months in Claysville, Pennsylvania, and about a year in Urichsville, Ohio, while he was teaching in New Philadelphia. In May, 1845, the General Assembly of the O. S. Presbyterian church, passed the Rubicon in her downward march from the hights of ecclesiastical liberty, into the territories of despotism. Once, in common with other branches of the Presbyterian family, she bore a strong and truthful testimony against slaveholding. The Assembly of 1794 declared the slaveholder identical with the man-thief—the worst criminal designated in the Mosaic law. That of 1818 pronounced it utterly inconsistent with the law of God, and totally irreconcilable with the gospel of Christ. But during all this time the man-thief was permitted to preach the gospel and commune in the church, under the delusive hope that a paper testimony from the highest church courts would work a silent destruction of the sin. Instead, however, of dying out, it steadily grew, struck its roots deeply around the pulpit, the altar, and the communion table; and this year it felt strong enough to throw off the mask, and claim that the Assembly was originally organized, on the conceded principle that its existence should be "no bar to Christian communion." In common with many others, Mr. G. was greatly exercised, and deeply grieved with this apostate action. In July following, he was invited to attend a convention of ministers and elders at Mt. Pleasant, whose object was to try to induce the Assembly of 1846 to rescind the action of that of 1845, and re-affirm that of 1818, which had been the standing testimony of the church during twenty-seven years. The invitation found him prostrated on a bed of sickness; yet he responded by letter. He always wrote with a trenchant pen, and now disease probably added to its point. As this letter was made the subject of flagrantly unconstitutional action, and the occasion of bitter and relentless persecution afterward, we here insert it entire : NEW PHILADELPHIA, July 23, 1845. Dear Brethren: A severe and dangerous attack of sickness, under which I was suffering at the time your letter was received, prevented an immediate reply; and now the feebleness incident to but a partial recovery, will preclude a labored answer. Most gladly would I mingle with you in your proposed convention, but the state of my health, and nature of my engagements, forbid the expectation. With the prominent object of the meeting you invite me to attend, I deeply sympathize-"to induce the General Assembly to rescind their late action on the subject of slavery." The emotions excited in my mind by perusing that action, have alternated between bitter grief and burning indignation. The moral character of slavery, I have ceased to regard as an open question. I no longer admit it as a debatable point, whether slavery be a sin. The united voice of the civilized world—the innate consciousness of every human heart-and the plain teachings of the word of God-have all combined to settle the question. Common sense alone is sufficient in its plain teachings. With these views, I looked with anxious solicitude to our highest court, hoping to see them arrange themselves on the side of truth and Jehovah-hoping to hear the strong voice of affectionate, but stern rebuke to those who "deal in slaves and souls of men." To blast these fond anticipations, came the blasphemous (the word is not too strong) report of the reverend committee, to which was committed the anti-slavery memorials of large and respectable numbers in the church; a report in which Christ and his Apostles are ruthlessly pressed into the service of "the vilest system of oppression that ever saw the sun," which is made up of a tissue of contradictions—in one breath pronouncing slavery the favorite institution of Jesus and his Apostles, and in the next, promulgating in the ear of the master as his rule of conduct, the broad principle of doing to others as they would have others do to them-which is destined to sweep the system of abominations from the earth; a report, which, in connection with the subsequent action of the Assembly, trampled on the right of free discussion, and manifested a reckless determination on the part of the majority, to earn the title of "brotherhood of thieves," and " wear it as a feather in their cap." Is this language too strong? Look for a moment at the nature of the case. Slavery is either right or wrong—either a holy institution approved of God and pleasing in his sight, or a system of crime and blood, over which the Almighty frowns, and over which the Saviour weeps. A system so decided in its character and effects, precludes the idea of neutrality in its moral nature. If then it be a holy institution, as the drift of the report would make it, why in the name of all that is manly, this driveling policy of seeking to justify it, and yet not wishing to be understood as denying that there is evil connected with it? If it be a holy institution, let them proclaim it boldly, and call upon its opposers to cease their wicked efforts; and should they refuse to do so, proceed to discipline and expel them from the church for seeking to contravene a Heaven-ordained institution, appointed by God himself, and baptized in the name of Father, Son, and Spirit, by Christ and his disciples. But if on the other hand slavery be, as it surely is, the "sum of all villainies "-"a gross violation of the most precious and sacred rights of human nature, utterly inconsistent with the law of God, which requires us to love our neighbors as we love ourselves-and totally irreconcilable with the spirit and principles of the gospel of Christ;" if such be the character of slavery, then no language is too strong in speaking of those who, while claiming loudly to be the ministers of the merciful Jesus, lend all their energies to uphold the vile abomination. Is slavery then the monster which the good and great of all ages and our own Assembly in years past declare it to be? As I have said, I shall not reason that question. Bring but one of its many constituent parts to bear on these reverend divines, and you shall hear a different