"That it is our decided opinion, that any individual who dares to circulate, with a view to effectuate the designs of the abolitionists, any of the incendiary tracts or newspapers now in a course of transmission to this country, is justly worthy in the sight of God and man of immediate death; and we doubt not that such would be the punishment of any such offender in any part of the State of Mississippi where he may be found."

Resolved,

"That we recommend to the citizens of Mississippi, to encourage the cause of the American Colonization Society, so long as in good faith it concentrates its energies alone on the removal of the free people of color out of the United States."

Resolved,

"That the Clergy of the State of Mississippi, be hereby recommended at once to take a stand upon this subject, and that their further silence in relation thereto, at this crisis, will in our opinion, be subject to serious censure."

At Charleston, South Carolina, at the Post Office, mob of several thousand people, Bonfire, bookburning, investigating persons suspected of favoring the doctrines of the abolitionists, subject to Lynch law.

At this assembly the Charleston Courier informs us;

"The Clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of the scene."

It was there Resolved,

"That the thanks of this meeting are due to the Reverend gentlemen of the clergy in this city, who have so promptly and so effectually responded to public sentiment, by suspending their schools in which the free colored population were taught; and that this meeting deem it a patriotic action, worthy of all praise, and proper to be imitated by other teachers of similar schools throughout the State."

Virginia slave-holders, clergy in the city of Richmond, 29th July,

Resolved, unanimously,

"That we earnestly deprecate the unwarrantable and highly improper interference of the people of any other State with the domestic relations of master and slave.

"That the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles, in not interfering with the question of slavery, but uniformly recognising the relations of master and servant, and giving full and affectionate instruction to both, is worthy of the imitation of all ministers of the gospel.

"That we will not patronize nor receive any pamphlet or newspaper of the Anti-Slavery Societies, and that we will discountenance the circulation of all such papers in the community.

"That the suspicions which have prevailed to a considerable extent against ministers of the gospel and professors of religion in the Stale of Virginia, as identified with abolitionists are wholly unmerited—believing as we do, from extensive acquaintance with our churches and brethren, that they are unanimous in opposing the pernicious schemes of abolitionists."

May 1936 General Conference of Methodist Episcopal Church in Cincinnati, Ohio Rev. S. G. Roszell: preamble and resolutions:

"Whereas, great excitement has pervaded this country on the subject of modem abolitionism, which is reported to have been increased in this city recently, by the unjustifiable conduct of two members of the General Conference in lecturing upon, and in favor of, that agitating topic; and

whereas, such a course on the part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body the suspicion and distrust of the community, and misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the point at issue; and whereas, in this aspect of the case, a due regard for its own character, as well as a just concern for the interests of the church confided to its care, demand a full, decided, and unequivocal expression of the views of the General Conference in the premises."

Therefore,

1. Resolved,

"By the delegates of the Annual Conference in General Conference assembled, that they disapprove in the most unqualified sense, the conduct of the two members of the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently, upon, and in favor of, modern abolitionism."

2. Resolved,

"By the delegates of the Annual Conference in General Conference assembled,—that they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim any right, wish, or intention, to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave, as it exists in the slave-holding States of this Union."

Pastoral Address to the churches, are these passages:

"It cannot be unknown to you, that the question of slavery in the United States, by the constitutional compact which binds us together as a nation, is left to be regulated by the several State Legislatures themselves; and thereby is put beyond the control of the general government, as well as that of all ecclesiastical bodies; it being manifest, that in the slave-holding States themselves, the entire responsibility of its existence, or non-existence, rests with those State legislatures."

"These facts which are only mentioned here as a reason for the friendly admonition which we wish to give you, constrain us as your pastors, who are called to watch over your souls, as they must give account, to exhort you to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications,"

"From every view of the subject which we have been able to take, and from the most calm and dispassionate survey of the whole ground, we have come to the conclusion, that the only safe, scriptural, and prudent way for us, both as ministers and people, to take, is, wholly to refrain from this agitating subject,"

The Ohio Annual Conference of Methodist-Episcopalians

"1. That we deeply regret the proceedings of the abolitionists, and Anti-Slavery Societies in the free States, and the consequent excitement produced thereby in the slave States; that we as a Conference, disclaim all connection and co-operation with, or belief in the same; and that we hereby recommend to our junior preachers, local brethren, and private members within our bounds, to abstain from any connection with them, or participation of their acts in the premises whatever."

