dantly felt. The standard of theoretical shall become practical ethics, taking hold on redeemed manhood for larger moral and spiritual conquest; righteousness shall pervade the entire system-personal, domestic, social, educational, commercial, national and international—and, beholding the fulfillment of his work, he "shall see of the travail of his soul and shall be satisfied." A. W. ARMSTBONG.

Ellston, Iowa.

WHY EMBARRASS THE YOUNG MEN?

IN the last number of the REVIEW the veteran Secretary of the New Hampshire Conference contends that the change made twenty-six years ago in one of the Disciplinary questions asked the young men (¶ 151, § 4) was not for the better but for the worse, indicating, he thinks, an altered view of the experience referred to, and an emphasizing of the human effort rather than of the divine gift. He has opened the way for me to say that in my judgment the previous question, the third, "Do you expect to be made perfect in love in this life?" ought to have been changed at that same time, so as to harmonize not only with the implication of the "earnestly striving" which follows, and of the "going on" which precedes, but also with both the theory and practice of our church in these days. As it stands at present it does not agree with either, and is only a source of needless embarrassment to the young men who are forced to answer it. I have not been at the secretary's table quite so long as my New Hampshire brother, but for more than twenty years I have looked down into the faces of the candidates as they respond to the bishop's inquiries and have seen them struggle hard with this particular one, either qualifying their reply, if they were especially conscientious, or satisfying themselves with a wholly perfunctory answer, accompanied undoubtedly with some mental reservation or private interpretation. I do not believe anything is gained by thus embarrassing them and him who puts the question. The latter often tries to help himself by explaining it in a sense that can hardly be considered quite ingenuous, though it may be ingenious.

What does the question mean, when taken in the light of its history and the well known views of early Methodism? The plain implication is that the young man, however much qualified for his work as a minister by a complete consecration up to the light so far received, and a fullness of love corresponding to this consecration, is not yet "made perfect in love," but must look forward to some consummate work to be wrought in him by power divine by and by. The form of the question excludes the thought that perfection in the sense of maturity is meant. That would accord excellently with questions two and four, but not with question three. The phrase, “in this life,” and the verb "made” point conclusively to an ex

perience to be effected instantaneously from on high, in response to an act of faith on the part of the seeker, whereby all taint of selfishness or depravity is to be removed from the nature. And it is demanded of the candidate that he affirm his expectation of becoming the recipient of such a change.

I hold that this is not a proper question. Why should a man be challenged as to his expectations? How can he tell what is likely to come to him in this line? What reason has a man for expecting such a definite work to be wrought in him? On what does he ground the assurance which he expresses? Certainly not on the experience of the mass of the ministers of Methodism who have preceded him. They at least make no profession of having received the gift or having been made perfect in love in this precise, technical sense. He can hardly ground it on his own supereminent devotedness or surpassing piety or exceptional abilities of any kind; for this would not accord with a true humility. Nor can he have it on any clear promise of Scripture. He is challenged, at his entrance to the Conference, on a speculative, disputed point of doctrine, deriving its whole significance from circumstances which have long since passed away, a point whereon Methodist ministers never were unanimous, and surely are not now. What propriety is there in this? It is not a question of his purposes or desires. These might well be looked into. He is asked about his expectations, he is required to make an estimate of the probabilities in the case, which is wholly useless and quite beside the mark, having nothing to do with his real usefulness or promise of competence for the ministry. He might as well be asked if he expects to see Christ coming in the clouds of heaven before he dies. It would have as much, or as little, bearing on his present or future piety. It smacks of an inquisitional, if not impertinent, intrusion into a realm which ought to be kept sacred to the freedom of the individual. Will it be for a moment imagined by anyone that the young man is less fit for the pastorate if he has no such expectation? Yet an affirmative answer is evidently anticipated, and in nearly all cases given under stress of the occasion and with a hope to be forgiven. It is objectionable in every way, and should be cut out. It is ambiguous, susceptible of a variety of explanations. Very rarely is full stress laid upon the word "perfect" or any careful thought given to what it must contain. If "this life" simply has reference to the moment of death, as there is some ground for believing, then of what practical use is it to inquire concerning it? It is not a suitable test either of the doctrine or of the spirit of the young man. It is unfair. Why should it go on offending the ears of successive classes indefinitely? Let it be dropped. The proper answer to it would seem to be "I do not know." And if that is the case, why should it continue to be asked?

Jamaica Plains, Massachusetts.

JAMES MUDGE.

HEREDITY AND ENVIRONMENT

IN the REVIEW for March-April is a eulogy and also a critique of Dr. Eckman's article on Thackeray, by Dr. Chaffee. To my mind Dr. Chaffee does "overstate the influences of environment" in many of the sentences of his article. "First destroy the slum, then convert the people who were in it;" as though the gospel could work no reform till material reformation had made it possible; again, “I have agreed to be not dogmatic about heredity, but what else is there that can resist environment?" again, "You can no more get out of a man what is not in him than you can out of an oyster what is not in it;" again, "If what a man brings into the world with him and what afterward comes into his life do not make him I do not know what the other factor or factors may be." Now it seems to me that the history of the Christian Church affords much evidence of a factor which cannot fairly be named either heredity or environment. Was it either of these that arrested Saul the persecutor, and changed him to Paul the apostle? Did he not oppose his environment, control events, and stem opposition, as he preached Christ to gainsaying Jew and uncivilized Gentile?

