,Wnra.I jkwzxtiiinery §*3fnm1fffc11.

   

MESGQMRSE,

D§!}i1L'[V}:?1I?..E'D ¢AT ANDOVIER., MASSACI*IUSET'1‘S,

..u up? my W 4,, 1 5:; :;z«.m

w "W ‘W: J‘ ‘
‘;,w535WW

BY %
P A, R 23 O  S C 0 O K Ii},

PA ‘f%y“"H"1‘\€‘ ILL!“ 'l‘H.I'€‘. 1"1‘l“v‘».‘4'K‘ C71’ U ‘RC1 Ll IN’ L'E"NMN~.

..... .«......,.m...«..m...w« ..—....--»....m.-.-...--.«..

A N If? C) V E P, :
W I L L I .—{’“.a. M E’ 13.3 .5 R Q! 133.
M3 :3 :3».

ADVERTISEMENT.

IF the leading principle of‘ this discourse is founded in truth, it is
very important that it should be received and acted upon. Its adop-
tion twenty years ago by this community, if‘ it could then have been
universally received, would have prevented a great amount of pro-
fitless agitation. One thing is plain ; p and that is, that voluntary as~
sociations of some kinds, and for some purposes, are to be encour-
aged; and some of other kinds, and for other purposes, are to be re»
jected. And the labor of this discourse has been directed in search
of some simple principle, that shall aid in drawing the line between
what is, and what is not to be approved. The writer is aware that
the positions here taken, are contrary to current opinions, and he
would not be disappointed if they should call forth discussion. Such
discussion he invites. If errors can be shown, affecting subordinate
branches of the argument, they who point them out, will help to re-
move defects in the argument, and to thelestablishing of a principle,
which in the writer’s view, involves the best interests of man. And

. if’ the main position of the discourse can be shown to be unsound,

they who detect its unsoundness, will deserve his gratitude, for de-
livering him from a serious error. And they need not, (except for
their own reasons,) be very careful of’ the manner and spirit with
which they write. If with candor they come directly to the over-
throw of the main positions, they will make conviction easy. But if
they merely nibble at the drapery and the outskirts, they shall have
credit for the crumbs of refutation which they afford. And if they
wrap strong argument in strong denunciation, it will be easy to
separate the husks from the kernel; and to gather the good into
vessels, and cast the bad away.

D l  C3 0 U R S E.

.,,..... -4o— ..........._....-nu»-........... ........-..-...-—-

COMMUNITIES, like individuals, gather wisdom from experience.
And the experimenter in science, turns even his unsuccessful ex-
periments to some good account, in aiding him to find what is not
the way to the desired result. So the numerous experiments made
of late in the course of improvement in morals, may aid us to the
same kind of negative instruction. If the adage, “ It is lawful to be
taught by an enemy,” is true, it is certainly lawful to extract ‘WiS-
d.om from folly. And Providence has ever been instructing the
World on this principle, making the follies of one age the means of
instruction to the next. And we may hope that all the new develop»
ments of the spirit of the present age, however ill-tempered that
spirit may be, and all the wrecks of unfortunate enterprises, as Well
as all successful works of relhrm, will aid us in finding the more
excellent way. Through all past history, and all passing events,
Providence is reading to us a lesson as to what he will have usdo.

And never were such helps more needed; never was it more

difficult to ascertainwhat is duty, in relation to the use of our
public responsibilities, than it now is. While many are crying, Lo
here, and Lo there, reflecting minds are in a maze of perplexity.
And this age of discovery would do enough for one age, if it could

discover to us the path of duty, and layopen the channel in which i

the quickened energies of the public mind, may most safelyland
beneficently flow forth for reform and human improvement. And
this discourse is designed to contribute its mite towards such a dis-
covery.

The matter which will come under discussion, touches the law -
fulness and expediency of’ the principle of voluntary association, in
reforming enterprises. Icannot agree with those who wholly ex-
clude the voluntary principle of association, in the cause of benevo-
lence. When the object of the association is to feed the hungry, or
to supply the spiritual wants of the destitute, and where large out-

4

lays are contemplated, requiring the cooperation of‘ large bodies of
men, I see no objection to the principle. Some would contend, that
in such cases the funds should be gathered and expended by the
constituted authorities of the church. And that those denomina~
tions Whose theory makes all the individual churches in their corn-
rnunion, but so many subordinate branches of one church, can con-
duct their benevolent enterprises more efliciently, and more for
their denominational interests, without separate organizations, and
under the hand of the constituted authorities of the church, is what
we as Congregationalists are not interested to aflirrn nor deny. For
Congregationalism, making each individual church essentially in-
dependent of the rest, and having no constituted authorities above

the single church, has no hands to conduct benevolent enterprises, i

on a large scale, but what is created by voluntary combination. All
our associations larger than ‘a church, united for any purpose, are
by the necessity of the case, voluntary associations. It’, for instance,
We were to conduct the work of foreign rnissions, by a society com-
posed of a delegation from all the churches that contribute tothe
funds, or by such bodies as the Greneral Association of; Massachu-
setts,-the work would then not be conducted by ecclesiastical au-
thority. For Congregationalists know no permanent authorities, be»
tween the single church, and the great Head of the church. The
General Association is only a Voluntary society, disclairning all au-
thority. And the Consociation adrnittedby some Congregationalists,

is a departure from the principles of Congregationalists,.and is but

another name for a Presbytery. Cong'r*egationalism then, does" not
admit of our conducting benevolent enterprises on any other than
the voluntary principle.

But there is a class of voluntary associations which are seriously
objectionable. I mean those ‘mi/1.083 object is the forrwirzg of at ale-.
stired pnblvle sent-imer-it iozrelatiziorz to any pawriculatr sin,  order to
use that public se-ntiment as the ?i‘llS'l‘.‘}"’I.lm67%?5 Q]"v r(§]'o9"m. The‘ ob_iec~
tion is not against reforming by proper influences a vitiated, public
sentiment; but against the lrinrl 0_]/'..77Z€Z,G7L7i?‘l.tE’?."_?/ employed for the pur-
pose, and against the rlesiign anti use  2L7]t.'iC]L it is formed. The
question is not whether those erroneous opinions of men, behind
which sin hasentrenched itself’, shall, be removed, but by what means
shall we attempt their expulsioiii By the syrnrnetrical development
of gospel: truth, .brought. to bear upon the particular sin which we

5‘)

seek to remove, in connection with others, and striltinp; at the root of
all sin, by insisting on evangelical repentance and fruits meet for
repentance? ‘or by mustering a promiscuous cornbination of good

and bad men, and all, that for any reason can he enlisted in op-it

position to that one sin, and annihilate the sin by force of numbers
arrayed against it? And another question is, —whether public
opinion, when made to order, so as to hit exactly, let the means by
which it is made be what they may, is the proper instrurnent of re»
form, the proper motive to present to a sinner, to induce him to aban-
don his sins P---—whether we should assail the sinner with llgl1l.t'1lfl.g'S
plucked from the brow of a t"rowning public, or with those plucked
from the tl1un<le1"ing and quaking mount of GrodP——~whether We
should say to the sinner, repent or be despised by men, or Whether
we should say, repent or burn under the infiictions of eternal justice?

Let me here rnahe the distinction between the two kinds of asso-
ciations plain. The one kind, for brevity’s sal<.e,I shall call benevo-
lent societies, and the other I shall call public opinion societies.
VVl“ien. I call those which are in my View allowable, benevolent
soctietios,l do not: insinuat.o that the otliers are not benevolent in
their -in/...:m:’;. fl call the one lgzenevolent socic::tios, l;.;iec.:i.iuso the main
purpose of theirr (3X..l.:T~3l10tTil(L'(?t., is to gtilli”l@'t‘ and apply funtls to benevo-
lent uses; and I call the other public opinion societies, because
their main purpose is, to form, and to use for rel'c)1'mi1tg men, a pub-
lic opinion of a ‘desired cast. The one class of societies raises and
applies funcls, it may be for 1*e"liei'iti,n; the tt3t‘t1pOt‘ttl. wants of linen,
and it may be rtitur 1‘eilieV'iti,<g; tlieir spiritual wants, by ,t,j;ivi.t’1pg the Bible
or SOl1(.ll,11g the preachers of the ggvisztiel, or VVC)t'l{lt1g the press for the
(.lli'lt‘t.lSlt‘)iI1 (not of one ..:pec:i.l‘ic. principle, but) of evangelical l~:now-
lcdge as a whole. litublio opinion. sooietieslltaveta use for funds.
But it is to sustain presses and lecturers, to work up a public senti-
ment, which public sentiment ‘tlieyiezrpect will clothe work of’ re-
form. But those wh'icl‘1, by way of distinction, Ideally benevolent so-
cieties, lay out their fitncls directly tovsupplythe wants of the desti-
tute, orto reform the vicious tlt1*ou.gl1 the agencyi of the Whole gos«
pel, directly and appropriately applied ; such as fcreig.n missionary
and home 1nissi.ontu*y and tract societies. These all labor ion the
incu-lcation of the .g3;ospel. as a whole, and seek to act directly on the
sinner, and not upon him ll'11‘0l.l._glt thernecliutn otiothoits’ indignation,
first xvrouglit up for the purpose. t i t

6

The only one of them which is at all capable of being made a

seeming exception to this remark, is the Tract Society. But a mo«

rnent’s reflection will show that religious tract societies do not belong
to the same category with public opinion societies, even though they
may publish tracts on one subject. The American Tract Society exists,
not for the purpose of impressing any one or any number of’ subjects
on the public mind, nor for the purpose of giving public opinion a

T specific direction, and applying that opinion so as to maltethe sin-
ner smart under its lashes, but for the general diffusion of evangeli- -

cal knowledge. Denominational tract societies, such as the Metho-
dist, Baptist, and Presbyterian tract societies, exist for the purpose of’
preaching the whole gospel, as it is understood in their respective
denominations. So the Doctrinal Tract Society of our denomina-
tion, is virtually a denominational society, enabling us in connection
with the American Society"s publications, to preach the Whole gos-
pel as we understaiid it. And all these societies differ from the

iAnti~Slavery Society, for instance, when that publishes tracts, in

this, that they do not seek the formation and use of a public opinion
on any particular subject. But they seek to reach the sinner’s heart
and conscience at once, by rightly dividing and presenting the gos-
pel as a whole. The Anti-Slavery Society expends its funds in
tracts, to circulate in the non-slaveholding community, expecting
there to arouse and embody a force of public indignation, which
shall eventually do away the sin of slavery, in another community.
In this the difference between it and religious tract societies is ap-
parent.

