John Wesley pronounced slavery to be the “sum of all villanies.” The discipline of the Methodist Episcopal Church is quite positive in its condemnation of slavery. Some of the early Methodist preachers gave no quarters to this sin. But as the church increased in numbers and popularity, slaveholders, who at first came in by mere sufferance, assumed a bolder position, and finally ruled the whole church “with a rod of iron.”
The General Conference which convened in Cincinnati in 1836, after a warm discussion, adopted the following resolution:
“Resolved, By the delegates of the Annual Conferences, in General Conference assembled, that we are decidedly opposed to modern abolitionism, and wholly disclaim anyright, wish, or intention to interfere in the civil and political relation between the master and slave as it existsin the slaveholding States of this Union.” Yeas 120, nays 14.
This resolution was an offering to appease the bloody Moloch of slavery, which had been aroused somewhat byOrange Scott. At a Gen. Conf. in 1840, held in Baltimore, a resolution was passed depriving colored persons of the right of testifying against white persons. The resolution reads as follows:
“Resolved, That it is inexpedient and unjustifiable for any preacher to permit colored persons to give testimony against white persons, in any State where they are denied that privilege by law.”[17]
The division of this Church (or secession, as some call it, of the Church South) has as yet resulted, so far as we can see, in no advantage to the slave. The southern portion or branchis not more pro-slavery than before; and the northern division occupies precisely the ground maintained when the resolutions of 1836 and 1840 were adopted, and when there were embraced within her communion the owners of 200,000 slaves.Slaveholding is not a bar to membership in the Methodist Episcopal Church North.Ten or eleven conferences are now slaveholding, and between 30 and 40,000 slaves are owned at the present time by members of this church.
The Baltimore Conference, which belongs to the church North, passed in 1836 the following resolution:
“Resolved, That this Conference disclaims any fellowship with abolitionism. On the contrary, while it is determined to maintain its well known, and long established position, by keeping the traveling preachers composing its own body, free from slavery; it is also determined not to hold connexion with any ecclesiastical body, that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of membership in the Church.”
“Resolved, That this Conference disclaims any fellowship with abolitionism. On the contrary, while it is determined to maintain its well known, and long established position, by keeping the traveling preachers composing its own body, free from slavery; it is also determined not to hold connexion with any ecclesiastical body, that shall make non-slaveholding a condition of membership in the Church.”
This conference, so far from regarding slaveholding in themembershipa sin, seems to consider it a virtue, and a condition of fellowship.
An effort to introduce the slavery question into the last General Conference was defeated, speakers were choked down, and the conference closed in disorder. Since the meeting of that body a number of Conferences have passed resolutions calling for the adoption of a rule which would exclude slaveholders fromthe church. Some strong men[18]seem determined not to rest the question until there is a semblance at least of consistency between the professions and practice of Methodism on slavery. This church has been “as much as ever deploring the evils of slavery,”[19]for scores of years, and asmuch as everstrengthening and building up the iniquity! And as a Methodist writer in theNorthern C. Advocatein a late article asks—“Is it not high time for honest and God-fearing anti-slavery ministers and members of the Methodist Episcopal Church, to inquire whether in her official position, her anti-slavery professions and character are not all amere sham!” It is to be feared that the good men of this church, who are laboring to effect its renovation from this foul sin, are doomed to disappointment, as many others, who have preceded them, have been. The fact that three new slaveholding conferences will be represented in the next General Conference of this body, augurs unfavorably.
This branch of the Methodist family is fearfully involved in the sin of slaveholding.—Slavery has silenced the voice of the church organ. Slaveholders have free access to its communion. The discipline contains a very disgraceful clause in relation to colored members. Article 12, Sec. 1st secures the right of suffrage to all male members who areWHITE. Article 7, Sec. 3, gives to each annual conference power to make for colored members of the church “such termsof suffrage” as they may think proper. In the same article the apparently neutral, but really pro-slavery character of this church is seen in the following words: “But neither the General Conference nor any annual conference shall assume power to interfere with the constitutional powers of the civil governments,or with the operations of the civil laws.” The civil law is the highest law recognized in this article, and where that makeschattelsof men, this church is forbidden to interfere. In these quotations the principles ofcasteandlower-lawism, are most clearly inculcated. It is with surprise and sorrow that we find such odious features in the discipline of a church which boasts ofMUTUAL RIGHTS.
