his ignorance and vice, and this caste prejudice—are the elements
of a race warfare; they foreshadow another “Impending Crisis”—the
next “Irrepressible Conflict.” This becomes the more obvious,
because the negro, having been recognized as a _man_ before the
law, there is no alternative but to withdraw the recognition or
to make it real. There is no middle ground—he must be a slave or
a freeman; the equal of his white peers. The “Impending Crisis”
is the more imminent from the growth of the blacks in number. In
spite of all denials, the time is hastening on when the blacks
in the Southern States will outnumber the whites; and when they
feel their strength in brawn and muscle—and when especially there
arise among them men of education and talent, with ambition aroused
and with passion stimulated by a sense of injustice—then will the
“Irrepressible Conflict” become as certain as, and, we fear, more
implacable than, the last great struggle.
But there is a higher stand-point from which to view this great
question—the providential. When the negro ceased to be a slave
he became invested with a new significance. Then for the first
time began to be seen the meaning of his presence in America—the
reason why the black man from Africa—the most degraded part of
the world—was selected by Divine Providence as one of the Three
Brothers to settle this continent. He was the one by whom God could
test the nation and call upon it to exemplify before the world the
_Brotherhood of Man_. The full test could only be made when the
highest should recognize the lowest.
The nation cannot shirk this test. Justice to the negro demands it;
God, who made of one blood all nations, demands it; Christ, who
died for all men, demands it; he cares for the poor and repudiates
caste; he was born in poverty and toiled for his living; his
mission was announced and attested by miracles of help for the
needy and the preaching of the gospel to the poor; he touched the
leper when he healed him; he ate with publicans and sinners; in his
church there is neither bond nor free, but all are one in him; and
in the final judgment his award will depend upon how he himself
was treated in the person of one of the least of his brethren.
His voice must be heard. To all that call him Lord, and mean to
obey his word and follow his example, this whole question must
be lifted out of the realm of prejudice into the higher plane of
Christian duty, and when placed there, who can doubt the issue? The
Brotherhood of Man must be recognized and exemplified.
But the question remains, How shall this next great step in human
progress be taken? The question will be settled and the step will
be taken in righteousness, for no question is ever settled till it
is settled right. As we have seen before, the issue between the
American Colonies and the British Government, and that between the
North and the South in regard to slavery, might both have been
settled peacefully, if righteously; and so the question now before
the nation may be settled peacefully, if righteously, by giving
the negro his guaranteed rights, lifting him out of his ignorance
and vice, and especially by taking him from under the ban of caste
prejudice. But it is to be feared that these concessions will not
be made, and then the question will be settled by a bloody war of
races, involving the North as well as the South.
But this conclusion is too startling to contemplate without
instinctively turning to the possibility of a peaceful solution of
the problem. Let me suggest:
1. The Northern Brother has a great responsibility in this matter.
He, too, enslaved the Black Brother for a time, and gave his
consent to the virtual recognition of slavery in the Constitution;
and when at length he saw his error and demanded the emancipation
of the slave, the South resisted him to the utmost in the terrible
war; and when the slave was freed and the North insisted on
making him a citizen and on giving him the ballot, the Southern
Brother, though he could no longer resist, yet entered his most
earnest protest. He said: “I know these negroes; they are not
fit for the ballot and will ruin the country if they have it.”
But the Northern Brother had the power, and like General Jackson
he “took the responsibility.” He cannot now shrink from that
responsibility. He cannot, with any better success than Pilate,
wash his hands and thus be made guiltless. He brought his innocent
Brother into his present trouble and it will be both cowardly and
criminal to leave him to his fate. No! if this great problem is
ever solved peacefully and righteously, the North must awake fully
to its special duty, and perform it at whatever cost of money and
self-sacrifice.
2. The Southern Brother has a still deeper interest in this matter.
In the first place he owes something to the Black Brother, who
always helped and never hindered him, who tilled his land and made
his wealth, who, during the war, cared for the plantation and
protected the family—though he knew that the master fought to rivet
his fetters all the tighter. Then again, the Southern Brother has
and must have the Black Brother with him, near him, his immediate
neighbor, and whatever discomforts or dangers may arise, he must be
the first, and for a time, the only one to suffer. He cannot remand
the negro back to slavery, nor even to serfdom—the nineteenth
century cannot tolerate the one more than the other—even in Russia,
much less in America. Nor can the present anomalous position of the
negro long be maintained. It is full of vexations and of dangers;
the negro will soon be strong enough to resist it, and the North,
as in the contest about slavery, must take sides with the Black man.