Having then, as I would hope, made clear the distinction be-
tween public opinion societies and benevolent societies, I am pre-

pared to show that such benevolent societies, on the voluntary prin- S

ciple, are approvable and safe. They have a virtual warrant in the
New Testament. On one occasion the sufl'ering Christians in Jeru-
salem, were alleviated by voluntary contributions, collected by sys-
tematic means, by each church, upon each first clay of the week;
and agents were sent around to visit the churches and excite them
to the duty. Paul, said he “thought it necessary to emhort the
brethren, that they would go before unto you, and make up be-
forehand your bounty.” Now however others may interpret this,
Congregationalists can make ‘nothing. more of it, than agencies con-
stituted by voluntary means, acting by the “ ewhortatiaw?’ and not by

'7

authoritative appointment of Paul. Each church collected funds

for the object; then all brought them together and distributed theme

through one agency, just as our missionary funds are now raised
and spent. Here were all the essentials of our voluntary benevolent
action. Paul was the general agent for receiving and distributing
the funds. But this was evidently because he was then going to Je-
rusalem. Nothing appears to show that he acted by any ecclesias-
tical authority, and that he did what he might not have done without
an oflicial character. i
And nothing in the nature of these voluntary societies shows
their action to be unsafe or inexpedient. Where the form of acting
is simply by collecting and laying out the free contributions of the
benevolent, to relieve temporal wants, or to send Bibles or a preach-
ed gospel to the destitute, the’: are all the guards against a perver-
sion of influence and funds, that common prudence would ask. The
publicity of all collections and expenditures, the assurance that a
rnisapplication of funds would stop their income, is a sutiicient guard
against official delinquency ; and neither officers nor members,
have a temptation to come in for the purpose of turning the society’s
n"1achincry to private ends. Machinery constructed simply for
opening the treasures of the gospel to the destitute, is less capable
of‘ being turned to sinister ends... And the steady and onward march
of these benevolent societies for a long time,in the dil‘l‘usion of good,
comprehensive and almost unmizszed with evil, is an encouraging to»
ken, that the smiles of heaven rest upon this method of doing good.
But this is a matter which I shall not be required to labor, inasmuch
as few who will take an interest in this discussion will dispute it.
The next branch of my subject will. bring me most into collision
with current opinions, and here I shall have need to fortify my po-
sitions. My main position here is, that more public opinion socie~
ties are unvvarrantable, Or to state it more precisely, associations
based on the voluntary principle, for the purpose of reforming sin»
ners, by first i'orming against them a strong public sentiment, and
then coercing. them into reformation by force of that public senti~«
rnent, are liable to serious objections. The objections which I have
to allege, will arrange themselves into two classes. First, against
the manner of constituting the societies, and second, against the im-
mediate purpose for which they are constituted. g
My first general ohjemion than is this, that the gospel held jbrth

8

lzy its tninristry, and other agencies tl]J]97‘0_p7"lCtl6, aml. appointed by
-itself, is G‘-0rl’s appointezl instrurizerzt for reformirzg men, _}‘i"om all
s-ins, amclfor correctttzg all mlctous pztblric setztinzerzts; and that pro-
mzlscaoas comlnlrzations of men, of all citaracters, ltctoing no bond of
union but an ag-reement in o_ppos'23t*io7z to one specific 31372, are unau-
ziltorzised and mtiscltievous in teazclency. T

The same voluntary principle of organization which is harmless
in benevolent societies, is dangerous in public opinion societies, be-
cause the latter have more attractions for dangerous men to come
in, as will be seen in the sequel.

Iremarl: in the first place, that these public opinion societies,
composed of all sorts of men, are an anomaly in View of the gospel,
and wholly unknown to the New Testament. The primitive re-
formers, the first publishers of the gosfiel, made no use of the prin-
ciple of promiscuous combination, and in no Way invited wicked
men to aid them in their work of reform. They did not form out of
a rabble of hete1*ogeneous characters, as many societies as there are
sins to put down, and then tell the sinner,-——--Repeat, and escape the
wrathto come from an anti—society. They had but one simple or-
ganized combination, and that was composed of men who at least
professed to go against all sin. The apostle gives its character and
constitution in these words: “ unto the church of God»--to them
that are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all them
that inevery place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
This is the gospel model of a reform society. it The principle
that We can be advantageously associated in the Work of reform,
with all who for any reason are opposed to a particular sin, which
we wish to put down, though they may be in the practice of all other
sins, was unknown to the first Christians. They were as careful to
repel the had, as to gather in the good. Simon Magus might have
worked well for awhile, in an anti-slavery society. But when his
unsoandness in the main was detected, he was declared to have no
part nor lot in the matter. Ananias and Ezlapphira, for aught that
appears, would pass muster for a seventhcorninandment society, but
the want of’ integrity in the root, endangered their action upon the
branches of reform. And we shall look to the New Testament in
vain, for a single example of ’a reform society, composed of pro-
fessed Christians, and professed infidels, united and acting against
one specific sin. Therwhole spirit and policy of the first Christians

9

went against such combinations : What communion hath light with
darkness, what concord hath Christ with Belial, or what part hath he
that believeth with an infidel l 

God himself, having given us the platform and constitution of a
reform society, has precluded those of human invention. If we con-
fide in his wisdom, as better than ours, we must believe that his
machinery for reform is better than ours. I am, so . behind the spirit
of the age, as to believe that the Builder of the skies, the Former of
the mind, and the Finisher of i our faith, and the great Destroyer of
sin and Satan, is the most competent Contriver of the plan of war-
fare against sin. And when I find that He has organized a society,
designed to do the very work proposed to he done by modern re-
forrn societies, I hesitate about exalting What is human, above what
is divine in its origin. All the members of’ Hissociety, are by the
very constitution of it, sworn to a warfare against all sin; bound
to war the good warfare in whole armour, against principalities and
powers, against spiritual wickedness in high places, and to deal with
every sin, as the natural enemy of their king and country. Then
what need have we of other and independent organizations for the
same purpose 5’ Aricl is not our resort to them, a constructive slight
upon the Founder of this. Orhave the men that; compose this, become
so recreant to their principles, that their title to membership is vitia-
ted. Be it so. Let their title be vacated, and let better men come
in upon the original platform, which no conduct of men can vitiate,
and against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. L, if you have a
better class of reformers, very well, bring them in, and set them at
work on the foundation of’ the prophets and apostles. Grant that
the controlling influence, the church, is new in the hands of men,
even worse than our fiereest Jehus represent them ; that shows not
t;1iat: the gospel mode of warfare against sin is defective, nor that
the principles of Christ°s 1"Gflf)l'lYl society are unsound, but that these
men have departed from their professed principles. And it is only
a reason for bringing in a holier class of men, to work on the same
principles. If you have better men, men thoroughly conformed to
the spirit of the gospel, let them come in and work upon that cor-
ner-stone, on which God has chosen to build all reforms, instead of
resorting to fot1nClti.tions of sand and to fabrics of wood, hay and
stubble. if we have the will of God clearly taught in anything, it
is that the gospel in its appointed forms of administration, and

10

through the individual and associated action, of those who imbibe its
spirit, is to be the Word of life, held forth in the midst of a crooked

and perverse nation. The gospel thus administered, is constituted a

the right arm of God, extended to rectify and restore a disjointed
world. And the drawing out here and there of independent organi-
zations, to do what God has appointed the way of doing, is not un-
like to Jeroboam’s mending the institutions of Jehovah, by setting
up the calves at Bethel and Dan, and demanding for them the hem-
age required to be paid at Jerusalem, to Jehovah.

If God appointed the gospel, through its appropriate channels of‘
administration, to be the instrument of reform, and if we go and
construct other machinery, on principles radically different, and in-
voke the gathering of Christians around our opposite standard, what
do we less than set aside the christian ministry, the instrument of‘
God"s appointing? One portion of the ;AbOlJ.l'.lOT1lSl.S are new con-
tending, with just cause, against the forcing in of’ sectarian policies,
disturbing the harmony of their operation, contrary to a founda--
tion principle of their societies. And yet they overlook the fact,
that these "sectarian matters come in by permission of another
foundation principle. The very basis of their organization is a virw
tual setting aside of the christian ministry, so for as their cause is
concerned, and this setting aside of the ministry, is the most peculiar
feature of Quakerism. So here Quakerism and Abolitionism join
hands, and they twain become one flesh. And after having entered
so far into a unity of principle, it is natural for Quakerism to seek
to enjoy the advantages of the union. But the Abolitionist revolts,
and says “ Hands of? l No sectarianism! no Quakerism here!”
But the Quaker replies, “ Ah, Friend! thou art mistaken. This
is the Abolitionism which we subscribed to. And if this does not
please thee, it is because thou art seeking still the interests of’ thy
sect, which we understood thee to leave behind, when thou earnest
into our society.” If our Abolitionists will thus virtually set aside the
ministry, and substitute an organization, which is, for moral purposes,
identical with that of the Quaker-meeting, they must not be too fas-
tidious as to the sectarianism of the Quakers. If they have con-
sented to change the pulpit for the elder’s bench, they should reve-
rently listen to the bonneted elders, that rightfully occupy that
bench. They at any rate may fairly be called upon to extricate
themselves from this dilemma, by either coming back to the gospel

11’

ministry, or by becoming consistent Quaker reformers, and confess--
ing that the Quaker-meeting is just the thing to convert the world.

