The Religious World Bishop Newman By the death of John Philip Newman the Methodist Church loses one of its best-known prelates. Bishop Newman was a New York City man by birth, but was educated at the Methodist Seminary at Cazenovia, N. Y. Forty-three years ago, after various pastorates in Central New York State, Newman returned to the metropolis to take charge of the Bedford Street Church, thence going to the old Fourth Street Church. After these pastorates he spent some time in Palestine. His next pastorate was at the Washington Square Church, New York City. He was then sent to re-establish Methodism in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, as, after the ecclesiastical secession of 1844, that Church had practically ceased to exist in those States. An influential factor in this re-establishment was the starting of the "Southwestern Christian Advocate" in New Orleans, the first Methodist weekly paper in the South. Newman also founded the New Orleans University and the Orphans' Home and University at Bayou Tesche. In 1869 he came to Washington to become the pastor of the Metropolitan Church. General Grant was an attendant, and a friendship speedily sprang up between pastor and President. At the latter's request, Newman was made Chaplain of the United States Senate. A still more pronounced indication of regard from the White House came when Newman felt the force of the Methodist law prohibiting a pastor to remain beyond a certain period with one particular church. The President then created a new office for his friend, and sent him around the world as "Inspector of United States Consulates." One result of this trip was Newman's book "The Thrones of Babylon and Nineveh," as the work "From Dan to Beersheba" had been the outcome of his earlier Oriental sojourn. On the solicitation of prominent members of the Metropolitan Church in Washington, he was permitted to return there for another three years, coming thence to New York City to assume the pastorate of the Central Methodist Church. Afterwards he preached two years to the Congregationalists. He attended his old friend, General Grant, in the latter's fatal illness, and he also delivered the funeral oration. In 1887 he returned to the Metropolitan Church for a third pastorate. When he was proposed for episcopal honors, not a little opposition was excited because of his Congregationalism. He was a vigorous speaker, and was a well-known figure on the lecture platform. Aside from the books above mentioned, Bishop Newman published, in 1884," Christianity Triumphant;" in 1887, “ America for Americans," and in 1890, "The Supremacy of Law." 66 The Christian Endeavor Convention The eighteenth annual meeting of the Young People's Society for Christian Endeavor opened at Detroit, July 5, with an audience of 10,000 in the great "Tent Endeavor," and with a telegram of greeting from President McKinley. As many as 20,000 delegates and visitors were said. to be in the city, representing a constituency of 3,500,000 in this and other countries. During the year, besides expenditures in other charitable and educational ways, $500,000 has been put into missionary work. The customary enthusiasm was manifest in the crowds that thronged Tents "Endeavor" and "Williston," the latter named from the church in Portland, Maine, where the Society was born. The successive days were devoted to addresses, discussions of practical topics, devotional meetings, business matters, and conferences of the leading workers. A noticeable number of prominent clergymen, among them Drs. Noble and Henson, of Chicago, President Barrows, of Oberlin, and Dr. Jefferson, of New York, were among the speakers. The annual sermon by Dr. Gunsaulus, of Chicago, on the trilingual inscription upon the cross of Jesus made a profound impression. Some matters of National concern were dealt with. Congress was memorialized to purge the House from the alleged polygamist representative from Utah, and to introduce a constitutional amendment for the suppression of polygamy. At Belle Isle, the island park of Detroit, a spot held sacred to peace by the Indian tribes and never polluted by any bloodshed, a “peace jubilee" was held on Saturday afternoon. Here, after warmly expressed desires for close friendship between Great Britain and the United States had been heartily cheered, an address to Congress was adopted for the speedy adoption of the proposals expected from the Hague Conference for an international tribunal of arbitration. “Especially," it was added, "we desire by our signatures to appeal for the immediate consideration of the question of arbitration between this Nation and Great Britain, that the Anglo-Saxon race may become united in the interests of peace and good will." The closing day was July 10. The dominant note in this year's meeting has been a call for consecrated wealth and for Christ in the home. Legacies and Missions During the past few years there has been a notable widening in the lists and character of institutions which have been helped by legacies. As a result, some of the old institutions have keenly felt the shrinkage in their income, due to the scattering of practically the same amount of wealth over a larger area. One of them, the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, finds