American slavery defeated in its attempts through the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions to find a shelter in the British churches : being a correspondence with the Congregational Union of England and Wales, on the "American Board of Missions and Slavery," with the discussion which followed at the autumnal meethings of the Union at Newcastle, in October, 1854

Front matter

ilERICAN SliAYERY DEFEATED

IN ITS ATTEMPTS,

THBOtraH

Conclusion

We address ourselves to the ministers, deacons, and churches throughout England. One noble act has just been put forth by the Congregational Union ; now follow it up, and on all future occasions, if your Committees will introduce men on to your platforms who are connected directly or indirectly with slavery-tolerating Societies, insist upon their leaving those platforms. These are the acts which will tell with mighty force ; one sucli act is worth a volume of resolutions. Let the platforms of the Congregational Union, the London, Church, Baptist, and other Missionary Societies be cleared of the accursed thing. Let the Bible and Tract Societies, and the Sunday School Union, and kindred Societies be free also; or if the Committees will introduce those who are connected with the slavery-tolerating Societies in America, the people should do their duty and demand their withdrawal.

In order tliatit may be known which Societies are tolerating, and which are free, the principal ones here follow : —

Slavery Tolerating.

The American Bible Society.

The American Board of Foreign Missions.

The American Home Missionary Society.

The American Tract Society.

The American Sunday School Union.

The Presbyterian Board of Publication.

The Methodist Book Concern.

Anti'slavery.

Tne American Missionary Associntion.

The Western Home and Foreign Missionary Society.

The North Western Home Missionary Society.

The American Baptist Free Missionary Society.

The American Reform Tract and Book Society.

Appendix

Two or tbree topics, which would have been out of place to introduce in the foregoing pages, are here inserted. They are important, and attention to them is earnestly invited. They consist of our concluding letter to the Congregational Union on the Congregationalists in America and Slavery; the settlement of an account between ourselves and the British Banner; two leaders from the Morning Advertiser; the editorial of the New York Indepetident of Oct. 5th, on the " Vote of the Choctaw Question ;" concluding with a brief account of the American Reform Tract and Book Society. To each and to all of the above the reader's attention is particularly invited.

THE COlS^aEE&ATIONALISTS IN AMEEICA AND SLAVERY.

To tlie Congregational Union of lEngland and Wales.

Gentlemen, — It is true that quite a large and a very influential portion of the American Congregationalists are the most thorough promoters of the anti-slavery cause, religiously and politically - - indeed, their politics are guided by their religion. What I have to do now, is justice. It is not right for the American Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, to be continually censured for their support of slavery, and, if not in so many words, yet in effect, to be pointed to the Congregationalists for an example how to act on this subject, when they know that this denomination is no more free from the support of slavery than themselves. There is really very little difference in their position ; for, while some hold slaves, others support them in it, and lend their inHuence to the great system. With respect to the reso> lutions of the Congregationalists, they prove nothing more of the great body than do those of the other denominations. The fact is, that branches of all of the denominations have condemned slavery in the most unmeasured terms ; but the difficulty is, that they do not carry out the principles embodied in the resolutions. They condemn it, but still bold fellowship with it and vote for it. The Congregationalists never passed a stronger resolution against slavery, than did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in 1818; but no man of common sense would think of quoting that to prove the anti-slavery character of that body, simply because their practice conflicts with the principles there laid down.

In these days people get tired of resolutions, and value them only as they are carried out. There are some resolutions which never could be carried out, because it is not known what they mean. One class of persons vote for them with the understanding that they mean one thing, and another at the same time vote for them supposing that they mean another ; hence it is impossible to use them for any purpose, and they stand as mementos of the weakness of the bodies that adopted them. An opportunity occurs occasionally which fully proves thu assertion. For instance, the resolution of the Albany convention has been thought, and quoted by many in the United States and in England, to prove the anti-slavery character of that body ; but the abolitionists who were in that convention are beginning to see that they were " sold." Before citing the resolution, I must explain that one of the objects of the convention was to consider their relations to slavery in their home missions. The American Hume Missionary Society is sustained by Presbyterians and Congregationalists, and has between fifty and sixty churches in the slaveholding States, in which slaveholding is no bar to communion. Quite an important part of the convention wished to remedy this. A com- •nittee was appointed on home missions and slavery, but they could not agree. Two reports were brought in, the majority and the minority. Neither suited the convention, and the subject was re-committed, which resulted in the mean-nothing " resolution, which was adopted " without debate " — a pretty sure evidence that it had no point, or some one in ouch a body V70uld have discovered it and raised the alarm. It is as follows :—

" Resolved, That in the opinion of this convention it is the tendency of the Gospel, whe rever it is preached in its purity, to correct all social evils and destroy sin in all its forms ; and it is the duty of missionary societies to grant aid to churches in the slaveholding States, iu the :tupport of such ministers only as shall so preach the Gospel and inculcate the principles and the application of Gospel discipline, that with the blessint; of God it shall have its full effect ^n awauening and enlightening the moral sense in regard to slavery, and in bringing to pass the speedy abolition of that stupendous wrong; and that wherever a minister is not allowed 30 to preach, he should, in accordance with the directions of Christ in such cases, depart out of that city."

