« AnteriorContinuar »
few exceptions been Feminists, and at present the movement is spreading rapidly. Feminism teaches that a woman's only duty is to herself; that she must "lead her own life" regardless of all duties to husband and children or to society; that marriage should not be binding.
Gertrude Atherton, the well known California writer, says in the Yale Review for April 1913, that "owing to their political and economic awakening" girls in western towns leading perfectly "free" lives, and laugh at all efforts to restrict them to the old American code of morals.
At the recent National Suffrage Convention, Prof. W. I. Thomas, of Chicago University, told his hearers that "any girl mentally mature has a right to motherhood, and that woman's assertion of her right to motherhood is a revolution that is coming and no one can stop it." Such teaching as this is a commonplace among Feminists.
Two fine, self-respecting working girls of my acquaintance have told me recently of their amazement at hearing this doctrine advanced and defended by young girls among their customers, who were suffragists and who had accepted this doctrine from suffrage sources. Is it not time that the thinking public opens its eyes to the peril in such teaching? Many a young girl caught by the movement will undoubtedly be led wrong before she has the maturity and intelligence to understand the falseness of these doctrines, and to realize that a child, too, has some rights, one of them being to have two parents.
Judge Lindsey in an interview in the Cincinnati Commercial Tribune for Jan. 17, 1914, says that the trouble with equal suffrage is that women will not stop there—that it leads to Feminism, which means looser women, and that the cases coming before his court on sex charges had increased 300 per cent. says "In a single stroke she (the Feminist) would break down the barriers that have protected the
legitimacy of our children for centuries. It is time to call a halt."
The Feminist scheme of substituting free alliances for monogamous marriage menaces our civilization. The unmarried mother sins not only against herself, but her child and society. The Feminist is pulling down the institution of home and family regardless of the fact that the injury to children and to society will be irreparable.
When Prof. Thomas made the statement quoted above, before the National Suffrage Convention, Dr. Anna Shaw, the president of that association, instead of condemning it, said: "The address has set every woman who heard it thinking, and they are thinking women who will consider both sides of the proposition. Political emancipation is not the only emancipation. I believe Prof. Thomas took the proper place to present his views." Feminist teachings lead to emancipation also from the principle of Christianity and monogamy.
Ellen Key, the great Swedish Feminist, says in Harper's Weekly of Jan. 31, 1914, that one of the results of the Feminist movement is the immoral lives lead by many wives and by many girls with splendid possibilities. "The early Feminists," she said, "did not foresee these results, but if they had they would no more have desisted from their teachings than would Jesus if he had foreseen the Inquisition."
A California Feminist writing to "The Forum" of April 1915, looks forward to a time when "there will be no husbands and no marrying, but every woman will be a law unto herself, and there will be free mothers in a free world."
Occasionally a suffragist attempts to deny that there is any connection between Feminism and suffrage. In so doing she merely proves herself uninformed. It is to be remembered that Feminists are engaged as officers in suffrage organizations, and as speakers on suffrage platforms; that
the National Woman Suffrage Association has placed the seal of its approval upon radical Feminist doctrines by printing and circulating Feminist Literature in its campaign for Votes for Women; that no suffrage organization has ever gone on record as repudiating the immoral teachings of the Feminists, and no
suffrage leader has ever publicly opposed them. The two movements are closely allied, and are full of danger.
According to the Feminists themselves, woman suffrage is only the first step toward their goal. A movement whose goal is the destruction of monogamy is a blow at civilization itself.
TO A BED OF CHRYSANTHEMUMS
By CURTIS GUILD, Jr.
The long brown rushes shiver with the cold
The lush green moss rusts red and rough rains smear
Last of the hosts made quick by Summer's breath,
In flaunted crimson flames one shattered square
Like those brave souls that stricken unto death,
Dying charge home and triumph in despair.
