is but one hope for a favorable solution, namely, through a combination of the best men and women irrespective of race or creed, working in sympathy and harmony for the uplifting of mankind. Such a combination or coalition is now in a more or less conscious process of formation. And the basis of the alliance is a recognition of the Golden Rule as the only basis of a true civilization. This is to be the rallying cry hereafter of the advocates of "liberty, equality, and fraternity." It indicates the new stage of evolution. Professor Drummond called attention to the change by showing that the "struggle for life" must give way to the higher principle of "struggle for the life of others." Society is an organism. No man liveth or can live to himself alone. One cannot receive an injury or be kept from his rights without injury to all.

This is a topic that does not call for elaboration in the present discussion, which has the single purpose of emphasizing and encouraging the growing sympathy between two bodies of coreligionists who should now ignore all elements of difference and dissension and become one in purpose and effort. Let the gulf that now divides them be filled, and let each see in the other not an enemy or rival, but a counterpart, a source of strength, a sympathetic association in all noble aspiration and effort. That the two belong together, not apart, is clearly shown by the eminent Jewish writer, Dr. Moritz Friedlander, of Vienna. He says:

"The synagogue of primitive Christianity was the direct offspring of the Jewish synagogue. Here, too, the center of sublime, divine service, which powerfully influenced the simple and pious souls, was Moses and the prophets, hallowed, in addition, by the splendor of the invisibly ruling Messiah.

"In this synagogue originated a new Israel, which silently and noiselessly prospered beside 'the burden of the law,' which killed the spirit of the Mosaic doctrine and prepared the ossification and dwarfing of Judaism.

"This synagogue was a true house of God, which made all those who entered it enthusiastic for a pure Mosaism, whose principal doctrine was the love of God and the love of man. Here every one, through teaching and learning, invigorated himself, and even the most simple-minded visitor left the house

as an enthusiastic apostle. In short, it was a synagogue to which, if it existed to-day, all hearts would be drawn and around which the entire enlightened Judaism of to-day would gather. And Jesus himself, who was the starting-point of the synagogue of the Messianic community, who fertilized and rejuvenated it by the sublime Messianic idea, was proclaimed as divine Redeemer because of this rejuvenation, as well as because of the redemption undertaken by him, on the Palestinian soil, from the 'insupportable burdens' which the Pharisee teachers imposed on the people (Matt. xxii. 4).

"Always higher, on to unapproachableness, grew his personality, including all that is beautiful, lofty, sublime, and divine, and forcing every one to adoration and self-nobilization. This divine 'Son of Man' became the world-ideal, and this sublime ideal originated in Judaism, which will ever be remembered as having been predestined by Providence to bring forth such a creation."

Speaking from the Christian side, the Rev. I. K. Funk, D.D.,

says:

"Will the Christian Church permit a friendly exhortation? You have tried everything to get the Jewish people to understand Jesus of Nazareth except one thing-love. Try that, for they believe in love, and you believe in love. Let both Jew and Christian get on this common ground and have respect for the honest convictions of each other, and then both may clasp hands and look into each other's eyes and repeat the words uttered alike by Moses and by Jesus: 'The Lord our God is one God. And thou shalt love Him with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. The lightnings from Mount Sinai and the rays of light and heat from Mount Calvary are one, and will yet fuse into brotherhood all peoples of the earth."

It is beyond question that the century-old antagonism between Christianity and Judaism cannot exist in the atmosphere of the modern spirit.

New York.

THEODORE F. SEWARD.

N few respects has mankind made a greater advance than in the position of woman-legal, social, and educational. From the darkness of ignorance and servitude woman has passed into the open light of equal freedom. The happiness and progress of societ are regarded as depending not more upon the ability of its sons to direct the wheels of prosperous enterprise than upon the intelligence of its daughters to safeguard the very sources of social and household life. By slow but sure and permanent advances has come the recognition of the right of woman to her own development-the right of individuals to know, to learn, to perfect themselves to the utmost of their ability, irrespective of sex.

