ters on his mind, wears an intent and absorbed look, which most people instinctively feel it is best not to interfere with. . Some who knew Daniel Curry only in public, where they saw at times his rough, severe, dogmatic, and audacious ways, were surprised to be told that in private and social circles he was one of the sweetest, most charming, and lovable of men. John M. Phillips in private and among Iris friends is no less mellow and genial; a man of fine feeling, with enough of poetic light and sentiment in his soul to suggest the thought that it proves after all not wholly inappropriate that this hardheaded man of facts and figures was named John Milton. He has a memory for literature and rhyme as well as for statistics and business points. A stranger, finding him at times as dry and reticent as General Grant, might not suspect that there is in him, as in most healthy natures, a vein of humor, a quiet relish for racy morsels of fun, a fondness for bright-pointed stories and a gift for telling them, a cheeriness, when no shadows lie on heart and home, which makes his talk, in off-duty hours of converse, juicy and, as Emerson says, "nutritious."

In the local churches where he has held membership he has been class leader, steward, trustee, and Sunday-school superintendent. In the building of St. Paul Church, Cincinnati, he was treasurer, and when there were no funds in hand pledged his individual credit for thousands of dollars that the work might go on. For sixteen years he has been a strong pillar in St. John's Church, Brooklyn, as trustee and treasurer, for years as Bible-class teacher, as usher in the aisle Sunday mornings and evenings, as spokesman in addresses of welcome to new pastors, as one of the young people dropping in at their association meetings and sitting down with the rest of the young men; valued and honored by all.

In person he is above the average height, with broad shoulders somewhat rounded under the loads of life. The habitual expression of his face is grave and judicial. Ritchie's fine portrait of him might be that of a senator, or judge, or bank president. For an untitled man he wears a great many titles. He often passes as "the Rev. Dr. Phillips." Iis picture, hanging with others in a photographer's frame in the vestibule of the last General Conference, was so labeled. Zion's Herald recently called him "the Hon. John M. Phillips," and told

5-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. V.

more truth than usually goes with that title. He is sometimes taken for a bishop, and no doubt would have made a good one. Not long ago, in a restaurant, a stranger looking at him in- . quired if that were not a Methodist bishop.

In the year 1888 two great events in the metropolis called universal attention to the march and magnitude of Methodism : the sessions of our twenty-fifth General Conference in the most capacious and splendid audience-room in the city, and the laying of the corner-stone of the new Book Concern and Mission Building, largest of its kind on earth, a mighty pile, now rising on a site unsurpassed for eligibility. Of the General Conference Mr. Phillips was treasurer to the commission on its entertainment. At the laying of the corner-stone, in presence of city officials and delegates from all parts of the world, he fitly presided as chairman of the Building Committee.

Already he has been Book Agent at New York longer than any man except Thomas Carlton. A successor of such men as Ezekiel Cooper, Joshua Soule, Nathan Bangs, John Emory, Beverly Waugh, and Levi Scott, he has held his place so firmly as to be practically without competitor, being re-elected by acclamation in 1876, and receiving an almost unanimous vote at each election since. He has labored in utmost brotherly harmony with his honored ministerial associates, Dr. Nelson for seven years, and Dr. Sandford Hunt for nine years, in the management of a gigantic business which has flourished increasingly for a century and has a great future before it.

In 1836 an aged Kentucky Methodist wrote: "We have not known a more excellent and profitable man than Brother William Phillips." As was the father so is the son. The Methodist Episcopal Church can hardly expect to be served by a more efficient, safe, and unobjectionable officer.

William V,

Kullay

ART. V.—THE ATONEMENT AND THE HEATHEN. CHRISTIAN doctrines are correlative and mutually dependent. No doctrine can stand alone, but must both act and be acted upon by other doctrines. Each stands to the others as part to the whole, and the whole and its several parts are determined by the correlative influence of each. It is this fundamental fact which makes possible and necessary systems of faith. To believe one doctrine will lead to belief of another, and a change in any essential part of our faith will logically lead to a modification of the rest. We recognize this truth in all doctrinal discussions, and hence are cautious of conceding a new position lest it militate against an older and more fundamental truth.

The history of Christian doctrine exemplifies the same fact. The great historical systems of belief are built upon it. The reason is manifest: it is the logical principle. Given certain premises, we must always reach, if consistent, certain conclusions. So postulates in doctrines necessitate corollaries and inferences. Hence, along the line of this principle do we trace the development of various systems of theology, as Pelagianism, Socinianism, and Arminianism, the leading and comprehensive creeds of Christendom.

