Letters to professor Stowe and Dr. Bacon, on God's real method with great social wrongs : in which the Bible is vindicated from grossly erroneous interpretations.

Front matter

LETTERS

ro

PROFESSOR STOWE AND DR. BACON,

Preface

The following letter, addressed to the Editors of the Boston Recorder, will show the nature, somewhat, of the following discussion, and how it came to be carried on in its columns. The failure of my health prevented a reply to Dr. Beecher. Consequently, and because they interrupted the continuity of the argument, some references to Dr. Beecher's letters "which occurred in the first part of the discussion are also omitted.

To the Editors of the Boston Recorder :

I SEE from a late Recorder, that Dr. Stowe has written out his Brooklyn speech on the subject of Organic Sin ; that Dr. Beecher is about to enter upon a full and elaborate discussion of the same subject ; and that the communications of both are to appear in your columns.

Allow me to say, that I sincerely rejoice at this. I do so on many accounts, but most of all, because of the vast importance of the question at issue. One portion of abolitionists maintain that slaveholding, as a present individual practice^ is sinful ; that it is always so, in the same sense in which gaming, drunkenness, falsehood, adultery, idolatry, and the like, are so ; and that being so, it is always to be treated, in the instruction of Christian teachers and the administration and discipline of Christian Churches, just as those other sins are.

In opposition to this, there are obviously but two issues that can be made up. One is, that of the Calhoun and Hammond school, in the rightfulness of slavery as a system,

PREFACE.

and tho innocence of slavcholding (not of its abusofi) as an individual relation or practice — an innocent part of an innocent whole. Tho other issue is that of the wrongfulness of slavery as a system, but the innocence of individual slaveholding, though a part of a bad ' system ; or at all events, its innocence so far^ thai it is not, in the same sense with gaming, drunkenness, falsehood, adultery, idolatry, and tho like, a sin, and it is not theijefore to be treated by religious teachers and Christian Churches, as they U'cat such other sins. This is the position of the good brethren named above — this, the ground taken at its late meeting by the American Board.

And this I hold to be one of the most momentous issues that has yet been submitted to the decision of the Christian public respecting slavery. It has been up before, but never go distinctly, definitely, and tangibly as now. Is slaveholding (saying nothing of personal treatment either way) a sin, and always a sin, and to be always regarded and treated as a sin, in the same and only the same, as is drunkenness, falsehood, gaming, theft, adultery, idolatry, and the like. One portion of the abolitionists say, yes. Drs. Stowe, Beecher, the American Board, &c. say, yes, as a system, but no as an individual practice. This is the issue. It is the last entrenchment of slavery in the free States. This carried, and slavery has then li^o hiding place, but the extreme resort of the essential rightfulness of system and pjactice both ; and on that issue, the verdict of an enlighte&ed public will not long be doubtful. ^

I shall regard it as a favor if you will allow me to s^y something in your columns in reply to the positions of Prof. Stowe, Dr Beecher and the Board.

Yours truly,

A. A. PHELPS.

New York^ Oct. 13. 1845.

GOD'S

REAL METHOD

WITH

GREAT SOCIAIiimONfiS.

LETTER L

THE ISSUE STATED.

My dear Brother Stowe :

I thank you for writing out your Brooklyn speech. Allow me to examine it.

I have no time nor space to begin, as is quite usual, with long and wordy compliments. You do not heed them, and I w^ili not give them. You know me and I know you. You are not infallible, and do not claim to be. You do not think you are perfect, nor do I thinfe you are. And I know that I am neither the one nor the other. You mean well, and so do I. But if we did not, what has that to do with the argument 1

In the letter to the Recorder accompanying your speech, you gave your opinion of the Report on Slavery, adopted at the late, meetingyof the American J^p^^^^ 1 am sorry to dlfe- with y ou about it. '/Tl^fi Iteport does more than affirm, that a general rule excluding all slaveholders in all circumstances from the Christian Church would be unscriptural," &c- It affirms that, but at the same time refuses to affirm, that ordinary slaveholders in ordinary circumstances, even^ter instruction

