6 only in assigne _njustic among be don be bra order. sion th violenc been fa had th places friends that ha day of a and th judged ter I st the dee has bee my fell the ref impute called, tle, the sad thi tween the att rights. the so over St should proprie on ear as loya tween that w the vei was ca "The Comin verball tions h liamen tion of putatio Assem with m had no fusing report visit th conting they hi report, mittee mittee where 20 They heard a great deal of clamour. They heard that we were all panicstruck, and that there was a perfect scattering of our ranks-and that we were all at sea in the matter; and, some how or other they got the impression-they could not give a single reason for it-they did not know even the facts of the case-but they got a prevailing notion that their beloved church had become involved in difficulty, and that it must, no matter by what means and at what compromise of character or principle, be got out of it as fast as possible. Now, sir, I trust this church is strong enough to stand the clamour of the mob as well as the assaults of the great, (loud applause.) I trust this church is strong enough to stand a popular clamour as well as a legal assault on her liberties, (renewed applause.) She has, in the providence of God, been called to testify before kings,-she has been called to bear the onset of men in high authority,-she has withstood all the assaults of those who could bring to bear upon her all the terrors of the civil law. And in withstanding the influence of patronage and of power in high places, she has made some sacrifices,-she has submitted to some privations. And is it that church, which was not to be deterred from maintaining the high principle of Christ's supremacy, and her own subjection to Christ alone, by all the assaults of law or power, is it that church which is to be found even for a moment shrinking from the full discussion of the question, in the single light of God's word, and subjection to Christ's authority alone, merely because a cry is got up, without reason, and without rhyme, which may frighten some of our friends, and split the ears of the groundlings, (tremendous applause.) The kind of intercourse we have to keep up is another matter; and if any thing I have said in a previous part of my address may have seemed to this house, or to any member of it, to be unduly excited; or if I have treated that part of the subject, perhaps in some instances, as some might think, with undue vehemence, (cries of "No, no"), I trust I may be pardoned, (applause.) One must give expressions to one's feelings of indignation in this matter. But the remaining part of the subject, I trust, I shall treat very seriously; for that is the real point,-namely, How we are to keep up our intercourse with these churches? Assuming that the house will be satisfied, and that the church will be satisfied, that we are not yet in the position even to entertain the question of breaking off friendly connexion with these churches, either by committing an insult and outrage, or by at once dropping all friendly correspondence with them, assuming this, that we are not in the position even to look at the question, whether we shall break off friendly intercourse with these churches, either in the one way or the other,—either in the way of offering them what would be justly deemed the most outrageous insult, or in the way of at once, and without cause shown, dropping our correspondence with them-assuming this to be the case, the only question that remains is, how that correspondence is to be carried on? Upon this point, of course, I cannot expect to make myself so intelligible to the Assembly as if I were prepared to read at length the address of the Assembly of America, and the proposed draft of our answer; but I may state some general views. In the first place, I presume, it will be the mind of all of us, that the communication which has been received, being couched in terms of Christian affection towards us, deserves an answer; and, at the same time, in consequence of its stating some views from which we completely differ, we are called upon to answer it; it demands an answer,-I say it both deserves and demands an answer. It deserves an answer, for it is a letter written by Christian men in a Christian spirit,-it demands an answer, for there are some statements and views brought out in the letter which we should not seem to acquiesce in even by our silence; plainly, therefore, an answer must be written. I do not characterise the letter that is to be answered. I may state, however, that the letter and the accompanying minute of the American Assembly form a very good exponent, as it seems to me, of the actual state of mind among our brethren in America in this particular. I may say here, in passing, that we are apt sometimes to conceive of the Presbyterian church of America as if, throughout the length and breadth of it, over the whole surface of the land, and in all its congregations, it was so mixed up with this system of slavery, that really it had nothing else to do, and could attend to nothing else. Now, that is not the fact. The Presbyterian church of America is the church both of the northern and southern states; and it is only, in a small portion of it, comparatively, that it comes in contact with the system of slavery. I do not mean to say that this exempts it from the duty of dealing with the system as it exists, and dealing with it faithfully; but it is right that we should understand that its relation to that question is somewhat similar to the relation in which this church might stand to an alleged abuse said to be prevalent in some one portion or corner of our territory, (hear.) It is of importance that this should be borne in mind, for " I think that many in this country who have been led away in this matter, seem to have forgotten it. Most undoubtedly, if we should