Press enter after choosing selection

The Conference, They Ware Nearly The Same, And Therefore I P...

The Conference, They Ware Nearly The Same, And Therefore I P... image
Parent Issue
Day
31
Month
July
Year
1843
Copyright
Public Domain
OCR Text

the Conference, they ware nearly the same, and therefore I put them together. He would not undcrtake to follow Bro. BeckJeythrough nll his statements. It was needleas. JIc disavowed all knowledge of, or connection with a conspiracy to injure him. As the charge of 'pro-fllavery' &c. perhaps. niiglu, be allebei agains'. him, he deemed it proper to say, that hc was raised in the Bnckeye State, and was an anti-slavery man and always had been. Me hac lived in Slave States and Free States, and hnc never owned slaves, although he had had them tbem in his employ, whcn noother help could be procured. He had alwnys thouglit slavery to be an evil. After he carne into the State last fall.and the statements of Mr. Beckley were reported to him, he determined to arraign him for them ehould hts asscrtions be made in a tangible simpe. As to the chnrge of Slandcr, Mr. F. positively denied that Bishop Waugh i)id ordnin n slaveholdcrin 1840. or in any other year. He read f:om the True Wesleyan, nnd contendeil that ncither Scott, nor Merrill affirmed that the man ordaincd was a slaveholder. The most they contend is, that the Bishop said that he was: Mr. F. suppoycd the truth of the matter to be this; The Bishop suppostd the mnn was a slaveholder, and so statcd; but he examincd bim before-the whole company, and found he was not, nnd then ordained him. In giving an account of this maner, Messrs. Scott and Merrill gnve the statement of the Bishop, but do not g;vo the exrulpa'ory statement of the man who was examined. Bro. Pilcher, rf theMichigan Conference, was present, and assistod in ordnining the man. Mr. Frazee has written to Bishop Waugh. nnd received an answer stating that he, (Bishop W.) had received a letter from Mr. Snvage. brothei to the mnn ordained, stating that his ,brother waf nbscnt, that his brother was not a slaveholder, bui he married into a family that held f laves, anci had had the loan of a female lave for a sea mu. Mr. Frazee siid that what the accused had asaortcd was falso, and hc was therefore guilty oí si ander.On the charge of Fulsehood, Mr. F. said in rcfercnce to the first specilication, that no change has heen made in the discipline ns lic allcgcd, but íubscquently he read from the old disciplines to how that the present rules of the church we re more unfavorable to tlavery thnn the anci ent ones. The langauge used in the second specific;ilion he considered highly exceptiona'le. The M. E Church join a cruside of robbery and oppression Every American ciiizen ought to brand a man who would make this nssertion of any Protestant Church. Rob! Was it to rob tht the nisters of thia church had endured the hardtliips of a new country - had lived on parched corn, andüleptoii barks, and subsisted on half pay? - Whcre ie the evidence of tlicir robhery? On whoni have thcy laid their hands? The M. E. Church is made to thirst for ihe plundor of a 8laveü This abe ieation was base and vile. To talk of cutting ojfiestiniony. or nny thing t-lse that was never om,. was ceitainly mysterious Colored testimony in s!ave States had rarely been nilowcd. The usage of '.hese Stites, both in civil and ccclcsiasticnl courts, had been against nllowing the testimony of colored persons againsl the whiies. Tliere were exceptions. but this was the genera! practice, and tliere was a reason for it, froin the nature ot the case. He ■ would state Kin the form of a sylloism, thus: A prejudiced person is an incompetent witncss: Colored persons are prejudiced against white person; Therefore colored persons are incompetent witne8ae. He affirined tiiis of llwnn nsa body, and hip opinión waa agrceable to the general usage. Tliie cutting ofT rights was al 1 a matter of words; the colored :liütch tnoii.bera had no rights of the kmd, and never liad; and all the General Conference did was to express thcir opinión in favor of the expediency of the general practice which lias ahvayá prcvailed. The third specification speaks of the creation of new prerogalives. What are they? Titles - promotions - privileges? What now authority has been given to Bishop, Presiding Eldeis or Preachert-? So far from this being true, one item nfter another had been abridged from thn authority of the Pieachers. it is not truo that a Pieanher can exelude colored testimony now any more than forme rly. The