the true character of preexilic prophecy, (2) that in the preexilic prophecies, from Amos to Ezekiel, there is not a single Messianic passage, (3) that the Messianic hopes uttered in Ezekiel did not spring from the preexilic prophecy, but from an intellectual movement of an entirely different sort. When anything seems to be said about a Messiah in the prophecies prior to the exile the character described is not a religious, but a political, figure. For Israel he is simply the Saviour in a temporal sense, maintaining order within and compelling respect for Israel without. Along with this went no duty relative to religion or morals. The Messiah was neither a prophet, a priest, nor a teacher. His work was not to enlarge the knowledge of God among his own people, nor to instruct the heathen nations and convert them to the religion of Jehovah. Preexilic prophecy is chiefly a condemnation of sin and a pronouncement of judgment. By preaching the Messianic-theocratic king the prophets would have suppressed the popular consciousness of Jahweh. Only by a procedure which must be called hypercritical can Volz sustain these conclusions. Everything which contradicts his idea is carefully eliminated from the prophetic writings and stigmatized as spurious. Apparently there is no sufficient reason for this procedure. It is done that nothing may interfere with his conclusions. That many passages of the Old Testament which had no Messianic significance when originally uttered have been filled with Messianic meaning by those who knew the life of Christ, and were anxious to make him the subject of prophetic foresight, is undoubtedly true. But to decimate the religious hopes of Israel prior to the exile by declaring all literary expressions of such hope during that period spurious is a piece of critical legerdemain which it is not difficult to detect, and which all unprejudiced minds must condemn. The early conception of the Messiah was not always clear nor unmixed with unrevealed opinion, but they had a conception of a Messiah as a natural result of their faith in God as their Saviour and guide.

ECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

Die Religion im modernen Geistesleben (Religion in Modern Life). By Martin Rade. Freiburg, i. B., J. C. B. Mohr, 1898. Rade is the editor of Die Christliche Welt, and a thoroughgoing Ritschlian in theology. The book here noticed is composed of lectures delivered at Frankfortam-Main before an audience presumably composed of men of all shades of belief and unbelief. They evince in their make-up the fact that their author could not courteously insist on all that he personally believed. Nevertheless, he does not lose sight of the fact that he is a Christian nor even that he is a Ritschlian among theologians, though he makes less of the person of Christ and relatively more of Christianity as a whole and in its relation to other religions than a Christian and a Ritschlian naturally would. Besides this comparison of the great religions the book

contains valuable thoughts on "Religion and Morality," "Religion and Natural Science," "Religion and Art," and "Religion and Politics." In his treatment of the first theme he conceives of the great religions of the world as historical-psychological facts, giving special prominence to the specific peculiarities of each. On the subject of "Religion and Morality" Rade takes the position that the superiority of Christianity, if not its peculiar significance, is found in the fact that it unites the two in the most perfect manner. The Sermon on the Mount is the monument at once of the identification of the two and of the superiority of Christianity to all other religions. Here, perhaps, is the weakest point in Rade's book. In the first place, he gives too much prominence to the Sermon on the Mount. Much as this discourse contains, it by no means exhausts all there is of Christianity. Hence it cannot be the monument of the alleged identification of religion and morality. But, furthermore, Christianity does not identify the two, since morality is not all there is of Christianity. The two are not even diverse aspects of the same thing. Nor is Christian morality identical and coterminous with Christianity. Christianity is primarily a religion; but it is a religion which includes morality of a particular kind. Apart from each other neither the Christian religion nor that element of it known as Christian morality can be understood, nor can one practice Christian morals without the forces and aids furnished by the Christian religion. But were such a thing possible it would still be true that the two are to be considered, not as one and the same thing, but, rather, under the idea of the relation of the whole to the part, or of the inner to the outer life.

