mony has influenced public opinion, and assisted in an alteration of the law, it is impossible to know. But it is a fact of history, that in several of the States where slavery prevailed at the time when the question was first agitated, it has long ceased to exist. There can be no reason to doubt that the influence of Christianity has furnished its amount of moral force in this important achievement; and it is gratifying to think that the Methodist Conference took an important share in this good work. But in the South, where slaves are more necessary for the cultivation of the soil;-where the masters are more numerous and influential;-and where great numbers of poor Africans are held in hopeless bondage, the course has been rather retrogressive than otherwise. From the beginning of the agitation, the position taken by the slaveholders of this portion of the Union was defensive. They strenuously resisted all claim, on the part of either the church or any other parties, to interfere in their affairs, or to put in jeopardy their rights of property. And being the governing class in these States, and either sending members to the legislative bodies, or being themselves sent, they enjoyed the unenviable means of riveting the chains of the slave as fast as they pleased. It may be proper to remark here, that the General Congress of the United States has no power to legislate on this question. The constitution secures, to each of the separate States, the power to manage their own affairs within the limits of the State; and this vital question of slavery is one of the vested rights in question. It follows, that the northern or non-slave-holding States can have no other influence than that of example on the slave States. This is a grievous calamity, inasmuch as it places the power of legislation, this subject, altogether in the hands of the parties interested. In the exercise of this power, these men have scorned all attempts at modifying the system, much less abolishing it; and, instead of improving the condition of their slaves, they have made it as intolerable as possible. It is known that they have obstructed the course of their education, by making it a penal offence on the part of religious persons to attempt it; they have prevented the free circulation of knowledge amongst their vassals, and have destroyed the presses and property, and sometimes put the lives of parties attempting it into jeopardy; they have made emancipation impossible, or nearly so, by surrounding it with conditions which no person can comply with; they have persecuted, imprisoned, and maltreated good men,and women too,-who have interested themselves in the welfare of the slaves, under the pretext that they were lending themselves to enable them to escape; and, in fine, it seems to have long been the settled purpose of these persons to do battle, at the same time, with the laws of God, the moral sense of the world, and all the principles of humanity. This fearful power, it must be confessed, has hitherto been too great for the Methodist church, and the Christian party desiring freedom for their fellow-creatures. It was soon found necessary-at least, so it was thought-for the Conference to modify and relax their rules; they could not occupy the high ground at first taken; they practically were foiled in their attempts to carry their resolutions into effect, as we have seen; and even Dr. Coke, in his second visit, for the sake of preaching the gospel and extending the knowledge of his Saviour's name, considered it expedient to wave the slavery question. There seems to have been, from the beginning, more or less of internal agitation on this subject; and hence the constant changes taking place in the legislation of the church. A fixed and absolute principle condemnatory of slavery was, as we have seen, at first resolved upon. This not only brought the church into collision with public opinion and private interests in the slave-holding States, but also with the laws and authorities of these States themselves. Hence arose the difficult and perplexing question, as to whether it is consistent with the Christian system, the religion of the New Testament, to frame a church-organization, adopt a code of laws, and establish an administrative power, which should directly contravene the laws of the country. It is easy enough to see, that to do this must place the members of the church on the horns of a distressing dilemma. If they obey the church-law, the spiritual republic, the ecclesiastical state, then they are deemed traitors to the civil State, disloyal to the laws, rebels against the supreme power. If, again, they adhere to the civil tem, they expose themselves to ecclesiastical penalties,— to censure, to degradation, to expulsion, as the case might be. This is exactly the manner in which the matter went on; and, of necessity, must do so, when two co-ordinate powers, antagonistic to each other, are made to work on the same soil, amongst the same people. This state of sys things necessarily brought up the question as to the rights of the civil state, its supremacy,-its power to rule,—and the binding nature of its enactments in the case of its own subjects; though the enactment itself might be so antichristian and unjust, as not only to make slavery legal, but also to guard and fence it around by such protective laws, as to make emancipation itself impossible. These were some of the difficulties connected with this subject; and, from their writings and speeches, it seems to be the opinion of many of the most judicious and able men in the American church, that the cause of amelioration and ultimate emancipation would have fared better, in the long run, if the church had never legislated at all upon the subject of slavery. Their idea is, that the spiritual society should have employed spiritual weapons alone; have trusted to the force and influence of divine truth, to gain its own conquests; have limited its functions to the duty of testifying and bearing witness against the evil; of promulgating principles and doctrines, the essen tial tendency of which must ultimately undermine and overthrow the system, just as light disperses darkness; that, in fine, it would have been more safe, and, moreover, more successful, to rely simply upon the doctrines and spirit of Christianity to effect the purpose desired. Whatever may be thought of this, it is undoubtedly an awkward predicament for a church, as an organization, to place itself directly, and by statute law, in collision with the laws of the country in which it is found. This was the difficulty in which the Methodist Conference found itself, by its early enactments; and hence the necessity of compromises of various sorts. The whole question evidently lay in a very narrow compass; namely, whether they ought so to modify these rules as to meet the case of the slave-holding States, or whether they would allow themselves to be driven out of them as incendiaries, or otherwise run the hazards of martyrdom. The age of martyrdom had passed away. CHAP. II.