Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1860-06-30
SALEM, OHIO, JUNE 80, 1860.
WHERE STANDS THE M. E CHURCH,

WdEhE O1hNO0 lie III. u
That the auti-slavery members OF the M. E.
Church were disappointed in the action of the late
Conference at Buffalo, in unquestionably
true. Some Of them, however, are striving to
lessen The keenness of their disappointment by
trying to persuade themselves that the Conference
did, after all, place the Church in a more anti-sla-
very position than it before occupied.
When the action of the Conference comes to be
fully understood, it will probably be seen that the
Church has made no advance, and possibly not
much retrogressiOn, but practically occupies since
the Conference about the same position it occupied
before it. DR.. Bond of the Baltimore Christian
ADVOCATE regards the new chapter as c%ondemnato-
ry of all siaveholding, and disastrous to the peace
of the Church while a correspondent in the same
number of the paper over the signature of Dor
der Methodist prOclaims it a pro-slavery triumph,
and afirms that the Conference has stricken out
the Objectionable laos of the Church, and substi-
tuted a few generalities which ought not and can
not be Objectionable to the Border Conferences.
The editor OF the Northern Independent regards
the new chapter AS greatly superior to the old and
ezciuded Une'-tae old simply declaring slavery
an evil, without classifying it as a moral, intellect
sal or physical evil, while the new describes it as
an act Inconsistent with the laws Of God and ma
ture, and contrary to- the Golden Rules while DR..
Bowen, a correspondent Of the Independent, speaks
of the action of the Conference as the anti,slavery
farce ut Buffalo, aud says, The old chapter on
slavery which contained a little law and q little
penalty, has been changed by a sort of homeopath-
ic dilution to an inhntisimal sugar pill advice
On our first page is az article containing side
BY side the old and new chapters and if the
phraseology Of the latter is considered an advance
upon the former, this advantage is more than
couhterbalanced by The fact that while it SIM ply
gives adoice, the other gives the lao. Under the
old chapter, slavehOlding preachers and slavehold-
ing members bounded 10 the NJ. e.. Church. I'm
der the new chapter the facts remain unchanged,
and by what possibility it can ever be made to ex.
clude the Shareholders now 10 the Church, or even
to prohibit the admission of shareholders hereafter,
is more than we are able to zee. That the Confer.
ence did something We admit, but that something
is Of such a questionable character that its action
Is claimed indiferently by anti slavery and by pro
slavery men as an anti slavery triumph and a
pro slavery triumph some abOlitionists e~xulting
in, while others deplore it's action, while the oppo,
neuts of anti slavery are divided in the same
way.
Abolitionists-we moan consistent abolitionistt
have opposed the NJ. L. Church because, while
claiming to be a Christian organisation, it tolerates
in it's rninisrry men who are guilty of the sum OIL
oil yillanies : because, while claiming and exer'
cising the right to discipline and disown from
membership all person who are guilty of anti
christian conduct, it retains without rebuke those
who make merchandise Of the bodies and souls oil
men because. while it claims and exercises the
right to investigate the christian character of APP
plicants fur membership. rejecting those who are
guilty Of petit ~larceny,i it freely admits the ~stealers
of men. We would like to enquire whether the
new chapter does or can depose from the ministry
a slaveholding preacher whether it does or can
exclude the slaveholding members of the church
whether it does or can deny to slayeholding appli.
Giants the rights of membership. If it neither does
nor can do all or any Of these things. what is il
worth practically in an anti-slAvery poirt oil
view2
1t is simply an advisory chapter. And the fact
that ia that advisory chapter, is used stronger and
more deinite language In ehata S~terisings lavory
than in the law whose place it takes, does not, We
think, place the church as a whole, or its ~anti-sla,
very members individually in a better position. II,
under the old chapter, slavery was regarded mere.
ly as an eVil-not necessarily, if you please, q
moral, but possibly a social, political, or economic
eSil-there was some foundation for a jusufying
plea for its retentIon;as a man who cannot breathe
pure air is justified in breathing impure air. Such
an argument, we say, might have been made , we
speak not Of its honesty or its morality, but sim.
ply Of. it's logic. And such an argument tbas made,
and many members of the body felt justified there
by in retaining their connection with a pro-slavery
church. But now that she practice of slavehOld.
ing is declared to be contrary to the laws of God
and nature, and inconsistent with the Golden
Rule,' It would seem as though every shadow Of
justification or exienuation for Acknowledging
Shareholders as christian brethren, was given to
the winds the church, standing condemned
out Of her own mouth as anti.christian, takes from
every anti-slaVery Methodist all excuses for re.
tanning their connection in such a body. And yet