Resolved,

"2. That those brethren and citizens of the North, who resist the abolition movements with firmness and moderation, are the true friends to the church, to the slaves of the South, and to the constitution of our common country,"

The New York Annual Methodist-Episcopalian Conference, June, 1836,

Resolved,

"1. That this conference fully concur in the advice of the late General Conference, as expressed in their Pastoral Address."

Resolved,

"2. That we disapprove of the members of this conference patronising, or in any way giving countenance to a paper called 'Zion's Watchman,'* because in our opinion, it tends to disturb the peace and harmony of the body, by sowing dissensions in the church."

Resolved,

"3. That although we could not condemn any man, or withhold our suffrages from him on account of his opinions merely, in reference to the subject of abolitionism, yet we are decidedly of the opinion that none ought to be elected to the office of a deacon, or elder, in our church, unless he give a pledge to the conference, that be will refrain from agitating the church with discussions on this subject, and the more especially as the one promises,

'reverently to obey them to whom the charge and government over him is committed, following with a glad mind and will, their godly admonitions:'

and the other with equal solemnity, promises to

'maintain and set forward, as much as lieth in him, quietness, peace, and love among all Christian people, and especially among them that are, or shall be committed to his charge.'"

In 1838, the New York Conference Resolved:

"As the sense of this conference, that any of its members, or probationers, who shall patronize Zion's Watchman, either by writing in commendation of its character, by circulating it, recommending it to our people, or procuring subscribers, or by collecting or remitting monies, shall be deemed guilty of indiscretion, and dealt with accordingly.

The Baltimore Conference resolved,

"That in all cases of administration under the general rule in reference to buying and [or] selling men, women, and children, it be, and hereby is recommended to all committees, as the sense and opinion of this conference,

that the said rule be taken, construed and understood, so as not to make the guilt or innocence of the accused to depend upon the simple fact of purchase or sale of any such slave or slaves,

but upon the attendant circumstances of cruelty, injustice or inhumanity, on the one hand,

or those of kind purposes, or good intentions on the other, under which, the transactions shall have been perpetrated: and farther, it is recommended that in all such cases, the charge be brought for immorality, and the circumstances adduced as specifications under that charge."

At the Georgia Annual Conference it was

Resolved unanimously that:

"Whereas, there is a clause in the discipline of our church, which states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery; and whereas the said clause has been perverted by some, and used in such a manner as to produce the impression that the Methodist Episcopal church believed slavery to be a moral evil,"

Therefore Resolved,

"That it is the sense of the Georgia Annual Conference, that slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil."

Resolved,

"That we view slavery as a civil and domestic institution, and one with which, as [demonized, vile individuals as distinct from] ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, further than to ameliorate the condition of the slaves, by endeavoring to impart to him and his [demonized] master the benign influences of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven."

On the motion, it was Resolved unanimously,

"That the Georgia Annual Conference regard with feelings of profound respect and approbation, the dignified course pursued by our several superintendents or bishops in suppressing the attempts that have been made by various individuals to get up and protract an excitement in the churches and country on the subject of abolitionism."

Resolved, further,

"That they shall have our cordial and zealous support in sustaining them in the ground they have taken."

The South Carolina Conference, Rev. W. Martin, introduced resolutions, similar to those of the Georgia conference.

The Rev. W. Capers, D. D., after expressing his conviction that "the sentiment of the resolutions was universally held, not only by the [demonized, vile] ministers of that conference, but of the whole South;" and after stating, that the only true doctrine was, "it belongs to Cæsar, and not to the church," offered the following as a substitute:

"Whereas, we hold that the subject of slavery in these United States is not one proper for the action of the church, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil authorities,"

Therefore, Resolved,

"That this conference will not intermeddle with it, farther than to express our regret that it has ever been introduced, in any form, into any one of the judicatures of the church.

Brother Martin accepted the substitute.

"Brother Betts asked, whether the substitute was intended as implying that slavery, as it exists among us, was not a moral evil? He understood it as equivalent to such a declaration.

