against the motives of the Board. "We have not seen," says he, "the Board charged with any fraud or corrup tion." We hope the reader will note this concession.

We continue the quotation; "Nay, more, in the public address of the Convention, it is charged rather indirectly, perhaps, but very intelligibly, that the Boston Board designedly assumed the power complained of, at a period when the aggrieved thousands of Israel had, as it now appears, no practical remedy." p. 483. And again, "In preferring this charge under the circumstances, we know not how the Southern Convention can escape the responsibility of having knowingly and deliberately preferred a groundless and unjust accusation." p. 493.

This is surely a "most grave and serious accusation, and when made against the venerable President of the "Convention, and the reverend ministers of the gospel his associates, we confess it seems to us, to say the least of it, "to be made with a recklessness and disregard of character, for which the occasion can furnish no justification or excuse." p. 483. But let us candidly examine the charge. In the first place, the address was published, not by the Convention, but by a committee of the Convention. This plainly appears from the face of the Minutes. A committee was appointed to prepare and publish an address to the public; but they made no report to the Convention. The following is the passage on which the charge is based. "We pray our brethren and all candid men to mark the date of this novel rule"-the rule excluding slaveholders from office-" the close of the first six months of their three years' power, a date at which the compromise resolution could scarcely have reached our remotest mission stations. If usurpation had been intended, could it have been more fitly timed ?—an usurpation of ecclesiastical power quite foreign to our polity. Such power was assumed at a period when the aggrieved thousands of Israel,' had, as it now appears, no practical remedy." In this quotation from the committee's address, there is no direct charge of intentional usurpation on the part of the Board. The Reviewer admits that "it is charged rather indirectly, but," as he thinks, "very intelligibly." We admit the language will bear the construction placed upon it by the Reviewer, but it is a mere and uncertain inference. It was, we presume,

hastily penned, and not carefully guarded in its expression; and judging from the tone and spirit of the Minutes of the Southern Convention, and the known moderation. of the members of the committee, we are of opinion that no such implication as that charged was designed.

How fine an illustration is furnished by the apologist of the Board of the old adage, “The circumstances being altered alters the case." When the Southern Convention spoke of the act of the Board, without the slightest imputation on the integrity of their motives, he is offended, because there is "no charitable suggestion of innocence of motive, or mistake, or misapprehension, or any thing tending to mitigate the offence.' But the case is altered. The committee of the Southern Convention pen a sentence from which it is inferred that they designed to charge the Board with intentional usurpation. And does the Reviewer charitably suggest "innocence of motives, or mistake, or misapprehension, or any thing tending to mitigate the" supposed "offence?" Does he show himself to be very tender of reputation? Far from it. He charges, not merely the committee, who drafted and published the address, but, as we charitably suggest, through mistake, the whole Southern Convention with "having knowingly and deliberately preferred a groundless accusation." Oh, for more of that charity, both in the North and South, which "thinketh no evil!"

Now in the face of this accusation, we feel ourselves inclined to do justice to the Boston Board. We know them well, and love them, because we know them. They are good and wise, but not infallible men. They were tried under circumstances peculiarly embarrassing. They were called to steer the mission ship amid conflicting winds, and dangerous currents. They erred, as we think, in consulting expediency rather than equity-and looking to the results of their measures, rather than the constitution. It is to be hoped that the Reviewer claims for them a power, which they never claimed for themselves. At any rate, we doubt not, they conscientiously believed that their decision, in reply to the Alabama resolutions, would promote the cause of missions. render cheerful homage to the Board for what they have done in this good cause. We cannot, and will not, withhold the expression of our gratitude and praise for years

of faithful toil, for a single act which we disapprove. Long, diligently, anxiously, and without remuneration, did they direct the missionary enterprise. The whole Baptist denomination gave them credit for their discretion, disinterestedness, and devotion to the work of missions. Their labors are recorded in heaven, and the saving influence of their efforts has been felt in the remotest parts of the earth. Far be it from us to abate one jot or tittle from the honor so well earned by the members of the Acting Board, with the venerable President at their head. Here we would gladly stop; but our work is not quite finished.

