"These latter gentlemen profess to hold the same views of slavery that they have always held. And perhaps, in many cases, they may be able to show where, ten or fifteen years ago, they expressed the same condemnation of slavery that they do now. The difference is, that formerly they came reluctantly to the expression of these views, lest they should be taken for abolitionists now they do it eagerly, lest they should be deemed apologists for slavery. Formerly, they put forth their antislavery sentiments as an apology for acting against abolition; now they put forth their excuses for slaveholding as an apology for speaking against slavery.

"Of this class of theologians, no one has from the beginning come nearer to abolition without hitting it, than the Rev. Leonard Bacon, D. D., of New-Haven."

To such libels scattered broadcast over all the north, and proceeding from men who know me well, and who are known to have been once my friends, I expose myself when I utter my convictions on this subject. It seems not to enter into the thoughts of those writers, that a man who differs from them on this most complicated theme, may possibly be honest. My answer to their imputations is, Perhaps my motives are important to the question of the soundness of my arguments; perhaps you know my motives better than I do; yet God knows them better than you do; to my own master I stand or fall, and "with me it is a very small matter that I should be judged of you, or of man's judgment."

NO. VIII.

EXPLANATIONS.

I thought I had finished, when I appended to my last communication a postscript of condensed replies to those of my correspondents, known and unknown, whose inquiries or suggestions might seem to them not to have been sufficiently noticed heretofore. But as that postscript was not published in the last number of the Evangelist, and as the editors have thus left me at liberty to continue the discussion for another week, it seems proper to draw out the postscript into a concluding chapter of explanations. And this is the more important as the publication of my last week's essay brought me an immediate return of questions, some of which seem to show that my views are not yet, in all quarters, perfectly understood.

I. A correspondent in Ohio, who writes as a friend, though his name is to me that of a stranger, asks me to re-examine one position. The passage to which he refers is that in my second communication, which represents the burthen of proof as devolving upon those who shall hereafter bring certain accusations against our missionaries and churches among the Cherokees and Choctaws. This, he thinks, is a mistake. He says, "The fact of a man holding his fellow-man as property, on the face of it appears wrong. Let the Board, by proper explanations, show that these are cases of a peculiar character that exonerate those who do it from the charge of guilt. The missionaries are not a set of felons

that we are trying to convict. They are honest men, and we will give entire credit to their statements. We only ask for facts, and will judge for ourselves. If we think they and the Board mistake in regard to their duty, we will say it in all kindness as friends. We shall not abandon the Board or the missionaries till we find they adopt as a settled policy the practice of admitting slaveholders to communion and church fellowship."

I have accordingly "re-examined" my position, and I find that my correspondent has quite mistaken my meaning. If he in his turn will "re-examine," he will see that what I say in that place is founded entirely on the explanations which the missionaries, and the Board as speaking in their behalf, have given. My position is this: Either the report made at Brooklyn, and since published, is entirely unworthy of credit as a representation of facts, or if there is in any church under the care of our missionaries a master who buys or sells human beings as merchandise who does not recognize, in respect to his servants, the divine sanctity of their relations as husbands and wives, and as parents and children—who permits his servants to live and die in ignorance of God and of God's Word-who does not render to his servants that which is just and equal-or who refuses to acknowledge their dignity and worth as reasonable and immortal beings for whom Christ died that master, upon being convicted of any such specification," would be admonished by the church, and unless he should repent would be excommunicated." We have the declaration of the Board to this effect, founded upon the information received

from their missionaries, and using to a considerable extent the very language of the missionaries themselves. From this time forward those who shall assume the responsibility of affirming the contrary, are bound to prove what they affirm.'

But my friend says, "Give us the facts, in each case of slaveholding, and we will judge for ourselves." To me it seems that if we know the principles on which those missionaries and churches administer discipline, and if we have their comprehensive denial of all facts inconsistent with those principles, that is enough. Whether the facts in a particular case are such as show that a man is, in the judgment of charity, a Christian, acting in a Christian spirit, is a question upon which none are so well qualified to judge as that man's Christian neighbors, the very church with which he is in covenant. If my correspondent is charged with being a forger, on the ground that inasmuch as he is a skillful penman he has it in his power to commit forgery upon a sufficient temptation, and if I am therefore required to deny him fellowship, his denial of the charge is enough to put all who repeat it upon the duty of proving it. If the church to which he belongs is charged with admitting forgers to communion because it admits a man who can forge if he chooses, it is enough for that church to deny the charge and to demand the proof. Just so if a church is charged with admitting oppressors to communion because it admits "believing masters," who could oppress if they would, and who would be oppressors if they were not believers, it is enough for that church to meet the charge with a denial. Such is the position of the Cherokee and

ANDOVER

THEOL SEMINARY

MAR 10 1904

LIBRARY

Choctaw churches and of the missionaries there; and such is the position of the Board.

It is to be observed here that the charge of admitting slaveholders to communion is not denied; but the charge of admitting oppressors to communion is denied comprehensively and in various specifications. So, in the case supposed, the church to which my correspondent belongs does not deny the charge of admitting to communion a man who can commit forgery if he will; it only denies the charge of admitting one who does commit forgery. If I can find reason to believe that a church in a slaveholding country will rigidly administer discipline against all specifications of oppression, I shall not doubt that the influence of that church will be as efficient for the promotion of freedom and of righteousness as if it were to excommunicate men simply for being slaveholders. As for the "settled policy" of the Board, I can only speak from my knowledge of the men and of the churches; but I think I may say that two points are immovably settled ;-first, that the missionaries are never to permit any sort of oppression, on the part of those under their care as converts, to pass uncensured; and secondly, that no considerations of expediency, either political or ecclesiastical, will be deemed a sufficient reason for adopting a formula which would exclude from the missionary work the author of the first epistle to Timothy, and of the epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians.

II. The friend who writes to me from Maine, and whose ingenuousness I cannot question, has misconceived (and therefore I presume that others equally