than in "the mode of their connection." That Edwards, in the earlier period, held a different opinion, making an exception in favor of the will of Deity, is, to say the least, quite doubtful. Professor Allen would probably support his interpretation by the style in which Edwards spoke of God's "sovereignty." It is true that in more than one of his sermons he talks of God's sovereignty as if it were mere will, disconnected from reason and divorced from every attribute of his nature. That God should manifest himself is a thing earnestly to be desired. As He makes manifest his wisdom, justice, mercy, so it is well that he reveals his absolute sovereignty in the bestowal of grace and in the non-bestowal of it. So Edwards writes. It is the greatest fault of Edwards's famous sermon in which the wrath of God is depicted that he refers the continuance of the sinner's life in the world to naked sovereignty, not intimating that there is any other reason for God's forbearance to strike, and leaving the reader quite at a loss to explain why it is that an incensed Deity does not instantly execute the penalty on the offender. However, Calvinists generally, the extreme supralapsarian school excepted, have always held that God has good reasons, though inscrutable to mortals, for all his decrees. This Calvin affirms in the most unambiguous and emphatic terms. is a common fault of Calvinists in the past that they have often dwelt on "sovereignty" without a hint that behind God's unfathomable purpose are a wisdom and a righteousness which justify it. It deserves careful consideration, therefore, whether Edwards did not really hold to the same view, notwithstanding his silence on this aspect of the case, at times, too, when it behoved him to be frank and explicit.

At the same time, it

GEORGE P. FISHER.

PROFESSOR MEAD ON SUPERNATURAL REVELATION.**—The great themes, of which this volume of excellent lectures treats, are, Theism, Revelation, Miracles, and Inspiration. No topics of greater importance could have been chosen. Apologetics narrows its field more and more to such great essential questions. Details of method and questions of degree occupy less attention.

*Supernatural Revelation. An Essay concerning the Basis of the Christian Faith. Lectures on the L. P. Stone Foundation, delivered at Princeton Theological Seminary, by C. M. MEAD, Ph.D., D.D., lately Professor in Andover Theological Seminary. A. D. F. Randolph & Co. New York, 1889. pp. 469.

In the face of the current philosophical skepticism of our time, the great interest for reflecting minds centers in such problems as, whether we can know God and whether he has ever spoken to man by any intelligible voice. In his Stone lectures Dr. Mead has addressed himself to these fundamental inquiries. His defense of Theism occupies two lectures, in which he maintains the intellectual validity of the principles underlying the defense of theistic belief and vindicates the theistic argument against objections. He shows that the most patent evidence of Theism is seen when one contemplates the consequences of its denial. Only on the principles of Theism do life and history have purpose and meaning, and morality find an adequate basis. Upon non-theistic theories the universe is reduced to a domain of blind necessity and the distinction of good and evil disappears, or more properly, there is neither good nor evil in a moral sense.

In discussing Revelation the author begins with a chapter on the question of a Primeval Revelation. He occupies himself here chiefly with answering objections to such a Revelation as presented by Fairbairn, Pfleiderer, and others, and concludes that there are no greater difficulties in supposing that there was a revelation of God to primeval man than are involved in the acceptance of Supernatural Revelation of any kind.

The next theme is the Christian Revelation, especially Miracles. To this theme is devoted about one quarter of the volume. The author wages a vigorous polemic upon rationalistic and what he considers semi-rationalistic criticism of the miracles, going so far, in an Appendix treating of the subject, as to maintain the strict historical view of the narrative concerning Jonah.

In Chapter viii. Dr. Mead discusses the relation of Christianity to Judaism, dwelling chiefly upon their unity and harmony. Toward the close of this chapter are remarks in regard to the bearing of Christ's allusions to the Old Testament books upon the problems of their authorship. We cannot but wonder how these observations were received by Dr. Mead's Princeton audience. He says: "There is one class of references, however, respecting which there is more doubt how far their testimony goes; we mean those references which touch on a question of authorship. When Christ speaks of Moses and the law of Moses, we must distinguish between an allegation that Moses commanded this or that, and an allegation that he wrote this or that. The explicit statement that Moses wrote anything is made by Christ

only twice, viz: In Mark x. 2, and in John v. 45-47. But in either case the reference is only to a specific thing, and cannot be adduced as evidence concerning the composition of the Pentateuch in general," (p. 274). That Christ did not pronounce in these allusions upon the merits of the literary problem now pending, is, to those who seek an easy solution of the question, so perilous an admission that the Professor may well dread the consequences if his observations fall under the watchful eye of the professional religious pamphleteer.

