Removal

Nrxt week we shall remove our office, and it be impossible for us to issue a paper. - Butour subsenbers mayexpect to reccivo the Signal theveek following, and each successive weck thereaftertill slavery aliall be obolUhed. REV. JOHN SCOTFORD. On our h'rst page wili bc found a third letter from Mr. Scotford. He still contends that he is not understood ifiie is made to endorse the sentiment, tliut the "slaveholder is to be let elone," and introduces as explanatory of his views what he said n his first letter, viz: "That the slaveholder should be trealed as a man andacitizen pessesssd of equal rights with ourselves." Well, what are the rights we claim for ourselves. Au&wer. 1. All rights of citizens'as metnbers of civil society. 2. As cbristians, a inember&hip in the cliurch of Christ, and the exercise of nll its offices, if occasion require. and the spirit so 1 irect. For ought that nppears in Mr. ScotfortVs writing thus far. the slaveholder with hi-s thousand challéis,'' Tresh fromthe market,Í3 not only ei t tlsd loall the privileges of a citizen,but to membership Ín the christian church whh all its blessings and the privilege of exercising all its offices. From the spirit and tenor of tiieentire article on which wc are commenting, we are oompelled lo believe that the vvriter goes for t he divine right of slavery "under ckrtain cmcoMSTANCRS,'1 and that the simple fact of an individual's being a slaveholder, or a s'.avedealer, should not deba r him or lierfrom any privilege to which the christiaii is eni.ir.led. If such ie not the fact we are at an utter loss to understand language. There is no need of being misunderstood on this subject. If Mr. Scotford belives that slaveholders are cntitled to membership in the church, why not say so. Biit if he beüeves they forfeit tueir claim to cliristiun character, and consequenlly their right to membership in the church by robbing the poor, let him avow it. VVJiy these vague expressions, thia continued dodging the question at issue, but to slum responsibility, nnd court the applaut-e of the davehoJder and bis apologist, and thus uvertthe anathemas ofhia "superiors in office.'1 True, we "endorsed the addrees of the VVesleyans," and "are in for it," and feel no dispoáition to "back out," and knowing as wo do that Mr. Scotford has had tho counsil and assietance of nis brethren in the Ministry in conducting this controversy, it is but reas - onable to euppose that the best arguments that can b3 brought against our "facts and conclusions," have been ad-Iuced, and if so we ate likely to save ourselves the "humility," on the one hand, and the "loss of old friends," on the other attendant on a "retraction;" for not one of "our facts" has been disprovcd, nor one of "our conclusions," shown to be falsc. On reviewing the subject, therefore, we are satisfied the position we have taken is perfectlv invulnerable.We are gratified to know that Mr. S. wilh uil the assistance he has received from his friends, is unable to show that "overdrawn pictures and a coloring of factp,'' has ever disgraced the columns of the Signal. The atcenipt is not made but in a cingle instance, and that ie in our endorsement of the "Wesleyan address,'' and how far even in this he has succeeded, we leave the "candiel and intelligent readers of the Signal to judge,' Mr. Scotford says, :The cditors persist in tlieir position that the M. E. Church, is a slavcholdhig and a slavery drfeudwg church, and thai it has given ils most perfect abtlmint to this incalculable wrong.1' Thcn he proceeds to remark, "That the resolutions of a single conference,or the seutimenls of individual ministers or members ia favor of slaverv, are not the voica of the church." "The qtiestion then is, whether the General Conference assem'jleJ has designedly sancttoned and tolerated slavcry.'' It may be proper here to enquire 1. What constitu'.es a church a ílavcholding and a slavcry dcfending churck, and 2. If slaverjí exista in the church, whether it U by design or othcrwise 1. A slavehMing and a slavenj dvfcndmg church, is one Úi&i permits its ministers and members to engage ii the practice of buy'ng scl'ing and holding s'.aves without reproof. 