Martinsburg gazette. [volume] (Martinsburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1833-1855, 1845-06-19
rFor he Ga-ests.

Mn. EprToR-To differ with au ed,tof,
whose columns you occupy By courtesy,
IS very much ike taking seat in the
wrong pew; but having attempted some
explanations, and only succeeded Item
lite resoIrere, must claim your courtesy
for few words more.
We are not at lssue in the opposition
which you express 10 Church legislation
upon the subject Of domestic Slavery,
nor shall we quarrel with your position
when you say, 1--WE take ground that the
Church, having no rigii under the lars
and constitution of the couatry 10 interfere
with, or legislaie upon the institutions OF
domestic Slavery, ought not under any
circumstances 10 suffer il to be brought
before her public Conventions for deliber-
alton and action" This may do, when
confined to legislation but we appreheud
you attribute to the recent action in the
case OF Bishop Andrew legislatige action,
when, in fact. no such action was had ia
the premises, by the Methodist Episcopal
Church.
The General Conference ofthat Church
is the erecuiiue council 10 he case OF the
bishops Of The Church, and according to
the cannons, the character of each un-
dergoes quadrennaI investigation before
this body. In this investigation, not only
the moral character, but the fitness of
each bishop for his itinerant cork and
general SUPPLEMENTARY are investigated,
so that not only moral ubliquItY, but the
qualifications for the general supervision
of all the Churches come under its cognl.
zance. Ia the last General Conference,
the action which resulted 10 the recon.
menddtion, about which so much noise is
made, was the result oftbis kind of inves.
tigalion, add not Legislative deliberation
upon the subject Of domestic Slavery. 1t
was the result Of that kind Of investigation
which is essential to an itinerant ministry,
who are subject TO an appointing power
ID power whose prerogative allow the
distribution OF labour from one section to
another, any where IN the bounds of the
connection, and is essential TO the USE
fitness of those ministers who laoour first
in Slave and then in Free States.
1t requires but little reflection to see
that to dismiss all consideration of the re-
, Iaton OF Master to Slave from toe coun.
ellis Of the Church, would be, in chris
, tiah communion, to assume fearful &C.
count of responsibility. Slavery may be
allowed to exist while in its connection
there may spring up acts which moral,
not to say Christian, communities would
not tolerate, in either the lalty or the
ministry and the strongest pro-Slavery
feelings, under tine light Of christarily
would condemn many acts as antI.chrls-
tiar which the civil law allows. Ii is the
business of all Churches to repel moral
ooIiquity, and keep her ministry by prop.
er restrictions suited, as much as possible,
for the places they fill, in the great work
Of saving souls. 1t was this capacity, in
which the Church was acting, that has
brough, upon her the false opprobrlum oil
legislating upon the domestic institutions
of the country.
The force of these remarks will appear
more clearly when we examine into the
contrast between the economy OF the
Methodist E. Church and all other Pro-
tes,ant Churches in this country. No
other Church allows of representation
of the entire body to set as an executive
or judicial council in the case of ministers,
whose duties equally relate to all, whether
North or South. The General Assem-
bly, of the Presbyterian Church is legis.
latve body exclusively. The conven-
, ton OF the Protestant Episcopal Church
, is not an ecclesiastical court, and The de.
partmeut which holds executive or judi
cial jurisdiction over the bishops, has no
other than diocesan bishop, to try for
misdemeanours. the Methodist Episco-
pal Church could have avoided the pain
full action il the case OF Bishop Andrew
if her bishops were diocesan, but being
general superntendanls the case came
up unavoiddJg as part Of the business
o. the General Conference. And what
ever may be the issue Of the action it is
commend4b BILE that she had The 6rmness
to meet it. No other Church economy
presents such necessity; and il is evident
that, the object of those who acted in the
matter was to do as little to create the
evil, which had unavodably arisen, as
they could. Duty required them to in
vestigate the case, and prevent any nno.
vation upon the established usages OF the
Church.
VII the Methodist Church was called
upon by their fanatcal Northern commu-
njeants to legislaie upon the subject Of
domestic Slavery, she did as the Presby.
teran Church has nobly done; and it
stands forth upon her records as con-
vincing proof that her policy is not TO
iegislate upon the subject and amidst all
the efforts which have been made to the
contrary, her policy remains unaltered to
this dayl 1t is asked why has the
Church separated What has caused so
much excitement ali over the country in
reference TO the doings Of the Methodist
General Conference
In answer to these inlerroga,ories,
} suspect, upon a close investigation, it will
, be found that the Church has her over.
, share OF blame allotted to her. The times
were unproptious; the elements OF Soce-
I ty are in a state of remarkable fermen,
, lupon the subject of Slavery and Abolition: