■ :	.
. '
■*	;' ■ ■ ■>

■

■■■ * ' . I ■

.

•b^

<* ♦

a9 ^

c **

ar- ^o*

*p^

<*

tor. ^0<

®

ON KECEIYING.DONATIOHS

^^m.TKOil

©mre

•if)

V

h AMERICAN BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS.

DONATIONS FROM HOLDERS OF SLAVES.

The reason for publishing the following letters, in the pre- sent form may be stated in few words. They were originally written in reply to letters addressed to the Secretaries of the Board, on the propriety of receiving donations made to its treasury by those who hold slaves. To avoid the necessity of writing on the subject at length, when inquiries may be made upon it in future, this method of making known the views of" the Committee has been adopted. The letters are given entire, and in their original shape, that any one to whom the pamphlet may be sent, may the more readily regard the state- ments and considerations contained in it, as being addressed to himself.

Both the letters, it should be mentioned, were written to ministers of the gospel, highly esteemed and respected, who have given unequivocal evidence of their attachment to the Board, and the work in which it is engaged.

My dear Sir, — Your favor of the came

duly to hand, and has been submitted to the Prudential Committee, as you requested. We feel greatly obliged by the frank and Christian spirit which characterizes your letter, as well as by the confidence in the Board and lively interest in its objects, which you express, and which we have ample evidence that you feel. We take no offence at any inquiry or suggestion which yourself or any other such friend may make, in such a spirit and manner, rela- tive to the proceedings of the Board ; and in reply we will 1

2

express our sentiments without reluctance or reserve. If we can view subjects in the same light with you, we shall be glad ; but if there must be disagreement, there shall not be contention or unkindness. No principles or modes of proceeding on the subject to which your letter relates have been adopted by the Committee, which they wish to conceal, or which they think are incapable of defence. Still the liability to error in both is such, as should dispose them to receive kindly and thankfully the hints and reas- onings which the friends of the Board may see fit to com- municate.

In what I am about to write now, no attempt will be made to reply directly to the six reasons which you adduce against receiving donations from those who hold slaves ; though considerations might, perhaps, be advanced on this point, which would, at least, detract somewhat from their force and conclusiveness ; but admitting, for the present, that the reasons are well founded, some practical difficulties will be mentioned, which seem to lie in the way of apply- ing the principle involved in them, in transacting the business of the Board ; difficulties so numerous and great, that, until a suitable method of removing them shall be de- vised, the course which you propose cannot well be adopted.

But before proceeding further, I beg leave to premise three things.

1. The Board, in its corporate capacity, as a benevo- lent and Christian institution, has nothing to do with slavery. It was organized expressly for another object ; and to use its influence or its funds for removing slavery, or for bearing upon it, would be dishonest. Its members, as individuals, or as members of other associations, are free to act as they please on this and all other subjects ; but, as members of the Board, they do not feel obliged, nor at liberty, to look after and condemn, or to endeavor to put

down every thing which they individually, or which other good men may think to be wrong and wicked in the com- munity. They leave all works of this nature, not fairly embraced among the objects for which the Board was organized, to others.

2. The Board and its officers do not profess to know, and cannot generally know, the character and motives of those who contribute to its funds, or the sources of their income. To make inquiries on these points would proba- bly, by most persons, be deemed impertinent. A man from Kentucky, sends to the treasury of the Board, one hundred dollars ; it is received ; and the donor is, by the rules of the Board, constituted an honorary member. The treasurer does not feel under obligations, before re- ceiving the money, to ascertain whether the donor obtained it honestly or not, or whether he is a good citizen, or a moral man. A case might occur, of so marked and noto- rious a character, that the donation ought to be refused. But such cases will be rare, as few grossly immoral or dishonest men are interested in the objects of the Board, or disposed to use their property to promote them.

