m^:^^^-^ — 
 
 ANTI-SLAYERY AGITATION 
 
 IN THE CHURCH 
 
 nsroT -A-TTTHomsBr). 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 REV. A. C. DICKER SON, 
 
 OF BOWLING GREEN, KT., 
 
 F. 
 
 4*^Qi ^^® General Assembly, May 29tli, 1857. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 KINa & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. 007 SANSOM 8T. 
 
 18 57. 
 
aass 1£^^ ^ 
 
 Book J J vr^ 
 
ANTI-SLAVEEY AGITATION 
 
 IN THE CHURCH 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 EEY. A. C. piCKEESON 
 
 ;0F BOWLING GEEEN, KT., 
 
 In the General Assembly, May 29tli, 1857. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 KING & BAIRD, PRINTERS, No. G07 SANSOM ST. 
 
 18 5 7. 
 
,■ REV. MR. DICKERSOK'S SPEECH 
 
 jm THE GENEEAL ASSEMBLT, MAY 29TH, 1S57. 
 
 Moderator : — We have reached a point 
 in these discussions, "when, it seems to me, 
 we should pause and carefully review the 
 ground we have travelled ; and re-examine 
 the principles on which we have proceeded. 
 The circumstances, all seem to indicate an 
 approximation of the '' end." I am, indeed, 
 aware, that amid the precipitancy of revolu- 
 tionary movements, men are little disposed to 
 consider " first principles." Especially is it 
 distasteful to be stopped to examine the va- 
 lidity of our proceedings, when on the very 
 point of gaining the end for which they were 
 instituted. Yet as the bearings of what we 
 now do, are likely to affect, very deeply, for 
 weal or woe, a cause we all love, and wish 
 above all things, to guard from injury ; and 
 as the very bonds of ecclesiastical brother- 
 hood may be found sundered, amid the re- 
 sults of our action, with all the consequences 
 of " schism " in the body, it surely is desira- 
 ble and important, to the last degree, that 
 we should be well assured that in seeking our 
 ends, however good in themselves, we have 
 incorporated in our work no unsovmd mate- 
 
rial — adopted no principles of questionable 
 propriety. Sir, our views are limited. Our 
 powers are feeble. Yet the consequences of 
 a single act are often momentous, and tlie 
 immediate correction of an error, impractica- 
 ble. We shall all be placed, in a short time, 
 amid circumstances favorable to a full and 
 correct apprehension of what we here do, and 
 where it will be desirable, inexpressibly so, to 
 find we had committed no mistake. With an 
 appropriate reference to our last account^ let 
 us proceed to the work of investigation. 
 
 What sir, is the state of the matter to be 
 discussed ? Those who originated and have 
 driven on this agitation, profess to regard the 
 '' system of American slavery (as a political 
 institution,) an essentially unrighteous sys- 
 tem — the great iniquity of the age — a viola- 
 tion of the most essential rights of man :" — 
 that members of the Christian church, hold- 
 ing slaves under this system, are to some ex- 
 tent and in some way, particeps criminis, in 
 this great wrong ; that members of the 
 Presbyterian church, who hold slaves, in- 
 volve, in some way and to some extent, the 
 entire body in the moral responsibilities of 
 that wrong : — and that the General Assem- 
 bly, as the highest Judicatory of the church, 
 is the proper arena for discussion, and the legi- 
 timate tribunal for the proper action, to re- 
 move the evil. True, the agitators, in these 
 
reform measures, have never accurately de- 
 fined the thing complained of, nor definitely 
 settled the mode or extent of the church's 
 responsibility in the premises ; nor marked 
 out precisely the remedy. Yet the animus 
 of the movement is plain enough. The end 
 is the separation of all slaveholding from our 
 denomination. The means, like the instru- 
 mentalities in most revolutionary movements, 
 shape themselves according to the exigencies 
 of the case. At first, free discussion was 
 the means. This failing to meet the growing 
 zeal of reformers, remonstrance and reproof 
 were brought to its aid. These seeming to 
 be equally unavailing, disciplinay'y poiver 
 was inquired for, and, through the report of 
 an able committee, found. And now process 
 is directly proposed. 
 
 My general position, Moderator, is. That 
 the subject of slavery — it being a political 
 institution — lies without the province of ec- 
 clesiastical supervision : — that the rights and 
 immunities of membership, in the Presby- 
 terian church, in no way and to no degree^ 
 depend "upon the opinions or practice of in- 
 dividuals, in relation to slaveholding : — and 
 that all agitation of this subject, in our 
 General Assemblies is illegitimate to their 
 proper functions : — and that this whole sub- 
 ject should, therefore, be totally ignored. 
 
 In support of this view, I shall now pro- 
 1* 
 
ceed to examine the subject : — 1st. In its re- 
 lations to our constitution. 2(1. In reference 
 to the teachings of the Bible. And 8d, in 
 the light of the results, we have already 
 reached. 
 
 1st. the Constitution of our Church — its 
 Relations to the Slavery Agitation, 
 
 The end of the abolition movement is the 
 separation of slaveholding from the church, 
 on the ground that it is complicity with a 
 moral wrong. The whole bearing of the 
 agitation is then first to impair the good 
 standing of slaveholding members, and se- 
 cond, to expel them, if the evil can be reme- 
 died by no milder measures. Now sir, to cor- 
 rectly apprehend the whole subject, we are 
 led to enquire into the nature of our church 
 constitution — its relations to the Bible — the 
 'proper tenure of church membership — the 
 mode in which, and principles on which such 
 ecclesiastical compacts are formed, and the 
 functions of the General Assembly. 
 
 We have, sir, a written Constitution, com- 
 prising our doctrines, with their explication 
 and application, as rules of life, in the larger 
 and shorter Catechisms, our form of Govern- 
 ment, and rules of Discipline. This book 
 contains what we, as Presbyterians, believe 
 the Bible to teach on these several topics. 
 It is not the " rule of faith and practice" to 
 us, as individual Christians. The Bible is 
 
that rule. But it is the aggregate of our 
 individual belief, as to what the Bible 
 teaches. ^ It is our expressed interpretation 
 of the Bible as to the doctrines it teaches, 
 and the form of ecclesiastical government 
 and the principles of Discipline it inculcates. 
 It is not indeed to supercede the Bible, or to 
 be contemplated as in any degree above and 
 beyond the Bible in point of authority ; but 
 is a summary of the Bible, as we understand 
 it. All its authority rests in this, that it is, 
 what we, as Presbyterians, hold the Scrip- 
 tures to teach. Revert, sir, for a moment to 
 the principles on which such ecclesiastical 
 compacts are formed. 
 
 This book, in the preliminary principles, 
 on which it confessedly rests, expressly re- 
 cognizes the right of every individual to go 
 directly, for himself, to the sacred Scrip- 
 tures, for the doctrines he is to believe, and 
 the^ principles of government and discipline 
 he is to adopt. But Christians cannot fill 
 their high mission, by separate and isolated 
 action. How then is the desired combination 
 to be effected ? — either one man must think 
 and determine for all, or those whose indivi- 
 dual and independent examinations liar- 
 monize, must associate on the basis of that 
 harmony. The former we all ignore, as the 
 essence of despotism and at war with all just 
 grounds of individual accountability. But 
 
8 
 
 how is the latter to be effected? The results 
 of free individual investigation must be com- 
 2Kired ; and their agreement made the la%i% 
 of a Gom'pact» 
 
 Thus the Presbyterian church was formed. 
 Its original members found, on comparing 
 notes, that they had reached the same re- 
 sults, in their inquiries into the sacred Scrip- 
 tures, as to doctrines to be believed, and the 
 government and discipline to be adopted. 
 They agreed to live together in ecclesiastical 
 brotherhood, on this common interpretation 
 of the Bible teaching. This common inter- 
 pretation they wrote in a Book, and solemn- 
 ly pledged themselves to abide by it ; and to 
 require all their successors both as members 
 and officers of the church, to pledge them- 
 selves likewise as a condition of admittance. 
 But remembering the infirmities of our na- 
 ture and the limited range of our powers, and 
 the consequent possibility that subsequent in- 
 quiries might require different views of the 
 Bible to be adopted, and a consequent modi- 
 fication of this book to be made ; they incor- 
 porated a provision for such an emergency. 
 This was exceedingly important. *' Union 
 is strength," was an axiom. From the un- 
 licensed liberty of investigation, different 
 discordant views were liable, at any time, to 
 arise amid whose conflictions, " unity " would 
 be sacrificed. At the same time conscience 
 
was not to be strained, nor liberty adjusted 
 to a " procrustian bed." To meet both ne- 
 cessities in a happy and practical adjustment, 
 it was incorporated, as an essential element, 
 in the system, that when any individual 
 should think he had discovered an error to 
 be corrected, or a new doctrine, to be intro- 
 duced, a memorial to that elFect should be en- 
 tertained by the Assembly and sent down to 
 the Presbyteries, for their consideration ; and 
 if approved by a majority and in a given way 
 attested, it should be incorporated accord- 
 ingly. 
 
