in (<LO. IV. KOIVHAV
NEW SERIES.
The <|ucstioi of Slavery.
Speech of Rev. Joliet A. Collin*,
Of iliP Baltimore Annual Conference,
Before the General Conference of M. E.
Church at ifs Session in Indianapolis, Indi
ana, on Hie proposed Change in the Discip
line in Relation to Slave Holding by .Mem
bers of the Church.
.Mn. PRESIDENT: —Permit me to respond to
what I consider the highest compliment i ever
received in my lit-- (referring to Dr. Thomp
son's expressions of regard, especially in view
f,t Mr. C's position in the General Conference
ol J-544-.) i know that 1 have friends who
cherish me in their hearts, hot to have such as
surance ot confidence and respect hy Dr. Thoinp
. -I!, whom, as a man, I have learned to esteem
and honor, is a compliment indeed ; and, sir, if
it be anv gratification to him to know from one
io humble as myself, I u ill tell him that I man
ifrsted n v estimation ol him in 1852 by voting
fir him for Bishop. I should bo glad if my
Creator had made me just such a man as he, al
though 1 cannot arcord with all his views.—
But I shall differ from him as I shall from anv
other brother —laiily, calmly, and with no bad
i Ming, lor tbis is no occasion for such feeling.
Though 1 am a man of tolerable strong nerve
at? i sane self-possession—not easily moved
v.l I find it difficult to command mvself when
1 I-,uk at this (B neral Conference and contem
• tie the momt r.tous issues involved in the mea
sire under consideration. We had many and
1 rig sttirigs on this subject in the committee on
slavery, ami though it might be supposed that a
question of this kind, distinbing as it does the
nation and the church, might give rise to un
liiej.vmlnt s>, lam happy to say that such was
i:nt the fact, and also that, loving everv brother
on that committee with whom I had acquaint
ance prior to its constitution, there I learned to
]nv him more, and to place all its members in
i:.v heart, though we differed widely on the
<; :es-i ui before us. Sir, Jam not here to enter
t • lists as a mere polemical gladiator—not to
ck niv brow, i! J could, with a trophy won as
.. able debator. All this is beneath the occa
m>n. A great question is before u*—one of
i -p interest to tire church, requiring for its
I - >|>ef and safe adjustment all the wisdom. pru
oro ami pi-tvof which we are capable, I
approach it, sir, in the fear of God, and I trust
• io.ated with a just sense of the responsibili
ties involved.
The discussion, it seems tr> me, sir, has pro
reed'-d on the other side on the supposition, that
t' reare in this body two distinct parties; one
• i j_r mistic to slavery, and the other supporters
"I it as right in itself, or as a divine institution.
I f, asult'-a abolition ; the other, as uitra-pro
slavery. Mow whatever may be the fact, as to
the fir->t named, it is a thorough mistake as to
tb-' second. There is not a pro-slaver v partv
r.:i the door of this conference. lam not here
i defend slavery as a system from the Bible, or
ar.y oilier source, — lam not here to make that
m i-. N-t at all, sir. The brethren represent
g the Baltimore conference are not pro->!a
vey ii n ; nor are tiie* honored people J in part
r"(ires-nt. They neither desire or expect us to
itike (hat position. Why is it tl at the Bnlti
i' re Conference stands where she does > Why
site riot go South ? Why maintain her alle
giance to she Methodist Episcopal Church in
•11 est I toted States? What is the reason ?
tie answer is obvious. We do not affiliate in
s-lilitneiit and policy with that Church on the
*exr;l question : but occupy the old conserva
tive ground in reference to it. The section of
country with which I am most familiar, was
unversed by an able man, who publicly declar
ed slavery to be a divine institution, existing by
civme right, and traceable in all the ramifica
-0 and relations of society. Another, equal
ly eminent, took pretty much the same ground,
"him I met, and with whom I discussed the
•*< as t.iivwj between the Methodist Episcopal
' htircli ami the Methodist Episcopal Church
s Cur people did not go with that church,
and w b y *
If "e had chosen fo connect ourselves with
tie ''Methodist Episcopal Church South," stars
ani garters aw aited us. In that event, in all
I'C'ba' i'ily, Baltimore would have been tlie
'rr j, riurr oi that church, so far as its publiMi
!r-- u;t-re>'s aie concerned. There, probably,
"s H' k room would have been located, as
, its mission rooms. And yet we did not
Again : the stand we took brought upon ns
! i:< >ertati m and the bitterest persecution.
