CHAPTER II.

RIGHT REVEREND BROTHER: I do not know precisely where you stand on the field of this very serious controversy; for while you have assaulted my position with unexampled severity, you have thus far preferred, for yourself, the policy of non-committal. That is a kind of policy, however, which I have not worldly wisdom enough to admire, in questions of religious truth and duty. I have always regarded it as a solemn obligation to "contend for the faith once delivered to the saints," and to do what I could, in my humble sphere, to "drive away from the Church all erroneous and false doctrine, contrary to the Word of God." Whether "in honor or in dishonor, through evil report or good report," I have held my duty to be the same. For I know, and you know, that this was the rule laid down to the Apostles by their Divine Lord and Master, and faithfully pursued by them, in despite of danger and suffering, till they finished their glorious course by gaining the crown of martyrdom. If they had adopted the time-serving policy of the present day, the Church of Christ could never have been planted in the face of heathen and Jewish opposition. This is the reason, and the only reason, why I have always been ready to bear my part in every controversy which involved religious principle. In worldly matters, where my own personal interest was alone concerned, I have willingly yielded my rights sooner than contend in the service of Mammon. But in the service of Christ and his Church I have considered myself a "soldier," enlisted for life in His warfare "against sin, the world, and the devil." And this, which the baptismal office makes the duty of every Christian, becomes ten-fold the duty of a bishop, whose office calls him to be one of the chief leaders in the host of God's elect, to defend with honest boldness the sacred cause of religious truth against every assault of opposing error.

I am quite aware that this was not the way to popularity. If I could conscientiously have held my peace on all disputed questions,

I should have been deemed a far wiser man in the general opinion. But I thank our divine Redeemer for making me willing to be called a fool, when I abandoned my prosperous profession of the law for the poor vocation of the ministry. I thank Him who has enabled me to defend His truth without regard to odium and abuse. I thank Him who taught me to follow, in my weakness, that eminent Apostle who was also called a fool, and to adopt his noble declaration: "With me it is a small thing to be judged of you, or of man's judgment-He that judgeth me is the Lord." I thank Him who showed me that it was not my duty to be popular, but that it was my duty to be faithful, and to prove, on all occasions of religious controversy, that I did not "love the praise of men more than the praise of God."

If I should be accused of "boasting" in this, which I doubt not that I shall be, I must shelter myself under the example of the same Apostle by saying that "you have compelled me" by your bitter and groundless accusation. Your theory of Christian duty is of course the same as mine. Your practice is very different, for notwithstanding your acknowledged literary talents, you have carefully abstained from taking the smallest public share in any religious controversy to this day; although you have undertaken to sit in judgment on myself because I presumed to repeat my former argument at a time which did not suit your views of political expediency. But I have not denounced your course of worldly wisdom. I have not murmured at your success and popularity. I wish, on the contrary, to give you all the praise to which, in many respects, you are so justly entitled. Nevertheless, I would not adopt your prudent abstinence from controversy as a rule for myself, if the homage of the whole world were offered as the inducement. Rather would I endeavor, in the words of the Apostle, to "take pleasure in reproaches for Christ's sake,”* so long as I provoke them only by an honest though humble effort to discharge what I esteem to be my duty.

The life of our divine Redeemer, from the time when He commenced His public ministry, was an open and constant controversy against all existing error. The life of His apostles was a life of controversy, like that of their Lord and Master. And therefore I claim the highest authority for my poor efforts to obey the rule which commands me to follow their example. It is not that I esteem my trifling labors as worthy to be named in comparison with the stupendous task

*2 Cor. 12: 10.

committed to the inspired messengers of Christ. God forbid! Yet the obligation to imitate them is none the less imperative, and, however humble the performance, the spirit which animates it should be the same.