 This was manifestly a wise and just ar- 
 rangement. Every individual has here the 
 right to be heard and to have his views, 
 when differing from the Constitution, fairly 
 considered, as to their scriptural authority ; 
 while, at the same time, the general body is 
 saved from all dangerous and hurtful obtru- 
 sion upon its harmony. If the individual 
 cannot gain the convictions of the Body to 
 Ms views, after reasonable opportunity, he 
 must either adhere, holding his peculiarities 
 in abeyance in deference to the general 
 good; or if too vitally important, in his 
 opinion, to be thus restrained ; then by the 
 terms of the compact, he must leave, and 
 find a congenial field for their employment 
 elsewhere : Now, sir, in view of these ac- 
 knowledged principles, let it be observed, 
 
10 
 
 that while each individual Christian has the 
 right, and is in duty bound, to go directly to 
 the Bible for the doctrines he is to believe, 
 and the ecclesiastical government and disci- 
 pline he is to adopt; and for these is respon- 
 sible alone to the Lord of his conscience; 
 yet as a Presbyterian^ he is under solemn 
 and binding vows to this Constitution. He 
 becomes a Presbyterian on the ground that 
 his interpretation of the Bible harmonises 
 with that of that church ; and in order to 
 enjoy the advantages of union, he sought 
 and obtained membership there. 
 
 Let it be also observed, that by the theory 
 of the Presbyterian Constitution, the Pres- 
 byteries are the bodies authorized to alter the 
 Constitution. All propositions for adding to, 
 or taking from, or changing that ecclesiasti- 
 cal social compact, in any way or to any ex- 
 tent, must be submitted to them ; and be sus- 
 tained by a majority of them, before they 
 can be the law of the church. This is a vi- 
 tal point. No opinions of any individual 
 or bodies of individual Presbyterians — no 
 resolutions of Synods or General Assemblies, 
 can have any force as constitutional princi- 
 ples. 
 
 Let it be further observed, sir, that the 
 tenure of the rights of membership in the 
 Presbyterian church, is its Constitution, and 
 that alone. We admit individuals to mem- 
 
11 
 
 bership, upon their profession of faith in 
 Christ and obedience to His laws. We ad- 
 mit them, as Presbyterians, upon their adop- 
 tion of our constitution, as containing the 
 correct interpretation of God's word, which 
 is the only rule of faith and practice. When 
 they enquire for the terms of admission, we 
 present them our Constitution. Here and 
 here only are they to look for the conditio7is 
 on which they are to be admitted ; and for 
 the charter of their rights and immunities 
 when admitted. Here is the " social com- 
 pact," ecclesiastical — the magna charta of 
 the rights and liberties of the Presbyterian 
 commonwealth. The doctrines he is to be- 
 lieve are here, and only here, recorded. The 
 church government to which he subjects him- 
 self, and the system of discipline to which he 
 promises submission, are here laid down. In 
 the judicial decisions of the higher judicato- 
 ries, he is to look for the decisions of doubt- 
 ful or disputed points — and such decisions 
 are the authoritative exponents of the Consti- 
 tution. But the opinions and resolves of the 
 higher judicatories not judicial, are no part 
 of the Constitution — constitute no part of 
 the ground of admission to membership, nor 
 any test of character or standing. The 
 higher judicatories have no authority to add 
 any thing to the Constitution, nor to take 
 any thing from it, nor to make any neio tests 
 
12 
 
 of Christian character or lay down any oiew 
 basis of membership in the church. No 
 doctrine, beyond those, declared in the Con- 
 fession of Faith, can be made a doctrine of 
 the Presbyterian church by any action of a 
 General Assembly. Nor can any doctrine 
 of the Confession, or claimed to be of it, be 
 authoritatively declared or decided upon by 
 a Synod or Assembly, except when brought 
 under its judicial notice, by the proper 
 action of the lower judicatories. 
 
 One thing more, sir. No measures, aimed 
 to affect the rights and immunities of member- 
 ship in the Presbyterian Church, which, when 
 directly made, would be confessedly wrong ; 
 may even be justly employed, to accomplish 
 the same end, indirectly. The contract be- 
 tween the church and her newly admitted 
 members is a bona fide one. The terms of 
 association are plain, and are distinctly de- 
 clared. And when the connexion is thus 
 legally formed, no man may honestly seek to 
 injuriously affect it, by efforts to foist into 
 the compact new features or mitigations of 
 old ones. As the individual member, who 
 should ignore an acknowledged doctrine, or 
 seek to evade the legitimate operation of our 
 government and discipline, would be justly 
 considered as violating his obligations to the 
 church, solemnly assumed v;hen he entered 
 it ; so the church, through her legitimate tribu- 
 
13 
 
 nals, having invested in the member admit- 
 ted, the immunities of membership, should 
 she attempt to alter the terms, or modify 
 them so as injuriously to affect the enjoyment 
 of them by the person thus admitted, would 
 be rightfully charged with a breach of faith. 
 Much more so, would be the conduct of her 
 General Assemblies, when by the declaration 
 of doctrines, and the establishment of tests 
 of good standing, not in the constitution, 
 nor contemplated when the connexion was 
 formed, they should seek to surround sections 
 of her membership with circumstances which 
 would morally compel a course of conduct, 
 not at all contemplated, when they united 
 with the church ; and which, in the circum- 
 stances, would seriously compromise their 
 consciences and their happiness ; or which 
 would compel their withdrawal from the body 
 altogether. Such indirect exscision were a 
 palpable violation of all the constitutional 
 guarantees of our church rights. 
 
 Now, sir, in view of this preliminary ex- 
 amination of the Constitution of the Church; 
 its nature ; the principles on which, and mode 
 in which it was formed ; and its relations to 
 the Bible and to membership in the Church ; 
 the tenure of ecclesiastical rights, and mea- 
 sure of the qualifications for their investment 
 and enjoyment — we are prepared to advance 
 a step, and to inquire how this abolition 
 2 
 
14 
 
 movement and its professed ends, quadrate 
 with this great charter of our rights. 
 
 1. It "will be conceded, that nowhere, in 
 the Constitution of the Church, is slave-hold- 
 ing expressly recognized as a subject of gov- 
 ernmental cognizance, by any of our Church 
 judicatories ! Among our doctrines, nowhere 
 is slave-holding mentioned as a heresy, or 
 anti-slavery as a doctrine. Nowhere, in our 
 authorized explications of the doctrines of 
 the Church, made at such full length in the 
 Catechisms, (especially the larger,) is the 
 holding of slaves recognized as a crime, in 
 express terms. Among the vast number and. 
 forms of evil, expressly recognized as calling 
 for the cognizance of the Church Session 
 and the Presbyteries, (the only bodies hav- 
 ing original jurisdiction, under the Constitu- 
 tion, of disciplinary processes,) not once is 
 slave-holding named ! The relative duties 
 of masters and slaves are recognized, and, 
 by implication, the relation itself rather 
 sustained than condemned. It is passing 
 strange, that if this were the evil of evils — 
 the abomination of the age — the deep and 
 dreadful gangrene of the body, threatening 
 to consume its vitals — the founders of the 
 Church should not have expressly brought it 
 under the ban of the Constitution. 
 
 And here, sir, let me remind my brethren 
 of the Assembly, that in well regulated gov- 
 
15 
 
 ernments, the absence of express authority, 
 in the exercise of delegated powers, is always 
 regarded with suspicion, and is looked upon 
 as a demand for caution. In well balanced 
 systems of judicial process, the plea of want 
 of poiver is held to demand, justly and im- 
 periously, the most careful and thorough 
 revieiv ! If in an ecclesiastical Constitution 
 there is conceded to be no direct and express 
 recognition of slave-holding as a proper sub- 
 ject of cognizance of any of its judicatories, 
 the strong presumption is, the framers of 
 the instrument never intended it to be ! 
 But, sir, this presumption is rendered mor- 
 ally certain^ when, in the 
 
 2d place, we refer to the circumstances 
 under which our Constitution ivas formed ! 
 
 Next to the language itself, there is no 
 more satisfactory rule of getting at the in- 
 tentions of the framers of an organic law, 
 for either Church or State, than the circum- 
 stances in which they were known to be 
 placed. At the time our Constitution was 
 originally formed, it is a fact, that slave- 
 holding, by church members, did extensively 
 obtain. Slavery, as a civil institution, ex- 
 isted in all the States, with perhaps a single 
 exception. When, subsequently, our Con- 
 stitution was remodelled and again adopted 
 as a whole, slave-holding was still common 
 among both ministers and members. That 
 
16 
 
 the framers of the Constitution did not intend 
 to make an instrument that would necessarily 
 cut themselves off from the Church which it 
 was to govern, is a self-evident proposition ! 
 That they did do so, however, if slavery is, 
 by the Constitution, a crime and a legitimate 
 subject of governmental cognizance, needs 
 no proof. Therefore we are driven, irresisti- 
 bly, to the conclusion, that they intended no 
 such thing ! 
 
 It is nugatory to urge here, that " oppres- 
 sion" (which is condemned) is synonymous 
 with slaveholding ; and therefore the latter 
 may be lawfully dealt with as a crime. The 
 framers of the Constitution surely under- 
 stood the terms they employed — at least in 
 application to the tilings they had under 
 consideration. The consideration suggested 
 above, is proof, positive as demonstration, 
 that they did not consider the tldng — slave- 
 holding — as synonymous with the Uiing — 
 oppression — which they condemn ! 
 