Why should the South fight against the inevitable? In a recent
number of the _Century_, a Confederate officer, Col. Alexander,
in giving a racy sketch of Pickett’s famous charge at Gettysburg,
incidentally refers, in a humorous way, to one of their chaplains
who was accustomed to pray that “Providence would consent at last
to come down and take a _proper_ view of the situation.” The
Colonel, at one auspicious juncture in the preliminary fight, was
inclined to believe that the prayer of the good chaplain was about
to be answered. But when all was over and the battle was lost, he
dryly admits that “Providence had evidently not yet taken a proper
view of the situation.” The same admission was equally pertinent
at Appomattox—and has been ever since—indeed, is it not time for
the South to see that the trouble is not with Providence but with
itself—that _it_ should “consent at last to take a proper view of
the situation”? Providence did not take its view during the war to
sustain slavery, and will not in the struggle to maintain caste,
which is now the great issue, as slavery then was. That issue the
South is pushing to the front with new energy. For example, the
great churches, Methodist and Presbyterian, that had been rent
asunder by the anti-slavery agitation before the war, had seemed
for a time since to be happily coming together once more, but
recently that fair prospect has become darkened, and mainly by the
strong exactions in regard to caste-separation demanded by the
South. Then as to schools, the South has always been understood
to be opposed to the co-education of the races, but the recent
demonstrations in one of the States are almost amusingly violent.
We stolid Northern people are tempted to smile at the fear that the
white young gentlemen and ladies of the South are so eager to marry
negroes that they dare not be trusted in the same school together,
and that such stringent measures as fines, imprisonment and the
chain-gang are deemed necessary to prevent it! But we are glad to
find that these severe measures were planned by over-zealous young
politicians, and that “the sober second thought of the people” has
substituted less barbarous methods, and that other Southern States
do not follow the bad example.
But more seriously, the South has never enforced laws against the
criminal mingling of the races that has almost bleached the negroes
white. Is lawful marriage more criminal than concubinage? But who
wants the intermarriage of the races to take place? Not the North,
certainly. The Southern whites ought to be able to resist the
temptation. Every step in the advancement of the blacks contradicts
the charge that they desire it. No! the charge is fictitious, and
is only paraded to give force to the plea for caste-distinction and
exclusion, which is now the main hindrance to the incoming of the
Brotherhood of Man.
But the Southerner pleads strongly against recognizing the
_political_ equality of the races. He says, The negro is not my
equal in intelligence, property or character. Why should he cast a
ballot he cannot read, elect men to make laws which they themselves
cannot read, to impose taxes of which he pays almost nothing,
and to squander the money for the benefit of demagogues? A most
estimable Christian gentleman from South Carolina said to me not
long since: “On one point the people of our State are agreed. We
will not again be ruled by the negroes. We have tried it and we
will not permit it to be repeated.” To all this the ready answer
is: It was one thing for ignorant, degraded and unscrupulous
negroes at that time to rule—nay, I may say, ruin—the State, and
another and very different thing, to permit negroes that are
educated, possessed of property and of established character to
take their proper share in the administration of the affairs of
the State; and this brings me to my final point.
3. It is the duty of the hour and of all concerned to unite in
aiding the negro to acquire knowledge, property and character. In
the Revolutionary struggle, the two White Brothers stood shoulder
to shoulder for one object; in the last sad conflict they fought
against each other to the bitter end. It is time that the enmity
of the last struggle should be laid aside and the amity of the
first should be imitated. Let the two White Brothers unite in
directing the general government to make ample provisions on terms
satisfactory to both to promote popular education in the South; let
the State governments in the South vote means to second the effort.
Let the North, as individuals and churches, multiply greatly its
generous offerings and increase the number of its consecrated men
and women to carry forward the work, and let the South respond in
its measure in personal contributions and labors, and especially
let its people welcome these Northern teachers, not with suspicion
and ostracism, but with co-operation and the respect due to their
Christian characters. Let the large religious denominations bury
dead issues and unite in lifting up the negro. On what nobler or
more Christian platform could they stand? Let them come to him
not as the priest and the Levite, but as the Samaritan; and let
the Black Brother show more alacrity than ever in responding to
these efforts in his behalf. When all this is done, there will be
realized the great mission of these Three Brothers in America—the
founding of a great empire, the establishing of civil and religious
liberty, the granting of personal freedom to all, and last and
greatest of all, the crowning glory of illustrating the Brotherhood
of Man!
* * * * *
NEED OF INTELLIGENCE IN BENEVOLENCE.
BY SECRETARY POWELL.
_What should be done to increase the number of those who
intelligently contribute to the support of the American Missionary
Association?_
Among the reasons for raising this question are the following:
1. A large number of the churches give us no contribution. Last
year only 1,698, out of 4,277 total, contributed to our treasury.
