Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-05-19
From the Northern Independent
ADDRESS OF THE BISHOPS.


We intended to give this document in the pres
ent number, but obliged to defer it till next
week.
In addition to the duties required of them by
the Discipline our Superintendents are accustom-
ed to submit, every four years, their views and
opinions to the General Conference. A paper of
this kind, volunteered by them, is always received
with due respect, and stands a fair chance of be-
ing useful if it has not too much of the character
Of special pleading, but is considered 40 mere un-
solicited advice. The Discipline makes no provis-
ion for such papers, neither does it forbid them
all is therefore left to the dcta tes of common
sense and to the evident demands of the occasion.
The Address four years ago, was justly deemed
Objectionable in at lssst very important par
ticular-its suggestion that prohibition of slave
holding would be unconstitutional, unless made
according to the Restrictive Rule process. This
decision, whether designed to DO so OF not threw
the weight of the Bishops all on ono side, and en-
barrassed the action Of the Conference most seri
ousy. 1t was thought to be unfair that men not
having a vote in the body, ard not even allowed,
except by courtesy, to make speeches there, should
contribute in this indirect manner, 10 defeat any
efiectual anti-slavery action.
The present communication from the Bishops,
is brief, and passes lightly over difficult points
On the slavery question, nothing is offered,
and Cor the views entertained by the Bishops
reference is made to their last Quadrennial Ad-
dress. We regret this. as by such reference the
worst feature of that address is actually transfer.
red to the present. The epscopaoy is thus pla-
ced in the van of opposition to direct legislative
action, matter whether it be against slavery or
against any other hOrrd crime, According to
such q theory, the General Conference, though
clothed with full powers to make rules and reg.
uatos for our Church. in all cases not covered
by the six restrictive rules is utterly incompetent
to make any rule or regulation touching crimes
not specifedin the Discipline. Such construction
of the organic law Of theChuvch, besides rendering
the General Conference almost entirely useless
for Legislative purposes, opens the door to every
species Of crime, and constitutes the church re-
ceptace Of all moral flth. We have no specific
rule against murder, adultery, .hett robbery, se-
ducton, countorfeiting lying bigamy, pOlygamy,
treason, cruelty, gluttony, &C., hence, if the
above doctrine is correct all these any Methodist
may practice without impairing his standing, un-
til two.thirds Of General Conference, and three
fourths of ali the members of the several Annual
conferences, shall concur In forbidding these
crimes.
To this monstrous conclusion must we come,
if there is absolute necessity fer this circuit
Gus Restrictive Rule process the slavery ques-
ton. The Logic of this Episcopal objection is
fatally detectives It is impossible to frame even a
plausible argument in support of an hypothesis so
perfectable untenabe. We arc not aware that
any respectable effort has been made to defend a
position involving such gIaring absurdity. Dr.Ste-
venshas indeed inmated that there are things com
monty understood as crimes matters about the
crmnalty of which all are agree d-that might
be legisated upon by the General Conference di-
rectly, but slavery be insists does not belong to
this category, and therefore cannot be dealt with
in the same manner. Now the falacy Of this
distinction is patent to allit is no other than the
old shameless, and superficial averment that sla-
very Is not sin per Sc. 1t is impossible to en-
:ertan such an argument for moment, because
every intui;ively knows that the rights of per-
son ARE sacred the rights of property and that
if there are no inalenaLle rights of person, then
there are no inalinable rights whatever. The fee.
BILE effort OF Dr. Stevens to overthrow the ntui
tions of man, is too puny for further consideration
We are sorry the Bishops have not discovered the
unsoundness of their position on this momentous
subject. We do not charge them with any inten-
tional error but they are certainly hinderng a
much needed improvement, by one Of the most in
detensible opinions ever presented to delibera-
tive assembly More on this subject next week.