rigid supervision necessary on the part of his overseer, thereby abridg. ing his civil and religious privileges.

These facts, which are only mentioned here as a reason for the friendly admonition which we wish to give you, constrain us as your pastors, who are called to watch over your souls as they who must give an account, to exhort you to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications; and especially from those of that inflammatory character which denounce in unmeasured terms those of their brethren who take the liberty to dissent from them. Those of you who may have honest scruples as to the lawfulness of slavery, considered as an abstract principle of moral right and wrong, if you must speak your sentiments, would do much better to express yourselves in those terms of respect and affection which evince a sincere sympathy for those of your brethren who are necessarily, and, in some instances, reluctantly associated with slavery in the states where it exists, than to indulge in harsh censures and denunciations, and in those fruitless efforts which, instead of lightening the burden of the slave, only tend to make his condition the more irksome and distressing.

From every view of the subject which we have been able to take, and from the most calm and dispassionate survey of the whole ground, we have come to the solemn conviction that the only safe, Scriptural, and prudent way for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is wholly to refrain from this agitating subject, which is now convulsing the country, and consequently the church, from end to end, by calling forth inflammatory speeches, papers, and pamphlets. While we cheerfully accord to such all the sincerity they ask for their belief and motives, we cannot but disapprove of their measures, as alike destructive to the peace of the church, and to the happiness of the slave himself. But, while we thus express our disapprobation of these measures, we would with equally strong and decided language record our abhorrence of all unlawful and unscriptural means to check and to counteract them. All mobs and violent movements of self-created tribunals to inflict summary punishment upon those who may differ from them in opinion are condemned alike by the laws of our land and by every principle of Christianity. We should therefore be extremely pained and mortified to learn that any of you should have lent your influence to foment a spirit of insurrection in any manner, or to have given sanction to such violent movements as have, in some instances and places, disturbed the peace of society, and forestalled the operation of the established tribunals of justice to protect the innocent and to punish the guilty. To be subject to the powers that be is a duty enjoined no less by Christianity than it is a dictate of common prudence, necessary to be observed for the preservation of good order, and the support and perpetuation of those civil and religious institutions which we so highly and justly value as freemen, as Christians, and as Methodists. The exercise of mutual forbearance in matters of opinion is essential in a community where freedom of speech is guarantied to the citizens by the constitution which binds them together, and which defines and secures the rights and liberties of all.”

Of all the acts of the General Conference, with the exception of one, none has been more extensively and severely censured than this VOL. IX.-January, 1838.

6

passage of the Pastoral Address, some having gone so far as to say that it forbids our preachers and brethren from either speaking or writing against slavery itself, whereas nothing can be more erroneous. To be convinced of this, let us analyze some portions of these paragraphs :

1. The subject upon which it treats is abolitionism and not slavery. It says, "We have been much agitated in some portions of our work with the very excitable subject of abolitionism." Had the Conference designed to speak of slavery, they would not have used this language, as though it were a new and recent thing among us, because slavery has existed among us ever since we have been a nation, and has been To tolerated, at least, in our church from its very commencement. have said, therefore, that we had just now been agitated on the subject of slavery, would have been saying nothing worthy of a moment's attention; but abolitionism, which had been of not more than two years growth, an exotic plant imported from Europe, whose pernicious fruit had recently poisoned the minds of many of our citizens and members of our church, was the subject so feelingly deprecated and condemned in this Address. This must be put beyond all dispute by the very next

sentence:

"This subject," it goes on to say, "has been brought before us at our present session-fully, and, we humbly trust, impartially discussed, and, by almost a unanimous vote, highly disapproved of."

Now will those who have so injuriously impugned the motives and misrepresented the actions of the General Conference pretend to say that it was slavery itself which they had highly disapproved of? Why, then, say with the very next breath that this same Conference refused to pass sentence of condemnation upon slavery! Such strange inconsistencies do men adopt when impelled to their conclusions by the force of erroneous premises. That it was abolitionism, which, as we have before said, includes the means selected for the abrogation of slavery, the Conference condemned, is farther manifest from the fol lowing sentence →

"We feel it an imperative duty to express our decided disapprobation of the measures they"—that is, the abolitionists-"have pursued to accomplish their object."