3. In your letter you remark, that many who profess to be the friends of missions, and you subsequently say that you class yourself among them, think it wrong to solicit funds from those who hold slaves, " for the same reasons that they would regard it wrong to apply to a company of counterfeiters and highway robbers, or any other company who gained their subsistence and wealth by means of systematized wickedness, for a portion of their income, by means of which to carry on this great and glorious cause." — We cannot regard donations from those who hold slaves in the same light that we should donations from counterfeiters and highwaymen. There seems to us to be this wide and obvious difference : the

donors in one case are, as you will admit, exclusive of the fact of their holding slaves, almost without exception, good citizens, honest and moral men, and a large portion of them reputable professors of religion ; and in general, they are persons seriously disposed, and professedly, and so far as we have any evidence, really desirous, by the dissemi- nation of Christianity, to convert the heathen to God. This, we suppose, cannot be said of the other classes of persons mentioned by you.

Having made these remarks, I proceed to say, that the general principle which seems to lie at the foundation of the several reasons which you allege against receiv- ing donations from slave-holders into the treasury of the Board, I suppose to be this : Donations of property, the acquisition of which involves sin, should be rejected. Or, to render it a little more comprehensive, and to make it more appropriately the basis of some of your remarks, it should be : Persons living in the practice of certain sins should not be permitted, by means of their property, to aid in such a work as that in which the Board is engaged.

Without attempting, as I before said, to decide whether this principle, in all its extent, is correct or not, let us look for a moment at some of the difficulties which must be met in its application to the case before us.

One important question to be settled on this subject is, Hoio much of sin must be involved in the acquisition of a man's property, before we shall be bound to reject it ? Perhaps there are few men, in any department of business, whose property has not been, to some extent, and in some manner, increased by some wrong course of proceeding, either known or unknown to themselves. Probably your- self and they who view the subject as you do, readily admit, that even among those who hold slaves by a legal tenure, there may be, so far as this view of their character

5

is concerned, different degrees of sinfulness. For the sake of illustrating the case, let us admit that the profane and unfeeling master, who regards his negroes simply as he does his cattle, is not to be suffered to contribute money acquired by their labor. He is too wicked, and his wealth is too much the fruits of oppression and cruel injustice to be received. What then will you say of the planter in some retired part of the Carolinas, who is a reputable pro- fessor of religion, and, as you would admit, a humane and upright man in every thing, except holding slaves ; who inherited his negroes and grew up with all the habits and prejudices naturally springing out of such circumstances ; who has read, or heard, or thought little on the subject, and consequently regards the relation of master and slave very nearly as his father did fifty years ago ? Shall he be permitted to contribute ? — If not, shall the master, who, possessing a similar character, but with more intelligence and reflection than the one just referred to, admits slavery to be wrong and indefensible, but sees no way in which he can meliorate the condition of those under his care ; and therefore continues the relation, instructing them, providing for them, and treating them kindly ? May he contribute ? — If he may not, what will you say of the man, who, with all the feelings of the last, has actually formed his plan for emancipating his negroes, and is hastening it on to its consummation, though he may feel obliged to sustain the legal relation a year longer ? Shall he be allowed to contribute now ? or must he wait till his negroes have quite gone from under his hand ? Or shall he not be permitted to contribute at all from the property which may have been the avails of slave labor?

Again, How large a portion of a man's income must be the fruit of his wrong doing, — or, as in the case before us, — of slave-holding, before we are bound to reject it? A 1*

man owns a plantation which is worked by slaves. The income of it is, of course, the joint avails of the sum in- vested in buildings, land, implements, and of his own skill and management, and of slave labor. How much of all the income from that plantation is the product of slave labor, and justly due to the slave? Obviously all of it is not, any more than all the profits of a voyage belong to the sailors, to the exclusion of the owner of ship and cargo, and the officers who managed it ; or any more than the avails of all the cloth manufactured at a mill belong to those who work at the spindles and looms, to the exclusion of those who own the buildings, machinery, and stock, and who mature and execute all the plans and make the contracts. A portion, then, and obviously a considerable portion too, of the products of a plantation does not belong to the slaves who work on it, and does belong to its owner and manager, and when appropriated to his use, is not to be regarded as the fruits of robbery, or oppression, or in- justice. Is a man, then, who desires to do good, to be excluded from the privilege of doing it, because that some portion of his property has been obtained by means which we, though he may not, deem unjust ? Suppose that a planter, mechanic, or merchant, carries forward his busi- ness by means of ten men, only one of whom is a slave, (and many cases like this might probably be found in Western Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee,) are all his gains so contaminated by his relation to this slave, that his offering must be rejected ?

