The Presbyterian Review

ΩΣ po οτος ae
Se et ee ae ae geet,
Been Feed

νον:
σε ε τ

0? ssthers
an eee
ee

a 4 -ν «--- ~* ~ πᾶς“ - - ν * = " ἕ
7 a > pee ang ths -᾿ tw: io Nias ον χω ν. νυ. = we “Ὁ
μ - ΡΝ ἐμ ae
as

m

. ain 2, τι “ως di »ὐνξα,, :
ῶ a ty , r- en ae ει me nate b Fag 4 ~ PY et ao. ?
5 ~ - ον τ" SAT nest “gate, ib OS oo oe lle SR eC gee ag be τισι - ΚΝ pe, : » rey’
; x <a Re PN perth “ΩΣ τ

- a

Stee Vues tte

et ὦ
=

or

os
ata ae a} -
PO en

aoe, “4

! !

ri

εἰ

Ὁ

ἢ @

᾿ ~

ez

iad

7 AVR

r

Sectron,<.. «,

ῃ

Eee:

.

en woos mane SA
ἔ ‘

No, =.

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016 with funding from
Princeton Theological Seminary Library

https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrevi4161unse

EE

PRESpDYPERIAN ‘REVIEW.

No. 16.—October, 1888.

MILTON AND TENNYSON.

“Blessings be with them and immortal praise,
Who gave us noble lives and nobler cares,
The Poets, who on earth have made us heirs
Of truth and pure delight by heavenly lays.” —-WoRDSWORTH.

WO rivers, rising in the same lofty region and fed by kindred
springs, are guided by the mountain-slopes of their environ-
ment into channels which, though not far apart, are widely different.
The one, deeper and stronger from its birth, after a swift and lovely |
course through fair uplands of peace, is shattered suddenly by the
turmoil of a fierce conflict, lifting but one foam-crested wave of warn-
ing, is plunged into the secret and tumultuous warfare of a deep
cafion, emerging at length with wondrously augmented current, to
flow majestically through a land of awful, thunder-riven cliffs, tower-
ing peaks, vast forests, and immeasurable plains,—a mighty land, a
mighty stream. The other river, from a source less deep, but no less
pure and clear, passing with the same gentle current through the
same region of sweet seclusion, meets with no mighty obstacle, is
torn by no wild cataract in its descent, but with ever-growing force
and deepening, widening stream sweeps through a land less majestic,
but more beautiful, not void of grandeur, but free from horror,—a
land of shadowy vales and gardens; mysterious cities hung in air,
and hills crowned with ruined castles,—a stream brimming and bright
and large, whose smooth, strong flow often conceals its unsounded
depth, and mirrors, not only the fleeting shores, but also the eternal
stars, in its bosom.
Such is the figure in which I see the poetry of Milton and of Ten-
nyson flowing through the literature and life of our English race.
44

682 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

They are, without doubt, the two great religious poets of England.
I do not mean by this to say that they are equal or alike in their
greatness. Milton is assuredly a poet of the first order. The world
has but three, or at most five, names worthy to stand beside his. For
Tennyson, his most ardent admirer will hardly dare to claim more
than the highest rank in the second order. But there is a deep com-
munity of temperament and of moral purpose, a striking coincidence
of tastes and methods, a series of resemblances and analogies be-
tween the two poets, which have never yet been carefully observed,
and which will justify me in the study of their works side by side, by
way of comparison and contrast.

There are two direct references to Milton in the works of Tenny-
son; and these we must examine first of all, in order that we may read
in them, if possible, the attitude of his mind toward the greater master.

In the Palace of Art, the royal dais on which the soul is to hold

her intellectual throne is hung round with choice paintings of wise
men.
‘For there was Milton like a seraph strong,
Beside him, Shakespeare bland and mild ;
And there the world-worn Dante grasped his song,
And somewhat grimly smiled;

‘“< And there the Ionian father of the rest ;
A million wrinkles carved his skin ;
A hundred winters snowed upon his breast,
From cheek and throat, and chin.”

This tells us the rank which Tennyson, in his twenty-third
year, assigned to Milton; and it tells us, too, how clear and true was
the picture which he had formed of Milton’s genius. His sign is
strength, but strength seraphic; not the rude force of the Titan, but
a power serene, harmonious, beautiful; a power of sustained flight,
of far-reaching vision, of lofty utterance such as belongs to the ser-
aphim alone. For the angels are lower beings, some weak, some
strong, followers in the heavenly host; the cherubim are silent and
mysterious creatures, not shaped like men, voiceless and inapproach-
able; but the seraphim hover on mighty wings above the throne of
Jehovah, chanting his praise one to another, and bearing his mes-
sages from*heaven to earth. This, then, is the word which Tennyson
chooses, and chooses with the divine instinct of a great poet, to sum-
mon the spirit of Milton before us,—a seraph strong. That phrase is
worth more than all of Johnson’s blundering criticisms.

The second reference to Milton in the works of Tennyson is found
among the Experiments in Quantity, which he published in the
Cornhill Magazine, in 1863, and which now appear at the close of

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 683

the second volume of his collected works. We have here the expres-
sion of his mature opinion carefully considered and uttered with
the strength of a generous and clear conviction; an utterance well
worth weighing, not only for the perfection of its form, but also for
the richness of its contents and the revelation which it makes of the
poet’s own nature. Hear with what power and stateliness it begins,
rising at once to the height of the noble theme:
“Ὁ, mighty-mouthed inventor of harmonies,
O, skilled to sing of Time or Eternity,
God-gifted organ-voice of England,
Milton, a name to resound for ages ;
Whose Titan angels, Gabriel, Abdiel,
Starr’d from Jehovah’s gorgeous armories,
Tower, as the deep-domed empyrean
Rings to the roar of an angel onset,—
Me rather all that bowery loneliness
The brooks of Eden mazily murmuring
And bloom profuse and cedar arches
Charm, as a wanderer out in ocean,
Where some refulgent sunset of India
Streams o’er a rich ambrosial ocean isle,
And crimson-hued the stately palm-woods
Whisper in odorous heights of even.”

Thus the brief ode finds its perfect close, the rich, full tones dying
away in the prolonged period, as the strains of some great music are
lost in the harmonious hush of twilight. But one other hand could
have swept these grand chords and evoked these tones of majestic
sweetness,—the hand of Milton himself.

It was De Quincey, that most nearly inspired, but most nearly insane
of critics, who first spoke of the Miltonic movement as having the
qualities of an organ voluntary. But the comparison which with him
was little more than a fortunate and striking simile, is transformed
by the poet into a perfect metaphor,

“A jewel, five words long

That on the stretched fore-finger of all Time
Sparkles forever.”

The great organ, pouring forth its melodious thunders, becomes a .
living thing, divinely dowered and divinely filled with music ;—an
instrument no longer, but a vozce, majestic, potent, thrilling the
heart,—the voice of England pealing in the ears of all the world
and all time. Swept on the flood of those great harmonies, the
mighty hosts of angels clash together in heaven-shaking conflict. .
But it is the same full tide of music which flows down in sweetest,
lingering cadence to wander through the cool groves and fragrant
valleys of Paradise. Here the younger poet will more gladly dwell,

084 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

finding a deeper delight in these solemn and tranquil melodies than
in the roar and clang of battles, even though angelic.

Is it not true? True, not only that the organ voice has the two-
fold gift of beauty and grandeur; true, not only that Tennyson has
more sympathy with the loveliness of Eden than with the mingled
splendors and horrors of the celestial battle-fields; but true, also,
that there is a more potent and lasting charm in Milton’s description
of the beautiful than in his description of the sublime. I do not
think that L’Allegro, Il Penseroso, and Comus have any lower
place in the world, or any less enduring life, than Paradise Lost.
And even in that great epic there are no passages more worthy
to be remembered, more fruitful of pure feelings and lofty thoughts,
than those like the Hymn of Adam, or the description of the first
evening in Eden, which show us the fairness and delightfulness of
God’s world. We have forgotten this; we have thought so much
of Milton’s strength and sublimity that we have ceased to recognize
what is also true, that he, of all English poets, is by nature the
supreme lover of beauty.

Te

This, then, is the first point of vital sympathy between Tennyson
and Milton; their common love of the beautiful, not only in nature,
but also in art. And this we see most cléarly in the youth and in
the youthful writings of the two poets.

There is a strange resemblance in their early circumstances and
tastes. Both were born and reared in homes of modest comfort and
refined leisure, under the blended influences of culture and religion.
Milton’s father was a scrivener, or copying lawyer: deprived of his
possessions because he obeyed his conscience to become a Protestant,
but amassing a competence by his professional labor, he ordered
his house well, softening and beautifying the earnest sobriety of
Puritan ways with the pursuit of music and literature. Tennyson
was born in a country rectory, one of those fair homes of peace and
settled order which are the pride and strength of England,—homes
where “plain living and high thinking” produce the noblest types of
manhood. His father also, like Milton’s, was a musician, and sur-
rounded his seven sons with influences which gave them poetic
tastes and impulses.

Cambridge was the university to which Tennyson was sent, and
this had been the student-home of Milton. There is much that is
alike in the college life of the two poets. A certain loftiness of spirit,

‘MILTON AND TENNYSON. 685

an habitual abstraction of thought, separated them from the mass
of their fellow-students. They were absorbed in communion with
the great minds of Greece and Rome. They drank deep at the
springs of ancient poesy. Not alone the form, but the spirit of the
classics became familiar to them. They were enamored of the
beauty of the old world’s legends, the bright mythologies of Hellas,
and Latium’s wondrous histories of gods and men. For neither of
them was this study and love of the ancient poets a transient delight,
a passing mood. It took strong hold upon them; it became a
moulding power in their life and work. We can trace it in all their
writings. Allusions, themes, illustrations, similes, forms of verse,
echoes of thought, conscious or unconscious imitations,—a thousand
tokens remind us that we are still beneath the influence of the old
masters of a vanished world,—

“The dead, but sceptered sovereigns, who still rule
Our spirits from their urns.”

And here, again, we see a deep bond of sympathy between Tenny-
son and Milton: they are certainly the most learned, the most classical
of England’s poets.

Following their lives beyond the annette we find that both of
them came out into a period of study, of seclusion, of leisure, of
poetical productiveness. Milton retired to his father’s house at
Horton, in Buckinghamshire, where he lived for five years. Tenny-
son’s home was at Somerby, in Lincolnshire, until his father’s death
in 1831, and after that, we may conjecture, with his mother at Hamp-
stead, near London. The position and circumstances of the two
young poets were wonderfully alike. Both were withdrawn from the
whirl and conflict of active life into a world of lovely forms, sweet
sounds, and enchanting dreams; both fed their minds with the beauty
of nature and.of ancient story, charmed by the music of divine phi-
losophy, and by songs of birds filling the sweet English air at dawn
or twilight ; both loved to roam at will over hill and dale and by the
‘wandering streams; to watch the bee, with honeyed thigh, singing
from flower to flower, and catch the scent of violets hidden in the
green; to hear the sound of far-off bells swinging over the wide-
watered shore, and listen to the sighing of the wind among the trees,
or the murmur of the waves on the river-bank; to pore and dream
through the long night-watches over the legends of the past, holding
converse with all forms of the many-sided mind, until the cold winds
woke the gray-eyed morn, and the lark’s song startled the dull night

686 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

.

from her watch-tower in the skies; they dwelt as idlers in the land,
but it was a glorious and fruitful idleness, for they were reaping

‘‘The harvest of a quiet eye
That broods and sleeps on his own heart.”

How wonderful, how precious are the results of these peaceful years.
L’Allegro, 11 Penseroso, Arcades, Comus, Lycidas; Isabel, Recollec-
tions of the Arabian Nights, Ode to Memory, The Dying Swan, The
Palace of Art, A Dream of Fair Woman, Mariana, The Lady of Sha-
lott, The Lotos-Eaters, Génone,—these are poems to be remembered,
read and re-read with ever fresh delight, the most perfect things of
their kind in all literature. Grander poems, more passionate, more
powerful, are many; but there are none in which the pure and su-
preme love of beauty, Greek in its healthful symmetry, Christian in
its reverent earnestness, joined to a marvellous artistic sensibility and
delicate power of expression, has produced work so complete and ex-
quisite as the early poems of Milton and Tennyson.

Their best qualities are the same. I am more impressed with this
the more I read them. They are marked by the same clear-eyed ob-
servation of nature, the same sensitive perception of her beauty, the
same charm of rich and musical description. Read the Ode to Mem-
ory,—for instance, the description of the poet’s home:

‘‘Come from the woods that belt the gray hill-side,
The seven elms, the poplars four
That stand beside my father’s door ;
And chiefly from the brook that loves .
To purl o’er matted and ribbed sand,
Or dimple in the dark of rushy coves,
Drawing into his narrow earthen urn,
In every elbow and turn,
The filtered tribute of the rough woodland
O! hither lead my feet !
Pour round my ears the live-long bleat
Of the thick-fleeced sheep from wattled folds
Upon the ridged wolds, .
When the first matin-song hath waken’d loud
Over the dark dewy earth forlorn,
What time the amber morn
Forth gushes from beneath a low-hung cloud.”

Compare with this some lines from L’Allegro :

“ To hear the lark begin his flight,
And singing Startle the dull night
From his watch-tower in the skies,
Till the dappled dawn doth rise!
Some time walking, not unseen,

By hedge-row elms, on hillocks green,

Right against the eastern gate

Where the great sun begins his state,

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 687,

Rob’d in flames and amber light,

The clouds in thousand liveries dight ;
While the ploughman, near at hand,
Whistles o’er the furrow’d land,

And the milkmaid singeth blithe,

And the mower whets his scythe,

And every shepherd tells his tale

Under the hawthorn in the dale.
Straight mine eye hath caught new pleasures
While the landscape round it measures ;
Russet lawns and fallows gray,

Where the nibbling flocks do stray ;
Mountains on whose barren breast

The labouring clouds do often rest ;
Meadows trim with daisies pied,
Shallow brooks and rivers wide.”

Here is the same breadth of vision, delicacy of touch, atmospheric
effect, the same sensitiveness to the simplest variations of light and
sound, the same power to shed over the quiet scenery of the English
country the light of an ideal beauty. It is an art far beyond that of
the landscape painter, and all the more exquisite because so well
concealed.

Another example will show us the similarity of the two poets in
their more purely imaginative work, the description of that which
they have seen only with the dreaming eyes of fancy. Take the
closing song, or epilogue of the Attendant Spirit in Comus :

“ΤῸ the ocean now I fly
And those happy climes that lie
Up in the broad fields of the sky.
There I suck the liquid air,
All amidst the gardens fair
Of Hesperus, and his daughters three,
That sing about the golden tree:
Along the crisped shades and bowers
Revels the spruce and jocund Spring ;
The graces and the rosy-bosomed Hours
Thither all their bounties bring ;
There eternal summer dwells,
And west-winds, with musky wing,
About the cedarn alleys fling
Nard and cassia’s balmy smells.
Iris there with humid bow
Waters the odorous banks, that blow
Flowers of more mingled hue
Than her purfled scarf can shew,
And drenches with Elysian dew
Beds of hyacinths and roses,”

Compare with this Tennyson’s Recollections of the Arabian
Nights, with its dream of dusky gardens filled with secret music,
slow-moving waters, long alleys breathing fragrance, and slopes of

688 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

sward inlaid with braided blooms. Here is more than a mere resem-
blance of words and themes, more than an admiring imitation or
echoing of phrases; here is an identity of taste, spirit, temperament.
But the resemblance of forms is also here. We can trace it even in
such a minor trait as the skilful construction and use of double-
words. This has often been remarked as characteristic of Tennyson,
singled out as a distinguishing feature of his poetry. But Milton
uses them almost as freely and quite as magically. In Comus,
which has a little more than a thousand lines, there are fifty-four
double-epithets; in L’Allegro there are sixteen to a hundred and
fifty lines; in I] Penseroso there are eleven to one hundred and sev-
enty lines. Tennyson’s Ode to Memory, with a hundred and twenty
lines, has fifteen double-words ; Mariana, with eighty lines, has nine ;
the Lotos-Eaters, with two hundred lines, has thirty-two. And if I
should choose at random fifty such words from the early poems, I do
not think that any one, not knowing them by heart, could tell at
first glance which were Milton’s and which Tennyson’s. Let me try
the experiment with the following list:

Low-thoughted, empty-vaulted, rosy-white, rosy-bosomed, violet-embroidered, dew-
impearled, over-exquisite, long-levelled, mild-eyed, white-handed, white-breasted,
puré-eyed, sin-worn, self-consumed, self-profit, close-curtained, low-browed, ivy-
crowned, grey-eyed, sea-nymphs, far-beaming, pale-eyed, down-steering, flower-in-
woven, dewy-dark, moon-loved, smooth-swarded, quick-falling, slow-dropping, coral-
paven, lily-cradled, amber-dropping, thrice-great, dewy-feathered, purple-spiked, live-
long, foam-fountains, sand-built, night-steeds, full-flowing, sable-stoled, sun-steeped,
star-led, pilot-stars, full-juiced, dew-fed, brazen-headed, even-song, wisdom-bred.

It will puzzle the reader to distinguish with any degree of cer-
tainty the authorship of these words. And this seems the more
remarkable when we remember that there are two centuries of lin-
guistic development and changing fashions of poetic speech between
Comus and CEnone. ᾿

Not less remarkable is the identity of spirit in Tennyson and Mil-
ton in their delicate yet healthful sympathy with Nature, their per-
ception of the relation of her moods and aspects to the human heart.
This, in fact, is the key-note of L’Allegro and Il Penseroso. The same
world, seen under different lights and filled with different sounds, re-
sponds as deeply to the joyous, as to the melancholy, spirit. There is
a profound meaning, a potent influence in the outward shows of sky
and earth. While the Lady of Shalott dwells in her pure seclusion,
the sun shines, the lily blossoms on the river’s breast, and the blue
sky is unclouded; but when she passes the fatal line, and the curse
has fallen on her, then

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 689

‘Tn the stormy east-wind straining,

The pale yellow woods are waning,

The broad stream in his banks complaining,

Heavily the low skies raining,

Over towered Camelot.”

Thus, also, when the guilty pair in Eden had transgressed that sole
command on which their happiness depended,
“Sky lowered, and muttering thunder, some sad drops
Wept at completing of the mortal sin.”

Here is no “pathetic fallacy.” Ruskin may say what he will. There
is nothing false in this, but rather the clear perception and embodi-
ment ofa great truth which every man-who has communed with Nature
has felt, though he could not prove or express it,—the truth that the
world without answers to the world within, and by the things which
are seen, things invisible and eternal are shadowed forth and known.

It follows, of necessity, that he who looks thus on Nature will be
sincere and reverent. The vision of beauty will breed high thoughts
and pure desires in him. He will be free alike from the morbid fury
of sickly passions overwrought, and the hollow artificiality of cold
indifference. He will look on the world with a calm, large, devout
regard, as Adam saw for the first time the wonders and delights of
Paradise. And this is true both of Milton and of Tennyson. They
are equally removed from fhe feigned, conventional adoration of
Pope, who erected his temple of Nature in a stuccoed grotto at Twick-
enham, and the moody, melodramatic nature-passion of Byron, which
was, in truth, but the painted background to his hatred and disgust
for humanity. They are as far above the melodious, incoherent,
Bacchantic chantings of Swinburne, as above the feebly-rapturous
inanities of the Della Cruscan school. What Arthur Hallam said of
Tennyson’s early poems, applies with equal truth to Milton: ‘ There
is a strange earnestness in his worship of beauty,” and, I may add, a
perfect moral sanity and wondrous elevation of thought.

Look at the Lady in Comus. She is the sweet embodiment of
Milton’s youthful ideal of virtue, clothed with the gracious fairness
‘of opening womanhood, armed with the sun-clad power of chastity.
Darkness and danger cannot
=

“ Stir the constant mood of her calm thoughts.”

Evil things have no power upon her, but shrink abashed from her

presence. . ᾿
- ‘*So dear to heaven is saintly chastity
That when a soul is found sincerely so,
5 A thousand liveried angels lackey her,
Driving far off each thing of sin and guilt ;

690 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

And in clear dream and solemn vision,

Tell her of things that no gross ear can hear,
Till oft converse with heavenly habitants
Begin to cast a beam on th’ outward shape,
The unpolluted temple of the mind,

And turns it by degrees to the soul’s essence,
Till all be made immortal.”

And now, beside this loveliest Lady, bring Isabel, with those

“‘ Eyes not down-dropt nor over-bright, but fed
With the clear-pointed flame of chastity,
Clear, without heat, undying, tended by
Pure vestal thoughts in the translucent fane
Of her still spirit.”
Bring also her who, for her people’s good, passed naked on her pal-

frey through the city streets,—Godiva, who ͵

“Rode forth, clothed on with chastity ;
The deep air listened round her as she rode,
And all the low wind hardly breathed for fear.”
These are sisters, perfect in purity as in beauty, and worthy to be
enshrined forever in the love of youth. They are ideals which draw
the heart, not downward, but upward by the power of “ das ewig
Wetbliche.” :
There are many other points of resemblance between the early
poems of Milton and Tennyson on whigh we might dwell with pleas-
ure; echoes of thought like that sonnet, beginning

‘*Check every outflash, every ruder sally ;
Of thought and speech: speak low, and give up wholly
Thy spirit to mild-minded melancholy,’—
which seems almost as if it might have been written by II Penseroso:
coincidences of taste and,reading such as the fondness for
“ Him that left half told
The story of Cambuscan bold,

Of Camball and of Algarsife
And who had Canace to wife,” —

“Dan Chaucer, the first warbler, whose sweet breath

Preluded those melodious bursts that fill

The spacious times of great Elizabeth

With sounds that echo still”:
likenesses of manner such as the imitation of the smooth elegiac poets
in Lycidas and CEnone. But the limits of this essay forbid more
illustrations. I can only sum up my study of these early poems in
the words with which Arthur Hallam described Tennyson’s second
volume of poems. He says that they are marked by five distinct-
ive qualities. First, his luxuriance of imagination and his control
over it; second, his power of embodying himself in ideal characters ;

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 691

third, his vivid picturesque delineation of objects and peculiarity with
which he holds all of them fixed in a medium of strong emotion ;
fourth, the variety of his lyrical measures and exquisite modulation
of words and cadences; and fifth, his elevated habits of thought.
Strike out, perhaps, the second of these, and add the quality of abso-
lute moral purity and seriousness, and the description will apply just
as Closely to the early poems of Milton.

Fl:

There are two causes which have power to’change the natural
and premeditated course of a man’s life,—the shock of a great outward
catastrophe, and the shock of a profound inward grief. When the
former comes to a man, it shatters all his cherished plans, renders the
execution of his favorite projects impossible, directs the current of
his energy into new channels, plunges him into conflict with circum-
stances, turns his strength against corporeal and incorporeal foes,
and produces a change of manner, speech, life, which is at once evi-
dent and tangible. With the latter, it is different. The inward
shock brings with it no alteration of the actual environment, leaves
the man where he stood before, to the outward eye unchanged, free
to tread the same paths and pursue the same designs; and yet, in
truth, not free, most deeply, though most subtly, changed; for the
soul, being once shaken from her serene repose, and losing the self-
confidence of youth, either rises into a higher life or sinks into a ᾿
lower ; meeting the tremendous questions which haunt the darkness
of a supreme personal bereavement, she finds an answer either in the
eternal Yes or in the eternal No; and though form and accent and
mode of speech remain the same, the thoughts and intents of the
heart are altered forever.

To Milton came the outward conflict; to Tennyson, the inward
grief. And as we follow them beyond the charmed circle of their
early years, so strangely one in outline and atmosphere, we must trace
the parallel between them, if indeed we can find it at all, far below
the surface; although even yet we shall see some external resem-
blances amid many and strong contrasts.

Premonitions of this outward change and divergence may be
easily discerned in the youthful writings of both poets. The me-
lodious lament of Milton’s muse for Lycidas is broken by the stern,
deep note of anger against the false shepherds, the enemies of re-
ligious liberty, and we hear the pre-murmur of imminent strife in the
warning,—

692 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

‘* But that two-handed engine at the door
Stands ready to smite once, and smite no more,”

The splendor of the Palace of Art, that most exquisite and lofty
dream of selfish, supersensual pleasure, is shattered by the entrance
of a great moral question, and the proud, self-centered soul, torn by
the throes of spiritual conflict, is brought down to labor with and for
humanity. I think we feel that neither of the men who wrote these
two poems will shrink or fly from the life-struggles, so different and
yet so similar, which lie before them.

Milton’s catastrophe was the-civil war, sweeping over England like
a flood. But the fate which involved him was none other than his
own conscience. This it was that drew him, by compulsion more
strong than sweet, from the florid literary hospitality of Italian
mutual laudation societies into the vortex of tumultuous London,
made him “ lay aside his singing robes” for the heavy armor of the
controversialist, and leave his “calm and pleasant solitariness, fed
with cheerful and confident thoughts, to embark on a troubled sea
of noises and harsh disputes.” His conscience, I say, not his tastes :
all these led him the other way. But an irresistible sense of duty
caught him, and dragged him, as it were, by the neck to the verge
of the precipice, and flung him down into the thick of the hottest
conflict that England has ever seen.

Once there, he does not retreat. He quits himself like a man. He
isnota Puritan. He loves many things that the mad Puritans hate,—
art, music, fine literature, nature, beauty. But one thing he loves
more than all,—liberty! For that he will fight,—fight with the
Puritans, fight against anybody, desperately, pertinaciously, with
grand unconsiousness of possible defeat. He catches the lust of com-
bat, drinks delight of pen-battle. The serene poet is transformed
into a thundering pamphleteer. He launches deadly bolts against
tyranny in Church, in State, in society. He strikes at the corrupt
clergy, at the false, cruel king, at the self-seeking bigots disguised as
friends of freedom. He is absorbed in strife. Verse is forgotten.
But one brief strain of true poetry bursts from him at the touch of
personal grief. The rest is all buried, choked down, concealed. The
full stream of his energy, unstinted, undivided, flows into the strug-
gle for liberty and truth; and even when the war is ended, the good
cause betrayed by secret enemies and foolish friends, the freedom
of England sold back into the hands of the treacherous Stuarts,
Milton fights on, like some guerilla captain in a far mountain region,
who has not heard, or will not believe, the news of surrender.

The blow which fell on Tennyson was secret. The death of

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 693

Arthur Henry Hallam, in 1833, caused no great convulsion in English
politics, brought no visible disaster to Church or university, sent only
the lightest and most transient ripple of sorrow across the surface of
society; but to the heart of one man it was the shock of an inward
earthquake, upheaving the foundations of life and making the very
arch of heaven tremble and crack. Bound to Hallam by one of
those rare friendships which surpass the strength of passion, Tenny-
son felt his loss in the inmost fibres of his being. The world was
changed, darkened, filled with secret conflicts. The importunate
questions of human life and destiny thronged upon his soul. The
ideal peace, the sweet, art-satisfied seclusion, the dreams of un-
disturbed repose, became impossible for him. He must fight, not fora
party cause, but for spiritual freedom and immortal hopes, not against
corporate and embattled enemies, but against unseen foes, thrones,
principalities, and powers of darkness.

I think we have some record of this strife in poems like Two
Voices and The Vision of Sin. The themes here treated are the
deepest and most awful that can engage the mind. The worth of life,
the significance of suffering, the reality pf virtue, the existence of
truth, the origin and end of evil, human responsibility, Divine good-
ness, mysteries of the now and the hereafter,—these are the problems
with which the poet is forced to deal, and he dares to deal with them
face to face. I will not say that he finds, as yet, the true solution ;
there is a more profound and successful treatment of the same prob-
lems to follow in In Memoriam. But I say that, so far as they go, .
these poems are right and true; and in them, enlightened by grief,
strengthened by inward combat, the poet has struck a loftier note
than can be heard in the beautiful poems of his youth.

For this, mark you, is clear. The poet has now become a man.
The discipline of sorrow has availed. Life is real and earnest to him.
He grapples with the everlasting facts of humanity. Men and women
are closer to him. He can write poems like Dora, Ulysses, St. Sim-
eon Stylites, as wonderful for their difference in tone and subject as
for their common virility and absolute truth to nature. He has
learned to feel a warm sympathy with ᾿

‘‘Men, my brothers, men, the workers”;

to care for all that touches their welfare; to rejoice in the triumphs
of true liberty; to thunder in scorn and wrath against the social
tyrannies that crush the souls of men, and

“The social lies that warp us from the living truth,”

694 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

It is true that there is no actual and visible conflict, no civil war
raging to engulf him. He is not called upon to choose between his
love of poetry and his love of country, nor to lay aside his singing-
robes even foratime. It is his fortune, or misfortune, to have fallen
upon an age of peace and prosperity and settled government. But
in that great unseen warfare which is ever waging between truth and
error, right and wrong, freedom and oppression, light and darkness,
he bears his part and bears it well, by writing such poems as Locks-
ley Hall, Maud, The Princess, Aylmer’s Field; and these entitle
him to high rank as a poet of humanity.

Are they’then so far apart, Milton and Tennyson the Latin Secre-
tary of Cromwell and the Poet Laureate of Queen Victoria, the
straitened tenant of a hired house in Landon and the fortunate .
possessor of Farringford,—are they so far apart as their circumstances
would seem to place them? I think not. I think that even now,
in this most divergent middle period, we may trace some deep resem-
blances, under apparent contradictions.

It is a noteworthy fact that a most important place in the
thought and writing of both these men has been occupied by the
subject of woman and marriage. How many of Tennyson’s poems
are devoted to thistheme! The Miller's Daughter, The Lord of
Burleigh, Lady Clare, Locksley Hall, The Princess, Maud, Enoch
Arden, Aylmer’s Field, and the great Arthurian Epic, all have the
thought of union between man and woman, and the questions which
arise in connection with it, at their root. And in The Coming of
Arthur, Tennyson makes his chosen hero rest all his power upona
happy and true marriage :

‘‘What happiness to reign a lonely king
Vext with waste dreams? For saving I be joined
To her that is the fairest under heaven,
I seem as nothing in the mighty world,
And cannot will my will nor work my work
Wholly, nor make myself in mine own realm
Victor and lord. But were I joined with her,
Then might we live together as one life,
And reigning with one will in everything,
Have power on {015 dark land to lighten it,
And power on this dead world to make it live.”

Compare with this Adam’s complaint :

“In solitude
What happiness? Who can enjoy alone?
Or all enjoying what contentment find ?”

his demand for acompanion equal with himself, “fit to participate all
rational delight”; and his description of his first sight of Eve:

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 695

‘*She disappeared and left me dark. I wak’d
To find her, or forever to deplore
Her loss, and other pleasures all abjure.”’

Mark the fact that those four tremendous pamphlets on Divorce
with which Milton horrified his enemies and shocked his friends have
underlying all their errors and extravagances the great doctrine that
a genuine marriage must bea true companionship, and union of souls
—a doctrine equally opposed to the licentious, and to the conven-
tional, view of wedlock. He would have joined with Tennyson in his
bitter invectives against marriages of convenience and avarice. He
would have joined also in praise of what Bayne well describes as
“that true marriage, that healthful and holy family life, which has
its roots in mutual affection, in mutual fitness, and which is guarded
by a constancy as strong as heaven’s blue arch and yet as sponta-
neous as the heart-beats of a happy child.’ But in praising this,
Milton could have spoken only of what he had desired and missed ;
Tennyson speaks of what he has possessed and known. A world-
wide difference, more than enough to account for anything of incom-
pleteness or harshness in Milton’s view of woman.

What gross injustice the world has done him on this point! Mar-
ried at an age when a man who has preserved the lofty ideals and
personal purity of youth is peculiarly liable to deception, toa woman
far below him in character and intellect, a pretty fool utterly unfitted
to take a sincere and earnest view of life, deserted by her a few weeks
after the wedding-day, met by stubborn refusal and unjust reproaches
in every attempt to reclaim and reconcile her, accused by her family
of disloyalty in politics, and treated as if he were unworthy of honor-
able consideration, what wonder that his heart experienced a great
revulsion, that he began to doubt the reality of such womanhodd as
he had described and immortalized in Comus, that he sought relief
in elaborating a doctrine of divorce which should free him from the
unworthy and irksome. tie of a marriage which was in truth but an
empty mockery? That divorce doctrine which he propounded in the
_ heat of personal indignation, disguised beneath the calm exterior of the
professed philosopher, was surely false, and we cannot but condemn
.it. But can we condemn his actual conduct, so nobly inconsistent
with his own theory? Can we condemn the man, as we see him
forgiving and welcoming his treacherous wife driven by stress of
poverty and danger to return to the home which she had frivolously
forsaken ; welcoming also, and to the best of his ability sheltering,
her whole family, who were glad enough, for all their royalist pride,
to find a refuge from the perils of civil war in the house of the de-

696 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

spised schoolmaster and Commonwealth-man ; bearing patiently, for
his wife’s sake, with their, burdensome presence in his straitened
dwelling-place, until the death of the father-in-law, whose sense of
honor was never strong enough to make him, pay one penny of his
daughter’s promised marriage-portion,—can we condemn Milton as
we see him acting thus? And as we see him, after a few months of
happy union with a second wife, again left a widower with three
daughters, two of whom, at least, never learned to love him; blind,
poor, almost friendless; disliked and robbed by his undutiful chil-
dren, who did not scruple to cheat him in the marketings, sell his
books to the rag-pickers, and tell the servants that the best news
they could hear would be the news of their father’s’ death ; forced at
length in very instinct of self-protection to take as his third wife a
plain, honest woman who would be faithful and kind in her care of him
and his house; can we wonder if, after this experience of life, he
thought somewhat doubtfully of women ?

But of woman, woman as God made her and meant her to be,
woman as she is in the true purity and unspoiled beauty of her nat-
ure, he never thought otherwise than nobly and reverently. Read
his sonnet to his second wife, in whom for one fleeting year his heart’
tasted the best of earthly joys, the joy of a perfect companionship,
but who was lost to him in the birth of her first child :

“‘Methought I saw my late espoused saint
Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,
Whom Jove’s great son to her glad husband gave,
Rescued from death by force though pale and faint.
Mine, as whom washed from spot of child-bed taint
Purification in the old Law did save,
And such as yet once more I trust to have
Full sight of her in Heaven, without restraint,
Came vested all in white, pure as her mind ;
Her face was veiled, yet to my fancied sight
Love, sweetness, goodness in her person shined
So clear as in no face with more delight.

But O, as to embrace me she inclined,
I waked, she fled, and day brought back my sight.”

Surely there is no more beautiful and heartfelt praise of perfect
womanhood in all literature than this; and Tennyson has never
written with more unfeigned worship of wedded love.

It is true, indeed, that Milton declares that woman is inferior to
man ‘in the mind and inward faculties,” but he follows this declara-
tion with the most exquisite description of her peculiar excellences :

. When I approach

Her loveliness, so absolute she seems
And in herself complete, so well to know

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 697

Her own, that what she wills to do or say
Seems wisest, virtuousest, discreetest, best:
Authority and reason on her wait

As one intended first, not after made
Occasionally ; and to consummate all
Greatness of mind and nobleness their seat
Build in her loveliest, and create an awe
About her as a guard angelic placed.”

It is true that he teaches, in accordance with the explicit doctrine of
the Bible, that it is the wife’s duty to obey her husband, to lean upon,
and follow, his larger strength when it is exercised in wisdom. But
he never places the woman below the man, always at his side; the
divinely-dowered consort and counterpart, not the same, but equal,
supplying his deficiencies and solacing his defects,

“* His likeness, his fit help, his other self,”

with whom he may enjoy

““Union of mind or in us both one soul.”

And such love as this

“Leads up to heaven; is both the way and guide.”

Compare these teachings with those of Tennyson in The Prin-
cess, where under a veil of irony jest mixed with earnest, he shows—
the pernicious folly of the modern attempt to change woman into a
man in petticoats, exhibits the female lecturer and the sweet
girl graduates in their most delightfully absurd aspect, overthrows
the visionary towers of the Female College with a baby’s touch, and
closes the sweetest of all satires with a picture of the true relation-
ship of man and woman, which may stand forever as the final word
of Christian philosophy on this theme.

“For woman is not undevelopt man,
But diverse: could we make her as the man,
Sweet love were slain; his dearest bond is this—
Not like to like, but like in difference.
Yet in the long years liker they must grow;
The man be more of woman, she of man ;
He gain in sweetness and in moral height,
Nor lose the wrestling thews that throw the world ;
She mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind:
Till at the last she set herself to man
Like perfect music unto noble words.
Then comes the statelier Eden back to men:
Then reign the world’s great bridals chaste and calm:
Then springs the crowning race of humankind.
May these things be!”

Another point in which we may trace a deep resemblance between
45

698 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Milton and Tennyson, is their intense love of country. This is not
always a prominent characteristic of great poets. Indeed, we may
question whether there is not something in the poetic temperament
which unfits a man for actual patriotism, makes him an inhabitant of
an ideal realm rather than a citizen of a particular country; inclines
him to be governed by disgusts more than he is inspired by enthusi-
asms, and to withdraw himself from a practical interest in the national
welfare into the vague dreams of Utopian perfection. In Goethe we
see the cold indifference of the self-centered artistic mind, careless of
his country’s degradation and enslavement, provided only the all-
conquering Napoleon will leave him his poetic leisure and freedom.
In Byron we see the wild rebelliousness of the poet of passion, desert-
ing, disowning, and reviling his native land in the sullen fury of per-
sonal anger. But Milton and Tennyson are ‘true patriots—English-
men to the heart’s core. They do not say, “ My country right or
wrong!” They protest in noble scorn against all kinds of tyrannies
and hypocrisies. They are not bound in conscienceless servility to
the tail of any mere political party. They are the partisans of Eng-
land, and England to them means freedom, justice, righteousness,
Christianity. Milton sees her “rousing herself like a strong man
after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks’; or “as an eagle, mewing
her mighty youth, and kindling her undazzled eyes at the full mid-
day beam; purging and scaling her long-abused sight at the fount-
ain itself of heavenly radiance; while the whole noise of timorous
and flocking birds, with those also that love the twilight, flutter about
amazed at what she means, and in their envious gabble would prog-
nosticate a year of sects and schisms.”’ “Tennyson sings her praise as

“ The land that freemen till,
That sober-suited Freedom chose,
The land where girt with friends or foes,
A man may speak the thing he will.”

He honors and reveres the Queen, but it is because her power is the
foundation and defence of liberty ; because of her it may be said that

“Statesmen at her council met
Who knew the season when to take
΄ Occasion by the hand; and make
The bounds of freedom wider yet,

“By shaping some august decree,
Which kept her throne unshaken still,
Broad-based upon the people’s will,
And compassed by the inviolate sea.”

Think you he would have written thus if Charles Stuart, bribe-taker,
extortioner, tyrant, dignified and impotent hypocrite, had been his

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 699

sovereign? His own words tell us on which side he would have stood
in that great revolt. In the verses written on The Third of Febru-
ary, 1852, he reproaches the Parliament for their seeming purpose
to truckle to Napoleon, after the coup d'état, and cries:
“*Shall we fear Az ? Our own we never feared.
From our first Charles by force we wrung our claims,

Pricked by the Papal spur, we reared,
We flung the burthen of the second James,”

And again, in the poem entitled England and America in 1782, he
justifies the American Revolution as a lesson taught by England her-
self, and summons her to exult in the freedom of her children.

“Βα thou, rejoice with liberal joy!
Lift up thy rocky face,
And shatter, when the storms are black,
In many a streaming torrent back,
The seas that shock thy base.

““ Whatever harmonies of law
The growing world assume,
Thy work is thine,—the single note
From the deep chord that Hampden smote
Will vibrate to the doom.”

Here is the grand Miltonic ring, not now disturbed and roughened
by the harshness of opposition, the bitterness of disappointment,
the sadness of despair, but rounded in the calm fulness of triumph.
“ The whirligig of Time brings in his revenges.’’ The bars of oppres-
sion are powerless to stay the tide of progress.

“The old order changeth, giving place to new,
And God fulfils himself in many was.”

If Milton were alive to-day he would find his ideals largely
realized; freedom of worship, freedom of the press, freedom of
education, no longer things to be fought for, but things to be
enjoyed; the principle of popular representation firmly ingrained in
the constitution of the British monarchy, (which Tennyson calls “a
crowned Republic,”) and the spirit of ‘the good old cause,” which
seemed lost when the second Charles came back, now victorious in
English Liberalism, and peacefully guiding the destinies of the nation
into a yet wider and more glorious liberty.

But what would be the effect of such an environment upon sucha
character as his? What would Milton have been in this nineteenth
century? If we can trust the prophecies of his early years; if we can
regard the hints of his own preferences and plans, from whose fruition
a stern sense of duty, like a fiery-sworded angel, barred him out, we
must imagine the course of his life, the development of his genius,

700 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

as something very different from what they actually were. An age
of peace and prosperity, the comfort and quietude of a well-ordered
home, freedom to pursue his studious researches and cultivate his
artistic tastes to the full, an atmosphere of liberal approbation and
encouragement,—circumstances such as these would have guided his
life and work into a much closer parallel with Tennyson, and yet
they never could have made him other than himself. For his was a
seraphic spirit, strong, indomitable, unalterable; and even the
most subtile influence of surroundings could never have destroyed
or changed him fundamentally. So it was true,as Macaulay has said,
that ‘‘ from the Parliament and from the court, from the conventicle
and from the Gothic cloister, from the gloomy and sepulchral rites of
the Roundheads, and from the Christmas revel of the hospitable cava-
lier, his nature selected and drew to itself whatever was great and
good, while it rejected all the base and pernicious ingredients by
which these finer elements were defiled.” And yet the very process
of rejection had its effect upon him. The fierce conflicts of theology
and politics in which for twenty years he was absorbed, left their
marks upon him for good and for evil. They tried him as by fire.
They brought out all his strength of action and endurance. They
made his will like steel. They gave him the God-like power of one
who has suffered to the uttermost. But they also disturbed, at least
for a time, the serenity of his mental processes. They made the flow
of his thougft turbulent and uneven. They narrowed, at the same
time that they intensified, his emotions. They made him an inveter-
ate controversialist, whose God must syllogize and whose angels
were debaters. They crushed his humor and his tenderness. Him-
self, however, the living poet, the supreme imagination, the ser-
aphic utterance, they did not crush, but rather strengthened. And
so it came to pass that in him we have the miracle of literature,—the
lost river of poetry springing suddenly, as at divine command, from
the bosom of the rock, no trickling and diminished rill, but a sweep-
ing flood, laden with richest argosies of thought.

ΠῚ:

How to speak of Paradise Lost, I know not. To call it a master-
work is superfluous. To say that it stands absolutely alone and
supreme is both true and false. Parts of it are like other poems, and
yet there is no poem in the world like it. The theme is old; had
been treated by the author of Genesis in brief, by Du Bartas and
other rhymers at length. The manner is old, inherited from Homer,

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 701

Dante, Virgil. And yet, beyond all question, Paradise Lost is one
of the most unique, individual, unmistakable poems in the world’s
literature. Imitations of it have been attempted by Montgomery,
Pollok, Bickersteth, and other pious versifiers, but they are no more
like the original than St. Peter’s in Montreal is like St. Peter’s in
Rome, or than the pile of dingy limestone on New York’s Fifth Ave-
nue is like the Cathedral of Milan, with its
““Chanting quires,
The giant windows’ blazoned fires,

The height, the space, the gloom, the glory,
A mount of marble, a hundred spires!”

Imitation may be the sincerest flattery, but imitation never pro-
duces the deepest resemblance : for the man who imitates is concerned
with that which is outward; but kinship of spirit lies below the sur-
face. He who is nearest of kin to a master-mind will himself be too
great for the work of a copyist; he will be influenced, if at all, uncon-
sciously; and though the intellectual relationship may be expressed
also in some external traits of speech and. manner, the true likeness
will be in the temper of the soul and the sameness of the moral pur-
pose. Such likeness, I think, we can discern between Paradise Lost
and Tennyson’s greatest works, The Idylls of the King, and In Me-
moriam.

It is a striking and significant fact that Milton, when he first con-
ceived the purpose of writing a great English poem, was, for a long
time, most strongly attracted by the Arthurian legend. It was his ©
cherished design to do for the literature of England that which Tasso
and Ariosto had done for that of Italy, “that which the greatest and
choicest wits of Athens and Rome, and those Hebrews of old did for
their country.” And for this end he could find, at first, no better
plan than to

“ Revoke into song the kings of our island,
Arthur yet from his underground hiding stirring to warfare,
Or to tell of those that sat round him as Knights of his Table ;
Great-souled heroes unmatched, and (O might the spirit but aid me),
Shiver the Saxon phalanxes under the shock of the Britons.”

What led him to abandon this subject is not difficult to conjecture.
What he would have made of it had he attempted it, we can less
easily imagine. It must have been a grand and sonorous epic, filled
with majestic descriptions of battle, after the Homeric manner, and
closely knit into a continuous unity by the central figure of Arthur
as the ideal champion of Christianity against Heathenism.

Very different is the manner in which Tennyson has approached
this theme. Drawn to it at first by a more fortuitous and zsthetic

702 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

interest (as we may infer from the fragmentary character of the Lady
of Shalott and Morte d’Arthur), fascinated anew from time to time
by the mysterious beauty of the complex mythos, he has wandered at
will through the shadowy labyrinth of legends which gather about
the name of Arthur, choosing such portions as pleased him for de-
scription, and building at last a poem which is more like a Gothic
cathedral than a Grecian temple. The unity is subjective rather than
objective. The ground plan is there,—the great cross of human will
and divine purpose,—but it is concealed and confused by a wilderness
of clustering columns and branching chapels. Arch and capital are
covered with miracles of carving. We are lost in admiration of the
delicate details. The great design seems doubtful and obscure.

