as in the school and the state, should be greatly broadened, and that some women may have a providential call to enter the pulpit.

There is a thriving town in Kansas, called Oskaloosa, in which women have been recently elected to the positions of mayor and aldermen. We would greatly broaden woman's sphere, as experience shall dictate; but we would not Oskaloosify the army, the navy, the school, the state, or the church.

Women's sphere has enlarged so vastly within a recent period that her success in spheres analogous to the pulpit may be fairly quoted as an indication of her fitness for many branches of the sacred profession. She who has written "Uncle Tom's Cabin" or "Aurora Leigh" certainly does not lack mental, moral, or spiritual fitness for the ministry. No one thinks of denying woman's right to preach in print; why may it not be that some women have a Divine call to preach in the pulpit? Woman as lecturer has won a high place in great reformatory movements. If the womanliness or queenliness of a Mrs. Livermore, a Mrs. Leavitt, a Mrs. Hunt, has not been diminished, but rather ennobled and glorified by prolonged and varied work on the platform, why should it be by the work of the pulpit? If woman has often physical strength, as these examples show that she has, to address great audiences and to suffer the fatigues of travel, why has she not physical strength enough to bear the burdens of a preacher and pastor? We see no good reason for denying that some and perhaps many women have eminent natural endowments for the ministry. Woman's spiritual and intellectual and social qualities certainly do not disqualify her for this work, nor in many cases do her physical limitations forbid it.

There is now an increasing amount of work done for woman within both Christian and missionary fields, and much of this woman can herself do far better than man. Woman is woman's natural helper. And yet, other things being equal, there is a most subtle difference between the spiritual help an audience of men receives from a woman's speech and that which it receives from a man's speech. It is fair to say that, as there is much work that man can do for woman better than woman can do the same work, so there is much work that woman can do for man better than man could do it.

What Scriptural authority can be quoted of greater weight than the Divine command not to keep a light under a bushel, or talents in a napkin ? Undoubtedly the home is woman's chief sphere; but if remarkable spiritual and intellectual gifts indicate a Divine call to any woman to be an author, a lecturer, or even a preacher, how is she to find excuse for disobedience to such indications of Providence?

It would in nearly every case be better, no doubt, that woman as a preacher, as well as man as a preacher, should be married; but there are exceptions to this rule that have been justified by experience, both as to man and as to woman.

If woman is to enter the pulpit, she must of course prepare for its work with as much thoroughness as man does; if she once takes up the tasks of the ministry, she must show that she can perform them, or some part of

them, at least, as well as man does. The stern law of the survival of the fittest will be sure to prevail in this department of the struggle for existence, as well as elsewhere.

The balance and the profoundness of St. Paul's words as to man and woman are their own sufficient justification, but the most vital, organizing, and redemptive of them all appear to us to be these (1 Cor. xi.) :—

The man is not of the woman,

But the woman of the man.

Neither was the man created for the woman,

But the woman for the man.

Neither is the woman without the man in the Lord,

Nor is the man without the woman in the Lord.

Hand in hand, man and woman build the home; hand in hand they ought to build the state and the church. Hand in hand they left an earthly Paradise Lost; hand in hand they are likely to enter, if at all, an earthly Paradise Regained.

THE ETHICS OF MARRIAGE. By H. S. POMEROY, M. D. Boston. With a Prefatory Note by Thomas Addis Emmet, M. D., LL. D., New York, and an Introduction by the Rev. G. T. Duryea, D. D., Boston. New York: Funk & Wagnalls. 1888. 12mo. Pp. 192.

A subject of commanding present importance is treated in Dr. Pomeroy's "Ethics of Marriage" with the utmost propriety of tone and expression; with adequate knowledge, both theoretical and practical; with unflinching thoroughness and courage in the exposure of the evil; and with a reformatory purpose worthy of both the man of science and the Christian.

Professor Thomas Addis Emmet, the eminent specialist who contributes the prefatory note, makes these alarming references to the crimes discussed in this volume :

You have stated the case in as strong terms as could be done in a work written chiefly for the public. I sincerely hope that it may bring forth good fruit, but I have my doubts. Those who take means to prevent conception, or who seek the aid of the abortionist, are not, as a rule, ignorant, but they are indifferent as to all religious obligation. I have been in practice over thirty-six years, and for twenty-six years it has been devoted entirely to the treatment of the diseases peculiar to women. As a result of this experience, I can in all truth state the fact that these sins are not committed by the Jews or Catholics. I cannot recall a single instance of either practice where the individual lived up to her belief; so long as she was what the Catholics term "practical" in practice they were pure. Every Jew and every Catholic is taught the duties of married life. Each child born is accepted as an additional evidence of God's especial favor. The Catholic is taught to regard marriage as one of the sacraments, and the slightest deviation from all pertaining to such a belief is a mortal sin. I honestly wish you success in your crusade against these sins of the people, but nothing can be accomplished unless you have the aid of the Protestant clergymen.

QUESTIONS TO SPECIALISTS.

REPLIES BY THE REV. R. G. MCNIECE OF SALT LAKE CITY.

39. What do recent meetings, among the Mormons, show as to the sincerity of their claim that polygamy will be abandoned if Utah should become a State under the proposed new constitution?

