Political status of the Methodist Episcopal Church

Front matter

BX

> > £> > 0'~> >

DPT)

Introduction

As a body her political career of late has been such that no one acquainted with her recent history can fail to recognize her political and partisan character. The author proposes by numerous extracts from her own records to show up her true political status. In this the M. E. Church can not consistently complain, as it is but giving a more extensive publicity to her own principles and measures as set forth and advocated in her journals, periodicals and literature.

POLITICAL STATUS.

Section I

POSITION OF THE M. E. CHURCH IN FORMER YEARS.

In order that the reader may see how far the Methodist Episcopal Church has drifted from its former position, I subjoin a few extracts from the proceedings of the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840.

Preamble and Resolutions adopted by the General Conference of 1836, in Cincinnati, by a vote of 120 to 14:

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 favor 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 favor 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

olitical relation between master and slave as it exists in the slaveholding tates of this Union. — Bangs's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, vol 4, pp. 245, 246.

In the foregoing preamble and resolutions the strongest language is used in condemnation of the conduct of two of the members of the General Conference in lecturing in favor of abolitionism. That body, in the most unequivocal terms, declared its opposition to abolitionism, and "wholly disclaimed any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil and political relations between master and slave as it existed in the slaveholding states." The rescinding of the foregoing preamble and resolutions by the General Conference of 1868, in Chicago, thirty- two years after their adoption, does not effect them as a matter of history. They show the position of the General Conference of 1836 just the same as though no subsequent rescinding act had occurred. This rescinding act condemns the fathers, and is an additional evidence that the M. E. Church has wandered very far from its former position.

Exteact from the Pastoral Address of the General Conference of 1836 :

6. We now approach a subject of no little delicacy and difficulty, and which we cannot but think has contributed its full proportion to that religious declension over which we mourn. It is not unknown to you, dear brethren and friends, that, in common with other denominations in our land, as well as our citizens generally, we have been much agitated in some portions of our work with the very excitable subject of what is called abolitionism. This subject has been brought before us at our present session — fully, and, we humbly trust, impartially discussed, and by almost a unanimous vote highly disapproved of ; and while we would tenderly sympathize with those of our brethren who have, as we believe, been led astray by this agitating topic, we feel it our imperative duty to express our decided disapprobation of the measures they have pursued to accomplish their object. It cannot be unknown to you, that the question of slavery in these 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 ail ecclesiastical bodies; it being manifest, that in the slaveholding states themselves the entire responsibility of its existence or non-existence rests with those State Legislatures. And such is the aspect of affairs in reference to this question, that whatever else might tend to meliorate the condition of the slave, it is evident to us, from what we have witnessed of abolition movements, that these are the least likely to do him good. On the contrary, we have it in evidence before us, that ihe imflammatory speeches, and writings, and movements, have tended, in many instances, injuriously to affect his temporal and spiritual condition by hedging up the way of the missionary who is sent to preach to him Jesus and the resurrection, and by making a more rigid supervision necessary on the part of his overseer, thereby abridging his civil and religious privileges.

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 who must give an account, to exhort you to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from patronizing any of their publications ; and especially from those of that inflammatory character which denounce in unmeasured terms those of their brethren who take the liberty to dissent from them. Those of you who may have honest scruples as to the lawfulness of slavery, considered as an abstract principle of moral right and wrong, if you must speak your sentiments, would do much better to express yourselves in those terms of respect and affection which evince a sincere sysmpathy for those of your brethren who are necessarily, and in some instances, reluctantly associated with slavery in the States where it exists, than to indulge in harsh censures

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

and denunciations, and in those fruitless efforts which, instead of lightening the burden of the slave, only tend to make his condition the more irksome and distressing.

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 solemn conviction 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, which is now convulsing the country, and consequently the Church, from end to end, by calling forth inflammatory speeches, papers, and pamphlets. While we cheerfully accord to such all the sincerity they ask for their belief and motives, we cannot but disapprove of their measures as alike destructive to the peace of the Church, and to the happiness of the slave himself— Bangs' s Hist. M. E. Church, vol. 4, pp. 258-260.

From this address it will be seen that the General Conference of 1836 regarded those imbibing abolition views as having been led astray. It held that slavery was "beyond the control both of the General Government" and of " all ecclesiastical bodies." It advised the members of the Church to " abstain from all abolition movements and associations," and to "refrain from patronizing abolition publications." It maintained that the agitation of the subject of slavery was "unsafe, unscriptural and imprudent," and that abolition measures were " alike destructive to the peace of the Church and to the happiness of the slave." Such was the testimony of the fathers in former times. They saw the blight- ' ing influence of the slavery agitation upon the spirituality of the Church, and bore witness against it as a great evil.

