Newspaper Page Text
—— —'- - m- ■■ ..■-■■■ ----- --
Vol. 3. iTHBva,t.?>;"N^a,weaT l_CHICAGO AND CINCINNATlf SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 1886. _Z'l No. 37. The Unihersalist. A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY WEEKLY. Universalist Publishing House, piiimshfhs. CHARLES CAVERLY, General Agent. Issned by Western Brandi. 69 Dearborn St., Rooms 40 and 41, CSI0A30, a L.. LOUD A THOMAS, Managers advertising department. lum: : Postage Paid, 82.50 A Year, in Advance. Sample Copies Free. Western Advisory Board: Wm. H. Ryder, D. D., Hon. John R. Buchtei, O. A. Pray Rev. W. 8. Crowe, Chas. L. Hutchinson. Entered at the Postoffice as Second-Class Mail Matter. Snecml Goutributors. , MH—__ .— PROF. ROBERTSON SMITH’S “PROPH ETS OF ISRAEL.’’ By Rev. Eduar Leavitt. (Oshkosh, Wis.) A few years ago we read “The Old Testament in the Jewish Church,” by Prof. Robertson Smith, and now, by the kindness of a friend, we have the oppor tunity of reading “The Prophets of Israel.” The purpose of the first was to show that the Levitical legislation of Deu teronomy belongs to the period after the Exile, instead of being as it purports to be, and as Jewish tradition and general acceptance takes it to be, a part of the original Mosaic legislation. This posi tion, involving important doctrinal and ethical considerations, resulted in Mr. Smith’s removal from his position as professor in the Scottish Free Church Theological School. We read the first volume, fully conscious of the fact that we were not able to cope with Robert son Smith in a knowledge of the He brew language and literature, and yet with an impression that all his argu ment did not dispel the idea that his position was essentially unsound. He claimed such wonderful, mysterious and almost miraculous powers for the modern critic, “tl e advanced scholar ship,” to go behind the returns and tell just how the various documents were made up, that we became skepti cal of the entire claim. This impres sion was confirmed when we came to read the volume by the president of the College at Belfast, in review of Prof. Smith. With all tlieir reputation for advanced scholarship, and wonderful powers of insight, we cannot convince ourselves that the leading conclusions of the school to which Robertson Smith, Kuenen Wellhausen, etc., belong, are destined to stand. And yet we have no doubt, but that, in the providence of God, their labors will add somewhat to the sum of Biblical knowledge—will tend to the increase of sound Biblical scholarship. Every little helps, and one who advances a theory, however unsound, and though the theory itself may be demolished, incidentally adds something. This book on “The Prophets of Is rael,” professes to be non-controversial and is largely so, as distinguished from the former volume; but there runs through it the same vein of assumption that certain theories are true that char acterizes that. And the same unfavor able impression accompanies the read ing, especially of the first part. There is nothing that says it, but somehow, at first, we have the feeling that the author makes himself too much an out sider, that he himself has no faith in the real existence or providential activ ity of “the God of Israel,” of whom he speaks ; that he speaks of him as a con ception, which was, no doubt, very real and vivid to them, but in which he has no share. But, as he progresses, this impression wears away, and when he comes to treat of the evangelical Prophet Isaiah, the author seems to be carried away by the divine enthusiasm of the prophet, and to be convinced almost in spite of himself, of the reality and the providential activity of Isaiah’s God. We wish to do no injustice to Robert son Smith. We do not say that his words say this. They seem, even when apparently all right, to have a hollow, ins’incere ring. We are only speaking, the careful reader will notice, of our impression. He is not so radical in bis treatment of Isaiah as some other wri ters, and yet he advances the strange theory that the editor of Isaiah’s proph ecies, wrote in matter which did not belong to them, for the purpose of fill ing up the parchment that it might not be wasted 1 We do not believe that it is possible to entirely reconstruct these old doc uments, to tell what other documents the compilers had before them, just what was interpolated, and just what is forgery. It may all be as these crit ics say and more, but we do not believe that they are able to prove the theory one way or the other. The only thing we can do is to take the best texts ex tant, and by comparison and conjecture arrive at a tolerably correct text—and that we must be satisfied with. There is apparent all through the same assumption of superior ability on the part of the new school to come to correct conclusions, that marks a cer tain school of materialistic and evolu tionistic scientists, in regard to the problems of biology—a disposition