This denomination of Christians stands boldly and unequivocally upon the solid bible anti-slavery platform; and although not a largebody, its influence has already been widely felt. It comes behind in no anti-slavery gift or grace. Its pulpit and pressspeak outearnestly and powerfully. The Syracuse Conference recently adopted the following resolutions, which are such as all the conferences of the connection pass unanimously:
“Resolved, That we hold—as ever—in abhorrence thesystem, esteeming it as ranking first in the dark list of systematized piracy, and all intelligent supporters of the abomination as being nothing, less or more, than willing pirates.“Resolved, That to ask us to fraternize with any of the thousand and one organized or unorganized influences, going directly or indirectly to sustain the system, prominent among which are the principal churches and the great political parties of the country, is to offer direct insult to our sense of Christian propriety and gentlemanly courtesy.”
“Resolved, That we hold—as ever—in abhorrence thesystem, esteeming it as ranking first in the dark list of systematized piracy, and all intelligent supporters of the abomination as being nothing, less or more, than willing pirates.
“Resolved, That to ask us to fraternize with any of the thousand and one organized or unorganized influences, going directly or indirectly to sustain the system, prominent among which are the principal churches and the great political parties of the country, is to offer direct insult to our sense of Christian propriety and gentlemanly courtesy.”
TheRegular BaptistChurch occupies a decidedly pro-slavery position. Where slavery exists, it does not make slaveholding a bar to communion. It is true that there is a division between the Northern and Southern Baptist churches inbenevolent operations, but this division is “one, not of principle, but of policy. Hence, there has been from the first, between the leaders of the Northern and Southern Associations, a cordial fraternization.”[20]This church is very influential in the South, and fromno ecclesiastical organization has American slavery received a more powerful and hearty sanction. Many Baptists are, however, warm friends of the slave, but they have not been able to change or modify in the slightest degree the pro-slavery position of the general body.
TheFree-will BaptistChurch is decidedly anti-slavery. It stands in the front rank of those societies which are on the side of the oppressed battling for humanity. Amongst other excellent resolutions submitted by the committee on slavery at the last General Conference the following will show on what platform to look for a true Free-will Baptist:
“Resolved, That we re-affirm our opposition to the whole system of American Slavery; holding it to be absurd in the light of Reason, infamous in the eye of Justice, a deadly foe to human welfare, a libel on the Decalogue, and a reckless attack on the religion of Christ; and the only change we would recommend in our denominational attitude and policy on this subject, is, to take an advanced position in our warfare against the system, and to give a more open and public expression to our hostility.”
“Resolved, That we re-affirm our opposition to the whole system of American Slavery; holding it to be absurd in the light of Reason, infamous in the eye of Justice, a deadly foe to human welfare, a libel on the Decalogue, and a reckless attack on the religion of Christ; and the only change we would recommend in our denominational attitude and policy on this subject, is, to take an advanced position in our warfare against the system, and to give a more open and public expression to our hostility.”
The position of this branch of the Baptist family may be known from the following resolution passed by the Eastern Association:
“Resolved, That we enter our solemn protest against the system of American slavery, as asin against God, and a libel on our national declaration, that “all men are created free and equal.””
The Evangelical Association has inserted in its discipline the following resolution which indicates its ecclesiastical position:
“Question.What is to be done respecting slaveholders and the slave-trade?“Answer.We have long since been convinced that the buying and selling of men and women, and slavery, is a great evil, and ought to be abhorred by every Christian: be it therefore known to all fellow-members, that none shall be allowed, under any pretence or condition whatever, the holding of slaves or the trafficking in the same.”
“Question.What is to be done respecting slaveholders and the slave-trade?
“Answer.We have long since been convinced that the buying and selling of men and women, and slavery, is a great evil, and ought to be abhorred by every Christian: be it therefore known to all fellow-members, that none shall be allowed, under any pretence or condition whatever, the holding of slaves or the trafficking in the same.”
This church believes slavery to be in itself a sin. The Constitution, which can only be altered by a vote of two-thirds of all the members of the society, declares that “involuntary servitude shall in no way be tolerated.” The 32d Section of Discipline reads as follows:
“All slavery in every sense of the word is totally prohibited, and shall in no way be tolerated in our Church. Should any be found in our society who hold slaves, they cannot continue as members unless they do personally manumit or set free such slaves. And when it is known to any of our ministers in charge of a circuit, station or mission, that any of its members hold a slave or slaves, he shall admonish such member to manumit such slave or slaves; andif such persons do not take measures to carry out the discipline, they shall be expelled by the proper authorities of the church; and any minister refusing to attend to the duties above described shall be dealt with by the authorities to which he is amenable.”