 Equally nugatory is it here to allege, that 
 in the Bible, slave-holding and oppression 
 are one and the same thing ! For, admitting, 
 for argument's sake, it were so, yet we are 
 seeking, in these inquiries, what the Preshj- 
 terian Church finds in the Bible, as authori- 
 tatively declared in her Constitution; and 
 not what individuals, in the exercise of their 
 original freedom of inquiry, may have found 
 
11 
 
 there. Slave-holding and oppression, then, 
 are not the same, in the view of the framers 
 of our Constitution : the one is a proper sub- 
 ject of disciplinary process — the other is not ! 
 The bearing of all this, sir, will be very 
 perceptible, in an illustration of its practical 
 operation. Thirty-four years ago, believing 
 myself prepared, by the grace of God, I 
 knocked at the door of a church, in your 
 connection, for admittance to membership. 
 I was met at the threshold with the presen- 
 tation of your Confession of Faith^ and told 
 that it contained the teiiiis of admission. I 
 was informed that these were the doctrines 
 I was expected to believe, and the form of 
 government and system of discipline the 
 Presbyterian Church believed the Bible to 
 teach, and to which I must promise submis- 
 sion ; that these were the only conditions — 
 these the only tests of qualification for 
 membership. I adopted them — entered the 
 Church, and by the compact, understood the 
 Church to guarantee my rights and immuni- 
 ties of membership, so long as I fulfilled my 
 obligations to her Constitution ! No intima- 
 tion was made to me, that my membership 
 might be challenged, or its immunities affect- 
 ed by any thing not here provided for ; and 
 far less by any thing in me, or in my then 
 and known condition, not now covered by 
 the Constitution. I was then implicated in 
 2* 
 
18 
 
 slave-holding. Multitudes of other persons 
 "were received there, and all around me, into 
 the Church, in the same " condemnation," if 
 it 'were unlawful. The Sessions that received 
 us were recognized bj their Presbyteries, 
 and these again by the Synods, and the 
 Synods by the General Assembly ! And in 
 the Constitution — the basis of the compact 
 formed with the Session — no, mention was 
 made of slave-holding, as a crime demanding 
 censure. Now, sir, on what conceivable 
 ground — just and right — can that circum- 
 stance be now dragged up, and foisted into 
 the terms of membership, and made a test 
 of Christian character, and brought to affect 
 my good standing in the Church ? 
 
 Twenty-five years ago, I applied to one of 
 your Presbyteries for admission to the minis- 
 try of your Church — the Presbytery of Cin- 
 cinnati, then headed by the venerable Dr. 
 J. L. Wilson — a body of men no one could 
 suspect of a lax regard to the Constitution. 
 I was then admitted as a candidate. I was 
 subsequently, by another Presbytery, having 
 regular cognizance of my trials and studies, 
 licensed and ordained. Here, as before, I 
 was presented with the Constitution^ as con- 
 taining the Church's interpretation of the 
 Word of God, the doctrines I was to believe 
 and teach, and the governmental system I 
 was to adopt. I did adopt them, and on 
 
19 
 
 these terms entered her ministry ! It was 
 no part of the compact that my oflScial im- 
 munities and rights were to depend on any 
 thing not in the Book. I adopted the " Con- 
 fession of Eaith," and promised obedience to 
 its laws, and claimed as my right, that as 
 long as I taught its doctrines and conformed 
 to its regulations, my ministerial standing 
 and usefulness, and my personal happiness, 
 as relates to my church connections, were 
 guaranteed ! Not a word of slave-holding 
 being unlawful was uttered, and none found 
 in the Book ! Yet now, after the prime of 
 life spent in her service, amid no ordinary 
 share of trials, my fair standing is assailed, 
 in memorials sent here, by entire Synods, 
 and actual disciplinary processes are pro- 
 posed, looking to my expulsion ; and all on 
 ground which existed at the time of my ad- 
 mission, and was known to exist by the Pres- 
 bytery that ordained me. At the same time, 
 the action of the Presbytery was sustained 
 by the Synod, and its action by the Assem- 
 bly ! That ground of accusation, moreover, 
 is nowhere recognized in the Constitution, 
 which was the acknowledged basis of my 
 admission ! Who, sir — who, I ask with em- 
 phasis ! — who would give a fig for constitu- 
 tional guarantees, when thus trifled with and 
 recklessly set aside ! And in the light of 
 such procedure, where, sir, were the solemn 
 
20 
 
 oaths of fidelity to the Constitution, each 
 delegate in this Assembly took upon his 
 ordination? ! 
 
 Moderator, I shall, doubtless, be told 
 that the General Assembly is the highest 
 judicatory of the Presbyterian church — that 
 it has borne its testimony against slavery 
 at intervals, from its origin — and that it has 
 powers that cover the case, and that submis- 
 sion to its decrees, is among our " ordination 
 vows" and conditions of admission to the 
 church. 
 
 The General Assembly is indeed the high- 
 est judicatory of the church, but it is a body 
 of limited powers. It is a delegated body, 
 and can only act within the limits prescribed 
 by the constitution. It has no power to de- 
 clare articles of faith for the church. The 
 church has established its own " doctrines" 
 and declared its own terms of communion, 
 and tests of Christian character. Within the 
 sphere of its legitimate action, the Assembly 
 is to be respected and its action is authorita- 
 tive and binding — but out of that sphere it is 
 revolutionary ! 
 
 Action of Previous Assemblies. 
 
 The Assemblies of the church have indeed 
 acted on the subject of slavery — that is, a 
 feio of them have ! but sir, what is the pur- 
 
21 
 
 port of tlieir action ? Has any Assembly ever 
 said that to hold a slave, under the laws of 
 the land, was a crime, demanding discipline ? 
 Has not every Assembly that ever acted on 
 the subject, distinctly declined taking any 
 such ground — nay, expressly or by necessary 
 implication, admitted that slaveholding might 
 exist in the church, without sin ? Nay, did 
 they not admit, by unavoidable implication, 
 that tlie slaveholding in our church, was not 
 sinful, in the fact, that discipline was never 
 ordered ? Brethren, sir, claim too much from 
 the action of former Assemblies ! Illegiti- 
 mate and wrong as often was that action, it 
 never went, to the extent sometimes claimed. 
 The action of past Assemblies, had refer- 
 ence, to a large extent, to the African slave 
 trade, and to the abuses of the institution in 
 the neglect of its relative duties — to the evils 
 incident to the system, as it has operated at 
 large. Yet, sir, I readily admit that past 
 Assemblies have employed strong language — 
 have explicitly condemned the " system of 
 slavery " existing in the United States as a 
 civil institution, — have used language in re- 
 ference to its connexions with the church, 
 which was calculated to bring into question 
 the moral and Christian character of our peo- 
 ple, implicated in it. And while distinctly 
 declining to declare it essentially and neces- 
 sarily sinful, by general terms and careful 
 
22 
 
 refinements, they have sought to render it 
 odious, and have, to some extent, visited 
 upon our slaveholding members, by moral 
 force, the disabilities of membership, that 
 would have resulted from direct discipline, 
 which, as the consummation of the "pro- 
 gress" sought and made from year to year, 
 it is now proposed directly to endeavor. 
 
 All this, it is contended, is sustained by 
 the clause in the constitution which gives the 
 Assembly the power " of reproving, warning 
 or bearing testimony against error in doc- 
 trine or immorality in practice, in any church, 
 Presbytery or Synod." Slavery, it is as- 
 sumed, is a heresy in doctrine and an immo- 
 rality in practice ; and that it exists among 
 the ministers and members of the church 
 located within the jurisdiction of some of our 
 churches. Presbyteries and Synods. Accord- 
 ingly, the Assembly may reprove or bear 
 testimony against it. Now sir, in all due re- 
 spect to brothers, I must dissent from the 
 construction thus put upon the language of 
 the constitution. 
 
 The Assembly may indeed bear testimony 
 against error in doctrine and immorality in 
 practice, but may it determine what is error 
 and what is immorality ? Our civil courts 
 may administer punishment against murder, 
 or arson, or treason, but may they determine 
 what is murder, or arson, or treason ? An- 
 
23 
 
 other tribunal is clothed with this power. 
 The things are specifically different. Under 
 the clause quoted, may our Assemblies pro- 
 ceed to determine what is doctrine for the 
 church ? May we enlarge, alter, or modify 
 the Confession of Faith, or the Form of 
 Government and system of discipline, the 
 church has adopted for herself? Certainly 
 not. But what else is it, when we essay to 
 determine " errors " in doctrine or " immo- 
 ralities in practice?" Error is. the negation 
 of truth, and immorality, that of duty. 
 Neither can be predicated but upon truth 
 previously " determined " and duty or obli- 
 gation previously recognized. Now all this 
 the Presbyterian church has done for herself. 
 She has gone to the Bible, the rule of faith 
 and practice, and thence deduced her doc- 
 trines and their resulting duties ; and these 
 she has written down at large in her confes- 
 sion of faith, and these are the doctrines and 
 duties, that become the subject of the official 
 attention of her judicatories. Accordingly, 
 the " errors " in doctrine and immoralities in 
 practice, against which the Assembly may 
 bear testimony, are errors which are the ne- 
 gation of such doctrines as the constitution 
 embraces, as doctrines which the church has 
 drawn from the Bible ; and of such duties as 
 the church has gathered from the same source 
 — not the DETERMINATION, for the church, 
 
u 
 
 WHAT ARE ERRORS OR IMMORALITIES ! Tllis, 
 
 sir, is a vital distinction. 
 
