Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1857-08-15

force, Francis Asbury, and DR.. Coke were abolition
lists, and would not have dreamed of shrinking
from the name. Nor we willing on account 0
the violences of irrelgious and disorganzing ultra
lists to surrender to dishonor name consecrnte
by such ilustrious applications. Nor are W
clearly informed of any intrinsic difference be
tween the ancient abolitionism and our true "mod
ern abolitionism; )" both being the same as the eS
! tirpationism of our discipline. When, therefore
we hear Methodists denouncing aboltionism, an
using the term as a slur name. we hesitate not t
take the Discipline and unchurch them. Pro taRt
they are not Methodists. They deny their faith
! they abure their venerable mother. Nav when
whole conference proceeds to lead her young can
didates up to the altar and there oblige them t
pledge as as n condition to holy orders that the,
will have nothing to do with modern abolitionsm,
we would like to see some competent authorit,
take Discipline and read that conference out o.
proslaveryism into Methodism. Our hearts are
saddened at one Of the most questionable proceed
ures ever prosecuted in any Northern Protestant
American Church. We would be glad to bury if
in forgetfulness; but that most unsilencable blab
ber of uncomfortable truths, Harriet Beecher Stowe
has, in the appendix to her Drod, proclaimed it to
tie world. We would hope that if the conference
record of those transactions cannot be expunged or
grit with mourning lines, some darkness or shad
ow of death may be found to hide-them We re.
joice that il we cannot erase this blemsh from the
escutcheon OF single conferences, we take our big
little book, and clear the honor of our beloved
Church by pronouncing these proceedings to be un-
disciplinary unconstitutional, UNIV eslyan and un-
Methodisticai.
4. With the same open disciplinein our hand we
understand not the orthodoxy.of Methodist minis
ters striking the question of slavery from his circle
fpulpit topics. If that Discipline does not permit
that topic to be banished, either as q political n
SECTIONAL or an abolition matter, on what ground
does any minister seal his own lips in silence ?
Is not slavery a present sin, here on this spot?
Is the dehumanzing near four millions of human
souls too small a sin to be noticed Is there any
other sin upon which our discipline expends one
fundamental rule and one entire chapter? Why
not blot an article from of our twenty-five
What worse is Il theological than q moral heresv ?
We ask not how such a ministering brother can
answer at the judgement seat of Christi Christi
anity or his solemn profession of holiness; we
how he can make it consistent with this Discipline
and his MethOdism 4?
3, Nor do we see how our Disciplinary logic
can quite spare unMethodstical Church. If
there be Churches within our limits which require
their pastor to be silent in Difference to the slave
power-Churches that say, 1--WE do not see the
great evil of slavery, and we will not allow its
evil to be shown - who insist that they have
nice peacable communion, and their quiet is too
sweet to be disturbed BY this agitating subject ;
with all the tenderness for this Christian prudence
we wonder what they are to do with their Disci.
odism-cannot be preached IN Methodist Church.
If, upon the sin of slavery, John Wesley's own
doctrine cannot be preached in any pulpit, we
doubt whether John Wesley himself would preach
in it.-And if John Wesley could not be allowed
to preach the Methcdsm of the Methodist Disc-
pline in any of our pulpits many will take the lib
erty to think and say that the Methodism of such
pulpits has upon this point marvellous German
silver ring to it.
6. And with our discipline as it is" we do not
quite see the Methodisticai propriety of admitting
slaveholding Ministers (or even, perhaps, the min
listers of prC-slavery church) into our purits
These men, alas are guilty Of the great evil of
slavery. Under our Discipline, they could not be
ordained. They are rejected on moral grounds
Ho,c Men, can we admit to our pulpitS men held
unsuitable 10 our ministry? The very ground on
which our separation from the Church. South, took
place was our solemn, conscientious refusal toac
cept ministry ordained by slaveholding hands
What consistency, then, in accepting ministry in
detail which we rejected in mass?
I. Nor do We see what Disciplinary discretion
is allowed to authorized organ of the doctrine of
our Church, whether pulpit or periodical, to main
tain policy of silence upon this subject. In a
single instance land in but one to our knowledge,
the query has been raised, On what grounds does
the Quarterly Review claim to be an antislayery
organ of an antslavery Church2 Our answer
falls into a most conclusive syllogism. Our Quar-
terly is an organ of entire doctrines and Dis
cipline; anti-saveryism is included in our entire
doctrine and Discipline Ergo. our Quarterly is
ect., Q. E. d. No Methodist man or body can ask
any one of our organs to be silent or withhold the
freest fullest effort toward "the extirpaiion of
slavery" without contradctng our Discipline No
section of our Church has any right to assume to
hold a checkrein Of silence on this subject upon
the rest of the Church, We desire the Union of
the Church. Our earnest wish is, that our
inevitable moral advance as Church should be
in solid phaanx but that phalanx cannot afford
to be retarded by one file refusing to move, and
pronouncng Halt, to all the rest, Our prayer is,
that such movement should be taken as our Church
can take as a unit. We could desire that our anti
sayeryism should be extended, common, and
as decisive as our Discipline. Bnt if any power
or section assumes to checkmate all movement, and
presumes to re-pronounce the old dictatiOn of
SILENCE, we tell them they off the platform Of
Methodism, and that the day of that dynasty over
Methodism is past-forever past