JUDGE JAY CONTINUES TO SUPPORT THE ANTISLAVERY CAUSE BY HIS ADVICE
AND WRITINGS.--IN CONSEQUENCE OF HIS OPINIONS HE IS DEPRIVED OF HIS
SEAT ON THE BENCH.--HIS VISIT TO EUROPE.--HIS VIEWS ON THE LIBERTY
PARTY.--ON THE ANNEXATION OF TEXAS.--HIS "REVIEW OF THE MEXICAN
WAR."--HIS ADVOCACY OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION AS A REMEDY FOR
WAR.--HIS WORK IN THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH.
After the division in the ranks of the antislavery societies in 1840,
Judge Jay ceased to take an active part in their proceedings, preferring
to support the cause independently by his writings. But he was
continually applied to by the societies to assist them by his advice, to
give legal opinions on the positions which they wished to take, and to
prepare documents which required special judgment and ability.
In April, 1842, Jay prepared an address to the British Antislavery
Society, at the request of Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, who wrote on behalf
of the American Antislavery Society. A little later, again by request of
Mrs. Child, he gave a legal opinion on the advisability of carrying to
the Supreme Court the cases of three men who had been condemned in
Missouri to twelve years' imprisonment for aiding slaves to escape.
He continued his membership in the American and Foreign Antislavery
Society in New York. Here he laboured unceasingly to keep the society
fast to its declared purpose, and to prevent it from adding new
doctrines and objects which he believed must result in further divisions
injurious to the cause.
In April, 1841, he wrote on this subject to Lewis Tappan:
"I am glad the society will not be concerned in establishing a
missionary station in Africa. The great vice of our antislavery
societies has been, and is, meddling with things they have no right
to meddle with, and this they have done on a most vicious principle,
that the end sanctifies the means. In general, abolitionists mean
well; but they grievously mistake when they think themselves
authorized to pursue, in their associated capacity, whatever
benevolent or religious plan they individually approve. They unite
for certain specified purposes, and receive money expressly to
forward those purposes; and to employ their associated influence or
their common funds for other distinct purposes is not, in my
opinion, consistent with strict morality."
In August, 1841, Judge Jay was requested by the Executive Committee of
the American and Foreign Antislavery Society to allow his name to be
announced as a regular contributor to the society's organ, the
_Reporter_. He took this opportunity to repeat his warnings against the
departure of the abolitionists from the line of action which they had
marked out for themselves in the early days of the agitation.
"As an abolitionist I have deeply deplored the dissensions which
have marred our harmony and almost annihilated our moral influence;
and I have constantly and resolutely abstained, as far as my sense
of duty would permit me, from aggravating those dissensions by
partaking in them. The obvious tendency of the _announcement_
contemplated by your resolution is to impress the public with the
belief that the gentlemen who are held forth as the future
contributors to the _Reporter_ maintain the principles and approve
the course of that paper. Such an impression, so far as regards
myself, would be most strictly accurate were the principles and
course of the paper to continue such as they have hitherto been. To
the American and Foreign Antislavery Society I did fondly look as a
refuge for such abolitionists as had been expelled from the old
society by the faithlessness of those who converted it into an
instrument for spreading other than antislavery doctrines. I did,
notwithstanding past experience, regard the constitution of the new
society as affording a guarantee that its members would not be
required to support any other principles and measures than such as
were indicated in that instrument. In consequence of this belief I
did not decline office in the society, and I aided in defraying the
expenses and in filling the columns of the _Reporter_. The paper was
conducted with ability and honesty, promised to exert a happy
influence in restoring peace and harmony to our ranks. The society
was pledged by its constitution 'carefully to abstain from all the
machinery of party political arrangements in effecting the objects,'
and the _Reporter_ faithfully conformed itself to this pledge. But
in the very last number we are informed that at the last meeting a
vote of the society, '_nearly unanimous_,' was taken in favour of
striking this pledge from the constitution, but that inasmuch as the
notice required by Article X. had not been given, the amendment was
not _constitutionally_ adopted. The pledge is therefore virtually,
although not formally, withdrawn; and we have every reason to
believe that at the next meeting it will be expunged from the
constitution. It is therefore obvious that the society, instead of
being a rallying point for abolitionists, is henceforth to be a mere
partisan organization, excluding from its fellowship multitudes of
honest, zealous, and consistent abolitionists because they cannot
adopt the maxim now promulgated in certain quarters, that the
friends of immediate emancipation should labour to secure for
themselves all the loaves and fishes in the gift of the
republic--the power and emoluments of _every office_, from that of
President of the United States to that of Path Master of a ward
district. The vote of the society just mentioned is tantamount to a
declaration that it will as soon as possible employ all the
machinery of party political arrangement for the exclusive elevation
of abolitionists to political power. This is not an object for which
I have associated with abolitionists, nor is it one in which I
intend to co-operate with them. But the _Reporter_, I am bound to
believe, will be used as an instrument to effect this object,
because I am bound to believe that the official organ of the society
will not fail to advocate and pursue its avowed policy. Hence I
cannot and ought not to give it in advance my confidence and
countenance by complying with the request with which you have
honoured me.