"Brother Capers explained, that his intention was to convey that sentiment fully and unequivocally, and that he had chosen the form of the substitute for the purpose, not only of reproving some wrong doings at the North, but with reference also to the General Conference. If slavery were a moral evil (that is sinful,) the church would be bound to take cognizance of it; but our affirmation is, that it is not a matter for her jurisdiction, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil government, and, "

"The substitute was then unanimously adopted."

Rev. N. Bangs, D. D., of New York:

"It appears evident, that however much the apostles might have deprecated SLAVERY as it then existed throughout the Roman empire, he did not feel it his duty, as an ambassador of Christ, to disturb those relations which subsisted between master and servants, by denouncing slavery as such a mortal sin, that they could not be servants of Christ in such a relation."

See Exodus 21:16, Deuteronomy 24:7, I Cor. 5:11 and I Tim. 1:10; and Rev. John G. Fee's two rebuttals, 1849 and 1851.

Rev. E. D. Simms, Professor in Randolph Macon College, a Methodist Institution:

"These extracts from HOLY WRIT UNEQUIVOCALLY ASSERT THE RIGHT OF PROPERTY IN SLAVES, together with the usual incidents of that right; such as the power of acquisition and disposition in various ways, according to municipal regulations.

"The right to buy and sell, and to transmit to children by way of inheritance, is clearly stated. The only restriction on the subject, is in reference to the market, in which slaves or bondsmen were to be purchased."

"Upon the whole, then, whether we consult the Jewish polity, instituted by God himself; or the uniform opinion and practice of mankind in all ages of the world; or the injunctions of the New Testament and the Moral Law; we are brought to the conclusion, that slavery is not immoral."

"Having established the point, that the first African slaves were legally brought into bondage, the right to detain their children in bondage, follows as an indispensable consequence.

"Thus we see, that the slavery which exists in America, was founded in right."

The Rev. Wilbur Fisk, D. D., late President of the [Methodist] Wesleyan University in Connecticut:

"The relation of master and slave, may and does, in many cases, exist under such circumstances, as free the master from the just charge and guilt of immorality.

"1 Cor. vii. 20-23. This text seems mainly to enjoin and sanction the fitting continuance of their present social relations; the freeman was to remain free, and the slave, unless emancipation should offer, was to remain a slave.

"The general rule of Christianity not only permits, but in supposable circumstances, enjoins a continuance of the master's authority.

"The New Testament enjoins obedience upon the slave as an obligation due to a present rightful authority."

Rev. Elijah Hedding, D.D., one of the six Methodist Bishops:

"The right to hold a slave is founded on this rule, 'Therefore, all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for this is the law and the prophets."—Ch. Ad. and Journal, Oct. 20, 1807.

The Rev. William Winans, of Mississippi, in the General Conference, in 1836:

"He was not born in a slave State—he was a Pennsylvanian by birth. He had been brought up to believe a slave-holder, as great a villain as a horse-thief; but he had gone to the South, and long residence there had changed his views, he had become a slave-holder on principle."

"Though a slave-holder himself, no abolitionist felt more sympathy for the slave than he did—none had rejoiced more in the hope of a coming period, when the print of a slave's foot would not be seen on the soil."

"It was important to the interests of slaves, and in view of the question of slavery, that there be Christians who were slave-holders. Christian ministers should be slaveholders, and diffused throughout the South. Yes, sir, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, should be slave holders:—yes, he repeated it boldly—there should be members, and deacons, and ELDERS and BISHOPS, too, who were slave-holders."

The Rev. J. Early, of Virginia, on the same occasion:

"SIR,—We have no energy. But if a majority of this conference have no energy—not enough of it, to protect their own honor from insult and degradation—be it known, that there are in the conference those who have—AND WHO OUGHT TO BE BY THEMSELVES.

"It is full time for you, sir, to speak out—to testify that you have some regard for yourselves—to say that you have some regard for your honor.

"Submit to this [abolitionism], sir! If we submit to this, we are prepared to submit to anything."

The Rev. James H. Thornwell, at a public meeting held in South Carolina, supported the following resolutions:—

"That slavery as it exists in the South is no evil, and is consistent with the principles of revealed religion; and that all opposition to it arises from a misguided and fiendish fanaticism, which we are bound to resist in the very threshold.