♦ The meeting at Brooklyn, Sept., 1845, and admonition, should be so excluded. It refuses ex- ^plicitly and deliberately to place slaveholding, as such, among disciplinable offences at all. This I shall endeavor soon to prove. For th? present, it is enough that you admit that there is nothing in the report which explicitly and decisively disallows slaveholding as "a permanent condition of the Christian Church," while it commends the missionaries who have heretofore welcomed slaveholders to the mission churches as having been " diligent and faithful in their w^ork," and does " not advise them essentially to change their method of proceeding on the subject of slavery." Nov/ put these facts together. The missionaries have heretofore raised no question and offered no objection to iMe admission of any one, on the ground of his slaveholding. It is not here and there an extreme case, that they have admitted. It is all cases. In no instance, have they made slaveholding, as such, a ground of either exception or rejection. None have been deemed any the less Christian, or welcomed any the less to the church because of their slaveholding. Yet the missionaries are declared to "have been jTai^A/w/," aa' well as diligent. No exception whatever is taken to their proceeding. It has rather a long and labored defence. They are told explicitly, that they cannot be advised to change it. They are not urged to change it. They are not even told that the slaveholders already in their churches must not remain there permanently, nor that no more, except in very extreme cases, must be admitted. How then can* you represent the report as providing only for the excepted, and not for ordinary cases'? It is certainly not a little remarkable, that a document prepared with so much care, and intended to be entirely explicit, should be so differently understood by its friends,, not

THE ISSUE STATED.

less than by its opponents. Strange indeed j that one of its friends, the New York Observer, should understand it to occupy ground, so " heaven-wide" from what you suppose^ that you " would sooner burn off your right hand than set it to such a paper.'' Yet such is the fact ; and the Board and its friends ask and seem to expect, that such a document should be acquiesced in by the churches and ministry, as a satisfactory and final adjustment of the great question !

But to the spee^ch. You give it to the public, as now written out by yourself, both as a correct report of what you said, and "as a reply to the objections which you have seen to the late doings of the Board." In doing this, while clianging and omitting nothing actually said, you have yet "in some instances expanded the illustrations where expression seemed necessary to a full development of the thought." This was right. I am glad you did it. We have now the whole argument carefully matured and uttered. But I complain that while making these additions you have not made one other.

" The broad question before the Board," you say, " is this : In conducting the missions of this Boards shall all slaveholders J under all circumstances^ be excluded from the Church?'^ And this, you say, resolves itself 'into this : '^Boes the sim'plefact of standing in the legal relation of slaveholder always imply individual guilt in such a manner as rightfully to exclude a man from civarch fellowship And you add — " The memorialists are understood to say Yes; the Committee say JVb."

This, allow me to say, does not begin to be a correct statement of the question at issue between the memorialists and the Board. We have never asked, that all slaveholders, under all circumstances, should be excluded. So far from it, we have insisted that none

'8 oaaANic SINS* should be, without the previous circumstances of iitstruction and admonition. Our doctrine is, aLnd>has been, that slaveholders under the circumstances of iri" struction and admonition^ given and resisted^ should be excluded. We insist only, that as with drunkenness and other sins, the missionary shall give instruction against slaveholdmg ; that the practice of slaveholding in resistance of such instruction shall be prima facie evidence against a man, and constitute a ground of previous inquiry and admonition ; and that its continuance in resistance of instruction and admonition, both, shall be his exclusion. We leave extreme and excepted cases to take care of themselves — to be met, as they are met in the matter of drunkenness, gamii^g, theft, and other sins. We seek only the general rule— the rule for -all ordinary cases. And we state explicitly, that we wish no other rule in this case, than such as. is universally admitted touching drunkenness^ gaming, theft, falsehood, and other admitted disciplinable offences. All this was so . stated, publicly, at Brooklyn. This was the whole ground occupied in the amendments offered to the report by myself, and maintained in the speeches of Messrs. Root, Webster, Dr. Ide and others. Your own attention was called personally to it, and you there admitted the difference between it and your general statement. Now I complain, that you w^rite out and print that statement without a word of qualification, or intimation, by note or otherwise, that it fails to state the true position of the memorialists.