 SlaveJiolding not Co7isidered an Immorality, 
 
 Accordingly, before the agitation of slave- 
 ry by the Assembly, and disciplinary mea- 
 sures against slaveholding can be sustained 
 by this clause of the constitution, it must be 
 shown that the church has settled, for her- 
 self, that these are matters cognizable to her 
 tribunals — that slaveholding is an "immo- 
 rality " in practice — that the immunities and 
 rights of membership, under the constitu- 
 tion in any way depend upon our personal 
 opinions or action in relation to slaveholding. 
 In all the Confession of Faith, express men- 
 tion of slaveholding as a sin, it will be con- 
 ceded, is no where to be found. By plain 
 implication, the contrary is there. In our au- 
 thorative explication of the 4th and the 10th 
 commandments, the relation of master and 
 servant is explicitly recognized as an exist- 
 ing fact, and its mutual duties are specified. 
 The entire and uniform practice of the church 
 is to the same point. In all its history, not 
 a case can be adduced, as is supposed, when 
 in admitting a member into the church, or a 
 minister to our connexion, the individual was 
 ever given to understand, that the rights and 
 immunities of his membership, were to de- 
 
25 
 
 pend upon his ignoring the civil institution 
 of slavery ; or that holding a slave would be 
 regarded as an '^ immorality " demanding the 
 "reproof" of the Assembly, In no one in- 
 stance, it is believed, in the entire history of 
 the Presbyterian church, has an individual 
 member been disciplined for holding slaves ; 
 or has there been a judicial decision by any 
 of its judicatories, that such relation was an 
 immorality. May the Assembly then, in the 
 exercise of its authority, to bear testimony 
 against " errors in doctrine and immoralities 
 in practice," assume that slaveholding is an 
 immorality, in the absence of all express con- 
 stitutional authority, and in the face of the 
 uniform and entire practice of the church, 
 and all judicial decisions upon the point. If 
 so, sir, our Assembly is an irresponsible 
 Body, of unlimited power, and all the gua- 
 rantees of the constitution, are idle wind! 
 All the precious immunities of membership 
 are held at the caprice of those who may ac- 
 cidentally compose a General Assembly. — 
 The exscinding measures of 1837 and '38, 
 need no broader ground of support or better 
 defence. 
 
 Is it urged, in reply, that an " oifence " is 
 defined by our Book of Discipline, to be *'any 
 thing in the principles or practice of a church 
 member which is contrary to the word of 
 God ; or which, if not, in its own nature sin- 
 3 
 
26 
 
 ful, may tempt others to sin." And that 
 " nothing ought to be considered an offence, 
 or admitted as matter of accusation, which 
 cannot be proved to be such by Scripture, or 
 the practice of the church founded on Scrip- 
 ture ; that this language contemplates a re- 
 ference to the Scripture^ when we are exa- 
 mining the character of things charged to be 
 "immoral ;" and that accordingly, if the As- 
 sembly thinks that slaveholding is an " of- 
 fence," or is sinful, /rom the Scriptures, then 
 it is bound to " reprove, warn, or bear testi- 
 mony against it." 
 
 NoTv^, sir, has the brother that urges this 
 view, overlooked the consequences of the po- 
 sition, and the principle it involves ? Does 
 he fail to see, that his interpretation, invests 
 the Assembly with the eiitire power of the 
 cliurch ; and totally supercedes the constitu- 
 tion ? Who is to judge whether conduct in a 
 given case is contrary to the word of God, 
 and thus assume the character of an '• of- 
 fence ?" If the General Assembly has the 
 power, then we all hold our rights of mem- 
 bership, upon the interpretation of the Bible 
 by the General Assembly, and not upon the 
 constitution ! And as each General Assem- 
 bly expires with the term of its sittings, no 
 man can know what the tenures of his mem- 
 bership are except as each Assembly may de- 
 termine! for the plea urged, assumes that 
 
2t 
 
 the Assembly, is empowered to determine 
 "whether slaveholding is an immorality ; and 
 on the basis of that determination to *^ re- 
 prove and bear testimony against it." But 
 the church, in her extended explanation of 
 the doctrines she draws from the Bible, and 
 of the immoralities which result from viola- 
 ting the duties of religion, no where puts 
 slaveholding in that category. The assump- 
 tion is therefore unfounded. The right to 
 determine the point is not in the Assembly, 
 but in the church. If the Assembly may 
 take the entire field of human conduct, into 
 examination, and of its own right, determine 
 for Presbyterians, what is immorality, and on 
 the ground of that determination, proceed to 
 " reprove " and thus punish, where were the 
 guarantees of the constitution, of a fair 
 trial ; and that according to principles of 
 discipline previously settled, for applying 
 " that system of laws which Christ has ap- 
 pointed in His church?" 
 
 T7ie Eighth Oommandment. 
 
 Is it urged, sir, that the answer to the 
 question, " What is forbidden in the eighth 
 commandment?" (which commandment is a 
 part of our Constitution, as is also the ex- 
 planation of its import, given in the Cate- 
 chism,) after repeating a number of imrtiou- 
 
28 
 
 lars^ adds — " and all other unjust or sinful 
 ways of taking or withholding from our 
 neighbor what belongs to him, or of enrich- 
 ing ourselves" — that a discriminating power 
 is here given, by necessary' implication, to 
 bring given things under the range of gen- 
 eral principles, and subject them to ecclesi- 
 astical cognizance and censure, though not 
 specifically named in the Constitution as per- 
 taining to that category. 
 
 I answer, 1st. That in the part of the 
 Constitution referred to, we have what the 
 Presbyterian Church understands the Bible 
 to intend by the eighth commandment of the 
 decalogue. If there is any thing predicable 
 of human conduct, to which the princij^le of 
 that command implies, besides what is speci- 
 fiedj it is to be put into the same category. 
 Now the point is, when it is assumed that 
 this or that is of that class, who is to deter- 
 mine the fact ? The things specified in the 
 answer referred to, were determined to be- 
 long to the category of things forbidden by 
 that commandment, by the Church for her- 
 self, and not by the Assembly. If any other 
 thing is to be added, it must be by the same 
 authority. There must be a falling back 
 upon that fulness of power to interpret the 
 Bible for the Presbyterian Church, which is 
 in the Church itself, and not to that limited 
 delegated power which is in the General 
 
29 
 
 Assembly. If the Assembly has the power 
 to determine what are to be " offences" cog- 
 nizable to our system of discipline, beyond 
 what the Constitution specifies, then again 
 we have no constitutional guarantees at all, 
 and our dearest rights and privileges are at 
 the mercy of this temporary body. 
 
 But I answer, 2d. That the intended ap- 
 plication of this assumption only demon- 
 strates its absurdity. Slave-holding is not 
 specified among the things forbidden by the 
 eighth commandment. No ; but then it is 
 added, after a number of specifications, " and 
 all other unjust and sinful ways of taking 
 and withholding from our neighbor what be- 
 longs to him." Liberty is withheld from the 
 slave; this withholdment is of what '^he- 
 longs to him ;" slave-holding is therefore a 
 breach of the eighth commandment — it is 
 ^^ unjust and sinfuV Now, sir, I ask, 
 whose province is it to dete^^mine that fact 
 for the Presbyterian Church? Each indi- 
 vidual may interpret the Bible for himself; 
 but as Presbyterians, we have pledged our- 
 selves to the principle of submission to the 
 Church's interpretation. Yet here it is 
 claimed that the Assembly may determine 
 it — a temporary body, having limited and 
 clearly defined powers, to be followed next 
 year by a similar body, and of the same 
 powers ! There were no determinate and 
 3* 
 
30 
 
 fixed results practicable, in the nature of the 
 case ! Look at the facts. The founders of 
 the Presbyterian Church were largely them- 
 selves slave-holders. When the Constitution 
 was remodeled and again adopted as a whole, 
 a very large portion of the ministers, elders 
 and members were slave-holders. When they 
 adopted the Constitution, did they intend, 
 by the clause under review, to give the lati- 
 tude claimed ; and by the very Constitution 
 adopted, fatally condemn themselves ? Such 
 a supposition were an absurdity ! 
 
 Again: All the Assemblies that have ever 
 acted on slavery, have refused to take the 
 ground assumed in the case before us ; for, 
 let it be observed, if the objection to our 
 construction of the Constitution, which we 
 are now considering, has ayiy force at all, it 
 is, that to hold a slave is sinful; and on that 
 ground the Assembly may condemn it. As- 
 semblies have pronounced '''tlte system of 
 slavery in these United States" essentially 
 unrighteous, and "slavery" to be a *'blot 
 upon our holy religion." But when they 
 approached the practical question, and would 
 touch slave-holding by Presbyterians, they 
 have fallen back, as if fatally touched by 
 the segis of the Constitution ! If slave- 
 holding is a breach of the eighth command- 
 ment, then it is sinful and unjust, and like 
 "fraud, theft and robbery," is to be disci- 
 
31 
 
 plined! The conclusion is irresistible ! Why 
 have our Assemblies exhibited to the world 
 the mournful spectacle of grave ecclesiastical 
 bodies, wavering, undecided, now advancing, 
 now receding? At one time pronouncing 
 " slavery" a blot upon religion ; at another, 
 recognizing the practicability of its imparting 
 no guilt; — pronouncing a whole political sys- 
 tem '' essentially unrighteous," and yet mem- 
 bers of the Church, practically operating 
 under that system, not guilty ! Or if, in 
 some undefined way, and to some undeter- 
 mined extent, guilty, yet not to be disci- 
 plined ! All this, sir, is proof clear as de- 
 monstration, that the Qonstitution of the 
 Church has ever been felt to be invaded, 
 when this slavery agitation has been enter- 
 tained by the Assembly ! With the nature 
 of that compact, as the great guarantee of 
 our Church immunities, as the fundamental 
 law of the Presbyterian organization, never 
 can be harmonized the power and preroga- 
 tives here claimed for our General Assem- 
 blies. And confusion of counsel, and " del- 
 phic utterances." discreditable to our dignity, 
 and prejudicial to our prosperity, must ever 
 result from the attempt. 
 