A THOUGHT FOR 1920
ISITORS to New England in Nineteen Hundred and Twenty, whatever shall be the nature of the celebration of the Pilgrim Tercentenary, will wish to see old Plymouth as little changed as possible. By tens, yes, by hundreds of thousands, they will linger about the sacred precincts of old Burial Hill. From that eminence they will look down upon the roofs of two buildings, almost directly under their feet. These are the present meetinghouses of the orthodox Congregational and the Unitarian Congregational churches.
I know of no spot where the separation of the independent churches into these two bodies seems more scandalizing than here where it intrudes on memories sacred alike to religion and patriotism.
Men will be affected differently by the spectacle, according to their own tenets and temperaments. The scurrilous will scoff at all religion; the cynical will smile sardonically at the weaknesses and follies of mankind; the friends of independency will grieve; the believers in strongly centralized church government, or in the apostolic succession, will point a moral; the members of the Congregational and Unitarian churches will not cape a sense of shame.
confounded and their very names forgotten. Today, with none of these predictions fulfilled, the followers of these two historic New England churches, have come to look upon the breach as permanent, and to accustom themselves to a situation which they find no way to alter.
The actual theological controversy has lost much of its meaning to the present generation. It is not the fashion of modern pulpiteers to instruct their hearers in matters theological. But it would be a mistake to suppose that the actual differences between these two religious bodies had disappeared. The worshipper in the orthodox church, however "liberal" its cast, is educated in a type of religious thought quite alien to the mind of the thorough-going Unitarian. The doctrines of the Trinity and of the Atonement may be without meaning to the orthodox Christian, at least in his direct consciousness, but that feeling out of which they grew, remains with him as the essence of his faith. We shall make little progress in the work of recruiting these denominations, until we recognize their actual differences. Not by cavil and reproach, but by appreciation can a middle ground be found upon which both can stand.
The Trinitarian Congregationalist is a worshipper of Christ; the Unitarian Congregationalist is a disciple of Jesus, who seeks to follow, but does not worship his master. The Trinitarian Congregationalist finds the worship of the Unitarian Church coldly intellectual. There is, to him, something missing in it. At times his deepest religious sensibilities are shocked. He does not always know the source of his discontent, but he is none the less discontented. He leaves feeling that he has been given "Stones for Bread." The Unitarian Congregationalist finds the worship of the Trinitarian Church
The pulpit fulminations of the generation which witnesses this disruption-that beheld the descendants of the Pilgrims and Puritans saying to one another, "We cannot worship God together," prophesied, each from his own standpoint, the speedy downfall of the opposing cause. The liberal faith of the Unitarian was to sweep away all opposition, and become the accepted religion of mankind, or, from across many an elmshaded green, the worshippers within the white-walls of the orthodox meeting-house heard how speedily the deniers of the true faith were to be
deeply tinged with superstition. It seems to him to be unreasoning and emotional. He is shocked by by absence of the keen, incisive ethical note so dominant in his own church. He departs unhelped and uninspired.
Until we see clearly that which is sacred, that which is lovely, that which is Christian, in both of these types of worship, there is little hope of an ultimate reconciliation of their respective churches. And this seeing must be sympathetic and loving. It must be in the hearts of the clergy as they minister from Sabbath to Sabbath to their respective Congregations.
If every orthodox Congregational minister said, every Sabbath, to himself: "Today there may be in my congregation men of the Unitarian faith, to whom I should like to give something that will feed and not offend," and if every Unitarian minister should enter his pulpit with a like attitude toward the Trinitarian worshipper, the ministrations of both would be enriched and benefitted.
In so doing, would either be false. to his faith? There is the crux of the whole question.
The writer maintains that they would not be false to that in the heart of each out of which the two standpoints have arisen. They would be false only to its philosophical form and dogmatic statement. But this last has long ceased to be of any possible use or benefit-and that is equally true of both. The Unitarians infinitely single, personal God,
that awful Egoist of early Unitarian teaching is quite as foreign to modern thought as the three-fold personality of the obsolete Trinitarian philosophy.