Here, then, it is most evident that it was abolitionism and not sla, very against which the Conference arrayed themselves; and while, as they say, they "would tenderly sympathize with those of our brethren who have been led astray by this agitating topic," and therefore refrain from impugning their motives, they strongly condemn their mea, sures as productive of mischief to the church.

Indeed almost the entire quotation proves that they were the "abolition movements," which, least of all, were "likely to do good" to the slave "the inflammatory speeches and writings" of those who had enlisted in the cause of this warfare against slavery, and not a condemnation of slavery itself, which the Conference attempted to correct, supposing that they had to do with brethren who might hearken to the voice of mild persuasion, instead of with those whose chief forte consists of a tortuous exposition of the sentiments of others.

2. But did the Conference, in thus condemning those violent "movements and inflammatory speeches," forbid the preachers and

people to speak against slavery? No, verily; no more than they at. tempted its justification. Mark the following sentence from the above address:

"Those of you who may have honest scruples as to the lawfulness of slavery, considered as an abstract principle of moral right and wrong, if you must speak your sentiments, would do much better to express yourselves in those terms of respect and affection which evince a sincere sympathy for those of your brethren who are necessarily, and, in some instances, reluctantly associated with slavery in those states where it exists, than to indulge in harsh censures and denunciations, and in those fruitless efforts which, instead of lightening the burden of the slave, only tend to make his condition the more irksome and distressing."

Here it is most evident that the Conference makes a clear distinc tion between "slavery, as an abstract principle of moral right and wrong," and the "harsh censures and denunciations" of those abolition. ists whose measures were so decidedly reprehended. And they are so far from justifying slavery, or offering an apology for it, that they allow those to whom the address was sent to "speak their sentiments" against it, only advising them to use that "respectful and affectionate language" which would "evince a sincere sympathy for those of their brethren" who held slaves. Why is it that those who have written strictures upon the acts and doings of the General Conference have represented them as sanctioning slavery, and as forbidding the preachers and members from speaking against it? What passion of the human heart is gratified by such an injurious representation of a body of ministers? Must not every impartial man see that, while the Conference condemned the measures of abolitionists, by which they meant chiefly their inflammatory speeches and writings, and their insisting that slavery must be instantly and unconditionally abrogated, regardless of all consequences, they allowed every man to exercise his own judgment in respect to slavery itself, giving him full liberty to speak and write against it, provided he did it in respectful and affectionate language?

From these quotations and remarks it appears evident,

1. That the General Conference distinguished between slavery and abolitionism.

2. That while they condemned the latter as subversive of all law and order, they did not justify the former, but allowed every one who had honest scruples respecting its lawfulness to speak against it, either privately or publicly.

To all this it may be objected that the Conference refused to express a sentiment against slavery, because they refused to say in their answer to the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, "We are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery," which was offered as an amendment by a certain delegate. To this we reply,

1. That there were certain prudential reasons, well known to those who have reiterated this objection with so much triumph, which induced the Conference to reject this amendment. But,

2. It was wholly unnecessary and uncalled for. Those parts of our Discipline over which a General Conference have control, are, unless altered or abrogated, repassed every four years. This sentence,

expressive of the sense of the General Conference, stood in the Disci. pline at the time, no attempt was made to alter it, and there it stands now, as the sense of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the subject of slavery. And yet we are told that the General Conference refused to express a sentiment against it! The Conference refused, merely to gratify a few individuals, to do a work of supererogation, when it could be of no possible use, and might be productive of much harm, as was demonstrated by several speakers on the floor of the Conference. We pronounce it therefore a misrepresentation to say that the late General Conference either approved of slavery or refused to record a sentiment against it. The former is proved such by the extracts we have made from the answer to the Wesleyan Methodist Conference, and the Pastoral Address; and the latter from the standing, unaltered rule in the Discipline. Hence we come to the conclusion again, that it was abolitionism against which the Conference arrayed itself, and not against those who condemn the system of slavery. Every man in the Methodist E. Church is at perfect liberty to denounce it in as severe terms as he pleases, provided only that he treat his "brethren who are necessarily, and, in some instances, reluctantly associated with it in those states where it exists," "with respectful and affectionate language," so as to evince his sincerity in the cause which he pleads, and an honest desire to promote the interests of the church.

