An appeal to the Methodist Episcopal Church.

Part I. — Slavery and the Church, II. — Bnu,E Argument, HI. — General Conference

IV . — Conference Rights, V. — Sundry Articles,

( i

BOSTON:

Preface

The following Appeal has, I trust, been made in the fear of God, and with an eye to his glory. It is with a deep feeling of responsibility to God, the Church, and the world, that it is now committed to the public. It is more particularly designed, as its title indicates, for the M. E. Church ; though in consequence of the identity of anti-slavery principles, the greater portion of it will be found to contain matter of general interest.

The Anti-Slavery discussion forms a new era in the history of the M, E. Church. The principal facts and arguments connected with this discussion, should have a more permanent existence than that of newspaper articles; and I doubt not, the time will come, when a repository containing such matters will be highly valued.

The " Wesley an Anti-Slavery Review" will be published again in 1S39 and 1840, unless some unforeseen circumstance should prevent it.

The present number contains matter enough to rill a common sized octavo volume of from 300 to 400 pages. The publication of this work was not determined upon till a short time before it was commenced. Should it be continued, more attention will be paid to future numbers. The next number will contain more matter of general interest, though it will be suited to the discussion in the M. E. Church. The history of this discussion will be continued in future numbers, and new and important topics will be introduced.

Two numbers more will make a volume of about 450 pages, which will contain more matter than two common sized octavo volumes of 500 pages each. Such a volume will be of consequence hereafter. Those who wish for the work complete, will do well to preserve this, as they may not be able to obtain it hereafter.

But for the refusal of the Advocate to admit articles candidly and temperately written, from abolitionists, when they have been misrepresented and abused, this work would have had no existence. It is anti-abolition which has produced it, and the same cause has produced Methodist Anti-Slavery Conventions also !

This Appeal embodies many important facts — facts which will be found very convenient for reference, and which could not have been obtained without going over a host of newspapers, and not a few books. The labor of collecting and arranging them, has been by no means a small matter.

The next number of the Review will contain a multitudinous array of facts, touching slavery— the treatment of the slaves— safety of emancipation, &c. &c. ;

and the third number will contain a copious index to the volume, should the work be continued. 0

For the sentiments contained in. this Appeal, the author alone is responsible ; though he believes them to be the sentiments of Methodist abolitionists genererally.

A portion of the original matter in some of the articles, has been published through other mediums ; but the whole has been remodelled, and it is believed improved.

The extracts (to saj nothing about the original matter) interspersed through the work, are very valuable. Those contained in Part I. are alone worth the price of the work. The examination of ancient and modern Methodism, brings many important facts to view. The Southern testimony, on pages 22 and 23 — the extracts from the Synod of Kentucky — and the extracts from letters of Methodist preachers, with which the first part closes, (some of which have not been before published,) are all worthy of a second, and even a third reading.

Those who can have patience to plod through the article on the last General Conference, will find the doings of that body, and their " Reviewer," placed in their true light. The misrepresentations which have abounded on this subject, have made it necessary to go into a thorough examination of this affair. Those who desire a correct view of the subject, will please give this article a carefu perusal. That those who have lavished, their misrepresentations heretofore, will cease from this practice at once, is too much to hope. It may, therefore, be expected that this and other parts of the work will be attacked. But let whatever may be said against it, be carefully compared with the statements it contains, and I have no fear as to the result of any attacks, however illiberal and unfair they may be.

The subject of " Conference Rights" is important to the vital interests of Methodism, and it has become identified somewhat with the anti-slavery discussion in the M. E. Church — though any decision respecting that matter does not necessarily affect the great question of the emancipation of the slaves, which, above all others, should be constantly kept in view. I make no apology for the lengthy extracts which I have inserted from Rev. Messrs. G. F. Cox and T. Mekkitt, on this subject. The arguments which they contain are unanswered and unanswerable.

This Appeal has been prepared in view of the day of final accounts. The author expects to give an account for this, as well as all his other acts, at the judgment seat of Christ. He does not pretend that he lias used, in every instance, the best words — though he has not intended to be unnecessarily severe. It is true he has used " great plainness of speech," but he has nowhere, he thinks, impeached the motives of any brother. At any rate, he has not intended to do this.

Imperfect as the work is, it is submitted to the public with a willingness, that, however it maybe received at present, posterity should criticize its arguments, and sit in judgment upon its most severe and pointed expressions.

O. SCOTT.

Loivell, March 30, 1838.

APPEAL.