In treating of Inspiration the author has made the distinctions and discriminations which scholars are wont to make in that field, such as that the primary question is that of Revelation, not Inspiration; that Inspiration pertains to men, not to books, and that we are to maintain inspiration in speaking as well as in writing for the media of Revelation. Dr. Mead has a special aversion to the term "Christian consciousness," that "barbarous phrase," as he calls it; and a yet stronger one to "world-consciousness," and "God-consciousness," which he thinks "hideous terms," a feeling in which we partially share. But the term Christian consciousness is not open to the same objections nor liable to the same misunderstanding. It denotes simply the consciousness-the way of thinking, feeling and knowing—which characterize the Christian as contrasted with the non-Christian man. Whether a barbarous phrase" or not, it denotes an important fact of history and experience, for which some term should be invented if the one in use is objectionable.

So brief a sketch as this can give no adequate idea of the scope and richness of the contents of the lectures before us. For this the reader must have recourse to the volume itself, which the publishers have presented in an especially attractive form.

GEORGE B. STEVENS.

THE AMERICAN BOOK OF CHURCH SERVICES.*-The appearance of a new and enlarged edition of this work is to be interpreted as a token of its success. He who assumes that the so-called non

*The American Book of Church Services; with Selections for Responsive Reading and Full Order of Service for the Celebration of Matrimony, for Funerals, and other occasional ministrations; also an ample list of Selections of Sacred Music, with references for the guidance of Pastors and Choristers, arranged by EDWARD HUNGERFORD. Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin & Company. The Riverside Press, Cambridge. 1889.

liturgical churches are in need of an enlargement and enrichment of public worship makes no mistake. He who gives himself judiciously to the work of guiding them in this interest will ultimately find himself rewarded by a response to his efforts. It is a matter for thankfulness that the Protestant churches, which have so stoutly insisted upon the principle of the priesthood and brotherhood of all Christian believers in all other domains of Christian activity, should at last recognize more adequately its application to the domain of Christian worship. If the individual believer and the congregation of individual believers may be assumed to be under the guidance of the inspiring source of all pure desire and all acceptible worship, why may they not and should they not come into immediate active relation, in all parts of the public service, with the object and medium of that worship? It is especially matter for thankfulness that Congregational churches are recognizing more adequately the need of a congregational worship. Why should a church, which prides itself in the free participation of all its members in the practical administration of its affairs, deny itself the privilege of a free participation in all parts of its public worship? If the principle of the Christian priesthood and brotherhood of believers is applicable any where, surely it is applicable in the domain of worship. If the Christian community is free any where, surely it is free in the worship of the common Father, through the Son, the common Redeemer, in the inspiration and guidance of the common Spirit. An intelligent congregation that regards itself as Christian would resent the denial in theory of the right and privilege of free participation in all parts of public worship, yet what our churches claim and contend for in theory they deny themselves in practice. That the necessity of a practical realization of the true theory of Christian worship is not yet fully recognized by our non-liturgical churches is evident enough, but it is clear that in a somewhat vague and indeterminate manner they are beginning to recognize it.

It is the great merit of the editor of the work before us, who is to a large extent its author, although he modestly recognizes himself only as the compiler or arranger, that he has recognized this necessity; that he has correctly interpreted the signs of movement in this direction in the churches; that he has cautiously, judiciously, practically, and modestly adjusted himself to the task, which is manifestly a labor of love, of meeting their liturgical needs, and that he has given us the fruits of some personal

liturgical experience and leadership, and of much substantial, tasteful, and reverential liturgical culture.

It

"The American Book of Church Services" deserves success. is christianly conceived. It is wisely executed. It will prove an invaluable aid for all pastors who are endeavoring to enrich the worship of their churches. It makes provision not only for the ordinary service but for the special vesper service, for the two sacramental services, the service of reception of members to the church, the Sabbath school service, the marriage service, and the burial service. No public service of the church fails of recognition. Moreover, provision is made for family worship and for worship in schools, colleges, and other public institutions. The following are some of the points of excellence in the work which may be emphasized: First of all we may note its conservative character. It is based upon recognized liturgical data in our churches. The editor has noted what the churches are doing. He does not undertake to put himself far in advance of them. All the elements of worship which he has grouped in his work are already in use in many of these churches. They have the chant, the anthem, the offertory, the response, the common confession, the common prayer, and the responsive reading. All these elements belong properly to the common worship. They are germane to the worship of all Congregational churches. There is nothing here which is in strict sense peculiar to or which may legitimately be monopolized by the so-called liturgical churches or by the hierarchial churches. It is true that provision is made for a more abundant use, if desired, of written prayers than is common in our churches, but it is also to be noted that the services all make provision for the extemporaneous or unwritten prayer. The point to be emphasized however is that the provision of the written form is based upon actual use. A large number of our churches make use of the Lord's prayer and some make use of other forms of written prayer. If the book leaves the impression of possessing a liturgical quality somewhat in excess of what is common in our public worship, it is not so much due to the variety of the liturgical elements incorporated as to the prevalence of a liturgical diction. This results from the fact that the elements presented are appropriate to or adapted or constructed from those forms which have become archaic and which have prevailed in the worship of the universal church. If the diction were changed into the popular diction of common life, it