have met with a grievance, or an abuse, or a sin, alleged to prevail in a certain small portion of our church and our country, we would be bound to deal with it, and to deal with it firmly and faithfully. But surely we would not thus be in the position, in regard to that sin, or that abuse, in which I think it is sometimes thought the American churches are, in reference to slavery, namely, that they have such a connexion with the system, as makes it out and out theirs, so that they really have nothing else to do in any part of their borders, but to deal with that system. I was going to remark however that the documents before us from America, bring out very clearly the state of mind of our brethren there. I will frankly say that I think that that state of mind is to be deplored and lamented. I think the state of mind into which they have got in reference to this question, is perhaps the thing in the whole case the most of all to be regretted, (hear, hear.) We cannot so easily lay our hand upon any heresy which they hold in reference to this question, or upon any principle which we can say explicitly is unsound or unscriptural. But, at the same time, we cannot resist the impression, that unhappily their mind in regard to it is not precisely such as we would like it to be. It is, at the same time, just such a tone of mind as I feel would probably be ours if we were in their circumstances. I say this, not in the way of alleging that, on this account, we should abstain from dealing with them; far otherwise; but in the way of simply saying, that if we are, as Christians with Christians, as Christian churches with Christian churches, to deal with them, we must consider the matter as if we were ourselves the parties dealt with-we must consider ourselves, lest we also should be tempted. I cannot but think that some of us, within these few months, may have got a specimen of what goes on across the Atlantic, and may have experienced 16 only in assigne injustic among be doni be brai ordersion th violenc been fa had th places t friends that ha day of a and the judged ter I st the dee has bee my fell the refi impute called, tle, the sad thi tween the at t rights. the sov Over Sc should proprie on ear still tha that th The "The Commi verball, tions h liamen tion of putatio Assem! with m had no fusing reports visit th conting they he report, mittee mittee where something like a tendency to the same state of mind which we find among at I have a remarkable instance of this before me, to which I will just refer. I received this morning, strangely enough, a copy of the New York Evangelist, of the 30th of April 1846, containing a long letter from the Rev. Amos Phelps to the Rev. Dr Bacon, purporting to be a reply to Dr Bacon on the question as to what Christian ministers and Churches should do in the way of dealing with slavery. Now, it may be right to state,-and of course I state it on other information than my own knowledge, but on good informationthat the Rev. Amos Phelps is one of those evangelical men in America, members and ministers of evangelical churches, who seem to have taken up, least in some degree, the views we regard as extreme on this matter. He is one of those, I believe, who are understood rather to lean to the views which are put forth by a party to whom I will not refer with any disrespect and I trust none here will do so-but a party known as Abolitionists, in America. The Rev. Amos Phelps, in the discussion to which I have referred, maintains the principle which they advocate, of regarding slaveholding, as such, to be a sin, in the sense that it is to be immediately visited with the discipline of the Church. He writes an answer to Dr Bacon in reference to a discussion which, it seems, had arisen at the Board of Missions as to what ought to be the conduct of missionary churches in the midst of a slave population. Why, sir, that was the very question that was forced on ourselves not many years ago the very question that was forced upon our missionary societies before slavery was abolished in the West Indies, (hear)-the very question which such a man as Dr Andrew Thomson had to deal with here, (loud applause,) and such men as Wilberfore and Clarkson had to deal with in England -the very question which these men had to deal with in this land-men the most distinguished in their opposition to the system of slavery, and to whom, under God, we owe its abolition, (renewed applause.) They were religious men-they were Christian men-they were members of Christian Churches -they were members of missionary societies; and while they were indignant in their denunciation of the accursed system of slavery, they were indefatigable in their efforts to provide the means of Christian instruction for the slaves. They met in missionary societies, and they had this very question to consider. And did it ever occur to any of these devoted men to take up the position which is now maintained?—did it ever occur to any of these devoted men to act upon the principle now set forth? No, sir, I venture to say that if Wilberforce in England, and Andrew Thomson in Scotland, when going forward in the full tide of their enthusiasm to assail this accursed system, and hasten its destruction-if, while going forth on this high errand of Christian philanthropy, on the principles of common sense and the Bible -their path had been crossed by some ultra method of opposition so wretched as this if their ranks had been broken by some question as to the precise manner of bringing Christian discipline to bear on the slaveholder—a question which they knew right well ought to be treated with the utmost delicacy-what would they have done? They would not, I believe, have suffered themselves either to be frightened out of their propriety, or driven into a false position-they would not have allowed themselves to be irritated and vexed so as to give