PART I. — SLAVERY AND THE CHURCH.

Fathers and Brethren,

Will you suffer an humble individual to address you on a roost important subject ? A subject to which he has devoted much attention for a number of years, and which he believes to be intimately connected with the dearest interests of the Methodist Episcopal Church, and of this nation. If he knows his own heart, he is influenced by no other motives than those of kindness and love, in making "this appeal. Readj dear brethren, and then judge.

MORAL INFLUENCE OP THE CHURCH.

The . Methodist Episcopal Church holds a large share of the moral power of this nation. It is therefore of the 'greatest importance that she he right on all moral questions. She cannot be neutral on any great question of moral reform. This is utterly impossible. Her influence will be given to one side or the other of all the moral subjects agitated in the land. And it is to be feared, 'that hitherto, her influence on the Slavery question, has been on the wrong side This has not, perhaps, been the design of the majority ; but such, it is believed, has been the fact, her disciplinary regulations to the contrary notwithstanding At any rate, this is a matter that demands our serious examination. If we half of our ministers, even in the free States, pray publicly for the manacled slave? I know the Bible requires us to pray for " all men ;" but are not the slaves, in too many instances, forgotten, even by those who call themselves abolitionists 1 " As much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery," and yet neglect to pray for the slaves !

THE CHURCH AND SLAVERY.

There are, dear brethren, about 70,000 slaves in our Church. Hundreds of our ministers, and thousands of our members are slave holders — and in many instances they enslave their own brethren and sisters in Christ ! Our general rule on the subject of slavery is proclaimed by our Southern brethren to be a dead letter ! It was not always so. Methodist preachers were once anti-slavery men, not only in word, but in deed and in truth. No Methodist minister attempted to write a Bible argument thirty, nor even ten years ago, to justify slave-holding under any circumstances ; but now our college and . church officers, and even one of our bishops has done this ! No conference o£ Methodist ministers would have asserted, that slavery is " not a moral evil," even ten years ago ; but now this doctrine is boldly and openly proclaimed by the are indeed as much as ever convinced of Georgia Conference, and in substance the great evil of Slavery, is there not an inconsistency between our convictions and practice ? Are we doing as much as ever to get rid of slavery ? I do not ask, whether we are all abolitionists; but are we doing any thing to purge the Church and save the country t Do one 2 by the Baltimore Conference. Our last General Conference condemned, plainly and pointedly, modern abolitionism, while it refused, to express any sentiment against slavery, though earnestly requested to do so. How unlike the doings of former General Conferences ! Several of our annual conferences have taken strong ground against abolitionism ; but slavery has been passed over in silence, except in two instances, where a simple construction has been given to our disciplinary regulations on that subject. The Eastern conferences have indeed desired to oppose slavery, as Methodist conferences used to do, but our bishops have interposed, and prevented any action upon the subject !

THE INFLUENCE OF SLAVERY.

Slavery has gained an awful, and an alarming ascendency over both Church hi,d State, within a few years past. And how it is possible for any sober man to believe that there is as much opposition to slavery now in our country, as there was fifty years ago, I cannot conceive. Such must not only believe without evidence, but contrary to the- clearest evidence.

There are four times as many slaves in our country now as there were fifty years ago ; and there is, to say the least, four times as much of the spirit of slavery, both in Church and State, as there was then. I speak now of the whole people, North and South. If the spirit of slavery had not increased with the increase of slaves, a very dark cloud, that now hangs over the country, would be dissipated.

OUR CONDUCT.

To say, that republicans and Christians love slavery now better than they did fifty years ago, or, in other words, that they hate it less, is making, I admit, a very strong statement. And I am sorry that there are so many facts to authorize it. If we are indeed as much as ever opposed to slavery, (to say nothing about being convinced of the " great evil/') then the Church has been slandered by modern abolitionists; — but if the contrary be the fact, then the present agitation, or some other, is loudly called for. The facts upon this point are not to be gathered so much from existing regulations, which have come down to us from former times, but which are acknowledged to be a dead letter, as from our present conduct. If the Methodist Church were to make a law saying, that we are all in favor of slavery, it would not prove that those are in favor of it, who are laboring clay and night to destroy it. Neither do regulations, saying, we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of slavery, prove that we are, as a people, as much as ever opposed to it, providing our conduct is the reverse of what it once was. I think, however, I would be willing, so far as the success of the argument is concerned, to rest it oa a comparison of our present with our former disciplinary provisions. But I shall avail myself of another consideration, viz. How are these provisions carried ou*. at the present time, compared with thirty, forty, and fifty years ago?

