ing instructions as to the disposition of the office and effects. If I am obliged to remain here until my successor arrives, I will be unable to leave before about the 1st of October; but, if I am authorized to turn the office over to some one here, I can leave the latter part of August or early in September. I will then start for Bombay, via Singapore, Rangoon, and Calcutta. My wife and family left for the United States on the 8th of last month, and will go to a fruit ranch about forty miles from San Francisco, where they will remain until I am fairly settled in New York." This letter is dated "Manila, July 4, 1892." Subsequently, on November 10 and 25, it appears from the title-pages of the lectures before me Mr. Webb lectured in Bombay and Hyderabad, Deccan. Mr. Webb did not send a letter to me with his lectures; but the address on them is in his handwriting, and is postmarked "Hyderabad, Deccan." I infer from this that he is still in India; but the citizens of New York are soon to be the objects of a missionary enterprise led by a Mohammedan Jonah, and so they should prepare to repent in sackcloth and ashes! Mr. Webb is confident of success; and, remembering how eager the ancient Athenians were to hear some new thing, it is not impossible that New Yorkers, taken unawares, might be led away by a similar motive, and, in place of the fine Christian cathedrals and churches of the metropolis, we might erelong see Mohammedan mosques arising! It may be well to add an account of Mr. Webb's conversion to Mohammedanism, and this is given in one of the lectures sent me. He says, in opening: "I have been requested to tell you why I-an American, born in a country which is nominally Christian, and reared under the drippings or, more properly perhaps, the drivellings, of an orthodox Presbyterian pulpit-came to adopt the faith of Islam as my guide in life. I might reply promptly and truthfully that I adopted this religion because I found, after protracted study, that it was the best and only system adapted to the spiritual needs of humanity; but this reply would be altogether too general to be satisfactory. . . . As a boy, I attended the Presbyterian Sunday-school of my native town, when I could not avoid it, and listened with weariness

...

and impatience to the long, abstruse discourses of the minister, while I longed to get out into the glad sunshine, and hear the more satisfying sermons preached by God himself through the murmuring brooks, the gorgeous flowers, and the joyous birds. When I reached the age of twenty, and became practically my own master, I was so tired of the restraint and dulness of the church that I wandered away from it and never returned to it. As a boy, I found nothing in orthodox Christianity calculated to win me to it; and in later years I encountered convincing evidences of its grave errors and insufficiency as a means of securing salvation or of elevating and purifying the human character. Fortunately, I was of an inquiring turn of mind. I wanted a reason for everything; and I found that neither layman nor clergy could give me any rational explanation of this faith, but either told me that such things were mysteries or they were beyond my comprehension. After trying in vain to find something in the Christian system to satisfy the longings of my soul and meet the demands of reason, I drifted into materialism, and for several years had no religion at all. About eleven years ago I became interested in the study of the Oriental religions, beginning with Buddhism, as students of the Eastern systems usually do. I will not weary you with details further than to say that at that time I had access to a most excellent library of about thirteen thousand volumes, from four to seven hours a day at my disposal, and that I was intensely in earnest in my efforts to solve the mysteries of life and death, and to know what relations the religious systems of the world bore to these mysteries. My mind was in a peculiarly receptive, yet exacting and analytical condition, absolutely free from the prejudices of all creeds, and ready to absorb the truth, no matter where it might be found. Firmly materialistic, I looked at first to the advanced school of materialistic science, and found that it was just as completely immersed in the darkness of ignorance as I was. It could tell me the name of every bone, muscle, nerve, and organ of the human body, as well as its position and purpose, or function. But it could not tell me the real difference between a live man and a dead one. It could tell me the name

of every tree, plant, and flower, and designate the species to which each belonged and what were its apparent properties and attributes; but it could not tell me why or how the tree grew and the flower bloomed. It was absolutely certain that man was born, lived a brief space, and died; but whence he came and whither he went were riddles which they confessed themselves utterly unable to solve. 'Those matters belonged to the Church,' said a scientist to me. 'But the Church knows absolutely nothing of them,' I replied. 'Nor do I, nor does science!' was the helpless, hopeless way in which he dismissed the question from the conversation."

