New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-04-17

hold slaves under he code just quoted which denies
the humanity of them, and crashes out the spirit and
intelligence of millions God. in His mercy, deliver
the Church from this sin lVoices-Amen.l Should
we say 10 the General Conference explicitly" This
thing is wrong Put away the evil Of your dOingsi"
k,orJ their churches; we tske ministers
rem nDm stan up in our midst a.1a Justify Slavery
Th;. ss done again and sn on the msy pretense
he, we must bssg our ADtSlayery testimony IN the
South.
not speaking to the substitute respiaaon' WHICH a'
nounccd mercenaIy saveholding'
The Rev. Mr.. Brown thought all elaveholdns OIL
the kind mentioned merceHary, and desired tAe Bsnop
to remember that he was as near the point as speakers
on the other side bad been. The world was moving
tenth century Wa knocking off the chains of the
slave. England had gloriously commenced the work,
and Emancipation In the West Indies notwithstand-
ing all written and read against tread in this Con-
fererce-had been triumphat success. what pity
that such clear and logical argument as Bro. Kette
had made had nc. been based on facts.
Bro. KETTELL wondered that facts 30 clearly SET
'orth should be so boldly contradicted.
The Rev. Mr.. BRowE would quote single sentence
from the article in The Methodist Quarterly Review,
by the Rev. Mr.. Bleebe. This was TO the following
effect: "Several members of the Privy Council in ia
msea are creoes OF African descent and one OF pure
African blood In the forum, the pulpit, and the med
zeal faculty among the leading merchants and plant
ers they were TO be found, exhibiting equal talent
with those of fair hue ably refuting the pful and
seuseless calumny which would designate them as an
| inferior race" England, France, Holland and even
Russia had gone forward in the Anti Slavery move.
ment Even the infdel world urged Us on. Should
we delay to do our duty-refuse TO go forward, IKE
Baaams ass even though there were no angel, only
shsbby devil, In the wsy1 They we're moving on
little. Twenty-Five years ago he couldn't get an art-
| Gle as long his finger, it was against
| Slavery in The Christian Adrocdte and Journal
Then he was publicly rebuked by the Bishop, and de-
p1ived of his charge for year. for having attended an
| Anti.Slayery meeting Now Slavery was talked over
in the Conference and he could say what he wished
| There was some progress Now were tney WnnIg 70
vote on the substitute resolution, requesting the Cen
ers Conference do something in this matter or would
they with to allow that ssyehoding was so firmly in
the Church that could not be extrpaed or disciplined
II was said that the majority Of the Mother Churches
| would set ND on the basis that they must tolerate
Slavery and establish " Central Church" he dd
| not believe it
| Vote rote! We've talked enough! Let as vote
| The SECRETARY deprecated 60 general discussion,
and said all the talk made that day wouldn't change
vote.
| confusion existed
DR.. McCLTIocK begged to cay few words on the
subject before the vote.
II was moved and seconded that DIR. McCGntock
should be heard and the time extended accordingly.
| The Rev. Mr. CRAWFORD hoped not. They were all
ready to vote now. II DR.. McC spoke, it might alter
the case.
Again general call was made for vote. An
amendment was made TO the motion TO extend the
sion, calling for extra o'clock P. m. session. and
carried.
DIR. MoCLHTocK took the floor. He believed that
God imposed upon the law of labor; that Slavery
sprsng from the cesre Of men TO free themselves from
this law by imposing it more severely on others He
opposed the substitute, first point Of order, viz:
that when any change of rule contemplated every
member of every Conference had right 70 record his
vote. 1t within the power Of majority OF all the
ministers Of the Church. at any time, to change fun
al hai ilucir NJ
Positions cases. Second This substitute was designed
10 avoid vote upon the Erie rule, and at the
time, 20 hold this Conference to its expressed
last years vote on the Cincinnati rule. Third Every
man who had advocated the substitute on this floor
was in favor of q change Of rule
Bro. BRows disc aimed desire for any uncOAstita-
tiohdi change of rule.
The hour Of adjournment now arrived.
AFTERNOON SESSION.
Al D. N. the Conference reassembed, but the rain
deferred many of the mornings audience from being
present. After the preliminary religious exercises,
and the readisg of the minutes, regular routine
business was proceeded with, including continual
ton of the examination Of preachers.
At A clock the order of the day was taken up.
DR.. McCLIsTocK yielded the floors moment to ad-
nit Of an explanation from the Rev. VIM. IL. Ferris,
who repeated the substance of his former speech,
denying that he was in favor of rule. He
simply wished this, to make the present rule say in
the letter what il does say in the spirit.
DR.. McCLISTocK said that q change in the rule
and involved what he himself distinctly opposed
o. Let them look at the matter squarely and let the
best man wn He was opposed to the substitute for the
given in his mornings speech, and especially
because IL intended avowedy TO prevent direct
the Erie Resolution. He believed the strong
clear, manly sense of justice which prevailed in the
New York Conference, would prevent the passage of
the substitute lie wanted this Conference TO vote
directly the Erie Resolution because so many other
Conferences had done He wished to negative
majority Of this Conference the record. The breh
rem who spoke in favor of the substitute voted for
the i" Providence rule" This was denied by
all, except Bro Wheatley who acknowledged |
III. So here they were, brought up to vote for
r. change Of the Slavery rule, under the |
cover Of this beautiful substitute. Now, he thought
it would be in order 10 state why he opposed 10
The Erie resolution. First: lie did not believe in |
making the rule about Slavery prohbit0ry one. Tae
time for thai law had not Gomez If it had there would
be less trouble about finding proper words in which
express it. lie opposed 10 excluding shareholders
ON the Church. The present Law excluded the buy
ere the sellers, and the wOmen-hoegers. Why had |
the brother cited the laws Of Louisiana and Kentucky
The laws Of Maryland did not forbid the slave to learn
The Word OF God. lYoIcEs-How is il in Virginia n |
The Doctor acknowledged that in Virginia IL was lille
gal to teach the slaves % read the Word of God Dr.
NADAL bated that the Virginia law only forbade teach.
ing SLAVES in schools Very well; these were the
airocious laws which endangered the Christian Church
in Mary land AMI Virginia. Second: He considered
prohioltory Law an unscrip;ural one. Third. 1t was
L. deviated from the established course of Meth
odsm. Let no man plead John Wesleys words for a |
change OF tue Slavery rule, for John Wesley never
raid 10 repentant sinner, You can't come into the
Church, because you a stakeholder" He was
willing 10 stand behind Wesley. The WESLEYAN Meth.
odiss OF England adhered TO what ia now called the
CONSERVATIVE ground, up TO the very moment when
the Bnlth government abolished Slavery throughout
the realm The speaker read an extract from the last
Uafchmdn the organ Of the English Me.hodsts rea- |
tive TO an attempt name TO induce that denomination to
take some action on the subject Of An erican Slavery
and Methodism, and opposing any sucb eonrse Us |
|