-The Wesleyan-Methodist Connexion—Agitations—The Address of the British Conference-Orange Scott-Debates at the General Conference-The Spirit of Compromise prevails— Fails to heal the Breach-Agitations proceed-Separation-The new Community established. THE seceding church, designated as above, arose out of agitations on the subject of slavery, and established itself in the States on non-slavery principles. It makes no compromises at all, and refuses to admit members holding slaves, within its communion. The leader in this movement was the Rev. Orange Scott, an able and energetic man. We will allow Dr. Bangs to state the opening of the case, the moderate opponent of these movements, and the historian of Methodism. He says, after mentioning preceding agitations,— "In this agitated state of things,* it could hardly be expected that the church should wholly escape the excitement, or avoid participating in the discussions, to which it gave rise. Accordingly, as our brethren in the eastern States entered more deeply into this subject than any others, and as they had a weekly paper † under their control, its columns were open to the discussion of slavery as it existed in the United States, and severe denunciations were uttered against all who held slaves, whether in or out of the church. These denunciations were met and repelled with spirit by those more immediately implicated, as being incompatible with that spirit of brotherly love which ought to characterize all Christians, and more especially such as are members of the same communion. "These discussions had been conducted for two or three years previously to the session of this General Conference, and a weekly paper had been established in the city of New-York, for the avowed purpose of advocating immediate emancipation, irrespective of all consequences. As the arguments and measures set forth in this and other periodicals of a kindred character were not fellowshipped by a great majority of our preachers and people even in the middle and northern Conferences, nor by the official organ of the church, the Christian Advocate and Journal, these were stigmatized by the immediate emancipationists as pro-slavery in their views and feelings, and, of course, as involved in the same guilt and condemnation with those who actually held their fellow-beings in bondage. These irritating charges were considered unjust, as the brethren implicated thought they could easily distinguish between an approval of slavery as a system, and the apologizing for those who held slaves under certain peculiar circumstances. This clear distinction, however, was not admitted by the zealous advocates of immediate emancipation; and * The agitations on abolition in general are referred to. hence they poured forth their anathemas upon all indiscriminately who either held slaves or offered an apology for those that did, on account of their peculiar circumstances. "It was in this state of the public mind, and of the church, that the General Conference came together in 1836. And though many of its oldest and most judicious members were very desirous of keeping the discussion of slavery from the deliberations of the Conference, being convinced it could result in no good; yet several circumstances conduced to bring it in, and to make it the subject of much debate. In the first place, the allusion to the subject in the Address of our Wesleyan brethren, and in the Address of their representative, the Rev. William Lord, made it necessary to advert to it in the answer of the General Conference, which, it will be perceived by those who will look at that answer, was done in a very brief and respectful manner. In the second place, not many days after the Conference had assembled, it was ascertained that two of the abolition brethren from New-England had attended and lectured at an abolition meeting in the city of Cincinnati; and as the agitation was very great upon that subject, it was feared by many that a popular excitement would be produced, injurious to the character of the Conference, and perhaps detrimental to the peace and harmony of the church in Cincinnati. With a view to allay all such apprehension, the Conference passed the following preamble and resolutions, by a vote of one hundred and twenty in favour, and fourteen against them :— "Whereas great excitement has prevailed in this country on the subject of modern 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 favour of, that agitating subject; and whereas, such a course on the part of any of its members is calculated to bring upon this body the suspicions and distrust of the community, and to misrepresent its sentiments in regard to the points 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 ideas of the General Conference in the premises :-Therefore, "1. Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference assembled, That they disapprove, in the most unqualified sense, the conduct of two members of the General Conference, who are reported to have lectured in this city recently upon, and in favour of, modern abolitionism. "2. Resolved, 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 in this Union. "3. Resolved, That the foregoing preamble and resolutions be published in our periodicals.' "The consideration of these resolutions brought the entire subject of slavery and abolitionism before the Conference, and elicited a very spirited and protracted debate, which finally ended in their |