Again, How directly must a man's income arise from the avails of slave labor, before his donations must be re- jected ? What will you say to the Charleston or Mobile merchant, who buys and sells cotton ? or of the New York and Boston shippers who carry it ? or of the New England manufacturers who work it into cloth 1 or of the wholesale

and retail dealers who scatter it through the community 1 All these make their profits to a greater or less extent, and more or less directly, from the avails of slave labor. Are we to break off all cooperation with any or all of them, and refuse their donations, and class them with the offer- ings of counterfeiters and highwaymen ? Which makes the most net profit upon cotton, the planter, the shipper, or the manufacturer, it may be difficult to determine.

Similar views may be taken respecting the gains of the producer, the carrier, and the vender of rice, sugar, to- bacco, and all other articles which are exported from a slave-holding community. Nor does the connection be- tween slavery and the gains of trade cease here. The New England merchant who sends his shoes and cloth, and other articles of manufacture or produce to a southern market, even if he receives cash in payment, receives to a greater or less extent the avails of slave labor, and of course a portion of his gains originate there. Indeed the subject has a thousand ramifications, in each of which the same general principle is involved, and in deciding the point as you propose, we must make a decision which shall cover much ground.

But are the donations of slave-holders, and of others who derive gain from slave labor, the only donations rohich must be rejected? As it is not easy to measure the guilt of different men, so it is not easy to measure the sin involved in particular courses of conduct. Much pre- sumption is manifest in our attempts to do either to any considerable extent. The zealous advocate for peace may see more sin in war and the preparations for it, than in any thing else ; and may think that no offerings will be so offensive to God as those which are made from the wages of the soldier. And, for aught that I can see, the offerings of the smith and the founder who manuafacture the weap-

8

ons, and of those who furnish the clothing and provisions for the army, must come under the same condemnation.

The temperance agent may think that none are so great sinners as they who manufacture or deal in intoxicating liquors, and that they ought not to be allowed to aid with their donations any object of religion or benevolence. And then he would involve the mechanics who erected and fur- nished the distillery, the farmer who produced the grain, and the carrier who transported the raw material, or the manufactured article, and all others who in any manner made a profit from this branch of business.

So we might proceed and point out one branch of busi- ness after another, which many, if not most honest men think is injurious to the community, and the avails of which, on the principle which seems to me to be involved in your letter, ought not to be received into the treasuries of societies designed to promote benevolent and religious objects.

But here other questions arise of a very practical char- acter, and at the same time encompassed with not a little difficulty. Who is to decide what branches of business, or what practices in the prosecution of them, do involve so much of wrong and wickedness that the avails should be rejected by all good men engaged in a good object ? Who is to decide how much a man must be concerned in these proscribed pursuits and practices, before his dona- tions must be rejected ?

But supposing general rules for deciding these points to be fixed, before what tribunal shall the individual donors be brought, and on what evidence shall we rely ? Shall every treasurer be constituted an inquisitor on this subject, and his office be made a hall of examination, where the character, and occupation, and sources of income of every man who offers money shall be inquired into ; and before

he shall be permitted to leave his gift, it shall be ascertained that he is not a soldier, nor a slave-holder, nor a distiller, nor a dealer in intoxicating liquors, nor a gambler, nor a thief, nor concerned in lotteries, etc.? How shall this be done? Shall we put the donor under oath; or correspond with his neighbors; or make him bring a certificate from men known to be good and true?

But you may say that all this minuteness in the process is unnecessary, and is embarrassing the subject to no purpose. I honestly think, however, that every line I have written has a real and practical connection with the sub- ject, and that when our Board shall decide to act in con- formity with the suggestion in your letter, their examination and decision must cover this whole ground. How other- wise can they act equitably and on principle ?

