There is no country in the world where the religious in-
fluence has a greater ascendancy than in America. There is no
country where the clergy are more powerful. This is the more
remarkable, because in America religion is entirely divorced
from the State, and the clergy have none of those artificial
means for supporting their influence which result from rank and
wealth. Taken as a body of men, the American clergy are
generally poor. The salaries given to them afford only a bare
support, and yield them no means of acquiring property. Their
style of living can be barely decent and respectable, and no
more. The fact that, under these circumstances, the American
clergy are probably the most powerful body of men in the
country, is of itself a strong presumptive argument in their
favour. It certainly argues in them, as a class, both intellectual
and moral superiority.

   It is a well-known fact that the influence of the clergy is
looked upon by our statesmen as a most serious element in
making up their political combinations; and that that influence
is so great, that no statesman would ever undertake to carry a
measure against which all the clergy of the country should unite.
Such a degree of power, though it be only a power of opinion,
argument, and example, is not without its dangers to the purity
of any body of men. To be courted by political partisans is
always a dangerous thing for the integrity and spirituality of
men who profess to be governed by principles which are not of
this world. The possession, too, of so great a power as we

   We have spoken, thus far, of the clergy alone; but in Ame-
rica, where the clergyman is, in most denominations, elected by
the church, and supported by its voluntary contributions, the
influence of the church and that of the clergy are, to a very great
extent, identical. The clergyman is the very ideal and expression
of the church. They choose him, and retain him, because he
expresses more perfectly than any other man they can obtain
their ideas of truth and right. The clergyman is supported, in
all cases, by his church, or else he cannot retain his position in
it. The fact of his remaining there is generally proof of identity
of opinion, since, if he differed very materially from them, they
have the power to withdraw from him, and choose another.

   The influence of a clergyman, thus retained by the free consent
of the understanding and heart of his church, is in some respects
greater even than that of a papal priest. The priest can control
only by a blind spiritual authority, to which, very often, the
reason demurs, while it yields an outward assent; but the suc-
cessful free minister takes captive the affections of the heart by
his affections, overrules the reasoning powers by superior strength
of reason, and thus, availing himself of affection, reason, con-
science, and the entire man, possesses a power, from the very
freedom of the organisation, greater than can ever result from
blind spiritual despotism. If a minister cannot succeed in doing
this to some good extent in a church, he is called unsuccessful;
and he who realises this description most perfectly has the
highest and most perfect kind of power, and expresses the idea
of a successful American minister.

   In speaking, therefore, of this subject, we shall speak of the
church and the clergy as identical, using the word church in the
American sense of the word, for that class of men, of all de-
nominations, who are organised in bodies distinct from nominal
Christians, as professing to be actually controlled by the precepts
of Christ.

   What, then, is the influence of the church on this great ques-
tion of slavery?

   Certain things are evident on the very face of the matter.

   With regard to these assertions it is presumed there can be
no difference of opinion.

   What, then, have they done?

   In reply to this, it can be stated --

   It will be well now to consider more definitely and minutely
the sentiments which some leading ecclesiastical bodies in the
church have expressed on this subject.

   It is fair that the writer should state the sources from which
the quotations are drawn. Those relating to the action of
Southern judicatories are principally from a pamphlet compiled
by the Hon. James G. Birney, and entitled "The Church the
Bulwark of Slavery." The writer addressed a letter to Mr.
Birney, in which she inquired the sources from which he com-
piled. His reply was, in substance, as follows: -- That the
pamphlet was compiled from original documents, or files of
newspapers, which had recorded these transactions at the time
of their occurrence. It was compiled and published in England,
in 1842, with a view of leading the people there to understand
the position of the American church and clergy. Mr. Birney
says that, although the statements have long been before the
world, he has never known one of them to be disputed; that,
knowing the extraordinary nature of the sentiments, he took the
utmost pains to authenticate them.

   We will first present those of the Southern States.

   1. The Presbyterian Church.

   
HARMONY PRESBYTERY OF SOUTH CAROLINA.

   Whereas, sundry persons in Scotland and England, and others in the north, east,
and west of our country, have denounced slavery as obnoxious to the laws of God,
some of whom have presented before the General Assembly of our church, and the
Congress of the nation, memorials and petitions, with the avowed object of bring-
ing into disgrace slaveholders, and abolishing the relation of master and slave:
And whereas, from the said proceedings, and the statements, reasonings, and cir-
cumstances connected therewith, it is most manifest that those persons "know not
what they say, nor whereof they affirm;" and with this ignorance discover a spirit
of self-righteousness and exclusive sanctity, &c., therefore --

   1. Resolved, That as the kingdom of our Lord is not of this world, His
church, as such, has no right to abolish, alter, or affect any institution or ordi-
nance of men, political or civil, &c.

   2. Resolved, That slavery has existed from the days of those good old slave-
holders and patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who are now in the kingdom
of heaven), to the time when the apostle Paul sent a runaway home to his master
Philemon, and wrote a Christian and fraternal letter to this slaveholder, which we
find still stands in the canon of the Scriptures: and that slavery has existed ever
since the days of the apostle, and does now exist.

   3. Resolved, That as the relative duties of master and slave are taught in the
Scriptures, in the same manner as those of parent and child, and husband and wife,
the existence of slavery itself is not opposed to the will of God; and whosoever
has a conscience too tender to recognise this relation as lawful is "righteous over
much," is "wise above what is written," and has submitted his neck to the yoke of
men, sacrificed his Christian liberty of conscience, and leaves the infallible word of
God for the fancies and doctrines of men.

   
THE CHARLESTON UNION PRESBYTERY.

   It is a principle which meets the views of this body, that slavery, as it exists
among us, is a political institution, with which ecclesiastical judicatories have not
the smallest right to interfere; and in relation to which, any such interference,
especially at the present momentous crisis, would be morally wrong and fraught
with the most dangerous and pernicious consequences. The sentiments which we
maintain, in common with Christians at the South of every denomination, are sen-
timents which so fully approve themselves to our consciences, are so identified with
our solemn convictions of duty, that we should maintain them under any circum-
stances.

   Resolved, that in the opinion of this Presbytery, the holding of slaves, so far
from being a sin in the sight of God, is nowhere condemned in his holy word;
that it is in accordance with the example, or consistent with the precepts of
patriarchs, apostles, and prophets, and that it is compatible with the most frater-
nal regard to the best good of those servants whom God may have committed to
our charge.

   The New School Presbyterian Church in Petersburgh, Virginia,
November, 16, 1838, passed the following:

   Whereas, the General Assembly did, in the year 1818, pass a law which contains
provisions for slaves irreconcilcable with our civil institutions, and solemnly

---

-385-




Collation: 2 C
declaring slavery to be sin against God -- a law at once offensive and insulting to
the whole Southern community.

   1. Resolved, that, as slaveholders, we cannot consent longer to remain in con-
nexion with any church where there exists a statute conferring the right upon
slaves to arraign their masters before the judicatory of the church, and that, too,
for the act of selling them without their consent first had and obtained.

   2. Resolved, that as the Great Head of the Church has recognised the relation
of master and slave, we conscientiously believe that slavery is not a sin against
God, as declared by the General Assembly.

   This sufficiently indicates the opinion of the Southern Presby-
terian Church. The next extracts will refer to the opinions of
Baptist Churches. In 1835, the Charleston Baptist Association
addressed a memorial to the Legislature of South Carolina, which
contains the following:

   The undersigned would further represent that the said Association does not
consider that the Holy Scriptures have made the fact of slavery a question of
morals at all. The Divine Author of our holy religion, in particular, found
slavery a part of the existing institutions of society, with which, if not sinful, it
was not his design to intermeddle, but to leave them entirely to the control of men.
Adopting this, therefore, as one of the allowed arrangements of society, he made
it the province of his religion only to prescribe the reciprocal duties of the rela-
tion. The question, it is believed, is purely one of political economy. It amounts
in effect to this, "Whether the operatives of a country shall be bought and sold,
and themselves become property, as in this State; or whether they shall be hire-
lings, and their labour only become property, as in some other States. In other
words, whether an employer may buy the whole time of labourers at once, of
those who have a right to dispose of it, with a permanent relation of protection
and care over them, or whether he shall be restricted to buy it in certain portions
only, subject to their control, and with no such permanent relation of care and
protection. The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been
distinctly recognised by the Creator of all things, who is surely at liberty to vest
the right of property over any object in whomsoever he pleases. That the lawful
possessor should retain this right at will, is no more against the laws of society
and good morals, than that he should retain the personal endowments with which
his Creator has blessed him, or the money and lands inherited from his ancestors,
or acquired by his industry; and neither society nor individuals have any more
authority to demand a relinquishment, without an equivalent, in the one case,
than in the other.

   As it is a question purely of political economy, and one which in this country is
reserved to the cognisance of the State governments severally, it is further believed
that the State of South Carolina alone has the right to regulate the existence and
condition of slavery within her territorial limits; and we should resist to the
utmost every invasion of this right, come from what quarter and under whatever
pretence it may.

   The Methodist Church is, in some respects, peculiarly situated
upon this subject, because its constitution and book of discipline

   It seemed to be necessary, therefore, for the Southern Confe-
rence to take some notice of this fact, which they did, with
great coolness and distinctness, as follows:

   
THE GEORGIA ANNUAL CONFERENCE.

   Resolved unanimously, that whereas there is a clause in the discipline of our
church which states that we are as much as ever convinced of the great evil of
slavery; and whereas, the said clause has been perverted by some, and used in such
a manner as to produce the impression that the Methodist Episcopal Church
believed slavery to be a moral evil --

   Therefore Resolved, that it is the sense of the Georgia Annual Conference that
slavery, as it exists in the United States, is not a moral evil.

   Resolved, that we view slavery as a civil and domestic institution, and one with
which, as ministers of Christ, we have nothing to do, further than to ameliorate the
condition of the slave, by endeavouring to impart to him and his master the benign
influences of the religion of Christ, and aiding both on their way to heaven.

   On motion it was resolved unanimously, that the Georgia Annual Conference
regard with feelings of profound respect and approbation the dignified course pur-
sued by our several superintendents, or bishops, in suppressing the attempts that
have been made by various individuals to get up and protract an excitement in the
churches and country on the subject of abolitionism.

   Resolved, further, that they shall have our cordial and zealous support in
sustaining them in the ground they have taken.

SOUTH CAROLINA CONFERENCE.

   The Rev. W. Martin introduced resolutions similar to those
of the Georgia Conference.

   The Rev. W. Capers, D.D., after expressing his conviction
that "the sentiment of the resolutions was universally held, not
only by the ministers of that conference, but of the whole
South;" and after stating that the only true doctrine was, "it
belongs to Cæsar, and not to the church," offered the following
as a substitute:

   Whereas, we hold that the subject of slavery in these United States is not one
proper for the action of the church, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil
authorities.

   Therefore Resolved, That this conference will not intermeddle with it, further
than to express our regret that it has ever been introduced, in any form, into any
one of the judicatures of the church.

   Brother Martin accepted the substitute.

   Brother Betts asked whether the substitute was intended as implying that
slavery, as it exists among us, was not a moral evil. He understood it as equivalent
[unclear: ]

---

-387-

   

   Brother Capers explained that his intention was to convey that sentiment fully
and unequivocally; and that he had chosen the form of the substitute for the purpose
not only of reproving some wrong-doings at the North, but with reference also to
the General Conference. If slavery were a moral evil (that is, sinful), the church
would be bound to take coguisance of it; but our affirmation is, that it is not a
matter for her jurisdiction, but is exclusively appropriate to the civil government,
and of course not sinful.

   The substitute was then unanimously adopted.

   In 1836, an Episcopal clergyman in North Carolina, of the
name of Freeman, preached in the presence of his bishop (Rev.
Levi S. Ives, D.D., a native of a free State), two sermons on the
rights and duties of slaveholders. In these he essayed to
justify from the Bible the slavery both of white men and negroes,
and insisted that "without a new revelation from heaven, no man
was authorised to pronounce slavery wrong." The sermons
were printed in a pamphlet, prefaced with a letter to Mr. Free-
man from the Bishop of North Carolina, declaring that he had
"listened with most unfeigned pleasure" to his discourses, and
advised their publication as being "urgently called for at the
present time."

   "The Protestant Episcopal Society for the advancement of
Christianity (!) in South Carolina" thought it expedient to re-
publish Mr. Freeman's pamphlet as a religious tract!*

   Afterwards, when the addition of the new State of Texas
made it important to organise the Episcopal Church there, this
Mr. Freeman was made Bishop of Texas.

   The question may now arise -- it must arise to every intelligent
thinker in Christendom -- Can it be possible that American
slavery, as defined by its laws and the decisions of its Courts,
including all the horrible abuses that the laws recognise and
sanction, is considered to be a right and proper institution?
Do these Christians merely recognise the relation of slavery in
the abstract, as one that, under proper legislation, might be
made a good one, or do they justify it as it actually exists in
America?

   It is a fact that there is a large party at the South who justify
not only slavery in the abstract, but slavery just as it exists in
America, in whole and in part, and even its worst abuses.

   There are four legalised parts or results of the system, which
are of especial atrocity.

   They are,

   We shall bring evidence to show that every one of these
practices has been either defended on principle, or recognised
without condemnation, by decisions of judicatories of churches,
or by writings of influential clergymen, without any expression
of dissent being made to their opinions by the bodies to which
they belong.

   In the first place, the exclusion of coloured testimony in the
church. In 1840, the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church passed the following resolution: -- "That it
is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher
to permit coloured persons to give testimony against
white persons in any State where they are denied
that privilege by law."

   This was before the Methodist Church had separated on the
question of slavery, as they subsequently did, into Northern and
Southern Conferences. Both Northern and Southern members
voted for this resolution.

   After this was passed, the conscience of many Northern minis-
ters was aroused, and they called for a reconsideration. The
Southern members imperiously demanded that it should remain
as a compromise and test of union. The spirit of the discussion
may be inferred from one extract.

   Mr. Peck, of New York, who moved the reconsideration of the
resolution, thus expressed himself: --

   That resolution (said he) was introduced under peculiar circumstances, during
considerable excitement, and he went for it as a peace-offering to the South, with-
out sufficiently reflecting upon the precise import of its phraseology; but, after a
little deliberation, he was sorry; and he had been sorry but once, and that was all
the time; he was convinced that, if that resolution remain upon the journal, it
would be disastrous to the whole Northern church.

   Rev. Dr. A. J. Few, of Georgia, the mover of the original
resolution, then rose. The following are extracts from his
speech. The italics are my own: --

   Look at it! What do you declare to us, in taking this course? Why, simply, as
much as to say, "We cannot sustain you in the condition which you cannot
avoid!" We cannot sustain you in the necessary conditions of slaveholding;
one of its necessary conditions being the rejection of negro testimony! If it is
not sinful to hold slaves, under all circumstances, it is not sinful to hold them in
the only condition, and under the only circumstances, which they can be held. The
rejection of negro testimony is one of the necessary circumstances under which
slaveholding can exist -- indeed, it is utterly impossible for it to exist without it;

---

-389-


therefore it is not sinful to hold slaves in the condition and under the circum-
stances which they are held at the South, inasmuch as they can be held under no
other circumstances.* * * If you believe that slaveholding is necessarily sinful,
come out with the abolitionists, and honestly say so. If you believe that slave-
holding is necessarily sinful, you believe we are necessarily sinners; and, if so,
come out and honestly declare it, and let us leave you. * * * We want to
know distinctly, precisely and honestly, the position which you take. We cannot
be tampered with by you any longer. We have had enough of it. We are
tired of your sickly sympathies. * * * If you are not opposed to the prin-
ciples which it involves, unite with us, like honest men, and go home, and boldly
meet the consequences. We say again, you are responsible for this state of things;
for it is you who have driven us to the alarming point where we find ourselves.
* * * You have made that resolution absolutely necessary to the quiet of the
South! But you now revoke that resolution! And you pass the Rubicon!
Let me not be misunderstood. I say, you pass the Rubicon! If you revoke,
you revoke the principle which that resolution involves, and you array the
whole South against you, and we must separate! * * * If you accord
to the principles which it involves, arising from the necessity of the case,
stick by it, "though the heavens perish!" But if you persist on reconsideration,
I ask in what light will your course be regarded in the South? What will be the
conclusion, there, in reference to it? Why, that you cannot sustain us as long as
we hold slaves! It will declare, in the face of the sun, "We cannot sustain you,
gentlemen, while you retain your slaves!" Your opposition to the resolution is
based upon your opposition to slavery; you cannot, therefore, maintain your con-
sistency unless you come out with the abolitionists, and condemn us at once and
for ever, or else refuse to reconsider.

   The resolution was, therefore, left in force, with another reso-
lution appended to it, expressing the undiminished regard of the
General Conference for the coloured population.

