The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1867-03-16
The "Pop-Gun'' o Libcrty.

munlcatlon OF "Liberty," the writer who
has attempted to show US that our "fouu-
dation is not infinite" We corrected his
note to us of last week, so far as puuctua.
ton and photography were concerned, be-
cause he requested Us to do so; hut his
communication Of to-day is inserted just
as he wrote it, in every particular, as
nearly as possible. We have not correct
ed it because, first, he did not request VS.
to do SO; second. because it contains some
words aud sentences We are not sure We
could correct without changing the wri-
ter's meaning; third, because when a man
essays to enlighten the public on a sub
ject of as much importance as that under
consideration, he ought to know how TO
write without any aid from the editor /;
and fourth, We dislike to lick his cub into
shape anyhow. The reader has the pro-
gcny of Liberty" just as it leaped from
his fecund brain and We think the pub
lie will agree with US hat it is as clear as
the sun, fair as the moon aud far more
terrible than an army with banners.
At the close of ou article on Spiritual
ism we stated hat if any Spiritualist
hereabouts desired to answer il, he could
do SO, provided he exceed not the space
We occupied. Liberty claims the right
to be heard under this offer. It is clear,
therefore, that he should, first, believe in
S%piritualism /; second, he should disprOyc
and answer, if possible, the various posi-
tons we assuue. Have these eondi-
tons been complied with At the very
outset he gives US to understand that, so
far from beinga Spiritualist, he rejects
all current systems of faith alike. We
laid down the following postulates l..
Spiritnalism is a species of refined ma
terialism. 2. S~piritualism denies the
| doctrine of future rewards and punish
ments. 8. S~piritualism ignores the great
scheme of salvation and denies the Divin-
ity of Christ. Does Liberty" disproye
there positiOnsy Not at all; but on the
contrary he tacitly admits them all and
proceeds to attack the Bible in general
and particular, in a sort of hotch-potch,
disjointed manner; but in perfect accord
with all writer's on this subject whom we
have ever perused.
AS we stated last week we shall not
put forth any labored effort to answer
Liberty" We shall simply examine,
for a few moments, one or two objections
he urges against the Bible, just for 4
diversion and to show him how easy it is
for US to take the wind out Of his sails.
"Lberty' says that King David killed
Uriah the Hittite and took his wife
This is true, every word of it, and we add
that the attendant circumstances connect
ed with these acts, were atrocious in the
extreme, in whatever light they may be
viewed. But this is only one side of this
transaction, and the black one at that ;
and so far it is merely historical. So far
it is merely a statement of most atrocious
deeds perpetrated by King David and
no more constitutes a sound reason why
the Bible should be rejected, than the
statement of Gibbon that Nero was guilty
Of incest and other revolving crimes,
constitutes a valid reason why his history
of the decline and fall of the Roman En-
pire should be discarded. IF it can be
shown that God-the author of Holy
Writ-sanctioned Dayid's conduct
hat David himself gloried in what he had
done, instead of ~repenting in sackcloth
and ashes-we admit it would have been
a severe blow-an unanswerable argument
against the Bible. But what are the
facts on these points? Icy are familiar
to every Biblical reader. Nathan, the
prophet, was sent to David by the AL
mighty. In one of the most skillful
speeches ever uttered, Nathan portrayed
David's crimes; and then added that the
sword should never depart from David's
house, because he had slain Uriah and
taken his wife and Nathan further sta
ted that God would take David's wives be-
fore his eyes and give them unto his
neighbour prophecy literally fulfilled
during the rebellion Of his own sou, Alb
solom, which occurred not long afterward.
The sacred historian adds that David i'm
mediately confessed that he had sinncd
and any n by reading the ifty-irst
Psalm, cannot but be impressed with the
th~oroughness and genuineness of his repen.
lance. Ever afterward, to the latest day
of his life, David condemned without
stint or mercy, the atrocious acts which
placed the wife of Uriah the Hittitc in
his possession.
The next and last objection Of "Liber.
ty" we shall notice is "the cruelty of Da