Minnesota weekly times. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1854-1859, 1856-07-19

|
and the salvation of the soul? Does DR.. Van
Iugen do more than this7 Does itr require man
| to be fifty years Of age, in order to promulgate
the doctrines of the Bible? and cannot m an at
the age Of twenty-five do it just as well2 Does
"M.n wish US to understand that :" Mr.. Tyng's"
position in the Church is not an honorable one
equally as honorable as that Of DR.. Van Ingens ?
Where then, is the righteousness of the con-
trast instituted between the sentiments OF Mr..
Tying and DIR. V. to the disparagement OF the lat
ter 90 We will tell NJ" 1t lies in the fact that
while Mr." Tying breaches what the Great Mas
ter taught him to preach--lib"rty of conscience,
of soul, and of person-Dr. Van Ingen breaches
that it is far better to let Slavery exist where it
is, and spread itself all over our country, than
root it out even at the cost of the Union The
same principle woul. tolerate corruption and
rottcnness in the Church in order to preserve the
Church, doctrine never preached by Christ, and
never sanctioned by God. There is g ludcrous-
ness" in this, plenty Of it.
"M." admits there is a CONTRAST" but says
1T is not the exposition of any marked dvs-
ion in the Church upon the principle in ques-
tion"-that {" Mr.. Tyng's remarks are absolutely
unprecedented" ss the religious feeling of
the Church is hostile to all political agitation,'
and vet he just6es I" DR.. Van Ingen's'' Union.
saving sermon, forgetting that if it is right for
minister in St. Paul to preach PROF. Slavery senti.
ments, it is also right for minister in New
York, or Boston, or Philadelphia, to preach the
sentiments of Freedom! We do not deny but
the sermon of DR.. Van Ingen was intended to be
apractical one, and when we heard a good Dem
his subscription, we could not doubt but he UNI
derstood it to be practical, and expected to act
accordingly. If Mr.. Tying failed in his attempt,
as '' NJ" says he dill, Dr.. Van Ingen did not
The only difference is-that DIR. Van Ingen is on
the side of g NJ" while "Mr. Tying" is on on,
side.
We call particular attention to that part of
sMs." article which allules to the some idea
ism" as illustrated by the Doctors sermon. Is
''M.' cognizant of the fact that the church has
but one idea-that of the salvation of souls p
Is he cognizant of the fact that the Pilgrim Fa-
theirs had but one idea-''liberty to worship God
according to the dictates of their own con-
scienccs?'' Is he eognizlnt of the fact, that
Christ came into the world to carry out one idea
of the fact, that the liberty of this country was
born in some idea"-opposition to King George
Is he cognizant of the fact, that the whole Chris
tian religion is based on some -idea"-the regen-
GRAFTON of mankind? Is he cognizant of the
fact, that he, himself, is no more nor less, than
a 'one-idea"-the mere echo of bigger some
idea 2" If it is wicked for the North to say tina.
slavery is wrong and that it shall not be extended
into free territory, then is it equally wicked for
DIR. Van Ingen to preach to save souls! If it i,
wicked to agtate corruption in the country and
seek to remove that corruption, it is equally
wicked for DR.. Van Ingen or his apologist, to
preach corruption in the church and seek to re.
move that corruption! Were this doctrine car.
ried out, what beautiful state of society would
exist land this is ignoring ''one-ideasm."-
en-" takes particular pains to tell us, that it is
wicked to draw geographical lines and place all
virtue on one side and all injustice and wrong or
the other! So thinks Stephen A. Douglas, but
Clay, Webster, Jefferson and others did not think
so. But if this doctrine holds good, how is il
with the church? Will s'M." admit that the
church is full of corruption? That profant
swearcrs, wine bibbers and libertincs partake oil
the sacrament together? If they do, then thu
church is in bad conditiOn-if they do not,
then there must be a ''line DRAWN" and if it is
wicked to draw line in the one case, it is wicked
in the other. Which horn of the dilemma will
you take "M?" We dissent il toto from such
teaching, it being at variance with every scnt
mcnt that should animate the bosom of man.
1t useless for ssM." to tell us that thu
Minister'S of Virginia had sent forth an appea
to the North to save the Union. DR.. Van Inger
told us'the same thing in his sermon. Is there
anything remarkable in this? Ministers WHIT
will preach that Slavery isa 'sdivine institution
and justify the crack of the Shareholders whir
from the pages of the Bible, will quite naturally
when their institution is in danger, ask the Nortl
or Northern dOugh-faced ministers to come t.
their rescue, and we blush, aye, deeply blush, t.
find that there are some who heed the appeal
And who is the "Bishop of Virginia ?'' Is he moi
also an advocate of Slavery? "M." need no.
tell the North OF these facts; they are too gene.
rally known,--let him advance something of q
more original nature.
The reasons for troubling the Minnesotian will
his communication, says NJ, - is to bear wit.
ness to the unfairness of the editorial remark,
referred TO-" He does not suppose We intend.
eds to msrepresent DR.. Van lnyen's sermon, bu
attributes it to our looking through one ides
glasses" Quite charitable, truly. But we wish
to disabuse' MS" mind on this point. We pro.
fess to have common sense, pretty good ears, ant
ordinary judgment. We remember very dis
tinctly what DIR. Van Ingen said, and We insist
that We have not misrepresentcd him, and shall
maintain the position we have taken. We " in.
tended'' to say just what we did say, and W.
trust that by constant use of our glasses We
may be enabled to discover in " ME- a larger anc
more comprehensive mind than we have yet dis.
covered in his very charitable communication.
We have no fear for the name and fame oil
Tying and Beecher. Their names will blaze ir
glory long after doughface ministers are dead
and forgotten. We believe with Gallilleo, thai
the world does move, and the Church must move
with it, or the people will rise in their majesty
and rend it into thousand atoms. We are fol
liberty now and forever-in the Church and out
of the Church--Liberty of Soul, Liberty oil
Mind, Liberty of Body-for one faith, ON.
Church, one God-embracing but Sc one-idea'-
the Future happiness of ALL MANKIND!
We subjoin the following editorial remark.
from the pen of the editor of the Minnesotian
EDiroRiAL Misunderstanding into our Office or
Monday afternoon, we found the above upon oul
| table. Our first and present imnression ia tina,