“All slavery in every sense of the word is totally prohibited, and shall in no way be tolerated in our Church. Should any be found in our society who hold slaves, they cannot continue as members unless they do personally manumit or set free such slaves. And when it is known to any of our ministers in charge of a circuit, station or mission, that any of its members hold a slave or slaves, he shall admonish such member to manumit such slave or slaves; andif such persons do not take measures to carry out the discipline, they shall be expelled by the proper authorities of the church; and any minister refusing to attend to the duties above described shall be dealt with by the authorities to which he is amenable.”
This section, substantially, has been in force since 1821. The United Brethren have congregations in Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia and Maryland.
At the General Conference, May 12, 1853, theSouthern delegatesreported that there were twelve cases of legal connection with slavery in the Church, but they were of a character so peculiar, that a difference of opinion had arisen as to whether the disciplineintendedto exclude them. The opinion and advice of the Conference was asked. The following answer, in substance, was given:“All those cases reported are cases prohibited by the plain letter of our Discipline. Execute papers of immediate emancipation.—The sympathy of this Conference given to palliated cases of slavery would be an entering wedge of slavery into our Church. The Church must be disconnected with slavery in all its forms. The bishops are instructed to carry out theletterof Discipline.”The action in this case was taken without a dissenting vote, and the delegates from the South assured the Conference that the intention of the Discipline, as above explained, should be executed.The General Conference made provision for the publication of a monthly magazine. The following is from the Prospectus:“The immediate abolition of slavery; rejecting that most odious and barbarous notion, that man has a right to hold property in man. The position will be taken that this is a monster that can never be tamed, a sin which violates every precept of the Bible. It will be our object to show that slavery (by which we mean the holding of property in man) is sinful, necessarily sinful, under all possible and conceivable circumstances.”
At the General Conference, May 12, 1853, theSouthern delegatesreported that there were twelve cases of legal connection with slavery in the Church, but they were of a character so peculiar, that a difference of opinion had arisen as to whether the disciplineintendedto exclude them. The opinion and advice of the Conference was asked. The following answer, in substance, was given:
“All those cases reported are cases prohibited by the plain letter of our Discipline. Execute papers of immediate emancipation.—The sympathy of this Conference given to palliated cases of slavery would be an entering wedge of slavery into our Church. The Church must be disconnected with slavery in all its forms. The bishops are instructed to carry out theletterof Discipline.”
The action in this case was taken without a dissenting vote, and the delegates from the South assured the Conference that the intention of the Discipline, as above explained, should be executed.
The General Conference made provision for the publication of a monthly magazine. The following is from the Prospectus:
“The immediate abolition of slavery; rejecting that most odious and barbarous notion, that man has a right to hold property in man. The position will be taken that this is a monster that can never be tamed, a sin which violates every precept of the Bible. It will be our object to show that slavery (by which we mean the holding of property in man) is sinful, necessarily sinful, under all possible and conceivable circumstances.”
Besides the churches already mentioned the following are decidedly anti-slavery:—“Associate Presbyterian,” “Reformed Presbyterian,” “Free Presbyterian,” (of which the venerable John Rankin is a member,) many local “Independent” churches, and the “Friends” or Quakers. The Quakers have a world-wide reputation for practical philanthropy. And on the other hand the following large denominations are decidedly pro-slavery:—“German Reformed,” “Dutch Reformed,” “Cumberland Presbyterian,” “Lutheran” and “Disciple” (or Campbellite.)
The following estimate made by W. G. Gephart, a Presbyterian minister, will give a “bird’s eye view” of the relation of the leading denominations of this country to slavery as it stood a few years since. At the present time they are onlymore deeplyinvolved in the trade in the souls of men, than they were when this estimate was made:
“Now, suppose the average value of all these slaves be only $400 each, and it will give a capital of $264,225,200! invested in humanity, the interests of 660,653 beings upon whom God has chartered immortality, and stamped it with the signet of his own image.”
From this review it will be perceived that the most influential denominations have given their sanction to slavery. They have opened wide their doors to slaveholders, and have welcomed them to their communion. They have not advised nor commanded them to emancipate their slaves as a condition of admission to the church, to the Lord’s table, to the pulpit, or even into heaven itself!
Divines have, by a perversion of the Bible, corrupted the consciences of Southern, aye, even of Northern Christians, by the most subtle and monstrous errors. The holy Bible has been made, in the language of Blanchard, a smith shop whence consecrated hands have brought fetters for the feet, and manacles for the mind! “We have,” said Frederick Douglass, “men-stealers for ministers, woman-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church-members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cow-skin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. The man who robs me of my earnings at the end of each week, meets me as class-leader on Sunday morning, to show me the way of life, and the path of salvation. He who sells my sister, for purposes of prostitution, stands forth as the pious advocate of purity. He who proclaims it a religious duty to read the Bible, denies me the right of learning to read the name of God who made me. He who is the religious advocate of marriage, robs whole millions of its sacred influence, and leaves them to the ravages of wholesale pollution. The warm defender of the sacredness of the family relation is the same that, scatters whole families,—sundering husbands and wives, parents and children, sisters and brothers,—leaving the hut vacant, and the hearth desolate. We see the thief preaching against theft, and the adulterer against adultery. We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for thepoor heathen! all for the glory of God and the good of souls!The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave trade go handin hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men, erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity.”