that the shrinkage in its legacies received during this fiscal year amounts to about sixtythree thousand dollars, which, added to last year's indebtedness, will require a hundred thousand dollars more than was received in the closing three months of the last fiscal year if the Board closes its present year on August 1 without deficit. In each year, save three, for the past twenty, the Board has met its current expenses; it should close its present year with all obligations met and the whole constituency ready for an advance. There is an encouragement to this work, for the Board's donations from the living have increased about $33,000 over the previous year. It is believed that this increase will continue throughout the coming year. At its meeting in Grand Rapids the American Board appointed an Advisory Committee to advance a "Forward Movement" in foreign missions, but such a movement cannot be truly entered upon until the present necessary annual expenses are provided for. The shadow of the deficit carried over from last year, and the further threatened deficit occasioned by the shrinkage in legacies, must be removed. The Forward Movement has already met with signal success. The special representative of this movement is Mr. Luther D. Wishard, of New York City, well known from his identification for many years with the Christian movement among students. The first step of his campaign has consisted in an appeal to selected churches which are believed to be able to assume the entire salaries of the missionaries. Mr. Wishard has already visited seventeen churches; each gave last year something over four thousand dollars, aside from the gifts of women through the "Women's Boards." This year these churches have pledged over three times as much. It is believed that there are not less than six hundred churches as well able to provide salaries as many of those which have already done so. The Treasurer of the American Board is Mr. Frank H. Wiggin, Congregational House, 14 Beacon Street, Boston, Mass. A Southern Hospital for Negroes In our efforts to establish industrial and educational work among the negroes, we are apt to overlook the fact that the negroes are not all young and strong and ready to be trained. A large class exists among them, as among the white people, who need help and cannot help themselves. In 1881 Mrs. Buford, a Southern woman, appalled by the suffering of the sick and aged negroes, too poor to provide themselves with any medical treatment or relief, established in southern Virginia the first hospital ever built for a negro. It was called the "Church Home for Aged, Infirm, and Disabled Colored People." Last year 68 patients were cared for in the hospital, and 526 sick persons outside were supplied with food, clothing, and medicine. An orphanage has been added in which children are cared for. work has been supported largely by Northern contributions. Many of its sup porters are not now living, and Mrs. Buford appeals most earnestly for help to continue the needed work of this hospital. The Rev. S. D. McConnell, rector of Holy Trinity Church, Brooklyn, who has visited the hospital and watched the work The for years, says he believes it to be "the only effort being made by any one to relieve the unspeakable distress of those forlorn creatures." Any contributions toward relieving the suffering of these helpless people will be thankfully received by Mrs. F. E. Buford, Lawrenceville, Brunswick County, Virginia. Dr. McGiffert Professor Francis Brown, of the Union Theological Seminary, has published a timely article in the New York" Evangelist" opposing the recent action of the General Assembly at Minneapolis in the case of Dr. McGiffert. Professor Brown declares that the reference by the Assembly of this so-called heresy case to the New York Presbytery was unfortunate, inasmuch as the Assembly had the right and the opportunity to end the agitation. The action taken means only a continuance of agitation. Dr. Brown would now have the Presbytery do what he would have had the Assembly do-namely, vote that truth and justice require the acceptance of Dr. McGiffert's avowal of loyalty to the faith of the Church, and that further action is inexpedient. Professor Brown then proceeds to criticise the second part of the Assembly's action. He declares that its reassertion of the preceding Assembly's condemnation of Dr. McGiffert's statements (in his "History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age") commits the Assembly, not only to the sweeping opinions which have already so indiscriminately prejudged a learned work, but also to the correctness of those interpretations of the book which the author himself rejects. Only those who have read certain reviews of the book may understand the perversions of Professor McGiffert's meaning to which the Assembly, by an omnibus clause, has given its sanction. Professor Brown justly claims that the evil of the reassertion is twofold. First, it appears to controvert the principle that it is not right to impute to a man opinions which he disavows. Secondly, it weights with the Assembly's reasserted condemnation a case which, at the same time, the Assembly sends down to the Presbytery without instructions. This seems neither consistent nor fair, for if the