1790. Its history and failure form a large chapter in the ecclesiastical progress of the denomination. Dr. Stevens accords it thirty-three lines. From the ashes of the Council sprang the General Conference. Asbury was against it, but finally assented. There is no Journal of the first General Conference. In a History of the Wesleyan Itinerancy of North America, the advance volumes of which will, if God permit, appear ere long, a very full and authentic record of the transactions of that body, derived from various ancient sources, will be presented, as well as a fuller representation of the work of Methodism generally in this country than has hitherto been attempted. The General Conference delivered the Church from the peril of disin tegration. Cannot its Centennial be celebrated the second Sunday in November, 1892, so as to effect the contribution of a few millions to a Connectional Fund for the Relief of Aged Preachers? Jersey City. JOHN ATKINSON, "THE DISCIPLINE AS IT IS." Once in four years the Discipline of our Church costs the denomination a large sum of money, to "amend" and reissue; yet in many important particulars-nay, may we not truthfully affirm in things essential to the "spreading of vital godliness and scriptural holiness over these lands?"—it is one of the most neglected, if not absolutely condemned, of any of our publications. What is the cause of this unfavorable showing? Is the Discipline at variance with the intelligence and conscience of the Church, and its commands burdensome and unreasonable? Or are our people, for no well-defined reason, simply disloyal, and inimical to its enforcement? These questions demand an answer, and cannot much longer be evaded. If the former be true, why not put the book in harmony with the spirit of the Church? If the latter is the correct view, why not seek to restore the ancient practice, thus magnifying our power and increasing our usefulness? If, as many declare, the Discipline, on what were esteemed paramount points in our polity, is unsuitable to our present necessities, why maintain it, and strive to impose the obnoxious rules upon the membership? That it is not-indeed, cannot be -administered "as it is" is obvious to all; and we fear it is not intended to be thoroughly enforced, even by those who are "set for its defense." Suppose some brave and honest pastor, sent to one of our large, wealthy, and fashionable congregations, should attempt to compel attendance upon class-meeting, "how long would he stay" in that charge? What bishop would be strong enough to resist his removal at the instance of the official board, many of whose members never enter a class-room, at the end of "his first year?" Now, if attending this means of grace is obligatory only on probationers; and if, as soon as they are received into "full connection," they, like the great bulk of our people, may drop classmeeting, why in the name of truth and honor should not this pretense of sustaining an "essential feature of Methodism " be at once and forever abandoned? This would save expense, labor, confusion, inconsistency, and mortification, and no doubt greatly increase our numerical and financial strength. Again, what is gained by a menace of trial for neglecting "secret prayer?" In this event who is to witness against the culprit? Will he humbly confess his sinful dereliction and ask to be expelled? Should such a trial ever begin, and the accused withdraw his plea of guilt, what then? We submit, this provision of "our excellent Discipline" is little less than solemn trifling, and should be corrected at once. There are other things equally absurd in our legislation; but the main object of this writing is to call the attention of the Church to the fact that our practice is not only in opposition to the letter of the law, but the spirit also; and to urge that our wise and great men shall find some way to relieve us from our embarrassment, and hold up the hands of those who are sworn "not to mend," but to "keep, our rules" for "conscience' sake." Waynesborough. J. B. MANN. CHRIST'S LOVE. In considering the account of Christ's challenge of Peter's love (John xxi, 15-17 inclusive) various commentators endeavor to supplement an alleged incompleteness in the English Authorized Version, distinguishing between the nature of the interrogatories through a claimed difference in meaning of the verbs ȧyañáw and piλéw. For instance: "The former, by virtue of its connection with aɣaña, properly denotes a love founded in admiration, veneration, esteem; but oikeir denotes an inclination prompted by sense and emotion."-J. H. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of New Testament, after Grimm. It is asserted, also, that the commands are modified by reason of a difference in meaning between the verbs βόσκω and ποιμαίνω, owing to which Christ's injunctions should be rendered, "Feed my lambs; be a shepherd to the weak ones of the flock; feed these weak ones."-Rev. H. W. Watkins, M.A., Professor of Logic and Moral Philosophy, King's College, London, England. Is such interpretation required, or even justified? 1. As to the commands. If we dismiss poẞária, in the second command (and the texts of Scholz and Griesbach, together with the editions of Stevens, Beza, and the Elzevir, have рóßara in both commands), we have to deal only with the two verbs, each of which signifies to feed, and each signifies to tend or nourish. Each is used literally and each figuratively as far back as Homer. The New Testament shows no bias; the verbs are interchangeable, as: Matt. viii, 30 (also Mark v, 11, and Luke viii, 32), Herd of many swine feeding (βοσκομένη). Luke xv, 15. And he sent him into his fields to feed (Bóσke:v) swine. Luke xvii, 7. A servant plowing or feeding (ouμaivovra) cattle. Acts xx, 28. Made you overseers to feed (ñoμaivɛiv) the Church of God. 1 Cor. ix, 7. Who feedeth (Toaive) a flock and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 1 Pet. v, 2. Feed (Toμávarɛ) the flock of God. Jude 12. When they feast with you, feeding (roquaivovτes) themselves without fear. Rev. vii, 17. The Lamb shall feed (rouaver) them. In view of these (the only New Testament passages in which feed is rendered by βόσκω or ποιμαίνω) can it be held that πρόβατα must signify a different class of sheep when indicated in connection with Book from that when associated with ποιμαίνω? 2. Concerning the interrogatories, commentators claim that Christ endeavors to evoke from Peter an expression of loftier, more admiring and venerating love than is indicated by pɩhɛiv, and that after two unsuccessful efforts to secure Peter's recognition of and assent to this love, he delicately rebukes Peter by asking him pies μe? This seems without support either from any mandatory distinctiveness in the verbs, or from the general features of the queries, responses, and injunctions. Dr. Schaff says (Popular Commentary on the New Testament): “¢hi denotes rather the tender, emotional affection. 'Ayaráw is never disso ciated from intellectual preference, esteem, choice. The one term is not necessarily stronger than the other." Dr. Joseph Henry Thayer (in Lexicon above named) says: "Men are said ảɣañāv God, not piλeiv,” [how, then, 1 Cor. xvi, 22, If any man love (pinei) not the Lord Jesus Christ] and God is said άyaññoɑι Tòv kótov and qiɛiv the disciples, and yet we read: Mark x, 21. Jesus beholding him loved (iyánŋoev) him. John xiii, 1. Having loved (ayanhoaç) his own, etc. John xiii, 23. One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved (¿yáña). John xvii, 23. That the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved (yáπnoas) them. Rom. viii, 37. Through him that loved (åyanhoavroc) us. Rom. ix, 13. Jacob have I loved (nyáπnσa). 1 John iv, 11. If God so loved (hyáñŋoev) us. Rev. i. 5. Unto him that loved (åуañāvтi) us. Rev. iii, 9. And to know that I have loved (nyánŋσá) thee. The New Testament use of these verbs shows them interchangeable, albeit ayamáw is the one more frequently used. A complete presentment of proof texts would be wearying and is unnecessary. the ground. 1. As showing identity of expression: John iii, 35. The Father loveth (ayang) the Son. John v, 20. The Father loveth (piɛî) the Son. Another instance: A few will cover John xix, 26. The disciple standing by, whom Jesus loved (yára). And again: Matt. xxiii, 6. They love (p2ovo) the uppermost seats. Luke xi, 43. Ye love (ayanare) the uppermost seats. Luke xx, 46. Who love (povvrov) greetings in the markets. Still another: Heb. xii, 6. Whom the Lord loveth (ayaña) he chasteneth. Rev. iii, 19. As many as I love (piλā) I rebuke and chasten. 