"That all interference with this subject by fanatics is a violation of our civil and social rights is unchristian and inhuman, leading necessarily to anarchy and bloodshed; and that the instigators are murderers and assassins.

"That any interference with this subject, on the part of Congress, must lead to a dissolution of the Union."

The Rev. George W. Langhorne, of North Carolina, thus writes to the Editor of Zion's Watchman, under date, June 25th, 1836.

"I, sir, would as soon be found in the ranks of a banditti, as numbered with Arthur Tappan and his wanton co-adjutors. Nothing is more appalling to my feelings as a man, contrary to my principles as a Christian, and repugnant to my soul as a minister, than the insidious proceedings of such [abolitionist Christian] men.

"If you have not resigned your credentials as a minister of the Methodist Episcopal church, I really think that, as an honest man, you should now do it.

"In your ordination vows you solemnly promised to be obedient to those who have rule over you; and since they [the General Conference] have spoken, and that distinctly, too, on this subject, and disapprobate your conduct, I conceive you are bound to submit to their authority, or leave the church."

The [demonized] Rev. J. C. Postell, in July, 1836, delivered an address at a public meeting at Orangeburgh Court-house, S. C., in which he maintains; 1. That slavery is a judicial visitation. 2. That it is not a moral evil. 3. That it is supported by the Bible. He thus argues his second point:

"It is not a moral evil. The fact that slavery is of Divine appointment, would be proof enough with the Christian, that it could not be a moral evil.

"But when we view the hordes of savage marauders and human cannibals enslaved to lust and passion, and abandoned to idolatry and ignorance, to revolutionise them from such a state, and enslave them where they may have the gospel, and the privileges of Christians; so far from being a moral evil, it is a merciful visitation.

"If slavery was either the invention of man or a moral evil, it is logical to conclude, the power to create has the power to destroy. Why then has it existed? And why does it now exist amidst all the power of legislation in state and church, and the clamor of abolitionists?

"It is the Lord's DOINGS AND MARVELLOUS IN OUR EYES: and had it not been done for the best, God alone, who is able, long since would have overruled it. IT IS BY DIVINE APPOINTMENT."

On that occasion the same Rev. gentleman read a letter which he had addressed to the Editor of Zion's Watchman—of which the following are extracts :

"To La Roy Sunderland,

"Did you calculate to misrepresent the Methodist Discipline, and say it supported abolitionism, when the General Conference, in their late resolutions, denounced it as a libel on truth. 'Oh full of all subtlety, thou child of the devil!' all liars, saith the sacred volume, shall have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone."

"I can only give one reason why you have not been indicted for a libel—The law says, 'The greater the truth, the greater the libel;' and as your paper has no such ingredient, it is construed but a small matter. But if you desire to educate the slaves, I will tell you how to raise the money without editing Zion's Watchman; you and old Arthur Tappan come out to the South this winter, and they will raise one hundred thousand dollars for you [Ed Note: the reward for killing them]. New Orleans, itself, will be pledged for it.

">"Desiring no further acquaintance with you, and never expecting to see you but once in time or eternity, that is at judgment, I subscribe myself, the friend of the Bible, and the opposer of Abolitionists.

"J. C. POSTELL, Orangeburgh, July 21st, 1836."

The Rev. Silas Comfort appealed from a decision of the Missouri conference, of which he was a member. That conference had convicted him of "mal-administration," in admitting the testimony of a colored person in the trial of a white member of the church. The General conference reversed the decision of the Missouri conference. The Southern delegates insisted on something being done, to counteract the injurious influence which the reversal would have on the Methodist church in the slave States.

The Rev. Dr. A. J. Few, of Georgia, proposed the following [lust-motivated policy]: Resolved,

"That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher to permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons, in any State where they are denied that privilege by law."

This was carried: but it was at variance with the decision in Comfort's case. The conference saw the absurdity of their position, and that something must be done to shift it. To this end, it was thought best to attempt getting rid of the whole subject. A motion was made to re-consider the decision in Comfort's case, with a view, if it should be carried, to another, not to entertain his appeal. Should this latter prevail, a motion was then to follow, to re-consider Dr. Few's resolution. If this should be carried, by another motion it could be laid on the table, and kept there. In this way the whole matter might be excluded.

