cation of Questions 1 and 2, Section VI, of the Manual for Missionary Candidates should be made, so that they will read as follows:

Question I. What are your views respecting each of the leading doctrines of Scripture commonly held by the churches sustaining this Board? In answering this question you may use your own language or refer to any creeds of acknowledged weight.

Question II. Have you any views at variance with these doctrines, or any views of Church government which would prevent your cordial cooperation with the missionaries of this Board?

As at present standing these questions read respectively:

1. What in your view are the leading doctrines of the Scriptures?

2. Have you doubts respecting any of the doctrines commonly held by the churches under the care of the Board, or any views relating to Church government, which would prevent your cordially recognizing as ministers of Christ the missionaries employed by the Board?

The object of the first of these changes that in Question 1 of the Manual is to try to secure from the candidate a fuller statement of his personal convictions respecting the Scripture doctrines commonly entertained by our churches than would necessarily be elicited by the simple inquiry, as it now stands, what those doctrines are. In point of fact, the question as it now reads is sometimes answered by a bare list of names, such as Repentance, Faith, Atonement, Justification, Sanctification, and the like. The aim of the proposed change is to lead the candidate more readily to state in his own way, and more fully, his position respecting the doctrines of Scripture held by himself and by the churches. The change is, in a word, in the interest of a more complete, voluntary, and untrammeled explication of the candidate's personal religious convictions.

The change in the second question is for the purpose of removing a form of interrogatory which, however long continued, your committee cannot but deem unhappy in its tendency, and objectionable in its use. "Have you doubts?" is an inquiry suited in its very nature to perplex a sensitive conscience, and to disquiet even an indolent one. Who has not at times doubts respecting many things concerning which he is, on the whole and in a large practical way, nevertheless persuaded? We think the interrogatory, as formulated in the Manual at present, is not only calculated to raise doubts and create perplexities, but that it opens the way for the possibility of embarrassing the candidate's convictions and conscience, which ought to be effectually guarded against.

Provision having been made in the first question, as amended, for ascertaining the applicant's real convictions concerning the Scripture doctrines commonly held by the churches, it seems quite sufficient in the next question to inquire, "Have you any views at variance with these doctrines, or any views of Church government which would prevent your cordial coöperation with the missionaries of this Board?

These changes in the phraseology of Questions 1 and 2, Sec. VI, of the Manual, being understood as a part of your committee's proposal, it is further our opinion that all applications for missionary appointment should be made, as now, to the Corresponding Secretaries of the Board, who should ask for and receive from the candidate the usual testimonials respecting fitness for missionary service, and answers to questions proposed in the Manual. But no attempt should be made to induce candidates to modify their expressed theological opinions.

The communications thus received by the Secretaries should be presented forthwith to the Prudential Committee. In case the Committee shall think it needful to make further scrutiny into the theological opinions of candidates, this should be had through an interview with the Committee as a body, or in case this, in any special instance, is not practicable, with a sub-committee appointed by them from their own number, and consisting in part of laymen. At such theological examination by the Committee, or sub-committee, the doors should be open for the presence of any members of the Board or personal friends of the candidate.

The effect of this arrangement, if faithfully carried out, will be to leave the entire question of the theological fitness of candidates exclusively with the Prudential Committee, where even now the responsibility of the decision rests. Should the Committee at any time be thought to be unreasonably lax, or unreasonably rigid in the discharge of their function, it is in the power of the Board to apply a remedy, inasmuch as the term of office of the Committee is but a single year.

Your committee cannot conclude this report without reiterating their deep conviction of the gravity of the present situation in the affairs of the Board, and their sense of the imperative necessity for arriving at some just and honorable basis of agreement if the Board is to continue to be the instrument of the united constituency it has hitherto represented in the missionary work. Such a just and honorable basis we believe we have presented in the recommendations we have made. In arriving at them we have endeavored to be solicitously careful of the convictions and feelings of all. We have impeached no one's motives. We have listened to no unanswered accusations. We have endeavored to manifest, as we certainly have felt, a grateful sense of obligation to the members of the Prudential Committee for their gratuitous and laborious service in the work entrusted to them, and to the other officers of the Board for their devotion to their arduous service. It is not in the spirit of partisanship that we have met the questions which have been presented to us, nor is it now in any other than a spirit of loyalty to the Board, and to the great Christian cause it represents, that we leave with you the recommendations we unitedly make in the earnest hope of their acceptance and adoption.

With the brief recapitulation of such of these recommendations as seem to demand formal action by vote we conclude our report.

We recommend the adoption of the following resolutions :Resolved First: That the Committee on the Treasurer's Report be appointed by the Board at the annual meeting next previous to the meeting at which such committee is called on to act, and that a copy of the report of the Treasurer be sent, as soon as it is ready, to each member of the committee for inspection, and that any desired information may be asked for.

Resolved Second: That By-law 17, p. 12, of the last published edition of the Charter and By-laws be amended so that the last sentence of it shall read, instead of "they [the Auditors] shall have authority at any time to employ an expert in the particular examination of the accounts,"

"The Auditors shall annually employ an expert in the examination of the Treasurer's accounts."