case was to be sent down, the Assembly ought not to have pronounced upon it; if it was to be pronounced upon, it ought not to have been sent down. It looks somewhat as if the General Assembly, not Dr. McGiffert, were on trial. The Parties in the Anglican Church The Rev. John Watson, D.D. (Ian Maclaren), in a recent article writes in a very illuminating way of the various parties in the Anglican Church. The article itself is on the troubles and controversies in that ancient communion. He says there are really three parties, and describes them as follows: " There is, first of all, the High Church party, which rests upon a solid historical basis, and represents the views of those who never desired to separate from the Catholic Church, but only were weary of the abuses of the papacy. This party would have been satisfied, at the time of the Reformation, had moral scandals been removed and the ecclesiastical tyranny of Rome been reduced. The second party represents the tendency at the Reformation which was called Calvinistic, and, somewhat later in England, Puritan. Low Churchmen were determined to go to the farthest length in rescuing, as they believed, Christianity from superstition and doctrinal error. Their idea of worship was, and is unto this day, praise sung by all the people, extempore prayer in which the people are able to join, the preaching of a sermon, and the administration of the two sacraments after the simplest and sometimes baldest form. Low Churchmen accept, of course, the service of the Church of England, but they reject as much as they dare of what is Catholic, and introduce extempore prayer where they can. . . . The Broad Churchmen occupy a detached position as regards both Anglicans and Puritans, since they do not hold the high doctrine of the sacraments and of the ministry, while at the same time they are in favor of an ornate and reverent service. Everything which is historical and everything which is æsthetic appeals to their culture, but they are, at the same time, cleansed from a belief in ecclesiastical authority and doctrinal obscurantism. Their cardinal tenets are the Fatherhood of God and the true humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnation as a perpetual force in human life, and the salvation of the race through the spirit of Jesus." The Philippine Question [We have received a number of letters from correspondents concerning the Phil pine question, some of which have been waiting for weeks an opportunity for pul cation. But it is a simple principle in mechanics, which writers of letters to t press do not always realize, that two objects cannot occupy the same space at same time; and so these letters, marked for insertion, have been crowded out fr week to week by other matter which appeared to us to be of greater moment to general readers. Now, as a last and necessary resort, we take space here to inser summary of these letters, answering such questions as they put to us directly.-T EDITORS.] In your article "The Philippine History" have you not overlooked an important fact? viz., Commodore Dewey's despatch: Tell Aguinaldo to come soon as possible. (Signed) DEWEY. On that he came, and rendered valuable assistance to the American arms. After that, was there not an implied obligation on the part of the American Government to treat him as an ally, fairly and with consideration? Was Aguinaldo not only refused recognition as an ally, but treated with contumely and threats? And, if so, how can such conduct on the part of our Government be squared with common, every-day, equitable dealings between man and man, let alone morality and high conduct, which should characterize national dealings? A MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN BAR Zanesville, O. ASSOCIATION. Official reports affirm that every attempt has been made from the beginning to maintain peaceful relations with the Aguinaldo forces, but nothing would be listened to except the surrender of United States authority. The question is very simple: Has the United States or has the Aguinaldo Government the supreme authority in the island? There is no evidence that Aguinaldo has been treated with contumely; on the contrary, he appears to have been treated with great consideration. Aguinaldo, a rebel chief, a fugitive from Spanish rule who was trying to upset Spanish authority in the Philippines, was taken on board our war-ship at Hong-Kong and carried back to his native country. Arriving at Manila, he received arms and ammunition from the American authorities. It is not reasonable to suppose that the American authorities did not enter into some arrangement as to the conditions, etc., under which these munitions of war in the hands of the Filipinos should be made effective. What was to be accomplished for the American forces, and what for the Filipinos? A delivery of arms and war material without an understanding would not be creditable to either party. This was before the public declarations of policy by the United States toward the Philippine Islands and before the protocol was sign Boston, Mass. HENRY T. BUFFINGT You are mistaken as to the facts. naldo was not furnished with arms American authorities nor treated as a No engagements of any kind were with him. Consuls Wildman and Pra Admiral Dewey and