With Paradise Lost this is never the case. It is one throughout.
The central thought is always manifest and supreme. Its method is
classical, historical, synthetic. The Idylls of the King are romantic,
pictorial, analytic. Each method has its own advantages. But
while the latter is more in harmony with the modern spirit, and was
doubtless chosen by Tennyson for this reason, the former is the
method of the loftiest minds which work not for an age, but for all
time. To attempt it, means for any save the most potent and strenu-
ous spirit, an ignominious failure.

Bearing in mind this great difference, we can trace the intimate re-
semblances between the two poems. First, in manner and style
there is a close relationship. Both Milton and Tennyson have been
led by their study of the classic poets to understand that rhyme is
the least important element of good verse, the best music is made
by the concord rather than by the unison of sounds, and the coinci-
dence of final consonants is but a slight matter compared with the
cadence of syllables and the accented harmony of long vowels. In-
deed it may be questioned whether the inevitable recurrence of the
echo of rhyme does not disturb and break the music more than it
enhances it. Certainly Milton thought so, and he took great credit
to himself for setting the example, ‘the first in English, of ancient
liberty recovered to heroic poem from the troublesome and modern
bondage of riming.”

There were many to follow him in this path, but for the most part
with ignominious and lamentable failure. They fell into the mistake
of thinking that because unrhymed verse was more free it was less
difficult, and making their liberty a cloak of (poetic) license, they
poured forth floods of accurately-measured prose under the delusion
that they were writing blank-verse. The fact is that this is the one
form of verse which requires the most delicate sensitiveness of ear,

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 703

the most careful elaboration, and the long and patient training of a
life “wedded to music.” In Cowper, Coleridge, Southey, Words-
worth, Browning, these preconditions are wanting. And with the
possible exception of Matthew Arnold’s “ Sohrab and Rustum,” the
first English blank-verse worthy to compare with that of Paradise
Lost is found in Tennyson’s Idylls of the King. There is nothing
else in the language so grandly and purely musical.

There is a shade of contrast in the movement of the two poems.
Each has its own distinctive quality. In Milton we observe a more
stately and majestic march, more of rhythm; in Tennyson, a sweeter
and more perfect tone, more of melody. These qualities correspond
in verse, to form and color in painting. We might say that Milton
is the greater draughtsman, as Michael Angelo; Tennyson the better
colorist, as Raphael. But the difference between the two painters is
always greater than that between the poets. For the methods by
which they produce their effects are substantially the same; and
their results differ chiefly as the work of a strong, but sometimes
heavy hand differs from that of a hand less powerful, but better dis-
ciplined.

De Quincey has said, somewhere or other, that finding fault with
Milton’s versification is a dangerous pastime. The lines which you
select for criticism have a way of justifying themselves at your ex-
pense. That which you have condemned as a palpable blunder, an
unpardonable discord, is manifested in the mouth of a better reader
as majestically right and harmonious. And so when you attempt to.
take liberties with any passage of his you are apt to feel as when
coming upon what appears to be a dead lion in a forest. You have
an uncomfortable suspicion that he may not be dead, but only sleep-
ing; or perhaps not even sleeping, but only shamming. Many an
unwary critic has been thus unpleasantly surprised. Notably Drs.
Johnson and Bentley, and in a small way Walter Savage Landor,
roaring over Milton’s mistakes, have proved themselves distinctly
asinine.

But for all that, there ave mistakes in Paradise Lost. I say it with
due fear, and not without a feeling of gratitude that the purpose of
this essay does not require me to specify them. But a sense of liter-
ary candor forces me to confess the opinion that the great epic con-
tains passages in which the heaviness of the thought has infected the
verse, passages which can be read only with tiresome effort, lines in
which the organ-player’s foot seems to have-slipped upon the pedals
and made a ponderous discord. This cannot be said of the Idylls.
Their music is not broken or jangled. It may never rise to the lofti-

\

704 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

est heights, but it never falls to the lowest depths. Tennyson has
written nothing so strong as the flight of Satan through Chaos, noth-
ing so sublime as the invocation to Light, nothing so rich as the first
description of Eden, but taking the blank-verse of the Idylls through
and through, as a work of art it is more finished, more expressive,
more perfectly musical than that of Paradise Lost.

The true relationship of these poems lies, as I have said, beneath
the surface. It consists in their ideal unity of theme and lesson.
For what is it in fact with which Milton and Tennyson concern
themselves? Not the mere story of Adam and Eve’s transgression ;
not the legendary wars of Arthur and his knights; but the everlast-
ing conflict of the human soul with the adversary, the struggle
against sin, the power of the slightest taint of evil to infect, pollute,
destroy all that is fairest and best. Both poets tell the story of a
Paradise Lost, and lost through sin; first, the happy garden designed
by God to be the home of stainless innocence and bliss, whose gates
are closed forever against the guilty race; and then, the glorious
realm of peace and love and law which the strong and noble king
would make and defend amid the world’s warfares, but which is se-
cretly corrupted, undermined, destroyed at last in ruin and in black-
ening gloom.

It is the great catastrophe of human failure, foreshadowed first in
Eden, repeated in a thousand trials, on a thousand moral battle-
fields, in every man’s experience, the same strife

“ΟΥ̓ Sense at war with Soul,”

the same bitter ending of defeat and fall.

To Arthur, as to Adam, destruction comes through that which
seems, and indeed is, the loveliest and the dearest. The beauteous
mother of mankind, fairer than all her daughters since, drawn by her
own highest desire of knowledge into disobedience, yields the first
entrance to the fatal sin; and Guinevere, the imperial-moulded queen,
radiant with purity and grace, led by degrees from a true friendship
into a false love for Lancelot, infects the court and the whole realm
with death. Vain are all safeguards and defences; vain all high re-
solves and noble purposes; vain the instructions of the archangel
charging the possessors of Eden to

‘“* Be strong, live happy, and love! but first of all

Him whom to love is to obey !

vain, the strait vows and solemn oaths by which the founder of the
Round Table bound his knights

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 705

“ΤῸ reverence the King as if he were

Their conscience, and their conscience as their King,

To break the heathen and uphold the Christ,

To lead sweet lives in purest chastity,

To love one maiden only, cleave to her,

And worship her by years of noble deeds.”
All in vain! for sin comes creeping in; and sin, the slightest, the
most seeming-venial, the most beautiful, is the seed of shame and
death. This is the profound truth to which the Idylls of the King
and’ Paradise Lost alike bear witness. And to teach this, to teach it
in forms of highest art which should live forever in the imagination
of the race, was the moral purpose of Milton and Tennyson.

But there is another aspect of this theme which is hardly touched
in the Idylls. Sin has a relation to God as well as to man, since it
exists in His universe. Is it stronger than the Almighty? Is His will
wrath? Is His purpose destruction? Is darkness the goal of all
things, and is there no other significance in death; no deliverance
from its gloomy power? In Paradise Lost, Milton has dealt with this
problem also. Side by side with the record “of man’s first disobedi-
ence,” he has constructed the great argument whereby he would

“Ὁ Assert eternal Providence
And justify the ways of God to men.”

The poem has, therefore, parallel with its human side, a divine or
philosophic side, for which we shall look in vain among the Idylls of
the King. In them Tennyson does not attempt to pierce the black
cloud, to illuminate the future, to assert the divine wisdom and love’
in spite of earth’s sorrow and darkness. He has approached this prob-
lem from another stand-point in a different manner. And if we wish
to know his solution of it, his answer to the mystery of death, we
must look for it in In Memoriam.

This poem is an elegy for Arthur Hallam, finished ciebamhote: its
seven hundred and twenty-four stanzas with all that delicate care which
the elegiac form requires, and permeated with the tone of personal grief;
not passionate, but profound and pure. But it is such an elegy asthe
world has never seen before, and never will see again. For not only is it
the work of long and patient years, elaborated with such skill and
adorned with such richness of poetic imagery as other men have thought
too great to bestow upon an epic; not only is it the most exquisite and
perfect work of mortuary art, worthy, in this regard, fo be compared
with that world-famous tomb which widowed Artemisia built for the
Carian Mausolus ; but it is something infinitely grander and better. Be-
yond the narrow range of personal loss and loneliness, it sweeps into
the presence of the eternal realities, faces the great questions of our

705 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

mysterious existence, and reaches out to lay hold of that hope which
is unseen but abiding, whereby alone we are saved. It is

The record of a faith sublime,
And truth through clouds at last discerned,
The incense of a love that burned

Through pain and doubt defying Time ;

The story of a heart at strife
That learned, at last, to kiss the rod,
And passed through sorrow up to God,
From living to a higher life.

Naturally we expect to find a vast difference between this poem
and Paradise Lost. The plan demands it. The contrast between the
elegiac and the epic forms has never been more strongly marked than
here. And it may seem almost absurd toseek, and impossible to dis-
cover, any resemblance between these long-rolling, thunderous periods
of blank-verse and those short swallow-flights of song which “ dip their
wings in tears and skim away.” The comparison of In Memoriam
with Lycidas would certainly appear more easy and obvious; so ob-
vious, indeed, that it has been made a thousand times, and is fluently
repeated by every critic who has had occasion to speak of English
elegies.

But this is just one of those cases in which an external similarity
conceals a fundamental unlikeness. It is like the resemblance which
has been traced between one of the portraits of Milton and William
Wordsworth, on the surface only. For, in the first place, Edward
King, to whose memory Lycidas was dedicated, was far from being
an intimate friend of Milton, and his lament has no touch of the deep
heart-sorrow which throbs in In Memoriam. And, in the second place,
Lycidas is in no sense a metaphysical poem; does not descend into
the depths or attempt to answer the vexed questions, while In Me-
moriam is, in its very essence, profoundly and thoroughly metaphysi-
cal; more so, perhaps, than any other great poem extept Paradise
Lost.

There is a point, however, in which we must acknowledge an
essential and absolute difference between the great epic and the great
elegy, something deeper and more vital than any contrast of form
and metre. Paradise Lost is a theological poem. In Memoriam is a
religious poem. The distinction is narrow, but deep. Milton ap-
proaches the problem of human life and death from the side of rea-
son, resting, it is true, upon a supernatural revelation, but careful to
reduce all its contents to a logical form, demanding a clearly-formu-
lated and closely-linked explanation of all things, and seeking to
establish his system of truth upon the basis of sound argument. His

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 707

method is purely rational. Tennyson’s is emotional. He has no
linked chain of deductive reasoning; no sharp-cut definition of objec-
tive truths. His faith is subjective, intuitive. Where proof fails
him, he will still believe. When the processes of reason are shaken,
disturbed, frustrated; when absolute demonstration appears im-
possible, and doubt claims a gloomy empire in the mind, then the
deathless fire that God has kindled in the breast burns toward that
heaven which is its source and home, and the swift answer of im-
mortal love leaps out to solve the mystery of the grave. Thus Ten-
nyson feels after God, and leads us by the paths of faith and emotion
to the same goal which Milton reaches by the road of reason and
logic.

Each of these methods is characteristic not only of the poet who
uses it, but also of the times in which it is employed. Paradise Lost
does not echo more distinctly the age of the Westminster. divines
than In Memoriam represents the age of Maurice and Robertson.
It is a mistake to think that the tendency of our present theology is
toward rationalism. That was the drift of Milton’s time. Our mod-
ern movement is toward emotionalism, a religion of feeling, a subjec-
tive system in which the sentiments and affections shall be acknowl-
edged as lawful determinants of truth. And this tendency has its
right as well as its wrong, its golden mean as well as its false extreme.
Whether it has ever led Tennyson too far; whether it has ever swept
him beyond -the truth, it does not now become me to discuss. But
this much is clear: it has never carried him away from the sure an- -
chorage of Christian faith, nor is there any substantial difference
between the final teachings of In Memoriam and of Paradise Lost.
Is Tennyson a Pantheist because he speaks of

“One God, one law, one element,

And one far-off divine event
To which the whole creation moves”?

Then so is Paul a Pantheist when he tells us that in God “we live
and move and have our being”; so is Milton a Pantheist when he
makes the Son say to the Father:

“Thou shalt be all in all, and I in thee
Forever, and in me all whom thou lovest.”

Is Tennyson an Agnostic because he speaks of the “truths that
never can be proved,” and finds a final answer to the mysteries of life
only in a hope which is hidden “behind the veil” ? Then so is Paul
an Agnostic, because he sees but through a glass darkly; so is Milton
an Agnostic, because he declares

708 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

‘* Heaven is for thee too high
To know what passes there. Be lowly wise ;
Think only what concerns thee and thy being.
Solicit not thy thoughts with matters hid ;
Leave them to God above.”

Is Tennyson a Universalist because he says:

“Oh, yet we trust that somehow good
Will be the final goal of ill
To pangs ofenature, sins of will,
Defects of doubt, and taints of blood”?

Then so is Milton a Universalist when he exclaims:

“Ὁ, goodness infinite, goodness immense,
That all this good of evil shall produce,
And evil turn to good !”

The faith of the two poets is one; the great lesson of In Memori-
am and Paradise Lost is the same. The hope of the universe is in
him whom Milton and Tennyson both call “immortal Love.” To Him
through mists and shadows we must look up,

“*Gladly behold, though but his utmost skirts
Of glory, and far-off his steps adore.”

Thus our cry out of the darkness for the light shall be answered.
Knowledge shall grow from more to more.

“Light after light well-used we shall attain,
And to the end persisting safe arrive.”

But this can come only through self-surrender and obedience, only
through the consecration of the free-will to God who gave it; and the
highest prayer of the light-seeking, upward-striving human soul is this.
“Ὁ, living will that shalt endure,
When all that seems shall suffer shock,

Rise in the spiritual Rock,
Flow through our deeds and make them pure,

“ That we may lift from out the dust
A voice as unto him that hears,
A cry above the conquered years,
To one that with us works and trust,

“With faith that comes of self-control,
The truths that never can be proved
Until we close with all we love,

And all we flow from, soul in soul.”

I must bring this essay to an end before it is, in any sense, com-
plete. Many points of resemblance in vocabularies, in metrical de-
vices, in the use of scientific and literary material, have been passed
over for want of space. But I think enough has been said to prove

MILTON AND TENNYSON. 709

a real intellectual and moral kinship between Milton and Tennyson,
and to exhibit a profound analogy in their works, which has hitherto
escaped the notice of the critics. And if this piece of vacation work,
hasty and incomplete, should have no other result, it has, at least,
deepened and quickened my sense of reverent gratitude to these two
masters of English verse.

That rugged old rhymer, Ebenezer Elliott, once said of some one’s
essays, ‘they contain rural pictures which, before God, I believe have
lengthened my days on earth.” I might not venture to say that, for
the length of my days is to me unknown; but I know that be they
few or many, they are infinitely better and sweeter, more filled with
divine light and life by reason of the influences which have flowed
into them from the poetry of Milton and Tennyson.

HENRY J. VAN DYKE, JR.

a1.

HILARY OF POITIERS AND THE EARIIEST
LATIN HYMNS.

HEN Master Peter Abelard was preparing his own hymns
for use in the Abbey of the Paraclete, he prefaced them
with a brief treatise. There were ninety-three of them, arranged for
all the services of Heloise and her nuns, and he answers the request
of his abbess-wife by sending them, somewhere in the neighborhood
of the year 1135. “At the instance of thy requests, my .sister
Heloise,” he writes, “formerly dear in the world and now most dear
in Christ, I have composed what are called in Greek, ‘hymns,’ and
in Hebrew, ‘tillim.’”’ For it is plain that she has a vivid recollection
of his “wild, unhallowed rhymes, writ in his unbaptiséd times,’ and |
she would now have him tune his lyre, as Robert Herrick did, to a
loftier strain.
Hence he made for these gentle sisters a hymn-book of their own,
and so became the Watts or Wesley of their matins and vespers.
With characteristic self-confidence he only included what he had
himself prepared; but this introduction casts a great deal of light upon,
the knowledge and piety of the time respecting hymns.

“1 remember,” continues Abelard, “that you asked me for an
explanation. ‘We know,’ you said, ‘that the Latin, and especially
the French Church, have in psalms, and also in hymns, followed
more a custom than an authority.’” This was quite true; and the
remark is eminently characteristic of Heloise, whose scholarship was
admirable, and whose disposition was of a sort to crave and cling
toa stronger nature. He then quotes for her the decree of the fourth
Council of Toledo (A.D. 633), by which Hilary of Poitiers and
Ambrose of Milan are established as the great fathers of Christian
song in the Western Church, and by which the praise of God in hymns
is sanctioned and commended.

To much the same effect are the words of Augustine of Hippo,
centuries earlier. His beloved mother, Monica, had died, and nothing

HILARY OF POITIERS, 711

appeared to comfort him so much as one of these same holy songs.
“Then I slept, and woke up again and found my grief not a little
softened; and as I was alone in my bed, I remembered those true
verses of thy Ambrose. For thou art the

‘Maker of all, the Lord

And Ruler of the height,

Who, robing day in light, hast poured
Soft slumbers o’er the night,

That to our limbs the power
Of toil may be renewed,

And hearts be raised that sink and cower,
And sorrows be subdued.’ ”

This is the Deus creator omnium of the great bishop of Milan; and
this, in consequence of Augustine’s quotation, is among the best
authenticated and earliest hymns of the Latin Church.

But there were more ancient hymns than the Ambrosian or
Augustinian. They bear the name of Hilary, and with them Latin
hymnology really begins. It is true that in the previous century—the
third—Cyprian of Carthage had written religious poetry, but he com-
posed nothing which could be sung. There is, indeed, nothing pre-
vious to Hilary. ,

And now let us go back to the creation of this first and noblest
light. For Hilary was a heathen--a heathen of the heathen—in
Roman Gaul. He was born in Poitiers (Pictavium) about the begin-
ning of the fourth century. His father’s name was Francarius, whose
tomb—although he must at first have lived as an idolater—is said by
Bouchet to have been “for upward of fifteen hundred years” in the’
parish church of Clissonium (Clisson, S.E. of Nantes). We are in-
debted to Jerome for the main facts of Hilary’s life, and to Fortu-
natus for a large share in the filling up of the outlines. Hilary was
so celebrated a man that contemporary references are more abundant
and helpful in his career even than in that of Shakespeare. In those days
he was at the summit of renown, a notable exception to the case of
the prophet, “not being without honor save in his own country.”
“For who,” says Augustine, “does not know Hilary the Gallic
bishop!”” And Jerome wrote to Saint Eustacia that Hilary and
Cyprian were the ‘‘two great cedars of the age.”

He was doubtless well educated. His Latin was good and copi-
ous, without possessing very great polish. His Greek was sufficient
to fit him to translate the creeds of the Eastern church, and to be-
come familiar with their hymns. We have his own testimony that
he lived in comfort, if not in luxury; and the inference is plain that
his family were of consequence in the place. It was in his leisure
that he took up Moses and the prophets; and there, in that famous

712 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

old town of his birth, the mists of his idolatry thinned away. We
do not know that any external pressure was brought to bear upon
his mind, or that he was led by anything except a natural curiosity
into this new learning.

Poitiers itself is a noble situation for such an intellect. It is
perched on a promontory, and surrounded on all sides by gorges and
narrow valleys. The isthmus, which joins it back to the ridge, was
once walled and ditched across. The Pictavi, and afterward the
Romans, understood the military advantages of the spot. It has
always been the abode of scholars and of warriors. Here Francis
Bacon once studied. Here Clovis, founder of the Merovingian
dynasty, beat Alaric, in 507, in fair battle. Here Radegunda the
Holy lies buried. Here Forpinatus, the poet-bishop, dwelt. Here
Charles Martel hammered the Saracens in 732. ᾿ Here, in the
Cathedral of St. Pierre, rest the ashes of Richard Coeur de
Lion. Here, beneath these walls, fought Edward the Black
Prince against King John of France, in 1356, when the English had
the best of the day. For they had learned—as bishop Hugh Latimer
says that he himself was taught—how to draw the cloth-yard shaft to
a head, and let it fly with a deadly aim. “In my tyme,” said Latimer,
“my poore father was as diligent to teach me to shote as to learne
anye other thynge, and so I thynke other menne dyd theyr children.
Hee taughte me how to drawe, how to laye my bodye in my bowe, and
not to drawe with strength of armes as other nacions do, but with
strength of the bodye. I had my bowes boughte me accordyng to
my age and strength as I encreased in them; so my bowes were
made bigger and bigger, for men shall never shot well excepte they
be broughte upinit.”* It was such archery as this that laid the
flower of France in the dust, and put John, their king, into prison.

Poitiers is thus a noble and appropriate birth-place for one who
before the time of Charles the Hammerer was called the “ Hammer
of the Arians” (Malleus Arianorum), and who combined fighting
with praying all through his life. Places and circumstances and the
untamable blood of heroes, have more to do with the making of
men than we suppose; and Hilary was so di$tinctly a son of Cesar’s
Gaul that he became its large, true, and free expression, appropriate
to its landscape and harmonized to its atmosphere.

And as to his emergence from heathenism there can be nothing
more satisfactory to us than his own story. He has recorded that
when he found, in Exodus, how God was called “I am that Iam”

* Sixth sermon before Edw. VI.

HILARY OF POITIERS. 713

and when he read in Isaiah (xl. 12) of a deity who “held the wind in
his fists”” and again (Ixvi. 1) of him who said, “ Heaven is my throne
and earth is my footstool,” then this ‘ Deus tmmensus” surpassed all
his heathen conceptions of grandeur and power. And when he read
(in Ps. exxxviii. 7) how this great God loved and cared for his chil-
dren, so that one could say, “ Though I walk in the midst of trouble
thou wilt revive me; thou shalt stretch forth thine hand against the
wrath of mine enemies, and thy right hand shall save me’””—then he
was drawn toward this mighty being by a sentiment of confidence
and trust. He also—turning the pages of the Wisdom of Solomon,
(xiii. 5) in the Apocrypha—found it written that “ by the greatness
and beauty of the creatures proportionately the Maker of them is
seen.” And then, encountering the gospel of John, its opening sen-
tences clarified his mind. All became plain. He accepted with
calmness, firmness, and dignity the great doctrines of the Christian
faith. He was imbued with John’s conception of that Word, “which
was in the beginning” and “which was God.” From that moment
he had a theology which was as pure as crystal and as indestructi-
ble as adamant. There is no muddiness about his ideas from this
time onward; though Arians buzz and sting; and calamities rain
upon him; and the path of duty is deep with mire and the future is
dark. Every one of these things passes away. His own language as
to this great change in his belief is as characteristic as it is beautiful :
“1 extended my desires further, and longed that the good thoughts
I had about God, and the good life which I built on them, might
have an eternal reward.” Like one of his own favorite saints in the
gospel and the apocalypse of John, he was thus “led by the Spirit
of God” to become one of the chanting choir before the throne.

It matters very little, therefore, to us of to-day, that, if 1851, Pius
IX., himself a man of sweet and gentle temper, made Hilary a
“ Doctor of the Church”’—a distinction reserved for those greatest
ones, like Augustine and Chrysostom, whose learning and eloquence
are world-renowned. The dead bishop did not need this posthumous
distinction. He has long been recognized—to quote Prof. Dorner—
as “one of the most original and profound,” albeit not the easiest to
understand at all times, of the great teachers of the Christian Church
We may hereafter attach more value to his work even than we do at
present. - Ne

This then was the man who had determined to enter upon a Chris-
tian life. He was already married and had one daughter—Abra by
name—and possessed a certain repute, as a man of reading and of
affairs. ere protected him from a contempt of pagan learning

714 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

—and his marriage protected him from that one-sided development
which has Romanized the once Catholic church. The period in
which he lived was one of transition—from classic literature to Chris-
tian literature, and from the Latin of far-off Virgil and Cicero tothe
Latin which was to become the uniting tongue of all scholars in that
Babel of the middle ages. This language was now shaping itself to
its new work and becoming, like English under the genius of .Chau-
cer, a living speech. In the moulding hands of these first Christian
writers it became flexible, not aiways fluent or graceful or even
strictly grammatical, but capable at least to carry what would other-
wise have been lost. Greek was gone, and French and German and
English had not yet appeared. As a Gallo-Roman, then—a post-
classic Latinist—Hilary gives in his allegiance to Christianity, and
his wife and daughter are baptized with him into the true faith.

So far much is conjectural; and more is vague and to be derived
from the shadows cast upon the screen of history by the “spirit of
the years to come yearning to mix itself with life.” We emerge,
however, into historical certainty about the year 351. Then, on the
death of their bishop,—who is thought to have been Maxentius, the
brother of St. Maximin of Tréves,—his townspeople clamored for
Hilary. The “ Astoire Litteraire de la France” sets this election
down for the year 350, but the Azstozre Litteraire, in this and a
great many other instances, is profuse and multitudinous and not
absolutely safe. We are certainly not far out from the correct
date, in saying 351.

It illustrates a condition of things which are suggestive of the
simplicity of the early Church, when we find that in spite of his
being a married man and a father—and in spite of Cyprian’s and of
Tertullian’s praises of celibacy—Hilary was heartily chosen and >
almost forced into the episcopate. In this position he exhibited
“all the excellent qualities of the great bishops.” We are told that
he was “gentle and peaceable, given particularly to an ability to
persuade and to influence.” With these he joined “a holy vigor
which held him firm against rising heresies.’’ And Cassian says that
Hilary “had all the virtues of an incomparable man.” The fact,
after all, speaks for itself more loudly than these commendations.
He was so much one of themselves that the people of Poitiers would
not have selected him, if they had not known him to be the best man
for the mitre.

From this time began that career of stainless honor which has
outlasted the very walls which echoed his voice. He was known
from Great Britain to the Indies. He ranks second only to Augus-

HILARY OF POITIERS. 715

tine as a defender of the faith, and—as we already noted—he is
classed by Jerome with the great bishop of Carthage whose portrait’
is given to us so vividly in Charles Kingsley’s “ Hypatia.” And to
us of our century and of our convictions in favor of charity and cult-
ure, it is particularly praiseworthy that he never gave up his secular
scholarship; and that he never flagged or faltered in defending
opinions which were as large and liberal as they were undeniably
orthodox. He was an oak which stood against the blast unshaken,
and which yet held, in the heart of its great branches, sweet nests of
singing birds and leafy coverts of shade and peace.

Hilary was not suffered to be inactive. It was the period at which
the Arian heresy was in full incandescence. No one holding the
opinions of the bishop of Poitiers could well remain neutral. He
had—in conformity with a custom soon to become a law—separated
his life from that of his home, but he appears always to have cher-
ished a warm love for his wife and child. This placed him, however,
in perfect freedom from other cares and at liberty to devote himself
to the eradication of false doctrine. Constantius the Emperor was
an Arian, and this made the perplexity of the position very great.
An honest man might ruin all by his blunt independence—but an
honest man dare not be silent. And, besides, Hilary had neither
attended the Synod of Arles (353) nor that of Milan (355) and was
somewhat out of the ecclesiastical tide.

That he was no coward was soon shown to everybody’s satisfac-
tion. He prepared a letter to the Emperor, as brave as it was keen— °
and which touched up with a vigorous lash the cringing sycophants
and shuffling hypocrites about the court. Hilary is notably strong
when he denounces the substitution of force for reason—and perhaps
his doctorate only came to him in 1851 (when he could not well
care much for it), because this doctrine of his was not altogether what
Mother Church has been in the habit of teaching and practicing! I
may quote the recent work of the Rev. R. T. Smith upon “The
Church in Roman Gaul” as fully confirming this statement. St.
Martin of Tours is there called to bear testimony, that the bishop of
Poitiers held such opinions just as sturdily in his days of power as in
these times of trial and persecution. He was, in short, a thoroughly
sincere man, and it took him only a few years—until 355—to get
into the hottest bubbling spot of all the chaldron. At that date, in
company with other leaders of the church in Gaul, he drove out a
very pestilent fellow—Saturninus, the bishop of Arles—as a seditious
and irreconcilable element in their midst. With him was cast out
Valens, and with Valens was cast out Ursacius. But of all these,
Bishop Saturninus was the angriest and the most revengeful.

716 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

A year of something like good order followed—when lo, the
Arians came to the front with a synod of their own complexion at
Beziers. Here Hilary found himself in the vocative case altogether.
The tables were turned upon him and it was he who must now go
forth a banished man. The power was against him, and he set out
with bowed head and sad heart, upon one of ‘those pride-humbling
journeys which have not seldom brought the greatest results to relig-
ion, and which not a few of the best men have taken in their day.
In this manner Bernard went to meet Abelard; Martin Luther
went to the diet at Worms; and John Bunyan took his way to Bedford
jail.

Principal among the causes of his sadness was that he was snatched
away from his constant and congenial duty of explaining the Script-
ures to the people of his diocese. Still he had nothing for it but to
go; and so somewhere about 356, we find him in Phrygia. He is
accompanied by Rodnaus, bishop of Toulouse, who had plucked up
considerable courage by seeing how well Hilary took his defeat.

In 357 the Church in Roman Gaul sent him their greeting—from
which that of his own Poitiers people was not absent. And the
Gallic bishops, having perceived him to be capable of much good
service in his enforced residence abroad, bade him inform himself
and them, upon the creeds and customs of the Eastern Church. This
he had already, to a degree, undertaken. And, in 359, whom do we
‘find entering a convocation of bishops at Seleucia, but our very
Hilary, opposing with a strong and unflinching philosophic power all
those—and there were many there—who denied the consubstantiality
of the Word.

There were one hundred and sixty of these bishops at Seleucia ;.
of whoin one hundred and five—a very handsome majority—were
“demi-Arians.” Of the remaining fifty-five there were nineteen
“Anomiens’”” (Anomceans)—those who held that the Son was unlike
the Father in essence, or @vojovos—and the rest were “ dblasphema-
teurs”’ of different grades of badness. It was the natural outcome of
the difficulties with Athanasius, where the royal authority was on
the side of the Arians. The Roman Catholic historians are there-
fore not complimentary to this synod,—or rather “ double council,”
of Seleucia and Rimini—and this was assuredly no very comfortable
body of Christians for a banished bishop to exhort. But he did it,
with effect, and proceeded to the council at Constantinople (360) and
did it again—and presently (361) Constantius died and the Nicene
Creed was victorious.

So was Hilary, who—in 360-361—returned to Poitiers, where, as

HILARY OF POITIERS. 717

soon as his crozier was once more well in hand, he levelled Saturninus
and compelled him to abandon his diocese. He then turned upon
Auxentius of Milan, who only escaped the same, or a worse fate by
clinging to Valentinian, the reigning Emperor, and was denounced by
Hilary as a hypocrite for his pains. Our bishop appears in these
days to have been decidedly a member of the Church Militant ;
and perhaps it was natural enough when one had survived the reigns
of Constantius, Julian the apostate, and Jovian, for him to be as he
was. I am not commenting upon these exciting scenes—I desire
rather to go back and show how they produced the hymns of which
we are to speak.

It was in 357—at the same date with the letters from the bishops
and from the churches—that Abra his daughter wrote to him, her-
self. From this epistle we learn that her mother still lived, and we
observe the dutiful and loving daughter apparent in every line. In
reply Hilary sends a well-composed, and even imaginative, letter.
Under the figures of a pearl and a garment he charges her to keep
her soul and her conduct pure. He rather recommends a single life
—but not in any such extravagant eulogy of celibacy as some would
have us suppose. It is more after the style of what Grynaeus affirmed
of him—that he was so moderate in these opinions as to suffer his
canons to marry—since it would be hard for an unbiased mind to
draw any harsh conclusions from the language; yet all this is of
small consequence compared with the enclosure—two Latin hymns,
one for the morning and one for the evening, which she may use in |
the worship of God. The first of these is the Luczs largitor splendide,
—but the second is probably lost. It is said that it was the hymn
Ad coeli clara non sum dignus stdera—“To the clear stars of heaven
I am not worthy,” etc. This is very doubtful indeed—so much so
that we may decline to receive it on several grounds. It is to be
found in the superb folio edition of Hilary’s works (Paris, 1693)
prepared by the Benedictines of St. Maur. Yet if internal evidence isto
weigh at all we must reject it without scruple. It is not a hymn in
any true sense, and certainly has no reference to the evening hour
of worship. It contains a gross phrase or two, which are not suggest-
ive of Hilary, who would scarcely have said that he would “ despise
Arius” by “modulatingahymn” against him, nor would he havespoken
of the “barking Sabellius” or the “grunting Simon.” The verses are
unpleasantly flavored with earthliness, and to think that a young girl
would be inclined to sing ninety-seven lines of an abecedary—or
“ alphabet-hymn ”—is absurd. Moreover, the editors of the edition
of 1693 only print four stanzas and express their own disbelief that

718 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Hilary wrote it, based upon these facts and upon their no less impor-
tant criticism of the style, which is masculine throughout and refers
to ideas highly inappropriate to the use intended. Mone is nearer
to the correct doctrine when he assigns it to a period between the
sixth and eighth centuries. Daniel (iv. 130) prints it in full and
quotes Mone’s remark that an Irish monk is likely to have been its au-
thor. It is in the metre familiar to modern eyes in the /uteger vite of
Horace, but it displays neither taste nor poetry nor any religious fer-
vor. That it begins each stanza with a consecutive letter of the
alphabet is no proof of anything except wasted ingenuity. So that,
I repeat, we do well to reject it and to leave it rejected.

All, then, that is left us is the Luczs largitor splendide—‘ Thou
splendid giver of the light.” The letter went back from Seleucia
to Poitiers and carried this hymn, at least, with it. Hilary had
sent this and its companion “ut memor met semper sts,”—“that
you may always remember me.” And we may fancy-the lovely
high-born daughter of that earnest and scholarly man as, daily
and nightly, she sits at her window—perchance with her gaze wist-
fully turned to the eastward. There she sang these simple, beau-
tiful hymns—she the first singer of the new hymns of the Latin
Church. Among the themes for Christian art yet left to us there is
hardly one more suggestive than this—for Abra doubtless sang her
father’s hymns to her father’s loyal people. It may even be supposed
that he gave her the tunes as well asthe words, and that, by morning
and by night, the battle-scarred Poitiers re-echoed this voice of the
exiled bishop.

Of the hymn itself as much can be said in favor, as we have just
said against its pretended and iJl-matched companion. It breathes
the Johannean sentiments throughout. It celebrates the Light, the
Son of God, the glory of the Father, “clearer than the full sun, the
perfect light and day itself.” To one who is acquainted with the
Greek hymns it is instantly suggestive of those pellucid songs—its
atmosphere is all peace and its trust is as restful to the tired spirit as
the quiet coming of the rising day. It may easily have been a trans-
lation from the Greek, or, even more easily, the natural up-gush of
melody which was touched into life by the frequent hearing of the
Eastern hymns. Hilary never learned it in an Arian church nor did he
find it among controversialists. Its nest, where it was first reared,
was in some corner of a catacomb orin some nook of the Holy Land.
This hymn, then, we may safely accept as the oldest, authentic, origi-
nal, Latin “song of praise to Christ as God.”

Whether the bishop of Poitiers had much or little learning, he

HILARY OF POITIERS. 719

wrote a valuable book on “Synods,” and translated for us many
useful and otherwise inaccessible confessions of faith and statements
of doctrine. Erasmus—himself no brave man, nor one likely to
estimate moral courage properly—calls this letter to Abra “xuga-
mentum hominis ottose indocti”—the trifling production of a man
lazily uneducated! Well, perhaps it would have been as well if some
of that same “luxurious ignorance” of Hilary could have secured
the “laborious learning” of Erasmus from exhibiting, at the end of
life, its own inefficiency. Jerome said that whoever found fault with
Hilary’s knowledge was compelled to concede his philosophic skill;
and it reminds one of the remark of Dante Rossetti, who said
that nothing in our age could stand comparison with a sonnet of
Shakespeare, for, rough as it might seem, Shakespeare wrote it. It
was this manhood behind the Latin which went for more than all
Rotterdam !

Hilary is credited with a great deal, doubtless, that he never wrote.
So he is, by Fortunatus, with miracles which he never performed.
Alcuin and others assign to him the Gloria in Excelsis, but this was
certainly more ancient than Hilary, being quoted by Athanasius in
his treatise on Virginity. He could at best merely have translated
it. This he might also have done for the Te Deum laudamus. And
since we know that he prepared a Hymmuarium—the first actual
hymn-book of the Western Church—we have some reason to think
that he would not have altogether forgotten the greatest chants of
the early Christians. This hymn-book is utterly lost to us. This is .
not the same as the Liber Mysteriorum—the book of the mysteries—
and its existence, like that of its companion work, rests upon the
testimony of Jerome. Doubtless in it there were other poems and
songs from which the Hilarian authorship has been broken or lost.
It was not the ancient custom either to preserve the author’s name,
or even to retain the precise form of his hymn. He threw his little
lyric—as the Israelites did their jewelry—into the common treasury
of the Church; and in the Breviaries, where so many of these hymns
are to be discovered, a later and more critical scholarship may iden-
tify some of them hereafter. As delicate insects are preserved in
amber, we there find much that we should otherwise have lost; but,
like that very amber, when its electricity is excited, his was that sort
of reputation which attracted many anonymous trifles—as, for ex-
ample, the Ad coeli clara—to itself.

Of Hilary’s other writings we have the full text. His commen-
taries on the Psalms, and on Matthew; his controversial pamphlets
against Constantius; his book of “ Synods”—these are accessible in
the Patrologia of Migne.

720 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

It was undoubtedly believed at the time of the fourth Council of
Toledo that he had written many pieces in favor of God, and of the
triumphs of apostles and martyrs; and both Jerome and Isidore of
Seville declare him to have been the first among the Latins to write
Christian verse. But to show how uncertain is the conjecture that is
thus started, I may mention that the Ut gucant laxis of Paul
Winfried, the “Deacon,” is credited to Hilary, by the Historre Lit-
teraire. The same authority also claims for him the first Pange lingua
(Pange lingua gloriosi, praclium certaminis), which is sometimes
assigned to Claudianus Mamertus, but is the well-authenticated com-
position of Venantius Fortunatus, the troubadour and friend of Rade-
gunda, the wife of Clotaire. We may as well admit that a great man
did not necessarily do all the great things of his day.

Besides, the search after truth in this matter is complicated mar-
vellously by the trade of the hymn-tinkers, who put new bottoms and
tops and sides to a great many religious lyrics. Here is a case in
point in Mone (vol. iii., p.633). The hymn begins Christum rogemus
et patrem—“we call on Christ and on the Father.” It has seven
stanzas. The frst stanza is from a morning hymn, supposed to be
by Hilary. The second is fram an Ambrosian hymn. The ¢hird
and fourth are from another Ambrosian hymn to the archangel
Michael. The fifth is from a very noble Ambrosian hymn—the
Aeterna Christi munera—of which Daniel says that it itself has been
“wretchedly torn to pieces by the Church” (αὖ ecclesia misere dila-
ceratum). The szxth and seventh stanzas are also Ambrosian—from
the Fesu corona virginum. Thus this single hymn of seven stanzas is
mere patchwork, gathered from that Ambrosian hymnody which the
Breviaries supply. And finding all the rest of it credited to Ambrose
and to his century, we are inclined to doubt that Hilary should be
considered as the author of any portion at all.

Indeed the identification of Hilary's hymns—except the Luczs
largitor—is purely conjectural. It rests mainly on the hymnological
acumen of Cardinal Thomasius, which may or may not be liable to
error. Kayser refuses, on one ground or another, to positively endorse
any, except the one which all now concede. Next to this in proba-
bility stands the Beata nobis gaudia (though it is doubted by Prof.
March), and then the Deus pater ingentte, which is taken from the
Mozarabic Breviary. The /am meta noctis transit, the In matutinis
surgimus, and the $esu refulsit omnium have ouly the authority of
Thomasius. The $esus guadragenariae, Daniel says, is an old hymn,
but very certainly composed later than the time of Hilary. The
Ad coeli clara we have already rejected. Thus we have one authentic

HILARY OF POITIERS. 721

and five conjectural Hilarian hymns. There is, however, great doubt
resting on the Fesu refulsit omnium; and if I consulted merely my
own judgment, I should declare against it, if only in view of the
rhymes—a characteristic which it would scarcely possess if it were
genuinely of the fourth century. And while we are upon this some-
what ungrateful duty of trying to set matters right, shall we pass
over the slip which Mrs. Charles makes in her capital little book? *
For she says that “The Hilary who wrote the hymns was the can-
onized bishop-of Arles.”” There was, much later, a Hilary of Arles;
and there was another Hilary of Rome, and there were also others
of the same name; but none of them wrote hymns. He of Arles
assuredly did not.

Of our own Hilary it may be added that the rest of his life was
earnest, but comparatively quiet. We shall find Gregory of Tours,
and Fortunatus, asserting that he raised the dead and healed the
sick, and cast out devils (some of them in the shape of snakes) from
a boy’s stomach; but these stories belong naturally to a credulous
and superstitious age. More to the purpose is it to find that the
bishop had entered upon the composition of tunes. for his hymns,
and had taken up calligraphy and the ornamentation of manuscripts.
There was a book of the gospels found, on which was endorsed,
“Quem scripsit Hilarius Pictavensis quondam sacerdos’’—“ which
Hilary of Poitiers, formerly a priest, wrote.” A similar book was left
by St. Perpetuus, bishop of Tours, to Bishop Euphronius, Fortu-
natus’ friend. This is attested by his will, executed in 474. “I saw,”.
says Christian Druthmar (ninth century), ‘‘a book of the gospels,
written in Greek, which was said to have been St. Hilary’s, in which
were Matthew and John,” etc. But whether Hilary wrote this is
naturally an open question.

The good bishop died at Poitiers—as Jerome and Gregory of Tours
declare—but the date is still a matter of some uncertainty. Valen-
tinian and Valens were upon the throne, and it is safe to say that
367-8 was the year. The fourteenth day of January has also been
assigned by some authorities, but with no better reason than a gen-
erally received tradition to this effect, and the fact that this is his day
in the Roman calendar. His body was, however, scattered rather
widely. It was removed from its tomb in the time of Clovis—a bone
of his arm was in Belgium, and some other portions of his anatomy
were in Limoges. About the year 638, Dagobert is stated to have
placed his remains in the Church of St. Dionysius, and so confident

* ‘Christian Life in Song.” Am. ed., p. 74.

722 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of this fact were the people of Poitiers, in 1394, that they vehemently
asserted that they had his relics there in perfect safety. .“ Calvinistic
heretics’’ were said to have burned the mortal remnants of the great
“hammer of the Arians,’ and the Pictavians took this method to
meet the calumny. For aught we know to the contrary they were
perfectly right, and the dust of their bishop is still resting peacefully
in their midst.

For his works, the Paris edition of 1693 is the best; but the Patro-
logia of J. P. Migne contains all that any one can need or care to see.
It is the full reprint of the Paris volumes, together with biographical
and critical notes, in Latin, prepared with great diligence and re-
search; but, of course, from the Roman Catholic point of view.

SAMUEL W. DUFFIELD.

EL.
STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY:

SCHATOLOGY, or the doctrine of the last things from death

to the general judgment, is exciting considerable attention in

various churches, and is one of the departments of theology which

demands careful reconsideration and adjustment. ΑἹ] profitable dog-

matic discussion must proceed on a biblical and historical basis, and

all true progress must be made in the line of previous conquests of
Christian thought.

The object of this article is historical rather than doctrinal, and is
confined to biblical and patristic eschatology. The scholastic, Roman
Catholic, and orthodox Protestant eschatology are only incidentally
touched, and would require separate articles.

THE JEWISH ESCHATOLOGY.

As the New Testament is based on the Old, the Christian escha-
tology presupposes the Jewish, but excels it in clearness and fulness
as the light of the sun outshines the dawn of the morning. We must
distinguish three phases in the development of the ideas of future
life before the advent of Christ, the Mosaic, the prophetic, and the
post-exilian.

1. The Mosaic writings are almost silent about the future life, and
this undeveloped eschatology is no small argument for their antiq-
uity. The silence is all the more remarkable as the Jews came from
‘Egypt, where the belief in immortality and endless migrations after
death had a very strong hold on the mind of the people. It pervaded
the mythology, and built those wonderful pyramids near Memphis,
and the rock sepulchres in Thebes on the borders of the desert, for the
preservation of the mummies of kings and queens to the day of
the resurrection. The Pentateuch lays great stress on the temporal
consequences of the observance or non-observance of law. Not a
word is said in the Decalogue about eternal reward and punishment.
The only promise it contains is, “that thy days may be long upon

724 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.” Warburton derived
from this fact an argument for the divine legation of Moses. We
must remember the theocratic character of the Mosaic economy.
The law had a civil and political as well as a moral aspect. It wasa
basis of temporal government, and the state as such is concerned only
with this world, and with temporal rewards and punishments.

But the silence of the Pentateuch is only relative, and the Saddu-
cees who accepted it were wrong in their denial of the resurrection.
It contains not a few significant hints at a future life. It is symbol-
ized in the tree of life in Paradise. It is implied in the mysterious
translation of Enoch as a veward for his piety; in the prohibition
of necromancy ; in the patriarchal phrase for dying: “to be gathered
to his fathers,” or ‘to his people”; and in the self-designation of
Jehovah as “the God of Abraham, Isaac,.and Jacob,” for “God is
not the God of the dead, but of the living.” What has an eternal
meaning for God, must itself be eternal. This is the profound mean-
ing which our Saviour puts into that passage (Ex. iii. 6, 16), and
thereby he silenced the Sadducees out of the book of the law which
they themselves recognized as their highest authority (Matt. xxii. 32).