The attention of many of our brethren has been called to this conWs$, of ancient and modern Methodism as 'Con - nected with slavery, again and again. But it is my present purpose to go more fully into this subject — to examine both our Church regulations and our practice ; and I, for one, will agree to abide the issue of facts and sound reasoning, whatever may be the result,

MR. WESLEY'S SENTIMENTS.

Mr. Wesley's sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. He was the uncompromising opponent of that system of abominations, called Slavery, in all hands and under all circumstances. Never , did he write an apology for the slave-holder under any circumstances — much less did he ever attempt to sanction the, relation of Master and Slave by the Golden Rule ! He would as soon have defended horse-stealing and highway robbery, from, the Bible ! No abolitionist has ever expressed views more ultra on this subject, than Mr. Wesley, in his tract on Slavery. And I have no doubt but it would be death to any Methodist minister to distribute this tract of our venerable founder among Methodists, through the Southern States. I know this tract is contained in his works, and that many copies of these are in the slave-holding States; but let this part of his works be printed separately, and circulated extensively, and see what the consequence would, be, even among Methodists and Methodist ministers ! There is no connection between this tract and his other works. It was first written and published separately. Modern abolitionism, then, in the M. E.

Church, is, to say the least, as ancient as John Wesley ; if indeed the rankest of us may presume to claim affinity with him in bold denunciations of slavery and slaveholders. He held to "instant" emancipation, which comes very near being immediate. The following is a short extract from his work on Slavery :

" Arid this equally concerns every gentleman thai has an estate in our American plantations ;

1/e(lf ALL SLAVE HOLDERS, OF WHATEVER

rank and degree ; seeing men buyers are exnctly on a level with men stealers. Indeed you say, 1 1 pay honestly for my goods ; and 1 am not concerned to know how they are come by.' Nay, but you are ; you are deeply concerned to know they are honestly come by. Otherwise you are a partaker with a thief, and are not a jot honester than him. But you know they are not honestly come by ; you know they are procured by means nothing near so innoecttt.ai? picking of pockets, house breaking, or robbery or. the highway. You know they are procured by a deliberate series of more complicated villany, (of fraud, robbery, and murder,) , than was ever practiced either by Mahommedans or Pagans ; in particular, by murders of all kinds ; Dy the blood of the innocent poured upon the ground like water. Now, it is your money that pays the merchant, and through him the captain and African butchers. You, therefore, are guilty, yea, principally guilty, of all these frauds, robberies, and murders. You are the spring that puts all the rest in motion ; they would not stir a step without you ; therefore, the blood of all these wretches who die before their time, whether in their country or elsewhere, lies upon your head. < The blood of thy brother ' (for, whether thou wilt believe it or no, such he is in the sight, of Him that made him) 'crieth against thee from the earth,' from the ship, and from the waters. O, whatever it costs, put a stop to its cry before it is too late ; instantly, at any price, were it the half of your goods, deliver thyself from blood guiltiness ! Thy hands, thy bed, thy furniture, thy house, thy lands, are at present stained with blood. Surely it is enough : accumulate no more guilt; spill no more the blood of the innocent ! Do not hire another to shed blood ; do not pay him for doing it! Whether you aie a Christian or no, show yourself a MAN ! Be not. more savage than a lion or a bear !

"Perhaps you, will say, ' I do not buy any negroes ; I only use those left; me by my fa- ' So far it is well ; but is it enough to sat ther.

isfy your own conscience ? Had your father, have you, has any man living, a right to use another as a slave ? It cannot be, evcii setting Revelation aside. It cannot be, that either war, or contract, can give any man such a property in another as he has in his sheep and oxen. Much less is it possible that any child of man should ever be born a slave. Liberty is the right of every human creature, as soon as he breathes the vital air ; and no human law can deprive him of that right which he derives from the laio of nature.

" If, therefore, you have any regard to justice (to say nothing of mercy, nor the revealed law of God), render unto all their due. Give liberty to whom liberty is due, that is, to every child of man, to every partaker of human nature. Let none serve you but by his own act and deed, by his own voluntary choice. Away with all whips, all chains, all compulsion ! Be gentle toward all men ; and see that you invariably do unto every one as you icould he should do unto you. J. Wesley." .

