Slavery and the Church.
OBJECTIONS TO THE EXCLUSION OF SLAVEHOLDERS ANSWERED.
1. It has been objected that fellowship should not be withdrawn from
_all_ slaveholders, because some of them are exceedingly kind to
their slaves. To this it may be answered that it is impossible for a
master to be really very kind to those he holds in slavery, because
the _holding_ of them in that relation is _extreme_ unkindness. A kind
slaveholder? What entitles him to that character? Does he renounce the
claim of _property_ in his slaves? No. Does he _hire_ them to work for
him and _pay_ them when the work is done? No. Does he open a school on
his plantation for their mental and moral culture? No. Does he permit
his slaves to instruct each other in the rudiments of education? No.
Does he use his influence to have the diabolical laws enacted to crush
the manhood out of the colored man, repealed? No. Does he secure his
slaves against the chances of the inter-state slave trade--against
sale at auction for his debts--against the lash of a Legree? No. What
then entitles him to the character of a _kind_ slaveholder? Why he
simply treats them as a good man treats a fine horse or a favorite dog.
He feeds them well, works them moderately, whips but little, but robs
them of _all_! We abuse language when we say--a _benevolent_ robber, a
_gentlemanly_ pickpocket, an _honorable_ pirate or a _kind_ slaveholder.
The poet, _Longfellow_, while traveling in Va., became acquainted with
an honest old slave owned by a fine specimen of a kind, Christian,
Presbyterian slaveholder. Said he:
"Calling at a blacksmith's shop for a small job of work, I found the
smith was a slave. On inquiring to whom I should make payment, he told
me I might to him. His practice was to receive all the money paid at
the shop, and pay it over to his master at night. I asked him how his
master knew whether he rendered a just account. He replied, that he
knew him too well not to trust him. That, as wrong as his master did
by him, it was no excuse for him to do wrong by his master. He could
deceive his master, but he could not deceive God, to whom he must
render his final account. He said he was a Baptist, and had regular
family prayers. His master was a Presbyterian, to whom he gave credit
for good usage and good training. But as he had faithfully served him
fifty years, he did think that he ought to have the remainder of his
days to himself. He regretted that he could not read the Bible; and
I was pained to hear him attempt to quote it, he made such blunders.
The tears started in the eyes of the poor man as he spoke of his
hard condition, and looked forward to death only for release from
his bondage. He thanked God that he had no children to inherit his
ignorance and servitude."
The kindness of certain slaveholders might be mere favorably considered
if it were productive of any permanent practical benefits to the slave;
but while it leaves him in the depth of his wretchedness,--exposed
to all the horrors of the worst form of slavery, it is a meritless
thing--unworthy the name of kindness. The kind slaveholder knows
that when he dies his slaves will be sold at auction together with
his horses, cattle, and plantation. What avails his fancied kindness
when he knows the horrible chances to which he subjects his helpless
victims. And how deeply guilty is he in the sight of God for refusing
to break every yoke when he has the opportunity! To illustrate this
thought and show the sequel of kind slaveholding we will subjoin
a sketch of a woman's history who was the property of a _kind_
slaveholder.
"A kind slave-master, in one of the Carolinas, had a large family,
of various colors, some enslaved, some free. One of the slaves was
his favorite daughter, and much accomplished. Dying, he willed his
heir, her brother, to provide for her handsomely, and make her free.
But her brother was a slave-master, and she was a slave. He kept and
debauched her. At the end of four years he got tired of her; and that
notorious slave-dealer, Woolfork, coming down to collect a drove, he
sold his sister to him. "There is her cottage," said he to Woolfork;
"she is a violent woman. I don't like to go near her; go and carry her
off by yourself." Woolfork strode into the cottage, told her of the
fact and ordered her to prepare. She was dreadfully agitated. He urged
her to hasten. She arose and said, 'White man, I don't believe you. I
don't believe that my brother would thus sell me, and his children. I
will not believe unless he come himself.'--Woolfork coolly went, and
required her brother's presence. The seducer, the tyrant came, and,
standing at the door, confirmed the slaveholder's report. 'And is it
true? and have you sold me?' she exclaimed. 'Is it really possible?