to regard as “scholarship” and “scholars,” only those theories and those students of Biblical literature who harmonize with the positions of the “advanced” school. But we admit that “The Prophets of Israel” is a more satisfactory book than the “Old Testament in the Jewish Church.” Partly is it so because there is less of the “critical” in it. Prof. Smith’s perception of the ethical posi tion of the prophets, and the signif icance of their prophecies as applied to their times is singularly lucid even where his “critical” perceptions are confused. In these respects his obser vations are, many of them, really stim ulating, but 6ven here their value is largely in their suggestiveness, rather than in the continuous reliability of his conclusions. These suggestive passages would well bear quotation, many of them, but we have not room for them. We believe, after making the allow ances we have, that to those profession ally interested in the higher lines of religious thought, who can discrimi nate, there is much in the book that is valuable. But as a history, its style is dry—and, to a great extent, too vague and general. We can hardly conceive any one but a Scotch, theological pro fessor writiog such a book, and we can hardly conceive any but a congregation of metaphysical Scotchmen patiently enduring such a dose in the form of popular lectures. Such a course of lec tures would be anything but popular with an American audience. IMMORTALITY OR THE ARGUMENT FROM LONGEVITY. Hy Hey. A. A. Thayek. (Osage, Iowa.) Among the important questions to the applicant for life insurance, are those which relate to the longevity of his fam ily : “How long did your father live ? Or, how old is he now if still alive?” “How long did your mother live ? Or, how old is she now if still alive ?” “What of your brothers and sisters—did they die young? Or, are they still living, and at what ages ?” Such are the questions asked of those who would secure a life insurance. And if it can be established that the applicant be longs to a long-lived family, this is ac counted favorable evidence of the long life of the individual. On the contrary, if he belongs to a short-lived family, this is collateral proof that the individ ual will not live long himself. In the science of entomology, the nat uralists tell us about many races of little insects whose natural life is only a few hours long. Others live a few days, others a few weeks or months. Grasshoppers and flies, and a plenty of beetles, may live a year. The life of one species of locust is three years ; of another, seven years ; of another, four teen years. Now, if an individual of each of all these different species was put into your hand, and you were wise enough to tell to which family of in sects it belonged, you could then judge very correctly as to the probable dura tion of the natural life of each. Of this little creature you would say,—“It cannot live but a few hours at the most, for all the fathers and mothers in that species only live about so long.” Of another you would say,—“It can only live a few weeks or months, for all the fathers and mothers in that species only live about so long.” And so you would judge of the grasshopper, the beetle, or the locust, and say,—“Such and such will live so long, and so long, because that has been the natural life of all their generations since they were known to man.” Our domestic fowls and animals are born to very unequal length of days. You would call the barnyard fowls old at five years of age, the dogs and cows old at fifteen, and the horse old at thirty. But an ele phant would hardly have arrived at middle life at thirty, because they are known to live a hundred, and even two hundred years. Now, in all of these cases, one could wisely and logically judge of the probable duration of the life of the individuals by the duration of life in the classes to which they be longed. “How longdid their fathers and mothers live?” “What was the length of days among their kindred through the long generations of the past ?” The answers to these questions would solve the problems before you. Let us therefore apply the same con clusive reasoning to the probable dura tion of the life of man. Man is double. He is flesh—he is spirit. He has a double parentage, an earthly and a heavenly. We have fathers and moth ers after the flesh. The probable life of the body depends upon the bodily life of our kindred—not much beyond threescore and ten. But we are spirits also. One is the Father of our spirits, even God. Spiritually, therefore, we may inquire,—“How old is our Father f “How long has he lived?” “When will I he die?” “Can angels or archangels tell us?” “How long, then, may his children live?” In the length of life, like father, like children, immortality in parentage assures immortality in the offspring; and we are the offspring of God. It is true that God only hath immortality so far as absolutely to have no