The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1870-04-13
sPxR1r OF THE PRESS.
Editorial Opinions ofthe Leading Journals
upon Current Topics-Compiled Every
Day for the Evening Telegraph.
RELIGION AND THE RICH.


From the NJ Y. Herald
We believe it a fortunate thing that there
are no sects in heaven. witty lecturer once
pictured a Methodist preacher standing on
one of the battements of the celestial abode
arguing doctriual points with sturdy Pres
byterian standing on another battlement
The idea of such a discussion, in such a
place, is irresistibly comical but, unfortu-
nately, there are good grounds for it. If we
ignore or regret the picture, it must be ad-
mitted that, supposing there are sects in the
home beyond the grave, heaven must be
a somewhat lugubrious place, although GER
tainly not dull
But all religious denominations are united
in declaring that in the divine land there are
no sects, and how, in the face of this belief,
they can insist upon theirs being the only
true mode of worshipping God passes our
comprehension. Matters of ceremony and
mode of worship do not, however, comprise
the only differences. The ideas promul-
gated are SO opposed the one to the other,
that people are rather puzzled to know what
is right and what is wrong. Not long ago we
had MIR. Beecher declaring that it was proper
to amass wealth; on Sunday Mr.. Hepworth dis
coursed so as to leave the impression that the
possession of much money was the cause of
much irreigion. We think that he colored his
picture too highly. If "a poor man, paying
honestly his small rent, " is ''without respect"
then must the clergymen of our churches be
directly responsible for his contemptuous
treatment. lis Mr.. Hepworth prepared to ad-
NIT that his influence over his congregation
is next to nothing? Why is wealth the idol
before which all bow down and worship,
while worthy poverty is ignominiously thrust
aside? Perhaps the question will be suffi-
cieptly answered by referring to the fact that
clergymen have weakness for brownstone
front horsao not laca fhan canulor
On the whole, it is our opinion that the
rich are neither so selfish nor SO influential
as Mr.. Hepworth would have us believe. AT
the same time we admit the force of his argu-
ment against an absorbing greed of gain. 1t
is not, however, that men desire to amass
riches SO much as that they aim to possess
enough money to spend freely. And the
temptation to spend as the evil one dictates,
the indulgence in frivolities which occupy the
mind to the neglect of God, and the gradual
extinction of religious sentiment which so
frequently follows a life of luxury, are the
great dangers which beset them. Wealth is
by no means inconsistent with Christianity.
Indeed, without it many souls would have
been lost which have been saved. There is
hardly religious mission which is not mainly
supported by the wealthy. True it was diff
ferent in the early ages. st. Patrick re-
ceived no salary for converting the heathen
at an earlier period, st. Paul was supported
by board of missions. But times have
changed since the Christian fathers spread
the truths of the Gospel throughout the world
A Christian hotel keeper exacts pay for the
bed and board furnished the missionary,
which the pagan gave gratis, and, to do them
justice, the wealthy contribute their quota
towards defraying expenses
There is no more favorite subject than that
of ,nopau ito t1ea md ahuaa with Our oIarov-
men, excepting the prolific topic of the
Papacy. And it is noteworthy that those who
declaim most against riches are the very
ministers whose congregations comprise the
wealth of the country. Are we to conclude
from this that they speak by authority? Are
their sermons founded on personal experience
with their focksp If they be, then we have
nothing more to say. We can only lament
widespread infdelity in high places, and pray,
for the sake of Christianity, that there may
be many more cases in the bankrupt courts
than there now are.