Look at this child! Don't you see in every feature the lineaments of
its father? Don't you know that your blood flows in its veins? Have
you, have you sold me?' The terrible fact was repeated by her master.
'These children,' said she, with a voice only half articulate, 'shall
never be slaves.' 'Never mind about _that_,' said Woolfork, 'go and get
ready. I shall only wait a few minutes longer.' She retired with her
children. The two white men continued alone. They waited. She returned
not. They grew tired of waiting, and followed her to her chamber. There
they found their victims beyond the reach of human wickedness, bedded
in their blood."--(Anti-Slavery Record.)
2. Slaveholders ought not to be excluded from the church, it is argued,
because their views and feelings on the subject of slavery have been
corrupted by the prevalence of this popular sin. They are not, it is
maintained, individually responsible--the fault--the sin, the shame
attaches to a false public morality. Dr. McClintock offers this
objection in the following words: "Their position," he says, "has the
eminent unhappiness of almost necessitating a feeble or corrupt moral
sense on this subject; they are carried along by a great movement that
absorbs their individuality, so to speak; the personal conscience is
lost in the general sense of the community. The great work to be done
is to purify that general sense; not to curse and malign individual
slaveholders, but to break up the false public morality in which the
system finds its main support."[22]
We answer that no man is excusable for falling in with a "great
movement" which is manifestly wicked. Noah, Lot, Abraham and Elijah
were not carried along with sin in this way. Their moral sense was
neither enfeebled nor corrupted by the prevailing vices. The apostles
did not lose their "personal conscience" in the "general sense" of
idolatrous communities, in the midst of which they labored. And in
_no case_ does the Bible excuse a sinner because of the prevalence
of sin.--Idolaters were not taken into church because that vice was
sustained by law and prevailing custom. And he who lived in Corinth in
the days of St. Paul, found himself in the midst of gross, shameless
sensuality--and it was quite easy for such a person to fall in with
the vices for which that city was notorious; and some Christians did
fall in with those vices. But did St. Paul excuse them, and forbid
their expulsion from the church, throwing the blame of their conduct
upon the prevailing vice? Did he ordain that until the "general
sense" were purified, the "fornicator," the "incestuous person" and
the "drunkard" must remain in the church? By no means. He knew that
the _public_ conscience was made up of _individual_ consciences--that
public corruption was the aggregate of individual corruption--and hence
that the only possible method of reaching and purifying the general
sense, was by reaching and purifying the individual sense. And hence
individual purity was required as a condition of church membership.
Churches now proceed precisely upon this principle in relation to all
sins, however prevalent, slavery excepted; and no good reason can be
offered for making it an exception. And if slaveholders _have_ an
enfeebled moral sense, which is certainly the case, it is because the
ministry and church have been recreant to duty and truth, and have
said to them "peace, peace, when God had not spoken peace." The only
way to prevent them from being swept along by the flood tides of this
devastating iniquity until they launch upon the shoreless sea of wrath,
is to sound the alarm! But alas, those watchmen who have their ear are
apt to say to them, do not be alarmed--the "false _public_ morality"
will be a satisfactory apology for your sins! When asked by the judge
why you were an oppressor, you can answer, that you only followed the
prevailing example!
3. Slavery, it is objected, is a _political_ question and hence the
church ought not to meddle with it. We answer, that slavery is not
only a political, but a moral question--it is a question concerning
the rights of man, and all that concerns _man_ concerns a christian.
Temperance is made a political question, should the church therefore
fellowship the drunkard? The observance of the Sabbath is a political
question--must the church therefore drop it, lest it be entangled with
politics? The same may be said of gambling, perjury and theft.