If the gospel had been appointed to work in its sphere for re-
forming the world, as law is appointed to work in its sphere for re-
straining crime and upholding the order of civil society, then inde-
pendent and promiscuously organized reforming societies, bear the
same relations to the gospel, as mobs do to the law of the land.
The law takes upon itself the protection of civil rights, and would
he horrified at its being done by irresponsible volunteer societies.
So the gospel claims to be in its ministry, and appointed channels
of influence sufficient, to meet all occasions of the warfare against
sin. And both mob-law and mob-gospel, are defended by the same
apologies. For instance: there isa case which the law cannot ef-
ficiently reach, and so the mob must be summoned. And so here
is said to be a case which the gospel cannot reach. Again, the law
is too tardy in its action, for urgent cases, and the mob must he
called in, for speedier justice. So the gospel is too slow in its action
for reforrners of .lehu’s gait and driving, and hence a volunteer corps
of flying artillery must be sent ahead of “ the Sacramental hosts of
God’s elect,” to effect the work with more immediateism. And the
reasons against a mob-gospel are the same as those against a mob»-
law. We frown upon mob-law, because it thwarts the regular ad-
ministration of the law of‘ the land. And we object to mob-gospel,
because in many; ways it interferes with the regular administration
of the gospel, as we have learnt by sad experience. We object to
mobs, because they wield aiblind and irresponsible power, that is
tyrannical and subversive of order and peace. And the sequel of
these remarks will show the mob-gospel, to be liable to thehsame
objections. But you say, these societies pursue the some emlswith
the gospel. Grant it. So does the Knight of tar and feathers pur-
sue the same ends with the magistrate, only in a more summary
and improved way, and on “ free discussion” and voluntary princi-
ples. As it is an infringement of law to take its work out of the
hands of its authorized agents, so it is an impeachment of" the Author
of the gospel, to bring such other machinery to do its Work. And
query; is not the Non-Resistance Society, which is out against all
law, a mere inference from the Abolition Society, which has for
like reasons set aside the gospel. Is there not an essential agree-
ment between the two, not only in spirit, but in general principles of
action P i

12

Another ground of objection to bringiing in all sorts of people
into at society, to put down one sin at a time, is, that those who will
control the society, are not likely to agree as to the  of that pow-
er, which Cltristians regard es the foremost instrument; of reform. I
know it is seicl in behalf of the Abolition society, for imstettee, that
it relies purely on the gospel, to do its; WOI'i~I., that it ertiete only for
the better use of the gospel. Anti till I htwe to my in reply to this,
is—-—Don’t whisper‘ it in the ems of yont' many infidel cot:tcljL1to1's.
How often has it heen said, that inti<;lel:3 httve gc)'t elteztcl of Cl‘n.*i,s-
tiens, in these WOt‘l{E3 of refo1‘m l llrllow often llltltts it l.)C‘.(L3l"l heltil up, as
231 poeul.iet etltratttltzltgge of llilt3 eyetonfz of eot_ion., tltttt it ettvee ttntl t.t.trne
to at good account, the intllttenee oil’ mttny oppoeere of the gospel.
Aetl new l'o1':=tootl1, we lteve l.l.'ll‘.i—3 ::'.::tme Ql"g"(;LlllZ1l”tlTl.t’m., wotl~:et,l by i nl:i-
tlele ee well as Clll'it3l.ltftl'1S, 1"t;-lyittig; wlttoilly on the g'U5all’lCill, t7t."~3 the in-
etrnrnent of 1"elb1'nfn. E:it.1t‘o‘l"y they zero at irony :t«.ut::;:<:.n:nrnotltttzing .‘.-3tZ)it‘l' of
infitlele, or else they are .“5LlC3ll 11‘ll"ll‘lllt1T!E?:‘», Eu"-3 wet: to lmow with wlint in-
etmt.nente they do W(Z>t‘.l.{. If you l.t:;t.ve .':3lll't.fJ‘tV(fl it:1:ti t:leh=; in your 1‘1'ltl.'.ll{t':i.,
it its quite  likely ll'ltt'l; they ('llt3Ct3t'l'l the tttitittiqqotspel tenttlenoiee of
the works, ate tllttt tliey t"tl‘0 VVC)'l'l,il_ITlf,;g' in p;oot.l lllillllll, to l,)t‘l1"lQ,' about this
reform by the infltmeee of the ttgesszptil.

But this C0lJ193lClt;‘l'"t;tllOl1l €;lStlt,l«Et, nty ohjernion et;ill ',-§3l”l1{tll”l.‘.3. The
most violent l‘l2“.1lt31‘.‘:~"3 of the .gc"aep<::l, eon etrttzily qttellit’y l.l'1(§:l‘l‘l£‘~3C3l.Vf;)E3 to
serve within the .l‘l‘.1rl.lL{S.) or l:>eeotne p;tme1"el:s of en ztholition t~.“:'(‘)(L‘l(E:l._y‘.
But how can it Cl]l‘l.‘3l‘.ltt1’1 ettfely etttliet tmt.let:' euel‘1 ,«;~;onet*::tle, who he
knows, must at lenet eeetetly tleeite to involve the t:goepel. zmd t"~JltItVtI3-
ry in one abolition. Tliie very c;li1lflic:ult:y its :new pt"eeein{,§; with tit
mountttin"s wc;:i.:;;ltit n pen the zrtlimlition €;'.t.1Ll54(;3. ]?l_7<,/ the "l21I"l‘l.llf.,§ of hete-
1'oger1eo1.ts elements, it lt";$ t"onn<.l t.het: men eo tli'lfl"erent in views, tmtl
spirit, cannot .llt*t't‘t1"l0l’llotlfily (30i;ip6;t.I,‘tll(§. And if we s:4l.lot.tlt;l soon eec
the (:lifl'e1'ent pni'tie:~;: forget the s3.nl:)ject of’ elttvety, tmcl telte to 1.'Gl'l)1”l"I1-
ing and eholtisllting G-ItC:l'l other, it ‘Wt'3l.llCl not lot: :1 .‘5l.1‘t.1l'lg‘01“ ClG:Vllt1ll01’1
then" poor lttlnien 1net.nt‘e lies before mettle.

Again, these ‘pro1l'r1iec:u0t,te refoi-thing comhin::t1.i.ons ate besecl on at

false principle of" 1’DO1‘£1Vllly. It fl:E5fit.itl’Jt1€3€~3 that it men may he 1'el.ier.l

on as a permanent helper in 1'efot"ms, in 1‘(L‘ltL1l.‘lO1'] to one sin, when
he needs t‘efo1'n1ing himsellf in relation, it they be, to ell other sine.

iThatysyuoh at mam may by eeenel impulses for at time, play into the
iflihends of the 1'efottne1~e,thz.1t he may practice his other forms of
wickedness, so es to ehincler the one in question, that he may pro-

13

mote the interests of the devil, by some modes of warfare against A
the flesh, cannot be denied. But is a man who is confessedly under

the full sway of depravity, and setting aside the foundations of gos-
pel rnorality,a fit associate to divide with professing Christians, the
influence and responsibilities of a reforming society P If he that
habitually offends in one point, is guilty of all, so that the principle
and root of his morality is shown to be spurious, and all his morality
vitiated in its spring, it would seem to be safe to require, that a man
should profess to go against all sin, before we should hind our influ-
ence together with his in warfare agaitist any sin, and subject our-
selves to a liability to be carried whither he, if men of his character
should get the ascendancy, tnight wish to carry us. ll grant, there is
in every christiaii community, a great amount of conventional moral»-
ity, sustained by selfishness, more or less refined, and which is the
result ofcln*istian inllueiices, only in a secondary sense. But to
seek to avail ourselves of the influence of this morality, by building
a reform society, on principles of sheer selfishness, and confessedly
allowing and eXpect;itig our co»-worlrers to be destitute of christian
rrioti.vos.,  virtually unchrist:i:;u.1inirig the work of reform, and sur-
1‘GIlClGl7l1i“1g our inlluence to the control of anotlier’s scllishness or in-
fidelity. Sol.li.slincss rnay pursue the riglit track for a wliilei; but it
is not safe to shut ourselves in to ride in cars which it propels. Nor
can we safely bind Christianity and Ilntidelity together in one
scheme of philanthropy.

I do not deny that there are many in the community whose mar»
al characters are ezsccillent, and whose influence rnight do much to-
wards these reforms, who yet are not willing, and perhaps not pt‘D-
perly qualified, to prof'ess_ the 1*elig;io11 of Christ. But these promis-
cuous combinations, 'lt‘tV0lV'lI1g‘ a renunciation of the gospehare not
the best way to avail ourselves of their help. They are not the men
to wish us to reject the help of‘ Christ, for the sake of securitig
theirs. Men of the excellent characters supposed, would be far from
Wishing us to open the sluices for the coming in of everything, and

anything, as the way to secure their aid. There are ways enough

for such men to employ themselves, and their influence in upholding

the orderly nninistration of gospel influence, and .followi1ig that. influ— v

ence out to its reforming results. And such men are usually better
pleased with such  co~wot'king' with us, than with a rei'orir1ing rab-
blernent, when it is not their character, but the lax principles of the

14

society that give them a standing in the society. ‘ If men of charac-
ter and seeming good morals, object to working for reform with the
friends of the gospel, because they dislike the gospel, and would
prefer to work on principles that carry them away from gospel in-
fluence, that would show them to be unsafe associates for the friends
of religion. But the conceit that anything is gained with that class
of community, by opening the doors of admission to all sorts of men,
is groundless. More have been repelled and disgusted, than have
been gained.

This principle of combination is further objectionable, inasmuch
as it partakes of the nature of a profession of religion, a profession
of a branch of it at a time, and naturally brings other men into op-
position to those, who profess religion in the gospelvvay. The so»
ciety comes out with a declaration of sentiments, in which all its
members are supposed to agree. And by joining the society, each
one records his profession of the principles involved in this declara-
tion. These principles are claimed to be a part of religion; and
each member stands before the community, as a part of a professor
of religion. Not to insist on the contrariety of this practice to the
gospel, it is objectionable on other grounds. With many whose no-
tions of religionare limited and confused, the zealous and noisy profes-
sion of one branch of morality, serves as a substitute for the practice
of the whole of religion. Being far from the spirit and temper of the
gospel, yet in earnest cooperation with some professing Christians,
in a society that is holding up one limb of christian morality, and be-
ing in a habit of denouncing as time»-servers, all professing Chris-
tians that stand aloof from their society, they are in a, way to fall
into the notion, that their little twig of religion, is better than the
Whole that is professed by others ; and to feel that membership of
an anti-slavery or a moral reform society, is a good substitute for
repentance towards God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.

The injurious results of the abolition combination, which have of
late been a matter of complaint, are not so much the results of a per-
version of the enterprise, as of the combination of elements employed.
The basis of the combination, welcomes the cooperation of all of

 every character, who can subscribe to the one principle of the asso—

ciation, and of course does not hinder the coming in of unprincipled
men. And where the carcass is, there are the eagles gathered to-—
gather. Some are infidels, some haters of the christian ministry,

L3

and would move heaven and earth to overthrow it, some are political
radicals and levellers, some are sighing for the overthrow of govern-
ment, and the introduction of universal anarchy. Some are wishing
to bring in the condition, which the prophet bewails: As for my
people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them.
Into such a combination good men bring their influence, and pledge
it to go where majorities, or the leading minds shall carry it. The
work goes forward, the combination swells, auxiliaries come in by
thousands, the machinery becomes broad and complicate, its ener-
gies for moving the public mind to a desired position here and there
are great. Through the press it commands the opinions of nail-
lions. Yet some one, two, or three minds must, from the necessity
of the case, stand at the helm and give direction to the whole; their
opinions must traverse the minds of the mass, and be echoed by
obedient thousands. Suppose then this great corporation for the
manufacture of public opinion, under the hand of its single director,
or small. board of directors, is in full tide of successful experiment.
its liundrcd agerits are preaching, its publications are ‘flying like the
leaves of Autumn, its converts  coming in by squadrons. Now
when all hearts are seemingly at work, towards their one principle,
it leaks out, that the director has got another end to answer, by all
this machinery, on which his heart is quite as much set, as on the
socicty’s principal end ; and that he has only to put his finger on
this and that spring, to turn his Whole enginery against the christian
rninistry, and make even his clerical associates sustain him and
his engine, in setting public opinion against them and their of——
lice, and make them patronisc publications, in which themselves are
lampooned and traduced. Does not such a case come within the
range of possibility E’ To show it possible, suppose further that the
man at the helm has acquired, as the slcilful pilot of‘ such a ship
naturally would, such a reputation for zeal and wisdom in the great
cause, that his word has become in a sense law, to the less reflect»-
ing and greater part of the society. Suppose the sentiment be-
comes general, “ that he cannot be separated jirom the cause ;” and
suppose he issues a declaration, ea." cat/tedm, that the cause reqmlres
the taking along of other designs. Suppose he gives out that the
christian ministry stands in the way of’ the cause, and must go down,
and that no man can be a true friend to the cause who will not help
to put it down, and who will not say, amen, to every response of the

16

society’s oracle. And suppose that matters are in such a train that
no man can remonstrate against his abuse of influence, without be-
irig visited with denunciations, and treated as an outlaw from the
community of abolitionists. In such a case I think the result sup-
posed is fairly possible. . Say, if you please, it can exist only as a
perversion of the society’s design. Yet it is such a perversion as
might be predicted from the combination of its ingredierits. It is such
perversion as you rniglit expect of the products of your soil, if you
were to mix the Canada thistle plentifully with your seed.