 Confusion of TJiought in Past Action, 
 
 My remarks upon the relations of the sla- 
 very agitation to the Constitution of the 
 
82 
 
 Church, I will close Tvith two observations. 
 The " unsteadiness" of bur action has re- 
 sulted from confusion of thought on two 
 vital points. We have, in the first instance, 
 confounded, in our conceptions of power and 
 prerogative, the General Assembly with the 
 Church. The theory of our Constitution is, 
 that " every Christian church, or union or 
 association of churches, is entitled to declare 
 the terms of admission to its communion, 
 and the qualifications of its ministers and 
 members, as well as the whole system of its 
 internal government, which Christ hath ap- 
 pointed"— to make its own Constitution or 
 fundamental law. This the Preshyterian 
 Church has done for herself. This, any and 
 all Churches may of right do. They may 
 go to the Bible and draw thence doctrines to 
 be believed and government to be adopted, 
 and the tests on which members are to be 
 admitted, and ministers ordained, and disci- 
 pline administered ! The General Assembly, 
 however, is but a creature of the Church — a 
 temporary body, of specific delegated powers, 
 designed simply as an instrument for carry- 
 ing out the system adopted by the Church, 
 In the fulness of power, in the latter, the 
 Bible is interpreted. In the restricted pre- 
 rogatives of the former, that interpretation 
 is to be carried out. These essential distinc- 
 tions have been overlooked, or partially con- 
 
33 
 
 founded. Hence Assemblies have been in- 
 voked to legislate new bases of Church rights, 
 and new tests of membership and Christian 
 character — to assume the prerogatives of the 
 Oluircli ! This great error produced the 
 revolution of '37 and '38, and underlies this 
 entire slavery agitation! "Why," says a 
 brother on this floor, heralded also before- 
 hand as one of its ablest constitutional law- 
 yers — " the General Assembly can declare 
 any thing in reference to doctrine, or immo- 
 rality in practice" ! The memorials which 
 abolition Presbyteries and Synods have for 
 years been sending up, and the phraseology 
 which abolition speakers and papers con- 
 stantly employ, involves the same fundamen- 
 tal error. 
 
 I concede, indeed, that to a large extent, 
 it is but what was to have been anticipated. 
 We have now, and have long had mingled 
 up ecclesiastically with us, an element seem- 
 ingly incapable of assimilation to true Pres- 
 byterianism ; whose early prejudices and 
 habitudes of thought associate all idea of 
 ecclesiastical power with that of the single 
 church ! It is not at all strange that a man 
 born and raised a Congregationalist, should 
 constantly, in his conceptions of Church pre- 
 rogative, invest the Assembly, or Synod, or 
 Presbytery, with the looivers of the Qlmrcli, 
 Whenever he acts ecclesiastically at all, he 
 
34 
 
 feels the power of the Cliurcli is possessed 
 in full ! And accordingly, whatever the 
 Church may of right do, any judicatory of 
 the Church may do ! The prevalency of the 
 Congregational element may therefore natu- 
 rally account for this mistake. The conclu- 
 sion is strengthened by the fact that from 
 such elements, extreraest views of slavery, 
 and greatest urgency for action by the As- 
 sembly, seem to proceed. That native trained 
 Presbyterians should have committed so great 
 an error, is more strange. 
 
 Want of Discrimination— Private Judgment, 
 
 In the second instance, we have not clearly 
 discriminated between our privileges and 
 rights, as individuals, and as a body of 
 Christians, in relation to the Scriptures. 
 Our Constitution is founded on the principle 
 that God is "sole Lord of the conscience" — 
 that conscience is "left free from the com- 
 mandments of men" — that the " rights of 
 private judgment, in all matters that re- 
 spect religion, are universal and unaliena- 
 ble." Accordingly, it is the right of every 
 Christian man to go to God's Word for him- 
 self, and under the highest responsibilities, 
 he is to examine it for himself, and from it 
 form his own " Confession of Faith." But 
 when two or more Christians, who have done 
 
35 
 
 this, compare notes and find such a harmony 
 of results as lays a basis for union, they 
 form a "particular Church," which Church 
 has the "right to dictate the terms of ad- 
 mission into its communion, the qualifications 
 of its ministers and members, as well as the 
 whole system of its internal government." 
 When such a social compact is once formed, 
 then its Constitution is to its members that 
 Church's interpretation of the Bible ! And 
 while an individual continues a member, and 
 enjoys or claims its immunities, he must con- 
 form to that compact. If his conscience is 
 disturbed, and he cannot bring the body to 
 his views, he must leave ! To continue and 
 agitate, would be to violate the terms of ad- 
 mission. In the slavery agitation this dis- 
 tinction has been overlooked ! Men, in their 
 eagerness to carry a point, have laid too 
 heavy a stress upon their individual relations 
 to the great work of interpreting the Bible, 
 and too little upon their obligations of obe- 
 dience to the Church I " The Saviour is the 
 sole Lord of our conscience," it is urged ; 
 " we are responsible to Him, and must give 
 an account. His Word is truth, and must be 
 preached. As Bis ministers, we must cry 
 aloud and spare not. Slave-holding is a sin. 
 The slave is chattelized into a beast of bur- 
 den. We must agitate, until his rights are 
 respected ! !" But, Moderator, with all this 
 
S6 
 
 admitted, as Presbyterians^ owe we no obli- 
 gations to our Churcli — to our own solemn 
 vows to abide her constitutional judgments ? 
 In ber Constitution is the '* system of doc- 
 itrines" and "whole internal government," 
 which she believes Christ taught. On the 
 ground of our agreement in all this, and our 
 promise to abide it, we were admitted to her 
 communion ! If now we differ from her, 
 honor and duty alike require us to retire, 
 and not to disturb her .peace. 
 
 The result, then. Moderator and brethren 
 of the Assembly, is that, by the Constitution 
 of our Church, this " slavery agitation" is 
 unlawful, as tending to impinge the rights of 
 your membership. I now proceed to inquire 
 whether your Constitution, thus interpreted, 
 is not sustained by the teachings of the 
 Scriptures ? 
 
 Slaveholding and the Bible. 
 
 The teachings of the sacred Scriptures on 
 the subject of slavery, might indeed be pro- 
 fitably examined to the extent of a treatise. 
 Their substance, however, is easily and short- 
 ly reached. We need not detain the Assem- 
 bly on this part of our work. 
 
 The Bible, in both the Old and New Tes- 
 taments, refers to slavery in its relations to 
 civil society, or recognizes it as pertaining to 
 
37 
 
 that category of social existence ; and in- 
 volving, as an essential element, the idea of 
 " property in man " — a right to control the 
 services of the slave for the pecuniary ad- 
 vantage of the owner, without the slaves's 
 consent : and that slaveholding, did not 
 prejudice the master's claims to be a holy 
 man, or to the immunities of church mem- 
 bership. If this be so, then it must be shown 
 that a like civil relation now, must be con- 
 nected with circumstances or characteristics 
 which necessarily alter the case ; or this 
 abolition agitation is as unscriptural as un- 
 constitutional, inasmuch as the very gist of 
 it is, that it tends to injure the good stand- 
 ing in the church, of your slaveholding mem- 
 bership. 
 
 The Old Testament— Exodus 21 : 20, 21. 
 " And if a man smite his servant or his maid 
 with a rod, and he die under his hand, he 
 shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding 
 if he continue a day or two, he shall not be 
 punished, for he is his money.'" Here the 
 master, in the legal inquiry into the charac- 
 ter of the killing of the slave, was entitled to 
 have his pecuniary interest in the slave, 
 taken into the account, as creating a natural 
 presumption against the malice which would 
 constitute murder. If the person killed was 
 his "money," the natural conclusion would 
 be that self-interest would check passion and 
 4 
 
38 
 
 curb malice, and that, therefore, the killing 
 would naturally be presumed to have been 
 unintentional. This single passage as dis- 
 tinctly recognizes "property in man," as an 
 element of the slavery which existed among 
 the Jews, as volumes could possibly do. But 
 the provision is a part of a code of civil re- 
 gulations proclaimed by Moses for the gov- 
 vernment of the Jewish state : ar^d pro- 
 claimed by the immediate direction of Moses' 
 Master, the Creator himself. If then there 
 is in the nature of the thing, slavery, any 
 essential unrighteousness, it here attaches to 
 God himself. But we may examine further : 
 In Levit. 25 : 44—46. " Both thy bond men 
 and thy bond maids which thou shalt have, 
 shall be of the heathen that are round about 
 you; of them shall ye buy bond men and 
 bond maids. Moreover, of the children of the 
 strangers that do sojourn among you, of them 
 shall ye buy, and of their families that are 
 with you, which they begat in your land : And 
 they shall be your i^ossession : And ye shall 
 take them as an inheritance for your child- 
 ren after you, to inherit them for a posses- 
 sion ; — they shall be your bond men forever'' 
 I will only observe further, that in the 4th 
 and 10th commandments of the decalogue, 
 the relation is referred to, as a thing likely to 
 exist, and provision made for the moral and 
 religious bearings of the institution. 
 
39 
 
 I will quote no other passages. These are 
 as decisive as language could make the case. 
 A word in reference to the rule of interpre- 
 tation and the application of these teachings 
 to the case before us. The position has been 
 taken on this floor, that the Bible on this 
 subject, must first be consulted as to its gene- 
 ral 2)rinciples of morality, and then by tliese^ 
 the language of particular passages must be 
 construed : that the neglect of this, is the 
 most fruitful source of heresies ; and of their 
 defence. Now, sir, I dissent from the posi- 
 tion, in this relation. When the language 
 fails to give the meaning clearly and deci- 
 sively, we may construe, to a certain extent, 
 by general principles, elsewhere made out. 
 But the language, when clear and explicit, is 
 our first and most satisfactory criterion of 
 the author's meaning. The Scriptures were 
 addressed to the common sense of mankind ; 
 and when their language is clear and deci- 
 sive to that common sense, it is the meaning 
 intended. The fruitful source of heresies, is 
 the first consulting our instincts and feelings, 
 as to what ought to be meant, and then 
 twisting the language of the passage to suit 
 our theory. General principles, here claim- 
 ed to control the language, are themselves 
 but deductions drawn from the common sense 
 interpretation of the language. 
 
