Other meetings of the board followed, additional trustees were added, and on July 14, 1859, the Constitution was reaffirmed and by-laws adopted. It was the firm belief of the projectors of this college that an institution designed for the education of youth should not merely teach the classics and so-called natural sciences, but also moral science - the religion of the Bible, that puts man in harmony with God and His laws in reference to the government of man - that science that teaches that God is the source of all true law, that men are only legislators, that is, law bringers, as the word imports; and that man, universal man, is entitled to the full benefit of these laws.

It was to be expected that a Constitution with by-laws for the government of such an institution, would be in harmony with such sentiments. The first by-law declared, “The object of this college shall be to furnish the facilities for thorough education to all persons of good moral character.” The second by-law was more specific, and is as follows: “This college shall be under an influence strictly Christian, and as such, opposed to sectarianism, slave-holding, caste, and every other wrong institution or practice.” Opposition to caste meant the co-education of the (so-called) “races.” This has been the continued practice of the college.

There were some of the friends of liberty who could assent to the general principles of justice and love, who thought it not expedient to make a literal, specific application of them; that whilst the rule, “do unto men as you would that they should do unto you,” was a good rule in general, it was not expedient to practice upon it in the co-education of the races.

Among these was our friend, C. M. Clay. He declined to act as a trustee. Soon two, and then after a time a third one of those who first agreed to be trustees, dropped out. Thus the caste issue sifted the very board of trustees themselves.

There were many others who were opposed to slavery and desired the entire liberty of the negro, yet were unprepared to give to him that position which merit required, and which is a great incentive to noble and virtuous conduct. Such Christ-like treatment would tend to the harmony of society, the solidification of the social forces of the nation, and present a proper exhibition of the Gospel of Christ, who is Himself no respecter of persons. (He is of character - not of persons.) The incorporation of the principle of impartial conduct to all, in institutions for the public good, was to the founders of Berea College the only course at once Christian, patriotic, and philanthropic. This now incorporated feature of the college made the school, and community in which it was nestled, still more odious to an unregenerate public sentiment; and as we shall hereafter notice, subjected us to still greater outrages.

Another hindrance to reform and progress was sectarianism. The founders of the college saw that in every community where they, raised their voices against slavery, caste, secretism, rum-selling, any popular vice, immediately members of the sects would be found shrinking from the proclamation of truth and the utterance of their own convictions, lest by so doing they should peril the safety of their sects, or denominations. With the semblance of piety they would say, “Peace is best,” and thus smother truth. The founders also saw that everywhere the shelves of libraries and book-stores were bending beneath the volumes written on theological dogmas, whilst “truth [practical truth] was fallen in the streets, and equity could not enter.” Ministers were spending their energies in zealous debates and fervid, eloquent pleadings over the shibboleths of party, whilst the slave was groaning in his bondage, and the masters were deluded with false hopes and a perverted Bible.

The founders of Berea College not only felt that the fountains of all good, of true religion, should be opened, but that the great barrier, sectarianism, should be removed. They also saw that no influence is so potent for the removal of error and the establishment of truth, as that of chartered institutions, having the prestige of men of learning and piety. They resolved “that Berea College should be under an influence strictly Christian, and, as such, opposed to sectarianism, slave-holding, caste, and every other wrong institution and practice.” In declaring that the institution should be opposed to sectarianism, the trustees, as explained in the minutes of the meeting that adopted the Constitution and by-laws, were careful and explicit; saying, “In the election of president, professors, or teachers, no sectarian test shall be applied, but it shall be required that the candidate be competent to fill the office, and have a Christian experience with a righteous practice.”

The trustees further added, “To be anti- sectarian is to oppose everything that causes schism in the body of Christ, or among those who are Christians, - those who have a Christian experience with a righteous practice”; so that it is requisite that a president, professor, or teacher of Berea College be not merely negative on this issue, - simply not sectarian, but positive, - that he shall oppose sectarianism as he would slave-holding, caste, rum-selling, or any other “wrong practice.”

To help in the removal of the sin of schism is one of the missions of Berea College, and no person as “president, professor or teacher,” is faithful to the spirit or letter of the Constitution of the college who adopts or defends sectarianism, - yea, does not oppose and seek to correct the “evil practice.” The interests of society and the kingdom of Christ require this.

The Constitution and by-laws of Berea College having been adopted, the trustees decided to raise funds and erect buildings for school purposes as speedily as possible. With the consent of the trustees, the prudential committee, composed of J. G. Fee, J. A. R. Rogers, J. G. Hanson, and Thomas Renfro, decided that, making themselves personally responsible, they would contract for 117 acres of land, including the present site of Berea College, and that on which part of the village of Berea now stands. Soon after the information of this purchase I went to Worcester, Mass., to attend the annual meeting of the American Missionary Association. The Association was at that time undenominational, and not doing avowedly the work of any one denomination, as it now is doing.