2. In the latter writings of the Old Testament, especially during
and after the exile, the doctrine of immortality and resurrection
comes out plainly. The wonderful Goél-passage which stands right
in the heart of the book of Job, asa flash of lightning which clears
up the dark mysteries of providence in this life, teaches the immor-
tality and the future vision of God. The scepticism of the book of
Ecclesiastes is subdued by the fear of Jehovah, who “shall bring
every work into judgment with every secret thing, whether it be good
or whether it be evil” (xii. 14). Daniel’s vision reaches out even to
the final resurrection of “ many of them that sleep in the dust of the
earth to everlasting life,” and of ‘some to shame and everlasting con-
tempt,” and prophesies that “they that are wise shall shine as the
brightness of the firmament, and they that turn many to righteous-
ness as the stars for ever and ever” (xii. 2, 3).

But before Christ, who first revealed true life, the Hebrew Sheol,
the general receptacle of departing souls, remained, like the Greek
Hades, a dark and dreary abode, and is so described in the Old Tes-
tament. Cases like Enoch’s translation and Elijah’s ascent are alto-
gether unique and exceptional, and imply the meaning that death is
not necessarily the transition to another life.

3. The Jewish Apocrypha (the Book of Wisdom, and the Second
Book of Maccabees), and the later Jewish writings (the Book of
Enoch, the Apocalypse of Ezra) show some progress: they distin-

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 725

guish between two regions in Sheol: Paradise or Abraham’s Bosom
for the righteous, and Gehinom or Gehenna for the wicked; they
emphasize the resurrection of the body, and the future rewards and
punishments.

4. The Talmud adds various fanciful embellishments. It puts
Paradise and Gehenna in close proximity, measures their extent, and
distinguishes different departments in both, corresponding to the
degrees of merit and guilt. Paradise is sixty times as large as the
world, and hell sixty times as large as Paradise, for the bad prepon-
derate here and hereafter. According to other Rabbinical testimonies,
both are well-nigh boundless. The Talmudic descriptions of Para-
dise (as those of the Koran) mix sensual and spiritual delights. The
righteous enjoy the vision of the Shechina and feast with the patri-
archs, and with Moses and David on the flesh of the leviathan, and
drink wine from the cup of salvation. Each inhabitant has a house
according to his merit. Among the punishments of hell the chief
place is assigned to fire, which is renewed every week after the Sab-
bath. The wicked are boiled like the flesh in the pot, but the bad
Israelites are not touched by fire, and are otherwise tormented. The
severest punishment is reserved for idolaters, hypocrites, traitors, and
apostates. As to the duration of future punishment, the school of
Shammai held that it was everlasting; while the school of Hillel in-
clined to the milder view of a possible redemption after repentance
and purification. Some Rabbis taught that hell will cease, and that
the sun will burn up and annihilate the wicked. The teaching
of the Talmud on this point has recently been called into dispute.
Canon Farrar maintains that Gehenna does not necessarily and usually
mean hell in our sense, but (1) for Jews, or the majority of Jews, a
short punishment, followed by forgiveness and escape ; (2) for worse
offenders a long but still terminable punishment ; (3) for the worst
offenders, especially Gentiles—punishment followed by annzhilation.
He quotes several modern Jewish authorities of the rationalistic type,
e.g. Dr. Deutsch, who says: “ There is not a word in the Talmud
that lends any support to the damnable dogma of endless torment.”
I have consulted Dr. Gottheil, the Rabbi of the Temple in Fifth
Avenue, New York, who personally seems to take the liberal view of
Deutsch, but admits different interpretations of the Talmud.* Dr.

* The following is the reply of Dr. Gottheil, which he kindly permits me to publish :
‘©68r MapIson AVE., N. Y. City, μὴν 31, 1883.
“THE Εν. DR. SCHAFF.
“ Dear Sir :—To answer your question concisely, and yet in a manner worthy to be embodied in
a scientific treatise, would be a laborious task of several days’ work. I don’t know whether you
ask this of me. All I can say in a general way is this: that voices are not wanting in the Rabb.

726 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Ferdinand Weber, who is good authority, says in his book on the
Jewish theology of Palestine (p. 375), that some passages in the Tal-
mud teach total annihilation of the wicked, others teach everlasting
punishment, e. g. Pesachim 54°: “The fire of Gehenna is never extin-
guished.” Josephus (whose testimony Farrar arbitrarily sets aside
as worthless) attests the belief of the Pharisees and Essenes in eter-
nal punishment.* It is true that Rabbi Akiba (about 120) limited
the punishment of Gehenna to twelve months; but only for the Jews.
The Talmud assigns certain classes to everlasting punishment, espec-
ially apostates and those who despise the wisdom of the Rabbis. The
chief passage is Rosh Hoshanah, {. 16 and 17: “ There will be three
divisions on the day of judgment, the perfectly righteous, the per-
fectly wicked, and the intermediate class. The first will be at once
inscribed and sealed to life eternal; the second at once to Gehenna
(Dan. xii. 2); the third will descend into Gehenna and keep rising
and sinking” (Zech. xii. 9). This opinion was indorsed by the two
great schools of Shammai and Hillel, but Hillel inclined to a liberal
and charitable construction.

The Mohammedans share the Jewish belief, but change the inhabi-
tants; the Koran assigns Paradise to the orthodox Moslems, and
Hell to all unbelievers (Jews, Gentiles, and Christians), and to apos-
tates from Islam.

THE HEATHEN ESCHATOLOGY.

Belief in immortality is a universal human instinct, and hence is
found among all nations. But the heathen notions are very vague
and confused. The Hindoos, Babylonians, and Egyptians had a
lively sense of immortality, but mixed with the notion of end-
less migrations and transformations through various forms of vege-
table and animal life. The Buddhists, starting from the idea that
existence is want, and want is suffering, make it the chief end of man
to escape such migrations, and, by various mortifications, to prepare

writings which affirm the eternity of punishment ; but they carry no more weight than a thousand
other hagadic fancies, and they, moreover, often admit of a construction by which the dogmatic
side appears merely subsidiary to a moral idea or a historical explanation. The ruling idea of the
Talmud is, that God has created all beings in the exercise of his attribute of mercy M749
ΣΤ that none, therefore, can ever fall under the exclusive dominion of ] 29 7/9 and

thus remain unredeemed forever. Modern Judaism takes its stand altogether on this noble principle,
giving it the utmost emphasis in its teachings, Without it the fatherhood of God would be worse
than an empty phrase—a mockery.
‘« ternal punishment in the christological relation to the so-called fall of Adam is quite unknown
to the Talmud.
εἰ Respectfully yours, G. GOTTHEIL.”

* Ant., XVIIL., 1, 3; Bell. Fud., 11., 8, 11.

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 727

for annihilation or absorption. in the unconscious dream-life of Nir-
vana. The popular belief among the ancient Greeks and Romans
was that man passes after death into the under world—the Greek
Hades, the Roman Orcus. According to Homer, Hades is a dark
abode in the interior of the earth, with an entrance at the western
extremity of the ocean, where the rays of the sun do not penetrate.
Charon carries the dead over the stream, Acheron, and the three-
headed dog, Cerberus, watches the entrance, and allows none to pass
out. There the spirits exist in a disembodied state, and lead a shadowy
dream-life. A vague distinction was made between two regions in
Hades, an Elysium (also “the Islands of the Blessed’’) for the good,
and Tartarus, for the bad. “Poets and painters,” says Gibbon,
“‘ peopled the infernal regions with so many phantoms and monsters,
who dispensed their rewards and punishments with so little equity,
that a solemn truth, the most congenial to the human heart, was
oppressed and disgraced by the absurd mixture of the wildest fictions.
The eleventh book of the Odyssey gives a very dreary and incoherent
account of the infernal shades. Pindar and Virgil have embellished
the picture; but even those poets, though more correct than their
great model, are guilty of very strange inconsistencies.”

Socrates, Plato, Cicero, Seneca, and Plutarch rose highest among
the ancient philosophers in their views of the future life, but they
reached only to belief in its probability—not in its certainty. Soc-
rates, after he was condemned to death, said to his judges: ‘“ Death
is either an eternal sleep, or a transition to a new life; but in neither
case is it an evil,” and he drank with playful irony the fatal hemlock.
Plato, viewing the. human soul as a portion of the eternal, infinite,
all-pervading deity, believed in its pre-existence before this present
life, and thus had a strong ground of hope for its continuance after
death. All the souls pass into the spirit-world—the righteous into
the abode of bliss, where they live forever in a disembodied state,
the wicked into Tartarus, for punishment and purification, and the
incorrigibly bad for eternal punishment. His ideas prepared the way
‘for the doctrine of purgatory. Plutarch, the purest and noblest
among the Platonists, thought that immortality was inseparably con-
nected with belief in an all-ruling Providence, and looked to the life
beyond as promising a higher knowledge of, and closer conformity to,
God, but only for those few who are here purified by virtue and
piety. In such rare cases departure might be called an ascent to the
stars, to heaven, to the gods, rather than a descent to Hades. At
the death of his daughter, he comforted her mother with the hope in
the blissful state of infants who die in infancy. Cicero reflects in classi-

728 , THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

cal language “the ignorance, the errors, and the uncertainty of the
ancient philosophers with regard to the immortality of the soul.”
Though strongly leaning to a positive view, he,yet found it no super-
fluous task to quiet the fear of death in case the soul should perish
with the body. The Stoics believed only in a limited immortality,
or denied it altogether, and justified suicide when life became unen-
durable. The great men of Greece and Rome were not influenced
by the idea of a future world as a motive of action. During the
debate on the punishment of Catiline and his fellow-conspirators,
Julius Czsar openly declared in the Roman Senate that death dis-
solves all the ills of mortality, and is the boundary of existence,
beyond which there is no more care nor joy, no more punishment for
sin, nor any reward for virtue. The younger Cato, the model Stoic,
agreed with Casar; yet, before he made an end to his life at Utica,
he read Plato’s Phedon. Seneca once dreamed of immortality, and
almost approached the Christian hope of the birthday of eternity, if
we are to trust his rhetoric; but afterward he awoke from the beau-
tiful dream and committed suicide. The elder Pliny, who found a
tragic death under the lava of Vesuvius, speaks of the future life as
an invention of man’s,vanity and selfishness, and thinks that body and
soul have no more sénsation after death than before birth; death
becomes doubly painful if it is only the beginning of another indefi-
nite existence. Tacitus speaks but once of immortality, and then
conditionally; and he believed only in the immortality of fame.
Marcus Aurelius, in sad resignation, bids nature, ‘‘Give what thou
wilt, and take back what thou wilt.”

These weré noble and earnest Romans. What can be expected
from the crowd of frivolous men of the world who moved within the
limits of matter and sense, and made present pleasure and enjoyment
the chief end of life? The surviving wife of an Epicurean philoso-
pher erected a monument to him, with the inscription, “To the
eternal sleep.” Not afew heathen epitaphs openly profess.the doc-
trine that death ends all; while, in striking contrast with them, the
humble Christian inscriptions in the catacombs express the confident
hope of future bliss and glory in the uninterrupted communion of the
believer with Christ and God.

Yet the scepticism of the educated and half-educated could not
extinguish the popular belief in the imperial age. The number of
cheerless and hopeless materialistic epitaphs is very small as compared
with the many thousands which reveal no such doubt, or express
belief in some kind of existence beyond the grave.

Of a resurrection of the body the Greeks and Romans had no con-

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 729

ception, except in the form of shades and spectral outlines, which
were supposed to surround the disembodied spirits, and to make
them, to some degree, recognizable. Heathen philosophers, like
Celsus, ridiculed the resurrection of the body as useless, absurd, and
impossible.

THE ESCHATOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Christ is the Resurrection and the Life, and has brought immor-
tality to light. The Christian Church is based upon the resurrection
of Christ; it could not have been established, nor continued for any
length of time, without that fact. After the crucifixion, the apostles
were on the brink of despair, and exposed to the ridicule and scorn
of the Jewish hierarchy, which, in that dark hour, had apparently
achieved a complete victory and buried all their hopes of a Messianic
kingdom. But on the morning of the resurrection the tables were
turned. The timid, trembling, demoralized disciples became heroes,
and boldly proclaimed their faith in the risen and ever-living God
before the people and the Sanhedrin, and were willing to undergo all
manner of persecution and death itself in the sure hope of a blissful
immortality. They succeeded, and the Christian Church stands to-
day stronger than ever} as a living witness of the resurrection.

The teaching of Christ and the apostles effected an entire revolu
tion in the eschatological creed of the world.

In the first place, Christianity gives to the belief in a future state
the absolute certainty of divine revelation, sealed by the fact of ἡ
Christ’s resurrection, and thereby imparts to the present life an
immeasurable importance, involving endless issues.

In the next place, it connects the resurrectton of the body with the
immortality of the.soul, and thus saves the whole individuality of
man from destruction.

Moreover, Christianity views death as the punishment of sin, and
therefore as something terrible, from which nature shrinks. But its
terror has been broken, and its sting extracted by Christ.

And finally, Christianity qualifies the idea of a future state by the
doctrine of sin and redemption, and thus makes it to the believer a
state of absolute holiness and happiness, to the impenitent sinner a
state of alsolute misery. Death and immortality are a blessing to
the one, but a terror to the other; the former can hail them with
joy; the latter has reason to tremble. The Bible inseparably con-
nects the future life with the general judgment, which determines the
ultimate fate of all men according to their works done in this earthly
life.

47

730 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

To the Christian, this present life is simply a pilgrimage to a better
country, and to a city whose builder and maker is God. Every day
he moves his tent nearer his true home. His citizenship is in
heaven; his thoughts, his hopes, his aspirations are heavenly. This
unworldliness, or heavenly-mindedness, far from disqualifying him for
the duties of earth, makes him more faithful and conscientious in his
calling; for he remembers that he must render an account for every
word and deed at a bar of God’s judgment. Yea, in proportion as he
is heavenly-minded and follows the example of his Lord and Saviour,
he brings heaven down to earth and lifts earth up to heaven, and
infuses the purity and happiness of heaven into his*home.

Faith unites us to Christ, who is life itself in its truest, fullest con-
ception—life in God, life eternal. United with Christ, we live indeed,
shedding round about us the rays of his purity, goodness, love, and
peace. Death has lost its terror; it is but a short slumber, from
which we shall awake in his likeness, and enjoy what eye has not
seen, nor ear heard, nor ever entered the imagination of man. “ Be-
cause I live, ye shall live also,”

THE ESSENTIAL FAITH OF THE CHURCH, AND PRIVATE
SPECULATION.

This is the New Testament eschatology. But we must distinguish
between what is essential to faith and what is private opinion and
speculation concerning that mysterious world beyond the grave to
which every human being travels and from which no traveller returns.

The coming of Christ to judgment with its eternal rewards and pun-
ishments is the centre of the eschatological faith of the Church in all
its branches—Greek, Latin, and Evangelical. The judgment is pre-
ceded by the general resurrection, and followed by life everlasting.

This faith is expressed in the cecumenical creeds.

The Apostles’ Creed: ἱ

“« He shall come to judge the quick and the dead,” and ‘‘I believe the resurrection of the body
and life everlasting.”

The Nicene Creed :

“He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead ; whose kingdom shall
have no end.” ‘And we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.”

The Athanasian Creed, so called, adds to these simple statements
a damnatory clause at the beginning, middle, and end, and makes sal-
vation depend on belief in the orthodox catholic doctrine of the
Trinity and the Incarnation, as therein stated. But that document is
of much later origin, and cannot be traced beyond the sixth century.

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 731

The liturgies which claim apostolic or post-apostolic origin, give
devotional expression to the same essential points in the eucharistic
sacrifice.

The Clementine liturgy :

‘‘Being mindful, therefore, of His passion and death, and resurrection from the dead, and re-
turn into the heavens, and His future second appearing, wherein He is to come with glory and
power to judge the quick and the dead, and to recompense to every one according to his works.”

The liturgy of James:
‘* His second glorious and awful appearing, when He shall come with glory to judge the quick

and the dead, and render to every one according to his works.”

The liturgy of Mark:

‘‘His second terrible and dreadful coming, in which He will come to judge righteously the
quick and the dead, and to render to each man according to his works.”

Beyond this well-defined region of faith and public teaching lies
the cloudy domain of private opinion and speculation, and here every
church allows, or ought to allow, a large margin of freedom. Wise
and good men have differed, and will probably always differ, in this
world about such questions as the time of the Second Advent ; the
preceding revelation of Antichrist, his character and duration; the
millennium, whether it be literal or figurative, whether it will precede
or succeed the Second Advent ; the nature of the millennial reign of
Christ, whether it be personal or spiritual ; the condition of the dis-
embodied state between death and resurrection ; the final fate of the
heathen and of the countless millions of children dying in infancy ;
the proportion of the saved and the lost ; the locality of heaven and
hell. These are all open questions in eschatology, on which men
cannot help thinking and speculating, but on which it becomes us to
be modest and reserved, remembering that we absolutely know noth-
ing certain about the future world but what God has chosen to reveal
to us in the Holy Scriptures. That world may be very far from us
in the stars or beyond the stars, within the universe or outside of it,
if it have boundaries, or it may be very near and round about us. But
we do know what is sufficient for faith—that in our Father’s house
are many mansions, and that Christ has prepared a place for every
one of his faithful followers.

THE PATRISTIC ESCHATOLOGY.
I. (ON THE STATUS INTERMEDIUS.
Among the darkest points in eschatology is the middle state, or

the condition of the soul between death and resurrection. It is diffi-
cult to conceive of a disembodied state of happiness or woe without

732 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

physical organs for enjoyment and suffering. Justin Martyr held
that the souls retain their sensibility after death, otherwise the bad
would have the advantage over the good. Origen seems to have as-
sumed some refined, spiritual corporeity which accompanies the soul
on its lonely journey, and is the germ of the resurrection body; but
the speculative opinions of that profound thinker were looked upon
with suspicion, and some of them were ultimately condemned. The
idea of the sleep of the soul (psychopannychia) had some advocates,
but was expressly rejected by Tertullian. It was revived by the
Anabaptists in the time of the Reformation, and refuted by Calvin in
one of his earliest writings (1534). Others held that the soul died
with the body, and was created anew at the resurrection. Eusebius
ascribes this notion to some Christians in Arabia. The prevailing
view was that the soul continued in a conscious, though disem-
bodied, state, by virtue either of inherent or of communicated im-
mortality. The nature of that state depends upon the moral char-
acter formed in this life either for weal or woe, without the possibility
of a change except in the same direction. A sccond probation for
one and the same individual was not taught by any of the fathers,
nor by any other divine of note. Even the Roman purgatory is in no
sense a state of probation, but simply of continued purification of im-
perfect Christians whose eternal fate is decided in this life, and who
will ultimately enter heaven when their sanctification is completed.
The only reasonable question is whether those who never had a pro-
bation in this life, as the heathen and children dying in infancy, shall
have one in the future world; in other words, whether the gospel
offer of salvation is confined to the visible church in this world, or
extends in some form or other, at some time or other, to all human
beings. The former is the old orthodox view; the latter is the pre-
vailing view among modern evangelical divines of Germany, who hold
it on the ground of the even justice and boundless mercy of God,
who sincerely desires the salvation of all men, and made abundant
provision for the salvation of all. As to the last point there can be
no doubt; even supra-lapsarian Calvinists maintain that Christ’s
atonement is suffictent for all, though efficzent only for the elect.

The patristic doctrine of the status intermedius was chiefly derived
from the Jewish tradition of the Sheol, from the parable of Dives and
Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19, seg.), and from the passages of Christ’s descent
into Hades. The utterances of the ante-Nicene fathers are somewhat
vague and confused, but receive light from the more mature state-
ments of the Nicene and post-Nicene fathers, and may be reduced to
the following points:

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 733

1. The pious who died before Christ, from Abel or Adam down to
John the Baptist (with rare exceptions, as Enoch, Moses, and Elijah),
were detained in a part of Sheol, waiting for the first Advent, and
were released by Christ after the crucifixion and transferred to Para-
dise. This was the chief aim and result of the descensus ad inferos, as
understood long before the fourth century, when it became an article
of the Apostles’ Creed, first in Aquileja (where, however, Rufinus
explained it wrongly, as being equivalent to burial), and then in
Rome. Hermas of Rome and Clement of Alexandria supposed that
the patriarchs and Old Testament saints, before their translation,
were baptized by Christ and the apostles. Irenzeus repeatedly men-
tions the descent of Christ to the spirit-world, and regards it as the
only means by which the benefits of the redemption could be made
known and applied to the pious dead of former ages. The schoolmen
of the middle ages gave that part of Sheol or Hades the name Lizméus
Patrum, as distinct from the Limbus Infantum. The Limbus Patrum
was emptied by the descent of Christ, and replaced by Purgatory, and
this will be emptied at the day of judgment. The Lzmbus Infantum
for unbaptized children will continue as a place and state, not of pun-
ishment and actual suffering, but of privation of happiness.

2. Christian martyrs and confessors and other eminent saints pass
immediately after death into the highest heaven to the blessed vision
of God. These, however, are rather exceptional cases, like the trans-
lation of Enoch and the ascension of Elijah under the old dispensa-
tion.

3. The great majority of Christian believers, being more or less
imperfect at the time of their death, enter for an indefinite period
into a preparatory state of rest and happiness, usually called Paradise
(comp. Luke xxiii. 41) or Abraham’s Bosom (Luke xvi. 23). There
they are gradually purged of remaining infirmities until they are ripe
for heaven, into which nothing is admitted but absolute purity.
Origen assumed a constant progression to higher and higher regions
of knowledge and bliss. After the fifth or sixth century, certainly
since Pope Gregory I., Purgatory was substituted for Paradise, and
the idea of penal suffering for preparatory bliss. This was a very im-
portant change, which we shall discuss again.

4. The locality of Paradise is uncertain: some imagined it to be a
higher region of Hades beneath the earth, yet “afar off” from
Gehenna, and separated from it by “a great gulf” (comp. Luke xvi.
23, 26); others transferred it to the- lower regions of heaven above
the earth, yet clearly distinct from the final home of the blessed.
The former seems to have been the idea of Tertullian, the latter that

734 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of Irenzus. The one subsequently prevailed in the Latin, the other
in-the Greek Church.

5. Impenitent Christians and unbelievers go down to the lower
regions of Hades (Gehenna, Tartarus, Hell) into a preparatory state
of misery and dreadful expectation of the final judgment. From the
fourth century Hades came to be identified with Hell, and this con-
fusion passed into many versions of the Bible, including that of King
James, where the two distinct words are indiscriminately rendered
hell. This is an unfortunate and misleading blunder. It has been
corrected in the Revised Version of the New Testament. It ought
to be corrected also in the Apostles’ Creed. Christ descended into
Hades: this we know from Peter (Acts ii. 31; see the Greek and the
Revised Version) ; and he was in Paradise the very day of his death:
this we know from his own lips (Luke xxiii. 43); but it is nowhere
stated in the Bible that he descended to Hell or Gehenna. When
shall ministers have the courage to correct that objectionable article
by substituting Hades (z. ¢., the spirit-world, the realm of the departed)
for Hell (z. ¢., the place of torment) ἢ

6. The future fate of the heathen and of unbaptized children was
left in hopeless darkness, except by Justin and the Alexandrian fa-
thers, who extended the operations of divine grace beyond the limits
of the visible church. Justin Martyr must have believed, from his
premises, in the salvation of all those heathen who had in this life
followed the light of the Divine Logos (that is Christ before his incar-
nation), and died in a state of unconscious Christianity, or prepared-
ness for Christianity. For, he says, “ those who lived with the Logos
were Christians, although they were esteemed atheists, as Socrates
and Heraclitus, and others like them.”” The great and good Augus-
tine made an end to this liberal view of the early Greek fathers and
framed the fearful dogma of the absolute necessity of water-baptism
for salvation, and thus excluded even all unbaptized infants forever
from heaven. And this remained and is to this day the doctrine of
the Latin Church. On this point fortunately Calvin broke loose from
the logic of Augustine by giving up the premise, and suspending sal-
vation on eternal election, which may extend far beyond the bounda-
ries of the visible church and sacraments. Zwingli was the first to
embrace all children dying in infancy among the elect.

7. There are, in the other world, different degrees of happiness and
misery, according to the degrees of merit and guilt. This is reasona-
ble in itself, and supported by many Scripture passages.

8. With the idea of the imperfection of the middle state and the
possibility of a progressive amelioration, is connected the commemo-

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 735

ration of the departed, and prayer in their behalf. No trace of the
custom is found in the New Testament nor in the canonical books of
the Old, but an isolated example, which seems to imply habit, occurs
in the age of the Maccabees, when Judas Maccabzus and his company
offered prayer and sacrifice for those slain in battle, “ that they might
be delivered from sin” (2 Macc. xii. 39, seg.). In old Jewish service-
books there are prayers for the blessedness of the dead. The strong
sense of the communion of saints unbroken by death easily accounts
for the independent rise of a similar custom among the early Christians.
Tertullian bears clear testimony to its existence in North Africa at his
time (he died about 220 in extreme old age). “ We offer,” he says,
“oblations for the dead on the anniversary of their birth,” z. ¢., their”
celestial birthday. He gives it as a mark* of a Christian widow, that
she prays for the soul of her husband, and requests for him refresh-
ment and fellowship in the first resurrection; and she offers sacrifice
on the anniversaries of his falling asleep. Eusebius narrates that at
the tomb of Constantine a vast crowd of people, in company with the
priests of God, with tears and great lamentation offered their prayers
to God for the emperor’s soul. Augustine calls prayer for the pious
dead in the eucharistic sacrifice, ‘an observance of the universal
church, handed down from the fathers.” He fully approved of it,
and remembered in prayer his godly mother Monnica at her dying
request.

This custom is confirmed by the ancient liturgies, which express
in substance the devotions of the ante-Nicene age, although they
were not committed to writing before the fourth century. The com-
memoration of the pious dead is an important part in the eucharistic
prayers. Take the following from the liturgy of St. James:

‘*Remember, O Lord God, the spirits of whom we have made mention, and whom we have not
made mention, who are of the true faith, from righteous Abel unto this day ; do Thou Thyself give
them rest there in the land of the living, in Thy kingdom, in the delight of Paradise, in the Bosom
of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, our holy fathers; whence pain and grief and lamenta-
tion have fled away: there the light of Thy countenance looks upon them, and gives them light
for evermore.”

The Clementine liturgy, in the eighth book of the “ Apostolical
Constitutions,” has likewise a prayer “for those who rest in faith,” in
these words : ;

‘We make an offering to Thee for all Thy saints who have pleased Thee from the beginning of
the world, patriarchs, prophets, just men, apostles, martyrs, confessors, bishops, elders, deacons,
subdeacons, singers, virgins, widows, laymen, and all whose names Thou Thyself knowest.”

g. These views of the middle state in connection with prayers for
the dead, show a strong tendency to the Roman Catholic doctrine of
Purgatory, which afterward came to prevail in the West through

736 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the great weight of St. Augustine and Pope Gregory I. But there is,
after all, a considerable difference. The ante-Nicene and Nicene idea
of the middle state of the pious excludes, or at all events ignores, the
idea of penal suffering, which is an essential part of the Catholic con-
ception of Purgatory. It represents the condition of all the pious
dead as one of comparative happiness, inferior only to the perfect hap-
piness after the resurrection. Whatever and wherever Paradise may
be, it belongs to the Aeavenly world; while Purgatory is supposed to
be a middle region between heaven and hell, and to border rather on
the latter. “The sepulchral inscriptions in the catacombs have a pre-
vailingly cheerful tone, and represent the departed souls as being “in
peace”’ and “ living in Christ,” or “in God.” The same view is sub-
stantially preserved in the Oriental church, which holds that the
souls of the departed believers may be aided by the prayers of the
living, but are nevertheless in light and rest, with a foretaste of eter-
nal happiness. *

Yet alongside with this prevailing belief, we find already before the
middle of the third century, traces of the purgatorial idea of suffer-
ing, the temporal consequences of sin, and a painful struggle after
holiness. Origen, following in the path of Plato, used the term
purgatorial fire,” by which the remaining stains of the soul shall be
burned away; but he understood this figuratively, and connected it
with the consuming fire at the final judgment; while Augustine and
Gregory I. transferred it to the middle state. The common people
and most of the fathers understood it of a material fire; but this is
not a matter of faith, and there are Roman divines who confine the
purgatorial sufferings to the mind and the conscience. A material
fire would be very useless without a material body.

A still nearer approach to the Roman purgatory was made by
Tertullian and Cyprian, who taught that a special satisfaction and
penance was required for sins committed after baptism, and that the
last farthing must be paid (Matt. v. 20) before the soul can be
released from prison and enter into heaven.

It was again St. Augustine, the greatest light of the Latin Church in
the fifth century, and the chief architect of catholic orthodoxy, who
gave doctrinal and logical shape to this Tertullianic and Cypri-
anic notion. He strengthened it by a literal interpretation of
Paul’s passage of salvation ‘as by fire,” z. ¢., a narrow escape from
destruction (1 Cor. iii. 13-15), and by an inference from the passage
on the unpardonable sin (Matt. xii. 32). He reasoned thus: If the

* See the Longer Russian Catechism in Creeds of Christendom, Vol. I1., p. 503.

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 737

blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is the only sin which cannot be
forgiven either in this world nor in that which is to come, it neces-
sarily follows that all other sins may be forgiven in the future life on
condition of repentance; and before the final judgment.* This be-
came the prevailing doctrine of the Western church (but not in the
East, where St. Augustine was scarcely known and exerted no influ-
ence whatever). Gregory the Great, the best of the popes, and an
ardent admirer of Augustine, gave it additional authority. This doc-
trine of Purgatory gathered around it many superstitions, masses for
the dead, and the pernicious traffic in indulgences for the’ release of
departed relatives and friends, which culminated in the shameful
excesses of Tetzel and Samson at the time of the Reformation.
Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin revolted with righteous indignation
against these abuses; but while they rooted out the medizval doc-
trine of Purgatory, they failed to substitute a better theory of the
middle state, and left it for our days to reconsider this whole ques-
tion and to reach positive results. The Protestant creeds almost
totally ignore the middle state, and pass from death immediately to
the final state after the general judgment, and the old Protestant
theologians nearly identify the pre-resurrection state of the righteous
and wicked with their post-resurrection state—except that the former
is a disembodied state of perfect bliss or perfect misery. By this con-
fusion the resurrection and the general judgment are reduced to an
empty formality.

II. PATRISTIC DOCTRINE OF FUTURE PUNISHMENT.

The subject of future punishment has been very prominently
brought into view recently by the controversy between Canon Farrar
and the late Dr. Pusey. Both agree in rejecting Universalism and
in holding to the Romanizing theory of “future purification” (in-
stead of probation), which increases the number of the saved by
withdrawing vast multitudes of imperfect Christians from the awful
doom. Both profess to abhor what they choose to term the popular
notion about Hell with all its extravagances. But Farrar goes much
further in the attempt to reduce Hell to the smallest possible dimen-
sions of time and space, or to a very narrow pit, and he claims on his
side a number of the early fathers; while Dr. Pusey, in the last of
his books (1880), tries to show that all the fathers, with the exception
of a few who were condemned as heretical, taught the doctrine of
everlasting punishment in the strict and proper sense of that term,

* De Civite Det, xxi. 24.

738 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

although without the excesses of certain popular preachers. There
is no doubt that a marked change is going on, not only in the Church
of England, but also among Dissenters and in the various Churches
of America, in favor of milder and more libe?al views. Sermons, like
that of Jonathan Edwards on the sinner in the hands of an angry
God, could not be preached nowadays without emptying the church.
Modern theology is controlled by the idea of God’s love rather than
the idea of his justice. The change of views on the subject of infant
salvation in the Calvinistic churches amounts to an actual revolution,
as has been shown by Dr. Prentiss in the last number of this REVIEW.

Three theories are possible on the fate of the impenitent or hope-
lessly wicked after the general judgment: everlasting punishment,
annihilation, restoration (after remedial punishment and repentance).
All these theories had advocates in the patristic age, but the first
was predominant, and ultimately prevailed. Let us consider them
separately :

I. EVERLASTING PUNISHMENT always was, and always will be, the
orthodox doctrine on that dark and terrible subject. It rests on the
highest authority, from which there is no appeal. Christ, who knew
more than any living being, and who came into this world for the
express purpose of saving sinners by the sacrifice of his own spotless
life, has furnished the strongest arguments for that doctrine that can
be found in the Bible. If we had to deai only with Paul, we might
come to the Universalist conclusion by pressing his parallel between
the first and second Adam, the universal fall, and the universal
redemption, and such passages as, “ God shall be all in all” (Rom. v.
12 seg.; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 28). But we are forced to understand him
and every other apostle in consistency with the teaching of the
Master, and it is the Master who speaks of the worm that never dies
and the fire that never is quenched (Mark ix. 48), of the unpardon-
able sin that cannot be forgiven either in the present or the future
zon (Matt. xii. 32), of the son of perdition, for whom it would have
been better if he had never been born (Matt. xxvi. 24). It is the
Master who contrasts eternal life and eternal punishment in a manner
that the limitation of the one would imply a limitation of the other
(Matt. xxv. 46). Admitting, as every scholar must, that ai@vz0S is it-
self not necessarily unlimited any more than the αἰών to which it be-
longs, the force of the argument lies in the connection and in the
contrast: “ eternal life” for the righteous, “eternal punishment” for
the hopelessly impenitent. And this is the last word on the subject
from the mouth of him who shall himself be the Judge and pro-
nounce the final verdict. Here the curtain falls, and all beyond is

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 739

hidden from our sight. Fortunately, however, our Lord’s infinite
mercy, his treatment of little babes, his prayer of pardon for his
own murderers, permit us to hope and believe that the overwhelming
majority of the human race, for which he shed his precious blood,
will ultimately be saved.

But now to the patristic views. Dr. Pusey claims all the Apos-
tolic Fathers,—Clement, Ignatius, Barnabas, and Hermas,—for the
doctrine of everlasting punishment; but their views on this and
nearly all other subjects are rather vague and indefinite, and cannot
be pressed except as tending in that direction. They were not theo-
logians, and their epistles were purely practical, urging the readers to
holy living.

Justin Martyr (d. 166) is the first Christian thinker who brought con-
siderable philosophical (especially Platonic) culture into the Church,
and applied it to the defence of Christianity against the abuses, slanders,
and persecutions of the heathen. His position is disputed. Petav-
ius, Dr. Edward Beecher, and Canon Farrar, claim him for the theory
of annihilation of the wicked. It is true that he rejects, with several
ante-Nicene fathers, the Platonic theory of the intrinsic or meta-
physical immortality of the soul, and holds to a conditional immor-
tality which depends upon the will of God, and which may be for-
feited. In the Dialogue with Trypho, he puts into the mouth
of the old Christian, By whom he was converted on the sea-shore, the
sentence:

“Such as are worthy to see God die no more, but others shall undergo punishment as Jong asit .
shall please Him that they shall exist and he punished.” *

But in twelve other passages he speaks of the fate of the wicked in
a way that is inconsistent with annihilation.

“ Briefly,” he says, t ‘‘ what we look for, and have learned from Christ, and what we teach, is as
follows. Plato said to the same effect, that Rhadamanthus and Minos would punish the wicked
when they came to them ; we say that the same thing will take place; but that the Judge will be
Christ, and that their souls will be united to the same bodies, and will undergo an eternal punish-

ment (αἰωνίαν κόλασιν) ; and not, as Plato said, for a period of only a thousand years (χιλιονταετῆ
mepiodov),””

In another place t: “ We believe that all who live wickedly and do
not repent, will be punished in eternal fire” (ἐν αἰωνίῳ zupt).

We cannot on this account charge him with inconsistency. As a
philosopher, he could believe either in the mortality or immortality
of the soul as he made it depend on the will of the Creator. As a

* Dial.,a.s. Comp. the note of Otto, Fustinz Op. I1., 26. + Apol. 1., 8. ¢ Agol.1., 21.

740 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

believer in the Scriptures, he believed in the immortality of the good
and bad, God choosing to reward the one and to punish the other
for ever and ever. His psychology mzght¢ have landed him in the an-
nihilation theory, but his theology prevented it.

The same may be said of Irenzeus (d. about 200) who has likewise been
claimed for annihilation, and even for restoration. Farrar charges him
with inconsistent wavering between these two theories. He denies, like
Justin Martyr, Tatian, Arnobius, and others the inherent and necessary
immortality of the soul, and makes the continuance in life, as well as
life itself, a gift of God. He reasons that whatever is created had a
beginning, and therefore may have an end. Whether it will or not,
depends upon man’s gratitude or ingratitude to the Creator. He who
preserves the gift of life and is grateful to the Giver, shall receive
length of days for ever and ever (accipiet et in saeculum saeculi longi-
tudinem dierum); but he who casts it away and becomes ungrateful
to his Maker, “ deprives himself of perseverance forever” (ipse se privat
in sacculum saecult perseverantia. Adv. Her. \1., 34, §3). From this
passage, which exists only in the imperfect Latin version, Dodwell,
Beecher, and Farrar infer that Irenzus taught annihilation, and
interpret perseverantta to mean continued existence; but Massuet
(see his note in Stieren’s Ed., I., 415) and Pusey (p. 183) explain fer-
severantia of continuance in veal life in God, or eternal happiness.
The passage, it must be admitted, is not clear, for longitudo dierum
and perseverantia are not identical, nor is perseverantia equivalent to
existentia or vita. In Book iv., 20, 7, Irenzeus says that Christ “ be.
came the dispenser of the paternal grace for the benefit of man, .. .
lest man, falling away from God altogether, should cease to exist”
(cessaret esse); but he adds, “the life of man consists in beholding
God” (vita autem hominis visio Dez). In the fourth Pfaffian Frag-
ment ascribed to him (Stieren, I., 889), he says that Christ “ will
come at the end of time to destroy all evil (eis τὸ καταργῆσαι πᾶν TO
xaxov) and to reconcile all things (eis to ἀποκαταλλάξαι τὰ πάτα,
from Col. i. 20), that there may’be an end of all impurity.” This
passage, like 1 Cor. xv. 28, and Col. i. 20, looks toward universal
restoration rather than annihilation, but admits, like the Pauline
passages, of an interpretation consistent with eternal punishment.
(See the long note in Stieren.) We must depend, then, upon such
passages in Irenzus which leave no room for doubt as to his real
conviction. In paraphrasing the apostolic rule of faith, he mentions
eternal punishment, and in another place he accepts as certain truth
that “eternal fire is prepared for sinners” because “the Lord openly

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 741

affirms, and the other Scriptures prove” it.* Ziegler+ comes
to the same conclusion, that Irenzus teaches the eternity of punish-
ment in several passages, or presupposes it, and quotes III., 23, 3;
Ῥ η, 45-23 Py EV 33H R180) 4340; ἢ and:2:

Hippolytus of Rome, a pupil of Irenzeus and the most prominent
and fertile writer in the early part of the third century, in his re-
cently discovered Philosophumena, or Refutation of all Heresies, agrees
with Irenzeus. He approves the eschatology of the Pharisees as
regards the resurrection, the immortality of the soul, the judgment
and conflagration, everlasting life, and ‘everlasting punishment”;
and in another place he speaks of “the rayless scenery of gloomy
Tartarus, where never shines a beam from the radiating voice of the
Word.”

According to Tertullian, the future punishment “ will continue, not
for a long time, but forever.” It does credit to his feelings when he
says that no innocent man can rejoice in the punishment of the
guilty, however just, but will grieve rather.

Cyprian thinks that the fear of hell is the only ground of the fear
of death to any one, and that we should have before our eyes the
fear of God and eternal punishment much more than the fear of men
and brief suffering.

The Latin fathers of the Nicene and post-Nicene ages are almost
unanimous on this subject, especially Jerome and Augustine. There
is no dispute about their opinion.

2. The final ANNIHILATION of the wicked removes all discord
from the universe of God at the expense of the natural immortality
of the soul, and on the ground that sin will ultimately destroy the
sinner, and thus destroy itself.

This theory is attributed to Justin Martyr, Irenzus, and others,
who believed only in a conditional immortality which may be for-
feited; but, as we have just seen, their utterances in favor of eternal
punishment are too clear and strong to justify the inference which
they might have drawn from their psychology.

Arnobius, however, an apologist of the third century, strongly ex-
pressed belief in actual annihilation; for he speaks of certain souls
that “are engulfed and burned up, or hurled down, and, having been
reduced to nothing, vanish in the frustration of a perpetual de-
struction.”

In recent times Dr. R. Rothe has revived this theory. He holds

* Adv, Haer. 111... 4,1; I1., 28, 7; see Pusey, pp. 177-181, t Irenaus, p. 312.

ἴ43 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

that the wicked, after their conversion has become a moral impossi-
bility, will be annihilated.* Nitzsch intimates that they will become
a perpetual ruin. In England the annihilation theory has gained cur-
rency in connection with the view that immortality is a gift of grace
to believers in Christ. It is advocated by Edward White in his 1.276
in Christ.

3. The APOKATASTASIS, or final restoration of all rational beings
to holiness and happiness. This seems to be the most satisfactory
solution of the problem of sin, and secures perfect harmony in the
creation, but it does violence to freedom which involves the power to
perpetuate resistance, and it ignores the hardening nature of sin and
the ever-increasing difficulty of repentance. If conversion and salva-
tion are an ultimate necessity, they lose their moral character and
moral aim.

Origen, the great light of the Eastern Church in the middle of the
third century, was the first Christian Universalist. He taught from
Platonic premises a final restoration of fallen men and angels. He
set forth this view with becoming modesty, as a speculation rather
than a dogma, in his youthful work, De Principizs (written before
231), which was made known in the West by the loose version of
Rufinus (398). In his later writings there are only faint traces of it.
He seems at least to have modified it, and exempted Satan from final
repentance and salvation; but this would leave a discord in the
moral universe and defeat the end of the Universalist theory. He
also obscured it by his notion of the necessary mutability of free will,
and the constant succession of fall and redemption.

Universal salvation (including Satan) was clearly taught by
Gregory of Nyssa, a profound thinker of the school of Origen
(d. 395), and, from an exegetical stand-point, by the eminent Anti-
ochian divines, Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394), and Theodore of Mop-
suestia (d. 429), and many Nestorian bishops. Chrysostom, a pupil and
admirer of Diodorus and friend of Theodore, usually employs the
popular language of the Church, but explains 1 Cor. xv. 28 in a way
that looks toward an apokatastasis as a final possibility. In the West,
also, at the time of Augustine (d. 430), there were, as he says, “ mul-
titudes who did not believe in eternal punishment.” But the view of
Origen was rejected by Epiphanius, Jerome, and Augustine, who
strongly taught the doctrine of everlasting punishment. Universal-
ism was at last condemned as one of the Origenistic errors under the
Emperor Justinian (543). Pusey contends (pp. 125-137) that Origen

* Dogmatik, I1., 335.

STUDIES IN ESCHATOLOGY. 743

was condemned by the fifth G&cumenical Council, 553; but Hefele
conclusively proves that the fifteen anathematisms against Origen
were passed by a /ocal Synod of Constantinople in 543, under
Mennas.* The same view was before advocated by Dupin, Walch,
and Do6llinger.

Since that time the doctrine of the final salvation of all men has
been regarded as a heresy, except by the Universalists, who make it
one of theirthree articles of faith. It is, however, tolerated in some
orthodox Protestant Churches (6. g., the Lutheran, Episcopal, and
Congregational) as a private speculative opinion or charitable hope.

PHILIP SCHAFF.

* See his Conciliengesch., second ed., Vol. II., 859 seg.

IV.
PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP.

HE word Liturgy in the Greek literally means work for the peo-
ple, or public work. In the Greek States it first designated a
burdensome public duty which the richer citizens discharged at their
ownexpense. Then it expressed any work of a public kind. In the
Septuagint version of the Old Testament it was applied to the wor-
ship or public service of God. Inthe New Testament this is the exclu-
sive use of the word. Thus Luke i. 23: “It came to pass when the
days of his (Zacharias’) sznzstration were fulfilled”; Acts xiii. 12:
“ As they ministered to the Lord”; Rom. xv. 16: ‘“‘ That I should be
the mznister of Jesus Christ to the Genfiles, ministering the Gospel of
God”’; Heb. viii. 2,6: “A mznzster of the sanctuary”; “Now hath
he obtained a more excellent mznistry”’; Heb. ix. 21: “ All the ves-
sels of the mznistry”,; Heb. x. 11: “Every priest standeth daily
ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices.’ Because acts
of charity for others, and especially for Christian brethren, are a part
of the service of God, the word is also applied to them. Rom. xv.
27: “If the Gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual
things, their duty is also to mznzster unto them in carnal things”; 2
Cor. ix. 12: “ The administration of this service not only supplieth the
want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto
God”; Phil. ii. 17, 25, 30: “ Yea, and if I be offered upon the sacrifice
and service of your faith I joy and rejoice with you all”; “ He that
ministered to my wants”; “Because for the work of Christ he was
nigh unto death, not regarding his life, to supply your lack of servzce
toward me.” As engaged in the service of God for the saints, angels
are described by the word. Heb. i. 7, 14: “Who maketh his angels
spirits, and his szzwzsters a flame of fire”; ‘Are they not all mznzster-
ing spirits sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salva-
tion?” And it isonce appropriated to civil magistrates, because prop-
erly looked at, they are in God’s service: “ They are God’s mznisters”
(λειτουργοι.) These are the only instances in which the word Liturgy
in any of its grammatical forms is used in the New Testament.
By a very natural transition the term which thus designated the

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 745

service of God was afterward applied to the way in which the serv-
ice was performed and the form of words in which it was rendered,
so that the lexicon now defines it: “In a general sense the estab-
lished formulas for public worship or the entire ritual for public wor-
ship in those churches which use written forms. But ina restricted
sense among Roman Catholics, the mass; and in the Anglican Church,
the communion service.”