2. Where this state of tilinga exists it cannot be supposed that it is by accideHt,bat by design. The question now is does slavery exist in the M. E. Church in the U. States, f so to what extent? 1. As ne ar os it can be nscertained, therc are hi the M. E. Church, in this country, aboutone hundred Travelling Minutéis, who liold about one thowónd sluves: and oeafJy three huudred Local Preadiers holding about three thovsand; .-and about tweoty five thousand members holding over tico hundred thousand Blavés estimated at (their abominabiy tiickcd and God-dtshonoring market price) about 80 or 85 million of dollars. i. One of the Bishops of this church dkl in the month of May, 13 10, set apart, and ordain Lo the office afEidtr, in súú chureh a mauj who 'vas a slavehöldcr, and lived at the time 'm a state wherc the laws did allow of emancipaj tion, ánd did permit the cinancipatcd person to enjy freedom, 4. The Georgia nnd Soulh Carolina Conferences have bo-ii declared slavery, and not only slavcry, but the systcm of slavery, "nol lo bc a tndfofïcviU' The üaltinïoro Conferenci has givéli" its" j sonction to slavery and the slnvc trade, i provided the "pnrposes are kind, and the inicntiuns good " The subject of slavery was broughl dislinct ly before the General Conference at ils two ! last sessioni?, and the conference not only possiúvely refused to say in the lanuage of her I discipline that s!io was "as much as ever con! vinced of tiiegrcat evil of slavery, ' but could i not be prevailed iipon to take ony nction against it whatever. They did however condemn abolilionism, and endorse every pro-slaveryactcflhe church by silence or oHierwise. ín view of the abovc facts it is shown' beyond sucecssful contradiction that slavery is "toleralcd and sanctioned by the church. ' - I If it benot so, we ore utterly at a loss to know what a church must do in order to subject herelf to tliis odium. Neither is this (complicated vilh.iny" in the church accidental, but ! by "design." The responsibility, Ihernfore, j (and consequently the guilt) is with the church, I and her alune. The individual who, from j these premies, can arrive at any other coni clusion certainly shows au unpardonable j "iwii of logical acumen." How is it posij ble we ask,for the churcli to give a more "perfect uhetment" to slavery, than to permit 400 of ita ministerf, nnd L5,000 of ijs memberr, to bny,sell, and holdslaves, to theamount of from one,lotwuhnidricithoiisand,ieTtun]y tl.e c!iurch by this course abrfs, tolerates and SANCTIONS slavery. And we have no doubt but Mr. S. would do himself more honor, and the cause of God a much better service to own the factf, and uttempt a reform, than to apologie for slavery and the slaveholder, nnd to attempl to cover up what every incelligent person knows to be the sin of the chvrek. Mr. S. has gone into a regular and systematic ciefence of slavery, and slaveholdingunder 'certaiu a rcvmslancts;' and we challenge him to show a single instance of slavc holdtn g or slove selihig in the Soulh, but wliat (in the minds of those engaged in it; are at- tende.l by such "circumstances,' as free.them from the "just charge of giiilt and immorality." The slaveholder pleads the force of circnmstances in exlenuation of his guiU, and so might the thief, the liar, the higbwaymaa and jassassin, willicqual propriety. Will Mr. S. write an apology for those who comniit i hese crimes, and attempt to justify lheir wicked and God difhcnoring ccnduct "under ccrtain ciratmslanccï ' We tbink not . The fuct is, the (o called) christian slavrholder end his Noithein alliet--, like Mr. S. support slavery, and keep the who!e system in countcnance, and rest on them the responsibilify. But let the c.Y.irch com? out and absolve herself from all connection witli slavery; let her wash l)Er hands in innocency with reference to this subject, and slavery would vanish like dewbefore tlie noonday sun. Thetwo cases "supposed," by Mr. S. by which l.e inlends to justify slavery deserve a passing1 notice. A slaveliolder ia one who recognize3 the right to, and claims a humun being as property. A human bei;g reduced to a chatlel, ? deprived of every right peculiar to his nalurp and the individual claiming and exeicising this autliority, usurps the prerogativcs of