Chapter 2

The next day she returned to Tottenham, not so well as she had been, yet there seemed no cause for immediate alarm; but in her last words, as she was taking leave of her daughters, there was something almost prophetic of the event which was soon to take place. Clasping the hand of one of them, as she was about to step into the carriage, she turned to her, and said, "I shall soon mount on eagles' wings; I shall run and not be weary, I shall walk and not faint." On Wednesday, her indisposition considerably increased, and her strength began rapidly to decline. It soon became impossible to hold any conversation with her beyond a few short and detached sentences at intervals. In reply to inquiries, she still expressed her faith in the Lamb of God, and spoke of his preciousness to her soul. But the power of articulation failed, and this circumstance, joined with her deafness, precluded the further interchange of sentiment with the departing saint. She continued to lodge on the banks of the Jordan a day or two longer, till about noon on Lord's day, June 30, 1833; when she passed through the river with a gentle and quiet motion, and was lost to the sight of surrounding attendants, amidst the distant groves of Eden, on the opposite shore.

"No pain she suffered, nor expired with noise; Her soul was whispered out with God's still voice: So softly death succeeded life in her, She did but dream of heaven, and she was there."

_Camberwell._ E. STEANE

SLAVERY IN AMERICA.

A LETTER FROM THE BAPTIST BOARD OF FOREIGN MISSIONS IN AMERICA, IN ANSWER TO ONE FROM THE BOARD OF BAPTIST MINISTERS IN AND NEAR LONDON, DATED DECEMBER 31, 1833.

(_See our last Number, p. 534._)

_Baptist Missionary Rooms,_ _Boston, Sept. 1, 1834._

DEAR BRETHREN,

Your communication, dated London, December 31, 1833, was received some time since, by one of the officers of the Baptist General Convention; but as the Convention, to which it was chiefly addressed, will not convene till April, 1835, the communication was, after some delay, presented to the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions, as the executive organ of the Convention. The board referred it to a Committee, and we now communicate to you a copy of their Report, and of the Resolutions adopted by the board.[A] We commend them to your candour, with a confident belief that you will do justice to the views and feelings of the board, encompassed as they are by difficulties which cannot be fully understood by persons in other countries.

[A] The Committee, to whom was referred a communication from "the Members of the Board of Baptist Ministers in and near London," directed to "The Rev. Spencer H. Cone, President; the Board of Managers; and the Delegates of the Baptist Triennial Convention, United States, North America;" and addressed to "The Pastors and Ministers of the Baptist denomination throughout the United States of America;" the principal object of which communication is, to express the views of the writers "respecting the character of negro slavery, and as to the course enjoined by religious principle on the household of faith;" present the following report:--

That they have examined the communication with much care, and have been gratified by the spirit of Christian affection, respect, and candour, which it breathes. They receive it as a pleasing omen of a more intimate correspondence and a more endeared fellowship with our Baptist brethren in Great Britain. The Committee, however, are unanimously of opinion that as a Board, and as members of the General Convention, associated for the exclusive purpose of sending the gospel to the heathen, and to other benighted men not belonging to our own country, we are precluded by our constitution from taking any part in the discussion of the subject proposed in the said communication. They, therefore, recommend the adoption of the following resolutions:--

_Resolved._ That the Board reciprocate, with great pleasure, the assurances of respect and affection which our brethren, "the members of the Board of Baptist Ministers, in and near London," have uttered in their communication.

_Resolved._ That the Board earnestly desire a closer intimacy with their Baptist brethren in England, believing that the cause of truth in both countries, and throughout the world, would be promoted, by a more cordial union and co-operation of the two great branches of the Baptist family.

_Resolved._ That the Board have viewed, with grief and anxiety, the calamities which have befallen the Baptist Mission in Jamaica; and they rejoice that the Mission has been resumed, with cheering prospects of success.

_Resolved._ That while, as they trust, their love of freedom, and their desire for the happiness of all men, are not less strong and sincere than those of their British brethren, they cannot, as a Board, interfere with a subject that is not among the objects for which the Convention and the Board were formed.

_Resolved._ That the preceding Resolutions be communicated to the "Board of Baptist Ministers, in and near London," together with the subjoined letter, to be signed by the acting President, and the corresponding Secretary of the Board.

(_Signed_) DANIEL SHARP, _First Vice-President of the Baptist Board of Foreign Missions in the United States._ LUCIUS BOLLES, _Cor. Sec._

It may assist you to form a more correct opinion of the whole subject, if we allude to a few of the circumstances which make slavery, in this country, a matter of peculiar difficulty, and which, consequently, require those who would promote the real welfare of the coloured race, to act with great caution.

