COMPROMISES AND THE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCHES OF GEORGIA.

Americans are much addicted to settling difficulties by compromises; but these compromises, in State and Church, especially in regard to slavery, have so often been the sacrifice of principle to expediency that the word has come to have a sinister meaning—implying such a sacrifice; and they have so often proved failures as to show them to be unwise, even as a matter of expediency.

A brief sketch of some of these past compromises, with their motives and failures, may throw some light upon the compromise proposed for the Congregational churches in Georgia.

POLITICAL COMPROMISES.

These have usually been made from more than one motive:

1. One strong plea is that the expediency is so urgent that a small sacrifice of right is justifiable. In that celebrated law case of Shylock the Jew versus Antonio the merchant, so ably reported by William Shakespeare, Esq., this reason was plainly stated. The defendant's attorney, Bassanio, in order to avert from his client the dreadful forfeit of a pound of flesh taken nearest his heart, appealed to the judge:

The "wise young judge" knew the law, human and divine, too well to grant this plea.

But that plea had its influence in securing the adoption of the Federal Constitution. Among other difficulties in the way, a constructive guarantee of slavery seemed necessary to secure the assent of some of the Southern States. How strong the plea! Slavery was wrong to be sure, but the terrible seven years' war was ended, and a great nation was ready to come into existence! The compromise was made and the Union was formed. But did the compromise save it? No! The "pound of flesh" was at last the price. After a struggle of seventy-two years the crisis came, Sumter was fired upon and the compromise was found to be a failure. "A pound of flesh!" Nay, the flesh and blood of a million of men saved the Union.

2. Another motive for a compromise is the expectation that while it is all that can be done now, it will be a step towards the ultimate. This was strongly urged in that first compromise. It was said that the Declaration of Independence, the enthusiasm for liberty, and the world-wide boast of equal rights, must work a universal consent to the abrogation of slavery. Jefferson voiced the general sentiment when he said: "I think a change is already perceptible since the origin of the present revolution. The way I hope is preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total emancipation." But slavery grew stronger, instead of weaker, under the compromise, and from time to time required more compromises, and more surrenders. The Missouri Compromise, the Annexation of Texas, and the Fugitive Slave Law, each extorted under threats of the "dissolution of the Union," are examples. But no compromise ever wrenched an inch of territory from the clutch of slavery and gave it to freedom. Freedom held the whole Northwest, by the un-compromising requirement: "There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude" there!

3. Another strong plea for compromise is the hopelessness of gaining anything better. This was the consideration urged so vehemently against the early Abolitionists. It was said: "Slavery is wrong—that we all admit—but it is a fixed fact, invulnerable, backed up by wealth, talent, pride and political influence, and all opposition is vain. You Abolitionists are mere sentimentalists, visionaries, doctrinaires." This had great influence with the indifferent, the timid, and especially with those who vaunt themselves as "practical men," who boast that they care nothing for abstractions, but take business views of things. This plea and these men were largely influential in carrying forward some of the most iniquitous compromises preceding the war.

ECCLESIASTICAL COMPROMISES ABOUT SLAVERY.

This glance at the compromises in the political history of the nation prepares us to look at those in the Church. Here, too, compromises on the subject of slavery were made as in the State, and generally from the same motives and always with the same disappointing results.

The Churches before and during the revolutionary period were emphatic in their utterances against slavery. Their accredited leaders and official convocations used such terms as these: Methodist, "The sum of all villanies;" Presbyterian, "Man stealers: stealers of men are those who bring off slaves or freemen and keep, sell or buy them;" Baptist, "Slavery is a violent deprivation of the rights of nature;" Congregational, "Slavery is in every instance wrong, unrighteous, oppressive, a great and crying sin, there being nothing equal to it on the face of the earth."

But there were slaveholders in the churches, and as population increased they became more numerous and naturally chafed under such denunciations. But their impatience reached its climax under the modern anti-slavery doctrine that immediate emancipation is the only remedy for the sin of slavery. The South was alarmed and soon became imperious and exacting; the North was timid and yielding. Then began the special era of ecclesiastical compromises. Let me specify:

1. The utterances as to the guilt of slavery were modified, reaching at length the point where some of the most eminent doctors of divinity and the most learned professors in theological seminaries tried to vindicate from the Bible the toleration of slavery.

2. Disclaimers were made as to the right to interfere with slavery. As, for example, a large ecclesiastical assembly by vote disclaimed "any right, wish or intention to interfere with the civil and political relation between master and slave, as it exists in the slaveholding States of this Union." A distinguished bishop is reported to have said: "I have never yet advised the liberation of a slave, and I think I never shall;" and an eminent doctor of divinity declared: "If by one prayer I could liberate every slave in the land I would not dare to offer it."

3. Fine distinctions were drawn in behalf of slaveholders. It was warmly urged in their defense that while slavery was a sin, the individual slaveholder might not in every case be a sinner—a charity that was made to cover a multitude of sinners. One large religious assembly declared that it could not "exclude slaveholders from the table of the Lord;" it would rather "sympathize with and succor them in their embarrassments." An elaborate report was adopted at another large convocation, in which it was suggested that the convert should be admitted into the church while still a slaveholder, an oppressive ruler and a proud Brahmin, in the hope that under proper teaching, "the master may be prepared to break the bonds of the slave, the oppressive ruler to dispense justice to the subject, and the proud Brahmin fraternally to embrace the man of low caste."

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?