Newspaper Page Text
4
©he ©hrtetian index
Published Everv Thursday at 67% S. Broad
Street, Atlanta. Ga.
WORTHY WALKING.
The first part of Patil’s letter to
the Ephesians is doctrinal. It sets
forth in language strong and striking
God’s soverignty, salvation by grace
through faith, together with the man
ifold blessings and exalted privileges
bestowed upon them in Christ Jesus.
The latter part, consists mainly of
exhortations to the performance of j
duty, and to living up to the nieas- j
ure of their privileges.
In the beginning of the 4th chap
ter he urges them to walk worthy of
the vocation wherennto they were
called, and is as appropriate tons to
day as it was to the Ephesians.
1. Who called us?
As ye know how we exhorted and
comforted, and charged every one of
you, as a father his children, That ye
would walk worthy of God, who hath
called you unto his kingdom and
glory. 1 Thes. 2:12.
This one thing I do, forgetting
those things which are behind and
reaching forth unto those things |
which are before, I press towards the
mark for the prize of the high calling
of God in Christ Jesus. Phil. 8:13-
14.
So that it is God who has called ns.
2. From what, to what, has God
called us?
From darkness to light; from pen
alty to pardon ; from condemnation
toacquitalf from guilt to justifica
tion; from death to life; from filthy
rags to white robes; from sin to ho
liness; from being sinners to being
saints; from slavery to freedom;
from war to peace; from fear to love;
from weariness to rest; from despair
to hope ; from sinking sand to solid
rock; from a horrible pit to a glori
ous throne; from hell to Heaven;
from gloom to glory.
It is indeed a “high calling,” which
none but God could have made.
There is the Callerami the Calling.
Here is the exhortation.
8. Walk worthy of it.
It is surprising how much is said
about walking in the Bible. That
word and its derivatives will afford a
most profitable Bible study for every
Christian.
Wo are told about walking in the
counsel of the ungodly ; about walk
, lug in the commandments of the
Lord, of the effect of walking in
the light. Wo are told of walking
by faith and of walking by sight; of
0 godly wuilk and an ungodly walk ;
of walking with the devil and walk
ing with God ; of walking after the
flesh and walking after the Spirit.
What doos it mean? Simply, the
manner of our life, the character of
our conduct and conversation. It
indicates which way we go, with
whom wo go, what wo say, what we
do, and the spirit and motive of it.
4. How’ are we to walk worthy of
this high calling?
Just as we walk worthy of any
earthly calling. We make ourselves
acquainted with the work appertain
ing to that calling. We practice the
doing of it. Our minds and our
hearts are in it. We are earnest,
diligent and watchful of our conduct, I
lest we do something inconsistent,
and bring reproach upon ourselves
and our vocation. Wo keep ourselves
thoroughly posted in regard to all its
details and about all matters belong
ing to it in the business world, and
we are always ready to talk about it.
But suppose some one should ask
us a question about our business,
w hich is proper, and right for us to
answer, ami we either remain silent
or say we do not know’. Suppose
that some one comes to our place of
business and finds that we are habit
ually away. Suppose that we are
found at places and engaged in do
ing things detrimental to our name as
business men, and unworthy of our
business itself. In the former
course of our conduct we walk wor
thy of our vocation, in the latter wc
do not.
A merchant, or a lawyer, or a doc
tor, or a farmer, or a teacher, knows
very well what it is to walk worthy
of his vocation. It is to honor it,
and to commend it by a faithful per
formance of the duties involved.
The same meaning is applicable
to the vocation to which God has
called us.
