Southern Christian Advocate

SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN ADVOCATE.
For the Southern Christian Advocate.
LETTER TO DR. DURBIN
Rev. and dear Brother,—Your remarks upon my "Letters on the connection of Apostolic Christianity with Slavery," have just reached me, and I hasten to reply to them. If the general tenor and spirit of those letters do not acquit me of any intentional misrepresentation of your position in regard to slavery, they certainly do no less injustice to their author than to yourself; and I cannot but admire the courtesy and christian charity in you, which so much better represents my true feelings, than my own pen, for you frankly exonerate me from all intentional error.
You say that I do you great injustice when I say, that "your position is, that it is a sin for a christian, a christian minister, or a christian bishop to hold slaves." I certainly did understand this to be your position, or I should have substituted the for "your," in the sentence just quoted, after Doctor Bond made this a ground for excluding my letters from his columns. It is due to myself that I should give the reasons of an opinion so deliberately formed, and so long persisted in. In the debate upon Bishop Andrew's case, brother Dunwody and myself both preceded you. I adverted briefly to the conduct of Christ, and the apostles, in regard to slavery, and to the conduct of Paul in particular, in regard to Philemon; and brother Dunwody based his whole argument upon the Scripture doctrines upon this subject. In your reply to us, you used this language: "A:
"We have also been told, sir, that the early Methodists, in their protest against slavery went farther than Christ and his apostles had done. Nay, sir, we have had arguments to-day drawn from the Bible, to sustain slavery. What do brethren mean, sir? Is it their intention to plead the word of God in defence of slavery? Do they really believe, with the brother from South-Carolina, who spoke this morning, that the system of slavery is to find its authority in the Decalogue, written by God's own hand? Sir, they cannot mean this. And yet we are gravely told, that because the commandment speaks of the ox and the ass, and the man-servant and the maid-servant, in the same connection, that therefore the right of property was assumed on the same ground for the latter as for the former. As well go a little farther, and assume that the wife too was a chattel, according to the intent of the commandment. Oh sir, I hope we shall never be compelled to hear the Bible,—the record of God's truth,—the charter of human freedom and human rights—appealed to in support of American slavery." Debates, p. 173.
This was my introduction to your views on slavery, and I inferred from it, with what propriety the public must judge, that you considered the Word of God as opposed to slavery—that you were amazed that any one should adduce it "in defence of slavery,"—that to adduce it "to sustain slavery," you considered only another and higher step in the climax of absurdity—that you looked upon the Bible as the "charter of human freedom," not of human bondage—and that the use which had been made of it had given such a shock to your moral sense, that you hoped, in mercy to your lacerated feelings, that you would not be "compelled" to endure it again. These were my inferences; and I think that you will yourself admit, that had they been correct, my conclusion from them (that you considered slavery a sin,) was perfectly natural. Why be startled at an appeal to the Bible, in defence of that which is confessedly no sin? Your language was precisely such as I should have used in reply to one who had appealed to the Bible to justify robbery, murder, or any of the crimes forbidden in the decalogue; and I naturally supposed that it proceeded from such feelings as would prompt it in myself. Certainly I could not have expected such language from one "who had never believed it a sin for a christian, a christian minister, or a christian Bishop to hold slaves." Reverse our positions, kind sir, and tell me, would you not have interpreted the remarks above quoted as I did? You say: "I have always believed, and occasionally said, that the individual sin of slaveholding depends upon circumstances. I have uniformly declared my judgment, that in most, if not all the Southern States, the circumstances are such as to justify both christian men and christian ministers, in holding those slaves, which they inherited or acquired by marriage." The italics are mine. Though this language, to my apprehension implies, that you deem it a sin to hold slaves by any other tenure than inheritance or marital right—and that in some of the States it would be sinful to hold them by even these tenures; had you used this language on the conference floor, I should have been too much bewildered by it to have assigned to you the place which I have in my pamphlet. It would have fallen from you, while you were endeavouring to arrest a bishop in the exercise of his official functions, for no other fault than holding slaves, by inheritance, bequest, and marriage, though he held them in a State, by the laws of which he could not emancipate them. It would have stood, in connection, on the one hand, with your exclamations of horror at hearing the Bible quoted in defence of slavery; and on the other with the passage to which you refer me, in which you express your approbation of the provisions of the discipline, though you were then urging a measure, as I conceive, directly in the teeth of the discipline. The whole expressed in terms, and collated according to my understanding of them, would have stood thus: Mr. Longstreet has said, that the early Methodists, in their protest against slavery went farther than Christ and his apostles had done! This is startling doctrine, to be sure; utterly unfounded; but it is perfectly orthodox, compared with what Mr. Dunwody has advanced. He appeals to the Bible, in defence of slavery. What do these brethren mean? Is it their intention to plead the Word of God in defence of slavery? Will they drive me to the painful alternative of believing that they are sporting with the word of God, or that they are serious, and therefore bereft of their senses; or that they are so lamentably blinded by prejudice or interest, that they not only pervert, but reverse the