goes for nothing. Such things cannot be, because Pfleiderer's philosophy does not admit their possibility. Peter and Pilate and Judas and James and Jesus were in error. The Gifford lecturer is

the man who knows, though he was not there; just as England's apostle of culture gives us in Literature and Dogma his infallible interpretation of the Bible in a way destructive of all orthodox doctrine, and just as a Boston Unitarian prodigy of omniscience informs us that the evangelists who were on the spot misunderstood and misreported our Lord, and then graciously tells us, from his vantage point nineteen centuries away from the facts, precisely what Jesus did actually teach and mean, and we are invited to accept the gospel according to Matthew Arnold, Pfleiderer, Savage, and company in place of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. We will consider the invitation when these new evangelists have endured the raking fire of eighteen hundred years and then are as widely read, as reverently talked about, and as devoutly cherished by the most intelligent millions of mankind as the New Testament now is.

From our point of view, as we weigh the evidence and lift up our eyes to behold, the King still sits upon his throne, administering his kingdom, listening compassionately to the prayers of his saints, judging his enemies, sending abroad his saving word and his enlightening Spirit. In the face of Jesus Christ the light of the knowledge of the glory of God still shines.

That one Face, far from vanish, rather grows,
Becomes my universe that feels and knows.

Looking up with human reverence to that face divine, we offer it ever-increasing homage, because his character is extraordinary in its qualities and singular in its powers. He was exceptional in his conscious relation to the supreme Maker and Ruler of the universe; his life is a piece of history quite special and unlike any other; he is in all respects an exception so rare and solitary as to have no parallel. All this he claimed for himself; this his followers from the first have always asserted with a sincerity often sealed with their blood; this in large measure many of his enemies have finally been compelled to concede; this no man has shown himself able to disprove. He still stands alone on his high plane-singular, superb, supreme. The effort to reduce him ever The flawless and eternal Christ abides and reigns for evermore. Always, as once at Nazareth, he passes through his enemies unharmed.

fails.

THE ARENA.

WHERE ARE THE CHEMISTS?—A WORD WITH WEISMANN.

It ought not to be overlooked, in any discussion touching the origin of life from inorganic material, that the men who dogmatize most are biologists and not chemists. Chemistry has been strangely overlooked; and when this has not occurred, its facts and principles have been crudely handled by men driven by the stern stress of system in the direction of necessary conclusions. And yet a moment's consideration will be sufficient to show that, if the question of the material or nonmaterial evolution of life is to be decided, the men to do it are the chemists. If life be the resultant of extreme molecular complexity, which is the claim made by extreme evolutionists, then the problem is chiefly one for the chemist, to whose domain all questions of purely molecular groupings and their effects legitimately belong. The world has heard much of Tyndall the physicist, of Huxley the biologist; but the great British chemist Roscoe is a comparatively silent man.

Since the year 1777, when Spallanzani and Needham initiated the first important discussion on the alleged spontaneous origin of living germs, the doctrine of abiogenesis has constantly grown in interest; and such is the confidence of the men whose profound biological acquirements command our respect, but whose chemistry surely is faulty, that it now seems to be taken as a positive truth that the wondrous power which has clothed the crags and rocks and wildernesses of nature with a "green and golden immortality" is, in its ultimate analysis, but a product of molecular complexity or a mystic motion of that universal force which moves suns and molds raindrops. "No one doubts," it is said, "that in organic living cells... there resides a special force, . . . which we imagine to be as material as heat." And this from a text-book on fermentation, when perhaps not one in a dozen students would perceive the rank materialism of the teaching. It certainly should be remembered in presence of such statements that the microscope and the laboratory stand aloof from such dogmatism. The origin of life from the nonliving is an hypothesis suggested, not so much by the phenomena requiring explanation, as by the necessity of a speculation which aims at traveling from atoms to minds without a break in the journey. Weismann, upon whom it is thought the mantle of Darwin has fallen, and whose view of the nature of heredity, if substantiated, will cause a general reconstruction of the doctrine of evolution, with a frankness truly scientific has stated very unequivocally his view of the matter: "I admit that spontaneous generation, in spite of all vain attempts to demonstrate it, remains for me a logical necessity. We cannot regard organic and inorganic matter as independent of each other and both eternal, for organic matter is continually passing without residuum into the inorganic; ... but that which can be completely resolved into inorganic matter must have arisen from it, and must owe its ultimate foundation to it."

Not only is abiogenesis undemonstrated, but the balance of probabilities is against the doctrine. Yet for Weismann, that is, from his standpoint, this doctrine is a logical necessity. Is this any better reason than that of some enthusiast who knows that he is correct because he feels he is? But the Friedburg professor gives a reason for his belief upon which it may be observed: (1) That, as is usual in such cases, he uses the term "organic" as synonymous with "living," which is positively incorrect. The idea is to minimize the importance and essential distinctiveness of living matter by ignoring its peculiarities. No one would gather from the above quotation that organic matter was one thing and organic matter as the vehicle of life quite another and, indeed, very different thing. This is a scandalous method of argumentation, and yet it is adopted by most writers on this topic. The poverty of their case is a matter of easy inference. (2) That organic and inorganic are not independent of each other everyone knows. One is the house and the other the bricks. The chemist in his laboratory with his inorganic bricks builds a house, but we never hear of the bricks doing this for themselves. And if in some cases this is found to occur which is not improbable, by the way-still Weismann and his fellow-thinkers are not assisted, because it is not the organic house so much as its inmates that requires explanation. (3) That organic matter passes without residuum into the inorganic is granted; but, unless organic matter and organic matter instinct with the potentialities of life are essentially one and the same thing, there is nothing gained by Weismann in referring to so elementary a proposition. The reason above given for abiogenesis does not take us a single step beyond a most elementary aspect of chemistry until a most gigantic and altogether unwarrantable assumption is made, namely, that the manifold powers of life pass, as does its organic basis, without residuum into the inorganic. East Weymouth, Mass.

WILLIAM HEAP BUTLER.

ANSWERS TO PRAYER.

Is it the intent of prayer to change God's purposes or to cause him to bestir himself to greater and more effective effort? Should Christian people seek to turn God from his purposes, to warm his love, or to increase his efforts toward those for whom they pray? Let us mention some of the attributes and perfections of God that should be considered in framing an answer to these questions, namely, his omniscience, immutability, infinite wisdom, love, mercy, justice, and truth. When we have properly considered these we shall shrink from the responsibility of asking God to turn from his plans and adopt ours.

Can there be wiser plans or better purposes than God's? Can it be that the prayers of parents, relatives, or Christian friends in behalf of their loved ones, neighbors, or the heathen world cause God to love with more intensity and act with more effectiveness than when he gave his Son for them? God has preordained that repentant sinners shall be saved, and that unrepentant sinners shall be damned. Is it wise to ask God to change that law? Can a better or wiser law be suggested? If so,

is God infinite in wisdom?

In the case of Nineveh God acted in accord with this law; hence, there was no change of purpose in him. The sinning Ninevites changed to repentant sinners, and were saved according to the preordained purpose of God to save repenting sinners. In the case of the intercession of Moses for Israel after the idolatrous worship of the golden calf, are we to conclude that God had forgotten his promise to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that Moses recalled the promise, and then succeeded in changing the purpose of the immutable One? If so Moses should have been more merciful than to cause three thousand of the people to be slain. The evidence is unmistakable that Israel repented and changed to the class that God has proposed to save from destruction. I do not think there is now, or ever has been, or ever will be, a sufficient cause to ask God to change his purpose or to increase his love or activity. If Jehovah is the being we have been taught to believe he is his purposes are right, and he is doing all he can for the creatures whom he loves and will ever continue to love.

The intent of prayer is, not to work changes in God, but in men; to open channels of communication between God and men, so that he can carry out his purposes; to offer God instrumentalities by which to execute his plans. There is the opposite of comfort in the thought that prevailing prayer turns God from executing his wise and benevolent and just purposes. All of God's purposes are of that character. Prevailing prayer prevails over the one who offers it and brings him into complete harmony with God's purposes. A company of Christians, kneeling, seeking souls at the altar, and offering prevailing prayer, furnishes a channel of communication by which God may approach, in saving power, the hearts of the seekers. When great distance intervenes between him who offers prevailing prayer and the object of it, it is not necessary to conclude that a change is wrought in God. He that understands the laws of mind and knows the power that one mind can exert over another, even when long distance separates them, is aware that the answer is accomplished in the same way as when the two minds are in close proximity. McGregor, Ia.

L. L. LOCKARD.

LAWFUL, BUT NOT EXPEDIENT. THE principle enunciated and inculcated in the above maxim is one that from time immemorial has been recognized as fair in mercantile, legal, and ecclesiastical practices. We purpose, therefore, to employ it in a brief discussion of the "equal lay representation" movement. It is conceded at the very outset that such representation in the General Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church is perfectly legitimate and preeminently lawful; further, that, as a principle, it is scientifically just and philosophically right, and, as a mathematical proposition, is scrupulously exact and rigidly equitable. But at this point we change front, believing, as we do, that in the present modus operandi of making up a General Conference such representation is grossly inexpedient. The following facts, among others, will prove this.

The ministers composing the rank and file of the Annual Conferences are obviously opposed to increasing the ratio of ministerial representation to the General Conference. Instance the vote taken in the spring Conferences on the proposed constitutional amendment. The General Conference of 1892 was palpably unwieldy, if not totally unmanageable, as the closing precipitate and back-handed legislation would indicate. To add one hundred and fifty laymen, more or less, to such an already congested body, without deducting therefrom a numerical clerical equivalent, would make an assembly where, in the heat of debate, confusion would be worse confounded. The expense, also, of the last General Conference was an immense financial burden to the Church. It ought not to be increased. This would inevitably follow the numerical enlargement of the body. Again, so long as the separate vote, subject to the call of one third of either order, is in operation, the laymen would gain nothing in voting power if the proposed change were to be effected. Neither would they increase their influence in the General Conference. Both their power and influence depend, not upon their numbers, but upon their equal vote as an order, their knowledge of routine business and General Conference technic, combined with a readiness to obtain the floor and their dexterity in debate.

If the time shall ever come when it shall be deemed practicable by the Church to have the General Conference consist of lay and ministerial delegates in equal proportion some preliminary changes must first be made. Either the ministerial ratio of representation must be decreased from one for every forty-five to one for every ninety, or a sliding scale thereofwhich, we think, will not come to pass in the near future—with a corresponding increase in the number of lay representatives to tally with the cleric; or else there must be arrangements made for two separate assemblies, one for the clergy, and one for the laity, analogous to the two houses of our national Congress. Either of these radical alterations will make equal lay representation in the General Conference feasible and workable. But is the Church ready for either? If not, then the only alternative is to have the General Conference composed in the future on the present basis and ratio of cleric and laic delegations. Clayton, N. Y.

CHARLES SHEARD.

A WORD TO OUR THEOLOGIANS.

THE following was suggested by reading Dr. McChesney's article on the "Methodist Doctrine of Atonement" some time back in the Review. I offer it for the devout consideration of our theologians. The Almighty, permitting Adam and Eve to perpetuate a fallen race of human beings, bringing them into sinful conditions with which they had nothing to do and over which they had no control, laid himself under obligation to provide for that race a Saviour and to give every soul a fair chance of being saved. I think it possible that a just consideration of the above truth will throw some new light upon the doctrine of atonement, revealing some things not generally apprehended. RICHARD POVEY.

Provincetown, Mass.