The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-07-14
The Controversy Between the Rev. John
Chambers and the Rev. James NeilI.

| The CONTROVERSY Between the Rev. John
Chambers and the Rev. James NeiII.
| ELSEWHERE In our paper Will be found letter
| from the Rev. JAMES NEILL in reply to one
| published by us from Rev. john CHAMBERS In
closing our columns to any further continuance
| OF the discussion, we will say few words In
regard TO our own connection with the difficulty,
| A statement was published in a sermon of Mr.
| CHAMBERS, rejecting strongly upon Mr.. NELL
| We we're positively informed that his insinua-
tions we're uncalled for and most unjust. 1t
was a deliberate attack on gentleman because
of his loyalty; and, as we were in duty bound,
we cheertully opened our columns to the
defense OF any one whom we believed TO be
wrcngiully abused. We did so on what we
believed to be facts, and which, we are since
convinced, were true in every particular We
have never reiracted one word we have said.
We asked Mr.. CHAMBERS to explain what
appeared to us to be an inconsistency. We
opened our columns to him; allowed him to
publish a letter, hardly courteous in its tone
either TO Mr.. NELL or ourselves; and now, in
simple justice give Mr. NELL a chance TO close
the controversy.
We are influenced by no personal feelings in
what we have said of Mr.. CHAMBERS. We have
never had any dealings with him, and from what
we hear believe him to be pleasant gentleman.
We can see no cause fer the loss of temper he
exhibited in his letter. We are not responsible
for his loss of popularity. 1t was not due to Mr..
NELL, nor to the editor of The EVENING TELE-
GRAPH that Mr.. CHAMBERS had any cause to
complain of the feeling of dissatisfaction which
existed In my church in regard TO the views l
took on the subject OF the unholy war then
raging in our land"
1t was Mr.. CHAMBERS own conduct that
hurled him from the high pedestal he stood on
in 1867, and has now laid him so low. Ten years
ago, and the good that he was doing was great
He was universally respected universally popu.
lar That he is not so to-day he has no one to
thank but himself.
He has abandoned the old track, has favored
treason, and as sympathizer with treason has
become an object OF both suspicion and con-
tempt. The people of the North love their pas
tors, but they love their country more. And
they would never tolerate any attack on the
nation, whether II came from an Irish emigrant
or from beneath the broadcloth of the sacer-
dotal office. As a consequence Mr.. CHAMBERS
has become as unpopular as any man in our
city. MIR. CHAMBERS says:-
"rhey (the editors of THE EVENING TELEsRAPH)
accuse ME o! inconsistency, but am to DAY what
have always been, an uncompromislng Iates Rights
,oAsttuuonal Union man. 1 was born Democrat
have lived a Demo crat, aud hope to die democrat,
Ny views are the same now that they were Wnen
preached the sermon from which The TELEGRAPH
quotes. am still oppospu TO the parry and tbs
who years ago commenced the strife winch mas de.
stIoyed our country. such men rs GREELEY, who
GARRISON, who declared our Constitution to ve a
covenant with death AVID an agreement with hell;
and BEECHER who SAID he woul0 rathe r give to men
SHARPEs rifles than mothers Bibles; aud BANKS,
wlO SAID Let the Union slide am opposed to those
Congressional hnkeTs who nave weI.nIQn patched
the ne out OF our G orious ole Constitution am
benever in coin as a currency, and have always be-
heyed this to ue Dhite mans government and l
Will do all in my power TO keep II so, ut the
time excluding ali pOltIcs from my pulpit. L am
opposed to all unsaVory admixtures and abomnate
the political hypocrisy hIch clamors Ior equality
for the negro, ana at the same time excludes him
from the social circle"
In regard to the silly "buncombe" to which
Mr.. CHAMBERS gives vent, we will say nothing.
Any man who must fall back on the cry of a
white mans government" is entirely too far
behind the age to waste time in arguing with.
The term NEGRO equality" savors rather of the
pot-house pol tician than of the educated minis
ter. We have only to say that IL Mr.. CHAMBERS
was not inconsistent, then he does not un Ter
stand the use OF the English language; for his
utterances in 1859 and 1866 are Numerically
opposite We must impute the difference to a
lack of that proper familiarity with words as a
medium of ideas which we supposed Mr..
CHAMBERS possessed. We are really sorry at
his course. for he was doing much good in the
Church. We regret it has lost 30 influential
member; and in all our reference to the gentle
man, we speak only in regard to his principles
and his course and not in regard to his personal
morality.
So far as Mr.. NELL is concerned, his letter
speaks for itself. In regard to The Inconsistency
of Mr. CHAMBERS religious objection tO the war,
We will merely repubsh that portion OF the
letter which bears upon the pOint:-
'Is it or false that JOSHUA served his genera.
uon In routing the Amaakites, and that WASHING.
TON was dong the will OF God while leading our
armies TO victory and our country to independents
let those are the very doc taught IN his OWl
sermon nom which you quoted few days since,
ana winch MIR. CHAMBERS reiterated dur ng the
war VIVA Mexico. But when we come to GRANTS
victories anG sHERMAN's march through tue gar.
uen OF slavery, from Atlanta the sea his rig hteous
lndlt hatlOh wax hot at the unhOly war which
ground the DIVINE institution to powder under It's
leeJ I'au we reJoced over the fall of Fort sumter
or never PRAYED Tor tue success of our arms no
douD' we shouid have been in perfect unison with
Inc reverend gentleman, Who so through v loathes
the iUea Oi ministers mIxiug in politics. and VET in
the same artlc proclalms himse a IIfeonS Dame
crat OF the CALHOUN and BRRCKINRIpGE seoool and
IN full mpahy with the IN statesman OF Fortress
Monroe"
Mr.. MORRILL, has reported an amended Tariff
bill, which is the special order for TODAY in the
House of Representatives. 1t is to he boned
hat hill ka