   It is quite evident that it was undiminished, for the best
of reasons. That the coloured population were not properly
impressed with this last act of condescension, appears from the
fact that "the official members of the Sharp-street and Ashby
Coloured Methodist Church in Baltimore" protested and
petitioned against the motion. The following is a passage from
their address: --

   The adoption of such a resolution, by our highest ecclesiastical judicatory -- a judi-
catory composed of the most experienced and wisest brethren in the church, the
choice selection of twenty-eight Annual Conferences -- has inflicted, we fear, an
irreparable injury upon 80,000 souls for whom Christ died -- souls, who, by this
act of your body, have been stripped of the dignity of Christians, degraded in the
scale of humanity, and treated as criminals, for no other reason than the colour of
their skin! Your resolution has, in our humble opinion, virtually declared that a
mere physical peculiarity, the handiwork of our all-wise and benevolent Creator, is
primá facie evidence of incompetency to tell the truth, or is an unerring indication
of unworthiness to bear testimony against a fellow-being whose skin is denominated
white: * * * Brethren, out of the abundance of the heart we have spoken. Our

---

-390-


grievance is before you! If you have any regard for the salvation of the 80,000
immortal souls committed to your care; if you would not thrust beyond the pale
of the church twenty-five hundred souls in this city, who have felt determined
never to leave the church that has nourished and brought them up; if you regard
us as children of one common Father, and can, upon reflection, sympathise with us
as members of the body of Christ -- if you would not incur the fearful, the tremen-
dous responsibility of offending not only one, but many thousands of his "little
ones," we conjure you to wipe from your journal the odious resolution which is
ruining our people.

   "A Coloured Baltimorean," writing to the editor of Zion's
Watchman, says: --

   The address was presented to one of the secretaries, a delegate of the Baltimore
Conference, and subsequently given by him to the bishops. How many of the
members of the Conference saw it, I know not. One thing is certain, it was not
read to the Conference.

   With regard to the second head -- of defending the laws which
prevent the slave from being taught to read and write -- we have
the following instance: --

   In the year 1835, the Chillicothe Presbytery, Ohio, addressed
a Christian remonstrance to the presbytery of Mississippi on the
subject of slavery, in which they specifically enumerated the
respects in which they considered it to be unchristian. The
eighth resolution was as follows: --

   That any member of our church, who shall advocate or speak in favour of such
laws as have been or may yet be enacted, for the purpose of keeping the slaves in
ignorance, and preventing them from learning to read the Word of God, is guilty
of a great sin, and ought to be dealt with as for other scandalous crimes.

   This remonstrance was answered by Rev. James Smylie, stated
clerk of the Mississippi Presbytery, and afterwards of the Amity
Presbytery of Louisiana, in a pamphlet of eighty-seven pages, in
which he defended slavery generally and particularly, in the
same manner in which all other abuses have always been de-
fended -- by the word of God. The tenth section of this
pamphlet is devoted to the defence of this law. He devotes
seven pages of fine print to this object. He says (p. 63): --

   There are laws existing in both States, Mississippi and Louisiana, accompanied
with heavy penal sanctions, prohibiting the teaching of the slaves to read, and
meeting the approbation of the religious part of the reflecting community.

* * * * *

   He adds, still further:

   The laws preventing the slaves from learning to read are a fruitful source of
much ignorance and immorality among the slaves. The printing, publishing, and
circulating of abolition and emancipatory principles in those States, was the cause

   He then goes on to say that the ignorance and vice which are
the consequence of those laws do not properly belong to those
who made the laws, but to those whose emancipating doctrines
rendered them necessary. Speaking of these consequences of
ignorance and vice, he says: --

   Upon whom must they be saddled? If you will allow me to answer the
question, I will answer by saying, Upon such great and good men as John Wesley,
Jonathan Edwards, Bishop Porteus, Paley, Horsley, Scott, Clark, Wilberforce,
Sharpe, Clarkson, Fox, Johnson, Burke, and other great and good men, who, with-
out examining the Word of God, have concluded that it is a true maxim that
slavery is in itself sinful.

   He then illustrates the necessity of these laws by the following
simile. He supposes that the doctrine had been promulgated
that the authority of parents was an unjust usurpation, and that
it was getting a general hold of society; that societies were
being formed for the emancipation of children from the control
of their parents; that all books were beginning to be pervaded
by this sentiment; and that, under all these influences, children
were becoming restless and fractious. He supposes that,
under these circumstances, parents meet and refer the subject to
legislators. He thus describes the dilemma of the legislators: --

   These meet, and they take the subject seriously and solemnly into consideration.
On the one hand, they perceive that, if their children had access to these doctrines,
they were ruined for ever. To let them have access to them was unavoidable, if they
taught them to read. To prevent their being taught to read was cruel, and would
prevent them from obtaining as much knowledge of the laws of Heaven as otherwise
they might enjoy. In this sad dilemma, sitting and consulting in a legislative capa-
city, they must, of two evils, choose the least. With indignant feelings towards
those who, under the influence of "seducing spirits," had sent, and were sending
among them, "doctrines of devils," but with aching hearts towards their children,
they resolved that their children should not be taught to read, until the storm
should be overblown; hoping that Satan's being let loose will be but for a little
season. And during this season they will have to teach them orally, and thereby
guard against their being contaminated by these wicked doctrines.

   So much for that law.

   Now, as for the internal slave-trade. The very essence of
that trade is the buying and selling of human beings for the
mere purposes of gain.

   A master who has slaves transmitted to him, or a master who
buys slaves with the purpose of retaining them on his plantation
or in his family, can be supposed to have some object in it
besides the mere purpose of gain. He may be supposed, in
certain cases, to have some regard to the happiness or well-being

   Concerning this abuse the Chillicothe Presbytery, in the
document to which we have alluded, passed the following
resolution: --

   Resolved, That the buying, selling, or holding of a slave, for the sake of gain, is a
heinous sin and scandal, requiring the cognisance of the judicatories of the church.

   In the reply from which we have already quoted, Mr. Smylie
says (p. 13): --

   If the buying, selling, and holding of a slave for the sake of gain, is, as you say, a
heinous sin and scandal, then verily three-fourths of all Episcopalians, Methodists,
Baptists, and Presbyterians, in the eleven States of the Union, are of the devil.

* * * * * * * *

   Again: --

   To question whether slaveholders or slave-buyers are of the devil, seems to me
like calling in question whether God is or is not a true witness; that is, provided it
is God's testimony, and not merely the testimony of the Chillicothe Presbytery, that
it is a "heinous sin and scandal" to buy, sell, and hold slaves.

   Again (p. 21): --

   If language can convey a clear and definite meaning at all, I know not how it
can more plainly or unequivocally present to the mind any thought or idea, than
the twenty-fifth chapter of Leviticus clearly and unequivocally establishes the fact
that slavery was sanctioned by God himself, and that buying, selling, holding, and
bequeathing slaves, as property, are regulations which are established by himself.

* * * * * *

   What language can more explicitly show, not that God winked at slavery merely,
but that, to say the least, he gave a written permit to the Hebrews, then the best
people in the world, to buy, hold, and bequeath, men and women, to perpetual ser-
vitude? What, now, becomes of the position of the Chillicothe Presbytery?
* * * Is it, indeed, a fact that God once gave a written permission to his
own dear people ["ye shall buy"] to do that which is in itself sinful? Nay, to do
that which the Chillicothe Presbytery says "is a heinous sin and scandal?"

* * * * * *

   God resolves that his own children may, or rather "shall," "buy, possess, and
hold," bond-men and bond-women, in bondage, for ever. But the Chillicothe
Presbytery resolves that "buying, selling, or holding slaves, for the sake of gain,
is a heinous sin and scandal."

   We do not mean to say that Mr. Smylie had the internal
slave-trade directly in his mind in writing these sentences; but
we do say that no slave-trader would ask for a more explict
justification of his trade than this.

   Lastly, in regard to that dissolution of the marriage relation,
which is the necessary consequence of this kind of trade, the

   The Savannah River (Baptist) Association, in 1835, in reply
to the question --

   Whether, in a case of involuntary separation of such a character as to pre-
clude all prospect of future intercourse, the parties ought to be allowed to
marry again?

   That such a separation, among persons situated as our slaves are, is civilly a
separation by death, and they believe that, in the sight of God, it would be so
viewed. To forbid second marriages, in such cases, would be to expose the
parties, not only to stronger hardships and strong temptation, but to church cen-
sure, for acting in obedience to their masters, who cannot be expected to ac-
quiesce in a regulation at variance with justice to the slaves, and to the spirit of
that command which regulates marriage among Christians. The slaves are not
free agents, and a dissolution by death is not more entirely without their consent,
and beyond their control, than by such separation.

   At the Shiloh Baptist Association, which met at Gourdvine,
a few years since, the following query, says the "Religious
Herald," was presented from Hedgman church, viz.:

   Is a servant, whose husband or wife has been sold by his or her master, into
a distant country, to be permitted to marry again?

   The query was referred to a committee, who made the fol-
lowing report; which, after discussion, was adopted:

   That, in view of the circumstances in which servants in this country are placed,
the committee are unanimous in the opinion that it is better to permit servants
thns circumstanced to take another husband or wife.

   The Reverend Charles C. Jones, who was an earnest and
indefatigable labourer for the good of the slave, and one who, it
would be supposed, would be likely to feel strongly on this
subject, if any one would, simply remarks, in estimating the
moral condition of the negroes, that, as husband and wife are
subject to all the vicissitudes of property, and may be separated
by division of estate, debts, sales, or removals, &c., &c., the
marriage relation naturally loses much of its sacredness; and
says:

   It is a contract of convenience, profit or pleasure, that may be entered into and
dissolved at the will of the parties, and that without heinous sin, or injury to the
property interests of any one.

   In this sentence he is expressing, as we suppose, the common

   It is to be remarked, with regard to the sentiments of Mr.
Smylie's pamphlet, that they are endorsed in the Appendix by a
document in the name of two Presbyteries, which document,
though with less minuteness of investigation, takes the same
ground with Mr. Smylie. This Rev. James Smylie was one
who, in company with the Rev. John L. Montgomery, was
appointed by the synod of Mississippi, in 1839, to write or com-
pile a catechism for the instruction of the negroes.

   Mr. Jones says, in his "History of the Religious Instruction
of the Negroes" (page 83): "The Rev. James Smylie and the
Rev. C. Blair are engaged in this good work (of enlightening the
negroes) systematically and constantly in Mississippi." The
former clergyman is characterised as "an aged and indefatigable
father." "His success in enlightening the negroes has been
very great. A large proportion of the negroes in his old church
can recite both Williston's and the Westminster Catechism very
accurately." The writer really wishes that it were in her power
to make copious extracts from Mr. Smylie's pamphlet. A great
deal could be learned from it as to what style of mind, and habits
of thought, and modes of viewing religious subjects, are likely to
grow up under such an institution. The man is undoubtedly
and heartily sincere in his opinions, and appears to maintain
them with a most abounding and triumphant joyfulness, as the
very latest improvement in theological knowledge. We are
tempted to present a part of his Introduction, simply for the
light it gives us on the style of thinking which is to be found in
our south-western writers:

   In presenting the following review to the public, the author was not entirely or
mainly influenced by a desire or hope to correct the views of the Chillicothe Pres-
bytery. He hoped the publication would be of essential service to others as well
as to the presbytery.

   From his intercourse with religious societies of all denominations, in Missis-
sippi and Louisiana, he was aware that the abolition maxim, namely, that slavery
is in itself sinful, had gained on and entwined itself among the religious and [unclear: ]
[unclear: ] of many in the community, so far as not only to render them

---

-395-


unhappy, but to draw off the attention from the great and important duty of a
householder to his household. The eye of the mind, resting on slavery itself as a
corrupt fountain, from which, of necessity, nothing but corrupt streams could flow,
was incessantly employed in search of some plan by which, with safety, the foun-
tain could, in some future time, be entirely dried up; never reflecting, or dreaming,
that slavery, in itself considered, was an innoxious relation, and that the whole
error rested in the neglect of the relative duties of the relation.

   If there be a consciousness of guilt resting on the mind, it is all the same, as to
the effect, whether the conscience is or is not right. Although the word of God
alone ought to be the guide of conscience, yet it is not always the case. Hence,
conscientious scruples sometimes exist for neglecting to do that which the word
of God condemns.

   The Bornean who neglects to kill his father, and to eat him with his dates,
when he has become old, is sorely tortured by the wringings of a guilty conscience,
when his filial tenderness and sympathy have gained the ascendancy over his
apprehended duty of killing his parent. In like manner, many a slaveholder, whose
conscience is guided, not by the word of God, but by the doctrines of men, is
often suffering the lashes of a guilty conscience, even when he renders to his slave
"that which is just and equal," according to the Scriptures, simply because he
does not emancipate his slave, irrespective of the benefit or injury done by such
an act.

   "How beautiful upon the mountains," in the apprehension of the reviewer,
"would be the feet of him that would bring" to the Bornean "the glad
tidings" that his conduct, in sparing the life of his tender and affectionate
parent, was no sin! * * * Equally beautiful and delightful, does the re-
viewer trust, will it be, to an honest, scrupulous, and conscientious slaveholder,
to learn, from the word of God, the glad tidings, that slavery itself is not sinful.
Released now from an incubus that paralysed his energies in discharge of duty
towards his slaves, he goes forth cheerfully to energetic action. It is not now as
formerly, when he viewed slavery as in itself sinful. He can now pray, with the
hope of being heard, that God will bless his exertions to train up his slaves "in
the nurture and admonition of the Lord;" whereas, before, he was retarded by
this consideration -- "If I regard iniquity in my heart, the Lord will not hear
me." Instead of hanging down his head, moping and brooding over his condi-
tion as formerly, without action, he raises his head, and moves on cheerfully in
the plain path of duty.

   He is no more tempted to look askance at the word of God, and saying, "Hast
thou found me, O mine enemy," come to "filch from me" my slaves, which,
"while not enriching" them, "leaves me poor indeed?" Instead of viewing the
word of God, as formerly, come with whips and scorpions to chastise him into
paradise, he feels that its "ways are ways of pleasantness, and its paths peace."
Distinguishing now between the real word of God and what are only the doc-
trines and commandments of men, the mystery is solved, which was before
insolvable, namely, "The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart."

   If you should undertake to answer such a man by saying
that his argument proves too much, that neither Christ nor his
apostles bore any explicit testimony against the gladiatorial
shows and the sports of the arena, and therefore it would be

   Some uncharitable people might, perhaps, say that the
preachers of such doctrines are as likely as anybody to have
an experimental knowledge on this point. The idea of this
jovial old father instructing a class of black "Sams" and young
"Topsys" in the mysteries of the Assembly's Catechism is
truly picturesque!

   That Mr. Smylie's opinions on the subject of slavery have
been amply supported and carried out by leading clergymen in
every denomination, we might give volumes of quotations to
show.

   A second head, however, is yet to be considered, with regard
to the influence of the Southern church and clergy.

   It is well known that the Southern political community have
taken their stand upon the position that the institution of
slavery shall not be open to discussion. In many of the slave
States stringent laws exist, subjecting to fine and imprisonment,
and even death, any who speak or publish anything upon the
subject, except in its favour. They have not only done this
with regard to citizens of slave States, but they have shown
the strongest disposition to do it with regard to citizens of free
States; and when these discussions could not be repelled by
regular law, they have encouraged the use of illegal measures.
In the published letters and speeches of Horace Mann, the
following examples are given (p. 467). In 1831 the Legisla-
ture of Georgia offered five thousand dollars to any one who
would arrest and bring to trial and conviction, in Georgia, a
citizen of Massachusetts, named William Lloyd Garrison.
This law was approved by W. Lumpkin, Governor, Dec. 26,
1831. At a meeting of slave-holders held at Sterling, in the
same State, September 4, 1835, it was formally recommended
to the governor to offer, by proclamation, five thousand dollars
reward for the apprehension of any one of ten persons, citizens,
with one exception, of New York and Massachusetts, whose
[unclear: ]

   Resolved, That slavery through the South and West is not felt as an evil
moral or political, but it is recognised in reference to the actual, and not to any
Utopian condition of our slaves, as a blessing both to master and slave.

   Resolved, That it is our decided opinion that any individual who dares to circu-
late, with a view to effectuate the designs of the abolitionists, any of the incendiary
tracts or newspapers now in a course of transmission to this country, is justly
worthy, in the sight of God and man, of immediate death; and we doubt not that
such would be the punishment of any such offender in any part of the State of
Mississippi where he may be found.

   Resolved, That the clergy of the State of Mississippi be hereby recommended at
once to take a stand upon this subject; and that their further silence in relation
thereto, at this crisis, will, in our opinion, be subject to serious censure.

   The treatment to which persons were exposed, when taken up
by any of these Vigilance Committees, as suspected of anti-
slavery sentiments, may be gathered from the following account.