The speeches at the annual Mormon Conference, held in this city the first week in April, demonstrated, beyond all doubt, that the proposed abandonment of polygamy is nothing but a hollow swindle, intended to deceive the American people, and secure the votes of trading politicians in Congress for the admission of Utah as a State. One of the speakers at the conference, who occupies a high official position in the priesthood, openly adVocated polygamy as one of the revealed doctrines of the church, which they must not give up. Here is what he said, substantially: "The doctrine of celestial marriage is one of the true and glorious principles revealed through the prophet Joseph, and God will requite it upon this generation if they continue in their attempt to prevent God's Israel from carrying out this blessed principle of the faith handed down to us by God's revealed will. Upon obedience to this great command, and the other essential principles of our faith, depends our eternal salvation.”

Another of the speakers was the notorious Rudger Clawson, who was released from the penitentiary last fall, after having served out a term of three years for the crime of polygamy. According to the new Mormon constitution, adopted last July, this man, being a polygamist both in profession and practice, ought to be treated as a criminal. But instead, the church authorities treat him as a hero, and reward him for his crime by promoting him to the presidency of the Brigham City Stake, or district.

This man was one of the prominent speakers at the conference, and devoted most of his speech to a eulogy of those who, like himself, went to the penitentiary rather than obey the law of the United States against polygamy. He said the people ought to be willing "to suffer, to go to prison, to lose their liberties and family associations for their faith, and if they are not willing to do this, they are not fit candidates for the kingdom of God."

He concluded his speech in the following words, substantially: "The Lord has revealed to us the principle of celestial marriage, and by his help we will honor it, and not make a promise to abandon this any more than any other principle of our faith. One is just as good and as necessary as another, and all should be honored alike."

Notice the self-contradiction-one set of Mormon officials in Washington

urging Congress to admit Utah as a State, on the ground that polygamy has been abandoned, because these people have adopted an anti-polygamy constitution, and another set of Mormon officials here in Salt Lake City urging the people to stand by polygamy, because it is a revelation from God essential to salvation, and eulogizing as heroes and martyrs the men who refuse to obey the law of the land against it! Still, there are senators and representatives in Congress who ask, with an air of injured innocence, “And why should not this anti-polygamy constitution be accepted as ample proof of the sincerity of our dear Mormon friends? "

On Monday, May 21, there was a gathering of several thousand Mormons at Manti, 125 miles southest of Salt Lake City, to dedicate another great temple costing about one million dollars. One of the objects of these temples is to promote plural marriages. And all the talk of the various apostles and elders in their speeches to the people, at this dedication, about obeying the priesthood and living up to their "privileges," and being willing to suffer persecution, had reference to standing by polygamy, although the name was not mentioned. Being compelled to obey the same laws of the land against polygamy as all other people, this the Mormons consider "persecution." And so, when Apostle Lorenzo Snow, who suffered "persecution" in the penitentiary, for the crime of polygamy, eulogized the elders who endured persecution, it was simply another way of urging all the people to stand by polygamy.

40. What are the prospects of the non-Mormon schools, churches, and business interests in Utah ?

Never better. These schools and churches all over the Territory, and especially in this city, were never so prosperous as now. But it is no time for the Eastern friends of education in Utah to slacken their support. They should be pushed forward all the more vigorously now that the prospect for the speedy Americanization of the Territory is so good.

It seems now quite probable that before the next city election, in February, 1890, the Americans will have the majority in this city.

More families have come into this city to make their homes here, during the past four months, than during the previous four years. A new social and commercial era has begun in this city. Probably two million dollars' worth of property has passed from Mormon to American hands here during the past twelve months.

41. What is the best non-Mormon opinion in Utah of the last report of the Utah Commissioners?

I have never heard but one opinion about it, and that is, that it is by far the ablest and best report, in every way, that the Commission has ever sent out. In my judgment, it gives to the American people more important facts which they ought to know about the anti-republican form of government here, and the outrageous tyranny of the priesthood, than all the other reports of the Commission put together.

REPLY BY THE REV. DR. A. J. GORDON.

42. What is the impression made in Great Britain by the recent Papal Rescript?

It is a subject which is now producing a tremendous agitation in two directions. The vigorous kicks of the Irish leaders of the Home-Rule party against the decree, and their open avowal that they will tolerate no interference from Rome, has cut the Holy Father to the heart. The Irish ecclesiastics are coming to his help, calling upon good Catholics to obey on peril of excommunication, and saying in the words of one of their most eminent Bishops: "It is no longer a matter of opinion, Roma locuta est, causa finita est." But, without question, there is a wide-spread rebellion of Irishmen against the decree. This is sufficiently indicated by the words of Bishop O'Dwyer, spoken yesterday before the clergy of Limerick. He declared that "he had noticed the craft with which Catholic feelings were worked upon by the leaders of the agitation, and anonymous theologians who hinted that the Bishops were really opposed to the decree, and that their repudiation of it was quite consistent with their duty as Catholics. Such men went to meetings, and cheered language disreputable to the Pope. There never had been in Ireland since St. Patrick planted the faith a greater scandal, or more injury done to religion, than this most deplorable agitation." This last sentence indicates clearly enough the difficulty which the Irish prelates are finding in bringing the people to submit to the Pope's authority in this

matter.

As for the view of Englishmen many of them are as thoroughly outraged as their neighbors of Ireland, but for a different reason. They say the rescript comes not from the Pope, but is known to have issued from the Inquisition at Rome; that it is really the first stroke of a crafty policy aiming at the ultimate recapture of the English throne. At the great Protestant commemoration held last week in Exeter Hall, Dr. Wylie a very eminent authority on such subjects- gave a masterly address on this topic. His array of facts and arguments is very convincing, and his words are a trumpet call to Englishmen that the Papal siege against the British throne has begun, and is to be carried on with all the tact and persistency of which the Jesuits are such consummate masters.

London, June 20.