In the earlier and in the modern sense of the word, all public wor-
ship must be, in a greater or less degree, liturgical. ‘There may be
a ritual of form without a form of words”’; and forms of words can-
not be avoided or safely rejected by any one. “Some form there
must be in alledifying worship.” It is in one sense true, as President
R. W. Hitchcock claimed in his Philadelphia Council paper, that
“The Westminster Directory concedes the liturgical idea’”’; though
in another, as Dr. Shields says, it “differs from a liturgy in being a
prescription of thoughts rather than of words, of rules rather than of
materials of devotion.”

But in common usage the word has a very narrow and re-
stricted meaning. ‘‘The responsive element is the popular feature in
a liturgy,” says Dr. Schaff; and that is the feature which is particu-
larly thought of when a service is now spoken of as being liturgical;
though, as we shall show, some of the best books and writers that are
claimed as liturgical. repudiate this feature. The responsive element
again manifests itself in a twofold form: the alternate reading by the
minister and the congregation of the verses of the Scriptures, or at
least of the Psalms; and the recitation by the people of prescribed
forms of prayer, under the leadership of the minister; to which is also
added the recitation of the “‘ Apostles’ Creed” as their confession of
faith. Connected with this is the observance of certain festival days,
at least Christmas, Good Friday, and Easter, for which special liturgi-
cal services are provided.

It is proposed in this article to consider this question: Is a Liturgy
which prescribes written forms of prayer to be recited, in whole or in
part, by the congregation, in unison or alternation with the minister ;
which provides for responsive readings of the Scriptures; and which
observes what are called the great Christian festivals ; consistent with
or permissible in Presbyterian worship?

GENERAL PRINCIPLES.

The essential idea of worship is that of formal communion between

God and his people—a communion between rational spirits in sympa-
48 ‘

746 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

thetic participation; in reciprocating rational address. The Word,
read or preached, is God speaking to his hearing people; prayer is
from beseeching suppliants to a gracious Hearer; song is from ador-
ing hearts to a present, condescending majesty. Any act done in the
name of God, in the service of God, in the recognized presence of
God, is properly a religious act; it is worship, however, only as it em-
braces a conscious address to God, or a conscious devout listening to
him as directly addressing in person his worshipping subjects. Zhou
and I is an essential in it.

The reading of the Scriptures in worship is the communication of
God's thoughts to the intelligence of his worshipping people; hence
it cannot properly be performed in the movements peculiar to song,
as by intonation or chanting on the one hand, or on the other bya
multiplicity of voices. Such treatment of the Word is irrational—an
offence against the reason and nature of things, and consequently
offensive to sound taste and a hindrance to the designed effect of this
part of worship, which can be none other than to “giye the sense” of
God’s Word to the people.

The sermon is, in worship, the address of God, representatively
through the convictions, the emotions, the words of the preacher, to his
people. It must be ranked as the leading part in worship, since in the
meeting of God with his people it must be what God has to say which
constitutes the commanding and controlling feature. Therefore it
should be shaped to direct and regulate all the parts of worship.

Prayer must be conceived and offered as pure address to God—rev-
erential, elevated ir thought, and grave in expression—never low or
flippant or chatty; expressive of the feelings and thoughts common
to the congregation of worshippers.

The essential idea in all admissible song in the worship of God is,
that it be expressive of sentiments animating the breasts of the
body of worshippers. Any song which is not so expressive, all ‘‘ vol-
’ in which the body of worshippers cannot express the actual
sentiments they have or ought to have, lacks the very essence of wor-
ship. There is, however, a place for music, vocal and instrumental,
as preparatory and auxiliary to worship.

This is, we think, a sound statement of the general principles o
Presbyterian worship.*

untaries,’

THE NEW TESTAMENT NON-LITURGICAL.

It is scarcely necessary to say to those with whom we are specially
concerned in this discussion, that there is not, in the New Testament,

* Prof. Day, of New Haven, had an article in 7he New Englander for January, 1882, which
ersely presented these principles, ,

747

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP,

the slightest trace of any of the elements of a liturgy, as we have lim-

ited the word. But for the purpose of emphasizing the utter base-

|
|
Liturgy | St. Basil.

Lit. of St. Chrysostom.

|
Present Lit. of
Oriental and
Russian Church,

lessness of the claim that is still in a few quarters, as it once was in
more, made for inspired authority for the full-fledged books that rule
in some branches of the Christian Church, it is worth while to gaze
upon the following, which Has been drawn out by liturgists as the
genealogical table of the principal Liturgies now used in the Churches

OUR LORD’S WORDS OF INSTITUTION.

Apostolic Nucleus of a Liturgy [See Lord’s Prayer and Lord’s Supper].

Liturgy of St. James,
Antioch, or Jerusalem,

|

Syriac Lit. of
St. James.

|

[Monophysite
Lit.]

Lit. of St. Mark
or Alexandria.

Present Lit. of

Lit. of St. Peter Lit. of St. John, St, Paul,
or Rome. or Ephesus.

Ambrosian Lit. Sacramentary of St. Leo,

Liturgy of Lyons.

|

Present Lit. of Sacramentary |
Diocese of Milan. of Gelasius. |
, | Mozarabic Lit. of Lit. of Tours,
or Spanish Britain
Sacramentary Lit.

of St. Gregory. |

| Agustine’s Revised
Present Lit. of Lit. of Britain.
Church of Rome. |

Salisburg, York, and other
Missals of ae Church,

Present Liturgy of the
English Church,

Lit. of
American Church,

Lit. of Le
Church,

748 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

That is as seriously amusing as is the old Hindoo teaching con-
cerning the foundations which support the earth. It will be observed
that the only apostolic “nucleus” which is claimed for a liturgy is
found in the words with which our Lord directed prayer and insti-

tuted the Supper.

Glance a moment at those words.

The Lord's Prayer appears in two places in the New Testament.

Put them side by side:

Matt. vi. 6-13.

But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thine
inner chamber, and having shut thy door, pray
to thy Father which is in secret, and thy Father
which seeth in secret shall recompense thee. And
im praying use not vain repetitions, as the Gen-
tiles do: for they think that they shall be heard
for their much speaking. Be not therefore like
unto them : for your Father knoweth what things
ye have need of before ye ask him. After this
manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art
in heaven, hallowed be thyname. Thy kingdom
come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on
earth. Give us this day our daily bread. And
forgive us our debts, as wealso have forgiven our
debtors. And bring us not into temptation, but
deliver us from the evil ove. ;

Luke xi. 1-4.

And it came to pass, as he was praying in a cer-
tain place, that when he ceased, one of his disci-
ples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, even
as John also taught his disciples. And he said
unto them, When ye pray, say,

Father,

hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come.
Give us day by day our daily bread. And for-
give us our sins, for we also forgive every one
that is indebted to us. And bring us not into
temptation.

(R. V.)

These two directions were given on two entirely different occasions.
Luke omits the prayer from his report of the Sermon on the Mount,
a fact utterly inconsistent with the claim which high liturgists make
for the prayer. In the place in which he does record it—while in sub-
stance it is almost the same—it is, in form, very different from that
which it wears in Matthew. ‘“ That this is not a requisition of punc-
tilious adherence to the form, much less of its exclusive use,” says
Dr. J. A. Alexander, on Matt. vi. 9, “is clear from the existence of
two equally authoritative forms, a circumstance which has occasioned
much embarrassment to scrupulous liturgists.’’ It would be as proper
in geometry to say that a cube and a square are the same form, as to
claim that these two prayers were designed, not as suggestive models,
but as a form. If either is to be received as an authoritative verbal
prescription for perpetual and unvaried use, it would certainly seem
that the form preserved by Luke should be maintained. His intro-
ductory statement, “‘ When ye pray, say,” has a more iron-clad verbal
force than Matthew’s, “ After this manner [or thus] pray ye.” And
yet Luke’s form is the one which liturgists do not use. Strictly, too,
the prayer is given in Matthew as an individual private prayer for
the “inner chamber,” not “common,” social, church prayer. Add to
these considerations the fact that no example of the use of it, or of
quotation from it, appears in the New Testament or in the apostolic

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 749

age, and the argument which has been drawn from it for prescribed
forms of prayer to be read and recited in public worship vanishes with
the Indian world-supporting elephants and tortoises.*

‘We have four inspired accounts of the institution of the Lord’s
Supper. They all tell us what Jesus did and what he com-
manded to be done until he shall come again; but no form of words
is prescribed for the observance of the command. The Church has
taken the narrative-words of the Master and consecrated them for
repeated and perpetual use, but no direction was given that such
should be the case; and indeed the most liturgical of the churches
does not follow the acts or words of the Redeemer in the service
of the institution. :

The baptism precept is the nearest approach to a prescribed formula
that the New Testament contains; but even that does not positively ἡ
lay down the words of administration. In the Old Testament a form
for the Benediction does appear; but there is no one inflexible form
for it in the New Testament.

The only thing that looks like an oral response from the people, in
the worship of the apostolic churches, is found in the “Amen” of
I Cor. xiv. 16. It was the custom in the Jewish synagogue for the
people to respond to the prayers by audibly saying “Amen”; and
it would seem that this had passed over into the Christian congre-
gations. Paul's reference to the practice seems to be an indorse-
ment of it.

IN THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH.

In “ The Presbyterian exceptions against the Book of Common
Prayer,’ presented at the Savoy Conference, A.D. 1661, this assertion

was made:
4

* Augustine (De Magistro) declared that Jesus did not intend to teach his disciples what words
they should use in prayer, but what ¢4zzgs they should pray for; and understands it to be meant
chiefly as a directory for secret and mentad prayer.

We have been surprised to see the assertion from Prof. S. M. Hopkins in one of our denominational
papers, that ‘‘ Jesus himself prescribed a form of prayer for his disciples, ‘ 4/ter ths manner,’ said
he, ‘fray ye when ye pray, SAY, Father, hallowed be thy name.’” But where did the Professor get
that sentence ? What right has he, when the very question is one of form, to take scraps from
two different narratives, in two different documents, of two different occasions, to make such an in-
tensified sentence ? And if we have been commanded in prayer to use specific words, why does he
not settle, in his own mind, what those words were, and adhere to them? As it is in the Liturgy
which he has issued, he is utterly self-inconsistent. He repeats and repeats the Lord’s Prayer, but
he adopts the form neither of Matthew nor of Luke, neither of the authorized nor the Revised ver-
sion, nor the one which he says is ‘‘a part of our symbols,” and ‘‘ printed in our Confession of
Faith”; nor does he adhere to any one form. In one place he has it, ‘‘ Our Father which art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it isin heaven. Give
us this day our daily bread ; and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against
us ; and lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. Amen.” In another, it is:
“Our Father wo art in heaven.” In another: ‘‘/orgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors ;
and deliver us from evel. For thine zs the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.” In
another, ‘‘the glory, for ever amd ever.”

750 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

‘* Asto that passage in his majesty’s commission where we are authorized and required to compare
the present liturgy with the most ancient liturgies which have been used in the Church in the present
and most primitive times, we have in obedience to his majesty’s commission, made inquiry, but can-
not find any records of known credit concerning any entire forms of liturgy within the first three hun-
dred years, which are confessed to be as the most primitive, so the purest ages of the Church, nor
any impositions of liturgies for some hundreds of years after. We find, indeed, some liturgical
forms fathered upon St. Basil, St. Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose, but we have not seen any copies
of them, but such as give us sufficient evidence to conclude them either wholly spurious, or so in-
terpolated, that we cannot make a judgment which in them hath any primitive authority.”

The investigations, pursued through the two centuries which have
passed since the Savoy Conference, have discovered nothing to over-
turn that assertion. It is not necessary to enter upon a wearisome
citation and examination of the passages in ancient writers which bear
upon τῆς question. The confessions of a dignitary of the Established
Church of England, who has made one of the latest contributions to
the discussion, will be sufficient. The Rev. G. A..-Jacobs, D.D.,
Head Master of Christ’s Hospital, in his “ Ecclesiastical Polity of
the New Testament,” writes (pp. 217-231):

‘«Since forms of prayers were in use in the Jewish Synagogues, and in some heathen religious
services, a scrupulous adherence to the words of a sacred formula was considered essential, the
churches, whether of Jewish or Gentile Christians, could not have been unprepared fof, or naturally
averse to, prescribed and settled formularies of devotion for theirown use. But did they, in fact,
employ them?... . Were the public rayers in the apostolic churches set forms, known before-
hand, and repeated on every occasion, like our own?.... All the evidence directly deducible
from the New Testament, is against the use of such formularies in the apostolic age. Nor through-
out the second century is any reliable testimony to be found indicative of any considerable altera-
tion in this respect. On the contrary, the prayers of the Church, described by Justin Martyr,
seem to have depended upon the ability and discretion of the officiating minister, as much as they
did in the preceding century. And none of the passages sometimes cited from other patristic
authors of this period are at all at variance with Justin’s account.” *

(ΤῸ is not until the third century that any evidence at all, clear and conclusive, of the use of
settled forms of prayer in Christian churches is to be found in contemporary authorities. And even
in that century, although the evidence zs conclusive as far as it goes, it does not make it certain
that other prayers suggested by particular circumstances or occasions were altogether excluded.
In the fourth century several distinct liturgies are found clearly established in different churches,
and having been then committed to writing, some of the most celebrated of them are still
preserved. This, therefore, very briefly expressed, is the sum and substance of the contem-
porary patristic testimony ; and it points us conclusively to the third and fourth centuries, and not
to the apostolic age, for the distinct appearance and growth to maturity of formal liturgies in Chris-
tian churches. .... The ‘ times and seasons’ observed as sacred in the apostolic church will next
demand a brief notice, to complete our view of its religious worship. And here it must be at once
acknowledged that there is in the New Testament no trace whatever of any of those annual days
of hallowed commemoration which are now celebrated in Christian churches. However seemly,
grateful, and edifying we may justly esteem it to mark the anniversaries of our Lord’s birth, death,
and resurrection with other days of special import in the Christian year, they were not distinguished
in the ecclesiastical arrangements of the primitive church, but are of a later and unapostolic origin.”

The development and extension of the liturgical idea, once begun,
were speedy and complete. It grew with the decay of the spiritual
life and of an intelligent and educated ministry ; with the overshad-
owing advance of hierarchies; and with the increasing leaven of sac-

* Dr. Jacobs cites and examines “‘ all the evidences about liturgical forms in the second century
which the diligence of the learned has been able to collect.”

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 751

ramentarianism. When the Reformation came, liturgies were full-
blown and at the pinnacle of their power.
®
THE REFORMED.

The churches of the Reformation did not at once break free from
the liturgical thraldom.

‘* With the English and Lutheran reformers, the object seems to have been to make as few
changes in existing forms as possible. .... It is to be said for the Reformers that they seem to
have acted in view of the existing circumstances of the communities by which they were surrounded,
and from one of them, the most eminent of them all, Luther, we have the distinct disavowal of all
wish and expectation that his work, in this respect, should be imposed upon other churches or
continued in his own any longer than it was found for edification.” *

The Calvinistic liturgies differed from the Lutheran in two impor-
tant respects: ‘‘ the absence of responsive portions and the discretion
conferred upon the officiator in the performance of public worship.”
To understand what a skeleton liturgy was that of Calvin, which is so
often referred to, observe its terms:

‘On week-days the minister uses such words in prayer as may seem to him good, suiting his
prayer to the occasion, and the matter whereof he treats in preaching. For the Lord’s Day in the
morning is commonly used the Form ensuing. After the reading of the appointed chapters of
Holy Scripture, the Ten Commandments are read. Then the minister begins thus” : [Invocation ;
Exhortation ; Confession]. ‘* This done, shall be sung in the congregation a Psalm ; then the min-
ister shall begin afresh to pray, asking of God the grace of his Holy Spirit, to the end that his word
may be faithfully expounded, to tlte-honor of his name; and to the edification of the Church ; and
that it be received in such humility and obedience as are becoming. The form thereof zs at the dis-
cretion of the minister.” ‘* At the end of the sermon, the minister having made exhortation to prayer,
beginneth thus” [Intercession : for Rulers: for Pastors: for all conditions of men : for afflicted per-
sons: for persecuted Christians: for the congregation: The Lord’s Prayer: The Creed: The
Blessing.]”

Would that be called a liturgy now?

John Knox also prepared one, which was introduced into Scotland.
“Tt differs from that of Calvin in that it more clearly leaves to the
minister officiating to decide whether he shall use any form of prayer
given or one of his own compositions, extemporaneously or other-
wise.” Its repeated directions are:

‘When the congregation is assembled at the hour appointed, the #z¢77ster useth one of these two
confessions, ov déke 271 effect [models therefor] exhorting the Zeop/e diligently to examine them-
selves, following in their hearts the tenor of his words..... This done the mznzster readeth
from the Holy Scriptures ; the people then sing a Psalm all together in a plain tune ; which ended,
the minister prayeth for the assistance of God's Holy Spirit, as the same shall move his heart, and
so proceedeth to the sermon, using after this prayer the following or such like. .... Then ¢he
people sing a psalm ; which ended, the minister pronounceth one of these blessings and so the
congregation departeth..... It shall not be necessary for the minister daily to repeat all these
things before mentioned, but beginning with some manner of confession, to proceed to the sermon ;
which being ended, he either useth the prayer for all estates before mentioned, or else prayeth as
the Spirit of God shall move his heart, framing the same according to the time and manner which
he hath entreated of.” -

* Prof. C. Walker, of the P. E. Theological Seminary of Alexandria, Va., in McClintock and
Strong’s Cyclopedia, V., 462.

752 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The distinction between the Lutheran and the Calvinistic forms,
and the absence in the latter of the responsive element from the
prayers and*from the reading of the Scriptures, should be borne in
mind as having an important bearing on this discussion. Dr. Charles
Baird, in his very interesting ‘‘ Eutaxia”’ thus states the difference:

‘* The first is that of an zZosed ritual, responsive in its character, and prescribed to the mznister
and people for their common use. Such is the practice of the Anglican and Lutheran communi-
ties. Another method is that of a discretionary ritual, NOT responsive, and supplied to the min-
ister alone for his guidance as to the matter and manner of worship; leaving freedom of varia-
tion, as to the latter, according to his judgment. Such was the usage of the Church of Scotland,
for the first century of her existence ; such is the practice of every Reformed Church on the conti-
nent of Europe at the present time.” He adds in a note: ‘‘In France and Switzerland but few
copies of the Liturgies in use are printed, and they are to be procured, as a general thing, only by
ministers.”

This is not liturgical, according to the common impression which

the word now makes and according to its use in this discussion.

THE WESTMINSTER DIRECTORY.

The Directory of the Westminster Assembly made a further and
an advancing departure from the strict idea of a liturgy in words,
while adhering to the prescription of an order of service. The order
which it gave for the ordinary Sabbath service was: Prayer of Invo-
cation ; reading of the Word; singing of a Psalm; Prayer; Sermon;
Prayer; Psalm; Benediction. That order was positively prescribed.
“The minister is” todothusandthus. Asto the reading of the Word,
it was assigned exclusively to the minister, no provision being made
for responsive reading by the people either of the Psalms or of any
other part of the Bible; though “it is the duty of Christians to
praise God publicly, by singing of Psalms together in the congrega-
tion,” .... and “that the whole congregation may join therein,
every one that can read is to have a Psalm-book.” As to what and
how much should be read the provisions were:

‘“How large a portion shall be read at once is left to the wisdom of the minister; but it is con-
venient, that ordinarily one chapter of each Testament be read at every meeting; and sometimes
more, where the chapters are short, or the Coherence of matter requireth it. It is requisite that
all the canonical books be read over, in order that the people may be better acquainted with the
whole body of the Scriptures, and ordinarily where the reading in either Testament endeth on one
Lord’s day, it is to begin the next. We commend also the more frequent reading of such Script-
ures a; he that readeth shall think best for edification of his hearers, as the book of Psalms, and
such like.” :

For all the regular and ordinary prayers, very full topical forms
were drawn up: “to this effect.” It was also added: ‘“ Because the
prayer which Christ taught his disciples is not only a pattern of
prayer, but itself a most comprehensive prayer, we recommend it
also be used in the prayers of the Church.” Nowhere, however, was

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 753

it recognized as proper for the people to join audibly in the prayers,
nor was any responsive “Amen” suggested. The administration of
the sacraments was provided for between the singing of a third Psalm
and the Benediction. Baptism was to be accompanied by some
words of instruction touching the sacrament and of admonition and ex-
hortation, in which “the minister is to use his own liberty and godly
wisdom ”’; the exact words of administration were prescribed ; and the
service was to be concluded with a prayer “to this or the like pur-
pose.” The Supper was to be prefaced by a short exhortation,
warning, and invitation, and the reading of the words of institution,
and by sanctifying and blessing the elements with prayer, “to this
effect’; and was to be closed with an exhortation and a prayer of
thanksgiving. The marriage ceremony consisted of a prayer, instruc-
tion, the contract in specific words to be used by the parties, with
right hands clasped in each other, the declaration of the two as hus-
band and wife, and prayer. No service for the burial of the dead was
prepared. “ Praying, reading, and singing thereat,” it was declared,
“should be laid aside,”’ because “‘ they had been grossly abused’; but
it “was very convenient” for the minister to put the concourse “in
remembrance of their duty.” Finally: “ There isno day commanded
in Scripture to be kept holy under the gospel but the Lord’s day,
which is the Christian Sabbath. Festival days, vulgarly called Holy-
days, having no warrant in the Word of God, are to be discontinued.”
But the observance of lawfully-appointed fast and thanksgiving
days was provided for.

As to the rules which governed them the Westminster divines
wrote in words that should be remembered :

‘Our care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every or@inance; and
other things we have endeavored to set forth according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreea-
ble to the general rules of the Word of God; our meaning therein being only that the general heads,
the sense and scope of the prayers, and other parts of public worship, being known to all, there may
be a consent of all the churches in those things that contain the substance of the service and wor-
ship of God: and the ministers may be hereby directed in their administrations to keep like sound-
ness in doctrine and prayer, and may, if need be, have some help and furniture, and yet so as they
become not hereby slothful and negligent in stirring up the gifts of Christ in them; but that each
one, by meditation, by taking heed to himself and the flock of God committed to him, and by wise
observing the ways of divine providence, may be careful to furnish his heart and tongue with farther
or other materials of prayer and exhortation as shall be needful upon all occasions.”

As we understand, this Directory, unaltered, continues to be the
law of all the Scotch and Irish (and English?) Presbyterian Churches,
and of the UnitedsPresbyterian and the Covenanter Churches of this
country. It was also substantially adopted by the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America, in the draft made in 1788,
and amended and ratified in 1821. Some important modifications,
however, were then made in it.

754 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

THE AMERICAN DIRECTORY.

The portion of the Scriptures to be read is left entirely to the dis-
cretion of every minister, with the declaration that in each service he
ought to read at least one chapter; but the provisions for the con-
tinuous reading from both Testaments and for the frequent readings of
the Psalms, are omitted. More singing is recommended than had been
usual in most of the churches. The order of service given is a short
prayer; a psalm or hymn; a full and comprehensive prayer; hymn;
sermon; prayer; psalm; collection; benediction. This is, however,
only drawn out as seeming “very proper.” Topics for the prayers are
summarized, but the use of set or fixed forms of prayer either exclu-
sively or partially, on the one hand, and “ mean, irregular, or extrava-
gant effusions,’ on the other, are guarded against by the decla-
ration that it is the indispensable duty of every minister to make
general preparation for this part of his duty before entering his office,
and also special preparation before each service, as carefully as he pre-
pares for preaching in general and for each sermon. “ Prayer and
praise,” too, are reclaimed as “‘the more important duties.” But the
use of the Lord’s Prayer in the public service is not recommended ;
nor is the recitation of any creed directed or suggested, though it is
declared that children should be taught to read and repeat the Cate-
chism, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. A fuller and more
formal marriage service is provided. The declaration against festival
days is dropped.

This “ Directory for Worship” is, in its true scope and meaning,
binding on all the ministers and congregations of the Presbyterian
Church.* It is true that it is not specifically received in the ordina-
tion vows of ministers and elders, but it is a part of the Constitution
of the Church, and as a part of that organic law is, with the “ Book of
Discipline,” which is also unmentioned in the ordination service, as
really binding in its true intent as the Confession and the Form of
Government. It is important, then, to understand exactly what it
requires and what it permits.

It contains no iron-clad order of service. The order which does ap-
pear in it is not mandatory, though it is declared to be “ very proper,”
and should, therefore, not lightly be departed from. On this and on
the other points to which we shall refer, much may be said in favor
of a strict adherence to it, on the ground that thefe should be a uni-
formity of worship among the churches of the same denomination, so

* Dr, Charles Baird, in his ‘‘ Eutaxia,” p. 259; concedes: ‘‘ The rigid observance of that order is
incumbent upon every minister who officiates in the Presbyterian Church,”

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 755

that those who remove from one to another, or casual worshippers in
one from others, may be enabled, without any jar, to participate in
the services. No doubt the Prayer-Book is, in this way, a great com-
fort to Episcopalians. One hymn book, used in-all our congregations,
would be a similar comfort to our people. We cannot but feel that
the prevalence of so many different books, and the refusal of so many
congregations to recognize the authority of the General Assembly in
preparing a hymnal, do harm*to the devotional services of our de-
nomination. On the same principle, we think one general order of
service should prevail in all our congregations. But there is no viola-
tion of the Directory by those who open with the Long Metre Dox-
ology, or by those who have four or five exercises of song, or by simi-
lar transpositions of the order. A large liberty is allowed, and in fact
prevails without any censure being expressed or felt in any quarter.

Our Directory does not, as the Westminster Directory did, specifi-
cally recommend the reading from each Testament at every service, in
course. The whole matter is left to the discretion of every minister,
with the suggestion that “at least one chapter” should be read. No
one will say that this shuts out the old plan, which really prevails to a
large extent among us. Would that it were the universal custom! We
would favor, indeed, the recommendation by the General Assembly
of a table which, in all the churches that should follow it, would give
the same portions of the inspired Word on the same day, and gocon-
secutively through the two books in due time.*

In the matter of the prayers as well as the order of them, a very -
large liberty is also allowed to the minister.’ In sermonizing he can
either write and read, or memorize, or extemporize; so he can in his
prayers. Whichever he can do best, and: whichever will most de-
cently and acceptably lead the devotions of his particular congrega-
tion, is within his liberty. He may write all his prayers; he may
weave into them the great prayers of the ages that are so highly ex-
tolled; he may éven keep them largely the same from Sabbath to
Sabbath, leaving room for special additions adapted to the changing
circumstances of his people; and if his congregation are satisfied, no
one else will interfere with him. It would, indeed, be widely con-
sidered against the genius of our system to read the prayers closely
from a manuscript; but there is no law against it. There is no law
against a pastor preaching occasionally the sermons of some of the

* The ‘‘ Table of Scriptural Readings for Divine Service on every Lord’s Day Throughout the
Year,” which Prof. Hopkins gives from the ‘‘ Book of Common Order” of the Scotch ‘‘ Church
Service Society,” is capital. We wish it could be taken from the rest of his book, published in leaf-
lets, and used in our pulpits.

756 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

masters of pulpit eloquence, if his people approve, though there is an
unwritten law under which he should make the authorship known.
As to the frequent use of the Lord’s Prayer, its use at every service
indeed, we do not know that in our denomination a peep would be
heard against it, nor would any one propose to interfere with the reci-
tation at every service of one of the short Scriptural creeds as a con-
fession of the faith of the worshippers.*

For special services—baptism, the Lord’s Supper, marriage, funer-
als, ordinations and installations, laying of corner-stones, dedications—
every minister can draw up his own formulas, or use those which are
published by others, adhering, of course, to the general principles of
worship, and to the special directions and suggestions concerning each
service in the Form of Government and the Directory. Recognizing
this liberty, the General Assembly has repeatedly refused even to
recommend any formulas. We believe it would be well if a series of
such formulas could be prepared, as was the Hymnal, by a prudent
committee, and sent out with the Hymnal, and clothed with only the
same authority.

The Westminster ostracism of festival days other than the Sabbath,
having been expunged from our Directory, it may be claimed with
some force, that the recognition of Christmas, Good Friday, Easter,
Ascension Day, is not under ban, especially as the Calvinistic churches
of Europe observe them. Certainly the minister who on the Sabbath,
which custom has associated with the great facts of the Gospel his-
tory, specially adapts his services to them, will not be interfered with.t+

But the responsive elément in the prayers or in the reading of the
Psalter or any other portion of the divine Word, is utterly alien to
the genius of the Presbyterian system, as it is exhibited in the history
of the different branches of the Church, in the words of our Constitu-

*It should be understood, however, that the commonly called ‘‘ Apostles’ Creed” is not one of
the standards which Presbyterian ministers:accept at their ordination, If it were so, in the form in
which it is published in our books, Prof. Hopkins and we should both be dealt with by our Presby-
teries for declaring that we do not believe, and for omitting, ‘‘ he descended into hell.” The Pro-
fessor rejects that clause from the Creed, as he publishes it. And we utter a very loud and hearty
Amen to him in that. The clause is not true in any Scriptural meaning of e// or hades, and no
Presbyterian congregation should be asked to say, ‘‘I believe” it.

+ Prayer-meetings and Sabbath-schools have sprung up since the Directory was adopted. The
services in them cannot but be of a freer cast than those of the more formal congregation, which the
Directory had in view. Especially in the schools the class instruction must be more of the kinder-
garten. But it seems to us that the services of worship with which a Presbyterian school is opened
and closed under the direction of the superintendent, should be as closely as possible like those of
the Church. Responsive readings therein are to be regretted. The plea that they must be resorted
to in order to hold the attention of the children will not do for a service that need not extend beyond
ten minutes. Of course such an exercise as the learning in concert of the Ten Commandments or
the Beatitudes, or the reciting of the Catechism is not open to this exception. If it is the intention
to make the Church also liturgical, or to train the children up for some liturgical church, the ‘* Or-
der of Sunday-school Service’ which is found in Professor Hopkins’ Liturgy may profitably be used.

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 757

tion, and in the decisions of our General Assembly. Observe the con-
trast between ch. ili. and ch. iv. of the “ Form of Government”: “It
is the duty of Christians to praise God by singing psalms or hymns
publicly in the church as also privatelyin the family. .... The whole
congregation should be furnished with books, and ought to join in this
part of worship.” That is ¢#e part of the service in which it is the
prerogative of the people vocally to join. Whether they shall be led
by a precentor or a choir of precentors, and, by either, with or without
an organ, is immaterial. It may not be a violation of our rules fora
choir to introduce the service with voluntaries, or to intersperse them
in it,in addition to the regular services ;* but predominantly the con-
gregation should be permitted and encouraged to sing. But “the
reading of the Holy Scriptures in the congregation is a part of the
public worship of God, and ought to be performed by the ministers
and teachers.” And while psalm and hymn books have always been
provided and circulated, no forms of prayer have been, nor is there any
intimation that the people are vocally to join in, or respond to, any
part of them; and that form of prayer which all should be taught and
know, and could recite, has been carefully excluded from our Direc-
tory. Hence the General Assembly of 1869 (O. S.),

‘“* Resolved, That the practice of responsive reading of the Scriptures in the public worship of the
sanctuary is unwise in itself, and especially dangerous in this day, when it becomes the Church to
withstand the tendency, so strongly manifested in marty places, to a liturgical and ritualistic service.”

Stronger still the reunited Assembly. of 1874 declared:

‘‘ That the practice of responsive service in the public worship of the sanctuary is without war-
rant in the New Testament, and is unwise and impolitic in view of its inevitable tendency to destroy ~
uniformity in our mode of worship,”” And ‘‘the sessions of the churches are urged to preserve, in
act and spirit, the simplicity indicated in the ‘ Directory for Worship.’ ”

The Assembly of 1882 did not contravene this. In answer to an

overture

‘To prepare and publish a ‘ Book of Forms’ for social and public worship, and for special occa-
sions which shall be the authorized service book, to be used whenever a prescribed formula may be
desired,”

it wisely said:

“Tn view of the action of previous General Assemblies on this subject, and the liberty which be-
longs to each minister to avail himself of the Calvinistic or other ancient devotional forms of the
Reformed churches, so far as may seem to him for edification, it is inexpedient for this General As-
sembly to make any special order in the premises.”

The responsive feature is not embraced in those ancient devotional
forms of the Reformed churches.

*It is a mistake to suppose that the grand hymns of the Christian ages are under
ban in our denomination. It has been asserted that there are some of our churches where ‘‘ Hold
the Fort”? could be sung, but where the Ze Deum and Gloria in Excelsis would not be allowed.
Where ? has been asked. The only answer has been the echo—Where ? The 78 Deum and the
Gloria in Excelsis are in the Hymnal which has been sanctioned by our General Assembly, and
issued by its Board of Publication, ;

758 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.
:

The recognition in any form of the Lenten season, either in its
strictest or loosest mode of observance, is also contra-Presbyterian.
“ To observe days of fasting and thanksgiving, as the extraordinary
dispensations of divine providence may direct, we judge both Script-
ural and rational,” says our “ Directory for Worship ’’; but the annual
forty days’ Lenten season is not mentioned in it, as it has no author-
ity in the Word of God nor precedent in the books of worship of any
of the historical Presbyterian churches, as far as we know them.

A PLEA FOR A LITURGY.

Professor S. M. Hopkins has madea plea for a material modification
of our law and custom: such a modification “as shall give the people
some (!) share in the devotional services of the sanctuary”; and what
that “some share” is, appears from constant repetition to be the re-
sponsive reading of the Scriptures, the recitation of the prayers and
of a creed, to facilitate which the preparation of full forms of prayers
is urged for general and uniform use in our churches, the use to be
optional, and room also to be allowed for extemporary prayers in con-
nection with the prepared forms.

This plea is a novelty in American Presbyterian Church History.
In its full sweep it scarcely antedates the year 1882.

It is claimed, indeed, that when our “ Directory for Worship” was
formed, there was a party in the Church, of which Dr. Ashbel Green
was a pronounced representative, who favored this innovation. But
the explanation which Dr. Green left on record sweeps the claim away:

“The draught of 1787, which formed the basis of the discussion that, issued in adopting the Con-
stitution, contained in the ‘ Directory for the Worship of God,’ a xuméer of forms of prayer. A
question was raised whether these forms should stand as they appeared in the draught, or whether
the several parts should be stated z” thesz, or in a doctrinal form. The latter method was carried
by a majority ; but J voted for a retention of the forms, assigning for reason that an exemplijica-
tion of any matter of instruction 1 considered as the best method of making it intelligible and
plain.”

We think with Dr. Green; and we could have voted with him for
such suggestive and guiding models of prayer, without prescribing or
even recommending them as formulas to be read or recited in the pub-
lic worship. And this meaning of the plan which Dr. Green favored is
manifest from the fact, that after the first prayer for the Lord’s day

morning, it declared:

“This and all other prayers in the Directory, may and ought to be varied, according to the
variety of circumstances which may occur, agreeably to the views and judgment of every minister.
Thus the spirit of prayer will be encouraged, and the undue restraint of this spirit, which is the too
frequent effect of forms of prayer, will be guarded against.”

And the prayer before sermon, which is very long, “ was evidently
designed,” says Dr. Baird, “rather to supply matter of selection than

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP, 759

for use as a whole.’”’ And surely that does not involve the responsive
element which is made the obtrusive one in the novel plea which we
are combating.

“Eutaxia,” which was published in 1855 by Dr. Charles Baird, is
also cited on the side of the plea. But, as we understand Dr. Baird,
he opposed the responses and showed conclusively that the Calvinis-
tic Reformers and the Calvinistic Churches rejected them. He says
that

“the Scriptural idea of public worship is clearly that of a service Jrescribed in its various parts and
features, but /7ee in the filling up of those general outlines” (p. 2). ‘‘It has been the wisdom of
the Presbyterian Church to follow strictly the Scriptural and apostolic method : imposing as duties
only such acts and ordinances of worship as are of Divine appointment ; and leaving in a great
measure to individual choice the selection of words employed in their performance ” (pp. 2, 3).
‘* While thus providing for the office of prayer [that is by the Minister] gur Reformer (Calvin) in-
troduced also the regular practice of congregational singing. ... . In a survey of the Calvinistic
worship, this interesting feature of Psalmody must not be omitted. It belongs peculiarly and char-
acteristically to that worship. The Reformers of Switzerland and Scotland did not, as we often
hear, deprive their ritual of a responsive and popular character, They did no more than separate
the functions of minister and people into the distinct duties of reading and singing. The Psalms
are the responsive part of Calvin's Liturgy. These choral services embodied the acts of adora-
tion, praise, and thanksgiving, which are scarcely noticed in the forms of prayer; while in ¢he /at-
ter, the offices of intercession, supplication, and teaching were assigned to the minister alone. The
prayers, by constant use made familiar to the people, were fo be followed stlently or in subdued
tones ; the psalms and hymns constituted their audible utterance in the sacred ministrations” (pp,
26, 27).

And all that Dr. Baird advocated was the resumed use of the Lord’s
Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Apostles’ Creed; the reg-
ular and continuous reading of the Scriptures at every service; a
more strict adherence to the prescribed order of our Directory; an
audible Amen at the close of each prayer; and the recital of the Lord’s
Prayer and the Creed, after the minister.

The plea has been sheltered, too, under the name of Dr. Charles
Hodge. The article which he wrote on the subject of “ Presbyterian
Liturgies’ can be found in the Princeton Review, vol. xxvii., pp. 445-467.
In it he said: “The Scriptures, which in all things outward conform
to what is the inward product of the Spirit, do not prescribe any
form of words to be used in the worship of God. There are no indi-
cations of the use of liturgies in the New Testament. There is no
evidence of the prevalence of written forms during the first three
centuries.” ‘The disposition to use written forms, as a general rule,
decreases in proportion to the increase of intelligence and spirituality
of the Church.” But he thought it would be a good thing if “a
book were compiled from the liturgies of Calvin, Knox, and of the
Reformed churches, containing appropriate prayers, for ordinary
public worship, for special occasions, as for times of sickness, declen-
sion, or public calamity, with forms for the administration of baptism,

of the Lord’s Supper, for funerals, and for marriage”; “a collection

?

760 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of prayers for public worship of established character, sanctioned by
long approbation of the people of God and by the authority of the
Church; something sanctioned and not prescribed, as in the case of our
Book of Psalms and Hymns.” But he declared: “ We do not desire
to see anything introduced which would render our public services
less simple than they are at present, but merely that means should be
taken that what zs done should be done well.” “ There is a very great
difference between the uniform and universal use of a form of prayer,
and the preparation of forms to serve as models, and to be employed
when no minister is present.” And he has not a word in favor of
responsive worship, nor do the works he commends contain that ele-
ment. We can receive all that Dr. Hodge says in that article; but
it is an abuse of his name to quote it in favor of the plea which we
are resisting. ,

In 1864, Dr. Charles W. Shields published a revised “ Book of
Common Prayer.” His contention was that the Anglican book, as
amended by the Presbyterian divines in the Savoy Conference of 1681,
and conformed to our “ Directory for Worship,” was the best that
could be devised. His Prayer Book, therefore, is the Episcopal book
eliminated of its unscriptural errors in doctrine and polity. But he
retains the festivals, and in some degree the responsive feature of
that book, though in his Supplementary Treatise, with great incon-
sistency as we think, he says some of the sharpest things that can be
said against responses. His position is, “that as combined with a
Directory, allowing to the minister his liberty to remedy at discretion
the tedious length and multiplicity of its services, and neither requir-
ing nor precluding responses on the part of the congregation, nor
indeed demanding any other behaviour than is already customary in
our Assemblies, it would, we honestly believe, be the best liturgy that
could be desired, or now devised. We will even go further, and de-
clare our conviction, that, as it is the only liturgy fit to be used, so it
is the only one that can be used with anything like Presbyterian con-
sistency.”

President R. D. Hitchcock, in the presence of the Philadelphia
Council, declared that ‘our present Presbyterian baldness of public
service is hurting us”; predicted that the coming generation will
return to the old prayers and songs “in a form of public service
which shall suit the mature and cultured none the less for suiting
also the immature and uncultured”; and anticipated a revival of
the Old Church year with Passover, Pentecost, Epiphany, Christmas,
Good Friday, Easter, and Whitsuntide. ‘These atleast can do us

no harm.” ᾿
.

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 761

Prof. S. M. Hopkins, having prepared the way by his elaborate
article in this REVIEW, has issued a “General Liturgy and Book of
Common Prayer.” It is responsive in the extreme ; and it recognizes
not only the feasts already referred to, but has a bewildering array
of Anniversary Collects in addition. And it is variously esthetic in
its Roman type and ztalics, red letters and black, and in its rubrical
directions for ministers and people. From the Professor’s stand-
point, it shows good and cultured taste. In doctrine it issound. In
governmental principles it is thoroughly Presbyterian.

ARGUMENTS FOR A LITURGY.

1. We are gravely warned that because of her liturgy the Episco-
pal Church in the United States is growing out of all proportion,
and especially at the expense of the Presbyterian Church. Professor
Hopkins has made such assertions as these:

“Α very large number of the children of Presbyterian families, and many of the cultivated and
tasteful of our members, have sought a more cheerful, more varied, more sympathetic service in an-
other communion. There is not a Presbyterian pastor in the land but can testify to such losses.
The Episcopal Church has been largely recruited from our ranks, There are many thousands in
that Church at present who have been drawn away merely by the superior attractions of its cultus.
. . . « On the other hand, the cases are very few, and owing only to special causes, in which any
persons, Episcopally educated, have.come over to the communion of the Presbyterian Church.
The tracks are all one way..... It is very largely due to this fact that of all the sects in the
United States, the Episcopal is growing the most rapidly at the present time. It is forming new
congregations and organizing new dioceses with extraordinary rapidity. On the other hand, the
Presbyterian Church is almost stationary. It requires a close calculation to show that she is even
holding her own.”

The scholarly and cultured Professor has been too credulous, and
has been misled by the unsifted claims of others.*

The Episcopal Church in the United States, according to the official
report immediately preceding the utterance of those assertions, had,
all told, 338,333 communicants—not very “many thousands,” among
the 10,065,963 communicants of the Protestant churches of the land
and the 50,000,000 of its inhabitants.

If “many thousands”’ have gone from the Presbyterian to the

* In what follows, we are doing an unpleasant work. We dislike to draw out such comparisons.
But the assertions that we meet are perpetually cropping up in Episcopal quarters. When one of
our own leaders gives them his endorsement and circulates them in a way that is calculated to dis-
hearten our people and make them dissatisfied with our time-honored worship, we may with aN
propriety plainly state the real facts of the case, without being open to the charge of attacking a
sister Church. We do not, we would not, assail a Church which numbers among its members
many of our own beloved friends, nor call in question its piety and activity, nor grieve over the
measure of success with which it has been blessed. Nor do we question the adaptability of the
Book of Common Prayer to express the most fervent piety of those who have been leavened by it ;
though as against the laudations of the Book which we occasionally hear in our camp, we could
quote from current discussions by Episcopal ministers, on the movement, which is in the hands of
a committee to report to the coming General Convention, for the enlargement and enrichment of
that Book, sharper adverse criticisms than we would feel at liberty ourselves to originate.

49

762 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Episcopal Church, how does it happen that the Episcopal Church is
so small, and that the Presbyterian Church keeps outstripping it in
the progress of the decades? The organ of the Episcopal Church in
New York recently had this editorial statement: “In his ‘ History of
the Episcopal Church in America,’ Bishop Wilberforce says, that ac-
cording to the best calculation there were on the Continent of Amer-
ica, in 1761, 1,444,000 white people. Of these, 293,000 were church
people, 316,000 Presbyterians and Independents, while 460,000 were
made up of Baptists, Quakers, εἴς. We do not know what propor-
tion of those 361,000 are allotted to the Presbyterians; but 1807 was
the first year in which official reports were had of our Presbyterian
communicants, and the number then was 17,871, which, at the highest
estimate, would not give a population of 100,000 in that year. But
in 1761 the Episcopal population had been, according to this Epis-
copal claim, one-fifth of the whole. Its communicants (338,333) in
1880, however, only numbered one-twenty-ninth of the Protestant
communicants (10,065,933) in the land; and on the high-estimate of
the population, in the families of those communicants and under the
influence of the Church, obtained by multiplying the communicants
by five, they did not constitute one-thirtieth of the people of the
country. Once one-fifth ; now less than one-thirtieth. Whereas, the
Presbyterian non-liturgical churches, in the North and South, the ter-
ritory of which is covered by the Episccpal reports, have 927,640
communicants, and almost one-tenth of the population.

The impression has been made that, however it may have been in
the earlier decades of the century,“‘now” at least the Episcopal
Church is outstripping all others. To the figures with that. In the
decade 1870-1880, the communicants in the Episcopal Church grew
from 207,762 to 338,333; the other Protestant denominations from
6,465,034 to 9,727,630.

