Union and the men who remember what the causeless and most wicked rebellion brought upon the country. Soldiers can pardon enthusiasm for men like Lee and Jackson; but for this cold-hearted, crafty, egotistic, jealous chief of the Confederacy, who ran away from Richmond with his train weighted with foreign gold and his mind exercised in saving his household effects, and was captured in a woman's waterproof, they discern poor stuff for a hero.

Louisville Courier-Journal (Dem.), April 30.

ONE brings to the contemplation of these events a more philosophical mind than was attainable during their progress. As each actor and occasion falls into the proper perspective we see how wrong in many respects have been our judgments; we realize that the victories of which we boast make only more certain the defeat, and that even defeat loses its bitterness in a better understanding one of another. The spirit of the day is the spirit of peace, and of good will. Loss and gain are not to be added up in parallel columns and set off one against another, for even yet we do not clearly know what was lost and what was won.

Atlanta Constitution (Dem.).

WAS the Union victory at Appomattox so unsubstantial that the laying of a memorial stone, or the unveiling of a monument, or a speech from Jefferson Davis is calculated to disturb it? Are the men of the North so uncertain of the results of the war that they are disturbed by demonstrations so natural and so praiseworthy, from an American standpoint, as those which have occurred in Montgomery? Can not the Southerners of to-day pay a tribute to the devotion of the living and the valor of the dead without suggesting to Northern men that "treason" is stalking abroad?

Utica Press (Rep.), May 1.

ANY attempt to do honor to the valor of the Confederate dead need not include an indorsement of the rebellion and the declaration that it was right, nor the statement that equality had not been fully restored. The sooner the late unpleasantness is forgotten the better it will be for the South. Nor can there be any gain to the people of the North to come from reviling the South. In our Northern celebrations let us remember the valor of our soldiers who fought to save the Union, and, as for ourselves, let us seek to strengthen and preserve it.

Washington Sunday Herald (Dem.), May 2.

BECAUSE Jeff. Davis was received with more warmth of demonstration at Montgomery last week than he was at the same place twenty-five years ago, when entering upon the office of President of the Confederacy, certain Republican journals pronounce the South to be in a unhealthy condition. The facts are otherwise. The South is accumulating money in her savings banks, educating her people, both white and colored, building factories, and developing her mines, and generally attending to her own business better than she ever did before.

Troy Times (Rep.), May 1.

If he stood alone, this archaic rebel would not be of any account, or worthy of more than scanty passing notice; but when he is dragged from his seclusion, set up as a demigod, and made the focus of such adulation as has been bestowed upon him by frantic thousands this week, he becomes something more than the fragile phantom of a vanished issue. He is worshiped as the embodiment and personification of an idea still warmly cherished by the applauding multitude. There is no mistaking the import of such ebullitions of popular feeling.

Baltimore News (Ind.), April 29.

MR. DAVIS' speech was, all must admit, in excellent taste, and newspapers like the New York Tribune and some others will find it disappointing. An orator of Mr. Davis' strong feelings might well have been led away by the enthusiasm of such an assembly. Time and circumstances, however, have taught him selfrepression, and he spoke with a gentle dignity and pathos that, considering the spot on which he stood and all the circumstances since he occupied the same historic place in 1861, must have been very touching.

Buffalo Courier (Dem.), May 1.

ASSEMBLYMAN ERWIN is reported as having said that "after the speech of that eminent Democrat, Jefferson Davis, at Montgomery, Ala., on Wednesday, it was natural that the Northern Democrats should object to the employment of Union soldiers." This is not the first time that Mr. Erwin has shown a remarkable capacity for saying foolish things. Jefferson Davis, by the way, so far as national politics is concerned, is no more a Democrat than Mr. Erwin himself and has not been a Democrat during the last quarter of a century.