Mr. Webb then turned to Mohammedanism, and found in it the spiritual satisfaction he sought.

to

Mr. Webb is the second American consul

Mohammedan countries who, to my knowledge, has been converted to Islam; but he is the first one I have heard of who has turned missionary to his own people. Really, our government should be a little more careful in selecting foreign ministers, and appoint only those who are rooted and grounded in orthodox Christianity: otherwise, we may all be converted to Mobammedanism, Buddhism, or some other "ism." Of course, it will sound very funny to the enlightened Christians of New York to hear that "educated, intelligent Mohammedans" are sending a missionary to their city to convert them to Islam; and already the papers ridicule the idea. The usual cheap criticism is being put forward. Mr. Webb is said to be influenced by a love of notoriety; and, after he has sufficiently "advertised" himself, we are assured, "he will take the presidency of some business concern on a salary of $25,000 and upwards." That would certainly be a paying finale to the "farce"; but perhaps there may be more in the movement than some facetious people fancy. Doubtless, our sending missionaries to convert intelligent Hindus, Chinese, and Japanese to Christianity, seems to them quite as farcical and chimerical as this Mohammedan mission does to us. We remember that his Holiness Pope Leo X. poked fun at "Brother Martin" when Luther began his work, and fancied that his agitation was the result of a drunken monk's vagaries; but the sequel undeceived "the

infallible judge." Moreover, we must remember that there are many Theosophists, Spiritualists, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Jews, and even Mohammedans now in this country; and the appearance of mosques would be no more surprising than Jewish synagogues or Mormon temples or theosophical lecture-rooms, etc. America is such an arena of political and religious propagandists that the entrance of one more should not surprise us. At any rate, he is coming, with a well-mapped-out plan of operations; and we may as well examine that plan and listen to his first proclamation, both of which are found in the lectures in my possession.

First of all, then, Mr. Webb says: "Our plan of operation includes the establishment of a weekly high-class journal for the explanation of the Islamic doctrines, as well as the dissemination of general information relative to Mohammedans and Mohammedan social laws, a free library and reading-room, a book and pamphlet publishing house, and a lecture-room where lectures may be delivered once or twice a week, or as often as circumstances seem to warrant. I honestly believe [he continues] that within five years we will have a Moslem brotherhood in America very strong numerically, and composed of just as earnest and faithful Mussulmans as the world has ever seen. For the past ten years I have carefully watched the course of religious thought in my country, and have been in a position which enabled me to view the field to advantage. I have seen the masses of intelligent people drifting away from the Christian churches, and forming themselves into free-thought societies, ethical culture societies, non-sectarian societies, and numerous other organizations, the purpose of which is to seek religious truth. Besides these there are the Spiritualists, the Theosophists, and an infinite number of other smaller bodies which follow no religious system. Then, too, there are the Unitarians, who, I am satisfied, will adopt Islam when they really know what it is (sic!). I believe that the strongest reason why Islam is not the predominant religious system in America today is because it has been so grossly misunderstood and misrepresented by those Christian writers who have attempted to present it to the world in the English language."

As our author accuses others of misrepresenting Mohammedanism, we naturally expect him to give a different statement of his religion from that with which we are acquainted. But, when we turn to his lectures, we find the same familiar "Six Articles of Faith" and five points of practice which are laid down in the Koran, and commented on by all writers on Mohammedanism. Moreover, his vindication of Mohammed's character is no whit more satisfactory than that of Sale, Gibbon, Irving, Clarke, and others. He denies, indeed, that Mohammed ever "advocated, taught, or consented to the propagation of Islam by means of the sword," and says the prophet "condemned violence and the taking of life in any form." But readers of the twenty-second chapter of the Koran will hardly accept this statement. Of course, he claims that the Moslems have not been more cruel than the Christians; that the Crusades and Inquisition were as disgraceful as the wars of the Mohammedans, as if two wrongs made a right, or as if one sin may neutralize and wipe out another! He cites Mohammed's generous treatment of the Meccans after he captured their city, as if that excused his cruelty on other occasions! When I read Mr. Webb's statement that Christians had misrepresented Mohammedanism, I wondered if he would deny that Islam sanctions polygamy. But no: he has the courage of his convictions, and, knowing that the Koran, while forbidding promiscuous and unlimited polygamy, nevertheless allows a plurality of wives, Mr. Webb boldly declares his belief in polygamy.

