The Universalist. [volume], October 09, 1897, Image 1

About The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897

Image provided by: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library, Urbana, IL

                
vol. i|:v, rHEv35t.VxNxTg5.r8Ti_Chicago and Cincinnati, Saturday, qctqber 9, 1897._no. 41 -
The Liiversalistl
A RELIGIOUS AND FAMILY WEEKLY
taivERSAUST Publishing House,
publishers,
E. F. ENDICOTT, Genera! Agent
Issued Every Saturday by the
• S3TEUN Branch op the Publishing IIousi
I Dearborn St. Room# 40 and 41
CHICAGO. ILL.
,B < 92.60 A YEAR IN ADVANCE
« -nlWb • . • | , 26 8IX MONTHS.
POSTAGE PAID.
SAMPLE COPIES ALWAYS FREE.
rtlvUlTTA-NCKSi—Make all checks, drafts,
, ami express orders payable to A. M.
,i vson, Cashier, or Universallst Publishing
Western tiranch
Cntere'* at the i'ostofflrM a* Sa/yv’.j■/’?*»« »•“*:.
CONTENTS.
CHICAGO. SATURDAY, OCT, 8, 1*87.
Pace One.
Editorial Briefs.
The Punishment of Criminals.
The Creed Question.
Transitions and Changes of Emphasis.
Face Two.
Our Illinois Churches.
Annual Report of Executive Committee.
The Ryder Fund.
The Place of Death in Evolution.
A Practical Christianity.
Page Three.
The Sunday School Lesson.
“Let Your Light Shine.”
Page Poor.
Editorial:
Entertainment at the General Convention.
The Profession of Faith.
The Universalist Church.
Large Bequest to Bnchtel College,
Illluois Convention Reports.
Face Five,
Church News and Correspondence.
Fage Six,
The Family Page, Farm. Garden and Dairy.
Page Seven.
Our Boys and Girls.
Page Eight.
News of the Week.
Church Notices and In Memorlam.
EDITORIAL BRIEFS.
BY PRESIDENT I. M. ATWOOD, D. D.
There is not much politics in the
Universaliet denomination. The ambi
tious and the intriguers are notin evi
dence to any marked degree. But there
is much grumble. Some grumble be
cause nothing is doing: others because
we have too many ironB in the fire.
There are those that grumble because
the denomination is run by old men:
there are those who grumble because
young men are in the saddle and no
man past fifty haB a chance. Some
grumblers say we have no system, no
supervision, no head; that we need a
bishop. Other grumblers say we are
managed to death, tyrannized over by
denominational papers, and that what
we most grievously need is more and
larger liberty. It is the complaint of
some that the radicals are steering us:
of others that we are narrowly and
hopelessly anchored to tradition. The
Universaliet laity are all right, murmur
some: it is the ministry that is Belfish
and time-serving; but others tell us one
thing has been proved beyond dispute
—that we cannot depend on our laymen:
the only hope for the church is to put
ita affairs into thecuBtody of the clergy.
If the grumble was of one tone and in
one and the eame tune we should know
what is wrong and where to apply the
remedy.
—We are conscious of a movement of
dissent amounting to mild disapproval,
as we read at the bottom of the col
umn in the Independent "Copyright
1897, by John Watson, in the United
States of America.” The article thus
announced aB the private property of
Ian Maclaren is not one in a series nor
of a strictly literary character. It is
such an article as clergymen and pro
fessors write many of for the religious
press, sometimes for pay and sometimes
for “ the good of the cause.” It strikes
one a bit unfavorably that Dr. Watson,
having fared extremely well financially
at the hands of his American friends,
should have acquired that high esti
mate of bis work of every sort, includ
ing old sermons, implied in getting the
copyright “in the United States of
America” on whatever he sends to a
newspaper.