response from their recorded action in the Assembly of 1845. Place one of them in the hands of a master possessing but one of the slaveholders' prerogatives-the power to separate him from wife and children-to compel him to toil without reward in the burning southern sun— the right to sell him to the most cruel tyrant-or the power to forbid him reading the word of God-and you would hear from that holy man no declaration that to “ pronounce slavery a sin, would be to contradict some of the plainest declarations of the word of God." And yet not one, but all of these elements, and MORE, enter into the composition of slavery. And yet these holy men can say that Christ and his inspired followers did not condemn the system !! "How long, oh Lord! how long Shall such a priesthood barter truth away! The time and circumstances in which the General Assembly of our church have taken this impious stand, gives to their position a painful singularity. While the civilized, and even many parts of the savage world, are combining in one grand effort to crush the blood-stained monster; while almost all other branches of the Christian Church are uttering their testimony against it; while just across the river, where the Assembly sat, the voice of a former slaveholder-reared under the influence of the system-a politician making no claim to the Christian character, is pouring his denunciation in words of burning eloquence, and calling, in language to which the heart leaps as to the blast of the trumpet, upon all to marshal to the death struggle with the demon of oppression, men claiming to be chosen ministers of Him who came "to proclaim liberty to the captive," are seen rushing to plant their shoulders in support of the tottering Bastile, as it reels beneath the sturdy blows that fall thick and fast upon it. Over such a scene, surely Jesus and angels must weep; and that such a state of things may soon cease to disgrace our beloved church, will surely call forth the prayers of all that love the truth. In all consistent and energetic action to secure the great object of the coming convention, you have my most hearty sympathy; and to the extent of my feeble powers, my earnest co-operation. May God speed the day of the slave's deliverance; and permit us to live to join our voices in the jubilee shout, when "Liberty shall be proclaimed throughout all the land, unto all the inhabitants thereof." Yours, for Truth and Freedom, MR. MCCULLOUGH, and others. JOS. GORDON. This letter, in connection with those of several others, was published in the Liberty Advocate of Cadiz, Ohio. In the following October he was invited to the church of New Athens, and elected Professor of Mathematics in Franklin College. Previous to this he had taken a letter of dismission from the Presbytery of Washington, and put himself under the care of that of Coshocton, Ohio. To that Presbytery he was alone accountable for all the acts which were done while he was under its care. It was rather an anti-slavery body, and took no official notice of the published letter. After his removal to Athens, he took a letter of dismissal from the Presbytery of Coshocton, and put himself under the care of that of St. Clairsville. That body, without any open objection, took him under its care, and appointed him to supply the church of Athens a whole year, without a hint that his conduct in writing the above letter, and permitting its publication, had been offensive. In 1846, one year afterward, the church made out a call-the Presbytery without objection put it into his hands-he signified his acceptance-and they appointed a meeting for his ordination. The day came, and the body met. Their plans of operation were concealed. They proceeded with his examination, and heard his trials, as if nothing stood in the way of his ordination, till they were almost ready to lay on hands. Then a member arose and gave the information (which every member of the body knew a year and a half before) that the candidate had written an offensive letter in July, 1845, in reference to the action of the General Assembly. Pretending to receive this as a piece of new intelligence, the Presbytery appointed a committee to confer with the candidate, and endeavor to induce him to retract the sentiments of the letter. To the committee he made what he called "an explanation." He said the letter was written while he was on a sick bed-the language might not have been well chosen-and that it was not his right to judge the private motives of the members of the Assembly; but that in reference to the action itself, he had expressed his firm and matured convictions, and that he could not, and would not, retract them until they convinced him they were wrong. The explanation was pronounced unsatisfactory; the committee so reported to the Presbytery, and the whole body spent a considerable time in trying to wring from him something more. They put on the gagprohibited him from making a public defense-confined him down to simply answer their questions-charged him with being a young man ""a mere tyro"-with many other phrases equally dignified, and rendered deeply impressive by the bitterness and anger with which they were uttered. All this heat, and zeal, and rhetoric he met with the calm serenity and self-possession of one who stood on the principles of conscious rectitude. No one attempted to convince him that his expressed sentiments were wrong, or to grapple with him in discussion of their truth or falsehood. 66 This The Presbytery evidently designed to spring the matter on him suddenly-frighten him into some sudden concessions, and thus tie his hands, and gag his lips for the future. was now a failure. What could be done? Should they give him a regular trial, as he demanded? This would entitle him to the right of being heard in defense. This they could not meet. They therefore suddenly arrested the proceedings and adjourned. This was supposed to be done to enable them to form some new plan for the future. They had persistently refused him a hearing. As soon as the body adjourned, he requested the crowded congregation to remain; and made to |