We have professed Christ. We
are Christians. We have passed
from death unto life. We have been
born again. We are new creatures,
created in Christ Jesus unto good
works. Being children of light we
have put aw ay the hidden things of
darkness. Our citizenship is in
Heaven. We are pilgrims and so
journers here, aud declare that this
is not our place, but that we seek a
better country, that is a Heav
enly country. Our affections arc
set on things above and not on
things on the earth. We are trans
formed by the renewing of our
minds, and are to prove what is that
good and acceptable and perfect will
of God. We are dead to sin, have
been buried with Christ by baptism,
and have risen to walk with Him in
newmess of life. So we are called of
God in Christ Jesus. We are Chris
tians. Let us talk as Christians and
act as Christians. Let us acquaint
ourselves with the work of Chris
tians. Let us go ■where Christians
go, and be prompt when Christian
duty calls. Let us be diligent, earn
est, watchful. Such a course will
bring gladness and peace to our own
hearts, power to the church, and
honor to Christ.
There is no telling the power of
worthy walking. Faith lived gives
efficacy to faith professed.
A man, one day, said to a friend :
“Under whose preaching were you
converted?” “Nobody’s,” was the re
ply, “It was under my aunt’s prac
ticing.”
An infidel was thought to
be ’lying, and his wife being con
cerned for him, asked leave to send
for some one to come in and pray.
After a moment’s thought, the man
»aid : “You may send for old man
Read. I know him. His life is
right.” The old man came and
prayed with him. The infidel re
covered and became a pious and use
ful man.
Are our lives right? Is there
any converting power in them ?
BRITISH POLITIOS-
Perhaps it is possible for our rea
ders to turn aside for a moment from
the political tempest through which
this nation is just now passing, to
give some thought to our cousins
over the sea. We have been asked
to briefly explain the political terms
seen every day in dispatches in the
secular press, such as “conservative,’
“liberal” and “home-rule.” We shall
try to do so.
Great Britian is a kingdom formed
by the union at various times of En
gland, Scotland, Wales and Ireland.
There are two leading political par
ties—the Conservative and the Lib
eral. As in this country, there are
several minor parties advocating
special issues. Formerly the two
parties were known as Tories and
Whigs. The Conservatives are the
successors of the Tories—the Liber
als of the Whigs, and the latter name
is frequently applied now to the
more conservative element of the
Liberal party. The Irish or Home
Rule party, also known as National
ists, are allies of the Liberals. The
Home-Rule party is divided into two
wings—Parnellites and anti-Parnell
ites. The Liberal-Unionists are
those who left the Liberals on ac
count of Mr. Gladstone’s policy of
homo rule for Ireland. They are
allies of the Conservatives. , The
Labor party is a small group of the
Liberals:
In a recent issue of one of our ablest
secular dailies is an excellent sum
mary of these parties, from which
we cannot do better than to quote :
The difference between the Conser
vatives and the Liberals is not easy
to define in a few words. The Lib
erals like their predecessors, the
Whigs, have in general stood for
larger popular rights, the extension
of suffrage, serve limitation of royal
prerogative, reform of systems of
representation, and the repression of
special privilege to favored classes.
The Conservatives or Tories, have
formed the party of royalty ami ar
istocracy, have been the defenders of
the King's prerogative, and in gener
al have endeavored, as the term con
servative implies, to preserve the
old Constitution of the kingdom
as free from change as pos
sible. Undoubtedly, both par
ties have at times, under the stress
of party interest, done acts inconsis
tent with the principles which un
derlie them, but this does not mili
tate against the general correctness
of the characterization here given.
By the act of Union between En
gland and Scotland in 1707, the lat
ter country retained its own system
of courts, many of its old laws and
customs, and the established (Pres
byterian) church. Hence Scotland
has been content under the union
rule. Ireland did not fare so well
in the act bringing her into the
union. She is governed by laws
passed by the British Parliament,
many of them intended for opera
tion only in Ireland. The Irish wish
a Parliament of their own to legis
late with reference to Irish affairs.