To compare particularly the Presbyterian and Episcopal figures—
the net growth of the Episcopal ministers in that decade was 629
(from 2,803 to 3,432), and of the communicants 130,571 (from 207,-
76z to 338,333); and of the Presbyterian non-liturgical ministers
1,645 (from 6,893 to 8,538), and communicants 230,183 (from 697,457
to 927,640). Our Presbyterian Church North alone had a larger net
growth (132,110) than the Episcopal Church in the whole country.

The Presbyterian Church North from 1870 to 1880 reported 307,-
040 new members as added to its communion rolls on profession of
their faith, and in 1880—81-82, there were 81,571 more. This was
by no means what should be desired: but in the light of the figures,
is it right to say that the “ Presbyterian Church is almost stationary,”

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 763

and that it “ requires a close calculation to show that she is even
holding her own”?

It is intimated, though, that during the last decade the proportion-
ate growth of the Episcopal Church was the larger. (The advance in
population being 31 per cent., the Presbyterian the same, and the
Episcopal 52.) That might be in the smaller body, without signify-
ing a great deal, and for various spiritual reasons which could be as-
signed might happen during an exceptional decade without indicat-
ing a permanent trend. Moreover, if the Episcopal growth was 52
per cent., the very non-liturgical Baptist growth was 63 per cent.
Further, the latest figures show not only a greater absolute, but
proportionate Presbyterian advance. In 1882 the Episcopal minis-
ters were 3,466, an advance of 34 on the number in 1880, which was
3,432, and communicants 340,841, an advance of 2,508 in 1880, when
it was 338,333; in 1882 the Presbyterian ministers were 6,224, an ad-
vance of 120 on 1880 (6,104), and communicants 715,934, an advance
of 17,235 on 1880 (698,699).

We have no way of ascertaining to what extent communicants come
to our churchés from other denominations. The statistical column of
additions on certificate is largely made up of members moving from
one of our congregations to another. But over against the challenge
that “there is not a Presbyterian pastor in the land but can testify”
to an exodus from his fold to the Episcopalian, we place these plain
statements: No Presbyterian pastor has been found willing, over his
own signature, to confess that his congregation has suffered in that
way. Not a few have, through our newspapers, taken the opportunity
positively to declare that such is not their experience. Every pastor
that we have asked has said that while, through the social changes
that are perpetually going on,a few may have left them for the Episco-
pal denomination, a larger number have come to them from it. Of
course Prof. Hopkins has been in contact with some who gave the
ground for his declaration, but his surroundings must be peculiar, and
his generalization was as rash and unscientific as are many of the
hypotheses of the scientists.*

* As to the “‘ extraordinary” growth of dioceses and congregations : Some of those dioceses are
smaller and weaker in the number of communicants and in the work accomplished than are some of
our congregations. The Presbyterian bishops, Talmage and Cuyler of Brooklyn, and Hall and
Crosby of New York, for instance, have stronger dioceses than some of their prelatical brethren have.
The (Episcopal) bishop of Arkansas has under him 13 presbyters, 1,138 communicants, of whom 88
were added last year by confirmation, and who contributed $7,504, and 649 Sunday-school scholars.
The (Presbyterian) bishop (John Hall), of Fifth Avenue, New York, has (in 1882) associated with
him 15 presbyters, 4 deacons, 1,807 communicants, of whom 97 were confirmed on profession last
year, and who raised, in the year, $86,917. As to the rapidity with which new congregations are

᾿ being formed : In 1870 there were 2,752 Episcopal parishes in the United States ; in 1880, 3,000, an
increase in the decade, of 248; in 1882, 3,035, a further increase in the two years, of 35; in 1870

764 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The argument from the statistics, if it is worth anything, may be
extended. Prof. Hopkins (Zzturgy in Schaff-Herzog) says: “In the
United States, except in the Episcopalian, Lutheran, German and
Dutch Reformed, and Moravian churches, liturgical prayer has been
almost wholly disused.” Those liturgical churches, with all the ad-
ditions that come to some of them, ex necessitate ret, by force of foreign
nationality and language, have only 8,050 ministers and 1,544,245 com-
municants, while the non-liturgical Protestant churches have 61,820
ministers and 8,521,718 communicants. Liturgies do not thrive in
our American atmosphere.

2. The intimation crops up, however, that it is from “ the cultivated
and tasteful” that the Episcopal Church is most largely drawing its
recruits. How is the truth of that claim to be tested? How is a cen-
sus of the intelligent in the whole country to be taken? The question
is not restricted to some particular localities with which Prof. Hop-
kins, or this brother or that, may be personally familiar. It must take
in the land asa whole. Has the Episcopal Church a larger number,
absolutely or proportionally, of the cultivated people of the country
than the Presbyterian Church has, and‘is it drawing that class from
the other denominations? Does it meet their needs better than the
Presbyterian Church does, and this because of its Liturgy? If so, it
is a strong argument in favor of the liturgical worship. It will not do,
as a rebuttal to such an argument, to plead that ‘‘not many wise. are
called,” and that the Gospel is for the illiterate and the uncultured.
The Bible and the church are essentially educating, elevating, refin-
ing. Any forms of doctrine, government, or worship which do not,
in an established Christian land like this, satisfy the yearnings
of the classes which are highest in spirituality, in intelligence,
in true culture, deserve to be abandoned. As a fact, then, how
is it? Has the Episcopal Church in a great and growingly greater de-
gree the culture of America within its fold? Do its ministers stand
confessedly above all others in intellectual attainments? Have they
the most splendid reputation as preachers? Are they highest up in
the field of authorship? Do their churches embrace the larger pro-
portion of our educated judges, lawyers, physicians, business men?
Are they doing the most for education? Are there more Episco-
palians than Presbyterians engaged as professors and teachers in train-

ing the rising generation? How can the figures be obtained where-
+

the Presbyterian figures were: (North, 4,526; South, 1,469) 5,995; in 1889 (North, 5,489; South,
1,928) 7,417, an increase in the decade of 1,422; and in 1882 (North, 5,744; South, 2,or0) 7,754, a
further increase in the two years, of 337. If an increase in twelve years of 283 Episcopal parishes
is ‘‘extraordinary,” that of 1,759 Presbyterian must be extva—EXTRA—EXTRAORDINARY.

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 765

with to answer these questions? Does the following paragraph from
The Christian at Work (which strongly advocates the introduction of
liturgies into our churches) suggest an answer?

“The Churchman holds that ‘education at well-equipped church colleges, as Trinity College, is
to be placed far above that of other institutions of similar grade in scholarship.’ This is very funny.
We don’t know how ‘ well equipped’ Trinity College is—for somehow only one of the six Efzsco-
pal out of the 370 colleges in the country send any sufficient returns to Washington, and Trinity is
among the other five—but it is pretty evident that for a ‘ well-equipped’ college Trinity’s showing
is pretty poor. Judging by the last report Trinity has 18,000 volumes in its library, eight profes-
sors in its faculty, and no graduating class. It may be that a score or so of the students graduated,
but if so they are not reported. Columbia is the only distinctively Protestant Episcopal college in
the country that makes a creditable exhibit in educational facilities. But even Columbia is far be-
hind many colleges of lesserendowment. The scholarship of the country does not, to any great ex-
tent, inhere in the Episcopal Church.”

Some special figures may suggest an additional answer. Philadel-
phia, we take it, is a fair specimen in education and culture of estab-
lished and rounded American society. In the beginning of this cent-
ury the Episcopal Church outnumbered the Presbyterian in it. But
the growth of the latter was so much ahead of the former, and kept
so much in advance of it, that in 1871 the Presbyterian communicants
were 19,365, and the Episcopal 16,396. And the latest reports show
no set-back, for last year there were Presbyterian communicants (this
is in the one branch of the reunited Northern Assembly alone) 26,953
communicants, and Episcopal 22,679, a Presbyterian net growth of
7,588, and Episcopalian 5,643. But, it may be intimated sotto voce, is
not the Episcopal growth from the creme de la creme of the cultured ἢ
“ By their fruits ’—

Dr. Shields suggestively said, twenty years ago, in his ‘‘ Liturgia Expurgata” : ‘‘Our Church,
in so carefully furnishing herself with a race of educated preachers and scholars, has acquired a hold
upon the zz¢e//ectual classes, as distinguished from the merely fashionable or the merely vulgar,
which makes her the bulwark of all conservatism throughout the land.”

It cannot be denied that the Episcopal Church embraces mem-
bers of the highest culture and piety, and that through life-long associa-
tion the liturgy has become their spiritual food; nor is it denied that
others of that class are, through society influences which are well
understood, drawn into it from the world and even from the families
of other sects. But it is denied that such successful proselyting
prevails in any extraordinary degree, and that its really efficient
cause, where it does prevail, is the liturgy. We are not uttering
what will be regarded as a slander when we say that the Episcopal
Church has the reputation of requiring less from its membership than
the evangelical churches generally, and that its communicants are
allowed to be “more conformed to the world” than others are. The
mode in which the Lenten season has grown to be observed is a
striking proof of this. It is very comfortable from the worldliness

766 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of the week, to float through the Sabbath on a service which is
written from beginning to end, which requires no thought, and is
therefore very restful, and which soon comes to trip from the tongue
without any mental exertion. Of course, fashionable “society” in
the cities, and aped in more limited sections in larger towns and
even smaller villages, may be drawn by that attraction; and moths
from Presbyterian families in “society”? may dash in; but the Pres-
byterian Church would be faithless to its high trust if, for the pur-
pose of holding such classes, it should encourage any of its minis-
ters and congregations to depart from its scriptural and _ historic
mode of worship. David wou/d not put on Saul’s huge armor. The
Presbyterian Church cannot get its large life into a liturgy.

3. Prof. Hopkins has recounted some fearfully distressing exhibi-
tions of the performance of our Presbyterian worship. But he
concedes, p. 41: “That the service of prayer in Presbyterian pul-
pits is often ‘disgraced’ by any such [mean, irregular, and extrava-
gant] effusions, zs by no means charged. The devotional habit, the
culture, and the conscientious care of our pastors make their public
prayers commonly earnest, tender, and spiritual, often patterns of
devotional eloquence.” The disgraceful exhibitions are the excep-
tions; and we should not, on their account, resort to any unscriptu-
ral expedient.

4. It is asserted that the preparation and adoption of a liturgy
would be but a return to the mode of worship that prevailed in the
Presbyterian churches for a century after the Reformation. We
have shown that the Calvinistic books of that age were not liturgies
of the kind that are now advocated. The appeal to them, therefore,
falis to the ground. In addition, it may be remarked that the shot
is a boomerang even against the subordinate question of set forms
of prayer. The Westminster Assembly had before it all those litur-
gies and the effects which the use of them had produced. And it
determined to abandon them and to prepare the Directory, which
has ever since been the guide-book of all English-speaking Presby-
terians. Why? It tells us in the Preface:

‘‘ Add hereunto (which was not foreseen but since hath come to pass) that the Liturgy hath been
a great means, as on the one hand ¢o make and increase an idle and unedifying ministry, which
contented itself with set forms made to their hands by others, without putting forth themselves to
exercise the gift of prayer, with which our Lord Jesus Christ pleaseth to furnish all his servants
whom he calls to that office... .. Upon these and many the like weighty considerations, ....
not from any love of novelty, or intention to disparage our first reformers (of whom we are per-
suaded that were they now alive, they would join with us in this work, and whom we acknowl-
edge as excellent instruments, raised by God, to begin the purging and building of his house, and
desire they may be had of us and posterity in everlasting remembrance, with thankfulness and
honor), but that we may in some measure answer the gracious providence of God, which at this
time calleth upon us for /urther reformation, and may satisfy our own consciences, and answer

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 767

the expectation of the reformed churches, and the desires of many of the godly among ourselves,
and withal give some public testimony for our endeavors for uniformity in divine worship, which
we have promised in our Solemn League and Covenant; we have, after earnest and frequent call-
ing upon the name of God, and after much consultation, not with flesh and blood, but with his
holy word, resolved to lay aside the former Liturgy, with the many rites and ceremonies formerly
used in the worship of God, and have agreed upon this following Directory for all parts of public
worship at ordinary and extraordinary times.”

The Scotch Presbyterians, by accepting the new book, admitted
that the same evils had attended also the liturgy of Knox, attenuated
as that was. We submit that to ask the Presbyterian churches to
put on a cast-off garment, which was worn in childish and reforming
days and then abandoned because it was demoralizing, is as prepos-
terous as it would have been for the man Paul to return to the mode
of speaking of the boy Saul, or for the apostle to return to the ways

of the Pharisee.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST A LITURGY.

1. The fact that not the slightest Scriptural authority can be pleaded
for a liturgy should be conclusive in the mind of every true Presby-
terian. Some, indeed, talk about a liturgical germ being found in the
Lord’s Prayer, and the baptismal form, and the communion ceremonial.
But the development idea which will defend any of the historic litur-
gies on that ground, will justify the greatest Papal abuses in doctrine,
government, and worship, as legitimately evolved from New Testa-
ment germs.

Dr. Shields admits (“ Liturgia Expurgata,” p. 27), that “the genius
of presbytery the world over, cannot endure anything more
stringent than a Directory or system of general rules and sugges-
tions’’; and, p. 58: “the wise, generous spirit of our system will not
allow the whole Church to be hampered with anything more than a
Directory.” ‘It cannot be doubted,” declares Dr. Charles Hodge
(Princeton Review, xxvii. 456), “that the theory of Presbyterianism
is opposed to the use of liturgies." Our Church tolerates many things
for which no Scriptural authority can be pleaded, and even things
which may be against the spirit of the Scriptures; but it should not
authorize or encourage them. It should authoritatively recognize and
provide in the worship of its congregations nothing for which express
Scriptural warrant cannot be produced. Its rule is, not to sanction
what cannot positively be disproved from the Bible, but to sanction
only what can be proved from it. Not the shred of proof for a liturgy
can be found therein.

2. The plea for a liturgy is a confession of apostasy and declension
which is humiliating. The old-fashioned position has not been dis-
proved, that

768 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

‘Liturgies had their origin in an ignorant and degenerate age..... Out of this age, when noth-
ing was introduced ‘ but corruptions, and the issues thereof ; no change made in the current usages
but for the worse ; no motions from its primitive posture, but downwards into degeneracy’; out of
this age proceeded the first liturgy, the offspring of ignorance and superstition. Theclergy had be-
come notoriously ignorant and corrupt, unable suitably to guide the devotions of public worship; and
to assist them in their ignorance and incompetence, liturgies were provided for their use.”

Said Dr. Charles Hodge:

“In the ideal state of the Church, in that state which our theory contemplates, where every
minister is really called of God, and is the organ of the Holy Ghost in the exercise of his functions,
liturgies would be fetters, which nothing but compulsion would induce any man to wear. ....
Without questioning or doubting the sincere and eminent piety of hundreds and thousands of the min-
isters and members of churches which continue in the trammels of prescribed liturgical forms, we
still believe that one of the causes why the Church of Scotland never submitted to the authoritative
imposition of an unvarying form of public worship, and gradually dispensed with the use of a liturgy
altogether, is to be found in its superior intelligence and piety.”*

President Hitchcock, in his Philadelphia Council paper, portrayed
three types of the common Christian life: the lowest, the ceremonial ;
the next, the moral; the highest, the emotional; and he advocated
our return to liturgies as under the lowest type! Have our ministers
and people, then, deteriorated? Are we not to keep striving toward
the ideal, but return to the beggarly elements from which we thought
we had advanced? There is a significancy in the words uttered by
Dr. Archibald Scott (St. Giles Lectures, First Series), in reference to

the liturgical movement in the Church of Scotland:

‘In prayer and long tribulation it has learned the value of free prayer. Thedanger of having no
liturgy may be to sever it from the wisdom and piety of the past; but the having one may. involve the
greater peril of severance from that living fount of inspiration which alone can make it the Church
of the Present and the Future.”

3. We are not prepared to accept unqualifiedly the asserted Refor-
mation divorce of worship and fine art, or to admit that there is any
warfare between esthetics and religion. The beauty of holiness may
use the beauty of sense and the beauty of intellect. Christians should
make the buildings in which they worship God as beautiful, accord-
ing to the highest style of art, as their means will enable them to do.
The service of song should be cultivated and made as beautiful as the
highest musical training of the people can make it. Sermons and
prayers cannot be intellectually and spiritually too beautiful. Cult-
ure should be laid under tribute for them all. But the objection to
this liturgical plea is that it is the prompting of a sentimental culture,
and that it subordinates the beauty of holiness to the lower phases of
the beautiful. Art should be servant, not master. The common
prayers of the congregation should be grammatical, in good taste, ex-
pressed with simple rhetoric, comprehensive; but it is better to bear
with a few or even many and frequent violations of all the canons of

* Princeton Review, xxvii. 456-7.

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 769

culture, in which, however, the liberty and spontaneity of heart-com-
munion with God express themselves, than to encourage a depend-
ence upon forms which cannot but develop formalism. In revival
times prescribed forms of prayer are snapped like the withes of Delilah.
What is called a revival is the normal condition of the church; noth-
ing that would cramp its deep religious feeling should be encouraged
at any time.

4. The plea is for what is impossible. All in our Church who make
it are careful to say that they favor not an imposed or iron-clad liturgy,
but an optional one, by which we understand one that can be used in
one church and not in another, at one time and not another, as the
minister may or may not feel in the spirit of extemporaneous prayer,
and that can be added to or departed from when used ina service.
Is not the idea visionary? Are liturgies so used to any extent any-
where? Is not the custom predominantly one way or the other?.
President Hitchcock said: “In all liturgical churches, or nearly all,
the liturgy is no longer servant, but master.” Can it be otherwise?
The lame man, when cured, will not keep his crutches for use at times;
if he should resort to them, he would weaken himself. The legitimate
tendency of the use of liturgies by ministers is to intellectual and
spiritual laziness—a tendency which, of course, can be, and is, over-
come by the strong in exceptional cases. The mass of the ministers
in liturgical churches are less powerful and active intellectually and
spiritually than the ministers of the non-liturgical churches. Hence,
too, the preaching is generally weaker among the former. Excep-
tions, of course, there are. The authoritative provision of a liturgy,
and the permission to use it, leads invariably to the habitual use, and
that both proves and increases ministerial weakness.

5. The audible responsive feature is both childish and unphilosoph-
ical. Dr. Shields thought, in his “ Liturgia Expurgata,” p. 39, that

‘«whether audible responses ought also to be added, as a further help to congregational devotion,
is a question of usage and taste, rather than of principle.” ‘‘ The responsive reading of the Psalter,
though only confusing, and anything but solemn to one not taking part in it, has, however, the
recommendation that it engages the attention, and helps the devotion of every worshipper ; since
all may read, though all cannot sing.”

And Prof. Hopkins, referring to young Presbyterians, says:

‘Give to multitudes of such persons the choice between a service where they are to sit fixed and
mute during the offering by the minister of a prayer of fifteen minutes’ duration, and one in which
they are to vary their posture by frequent rising from their seats, and are to have their vocal part of
the service by responses and antiphonal reading, and they will not hesitate.”

Hence responsive reading of the Bible is said to prevail largely in
our Sabbath-schools—as a means of holding the attention of the chil-
dren. And though young people can on week nights sit for an hour

770 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

or two listening to a lecture, or a concert, or-gazing upon an exhibi-
tion, their attention cannot be held for an hour on the Sabbath in
divine worship, unless they are allowed to move about and ejaculate !
Therefore make the church a kindergarten! And yet, too, it is the
cultured that our service does not suit!

But responsive reading is worse than childish. Dr. Shields has
made some concessions here which, as coming from such a source, are
worth quoting. His fine taste rebels against some things that his
liturgical proclivities run him into:

‘* Perhaps this mental accompaniment and silent Amen are to be preferred, on the whole, either
to the noisy outcries or the confused murmuring of our neighbors.” “ΑΞ to responses, except
where personal feeling is strong enough to impel them above the low tone of ordinary devotion, we
may urge the objection brought against them two hundred years ago, that ‘they cause a confused
murmur in the congregation, whereby what is read is less intelligible and therefore unedifying ’; and
the difficulty always encountered of making them general and accordant, renders them on grounds of
taste as well as of devotion, unsuitable toa mixed assembly. They belong in fact to the choral or mo-
nastic service from which they were borrowed, and in which they were artistically rendered by trained
worshippers, and in a Protestant Church must cease to be expressive precisely in proportion as they
become impressive” (p. 84). ‘‘ The responsive reading of the verses [of the Psalms] by Minister
and people may have been a rude substitute for the antiphonal chanting of priest and choir; but it
is open to the objection already urged against all unmusical responses ; it is in violation of the sense
or rhythm which is often parallestic in the members of each verse, rather than by alternate verses ;
and except for habituated nerves is even less solemn than the doggerel of Rouse, or Watts, un-
equally yoked with worldly airs. The experience of the whole Church would seem to be fast set-
tling toward the conviction that the Psalms cannot with propriety be either versified or read, but

should be simply chanted in prose according to their o1iginal structure in the temple service, and
the usage of Catholic antiquity ” (p. 92).

Among the positions taken by the Presbyterians at the Savoy Con-
ference of 1661 was this:

τ That the repetitions and responsals of the clerk and people, and the alternate reading of the
Psalms and Hymns, which cause a confused murmur in the congregation, whereby what is read is
less intelligible and therefore unedifying, may be omitted: the Minister being appointed for the
people in all public services appertaining unto God and the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and
New Testament, intimating the people’s part in public prayer to be only with silence and reverence
to attend thereunto, and to declare their assent in the close by saying Amen.”

(So that those English Presbyterian Divines of the Restoration
who, influenced by their political surroundings, were willing to com-
promise away from the Directory, objected to the very thing which
some among us now advocate.) ;

There is no warrant by direction or even by suggestion in Script-
ure for the practice of responsive reading. It is of very recent origin
and of very partial use. It dates back only to the beginning of the
Anglican Church, and is hardly known outside of its communion. In
the English Church it took the place of singing the Psalter, because
in many of the congregations singers could not be found. It wasa
simple make-shift for a better way; and it has in England now largely
ceased, and the singing been restored. The reason for retaining in
the Anglican Book of Common Prayer the old version of the Psalms,

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. ἽΤΙ

when the King James’ version of the Bible was appointed to be
read in the churches, was that ‘‘ the choirs were accustomed to it, and
its language was considered more smooth and fit for song than the
new.”

The literal fact is, that the practice in all known forms of religious
worship in the Church, Jewish and Christian, with the few recent
sporadic cases of exception in some local communities, has been
against the responses in reading.

They are opposed to all reason. Audible reading is an irrational
act, unless it be to communicate thought; but responsive reading as
practiced in worship is certainly not for the purpose of communicat-
ing thought.

They are equally insignificant and out of place. Response in song
has a rational place, as expressive of feeling; in reading, which ex-
presses thought, not emotion, it can have no conceivable significance.
It is directly hostile to the only rational design in proper reading.

They are not proper worship. They are not of the nature of com-
munion between God and his people. They are “a strange fire” on
the altar.

They are a hindrance to true-social worship. By no possibility can
one find in them anything that leads to a direct personal communion
with God—an act in which he addresses God, and God in turn ad-
dresses him.

They are offensive to a true taste. A Babel of discordant sounds,
a grating jargon of voices, harmonized in neither time nor tune, is
against decorum.*

No other book than the Bible could stand such murderous treat-
ment, and the divine volume should not be subjected to it.

6. As to the festival days, it has been admitted that the absence
from our Directory of the declaration against them, leaves a large
liberty to our ministers and congregations. And assuredly those who
may on the appropriate Sabbaths adapt their services to what they
believe to be the chronological arrangement of the great facts of the
Gospel history, do what will meet with censure from no quarter.

* Prof. Day, in the Wew Englander article already referred to, enforces these objections in a
telling way.

Dr. Richard 5. Storrs has published a ‘‘ Psalter,” with selections also from the other poetical
Scriptures, for responsive readings. We have been carefully testing it. The more we examine it,
the more convinced we are that the responsive reading of many of such selections will cause the
generality of people, and especially children, unconsciously to imbibe erroneous meanings from the
verses read. But Dr. Storrs’ arrangement shows the refined taste for which he is noted; and our
ministers could follow it with advantage in their reading of the Psalms from the pulpit. We be-
lieve in having such a reading at every service after the Invocation. Better still would it be if
the whole congregation could chant the Psalms. We have no fear of the too frequent use of
any inspired words or forms,

772 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

But there are two overmastering reasons why our Church should
never, by, constitutional action, sanction and recommend any other
than the Sabbath festival, and why our ministers and people should
not permit themselves to be swept into the current of the festival
observances. The first is that they are entirely destitute of New
Testament authority—a fact which is the more striking in contrast
with the express Old Testament authority for the Jewish festivals.
It cannot but have been designed that none of the festivals are rec-
ommended either by precept or by apostolic example, and especially
that the date and season of the Saviour’s birth are not even remotely
indicated. And the second fact is, that as the observance of the other
festival days goes up, the observance of the Sabbath goes down.
That lesson of history cannot be blinked; nor is it safe to set it at
naught. We once heard one of the most excellent of senators, who
was'a member of a liturgical church, move that the Senate adjourn
over Good Friday. The motion was resisted on the ground of the
pressure of business. He grew very indignant, and declared that if
the body should sit he would not be in his place; that he could not
be coerced into his official work there on the anniversary of his
Saviour’s death. But when the Senate sat on a Sabbath he was not
absent. Hewasatypical man. All liturgists do not so despiritualize
the Sabbath-day. Gracious souls are found everywhere rising above
the level of the errors which mar their belief. But the tendency of
the church festival system is to degrade the Sabbath from the pecul-
iar position in which God placed it. It is claimed widely and loudly
by liturgists that the recognition of the festival days is extending
from year to year among the adherents of all the denominations.
Undoubtedly the Sabbath-day is not generally observed as it once
was. Is there any connection between the growth of the observance
of the other days and the decadence of the spiritual strictness of the
Lord’s Day?

SUGGESTIONS.

No doubt there is room for improvement in the conduct of the
worship of our congregations. And whatever touches the weak spots
of our practice is to be welcomed. The reformation needed, how-
ever, is not in our mode of worship, but in the practice of ministers
and congregations under it.

Let more attention be paid in our Theological Seminaries to the
preparation of ministerial candidates for this part of their work. Our
impression is, that comparatively little attention is given to it. We

PRESBYTERIAN WORSHIP. 773

would not lower preaching, but elevate the other elements of worship.
Train the candidates as carefully for the latter as for the former.

Let our ministers keep up the development of their praying as
well as of their preaching gifts. Let them continue to read and
study the models of prayers as well as the models of ser-
mons. Let them make themselves thoroughly acquainted with
the comprehensive suggestions of our Directory; with the
written prayers that have survived the ages, as well as with
those that still appear from the pens of godly men; and especially
with the prayer language of the inspired volume. Let them breathe
in, and saturate their minds with, those devotional utterances. So
let them be possessed of, and always have at command as a part of
their mental and spiritual being, the choicest devotional expressions
of the Church, and of the Church in all its branches.

Let them from week to week make as special preparation for the
conduct of the whole service of worship as they do for the sermon.
How many of us have been doing this? Is there not a serious fault
herein? But for évery service let ministers blend, with the grand
stock of general preparation, a special preparation by a knowledge of
the particular condition of the congregation and by a careful arrange-
ment of thethoughts and language in which the devotions of the
people shall be led.

Let them avail themselves of the large liberty which is allowed by
our Directory, in the order of exercises. Make more of the service
of song. Let choirs, under pastoral supervision, as an addition to
the regular service, render the grand Scriptural Hymns of the ages, ©
which may not be in our Hymnal; but make much, too, of singing
by the whole congregation of the more familiar hymns of our own
book. Have special services of song, in addition to the prayer-meet-
ings which we now have. Keep the young in view at the main serv-
ice of the Sabbath, either by making all the exercises more to the
level of their comprehension, or by interjecting the special little ser-
mon to them.

And let it be remembered that the great need, before and above
all, is the grace of the Spirit, to be kept in the heart by daily private
communion with God. Without that ina large measure, the public
services of the Sabbath, whether with or without prescribed forms of
prayer, will indeed be perfunctory and formal. But let minister and
people be pervaded by it, and the services, as led by the former, will
be in harmony with the desires of the latter. The intellectual and
spiritual culture of each will influence the other, and both will affect
those that are without.

114 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The strongest argument in favor of liturgies really is the fact of
their wide-spread and long-continued use. That seems to imply that
they meet a want. And our Church should be comprehensive of all
classes of minds. We would yield to that argument if we could close
our eyes to the condemnatory evils which history reveals as essen-
tially inhering in the liturgical thraldom, and if we believed ministers
could not be otherwise trained to lead devotionally all grades of cult-
ure. But cannot our Theological Seminaries, rising and broaden-
ing with the times, take the gracious men who are committed to
them, and send them out gifted for the wants of the disciples of a
true esthetics, as well as for those of childish and uncultivated minds ἢ
We respect greatly the excellent brethren who have a liturgical in-
clination; but it seems to us that every consideration that can be
adduced in favor of a prayer-book will weigh as strongly for a book
of homilies. Those who accept the one should advocate the other,
and announce it as the highest ambition of ministers to become good
lectors. We do not believe our Presbyterian Church will make such a
descent from its high intellectual and spiritual position. Forward,
not backward; higher, not lower.

R. M. PATTERSON.

Ve

THE ΒΘ ΤΕ OF SOLOMON,

PREFACE.

O department of theological science has of late been so much
cultivated as that branch for which the Germans have adopted
the name Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, and which treats of the
contemporaneous history of the New Testament period in its relig-
ious, social, and political aspects. Of the greatest importance for the
better understanding of that period, are those literary remains which
speak of the Messianic expectations and the Messianic kingdom.
“No better key to the religious spirit of an age can be had than its
religious literature. That of Israel, as the age of Christ drew near,
was more and more concentrated on the expected Messiah, and
the preparation needed for His coming. The Book of Enoch, the
Psalms of Solomon, and the Fourth Book of Esdras successively
reveal the white heat of the national hopes of which they were the
expression” (C. Geikie, Lzfe and Words of Christ, I. 333, New York,
1881). To give the student of sacred history an inside view into one
of these literary remains, I have ventured an edition of the Greek |
with an English translation of the Psalter of Solomon. The transla-
tion is entirely new. In my article Psalter of Solomon, in McClintock
and Strong’s Cyclopedia, I mentioned an English translation by
Whiston, in Authentic Records, London, 1827. The date, however, is
a misprint. It ought to read 1727. 1 have not been able to procure
Whiston’s translation, and thus I prepared one based upon the texts of
Fabricius, Geiger, Hilgenfeld, and Fritzsche. The importance of our
Psalms for history may be seen from the fact that so many scholars,
whose works are named in the introduction, have paid their attention
to them. Should an undertaking like this prove acceptable to the
student, I shall feel encouraged to go on in this branch of theological
science. As for the present undertaking, I give it to the student with
the words of St. Augustine:

‘‘Quibus parum, vel quibus nimium est, mihi ignoscant. Quibus autem satis est, non
mihi, sed deo mecum gratias congratulantes agant.”—De Civitate Dei xxii. 30.

ALLEGHENY, Penn. BERNHARD PICK.

776 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

INTRODUCTION.

Under the title Ze Psalter of Solomon, or Ψαλμοί ΣΞαλομῶντος,
there is extant in a Greek translation a collection of eighteen psalms
or hymns, evidently modelled on the canonical psalms, breathing Mes-
sianic hopes, and forming a favorable specimen of the later popular
Jewish literature. Although written at a very early time, it was not
known during the middle ages, and has but recently been given to
the public. The earliest signs of the existence of our book may be
traced back to the author of the fourth book of Ezra (about 30 B.c.),
who evidently has perused our psalms, as Hilgenfeld* has shown
(cp. ii. with 4 Ezra iii. 8—viii. 34, xi. 3 sq., with xiii. 39 sq.—ix,
18, with iv. 25, x. 22—xvii. 21, with vi. 24—xvii. 36, xviii. 6, 8,
with vii. 28; xii. 32; xiii. 25 sq. 52—xvii. 37, with xiii. 9g — xviii.
4, with vi. 58). Among patristic writers it seems to have been
known very little, at least they do not mention our collection by
name. Zonaras and Balsamon? think that the 59. canon of the synod
of Laodicea (about 363 A.D.): ὅτι οὐ dé ἰδιωτικοὺς ψαλμοὺς λέγεσϑαι
ἕν τῇ Exnhnoia ὀυδὲ ἀκπανόνιστα βιβλία κιτ.λ., has reference to our
psalms. Perhaps that Aszbrose knew of the existence of our psalms,
because in the preface to the book of Psalms, he remarks: “ Solomon
ipse David filius licet innumera cantica cecinisse dicatur, unum tamen
quod ecclesia receperit canticorum canticum dereliquit.”)* When
Jerome writes against Vigilantius: “In commentariolo tuo quasi pro
te faciens de Salomone sumis testimonium, quod Salomon omnino
non scripsit, ut qui habes alterum Esdram, habeas et Salomonem
alterum,’* he evidently refers to the use of our Psalms made by
Vigilantius. In the fifth century our Psalms were found among the
books contained in the Codex Alexandrinus,* and were appended to
the Clementine Epistles. They are now, however, lost, together with
a large portion of the second epistle of Clement. In the Syzopszs
S. Scripturae, attributed to St. Athanase, psalms and odes of Solo-
mon are mentioned among the antilegomena.° The same books are
also enumerated in the Stichometria of Nicephorus, patriarch of Con-
stantinople (+ 828),” and in the catalogue appended to the ἐρωτήσεις

1 Messias Ffudeorum, Lipsiae, 1869, p. xiii., sq.

2 Beveridge, Synodicum sive Pandectae Canonum. Oxf., 1672. Tom. I., p. 480, sq.

3 Ambros. Off. ed. Maur. 1751. Tom. L., p. 3.

* Opp. ed. Paris, 1706. Tom. IV., p. 284; ii., 394 ed. Vallars.

5. Woide. WV. 7. Graecum, ecod., ms. Alex, Lond. 1786. Ὁ. vii., § 36; xv., 855;
Baber, V. 7. Gr. ecod. ms. Alex. IUbid., 1816. Proll. p. ν., Tom 1, P. 1., fol. 4, not.
g. and tab. iv.

5 Athanasii. Opp.ed. Colon, 1686. T. II., p. 154.

7 Credner, Zur Geschichte des Canons, Ὁ. 117 54.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. TAT

καὶ axoupioes of Anastasius-Sinaita, our psalms are also not want-
ing.’ The psalms were also enumerated ‘among the apocrypha in a
MS. of the Coislin library, belonging to the tenth century,’ and in a
Vienna manuscript, written between the ninth and tenth centuries,
they were found between the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.°

Editions —The first who published the eighteen psalms was the
Jesuit Lud. de la Cerda.‘ The edition was made from a manuscript
which originally was sent from Constantinople to Dr. Hoeschel, and
preserved at the Augsburg library; but the MS. is now no more
extant. Cerda’s edition is entitled: Ψαλτήριον Σολομῶντος. The
subscription is YaApol Σολομῶντος τῇ ἔχουσιν ἔπη a. τέλος σὺν See.
Cerda’s text was republished by Fabricius.* A new edition was pub-
lished by Hilgenfeld,® who besides the text of Fabricius made use of a
manuscript belonging to the Imperial library at Vienna. Hilgenfeld
was followed by Geiger’ and Fitzsche.°

Literature.—Wittichen, die Idee des Reiches Gottes, Gottingen, 1872,
pp. 155-160; Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, iv.392 sq.; Grimm
(Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen), das erste
Buch der Maccabéer, Ὁ. xxvii.; Oehler, art. Wessias in Herzog, Real-
Encyclop. ix. 426 sq. (2d ed., p. 656 sq.); Dillman, art. Pseudepigraph-

. 671, ibid. xii. 305 sq.; Weiffenbach, Quae Fesu in Regno coelesti Dignitas
sit Synopticorum Sententia exponitur (Gissae, 1868), p. 49 sq.; Mover,
art. Apokryphen in Wetzer u. Welte’s Kzirchen-Lexicon, 1. 340 (2d ed.
1880, p. 1060 sq.); Delitzsch, Commentar tiber den Psalter (ist ed.)
vol. 11 p. 381 sq.; Keim, Geschichte /esu von Nazara, I. 243 (Eng.
transl. [Lond. 1873], p. 313 sy.); Langen, das /udenthum in Palestina
sur Zeit Jesu Christi (1866), pp. 64-70 ; Néldeke, Alttestamentliche Lit-
eratur (1868), p. 141 sq.; Hausrath, Zeetgeschichte, I., 164 §q., 176;
Carriére, De Psalterto Salomonis (Argentorati 1870), p. 8; Anger, Vor-
lesungen tiber die Geschichte der messianischen Idee (1873), p. 81 sq.;
Graetz, Geschichte der Juden (2d ed.), iii. 439; Schtirer, Meutestament-
liche Zeitgeschichte (1874), p. 140 sq., 569 sq.; Stanley, Hzstory of the

1 Cotelier, S. Patr. gui temp. apost. flor. ed. Yo. Clericus, Antw., 1700. I., p. 196.

? Montfaucon, B2z6/. Coisl. olim Seguer. P. 194 sq. (cod. cxx. fol. 216).

3 Ῥ᾽ Lambecius, Comment. de Bibl. Caes. Vind, 111., p. 20; Dan. de Nessel, Breviar.
et Suppl. Comment. Lambec. [., Ὁ. 31.

* Adversaria Sacra, Lugd., 1626.

" Codex pseudepigraphus Vet. Test., ed. 2, Vol. I. (1722), p. 914, sq.

° Zeitschrift fir wissenschaftl. Theologie. 1868. pp. 134-168. Messias Judgorum libris
corum paulo ante et paulo post Chr. nat. conscriptis tllustratus (Lps., £869), p. I-33.

7 Der Psalter Salomo’s E. E. Geiger. Augsburg, 1871.

* Libri apocryphi Veteris Testamenti grace, (Lps., 1871), pp. 569-589.

50

778 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Jewish Church (New York, 1877), iii. 335; Drummond, The Jewish
Messiah (London, 1877), p. 133 sq.; Bissell, The Apocrypha of the Old
Testament (New York, 1880), p. 668 sq.; Pick, art. Psalter of Solomon
in McClintock and Strong’s Cycdop., viii., p. 757 sq.; Wellhausen, de
Phariséer und Sadduder (Greifswalde 1874), p. 131 sq.

Linguistic Character.—The language of our Psalms is, for the most
part, dependent upon the Septuagint, a fact which would lead to the
supposition that the Greek text was the original. Thus Huetius’ al-
ready remarked: “tutius utique credi potest, Hellenistae alicujus
opus esse,” and Janenski* says: “ psalterium nostrum Hellenistae
alicujus Judaei hominis in Christi ecclesiam digressi foetum esse.”
Modern writers agree that the original was written in Hebrew, with
the exception of Hilgenfeld, who contends for a Greek original, chiefly
on the ground that the ‘Wisdom of Solomon” seems to have been
used by the author, and believes accordingly that the Psalms were
composed in Egypt.* His references do not appear conclusive, and
Hilgenfeld himself does not seem to lay great weight upon them, for
he remarks, “ quae omnia, quamvis non eadem vi, mihi quidem Salo-
monis Sapientiam Psalmis antiquiorem probare videntur.”” The many
obscurities with which we meet so often can only be explained on the
supposition of a Hebrew original. That the translator seemed to
have been well acquainted with the language of the Septuagint, may
be seen from the fact that he uses many words, which are found only
in the Septuagint, and not in other apocryphal books, viz.:

ἀλάλαγμα, XVil. 8. ἀνθρωπάρεσπος, i iv, ὃ, τὸ ὩΣ: ἀποιρεσία, i.

ἀποσκηνόω, vii. 1. apvior, Viii. 29. αὐταρπεσία, v.18. ἄφεδρος, viii. 13.
βαρυϑυμέω, ii.10. γρηγόρησις, iii.2; xvi. 4. διάβημα, κνὶ. 9. διάψαλμα,
ΧΥΊ]. 31; XVili. 10. ἐδέγερσις, i ἵν: 1. ἐληϑοβῥο big τῶ: ἐπευριτός, Vili. 18.
καταπάτησιξ, ii. το. μηνέσιξ, ii. 25. παρασιώπάω, ν. 3. παροργισμός,
Ψ111. Io. πυργόβαρις, Vili. 21. σημείωσις, iv. 2. σπορπισμός, ΧΥ 20.
συνταγή, ἵν. 5. ὑπερπλεονάξω, ν. 19. φυρμός, ii. 15.

Time of composition and author.—Later transcribers have made
Solomon the author of these Psalms; but the Psalms themselves are
against this assumption; on the contrary, they are the best proof of
their later origin. Some—as Ewald, Grimm, Oehler, Dillmann, Weif-
fenbach—assign these Psalms to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes,
about 170 B.C.; others—as Movers, Delitzsch, and Keim—to the time
of Herod; but neither of these dates is correct. It is now generally
held by critics like Langen, Hilgenfeld, Néldeke, Hausrath, Fritzsche,

1 Demonstr. Evang., ed. Venet, 1733. Prop. iv., p. 253.
? Dissertatio de psalterio Salomonis, praeside J. G. Neumann, Wittenb., 1687.
ὃ Messias Fudacorum, p. xvii. sq.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. 779

Geiger, Wittichen, Schiirer, Carrigre, and Drummond, that they orig-
inated soon after the taking of Jerusalem by Pompey, and this opin-
ion is corroborated by the tenor of especially the 2d, 8th, and 17th
Psalms. Looking at the circumstances of the time which is presup-
posed in these Psalms, we find the following: A generation to which
the rule over Israel had not been promised took possession of it by
force (οἷς οὐκ ἐπηγγέιλω μετὰ βίας ἀφέιλοντο, xvii. 6). They did not
give God the honor, but put on the royal crown and took possession
of David's throne (xvii. 7, 8). In their time Israel sinned. The king
was in transgression of the law (ἐν mapavoyia), the judge was not in
truth (ovx ἐν a\nSea), and the people were in sin (καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐν
ἁμαρτίᾳ, xvii. 21,22). But God put these princes down by raising against
them a foreign man who did not belong to the tribe of Israel (xvii. 8,
9). From the ends of the world God brought a strong man, who
made war with Jerusalem and the country. The princes of the land,
in their infatuation, met him with joy, and said: “You are welcome;
come hither; enter in peace.” The doors were opened to him, and
he entered like a father in the house of his sons (viii. 15-20). Once
in the city, he also took the castles and broke the walls of Jerusalem
with the battering rams (ἐν xpi κατέβαλε τείχη oxupa, viii. 21; ii. 1).
Jerusalem was trodden down by the heathen (ii. 20); even the altar
of God was ascended by foreign people (€Sv7 ἀϊλότρια, ii. 2): "rhe
most prominent men and sages of the council were killed, and the
blood of the inhabitants of Jerusalem was shed like the water of im-
purity (viii. 23). The inhabitants of the country were carried away
as captives into the West, and the princes for a derision (xvii. 13, 14;
ii. 6; viii. 24). At last, the dragon who took Jerusalem was killed at
the mountain of Egypt on the sea (ii. 29).

It hardly needs any further explanation that all these events fully
agree with the history of Pompey. The princes who arrogated to
themselves the throne of David are the Asmonzans, who, since the
time of Aristobulus I., called themselves kings (B.c. 105-104). The
last princes of this house, Alexander Jannaeus and Aristobulus IL.,
favored the Sadducees, and in the eyes of the Pharisaic author they
are sinners and unlawful. The “ foreign and strong man”’ whom God
brings from the ends of the earth is Pompey. The princes who meet
him are Aristobulus II. and Hyrcanus 11.; the adherents of the latter
admit Pompey into the city, and he soon takes the other part with
force, which was held by Aristobulus’ party. All the other circum-
stances, such as the entrance into the Temple,’ the carrying away of

1 Of Pompey’s entering the Temple, we read not only in Josephus Be//. Fud., τ, 7, 6
and Antigu. xiv. 4, 4, but alsoin Tacitus, Historia, v.g: ‘‘ Romanorum primus Cn. Pom-

780 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the princes into the West, fully agree with what we know of Pompey’s
campaign in Palestine; and the fact that the 2d Psalm speaks of the
manner in which Pompey died, in B.c. 48,’ fully proves the assump-

pejus Judaeos domuit templumque jure belli ingressus est. Inde vulgatum nulla intus
deum effigie vacuam sedem et inania arcana.” The late Dean Stanley (Lectures on the
Flistory of the Fewish Church, iii. p. 450 sq.) speaks thus of this episode in Jewish His-
tory: ‘‘ That which in Nebuchadnezzar’s siege had been prevented by the general con-
flagration—that which Alexander forbore—that from which Ptolemy the Fourth had
been, as it was supposed, deterred by a preternatural visitation—that on which even
Antiochus Epiphanes had only partially ventured—was now to be accomplished by the
gentle and the most virtuous soldier of the Western world. He was irresistibly drawn
on by the same grand curiosity which had always mingled with his love of fame and
conquest, which inspired him with the passion for seeing with his own eyes the shores
of the most distant seas (Plutarch, Pompey, c. 38), the Atlantic, the Caspian, and the
Indian Ocean, which Lucan has in part placed in the mouth of his rival in ascribing to
him for his last great ambition the discovery of the sources of the Nile. He passed
into the nave (so to speak) of the temple, where none but priests might enter. There
he saw the golden table, the sacred candlestick, which Judas Maccabaeus had restored,
the censers, and the piles of incense, the accumulated offerings of gold from all the
Jewish settlements, but with a moderation so rare in those times that Cicero (Pre
Flacco, c. 28) atthe time, and Josephus in the next century, alike commended it as an
act of almost superhuman virtue, he touched and took nothing. He, arrived at the
vast curtain which hung across the Holy of Holies, into which none but the High
Priest could enter but on one day in the year, that one day, if so be, that very day on
which Pompey found himself there. He had, doubtless, often wondered what that
dark cavernous recess could contain. Who or what was the God of the Jews was a
question commonly discussed at philosophical entertainments both before and after-
wards (Plutarch, Qzaest, v. 6, 1). When the quarrel between the two Jewish rivals
came to the ear of the Greeks and Romans, the question immediately arose as to the
divinity that these princes both worshipped (Dio Cass. xxxvii. 15). Sometimes a rumor
reached them that it was an ass’s head ; sometimes the venerable lawgiver, wrapped in
his long beard and wild hair; sometimes, perhaps, the sacred emblems which once
were there,—but lost in the Babylonian invasion ; sometimes of some god or goddess
in human form like those who sat enthroned behind the altars of the Parthenon or the
Capito!. He drew the veil aside. Nothing more forcibly shows the immense superiority
of the Jewish worship to any which then existed on the earth than the shock of sur-
prise occasioned by this one glimpse of the exterior world into that unknown and mys-
terious chamber. ‘There was nothing.’ Instead of all the fabled figures of which he
had heard, or read, he found only a shrine, as it seemed to him, without a God, be-
cause a sanctuary without an image.”