Perhaps you will say that it is enough to decide that no donations shall be received from within the bounds of any slave-holding State. But where would this lead us; or rather, where shall we start from ? Shall we begin with New York, and reject your donation, because one person in thirty thousand in your State is a slave? Or shall we begin with Connecticut, and reject the donations from all its churches, because one person in fifteen thousand is a slave there ? Or shall we begin with Pennsylvania, and reject donations from that State, because one person in three thousand is a slave there? Or with New Jersey, because one person in a hundred and fifty is a slave there? Or with Delaware, because one in thirty is a slave there ? Or with Maryland, because one in five is a slave there? Or with Tennessee, because one in four is a slave there ? Or with Virginia, where one in three is a slave ? Or with Louisiana, where one in two is a slave ? Or with South Carolina, where four out of seven are slaves? Where will you draw the line ? What boundaries will you pre- scribe ?

10

Perhaps you will say, that donations must be rejected from those States which are taking no measures to abolish slavery, and whose rulers, by the consent of the people, uphold and defend it. Here questions might arise which it would be difficult to answer satisfactorily. In respect to some States, we might, perhaps, properly decide that they do uphold and defend slavery ; and in respect to others, where some slaves still remain, we might decide that they do not uphold and defend it. But in respect to many others it might be impossible even to form an opinion whether the rulers and the mass of the population do uphold and defend it, or not. What shall be the decision relative to Delaware and Maryland, not to add Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri ?

But supposing it granted, that, in excluding men from cooperation with us in the work of missions, State lines are to be followed ; and that all the States south of Penn- sylvania, and of the Ohio river, and those west of the Mississippi, are to be proscribed ; will it be equitable and Christian to shut out from participation in this work every church member in Delaware, not one-half of whom own a slave, or derive profit from slave labor more than you or I? Will you shut out all those of Virginia west of the mountains, where comparatively few slaves are found, and where, as I heard a very intelligent gentleman from that quarter say in a public meeting a few years ago, the people are as thoroughly anti-slavery as are the inhabitants of Massachusetts? Will you exclude every man in East Tennessee, of a majority of whom the same may probably with truth be said, and where has existed, I believe, the only newspaper avowedly in favor of emancipation, to be found within the general limits just now mentioned? Will you exclude all Kentucky, in whose Synod the subject of slavery has been openly, repeatedly, and thoroughly dis-

11

cussed, the continuance of the system disapproved by a considerable majority, and measures for speedy eman- cipation recommended ; and where it is to be presumed that similar views are entertained by a majority of the church members? Will you exclude the Quaker, the Scotch, and the Moravian settlements in the central and western parts of North Carolina, by whom few or no slaves are held, and who are decidedly opposed to the system ? Will you exclude the many Christian merchants and mechanics in the southern cities, who do not own slaves, and have little or nothing to do with them in any manner ? Will you exclude the many preachers and teachers who cross the line before mentioned without ever possessing a slave ; or those who, with the same principles and practice on this subject, feel compelled by disease to seek a residence in a southern climate? Shall the gifts and cooperation of any or all of these classes of persons be spurned by our several religious and benevolent in- stitutions ? If not, it must be asked again, How shall the line designed to mark the degree of criminality, be drawn between him whose gift is to be received, and him whose gift is to be rejected ? or, How, when the gifts are sent to the treasurer or agent a hundred or a thousand miles off, is he to ascertain which comes from the man whom we may recognize as a fellow laborer, and which from him whom we must disown as no more worthy of fellowship in such a cause than a 'counterfeiter or highwayman?'

But perhaps you will say, that, if the Board cannot properly adopt rules excluding donations from within the limits of slave-holding States, it may, at least, refrain from sending agents there to solicit them. If, however, it is right to receive donations from the classes of men just referred to, is it not right to furnish them with facilities for transmitting their offerings ? If it is the duty of these

12

men to give, is it not right for the Board to send agents there to tell them of their duty and urge thetn to perform it? to spread out before them the information, and enforce the arguments and motives which may lead them to regular and increased liberality? To discriminate and fix limits where we may, or where we may not send agents, would be as difficult as to decide from within what limits we might or might not receive donations. Further still, Is it not the duty of the Board, holding the place and making the professions which it does, — a duty which its members owe to the Lord Jesus, to the church, and to the heathen, — to use all suitable means within their power, to bring all men to co-operate promptly and vigorously in disseminating Christian knowledge among all nations? Is it wrong to urge the performance of their duty in this respect, on every class of the Christian community, whatever may be their dwelling place, their character, or occupation, — on the infidel even, the Mohammedan, and the idolater ? The Board has information on the subject; has bestowed much thought upon it; may be supposed to feel deeply; possesses the means of exerting influence; — which, altogether, render its situation peculiar, and impose peculiar obligations and responsibility. Shall the Board neglect to avail itself of all these in regard to the whole class of men in question ?