We shall now proceed to show what we conceive to be the true position of a Christian church in relation to slavery. It has been demonstrated that slavery is a complicatedand monstrous iniquity involving a direct violation of the whole second table of the Decalogue. This being an established position it will not be difficult to determine the relation which the church should sustain to this sin, and to those who commit it.
The scriptural position of a Christian and a Christian society in relation to sin, may be ascertained from the following quotations: “But I have written unto you not to keep company—if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or railer, or drunkard, or extortioner, with such an one, no, not to eat.”
“Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord; and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you.”
“And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”
“Now we command you brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly.”
In these passages the duty of open and decided non-fellowship with sinners is unequivocally asserted. 1. Do not “keep company” with covetous persons and extortioners. Do not “eat” with them at the sacramental table, for this would imply a sanction of their sin. 2.“Come out from among them.” Let there be between you a plain line of demarcation so that the whole world will know that you are not in favor with their sin, and are not a party to it. “HaveNO FELLOWSHIP.” Be not united in any associations which require it. Go not with them to the sacramental board. Unite not with them in benevolent efforts for the conversion of the world, for this would require fellowship. Havenofellowship. 4. “In the name of the Lord Jesus withdraw yourselves”—cut off all ties which imply fellowship. Do this solemnly—do it in the name of the blessed Jesus—do it for the glory of God—do it as an act of discipline—withdraw yourselves fromeverydisorderly walker—from every “darkness worker,”—let them be unto you “as a heathen man and a publican.”
Now how are these scriptures to be obeyed respecting the great sin of slavery? We answer: 1. The church should debar slaveholders from its communion. While they remain impenitent in relation to the monstrous sin of slavery and refuse to emancipate their slaves, they should be peremptorily refused admittance into the fellowship of saints. At thedoorthey ought to be met by an emphatic “No sirs; your hands are red with blood, your purses are filled with unjust gains, you rob the widow andthe fatherless, you make merchandise of men, repent, reform, do justly, love mercy, or away ye men-stealers!”
2. If by any means slaveholders have obtained a place in the church, they should be plainly dealt with, according to the directions given in such cases by the sacred writers, and in case of a refusal on their part to “hear the church,” they should be immediately thrust out—accounted as “heathen”—“delivered unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh.”
3. But in case a church refuses to discipline slaveholders, as it disciplines other offenders against God, and on the contrary persistently retains them in its communion and officially recognizes them as members of the household of faith,—as holy persons,—as good christians, then a christian can do no better than to withdraw from that church. He cannot remain in it without giving an expressed or implied sanction to a slaveholding christianity. The whole force of his piety and influence will go abroad to create the conviction that slavery is right and quite consistent with holiness.
In support of this view of the true position of a church and of christians in relation to slavery, the following additional considerations are submitted:
1. The church is required to be holy. But it cannot approximate to holiness while welcoming into its pale sinners such as slaveholders are, and sanctioning such an impurity as is slavery.
2. The Church is required to be the “pillar and ground of the truth.” But a slaveholding church wofully perverts and corrupts the truth in many important particulars. The truth that God hates oppression and robbery for instance, is corrupted by it, for it pronounces the very chief oppressors and robbers the true children of God, and assures the world that He approbates their conduct. It corrupts the truth in relation to the true idea of a christian. It denies that justice, mercy and love, are essential attributes of a christian character, by passing off upon a deluded world a class of persons as christians who are pre-eminently unjust, unmerciful, and full of hate to the human brotherhood.
3. The church should honor the holy scriptures. But a slaveholding church necessarily dishonors them. The church is presumed to be a faithful and competent expounder of the doctrines and moral precepts of the Bible, and hence what it approves, it is supposed, the Bible sanctions, and as it approves of slavery, it gives currency to the idea that the Bible isa pro-slavery book,—that Christianity is favorable to oppression, and an enemy to equality and fraternity. Thus a slaveholding church dishonors the Word of Truth and is an infidel-making organization. Non-fellowship with slaveholding is demanded as a condition of faithfulness to the Bible.