Uf v, •[e denounced as belonging to an aboii
-1 C urch. ihe [Kilitical preps, in some quar
. let louse its blood hounds upon us, and pur
■ I us. Some of our preachers came near he
-1 '• '.'died ; hut we stood our ground. We
til ne circuit nearly crushed out bv the mis
rolliiitr-Hiie policy which was put in op
' ration. It was a frontier Circuit, bounded on
, :;e 'Me by the Rappahannock river. Did we
,Ue up, even that territory ! No sir, when it
-'•as dangerous to go there, when our preachers
•"re a! .: s? driven oft, when nearly all out
j'"rubers |. ft us and took the Churches with
■•fro, sane half a dozen in Warrenton, and a
niore notde spiiits scattered through the
ut. remained firm in their attachment to
old church, and I stood with them in weal
- woo, with tongue arid pen, and all the in
"Ue"Ce i could exert. The Baltimore Confer
' "Ct* continued to extend to them its fostering
| ar e; and though our people in Wairenton lost
vir house of worship, they conceived the de
-n ot building another, which, at the time
" ' under the circumstances, seemed a hopeless
r "Hiking, yet they persevered, the Confer
"■•ce helped them, the house was completed, I
" J ' : the honor of dedicating it, and notwitstanrl
' M the prognostications that nobody would be
'"re,the people came from all directions, it
" a> fi 'ed to its utmost capacity the Methodist
•••inner was unfurled, it waves there still in tri—
f !'h, and there may it float in all time to
And the result of all is, (hat like the
Phmnix, the Circuit has from its ashes,
and promises to be one ot the best in I lie Confer
ence. .Now, sir, is it just, is it fair, is it
righteous, that a Conference—a people who
liave thus in peril and multiplied diliiculties,
stood by the old land marks—by the IVleihodist
Church—by the discipline, us handed down to
us by the lathers, should be oppressed t>v the
measure before us—that will paralize all their
elibrts, and send disaster and ruin in all their
borders ? V\ ill this Cenerul Conference re
quite them lor their devotion in this way '
Ist. J shall in the first plate, before coining
to the discussion ol the main question, notice
s.une points made by Dr. Thompson, in his
speech on yesterday. I wish to break the force
ot that speech, adorned as it was with classic
beauty and refined taste, which I think can be
done with a simple replication.
And first, he alluded to the Hebrew practice
in tlie cases of fugdve servants who tied from
their pagan masters to their jurisdiction, By
the law or custom of the Jews, the fugitives
were not returned: so neither were servants
who tied from them sent back. In reply 1 state,
the Jewish government was a theocracy —the
most simple lorrn of government, next, if not
equal, in this respect, to absolute despotism.—
1 his is not the case in the United Slates. Ours
is a complex system of government. We have
federal and State authority. Tim national gov
ernment exercises executive, legislative and ju
dicial powers : so do the States in their respec
tive spheres. In several of these States slaveiy
is sanctioned hy law; and the Constitution,
which is the bond of union tor ail the States ol
the Confederacy, does contain unquestionable
provisions in relation to slaves, or persons held
to service or labor ; and these provisions consti
tute the compromises of that instiument. Three
fifths ol the slave population are repiesenled in
one brand) ot tile National Legislature tliev
may be taxed : and provision is made lor their
recovery i! they (lee from the service of their
owners. Ihe church ol Cod is luund in the
slave holding States : and I submit, sir, that
though this was an eloquent passage in the Doc
tor's speech finely put and eliciting hearty
responses —it is not applicable ton.;—in our pe
culiar circumstances and under our fonn of
government, \v hich I believe to be the best the
world ever saw.