This is the substance of the Home
Rule demand, though as to arrang
ing the details there is much differ
ence of opinion. The land question
has been a fruitful source of Irish
discontent, for the reason that the
land is largely owned by non-resi
dent landlords, whose exactions for
THE CHRISTIAN INDEX; THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15. 1892.
rent and eviction of tenants have
been longstanding sources of dis
content. The remedy now urged
for all these grievances is Home
Rule, which is supported by the
Liberal Party and the Nationalists
and resisted by the Conservatives
and Liberal-Unionists. In the par
liamentary election which has just
been held, Home Rule w r as trium
phant, its united advocates having
obtained a majority of forty in the
house of commons. The Conserva
tive government has been replaced
by a Liberal cabinet, and the “grand
old man,” W. E. Gladstone, at the
age of 84, is Prime minister for the
fourth time.
The house of commons is compos
ed of 670 members. Os these En
gland has 465, Ireland 103, Scot
land 72, Wales 30. It will be seen
that Nir. Gladstone’s majority of for
ty is dependent on the Irish members.
England’s members are largely Con
servative, while each of the other
countries of united kingdom send a
majority of Liberals or Home Rulers.
Very naturally Americans sympath
ize with the Liberals and favor Mr.
Gladstone’s home rule policy. The
established (Episcopal) church of
England is almost unanimously Con
servative while probably nine-tenths
of the “Dissenters,” or other Chris
tian denominations, vote w’ith the
Liberals. There has been
some hesitation among these
latter on the question of
Irish home rule, from the fact
that Ireland is four fifths Roman
Catholic, and the fear that the Irish
parliament if established, would be
dominated in the interest of that
church. But Mr. Gladstone and his
abettors may bo safely trusted in
that matter. It is simply a question
whether a people five millions in
number shall have a legislature to
make law’s for their own local gov
ernment.
And on that question, in the end,
the liberty-loving Anglo-Saxon race
will decide wisely and rightly.
NOT WITHHOLDING GOOD.
The levers which move the men
tal and moral world are in men’s
own bosoms ; it is out of these bo
soms that the streams of influences
flow which mould what we are and
determine w’hat awaits us. The
problems of human history are re
solved by the effect of character on
character. The reciprocal action of
minds on each other, whether em
bracing in co-operation or
grappling in conflict, is the
great interpreter standing amid all
diversities of principles and practices
accompanying each with a lucid ex
hibition of its origin, nature and re
sults. Reserving, of course, the lib
erty of the individual will, and the
agency of the Divine Spirit, as truths
not to be surrendered, the first be
cause it is the basis of responsibility
and the second because it is the bul
wark of hope, we hold that man
moves man, and that is all there is of
life for the person and of history for
the race.
With this reserve, then, we say
that it is the influence of man which
makes or mars the fortune of his
fellowman. Here it plants an Eden
of delight, there it stretches out a
Sahara of wretchedness. There is
nothing of evil, how gross soever, to
which it has not seduced, nothing of
good how lofty soever, to which it
has not incited. Urging its multi
form appeals from the cradle of the
child to the coffin of the centenarian,
it has been both a blessing and a
curse. A Nero has outraged and
destroyed the liberties of mankind,
a Washington has vindicated and
established them. A Gibbon has
infused the poison of scepticism into
the current of history; a Rollin has
caused them to water and refresh
the trees of virtue and of faith. As
though God besought them through
him Spurgeon spoke to men; but In
gersoll as a very“devil’s advocate,”to
blaspheme the divine, to blacken the
holy, and to belie the true. Thus
has man been to his brother at one
time a demon, and again an an
gel.
He has been neither, lot us re
member, of necessity. What he has
chosen to be, that he has been. In
fluence for good is not always, per
haps it is never, in exact proportion
to that integrity of principle which
merits that it should be potent, or to
that benevolence of purpose which
intends that it should be pure and
salutary. It is true, notwithstand
ing that while personal election may
not decide the measure, it may and
must decide the typo and kind, of
personal influence. And this decis
ion God requires at the hand of each
and everyone of us. That man,
therefore, can be neither intelligent
ly nor consistently virtuous and godly
who has not deliberately set before
himself this high aim,—that all his
voluntary action on the minds of
others shall be promotive of their
moral purity and spiritual excellence
a means to their happiness through
their holiness. And this is the high
resolve toward which the Spirit of
God can never cease to urge every
Christian, and for which He can
never fail to qualify all those who
yield to that urging.
