American Republican and Baltimore daily clipper. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1844-1846, 1845-05-13
METHODIST K. CONFERENCE,

METHODIST 4. CONFERENCE,
TUESDAY, MAY 9Th. The convention was
opened with the usual eremones-Bshop An
drew N the chair. After contradiction, by
DIR. Boring, of q report that the Alabama dele
CATION was opposed to separation, and some dis
olssIon III relation to the reports of the pro-
ceedDgs of the convention, DR.. Smith of Va,
rose and called up his resolution instrlctlng the
committee on organization to bring i'll report
IN favor of separation. He advocated 1t in an
eloquent speech of more than two hours, be-
fore large audience-the following brief abb
stract of which we copy from the Louisville
Journal:
After discussing the public mind of the I'M
Just impressions made by the senior editor OF
the Advocate and journal, in numerous edito-
rial notices of himself, since the rise of the late
general conference, showing his remarks to be
unjust, personally offensive, and calculated to
be extensively injurious, he remarked that the
ground assumed in the resolution before the
convention was, that the action Of the late ge-
neral conference on the sub ect of slavery was
wrong and cosld not be submitted to. The rea-
son be gave for this position was that it was in
violation of the discipline of the church and the
civil policy of the country. He read the pro-
VsIonal rule of the disc pine, (tenth section, J
on the subject of slavery, and showed that, in
lerpreted according to constitutional principles
laid down in the Esd article of religion, under
which it was made, it did not warrant the ac-
ton Of the conference in the cases of our honor
ed Bishop Andrew, and the unfortunate Hard
ing. He particularly defined the action of the
general conference in these cases, and showed
that according to the constitutional principle re-
ferred o,whatever is in violation Of the civil po-
licy OF the couRtry is equally in violation ofthe
discipline of the church when correctly inter-
preted. He showed that the action of the late
general conference was in violation of the civil
pocy-not of the slave States alone-but of
the whole country on the subject of slavery
His position on this point struck us as novel,
but his arguments were clear and unanswera-
BILE, if we may judge from their apparent effect
upon the assembly. He remarked that howev-
or unauthorized by the constitution of the
church, or by the conventional rules of the dis
clpline, the action of the general conference
was nevertheless the law Of the church, as such
he maintained that we could not submit TO be
governed by it without intiicting deep and last
ING injury to the church and upon the country.
He argued this position on two grounds.
LIST, That being the decision Of the high court
Of appeals, from which there was no appeal, it
became the authorized Interpretation of the
rules of discipline upon the subject of slavery.
Hence every administrator Of discipline was
bound, by the solemn vows of his ordination, to
administer the rules of discipline as thus inter
preted. A bishop, he said, presiding in an an
nual conference would be subject to impeach-
ment if he administered the rules of discipline
on any other principles of construction. He ad-
duced the conduct of Bishop James, at the late
session of the Kentucky conference, in declin-
ing to ordan certain local preachers who were
elected to ORDERS in proof The discipline,
thus administered, would result in the distran-
chsement of every officer of the church, from
the bishop down to a class-leader, who were in
the circumstances Of either the venerated An
drew or the unfortunate Harding. All this we
were bound to do, provided we submitted to be
governed by the present general conferences
The result Il is Obvious pouidbe The entire ami
aiiation Of the Church 'cihin the SLAVE States.
I'd. If we remained under the jurisdiction of
the general conference, but refused to admins
ter the rules of discipline as thus interpreted,
he showed that we would be null6ers-separa-
lists in the bosom of the church-disorgani
zers acting in proud contempt of both law and
order. He said we could not safely do either
and administer the law thus interpreted, nor
remain in the connection and refuse to admin
ster the laws at all, without the most serious
disaster to the church.
We should, said DR.. Smith, be equally I'M
faithful to the country as to the church. The
decision of this high court ofappeas, as he had
already showed, declared 1t to be the law and
long settled policy of the Methodist Episcopal
Church to extirPate slavery from the States OF
our National Observation-Disclosures by the
policy and laws of the States more immediate
ly concerned,
Here DR.. Smith showed it to be a treasona-
BILE movement upon the part of the church,
which, however, was not that form of treason
known to the statute books, and which implied
the taking up of arms against the State, but
was nevertheless moral treason; form, of trea-
son more disastrous in its practical operation
and final results, than that attempted by Aaron
Burr and the unfortunate Blannerhassett, be-
cause, in its ultimate results, it involved the
taking up of arms under maddened religious
fanatiCsm more ungovernable than the waves
that lash the ocean shore, or the tempest that
lays waste the mountain forest. Here Dr. s