Conference to purchase
buildings, located in Royalton Centre, (which had been offered for a Wes-
leyan Institution, ) provided the requisite means could be obtained. There
is a reasonable prospect that the New York Institution will soon be in
operation.

Your Committee would recommend that each Conference take early
and vigorous measures to establish, as soonas practicable, a Seminary
for both sexes within its limits, whose advantages shall extend equally
to all colors and conditions. Perhaps it is essential to success, that but
one Seminary in each Conference be attempted, for some time to come.
This will secure concentration, efficiency and ability.

Your Committee would recommend the establishment, at some cen-
tral point, assoon as Providence may open the way, of a“ Wesleyan
Collegiate Institute,” combining the advantages of literary and theologi-
cal training, on a plan, in most respects, similarto the “Oberlin Insti-
tute.” For this purpose, we recommend the appointment of acommit-
tee of twelve — to be styled the“ Wesleyan Literary Committee ” — to ;
whom shall be submitted all propositions for the location of a “ Wesley-
an Collegiate Institute,” proceeding from any station or village. This
committee shall have power to correspond on this subject, and decide
any question connected with the literary institution. The confirmation
commendation or revision of their decision resting with the Second
General Conference.

We recommend the adoption of the following resolutions, viz :

1. Resolved, That we regard with especial favor and gratitude, that
some of our preachers and ministers, in addition to the arduous labors
of the pulpit, have instructed, in day schools, the children of their station
who by cruel and wicked laws, are deprived of what should be the
eommon benefits of education.
497

2. Resolved, That we deem it essential to the character of a Wesleyan
Methodist preacher, that he should spend a portion of his time in vis-
iting the schools of his station or circuit, encouraging scholars and
teachers, and dispensing to them in school capacity, suitable advice and
religious instruction.

3. Resolved, That we recommend to all our brethren the remem-
brance of College Academies and schools in their devotions, both pri-
vate and public, that the blessing of God may rest upon those youths
who attend them, that they may become truly pious and devoted to
the best interests of their fellow men.

4. Resolved, That the supposition thatthe Seriptures do not require
Christians, and especialy Christian ministers, to study and become truly
Jearned, when circumstances will permit, is a great amd darfgerous
error.

5. Resolved, That the duties of the ministers are such as demand of
him to be as well qualified in the greattruths of the Bible, and the gen-
eral principles of science, as he consistently can.

6, Resolved, That the proper improvement of the minds of young
men, who are called of God to’ the ministry in scientific and biblical
knowledge, is a subject of as high importance, and as full of promise
as any which may be brought before our people ; and the money which
may he necessarily expended in its promotion, will ultiniately do much
towards the universal triumph of every benevolent enterprise.

O. Scorv, /

E. Sairu, 1

W. M. Sunpivan, i Cimadlie
RR. MeMurpy, [| -

L.C. Mattacx. }

——

REPORT ON ITINERANCY AND CONFERENCE JOURNALS,

The Committee on Itineraney and Conference Journals report that
they have examined the Journals of five of the annual Conferences, (the .
journals of the Champlain Conference nat being present,) and find them
fair and correct, with the exception of the Allegheny Conference. The
journals of this Conference for its second session (we have not seen the.
minutes of the first) are defective, obscure, and somewhat confused.

Ou the general subject of itinerancy, your committee would remark,
that they are fully cf the opinion that it does not need the bishop’s pow-
er to set the machinery in motion, or of an effective itinerancy to keep
jt in operation. We apprebend that enlightened Christjun zeal will da
more 10 evangelizing the world by means of an itinerant ministry than
all the Episcopacy oy the earth, None but a voluntary itinerancy is iv

xz &
498

ther primative or scriptural. Such an itinerancy has worked well with
us thus far, and we have no fear of. a failure, while the love of God burns
in our hearts.

Very considerable services have been rendered to our course by the
efficient itinerant services of the presidents of four of the yearly confer-
ences, who have been employed by their conferences to travel at large.
The other two have also rendered considerable service abroad, though
they have been mostly confined to stations.