Not an unhopeful work this by
any means, for it has the authority
of God to clothe it with sanction, the
help of God to endue it with strength,
and the promise of God to crown it
with triumph. And yet we wish to
say, and to say with emphasis, that it
is hard work, hard exceedingly. He
who aspires to prove an instrument
of good to others, must encounter
obstacles more numerous and labor
under difficulties more embarrassing
than if he could stoop to be an in
strument of evil. Human nature,
in its fallen state, and especially
where its state is denied to be fallen
is susceptible of pollution in a higher
degree than of purification. The
flesh is willing and eager to that
which is earthly, the spirit slothful
and intractible to that which is
heavenly. Whoever entices to ini
quity floats with the tide; whoever
exhorts to holiness stems the torrent
—bids fair to be driven down by it.
We may compose ourselves to slum
ber, and by the mere connivance of
this inactivity, may assist vice to ma
ture with a rapid and noxious luxur
iancy: but if the seeds of virtue are
to be guarded in their tardy growth
and the fruits which are so slow to
ripen shielded from the hands that
would violate them, we must be
awake, vigilant, industrious and un
tiring. We may stand by with fold
ed arms and the multitude will
hurry on, with frightful speed quick
ened by the sight of us there stand
ing along the treacherous descent to
everlasting woe; but would we stay
their mad career, wc must shake off
our lethargy, lay hold on them with
a grasp that does not purpose to re
lease them, and wrestle long and
doubtfully before the struggle which
seeks only their salvation can hope
for favorable issue. It is for this
reason that a Hymeneus and an Al
exander may work evil, where even
a Paul cannot accomplish counterac
tive good; and a Diotrephes may be
the originator of mischief, of which
a John himself cannot be the com
plete corrector ; and a Simon Magus
may gain in Samaria ears that were
deaf to the voice of the Christ, the
Lord of glory, during his two days
in that city, the most successful two
of his ministry on the earth. You
see your calling, brethren; how
that he who said unto you : “With
hold not good from them to whom
it is due, when it is in the power of
thine hand to do it,” therein taxed
your hands to the utmost of their
power, because no lower measure
of power could do the work and
save the shame of failure. For
verily none among the sons of men
need one tithe of the enterprise, the
ardor, the energy, the perseverance
without which Christians, as not
withholders of good, may appear be
fore the searcher of hearts and an
swer his solemn request, “What do
ye more than others?”
AN UNLAWFUL AND UNHAPPY
MARRIAGE.
The tenth year has not yet quite
run its course since Dr. T. T. Mun
ger, of New Haven, Conn., issued
“The Freedom of Faith,” a volume
of sermons representing the method
and spirit of the movement in theol
ogy, which found a nursery mother
in Andover Seminary, and took for
itself the paradoxical if not contra
dictory name of “Progressive Ortho
doxy.” The “Hints on Exegetical
Preaching” contributed by that wri
ter to the Homiletic Review for June
serve to show that the movement has
been in a surprising degree less
marked by any emphasis given to its
orthodox features than by progress
toward their still further unsettle
ment-progress toward the point
where faith suffers its freedom to
lose itself in revolt and license. The
secret of this unexpected rapidity in
doctrinal deterioration is also sug
gested by the “Hints.” It lies just
here : the method and spirit of the
progressive orthodoxy prepares the
mind as tinder for the spark and
flame of that particular form of Ger
man investigation into the text of
Scripture whieh Prof. Gozen of
Princeton distinguishes and desig
nates as “tho Anti-Biblical Higher
Criticism.” This is that Higher Crit
icism which sows tares ; these tares
find congenial soil in the progressive
orthodoxy. Therefore, they grow
as men looked not that they should,
and choke the good seed and engross
the field.