4. The church is expected to convert the world to righteousness. But it can never do this while shielding the Leviathan of sins. Slavery is a system of barbarism which must necessarily be destroyed in order to the evangelization of America and of the world. The tyranny, injustice and cruelty of masters, and the ignorance, servility and general degradation of slaves are inconsistent with christianity, and to sanction these is to sanction and sustain sin, and interpose a barrier to the progress of truth and righteousness. And in addition to this, a church must have a character to give it influence with men. A church without character for disinterestedness, benevolence and truth, will be despised by men and forsaken of God. A slaveholding church is without a good moral character, and hence lacks moral power. Men will be slow to believe that, while fiercely defending a monstrous national sin, it is in earnest in its opposition to lesser crimes and trivial wrongs. How powerless is a body of christians whose virtue gives way under the temptation of a popular and lucrative vice! How justly branded with cowardice and hypocrisy!
5. Duty to slaveholders demands non-fellowship with slaveholding. The course pursued by the popular churches involves the souls of slaveholders in imminent peril. Their consciences are lulled into quietude or narcoticized by deadly moral nostrums, skillfully prepared and treacherously administered by time-serving, fleece-seeking hirelings, who assume the sacred office of shepherds. Many of them are not aware of their sin and danger, and how can they be aroused while honored in the church and flattered as good christians, and imitators in the slaveholding business, of the good old patriarchs? To save these men the church must be plain with them, and require repentance ofalltheir sins, andespeciallyof the sin of slaveholding, as a condition of a place in the temple of God.
6. Duty to the slave demands non-fellowship with slaveholding. The oppressed have a claim upon the church, because Christ died for them, and they are, while enslaved, in such a situation that they can neither love him with all their powers, nor do much to establish his church and publish his name in theearth. Hence it is the duty of christians and christian societies to break off the fetters which bind not only their limbs but their minds.The American church is able to emancipate every slave in the land.Who doubts that it is its duty? But in order to do this glorious work, the principle of strict non-fellowship with slaveholders must be adopted. Let every church in America declare slavery to be a sin and exclude slaveholders from its communion, and the doom of slavery will be sealed. All the laws and compromises and compacts which the ingenuity of the prince of darkness could invent would not preserve it. It is the church which is the bulwark of slavery. Not one day could it stand up in this country without the strength imparted to it by a powerful but awfully corrupted church. “Let all the evangelical denominations,” saysAlbert Barnes, “but follow the simple example of the Quakers in this country, and slavery would soon come to an end. There is not vital energy enough; there is not power of numbers and influence enough, out of the church, to sustain it. Let every religious denomination in the landdetach itselffrom all connection with slavery, without saying a word against others; let the time come when, in all the mighty denominations of Christians, it can be announced that the evil has ceasedwith themFOREVER, and let the voice from each denomination be lifted up in kind, but firm and solemn testimony against the system—with no ‘mealy’ words; with no attempt at apology; with no wish to blink it, with no effort to throw the sacred shield of religion over so great an evil—and the work is done. There is no poweroutof the church that could sustain slavery an hour if it were not sustainedinit.” Hence the reasons for non-fellowship with slaveholding are as vast as the interests temporal and eternal of millions and millions of our fellow-creatures, and as vast as the treachery which leaves them in chains! Depend upon it the curse of God will come down upon the American church in a storm of fiery vengeance if it arise not and do justice to the slave!
7. If slaveholders are admitted to church-fellowshipno class of sinners on earth should be excluded. The church cannot consistently expel from its communion the rich man who grinds the face of the poor laborer that reaps down his fields, and at the same time retain the slaveholder who livesentirelyupon the unpaid labor of the poor. He whooccasionallycheats his neighbor out of a few dollars cannot consistently be censured by the church while the man who cheats whole families outof domestic comfort, home, education, and their all, passes without reproof. The occasional adulterer cannot receive church discipline in the presence of him who compels his slaves to live together without the sanction, and without the protection of the law. He who steals a sheep cannot be cast out from a church in which he who steals men occupies a high seat. As slaveholding is a violation directly or indirectly of every commandment of the Decalogue, if it cannot and must not be disciplined, then church discipline is useless; and all classes of sinners should be admitted and retained in this Holy Temple, unless the principle be established that he who commits apettyoffense shall be cast out, but he who has the heart and courage to commit a high offense, a daring crime, shall remain in full fellowship. I have wondered how slaveholding church members could try and expel from a religious society a poor negro who, in addition to his peck of corn per week, had stolen a little meat, while they were conscious of robbing that same negro of the products of his daily toil, and of his own soul and body.
