himself. Whatever we may be, or think, or see, or hear, or taste, or smell, or touch "must be understood to be the acts of [God's] will." The champions of the above fancy structure find that the problem of this world's ignorance, crimes, and miseries presses upon it with the weight of a crushing avalanche. The professor says, "To escape this we must suppose that at the center of things all is light, though at the circumference there is some darkness." This language and the entire paragraph connected with it would be mere logomachy were it not that it limits and undeifies their God-he is weak at the "circumference" of his all-pervading personality. As this one "personal existence" is "the only real existence," and as it is "immanent" in all things and persons, if crime anywhere exist it must lie at the door of the God of this philosophy. Where there is no personality there can be no responsibility nor crime.

This theory of knowledge regards God as the energy, the attraction, the cohesion, the gravitation, and the mechanical force of the natural world. This is plain and easy enough, inasmuch as the apparent universe is simply the successive activities of the Infinite. Chemical atoms are held to be void of force, and God gives to prussic acid one force and sulphuric acid another force. God is also taken to be the life of creeping things, reptiles, vultures, and hyenas. It is the special act of God's will which gives to the tiger its ferocity. On occasion the trident of Neptune is put into the hand of God, and old ocean is terribly rocked in its cradle; then, again, he is conceived to be a Vulcan, forging thunderbolts and shaking earth in his wrath. Back of the cyclone, which in a moment wipes out slumbering towns and villages, we are not permitted to see anything but the will and power of God. "The less law the more God" is a basal principle of this religio-philosophy. The "pestilence that walketh in darkness" and "the destruction that wasteth at noonday" have their ground in that unitary being which is at the base of all things. The rattlesnake's bite and the scorpion's sting are God acting in different ways. Voltaire and Wesley were moved by the same will, the one to tear down what the other built up. Thus the self-communings of this "What is it?" are at war with themselves. Such is the assistance philosophy condescends to render theologians in their labors to render intelligible and lovely the teachings of Christianity. We defy heathenism to produce anything more revolting. For us the dreariest form of atheism would be a welcome refuge from such horrors. Were it the devil that was thus incorporated with nature, we could have more patience, but even then the doctrine would be detestable.

In another book we are taught that God "created." If so, he gave existence to beings and things, and surely the things created were no part of himself. Each chemical atom as a self-centered substance, each living thing and creature as self active, having properties and phenomena, fills out our idea of substance and individuality as fully'

as does man, angel, or God himself. I cannot see the personality of God in the honeybee; but I do see the product of his skill and power. "You give us, then," some one will say, “a world and an outside God." Yes, in the sense that I am a father and have an outside son. Distinct individualities may be closely related and not identified. Chautauqua, N. Y.

H. H. MOORE.

WHERE DID THE WISE MEN FIND JESUS?

A CORRECT knowledge of the advent and early childhood of Jesus depends upon a correct interpretation of the events as recorded by the evangelists. It may not be strange that early tradition should still linger to obscure some of the plainer facts of the record. There ought, however, to be a willingness to take the history as it is, even if this should invalidate some of the poetry and art depicting the birth of Christ which the ages have produced. Critical interpreters of the word are insisting on the recognition of facts in all departments of Bible study, and each devout follower of Jesus to-day is willing to discard every theory touching the life of our Lord that will not stand the test of fact.

The belief that the wise men found the holy family in Bethlehem and there worshiped the young child is almost as sacred as though it were a matter of plain, unequivocal record. I ask, however, a brief consideration of the history as given by Matthew and Luke. The coming of the wise men is recorded by the first. Receiving instruction as to the place where Christ should be born, they leave Jerusalem. Perhaps very soon after leaving the city the star which they had seen "in the east" appears, and they follow it until, going before them, it "stood over where the young child was." This part of the record impairs the value of some of the traditions representing the wise men as following the star in their long journey from Persia. They had not seen the star during the journey; they saw it "in the east," and now at its reappearance they were glad. Whither did the star lead them now? The assumption has been that, as they were directed by Herod to Bethlehem, they must have gone thither. But, if they were to find the child in Bethlehem, they would not have needed the star as a guide. If they went to Bethlehem and there found the child, their visit must also have been after the presentation in the temple, which took place when the child was forty days old, the account of which is given by Luke; for, immediately after the visit of the Magi, the family fled into Egypt. But Luke ii, 39, says: "When they had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth." There is not a word in the record of either of the evangelists as to the return of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem after the presentation in the temple, and in the face of the record in Luke there is no ground for a supposition that they did. What, then, are the facts?

At the end of the forty days they went to Jerusalem, performed the required service, and then returned to the Nazareth home which they had temporarily left, for the taxing requiring their presence in the city of David. They had no home in Bethlehem and no temporal interests there, and the going there was not a removal but a required visit, during which the child was born. Then why should they return there after the presentation in the temple? The account by Luke is most natural.

Now, later on, come the Magi. Reaching Jerusalem and making inquiry, they are directed to Bethlehem and, as the record shows, were guided to the place "where the young child was." If this was in Bethlehem, by searching diligently they could have found him. But, the holy family being in Nazareth, search in Bethlehem would have been in vain; and, as God had called these men from afar to see and worship the newborn king, he guided them in a way unknown to Herod and the chief priests and scribes to the realization of their desire. Then, how natural, being warned by God not to return to Herod, that they should depart "into their own country another way" by a northward route, so that, before Herod should realize that "he was mocked of the wise men" and his anger be kindled against them, they would be well out of his dominions and the reach of his vengeance. And how natural also for Joseph, in obedience to divine command, to start for Egypt over the route near the Mediterranean. at a safe distance from Jerusalem and without any possible knowledge of his flight on the part of Herod or his court.

