the most learned professors in theological seminaries tried to vindicate
from the Bible the toleration of slavery.

2. Disclaimers were made as to the right to interfere with slavery. As,
for example, a large ecclesiastical assembly by vote disclaimed "any
right, wish or intention to interfere with the civil and political
relation between master and slave, as it exists in the slaveholding
States of this Union." A distinguished bishop is reported to have said:
"I have never yet advised the liberation of a slave, and I think I never
shall;" and an eminent doctor of divinity declared: "If by one prayer I
could liberate every slave in the land I would not dare to offer it."

3. Fine distinctions were drawn in behalf of slaveholders. It was
warmly urged in their defense that while slavery was a sin, the
individual slaveholder might not in every case be a sinner--a charity
that was made to cover a multitude of sinners. One large religious
assembly declared that it could not "exclude slaveholders from the table
of the Lord;" it would rather "sympathize with and succor them in their
embarrassments." An elaborate report was adopted at another large
convocation, in which it was suggested that the convert should be
admitted into the church while still a slaveholder, an oppressive ruler
and a proud Brahmin, in the hope that under proper teaching, "the master
may be prepared to break the bonds of the slave, the oppressive ruler to
dispense justice to the subject, and the proud Brahmin fraternally to
embrace the man of low caste."

The great motive for these concessions was the desire for church
enlargement. Slavery was a sin, but the slaveholder might not always be
guilty, and if church unity and church extension were to be secured in
the South, some concessions must be made. Then, too, there was