And that there may be no doubt that this is the issue, and the only one, made at the meeting of the Board, T beg you to observe, that the amendment which I offered, and which the Board, by a direct vote, rejected, was as follows :

Tim ISSUE STATED. 9

" x\nd finally, in accordance with, and in reply to the memorials submitted to it from Worcester county and elsewhere at its present meetinc^, the Board deem it right and proper to say, that its funds cannot and will not be expended in maintaining slaveholding missionaries, or in building up slaveholdmg churchcis ; that in carrying out the general principles laid down in the first part of the foregoing report, in their practical application to the question of receiving slaveholders to, and retaining them in, the missionary churches, the Board will expect its missionaries and churches to treat slaveholding, in the matter. of instruction, admonition and discipline, in the same manner as they should and would treat drunkenness, gaming, falsehood, bigamy, idolati'y and the like ; and that whenever and wherever it shall appear, that the missionaries and the churches, in the exercise of their appropriate liberty, do not do so, it will be the duty of this Board, in the exercise of its liberty, to dissolve further connection with them."

Here is no aflfiirmation either way as to the sinfulness of slaveholding in every conceivable case. . All that is affirmed or implied is, that it is sinful, as a general rule, and so sinful as to be treated in the " matter of instruction^ admonition and discipline " as are the other sins named, and only as they are. This is the issue, and the whole issue. In aw^ord, it is just this — is slaveholding to be classed among the prohibited, and if not forsaken on due admonition, among the disciplinable offences in Chris fs house ? You and the Board say. No— The memorialists say. Yes.

We maintain then that slaveholding is to be treated, in the matter of religious instruction and christian discipline, just as drunkenness and other disciplinable offences are, and only so. You and the Board maintain that it is not to be so treated — that this is not God's way "of dealing with organic social wrongs "-—that he distin-

10 OHGANIO SINS.

guishes between the individual practice of these and of individual sins — that he bears long with them, and approaches them tenderly, indirectly and gradually, and that they who teach otherwise "have not learned their method from the Bible."

LETTER 11.

THE PARTIES TO THE ISSUE.

I have stated the real issue in the present discussion. It is equally important, as we proceed, to remember who the parties to it are. This issue does not lie between me and you merely, but between a large body of christian ministers and churches, and the American Board ; and I do not mean, as you and I discuss it, that the public shall forget who the real and the important parties to it are. Besides, I shall write, and all will read to better purpose, if we are distinctly advised, at the outset, as to what the issue is, and who the parties to it are.

I have before shown, that the amendment, offered by myself and rejected by the Board at Brooklyn, maintained only that the missionaries and churches of the Board should treat slaveholding, in their instructions and administration of discipline, as they should and would drunkenness, gaming, falsehood, idolatry and other disciplinable offences.

In the Anti-Slavery Reporter for October, in an act

THE PAHTIE3 TO THE ISSUE. 11

count of the proceedings of the Board, at Brooklyn, I said

^< It ( the amendment ) raised the question whether slaveholding, as such, is to be chissed with the other offences named, and whether, so classed, 'instruction is to be given against it by missionaries, and admonition and discipline to be admmistered against it by them and the churches, in the same way, and only in the same, as in respect to said other offences."