One of the most decisive doctrines in any system is the atonement in Christ. The view of this doctrine has determined every creed. Notably, a limited atonement is but a link, and a neces-· sary link, in the chain of Calvinism. Without it this system of faith cannot exist, nor could ever have existed. But in the systems of Augustine and Calvin it was a part perfectly fitted to the whole. While being influenced by, it has been determinative of, every other part of this faith, as, for instance, the damnation of reprobate infants with the rest of the non-elect. The same is true to-day. The view of the doctrine of atonement, if one is logical and consistent in his belief, will determine one's entire creed. It must be intimately connected with a consistent view of the present and future condition of the heathen.

The Andover theology fully recognizes this fact of the relation of the atonement to the heathen world. In reference to this very subject the authors, in Progressive Orthodoxy, say:

It is especially true of eschatology that correct views depend on the conceptions one has not only of the several truths, but of the very character, significance, and tendency of the Gospel as a whole.

This is but a sample of an assumption which pervades this entire series of Essays. We may not be surprised, therefore, to find, in their teaching, a doctrine of atonement in logical consistency with their doctrine of probation. This we do find.

Such a doctrine lies in making the moral influence of the atonement an essential part of the mediation of Christ. This doctrine is not only consistent with, it necessitates, a future probation. This is manifest from the fact that all in probation must come under the essential benefits of the atonement. This is the position of the Andover teaching. Therefore, assuming the moral influence of Christ's atonement to be an essential part thereof, they conclude, legitimately, that all men in probation must come under this influence, and hence must know the historic Christ; else the essential benefits of the atonement are not universal in their application. This is logically inevitable. Given their moral influence view of the atonement, which is that it is a co-ordinate and essential part of Christ's work, there is no alternative but their conclusion. This is the reason of all their assertions to the effect that if the atonement is universal all men must somewhere in probation have a personal relation of knowledge to Christ.

We are prepared to assert, for the same reasons, that any teaching that makes the moral influence of the atonement, in any sense, a cardinal or essential element is freighted with the same consequences. Such, therefore, is the logical bearing of the following passage from Pope. Speaking of the sacrificial, rectoral, and moral influence doctrines, he says:

These three views, or, to use modern language, theories, of the atonement are combined in the Scriptures; neither is dwelt upon apart from the rest. The perfect doctrine includes them all. Every error springs from the exaggeration of one of these elements at the expense of the others.

We may add, by way of correction, that this new error with which we are dealing springs not from an exaggeration of one of these elements at the expense of the others, but from coordinating the moral influence element with the other results

of the atonement, as does Dr. Pope. His doctrine abounds in this same error with its logical sequence, although not carried out. The same is the result, logically, from an article in the Methodist Quarterly Review of April, 1884, in review of Dr. Miley. The author is Dr. John J. Tigert, of Vanderbilt University, Tenn. Quoting an old instructor, he

says:

Here Dr. Summers has most felicitously combined all the elements of truth in the three great theories of atonement, Satisfaction, Governmental, and Moral,

The entire article is in support of this position. We quote once again in order to show the general drift of much current Methodist teaching in the line of this ill-fated doctrine. The Rev. Thomas Stalker, of Owosso, Mich., says:

Dr. Bushnell bases the necessity for the atonement exclusively on moral grounds. Dr. Miley mainly [he should have said wholly] on governmental grounds. To us it seems as if these great thinkers had omitted the most important part of the foundation, namely, the palpable facts of God's and man's moral nature.

By the palpable facts of God's moral nature we presume he means a necessity in God for expiation. By the facts of man's moral nature he means "man's consciousness of guilt" and "ill-desert." Evidently this last thought expresses but a certain phase of moral influence.

Such, then, is some teaching ontside of Andover whose Andover conclusion has not, perhaps, been foreseen. But, happily for us, we are not driven to their anti-scriptural probation from the fact that there is no necessity of including the moral influence of the atonement as, in any sense, cardinal or essential. And this, without apparently any thought of avoiding the false conclusion, is the doctrine of Dr. Miley on the atonement. Fully recognizing the healthful moral influence of the atonement-and this he recognizes as fully as any one-he yet denies that it is any part of atonement as such. It is in his system an incidental though beneficial result as far as it extends. One or two quotations will not be out of place. Under the heading, "Truth of Moral Influence," he says:

The real issue with the Socinian scheme does not concern the truth of a helpful moral influence in the economy of redemption. This any true doctrine of atonement must fully hold. The issue