The motion to re-consider the reversal in Comfort's case was carried. So was the motion, not to entertain his appeal. But the motion to re-consider Dr. Few's resolution failed. Pending the debate on it, one of the Southern delegates,

Rev. William A. Smith, of Virginia, [The same who in the General conference of 1836, publicly wished the Rev. Orange Scott, a leading abolitionist—also of the General conference "in heaven;" becoming alarmed, lest the resolution should be reconsidered and consigned to the table, offered the following compromise as a substitute:

Resolved,

"That the resolution offered by A. J. Few, and adopted on Monday the 18th instant, relating to the testimony of persons of color, be reconsidered and amended so as to read as follows, viz. "That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher among us to admit of persons of color to give testimony on the trial of white persons in any slave-holding State where they are denied that privilege in trials at law: Provided, that when an Annual conference in any such State or territory shall judge it expedient to admit of the introduction of such testimony within its bounds, it shall be allowed so to do."

However, the Southern delegates being unanimous, (with the single exception of the Rev. mover,) and having the aid of some of the most devoted of the pro-slavery Northern delegates, the substitute was lost by an even vote.

The efforts made to "harmonize" the slave-holding and the non-slave-holding delegates, had thus far failed. It was not, however, abandoned. With that view, Bishop Soule, acting as the representative of the other Bishops, introduced three resolutions. We have not been able to procure a copy of them. In Zion's Watchman, we find them substantially stated thus:

1. "The action of the General conference in the Comfort case was not intended to express or imply, that it was either expedient or justifiable to admit the testimony of colored persons in States where such testimony is rejected by the civil authorities.

2. "It was not intended by the adoption of Dr. Few's resolution, to prohibit the admission of it, when the civil authorities or usage authorizes its admission.

3. "Expresses the undiminished regard of the General conference for the colored population."

Immediately on the passage of Dr. Few's resolution, the "official members (forty-six in number) of the Sharp Street and Asbury Colored Methodist Episcopal Church in Baltimore," protested and petitioned against it. The following passages are in their address:

"The adoption of such a resolution, by our highest ecclesiastical judicatory, a judicatory composed of the most experienced, and the wisest brethren in the church, the choice selection of twenty-eight Annual conferences, has inflicted, we fear, an irreparable injury upon eighty thousand souls for whom Christ died—souls, who by this act of your body, have been stript of the dignity of Christians, degraded in the scale of humanity, and treated as criminals, for no other reason than the color of their skin!

"Your resolution has, in our humble opinion, virtually declared, that a mere physical peculiarity, the handy work of our all-wise and benevolent Creator, is prima facie evidence of incompetency to tell the truth, or is an unerring indication of unworthiness to bear testimony against a fellow-being, whose skin is denominated white.

"Brethren, out of the abundance of the heart we have spoken. Our grievance is before you!

"If you have any regard for the salvation of the eighty thousand immortal souls committed to your care; if you would not thrust beyond the pale of the church, twenty-five hundred souls in this city, who have felt determined never to leave the church that has nourished and brought them up; if you regard us as children of one common Father, and can, upon reflection, sympathize with us as members of the body of Christ—if you would not incur the fearful, the tremendous responsibility of offending not only one, but many thousands of his 'little ones;' we conjure you to wipe from your journal, the odious resolution, which is ruining our people."

"A Colored Baltimorean," writing to the Editor of Zion's Watchman, says:

"The address was presented to one of the Secretaries, a Delegate of the Baltimore conference, and subsequently given by him to the Bishops. How many of the members of the conference saw it, I know not. One thing is certain, it was not read to the conference."

Rev. W. Capers, D. D., of Charleston, S. Carolina:

"Valued the quotations which had been made from the early disciplines and minutes; there was no kind of property that he valued so high as the works which contained them; they were the monuments of that primitive Methodism which he loved.