"I have thus frankly stated my sentiments without intending to
impeach the motives of others, and without meaning to assume a
hostile attitude towards the friends and supporters of what
is denominated the Third party. With that party I cannot
conscientiously and consistently unite, but I have purposely
abstained from publicly mingling in the controversies to which it
has given rise, and I have now expressed my dissent from it only
because I could not otherwise explain my refusal of your polite
invitation.
"In justice to myself, permit me to remark that my opinions on
slavery and abolition have undergone no change, and that every
principle I have ever avowed as an abolitionist is still cherished
by me with no other difference than possibly a stronger conviction
than formerly of its truth and importance.
"That we may all be guided by wisdom from above and be enabled not
merely to break the bonds of the slaves, but in our conduct to adorn
our Christian profession, is my fervent wish."
The antislavery societies, by the admission into their proceedings of
projected reforms having no connection with their ostensible object, had
gradually become divided and weakened. Jay had protested unceasingly
against this course, but the tendency had been irresistible. "Our
antislavery societies," he wrote in 1846, "are, for the most part,
virtually defunct. Antislavery conventions are whatever the leaders
present happen to be; sometimes disgustingly irreligious, and very often
Jacobinical and disorganizing; and frequently proscriptive of such of
their brethren who will not consent to render abolition a mere
instrument for effecting certain political changes having no relation
whatever to slavery."
The antislavery societies had accomplished the noble and seemingly
hopeless task of arousing the national conscience from its lethargy.
Their labours had started and given irresistible impulse to a movement
on behalf of the slave which was not to rest until emancipation was
attained. But the active conduct of this movement was now passing from
their hands into the domain of politics. The contest had become a
national issue, to be fought out in legislative halls and to be
determined at the polls.
In August, 1843, the national convention of the Liberty party was held
at Buffalo. This convention was more largely attended than the first,
every free State excepting New Hampshire having sent delegates. James G.
Birney was again nominated for President, and Thomas Morris, of Ohio,
for Vice-President. The canvass was carried on with great vigour and
spirit. The Birney vote in 1843 showed a large increase, amounting to
60,000. It caused the election of Polk and gave to the abolitionists the
balance of power in New York and Michigan.
Judge Jay had never considered himself as belonging to either the Whig
or the Democratic party. He believed that his judicial position should
debar him from active partisanship. Above all, his disapproval of the
policy adopted by both political parties towards the slavery question
disinclined him to be a member of either. His attitude towards the
Liberty party, on its formation in 1840, was set forth in the letter
written to Gerrit Smith declining the nomination for governor, which was
quoted at length in the last chapter. Judge Jay then doubted the
expediency of a separate political party making abolition its article
of faith and test of membership. But as events proceeded, as both the
great parties seemed irrevocably pledged to the support of slavery,
above all, as both favoured the annexation of Texas, Jay became a
pronounced and active member of the Liberty party.
