be sanctioned by these men of science. They are not theologians, and do not treat of death and God from the standpoint of revealed religion, but from the view-point of man without a revelation. They are philosophers, not theologians, and they treat life and death and God from the view-point of science and human knowledge, not from the position of revelation, as they might have done. It is a good thing to know just how far man can go in thought and discovery without a revelation from God as we have. Without revelation death is gloomy and awful as friends slip away from us. It is a “painful resignation to the unknown" to him who has no word from the other world. The fact of a personal God is gained through revelation, not through philosophical or scientific reflection. Even an orthodox Christian without a revelation cannot go any farther in his knowledge of God than these men in question. All any man can say of God without the Bible is that there is "a Supreme Intelligence," "an Inscrutable Secret," he is "the Unconditioned and Unknown," "the Unseen Reality," "the Insolvable Mystery."

These men treat God and immortality as philosophy, not as religion. Not that they antagonize religious faith, but that their vocation in life is philosophy. We may look upon reality from many points: metaphysics looks at reality from the standpoint of knowledge; æsthetics from the æsthetic consciousness; ethics from the moral consciousness; religion from the consciousness we gain from relation to God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. These men view life and reality from the standpoint of human knowledge. This may be right, but it is not the whole truth. What is confessedly the Unknowable becomes to the faithful the Father, God, the King of kings. This Hidden Force takes on the form of personality; he is a personal God. What is Supreme Intelligence to the philosopher from the view-point of his intellect alone becomes Supreme Love when he lives in the realm of revelation. It is not mockery that a Protestant clergyman should be called to perform the last rite over the grave of the lamented woman; it shows wisdom and faith in God. These men have never professed, so far as I know, that they were supplanters of the ministers of God. Rather do they consider themselves colaborers with all workers in the field of knowledge. And the quoted statements of Tyndall and Huxley and Spencer and Darwin but prove that they are friends, not enemies, of religion. The latter part of the paper contradicts the first part. No agnostic would utter such Christian sentiments as quoted.

We may wish that these men mentioned might have entered more into the spirit of experimental religion and have lent a stronger influence for the cause of righteousness. In the life of Darwin we read a confession of this great scientist how that in earlier years he loved poetry and music and literature; but in after years through disuse of these faculties and consecrating his time and energy upon deducing the principles of science to establish his theory of evolution his mind became atrophied, and poetry and literature and music

became distasteful to him. This explains much in his life and sounds a warning to the ambitious not to neglect the simple faith of childhood, but to keep burning on the altars of the soul the fire of God's Spirit. VERNON WADE WAGAR. Lorain, O.

ST. PAUL ON THE SPIRITUAL BODY.

THERE is a great deal of freshness, vivacity, and beauty in the article on "Philosophy of the Resurrection," by Dr. Lance, in the March, 1902, number of the Methodist Review. If we were shut up to the expectation that matter in any form was to be found in the resurrection body, then probably the theory set forth by the doctor would be more easily tenable than any one of the various theories held. But if I understand the apostle Paul correctly he affirms unequivocally and unmistakably that only the spiritual part of man shall survive the tomb. "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body." No wider contrast exists in the universe than is found between the natural (or material) and the spiritual; they hold no feature or attribute in common. If, then, the body raised is to be spiritual, the natural (or material) is to be completely eliminated from the problem, and it becomes a subject of entirely indifferent importance what becomes of the matter we have used during our earthly pilgrimage, or what may remain in the body with which we are invested at death. Paul declares, "There is a spiritual body;" and although we have never seen it, and are unable to describe it, he knew what he was saying when he affirmed its existence, and declared that it should be resurrected. Doubtless it is this which has all along our earthly career assumed and assimilated, or perhaps, to speak more accurately, arranged, the atoms of matter in our frame. It is this which has given identity and individuality to our material body, and not the silica or iron, the phosphorus or carbon which may be discoverd by the chemist. Such a body was Christ's when he rose from the tomb, and although he once ate before his disciples it was not because he had need of food, but for purposes of identification. Though he showed them his hands and his feet, he had just previously passed through the door, it being shut. Hence there were but ten appearances during the forty days, in which he assumed matter for the purpose of confirming their faith; as the angels which appeared to Abraham assumed matter and eat and drank before him, yet needed neither food nor material form save for the achievement of their errand of mercy and favor to the patriarch, and of destruction to the cities of the plain. Paul's statement entirely obviates all cavils of infidelity, simplifies the mystery of the resurrection, renders easier our faith, and clarifies our conceptions of the hereafter; while at the same time elevating the possibilities of the glorified body. To stand with Paul on this question is at least safe. HENRY G. BILBIE.

Owatonna, Minn.

THE ITINERANTS' CLUB.

PAUL'S DESCRIPTION OF CHURCH ADMINISTRATORS-TITUS i, 5-9. THE prologue to Paul's letter to Titus, as shown in the January number of the Review, was striking and instructive. It is an instance of the apostle's adaptation of his introduction to the subject or the person with whom he is communicating. It has been shown, in our study of the prologues of his epistles, that each one of them is in striking harmony with the conditions under which he writes and the purpose he has in view. We have in this passage, first, the mission committed to Titus. The purpose is given in the fifth verse, "For this cause, I left you in Crete." This implies that Paul had been in Crete with Titus and had left him there to correct any matters which had been left unattended to by himself-"In order that thou shouldst set in order the things that were wanting." Paul had not completed the work; and, as his custom was, he left it to others to carry forward. In this case he left it in the charge of Titus.

