The times., 1899-06-05
A Little Exercise in TheoIogy.

There are some people who believe SO
thoroughly in special providences that
when anything happens they at once begin
to look for the reason why Providence
should have interfered in this particular
case. Sometimes they find that there was
"a judgment" on some person for a sin,
and sometimes they find that there was
providential protection extended to the in
nocent and unfortunate. These people ar
que, when any question concerning prac-
tical philanthropy comes up that the Lord
will take care of those poor people who
are good. and that those who are bad
should be punished by being allowed to
remain poor. When the child of a man
who does not go to church turns out to be
less good or prosperous than he might be-
these people declare it to be a heavenly
judgment on the parent They believe de-
youuy in the doctrine OF Colonel Ingersoll.
| that all life is one long chain of cause and
effect, but their arrangement of the cause
and effect seems 10 their neighbors to be
slightly twisted. When. for example.
these people argued that the destruction
of the Maine was sent to punish the nation
because part of that ship was built on
Sunday. the general public did not agree
with them. 1t did not believe that the
Maine was blown up TO teach a Sunday
school lesson, but, if anything. to arouse
the world to the general ugliness of the
Spaniard.
Something happened in New York the
other day which would be good mental ex-
for fbasa sarnap;fpa In1fotopc
might keep them so busy for a while that
| they would forget to comfort their neigh
bors in misfortune with the information
that the sorrow was sent to punish the
sufferer for some sin. This was the in
| cident:
small boy. three years old, was lean
ing out of tenement house window on the
fourth floor. He was interested in some
| thing. The sounds which excited his in
terest were emitted by another small boy
who was being whipped by his maternal
parent. The three-year- -old's excitement
increased, and he leaned farther and far
ther out of the window as the chastise-
ment progressed. Presently his heels few
up and he made an involuntary dive over
the sill. But he did not enjoy an unin-
| terrupted flight to the ground. He was
caught on a clothes line, which delayed
his fall a second Another line below
took him under the arm, and third
received him on the small OF the back.
Thence he dropped TO the ground unin
jured, though somewhat scared.
Now, here is very pretty problem for
the special punishment -and-reward peo-
| pie 10 solve. In the first place. was the
boys tumble judgment on him for taking
unhoIy delight in another's pain? 1t might
seem so, but If so. why was he not allowed
| to evade the clothes line? Moreover, is it
a sin to enjoy the merited punishment of
another? One would suppose not, from the
general attitude OF human nature on this
point, But. again, there is no absolute
! certainty that the other boys punishment
was merited. His mother may have been
hitting him because she wanted some
amusement. Moreover, il delight at the
infiiction OF righteous chastisement is a
virtue rather than a sin. why was this
small boy allowed TO fall out of the win
dow at all? Why did not something
preferably his mother, or failing that, the
family dog-catch his pettieoats and draw
him back from the fatal leap. And there
is a broader question involved in this
occurrence. Is It or is it not righteous
for clothes lines to be stretched across back