Extract from the reply of the General Conference of 1840, in Baltimore, to an Address from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference in Great Britain:

Of these United States (to the government and laws of which, "according to the division of power made'to them by the Constitution of the Union, and the Constitutions of the several States," we owe, and delight to render, a sincere and patriotic loyalty,) there are several which do not allow of slavery. There are others in which it is allowed, and there are slaves ; but the tendency of the laws, and the minds of the majority of the people, are in favor of emancipation. But there are others in which slavery exists so universally, and is so closely interwoven with their civil institutions, that the great body of the people (the source of laws with us) hold it to be treasonable to set forth any thing, by word or deed, tending that way. Each one of all these States is independent of the rest and sovereign, with respect to its internal government, (as much so as if there existed no confederation among them for ends of common interest,) and therefore it is impossible to frame a rule on slavery proper for our people in all the States alike. But our Church is extended through all the States, as it would be wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule of discipline in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the State on the subject, so also would it not be equitable or Scriptural to confound the positions of our ministers and people (so different as they are in different States) with respect to the moral question which slavery involves.

Under the administration of the venerated Dr. Coke, this plain distinction was once overlooked, and it was attempted to urge emancipation in all the States ; but the attempt proved almost ruinous, and was soon abandoned by the doctor himself. While, therefore, the Church has encouraged emancipation in those States where the laws permit it, and allowed the freedman to enjoy freedom, we have refrained, for conscience sake, from intermeddling with the subject in those other States where the laws make it criminal. And such a course we think agreeable to the Scriptures, and indicated by St. Paul's inspired instruction to servants in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, chap, vii, ver. 20, 21. ' For if servants were not to care for their servitude when they might not be free, though if they might be free they should use it rather; so, neither should masters be condemned for not setting them free when they might not do so, though if they might they should do so rather —Bangs' s Hist. M. E. Church, vol. 4, pp. 379, 380.

According to this extract the General Conference of 1840 condemned all interference on the part of the Church with the civil institutions of the country; declared it "wrong and unscriptural to enact a rule of discipline in opposition to the Constitution and laws of the States on the suubject" of slavery, and quoted from St. Paul in justification of its position. This body also declared it wrong to condemn slaveholders.

If space would allow, many more extracts of like character might be taken from the past records of the M. E. Church to show her opposition, in former years, to all interference in civil affairs, but these are sufficient. If the reader will carefully compare these extracts which form a part of the official records of the M. E. Church in times past, with what may follow in this book of the subsequent actions of said Church he will have no difficulty in seeing that she is in direct opposition to her former position.

Section II

Political Platform, adopted by the General Conference of 1864, in Philadelphia :

The causes of this desolating war are not recent. Early in our history the Christian spirit manifested by the first colonies on the New England shores declined, and a new theory of government was introduced. Our statesmen turned away from the recognition of God as the source of all civil authority, and his Word as the foundation of law, and announced the will of the people, the consent of the governed, as the source of power. It is a matter of regret and a cause of reproach that in our otherwise most excellent Constitution the name of God does not appear, not even in the oath prescribed for the President. There is nothing in that instrument that indicates that

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

we are a Christian nation. It is not strange that, under such circumstances, slavery, an institution ever offensive to God and contraiy to the first principles of a republican government, was allowed and guarded. But in the hour when, in defiance of the teachings of Providence and history, this wrong was recognized, it became a necessity that it should be removed peaceably or by war. The causes of this conflict are coeval with our history as a nation.

Our forgetfulness of God has been manifested in a disposition to sacrifice moral principle to expediency in order to secure a temporary peace, in the scorn with which the enunciation that there is a law higher than the Constitution was received, and in the shameless corruption that characterized legislation for many years.

Slaveholding, essentially aristocratic, fostering a spirit of arrogance and exaction, is necessarily opposed to the doctrine of human equality. Too long the nation met the haughty exactions of slaveholders with servile compliance ; but at length the limit was reached when there was no alternative but resistance or the sacrifice of all manhood and virtue. Then was exhibited that sublime uprising of the people that astonished the world, and the determination was avowed to defend at any cost our Constitution and the integrity of our government. But still, forgetful of God, we boasted of our power to crush the foe, and were not prepared to render justice to the oppressed.

God suffered our armies to be turned back in confusion and our pride to be cast down in the dust. We have struggled on, expending our treasures with a lavish hand, sacrificing the lives of our young men, and mortgaging the industry of coming centuries to meet our accumulating debt.

