Part 3

1. That in accordance with the New Testament doctrine upon which the Association was founded, and by which it has from the beginning been governed, that God has made of one blood all the nations of men, we reiterate the rule, which we believe that fidelity to Christ requires, that all our churches and schools shall open their doors impartially to persons of every class, race and color.

2. That in obedience to the same New Testament doctrine, we shall require that all churches aided by us shall unite with neighboring churches of the same faith and order in Christian fellowship in the same conferences or associations, and in church councils, and in other usual means of fraternity and fellowship, making no distinctions on account of race or color.

3. That this Association will not enter upon any new church work in any city or town where the American Home Missionary Society has already established a church work, without previous conference with the officers of its sister society.

* * * * *

The American Home Missionary Society is taking steps to enlarge its work in the Southern States. Recent statements and inquiries having been made which show a misapprehension, on the part of some, of the methods of its work in that part of the country, the Executive Committee deem it proper to state: That the American Home Missionary Society still adheres to its long-established usage in declining to aid in the support of a missionary to serve any church, whether in the South or North, which refuses to receive to its membership any applicant, solely on account of color. That it still expects, as it has from the beginning, that any church, wherever situated, that receives its aid in supporting a minister, will unite with the association, convention, or other ecclesiastical body of the denomination within whose bounds he is appointed to labor; and by participating in councils, conferences and other customary gatherings for mutual help and edification, will show its Christian fellowship with other Congregational churches. And that, in case of proposals to form or aid churches in cities or towns where the American Missionary Association has organized missionary operations, this society will not enter on such work without first corresponding or conferring with its sister association.

A MISTAKEN POLICY.

BY REV. W. HAYNE LEAVELL.

This is my deliberate conviction, based upon such knowledge of the Southern People as comes from the fact of having been born and bred among them, and from my observation among the more cultivated families that go there from this region.

You will permit me to say, therefore, that in my judgment the proposed policy of our societies is a mistaken one. Most of the reasons that influence our brethren who guide the policies of these missionary organizations I have considered, and largely sympathize with their spirit; and if the plan were practicable, I would see no Christian reason why it should not be carried out. But if we desire to secure a foothold for Congregationalism among the respectable white people of the South, and enlarge our borders in that direction, we must adopt the only policy that will gain this end, and have churches composed predominantly, if not exclusively, of white people, as well as churches composed mainly of black people for the blacks.

We may argue against caste in the churches of Jesus Christ, and resolve that we will not be a party to its perpetuation anywhere under the sun. Very well, then we must not hope for a successful propagation of our denominational principles among the ruling classes of the South, for they will not enter into church relations with the colored people. After the churches are separately organized, and while they are separately maintained, they will affiliate in associations and conventions, but the limit will be drawn at the line of the church. However unrighteous, this is a stubborn fact—and anybody who has good knowledge of the Southern character will know that it is to remain as stubborn for all time to come.

Mixed churches among us, where colored people are comparatively few, and in the South, where colored people are so numerous, are very different things. For among us the predominant element in the churches will remain predominant, and it is an easy matter for 500 white Christians to associate with five of another race and color. But for 250 white Christians to associate in churches on equal terms with 250 “colored” Christians is another, and by no means a comfortable thing. Before the war, negroes and their masters were in the same churches and enjoyed the association, but the negroes sat in the galleries, and in other ways were not put upon an equality.

WHO SHALL WORK SOUTH?—THE QUESTION STATED.

BY REV. L. W. BACON, D.D.

A gravely important and difficult question as to the future policy of the Society (A. H. M. S.) was submitted in behalf of the executive. It was one technically within the competency of the executive to decide, but too important to be so decided, without larger counsel: Shall the Society’s system of operations with missions and superintendencies be extended over the Southern States? In favor of this measure are urged (1) the desire to make the field of the Society’s work co-extensive with the nation; (2) the duty we owe to white people, as well as black, at the South; (3) the alleged demand for the Society’s aid to communities of Congregationalists who have moved to the South. Against it are (1) the measureless inadequacy of the Society’s present or probable resources for the urgent instant demands of its present field; (2) the wastefulness of organizing and supporting a second system of superintendencies over the field already occupied by the superintendencies of the American Missionary Association, and the chances of friction or collision between the two systems; (3) the impossibility of drawing any line of demarkation between the two systems of missions on the same ground, except a color line: the emphasizing of the color line, in the most obtrusive and offensive manner, not only by two orders of missionaries, one to whites and one to blacks, but by two orders of mission churches, one for black people in which whites shall be tolerated, and one for white people where blacks shall be tolerated with not so much as a common superintendency to co-ordinate them; and thus the danger of indelibly fixing the color line, fortifying it by new vested interests, and defeating any kindly tendency toward the effacing of it from the Christian Church. Such considerations as these led the congregation (we can hardly say the Society), after deliberation and debate, and especially after the very able speech of Mr. Blakeslee, to decline committing itself to this great and not easily revocable step, and to leave it for a year’s consideration, and though a later and less considerate vote was obtained in a form which seemed to throw doubt upon this decision, nevertheless the reluctance toward the new policy was of such a weight and character that a prudent executive may be trusted to keep it in view and move with caution, in a matter that does not press for instant action.

