ith slavery. But a swift change was just impending.

We have already recognized the Methodist organization as the effective
pioneer of systematic abolitionism in America.[275:1] The Baptists, also
having their main strength in the southern States, were early and
emphatic in condemning the institutions by which they were
surrounded.[275:2] But all the sects found themselves embarrassed by
serious difficulties when it came to the practical application of the
principles and rules which they enunciated. The exacting of "immediate
emancipation" as a condition of fellowship in the ministry or communion
in the church, and the popular cries of "No fellowship with
slave-holders," and "Slave-holding always and every where a sin," were
found practically to conflict with frequent undeniable and stubborn
facts. The cases in which conscientious Christians found themselves, by
no fault of their own, invested by inhuman laws with an absolute
authority over helpless fellow-men, which it would not be right for them
suddenly to abdicate, were not few nor unimportant.[275:3] In dealing
with such cases several different courses were open to the church: (1)
To execute discipline rigorously according to the formula, on the
principle, Be rid of the tares at all hazards; never mind the wheat.
This course was naturally favored by some of the minor Presbyterian
sects, and was apt to be vigorously urged by zealous people living at a
distance and not well acquainted with details of fact. (2) To attempt to
provide for all cases by stated exceptions and saving clauses. This
course was entered on by the Methodist Church, but without success. (3)
Discouraged by the difficulties, to let go all discipline. This was the
point reached at last by most of the southern churches. (4) Clinging to
the formulas, "Immediate emancipation," "No communion with
slave-holders," so to "palter in a double sense" with the words as to
evade the meaning of them. According to this method, slave-holding did
not consist in the holding of slaves, but in holding them with evil
purpose and wrong treatment; a slave who was held for his own advantage,
receiving from his master "that which is just and equal," was said, in
this dialect, to be "morally emancipated." This was the usual expedient
of a large and respectable party of antislavery Christians at the North,
when their principle of "no communion with slave-holders" brought them
to the seeming necessity of excommunicating an unq