Centre Democrat. [volume] (Bellefonte, Pa.) 1848-1989, 1881-11-17

controversy.
He thought he was striking power
ful blow ut the Almighty when he show
ed that the Jewish Constitution con.
tanned a provision which conficted
with the platform of Abolitionists.
They had determined aud resolved that
where the liberation of slavery or SER
vitude for life was u crime. BY this
and by other means not now to be de-
scribed they got money, power aud
great personal consequence for them
selves and their fellows. Mr.. Ingersoll
could trust them 10 unite with him in
bowling down Christianity or anything
else that diminished the profits of their
business. Directly before him he had
the successful example Of Demetrius,
the siIversmith, who raised n tremen.
dous uproar against the Gospel Of
Christ by simply believing out
Great is Diana of the Ephesians."
"Sirs, ye know that by this craft we
have our wealth"
could only protest that these ap-
peals to the interests and passions of
political party were unfair. Diana of
the Ephesians and Yankee Abolition
ism may both have been great, and
they were great in the sense of being
popular, but that does not prove that
the Gospel of God is a pernicious
imposture. The Jewish Constitution,
which tolerated the enslavement of
savages in Jude, and the resolves Of
the Abolition caucus, which condemned
il in America, might both be right,
since the two system were not TO be
judged by one another; each should
be considered with proper reference
to circumstances widely DETERRENT.
But the suggestion that the infallible
God might be believed TO have procee-
ded on just grounds without impugning
the righteousness Of the Abolitionisis
met with no favor. The practiced dem
gogue cannot forego the tricks of bis
trade, aud so he makes the panegyric
of his political faction an excuse for
casting contempt in the face of his
Maker and for insulting the faith and
reason ofall who believe in Christ.
The barest thought that the Judge of
all the earth did right fills him with
rancor, which he pours out over page
after page and then repeats it again
aud again:
Uutarks hls heart Nth words
And fails - cursing iks vefg drEls--
4 scsllioa-
| have said this much about the
slavery point not as an answer TO Mr..
Ingersoll, but because | will not have
il understood, if | can help it, that |
permitted or provoked the introduc.
ton of partisan politics into the dis.
cussion of a religious subject.
These furious outbreaks Of iniem.
peraie abuse upon God. His laws and
institutions, do not disturb any ones
intellectual belief or at all diminish
the awful reverence which a Christian
feels for the supreme object of his ado
ration. Mr.. IngersOll thinks he is
raising a storm on the ocean of thought;
he is not producing a ripple. He is
merely doing the part of n common
scold, to whom the idle listen for the
sport of the thing, while others, tax.
ing counsel of their outraged feelings,
think him a nuisance that ought 10 be
abated. This is, perhaps, not very
easy to do. A woman, for such an Of.
tense, could be ducked under the rule
of the ancient law, but when com.
NUNS ri-ratrir of the male gender
vexes the peace Of a neighborhood in
this way the remedy is difficult and
doubtful.
To learn how gratuitous these anili.
ties are-how he scolds for the mere
sake Of scolding-look at his fanfare
made on polygamy. BY the unaided
influence of the Church alone this vice
has been extirpated completely and
perfectly. In Christian countries the
universal rule is that one man shall
be the husband Of one wife and no
more; and it is neither the rule nor
the practice anywhere else on the face
of the globe. Now, person who has
ordinary sense must sec that the moral
merit of Christ's Gospel in this re.
spect is directly proporiioned to the
magnitude of the evil from which it
has relieved human society. But Mr..
Ingersoll tries to blacken the charac-
ter Of the Christian religion by railing
at the bad practice which il has op.
posed aud destroyed. If he had flung
out at homogeneous marriage, which
Christianity npholds, his act, though
unjust, might have bad an apparent
object not altogether preposterous. In
deed, monogamy is as open to mere
vulgar vitupention as polygamy.
When an unclean mind exerts itself
TO imagine what may take place it Is
as easy to talk about brutality and the
animal degradation of woman in one
case as another. To the beastly all
things are beastly. In point Of fact