He says: "Almost the first question

a Christian asks me is, 'Do you believe in polygamy?' 'Yes,' I reply, 'under certain conditions.' I not only believe in polygamy, but shall advocate its introduction into the American social system as soon as America has become sufficiently moral and refined" (sic!) "to adopt it decently and respectably. . . . I freely admit the fact that the introduction of polygamy at once into our American social system would certainly prove most pernicious; but, when the system and its purposes and tendencies are properly understood" (sic!), "and the beneficent moral influences of Islam have produced the effects which they must inevitably produce among educated and enlightened

It

people, it can and should be advocated. is absolutely the only remedy for the curses of prostitution and marital infidelity with which America and Europe are most grievously afflicted, and it will elevate our womanhood to that exalted and admirable position which it is fitted by nature to occupy." In other words, this moral and religious "reformer" proposes to remove a great social evil by legalizing it and giving it a religious sanction, and by substituting another in its place. We commend to him a careful study of Herbert Spencer's discussion of polygamy ("Principles of Sociology," vol. i., Part III., chaps. iii.-x.). The great agnostic philosopher, as is well known, concludes his masterly treatment of this subject with the statement that monogamy is the ideal and most highly developed form of marital union. Yet here is a "reformer" talking about a "moral, refined, and enlightened people" adopting a savage custom when they come to understand it! Still, I predict that, notwithstanding the staleness of our author's ideas and their moral offensiveness, many will embrace his "religion." If polygamy has not hindered the rise and spread of Mormonism, it will not impede the progress of Mohammedan ism in this country. Many people have little enough moral judgment to suppose that the prevalence of polygamy would be no worse than frequency of divorce and the prevalence of prostitution, and that these evils may be removed or rendered "respectable" by legalizing them. Mohammedanism will, doubtless, become another "fad" in this country of "fads"; but those who dream of any great triumph of this system here would do well to study such expositions of Islam as Dr. Kuenen gives in his Hibbert Lectures. Judaism and Christianity contain all the truths of Mohammedanism minus its errors. Dogmatic Christianity may disappear, but Jesus Christ's ethical religion will remain.

It is a great pity that one who has had the advantages of studying Mohammedanism that Mr. Webb has had, should be so captivated by it that he ceases to be an authority on the subject. The comparative study of religions was never more important and interesting than it is to-day; and, if Mr. Webb had studied Islam more philosophically and judicially than he has,—if

he had not been blinded by his "new light," -he might have rendered both Mohammedanism and other religions good service by returning to his country and delivering rational lectures on comparative religion. As it is, he will probably make himself a laughing-stock for the public, and win for himself the unenviable reputation of a Joseph Smith. Saginaw, Mich.

HOWARD MACQUEARY.

THE FLAMING SWORD.

"Forth, spirit, forth!" behind thee lies
The gateway barred to Paradise:
Up pathless steeps of solitude

Fares he who seeks the highest good.
No hearth will glow, no smile will greet,
The coming of thy sandalled feet.
Learn thou through travail and despair
Thy brother's harder lot to share.
He who would mighty foes enchain
First fetters self, in ease's disdain,
No gentle task, yet turn away,

Craven thou provest, born of clay.
"Forth, spirit, forth!" the flaming blade
Obey in silence, undismayed.

As worn and weak thou climb'st the height, Behold it flashing through the night.

O wand'rer, love doth underlie

The stern decree that bids thee fly. Mount on, and point with friendship's hand Some burdened soul to faith's fair land.

Be wise. Seek not to comprehend
The guiding Power that knows the end.
Ask not thy garden's bounds restored,
Circling in splendor turns the sword.

HAPPINESS IN HELL.

St. George Mivart, the distinguished scientist and Roman Catholic, published an article in the December number of the Nineteenth Century, in which he discusses, in a very elaborate and able way, the subject of future retributions and rewards, and urges the possibility and the probability of happiness in hell. He concedes that the "horrible doctrine" of endless misery has been the teaching of both the Catholic Church and the Protestant up to the present time. But he urges that it is no necessary part of Christianity or of Catholicism, and ought to be laid aside.

It is not strange that the article is stirring up a great commotion in the Catholic

Church, particularly in England. Father Clark, a Catholic theologian, replied to it in the January number of the Nineteenth Century; and the Catholic papers are discussing it warmly. Of course, the position of Dr. Mivart is strongly condemned. The London Christian Life suggests that it is fortunate for him that he lives in the nineteenth century, for it is not many centuries since he would have had to pay for writing such heretical views with his life. Mivart is a man of great scientific eminence, and he has always been counted as a loyal son of his Church: hence his article cannot fail to have a wide influence. We select a few passages which will give a general idea of the writer's thought. Says Dr. Mivart :

But

:

The modern mind has come to feel an abhorrence for beliefs which were viewed with complacency or accepted without difficulty for so many ages. And not only the sentiment of our day, but what we take to be its more highly evolved moral perceptions, are shocked beyond expression at the doctrine that countless multitudes of mankind will burn forever in hell fire, out of which there is no possible redemption. Our experience shows that not a few persons have abandoned Christianity on account of this dogma...

