The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1902-12-28

problems and address the intellects Of their
auditors rather In the style Of the lecture
platform or college class room. The great
DR.. Chalmers making the rafters roar
Is as much a bygone tradition in many
quarters as faith In the Mosaic authorship
Of the Pentateuch." Elsewhere, viz: on
pages 2ss-2s7. will be found set forth the
authors views on the New Theology.
He has no sympathy with the radical and
revolutionary spirit which condemns every
thing that Ia -old.' especially In the realm
OF religion. This spirit. he says. -arro-
gently claims that the advanced thought
OF this highly cultured age has broken with
the traditional beliefs of our benighted
ancestors, and that modern congregations
are too highly enlightened to accept those
antiqusted theologies. No pretensions
could be more preposterous. MethirkS
those stalwart farmers Of New England
who on wintry Sabbath sat and eagerly
devoured for an hour the strong meat Of
such theological giants as Jonathan
Edwards and Emmons and Bellamy and
White would laugh TO scorn the ridiculous
assumption Of the present-day congrega-
tions, many Of whom have fed on little
else during the week but novels and news
papers. This revolutionary spirit is ex-
pert In putting down: it Is a sorry bungler
at rebuilding, Nothing IL too sacred for
Its assaults
DR.. Cuyler seems to think that the critic
who points out the untenableness Of a par
ticular belief is bound to provide a sub
stitute. In the case OF the scriptural account
OF the creation the scientist does. but, ap.
parently. DR.. Cuyler will not accept the
substitute. He goes on to say THE
iconoclasts who belong TO the most extreme
and destructive school Of Higher Criti-
cism' have reduced a large proportion Of
Gods revealed word utterly to tatters.
King David has boon exiled from the Psalter
but no sweet singers have yet turned up
who could have composed those matchless
mlnstrelsies. Paul Ia denied the authorship
OF the Epistle TO the Romans, but the mighty
mind has not been discovered which pro-
duced what Coleridge called the Profound
eat book In existence Does DR.. Cuylcr
really hold that the critic who undertakes TO
prove that David could not have written the
Psalms. nor Paul the Epistle to the Romans
Ia bound to designate the actual authors
Of those writings? Is he who denies that
the lliad and the Odyssey were written
nv a single man named Homer bound to
designate the actual authors Of those epics!
Dr. Cuyler continues: The Scripture
miracles are discarded; but Christianity,
which Is the greatest miracle OF all. il not
accounted for The new theology which
has we'll nigh banished the supernatural
from the Bible. pays an homage to the
principle Of an evolution which IL due only
to the Almighty Creator OF the universe.
Spurgeon has wittily said that, II we are
not the product Of Gods creating hand.
but are only the advanced descendants OF
the ape, then we ought to conduct our de-
votions accordingly. and address our daily
petitions. not TO our Father which is in
Heaven. but to our father which IL up
treev"
Turning to DR.. Cuyler's "reminiscences
We read with interest that when he was a
schoolboy in New York preparing for
Princeton College, he was strolling one day
on the Battery. and there had an oppor-
tunity Of seeing Daniel Webster. who had
just landed from a man-of-war. Il was"
he says, as much awe-stricken as IL had
been gazing on Bunker Hill monum. Il
He was, unquestion the most ma jestic
specimen OF manhood that ever trod this
continent. The fact 10 recalled that on
this occaeiOn-it was in the 'SJs-Web-
ster was dressed in q claret -colored coat
and black TROUSERS. His complexion was
swarthy brown. Such a mountain OF
a brow ! had never seen before or since"
Although our author saw Webster several
times afterward, he never heard him
speak until the closing year If his life. The
speech TO which he listened was delivered
by Webster at Trenton. n. j.. a few months
before his death, At that time he was
physically feeble, so that. after speaking
an hour. he was obliged to ST down.
In spite Of the asseveration lately made
by Edward Everett Hale. who saw a great
deal Of Webster. that there Is absolutely
no ground for the impuration Of excessive
indulgence In strong drink. Dr. Cuyler
sayf: The simple truth In that during
his visit to England In 1870, he (Webste ]
was so lionized and feted at public dinners
that he brought home some convivial habits.
which rather grew upon him in advancing
years. On several occasions, he gave
evidence that he was somewhat under the
influence Of deep potations. I once saw
him when his imperial brain was raked
with the chainshot OF alcohol. The sight
moved me to tears, and made me hate more
than ever the accused drink that, like
death. is no 'respecter Of persons.
1t was as long ago az the summer of 1910.
when he was a student at Princeton, that
DR.. Clyler first saw Horace Greeley. He
had gone with friend to the Office Of the
Log Cabin, a Wing campaign newspaper.
then published in New York, and was there
introduced to "A singular looking man in
rustic dress. He was writing an editorial
His face had a peculiar. infantile smooth
ness, and his long, faxen hair fell down
over his shoulders ! little dreamed then
that the uncouth man in tow trousers
was yet to be the foremost editor in America
and a candidate, unwisely, for President
Of the United States, Horace Greeley, for
1t was he who sat before me. has been often
described as q man with the face of an
angel and the walk Of clodhopper.' II
seems that Greeley once told our author
that he had written editorials for a dozen
papers at one time. He also told DR.. Cuyler
that, while he was preparing his history Of
the American Conflict he was in the
habit OF writing three columns Of editorials
every day. Nobody who remembers Gree
ley's work will dispute the statement that
his articles were freighted with great
- L.