—After he went home with a com
fortable fortune from his lecturing tour
in the United States, Dr. Watson wrote
out and sent back his "impressions" of
America and the Americans, and was
well paid for them, too. They were
good impressions, courteously expressed,
and were, no doubt, worth what was
paid for them. But there should be
some limit to an Englishman's appetite
for American ehekles; or it not tbat,
then some limit to the American wil.
lingoess to tee) (not the hungry) the
greedy. When it reaches the pass that
a writer and preacher copyrights his
homilies printed in a religious j lurnal,
something should be said if not some
thing done; and we are saying it. Tel
mage, our own and much divided Tal
mage, draws, we hope, income from the
secular press for the privilege of print
ing his eermons. He cannot so easily
impose on the religious press. The con
ductors of tbat know the market value
of sermons; and none of them ever pays
anything for Talmage’s. We had not
expected ever to be tempted to class
Ian Maclaren with T. Dewitt Talmage.
But here is a hint of kinship.
—"The mBSBive one-sidednese of his
nature,” is the phrase by which
Neander describes the most striking in
tellectual pecularity of Tertullian. The
strong, perverse, unamiable trait of the
great Latin father impresses every mod
ern student. Yet to be fair we must
admit that Tertullian was very human
in his one-sidednese. For one sidedness
generally without the massiveness, is
more universal than many-sidedness.
Human beings, in ail ages and in all
climes, are prone to prejudice. The
persons who make up their judgment
without passion and without bias on
any subject are not numerous even in
this so-called enlightened age. And
the number who do so on burning
questions is much smaller. Take out
the heat, the perversity, the "one-sided*
ness” from our controversies and what
a pitiful residuum remains!
—We are pleased to read the sturdy
protest which comes from the always
gracious New York correspondent of the
Leader against the habit of the city
churches of dragging the vacation out
into the autumn,thus putting the year’s
work behind. Such churches, he justly
observes, "never catch up.” The very
trait which makes them willing to start
late keeps them in the rear throughout
the race. We infer from this that the
habit of the city churches in this par
ticular is general and generally bad. If
so, tne habit of the country churches'
which is different in this respect is, if
not good, a great ways better. It Beems
to follow that it would be wise policy
and good form to plan our general de
nominational work after the model of
the churches whose habit is best rather
than after those whose habit iB worst.
Yet we seem to to remember an argu
ment, in which the city pastors were in
chorus, for making our convention work
conform to this particular city usage.
—Senator Hoar said again at the Sara
toga conference, that the fourteen Con
gregational churches of his own city of
Worcester contributed more for their
missionary objects than all the Unitar
ian churches. Some of the Unitarian
churches are very wealthy and the aver
age of wealth in them is above that in
most denominations. If what the Sena
tor has now twice publicly asserted is
true, it is a fact that tells as strongly
against the Unitarian churches as it
does for the Congregationalist churches.
It may be said that Unitarians are more
generous to other objects, the Congre
gationalists to church objects. But it is
not probable. The rule is, that those who
are most in the habit of giving in the
church are also most liberal outside.
Such a fact calls for investigation and
explanation. It is more damaging to
"liberal” Christianity than tons of or
thodox detraction.
—We have several times criticised
"The Liberal Congress of Religion” of
which Dr. H. W. Thomas is President
and the Rev. Jenkin Lloyd Jones, Sec
retary, for making the terms of the case
so narrow as to exclude nearly the whole
of Christendom. The prospsctus aod
program of the next aanual meeting in
Nashville shows that this defect has
been in some measure remedied. Invi
tations to the Congress were ssnt out to
a great many persons of a great many
sects and parties, and the replies of a
number of them are printed. The pro
gram as arranged is much more compre
hensive than its predecessors, though it
is still very much of one religious hue.
We note the progress of the managers in
the direction of real liberality with pleas
ure and hope they may at length be
come as inclusive in practice as in pro
fession.