1 That the whole description must recall the death of Pompey to the mind of every
reader of history, is evident. He was really murdered near Mount Cassius in Egypt ;
and though the fatal blow was not inflicted ‘‘on the mountains,” his head was cut off
and went on shore, and it was there that the proofs of his end were exhibited to the
world. His body was left to the buffetings of the waves, or as Lucan, PAarsaiia viii.
698-9, says:

‘* Litora Pompeium feriunt, truncusque vadosis
Huc illuc jactatur aquis.”

When the Psalmist states : καὶ οὐκ ἣν ὁ ϑάπτων, we must not take it literally. From Plu-
tarch, Pompey iv. 50, we know that, after Pompey’s head was cut off, and his naked
body left unburied on the sand, his freedman, Philip, who remained by it, gathered
enough driftwood on the shore to make a funeral pyre and burn it according to Roman
custom. But after all, this ‘‘stealthy ceremony could hardly be called a burial, espe-

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. 781

tion that it was written soon after this event, while the 8th and 17th
Psalms, as well as the greater part of the others, may have been
written between 63 and 48.

If the date thus reached be correct, it disposes of the hypothesis
of Graetz (Gesch. der Juden. [2d ed.] iii. 439), that these Psalms were
written by a Christian author. Nor are we justified in assuming
Christian interpretations, for the sinlessness and holiness which the
author ascribes to his expected Messiah (xvii. 41, 46), is not the sin-
lessness in the sense of Christian dogmatics, but merely the strict
legality in the sense of Pharisaism.

It hardly needs to be observed that Solomon was not the author of
our Psalms, but some Pharisee, who, as may be judged from his many
Hebraisms, did not live at Alexandria, as Hilgenfeld thinks, but in
Palestine.

Theological Contents of the Psalms.—The spirit which runs through
these Psalms is that of Pharisaic Judaism. They breathe an earnest,
moral tone and true piety ; but the righteousness which they preach,
and the absence of which they deplore, is the one which can only be
attained by keeping the Pharisaic ordinances, the δικαιούσνη προσ-
ταγματῶν (xiv. 1). The time which our author depicts shows the
oppositions then existing,—on the one hand the Gentiles, and on the
other the apostates in Israel. Both are called sinners, lawless and
impure (iv. I; xii. 8; xiv. 4; xvii. 13-20), in opposition to the holy,
righteous, and pious (xiii. 9-11; xiv. 1). The latter are the true rep-
resentatives of Israel, the seed of Abraham, the beloved people chosen
of God, that is called after His name (ix. 16-18; xviii. 4), of the
servant and sons of God (xii. 7; xvii. 30). They always remember
the Lord, and take upon themselves His chastisements. They do
away with the unrighteousness by fasting and humiliation (iii. 4-9).
The sinners in Israel our author describes as talking lies and as slan-
derous and fraudulent tongues (xii. I sq.), as sinful houses (families,
xii. 4), as inexorable in judgment, and yet full of sin and incontinence
and hypocrisy. They associate with the Gentiles, without belonging
to them; they seek to please man and pervert the law (iv. I-10) ; they
deny the divine justice (iv. 12-15); in secret they satisfy their sinful
lusts, they contaminate and rob the sanctuary, pollute the altar and
sacrifices, and in their sins they surpass the Gentiles (ii. 3; viii. g-14).
They are kings of unrighteousness, judges without truth, a people

cially for one who might have hoped to be followed to an honored pyre by his country’s
most distinguished men :—

““ tumulumque e pulvere parvo
Aspice Pompeii non omnia membra tegentem.”

782 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

living in sin (xvii. 22). The corruption is so great that the leaders of
the congregations of the saints had to flee and wander in deserts (xvii.
16-19). God, it is true, is king over heaven and earth, His compassion
and goodness are over the whole earth, His judgments over nations,
kings, and dominions (v. 17; li. 34; ix. 4; xvii. 4; xvili. 3); but He
is in particular the eternal king of Israel (xvii. 1), His goodness and
compassion is forever over the house of Israel (v. 21 sq.; ix. 20), but
His dominion over the Gentiles He reveals in judgment (xvii. 3 sq.).
This divine favor only the saints experience; His compassion and
faithfulness is on them who love the truth (x. 4; xiv. 1), gathering up
for themselves through righteousness a treasure of (eternal) life (ix.
g), and who by repentance are ashamed of their sins and humble them-
selves under His chastisement (x. 1 sq.; ix. 13, 15); He chastises them
for their sins of ignorance like a beloved son and first-born, and _ puri-
fies them from their sins, that the lot of the sinners may not become
theirs (iii. 10; xiii. 4-9). He is their refuge and hope in distress, and
gladdens their souls by His compassion (v. 1; xiii. 54). He, who
feeds the fishes and birds, feeds them also (v. 10 sq.); He saves them,
when they call upon Him (vi. 1 sq.), delivers them from sins, and
keeps them from every snare of the sinner (iv. 26 sq.); He directs their
paths, keeps the works of their hands, and protects them against any
dangers (vi. 3-5; x. 3; xiii. 2). They are, therefore, the paradise,
the tree of life, an everlasting plant, for they will rise unto eternal
life in the light of the Lord (xiv. 2 sq.; iii. 16). The sinners, how-
ever, will remain forever in Hades, in darkness and condemnation,
and will not be found in the day of compassion (iii. 12 sq.; xiv. 6;
xv. 11 sq.). But the righteous judgments of God may also be seen
in the history of the Jews and Gentiles (viii. 7; x. 6). This our
author shows from the history of his own time, from the imminent
fall of the Maccabeans and the beginning of the Roman dominion.
God had appointed David king over Israel and had promised that
the kingdom shall not be taken away from his seed. But others (the
Asmonzans) had arrogated to themselves the throne, and assumed
the royal dignity (since Aristobulus), and have laid waste the throne
with haughty shout of war (xvii. 5-8). Now war has broken out
among themselves (the war between Hyrcanus II. and Aristobulus IL.;
i. 2; viii. 1 sq.). To punish their sins, for which the heaven scowled
on them and the earth loathed them, God has filled the Israelites
with the spirit of infatuation and made them drunk, in order to de-
liver them to the enemies (referring to the appeal to the Romans to
act as arbiters in the quarrel, ii. 7; x. sq.; viii. 15). From the end of
the world a man appeared in war against Jerusalem, the princes of the

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. 783

country went to meet him and opened the gates (Pompey’s entrance
into Jerusalem 63 B.C., viii. 16-18). He took the holy city (viii. 4,
21), and pulled down the walls; Gentiles entered the sanctuary and
contaminated it (ii.1 sq.), and thus the beauty of Jerusalem was
dragged down from the throne of glory, and a rope was put about
her head instead of a crown (ii. 20 sq.); he destroyed the princes and
every wise man in council, and blood was shed like impure water
(viii. 23); he, the lawless, carried away her sons and daughters, born
in impurity, into the West, depopulating the country, and made her
princes a derision (referring to the sale of Jews as slaves, and to Aris-
tobulus and his children, who had to grace Pompey’s triumphal entry
into Rome, viii. 24; xvii. 13 sq.); the thus (sold) Jews were scattered
over the globe, and thus a draught was caused by God in His anger
(xvii. 20 sq.). But the judgment is not yet completed. God will de-
stroy the princes of Israel (the Asmonzans), and their seed will be
extinguished from the earth by a foreign generation (Antipater), the
beginning of which is already made (by the death of Aristobulus IL.,
and of his son Alexander, B.C. 48; xvii. 8-11). In the meantime,
however, God had already commenced to reveal His judgment over
the Gentiles. The dragon (Pompey), who thinks himself king over
land and sea and will not recognize the king of heaven, the judge of
kings and dominions (ii. 29 ; 37 sq.), is killed in Egypt and remained
for some time unburied (ii. 30 sq.). Herein the lords of the earth
may see the righteous judgments of God, the revelation of divine
justice over the Gentiles (ii. 36; vili. 30 sq.). As God shows hereby
His mercy toward Israel (ii. 37), so likewise will He alsoagain have
compassion over Israel, and after due punishment (viii. 32, 35) lead
them to the promised glory. There will be for Israel, in whose midst
God’s name dwelleth, a day of mercy and election (vii. 5; xviii. 6),
as there will be for the sinners a day of judgment and everlasting
retribution (xv. 13 sq.), when they will be consumed by fire (xii. 5 ;
xv. 6 sq.). This hope the author connects with the appearance of the
Messiah.

Messianic Hopes—The Messiah, whom our author expects, is called
according to the present text, “‘ Messiah (Christ) the Lord” χριστὸς
κύριος (xvii. 36), but this is probably a wrong translation. The same
expression occurs in xviii. 8; but as both words are in the genitive,
this does not help us to a decision. In xviii. 6, however, we have
χριστῦυ ἀυτοῦ, where ἀυτοῦ refers to Seos, and this may suggest an
emendation of κύριος into κυρίου. Hilgenfeld believes the reading
to be genuine.’ His appeal to Christian writers is of no avail, and

1 Messias Fud., p. 32.

784 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

may be disregarded; but he refers to one instance in the Septuagint
where the words sy" wy are rendered by χριστὸς κύριο (Lament.
iv. 20). While it is true that in our present editions of the Septuagint
the reading χριστόξ κύριος is found, yet we believe it either to be a
wrong translation, due to a misunderstanding of the Hebrew expres-
sion, or that the original reading was χριστὸς κυρίου, for thus the
Syriac seems to have read, and so likewise the author of the Veneta
Version, who translates ὁ χριστός τοῦ ὀντωτοῦ. This Messiah is to
be a son of David, a righteous king taught by God, the anointed of
the Lord. He will not place his trust in horse and bow, or multiply
gold and silver for war; but his hope will be in God, and he will
smite the earth with the word of his mouth. He will be pure from
sin, strong in the Holy Spirit, and wise in counsel, with strength and
righteousness. He will be mighty in the fear of God, feed the flock
of the Lord in faith and righteousness, and lead them all in holiness.
This is the beauty of the king of Israel. His words are as words of
saints in the midst of sanctified people (xvii. 23, 35-49). Under him
Jerusalem is indeed to be purified from the Gentiles, and sinners to
be thrust away from the inheritance ;* but he will not have recourse
to instruments of war, but smite the earth, and destroy lawless nations
by the word of his mouth (xvii. 25, 27, 37, 39). He is to rule over
Israel (xvii. 23), and to judge the tribes of a people sanctified by the
Lord his God (xvii. 28). He is to tend the flock of the Lord in faith
and righteousness, and not suffer any to be infirm among them in
their pasture (xvii. 45). No stranger and foreigner shall dwell any
more among them. He will judge peoples and Gentiles in the wisdom
of his righteousness; and he shall have peoples of the Gentiles to
serve beneath his yoke (xvii. 31, 32), and Gentiles will come from the
extremity of the earth to see his glory (xvii. 34). Thus he will bless
the people of the Lord in wisdom with gladness (xvii. 40), and will
not suffer unrighteousness to dwell in the midst of them, and there
shall not dwell with them any man who knows wickedness (xvii. 29).

1Comp. my art. 5. v. in McClintock and Strong’s Cyclop.
2 Israel is not only the πρωτότοκος but also the μονογενῆς corresponding to the Hebrew
by fa) fs ig = “the first born, only son.” The addition μονογενῆς is truly Jewish,
AM -

excluding the Gentiles from the citizenship in the Messianic kingdom, and is another
proof that the author was a Pharisee.

4.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON.

YAAMOT ZAAOMQNTOS,

. Ἐβόησα πρὸς κύριον ἐν τῷ ϑλίβεσϑαξΐ με

εἰς τέλος,
πρὸς τὸν ϑεὸν ἐν τῷ ἐπιϑέσϑαι ἁμαρτωλούς.
ἐξάπινα ἠκσύσϑη κραυγὴ πολέμου ἐνώπιόν
μου.

ἐπακούσεταί μοι, ὅτι ἐπλήσϑην δικαιοσύνης. "

ἐλογισάμην ἐν καρδίᾳ μου ὅτι ἐπλήσϑην
δικαιοσύνης,

> ~ > ~ 4 x ἂς fs 2

ἐν τῷ εὐϑηνῆσαί με καὶ πολὺν γενέσϑαι ἐν
τέκνοις.

ὁ πλῦυτος αὐτῶν διέλϑοι εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν,
καὶ ἡ δόξα αὐτῶν ἕως ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς.

ὑψώϑησαν ἕως τῶν ἄστρων,

εἶπον οὐ μὴ πέσωσιν.

καὶ ἐξύβρισαν ἐν τοῖς ἀγαϑοῖς αὐτῶν,
καὶ ὀυκ ἤνεγκαν.

. αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὑτῶν ἐν ἀποκρύφοις

κἀγὼ οὐκ dew,

. αἱ ἀνομίαι αὐτῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ πρὸ αὐτῶν ἔϑνη,

ἐβεβήλωσαν τὰ ἅγια κυρίου ἐν βεβηλώσει,

785

THE PSALMS OF SOLOMON.

. I cried unto the Lord in my great dis-

tress,
To God at the oppression of the sinners.

. Suddenly a clamor of war was heard

before me.
He hears me, because I am full of
righteousness.

I thought in my heart, I am full of
righteousness,

Because I am happy, and have many
children.

Their riches filled all the world,
And their glory went to the end of the
earth,

. They were exalted to the stars,

I said: they shall never fall.

. And they became vain in their glory

And did not bear it.

. Their sins were in secret,

8.

And I did not know it.

Their iniquities surpass those of the
heathen before them,

They profaned the sanctuary of the
Lord in profanation.

In cod Aug. this psalm is entitled Ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομων.---4. διέλϑοι, Fabricius would
read διῆλϑε.---5. εἶπον, Hilgenfeld, against the εἶπαν of both codices ; Geiger retains the
reading of the codices.—8, ἀνομίαι, so codex Vindob., but cod. Aug. ἁμαρτίαι.

PSALM II.

Ἔν τῷ ὑπερηφανεύεσϑαι τὸν ἁμαρτωλὸν, ἐν
κρίῳ κατέβαλε τείχη ὀχυρὰ,

καὶ οὐκ ἐκώλυσας.

. ἀνέβησαν ἐπὶ τὸ ϑυσιαστήριόν σου ἔϑνη

ἀλλότρια,
κατεπάτουν ἐν ὑποδήμασιν αὐτῶν ἐν ὑπερηφ-
avia,

. ἀνϑ᾽ ὧν οἱ υἱοὶ Ἱτερουσαλὴμ ἐμίαναν τὰ ἅγια

κυρίου,
ἐβεβήλουν τὰ δῶρα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐν ἀνομίαις.

» ν ᾿ ῬΈΕ. ν᾿ x
. ἕνεκεν τούτων εἶπεν. ἀποῤῥίψατε αὐτὰ

Reg
μακρὰν ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ,
οὐκ ἐυδοκῶ ἐν αὐτοῖς.

1. In his haughty pride, the sinner has

broken down the strong walls with
the ram,
And Thou hast not hindered.

2. Heathen aliens have gone up into Thy

holy place,
They have walked up and down in it,
with their shoes in contempt.

3. Because the sons of Jerusalem have de-

filed the holy things of the Lord,
Profaned the gifts of God by trans-
gression.

4. Therefore said He: cast forth these

things from me,
I have no pleasure in them.

In cod, Aug. this psalm is entitled ; Ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν περὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ B’.—Fabricius
reads ψαλμὸς τ. Σ. β΄ περὶ k. τ. A.—4. οὐκ εὐδοκῶ, this is the reading of Fritzsche, who
follows Hilgenfeld ; cod. Vind. reads οὐκ εὐώδω ἡ αὐτοῖς ; cod. Aug, οὐκ εὐωδώδει εὐωδίᾳ ἡ
αὐτοῖς ; Geiger, οὐκ εὐωδώϑη αὐτόις.

786

5. τὸ κάλλος τῆς δόδης ἀυτῶν ἐξουϑενήϑη,
ἐνώπιον τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἠτιμώϑη εἰς τέλος.

6. οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ αἱ ϑυγατέρες ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ
πονηρᾷ,
ἐν σφραγίδι ὁ τράχηλος αὐτῶν͵ ἐν ἐπισήμῳ
ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσι,

ἡ. κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν ἐποίησεν αὐτδις,

ὅτι ἐγκατέλιπεν αὐτοὺς εἰς χεῖρας κατισχυόν-

των,

8. ἀπέστρεψε γὰρ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ ἐλέου
αὐτῶν
ὝΒΡΕΙΣ , Ὁ; τας Δ
νέον καὶ πρεσβύτην καὶ τέκνα αὐτῶν εἰς ἀπαξ,

9. ὅτι πονηρὰ ἐποίησαν εἰς ἀπαξ τοῦ μὴ ἀκούειν.

10. καὶ ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐβαρυϑύμησε
καὶ ἡ γῇ ἐβδελύξατο αὐτούς"

IL. ὅτι οὐκ ἐποίησε πᾶς ἄνϑρωπος ἐπ' αὑτῆς ὅσα
ἐποίησαν,

12. καὶ γνώσεται ἡ γῇ τὰ κρίματα σου πάντα τὰ
δίκαια.

13. Ὁ ϑεὸς ἔστησεν τοὺς υἱοὺς 'Γερουσαλὴμ εἰς
ἐμπαιγμὸν"
ἀντὶ πορνῶν ἐν duty πᾶς ὁ παραπορὲυό-
μενος εἰἱσεπορέυετο
κατενάντι τοῦ ἡλίου ἐνέπαιζον ταῖς ἀνομίαις
αὐτῶν͵
14. καϑὰ ἐποίουν αὐτοὶ ἀπέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου,
παρεδειγμάτισαν ἀδικίας αὐτῶν,

καὶ ϑυγατέρες (Ἱερουσαλὴμ βέβηλοι κατὰ
τὸ κρίμα σου,

15. ἀνϑ᾽ὧν αὐτὰς ἐμίαινον ἑαυτὰς ἐν φύρμῳ
ἀναμίξεως
THY κοιλίαν μου καὶ τὰ σπλάγχνα μου πονῶ
ἐπὶ τούτοις,

16. ᾿Εγώ δικαιώσω σε, 6 Sedo, ἐν εὐϑύτητι
καρδίας
ὅτι ἐν τοῖς κρίμασί σου ἡ δικαιοσύνη σου,

ὁ ϑεός.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

5. The beauty of their glory was made vile,
Before God it was profaned forever,

6. The sons and daughters are in woeful
slavery,
Their neck in the ring, in ‘the sight of
the heathen.

7. According to their sins, He hath dealt
with them,

That He left them in the hands of the
oppressors,

8. Turned away His face from pitying
them,—

Youth and old man, and children to-
gether.

9. Because they all sinned and would not
hear.

to. And the heaven scowled on them
And the earth loathed them :

11. For never a man had done on it as
they.

And the earth shall know all Thy
righteous judgments.

12.

13. God has made the sons of Jerusalem
a derision :
Because of the prostitutes therein
every passer-by enters,
Before the sun they flaunted their
wickedness.

14. According as they committed (their
evil deeds) before the sun, they made

a show of their guilt.
And the daughters of Jerusalem are
profane according to Thy judgment,

15. Because they have defiled themselves
in shameless mingling.
_ For all these things my heart mourns.

16. I will justify Thee, O God, in up-
rightness of heart,
For in Thy judgments, O God, is Thy
righteousness.

5. αὐτῶν, the codd. read αὐτοῦ, and so also Θεῖρετ.---ὐτιμώϑη as cod. Aug., cod. Vind.
ἠτιμένϑη, Hilgenfeld and Geiger ἠτιμήϑη.---8. ἐλέου, cod. Aug. ἐλέους. ---12. πάντα τὰ
δίκαια, ὁ Θεὸς, so Geiger.—14. καϑὰ, Hilgenfeld xaxd.—15, αὐτὰι, cod. Vindob., Geiger,

Fabricius αὗται; Cerda αὖϑαι.

* In our book this word is used both in the masculine and neuter gender. Thus for
the former comp. v. 14; Vi. 9; viii. 34; ix. 16; xiv. 6; xvii. 3; xviii. 3,6, 10; for the
latter comp. ii. 37, 40} v. 17; viii. 33; x. 4; xi. 9; xiii, 11; xvi. 3,6; xXvil. 17, 51;

XViii. I,

17.

18.

10.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON.

ὅτι ἀπέδωκας τοῖς ἀμαρτωλοῖς κατὰ τὰ ἔργα
αὐτῶν,

κατὰ τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν τὰς πονηρὰς σφό-
dpa,

ἀνεκάλυψας τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα φανῇ
τὸ κρίμα σου,

ἐξήλειψας τὸ μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

ὁ ede κριτὴς δίκαιος καὶ ob ϑαυμάσει πρό-
σωπον.

κατέσπασε τὸ κάλλος αὐτῆς ἀπὸ ϑρόνου
δόξης,

ὠνείδισαν γὰρ ἔϑνη Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐν κατα-
πατήσει,

περιεζώσατο σάκκον ἀντὶ ἐνδύματος ev-
πρεπείας

σχοινίον περὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν αὐτῆς ἀντί
στεφάνου.

περιείλετο μίτραν δόξης, ἦν περιέϑηκεν
αὐτῇ ὁ θεός"

ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ τὸ κάλλος αὐτῆς ἀπεῤῥίφη ἐπὶ
τὴν γῆν.

καὶ ἐγὼ εἶδον καὶ ἐδεήθην τοῦ προσώπον
κυρίου καὶ εἶπον"

ἱκάνωσον, κύριε, τοῦ βαρύνεσθαι χεῖρά σον
ἐπὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐν ἐπαγωγῇ ἐθνῶν.

ὅτι ἐνέπαιξαν καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσαντο ἐν ὀργῇ καὶ
θυμῷ μετὰ μηνίσεως.

καὶ συντελεσϑήσονται, ἐὰν μὴ σὺ, κύριε,
ἐπιτιμήσῃς αὐτοῖς ἐν ὀργῇ σου"

ὅτι οὐκ ἐν ζήλῳ ἐποίησαν, ἀλλὰ ἐν ἐπιθυμία
ψυχῆς,

ἐκχέαι τὴν ὀργὴν αὐτῶν εἰς ἡμᾶς ἐν ἁρπάγ-
ματι.

μὴ χρονίσῃς, ὁ θεὸς, τοῦ ἀποδοῦναι αὐτοῖς

εἰς κεφαλάς,

τοῦ τρέπειν τὴν ὑπερηφανίαν τοῦ δράκοντος
ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ,

καὶ οὐκ ἐχρόνισεν ἕως ἔδειξέ μοι ὁ θεὸς

τὴν ὕβριν αὐτοῦ ἐκκεκεντημένην ἐπὶ τῶν
ὀρέων Αἰγύπτου,

San: ᾿ ως ee a

ὑπ’ ἐλαχίστου ἐξουδενωμένον ἐπὶ γῆς καὶ
θαλάσσης,

τῆς

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

787

For Thou gavest to the wicked ac-
cording to their works,

According to the great evil of their
doings.

Thou hast revealed their sins, that
Thy judgment may be seen.

Thou blottest out their memory from
the earth. Ἂ

God is a righteous judge, and regard-
eth no man’s countenance.

He has dragged down her beauty from
the throne of glory,

For the heathen put to shame Jerusa-
lem by trampling it under feet.

She put on sackcloth for robes of
beauty,

A rope about the head instead of a
crown,

She took off the mitre of glory, which
God had put on her brow.

In dishonor her pride is cast down on
the earth.

And I saw, and prayed before the face
of the Lord and said:

Let it suffice Thee, O Lord, that Thou
hast made heavy Thy hand upon
Jerusalem, by bringing the heathen.

For they have treated her with scorn,
and did not spare in their wrath and
fury,

And they will bring this to an end,
unless Thou, O Lord, reprovest
them in Thy wrath:

For they have not done it in zeal, but
from the desire of their heart,

To pour out their rage against us like
furies.

Delay not, O Lord, to smite them on
the head,

To turn the haughtiness of the dragon
into dishonor.

And very soon God showed me

His haughty pride pierced on the
mountains of Egypt,

Set at naught by the least, alike on
land and sea,

24. ἐπαγωγῇ, codd,. ἀπαγωγῇ. 25. ἐνέπαιξαν cod. Vind.; ἔπαιξαν cod. Aug. 29. τρέπειν,

the codd. read εἰπεῖν, which is followed by Geiger, who translates the word by “‘to de-
stroy.” Fritzsche and Hilgenfeld read εἴκειν; I prefer the reading τρέπειν; Fabricius
prefers ἰδεῖν, 30. ἔχρονισεν, the codd, read ἔχρονισα “1 waited.” —éxkexevrqjuévnv so also
Hilgenfeld ; Geiger prefers the reading of the codd. éxkexevtnuévov.—i7’ ἐλαχίστον, the
codd. ixtp,—rév ὀρέων so the codd., perhaps that the reading was ὁρίων ‘‘ shores,”

788

31. τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ διεφϑαρμένον ἐπὶ κυμάτων
ἐν ὕβρει πολλῇ,
καὶ οὐκ ἦν ὁ ϑάπτων.

32. ὅτι ἐξουδένωσεν αὐτὸν ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ.
οὐκ ἐλογίσατο ὅτε ἄνϑρωπος ἐστι,
καὶ τὸ ὕστερον οὐκ ἐλογίσατο.

33. εἶπεν" ἐγὼ κύριος γῆς καὶ ϑαλάσσης ἔσομαι,
καὶ οὐκ ἐπέγνω ὅτι ὁ ϑεὸς μέγας,
κραταιός ἐν ἰσχυΐ αἰτοῦ τῇ μεγάλῃ.

34. αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ τῶν οὐρανῶν
καὶ κρίνων βασιλεῖς καὶ ἀρχὰς.

35. ἀνιστῶν ἐμὲ εἰς δόξαν
καὶ κομίζων ὑπερηφάνους εἰς ἀπώλειαν
αἰώνιον ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ,
ὅτι οὐκ ἔγνωσαν ἀυτὸν.

36. καὶ νῦν ἴδετε, οἱ μεγιστᾶνες τῆς γῆς, τὸ
κρίμα κυρίου,
ὅτι μέγας βασιλεὺς καὶ δίκαιος κρίνων τὴν
ὑπ’ οὐρανόν.

37. εὐλογξιτε τὸν ϑεὸν, οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν
κύριον ἐν ἐπιστήμῃ,
ὅτι τὸ ἔλεος κυρίου ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους
αὐτὸν μετὰ κρίματος.

38. τοῦ διαστξιλαι ἀνὰ μέσον δικαίου καὶ
ἁμαρτωλοῦ,
ἀποδοῦναι ἁμαρτωλοῖς εἷς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ
τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν.

39. καὶ ἐλεῆσαι δίκαιον ἀπὸ ταπεινώσεως
ἁμαρτωλοῦ
καὶ ἀποδοῦναι ἁμαρτωλῷ ἀνϑ' ὧν ἐποίησε
δικαίῳ"

40. ὅτε χρηστὸς ὁ κύριος τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις
αὐτὸν ἐν ὑπομονῇ.
ποιῆσαι κατὰ τὸ ἔλεος αὑτοῦ τοῖς μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ,

παρεστάναι διὰ παντὸς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν
ἰσχύι.

41. εὐλογητὸς κύριος εἰς τὸν ἀιῶνα ἐνώπιον
τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

31. His body rotting upon the waves with
much indignity,
And having no one to bury it.

32. Because he had dishonored Him.
He forgot that he was only a man,
And considered not the end.

33. Hesaid: I shall be Lord of land and sea,
And did not remember that Godis great,
Mighty in His great power.

34. He is king of heaven
And the judge of kings and rulers.

35. Exalting me to glory
And stilling the proud in eternal dis-
honor and ruin,
Because they did not know Him.

36. And now, see, ye lords of the earth,
the judgment of the Lord,
That He is a great king, and right-
eous, judging the earth.

37. Praise God, ye who fear the Lord in
wisdom,
For the Lord’s mercy is upon them
that fear Him in judgment,

38. To distinguish between the righteous
and the sinner, -
To render to sinners for ever accord-
ing to their works,

39. And to have mercy on the righteous

against the oppression of the sinner,

And to recompense the sinner as He
has done to the righteous :

40. For the Lord is good toward them
who call upon Him patiently.
Let Him do according to His mercy
to those with Him,
That they may always stand before
Him in strength.

41. Blessed be the Lord for ever in the
presence of His servants.

35. κομίζων, the codd. κοιμίζων. 40, ποιῆσαι, Cerda, Fabricius and Geiger ποιῆσαι. 41. τῶν

δούλωυ, cod. Vind. δούλων.

PSALM III.*

I. Ἱνατί ὑπνοῖς, ψυχὴ, καὶ οὐκ εὐλογεῖς τὸν
κύριον ;

Ξ ΤῊΝ ἀν ee Ὁ, δε ὁ hat
2. ὕμνον καινὸν ψάλατε τῷ ϑεῷ τῷ αἱνετῷ.

ψάλλε καὶ γρηγόρησον ἐπὶ τὴν γρηγόρησιν
ἀυτοῦ,

ὅτι ἀγαϑὸς ψαλμὸς τῷ ϑεῷ ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας.

1. Why art thou asleep, O soul, and
praiseth not the Lord?

2. Sing a new song to God, the praise-
worthy.

Sing and awake up to His watch,

For good is a psalm to God, with the
whole heart.

* The psalm is entitled cod. Aug. ψαλμὸς τῷ Ζαλομὼν περὶ δικάιων γ΄, 2. ψάλατε, so cod.
Vind., cod. Aug. and Cerda ψάλλατε; Fabricius ψάλλετε,

THE PSALTER
3. Δίκαιοι μνημονεύουσι διὰ παντὸς τοῦ κυρίου,

ἐν ἐξομολογήσει καὶ δικαιώσει τὰ κρίματα
κυρίου

4. οὐκ ὀλιγωρήσει δίκαιος παιδευόμενος ὑπὸ
κυρίου,
ἡ Evdoxia αὐτοῦ διὰ παντὸς ἐνάντιον κυρίου.

προσέκοψεν ὁ δίκαιος καὶ ἐδικαίωσε τὸν
κύριον,
ἔπεσε καὶ ἀποβλέπει τί ποιήσει αὐτῷ 6 ϑεός.

I:

6. ἀποσκοπεύει, Sev ἤξει σωτηρία αὐτοῦ,

7, ᾿Αλήϑεια τῶν δικαίων παρὰ ϑεοῦ σωτῆρος

αὐτῶν,
οὐκ αὐλίζεται ἐν οἴκῳ τοῦ δικαίου ἁμαρτία ἐφ᾽
ἁμαρτίαν.

8, ἐπισκέπτεται διὰ παντὸς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ὁ
δίκαιος,
ΔῊ Ἐπ: ΡΝ ὦ a
τοῦ ἐξᾶραι ἀδικίαν ἐν παραπτώματι αὐτοῦ.

9. ἐξιλάσατο περὶ ἀγνοίας ἐν νηστείᾳ
καὶ ταπεινώσει τὴν ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ.

καὶ ὁ κύριος καϑαρίζει πάντα ἄνδρα ὅσιον
καὶ τὸν δικον αὐτοῦ.

Io,

Προσέκοψεν ἁμαρτωλὸς, καὶ καταρᾶται ζωὴν
αὐτοῦ,
τὴν ἡμέραν γενέσεως αὐτοῦ καὶ ὠδίνας,

11.

προσέϑηκεν ἁμαρτίας ἐφ᾽ ἁμαρτίας τῇ ζωῇ
αὐτοῦ.

12.

13. ἔπεσεν, ὅτι πονηρὸν τὸ πτῶμα αὐτοῦ, καὶ
οὐκ ἀναστήσεται.

ἡ ἀπώλεια τοῦ ἀμαρτωλοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

καὶ ov μνησϑήσεται, ὅταν ἐπισκέπτηται
δικαίους.

14.

15. ἄυτη μερὶς τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν εἰς τόν αἰῶνα.

16. οἵ δὲ φοβούμενοι κύριον ἀναστήσονται εἰς
ζωὴν ἀιώνιον,

καὶ ἡ ζωὴ αὐτῶν ἐν φωτὶ κυρίου καὶ οὐκ
ἐκλείψει ἔτι.

OF SOLOMON. 789

3. The righteous remember always the
Lord,
In giving thanks and justifying the
judgments of the Lord.

4. The righteous, when chastised of the
Lord, will not despise,
His pleasure is always before the Lord.

5. The righteous stumbled and justified
the Lord,
He fell and waits what God will do to
him.
6. He looks out, where will come his
salvation,

7. The righteous are safe in God, their
redeemer,
In the house of the righteous does not
dwell sin upon sin.

8. The righteous searches always his
house,
To do away the sin in his fall,

g. In fasting he repays for ignorance,
And humbles his soul.

to. And the Lord absolves every pious

man and his house.

11. The sinner stumbled and curses his
life,
The day of his birth and pains.

12. He added sins upon sins to his life.

He fell, for heavy is his fall, and shall
not rise again.
The destruction of the sinner is forever.

13.

And is not remembered, when He
visits the righteous,

14.

15. Such is the part of the wicked in
eternity.

16. But those who fear the Lord shall rise
unto eternal life.
And their life shall be in the light of

the Lord and shall fail no more,

PSALM IV.*

1. Ἱνατί σὺ xadjoat, βέβηλε, ἐν συνεδρίῳ,

καὶ ἡ καρδία σου μακρὰν ἀφέστηκεν ἀπὸ τοῦ
κυρίου,

ἐν παρανομίαις παροργίζων τὸν ϑεὸν 1σ-
ραήλ;

*The psalm is entitled Ψαλμὸς τῷ Ζαλομὼν

I. Why sittest thou, the profane, in the
Sanhedrim,
And thy heart is far from the Lord,

Stirring up with sins the God of Israel,

τοῖς ἀνϑρωπαρέσκοις δ΄,

790

Io.

ΣΙ.

ΙΣ2.

13.

14.

. περισσὸς ἐν λόγοις, περισσὸς ἐν σημειώσει

ὑπὲρ πάντας,
ὁ σκληρὸς ἐν λόγοις κατακρίνων ἁμαρτω
λοὺς ἐν κρίσει,

καὶ ἡ χεὶρ αὐτοῦ ἐν πρώτοις ἐπ᾽ αἴτιον ὡς
ἐν ζήλῳ,

καὶ αὐτὸς ἔνοχος ἐν ποικιλίᾳ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ
ἐν ἀκρασίαις.

. οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν γυνᾶικα ἄνευ

διαστολῆς,
ἡ γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ ψευδὴς ἐν συναλλάγματι
μεϑ'δρκου"

LJ Ν 2 , / s Z ᾿
. ἐν νυκτὶ καὶ Ev ἀποκρύφοις ἁμαρτάνει ὡς

οὐχ ὁρώμενος,
ἐν ὀφϑαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ λαλεῖ πάσῃ γυναικὶ ἐν
συνταγῇ κακίας.

. ταχὺς εἰσόδῳ εἰς πᾶσαν οἰκίαν ἐν ἱλαρότητι

ὡς ἄκακος.

. Ἐξάραι, ὁ ϑεὸς, τοὺς ἐν ὑποκρίσει ζῶντας

μετὰ ὁσίων,
ἐν φϑορᾷ σαρκὸς αὐτοῦ καὶ πενίᾳ τὴν ζωὴν
αὐτοῦ,

. ἀνακαλύψαι, 6 ϑεὺς, τὰ ἔργα ἀνϑρώπων

ἀνϑρωπαρέσκων,
ἐν καταγέλωτι καὶ μυκτηρισμῷ τὰ ἔργα
αὐτοῦ.

. καὶ δικαιώσαιεν οἱ ὅσιοι τὸ κρίμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ

αὐτῶν
ἐν τῷ ἐξαίρεσϑαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ προσώπου
δικαίου,

ἀνϑρωπάρεσκον λαλοῦντα νόμον μετὰ δόλου,

καὶ οἱ ὀφϑαλμοὶ αὐτῶν ἐν οἴκῳ ἀνδρὸς ἐν
εὐσταϑείᾳ ὡς ὄφις,

διαλῦσαι σοφίαν ἀλλήλων ἐν λόγοις παρανό-
μων"

οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ παραλογισμοὶ εὶς πρᾶξιν
ἐπιϑυμίας ἀδίκου.

οὐκ ἀπέστη, ἕως ἐνίκησε σκορπίσαι ὡς ἐν
ὀρφανίᾳ

καὶ ἠρήμωσεν ἕνεκεν ἐπιϑυμίας παρανόμου.

παρελογίσατο ἐν λόγοις, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν ὁρῶν
καὶ κρίνων.

2.

Io.

If.

12.

13.

14.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Surpassing with words, surpassing iu
indolence all,

Judging severely the sinners in judg-
ment.

. And his hand is among the first upon

the culprit, as with zeal,
And he himself is guilty of all sorts of
sins and of incontinence.

. His eyes are on every woman without

discrimination,
His tongue is lying in spite of the
sworn agreement:

. By night and in secret he sins, as if

he were not seen,
With his eyes he speaks to every
woman for a sinful appointment.

. Quick in entering every house cheer-

fully as though he were pure.

Remove, O God, those living hypocrit-
ically with the picus,

In corruption of his body and in
poverty his life.

. Reveal, O God, the works of men-

pleasing men,
In derision and mockery his works.

. And let the pious justify the judgment

of their God
When He takes away the sinners from
before the righteous,

The man-pleaser, uttering the law
deceitfully.

And their eyes in the house of a man
in steadiness, are like a serpent,
To destroy the wisdom of others in

words of transgression.

His words are fallacies to satisfy sin-
ful lusts.

He did not rest, until he succeeded to
scatter as in a bereavement,

And desolated for the sake of sinful
desire.

He deceived in words, that there is
none seeing and judging.

2. σημειώσει, cod, Aug. σημειῶσαι. 3. ἐπ αἴτιον so Hilgenfeld, against ἐπ᾽ αὐτὸν of the codd.
4. οἱ ὀφθαλμοὶ, cod, Aug. omits οἱ, 13. ἀπέστη so Hilgenfeld, against ἀνέστη of the codd.
Geiger retains the latter.

15.

16,

T7«

18,

19.

20.

21.

22

23.

24

25.

26.

27.

THE PSALTER

ἐπλήσϑη ἐν παρανομίᾳ ἐνταῦϑα
καὶ οἱ ὀφϑαλμοὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ οἶκον ἕτερον
ὀλοϑρεῦσαι ἐν λόγοις ἀναπλάσεως.

οὐκ ἐμπίπλαται ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ ἐν πᾶσι
τούτοις.

Τένοιτο, κύριε, ἡ μέρις αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ
ἐνώπιον σου

ἡ ἔξοδος αὐτοῦ ἐν στεναγμοῖς,

καὶ ἡ εἴσοδος αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀρᾷ.

ἐν ὀδύναις καὶ ἐν πενίᾳ καὶ ἀπορίᾳ ἡ ζωὴ
ἀυτοῦ, κύριε,

ὁ ὕπνος αὐτοῦ ἐν ὀδύναις

καὶ ἡ ἐξέγερσις αὐτοῦ ἐν ἀπορίαις.

ἀφαιρεϑείη ὕπνος ἀπὸ κροτάφων αὐτοῦ ἐν
γύκτι,

ἀποπέσοι ἀπὸ παντὸς ἔργου χειρῶν αὐτοῦ
ἐν ἀτιμίᾳ.

κενὸς χερσὶν αὐτοῦ εἰςέλϑοι εἰς τὸν οἶκον
αὐτοῦ,

καὶ ἐλλιπὴς ὁ οἷκος αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ παντὸς οὗ
ἐμπλήσει ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ.

ἐν μονώσει ἀτεκνίας τὸ γῆρας αὐτοῦ εἰς
ἀνάληψιν.

σκορπισϑείησαν σάρκες ἀνθρωπαρέσκων ὑπὸ
ϑηρίων

καὶ ὀστᾶ παρανόμων κατέναντι τοῦ ἡλίου ἐν
ἀτιμίᾳ.

ἐκκόψειαν κόρακες ὀφϑαλμοὺς ἀνϑρώπων
ὑποκρινομένων,

ὅτι ἠρήμωσαν οἴκους πολλοὺς ἀνθρώπων ἐν
ἀτιμίᾳ,

καὶ ἐσκόρπισαν ἐν ἐπιϑυμία'

καὶ οὐκ ἐμνήσϑησαν ϑεοῦ

καὶ οὐκ ἐφοβήϑησαν τὸν Sedov ἐν πᾶσι τούτοις.

καὶ παρώργισαν τὸν ϑεὸν καὶ παρώξυναν
ἐξάραι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς,
ὅτι ψυχὰς ἀκάκων παραλογισμῷ ὑπεκρίνοντο

Μακάριοι οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον ἐν ἀκακίᾳ
αὐτῶν.

ὁ κύριος ῥύσεται αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ ἀνθρώπων
δολίων καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν,

καὶ ῥύσεται ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ παντὸς σκανδάλου
παρανόμου.

OF SOLOMON,

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

191

He is filled with iniquity besides,

And his eyes are upon the house of
the neighbor, to destroy with words
of fiction.

In all this his soul is not yet satisfied.

Let, O Lord, his portion be in dis-
honor before Thee,

His going out in groaning,

And his going in in execration,

In sorrows and poverty and perplexity
his life, O Lord!

His sleep in distress,

And his rising in perplexities.

Let sleep flee from his eyes by night ;

Let every work of his hands be frus-
trated in dishonor.

Let him enter his house with empty
hands,

And his house be wanting everything
which shall satisfy his soul.

Solitary and childless let his old age
be until his death,

Let the body of men-pleasers be dis-
persed by beasts,

And the bones of sinners remain in
dishonor before the sun.

Let the ravens pick out the eyes of
hypocrites,

Because they have desolated many
houses of men in dishonor,
And dispersed in lust.

And did not remember God,
And did not fear God in all this.

And provoked God and incited Him,

May He take them away from the earth,

Because they deceived innocent souls
through deception.

Blessed are those who fear the Lord
in their innocence.

The Lord will deliver them from de-
ceitful men and sinners,

And will deliver us from every snare
of the sinner.

15. ἐνταῦϑα, so Fritzsche, against ἐν αὐλῇ of Hilgenfeld, and ἐν ταύτῃ of the codd,
ἐν λόγοις ἀναπλάσεως. is an emendation of Fritzsche ; the codd. and Geiger read ἐν λόγοις
ἀναπτερώσεως; Hilgenfeld ἐν λόγοις ἀναπληρώσεως.
Aug. ἐμπλήσαι. 21. σκορπισϑέιησαν, so also Geiger and Hilgenfeld, the codd. σπορπίσϑησαν.
ὑπὺ, cod. Aug. ὠπὸ,

το. ἐμπλήσει, cod, Vind. ἔνπλήσει; cod.

792 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW,

28, ἐξάραι ὁ Sete τοὺς ποιοῦντας ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ
πᾶσαν ἀδικίαν
ὅτι κριτὴς μέγας καὶ κραταιὸς κύριος ὁ ϑεὸς
ἡμῶν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

29. γένοιτο, κύριε, τὸ ἐλεός σου ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς

ἀγαπῶντάς σε.

28.

God will destroy those, who do every
injustice in pride,

Because a great judge and a mighty
Lord is our God in righteousness.

29. Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon all

that love Thee.

PSALM V.* .

1. Κύριε ὃ Sedc, ἀινέσω τῷ ὀνόματί cov ἐν
ἀγαλλιάσει,
Atari ΤΟΤα Ae τ A
ἐν μέσῳ ἐπισταμένων τὰ κρίματά cov τὰ
δίκαια"

2. ὅτι σὺ χρηστὸς καὶ ἐλεήμων εἶ, καταφυγὴ
τοῦ πτωχοῦ.

4. ἐν τῷ κεκραγέναι με πρὸς σὲ μὴ παρασι-
ὠπήσῃς ἀπ' ἐμοῦ.

