Communications: For The Signal Of Liberty: M. E. Church And ...

AIkssrs Editors: - Since you will not allow me to comfort myself with the idoi of being a trouhlesome correspondent, 1 will endeavor to "comment on the facts and conclusions" contained in the answer to my first communication. In their answer to my second letter, the editors say, they did suppose'1 that my opinión was that the slaveholder is not to be disturbed," "and on reviewing the subject(the editors find no cause of altering their mind.f Tha is, the editors still believe that I meant to convey the sentiment that the slaveholder is to be let entirely alone; and all this, notwhhstanding my protest to the contrary. So it seems the editors think me not a man of truth. But what was there in my first article to lead the editors to 'suppose'1 that was my position? Did I not admit that the church had been too lax in the administration of discipline on the subject of slavery? The editors fasten on the sentence, "Our ivar should be with slavery as a systsm (svpported and defincd by law) not with the slaveholder," to draw their inference from. The eentence referred to, was qualified in the expressions which immediately followed, "He shuuld be treated as a man, and as a citizen- -possessed of equal rights with ourselves." And, how would you treat him? as a brute, or as an alien? as an outlaw, or as an enemy?Is there no medium between the treatment that repels confidence, and creates opposition; and that fawning sycophancy which crouches to the slave-power, and gives its "suffrage .o the slaveholder? By whnt rule would you deprive him of his rights as avcitizen? Surely a man may be treated ns a citizen, without being promoted to offices of trust and profit. ín my first communicaUon I directly recownizedthe propriety and importance of moral and political action, did the editors suppose I wonld co.itradict myself in the same breath? So there is a mighty foor raised, and for whnt? Why the editors had endorsed the addressofthe Weslayuns, and by so doing were in forti, as the expression is; and it was no easy matter to bnek out. To recant would have been humbling on the one hand, and perhaps deserting old friends on the other. The editors seem to think that my remarks on overdrawn pictureá. and a coloring of factp, weredesic'ncd to apply to tliem. Well, if the coat fits, put iton. Though really, Gentlemen, the remark was only intended as 1 eral, noí personal. However, to save their credit amoncr the candid and intelligent readers of the Signal, the editors vvill do well to "retract or explnin" as there is evidently "over-drnwn pictures and a coloring offacts"' in the address alluded to above.The editors persist in theirposition that the M. E. Church, is a "slaveholding and a slavery defending Church." That it has given uits most perfect abel ment to this incalculable wrong.'" It is not my wish to screen the Church from a just reproof. In the sanie measure that it has sinned should it be censured. Nor do I claim infallibihly forthe church, I believe il has taken wrong action on the question of slavery, and I wish it had been otherwise. The difference between us, therefore, is not whether the Church has erred but how deeply it has erred, in its aclion on this subject. It may be remarked that the resloutions of a single Conference, or the sentiments of individual minister., ormembers, in favor of slavery are not the voice of the church . The question then is whether the Church by its delégales in Genernl Conference assembled, has designedly sanclioned and loleiated slnvery. However, as Dr. Fisk, and influential ministers of ihe M. E. Church, are gravel y charged with dejending slavery, we shall examine the evidence brought forward in support of this charge. "The general íulo of Christanity, not only permite, but in supposablc circinnslances, rnjoins a continuance of the masters authority." "The relation of nutster and slave, may and does in many cases, exist, nnder snch cirenmstances, as f ree the masler from the just charge and guilt oj immorality." Upon tliis testimony we r-Miiark, 1. The master may, or may not be placed, in circumstances which will justify him in containing his claim to the slave. If those circumstances exist, then they do not defend slavery, but the slaveholder, in this case, from the charge of "guilt and immorality." If those cirenmstances do not exist, then the editors have proved, vvhal? VVhy that these good men were mistakoii in supposing that to exist which does not, and nothing rnore. For they plainly admit that vvhere tliese circumstances do not exist, the slaveholder is guilty of 'immorality. Here then, eo far from beingpro-slavery they are anf i-slavery. Their object was net to jnstify slavery, but to refer the guilt to where it, in such cases, more properly belongs,- to those lcgislative enactments which prohibit emancipation. But do any circumstances exist as supposed abovp. I will suppose one or two cases, and ïf these do not free the maater, in such eases, from the charge of guilt and immorality, I know of none that do. A, and B, are neighboring planters nt the Somh. A, owns a male, and B, a female slnve, who are joined together in matrimony. At length A, gets converted, and is anxious to libérate his slave. Bui the laws of the Stato forbid emancipation on Lhe soil. If, thcrefore, he would give him his liberty, he must take him North into the free Statns. But here again he finds a difficully; for B, who owns the wife of his slave, will not libérate her, and lo take him North in this case, will be to break a plain command of the Savior, "Whatsoever God hath joined together, hl no man pulaMinder." Not only êo, but A's slave is unwillingto go North and leave his wife; and A is unable to purchase her to give her freedom, and B will not sell her. Now Messrs Editors, upon whom does the guilt fall in this case? Upon A or upon the unrighteous laws of the State, which have hedged him about, and prevented him from acting as he would otherwise have done? Take another case. An Alabama Cotton Planter is awakened and experiences religión, proposes to join aChurch in his neihborhood of which I will suppose the Rev. G. Bcckléy is pastor. But he is a slaveholdef, and this fact is presonted as an objection. H pleads, 1. His slave is now old. L. He has epent the vigor and prime of life in his service. 8. That he has therefore a claim on him, ihe Planter, for a living in his old age. 4. That the laws of the State will not allow nn emancipated slave to enjoy liberty, and that, therefore, an act of emancipation on his part, would exposé the liberated slave to a much worse bondage, as the public authorities would belikely ío take him up and sell him to some cruel and unfeeling master. 