Hartford Courant (Rep.), April 29.

wordy debate an a question settled by the sword, but it seems that Albany alone
can furnish a dozen eager for this wordy fray. The contest will doubtless gratify
those who engage in it, and happily will bother no one else. We see in it but one
thing to regret, and that is the proof the incident affords that the North more
than the South has the Bourbons ready to engage in such a controversy. This is
somewhat humiliating to the North.

JEFFERSON DAVIS has been revived and put through the experiences of an "ovation" at Montgomery, Ala., which must have mildly astonished him-astonished him both for the treatment of himself, and for the fact that thousands of people can come together under a government that they unsuccessfully tried to overthrow, can dedicate monuments to those who fought and died for that purpose, and can be presided over by the man whom they undertook to set up as president. It is a miracle of mercy, itself worth a celebration.

Lancaster, Pa., Examiner (Rep.).

Augusta, Ga, Chronicle (Dem.).

IN welcoming Mr. Davis the people of the South do not yield anything of their faithful allegiance to the Union. The men who for four years kept at bay the gigantic Federal power, aided and comforted by many foreign nationalities, and who surrendered the remnant of their armies in good faith, have no desire and no thought of another warlike contest. These old soldiers, many of whom are grandfathers now, are intensely loyal to the old flag of their country and thoroughly devoted to its common glory and prosperty.

EVEN the Philadelphia Times regrets that Southern editors gushed so over Jeff Davis not because their enthusiastic rhetoric was bad and inexpedient, but because it will give an excuse to the John Shermans of the North to moralize upon Southern feeling and fling to the breeze the bloody shirt. Judging from the sentiments of certain Southern editorials it is sufficiently shown that John Sherman is about right in not letting us forget the past, even if we do condone.

New York Star (Dem.).

Brooklyn Union (Ind.).

IT IS a very sad scene-this whole unwise performance. If rhetorical nonsense and vain regret be a pleasure to Mr. Davis and his friends it would have been cruel for their wiser neighbors and descendents to forbid them such a pleasure on the last occasion they may have to enjoy it. Yet it was a very depressing day for the dominant sentiment which has no sympathy with them. It was a very unwise performance, but the unwisdom of it will not justify the counter unwisdom of attaching too much importance to it.

Milwaukee Sentinel (Rep.).

No reasonable objection can be raised to the honoring of Jeff; Davis as a companion in trying times by the surviving soldiers of the South, because everybody understands that the sentiment underlying it is that of fellowship in distress; but when it comes to honoring him for his treason, paying tribute to the unholy sentiments that plunged the nation into war, and instructing the new generation of Southerners to pay respect, not to the man merely, but to the cause he represents, there is ample room for criticism...

Brooklyn Eagle (Ind.) ·

THE latest speech of the ex-President at Montgomery yesterday was entirely harmless. The truth is it is impossible, and always has been, to make a heroic figure of Davis A man of considerable though rather commonplace parts, of experience in public life and of varied accomplishments, a personality destitute of magnetism or of the power to command large following, he owes his place in the world's records chiefly to accident, and is henceforth nothing but a finger point on the page of history.

Atlanta Constitution (Dem.), May 2.

IT has been a glorious revival. We all feel better and stronger because of it. It was a grand and glorious demonstation-unapproached by anything that any of its witnesses ever saw. It was a revelation to Mr. Davis, and it was the amazement of us all. It was worthy of Atlanta and it was worthy of the greatest city of the Empire State of the South. It was the best day, the biggest day, the happiest day, the most self-respecting and uplifting day Georgians of this generation have

seen or will see.

St. Louis Globe-Democrat (Rep.).

It is not to be wondered at that the Democrats in Washington are very much worried over the Southern demonstrations in honor of Jeff Davis. There is no particular reason, however, why Republicans should make any objection in the case. They could not posssibly prepare as good campaign material as these demonstrations are providing them with in abundance, not only for the uses of the present summer, but also for the still more important demands of the next Presi dential canvass.

Boston Journal (Rep.).

THE attachment of the South to the Confederacy, however extravagant its expression, is for the most part simply one of sentiment. It is a sentimental cause which they mourn; a cause lost, and which the wisest of them would not find if they could. If the question were put to the intelligent people of the South today: "Would you, if you could, make the States which entered the rebellion a separate government ?" the answer would be, we are confident, unhesitatingly in the negative.

The generation of to-day, North and South, breathes the purest inspiration of freedom the world has ever known and is making romance pale before the actual and substantial advancement of sixty millions of free people. To the living, progressive present Jefferson Davis speaks as one from the doleful tombs of the for

THE South seems to have but one man left who is thus anxious to enter into a gotten past. He has learned nothing, forgotten nothing; he has outlived himself,

THE tone of Jeff Davis' speech is not as boastful nor hopeful, perhaps, but some. how it recalls the speech, reported by Mr. Milton, of an eminent rebel leader who herited ideas which they are celebrating; although it is to be wished that the ore

THE South would have lost more than Mr. Davis could possibly have lost by denying him longer the justice paid him to-day. To-day's work will make us all better Georgians and better American citizens.

Pittsburgh Press (Ind.).

THE absurdity of erecting a monument to such a complete failure as the Confederacy is only equaled by resurrecting that other and contemporaneous “fizzle”. Jeff Davis as chief orator of the occasion.

National Republican (Rep.).

IDOLIZATION of Jefferson Davis by his friends in the South gives no occasion for special alarm, whatever may be thought of the taste of such a display. The confederacy is as dead as the dust of Abel.

Philadelphia Inquirer (Ind.).

JEFFERSON DAVIS finds in Atlanta the embodiment of what he so much despised twenty-five years ago—a Southern city with Northern principles.

Pittsburgh Commercial Gazette (Rep.).

SOMETHING like the rebel yell is heard from the direction of Montgomery, Ala., but its notes have a mellower tone than of yore.

New York Graphic (Dem.).

J. DAVIS' suspension from a sour apple tree a number of years ago would have saved the country a great deal of slush.

Williamsport, Pa., Gazette (Rep.).

JEFF DAVIS is as full of treason as he was in 1861. But, like a fangless viper, he is harmless.

Boston Transcript (Ind.).

universal and intense satisfaction with which we see a great wrong acknowledged
and redressed, and with which we look on the adoption by the British empire of
the principles exemplified and honored in these United States. When our people
advocate home rule for Ireland, it is their own system of State rights and federa-
tion which they are commending to the British nation. We believe it to be the
only system which it is safe and wise to follow, and the fact is as flattering to us as
it is creditable to British intelligence that the current of opinion and the drift of
events are tending irresistibly toward the imitation of our policy. It is fitting that
we should speak out, when we see the form of government transmitted to us by
our fathers, and whose virtues have been tested by the shocks of a century's ex-
perience and in the fire of civil war, on the eve of reproduction by the foremost of
European nations. If we did not speak, we should be recreant to our traditions
and convictions, we should set at naught the ties of fellowship, of international good
will, and of human solidarity, which bind us not alone to Irishmen, but to English-
men as well. There is nothing intrusive or impertinent in urging upon others an
experiment which has insured our common weal. There is no occult sinister pur-
pose in pointing out a path which, as our history has testified, leads to fraternity and
peace. If Americans are now unanimous in pressing on the British people the
concession of State rights to Ireland, with the inevitable corollary of federation, it
is because they know the dangers of such a course would be chimerical, whereas its
benefits are boundless. They know that such a gift would bless as well the givers
as the takers, and they see that if the sharp-eyed Scotchmen are resolved that Ire-
land shall have not only her Dublin assembly, but also a voice in imperial legisla-
tion, it is because they mean that Scotland shall be the next to profit by the bless-

ing. Far from holding with Senator Riddleberger who on a recent occasion mis-
construed and traduced the utterance of an Irisn patriot, Michael Davitt--that leg-
islative independence would be made the tool of traitorous secession and hostile
independence, the honest friends of Ireland believe, what Mr. Davitt has repeat-
edly asserted, that a British federation, justly constructed and administered, would
have no more contented, loyal, and efficient member than a self-ruling Irish com-
monwealth.

