unconsciously. It is very evident that only by this method can the inquiring mind satisfy itself as to the real contribution of Christ and the writers of the New Testament to the world's religious and ethical wealth. Nor can this method fail to reveal the vast superiority of the Christian conception of any phase of religion or morals in cases where the now Christian world coincided more or less with the Christian thought. It also has the advantage of enabling the student to comprehend more perfectly the Christian conception. There is, therefore, a distinct gain in this method of study. Of course there are some dangers connected with the method, which has been certainly misused in many instances. Heinrici is, however, on the whole, sane. He is capable of seeing, that because the Greeks or Romans had a thought found also in Christianity, it is not necessary, or even allowable, to leap at once to the conclusion that the Christian thought is but a development of the Jewish or Gentile thought. And while he frankly points out the fact that many ideas in Christianity have their parallels in the Jewish or heathen religion he can see how vastly superior Christianity is both in polity and completeness. Yet Heinrici would not deny that Christianity seized upon and adopted to its own uses much that already existed in the language and the thought of the time. It is a fact that in other nations than the Jews and in other religions than the Christian there is truth. Christianity has never rejected truth because it was not first spoken by Christ and the apostles. Rather has it been the genius of Christianity to lay hold upon everything that is good and employ it in its own service. It is content to assimilate all things though refusing to be assimilated by anything. Even the claim that in the Gospels there is a parallel between such passages as Matthew 7. 6, and the so-called mysteries of the ancient world which were made known only to the initiated, carries with it no degradation of Christianity. For Christianity not only adapted itself to the needs of the times in which it originated but recognized that it is worse than useless to teach some things to some people. Hence our Lord even when speaking to his own disciples felt that some things he would like to say to them they were as yet unable to bear. As a matter of fact, there is a good deal in the New Testament on the subject of the knowledge of those that are perfect and about things which, though hidden now, shall be revealed hereafter. This similarity with the feelings of non-Christians is not accidental. It shows that Jesus and the apostles were men of the highest practical sense. Yet even here Heinrici points out that while in the Gentile world the secrets were for their own sake, in the Christian system they were secrets only because their promulgation would be useless or perhaps worse than useless.

Die Gegenwart Christi in der heiligen Eucharistie nach den schriftlichen Quellen der vornizanischen Zeit. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Untersuchung (The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist According to the Written Sources of the Antenicene Period. An Investigation in the History of Dogma). Wien, 1905. Mayer & Co. By Adolf Struckmann. This is one of the Theological Studies of the Leo

Society, and is written in the interest of the Roman Catholic Church. Probably it is impossible for anyone to write without some prepossessions. Struckmann certainly is influenced by his prepossessions, although he strives diligently to be strictly fair. He has to struggle hard to make it appear that the writers of the antenicene period hold to the literal meaning of the words, "This is my body"; "This is my blood." It is tolerably clear that in the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" the reference to the blood of Christ is so veiled, if there is any such reference at all, that it is difficult to discover. In fact, in the formula given in the "Teaching" for the administration of the Lord's Supper there is no word about the body and blood of Christ, but only to the cup and the broken bread. Nor is there any hint that wine stood for the blood of Christ or the broken bread for the body of Christ. Equally futile is his attempt to press a celebrated passage from Cyprian into his service. In Epistle 75, section 6, Cyprian says that "when the Lord calls bread, which is combined by the union of many grains, his body, he indicates our people whom he bore as being united; and when he calls the wine, which is pressed from many grapes and clusters and collected together, his blood, he also signifies our flock linked together by the mingling of a united multitude." Struckmann tries to rule this out as testimony on the subject by saying that the passage has for its purpose to show the unity and harmony of the members of the church, and not to discuss the Eucharist. This is true, but incidentally he does shed light on his thought as to the meaning of the words "This is my body, This is my blood." He does not mean that bread and wine, because constituted as they are, are symbols of the unity and harmony of the members of the church. The bread and the wine are symbols of his body and blood considered as an organized unit; but he turns away from the bread and wine as symbols of the sacrifice of Christ, and makes them mean the unity and harmony of the church. In fact, Cyprian here favors neither Romanist nor Protestant in this controversy. It is very evident, therefore, that he adds nothing to the claim that the antenicene fathers held to the literal meaning of the words of institution. In this connection it is very striking that Clement of Alexandria and Origen use the ideas "body and blood of Christ" as symbols of the doctrine of Christ. Thus they, too, must be counted not for, but against, the claim that the antenicene fathers held to the literal meaning of the words of institution. It is evident that they, like Cyprian, did not emphasize the eucharistic character of the Last Supper at all. Still more near to Cyprian's conception was the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" as seen in the words, "As this broken bread was scattered (that is, in seed) upon the mountains and being gathered together became one, so may thy church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom." Here, earlier by a century, we have evidence that no such significance attached to the Lord's Supper as the Romanists would claim. Justin Martyr might much more justly be quoted in favor of the Roman claim, for he says that the Christians do not receive the bread and wine as common food or the flesh and blood of Jesus. But even he falls far short, for he says the bread and the wine nourish the flesh and blood of those who partake it. He