 Revert to the passages quoted. No con- 
 
40 
 
 ceivable language could more distinctly con- 
 vey the meaning, that of the servitude refer- 
 ed to the "right of property " was the living 
 element. The idea is not only expressed in 
 the simplest, clearest manner, but is incor- 
 porated with a class of ideas, and woven into 
 a system of things which are left utterly 
 meaningless, if that idea is taken out. It is 
 contemplated as bearing upon the legal as- 
 certainment of the animus, in homicides. 
 It is made to enter into the system of legal 
 transmission of property, and the laws of in- 
 heritance. 
 
 Let it be also observed, that at the time 
 these laws were enacted, the Jews did not 
 hold a single slave, so far as we can discover. 
 Tliey were in the wilderness, not long from 
 bondage themselves. The civil code now 
 promulged by Moses, was in anticipation of 
 their national enfranchisement in Canaan. — 
 It was accordingly, not the restriction and 
 limitation of an institution, then in exist- 
 ence; but the divine authorization of one 
 soon to arise. Nothing more nor less can be 
 made of it. Many indeed, and salutary were 
 the limitations and restrictions and guards, 
 appointed to secure the relations from abuse. 
 And if you say, the religious system cotem- 
 poraneously adopted, tended to meliorate the 
 condition of slaves, and ultimately remove 
 the institution of slavery from society alto- 
 
41 
 
 gether, I have no objection to the position ; 
 I believe it was so. The ultimate results of 
 that religion, were the elevation of all classes 
 of men, to a fitness for a form of social or- 
 der, in which all were fully prepared to par- 
 ticipate — this was its tendency ! But all this 
 only sustains both the fact and the ijropriety 
 of the intervening order of things. Slave- 
 holding then under the Old Testament, was 
 of Divine authority, was a civil institution, 
 only cognizable to ecclesiastical supervision, 
 except as the duties of the parties were neg- 
 lected ; and as under the Jewish theocracy, 
 the civil and ecclesiastical administration 
 were in the same individuals. 
 
 The New Testament. 
 
 In the New Testament, the severance of 
 the civil and the ecclesiastical^ was at once 
 and complete. The Saviour said, " render to 
 Csesar the things that be Caesar's, and to 
 God the things that be God's" : — the jurisdic- 
 tions are separate and distinct. When even 
 an illegal tax was exacted, that His business 
 might receive no detriment from a confliction 
 with the authorities of the state, he prompt- 
 ly paid it. To the civil authority and the 
 institutions of the state, he yielded, all his 
 life, the deference and allegiance of a good 
 citizen. Even when injustice mingled itself 
 
42 
 
 in the proceedings of the state in reference 
 to himself, if it pertained to his civil rela- 
 tions he submitted. So did likewise his apos- 
 tles and disciples. Among the arrangements 
 of the state, in which they lived and acted, 
 slavery^ it is conceded on all hands, did ex- 
 ist, and to an extent and in offensive forms, 
 not excelled in any age or country. Now 
 how did they act in reference to this civil ar- 
 rangement ? The question is answered most 
 satisfactorily in their own language and con- 
 duct. One thing is conceded — they preach- 
 ed the Gospel, were successful, and founded 
 churches, where slavery was, and had for cen- 
 turies, been a law of the land. Such surely 
 were the circumstances, when it was most 
 natural, they should have taught and incor- 
 porated " abolitionism " into the Christian 
 organizations they founded. It was the com- 
 mencement of things — they were establishing 
 model churches. Into those churches they 
 were receiving men and women of all classes 
 in society — masters and slaves. Here, above 
 all conceivable cases, was the very one, when, 
 if that relation was "sinful," when, if any 
 where, the church might assail the arrange- 
 ments of the state, and make a man's rela- 
 tions as a citizen, exactly tally with those he 
 held to the church — when, in short, the 
 church might, if ever, make a man's civil re- 
 lation an object of ecclesiastical supervision. 
 
43 
 
 What, sir, were the facts ? No where in all 
 the ministry of Christ or of His apostles, was 
 a master ever told he could not be a Chris- 
 tian while holding his fellow man in bondage 
 — that he must manumit his slaves before 
 he could be received into the church — that 
 it was a blot upon religion ! And yet, when 
 in all the range of things conceivable, were 
 there a more proper and befitting occasion? 
 
 But, sir, let us revert to their language. 
 They did not pass the subject over in silence. 
 They spoke of it often, and very emphatical- 
 ly. Eph. 6: 5, 6, and 9. ''Servants be 
 obedient to them that are your masters ac- 
 cording to the flesh, with fear and trembling, 
 in singleness of your heart as unto Christ ; 
 not with eye service as men pleasers, but as 
 the servants of Christ, doing the will of God 
 from the heart. And ye masters do the same 
 things unto them, forbearing threatening." 
 Col : 3 : 22. " Servants obey, in all things, 
 your masters according to the flesh, not with 
 eye service, as men-pleasers, but in single- 
 ness of heart, fearing God." 1 Peter 2 : 18. 
 " Servants be subject to your masters with 
 all fear ; not only to the good and gentle, 
 but to the froward." Titus 2 : 9, 10. " Ex- 
 hort servants to be obedient unto their own 
 masters, and to please them well in all things, 
 not answering again, not purloining, but 
 showing all good fidelity; that they may 
 
44 
 
 adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour, in all 
 things." 1 Tim. 6; 1 — 5. "Let as many 
 servants as are under the yoke count their 
 own masters worthy of all honor that the 
 name of God be not blasphemed. And they 
 that have believing masters, let them not 
 despise them because they are brethren, but 
 rather do them service, because they are 
 faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit 
 — these things teach and exhort." 
 
 Now, sir, paraphrase these apostolic in- 
 junctions. Note the circumstances under 
 which, and the persons to whom they were 
 addressed. These writers were Apostles of 
 Christ. They "spake as they were moved 
 by the Holy Ghost." They were now found- 
 ing the first Christian organizations, such as 
 were to be models to all future missionaries. 
 They were gathering the material of their 
 churches from communities whose civil or- 
 ganizations embraced "slavery." Their con- 
 verts were of both masters and slaves, as 
 well as parents and children, husbands and 
 wives, rulers and subjects. The relative du- 
 ties of these several classes they pointed out 
 and enforced. Passing from those of the 
 other classes, they came to masters and slaves. 
 The former, when entering the church, was 
 told to be kind to his servants ; not to dis- 
 tress and annoy them with needless ascerbity 
 of language ; and to give them what, in the 
 
45 
 
 relation, was just and equal. The latter 
 they told not to run away, but to be obedient, 
 humble, respectful, faithful — to count their 
 masters worthy of all honor; to serve them 
 willingly and in singleness of heart — even 
 the perverse and cruel were to be patiently 
 endured. They were not to "despise" them, 
 even when Christian brethren with them- 
 selves, or on that ground to claim immuni- 
 ties from the obedience and deference due 
 them. All this was to be done, " that God 
 and His doctrine be not blasphemed" — that 
 no charge be raised through the community 
 to the detriment of the Gospel, as if it inter- 
 fered with the order of civil society, and en- 
 couraged servants to become disobedient and 
 rebellious, and thus tended to confusion ! 
 
 Moderator, may I not remind my brethren 
 of the Assembly, that this is apostolic, di- 
 vinely inspired teaching. The happy tenden- 
 cies of such instructions are indeed plainly 
 to be seen. But, sir, how infinitely remote 
 from the superior wisdom of our times ! — 
 Those who originated and have mainly pro- 
 secuted this slavery agitation — and no sin- 
 gle Assembly has ever "borne testimony" 
 against this "immorality" — have openly 
 countenanced and advised the running away 
 of slaves, and even have thrown themselves 
 in direct hostility to the laws of the land 
 respecting the recovery of fugitives. Elders 
 
46 ♦ 
 
 in our churches have boasted of their com- 
 plicity with under-ground raih'oad schemes 
 to aid slaves away from their masters. All 
 manner of hard names and opprobrious epi- 
 thets have been heaped upon masters. En- 
 tire States have been insulted, and their in- 
 stitutions "despised" and denounced, until 
 " God and his doctrine" have been so blas- 
 phemed that it has become almost impossible 
 for us, who try to preach the Gospel to them, 
 to gain their attention, except through our 
 disconnection with you. Ministers and 
 churches are extensively suspected of sinis- 
 ter designs against the State. Statesmen, in 
 our Legislative and Congressional Halls, be- 
 fore the world, boldly charge Christianity 
 with conspiring treason, and aiming to sub- 
 jugate the State to the Church. There are 
 large districts in the South where a Northern 
 minister would be received with suspicion, 
 and where ministers of known abolition sen- 
 timents- and agitating tempers, would not be 
 tolerated. Now, sir, I earnestly ask breth- 
 ren to compare the teaching and conduct of 
 the Apostles with abolition reformers; and 
 mark the contrast ! Mark, sir, the graphic 
 language in which the Apostle Paul propheti- 
 cally portrays the characteristics of this 
 " agitation," as well as the pointed terms in 
 which he condemns the neglect of his injunc- 
 tions — "If any man teach otherwise, and 
 