But it may be said that the agents of the Board must first enjoin it on all such persons to renounce slave-holding. Why is it not as incumbent on them before they deliver their message, first to deliver a lecture on licentiousness, or war, or intemperance ? Is it never allowable to permit, or even urge men to perform one duty, while we know that they neglect another ? * A good man goes from village

* On this point I would refer you to the Anti-Slavery Record, for October, objection fourth, page third of the cover, which I have just read, and where correct principles seem to me to be well expressed and maintained. " It is objected to the abolition enterprise, that unholy men are engaged in it. This is doubtless

13

to village, lecturing on astronomy, or history, or chemistry, and does not say a word about repentance or the atone- ment, though the majority of his hearers may be neglecting both. Does he do right ? or must he never say any more on these subjects until he find an assembly who have all repented and believed in Christ? The Board sends its agents to Virginia, and they preach only on missions to the heathen, and say nothing in their public addresses for or against slavery. The Anti-Slavery Society sends its agents to the same field, and they preach only on the abolition of slavery. The Home Missionary Society sends its missionaries there, and they preach on Christian doc- trines and duties generally. Why should the Board com- plain of the Anti-Slavery Society that its agents do not lecture on missions; or the Anti-Slavery Society complain of the Board that its agents do not urge the abolition of slavery; or the Home Missionary Society complain of the agents of either, because they do not preach repentance and faith?

The Board, dear Sir, does not pretend to be cutting one wide swath through the world, with the aim and ex- pectation of clearing it, alone and at once, of all the sins, and wrongs, and miseries which infest it. The Board is attending to one thing — the conversion of the heathen to God, — while it leaves other associations to attend to other

too true. But does it impair the truth of abolition principles? Does it stamp unholiness upon abolition measures? Why, we might as well deny the truth of the multiplication table because it is believed in and practised upon by unholy men. If I have right principles and a good object, can they be the less worthy because wicked men unite with me in avowing the principles and promoting the object ? By agreeing and acting with them whorein they are right, do I become responsible for all things wherein they are wrong? Were we to be influenced by this objection, it is quite possible that there are not in the world men enough who a<ree to think each other good and holy, to do it. But if a man has holiness enough to hate slavery and to love his fellow men, why should he not be en- couraged to exercise it, even if he have a bad creed or none at all ? And why should not the objector aid and encourage him in well-doing ? Whose spirit was it to shun a good deed because a Samaritan did it ? "

2

14

things ; and in the mean time, its members will sympathise with them, and pray for and rejoice in their success, just so far as their objects seem to be prosecuted with a Chris- tian spirit, and promise, in their result, to promote God's glory and the welfare of men. The same community and the same individuals may patronize any number or all of the various religious and benevolent enterprises of the day; but in extending their aid to them severally, why should they not act through the organization and agency appropriate to each, without requiring one organization or its agents, to encroach on the appropriate sphere of another and do its work ? We have supposed that a division of labor was as desirable and advantageous in accomplishing great moral and philanthropic objects, as in intellectual pursuits, or those which require manual labor and skill ; and we have supposed, too, that one of the brightest features of the times — one which gave the fairest promise that this world would ultimately be re- covered from its state of guilt and ruin — was the fact, that for almost every class of evils which man can inflict or suffer, there is an association somewhere, designed and endeavoring to apply the appropriate remedy; and that over that evil, chosen men are pouring out their feelings and prayers, and toward its removal they are directing their best thoughts and labors. Is it wise to destroy this arrangement, and in place of it impose what are now the duties of all these associations and agents, acting in their several spheres, upon one of them? Or while they all exist, is it wise to disturb the harmony of their action by inducing one to encroach on the sphere of another, and thus lay the foundation for jealousy, fault-finding, and counteraction?