We highly approve of the employment of presidents of conferences
and other brethren as evangelists. And we are happy to know that
many brethren jn the ministry have not waited to be sent by human au-
thority, but have acted under the influence of Wesley’s dictation, “The
world is my paxish ;” and have greatly enlarged their charges and form-
ed new circuits by means of missionary labors. American Wesleyan-
ism, especially in the West, has been truly primative, and very much
like that form of Christianity which went forth from Oxford about one
hundred years ago. So faras we can learn, quarterly meetings in most
of the circuits are regularly held, and well attended, and have already
proved a great blessing to the Connection.

In conclusion, your Committee earnestly pray that from this day for-
ward, aspirit may go forth amung our preachers and people that shall

arouse the nation and spread scriptural holiness over these lands.
Hiram NcKes, Chairman.

BOUNDARIES OF YEARLY CONFERENCES.

1. The New York Conference comprises so much of the State of New
York as is not included in the Champlain, St. Lawrence and Rochester
conferences, and New Jersey and Eastern Pennsylvania.

2. The New England Conference comprises the New England States,
except that portion of Vermont west of the Green Mountains.

3. The Champlain Confer ence comprises all that part of Vermoutly- -
ing west of the Green Mountains, and including in the State of New
York, Clinton, Essex, Warren, Washington, and Saratoga counties, and
so much of Rensellear county as lies north of a line running from the
southwest corner of the State of Vermont te the city of Troy, including
Troy.

4, St, Lawrence Conference comprises the Franklin, St. Lawrence,
Jefferson, and Lewis counties, in the State of New York, and so much
pf Oswego county as lies east of the Oswego river.

5. Rochester Conference comprises Tioga, Cortland and Onondaga
eounties in the State of iv ew York, and that part of Oswego county
499

west of the Oswego river, and all that part of the State of New York ly-
ing west of the above named counties.

6. The Allegheny Conference includes that part of Pennsylvania west
of the Alleghany mountains, and that part of Ohio east of the Scioto
river, to the mouth of the Little Scioto, thence to Upper Sandusky, and
along the Sandusky river to Sandusky bay, and Western Virginia.

7. The Miami Conference comprises that part of Ohio not included
in the Allegheny Conference, and the State of Indiana.

8. The Michigan Conference comprises the State of Mchigan.

9. The Illinois Conference comprises the State of Illinois.

10. The Wisconsin Conference compises the Territories of Wiscon-
sin and Iowa. *

REPORT ON THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

The Committee to whom was refered the subject of the Sabbath, beg
leave to present the following preamble and resolutions for the consid-
eration of the Conference.

That whereas they consider the Christian Sabbath to be of divine au-
thenticity, and consequently obligatory on all professing Christians, they
do hereby recommend to all our people its faithful and uniform obsery-
ance, not only as it regards themselves and families, but also those over
whom they may exercise the control.

1. Resolved, That it is the duty of all our ministers, by their example
and precept, to prevent as far as possible their people from light and
worldly conversation, and from visiting or receiving formal visits from
their friends on the Sabbath day.

2, Resolved, That we urge upon our people regular attendance on the
preaching of the word, Sabbath schools, and Bible classess on the
Sabbath.

3. Resolved, That we discourage the transporting of the mail, or tak-
jng out of papers and letters on the Sabbath, or filling any office which
requires the violation of the holy Sabbath.

4, Resolved, That we advise and recommend to all our ministers the
importance of bringing this subject as often as may be consistent with
other ministerial duties, before the several congregations of which they
may be pastors.

5, Resolved. That we will not tolerate in any of our people the becom-
ing stockholders in Sabbath breaking companies or corporations.

All of which is respectfully submitted.
S. H. Cuase, Chairman.
500°

REPORT.

