fessions, because it speaks the language of the entire undivided Christian Church, and the device of this unpretentious Christian man, "Ama nesciri," (Remain willingly unknown,) has proved that the meek and humble shall be exalted. The authorship was for a long time contested, and even now, in the present year, the first journal of Germany, the "Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung," has devoted several articles to the incontestable proof that it is from the heart and pen of the humble monk of Holland. More than two hundred years ago the French Parliament, being drawn into the contest, decreed that the book should only be published with the name of Thomas à Kempis as author.

As we look over the curricula of the current semester of the German Protestant Theological Schools, now lying before us, we are struck with the wealth of Bible teaching in the old Fatherland, and wonder that it does not bear more fruit. At Basel, we find Overbeck, on the Church History of the Middle Ages; in Berlin, Dorner is treating of Systematic Theology, Piper on Monumental Church History, and Brückner on the System of Christian Ethics; at Berne, Oetli is reading lectures on Eschatology, and Steck on the Life of Jesus; in Bonn, we recognize with pleasure the names of Christlieb and Lange, the former on Practical Theology, and the latter on Ethics. The bulletin for Breslau starts off with the Encyclopedia of Theology, by Meuss, and that of Dorpat with Volk, on the Exegesis of the Prophets; Erlangen presents the names of Frank, on Dogmatics; Giessen, that of Stade, on the Exposition of Genesis, and Göttingen, that of Ritschl, on Symbolics. At Halle we miss the precious name of Tholuck, and find those of Köstlin and Kähler; and then the list runs on and on, with subjects and teachers ad infinitum: Greifswald, Heidelberg, Jena, Kiel, Königsberg, Leipsic, with Kahnis, Luthard and Delitzsch, Marburg, Rostock, Strasburg, Tübingen, Vienna, Zurich, and Upsala. Some of these are not in Germany proper, but they are, nevertheless, German schools.

ART. XI.-QUARTERLY BOOK-TABLE.

Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.

1

The Life and Letters of James O. Andrew, Bishop of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, with Glances at his Contemporaries and at Events in Church History. By Rev. GEORGE G. SMITH, A.M. 12mo. pp. 562. Nashville, Tenn.: Southern Methodist Publishing House. John W. Burke & Co.: Macon, Ga. 1882. This admirable biography is a fine counterpart to the life of Bishop Janes from the pen of Dr. Ridgaway. There were not wanting some traits of personal resemblance between the two men, and both were worthy the permanent portraiture so well furnished by their two biographers. So central a figure was Bishop Andrew in one of the most painful passages in our eccle

siastical and national history, that it was due to him, to his friends, and to the truth of history, that his personal conduct and character should be fully elucidated. Mr. Smith has well performed his work, and the result is that Bishop Andrew is not only cleared from the mists of prejudice that to some eyes have hung around him, but he appears beyond all doubt to have been a man of eminent, personal piety, whose heart and soul were consecrated, and whose life was hid with Christ in God. The history of such a man, as well as the man himself, is a boon to our universal Methodism and to Christianity itself.

His biographer tells us, with some piquancy, that his paternal ancestry was Puritan, derived from England through New England, where Osgood is still a conspicuous name. Born without educational advantages, he was never a scholar, and his first attempts seemed to indicate that he would never become a preacher. Yet he had filled but two "hard-scrabble" circuits when he was appointed to the city of Charleston. The metropolis was an important but trying station. Methodism was a very humble intrusion into a very proud city. More than half his parishioners were negroes. His description, written long years afterward, of the levee room in his parsonage, is unique and suggestive: 66 Here you met every week either stewards or leaders, white or black, and here the preacher had to hear all cases of complaint and trial, especially among the blacks. To this room also came, at stated intervals, all who wished to join on trial. For the purpose of attending to all other matters, one day in the week was set apart, and the preachers had to be there all day. Imagine a room, dear reader, raised only a few inches from the ground, with high fences on all sides, crowded just as full as it could hold on a night in July or August, and the preacher sitting there till bellringing, and tell me, didn't he have a sweet time of it? Then when he emerged from this bath-house, and sought to cool himself in the upper story, imagine him, half melting, seeking to refresh himself on his pillow. He enters a room some twelve feet square, with one or two windows, after carefully adjusting his mosquito net, and seizing a favorable moment for rushing into bed, and carefully stopping every crevice through which the serenaders might possibly find access to him, he stretches himself to get cool and go to sleep. What think you of his prospects? The parsonage yard, if it had any, was an encroachment on the old graveyard. If you walked out tombstones were under your feet or all around you; if you seated yourself at your window

and looked out to enjoy the beauties of a moonlight prospect, tombstones every-where arrested your gaze, so that ours might properly have been called the family among the tombs." The appointment to Charleston was thus largely and tryingly a mission to negroes.