   Amos Dresser, now a missionary in Jamaica, was a theological student at Lane
Seminary, near Cincinnati. In the vacation (August 1835) he undertook to sell
Bibles in the State of Tennessee, with a view to raise means further to continue
his studies. Whilst there, he fell under suspicion of being an abolitionist, was
arrested by the Vigilance Committee whilst attending a religious meeting in the
neighbourhood of Nashville, the capital of the State, and, after an afternoon and
evening's inquisition, condemned to receive twenty lashes on his naked body.
The sentence was executed on him between eleven and twelve o'clock on Saturday
night, in the presence of most of the committee, and of an infuriated and blaspheming
mob. The Vigilance Committee (an unlawful association) consisted of sixty
persons. Of these, twenty-seven were members of churches; one, a religious
teacher; another, the elder who, but a few days before, in the Presbyterian
church, handed Mr. Dresser the bread and wine at the communion of the Lord's
Supper.

   It will readily be seen that the principle involved in such pro-
ceedings as these involves more than the question of slavery.
The question was, in fact, this -- Whether it is so important to
hold African slaves that it is proper to deprive free Americans
of the liberty of conscience, and liberty of speech, and liberty of
the press, in order to do it? It is easy to see that very serious
changes would be made in the government of a country by the
admission of this principle; because it is quite plain that, if all
these principles of our free government may be given up for one
thing, they may for another; and that its ultimate tendency is
to destroy entirely that freedom of opinion and thought which
is considered to be the distinguishing excellence of American
institutions.

   The question now is, Did the church join with the world in
thinking the institution of slavery so important and desirable as
to lead them to look with approbation upon Lynch law and the
sacrifice of the rights of free inquiry? We answer the reader by
submitting the following facts and quotations.

   At the large meeting which we have described above, in
Charleston, South Carolina, the Charleston Courier informs us
"that the clergy of all denominations attended in a body, lend-
ing their sanction to the proceedings, and adding by their
presence to the impressive character of the scene." There can
be no doubt that the presence of the clergy of all denominations,
in a body, at a meeting held for such a purpose, was an impressive
scene, truly!

   At this meeting it was resolved --

   That the thanks of this meeting are due to the reverend gentlemen of the clergy
in this city, who have so promptly and so effectually responded to public sentiment,
by suspending their schools in which the free coloured population were taught; and
that this meeting deem it a patriotic action, worthy of all praise, and proper to be
imitated by other teachers of similar schools throughout the State.

   The question here arises, whether their Lord, at the day of
judgment, will comment on their actions in a similar strain.

   The alarm of the Virginia slave-holders was not less; nor
were the clergy in the city of Richmond, the capital, less prompt
than the clergy in Charleston to respond to "public sentiment."
Accordingly on the 29th of July, they assembled together and
resolved, unanimously --

   That we earnestly deprecate the unwarrantable and highly improper inter-
ference of the people of any other State with the domestic relations of master
and slave.

   That the example of our Lord Jesus Christ and his apostles, in not interfering
with the question of slavery, but uniformly recognising the relations of master and
servant, and giving full and affectionate instruction to both, is worthy of the
imitation of all ministers of the gospel.

   That we will not patronise nor receive any pamphlet or newspaper of the anti-
slavery societies, and that we will discountenance the circulation of all such papers
in the community.

   The Rev. J. C. Postell, a Methodist minister of South Carolina,
concludes a very violent letter to the Editor of "Zion's Watch-
man," a Methodist anti-slavery paper published in New York,
in the following manner. The reader will see that this taunt is
an allusion to the offer of fifty thousand dollars for his body at
the South, which we have given before:

   But, if you desire to educate the slaves, I will tell you how to raise the money
without editing "Zion's Watchman." You and old Arthur Tappan come out to
the South this winter, and they will raise one hundred thousand dollars for
you. New Orleans, itself, will be pledged for it. Desiring no further
acquaintance with you, and never expecting to see you but once in time or
eternity, that is at the judgment, I subscribe myself the friend of the Bible,
and the opposer of abolitionists.

   Orangeburgh, July 21, 1836. J. C. Postell.

   The Rev. Thomas S. Witherspoon, a member of the Presby-
terian Church, writing to the editor of the Emancipator, says:

   I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, to
hold the slave in bondage. The principle of holding the heathen in bondage is
recognised by God. * * * When the tardy process of the law is too long in
redressing our grievances, we of the South have adopted the summary remedy of

---

-400-


Judge Lynch; and really I think it one of the most wholesome and salutary
remedies for the malady of Northern fanaticism that can be applied, and no
doubt my worthy friend, the Editor of the Emancipator and Human Rights, would
feel the better of its enforcement, provided he had a Southern administrator. I
go to the Bible for my warrant in all moral matters. * * * Let your
emissaries dare venture to cross the Potomac, and I cannot promise you that their
fate will be less than Haman's. Then beware how you goad an insulted but
magnanimous people to deeds of desperation.

   The Rev. Robert N. Anderson, also a member of the Presby-
terian Church, says, in a letter to the Sessions of the Presby-
terian Congregations within the bounds of the West Hanover
Presbytery:

   At the approaching stated meeting of our Presbytery, I design to offer a
preamble and string of resolutions on the subject of the use of wine in the
Lord's Supper; and also a preamble and string of resolutions on the subject of
the treasonable and abominably-wicked interference of the Northern and
Eastern fanatics with our political and civil rights, our property and our
domestic concerns. You are aware that our clergy, whether with or without
reason, are more suspected by the public than the clergy of other denominations.
Now, dear Christian brethren, I humbly express it as my earnest wish, that
you quit yourselves like men. If there be any stray goat of a minister among
you, tainted with the blood-hound principles of abolitionism, let him be ferreted
out, silenced, excommunicated, and left to the public to dispose of him in other
respects.

Your affectionate brother in the Lord,
Robert N. Anderson.

   The Rev. William S. Plummer, D.D., of Richmond, a member
of the Old School Presbyterian Church, is another instance of
the same sort. He was absent from Richmond at the time the
clergy in that city purged themselves, in a body, from the charge
of being favourably disposed to abolition. On his return, he
lost no time in communicating to the "Chairman of the Com-
mittee of Correspondence" his agreement with his clerical
brethren. The passages quoted occur in his letter to the
chairman:

   I have carefully watched this matter from its earliest existence, and everything I
have seen or heard of its character, both from its patrons and its enemies, has con-
firmed me, beyond repentance, in the belief that, let the character of abolitionists
be what it may in the sight of the Judge of all the earth, this is the most meddle-
some, impudent, reckless, fierce, and wicked excitement I ever saw.

   If abolitionists will set the country in a blaze, it is but fair that they should
receive the first warning at the fire.

* * * * * *

   Lastly. Abolitionists are like infidels, wholly unaddicted to martyrdom for
opinion's sake. Let them understand that they will be caught [Lynched] if they

---

-401-




Collation: 2 D
come among us, and they will take good heed to keep out of our way. There is
not one man among them who has any more idea of shedding his blood in this
cause than he has of making war on the Grand Turk.

   The Rev. Dr. Hill, of Virginia, said, in the New School
Assembly:

   The abolitionists have made the servitude of the slave harder. If I could tell
you some of the dirty tricks which these abolitionists have played, you would not
wonder. Some of them have been Lynched, and it served them right.

   These things sufficiently show the estimate which the Southern
clergy and church have formed and expressed as to the relative
value of slavery and the right of free inquiry. It shows, also,
that they consider slavery as so important that they can tolerate
and encourage acts of lawless violence, and risk all the dangers
of encouraging mob-law, for its sake. These passages and con-
siderations sufficiently show the stand which the Southern church
takes upon this subject.

   For many of these opinions, shocking as they may appear,
some apology may be found in that blinding power of custom,
and all those deadly educational influences which always attend
the system of slavery, and which must necessarily produce a
certain obtuseness of the moral sense in the mind of any man
who is educated from childhood under them.

   There is also, in the habits of mind formed under a system
which is supported by continual resort to force and violence, a
necessary deadening of sensibility to the evils of force and
violence, as applied to other subjects. The whole style of
civilization which is formed under such an institution has been
not unaptly denominated by a popular writer "the bowie-knife
style;" and we must not be surprised at its producing a
peculiarly martial cast of religious character and ideas very
much at variance with the spirit of the gospel. A religious
man, born and educated at the South, has all these difficulties
to contend with in elevating himself to the true spirit of the
gospel.

   It was said by one that, after the Reformation, the best of
men being educated under a system of despotism and force, and
accustomed from childhood to have force, and not argument,
made the test of opinion, came to look upon all controversies
very much in a Smithfield light, the question being not as to
the propriety of burning heretics, but as to which party ought
to be burned.

   The system of slavery is a simple retrogression of society to
the worst abuses of the middle ages. We must not, therefore,

   However much we may reprobate and deplore those unworthy
views of God and religion which are implied in such declara-
tions as are here recorded -- however blasphemous and absurd
they may appear -- still, it is apparent that their authors uttered
them with sincerity; and this is the most melancholy feature of
the case. They are as sincere as Paul when he breathed out
threatenings and slaughter, and when he thought within himself
that he ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus.
They are as sincere as the Brahmin or Hindoo, conscientiously
supporting a religion of cruelty and blood. They are as sincere
as many enlightened, scholarlike, and Christian men in modern
Europe, who, born and bred under systems of civil and religious
despotism, and having them entwined with all their dearest
associations of home and country, and having all their habits of
thought and feeling biassed by them, do most conscientiously
defend them.

   There is something in conscientious conviction, even in case
of the worst kind of opinions, which is not without a certain
degree of respectability. That the religion expressed by the
declarations which we have quoted is as truly Antichrist as the
religion of the Church of Rome, it is presumed no sensible person
out of the sphere of American influences will deny. That there
may be very sincere Christians under this system of religion,
with all its false principles and all its disadvantageous influences,
liberality must concede. The Church of Rome has had its
Fenelon, its Thomas à Kempis; and the Southern Church,
which has adopted these principles, has had men who have risen
above the level of their system. At the time of the Reformation,
and now the Church of Rome had in its bosom thousands of
praying, devoted, humble, Christians, which, like flowers in the
clefts of rocks, could be counted by no eye save God's alone.
And so, amid the rifts and glaciers of this horrible spiritual and
temporal despotism, we hope are blooming flowers of Paradise,
patient, prayerful, and self-denying Christians; and it is the
deepest grief, in attacking the dreadful system under which they
have been born and brought up, that violence must be done to
their cherished feelings and associations. In another and better
world, perhaps they may appreciate the motives of those who do
this.

   But now another consideration comes to the mind. These
Southern Christians have been united in ecclesiastical relations
with Christians of the Northern and free States, meeting with

   Let us now inquire what has, in fact, been the course of the
Northern Church on this subject.

   Previous to making this inquiry, let us review the declarations
that have been made in the Southern Church, and see what
principles have been established by them: --

   In addition, it has been plainly avowed, by the expressed
principles and practice of Christians of various denominations,
that they regard it right and proper to put down all inquiry upon
this subject by Lynch law.

   One would have imagined that these principles were suffi-
ciently extraordinary, as coming from the professors of the re-
ligion of Christ, to have excited a good deal of attention in their
Northern brethren. It also must be seen that, as principles,
they are principles of very extensive application, underlying the
whole foundations of religion and morality. If not true, they
were certainly heresies of no ordinary magnitude, involving no
ordinary results. Let us now return to our inquiry as to the
course of the Northern Church in relation to them.

   * Birney's Pamphlet.

   In the first place, have any of these opinions ever been treated
in the church as heresies, and the teachers of them been sub-
jected to the censures with which it is thought proper to visit
heresy?

   After a somewhat extended examination upon the subject, the
writer has been able to discover but one instance of this sort.
It may be possible that such cases have existed in other denomi-
nations, which have escaped inquiry.

   A clergyman in the Cincinnati N. S. Presbytery maintained
the doctrine that slave-holding was justified by the Bible, and
for persistence in teaching this sentiment was suspended by that
presbytery. He appealed to Synod, and the decision was con-
firmed by the Cincinnati Synod. The New School General
Assembly, however, reversed this decision of the presbytery, and
restored the standing of the clergyman. The presbytery, on its
part, refused to receive him back, and he was received into the
Old School Church.

   The Presbyterian Church has probably exceeded all other
churches of the United States in its zeal for doctrinal opinions.
This church has been shaken and agitated to its very foundation
with questions of heresy; but, except in this individual case, it
is not known that any of these principles which have been asserted
by Southern Presbyterian bodies and individuals have ever been
discussed in its General Assembly as matters of heresy.

   About the time that Smylie's pamphlet came out, the Presby-
terian Church was convulsed with the trial of the Rev. Albert
Barnes for certain alleged heresies. These heresies related to
the federal headship of Adam, the propriety of imputing his sin
to all his posterity, and the question whether men have any
ability of any kind to obey the commandments of God.

   For advancing certain sentiments on these topics, Mr. Barnes
was silenced by the vote of the Synod to which he belonged, and
his trial in the General Assembly on these points was the all-
engrossing topic in the Presbyterian Church for some time. The
Rev. Dr. L. Beecher went through a trial with reference to

   If it be accounted for by saying that the question of slavery
is a question of practical morals, and not of dogmatic theology,
we are then reminded that questions of morals of far less magni-
tude have been discussed with absorbing interest.

   The Old School Presbyterian Church, in whose communion
the greater part of the slaveholding Presbyterians of the South
are found, has never felt called upon to discipline its members
for upholding a system which denies legal marriage to all slaves.
Yet this church was agitated to its very foundation by the dis-
cussion of a question of morals which an impartial observer
would probably consider of far less magnitude, namely, whether
a man might lawfully marry his deceased wife's sister. For the
time, all the strength and attention of the church seemed con-
centrated upon this important subject. The trial went from
Presbytery to Synod, and from Synod to General Assembly; and
ended with deposing a very respectable minister for this crime.

   Rev. Robert J. Breckenridge, D.D., a member of the Old
School Assembly, has thus described the state of the slave po-
pulation as to their marriage relations: "The system of slavery
denies to a whole class of human beings the sacredness of mar-
riage and of home, compelling them to live in a state of concu-
binage; for, in the eye of the law, no coloured slave-man is the
husband of any wife in particular, nor any slave-woman the wife
of any husband in particular; no slave-man is the father of any
children in particular, and no slave-child is the child of any
parent in particular."

   Now, had this church considered the fact that three millions
of men and women were, by the laws of the land, obliged to live
in this manner, as of equally serious consequence, it is evident,
from the ingenuity, argument, vehemence, Biblical research, and
untiring zeal which they bestowed on Mr. McQueen's trial,
that they could have made a very strong case with regard to this
also.

   The history of the united action of denominations which in-
cluded churches both in the slave and free States is a melancholy
exemplification, to a reflecting mind, of that gradual deterioration
of the moral sense which results from admitting any compromise,
however slight, with an acknowledged sin. The best minds in

   Nobody will doubt that, had the Southern members taken such
a stand against the divinity of our Lord, the division would have
been immediate and unanimous; but yet the Southern members
do maintain the right to buy and sell, lease, hire, and mortgage,
multitudes of men and women, whom, with the same breath, they
declared to be members of their churches and true Christians.
The Bible declares of all such that they are the temples of the
Holy Ghost; that they are the members of Christ's body, of his
flesh and bones. Is not the doctrine that men may lawfully
sell the members of Christ, his body, his flesh and bones,
for purposes of gain, as really a heresy as the denial of the
divinity of Christ; and is it not a dishonour to Him who is
over all, God blessed for ever, to tolerate this dreadful opinion,
with its more dreadful consequences, while the smallest heresies
concerning the imputation of Adam's sin are pursued with eager
vehemence? If the history of the action of all the bodies thus
united can be traced downwards, we shall find that, by reason of
this tolerance of an admitted sin, the anti-slavery testimony has
every year grown weaker and weaker. If we look over the
history of all denominations, we shall see that at first they used
very stringent language with relation to slavery. This is particu-
larly the case with the Methodist and Presbyterian bodies, and
for that reason we select these two as examples. The Methodist
Society especially, as organised by John Wesley, was an anti-
slavery society, and the Book of Discipline contained the most
positive statutes against slaveholding. The history of the
successive resolutions of the conference of this church is very
striking. In 1780, before the church was regularly organised
in the United States, they resolved as follows: --

   The conference acknowledges that slavery is contrary to the laws of God, man,
and nature, and hurtful to society; contrary to the dictates of conscience and true.

   In 1784, when the church was fully organised, rules were
adopted prescribing the times at which members who were
already slaveholders should emancipate their slaves. These
rules were succeeded by the following: --

   Every person concerned, who will not comply with these rules, shall have liberty
quietly to withdraw from our Society within the twelve months following the
notice being given him, as aforesaid; otherwise the assistants shall exclude him
from the society.

   No person holding slaves shall in future be admitted into the Society, or to the
Lord's Supper, till he previously comply with these rules concerning slavery.

   Those who buy, sell, or give slaves away, unless on purpose to free them, shall
be expelled immediately.

   In 1801: --

   We declare that we are more than ever convinced of the great evil of African
slavery, which still exists in these United States.

   Every member of the Society who sells a slave shall immediately, after full proof,
be excluded from the Society, &c.

