continued study of Church History had liberalized his views, aeepened his charity, and extended his catholicity. How can it be otherwise? The kingdom of Christ is greater than any denomination or sect, and greater than all of them put together. A new edition of Hagenbath's Church History has also begun to appear, with a literary appendix by Prof. Nippold, who now fills the professorship in Jena vacated by the resignation of Hase.

An interesting controversy is going on about the so-called Waldensian Bible. It was long known that no less than fourteen editions of the German Bible were printed at Nüremburg, Augsburg and Frankfurt, before Luther. It is sometimes asserted by Roman Catholic writers, to the disparagement of Luther's merits, that these fourteen editions were as many different translations; but it is certain that they are only variations of one and the same version. A few months ago, Dr. Ludwig Keller, Archivarius of the State documents of Münster, in Westphalia, suggested that this German Bible was the work of the Waldenses, and not of the Catholic Church. He holds that the Waldenses were widely spread all over Germany in the fifteenth century, and influenced even Staupitz, the fatherly friend and counselor of Luther. His conviction was readily accepted even by those reviewers of his books on the Anabaptists and on "the Reformation and the older Reform Parties," who rejected his vindication of the Anabaptists against the calumnies of their opponents and persecutors. Dr. H. Haupt, librarian at Wurzburg, in a monograph of 64 pages, on The German Bible translation of the mediaval Waldenses in the Codex Teplensis (a MS. of that translation found in Bohemia and recently published in the interest of German philology at Munich), endeavored to prove the conjecture of Keller, partly from certain Waldensian peculiarities of the translation, partly from sundry additions in that codex. But his arguments are inconclusive. This has just been shown by Dr. Jostes, a philologist in Münster, in a pamphlet entitled Die Waldenser und die vorlutherische D. Bibelüber setzung (Münster, 44 pages). Dr. Keller told me at Munster, two weeks ago, that Jostes was right against Haupt, but had not proved the Catholic origin of the translation; that he himself (Dr. K.) had since discovered better arguments for the Waldensian origin, and intended to discuss the whole question in a special work he hoped to finish by next Christmas-Adhuc sub judice lis est.

In this connection I may say a few words about the tentative revision of Luther's Bible version, which has been before the German public since 1883, under the title, Probebibel. It is far less thoroughly done than the English Revision, and meets with greater opposition. One party, headed by Luthardt and Kliefoth, oppose it on conservative grounds, and would rather have Luther, with all his errors and inaccuracies, than this revision. But the overwhelming mass of schol

ars condemn its timidity and ultra conservatism both in text, render-
ings and antiquated forms of language. It leaves the textus receptus
even in the New Testament untouched, as if it were infallible, and retains
a large mass of acknowledged mistranslations, especially in the Old
Testament; as if Luther's views were above the inspired words of
apostles and prophets. There is hardly a single professor in the uni-
versities in favor of it, except the revisers, as Delitzsch and Schlott-
mann, who wrote in its defense. It contains many valuable improve-
ments, but in its present shape it will not be accepted, and is to
be revised again by the same or another committee. A Swiss company
of scholars is likewise engaged in a revision of the German Bible, on
the basis of the Zurich version, which dates from Leo Judä, and has
undergone a revision from time to time. It has the merit of greater
accuracy, but lacks the unction and poetry of Luther's version.
Of all theological university professors at this time, Dr. Ritschl,
of Göttingen, wields the greatest influence and has succeeded in form-
ing a school. I do not intend to discuss it here, but will direct atten-
tion to his latest work, the History of Pietism, now in course of pub-
lication (Vol. I. and the first part of Vol. II. have appeared), and to a
remarkable poem of his pupil, Dr. Thikötter, just published, which
puts Ritschl's theology into poetry. It is entitled, Einhard und
Imma (Heidelberg), and based on the well-known legend of the
famous secretary and historian of the Emperor Charlemagne, and his
marriage with his daughter Imma, or Emma. Thikötter makes him
the exponent of the ethical and practical theology, in opposition to
the metaphysical scholasticism and contemplative mysticism of the
monk Adalbert (p. 28 sgg.). A year ago he published a popular sum-
mary of Ritschl's theology, which has just been translated into
French, under the title, The Theology of the Future (La Theologie de
l'Avenir). He is a popular pastor of Bremen, and combines with theo-
logical and literary culture the gift of poetry, which shines brightest
in the songs of Imma and Einhard. The first chapter introduces the
reader into the Schola Palatina, where Charlemagne, as a Christian
David, is surrounded by Alcuin, Warnefried, Angilbert, Theodulf,
Adalbert, Einhard and other distinguished scholars, whom he called
from different countries to give lustre to his court and to aid him in
his grand scheme to educate the German barbarians under the guid-
ance of the Church. In this chapter the two theologies contend with
each other, and the Emperor gives preference to that of Einhard.
The epic ends in a glorification of the new German empire, with the
new Charlemagne of, the house of Hohenzollern:

