moral obligation involved, as they did notably in the case of the American Board's school-the Doshisha-and in the instances where the natives thus relied on appropriated the residences of missionaries and burned the latter out, refusing them even occupancy. It is to be said that these parties have been obliged by the public opinion of the civilized world to recede from the position they took, and that Japan has for the first time in her history been awakened to the fact that the recognition of a trust is a fundamental condition of her continuance in the sisterhood of nations. Trusts are, in law, a creation of Christianity which were inwrought into Roman jurisprudence, and have become the sacred inheritance of all civilized countries. If Japan has learned the emphasis which the Western world puts on the sacredness of trusts it may be worth all the damage and loss of good feeling which grew out of the Doshisha incident.

There will hereafter be, however, no necessity for missionary societies to repose this untoward confidence in undeveloped natives, for they can at least avail themselves of the privilege of the twenty-year lease provision, and possibly something besides. On the whole, there is ground to hope that the new treaties will advance the opportunity for the Christianizing as well as the future civilizing of Japan.

MISSIONARY COOPERATION.

THE matter of federation among missionary workers on the foreign field is receiving considerable attention. There are five missions in the province of Shansi, China, who have met in an annual conference for five years. The native and foreign delegates sit together and have equal recognition. In Western Shantung and Central Chihli a movement for union was inaugurated last year. Four Congregational missions—one British and three American—are here working side by side. They aim to secure definite limitation for their respective fields, an annual certificate of membership, and an agreement not to receive native helpers or members who have been dismissed from any mission, or whose Christian character is questionable. The several missions about Amoy, both Engli h and American, have for twenty years maintained the principle of united effort. Three Presbyterian missions of Manchuria have been operated in many practical ways as one, for many years. There are thirteen separate missions in the province of Shantung, American and English, which are seeking closer union in practical matters. They count altogether upward of fifteen thousand Christians. The whole federation movement looks to lessening the occasions of separation, to some uniformity in educational methods and standards, and, as it may prove possible, to some uniform methods of evangelization, a uniform hymn book, and uniform methods of securing support for the native ministry. It also contemplates cooperation in the production of Christian literature, a common sense of responsibility for widely extended interests, and the developing of a profound spiritual life in the native Church.

FOREIGN OUTLOOK.

SOME LEADERS OF THOUGHT.

Eduard Rupprecht. Never since the assaults of criticism against the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch began in earnest has the conviction of the believers in the same been more steadfast and their expectation of the final triumph of their view more secure. The opposition has said about all that can be said, and there is a lull on that side. The defenders

of the old theory, however, are kept busy answering the arguments of its assailants and in producing the evidence for the truth of the position they maintain. Yet this activity on the part of the traditionalists must not be allowed to deceive the observer into the supposition that the old view is rapidly gaining ground or that the positions of the radicals are being destroyed. The conflict is by no means at an end, as some suppose. The reaction toward the traditional view, which Harnack announced, is confined to the New Testament. When the reaction in the

case of the Old Testament will occur, if ever, no one can safely predict. Rupprecht really furnishes nothing new on the question of the Mosaic authorship. One of his strongest arguments is summed up in the proposition that the whole historical record, from the book of Joshua down to the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, presupposes the Pentateuch as the law book of Moses. This is in itself not new, nor does he furnish any new argument in its support. Both the proposition and the proofs adduced in its favor are vigorously assailed by the radicals. This does not prove that there is no truth in them, but merely that all the writing which has been done on the subject has not brought us to a termination of the strife. Rupprecht gives us still another line of argument, which we here reproduce, that our readers may judge for themselves how much or how little weight it possesses: "Numbers xxxiii claims to have been written by Moses. But this chapter is an epitome of the entire history of the sojourn in the wilderness; hence the history in Exodus and Numbers is from the pen of Moses. The book of the covenant and Exodus xxxiv claim to be from Moses. Of P it is constantly said, 'And the Lord spoke to Moses.' The one who received the message naturally wrote it down. Deuteronomy claims to be from the hand of Moses. But if Exodus-Deuteronomy are the work of Moses, Genesis must be so considered also. Hence we have the most scientific reasons for ascribing the Pentateuch to Moses." This teaching of Rupprecht is worthy of notice, as suggesting an important line of argument, while the final decision must rest with the individual reader.

Friedrich Loofs. Though equally "modern," he differs materially from some of his scientific theological brethren. The discussion relative

to the resurrection of Christ, previously referred to in connection with Samuel Eck, interests him also. Though a "liberal," he is dissatisfied with the views of Eck and others. He holds that Paul, in 1 Cor. xv, 1-8, clearly implies the bodily resurrection of Jesus as the belief of the early disciples, and that he evidently indorses that belief. This is in opposition to those who hold that because Paul's vision of the risen Jesus was not a sight of his earthly body, and because Paul uses the same word to describe the appearance of Jesus both to him and to the primitive apostles, it could not have been the earthly body of Jesus which appeared to the latter. His position in this respect is not new, but it is strong. It is generally agreed that Paul was a sober thinker, and that he would not accept any teaching unless it were well founded. If, therefore, Paul accepted as well founded their belief that they had seen the risen body of our Lord it is idle to prate further concerning the impossibility of accepting the testimony of the gospels on the ground that their writers were either unacquainted with the facts or else were easily deceived. Paul's acceptance of their belief gives value to their testimony. So then, since all agree that something happened to make the disciples believe they had seen the risen Lord, Loofs would say that what happened was the actual resurrection of the dead body of Jesus from the grave. This view has the merit of simplicity. And it is really impossible for anyone to discern why God might not have raised Jesus from the dead. Eck thinks that the belief was divinely wrought-how, he does not know. Loofs says it was divinely wrought by the very means described in the gospels. Another particular in which Loofs differs from his brethren pertains to the significance he attaches to the gospel of John. The point here is that John distinctly makes the first appearances of Jesus to be in Jerusalem. Those who seek to destroy the validity of the records of the appearances prefer those gospels which place the first appearances in Galilee. By this means they make their theory of visions more probable. Loofs, however, after careful use of criticism, decides in favor of John. Still, he would not affirm that they have no faith in the essential facts of the resurrection who differ from him in the understanding of how that faith is induced. In this respect, again, he is to be commended. If men are allowed to think they must be allowed to differ. And if one says he believes in the resurrection of Jesus we must accept him as on our side, though the grounds of his faith which he holds may be unlike ours.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