   The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up addresses for the gradual eman-
cipation of the slaves, to the Legislature. Proper committees shall be appointed
by the Annual Conference, out of the most respectable of our friends, for the con-
ducting of the business; and the presiding elders, deacons, and travelling preachers,
shall procure as many proper signatures as possible to the addresses, and give all
the assistance in their power, in every respect, to aid the committees, and to further
the blessed undertaking. Let this be continued from year to year, till the desired
end be accomplished.

   In 1836, let us notice the change. The General Conference
held its annual session in Cincinnati, and resolved as follows: --

   Resolved, by the delegates of the Annual Conferences in General Conference
assembled, that they are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly
disclaim any right, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation
between master and slave, as it exists in the slaveholding States of this Union.

   These resolutions were passed by a very large majority. An
address was received from the Wesleyan Methodist Conference in
England, affectionately remonstrating on the subject of slavery.
The Conference refused to publish it. In the pastoral address
to the churches are these passages: --

   It cannot be unknown to you that the question of slavery in the 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 all ecclesiastical
bodies, it being manifest that in the slaveholding States themselves the entire
[unclear: ] [unclear: ] [unclear: ] [unclear: ] [unclear: ] non-existence rests with those State Legislatures.

---

-409-


* * * * 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 must give account, to exhort you
to abstain from all abolition movements and associations, and to refrain from
patronising any of their publications, &c. * * * *

   The subordinate conferences showed the same spirit.

   In 1836, the New York Annual Conference resolved that no
one should be elected a deacon or elder in the church unless he
would give a pledge to the church that he would refrain from
discussing this subject.*

   In 1838 the Conference resolved --

   As the sense of this Conference, that any of its members, or probationers, who
shall patronise Zion's Watchman, either by writing in commendation of its cha-
racter, by circulating it, recommending it to our people, or procuring subscribers,
or by collecting or remitting moneys, shall be deemed guilty of indiscretion, and
dealt with accordingly.

   It will be recollected that Zion's Watchman was edited by Le
Roy Sunderland, for whose abduction the State of Alabama had
offered fifty thousand dollars.

   In 1840, the General Conference at Baltimore passed the
resolution that we have already quoted, forbidding preachers to
allow coloured persons to give testimony in their churches. It
has been computed that about eighty thousand people were
deprived of the right of testimony by this Act. This Methodist
Church subsequently broke into a Northern and Southern Con-
ference. The Southern Conference is avowedly all pro-slavery,
and the Northern Conference has still in its communion slave-
holding conferences and members.

   Of the Northern Conferences, one of the largest, the Baltimore,
passed the following: --

   Resolved, That this Conference disclaims having any fellowship with abolitionism.
On the contrary, while it is determined to maintain its well-known and long-esta-
blished position, by keeping the travelling preachers composing its own body free
from slavery, it is also determined not to hold connexion with any ecclesiastical
body that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of membership in the church,
but to stand by and maintain the discipline as it is.

   The following extract is made from an address of the Phila-
delphia Annual Conference to the societies under its care, dated
Wilmington, Del., April 7, 1847: --

   If the plan of separation gives us the pastoral care of you, it remains to inquire
whether we have done anything, as a conference, or as men, to forfeit your confidence

---

-410-


and affection. We are not advised that even in the great excitement which has
distressed you for some months past, any one has impeached our moral conduct,
or charged us with unsoundness in doctrine, or corruption or tyranny in the
administration of discipline. But we learn that the simple cause of the unhappy
excitement among you is, that some suspect us, or affect to suspect us, of being
abolitionists. Yet no particular act of the Conference, or any particular member
thereof, is adduced as the ground of the erroneous and injurious suspicion.
We would ask you, brethren, whether the conduct of our ministry among you
for sixty years past ought not to be sufficient to protect us from this charge?
Whether the question we have been accustomed, for a few years past, to put
to candidates for admission among us, namely, Are you an abolitionist?
and, without each one answered in the negative, he was not received, ought not
to protect us from the charge. Whether the action of the last Conference on this
particular matter ought not to satisfy any fair and candid mind that we are not,
and do not desire to be, abolitionists? * * * * We cannot see how we
can be regarded as abolitionists, without the ministers of the Methodist Episcopal
Church South being considered in the same light. * * * * * *

   Wishing you all heavenly benedictions, we are, dear brethren, yours, in Christ
Jesus,

   J. P. Durbin,
J. Kennaday,
Ignatius T. Cooper,
William H. Gilder,
Joseph Castle, [unclear: ] Committee.

   These facts sufficiently define the position of the Methodist
Church. The history is melancholy but instructive. The his-
tory of the Presbyterian Church is also of interest.

   In 1793, the following note to the eighth commandment was
inserted in the Book of Discipline, as expressing the doctrine of
the church upon slaveholding:

   1 Tim. i. 10. The law is made for man-stealers. This crime among the
Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment, Exodus xxi. 15; and
the apostle here classes them with sinners of the first rank. The word he uses, in
its original import, comprehends all who are concerned in bringing any of the human
race into slavery, or in retaining them in it. Hominum fures, qui servos vel liberos,
abducunt, retinent, vendunt, vel cmunt. Stealers of men are all those who bring
off slaves or freemen, and keep, sell, or buy them. To steal a free man, says
Grotius, is the highest kind of theft. In other instances, we only steal human
property; but when we steal or retain men in slavery, we seize those who, in com-
mon with ourselves, are constituted by the original grant lords of the earth.

   No rules of church discipline were enforced, and members
whom this passage declared guilty of this crime remained
undisturbed in its communion, as ministers and elders. This
inconsistency was obviated in 1816 by expunging the passage
from the Book of Discipline. In 1818 it adopted an expression
of its views on slavery. This document is a long one con-

   We consider the voluntary enslaving of one part of the human race by another
as a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature; as
utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbour
as ourselves; and as totally irreconcileable with the spirit and principles of the
gospel of Christ, which enjoin that "all things whatsoever ye would that men
should do to you, do ye even so to them." Slavery creates a paradox in the moral
system -- it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings in such circum-
stances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral action. It exhibits them as
dependent on the will of others, whether they shall receive religious instruction;
whether they shall know and worship the true God; whether they shall enjoy
the ordinances of the gospel; whether they shall perform the duties and cherish
the endearments of husbands and wives, parents and children, neighbours and
friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard the dic-
tates of justice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences of slavery -- con-
sequences not imaginary, but which connect themselves with its very existence.
The evils to which the slave is always exposed often take place in fact, and in their
very worst degree and form; and where all of them do not take place -- as we re-
joice to say that in many instances, through the influence of the principles of
humanity and religion on the minds of masters, they do not -- still the slave is
deprived of his natural right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the danger
of passing into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him all the hardships
and injuries which inhumanity and avarice may suggest.

   This language was surely decided, and it was unanimously adopted by slaveholders and non-slaveholders. Certainly one
might think the time of redemption was drawing nigh. The
declaration goes on to say:

   It is manifestly the duty of all Christians who enjoy the light of the present day,
when the inconsistency of slavery both with the dictates of humanity and religion
has been demonstrated, and is generally seen and acknowledged, to use honest,
earnest, unwearied endeavours to correct the errors of former times, and as speedily
as possible to efface this blot on our holy religion, and to obtain the complete
abolition of slavery throughout Christendom and throughout the world.

   Here we have the Presbyterian Church, slaveholding and
non-slaveholding, virtually formed into one great abolition
society, as we have seen the Methodist was.

   The Assembly then goes on to state that the slaves are not at
present prepared to be free -- that they tenderly sympathise with
the portion of the church and country that has had this evil
entailed upon them, where, as they say, "a great and the most
virtuous part of the community abhor slavery and wish its
extermination." But they exhort them to commence imme-

   If we consider that this was unanimously adopted by slave-
holders and all, and grant, as we certainly do, that it was
adopted in all honesty and good faith, we shall surely expect
something from it. We should expect forthwith the organising
of a set of common schools for the slave-children; for an
efficient religious ministration; for an entire discontinuance of
trading in Christian slaves; for laws which make the family
relations sacred. Was any such thing done or attempted?
Alas! Two years after this came the admission of Missouri,
and the increase of demand in the Southern slave-market and
the internal slave-trade. Instead of school-teachers, they had
slave-traders; instead of gathering schools, they gathered slave-
coffles; instead of building school-houses, they built slave-pens
and slave-prisons, jails, barracoons, factories, or whatever the
trade pleases to term them; and so went the plan of gradual
emancipation.

   In 1834, sixteen years after, a committee of the Synod of
Kentucky, in which State slavery is generally said to exist in
its mildest form, appointed to make a report on the condition
of the slaves, gave the following picture of their condition.
First, as to their spiritual condition, they say: --

   After making all reasonable allowances, our coloured population can be con-
sidered, at the most, but semi-heathen.

   Brutal stripes, and all the various kinds of personal indignities, are not the only
species of cruelty which slavery licenses. The law does not recognise the family
relations of the slave, and extends to him no protection in the enjoyment of
domestic endearments. The members of a slave-family may be forcibly separated,
so that they shall never more meet until the final judgment. And cupidity often
induces the masters to practise what the law allows. Brothers and sisters, parents
and children, husbands and wives, are torn asunder, and permitted to see each
other no more. These acts are daily occurring in the midst of us. The shrieks
and the agony often witnessed on such occasions proclaim with a trumpet-tongue
the iniquity and cruelty of our system. The cries of these sufferers go up to the
ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. There is not a neighbourhood where these heart-

---

-413-


rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or road that does not
behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose chains and mournful coun-
tenances tell that they are exiled by force from all that their hearts hold dear.
Our church, years ago, raised its voice of solemn warning against this flagrant
violation of every principle of mercy, justice, and humanity. Yet we blush to
announce to you and to the world that this warning has been often disregarded,
even by those who hold to our communion. Cases have occurred, in our own de-
nomination, where professors of the religion of mercy have torn the mother from
her children, and sent her into a merciless and returnless exile. Yet acts of dis-
cipline have rarely followed such conduct.

   Hon. James G. Birney, for years a resident of Kentucky,
in his pamphlet, amends the word rarely by substituting never.
What could show more plainly the utter inefficiency of the past
act of the Assembly, and the necessity of adopting some
measures more efficient? In 1835, therefore, the subject was
urged upon the General Assembly, intreating them to carry out
the principles and designs they had avowed in 1818.

   Mr. Stuart, of Illinois, in a speech he made upon the subject,
said: --

   I hope this assembly are prepared to come out fully and declare their senti-
ments, that slaveholding is a most flagrant and heinous sin. Let us not pass it
by in this indirect way, while so many thousands and tens of thousands of our
fellow-creatures are writhing under the lash, often inflicted, too, by ministers and
elders of the Presbyterian Church.

* * * * * * * * *

   In this church a man may take a free-born child, force it away from its parents,
to whom God gave it in charge, saying, "Bring it up for me," and sell it as a
beast or hold it in perpetual bondage, and not only escape corporeal punishment,
but really be esteemed an excellent Christian. Nay, even ministers of the gospel
and doctors of divinity may engage in this unholy traffic, and yet sustain their
high and holy calling.

* * * * * * * * *

   Elders, ministers, and doctors of divinity, are, with both hands, engaged in the
practice.

   One would have thought facts like these, stated in a body
of Christians, were enough to wake the dead; but, alas! we
can become accustomed to very awful things. No action was
taken upon these remonstrances, except to refer them to a
committee, to be reported on at the next session, in 1836.

   The moderator of the Assembly in 1836 was a slaveholder,
Dr. T. S. Witherspoon, the same who said to the editor of the
Emancipator, "I draw my warrant from the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testament to hold my slaves in bondage. The
principle of holding the heathen in bondage is recognised by

   The majority of the committee appointed made a report as
follows: --

   Whereas the subject of slavery is inseparably connected with the laws of many
of the States in this Union, with which it is by no means proper for an ecclesiastical
judicature to interfere, and involves many considerations in regard to which great
diversity of opinion and intensity of feeling are known to exist in the churches
represented in this Assembly; and whereas there is great reason to believe that
any action on the part of this Assembly, in reference to this subject, would tend to
distract and divide our churches, and would probably in no wise promote the
benefit of those whose welfare is immediately contemplated in the memorials in
question.

   Therefore Resolved,

   1. That it is not expedient for the Assembly to take any further order in
relation to this subject.

   2. That as the notes which have been expunged from our public formularies,
and which some of the memorials referred to the committee request to have
restored, were introduced irregularly, never had the sanction of the church,
and therefore never possessed any authority, the General Assembly has no power,
nor would they think it expedient, to assign them a place in the authorised
standards of the church.

   The minority of the committee, the Rev. Messrs. Dickey and
Beman, reported as follows: --

   Resolved,

   1. That the buying, selling, or holding a human being as property, is in the
sight of God a heinous sin, and ought to subject the doer of it to the censures of
the church.

   2. That it is the duty of every one, and especially of every Christian, who may be
involved in this sin, to free himself from its entanglement without delay.

   3. That it is the duty of every one, especially of every Christian, in the meek-
ness and firmness of the Gospel, to plead the cause of the poor and needy, by testify-
ing against the principle and practice of slaveholding, and to use his best endea-
vours to deliver the church of God from the evil, and to bring about the emancipa-
tion of the slaves in these United States, and throughout the world.

   The slaveholding delegates, to the number of forty-eight,
met apart, and Resolved --

   That if the General Assembly shall undertake to exercise authority on the
subject of slavery, so as to make it an immorality, or shall in any way declare that
Christians are criminal in holding slaves, that a declaration shall be presented by
the Southern delegation declining their jurisdiction in the case, and our determi-
nation not to submit to such decision.

   In view of these conflicting reports, the Assembly resolved
as follows: --

   Inasmuch as the constitution of the Presbyterian Church, in its preliminary and
fundamental principles, declares that no church judicatories ought to pretend to
make laws to bind the conscience in virtue of their own authority; and as the
urgency of the business of the Assembly, and the shortness of the time during
which they can continue in session, render it impossible to deliberate and decide
judiciously on the subject of slavery in its relation to the church, therefore
Resolved, that this whole subject be indefinitely postponed.

   The amount of the slave-trade at the time when the General
Assembly refused to act upon the subject of slavery at all may
be inferred from the following items. The Virginia Times, in
an article published in this very year of 1836, estimated the
number of slaves exported for sale from that State alone,
during the twelve months preceding, at forty thousand. The
Natchez (Miss.) Courier says that in the same year the States
of Alabama, Missouri, and Arkansas imported two hundred
and fifty thousand slaves from the more Northern States. If
we deduct from these all who may be supposed to have
emigrated with their masters, still what an immense trade is
here indicated!

   The Rev. James H. Dickey, who moved the resolutions above
presented, had seen some sights which would naturally incline
him to wish the Assembly to take some action on the subject,
as appears from the following account of a slave-coffle, from
his pen.

   In the summer of 1822, as I returned with my family from a visit to the Bar-
rens of Kentucky, I witnessed a scene such as I never witnessed before, and such
as I hope never to witness again. Having passed through Paris, in Bourbon
County, Kentucky, the sound of music (beyond a little rising ground) attracted my
attention. I looked forward, and saw the flag of my country waving. Supposing
that I was about to meet a military parade, I drove hastily to the side of the road;
and, having gained the ascent, I discovered (I supposed) about forty black men
all chained together after the following manner: each of them was handcuffed, and
they were arranged in rank and file. A chain, perhaps forty feet long, the size of
a fifth-horse chain, was stretched between the two ranks, to which short chains
were joined, which connected with the handcuffs. Behind them were, I supposed,
about thirty women, in double rank, the couples tied hand to hand. A solemn
sadness sat on every countenance, and the dismal silence of this march of despair
was interrupted only by the sound of two violins; yes, as if to add insult to
injury, the foremost couple were furnished with a violin a-piece; the second
couple were ornamented with cockades, while near the centre waved the republican
flag carried by a hand literally in chains. I could not forbear exclaiming to the
lordly driver who rode at his ease alongside, "Heaven will curse that man who
engages in such traffic, and the government that protects him in it." I pursued

---

-416-


my journey till evening, and put up for the night, when I mentioned the scene I
had witnessed. "Ah!" cried my landlady, "that is my brother!" From her I
learned that his name is Stone, of Bourbon County, Kentucky, in partnership
with one Kinningham, of Paris; and that a few days before he had purchased a
negro-woman from a man in Nicholas County. She refused to go with him; he
attempted to compel her, but she defended herself. Without further ceremony he
stepped back, and, by a blow on the side of her head, with the butt of his whip,
brought her to the ground; he tied her, and drove her off. I learned, further,
that besides the drove I had seen, there were about thirty shut up in the Paris
prison for safe-keeping, to be added to the company, and that they were designed
for the Orleans market. And to this they are doomed for no other crime than
that of a black skin and curled locks. Shall I not visit for these things? saith the
Lord. Shall not my soul be avenged on such a nation as this?

   It cannot be possible that these Christian men realised these
things, or, at most, they realised them just as we realise the
most tremendous truths of religion, dimly and feebly.

