CHAPTER IV.

THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST CONVENTION.1

LONG before 1844 the slavery question had come to be agitated in Baptist circles. The Baptists of the South had, as a body, identified themselves with the institution, and were prepared not only to practice it, but to defend it with pen and sword. The sentiment against domestic slavery grew rapidly at the North, and many Baptists were coming to feel that duty required them not only to protest against the enslavement of their fellow-men and brethren in Christ, but to use every practicable means for the overthrow of an institution which they looked upon as un-Christian and immoral. Up to 1844 Baptists of the North and South had heartily coöperated in the Triennial Convention and in the various general denominational societies that had gathered around this body. The Southern churches had contributed their full share toward the funds of these societies, and many of the ablest leaders in general denominational work were Southern men.

In the winter of 1839-40 the Board of Foreign Missions passed a resolution asserting the absolute neutrality of the board on the slavery question. This resolution was reënacted in 1843 at the Albany anniversaries. It was inevi

66

1 See "Annual Reports of the S. B. C."; Tupper, "Dec. of For. Miss."; Cuthbert, "R. Fuller "; Broadus, "J. P. Boyce"; Bapt. Memorial," 1845 seq.; Fuller and Wayland, "Letters on Domestic Slavery"; Sampey, "Southern Bapt. Theol. Sem."; Cathcart; State denominational histories as in Bibliography.

table that at the great public gatherings brethren of strong antislavery convictions and impulsive temperament should express their sentiments on this question in such a way as to offend their Southern brethren, who were highly sensitive to any unfavorable allusion to an institution with which they and their constituents were so fully identified.

In the Triennial Convention for 1844, Richard Fuller, of South Carolina, introduced the following resolution, with the hope of rigorously excluding any allusion to slavery in the meetings of the body and thus making possible continued coöperation of North and South: "Whereas, Some misapprehension exists in certain parts of the country as to the design or character of this Convention, and it is most desirable that such misapprehension should be removed; therefore, Resolved, That this Convention is at corporation with limited powers, for a specific purpose defined in its constitution; and therefore, that its members are delegated to meet solely for the transaction of business prescribed by the said constitution; and that coöperation in this body does not involve nor imply any concert or sympathy as to any matters foreign from the object designated as aforesaid." This resolution was seconded by Spencer H. Cone and supported by William Hague, J. B. Jeter, and others, but was strongly opposed by Nathaniel Colver, of Massachusetts, who did not wish to be fettered in respect to any subject. It was finally withdrawn to make way for the following, which was unanimously adopted: "Whereas, There exists in various sections of our country an impression that our present organization involves the fellowship of the institution of domestic slavery, or of certain associations which are designed to oppose this institution; Resolved, That in coöperating together as members of this Convention in the work of Foreign Missions, we disclaim all sanction, either express or implied,

whether of slavery or of antislavery, but as individuals we are perfectly free both to express and promote our own views on these subjects in a Christian manner and spirit." In the course of the discussion Dr. Fuller, one of the ablest and most moderate of the Southern leaders, is said to have remarked that he was himself entirely calm on the subject of slavery. He had examined it; he had felt deeply upon it. He was not convinced that slavery is a sin personally; he regarded it as a great evil; his brethren at the South did not; he hoped and prayed that the time would soon come when it would be done away. Some time after the Convention of 1844 the Board of Foreign Missions was said to have procured the resignation of John Bushyhead, a highly respected Indian Baptist preacher, on the ground that he was a slave-holder. The impression commonly prevailed in the South thenceforth that slave-holders would be rigorously excluded from appointment as missionaries, agents, or officers of the board.

In 1844 Richard Fuller addressed a communication to the editor of "The Christian Reflector," in reply to certain antislavery utterances that had appeared in that journal. He sought to fortify his position by referring to certain statements in Wayland's "Elements of Moral Science." As Wayland was a pronounced, though moderate, antislavery man, such a use of his authority drew forth an explanation of his position. Wayland represented the best culture, wisdom, and spirit of the Northern Baptists, as did Fuller those of the Southern Baptists. It was fortunate that two such men should be led to discuss a question of so vital importance. It need scarcely be said that both writers were scrupulously courteous and as conciliatory as the circumstances would allow. Fuller's attitude toward this question has already been referred to. Both writers considered the question on ethical and Scriptural grounds,

reaching opposite conclusions as to what is allowable for American Christians of the nineteenth century. It is not likely that many converts were gained to either side by this somewhat prolonged discussion, but it is probable that on both sides the bitterness of feeling aroused by the antislavery agitation was somewhat allayed. These controversial papers were published in a volume early in 1845, entitled "Letters on Domestic Slavery."

The Alabama State Convention was the first Southern body to memorialize the Foreign Mission Board with respect to its understood purpose to discriminate against slave-holders in the making of appointments. The document thus begins: "Whereas, The holding of property in African negro slaves has for some years excited discussion, as a question of morals, between different portions of the Baptist denomination united in benevolent enterprise; and by a large portion of our brethren is now imputed to the slave-holders in these Southern and Southwestern States, as a sin at once grievous, palpable, and disqualifying; 1. Resolved, . . . that when one party to a voluntary compact among Christian brethren is not willing to acknowledge the entire social equality with the other, as to all the privileges and benefits of the union, nor even to refrain from impeachment and annoyance, united efforts between such parties, even in the sacred cause of Christian benevolence, cease to be agreeable, useful, or proper. 2. Resolved, That our duty at this crisis requires us to demand from the proper authorities in all those bodies to whose funds we have contributed, or with whom we have in any way been connected, the distinct, explicit avowal that slaveholders are eligible, and entitled, equally with non-slaveholders, to all the privileges and immunities of their several unions; and especially to receive any agency, mission, or other appointment, which may run within the scope of their

operations or duties." It is insisted that in case the moral character of an applicant shall be called in question an appeal shall be allowed to the church of which he is a member. No funds are to be forwarded to these societies until satisfactory answers shall have been received.

The Foreign Mission Board replied in a dignified and conciliatory way, but refused to recognize the right of any one, slave-holder or non-slave-holder, to appointment to positions at the disposal of the board. "In the thirty years in which the board has existed, no slave-holder, to our knowledge, has applied to be a missionary. And, as we send out no domestics or servants, such an event as a missionary taking slaves with him, were it morally right, could not, in accordance with all our past arrangements or present plans, possibly occur. If, however, any one should offer himself as a missionary, having slaves, and should insist on retaining them as his property, we could not appoint him. One thing is certain, we can never be a party to any arrangement which would imply approbation of slavery."

This decision of the board led to the formal withdrawal of the various Southern State Conventions and auxiliary foreign mission societies. At the suggestion of the board of the Foreign Missionary Society of Virginia, Southern Baptists were invited to meet in convention at Augusta, Ga., in May, 1845. In the meantime the national anniversaries of the denomination were held at Providence. The report of a committee appointed by the American Baptist Home Mission Society the previous year, to take into consideration the subject of an amicable dissolution of the society, was the occasion of a prolonged discussion. President Wayland used his great influence in vain to prevent precipitate action; but radical antislavery sentiment on the one hand, and Southern sensitiveness on the other,