includes the grossest and the most refined nonintelligences? At bottom may there not be but one nonintelligent substance, though from the limitations of our present observation we are not able clearly to stand in thought or sensible assurance where we can make the sublime synthesis of its threefold forms? E. A. HOYT. Wellington, Kan.

"THE DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT."

...

THE writer of the article bearing the above title, in the last number of the Review, utters many excellent thoughts, but in my opinion mars his paper by some dogmatic and exceedingly loose and sweeping statements. "He [Dr. Miley] assumes, or affirms, that the fact is that the vicarious sufferings of Jesus Christ are the grounds of forgiveness and salvation, thus putting a doctrine for a fact," etc. Now, as a matter of fact, whatever may be our theories of the atonement, the whole trend of Scripture supports this position of Dr. Miley. One is forced to take the unwarrantable position of our author that sacrifices originated with man and are altogether a mistake and blunder; or he must sustain the affirmation that the sufferings of Jesus on the cross are the grounds of forgiveness and salvation. These sacrifices are so inseparably related to Christ as type and antitype-that is, the scapegoat or the passover lamb-that they must be demonstrated to be human only, or the necessity of Christ's death on the cross as our substitute be conceded. Peter affirms: "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold; . . . but with the precious blood of Christ. . . . Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." The writer of 'Hebrews declares: "But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? . . . And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission." Paul also writes, "In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins." At least, then, this may be said, Miley in this utterance and the Bible stand

together.

or fall

Again, the writer of the article says, “How sacrifices came to be instituted as a transaction between God and man there is no information in Holy Writ." How anyone who is a careful reader of the Bible could write this it is hard to explain. In Exod. xx, 22-24, we find it written:

"And the Lord said unto Moses, Thus thou shalt say unto the children of Israel, Ye have seen that I have talked with you from heaven. Ye shall not make with me gods of silver, neither shall ye make unto you gods of gold. An altar of earth thou shalt make unto me, and shalt sacrifice thereon thy burnt offerings, and thy peace offerings, thy sheep, and thine oxen: in all places where I record my name I will come unto thee, and I will bless thee." Let the reader also see Lev. viii, 1-17, 36; also chapter xvi, with a multitude of other instances. The author of Hebrews affirms in chapter viii: "For if he [Christ] were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law: who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount." Now, if these quotations are "Holy Writ," then we are informed "how sacrifices came to be instituted." But will it be affirmed that "instituted" means originated, and that there were sacrifices prior to Moses? If so, we reply that such an indorsement as was given by Abel's accepted offering and by the specified tabernacle sacrifices cannot be adequately explained except by the conjecture that Abel, as well as Moses, was duly "admonished" how to offer sacrifices acceptably to God. If then the books of Exodus, Leviticus, and Hebrews are "Holy Writ," the Scripture certainly does inform us how sacrifices were instituted.

Again, the writer says, "It is and ever will be an open question, Will man be one with God?" Can our author have ever read Heb. viii, 10, 11? This passage declares, “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: and they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." Surely, this is convincing Scripture.

Again, does our author intend to affirm that, because Christ had not as yet come in the flesh when Nineveh was forgiven, therefore Christ and his sacrifice had no relation to that event? If so, what are we to understand by the words of John, "The lamb slain from the foundation of the world?" Or what does Paul mean when he declares, "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past?" And, again, "Who hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began?" Or in what did the "Gospel" which was "preached before . . . unto Abraham,” and by which he was saved, differ from the message of Jonah to the Ninevites? Or how are we to understand the words of the Master, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad?" Does Peter

affirm that God had "forgiven sins time and again without" reference to the blood of Christ, when he says, "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved?" HENRY G. BILBIE.

Owatonna, Minn.

"THE FUNCTION OF DOUBT."

THE criticism of my paper, "The Function of Doubt," by Rev. Robert Watt, is interesting reading. It is clear and forcible, and proves many of the things the writer sets out to prove. It also proves what perhaps the writer did not intend, namely, that he has entirely missed the purpose of the paper in question. It is not my purpose to explain phenomena, but to consider certain effects of these phenomena. The paper is not a panacea for doubt, but an examination of the "function of doubt." It was therefore written from the standpoint of the doubter. Perhaps this prospectus should have been announced, but the writer of the paper had so much faith in the literary acumen of his readers that he relied upon the title to indicate his purpose.

My critic disputes many of the phenomena cited, and naïvely wonders why I did not explain others. As for the first, it is a question of fact and perception. It is impossible to show these phenomena to those who do not perceive them; indeed, it would be little less than unkind to disturb their innocent simplicity. As for the second controversy-my lack of explanation-let me say that if I had been writing for a Sunday school paper my course would have been different. I had in mind an audience that had passed the catechumenate. However, if Brother Watt really feels that it is not safe to turn my article loose upon the readers of the Review without his index expurgatorius, it is all right. I accept his explanations, though to be sure some of them are deliciously elementary and remind one of the days of his theological apprenticeship; and I am willing to incorporate them as footnotes, anodyne and prophylactic, barring, of course, his expletives, with which I decline to fellowship.

It is refreshing, for instance, to hear again the venerable statement that sin is the cause of death and all disorders, in these days when biologists are following the Ariadne clew back to the "isolated cells" of Maupas, and are finding there the introduction of death side by side with the introduction of sex. It is like the days of langsyne to have the distinction between God's permissive and his operative providence so impressively set forth. To be sure, this matter was settled in the early days of the old Calvinistic controversy, but the sight of the timeworn arguments brings back a thousand recollections. It is also reassuring to be told with so much eclat that the four epistles of St. Paul are universally accepted as genuine, albeit I did not know there had been any dissent since the days of Christian Baur, in 1851.

I am not an infidel, despite the pious ejaculations of our good brother, but

I am not sure what I might become if we had nothing better than the classroom methods of fifty years ago. Great are the epicycles of Ptolemaus! Akron, O.

JOHN H. WILLEY.

A WORD ABOUT GEORGE ELIOT.

THE strained efforts of some evangelical writers, who are extravagant admirers of George Eliot, to cast a veil over her practical relation to the seventh commandment, are, to put it mildly, most unseemly, and to put it frankly, most demoralizing in effect. If Victoria, Queen of England and Empress of India, has benefited society, as is properly proclaimed, by her spotless domestic purity, how glaring by contrast was the mistake of George Eliot, a woman far more queenly in her natural endowments, when she turned away from the divine law as taught by Christ and gave the influence of her example to the antichristian domestic theory! Like all others, this confessedly extraordinary woman can be great only when she is right; and right must be measured by the standards set and sanctioned by Him of whom the soldiers said, "Never man spake like this man.'

We are unable to see how anyone can help agreeing with the just words which one of her own countrymen has written concerning her: "Religion to George Eliot is not an inner power of divine mystery, awakening the conscience. It is at best an intellectual exercise, or a scenic picture, or a beautiful memory. Her early evangelicalism peeled off from her like an outer garment, leaving behind only a rich vein of dramatic experience which she afterward worked into her novels. There is no evidence of her great change having produced in her any spiritual regret or anxiety. There is nothing, indeed, in autobiography more wonderful than the facility with which this remarkable woman parted first with her faith and then with the moral sanctions which do so much to consecrate life, while yet constantly idealizing life in her letters, and taking such a large grasp of many of its moral realities. Her skepticism and then her eclectic humanitarianism have a certain benignancy and elevation unlike vulgar infidelity of any kind. There are gleams of a higher life everywhere in her thought. There is much self-distrust, but no self-abasement. There is a strange externality, as if the Divine had never come near to her, save by outward form or picture-never pierced to any dividing asunder of soul and spirit. Amid all her sadness-and her life upon the whole is a very sad one-there are no depths of spiritual dread-of which dramatically, as in Romola, she had yet a vivid conception-or even of spiritual tenderness. We do not look to minds of this stamp, into which the arrows of conscience make only slight wounds, for a true estimate of Christianity, either in its divine character or origin. The spiritual side of Christianity, with its sense of sin and revelation of divine pity and forgiveness, was unfelt by her." Torrington, Conn. JOHN RIPPERE,

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

HISTORY AND METHODS OF ITINERANTS' CLUBS.

Origin and Progress. In our issue for January, 1890, Bishop Vincent drew the following excellent pen picture of the origin of this great movement: "At the closing session of the Dakota Annual Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, held in Huron, S. Dak., last October (1889), the presiding bishop invited to the front the four classes of undergraduates. The young men 'admitted on trial' took the first seat. On the second sat the class' continued on trial.' Behind these were the 'deacons of the first class;' and on the last seat the seniors' of the Conference the deacons of the second class.' The secretary was then requested to read the names of the 'Conference examiners' for the incoming year, including the examiners of candidates for 'admission on trial' in the fall of 1890. All these, members of the Conference 'faculty,' at the request of the bishop occupied places on the platform. The 'class of the first year' and their examiners then stood up and were introduced to each other. The other classes were in the same way permitted to look into the faces of their respective 'committees on examination.' Thus all the theological students' of the Dakota Conference were duly presented to the Conference 'faculty.' The bishop gave a brief address to the young men on their duties as 'students,' the importance of beginning at once their preparation for the next year's examination and of doing the work conscientiously and thoroughly. Resolutions were adopted organizing an Itinerants' Club, appointing a committee of one from each class to draw up plans and arrange for meetings for the coming year."

Yet this was not the first session of an Itinerants' Club. That honor appears to belong to the gathering held in Lexington, Ky., April 9-17, 1889, where about eighty ministers gave ten days of enthusiasm to a noble programme of study and lectures and practical discussion. Not rapidly but steadily the movement has advanced, and its present status will be a subject of interest.

In response to letters addressed to the secretary of each Conference ninety-six replies had been received. Before examining these in detail let us notice some facts concerning this "Non-Resident Itinerant Theological Seminary." For the year beginning with the Fall Conferences of 1896, and ending with the Spring Conferences of 1897, there are on trial in the Fall Conferences 1,077, in the Spring Conferences 740, making a total of 1,817. Assuming the classes of the third and fourth years to number nearly as many more, we have a total of 3,500 students. If to these we add 1,500 examiners we have a total of 5,000 as members of this great non-resident Conference school of theology.