The Defense of Luther. 321 



•"In those lectures Bishop E. had not treated of 

 topics not mentionable to tlie chaste ears of females 

 or youths, or charged upon the present generation 

 of Protestants the immoral practices licensed hj 

 •their ' Chief Reformer,^ the sanction for which is ex- 

 tant in his own writings." 



Some of the Aldermen were in favor of the right 

 of free discussion by lecture or sermon, let the conse- 

 quences be what they might ; and some expressed a 

 willingness to concur in prohibiting the lecture, 

 *^ could it be made to appear that the Council pos- 

 sessed tJie constitutional authority to do so." Legal 

 opinion was taken, and the City Council decided 

 that the}^ had no authority to prohibit the lecture: 

 but that the Corporation would not be responsible 

 for damages in case a riot ensued. The lecture was 

 not given. 



A communication was published in " The Charles- 

 ion Courier " by the Koman Catholic Alderman, 

 .reporting the discussion touching Leahey's lec- 

 tures; which was copied in the " Catholic Miscellany'' 

 Rev. B. Gildersleeve ( publisher of " The Charles- 

 ton. Observer J' in connection with " llic WatcJnnan of 

 the South,'^ at Richmond, Virginia,) thereupon took 

 up the gauntlet, and replied in two letters. 



Dr. Bachman gives his reasons for entering into 

 the controversy : 



" The multiplied calls on my time, and my period 

 of life, would lead me infinitely to prefer the rest 

 and quietude of m}^ own thoughts, agreeable studies, 

 and ministerial labors and associations, to the ex- 