   Two years after, the General Assembly, by a sudden and very
unexpected movement, passed a vote exscinding, without trial,
from the communion of the church, four synods, comprising the
most active and decided anti-slavery portions of the church.
The reasons alleged were, doctrinal differences and ecclesiastical
practices inconsistent with Presbyterianism. By this act about
five hundred ministers and sixty thousand members were cut off
from the Presbyterian Church.

   That portion of the Presbyterian Church called New School,
considering this act unjust, refused to assent to it, joined the
exscinded synods, and formed themselves into the New School
General Assembly. In this communion only three slave-holding
presbyteries remained; in the old there were between thirty and
forty.

   The course of the Old School Assembly, after the separation,
in relation to the subject of slavery, may be best expressed by
quoting one of their resolutions, passed in 1845. Having
some decided anti-slavery members in its body, and being,
moreover, addressed on the subject of slavery by associated
bodies, they presented, in this year, the following deliberate
statement of their policy. (Minutes for 1845, p. 18.)

   Resolved, 1st. That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States was originally organised, and has since continued the bond of union
in the church, upon the conceded principle that the existence of domestic slavery,
under the circumstances in which it is found in the Southern portion of the
country, is no bar to Christian communion.

   2. That the petitions that ask the Assembly to make the holding of slaves in
itself a matter of discipline do virtually require this judicatory to dissolve itself,
and abandon the organisation under which, by the Divine blessing, it has so long

---

-417-




Collation: [unclear: ]
prospered. The tendency is evidently to separate the Northern from the Southern
portion of the Church -- a result which every good Christian must deplore, as
tending to the dissolution of the Union of our beloved country, and which every
enlightened Christian will oppose, as bringing about a ruinous and unnecessary
schism between brethren who maintain a common faith.

Yeas, Ministers and Elders, 168

Nays Ministers and Elders, 13

   It is scarcely necessary to add a comment to this very explicit
declaration. It is the plainest possible disclaimer of any protest
against slavery; the plainest possible statement that the existence
of the ecclesiastical organisation is of more importance than all
the moral and social considerations which are involved in a full
defence and practice of American slavery.

   The next year a large number of petitions and remonstrances
were presented, requesting the Assembly to utter additional testi-
mony against slavery.

   In reply to the petitions, the General Assembly re-affirmed all
their former testimonies on the subject of slavery for sixty years
back, and also affirmed that the previous year's declaration must
not be understood as a retraction of that testimony; in other
words, they expressed it as their opinion, in the words of 1818,
that slavery is "wholly opposed to the law of God," and "totally
irreconcileable with the precepts of the gospel of Christ;" and yet
that they "had formed their Church organisation upon the con-
ceded principle that the existence of it, under the circumstances
in which it is found in the Southern States of the Union, is no
bar to Christian communion."

   Some members protested against this action. (Minutes,
1846. Overture No. 17.)

   Great hopes were at first entertained of the New School body.
As a body, it was composed mostly of anti-slavery men. It had
in it those synods whose anti-slavery opinions and actions had
been, to say the least, one very efficient cause for their excision
from the Church. It had only three slaveholding Presbyteries.
The power was all in its own hands. Now, if ever, was their
time to cut this loathsome encumbrance wholly adrift, and stand
up, in this age of concession and conformity to the world, a
purely protesting Church, free from all complicity with this most
dreadful national immorality.

   On the first session of the General Assembly this course was
most vehemently urged, by many petitions and memorials.
These memorials were referred to a committee of decided anti-
slavery men. The argument on one side was, that the time was
now come to take decided measures to cut free wholly from all

   On the other hand, the majority of the committee were urged
by opposing considerations. The brethren from slave States made
to them representations somewhat alike to these: "Brethren,
our hearts are with you. We are with you in faith, in charity,
in prayer. We sympathised in the injury that had been done
you by excision. We stood by you then, and are ready to stand
by you still. We have no sympathy with the party that have
expelled you, and we do not wish to go back to them. As to
this matter of slavery, we do not differ from you. We consider
it an evil. We mourn and lament over it. We are trying, by
gradual and peaceable means, to exclude it from our Churches.
We are going as far in advance of the sentiment of our Churches
as we consistently can. We cannot come up to more decided
action without losing our hold over them, and, as we think,
throwing back the cause of emancipation. If you begin in this
decided manner, we cannot hold our Churches in the union; they
will divide, and go to the Old School."

   Here was a very strong plea, made by good and sincere men.
It was an appeal, too, to the most generous feelings of the heart.
It was, in effect, saying, "Brothers, we stood by you, and fought
your battles, when everything was going against you; and, now
that you have the power in your hands, are you going to use it
so as to cast us out?"

   These men, strong anti-slavery men as they were, were affected.
One member of the committee foresaw and feared the result. He
felt and suggested that the course proposed conceded the whole
question. The majority thought, on the whole, that it was best
to postpone the subject. The committee reported that the ap-
plicants, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, had withdrawn
their papers.

   The next year, in 1839, the subject was resumed; and it was
again urged that the Assembly should take high, and decided, and
unmistakeable ground; and certainly, if we consider that all this
time not a single Church had emancipated its slaves, and that the
power of the institution was everywhere stretching and growing
and increasing, it would certainly seem that something more
efficient was necessary than a general understanding that the
Church agreed with the testimony delivered in 1818. It was
strongly represented that it was time something was done. This
year the Assembly decided to refer the subject to Presbyteries, to
do what they deemed advisable. The words employed were

   This brought, in 1840, a much larger number of memorials
and petitions; and very strong attempts were made by the
abolitionists to obtain some decided action.

   The committee this year referred to what had been done last
year, and declared it inexpedient to do anything further. The
subject was indefinitely postponed. At this time it was resolved
that the Assembly should meet only once in three years. Accord-
ingly, it did not meet till 1843. In 1843, several memorials
were again presented, and some resolutions offered to the As-
sembly, of which this was one (Minutes of the General Assembly
for 1843, p. 15).

   Resolved, That we affectionately and earnestly urge upon the Ministers, Sessions,
Presbyteries, and Synods connected with this Assembly, that they treat this as all
other sins of great magnitude; and by a diligent, kind, and faithful application of
the means which God has given them, by instruction, remonstrance, reproof, and
effective discipline, seek to purify the Church of this great iniquity.

   This resolution they declined. They passed the following: --

   Whereas there is in this Assembly great diversity of opinion as to the proper
and best mode of action on the subject of slavery; and whereas, in such circum-
stances, any expression of sentiment would carry with it but little weight, as it
would be passed by a small majority, and must operate to produce alienation and
division; and whereas the Assembly of 1839, with great unanimity, referred this
whole subject to the lower judicatories, to take such order as in their judgement
might be adapted to remove the evil; -- Resolved, That the Assembly do not think
it for the edification of the Church for this body to take any action on the subject.

   They, however, passed the following: --

   Resolved, That the fashionable amusement of promiscuous dancing is so entirely
unscriptural, and eminently and exclusively that of "the world which lieth in
wickedness," and so wholly inconsistent with the spirit of Christ, and with that
propriety of Christian deportment and that purity of heart which his followers
are bound to maintain, as to render it not only improper and injurious for pro-
fessing Christians either to partake in it, or to qualify their children for it, by
teaching them the "art," but also to call for the faithful and judicious exercise
of discipline on the part of Church Sessions, when any of the members of their
Churches have been guilty.

   Three years after, in 1846, the General Assembly published
the following declaration of sentiment: --

   1. The system of slavery as it exists in these United States, viewed either in
the laws of the several States which sanction it, or in its actual operation and
results in society, is intrinsically unrighteous and oppressive; and is opposed to
the prescriptions of the law of God, to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel, and
to the best interests of humanity.

   2. The testimony of the General Assembly from a.d. 1787 to a.d. 1818, inclu-
sive, has condemned it; and it remains still the recorded testimony of the Pres-
byterian Church of these United States against it, from which we do not recede.

   3. We cannot, therefore, withhold the expression of our deep regret that slavery
should be continued and countenanced by any of the members of our Churches;
and we do earnestly exhort both them and the Churches among whom it exists to
use all means in their power to put it away from them. Its perpetuation among
them cannot fail to be regarded by multitudes, influenced by their example, as
sanctioning the system portrayed in it, and maintained by the statutes of the
several slaveholding States wherein they dwell. Nor can any mere mitigation of
its severity, prompted by the humanity and Christian feeling of any who continue
to hold their fellow-men in bondage, be regarded either as a testimony against
the system, or as in the least degree changing its essential character.

   4. But while we believe that many evils incident to the system render it im-
portant and obligatory to bear testimony against it, yet would we not undertake to
determine the degree of moral turpitude on the part of individuals involved by it.
This will doubtless be found to vary, in the sight of God, according to the degree
of light and other circumstances pertaining to each. In view of all the embar-
rassments and obstacles in the way of emancipation interposed by the statutes of
the slaveholding States, and by the social influence affecting the views and con-
duct of those involved in it, we cannot pronounce a judgment of general and pro-
miscuous condemnation, implying that destitution of Christian principle and
feeling which should exclude from the table of the Lord all who should stand
in the legal relation of masters to slaves, or justify us in withholding our eccle-
siastical and Christian fellowship from them. We rather sympathise with, and
would seek to succour them in their embarrassments, believing that separation and
secession among the Churches and their members are not the methods God ap-
proves and sanctions for the reformation of his Church.

   5. While, therefore, we feel bound to bear our testimony against slavery, and
to exhort our beloved brethren to remove it from them as speedily as possible by
all appropriate and available means, we do at the same time condemn all divisive
and schismatical measures, tending to destroy the unity and disturb the peace of
our Church, and deprecate the spirit of denunciation and inflicting severities, which
would cast from the fold those whom we are rather bound, by the spirit of the
Gospel, and the obligations of our covenant, to instruct, to counsel, to exhort, and
thus to lead in the ways of God; and towards whom, even though they may err,
we ought to exercise forbearance and brotherly love.

   6. As a court of our Lord Jesus Christ, we possess no legislative authority;
and as the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, we possess no judi-
ciary authority. We have no right to institute and prescribe a test of Christian
character and Church membership not recognised and sanctioned in the sacred
Scriptures, and in our standards, by which we have agreed to walk. We must
[unclear: ] therefore this matter with the sessions [unclear: ] and synods -- the judi-

---

-421-


discipline as they may judge it to be their duty, constitutionally subject to the
General Assembly only in the way of general review and control.

   When a boat is imperceptibly going down stream on a gentle
but strong current, we can see its passage only by comparing
objects with each other on the shore.

   If this declaration of the New-School General Assembly be
compared with that of 1818, it will be found to be far less out-
spoken and decided in its tone, while in the meantime slavery
had become four-fold more powerful. In 1818, the Assembly
states that the most virtuous portion of the community in slave
States abhor slavery, and wish its extermination. In 1846, the
Assembly states with regret that slavery is still continued and
countenanced by any of the members of our Churches. The
testimony of 1818 has the frank out-spoken air of a unanimous
document, where there was but one opinion. That of 1846 has
the guarded air of a compromise ground out between the upper
and nether millstone of two contending parties -- it is winnowed,
guarded, cautious, and careful.

   Considering the document, however, in itself, it is certainly
a very good one; and it would be a very proper expression of
Christian feeling, had it related to an evil of any common
magnitude, and had it been uttered in any common crisis; but
let us consider what was the evil attacked, and what was the
crisis. Consider the picture which the Kentucky Synod had
drawn of the actual state of things among them: -- "The mem-
bers of slave-families separated, never to meet again until the
final judgment; brothers and sisters, parents and children, hus-
bands and wives, daily torn asunder, and permitted to see each
other no more; the shrieks and agonies, proclaiming as with
trumpet-tongue the iniquity and cruelty of the system; the cries
of the sufferers going up to the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth;
not a neighbourhood where those heart-rending scenes are not
displayed; not a village or road without the sad procession of
manacled outcasts, whose chains and mournful countenances tell
they are exiled by force from all that heart holds dear; Christian
professors rending the mother from her child to sell her into
returnless exile."

   This was the language of the Kentucky Synod fourteen years
before; and those scenes had been going on ever since, and are
going on now, as the advertisements of every Southern paper
show; and yet the Church of Christ since 1818 had done
nothing but express regret and hold grave metaphysical discus-
sions as to whether slavery was an "evil per se," and censure the
rash action of men who, in utter despair of stopping the evil any

   Let us consider, also, the awful entrenchments and strength
of the evil against which this very moderate resolution was dis-
charged. "A money power of two thousand millions of dollars
held by a small body of able and desperate men; that body
raised into a political aristocracy by special constitutional pro-
visions; cotton, the product of slave-labour, forming the basis of
our whole foreign commerce, and the commercial class thus
subsidised; the press bought up; the Southern pulpit reduced
to vassalage; the heart of the common people chilled by a bitter
prejudice against the black race; and our leading men bribed by
ambition either to silence or open hostility."* And now, in
this condition of things, the whole weight of these Churches goes
in support of slavery, from the fact of their containing slave-
holders. No matter if they did not participate in the abuses of
the system; nobody wants them to do that. The slave power
does not wish professors of religion to separate families, or over-
work their slaves, or do any disreputable thing -- that is not their
part. The slave power wants pious, tender-hearted, generous
and humane masters, and must have them, to hold up the system
against the rising moral sense of the world; and the more pious
and generous the better. Slavery could not stand an hour with-
out these men. What then? These men uphold the system,
and that great anti-slavery body of ministers uphold these men.
That is the final upshot of the matter.

   Paul says that we must remember those that are in bonds, as
bound with them. Suppose that this General Assembly had
been made up of men who had been fugitives. Suppose one of
them had had his daughters sent to the New Orleans slave-
market, like Emily and Mary Edmondson; that another's daugh-
ter had died on the overland passage in a slave-coffle, with no
nurse but a slave-driver, like poor Emily Russell: another's wife
died broken-hearted when her children were sold out of her bosom;
and another had a half-crazed mother, whose hair had been turned
prematurely white with agony. Suppose these scenes of
agonizing partings, with shrieks and groans, which the Kentucky
Synod says have been witnessed so long among the slaves, had
been seen in these ministers' families, and that they had come
up to this discussion with their hearts as scarred and seared as
the heart of poor old Paul Edmondson, when he came to New
York to beg for his daughters. Suppose that they saw that the
horrid system by which all this had been done was extending
every hour; that professed Christians in every denomination at
the South declared it to be an appointed institution of God;
that all the wealth, and all the rank, and all the fashion in the
country were committed in its favour; and that they, like
Aaron, were sent to stand between the living and the dead, that
the plague might be stayed.

   Most humbly, most earnestly, let it be submitted to the
Christians of this nation, and to Christians of all nations, for
such an hour and such a crisis was this action sufficient? Did
it do anything? Has it had the least effect in stopping the
evil? And, in such a horrible time, ought not something to be
done which will have that effect?

   Let us continue the history. It will be observed that the
resolution concludes by referring the subject to subordinate
judicatories. The New-School Presbytery of Cincinnati, in
which were the professors of Lane Seminary, suspended Mr.
Graham from the ministry for teaching that the Bible justified
slavery; thereby establishing the principle that this was a
heresy inconsistent with Christian fellowship. The Cincinnati
Synod confirmed this decision. The General Assembly reversed
this decision, and restored Mr. Graham. The delegate from
that presbytery told them that they would never retrace their
steps, and so it proved. The Cincinnati Presbytery refused to
receive him back. All honour be to them for it! Here, at
least, was a principle established, as far as the New-School
Cincinnati Presbytery is concerned, and a principle as far as
the General Assembly is concerned. By this act the General

   For a man to teach that there are not three Persons in the
Trinity is heresy.

   For a man to teach that all these three Persons authorise a
system which even Mahometan princes have abolished from
mere natural shame and conscience, is no heresy!

   The General Assembly proceeded further to show that it con-
sidered this doctrine no heresy, in the year 1846, by inviting
the Old-School General Assembly to the celebration of the
Lord's Supper with them. Connected with this Assembly were
not only Dr. Smylie, but all those bodies who, among them,
had justified not only slavery in the abstract, but some of its
worst abuses, by the word of God; yet the New-School body
thought these opinions no heresy which should be a bar to
Christian communion!

   In 1849 the General Assembly declared* that there had been
no information before the Assembly to prove that the members
in slave States were not doing all that they could, in the provi-
dence of God, to bring about the possession and enjoyment of
liberty by the enslaved. This is a remarkable declaration, if
we consider that in Kentucky there are no stringent laws
against emancipation, and that, either in Kentucky or Virginia,
the slave can be set free by simply giving him a pass to go
across the line into the next State.

   In 1850 a proposition was presented in the Assembly by the
Rev. H. Curtiss, of Indiana, to the following effect: "That the
enslaving of men, or holding them as property, is an offence, as
defined in our Book of Discipline, ch. i., sec. 3; and as such it
calls for inquiry, correction, and removal, in the manner pre-
scribed by our rules, and should be treated with a due regard
to all the aggravating or mitigating circumstances in each case."
Another proposition was from an elder in Pennsylvania, affirm-
ing "that slaveholding was, prima facie, an offence within the
meaning of our Book of Discipline, and throwing upon the
slaveholder the burden of showing such circumstances as will
take away from him the guilt of the offence."