The resolution sets out with a universally admitted truth. The first important point is

the duty of missionary societies to grant aid to churches " in the support of such

niinisters only as shall so preach the Gospel," &c. These slaveholding churches, then, are left to provide themselves with a Gospel suitable to their own taste, the missionary society simply furnishing the aid required. The Society aids the church, not the minister; hence a slaveholding <]!hurcli, in selectin* its own minister, is not very likely to choose an anti-slavery man. There is doubtless a difficulty here, bni it demands serious attention. Churches should be independent, as far as possible, to select their own minister and exercise their own discipline ; but, seehig that they are dependent upon the Home M issionary Society for support, that Society ought to l)uve some other guaranteee that the Gospel is so preached, and that discipline is so exercised, as to result in the abolition of slavery, besides the testimony of these churches, or even supported by ministers of other slaveholding churches, else we see that all these churches might be slave holdintj, buying, selling, and breeding churches ; the minister might preach the doctrine that tl:e Bible sanctioned the institution of slavery ; and, upon their own testimony that the Gospel is "so" preached, might receive the support of the Missionary Society. With respect to the "Gospel being so preached as to have its full effect in enlightening the moral sense in regard to slavery," the really abolition portion of that convention meant in regard to the sinfulness of slavery. But the resolution does not mean that. By a " stupendous wrong " they meant a stupendous sin.

But the resolution does not mean that. The expression, " enlightening the moral sense," is exceedingly indefinite; to call it by its right name, it is a cheat, for the "enlightening" of the " moral Sfinse" means nothing at all, unless it means in regiird to the siufuliiess of slavejioldiiig ; but it does not mean that, as I shall show. For instance, change the resolution as follows — " that, with the blessing of God, it shall have its full effect in enlightening 'the moral sense in regard to ' the sinfulness of slaveholding ' and in bringing about the speedy abolition of that stupendous siyi," and that lesolution could not have passed. The sinfulness of slaveholding was not acknowledged ; such a proposition would have met with the most determined opposition. Slavery, without meaning anything definite, would have received some rough treatment at the hands of that body ; but alter the word to slaveholding, and the whole scene entirely changes. It is not generally understood, but it ought to be, that there were men in that convention who are most unceasing in their efforts to protect slaveholding from being condemned as sinful, only on the ground that there are some slaveholders who are such from circumstances which they cannot control, and who are doing all that they can for the good, present and future, of the slaves. Such slaveholders no one ever thinks of censuring. Still we should feel bound to refuse them church fellowship, on the ground that it is not possible to open the fellowship to such, without opening it to all sorts of slaveholders.

Our principle is, no concession under an// circumstances. But this does not at all affect the general principle that slaveholding is a sin; if the system of slavery be a sin, the system of slaveholding must be ; the former cannot exist without the latter ; yet the great system of slaveholding finds a refuge in these few exceptions. Men who will thus cover up or shield such a system as American slavery, and the whole of its supporters, behind the integrity of the exceptional cases, subject our charity to a severe tax. Yet, the Albany convention did, in effect, by adopting this resolution, offer protection to the entire system of slavery ; it gives the power to slaveholding churches to decide whether the Gospel is so preached ; it gives their own discipline into their owa hands ; it nowhere condemns slavery and slaveholding as shiful ; nay, it was even a studied evasion of this very question, which none can fail to see when they read the following report of the majority, which the convention refused to adopt. It is as follows : — " Believing that those who, for their own advantage, hold and use their fellow-men as slaves, violate a cardinal principle of true religion, and ought not to be received into Christian churches, it is our opinion that churches which recognise such slaveholders as worthy of membership ought not to receive aid from the American Home Missionary Society ; and therefore, la dispensing the funds with which it is entrusted by the Christian public, it should ^ve aid to such churches only as refuse such recognition."