Genesis, erklärt von H. Holzinger (Genesis: A Commentary by H. Holzinger). Freiburg, i. B., J. C. B. Mohr, 1897. This is one volume of a commentary on the Old Testament, issued under the general editorship of Professor Marti, with the assistance of several scholars, among whom is Professor Budde, whose lectures at various universities in this country attracted so much attention among scholars during the past year. The volume differs in some important respects from all other commentaries on Genesis hitherto published. Accepting the results of the modern critical investigations relative to the various sources traceable in Genesis, it treats each theme according to its representation in the individual sources. For example, the story of the flood as given by P., then the story as given by J.; the history of Abraham according to P., afterward as given by J. E. This method of procedure has certain disadvantages, but it certainly makes easy the task of keeping in mind the different themes and of comparing divergent accounts where such are afforded in the text. Holzinger is very certain of the correctness of the distinctions made by the modern critical school as to the sources, carrying this matter, with so many others, even down to individual words. Whether he is justified in so doing we cannot determine; but on general

principles it is well to remember that such fine points, made with such appearance of infallibility, are less likely than an exhibition of greater modesty to carry conviction to the thoughtful mind. In general Holzinger is extremely radical. This is evinced in his treatment of the patriarchal histories. It is not well to make every patriarchal story to consist of mere legend. All legends have a basis of historical fact. It is the business of one who attempts to estimate legendary matter to determine, if possible, what is fact and what is fiction, and, if that is not possible, at least to admit the kernel of truth in the legend. Nor is it necessary to affirm that every alleged patriarchal history is intended to be the history of a tribe. There may be at least some instances in which the account has to do with a person rather than a tribe. Furthermore, it is erroneous to allege that none of the institutions, religious and political, belong in the time in which Genesis places them, but rather in the time of the kings. The names of "Abraham" and "Jacob" were given to individuals in Mesopotamia as early as 2000 B. C., as the Babylonian discoveries of recent times show. The extremes of the critics hinder the cause more than they help it, and will be inevitably followed by a reaction.

Het Christendom der tweede eeuw (The Christianity of the Second Century). By Dr. H. M. Meyboom. Gronigen, J. B. Wolters, 1897. The nonconservative camp of theologians in Holland is filled with the idea of Loman and others that there is nothing certain with reference to the origin of Christianity. Neither Jesus nor Paul are certainly historical characters, it is held, and it is uncertain whether Christianity arose before the second century. Meyboom's work suffers from this species of hypercriticism. It professes, indeed, to be nothing more than a collection of material for the stndent, with an appendix on the Christianity of the first century. Judged even from the standpoint of the author's purpose it becomes necessary to point out that many interesting phenomena of the period included are passed over in almost absolute neglect. But, allowing Meyboom the right to reserve his judgment in disputed matters, it is still a question whether he could not have accomplished his work more successfully had he at least betrayed more definitely than he does a sense of consistency in the movements depicted. Even a collection of data is more serviceable by being based upon some philosophy of the subject. But it is just here that we come upon the interesting fact in connection with Meyboom's book. He gives us no suggestion of the philosophy of the history, because he has no such philosophy. It is the peculiarity of the Dutch school that it does not know how Christianity originated. It teaches that not one single document of the New Testament canon is genuine, and Meyboom does not give us any conclusion as to the date even of the principal so-called Pauline epistleswhether they originated in the first or in the second century. As for Christianity itself, he intimates that it arose from a Messianic agitation

in Palestine, from Alexandrian Hellenism, and from the contemporaneous philosophy of Seneca and others combined. Now, all this assumes that there is no historical basis for Christianity, and that, as a result, we are driven back upon speculation for a solution of the question of its origin. But Christianity is a historical fact. Its existence can be traced back at least to the time of Nero in the literature of secular history. And, furthermore, early in the second century Christianity was the subject of a decree by Trajan regulating the persecution of its adherents. It was then a widely diffused religion. Its roots must have extended well back into the first century. If we entirely rejected the New Testament documents, therefore, there would be no excuse for the substitution of speculation for historical investigation.