He viewed the annexation proceedings with horror, as the death-knell of
emancipation and as a scheme of wicked injustice which must react
injuriously upon the whole nation. In March, 1843, he wrote to Dr. H. J.
Bowditch, of Boston: "The full and entire triumph of the antislavery
cause is near and certain, provided that Texas is kept out of the Union.
On this point are centred all my fears. I am not disheartened by the
corruption of politicians, nor the deathlike apathy of the community, so
long as we remain independent of the renegade republic. Give us time and
we can arouse the community from its stupor, we can change public
opinion, and politicians will bellow aloud for abolition the moment they
find it popular. The danger is that before this change is effected the
slaveholders will demand the annexation of Texas as the price of the
presidency and that one or more of the candidates will consent to pay
it."
When Birney was nominated in 1843, Jay wrote to Gerrit Smith: "I
congratulate you upon this result. Birney is a man for whom Christians
and patriots can consistently vote. He shall have my cordial support. In
my opinion, the selection is creditable to the Liberty party, and if it
continues to give us candidates of this character, it will be a blessing
to our country.... To that party I shall be true so far, and so far
only, as it shall be true to itself. May God direct its measures for the
protection of our own rights and for the ultimate liberation of the
slave."
Judge Jay was as anxious that the Liberty party should keep faithfully
to its antislavery purpose as he had been in the case of the antislavery
societies. He believed that the party must end in failure if it allowed
extraneous and dividing policies to be admitted to its platform. On this
subject he wrote in September, 1845, to Henry B. Stanton, who had
invited him to a convention in Boston:
"Notwithstanding the annexation of Texas, great good may result from
the Liberty party, provided it be faithful to itself, and be wisely
conducted. Hence I am distressed by whatever threatens to impair its
integrity and usefulness. You are not ignorant, I presume, of the
strenuous efforts now making to change its character and to convert
it from an antislavery party into one for matters and things in
general.
"It is proposed by men of talents, energy, and influence that the
party shall in future maintain:
"That the Federal Government has the Constitutional power to abolish
slavery in the _States_.
"That the clergy shall be subject to all the burdens and enjoy all
the privileges of other citizens. This is aimed at the clergy of New
York who are not eligible to office, but exempted, to a great
extent, from taxation. No man is hereafter to be acknowledged to
belong to the Liberty party unless he objects to the State showing
any indulgence to the ministers of religion. They must be enrolled
in the militia, and, like others, called out to work on the highway.
"That custom-houses be abolished, and with them all protective
duties.
"That the salaries of the President and Congressmen be reduced.
"That the legal profession is a privileged caste and should be
abolished.
"That the public lands be given away.
"That all monopolies, by which I understand incorporated companies,
banks, railroads, etc., be abolished.
"That women should exercise the right of suffrage and be eligible to
office, etc., etc., etc.
"It is needless to say that if these tests of membership of the
Liberty party be adopted, we shall drive from us all whose judgment
or whose consciences revolt at them, while those who remain in the
party will regard the removal of slavery as a very subordinate
object of their labours. My purpose of troubling you with this
letter is to suggest to you the expediency of the convention
adopting a resolution in which, without alluding to the efforts
making to change the character of the party, it shall declare that
the sole objects of the party are the abolition of slavery, the
deliverance of the Federal Government from its influence, and the
elevation of the coloured race to equal rights with the whites; and
inviting all who approve of those objects to co-operate with us,
whatever may be their opinion on questions of State or national
policy."
At the Liberty party convention held at Newburg in October, 1845, Judge
Jay was unanimously nominated as a candidate for Senator. In his letter
accepting the nomination, he took occasion again to urge the exclusion
of irrelevant subjects from the platform of the party.