Philadelphia Press (Rep.), May 4.

GLADSTONE'S MANIFESTO:--It has not been expected that Mr. Gladstone would
take much part in the popular campaign in favor of home rule during the Easter
recess a campaign which, though having only a short duration and a moral effect,
is, nevertheless, one of the most important that England has witnessed in recent
times. He has been compelled to take none at all, but to reserve his voice and
strength for the battle in the House of Commons. Nevertheless, the manifesto
which he substitutes for his personal appearance on the platform will go far to atone
for his absence. Not in Midlothian alone, but throughout the Kingdom, it will
be read by everybody as addressed to themselves, and the effect it will have in
hardening English hearts and sealing English ears to the eloquence of the opposi
tion cannot fail to be most disconcerting to the latter. For never was Mr. Gladstone
more skillful, more ingenious, more convincing, and more characteristically felic-
itous. The manifesto decidedly takes rank with the speech of the 8th of April.
The author seems positively to have grown since then in the stature of statesmen-
ship. He was then persuading a reluctant body of picked men. He is now ad-
dressing the nation. To the House of Commons he argued details of administra-
tion as well as general propositions. To the great public, which he feels to be his
true constituency, he pushes details loftily aside and states his case with a moral
fervor that almost suggests' the conventicle, without eschewing the shrewdness of
the practical statesman. In fine, in the manifesto Mr. Gladstone is at his best.
His eloquence is by no means rhetorical, but it is, nevertheless, immediately ad-
dressed to the heart and the conscience, and it is expended in behalf of proposi-
tions carefully marshalled so as to show how much worldly wisdom there is after
all in following the guidance of moral convictions in this particular matter. Ap-
parently as diffuse as ever in texture, his style is nevertheless here so flexible that
we doubt if any of the masters of compresssion could put the same substance into

JEFF. DAVIS' speeches are the most unpleasant war reminiscences yet published. smaller space, producing the while the same popular effect. The reader is led on

GLADSTONE AND IRELAND.

New York Sun (Dem.), May 3.

LET THE FRIENDS OF IRELAND SPEAK OUT.-The Parliamentary recess is nearly over, and the debate upon the second reading of the bill conceding self-government to Ireland will presently begin. The sham Liberals who, while professing to desire the rule of the people, would deny the application of their principles to Ireland, have done their utmost to excite English prejudice, and to swell the number of protestants against the Gladstone scheme. We believe that they have failed, that the one essential feature of the measure, a Dublin Parliament, has been accepted by the masses of the British Liberal party, and that the fierce fight over the second reading of the bill will result in a second triumph for home rule. With the assent of the Commons once pledged to the fundamental claim of legislative independence, we have no fear that the project can be wrecked by the discussion of details in committee. The speeches of Mr. Gladstone and of Mr. Morley make it evident that, provided the right of Irishmen to manage their own affairs is recognized, the Government will freely acquiesce in any alterations of its original plan demanded by the Irish members or by the Premier's unwavering supporters in the North of England and in Scotland. We believe, in brief, that if the Home Rule bill is read a second time, it will be passed during the present session by the Commons and sent up to the Lords. But the present is a time for works as well as faith. Now is the moment for the friends of Ireland-and all Americans who deserve to bear the name are now numbered in that category-to proclaim, by speech and action, their convictions and their sympathies. They should see to it that the vast moral weight of the greatest and freest of Anglo-Saxon peoples is cast on the right side. The demonstration to be made on Friday in this city should be but one of many meetings to be held this week throughout the country, to attest the

