raphy." He shows a like frankness in the manner in which he celebrates, in his preface, his breaking away from the German critics whom he followed for years with much interest and zeal, and whose results he accepted. In recent years, and with a better understanding of Roman history, he has realized that it is a gross outrage on criticism to hold most of the books of the New Testament for second-century forgeries. Much of the work before us is directed towards this point.
Dr. Hurst's volume, "Short History of the Christian Church," would take up nearly the same amount of shelf-room as Dr. Moeller's, but it contains about a hundred pages more of text, besides statistical appendices and indices. Its typographical arrangement, however, is not so compact as that of the former volume, and if pains were taken to estimate the exact amount of verbal matter in each, it would probably be found that there was little difference. Assuming this result, it is interesting to note that Dr. Hurst attempts to give a comprehensive view of nineteen centuries of Christian history in a space equal to that which Dr. Moeller requires for setting forth six centuries. To the early Church, Dr. Hurst assigns a century and a half more than Dr. Moeller, and devotes 102 pages. His avowed purpose is to popularize the study of religious history. The qualifying part of the title to his work, in such a case, is made important. The author frankly tells us how he has prepared this volume. Its five divisions are a careful re-arrangement and re-writing of five short histories by which he is already known to a certain class of readers. In the re-arrangement and re-writing, it seems to have escaped the author's attention that the rather confused view of a very disorganized Christianity presented in the latter part of his volume is wholly inconsistent with the definition of the visible Church with which he sets out. "The visible Church," says he, "consists of the organized believers in Christ and the followers of his life." We should be justified in expecting a "short history " of the Christian Church to keep this definition in view, so that the Church might be clearly identified in every period of its history. Certain phrases used by the author, e. g., "the Evangelical Protestant Church," "Evangelical Christianity," and "the aggressive sisterhood of Protestant Churches," imply a reaching out after a term which shall be comprehensive of—something, and yet non-committal as to the theories of the visible Church held by Latin or Anglican theologians; though he repeatedly makes the blunder, common among ultra-Protestant writers, of calling the Church of Rome, its adherents, and its principles, "Catholic,"—a sweeping concession of every claim the Church of Rome makes. The author would have avoided many difficulties in the way of writing a short history of the Church from his standpoint, had he entitled his work a "Short History of Christianity." The chapters in the fifth division of his volume, devoted to a score or more of fantastic sects in no sense connected with the Church as he defines it, would not then appear so incongruous.
An accurate terminology, however, does not seem to be a strong point with this distinguished writer. The words "sect" and "schism" are used as though convertible terms. "Theotokos" is defined as "God-born" on page 52, and as "Mother of God" on page 386. The term "Roman Catholic" is used under circumstances which render it utterly meaningless. We are seriously told that, at a certain period of his life, Luther was "a firm and full believer in the one Roman Catholic Church." Again (p. 247) "Henry's [VIII.] real purpose was a National Roman Catholic Church with himself at the head"; and (p. 262) mention is made of the desire of the French "for a National Roman Catholic Church." How such combinations of antagonistic Church polities could possibly have been accomplished, even in the mind of a theorist, it would be interesting to know. Furthermore, omitting all reference to the origin of the term "Protestant" (a serious omission even in a short history of the Reformation), and failing to define the same, it is applied long before the occasion for its use arose, and indiscriminately afterwards, even to a class of modern religionists of the Baltic Provinces who have been deprived of privileges which the Czar of Russia seems to have it in his power to restore. This confusion of terms appears to result from confused ideas on certain essential historical points. Be that as it may, it is sure to lead to confused ideas in those who would derive their historical information from this book.
If "the Church of the Past" is to be made "a wise instructor for the Church of the Future," it is not only necessary that the events of history be accurately known by those who have the "true historical instinct," but also that they be accurately related. Granted that Dr. Hurst is not deficient in his knowledge of events, it is unfortunate that we should find
