The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1888-04-28
EDITORIAL BRIEFS.
BY REV. 1. M. ATWOOD, D. D.
Canton, N. Y,


word or deed, challenged in the highest
degree hostile criticism. From anathema
to eulogy is distance too wide for the pub
lie feeling to travel in 80 short space. So
far as his American readers are concerned,
it must be regarded as an untimely stroke
OF fate which cut Matthew Arnold of
just as the full text OF his criticism on
Civilization in America" had reached
the newspaper offices. The sharp things
which thousand American editors had
already said in response to that rather
absurd essay, and the more elaborate and
serene replies which a thousand more of
them had meditated, must be considered
as disqualifying them from that expires.
sion of quick sympathy and generous ap-
probation which the death OF such q man
is calculated to evoke.
In his remarks on our civilization,
Mr.. Arnold was particularly wrought up
when he came to speak OF our "fourth
estate" the press. His condemnation of
American journalism is more sweeping
than anything in his paper. He did not
appreciate our newspaper enterprise"
He said about it what some of us at home
have more than once said; but he said it
without the just qualifications, and he
was foreigner. 1t would be too much
to expect Of human nature that the gen.
tlemen inculpated in his keen condemna-
ton should use their first opportunity to
burn incense to his memory. Yet the
American people, editors and all, are
fairly magnanimous; and after they have
had time to take breath, they will set
down sober and generous Judgment on
the brilliant Englishman whose sudden
departure has bereft every lover of the
best literature.
Matthew Arnold belongs 20 the same
school of essayists as Carlyle, Coleridge.
Ruskin, Emerson. On the whole he is
somewhat less imposing literary figure
than either of these. He has not the
tempestuous strength of Carlyle, nor the
philosophic depth of Coleridge, nor the
free, high flight of Ruskin, nor the in
sight and repose OF Emerson. He is at
once keener and a juster critic than
either Of them. But they are all distin-
guished by the prophetic spirit and by
moral impulse. Each of them has been
after his own fashion, a preacher of right
eousness. In Ruskin perfection of liter
airy art conspired with the mission of
prophet. Next him in faultlessness of
phrase, in rythmic beauty, in transpa-
rency, stands Matthew Arnold. 1t is the
fault Of each of these great writer's, EN-
erson alone is excepted, that his judy
ment of the world has too often taken
hue from his own occasional distempers.
Mr.. Arnold was serious and exacting and
incapable OF extending his sympathies
beyond the meaning of the word soul
ture." 1t is curious that the great apos-
tie of sweetness and light" should so
generally have left the sweetness out,
while he turned on the light as il he sup
posed all "Philistines" were near-sighted.
But he spake much truth, with beautiful
phrase and in beautiful freedom, and the
gospel according to Matthew Arnold will
be read by long line of literary disci-
pies.
The Christian Union prints post
haste letter from a Japanese student,
raising in new and forcible way the
question of the fate of "dead heathen."
The young man has been Christian for
some years, "but without peace and JOY"
He asks Ill simple, broken English the
tremendous question which orthodoxy
cannot answer, "What should become
about my mother?" And he goes on to
say, II am not happy Christian here,
how can be happy in the eternal fut-
ure? 1t seems to me my redeemed soul,
even in heaven, could not be happy as
long as remember of my dear mother;
yes, even more so, sometimes I think 1
would rather choose hell than to be saved
alone in heaven"
This distressed young man is think.
ing his way out of the creed into which
he was baptized, and there is no halting-
place for him until he reaches atheism,
unless Universalism is interposed. Under
such circumstances the answer of the
Union to his pathetic cry is of the deepest
significance. The substance of the an
swer is in this one sentence, which is re-
iterated in varying phrase through half
a column: "You may be perfectly sure
that his love and mercy will not leave
your father and mother to eternal separa-
ton from him, if infinite wisdom and in
finite grace can fad a way to bring them
back to him." The editor offers his as
surance without hesitation, and, appar-
emily, without suspicion that it is wholly
unauthorized even by the "new ortho-
doxy."
Does DR.. Abbott doubt for moment
that infinite wisdom and grace can find
way to bring this Japanese father and
mother to him? Does he hold any con-
ception of the Divine Being that makes
it even difficult to suppose God able to
do with persons out of the flesh what is
every day done with persons in the flesh?
II he feels authorized to assure the in
quirer that God will do all he can to
bring the father and mother to him, what
but superstitious dread of being called
a Universslist prevents him from saying
outright and consistently that God must