The fitness of Titus for this charge was in a measure considered in the previous number. The apostle then proceeds to set forth more specifically the duties of Titus-namely, "To appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge." The tense employed in the word "appoint" indicates the individual character of each appointment— that is, appoint from time to time, as the circumstances seem to demand. An interesting question of early Church government arises here. Who were these elders? Does the word elder refer to age, to official rank, or to the character of the service they were to render? It appears that "elder" in the sixth verse and "bishop" in the seventh verse are convertible terms. One can scarcely think of the apostle suggesting two different classes of overseers in the same relation and involving the same characteristics. They were subordinate to Paul, and probably no more than overseers, whose business it was to render an account to him. The language further indicates that the power of appointing was vested in St. Paul as an apostle, and that, by virtue of his authority, he placed Titus in Crete and conferred upon him the power to appoint elders as emergencies might arise. A similar instance of the exercise of power on Paul's part is mentioned in 2 Tim. ii, 2: "And the things that thou [Timothy] hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." These passages show Paul's authority to appoint elders, and also to commit this power to others, as he did in the case of Titus and also of Timothy. In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul asserts the independence of the apostleship. This independence is further shown in passages like this, where his power is indicated in practical life.

Evidently, "the care of all the churches" was upon him. He was an apostle and an administrator, to whom others were subordinate.

Second, we also notice here the character of an elder or bishop. The characteristics mentioned are chiefly personal and moral, and secondarily intellectual and doctrinal. He is taken evidently from the people. The language is, “If any person," indicating that the quality resides not so much in a class as in personal characteristics. In the Jewish priesthood the priest must necessarily come from the priestly class. There is no allusion to such priestly class here. Consequently, it was his right to select people who had the essential characteristics for the office.

The first characteristic of the elder was that he must be "blameless." The strict rendering of this is more properly, a man against whom no accusation or charges exist or may exist. These charges, even if untrue, would be a hindrance to his work, and must be disposed of before he could be appointed. He must, further, be "the husband of one wife." It is needless to remark that this does not indicate the necessity of his having been married, but indicates the things which must be avoided in this state. He was in a land where polygamy prevailed and where divorces were common and a plurality of wives was not held in the disrepute in which it is held to-day. Hence the necessity of warning against it. The idea that the apostle is teaching that a presbyter may not marry in case of the death of his wife is only a conjectural rendering of this passage. The proper rendering seems to be that no person could exercise the office of a presbyter who was a polygamist. It has been further held that this passage includes the idea that he should not marry one who had been divorced. The first meaning given, however, is the natural one.

"Having children that believe." It is thought that this means that the elder must be a person of years and maturity, not a novice. The phrase "having children that believe" indicates that his children are grown up, and that, in his own home, he has shown capacity for government. It is indicated that Titus should not appoint persons who could not govern their own homes, as such persons would not be fit administrators of the Church of Christ.

The next qualification seems to our modern ideas unnecessarynamely, “Who are not accused of riot, or unruly." We would hardly think of giving such directions now, because we could not conceive of selecting anyone for the office of elder who was riotous or unruly. We must consider, however, the turbulence of the time and the age in which these things were uttered.

The apostle proceeds, however, to give other directions-characteristics of a bishop or elder.

He next names the characteristic of a bishop as an administrator of God's affairs-a steward of God. He must be "blameless"—that is, without any accusation against him. It is his business to manage the affairs of the Church in a way that commends itself to all with whom he has to do. He is a steward not only of its spiritual things,

but has much to do with its practical affairs, and hence, in all respects, he must be without accusation. It is to be remembered how careful Paul was in the administration of the fund that had been committed to him for the poor saints at Jerusalem. This is a very important qualification of one that is called to rule.

The bishop further must not aim to please himself; nor must he be self-willed. He must remember that other people have convictions as well as himself, and he must recognize the rights of each one who may be in his charge. Nor must the bishop become angry easily. He will endure provocation and exercise self-restraint over his temper. Nor is he to be given to wine, nor contentious. The word here employed is "striker;" and he is particularly enjoined also to be not greedy of money-"not given to filthy lucre." He serves the Church not for what he can get from it, but for what he can give to it. Hence, it is said of the bishop that he must be hospitable, a lover of good: not only good people, but good things. He must be soberminded that is, safe-minded; a person whose intellect works safely and soberly; not carried away by excitement, not clouded by prejudice, not distorted by passion. He must be able to decide with absolute freedom from those influences which are likely to lead him astray. Besides this, he must be just, recognizing the rightful claims of duty in the sight of God and man. He must be holy. The purity of his character must approve itself to the infinite and holy God. He must be temperate. This does not mean temperate in the sense in which it is commonly used, as applying to the use of strong drink-although this is included in it; but, he must be able to exercise self-control. This means that he must be in action what he has already been declared to be in mind.

The next qualification of a bishop refers rather to doctrine and to teaching. He must hold fast the faithful word which is according to the teaching-that is, the teaching which he had received from God and which was taught by Christ. He is not to invent a doctrine, but to remember that this doctrine has already been given, and he must hold fast to it and proclaim it. In other words, he must be acquainted with the truths of the Gospel, so that he may both exhort in the "sound doctrine" and "convince the gainsayers."

Without entering into a discussion of the exact meaning of the terms "elder" and "bishop," there is here a clear indication of the characteristics which should belong to all ministers. This has already been summed up in this passage: 1. Personal character. His character must be above reproach, blameless. 2. His family relations also must be models for others. 3. He should be a person of order. He will never be unruly nor riotous himself, nor will he favor it in others. 4. He must administer the affairs of the Church blamelessly, because he is a steward of God. One cannot fail to recall this idea of the stewardship of Christian teachers, so fully expressed in the early part of the Epistle to the Corinthians. 5. He must recognize the will of others, as well as his own. He must not indulge in anger,