beginning, neither end of days. But as to an end ing of life, “Why may not the spirit of man live as long as his Father ?” And besides our parentage, we have long-lived kindred. We belong to a long-lived race. We are brothers to the angels. [See Rev. xix, 10, and xxii 9] “When did the angels die?” “When will they die?” “How long do they live ?” Our Lord said that when men became like the angels they could not die any more. We die only in part. We die as to our bodies. If the angels are our brothers, perhaps they have died in part, like ourselves. Perhaps they also once lived in the flesh, and so died as to the flesh—died in part. But now, and as to the spirit, they cannot die any more. Those who are now angels may have once waited “all the days of their appointed time,” in bodies like ours till their change came. Then they were transformed and became angels, and like unto those who were already angels—the like change and transforma tion whereof awaiteth all kindreds and nations now in the flesh. Hence the argument from the longevity of our spiritual kindred is convincing—it is comforting. It assures us of an im mortality as enduring as the immortal ity of the Father of our spirits, and of the angels who are brothers to our spirits. A SCIENTIFIC SERMON. We are indebted to a correspondent, Br. T. Devine, for a report of a recent sermon, by Dr. William Tucker, of Mount Gilead, O., on “Storms and Cy clones,” which is timely, in view of the painful interest created on this class of subjects, by the earthquake which has just visited a large portion of the North American continent. The sermon is on the line of a discussion which will assuredly follow the recent earthquake, although not directed to the consideration of that particular phe nomenon. The report has been revised by Dr. Tucker, and is therefore au thentic. The text was Psalip civ, 2, 3. Natural phenomena reveal to us much natural, moral, and spiritual truth. Mind reveals itself in matter, thoughts embody themselves in things, and the spiritual is made manifest in the natural. The revelation of truth in nature is the basis of science, art, morality, and religion. Nature is a revelation to us of both God aud man, as both use it as the in strument with which they work. 1. What is the relation of God to the natural phenomena of storms, cyclones, and floods? Some hold that he has no relation to it; that it is purely the re sult of the action of natural forces, as directed and controlled by natural laws. But modern science shows that nat ural forces are of spiritual origin, and result from the action of will. The forces of nature reveal the action of God’s will, as the order of nature re veals the action of divine intelligence. Nature is full of God. He is the life that every where lives, the will that every where works, the mind that every where plans, the gooduess that every where gives, and the authority that every where rules. God is in nature as the supernatural cause of all natural phenomena, as the personal cause of impersonal nature, as the spiritual cause of the material universe, as the free cause of necessary nature. But nature does not exhaust God. At the same time that he Alls nature with his presence, thought, and power he transcends nature. 2. What is man’s relation to these phenomena? Man, as an intelligent free cause, acts upon nature as a directing, dis turbing and destructive agent. He uses her material, employs her forces, directs and combines her energies, ex hausts her soil, destroys her forests, changes her climate, and alters her sea sons. By his action on nature in cut ting away the forest, draining the swamps and low lands, he has caused seasons of drought, floods and storms; by arresting evaporation, he prevents the formation of clouds and the fall of rain. Cyclones belong to the class of elec trical phenomena, and result from the disturbance of the balance of the elec trical forces of nature, by the great number of lines of railroads and tele graphs. Every line of railroad over which the trains run is a magnet, and so is every line of telegraph. These works of man must of necessity disturb the balance of nature's forces and cause destructive phenomena. The phenomena of this class have in creased in the portion of the country where the balances of nature’s forces have been disturbed by human action. Cyclones, in many instances, appear to follow the lines of railroad, two facts which show a close connection between the operations of man and this destruct ive phenomena of nature. These phen omeua are educational. It is a part of our culture. OPEN LE TO YOUNG GIRLS. ill. On the C unities of Girlhood. “Whats 3 play ?” is the discon solate ques sard in word (or deed), alike from iny prattler, and from our youth hen recreation is no longer spii ou, and you feel list less, thou) sasy, my dear young girls, the has come for work; your play-t ast not cease, but with the gay, b lours will be mingled useful onf tut what can I do V” you say. 'hat can you not do? Everythin! iefore you, and even drudgery c made a delight if we but enter with the genuine en thusiasm \ nakes one excel. Not long si We I was watching a lit tle girl stir uplhe batter for some nice savory breakfw cakes, and though she had often bee* instructed before, the questions askei of “mamma” were in numerable—“ How many eggs did you say to put in, namma ?—oh, yes, and how much flow ?” And just as tbpy were being bakid, “Oh, mamma, I for got all about tffee soda. What shall I do ?” So I sayito you, my dears, learn to do without ljelp those things easily within your gran?—not spurning house hold duties, however, because they may seem common are ordinarily turned over to the car servants. When you are older you l realize what a rare and pleasant a nplishment it is to be able to work ly and skillfully with your hands. You have oft® seen your mischiev ous little founyear-old brother sit sweetly down aimong his playthings, hammer everytBng to pieces, to see how it was macft, and finally cut open his fine new ruftber ball to spe what was inside that made it bounce—then look up at you tlith those pretty deep brown eyes of nis and ask you inno cently why it wouldn’t bounce any more. Perhaps you half wanted to scold the little king. And yet it is just that spirit of investigation that I could wish you to cultivate in yourselves. No duty is too j simple to perform thoughtfully, and unreasoning work in any branch of labor whatever, is of the irresponsible kinlLyariable in merit, and never aiuiroaejBjMt real perfection.^ kindling, laying every stick in very carefully and solidly, and then ruefully watches the smoke curl up where a nice bright flame should be. She must yet learn that for a brisk, cheerfully crack ling fire, plenty of oxygen is necessary. So, after all, scientific thought, we see, is at the very basis of common life. After visiting with your little friend and eating dark, soggy bread and “greasy” food, did you not seize upon “mamma’s” nice, flakey loaves and juicy vegetables, with a new relish, and wonder that good food could be so ru ined in the preparation ? Now every young girl, whether she is one day to grace a home of her own, or whether she is to become a great writer, orator or musician, should know how to pre pare a dainty and wholesome meal. And if she would “put her brains into her cooking,” as a wonderful little housekeeper expresses it, she should know something of the natural laws at the basis of hygienic living. An intel ligent, practical mother was heard to say that she never knew the naturally fine flavor of the Irish potato, and the more succulent vegetables until she had eaten them prepared after the hygienic method. The clear, active mind needs a strong, healthy body, and how neces sary then is it that you should know everything that would conduce to good health. The happy, bright, clear-headed people are not those who are pursued by dyspepsia and innumerable similar ills ; so you see how much joy we can give to ourselves and others by know ing how to do well the work of the kitchen. Then when we learn some thing of the laws of hygiene, we shall want to know more about the physical system. We shall see how beautiful and how wonderful in construction is every part of the body, and how each organ works in concert with the others, just as the cogs in the wheels of a watch, fit so prettily into each other. Just think of the marvelous mechan ism of the leg and foot! IIow the bones with lightness combine strength; the muscles great toughness, develop mental force and flexibility; and the nerves minuteness, yet exquisite sensi tiveness ! And all are operated by that wonderful electric battery and tele graphic centre, the brain. So, with a wider knowledge and deeper study into these questions, what a fascination may the study of hygiene possess for you ! But yet further, and even more sat isfying is the thought that practical knowledge, my dear young friends, will bring to you practical power ; and thus the ability of conferring real benefits on all about you. And so, from your no ble determination to perform well the small duties about the home, you will reach out to the wider Held of benevo lence. And instead of indulgence in gay sports when you do not care for them, you will have attained to some thing useful that will lend a new zest to all your pastimes, and a quicker, keener interest in the things about you. You will be even more gay, light-hearted and sunny-faced, if possible—every muscle teeming with unused vigor, and yearning for heaithfnl action. The long ramble on a summer’s day, the game of lawn tennis, the row on the rapid river, the quick canter on horse back over grassy fields and through the woodlands—all these will be but the brightness of pleasant hours, and in stead of exhausting, shall furnish a healthy stimulus to renewed exertion, and insure at night long and refreshing