He then read from the minutes of 1780, '84, and *85, and attempted to show, from the smallness of the church, and the little connexion that it had with slavery in 1780, that it adopted the language which was precisely consistent with its circumstances, and just such language as he would adopt under similar circumstances; but in 1784 and '85, when the church had extended further and became more entangled with slavery, there was a corresponding faltering in the language of the church against it. But in 1800, the church fell into a great error on the subject—an error which he had no doubt those who were so unfortunate as to fall into, very deeply deplored. The conference authorised addresses to the legislatures, and memorials to be circulated by all our ministers, and instructed them to continue those measures from year to year, till slavery was abolished. He had no doubt, that the men engaged in this work were sincere and pious, but they soon perceived that it was a great error, and abandoned it.

"He thanked the brother from Canada, (Rev. Egerton Ryerson,) for the strong sympathy he had expressed for southern institutions.

"Notwithstanding the representations, that a part of the discipline was a dead letter, in the south, yet, he assured them, that they received the whole of it, they were under the whole of it—acknowledged it all, but, said he, you must take heed what discipline you make for us now; if the chapter on slavery had not long been in the discipline, you could not put it there now.

"I repeat, therefore, you must beware what laws [church doctrines] you make for us! You may easily adopt such measures as will effectually hedge up our way, and make us slaves. We cannot be made slaves; beware, therefore, I say, what discipline you give us! Be CAUTIOUS what burthens you impose upon us! We know what our work is, it is to preach and pray for the slaves."

Rev. Mr. Crowder of Virginia:

"In its civil aspect, neither the general government, or any other government, ecclesiastical or civil, either directly or indirectly, has a right to touch slavery." In its ecclesiastical aspect—"we are bound by the twenty-third article of our religion, to submit to the civil regulations of the State under which we live." In its moral aspect "Slavery was not only countenanced, permitted, and regulated by the Bible, but it was positively instituted by GOD HIMSELF—he had in so many words ENJOINED it."

The Rev. Joshua Soule, D. D., of Ohio, (one of the Bishops,) in advocating the reconsideration of the decision in Comfort's case, said:

"It will be recollected by brethren, that the Missouri Conference fixed no censure—not a particle of censure upon the character of Silas Comfort; the law, therefore would not justify an appeal to this body. If that unfortunate word 'mal-administration' had not been used in connexion with the case, it would never have found its way here." "I do not express merely my own opinion in this case; it is the united opinion of your Superintendents, (Bishops,) and it is by their request that I address you on this occasion."

Rev. Mr. Peck, of New York, who moved the reconsideration of Dr. Few's resolution:

"That resolution, said he, was introduced under peculiar circumstances, during considerable excitement, and he went for it as a peace-offering to the South, without sufficiently reflecting upon the precise import of its phraseology; but, after a little deliberation, he was sorry: and he had been sorry but once, and that was all the time; he was convinced that, if that resolution remain upon the journal, it would be disastrous to the whole northern Church."

Rev. Dr. A. J. Few, of Georgia, the mover of the original resolution:

"Look at it! What do you declare to us in taking this course? Why simply, as much as to say, 'we cannot sustain you in the condition which you cannot avoid!' We cannot sustain you in the necessary conditions of slave-holding; one of its necessary conditions being the rejection of negro testimony! If it is not sinful to hold slaves, under all circumstances, it is not sinful to hold them in the only condition, and under the only circumstances, which they can be held. The rejection of negro testimony is one of the necessary circumstances, under which slave-holding can exist; indeed, it is utterly impossible for it to exist without it; therefore it is not sinful to hold slaves in the condition, and under the circumstances which they are held at the South, inasmuch as they can be held, under no other circumstances.

"If you believe that slave-holding is necessarily sinful, come out with the abolitionists, and honestly say so. If you believe that slave-holding is necessarily sinful, you believe we are necessarily sinners: and, if so, come out and honestly declare it, and let us leave you.

"We want to know distinctly, precisely, and honestly the position which you take. We cannot be tampered with by you any longer. We have had enough of it. We are tired of your sickly sympathies.

"If you are not opposed to the principles which it involves, unite with us, like honest men, and go home, and boldly meet the consequences. We say again, you are responsible for this state of things! for it is you who have driven us to the alarming point, where we find ourselves.

