The mountain Democrat., 1864-01-30
Bishop HOpkins' ReplyltO the PENN
RYlYanAA .ClarRYmeM.

During the late election campaign in
Pennsylvania, in order to influence the
members OF that church to vote the ad-
ministration ticket, Bishop Potter and
number Of the Protestant Episcopal clergy
issued a very intemperate and indecent
attack upon letter concerning slavery,
published by Bishop Hopkins of Vermont.
The latter thus ably rejOins:
To the Right Reverend Alonzo Potter,
D. D., Bishop of the Diocese Of Pennsyl-
Yania 81 have seen, with great amaze.
ment protest against my letter on the
"Bible View of Slavery" signed by you
and a long list Of your clergy, in which
you condemn it as unworthy of any ser.
want of Jesus Christ" as San effort to sus-
tain, on Bible principles, the States in re-
belion against the Government. in the
wicked attempt to establish. by force Of
arms, tyranny in the name of Repub
lie, whose corner stone shall be the per-
petual bondage Of the African" and as
such you say that it challenges your Gin
dignant reprobation."
Now, my Right Reverend brother, am
sorry to be obliged to charge you, not
only with gross insult against your
senior, but with the more serious offence
of a false accusation. Ny letter was first
published in January, 1861, more than
three months before the war began, at
time when no one could anticipate the
form of government which the Southern
States would adopt, or the course Con-
gress might take in reference to their Sc
cesSion. And when consented to its re-
publication, did not suppose that it
would be used for the service Of any po.
ltical party, although had no right to
complain if it were SO used because the
letter, once published, became public
property. But IN its present form there
is nothing whatever in it which bears on
the question Of rebellion" or Of the
perpetual bondage Of the African" or Of
Tyranny under the name of Repub-
lic," Of which slavery should be the "cor.
ner stone" On the contrary l referred on
the last page, to my lecture called 1.-The
American Citizen" published in New
York in 1857 where :" set forth the same
views on the subject of slavery, adding,
however, plan for its gradual abolition,
whenever the South should consent, and
the whole strength Of the Government
could aid in its accomplishment" "Soon-
er or later" added, 81 believe that some
measure Of that character must be adopt
ed. But it belongs to the slave States
themselves to take the lead in such a
movement. And meanwhile their legal
rights and their natural feelings must be
respected, il we would hope for unity and
peace"
With these facts before your eyes, am
totally at loss to imagine how even the
extravaganza of party zeal could frame
against me SO bitter denunciation. The
whole object Of my letter was to prove
from the Bible, that in the relation Of
master and slave there was necessarily no
sin whatever. The sin, if there were any,
lay in the treatment of the slave and not
in the relation itself OF course, it was
liable to abuse, as all human relations
must be. But while it was certain that
Thousands of our Christian brethren who
held slaves were treating them with kind
ness aud justice, according to the Apos-
ties rule, and earnestly laboring to i'm
prove the comforts and ameliorate the
hardships of the institution,I held it to be
a cruel and absurd charge to accuse them
as sinners against the Divine law, when
they were only doing what the Word OF
God allowed, under the Constitution and
established code of their country.
! do not know whether your band Of
indignant reprobationists ever saw my
book published in 1857, but you read it,
because sent you a copy, and have
your letter of acknowledgement in which,
while you dissented from some of my con-
clusions, you did it with the courtesy of
a Christian gentleman. In that letter
there is nothing said about my opinions
being unworthy Of any servant Of Jesus
Christ" and nothing of indignant rep
rotation" But the times have changed,
and we have changed with them.
Yes, the times are indeed sadly chang
ed, and you have changed accordingly
For many years you have met in broth
erly council with these Southern slave
holders. You invited them to the hospi.
talities of your house, and paid them es.
pecial Difference. The new light of East
ern Abolitionism had not yet risen with
in our Church, and il you then thought
as you now think, you took excellent
care that no man among your Southern
friends should know it. Moreover, your
favorite Theological Seminary, only three
years ago, was the Virginia school at
Alexandra, raised to great prosperity by
Bishop Meade, a STAKEHOLDER, and am
sure that nothing at variance with my
"Bible View Of Slavery" was taught in
that institution. Yes ! We may we'll say
Of you, as of many others-how changed
is he! How changed is the Bishop Of
Pennsylvania, in three years, from his
former course of conservatism, peace and
Scriptural consistency!
But the Word Of God has not changed
the doctrine Of the Apostles has not
charged; the Constitution of our country
has not changed; the great standards Of
religious truth and real civic loyalty re.
main just as they were; and remain
along with them, Notwithstanding this bit
ter and unjust assault from you and your
clergy. do not intend to initiate your
late style of vituperation, for trust that
| have learned even when am revied
not to revile again. l respect the good
opinion Ofyour clergy, and am not aware
that l have done anything to forfeit it,
respect your office, your talents, your
personal character, and the wisdom anG
success with which for many years, your
Episcopate has been conducted. But dc
not respect your departure from the old
and well settled rule of the Church, anC
from the Apostolic law of Christian fair
ness and courtesy. do not believe in thu
modern discovery of those Eastern phil
anthropists who deny the divinity of oul
Redeemer, and attach no importance tC
the Rihle excent ms il NAV Suit theu