Year: 1860




odist Episcopal Church Of New York


City, whose session has Just closed, as


has become fashionable with most reli-


gious bodies, discussed the slavery ques-


ton. The question came mp on adopt


ing what is known as the Erie Resolu-


tions," which proposes to cut off from


Christian fellowship all professors en-.


gagged in "the buying, selling, holding or


transferring Of any human being to be


used in slavery" We are inclined to


think that the day is not far distant


when the church will get sick of attend
ing to matters that do not pertain to sal
vation. With the churches that indulge
in travelling out of their professed bust
ness, politics have become q more vital
element of their organizasion than rel;-
gion. Like the Vatican, their grasp for
temporal power has drie9sap their spirit
ual grace. They have lost the power of
godliness over the communities in which
they are located. They have become so
much wiser and better, in their own
opinion, than their great head, that they
have determined that their kingdom
shall be "of this world" But this worldly
wisdom is effecting its own cure. We
can afford to wait for the result.


The apology for the speech we publish
below is, that it was made on the defen-
sive. The aggressive abolitionists have
forced the question year after year, and
now it is properly met. 1t is gratifying
to say that in this instance the PROPOSE
tion was rejected by very large vote.


After the discussion had been carried
on for some time by the advocates of the
"Erie Resolutions


Rev. G.. f. Kettel said that he did not
consider that any of the rules that had
been presented had embodied any stronger
or more emphatic declaration against
slavery than was already contained in the
Discipline. All the resolutions passed by
other conferences were ambiguous, and
incapable of general comprehension
The language Of the Discipline was sim
pie, emphatic and distinct. The brethren
said man must buy and sell men, wo-
men and children, with the intention to
enslave Them, and that those things must.
combine before the stakeholder could be
arraigned under that rule. He the
speaker) really thought that that con-
struction was an invention. He never
heard any body put such construction
upon it. (Laughter.) The plain, en-
phatic meaning of the rule was, that the
buying or selling Of anybody was against
the Discipline; and what, he asked, was
to be gained by change of the rule p
They could not make the sense of the
church or of the Discipline any clearer
by altering it. Last year, said he, we
had very singular piece Of logic pre-
sented, and which was supposed to have
had considerable influence. DIR. Clark
had said that the object Of the Cincin-
natti rule was not to change the Disci-
pliue. 1t was a conservative measure; it
had been put forward by conservative
men, and was intended simply to let it
be known that the church re.aflirmed her
declaration against slavery, and was not
to change the Discipline. If we
want a new rule it must express some
thing more emphatic.


DIR. Clark rose to correct the state
ment, which was unintentionally wrong.
He (Dr. C.) said, on the occasion alluded
to by Mr.. Kettel, that as he understood
the Discipline, that rule gave expression
to his (Dr. C.'s) understanding of it.


Mr.. Kettel resumed his speech. He
took pro-slavery man to be a person
who thought that slavery was just for it.
self, while conservative man was one
who considered it ustiiable to allow it
to remain under the circumstances until
they could do better. He pronounced
himself a conservative man. Was a man
to be turned out of church because of his
with slavery? If it was sin
to hold slaves, then they had no election
but to turn every man out of the church
who commits this sin; and yet brethren
who assumed it was sin said that they
did not wish to emancipate all the slaves
at once. The admission that they might
unemancipated was, to his mind,
the acknowledgment of no sin They
had got to decide one way or the other.
The consequences must be taken into ac-
count, whether it is right or wrong in us
to set ourselves up in the face of this in
stitution, existing in the land, and turn
man out of the church that was connect
ed with it? That was the real question
before them. They wanted no change
in the Discipline unless it was required.
There was great deal of sentimental
rhetoric and pious defamation upon the
sin and enormity of holding slaves. 1t
seems to be everywhere assumed, because
there are moral evils connected with
slavery, that the possession of slaves is
sinful. assume that there may be sin
necessarily connected with an institution,
and IL does not necessarily follow that
that is sinful. Take the marriage rela-
tion. Who can deny, in the imperfect
of society and of the human
heart, that there are not evils growing
ont Of it? The Christian Sabbath is
necessarily the cause of sin in great
many cases--such as idleness, drunken
ness and gambling. The whole question
lies in the moral character OF slavery it.
self. There is sin attaching itself to all
conditions of human life; and it is just
so with slavery. No man denies that
there are evils in it; but does that prove
that the relation is necessarily sinful? We
must arrive at that position before we
turn a man out Of the church. The oft
repeat toll nlatitude that the xyorle ovaa n