In the next place, Dr. Thompson referred to
th<- emancipation of slaves which has taken
place in tbe Eastern and Northern States, and
attributed it wholyto the high moral sentiment
that prevailed there. ] admit that there is as
pure moral sentiment in New England an J the
North as elsewhere; that it has as much influ
ence there as any other part of the globe : ave,
more, that it has done vast good in its outward
spread. lam willing to grant as much in this
connection, as can be claimed, or ought to be
granted, I'ut, lam far from believing, that
the emancipation of slaves in the East and
North,.was brought about simple by the influ
ence ot moral sentiment. State policy had a
large share in it. Tbe soil of New England,
and the North, except in detached portions, is
not adapted to slave labor. It could not he
made profitable there. As a general rule,
grain growing countries are not suited to slave
labor, which ran only be employed advatage
ously and profitably wfieie cotton, sugar, hemp,
rice, or indigo is the staple product. And
there can be no doubt, this law bad its influence
in accomplishing tbe emancipation r> t -rred to.
To prove si l- , that this was riot the result of a
moral sentiment superior to that which prevails
in the Southern States, I have simpiv to call
your attention to the ordinance of 1757, bv
which slavery was prohibited in the whole of
what was then called the Northwest Territory,
out of which five poweiful States have hem
formed Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and
I believe lowa, whose stars now coriipo.se part
of (tie bright galaxy that emblazons the Nation
al flag. Who was the author ot that ordinance?
Thom is Jefferson, a Virginian a man whose
fame fills the world. He wrote it in 1803 or
ISO 4-, and though it did not pass at that time,
it was adopted with a slight amendment, as to
the time it should go into effect, by the Con
gress of the Confederacy, which sat cotempoia
neously with the Convention that framed the
Constitution in 1787. That ordinance, tin
production of a Southern man, voted for hy
Southern men, has tunned the basis fur freedom
111 I fie five Slutts I have named.
Since Ohio lias become a State efforts have
been made, either in her Legislature, or in
Conventions, to form or re-model her Constitu
tion to introduce slavery, hut they were una
vailing. When Indiana was a Territory of the :
United Slates, the Territorial Legislature peti
ti med Congress to suspend the operation of the
ordinance < f*B7, so far as it bore upon Indiana:
in order that slavery might be admitted into
the Territory. The petition was presented in
the House of Representatives and referred to a
special commitee, of which John Randolph, a
Virginian, the owner of 300 slaves, (which he
manumitted at his death) was chairman, who
reported in substance, that the ordinance of
1787 had worked well, relieving the Territory
affected by it, of a great and that it was
improper to stipend it <>r comply with the pray
er of the petitioners. The report was adopted
and by the aid of Southern votes. Indiana was
preserved from slavery and ennu* into the U
nion as she now remains, a tree State.
3d. Dr. Thompson says that slavery is on
the increase ; that it lias more power than it
formerly had. 1 beg to say that if this is true
the .Methodist Episcopal Church is not respon
sible for it as the Doctor intimates. Slavery is
the creature of civil not ecclesiastical law, and
is beyond the direct control of church action.
Religion the Methodist Episcopal Church is
not the author of it nor is she accountable for
its existence. She has exerted a beneficial in
fluence over it in many respects. Whatever
truth there may be in the remark "that slavery
is on the increase," when applied to certain
portions of country, I doubt very much its ap
plicability to that j ar', of slave territory with-
FRIDAY MORNING, BEDFORD, PA. JULY 4, 1556.
! bounds of (lie Baltimore Conference,
\ou will be surprised (o learn, (hat in Balti
more C ill/ Station, according to thetestimony of
brethren well-informed on the subject , there is
but one slaveholder, and it is doubtful, from the
: same authority , it there be one.
We have in our conference a colored mem
bership of between lr,000 and 20,000. In
l (lie city of Baltimore alone, theie are between
3,000 and 4,000 members in our church. They
have good churches, they sing sweetly, prav
powerfully, and have among them many excel
lent local preachers. They have their Sabbath
and day schools. Yon may tread the streets
of Baltimore and you will not meet a single col
ored beggar. There are beggars in that citv,
but they are not found among the descendants
of Africa. Jt may he safely said, that slavery
is not on the increase in Baltimore. Brother
Critfith says it is on the decrease, [Several
voices, true.| Our people there, are well-in
formed and intelligent. They know tii.-v can
hire labor cheaper than they can buy it, and he
responsible for the clothing, feeding and sus
taining a family nt slaves, when able to do ser
vice or not. ! will make a suggestion to Dr.