Such were the spirit, sentiments, and language of him whose praise is in all the churches, — and whose soul, we doubt not, is with God. Was this the language of our last General Conference? Was this the language of the Georgia and Baltimore Conferences at their last sessions? Does this sound like the Counter Appearand slavery enjoined by the Golden Rule ? Spirit of Wesley, where hast thou fled? Who now, in the M. E. Church, except the persecuted bolitionists, cry out for "instant" mancipation ? Who now puts " all Jave holders, of whatever rank and degree," " EXACTLY ON A LEVEL WITH MEN

[stealers?" Who makes slave holders "partakers with a thief?" Who now charges them with "blood guiltiness?" (" Thy hands, thy bed, thy furniture, thy house, thy lands, are at present stained with blood!") Certainly not Bishop H., not President F. No ; not even the abolitionists ! We believe with Mr. Wesley; but alas! we have spoken in whisper tones and in soft language compared with his.

THE ENSLAVEMENT OF CHILDREN.

Is he correct in saying, that it is " impossible that any child of man should ever be born a slave ? Liberty is the right of every human creature as soon as he breathes the vital air ; and no human law can deprive him of that right which he derives from the law of nature.' 1 Is this a correct sentiment? Can we doubt it ? I think not. x\nd if we admit it, what is the character of those who make slaves of children born on their plantations? Just what it would be if they were to go to the shores of Africa, and take children from that country and enslave them ! Just what it would be if they were to come to the free States, and take either white children or black ones, and enslave them ! The blacks are . born as free as the whites — and one black is born as free as another. " No human law can deprive one of that right which he derives from the law of nature," said that old, obsolete divine, John Wesley. No matter then if ten thousand human legislatures make laws, jaying that children are slaves — of what avail are they before God ? Legislation can never make that which is morally wrong, politically right. The Southern States have the same right to make Jaws to enslave their white children that they have to enslave the blacks. But we all know that it would be a crime of the same nature to enslave white children, after such laws should be made, that it is now. We have the same right to make laws in the North to enslave our children, that the South have to enslave theirs ; bnt neither we nor they have any more right to make such laws than we have to attempt to legislate the Almighty from his throne ! And this business is as bad in the hands of professed Christians and ministers, as it is in the hands of infidels ! Ignorance is the only apology that can be offered for either. And even this apology cannot be made much longer.

If Mr. Wesley was ultra on this subjeci, so were our Fathers who put forth the Declaration of Independence ! They said, " We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness." " All men," not all white men, but " all men — created equal" — and " liberty" an "inalienable right." What then is the character of that man who makes a slave of a human being, born as free as he is, and with the same inalienable right to liberty ? You will fix it by the same standard that you would a man's character, who goes to the shores of Africa, and takes human beings and enslaves them. Neither human laws nor geographical boundaries can change moral principles. And the slave holders of the South will find, in the day of final accounts, that the plea, " the laws forbid emancipation," or the laws justified stealing and enslaving innocent children, and keeping them in bondage all their lives, will be but a poor excuse for making merchandize of God's image ! Among the Jews, to be " found " with a stolen hu man being " in his hand," subjected one to the same penalty as if he had been the original kidnapper — which penalty was death! And Mr. Wesley, as ha* been shown, puts all slave holding on the same ground.

How unlike is American Methodism to the principles of Wesley, and Wesleyan Methodism as it now exists in Great Britain ?

EARLY METHODIST PREACHERS.

Imbued with such principles , the preachers sent to this country sixty or seventy years ago, by Mr. Wesley, came with the most deadly enmity to slavery. They preached, talked, and wrote against it, both in the North and South. Bishops Coke and Asbury are admitted to have been hot-headed abolitionists; though it is said they cooled off some, before they died. The former is reported to have kindled up such a fire in South Carolina, as did not go out for thirty years. Would to God it had burned till this time, and burned till it had consumed slavery, root and branch.

It is true, the early Methodist preachers did receive some slave holders into their societies, with the utmost caution, subjoining plain pointed exhortations, and adopting strong rules and regulations against slavery. These pioneers of American Methodism never intended that slavery should be continued in the M. E. Church. Of this fact, we have the best evidence. They perhaps thought thev could cure slave holders sooner, when awakened, by taking them under their own immediate watch and care, and dealing plainly and faithfully with them. But in this, I think, they erred. To baptize and ordain an evil is a poor way to cure it. Little, however, did our Fathers suppose, that before their bodies were scarcely cold in the grave, slavery would put in its high claims for a bishop ! So do evils increase when once admitted into the Church.

DID MR. WESLEY APPROVE OF RECEIVING SLAVE HOLDERS ?