We adduce one specimen of this
growth, as furnished by the “Hints.”
Dr. Munger says : “Research into
the sources and history of the docu
ments has gone so far that we are
no longer sure that we have a single
sentence in the entire Bible in the
exact form in w’hich it was original
ly written, though we are sure of the
substance and drift of it.”
This statement is so surprising,
that, if it stood alone, we might well
be justified in questioning whether
the exact form in which it was origi
nally written had come into our
hands, whether indeed even its sub
stance and drift had safely reached
us. But it echoes through page af
ter page, and we are forced to be
lieve that we have in it really the
Dr.’s dogmatizing doubt as to the
text of Scripture. Look then at its
unreasonableness.
Notwithstanding the liability to
alteration through ignorant mistake
or through wilful corruption, litera
ture tends toward fixity. The lar
ger and stronger current of influences
and agencies flows in the direction
of preserving its form, and in no
slight degree its exact form. Os
course, the indifference that suffers
it to be neglected, at the same time
makes certain that it lies unchanged :
and whatever quality awakens inter
est for the most part constitutes that
interest a plea and protest against
change. This protest and plea is
prevailing in proportion as there are
passages which imprint themselves
in the admiration and the memory
as they are, because they are fraught
with force or gracious with beauty ;
in proportion as the themes are such
as stir the soul, kindle the feelings,
allure the hopes, employ the ener
gies ; in proportion as the writers by
virtue of their position, their person
ality and their productions win to
themselves the readers’ sympathy
and trust and reverence ; in propor
tion as there are several organiza
tions or prevalent public usages
which derive their origin from the
literature, shape themselves by its
authority and draw their inspiration
from its spirit; in proportion as it
spreads among mankind, and rival
schools, win rival races, differing in
their interpretations of its pages,
guard these pages each from corrup
tion by the other.
These and many other lines of
thought assure us that we may safely
rely on literature as not unlikely to
preserve its form, for all practical pur
poses, its exact form. If this were not
true, there is no literature of tho past
on which wo could rely. But we have
relied on the literature of Greece, on
Homer, Hesiod, Herodotus, Plato,
Aristotle, Demosthenes, Plutarch.
We have relied on the literature of
Rome, on Cicero, Cmsar, Virgil, Hor
ace, Livy, Tacitus, Juvenal. We
still rely on these. Rely on them we
will. No scholar will ever venture
to group the first seven of these wri
ters together as representing Greek
literature, or the second seven as
representing Roman literature to
say, We are no longer sure that we
havrfj a single sentence of their en
tire works in the exact form in which
it was originally written. And yet
this unsaid and unsayable thing as
to them, is precisely the thing that
Dr. Munger says as to the entire Bi
ble ! He says it as to the Old Tes
tament, though the Old Testament
is made up (he tells us) of separate
“books that are largely independent
of each other, that are the sacred
writings of the Hebrew nation, are
nearly its whole literature ;” suggest
ing the question why national litera
ture should be pervaded through
and through with this gross uncer
tainty only when it had made itself
the medium for conveying to man
kind the purest and the noblest The
ism the world has ever known ? He
says it especially of the New Testa
ment ; suggesting the question why
the Greek tongue, possessing the
power of definite and sure trans
mission when speaking for a nation,
should be so utterly shorn of that
power when called to speak for a
Church gathered out of all the na
tions through all the ages, nay, rath
er, to speak to that Church for its
one divine head, the Son of God, the
Savior of sinners ? It cannot be.
The impossible to literature has not
happened and happened only to the
literature to which its happening is
most impossible !
The matter is plain, even though
wc may have failed to put it plainly.
