Another indication of the Methodist Church’s departure from first principles was its change of attitude respecting what John Wesley designated as "that execrable sum of all villainies commonly called the slave trade."

     During his entire public career Mr. Wesley was intensely hostile to slavery in all its forms; and perhaps nothing ever written has dealt with the subject more thoroughly, or exposed its diabolical character more clearly and vigorously, especially within the same limits, than his tract entitled, "Thoughts on Slavery." He wrote it in 1774, before the first society for the suppression of slavery was formed, and seventeen years before the efforts made by Wilberforce and others to abolish the system under British rule. Its publication brought upon him much censure and opposition, and also subjected him to great ridicule in the various publications of the time. The tract proved decidedly effective, however, in England, and was finally published in America by Mr. Benezet, "who sent him a friendly letter by William Dillwyn, whom he refers to as ‘a valuable religiously-minded person who is going a voyage to your country.’"

     As a fitting climax to his life-long hatred of the system and testimony against it, Wesley addressed a dying exhortation to Wilberforce, the British Abolitionist, on the occasion of the latter having introduced before Parliament a bill, or resolutions, for the suppression of slavery in the West India Islands. It was written February 26, 1791, Just four days before Mr. Wesley’s death, in his eighty-eighth year. In that exhortation he expressed himself with characteristic vigor and earnestness as follows:

     "Unless the Divine power has raised you up to be as Athanasius against the world, I see not how you can go through your glorious enterprise, in opposition to that execrable villainy, which is the scandal of. religion, of England, and of human nature. Unless God has raised you up for this very thing, you will be worn out by the opposition of men and devils. But, ‘If God be for you, who can be against you?’ Are all of them together stronger than God? ‘0, be not weary in well doing!’ Go on, in the name of God, and in the power of His might, till even American slavery (the vilest that ever saw the sun) shall vanish away before it."1

     Methodism in England appears to have been generally, perhaps it might be said universally, in accord with Mr. Wesley on this subject; and the same was true of Methodism in America during its earlier history. In fact, there appears to have been no necessity to legislate against the buying, selling, or holding of human beings as slaves by Methodists of this country before the War of the Revolution, inasmuch as the system of chattel slavery was so uniformly, strongly, and persistently denounced from Methodist pulpits that the converts and members of Methodist societies would no more have entered into complicity with such an iniquitous system than with highway robbery or murder.

     Notwithstanding the changes that occurred during the period of Revolutionary struggle, whereby quite a percentage of slave owners obtained membership in the Methodist societies, still American Methodism testified in most unequivocal terms against the moral turpitude of the system, and from time to time passed resolutions condemning in strong terms all complicity with it. But about the beginning of the nineteenth century the Church began to assume a compromising attitude and a softened tone respecting this great evil.

     Says Dr. James M. Buckley: "From its foundation in the United States until the year 1800 Methodism had testified against slavery as a moral evil. Many of its enactments were uncompromising, and all were beyond the position taken by other Churches and in advance of public sentiment; although very soon after the Methodist Church was organized concessions began to be made in view of the necessities of the South.

     "The tone of condemnation was softened in 1804, and in 1808 all that relates to slaveholding among private members was stricken out, and no rule on the subject has existed since."2

     Writing of the organization of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection, or Church, in 1843, Dr. John Alfred Faulkner says:

     "From the point of view of an anti-slavery reformer the position of the Methodist Episcopal Church on the subject [of slavery], * * * especially after 1800, must be considered disappointing and untenable. There had not only been a constant recession of testimony, but active participation in anti-slavery measures, or even the holding of pronounced views on freedom, on the part of ministers, made them liable to the loss of reputation and standing, or even to discipline. Northern Conferences frequently passed resolutions condemning Abolition and ministers who in any way connected themselves with anti. slavery movements. Matlack was denied admission to Conference because of his views on slavery, and Charles K. True, James Floy, and Paul B. Brown, of the New York Conference, were tried and suspended for alleged aiding in the circulation of an anti-slavery tract (was it one of Wesley’s?), and attending an anti-slavery convention."3 The Wesleyan Methodist Church was organized chiefly as a protest against the complicity of the Methodist Episcopal Church with the abomination of slavery, and against her abuse of the Episcopacy to oppress those among her members and ministers whose consciences led them to speak out plainly against the iniquitous system and to unite in efforts toward its suppression. Many strong men, both ministerial and lay, separated from the parent body and connected themselves with the new organization. No more heroic band of reformers than those who composed the newly organized Church were ever enlisted in defense of human rights and liberties. The organization proved a mighty factor in the agitation and action which finally led to the overthrow of American slavery. Honor to whom honor is due.

     The Methodist Episcopal Church was not reformed, however, by the efforts of either those Abolitionists who remained within her pale or those who seceded and formed themselves into the new denomination. She continued her policy of compromise with the slave-power, and increased in her hostility toward Abolition and those in sympathy with it. In 1856, after 500,000 southern Methodists had seceded and organized the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, on account of the action of the General Conference in deciding that Bishop Andrews, who had married a slaveholding wife, "should desist from the exercise of his office until the impediments should be removed," the Methodist Episcopal Church inserted a new chapter in its Discipline on the subject of slavery, declaring against slaveholding in all its forms; but the General Rule which favored the system remained unchanged until 1864.

     During the period of the agitation which led up to the formation of the Free Methodist Church slavery was the all-absorbing question in the Methodist Episcopal Church, as it was in the nation. The Church for years had been divided on the slavery issue, but, strangely enough, the division was over the right of ministers to hold slaves. The right of members to hold them was conceded by the Discipline. By the action of the General Conference of 1860 on the subject of Church slavery "the last vestige of mandatory prohibition of the evil was toned down to a mere matter of advice," with no penalty attached for violation of the advisory section. "Up to the day that slavery was abolished by the sword there were thousands of slaveholders in good standing in the Methodist Episcopal Church. The Methodist Episcopal Discipline tolerated slavery to the last."4

     The attitude of the Church on a question so vitally affecting both religion and the national weal, and that at a time of such general excitement over the slavery question everywhere, was certainly a grievous lapse "from the heroic ideals of the elder time."

1. Works, Vol. vii., p. 237.
2. Hist. of Methodism In the U. S., Vol. II., p. 1.
3. Story of the Churches, Vol. on “The Methodists,” pp. 165, 166.
4. Roberts’s “Why Another Sect?” p. 40.