"Recent circumstances induce me to accompany my acceptance of this
nomination with some remarks. Attempts are making to render the
Liberty party subservient to other objects than the overthrow of
slavery and the elevation of the coloured people. To these attempts
I can lend no aid. While I most explicitly accord to every
abolitionist the right of expressing his own opinions on every
political and religious subject, I as explicitly deny the right, and
shall strenuously resist the attempt, to make me and other members
responsible for opinions not necessarily involved in the great
objects for the attainment of which the party was formed. In the
pursuit of those objects I will cordially and honestly co-operate
with others from whose sentiments I dissent; but I cannot co-operate
with them in promoting religious and political changes which I
believe to be wrong, in order to increase the influence and hasten
the triumph of the Liberty party. To do so would be to act upon the
principle, as wicked and detestable as slavery itself, that the end
justifies the means. The fact that many good men who unite in
abhorrence of slavery entertain conflicting views of the expediency
and morality of various proposed reforms seems to me a sufficient
reason why the Liberty party should not permit itself to be
distracted by the other questions which agitate the community, and
which in truth are of but little moment compared with the great evil
with which we are struggling."
In 1846 Jay wrote again on this subject: "I shall leave the Liberty
party whenever it makes abolition a pack-horse to carry favourite
measures unconnected with slavery, whether those measures are of whig or
democratic origin."
Early in the year 1843 the antislavery opinions and labours of Judge Jay
caused the loss of his seat on the bench of Westchester County, which he
had occupied for more than twenty-five years with such general approval
as to cause his steady reappointment term after term by governors of the
State who were his political opponents. The circumstances of his removal
are described in a letter which he wrote to Mr. Minot Mitchell, in May,
1843:
"I thank you for your friendly letter in relation to my removal from
the bench. The loss of an office which I had held for about a
quarter of a century (and which I had contemplated resigning in the
course of the present year) is not a matter of personal regret. My
motive in holding for so long a time a situation which subjected me
to no little inconvenience and yielded no emolument was a desire to
be useful, and a belief that I could exert on the bench a wholesome
moral influence. How far that belief was well founded is for others
to decide. To myself, it is grateful to know that my official
conduct, whatever mistakes I may have made, has been pure, unbiased
by personal partialities, and uninfluenced by any fear except that
of my Maker.
"To the gentlemen of the Westchester bar generally, as well as to
yourself in particular, I am deeply indebted for the uniform
kindness and courtesy with which I have been treated; and had I
known at the December term that we were not to meet again, I would
have embraced the opportunity of publicly acknowledging my
obligations to them, and of bidding them an affectionate farewell.
"Under the circumstances of the case, it would be an affectation of
humility to ascribe my loss of office to any dissatisfaction with my
official conduct on the part of the bar or the public. The _New York
Plebeian_, amid all its vituperative clamour for my dismissal, does
not even hint a charge against me as a judge, and the editor of the
_Westchester Herald_, notwithstanding his blind devotion to his
party, bears a flattering testimony to my ability as a 'jurist,' and
admits that my 'moral worth' is not questioned, as he believes, 'by
any man in the country.'
"Nor have I been proscribed on account of my political opinions.
Those opinions belong to the old Washington school--I have never
concealed them; and they are the same now as they were when I
received office from Governors Tompkins, Clinton, Throop, and Marcy,
and when President Jackson tendered to me an important and lucrative
appointment.
"For twenty years or more I have had no connection with party
politics, and have attended no party meeting. It appeared to me
unbecoming a judge to be a political partisan; and I, moreover,
observed so much profligacy, venality, and hypocritical profession
in both parties, that I could not conscientiously identify myself
with either. I have for years voted for those I believed to be the
most honest of the candidates offered for my suffrage, without
regard to the party dogmas they professed.
"That the people of Westchester had lost their confidence in me and
wished me to descend from the bench is not pretended. On the
contrary, I have the most abundant and gratifying proofs of the
correctness of your remark, that my removal has occasioned in the
county, with all political parties, unusual dissatisfaction and
complaint.
"If, then, my removal has been effected contrary to the wishes of
the county, and not because I lacked in ability or integrity, nor
even on account of my politics, it becomes a matter of public
interest to inquire with what motives and with what views the chief
magistrate of New York dispenses the patronage intrusted to him by
the constitution for the good of the State.