Our Southern brethren at the present day often largely quote, in self-vindication, their heroic devotion to negro-Christianization. We have ever recognized gladly their record on that subject. One of our first movements, after our appointment to the editorship of this Quarterly, years ago, was to procure from a Southern pen a full article on the enterprise of Southern Methodism among the Negro population. We have ever thought that there was some wickedness on the part of our old abolition friends in saying that their Negro missions were established purely in the interests of slavery. It was a bitter taunt for them to say that the missionary was simply an agent of the slave-holder to preach to the slave the duty of submission to his oppressor, and thus perpetuate the system. Some fatal coloring to this sharp logic was given by our Southern brethren themselves when they took the ground that they must maintain slavery in order to gain access to the slave. The abolitionist triumphantly quoted their words with "See, now, they themselves declare that their gospel is the gospel of slavery!" More than once was, in that day, the Northern defender of Southern Methodism shut up by such a quotation. But this missionary zeal unquestionably preceded the abolition excitement, and was started in the interests of a most earnest Christianity. Andrew, no doubt, submitted to his sultry air-bath, perfumed with unhealthy odor, for the souls of his Negro parishioners, with no thought for the perpetuity of the system that so nearly suffocated him. Indeed, in after years, so strong was the interest of this saintly man for the spiritual interests of the dark race that before his election to the episcopacy he seriously contemplated becoming a missionary to Africa. We have ever felt that a full measure of honor should be accorded to Southern Methodism for her missionary labors with the oppressed people.

After his pastorate in Charleston Mr. Andrew moved through the higher order of appointments, distinguished for his eloquence, his ability as a writer, his administrative success, and his piety. Much to the indignation of some of his official superiors he contracted an early and happy marriage, and was one of the first to break up the customary sequence that a preacher's marriage was always followed by a location, a sequence arising from the fact

that his salary was inadequate to the support of a family. The conference thereby had to be made up mainly of bachelors, young and old. We have heard, through oral tradition we believe, that Asbury made one of his terse apothegms in these words, namely, "I wish the devil and the women would let my preachers alone." He was thrice married in the course of his life, and in each case was wise in his choice and happy in his marriage relations. Ile was, in his maturer years, very clearly a man of courteous manners and of warm and mellow affections. His letters, written to his wife during the trying days when his marriage with her would seem to be the cause of his trials, are rich with the most assuring expressions of love.

Mr. Smith discusses the dealing of the General Conference of 1844, in the main, with excellent temper. We could wish to approach that question at this time with the same calm fairness with which we would treat an occurrence of two centuries ago. There are two or three points, however, in which we think his views historically incorrect. We think he fully shows that Bishop Andrew had no desire for the episcopal office; that he accepted it with sincere reluctance, from a sense of duty; and that he would gladly have resigned it in 1844 to secure the unity of the Church. He had no anticipation at the time of his marriage. that any serious difficulty would arise from his marital connection with slavery. His demeanor during the discussions was becoming, and we do not think it right to affirm that "he divided the Church." But the point of issue we must here take with our author is this: His connection, even by marriage, with slavery was in contrariety to the understanding which had always existed between the two sections of the Church, that the episcopal office should not be held by a slave-holder. It is of no use for our biographer to tell us how men who were slave-holders were appointed to office and honors, such as Capers and Olin; neither of those men could have been elected to the episcopate for this sole reason. The reason was this, that to admit slavery into the episcopate was to surrender the last remnant of our historic protest against slavery, and to admit the supremacy of the slave-power. Hence it was not "a few extremists," but old stereotype conservatives like Nathan Bangs of New York, and John Collins of Baltimore, with almost their entire delegations that took firm position for the old understanding. They did this, not in sympathy with so-called "modern abolitionism," but, as Dr. Bangs expressed it, from "the old antislavery feeling;" that is, on the basis of the

old protest against the supremacy and even the existence of slavery, inherited from Wesley, Coke, Asbury, and the Methodist fathers, fragmentary traces of which stood still unerased upon the pages of our Discipline. According to Dr. Smith's own statement Mr. Andrew was aware that he was elected because he was a non-slaveholder. His self-depreciatory statement at the time of his election was that he was chosen on account of his "poverty;" that is, he was elected because he was a non-slaveholder, and he was a non-slaveholder, not from conscience, but because he was too poor to buy a slave. He understood, therefore, that as Bishop he stood upon a non-slaveholding platform. Why? Because, as the Northern delegates ever claimed, it was hitherto understood by both sides that the Episcopacy was to be clear from slavery. Bishop Andrew, therefore, appears to have stood in the Episcopate in violation of the known understanding upon which he was elected. Mr. Smith says, and we fully believe his statement, that Bishop Andrew "wished to resign." Tradition says that during the early days of the General Conference he wore a very despondent air. But a movement among the Southern delegations took place that changed the situation, and also seems to have changed his demeanor. They, in solid body, required him to stand firm. We think their position was, in the circumstances, about right. It was truly, as Mr. Seward said, "an irrepressible conflict," and the proper time for the issue had come. Slavery and freedom must meet face to face. Behind either party in this General Conference there were irresistible forces requiring each to firmly meet the inevitable contest. Disintegration and ruin threatened the party that shrunk. The best result in the case possible took place. The Southern section withdrew, and formed a new organization, and the two Churches, each, maintained their own entirety. This is not saying that both sides were right; or that they were both equally right or wrong. The relative rightness depends upon the previous question whether slavery is right. If slavery is right, then the effort to force it into our Episcopacy, and over the Church and nation, was right. If slavery is a great moral wrong, the enemy of human advancement, then the North was right and the South fearfully wrong. On that question there now is in every part of Christendom, except our South, a terrible unanimity. The great national organic sin itself, in which each party had its share, was, in its permanence and power, of too large a magnitude for that Conference to undertake to manage. Taking things as