On p. 489, we read, "It is said the South stands on an equality with the North. Be it so, and what then? It is then said, that on the ground of that equality, the South has a right to require the appointment of slaveholders as missionaries. But what right has the North equal, or parallel to this? Has the North a right to dictate to the Board to appoint a non-slaveholder, or not to appoint a slaveholder? By no means. Neither North nor South can direct in this matter. The whole appointing power is committed to the Board. Surely, then, it is not equality which the South claims, but supremacy; the right of dictation and control." The South never claimed, and no portion of it ever claimed, that slaveholders should be appointed as missionaries, irrespective of their qualifications. They did claim that the Board should not put a mark on them, and exclude them from the possibility of appointment. And had the North no right, parallel with this? Had they no right to demand, that non-slaveholders should not, as a class, and irrespective of their constitutional qualifications, be proscribed from office? The North knew that the Board would appoint anti-slavery men; and we know, and the Reviewer knows, and the Board know, that the North would not have yielded for a moment the right to appoint such men. The South modestly desired to know whether, as they had some reason to suspect, slaveholders were a proscribed class; and this we are told, was a demand not of "equality, but supremacy; the right of dictation and control."

In the address of the committee this language is used. "The constitution we adopt is precisely that of the origi

VOL. XI.-NO. XLI.

12

nal union." The Reviewer remarks, "This statement is not correct, and it is surprising that it should have been made." p. 495. It is not, indeed, in a rigorous sense correct; but for all the purposes of information it is correct. It was based on the same principles, was formed for the promotion of the same objects, its terms of membership, and its periods of meeting are the same; in a word, its dress is changed, but its body and spirit are the same.

We will listen again to the Reviewer. "The allegation that this Board undertook to declare that to be a disqualification, in one who should offer himself as a missionary, which the constitution had said should not be a disqualification,' is absolutely and wholly untrue." The committee stated what they conceived to be the meaning of the constitution. By fair implication it declares that holding slaves shall not be a disqualification in one offering himself as a missionary. We will, however, take the liberty of changing the expression. The Board undertook to declare that to be a disqualification, which the constitution had not said should be a disqualification. The wise framers of the instrument declared, not expressly, but with a clearness which a child may understand, that the lack of piety, good talents, and some other things, shall be disqualifications in persons offering themselves as missionaries; and the Board, in the plenitude of their power, have so amended this article of the constitution, as to declare that slaveholding also shall be a disqualification.

We quote once more from the Review: "If the South must cling to and cherish slavery, in preference to every thing else, and had assigned as the reason of her withdrawal, that the conflict of opinion on that subject has become so strong and violent as to render a continuance of the union painful and inexpedient, we certainly should not have controverted the soundness or sufficiency of the reason." p. 487. The supposition, in this extract, implies a grave slander on the South. I would charitably suggest the innocence of the writer's motives; but assuredly the South, (by which term the author means Southern Baptists,) does not "cling to and cherish slavery, in preference to every thing else." Slavery has been inherited by her; it clings to her; she feels it to be a burden and a curse; and gladly would she get rid of it, if

she could do so, without inflicting greater mischiefs than those which she would attempt to remove. Such, at least, we believe to be the sentiments of a large majority of professing Christians and considerate men in the South.

The separation has taken place. Posterity will judge of the matter, and lay the responsibility where it ought to be laid. At any rate, we must all soon appear at a tribunal where no sophistry can deceive, and no partiality pervert judgment. In view of this solemn reckoning, the best of us have great cause to exclaim, "Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servants." Henceforward, let

there be no strife between the North and South. We are brethren. Our interest is one and indivisible. Entertaining similar views of the kingdom of Christ, we should vie with each other in labors and sacrifices to extend and perpetuate it.

A SOUTHERN BAPTIST.