TO THE

RIGHT REV. ALONZO POTTER, D.D.

Bishop of the Diocese of Pennsylvania.

I HAVE seen, with great amazement, a 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 servant of Jesus Christ," as "an effort to sustain, on Bible principles, the States in rebellion against the Government, in the wicked attempt to establish, by force of arms, a tyranny, in the name of a republic, whose corner-stone shall be perpetual bondage of the African;" and, as such, you say that it challenges your "indignant reprobation."

Now, my Right Reverend Brother, I am sorry to be obliged to charge you not only with a gross insult against your senior, but with the most serious offence of a false accusation. My letter

was first published in January, 1861, more than three months before the war began, at a time when no one could anticipate the form of government which the Southern States would adopt, or the course which Congress might take in reference to their secession. And when I consented to its republication, I did not suppose that it would be used in the service of any political party, although I 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 a "tyranny, under the name of a Republic," of which slavery should be the "corner-stone." On the contrary, I referred on the last page to my lecture published in Buffalo in 1850, and to my book called "The American Citizen," published in New York in 1857, where "I set forth the same views on the subject of slavery, adding, however, a plan for its gradual abolition whenever the South should consent, and the whole strength of the Government could aid in its accomplish

ment." "Sooner or later," I added, "I believe that some measure of that character must be adopted. 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, if we would hope for unity and peace."

With these facts before your eyes, I am totally at a loss to imagine how even the extravagance of party zeal could frame against me so bitter a 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 kindness and justice, according to the Apostles' rule, and earnestly labouring to improve 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.

I do not know whether your band of indignant reprobationists ever saw my book, published in 1857, but you read it, because I sent you a copy, and I have your letter of acknowledgment, in which, while you dissented from some of my conclusions, 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 reprobation." But, tempora mutantur, sic nos mutamur in illis.

Yes, the times are indeed sadly changed, and you have changed accordingly. For many years you met in brotherly council with these Southern slaveholders. You invited them to the hospitalities of your house, and paid them especial deference. The new light of Eastern Abolitionism had not yet risen within our Church; and if you then thought as you now think, you took excellent care that no man amongst your Southern friends should know it. Moreover,

Yes!

your favourite Theological Seminary, only three years ago, was the Virginia School at Alexandria, raised to great prosperity by Bishop Meade, a slaveholder, and I am very sure that nothing at variance with my Bible view of slavery was taught in that institution. we may well say of you, as of many othersQuantum mutatus ab illo! 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 changed; the Constitution of our country has not changed; the great standards of religious truth and real civic loyalty remain just as they were; and I remain along with them, notwithstanding this bitter and unjust assault from you and your clergy. I do not intend to imitate your late style of vituperation, for I trust that I have learned, even when I am reviled, not to revile again. I respect the good opinion of your clergy, and am not aware that I have done anything to forfeit it. I respect your office,