Читать книгу: «The American Missionary. Volume 43, No. 10, October, 1889», страница 2

The great motive for these concessions was the desire for church enlargement. Slavery was a sin, but the slaveholder might not always be guilty, and if church unity and church extension were to be secured in the South, some concessions must be made. Then, too, there was undoubtedly the hope that concessions and fraternal intercourse in public assemblies and in Christian work would win the confidence of the slaveholders, and perhaps prepare the way for the gradual removal of slavery; and above all there was the cogent plea that compromise or division was the only present choice. The "half-loaf" argument was wielded most effectually, and here, especially, the "practical men" came to the front, while on the heads of the devoted Abolitionists were showered without stint the epithets "fanatics" and "visionaries."

So much zeal for the slaveholders, and so much sacrifice of self-respect, not to say of conscience, surely deserved a better fate; but all was in vain. The slaveholders scorned the compromises, and ruthlessly rent asunder the great national churches and missionary societies. The Congregationalists, never numerous in the South, clung with great tenacity to their few churches, but at length surrendered them.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMPROMISES ABOUT CASTE

So ended the first chapter of humiliating and fruitless Church compromises; but a new chapter has begun to be written, and so far promises to read just as the other did, both as to the facts to be recorded and the end that will be reached. Slavery is dead, but the son and heir and legitimate representative, race prejudice, arises to take its place. This does not propose to remand the colored race back into slavery, but to hold them as inferiors, to be discriminated against as to equal rights and to bear with their color the perpetual ban of separation and degradation. This might be expected in the political world, but not in the Church where "all are one in Christ Jesus." And it would be a specially sad fact if the Church should be more tardy than the State in the recognition of the equal manhood of the two races.

One great effort in the present ecclesiastical struggle is to secure the reunion of the sundered Churches; and, as in the case of slavery, other issues have been waived or compromised, leaving race-prejudice as the real point in the contest. Great have been the endeavors for harmony. Committees of Conference have been appointed, have met and conferred; enthusiastic public meetings have been held; communion services have been celebrated jointly, and great feasts have been spread to welcome visiting delegations. But the South has been inflexible on the color-line. The Northern leaders have made concessions, and in some instances have been ready to surrender the main point, but the mass of Northern Christians seem unwilling to deny the Saviour in the person of the man whose ostracism is demanded for no fault of his own, but only because God made him black.

The Presbyterian Church (North) deserves special mention for having, in the last General Assembly rejected a compromise that approved "the policy of separate churches, presbyteries and synods." The prize was nothing less than the ultimate reunion of the Northern and Southern branches of that great Church. The leaders in the Church and in the Assembly were committed to it and warmly advocated it, but when the test vote came, it was rejected by an overwhelming majority! God grant that when the test comes for the Congregationalists they may show as much back-bone! The present stage of the controversy finds the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians still divided, with little prospect of reunion. The Episcopalians in South Carolina have surrendered on a compromise that permits the one colored minister in the Convention to remain in it, but utterly forbids the admission of any others.

THE CONGREGATIONALISTS IN GEORGIA

The Congregationalists are considering the question practically, but with a division of sentiment. Some stand firmly against all race distinctions, while others are disposed to compromise on a plan that keeps the two organizations in Georgia still separated by the color-line, but that provides for the appointment of a few delegates from each, to form a new body that shall have charge of the interests of the denomination and be represented in the National Council.

We are not careful to criticise the details of this plan, nor are we anxious to secure any particular modification of them. The cardinal fact is that the plan itself keeps the two bodies in Georgia apart for no other assigned or assignable reason than race prejudice; for who supposes for a moment that if these bodies were both white there would be this elaborate plan devised to touch each other with the tips of the fingers, instead of giving at once the whole hand-grasp of Christian fellowship? And so long as this plan makes or retains the line of caste distinction or practically delays or evades its rejection, it is a compromise that should not be endorsed. But already the old pleas for compromise are urged in its behalf:

1. It is said that this is a first step towards the ultimate—a bridge to facilitate a future coming together. But a bridge is not possible, nor if possible, necessary. There is no doubt that since the New Testament was written there have been great improvements in bridge building, both mechanical and theological; but between equal manhood on one side and race prejudice on the other, "there is a great gulf fixed," and no bridge can span the chasm. The Negro must surrender his manhood or the white man his prejudice. There is no half way. But when either is surrendered, there is no gulf, and no bridge is needed. If the Negro will take his place as an inferior, he and the white man can ride on the same seat in a buggy: if the white man will surrender his prejudice, the Race-Problem is settled. Which shall be surrendered—the manhood or the prejudice? The Congregational churches have no doubt on that question, and if we are to educate men in right principles we must stand firmly upon them ourselves. To begin with a compromise is to yield the very point at issue.

2. But now also the opposite tack is taken. We are told that race prejudice is a fixed fact—that the Southern people will never yield, and that hence if we are to plant Congregational churches in the South at all, we must compromise. And once more we have with us the "practical men," who claim to take common sense views, and they urge us again to be content with the "half-loaf." But this compromise "half-loaf" is very much like the famous "little book" that John ate that was indeed in the mouth "sweet as honey" but afterward proved to be exceedingly "bitter." The truth is that this half-loaf, and Ephraim's "cake not turned" and the drink that was "lukewarm, neither hot nor cold," constitute a very unhealthy diet for Christian people. The past has its lesson by which we ought to have profited; and it will be a shame if, with all our experience, we are found to need the reproof that "when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that some one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God."

We have to deal once more, in the history of this nation, with the precious interests of the poor and neglected, and we must guard against past mistakes. The issue before us is a square one, and no dodging and no compromise will meet the case. We plead now for eight millions of freemen as we once plead for four millions of slaves. God is their Father, Christ is their Redeemer and the Church must recognize their equal manhood. We hold with the Christian Union that: "It were better far that the Northern Church should not go with its missionary work into the South at all, than that it should go with a mission which strengthens the infidelity that denies that God made of one blood all the nations of the earth for to dwell together."

The Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches North resist all overtures for separating the colored and white people in churches and ecclesiastical bodies in the South. The Episcopal Church, in Virginia and South Carolina at least, have consented to the separation on the color-line. The Congregationalists will soon decide the position they will take. Will they range themselves with the Episcopalians now standing alone?

INDIAN CONTRACT SCHOOLS

The public has been made aware through the press recently that the United States Government aids the Roman Catholics to support 2,098 Indian pupils and assists all Protestant denominations in the support of only 1,146 pupils. Why is this discrimination, and who is to blame for it? If the Roman Catholics give for plant, teachers' salaries, etc., an amount proportionately greater than that given by the Protestants, then the Protestants have themselves only to blame, and the difficulty can be remedied by their giving an equal amount. But if, on the other hand, the Government gives in proportion more to the Roman Catholics than it does to the Protestants, then the Government is showing a wholly unjustifiable partiality. Figures are in order on this subject. Who will furnish them?