A Layman to Frederick Douglass, March 4, 1856

"HOW MANY METHODISTS ARE SLAVEHOLDERS?"

FREDERICK DOUGLASS, ESQ.: DEAR SIR:—In your issue of Feb. 1st, is an article from the Syracuse Wesleyan, with the above heading, which contains some statements calculated, if not designed to produce, a wrong impression; and with your permission I will suggest to the readers of your valuable paper, a few thoughts upon some points stated by the Wesleyan.

I have no strictures to make upon "Dr. Durbin's," the Zion`s Herald`s, or the Wesleyan`s estimate of the number of slaveholders in the M.E.C.—as the principle is the same, whether it be four or forty thousand, and consequently the exact number has nothing to do with the present controversy, in the above named Church, upon the subject of Slavery; as a rule that would admit four would admit forty, or even a hundred thousand. Neither have I any fault to find with the main features of the report there given, of the Slavery discussion at the close of the last General Conference and the comments thereon, as I took the same view of the subject at the time—viz.: that the relation of Slavery to the Church was such that it has for years exerted an undue influence upon the actions of our General Conference, and that this influence was not easily controlled. But there is, in the Dialogue there given, a statement that I believe to be incorrect—viz.: that "the ministers of the M.E. Church North, East and West, particularly "in the rural districts, boldly and openly declare" and "recklessly persist in" the statement "that there are no slaveholders in the Church and that it has no connection with Slavery." Hear him in his own words: "Matlack—Myself" and other Wesleyan ministers, have the lie charged upon us for saying that there are slaveholders in the Church: And your ministers North, East and West deny the fact and boldly and openly declare that there are no slaveholders in the Church and that it has no connection with Slavery."

Again, in his comments on the quotations from Zion`s Herald as follows: "It is commended to our readers as a singular comment, on the declaration so often recklessly persisted in by Methodist preachers in the rural districts, that there are no slaveholders in the Methodist E. Church." It is of this, Sir, that I complain. As much as I respect Mr. Matlack for his uncompromising anti-slavery principles, and the valuable service he has rendered in the great battle between Slavery and Freedom—I cannot but regard the charge brought against the ministers of the Church, of which I have the honor to be a member—as contained in the above quotations—as being ungenerous, and not the legitimate offspring of that charity that "thinketh no evil." And what is the proof by which he supports so grave a charge? He gives us none, and I have never seen any elsewhere. It may belong to that class of statements which have come to be believed, because they have been so often repeated. This however, effects not the truthfulness of the declaration, but only the moral character of the act of its repetition—as a man may very innocently repeat an untruth, if he at the time really believes it to be true. But in the absence of this proof, we must regard it as a wholesale slander of the largest body of Christian ministry in the world—the offspring of that denominational hate that has characterized many of the seceders, from the days of Orange Scott, down to the present time—a feeling near akin to that entertained by a wayward child driven from the parental roof by wholesome restraints that were intolerable because "Young America" must have his own way. A glance at the historical outline of the facts, connected with this statement, will show its falsity. Previous to the organization

of the M.E. Church, in 1784, there were in the Methodist Societies—as well as in all the other religious Societies in the slave States— those who held slaves. Slavery and Intemperance were by the fathers of our Church, placed side by side, and each (for a time at least, in common with other sins) was dealt with in the same manner; both were permitted for the time being, as "only one condition was required of those who" were admitted into their Societies—viz.: "a desire to flee from the wrath to come, and be saved from their sins." But it was expected of all who continued in them, to show that this desire was real, by bringing forth its legitimate fruits—viz.: by doing good of every sort and as far as possible to all men. Those who did not comply with these conditions, had no right to remain in these Societies; and while permitted to remain, they were by sufferance, and not by right—Slaveholders have never yet complied with these conditions, and consequently have to this time, no right in the Methodist Church. That the founders of the Church took this view of the subject is evident; because, as far back as 1780; the then nucleus of the now General Conference passed their unqualified disapprobation upon all who held slaves; and in 1784 when the Church was regularly organized, a rule was established that would have entirely purged the Church of this abomination had it been fully executed; but in 1786, this rule was suspended for a time. This was emphatically a peace measure, or so designed at the time; but could those who, for the sake of peace, suspended it, have looked down through the vista of the future as far as the present— instead of being suspended, it had been executed, and the Church at that early day, had been purged of the most loathsome abomination, that every disgraced our kind. For this act

they have been severely censured; but I think the fathers of the Church, like the fathers of our Republic, who, instead of dealing Slavery a death blow when they should, permitted it to linger in existence, did so thinking that such a monster embodiment of vice could not long exist, but would ide of its own inherent corruption. That they expected it would soon cease to exist, is evident from the language of the ministers of 1790; they say, " We are more than ever convinced of the great evil of the African Slavery which still exists in these United States."

From this time on, under mistaken views of kindness and of duty, for the sake of peace, concession after concession was made to our Southern friends, (or rather enemies,) until they asked the Church to accept a slaveholding Bishop, and the only alternative left was the sacrificed of Northern conscience, on the altar of a time-serving expediency, or a violent dismemberment of the Church, in obedience to the mandate of Southern influence. The result was, that those whose interests and sympathies were in favor of the "peculiar institution" and its supreme control of the Church, seceded en masse, leaving the M. E. Church, with the same organization, and the same discipline as before, and a large membership in the slave territory, which she still retains, with extensive additions that have been made from year to year. The seceders formed themselves into a distinct and separate church organization, and still remain the same. The anti-slavery element of the Church, having resolved to do sacrifice to the Moloch of Slavery no longer, at once began to devise ways and means to crush the "monster vice," and from that time to the present, it has been the great question in the Church, eliciting more discussion than all other questions put together. True, up to the present time, little has

been done to effect the legal relation of the Church, to the "peculiar institution;" yet when they look at the great change in public sentiment that has taken place during the last twelve years, and particularly so far as that sentiment relates to the Church, the friends of "Slavery extirpation" have abundant reason to be encouraged to labor on until the great work shall be accomplished, and the Church stand forth clean of the foul stains of Slavery.

This is a brief outline of this great controversy from the beginning—and "this thing was not done in a corner;" yet, in full view of all these facts we are told, with much self-assurance, that "the ministers of the M. E. Church North, East, and West, deny the fact, and boldly and openly declare that there are no slaveholders in the Church, and that it has no connection with Slavery." Yes, Sir, we are told that "Methodist preachers in the rural districts" are so ignorant as to know nothing of this important feature of the history of their Church; or that the people are thus ignorant, and the preachers, so wicked, as to take advantage of that ignorance, and make them believe a lie to their [illegible];" or that these "rural district" preachers are so wicked an, and at the same time, so foolish, as to tell a falsehood, when if they know anything, they must know, from the nature of the case, that a large majority of the people know that they were lying. I think, Sir, that even "Methodist preachers in the rural districts" will compare favorably in point of mental acumen, and general intelligence, with those of any other denomination; and as to their moral character, I know of no Church, where the purity