New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1858-01-13
LETTERS FROM THE PEOPLE.
ryr G, .v,.pv QUESTION IN THE CHURCHES

GIN. Tho ,hrs,ap Church in this country " diV"e'
'L.,h.r American Slavery ~ sane
y" ~. f'.'o III N God The dividing line is daily
,au,.,.. 80 and more sharply Defined separating
-.n.a,.s denominations, and the entire community,
-. - south. Each side has ably and often pre-
s,Sa =. arguments, and the ground and claims oil
-, comment Of the Stakeholder and his spoOgst
,,br,efold, and may be rated tfus;
E;y.t, The Old Testament shows that Slavery wss
,,oc.iceJ by men eminent for holiness
S,ooEd: There was Divine legislation regarding at.
Tl;,d It is nowhere explicitly condenlned-not
even in the New Testament.
This branch Of the argument is pressed with great
S,oe y il either q sin, it is said or II s not IL ~
sin az all It is OF the deepest dye, ana II Is not
70 he for one moment believed that sNcH an ohehs'
then commonly practiced would escape the clearest
and most emphatic condemnation by Chrlst and ihS
apostles. The opponents of slavery are called on 10
account for the alleged fact thai II - hot thuS con-
sjemDed.
Wbv i. lit is demanded-that there IL no direct
,,obibi,ion of Slavery in clear aud unmstaksble
terms II be such sin as you sffirm! Does not this
omission TO condemn, on the part of the apostles,
clearly sustain the ground that the Bible is the side
cfthe Stakeholder lift be siu then were the apos
ties traitors to their master.
This IL substantially the argument presented by the
Pro-Savery pupits Of the North, and the slavehoding
saints at the South and it is just possible that due
weight has not been given to it. In yielding to it we
NAV indeed be yelling more than some slave
holders would desire. But what Of that Truths
never clash with one another and we may safely fol-
low and is our positive duty TO follow whhersoever
they lead.
The STAKEHOLDER by this argument does not protect
himself only but the same shield is sufficient for the
protection OF the Polygamist. We have been in the
bab,-perhaps 1, o much so-of'condemning Brigham
Young and the other Saints of Utah Outragng man
and offending God by their peculiar institution" This
Southern argument--if ealtd-shOws that we have
done Injustice TO the Morrons well TO the slave
holders
And in fact, so far the argument touches these
two classes of saints il is in my opinion much stronger
in the support of Polygamy than of Slavery Brigham
Young can make beter Bible argument for POlygamy
sAoa any Southern man can for !SiacGy. But what
then Are to give up the argument because it is
defense of poygany by no means, if the argument
is sound one We have nothing to do with conse
uuences. Look at the argument applied TO
pOiygamy.
First Polygamy was practced by eminent saints
under the old dispensatiOn, commencing even before
the food.
Second : There was Divine legislation regarding it,
and numerous wise men considered 1t "a n blessing
Third: IL is nowhere in the Old Testament or in
the New explicitly forbidden TO the the people.
There are, to be sure, some passages in the New
Testament which, without examination might be con-
sdered as condemnatOry Of the doctrine OF the Lat
terDay Saints" but when closely scrunized, it will
he found that they relate to entirely different subjects,
such az putting array wife, the law OF divorce the
qualification and duty of bishops and deacOns, or that
the conclusion drawn from them has been only by way
ofinference-ametod which the argument the fsve-
holder utterly and zealousy repudates.
As the slaveholder says of his doctrine so say OF
polycamythat the Bible fr0m Genesis to RcceGtsons,
contoiRs no uRmiSakabic GLplicH Prohdtt0" o. Pls-
1aAtg of rices TO the mass ofthe people.
II is no part Of my design now to examine the slave
holders argument. My design Is simply to SHOW
whittier II leads.
The rulers of Utah welcome the circulation OF the
Bible among their followers, who are pemttedto read
it and Judge for themselves. In this they show more
confidence in the truth Of their doctrine than Is mani
Tested by the Southern churches in theirs This coni-
dence does not make the doctrine right, nor does the
want of il by Southern Christians make ssveho.dng
wrong. Both classes of patrarcbs-tbe Moi1nons and
the Slsveholders-defen their peculiar institutions
from the Bible and all that is proved by the conf
dence of one and the fears of ,he other is that the
Ormer is the more honest of the two.
I cannot resist the conviction that churches
should revise their rules and books of discipline They
now admit TO their communion the saveholder-but
excommunicate and anathematize the poygamist.
Is this exactly right! If they receive one, ought
they not receive the otherl
And they cast out one ought they not to cast out
the other
both are right then let us cease to condemn either;
but, if both wrong it would be easy to show that
the sin Of Poygamy, compared to that of Slavery,
is as one little finger to his loins.
Vile az we may consider poygamy to be, it is only
ofhe incidents that help to make up the aboml-
nations OF American Slavery.
think the churches ought to place the two prac-
tees side by side-ether receive the Mormon Saint
with the STAKEHOLDER, cast out the 5aveholdng saint
with the Mormon. II. L.
Las