I horn peon, worthy of consideration, that with
al! the increase ot slavery, as lie supposes, and
the great value of slave property, Southern
people, instead of selling them and pocketing
the money, in many cases, manumit them bv
scores, and provide from their own means, fur
tfieir comfortable sot sisfence in Liberia, or some
other colony, until they are aide tu take care'of
themselves.
2d. I believe it is admitted—given up by
the (I lairmnn of ihe committee on slavery, and
the fi lends of the report submitted by "him
that it makes a new term uf membership in the
Methodist Episcopal Church, namely, non
slave-liolding. (Several voices, among them
Dr. Raymond's, no, no.] Then sir, I shall pro
ceed to prove it from the repott itself, now on
your table and under discussion.
Ist. 'I he first answer to the question, "what
• ball be done for the extirpation of the in eat e
vilof slavery 'contains the following provis
ion, "there fore, no slave-holder shall be eligible
to membership in oar church hereafter, inhere
emancipation can be effected wit hunt injury to
fh ■ stare." Does not this seek to make en an
cipation a condition of admission into our
Church is not that a new test i Was it ever
matte before > If it was, I have not been aide
to discover it. I have studied the M. thodisi
discipline: have tried to understand it, having
been an administrator of it in different rela
tions: and it emancipation was ever a condi
tion of admission, it has escaped mv notice. It
cannot he found in the imok. Jt is a perfect
novelty. Dr. Raymond cannot escape this con
clusion.
2d. In the second answer to the question n
bove stated non-stave-hot ding is sought to be
made a term of membership in a two fold ap
plication, as follows : "whenever a meird>er of
our church by any means becomes (he owner of
n slave, it shall be the duty of the preacher in
charge to call together a committee of at least
three, members, who shall investigate the case and
determine the lime in which such stare shall be
freed, and on his refusal or neg/ict to abide by
the division of said committer, he shall be dealt
with as in case of immorality." .Now, sir, in
the slave holding pait of our Conference, and
I presume jt is so in all our Conferences in
slave territory, a large portion of our members
rio not hold slaves. They might become slave
holders by inheritance n gift, and would tin v
not by tins renuirenjent tie brought before a
committee ami if thev refused to appear, or
would not ab.de |>\ the decision ol the commit
tee, would 11i ev not be tried lor immorality, and
il convicted be • xpelied from the church f _\o
one (an dispute this, and hence 1 sav. this f.a
!ure, if adopted, makes a new term of member
ship to those now in the church, and in addi
lion has the odious character of an "expost fac
to law." It does :hiis to all intents and j urpo
ws. It never was done before. Furtliernmie
here are members of our church at present
■ lavi holders, who are liable nndi r the proposed
hapter, (read it again) '•whenever a member of
iur church by any mams becomes an owner of
t slave, <SIf then the number ot slaves
ield by a member he added to, cither by in
iieritauce, gilt, or natural increase, he is In he
irraigned or dealt with in case of r< fusai or
leglect, as il guilty of immorality. Could
language be more explicit, and does it not indis
putably establish the point we have made ?
3d. The third answer to the question quoted
arovides for giving slaves bv their masters " such
compensation for their services as may, under
he circumstances, be just and equal."' That
nakes a rtrw test, and why ? It changes en
iivly the relation ol master and slave, and puts
he stare in the position of a frent-man. [A
reri said several.) lam rejoiced that you say
-\mvii: it gives your endowment to what I
iave stated. I repeat it, this passage does, in
diect, make non-sla vehoiding a term of uiem
iership in our church. The proposil ion is trn
if each of the points separately and ol all
rornbined. Thev are like four books tied to
re! her, with which I have seen persons fish.
Yon are to he caught on one or the other of
hem —there is no escape.
There is aother feature of this report, sir, to
which I wish to call attention. It is llus, "to
■erotert them (the slaves) in ihe observance of the
In ties of the conjugal and parental relations."
Plus is to he made the duty of owners. I
hink this, sir, a gratuitous reflection upon my
people. I never knew an instance in the
pounds of the Baltimore Conference, in which
i member of out church wantonly, or for mere
tain, separated husband and wife—parent and
diild. I have tried my own recollection and
-an find none; and have called on Brother
Griffith, whose memory is as tenacious as a tar
iarrel, and he does not remember such an oc
urrence. Professor Nadal informs me that a
nan in St. Mary's county, Maryland, belong
ng to the Methodist Church,sold a child from
is mother, for which he was tried and expell-
Freedom of Thought and Opinion.
! ed. 1 i)is is the only instance of the kind tha
j has come to my knowledge. Our people vvouf
fet-1 such an enactment as a reproach and ai
act ol unmerited kindness. They do respect
as tar as can be done, the conjugal and parenta
ie!ations among their servants, and regard then
as much and as sacredly as any members of thi
Conference can possibly do.
HI. Having established, as I think, clearli
: and beyond dispute, that the report of the ma
jorily ol the committee on slavery does seek t.
make non-slavtholding a term of tnembershi]
if) the Methodist Episcopal Church, I shali pro
ceed to show, in the next place, that such <
test, as the discipline now stands, and unde
: th e general rule, as it now reads, is wholly un
constitutional.
Ist. I o understand the constitutional ques
f ion properly it is necessary to refer briefly t
the history ol the church, especially as regard
the organization ol the present general Confer
ence: which is not a body of the same ecclesi
astical powers, as that of the same designation
which sat prior to 1808. Anterior to 1808
the General Confereru e was composed of all tin
elder-ship, and possessed unlimited powers. J'
was under no constitutional provisions, either oi
prohibitions or of grants. At the date above
given they (the elders) in Conference assem
bled, organized the delegated General Confer
ence, to which they did not transfer all the
powers they possessed, hut placed it under re
strictions. They fixed the limits beyond which
the delegated body cannot go, except in tile
mode prescribed in the restrictions themselves
I hese restrictive rules secure our articles of re
ligion— the iatio of representation in the Gene
ra! Conference—the Episcopacy, or the plan
of itinerant, general snperinlendency—the gen
eral rules of the 1 mted Societies—the privi
lege cd our preachers and members, of trial,
and appeal : and the appropriation of the pio
ceetis of the Book f'oncei n : all of which en
ter into ami form the constitution of the Metho
dist Episcopal Church, under which it has been
acting and by which it has been controlled
since 1 808. We must be confined to that peri
od and since. We have no power that was not
then given us. Our authority is supreme only
within the limits of the charter. We have n
right to do we please. The general rule on
the subject ol slavery which is placed under
the control ol the constitution, is sufficiently
explicit as to the relation that institution sus
tairistothe Methodist Episcopal Church to the
extent of the sense and meaning of the rule
the General Conference may go in making reg
ulations lor the Church, but no farther. The
action proposed ! v the majority ol the com
mittee on slavery seeks to accomplish under the
rule. it is, w hat cannot be don- unless it he
essentially thanged ; to do if, therefore, with
out the change | S unconstitutional.
2nd. Simple si areh o! ding never was a term of
membership in the . Met hot! id Episcopal Church.
l-'. i fie measures adopted hv th- Christmas
Conference in when tfie Methodist Epis
copal ( i urch in the Cnited Stales was organi
sed, were confessedly the most stringent in our
record : and yet, even in them, there is a re
markable drawback, in th>- form of a note,
which reads, "these rules are In affect ihe mem
bers of our Societies no further than as thsi)
are consistent with the laws of the States in
which they reside.'" This took off the stringen
cy of thcs- enactments from members residing
in th-Southern States; fact, thev were ta
ken from their application altogether, and then
it was added "and respecting our brethren in
\ irginia that are concerned, and alter due con
sideration of their peculiar circumstances, u>
allow them two years, from the notice given,
to consider the expediency of compliance or
r.on-cf mplianr.e with these rules." hat a
provision 1 And to show that the Conference
ai that early dav made a plain and palpable dis
tinction between s/aveho/ding and "buying or
selling" slaves, the qu-stion is asked: "what
shall I?--n- With those wild buy or sell slaves,
or give them au av ? and the answer is per
emptory, "I/in/ are immediately to he expelled;
unless (pi y buv them on purpose to free them."
