challenge any man in the world to show how, by our rules of interpretation, the command to pray for persecutors does not justify persecution. To say nothing of the fact that we find no persecutors holding an acknowledged standing in the primitive Christian Church; that we find no injunctions to persecutors to discharge their duties with moderation, 'forbearing threatening;' that we find no successive addresses to Christians persecuted, and Christian persecutors, mutually to perform toward each other the correlative duties of those respective characters. We challenge any man in the world to show,' if the case of the slave and the persecuted Christian be parallel, how the former is not justified in 'gainsaying,' in refuting, in answering again,' and in fleeing from one city to another. What command obliged the persecuted Christian to please his persecutor 'in all things,' with 'singleness of heart,' and 'with all good fidelity?' These are exhortations that sound like injunctions to perform duties of at least a present rightful relation. If that relation be invariably sinful, how, indeed, can any slave be justified in perpetuating the oppressive system upon others by submission to it himself? How could the Apostle be just:fied in thus obliging them to aid in that oppression by even forbidding a breach of 'fidelity?' and how are abolitionists justified-who repel the charge of preaching insubordination or escape-in conniving, by their silence, at the slave's ignorance of his rights, and thus combiring with their oppressors in perpetuating the yoke?"

Rev. Dr. ELLIOTT, in his "Great Secession," page 818, says:

"And those few churches in recent times, which have made or attempted to make absolute non-slaveholding a term of membership, have done little or nothing religiously to benefit slave or master; or they have shut themselves out entirely from the field of labor. The reason is, they have adopted a mere arbitrary theory in the place of the Gospel panacea, of enlightenment, regeneration, and sanctification, and therefore could not succeed. This is history, and can not be met except by dogmatism and self-sufficiency, and with some mixture of fanaticism and narrow sectarianism."

The BOARD OF BISHOPS, in their address, in 1840, say:

"We are fully persuaded that, as a body of Christian ministers, we shall accomplish the greatest good by directing our individual and united efforts, in the spirit of the first teachers of Christianity, to

bring both master and servant under the sanctifying influence of the principles of that Gospel which teaches the duties of every relation, and enforces the faithful discharge of them by the strongest conceivable motives. Do we aim at the amelioration of the condition of the slave? How can we so effectually accomplish this in our calling as ministers of the Gospel of Christ, as by employing our whole influence to bring both him and his master to a saving knowledge of the grace of God, and to a practical observance of those relative duties so clearly prescribed in the writings of the inspired Apostles. Permit us to add, that, although we enter not into the political contentions of the day, neither interfere with civil legislation, nor with the administration of the laws, we can not but feel a deep interest in whatever affects the peace, prosperity, and happiness of our beloved country. The Union of these States, the perpetuity of the bonds of our National Confederation, the reciprocal confidence of the different members of the great civil compact-in a word, the well-being of the community of which we are members, should never cease to lay near our hearts, and for which we should offer up our sincere and most ardent prayers to the Almighty Ruler of the Universe. But can we, as ministers of the Gospel, and servants of a Master 'whose kingdom is not of this world,' promote these important objects in any way so truly and permanently, as by pursuing the course just pointed out? Can we, at this eventful crisis, render a better service to our country than by laying aside all interference with relations authorized and established by the civil laws, and applying ourselves wholly and faithfully to what specially appertains to our 'high and holy calling;' to teach and enforce the moral obligations of the Gospel, in application to all the duties growing out of the different relations in society."

It is not necessary to trace these discussions any farther. The controversy extended itself to all the religious denominations, but, as before stated, a few of them managed to prevent its introduction into their legislative councils. The debates were often of the most exciting character, and the press, availing itself of its rights in a free country, gave an interest to their columns by reporting the speeches. The reproach which this was calculated to bring upon a fanatical ministry soon became obvious, and, in certain quarters, the offending editors were rebuked with severity. We find the following in the Christian Intelligencer, for February, 1836 :

"Religious Papers. We are, moreover, of opinion that, however valuable and popular the New York Observer may be, it does more mischief than all our religious newspapers put together; and the editors are acquiring popularity at a fearful expense to our church and the reputation of her ministry. To attend our judicatories in times of excitement, and publish all the angry words and halfinch speeches, which good men utter, may gratify a morbid curiosity; but exposes our church and her ministry, in the very worst attitude in which they can be placed before the public eye. Their virtue and devoted and active piety are thrown in the shade, and the moment of excitement is seized to draw their likeness and place it in bold relief before a censorious and scoffing world." burgh Christian Herald.*

Upon this the editor of the Intelligencer thus remarks:

Pitts

"This is a great truth. Mr. Baird deserves the thanks of the Christian community for daring to utter it, Such is the desire of many editors of religious papers' to swell their subscription list, that they will gratify this morbid curiosity,' and furnish 'views' to suit all kinds of readers at all hazards; and, unless it is checked, the time must soon come, when no church will be permitted to keep its business in its own hands. Not a measure will be taken up, or even mentioned in an ecclesiastical judicatory, but it will be reported in the newspapers, and placed before the public mind in some false attitude the prejudices of some will be excited, and the passions of others inflamed, so as entirely to preclude the possibility of cool and rational reflection."