sleep. I would but extend for all young girls the period of healthy, happy child hood, and make more true and useful the boon of womanhood. And yet, while removed farther from fashionable frivolities, and thus extend ing youth’s sweet simplicity of pleas ures, aspirations for the future will come to you. Every life should be molded in the present for some purpose in the future. As you grow older you will long still more to be useful. And in these, your halcyon days, why may you not profitably look toward the com ing years with plans matured for them? so that the first small beginnings of an honorable calling shall be made. No young woman, whatever her circum stances, should lack the means of earn ing an honest livelihood ; and in order to excel in any employment, the most prompt beginning is necessary. And the preparation for any work lies not merely in labor in the work it involves, but far more in turning the thoughts and interests strongly toward it. So, my dear young girls, while you are en joying and making most of the present, you will be planning for an honest work that shall mske you both helpful and independent in the future. Every thing almost is open to you, and you have but to choose. Is not that a bless ing and a pleasant thought to you ? Dorothea Maple. HOW TO GET RID OF YOUR MINISTER. An article in the Interior gives some humorous advice upon the above sub ject, which is none the less true to life, because written in a pseudo-satirical vein, and it has many a time and oft been acted upon by fickle, dissatisfied tracts, eithei of which^i'lf^prove"effect* ive and a “sure shot:” “To be sure, he’s been with you but a short time; and when he came you all said, ‘Never was such a man.’ So you installed him for life. Now you say a change would be for the interest of the church. He, innocent one, thinks the change ought to be in you. For months he has wondered if some mer ciful providence would not remove you and so promote the good of Zion. Of course lie’s wrong. You stick. Of course the church would dissolve if you were to resign. Those resolutions of I respect for your departing dominie; how faithful he’s been, and how the church has grown during his stay, and your sorrow at parting with him ; pre sume they are all ready, eh ?” Now, how to get rid of the man whom these resolutions call equal nearly to Gabriel ? “(1). Send him in his resignation, A j certain colored preachersays that is the way his church managed him when they wished him to go. Send him a kind but firm letter, with a good many signers. Of course you will get all the outsiders you can hear of to sign. Tell ■him he’d better seek another field. Such a Jetter, if well prepared, will win. He’ll be crushed at first; but you can show him a copy of the resolutions to comfort him. See ? “(2). Another effective way, if you haven’t the courage to write such a let ter and sign it—and ’tis not likely you have—is to set Miss Busybody at work against him. You remember how soon the thing was done in this way over at Gossipton. Miss Lipp was duly com missioned by several of the trustees. The first afternoon she led four fam ilies to decide that the interests of Zion demanded a change of ministers. It is true nobody ever heard that those families lay awake for Zion’s sake. Still, Miss Lipp and they and “many more,” they said, had reluctantly come to feel that the welfare of a church was before everything. So the minister left. “(3). Another* effective method is to starve him out. Empty his pocket aud keep it so. That'll fix him. He’s flesh and blood with a bit of self-respect. He’ll catch the idea when you tell him you can’t collect; that you are sorry people are so dishonorable as to refuse to pay an honest pledge just because a minister is not an angel; that you pro pose to pay your part if you don’t like the preaching; still people can’t be compelled to give if they won’t, and what’s to come of it you don’t know, etc. You get the point? Very well. He’ll get it, too, and get away if he can. “But if he should think it was owing to the hard times, and propose to take less salary or accept what his friends can raise—there are such cases—we should be in a box. Our minister, poor financier as he is, evidently has some thing to fall back upon, else bow does the man give more than any two mem bers of the church ? Can’t tell how long his bank would stand » run. Wo want a change now ? “(4.) Then thin out his meetings. My Brother Parsons says he can share a crust of bread with his poorest mem ber, but an empty seat just chokes him. So, stay away from all the meetings for a month or two and victory will perch upon your banner. Since you want to hurry things, be sure to meet your pastor with all your family on your way to another church. Same, when you return. Don’t go any by-way. If he doesn’t see you he may think you are nt home ill and he will come to inquire after yon. That would embarrass you, and your program