Nothing can be plainer : the Albany convention did not believe that those who, for their own advantage, hold their fellow-men as slaves, " violate a cardinal principle of true religion ;" they did not believe that they " ought not to be received into Christian churches ;" and as if to mark their position still more clearly, when a resolution condemnatory of the Fugitive Slave Law was introduced, it received " strenuous opposition," was " postponed," and " finally waived."

The organ of the Congregational denomination afterwards claimed it as a triumph that the above resolution and its supporters were defeated. It says: " There were fears that men of extreme anti-slavery opinions . . . might insist on the adoption of their own distinctive views by the convention, at whatever cost ; but nothing of the kind came to pass." This is bow such men as adopt the principles of the above resolution are distinguished in America ; such men there were in the Albany convention, and posterity will rightly estimate the service they rendered to the cause of freedom and Christianity.

I will simply add, that it was thought that the resolution which was adopted was designed to affect the American Home Missionary Society ; no doubt the "extreme" men did design this ; and could they have had the interpreting of the resolution, it would have affected it. But they had not, hence it has not had the effect to produce any change in the Society, and there can be little doubt but that the resolution was worded in that apparently forcible bat actUHlly mean-nothing phraseology, purposely that it might prevent a change in that Society's policy. That it did in no way affect it, is abundantly manifest ; the Committee says : " Our faith is so strong that it is the tendency of the Gospel, wherever it is preached in its purity, to destroy sin in all its forms, that the Society intends to persevere in thus preaching it." Then fully to demolish the resolution, they say : "The Society feels that it stands on the same ground as the New School Presbyterian and Congregational churches, and is fully sustained hy their action," the action of the Assembly and the Albany convention. From this it will be seen, that, whereas before the assembling of the Albany convention that Society was related to slavery, the resolution which was adopted purporting to dissolve that relation lias in no degree affected it ; on the contrary, the Society expressly declares that it " does mt make the exclusion of slaveholders from communion a condition of missionary aid," points to the Albany convention resolution, and says, in pursuing this course we feel "fully sustained by your action."

I think I have done what I undertook to do, namely, to show that the Congregationalists are not " the uncompromising opponents of the accursed system," nor the enemies of slavery " iu any ether sense than it is true of our northern Presbyterians, Methodists, and Baptists.

Would that this exposure had fallen into other hands ! To exhibit my own denomination in this humiliating light has been extremely painful, but in doing it I feel that I have performed a sacred obligation to God, and to the cause of freedom. But while there is so much to regret, there is abundant cause for rejoicing when we see such a steady growth of religious feeling against slavery in nearly all the churches of most of the denominations. Here is our hope, and our only hope, for the utter extinction of slavery, in viewing slavery and slaveholding as a " sin against God;" in proportion as this feeling prevails will the foundation of slavery be removed, until it shall fall, with no hope of ever rising again. May God speed that day 1 I am, gentlemen, yours respectfully,

James Vincent, Agent of the American Reform Tract and Book Society. 119, Grove Place, Bury New Road,

"Manchester, Sept. 26th, 1854.

OUR OWN ACCOTJNT WITH THE « BEITISH BANNER."

And here we will trouble the reader to turn back to page 24, and read, in the editorial of the Banner, the closing paragraph. Presuming that the reader has perused that passage, we remark, then, that this attack is a most wanton and Banner-Wkn attempt at the very worst forms of assassination. No man, no spirit but the Banner's, could have perpetrated such wickedness. He says, " On his advent we showed him kindness (we will look at this soon), and, on the strength of the testimonies he brought us, we published a paragraph in his favour ; but there we stopped." Why did he not stop before ? He says, " We felt constrained resolutely to refuse insertion to his letters to the Congregational Union, considering it our duty to know more 6ofA ©/"f/ie man and of his mission . . . and we have only been confirmed by time and circumstances in the soundness of the views ice have taken," Why did not the Bannei' give the public the benefit of the circumstances ? Why talk about them without giving them ? Does he suppose that the public are about to take the insinuations or even the word of the Banner ? Does he, who revels in the luxury of defaming private character, flatter himself that he is to be heard and no one besides ?

