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
the world cannot bear such a familiarity without injury to the
moral sense. The facts of the slave system and of the slave laws,
when presented to disinterested judges in Europe, have excited
a universal outburst of horror; yet, in assemblies composed of
the wisest and best clergymen of America, these things have
been discussed from year to year, and yet brought no results
that have, in the slightest degree, lessened the evil. The reason
is this. A portion of the members of these bodies had pledged
themselves to sustain the system, and peremptorily to refuse and
put down all discussion of it; and the other part of the body
did not consider this stand so taken as being of sufficiently vital
consequence to authorise separation.
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:--
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
non-existence rests with those State Legislatures.
* * * * 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
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, 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-
ceived and written in a very Christian spirit. The Assembly's
Digest says, page 341, that it was unanimously adopted. The
following is its testimony as to the nature of slavery:
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-
diately the work of instructing slaves, with a view to preparing
them for freedom; and to let no greater delay take place than
“a regard to public welfare indispensably demands.” “To be
governed by no other considerations than an honest and
impartial regard to the happiness of the injured party, unin-
fluenced by the expense and inconvenience which such regard may
involve.” It warns against “unduly extending this plea of
necessity,” against making it a cover for the love and practice of
slavery. It ends by recommending that any one who shall sell
a fellow-Christian without his consent be immediately dis-
ciplined and suspended.
If we consider that this was unanimously adopted by slave-