   Both these propositions were rejected. The following was
adopted: "That slavery is fraught with many and great evils;
that they deplore the workings of the whole system of slavery;

   In 1850 was passed the cruel Fugitive Slave Law. What
deeds were done then! Then to our free States were transported
those scenes of fear and agony before acted only on slave soil.
Churches were broken up. Trembling Christians fled. Hus-
bands and wives were separated. Then to the poor African
was fulfilled the dread doom denounced on the wandering Jew:
"Thou shalt find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have
rest; but thy life shall hang in doubt before thee, and thou
shalt fear day and night, and shalt have no assurance of thy
life." Then all the world went one way -- all the wealth, all the
power, all the fashion. Now, if ever, was a time for Christ's
Church to stand up and speak for the poor.

   The General Assembly met. She was earnestly memorialised
to speak out. Never was a more glorious opportunity to show
that the kingdom of Christ is not of this world. A protest
then, from a body so numerous and respectable, might have
saved the American Church from the disgrace it now wears in
the eyes of all nations. Oh that she had once spoken! What
said the Presbyterian Church? She said nothing, and the
thanks of political leaders were accorded to her. She had done
all they desired.

   Meanwhile, under this course of things, the number of pres-
byteries in slaveholding States had increased from three to
twenty! and this Church has now under its care from fifteen to
twenty thousand members in slave States.

   So much for the course of a decided anti-slavery body in
union with a few slaveholding Churches. So much for a most
discreet, judicious, charitable, and brotherly attempt to test by
experience the question, What communion hath light with dark-

   Whether Church discipline and censure is an appropriate
medium for correcting such immoralities and heresies in indi-
viduals or not, it is enough for the case that this has been the
established opinion and practice of the Presbyterian Church.

   If the argument of Charles Sumner be contemplated, it will be
seen that the history of this Presbyterian Church and the history
of our United States have strong points of similarity. In both,
at the outset, the strong influence was anti-slavery, even among
slaveholders. In both there was no difference of opinion as to
the desirableness of abolishing slavery ultimately; both made a
concession, the smallest which could possibly be imagined; both
made the concession in all good faith, contemplating the speedy
removal and extinction of the evil; and the history of both is
alike. The little point of concession spread, and absorbed, and
acquired, from year to year, till the United States and the Pres-
byterian Church stand just where they do. Worse has been the
history of the Methodist Church. The history of the Baptist
Church shows the same principle; and as to the Episcopal
Church, it has never done anything but comply, either North or
South. It differs from all the rest in that it has never had any
resisting element, except now and then a Protestant, like William
Jay, a worthy son of him who signed the Declaration of Inde-
pendence.

   The slave power has been a united, consistent, steady, uncom-
promising principle. The resisting element has been, for many
years, wavering, self-contradictory, compromising. There has
been, it is true, a deep and ever-increasing hostility to slavery in
a decided majority of ministers and Church-members in free
States, taken as individuals. Nevertheless, the sincere opponents
of slavery have been unhappily divided among themselves as to
principles and measures, the extreme principles and measures of
some causing a hurtful reaction in others. Besides this, other
great plans of benevolence have occupied their time and attention;

   This has held out a strong temptation to men who have had
benevolent and laudable objects to carry, and who did not realise
the full peril of the slave-system, nor appreciate the moral power
of Christian protest against it. When, therefore, cases have
arisen where the choice lay between sacrificing what they con-
sidered the interests of a good object, or giving up their right of
protest, they have generally preferred the latter. The decision
has always gone in this way: The slave power will not concede --
we must. The South says, "We will take no religious book
that has anti-slavery principles in it." The Sunday-school Union
drops Mr. Gallaudet's History of Joseph. Why? Because they
approve of slavery? Not at all. They look upon slavery with
horror. What then? "The South will not read our books, if we
do not do it. They will not give up, and we must. We can do
more good by introducing gospel truth with this omission than
we can by using our Protestant power." This, probably, was
thought and said honestly. The argument is plausible, but the
concession is none the less real. The slave power has got the
victory, and got it by the very best of men from the very best of
motives; and, so that it has the victory, it cares not how it gets
it. And although it may be said that the amount in each case of
these concessions is in itself but small, yet, when we come to add
together all that have been made from time to time by every
different denomination, and by every different benevolent organi-
sation, the aggregate is truly appalling; and, in consequence of
all these united, what are we now reduced to?

   Here we are, in this crisis -- here in this nineteenth century,
when all the world is dissolving and reconstructing on principles
of universal liberty -- we Americans, who are sending our Bibles
and missionaries to christianise Mahometan lands, are uphold-

   The Southern Church has baptised it in the name of the Father,
the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This worn-out, old, effete system
of Roman slavery, which Christianity once gradually but certainly
abolished, has been dug up out of its dishonoured grave, a few
laws of extra cruelty, such as Rome never knew, have been added
to it, and now, baptised and sanctioned by the whole Southern
Church, it is going abroad conquering and to conquer! The
only power left to the Northern Church is the protesting power:
and will they use it? Ask the Tract Society if they will publish
a tract on the sinfulness of slavery, though such tract should be
made up solely from the writings of Jonathan Edwards or Dr.
Hopkins! Ask the Sunday-school Union if it will publish the
facts about this heathenism, as it has facts about Burmah and
Hindostan! Will they? Oh that they would answer Yes!

   Now, it is freely conceded that all these sad results have come
in consequence of the motions and deliberations of good men,
who meant well; but it has been well said that, in critical times,
when one wrong step entails the most disastrous consequences,
to mean well is not enough.

   In the crisis of a disease, to mean well and lose the patient --
in the height of a tempest, to mean well and wreck the ship -- in a
great moral conflict, to mean well and lose the battle -- these are
things to be lamented. We are wrecking the ship -- we are losing
the battle. There is no mistake about it. A little more sleep,
a little more slumber, a little more folding of the hands to sleep,
and we shall awake in the whirls of that maëlstrom which has but
one passage, and that downward.

   There is yet one body of Christians whose influence we have
not considered, and that a most important one -- the Congrega-
tionalists of New England and of the West. From the very
nature of Congregationalism, she cannot give so united a testimony
as Presbyterianism; yet Congregationalism has spoken out on
slavery. Individual bodies have spoken very strongly, and indi-
vidual clergymen still stronger. They have remonstrated with
the General Assembly, and they have very decided anti-slavery
papers. But, considering the whole state of public sentiment,
considering the critical nature of the exigency, the mighty sweep
and force of all the causes which are going in favour of
slavery, has the vehemence and force of the testimony of Congre-
gationalism, as a body, been equal to the dreadful emergency?
It has testimonies on record, very full and explicit, on the evils
of slavery; but testimonies are not all that is wanted. There is

   Compare the earnestness which Congregationalism has spent
upon some other subjects with the earnestness which has been
spent upon this. Dr. Taylor taught that all sins consist in
sinning, and therefore that there could be no sin till a person
had sinned; and Dr. Bushnell teaches some modifications of the
doctrine of the Trinity, nobody seeming to know precisely what.
The South Carolina presbyteries teach that slavery is approved
by God, and sanctioned by the example of patriarchs and pro-
phets. Supposing these, now, to be all heresies, which of them
is the worst? -- which will bring the worst practical results?
And, if Congregationalism had fought this slavery heresy as some
of her leaders fought Dr. Bushnell and Dr. Taylor, would not
the style of battle have been more earnest? Have not both
these men been denounced as dangerous heresiarchs, and as
preaching doctrines that tend to infidelity? And pray where
does this other doctrine tend? As sure as there is a God in
heaven is the certainty that, if the Bible really did defend slavery,
fifty years hence would see every honourable and high-minded
man an infidel.

   Has, then, the past influence of Congregationalism been ac-
cording to the nature of the exigency and the weight of the
subject? But the late convention of Congregationalists at
Albany, including ministers both from New England and the
Western States, did take a stronger and more decided ground.
Here is their resolution: --

   Resolved, That, in the opinion of this convention, it is the tendency of the
Gospel, wherever it is preached in its purity, to correct all social evils, and to
destroy sin in all its forms; and that it is the duty of Missionary Societies to grant
aid to Churches in slaveholding States in the support of such ministers only as

---

-430-


shall so preach the Gospel, and inculcate the principles and application of Gospel
discipline, that, with the blessing of God, it shall have its full effect in awakening
and enlightening the moral sense in regard to slavery, and in bringing to pass the
speedy abolition of that stupendous wrong; and that wherever a minister is not
permitted so to preach, he should, in accordance with the directions of Christ,
"depart out of that city."

   This resolution is a matter of hope and gratulation in many
respects. It was passed in a very large convention -- the largest
ever assembled in this country, fully representing the Congrega-
tionalism of the United States -- and the occasion of its meeting
was considered, in some sort, as marking a new era in the pro-
gress of this denomination.

   The resolution was passed unanimously. It is decided in its
expression, and looks to practical action, which is what is
wanted. It says it will support no ministers in slave States
whose preaching does not tend to destroy slavery; and that, if
they are not allowed to preach freely on the subject, they must
depart.

   That the ground thus taken will be efficiently sustained may
be inferred from the fact that the Home Missionary Society,
which is the organ of this body, as well as of the New-School
Presbyterian Church, has uniformly taken decided ground upon
this subject in their instructions to missionaries sent into slave
States. These instructions are ably set forth in their report of
March, 1853. When application was made to them, in 1850,
from a slave State, for missionaries who would let slavery alone,
they replied to them, in the most decided language, that it could
not be done; that, on the contrary, they must understand that
one grand object in sending missionaries to slave States is, as
far as possible, to redeem society from all forms of sin; and
that, "if utter silence respecting slavery is to be maintained,
one of the greatest inducements to send or retain missionaries in
the slave States is taken away."

   The Society furthermore instructed their missionaries, if they
could not be heard on this subject in one city or village, to go
to another; and they express their conviction that their mission-
aries have made progress in awakening the consciences of the
people. They say that they do not suffer the subject to sleep;
that they do not let it alone because it is a delicate subject, but
they discharge their consciences, whether their message be well
received, or whether, as in some instances, it subjects them to
opposition, opprobrium, and personal danger; and that where
their endeavours to do this have not been tolerated, they have,
in repeated cases, at great sacrifice, resigned their position, and

   One of these missionaries says, speaking of slavery, "We are
determined to remove this great difficulty in our way, or die in
the attempt. As Christians and as freemen, we will suffer this
libel on our religion and institutions to exist no longer."

   This is noble ground.

   And while we are recording the protesting power, let us not
forget the Scotch seceders and covenanters, who, with a perti-
nacity and decision worthy of the children of the old covenant,
have kept themselves clear from the sin of slavery, and have uni-
formly protested against it. Let us remember, also, that the
Quakers did pursue a course which actually freed all their body
from the sin of slaveholding; thus showing to all other denomi-
nations that what has been done once can be done again. Also,
in all denominations, individual ministers and Christians, in
hours that have tried men's souls, have stood up to bear their
testimony. Albert Barnes, in Philadelphia, standing in the
midst of a great, rich Church, on the borders of a slave State,
and with all those temptations to complicity which have silenced
so many, has stood up, in calm fidelity, and declared the whole
counsel of God upon this subject. Nay, more; he recorded his
solemn protest that "no influences out of the Church could sustain
slavery an hour, if it were not sustained in it;" and in the last
session of the General Assembly, which met at Washington,
disregarding all suggestions of policy, he boldly held the Presby-
terian Church up to the strength of her past declarations, and
declared it her duty to attempt the entire abolition of slavery
throughout the world. So, in darkest hour, Dr. Channing bore
a noble testimony in Boston, for which his name shall ever live.
So, in Illinois, E. P. Lovejoy and Edward Beecher, with their
associates, formed the Illinois Anti-Slavery Society, amid mobs
and at the hazard of their lives; and, a few hours after, Lovejoy
was shot down in attempting to defend the twice-destroyed anti-
slavery press. In the Old-School Presbyterian Church, William
and Robert Breckenridge, President Young, and others, have
preached in favour of emancipation in Kentucky. Le Roy Sun-
derland, in the Methodist Church, kept up his newspaper under
ban of his superiors, and with a bribe on his life of fifty thousand
dollars. Torrey, meekly patient, died in a prison, saying, "If I
am a guilty man I am a very guilty one: for I have helped four

   Also there have been private Christians who have counted
nothing too dear for this sacred cause. Witness Richard Dil-
lingham, and John Garret, and a host of others, who took joy-
fully the spoiling of their goods.

   But yet, notwithstanding this, the awful truth remains, that
the whole of what has been done by the Church has not, as yet,
perceptibly abated the evil. The great system is stronger than
ever. It is confessedly the dominant power of the nation.
The whole power of the government, and the whole power of
the wealth, and the whole power of the fashion, and the practical
organic workings of the large bodies of the Church, are all gone
one way. The Church is familiarly quoted as being on the side
of slavery. Statesmen on both sides of the question have laid
that down as a settled fact. Infidels point to it with triumph;
and America, too, is beholding another class of infidels -- a class
that could have grown up only under such an influence. Men
whose whole life is one study and practice of benevolence are
now ranked as infidels, because the position of Church organisa-
tions misrepresents Christianity, and they separate themselves
from the Church. We would offer no excuse for any infidels
who take for their religion mere anti-slavery zeal, and, under
this guise, gratify a malignant hatred of real Christianity. But
such defences of slavery from the Bible as some of the American
clergy have made, are exactly fitted to make infidels of all
honourable and high-minded men. The infidels of olden times
were not much to be dreaded, but such infidels as these are not
to be despised. Woe to the Church when the moral standard of
the infidel is higher than the standard of the professed Christian!
for the only armour that ever proved invincible to infidelity is
the armour of righteousness.

   Let us see how the Church organisations work now, prac-
tically. What do Bruin and Hill, Pulliam and Davis, Bolton,
Dickins, and Co., and Matthews, Branton, and Co., depend upon
to keep their slave-factories and slave-barracoons full, and their
business brisk? Is it to be supposed that they are not men like
ourselves? Do they not sometimes tremble at the awful work-
ings of fear and despair and agony which they witness when

   So goes the argument one way. Let us now trace it back the
other. The South Carolina and Mississippi Presbyteries main-
tain opinions which, in their legitimate results, endorse the slave-
trader. The Old-School General Assembly maintains fellowship
with these Presbyteries without discipline or protest. The New-
School Assembly signifies its willingness to re-unite with the Old,
while, at the same time, it declares the system of slavery an abo-
mination, a gross violation of its most sacred rights, and so on.
Well, now the chain is as complete as need be. All parts are in;
everyone standing in his place, and saying just what is required,
and no more. The trader does the repulsive work, the Southern
Church defends him, the Northern Church defends the South.
Everyone does as much for slavery as would be at all expedient,
considering the latitude they live in. This is the practical result
of the thing.

   The melancholy part of the matter is, that while a large body
of New-School men, and many Old-School, are decided anti-
slavery men, this denominational position carries their influence
on the other side. As goes the General Assembly, so goes their
influence. The following affecting letter on this subject was
written by that eminently pious man, Dr. Nelson, whose work on
Infidelity is one of the most efficient popular appeals that has
ever appeared: --

   I have resided in North Carolina more than forty years, and been intimately
acquainted with the system, and I can scarcely even think of its operations with-
out shedding tears. It causes me excessive grief to think of my own poor slaves,
for whom I have for years been trying to find a free home. It strikes me with

---

-434-


equal astonishment and horror to hear Northern people make light of slavery.
Had they seen and known as much of it as I, they could not thus treat it, unless
callous to the deepest woes and degradations of humanity, and dead both to the
religion and philanthropy of the Gospel. But many of them are doing just what
the hardest-hearted tyrants of the South most desire. Those tyrants would not,
on any account, have them advocate or even apologise for slavery in an unqualified
manner. This would be bad policy with the North. I wonder that Gerritt Smith
should understand slavery so much better than most of the Northern people. How
true was his remark on a certain occasion, namely, that the South are laughing in
their sleeves to think what dupes they make of most of the people at the North in
regard to the real character of slavery! Well did Mr. Smith remark that the
system, carried out on its fundamental principle, would as soon enslave any labour-
ing white man as the African. But, if it were not for the support of the North,
the fabric of blood would fall at once; and of all the efforts of public bodies at
the North to sustain slavery, the Connecticut General Association has made the
best one. I have never seen anything so well constructed in that line as their
resolutions of June, 1836. The South certainly could not have asked anything
more effectual; but, of all Northern periodicals, the New York Observer must
have the preference as an efficient support of slavery. I am not sure but it does
more than all things combined to keep the dreadful system alive; it is just the
succour demanded by the South. Its abuse of the abolitionists is music in
Southern ears, which operates as a charm; but nothing is equal to its harping
upon the "religious privileges and instruction" of the slaves of the South, and
nothing could be so false and injurious (to the cause of freedom and religion) as
the impression it gives on that subject. I say what I know when I speak in
relation to this matter. I have been intimately acquainted with the religious
opportunities of slaves -- in the constant habit of hearing the sermons which are
preached to them, and I solemnly affirm that, during the forty years of my resi-
dence and observation in this line, I never heard a single one of these sermons
but what was taken up with the obligations and duties of slaves to their masters;
indeed, I never heard a sermon to slaves but what made obedience to masters by
the slaves the fundamental and supreme law of religion. Any candid and intelli-
gent man can decide whether such preaching is not, as to religious purposes, worse
than none at all.