by subtly graduated steps, until before he quite knows it, perhaps, he begins to feel that the home-rule question is one in which the whole civilized world is taking an interest hardly inferior to that felt in England itself; that therefore it is a cause of immense importance-in fact, a sacred cause; that Mr. Gladstone is its apostle, and is really a heroic leader battling with treacherous and rebellious followers on the one hand and frivolous enemies on the other, and that to fail to sustain him at this juncture would be not only to fail in a sublime opportunity, but to commit an act welcome to Chaos and black Night. Against this kind of art Mr. Justice Stephen's lucubrations in the Times must seem, to the Englishman capable of enthusiasm, very weak weapons indeed. The Englishman capable of enthusiasm must feel that the present is not the moment for destructive criticism, however clever. For destructive criticism, moreover, commend us to the Grand Old Man himself. A better description of the Opposition's policy, or lack of policy, could not be given in a few words than "They renew a tale, alas! too often told, whose prologue is denial, with exasperation and resentment; whose epilogue is surrender, without condition and without thanks." But the most significant part of the manifesto to other than Englishmen and Irishmen consists in those eloquent and indignant sentences in which a prime minister of England, for the first time in the history of the British Empire, appeals to the people against "wealth, social influence, station, title, and the professions, or a large majority of them in a word, the spirit and power of class." The gauntlet is thrown down. All that believes itself "the best" in England is defied, and its followers and admirers are defied with it. "As the knights of old," continues Mr. Gladstone, "had sinecures, so in the great army of class each soldier has dependents," who are equally foreign to the temper of the times. Surely when Mr. Gladstone, who, a few short years ago, quoted approv ingly Sir Thomes Molesworth's observation, that " England has the religion of inequality," announces his leadership of the Radical campaign against class and caste, we may believe the light is breaking, and that England is at last advancing, as Emerson says, "on Chaos and the Dark.".

The wrongs of capital and the wrongs of labor will disappear together only when both employer and employed obey the Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Commandments of the moral law, namely, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, Thou shalt not covet. All the principles necessary to regulate this question on both sides are to be fully found in Scripture, especially in these Ten Commandments and in Christ's Sermon on the Mount, which have their best summary in the Golden Rule and in the Gospel law of love. If this solution seem millennial and these generalizations broad, they alone appear to cover the case from the standpoint of the Christian pulpit.

Rev. O. P. Gifford, Boston.

THE three abstract words, pulpit, capital, labor, hinder more than they help in the present discussion. As in algebra we let x equal an ox and divide or multiply the letter at will without touching the animal, so we use the pet phrases, pulpit, capital, labor, forgetting that we are dealing with men and women. In the pulpit is a man laboring with head and heart to make the world better. In capital is a man laboring, ofttimes night and day, to pay interest on borrowed money, dividends on invested funds, to meet actual needs in the world and provide for his own family. In labor is a man working with his capital of trained or untrained mind, skilled or unskilled muscle, that he may care for his own family. Here are three men in certain temporary relations with each other; all are capitalists, all are laborers. Let us not lose sight of the fact that the man is more than the relation. The man in the pulpit ought, so far as possible, by careful and patient study, to get the facts and points of view from both of the other men, insist upon strict justice for both. He ought to put himself in the place of each in turn, remembering-"The rank is but the guinea's stamp;

The man's the gowd for a' that.”

Urge duties as well as rights; insist that nobility obliges. The man who can do most for his fellows is under bonds to do most. That man, whether in capital or labor, is entitled to fair pay for services rendered; that beyond justice is mercy, and the man with the widest margin ought to be proportionately merciful.

Rev. Arthur Little, Chicago.