I decided that on my way to Worcester, Mass., I would take my family to visit Julett Miles, the imprisoned mother, yet in the State's prison at Frankfort, Ky., as narrated in chapter third.

We arrived at Frankfort on Saturday afternoon. We went to the prison and saw the keeper, Mr. South. We inquired for “Julett,” the colored woman sent there from Bracken County for attempting to get her children into freedom. “Yes,” said he, “she is at my house. I took her out of prison to help my daughter. I thought she looked like a Christian woman.” The reader will note the fact that men and women were deemed valuable in proportion as they had Christ in them, - in proportion as they were temples of the Holy Spirit, - they were the more trustworthy. The keeper of the prison having assured us that we should see the woman at the prison the next morning, we then repaired to our hotel.

That night, leaving my wife with the three smaller children at the hotel, I took Laura, my daughter, then fourteen years old, and went to the colored Baptist church, and listened to a very effective sermon delivered by a portly, fine-looking colored man, whose name was Monroe. I was present in the early part of the services. I heard the earnest prayers, the familiar songs, the low, plaintive symphonies of the women, - of mothers whose bosoms had been the seats of sorrows. I had heard these low wailings before; but a series of experiences, and my situation at that time, all conspired to bring me more fully into sympathy with the sorrowing. I sat and quietly wept - wept with continuous weeping. I was in deep sympathy with burdened spirits. At the close of the service I went forward and shook hands with the preacher, and told him I had been greatly benefited by the service. Laura and I returned to the hotel. The next morning, about 10 o'clock, we all, as a family, went to the prison. “Julett” was there. She was overjoyed at seeing my children. She had always manifested much affection for them. We were privileged to sit down and have a very free and extended conversation with her about her nine children, their unknown destiny, And her own future.

We then inquired of the keeper for Calvin Fairbanks, a white man, who was then in the prison under sentence for aiding away slaves. We were told that he was in his cell, - “not well.” My wife heard the whisper from some one of the employes that he had been whipped and kept in his cell for not completing his task of work the day before. Fairbanks, who usually led the worship in the chapel, not being present, I was requested to conduct the worship. I did so, and preached to the assembled convicts. I had this observation whilst there: that Fairbanks was the leader of worship, and Julett Miles the house maid. The Negro stealers were, by the keeper himself, adjudged as having the highest measure of piety, and therefore given the posts of trust.

The next morning we were privileged to see Fairbanks for a short time. Calvin Fairbanks was a native of the State of New York. He had been sentenced to twenty years imprisonment for aiding slaves to escape. He remained in prison twelve years. During the war, in the absence of the Governor, he was pardoned by the Lieutenant-Governor. He is now living in his native State, honored and loved.

After seeing Fairbanks we had another interview with “Julett.” I had procured for her a pair of spectacles and a New Testament, with large type. Giving these to her, we bade her farewell for all time.

Not long after this she died, - disease said to have been of the heart. Thousands of slave-mothers have died with broken hearts, whilst political parties catered to the slave-master, and professing Christians heeded not the wailings of the bereaved. Is poor, depraved humanity any better now? Are not political parties as servile before the Rum Power, as they were fifty years ago before the Slave Power? Are not the many professing Christians as indifferent to the weepings of the Rachels, who refuse to be comforted because their children and husbands are not?

My wife and three of our children returned to our home in Madison County. I took Laura, our eldest child, and went on to Worcester, Mass., to attend an annual Meeting of the American Missionary Association.

Immediately after the meeting of the Association, I commenced the work of soliciting funds with which to procure lands and erect buildings for Berea College. A few subscriptions were secured at Worcester.

At the suggestion of Lewis Tappan, a request came to me from Henry Ward Beecher, pastor of the Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, N. Y., to come to that church and present the claims of Berea College. This was at the time of the John Brown raid in Western Virginia. The country was in a state of intense excitement.

In my address before the church I said, “We want more John Browns; not in manner of action, but in spirit of consecration; not to go with carnal weapons, but with spiritual; men who, with Bibles in their hands, and tears in their eyes, will beseech men to be reconciled to God. Give us such men,” I said, “and we may yet save the South.” My words were carefully reported and published in the N. Y. Tribune. The Louisville Courier, then conducted by Geo. D. Prentiss, garbled my words and misrepresented my real attitude by saying, “John G. Fee is in Beecher's church, calling for more John Browns.”