I should be altogether wanting, however, in justice to myself, if I failed to state the fact, that I have only been induced to engage in the present controversy by a sense of duty to religious truth, unity, and peace, in the communion of the Church of which I am a member. That Church was extended South as well as North. Its union, as well as the Union of the States, was deeply involved in the question of slavery. The views of ultra-abolitionists, if they prevailed, must break that union asunder, and therefore I held myself bound to raise my feeble voice against a doctrine which I regarded as not only false in itself, but perilous to the Church and to the nation. Alas! the result which I dreaded has come to pass. The union of the Church is lost. The unity of the States is invaded. And slavery still stands as the cardinal point of separation. If ever the union of the Church is restored-if ever the Union of the States is reëstablished, it can only be, in my humble judgment, by a return to the old and Scriptural doctrine, once held alike by the whole Christian community, that slavery, in itself, involves no sin. That the Gospel does not require its abolition, but commands the slave to be obedient to the master, and commands the master to treat the slave with justice and kindness. That, nevertheless, it is expedient and desirable that slavery should be done away, as soon as it can be peaceably, by common consent. That until it pleases Providence to open the way to this happy consummation, the rights of the South must be respected according to the Constitution. That meanwhile it is our religious as well as our civil duty to treat those rights with a fair and just allowance, and avoid all language and all acts which can only tend to excite ill-will, and provoke hostility and alienation.

These were the views of all our Christian teachers and all our eminent statesmen, during the first forty years of our existence under the Federal Constitution. They continued to be the views of almost all, for twenty years more. They were held by our own Church, without any known exceptions, up to October, 1859, when our General Convention met at Richmond under the Presidency of Bishop Mcade, himself a slaveholder. As to my own position, I retain the same views still, with a stronger conviction than ever, because I re

gard the deplorable events of the last three years to be an awful confirmation of their truth. And if you have ceased to hold them, since you have not yet favored us with your reasons for the change, the best hypothesis by which I can account for it, in all Christian charity, must be derived from your favorite maxims of politica! expediency.

And I do not mean to deny that this political expediency is a principle of vast practical importance, although, not being a politician, I can not pretend to understand its mysteries. But I know enough about it to be perfectly aware that it is like charity in one respect. because it covers a multitude of sins." In the tactics of the State, the newspapers on all sides bear witness that political expediency employs bribery, oppression, partiality, fraud, force, falsehood, and calumny. Individual freedom lies down in willing slavery at the feet of party dictation. Conscience shuts her eyes, and goes to sleep. The idol of power is invoked to divide the spoils, and the mantle of official honor is expected to hide the body of foulness and corruption.

And when this political expediency is admitted into the Church, though its garment is changed and its aspect is modified, to suit its new associations, yet its acting spirit is the same selfish love of dominion, working by the same unscrupulous management of party, and descending to employ the same instruments of false accusation, unfair influence, bitter writing, and abusive tongue. But in one important respect there is a difference. The politicians in the State work in the name of the people, and are always aware that they must be governed by the public will. The politicians in the Church work in the name of Christ, while his precepts of truth and righteousness and brotherly love are ignored and forgotten.

And therefore it is that I have always been opposed to party spirit in the Church, because it is one of the most dangerous foes to Christian peace and unity. Therefore it is, that in the Church I would have no place granted to political expediency. I deny not that in the affairs of worldly government, there must be parties. I deny not that the object of those parties is often right and true. I deny not that the leaders of party may be honest, patriotic men, who are only bent on maintaining the real and abiding principles of the public welfare. Neither do I deny that in the Church the leaders of party may be sincere and upright in their intentions, as I presume yourself to be, however I may think that you are grievously misled

in your recent action. But I dread the introduction of political expediency into the Church, because I dread the effects of party spirit, which must tend, in times like these, to produce the bitterest strife and the most perilous contention. You have placed yourself at the head of a novel movement, which, if it succeeds, will probably divide the Church, as it has divided so many Christian denominations. You have not been content with an answer to my pamphlet, in your own name, which would have been perfectly allowable; but you have brought forward a small army of your clergy to unite in the condemnation of a brother bishop: and thus you have inaugurated a new party on the one side, which is directly calculated to produce the formation of a party on the other. The shape into which you have chosen to put the subject, therefore, is but too likely to inflame our whole communion. And if the mercy of God, and the good sense of the majority do not control the storm, the disunion of the Church may add another trophy to the victories of ultra-abolitionism, and another testimony to the dangers which lurk in the ecclesiastical adoption of POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY.