Wabash express. [volume] (Terre-Haute, Vigo Co[unty], Ind.) 1841-186?, 1859-07-06
AN II JACOBIN,



Editor ErD,ess:- n my last article omitted
to notice some immateral matters involved in
the discussion bstween H II. B" and my
self This did. not oaly because lie com
plains that have seemed to give them an an
due prominence, but kecatss ] myself prefer
iha, the main issue between US hail not be
ove.oakei. lie has assailed our whole sys-
TEN OF license laws aud our laws Tor the pro-
per Observance Of ,he sabbath, aud have an
ds.tak,a to defend them To that issue let
The controversy be kept In pursuing it
have ~. personal motives whatever for
personal triumph.
In one sense, what h. has said about the
French Revolution and It's origiu. may be un
important yet in another it may be far other
wise, because II tie fact that his evident &c.
ign Is to convey The idea that ths Church (aud
he draws 20 distinction between the Protest
ant and roman Catholic cburches). 10y i,s op-
p.essious aul enormiiies was the cause Of that
revolution Aud there caa be no other motive
IN this. 50 Ear az can see. than TO excite
odum agau-t the Church. in this general
Ma acre Of 81 B-rlholomew vas one Of the
events Which preceded aud gave rice to this
revolution" did omit the word "prcceled >
sud Tor the plain reason, that # It gare rise a
II must have pre,sea IL, and IN tins sense. the
terms we're convertible The precedent fact
" a. no, the point of controversy for upon thai
We sesre ! he material charge by him was
that he massacre was the work q the Church
aud that II was the cause Of the revolution
the llier being one OF lis uecessary sfseis
lnd,ed iA.. same idea j. prominent IN his al
,clr of MAY 30ih. although he there endeavor
to escape ih, eject of hls erroneous stalemeu
~ insisting that there may hc long space o
time between cause AID effect Th4t elect
do not a.Wsys follow lhen causes immediate
ly. readily coacede. and yet IL occurs 10 M
that an event occurring. as the Massacre Of s.
Ba.tholsmew did, over ,uo hrad-ed years be
tore the Fseneh revolution. could se@resl.
have had much TO do With that event 40
nothing, ei,hsr ia the facts philosophy D
history, eoaneeling iae NO together. Look
,ug 10 the condition Of France al the time q
her revolution Of 1859 cannot hnd ATTY e,hs
element Of ecclesiastical dv.pclism" al w1s
there ihan tha. which Asas. aaf oi psgas usurr
stion-. aud about these H. a B" and vi
likely ngree Herce. the Christian slemeu
shoh rresails IN eur institutions, and vhic
s all that ain defending OF hare % 90 Kit
in this controversy. j. IN NO wsy involved !
he French revolution. We have nothing
= 90 with pepery or ~ practices. II 'nast q
iend itself II II can. l, At sll events wil! q.
be likely 70 De driven into Is defence.
But since i.sis,. fi,st, IN hi country. u
q sh.ll not be held rvspoaslble for the Terssc'
e sions Of lhs Homan cashol,c ChuFch. III
= o." eorsplains thst az, seeking 70 ,pske iho
? Who supper; tis views responsibl- foF The CO
. sequence ol the French Revolution. and Ia
v because ' avn Opposed 70 lsat revelation rsau.
70 nersssarily. eensiser wEshinsso LafAyet
q and william Tell. a. traitors A. TO the 81
:. branch Of ihls proposition he mistakes nae c
'e ,irely. What design TO ssy y this:--thsi
= in6deliiy, aud Atheism. and the cbliterstiou
= the Sabbath, were all sgss,s in producing 4
v French Revolution. 1 would resist tkesn in II
ID country. not only because they are 10 erpo
= 10 The spirii Of our Institutions, but tseau
y they might. II prevailing here. prodece p
~ eisely ihs same ELECTS. would shua them
"a / world an atmosphere Infected with Z
he stro1ipg pestilepee. A. 70 his second -
de sssllos. he must perIblt me 20 say. that 1
'is not perceive clshsr is force or applicability