Sentinel of the valley. [volume] (Woodstock, Va) 1841-1848, 1845-07-03

~''~ sA'C ioHd, anu CUulu IlOt nave UecL
submitted to by the South without the
most serious detriment to the interests
OF the Church. The action in the in
stance of Bishop Andrew, was in the
strongest and most exceptionable sense,
|extra-judicial. 1t was not pretended
that Bishop Andrew had violated any
law of the Church; so far from this,
the only law applicable to the case,
gave, as we have seen, ample and ex-
pliclt assurance of protection. So to
construe law, or so to proceed to act
without reference to law, so to subtract
from it its whole protective power, and
deprive it of all its conservative ten
denotes IN the system, is one of the
most dangerous forms oflegal injustice,
and as principle Of action, must be
considered subversive of all order and
government. The late General Con-
ference required of Bishop Andrew, the
same being equally true in the case of
Harding, as the condition of his being
| acceptable to the Church, the surren-
der of rights secured to him, both by
| civil and ecclesiastical law. The pur-
poses of law We're contravened and de-
stroyed, and its prerogative and place
usurped by mere opinion.
The requisition in the case was not
only extra-)udicia], being made in the
absence of anything like law authoris-
ing the measure, but being made at the
same time against law, it was usurpa-
ton; and so far as the proceeding
complained of is intended to establish
a principle of action with regard to the
future, it gives to the General Confer
ence all the attributes of despotism,
claiming the right to govern without,
above, and against lac. The doctrine
avowed at the late General Conference,
and practically endorsed by the major
ity,that that body may,by inple resolu
ton advisory, punitive, or declaratory, re-
peal an existing law in relation to
particular case, leaving it in full force
with regard to other cases-or may en-
act new and different law, and apply
itjudicially to the individual case, that
led to the enactment, and all in a mo.
ment, by a singIeelevation of the hand,
is position--a doctrine so utterly re-.
evolutionary and disorganising, as to
place in jeopardy at once, both the in
terests and reputation of the Church.
The action in the case of Bishop An
drew, not only assumed the character,
and usurped the place of law, but was
clearly an instance of er post facto le-
gislation, by making tina: an offence
after the act, which was not such be-
fore. The conduct charged as an Of
fence, was at the time, and continues
to be, under the protection of well
understood, and standing law of the
Church, and yet this conduct was made
criminal, land punished by the RETROSPECT
tive action of the Conference to which
we allude. The officially expressed
will of the General Conference intend
ed to govern and circumscribe the con-
duct Of Bishop Andrew, with reference
to existing law, and indeed contrary TO
it, was made the rule of action, and he
found guilty of its violation, by acts
done before he was acquainted with it.
The conduct charged, was in perfect
consistency with the law of the Church,
and could only be wrought into an Of
fence by the er post facto bearing Of
the after action of the General Confer
ence.
Bishop Andrew became the owner
of slave property, Involuntary, several
years before his marriage, and as the
fact, and not the extent of his connec-
ton with slavery constituted his offence,
it follows, that for relation in which
he was placed by the action of others,
and the operation of civil law, in which,
as a citizen of Georgia, he was COM
PEELED to remain, or be brought in con
flict with the laws of the State, he was,
in violation of the pledge Of public
law, as we have shown, arrested and
punished by the General Conference.
That body, by direct requirement, such
at least by implication, commanded
him to free his slaves, or suffer official
degradation. The law Of Georgia re-
CURED him to hold his slaves, or trans
fer them to be held as such BY others,
under heavy and painful penalties to
master and slave. To avoid eccleslas-
teal punishment and disability, the
Church required him either to leave the
State of his residence, or violate its
laws. In this way, taking the judicial
decision in Harding's case, and the
anomylous action in Bishop Andrews,
the Church is placed in most offensive
conflict with the civil authority Of the