The Committee to whom was referred the communication of Rev.
J.N. Mars, colored minister, of Salem, Mass., inquiring ‘whether col-
ored preachers can be stationed over white congregations, in tthe Wes-
Jeyan Methodist Cotnection, report:

That the Wesleyan Discipline hasno respect to “ pedigree or color;
and that in our economy all colors and conditions are considered’ ona lev-
el. We know of no reason, therefore, why colored ministers may not
be appointed, in certain cases, to serve white congregations.

oO. Scort, ‘
J. H. Vinéenr,

Epwarp Smiru.

BOOKS AND PERIODICALS.

J. There shall be a Book Concern in the city of New York, the affairs
of which shall be managed by a general agent and a book committee,
consisting of twelve members, six of whom shall be ministers or preach-
ers, as follows: one stationed minister or preacher from New York, one
from Philadelphia, one. from Troy, and one from Albany, together with
two unstationed ministers from New York or vicinity. The other six
shall be laymen from New York city. This committee shall be appoin-.
ted annually by the New York Conference.

2. There shall also be published, in connection nate the Book Con-~
cern, one religious newspaper, under the patronage of the General Con-.,
ference, to be called “Tue TrRuE Westzryan,” under the supervision of
an Editor appointed by the General Conference.

3. The Agent and Editor shall be members of the Book Committee.

4. The Book Committee shall fixthe salary of the Agent and Editor.
they shall determine what books shall be published, and shall. also fix
the price of the same: pr ovided that it shall be the duty of the Agent
to publish any work recommended by two thirds of the members of
any two annual conferences. They shall have power to fill all vacancies
that may occur in their own board in the interval of the New York Con-.
ference, by resignation, deagh, or otherwise: and they may remove the
Agent or Editor if they judge the interests of the cause require such
removal, and may fill his place till the next session of the New York
Conference, which shall fill the vacancy. This Committee shall make.
an annual exhibition of the state of the Concern to each yearly con-

ference, and shall also present a full report to the General Conference,

5, Seven members of the Committee shall constitute a quorum for:
501

the transaction of business, except in the removal of an Agent or Edi-
tor, when it shall require a vote of a majority of all the members of the
board. .

6, The Agent and Editor shall be accountable to the New York Con-
ference for their conduct, and the faithful discharge of their duties, and
if ministers, ‘shall, by virtue of their appointment, be members of the
New York Conference.

7. The Book Committee shall be an advisory council of the Editor,
and shall have a right to decide, when requested by him, or when they
Judge the interests of the cause require it, on what shall be published in
The True Wesleyan.

8. Meetings of the*Book Committee may be called at any time by
‘the Agent, or by any three members of the board ; and when such meet-
ings are called, it shall be the duty of the secretary always to notify all
the resident members, unless public notice be given in the Wesleyan.

9. There shall be depositories of all publications issuing from the
Wesleyan press, in New York, at Boston, Pittsburgh, Pa., Cincinnati, O.,
cand also at Ann Arbor, or some place within the bounds of the Michi-
‘gan Conference. The books shall be sent to these depositories at the
‘expense of the Concern, and the:agents of these depositories shall be
allowed 30 per cent. discount from the retail prices. These depositories
shall be entirely under the control of the general Agent.

10. Preachers and wholesale purchasers shall be allowed 25 per cent.
‘discount on all Wesleyan publications, whether ordered from New York,
or any depository: and when fifty dollars worth or more shall be order-
ed at one time, with the gash in advance, the books shall be sent to any
part of the country at the risk and expense of the Concern, and not of
those who purchase.

11. It shall be the duty ofall agents of depositories, anu others order-
ing books, to make remittances as fast as the books are sold, — and all
‘accounts must be settled at the close of each conference year, at farthest

12. It shall be the duty of all Wesleyan ministers and preachers, to
use their influence to extend the circulation of our books and periodicals.

13. The agent shall be at liberty to publish, with the consent of the
ae Committee, a periodical to be entitled the “ WESLEYAN QUARTER-
ty Review,” when, in his judgment, such a work can be sustained.