4. οὐ γὰρ λήψεται σκῦλα ἄνϑρωπος παρὰ
ἀνδρὸς δυνατοῦ.

5. καὶ τίς λήψεται ἀπὸ πάντων ὧν ἐποίησας,
ἐὰν μὴ σὺ δῷς;
6. ὅτι ἄνϑρωπος καὶ ἡ μέρις αὐτοῦ παρὰ σοὶ ἐν
σταϑμῷ,
οὗ προςϑήσει τοῦ πλεονάσαι, παρὰ τὸ κρίμα
σου, ὁ ϑεὸς.

". Ἔν τῷ ϑλίβεσϑαι ἡμᾶς ἐπικαλεσόμεϑά σε
εἰς βοήϑειαν,
καὶ σὺ οὐκ ἀποστρέψεις τὴν δέησιν ἡμῶν,

ὅτι σὺ εἷς ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν.

8, μὴ βαρύνῃς τὴν χεῖρα σου ἐφ' ἡμᾶς,
ἵνα μὴ δἀνάγκην ἁμάρτωμεν.

9. καὶ ἐὰν μὴ ἐπιστρέψῃς πρὸς ἡμᾶς, οὐκ
ἀφεξόμεϑα,
ἀλλὰ ἐπὶ σὲ ἥξομεν.

το. ἐὰν γὰρ πεινάσω, πρὸς σέ κεκράξομαι, ὁ
ϑεὸς,
καὶ σὺ δώτεις μοι.

τι. τὰ πετεινὰ καὶ τοὺς ἰχϑύας σὺ τρέφεις
ἐν τῷ διδόναι σε ὑετὸν ἐν ἐρήμοις εἰς
ἀνατολὴν χλόης,
ἑτοιμάσαι χορτάσματα ἐν ἐρήμῳ παντὶ ζῶντι.

12. καὶ ἐὰν πεινάσωσι, πρὸς σέ ἀροῦσι πρόσωπα
αὐτῶν.

Ι,

To.

Il.

12.

Lord God, I will praise Thy name in
gladness,

In the midst of those, who know Thy
righteous judgments :

. For Thou art good and gracious, a

refuge of the poor.

. After having called to Thee, Thou wilt

not keep silence.

. A man will not take spoils from a

mighty man.

. And who will take from all that Thou

hast made, unless thou givest ?

. For man and his portion is before

Thee on the scale,
He will not increase his riches against
Thy discrimination, O God.

. In our distress we will cry to Thee

for help,

And Thou wilst not deny us our pe-
tition,

For Thou art our God.

. Let Thy hand not be heavy upon us,

That we may not sin on account of
distress.

And even, if Thou turnest not to us,
we shall not cease,
But shall come to Thee.

For when I am hungry I shall cry
unto Thee, O God,
And Thou wilt give me.

Thou feedest the birds and the fishes,

By giving rain in deserts for the grow-
ing of grass,

To prepare food in the desert for
every creature,

And when they are hungry, they lift
up their countenance to Thee.

#V. This psalm is entitled: Ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομῶν ε΄. 7. εἷς, Hilgenfeld εἷς. 9. πρὸδ

ἡμᾶς Fritzsche writes, the codd. ἡμᾶς.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18,

19

20,

21.

22

THE PSALTER

τοὺς βασιλεῖς Kat τοὺς ἄρχοντας καὶ λαοὺς-
σὺ τρέφεις, ὁ ϑεός,

καὶ πτωχοῦ καὶ πένητος ἡ ἐλπὶς τίς ἐστιν͵
εἰ μὴ σύ, κύριε;

καὶ σὺ ἐπακόυσῃ, ὅτε τίς γρηστὸς καὶ
ἐπιεικὴς, ἀλλ᾽ σύ,

εὐφρᾶναι ψυχὴν ταπεινοῦ ἐν τῷ ἀνδιξαι
χεῖρά σου ἐν ἐλέῳ;

ἡ χρηστότης ἀνϑρώπου ἐν φίλῳ καὶ ἡ
αὔριον,

καὶ ἐάν καὶ δευτερώσῃ ἄνευ γογγυσμοῦ, καὶ
τοῦτο ϑαυμάσειας"

τὸ δὲ δόμα σου πολὺ μετὰ γρηστότητος καὶ
πλούσιον,

καὶ οὗ ἐστιν ἐπὶ σὲ, κύριε, ἡ ἐλπὶς, οὐ φέισει
ἐν δόματι.

ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν τὸ ἔλεός σου, κύριε, ἐν
χρηστότητι.

Μακάριος οὗ μνημονεύει ὁ ϑεός ἐν συμμετρίς
αὐταρκεσίας"

ἐὰν ὑπερπλεονάσῃ ὁ ἄνϑρωπος, ἐξαμαρτύνει.

ἱκανὸν τὸ μέτριον ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ,

καὶ ἐν τόυτῳ ἡ εὐλογία κυρίου εἰς πλησμονὴν
ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ

εὐφρανϑείησαν οἱ φοβούμενοι κύριον ἐν
ἀγαϑοῖς,

καὶ ἡ χρηστότης σον ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν τῇ
βασιλείᾳ σου,

εὐλογημένη ἡ δόξα κυρίου,
ὅτι αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν.

OF SOLOMON. 793

Kings and princes and nations Thou
feedest, O God,

And who beside Thee, O Lord, is the
hope of the poor and destitute ?

13.

And Thou wilt hear, for who is as
good and kind as Thyself,

To cheer the heart of the poor, when
Thou openest thy hand in mercy?

14.

15. A man is good to his friend, and the
next day,
And when he gives again without mur-

muring, this also is surprising.

16. But thy gift is large with benevolence
and rich,
And whoso putteth his trust, O Lord, in

Thee, shall have no need of anything.

17. Over the whole earth is thy mercy, O

Lord, in benevolence.

18. Blessed whom God remembers in mea-

suring the due proportion.

19. When man has too much, he sins.

20. Sufficient is the necessary with right-
eousness,
And herein is the blessing of the Lord

for fulness in righteousness.

21. Those who fear the Lord rejoice in
happiness,

And thy mercy is upon Israel in thy
kingdom.

Ny

. Blessed be the glory of the Lord,
For He is our King !

2

16. φέισει so Fritzsche; cod. Vind. φέισεται; cod. Aug. φύσται; Cerda and Fabricius

φυσάεται.

dation ; the codd. read εὐφράνϑησαν.

I,

2.

4.

18. avrapkeciac, Hilgenfeld αὐταρκείας.

21. evopavdeinoav, Fritzsche’s emen-

PSALM, Vi.*

Μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἑτόιμη
ἐπικαλεῖσϑαι τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου"

ἐν τῷ μνημονεύειν αὐτὸν τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου
σωϑῆήσεται.

αἱ ὁδοὶ αὐτοῦ κατευϑύνονται ὑπὸ κυρίου,

καὶ πεφυλαγμένα ἔργα χειρῶν αὐτοῦ.

ἀπὸ ὁράσεων πονηρῶν ἐνυπνίων αὐτοῦ οὐ
ταραχϑήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ αὐτοῦ.

I. Blessed is the man whose heart is
ready to call upon the name of the
Lord,

2. In remembering the name of the Lord,
he shall be saved.

3. His paths are directed by the Lord,
And the works of his hands are kept.

4. On account of the bad visions of his
dreams his soul is not frightened.

*VI, The psalm is entitled : ψαλμὸς ἐν ἐλπίδι τῷ Σαλομὼν ζ΄,

794

5.

5. σάλῳ, cod. Vind. σάλων ; cod. Aug. σαλῶν.

2
a ἐπ’

ἐν διαβάσει ποταμῶν καὶ σάλῳ ϑαλασσῶν
ov πτοηϑήσεται.

ΕΥΨΕ "πα ie
ἐξανέστη ἐξ ὕπνου αὐτοῦ
καὶ εὐλόγησε τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου.

εὐσταϑείᾳ καρδίας αὐτοῦ ἐξύμνησε τὸ
ὄνομα τοῦ ϑεοῦ αὐτοῦ,

καὶ ἐδεηϑη τοῦ προσώπου κυρίου περί παντὸς
τοῦ οἴκου αὐτοῦ.

καὶ κύριος εἰςτήκουσε προσευχὴν παντὸς ἐν
φόβῳ Seow,

καὶ πᾶν αἴτημα ψυχῆς εἰλπιζούσης πρὸς
αὐτὸν ἐπιτελεῖ κύριος.

εὐλογητὸς κύριος ὁ ποιῶν ἔλεον τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν
αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ.

5.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

At the going through waters and in
the billows of seas he shall not be
terrified.

. He rises up from his sleep,

And praises the name of the Lord.

. With a faithful heart he praised the

name of his God,
And sought the face of the Lord for
his whole house.

. And the Lord heard the prayer of

every God-fearing,
And the Lord fulfills the petition of
the soul that hopes in Him.

. Blessed be the Lord, who does mercy

to them that love Him in truth.

9. εὐλογητὸς, cod. Aug. εὐλογήτω.

PSALM VII.*

. Μὴ ἀποσκηνώσῃς ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν, ὁ Sede,

ἵνα μὴ ἐπιϑῶνται ἡμῖν οἱ μισήσαντες ἡμᾶς
δωρεάν"

ὅτι ἀπώσω αὐτὸυς, 6 ϑεός"

μὴ πατησάτω ὁ ποῦς αὐτῶν κληρονομίαν
ἁγιάσματός σου.

. σὺ ἐν ϑελήματί σου παίδευσον ἡμᾶς

καὶ μὴ δῷς ἔϑνεσιν.

ἐὰν γὰρ ἀποστείλῃς ϑάνατον.
σὺ ἐντελεῖ αὐτῷ περὶ ἡμῶν,
ὅτι σὺ ἐλεήμων,
Se ἽΝ ER : - 3
Kat οὐκ ὀργισϑήσῃ Tov συντελέσαι ἡμᾶς.
‘Ev τῷ κατασκηνοῦν τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐν μέσῳ
ἡμῶν ἐλεηϑησόμεϑα.
καὶ οὐκ ἰσχύσει πρὸς ἡμᾶς ESvoc,
ὅτι σὺ ὑπερασπιστὴς ἡμῶν.
καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐπικαλεσόμεϑά σε,
καὶ σὺ ἐπακόυσῃ ἡμῶν.

Ζ

. ὅτι σὺ οἰκτειρήσεις τὸ γένος ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς τὸν

ἀιῶνα
καὶ οὐκ ἀπώσῃ.

Sele i atthe SEs Ss
καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑπὸ ζυγόν cov εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
καὶ ὑπὸ μαστίγα παιδείας σου.

. κατευϑυνεῖς ἡμᾶς ἐν καιρῷ ἀντιλήψεώς cov,

τοῦ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν δικον Ἰακὼβ εἰς ἡμέραν ἐν
ἢ ἐπηγγείλω αὐτοῖς.

I.

Remove not from us, O God,
That not come over us, who hated us
without cause.

. Thou hast rejected them, O God,

May their foot not enter Thy holy
inheritance.

. Chastise us according to Thy will,

But give us not to the heathen,

. Even if Thou wilt send death,

Thou wilt command it concerning us,
For Thou art merciful,
And will not be angry to destroy us.

. When Thy name dwells in our midst,

we shall find mercy.

. And the heathen shall not overpower us,

Because Thou art our protection.

. And we will call upon Thee,

And Thou wilt hear us.

. For Thou wilt be merciful to the peo-

ple of Israel for ever,
And wilt not reject it,
And we are always under Thy yoke,
And under the rod of Thy discipline.

. Thou wilt guide us in the time of Thy

help,

To be gracious to the house of Jacob, in
the day which Thou hast promised
unto them.

*VII. This psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν ἐπιστροφῆς ζ΄. 4. ob ἐντελεῖ Fritzsche;
Hilgenfeld σύ ἐντελῇ ; σὺν ἐντολῇ codd. 8. οἰκτειρῆσεις Fritzsche and Hilgenfeld ; οἰκτηρήσεις

the codd.

9. κατευϑυνεῖς, the codd. κατευϑύτεις,.

εἰς after σου is added by Fabricius.

8. ὑπὸ μαστίγα, the codd. omit ὑπὸ,

2.

Ir.

12.

13.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON,

795

PSALM VIII.*

. Θλέψιν καὶ φωνὴν πολέμου ἤκουσε τὸ οὖς μου,

φωνὴν σάλπιγγος ἠχούσης σφαγὴν καὶ
ὄλεϑρον"

φωνὴ λαοῦ πολλοῦ ὡς ἀνέμου πολλοῦ
σφόδρα,

καταιγὶς πυρὸς πολλοῦ φερομένου
δι ἐρήμου.

ὡς

. καὶ εἶπον ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ μου" ποῦ ἄρα κρινεῖ

αὐτὸν 6 ϑεός;

. φωνὴν ἤκουσα ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ πόλει ἁγι-

άσματος.

. συνετρίβη ἡ ὀσφύς μου ἀπὸ ἀκοῆς

παρελύϑη γόνατά μου.

ἐφοβήϑη ἡ καρδία μου,
ἐταράχϑη τὰ ὀστῶ μου ὡς λίνον.

εἶπον" κατευϑυνοῦσιν ὁδοὺς αὐτῶν ἐν δικ-
αιοσύνῃ.

᾿Ανελογισάμην τὰ κρίματα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἀπὸ
κτίσεως οὐρανοῦ καὶ γῆς,

ἐδικαίωσα τὸν ϑεὸν ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ
τοῖς ἀπ’ ἀιῶνος.

ἀνεκάλυψεν ὁ ϑεὸς τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν
ἐνάντιον τοῦ ἡλίου,

ἔγνω πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τὰ κρίματα τοῦ ϑεοῦ τὰ
δίκαια.

. ἐν καταγαίοις κρυφίοις αἱ παρανομίαι αὐτῶν,

ἐν παροργισμῷ υἱὸς μετὰ μητρὸς, καὶ
πατὴρ μετὰ ϑυρατρὸς συνεφύροντο"

ἐμοιχῶντο ἕκαστος γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον
αὐτοῦ,

συνέϑεντο αὑτοῖς συνϑήκας μετὰ ὅρκου περὶ
τούτων.

τὰ ἅγια τοῦ ϑεοῦ διήρπαζον, ovK ὄντος
κληρονόμου λυτρουμένου,

ἐπάτουν τὸ ϑυσιαστήριον κυρίου ἀπὸ πάσης
ἀκαϑαρσίας,

καὶ ἐν ἀφέδρῳ αἵματος ἐμίαινον τὰς ϑυσίας
ὡς κρέα βέβηλα.

Ι.

1Ο.

IL.

153

Distress and sound of war, my ear
heard

The clang of the trumpet, calling to
murder and ruin.

. The noise of a great army as of a

mighty rushing wind,
Like a great pillar of fire, rolling
hitherward over the plains!

. And I said within myself: Where then

will God judge it?

. [heard a voice in Jerusalem, the holy

city.

. My loins were broken at the hearing,

My knees were enfeebled.

. My heart was afraid,

My bones trembled like flax.

. 1 said: they make straight their paths

in righteousness.

I considered the judgments of God
since the creation of heaven and
earth,

I justified God in all His judgments
from everlasting.

God uncovered their sins before the
sun,

The whole earth knew the righteous
judgments of God.

. In secret hiding-places their sins.

In provocation sinned the son with the
mother, and the father with the
daughter.

Every one committed adultery with his
neighbor’s wife,

With an oath they covenanted for this
purpose.

. The sanctuary of God they plundered,

there being no heir to redeem it,

Away from all kinds of impurity they
went up the altar of the Lord,

And in the separation of blood they
polluted the sacrifices like profane
meat.

* VIII. The psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν εἰς νῖκος (cod. Vind., εἰς νίκας cod,
Aug.) η΄. 3. ἐν τῇ, the codd. without ἐν ; πόλιν, cod, Vind. πόλει. 7. κατευϑυνοῦσιν, the

codd. κατευϑύνουσιν ; Hilgenfeld reads: εἶπον κατευϑύνουσιν.

II. πλήσιον, cod. Aug

πλησίου; περὶ τούτων Geiger connects with the following verse.

796

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

23.

24.

25.

27.

28.

ov παρέλιπον ἁμαρτίαν, ἣν οὐκ ἐποίησαν
ὑπὲρ τὰ ἐϑνη.

Διὰ τοῦτο ἐκέρασεν αὐτοῖς ὁ ϑεὸς πνεῦμα
πλανήσεως,

ἐπότισεν αὑτοὺς ποτήριον οἴνου ἀκράτου
εἰς μέϑην.
: Rd ὁ δ Ὁ ᾿
ἤγαγε τὸν ἀπ’ ἐσχάτου τῆς γῆς, τὸν
παίοντα κραταιῶς.

ἔκρινε τὸν πόλεμον ἐπί Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τὴν
γῆν ἀυτῆς,

ἀπήντησαν αὐτῷ οἱ ἄρχοντες τῆς γῆς μετὰ

χαρᾶς,
εἶπον αὐτῷ" ἐπευκτὴ ἡ ὁδός cov, δεῦτε,
εἰσέλϑετε μετ’ εἰρήνης.

ὡμάλισαν ὁδοὺς τραχείας ἀπὸ εἰσόδου αὐτῶν,

ἤνοιξαν πύλας ἐπὶ Ἱερουσαλὴμ,

ἐστεφάνωσαν τείχη αὐτῆς.

v= - ν᾿ , τ = ᾽ ~

εἰςῆλϑεν ὡς πατὴρ εἰς οἶκον υἱῶν αὑτοῦ
per εἰρήνης.

ἔστησε τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ μετὰ ἀσφαλείας
πολλῆς,

κατελάβετο τὰς πυργοβάρεις αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ
τεῖχος Ἱερουσαλήμ"

. ὅτι Sede ἤγαγεν αὐτὸν μετὰ ἀσφαλείας ἐν

τῇ πλανήσει αὐτῶν.

ἀπώλεσεν ἄρχοντας ἀυτῶν καὶ πάντα σοφὸν
ἐν βουλῇ,

ἐξέχεε τὸ αἷμα τῶν οἰκόυντων Ἱερουσαλὴμ
ὡς ὕδωρ ἀκαϑαρσίας,

ἀπήγαγε τοὺς υἱοὺς καὶ τὰς ϑυγατέρας
αὐτῶν, ἃς ἐγέννησαν ἐν βεβηλώσει.

ἜΣ <n nes , a

ἐποίησαν κατὰ τὰς ἀκαρϑασίας αὐτῶν,
καϑῶς οἱ πατέρες αὐτῶν,

ἐμίαναν Ἱερουσαλὴμ καὶ τὰ ἡγιασμένα τῷ
ὀνόματι τοῦ ϑεοῦ,

᾿Εδικαιώϑη 6 Sede ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ
ἐν τοῖς ἔϑνεσι τῆς γῆς,

καὶ οἱ ὅσιοι τοῦ ϑεοῦ ὡς ἀρνία ἐν ἀκακίᾳ
ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

14. They have omitted no sin, which they

15.

τό.

17.

have not perpetrated even more
than the gentiles.

Therefore God sent upon them a spirit
of confusion,

Gave them to drink a cup of unmixed
wine to make them drunk,

He brought one from the extremity of
the earth, the Hardstricker.

Determined war against Jerusalem
and her land.

. The princes of the land met him

19.

20.

21

.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

with joy,
Said to him: Blessed be thy way,
come on, come in peace.

They made smooth the rough ways
before their entrance,

Opened the gates of Jerusalem,

Crowned the walls with garlands.

He entered, as a father enters the
house of his sons, in peace,
He walked abroad in perfect security,

He took possession of her towers and
the walls of Jerusalem.

For God had led him in safety, through
their folly.

He destroyed their princes, and every
one wise in counsel,

Poured out the blood of the inhabitants
of Jerusalem like unclean water,

He led their sons and daughters away,
which they brought forth in profa-
nation.

They had done according to their im-
purity, as their fathers,

Profaned Jerusalem and the things
sanctified to the name of God.

God showed himself just in His judg-
ments among the nations of the
earth,

In whose midst the saints of God are
like innocent lambs.

i5. ἐπότισεν αὐτοὺς, so Fritzsche following Hilgenfeld, against ἐπότισεν αὐτοῖς of the codd.
10. κραταιῶς, so cod. Vind., but cod. Aug. κρατερῶς. 18, ἐπευκτὴ, Hilgenfeld’s emenda-

tion, the codd, éxavx7#,

Fritzsche.

20. μετ᾽ ἀσφαλείας, cod, Aug.; but cod. Vind. μετὰ ἀσφαλείας, as

29.

30.

31.

32.

33-

35-

36.

37

.

38.

39-

40

THE PSALTER

αἰνετὸς κύριος ὁ κρίνων πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ. αὐτοῦ.

ἰδοὺ δὴ, ὁ ϑεὸς, ἔδειξας ἡμῖν τὸ κρίμα σου
ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου.

εἶδον οἱ ὀφϑαλμοὶ αὐτῶν τὰ κρίματά σου,
ὁ ϑεός,

ἐδικαιώσαμεν τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἔντιμον εἰς
αἰῶνας"

ὅτι σὺ ϑεὸς τῆς δικαιοσύνης, κρίνων τὸν
ἸΙσραὴλ ἐν παιδείᾳ.

ἔπίστρεψον, ὁ ϑεὸς, τὸ ἔλεός σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς
καὶ ὀικτείρησον ἡμᾶς,

. συνάγαγε τὴν διασπορὰν ᾿Ισραὴλ μετ’ ἐλέου

καὶ χρηστότητος.

ὅτι ἡ πίστις σου wed ἡμῶν,

καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐσκληρύναμεν τὸν τράχηλον
ἡμῶν,

καὶ σὺ παιδευτὴς ἡμῶν εἶ.

μὴ ὑπερίδῃς ἡμᾶς, 6 ϑεὸς ἡμῶν,

ἵνα μὴ καταπίῃ ἡμᾶς ἔϑνη, μὴ ὄντος
λυτρουμένου.

καὶ σὺ ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν an’ ἀρχῆς,
καὶ ἐπὶ σὲ ἠλπίσαμεν, κύριε.

καὶ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ἀφεξόμεϑά σου,
ὅτι χρηστὰ τὰ κρίμτά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς.

ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς͵ τέκνοις ἡμῶν ἡ εὐδοκία εἰς
τὸν αἰῶνα,

κύριε σωτὴρ ἡμῶν, οὐ σαλευϑησόμεϑα ἔτι
τόν αἰῶνα χρόνον.

ἀινετὸς κύριος ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ ἐν
στόματι ὁσίων,

. καὶ σὺ εὐλογημένος, ᾿Ισραὴλ, ὑπό κυρίου εἰς

τὸν αἰῶνα.

OF SOLOMON.

29.

40.

51.

32.

33:

34.

35.

36.

37-

38.

39.

40.

41

797

Praised be the Lord, who judges the
whole world in His righteousness.

Behold then, O God, Thou hast shown
to us Thy judgment in Thy right-
eousness.

Their eyes saw Thy judgments, O God,

We justified Thy name, honored for
ever.

For Thou art a God of righteousness,
who judges Israel in correction.

Turn, O God, Thy compassion upon
us and pity us,

Bring together the dispersion of Israel
with compassion and kindness ;

Because Thy faith is with us,
And we hardened our neck,

And Thou art our chastiser.

Overlook us not, our God,
That the heathen may not devour us,
irretrievably.

And Thou art our God from the begin-
ning,
And in Thee we hoped, O Lord,

And we will not leave Thee,
For Thy decisions are friendly toward
us.

To us and our children be Thy good
pleasure for ever,

Lord, our Saviour! we shall not be
shaken for ever.

Blessed be the Lord in His judgments
in the mouth of the pious,

. And blessed be thou, Israel, by the
Lord for ever and ever.

. οὐκ before ἀφεξόμεϑα is wanting in cod. Aug. ; Fabricius reads therefore ἀντεξόμεϑα.
. σαλευϑησόμεϑα, the codd. σαλευϑησώμεϑα.

PSALM IX.*

. Ἐν τῷ ἀπαχϑῆναι ᾿Ισραὴλ ἐν ἀποικεσίᾳ

δες ΤΣ ἢ
εἰς γῆν ἀλλοτρίαν,

ἐν τῷ ἀποστῆναι αὐτοὺς ἀπὸ κυρίου τοῦ
λυτρωσαμένου αὐτούς.

Ι.

When Israel was led away in captivity
in a strange land,

When they apostatized from the Lord
their Redeemer,

*IX, This psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομών εἰς ἔλεγχον 9.’ 1. ἀποικεσίᾳ, the
codd, ἀποικησίᾳ.

798

2. ἀπεῤῥίφησαν ἀπὸ κληρονομίας ἧς ἔδωκεν
αὐτοῖς κύριος ἐν παντὶ ἔϑνει,

ἐπὶ διασπορᾷ τοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμα
τοῦ ϑεοῦ,

4. ἵνα δικαιωϑῆς, ὁ ϑεὸς, ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ
σου ἐν ταῖς ἀνομίαις ἡμῶν.

4. ὅτι σὺ κριτὴς δίκαιος ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς λαοὺς
τῆς γῆς.

5. οὐ γὰρ κρυβήσεται ἀπὸ τῆς γνώσεώς σου πᾶς
ποιῶν κακά,

6. καὶ αἱ δικαιοσύναι τῶν ὁσίων σου ἐνώπιόν
σου, κύριε"
Silas =: = a ee
καὶ ποῦ κρυβήσεται ἄνϑρωπος ἀπὸ τῆς
γνώσεώς σου;

ἡ. Ὁ ϑεὸς, τὰ ἔργα ἡμῶν ἐν ἐκλογῇ καὶ ἐξουσίᾳ
τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν,
τοῦ ποιῆσαι δικαιοσύνην καὶ ἀδικίαν ἐν
ἔργοις χειρῶν ἡμῶν.

8. καὶ ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνῃ σου ἐπισκέπτῃ υἱοὺς
ἀνϑρώπων,

9. ὁ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην ϑησαυρίζει ζωὴν ἑαυτῷ
παρὰ κυρίου
\ 2 ~ " ν᾿ Ν " - -
καὶ ὁ ποιῶν ἄδικα αὐτὸς αἴτιος τῆς ψυχῆς
ἐν ἀπωλείᾳ.

Io, τὰ γὰρ κρίματα κυρίου ἐν δικαιόσυνῃ κατ᾽
ἄνδρα καὶ οἶκον.

Il, τίνι χρηστεύσῃ, 6 ϑεὸς, εἰ μή τοῖς ἐπικαλου-
μένοις τὸν κύριον;

12. καϑαρίσει ἐν ἁμαρτίαις ψυχὴν ἐν ἐξομολογ-
ήσει, ἐν ἐξηγορίαις.

13. ὅτι αἰσγύνη ἡμῖν καὶ τοῖς προςώποις ἡμῶν
περὶ ἁπάντων.

14. καὶ τίνι ἀφῆσει ἁμαρτίας, εἰ μὴ τοῖς
ἡμαρτηκόσι;

15. δικαίους εὐλογήσεις καὶ οὐκ εὐϑυνεῖς περὶ
Ov ἥμαρτον,

καὶ ἡ χρηστότης σου περὶ ἁμαρτάνοντας ἐν
μεταμελεΐᾳ.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

2. They were thrown away from the heri-
tage which the Lord had given them
in every nation,

At the dispersion of Israel according
to the word of God,

3. That Thou might be justified, O God, in
Thy righteousness through our sins.

4. For Thou art a righteous judge over all
the peoples of the earth.

5. For from before Thy knowledge no
evil-doer shall be hidden,

6. And the virtues of Thy pious are before
Thee, O Lord;
And where will a man be hid from
before Thy knowledge?

7. Ὁ God, our works are in the choice
and power of our souls,
To do justice and injustice in the works
of our hands.

8. And in Thy righteousness Thou visitest
the sons of men.

9. He who does righteousness treasures

up life for himself before the Lord,

And he who does unrighteous things

is himself the cause of his soul’s de-
struction,

Io. For the judgments of the Lord are in
righteousness in respect to man and
house.

11. To whom, O God, wilt Thou be gra,
cious, unless to those who call upon
the Lord ?

12. He will cleanse the soul in sins, when
there is confessing and acknowledg-

ing.

13. For shame covers us and our face on
account of all.

14. Whom will He forgive sins, unless
sinners?

15. The just Thou wilt bless and not care
for their sins,
And Thy mercy is with repenting
sinners.

2 ἧς in cod. Vind.; 7 in cod. Aug. 6. καὶ ποῦ, so cod. Vind.; cod. Aug. καὶ ov.

7. ἐξουσίᾳ so Hilgenfeld; Cerda and Fabricius ἐξουσία.

cod. Aug. ὁμολογήσει.

12. ἐξομολογήσει cod. Vind. ;

THE PSALTER

16, Kai viv σὺ ὁ Sede, καὶ ἡμεῖς λαὸς ὅν ἠγάπη-
σας,
ἴδε καὶ οἴκτειρον͵, ὁ ϑεὸς ᾿Ισραὴλ, ὅτι σοὶ
ἔσμεν,
καὶ μὴ ἀποστήσῃς ἐλεόν σου ἀφ᾽ ἡμῶν,

ἵνα μὴ ἔπιϑῶνται ἡμῖν.

ὅτι σὺ ἠρετίσω τὸ σπέρμα ’ABpadu παρὰ
πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη,

17.

18. καὶ ἔϑου τὸ ὄνομά σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, κύριε,

καὶ οὐ καταπαύσῃ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

ἐν διαϑήκῃ διέϑου τοὶς πατράσιν ἡμῶν περί
ἡμῶν,

καὶ ἡμεῖς ἐλπιοῦμεν ἐπὶ σὲ ἐν ἐπιστροφῇ
ψυχῆς ἡμῶν,

τοῦ κύριου 7 ἐλεημοσύνη ἐπὶ τὸν οἶκον
Ἰσραὴλ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι.

19

20.

OF SOLOMON, 799

16. And now, Thou art God, and we the
people, whom Thou hast loved,
Behold and have mercy, O God, over
Israel, because we are Thine,
And take not away Thy compassion
from us,
That they may not overcome us.

17. For Thou hast chosen the seed of
Abraham above all nations.

18. And put Thy name upon us, Lord,
And wilst not desist for ever,

19. In a covenant Thou hast promised to
our fathers concerning us,
And we will hopein Thee in conver-
sion of our souls.

20. The Lord’s is the compassion over the
house of Israel for ever and ever.

16, καὶ ἡμεῖς A. ὅν zy. ἴδε κ. olxT. Omitted by an oversight in cod. Aug; oo/, as in cod.

Vind. ; σοῦ in cod. Aug.; ἄποστῆσῃς, in cod. Aug. ἀποστήσεις.

17. tipetiow, cod. Vind.

ἡρετίσω; Cerda ἡρέτισε; Fabricius ἠρέτισας---παρὰ is wanting in the codd., but given

already by Fabricius,

20, καὶ ἔτι, cod. Aug. καὶ ἔτι τέλος.

PSALM X.*

Μακάριος ἀνῆρ, ob ὃ κύριος ἐμνήσϑη ἐν
ἐλέγχῳ
καὶ ἐκυκλώϑη ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ πονηρᾶς ἐν μάστιγι,

I

καὶ ἐκαϑαρίσϑη ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας τοῦ μὴ
πλησϑῆναι.
2. ὁ ἑτοιμάζων νῶτον εἰς μάστιγας καϑαρισ-
ϑήσεται,
χρηστὸς γὰρ ὁ κύριος τοῖς ὑπομένουσι
παιδείαν"

4. ὀρϑώσει γὰρ ὁδοὺς δικαίων,

καὶ ov διαστρέψει ἐν παιδείᾳ.

4. καὶ τὸ ἔλεος κυρίου ἐπὶ τοὺς ἀγαπῶντας
αὐτὸν ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ,
καὶ μνησϑήσεται κύριος τῶν δόυλων ἀυτοῦ
ἐν ἐλέει.

5. Ἢ μαρτυρία ἐν νόμῳ διαϑήκης αἰωνίου,

ἡ μαρτυρία κυρίου ἐπὶ ὁδοὺς ἀνϑρώπων ἐν
ἐπισκοπῇ.
6. δίκαιος καὶ ὅσιος κύριος ἡμῶν ἐν κρίμασιν
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,
καὶ Ἰσραὴλ αἰνέσει τό ὄνομα κυρίου ἐν
εὐφροσύνῃ"

I. Blessed the man whom the Lord re-
membered in reproof,
And he was turned away from the
evil way with the rod,
And was cleansed from sin, before the
measure was full.

2. He that gives his back to chastisement
will be cleansed,

For the Lord is good to them who
suffer discipline ;

3. For He will make straight the ways of
the righteous,
And not turn into discipline.

4. And the Lord’s mercy is upon them,
that love Him in truth,
And the Lord will remember His serv-
ants in mercy.

5. The testimony is in the law of the
everlasting covenant,
The testimony of the Lord is as the
ways of men in visitation.

6. Just and holy is our Lord in His judg-
ments for ever,
And Israel shall praise the name of
the Lord in gladness.

*X, The psalm is entitled: ὕμνος τῷ Σαλομὼν ι΄. τ. καὶ ἐκαϑαρίσϑη, so Hilgenfeld ; the

codd. καϑαρισϑῆναι; πλησϑῆναι, so Hilgenfeld ; the codd, πληϑῆναι.

codd. omit ἐν,

6. ἐν κρίμασιν, the

800

7.

Io,

καὶ ὅσιοὶ ἐξομολογήσονται ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ λαοῦ,

καὶ πτωχοὺς ἐλεήσει 6 ϑεὸς ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ
Ἰσραὴλ.

. ὅτε χρηστὸς καὶ ἐλεήμων ὁ ϑεὸς εἰς τὸν

αἰῶνα,
καὶ συναγωγαὶ Ἰσραὴλ δοξάσουσι τὸ ὄνομα
κυρίου.

. τοῦ Kupiov ἡ σωτηρία ἐπ᾽ οἶκον Ἰσραὴλ εἰς

εὐφροσύνην αἰώνιον.

PSALM

Σαλπίσατε ἐν Σιὼν ἐν σάλπιγγε σημασίας
ἁγίων,

κηρύξατε ἐν 'Ιερουσαλὴμ φωνὴν εὐαγγελιζο-
μένου,

ὅτι ἠλέησεν 6 Sede τὸν Ἰσρὴλ ἐν τῇ ἐπισ-
κοπῇ ἀυτῶν.

. στῆϑι Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐφ᾽ ὑψηλοῦ,

καὶ ἴδε τὰ τέκνα σου ἀπὸ ἀνατολῶν καὶ
δυσμῶν συνηγμένα εἰςάπαξ ὑπὸ κυρίου.

ἀπὸ βορρᾶ ἔρχονται τῇ εὐφροσύνῃ τοῦ
ϑεοῦ αὐτῶν,

ἐκ νήσων μακρόϑεν συνἤγαγεν αὐτοὺς ὁ
ϑεός,

. ὄρη ὑψηλὰ ἐταπείνωσεν εἰς ὁμαλισμὸν

αὐτοῖς,

οἱ βουνοὶ ἔφυγον ἀπὸ εἰσόδου αὐτῶν,

οἱ δρυμοὶ ἐσκίασαν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ παρόδῳ
αὐτῶν.

πᾶν ξύλον εὐωδίας ἀνέτειλεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Bede,

ἵνα παρέλϑη Ἱσραὴλ ἐν ἐπισκοπῇ δόξης
ϑεοῦ αὑτῶν.

ἔνδυσαι, Ἱερουσαλὴμ, τὰ ἱμάτια τῆς δόξης
σου,

ἑτοίμασον τὴν στολὴν τοῦ ἁγιάσματός σου,

ὅτι 6 ϑεὸς ἐλάλησεν ἀγαϑὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς
τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι.

wa

ποιήσαι κύριος a ἐλάλησεν ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ Kar
ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ,

ἀναστῆσαι κύριος τὸν ᾿Ισραῆλ εν ὀνόματι
δόξης αὐτοῦ.

τοῦ κυρίου τὸ ἔλεος ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς
τὸν ἀιῶνα καὶ ἔτι.

7.

8.

9.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

And the pious shall give thanks in the
congregation of the people,

And God will have mercy on the poor
in the gladness of Israel.

For God is gracious and merciful for
ever,

And the congregations of Israel will
magnify the name of the Lord.

From the Lord comes the salvation
upon the house of Israel for an ever-
lasting gladness.

E*

I.

Io,

Blow ye in Sion the signal-trumpet of
the holy ones.

. Proclaim in Jerusalem the voice of the

messenger of glad tidings,
For God had mercy upon Israel in
their visitation.

. Stand on high Jerusalem,

And behold thy children gathered from
the east and west at once by the
Lord.

. From the north they come to the joy

of their God,
From the distant isles God hath gath-
ered them.

High mountains He made low for them
to a plain.

. The hills fled from before their en-

trance
The woods gave them shade on their
way.

. Every tree of good smell God made

grow for them,
That Israel may pass by in the visita-
tion of the glory of his God.

. Put on, Jerusalem, the robes of thy

glory,

Prepare thy holy garment,

For God has promised salvation unto
Israel for ever and ever.

May the Lord do as He has spoken
concerning Israel and Jerusalem,
May the Lord uplift Israel in the name

of His glory,
The Lord’s is the compassion over Is-
rael now and for ever.

*XI. The psalm is entitled : Τῷ Σαλομὼν εἰς προςδοκίαν ιά. 2. τὸν ᾿Ισραὴλ, so Hilgenfeld,
against ἐν Ἰσραὴλ of the codd. 6, δρυμοὶ, cod. Aug. ὁρομοί. 9. ἐν ὀνόματε. . . . ἐπὶ τὸν
Ἰσραὴλ omitted in cod. Aug.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON.

801

PSALM XII*

. Κύριε, ῥῦσαι τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς

παρανόμου καὶ πονηροῦ,
ἀπὸ γλώσσης παρανόμου καὶ ψιϑυροῦ

καὶ λαλούσης ψευδῆ καὶ δόλια

. ἐν ποιήσει διαστροφῆς οἱ λόγοι τῆς γλώσσης

ἀνδρὸς πονηροῦ,
ὥσπερ ἐν ἅλῳ πῦρ ἀνάπτον καλάμην αὐτοῦ,

. ἡ παροινία αὐτοῦ ἐμπρῆσαι οἴκους ἐν

γλώσσῃ ψευδεῖ,
ἐκκόψαι δένδρα εὐφροσύνης φλογὶ ζήλους
παρανόμου.

. συγχέαι παρανόμους οἴκους ἐν πολέμῳ

χείλεσι ψιϑυροῖς.

Μακρύναι ὁ ϑεὸς ἀπὸ ἀκάκων χείλη παρα-
νόμων ἐν ἀπορίᾳ,

καὶ σκορπισϑείη ὀστᾶ ψιϑυρῶν ἀπὸ φοβου-
μένων κύριον.

. ἐν πυρὶ φλογὸς γλῶσσα ψιϑυρὸς ἀπόλοιτο

> > a Se"
a7O OOLWY,

φυλάξαι κύριος ψυχὴν ἡσύχιον μισοῦσαν
ἀδίκους,

καὶ κατευϑύναι κύριος ἄνδρα ποιοῦντα
εἰρήνην ἐν οἴκῳ,

. τοῦ κυρίου ἡ σωτηρία ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ παῖδα

αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

καὶ ἀπόλοιντο οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἀπὸ προσώπου
κυρίου ἅπαξ,

καὶ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομήσαιεν ἐπαγγελίας
κυρίου.

Ι,

Lord, deliver my soul from the im-
pious and sinful man,

From a tongue of an impious man
and slanderer,

And one talking lies and frauds.

. In making perversion are the words of

the tongue of a sinful man,
As in a threshing-floor the fire kind-
ling its straw.

3. His lust consists in burning houses

with a lying tongue,
To cut down trees of joy by the flame
of a sinful zeal.

To bring together sinful houses in
war through whispering lips.

Remove, O God, from the innocent
the lips of sinners in perplexity,

And the bones of slanderers may be
dispersed from the God-fearing.

. Ina flame of fire may the slandering

tongue be destroyed before the
pious.

. The Lord keep the quiet soul, which

hates the unjust,
And the Lord lift up the man who
makes peace in the house.

. The salvation of the Lord is upon Is-

rael, His servant for ever.

And let the sinners perish from before
the Lord once for all,

And let the holy ones of the Lord in-
herit the Lord’s promises.

* XII. This psalm is entitled: Τῷ Σαλομὼν ἐν γλώσσῃ παρανομων β΄. 3. Here we follow-

ed Hilgenfeld’s emendation, who corrected ἡ παροικία of the codd. into παροιυία, which
is also adopted by Wellhausen ; ἐμπλῆσαι (Fritzsche éumAgoar) into ἐμπρῆσαι ; φλογιζούσης
into φλογὶ ζήλους. Geiger and Fritzsche (the latter with the exception of ἐμπλῆσαι instead

of ἐμπλῆσαι of the codd.), retain the reading of the MSS. 4. χείλη wapavouov....

φοβουμένων omitted in cod. Aug., hence Cerda proposed that instead of κύριον, the read-
ing ought to be πύριον, which Fabricius adopted.

PSALM XIII.+

1. Δεξιὰ κυρίου ἐσκέπασέ ue,

δεξιὰ κυρίου ἐφείσατο ἡμῶν"

I.

The right hand of the Lord has pro-
tected me,

The right hand of the Lord has spared
us.

+ XIII. This psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τᾷ Σαλομὼν, παράκλησις τῶν δικαΐων, ιγ΄. τ. ἐσκέπασε

ἐπέσπασε; Geiger ἐξέσπασε.

so Fritzsche after Hilgenfeld; cod. Aug. ἐσπέσασε; cod, Vind. ἐπήσπασε; Fabricius

802

σι

ΙΟ.

ΣΙ.

ὁ βραχίων κυρίου ἔσωσεν ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ ῥομφαίας
διαπορευομένης,
ἀπὸ λιμοῦ καὶ ϑανάτου ἁμαρτωλῶν.

ϑηρία ἐπέδραμον αὐτοῖς πονηρὰ,

ἐν τοῖς ὀδοῦσιν αὐτῶν ἔτιλλον σάρκας
αὑτῶν,

ary icone ἐν ly ee τὶ
καὶ ἐν ταῖς μύλαις αὑτῶν ἔϑλων ὀστᾶ αὐτῶν"

Ν ᾽ "4 - la ARS a e μα
καὶ ἐκ τούτων ἁπάντων ἐῤῥύσατο ἡμᾶς
κύριος.

᾿Ἐταράχϑη ὁ ἀσεβὴς διὰ τὰ παραπτώματα
αὐτοῦ,
μήποτε συμπαραληφϑῇ μετὰ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν.

ὅτι δεινὴ καταστροφὴ τοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ,

AP atte ; A :
καὶ οὐχ ἅψεται δικαίου ἐκ πάντων τούτων
οὐδέν"

" > t , - , - , ᾽

ὅτι οὐχ ὁμοία ἡ παιδεία τῶν δικαίων ἐν
ἀγνοίᾳ,

καὶ ἡ καταστροφὴ τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν,

. ἐν περιστολῇ παιδεύεται δίκαιος,

ἵνα μὴ ἐπιχαρῇ ὁ ἁμαρτωλὸς τῶ δικαίῳ.

ὅτι νουϑετήσει δίκαιον ὡς ὑιὸν ἀγαπήσεως
καὶ ἡ παιδεία αὐτοῦ ὡς πρωτοτόκου,
ὅτι φείσεται κύριος τῶν ὁσίων αὐτοῦ,
ΞΟ Ἧ hontai a πῇ
καὶ τὰ παραπτώματα αὐτῶν ἐξαλείψει ἐν
παιδείᾳ.
ἡ γὰρ ζωὴ τῶν δικαίων εἰς τὸν ἀεῶνα
ἁμαρτωλοὶ δὲ ἀρϑήσονται εἰς ἀπώλειαν,

καὶ οὐχ εὑρεϑήσεται μνημόσυνον αὐτῶν ἔτι,

ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς ὁσίους τὸ ἔλεος κυρίου,

καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς φοβουμένους αὐτὸν τὸ ἔλεος
αὐτοῦ.

5. ἅψεται, cod. Vind. ἄψεται. 6. καταστροφὴ, cod. Aug. καταῤῥοφὴ.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

2. The arm of the Lord saved us from

3.

4.

Be

6.

7.

8.

{0.

Il.

the penetrating sword,

From famine, and the death of sin-
ners.

Wild beasts threw themselves upon
them,

With their teeth they lacerated their
flesh,

And with their jaws they crushed their
bones,

And from all this the Lord delivered
us.

The ungodly was terrified on account
of his sins,

Perhaps he may be destroyed with the
sinners.

For past recovery is the fall of the
sinner,

And nothing of all this will touch the
righteous.

For the discipline of the righteous is
not the same for ignorance,

And the fall of the sinners.

Secretly the righteous is chastised,

That the sinner may not rejoice over
the righteous.

For He will admonish the righteous
like a beloved son,

And his chastisement is as that of a
first-born.

For the Lord will spare His holy ones,

And will blot out their transgressions
in chastisement,

For the life of the righteous is for
ever.

But sinners shall be taken away into
destruction,

And their memorial shall be found no
more.

Upon the pious is the grace of the
Lord,

And upon those that fear Him His
mercy.