In the first place, the political organization of the United States is widely different from that of England; and this difference makes it impossible to adopt here a course similar to that which the British Parliament have adopted in reference to slavery in the West Indies. This country is not one State, with an unrestricted Legislature, but a confederacy of States, united by a Constitution, in which certain powers are granted to the National Government; and all other powers are reserved by the States. Among these reserved powers is the regulation of slavery. Congress have no power to interfere with the slaves in the respective States; and an Act of Congress to emancipate the _slaves_ in those States would be as wholly null and void, as an Act of the British Parliament for the same purpose. The Legislatures of the respective States cannot interfere with the legislation of each other. In some of the States, where laws forbidding emancipation exist, the _minority_ cannot, if disposed, give freedom to their slaves. You perceive, then, that the National Government, and the people of the Northern States, have no power, nor right, to adopt any direct measures, in reference to the emancipation of the slaves in the Southern States. The slave-holders themselves are the only men who can act definitively on this subject; and the only proper and useful influence which the friends of emancipation in other States can use, consists in argument and entreaty. The existence of our union, and its manifold blessings, depends on a faithful adherence to the principles and spirit of our constitution, on this and on all other points.

This view of the case exonerates the nation, as such, and the States in which no slaves are found, from the charge of upholding slavery. It is due, moreover, to the republic, to remember, that slavery was introduced into this country long before the colonies became independent States. The slave trade was encouraged by the Government of Great Britain, and slaves were brought into the colonies against the wishes of the colonists, and the repeated Acts of some of the Colonial Legislatures. These Acts were negatived by the King of England; and in the Declaration of Independence, as originally drawn by Mr. Jefferson, it was stated, among the grievances which produced the Revolution, that the King of England had steadily resisted the efforts of the colonists to prevent the introduction of slaves. Soon after the Revolution, several of the States took measures to free themselves from slavery. In 1787, Congress adopted an Act, by which it was provided, that slavery should never be permitted in any of the States to be formed in the immense territory north-west of the Ohio; in which territory, the great States of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, have since been formed. There are now thirteen out of the twenty-four States, in which slavery may be said to be extinct. Maryland is taking measures to free herself from slavery. Kentucky and Virginia will, it is believed, follow the example. We state these facts to show, that the republic did not originate slavery here; and that she has done much to remove it altogether from her bosom. She took measures earlier than any other country for the suppression of the slave trade, and she is now zealously labouring to accomplish the entire extinction of that abominable traffic.

Since then, from the character of our political institutions, the emancipation of the slaves is impossible, except with the free consent of the masters; it is necessary to approach them with calm and affectionate argument. They claim to be better acquainted with the real condition and the true interests of the negro, than other persons can be. Multitudes among them freely acknowledge and lament the evils of slavery, and earnestly desire their removal, in some way consistent with the welfare of the slave himself, and with the safety of the whites. Some persons among them, it is true, are not convinced that slavery is wrong in principle; just as many good men in England, half a century since, believed the slave-trade to be just and right. Such individuals must be _convinced_, before they will act.

In the next place, the number and character of the slaves form an appalling difficulty. It is not believed by many of the sincere friends of the slaves, that their immediate emancipation would be conducive to their own real welfare, or consistent with the safety of the whites. To let them loose, without any provision for the young, the feeble, and the aged, would be inhuman cruelty. Slaves, who have regarded labour as an irksome task, can have little idea of liberty, except as an exemption from toil. To liberate them, without some arrangement for their subsistence, would produce starvation, or impel them to acts of lawless violence. Emancipation must, therefore, as those friends of the slaves contend, be gradual and prospective. The British Parliament have not decreed an _immediate_ emancipation, in the West Indies; thus recognizing the principle, that the slaves must be _prepared_ for freedom by moral and intellectual culture. But this preparation must be commenced and conducted by the _masters_; and they must, of course, become the willing and zealous friends of emancipation, before it can be accomplished.

