that they were sincere and "terribly in earnest." Their tone and accent were Apostolic, and they spoke with an abandon that was very effective; and all over New England earnest men and women who had been most devoted as Church members "came out" with what they sincerely thought to be righteous imprecations on the' chief allies of the slave owners. Truth to say, they became very expert in the changes they rang on their short and simple logic, and cutting satire seemed to come to them as a special gift. Hence they were feared, and were seldom called to account on their own platform: to attack them seemed to invite, so far as the impression made upon the public is considered, humiliating defeat. The principal leaders of the "Come-Outers were Stephen S. Foster and the lady who soon became his wife, Abbey Kelley; and either, with an unselfish abandon, would have welcomed stripes, imprisonment, or death, had such a result been the price of their fidelity to conviction.

Mr. Foster and Miss Kelley and their co-workers held a "Come-Outer" convention in Lowell early in 1843, in which they severely arraigned the churches for their evasion of duty, their treachery to their own teachings in regard to the sin of holding human beings in bondage. Early in April of the same year they held a second convention in the city. Commenting on both in the local Universalist paper, "The Star and Palladium," in the number for April 22, 1843, Mr. Miner said: “A few weeks ago our goodly city was blessed with one of those anomalies familiarly known as an Anti-Slavery Convention, but more correctly known by the appellation

of an Anti-Church Convention. During its first session, however, it was understood to dwell particularly upon the sin of the pro-slavery Churches, instancing the Methodists and Baptists, and making them prominent; and to demand their overthrow. They met with very little opposition in the positions they then took. Last week they returned to the encounter and challenged the whole body of the clergy to come out and show cause why they should not be condemned as holding an office which is a 'conspiracy against God and man, and of the devil, or else confess that themselves (the clergy) are a set of scoundrels.'" It is believed that most of the city clergy were present. Enthusiasm was soon generated, and the slings and arrows of righteous wrath created a storm of mingled applause and dissent. The clergy were "dared" to take the platform and defend their cause" free speech" was the motto of the reformers. At first, it seemed as if the clergy were over-awed, for the reformers were in training and copious epithets were at their command. A gentleman who was present told the present biographer, that, though not willing to confess himself a coward, he would as soon have thought of entering a nest of hornets as to accept the challenge to face the agitators on their own platform.

There were, however, clergymen present who had the hardihood to take up the challenge, and of the number two in particular. One of these was a man of small stature, he has already been described as naturally timid and self-distrustful. He uniformly acted on the advice given by Polonius to his son: "Beware of

entrance to a quarrel; but being in, bear 't that the opposed may beware of thee;" but once upon his feet, his fear took to itself wings as in a former crisis. His first words were a question that evoked roars of laughter and a tempest of applause: "Who has conferred infallibility on these almighty fellows?" There was more in the same vein, and the speaker took his seat a hero with the majority. The man who thus faced the lions in their den was Rev. Thomas B. Thayer, pastor of the First Universalist Church. Then arose another man who had no occasion to find his courage, for when in the way of what he deemed his duty he never knew fear-Rev. A. A. Miner, of the Second Universalist Church. In what has been quoted from his article in "The Star and Palladium," it appears that the leaders of the meeting had sent out a fearful challenge to all the clergy of the city, summoning them to be present and give reasons why they should not be adjudged "a set of scoundrels." clergy by their response showed at least that they "dared" to hear a statement of the issue. Mr. Miner made for the matter of his speech an analysis of certain resolutions, which analysis he printed in the article referred to. And for a reason his speech was given in his own church-presumably Mr. Thayer's was also; the time for which the City Hall had been engaged having expired, the doors of the church were hospitably opened for the Convention. Mr. Miner, selecting the salient resolutions, made of them the following condensed statement in syllogistic form: — " 1. The Church of Christ is, and always was, opposed to all

The

66

wrong; 2. The American Church, being guilty of the sin of slavery, is not opposed to all wrong; 3. Therefore, the American Church is not the Church of Christ."

It happened, unfortunately for the framers of the resolutions, that they had conceded, in fact explicitly affirmed, that the Church of Christ was and always had been, like its Divine Master, " opposed to all injustice, oppression, cruelty, and wrong." Mr. Miner, the born logician, saw the fatal fallacy, and his accent and bearing revealed to the auditory the fact that he saw it. When, in midocean, the electricians grappled at a depth of two or three miles for the broken cable that for a year rested upon the ocean's floor, the reporter said that unmistakable symptoms instantly informed them when the grip was firm, and that the discovery for the moment seemed to transfigure them. A. A. Miner had a relentless grip upon the "reformers"; he knew that he had; and they and all others present were destined to have the proof that he had. He made the fallacy of the resolution unmistakable by presenting a syllogism essentially similar, as follows:-"1. The Church of Christ is and always was opposed to all wrong; 2. The Corinthian Church, being guilty of the sin of fornication, was not opposed to all wrong (1 Corin. v.); 3. Therefore, the Corinthian Church was not the Church of Christ." On the assumption that the Apostolic Church was the Church of Christ, which was impliedly conceded, Mr. Miner's syllogism put his antagonists in a vise. They were logically silenced, every gun spiked. And their opponent had too clear a head to permit escape by an evasion.

The fatal mistake of the resolutions, as Mr. Miner

insisted, was in the lack of that whereof, in later years, he so habitually complained—the lack of "discrimination." They did not distinguish between what the Church of Christ required and what persons in the Church had simply acquired. They did not take into account that the divine treasure is of necessity intrusted to earthen vessels; that the kingdom of heaven takes in of every kind, always with the intent of making good that which is bad; that the best of people are imperfect; that there could be no Church if only the perfect were to be taken in as members. In his brief description of the occasion, Mr. Miner said: "Although the Church party was more than once charged with cowardice and fear, yet that none were afraid to abide the issue sufficiently appears from the fact that when the time for which the Convention was called drew near its close, and the City Hall could no longer be had, the Second Universalist Society promptly opened their house for the continuance of the discussion; and the clergy were on the ground to do battle most manfully. And notwithstanding the discussion was one in some of its features, which none can approve, yet it is believed good may come out of it. It stirred up in many breasts wrong feelings for the time being, but it will help sincere friends of the race to distinguish between premises and conclusions between anti-Churchism and antislaveryism. They will learn that in order to labor for the good of their colored brethren it is by no means. essential that they should march at the bidding of William Lloyd Garrison, or train in the company of which he is Captain General.' There never was