ciples, bound to any prescribed results. If he is so bound he is so far non-Protestant. More in accordance with truth is Schell's doctrine that the great fundamental factors of religion are God and the human spirit, and his rejection of certain skeptical theories of the origin of religion. He rejects the idea that religion is a pathological accompaniment of the childhood of the human race, a consequence of ignorance of natural causality, a product of poetic temperament, the offspring of fear, or the consequence of selfish desire in any form. Rather is it the natural expression of the inner nature of both God and man, a search by the reason after a sufficient ground of explanation of being, and by the heart after an example and source of all perfection. His criteria for determining the reasonableness of revelation are four, the first two being internal, the last two external. According to these criteria revelation must distinguish itself by divine wisdom and power to carry conviction; it must include a moral law characterized by its supernatural holiness; it must be able to overcome all physical and spiritual consequences of sin, or, in other words, it must exhibit miracles; it must prove itself to be a gradual fulfilling of a divine counsel, or, in other words, it must contain prophecy and fulfillment. Schell rejects the evidence of the witness of the Holy Spirit so frequently met with in various forms in Protestant apologetics; but his criteria really include it. Many Protestants would agree with him entirely. The principal objection to be felt with his scheme is that because it is so common it was hardly worth while to give it expression. But this does not detract from the general interest of his thoughts.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

Einleitung in die Philosophie (Introduction to Philosophy). By Wilhelm Wundt. Leipzig, W. Engelmann, 1902. At the age of seventy Wundt has once more made his appearance as an author. The book is, however, the product of work done during several years past, during which he gave the contents of the book in the form of lectures to his students at Leipzig. There are various ways of writing introduction to philosophy. One is to take up one by one the various epoch-making philosophies and subject them to criticism and examination. Another is to set forth the philosophical currents of the present day as the background for the presentation of the author's own views. Wundt follows neither of these methods. His work is more like a history of philosophy in that it shows how philosophy with its various problems arose, thereby preparing the way for a systematic study of present-day philosophy. His method undertakes to exclude all that belongs to philosophy as a view of the world and in its particular phases. Its purpose is not to treat of philosophy, but to lead the student to the threshold and then to turn him over to the philosopher him

self. Of course, the conception of philosophy which Wundt entertains of necessity crops out in carrying forward his undertaking. To him philosophy is the universal science whose task it is to unite the results of the special sciences into a self-consistent system and to find the principles underlying general methods and presuppositions employed by science in the attainment of knowledge. Thus he first defines philosophy and its relation to science. The theologian will be specially interested in his ideas concerning the relation of philosophy to religion. According to him, the object with which philosophy, as all science, deals is the sensible, empirical world, while religion deals with objects in the supersensible world. This gives these two great departments of human thought and activity mutually exclusive realms. As a result philosophy cannot give laws for the determination of the religious conception of the world; nor can religion mix itself up with philosophy. But the facts of religion are capable of being studied, and therefore there is a science of religion, and this science, as all others, it is the business of philosophy to include in its scope. His view of philosophy carries with it the necessity of classifying the various sciences. The results are interesting. There are just two great classes: the formal (pure mathematics) and the real (physical and mental). Philosophy also is divided into genetic, having to do with the theory of knowledge, and systematic, having to do with principles. The principal tendencies of philosophy have been connected with the question of knowledge, the question of metaphysics, and the question of ethics. As a result of the study of substance, matter, and soul, there have arisen three general world-views: the materialistic, the idealistic, and the realistic. As a result of this classification and the grounds upon which he bases it he includes Spinoza among the realists. In ethics there are, according to Wundt, the heteronymic and the antonymic systems, but these are supplemented by transcendental systems which are a kind of middle between the other two. Perhaps the most satisfactory and at the same time the most unsatisfactory feature of this book, to the theologian, will be his definition of the relations of philosophy and religion. We think their true relation to each other remains to be properly stated.

Die Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament. Dritte Auflage, mit Ausdehnung auf die Apokryphen, Pseudepigraphen und das Neue Testament neu bearbeitet von Prof. Dr. H. Zimmern und Prio.-Doz. Dr. H. Winckler. I Hälfte (The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament. Third edition, extended to include the apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books and the New Testament. newly revised by Dr. H. Zimmern and Dr. H. Winckler. First half). By Eberhard Schrader. Berlin, Reuter & Reichard, 1902. This half of the third edition of Schrader's great work has been so completely revised by Winckler as to be his rather than Schrader's.