The sentence quoted from Dr. M’s
“Hints” amounts to this dogmatizing
statement: that so far as regards the
exact form of the text and the cer
tainty of knowledge on our part, the
original Scripture have perished
from off the face of the earth. There
is much infidelity in the statement
and the germ of more. We owe its
adoption by Dr. Munger, perhaps,
too, we owe to its appearance in the
Homiletic Review, to an ntermar
riage between the “Higher Criticism”
of Germany and the “Progressive
Orthodoxy” of New England. That
intermarriage will not be without a
numerous progeny, to disturb the
peace of Zion, to sow the land thick
with seeds of manifold error, and to
bring in ecclesiastical innovations to
the hurt and w’ounding of souls. We
should withstand it resolutely; and
looking at the matter with this con
viction we may recur again to the
“Hints on Exegetical Preaching.”
Meanwhile, let us express the hope
that the Dr. shall always be able to
voice his prospect of heaven with
Isaac Watts,
“Sweet fields beyond the swelling flood
Stand dressed in living green
even though he seems to be nearing
now the condition of the bewildered
sister who sang the next two lines,
“So to the Jews old Something stood,
W hile Something rolled between.”
For him, if not for her, these “old
Somethings” are so perilously on the
W’ay to nothing!
AN EXPLANATION.
We are requested to give an ex
planation of the meaning of Acts 8 :
17. Then they laid their hands on
them and they received the Holy
Spirit.
The effect of the persecutions that
arose after the death of Stephen was
to scatter all the disciples through
the regions of Judea and Samaria,
“ except the Apostles.”
Philip who had been a deacon but
was now an evangelist, went down to
the city Samaria, or as some say, to a
city of Samaria, “ and preached to
them Christ.”
1. Note first, that Philip was not
an apostle. The twelve remained
at Jerusalem, while all the others
were scattered. It is expressly said
“ all were scattered abroad through
the regions of Judea and Samaria,
“except the Apostles.” It is im
portant to attend to the fact that
Philip was not an apostle in order to
understand why Peter and John were
sent to Samaria after the apostles
heard that the people there had re
ceived the word of God.
Second, notice theme the of Phil
ip’s preaching,— “He preached to
them the Christ.” Notice, also, that.
Philip gave proof of his divine call
by the miracles he did.” From many
who had unclean spirits they came
out, crying with a loud voice; and
many that were paralyzed, and that
were lame, were healed.
2. Next note that those who heard,
and saw the signs Philip did, “ be
lieved Philip publishing the good
news concerning the Kingdom of
God and the name of Jesus Christ.”
Note also,” they (those who heard
and believed) were baptized, both
men and women.”
Philip preached Christ crucified,
“ the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sin of the w orld,” and the good
news concerning the Kingdom of
God, and the name of Jesus Christ.”
Those who heard, gave heed, and
believed, were baptized, and no oth
ers. They were “men and wom
en.”
3. Now observe, when the apostles
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had
received the word of God they sent
Peter and John, two of their num
ber who were regularly appointed
and commissioned, and clothed with
special miraculous power by Christ
himself, to organize his church, that
they might “ pray for them, that they
might receive the Holy Spirit; for he
had not yet fallen upon any one of
them; but they had only been bap
tized into the name of the Lord
Jesus.”
They had believed, had been bap
tized into the name of the Lord Je
sus, but the Holy Spirit had not yet
fallen upon any one of them. In
that last statement lies the dfficulty.
A careful reading of the chapter;
from the beginning, will clearly show
that it means the Holy Spirit had
not come upon them in its miracu
lous power. They had received its
ordinary influences. They had been
led by it to accept Jesus as the
Christ, the Anointed One, the Mes
siah, the Sin-bearing Lamb. They
had been regenerated, had experien
ced a personal, saving faith in Jesus,
and bad been baptized into his name,
but had not been clothed with the
extraordinary power of the Holy
Spirit. They could not speak with
tongues, nor heal diseases.
Christ had ordained that this pow
er should be bestowed in answer to
the prayers of tho apostles and the
laying on of their hands, alone.