Chastened by adversity, may we learn to acknowledge our dependence on God for power and victory, and also to recognize fully the brotherhood of man. Our country hitherto has been the land of the free only in name ; but we trust the time will soon come when in no part of its wide domain will slavery be known.

The safety in the rebellious states of our civil institutions, as well as justice to those who have been enslaved, requires that in all the privileges of citizenship, as well as in all the other rights of a common manhood, there shall be no distinction founded on color. Those who have periled their lives with less encouragement than any other class has received to defend our liberty may surely by right, human and divine, claim all the privileges the ballot can bestow. Most certainly free institutions will be as safe with them as with the descendants of those who have incurred the crimes of perjury and treason to overthrow our government. Provision should be made to give those a share in the soil who have cultivated it without recompense and defended it with their blood.

We should frown with indignation on all as guilt}- of disloyalty who coldly criticise every measure of the administration in this struggle for the national life, under the hypocritical pretense that they are careful that the fundamental law shall not be violated ; and we should give to all honest, earnest, righteous measures to crush this rebellion our hearty support.

2. Resolved, That it is the duty of the government to prosecute the war with all its resources of men and money till this wicked rebellion shall be subdued, the integrity of the nation shall be secured, and its legitimate authority shall be re-established, and that we pledge our hearty support and co-operation to secure this result.

4. Resolved, That we will use our efforts to secure such a change in the Constitution of our country as shall recognize the being of God, our dependence on him for prosperity, and also his word as the foundation of civil law.

5. Resolved, That we regard slavery as abhorrent to the principles of our holy religion, humanity, and civilization, and that we are decidedly in favor of such amendment to the Constitution and such legislation on the part of the States as shall prohibit slavery or involuntary servitude, except for crime, throughout all the states and territories of the country. — General Conference Journal o/1864,#p. 381, 282, 383.

Relying on the promise and mercy of God, as far as we can we " proclaim liberty throughout all the land to all the inhabitants thereof." — Ibid, p. 376.

The same body in an address to President Lincoln, after complimenting him upon his past political course, dictated his future civil policy in the following language :

We trust that when military usages and necessities shall justify interference with established institutions, and the removal of wrongs sanctioned by law, the occasion will be improved, not merely to injure our foes and increase the national resources, but also as an opportunity to recognize our obligations to God and to honor his law. We pray that the time may speedily come when this shall be truly a republican and free country, in no part of which, either state or territory, shall slavery be known. — General Conference Journal, p. 379.

Compare these extracts with those of the General Conferences of 1836 and 1840 and mark the contrast. The General Conference of 1836 passed resolutions of censure upon two of its members for lecturing in favor of abolitionism, and, at the same time, disclaimed " any right, wish or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between master and slave." The General Conference of 1864 declared itself in favor of abolitionism, issues an emancipation proclamation — thus interfering, in the most direct manner possible " in the civil and political relation of master and slave." The General Conferences of 1836 and 1840 discarded all political intermeddling on the part of the Church. The General Conference of 1864 converts the Church into a political and war party by adopting a regular political platform — by dictating the duty and policy of the States, and of the General Government, and by pledging its " support and co-operation" to civil power in the prosecution of a bloody contest.

But it may be claimed that this is not a political platform, but merely a report on the state of the country, as some ministers prefer to call it in certain localities. I answer, that if it had been adopted by a regular political convention it would be styled a political platform, and so should it be considered even though adopted by an ecclesiastical body. What business has a Church with national affairs ? and, by what authority does she appoint committees to pry into the affairs of State and to mark out, in their reports, the line of policy to be pursued by civil govern-

METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH.

ments ? But let us examine further into the principles enunciated in this document and see if it is not solely political in its character. It condemns the Government as established by its founders upon the " consent of the governed, as the source of power." It attributes the civil war to the principles upon which the Government was established. It declares in favor of a higher law in the civil Government than the Constitution, so long a prominent feature of the abolition theory. It favors the elevation of negroes in the Southern States to all the " privileges of citizenship" — to be the legislators, judges and governors of the people in the south. It says there should be no distinction founded on color. It advocates the taking of land from the white people in the south and giving it to the negroes. It denounces those as disloyal who criticised the measures of the Administration. It favored the prosecution of the war. It recommends certain amendments and changes in the Constitutions of the States and General Government. It pledges the " efforts" of the Church to secure a change in the federal Constitution. These, with other purely political principles clearly enunciated in this instrument, show it to be nothing more nor less than a political platform, and as it was adopted by the General Conference, the highest reprerentative council of the connection, it may properly be styled the Political Platform of the M. E. Church.