2. As expressing the same nature of love: John xi, 3. He whom thou lovest (piλeiç) is sick. John xi, 5. Jesus loved (yáña) Martha and her sister. John xi, 36. Behold how he loved (¿piλ) him! John xv, 9. As the Father hath loved (nyáлnoév) me, so have I loved (ἠγάπησα) you. John xvi, 27. For the Father himself loveth (pie) you, because ye have loved (Epiλýkatɛ) me. The fact is, that all the phases of love expressed in the New Testament by ayanάw, are there expressed also by pinew: the love of God for Christ; the love of Christ for his disciples; the ambitious love of honor; the tender, disciplining love of God for his children; the love of Christ emotionally for his friends; and God's emotional love for those whom Christ loves. Observe further, that it would be expected, if the change from ȧyaráw to pit was intended to be significant, that Peter's answer would have indicated his appreciation of this new phase of the question. But Peter replies p, in each instance. Note, also, that the record is, "He saith to him again the second time," "the third time." If the sense of the inquiry was modified, this "second" and "third" time would be superfluous. The expressions denote the repetition, not the modification of the question. The triple iteration emphasized the inquiry, and "grieved" or annoyed (¿λvπýŋ) Peter, because he had already twice affirmed his love. The annoyance would not have been warranted if Peter had comprehended any variety in the questions. There seems to be no warrant for the interpretation which alleges incompleteness in the Authorized Version (nor does the Revised Version suggest improvement or amplification). The best that can be said of the condemned exegesis is that it is ingenious; it is clearly not necessary, nor is there by it substituted any teaching more valuable than the evident one of the recital as it appears in the common version. Any interpretation is to be deprecated which obscures or distracts attention from the weighty import of this catechism. Its obvious lesson is that true, intense love for Christ is the disciple's incentive to and warrant for the Christ-life, which Peter came at last to comprehend and imitate; and the impressions of this lesson recurred to him when he so eloquently described to after Christians the quickening power of love for the Saviour, and said to them, "Ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls" (1 Pet. ii, 25). Boston, Mass. ALFRED A. POST. THE ITINERANTS' CLUB. THE Rev. Dr. E. L. Parks, of the Gammon School of Theology, has prepared an admirable outline of Systematic Theology as set forth in the required books of our Conference course. He begins with Pope, giving for volume one, twenty-two topics; volume two, twenty-four topics; volume three, thirty topics. Part II. of Watson's Institutes he arranges in forty-five topics; Wesley's Plain Account, in twenty topics; Atonement in Christ, by Miley, in twenty-six topics. The Analysis of Butler's Analogy, by Dr. Parks, is especially helpful. We hope to see the entire list of topics published in an "Itinerant Club Series." The following outline of Dr. Miley's book on Atonement in Christ will illustrate Dr. Parks's method. ATONEMENT IN CHRIST.-MILEY. 1. The plan of the work. 2. The scope, mode of treatment, importance of fact and doctrine, data, relation to theology, and definition of the atonement in Christ. 3. The proof of the reality of the atonement in facts, terms, and priesthood and sacrifice. 4. The relation of the nature of the necessity to the theory of the atonement. 5. The nature of the necessity for the atonement found in the function and necessity of penalty in moral government. 6. The schemes of universal happiness after penalty or sovereign forgiveness must be rejected. 7. Why divine forgiveness cannot be granted on natural repentance; the bearing of human forgiveness. 8. The popular and the scientific classification of the theories of the atonement. 9. Criticism of the vicarious repentance, redemption by love, self-propitiation in self-sacrifice, realistic, mystical, and middle theories. 10. The facts and refutation of the so-called moral influence theory. 11. The history and elements of the theory of satisfaction. 12. The nature and forms of justice, and its relation to the theory of atonement. 13. The principles of the satisfaction theory. 14. The tests which condemn the satisfaction theory. 15. The basal facts upon which the governmental theory is founded. Its origin and its position in Arminian theology. 16. The character, nature of penalties, and relation to atonement of public justice. 17. The theory of the atonement determined to be the governmental by the real and deepest necessity, the rectoral value of penalty and of the atonement, the consistent interpretation of Scripture terms, and Scripture facts. 18. In what sense is the atonement a satisfaction to divine justice? 19. The elements which constitute the sufficiency of the atonement. 20. The atonement a lesson of most exalted character for all created intelligences. 21. Answers to the objections that the atonement is irrational, a violation of justice, a releasement from duty, an aspersion of divine goodness. 22. The determining law of the extent of the atonement. 23. The universality of the atonement proved by the pleasure of the Father and the Son. |