Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-03-07

absence from home, but understand 1t was mark
ed by a very decided condemnation of slavery, and
n clear, exposure Of the utter iucompatibility 9f
tae practice of siayeholding with that Of Christi
anity. We are also informed that the speaker
Justified The Methodist Church North, from all
completely in the guilt Of slayc-holding, by repre-
s%enting il as a non s!aye.holdiug church. How
in view of what we believe to be notorious facts in
the case, Mr.. Thomas could even inadvertently
leave such an impression upon his audience We
cannot understand, for we suppose him to be an
earnest, honest onti-slaveIy man; and of course
abhoring slavery, he cannot desire to BIO connect
cd with its supporters, or that the church he la
bors to build up should be implicated in its guilt.
That the Church is thus implicated in tie esti-
nation os some of its ministers and members is
evident from the article we copy from the North
ern Independent. a paper Published at Auburn,
New York and edited by Rev. Mr.. Ilosmer, an able
minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He
presents the moral position Of the church in a can.
did and very clear point of view. The paper from
which we quote was established o few months
since by Mr.. Hosmer and his friends, in conso-
quence of the attempt of the last General Confer
ence, to impose upon the readers and supporters
Of the Church Organ in that region, the Northern
Christian Adrocate, an editor more conservative
and proslavery than they desired to PATRONAGE
Mr.. IIosmer was the former editor of the Advocate,
and made it more decidedly Anti. Slavery than
was agreeable to the pro.slavcry leaders in the
Church in New York, Baltimore and elsewhere
The General Conference therefore removed Mr..
IIosmer from the editorship, althoug h the local
conference which supported the paper almost unan-
imously requested his reappointment. In right.
eous resistance to this attempt to crush out the
liberty and the anti slavery sentiment of the Con-
ference the Independent was established and
placed under the charge of Mr.. Hosmer.
The Independent says:
"The sum is this-nmong US, slaveholding is no
barrier to the Office of a preacher, but we do not
readily ordain such preachers nor allow them to
travel, it it is practicable for them to emancipate
their slaves. This shows that as the Discipline
now stands, slaveholding in the ministry is the
rrle, non-slayeholding the exception. We let all
preachers hold slaves, if they will consent to be To-
cal and unordained. We will con sent to ordain
them, and let them travel, shareholders though
they be, if wicked Shareholders are disposed to
make n law forbidding emancipation. In view
Of these facts, the enquiry, are any Methodist
prea cheers shareholders 2 cann,t be answered in
the negative, unless by some one who is personally
acquainted with all our preachers, both local and
travelling. Certainly there is nothing in the Disci-
pline to prevent great numbers of ministers being
engaged in this abominable practice. Nor does the
history Of the Church thus far afford any ground
to infer that preachers have not availed themselves
of the absence of q prohibitory statute against
this sin. Indeed, it is q woll-known fact that many
of our local preachers are Shareholders. No intel
lipert man will presume to deny this statement.-
There never has been any objection to focal preach.
ers holding of slaves-the practice is rs free to
them as any other member Of the Church.
30 much then for the possibilities of ministerial
F slaveholding among Methodist preachers. But
the distinction itself is n burlesque. We might
Just as well divide drunkenness into lay AZ d cleri-
cal, prohibiting the latter, and allowing the former.
t What if we were to deny our ministry, especially
our travelling and ordained ministers, the right to
steal-and so specify 1t in the book Of Discipline !
Would not such a prohibition be Justly regarded an
outrage on all morality? Certainly a people
who could thus discriminate between clerical and
=. lay theft, would not deserve to be considered as
violently opposed to stealing. The fact Of a pro.
hibition restricted to the clergy, would show
i ,hat in our estimation there was no moral obi.
e guilty in theft, and that expediency alone deter
: mined us to restrict the practic to laymen or
, mere local preach ors. Such a prohibition would
- be ridiculous, nay monstrous, but not one whit
z more SO than is our rule forbidding travelling
p preachers and them only to hold slaves. The
U act of prohibition shows what estimate we put
upon the practice: we treat it as inexpedient, and
not as immoral.
''Screly, where the general estimate of the
$ practice Of slavcholding is SO very low and doubt
full as this amounts to, it is not worth while to be
very nice in defending the honor of the Church
. against the imputation of clerical slavcholding
1t is even questionable whether the bare fact OF
such a partial, ludicrous prohibition does not
much more damage to our reputation, than It can
ever do us credit. Would it be any honor to find
a statute among us inhibiting clerical lying, with
. the bare possibility of its observance by the clergy
and the absolute certainty that the vice reigned
. unchecked among the laitJ? For our part, we
shall never claim it as any honor thPt our travel.
ing preachers do not hold slaves. We would as
soon think Of deriving credit from the fact that
= they are not burglars. or highwuymen, or murder.
4 e.s.--That the language of prohibition is, or ever
was, necessary to keep either clergy or laity from
so foul a sin, is deeply humiliating. If it could
y be shown that none of our preachers are slave
e holders, it would add no more to our credit than
h. it would to show that they are not pickpockets.
:, We shall never be at the trouble Of dividing the
o Church into Law and clerical, where vice is con
cerned. Sin is sin. whether in the lavmen or the
1t clergymen. This legislat:ng against merely cler
r. ical slaveholding, is n sorry business, and the leas
that can be said about it the best. 1t was thu
" work of an unfortunate hour. Let no man here
g. after inquire whether or not any Methodist preach
= crs are Shareholders. 1t is preposterous.
1--WE have taken to ourselves quite too much
h. credit for keeping Shareholders out of the ministry
:. Had we, as a denomination, even succeeded il
Is this thing, in some respectable degree, which WI
have not, the success would have been q standing
d. reproach. A Church that merely pretends to keel
q its clergy from q shameless vice, like slavery
! clearly needs n revival of anti-slavery sentiment
, and action.
is The time has come for us to drop such t,ihing
t. and treat slavery as it deserves. 1t is a crime, anC
10 we must put it with crimes. We must not stanC
diddling with such puerilities as the prohibition o
l. ministerial slaveholding. The age, the gospel W,
n preach, history, our own common sense, demand
be manly course. Were it not that many member
II. are actually guilty of this sin, we should be or
: posed to soilipg the pages of the Discipline with
% specification of this enornity. 1t ought to ran
re with murder, piracy and seduction-crimes whic
no we have not condescended to specifically prohibi
rs nor disgrAced ourselves by forbidding to 'travelin
III preachers
l. D. III IL In nnnnnhnra Of ihn NnrIhnrn nhurn