We have thus shown, that the slaves in this country cannot be emancipated, except by the free consent of the masters; and that they cannot be prepared for freedom, without the voluntary and energetic co-operation of the masters. For both these reasons, it is necessary to adopt a kind and conciliating course of conduct towards the slave-holders. The British Parliament might assume a peremptory tone towards the slave-holders in the West Indies; because the power of Parliament is not restricted like that of the American Congress; and because the situation of the slaves in the West Indies renders the preliminary preparation less necessary to the safety of the white population. In the British West Indies, the slaves are dispersed among eighteen or twenty islands, where the military and naval power of the mother country might be easily applied to quell insurrections. In the United States, there are above two millions of slaves, spread over a part only of the surface of the Union, with no large military force to overawe them, and no obstacle to a rapid combination of insurgents. We presume, that the people in England would feel somewhat differently on the subject of emancipation, if the slaves were among themselves, and the perils of this moral volcano were constantly impending over their own heads.

Besides these general considerations, there is one which affects the duty of the Baptist General Convention. There is now a pleasing degree of union among the multiplying thousands of Baptists throughout the land. Brethren, from all parts of the country, unite in our General Convention, and co-operate in sending the gospel to the heathen. Our southern brethren are liberal and zealous in the promotion of every holy enterprise for the extension of the gospel. They are, generally, both minister and people, slave-holders; not because they all think slavery right, but because it was firmly rooted long before they were born, and because they believe that slavery cannot be instantly abolished. We are confident, that a great portion of our brethren at the south would rejoice to see any practicable scheme devised for relieving the country from slavery.

We have the best evidence, that our slave-holding brethren are Christians, sincere followers of the Lord Jesus. In every other part of their conduct, they adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour. We cannot, therefore, feel that it is right to use language or adopt measures which might tend to break the ties that unite them to us in our General Convention, and in numerous other benevolent societies; and to array brother against brother, church against church, and association against association, in a contest about slavery.

We have presented these considerations, dear brethren, as among the reasons which compel us to believe, that it is not the duty of the Baptist General Convention, or of the Board of Missions, to interfere with the subject of slavery. It ought, indeed, to be discussed at all proper times, and in all suitable modes. We believe, that the progress of public opinion in reference to slavery, is very rapid; and we are quite sure, that it cannot be accelerated by any interference, which our southern brethren would regard as an invasion of their political rights, or as an impeachment of their Christian character.

Most earnestly praying that the Father of Lights will illuminate our path, and guide us all to the adoption of such measures as shall advance His glory, and secure the temporal and eternal happiness of all men, we are, dear brethren, your affectionate fellow-servants.

LUCIUS BOLLES, _Cor. Sec._

LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS CONCERNING THE SABBATH.

_To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine._

It is some time since the Christian public has heard of any measure intended to be proposed to the Legislature in reference to the violation of the Sabbath, and it is time, as it appears to me, that those who have such a measure at heart should be awake, and setting about their great work in earnest. Whether the measure of which Sir Andrew Agnew gave notice in the last session, be the same as his last bill or not, is at present unknown; but I trust, if it be not the same, it will be founded on the same principle, and equally comprehensive in its provisions. It is true, that upon this subject, the opinions, even of good men, are much divided; and there are not a few individuals, of undoubted piety, who think that a legislative remedy should extend to a part only of the acknowledged mischiefs at _first_; whilst others prefer making the different provisions of the whole measure the subject of several bills, to be simultaneously brought forward.

The advocates of the former plan insist, that there is no chance of carrying the whole measure at once, while the attempt to do so is calculated to produce hostility; improvements in this, as well as in other matters, requiring to be gradual:--that the sense of the majority of the population is against the measure as a _whole_, to which popular sense, deference must be paid:--and, that Sir Andrew's former bills were lost entirely from their being too sweeping and comprehensive.

To the first objection, which is nearly identical with the third, it may be answered: Supposing it to be true, that there is no chance of _carrying_ the whole measure at once, this is no reason why the whole should not be _proposed_ at once. If of the whole measure so proposed only _a part_ should be carried, the carrying of that part would be a subject of thankfulness and rejoicing, just as much as if that part only had been proposed. Those members of the Legislature who would exhibit _hostility_ to the bill to the extent of rejecting it altogether, would doubtless exhibit _hostility_ to any portion of its provisions if brought forward as a distinct bill; because hostility to the whole of a measure acknowledged in _some part_ to be good and necessary, must arise from an evil principle. There is much difference between _hostility_ to the whole of the bill, and _opposition_ to some, nay, even the majority, of its provisions. Those who would be hostile to the whole of the bill, must necessarily be so to any detached part; whereas many might oppose even the _larger part_ of its provisions, who would approve the rest; and it is conceived such would vote for the bill going into Committee, where they might distinguish between the provisions they approved and those they condemned. That this would be the case appears from the experience of the last session, when members who were not prepared to support any clause of the bill, nevertheless voted for its second reading. It is true, that many who voted against it _alleged_ its comprehensiveness as the ground of their opposition; but when actually limited measures were brought forward, they were either crushed at once by the very same persons, or first reduced to nothing--and, indeed made worse than nothing, by repealing the provisions of existing statutes for protection of the Sabbath, substituting nothing for them--and then ignominiously rejected. This answer may also be given to the allegation, that Sir Andrew's bills were lost from their comprehensiveness.

