North Branch democrat. [volume] (Tunkhannock, Pa.) 1854-1867, 1863-10-28


through mistaks--as pshlic speakers are liaz
bls to make mistakes, To satisfy myself
consuissd my uptss which I had before me at
Tho tins Of presrhing, and ! did not find the
word misquoted in them. I also conferred
with the Rev. L. Peck and others who were
present at the time, and they assured that /
employed no such language: ..s .
I exonerate the Bishop from mis- quoting
scripture, but I do not exonerats him from
sophistry, misinterpretation and ignorance of
scriptural facts. And when I assert this,
find nyself i'm good company, 90 the follow
ing extract from the Christian Advocate and
Journal of yesterday will ahow. 4
The Bishop commences his" Bibis-s view Of
slavery" by citing, "Cursed be Canaan /; .
servant of servants shall he be to bis breth-
rem" Gen. Q. Is, and remarks: "The
heartless irreverence, which Ham, the father
of Canaan, displayed toward his eminent pa.
rent, whose piety had just savsd him from
the delige, presents the immediate occasion
of this remarkable prophecy, but the actual
fulfllment was reserved for his posterity."
Again: "But in regard to the slavery of
Hams posterity he issues bis commands dis
tinctly."
"Now there is little truth and much de-
ceptisn in this language. The curse Of Noah
was not pronounced upon Ham and his pos
terity at all. 1t was Canaan and not Ham
that was denounced q servant Ham and his
sons, Cush, Mesriam, and Phut, and their
posterity, were neither cursed nor ensIaved.
Canaan was the victim Of this maledlcsion,
and not Ham and his posterity. Three
fourths Of the posterity of Ham had no par
t,cipation in this imprecation whatever, and
that three fourths includes the African ne
gro." The descendants uf Ca
naan, who alone were cursed, were not Afri
rcans, nor were they negroes. The bishop
entirely misses his object when he attempts
to sanction American negro slavery by vir-
tue of the curse of Noah. Just as well
might Southern kidnappers enalave Bishop
Hopkins and bis posterity a. the negro un
der that authority. The bishop exposes his
utter ignorance of scrrptural facts when he
attempts to justify American negro slavery
by the Notaic curse on Canaan
Let this suffice as O reply to O portion OF
the so called "review" Of my sermon by
you.
submit the following certificate with
names attached NJ proof that did not say
what Little, Harding and Young have sworn
to.
We the undersigned do hereby certify,
that we were present and heard the sermon
preached by the Rev. Fl. Brownscombe iu
the M. E. Church Of this place on the Sab
bath of August 10th, 1858 and that t" the
best Of our knowledge he did not state that
Bishop Hopkins misquosed the Bible" in
his letter" Bible view of slavery"
SIGNED,
T. A. MILLER, J.w. RHOADS,
T. L. ROSS, SINTON WILLIAMS,
VIM. BARNES, A. +. EASTMAN,
P. M. OSTERHOUT, L. H. STEPHENS.
This testimony Of these gentlemen will be
taken without the formaity of an oath.
Tho absence of Rev. l.. Peck from home,
accounts for the omission of his name.
But let US examine the oath of Little and
Co. Mr. Little swears he /" will not attesaps
from memory to repeat the reyy scoras used
by me, and yet he does have the ha ardihood
to swear that his recollection is distinct,
that" 4" did affirm that Mr.. Hopkins had
n,isquoted the Bible"
This is swearing with q vengeanee-is is
swearing to thing and not swearing to it
after all--swearing that be will not attempt
to repeat the rery arords used by me-, and
yet he does swear that | did use the very
words" that Mr.. Hopkins had nsisqsoted
the Bible and misrepreseRted what he had
quoted" Harding and Young swear TO the
same.
No one sir, save man destitute of the
first principles of honor, magnanimity, and
self-respect; would have rpsorted .tS such a
mean and contemplate subterfuge, when his
own character was not involved, You may
thiRk that you have won laurals by this ap-
parent legal strategy, but every honorable
man will view it in different light. 1t will
not tend to multiply your friends in your
new location. The loyal people of Bradford
County have respect fos ministers if you
have not.
, My only reply to that prominent member
of my church at Meshoppen is, that did
not "at the Brick chapel, speak OF Demo-
Gratis generally as copperhedds." The Rev.
G. Westfall who was present and heard me
at that time, has authorized me to say for
him, that said no such thing.
1t is fact that there are those who are
so sensitive, and who are SO addicted ct mis-
representing the statements of ministers,
that it is very difficult for them to speak the
truth in reference to them. This is to be
expected Of those who have thrown their
principles to the wind, and who do not scru-
pie to spend Sabbaths in electionee ring -