THE ARENA.

COUNT TOLSTOÏ ON IMMORTALITY.

THE article by Dr. Ross C. Houghton, in the last number of the Review, on Count Lyof Tolstoï, omitted to represent the views of the Russian on one of the distinctive doctrines of our religion.

Coming out right after Easter, as did the Review article on the great Count, it is pertinent to quote, without note and comment, from Tolstoï's My Religion, pages 147, 151, 153, as follows: "The idea of a future eternal life comes neither from Jewish doctrine nor from the doctrine of Jesus, but from an entirely different source. We are obliged to believe that belief in a future life is a primitive and crude conception based upon a confused idea of the resemblance between death and sleep-an idea common to all savage races." If this is Tolstofism we question the statement of Dr. Houghton that the noted reformer is "enthusiastically prosecuting an independent search after the true religion as contained in the Gospel of Christ." Again, to quote Tolstoï: "As opposed to the personal life, Jesus taught us, not of a life beyond the grave, but of that universal life which comprises within itself the life of humanity, past, present, and to come." Finally, this modern apostle of a peculiar form of pantheism concludes: The entire doctrine of Jesus inculcates renunciation of the personal, imaginary life, and a merging of this personal life in the uni versal life of humanity, in the life of the Son of man. Now the doctrine of the individual immortality of the soul does not impel us to renounce the personal life; on the contrary, it affirms the continuance of individuality forever." These teachings of strange admixture of truth and error help one, at least, to agreement with Dr. Houghton in the conclusion that, "The more we study and analyze Tolstoï's religion the stronger is our conviction that it is eminently of this world, and based largely upon terrestrial considerations." And as to such considerations, after trying to get at the true inwardness of these as set forth in his socialistic writings, one comes to accept, as alarmingly true, a recent statement of the Review Editor himself, that in reality "Tolstof is a more dangerous anarchist than Herr Most." Germantown, Pa. JAMES HEPBURN HARGIS.

A THEORY OF MIRACLES.

Under the above title there appeared in "The Arena" department of the Methodist Review for March-April an article which, to my mind, is open to grave objections, because tending to reduce the miracles of turning the water into wine, and raising Lazarus and the widow's son from the dead-the two principal miracles of Jesus's ministry-to simply masterly scientific experiments.

To the question whether there was any force in the dead body of Lazarus that by intensification could cause its reanimation, the writer answers, Unquestionably;" but to the commonplace thinker this notion is

quite questionable. Nor does the fact cited, that the hair may continue to grow after the body is dead, which unquestionably does show the presence of vitality, furnish satisfactory proof of the correctness of the theory in question; for this is true of a tree all dead but one branch: there is vitality in the tree, but this vitality can only sustain the life of the part containing it. The case of the withered arm is like the case of the tree, only transferred to an animal body. If the vitality be diffused throughout the whole body, which only serves to animate a part, there must be a diminution of vitality in the part from which it has been drawn; and hence the body thus reanimated would possess only an attenuated life, which was not the case, evidently, in the instances cited. And the fact that these dead bodies were raised to life with a full supply of vitality shows that whatever of vitality remained in the body, if connected at all with the miracle, was re-enforced (strengthened with new force), not intensified, and implies, as an essential condition, the causing to be of more vitality, showing the Being performing the miracle to be possessed of creative power, an essential element of the power to work miracles.

As to the fact that "scientific writers have confidently asserted that there is nothing in the circumstances in the case either of Lazarus or the widow's son inconsistent with the possibility of their being merely instances of suspended animation," I would respectfully suggest, in addition to the Editor's foot-note, that there is one circumstance, at least, which to my mind renders such supposition impossible, and that circumstance is the assertion, by the same authority on which the fact of the miracles themselves rest, that these persons were dead. See John xi, 14; Luke vii, 12, 15. Is it safe to apply such rules of interpretation to the Scriptures? By such method of interpretation, how shall the common reader know the meaning of holy writ? These miracles of Jesus were accorded and handed down from generation to generation, that each generation of men might "believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name." John xx, 31. But if these miracles be reduced to scientific experiments, then what greater authority have they than any other scientific treatise? For they no more prove the divine Sonship of Jesus than other scientific works prove the divine Sonship of any other scientific experimenter. Science is a very profitable and delightful study; but when it presumes to declare what portion of the Bible we are to accept as unequivocally true, and what portion we must dilute with a large per cent. of allowance, we protest.