As to the second allegation, that the sense of the majority of the population is against the measure brought forward by Sir Andrew's Bill as a whole, it may be replied:

In the first place, that this is an assertion which is incapable of proof.

In the second place, it is not merely a _numerical_ majority of the whole population of the country to which the advocates of the measure ought to defer; but it is to a majority of that class of persons who are well informed upon, and have wisely considered, the whole subject, in connexion with all its consequences and results.

In the third place, it is apprehended, that if the sense of the majority of such class were taken upon the several provisions of the bill, although it may be within the limits of possibility that the majority might be against the bill as a _whole_, yet there is scarcely a provision in it which the majority of such class would be found to reject; for in point of fact there is not one single clause in the bill which has not been the subject of petitions numerously signed in its favour.

But even attaching some degree of weight to the above objections, which are, I believe, the whole that have been brought forward by those whose opinions are worth regarding, it is to be considered, whether there may not be set against these objections considerations which will operate so as greatly to turn the scale in favour of bringing in the whole measure at once, such as the following:--

1. It recognizes one simple principle, on which every measure proposed to Government for the remedy of existing abuses, in reference to the observance of the Lord's day, must be based; and therefore, judging from the way in which the provisions of the bill have been already met, in and out of parliament, it is clear, that if _one_ part only out of the system of measures were brought forward at first, the objection would be, that the propounder of the measure, to be consistent with himself, should have extended it to other matters within its principle, and directed it against other evils requiring to be remedied by it. For instance, were a bill brought forward to restrain what is usually called trade in the necessaries of life, it might be urged that it would be inconsistent, while that which is equally a trade, the supplying of post horses, should be permitted: just as it has been insisted, in a determined spirit of hostility to the bill, that it was unfair to restrain labour in the field and permit it in the house; to prohibit the day-labourer from prosecuting his calling, and to allow the domestic servant to pursue hers. Now an argument, which imputes inconsistency and unfairness to the propounder of a prohibitory measure, is one which it would be exceedingly difficult, and perhaps impossible, satisfactorily to answer.

2. The whole of the grievances, pertaining to every part of the subject, were fully entered into, in that comprehensive inquiry which took place in the Select Committee of the House of Commons, previously to the introduction of Sir Andrew Agnew's first bill, which elicited so much and such important and valuable information; and it follows as a consequence, that every mischief which was within the scope of the inquiry, should be within the scope of the enactment to be grounded upon the result of such inquiry.

3. It is difficult to guard against the inference to be drawn from the prohibition of one evil, and the leaving another unprohibited, that such latter evil is intended to be tolerated and sanctioned.

4. It is extremely probable, that if, under existing circumstances, the advocates of the proposed measure were to bring forward one of limited extent, it would be considered that they had no ulterior object, and that the limited measure, if conceded, should be taken in full of every thing to be expected from the Legislature. This would be disingenuous. It is the most fair and honest mode of dealing, on the part of those who are of opinion that the exigency of the case calls for a comprehensive measure, to declare _at once_ what is the utmost extent of the objects they have in view, and what is the exact amount of the measure with which they would be satisfied; and it is considered that such a course is the most likely to attract the approbation and good opinion of right-thinking individuals, and, which is an infinitely higher consideration, to draw down the blessing of Almighty God.

5. The different provisions of the measure are so connected, that it is very difficult to separate them. For instance, how could the provisions against trade be separated from the provisions against travelling, when travelling necessarily supposes the exercise of a species of trade?

6. With respect to the suggestion, that the whole measure should be the subject of several and distinct bills, the simple answer is, that every such bill must, in passing through the necessary stages, be exposed to a distinct ordeal, and that the difficulty of working the bill (to use a technical expression) would be at least multiplied to the extent of the number of bills proposed to be substituted for one simple and comprehensive enactment.

THEOSIBES. _London, Dec. 10th, 1834._

LIQUIDATION OF DEBTS ON CHAPELS.

_To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine._