—While he was about it, why didn’t the Rev. WHITCOMB advertise the other jobs for which orders might be left at the same shop? Why didn’t he say: “Funerals attended with neatness and despatch?” or, “Gentlemen about to leave the world, will be waited upon at their own bed-sides without additional charge?” or, “Cases of conscience adjudicated upon the most reasonable terms?” or, “A fine assortment of moral advice just received, and for sale in lots to suit purchasers?” Let the Rev. WHITCOMB take our hint, enlarge the field of his advertising, and make lots of the Mammon of Unrighteousness.
* * * * *
Fulton versus Tilton.
FULTON taps TILTON for wine, TILTON taps FULTON for beer; FULTON gets a tilt, because TILTON finds him full. In case of a trial, the verdict would probably be, that a full FULTON ran full tilt against a full TILTON.
* * * * *
“AURI SACRA FAMES.”
I saw a parson at his desk,
Silk-gowned and
linen-ruffled;
The organ ceased—he
rose to preach,
And smirked, and
mouthed, and snuffled;
He talked of gold, and called
it dross,
And prophesied
confusion
To all who loved it—told
them that
Their trust was
all delusion.
’Twas filthy lucre,
dust and dirt,
The root of every
evil;
And its pursuit,—too
strongly urged,—
Would lead straight
to the Devil.
Midst other wicked (Scripture)
rogues,
He talked of ANANIAS,—
He and his wife SAPPHIRA were
The wickedest
of liars.
He showed us clearly, from
their fate,
The sin of overreaching,
And making small the salaries
Of those who do
the preaching.
And when his half-hour’s
work was done,
The miserable
sinners
Rolled home in easy carriages
To Aldermanic
dinners;
And as I plodded home on foot,
I thought it was
all gammon,
To build a temple to the LORD
Of curses against
Mammon.
The sin of gold is its abuse,
And not its mere
possession,—
Wine may turn vinegar, and
gold
May turn men to
transgression.
Then tell the truth, O men
of GOD!
Nor scorn the
loaves and fishes,
Lest we should take you at
your word,
And leave you
empty dishes!
* * * * *
CHEERFUL PHILOSOPHY.
We remember a writer who merited more notice than he actually received, for his well-considered thoughts on the behavior of Mourners,—whose conduct, as a general thing, is certainly open to criticism.
It is all well enough—“due to decency,” in fact—to wear “mourning,” and now and then look grave; but “this idea of closing your house,” observed our philosopher, “and silencing your piano, and abstaining from your customary amusements and habits for months [only think of it!], because some one has departed from misery to happiness, is not alone supremely ridiculous [though that is bad enough], but it is sublimely preposterous and [what is yet more] disgraceful to the last degree of shame.”