_The Advance._

A QUESTIONABLE PROCEDURE.

BY REV. HORACE BUMSTEAD, D.D.

The American Missionary Association and the Am. Home Missionary Society have both announced their purpose to enter upon enlarged church work in the South. Is it not questionable whether it is best for the Home Missionary Society to enter the Southern field at all? Does that Society propose to do the same broad work for all races and classes which the A. M. A. aims to do, and in good measure has done? If so, why duplicate missionary machinery for this region? Or is it proposing to do a work less broad, and if so, are its friends ready to support it in so doing?

_The Congregationalist._

THE OHIO IDEA.

RESOLUTION OF CONGREGATIONAL CONFERENCE AT AKRON.

WHEREAS, During the past twenty years the work of the Congregational churches for the needy millions of the South has been performed in a manner that is fast winning the respect and sympathy of all classes; first, by its being based upon Christian needs without too evident attention being paid to denominational advantages; second, by its uncompromising fidelity to Christian principles in respect to the spirit of caste;

_Resolved_, That we, the members of the Congregational Association of Ohio, do earnestly deprecate the adoption of any permanent policy by which Congregational churches shall be established in the South, practically, though not professedly, on the basis of what is called the “color line;” and that in our judgment two distinct Congregational Societies, the one working mainly for the white and the other for the black race, in the same field, will inevitably tend to perpetuate race prejudice, set at variance Congregational brethren themselves, and so defeat the end of true religion.

WHAT IS A COLOR-LINE CHURCH?

BY PROF. C. G. FAIRCHILD.

The State Conference of Ohio recently protested against the establishment by Northern missionary funds of churches based “practically, though not professedly, upon the ‘color line.’” What is a color-line church? A church at the North composed largely or exclusively of colored members, following naturally a race line of cleavage, as do the Irish or German, is not in this sense a color-line church. Most white churches at the North have only white members; but probably there is not one of them but would receive a colored member without hesitating in the slightest about his color. These are not color-line churches. There are many important white churches at the South that have had for many years colored members; but the colored members must wait for the communion until the whites are served, and must occupy special seats. Such churches are color-line churches. Churches at the South composed of blacks, with a few white teachers and their friends, who would welcome with tears of gratitude any Southern white families who would show their love and sympathy by identifying themselves with them are not color-line churches. A church at the South, composed of whites, in the midst of a large colored population, or in close contiguity with a church of kindred organization and sources of support, and where the advent of the first colored member would be deprecated, not welcomed, is a church based practically, though it may not be professedly, upon the color-line. * * * * *

It is always wise to consider facts. The first fact is that this color distinction is the most potent factor, politically, socially and religiously, in Southern society. This should dominate every plan for Christian effort at the South as much as the existence of the rebel army dominated plans for the “On to Richmond” during the war.

In the ultimate solution of Southern problems, natural race lines of cleavage may largely prevail; but it lies within the realms of reasonable expectancy, and not fancy, to believe that the time will come when color will not be thought of in the admission of a person to any hotel, railway car, school, or church. We have no right yet to let go of this Christian and patriotic hope; but for the present at the South color places upon a man a more damning and ineffaceable stain than does murder or political treason, and the present establishment of white churches as above described would seem to be an obeisance to this most potent and evil influence.

_The Independent._

THE TENDENCY IS TO RELAX.

EDITORIAL IN INDEPENDENT.

