Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1858-12-11


Church, which ~tolerstss, %justihes, or legaliies
slsvsbolIipg in any degree. The constitutional
law relied upon does not 10 the least degree sus'
tain the positioB, The srsumen for the %cOn'.itu'
t~i,nsli,y OF slsvery rests upon two clauses. The
fret 10 the General Rule, which forbids, THE
buying and selling Of men, women and children,
with On intention to enslave them" Tho other
clause, IL tho restrictive rule which forbids the
General Conference to revoke or change the above
rule. only By the three fourths and two
thirds votes above described. The reader
now has the entire law before him, which it
10 claimed renders slavery constitutional 10 the
n. T.. Church. The argument must turn on the
ssrss Of tho general rule. 1t is admitted that it
cannot be- revoked or altered, but does it not rem
der slaveholding constitutional. By what rule of
Interpretation IL does this, we cannot see.
The language secures nothing to slavery in e1.
press terms. but everything it says is against Sla'
very. as far as it goes. 1t prohibits all buying AMI
yelling, except for the purpose of freeing them
The bubble started by the late DR.. Bond, that the
Sule does not relate TO the purchase and sale OF
slsves but to the foreign slave trade. is too absurd
70 be insisted upon by honest men. The entire bis
cory of the subject refutes such an absurd position.
There was nothing on the subject in Mr.. Wesley's
original rules. In America the subject may DO
4ssced through the following changes.
In the minutes Of a Conference which commence
ID April 80, 1884. the following question and an.
vsr appeared. CUES. "Wbat shnll be done with
our friends ,ba, will buy and sell slaves' Ans.
III they buy them with no other design than to bold
whom - slaves, and have been previously warned,
Ahsy shall be expelled" Lees History, page SO.
, In December Of the same year, DR.. Coke, hav'
fse arrived, the Conference assembled, OF which
SAe NJ. E. Church was organized, and a form Of
Discipline agreed upoh. This Discipline contain.
ed . provision requiring every Shareholder in the
Church to emancipste bis slaves within twelve
months. After the detail Of the plan Of emanci.
patton, il was further enacted that, mo person
Aolding slaves shall, in future. be admitted into
socisty or to tho Lords supper, till ae previously
complies with those rules concerning Slavery"
"Ths following question and answer was a part
Of tho same enactment against Slavery "Ques.
What shall be done with those who Guy or sell
slaves. or give them away Ans. They are inn
nsdistely to BE- expelled unless they buy them
On purpose to free them"
These rules were never enforced, were soon sus
pended, and then repealed, bu, their sense is the
main thing, and they prove beyond a doubt, that
she legislation of che Church in those times, was
ne. directed alone agains, the foreign slave trade.
Had those rule, related to the foreign slave trade,
Shsy would NOS have been 50 soon suspended and
repealed.
The prohibition Of buying and selling slaves
appeared in the General Rules, for the first time
ID 1889, in the following words, The buying and
selling the bodies and souls Of men. women or
children, with sn intention Of enslaving them "
This was changed in 1892. The buying or selling
of men, women or children, with an intention to
,~snslsvs them" This WAS changed in 1908, six
teen years afterwards so as to read. Tho buying
and selling of men, women or children" This
last change was NOS authorized. and mutt have
been made by the editor or the printer, by design
Or by mi.take. i. matters not which. The con-
which has been put upon tho rule which
renders it necessary in order to q violation, that
men be bought and sold. and that women be
bought and sold. and that children be bought and
Geld. is too futile TO be insisted upon by homes,
men Of common ecnse. In addition to the fact
The change to this reading was unauthorized, il is
Shs most low triHing of which we can conceive.
What kind of moral legislation i, it to enact that
. man may buy any number Of men and sell them,
and any uumbrr of women and sell them, and if
vhers be no chiidreo among them. it 10 no crime,
Aut If there should be two children in the compa.
ny, then it is q crime for which be must be expell.
cd from the Church. Again, he may buy and
cell any number Of women and children, and it is
40 crime. but if there are men in the company, he
must DO expelled /: or he may buy any number of
men and children. and if there is no women
among them, it is no crime. but if there are wo-
men in the company he is verify guilty and must
Be expelled. la there not moral sublimity in such
legislation Who does not see that the purchase
aud sale of any one or two of the classes, constir
satss the crime, or else that there is no crime in
The addition of the third class in the transaction ?
Will any member who has any respect for himself
or the Church to which he belongs, say that the
u. E.. Church has ever so legislatedf
From the above it is clear that the rule does not
in terms, protect slaveholding 10 the Church. It's
language and history prove that it was never dc.
signed to protect Slavery, that it is against Slsv.
~. % far as it goes, and that it extends to the
prohibition of the traffic. In our next argument
We shall show that the rule does not protect Slave.
~ eonstrucsively, or by implication.
Correspondence Of the N. Y. Tribus.
wvwnvurnv nn~ ~wyvrrDDyvr n ~