VVhat renders the heterogeneous combination still more unsafe,
is the scope which it gives for the most undesirable characters to
gain the ascendancy. This is in a sense true of all combinations
where christian principle does not prevail. In such voluntary so-
cieties, those who most love to have the preiirnincnce, are most
sure, other tl1‘ings being; equal, to get it. And yet ambitious minds
are not usually the most safe, to be trusted with int:erest.s so vital.
Every community has a p'lentif'u'l sp‘rinl+:ling of  spiriits, who
are watching every movement of the waters, for some current to
bring them into notice. And these promiscuous societies furnish 
fine scope for their peculiar talent and tempers. So, by natural
causes, the worst man will be likely to come uppcrmost,as the froth
finds the surface. Do not understanctl me now, as t1SF3C3l‘l‘l.1'.l.g‘ that
this is actually the case, in 1'e,gartl to the leaders of these societies. I
speak of what we 1T1lgl.1i have had reason to expect, sztyitns; notltinp;
as to what is, and leaving; to those better acquarixnerl, to _j1idfg;e of
that. I know many excellerit men who have coijperatecl with these
societies. But who and what manner of persons are leaders, is not
for me to say. i

Agaiii, this principle of promiscuous combination, in refoiirning
works, is itself’ an absurdity and the parent of absungliities. Such

an infidel. as Thomas Pains and such  Christian as Davicl I3rainerd
, 9 1

compare notes and {ind they agree, as to the way of abolishing
slavery. So they draw up a decilaration of sentiments, and collect
their brethren into a society on its basis. So, when we have this
christiano-«infidel society in operation, we have Brainerd confiding in
Paine’s Christianity, so far as to believe that Paine will do one
christian ‘WOI‘l{ in a christian way. And we have ldaiiie confiding in
Brainerd"s infidelity, so far as topromote this branch of Christianity,
in a way to bring no detriment to infidelity. While the expectations

17‘

of’ both, are the essence of absurdity. And this absurdity, inherent
in the nature of the enterprise, has had some edifying exemplifica-
tions. The abolition society, has presented the spectacle of absur-
dities enough in one man, one would think, to cure an age. But
let me not be understood to speak disparagingly of that individual.
His absurdities I charge to the account of the absurd principle on
which he is working, and so allow all that his admirers claim on the
score of his personal and private character. I have not the happi-
ness of being either one of his personal friends or admirers. But I
will argue av concessis, and guided by report of those who ought to
know him best, I will say, he is an excellent, clean-sighted, upright,
amiable, liberty-loving, unambitious man, endeavoring to do all
things in simplicity and godly sincerity. And then I have a grievous
charge to urge against a set of principles that can turn so much per-
sonal excellence, into such a wreck and maze of absurdities, and
so much natural sweetness into the gall of asps. Nor can I speak
freely of these absurdities as they are, without coming under suspi-
cion of severity. But truth is often severe, and yet she will have
an utterance without respect of poisons. I will then say, that having
started on these absurd principles, he has come (we will suppose un-
wittingly,) into these absurd positions ;——speal<ing from his emi-
nence, he proclaims the christian ministry a_ usurpation, whose
“ overthrow is registered on the scroll of destiny.” Then with the
next breath, he virtually claims to himself the authority of universal
bishop, the real Pontifex Mazmnus. He issues his bulls as from St.
Peter"s chair.» And no bishop"s charge to histclergy, is so specific in
its details, nor so magisterial in its tone. He gives out particular
subjects for preaching and prayers, and puts into the hands of min-

isters all sorts of notices, and proclamations, and enforces his holi- V

ness"s commands, if not by the thunders of the Vatican, yet by the
threats of a tremendous volley of’ public opinion. Next, he will have
it that public prayer is not to be allowed, except when the spirit spe-
cially moves to it, and yet he must have his stated concerts of prayer,
for a specific object, whether the spirit moves to it or not. Next,
all human governments are a usurpation, and to be put down, if se-
ditious preaching and writing can do it ; and then the government is

to be taken under his special guidance, and all true abolitionists,

whose consciences are elastic enough to allow them to go to the
polls, must do what they can to bring legislatures into subserviency
3 I

18

to his views. Next, no sectarianism is allowed to cross over the
threshold of his society, yet discussions in favor of his own sectarian
views, must havea prominent place in his paper, which is the text-
book of Abolitioinists. This paper must by its free-discussion pre-

rogatives, be free for discussion of questions touching his sect, and

yet turn an ear of adamant to all sectarianism. These are speci-
mens of the absurdities, begot by the principle in question. Call
them abuses of the principle, if you please. They are such abuses,
as the principle is the natural father of. Like has begotten like.
Absurdity begets a child in its own image. f

This principle is further objectionable in that it‘ seeks to stop one
issue from the fountain of public depravity,without healing or dimin-
ishing the fountain. It weakens the force of the gospel argument
against sin, by separating it from its connections, and reducing it to
the autlioiitiy of mere human advisement. The gospel must come as a
whole, and in its connections, if we will have it come as the power
of God unto salvation. It must strike at the fountain and root of
sin, and carry a warfare against all sin, if it will do its utmost for a
reform. Division of labor is good in manufactures, but it cannot
be carried far in the matter of preaching. If Paul had gone forth as
an anti-slavery agent, and John as the corresponding secretary of a
seventh commandment society, and Peter had presided in an anti-
idolatry society, and James had undertaken the abolition of despo-
tisms, our modern principles of reform would have had a gospel
warrant. But the gospel itself never would have gone beyond the
walls of Jerusalem. And if that principle should now be universal-
ly acted on, we might expect to outlive Christianity. If that is
the best way to put down one sin, why not the way to put down
all sin? Why not multiply the list of antis till you have lopped
off all the branches, and then attack the trunk, and bring all your
forces into an anti-selfishness society.

Thus I thinlr, I have shown, that this principle of promiscuous
combination, is sufficiently objectionable. And now I would refer
it to the test of experience. And I would put it to my abolition
friends, whether they have not found it a very difficult combination,
to work to their satisfaction, and whether these difficulties are not
chargeable to the way of organization, and to the mixed multitude
with which they have been associated 9

«And now for my second position, which is, that publ7Ic"o_pim3on,, 2

19

whenformed to our wish, is not the best rinstrument of reform. The
main and more immediate object of these societies, is by discussions
and the circulation of publications, to form among, e 72on-sZave/zoZd-
drag commumity, a strong sentiment against slavery. And then to
point the slaveholder to this sentiment, and show him that he must
abandon his sin, or be the object of public indignation. To show
this to be Wrong, recur again to the example of apostles. Isee
them making no dependence on motives drawn from a public senti~
ment of their forming. Their enemies accused them of having
“ filled Jerusalem with their doctrine.” But the apostles never rea-
soned as if the motives to conversion increased in proportion to the

numbers converted. They did not say,—-I-Iere are 3,000 convert- ’

ed on the day of pentecost, and 5,000 more in a few days after, and

‘ multitudes both men and women in a few days more, and you will

have the world against you soon, if you do not repent. They did
not say anything like this: VV have added so many auxiliaries, and
so many members this year, and mean to have so many next year,
and there.f'ore slavery must give way before lone‘. Nothing of that
spirit and design appears in their whole history.

This making public opinion, the motive for conversion, is an
appeal to one of the meanest of passions. It seeks to reform a man
by touching his love of popularity, and his wish to be of the stronger
party. We despise the man who seeks the stronger party in preference
to principle. And yet, by the working of that very meanness, do we
hope to elevate the world from its sins I The apostles could always
say “the weapons of our vvarfare are not carnal.” I grant that re-
spect for public opinion like many other selfisli motives, does in fact
keep many from some unlawful and disreputable indulgences,~———but
not that the reformer is authorized to build on a basis of “sheer selfl-
ishness, not that selfishness is better for refbrnis than gospel motives.

Again, public opinion reformers, do not deal with the sinner’s
conscience. Their principle of action degrades the argument, by
taking it from the conscience, and levelling it at the selfish passions.
It sets the sinner to calculating, which is the least of evils, the giving
up of,his sin, or the incurring of theldisgrace which it will bring. It
says nothing of the sanctions of Gods law, nothing of the principles
of eternal right. It lays the thunders of eternal justice to sleep,
While it isassailing the leviathan by such. missiles as human opin-
ions. The apostles pursued their work by commending themselves

20'

t to every man’s conscience in the sight of God, and not by attempt-

ing to expose their shame to the sight of men. They evidently de-
spised the policy7 aking the Work of conversion easy, by creating a
tide, on the bosom of which the multitude might drift in. They re»
versed the process, and sought to bring in a force of principle, that
could withstand the current and course of this World.