meaning of the Bible? The doctrines of the Bible are 'freedom, and equal rights to all.' They are, therefore, directly hostile to slavery. Nevertheless, I do not hold, and have never held, that it is a sin for a christian, or a christian minister, or a christian bishop to hold slaves. I have always believed, and occasionally said, that the individual sin of slaveholding depends upon circumstances. My judgment has uniformly been, that in those States which do not admit of emancipation, the circumstances are such as to justify slavery in christian man or minister, forbidden though it is in the Bible. This is the view which the Discipline takes of the matter, and I think it the correct view. That instrument makes slaveholding no disqualification for office in our Church, where by the laws of the State, emancipation is not allowed, it is a little more indulgent than the Bible, and accommodates itself with praiseworthy clemency to the necessities of our Southern brethren. Without this indulgence the Methodist Church could not have existed in the South. This should be a rebuke to our abolition brethren every where, against urging this question to extremities. Nevertheless, as their clamours and sensitiveness upon this subject, in regard to Bishop Andrew, would disturb the peace of the church, and as the Bishop married a slaveowner, knowing all this, I shall give my vote for suspending him. Thus far, I think they may be safely indulged: in clamouring down a good man, an innocent man, a strong man in the ministry; provided that man be a bishop, for a minister of lower grade is protected by the discipline. But I forewarn them against proceeding to extremities. If they wish anything, let them ask the Conference for it, with a protestation that they will overleap law, order, and every thing sacred, if they do not get it; and then, forsooth, I will, for peace sake, give it to them. But I will have no fellowship with them in extremities."
Thus, kind sir, should I have been constrained to have interpreted you, had you as distinctly avowed, on the conference floor, your views of the moral character of slavery, as you have in your remarks upon my pamphlet. With this avowal sounding in my ear, I could not have believed that you considered it sinful in a minister to hold slaves; but for the life and soul of me I could not have determined what you did believe about it. You refer me to that part of your speech in which you point to the discipline as the true exponent of your faith upon this head. But your interpretation of it is so widely different from mine, that the reference only increases my perplexity. Never did I understand the passage referred to as in the slightest degree qualifying what you had before stated; or as furnishing a key to the views which you now express. In the communication now before me you say, "I have never either said or believed this," (that it was a sin for a christian, &c., to hold slaves), I have always believed, and occasionally said, &c." And you continue, "so I said on the conference floor. Speaking of the concessions of the church, made from time to time to the necessities of our brethren of the South, I said:"
"Our fathers wisely made them, on the ground of necessity. The Methodist Church could not have existed at all in the South without them. This should be a rebuke to our abolition brethren every where, who would urge this question to extremities. The Discipline has placed the Church in the proper relation to slavery. She does not propose to disturb the relations of our Southern brethren on the question of slavery in the South; but to leave them free to contend, with the evil, in the best manner they can, under the laws of their respective States.' " Now, I cannot perceive that this is even equivalent to what you now say; and of course it could not change my opinion of "your position." You were speaking of the concessions of the Church, made from time to time to the necessities of your Southern brethren. Pray what had the Church to concede to a sinless people, upon a sinless subject? The concessions were, that slaveholders might be members of our Church, and might be preachers, provided they could not, by the laws of their State, emancipate their slaves. You obviously consider this an indulgence to your Southern brethren, justified by necessity alone—a necessity growing entirely out of their civil relations. You call slavery an evil, and you think the Discipline does well in not going farther to remove it, than it has gone, seeing that, had it gone farther, it would have destroyed the Church in the South. The Discipline declares slavery to be an evil, and enacts that no slaveholder who can emancipate his slaves, by the laws of his State, and they enjoy freedom in the State, shall be a preacher in the Methodist Church. And you set the seal of your approbation to all this. I had just said, that the rules of the discipline upon this head, went farther than Christ and his apostles had gone, (and I now repeat it.) You denied it,—not in terms,—but in words and actions equally significant. A brother and myself had referred to the scriptures to prove that slavery was no sin. You denied that,—not in terms,—but in questions, and exclamations much more forcible, and equally positive. Now, under these circumstances, what was I to understand from the passage just quoted but this: "slavery is forbidden by the word of God. Christ and his apostles looked upon it in the light in which our church views it, as a matter of church discipline, sufficient in itself to exclude a slave-holder from the ministry. But sinful as it is, it may become so involved with the civil polity of a country, that an attempt by the Church to absolve herself from it, would be followed by evils more intolerable than slavery itself. The duty of the Church, therefore, is to look to the necessities of the case, and to admit slavery within her pale only where necessity requires it. This our Church has done; and in so doing she has acted wisely." It has made slavery a disqualification for the ministry in all cases where it does not exist by necessity." Now I confess, without a blush for my ignorance, that I can see nothing in all this which imports in the slightest degree that you do not consider slavery a sin in the abstract. If it be not, what right has the Church to affix pains and penalties to