These words were copied by the Lexington Observer, published in Lexington, Ky., and by the Mountain Democrat, published in Richmond, Ky. To this first misrepresentation was added a straight-out falsehood - that “at Cogar's landing was found a box of Sharp's rifles directed to John G. Fee.” These falsehoods, added to the consciousness that men were sleeping over a magazine, the outraged feelings of thousands, were enough to alarm the slave power. Speedily were gathered into Richmond, the county seat of this county, seven hundred and fifty men - so reported at the time. These pledged themselves to the removal of John G. Fee, J. A. R. Rogers, and their co-laborers, “peaceably if they could, forcibly if they must.” A committee of sixty-five, composed of the “wealthiest” and “most respectable” citizens of the county, was commissioned to visit Berea and deliver the demand of those who had decided to take into their control the liberty of white men, as well as that of black men.

I had not yet returned from my trip eastward. The committee, on the 23rd day of Dec., 1859, proceeded to the house of Bro. Rogers, then principal of the school. The leader of the clan delivered to Bro. Rogers a document, demanding in the name of the committee, that he should leave the State within ten days. He attempted to reason with the committee, setting forth his claims as a law-abiding citizen, to the undisturbed exercise of his rights. The committee turned abruptly away, and delivered a like demand to ten other families, most of whom were native Kentuckians. These thus warned to leave the State, and others interested in the work of building up the school and church, met together for prayer and deliberation.

These friends decided at once to make their appeal to the Governor of the State, for protection. This they did, in the form of a short address, borne by two of their number to the Governor, setting forth their obedience to law, and their devotion to the highest interests of society, and as such asked for protection. The Governor replied that the public mind was deeply moved by the events in Virginia, and that he could not engage to protect them from their fellow citizens, who had resolved that they must go. Many of these thus threatened saw that they must yield before an overwhelming force.

After committing themselves to God in humble prayer, most of these thus warned retired from the State, believing that “God would make the wrath of man to praise Him.”

At this time I was on my way home from New York. Friends at Berea importuned my wife to go and meet me, if possible, and tell me not to attempt to come home now, for men were waylaying me at three different places. Along with my daughter Laura I met my wife at Cincinnati, Ohio. The next day we met the exiles from Berea. It was deemed wise now to hold meetings in Cincinnati. From this place we went to an appointment, previously made for me, in Bethesda church-house, in Bracken County, Ky. Here, whilst in the stand preaching, some of my exiled children, not previously seen for months, came into the church-house. With these came other exiles. Among them was John G. Hanson and family.

The Monday following this meeting was county court day in Bracken County. Already Bro. Jas. S. Davis had been driven from the church in Lewis County. J. M. Mallett, a teacher in the school at Bethesda, had been mobbed and driven out of Germantown, Bracken County. In sympathy with the slave power, public feeling was at white heat. It was estimated that 800 people gathered on that county court day at Brooksville, the county seat of Bracken County. A special meeting was called. Inflammatory speeches were made, referring to the John Brown raid in Virginia, the expulsion of Abolitionists from Berea, in Madison County, and from the “Abolition” church in Lewis County, and the expulsion of the “Abolitionr” teacher in Bracken County; and now it was claimed that the security of property and peace of society demanded that John G. Fee, John G. Hanson, and others associated with them, be not allowed to tarry, even for a short time, in Bracken County, their native county. Such a resolve against men unconvicted of any crime, present or past, and now in their native county, in the midst of relatives and life-long acquaintances, was as dastardly as it was vile. But the slave power was in its very nature one of oppression and outrage; and the great mass of the non-slave-owners had become servile; and, though not slave-owners, had consented to be slaveholders, and joined with or consented to the demand of the slave-owners. A committee of sixty-two men, of “high standing,” was appointed to warn John G. Fee, John G. Hanson and others associated, to leave the county, “peaceably if they would, forcibly if they must.” On the day appointed, the committee of sixty-two rode up to the yard fence in front of the dwelling-house of Vincent Hamilton, my father-in-law, where with my wife and children I was then stopping. These men then sent in a request that I come out. I did so, and listened to their resolutions. The committee then demanded from me a reply. I said, as my custom was on such occasions, “I make no pledges to surrender God-given and constitutional rights to any man or set of men. If I shall be convicted of crime, before an impartial jury, then I will submit to adequate punishment.” I then proceeded with further defense of my claim to citizenship and free speech, when the captain of the band ordered, “Forward, march.”

One of these men I took by the arm. He had been a member of the State Legislature. In his house my wife, in girlhood days, had boarded whilst attending school. With his sons I had studied in the school-room and played on the playground. This man was then an elder in the Presbyterian “church” at Sharon church-house, where my wife and I, years previously, had made profession of faith in Christ, and from the hands of this man we had received the emblems of the broken body and shed blood of our Lord. I referred to these things, and said to him, “Is this the treatment that we, convicted of no crime, should expect from one who has known us from childhood, with whom we have lived as neighbors, and who is now an office-bearer in a professedly Christian church?” He replied, “It is not worth while for us to talk,” and rode off in pursuit of the committee-men. These committee-men served a like notice upon J. G. Hanson and others.