47 
 
 consent not to wholesome words, even the 
 words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the 
 doctrine which is after godliness, he is proud, 
 knowing nothing, but doting about questions, 
 and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, 
 strifes, railingSy evil-surmising s, perverse dis- 
 putinss of men of corrupt minds and desti- 
 tute of the truth, supposing that gain is god- 
 liness: From such withdraw thyself." 1 Tim. 
 6: 3 — 5. This, sir, was the ''testimony" of 
 an inspired Apostle, " against the immorali- 
 ty" of abolition agitation in his day— against 
 the principle of ecclesiastical interference in 
 the affairs of the State. It was then the 
 doctrine of Christ, a doctrine " after godli- 
 ness," that the Gospel claims no right to dis- 
 turb the relation of master and slave, as an 
 existing civil institution — that complicity with 
 this civil institution created no prejudice 
 against one's Christian character, and con- 
 stituted no disability for church membership. 
 Now, sir, is the metaphysical dogma of " in- 
 trinsio right and wrong" — for whose protec- 
 tion there seems to be a special invocation of 
 our guardianship at present — to be assumed 
 as the " doctrine of our Church ?" Be it so. 
 Then the relation of master and slave, thus 
 sustained by apostolic teaching, was either 
 "intrinsically right or wrong,'' If it was 
 intrinsically right, then the recognition of it 
 by the Apostles was itself right. If it was 
 
48 
 
 intrinsically wrong, then the Apostles were 
 shamefully derelict in duty, in not wiping 
 the "blot from religion" and the Church! 
 And further, if there was no intrinsic wrong 
 in Christians holding slaves under the " sys- 
 tem of slavery" then obtaining in the State, 
 there can be none in the present case, unless 
 it can be shown that the circumstances which 
 rendered it not improper to be a slaveholder 
 then, were totally different from those that 
 surround the case now. This will not, I pre- 
 sume, be seriously attempted. 
 
 Is it asked, sir, that after all thus urged, 
 whether the religion of Christ, as developed 
 in the Bible, especially in the New Testa- 
 ment, is to be so interpreted as to afford us 
 no hope of the relief of the slave from his 
 bondage — as to countenance and sustain civil 
 arrangements that involve the oppression of 
 the feeble, and the perpetuation of a tyrannic 
 rule of the poor ? I answer. No ! God for- 
 bid ! The tendency of religion is to estab- 
 lish in man's heart, a heart and life control- 
 ling benevolence, that can only find its grati- 
 fication in the diffusion of happiness. As it 
 gains control, selfishness, depraved passion 
 and appetite yield their influence, and man 
 is elevated in all the elements of the highest 
 civilization. In this civilizatiom, all the 
 forms of social existence assume the highest 
 style, and man approximates primeval happi- 
 
49 
 
 Siess and rectitude. In the meantimej civil 
 forms must be adapted to his condition. Any 
 government is better than anarchy. Civil 
 liberty, in the hands of the ignorant and de- 
 graded, were like edged tools in the hands of 
 children. In the regulation of civil forms, 
 Christianity assumes no right of direct inter- 
 ference. She takes man as he is, wherever 
 found. She seeks to infuse the leaven of her 
 influence into his heart, and thus to elevate 
 and refine him, leaving his civil relations to 
 take their desired changes, as the result of 
 his christianization. Accordingly as the 
 Gospel has gained foothold, the people have 
 become at once enlightened and purified, 
 and gradually advanced to higher degrees of 
 civil liberty. The Constitution of the State 
 has felt its soft and plastic touch. All 
 changes in advance of the proper prepara- 
 tion, would be real evils instead of blessings. 
 Hence it is intrinsically right, that existing 
 forms of civil society should not be changed, 
 except as the result of the desired prepara- 
 tion. Hence the Apostles never assumed to 
 meddle with affairs of State. Hence mis- 
 sionaries of the Gospel to heathen lands 
 never begin by assailing the State, Such a 
 course would be instant death to their hopes 
 of success. They depend on the leavening 
 influence of religion to effect the desired re- 
 forms. Andj sir, I venture to say, that the 
 
50 
 
 same well-tried policy were not inapplicable 
 to ourselves, though we are enveloped in the 
 blazing light of the nineteenth century ! 
 Preach the Gospel, Confine yourself to the 
 sphere confessedly legitimate to the Church. 
 She will be as she has ever been, a " city set 
 on a hill." You will reach at once the heart 
 of the master and of the slave. The former 
 you will mould to the image of Christ — his 
 heart to the spirit of love. The latter you 
 will elevate and purify, and Jit for the higher 
 forms of civil freedom. And when so fitted, 
 civil society tvill adapt itself to his capaci- 
 ties. Already much has been accomplished. 
 From the lowest degree of heathenish degra- 
 dation, the negro race among us have reached 
 a considerable degree of Christian civilization. 
 They are, sir — (and I speak from the convic- 
 tions of thirty years' careful observation) — 
 they are now rising in all the elements of 
 such a civilization, with a far greater rapidity 
 than did ever any heathen people known to 
 history ! Cease these hurtful and injudicious 
 interferences with the State in reference to 
 them. Return to the policy of the Apostles, 
 Use all the mightily increased facilities for 
 giving force to the Gospel, so characteristic 
 of the age. Recognize the master's civil 
 rights ; urge the slave Jo a quiet acquiescence 
 in the necessities of his lot, and a diligent 
 use of his facilities for improvement — then 
 
61 
 
 your way to the heart of each is opened. You 
 ■will then be in the highway to the desired 
 consummation. No, sir ; no good man could 
 desire the perpetuation of slavery. No good 
 man can desire the continuance of the facts 
 that give existence to slavery, and on which 
 its continuance depends. Eor the present 
 these facts do exist — sLavery exists. And all 
 such agitation of the subject as tends to 
 bring the Church and the State into colli- 
 sion, cause God and his doctrine to be blas- 
 phemed. All such agitation as tends to 
 bring discredit upon our Church membership 
 who are slaveholders, and injure their church 
 immunities, is as unscriptural as it is con- 
 trary to our ecclesiastical Constitution ! 
 
 THE RESULTS OF THE AGITATION. 
 
 We shall now, sir, advance to a rapid re- 
 view of the "results of this agitation," as 
 hitherto carried on ; and seek in them, testi- 
 mony as to its character. In the light of 
 these, if we mistake not, we shall find abun- 
 dant confirmation of the conclusions to which 
 our examination of its relations to the Con- 
 stitution and the Scriptures has already con- 
 ducted us. 
 
52 
 
 Results upon the Negro Racem 
 
 Twenty years' agitation, with all its ex- 
 penditure of thought and of pecuniary means, 
 has failed utterly to solve the problem of 
 their escape from bondage to a better condi- 
 tion ! You have indeed rendered the race 
 among us, both free and bond, restless and 
 discontented ; — the free, with the very partial 
 degree of elevation they reach, even in the 
 free States ; the slave, with his bonds. The 
 agitation has opened a faint glimpse into a 
 higher sphere, as almost in reach of the 
 freed, and thereby stimulated a keener de- 
 sire for its attainment, only to be followed 
 by a deeper despondency, as the facts, ren- 
 dering its attainment impossible, show them- 
 selves to be insuperable. It has enticed 
 thousands of slaves to escape from their 
 masters, with high hopes of a glorious achieve- 
 ment, to be followed by despair and despera- 
 tion. I hold it, sir, as incapable of success- 
 ful challenge, that the negro race, in this 
 country, in Canada, in the English West 
 Indies, that have been freed, have been de- 
 cidedly injured by the change. In the slave 
 States, this agitation has crippled, if not 
 extinguished all ideas of emancipation for 
 the present — has originated a necessity for 
 a more rigid police — has injuriously affected 
 
53 
 
 the slave through the aggravation of the 
 masters' passions and the excitement of his 
 fears — has curtailed their liberties and privi- 
 leges — has exposed them to ^summary and 
 terrible measures, upon slight exposure to the 
 charge of insurrectionary movements and 
 purposes — has occasioned the enactment of 
 severe laws, and created a jealousy of all 
 measures looking to their instruction. Chris- 
 tian owners have been thus crippled in the 
 indulgence of kindness toward slaves, and in 
 prosecuting schemes for their amelioration. 
 And all this, in the face of an utter failure 
 to devise any " better way." You rouse the 
 master's conscience to his fearful responsi- 
 bilities. He is a good man and a sensible. 
 What is to be done ? It is an awful sin in 
 the sight of God — a blot upon religion. 
 Emancipate at once! His slave is ignorant, 
 thriftless — has no habits essential to self- 
 protection. Where shall he go ? What shall 
 he do ? You say, rid yourself of the " foul 
 sin," without regard to consequences ! His 
 common sense and honesty both rebel. No. 
 Show him what is to be done with the slave, 
 when he is free ; where he is to go, and the 
 guarantee of his amelioration. All this the 
 slavery agitation of twenty years has utterly 
 failed to do. Cease it, then, and return to 
 the apostolic plan. 
 