8. To maintain itsindependencethe church must discard fellowship with slaveholders.—In no case have slaveholders been willing to occupy an humble position in a religious bodylong. They assume to be pre-eminentlythemembers of the church, and the press, pulpit, and General Assembly or General Conference,must, unequivocally, endorse, or patriarchalize their slaveholding. The history of all the pro-slavery churches in America is proof of this remark. A few slaveholders are able to change entirely the action of a powerful ecclesiastical body—to range it on the side of oppression, to silence or subborn its witnesses, to shut up its sympathies and take away the bow of hope from the slave. How many of the hundreds of ministers in the whole south are free to utter their convictions on slavery to day? How many religious presses are unfettered? If then the church would stand upon the solid rock of truth, unawed by the popular will, uncorrupted with gold, the immutable friend ofman, proclaiming and enforcing thewholetruth, it must keep out of her communion legalized and practiced tyrants.
9. Regard for decency, refined sensibility and common humanity, urges non-fellowship with slaveholders. The members of a slaveholding church become insensible to the grossest outrages upon the better feelings of slaves, and they habitually commit acts, without a blush, which, one should think, would pale the cheek of a demon. For illustrationtake a well authenticated fact: “A runaway slave in 1841, assigned the following as the reason why he refused to commune with a church of which he was a member. ‘The church,’ said he, ‘had silver furniture for the administration of the Lord’s supper, to procure which they soldmy brother!and I could not bear the feelings it produced to go forward and receive the sacrament from the vessels which were the purchase of my brother’s blood!’” But the members of that church, generally, were altogether without feeling upon the subject, and were as little disturbed in selling a slave to purchase silver ware for the sacramental table, or to pay a parson, or to support a missionary, as in selling a mule for the same purposes.
10. If slavery be fellowshiped in the church, thenslaveholding preacherswill be coming around and preaching the gospel to us! A dealer in human flesh will undertake to teach us to be just and merciful. We will be expected to receive the elements of the holy sacrament from hands that use the cowskin occasionally on the backs of slaves! It is notorious that churches which fellowship slavery have an exceedingly dumb and callous ministry on the subject of oppression. Frederick Douglass, I think it was, who said that thehardest master he ever served was a Methodist Protestant preacher. The following incident will illustrate this thought: “A minister of the gospel owned a female slave, whose husband was owned by another man in the same neighborhood. The husband did something supposed to be an offense sufficient to justify his master in selling him for the southern market. As he started, his wife obtained leave to visit him. She took her final leave of him, and started to return to her master’s house. She went a few steps and returned and embraced him again, and started a second time to go to her master’s house; but the feelings of her heart again overcame her, and she turned about and embraced him the third time. Again she endeavored to bear up under the heavy trial, and return; but it was too much for her—she had a woman’s heart. She returned the fourth time, embraced her husband—and turned about,—A MANIAC!”—(Anti-slavery Record.)
Good God! can any one plead for the admission of such cruelty into the bosom of the church and into the ministry?
And let it be remembered that this preacher simply did what the legal relation authorized, and what all slaveholding ministers may do without ecclesiastical censure.
11. If slavery be fellowshiped in the church, then we shall be compelled to sit in religious meetings, class-meetings and conference meetings, and hear a good experience told by one who lives on the toil of wretched slaves, and who would sell at public sale one of our own brethren in the Lord, yea, even ourselves, if thelawswould allow it. Take the following specimen of a Methodistsister, and ask yourselves how you would like to attend class with her.
“A poor woman was put in jail about a week since. It is the jail that cost the people of the United States nearly, or quite, $60,000. Had this woman committed crime? Not the least in the world. Her mistress wants to sell her, and pocket the money—that’s all. She puts her into jail simply to know where she is when she finds a customer. This poor woman, offered for sale, expects to beconfinedin a few weeks. She has a husband and mother, but neither of them are allowed to go into the jail to visit her. The husband tried to talk with her through the grated window, the other day, but was driven off by some menial of the establishment. Amanda, the slave-woman, is a member of the Methodist Church, which takes the name of Bethlehem. I hear she is in good standing in the Church, and sustainsa fair and good character generally. The mistress—the owner—the trader—who is she? She is Miss A. B., a venerable spinster, a few years ago from Virginia, and now residing in this city. She brought with her this woman, her mother, and two or three children, upon whose wages she has lived for years past, and now proposes to put Amanda in her pocket. She (Miss A. B.) is a member of the Methodist Episcopal Church, belongs to the M’Kendree Chapel congregation, and attendsclassregularly. I am glad to say some of the brethren are a littlestirredabout this transaction.”—Elliott,page 73.
“Alittle stirred!” Indeed! One would think they would have stirred that villainous woman out of the Church in short metre, or stirred out of it themselves. But no, they wereonly“a littlestirred!”