The Rev. Dr. Ide, in his speech, at Brooklyn, in opposition to the report, said:

" The memorials from Worcester County express the feelings which prevail in Massachusetts, and, I may say, in New England generally. Would the Board have presented such a report as this, had memorials been presented on the subject of rum-selling, intemperance, licentiousness, theft, &c., and showing that these sins were prevalent in the mission churches 1 No. It would have condemned these sins at once. * * I would not say, that slaveholding in all supposable or conceivable cases is sinful, but I do say that the exceptions to its sinfulness are no more than in respect to Sabbath breaking, intemperance, licentiousness, and the like, for slavery comprehends all these, and promotes them all. But would the Committee have made the exceptions, and palliations and admissions on these subjects, which they have made in regard to slaveholding? Would they have said, vire must receive the drunkard to our churches, provided he gives evidence of piety ; and the fornicator, provided he gives evidence of piety ; and the thief, provided he gives evidence of piety ? No. They would have condemned the sin, and left it to the good sense of the churches to make exceptions when they might be called for.'-'

Your own Synod of Cincinnati, at its late meeting in October, with but three dissents, passed the following resolutions :

Resolved, That, to receive slaveholders into mission churches, without making the practice of slayeholding any bar to christian communion, does, in our judgment, necessarily involve the sanction of these churches to this sinful relation, and the sanction of the Missionary Board that approbates or tolerates the principle ; and that the influence of this sanction must be pernicious in proportion to the weight and sacredness of the authority that gives it.

Resolvedy ThevefoTe.^ that we recognize, with painful apprehensions for the purity of the gospel and the cause of righteousness generally, the fact, developed in the late report of the American Board, that slaveholders are admitted into some of the churches under the care of the' Board, without questioning, from aught that appears in the report, the lawfulness of the relation, that the Board itself defends the practice.

'Resolved, That, to wash our hands in innocency from any constructive endorsement of this practice, by our missionary benefactions, while we would aim to increase rather than abate them, we must conscientiously restrict them to such mission churches as do not admit slaveholders to their communion.

Resolved, That, with all due respect and affection for the American Board, we do earnestly request that body to recede from the ground taken in their late report on this subject : Because we judge it fraught with disastrous consequences to the suffering slave, to the interests of pure religion, and to the prosperity of the missionary, cause."

Here, w^e have the issue on the Anti-Slavery side, and a specimen, for it is but a specimen, of the parties to it. On the other side, Ave have the following, as the position of yourself, Dr. Beecher, and the American Board.

In your speech at Brooklyn, you say :

" War, polygamy, slavery, and such like wrongs, all stand on the same ground. They are different from

THE PARTIES TO THE ISSUE.

theft and- drunkenness and other individual, personal sins, and are treated in the Bible in a different way ; " and having illustrat(3d this by various examples, you add, " these are the principles on which the report is drawn up,"

Dr. Beecher, in his speech, as now reported by himself, said :

" The opponents of the report wished to put the act of slaveholding on the same ground with all other sins, such as theft, murder, idolatry, &c, * * It was in reply to sentiments of this kind, uttered by the Rev. A. A. PhelpsS, and Dr. Ide, that I spoke. The outline of ray argument was simple, and can be thus briefly stated • — God, in his treatment of slaveholding in the primitive church, did not put it on the same ground as lying, theft, stealing, murder, profaneness, or adultery — and therefore, whether we understand his reasons or not, it is plain that there are reasons, and we are not at liberty to lay down general principles that would condemn his conduct."

And though, as Dr. B. alleges, God's mode of treating slaveholding in the primitive age of the church, is not a rule for us to follow in another age of greater light," &c., still, with all the light of our age and nation, and after all the discussions of the present time on this very subject, he now, ( Letter 3 ), deliberately, adds :

" Even as it ( the decision of the Board ) is, I prefer it to the course urged on the Board by Mr. Phelps and some others ; for I considered that course to be based on false principles, and to imply a censure on the actual proceedings of God himself."

The Board occupy the same ground. In their report, they say : ^

*'The more they (the Committee) study God's method of proceeding in regard to war, slavery, polyga-

ORGANIC SINS.

my, and other kindred social wrongs, as it is. unfolded in the Bible, the more they are convinced, th^t in dealing with individuals implicated in these wrongs, of long standing and intimately interwoven with the relations and movements of the social system, the utmost kindness and forbearance are to be exercised, which are compatible with a steady adherence to right principle."