The natural bent of Southern whites is to separation from colored members, and white congregations willing to open their doors to all alike will not spring up in great numbers. The tendency, the temptation is to relax a little on the principle, under trying circumstances, for the sake of immediate results. We have pointed out how signally some of the Friends’ schools in the South have failed to keep their first principles intact. The same lowering influence has been at work among the Northern Methodists. It is worth a generation of endeavor, and perhaps it will require it, to establish an influential constituency on the solid basis of true Christian Brotherhood.

THE SOUTHEAST.

SEC. BARROWS’ REPORT AT SARATOGA.

How soon shall the Society have a superintendent in this region? _It is for you to decide._ The executive officers are convinced that the time has already come for this forward movement. During the past winter we have had a general missionary at work in Florida, with encouraging results. At our next anniversary there will doubtless be present a representative from the Florida Association of Congregational Churches. The Society also has missionaries in Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Georgia—and appeals are constantly received urging us to enlarge this work.

It is not the purpose of this society to foster the spirit of caste. It was to remove all suspicions on this score that a friendly conference was lately had with our brethren of the American Missionary Association, and with the results of that conference you are all familiar. It is our idea to form churches at the South, like Dr. Rankin’s in Washington, and Dr. Goodell’s in St. Louis, churches open to the colored people and to which they will be made welcome if they see fit to join. The only difficulty will be to find enough colored people willing to join to save the principle—the uniform experience hitherto having been that they prefer to be in churches of their own.

But we have too long ignored the fact that there are several millions of poor whites at the South who need our help, and must have it if they are to be fitted for citizenship on earth or in heaven. They have claims upon our Christian sympathy equal to those of the colored people, for they too are the victims of slavery, and are despised by the old slaveholding aristocracy—and even by the negroes. A Southern man said in our hearing a few days ago, “There are as many white people at the South who need your help as there are colored people, and they must be reached by similar means, viz.: the Christian school and the Christian church.”

Let us now ask the question—Have we been doing our duty by these people? We know we have not. God forgive us for having neglected them so long, and may we now show by our actions that our repentance is genuine! Do you wish the Home Missionary Society to organize an agency to do this work?

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DR. BARROWS’ PAPER.

But why ask the Home Missionary Society to plant these churches and commission these missionaries? Simply because the endeavor is one which no present organized agency can successfully accomplish.

The work of the American Missionary Association is noble, and its field is wide. But broad as are its principles it cannot, as a practical matter of fact, cultivate the whole of that needy part of our Lord’s vineyard. That which has been the pride and the _strength_ of the American Missionary Association, the thing it has printed on its publications and blazoned on its banners, that it was organized for the help of the despised races of America, to some extent honorably incapacitates it for some of the work which, nevertheless, needs to be done. Not in this generation, nor in the next, can men and women, between whom not history and habit only, but nature and providence, run lines so deep as between the races of the South, be made to any considerable extent to blend in comfortable and harmonious church relationship.

The ignoring of this fact will cost limitless labor and limitless disappointment. Why not take up the case as we find it, and in those places where the hand of invitation now so obviously beckons, respond to the call? What need of trespass, what occasion for misunderstanding, if the Home Missionary Society and the Association thus at some points work side by side?

_The Home Missionary._

DR. WALKER’S ADDRESS.

There is no man in this house who has, to the limit of his ability, done more cordial and earnest work for the American Missionary Association than I have. There is no man who maintains a more cordial relationship with the secretaries and officers of that society than I do. Personally, each one of them is my friend. But I do feel, Christian friends, that we have here a question that we must meet; and the best way to meet it is in the spirit of frankness and openness, giving it the deliberation which it requires. The American Missionary Association, as has been suggested in the paper which has been presented to you, is, in my view, handicapped for doing a part of the work which is necessary to be done. * * *

Now the question is: Is it not expedient for us to enter upon that work? I am met by the objection: “Why, you are doing the same work that the American Missionary Association is doing. Why have two societies, side by side, doing essentially the same work?” They are not doing the same work, in the fact that the subjects for which they labor are providentially made distinct. It is impossible in this generation, and in the generation to come, for the American Missionary Association to plant Congregational churches to any considerable extent through the South. Now, the plain and practical question is: Is it wise for us to neglect the present opportunity and, for the sake of what may be proved after all to be but sentiment, let the present moment pass, a moment so freighted with consequences to the future? Is it wise for us to insist upon the strength of ecclesiastical ties as sufficient to hold men together, whom we cannot counsel to come together by strength of natural ties? We cannot advise marriage among the races; why insist upon a kind of work that forces them together in ecclesiastical relationships to which they are equally unfamiliar and averse?