it; or to put it under terms? Mere political evils, you, surely, cannot believe a proper subject of church jurisdiction to this extent. When did Christ, or his apostles ever rebuke a man for holding slaves? Where have they said that a slaveholder shall not preach, where the civil law will allow him to free his slaves? In truth, kind sir, I perceived nothing in your conduct, or your language in the general conference to distinguish you from the most rabid abolitionist in that body, but in the means by which you would reach your respective ends, and the rebuke which you gave the abolitionists. You made common cause with them in the onset upon bishop Andrew. You expressed equal abhorrence of slavery in the episcopacy. You desired him to refrain from his official duties until he rid himself of connection with slavery. You maintained the power of the conference to displace him for this connection. On the one side of you were the discontents of the abolitionists; on the other the discontents of the slave-holders; and you went for appeasing the former. You were told that if bishop Andrew kept his office he would not be received as a presiding officer in some of the Northern conferences. You were told, if you passed the resolution you were pressing, you would not only disturb the peace of the Church, but sever the Church forever. And you chose the last alternative. As to your rebuke of the abolitionists, under these circumstances,—a rebuke, by the way, not of their principles, but of a desperate use of them,—it seemed to me like the rebuke of a father who says to his son, "my son, cock-fighting is a cruel, wicked practice; you had better not pursue it," and then presents him a pair of gaffs. You warn against extremities, and give the instrument of death. Next came the reply to the protest, by a committee of which you were chairman. After speaking of the growing spirit of opposition to slavery in the Church, they proceed: "such was the state of sentiment and apprehension in the Northern portion of the Church, when the delegates to the General conference learned, on reaching this city, that bishop Andrew had become a slaveholder. The profound grief, the utter dismay, which was produced by this astounding intelligence, can be fully appreciated only by those who have participated in the distressing scenes which have since been enacted in the General conference."
"Beyond all reasonable doubt, the condition of bishop Andrew's slaves will be attended, while he lives, with all the alleviations.—and these are many and great,—which a very benevolent and christian master can provide. Still it must be slavery." . . . "Some at least believed, perhaps few doubted that sufficient ground existed for impeachment on the charge of 'improper conduct, under the express provisions of the Discipline.' . . Such, however, was the prevalence of moderate counsels that no proposal was made either to impeach or punish him."
. "The transaction which had brought such distress upon the Church, and threatened such extensive ruin," (owning slaves, and treating them kindly,) "was dealt with merely as a fact.". . .
"When all the law and the facts in the case shall have been spread before an impartial community, the majority have no doubt that they will fix the responsibility of division, should such an unhappy event take place, where in justice it belongs. They will ask, who first introduced slavery into the episcopacy? And the answer will be, not the general conference. Who opposed the attempt to withdraw it from the episcopacy? Not the general conference. Who resisted the measure of peace that was proposed—the mildest that the case allowed," (that the bishop should resign.) "Not the majority."
"My design being not to revive the old discussion, but simply to give my reasons for placing you in the position which you disclaim, I shall not comment upon these passages; suffice it to say, I find in them no feelings of charity for slavery, no kind feelings to slaveholders. while I see in them a marvellous indulgence to their adversaries. With all these matters before me, I thought Dr. Bond ventured a little too far in making the position which I had assigned to you, a ground of objection to publishing my letters. Accordingly, I did not change your position when I came to publish them in pamphlet form.
The second, and greater, instance of injustice to which you refer me, would not have been felt by you as such, had you correctly apprehended my language. I do not place "you and your worthy brethren at the head of rabid abolitionism." I thank you for referring to the page in which you think I thus represent you, as it enables me to make an explanation which I could not have made without it, and which, I think, must be satisfactory. Pray reperuse that page, if you please, beginning at the last line of page 6, and you will surely perceive that my language does not admit of the construction which you have given it.
I was speaking of the effects produced in the two sections of country, by their different modes of discussing the moral character of slavery; and among them I enumerated the uncharitable, and in most instances extravagant opinions, which they harboured towards each other. The whole context shows most clearly, that these opinions were not imputed to you, or to all your people; or to myself and all my people, as you most strangely interpret them. For five sentences preceding your quotation, I make express reference to "your people" and "our people"—not people belonging to you, or to me, or to our church in particular, but to people in your latitude and mine. And here let me remind you, that when I speak of your latitude and mine, I do mean the latitude of your city or dwelling, or of mine, a precaution that I should have deemed unnecessary, but for the proof before me of your peculiar mode of interpreting such general expressions. This done, I proceed: You of the North, (your people I mean), look upon us as manstealers, &c." "We of the South look upon you as a band of fanatics, &c." You reverse the order of these sentences, you omit the parenthesis in the first, (inserted expressly to guard the reader against your interpretation,) and you omit all the antecedents; and thus you give my remarks a point and a personality, that their author never dreamed of; and that I marvel any author ever should have dreamed of.
