Indiana State sentinel. (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1861-01-30
.r.. For the Daily State Sentinel
The Prostitution of the Palpit--Rev.
MIR. Hall.

they are pleased to call it, contained in Governor
Hammond's message, needed any further proof
thon their past conduct has furnished, it has been
most amply furnished since then by the TRADE of
ignorance, imbecility and ultra Abolitionism,
which has recently been poured forth from the
pulpits of indianapolis, with three or four honora
BILE exceptions IL Gov. Hammond had accused
these men of ignorance in religious affairs, they
would not have been half as wrothy as they are;
but to accuse them of ignorance in political mat
tiers is an objectionable offense in their eyes!
They couldn't stand that; they must vndicate
their knowledge of political science, and their
right to prostitute the temples erected for the wor
ship of the living God into ''dens" for secular
discussions and squabbles.
Well, they have had their say and printed their
illusions under the imposing title of ga sermon"
and from the record thus made up, we propose to
show that they are either grossly ignorant. not
only of the political history of this country, but of
the Constitution itself, that they have wifully
and wickedly perverted and msrepresented that
history for base party purposes They can take
whichever horn of the dilemma they please.
We commence with the Sermon" of the Rev.
P. Hall, of Christian Chapel.
This gentleman seems to be utterly ignorant
of the genius and spirit of our Constitution, and
in all candor we will add that webelieve his igno
rance on this head is honest, and not assumed.
be claims the right to erect his church into an
arena for political discussions, because ''as Chris
tan men we have a right-nay, it is solemn
obligation-to demand that our Constitution
shall be framed, and our laws enacted and en-
forced in accordance with Christian principles
This is certainly most strange and novel doc
trine Hereafter, when any political question
comes before the country for decision, the people
will have to suspend their judgment until the
churches meet, discuss and decide the question
for them The gentleman bases his argument on
the assumption that this is Christian Govern
ment, when nothing could be further from the
truth. If there was one question upon which the
founders of our Republic were more united than
another, upon which there was not dissenting
voice, it was that clause declaring the most abso-
Lutte and perfect religious liberty, and forever di-
vorcing all union between Church and State. In
the ewes of the Constitution there is neither
Christian nor Inhdel, Jew nor Gentile--all
are equal, all are free worship God, or
not to worship him, just as they please,
and in the manner they please, according
to the doctrines of the Christian bible,
OF the Mohammedan koran, or Tom Paine's
Age of Reason Our forelathers were wise men.
They knew the blighting and whitening effect Of
religious fanaticism, led and melted by fanatical
clergy They knew that it was the most intolerant,
the most bgoted, and the most wicked of all the
fanaticisms that has ever seized upon the human
mind that it had drenched the world in blood,
and committed the groosest enormities, ard en-
acted the most diabOlcal crueties that have dis
graced human nature. They knew that the mo-
ment they put the Government on the side off any
1..l
and prosecute those who held to different opin-
ion They knew that if ever they declared this
to be a Christian Government, and that our laws
should be made in accordance with Christian
principles their power would be used first to
"crush out" the jew and the nfdel, to put them
under the ban of the Government and then to
crush out each other. The questions would then
arise, is the denial of the equality of Christ with
the father in accordance with Christian principles?
Is the doctrine of the Trinity essential and in
dispensable Christian principle? Is sprnkling in
accordance with Christian principles? Is simmer
sion a Christian principle? Is the doctrine of
Episcopacy in accordance with Christian prin-
cples? &C., &C., &C., through the endless cat
alogue of theological discussions and disputes.
Our fathers wisely transferred all these questions
to the consciences of the people, to be decided be-
tween each man and his God, and formed govern
ment whose proudest boast is that it guarantees the
most absolute religious liberty. This political
parson would strike down this salutary provision
of the Constitution, and enact in its place the
odious feature of church and State. Listen to
him:
"If we have an opportunity to control the Coo
eminent, and to ,oeid its great potcers in behalf
of God and humanity, and we neglect that OPP
portunity we shall not be guitless in the sight OF
the great Judge" Page FIVE.
There is the doctrine of an established re-
ligion" for you! There is the sophism upon which
in other countries, men are taxed to support re-
ligion in which they do not believe. Pray, what
church does the Reverend gentleman propose
shall control the Government" and "wield its
great powers? Is it the Methodist, the Presby-
terrain, the Christian, the Baptist, the Episcopal
the Catholic the Unitarian or the Congregation.
alist church,? All these differ in their estimate
of what constitutes christian principles, and
it may be question of some Importance to some
of us to know which of these is to control the
Government and WELD its great powers" 1t is
truly melancholy to see in one who sets himself
up as a teacher of the people such gross and pro-
found ignorance of the fundamental law of his
country, and we would advise the Rev. Hall to
read the Constitution before he again essays to
enact the role of the politician. 1t he has never
seen the document, and in charity we hope he has
not we will take great pleasure in furnishing him
with a copy!
The gentleman is equally unfortunate in the
authority he nextquotes as his warrant for preach
ing politics. He says that we represent truly
the sentiments of the Apostles when we quote
their language urging their disciples to obedience
to civil rulers" Again, he tells us that "tht
Apostolic writings abound in exhortations to the
most implicit obedience" and that "these writings
are of Divine authority" These things the gen
tleman was bound to admit and, in order to Just
ify his course he was also compelled to weaker
and break their force. Let an admring worlC
al Il. L
performs the arduous tisk
LIST. He says circumstances have changed sine,
then, and intmates that '-these Divine writings,
emanating from an Interchangeable God, "the sam,
yesterday, to-day and forever" are as changeab,
as the winds and the circumstances surroundin,
the individual''l
I'd. That the Apostles enoined obedience Il
civil rulers because they couldn't help themselves
ITO have sought redress, peaceably or forcibly
would have been sheer madness"
3D. That the Apostles and Disciples were tn
biggest set of hypocrtes the world has ever seen
"for," saws he, Eat the time some of these mos
| earnest exhortations Ito obedience) were bein,
penned, hundreds and thousands of the Disciple
were openly disresarding the laws of the Empire
| that "ther resistance to these laws cost them the
lives" and that the Apostles encouraged then
"openly to resist the laws of their country
And from these premises the gentleman con
cludes that if these primitive Christians were al
lowed to resist the laws, "surely Christian minis
tiers ought to be allowed peaceably' to preac
politics! A sage conclusion truly. We tax
distinct and emphatic issue with this reverence
politician, and aver that he is as ignorant of hi
bible of the Constitution of his country, O
that he has wilfully perverted that bible in orde
to find an excuse for launching forth his part
spleen against the South. We maintain that tn
apostles were neither hypocrites nor law break
ers-that they lost their lives not in resistance
law, but from the infuriate and mgovernabl
passions of mobs; yes that mob violence tina
rcscues fugitive slaves and strikes down the off
GERS of the law, for which the gentleman had nc
word of rebuke We appeal to the record-t
the record let us go.
Acts, chapter 4, records the trial of Peter an
John. where the verdict of the judges was to "le
them go, finding nothing how they might puns
them" Chapters and 6, record the trial o
Stephen, and his murder by the mob chapter II
the trial of Paul and Silas; chapter ls, Paul
trial before Gallo, who dismissed the charge,
-.