in its comment on 2 Cor. xiii, 14, says of the passage: "It is the most formal and solemn of all Paul's forms of benediction, and accordingly has been universally selected as the one to be used by the Church in its worship. It ascribes to each Person of the Trinity a special, but not an exclusive, part in the work of redemption. . . . Each of them is mentioned with equal, but with a distinct, honor and efficiency. They are presented, not according to their ontologic or metaphysical nature, but to their economic relation to sinful man in the work of salvation. That salvation comes to us from [K] God the Father, through [dià] God the Son, and by God the Holy Ghost.'" Lange also adds: "The benediction itself is divided into three parts, in accordance with the relations of the sacred Trinity. We have, first, the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, . . . that grace which is continually bestowed upon, intercedes for... and strengthens . . . those whom he has redeemed, and by means of which they come into the possession and enjoyment of the love of God. The communion of the Holy Ghost, the participation in him and in his gracious influences is the product of that grace and this love, and is his continual direction and application of them to believers." Neander and Ewald are also quoted to the same effect.

Fifth, it is the one prescribed by Mr. Wesley in the Sunday Service which he prepared for the use of the Methodist churches in America, and which has been so used-though others, both scriptural and otherwise, have also been so employed-from that time to the present. For these reasons we judge that by "the apostolic benediction" the General Conference meant the one found in 2 Cor. xiii, 14.

How then, it may be asked, are the two benedictions-the one from 2 Cor. xiii, 14, and the one from Phil. iv, 7—to be used on such Lord's Days as are devoted to the administration of the Lord's Supper? For, be it observed, the Discipline (¶ 446) provides for the use of the benediction from Phil. iv, 7, at the close of the sacramental service, yet says (¶ 56, § 3) that even at such times "the apostolic benediction" may not be omitted. Is it meant that both benedictions should be used, and, if so, how? Undoubtedly we think both are to be used; first, because such is the order and custom in both the Church of England, from whose ritual our own is largely taken, and the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, whose ritual is also largely taken from that of the Church of England; and, secondly, because no other method harmonizes the directions given for public worship on the Lord's Day in connection with the administration of the Lord's Supper. Nor does such associated use appear to the writer as other than congruous, appropriate, and especially called for by the usages and peculiarities of the Methodist Episcopal Church at such times, however much he may be led to admit that both as to benedictions and ritual some preachers are a law unto themselves.

How then should the service be conducted on the Lord's Day when the sacraments are administered? We answer:

1. According to the order prescribed in the Discipline; what is named therein as permissible for omission may, in the judgment of the administrator be omitted. Such portions are either bracketed or are referred to as other than "singing, prayer, and the apostolic benediction."

2. The form of the Ritual prescribed for the Lord's Supper should be used precisely as laid down in the Discipline, only such portions being omitted as are referred to under that head and in accordance with the note to 446. Especially will this portion of the service be enriched if the congregation is taught to join in the General Confession, the Lord's Prayer, the Amen at the close of the several prayers, and to unite with the choir in singing the Tersanctus and Gloria in Excelsis. To such an order the benediction from Phil. iv, 7, seems required by the very spirit and tone of the service.

8. Then, the congregation, which has been kneeling, having risen and being seated, the usual invitation for the reception of members by letter or on probation can be extended, after which the service should close with a doxology and "the apostolic benediction."

How much spiritual devotion may be helped by appropriate and suggestive postures and liturgies may not now be discussed, but that there is need in the Methodist Episcopal Church of the observance of the Order of Public Worship and the Ritual for the sacraments—chaste, rich, and beautiful-we verily believe. And in no particular perhaps is this more true than in the following of the directions given concerning the use of the two benedictions. C. H. RICHARDSON.

Cumberland, Md.

"THE SPIRITUAL LIFE."

THIS is the title of a book recently written by Professor George A. Coe, Ph.D., of the Northwestern University, the volume being an attempt to discover the laws governing the phenomena of religious experience. It is an entertaining book, but can hardly claim to be a scientific treatise. A superficial reading of the work will give the impression that every statement made by the author is reliable, so pleasing is his style and so bold his advance in the field of investigation. But a more careful study of its contents will convince the scientific student that Professor Coe's methods are unscientific and many of his conclusions illogical, while the theologian-especially the Methodistwill be persuaded that the author is biased in his inferences and that his unscientific conclusions are drawn from premises whose truth he does not and cannot know.

In his Introduction the author says, "Perhaps no group of ascertained facts excels in either theoretical or practical interest the mass of human experiences called religious," while "the phenomena of religious experience have been the last to be granted a hearing by the science of

psychology." Yet psychology is not a new science, nor is religious experience modern. How does it happen, then, that not until Christianity is nearly nineteen centuries old are the "phenomena of religious experience" discovered to be a legitimate and fertile field for psychological investigation? Queer is it not that there are only two books written on the subject, and that the second is dated in A. D. 1900? The real reason is that psychologists themselves have with unanimity recognized that "religious experience" is not capable of scientific investigation, and as a consequence that there cannot be such a science as "the psychology of religion."

Professor Coe undertakes to show that there are fixed laws governing religious awakening and that these awakenings come at certain periods, and he has found (?) that such an awakening is synchronous with the age of puberty. He examined a certain number (comparatively small) of cases of persons who had been trained religiously and who had been converted. The preachers of the Rock River Conference were among the cases relied on for valuable data. But what are these among so many? Thousands of instances can be cited of persons who were awakened as early as six or seven years of age, and were genuinely converted before the age of ten. And thousands of other cases can be found of persons in this Christian land who have never experienced any decided religious awakening and, indeed, have never known of such a thing. What do all these facts prove? This-that religious education, nurture, environment, and, maybe, heredity have much to do with the religious impressions of the juveniles, and that the total absence of religious influences in their cases will result in a total absence of religious awakening.

