Year: 1863

MIR. EDITOR


We are informed by the
editor of the Republican, that Elder Browns
combe's sermon, on the occasion of our re-
cent quarterly meeting,was a"clear refutaion
of the wild assumptions of the Vermont slave
propagandist," as contained in the letter
which you recently published.


1t seems the Editors informers did not
give him the arguments employed, "r IT they
did, he does not see fit to give them to the
public In this they may have profted by
the advice gwen certain judge, not remark
ably learned in the law, to simply announce
his decisions, without giving any reasons for
them for the sophistry by which he might
endeavor to support them, would expose
their iallacy, and even if his decisions hap
pened to be right his arguments might be
wrong. 1t was wise in them not to under
take to give the arguments. There were no
arguments adduced. The discourse was
mere ASSERT ion, and if this is what they
mean by refutation, then the Bishops lett er
was most sternly refuted. The Rev'd said
he did not care if the advocate Of such views
1raS an Arch Bishop or an Angel he would
den0nnce them surely then we would have
nad " a mouse nbbiing at an angels wing"
We should have preferred that this sermon
mad been left with those who heard it. To
those who are capable of reasoning upon the
subject, its bitter nvective would have been
harmless, unless to excite feelings of disgust,
and perhaps the endorsement by the editor
of the Republican adds but LITTLE TO its cred
It. Any review of it necessarily involves
degree of personality that is exceedingly un-
pleasant; for in matter it was nothing, in
manner everything, ifit indeed were any
thing. In this however we cannot excel.
and certainly We do not wish even to equal,
the Rev'd himself. Like every minister
that we ever heard, or read, who professed
to argue against slavery, he first denounced
IN the bltterest terms possible, the insttu-
tuition, and then its advocates or apOlogists'
The infdel abolltionist says, "if the Bible
justifies slavery. so much the worse for the
Bible" The divine initiates him in spirit
and the language Of the pulpit is not much
less irreverent. The Bishop in his letter
>uppresses his prejudices and appeals to the
Bible; the elder tnok counsel of his prejudIc-
Is and passions and thus sought to rally


those Of his hearers. His manner and lam
guage, as already, in substance. quoted were
defiant and dictatora, and the exhibition OF
feeling rebelious, though perhaps consclen.
tously believed to be that of holy zeal
Well might the Bishop ask, "who are we
that we shal! dictate to the Almighty what
He shall regard as SIM


But what could be expected but denuncia-
ton and apprehension, not to use stronger
terms, from one who assumes to answer an ar
gument that he confesses, as a preface to his
own pretended reply he has only partially
read. This the elder openly did in what is
reported as his very 4" fine sermon" 1t was
certainly very fitting prelude to his dis
course, and did not detract therefron in the
least, still it is venturing little to say that
any fair and honorable disputant, in any
sphere, would feel himself disgraced by such
confession. But what prompted this CON
fession2 Did he fear that some OF his hear
ers would copy his example, and upon read
ing the Bishops letter for themselves, suspect
him of willful perversion and Misrepresentation
of which he so freely charged the Bishop /?
Or was it an excuse or apology to such as
had already read it for his palpable unfair
ness. There might have been method in this
seeming madness.


He next accuses the Bishop of special
pleading. He did not show in what respect,
or tell US what he meant by it, if, indeed he
knew. This perhaps was like everything else
that he said, set down to the credulity of his
audience. Especial pleading" says both
Webster and the law books, is The allega-
tion of special or new matter, as distin-
guished from a direct denial of matter previ
ously alleged on :be opposite side" 1t sets
forth the particular facts or reasons" that are
relied upon. From the manner in which this
charge was preferred against the Bishop, one
would have inferred that the Blue laws, ia all
probability, had long since executed ven
peance upon him in some criminal court Ut
ustice. But wherein is the guilt2 If the
charge means anything, it must he this, that
the Bishop instead Of angrlly denying that sla
is sin set forth specially the arguments, or
facts, contained in the Bible to show. and
prove that it is not. We know that this is
not of the " kind of treason defined in the
constitution but it may be very dsloyal &C
cording to the notions OF loyalty that lnEabit
the djstempered brain of or zy fanatics. The
opposite course would certainly have been
much more in harmony with the practice of
the Elder and his notions of fnocompromise,
war, extermination and devastation.


It is parhsn no E,rtnpato for tho RiShop Tho.