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.