On receiving donations from holders of slaves

•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^

* "