Now, it happens that the Editor has known us for years, not personally, but by reputation. It must be nine or ten years since that he thought two articles, at least, of ours worthy of a place in the Christian Witness. When we were about leaving for the United States, six yeara since, we received a letter from him, wishing us success. While we were in Oberlin, we wrote to him, and gave him permission to publish our letter, not supposing for a moment that he would ; but he did. That was not all ; a gentleman, whom we met in America, told us that he heard a part of that letter read, on the Sabbath, by the Editor, to bis church and congregation, when he spoke of us in terms of respect, and told his people that they would see the letter in the British Banner. It appeared ; and — if we are in error we wish to be corrected, but, as our memory serves us — there was in addition nearly a column added as an editorial, from the Editor's own pen. Now, why, before he allowed us, in the Christian Witness, directly to harangue a vast Christian community on " behalf of poor young men who are willing to devote themselves to missionary labour," did he not wish to learn more of the man ? Why, without knowing any moie of him, did he speak in such terms as he did to his church of him; and again, in his editorial in the British Banner 1 We are utterly at a loss to account for his malignity now. Before we went to America there was no man, saving our sire, for whom we felt such unfeigned regard as we did for him. Sinc^ we have been in America, we have often heard him spoken of with disrespect, and we have felt grieved and have resented it. But such has heen our experience since we have been in England, coupled with our observation of how he has behaved to others, that we are forced to believe that he is utterly destitute of regard for truth and justice.

We will now look for a moment at his kindness." True, we did write to him before we came, supposing that he was a decent, respectable, and influential man, but we soon found that he was neither. We called on him and were bedaubed with his flattery; we were invited to take tea with him, that he might have "a regular Yankee chat." But the day was to be set, and it has yet to he. We called at his office by his invitation, but he was " so full of law " that he could not attend to us. The second time we called he was more indifferent than before, and inquired what our " business " was. Never till that moment had we known a single thought adverse to him. We briefly re-stated our errand, showed him our credentials, when the following were bis words. Looking at the names of the directors of the Society and its officers, he said, "Well, Mr. Vincent, you know that these names may be good, or they may not. I know nothing of them, and were it not that I have every confidence in you, I should not feel at liberty to take up this matter at all, for you know we have had so many hutnbitgs here from America. Ah ! Mr. Vincent, splendid humbugs— splendid humbugs !" We here mentioned the name of Lewis Tappan, upon which the Editor said, "Well, you know, I don't think anything of /dm; I've no opinion at all of him ; he was over here some years since, and I had some little set-out with him, so his name is of no use with me. No, Mr. Vincent, I know you from your correspondence, and that's enough. Why, you would be astonished if 1 were to tell you what a difficult thing it is to keep the public free from impo.sition. There was a missionary society, some time since, — it had obtained a hold, but you know the press is a ponerful weapon, nothing like it, and I succeeded, after awhile, in putting a stop to its proceedings. Then there is the Temperance movement ; it is a very good cause, but there are so many infidels mixed up with it, and such goings on, that you would be surprised. I am keeping my eyes open, and [pointing to a drawer] I have enough papers in th?it drawer. Sir, to crush the whole movement, and 1 don't know but I shall have to do it yet." We sat and listened with astonishment, and thought, " Is this the man whom we have thought so much of?" We folded up our letters and departed, having obtained the promise of a paragraph in the Banner. From that moment we have had such a horror of his character as no words can express. So much for his " kindness."

But, thanks to God, that weapon (the press) is failing him. We speak that we do know, and testify what we have heard from hundreds of lips, that he has not the influence that he imagines. We have never but once, in all our travels in England for the last ten months, heard but one man speak a good word for him ; but we have everywhere beard the utmost contempt expressed for him and his Banner. We have had more trouble to find that paper than any other ; and once we travelled over forty miles purposely to see if we could find any one who took it, that we might, if possible, find a back number. We went into the largest commercial reading-room, and asked the gentleman whose business it was to give information, if they took the British Banner. He replied, " No, Sir, we don't take such a thiny as that here." We asked if he could tell us where it was taken. He was kind enough to direct us to the Mechanics' Institute. We asked the gentleman there, if the British Banner was taken, and he stared. We said that it was a weekly newspaper, and he wanted to know what it tvas like. Not finding it there, we were directed to the only place where it was at all probable that we might find it ; so we went and asked Mr. W. if he took the British Banner? He replied, with a good deal of transport, " No, Sir, and I can tell you that yoa won't get it in this town." We replied, that we were very sorry, for we had come over forty miles on purpose to find it. Well," he said, " I don't suppose that you could find any one in this town who would give it house-room." Here, then, was a town of many thousands of inhabitants, at least three Independent churches, and such an estimate of the British Banner ! This is gratifying, and is one of the signs of the times, that people are getting tired of despotism.