—The thick-and-thin party men are
saying of the New York effort to put an
unpledged man into the office of mayor
and have the affairs of the city adminis
tration on -business principles, "Oh
that's been tried. They tried it in
Albany with Mayor Wilson and it was
a failure.” The only failure in the Al
bany instance was the failure to cod.
tinue. The administration of Mayor
Wilson was entirely and admirably su:
cessful as an experiment in non parti
san municipal government. General
John F. Rathbone, one of the first citi
zens of Albany, in a letter declining to
be the candidate of the Vigilance League
and the Republican organization for
mayor this fall, refers to the Honest
Election Party campaign of a few years
ago and says, "On that platform [of non
partisan city government!was elected as
mayor, Owen E. Wilson, and his admin
istration proved in every way the best
Albany has known in many yearp.”
Gan. Rathbone advises electing Mr.
Wilson again. That is the sort of "fail
ure” these gentlemen are so anxious to
avert.
Oanton Theological school.
Kaisek Wilhelm wants to oust the
United States from any share in the
protectorate of Samoa, as a preliminary
to securing for himself the undivided
control of that group of South Sea
islands. The German war lord would
better devote hie whole time to em
bracement of Nicholas and Francis
Joseph and other European monarcbe,
and let Uacle Sam severely alone.
OUR CONTRIBUTORS.
--9 0
THE PUNISHMENT OF CRIMINALS.
BY REV. U. S. MILBURN.
How are we to treat the criminals?
This question is the outcome of the
nineteenth century humane civiliza
tion. How shall it be answered? One
point is generally overlooked by those
who discuss this subject. It is the
close relationship of theology and
penology. We cannot expect human
justice until we have a right idea of
divine justice. Vicious methods of
punishment go hand in hand with
the vicious idea of divine wrath.
Man’s methods are in accord with his
conception of God’s methods. The
amelioration of theological ideas and
the reformation of existing unjust
penal laws are closely related to each
other. To accomplish the latter we
must first succeed in doing the form
er. Theology has been softened;
hence the agitation of penal reforma
tion.
It seems a self evident truth that
punishment should be in proportion
to the crime. Also that the object of
punishment is reformation, not ven
geance; it is for the criminal’s good.
Nevertheless it has been maintained
by theologians, and is still taught
that finally every violator of the moral
law, whom death overtakes without
repentance, will be visited by the
same penalty. The blackest sinner,
the vilest libertine, the child who has
committed the first slight offence,
these, without any discrimination,are
all condemned to forfeit forever the
presence of God and to be consigned
without degree of punishment to the
same torture chamber to be gloated
over by incarnate fiends!
What a hue and cry goes up when
it is ascertained that our prison
officials permit hardened criminals
and those arrested for their first
offence to mingle together; and a de
mand is made that they be classified
and separated. Yet these same peo
ple will sit in the pew the following
Sunday and hear the minister say
that God, in his infinite justice, con
signs all sinners to the same prison
dungeon, to mix in each other’s so
ciety, to be visited with the same
pain, to be condemned to the same
eternal torment; and they will say
>;amen,” not questioning the wisdom
or the justice of it.
To ire consistent they should peti
tion the Almighty day and night in
the agony of prayer, that he change
his plans; that he classify and sepa
rate his prisoners; that he learn a
lesson from reformers on earth.
Finally they should petition that
they be allowed to make a tour of in
vestigation through his prison and to
report reforms at the next meeting of
the advisory board of archangels!
For
“Nothing can be good in Him
Which evil is in me.”
Likewise capital punishment is the
logical outcome of the belief of divine
vengeance. God, it was thought, gave
the sinner no opportunity for repent
ance after he was finally convicted;
why, then, should man always try to
reform the criminal? God banishes
from his presence the sinner; man
does likewise, using the gallows as a
vehicle. Why not? Is man expected
to be more merciful than God? As
this theology wanes the death pen
alty will fall into disrepute. It is our
business to see that this legal murder
vanishes’in proportion as theology is
rationalized. WTe must destroy the
cause and remove the effect. This is
an urgent reform demanding our at
tention. “Let us then be up and do
ing.” We are moved by no sickly
sentimentalism nor prompted by no
sudlen impulse; we simply want
justice. What would be just?