up the cause, nor would they have rushed at once into an untenable position, which could not be maintained from God's word or common sense and reason, (hear, hear.) But if they had found their path crossed with such questions as these-questions of difficulty-questions of delicacy, affecting matters which none can handle but those who can understand what Christianity-spiritual Christianity, is-and who are Christian men themselves-I say wha would they have done? They would not have got angry or sulky-they would not have been driven out of their way. But oh, sir, I can fancy the terms in which they would have denounced the attempt to mar the progress of the noble cause, (great applause.) But now I return to this letter; it is a curious letter; I will not trouble you with reading it all. Here are two Christian, two evangelical men, who are brought to the point-the one advocating the principles of the extreme abolitionists, and the other, Dr Bacon, dividing against him in the board of missions on that very question; and here they are in a newspaper controversy-yes, in a thorough logical controversy for it is men of high mind and talents who are discussing it here; and what is the issue? I have read the letter twice or thrice with the utmost care, and I cannot, with all the consideration I have given it, see how these two men should differ, (a laugh.) I cannot positively see the difference between the views of the Rev. Amos Phelps and the Rev. Dr Bacon; and how so?-just because Dr Bacon is a logician, and, still more, because Dr Bacon is a Christian and a churchman; and, lastly, because he has got a logician, and a Christian, and a churchman to deal with, (hear.) I will not go into the argument; if time permitted I might do so. It is rather a nice argument; I enjoyed it very much, in ne stic ng on rar er tha enc n fa. - th ces 1 ends t ha of a the gedi - I st e dee s bee y fell Le reft mpute alled, e, the ad this ween he atta ights. he sov Over Se should proprie on eart as loya still the tween liverat "The Comm verball tions b liamer tion of putati Assen with r had u fusing repor visit t contit they ! repor mitte mitte wher 24 because my taste is somewhat in that way. I am often accused of being too metaphysical; but I am quite sure I would be metaphysical enough if I attempted to explain to you this question, (cheers.) Is it not sad that two such men should be set by the ears on this question-should be driven into opposite and antagonist positions? The one, I suppose, will be lauded to the skies as a right good abolitionist, and the other will be suspected as an apologist for slavery; and yet, when these two men came to reason the point one with another, upon logical and Christian principles, they split straws and hairs; and positively, after all, the dispute turns upon the most pitiful verbal quibble ever raised in any discussion, (hear.) Now, why should all this be so? Is it not sad, I repeat, that when we are perfectly prepared to go along with any movement against this horrid system of slavery, which shall be based on the principles of plain common sense and the Word of God, we should be asked to take up principles of morality which were never heard of till our own West India slaves were emancipated? It is quite easy for us here to adopt these new principles when we have get over all these questions ourselves, when we have not ministers and missionaries in a slave population,—when we have not the actual holders of slaves in our congregations,-when we have not our churches built by the means of those owning slaves-it is very easy for us now to take up an extreme position, (cheers.) But I would like to know how the church and the country would have relished this some years ago. I would like to know how the most respected and prominent opponents of slavery would have treated it. Why, they would have said we are engaged in a great work, and we cannot afford to come down and fight with you on such petty questions-petty, I call them, in respect to what I have just now statedthat they turn, when you probe them to the bottom, upon different ways of stating the same principle, held by all true Christians in reference to the Word of God, (cheers.) I say, would not these emancipationists have been indignant had they heard this in their day? Would they not have cast aside such a question as this, and would they not have said, we are engaged in a great work, and we cannot come down? Having said this much in reference generally to the state of mind which the letter of the Presbyterian Church of America seems to indicate, which we are all called in duty to deplore and lament, but which we can to a large extent explain, I go on to speak of the principles of the letter that should be sent in reply. And here I say at once, if there be any thing approaching to heresy at all in reference to this question in the churches in America-I mean any thing approaching to unsound doctrine, not in reference to their own internal arrangements, but in reference to their relation to the state-if there be any thing approaching to what we disapprove of, that could be tangibly stated, it is this they seem to have adopted, to a much larger extent, than we can approve of, the principle of non-interference, as a church, in civil affairs, (hear.) I am not sure that I state their principle so as to do it justice. I know they would make many explanations in regard to it. I believe that recently the American ministers and their congregations took an active part in a most momentous national affair-the threatened war between America and England. I believe that such was their affection for us-such their love of peace-that, as it were, breaking through their great scrupulosity in regard to interfering in civil affairs, the ministers of the Presbyterian churches of America exerted themselves in the matter, effectually exhorting their con |