"Heil Hohenzollern's Bume! Heil Kaiser Wilhelm Dir!
Du deutschen Landes Ehre, Du deutschen Volkes Zier!
Hoch auf dem Niederwalde schaut weit ins Land hinaus
Germania mit dem Schwerte und schafft den Welschen Graus.
Die deutschen Waffen blitzen in starker Manneshand :
"Mit Gott für Deutschland's Kaiser, mit Gott für's Vaterland !'”

IV.-IMPORTANT FEATURES OF THE DIVORCE QUESTION FOR PULPIT TREATMENT.

BY REV. SAMUEL W. DIKE, ROYALTON, Vт.

NO. II.

HINTS ON THE TREATMENT OF IT.

1. Study the causes. This should be done as widely and thoroughly as possible. The same may be said of the study of the facts. I name the leading causes, and make brief remarks on them:

The proximate cause of the increase of divorces is our loose divorce laws and the procedure under them. In several States the increased legal facilities for obtaining divorces, and the increased number granted are closely connected. The relaxation of the laws seems to tell invariably on the statistics; and, on the other hand, such legal restrictions as have been made generally check the increase or reduce the number. The accessibility of the courts, the frequency of their terms, the secrecy of their proceedings, the haste, or delay, in putting causes on trial, the presence or absence of a defendant, the kind of evidence allowed, the consequences of the divorce in respect of remarriage or punishment for the offence leading to it, are each important elements in the problem. The chief secret of the excellent record of New Jersey, to give an illustration, is probably in the peculiarly strict features of her procedure. And still further the absence, or neglect, of all punishment for desertion, for extreme cruelty, and generally even for adultery, exposes the family to great perils. Were the family attended from its beginning to its end with anything like the legal safeguards which protect property, divorces and bad marriages would be vastly fewer than they are.

The lack of uniform divorce laws throughout the United States is another cause of the evil. The divorce broker sits in his office, and from the compilations prepared for his use, assigns his applications to one State or another as may best suit each case. One inviting territory requires only ninety days' residence: another does-or did recentlygenerously require a divorce of her courts whenever the judge who hears the cause "decrees the case to be within the reason of the law, within the general mischief the law is intended to remedy, or within what it may be presumed would have been provided against by the legislature establishing the foregoing causes of divorce, had it foreseen the specific case and found language to meet it without including cases not within the same reason!" Until lately, Maine did most of her large divorce business under a clause giving general discretion to the courts, as did Connecticut a good deal of hers until 1878.*

*NOTE.-The substitution of the law of Massachusetts, with its seven causes for divorce and some additional restriction, which was made March 13, 1883, has greatly reduced divorces in Maine. In the two years ending Dec. 31, 1884, all decrees, including those made nisi, were only 446 against an annual average of 534 for the previous four years.