 5* 
 
64 
 
 Results upon the Church, 
 
 The slavery agitation has been the plough- 
 share of division to almost all the denomina- 
 tions of the country, having a Southern mem- 
 bership — to all who have entertained it, as 
 an adopted policy, excepting our own; and 
 how long the exception here can be pleaded is 
 extremely uncertain. With all the connected 
 strife and bitterness of intestine conflict, it 
 has utterly devoured the two largest denomi- 
 nations in the country — has riven them into 
 fragments, which, in bitterest strife, are 
 descending to the gulf of mutual distrust. 
 Upon our own Church, what has been its 
 result ? After twenty years' earnest discus- 
 sion, have our counsels been harmonized, our 
 sentiments approached unity, and our bor- 
 ders been filled with peace I Nay, we have 
 heard but little else than the din of battle. 
 Our Assemblies have been rendered arenas 
 for annual conflicts, which have made us a 
 spectacle to the world, and a butt of ridicule 
 to the ungodly, while the sympathies, which 
 were the bonds of union, have been gradu- 
 ally eaten out by the spirit of discord. Our 
 denominational action has been crippled ; our 
 benevolent enterprises have been poisoned 
 by its virus. The schemes of beneficence in 
 which, with brethren of like faith in other 
 
55 
 
 bodies, we were wont to co-operate, and in 
 which we were wont to find the peculiarity 
 of " our mission" — the Tract and Missionary 
 Societies, (Domestic and Foreign,) have all 
 been made to feel its withering touch. Sir, 
 I boldly charge upon this agitation, more 
 than all other causes, the responsibility of 
 the failure of that new phase of modern 
 Christianity — our co-operative enterprises of 
 benevolence . 
 
 It has disturbed our intercourse with kin- 
 dred churches, which, in former times, was 
 so delightful, and which had so much influ- 
 ence upon the religious prosperity of a previ- 
 ous generation. Those brethren and we once 
 walked in Christian fellowship, and our sea- 
 sons of mutual visitation were hailed with 
 delight by all. We met, and talked, and 
 prayed, on terms of Christian courtesy. 
 But, sir, how is it now? I wish to use no 
 hard words. I will not descend to the gross. 
 Yet in all honesty I must say, that the terms 
 on which it is now demanded that our inter- 
 course (I mean that with our corresponding 
 bodies) shall be based, contains the essence 
 of ecclesiastical arrogance — terms that, if 
 submitted to, would be the abandonment, on 
 our part, of the last vestige of self-respect ! 
 
 But, sir, a worse result still, if possible, 
 is to be noticed. The agitation has tended 
 largely to put us as a church, into the position 
 
56 
 
 of ijoliticians ! A fierce political struggle 
 over slavery has been progressing for years. 
 It has become an active and potent element 
 in the politics of the country. Politicians, 
 with occasional and noble exceptions, are a 
 godless brood, controlled by the seven prin- 
 ciples, of the " five loaves and two fishes," — 
 the " spirit of public plunder " — amid whose 
 conflicts every thing " fair, and of good re- 
 port " is readily sacrificed. Their breath, 
 blown now cold and now hot, upon the church 
 of Christ, is a moral sirocco to her life. Into 
 these turbid waters the slavery agitation has 
 plunged the church ! Her ministry it has 
 placed upon the platform, and led to parti- 
 cipate in the excitements and ape the perfor- 
 mances of the political stump speaker. The 
 abolition resolves of the Assembly are hailed 
 by one party — cursed by the other. Politi- 
 cians, like swarms of flies, flock about your 
 sittings, buz stimulants into your ears, and 
 by exciting huzzas and inflammatory para- 
 graphs, urge you to measures which they 
 can turn to account, in their partizan politics ; 
 and thus, has this unfortunate agitation, been 
 made to pander, through our ecclesiastical blun- 
 dering, to political corruption. By one party 
 we are cursed — by another praised ! Any 
 church thus rendered a catspaw to politi- 
 cians, has been shorn of its strength and its 
 honor together. Why sir, I have all around 
 
57 
 
 me sad complaints of this very evil. In one 
 instance, part of a church excommunicating 
 the rest for voting for certain candidates for 
 the Presidency ! Ministers dismissed for 
 preaching politics and for not preaching po- 
 litics — churches, divided between the repub- 
 lican and democratic parties ; and each 
 threatening to break up the congregation, as 
 the Assembly shall or shall not, " drive oflf the 
 South" ! How heart-sickening, moderator ! 
 And is this the once united, orderly and 
 heavenly prospered church, eschewing the 
 things of the world, as well as its " king- 
 doms," which our fathers founded under God, 
 and justly boasted of its severance from tlie 
 State, and its disconnexion with the " en- 
 tangling alliances " of politics ! Christ said 
 " His kingdom was not of this world, else 
 would (and therefore would not) his servants 
 fight.'' When one invoked his interference 
 in the settlement of a controversy with his 
 brother about property, Christ let him know 
 that His business, was not with secular mat- 
 ters. But now his servants, grown more 
 wise, are coveting the huzzas of the political 
 crowd, and by petitions, thrusting their heads 
 into our legislative and congressional halls, 
 seeking to affect great and momentous politi- 
 cal measures, to teach " our senators wis- 
 dom," and even to instruct the learned func- 
 tionaries of the supreme court of the nation, 
 
58 
 
 in the science of our civil jurisprudence ! — 
 Alas ! how are the mighty fallen ! What 
 moral comet has come into collision with the 
 world, with our church, and by the collision, 
 has so changed its divine ijolarity 9 — The 
 slavery agitation, sir ! ! 
 
 Results uijon the Exhihition of the G-osj^el, 
 
 Once more sir. The results of this agita- 
 tion upon our exhibition of the Gospel, as a 
 divine system for men's recovery, are worthy 
 of our consideration. 
 
 Christ and Him crucified, is the grand 
 summary of the Gospel — the centre about 
 which cluster all the truths of religion, and 
 from which they derive their converting 
 power. To this central idea every gospel 
 sermon should in some way point, and on it 
 depend for its power. The slavery agitation 
 has occasioned a distorted presentation of the 
 Gospel, by us. The mind of the preacher 
 has been absorbed by a politico-religious 
 idea. The great cardinal truths of the Gos- 
 pel have been measurably overlooked, in 
 seeking its full development. The negro's 
 deliverance from bis civil bondage, has been 
 permitted to absorb the mind, and the gospel 
 deliverance of the soul from sin has been 
 crowded out. The mote that plays in the 
 sun-beam, may be held so close to the eye 
 
59 
 
 as to shut out all the world beside. It is 
 painfully evident that from the eyes of many, 
 the last 20 years, abolitionism has utterly 
 shut out every thing else. It is with no sur- 
 prise therefore, that the statistics of our 
 church are found to show a wide difference 
 in the number of conversions, between differ- 
 ent sections of our jurisdiction — those in 
 which this agitation has been rife, and those 
 where it has been ignored. Nor is it with 
 surprise that we .hear leading men, on this 
 floor, refer that difference to this very cause. 
 Again. It has aimed a heavy blow at the 
 very foundations of our faith in the Bible as 
 a Divine Revelation. The proper proof of 
 a Divine Revelation is that which none but 
 God could give professedly in attestation 
 of such origin. The great proof of Reve- 
 lation is miracles. " The works that I do," 
 said Christ, and which no other man ever did 
 — or mere man could do — "these bear wit- 
 ness of me." They did prove His divine 
 mission ! And when Revelation is thus 
 'proven^ all we have to do, is to square our- 
 selves by what it teaches. But abolitionism 
 must consult our instincts, form our own 
 notions of what ought to be in the Bible, and 
 then square all its language, however direct 
 and palpable in itself, by these previous cri- 
 teria of our own divining ; " for illustration, 
 slavery is, (say they,) contrary to our natu- 
 
60 
 
 ral sense of wliat is rigliL Slavery cannot 
 therefore be in the Bible — slavery therefore 
 is not in the Bible. See the p-actical re- 
 sult. If the Bible recognised slavery, I 
 ■would at once hum it !" Now sir, it is an in- 
 structive commentary, on all this process of 
 reasoning, worthy of our consideration.— Mul- 
 titudes of those who first and at successive 
 periods of this agitation, fell into this vicious 
 reasoning, have actually reached the darkest 
 infidelity. Finding, to their common sense, 
 the Bible did recognise slaveholding as con- 
 sistent with piety, they have indeed ignored 
 its claims to divinity ; and rather than sur- 
 render a favorite dogma and sacrifice their 
 pride to their duty, have plunged into the dark 
 abyss ; and become the boldest blasphemers 
 of God and his word. The rock on which 
 they split, is that on which others may split. 
 If the divine authority of the Bible has no 
 better foundation than the conceits of the hu- 
 man mind — the instinctive feelings of our 
 nature, as now broken and disordered by sin, 
 then indeed does the superstructure rest on 
 sayid. 
 
 Moderator, brethren ! — I have done. I 
 have given you "myj^opinion," — the opinion 
 indeed of one of your humblest associates, 
 yet worthy of respect if sustained by the law 
 and the testimony. I respectfully invoke for 
 it a candid examination. Permit me sir, in 
 
61 
 
 fraternal respect to close with the appropria- 
 tion of an apostle's admonitory language, 
 used on a different occasion. — "Sirs, ye 
 ought to have listened to your Southern 
 brethren, and not have loosed the ship of the 
 church from the anchorage in the constitu- 
 tion, and to have suffered this harm. For 
 twenty yearS; we have been tossed about on 
 this agitated sea, while no sun or stars of 
 light appeared. And now you have brought 
 the ship into a place where two seas meet- 
 when, though no man may lose his ecclesias- 
 tical life, there is great danger of the loss 
 of the ship. Beware of further agitation, 
 lest by the violence of the waves, the ves- 
 sel be broken, and we all find ourselves, some 
 on planks, some on Irohen pieces of the ves- 
 sel, trying to make our way to the shore. " 
 
LB.J'_ '05 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 01 1 932 689 8 
 
 /^^ 
 
 ^mM