"Governor Bouck has, in this instance, as in another far more
important, only acted as the instrument of a faction which, while
prating about _equal rights_, is ever ready and eager to barter the
welfare, honour, and freedom of the North for Southern votes.
"You may recollect that previous to my last appointment I was
permitted to hold over for a year after my term of office had
expired. This extraordinary delay in filling a vacancy on the bench
was not the result of accident or inadvertency. It arose from doubts
entertained by the leaders at Albany whether the party would gain
more at the South than it would lose in Westchester by my removal.
Mr. Van Buren was then a candidate for the presidency, and I was
shown a confidential letter from one of his particular friends at
Albany to an influential democrat of this county, discussing the
expediency of my removal. The letter was put into my hands by the
gentleman to whom it was addressed. It was admitted by the writer
that my conduct as a judge was irreproachable, and that there were
no other objections to my reappointment than my antislavery
sentiments. My only fault in the eyes of this champion of equal
rights was that I was opposed to converting men and women into
beasts of burden. Still, he was apprehensive that my removal for
_such_ a cause might savour of persecution for _abstract opinions_;
in other words, might be unpopular; and he wished to know what the
party in Westchester deemed most expedient. After a year's
deliberation and hesitation, I was reappointed. Mr. Van Buren is
again a candidate, but _now_ he has a Southern democrat for a
competitor; and his party in the State being so strong that he can
well afford to risk a little dissatisfaction in Westchester, it is
deemed prudent to propitiate the demon of slavery by offering a
victim, however humble, on his altar. The _Plebeian_, devoted to Mr.
Van Buren's election, avowed with unblushing frankness that my
reappointment would be calculated to prejudice the Democratic party
'in the eyes of our Southern brethren.'
"Thus, it seems that in order to elevate Mr. Van Buren to the
presidency the magistrates of the free, sovereign, and independent
State of New York are to be selected with reference to the good
pleasure of Southern slaveholders.
"Pardon, my dear sir, the egotism of this letter. I have been
compelled to speak of myself in order to expose the canting
profligacy of our demagogues, and to illustrate one of the
numberless accursed influences of slavery. This abhorred system,
which in the South makes merchandise of the souls and bodies of men,
is at the same time trafficking in the politics, the religion, and
the liberties of the North, and putrefying whatever it touches.
Against this system I have contended, as did my father before me,
and the leisure Governor Bouck has given me shall be faithfully
devoted to a continuance of the warfare."
The "leisure" given to him by Governor Bouck had first to be used by Jay
in an attempt to restore his health, which for several years had been
failing. In the autumn of 1843 he determined upon a visit to Egypt, and
on the 1st of November he sailed from New York in the "Victoria," of
1100 tons, accompanied by his wife and his daughters Maria and Augusta.
After a short visit to London, the party sailed from Southampton for
Malta in the "Great Liverpool" of the Oriental Line, with passengers and
mail bound to India. At Malta Jay was interested in meeting the famous
wit, scholar, and diplomatist, John Hookham Frere, who entertained him
at his house outside the walls of the city.
While in England, Jay had been requested by John Beaumont, on behalf of
the British and Foreign Antislavery Society, to take charge of a
quantity of antislavery tracts printed in the Arabic language, and to
insure their distribution. After his arrival in Cairo, Jay gave packages
of the tracts to several persons whose facilities for distributing them
in Egypt were greater than his own. Others he disposed of himself.
"During the short time I was in Egypt," he said in a letter, "I
distributed tracts in the slave market, in the bazaars, in a public
coffee-house, in the hotels, and to persons in the streets." And he was
much struck with the fact that what he could do peacefully in Egypt, in
a portion of his own country would have endangered his life.
