Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1858-01-23
Ibe Auti- 5lauerp Bu9lc.
eron tle Northern Independent.
ADDRESS OF THE ANTI.SLAvERY CON-
yENTION


TO the Ministry and Laity Of the Methodist Epis-
c0pdl Church.
The following is part of the address of the
late Methodist Anti-Slssery Convention held in
New York.
7. The organic la,c Of our Chuck an the General
Rules, or eLse,chere affords no direct indirect
support or protection to siaoehoId,ng.
l. In the General Rules themselves, it is dis.
tiuo,ly affirmed that they are all drawn from the
Word of God from which source alone, they de-
rive sill their authority and validity; consequent
w. that word alone is the standard OF their inter
prstaton.
Whoever, therefore, afirms that these Rules
protect savehoding, either asserts that the Bible
also supports it, or that the Rules are tatse to
sheir own declaration either Of these inevitable
conclusion is sufficiently alarming
@ No sane mind can, for moment, bear the
infamous imputation that such license is any
where found in the general intent and spirit of
these Rules, which were evidently designed to
grasp the whole compass OF Bible morality.
Doing no harm avoiding evil OF ecery KIND, doing
good 3e!ng in erery kind mercifm after their pow
er as they have opportunity, doing good Of every
possible Sort and SO far as possible to all nten, to
their bodies and to their souls, is class OF pro-
positions too highly definite and comprehensive,
10 admit base and violent conslusion, that the
essence of all immortality. could nevertheless find
prOt6Etl1n, SEeU HeTe! Leu Ill tIe uteVcSJ pun
and modification. forced to witness tho in
dustrious dissemination of this corruptng calum'
nv, from some OF the high places Of our Church,
a dogu,a which, if true, would cause the bright
sun of Methodism on this continent to go down
in gloom and disgrace, and fix a scandal upon
Christianity, in the eyes of mankind, which time
itself could not oblitorate.
That the General Rule on slavery affords no
such guarautee to Shareholders, as is claimed, 1t
il sufficient for us to say that no such right is
specifed in the rule. 1t is world wide and fun.
dnmental principle of Jurisprudence, thar no
right or claim incompatible with the general
design Of instrument. is valid, unless that light
or claim is distinctly expressed in the cearest
possible manner, SO that TO man could, by any
possibility, ut any other construction upon 1t,
than that which is claimed, and il the least doub,
arise us to the import of such conflicting provis'
iou, it must be construed in harmony with the
general object of the instrument.
Now iE this General Rule, instead of their
being even an ambiguous provision for slavehold-
ing. there is absolutely nothing and the claim is
jpsultingly set upon empty air Surely, ION the
side Of the oppressor, there - pDper"
II. The common law Of the Church affords no
7censc nor protection 10 Slaeeholdiay
l. 1t is remarkable that while he leading de-
siSu Of the Genera! Rule on slavery is prohibi-
ton Of the busiGess OF procuring slaves as prop
erty. holding and trading ia thsm as such. the
common law or chapter on slavery, directs all its
provisions GguiRSt sl2Se0Wning ana SlhVeEt iuiHR
thus the entire ground is expressly covered.
g. Now, If the chapter on slavery affords n
license for savehalling, how shall we reconcile
such license With the general design Of the chap
ter, which seeks only for "the extrpation OF the
evil of slavery" by egisating exclusively against
slave.holding and slave owning? The rule for
the Interpretation of a legal instrument must be
more e0nclusive in this case than most Others be-
cause the chapter is prohib,tive Of single thing,
slaueoWning. and therefore, by no possible means.
even by the clearest positive provision, could
slays'owning be supported by the chapter, be-
cause that would be TO protect the very thing
which il 10 the exclusive object OF the law to
destroy.
8. If the chapter furnishes any support to slave.
holding, then we inquire wherein is that support
found2 in which of the i've sections Of that chap
ter We frankly admit, as We deeply regret,
that these prohibitive enactments (for such they
are) do not 10 far enough; but does it thence fol-
low that they are protective Of the evil, which
they seek to cxtirpate2 Because the Church in
structs her slave'owning members how to treat
ther slaves, can such instruction be interpreted as
a license to hold the slave? We think not for
the instruction given is far more appropriate for
those who are in course of preparation for
freedom, than for others, and the law must be
construed to mean so, no other construction is
compatible with the design of the chapter, which
10 extirpaton.
Itis answered, that because the CHAPTER only
imposes inelgblity to official positions in the
Church, as the penalty for slaveholding, there
fore the ehaptor comedies the right of the mem
bership generally to hold slaves2 Verify. it con.
csdes no such thing; fer these very liabilities
which is imposes, the true legal instrumentali-
ties with which the law proposes to extiTpate
siaveholding generally, and such is the expressed
design of the chapter. TO assume that the very
enactments expressly designed TO extirpate slave
holding, may be construed into a license tor sbs
practice, il gross perversion Of common sense