Philip was not an apostle, and
could not confer this power. Hence
Peter and John were sent down from
Jerusalem to do this special extraor-
dinary work. It was in answer to
their prayer, and the laying on of
hands that the miraculous power of
the Holy Spirit was conferred.
Some persons construe this pas
sage as affording example and au
thority for receiving baptism and
joining the church before conversion.
A candid study of it, and an un
prejudiced desire to discover the
truth, will show that the people of
Samaria, spoken of in this narrative,
heard, believed, were baptized, re
joiced in the good neivs concerning
the Kingdom of God, and the name
of Jesus Christ, and therefore, they
were fit subjects of the Kingdom of
God, and to receive the extraordina
ry gifts of the Holy Spirit, through
prayer and the laying on of hands
of the Apostles. They w’ere regen
erated, converted, before baptism, or
uniting with the church.
There is no authority for inverting
this order to be found anywhere
in the New’ Testament.
PRIZEFIGHTING.
The scenes enacted in New Or
leans, during the past week, under
the auspices of the Olympic Club
were simply brutal. Such contests
pass under the name of “manly
sports.” There is nothing manly
about them. Man is endowed with
reason. In that savage work reason
was dethroned and brutish passions
ruled the hour.
It was more degrading than dog
fights or the fierce conflict of enrag
ed tigers. Brutes know no better,
men do. That men engage in such
contests, proves that they are worse
than brutes.
McAuliffe received as his prize,
$ 10.000 ; Dixon, the negro, 8 30.
000; Corbett, $ 35. 000.
Fifteen to twenty thousand people
witnessed the bloody fights. Not
less than 8 400, 000 changed hands
on the spot, leaving out of the count
the money bet all over the Uni.
ted States, and other parts of the
world.
It was an occasion for gambling on
a huge scale.
Men, w omen and children all over
the land were greatly excited and.'
eager to know results.
The telegraph flashed the news
as the fights progressed to anxious
crowds.
The papers were filled w’ith like
nesses of the fighters, and sensational
illustrations, and descriptions of the
fights.
All these things present a sicken!
ing spectacle, and show rapid down
ward strides in the moral tone of
society.
All the agencies employed in giv
ing publicity and importance to these
bloody performances aid in debasing
moral sentiment, in exciting brutal
ambition in the minds of the young,
and in stirring up and fostering
the worst passions of the human
heart. It is hoped that all decent,
refined, civilized, and Christian peo
ple will frown upon such savage
work.
In his recent essay on Herrick the
poet, Swinburne says : “He knew
what he could not do, rare and in
valuable gift.” A gift so “rare” in
deed that in Swinburne himself it is
utterly awanting. Had he possess,
ed in any measure this sure sense of
one’s own personal limitations which
sends the provision of inevitable
failure as a warning agaiust fruitless
effort, he would never have repeat
ed and more than repeated in “Laus
Veneris” the mistake of Byron in
“Don Juan.” He would not have
attempted to combine the genuine
poetic inspiration, not with natural
and sensuous only, but with the sen
sual and immoral; to sow in the soil
of lust seeds of imagery and senti
ment from which might grow what
ever charms in love’s flowering and
whatever feasts in love’s fruitage j
to take the vistaires of imagination
meant to robe beseemingly and be
witchingly “the true, the beautiful,
and the good,” and clothe with them,
while men approved and applauded,
the passions that ally us with the
brute, and if we suffer them to rulo
make us the brute’s inferiors. An
“invaluable” gift, too, since to have
possessed it would have saved Swin
burne from the blunder which must
be fatal to his best and highest am
bition as a writer ; the blunder that
arrays the moral trend of thifigs, ths
mightiest in the world of mind
against his plea for worthy fame
and puts the conscience of humanity
forever and ever in the witness
stand to testify adversely on the
question of his claim to the loftiei
immortality.
“I would like to sound the praise
of Hood’s Sarsaparilla over the en
' tire universe,” writes Mrs. Longe
necker of Union Dcp Penn.