   Again: it is wonderful how the credulity of the North is subjected to imposition
in regard to the kind treatment of slaves. For myself, I can clear up the apparent
contradictions found in writers who have resided at or visited the South. The
"majority of slaveholders," say some, "treat their slaves with kindness." Now,
this may be true in certain States and districts, setting aside all questions of treat-
ment except such as refer to the body. And yet, while the "majority of slave-
holders" in a certain section may be kind, the majority of slaves in that section
will be treated with cruelty. This is the truth in many such cases; that while
there may be thirty men who may have but one slave a-piece, and that a house-
servant -- a single man in their neighbourhood may have a hundred slaves, all field-
hands, half-fed, worked excessively, and whipped most cruelly. this is what I
have often seen. To give a case, to show the awful influence of slavery upon the
master, I will mention a Presbyterian elder, who was esteemed one of the best men
in the region -- a very kind master. I was called to his death-bed to write his
will. He had what was considered a favourite house-servant, a female. After all

---

-435-


other things were disposed of, the elder paused, as if in doubt what to do with
"Sue." I entertained pleasing expectations of hearing the word "liberty" fall
from his lips; but who can tell my surprise when I heard the master exclaim,
"What shall be done with Sue? I am afraid she will never be under a master
severe enough for her." Shall I say that both the dying elder and his "Sue" were
members of the same Church -- the latter statedly receiving the emblems of a
Saviour's dying love from the former?

   All this temporising and concession has been excused on the
plea of brotherly love. What a plea for us Northern freemen!
Do we think the slave-system such a happy, desirable thing for
our brothers and sisters at the South? Can we look at our
common schools, our neat, thriving towns and villages, our dig-
nified, intelligent, self-respecting farmers and mechanics, all con-
comitants of free labour, and think slavery any blessing to our
Southern brethren? That system which beggars all the lower
class of whites, which curses the very soil, which eats up every-
thing before it, like the palmer-worm, canker, and locust -- which
makes common schools an impossibility, and the preaching of
the gospel almost as much so -- this system a blessing! Does
brotherly love require us to help the South preserve it?

   Consider the educational influences under which such children
as Eva and Henrique must grow up there! We are speaking of
what many a Southern mother feels, of what makes many a
Southern father's heart sore. Slavery has been spoken of in its
influence on the family of the slave. There are those who never
speak, who could tell, if they would, its influence on the family
of the master. It makes one's heart ache to see generation after
generation of lovely, noble children exposed to such influences.
What a country the South might be, could she develope herself
without this curse! If the Southern character, even under all
these disadvantages, retains so much that is noble, and is fasci-
nating even in its faults, what might it do with free institutions?

   Who is the real, who is the true and noble lover of the
South? -- they who love her with all these faults and encum-
brances, or they who fix their eyes on the bright ideal of what
she might be, and say that these faults are no proper part of her?
Is it true love to a friend to accept the ravings of insanity as a
true specimen of his mind? Is it true love to accept the dis-
figurement of sickness as a specimen of his best condition? Is
it not truer love to say, "This curse is no part of our brother;
it dishonours him; it does him injustice; it misrepresents him
in the eyes of all nations. We love his better self, and we will
have no fellowship with his betrayer." This is the part of true,
generous Christian love.

   But will it be said, "The abolition enterprise was begun in a
wrong spirit, by reckless, meddling, impudent fanatics?" Well,
supposing that this were true, how came it to be so? If the
Church of Christ had begun it right, these so-called fanatics
would not have begun it wrong. In a deadly pestilence, if the
right physicians do not prescribe, everybody will prescribe --
men, women, and children will prescribe; because something
must be done. If the Presbyterian Church, in 1818, had pur-
sued the course the Quakers did, there never would have been
any fanaticism. The Quakers did all by brotherly love. They
melted the chains of Mammon only in the fires of a divine
charity. When Christ came into Jerusalem, after all the mighty
works that he had done, while all the so-called better classes
were non-committal or opposed, the multitude cut down branches
of palm-trees, and cried Hosanna! There was a most indecorous
tumult. The very children caught the enthusiasm, and were
crying Hosannas in the temple. This was contradictory to all
ecclesiastical rules. It was a highly improper state of things.
The chief priests and scribes said unto Jesus, "Master, speak
unto these that they hold their peace." That gentle eye flashed
as he answered, "I tell you, if these should hold their peace, the
very stones would cry out."

   Suppose a fire bursts out in the streets of Boston while the
regular conservators of the city, who have the keys of the fire-
engines and the regulation of fire-companies, are sitting together
in some distant part of the city, consulting for the public good.
The cry of fire reaches them, but they think it a false alarm.
The fire is no less real for all that. It burns, and rages, and
roars, till everybody in the neighbourhood sees that something
must be done. A few stout leaders break open the doors of the
engine-houses, drag out the engines, and begin, regularly or
irregularly, playing on the fire. But the destroyer still advances.
Messengers come in hot haste to the hall of these deliberators,
and, in the unselect language of fear and terror, revile them for
not coming out.

   "Bless me!" says a decorous leader of the body, "what
horrible language these men use!"

   "They show a very bad spirit," remarks another; "we can't
possibly join them in such a state of things."

   Here the more energetic members of the body rush out, to
see if the thing be really so; and in a few minutes come back, if
possible more earnest than the others.

   "Oh! there is a fire! -- a horrible, dreadful fire! The city is
burning -- men, women, and children, all burning, perishing!

   "I am not going out; everybody that goes gets crazy," says
one.

   "I've noticed," says another, "that as soon as anybody goes
out to look, he gets just so excited; I won't look."

   But by this time the angry fire has burned into their very
neighbourhood. The red demon glares into their windows.
And now, fairly aroused, they get up and begin to look out.

   "Well, there is a fire, and no mistake!" says one.

   "Something ought to be done," says another.

   "Yes," says a third; "if it wasn't for being mixed up with
such a crowd and rabble of folks, I'd go out."

   "Upon my word," says another, "there are women in the
ranks, carrying pails of water! There, one woman is going up
a ladder to get those children out. What an indecorum! If
they'd manage this matter properly, we would join them."

   And now comes lumbering over from Charlestown the engines
and fire-companies.

   "What impudence of Charlestown," say these men, "to be
sending over here -- just as if we could not put our own fires
out! They have fires over there, as much as we do."

   And now the flames roar and burn, and shake hands across
the streets. They leap over the steeples, and glare demoniacally
out of the church-windows.

   "For Heaven's sake, do something!" is the cry. "Pull
down the houses! Blow up those blocks of stores with gun-
powder! Anything to stop it."

   "See, now, what ultra radical measures they are going at!"
says one of these spectators.

   Brave men, who have rushed into the thickest of the fire,
come out, and fall dead in the street.

   "They are impracticable enthusiasts. They have thrown
their lives away in foolhardiness," says another.

   So, Church of Christ, burns that awful fire! Evermore
burning, burning, burning, over church and altar; burning over
senate-house and forum; burning up liberty, burning up reli-
gion! No earthly hands kindled that fire. From its sheeted
flame and wreaths of sulphureous smoke glares out upon thee
the eye of that enemy who was a murderer from the beginning.
It is a fire that burns to the lowest hell!

   Church of Christ, there was an hour when this fire might
have been extinguished by thee. Now, thou standest like a
mighty man astonished -- like a mighty man that cannot save.

   If every church in our land were hung with mourning -- if
every Christian should put on sack-cloth -- if "the priest should
weep between the porch and the altar," and say, "Spare thy
people, O Lord, and give not thy heritage to reproach!" -- that
were not too great a mourning for such a time as this.

   O Church of Jesus! consider what hath been said in the
midst of thee. What a heresy hast thou tolerated in thy
bosom! Thy God the defender of slavery! -- thy God the
patron of slave-law! Thou hast suffered the character of thy
God to be slandered. Thou hast suffered false witness against
thy Redeemer and thy Sanctifier. The Holy Trinity of heaven
has been foully traduced in the midst of thee; and that God,
whose throne is awful in justice, has been made the patron and
leader of oppression.

   This is a sin against every Christian on the globe.

   Why do we love and adore, beyond all things, our God?
Why do we say to him from our inmost souls, "Whom have I
in heaven but thee? and there is none on earth I desire beside
thee?" Is this a bought-up worship? -- is it a cringing and
hollow subserviency, because he is great, and rich, and powerful,
and we dare not do otherwise? His eyes are a flame of fire;
he reads the inmost soul, and will accept no such service. From
our souls we adore and love him, because he is holy, and just,
and good, and will not at all acquit the wicked. We love him
because he is the father of the fatherless, the judge of the
widow; because he lifteth all who fall, and raiseth them that
are bowed down. We love Jesus Christ, because he is the Lamb
without spot, the one altogether lovely. We love the Holy Com-
forter, because he comes to convince the world of sin, and of
righteousness, and of judgment. O holy Church, universal
throughout all countries and nations! O ye great cloud of
witnesses, of all people, and languages, and tongues! differing
in many doctrines, but united in crying Worthy is the Lamb
that was slain, for he hath redeemed us from all iniquity!
awake! arise up! be not silent! Testify against this heresy of
the latter day, which, if it were possible, is deceiving the very
elect. Your God, your glory is slandered. Answer with the
voice of many waters and mighty thunderings! Answer with
the innumerable multitude in heaven, who cry, day and night,
Holy, holy, holy, just and true are thy ways, O King of saints!

   * This resolution is given in Birney's pamphlet.

   * [unclear: ]

   * Speech of W. Phillips, Boston.

   * Minutes of the New-School Assembly, p. 188.

    These two resolutions are given on the authority of Goodel's History. I do
not find them in the Minutes.

   At the time when the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches
passed the anti-slavery resolutions which we have recorded, the
system of slavery could probably have been extirpated by the
Church with comparatively little trouble. Such was the expe-
rience of the Quakers, who tried the experiment at that time,
and succeeded. The course they pursued was the simplest
possible. They districted their Church, and appointed regular
committees, whose business it was to go from house to house,
and urge the rules of the Church individually on each slave-
holder, one by one. This was done in a spirit of such sim-
plicity and brotherly love, that very few resisted the appeal.
They quietly yielded up, in obedience to their own consciences,
and the influence of their brethren. This mode of operation,
though gentle, was as efficient as the calm sun of summer, which,
by a few hours of patient shining, dissolves the ice-blocks against
which all the storms of winter have beat in vain. Oh, that so
happy a course had been thought of and pursued by all the other
denominations! but the day is past when this monstrous evil
would so quietly yield to gentle and persuasive measures.

   At the time that the Quakers made their attempt, this levia-
than in the reeds and rushes of America was young and callow,
and had not learned his strength. Then he might have been
"drawn out with a hook;" then they might have "made a
covenant with him, and taken him for a servant for ever;" but
now Leviathan is full-grown. "Behold, the hope of him is vain.
Shall not men be cast down even at the sight of him? None is
so fierce that dare stir him up. His scales are his pride, shut
up together as with a close seal; one is so near to another that
no air can come between them. The flakes of his flesh are
joined together. They are firm in themselves, they cannot be
moved. His heart is as firm as a stone, yea, as hard as a nether
millstone. The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold.
He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. Arrows
cannot make him flee; sling-stones are turned with him into
stubble. He laugheth at the shaking of a spear. Upon the

   There are those who yet retain the delusion that, somehow or
other, without any very particular effort or opposition, by a soft,
genteel, rather apologetic style of operation, Leviathan is to be
converted, baptised, and Christianised. They can try it. Such
a style answers admirably as long as it is understood to mean
nothing. But just the moment that Leviathan finds they are in
earnest, then they will see the consequences. The debates of all
the synods in the United States, as to whether he is an evil per
se, will not wake him. In fact, they are rather a pleasant hum-
drum. Nor will any resolutions that they "behold him with
regret" give him especial concern; neither will he be much
annoyed by the expressed expectation that he is to die some-
where about the millennium. Notwithstanding all the recommen-
dations of synods and conferences, Leviathan himself has but
an indifferent opinion of his own Christianity, and an impression
that he would not be considered quite in keeping with the uni-
versal reign of Christ on earth; but he doesn't much concern
himself about the prospect of giving up the ghost at so very
remote a period.

   But let anyone, either North or South, take the sword of the
Spirit and make one pass under his scales that he shall feel,
and then he will know what sort of a conflict Christian had
with Apollyon. Let no one, either North or South, undertake
this warfare, to whom fame, or ease, or wealth, or anything that
this world has to give, are too dear to be sacrificed. Let no
one undertake it who is not prepared to hate his own good
name, and, if need be, his life also. For this reason, we will
give here the example of one martyr who died for this cause;
for it has been well said that "the blood of the martyr is the
seed of the Church."

   The Rev. Elijah P. Lovejoy was the son of a Maine woman,
a native of that State which, barren in all things else, is fruitful
in noble sentiments and heroic deeds. Of his early days we
say nothing. Probably they were like those of other Maine
boys. We take up his history where we find him a clergyman
in St. Louis, Mo., editing a religious newspaper. Though pro-
fessing not to be a technical abolitionist, he took an open and
decided stand against slavery. This aroused great indignation,
and called forth threats of violence. Soon after, a mob, com-
posed of the most respectable individuals of the place, burned
alive a negro man in the streets of St. Louis, for stabbing the
officers who came to arrest him. This scene of protracted

   Before his press was destroyed the third time, a call was
issued in his paper for a convention of the enemies of slavery and
friends of free inquiry in Illinois, for the purpose of considering
and recommending measures adapted to meet the existing crisis.
This call was signed by about two hundred and fifty persons
from different parts of the State, among whom was the Rev. E.
Beecher, then President of Illinois College. This gathering
brought together a large number. When they met for discussion,
the mobocrats came also among them, and there was a great
ferment. The mob finally out-voted and dissolved the conven-
tion. It was then resolved to form an anti-slavery society, and
to issue a declaration of sentiments, and an address to the people
of the State. Threats were expressed that, if Mr. Lovejoy
continued to print his paper, the mob would destroy his expected
press. In this state of excitement, Mr. Beecher, at the request of
the society, preached two sermons, setting forth the views and
course of conduct which were contemplated in the proposed
movement. They were subsequently set forth in a published
document, an extract from which will give the reader an idea of
what they were:

   1. We shall endeavour to induce all our fellow-citizens to elevate their minds
above all selfish, pecuniary, political, and local interests; and, from a deep sense of
the presence of God, to regard solely the eternal and immutable principles of truth,
which no human legislature or popular sentiment can alter or remove.

   2. We shall endeavour to present the question as one between this community
and God, a subject on which He deeply feels, and on which we owe great and im-
portant duties to him and to our fellow-citizens.

---

-442-

   

   3. We shall endeavour, as far as possible, to allay the violence of party strife, to
remove all unholy excitement, and to produce mutual confidence and kindness, and
a deep interest in the welfare of all parts of our nation; and a strong desire to
preserve its union and promote its highest welfare.

   Our entire reliance is upon truth and love, and the influences of the Holy Spirit.
We desire to compel no one to act against his judgment or conscience by an
oppressive power of public sentiment; but to arouse all men to candid thought and
impartial inquiry in the fear of God, we do desire.

   And, to accomplish this end, we shall use the same means that are used to en-
lighten and elevate the public mind on all other great moral subjects -- personal
influence, public address, the pulpit, and the press.

   4. We shall endeavour to produce a new and radical investigation of the prin-
ciples of human rights, and of the relations of all just legislation to them,
deriving our principles from the nature of the human mind, the relations of man
to God, and the revealed will of the Creator.

   5. We shall then endeavour to examine the slave-laws of our land in the light of
these principles, and to prove that they are essentially sinful, and that they are at
war alike with the will of God and all the interests of the master, the slave, and
the community at large.

   6. We shall then endeavour to show in what manner communities where such
laws exist may relieve themselves at once, in perfect safety and peace, both of the
guilt and danger of the system.

   7. And, until communities can be aroused to do their duties, we shall endeavour
to illustrate and enforce the duties of individual slaveholders in such communities.

   To views presented in this spirit and manner one would think
there could have been no rational objection. The only difficulty
with them was, that, though calm and kind, they were felt to be
in earnest; and at once Leviathan was wide awake.

   The next practical question was, Shall the third printing-press
be defended, or shall it also be destroyed.