14. The Editor of the True Wesleyan shall be the editor of the Ju-
venile Wesleyan, and of our Sahbath school books, — and the Agent
shall be editor of all the books on our general catalogue, and shall trans-
act all the financial business of the whole establishment.

15. All the property of the Concern shall be held in trust for the
502 -

Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America by the Book Committee,
whose duty it shall be to procure an act of incorporation ag soon as
practicable. ‘

16. For the purpose of carrying cn the business concern with great-
er facility, there shall be a fund of from ten to. twenty thousand dollars
raised on the joint stack plan, in shares of one hundred dollars each, the
legal interest of which shall be paid annually in cash or books at whole-
gale prices, and the principal as soon as the state of the Concern will
allow, and at farthest, within the space of eight years.

17. Alb persons who receive books from the agents of depositories
may make their remittances directly to the general Agent at New York,
when more convenient, which shal} be credited tea the aecount of the
subpagent to. whom it belangs, ‘ ,

 

The Committee on Books and Periodicals beg leave ta report the fol.
lowing as the result of their farther deliberations, viz. ‘

We recommend the General Canference to arder the publishing of
class hooks and quarterly tickets.

We recommend the General Oonference to order the publishing of:
Sturteyant’s Preachers’ Manual, — to /instruct our Book Agent to keep.
ou hand such books as may be recommended by the yearly conferences.
asa course of study,

We are of the opinion that he wants of our Connection require the
establishment ef deporitories of books at the following places, viz: —.
Boston, Cincinvati, Pittsburgh, and at Ann Arbor, or some other place.
in Michigan.

We believe the establishment of a Western paper would be highly
wseful, and therefore recommend the establishment of such a paper pro-
vided it can be, conducted and sustained upon individual responsibility.-
Report adopted,
GENERAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS.

Resolved, That we earnestly recommend, that no Wesleyan Methodist
publish, during the next four years, any work published by the Wesley-
an Book Concern at New York, but that all unite in sustaining, to the
utmost of their ability, the general Concern.

On motion,

Voted, That this Conference appoint a minister within the bounds of
each of the new conferences, who shall have power to appoint the alin
and place of the first'meeting of the new conferences.

‘Whereupon, Rufus Lumry was appointed for Illinois, Daniel G. Cart-
wright for Wiskonsan, Geo. Pegler for Rochester, and Lyndon King for
St. Lawrence.

On motion, Voted, That Champlain and St, Lawrence Conferences
have permission to meet in one body, at the time and place as determined
upon at the Jast Champlain Conference.

The Book Agent was recommended to employ, ce Prindle to pre:
pare a new edition of the Hymn Book.

8

Resolved, That the whole subject of expenses of aiebaies be referred
tothe delegations of ‘the several yearly conferences. Adopted.
Whereas, Wm. A. Smith, D. D., of Vir reinia, has challenged Doct,
Bond, of New York, to a public debate on ‘the subject of slavery, there-
fore
tk Resolved, That in case Doct. Bond shall decline to accept said chal+
lenge, the Rev. Luther Lee be requested to accept at his earliest conve<
nience. Adopted.

Resolved, That we are under obligations of respect to the officers of
this Conference for the able, impartial, and faithful manner in which
they have discharged their duties in all the deliberations of the pe esent
session. Adopted unanimously.

Whereas, we have several young societies in Wiskonsan, and not a
single meeting-house in the Territory ; and whereas, we are to -have a
‘Wiskonsan Conference, and as there is no place at present in which thé

y
ee
504

conference can meet, and as our aged and respected brother Wheelock,
from that territory, is to solicit aid to build a church in an important
positjon in that country, thefefore we will authorize brother Wheelock
to take up collections for said church in any of our churches, and we
recommend to our people to aid in this holy enterprise.

Resolved, That the Reporis and Resolutions of this Conference be and
hereby are referred to Orange Scott and Jotham Horton‘for publication.
~~ Adopted,

Resolved, That the Discipline be published under the inspection and
direction of Orauge Scott, Jotham Horton and William H, Brewster.
~-Adopted. ;