We will now attempt more particularly to correct some misstatements which have been made in relation to the doings of the General Conference on the subject of slavery and abolitionism, as they have been published in some papers and pamphlets. In doing this, we remark that it appears to us unjust to make the Conference, as such, responsible for every sentence which may have been uttered in the warmth of extemporaneous debate. The speakers themselves alone, in fairness, are responsible for what they may have said, and not the Conference. Hence the manifest injustice which has been done to the Conference by those who have quoted the speeches of some of its members, with a view apparently to cast odium upon the whole body.

We are indeed very far from making the attempt to justify every word that dropped from the lips of speakers, or every sentiment that was uttered in the warmth of debate. Those must be more than human, and more indeed than human nature is capable of attaining in this life, even under the powerful influence of Christianity, who should be exempt from all aberrations of intellect, from all errors in judgment, and who should utter nothing reprehensible in extemporaneous debate, where, especially, conflicting opinions excite much discussion. For any defects of this sort which may have appeared in the late General Conference, we offer no other apology-and this will be deemed sufficient in the estimation of all reasonable men-than that which arises from the acknowledged weakness of human nature, and the intricacies of the subjects involved in the discussions. Taking these things into the account, it will, we think, be allowed by all impartial men, that the doings of the Conference were conducted with remarkable calmness and moderation. Many of the speakers who have been accused by a partial spectator of undue warmth, were not more ardent than they ordinarily are in the pulpit.

We shall, however, before we close this article, attempt to demonstrate that individual members, no less than the Conference itself, have been misrepresented, and, in some instances, even caricatured, by the published report of their speeches. With these preliminary remarks, we proceed to the unwelcome task of correcting some erroneous representations which have been made in reference to the subject before us.

That the reader may have as clear a view of the subject as we are able to give him, we will endeavor to follow the order of things, as nearly as practicable, as they occured in the Conference. Not many days after Conference assembled, it was ascertained that two of the abolition brethren from New-England had attended and lectured at an abolition meeting in the city of Cincinnati. As the agitation on that subject was very great, some brethren were alarmed lest a popular excitement should be got up to the injury of the Conference; and with a view to remove all suspicion from the public mind respecting the abolition character of the Conference, and of its participating in the spirit and measures of those brethren, a resolution was presented, which, after a long discussion and several amendments, passed by a vote of 120 in favor, and 14 against it, in the words following:

"Whereas great excitement has pervaded this country on the subject of modern abolitionism, which is reported to have been increased in this city recently by the unjustifiable conduct of two members of the General Conference, in lecturing upon and in favor of that agi. tating subject; and whereas such a course on the part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body the suspicions and distrust of community, and misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the point at isuc; and whereas, in this aspect of the case, a due regard for its own character, as well as a just concern for the interests of the church confided to its care, demand a full, decided, and unequivocal expression of the views of the General Conference in the premises :

"Therefore, 1. Resolved, by the Delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently upon, and in favor of, modern abolitionism.

2. "Resolved, That they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave, as it exists in the slaveholding states in this Union.

3. "Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be published in our periodicals."

The consideration of these resolutions produced, as before suggest. ed, a very long and spirited debate, in which the feelings of the community, as well as of the Conference, were deeply enlisted, as was manifested by the number who came to hear the discussion. Many speeches were delivered; but we shall confine our remarks chiefly to those of the Rev. O. Scott on the side of the abolitionists, and of the Rev. W. Winans in opposition to him, as they contain the principal points concerning which the mistakes have been made.

In the commencement of his speech, Mr. Scott laid down this proposition:-"That slavery is wrong in some circumstances, in no