Mark (lie distinction 1 It indicates what has
been called here the "animus." It is the key
In unlock the meaning of the fathers. (See
Emory's history of the Discipline, page 44.)
Hut the:.c measures were all suspended in six
months, an.' why ? Dr. Coke made a journey
uuth, and became convinced that they were
improper, and in l7h:> the suspension was per
fected by the Conference because "they would
do harm." Dr. Coke upon his own authority
first suspended these rules, and states the fact
and gives the n as m tor doing so in his journal,
though they w ere passed hv a conference. I
th nhf, sir, if you or the bench of Bishops would
do the same; and the transaction displays the
simplicity ol government and the administra
tion ol the dav.
3d. In further proof of this point, in 1789
tile general rule fiist went into the discipline in
these words, "the billing or selling the bodies
ami souls of men, women or children, with an
intention to enslave them." In 179*2 the rub
rends "the hui ing or selling of men, women or
children, with an intention to enslave them."
I am glad of this change of phraseology and
that "bodies and souls" are left out. \on can't
enslave the soul .d' a ma.'i-e-as that belongs to
God. The Apostles had their feet fastened in
the stocks in the inner dungeon, hut their souls
were tree ; so of the servant of whom we have
heard whose master sought to prevent his going
to church or even serving God. While sick
and being threatened by his master and charged
with hvpociisy, lie turned over in his bed and
exclaimed thank God 1 am free: died and
went to Heaven! No,sir, vou cannot enslave
the sou!; but under the rule of 1789 and 1792
slaves could he held by members of the church
by inheritance or gift without violating it. A
reference to the circumstances of the times will
fix its signification. The slave trade was then
rife and the traffle was obviously alluded to.
Let it be remembered that this rule is of Amer
ican origin. Mr. Wesley did not make it, it is
I not among his general rules, and down to this
j time the Wesleyan connection has no such rule,
i I hat body has a number of Missionaries in slave
, j holding countries and no directions or instruc
tions are given them interfering with the rela
tion of master and slave; on the contrary they
are ordered to respect that relation. Their in
structions are simply to preach the gospel.
But what of all this, sir ; it ha- no force upon
i us, thongh much stress has been laid upon the
action of our fathers at these periods. What
they did, we may not, we cannot do. After the
revolutionary war which separated the States
from the mother country, the articles ofconfed
i oration which had feebly held them together
during its continuance proved to he so feeble—
such a rope of sand—that they were superseded
hv the constitution, which formed a more per
, lect government : and who would appeal now
for the interpretation of a law of the land to
thecs articles of the confederacy t The consti
tution, which subverted them, is the supreme
| law of the country to which all others have to
conform. So in our church government; we
cannot go back farther than 180S, when our
constitution was established, and we must be
governed by its provisions in all our enactments
and regulations. Now what is the state of the
I case under this constitution? Ist. For the
fit ft time the general rule in reference to sla
very reads, '■• the. but/inn and sr/ltna of men,
women and children villi an intention to en
slave Hum.''' Jt was given tins form bv the
hody that made this General f oicierence, fixed
its powers, and guarded them hv constitutional
restrictions. In this form it went info the dis
cipline under new guards. 2d. To prove that
it was not intended to apply to S/r/re holding
in the membership and make the opposite a
term of communion the same conference of 1808
struck from the discipline all that related to hol
ding slaves by private members of the church,
enacted in 1790, (see Emory's History of the
Discipline, page 2in—answer to the questions.
