Daily national Democrat., 1860-07-08
Slavery Among the Methodists.

Tie Methodist Church has from the earliest
days been considered Anu.Slavery in its SEN
timents (that is opposed to slavery in the alb
stract.) notwithstanding it has always had
sIaveholdiug members Its great founder,
John Wesley. pronounced slavery to be the
sum of all villuinies," but he alluded to slave
ry as it existed in his day in the West Indies,
when it rested upon the support of a regular
supply Of slaves from Africa, and an open
justification of the Slave Trade That he did
not regard the mere fact Of holding slave to
be unehrstian, is evident from the fact that
he himself licensed preachers in the Indies
who owned slaves. Various discussions of
the right and wrong Of slavery took up the
time Of the General Annual Conferences in
the United States from 1884 down to 1910,
the Abolition sentiment increasing with a
steady and rapid progress. but being smoth-
cred down by considerations of expediency
What the sentiment of the Church was in
1910, may be gathered from the following
resolution, adopted, in that year, 10y the Gen
eral Conference:
"Resolved. by the delegates Of the several
Annual Conferences in General Conference
! assembled, that, under the provisional excer
/ tion of the general rule on the subject Of
slavery, the simple holding of slaves, or mere
ownership Of slave property, in States or
| Territories where the laws do not admit Of
emancipation, and permit the liberated slave
to enjoy freedom, constitutes no legal barrier
fA ila al to
the various grades of office known in the
ministry of the Methodist Episcopal Church,
and cannot, therefore, he considered as oper-
ating any forfeiture of right in view of such
election and ordination"
There is a strong vein of antslavery feel
ing running through the above resolution
t and it is apparent that the majority of the
2 delegates of the Conference regarded slavery
as an evil which should be dscountenanced
; by the Church. The Southern members were,
however, satisfied with the resolution, be-
cause it did not interfere with their relations
as the owners of slaves. 1t simply declared
{ that ministers who owned slaves, and were
not allowed by the laws TO emancipate them
or who could not secure the enjoyment of
freedom to the slave, if he were emancipated
without removing him from the State, should
not be deemed ineligible to ordination in the
different degrees of the ministry.
But, the Abolition spirit was on the in
crease in the Church, and only four years
after, the dominant majority of the General
Conference pronounced against the compe
tency Of Bishop Andrew, of Georgia, to offici
ate in the ministry, because he was the owner
of slaves. 1t was proven that he had fallen
into the possession of them by bequest and
inheritance, and that he could not emanci-
pate them, for the reason that he would be
doing violence to the terms of the bequest in
the one case, and for the reason, in the other,
that the laws of his State Georgia. forbid
emancipation within her borders. The domi-
nant majority, therefore, in suspending
Bishop Andrew. plainly ignored the resolu-
tion of 1910, for his case was precisely cover
ed by the principle therein enunciated
The consequence of this suspension was
speedy separation Of the Methodist Church
into a Church North and a Church South.
Still, as we understand the matter, a portion
of the members from the South remained with
the Church north, regarding it as the regu-
E lar organization, and the Church north not
, having yet pronounced for the exclusion o
. members of the Church who owned slaves.
i The subject Of slavery has been agtatel
ever since at the Geneial Conferences OF til,
Church North and, at one time during the
last Conference, which was held in the month
of May recently past it seemed inevitable
that resolution would be carried through
excluding Shareholders altogether from mem
bership. Fortunately for the peace of the
Church, no action was taken of the character
alluded to. The intention, no doubt, of those
who succeeded in suspending Bishop An
drew, was to force things to such a pass that
Shareholders would be excluded from the
Church, and forced to organize separately.
But, so far, they have failed to bring the
majority up to the point, and numerous mem
bers of the Northern Church regret that the
action which was had in Bishop Andrew 5
case, was ever taken. Indeed, it was a step
"hlcH was very inconsistent with reason or
common sense unless it was intended to be
followed up by the entire exclusion of slave
holding members; because it It is difficult to
conceive how it can be right to exclude a
man from the ministry, on account of his
holding slaves and yet admitting into full
communion thousands of persons, who, it il
true, do not preach, but yet own slaves
1t was certainly very ill,iudged STEP for
1t leaves the Church now divided, without
any adequate cause, and the whole sin Of
slavery, if there be any in it at ALL resting
upon the Church North to as full and perfect
an extent as it does upon the Church South.
1t seems to US that, if slavery is to be toler.
ated in the Church North as well as in the
Church South, and the Church North has no
intention of advancing upon their action Of
ls44, they might as well JOIN hands and
reunite.
TIE Arm AT ORovmLE-There was not a
regular celebration of the 4th at Oroville.-
e During the day, however, national salutes
} were fired with anyils, and in the evening