1. It has been objected that fellowship should not be withdrawn fromallslaveholders, 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 theholdingof them in that relation isextremeunkindness. A kind slaveholder? What entitles him to that character? Does he renounce the claim ofpropertyin his slaves? No. Does hehirethem to work for him andpaythem 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—againstsale at auction for his debts—against the lash of a Legree? No. What then entitles him to the character of akindslaveholder? 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 ofall! We abuse language when we say—abenevolentrobber, agentlemanlypickpocket, anhonorablepirate or akindslaveholder.
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, towhom 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’shistory who was the property of akindslaveholder.
“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 everyfeature 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 aboutthat,’ 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 inthe 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 inno casedoes 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? Didhe 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 thepublicconscience was made up ofindividualconsciences—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 slaveholdershavean 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 “falsepublicmorality” will be a satisfactory apology for your sins! When asked by the judgewhy you were an oppressor, you can answer, that you only followed the prevailing example!
3. Slavery, it is objected, is apoliticalquestion 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 concernsmanconcerns 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 themakers 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 slavesbecause holdingthem is a necessary condition ofrobbingthem.
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 thesoul. 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 slaveholdersonlythat 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 personsexceptthat 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 toeverycreature 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 pronouncedas 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.
Civil government is necessary to the preservation, prosperity and safety of society. In some important sense, “the powers that be, are ordained of God.” It does not appear thatthe Creator has established any specificformof government, but the genius of christianity is evidently democratic. The leadingobjectsof government are defined to be “the punishment of evil doers and the praise of them that do well.” When a government fails to protect and encourage the good and to punish evil doers,—when it becomes a mighty engine of oppression, the object of its institution is frustrated.
In the United States the voters are responsible for the character of the government. The people are the sovereign rulers. The ballot box controls legislation. If our country is badly governed it is the people’s fault.
The free white people of America are responsible for the existence of American slavery. They could at the ballot box break every yoke. They have the power to release more than three millions of slaves and thereby make heaven and earth rejoice!
A weighty responsibility, therefore, rests upon voters in relation to slavery. If it continue, it will be because they shall will it, and express that will at the ballot box. He who votes for a representative that is pledged to sustain slavery, becomes responsible for that representative’s acts on the slavery question. The responsibility cannot be shifted or dodged.Representatives consult the will of their constituents and act as they wish them to act. They are only the people’s agents, the echo of the people’s voice.
In the light of these facts how can a christian vote for a slaveholder or a friend of slavery? How can he, by his vote, say that slavery shall be perpetual? Every pulsation of a christian’s heart beats in harmony with liberty; he could not have slaves in his own hands. How then can he, how dare he, by his vote, chain them and deliver them over to the slave driver? It is mean and wicked for a strong man to beat a weak one, but it is equally as mean and wicked toholdthe weak man so that the strong one may beat him at his leisure and with ease. So it is bad to own a slave and tax his sinews, sweat and blood, to beat and bruise him, but it is equally wrong to hold the slave while the southern slaveholder does the same thing. Hence, he who votes for pro-slavery representatives, votes for slavery and all its swarms of evils, and is indirectly a slaveholder himself.
Let it be distinctly understood, then, that political power has been entrusted to the christian people of America by the God of nations, who holds them responsible for its proper exercise; and that acting politically is a seriousbusiness, affecting the interests directly, in this country, of twenty millions of freemen, and more than three millions of slaves; and also affecting indirectly, the interests of the whole human family.
If the supporters of slavery continue to control the policy of the American government; to trample under foot the “higher law;” to render the Declaration of Independence a nullity; to denationalize liberty; to nationalize slavery and perpetuate and extend it; and thus to belie all our professions of Democracy, and render this government a Godless tyrant, delighting in crushed hopes and hearts—then the whole human race may weep. That our government has been progressing toward this terrible consummation for the last thirty years is but too evident.
The Declaration of Independence is a sound anti-slavery document. It does not regard the right of all men to liberty as an unsettled opinion or a question to be proved by abstruse argument, but pronounces it a “SELF EVIDENT TRUTH.”
The Constitution informif not in fact, pretty fully embodies the sentiments of the Declaration. The word slave is not found in it, and it was kept out not accidentally, but purposely. The framers of the Constitutioncarefully guarded that instrument against any endorsement of slavery. In the convention which formed the Constitution, Gov. Morris of Pennsylvania said, “He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution.” Mr. Getry, of Massachusetts, in the same convention said, “we had nothing to do with the conduct of the States as to slavery,but we ought to be very careful not to give any sanction to it.” The idea that therecouldbe property in man was carefully excluded from the Constitution. It was about to be foisted into that instrument by the adoption of a report of a committee fixing a tax on importations. But Mr.Shermanwas against “acknowledging men to be property, by taxing them as such under the character of slaves.”Madison “thought it wrong to admit in the constitution the idea that there could be property in man.”But if the idea of property in man was carefully excluded from the Constitution, then it is clear that chattel slavery is not in form recognized, much less established by that instrument.