On his return home, Jay visited Paris, and while there communicated to
the Duc de Broglie the motives of the Southern statesmen in seeking the
annexation of Texas, and made no secret of his hope that France would
oppose the proceedings.[C]
The events leading up to the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War
were followed by Jay with the closest attention. The injustice and
cruelty with which Mexico was treated throughout these proceedings by
the United States Government excited his warmest indignation. He was
deeply grieved at events which seemed to postpone indefinitely the
emancipation of the slaves; his fears were aroused for the security of
free institutions in the North by the great impetus given to the
Southern spirit of domination. But above all he felt the disgrace
incurred by his own country in forcing upon a weak and friendly power a
desolating war for the sole object of wresting from it a territory to be
peopled by slaves. The result of Jay's minute knowledge of this dark
page in American history was embodied in a volume entitled "A Review of
the Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War," which was published in
1849. In this searching "Review" Jay exposed the parentage of the
movement for the acquisition of Texas in the desire of the South to
extend the territory devoted to slavery, with the twofold object of
creating a new market for slave-breeders and of giving to the slave
States an overwhelming control of Congress. He traced the devious paths
of intrigue by which a rebellion was fomented in Texas by Americans
settled there for that express purpose; the encouragement and aid given
secretly to the rebels by the United States; the recognition of their
independence; and finally the subterfuges adopted to achieve the
annexation in violation of international rights and the Constitution
itself. Jay set forth plainly the fact that hostilities were begun by
the United States troops; he described the military operations by which
a weak and defenceless people were reduced to consent to a dismemberment
of their country; he showed the enormous cost in life and money involved
in this war undertaken to furnish a new market for slaves and new power
to slaveholders. Jay's "Review of the Mexican War" is a contribution to
the history of the country which students cannot afford to pass unread.
The views expressed in it are painful to patriotism for the reason that
they are dictated by the pure patriotism which would make known the
whole truth as a warning to posterity.
The book on the Mexican War was written originally for the American
Peace Society, which had offered a prize for the best work on the
subject. The committee appointed to pass judgment on the dissertations
presented in competition awarded the prize to Jay's book on condition
that he should expunge from it all "general censures on the Whig party."
Jay refused to comply with this condition and the prize went to another.
But the Peace Society recognized that the value of Jay's book lay in its
impartial character and caused it to be published as the exposition of
the society's views.
As nearly all the newspapers of both parties had supported the war, they
were loth to notice a book which placed the object of their encomiums in
so unpleasant a light. But many private letters were received by Jay
which showed him that he had the approval of the best minds. Joshua R.
Giddings wrote: "Thanks be to Him who rules the destiny of nations that
we have among us competent and faithful men who possess the moral
courage to stand forth and chronicle, in the language of truth, the
barbarities of which the nation is guilty. The history of this age will
speak to those who come after facts which will cause our descendants to
blush. Your 'Review of the Mexican War' is faithful and just.... In
writing it you have performed a service to your country and to mankind
infinitely greater than was ever performed by any military officer."
"Every portion of it," wrote Charles Francis Adams, "commands my
unqualified assent. That in the course of God's providence good may be
ultimately educed out of evil is the only compensating reflection which
we can draw from the observation of so much wrong. It may be that out of
the very measures so wickedly devised to sustain a system of crime may
come the means by which it will be overthrown. That your book will do
great service in combining and perpetuating the evidence bearing upon
this portion of American history, I do not for a moment doubt. It is my
profound conviction that there never was a more wicked and unjustifiable
war, promoted by one party and connived at by the other, than the late
war with Mexico."
The prevention of war was a subject which had occupied the mind of Judge
Jay for a number of years. The result of his reflections was that system
of international arbitration which has become since his death so
efficacious a method of settling international disputes. A pamphlet
entitled "War and Peace: the Evils of the First and a Plan for
Preserving the Last" was still in manuscript in his desk when, in 1841,
Joseph Sturge, the celebrated English philanthropist, visited Bedford.