We have no reason to believe that Mr. Wesley ever approved of receiving slave holders at all. Not a word can be produced from his writings to show that he did. On the contrary, we can produce evidence to show, that he considered " American slavej-y the vilest that ever saw the sun" — and that he placed

" all slave holders exactly on a level with men stealers." From hid well known sentiments, therefore, we ought not to suppose that he approved of receiving slave holders at till, without the most indubitable evidence. But, it niay be asked, if Mr. Wesley did not approve of it, why did he suffer it. I answer, if Mr. Wesley did not approve of the taking the name of bishop, by Coke and Asbury, why did he suffer it? lie certainly did not approve of it, but disapproved of it in the warmest terms ; and yet they were called bishops ! In a lettei dated "London, Sept. 20, 1788," Mr. Wesley thus writes to Mr. Asbury on this subject : " How can you, how dare you, suffer yourself to be called bishop ? I shudder, I start at the very thought ! Men may call me a knave or a fool, a rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content : but they shall never, by my consent, call me a bishop ! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, put a full end to this /" See Wesley's Works, vol vii. p. 187. I make this extract, not out of any disrespect to our bishops, but to show that Coke and Asbury did some things, or suffered them to be done, which Mr. Wesley warmly disapproved. But it may be said, that had he, in this manner, disapproved of receiving slave holders into the Church, it would be sufficient to settle the point. But how could it be possible for him to disap- ; prove this more strongly than he has 1 done. " American slavery, the vilest ' that ever saw the sun " — and " all slave holders, of whatever rank and decree," < " exactly on a level with men stealers!" What a license this, to receive such per- < sons into the Church ! But how do we i know what private instruction Mr. Wes- i ley gave his preachers on this subject 1 \ How do we know how many letters he wrote them touching this business ? It: is not to be supposed, that all his Jotters < and private instructions have been pub- < lishcd. Again : It may be asked, Why, < when he found that they had received ' slave holders, did he not order them ex- I pelled? Perhaps he did. For when he < learned that Asbury had taken the name I of bishop, he ordered him to "put a full i end to this.'" But did he do it ? In a i letter dated April 21, 1775, Mr. Wesley i ordered Mr. Asbury to return to Eng- < land " without delay" But did he do so ? i 2* i We may, therefore, fairly conclude, that slaves were never received into the i M. E. Church by Mr. Wesley's authority or approbation.

SENTIMENTS OF THE M. E. CHURCH IN

The early American Methodists were warmly opposed to slavery, however

Church policy on this subject. Now for the evidence. But before giving it, I will just say, that the Western Christian Advocate of Dec. 8, 1837, makes the following statement in relation to this subject.

" Our readers should knew that our Church has neither given up nor modified any of her strong Scriptural doctrines REGULATIONS on the subject of slavery, the declarations of recent abolitionists or oUiers to the contrary notwithstanding."

And in the Christian Advocate and Journal of Jan. 26, 1838, Rev. N. Pangs says, our Church " has always held one

UNDEVIATING LANGUAGE in Opposition tO

slavery." Strange statements these !

Four years before our Church was organized in this country, that is, in 1780, the Conference bore the following testimony against it :

" The, Conference acknowledges that slavery t3 contrary to the laws ok God, man, Ann naturk, oiul hurtful to society? CONTRARY TO THE DICTATES OF CONSCIENCE AND PURE RELIGION ; and doing ichat tee would not that others should do unto us; and they pass their disapprobation upon all our friends who keep slaves, and they advisii their freedom."

This was the "language" of our Church then, but is it her language now'! Was this the language of the last General Conference? Is this among "her strong scriptural doctrines or reffiflations ' note ? Slavery was then " contrary to the laws of God. 1 ' Now the Golden Rule requires it in certain cases — then, it was " doing what we would not that others should do unto us." Now, it is doing what vve icould that others should do unto us. [See Bish. TI.'s Address.] " one undeviating language ?" In 1780, the "disapprobation^' of the Conference was passed upon all our friends who keep slaves — now, Bible arguments and addresses from high authority defend the relation of Master and Slave, as in itself a sinless relation. Then universal freedom was "advised" (" all our friends") now one of our highest Church officers contends, that it would be contrary to the Golden Rule, in many instances, to set them free ! But it has been asked, and that too by one of the very men who holds that " advice " has the nature and power of law, (and is binding, even upon those to whom it was not given), why they did not require their freedom, in the room of "advising" it? Such is the consistency to which men are sometimes driven ! But let us see what the Church said in 1784, about requiring the freedom of the slaves.