CHAPTER XIII. 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 It has been objected that fellowship should not be withdrawn from all slaveholders, because some of them are exceedingly kind to their slaves.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 No. Does he use his influence to have the diabolical laws enacted to crush the manhood out of the colored man, repealed?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.

---