ists are furnishing the proofs, for in their extremity they have resorted to sophistical speculation, imaginative and metaphysical declamation, and the usual strategies common to men who undertake to sustain a bad cause. We do not disparage the erudition of some critics; but the claim that the "advanced" thinkers husband the learning of the times excites the ridicule and contempt of the masses of Christian scholars in this country. There is not one scholar in ten in America who has departed from the standard faith respecting the biblical questions now in dispute between rationalists and orthodoxists. The reader will be assisted in his appreciation of the truth of this statement if he will undertake to ascertain how many American scholars hold that Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century B. C., and by Hilkiah, with the help of Jeremiah. He may also satisfy himself on this point if he will poll the scholars on any other problem in issue, such as infallibility, inspiration, the authorship of Isaiah, and so forth.

It is confessed that certain American critics accept the extreme conclusions of the German rationalists, and support the conclusions by a method of argument that identifies them with the rationalists of Europe. It is not creditable to the scholarship of such critics that to this day they have not advanced one theory against traditionalism, or one argument against the orthodox position, that was not drawn from the rationalists across the water. Scholarship! Not an original theory in biblical criticism has been propounded by an American critic; every conclusion is borrowed, and every argument is kidnapped from foreign lands. Many of the editorials, pamphlets, and books written by them are purloined, and some of them according to secret contract, from the literature of the other hemisphere; and yet they prate of learning, acumen, and insight and foresight as to the outcome of the Bible! Even the little phrase used by a home critic, "snorting against higher criticism," was borrowed from Eichhorn. Satellites, not planets, they are! Is it not time to understand where the freshet of rationalistic jargon took its rise? Discovering the genesis of American rationalism, and seeing that the work and results of the home and foreign critics are identical, we pronounced the critics rationalists, and stereotyped them as Christian rationalists, because they professed to be Christians. We have met no scholar who has disputed the correctness of this application of the word, and the attempt to deride its use in this connection implies a desire to escape from what it significs.

It has been said, that if early in the controversy we had drawn the distinctions we have recently made, and fully stated all our purposes and the methods we intended to employ in the defense of truth, we should have been better understood, and the Review would have escaped some criticism. This may mean that we did not conduct the controversy ass ome others would have conducted it; therefore it was wrongly conducted. We are not sure how others would have managed the controversy, nor was it our business to seek wisdom at their hands. We had the facts; we knew our duty, and have attempted to discharge it.

It is strange, however, that readers of the controversy should forget that the distinctions more recently emphasized were plainly announced

(1) in our Conference addresses; (2) in our Advocate articles, in which we were careful to show the differences between legitimate and conservative criticism and destructive or rationalistic criticism. We also recognized the scholarship of the early rationalists, and acknowledged the value of their work in some departments of Christian learning, thus preparing the way for the divergent conclusions we finally reached. If critics or others did not read our articles, or forgot what they contained, we are not responsible; we carefully took all the preliminary steps necessary to an amicable discussion of the questions in issue.

The single purpose before us was, to expose and resist destructive or rationalistic criticism; and, governed by the hundreds of letters received from all parts of the country-the strongest from New England-we should violate conscience if we did not say that the necessity of such exposure was great, and that it has been productive of results which must conserve the stability of the Christian faith in the future.

Henceforth the work of the Review should be confined to the elucidation of the principles underlying biblical criticism, and the vindication of views pertaining to authorship and doctrine which have been established according to the laws of testimony regulating human belief and conduct. It is certainly an auspicious time for the prosecution of inquiries relating to the integrity of the Bible as a supernatural book, and for a re-canvass of the evidences usually quoted in justification of faith in revelations of spiritual truth. It is not incumbent, however, on orthodoxists to prove their positions, but they may properly contend for them against the rationalism and hypercriticism that would subvert faith in Christian teaching. It is also proper to observe that the destructive methods of Kuenen, Renan, and Wellhausen have captivated some orthodox minds; hence it is the duty of the conservative student to remind the liberal thinker that already there are signs of a great reaction in France and Germany, and that America should be slow to accept what those rationalistic countries have more than once repudiated, and are again inclining to abandon. The Review proposes carefully to consider the methods of the rationalists, to report the progress of the reaction, and to announce the results of scholarship in the field of criticism. It proposes to utilize the discoveries in the archæological fields of Egypt, Babylon, Nineveh, Moab, and Syria; to examine the latest researches in philology and apply them to biblical problems; to ignore or answer the theories of critics; and to demand full proof of the positions they assume when contrary to established faith.

