The Evansville daily journal. [volume] (Evansville, Ia. [i.e. Ind.]) 1848-1862, 1856-05-28
'GBe 9ailg JonrnaL.
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST
EPISCOPAL CHURCH, FOR 1856.
REPORT ON SLAVERY.

violation of natural rights, IS considered by
most men an axiom in ethics, but whatever
opinions may have obtained in general society
the NJ. E. Church has ever maintained an un-
mistakable anti-slavery position. Affiamations
that slavery is founded in the philosophy Of
civil society, that it " is the cornerstone oi
Republican Institutions, - or that it % is sane
toned by the Bible, have never met with
an approving response in our Church. Con-
trariwise, the founder of Methodism denounc-
ed the system in unqualified terms of con-
demnation, and the Fathers unwaveringly
followed the example Of the venerated Wes-
ley.
| The NJ E. Church has. in good faith, in all
the periods of it's history, proposed to itself
the uestion. "What shall be done for the
extirpation of the evil of Slavery?'' and it has
never ceased, openly and before the world, to
bear its testimony against the sin, and to ex-
ercise its disciplinary powers to the end, that
its members might be kept unspotted from
criminal connection with the system, and that
the evil itself be removed from among men.
1t Is affirmed and believed that the Meth
odist E. Church has done more to diffuse an
ti-slayery sentiments, to mitigate the evils of
the system, and to abolish the Institution
from civil society than any other organization,
either political, social, or religious 1t is also
affirmed and believed that the administration
of Discipline in our Church, within the bounds
og Slave territory, have faithfully done all
that, under their circumstances, they have
conscientously judged to be in their power,
to anSa0er the ends of the Discipline in enter
nainating that great eUlE
AT this period in our history we are met
with the inquiry, does our book of discipline
state clearly and definitely our true position
i Al. r
the statute distinctly indicate the practice we
propose We answer no, and give from
gmong others the following reasons for our
negative reply. The discipline does not, in
express terms, make the Shareholder inelligi-
BILE to the Episcopancy, and yet the general
conference of IA considered itself justified,
both by the spirit of the discipline and the ac-
knowledged preacher Of the church. in affirm
ing that the relation of Shareholder was dis |
qualification for the office of Bishop and this
it did at the expense of an ever-to-b be regret |
ted division of our ecclesiastical organization.
The discipline declares that "when any tray
cling preacher becomes an owner of a slave or
slaves, by any means, he shall forfeit his min
sterial character in our Church. unless lie ex-
ecute, if it be practicable, legal emancipation
of such slaves conformably to the laws of the
State in which he lives, but the administration
assuming that legal emancipation in the case
Of travelling preachers, universally practicable,
does not admit a Shareholder to the itinerant
connection.
Again, our discipline does not distinguish
between mercenary slave-holding and the hold
ing OF slave for benevolent purposes, and J ct
all the arguments found i'll our official publica-
tions, or heard in our conference debates, by
which the admission of slave holders to church
Ho1
distinction, and that for the obvious reason
that the distinction itself does really and
Justly exist in the public mind, and the prac-
tice referred to cannot otherwise be justified. |
Our book of discipline does not eXl ress y en-
join it upon our members that they secure to
their slaves the sanctity of the conjugal and
parental relations, and yet within all the bor-
ders of our slave holding territory, the utter
ed suspicion that MethodiSts are negligent in
these regards would be repelled with indigna-
ton.
We now enquire whether the time has come
when it becomes the duty Of the church thro'
its representatives assembled in its highest &C.
clesiastical court, to so revise the statutes of
the church as to make them express our real
sentImenes, and indicate our practice as it is?
We anSwer-first because it is Just and equal;
it is right before God and all men that on a
subject involving directly the personal liberty
of thousands, and indirectly of millions, ofour
fellow men, the position of the church should
be neither equiYocal or doubtful. Secondly |
because we cannot answer it to our own con-
sciences, nor to God the Judge of all if we fail |
to do what is in our power to bear testimony /
against SO great an evil. Thirdly, because it
is solemnly demanded at our hands by a very |
large majority of those whom we represent; |
Ir- fba cfo of fha
plainly indicate that it is the duty of all coed |
men to rally for the relief of the oppressed, and
for the defence of the liberties transmitted to |
us by our fathers.
We are aware that it is objected that in the |
present excited state of the public mind TO take
any action on the subject will be to place a
weapon in the hands of our enemies, with
which they may do us essential injury. We
reply that in all cases to say one thing, and
mean another, is of doubtful e1pediency as well
as of doubtful morality. We judge the rather
that on all questions vital to morality and reli-
gion, the. honor of the church is better sus-
tained by an unqualified declaration OF the
truth.
We now come to state what, as it seems to
US, is always has been, and ever should be, the
true position of our church in respect to slave
ry. We hold that the buying, selling and by
inference, the holding OF human being, as
property, is sin against God and man; that
because of the social relations in which men
may be placed by the civil codes ofslave-hold-
ing communities, the legal relations of master
to slave may, in some circumstances, submit
iinnocently; that connection with slavery is
prsna tacie evidence of guilt; that in all cases
of alleged criminality of this kind, the burden
of proof should rest upon the accused, he al
lWays having secured to him the advantages of