Les origenes de la Compagnie de Jesus, Ignaci et Lainez (The Origin of the Society of Jesus, Ignatius, and Lainez). By Hermann Müller. Paris, Fischbacher, 1898. Works on the order of the Jesuits are not uncommon, but in this book we have something really new and interesting, even if not convincing. The author emphasizes the dependence of

Ignatius Loyola, in the construction of the Exercitia Spiritualia, upon an ascetic work by the Benedictine abbot Garcia de Cisneros. But, principally, the book is devoted to a consideration of the strange resemblances between the order of Jesuits and the Mussulman orders-resemblances which the author thinks too numerous to be accidental, and explicable only on the theory that one borrowed from the other. These resemblances he holds to be (1) in the form of government, and in the nature of the obedience required of their adepts; (2) in the method of initiation and the training to which they subject their disciples; (3) in the divers degrees which they establish for the members, and in the secrecy which they practice; (4) in the aim they propose for themselves, and in the confusion they establish between the spiritual and the temporal order. Some of these parallels are so striking as to appear at first sight to establish the theory of dependence. For example, the Jesuit must be as obedient to his general as a dead man, or like a crucifix or a staff, which can be handled at will. With this Müller compares the obedience the dervish is expected to yield the sheik, which the Mussulman text gives as follows: "Under the hand of thy sheik thou shouldest be as a dead body under the hand of him who washes the corpse." When one considers the Mussulman contact with Spanish history, additional color is lent to Müller's view. However, strange as all this appears, there are several insurmountable difficulties in the way of accepting the theory. In the first place the founders of the order were too strongly opposed to Mohammedanism to accept any of its suggestions knowingly. Again, they would have to be accused of deliberately borrowing, without making acknowledgment of their indebtedness. Besides, while there is no doubt of the similarity, it is not yet proved that the Mussulman orders were characterized by those peculiarities in the time of Ignatius. Nevertheless, it is likely that if one did not borrow from the other both were influenced to their present correspondencies by the same general preceding conditions. This is the most probable explanation of the resemblances which are admitted to exist.

Die neue historische Methode (The New Historical Method). By Georg von Below. Munich, R. Oldenbourg, 1898. While it attracts less attention than physical science, the science of history is equally in the midst of a conflict as to its fundamental principles. In reality, the old question of materialism is here involved, and with it the question of freedom. Not a few writers on history still assume that physical conditions so affect human conduct as to make it possible to determine what the history will be when the physical conditions are known. On the other side are those historians who, while they acknowledge the influence of physical conditions, hold that the determining factors in the making of history are personality and freedom. These naturally deny the predicability of history; for personalities vary so much that it is 64-FIFTH SERIES, VOL. XV.

Von

impossible to decide beforehand what they will determine to do. Below is with the latter class; and in his book here referred to he shows how completely all attempts of historians of the former class to comprehend the course of human events have failed. According to him, he who would understand history must study, not physical science and its laws, but psychology and its laws. As to the relation of evolution to historical progress, Von Below denies the possibility of determining it. This is a logical conclusion from the position taken, namely, that free personalities, not physical conditions, determine the facts of history; but it is also a conclusion rendered necessary by any careful study of the past. These considerations make history appear kaleidoscopic, and in a sense hinder any philosophy of history. Yet this is only appearance; for while free personalities cannot, as individuals, be estimated beforehand, looking back on any considerable period of history we see that there are certain constant factors. Human motives are essentially alike in all portions and ages of the world. Under like circumstances men will act in similar ways. Any student who takes this into account and then searches for the local and particular influences and circumstances and their interaction—the attempt of peoples to meet their peculiar conditions, physical, intellectual, moral, religious—will be able to find relations both minute and far-reaching, and so construct a true philosophy of history all the more interesting because determined not from without but from within the realm where history alone can be made, the human mind. Nevertheless, history is a science dealing with facts, rather than a philosophy which is built out of speculations, and as the former it must be regarded.

RELIGIOUS AND EDUCATIONAL.

The Recent Papal Jubilee Bull. Of this remarkable document we give the substance: "Following the example of our predecessors, the popes of Rome, and in harmony with our honored brethren, the cardinals of the holy Roman Church, we ordain and announce the solemn universal year of jubilee, by the power of Almighty God, of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and in our own name; and it is our will that from this date it shall be regarded as ordained and announced. It shall begin, in this holy city, with the vigil prior to the Christmas festival of 1899, and end with the vigil of the Christmas festival of 1900. May it be attended by happy results, to the honor of God, the salvation of souls, and the benefit of the Church. During this year of jubilee we grant and impart, by the mercy of the Lord, a complete indulgence, the forgiveness and pardon of sin, to all believers in Christ of both sexes who, after true repentance, confess and commune, and at least once each day for twenty days visit for devotional purposes the basilicas of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, of St. John Lateran and St. Maria Maggiore. Those who do not reside in Rome must visit these churches at least ten times. All