1. In the first place let it be under
stood that society should be pro
tected. But the welfare of society
and of the prisoner are not conflict
ing. Law should represent the in
terests of the convict as well as so
ciety. Society is composed of human
beings; convicts are human beings
also. A violently insane person
is as great a menace to society
as a murderer. We do not kill the
insane to protect society; we would
resent such a horrible practice. WTe
have ho more right to kill the mur
derer to protect society than we have
the insane. The intellectual powers
of one are unbalanced; in the other
the moral. If we bang one, why not
the other? In the case of the insane,
society iB perfectly safe; cannot we
be protected as well from the morally
deranged without committing a legal
murder?
2. The punishment should be more
certain—punishment, not vengeance
or retaliation.
In the United States in 1896 there
were 10,652 murders, with 122 legal
executions, or a little over 1.2 per
cent. In the nine years from 1886
to 1895 there were 40,934 murders
and homicides and 917 executions, or
2.2 per cent. A study each year
shows a less percentage, proving
conclusively that it is harder and
harder to inflict upon a murderer the
penalty of this law. The severity of
the punishment does not deter from
crime but the certainty. It should
be beneficial to state and law-break
er. He should be put to labor
where the entire cost of arrest, trial
justly. Do not the citizens of Galesburg
have a large amount of interest? The
school has stood here for nearly fifty
years and in that time wbat has it ac
complished? Every year a large amount
of money is poured into our shops and
business houses, and this fact ought to
bear considerable weight with the citi
zens of Galesburg. Galesburg could
not stand aa high as it does without its
c illeges. Up to this time the citizens
at large have not been appealed to.
The schools bring together numbers
of well trained professors, bringing
with them the atmosphere of larger col
THE LOMBARD GYMNASIUM.
and care is refunded. Life imprison
ment at hard labor Bhould be the
penalty. Ample time will then be
given for remorse to operate, reforma
tion to come or new developments
in the case to be brought to light.
People have been executed wholly
innocent of the crime imputed to
them. Had the penalty been im
prisonment they could have been re
leased when the fatal mistake was
discovered, and full payment made
for the time employed as a prisoner.
There being no visible reformation
the prisoner should be treated as an
incurable, not harshly, but oarefully
guarded. He should be pitied as
m-’^h as the incuru'-ie luna‘;" ora
person with a crippled body, for be
has, what Dr. Oliver Wendell Holmes
calls, a “crippled soul.”
3. Pardoning power should be re
stricted. A federal board of examin
ers should investigate all cases. This
board should be composed of experts;
at least one lawyer, two physicians—
brain specialists—and two psycholo
gists. These should be paid salaries
enough to enable them to spend their
time in investigations and original
researches along special lines, espec
ially penology and criminology.
Some such policy as this I verily be
lieve, will be the humane and just
law of the future. Cannot the Good
Citizenship Department of the Y. P.
C. 17. do something to hasten its ad
vent?
Cincinnati, Sept. stO h.
_
Above is a cut of the Dew gymnasium
of Lombard University, Galesburg, dedi
cated Saturday, Sept. 25th. Senator
W. E. Mason and Professor Stagg of the
University of Chicago, were the invited
speakers, and made addresses which
elicited unbounded enthusiasm.
Rev. Dr. Nash presided during the
exercises of the dedication and the
prayer was offered by Rev. Dr. Sher
rill, who petitioned for a continual bles
sing upon Lombard as a seat of learn'
;ng and that the college might be
prospered. President Finley, of Knox
College, brought the congratulations of
the sister institution, saying in conclu
sion: “I feel kindly toward Lombard
and her president. I bring greetings
and congratulations. May those who
exercise here have larger chests for
greater aspirations, stronger arms for
worthier tasks, swifter feet for better
service, and may their shadows like
vours, Mr. President, and like yours.
Senator Mason, nevar grov less.*' The
applause was prolonged.
After some amusing comments, Dr.
Nash introduced Professor Alonzo A.
Stagg, who spoke upon the theme,
“Athletics as a Factor in the Training
of Youth.”