Either Jesus raised the dead or he did not; if he raised the dead, then the persons were dead whom he raised; else he did not raise the dead; and if when the Scriptures say of Lazarus, "which had been dead, whom he [Jesus] raised from the dead,” the meaning may be that Lazarus was simply in a trance, or animation was suspended, how shall we know but that it may mean the same when it says, "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God?” A theory of miracles that must lean on such a supposition must be quite inefficient. W. J. BARGER.

Sutton, Neb.

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

1. Could the Lord Jesus Christ have sinned, and thereby have defeated the plan of redemption?

2. If he could not have sinned, how then was he tempted in all points like other men? North Adams, March 25. W. M. PADDOCK.

1. Most certainly Jesus could have sinned. He was a perfect man, and a part of his perfection was free moral agency. He therefore had the power to do as he pleased. He was no machine. He did right because he chose to do so. Had he sinned he would certainly have defeated the plan of redemption, but he did not sin. He kept the law, obeyed it to the letter,

and the Father therefore said, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."

2. We have already answered the second question, but may add that our Lord's temptation was quite as complete and violent as any that ever assailed a human being, and he triumphed over it by prayer and faith, just as we may do. In this particular he certainly set an example that we should follow in his steps.

We cut the above from the Michigan Advocate. The editor of that able paper stands not alone in his opinion. We have often heard others express the same thought. But notwithstanding that many of the more distinguished divines of our Church entertain a like belief, the undersigned, though only a local preacher, is obliged to differ from them, for the following reasons:

First. Because our Lord Jesus Christ did not occupy the same plane as do all other men. They are all born with an inherently sinful nature; he was "holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners." In moral nature he had nothing in common with them. He was not begotten by a human and physical generation, but by a holy and spiritual begetting. Hence it was said of him, "That holy thing that shall be born of thee [of Mary, his virgin mother] shall be called the Son of God." His was an immaculate conception; not, indeed, in the sense the Romish Church erroneously teaches, because of the immaculateness of his mother, for she was no more immaculate than are other women, but because of the absolute freedom from sin of his divine Father-the Holy Ghost. This divine begetting-not creation-stamped this offspring of Mary with absolute purity of nature-and constituted that separateness "from sinners" of which the apostle speaks.

Second. Out of this entire purity of nature grew our Lord's holiness of character. Not having any tendency to sin, he naturally tended always to all that was "pure, and lovely, and of good report." There was no guile not only "in his mouth," or words, but none in any of his acts. He was consequently essentially holy.

Third. But not only was our Lord's nature absolutely holy, and all his tendencies to holiness, but he could not be otherwise than holy, nor do an unholy act; and as it was morally impossible for him to originate an unholy thought, purpose, or act, because of the perfect purity of his nature, neither, for a like reason, could he yield to one at the suggestion of another. The danger of temptation to evil lies in the susceptibility of the tempted to the evil suggestion of the tempter. Where such susceptibility does not exist, and cannot be excited, there can be no temptation. It is said of God that "he cannot lie;" before he can do that, or any other moral wrong, he must cease to be what he is. But he "cannot deny him

self." So with our Lord Christ. His affinity to the Holy One is a bar to his yielding to sin.

Fourth. As to Christ being the exemplar of believers, he is set forth as such only in his patient endurance of suffering, in his readiness to forgive and love enemies, in the holiness and humility of his character, in his active benevolences; not in respect to the resisting of temptation. J. LONGKING.

THE THUD OF SUPERANNUATION.