Resolved Third: That there be a substantial increase of the force employed by the Board to bring the interests of its missions and the cause it represents before the churches contributing to its support.

Resolved Fourth, with reference to the important subject of missionary appointments: That Questions 1 and 2, Section VI, of the Manual for Missionary Candidates be amended so that they shall read as follows:

Question 1. What are your views respecting each of the leading doctrines of Scripture commonly held by the churches sustaining this Board? In answering this question, you may use your own language or refer to any creeds of acknowledged weight.1

1

Question 2. Have you any views at variance with these doctrines or any views of church government which would prevent your cordial cooperation with the missionaries of this Board?

These questions being so amended, all applications for missionary appointment shall be made as now to the Corresponding Secretaries of the Board. Without further correspondence on doctrinal matters the communications thus received by the Secretaries shall be presented forthwith to the Prudential Committee. In case the Committee desire further scrutiny into the theological opinions of the candidate 2 this shall be had through an interview with the Committee as a body; or in case this, in any special instance, is not practicable, with a sub-committee appointed by them from their own number and consisting in part of laymen. At such theological examination by the Committee or sub-committee the doors shall be open for the presence of any members of the Board or personal friends of the candidate.

Resolved Fifth: That any rules or parts of rules inconsistent with any of the foregoing resolutions be hereby annulled."

All which is respectfully and unanimously submitted by your committee.

GEO. LEON WALKER,
ALONZO H. QUINT,
SAMUEL JOHNSON,
ELIHU B. MONROE,
GEORGE P. FISHER,
JOHN H. WASHBURN,
ARTHUR LITTLE,

RALPH EMERSON,

ROYAL C. TAFT.

1 As adopted, these words were added: "as to the doctrines contained in these creeds."

2 As adopted, these (or substantially these) words were inserted at this point: "They may address to him such supplementary questions as appear to them important, and if further light shall still be needed."

This resolution, before adoption, was expanded so as to specify the changes contemplated.

AMERICAN COLLEGE AND EDUCA-CONGREGATIONAL SUNDAY-SCHOOL NEW WEST EDUCATION

TION SOCIETY.

DEPARTMENT.)

(EDUCATION

AND PUBLISHING SOCIETY. (SUN

DAY-SCHOOL DEPARTMENT.)

COMMISSION.

CONGREGATIONAL

CHURCHES.

BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

GESCHICHTE DER ETHIK IN DER NEUEREN PHILOSOPHIE. VON FRIEDRICH JODL, o. ö Professor der Philosophie an der deutschen Universität zu Prag. (2 vols. Stuttgart. Vol. i., 1882. Vol. ii., 1889.)

The publication of the second of these two volumes was delayed by a change of residence and the pressure of new duties upon the author, with all the hindrances incident to both of these circumstances. The contents of the first volume include a short introductory account of Greek and Christian ethics, and then proceed to discuss quite fully modern ethics from Bacon to Kant. There is in this no attempt to give a philosophic classification of schools, because it is found impossible to make the philosophic and the historical order go together. In the second volume this is to some extent accomplished. It begins with Kant and includes all but contemporaries of the nineteenth century. The first division is that of nationalities, and none are admitted except England, Germany, and France. In Germany are considered the schools of Idealism headed by Kant, the mediation between Idealism and Naturalism headed by Schleiermacher, Pessimism by Schopenhauer, and Eudæmonism by Beneke and Feuerbach. In France there are the two schools, "Spiritualism" and Positivism, headed respectively by Cousin and Comte. In England there are also two schools, Intuitionism and Utilitarianism, the former led by Dugald Stewart, Whewell, and Mackintosh, and the latter by Bentham and Mill. It will be apparent from this outline that the two volumes present a fine field for study, and such it is. Besides the merit of the treatment adds to the interest of the subject. It was the original intention of the author that the second volume should contain a summary of results, but this, it was found, would require a volume by itself, and it has been omitted. Fortunately we do not have to await such a summary in order to determine the position and views of the author. These are very well defined in the method of criticism adopted and in the sympathies occasionally betrayed thereby, as well as in the brief résumés appended to the discussion of each of the three nationalities considered in the second volume. These reviews betray an evident antipathy to Kant in every respect except that in which he exalted the validity and authority of moral imperatives, or the ideal, after he had cut away the usual grounds upon which they were made to rest, and also they indicate an equal admiration for J. S. Mill and his utilitarianism. Indeed, it is not necessary to go outside of the author's relation to these two authors to discover both the strength and the weakness of his sympathies and antipathies. Aside from all criticism upon the views either latent or expressed, the work is one of the best that has appeared. There is less ability to appreciate the ethical consciousness which has sought to express itself in various theories than there is to measure their relative merits according to a given standard. This is a defect in criticism, and exposition, although it might not be in mere history. But even if the work be faulty in this respect, it is not wanting in candor and fairness, a quality which will cover a multitude of other defects, and this quality has been so cultivated in the author as never to narrow his sympathies in any such way as appears in the philosophy of J. S. Mill. Even the opposition to the fundamental conceptions in the Kantian school is never