Still it seems to me there was enough in the sentences, as you present them to the public, to have led you to a more charitable construction than you have given them. "You of the North" and "we of the South," is surely not the natural language of introduction to our private opinions, brother. I supposed that no man would consider himself included in either class referred to whose opinions and sentiments did not correspond with those attributed to that class.
You think that justice required me to make a special exception of you. Not more imperiously I suppose, than it required me to make a special exception of every other man who did not cherish the views and opinions which I had mentioned; and to have done this I must have inserted several millions of names in my pamphlet. As I did not except you in speaking of the North, so neither did I except myself in speaking of the South. This omission, I should have supposed would have led you to distrust the soundness of your version of me; seeing that it makes me entertain and publicly avow feelings and sentiments which you think very unrighteous when ascribed to you. Not so, however, while I implicate myself, you seem to think me engaged in a very appropriate work; but when I implicate you, your brethren, the North, or the South, you feel yourself called on to appear as the champion of all in repelling my unjust attacks. So far as you throw the arm of your protection around the South, permit me to say, that while I duly appreciate the motive of your kindly service, it was entirely unnecessary; seeing that no man, woman, or child, in this quarter, understood me as you did.
Allow me, if you please, to offer to your consideration a parallel case:
In your speech in the General Conference you say: "We of the North have been repeatedly taunted on this floor with our differences of opinion on the subject of slavery. Sir, whatever other differences of opinion there may be among us, on one point there is none. Our minds and hearts and feelings are all united on one point: that the Episcopacy of the Methodist E. Church ought not to be trammelled with slavery. One that point, sir, our minds are the mind of one man, and the brethren of the South will find it so. Nor is it any sudden purpose, It is the ground we have always held, and we shall be found standing up for it shoulder to shoulder to the end of the battle." Did you mean by the term "we of the North," to speak for every Northern man? If you did, I beg leave to reciprocate your kindness, by disclaiming for many at the North the verity of your remarks; for not a few would never have raised their voice against Bishop A. on account of his connection with slavery. If you did not, I beg you to individualize the exceptions. In your communication to the Christian Advocate and Journal, of October 16, 1844, you say: "The South feared the North were aiming to drive them out of the Church; and pointed to the petitions against slavery and a slaveholding bishop. The North feared the South was determined to force slavery among them, by connecting it with the episcopacy, and pointed to the protest which they presented to Bishop Andrew, against his resignation." In the terms North and South, did you mean to include every man in the Union? Did you mean to include every Methodist in either section? Did you mean to include every man on the conference floor? If you did, you did me great injustice, I never feared the North were aiming to drive the South out of the Church; nor did I point to the petitions against slavery. Are you willing to be judged by your own rule, brother? If you are, I am not willing to judge you by it.
Your general terms were sufficiently defined by your subject, and their connexions. So were mine. As my explanations have, thus far, been presented in an argumentative form, and may, therefore, not be as satisfactory as you could desire, I now beg leave to say, that not a sentence in either of the two passages last quoted by you, was meant to apply either to yourself, Doctor Bangs, Dr. Peck, or Dr. Elliott. Nor are there but seven words in them. which I think can, with the least propriety, be applied to either of you—namely, "shutting your eyes to the one code." And even these require some qualification, to designate fairly your conduct in regard to slavery. But that you invariably skip, forget, overleap, or dodge the Scripture arguments which are urged against you, is certainly true of all of you, so far as I am acquainted with your history, and emphatically true of you. That you all, by the manner in which you speak of slavery, and act towards slaveholders, encourage the people about you to believe that it is a sin, hardly admits of a doubt, and in my mind raises not the shadow of a doubt. That none of you, with becoming frankness, define your true position in this regard, is, in my most righteous opinion, equally true. That if you really believe that slavery is no sin, you are all afraid to come out boldly before your people generally, and before the abolitionists specially, and maintain your opinions, I verily believe. That this very timidity in you four, with a few more of like gifts, has sundered the Methodist Church, I verily believe. That you are every day making proselytes to the cause of abolitionism by your conduct, I think more than probable. That you are, all of you, on the broad road to the most rampant abolitionism, I think I see most clearly. That Dr. Elliott is already an abolitionist of terrific dimensions, I make no question. That he has used his press to stifle truth, and propagate error, in regard to slavery, and our Church difficulties, (what abolitionist could do more?) is demonstrable. And lastly, and consequently, that you are all, more or less, out of the line of your duty, is the settled opinion of
Your friend and brother,
A. B. LONGSTREET.