The examiner., 1848-07-01
COMMUNICATION.
Vile Chrissian Advocate
9,a "A, Edifoys Of the Examiner:

dressed 10 the Methodists on the subject Of
slavery, and published in the Examiner Of the
"a inst. And though am not fiatiered by the
attention bestowed upon me, feel no disposi-
lion 10 receive il without suitably acknowledg-
ingu. The "AdDoeate" kindly announces its
notice under the attractive and significant cap
lion of "BLUSDERs"-snd proceeds to make
statement which is palpable 'blunder.' Some
one signing himself ClerOs, has commenced ad-
dressing the Methodists Of Kentucky on the sub
iect of slavery, and particularly on the rules 81
The CAurch on thai subject. This is a'bisRder.'
The only notice ever intended 10 take OF the
legislation of the Church on the subject, wa
10 show that the several acts were against s'aUe-
rr. A particular treatise on these rules OF the
Church, kindred to that ON the first page of the
" "Idroeate' of the 10th inst, was never thought
Of, much less promised. And you were adver-
tised, distinctly, In the communication favored
with the notice of the "Adpoeafe," that pro-
posed to address "a series Of Letters TO tke min
isters aud members Of the Methodist Episcopal
CkHrek SoaiA, on The subjects Of slavery and
Emancipation" With this explicit statement
of the particular subject of discussion before it,
it was a disingenuOus 'blunder' in the "AdUO-
cute" TO say: "ARd particularly on the rules Of
the Church on thai subject" But If II 6inRde's
in its statement, II conlpensates for 1t IN the
tasteful elegance of the following sentence: But
H. is sadly deficient either ia information or
eandor.' I am IRE, to confess that the amount
r 4 Il Sunali--fH
but in part"--but on the particular subject in
dispute, KNOW wRAr ! SAY. As TO 'eaRdOr'
Icannot yield to the "AdUOeats" the preferences
over myself; 1 claim to be honest, both in my
opinions and practiee-"GRd particularly" so
IN stating the positions and opinions Of others
Let the public Judge u.s.
"He denies the application of the general rule
buying and selling men, women and children
with an intention TO ensaye them TO the
slave trade exclusively, and assigns the following
conclusive argument 10 that effect"
"This construction is very mOdera one, and
is not highly complimentary TO the GsasraI Con-
ference from which the rule emanated; for them
to say they would not allow the ministers and
members Of the Church 10 engage in traffic
pronounced piracy by the laws of all civilized
nations, is certainly TO intimate that they enter
tanned rather loose views Of Christian morality"
''The rule in question was adopted in l'eS' and
no General Conference met from 1854 TO 1892,
and consequently no General Conference adopt
ed the rule" My statement was, "The rule as
sunsed its present form in l7S9." In l7S4, the
General Conference had adopted stringent, not TO
say very harsh measures for the extirPation OF
slavery, which il was considered necessary TO
suspend. BY some unexplained means, the pres
ent rule appeared in the Discipline in l7s9-and
as no General COntereaee met from l7s4 70 1872,
it must have been placed there by the Bishops
or by the Bishops and "Counci''--GRd eOnse-
gzenfly no Gen.raI Conference adopted the rrIe." F"
The question between me and the "ddrOeafe'
is not, who originated the rule, but who gave il
power. Did the Bishops override the General
Conference, ami keep It in the Discipline against
its earnest protest. The "AdvocGfe" shall AN
swer; "The Bishops added this Tuis, ,shieh the
merit General Conference Of 1872 sligAily 'aedi-
fed and retIiaed!' "The General Confsrence
of I792, modified and retained the rule of 1883
thus sOlemnly making ltPart Of ID onsliia-
tiOnal law of the Church. And yet, saith the
Advocate" ".yo General Confersnee adopted
the rule!. The "AdU0eafe" will not imipcach
the witness.
/ have reviewed the position in the light Of
the "AduOeate" itself-and not only repeat, that
the exclusive application OF the rule to the slave
trade is "a uer1ftsOderH one, )" but challenge the
'Adrooats'' to deny it. The entire adninistra'
ton of the Discipline for years, proves my PO'
sition. There are men now living in Kentucky
who were excluded from the Church for bEJfnl
slaUss for the use Of their families. And unit
recently the opinion was universally entertain
ed that Methodist could buya Stare ssfely only
under peculiar circumstances. maintain furth'
er, that to apply it exclusively TO tho foreigr
slaUe trade is to render It's riolGti0R Impossible
eusn on the coasts Of Afrioal "The prefix s'
means TO make or do %" "a alaDe cannot b
eHslaued-that is, made slavs,-fOr this embra
ces the idea Of previous freedom" So reason
the "AdrOoafe." Very well. The man witt
goes 10 the slave-shiP and buys man does no
easIape him-he was a slave befOre-he PerPetu
ates or continues his slavery. So the rule canno
reach him. The owner Of the ship, who seandi
as owner Of the cargo, and cries off his hHmai
oaitels to the highest bidder, ID next approached
Brother, do you not know that the rules Of on
Church forbid the Buying and selling Of men
,someH and children, Nth an intention TO erIsldr
henr" so yes!" he responds, 81 know it,
|, It's dreadful business would not for an
consideration eHslare human being--it's a
{ enormous sin, and would not commit 1t for a
the gold in America" "But you say, you ar
certainly doing so now. Is not this your ship
Do not those wretched beings belong 10 you
T Did you not bring them from Africa for the sol
purpose of selling them into slaveryf'' He r'
plies: "You are mistaken: look at the rule. Il
o eASlave them-mark the prefix en-, it meaI
n to make or do 500 we en-snare what was OF
$ of the snare, &e' Now, did not en-shars
I. es-slave these poor creatures. No, no. Tha
: repeat, never would do. / found them
the saare-the net spread over them--eIlsldD'
by their own people-captives taken in war, al
reduced to bondage. They were brought to n
as sldpes-as such bought them, paid for ther
and hold them as property on which 1 wish
: make a handsome profit. My agency does N
AT extend beyond the simple continuance Of the
$, Slavery" How, on the "AdUOcdte's" interpr
= tation, would the slau9 be reachedl The poi
N ton is palpabIy absurd, and the argument throw
g out for its support isl will not say so sPe
ne men Of the pettiest kind Of petty special PLEADING
r