his Maker, and consequent! v is a sin::cr against God. Absolute slavery, is a malun in se, and no circumstances can make il othervvise, consequently :t being initselfa sin, it should ceaee at once, and forever.I lie individual who ceases to claim proper(yin man ceases to be a slaveholder; and thougli the law fixes the relation of master to slave upon him, if he exerts liim&elf to the utmost for the repeal of the law. and to secure for his "brother beloved," alJ his rights as a man, he is justified, it "rcejuired of a man a ccordii g (o what he hath, and not accord ing to lint he hath not." We contcnd tiiat tlere is not a valuable thing on earth necessary to be done for tlie slave, but what the master can as wellr and as efiec'.ualjy do, with a deed of enianc:paiion ira the pocket of the slave, as fte can by claimino him as a chattcL If the slave be young, he can protect and sustain him. Ifhebe oíd, and "has spent the vigor and prime oflife in the master's service,1' certainly he is bound by the law of Irindness to -give unto bim that which is just and equul," viz: Liberty and a just compensation (br all his labor and toils. So far, theiefore, as the "Rkv. G. Bbcklet," s concerned, a slatx-holder could ot be adiiiitted to rnembersh.'p in a church of which he might be pastor. Our doctrine is, immediale emaneipation on the soil, foliowed by erery extrtion on the part f ihetnaster in his power to secure the righls and intereats of the emancipaled slave, nnd rnnv we cali on Mr. Scotford to show by the hislonj of Ihepast, or by any process of reasooing he can adopt, that it wou ld be attended with any disastrous consequences. The apology for Messrs. Gapers, Wynans and E. D. Sims, would have done well if it liad been made some years ogo, but it is too flimsey an excuse for such a notorious ant outrageous wrong ns that of slavery. Such apologies can never satisfy the intelligent, the thinking part ofcommunity. The Hicmber of the-General Conference to w:.ich Mr.S. refers, theugk-he may öotilvc a ihousauZ miles froiu Aan Arbor, isless mistaken. The Georgia conference has never repealed hcrodions rcsolution, declaring 6lavor y not a moral eril . Neither did rh'e delégales in the General Conference retract the sentiment of the resölution. "fhey oriiy apologized for its passage, offoring as a reason for so doing that thcy were provoked to it by the cónduct of abolitionists. Henee the relï'Sal of the General Conference lo takcex'ceptions lo llie slavery1 domgs of Conferences, and at the same time udopting the rosolntion of J. A. Few, on colored testimony, is another and undeimble proof of the ahetmenl of slavcry by the chuich. Mr. S. snys, speaking of thö doings of the church by the delegates in General Conference asssembled, "that she might have taken much stronger ground in support of sJavefy thanshe did." This is giving up the whole grounJ fór which we contend, viz: that the cliurch supports slavery, and whilo Mr. S. concedes that the church has abetted slavery, we contend that she has given its most perfect ahttment. kc, not in extent but in kind. We charge it home upon the Conference as an inlentiunal wrong, and this we du because we think they are to be blamed. Mr. S. however, attempt3 to excuse them on the ground of goneral ignorance, and acting upon mistaken views of abohlionism they plungedthcmselvea into the horrible wrong o sustaining slavery. We have no doubt but the conference would feel quite as comfortable under the charge of t:deep and intentional wrong," as they would under that oí' general ignorance. And if Mr.S. t'oe ; not subject himself lo assevere censures by branding the 'authorities of the church," with ignorance and unintentional support of slavery, as we do by charging the guilt home upon them as intei. tunal, we aftogether misj'idge. We hope to profit by the timely reproof receive for unkind words, eppecially such specimens of genlleness and christian charity as we receive from him whose motto is "soft words and hard aruments," "croakERS," "HDTHEADED," "aSPIRINö LHADIÏRS," "FANATICS,'' &ÍC. For a person who deals out such vile epitheta as the above to talk. about "soft words," being Ihe usurest of success," is as unseemly as a "jewel in a swine's snout.1'