With our original plan resumed, not again, we trust, to be interrupted by the critics, and with the personalities, misunderstandings, criticisms, and abuses of the past forgotten, the Review can complete its unfinished work in the spirit of the language of Abraham Lincoln: "With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right;" and, God helping, we shall do it.

THE ARENA.

CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION.

THE catechetic method of instruction has obvious advantages over the common practice of cramming the mind with multitudinous things and burdening the memory with words. For it arrests attention, awakens inquiry, calls into exercise reason and judgment, anchors truth in the mind, excites the conscience to act in accordance with the ethical principles discovered, and leads to an intelligent faith. This method has been used by the world's best teachers from Socrates to the present age. Eminent men habitually catechise themselves as to the truth and bearings of what they read, hear, and produce, and this habit is the chief source of their strength. Educators insist upon mathematical studies, for every problem is a question to be answered, and the search for its answer will develop mental power. Our Lord began to teach in the temple by asking questions, and he continued this practice in his public ministry. Interrogation points abound in the writings of his apostles. The primitive Christians carefully catechised their candidates for church membership. The Churches of the Reformation made a constant use of their Catechisms, and the Romish Church followed their example so as to hold its own. The more recent Christian organizations soon prepared and used Catechisms. And it is noteworthy that those Churches which have most thoroughly and persistently catechised their children have had the stanchest adherents, while those that have grown lax in this duty have seen their families drifting into indifference, agnosticism, and skeptic smoke.

That there is laxity in our Churches as to the use of the Church Catechism is unquestionable. The writer has inquired for Catechisms in one hundred and forty Quarterly Conferences, and learned that in over a hundred schools the Catechism has disappeared excepting in a few infant classes. The excuses for this neglect are, that the book, with its big words, is above the comprehension of the small children; that the older pupils discard it as a nursery primer which they have outgrown; and that there is no place for it in our present order of Sunday-school exercises. Whether or not these excuses are valid, the fact of neglect remains; and the question whether this neglect will lead to a looseness of opinion among our youth is one that should receive attention.

The arrest of this drifting from the systematic study of Christian doctrines, and the induction of a better method of studying them, present problems of difficult solution. Perhaps a symposium of noted pastors or teachers might furnish the key to them. I will venture here only a few seed-thoughts. The revision of the Catechism does not promise much relief: for, if it be simplified to meet the capacities of small children, its simplicity will remove it yet further from the older pupils; and if its style be elevated, and its scope be widened for the seniors, it will be still

less adapted to the little ones. It must be apparent that no Catechism can be adapted to all grades of minds; and hence, our need is that of sereral books of a progressive series--like the progressive readers and textbooks in the graded public schools. I would therefore suggest the prep aration of a series of juvenile guides, with the repellent title of Catechism omitted.

No. 1. FIRST STEP HEAVENWARD. This should be a neat pictorial primer, attractive to the eye, and adapted to minds under seven years of age. It should begin with the Lord's Prayer, to be committed to memory. The questions should relate to our Father in heaven, his love and care for us, his daily gifts; reverence and love to him; his kingdom or government over us; his will, that we should know and do; thanks, praise, and prayer to him; our dependence on him for bread and all things; right and wrong toward him, and toward each other love and obedience to parents; kindness, gentleness, love, pity, truth-telling, faithfulness, honesty, patience; how to be happy; elementary truths about Jesus, salvation, and heaven, etc. The questions and answers should be generally in words of one syllable, and also Bible words. A stanza of suitable poetry should be attached to each lesson.