Accordingly, although the Board would by no means deem it compatible with a steady adherence to right principles " to welcome liars, drunkards, adulterers, idolaters, and the like to a good and regular standing in the church, as the most likely means to cure them of their vices, it does propose to treat warriors, slaveholders, polygamists, and other kindred sinners in this way —-provided always, that they give convincing evidence " of being born again 1 And, arguing this point, the Board, in their report, ask :

"Under such influences (those found in the bosom of the church ) may not the master be prepared to break the bonds of the slave, and the oppressive ruler led to dispense justice to the subjest, and the proud Brahmin fraternally to embrace the man of low caste 1 "

And it now appears by a statement of the Prudential Committee appended to their publication of the report, that, acting on this principle, not only have slaveholders, remaining such, been welcomed to mission churches, as approved and regular members, but " rulers at the Sandwich Islands," continuing their oppressions, "have come to the ordinances of the gospel," and "men of different castes in India," continuing their caste, " have come together Jiround the Lord's table." (See Report, &c., p. 17.) And this, with 1 Cor. v: 11, and James ii: 1-9, and v: 1-4, staring them, all the while, in the face !

Here then is the issue, and the parties to it, and the practice under it, on the other side. It is, that i'Zave-

holding^ Jis such^ in common with war^ polygamy^ eUste^ and pther kindred social wrongs, is not to be classed as among file 'prohibited^ andylf 7iot forsaken on due admonition^ among the disciplinable offences of CJMsth house. Nay, it claims, even, (Report, p. 7), that " the imrestrained exactions, made in the form of revenue, kc, connected with a species of feudalism, prevailing n many unenlightened communities, which are most unrighteous in their character and paralyzing in their influence," and that " those various forpas and degrees of oppression, whether of law or of usage, prevailing under the arbitrary governments " of earth, shall also share the common indulgence. And this strange issue, as if God's book was not full of anathemas, and his providence were not full of judgments against these things and those that do them, plants its foot, for defence, on the Biblie " — " God's method as unfolded in the Bible 1 " To the Bible, God helping, I mean rigidly to hold it.

Letter III

PROF. STOWE'S AllGUMENT GROUNDLESS.

I shall reserve a particular criticism of the definitions, or descriptions given by yourself and others of what you term " organic sins," or " wrongs," to what I may . have to say in reply to Dr. Beecher. I only remark now that they are but a jingle of words without meaning, or that they assert a doctrine which confounds all moral distinctions ; which denies that they have their foundation in the nature and relations of things as God constituted them 5 which makes that wrong to-day which was right yesterday, and that right in South Carolina which is at the same moment wrong in Massachusetts, and that sin in me which is holiness in yju ; which maintains, in a word, that what human civil law ordains and general social custom demands, however devilish in principle;, is both right and duty in practice, provided it be only done reluctantly and in the hope of something better by and by. Such a doctrine, I admit will save the world from fana1;icism. It will save it from persecution too., By it Daniel could readily have kept out of the lion's den, and iill the goodly company of the apostle§ and martyrs saved their lives. By it, modern missions, for the most part, have their successes, where they have any, without persecution ; and where they have no success, they are enabled to escape the persecution, by avoiding direct conflict with the baptized and organic superstitions a^d vices that prevail, while they give themselves quietly to preparation and patient waiting for a change of times ; and by it, papacy has always sought and still seeks to propagate the faith.

But to your argument. You begin by a reference to Christ's conduct touching the Roman government. This government, you say, " in the time of our Savior was a clear usurpation, and monstrously oppressive," and " never voluntarily submitted to," by the Jews ; and you insist, that Christ, " in his public ministration, seemed to show no disposition to meddle with it ;" that when the question of submission to it was directly' urged upon him, he dodged it, and did it so dexterously that men " were astonished at the ingenuity of his evasion ;" that he commended one of its civil officers as i>IlOF. STOWe's ARGUiytENT GROUNDLESS. 1,7

a remarkable Christian^ and even wrought a miracle to jmy the tribute rather than rtvsist it: and that he did all this, because this is " the Bible method of dealing with organic social wrongs.''