is to get rid of him without any scenes. “If you have no taste for another church, you might arm yourself wit*i the Morning Herald and a cigar and put yourself where your minister’s wife can see you as she goes and comes from church. She’ll be sure to see you and tell it to her husband. “(5.) You can bother him more in the church than out. IIow ? Many hows. Whisper is one. Turn the leaves of your hymn-book. Go to sleep as soon as he announces the text. Wake up ; yawn ; look at your watch ; snap it shut like a pistol-shot. Vary these exercises. Be sure to be in your place when your pastor makes an exchange. Give the other minister the closest at tention. Thank him most unsparingly for his charming discourse. It would help matters to ask him for a copy of it, or say you must hear it again. See that your pastor’s wife or his daughter hears all this. You might also remark in their presence that young So-and-So was in church to-day for the first time in many weeks, and that So-and So said he and many more young men would come to church if that man were the preacher. Thus it will go out, with a little wise talk, that your pastor can’t draw the young. You might take pains to get the young folks to saying the same, and suggest to some of the youthful leaders in society to stay away for a time, and thus show your minister that he can’t draw the young. That will make him sick at heart and lead him to seek an other- field ; the very thing you want. ■'•(6). Some churches have voted their i&cer’s charge, of course. This works remarkably well with over-sensitive pas tors. Somehow such men are prone to conclude that their room is preferred to their company, and act accordingly. But you must know your man in this case. He may be dull of comprehen sion, and only think this your way of showing your anxiety for bis health and your general good love for him. —The Rev. Henry A. Stimson remarks in the Independent, “ The good and the bad, we have every reason to believe, are separated after death.” He means “ sep arated” locally — the “good” in one place, the “ bad ” in another plaoe. Bat instead of “ every reason ” to believe this we have never beard of but one reafon— the supposed reference of Jesus to this separation in two of his discourses. Aside from this the reasons are all against such a belief; and it is becoming the habit of scholars to put a different interpretation on the xxiv of Matt, and the xvi of Luke. — Mr. Stimson thinks the soul may make “ decisive choices,” by which he seems to mean ohoices leading to results which cannot be recalled. There is con fusion here. The only question in dis pute is, whether the soul, having made a wrong choice, retains the power to amend it and make a right choice. So much must be conceded to it so long as it re mains a moral being. To say that a choice which it mnkes at one time cannot be followed by a better choice at another time is only another way of saying that the moral nature has become extinct. The “ memorial ” signed by some Episcopal clergymen, and to be signed by others, asking the General Convention of the Episcopal church to take such ac tion as it may deem expedient, “ to further the organic unity of Christians in this laud,” appears not to contemplate the most desirable thing. “Organic unity” implies union in an organization; and,as the Episcopal churoh shows no disposi tion to abolish, nor even to alter or amend its own organization, it is plain that the only “ unity ” these memorialists have in mind is that to be gained by other organi zations being absorbed into the Episcopal church. Perhaps this is a consummation devoutlyto be wished ; perhaps not. The student of churoh history re members that the period where there was the oompletest “organic unity” of Chris tendom, so far from being the golden age of our religion, was the saddest and most shameful in its annals. The world is, no doubt, better than it was then ; but it is not enough better to make it safe or de sirable to attempt to create a unity by Bat whioh does not exist by conviction. What “ Christians in this land ” moot need and should most earnestly desire, is not union in any organization—a thing as im possible us undesirable — but union among the organizations. To have a condition of things among Christians of all names and orders in which their com mon Christian purpose and their common Christian spirit shonld find expression in general inter-denominational fraternity and fellowship, is the ideal of the true Christian statesman. gaitorssisssssct Bricks-T BY BEV. I. M. ATWOOD, D. D. Canton, N. Y. It is a fact which posesses interest for Universalists, that the arguments, pro and oon, used by their oithodoz brethren on the subject of the new here sy, future probation, are a veritable two edged sword. On the one side they show conclusively that there is no valid ground on which the door of opportunity oan be supposed to be closed at death. On the other, they