Anti-slavery bugle. [volume] (New-Lisbon, Ohio) 1845-1861, 1859-04-23

Christian Anti.slavery meeting" in the whole
year 1858 is only q fair parallel to the reason given
for not holding tho advertised one which was SUBJ
stantialy, that those clergymen who had been selec'
ted by their clerical brethren as safest to represent,
at tho proposed meeting, what they called "Chris'
tan Anti.Slavery" had preferred to speak a. the
anniversary Of a pro'~slavery organisation-the
American Tract Societ, which was to be held on
the same evening.
In the light given by these antecedent move,
ments Of Rev. DR.. George B.. Cheever and his as
sociates in Boston, let us look OF tho position Of the
new organization formed by that gentleman and
his associates at Worcester, as expressed. lin the
quotation above) by Rev. Henry T. Cheever in
that city. 10 tho first meeting held under the aus
pieces Of the "Church Anti.Sia1ery Society Of the
United States"
This Reverend gentleman says-"There never
has been any distinct Christian or Church Anti
Slavery Society" And again-'the American
Anti Slavery Society n n y never was dis
tinctly Christian" And again-the American An
ti'Slavory Society had %latterly come to be mainly
guided by men \ n n VIGOROUSLY and avowed
rejectors and opponents of the fundamentals o
Christianity"
Passing by the inevitable professional ASSUME
ton Of Rev. Henry T.. Cheevor, that the adjective,
"Christian" and Church are absolutely so identi
cal in meaning that each of them necessarily i'm
plies the other, we remark that it is unfortunate fol
the "Church Anti-Slavery Society OF the United
States" that the chosen representative of its idea,
and policy begins his work, in its very first meet
ing, by Misrepresentation and falsehood.
In view Of the constitutional basis, the en,irt
history, and the entire official action Of the Amer
ienn Anti'Slavery Society, it is utterly absurd, q,
well as grossly false. to say that it has ever beer
other than distinctly Christian.
Neither can the Rev. Henry T. Cheever be al
lowed, unquestioned, to smuggle into this case tn,
theological peculiarities Of himself and his littl,
sect. assuming that they are to be counted among
the fundamentals of Christianity"
If Christianity is TO DO analysed, to be defined
by o summary of its constituent parts, we stand
upon the summary made land presented, as such,
to his d~isciples) by its first great teacher, Jesus Of
Nazareth, in these words: "Thou shalt lovo the
Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all. thy mind, and with all thy
strength this is the first commandment. And
Az o0Sopu &c Inv hohSiy vino thOu "a wv
thy neighbor as myself. There is none other COM
mandment greater than these" We declined to &C.
cept the assumtion that any Fundamental" articles
remain to be added to this statement and if the
statement needs anycommentary, we prefer to take
that of Jesus himself, who plainly taught that to
love God was to be manifested by good works to
the n~eighbor, and that the neighbor was any
man who needed help that we could give.
We therefore call upon the Rev. Henry 7. Cheov,
err to produce his evidence of these three things:
Where has the American Anti Slavery Society,
in its official action, ever violated either of these
fundamentals of Christianity?
Whore has it ever failed to net in accordance
with them2
Where have it's leaders and guides ever avowedly
rejected and opposed themf
Until this representative Of the "Church Anti
Slavery Society" shall prove, or rotract, thes,
charges, we brand him as q false witness and viii
full calumniator. G. K. w.