In South Carolina. 485 



blessing while he was in Charleston, no less than when he was at 

 St. Kitts. Here in South Carolina, then, Mr. Hammett formed a 

 religious society in the South proper, and in the South exclusively, 

 with Mr. Wesley's sanction, and for the avowed purpose of being 

 more Wesleyan than what was called Mr. Asbury's Connection was 

 thought to be ; and what rule did he adopt on slavery ? Why, no 

 rule at all. My information is completely satisfactory to my own 

 mind on this point; and I say, on the authority of that correspond- 

 ence, and the testimony of my honored father, who lived till after I 

 was myself a minister, that when Mr. Hammett, with Mr. Wesley's 

 sanction, raised societies in South Carolina, neither did Mr. Ham- 

 mett enjoin on those societies any rule respecting slavery, neither 

 did Mr. Wesley direct or advise any such rule. And why not ? Can 

 any one be at a loss to account for it? The reason plainly was the 

 same which prevented Mr. Wesley, and after him the Wesleyan 

 English Conference, from ever enjoining any rule respecting slavery 

 for the missions in the West Indies, except that the missionaries 

 should wholly refrain from intermeddling with the subject. The 

 reason is found in the loyalty of Methodism and religion ; a princi- 

 ple which no man knew better how to appreciate than Mr. Wesley. 

 He knew not how to make rules against the law of the land ; and 

 no example can be adduced in the history of British Methodism of 

 disciplinary rules, on the subject of slavery, for any country, in ad- 

 vance of the civil law. This is the ground on which the South now 

 stands; and will the North take opposite ground? If they do, they 

 may neither plead the authority of Mr. Wesley, the British Connec- 

 tion, or Mr. Asbury for it. For myself, I must utterly abjure all 

 right or pretension on the part of the Church to interfere with the 

 State. Neither can I put myself, neither can I suffer myself to be 

 put, in contact with the law of the land. 



I w r as glad to hear my brother say for the North that they have 

 no intention to contravene the laws in our Southern States. I thank 

 him for saying so, and I adjure them not to attempt to do that 

 thing. I was glad to hear him say also that in the case of the ap- 

 peal of Harding there was not a brother who voted to sustain the, 

 action of the Baltimore Conference who did not do so under a full 

 persuasion that he could have emancipated the slaves lawfully if 

 he would. (Though I confess I cannot but fear that popular opin- 

 ion was too much honored in that matter.) But this question of 

 North and South, as it presents itself in the case before us, appears 

 to m* to involve the Church in a peculiar way. In a case like that 