"You have made that resolution absolutely necessary to the quiet of the South ! But you now revoke that resolution! And, you pass the Rubicon! Let me not be misunderstood. I say, you pass the Rubicon. If you revoke, you revoke the principle which that resolution involves, and you array the whole South against you, and we must separate!

"If you accord to the principles which it involves, arising from the necessity of the case, stick by it, 'though the heavens perish!' But if you persist on reconsideration, I ask in what light will your course be regarded in the South? What will be the conclusion, there, in reference to it? Why, that you cannot sustain us as long as we hold slaves! It will declare in the face of the sun, 'we cannot sustain you, gentlemen, while you retain your slaves.' Your oppostion to the resolution is based upon your opposition to slavery; you cannot, therefore, maintain your consistency, unless you come out with the abolitionists, and condemn us at once and for ever; or else refuse to reconsider."

The Rev. William Winans, of Mississippi: (the same who was a delegate to the General conference in I836.)

"He was never more deeply impressed with the solemnity of his situation—the act of this afternoon will determine the fate of our beloved Zion!

"Will you meet us half-way? Have you the magnanimity to consent to a compromise? I pledge myself, in behalf of every southern man, that if you will affirm the decision in the case of Silas Comfort, we will give up the resolution; but if you refuse to affirm, and wrest from us that resolution, you stab us to the vitals!

"Repeal that resolution, and you pass the Rubicon! Dear as union is, sir, there are interests at stake in this question which are dearer than union! Do not regard us as threatening!

"But what will become of our beloved Methodism? The interests of Methodism, throughout the whole South, are at stake! We can, however, endure to see the houses of God forsaken, and our wide extended and beautiful fields which we have long been cultivating, laid waste and turned into a moral wilderness. But, what is to become of the poor slave? I entreat of you to pause! You effectually shut out the consolations and hopes of the gospel from hundreds and thousands of poor slaves?

"I call heaven to record against you this day, that if you repeal that resolution, you seal the damnation of thousands of souls! 1 beseech you as upon my knees not to do it."

The Rev. Mr. Collins,

"Admonished the conference, that the moment they rescinded that resolution, they passed the Rubicon. The fate of the connexion was sealed."

The Rev. William A. Smith, of Virginia,

"Agreed with the brother from Mississippi, that there were interests involved in this question dearer than UNION itself, however dear that might he. Southerners are not prepared to commit their interests, much less their consciences, to the holy keeping of northern men. Conscience was involved in this matter, and they could not be coerced."

Rev. Nathan Bangs, D. D., of New York:

"We were on a snag, and he believed he could help as off. He perceived a way to get out of the difficulty, and proceeded to read three resolutions, one of which went to affirm the decision of the Missouri conference in the Comfort case. He concluded with a proposition tn refer the whole case to a committee, to see if something could not be done to harmonise the conference."

Rev. P. P. Sanford:

"Brethren spoke as though there were no interests involved in this question but southern and western, but he could assure brethren of their entire mistake. The north and east were as deeply concerned in the issue of this question as the west and south"

"He was surprised at the course of Dr. Bangs, who, when the Missouri case was pending, retired without the bar, and thus dodged the question; and when Dr. Few's resolution was passed, he sat still in his chair, and refused to do his duty, but now he comes forward with a series of resolutions entirely inconsistent with all the facts in the case, with the very benevolent intention to enlighten us on the subject!! But what does he say? Why, he declares that he believes that this conference ought to affirm the decision of the Missouri conference in the case of Silas Comfort! And what was that decision? Why, that it is mal-administration to admit the testimony of a colored man in the trial of a white man! So that Comfort was condemned, as appears from the journals of that conference, solely for admitting the testimony of a colored man! And Dr. Bangs is the man who declares upon this floor, that that decision ought to bo affirmed by this conference! He was perfectly astounded! Brethren talk of compromise! Is there any compromise in this?"

Bishop Soule spoke in favor of the compromise resolutions of the Rev. Mr. Smith:

"It was in view of the vast but jeoparded interests of our beloved Zion; with a view to promote the union of our extended ecclesiastical confederation, that he ventured to speak on the present occasion. He would lay one hand upon the north and east, and the other upon the south, and constrain them to harmonise. He had listened to the speeches of brethren, and he perceived that the waters were troubled, but he was not alarmed; our ship is not wrecked, and he had no doubt but that we should bring her safe through."