The minds which are disturbed and distressed by difficulties about hell include many amongst the best of mankind. It is the very nobility of their character, the tenderness of their sympathetic feelings, and the keenness of their perceptions concerning justice and benevolence, which make these difficulties seem to them so insurmountable....

It is most certain that the Catholic Church is definitely committed to the doctrine that souls condemned to hell remain there for all eternity, and that all of them suffer the loss of the Beatific Vision of God, while a portion of them further suffer what is technically denominated the equivalent of "hell fire."

The various Protestant sects generally followed, as concerns hell, the teaching of the Church. . . . The Church sets before men but two kinds of eternal existence,an eternal existence in possession of the Beatific Vision (that is, heaven) and an istence in external exclusion from it, which is hell. This has ever been Catholic teaching.

ex

The object of this paper is neither to inquire into the truth of Catholic doctrine nor to establish its truth, but to examine whether the dogma of hell's eternity and the teaching by which the dread of hell has

been enforced are compatible with right

reason.

What is meant by the expression "hell fire" has never been defined, and Saint Augustine distinctly declares our ignorance about it. . . . But one very interesting fact is the tenability of a belief that a process of evolution takes place in hell, and that the existence of the damned is one of progress and gradual amelioration, though never, of course, to the extent of raising the lost to supernatural beatitude; for the tenants of hell are its tenants eternally.

There is yet another lesson taught by Catholic theologians which requires notice here. This is the doctrine that for every being, including, of course, all the damned, existence is better than annihilation. Saint Augustine distinctly affirms that the damned prefer their existence as damned souls to non-existence. . . . Indeed, many divines affirm that we have no right to conclude from those words that Judas is amongst the lost. .. Hell is a law. . . . Thus punishment is but the necessary effect of the laws which God has instituted. He crushes evil with the absolute calm wherewith an avalanche grinds rocks to dust, and the evil-doer constructs his own Gehenna. What, then, is meant by the dogma of eternal damnation? It means, in one word, leaving the sinner to himself. "Ephraim is joined to idols: let him alone." It is no arbitrary infliction of a vengeful Deity!

The reprobation of all needless torture is surely justified by a clear ethical intuition. Such torture no good being could inflict, though he might deliberately inflict some suffering in order to bring about a much greater good. But for this no surgical operation would ever be justifiable.

To think that God should punish men, however slightly, still less could damn them for all eternity, for anything which they had not full power to avoid, or for any act the nature or consequences of which they did not fully understand, is a doctrine so monstrous and revolting that stark atheism is plainly a preferable belief.

A large proportion of many men's actions, however, cannot be freely controlled by them, on account of ancestral influences, early associations, or intellectual and volitional feebleness. The God of all justice must, and will, make every allowance for antecedent passion, for blindness, for ignorance, for inadvertence.

Any unnecessary or useless suffering cannot, of course, coexist with a good God; but who can pretend to know God's ultimate end in creation? That his purpose cannot contradict our clear ethical perceptions is certain.... It is not possible for the Catholic theologian of the most severe and rigid school to deny that there is, and there will

Of course, the priests are up in arms against this rational and humanitarian doctrine. One writer declares that Dr. Mivart has written "the most dangerous and pernicious article that was ever traced by the hand of believer or infidel." The Roman Catholic Bishop of Nottingham stoutly urges the literal nature of the fire of hell, and asks if there is any possibility of happiness in a fire. Among other things he says:

According to the definition of Pope Benedict XII. the damned in hell will be eternally tortured with infernal punishments, and according to the Holy Scriptures and the Athanasian Creed, that infernal torture is truthfully expressed by the words 'eternal fire.' Now, a state of torture keen as that of fire is at least wholly inconsistent either with intervals of unconsciousness (or the torture would not be eternal) or with any kind of happiness in hell, any hugging of chains or welcoming of congenial infernal company, since a torture like fire would hardly be compatible therewith.

One result of the controversy will be the stirring of thought in many minds; and it seems likely that another will be the condemnation of Dr. Mivart as a heretic. Fortunately, he can only be condemned and anathematized: he cannot be burned.

J. T. S.

Pray for the chance of making some great sacrifice, or, rather, find such an opportunity for yourself. Look for it, for it is very nigh thee now. Angel opportunities come to us every day, and we entertain them

unawares.