The State Associations every year, and the National Council every
three years, recommend the Association to the churches for their
support. Sixty-one per cent. of those churches reply: “We do
not accept your advice.” A high estimate they must put upon the
reasons which governed their representatives! Yet resolutions of
commendation are necessary. The cause that cannot obtain them
is doomed. But, though necessary, they are not enough. “Good
words butter no parsnips.” Those who say not and do are more to
be commended than those who say and do not. The resolutions of
National Councils and State Associations need to be translated into
the benevolent activities of all the churches. Otherwise they are
dead letters.
2. Only a small proportion of those who contribute through the
churches do so intelligently. Some give from impulse. When the
impulse dies, the contribution dies with it. Some give only when
roused by a special appeal. If no appeal is made they give nothing.
Some give merely because the contribution box is passed—they are
ashamed not to go through the motions of putting something in,
and they would be even more ashamed to have the congregation
know just what they put in. Look at the contents of the average
contribution box as it returns from its excursion among the pews.
Notice the exceedingly large number of pennies and nickels and
quarters (given probably by as many individuals) in comparison with
the gifts of larger denomination! It is often the case, even in
large congregations, that one, two, three or four contributors—and
they not always the most able to give—contribute more than all
the rest put together. It is not forgotten that many of the small
gifts are the widows’ mites—the offerings of the poor, that, in
the arithmetic of heaven, count more than they all. Nevertheless,
it remains true a very large proportion of those who put money
into the contribution box as it is passed do not know anything
about what they are giving for, care still less, and who, if not
in church when the contribution is taken, give nothing. Woe to the
cause whose annual contribution comes on a rainy Sunday.
3. The total contributions from the churches and individuals
represent a sadly low average for the total church membership. The
receipts last year from churches and individuals, exclusive of
legacies, were $189,483.39. Divided among the church membership of
the country it represents an average contribution of only 44 cents
per member; and if the contributions of those who give annually
all the way from $1.00 up to $1,000 were subtracted, the average
would fall from 50 to 75 per cent. below this. Surely the spirit
of Christian benevolence abroad in the churches is not what it
ought to be. Did Christians give as they pray, their benevolence
would reach a higher mark. They are apt to be more honest in the
expression of their views of duty at the throne of grace than they
are through the expression of their conduct.
The pride of consistency, as we remember the confessed doctrines of
the churches, should make us all intensely dissatisfied with this
record of unfaithfulness on the part of so many church members.
4. The increase in contributions does not keep pace with the growth
of the churches in membership and wealth. The total wealth of
the United States, as officially reported for the year 1870, was
$30,068,518,507. In 1880 it was $43,642,000,000. Since 1880 the
gain has been in all probability even in larger ratio; and in this
gain the Congregational churches have had undoubtedly their full
share. Ten years ago the membership of the churches was 365,595.
Last year it was 436,379. Ten years ago the church contributions
and individual donations to our treasury, exclusive of legacies,
were $186,166.62. Last year, from the same sources, they were
$189,483.39. That is to say: During the past ten years the churches
have increased in wealth 31 per cent., and over; in membership, 19
per cent., and over; but in their contributions they have increased
only a little less than 2 per cent. Had the gain kept pace with
the increase in church membership, our receipts last year would
have been $32,055.67 more than they were. Had they kept pace with
the presumable increase of wealth they would have been $54,394.69
more than they were. “Freely ye have received, freely give,” was
the emphatic command of our Lord to his disciples as he sent them
out on errands of mercy among the sick and suffering and sorrowing
poor. “Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay
by him in store as God hath prospered him,” was the explicit
injunction of Paul to the churches concerning their collections
for the poor. And here are our churches organized on purpose to
carry out the teachings of Christ and his apostles; increasing in
numbers and increasing in wealth year by year; yet relatively to
that increase falling behind in their contributions to a society
whose chief and crowning distinction is that it labors among the
poor and the despised and the neglected. Will a man rob God? was a
question asked in ancient times. Modern times have not outgrown the
pertinency of its asking.
