at what has appeared in the Liberator, and intends writing faithfully to H. C. Wright on the subject.1
The editor had not merely permitted Henry C. Wright
to introduce and carry on the Bible
controversy in his paper; he had manifested sympathy with him rather than with Henry Grew, or William Goodell
, the chief defenders of inspiration in the same medium.
had avowed in the Liberator
his disbelief in the2
inspiration of the Scriptures, in the Mosaic cosmogony3
as being unscientific, in the atonement.
He regarded the4
Bible as “a mighty obstacle in the way of the reconciliation of the rival sects of the day,” Lib. 19.82.
nor saw ‘how it can be taken out of the way so long as that book is appealed to as absolute and final, in matters of faith and practice.’
On the whole subject he unbosomed himself to Elizabeth Pease
in the letter to which we now return:
My dear friend, you, and——, and——,5 and Henry6 Vincent are certainly wrong in this matter.
You are troubled where you ought to be serene; you are alarmed at what ought to make your repose perfect; you are not acting naturally; you occupy, in regard to these things, a sandy foundation; and therefore your anxiety, trepidation, grief!
Come now, let us reason together, and see if it be not so. . . .
You do not dislike to see both sides of the slavery question presented; and you would smile at the idea of secreting the Liberator because it contains many pro-slavery articles which might injuriously affect some minds.
You are not troubled on seeing both sides of the peace or non-resistance question argued in its columns, but rejoice in proportion to the activity of its discussion—do you not?
You are not alarmed when you see articles freely admitted, pro and con, into a publication on the subject of temperance.
Neither you nor Henry Vincent would think of remonstrating against the free utterance of sentiments in favor of religious intolerance, provided no gag were put into the mouths of the advocate of religious liberty. . . .