general usage has alwaye been the same. The construction put upon buying and sell ng slavcs was incorrect. - Ho contended that it was inmaterial whether the rule read 'buying and eelling,' or 'buying or seliing.' Ile who either buvs or sells niakeseelf amsnable to the rule; and il is s") construid in alavc Statea. The authorities ot' the church are spoken of ns an Aristocracy. Whero were these Aristócrata? As no such elass exists, no ncw powers could be confered upon t. In reference o the third "charge, Inveighing agiinst the Discipline of tlie M. E. Church, Mr. F, contended the proof was ampie. The last four specihcations were (.humlnnt evidunce of it. But in addition to theni. the most opprcbions langunge was used in the fiftb. specification. We niiiBt wash oursclvcs frotn our pollutions, must we? Where is the bath, ihJ lover, the pool of Siloam, in which ibis can be done? We have hadfrom the beginning disciplinary regulations Rgainst slnvery; and we are the onlij general church tliat has such. Sonic smaller fractions have regulations upon the subject, but they do notextend to the South. Methodists have lifted ■the standard agninstslavery, and they will sustnin it. And yetj wc - one million of commnnicanls, are invited to come out and wash oursclcesü - The government of the church has been made mo re rigid respecting slavery, nnd that she is not in the depth of pollution which isascrihed to her,is ooundontly evident from the glorious revivals wiih which God lias blessed the labors of her preacher8 and psople - not a f ew of which have b eon wiinessc J in the very places where secessions have occurrcd. But it 8ecni8 the government of the church is "arbitrary and despotic." Where was the evi Immodiately afterMr. F made this statement, a member of the Conference handed me tho foHowing STLLOGISM. "No prejudieed person is a competent witness: Every white person is prejudieed against the blncks; Thercfore, no white perdón is a competent witncasagains: a black."dence of thi7 Jn every despotisrn, there must be a despot. Where is iris palace? Wherc are his edicts? The governn.ent of the church is in the hands of a large number of persons. But it was said the stationing power was despotic. because the Bishop n.ight station the preachers in nny part of the United Siates. Now this was not thc fac, He could not station them out of the Conference But suppose he could, what then? The Pre-i dent of rhe United States can appoínt quiteñas far as a Bishop. J8 ],e therefore a deipol? 18 our republican government a despotism? But it was furtlier alleged, as a proof of despotism, thnt preaiding officers were to decide all questions of law nnd order. Wonderful! Who decides these questions in all civil courts, from the Justice of the Peace to the Supreme Court? Who decides in deliberatire bodies? As to the objection tliot no lay delegates sharcd in the legislative power of the church, it was an old hackknied objection and nceded no reply. Mr. F. furthor stated his convictions, that in all large bodies of men, like the M. E. Church there wonld be some difoontented 8,,irits, eonie their natural temperament, and some because they were nol promoted as fast ns they conccived their merits deserved: and as a consequence, secessions to a greater or less extent. from the very nature of things, will take place! And it was ever found, that those wlfo declaim oudest against despotism and nristocracy, are at ïcart the greatest despots nnd aristocrats. Mr F. conc3ivcd that the charge had been fuly sustained. The accused had uttered bitter and :ensorious worde against the Discipline of theiviiurch- he had done it repcatedly--he had done it in defence of those wholiad left the church- he now. before tliis Conference reaffirmed and deended ;ho very expresaions !ie had used; and the oiily apology he had to ofiV vns iliat they were ilie iincere convictions oí Iiis henrt! He had utteretlnnd re-asscreil thcm. until, like the profane svcarer„'he hnd ceased to be sensible of the great enormity of his own lnnguage. The vote w.is then taken on the several charges, with the following result: Chakge 1. Sluntler. Rev. A M. Fitch and Lewis Barr votcd (he accused was guilty. Kot guilty,13. CH.inaE 2. Falsdood. Guilty: Rev. A. M. Fitch. Not guüty, 12. Charos 3. wcighing against the Church. - guilty: Rev. A. M. Fitch nnd Lewis Barr. Not gaiUj',10. The President then nnnounced that os the charges had not been sustaincd, the character of the accuse.l was passed, and the Conference adjourned.

Article

Subjects
Signal of Liberty
Old News