Besides, if the parents of Jesus had lived in Bethlehem for the year or two following the advent, the family and child would have been well known, and is it to be supposed that the sudden departure of the family, even "by night," would not have been well known, so that some of the people of the city would have informed the officers coming to execute the cruel edict of Herod, and thus have saved their own children from destruction?

Will those who adhere to the old, traditional interpretation for a moment lose sight of the poetry and art that have done so much to fasten this in the mind of the generations? Let them take up the accounts in a natural order, and read Luke ii, 1-39, before reading Matt. ii, and then between Matt. ii and iii read Luke ii, 40-52, which will give a perfect narrative of all the evangelists have written of the birth and early life of Jesus. Why should we cling to a view that is erroneous and unnatural, merely for the sake of saving a hymn or a picture representing the "star of Bethlehem?" The matter here presented may not be regarded by some as of great importance, and they may ask as to what difference it makes where the Magi found the child Jesus. Yet the integrity of the Scripture record is of greatest importance, and errors in reading the history lead to serious confusions in interpretation. S. W. LLOYD.

Perry, N. Y.

"THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CURRENT RELIGIOUS UNREST."

IN the January number of the "Arena" appears a “Rejoinder" from the pen of Dr. Chaffee, whose original article was published in July, 1898. In this reply he reviews the objections of his critics; and, inasmuch as the principal feature of at least one critique was a candid request for an explanation of the ambiguity of the original article, it is fair to presume that the rejoinder represents the best effort of the author to set forth his views, especially as to those particulars in which an explanation was asked. We may, in other words, legitimately assume that his sentences are carefully guarded and worthy of acceptance at their full meaning. We understand him to affirm the following propositions:

1. That the age of faith has passed away, or, at least, that it is merging into an "age of science and light." But, if this is accepted, it is no longer true that "the just shall live by faith," or that "without faith it is impossible to please” God. Abraham and Paul lived in an age of faith, which was also an age of “ignorance and superstition." Their faith may have been counted to them for righteousness, but this was merely because they had the disadvantage of not living in this age of "science and light" when we are enabled to walk by sight.

2. That such inspiration as guided the pens of Isaiah, or David, or Moses was vouchsafed to Zoroaster, Gautama, and Plato, and presumably may be experienced by Dr. Chaffee, or even Bilbie.

3. That the "miraculous stories about Jesus" are, like the legends of Lourdes, unreliable and absurd; and "anyone who can rationally explain both our sacred Scriptures and nature so as to reduce the miraculous element to the minimum should be regarded in a friendly way." And that this is not a perversion of Dr. Chaffee's language or a misunderstanding of his meaning will appear when we consider that this quotation is his reply to my question, “Was Christ's birth from a virgin a result of the operation of a ‘natural force?'... Was it 'natural law' which raised him from the dead to eternal triumph and a seat at the right hand of the Father?" If Dr. Chaffee's system had permitted a more explicit reply to such important questions, surely the readiest way would have been to present it.

...

4. The supernatural has outlived its usefulness. "Running through both criticisms . . . is a frantic plea in behalf of the supernatural. . . . The weak point with my critics . . . is their clamor for the supernatural." Concerning the structure of the Pentateuch the statement is also made by Dr. Chaffee as follows, "If we find that Moses, or some one else, in writing the Pentateuch used material that existed in Egypt and Chaldea long before his day, we shall not on that account discredit these writings, and much less shall we exalt them into a supernatural revelation." Now we should not forget that these writings include the ten commandments, which

were written on tables of stone by the "finger of God" and enunciated from the holy mount by his audible voice, and that of these and other parts of the writings of Moses the Saviour declares, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." If God did speak on Sinai, was it so out of the ordinary course of nature as to be supernatural? Or, are the ten commandments to be laid aside because supernaturalism is no longer needed in "this age of science and light?"

5. Retribution is unknown to the government of God. "Such a view would forever make it unnecessary, and even impossible, for Brother Bilbie to ask, 'Is divine vengeance never just?' How anyone who has ever looked up into the bosom of infinite Love can ask such a question is more than I can understand." Now, vengeance is defined by the Standard Dictionary-whose rule of definition is that "the most common meaning is given first”—as "(1) The infliction of a deserved penalty . . . for the vindication of justice; retributive punishment." That such vengeance is attributed to Jehovah by Scripture cannot be successfully denied. Moses represents God as affirming, "Vengeance is mine, and recompense." Paul states the same thing: "Avenge not yourselves, beloved, . . . for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." He also speaks of "the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds." And Christ declares, “The hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation." Many other like passages from these and the other writers and speakers of Scripture might be adduced, were it needed. Vengeance is affirmed of Jehovah, and such vengeance is just.

...

Now, if the above five propositions are not a misinterpretation of our author's position, it is legitimate to inquire

1. For the explanation of the efficiency unto salvation of a Gospel which is a tissue of absurdity and falsehood, if Dr. Chaffee's views are correct.

2. For the difference in results or logical conclusions from his premises and those of Ingersoll or Thomas Paine.

3. For the justification of such audacity as turns out of court the testimony of Moses, Paul, the evangelists, and Christ himself.

4. For the grounds for continuing in the Methodist ministry, while believing and uttering doctrines so contrary to her teaching.

In conclusion, if our author is an exponent of the teaching of the Gospel of evolution, or if his position is the logical outcome thereof, one may well hesitate before exchanging therefor that Gospel which has through the ages proved itself to be "the power of God unto salvation to everyone that believeth." H. G. BILBIE.

Owatonna, Minn.