5. That in view of all these facts, hethinks that, the "general rule of Ckristianity, not only permils but enjoins a continuanco of (lus) the master's authority.'' That he acts upon the golden rule, Doihg as he would be done unto in such case were he the slave. Now what would the Rev. G. Bpckleydo in this case. Would he cali him a "vülain,'' and repel him from the Church, orreceive him, and labor to help both master and slave on in the way to heavcn. It is to cases like these, that Bishop Heddinnr reforrcd in the extract brought forward to make the Bishop teslify in favor of slavery. Dr. Capers, and Rev. W. Winans, and Rev E. D. Simmons, in particular, are more justly chargeable with laboring to defend slavery. - But the candid reader will recoüect that these men have been trained up in a land of slavery, and under its ïpfluence, and it does not appear to them as it would, had tliey not been accustomed to such scènes. They doubtless tiiink that slavery in some modified form, is consistent with Scripture. To treat them harshly and cal! them hard ñames wiil only excite their prejudices and drive thetn from investid gation. The editors 6ay that the resoluiions of the Georgia and South Carolina conferences, declaring slavery not a moral evd, "were passed over in silence.'1 I am authorized by a delégate to the last General Conference to say, that a resolution of censuro icas introduced at that Conference, upon those Conferences which was only averted by an explanation from the delegales of those Conferences, by which they retracted the sentiment of those resolutions. But as the action of the General Conference must be suppesed to be the voice of the Church, let us see iftlie resolutions of that body, introduced as testimony prove the Church to have given "Us most perfect abetmenC' to slavery; or that the Church "de signcdly iolerate3 and sanctions slavery." - The General Conference of 183G, ''Resolved' that they were "decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism"' fas they understood it) "and wholly disclaim any right (as an ecclesiastical body) wish or intention to interfere in the civil a.ná polit'cal rehtion between master and slave,'' &.c. Upon this resolution I would ofFer the following observation.Ist. They supposed something dentical to modern obolilionism of an objectionn ble nature to vvhich they were opposcd. What was it? Was it that abolitionism declares sJavery lo be in its nature, spirit, and praclice wrong? no sir. For tliis the General Conference never disputed. It was, sir, the doctrine of abolitionists, as they supposed, thnt it is sinful under all circumstances for any one to hold slaves; and that it is the duty of ever slavoholder, immediately, unconditionally, and re gardless of all consequences, to emancípatethcir slaves. 2. They supposed that abolitionism taught, thal the slave should be persuaded to run away from his master; a measure, they conceivcd, faught ith the worst of consequencce, to both maBter and elave, all tliings constdercd.tf. They supposed ií a doctrine of abolition ism, Unit co -ercivc means should be used to accomplish the work of emancipution, if milder measures should prove inefiectual. 4. As the whole South wcre npprised, that, from the beginning the M, E. Church had been opposed to slavery; and by its Discipline had conslantly asked, "Whal can be done for the extirpalio n of slavery," and had as constantly answered, "We are as much as ever convinced of the ore at evil of slavery,' - they supposed any action they could take further on this question, would not effect the abolition of slavery. 5. In view of all these facts, they wished to act in such a way as would give them access to the plantations of the South. And if they could iiot effect the emancipation of the slave, they would labor to mike him as happy, and conifortab!e,as they could,under hisbonds. And this they would do, by lab oring lo gei both master and slave converted. Now sir, though they might have misunderstood the nature and measures of Modern Ab olitionism, and acting on these mistaken views, might have indirectly sanctioned, or rather supported slavery, yct the worst construction we con put upon the resolution, is far from proving any decp or intentional wrong. To say the least, the church might have taken much stronger ground in support of slnvery than it has. Allowing then that it has abeted slavery, yet it is far from having given "ils most perfect abetment" to it. Upon the resolution of the General Conference of 1840, touching negro testimony in chuich trials, my views were givsn in tbe answer co the address of the Wesleyans, to which you sir, and the readers of the Signal, are referred. The "above facts," as referred to, may irresistablyforce the editors of the Signal, and their Wesleyan Friends, to the conclusión thut the M. E. Church, designbdly tolérales and sanctions slavery. But while I have no doubt of the "shining of the sun at noonday'' especially if the day is not cloudy, yet the "facts" prove me quite anothar thing than any icish or design to give sanction to the ihstitU- tion of slavery. The General Conference saw, in the hot headed measures of certain aspiring leaders of the Abolition party among the Methodists, down East, a storm gathenng which was designed to split the Church asunder, and be productivo of incalculable evil; unless an carly and effectual etop could be put to it. They saw also that instead of stopping on medium ground these individuals were pushing their conclusions to fanaticism. Itwas to tuis wild phrensy, they gave the 'name of "modern abolilionisrri' and with the best of intentions they came out against ït. "Friend Scotford" is fumüiar with all the facts in the case,'' but is far from coming to the Eame conclusions with the cditors of' the Signal . And he ca b".t say, that however good and honest thcir intentions may be in this mattnr, he thinks they have displayed a want of logical acumen, in nrriving al conclusion8 so perfectly unsupported by the testiraony relied on. In conclusión, permit me to add: I am heart ily sorry Ihis subject has taken the unfortunate turn it has. liad there been more of the oil of love, and less of the spirit of acrimony, displayed on either eide, mutual prejudices might have been avoided - old friendships unbroken - and the cau?e of genuino Abolition much moreadvanced than it now is. lam fully convinced that ,;Soft words and hard argumenta' is the true secret of success. I remain as ever, X.hejriend of truth, of good order, and of LIBERTY.