And when sinners are converted by such motives, they are not
morally changed. You have stopped the flow of depravity from
one of its vents, but you have not diminished its quantity. You
have touched the convictions of self-interest, so as to persuade them
that there is a better way of wickedness, but you have not left them
in the sight of God less wicked. It would takemany such conver-
sions to make a millennium. Such reforms deserve not the name of
moral reforms. They have little of the moral about them.

i Again, public opinion when used as the instrument of reform,
is not always a right opinion. It is often tyrannical and absurd
in its requisitions. It was a reforming public opinion, which
enacted the laws against Witchcraft, and frowned upon the juror or
magistrate, who hesitated in their execution. This reformer is too
well known, and has been guilty of too many acts of tyranny, to
have his mandates cheerfully obeyed. Public sentiment, at best, is
but the united and embodied opinion of a mass of men, whose indi-
vidual character comprehends an enormous amount of error and
wickedness. And shall their opinion be the reason and inducement
for me to practice righteousness? Call upon the sinner to forsake
his sins, because pztbltic senzfiment reqmlres it, and his natural reply
is,-——-—“ Who is this public sentiment, that I should obey his voice 9
He has required a thousand wrongs to be done, and I renounce his
jurisdiction.” There is then a more excellent way ; and that is to
reason of righteousness, temperance and judgment to come, and
pour upon the guilty conscience, the concentrated light of the gos-
pel of the Son of God. It hath pleased God by the foolishness of
preaching, to renew the world. And thus far the gospel has been
theinstrument of all the genuine reformations ‘“ and all the true holiu
ness. And it is not for us to set it aside, and attempt by other
means, those reformations which the prophet’s eye foresaw, under
the sytnbolof the angel having the everlasting gospel to preach to
the world. i The promise of God in the gospel, contains all the hope
we have, of i righting the wrongs of a wretched world. Philosophy

21

gives no promise of a mi1Iennium,and philanthropy has no resources
to produce it. But the gospel’s millennium must come in by the
gospel’s means. And we do the gospel great dishonor, as well as
our causea great injury, when we substitute other instruments of
reform. We use carnal weapons, and those not mighty through
God to the pulling down of strong holds. If reformers begin by a
rejection of the gospel, let them for consistency’s sake, cease their
denunciations of gospel ministers, who are slow to join them. The
christian ministry has its platform in the idea that the gospel is to be
the instrument of all needed reformations. Butour reformers hav-
ing abandoned that instrument, for an artificial public sentiment,
a sentiment not derived from the gospel, but one which infidels can
entertain and use as well as Christians, have of course taken an at-
titude of hostility against it. And now shall the enemies of the
ministry be heard in their clarnors against it, because it will not join
their enmity, and help them to put down the ministry and gospel to»-
gether? It is a mistake to suppose that the present war against the
ministry, is a departure from the principles of the abolition combi-
nation. It is a departure from the understanding of those principles,
entertained by the better part of the combination, and an outrage
upon their rights and interests. And. yet it is only the carrying out
of the principles of the association---acting on the assumption that
sinners are to be cot.-irced into tigliteousness, by force of other rnen’s
opinions, and not brought to it by force of gospel truth. This
principle sets aside the ministry. And the next step naturally is to
let loose the dogs of war upon it. Do you still contend that the gos-
pel is not set aside, but expressly recognizzted as an instrument of
the reform in the society’s declaration of sentiments? The ques-
tion is, what part have you assigned to it to perform, after having
filled its place with another agent. If you have decreed the anni-
hilation of slavery by force of public indignation, and rely on the
pulpit to manufacture your thunderbolts, you do not help the matter.
That is a reliance on a pulpit for a warfare against its own design-
We will suppose you come into the solemn assembly, on the Sab-
bath, and propose to d raw out upon the organ, with the assistance of
the choir, the tune of Yankee Doodle. Your suggestion is repelled,
in that it is a profanation of the place, and an insult to the ministry.
But you reply, “ No, it is a very sacred business, and it honors the
ministry, inasmuch as I rely upon your minister, to take the bellows

22

and officiate as organ blower, and I can’t raise a note without his
services to inflate the pipes. And I will denounce him as a time-
server, and an enemy to free discussion, if he does not take hold
and blow at my bidding.” This is a fair illustration of the manner
in which abolitionism relies on the ministry and the gospel.

Again, public opinion societies tend to the cultivation of an un-
christian spirit. I do not charge individuals with actually falling in-
to such a spirit. To how great an extent they have resisted the na-
tural tendencies of their mode of action, is not for me to say. But
if they have put forth their zeal through such channels, and have al-
ways, or generally, preserved the meekness of wisdom, and the
kindness and benevolence which becomes reformers, if they have
been gentle unto all men, free from all bitter denunciations, they
deserve great credit for self-control. Can one go upon hot coals
and his feet not be burned l The ultimate reach of their principle,
touches a bad passion of the human heart. It seeks to ‘coerce men
to do right, by discharging upon them the vials of public indignation.
And in all the agitation and friction of public feeling, needful to ac»
curnulate the charge, the operator is thinking of the result, and how
his antagonist will feel, when the battery comes to explode. This
puts him under strong temptations to contract a bitter and vindictive
spirit. And then such attacks upon the wicked passions of men, are
more likely to awake provoking rescntments, than those which
touch the conscience at the same time, with the passions. And he
who uses gospel motives as the means of persuasion, can more easi-
ly keep himself from reciprocating a bad spirit, and returning railing
for railing. Here if I mistake not is the true explanation of what
has been a mystery to some. After sympathizing with the anti-slave-
ry reformers, they have confessed that they have found themselves,
much under the mastery of a bitter and malignant temper, tending
to a general misanthropy, and have thus been compelled for their
own peace of mind, to break away from the exciting connection.
Such examples may have been few. But I see not how any one
can enter into the enterprise, conducted on such principles, with an
all-absorbing interest,without being revolutionized and spoiled, in the
spirit of his mind. And I look upon those who have been through
unhurt and unsinged, with something of the wonder attached to the
case of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego.

. And whatever of the denunciatory spirit is chargeable upon this

23

class of philanthropists, is owing more to their absorption in a mis-.-_

taken scheme, of producing a millennium by the force of a wicked

World"s opinions, than to any natural asperity of mind. Take the o

design of their society for your premises, and denunciation of all
out of the society is the logical conclusion. This public opinion,
being the all in all, the renovatorof the world, and the remedy for
all its moral diseases, every word uttered against it, strikes the car
like blasphemy. A sort of pious horror is the mind’s natural re-
sponse, to every attack upon that opinion, on which hangs the salva-
tion of millions. “Free discussion” is a charming phrase, and po-
tent to conjure with. But when the favorite public opinion is
touched with a rude hand, it changes itself to rant coeZt.mz! in a
twinkling. An attack upon the world°s last hope is too much to be
endured! He who touches this, touches some sacred. thing, and
makes the whole body of’ bleeding humanity jar and tremble. Here
lies the secret of much of that impatience of contradiction, which
has been complained of in our assertors of‘ the right of free discus-
sion. They have identified the whole interests of God and man
with their scheme, and opposition to it becomes constructive treason
a.ga.inst heaven and earth. And if it be true that some of the most
amiable dispositions, have become spoiled and waspish, by their sym-
pathy with such a cause of benevolence, we need not wonder.
These public opinion societies are further objectionable, from
their tendency to destroy the balance of religious minds, so as to
make the whole of’ religion to consist in attention to one branch of

duty. The principle being admitted, that public indignation against A

sin, is the instrument of reform, there is need of great care in com
oentrating the forces, so as to bring the utmost of the reforming
power upon one point. One sin must be made the object of attack,
and the rest for a time must be in a measure forgotten. There is
need of that economical mode of Warfare, proposed by a redoubta-
ble captain, who with a handful men, was intending to destroy a
whole army, by first challenging twenty men and killing them, then
twenty more and killing them, and so on till he had despatched the

Whole. So our reformers challenging first one sin, and killing that, ,

go in a degree upon the assumption, that the rest of the army of
sins will remain quiet, while they are doing the work upon the one
which they have called out. And they act on the principle, that the
heart of the community must be withdrawn from other concerns

24

in order to put forth its more intense indignation against this sin.
So the solicitudes of each mind enlisted, sympathize in the seeming
wants of the cause, and marshal themselves into a settled habit of
feeling, that this cause for the time being, is everything, and that
all other interests of time and eternity are nothing in comparison of
it. Thus it comes to be felt, that other christian obligations cannot
be answered till slavery is abolished, or till the seventh command-
ment is better obeyed. Now it is superfluous to say, that christian
character in such instances is crippled and maimed. And sad
would be the condition of the church, when her various works of
mercy should be found so at war with each other, that one would
not advance unless the other stopped, and when she must spend her
strength in contending about which shall go first.

These public opinion societies have done not a little, to unsettle

the peace and order of society. That thirst for novelty and profit-- T

less innovations, that reckless agitation, that gaping after wonders,
that encouragement of spiritual quackery which has thrown the
community into a rambling state, is perhaps as much the result of
this, as any other single cause. These societies have beget the no-
tion of making millenniums by steam, and leaving in the back-
ground, all theiagencies which God has appointed for the purpose,
and thus have given a new impetus to restless minds. And he who
wishes to raise a storm for the sake of riding astride its whirlwind,
has only to proclaim himself the herald of some new body of re-
formers, that are just about to put forth their plenipotence and fetch
in a new era. He takes the cars, and forth he goes, scattering his
proclamations, and taxing the wonder and gullibility of the people.
Then close upon his heels another treads, and another, and another
still; and all have something equally new, and equally wonderful. And
thus the public ear is dinned with the jargon of crudities, and false
promises of reform ; and humanity blushes at the disgrace of being
thus driven about, by every gust of wind and chaff. I shall not deny
that there are minds so constituted as to look upon all this, as glorious
times, and to feel that agitation is a good in itself, irrespective of
any good to come from it. But those who love to fish in troubled
waters, are not the best judges of what tends to the public good.

Such a state of things vacates fora time the action of God’s_ap-

pointed means for the salvationof the world,

i r ‘And what is the remedy for all this? Remedy! There canbe .

25

no remedy,while the disturbing forces are kept in action. The
remedy when it comes, (and may the Lord hasten it in his tlme.,)
will be an abandonment of a pernicious principle of action, and a’
return to the use of the gospel. The gospel cannot be heard with
effect, while the doors of its access are thronged and jammed with
officious, foreign and impertinent helpers. If we must do all our

"work through public opinion societies, let us have one more, A GRAND

ANTI-ASSOCIATION socrarv, to save the cause of reform from its
friends, and replace us under the steady action of reforming influ-
ence. If so much froth and foam shall eventually disgust the pub-
lic mind, and create a revulsion in favor of the steady and symmetri-
cal development of divine truth, and a universal conviction that the
world’s salvation must come out of Zion, through channels which
God has opened, the event will justify God’s wisdom in suffering the
disorder for a time. i

Let it become again a settled principle, that the word of life held
forth by the ministry, and the holy example and beneficent action of
the friends of truth and righteousness is the instrument of reform;
let it be seen that the qpuicltened energies and aspirations of the pub-
lic mind after a world’s deliverance, must go out through these
channels, and that those reforming enterprises that draw away the
public heart from these, will fail, then we may talk indeed of the
opening of a new era. Let this plan on which apostles acted, be
adopted, and we shall see again the cooperation of heaven and earth. T
We shall be found workers together with God. The skies will
drop down righteousness. The Spirit of God, whose action gives to
means all their efficiency, but who has retracted his influence, as a
frown upon the severance of the work of benevolence from his ap-
pointed means of benevolence, will renew the showers of his gra-
cious influence. The sighing of the prisoner, and the groans of the ,
oppressed, and the wants of the world, will pleaaand rouse to ac-/7,‘
tion all the energy of philanthropists, in working the enginery of
the established institutions of religion. Necessity will draw philan-
thropists around the gospel, the Sabbath and the ministry, to use
them with ten-fold power, as that which is mighty through God, to
break every yoke. O that the people of God would now come back
to this simple, yet grand idea! and no longer be guilty of the in-

, consistency of proclaiming Christ to be the anointed of God, to
, preach deliverance to captives, and the opening of prison to them

4.»