The principles which underlie the labor question are presumably entitled to pulpit discussion. They are moral rather than political, ethical rather than financial. The pulpit ought to bring to the discussion of the problem, courage, candor, and discrimination, together with a large, roundabout knowledge of the subject. It is especially incumbent on the pulpit in treating of this subject to separate the wheat from the chaff, the gold from the alloy, and to scatter to the winds the false philosophies, shallow sophistries and unwarranted assumptions, which can only mislead and work mischief. The wickedness of boycotting, of acts of personal violence and lawlessness, of interference with the rights of others, the pulpit ought boldly to denounce. But when new measures, like a reduction of hours and increase of wages, are under discussion, it ought to speak with some diffidence and reserve. In its legitimate wish to champion the cause of the laboring man and the poor it must be careful not to cater to their prejudices and whims, and become the defender and advocate of their foibles and follies. It must remember that the rights of capital are just as sacred as those of labor. The preaching of virtue, temperance, contentment, reverence for God and for law is what the laboring class need to hear and put into practice. A better quality of manhood is the supreme need of this country to-day. There is just now a surplus of everything but goodness. Good men, whether capitalists or laborers, can be trusted to adjust their relations with each other in such a way as to secure mutual advantage.

Rev. H. W. Thomas, Chicago.

best service it can render to the cause of the capitalist as well as the workingman.
Their interests are both best promoted as they are both led closely to see that
what each ought to do to and for the other promotes most the welfare and pros-
perity of both. To study and set forth this mutuality of service is the function of
the "pulpit in relation to labor."

Rev. L. A. Grace, Suspension Bridge, N. Y.
"ORDER is heaven's first law." The occupant of a pulpit, while primarily
deputed to deliver the law of God to his flock, is by that same law supposed not to
forget the requirements of the country's law, which is, when just, nothing more
than an exponent of God's will. Hence, it is easy, I presume, to infer that the
minister of religion is to counsel obedience to the powers that be. However,
since the majority of those who gather around the pulpit for religious instruction
are the poor, the "working classes," it is only natural that the heart of God's min-
ister should go out to them in their difficulties and sufferings. Remembering, as
every preacher of the Word must remember, in this country at least, where the
song of liberty is sung from ocean to ocean, that our working classes are entitled
to a just compensation for their labor, to comfortable homes, and a fair provision
for the future; I do not see why the priest or the minister should set his face
against those whom Christ, our model, said we would always have with us. The
tendency, however, of some among the working classes to disregard the law of
justice, charity, and common decency in their efforts to improve their condition,
brings strongly before the reverend clergy the necessity of preaching moderation,
a just regard for the rights of others, and, above all, a sacred duty in enforcing as
far as possible the specific claims of law, order, and religion.

WHATEVER influence the pulpit may have should certainly not be withheld at a time when the social order is so seriously disturbed. It is difficult, however, in a time of general excitement and conflicting interests to discuss a public question, and especially when no one knows just what to say. Our labor troubles are comparatively new in the economic experience of our country. We are feeling our way along with such knowledge and experience as we have, trusting that time and the better thought and feeling of both capitalists and laborers will lead to a wise and peaceful solution of the troubles, and even perils, through which our country is passing. At such a time the clergy should try to encourage confidence-the confidence of man in man, and confidence in our free institutions. The pulpit should secure just now a large and earnest hearing upon the moral issues involved, for the feeling is very common that our labor troubles should be made a school of instruction for the masses, and that the arbitrament should, and indeed must be, in the court of right-right between man and man-rather than in an appeal to force. Our civilization has reached a point where the need of moral principles is felt as never before, and the pulpit should hasten to improve so great an opportunity to emphasize the imperative necessity of the principles of religion to the well-being of society; not the speculative dogmas over which the sects are divided, but the great facts of brotherhood and the law of love, doing by others as we would have them do by us.

Rev. George Leon Walker.

Rev. A. H. Bradford, Montclair, N. J.

