d churches in
America, his opponent should charge the guilt of slavery upon the
whole American church. But why is not the whole church guilty, if any
of its members persist in committing the sin, and yet are regarded as
worthy members, in regular standing?--if any of its ministers with
hands polluted by the abominable thing, are still allowed, without any
ecclesiastical censure, not only to dispense the bread of life from
the store-house of God's word, but to distribute the emblems of
Christ's body and blood, to those who come around the table to
commemorate a Saviour's dying love?--if any of its branches, claiming
to hold God's image as property, and treating as 'chattels personal,'
their Saviour, in the person of 'one of the least of these' his
'brethren,' are fellow-shipped as sister churches, and unreproved for
their iniquity? 'Who dare pretend,' asks the Emancipator, 'That the
American church does not uphold and countenance Christian slaveholders
in their conduct? True, there are individuals, and individual churches
not a few, who do not, but who bear a faithful testimony against them.
But how is it with the _governing influences_ of the church? Their
character and their acts, and not those of a minority, however large
or respectable are the character and the acts of the church. What then
is the position of the governing influences of the American church in
regard to American slavery? It is that of protection and countenance.
The proceedings of the last General Convention of the Baptists, and
the last General Conference of the Methodists, and the last General
Assembly of the Presbyterians are our confirmation--and they are
"confirmation strong as holy writ." At this very moment, these three
bodies stand before the world as the three great Patrons and
Protectors of American slavery. Deny it as they will, the gains of the
oppressor, the hire kept back by fraud is in their coffers, the blood
of the oppressed stains their garments, and they refuse to confess or
forsake their sin.'

Mr. B. would doubtless have thought it very uncharitable to cause a
large army of Israelites to turn their backs before their enemies, and
suffer a shameful and disastrous defeat, just because there was _one_
Achan in the camp.

We cannot but think that the reverend disputant rather unfortunate in
his reference to the book of Drs. Cox and Hoby, (see page 128,) for
information about the connection of the Baptists with slavery. In
looking t