26

that are bound,-—-—and then silencing his preaching, and seeking de-
liverance by demonstration of human opinions ! Then should we
no longer see the heart of the community diverted from christian
institutions, and wasted upon evanescent schemes.

Having stated my objection to public opinion societies, I will
now meet the strong argument in their favor; and that is, that the
temperance cause advanced well under their auspices. But there is
more of fallacy in this argument than my limits will allow me to ex-
pose. I will present some of the main points. In the first place, even
allowing that all the success of that enterprise is attributable to the
public opinion principle, it would not prove the principle sound and
safe to be used again. Mobs sometimes do a thing good in itself,
yet we dare not trust them as our usual executioners of justice. To
encourage them, is to do evil that good may come. So if the prin-
ciple of reforming by the regulated opinion of the mass of the com—
munity, is bad in itself, one instance of its success would not show
it to be good. it

Now I am free to admit, that there was in the temperance en-
terprise some use of this public opinion principle. But its use was
far less than is now represented, ‘and the benefit reaped from its use
is very questionable. The first impulse was given to the cause, not
by a public opinion society, but by the pulpit and the press, acting
independent of any society. Discussions were had in ecclesiastical
meetings, the preaching of I-Iewit, Beecher and others upon the sub-
ject, and the publication of their productions, roused the general at»
tenticn of ministers to the subject. And by a concert, almost uni-
versal, the ministry lifted up its voice. VVith such a vigor did the
ministry act, that many parishes were shaken by the recoil. No»
thing was more common, than to hear that such and such a minister
was about to be dismissed, for his strong preaching upon intemperance.
Now this was nofithe result of a public opinion society. And when
the temperance societies were formed and the pledges taken, what
was the precise intent 5’ Was it to muster a force of public opinion
against rum-drinking, or was it to prevent the sin, by more direct
means? I grant that a change in public opinion was the result of
the efforts. I grant that the desirableness of such a change as a
means of preventing men from drinking by shaming them out
of it, was used as one of the arguments for effort. I havethe in-

stances now in myieye. But from my own recollections of what _

27

took place in the sphere of my observation,I am convinced that that
argument had proportionally little employment and influence. I
will give my own experience had in the early stages of the work,

and refer it to other ministers, and early friends of the temperance ,

cause, to judge whether it is not a fair sample of the way in which
the work was generally done. As soon asI became convinced, that
entire abstinence from ardent spirits was a duty and the way of re-

form, I prepared a series of sermons on the subject, and preached p

them, while almost the whole of the congregation were in the prac-
tice of’ drinking more or less. Great agitation was the result, but
the opinions of many were changed. Not knowing that I could de-
pend on more than half a dozen individuals to go with me, I invited

' a meeting to form a society, which was done with encouraging

prospects, but amid much opposition. Then the pledge contained
in the constitution was vigorously circulated for signatures, and with
great success. Now for what end did I circulate that pledge. My
purpose was this; I wished to bind those of us who had adopted ab»
stinence, to the practice forever. Then I wished to bring in and
fasten upon it, as many others as possible, in order to keep them
from that moderate drinking, which is the foster parent of drunken»
ness. This was my main object, and this was the most desirable
result. And I lodge the appeal with all competent judges, whether
this was not essentially the way, in which the work was usually be»
gun and conducted.

But if this was the object of temperance societies, to be chiefly
repositories for a pledge, which should bring in individuals and bind
them to practice temperance, their public opinion character disap-
pears. It was a society more to regulate their own practice, than

to influence the practice of others by a show of their opinions. It is '

very true, that when they had put their own practice right, their ex-
ample, rather than their opinions, would naturally tend to embody
an opinion against dram-drinking. The working of such an opinion
would be a collateral result of their action. But the first and main
thing sought, was to get the names of A, B and C to the pledge, in
order to be sure that their own practice should be right. And now
who does not see that this intent was far different from that of public
opinion societies? Say if you please, that a signature to the consti-
tution of an anti—slavery society, “ partaltes of the nature of a pledge

‘ ‘ it p  not to be concerned in slaveholding.” No one will pretend that it is

We ll

28

the main and most immediate end for which such a society is
formed, to induce the people at the north, (not one in a hundred of
whom are ever likely to become slaveholders,) to sign such a pledge
to keep themselves from the practice. The purpose without which
abolition societies would not exist, all must allow, is not to restrain
themselves from yielding to the temptation to become slaveholders,
but to embody their collected influence, to create such a public sen-

. timent here at the north, as shall in some way compel the south to ‘

give up their system. This being the fact, the parallel between the
temperance society and the abolition society, fails in the most mate-
rial point. Its friends and agents, entered into the design common
to public opinion societies, to a very limited extent.

And so far as they did go into it, I think they injured rather
than benefitted their work. We are not to suppose that every ar-t
gument used in all the temperance lectures, was just what it should
be, and fit to be quoted as a precedent in other enterprises. And
my recollections now embrace instances, where this use of the pub»
lic opinion argument was resorted to, and was productive of results
which are now matters of regret.

And to show that this cause did not take its success from public
opinion societies, I suppose it will now be conceded, that barely the
name, and in some instances the form of temperance societies now
exist. The pledge is in use as formerly. But societies having their
vigorous police, and controlled by central powers, and capable like
the abolition society, of being swayed hither and thither by acknow-
ledged leaders, do not exist. VVe have also occasional conventions
of’ the friends of temperance; but we have not a drilled and organ-
ized corps, and yet the temperance cause is now advancing as rapid-
ly as at any former period. If the cause was ever promoted by the
association principle, it is not now, for the energy of’ that principle
has gone from it. Yet it goes on at least with unabated force. Nor
is its present progress owing to a momentum acquired in its earlier
progress. For other and powerful causes are now at work for its
promotion. A mass of the fog which has been wrapped about this
parallel between the temperance and abolition cause, would clear
away, if this simple fact were borne in mind, that temperance socie-

ties always contemplated reforming 'mtm’s prcrcmice, and converting ,

the sinners at our doors, while abolition societies have been seeking
chiefly to change men"s opinions here and send those opinions on a

29

warfare abroad. Then, if we attribute none of the result to the pub- '

lie opinion principle, we have causes enough to account for the fact.

i We have the pulpit acting with vigor, and the press putting forth an

agency of mighty power, but no more powerful than it might other-
wise have been, if it had had no connection with societies. Then
we have had the action and discipline of the churches, and then we
have had the cotiperation of the learned professions, and of en-
lightened and christian legislators. And after these have had their
share of credit, there will be little left for the mob-gospel principle.

The wrecks of other enterprises, based on this public opinion
principle, furnish as strong reasons against the principle, as the suc-
cess of the temperance reform would in its favor, even if we should
allow all that is pretended. Every few years of late, have thrown up
a wreck of some promising scheme, built on this principle. Some
twenty years ago, “ moral societies” came up, as if it were forgot-
ten that the church is a moral society, capable of doing all the duties
proposed by such societies, and that if she were what she should be,
she would need no other, and could devise no better. Then came
up the temperance societies of the old school, to reform drunkards by
giving them an example to show how to drink moderately, that which
was not fit to drink. Then came in the society for promoting the
observance of the Sabbath ; and a better work, and one more need-
ed, and better men to do it, are not to be found. But these and
many more that came up on the same principle, have had their
brief day, and expired. T And from their experience we may gather
new assurance, that Providence will frown upon our virtual though
Ut1ClE3Slg~f1E.*Cl attempts, to draw away interest from the established
means of religion, and that every plant which our heavenly Father
hath not planted shall be rooted up. it is not a little ominous that
few of the public opinion societies, have attained an age even of one
score years. That while benevolent societies have come up, spread-
ing and growing every year, widening the sphere of their beneficent
action, those formed on the other principle, many of them by the
same man, and for the same general design of good will to men,
have in a short time crumbled away. Whose is wise let him ob-
serve this. 

If this abolition scheme is to be given up, you will naturally ask

me, by what means I would propose to answer its end. My an-

swer is a plain inference from the positions which I have labored to

30 t

-establish. If’ we would find the gospel method of reforming slave-
holders, we must take it from the apostles. They went forth among
nations, where slavery existed in its worst forms. In Rome and
most of its tributaries, the slaves as a mass, were more degraded
than the cattle. Being taken as captives in wars, they were made
to bear a load of reproach and vengeance, naturally visited upon
those of a hostile nation. They were unknown as to civil rights and
privileges, subject to every caprice of their master, and liable to be
crucified on a slight exasperation. Now how did the first messen-
gers of the gospel assail the monstrous system? Let us look at
some of the texts. If the requirement to “ remember them that are
in bonds as bound with them,” relates to slaves, and not to persons in
prison for the sake of their religion, the apostles enjoined that prayer
should be made for them especially, as a class of sufferers. They re-
quired also of masters, that they should give to their slaves that
which is just and equal, in view of their responsibility to their mas»
ter in heaven. Of slaves, they required obedience to their masters,
with frequency and emphasis: Servants, obey in all things your
masters according to the flesh. [See Col. 3: 22. Tit. 2: 9. 1 Pet.
2: 18. 1 Tim. 6: 1.] “ Let as many servants as are under the yoke,
count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God
and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing
masters let them not despise them, because they are brethren, but
rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved and
partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. And if
any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even
the Words of our Lord Jesus Christ, he is proud, knowing nothing,
but cloating about questions and strifes of words, whereof’ cometh
envy, strifes and evil surmising.” Thus we see that in their aboli-
tion preaching, the apostles held it of the first importance, that the
slaves should be taught to exercise a christian spirit, and especially
toward christian masters, and they frowned on any teaching that was
of a contrary spirit and tendency. And they recognized the prin-
ciple that in some circumstances, and with limited knowledge of du-
ty in the case, a man might be a christian and a slaveholder. We
here see the preachers of the gospel working against slavery with
great caution, yet with great efi"ect. Not interfering so far as to tell
slaveholders directly that slaveholding did not consist with christian
principles, while they set before them the means of coming at that
knowledge.

