who was then a freshman there, says: "One who knew the undergraduates would have predicted that the homely style and American accent would be fatal to Moody's success; a refined university man would be the one to move them. On the contrary, the converts among the university 'men' were numbered by hundreds, and the part taken by Cambridge in founding the great Student Volunteer Missionary Movement really dates from that week." Of the effect of Westcott's theology on his feeling for all men, the following is written: The Incarnation was for him the center of all truth; and the fact that the Son of God became a Man hallowed every part of man's mental and moral and social life, so that nothing human was foreign to the realm of his religion. Westcott was not peculiar in his doctrine, but he held it as a saint and not merely as a thinker. It was so intensely real to him that it colored every thought, and was a decisive element in every problem. To divide life into water-tight compartments, to parcel out the sacred and the secular, was impossible to him; for along every path of life he saw One walking whose form was human yet divine. We all believe with our heads that He is disguised beneath the worn features of men and women whom we could help. Westcott believed it with his heart as well, and that is all. -John G. Tasker notices at length Dr. Friedrich Loofs's article on "Methodism" in the Herzog-Hauck Realency-Klopädie für Protestantische Theologie und Kirche. Professor Loofs, of Halle University, is called "the most distinguished of the younger Church Historians of Germany, and an eminently sane and scientific worker and thinker." Dr. Loofs declines to accept Dr. Wauer's characterization of William Law as "the father of the English revival of the eighteenth century and the grandfather of Methodism." A singular omission in Law's Serious Call is that there is scarce any reference to sin and redemption, the reason being that these truths were almost entirely absent from Law's conception of Christianity. In agreement with J. R. Green's well-known declaration that "The Methodists themselves are the least result of the Methodist Revival," the London Times is quoted as being more impressed by "the gradual absorption of Wesley's teaching into the common religious life and social effort of the community than even by the remarkable expansion of Methodism proper throughout the religious world." In his Vision of Saints Lewis Morris pictures Wesley's "apostolic form blessing our land,” and claims England's gratitude for him, because His faithful hand Relit the expiring fire, which sloth and sense And left in ashes. Our one regret in reading The London Quarterly Review is that it does not give us more of Dr. Watkinson, its brilliant editor. IN the Bibliotheca Sacra for July three of the associate editors are among the eight contributors, Jacob Cooper, A. A. Berle, and James Lindsay. That devoted and enthusiastic scholar, Dr. Cooper, writes with linked and lucid cogency on “Theodicy.” Dr. Berle tries to answer the question "How Shall We Teach Religion?" showing the insufficiency of present methods both in schools and in churches, and the grave situation resulting therefrom. He says the atmosphere existing in many churches is itself the greatest bar to religious teaching of any effective kind, and quotes the late E. L. Godkin, editor of the New York Evening Post, who, in an essay on "The Church and Good Conduct," spoke from the point of view of a mere observer of men. Speaking of the Unitarian effort to make Christ's influence and authority rest on his moral teachings and example "without the support of a divine nature or mission," Mr. Godkin says that the attempt has failed, and adds: "The Christian Church cannot be held together as a great social force by his teaching or example as a moral philosopher. A church organized on this theory speedily becomes a lecture association or a philanthropic club." [He might have added "with but little working force even for philanthropy."] "Christ's sermons," says Mr. Godkin, "need the touch of supernatural authority to make them impressive enough for the work of social or individual regeneration." And then this secular critic speaks of the Church's loss of moral authority and influence: Church membership ought to involve discipline of some kind, in order to furnish moral aid. It ought, that is to say, to impose some restraint on people's inclinations the operation of which will be visible and enforced by some external sanction. If, in short, Christians are to be regarded as more trustworthy, and as living on a higher moral plane than the rest of the world, they must furnish stronger evidence of their sincerity than is now exacted of them in the shape of plain and open self-denial. The Church, in short, must be an organization held together by some stronger ties than enjoyment of weekly music and oratory in a pretty building, and almsgiving which entails no sacrifice, and often is only a tickler of social vanity. . . . The practice of the Church will have to be forced up to its own theory of its character and mission, which would involve serious collision with some of the most deeply rooted habits and ideas of modern social and political life. That there is any immediate probability of this we do not believe. Until it is brought about, members must make up their minds to have religious professions treated by some as but slight guarantees of character, and by others as but cloaks for wrongdoing, hard as this may be for that large majority to whom they are an honest expression of sure hopes and noble aims. . . . Of late years the Church has been making a gallant effort to provide accommodations for the successful, and enable them to be good Christians without sacrificing any of the good things of life, and, in fact, without favoring the outside public with any recognizable proof of their sincerity. Dr. Berle, in agreement with Mr. Godkin, adds: The modern Church has in it little of the atmosphere which is itself an education in benevolence and righteousness. It lacks the great force which comes of numerous majestic spiritual natures who are giving the visible evidence that their religious life is something more than weekly æsthetic enjoyment, and appreciation of the efforts of a body of earnest men to steadily extend for them the area of the enjoyable things of life into which they may come without loss of Christian status or character. The contrast between the theory of the Church and the actual life of the Church is marked, impressive, and uncomfortable. It is this contrast that nullifies the undoubtedly biblical, faithful, and sound teaching of many pulpits. It is this failure to provide the working model which makes all our appeals of none effect, and more than all creates the atmosphere alien to the growth of religion. The distressing and unquestionable fact is, that many of the Church people are not religious people. And many churches are not properly churches, but Sunday audiences which, in general character and respectability, are somewhat above the average, but governed by essentially the same ideals, and ready to enforce about the same standards, that are applied to the theater, the concert, and the lecture platform. If the services give pleasure and are enjoyable, all is well. If they become too severe either intellectually or in moral demand, or too uncomfortable in their searchingness, the average Churchmember holds that it is his inalienable right to go where more satisfactory conditions prevail. That this has its effect upon the vast body of the Protestant clergy, who are dependent upon the good-will of the congregation for support is beyond denial. And it is this fact which has brought about the religious and moral decline, which has now reached the secondary stage of crass ignorance, on the part of a large body of the constituency of the Christian Church, concerning the Bible, Christian doctrine, and in fact all that makes for a distinctive religious, as contrasted with a worldly, life. To hope that this situation can be remedied by better instruction in the Bible, even by the most enlightened methods, is in our judgment a great error. To suppose that it is a question entirely of theological view is equally foolish. Where there is a genuinely sacrificial life enacting in the full view of mankind, nobody cares whether it is governed by a broad, a liberal, or a conservative theology. Few people care to know whether the man thus illustrating his religion is of one denomination or another. Not many are disturbed even if he has numberless personal eccentricities, if these are seen to have no bearing on the main question. It is the union of teaching and life that tells the story, and that persuades. It is teaching by example which, after all, is the most effective teaching known to man. The factor of the spiritual life and habitual moral and religious tone of the Church, as furnishing the medium in which religious ideas are absorbed, is more important even than the factor of a strong religious personality. -Henry M. Cheever, an eminent Michigan lawyer, discussing the "Legal Aspects of the Trial of Christ," says: "In the trial before Caiaphas the forms of Hebrew law, and in the trial before Pilate the forms of Roman law, were disregarded. Jesus was charged with one offense before the Hebrew tribunal, and with a different one before the Roman, and was condemned on one different from both. Before Pilate he was at first acquitted, and then sentenced to death without a conviction. He was the victim of Jewish and Roman hatred, both reckless of law." BOOK NOTICES. RELIGION, THEOLOGY, AND BIBLICAL LITERATURE. Encyclopædia Biblica; A Critical Dictionary of the Literary, Political, and Religious History, the Archæology, Geography, and Natural History of the Bible. Edited by the Rev. T. K. CHEYNE, D.Litt., D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy Scripture at Oxford, and formerly Fellow of Balliol College, Canon of Rochester, and J. SUTHERLAND BLACK, M.A., LL.D., formerly Assistant Editor of the Encyclopædia Britannica. Volume IV, Q to Z, columns 3989 to 5444 (two columns on each page). New York: The Macmillan Company. Price, $5. The fourth volume of this great work confirms us in the views already expressed in notices of the previous volumes, and were the work less great in learning we should pass it by with a respectful reference to former numbers of this Review. The enterprise is, however, so great, the scholarship so uniformly high, and the danger of the whole work so great that we cannot but speak in brief characterization of it. We do not hesitate to say that it is our profound conviction that the Christian Church would not survive the adoption of the principles and results expressed in this book. We do not say that the influence of Christ would not survive, for this power has, in history, survived every heresy, even in the hearts of the heretics themselves, and we shall not dare to put any limits upon his power for the future. Our only purpose at the very outset is to state soberly and solemnly our feeling concerning the position held by this Encyclopædia as a whole. Let us now come to subjects and articles. In the Old Testament the attitude of the Encyclopædia remains the same in respect of the Higher Criticism, but it makes in each volume progress in the formulation of new methods in the department of Lower Criticism. No book ever published has carried to such a point the conjectural emendation of the Old Testament text. Professor Cheyne has evidently come gradually to the view that the present Masoretic text has been systematically corrupted, and to its correction he has given his great powers and wonderful learning. It is quite clear that his contributors do not agree with his views, and he is continually correcting their statements by bracketed additions. The great and daring hypothesis with which he works is that the major part of the allusions to Assyria and Egypt in the Hebrew history are due to a colossal misunderstanding of editors. The real fact, according to his hypothesis, is that the connections were not with Assyria and Egypt, but with Asshur and Musri in northern Arabia. This theory is just beginning to shape in volume i, but it is clearly seen in volume ii, while volume iii is full of it, and volume iv openly calls it the Jerahmeelite theory and offers it as the solution of all sorts of difficulties. (See, for example, col. 4330, footnote.) It is strange that a mind so acute as Cheyne's could ever be led to trust its own powers in an attempt so fatuous as the rewriting of a people's history on the basis of any theory, however reasonable. But the Jerahmeelite theory is not reasonable. No such extensive corruption of any ancient literature is known. All the presumptions lie against the man who emends conjecturally, as Bentley's ill-starred adventures have proven. But Cheyne marches on bravely, undauntedly, finding Jerahmeel everywhere. Let us illustrate briefly. He doubts the historical character of the destruction of Sennacherib's army (2 Kings xix, 35), but adds these words: "The pestilence, if at all historical, may have attacked the N. Arabian army. 'Nineveh,' as in some other passages, may have come from 'Jerahmeel,' 'Nisroch' from 'Nimrod,' 'Adrammelech' from 'Jerahmeel,' and 'Ararat' (as in Gen. viii, 4) from 'Aram'-that is, from 'Jerahmeel'" (col. 4369). It is difficult to take seriously such suggestions as these, and one may feel reasonably sure that they will meet with no wide acceptance among other workers. If there were no other argument against the Jerahmeelite theory it would be sufficient to say that it explains entirely too much. Here is Pinches giving the usual explanation of Pul and Tiglath-pileser (cols. 5068-5072), and at the end Cheyne adding, in a note, his opinion that, "In 2 Kings xv, 29, it is not the Assyrian king commonly called Tiglath-pileser, but Jerahmeel king of Asshur in N. Arabia, who carries away captive the people of certain places and districts." But "Abraham-Father of Jerahmeel" (col. 4677) and "Tidal is a corrupt fragment of Jerahmeel" (col. 5068) and Eliahba is a "modification of Jerahmeel" (col. 5409), though this had not occurred to Cheyne when volume i was published. There is "hardly room for doubt that David lived in, or close to, the Jerahmeelite Negeb and had strong Jerahmeelite (and Misrite) tendencies" (col. 4170), and so it goes on from man to man and name to name. We could fill pages with examples drawn from this book, and when they were all ranged side by side it is our sober conviction that the whole would seem a reductio ad absurdum. We desist, but are unable to leave the matter finally without giving one example of Cheyne's conjectural emendation of a poetical passage. For ready comparison we set down here the version of the difficult passage Gen. xlix, 10, as given by the Revised Version and by Cheyne: REVISED VERSION. CHEYNE (Col. 4472). The scepter shall not depart from A champion shall not depart from Judah, Judah, Nor the ruler's staff from between his Nor a marshal from between his bands, feet, Until he tramples upon Laishah And the Jerahmeelites are obedient unto him. Until Shiloh come; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be. Surely emendation can no further go. We point now to some articles of high scholarship and great value. We do not, for example, know in any place an article, in the same compass, which equals F. C. Burkitt's article on Texts and Versions, in |