Is he not to be viewed more as the product of divine grace, as he himself frequently declares, than the product of Jewish blood or Jewish training? Again, he carries the gospel of a Saviour to heathen nations, surrounded with the worst environment conceivable, but simply preaches "Christ, and him crucified" as a remedy for their sinful condition. He nowhere attempts to improve environment as a step to salvation. He does not even found schools, and has no recorded connection as an evangelist with a school, except as he turned the school of Tyrannus into a church, as many a modern Methodist preacher has done. More, he even sends Onesimus back into the dreadful environment of slavery, being confident that the help of Christ would be not merely sufficient to keep him in Christian purity in these vile surroundings, but to transform an unprofitable slave into a helpful "brother beloved." And is not every martyr from the time of Stephen to the times of the Boxer persecution a witness to the power of an indwelling Christ to enable the believer to live in purity and peace amid the vilest and most unfavorable environment? A Taylor preaching in darkest Africa, the jungles of India, or Australian bush makes converts to the gospel, by its divine persuasiveness and power, who prove themselves able by this new-found assistance to say with the apostle, "Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ," or to realize the fulfillment of the promise, "Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee, because he trusteth in thee." Did Christ have the same view of the "influences of environment" held by Dr. Chaffee, when he prayed "not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from the evil"?

Owatonna, Minnesota.

HENRY G. BILBIE.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB

THE GENERAL EPISTLE OF JUDE-CONTINUED

THE next example of warning to which Jude directs attention is the case of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Verse 7. "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah.” Even as, ws, in like manner, refers rather to the similarity in the certitude of the punishment. In this case, as in the other, punishment followed transgression. Sodom and Gomorrah. The reference here is to the inhabitants of these cities. The corruption of these cities was well known, as well as their terrible punishment. Their history was truly a fearful warning. These cities were once exceedingly fruitful in abundant blessing of God. Gen. 13. 10: "And Lot lifted up his eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well watered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar." Their destruction is set forth in Gen. 19. 24, 25. The sin of Sodom is described in Ezek. 16. 49, 50. That their punishment was the result of their sins, and was a miraculous manifestation of the divine wrath, is clear from the passage as well as from the tenor of the whole history. Into the philosophy of these miracles it is not the purpose of exegesis to enter. Dr. Gardiner says, "Their destruction was miraculous. Yet as God often employs agency of natural causes to work out his wonderful designs, uniting them in unusual combinations or giving them efficiency far beyond their ordinary power, so it seems to have been in the present instance. . . . The primary cause of the overthrow was the divine judgment; natural causes were but the instruments of his action. It would not have taken place could ten righteous men have been found in the city; and had Sodom enjoyed the religious blessings which were afterward given to Capernaum it would have remained to this day." "And the cities about them." These were Admah and Zeboim. These cities, which were like Sodom and Gomorrah in their guilt, shared in the penalty. It has been remarked that Zoar was one of the guilty cities "but was spared at Lot's entreaty." "Having in like manner with these." The reference of the words with these is difficult to determine. Alford refers it to the angels above mentioned. Again it has been referred to the people of Sodom and Gormorrah. Again still to the ungodly men who were being discussed. The last seems to me the correct view because it is consonant with the immediate context and is in harmony with the thought "Given themselves over to fornication and gone after strange flesh." The latter of these two clauses is exegetical of the former. It is concrete for the

...

general: "After strange flesh." The revisers read in the margin other flesh. These are strong terms to express the depth of their degradation, including unnatural vices of the lowest sort.

The remaining clauses of this verse have been variously rendered. The revision of 1881 reads: "As an example suffering the punishment of eternal fire." The margin reads, "As an example of eternal fire, suffering punishment." The former rendering, we think, is to be preferred to the latter. The penalty was severe, it was to be permanent. Their sins had been awful, and the penalty was in harmony with their deeds and the willfulness which caused it. Another view is that the example was eternal. "They are publicly set forth for an everlasting example (in their fiery destruction) of the punishment God sometimes inflicts for sin in this world, which is but a faint type of that which he has reserved for the next." These three examples of warning have each a distinct character and a separate lesson. In the first, verse 5, we have privileges abused and grace rejected. Notwithstanding God's gracious deliverance they forgot his benefits. The second warning, verse 6, is the apostasy of the highest of God's creation, even the angels, and their punishment; and the third, verse 7, the fearful example of the moral corruption of whole cities which resulted not only in their decadence but in their complete destruction. And the selection of these three historical examples indicates the care with which the writer has presented his argument. From these Jude makes a statement common to them all in verse 7. In verse 8, "Yet in like manner these also in their dreamings defile the flesh." In like manner; that is, notwithstanding these fearful examples. The nature of these dreamings we can only conjecture. The rendering of the King James Version, "these filthy dreamers," has no foundation in the Greek text. The prevalence of that view probably came from the context and from the influence of John Calvin. But the word means dreams, mere fancies, imaginings, destitute of reality or foundation. "It alludes to the dreamy, Idle fancies of false teachers." It is the dream of the sinner from which he must be aroused; it is the fancied security of wicked men in their wickedness.

THE MINISTER AND PUBLIC PRAYER

PRAYER is the privilege and duty of all men. "Men ought always to pray and not to faint," "praying always," are but specimens to be found in God's Word enjoining this obligation. The examples of prayer mentioned in the Scriptures are numerous, culminating in the typical prayer of the universal Church, the Lord's Prayer.

It is not the duty of prayer which is the thought of this paper, but rather the form and method of prayer in relation to the Christian min