But let us not overestimate the divorces granted to parties running from one State to another. Conflicting and dissimilar laws encourage fraud and sadly complicate the marriage status, and for this reason especially they should be brought toward uniformity. But there is reason to suspect that east of the Mississippi river the number of divorces granted to persons who are not in good faith residents of the States where the divorces are obtained is now much smaller, for the region as a whole, than is generally thought true. The evil prevails chiefly in the great cities and certain other rather limited localities. We must remember that four-fifths of the population of the entire country is in towns having less than 10,000 people in them. Testimony, or positive proof, has come to me from all New England and from some Western States, going to show that probably nine-tenths of their divorces are granted to their own citizens. Divorces are very often more numerous, in proportion to population, in rural counties than in the large cities. The more serious aspect of the evil is, in my present judgment, the hold it has upon the lower, but not the lowest, classes throughout the country as a whole. If we should get uniformity it might be on a lower general average that would reduce the better status to the common level, and even increase the number of divorces in the country, and put off the day of completed reform. Constitu tional amendment in behalf of uniformity is, more properly, a thing of the future.

The operation of the increased property rights of married women deserves attention here, as well as for other important reasons. Testimony on the connection of this movement with the increase of divorces and kindred evils is very conflicting. Some close observers put it at the head of all causes. This may be the case in certain communities: it doubtless has its influence in many divorces in most sections. It very likely enters into many of the divorces granted in Massachusetts to those who have been married ten years or more— which is one-half the entire number—and combines with lust and intemperance to provoke divorces among the rich. Among the wealthy, also, a so-called housekeeper is often more agreeable than a wife with the claims the latter may make to property. A generous alimony and independence are also sometimes preferred by the wife to continuance in married life. The fact that, practically, the same period covers the extension of the property and other rights of women, and the increase of divorces, is certainly of some significance. A similar conjunction occurred in Roman history. But I incline to think the two movements co-ordinate and interacting, rather than related as direct cause and effect.

Intemperance is a frequent, but by no means the most frequent occasion of divorces. I should not venture an opinion on the extent of it farther than that it probably does not appear as a leading or con

tributory cause in half the cases at the most; and then it is so combined with others that assignment of proportionate responsibility is hopelessly difficult.

Could we get at the entire facts, in all probability some form of wrong sexual relations would be found to be the most frequent single occasion of divorces that exists. Adultery, of one or both parties; lustful abuse of the marriage relation; the absence of children, either for purely natural or immoral reasons-in short, the whole class of evils which the physician understands better than anybody else-indicate what is meant here. I will not enlarge, but simply say, that the faithful minister of the gospel will not need to go far to find material proof of these intimations. Whatever tends to prevent an active and united interest on the part of both parents in the intelligent training of their children, also helps supply the conditions for the increase of divorces and the reduction of the family to the smallest influence over society.

But beyond and back of all these are other very grave causes. The movement goes on where laws have done little to facilitate it, but have only held the way for it open. This is true in the United States. It is also true that in many countries in Europe the divorce rate has doubled in about the same time that it has here-within thirty years, or less. Therefore, we should study

2. The nature of the evil and the roots of the more obvious causes. Among these lines of study, I suggest, first, the material drift of modern life. The invention or application of steam, electricity, and the modern factory system are, practically, in this country all the work of the last fifty years. In England, the factory system is somewhat older, but its present form is scarcely so. The industry, the education, the religious and social life that once found most of their activities supplied within the home, are now fed from wider sources; and bad, as well as good results come of it. The modern industrial system is, moreover, strongly individualistic. It knows little of the Family in making its contracts. It deals mostly with individuals. The old domestic system of labor generally encouraged large families: the modern frequently discourages them. Large numbers of people find themselves handicapped in the industrial race if they enter it with many children.

The religious, ethical and political tendencies of the nineteenth and earlier centuries may be studied at this point. The names of Watt, Arkwright, Adam Smith, Blackstone and Rousseau represent a common tendency in their several departments of influence. All gave to the world their great works within the same twenty-five years. The American Declaration of Independence and the French Revolution came within this period, which ushered in a century of specialization, of individualism. But going along with it, and far back of it, lay the