Year: 1870

We believe it fortunate thing that there
are no sects in heaven. A witty lecturer once
pictured Methodist preacher standing on one
of the battlements of the celestial abode argu-
ing doctrinal points with a sturdy Presbyterian
standing on another battlement. The idea OF
such discussion, in such place, is irresisti-
bly, comical butt unfortunately, there are
good grounds for it. II we ignore or regret
the picture, it must be admitted that, suppos-
ing there are sects In the home beyond the
grave, heaven must be a somewhat lugubrous
place, although certainly 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 compre-
hension. Matters of ceremony and mode of
worship do not however, comprise the only
differences. The ideas promulgated are SO op-
posed, the one to the other, that people are
rather puzzled to know what is right and what
is wrong. Not long ago we had Mr.. Beecher
declaring that it was proper to amass
wealth; yesterday Mr.. Hepworth discoursed
so as to leave the impression that
the possession of much money was the
cause of much irreligion. 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 Is Mr.. Hepworth
prepared to admit 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 igno-
miniously thrust aside? Perhaps the ques-
ton will be sufficiently answered by refer
ring to the fact that clergymen have q weak
ness for brown stone front houses not less
than secular mortals.


On the whole il 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 argument
against an absorbing greed Of gain. It 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 in
diligence in frivolities which occupy the mind
to the neglect of God, and the gradual ex
tnction of religious sentiment which so
frequently follows 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 different in the early ages. St.
Patrick received no salary for converting the
heather Irish, and we do not remember read
ing that, 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 de-
fraying expenses.


There is no more favorite subject than that of
money, its use and abuse, with our cergymen,
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 SER
mons founded on personal experience with
their focks? 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.