V'v hat regulations shall he made lor the extir
pation of the crying evils of slavery ?",
I his makes it clear that the barriers of the
Constitution ol the Methodist Episcopal Church,
did not make, did not intend to make, non
slaveholding a term of membership, ei-e whv
(Strikeout these regulations? It was done of
i >et purpose, namefv, to conform the Discipline
to tiie uile. 3d. 'ltie chapter, which is a mere
statute, to rariy out the provision, in theCon
| stitulion, with respect to slavery confirms this
view, '{here is nothing in that chapter touch
j ing non-s!aveholdiug as a t-rm of membership,
it simply refers to official relation—nothing
more. I nder certain circumstances, fuilv sta
led, a man may not sustain an official position
ii he be a slaveholder, but under no circumstan
ces does (bat fact affect his membership in the
■ church, fth. Tiie efforts which were made,
just prior to the meeting of this General Con
ference, by sending round to the Annual Con
ferences resolutions proposing to change the
general rule, so as to make it include slav(-hol
ding, i- Conclusive as to the judgment of the au
tliorsoj the resolutions of the Conferences who
voted for them—and of the Church in these
quarters—that it does not, in its present form,
contain that feature. And vt, in the measure
helore us, the attempt is made to do substantial
ly the same tiling bv mere enactment without
; chanirinir (he rule, the effort to do winch sig
nally l.iiled in the constitutional process! I- it
right, is it lawful, to do that indincily uncon
stitutionally, which could not be done direcfh/
and constitulionally ? nth. The proceedings
had in relation to the rule, concerning the use
:of spirituous liquors, is corroborative of the
ground herein taken. It was d. sired to make
it more stringent, and the trial to do so was
commenced in 1836, and a proposition to change
or suspend the rule was s-nt round to the An
nual Conferences. which failed to receive the
requisite vote. It was started again at the Gen
eral Conference of 18-1-0 and pa-serf round the
Conferences, and in 18+4 it was found that it
still lacked the required vote: in this Confer
ence, however, an attempt w as made to put th*>
change into the discipline, irrespective of the
constitution. I raised the constitutional objec
tion myself, which defeated it : and it was once
more referred to the Annual Conferences, and
in 1848, having received the constitutional
vote, it went into the discipline. It was not
attempted to put in a chapter containing the de
sireil provision, bv a mere majority vote, as in
the matter under discussion, leaving the gen
eral rule unchanged. The constitution was re
spected in this instance, and nothing was done
until its provisions were complied with. The
cases are parallel—both the rule on spirituous
liquors and the one respecting slavery are in
the same category o( general rules which area
part of the constitution: the action on them
should be alike, save that the latter should be
more carefully and delicately handled than the
former, and certainly nothing on the subject to
which it refers should be put in the discipline,
not clearly embraced in itstiue import and sig
nification.
!o offset tlie constitutional argument it has
been contended that Baptism and proper con
fession of faith, have been made terms of mem
bership without the change of a general rule,
therefore non-s/aveholdinfj may be. The in
stances are not analagotis. Baptism is an ac
knowledged sacrament in our creed, and we
have regular articles of faith, as a church, which
by the first restriction are made part of the
Constitution. Baptism ami conformity in faith
to these articles may be made terms of commun
ion without infracting constitutional provisions.
Every member of the church sliould be bapti
sed—should agree with us in faith. The Gen
eral Conference has a right to require this : and
the regulations adopted lor this purpose simply
carry out a constitutional principle. Where
there is a provision in organic law for any pur
pose, the legislative body can adopt enactments
to put it in force. This is the univei>.il rule.—
As regards then, the regulations making bap
tism and confession of faith requisites for ad
mission into our church, there is not only no
IS'J PICK VEAII.
VOL XXIV, NO. 11.
conflict with the Constitution, but they wer*
necessary to give proper effect to constitutional
provisions. I come to the conclusion to which
I hope every member of this Conference will
come, that the measure before us doeg make a
new term ot membership and seeks to do it in
an unconstitutional wav. Yon were right,
sir, in the warnings nut forth in the address of
tlie Bishops in reteieuce to measures uIII ucon
stitutional hearing, i'ou might have said it
more strongly.
'/ lie constitutional argument against the pur
posed chapter may by summed up as follows:
Ist. Ihe general rule respecting slavery
which reads "the buying and selling of men,
women and children with an intention to en
slave them, does nut in letter or spirit prohibit
slaveholding by members of the Methodist Kpi>-
copal Church.
2d. The general rule abort stated is guarded
and protected by the fourth restriction, upon
the powers ollhe General Conference, which
says "Ihey (the Geneial Conference) shall nut
revoke or change the genera: rules of the united
soci'dies."
3d. Nothing can go into the discipline on
the subject ot slaveiv exceeding the obvious
sense and meaning of the general rule.