Senator Mason was then introduced.
The Univek.sai.ist will reproduce the
speech of the Senator hereafter. After
the applause following the address had
partly subsided, Dr. Nash proceeded to
make an earnest appeal for subscrip
tions toward meeting the debt due on
the new building and showed why peo
ple in Galesburg should be willing to
help. Among other thing! he said:
"My friends, we have gone ahead on
faith. The building has cost about
$8,000. Experts cannot understand how
such a building can be built for the
money. We think it is put here to stand.
We said when we got $4,000 raised we
would begin to build and this is what
we have done. We trusted to this even;
as a chance to raise the balance. The
cry of hard times has hindered us, and
leges. We have the building, but we
have the debt. Will you assist us to
dispel at least a part of i 1
About $1,000 was contributed, mostly
from citizens ot Galesburg, as there were
but few visitors from a distance. The
Republican says:
“The new building is to be put into
operation at once and gymnasium classes
will commence work as soon as the new
apparatus arrives. This work is a part of
the college curriculum and is among the
few required pursuits Prof. H. William
Dobee is to have charge of the classes of
gentlemen, and Mrs. Gunnel of those of
the ladies. A fine outfit of modern ath
letic apparatus has been ordered from
prominent firms in Chicago and Akron,
Ohio. The equipment will be as complete
as that of any institution in this region.
■ The gymnasium was built by me. ns of
funds subscribed chiefly by the alumni
of the institution. The movement was
started at the college commencement in
June, 1896. The plans were made by
Gottschalk & Beadle, and the building was
constructed by contractor Peter Olson.
The cost of the structure alone was$5,000,
and with full equipment will probably
reach $8,500. Ground was broken for the
building in April of this year and on May
4, during the G. A. R. encampment, the
corner stone was laid with splendid cere
monies by Captain Isaac Clemens in the
presence of a large gathering, numbering
many notable men. The building is a fine
one and does honor to Lombard Univer
sity.” _
THE CREED QUESTION.
“MANY MEN OF MANY MINDS.”
[Under this caption we will publish
from time to time articles on the proposed
change in our creed. The General Con
vention of 1895, in session at Meriden,
Conn., proposed the following as a substi
tute for the Winchester Profession, and
it awaits final action of acceptance or re
jection at the Chicago session of 1897. ]
The Proposed Creed.
1. We believe in the Universal Father
hood of God and in the Universal Broth
erhood of Man.
2. We believe that God, who hath spok
en through all His holy prophets since the
world began, hath spoken unto us by His
Son, Jesus Christ, our Example and Sav
iour.
S. We believe that salvation consists in
spiritual oneness with God, who, through
Christ, will finally gather in -one the
whole family of mankind.
THE WORD “RESTORE” INFLEXIBLE.
The word “restore” has a double
meaning like the word “ replace;”
but, strangely enough, this fact is
commonly lost sight of in the creed
discussion. One thing is replaced
by another which is substituted for
it; so with “restore” as J. C. Pattee
shows (in The Universalist for Aug.
21) by extracts from that fount of
pure English,our Authorized Version
of the Bible. So “ restore” as used
in Article II. of the creed may very
properly have the meaning denied
by its opponents.
It might be added that, the dic
tionary recognizes its use in this
sense as, of course, is inevitable.
Another meaning still, and one which
adds much to the significance of the
word, should be brought out. Web
ster's first definition of “restore” is
“ to bring back from a state of ruin,
decay, and the like; to repair.” ‘To
restore and to build Jerusalem.’Dan.
ix. 25” Another is “to heal; to cure;”
that first and best of authorities,
Worcester, gives the same meaning
to the word and its derivative, “re
storation.” Now, if to repair, to
cure, does not exactly express the
Universalist idea of God’s work with
sinful humanity, what language can?
In the sense of repair, “restore” is
often applied to old English cathe
drals that have fallen into a state of
decay and ruin; and we sometimes
find the work of restoration criticised
when some part of the structure has
been “ restored” in a manner differing
from the original plan. The cathe
dral is not exactly as it was first
built, nevertheless it is “restored.”