Well, be it as you represent. It proves nothing in support of your position. Admit that Christ " did not speak out " in this case, and that the facts you cite prove it: — that as a religious teacher he did not directly attempt to remodel the state and re-arrange and reorder society, is this the part of his conduct and teaching to which we are to go for our model and rule in ordering and administering his chu7xh? Admit that all these oppressions did exist as organic parts and legalized customs of the Roman State, and that Christ, as head and guide of his church, did not directjy concern himself with them as state affairs, does it follow that in instituting and ordering his church, he took them up, as organic parts and legalized allowances of if? Was- the Roman Slate the model of the Christian Church 1 Might any and all men professing faith in Christ, give credible evidence of that faith, and walk into the church without question, however loaded down with the abominations of the Roman State 1

To all this your argument comes, or it is without pertinency. Everything you here say and every fact you quote, as you interpret it, goes on one of two assumptions — either that civil government is an organic sin, or that abuses which are allowable in the state are alike allow^able in the church. The question before you and the Board was not, how is civil government to be ordered and administered, but how are we, in the name of the Master, to order and administer his church 1 Suppose on this question, you had consulted Christ's lessons to his disciples and to the Scribes and Pharisees

ORGANIC SINS.

in the 23d of Matthew—" Do not yc after their works'^ — " Woe unto you^ for ye devour widows' houses ; ye have omitted the weightier requirements of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith ; ye make clean the outside, but within are full of extortion : " suppose you had quoted this—-" Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise Iqrdship over them ; and their great ones exercise authority upon them, but so it shall not he among you;^^ and siippose you had added-—" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath sent me to preach deliverance to the captives, to set at liberty them that are bruised." Do you think, that with these and kindred texts before you, you could have stood before tjie audience at Brooklyn and set them laughing at the adroitness with which Christ was wont to dodge the subject of lordships and oppressions, in the business of instructing, ordering and administering his church 1 But I deny that he dodged these questions, as you represent, even in reference to the State.

THE QUESTION OF FACT.

We come then to the question of fact. Did Christ avoid speaking out against oppressive government in gener^dj and the oppressiveness of the Roman government in particular, in the manner you allege ? You quote three facts to prove that he did, and that in so doing he treated organic wrong difSferently from individual. Do they prove it ? And are these all, or a tithe of the facts that bear on this point! To these inquiries I now ask your attention, and, in answering them, shall en- ^' deavor to show that Christ was neither a coward, nor an adept at " evasion."

REPLY TO PROI^ STOWE. 19 THE FACTS YOU QUOTE ARE NO PROOF OP YdUR POSITION,

Christ, you suy, " actually wrought a miracle for the sake of paying an unjust tribute, rather than give offence,^^ Yes ; and on another occasion, and without any accompanying protest against the wrong, he actually taught, in so many terms, " If a man smite you on one cheek, turn the other." And when put to the test of his own principles, though buffeted, scourged, spit upon, mocked and murdered, " as a lamb before her shearers is dumb, so he opened not his mouth.^^ And are smiting, scourging, spitting, mocking, and murder therefore " organic Shall I carry out the reasoning, in your own terms, — Surely Christ did not, in all cases, deal with the sins of (^smiting, ^scourging, spitting, mocking, and murder) in the way of direct denunciation, and open attack on every individual involved actively in these organic social wrongs

But, you add, he "commended" the centurion, and said of him, " I have not found so great faith^ no, nOt in Israel," when, at the same time, he was an officer of the Roman government, and " in full command in the Roman army ! " And is not the Governor of Massachusetts an officer of that civil government, and " commander-in-chief of all the forces 1 " Can you have a civil government, whose executive officers, from the highest to the lowest, are not, within their several limits, in full command of all the forces necessary to defend the life and maintain the authority of the government within those limits 1 For aught that appears, then, the centurion^^ office was as innocent in its nature as is that of the Governor of Massachusetts or the President of the United States. And in its actual exercise^ it is clear that he was One of the Jews' best friends and largest benefactors, " He is worthy ^'^^ said the Elders,