1. The pulpit should be filled by men who have given attention to social problems. These are the most important questions of our time. The work should commence in the theological seminaries, which should also be sociological schools. The relation of all these subjects to industrial salvation ought to be carefully studied. The Gospel requires more than the proclamation of a message. Our Lord healed'diseases and preached. The present agitation on the "labor question" finds all classes in the dark. The first duty of the ministry is to study this subject. There is enough crude thought about labor, &c., on the platform without any from the pulpit. 2. The pulpit must recognize that this is but one of the many problems of life requiring a Christian solution, and be careful not to allow it have undue prominence. Of course most attention should be given to subjects uppermost in the popular mind, but sometimes it is the duty of the ministry to emphasize what ought to be prominent. The pulpit should study the labor question, and relentlessly insist that the Golden Rule and the law of love must be applied to it; but it should never allow the laboring men to think that proper hours of work and just remuneration will bring the millenium. This subject should have its own place, and receive honest and thorough treatment, but it must not be forgotten that the pulpit has other equally pressing work on its hands.

I CONCEIVE that the "proper relation of the pulpit to the labor question" is the same as its relation to all moral questions of society. Whenever a moral issue emerges, the pulpit has its proper place to speak. The example of the Master shows that while questions of merely secular concern occupy a distinctly subordinate place, yet, that the element of morality-the element of rightness and wrongness-in any matter, brings it distinctly within the purview of Christian observation and teaching. The problem of labor is eminently a moral problem. The relationship of the employer to the employed and the employed to the employer is one which distinctly and necessarily involves questions of obligation. The rule in which Christ summed up his social and moral teachings- "Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them," is a rule which must inevitably have immediate and constant application to the mutual relationships of employers and laborers. An intelligent and sympathetic application of the rule of Christ to the shifting phases of the labor question is the duty of the pulpit, and the

Rev. F. M. Ellis, Baltimore.

THE pulpit's relation to the labor question I suppose to be two-fold: 1. That which it has in common with the press and platform and with the teacher of economics and ethics. For whatever concerns man or affects the interests of society and the State concerns the pulpit of a living church. The pulpit's relation to any questions of economics, ethics of religion, depends a good deal upon the man in the pulpit. The pulpit of the past has much that is not called for respecting the burning questions of the present. The pulpit that sustains its "proper relation" to any question of the hour must keep abreast of the times. If it fails to do this, its opinions will be of little value on any question. But, 2, I think the proper relation of the pulpit to this labor question is that which it sustains to any and every vital issue. The pulpit must emphasize the relations of man to God and then of man to man, for as men recognize these relations and accept the law of God as the rule of life and the teachings of the Gospel of Christ as the measure of their liberties and their rights-i. e., as the pulpit, with God's blessing, teaches a man to love God honestly and his neighbor sincerely-the question of that man's relations to his fellow-man is settled. Get the spirit of Christ into all men and all men will be brethren. To thus "reach the masses," we must reach one mass at a time.

Rev. Geo. Dana Boardman, Philadelphia.

THE labor question is one of the supreme issues of the day. First, because it is absorbing the popular attention; and, secondly, because it is at bottom a moral question. Therefore the pulpit should give it recognition. But the recognition should be as a rule largely indirect. For the preacher is, at least presumably, unfamiliar with the details of secular business, and therefore his counsel on specific matters may lack the pertinence, wisdom, and authority which come only from experience. Moreover, his discussion of the labor question in its secular aspects introduces into worship a distracting element by keeping alive in his hearers the sense of the class distinctions and social estrangements which are disturbing the peace of society. How then shall the pulpit treat the labor question? I answer, in a general ethical way. For example: Instead of using such irritating words as capital, labor, strikes, communism," etc., let the preacher discuss and enforce the fundamental principles of social morality. Let him unfold, with all thoroughness and pungency and tenderness, the Ten Commandments, or Christ's Sermon on the Mount, or Paul's conception of society as a physiological organism, his hearers will as a rule make the needed personal applications. The appeal to conscience rarely fails to be telling.

Rev. David J. Hill, Lewisburg, Pa. THE Christian pulpit is the exponent of Christianity. Christianity is intended for all men and professes to save them. Its method is by the proclamation of truth. It distinctly recognizes the dignity of labor and the injustice of withholding its reward. (James v., 4). It condemns strife and violence and honors the peacemaker. Its whole spirit is ethical, and conciliation and arbitration are its chosen