So, with lexicographers and com
mon usage meeting every objection
to the word as employed in ourcreed,
it would seem as if all opposition to
it ought to subside. But even if it
fail by a fine'sbade of meaning to
bring out the exact thought, what
possible justification can there be for
this verbal hair-splitting—this tith
ing of mint, anise, and cummin, to
the neglect of the incomparably
weightier matters of the law? With
sin and sorrow on every hand de
manding our every effort, it is noth
ing short of criminal to waste time
and strength in creed tinkering. If
‘restore” must go, however, though
I trust it will not, the following is
offered as a substitute for the clause
in question: “Who will finally save
the last sinner; and there shall be
one fold, one shepherd.”
E. M. Wilson.
B®[ fast, N. Y. Oct. 2.
THE CREED QUESTION OVERWORKED.
I crave the privilege to express my
convictions touchi g the proposed
change or abrogation of the Winchester
Profession of Faith.
1. It would be fata! to our cause to
abrogate this Profeseio'i of Faith as
talked of by some.
2. If there is a change only a few
verbal changes should be made.
3. The proposed new creed is inade
quate and unsatisfactory.
4. I am contidentthat the Winchester
Profession gives more general satisfac
tion than any other that can be devised.
5. It would be deplorable to omit ref
erence to the Bible as containing a rec
ord of God’s revelation to man and of
G d’s love as revealed in the Saviour,
J >sus Christ, and also the Fatherhood
of God, the brotherhood of man, and the
fi ial salvation or development of all
souls.
6. Iam convinced that the creed ques
tion has been overworked in our con.
t nitons; that too much time is being
wasted to the neglect of the souls Christ
came to save. To any one anxious to
help the people of this world to realize
the Gospel of Christ in their lives, the
Winchester Profession is a sufficient
working basis and the discontents should
remember that while a change might
suit them, ret there is likely to be a
greater number who would be greatly
displeased with the new statement, more
th in there now is with the old.
7. What we need to do, in these de
g cerate days when membership in our
c lurches is said to count for so litt'e,
aid when "the pulpit fails to awaken
dtep and stirring conviction;” and "the
themes are so bland and non-persuaBive
ai to neither inspire nor warm the hear
ers”, and "the preaching equivocal and
indefinite,”—I say what we need is not
c eed discussion, but a more earnest
p oclamation of the Gospel of righteous
nesB and the application of the princi
ples of Jesus in the daily lives of men—
whether in the home, in business, poli
tics, society or elsewhere. God grant
that our coming convention may arise
to the needs and duties of the hour and
do the things that shall shed luster up
on our beloved church, and not continue
a discreditable debate and waste of
precious time to the exclusion of the
weightier matters which demand most
earnest and prayerful attention at its
hands. W. F. Crispin.
Akron, O.
TRANSITIONS AND CHANGES OF
EMPHASIS.
BY MARK HOLROYD.
“Transitions of belief,” changes of
emphasis, whence come they! From
orthodox theologians and religious
papers, like the New York Examiner,
Independent and Outlook. These
transitions and changes of emphasis
are uniformly in the direction pointed
out by Universalism, which has uni
formly taught the universal Father
hood of God and the universal bro
therhood of man. To hold this creed
as an absolute verity is Universal
ism.
It was reported in the papers last
winter that Rev. Dr. P. S. Henson of
Chicago in the state Sunday school
Convention held in Elgin, said that
by the “Fall of Adam man became
sensual and devilish. Human nature
became depraved by being deprived”
(of a Father.) “We are nothing like the
creat ure God created in his own image.
The doctrine of the Fatherhood of
God, is a devilish lie, and its outcome
is Universalism pure and simple.”
