Communications: Letter From Rev. Mr. West: No. 2

Mojírok, Mich. 17th July, 1843. To the. edilors Sig. of Liberty. #m Arbor, Mich. Gentlemen: - I thnnk you for giving my fetter an insertion in your paper of lOth inst. TJiis communication I transmit to you through the columns of the Monroe Advocate, whose Editors have kindly granted the permission of so-doing. I take this course that the people here and in this viciuity may more generally know what I vvrite, as the Advocate is more commonly read in this' city and its environs than the Signal of Liberty. Mow I have incurred your displeasure and the displeasure of 8onie of your correspondenis I know not. - But readers might infer that you had some epecial umbrage at me in partícula?, when they read in your three or four ]ast numbers Buch drcadjul denuncia tions as your papers contain relative to my conduct. lama litlle eurprised at this myself because I know not that I ever personally offended you. ' And I have been led almost to the conclusión that some other things from some other quarter liad irritated your feelmga at the time you ■commenced writing ngainst myself in particular, and my brethren of the mnjority of the Jast assembly, in general. Be this as it mny, ï can assure you gentlemen, that some of vvarmest friends the anti-slavery cause has in these parts have pronounced the remarks in your last pnper in rcference to myself and svhát you cali my "abominable principies," as Mscundalous." For myself, I complain not of onything you Eay. Only one hint 1 will herc lake the liberty of jjiving, and it is from the pen of the truly venerable Richard Bax' er; "Ihat all ovcrdoing is undoing and had better not have been dono at all." In this letter I will for the information of my Brethren in the ministry, the churches within the bouuds of our synod, yoursclves gentlemen, and all others concerned, who may liappen to read the same; point out some of the errors contained in several of your last ïiumbere with relation to your animadversions on the majority of our last general assembly; end then with rcfercucc to myself.1. With regard tó the general assembly. 1. Error. This, I am afraid is a wilful error. In your paper 19th of June, p 1. col. 3. the quesfion - "Slavery whence is it?" &tc. is put. The aiiswer in your paper frained for the aseembly states: They (i e. the aesembly) put their learned heade together, and reasoned among themselves, saying, if we shall say of Hel!, they will say why then do you not rebuke it? But if we shall say, of Heaven, we fear the abolitionist?, for all hold slavery to be a sin. And they answered and said Wb caksot tki,l. Tn plain Engiish, wa darenottfxt.." This is all untrue. There was no caucus, or layitog of learned heads together'' or preconcerted plan of action on on the part of the assembly composing the mnjority, at all. Not so on Ihe part of the minority. The majority acted all the vay through the debate on the defensive and had to speak and reply as present circunistances flictated. The design of holding up the majority of the asserably bcfore the public in the langunge of the paragraph just quoted wili tfierefore be judged of by all impartial readers. VVhere the hypocrisy alluded to in that statement rsts, I leave to others the liberty of determining. 2. Error. Same paper, p fi. col. 3. it is said: In 1840, this assembly having found that some presbyteries had excluded slaveholders from their pulpits and communion agreeably to their vote of 1389,instructed those presbyteries to rescind their rules - in other words to continue to fellowship and receive mcn-stealcrs to their pulpits and communion!" &c. This, as thus stated; is all a misrepresentation. If presbyteries and sessions must receive ministers and members coming from other parts of the church with proper preslyterial and sessessional certificates according to our constitution; does it therefore folio w that those received by presbyteries and church sessions if found to be living in the practice of any known sin shall be allowed to preach, or to commune before the process of discipline takes place? Must not ministers and church members be brought under Jurisdiction before they can be judged? Must they not be personally and solemnly judged before they can be condemned? And does the fact of their being received on their clean certificates by the auihoritative judicatories of the church, prevent them of being disciplined, when received, if then found to be living in ain? The presbyteries who took such action, when the subject of slavery was committed to them, as stood thus directly in the ace of the practice of the constitution of the church were therefore ordered to rescind them; and very properly too. Lot the