This shrinking from the scrutiny of the public press, comes with an ill-grace from parties who were clamorous for free discussion and, the more especially is it so, when the whole of the church enactments on slavery were put to vote, and carried, under the highest state of excitement. But, with them, free discussion must have been like submission to church authority by William Tennent, and his fellow Protesters, in 1741, when re

The complaint of the editor of the Herald may have had reference to the trial of Rev. Lyman Beecher, D. D., for heresy, which had taken place some time before the date of the above remarks, and which had been reported for the New York Observer, but it will apply with equal force to the slavery controversy, then rife in the churches.

quired to submit to the decisions of the Presbyterian Synod. In effect they asserted: "If we were the majority, it would be binding on you to obey the rules; but, seeing you sightless and Christless ones are in the majority, the rules are null, and, like yourselves, fit only to be despised." *

It would be easy to make a volume of extracts, from abolition documents and speeches, of the period between 1830 and 1840, showing the vehement spirit animating those who conducted the crusade against slavery, and the fanatical spirit by which they were animated; but we shall allow Rev. Dr. CHANNING to draw their portrait. In 1836, in one of his works, he says:

"The abolitionists have done wrong, I believe; nor is their wrong to be winked at because done fanatically or with good intentions; for how much mischief may be wrought with good designs! They have fallen into the common error of enthusiasts, that of exaggerating their object, of feeling as if no evil existed but that which they opposed, and as if no guilt could be compared with that of countenancing and upholding it. The tone of their newspapers, so far as I have seen them, has often been fierce and abusive. They have sent forth orators, some of them transported with fiery zeal, to sound the alarm against slavery through the land, to gather together young and old, pupils from schools, females hardly arrived at the years of discretion, the ignorant, the excitable, the impetuous, and to organize these into associations for the battle against oppression. Very unhappily they preached their doctrine to the colored people, and collected them into societies. To this mixed and excitable multitude, minute heartrending descriptions of slavery were given in piercing tones of passion; and slaveholders were held up as monsters of cruelty and crime. The abolitionist, indeed, proposed to convert slaveholders; and for this end he approached them with vituperation and exhausted on them the vocabulary of abuse. And he has reaped as he sowed."

The tendencies of the abolition movement, did not escape the attention of discerning men. It was foreseen, and predicted, that its ultimate results would be the dissolution of the Union, as a necessary consequence of the alienation of feeling which it engendered between the North and the South. Two or three years.

Webster's History of the Presbyterian Church in America, p. 164.

after Dr. Channing uttered his views of abolition, the Princeton Review made this prophetic declaration :

"The opinion that slaveholding is itself a crime must operate to produce the disunion of the States and the division of all ecclesiastical societies in the country. Just so far as this opinion operates it will lead those who entertain it to submit to any sacrifices to carry it out, and give it effect. We shall become two nations in feeling, which must soon render us two nations in fact."

To check the tendencies to this result, many of the most pious and intelligent men in the church, as well as in the state, set their faces, as steel, against the abolition movement. The same year that Dr. Channing expressed his opinion of the abolitionists, the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, holding its session in Cincinnati, passed a series of resolutions in reprobation of abolitionism, by an overwhelming majority. *

But we must leave this part of our field of discussion, to present a class of facts which are indispensable to a proper understanding of the question of the best mode of promoting African Evangelization. We shall, however, resume the discussion, in another chapter, of the abolition movements, in their connection with the ecclesiastical legislation at the North, so as to show that they were the natural outgrowth of that legislation.

SECTION IV.-INQUIRIES INTO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE DEGREES OF SUCCESS ATTENDING THE ATTEMPTS TO EVANGELIZE THE AFRICAN RACE THROUGHOUT THE WORLD.

Among an unthinking people, writers and orators may frame acceptable theories, based only on the speculations of their own imaginations; but he who would secure attention from an intelligent public, must found his theories upon facts. In no field of investigation is an appeal to facts so imperiously demanded, at this moment, as in that of the slavery question. False theories on the subject have done their fatal work upon our country. A writer has recently observed, that "It is in the arena of politics

See Chapter VIII., session of 1836.