Hide Article Text (OCR)
for cocoon*, and n.mufactories for the use cf the raw material, will doubtless gpring up. aa tbe supply and demand increases. The purchase of ihe cocoons, and the preparation of the row material at our State Prisons, will, we think• open a source of employment for many «f the convicts, not liable to the objections so strongly and justly urged against the manner in which they are now occupied ; and at the same time furnish a convenient market for the silk crop ol a large portion of this State.—Cullicalor.VERMONT TELEGRAPH.BRANDON. WEDNESDAY, DF.C. SB, 1841.be, or to include, theft, robbery, concubinage and murder. The other two were hor.aimed at the American church and clergy. The language 1 shall not attemptnot bear false witness against thy neigh-Communication from Professor Hascall.To ths Editor of tbs Vermont Telegraph:Dear Sir :—Since I have been present ed twice in your paper, in positions I choose not to occupy, allow me the same medium to define my own position ask ibis, not so much on my own account, as lor the cause of truth, which I fear will be injured by arguments drawn from er roneous premises. Your fiistnote of me is in the Telegraph of October 20th. After brother Ide’s letter declining the office of A%**President of the Vermont Bible Soei^y, Auxiliary to the American and Foreign Bible Society, you say,—“ Who will not allow that brother Ide’s reasons for coming out from tltis Society are a huod/ed fold, yea, infinitely greater than ffeljecfthe reasons of this Society for separating from the American Society? Brother (tascall at Poultney, while justifying the separation from the American Society, and the formation of the American and Foreign Society, said,—“ We must separate ourselves from all impurity.” L t him see to it that having carefully strained out the gnat, he does not swallow the camel.” The reasons of brother Ide are not given, either by him-aaif or by the Editor; and we must galh er them from other sources. From the report of the Waterbury Convention, in whicn his name appears, I infer that the wickedness of the members of the Bible Bociety is the grand reason for his separ-ation. And introducing the saying said **w k-r®line in this connection, “ We musttotstate. He gave a glowing description of the evils of slavery in its most odious form. He represented the principal religious denominations in this country, both at the south and north, as involved in the guilt of slavery. And he did not stop there but declared that the members of these churches could not belong .Jo the church of Christ. They might btlong to the Methodist, the Baptist, the Presbyterian or Congregational churches, but not to the church of Christ. The D. D.’s and Rev. clergy had a full share of his reprehension. He was particularly severe against a Mr. Ingraham,a Congregational minister, representing him to be a very bad man, and (I think called him an infidel,) for no other reason than his having said he could not join the Abolitionists with such men as Garrison. He (Mr. Wright) would join with any man ever so erroneous or wicked in extinguishing a fire which was consuming a house.The Editor of the Telegraph next arose ar.d endorsed all that the first speaker had said.Mr. Orvis, the next speaker, made great professions of regard for Christianity; but in the seveiest terms repudiated the American church and ministry. And severely censured the conduct of those who would support such wicked ministers, by donations of twenty or thirty dollars a year and perhaps not pay a dollar to the Anti-Slavery Society. This gentleman giving way, Mr. Cotting, who wished soon to retire, bad the floor. He approved of much which had been said ; but thought there should be more discrimina-ing. B. Allen, pastor of the Baptist church in Hubbardton, next spoke after Mr. Orvis had finished. He seemed desirous to know the truth, and act accordingly. What he said was principally by way of inquiry. He had thought that the Baptists in the State of Vermont, at least, were not so deep in the mire. He was told there were some exceptions, but the mass were in the same condemnation with others.aaparate ourselves from all impurity,” ii raipjr be inferred that the impurity or wickedness of the members of the American Bible Society is the reason for which I justified a separation from that Society. Now 1 do not know that I said a word to justify a separation from the American Bible Society, or that I ever said a word in all the public addresses 1 ever made, to justify a separation from that Society. If I ever didt it was not on account of the wickedness or impurity of its members.I have said many things to justify the formation and support of the American and Fbreign Bible Society. But this does not necessarily imply’ a separation from the other Society. I arn myself a member ol both ; and see not whv I may not under certain circumstances co-operate with both iu giving the scriptures to the destitute in our own country. My remarks at Poultney were made on seconding a resolution offered by brother Sea ver, containing the senliment-and probably the very words of the preamble to the t ope he offered at the-Vermont Association, viz: “ Whereas in the Providence of God a large portion of the heathen world are made dependent on the Baptist denomination for pare versions of the sacred scriptures,” fcc. My object in speaking was to enforce the