We ought to thank Dr. Henson and
those of his creed. He is a consist
ent Calvinist, holding that God be
comes our Father by adoption into
the family of the elect few, whose
salvation is unconditional and cer
tain. Such as Dr. Henson gare un
conscious witnesses tojtbe truth like
Caiaphas who prophecied that “One
must die, so the nation perish not,”
and die not for that nation only, but
should gather in one the children of
God scattered abroad.l Special fa
voritism is taught and shown by such
hymns as this:
“ ’Twas the same love that spread th
feast
That sweetly forced us in,
Else we had still refused'his'grace
And perished in our sin.”
These have cast a glamour over the
eyes of such as Dr. HenBon and Prof
C. F. Mead of Hartford Theological
Seminary that they can see none other
but adopted children. They wish to
escape the deductions flowing out of
God’s Fatherhood. And we must
admit that they, as Augustinians
“pure and simple,” are more consist
tent than a molluscan Calvinism that
changes the emphasis over from
God’s will to the weak will of sorely
tempted man. And we must admit
that such as Dr. Henson and Prof.
Mead do clearly see, that in the uni
versal Fatherhood is involved a final
universal salvation from sin and uni
versal obedience of the children.
They believe in the sdvation from
sin and obedience of every one of
God’s adopted children. They rest
on the Fatherhood for the salvation
of the adopted few. By gazing so
continuously upon the adopted chil
dren, the glamour hides from their
vision, the natural children who are
not the few but the many.
Just as deep thinkers in the so
called orthodox churches as Dr.
Henson and Prof. Mead say: “He
who is no son by nature can never
become a son by adoption. Before
the child can become the adopted
of any man, he must be the real son
of some man, and so if it was only
by adoption that God became our
Father and we his sonB, then we
could never in any true sense be
his son, nor he in any true sense our
Father.”—The Place of Christ in
Modern Theology, page 390, Dr.
Fairbairn.
I have read carefully Dr. Atwood’s
criticisms on Prof. Mead’s paper and
they are excellent. From the in
sight I have got from the sev
eral quotations, I would judge
the paper would be in keeping
coming from a deist, treating up
on anthropology to convince us we
are all orphans. A theologian that
spends his energy to prove that
God is not the Father of all men,
had better get a deeper insight into
the history of man, his comparative
ignorance, weakness and necessities;
and a true study cf anthropology
leading to the fact that“ the spirit of
man goeth upwards” would guide
the theologian in the study of God
on the line laid down by his divine
representative. He leads the mind
upward to the Eternal Father by
bringing to our minds the attributes
of the best of human fathers; then
calls our attention to a Father in
finitely transcending human father
hood in perfectness and eternal
goodness.
Can Prof. Mead get no higher in
sight into God’s Fatherhood than to
talk of the “male parent?” Male
parent is an image of the animal man.
Father is a symbol—not a figure—
meaning in man the exercise of every
moral duty embraced in the word
fatherhood. If one of our theolo
gians had been on Mars’ Hill before
those keen, Bhrewd philosophers of
Athens, he would have arranged his
speech to suit his audience. He
would have talked of the supreme
nomathete, without parts and pas
sions, dwelling in a pleroma of light
inaccessible to man. To have called
the attention of philosophers to the
Fatherhood ef God would have been
too unphilosophical. Paul did not
think so. He comes right to the
point: “ For in him we live, move
and exist, for one of your own poets
has said, ‘ We are his offspring.’ ”
The other day I called the atten
tion of a lawyer—a Baptist—to what
Dr. Henson had said. “He was right”
he replied. “We become the chil
dren of God by adoption.” I asked
him to read from the 17th chapter
of Acts, 23-30, which after reading
he candidly admitted Paul taught as
well as Greek poets that all mankind
are God’s children. Disobedience
does not change his relation to his
children. Their disobedience and ne
cessities more imperatively call forth
the activities of the universal Father
as an expression of his goodness and
justice.
COB WITH, ia.
The late Barney Barnato, the s>
called “Kaffir king”and “diamond king,”
who committed suicide by throwing
himself into the sea from the British
steamer Scot on June 14th last, while
on the passage from Cape Town to
Southampton), left a fortune amount
ing to £936,865 8a 6d.