31

Paul’s Epistle to Philemon shows us, how he treated this great
question. Qnesirnus,a slave, had absconded from a christian master,
and had come to Paul and had been converted, and Paul sent him
back to his master. He did not expect that Onesimus would be re-
duced again to slavery, or to any form of bondage that would be a
calamity to him. Paul says, “that thou shouldst receive him not
now as a servant, but above a servant, as a brother beloved.” Yet
he would not that the slave should claim the right of freedom, with-
out the consent of his master. And he tool: this ground probably,
to avoid any reproach which would come upon Christianity, by
any seeming countenance given to the idea, that the apostles pro-
posed to unsettle the established relations and institutions of’ ‘civil
society. The measure I understand to be one of christian policy
and prudence, intended for the time being, to evade rather than set-
tle the question of the master’s right of property in his slave. Nor
was there any departure from integrity and christian simplicity in
this evasion of a direct attack upon political abuses. It was just
what is now done by our missionaries in the Sandwich islands, and
just what God has so signally smiled upon. Though some of those
missionaries have thought fit to send over to us advice to a different
course, yet the course which they have pursued with so much suc--
cess, has been just that pursued by the apostles. The ltinp; and
chiefs of those islands have held the whole people in a vassalage, as
complete as that of the slaves in our Southern States. Almost eve-
ry man was a slave, having no acknowledged rights, and no proper-
ty secured to him in anythincr. Yet the first etlbrt of the missiona-
ry was not to strike the arm of the despot and rescue the captive.
But they put into operation a system of means, which by a process
slow, but sure as the ordinances of heaven, will ernancipate the
whole. So the apostles, while they kept back nothing that was pro»-
fitable, and while in general statementsthey brought out all the
great principles of Christianity, even those which when they came
to their full hearing, would cut up slavery by the roots, they exer-
cised discretion as to the manner and time of’ following particular
principles out to their details. They used first those parts of chris-
tian truth, which with an eye on eternity as well as time, they saw
to be most needed, and most suited on the whole to be useful. If
they had been so situated, that a direct attack on slavery, a sin like
idolatry, not directly hindering the efiect of the gospel, would bring

32

upon all christian efibrt the odium of seeming to preach the gospel
for the purpose of exciting the slaves to blood and carnage, they
would have been wanting in wisdom if‘, leaving more important and
less offensive branches of the truth, they had risked their whole suc~
cess in attacking political power. They failed not of rightly divid-
ing the word of truth, and of declaring the whole counsel of God.
But they used wisdom in choosing the points of attack, in warfare
against public wickedness. Here did they blend the wisdom of the
serpent with the innocence of the dove, because they stood as sheep
in the midst of wolves. V
If this be not the motive of their conduct, let any one suggest a
more probable one. Paul either sent the slave back. to his master,
saying “ without thy mind would I do nothing,” for the sake of
avoiding reproach to his cause, or did it and many other like things,
for some reason which to me is wholly inexplicable.
If we go through the writings of the apostles we find no place
in which the duty of emancipation is specifically inculcated. We
find the religious rights and equal christian privileges of the slaves
insisted on. But in all their treatment of the subject, we never find
the apostles come in express collision with the interest of the mas»
ters; never exciting the discontent of the slave. But are we to in-
fer from this, that they had no eye to see the wrongs endured by
the slave P By no means. In no instance does a word escape
them, which can fairly be construed into an approval of slavery;
or to countenance the pretensions of slaveholders. They put forth in
generals the principles, which were sure to annihilate slavery, and
then cautiously abstain from everything which can for the time prop
it up. i .
But why, you will ask, should these apostles going forth to war
against all sin, avoid a direct encounter with one sin of such mon-
strous dimension, as that of slavery, meeting them as itdid at every
turn? I conceive they acted on the same principles that Christ did,
when pressed with thequestion whether it were lawful to give tribute
to Caesar, and when if he answered either way, he must offend
either the Jews or the Romans, without benefitting either. He
therefore returns the question unanswered, by telling them to “ Ren-
der unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” So the apostles
acted. i They had their hands full, without a battle with the govern-

ment ionathe subject of slavery, and civil despotism. They leftithe,

t 33

limiting of political evils, to the gradual’ working of the spirit
and principles of the gospel. They exhorted Christians to obey

magistrates, though they bore a commission from Nero; and of 

course they did it, Without an approval of N ero"'s despotism. , They
exhorted slaves to obey their masters, without an approval of the
,master’s claim. They knew that that claim conflicted with the
spirit and elements of the gospel, and that when the gospel should
come to have sway, slavery would crumble before it. So, all
things considered, they chose to commit this reform to the more in-
direct action of the gospel. Slavery did not, like idolatry, stand so
in the way of their work, that a man could not be a slaveholder and
a Christian, in the same sense that a man could not be an idolater
and a Christian. And as their object was to gain ascendancy for
the gospel, without becoming casuists for every enemy of the gospel,
they courted no conflict with this, and many other branches of pub-
lic wickedness. _

But after all, did they do nothing to forward the work of emancipa-
tion P Did they put in motion no influences, and publish no sentiments
that were effectual against it? Look again at what they did publish.
They required masters to render to their slaves that which is just
and equal. And to show what was just and equal, they gave them
the golden rule. These two rules put before an honest, enlightened

and christian conscience, would do the work. Would do it? Nay, ,

have done it. Just in proportion as their religion with their spirit
progressed in the Roman empire, the reign and rigors of slavery re-
ceded. When again slavery came in, in a new form under the
feudal system, by means of Europe’s changing its proprietors, by the
influx of the barbarians, Christianity, weak and sham of its pristine
energies as it was, operated in many Ways for the relief of the vas-
sals; till in connection with other causes, it wrought their deliverance.
Look now over those European kingdoms, and where is that colos-
sal system of slavery? Twice since the days of the apostles has
Christianity virtually cleared those kingdoms of the curse, and that
by a process so silent, that history can scarcely tell us how and
when. Since the day of the anointing of the Herald of our Salve»
tion, to preach deliverance to captives, the work of dissolving the
bands of the slave has been in progress. And though the monster
has been laying his grasp on new territories, Christianity has fol-

lowed him up. Strange as it may seem, while over the whole

5

34

northern half of the states of this confederacy, the right to hold men
in bondage was acknowledged by the laws, and while New Eng»
land capitalists were growing rich by the internal slave-trade, while
abolition societies did not exist, the power of the system was tneltit'ig
away, and has now retired from the most powerful states of the
Union.

These statements will lead to my views of the lit mode of action,
for expelling slavery from our country. I regard slave-holding as a
sin, and I hope to see it washed away by that fouritain which is open
for sin and uncleanness. I rely on the gospel to do the work, so
far as any moral means can do it, and I know not by what other
means Providence will work. I would not say that preachers of the
gospel should carry their message among; slaveholders in this court»
try, with all that studied caution and indirection which characterized
the anti-slavery ipreacliing; of apostles. Because the circumstances
are changed, I should be in favor of all the direct and specific ac-
tion which in view of the circumstances would be wise. Yet I
would insist on the same principles of action, regulating the conduct
by circumstances. But be the circumstances what they may, I
should have no hope of effecting at all by moral means, what can»
not be e1‘I'ected ‘by the legitimate powers of the christian ministry,
and the distribution of’ christian influences. I would base my sys-
tem of reform, upon Christ and him crucified. And with gospel in
hand, I would go forth among slaveholders just as did Paul, seeking
to make Christians of all, masters and slaves. I would not close up
the avenues to conviction, by declaring that I came for a specific
purpose, and by writing “ ctbolition-ist ” on my forehead. Indeed, I
would go for no szrcfz specrgi/(Tc: pznjposa. The separation of this pur-
pose from the other and greater ends of Christianity, is the radical
error of‘ the system, to which I object. It is this which disqualifies
abolitionists from preaching the gospel to a community of slaveholcl-
ers. ‘With the whole gospel open, and seeking to bring every one

‘away from all sin, I would have my abolition agents go in no other

cha_racter- than that of the ministers of Jesus Christ, knowing “ no-
thing but Jesus Christ and him crucified ;” yet setting forth princi-
pies, and putting into action a spirit, before which slavery will flee
away as if chased by the breath ofheaven. ‘

You will perceive then that I‘ plead for a system of‘ anti-slavery

action, that sends its agents right in among slaveholders, and one

 

35

that does not begin by closing all access to them, by assuming a
hostile attitude. And those abolitionists who tell us that they can-
not tread on the slaveholder’s territory without a sacrifice of life, tell
usthat they have begun at the wrong end, and disqualified them-
selves from’ using the grand engine which God has constructed for
the work. Those who insist upon reforming slaveholders by a sys-
tem of bombardment, and throwing explosive missiles from a dis-
tance, may see the contrast between their system and that of the
apostles, who threw themselves into the bosom of the most cruel
system of slavery that ever cursed the earth, or blanched the
cheek of heaven. And they must either say that the apostles were

. not true abolitionists, and that the gospel sanctions slavery; or that

desiring abolition, they did not know the way to attain it.

A community of slaveholders are by the necessity of the case,
but imperfectly evangelized. When they become thoroughly evan-
gelized they cease to be slaveholders. Then we have nothing to
do, but go and evangelize them. This is the best way to emanci-
pate their slaves, as well as to save their souls. Let then ministers
of the gospel be sent thither by thousands, carrying the spirit of
Christ, and not the badges of a party, seeking the conversion of
slaves and masters, not to a time~serving religion, but to those great
principles which work deliverance to captives. Let all the noble
aspirations of the community after the consummation of universal
freedom, be turned into this channel, and soon our country will be
purged of her fbulest blot, and present the spractacle of her enslaved
millions, walking forth, not only with all the immunities of citizens,
but with all the dignities of‘ sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty.

This exclusive reliance on the gospel, to do what moral means
can do for emancipation, does not exclude the action of philanthro-
pists, in the colonization scheme. That is a cause of benevolence,
whose cluirns are supported by grounds, independent of its influence
on emancipation. And that many emancipations are to proceed
from it indirectly, I cannot doubt. Yet were I called upon to act,
exclusively as a reformer and attack slavery as a sin, [ must come
at it from other positions and with gospel rebukes. Yet I have al-
ways been in a habit of indulging strong hopes of good to come to
the colored race, both here and in Africa, from this benevolent
work. I know that grievous things have been laid to its charge.
But I know of no evil that it has produced, except that without in«=

36

tending it, it gave birth to the abolition movements. The father of
abolitionists served his apprenticeship under this society, and began
his career as colonization lecturer. But we have the best as-
surances that colonizationism intended no such thing, and that this
is one of those unfortunate incidents to which every good cause is
liable. And if,as is alleged by some, this scheme is guilty of
being patronized by some, who hope by its means to make slave
property more valuable and permanent, it is capable of the best
proof that itwas originated for no such purpose, that most of its
friends now patronize it for no such purpose, and that it effects no
such purpose. , And if it be true, that it is favored at the South by
the friends of perpetual slavery, and at the North by the enemies of
slavery, this fact is balanced by a similar one. It is opposed at the
South by the most uncompromising slaveholders, and opposed at the
North by the great body of abolitionists. So in two ways it makes
friends of Herod and Pilate, and brings the antipodes together. And
I am no more bound to believe it favors slavery because some slave»-
holders think so, than the abolitionist is bound to believe it favors

emancipation, because some slaveholders think so. It has certainly .

been the occasion of emancipating thousands; and that is more than
can be said of all our abolition societies. And in that I will rejoice
as a good result, in spite of the theories of those, who think it not a
good way of eniancipatirig. For myself, I would prefer a migration
to Africa, before a state of slavery in this country, and before the
happiest condition possible for the free negro in this country ; and I
would do by others as I would by myself.

