Peterboro, May 20th, 1863.
Rev. Henry Ward
Beecher:
My Dear Sir: I
have read in the Independent your column on the late “Stonewall” Jackson.
I honor him for his earnestness, sincerity, and devoutness. I grant that he was
a deeply religious man. But I can not agree with you that his religion was of
the Christ-type. How can it be in the light of your own admission, that he was “the
champion of slavery” — the champion of that system which denies all right to
husband, wife, child; all right to resist the ravisher or murderer; and which
works and whips and markets men as beasts? How can it be in the light of your
admission, that “he was fighting against the natural rights of man”?
Nevertheless you declare him to be “a rare and eminent Christian.” I readily
admit that even these enormous crimes against justice and humanity are
compatible with high religiousness. But I can not admit that he who is guilty
of them is grounded in the Christ-religion and is “eminent” in its graces. For
the Christ-religion is simply a religion of justice. It does as it would be
done by. It is for, and not “against the natural rights of man.” For it is
simply the religion of nature.
I do not wonder that the Churches regard Jackson's as the
Christ-religion. For the bundle of dogmas, Trinity, Atonement, Resurrection of
the Body, Miracles, etc., which they make up and hold to be essential to
salvation, he deeply believed in. I say not whether these dogmas are true or
false — originating in fancies or in facts. I but say that they are no part of
the Christ-religion. Natural justice toward God and man — so earnest and entire
as to fill the heart and life with its presence and power — this, and this
alone, is the essence and the all of that religion. Think not that I look for
such justice where the Divine Spirit is not at work to produce it. In order to
attain to it, depraved man — man who has run away from his nature — must be “born
again.”
Jackson had the theology of a Church. But he certainly had
not a large share of the religion of Christ. Christ was opposed to all the
theologies; for he saw that they all stand in the way of the one true religion —
the religion of reason and nature. A theological, or common Church religion, is
a traditional religion, authenticated by miracles and other outward
testimonies. At the best, it is but a history, and full of all the
characteristic uncertainty of history. Moreover, if parts of the history, or of
its accepted interpretation, shall prove false, then, as is held, the deceived
disciple is lost. Such is the untrustworthy plank on which men are urged to
embark their all. But Christ's religion is no historic nor external thing. It
cometh not from the past, and it “cometh not with observation.” It “is within”
us. It is written by the finger of God in the moral consciousness; and every
one, who will listen to God's voice in his soul, will know this religion, or,
in other words, will know what is right. "And why," says Jesus, “even
of yourselves judge ye not what is right?” Instead of sending his hearers to
Moses, he sends them to themselves. Instead of bidding them go to priests to
get religion interpreted, he tells them to interpret it for themselves. Instead
of making religious truths a mystery, which only the wise and learned can
unravel, he thanks his Father for having “revealed them unto babes.” Instead of
teaching a religion as fluctuating and uncertain as human testimony is
fluctuating and uncertain, he teaches a religion founded and fashioned in human
nature, and therefore as unchangeable as human nature — a religion the same in
all climes and ages, because human nature is the same in all climes and ages.
Instead of teaching a cabalistic and conventional religion, whose rules are
hard and impossible to be understood, he teaches the natural and reasonable
religion which has but one rule, and this rule so obvious and simple that all
know it, and need nothing but honesty to apply it. All know how they would be
done by, and hence all know what to do to others.
I am amazed that you make so much account of Jackson's
theological bundle, and of his being “an active member of the Presbyterian
Church, of which he was a ruling Elder.” These, in your esteem, suffice to
carry him straight to heaven. I had supposed that your strong common-sense and
large intelligence had long ago lifted you up out of the superstitious faith
that any such things can carry any man to heaven. I had taken it for granted
that you believed that it is his character, however induced — whether by
himself or by Christ, or otherwise — that alone qualifies a man for heaven; so
obvious is it, in the light of reason, that every man must go to his own place,
and that what shall be his place must be determined, not by his theology, but
by his character. But I was mistaken. For in the same breath in which you send
Jackson to heaven, you argue out for him a thoroughly base and abominable
character; even, to use your strong and eloquent words, a “comprehensive and
fundamental degradation of heart and mind and soul.”
So, since it can not be in virtue of his character, it must
be in virtue of his theology and ecclesiasticism, that you send Jackson to
heaven. Or am I again mistaken? Perhaps you believe that the death of the body
works moral changes; and that, though Jackson died with a bad character, he
woke up with a good one.
But, notwithstanding I believe that our character in this
life is that with which we begin the next, I have hope for “Stonewall” Jackson.
And this hope for two reasons. First, I do not believe his character to be as
bad as you make it. In many an instance, slaveholding does not deprave and
debase the whole soul. Unconsciousness of its criminality, and a kindly
exercise of its despotic power, are among the things which leave room for the
growth of self-respect and other high virtues. Second, the Christ-religion will
be more clearly seen, and more justly judged, in the next life; and mistaken
and guilty, though still largely noble souls, like the “Stonewall” Jacksons,
will hasten to exchange their miserable theologies for it. Nay, I trust that
our Church-misled hero already begins to see more beauty and preciousness in
the simple doctrine of doing as we would be done by, than in all the dogmas and
prayers and rites of his corrupt and corrupting Church.
But I must stop. I meant to write only a few lines. How
long, oh! how long, my great-souled brother, must we still wait for the open
enlistment of your large powers against the theologies! I confess that you
preach the religion of Jesus, and that you preach it with rare force and
beauty. But, alas! how is this preaching counteracted by your preaching the
theologies also! The cause of truth can not afford to have Henry Ward Beecher
continue to mix up traditional trash, or even traditional sweetness or
sublimities, with that religion. She needs him to be wholly, and not but
partly, on her side.
With great regard,
your friend,
Gerrit Smith.
SOURCES: Gerrit Smith, Gerrit
Smith on Sectarianism, p. 19-22; Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit
Smith: A Biography, p. 255-6