The adolescent period is not a religio-scientific milestone. The professor claims that personal temperament, whether it be sanguine, melancholic, choleric, or phlegmatic, has much to do with the question of Christian experience. He is not clear on this point. Intentionally or unintentionally, he fails at times to discriminate between Christian experience and the outward demonstration of the same. Temperamental conditions frequently modify the latter-yet not so universally as to furnish ground for a scientific law-but no one can possibly assert that they are a consideration in the attainment of the former. God's word itself defines the conditions precedent to a change of religious states and emotions, and no divine authority is given for making temperamental differences one of these conditions.

One would reasonably conclude from Professor Coe's scientific investigations that it is impossible for persons possessing a certain kind of temperament to experience the religious consciousness which is described by others as conversion. Some of those he questioned never felt any conviction for sin, etc. As an offset to these statements read Bishop R. S. Foster's delightful book, Philosophy of Christian Experience. He says: "A Christian comprehensively is a child of God by regenera

tion. This is the all-inclusive, absolutely essential thing. It presupposes and is conditioned by certain antecedents, and does not exist without them; these are conviction of sin, repentance, faith, and forgiveness. Regeneration, which, as matter of experience, always follows or is coetaneous with these subjective states, and never precedes them or occurs without them, is the culminating fact." Again he writes, "To become and be a Christian one must have this conscious experience." The bishop does not overlook the item of personal temperament, but at the same time does not exaggerate its importance. Hear him: "Personal temperament, environments, habits, education, and such modifying influences, which vary so widely, furnish the explanation to a large extent of the diverse experiences among those who give full evidence of genuine Christian character. 'There is a diversity of operation, but one Spirit,' and the same result." Although, as the bishop says, there may be a difference of degree in the vividness of the consciousness of these subjective phenomena, nevertheless, "that in every case there has been the great subjective change, the inward transforming experience, however dimly perceived in its successive stages, there can be no rational doubt. The total outcome of the regenerate life of the soul is the same in each case of genuine Christian character." We firmly believe that a lack of definite instruction as to the essential character of this inward change, a perverted preconception of its character, and the lack of the exercise of intelligent faith on the part of the convert will explain the seeming lack of a vivid consciousness of regeneration which is referred to by Bishop Foster in the quotation we have given. Subsequent instruction has frequently assured the Christian that the experience of regeneration was actually possessed by him at the time when its possession had been doubted.

Professor Coe manifests a disposition to underrate, if not to slur, the emotional and to exalt the intellectual in religion. He deplores the tendency to magnify the value of the subjective in religious experience, and to minify the active virtues. The Methodist Episcopal Church Hymnal comes in for abundant and severe criticism on this account. The preponderance of females in the Church is thus accounted for. Yet Christian sociologists and Methodist historians and active evangelists will refuse to acknowledge the secondary importance of the subjective in religion. The Lutheran and Wesleyan Reformations were based on the preponderating importance of the subjective in religion. Were Luther and Wesley and the thousands of their disciples mistaken, and is Professor Coe right?

The professor's studies in psychology and his enthusiastic faith in hypnotic laws have made him ambitious to extend his research into fields hitherto unexplored and to erect a new science, but he must remember that no philosophy can be erected on phenomena whose causes are not discoverable. PAGE MILBURN.

Washington, D. C.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

THE PROLOGUES OF ST. PAUL-III. GALATIANS AND EPHESIANS. THE above epistles furnish another proof of the importance of a careful study of Paul's prologues. The nature of each of the epistles is foreshadowed in its introduction. That to the Galatians was the result of a sharp conflict with the Judaistic party in the early Church, and is characterized by all the intensity of Paul's nature, as well as by profound insight into the very essence of the Gospel. A study of the letter will show that Paul's character as an apostle had been impugned. It had been asserted that he was a self-constituted, and not a divinely appointed, embassador; or, if he had a commission, that it was from men like himself and without any divine character. This view was necessary in order to overcome Paul's authority when he affirmed salvation by faith alone, apart from works of the law; and it was therefore requisite, not only that he should affirm his apostolic authority, but also his harmony with the Church, in order to have success in his teaching.

The prologue of the Epistle to the Galatians is therefore in harmony with the conditions under which the letter was written. In the Epistle to the Romans Paul had affirmed that he was 66 a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle." His apostolic character had not been assailed and is not strenuously asserted, although distinctly assumed. In the First Epistle to the Corinthians he designated himself as an apostle called of Jesus Christ in harmony with the will of God. In the second letter to the Corinthians he again affirmed his apostolic character in similar form. But in the Epistle to Galatians he declares himself an "apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead)”—the margin of the Revised Version declaring that it was neither through a man. With what emphasis does this first verse affirm that Paul was not an apostle by human designation! He neither received his apostleship from men, nor was it communicated to him through a man, but he received it from above. The verse is a reminiscence of the ninth chapter of Acts, and affirms Paul's belief in the external appearance of Christ to him at that time. The journey to Damascus was the occasion of his special call to the apostolic office, and it was communicated through his divine Lord, with whom was associated God the Father, so that the first and second persons of the adorable Trinity join in the call. How emphatically does this simple statement set forth that Paul was no human messenger, but was a divinely constituted apostle of Jesus Christ!

There is a significance also in the explanatory phrase, "who raised him from the dead." The question has been asked by commentators as to whether this phrase is merely an incidental reference to the great historic fact ever present to the mind of the apostle-Christ's resurrection