_The Home Missionary._

NO CLASHING MUST BE ALLOWED.

EDITORIAL IN ADVANCE.

What the American Missionary Association has done, and is doing, is only the prophecy of what it is to do in the near future, if it is promptly sustained in its noble work. And while we are on this subject, we wish most emphatically to say:

There is not to be, there _must_ not be, any clashing in the work between this society and the American Home Missionary Society.

The American Missionary Association was organized for a specific work, broadly and definitely understood to be for the uplifting of the colored races on this continent. To that work they are pledged, for that money is given to them, and they are very wisely administering the trust committed to their hands. To criticise that society because it does not organize what are known as white churches is the height of folly, and for it to attempt to force mixed churches on the South would be equally absurd. The American Home Missionary Society should not go down South with the idea of starting white churches. It should be allowed, and must be allowed, to go there and organize churches just as it does in Iowa, Dakota, Missouri and Kansas, saying nothing at all about the race question or in any way excluding colored people from its membership; giving them that freedom which is theirs, to come in, and the freedom also to stay out, and to have their own churches, and their own social circles, just as they please. Any one who undertakes to force such things out of their natural and proper course will only work confusion and loss.

NO TROUBLE NEED BE BORROWED.

EDITORIAL IN CONGREGATIONALIST

As for the matter of the entrance of the Home Missionary Society upon work in the South, that may be trusted to take care of itself. The two societies mutually have agreed upon a policy of comity and consultation. Unless there be a real and imperative demand for its services at the South, the Home Missionary Society probably will find all that it can do in its present field. If such a demand arise, the Society will do its best to meet it, not in rivalry of, but in co-operation with, the Missionary Association. There may be localities where the former can work in the same line to better advantage than the latter. Nobody need borrow trouble on their account, for both are pledged, and honestly, we are sure, to keep out of each other’s way when necessary, and together to erase “the color line” as fast as possible.

CRITICISMS NOTED.

EDITORIAL IN ADVANCE.

We fear that many of those who are criticising the policy of the society (A. H. M. S.), in pushing its work in the South, know little or nothing either of the New West or of the South. We call the attention of Dr. Bacon, and the minority which he represents, to a few facts. In the first place, the American Missionary Association cannot reach the white people of the South. In proof of this we appeal to agents of that society, who are in the field—Dr. Roy and the missionaries down South. One of the missionaries has just been in this office and gave his testimony most freely, while we were reading the proof of Dr. Bacon’s article. He said: “I have been three years in Alabama. I am pastor of a colored church there. We are prosperous. We were never more so. The Southern people are coming more and more to labor with us, and to co-operate with us in every way for the education of the negro. But there must be a colored church for colored people, and a white church for white people, and this will be done without saying anything about it. Both races prefer it, and it is a natural method. Our society cannot reach the white people, we ought not to attempt to do so.” * * *

There is a call for the work of the American Home Missionary Society in the South. To refuse to go there would be wicked. That society has just as much right to build a church in Mississippi or Georgia, and to give it aid, as it has to aid a church in Iowa or Dakota. No other society has a right to bid it keep north of Mason and Dixon’s line.

WHO SHALL WORK AT THE SOUTH?

BY REV. J. E. ROY, D.D.

_To the Editor of the Advance_:

In your response to Dr. Bacon on this question, you said: We appeal to Dr. Roy. I did not understand you as committing me; but finding that some brethren took you as setting me down to the theory that the A. M. A. could not do the work among the white people there because of its relation to the colored, I wish to disavow it, for I never held that view, never expressed it. I think that the A. M. A. _could_ do that work if the constituency shall so direct, though, as our experience among the mountain people of Kentucky proved, it would require patience, wisdom and fortitude, and would be a slow process.

_The Advance._

RESOLUTION AT SARATOGA MEETING.

Voted, That a committee of five be appointed who shall consider our denominational work in the South and confer with the secretaries of the American Missionary Association, or any committees appointed by that society, in reference to the same, and report at our next meeting.

Committee to confer with the American Missionary Association—Rev. Drs. J. E. Twichell, G. L. Walker, Lyman Abbott, C. L. Goodell, and A. S. Barnes, Esq.

_The Home Missionary._

BUREAU OF WOMAN’S WORK.

MISS D. E. EMERSON, SECRETARY.

* * * * *

FROM OUR LADY MISSIONARY, WILMINGTON, N.C.

MISS A. E. FARRINGTON.