I am almost ashamed, dear Sir, to tax your patience by so long a letter ; and it is a subject of regret that it has

15

been so long delayed. For the former my apology is, that it did not seem easy to despatch the subject, as it presented itself, in less compass; and for the latter, I have only to say, that the business before the Committee would not permit them at an earlier day to consider your communication.

Praying that the time may soon arrive when all who love and desire to serve our common God and Saviour, may see eye to eye on all subjects relating to his glory and human welfare ; and that in the mean time we may all in gentleness and forbearance cultivate the spirit of our Master, I am, dear Sir, very respectfully and

affectionately, your servant in Christ.

The remaining letter was written about two years earlier than the foregoing. It contains, as will be seen, some of the sentiments found on the preceding pages, but in connection with a more general view of the subject. The remarks assumed their present shape in order to reply to the inquiry, whether the Board ought not, in some public manner, to express its disapprobation of slavery and slaveholders.

Dear Sir, — In reply to the suggestions contained in

your favor of , relating to the course to be pursued

by the Board or the Prudential Committee in respect to slavery, I can make but a few remarks. We have sup- posed, after much thought on the subject, and, I trust, some sincere prayer for heavenly guidance, that, as a society, the Board has nothing to do with any of the questions respecting reformation of morals, or political abuses, any further than these evils have an obvious and specific bearing on the work which the Board is attempt- ing, through divine aid, to accomplish among the hea- then. If any evils or abuses, moral or political, whose

16

seat is in this country, extend themselves, so as to pre- sent hindrances to our work abroad, we suppose it to be proper for us to lay the facts before our community at home, and leave public sentiment, acting directly, or through appropriate organized institutions, or by the laws of the country, to effect a remedy. For example, if our licentious men go to the Sandwich Islands, and there act our their licentiousness, to corrupt the inhabitants and hinder the work of our missionaries, we state the facts, and leave the community to work the cure. So if our dealers in intoxicating liquors go there to do their work of death, we state the facts, and turn the perpetrators over to our temperance societies to reform them. We have taken this course in regard to both these classes of persons. So, if the slave-trader from our country should go to the vicinity of one of our African missions, and there, by his inhuman traffic, should spread consternation and misery among the people and retard our work, we must make his wickedness known, and leave him to the reprobation of the community and the punishment of the laws. But we have never supposed it to be duty or wisdom in the Board to adopt any direct measures for suppressing licentious- ness, or intemperance, or any similar evil at home ; nor does it seem to us, now, to be required of the Board to take any stand against slavery as it exists in our country, or against any other abuses or immoralities sanctioned by our government, — such as Sabbath mails, Sabbath drills in the army, etc. If any proceeding of the government should bear directly on our missionary operations, as in the case of the Cherokees, we must state the case and pursue the course which duty seemed to point out for remedying the evil, and leave the result to the providence of God.

The object of the Board is specific and simple — the

17

conversion of the nations to Christianity — an intelligent, hearty Christianity. All persons who will labor with us honestly in this work, we receive and acknowledge as fellow-laborers. They may be very imperfect Christians themselves, manifesting glaring inconsistencies, and, in the opinion of large portions of the community, they may be guilty of gross sins; yet if they say that a conviction of duty compels them to aid in our work, why should we reject them ? We say, Never prevent a man from doing one duty because he does not acknowledge or perform another. Performing one duty, honestly and steadily, seems to us to be the best method of coming to a knowl- edge and performance of all others ; and the neglect of one known duty seems the surest way to keep from know- ing and performing others. If our brethren at the South will not do all which we think they ought, still, let them do what they admit and are willing to perform as duty. If the dealer in ardent spirits or the slaveholder brings money to our treasury, we see no propriety in asking him how he obtained it or in refusing to receive it. We take it and make the best use we can of it, though there may have been sin in the manner of obtaining it. Perhaps scarcely any man conducts his business wholly without sin. It may be inseparable from the business itself, or it may be in his manner of prosecuting it; and it may be perceived or unperceived by him. The difficulty lies in drawing a line and saying that the gains of a business which has more than this specific amount of sin in it shall not be received. Here casuists would disagree endlessly. We suppose that, with exception of some classes of sinners who are not at all likely to offer money to our object, we are to receive the contributions, as Paul directed the Corinthian Christians to take meats sold in the shambles, or set before them at a feast, " asking no questions for

IS

conscience sake ; " believing, if it is rightly appropriated, and in a right spirit, it will be, as the same apostle told Timothy in a similar case, "sanctified by the word of God and prayer."