public now judge whet lier the aseembly "instructed" such presbyterics "to continue to fellowship and receive men-stealers to their pulpite and communion." And let the public also judge whether the assembly, "in their vote in 1339" could possibly be nnderstood by any discriminating mind to have given liberty to presbyteries io take such order on the subject of slavery, as would imply a contradiclion to the obvious meanng of the constitution, and sucb parts of the :onstituticn too, as leave the pnmary judicatories of the church without iscrelion: - For ninisters and members coming from onebytcry or church to onother must be received on the presenfation of their proper certificaies, if presented within the psriod oflimitation assigned, whatever public or private opinión mny be, relat i ve to their moral character. Without admitting this doctrine to he,sanaac eecuvdum devm, sound and according to God; and without observing it strictly, no man's character or liberties, or right would be secure. 3. Error. Same paper, p 8. Col. 1. Here I find your paper saying of the assembly - "these SELL the widow and the fatherless and then engage in a prayer of thanksg-iving to Almighty God for he spirit of tenderness and forbcarance manifested in discussing the important subject of robbing and sellmg their brethren in the Lord!'' This is allogether untrue. We had no such men in the assembly. Nor were nny of thcm charged with such hideous crimes, by nny speaker on the floor of that house, no not even by the most ultra. 4 Error. Paper 26 June, p L. col. 3. In this paragrnph I find it stoted that, "several delegate3 from Kentucky and Missouri, Dr. Allen was one of them: - who had waited a week with their credentials in their pockets, waiting to see the uourse the assembly would pursue, and as soon as they found that no action was to be taken, carne forward and ta.bled their names as menibers of the assembly." Not a word of ihis is true! The assembly opened the I8thof May. Dr. Allen was present, had hia name eniolled, and stood his nomination in company with the Rev. Messrs. Duffield, Eddy, Lindsley, and Beecher jr. for moderator on that day! Sen Phil. Christian Observer, 25th May, p 2. col. 5. for the roll of ihe assembly. The members who were late in coming to the assembly by reason of distance and other preventives, tendered their reason for delay, none of which would come up to the cause assigned in your paper as fitr as I hoard, or have known : and I was pot absent from any onc eessjon of thebly during tha whole time of itscontinunnce. These four errors, only a part of what I have selected rehtive to the aasembly as iound in your papers, I respcctfully present to your consideration and that of any brethren and the public. In your paper of l&th June pnge 2. col. l. Ihere is this found relating to yourselves; "But we would not do injustice to any." Hoping, gentlemen, you will carry out this motto betler in.your future numbers, I in the neantime subscribe myself very re3pectfully, Yours, Sic. foc.P. S.- In my next I shall include the rest selected about Ihe Gon. Assenibly and thcn refer to myself. REMARK3 . 1. We hare no "special umbrage" towards Mr. West. We merely expressed our disnpprova! of bis course in the General Assembly, as weunderstood it, and our dissent from his principies, as subsequently avowcd. 2. Our Detroit correspondent can answer for himself. S. As to the censure of the Presbyteries, and the necessity of receiving ovowed men.. stealers and slave-traders into all our Northern cliurches with their guilt unrepent3d of, as contended for by Mr. West, our readers have heard both sides of the queetion, and can judge for themselves. We utterly dissent from such a hideous amnlgamation of crime and Christianity. In our opinion,if geoerally practiced at the Noríh, ii would cause the Christian religión to stinJc through all the land! 4. As to a portion of the Assembly, whom we represented as selling the widow andfatherleiss, we do not know, indeed, that any ot the members have done such. an act. We are not sufficiently acquainted with their private history to bc able to say this. But we know that Dr. Ely has houghl human beings for money, and both he and Dr. Hill have reduced infant children to slavery. Novv, wc ask if theae Doctors, according to the former Discipline of the Church which we quoted. are not men -stealers? And will those who steal away infants as soon as they are bom have any ecruple about sei.mno them in any circumstances? Besides, the system which these men practicallv uphold, necessarily involves the 6ale of slaves under all circumstances. 5. The fourth error, if it bc such, we quo ted from the Penn. Freeman, supposing the statement to be true.