Such was the origin of the Methodist Episcopal Church, the first in the new republic to attain autonomy with a jurisdiction of more than national extent. The same divine hand that originated the nation originated it. Despite the unhistorical theories of royalists and prelatists each exists jure divino. Washington needed no kingly coronation at the hands of George III. to render legitimate his authority as president of a republic in which George III. had himself no shadow of authority. Had England demanded this as a condition indispensably requisite to the recognition of the nationality of the people of the United States she would have displayed an arrogancy and folly even greater than she did. Equally manifest would have been the impropriety had any of the diocesan bishops of England, or even the provincial archbishops of Canterbury and York, with their territorially limited jurisdictions, conditioned their recognition of the authority of Asbury as a legitimate bishop in the Methodist Episcopal Church on ordination and consecration at their hands. Whoever maintains the historic legitimacy of the republic of the United States. of America cannot deny the historical legitimacy of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The apparent breach of historic continuity was greater in the civil than in the ecclesiastical sphere. In each, however, the change was not one of man's arbitrary and selfwilled ordering; it was simply a vital transformation wrought by God's power in the historic unfoldment of his kingdom.

The growth of the new Church, like that of the American people, was surprising. By the blessing of God it soon attracted to itself a larger body of adherents than any other in the nation. Its missions spread into every continent, and their growth has been a joy to the Christian world. The explanation of this extraordinary progress must be sought in a variety of considerations. Priority of organization as respects other autonomous connectional American communions was, of course, one advantage; greater ones, however, were the Church's earnestly evangelistic spirit, its peculiarities of organization, its directness of doctrinal statement, and its friendliness of attitude toward other Christians of every name. It has always and every-where endeavored first of all to seek and to save the lost. It has always believed and taught that the sole infallible proof of the legitimacy of any particular branch of the Christian Church is to be found in its currently proven ability to transmit and propagate that pentecostal spirit and life procured for mankind in and through the Founder of the Church, the incarnate Son of God. It has ever recognized as true branches

of Christ's Church all that clearly demonstrate their power by the word and Spirit of God to renew men in the divine image. It has ever laid chief stress upon the essentials of religion, not upon forms. Its spirit has been unusually liberal, its terms of fellowship comprehensive. Probationary membership has ever been. open to men of all opinions. Among the debated forms of baptism this Church has left to every candidate the fullest freedom of choice. If any member has had scruple against receiving the Lord's Supper kneeling he has been permitted to receive it standing or sitting. In all ordinary public worship the people have been invited to unite in extemporary prayers; yet on sacramental occasions, and in all services connected with the ordination of the ministry, the dedication of houses of worship, the solemnization of matrimony, and the burial of the dead, a stately ritual embodying the best material from the most ancient sources has been employed. In its Hymnal the voices of all Christian Churches and of all Christian ages harmoniously unite. To the spiritually minded Romanist it offers a communion holy, catholic, and apostolic; to the believer in episcopacy an administration by godly bishops; to the advocate of Presbyterianism legislation by representative presbyters and laymen; to the champion of Congregationalism local independence in the discipline of members, in the licensing of preachers, and in all questions relative to the sustentation of public worship. Its very structure is thus preclusive of every narrow and partisan spirit, its life a school of truest catholicity. That it might ever remain worthy of its origin, and ever more and more fruitfully fulfill its divine calling as a leader in evangelization, a pioneer in all true reforms, a pattern in all charities, a power for the promotion of fraternal relations among all branches of the one true Church of Jesus Christ, has been the prayer of our ministers and members from the beginning until now. For these ends will we and our children continue to labor and cease not to pray.

William J. Warren,

ART. VI. PERSONALITY IN AUTHORSHIP.

SOMETIME since a body of scholarly men was entertained on the subject of "Homer" by a gentleman of rare powers and keen sensibilities. The conclusion of the address was that the Iliad was immortalized by the exalted moral purpose pervading it and wrought out in the course of the narrative. Interesting as was this suggestion, and seductive as was the argument, we could not but dissent. The chief reason for this lack of concurrence lay in the conviction that the heart-qualities of the author had been entirely overlooked, while whatever of morality the poem contained seemed to be attributed to a distinct purpose on the part of the bard to awaken a particular sentiment in the minds of his audience. It is but fair, however, to state that the writing of this article is only indirectly due to the address in question, and that it makes mention of it merely as having formed the nucleus round which were gathered the following observations. Whatever interest may attach to the present writing must arise from the fact that such criticism is quite universal, false though its method would appear to be. To others, our own method may seem insufficient, and without force in its application.

