Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1858-05-15
From the Wesleyan.
DOES The WORLD MOVE3

The world certainly muses or else the NJ. L
Church has broken loose aud /, noting off nv
t~e.t; for II Is NOT where il was in 1896 Tnr
General Conference OF 1896 condemned modern
nboiitiuuisn" hy which opposition to slavery Wa
meant. The same Conference censored one al
us members for attending an anti-saverv meet.
rnG. winch was held III the riry during it sitting
Ihe same Conference, through the Bishops, sent
out pastoral Address, in which the memters
we're warned against the anti-snvery movement
and advised wholly to refrain from INITIATING the
question o slavery.
In tho same yenr, 1896. the New York Confer.
nee adopted Il resolution requiring pledge OF
All candidates Tor the ministry. agitate the
church with the anti-slavery discussion. In 1888,
the New York Conference tried and suspended
RON the christian ministry several Of its mem
oers, tor participating in the autisiavery dsuus-
'i"n. The general charge was 'contunaay and
'n>uhorinatron but the specifin finatious were the
sol uAimg, and others like :hem,- -"Attendng n
Mrth"h-r Ami slavery Convention held in Utica
New York Attending unty Anti-,lavery
CInh cntion and presiding, III Tue same " Say
ing that s!nHeholiiuS Is sinful under all circumr
-tauce~."
Such acts. in those days. constituted crime for
which tn" NJ + Church, III her zeal for truth
aud righteousness, suspended from her min
'siry. Does the W 'rd move TOR has the Nj. Il
Church hrouGeu lnuse?
In 1913. the c, 4 II J1urnal the leading off,
rirI organ at the Nj. II. Church, unenly aud
lanIei's>iv justified slavetoldirg aud even the
rhihc ~ sa,t:. DR. Buui the + lItur. opened it,
colA'nns IRA discussion Of the question Of slave
~, as connected with the VI, + Chur Il. and the
man punt to be discussed was-"Ohght the NJ
b Church To enact IL rule. which would exclude
all shareholders irum the church ~ The editor
Cnok the negative aud ;he Rev. Mr.. Boyd took the
tthrmaIive. ln the arsu .ient, the editor, denied
mas the church had any rule against huying and
'eIIihS human beings as slaves, and conending
shat the rule which iorhids "Ihe buying and sell
ing OF men, women and children, with an inten.
dun TO ensmve them" only forbids the purchase
OF Tree persons, for the purpose ot reducing them
70 slavery lie con;ended that this rule does no,
i"rm! buying and selling persons already slaves
lccordnS To the laws of the >lavehoIdrg States
Bc II known unto all, that the rule is the same
now that it was then But is the position of the
4 Alc0cate the same? If it is, thea the position of
the official organ is that to buv and sell slaves,
and hold slaves in the NJ. f. Church, is right, and
ought not to be nterdicted by any rule of disci.
pline. Does the world move. or is that the posi-
ton still But Mr.. Boyd. to maintain his side of
the argument, found it necessary to inquire into
the moral character of slavehoding, and proceed.
ed to prove that savehoding is man steuling
whereupon the editor shut him out of his columns,
on the ground that it would be an impeachment
of father Abraham OF Mr.. Boyd's attempt to
prove that slavery is mansteallng the editor said
''lle may try if he please. but not in the c. 4. dc
J0urRa. We shall not allow him to arraign the
SoOu OIu phtTlhTCu AUraUail as man stealeF, OF
as thief of any other sort, in our columns
Mr.. Boyd did not propose to prove that Abraham
was IL slaveholdGr, or man-stealer, but only that
American slaveholding is man-stealing. The as
sumption that Abraham was a Shareholder of the
American Sort the AdcOcdfe'S in order to
shield the NJ. f. Church behind ''the good old
patriarch" Is such the position of the great offi,
cial organ now or does the world really move?
In 1912, member of the New England Confer
ence offered, in that body. a resolution, simply
adirmning the wrong OF slaveholdlng. when Bish.
op Waugh, who was in the chair, refused to put
the resolution T. vote, and remarked, ,-"lt is zoo
late in the day he necessary to render a reason
tnr refusing To put anti slavery resolutions in an
annual Conference Is it sill too late to put
anti-slavery resolutions in a Methodist Annual
Conference? or has the world moved since that
timer
1t is true that the NJ. L. Church is still slave
holding, wherever she IS fuothold in slavehold-
ing, States but still, when we look at her posi-.
tions and movements in the nonS!aveEolling
States, We are sure she has moved, Whereas it
was crime to attend an anfi,slavery meeting. for
which man was suspended frnm the ministry,
nearly every Conference is now converted into an
anti.slavery convention with the Bishops for Pres
idents. who have learned thai it is too late in the
dag 10 be necessary to give reasons for putting
anti slavery resolutions. Even the New York
Conference has been made to listen to aLti slavery
,ctrines the same body thar su>pe ded its min
lsters for attending an anti slavery meeting, have
allowed its members to stand in their place aud
Illuminate anti-slavery thunder, louder aud more
terrible than those whn were tried AID suspended
hnd dared tV speak in tho secret chambers Vt their
sonls. Great conventions. ara now held by lead
ing ministers outside Ol conference organization,
and terrible things are uttered against slavery aud
Nlay yehvdng and none are callei to,an account 70
ansV er for the crime. ts ... .f. ,..I... r.r.-.
A member Of the Philadelphia Conference has
published a book, exposing the position Of the NJ.