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
Assembly established the fact that the New-School Presbyterian
Church had not decided the Biblical defence of slavery to be a
heresy.
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.Ӡ
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;
that the holding of our fellow-men in the condition of slavery,
except in those cases where it is unavoidable from the laws of
the State, the obligations of guardianship, or the demands of
humanity, is an offence, in the proper import of that term, as
used in the Book of Discipline, and should be regarded and
treated in the same manner as other offences; also referring this
subject to sessions and presbyteries.” The vote stood eighty-
were for no action in the present state of the country. Let the
reader again compare this action with that of 1818, and he will
see that the boat is still drifting--especially as even this moderate
testimony was not unanimous. Again, in this year of 1850,
they avow themselves ready to meet, in a spirit of fraternal
kindness and Christian love, any overtures for re-union which
may be made to them by the Old-School body.
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-
ness, and what concord hath Christ with Belial? The slave
system is darkness--the slave-system is Belial! and every
attempt to harmonise it with the profession of Christianity will
be just like these. Let it be here recorded, however, that a
small body of the most determined opponents of slavery in the
Presbyterian Church seceded and formed the Free Presbyterian
Church, whose terms of communion are, an entire withdrawal
from slaveholding. Whether this principle be a correct one or
not, it is worthy of remark that it was adopted and carried out
by the Quakers--the only body of Christians involved in this
evil who have ever succeeded in freeing themselves from it.
Whether Church discipline and censure is an appropriate
&
nbsp; 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;
and the result has been that they have formed altogether inade-
quate conceptions of the extent to which the cause of God on
earth is imperilled by American slavery, and of the duty of
Christians in such a crisis. They have never had such a convic-
tion as has aroused, and called out, and united their energies, on
this, as on other great causes. Meantime, great organic influences
in Church and State are, much against their wishes, neutralising
their influence against slavery--sometimes even arraying it in its
favour. The perfect inflexibility of the slave-system, and its
absolute refusal to allow any discussion of the subject, has
reduced all those who wish to have religious action in common
with slaveholding Churches to the alternative of either giving up
the support of the South for that object, or giving up their protest
against slavery.
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-
ing with all our might and all our influence, a system of worn-
out heathenism which even the Bey of Tunis has repudiated!
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 remonst
rated 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
abundance of testimonies on record in the Presbyterian Church,
for that matter, quite as good and quite as strong as any that
have been given by Congregationalism. There have been quite
as many anti-slavery men in the New-School Presbyterian Church
as in the Congregational--quite as strong anti-slavery news-
papers; and the Presbyterian Church has had trial of this matter
that the Congregational Church has never been exposed to. It
has had slaveholders in its own communion; and from this trial
Congregationalism has, as yet, been mostly exempt. Being thus
free, ought not the testimony of Congregationalism to have been
more than equal? ought it not to have done more than testify?
ought it not to have fought for the question? Like the brave
three hundred in Thermopylæ left to defend the liberties of
Greece, when all others had fled, should they not have thrown in
heart and soul, body and spirit? Have they done it?
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