In respect of morality-teaching in literature there exists, perhaps, a greater variety of methods, although for present purposes it will suffice to make mention of but two; the first being that which, setting out with a view solely to propound or illustrate moral truths, seeks to establish them as guides to human action; the other, that which not purposely, but naturally, brings to light some eternal verity having the power to impress the reader as an unintentional sermon. It will depend largely upon the habits, temperament, and proclivities of the individual-in a word, upon his character-whether the effect upon him of the former will exceed that of the latter. Laxly speaking, we ordinarily attribute the result of the latter class to the nature of the subject-matter, thinking it necessary that certain impressions should be consequent upon the observation of given occurrences. That this view is unphilosophical and in its very essence untrue is sufficiently illustrated not only in our every-day lives by the effective homilies our neighbor gleans from current events while we, perhaps, behold them with moral indifference, but

especially and notably in the divergence existing between the modern schools of historiography.

ure.

It is a fact patent to every observer that events often occur in certain sequence. But what conclusion are we thence to draw? One historian finds in this phenomenon but a manifestation of the progress of causation, such as is observed in material natIs not man, with his individual acts, the unit of history, inasmuch as it is the collective activity of these elements that produces the ensemble? But men are prompted by different motives, each of which results in a specific policy. Another historian, admitting that these atoms are ultimate, but holding them subject to and dependent upon their surroundings, will add that the possible motives in the individual, and consequently the courses of action, are not infinite, but are in fact reduced in number to a minimum by his environment. Such reflections will lead the investigator to a consideration of the climatic relations of a country and the resultant constitution of its population. This, however, is not the only stand-point from which we may survey history, that vast net-work of fatality following night and day upon the cyclings of the sun, making unalterable the works of men and holding them firmly as in the gripe of death. In contemplating this august spectacle we find laws obtaining the same as those ruling in our consciousness; and in the retributions and rewards of history we divine the dominance of a moral Providence. Thus is the process reversed. But to us it seems clear that both these views are true, though one leads the eye earthward, the other heavenward. They are supplementary rather than diverse. Yet such are the various constitutions of men that even within this sphere, so sensibly retrenched, scarce two will hit upon the same reflections.

It ought, therefore, to be evident that something much more fundamental than intellectual purpose and perception must be sought out as the ground of difference. Let not the import of this assertion be misconceived. There is no need to deny that according to the former of the methods designated a preacher, for example, may have a certain end in view in making choice of a text. This is no doubt frequently the case; would it were always true! Yet there is room for much originality as well as for the display of the complete character. Supposing even the preacher has chosen his text as well as his

materials, he will needs show his personality in some way. Commonly he does it by proving from the start that there is nothing original either in the subject-matter or in the complexion of his sermon. Beneath the time-honored accumulations of the commentary he hides himself only to prove his intellectual nonentity. If, however, he read the Scriptures and choose from them text and illustration at first hand, he must inevitably exhibit his point of view, which coincides with his character. The person who is actually original presents his subject in the light in which it appears to him; and once this point given the convergence of rays will prove the whereabouts of the man. Of course, there is no standard in heaven or on earth by which we can measure one who is not original, save that of honesty. Honesty, to be sure, may consist in very different things. One lacking originality may be perfectly honest in giving credit to his authorities and to those from whom he has borrowed, while ever concealing his own, perhaps repulsive, character in the comely vestment of another's heart. On the other hand, he may be in perfect sympathy with the sentiments of another and yet fail to respect his authorship. In either case the writer will lack honesty, and a further inquiry into his character will prove to be of no advantage.

That the factor of personality is of vast and perhaps paramount importance in criticism seems not to be fully recognized, although biographers have instinctively turned to this source in their quest of materials suited to their uses. The rationalistic spirit, in a strangely perverted form, has thus far prevailed in literary criticism. The public mind has somehow become possessed of the idea that an author has always some great lesson to teach the greater, perchance, because he dares not print it boldly, but must write it in cipher. In response to this sentiment has arisen among writers of fiction the erratic belief that they must publish at the least one novel on some question of the day. As a rule these productions, which purposely embody just those elements which the critic seeks to ferret out in all his reading, are among the most puerile and ephemeral. A good book is the life-blood of an author, was the judgment of Milton. It is the Mrs. Stowe who weeps for anguish when one of her literary characters dies, not the preacher who chuckles over a "good hit " that will live to posterity. The best things