   There was a tremendous excitement, and a great popular
tumult. The timid, prudent, peace-loving majority, who are to
be found in every city, who care not what principles prevail, so
they promote their own interest, were wavering and pusillanimous,
and thus encouraged the mob. Every motive was urged to
induce Mr. Beecher and Mr. Lovejoy to forego the attempt to
re-establish the press. The former was told that a price had
been set on his head in Missouri -- a fashionable mode of meeting
argument in the pro-slavery parts of this country. Mr. Lovejoy
had been so long threatened with assassination, day and night,
that the argument with him was something musty. Mr.
Beecher was also told that the interests of the college of which
he was president would be sacrificed; and that if he chose to risk
his own safety, he had no right to risk those interests. But Mr.
Beecher and Mr. Lovejoy both felt that the very foundation
principle of free institutions had at this time been seriously com-

   In a public meeting, Mr. Beecher addressed the citizens on
the right of maintaining free inquiry, and of supporting every
man in the right of publishing and speaking his conscientious
opinions. He read to them some of those eloquent passages in
which Dr. Channing had maintained the same rights in very
similar circumstances in Boston. He read to them extracts
from foreign papers, which showed how the American character
suffered in foreign lands from the prevalence in America of
Lynch law and mob violence. He defended the right of Mr.
Lovejoy to print and publish his conscientious opinions; and,
finally, he read from some Southern journals extracts in which they
had strongly condemned the course of the mob, and vindicated
Mr. Lovejoy's right to express his opinions. He then proposed
to them that they should pass resolutions to the following effect:

   That the free communication of opinion is one of the invaluable rights of man;
and that every citizen may freely speak, write, or print, on any subject; being re-
sponsible for the abuse of the liberty.

   That maintenance of these principles should be independent of all regard to
persons and sentiments.

   That they should be especially maintained with regard to unpopular sentiments,
since no others need the protection of law.

   That on these grounds alone, and without regard to political and moral
differences, we agree to protect the press and property of the editor of the Alton
Observer, and support him in his right to publish whatever he pleases, holding
him responsible only to the laws of the land.

   These resolutions, so proposed, were to be taken into conside-
ration at a final meeting of the citizens, which was to be held the
next day.

   That meeting was held. Their first step was to deprive Mr.
Beecher, and all who were not citizens of that county, of the
right of debating on the report to be presented. The committee
then reported that they deeply regretted the excited state of
feeling; that they cherished strong confidence that the citizens
would refrain from undue excitement; that the exigencies of the
time required a course of moderation and compromise; and that,
while there was no disposition to prevent free discussion in
general, they deemed it indispensable to the public tranquillity
that Mr. Lovejoy should not publish a paper in that city; not
wishing to reflect in the slightest degree upon Mr. Lovejoy's
character and motives. All that the meeting waited for now

   One of the committee arose, and expressed his sympathy for
Mr. Lovejoy, characterising him as an unfortunate individual,
hoping that they would all consider that he had a wife and
family to support, and trusting that they would disgrace him as
little as possible; but that he and all his party would see the
necessity of making a compromise, and departing from Alton.
What followed is related in the words of Mr. Beecher, who was
present at the meeting:

   As Brother Lovejoy rose to reply to the speech above mentioned, I watched
his countenance with deep interest, not to say anxiety. I saw no tokens of dis-
turbance. With a tranquil, self-possessed air, he went up to the bar within
which the chairman sat, and in a tone of deep, tender, and subdued feeling, spoke
as follows:

   "I feel, Mr. Chairman, that this is the most solemn moment of my life. I
feel, I trust, in some measure the responsibilities which at this hour I sustain to
these, my fellow-citizens, to the Church of which I am a minister, to my country,
and to God. And let me beg of you, before I proceed further, to construe nothing
I shall say as being disrespectful to this assembly. I have no such feeling; far
from it. And if I do not act or speak according to their wishes at all times, it is
because I cannot conscientiously do it.

   "It is proper I should state the whole matter, as I understand it, before this
audience. I do not stand here to argue the question, as presented by the report of
the committee. My only wonder is that the honourable gentleman, the chairman
of that committee, for whose character I entertain great respect, though I have
not the pleasure of his personal acquaintance -- my only wonder is how that
gentleman could have brought himself to submit such a report.

   "Mr. Chairman, I do not admit that it is the business of this assembly to decide
whether I shall or shall not publish a newspaper in this city. The gentlemen have,
as the lawyers say, made a wrong issue. I have the right to do it. I know that
I have the right freely to speak and publish my sentiments, subject only to the
laws of the land for the abuse of that right. This right was given me by my
Maker; and is solemnly guaranteed to me by the constitution of these United
States, and of this State. What I wish to know of you is, whether you will
protect me in the exercise of this right; or whether, as heretofore, I am to be
subjected to personal indignity and outrage. These resolutions, and the measures
proposed by them, are spoken of as a compromise -- a compromise between two
parties. Mr. Chairman, this is not so. There is but one party here. It is simply
a question whether the law shall be enforced, or whether the mob shall be allowed,
as they now do, to continue to trample it under their feet, by violating with im-
punity the rights of an innocent individual.

   "Mr. Chairman, what have I to compromise? If freely to forgive those who
have so greatly injured me, if to pray for their temporal and eternal happiness, if
still to wish for the prosperity of your city and State, notwithstanding all the in-
dignities I have suffered in it -- if this be the compromise intended, then do I willingly
make it. My rights have been shamefully, wickedly outraged; this I know, and

---

-445-


feel, and can never forget. But I can and do freely forgive those who have done it.
But if by a compromise is meant that I should cease from doing that which
duty requires of me, I cannot make it. And the reason is, that I fear God more
than I fear man. Think not that I would lightly go contrary to public sentiment
around me. The good opinion of my fellow-men is dear to me, and I would
sacrifice anything but principle to obtain their good wishes; but when they ask
me to surrender this, they ask for more than I can, than I dare give. Reference is
made to the fact that I offered a few days since to give up the editorship of the
Observer into other hands. This is true; I did so because it was thought or said
by some that perhaps the paper would be better patronised in other hands. They
declined accepting my offer, however, and since then we have heard from the
friends and supporters of the paper in all parts of the State. There was but one
sentiment among them, and this was, that the paper could be sustained in no other
hands than mine. It is also a very different question, whether I shall voluntarily,
or at the request of friends, yield up my post, or whether I shall forsake it at the
demand of a mob. The former I am at all times ready to do, when circumstances
occur to require it, as I will never put my personal wishes or interests in competi-
tion with the cause of that Master whose minister I am. But the latter, be
assured, I never will do. God, in his providence, so say all my brethren, and so
I think, has devolved upon me the responsibility of maintaining my ground here;
and, Mr. Chairman, I am determined to do it. A voice comes to me from Maine,
from Massachusetts, from Connecticut, from New York, from Pennsylvania -- yea,
from Kentucky, from Mississippi, from Missouri -- calling upon me, in the name of
all that is dear in heaven or earth, to stand fast; and by the help of God, I will
stand. I know I am but one, and you are many. My strength would avail
but little against you all. You can crush me, if you will; but I shall die at my
post, for I cannot and will not forsake it.

   "Why should I flee from Alton? Is not this a free State? When assailed by
a mob at St. Louis, I came hither, as to the home of freedom and of the laws.
The mob has pursued me here, and why should I retreat again? Where can I be
safe, if not here? Have not I a right to claim the protection of the laws? What
more can I have in any other place? Sir, the very act of retreating will em-
bolden the mob to follow me wherever I go. No, sir, there is no way to escape the
mob but to abandon the path of duty, and that, God helping me, I will never do.

   "It has been said here that my hand is against every man, and every man's
hand against me. The last part of the declaration is too painfully true. I do
indeed find almost every hand lifted against me; but against whom, in this place,
has my hand been raised? I appeal to every individual present; whom of you
have I injured? Whose character have I traduced? Whose family have I
molested? Whose business have I meddled with? If any, let him rise here and
testify against me. No one answers.

   "And do not your resolutions say that you find nothing against my private or
personal character? And does any one believe that, if there was anything to be found,
it would not be found and brought forth? If in anything I have offended against
the law, I am not so popular in this community as that it would be difficult to
convict me. You have courts, and judges, and juries; they find nothing against
me. And now you come together for the purpose of driving out a confessedly
innocent man, for no cause but that he dares to think and speak as his conscience
and his God dictate. Will conduct like this stand the scrutiny of your country,

---

-446-


of posterity, above all, of the judgment-day? For remember, the Judge of that
day is no respecter of persons. Pause, I beseech you, and reflect! the present
excitement will soon be over; the voice of conscience will at last be heard. And
in some season of honest thought, even in this world, as you review the scenes of
this hour, you will be compelled to say, `He was right; he was right!'

   "But you have been exhorted to be lenient and compassionate, and in driving me
away to affix no unnecessary disgrace upon me. Sir, I reject all such compassion.
You cannot disgrace me. Scandal, and falsehood, and calumny have already done
their worst. My shoulders have borne the burden till it sits easy upon them.
You may hang me up as the mob hung up the individuals of Vicksburg! You
may burn me at the stake, as they did McIntosh at St. Louis, or you may tar and
feather me, or throw me into the Mississippi, as you have often threatened to do;
but you cannot disgrace me. I, and I alone, can disgrace myself; and the deepest
of all disgrace would be, at a time like this, to deny my Master by forsaking his
cause. He died for me, and I were most unworthy to bear his name should I
refuse, if need be, to die for him!

   "Again, you have been told that I have a family, who are dependent on me,
and this has been given as a reason why I should be driven off as gently as pos-
sible. It is true, Mr. Chairman, I am a husband and a father; and this it is that
adds the bitterest ingredient to the cup of sorrow I am called to drink. I am made
to feel the wisdom of the Apostle's advice, `It is better not to marry.' I know
sir, that in this contest I stake not my life only, but that of others also. I do not
expect my wife will ever recover the shock received at the awful scenes through
which she was called to pass at St. Charles. And how was it the other night on
my return to my house? I found her driven to the garret, through fear of the
mob, who were prowling round my house; and scarcely had I entered the house
ere my windows were broken in by the brickbats of the mob, and she so alarmed
that it was impossible for her to sleep or rest that night. I am hunted as a
partridge upon the mountains; I am pursued as a felon through your streets; and
to the guardian power of the law I look in vain for that protection against violence
which even the vilest criminal may claim.

   "Yet think not that I am unhappy. Think not that I regret the choice that
I have made. While all around me is violence and tumult, all is peace within.
An approving conscience and the rewarding smile of God is a full recompense
for all that I forego and all that I endure. Yes, sir, I enjoy a peace which nothing
can destroy. I sleep sweetly and undisturbed, except when awaked by the brick-
bats of the mob.

   "No, sir, I am not unhappy. I have counted the cost and stand prepared freely
to offer up my all in the service of God. Yes, sir, I am fully aware of all the
sacrifices I make in here pledging myself to continue this contest to the last.
(Forgive these tears -- I had not intended to shed them, and they flow not for
myself, but others.) But I am commanded to forsake father, and mother, and wife,
and children for Jesus' sake; and as his professed disciple I stand prepared to do
it. The time for fulfilling this pledge in my case, it seems to me, has come. Sir,
I dare not flee away from Alton. Should I attempt it, I should feel that the
angel of the Lord, with his flaming sword, was pursuing me wherever I went. It
is because I fear God that I am not afraid of all who oppose me in this city. No,
sir, the contest has commenced here, and here it must be finished. Before God and
and you all, I here pledge myself to continue it, if need be, till death. If I fall, my
[unclear: ]

   In person Lovejoy was well formed, in voice and manners
refined; and the pathos of this last appeal, uttered in entire sim-
plicity, melted everyone present, and produced a deep silence.
It was one of those moments when the feelings of an audience
tremble in the balance, and a grain may incline them to either
side. A proposition to support him might have carried, had it
been made at that moment. The charm was broken by another
minister of the gospel, who rose and delivered a homily on the
necessity of compromise, recommending to Mr. Lovejoy especial
attention to the example of Paul, who was let down in a basket
from a window in Damascus; as if Alton had been a heathen
city under a despotic government! The charm once broken,
the meeting became tumultuous and excited, and all manner of
denunciations were rained down upon abolitionists. The meet-
ing passed the resolutions reported by the committee, and refused
to resolve to aid in sustaining the law against illegal violence;
and the mob perfectly understood that, do what they might, they
should have no disturbance. It being now understood that Mr.
Lovejoy would not retreat, it was supposed that the crisis of the
matter would develope itself when his printing-press came on
shore.

   During the following three days there seemed to be something
of a reaction. One of the most influential of the mob-leaders
was heard to say that it was of no use to go on destroying
presses, as there was money enough on East to bring new ones,
and that they might as well let the fanatics alone.

   This somewhat encouraged the irresolute city authorities; and
the friends of the press thought if they could get it once landed,
and safe into the store of Messrs. Godfrey and Gilman, that the
crisis would be safely passed. They therefore sent an express to
the captain to delay the landing of the boat till three o'clock in
the morning, and the leaders of the mob, after watching till they
were tired, went home; the press was safely landed and deposited,
and all supposed that the trouble was safely passed. Under this
impression Mr. Beecher left Alton, and returned home.

   We will give a few extracts from Mr. Beecher's narrative,
which describe his last interview with Mr. Lovejoy on that night,
after they had landed and secured the press: --

   Shortly after the hour fixed on for the landing of the boat, Mr. Lovejoy arose,
and called me to go with him to see what was the result. The moon had set and
it was still dark, but day was near; and here and there a light was glimmering
from the window of some sick-room, or of some early riser. The streets were
empty and silent, and the sound of our feet echoed from the walls as we passed
along. Little did he dream, at that hour of the contest which the next night
[unclear: ]

---

-448-


would witness, that these same streets would echo with the shouts of an infuriate
mob, and be stained with his own heart's blood.

   We found the boat there, and the press in the warehouse; aided in raising it to
the third storey. We were all rejoiced that no conflict had ensued, and that the
press was safe; and all felt that the crisis was over. We were sure that the store
could not be carried by storm by so few men as had ever yet acted in a mob; and
though the majority of the citizens would not aid to defend the press, we had no
fear that they would aid in an attack. So deep was this feeling that it was thought
that a small number was sufficient to guard the press afterward; and it was
agreed that the company should be divided into sections of six, and take turns on
successive nights. As they had been up all night, Mr. Lovejoy and myself offered
to take charge of the press till morning; and they retired.

   The morning soon began to dawn; and that morning I shall never forget. Who
that has stood on the banks of the mighty stream that then rolled before me can
forget the emotions of sublimity that filled his heart, as in imagination he has
traced those channels of intercourse opened by it and its branches through the
illimitable regions of this western world? I thought of future ages, and of the
countless millions that should dwell on this mighty stream; and that nothing but
the truth would make them free. Never did I feel as then the value of the right
for which we were contending thoroughly to investigate and fearlessly to proclaim
that truth. Oh the sublimity of moral power! By it God sways the universe.
By it he will make the nations free.

   I passed through the scuttle to the roof, and ascended to the highest point of
the wall. The sky and the river were beginning to glow with approaching day,
and the busy hum of business to be heard. I looked with exultation on the scenes
below. I felt that a bloodless battle had been gained for God and for the truth;
and that Alton was redeemed from eternal shame. And as all around grew
brighter with approaching day, I thought of that still brighter sun, even now
dawning on the world, and soon to bathe it with floods of glorious light.

   Brother Lovejoy, too, was happy. He did not exult; he was tranquil and com-
posed, but his countenance indicated the state of his mind. It was a calm and
tranquil joy; for he trusted in God that the point was gained, that the banner of
an unfettered press would soon wave over that mighty stream.

   Vain hopes! How soon to be buried in a martyr's grave! Vain, did I say?
No: they are not vain. Though dead, he still speaketh; and a united world can
never silence his voice.

   The conclusion of the tragedy is briefly told. A volunteer
company, of whom Lovejoy was one, was formed to act under
the mayor in defence of the law. The next night the mob assailed
the building at ten o'clock. The store consisted of two stone
buildings in one block, with doors and windows at each end, but
no windows at the sides. The roof was of wood. Mr. Gilman,
opening the end door of the third story, asked what they wanted.
They demanded the press. He refused to give it up, and ear-
nestly intreated them to go away without violence, assuring
them that, as the property had been committed to their charge,
they should defend it at the risk of their lives. After some inef-

   Those within then attempted to capitulate, but were refused
with curses by the mob, who threatened to burn the store, and
shoot them as they came out. At length the building was actu-
ally on fire, and they fled out, fired on as they went by the mob.
So terminated the Alton Tragedy.

   When the noble mother of Lovejoy heard of his death, she
said, "It is well. I had rather he would die so than forsake his
principles!" All is not over with America while such mothers
are yet left. Was she not blessed who could give up such a son
in such a spirit? Who was that woman whom God pronounced
blessed above all women? Was it not she who saw her dearest
crucified? So differently does God see from what man sees!

   "Look now upon this picture! -- and on this."

--
Hamlet.