obligation on the Baptists to circulate those numerous versions made by our able and pious missionaries. And this I did from the fact that all others had refused to do it. But why had they refused to rjo it? Because they were faithful and pure versions. We might have their aid if we would corrupt them in one particular. Only expunge one word, and substitute an unintelligible Greek word for one known and definite. But ibis we were not at liberty to do. In this connection, if at all, the sentence you have ascribed to me must have been uttered. “ We must withdraw ourselves from all impurity.” That is, we must not knowingly corrupt the word of God. This appears to me a sufficient reason for forming and supporting the American and Foreign Bible Society. But in your estimation, the fact that slaveholders contribute to the foods, and some of them are officers of the society, are reasons for com-logout from it infinitely greater.In your paper of December 11, unde: the head, “ Denouncing,” you say,—** In the Anti-Slavery Society, held in the Baptist vestry io'this village, on Thursday, after H. C. Wright had been calling things by their right names to considerable extent, Professor Hascall rose and protested agaiost the denunciatory character of his language. In iiis view there was no more of the spirit of Christianity in this denouncing than there was in manstealing!t j 19 ^ ®hould call a denouncingof denunciation with marvellous consistency I You say I stand condemned out of my own mouth, when I complain of others for denouncing, and then turn about f nd denounce others in the strongest possible Urma, using myself the moat odious and Mceptionable weapons, which i com-plaUTof others for using. 1 should have been greatly assisted in my defence, if you had given us the propositions, which Mr. Wright announced, as the subjects, with a brief outline of his address, the right names to be called, vd \feeir application, together with the odious apd exceptionable weapons which I used. 1 need nothing more to exonerate me from ail your charges than a full aCcooot of tbe addresses at that meetings I ehuM attempt a'brief statement, f.otu my best reefU.rtiou.— TJtiJggkers were Messrs. Wright, jVttfr-Coi:“*£’ Allen and HascalJ. Mr. Wright announced these propositions, or reaolutiona, from which his address proceeded. Tbe Irat declared slavery tot did not intend to say a word; bot having been called on, after a severe struggle between the backwardness of my nature and the impulses of conscience, I arose, announced myself an abolitionist, [“as much as anybody— but” !] perhaps one of the oldest present having in my youth joined a church, one of whose rules was not to receive slaveholders. I then approved of the rule, and had never since seen cause to dissent. I approved of much which had been said; but could not with Mr. Murray endorse all that I had heard.I thought with Mr. Cotting that there ought to be more discrimination. That there might be many Christians, who for want of light continued in the practice of great sins. Alluding to the censure of Mr. Orvis, for liberally supporting the corrupt clergy and perhaps not paying a dollar to the Anti-Slavery Society, [ said, If this is a specimen of their lectuies I would not pay a dollar. I cfid protest against the denunciatory language of some speakers. 1 could see no more of the spirit of Christianity in this denouncing than in man-stealing. And I warned those who were disposed to leave our churches and benevolent societies on account of their containing men-stealers, of their danger of their getting into as bad company as they were leaving. Mr. Wright rep’-resented me as saying I would not join the Anti-Slavery ranks because such wicked men as he were in it. I corrected him, by audibly saying, “/ said I would not Pat a dollar if this is a specimen of their lectures.” He had said he would join with any man in extinguishing a fire which was consuming a dwelling house.I responded I would join with Mr Wright or any other man in extinguishing a fire. So I would for other benevolent purposes. And I thought this a sufficient argument to exonerate me from the charge of man-stealing, for putting my donation into the same treasury with slave-holders.You must not, Mr. Editor, represent me as saying “ I would not lift a fingei to save your house, your wife and children from the fhtnes, until you first stop H. C. Wright, and drive him from your premises.” Directly the reverse of this was the position 1 took. Yes, I would fly to your relief, thougfi H. C. Wright, or the worst of slave-holders were engaged in tbe same work. I would join with the same in saving your meeting, house from the flames —or in building a meeting-house, provided it was secured for the preaching of the gospel by such men os I approve. So I would in the support of such men as your excellent minister. And so I wtwild in sending the Bible translated by our excellent missionaries to the heathen. To the charge of inconsistency in denouncing the denunciation of H. C. WTight, I* plead not guilty.