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.