make it clear that if the door stands open for some the probability is that it is not shut against any. —It is probable that the first reports of the calamity which has befallen Charles ton will be found to have been exagger ated. One account telle us that the famouB church of St. Michael is a ruin ; another, that it is apparently unharmed. The apparent disaster, from such a mul titude of fallen chimneys and from the debris of the looser portions of the build ings, must at first have been well nigh universal and complete. The damage to every brick or stone structure must be considerable, and to many irreparable. But we trust that when the alarm and confusion of the shock are passed, it will be found that the city is still there and capable of speedy restoration. In the meantime the sympathy and aid of every section of the oouutry will How to the stricken, smitten and afflicted city. —Hach occurrences as this are well cal culated to impress men with an over whelming sense of the insignificance of his physical power and his earthly mem orials. In an age when the worship of material splendors and enterprises has beoome so mnoh a passion, and when snch startling liberties are taken with Nature, an earthquake is not without its moral uses. While the physical man and the physical world are thrown out of re lation by suoh a convulsion, and his con fidence in the steadfastness of the mater ial universe is shaken, the spiritual man and the spiritual world abide in undis turbed harmony ; and it is clearer than before that not even the “ war of ele ments, the wreck of matter, and the crash of worlds,” can shake the security of the soul. —It was a hundred years on the 15th of last month since Thomas De Quincey w»e born; and it will be «fs*y«tow years on the 30th of the present month since he wrote the concluding paragraphs of “ The Confessions of an English Opium Eater.” It was this comparatively short essay whioh first attracted the attention of Englishmen to his genius. We have just re-read it after an interval of thirty years, and so far from finding that the impressions made by it on the boy are replaoed by different and less favorable impressions made on tho mature man, we have received au accession of delight. The luminous intelligence, the subtile penetration, the delicate humor, tl*e weird imagination, the sinewy vigor find facile grace of the style exert their spell even more profoundly than ever. —We are sorry to record that the Sun day World has reached an edition of 230,000 oopies. The World is not a bad publication and it is a particularly good newspaper. But we have never yet seen any reason for the Sunday rest for any body which is not applicable, in all its force, to the newspaper. The World owes its enormous circulation partly to its en terprise, in part to its brightness and courage, but a good deal also to the freer rein it gives to that high stepping horse yclept sensationalism. On the whole, we believe the world would be just as well off without its Sunday World. We know the world does not think so. It likes that sort of thing. So long as it does it will have it. All the same we could wish that it were well rid of its taste and its toy. —Mr. Mendenhall is reported as stat ing thut he finds the authors whose works he has examined using oertain words in certain uniform proportions. There are. we tuke it, certain words for which each author shows a partiality. It must have been by anticipation of Mr. Mendenhall’s discovery that Dickens stereotyped his most marked characters. They declare themselves by the words and phrases on which they are forever ringing changes. Mr. Mendenhall professes to be able to ascertain in this way whether a given work or article is the production of a given author. We have not seen the full exposition of his theory but presume he will test it by demonstrating who Juuius was and by corroborating Beutley's ex posure of the spuriousnees of the “ Epis tles of Phalaris.” —The Boston Sunday Herald requests the clergy to ask themselves “ why has the church lost its grip on the working men?” Wecauauswer. In the first place the ohurch never had any grip on the workingman, as such. Its grip has been on him as a man and a brother. In the second place, it has lost something of its hold on many workingmen because they have so largely transferred their affection in recent years from their ohurch to their various labor organizations. Iu com munities not divided up by any secular or sociul fratei uities, tbe Chriatmu church, as the oue great, permanent, omnipresent organization, will have a much stranger hold on every class thau auy other attrac tion. But when Maeoury and Oddfellow ship and the club and the oouucil and tbe numberless other associations make their advent, the ohurch loses its grip, audno wonder, on considerable num rs in every class. In the long run the church will probably resume its sway: but for the eeasuu its scepter trembles.