of the world, to be told by them how she must administer her sacred charge? Where now is that fastidiousness which a little while ago said so softly, that the church was a spiritual commonwealth, and had no concern, pro or con, with seculars? I invoke it here: this is the place for it to assert itself, where I demand for the church the right to carry out still her own scriptural polity towards the Africans, as she has practised it for 150 years, justified by all sound Presbyterians, North and South; and to pursue the even tenour of her way, regardless of the decision of the sword and faction; and not there, where the imposing plea was but a pretext for assailing the dearest earthly interests of your fellow citizens, through a sophistical perversion of our spiritual charter.
The truth is, Mr. Moderator, the doctrine I oppose involves covertly the whole conclusion of the abolitionist. If, as is here argued, membership in Christ's church secures to all, irrespective of class and condition, the indefeasible right to church office; and if the civil government imposes on a class of Christians a condition practically inconsistent with their enjoying such spiritual franchise; then that secular order is intrinsically anti-christian and unrighteous. For the soul is above the body; eternity is more than time; man's spiritual liberties are more indefeasible than any social relation; and God is above Cæsar. If this doctrine I oppose is true now, it was true from 1706 to 1865. The rights of masters, which prevented you from putting that doctrine in practice, were essentially criminal. The church was continually derelict, in not testifying so, and preaching abolition. And our holy fathers lived and died in sin. This conclusion is inevitable. Ask Henry Ward Beecher; he will tell you, that the links of this deduction are adamantine, if your premise, which is his, touching the right of negroes to clerical equality, be granted. Therefore I know that it is false.
But it is urged, with great confidence: "If God, by the call of his providence and Spirit, says to a black christian, Preach; how can the church dare to forbid him, on the mere ground of the colour of his skin?" If God says to any one, Preach; of course we must not bid him forbear. But not so fast. This short argument assumes several essential things, very wide of the truth. In the first place, it is very far from being the same thing, that a given branch of the church composed of a given people, shall say to an alien whom God may have called to preach: "We do not wish you to teach and rule us;" and that they shall say to him: "Preach not at all." Next, it by no means follows that a man, white or black, is called of God, because he thinks he is called of God. If I know anything of the doctrine of vocation, as taught by the Scriptures, our Constitution, and the great Reformed divines, it includes these truths: That no man's call to preach or rule is valid, until the people of God voluntarily echo it, inviting and electing him to teach and rule them: That even as the Holy Ghost moves the soul of him whom Christ calls to preach; so, the same Spirit moves the hearts of Christ's people to approve and select him: That the Spirit is as much in the body, as in the clergy: and that His divine voice, as uttered in the two, cannot contradict itself. Now, by what right can any man, black or white, assume that he is unquestionably
