Mississippi leader. (Jackson, Miss.) 1892-1895, 1894-03-13

in that church longer than he has, and
If | am not mistaken in the polity of
the church, have as much right to be
heard by my cOuntrymen or my
church on matters political or moral
as he has. If not, why note Does
the Office of Bishop make him infalli-
bic! If so, then | move that our
church make all its members Bishops;
or, would that destroy infallibility by
spreading out the title into too thin q
covering? If so, we had better join
in with our Roman Catholic brethren
and concentrate it all on one man-the
Pope.
If our Bishops are too exalted to
have their non Ecclesiastical public
acts and utterances criticised by their
brethren, who thus exalted theme
Such an extreme position may do for
the idolatries of'Paganism, or for the
semi-heathenism of prostituted Cath
OlOcism, as found in barbarOus cOun-
tries. But, Brother, we are in a So
called Christian Republic where Bish-
ops are made just like Circuit Riders;
and when thus made, know. no more
intuitively, about the political aspects
of the licensed liquor traffic than they
did before.
To illustrate what may be, and
sometimes is, their profound ignorance
on this question, you have but to re-
call the fact that but few months ago
the great and good Bishop Haygood,
then of your own State, published to
the world that nearly all the legisla
tion of the past on the liquor traffic
had been enacted with view to it's
suppression; and yet the United States
Supreme Court emphatically declares
that without such legislation no citi-
zen of State, or of the United States
would have any right to open and run
a dram shop!
Are we to take the doctrine of Bish-
Op HaygoOd, just because he is Bish
Op, in favor of the implied right of the
saloon to exist, as against the plain
declarations of the United States SUI
preme Court against such righte In
things pertaining to Theology, and to
abstract, questions of morals, that
would do. But the rights and privi-
leges of the liquor traffic under the
law is strictly n political question, and
hence must be settled by our courts
appointed by the government for that
special purpose.
Bishops and all other clergymen
can only deal, as such, with moral
questions, or the moral side of ques
tions. AS Gospel ministers they can
persuade men to keep out of brOthels,
gambling dens, liquor saloons and
other debasing institutions, and to
carefully examine every question upon
which they have to vote directly or
indirectly, and to vote only for men
who openly and fearlessly advocate
correct principles in government.
Yes, they may denounce from the
pulpit in the most severe terms the
wickedness of such conduct, TIE cor
rupting effects of such institutions,
the terrible result of such reckless
voting, and the damning results of
idolatrous political partisanism. That
is all moral suasiOn, because it ap-
plies to individual conduct. But the
very moment they cease to warn and
persuade along these lines and begin
to discuss the legal status and bear
ings of these things and legal methods
for dealing with them, their action
changes from that of moral suasion to
that of political interference. See
Webster on definition of politics. This
however, they certainly have as much
right to do as any other class of Amer
lean citizens; but when they doit their
methods are just as much proper