Proceeding on this ground, we leave the societies for moral reform to do their appropriate work ; the abolition societies to do theirs ; the temperance societies to do theirs ; — and so with regard to those institutions designed not so much to rectify particular evils, as to accomplish more immediately a positive good — as those for home missions, education for the ministry, the distribution of Bibles, tracts, etc.; while the Board makes it the imme- diate and sole object of its efforts to propagate Christianity among the heathen.

I must not extend my remarks, already twice as many as I anticipated they would be when I commenced, by stating in detail the grounds on which gentlemen in our southern States have been elected into the Board, and still act with it ; but must simply say, that the members of the Board in all parts of the country are men in good standing in the churches where they reside ; men of re- spectability and influence in the community ; men who seem to love our common Redeemer, and who seem to be hearty in their desires to promote his cause and save the heathen ; men who give personal labor and influence, and their property to this work. Would it be consistent with the spirit of Christianity, or with kind and fraternal feeling, for men of this character in one part of our country, and with reference to such a work, to say to men in another part of the country, We will have no fellowship with you in converting the heathen to Christ (a work which both acknowledge to be right and obligatory), because on another subject we think you are greatly deficient in duty, or are guilty of heinous transgression ? We will

19

not be associated with you, we will not receive your money 1

What would be the result ? The Board would become, not only so far as southern support is concerned, but also at the north too, strictly and exclusively an abolition for- eign missionary society ; and if other partizans on this subject should act in a similar manner, there would be a colonization foreign missionary society, and a slave-hold- ing foreign missionary society ; and perhaps other socie- ties to embrace other classes of friends to the conversion of the world to God, who entertained some opinion on the disputed question, different from these three.

The same separation should, for similar reasons, be carried into all our other great religious and benevolent societies. And why should not similar divisions be made to run through all our societies, grounded upon different and conflicting views which their friends entertain on other great questions of morals or politics ? What a scene of division, contention, and inefficiency would our Chris- tian community then present ! How fatally would some of the strongest cords which bind the church together, in this day of excitement and separatism, be sundered !

It seems to me that the honor of Christianity and the efficiency of the church require that each of our religious and benevolent institutions should confine itself most strictly to its own sphere of action, leaving others to pur- sue their objects in their appropriate way ; and that the friends of each object, as their judgment and ability may direct, should rally around the appropriate society, uniting and cooperating gladly, where they can ; and in regard to other objects and other institutions, differing kindly, where they must differ. Thus, each one doing what his hand and heart find to do with his might, the work of subjecting this world to Christ will be all accomplished,

20

though by persons and in ways which to us seem often most unsuitable ; and when we shall arrive at the hill of Zion above, and sit down there, finding ourselves sur- rounded by our fellow-Christians of every class and com- munity, then seeing eye to eye, we shall look back to- gether on the complicate scenes in which we acted while on earth, and through which we were guided by heavenly wisdom, and be surprised, that, with all our imperfections and mutual jealousies, we were ever honored with doing any service for our Master ; though we may, perhaps, be permitted then to see that our very partialities and emu- lations were necessary as motives to quicken our ease- loving souls into laborious diligence, or to substitute a watchful search after right, for that indiscreet zeal which complete unity and unquestioning confidence are so apt to engender.

Very respectfully and truly, dear Sir,

yours in the common labors of the gospel.

54 Hf*

•-^ 9s ^\

"«* JBI'' **

M* ^

- ^°^ van; /°- :J3HSv> »0^

9^

* "

< - ' ■ i

i it

$t

■■ ■ • ■

-"■:' ' % I -

•

1 'J'- ,■ .

■;

• .

- /

•

I :

m

■

If* '1

.

I', h i

■■

•'<■	'
	,
	,
■'

•■ -

1	■ ■
.	■ M ■
;	■ ■■
	■ ■■
!	■

I

!

■ ...'.

. . ft ,'

.

*

I

! :

; i

• -