The high love of truth, and insistence on ethical purity, which lay at the heart of the Unitarian faith, is not dead, and can never die. The reverence rising into warm devotion and worship of the Mind of Christ as revealed to himself in the worshipper's experience, which lies at the foundation of the Trinitarian faith, and which created the intellectual need which his dogmatic theologians so blindly sought to meet with their doctrine of the Trinity, that also can never die. And these two heart needs are far from being irreconcilable. They call for mutual recognition-no more, no less.
If the leaders of these two denominations could show to their followers this way of ultimate reunion, the Tercentenary of of the landing of the landing of Pilgrims would be fittingly celebrated by an event of the utmost beneficence—an event that would do more than Agricultural Schools or the department at Washington can ever do for the revival of New England rural life. When the old white meeting houses whose doors now too often swing emptily in the wind, and down whose forsaken aisles wander the sheep and the straying dog, could again minister to a united congregation of worshippers, there would soon cease to be a "problem" of Rural New England.
A FORGOTTEN NAVAL HERO
By J. PHILIP MacCARTHY
HIS is an attempt to retouch
the fading and perishing portrait of Captain John Foster Williams of old colonial Boston, a long forgotten naval hero. We must unveil this portrait in fancy for no print of the features of the sturdy old viking of the Revolution, so far as I have been able to discover, is now in existence. Yet the picture I shall draw of him with the pen, feeble and imperfect though the lines may be, will serve in a measure to conjure up his image in the mind's eye.
This prince of privateers, although his story is dismissed even in the larger histories of the naval operations of the Revolution, with perfunctory paragraphs, was not without his Boswell, and it is largely from a rare little book of personal adventures, written by Ebenezer Fox, a Roxbury man who took part in the great struggle with England, that I have drawn the greater portion of my material. Fox wrote the history of his own Revolu tionary adventures for the amusement of his grandchildren, and the book, privately circulated, is now rarely to be met with, but its fidelity is vouched for in a letter to Mr. Fox's son, written by Jared Sparks. The illustrations that accompany this sketch are from this book.
In our times when Uncle Sam needs soldiers or sailors he hires rooms in various towns and cities, puts an officer in charge, sets a private or two at the doorways, standing as rigidly as wooden Indians, and by means of lithographic announcements, endeavors to lure Young America into the ranks of enlisted men. Such methods would be too prosaic for Captain Williams. He knew the men of his day and generation. He knew that to lure them into the country's service in the great struggle with the mother coun
try, he would have to appeal not only to their patriotism but to their imaginations.
And so, when Captain Williams was assigned to the command of the Massachusetts state cruiser, the "Protector," which was designed to prey upon British commerce and such ves sels of the British Navy as its Captain dared to attack, he determined to make the life of a sailor fighting for prize money as well as glory, appear so alluring, that the youth of Boston, and indeed of the state, would hasten to enlist under his standard.
Captain Williams had a jolly minor officer full of fun, fond of jokes, prac tical and otherwise, and a capital hand at singing a song. This officer, whose name it is to be regretted, has not come down to our age, was assigned by Captain Williams, to march at the head of a band, dressed in picturesque Continental uniform, sing stirring sea and war songs, and harangue crowds encountered on the route, urging the young men and such of the larger boys as appeared to be competent, to fall in behind him. One stanza of a song he used to sing was as follows:
All ye that have had masters
And cannot get your due, Come, come, my gallant boys
And join with our ship's crew.
No profound knowledge of human nature is essential to anticipate what invariably followed. Young men and large boys, many of them weary, it must be said, of the restraints of home and masters to whom they were apprenticed, fell in behind the recruiting officer with a huzza and followed him to the station at the head of Hancock's Wharf and eagerly put their names on the ship's roll while Captain Williams looked approvingly on.