4th. The measure reported by the majority
of the committee on slavery does exceed "the
sense and meaning" of the general rule : it
makes non-td art hot din g a term ot membership
in the Methodist llpisc pal Church, which is
neither provided for nor sanctioned by said
rule.
sth. To engraft the said measure or chapiter
upon the discipline the general rule must be
c/utnged, which can only he effected by compli
ance with the proviso to the sixth restriction
which requires a vote of two-thirds of the Gen
eral Conference, concurred in bv three-fourths
of all the members of the several annual Con
ferences.
6th. It i- not proposed by the majority of the
committee on slavery to change the general
rule tor tiie admission of their measure, or to
wait the constitutional action thereon, but sim
ply to pass it by a Majority vote oj i/iis body,
and thus force it upon the church.
7th. To do this is clearly and indisputably,
unconstitutional, it would bean art violating
directly the constitution oft he church, the only
safe guard of the rights and privileges of the
members thereof.
It i- due to candor to sav that 1 shall vote a
gainst the other resolution reported bv the ma
jority, which asks a change of the general rule
so as to make it applv to slaveholding , though
it looks to accomplishing it in a constitutional
way, which 1 admit you have a right to do if
you can. But 1 beg vou to pause before it is
done, for the moment it is, a large portiouof th>*
pieople of our Conference is unchurched, and
the balance will make common cause and <u
with them.
IV. .\ 'on slare/ioi/intr or emancipation nev
er was a term of membership in the Christian
< hutch. at least 0/ any lending denomination
of Christians.
i In'fi tends, or Quakers, and some other
comparatively inconsiderable tVnominat ions,
may he exceptions to this position, hut not of
sufficient strength to break the force of it.
Ist. It is, to say the h-ast,exceedingly doubt
ful whether any ecclesiastical boriv, claiming
to he a branch of the Church of Christ, has tie*
right to establish a term of communion not laid
down by himseif, or which has not the divine
warrant. What authority has any denomina
tion of Christians to create terms of admission
into Christ's fold ? He fixes these himself, and
lias delegated to none the authority 10 add to or
to take fiom. \\ hatever therefore has not
been established by the Redeemer, or has not
the divine appointment or sanction, mav not be
made consistently with proper submission to the
Head of tlie Chinch, at st ( ,l membership there
in. ihe visible Church is not independent.—
It cannot do as it piteases, or legislate tests to ac
cord with its peculiar views and opinions.—
Christ is tlie only Lord and law-giver of his
people. (Maiming to l,e a depository of his
doctrines, and within it.- sphere a representa
tive ~j himself, every bianch nf the true Church
is bound by his laws and must he governed bv
(he terms he laid down, without making it >
own.
T say this, sir, in full view of the objection
that may lie staled as to class-meeting, and re
mark further, hat if von cannot deduce tins
fairly from the word of God, espnciallv in view
rt the itinerant character of our ministry, which
interferes somewhat with the pastoral relation,
and sliov. that it is an essential auxiliary in
executing fully that relation under our govern
ment, then it is not of divine authority, and is
a mere conventional rule or jmivilege. that mav
he attended to or not, without jeoparding mem
bership.
2d. The question has recentlv been mooted
as to whether slaveholders were admitted into
the Apostolic Church. We leave this fruitless
discussion to those whose tastes it mav suit.—
Tlie truth ot the natter seems to be this, after
all that has been written upon the subject.—
'I he apostles were wise, discreet, holy as well
as inspired no n. They had but one aim, but
one p airpio.se— to fulfill their glorious commis
sion "to preach the Gospel to every creature."
They operated upton the world, as they found it,
111 its civil and social relations; —proclaimed
"the unsearchable riches of Christ"—the soul
saving doctrines of the Cross alike to persons iu
ail conditions and relations of society ; and
when they became converted, doubtless admit
ted them indiscriminately to the "fellowship of
the saints" and the ordinances of God's hou.se.
They did not meet in council to fix upuii and
multiply terms of communion to suit changing
notions in Church or State. There vva>, 'tis
hue, a council Imld in Jerusalem, of which we
have an account in the 15th chapter of the
Acts, which was comprised of tlie apostles and
elders, convened to settle a question which hail
been raised bv some "Pharisees who believed"
and taught thai Gentih converts should be "err-