It is evident that the framers of the Constitution expected the speedy abolition of slavery; and hence, while providing in fact though not in form, for its continuance under the constitution, by virtue oflocalState laws, they soframed that instrument that it would not countenance slavery or deny the glorious doctrines of the immortal Declaration, which contained what Mr. Sumner calls “the national heart, the national soul, the national will, and the national voice.”[23]
Washingtonsaid “That it was among hisfirst wishesto see some plan adopted, by which slavery may beabolishedby law.”
Adamsregarded slavery as “a sacrilegious breach of trust.”
Hamiltonconsidered slaves, “though free by the law of God, held in slavery by the laws of men.”
Jeffersonsaid that the “abolition of domestic slavery was the greatest object of desire.”
Patrick Henrysaid—“I will not, I cannot justify it.”
Benj. Franklin, when 84 years of age, came up before Congress with a petition from the “Abolition Society of Pennsylvania, praying that body to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of freedom are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joyof surrounding freemen are groaning in servile subjection.” This petition besought Congress to “step to theVERY VERGEof the power vested in them fordiscouragingevery species of traffic in the persons of our fellow men.”
These facts afford conclusive evidence, that the founders of the American Republic did not intend to fasten upon the object of their toils, perils and sacrifices, a monster which would speedily eat out its virtue, destroy its vitality and overthrow it forever.
But the policy of the government has been reversed. Millions of acres of territory have been purchased and annexed to make room for slavery, which has become a great national pet—the god before whom aspiring politicians must kneel and worship as a condition of political elevation.
The President of the United States and his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, and both Houses of Congress are all under the control of the Slaveocracy. No man can be a President of the United States unless he bows the knee and swears upon the altar of this modern Baal. Zeal for the infamous Fugitive Slave Law is now a particular test of political orthodoxy. A Congressman who advocates the principles of Washington, Franklin and Jefferson is considered as standing outside of any “healthyorganization” and is not deemed worthy of a place on the most insignificant Congressional committee. Our government has been thoroughly changed from an anti-slavery to a pro-slavery government.
In view of these facts how important that the concentrated moral and political power of every American christian be brought to the rescue of our great Republic from the sin and shame of its present position.
Christians, in the States where slavery exists, are under obligations to use their whole political and moral power to bring about the speedy repeal of the entire slave code. That code is a miserable barbarism and should be swept away forever from the statutes of Christian States. My christian brethren in Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri, are you prepared to use all the power, moral and political, with which you are entrusted, as you shall answer to God, for the emancipation of your suffering fellow citizens? Your political influence must tell somewhere! Rememberthat.
Christians in the free States are obliged to do what is in their power for the repeal of all laws which bear upon the colored man because he is acoloredman. The word “white” ought to be erased from the statutes of all christian States. All “black laws” are anti-democratic,anti-christian, and not only insult and annoy, but discourage the colored man and obstruct his progress in the path of improvement.—Christian brethren of the free States, you have not done your duty toward your colored brother. You have sustained laws which gall his neck as a heavy yoke. You have treated him as an alien and an enemy. Will you henceforth do him justice, as you shall answer to God?
Christian citizens of all the States are directly responsible for the existence of slavery in the District of Columbia, and they should not be content until that foul pollution is wiped away from the Capital of our country. Slavery at Washington is especially a national disgrace, a blistering shame, a satire upon our professions.
When the foreign minister or visitor comes to our country, and goes to Washington, he sees in the streets, at the hotels, and everywhere, a poor, stupid, oppressed people, whose very speech and looks betray their ignorance and servility. Ah! Is this American freedom? Equality? Republicanism? Upon inquiry, he finds that one-seventh of all the people are in this state of servile wretchedness.
And when a member of Congress from a free State goes to the proud Capital of hiscountry, he beholds passing by the tall and splendid buildings of the government, droves of men, women and children, chained together,—some sullenly indifferent to their fate—others weeping as if their hearts would break.—Who are these? American citizens!
Men, as white as some members of Congress, and women as fair as their wives and as virtuous as their daughters, are cried off at auction to the highest bidder, in Washington!
There our senators and representatives sit and legislate, in sight of the slave prison, and slave market—in hearing of the clanking of chains, and coffles,—and of the wail of slave mothers, weeping for their children, because they are