New-York daily tribune., 1858-07-01

Our reverend coten porary, The Chrstidn isteili-
genc,r, hss so "a, profted By the lecture we
felt il our duty TO give it last week. that it h~ let
its rsder r. know portion of osr complaint against
it, Of which they could have got no iukling from
any part of its former defenses Of itself 1t tells
them that We have charged It with false.
hood, csIumuy and SANDER" 10 ehsrscterizing
| Mr. whipples Rejected Tract as filthy and i'm
pure" ThY is well as far a. il goS. The In
| ttFigere,r does well in " not being willing to be
"silent under such imputatons;' for, in the eyes
of the wicked world st least these things are not
regarded ss consistent With high Christian pVS-
fession ard with the oaice Of q religious teacher.
| But it does rot well when it renews its charge
against the tract while refuses '.to coil ts pages
"by quotations" from il to prove that its accusation
is not railing cne but justified By the facts of ths
| case. "a nice man." says Dean Swift, sis man
"of nasty idess;" and We should infer from this
demonstration Of our editor that be must be rtry
nice man indeed.
AS We do not possess the nicety Of scent which
doubtless distinguishes the upturned ncstris Of
sodly neishbor, nor yet his keenness Of optics,
which sees " what is not to be seen, we have not
been afraid to spread before the world in one of our
large issues, the work in question: and so we have
given our readers the opportunity Of deciding for
themselves ss to its real character, which The fa-
tegencer ia too pure TO afford to its public As this
accusation is simple question Of fact and not one
of legal construction, We are entirely willing to 90
to the country upon its merits. The hielligencer,
indeed, makes one most astounding statement, for
which nothing but the evidence il has given US Of
the microscopic at onse and magnifying properties
Of its vision could have prepared US. 1t says that
gentlemen not few, and of its (our subscribers,
"have said to Us that they were unwilling to have
"the paper containing that tract put into the hands
"tf their families" Now we will admit the possi.
biity, though remote one, that there may be,
among the thee o, four millions Of our readers,
few persons capabe of expressing this quintes
sence Of asninity It possible tha. copies of The
TRIBUNE may go into the institutions w spoke Of
the other day for the reception Of Idots; and it
may be that our ample diocese may include within
its limits soue Of the outlying Parlieus of the parish
Of The Intslieeneer itself. But that any Of our
two hundred thousand Subscribers, who pay their
lawful money in advance, could deliberately stultify
themselves to that extent, s thing passing intell
gent belief II does not come within the range Of
the doctrine Of chances. We spprehsnd that it
must be typographical error Of The Intellgeneers
which has put our subscribers for its own.
But al this merely touches one count OF our In
dictment against The IateMigenter, that which
charged it with false witness against the author of
the tract BY alleging his work to be /" filthy and i'm
pure" and unfit for decent people to touch or read
when it was no such thing. Now admttingthat there
is no fair play TO be shown 10 trOuber Of Zion
ike Mr. Whipple, and that he, and such IS ke may
be hunted down like yermin, without regard to the
laws which regulate the pursuit Of nobler game
We conceive that more spOrtsmanlike way Of
proceeding must be adopted when the objects Of
assault arc dignitares Of recognized and eminent
distinction In the church. The second count, which
The hteVigeseer carefully keeps out Of sight
charged it with having by necessary implication, &C
cused three Doctors Of Divinity, including Bishop
and ex-President Of College and lay brother, of
having declared this Tract worthy Of liberal |
prize and thus made themselves art aud part in the
oGense against public morals It's only allusion TO |
il is to this effect. The Rejected Tract Was sub |
"m;ttee, who judged it the best aud so awarded i.
the prize. "But best is q relative 6rm," it goes |
on "and people who have wasted their time in |
"reading tie Rejected Tract might, aud many to |
"our knowledge have inferred that if was the |
"best, the others submitted must have been de- !
"testable." Passing BY the rhetoric Of this sen-
teIce, what is the gist Of Why, that President |
Wsyiand AID Bishop Clark and the other two gen.
tlemen consented to read over 8 mass Of manu- |
scripts, nearly forty, VT think detestaby immoral
and obscene and thea gr4vely awarded the prize to
this one as the best Otich still was 90 filthy and
"impure as not to be fit to BE- introduced iaso |
families, or touched by pure hands, or read bypure
eyes And this, knowing thst it was ntended Tor |
the press and general circulation For though they
did not know that It was to be offered to the Trsct
Society, they could not have supposed that the
founder OF the prize had put them to that trouble
and himself 70 that expense simply for tract for !
hs Own reading. Could more sbsuTdly prepos-
ferrous picture than this be set up for the diversion
of the public
Now, we DO not pretend to know much about
the morale or the PERSONAL Of the Reformed Dutch
coLh'ctlOD; out We presume Inc "tt"gehoe1 lteen
Will not str1n that if has within its pke any man
of wider fame greater weight of character ,
than DR.. wsylsnd. Does The in,2Qigeneer be-
heye thA: this great ethical writer does not
know sn obscene ard immoral work when he
sees il Or that seeing one trife less obscene
and immoral than quantity Of Others, ho would
consent to recommend il for q prize, know
ine that it would be printed and circulated
With his inhnrssm,etf liz IL, Inl,Uiornc.1 can