Cooper's Clarksburg register. [volume] (Clarksburg, Va. [W. Va.]) 1851-1861, 1856-08-15
From tho Richmond Enquirer.
Enrnrnnrarl
THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL
CHURCH AND-SLAVERY.

The tendency Of the Methodist Episcopal
Church to meddle with the subject of sla-
very, and find that like the fell spirit Of
abolitionism in every Northern association.
which grows stronger and moro violent
year bv year, so the {" dnti-SldVery" senti;
ment Of this body Of christians has steadi.
" increased, until think the large ma
iority of annual conferences, comprising
the Church, may now be, without injus.
tice, denominated full grown abolition as
sociations. Trne, some oflhe conferences
even yet disclaim the idea of being aboli-
ton, but admit that they are Gnti.StG>
very." For instance, the Baltimore and
Philadelphia conferences, both of which
embrace slaveholding territory within
their limits, prefer yet asOhite TO be known
as simply " anti slavery"
The Baltimore annual conference en-
braces the whole Of Maryland and large
portion of the State of Virginia in its CO.
olesiastical jurisdiction, and shall quote
single sentence from minister. distin-
guished in the Methodist Episcopal Church
as reason why think public attention
should be directed in Virginia to the po-
sition occupied by the ministers of this
conference. THE BALTIMORE CONFER
ENoE is the strongest and most efficient anti
slavery posOer in tho United States WITHOUT
EXCEPTION" This sentiment was endors-
ed by the late Rev. DR.. Bond, Editor OF
the Christian Advocate and Journal the
Editor and paper. greatly the strongest
and most influential in the whole conneo-
ton, and known to be the especial repre-
sentative Of I" Baltimore Conference senti-
naent." have italicized and capitalized
the sentences, in order that Virgians may
be attracted to it, aud induced to inform
themselves upon subject which they
have too long neglected.
am sincere in saying that in my opin-
ion the character given to the Baltimore
Conference, in the above quotation, is
LiterdZly true, and am sure the ministers
composing that conference feel themselves
highly complimented by it's truth. With
such a fact staring Yirginians and Mary
landers in the face, are they not called
upon by every consideration of duty TO
the State, to their families. and especially
TO the rising generation. to take such steps
as will rid them Of this most insidious and
dangerous foe ?
Ny object is to call attention, not so
much Of the members of his Northern
Methodist Church, (for many of them are
beginning to understand the subject, but
of persons outside of this Church to this
subiect-persons who sustain by their
money and their presence these ministers
amongst us, without being aware of their
real sentiments upon the subject of slaves
ry. And to do this, It is necessary. brief.
" to look at the evidence sustaining the
declaration shat Z" the Baltimore Cont ference
is the strongest and most efficient anti slavery
po,Uer in the United tStdtes tcikhotH ezeep-
ton"
In 1874, the great Methodist Episcopal
Church, in the United States, was divided
into two distinct organizations by the ac-
ton of their General Conference, then sit
ting in the city of New York. A differ
ence Of opinion between the Northern and
Southern delegates, and their respective
memberships upon the subject of slavery
caused this division. Strange to say, the
Baltimore Conference, having it's location
in slaveholding State, was the great le>
yer power by which abolitionism uproot-
ed aud divided the Church. An imme>
diate preliminary grew out of the action Of
the Baltimore Conference. AT one OF the
regular annual sessions ofthis Conference,
II was discovered that one Of its members
the members are all ministers-had.
without consulting the Conference, married
a lady in Maryland, who was a slayehol-
der. He was instantly arraigned and re.
quired to free the negroes of his wife.-
This he could not do. The laws of Mary
land vested the right Of property in his
wife and he could not, therefore, con
troll it. In his defence he produced legal
opinions, written for the occasion by Hon.
Mr.. Merrick and others, showing conclu
sively that he " had NO legal control over
the slaves of his wife" He plead this
law as a reason why the conference should
excuse him but it would not do moths
ing could avail him so long as he was con>
nected with the "great evI Of SLAVERY"
His prosecutor. Rev. Jno. A. Collins
who does this sort of work for the con-
ference pratis-said inreply to the argu-
ment which urged the law Of the State as
a barrier to the requirements Of the con.
ference: "But he would say boldly,
that IL the law had been ten fold what il
Is; if it had actually Soutright and down
right, without any possibility Of avoiding
it. taken these slaves from Harding's con-
troll. the conference would still have act
ed Just as they did /; because they did not
intend to change their ground, and could
not pretend to alter their views with eve
~ shifting ofthe Legislature" OfcOurse
HardingSfor that was the unfortunate
minister's name-failed not only before
his own Baltimore Conference bat in
his appeal 70 the. General Conference also.
The ereat advocate of the 8. anti slags,5t''
power of. the Baltimore Conference. Rev.
/ j. a. Collins. aided by Rev. A. Griffith,
4(whose face is furrosed By thousand
wrinkles. .vrcugh, there by making mouths