4. But, says one, the laws uphold slavery, and whatever of blame
attaches to slaveholding is justly chargeable to the laws. To this
it is answered that slaveholders are the _makers of their own laws_,
and hence are responsible for them. But if they had no voice in the
government it would be impossible to shift the responsibility of
slaveholding upon the laws, because, in the first place, a good man
cannot innocently avail himself of the provisions of laws which permit
him to injure his fellow creatures; and in the next place, the laws
compel no one to hold slaves. They allow it, but do not require it.
5. But some, it is urged, are slaveholders from necessity, hence they
ought not to be blamed. This cannot be. The laws do not compel people
to buy, steal, trade for, receive as a gift, or inherit slaves. Any
one may refuse to own this kind of property unless he is an idiot or
a child. And if by any means a man finds himself in possession of
slaves he can emancipate them. It is not far to the free states. Why do
not those pious Methodists and Presbyterians, who are always talking
of the impossibility of "_getting rid_" of their slaves, permit the
abolitionists to help them? They would cheerfully pilot them, or give
them a free passage on the Under-Ground Railroad! But all those pious
slaveholders from necessity are ready to lynch or imprison any man who
may undertake to release them from the "necessary evils" of slavery. A
slaveholder from necessity is one who holds slaves _because holding_
them is a necessary condition of _robbing_ them.
6. But the church has no right to ask a man to give away his property
and impoverish himself. Yes, the church has a right to require a man
to restore stolen property, and this is the kind of property slaves
are. As to impoverishing slaveholders, there is danger of that, but
poverty is no crime and is often good for the soul. It is better to be
a Lazarus in this world with his future, than a Dives with his future.
And besides, there is no law of God allowing a man to roll in wealth
acquired by robbery.
7. Nothing can be said against some slaveholders _only_ that they
hold slaves. In every other respect they are christian-like in their
conduct, and it seems hard to exclude such fine people from the church.
Alas that any christian should speak of slaveholding as "_only_"
a small objection. But one sin may ruin the soul. Some men are in
every respect excellent persons _except_ that they are addicted
to intemperate habits, to lying, or to licentiousness--shall they
therefore be excused for their besetting sin, and allowed to indulge
it? One who has cheated a poor white neighbor out of only one year's
toil, ought never to be admitted into the church until he makes
restitution. So in the case of a slaveholder--let him be just to
_every_ creature of God--let him give up his idol or serve it in its
appropriate temple, and not disgrace the church of God with its image
and worshiper.
8. It has been maintained that slaveholders should be taken into the
church that they may come under the direct influence of the gospel,
the tendency of which is to destroy slavery. We answer--_a._ The
same reason might be urged with equal force for the admission of the
drunkard, liar, thief or adulterer.
_b._ Experience proves that slaveholders, when admitted to church
fellowship, are not more likely to emancipate their slaves than others.
They are apt to settle down in the belief that it is right to hold
slaves, and the height of impertinence for any one to meddle with them
about it. A minister in Kentucky, Rev. Mr. Fee, who is well acquainted
with this subject from experience and actual observation, says of the
slaveholder--"The way to lull his conscience on the subject is, to
bring him into the church in the practice of his sin. I know repeated
instances of persons whose consciences and hearts, at the time of
their awakening, seemed to be tender on the subject of slaveholding.
But after they had been fully received, and a few comfortable meetings
passed over, they became wholly indifferent; and after hearing or
reading one or two pro-slavery sermons, declaring slavery to be a Bible
institution, they were almost ready to seize the torch, and apply the
fires of persecution to the individual who would disturb their Zion.
The place to induce the slaveholder to give up his sin is at the
time, or before, he enters the door of the church; before he has been
pronounced as being in a salvable state; for 'all that a man hath will
he give for his life.'"
But this is no abstruse question as "cotton Divines" would persuade
us. Slaveholding is a wicked business and must be treated as such.
It is impossible to treat it as such while fellowship is extended to
slaveholders. The christian is bound to refuse that fellowship. If any
branch of the church officially or practically sanctions slavery and
endorses the piety of slaveholders, then, in order to be consistent and
safe, a christian must come out of that church, because in it, he will
be a partaker of its sins and a sufferer of its plagues.