The work is improved and made distinctly more valuable by the revision, although one must guard himself against some of Winckler's interpretations of things. He thinks that the entire Orient was flooded with Babylonian culture, and that even the nomadic peoples, including the Hebrews, were influenced by it even before they rose to the condition of a civilized state. He holds it to be a fundamental error in the study of Israelitish history to explain the early life of Israel by their tribal ideas instead of by the culture and the conditions by which they were surrounded. Israel was not excluded from the general intercourse of the nations which was so prominent in that day, either commercially, politically, or religiously. While the Israelites in the writing of their own history saw in themselves the center of all the world, and while we look back upon them as the subjects of a special revelatory process by which they became the best means of God's communication of himself to mankind at large, Winckler reduces their national sig. nificance in proportion as they were geographically limited. He holds that after the brief period of independence which Israel enjoyed under David-and he is not certain that this even is historically trustworthy-the little nation was no longer able to resist the external influences and maintain an independent policy, but was merely a part of a greater whole of national activity. He thinks this was as true of their intellectual development as of their political, and that even the prophets of Israel were dependent upon the superior culture of the greater states. The prophets, according to this book, had not only a political mission, but correspond to our politicians in the best sense of the term. They were the spokesmen of the great world kings, standing in close connection with them and doing their will. Elijah represented the Damascene kingdom as against Tyre; Isaiah, Assyria against Chaldea; Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar. Political leaflets originating at the courts of the great kings were adopted by the prophets as their own and disseminated among the people. We must think of the intercourse among these different nations as very active, and the Israelitish prophets owe their ideas and their comprehensive view of political affairs to their contact with the centers of culture. On this view of the Hebrew prophets two things should be said. In the first place it is evident that unless the prophets received their knowledge of political conditions by direct divine revelation they must have received it by the same means open to the Israelitish kings and statesmen. But it is not necessary to suppose that they were the agents of those foreign kings. All analogy forbids this. Second, the idea that they were politicians in any true and proper sense is foreign to the record we have of their sayings and doings. This idea is guesswork elevated by Winckler's own subjectivity into the realm of fact. That they took an interest in political affairs, that they were patriots, is plain. But it is equally plain that their chief interests were religious and moral.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL.

The Paris Missionary Society. Organized in 1824, its first real work was begun in 1833, when its missionaries went to the Basutos in South Africa. That mission now numbers 14 stations, with 18 missionaries and 3 female teachers; 11,500 church members, 7,100 catechumens, and about 10,000 Sunday school scholars. This does not seem to show very great results, but it is affirmed that to this mission the independent existence of the Basutos is due; and the vigor of the work is further seen in the fact that in 1885 this mission started a work of its own on the Upper Zambezi among the Barotse, which has grown to eight stations. In 1863 the society began work in Senegal, but with comparatively poor success. In 1892 it adopted two stations in the Congo region which had been established by the American Presbyterians, and in 1896 began work in Madagascar. According to the report of 190001, there were in all their mission fields 93 mission workers, not counting the wives of the missionaries, and the total expense was 1,180,000 francs.

Ministerial Supply Abroad. America is not alone in the decrease of candidates for the ministry. The Royal Bureau of Statistics for Prussia in its report for 1902 shows that the theological students have varied as follows: In 1830 there were 4,267; in 1851, 1,614; in 1860, 2,550; in 1870, 1,827; in 1876, 1,502; in 1888, 4,793; in 1893, 3,502; in 1899, 2,352. The following table shows all students in various universities at present:

SUMMARY OF THE REVIEWS AND MAGAZINES.

THE Atlantic Monthly (Boston) for May holds the usual affluence of value and variety. Dr. George H. Gordon, writing of "Emerson as a Religious Influence," brings against Emerson, as well as against Carlyle, the grave charge that "while they were the product of Christian civilization, and drew the substance of their message from the religious faith of their people, there is no evidence that either ever seriously studied Christianity. The greatest phenomenon in human history engages but lightly the attention or the enthusiasm of either; nor does either fathom the need of the humanity that has risen on the strength of the Gospel of Christ. It was the dim perception of this fact that led Lord Jeffrey to remark of Carlyle that he went about as if he were to found a new religion. No one had done anything great for man's soul until he came. One can hardly read the correspondence of Carlyle and Emerson without the feeling of their excessive consequentialness in the presence of the immense historic achievement of spiritual genius; in the presence of the spirit, the teaching, and the influence of Jesus. Both were essentially modest men, and yet they lived in the sense of a uniqueness and an importance which they do not possess. They are both frequently oracular when uttering with literary distinction only the commonplace moral wisdom of the Christian world. It is a valid criticism upon Carlyle and Emerson that they failed to recognize the rock whence they were hewn, and that they did not exhaust the quarry; that they were oblivious of the pit whence they were digged, and that the precious metal remained, after they were taken out, in boundless abundance. This failure in Carlyle and Emerson to appreciate the significance of Christianity is doubtless the expression of a tendency in the Calvinism which they both inherited. The fate of the world is fixed in eternity, and the historical disclosure in time is but a comparatively unimportant detail. For Calvinism Christianity dissolves in the Deity to whom it points. This is true, but it is unavailing as excuse for men of extraordinary genius like Carlyle and Emerson. And this oversight is even more remarkable when one reflects that both these men were created and equipped out of a Christian civilization; that both drew their essential message from a nature saturated with Christianity, and that the Sermon on the Mount contains the entire ethical teaching of both and infinitely more. That side of Christianity which deals with mankind sunk in immeasurable moral failure and woe finds no recognition in Emerson. Let one go from Emerson to Dante and one will see what is meant. There is in Emerson no Inferno, hardly even a Purgatorio; and for that reason his Paradise is a good deal