The energetic, independent woman of culture is frequently caricatured as the "New Woman." The change that has led to the development of this type may be summed up as the improved mental and physical development of the girl, necessarily accompanied by and leading to a different ideal for the woman. There is not a more unmanly cry than that in fashion against "strong-minded women." Either the phrase is an irony which repetition has turned into a serious fallacy-and what is meant is that the so-called "strong-minded women" are not strong-minded, and that analogous specimens of men would be regarded as weak-minded-or the phrase is cruel and mean. No woman yet but was better, nobler, and essentially more womanly, in precise proportion as her natural abilities had received all the education of which they were capable. The key-note of her character is self-reliance and power of initiation. She often earns her own living. She aims at being in direct contact with reality and at forming her own judgment upon it. This is an attitude which, of course, is capable of

gross exaggeration and misuse, and when carried so far has afforded some justification for the caricature.

Conceding and commending the proper equilibrium of the sexes must not be confused with the doctrine that, with an equal opportunity, woman should prove herself as much of a man as anybody. Emancipation from servitude and ignorance does not mean emancipation from womanliness, or what that keen-eyed, patient, steadfast watcher of life, Goethe, calls the "ever womanly"-the eternal feminine, as embodying the tender, loving, self-sacrificing, altruistic side of human nature, which is shown in the redeemed soul of Marguerite to hold the spiritual power of drawing upward and onward. Every rightminded man will rejoice in woman's attainment of her just rights and opportunities, and will dissent from the utterance of a distinguished Boston minister that "the moment a woman becomes erudite, as she does after the average college course, she becomes a bluestocking and apart from the rest of society, and consequently she does not accomplish the good which she might otherwise."

However, every one who cherishes the slightest regard for the rare virtues and qualities of sweet womanhood must resent and abhor the too manifest tendency of modern social, industrial, and educational innovations to unsex and abase our young women. The passing away of mere amiable weakness and sentimental delicacy, timid gentleness and submissive dependence, need not bring in an impairment of woman's refinement and domesticity. True sweetness, true goodness, and true love come not from naïvete or feebleness, but of intelligence and personal force. True learning, like true taste, is modest and unostentatious, and must shed a cheering light over the imaginative sympathy and moral susceptibility which constitute so large a part of woman's genius.

Let woman honor her own distinctive nature, and claim for herself all the culture that will best equip her for her own work-her own sphere. But she must bear in mind that in becoming a sound classicist, a brilliant mathematician, a sharp critic, a faultless grammarian, she may do so at the expense of

that ready sympathy, modesty, noble self-control, gentleness, personal tact and temper, so essential for the best type of womanhood and the most exalted standard of female excellence. It would not be for the good of the world were the sentiment and tenderness of woman to be lost in philosophic calmness and materialistic indifference.

Thought is masculine; sentiment is feminine. Both must be found, more or less, in every human being. In a manly character the one will prevail-in a womanly character the other. No measure of sentiment that leaves thought sovereign detracts from manliness. No vigor of intellect that does not dispute the empire of sentiment diminishes the grace of woman. All that masculine power accomplishes the feminine resources of the soul render possible. The Muses are feminine, and, in making them so, the subtle imagination of Greece found its way to the fact that the woman in humanity is that from which the music of human thought proceeds. A man judges, but it is Themis that inspires the judges. A man philosophizes, but wisdom itself is Athene. Therefore, making sentiment distinctively feminine implies no inferiority in woman. In her it is so quick, so subtle, and so untraceable that we can give it no other name than feeling. The eye of her perception is like a divining rod, having its power in the difference of her nature from that of man—the grace of concealment and reserve, a charm that defies analysis, a delicacy that treads untraceable paths and works more finely than explicit thought.

After all, the essential quality of female excellence and charm is feminineness. Woman's heart, her mind, her person, to be pleasant, must be feminine. This is, above all else, what we love in woman. It is here that we meet the distinction between what will suffice for such a friendship as we entertain for a man and such a love as we entertain for a woman. "The things we love in a young lady," says Goethe, "are something very different from the understanding. We love in her beauty, youth, playfulness, confidingness-her character, with all her faults and caprices, and God knows what other inexpressible charms. But we do not love her understanding; we