University of Virginia Library

3. APPENDIX III.
CHURCH ACTION ON SLAVERY.

In reference to this important subject, we present a few extracts from the
first and second chapters of the fourth part of the “Key to Uncle Tom's
Cabin:”

Let us review the declarations that have been made in the Southern
church, and see what principles have been established by them:

1. That slavery is an innocent and lawful relation, as much as that of
parent and child, husband and wife, or any other lawful relation of society.
(Harmony Pres., S. C.)

2. That it is consistent with the most fraternal regard for the good of the
slave. (Charleston Union Pres., S. C.)

3. That masters ought not to be disciplined for selling slaves without
their consent. (New School Pres. Church, Petersburg, Va.)

4. That the right to buy, sell, and hold men for purposes of gain, was
given by express permission of God. (James Smylie and his Presbyteries.)

5. That the laws which forbid the education of the slave are right, and
meet the approbation of the reflecting part of the Christian community.
(Ibid.)

6. That the fact of slavery is not a question of morals at all, but is purely
one of political economy. (Charleston Baptist Association.)

7. The right of masters to dispose of the time of their slaves has been distinctly
recognized by the Creator of all things. (Ibid.)

8. That slavery, as it exists in these United States, is not a moral evil.
(Georgia Conference, Methodist.)

9. That, without a new revelation from heaven, no man is entitled to pronounce
slavery wrong.

10. That the separation of slaves by sale should be regarded as separation
by death, and the parties allowed to marry again. (Shiloh Baptist Ass.,
and Savannah River Ass.)

11. That the testimony of colored members of the churches shall not be
taken against a white person. (Methodist Church.)

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

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 discussion 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 concentrated 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 population as to their marriage
relations:

“The system of slavery denies to a whole class of human beings the sacredness
of marriage and of home, compelling them to live in a state of
concubinage; for, in the eye of the law, no colored 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 child 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 included 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 authorize 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 declare 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 dishonor to
Him who is over all, God blessed forever, 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 particularly the
case with the Methodist and Presbyterian bodies, and for that reason we
select these two as examples. The Methodist Society, especially, as organized
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 organized 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 religion; and doing what we would not others should
do unto us.”

In 1784, when the church was fully organized, 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, etc.

“The Annual Conferences are directed to draw up addresses for the gradual
emancipation 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 conducting of the business; and the presiding elders, dea

cons, 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 responsibility of its existence, or 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 patronizing any of their
publications,” etc. * * * * * * * * *

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.[1]

In 1838, the Conference resolved —

“As the sense of this Conference, that any of its members, or probationers,
who shall patronize Zion's Watchman, either by writing in commendation
of its character, 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 colored 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 Conference.
The Southern Conference is avowedly all pro-slavery, and the
Northern Conference has still in its communion slaveholding 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-established position, by keeping the travelling preachers
composing its own body free from slavery, it is also determined not to hold
connection 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 Philadelphia Annual
Conference to the Societies under its care, dated Wilmington, Delaware,
April 7, 1847:

These facts sufficiently define the position of the Methodist church. The
history is melancholy, but instructive. The history 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. 1: 10. — The law is made for MAN-STEALERS. This crime among
the Jews exposed the perpetrators of it to capital punishment (Exodus 21:
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
emunt. 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 common 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, conceived
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 neighbor as ourselves, and as totally irreconcilable 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 circumstances 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, neighbors and
friends; whether they shall preserve their chastity and purity, or regard
the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are some of the consequences
of slavery, — consequences 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 rejoice 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 endeavors 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 sympathize 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
immediately 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, uninfluenced 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 disciplined and suspended.

If we consider that this was unanimously adopted by slaveholders 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 organizing 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 colored population can be
considered, 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
recognize 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 neighborhood where these
heartrending 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 countenances 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 denomination, 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 discipline 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, entreating 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
sentiments, 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 recognized by God. When the tardy process of the law is too long in
redressing our grievances, we at the South have adopted the summary
process of Judge Lynch.”

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 authorized 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
meekness and firmness of the Gospel, to plead the cause of the poor and
needy, by testifying against the principle and practice of slaveholding, and
to use his best endeavors to deliver the church of God from the evil, and to
bring about the emancipation 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 determination 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!

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
ecelesiastical 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 slaveholding 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, 1. That the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church
in the United States was originally organized, 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 organization under which, by the Divine
blessing, it has so long 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 organization
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 testimony against
slavery.

In reply to the petitions, the General Assembly reäffirmed 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 irreconcilable with the precepts of the Gospel of Christ;” and
yet that they “had formed their church organization upon the conceded
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 pro-slavery complicity, and avow their principles with
decision, even though it should repel all such churches from their communion
as were not prepared for immediate emancipation.

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 sympathized 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 applicants, 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 unmistakable 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 these: “Solemnly referring the
whole subject to the lower judicatories, to take such action as in their
judgment is most judicious, and adapted to remove the evil.” The Rev.
George Beecher moved to insert the word moral before evil; they
declined.[2]

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. Accordingly, it did not meet till 1843. In 1843,
several memorials were again presented, and some resolutions offered to the
Assembly, 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 circumstances, 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 judgment 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 professing 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.”

Thus has the matter gone on from year to year, ever since.

In 1856 we are sorry to say that we can report no improvement in the
action of the great ecclesiastical bodies on the subject of slavery, but
rather deterioration. Notwithstanding all the aggressions of slavery, and
notwithstanding the constant developments of its horrible influence in corrupting
and degrading the character of the nation, as seen in the mean,
vulgar, assassin-like outrages in our national Congress, and the brutal,
blood-thirsty, fiend-like proceedings in Kansas, connived at and protected,
if not directly sanctioned and in part instigated, by our national government;
— notwithstanding all this, the great ecclesiastical organizations
seem less disposed than ever before to take any efficient action on the
subject. This was manifest in the General Conference of the Methodist
Episcopal Church North, held at Indianapolis during the spring of the
present year, and in the General Assemblies of the Presbyterian Church, held
at New York at about the same time.

True, a very large minority in the Methodist Conference resisted with
great energy the action, or rather no action, of the majority, and gave
fearless utterance to the most noble sentiments; but in the final result the
numbers were against them.

The same thing was true to some extent in the New School Presbyterian
General Assembly, though here the anti-slavery utterances were, on
the whole, inferior to those in the Methodist Conference. In both bodies
the Packthreads, and Cushings, and Calkers, and Bonnies, are numerous,
and have the predominant influence, while the Dicksons are fewer, and have
far less power. The representations, therefore, in the body of the work,
though very painful, are strictly just. Individuals, everywhere in the free
states, and in some of the slave states, are most earnestly struggling against
the prevailing corruption; but the churches, as such, are, for the most
part, still unmoved. There are churches free from this stain, but they are
neither numerous nor popular.

For an illustration of the lynching of Father Dickson, see “Key to Uncle
Tom's Cabin,” Part III., Chapter VIII.