Jay read the pamphlet to Sturge, who was so much struck by the work that
he embodied a portion of it in a book which he published on his return
to England. The views of Jay attracted the attention of the English
Peace Society, who published the whole pamphlet in London in 1842. Jay's
plan for the prevention of war was exceedingly simple. It provided that
a stipulation should be made in every treaty that future international
differences should be referred first to arbitration, to attempt a
peaceful settlement. The idea was heartily approved by Cobden, who wrote
to Judge Jay: "If your government is prepared to insert an arbitration
clause in the pending treaties I am persuaded that it will be accepted
by our government." The scheme of arbitration thus proposed by Jay, and
supported by Joseph Sturge and his friends of the English Peace Society,
was approved by peace congresses held in Brussels in 1848, in Paris in
1849, and in London in 1851. Having thus attracted general attention, it
was recommended by protocol No. 23 of the Congress of Paris held in 1856
after the Crimean War, which protocol was unanimously adopted by the
plenipotentiaries of France, Austria, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia,
Sardinia, and Turkey. These governments declared their wish that the
States between which any serious misunderstanding might arise should,
before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might
allow, to the good offices of a friendly power. The honour of the
introduction of this measure in the first Congress belongs to Lord
Clarendon, whose services had been solicited by Joseph Sturge and Henry
Richard. It was subsequently referred to by Lord Derby as worthy of
immortal honour. Lord Malmsbury pronounced it an act "important to
civilization and to the security of the peace of Europe." The protocol
was afterwards approved by all the other powers to which it was
referred, more than forty in number. The plan thus suggested by Judge
Jay for the prevention of war bore fruit during his life, and was
destined in after-years to become established in the mind of the
civilized world as the true remedy for the greatest scourge of
nations.[D]
Judge Jay was an earnest and active member of the Episcopal Church, but
he was never blind to its imperfections. He deplored as much as any man
the countenance given by the church to slavery, but he believed that
reformation must and would come from within. He had no sympathy with the
"come-outers." Concerning them he wrote in 1846: "Infidelity is now
vigorously availing itself of the conduct of the clergy in relation to
this subject to assail the blessed religion of which they are the
ministers. A sect is forming who profess to believe that the church is
so corrupted by slavery that good men are required to separate from her.
These people call themselves 'come-outers.' Lecturers are enlisted in
their service, and the clergy, as identified with the cause of human
bondage, are daily held up to public detestation as heartless
hypocrites." Jay would not deny the justice with which the attacks on
the clergy were made, and he laboured to place the church where it
belonged, in the front rank of the great humanitarian movement. To his
efforts were largely due the admission of coloured clergy to the
conventions of the church, and the gradual abolition of that spirit of
caste which prevented a white clergyman from recognizing a black one as
fit to deliberate with him on matters relating to their common
religion. To destroy this race hatred, so contrary to the spirit of
Christianity, and to arouse the church to its duty of active opposition
to slavery, were Jay's constant endeavours in the conventions of the
church. His pen also was frequently occupied with the same subject. His
"Letter to Bishop Ives" of North Carolina was a severe yet just
arraignment of clergymen who justified slavery from the Scriptures, and
it exposed the wickedness of their course in language and with arguments
to which they and their sympathizers were unable to reply.
When a "History of the American Church," by Samuel Wilberforce, was
published in England, there was naturally in America much curiosity to
see the work. Two American publishers announced their intention of
reprinting it. But time passed and no reprint appeared. The explanation
is given in the words of Jay: "The author of the 'History' in the course
of his work advances certain doctrines on the subject of 'slavery' and
of 'caste in the church' which it is thought inconvenient to discuss,
and which cannot be admitted in this republic without sealing the
condemnation of almost every Christian sect among us and overwhelming
our own church with shame and confusion. There are, it is to be feared,
but few among our twelve hundred clergymen who, on reading the
'History,' would not find their consciences whispering, 'Thou art the
man,' and who would not be anxious to conceal the volume from their
parishioners. Hence its suppression." Jay was determined that the
truths regarding the Episcopal Church in America set forth by the
celebrated Dr. Wilberforce should not be quite unattainable by the
clergy and laity especially concerned. In 1846 he caused those passages
of the "History" relating to slavery to be printed, and introduced them
with forcible remarks of his own in the pamphlet entitled "A Reproof of
the American Church by the Bishop of Oxford."
[Illustration: William Jay]