— There is this radical (liff«reuce between his denouncing and mine. ’'Hedenounced* sins, and he denoqpoed sinners, charging with the sin of raen-Stealing, many of the excellent of tbe earth/ (unless I greatly misapprehended him,) pronouncing multitudes of God’s dear children to be his enemies. ^ denounced, as you say, this denunciation, which I thougbl to be a sin requiring a rebuke before all. But did I wy he was a hypocrite? not a Christian? Did I call any bad names? Gn the contrary. I hope he may be a Christian. \ etI consider him a transgressor in this instance. I know nothing of him excepting • «°m h,s own ,n«uth inmfrt'ne- Bat I said I could see no more of the spirit of Christianity in this denouncing than in man-stealing.I spread the book of the law before me And I there find he that said, Thou ahaJt not kill, thou shall not commitTada)tery thou shall not steal, said also, thou shallAs a comment on lhi3 last prohibition,I find in the New Testament—Matt. 7:1: ‘•Judge not that ye be not judged;” 1 Cor. 6: 10, rerilers are classed with the most heinous sinners. Rom. 14: 10: “But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for we must all stand before the judgment seal of Christ.” James 4: 11: ‘ Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the law.” 1 Tim. 6: 4: reviling and evil surmising are classed among the greatest sins. Jude, 9: “Michael the arch angel when contending with the devil, durst not bring a railing accusation against him, but said, the Lord rebuke thee.”— Now considering the latitude in which the word man-stealers was used in the meeting, including slave-holders and their supposed abettors, am I to be blarued for saying I could see no more of the spirit of Christianity in this denouncing than in man-stealing? It must be evident that I used the word man stealing in the sense it was used in the meeting.Yours, Daniel Hascall.R E M A R K 8 .In regard to the former part of the foregoing—i. e. the Bible Societies, and Professor Hjscall’s connection with them, he may have it which way he chooses— whether to continue in fellowship with those whom he considers to be corrupters of the Scriptures, or come out froir. among them. Have it a3 he will, the matter stands thus: — If, on the one hand, he continues to fellowship corruption in one place, it can never be a good and valid reason for fellowshipping a still greater conuption in another place. If he continues to fellowship what be himself calls a corruption of the American Bible So ciety, how can this justify nis continuing in fellowship with theft and robbery? On the other hand, if he disfellowships the corruptions of the American Bible Society, he is called on much more by consistency, humanity, and Christianity, to separate himself from the theft, robbery, adultery, and murder of American Slavery, as it exists in the Eaptist church.For him to say, at this stage of things, that he has never advocated a separation from the American Society, is to show himself in a worse attitude on that point than I could have placed him in, without this information which he gives against himself—especially as he right away goes to work and denounces lustily the doings of that institution as corrupt. He never advocated separation from the American Society, “on account of the wickedness or impurity of its members”! O, no! He only charges them with requiring Baptists to “ corrupt” their translations, “in one particular”!! That’s all! So I suppose he would not have a separation from slavery “on account of the wickedness or impurity of” slaveholders! All they do is to break all God’s holy commands! The Professor tells us he is a member of both Bible Societies. And, reasoning from such an inconsistency, 1 suppose he sees not why he may not cooperate with menstealers in preaching the Gospel to the heathen, and with* all others at tbe same time. All he needs to do, to arrive at this conclusioo is, to say, and at the same time require himself to think, that inasmuch as, under some circumstances, he allows himself in a smaller inconsistency, therefore he may, under other circumstances, allow himself in a greater inconsistency ! In other words, he allows himself to be at one and the same time connected with the American and Foreign Bible Society, which he deems pure, and the American Society, which he only accuses of requiring Baptists to corrupt their versions in one paiitcular, therefore he cau profess to hate slavery »s much as any body, and still co operate with slaveholders in preachir^j the gospel to the heathen ! All this only shows how easy a thing it is for him to''come out wrong, when he has started wrong. ' I suspect the whole of*u is fit effect-; One of.the arguments which the advo- j cates of new^ channels have brought to betfr effieiently.3gainst their opponents, ! has been drawn from the course of Baptists in general in separating from lh§ American Bible Society. It is an aigu-ment which among many others, can neither be tnet nor got around. Professor Hascall has neither it nor got around it. He his only shown himself to be in one inconsistency which Baptists in general have got out of. That is all. He belter not have “defined his position.”— In doing it, he has only shown himselfto be maintaining one error—and then reasoning from that, that he may consequently maintain another and greater error. The work is too shallow.The second part of the Proffessor’s labor—that which pertains to our Anti-Slavery meeting, his attendance of it, Ac_is auileas sad a failure. I reckon, nf dnm/.
Newspaper Details
Brandon Vermont Telegraph
Brandon, Vermont, US
Wed, Dec 22, 1841
Page 2
Full Page
Clipped by
Erin F.
USA 27 Sep 2023
Other Publications Near Brandon, Vermont
Brandon Voice of Freedom
Brandon Vermont Telegraph