rules out the spiritual effect altogether, and finds such effect only in the thankfulness of the Christians for the favors and blessings bestowed by Christ. Nor is there any doctrine of transubstantiation. The bread and wine are food; the food is the flesh and blood of Jesus. This is almost exactly the language of the words of institution and affords no light on what the words meant to Justin.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL

Separation of Church and State in Basel. Whereas formerly Basel was a strictly Protestant city immigration has introduced one third as many Roman Catholics as there are Protestants. As a result the Romanists are objecting to the payment of taxes for the support of the Protestant State Church and receiving in return no support from Protestants. That the Protestants feel the danger of the agitation is evident from the fact that in a recent meeting of the Synod resolutions were adopted setting forth that the vast majority of the Protestants would be opposed to separation; and proposing that in case it is not considered feasible longer to support the church either in whole or in part from the general taxes there shall be a special tax levied on those who adhere to the Protestant Church (The Evangelical Reformed Church) which shall be administered as heretofore by the secular authorities. This would be virtual though not nominal disestablishment.

Changes of Confessional Adherence in Germany. Some interesting statistics have been recently published in the Chronik der Christlichen Welt showing how many Roman Catholics have become Protestants and how many Protestants have become Roman Catholics in recent years in the various states of Germany. The greatest changes have taken place in Prussia, where some fifty thousand Roman Catholics have become Protestants in the eleven years from 1894 to 1904, as against about four thousand Protestants who have become Roman Catholics. In every country in Germany during these years the changes have been in favor of Protestantism, though in most of the countries there is no such disparity as in Prussia. In the fifteen years from 1890 to 1904 the numbers in all Germany stand as 75,978 to 10,054 in favor of the Protestants, or a Protestant gain, at the expense of the Roman Catholics, of 65,924; that is, about 4,395 conversions each year from Romanism. At this rate it will not take many decades to weaken German Romanism quite seriously.

GLIMPSES OF REVIEWS AND MAGAZINES

An unusually rich and varied table of contents was set before the readers of The Methodist Review Quarterly (Nashville) in its January issue. Bishop Hoss wrote of "The Indictment of the Methodist Articles," Bishop J. H. Vincent of "The Methodist Episcopal Church in Europe," Professor Shailer Matthews of "The Church and Social Unrest," Dr. James Hastings of his "Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels," Ira Landrith of "The First Church Union Movement of the Twentieth Century," J. A. Kern of "Art as Interpreted in Browning's Poetry," Rabbi Enelow of "Reform Judaism," W. P. Lovejoy of "The Italian Renaissance," and J. E. Walmsley of "The Small College." In addition are well-filled editorial departments. Bishop Hoss with characteristic vigor opposes the proposal in the Southern Church to revise the Articles of Religion and restate our doctrines. He fights with might and main against the new departure as unnecessary, ill-advised, and dangerous. He does not want Methodism to "abandon its immemorial attitude toward symbolic theology and go into the business of creed-building." He says: "The hosts of Methodism are now advancing at a good round swinging gait in the main, plain, straightforward, big road. This is the way our fathers trod. Shall we abandon this graded highway of Methodist history for a bypath that may come out at one place, and may come out at another, and may end in a thicket?" We presume Dr. Tillett and his cothinkers would reply that they do not propose to leave the good old historic highway. Bishop Hoss closes his lively article thus: "To be perfectly frank, if I had to choose between leaving out some of the things that are in the Articles and putting in some things that are already out, I should choose the former alternative. It is not a time for multiplying demands upon faith. Let us stick to what we have, because in all essential features it is true, and because to drop it would open us to the accusation of having abandoned it. But let us not lay any additional burdens on the shoulders of the people. Evangelical activity on the largest scale, which has been abundantly proved to be possible, under the existing status, is vastly more important than disputing about a fresh confession. With the following paragraph from Dr. Tillett I heartily agree:

If the time ever comes when a church holds on to a creed because its constitution and restrictive rules make it impossible for it to change it, rather than because it is an expression of its present living and abiding faith, then it is no longer an expression of faith, even though it be called such-it becomes then an impediment to progress, a source of death and not of life A creed that is really believed does not need to be preserved by a law forbidding the church to alter it; and a creed which a church would change if it could, but does not change simply because it cannot do so constitutionally, is no creed at all, and could have no moral value in the life of a church

This paragraph needs only one other sentence to round it up and complete It. 'A creed that is really believed does not need to be enacted by a law.'

If anyone can now make a statement that he 'can take to truth-seeking men, and say, not "Here is something you shall believe," but rather, "Here is something so reasonable, and scriptural, and true that if you will only read it and examine it, you will believe it"-let him make it. Nobody hinders him. What he may write will get no additional reënforcement by being adopted by the church. Truth cannot be enacted. Methodism has never undertaken to say to men, "You shall believe." Always she has appealed to their reason. That is what she does now. Her appeal meets everywhere with a glad response. Why not let well enough alone?"

A most informing and illuminating article is Bishop Vincent's on our work in Europe, with which he is so thoroughly familiar, as to the need for it, the character of it, and the encouraging prospects for its success. He sums up his convictions in his closing words: "Methodism is in Europe. It had a divine call. It is doing a divine work." We agree with the editor's comment on the tenth contributed article. "Professor Walmsley shows conclusively that there is not only a place but a necessity for the small college. He shows that these same small colleges do more for the creation of manhood and character than the big universities do. The big university is handicapped in more ways than one when it comes to the matter of influencing directly and personally the individual student in the direction of solid moral character. The only sure basis for this is personal religion, and the big university will not go into the business of seeing to the personal religion of its students. Indeed, there is a growing tendency among the great universities to free themselves entirely from church control. They seem to think that they cannot afford to be out-and-out Christian, permeated and dominated by the Christian spirit and the religious life. The small college can afford it, does afford it, and, in doing so, does more for the individual student than the crowded university."

Of Professor Winchester's Life of John Wesley the editor writes: "In many respects, this is one of the best of the biographies of the greatest of Englishmen. It is not so personal as Whitehead's, not so theological as Watson's, not so Methodistic as Hampson's, Clarke's, or Moore's, not so unmethodistic as Southey's, not so dry as Telford's. not so scant as Overton's, not so voluminous and exhausting as Tyerman's, and not so minute and confidential as Wesley's own. It is fresh, broad, comprehensive, and, for the most part, sympathetic."

The article which impresses us most is the editor's portraiture of Bishop Tigert. It is not a eulogy such as any admirer might write, but a lineamental and analytic portraiture of character, such as could be chiseled only by a skilled artist thoroughly familiar with every feature, and curve, and angle, and wrinkle of his subject. It is done with a frank and free and faithful hand, and it stands out convincingly as true to nature. Its manifest precision and veracity will carry, even to those who did not know Bishop Tigert, a conviction of its verisimilitude. It shows more manliness in its subject and in its author than could any smooth and softening and characterless eulogy. And to those of us who