Methodism demands of all who enter her ministry these concessions: 1. A life of constant service in whatever fields she may be pleased to assign them; 2. That they shall accept such provision as those whom they are sent to serve shall feel disposed to make; 3. That they shall receive with modest meekness such relief as the Church shall be willing to afford them. 66 'Aye, there's the rub!" The willingness of the Church is their only surety, and, being supreme, they must "commune with their own hearts and be still." Is this as it should be? Brother Moses's forty years of heroic devotion in the itinerancy, on hard fields, with scarce ever a just and equitable remuneration, now that the evening shadows have fallen upon his pathway are little reckoned, and tremblingly he awaits the report of the Conference stewards, which shall, more than likely, send him to his humble home, with an "empty void " in his pocket-book and a sickening pain at his heart, to dream of and long for that “good time coming," when our beloved Methodism shall give him something more substantial than kindly compliments and honeyed phrases-when something more solid and appreciable than rhetorical common-places shall reward the "venerable fathers" whose bravery and fortitude, wisdom and virtue, love and loyalty, bequeathed to their spiritual children a heritage that excites the wonder and admiration of the world. Thus only can we vindicate our righteousness and demonstrate our claims to the regard and fellowship of all who "love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." Our practice in this particular must correspond with our profession, if we would be "sons of God without rebuke," "blameless and harmless" in the sight of Heaven, and clear at the bar of enlightened Christian conscience.

There is no excuse for our treatment of those who have given themselves unreservedly to the work of the ministry. They are every way worthy of--most certainly should receive-"a just recompense of reward;" and the "set time" has "fully come" to give them what they so richly deserve. With God's bounty smiling through all our borders, in these "plenteous years" of the "early and the latter rain,”—while our "noble army of martyrs," the bishops, agents, editors, and presiding elders, are shouting lustily from the "house-tops, ""Millions for Missions, Freedmen's Aid, Church Extension, Education," and what not-grand objects, all of them, and worthy of our best endeavors—why not raise the cry, Funds, Funds, FUNDS! to comfortably shelter, clothe, and feed every

worn-out preacher, widow, and orphan looking expectantly to this preeminently godlike charity, which, among the "people called Methodists," should be as broad as the earth and as lasting as her hills? Thus we shall have the "righteous in everlasting remembrance," and display "something of a finer reverence for beauty, truth, and love." Newberry, Pa.

J. B. MANN.

NATURAL SCIENCE IN THE SCHOOLS.

The importance of the study of natural science has been of late years generally recognized in the colleges and universities, and liberal provision has been made for its prosecution. But little attention, however, has been given to the subject in the lower grades of the educational course. In the primary and grammar schools there is generally no study of natural science. In the high schools, the studies of that department usually form a part of the English course, but not of the classical course. It is the general belief of students and teachers of natural science that the present arrangement involves two conditions which are most deplorable: 1. The entire omission of science from the studies of that great majority of our youth who go no further than the primary or the grammar school. 2. The postponement, in the case of the select few who receive a college education, of the study of science to so late a period of the course that their powers of observation are nearly atrophied by disuse.

This conviction has recently found expression in the action of the American Society of Naturalists, a young but vigorous society numbering about one hundred and fifty members, the great majority of whom are professors of biology and geology in the colleges of the Eastern States. At the annual meeting in December, 1887, the subject was extensively discussed, and a committee appointed to prepare a report embodying the views of the society. The committee, consisting of Professors Clarke, of Williams; Rice, of Wesleyan; Farlow, of Harvard; and Macloskie, of Princeton, and Dr. Whitman, editor of the Journal of Morphology, presented at the meeting in 1888 a report which was unanimously adopted.

The following are the principal recommendations in the report: In-. struction in the natural sciences should commence in the lowest grade in the primary school, and should continue through the course. In the lower grades, the instruction should consist chiefly of simple object-lessons, based upon the animals, plants, and minerals which are common and accessible. Rudiments of physiology should be early taught for the sake of its hygienic applications. Rudiments of physics and chemistry should be taught in the highest grades of the grammar school. More extended and systematic courses in science should be given in the high-school. Certain of the sciences (physical geography, botany, and physiology being suggested, as perhaps the most suitable) should be included in the classical course in the high-school, and required for admission to college. Middletown, Conn. WM. NORTH RICE.

38-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. V.