Ueber die Absicht und den literarischen character der apostel geschichte (The Purpose and Literary Character of the Acts of the Apostles). By Johannes Weiss. Göttingen, Vandenhoeck, und Ruprecht, 1897. It is pleasing, in the midst of so much relative to the sources of the material of the Acts, to find a book which, while it does not neglect the question of sources, lays the stress of the inquiry upon other points. As to the purpose of the Acts, Weiss holds that it is an apology or explanation to the heathen, designed to show how it is that Christianity in its world-mission came to be separated from Judaism. The starting point of Christian missionary effort was Jerusalem, and nothing but the willful rejection of salvation by the Jews occasioned the complete and permanent transfer of missionary effort to the heathen world. The preliminary history of the mission to the heathen (chaps. i, viii, ix) shows how the conversion of the Samaritans, the Ethiopian, and Paul, and even the establishment of the first heathen congregation, resulted from that persecution to which Stephen fell a victim. The Cornelius episode in particular brings to our attention the divine ordination of the heathen missionary movement and its sanction by the primitive Christians at Jerusalem. Paul's three missionary journeys are distinguished by three separate and solemn reminders to the Jews that, as they had refused Christ, the apostle must turn to the heathen; and this is repeated at the end of the work (See chaps. xiii, 46, f.; xviii, 6, f.; xix, 9; and xxviii, 25, f.). But the middle point of the entire document is the Apostolical Council with its recognition and establishment of the heathen Church. By this very act, however, Christianity lost its protection as a part of Judaism, and thus became liable to persecution. In connection with Paul, Weiss sees in the Acts an attempt to make it appear that the Roman authorities regarded the Christians as innocent of any wrong of which they could take cognizance, and that they declared they had no jurisdiction in cases of complaint by Jews against Christians, since it was a question of strife among Jews themselves. Along with this event go Paul's effort to show that Chris

tianity was the true Judaism, and the prominence given to the statement that Paul observed the Jewish ceremonies at Jerusalem. At the same time the writer of Acts attempts to show that, notwithstanding all the opposition of the Jews, the Christian cause triumphed by finally being preached in Rome. The rejection of the Gospel by the Jews and the acceptance of it by heathen gave the latter the place divinely designed for the former. Hence no Roman authority should heed Jewish denunciation of Christians, but give them the protection formerly given to the Jews.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL.

The United Brethren of Germany and the Higher Criticism. For some years the German United Brethren have been disturbed by the outspoken advocacy of the results of the so-called higher criticism on the part of certain of their ministers, particularly by the faculty of the theological seminary at Gnadenfeld. A couple of years ago the situation became acute, and a synod convened at Herrnhut to determine the proper action to be taken. The vast majority of the members of the synod, representing, doubtless, about the same proportion of the Brethren at large were personally opposed to the theology taught at Gnadenfeld; and not only so, but they felt that the minority were, however unintentionally, disturbers of the peace of their Zion. A general discussion continuing between four and five days, in which perfect freedom of speech was indulged, resulted in the conviction that neither side could win the other to itself. Upon what ground the United Brethren could remain united was, therefore, a burning question. Fortunately, the very same debate which had served to betray the hopelessness of unity in opinion also developed the fact that, on the questions which centered about the personal trust of each individual in Jesus Christ, and with reference to the inner religious experience of each, there was perfect unity. The question then was whether they had more to bind them together than to drive them asunder. This question was answered in the affirmative, and the synod was thereby able to reach a peaceable solution of its vexing problem. The result is in no wise considered a victory for the new theology. Rather was it a victory of religion over theological theory. The United Brethren have proclaimed to the world that, though there may be an imperfect union on theological points, they are united in Christ; and that, so long as they are united in him, they will give the subordinate place to differences of theological opinion. This was the spirit of John Wesley, and the Methodist Episcopal Church seems to be following in his steps.

Peculiar Church Discipline in Hannover. In the early days of March, 1897, the Royal Consistory (ecclesiastical) of Hannover, Germany, issued