I am aware that the colonization society is charger] with making;
expatriation the condition of emancipation. But that cltarge is
framed on the assumption that the colonization society and the whole
body of slaveholders are so in partnership, that each is responsible
for the acts of the other. After the laws of the slaveltolding states

‘ had made emancipation impossible without emigration, the coloni-

zation society comes in, and otfers them the means of i emigration.
Further than this it does not go. It furnishes neither a temptation,
nor a pretext for masters to compel their slaves to emigrate.

This isophisrn is a parallel for that which forbids us to purchase
the freedom of a slave, because we therein acknowledge the master’s
right of property ;-—--—-and so makes it out that the Redeemer who

purchased our redemption for us, in that act gave his sanction to our

bondage.

37

But you tell me every instance of emancipation by colonizing,

serves to enhance the price of slaves and confirm the institution. i

Well then, cease to lay your hands on every fugitive slave that
comes to the North, to prevent his return. i It is rumored that regu-
lar lines of abolitionists are formed from the slave states to Canada,
for the safe transmission of’ fugitive slaves. And We do not depend
on rumor for the fact, that abolitionists are fbrward to secure the
rescue of slaves travelling at the North. I mention this not to their
reproach, but to show a piece of inconsistency. Pray tell us, Why
does making one slave less by send-ing him to Africa, enhance the
price of slaves and confirm the system, when the emancipating of
one to send to Canada or Boston, does not affect the price of slaves P
If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast
them out P If you must insist on such an argument, abide its conse-
quences, and say that another slave must not leave his bondage for
Africa or any other place, till all are prepared to go, and say that is
what immediate emancipation means.

Another of’ the colonization sins, is the sending away of the
blacks out of a prqjud-ice of color. That such a prejudice of color
exists, and is productive of much wrong and more sorrow, few will
deny. But how is the colonization cause responsible for it? What
are its tangrihlc acts? This is none of your public opinion societies.
'.l.‘he whole desigrt of its ezszistence, is not embodied in a declaration
of sentiments, so that it is to be approved or condemned according
to the supposed soundness of sentiments put forth by its agents.
Abolitionists have judged it according to their own standard and
mode oi’ action, forgettirig that they act by opinions, and the coloni-

rtation society. by deeds. This mistake has engendered a world of

vituperation. It has been assumed, that the colonization society has
a creed for which all its members stand responsible, and cart-loads
oi‘ pamphlets and papers have been ransacked, to cull some mon-
strosities of‘ the colonization creed. But as this society does not ex-
ist for the proiesseti purpose of rectifying the world’s opinions, by
l)x'inging them to the standard of its own,and is not the receiver and
dispenser of aggregated opinion, it matters not as to its purpose,
what the opinions of the members may be. I-Ienry Clay"s opinions
may have influence for good or bad, but that influence is not the
property nor the reproach of the colonization society. Judge Wil-
keson’s opinions may be right or wrong, but the society do not

38

stand approved or condemned by them. And so of‘ the opinions of
the executive board of the society. A public opinion society is re-
sponsible for opz'.m'.o72.s', but a society that proposes only ACTS of be-
neticence, must be judged by the deeds done by its body. The
question is, VVhat is the society Dome? Is it doing a good work E‘
yea? or no? If a good Work, is it doing it on bad principles, so
that the result must be bad in the end P The badness of the princi-
ple and tendency,I have not been able to perceive. I see no harm,
that is to come from taking two thousand people out of the house of"
bondage, and giving them freedom and a home in one of the fairest
portions of the world. And I will not say, that if I cannot have the
emancipation of the whole two millions at once, I will not have any.
My views of slavery are such, that I go for emancipation in any
peaceable way. Give us immediate emancipation of all, it‘ you can
get it. Give us emancipation irnrnediate or gradual, without colo-
nization, if you can get it ; or if not, get it by colonization as fast 
you can. Liberty is worth all it costs to the colonized, and while
abolitionists insist on having no emancipation but what  immediate,
if it do not come these hundred years,I would prefer to gatlier what
crumbs of emancipation we can by the way.

Recur again to what the colonization scheme is doing. It has
occasioned discussion in the slaveholding states which, if it had not
been arrested by the abolition movement, would before this, ave
resulted in effectual emancipation measures, in the legislatut'es oi"
the border slave states. It now is the only cause in connection with
which, emancipation measures can be ‘Freely discussed at the south.
It is now scattering silent influences, here and there, for conviction
of the sin of slaveholding. Instances constantly occ11t'ring;, of‘ the
slave being offered and snatching his freedom, as a precious boon,
though encumbered, if you please, with the condition of'goirip; to Afri»
ca, is demonstration to the conscience of the slaveholder, that slave»
ry is an evil. It is a sort of practical proof’, that must work with
more power, than eternal vollies of arigry declamation .cliscltar,tjed
from the North. And then while the good achieved by Abolition-
ism, is invested in fancy stocks of public sentiment, the fruits of’ the
colonization scheme can be shown to the eye, in tltriving christian
colonies, on just that spot of ground in all the earth where they are
most needed, and where they give the most promise of good. Nor
is this work of colonizing without honorable precedents. The He-

39

brews’ deliverance from Egyptian slavery was by colonizing. So
also was the deliverance from the Bahylonish captivity. Carthage,
the rival of Rome, sprang from a colony. Rome had a like origin.
Europe changed the masters of all its nations by colonies from the
North. Mahomet spread his dominion mainly by colonizing the
conquered countries. New England, and all these states grew
front the most slender colonies. Look upon that shattered frag-
ment, that forlorn hope of a colony, laying the foundations of em-
pire amid December’s frosts on the Plymouth rock, and then sneer
again at the more hopeful colony of Liberia. The American conti-
nent took its whole population from colonies. And indeed, what na-
tion on earth did not? How did the race go from Noah’s ark, and
plant themselves where they are, without colonizing? Colonizing
then is not such a strange and horrible affair; and we trust will ere
long do for Africa, what it has done for America. In its beginning,
it has been more auspicious there. It has eltected the settlement of
5,000 emigrants, one half of them having been slaves emancipated
for the purpose, the banishment of slave ships from 200 miles of
coast, the rescue of hundreds of the slavers’ victims, the establish-
ment of schools and churches and presses and all the enginery of a
christian commonwealth. It has won its way to confidence, in spite
of abuse trained and persevering, so that the otters of’ emancipation
are far in advance of its means of’ transporting. And after cletrac-
tion has done its worst, it is now coming up to a stronger hold on
the affections and patronage of the people. Wliile predictions of
its failure have seasoned abolition speeches, it has been growing, and
new presents a constellation of little infant states, under a regular
politicaiconstitution ; andiits commerce even now has a place on our
marine lists, and it employs about twenty coasting vessels. And
soon at this rate or advance, the ease of transportation will be as
great as that between this country and Ireland. And if new with»
out benevolent aid, 100,000 emigrants can find a passage here from
Europe every year, it is not visionary to expect, that with benevo-
lent aid, and perhaps with the aid of the national and state govern-
ments, African colonization may go forward, even faster than that,
and thus make some impression on the destinies of both this country
and Africa. . A

And now let the tables be turned a moment. .We have heard
the question as to colonization: lWhat do theselfeeble Jews? If

«'10

even a feat should go upon their stone well, he would hreek it down.
And now, what do these abolitionists? "What lteve their ntlghty
~seheme, and their spttemodie e=_:'l‘lbrts e‘flhetecl P 5:30 n“n=1r'ty years they
have been at work, end what have they clone? On VVltL1lSt;:t£tl.€3
shall we measure their results? Sltdll we est.im.:tte them by the
numhe1' of members collected wltlgtin tlleir societies? the amount of
funds raised P the reams of pttper p1‘intet;fil. nncl eenttere<:l? the num-
ber of agents employed and epeeeltes nmcle P But. tltie is only the
1nec,l1inet'y and z1ppz,11'z‘tt;ns etnployecl ; w'he'1:'e are the results .7’ wlttere
are the ernanci.p::ttier1sP In the W'eet l.ncli<:2e? ':[‘t'1Ll(f;3, but not hy
means of our el;)elltiot'tiste, zmcl tltelr 11>ri1:1ciple.~3c>F z;u::.tion. Tl'no.~3e
6mt111Cl[T)ttti0t71S"Were etileetetl by prinzziples which (L‘.(L)m(L‘ ‘in the very
teeth of our ahollthbniste. Tltey were gmcluttl enteneipztt;lene., pur—
clmsed by the .g0ve1‘1‘nnent ; :;tn::l no influence fl‘C)t"I”l tl'ti:=s eountry lm(:l
the weig;;l'1t of a feetlter in efl'eeL'ing them. I ttslt, tthen Ltgzxin, where
are the fruits of so much abolition lz1borP Do you Z;lt’]E53W(;I‘., in
changes of people’s opinions re:-:«:peet'ing' s:.lave1*y£’ lf any e.ltttxtt11gt::e
on the whole, favorable to €:tT1£tl1Cl[)E1tlOIJ, have eerne about hy the
means, I cannot see them. And has all this noise amcl etl'0rt been
made, and has it resulted in mere d.oubtf'ul Cl]a[’lgt3S of cxpininn, an
‘opinion which ltas not eff'eet.ecl one emenctipatien? G'ecn'ge Theme»

son, when in this eetrntry, told us thett in five yezstrs that syetem of

tneane would do the work! How long is it einee that pr<:>pl‘xeey
was made P and is it clone ? or nearly e0 P Partu7~z'.-um mm2.l.es n,a.9c»i.ltm"
?“‘?l(Il’I:Cttl1tLS mus. We ask where are the fruits of so mnclt lalmr, ex-
pense, and clerangentettt of the peace of eociety, and £‘2C:l”1O t',tl.'1SVVE31‘.‘$,
Wtteee ! 

emit).  tl