The Universalist. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1884-1897, 1895-12-14


communicate to his readers the "sur-
prise" he and other students of finance
are affected with.
The Literary Hack" who has now
a second time invoked the judgment of
his fellows by describing hacks way of
earning livelihood, and his manner of
life, persists in taking gloomy view of
his calling. 1t is not so much that his
earnings are small as that his influence
is smaller. He assures US that we shall
never know who he is; for although he
is hungering for consideration he elects
to miss the only opportunity that has
ever occurred to him to gain the boon.
His Confessions of Literary Hack"
created genuine sensation in that outer
circle of literary laborers to which the
writer belongs, and it attracted the at
tention of the guild in the various ranks
above. Many guesses have been haz-
arded as to the identity of the author.
In refusing to be known he seems, after
all, to prefer the pleasure OF literary
hacks sense of power in obscurity to the
swift-fading laurels of public recognition.
Principal Fairbanks, "The Place of
Christ in Modern Theology" is the work
of man fully alive to the movements
and special problems of modern theolo
gy. 1t is also the word of man who is
a modern. DR.. Fairbairn writes out of
full knowledge of his own era and strong
sympathy with its intellectual and relig-
ious tendencies. This fact lends to his
utterances an interest and authority not
| possessed by any archaic work. At the
same time the author is familiarly ac-
| quainted with the history of his great
theme. Indeed, the abundance of his
information. joined with the fertility of
his mind, operates to clog some what the
stream of discussion. One often feels
that DIR. Fairbairn is overhowing on
every side of his subject and wishes that
he would keep back part of the tide
for the sake of the highest utility of the
other parts.
-Moncure d. Conway, preacher in the
South Place Chapel, London, was per-
sonaI friend and admirer of the late
Prof. Huxley. 1t was in his chapel, de
voted to the Religion of Humanity
that Prof. Huxley appeared at rare in
tervals as listener-there are no wor-
shippers. We can understand Mr.. Con-
ways unreconcied feeling that the man
whom he regarded as at one with him
self in religious opinion, and as more his
parishioner than anybody else's, should
be buried by church whose every
creed and article he pronounced un-
true," and whose 'superstitions he had
exposed" That it was somewhat
scandal" is an opinion in which Mr.. Con
way will not stand alone. But it is
suggestive commentary on the way of
the world as we'll as of the church, and
must lead Mr.. Conway to reflect whether
the religion OF man is worth much,
which in life he pays scant attention to,
aud in death leaves utterly without rec
ognition.
Attention has been called again to
those peculiar views of human nature
and doctrine held by DR.. Lyman Abbott.
An inquirer in the Outlook cites Dr. Alb
bott's statement in the book entitled,
''Tnat Unknown Country" and asks for
fuller exposition. In place of it he gets
a series of brief. categorical answers
which leave the subject somewhat more
obscure and confused than before. DR..
Abbott holds that science and Scripture
alike teach that "man is by nature an
animal, and like all other limals NOR
tai; that Immortality belongs only to the
spiritual life; and that spiritual life is
possible only in communion and contact
with God; that, in short. Immortality
was not conferred upon the race in crea.
tion, whether il would or no, but is con-
ferred in redemption upon all those who
choose life and Immortality through Je-
sus Christ" On this theory of.the facts
it seems to follow that men are animals
like all other animals, and perish like
them in death. Also. that they are not
like other animals, for they do not all
perish in death. They can choose, as
others cannot. life and Immortality; yet
this life and Immortality is conferred in
redemption" Again. unlike animals,
they have capacity for spiritual life
and spiritual life subtends Immortality.
On a subject about which we know
SO little it becomes us all to be modest.
But the presumption is strong against
any hypothesis that is self elf-contradictory.
1t will hardly do to lay down the major
premise that man is an animal for the
sake of denying to him natural immor-
tality, and Immediately follow it with a
minor premise that he is an animal
wholly unlike other animals. for the sake
of affirming that he may become by
choice what he is not by nature. Nor is
it admissible to say that man did not
have immortality conferred on him by
creation, but he did have it conferred |
on him by redemption; when what you
mean is, that he had conferred on him by |
creation the ability to become immortal |
by redemption. Once more, you may not |
further Introduce confusiona bv alleging