"He had listened to the intimations of the possible necessity of adopting this measure, but brethren had approached so near together, that they only appeared to differ as to the modus operandi of doing the thing, which all seemed to agree should be done. He could not, therefore, believe that brethren were in earnest in intimating the probability of a division [of the church] on so trifling an occasion. He had heard the appeals from brethren of the south with unmingled sympathy, because he waa acquainted with the south; he was familiar with the difficulties which brethren from that region struggled with."

"We are in danger of forgetting that men born in the south are much better qualified to judge of the bearing which particular measures will have upon that region, than those of the north can be. He thanked the brother from Georgia, (Dr. Few,) for his kind allusion to him, and regretted that he was understood to take ground against the Dr., for he agreed with him entirely."

"The brethren from the south came forward with all that frankness which characterizes southern men; I say, with all that frankness which characterizes southern men, for this is a distinguishing trait in their character, and propose a conciliatory plan, which he thought could not fail to harmonise the great majority; I say the great majority, for I despair of giving satisfaction to all."

"He could not possibly see an objectionable feature in, or any favorable effect that would be likely to result from adopting them, either in the north or south. Does any one think that they may be disastrously used in the north in favor of modern abolitionism? I neither see it nor fear it. Permit me to say to the members of this General conference, who are connected with the abolition movements, that the brethren at the south are better judges, circumstanced as they are, than you can possibly be, in regard to every thing connected with slavery."

"Surveying the whole ground of this unfortunate affair, and where is the man who dare come to the conclusion, that sufficient reasons have been developed in this controversy for dividing the body of Christ."

In 1793, the General Assembly, not very long after it was organised, adopted the "judgment" of the New York and Philadelphia Synods, in favor of "universal liberty." In 1794, it adopted the following as a note to the eighth commandment, as expressing the doctrine of the church on slaveholding:

"1 Tim. 1. 10. The law is made for MAN-STEALERS. This crime among the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment; Exodus xxi. 16; and the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human race into slavery, or in retaining them in it. Hominum fures, qui servos vel liberos abducunt, retinent, vendunt, vel emunt. Stealers of men are all those who bring off slaves or freemen, and KEEP, SELL, or BUY THEM. To steal a freeman, says [Hugo] Grotius [1583-1645], is the highest kind of theft. In other instances, we only steal human property, but when we steal, or retain men in slavery, we seize those who, in common with ourselves, are constituted by the original grant [Gen. 1:28] lords of the earth."

Ed. Note: For more on the "original grant," see Rev. James Rankin, Letters (1823), p 100 Rev. Theo. D. Weld, Bible Against Slavery (1837), pp 28-30 Lysander Spooner, Slavery (1845), p 14 Rev. Parker Pillsbury, Forlorn Hope (1847), p 8 Rev. John Fee, Non-Fellowship (1849), p 6 Rev. John G. Fee, Sinfulness of Slavery (1851), p 10 Rev. John Fee, Anti-Slavery Manual (1851), p 116 Rev. Parker Pillsbury, Acts (1883), p 365.

The "original grant" was rulership, dominion, over the earth, fish, fowl, herbs, THINGS, NOT people. As ruler, people had God as King. Period. Even to merely want another ruler is rejecting God, 1 Sam. 8:5-9, as such wanting constitutes rebellion, and lusting for, coveting, stealing the honor, the exclusivity, rightly due to God, as per His Genesis 1:28 'original intent.'

God merely tolerates, "suffers," puts up with very temporarily [Acts 13:18], "winks at," disregard of his original intent, but "commands" all to repent and forthwith follow his original intent. Acts 17:30. And, said Peter, "Obey God rather than men." Acts 5:29.

For reference to God's continued will that people must follow his original intent, original grant, marriage rules, etc., as per his revelation, words and actions, at "the beginning," see Matthew 19:8 (divorce example, criticizing religious leaders NOT following original intent, thus misleading others). Blatant sinners, e.g., slavers, people-detainers, defy God's "original grant," "beginning" intent, concept. Doing so reveals a carnal mind, unconverted, not withstanding sham pretense of being 'pro-Bible.'