In addition to our labours, which are already quite enough for one man, we shall feel it to be a duty religiously to aim at the furling of the Banner. We shall henceforth take this upon ourselves. We consider it a duty to do it. We believe it to be the duty of every one to aim at it. Let any one but refer to the act of despotism not long since perpetrated on the Rev. Mr. Tiddy. An Editor that will allow a minister of the Gospel to be represented in his columns as heretical, from a single extract from his sermon, confirm it, and not sufler the man to speak in his own defence, is worse than a highway robber. If this is to be allowed, every minister in Christendom may be branded as heretical, for there is seldom a sermon preached that is good for anything, but contains some passages which, taken apart, would be pronounced heretical. We say, then, without knowing anything of Mr. Tiudy, or his sermon, tiiat this act of blasting a man's reputation, and then not suifering him to be heard in defence, is most base.

Mr. Tiddy and others, however, may console themselves with the thonght that " the end draweth nigh ;" yea, we mistake if it be not even at the doorr,.

We shall now look at the British JBanner in a light which, we think, will coaviuce the few remaining supporters that it is time to leave it to its fate. We mean, as

THE ENGLISH OEGAN OF THE i'EO-SLAVERT PAETY

IN AMEEICA.

The reader, then, will understand that the British Banner is the English organ of the pro-slavery party in America, and here is our proof. When the Editor announced the thirty-fifth anniversary of the American Board of Foreign Missions, in the Christian Witness, he said, " The Board were urged to declare it (slavery) a sin against God and man, that they will employ no slaveholders as their missionaries or agents, and that its existence is inconsistent with the Christian religion, and conjured to receive no moneys contributed, in one or another way, by slaveholders, or any of the proceeds of slave labour. As usual, the petitions are referred to a committee, and, as usual, the committee reports that, as a Board, they can have no connexion or sympathy with slavery, but the ' object ' — ' the Board have confined themselves to this one object.' They canr.ot turn aside from it, or mix any other concerns with it. And they ' still think the Saviour of the world will approve of this deliberate purpose, and would frown upon them if they should depart from it.' Reader, mark this ! iSo, the treasury of the Board is replenished with the price of blood ! Dealers in the bodies and souls of men are embraced as brethren in Christ ; and the thrice-accursed produce of oppression and vrong, tears and groans, agony and death, is gratefully received by this association of merciful men, and sent abroad to promote the salvation of the Gentiles

Now, mark ! this is the language of the Editor of the Briiish Banner, in the Christian Witness, in 1844. That same American Board's treasury is, this very day, " replenished with the price of blood." " Dealers in the bodies and souls of men are now embraced as brethren in Christ;" and now " the thrice-accuvsed produce of oppression and wrong, tears and groans, agony and dcJith, is gratefully received by this association of merciful men, and sent abroad to promote the salvation of the Gentiles and the Editor of the British Banner says, " So long as the American Board of Foreign Missions continues to breathe this (its present) spirit, and pursue this (its present) course, it shall not fail to find defenders in the columns of the British Banner." The spirit and the course of the American Board is precisely that above stated. Is not the British Banner the English organ of the pro-slavery party in America ?

The Editor suppressed the Rev. J. B. Walker's speech on the pro-slavery character of onr churches and societies, including the American Board ; and afterwards, when he was publicly exposed for this, added insult to that gentleman, calling him, in the language of the Banner, a " respectable man," and says that he " made a >*e«pec/a6/e speech." Is this the way to speak of a man, whose labour in the cause of religion and philanthropy can never be overestimated ? He afterwards suppressed the foregoing letters to the Congregational Union, exhibiting the character of the American Board ; and wiien he finds that, in spite of all his efforts to keep the public in the dark on this subject, and thus to make way for the American Board, the Congregational Union, in a most emphatic manner, turned it from them, he turns upon the author of those letters, and makes an assassin-like attempt at his reputation, by saying that he felt it to be his duty to " know more of the man and his mission," and that he has " only been confirmed by time and circumstances in the soundness of the views " he has " taken," when he had known him for years, had publicly eulogised him, and privately flattered him. This is how we prove that the Briiish Banner is the English organ of the pro-slavery party in America, by showing the Editor's own perfidy to the cause of freedom, his deceitful and abusive treatment of those most intimately connected with the anti-slavery cause, and his offer of the columns of the British Banner to the American Board of Missions. But we have yet another proof, for we find him representing that the American Board of Missions must be worthy of support, because, forsooth, a few distinguished individuals in Scotland were found at a meeting where resolutions were passed in favour of the American Board's mission in Turkey. But who are they ? We do not know them all, nor any of them personally ; it is sufficient for our purpose that Dr. Candlish was one. For the sake of better coming at tnhat Dr. Candlish is, we will just refer back to the formation of the Evangelical Alliance, which is still fresh in the minds of most persons. On that occasion Dr. Candlish moved the following resolution :—