OCR Text |
Show 164 DISFELLOWSIIIPPING SLAVEHOLDERS. them." But, in declaring that slaveholders ought not to be fellowsLippcd as Christians, they do not say whether a slaveholder is or is not a Christian. On the contrary, they leave each one with his 1fakcr, the IxI'ALLIBLE JuDGE. But this they do :-they hold that no sl::weholdcr, professing to be a Christian, is entitled. to Christian FELLOWSUIP, because slavcholding is a sin, and should subject the offender to discipline. Neither Dr. Chalmers nor any other divine could deny the propriety of this, provided they believed that slaveholding is a sin, or a.u ecclesiastical offence. 'l~hc apostle Paul directed that Christians should not eat with an extm·tionet. A slaveholder is an extortioner. If, then, a Christian may not eat a common meal with such an offender, may he sit at the Lord's table with him ? I trow not. LEWIS 'l.'API'.U.';. :MAY, 1849. SA)lUEL R. WAHD AKD FREDERICK DOUOLA~S. pERIIAPS a fitter occasion never presented itself, nor was more properly availed of, for the ex~ hibition of talent, than when Frederick Douglass and Samuel R. Ward debated the "question" whether the Constitution was or not a pro-slavery document. \Vith the "question" at jssue we have, at present, nothing to do; and with the arguments so far only as tLcy exhibit the men. Both eminent for talent of an oTder (though differing somewhat in cast) far above the common level of great men. H any incqnalitics existed, they served rather to l11 .. :igll tcn than Lliminish the interest of the occasion, giving rj ~e to one of the severest contGsts of mind with mind that has yet come to my notice. |