No. 2. THE RIGHT WAY, for those from seven to ten years of age, should begin with the Ten Commandments, followed by the two great and the new commandments, to be memorized. This book should be a manual of duties, privileges, and blessings. The questions should relate to our duties to God-reverence, worship, love, contemplation, obedience, pleasing him in all things; sabbath observance; public worship; morning and evening prayer and thanks; honoring parents; self-control of appetites, passions, and tempers; love and good-will to others; the golden rule; sin and forgiveness; salvation through Jesus Christ, whose life and sacrifice may be made prominent; the happy rewards of a good life here and hereafter, etc. The answer to these questions should be in the words of Holy Scripture.

No. 3. LIGHT FROM ABOVE, for those from ten to thirteen years of age, and beginning with memorizing the Apostles' Creed. This book should fill the place vacated by our Church Catechism, and should treat of God, his nature, attributes, government, and immanence in nature; creation; man, primitive, fallen, sinful, and suffering; of divine law and penalty; of revelation; incarnation; the birth, life, miracles, teaching, death, resurrection, ascension, and intercession of Jesus; of redemption by him; of the Holy Spirit; conviction, conversion, regeneration, adop tion, assurance, hope, and joy; baptism; the eucharist; the Church; the ministry; missionary work; death; resurrection and eternity. Scripture language should appear in all these questions and answers.

No. 4. SEEKING GOODLY PEARLS. This book, for youth from thirteen to sixteen years of age, should fill the place for which Nast's Larger Catechism, Longking's Light to the Path, and Hubbell's Studies in Christian Doctrine were written. It should be studied with the Bible in hand, and every proof-text should be found and considered.

It will be observed that fundamental truths, in progressive steps, appear in this series of books, each higher one including the thoughts, but not the language, of the lower one. By this plan essential unity in diversity will be retained, and the truths repeated in various forms will become imbedded in the mind, while habits of thinking and of memorizing good things will be formed and fostered.

Beyond this primary series of catechetic books there should be question books on the gospels, Acts, and epistles, and on the historic and prophetic books of the Old Testament, that should be studied in consecutive order by senior and adult classes, the Bible being the only text-book. This course of study would restore the exiled Bibles to the Sunday-schools, and develop a race of well-instructed Christians. Southport, Conn.

GEORGE A. HUBBELL.

AN HISTORICAL POINT CONSIDERED.

The very excellent article, "What is the Providential Design of German Methodism?" by the Rev. Dr. Yeakel in the Methodist Review for September-October, 1889, contains a few inaccuracies which I hoped some one of its many readers would have corrected in the subsequent issue. He states on page 661, that "in 1709 some thirteen or fourteen thousand Palatine emigrants emigrated from the Rhenish provinces to England and encamped near the city of London for a short time:" that "about eight thousand" of this number were sent to America: and that "North Ireland" became the home of a German colony, from which sprang Philip Embury and Barbara Heck. It is to the latter statement I wish especially to direct attention. The North of Ireland, in the opening years of the seventeenth century, was colonized principally by the Scotch, and from this sturdy race not only came the men who made the American Revolution a glorious possibility, but also the saintly hero, Francis Makenzie, the founder of American Presbyterianism. When the Palatines were driven from their ancient home by popish intolerance Protestant England found them a home. In 1709 Queen Anne kindly sent a fleet to Rotterdam, and brought about seven thousand of these Protestant refugees to England. Of this number "nearly three thousand were sent to America, a considerable proportion of whom settled in Pennsylvania, and the remaining four thousand, with the exception of a few families who settled in England, made Ireland their home. Some of these German Protestants settled in County Kerry, "but the main body," says Dr. William Crook in his admirable volume, Ireland and the Centenary of American Methodism, settled on the estate of Lord Southwell, in the neighborhood of Rathkeale, County Limerick.

It was in the year 1749 that Methodism commenced its blessed mission among these German colonists. On a summer's day, 1756, Mr. Wesley preached for the first time in Ballingrane, the home of Philip Embury and Barbara Heck. Concerning that visit he makes the following entry * Stevens's History of the Methodist Episcopal Church, Ed. 1867, vol. i, p. 50. 28-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. VI.