5. The Association should be relieved from a perpetual struggle to
get out of debt. From a business standpoint the struggle is not
healthy. From a religious standpoint it is not right. Thank God
we come to this annual meeting free from debt. It is four years
since we enjoyed that privilege before. We would like, if it please
the churches, to indulge in the luxury of singing the doxology
at shorter intervals. Well, then, _don’t get into debt_. Easily
said. Had we a fixed and certain income; had we the authority to
levy upon the churches a specified tax and the power to collect
it; had we the ability to foresee just how much was coming from
legacies, we could then show a clean balance every year. But in all
these respects we are in a field of limitless uncertainties. The
gifts to our treasury are purely voluntary. No certain dependence
can be placed on legacies. One year it may be deluge; the next it
may be drought. What are we to do? What can we do? We can only
calculate probabilities and trust our friends. What? Can you not
trust God? Yes—blessed trust—we _can_ trust Him. But trust must
be intelligent. God’s ordination is that missionary work shall be
carried on by his children, and that they shall pay the bills. We
have no right to expect that He will work miracles in one direction
to defeat what He has ordained in another. Presumption is not
piety. Fanaticism is not faith. We have a vast work committed to
our care. We have a great number of missionaries to support. We
have large money investments in church and school property to
guard. We must plan to conserve all these interests. A sentimental
trust in God will not pay taxes and missionaries’ salaries,
nor save religion from being dishonored by broken pledges. The
churches, whose servant the Association is, should save its
officers from the worry and anxiety of constant fear lest through
lack of funds the work shall be endangered and the interests of
Christ’s kingdom made to suffer.
The above are some of the reasons for raising the question, What
should be done to increase the number of those who intelligently
contribute to the support of the American Missionary Association?
Now for the answer.
1. Our theological seminaries should provide for a course of
lectures in which the history and claims of the American Missionary
Association, together with those of the other six missionary
societies, should be presented and discussed. Systematic theology,
church polity, homiletics and ecclesiastical history would lose
nothing, but on the contrary they would gain much in interest and
power by the inspiration of such lectures. To train the churches in
support of these societies is a part of ministerial life, and they
need to be trained. The initial letters by which these societies
are recognized by the few who are acquainted with them would be as
mysterious and puzzling to the great majority of our congregations
as the hieroglyphics of an Egyptian tomb!
Now this is all wrong. These societies are the organized assertions
of great truths. They are the expressions of great principles.
They represent the heart of the gospel reaching out through the
churches for the world’s salvation! The people should be instructed
in reference to their duty toward them, and not left in ignorance
as to their names and meaning. If our theological seminaries have
been established to train men for the work of the gospel ministry,
they should train them for its work _all round_ and not merely for
its work on a few sides. James was an Apostle as well as Paul. You
would scarcely dream it from the teaching of some theologies. The
preaching that trains the people to clear intellectual conceptions
of truth is good; but the preaching that in addition to this trains
them to go out and put their belief into practice is better, and
that because it is more Christian. The roundness and fullness of
truth demand it. Theory—practice. Sympathy—benevolence. Let them
not be divorced either in the teaching of our seminaries or in the
preaching of our pulpits.
2. There should be an annual presentation of the Association’s
claims in every church. This may seem like a wild proposition in
view of the large number of non-contributing churches. But duty
should be affirmed even if no one performs it. For some reason or
other a large number of our ministers do not bring the claims of
the American Missionary Association before their congregations.
It cannot be that they are ignorant of the Society and its work.
They have the Year Book. They must know of the resolutions of the
National Council and the State Associations. They are presumably
readers of the denominational papers, and I know they all have
their pure minds stirred up periodically by way of remembrance by
circulars and other agencies. Are their churches small and poor?
There is no church so small and so poor, if it have any right to
be in existence, but that it can do a little and in doing that
little receive in return for itself and minister, both spiritual
and temporal blessing. If there is a church so small and so poor
that it cannot do this then it had better make haste to glorify
God by its death than continue to dishonor him by its life. Are
there so many objects asking help that they cannot respond? There
are only seven societies in our denominational family claiming
their support. Can it be that any minister of the gospel feels
that seven contributions for benevolent objects during the twelve
months of the year are too many for his church to make?—are more
than his church ought to make? And if he allow outside objects to
come in, however worthy they may be, and thereby crowd out any of
the National Societies, is that quite just to those societies?
Generosity is indeed a virtue, but exercised at the expense of
those who have a prior claim, it can hardly be called a Christian
virtue. An Apostle has written it: “If any provide not for his own
and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith
and is worse than an infidel.” The American Missionary Association
is an adopted child of the Congregational churches of the United
States. It is a lawful member of our denominational household. It
is there by virtue of every law which governs in the fellowship of
the churches. It is not a beggar asking alms—it is not a stranger
crowding for hospitality—it is a child having all the rights and
privileges of a child in its own home, and if beggars and strangers
are allowed to enter and rob it of that which is its legitimate
portion it has a right to be heard in earnest protest against the
wrong it suffers. As the accredited agent of the churches for the
prosecution of missionary work in the field it occupies it has
rightful claim to their unanimous support.