General Merri all explicit on this point. The only for the statement that the America thorities furnished arms and ammunition to Aguinaldo is the fact that they allowed him to help himself from Spanish stores at Cavite. At the time when the protocol was signed with Spain, there was no responsible government in the island except the Spanish, which by the treaty was subsequently transferred to us; the so-called Filipino Constitution was not framed till some months later. The Filipinos are fighting for their freedom, as the Cubans were. Why would you treat one different from the other? Senator Frye says he is in favor of giving them a stable republican government, and surrender to them the sovereignty." Are you in favor of this? If you are, and the Government is, would not the fighting stop at once; and if the Government had said so at first, do you think there would have been a gun fired or a man killed? For that is just what they are fighting for. Minneapolis. E. T. As soon as the sovereignty of the United States in the Philippines is established, we shall be in favor of using that sovereignty to confer upon the Filipinos all the local self-government which they are capable of exercising. But the expansionist does not believe that the Filipinos are fighting for their freedom. Says Dean C. Worcester: "It is a great mistake to suppose that we are fighting the Filipinos as a whole. At least eighty per cent. of the population detests the war. . . . The present rulers are hated on account of their robbery and oppression." are fighting to protect a people from an irresponsible oligarchy, and to establish law and order. See this fact illustrated by the incident narrated by Captain Ackis below. The argument that we ought to recognize the independence of the Tagal oligarchy is further replied to by the following letter: Rejoicing in your attitude and masterly articles touching our relations with the Philip pines, I venture to suggest an idea for use as you may see fit; viz., The Aguinaldo faction there stands in about the same position with respect to this Government that the hostile Indians did to our Fathers when the Constitution was framed. We took the colonies, not from the original inhabitants, but from the English, just as we took the Philippines from Spain, not from the Tagals. The Declaration of Independence was framed without regard to the Indian, except such as proved tractable and willing to accept its benefits. The same thing is exactly true to-day of the Philippines. Our basis of independence will, doubtless, be revived in Manila, as it was born in Philadelphia-the East Indians standing in about the same relation as did the North American Indian then; and any superiority they may claim should be proven by greater readiness to seize and comprehend the benefits it bestows. As we resented England's attempt to instigate Indian revolt on our border while peace negotiations were pending, so we would have resented any such attempt by Spain in the Philippines, and, as you have so clearly pointed out, she could have called us to account before the world had we attempted any dealings with the insurgents during this period. It seems to me that most of this outcry about our National conduct in the East was caused by oversight of this point you have made-viz., that we could not take any steps in negotiation with the insurgents till April 11, and all the trouble came of their forcing, or attempting to force, our hand. In The Outlook of May 27 it is editorially stated that the present Administration has nearly two years of life before it, and it is quite inconceivable that it should abandon its policy." On page 198 it is further said: "The question whether the United States shall exercise sovereignty over the Philippine archipelago is settled. . . . The American people will not consent to abandon a responsibility which they have once taken up.... because they are unused to retreat." Permit me to ask: 1. Has not Mr. McKinley stated that he had no permanent policy concerning the Phil ippines-that he awaited the decision of the people in regard thereto? 2. Has not The Outlook especially commended that position of the President? 3. Is it, then, true, as you say elsewhere on page 189, that a different policy cannot possibly be initiated until another Presidential election"? 4. Or is it the fact, after all, that Mr. McKinley has abso lutely and irrevocably committed this Nation to a policy of sovereignty over the Philippines? 5. If a nation is convinced that a given policy to which it has become committed is wrong, ought such policy to be persisted in on the ground that that nation is unused to retreat? F. A. P. Under the Spanish-American treaty the Philippines are already, in the eye of the law. American territory. Congress may decide to alienate it to a foreign government. But the President cannot. The Outlook commends his refusal to do what he has no constitutional right to do. Practically it is foolish to attempt to convince the Nation that its sense of responsibility for the Philippines is unfounded, and wise to use that sense of responsibility to secure a just and liberal administration in the Philippines. The editorial in The Outlook for June 10 entitled "A Foul Aspersion has called forth several replies. One of the |