North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-09-16
COMMUNlCATiONs.



through your coLtAis Whist is made the suSect Of
. csaapqascasionjs your paper. card and .suadfs
articles in the Rspablsdn, will bs sasisfaescry 70
atlts ihnedfatey concerned and also TO the public
The subject referred to- is the "Bib e view of slave
ry," which you recently published and the discus
sions and criticisms that it has drawn forth. We
have also chailange todiscuss this question
Is American slavery consistent with christianity
with the Bible On "a
To this chalange or invitation the Rsv'd Elder
says he "s6zff expect prompt add categorical an
swsr'' -" let there be no lodging" How naturally
this suggests the question Was not the Elders sx-
moment he commenced talking about it7" Did hs
really expect " categorical answer 2" No doubt
he desired one but is he entitled to it.? Such 40 he
is thought to merit is given leaving to him the free
exercise of his own discretion in determining the
number and character of his own communications
to Dodge aud at the same time admonish against it rs
he may see fit.
Does the question propounded by the Elder differ
IN any way from the one discusses by the Bishop
ls 1t not the stated with less precsion2 If So
why does he not reply to the Bishops argum int 2-
Those who he ard the Elders sermon, and the read
of the various newspaper articles will bear wit
ness that no single text of Scriptures argument
of any kind whatever has yet been adduced in an
swer to the Bishop's letter Truly he has been ac-
cused of Especial pleading" of " mi,quo oting the
scriptures and of being "ignorant," but have we
yet particle of evidence to sustain these charges
II will be searched for in vain. The Rev'd Elder
says in his card' in the Republican. that if his
'sermon was what the author of the ticle repre-
sents it to have besn, he has shown little courags
and less to notice it 'sthat weak and feeble
as the arguments in the sermon are represented to
have been, he has occupied three columns in the
Democrat to demolish what had no existence
Why did not the Elder mako this statement in
his communication to the Democrat, whose readers,
having read the review of the sermon prepared
to judge it. 1t expressly stated in the review
Iat Eve should have preferred that this sermon
had been left with those who heard it." II was on
ly because the Editor Of the Republican,, who did
not hear it, and who did not pretend to give any Of
the pretended arguments, while he pronounced it.
hear-say evidence, clear refutation" Of the Bsh
ops letter, that it deemed worthy of notice and
it limited very plainly, that perhaps the indorse
ment Of the Republican hardly rendered it worthy
of attention. If the Elder construes this into
pliment he is really thankful for exceedingly small
avors 1t is not to be won dered at that his vanity
sees nothing in the discussion of a Bible question
but an opportunity for the exhibition of "polemical
SKILL legal lore and logical acumen" This confes-
sion is rather than was expected from the Ell
der. 1t this that endea fored to be pointed
out to him the revi' of his Sermon that he ex
hbited himself rather than his subject-or preached
himself rather than Christ.
Neither his arguments, demolished. They
were simply reproduced, their absurdity was
clearer in the statement of them, than it could
he made By comment So true is this that on re-
viewing them in a Cooler mood they appear 20 have
lead him to believe that they had be demois ished.
No reply to the Elder was attempted further than
to compare his sermon with the Bishops letter.
This he comedies was proper, as sermons are pub
lie property" What right then had he TO throw out
the chs llenge he did, accompa nying it with impu
dent restrictions TO the manner Of acceptance or
refusal. How magnanmous to, to present chai-
snge-for the discussion Of question:. upon which
from his position and attempts at nstnneting he 10
presumed to DO thoroughly versed, t, one asking in
formation Of him; and 90 to frams the issue 70
place the party challenged on the affirmative. Aside
from this how improper. The institution of slavery
is older than our government, recognized by it. and
still called upon to prove that it Is consist
ent with the Bible. If inconsistent with the Bible,
thea all the laws appertaining to it wouIdhaye boen
Void and yet we find no court 50 deciding; for in
Iced We find it recognized in the fundamsntal law |
IF the land. 1t is therefore to be regarded con-
,istent with the Bible until prored otherwise. Un-
Ter all the circumstances then it would have been
much more proper and courteous if the Elder had |
propose1 this question. "Is c institution Of Amer
lean sdUsry, incorsistent NTH the Bible" himself
rs the challenging party, taking the sfirmatvs of
the issue and leading in the discussion. If the E-
der sees ft to modify his propositions In accor-
dance with every rule of proprety, the challenge is
accepted, not however my part for the purpose Of
displaying "pOlemieal skill, legal lore or logical &C.
The glory of this is left to the Elder, as
be only appears to be seriously exercised upon such
matters. In no other way can the excessive gener-
osity that prompted the rendering of a subject for
discussion, peculiarly within the sphere of his own
Ealing, accompanied with such suggestions, be &C.
ounted for.
The alternative is omitted in the above statement
of the question for the that slavory is con-
'istept with the Bible, it is presumed to follow that
il is consistent with christianity.
Since the Elder has expressed hope that may
repent, in tone that precudes all idea of posi-
bility of change has part while dsclaiming abi-
ty properly to discuss the question: hold myself
open to conviction, And as am not conscious of
anything in the character of this article or else
where that would require protest of my love for
truth, righteousness or my country" I subscribe,
simply,
J. DEWITT
Tu nkhannock, Sept. II, 1863.
The l43d mt Gettysburg.