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. 803

PSALM XIV.*

I. ἸΠιστὸς κύριος τοῖς ἀγαπῶσιν αὐτὸν ἐν

ἀληϑείᾳ,
τοῖς ὑπομένουσι παιδείαν αὐτοῦ,

τοῖς πορευομένοις ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ προσταγμά-
TOV αὐτῶν,

᾿ ΄ t ᾿ , Ly , ‘ 6 --

ἐν νόμῳ ὡς ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν εἰς ζωὴν ἡμῶν

2. ὅσιοι κυρίου ζήσονται ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα

ὁ παράδεισος κυρίου, τὰ ξύλα τῆς ζωῆς ὅσιοι
αὐτοῦ

4. ἡ φυτεία αὐτῶν ἐῤῥιζωμένη εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,
οὐκ ἐκτιλήσονται πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας,

ὅτι ἡ μερὶς καὶ ἡ κληρονομία τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐστιν
ὁ ᾿Ισραήλ.

4. Καὶ οὐχ οὕτως οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ καὶ παράνομοι
ot ἠγάπησαν ἡμέραν ἐν μετοχῇ ἁμαρτίας
αὐτῶν,
ἐν πικρότητι σαπρίας, ἐν ἐπιϑυμίᾳ αὐτῶν,
5. καὶ οὐκ ἐμνήσϑησαν τοῦ ϑεοῦ,
ὅτι ὁδοὶ ἀνθρώπων γνωσταὶ ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ
διὰ παντὸς,
καὶ ταμιεῖα καρδίας ἐπίσταται πρὸ τοῦ
γενέσϑαι.

6. διὰ τοῦτο ἡ κληρονομία αὐτῶν ἄδης καί
σκότος καὶ ἀπώλεια,
καὶ οὐχ εὑρεϑήσονται ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐλέου
δικαίων,

ἡ. οἱ δέ ὅσιοι κυρίου κληρονομῆσουσι ζωὴν ἐν
εὐφροσύνῃ.

I. Faithful is the Lord to them that love

Him in truth,

To them that are patient under His
discipline,

To them that walk in righteousness of
His commandments,

In the law, as He commanded us that
we may live.

2. The pious of the Lord shall live in

Him for ever,
The paradise of the Lord, the trees of
life are His saints.

3. Their plantation is rooted in eternity,

They shall not be plucked out at any
time,

For the portion and heritage of God is
Israel.

4. But not so the sinners and ungodly,

Who loved the day in participation of
their sins,
In bitterness of decay, in their lusts.

5. And did not remember God,

For the ways of men are known be-
fore Him continually,

And He is aware of what is stored in
the heart before it is done,

6. Therefore is Hades their inheritance,

and darkness and destruction,
And they shall not be found in the
day of compassion on the righteous.

7. But the holy ones of the Lord shall in-

herit life in gladness.

* XIV. This psalm is entitled: Ὕμνος τῷ Laroudy 6.’ 4, πικρότητι, so Fritzsche follow-
ing Hilgenfeld ; the codd. and Geiger μικρότητι.

PSALM XV4

1. Ἔν τῷ ϑλίβεσϑαί pe ἐπεκαλεσάμην τὸ
ὄνομα κυρίου,
εἰς βοήϑειαν ἤλπισα τοῦ ϑεοῦ ᾿Ιακὼβ καὶ
ἐσώϑην

2. ὅτι ἐλπὶς καὶ καταφυγὴ τῶν πτωχῶν σύ, ὁ
ϑεός-

3. τί γὰρ ἰσχύει, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰ pun ἐξομολογήσασ-
ϑάι σοι ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ;

1. In my distress I called upon the name

of the Lord,
I hoped for the help of the God of
Jacob and I was delivered.

2. For hope and refuge of the poor art

Thou, O God.

3. For what availeth, without professing

Thee in truth ?

+XV. This psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν per’ wong vé. 3. Ti yap so Fritzsche

against τίς γάρ of the codd.

804

4.

5.

Io.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

Io.

καὶ τί δυνατὸς ἄνϑρωπος, εἰ μὴ ἐξομολογή-
σασϑαι τῷ ὀνόματί cov;

ψαλμὸν καὶ αἶνον per φδῆς ἐν εὐφροσύνῃ
καρόίας,,

καρπὸν χειλέων ἐν ὀργάνῳ ἡρμοσμένῳ
γλώσσης,

ἀπαρχὴν χειλέων ἀπὸ καρδίας ὁσίας καὶ
δικαίας,

. ὁ ποιῶν ταῦτα οὐ σαλευϑήσεται εἰς τὸν

αἰῶνα ἀπὸ κακοῦ
τ Σ - Ν ΠΝ x δι, ᾿ .
φλὸξ πυρὸς καὶ ὀργῇ ἀδίκων οὐχ αἀψεται
αὐτοῦ

. ὅταν ἐξέλϑῃ ἐπὶ ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ προσώπου

κυρίου
ὀλοϑρεῦσαι πᾶσαν ὑπόστασιν ἁμαρτωλῶν.

. ὅτι τὸ σημεῖον τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἐπὶ δικαίους εἰς

σωτηρίαν,
λιμὸς καὶ ῥομφαία καὶ ϑάνατος μακρὰν ἀπὸ
δικαίων

. φεύξονται γὰρ ὡς διωκομένου λιμοῦ ἀπὸ

ὁσίων,

καταδιώξεται δὲ ἁμαρτωλοὺς καὶ καταλήψ-
εται.

καὶ οὐκ ἐκφεύξονται οἱ ποιοῦντες ἀνομίαν τὸ
κρίμα κυρίου,

ὡς ὑπὸ πολεμίων ἐμπείρων καταληφϑήσονται,

τὸ γὰρ σημεῖον τῆς ἀπωλείας ἐπὶ τοῦ
μετώπου αὐτῶν,

καὶ ἡ κληρονομία τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν ἀπώλεια
καὶ σκότος.

καὶ αἱ ἀνομίαι αὐτῶν διώξονται αὐτοὺς Ewe
ddov κάτω,

ἡ κληρονομία αὐτῶν οὐχ εὑρεϑήσεται τοῖς
τέκνοις αὐτῶν.

αἱ γὰρ ἀνομίαι ἐξερημώσουσιν οἴκους ἁμαρ-
τωλῶν,

καὶ ἀπολοῦνται οἱ ἁμαρτωλοὶ ἐν ἡμέρᾳ
κρίσεως κυρίου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα.

ὅταν ἐπισκέπτηται ὁ ϑεὸς τὴν γῆν ἐν
κρίματι αἰτοῦ,
ἀποδοῦναι ἁμαρτωλοῖς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα χρόνον.

οἱ δὲ φοβούμενοι τὸν κύριον ἐλεηϑήσονται
ἐν αὐτῇ,

καὶ ζήσονται ἐν τῇ ἐλεημοσύνῃ τοῦ ϑεοῦ
αὐτῶν.

cod. Aug. omits τῆς before ἀπωλείας, ΙἹ.

4.

Be

6.

ws
:

We

Io,

II.

12.

13.

14.

15.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

And what can a man do, except prais-
ing Thy name?

A psalm and praise with song in joy
of heart,
The fruit of lips on the tuned organ of
the tongue,
The first-fruits of lips out of a pious
and righteous heart.

Whosoever does this shall never be
shaken by the evil,

Flame of fire and wrath of sinners wil
not touch him,

When it goes forth upon the sinners
from before the face of the Lord,
To destroy every substance of sinners,

For the sign of God is upon the right-
eous for salvation,

Hunger and sword and death are far
off from the righteous.

. For they will flee as a persecuting

hunger from the holy ones,
But it will persecute sinners and seize.
Those who do iniquity shall not es-
cape the judgment of the Lord,
They shall be seized as by experi-
enced foes.

For the sign of destruction is on their
forehead.

And the inheritance of sinners is de-
struction and darkness,

And their iniquities shall pursue them
down to Hades.

And their portion shall not be found
for their children.

For the iniquities shall lay waste the
houses of sinners,

And the sinners shall perish in the
day of the judgment of the Lord for
ever.

When God shall visit the earth in His
judgment,
To render unto sinners for ever.

But those who fear the Lord shall be
pitied in that [day],

And shall live in the compassion of
their God.

cod, Aug. omits αὐτῶν after ἀνομίαι,

THE PSALTER OF SOLOMON. 805

PSALM XVI.*

1. Ἔν τῷ νυστάξαι ψυχῆν μου ard κυρίου, 1. When my soul slumbered, away from
the Lord,
παρὰ μικρὸν ὠλίσϑησα ἐν καταφορᾷ ὕπνου, I almost fell into a stupefaction.
2. ἐν τῷ μακρῦταί με ἀπὸ ϑεοῦ 2. In my being away from God
map’ ὀλίγον ἐξεχύϑη ἡ ψυχῆ μου εἰς ϑάνατον. My soul was almost outpoured unte
death
σύνεγγυς πυλῶν Ldov μετὰ ἁμαρτωλοῦ. Near the doors of Hades with the sin-
ners,

3. ἐν τῷ διενεχϑῆναι ψυχῆν μου ἀπὸ κυρίου 3. Because my soul was far away from

ϑεοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ, the Lord God of Israel

εἰ μὴ ὁ κύριος ἀντελάβετό μου τῷ ἐλέει Were it not that the Lord in His ever-
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. . lasting mercy had compassion with

me.
4. ἔνυξέ με ὥς κέντρον ἵππου ἐπὶ τὴν ypyyép- 4. He pricked me as a spur of the horse

ησιν αὐτοῦ to his watch,

ὁ σωτὴρ καὶ ἀντιλήπτωρ μου ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ My Saviour and helper saved me at all
ἔσωσέ pe. time.

5. ἐξομολογήσομαί σοι, ὁ ϑεὸς ὅτι ἀντελάβου 5. I thank Thee, O God, that Thou hast

μου εἰς σωτηρίαν, helped me for salvation,
kai οὐκ ἐλογίσω μὲ μετὰ TOY ἁμαρτωλῶν And didst not count me with the sin-
εἰς ἀπώλειαν. ners for destruction.

6. μὴ ἀποστήσῃς τὸ ἐλεός cov ar’ ἐμοῦ, ὁ Fede, 6. Take not away, O God, Thy mercy

from me,
μηδὲ τὴν μνήμην cov ἀπὸ καρδίας μου ἕως Nor Thy remembrance from my heart
ϑανάτου. until death.

ἡ. ἐπικράτησόν μου, ὁ ϑεὸς, ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας 7. Keep me back, O God, from evil sin

πονηρᾶς,
καὶ ἀπὸ πάσης γυναικὸς πονηρᾶς σκανδαλιζ- And from every bad woman, which
οὔσης ἄφρονα. brings to ruin the unwise.

8. καὶ μὴ ἀπατησάτω pe κάλλος γυναικὸς 8. Let not the beauty of an unchaste

παρανομούσης, woman deceive me, :
καὶ παντὸς ὑποκειμένου ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας Nor of any, who is controlled by un-
ἀνωφελοῦς. profitable sin.

τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν pov κατεύϑυνον fv 9. The works of my hands direct in Thy

φόβῳ σου, fear,
καὶ τὰ διαβήματά μου ἐν τῇ μνήμῃ cov And my paths keep in Thy remem-
διαφύλαξον. brance,

το. τὴν γλῶσσάν μου καὶ τὰ χείλη μου ἐν λόγοις το. My tongue and my lips clothe in

ἀληϑείας περίστειλον, words of truth,
ὀργὴν καὶ ϑυμὸν ἄλογον μακρὰν ποΐησον Wrath and irrational passion keep
ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ, away from me.

*XVI. The psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν εἰς ἀντίληψιν ι΄" 1. καταφορᾷ the
codd. καταφϑορᾷ. Cerda already remarked: fortasse érat καταφορᾷ, which is now the
common reading. 2. ἐν τῷ μακρῦταί με, codd. and Geiger τῷ μακρὰν, ἐξεχύϑη, codd.
ἐξεχώϑη. 5. ἐλογίσω so Fritzsche after Hilgenfeld, the codd. ἐλλογίσω. 9. φόβῳ sa
Hilgenfeld and Fritzsche, the codd. and Geiger after them τόπῳ, Wellhausen τύπῳ,

806

ΣΙ.

13.

14.

15.

γογγυσμὸν καὶ ὀλιγοψυχίαν ἐν ϑλίψει
μάκρυνον ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ

ἐὰν ἁμαρτήσω ἐν τῷ σε παιδεύειν εἰς
ἐπιστροθήν.

ἐν evdoxia δὲ μετὰ ἱλαρότητος στήριξον τὴν
ψυχήν μου,

ἐν τῷ ἐνισχῦσαί σε τὴν ψυχήν μου ἀρκέσει
μοι τὸ δοϑέν.

ὅτι ἐὰν μὴ σὺ ἐνισχίσῃς, τίς ὑφέξεται
παιδείαν ἐν πενίᾳ,

ἐν τῷ ἐλέγχεσϑαι ψυχὴν ἐν χειρὶ σαπρίας
αὑτῆς;

ἡ δοκιμάσια σου ἐν σαρκὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν
ϑλίψει πενίας.

ἐν τῷ ὑπομεῖναι δίκαιον ἐν τούτοις ἐλεη-
ϑήσεται ὑπὸ κυρίου.

PSALM

Κύριε, σὺ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν
αἰῶνα καὶ ἔτι,

ὅτι ἐν σοὶ, ὁ ϑεὸς, καυχήσεται ἡ ψυχὴ
ἡμῶν.

. καὶ τίς ὁ χρόνος ζωῆς ἀνϑρώπου ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς;

ἈΝΑ ; fi) TRE eee 5. Ps
κατὰ τὸν χρόνον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτοῦ
ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν.

. ἡμεῖς δὲ ἐλπιοῦμεν ἐπὶ ϑεὸν τὸν σωτῆρα
ff t

ἡμῶν,
ὅτι τὸ κράτος τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
μετ᾽ ἐλέου,

καὶ ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ ϑεοῦ ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
ἐπὶ τὰ ἔϑνη ἐν κρίσει,

. Σὺ, κύριε ἡρετίσω τὸν Δαυὶδ βασιλέα ἐπὶ

Ἰσραὴλ,

καὶ σὺ ὥμοσας αὐτῷ περὶ τοῦ σπέρματος
αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

τοῦ μὴ ἐκλείπειν ἀπέναντί σου βασιλείαν
αὐτοῦ.

καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἁμαρτίαις ἡμῶν ἐπανέστησαν
ἡμῖν ἁμαρτωλοὶ
ἐπέϑεντο ἡμῖν καὶ ἐξῶσαν ἡμᾶς

οἷς οὐκ ἐπηγγείλω, μετὰ βίας ἀφείλοντο,

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

11. Murmuring and faintheartedness in

distress let be far from me,
When I have sinned, and Thou chas-
tisest me for repentance.

12. In pleasure with cheerfulness strength-

en my soul,
When Thou strengthenst my soul, the
gift will be sufficient for me.

13. For when Thou dost not strengthen,

who will endure chastisement in
poverty,

14. When the soul is chastised by her cor-

ruption ?
Thy trial is in his flesh and in afflic-
tion of poverty.

15. The righteous, in enduring all this, will

obtain mercy of the Lord.

XVIL*

1. Lord, Thou alone art our King for

ever and ever,
For in Thee shall our soul make her
boast.

2. And what is the span of man’s life

upon earth ?
According to his time is also his hope
upon him.

3. But we hope in God, our Saviour,

Because the power of our God is with
mercy for ever.

4. And the kingdom of our God is over

the heathen in judgment for ever.

5. Thou, O Lord, didst choose for Thy-

self David, to be king over Israel,
And didst swear to him respecting his
seed for ever,
That they will never leave his king-
dom before Thee.

6. But in our sins the wicked have risen

up against us,

They have done violence against us
and thrust us out,

Whom Thou hast not sent forth, took

with power,

*XVII. This psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν per’ Gdie τῷ βασιλεῖ ιζ΄. 5. βασιλεία
so cod. Aug., βασίλειον cod. Vind.

10.

II.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

THE PSALTER

. kat οὐκ ἐδόξασαν τὸ ὄνομά σου τὸ ἔντιμον

ἐν δόξῃ ἔϑεντο βασίλειον ἀντὶ ὕψους αὐτῶν,

. ἠρήμωσαν τὸν ϑρόνον Δαυὶδ ἐν ὑπερηφανίᾳ

ἀλαλάγματος.
καὶ od, ὁ ϑεὸς, καταβαλεῖς αὐτοὺς,

καὶ ἀρεῖς τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.

. ἐν τῷ ἐπαναστῆναι αὐτοῖς ἄνϑρωπον ἀλλό-

τριον γένους ἡμῶν.

κατὰ τὰ ἁμαρτήματα αὐτῶν ἀποδώσεις
αὐτοῖς, ὁ ϑεὸς
εὑρεϑείῃ αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν.

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν ἐλεήσει αὐτοὺς ὁ ϑεὸς,

ἐξηρεύνησε τὸ σπέρμα αὐτῶν καὶ οὐκ ἀφῆκεν
αὐτούς.

πιστὸς ὁ κύριος ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς κρίμασιν
αὐτοῦ οἷς ποιεῖ ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν.

ἬἪρήμωσεν ὁ ἄνομος τὴν γῆν ἡμῶν ἀπὸ
ἐνοικούντων αὐτὴν

, ΄ὕ Z Ss 4 Ss

ἠφάνισεν νέον καὶ πρεσβύτην καὶ τέκνα
αὐτῶν ἅμα.

ἐν ὀργῇ κάλλους αὐτοῦ ἐξαπέστειλεν αὐτὰ
ἕως ἐπὶ δυσμῶν,

καὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας τῆς γῆς εἰς ἐμπαιγμὸν,
καὶ οὐκ ἐφείσατο.

ἐν ἀλλοτριότητι ὁ ἐχϑρὸς ἐποίησεν ὑπερ-
ηφανίαν,

καὶ ἡ καρδία αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρία ἀπὸ τοῦ ϑεοὺ
ἡμῶν.

καὶ πάντα boa ἐποίησεν ἐν 'Τερουσαλὴμ,

καϑὼς καὶ τὰ ἔϑνη ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι τοῖς
ϑεοῖς αὐτῶν,

καὶ ἐπεκράτουν αὐτῶν ol ὑιοὶ τῆς διαϑήκης

ἐν μέσῳ ἐϑνῶν συμμίκτων,

οὐκ ἦν ὁ ποιῶν ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐν μέσῳ Ἵερου-
σαλὴμ ἔλεος καὶ ἀλήϑειαν.

OF SOLOMON.

7.

Io.

II.

12.

13.

is

16.

17.

807

And did not honor Thy ever honored
name

They set up a crown in glory because
of their pride.

. They have laid waste the throne of

David with a haughty shout of tri-
umph,

But Thou, O God, wilt cast them
down,

And Thou wilt take away their seed
from the earth.

. Raising up against them an alien, who

is not of our race.

After their sins shalt Thou recom-
pense them, O God;

They will receive according to their
works.

According to their works will God
show pity on them,

He hunted out their seed, and did not
let them go.

Faithful is the Lord, in all His judg-
ments which He performs in the
earth,

He who has not the law has desolated
our land of its inhabitants,

He has made the youth, and the old
man, and the child disappear to-
gether.

. In his jealous fury he has sent them

away to the west

And the princes of the land he has
made an open show, and has not
spared.

In alien pride the enemy has done
haughtily,

And his heart was a stranger to our
God.

And he did all things in Jerusalem,
As the heathen do for their idols, in
their cities.

And the sons of the covenant got the
mastery over them in the midst of
the mixed heathen,

There was not one in the midst of Je-
rusalem who did mercy and truth.

9. γένους so cod, Aug., Fritzsche, Hilgenfeld, Geiger; cod. Vind. γένος. ἡμών, cod. Vind.,
Fritzsche, Geiger, Hilgenfeld, ἡριτῶν cod. Vind. 13. ἄνομος, so Ewald (Gott. Gel. Aug.
1867, p. 1dg), followed by Hilgenfeld and Fritzsche; the codd. read ἄνεμος, which Geiger

retained.

ἠφάνισεν, sO Fritzsche after Hilgenfeld ; codd. ἠφάνισαν, retained by Geiger.

808

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

ἔφυγον ἀπ᾽ αὐτῶν οἱ ἀγαπῶντες συναγωγὰς
ὁσίων,

ὡς στρουθία ἐξεπετάσϑησαν ἀπὸ κοίτης
αὐτῶν.

ἐρήμοις, σωϑῆναι ψυχὰς

ἀπὸ κακοῦ,

καὶ τίμιον ἐν ὀφϑαλμοῖς παροικίας ψυχὴ
σεσωμένη ἐξ αὐτῶν.

εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν ἐγενήϑη ὁ σκορπισμὸς
αὑτῶν ὑπὸ ἀνόμων,

ὅτι ἀνέσχεν οὐρανός τοῦ στάξαι ὑετὸν ἐπὶ
τῆς γῆς,

πηγαὶ συνεσχέϑησαν αἰώνιοι ἐξ ἀβύσσων ἀπὸ
ὀρέων ὑψηλῶν.

ὅτι οὐκ ἦν ἐν αὐτοῖς ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην
καὶ κρίμα,

A = ΟΣ ΡΣ 2
ἀπὸ ἄρχοντος αὐτῶν καὶ λαοῦ ἐλαχίστου ἐν
πάσῃ ἁμαρτίᾳ.

, Ν ᾿ ΄ pe 6 Ν Ly
6 βασιλεὺς ἐν παρανομίᾳ, Kat ὁ κριτὴς οὐκ
ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ.

καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐν ἁμαρτίᾳ.

Ἴδε, κύριε, καὶ ἀνάστησον αὐτοῖς τὸν
βασιλέα αὐτῶν

υἱὸν Δαυὶδ εἰς τὸν καιρὸν ὃν οἶδας σὺ, ὁ
ϑεὺς,

τοῦ βασιλεῦσαι ἐπὶ ᾿Ισραὴλ παῖδά σου,

καὶ ὑπόζωσον αὐτὸν ἰσχύϊ τοῦ ϑραῦσαι
ἄρχοντας ἀδίκους.

καϑάρισον Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἀπὸ ἐϑνῶν καταπα-
τούντων ἐν ἀπωλέιᾳ,

ἐν σοφία, ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

ΡΞ ΞΡ ΤΕΣ; ‘a

ἐξώσαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἀπὸ κληρονομίας,

ἐκτρίψαι ὑπερηφανίαν ἁμαρτωλῶν

ὡς σκεύη κεραμέως ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ συν-
τρίψαι πᾶσαν ὑπόστασιν αὐτῶν.

18.

19

20.

21.

22.

23.

24

25.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Those who loved the synagogues of
the saints fled from them,

They were driven away as sparrows
from their nest.

They wandered in deserts, that their
souls might be saved from defile-
ment,

And precious was in the sight of the
captivity a saved soul of them.

They were scattered over the whole
earth by those who have not the
Law.

Because heaven refused to give rain
upon the earth.

Eternal fountains were kept back from
the depths of high mountains,

Because there was none among them,
who did righteousness and judg-
ment,

The highest and the lowest were in
every sin.

The king in transgression, and the
judge not in truth,

And the people in sin.

Behold, O Lord, and raise up to them
their king,

The son of David, at the time Thou,
O God, knowest,

To rule Israel, Thy servant.

And gird him with strength, that he
may break in pieces the unjust
rulers.

Cleanse Jerusalem from the heathen,
who tread it under foot,

~ In wisdom, in righteousness.

26. Thrust out the sinners from the inher-

itance,

Grind to dust the haughtiness of the
transgressors ;

Shatter in pieces all their strength, as
a potter’s vessel is shattered bya
rod of iron,

22. οὐκ ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ, this Hilgenfeld’s emendation for ἐν ἀληϑείᾳ of the codd. ; Geiger
reads ἐν ἀσεβείᾳ. 23. οἶδας so Hilgenfeld, cod. Vind. oidec, cod. Aug. εἶδες, 24. toxti
so cod, Aug.; cod. Vind. ἰσχύν. 26, ἁμαρτωλὼων cod. Aug.; ἁμαρτωλοὺς cod. Vind.

27.

28.

29.

30.

an:

32.

33:

34.

35.

“6.

THE PSALTER

ὀλοϑρεύσαι ἔϑνη παράνομα ἐν λόγῳ στόμα-
τος αὐτοῦ,

ἐν ἀπειλῇ αὐτοῦ φυγεῖν ἔϑνη ἀπὸ προσώπου
αὐτοῦ,

καὶ ἐλέγξαι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἐν λόγῳ καρδίας
αὑτῶν,

καὶ συνάξει λαὸν ἅγιον, οὗ ἀφηγήσεται ἐν
δικαιοσύνῃ, :

τ Ε Ξ πεν ᾿ iat A
καὶ κρινεῖ φυλὰς λαοῦ ἡγιασμένου ὑπὸ κυρίου
θεοῦ αὐτοῦ.

See eae It bad peewee ar ete a

καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει ἀδικίαν ἐν μέσῳ ἀυτῶν αὐλισ-
θῆναι,

καὶ οὗ κατοικῆσαι πᾶς ἄνθρωπος μετ’ αὐτῶν
εἰδὼς κακίαν.

, τς δ δεδοϑσοι , ἘΠ ᾿
γνώσεται γὰρ αὐτοὺς ὅτι πάντες υἱοὶ ϑεοῦ
αὑτῶν εἰσι,
καὶ καταμερίσει αὐτοὺς ἐν ταῖς φυλαῖς αὐτῶν
ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς.
Ν , Ν ᾿ Ν + ΄
καὶ πάροικος καὶ ἀλλογενὴς οὐ παροικῆσει
αὐτοῖς ἔτι
κρινεῖ λαοὺς καὶ ἔϑνη ἐν σοφίᾳ δικαιοσύνης
pes τῆν
αὐτοῦ. διάψαλμα.

καὶ ἕξει λαοὺς ἐθνῶν δουλεύειν αὐτῷ ὑπὸ
ζυγὸν αὐτοῦ

καὶ τὸν κύριον δοξάσει πάσης τῆς γῆς.

> ὝΨΗΣ ς Στῆς aes
καὶ καϑαρίσει ‘Tepovoadju ἐν ἁγιασμῷ, ὡς
καὶ τὸ ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς,

ἔρχεσθαι ἔθνη ἀπ’ ἄκρου τῆς γῆς ἰδεῖν τὴν
δόξαν αὐτοῦ,

φέροντας δῶρα τοὺς ἐξησϑενηκότας υἱοὺς
αὐτοὺς

καὶ ἰδεῖν τὴν δόξαν κυρίου, ἣν ἐδόξασεν αὐὖ-
τὴν ὁ θεὸς

καὶ αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς δίκαιος διδακτὸς ὑπὸ
θεοῦ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς.

καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀδικία ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ
ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν,

ὅτι πάντες ἅγιοι, καὶ βασιλεὺς αὐτῶν χρισ-
τὸσ κύριος.

OF SOLOMON.

27.

28.

29.

30.

3I.

32.

33.

34.

35.

46.

809

Destroy utterly, lawless gentiles with
the word of his mouth,

At His threatening let the gentiles
flee before His face,

And confound Thou the sinners in the
thoughts of their hearts.

And He shall bring together the holy
race, and shall lead them in right-
eousness,

And He shall judge the tribes of a
people sanctified by the Lord his
God.

And He will not suffer unrighteous-
ness to dwell in the midst of them.

Nor shall any wicked man dwell
among them who knows unright-
eousness.

For He will take knowledge that they
are all sons of God,

And He will portion them out in their
tribes over the land.

And the stranger and the foreigner
will dwell among them no more

He will judge peoples and gentiles
in the wisdom of His righteous-
ness. Selah.

And He will bring peoples from the
heathen to serve Him under His
yoke,

And he will exalt the Lord exceedingly,
in all the earth;

And he will cleanse Jerusalem in holi-
ness, as it was in the beginning,

That the heathen will come from the
extremity of the earth to see His

glory,
And bring gifts, her weary sons,

And to see the glory of the Lord, with
which God has dignified her.

And He shall be a righteous king
over them, taught of God.

And there shall be no unrighteousness
in their midst in His days,

Because they are all holy, and their
king is the anointed, the Lord.

27. ἀπειλῇ so Fritzsche after Hilgenfeld ; the codd. ἀπελλῃ. 30. καταμερίςει so cod. Vind.;

cod. Aug. καταμετρίσει.

31. λαοὺς καὶ ἔϑνη cod. Vind:; cod. Aug. ἔϑνη καὶ λαοὺς.

32. τὸν

κύριον cod. Vind., omitted in cod. Aug. 34. φέροντας Hilgenfeld’s emendation ; the codd,
φέροντες ; Geiger φέροντα,

52

819

37. ov γὰρ ἐλπιεῖ ἐπὶ ἵππον καὶ ἀναβάτην καὶ
τόξον,
ὙΡΕ ΥΜΕ edt le. : ee ae
οὐδὲ πληϑυνεῖ αὑτῷ χρυσίον καὶ ἀργύριον
εἰς πόλεμον,
καὶ ὅπλοις οὐ συνάξει ἐλπίδας εἰς ἡμέραν
πολέμου.

48. κύριος αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς αὐτοῦ, ἐλπὶς τοῦ δυν-
ατοῦ ἐλπίδι ϑεοῦ,
καὶ στήσει πάντα τὰ ἔϑνη ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ἐν
φόβῳ. ἶ

39. πατάξει γὰρ γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὖ-
τοῦ εἰς αἰῶνα,

40. εὐλογήσει λαὸν κυρίου ἐν σοφίᾳ μετ᾽ εὐφρο-
σύνης.

41. καὶ αὐτὸς καϑαρὸς ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας τοῦ ἄρχειν
λαοῦ μεγάλου,
ἐλέγξαι ἄρχοντας καὶ ἐξᾶραι ἁμαρτωλοὺς ἐν
ἰσχύϊ λόγου.

κὰ

42. καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενήσει ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ
ϑεῷ αὐτοῦ,
ὅτι ὁ θεὸς κατειργάσατο αὐτὸν δυνατὸν ἐν
πνεύματι ἁγίῳ,
καὶ σοφὸν ἐν βουλῇ συνέσεως μετ᾽ ἰσχύος καὶ
δικαιοσύνης.

43. καὶ εὐλογία κυρίου μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐν ἰσχύϊ,

ae eA σον τς
καὶ οὐκ ἀσϑενήσει ἡ ἐλπὶς αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ κύριον.

44. καὶ τίς δύναται πρὸς αὐτὸν ;

ἰσχυρὸς ἐν ἔργοις αὐτοῦ καὶ κραταιὸς ἐν
φόβῳ θεοῦ,

45. ποιμαίνων τὸ ποιμνίον κυρίου ἐν πίστει καὶ
δικαιοσύνῃ,
καὶ οὐκ ἀφήσει ἀσθενῆσαι ἐν αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ
νομῇ αὐτῶν,

46. ἐν ὁσιότητι πάντας αὐτοὺς ἄξει,
καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ἐν αὑτοῖς ὑπερηφανία τοῦ κατα-
δυναστευϑῆναι ἐν αὑτοῖς.

47. Αὕτη ἡ εὐπρέπεια τοῦ βασιλέως ᾿Ἰσραὴλ,
ἣν ἔγνω 6 Fede,
ἀναστῆσαι αὑτὸν ἐπ᾽ δικον ᾿Ισραὴλ, παι-
δεῦσαι αὐτόν.

37. αὑτῷ Hilgenfeld, Cerda and Fabricius αὐτῷ;

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

37. For He shall not trust in horse, and
chariot and bow,
Neither shall He gather to Himself sil-
ver and gold for war,
And He shall not trust in arms in the
day of battle.

38. The Lord, Himself, is His king, hope
of the mighty by hoping in God,
And He shall set all the heathen in
terror before Him.

39. For He will smite the earth with the
word of His mouth for ever.

40. He will bless the people of the Lord
in wisdom with gladness,

41. And He, being pure from sin, for the
ruling of a great people,
Will rebuke kings, and will cut cff
transgressors by the might of His
word.

42. And He shall not want help from
God, in His days,
For God has made Him mighty in the
Holy Spirit,
And wise in counsel with strength and
righteousness.

43. And the poor of the Lord are with Him
in strength,
And He shall not be weak, His hope
is in the Lord.

44. And who can do anything against
Him ἢ
He will be mighty in His doings, and
strong in the fear of God,

45. Feeding the flock of the Lord in faith
and righteousness,
He will not suffer any infirm to be
among them in their pasture.

46. He will lead them all in holiness,
And there will be among them no
haughty oppressing of them.

47. This is the beauty of the king of Is-
rael, which is known to God,
He shall raise Him over the house of
Israel, to inhabit it.

ὅπλοις so Fitzsche, the codd. πολλοῖς,

so also Geiger ; Hilgenfeld would read: ἄλλοις, or πάλτοις, or ὅπλοις, 38. στήσει this is
Hilgenfeld's emendation against ἐλεήσει of the codd.

48.

49.

50.

51.

Ἐς

THE PSALTER

τὰ ῥήματα αὐτοῦ πεπυρωμένα ὑπὲρ χρυσίον
τίμιον τὸ πρῶτον,

ἐν συναγωγαῖς διακρινεῖ λαοὺς, φυλὰς ἡγι-
ασμένων.

οἱ λόγοι αὐτοῦ ὡς λόγοι ἁγίων ἐν μέσῳ
λαῶν ἡγιασμένων.

μακάριοι οἱ γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείν-
αις,

ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαθὰ ᾽Σσραὴλ ἐν συναγωγῇ φυλῶν,
ἃ ποιῆσει ὁ θεός.

ταχύναι ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ Ἰσραὴλ τὸ ἔλεος αὐτοῦ,

ῥύσαιτο ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ ἀκαϑαρσίας ἐχθρῶν βεβή-
λων.
2 ἐν SRR Ae ENG » ἃ
κύριος αὐτὸς βασιλεὺς ἡμῶν εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα
καὶ ἔτι.

OF SOLOMON.

48

49.

50.

Br

811

. His words are purer than the most
pure gold,
In the synagogues he will judge the
people, the tribes of the saints.

His words are like words of the holy
ones in the midst of sanctified peo-
ples.

Happy are those who are born in those
days,

To see the blessings of Israel, which
God shall bring to pass in the con-
gregation of the tribes.

May God hasten his mercy toward Is-
rael,

Deliver us from the defilement of pro-
fane foes.

The Lord Himself is our king for ever
and ever.

ῥύσαιτο Fritzsche prefers to ῥύσεται of the codd.

PSALM XVIII*

. Κύριε, τὸ ἔλεός σου ἐπὶ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν

σου εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα,

. ἡ χρηστότης σου μετὰ δόματος πλουσίου ἐπὶ

᾿Ισραῆλ.
οἱ ὀφϑαλμοί σου ἐπιβλέποντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτὰ, καὶ
οὐχ ὑστερήσει ἐξ αὐτῶν,

. τὰ ὦτά σου ἐπακούσει εἰς δέησιν πτωχοῦ ἐν

ἐλπίδι.
τὰ κρίματά σου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν μετ’
ἐλέου,

. καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη σου ἐπὶ σπέριια ᾿Αβραὰμ,

υἱοὺς ᾿Ἰσραήλ.
ἡ παιδεία σου ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς ὡς υἱὸν πρωτότοκον
μονογεν,

. ἀποστρέψαι ψυχὴν ὑπήκοον ἀπὸ ἁμαρτίας

> ᾿ ΄
ἐν ἀγνοίᾳ.

. Καϑαρίσαι ὁ ϑεὸς Ἰσραὴλ εἰς ἡμέραν ἐλέου

af \metnh ey
ἐν εὐλογίᾳ,

, ¢ Z Η “- 2 ᾿ Φ ~ ν᾿

εἰς ἡμέραν ἐκλογῆς ἐν ἀνάξει χριστοῦ av-
τοῦ.

Ι. O Lord, Thy mercy is on the works of

Thy hands for ever!

. Thy goodness to Israel is a gift be-
yond price.
Thine eyes look on, and nothing will
fail of them,

. Thine ears will attend to the supplica-

tion of the needy who trust in Thee.
Thy judgments are in all the earth in
mercy,

. And Thy love is toward the seed of
Abraham, the sons of Israel.

Thy chastening be upon us as upon a
first-born, only-begotten son,

. To turn an obedient heart away from
sin in ignorance.

May God purify Israel for the day of
mercy in blessing,

For the day of election in the kingdom
of His Anointed.

*XVIII. The psalm is entitled: ψαλμὸς τῷ Σαλομὼν ἐπὶ τοῦ χριστοῦ κυρίου iy. 4. bore,

ἃ correction of Fabricius, against the reading of tod by Cerda and codd,

5. ἁμαρτίας

the reading of Fabricius; cod. Vind. ἀμαϑίας ; Cerda apuaptiac,

»

812

ἡ. μακάριοι οἱ γινόμενοι ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείν-

Io,

II.

12.

13.

14.

ac,
ἰδεῖν τὰ ἀγαϑὰ κυρίου, ἃ ποιήσει γενεᾷ τῇ
ἐρχομένῃ,

. ὑπὸ ῥάβδον παιδείας χριστοῦ κυρίου ἐν φόβῳ

ϑεοῦ αὐτοῦ,

ἐν σοφίᾳ πνεύματος καὶ δικαιοσύνης καὶ
ἰσχύος.

. κατευθύνει ἄνδρα ἐν ἔργοις δικαιοσύνης φόβῳ

ϑεοῦ,
καταστῆσαι πάντας αὐτοὺς ἐν φόβῳ κυρίου.

γενεὰ ἀγαθὴ ἐν φόβῳ ϑεοῦ ἐν ἡμέραις ἐλέου.
διάψαλμα.

Μέγας ὁ ϑεὸς ἡμῶν καὶ ἔνδοξος ἐν ὑψίστοις
κατοικῶν,

ὁ διατάξας ἐν πορείᾳ φωστῆρας εἰς καιροὺς
ὡρῶν ἀφ᾽ ἡμερῶν εἰς ἡμέρας,

καὶ οὐ παρέβησαν ἀπὸ ὁδοῦ ἣν ἐνετείλω av-
τοῖς.

ἐν φόβῳ ϑεοῦ ἡ ὁδὸς αὑτῶν καθ᾽ ἑκάστην
ἡμέραν,

ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἔκτισεν αὐτοὺς ὁ ϑεὸς καὶ
αἰῶνος,

καὶ οὐκ ἐπλανήϑησαν ἀφ᾽ ἧς ἡμέρας ἔκτισεν
αὐτούς.

ἀπὸ γενεῶν ἀρχαίων οὐκ ἀπέστησαν ἀπὸ
ὁδοῦ αὐτῶν,

εἰ μὴ ὁ ϑεὺς ἐνετείλατο αὐτοῖς ἐν ἐπιταγῇ
δούλων αὐτοῦ.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

7. Blessed are they who are born in

Io.

II.

12.

13.

14.

those days,

To see the good things which the
Lord shall do for the generation to
come.

. Beneath the rod of correction of the

Anointed of the Lord in the fear of
His God

In wisdom of spirit and of righteous-
ness and of might

. To lead man in works of righteousness

through fear of God
To fill them all with fear of the Lord.

A good generation in the fear of God,
in the days of mercy. Selah.

Great is our God and glorious, dwell-
ing on high,

Who has appointed in a course, lights
for seasons of times from day to
day.

And they never depart from the way,
which Thou hast commanded them.

Their way is in the fear of God every
day,

Since that day when God created
them, and from eternity,

And they did not go astray from the
day He created them,

From olden times they did not depart
from their way,

Unless God commanded them through
the command of his servants.

12. πορείᾳ so cod. Vind.; cod. Aug. κυρείᾳ. The subscription is according to cod. Vind.:

αλμοὶ Σαλομῶντος ιη΄.

ἔχουσιν ἔπη (a,

In the cod. Aug. is added: τέλος σὺν dew.

VI.

WO PES ee Ne NO ΓΕ 5,

The Death of Rev. Prof. Samuel. Jennings Wilson, D.D:, LL.D., of the
Western Theological Seminary, Allegheny City, Pennsylvania, is noticed in the
editorial pages of the PRESBYTERIAN Review because he was from the begin-
ning one of its most honored and influential Associate Editors. The under-
signed is entrusted with the preparation of this notice because he was for thir-
teen years the colleague and intimate friend of its distinguished subject.

The fact that Professor Wilson was by the spontaneous suffrages of his peers
made the first Moderator of the great Synod of Pennsylvania, accurately marks
his rank in the entire Christian ministry of that immense Commonwealth. In
learning, ability, eloquence, and influence he was beyond question the most
eminent Christian minister of any denomination in his native State. And it is
a coincidence that will not be forgotten that Pennsylvania’s greatest minister,
Samuel Jennings Wilson, and her greatest lawyer, Jeremiah Black, lay awaiting
their burial at the same time.

There are two measures of a man’s greatness: the one to be determined in
the estimate of his intrinsic qualities, the other by his acquired position and
relation to the community of which he is a part. In each of these respects
Professor Wilson’s claim to be regarded great is valid,

His natural faculties were of a high order, and they were earnestly and wisely
exercised in the highest uses from his childhood. He possessed capacity for
concentrated and sustained attention, a retentive memory, wide and clear in-
tellectual vision, accurate judgment, vivid and fertile imagination, strong affec-
tions, burning enthusiasm, and unparalleled powers of expression by word,
look, and gesture. The foundation laid in his school and college days for his
future scholarly growth was accurate and broad. Afterward he continued un-
interruptedly to the close of his laborious life a constant student in every branch
of his profession, and a wide, general reader. He was for twenty-eight years
tutor and Professor of Ecclesiastical and Sacred History and of the History of
Doctrines, but on different occasions and for protracted periods he also dis-
charged the duties of the professors of Hebrew and Old Testament Literature,
of New Testament Greek and Exegesis, and of Systematic Theology, and all
with distinguished success. His thought was as clear as light, his judgment
sound, and heart pure and brave and as true as steel. He was extraordinarily

814 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

grave and silent in his manner: often in the company of his colleagues or in his
family, giving for long passages of time no other sign of conscious life than that
afforded by the following of his watchful eye. But under that apparently sleep-
ing surface a whole teeming world of life brooded, and sometimes volcanic
fires rolled. His preaching, as the many thousand hearers of his oration on
John Knox will testify, and as the majority of the churches in Western Penn-
sylvania and Eastern Ohio will cherish among their proudest sectional tradi-
tions, was often characterized by the most moving and over-mastering elo-
quence, Often in the Seminary prayer-meeting his voice broke upon us like
the sound of a trumpet, and he at once lifted up the whole service to a higher
level of vision and devotion,

The true greatness of a man rests more in his character, especially its moral
elements, than in his intellect or his learning. Professor Wilson in this species
also graded among the very highest of his generation. He was unselfish, pure,
absolutely consecrated to his chief ends, concentrated in purpose, of strong will,
of strong passions held in restraint and always made to serve reason and con-
science. Self-respectful but unambitious, sympathetic with all weakness and
suffering, tender as a woman, strong as a lion, true and honorable as a Knight
of Christ.

As to the second element of greatness found in his position and his relation
to his community Professor Wilson must be estimated as occupying an even
yet higher rank. He was native to the soil, embodying in finest quality and
proportions the characteristic excellences of Scotch-Irish ancestry and of the
Western Pennsylvanian population, He was truly representative as a man and
as a Presbyterian minister ina sense and to a degree not true of any other
man of his generation. His grandfather, Thomas Dill, gave his whole life to
prayer, visiting in turn all the sections of Western Pennsylvania and Virginia
and Eastern Ohio, seeking the conversion of souls and the revival of the Church.
His mother, Jane Dill, was a woman of great force of character and eminently
spiritual and devoted. She consecrated her son to the ministry from his birth,
and impressed her own character and purpose upon him in his infancy.

Last April, on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his entering
upon his professorship, he said: “1 am glad to have the opportunity of saying
that whatever I am is due to my mother, I would rather hear it said that my
mother was Jane Dill, and my grandfather praying Thomas Dill, than to hear
it said that my mother was Queen and my grandfather Emperor.” He strug-
gled to gain his education, but went up through all the stages first in each
class from the start. He became teacher in every school in which he learned,
retaining to the end a most absolute identification of himself and his interests
with his scholars and his schools, and of the section of the nation out of which
these grew. His roots ran out into all that land and took deep and wide hold
of the ground.

Every student, especially every struggling student, was taken into his heart.
The Professor appeared always reticent and undemonstrative, yet no honest
student ever misread the man. It was to him before any of his colleagues
through all those years of service that the student needing sympathy went,

NOTES AND NOTICES. 815

whether poor, or sick, or bereaved, or in spiritual darkness, or in need of coun-
sel for his future course. Once loving he loved forever, for greater tenacity of
fibre God never wrought out of Scotch-Irish or Northman blood. Thus his
nearly one thousand graduates remained bound to his heart by hooks of steel.
He prayed for them, wept with them, gloried over them, following them along
all their ways. And they knew him and gloried in him as their leader, and
now they weep over the wide world, for their prince is dead.

He was naturally put forward as the representative of his section, and as
such bore all the honors from his immediate constituents and from the Church
as a whole, open to the career of a Presbyterian minister, He had been
Moderator of the Synod of Pittsburgh, and was Moderator of the great Synod
of Pennsylvania at the time of his death. He was Moderator of the General
Assembly in 1874, was actually for a time President of Washington and Jeffer-
son College, and would have been so always if he had not preferred to be the
presiding professor of the Western Theological Seminary. He represented
his Church in the preparatory meeting in London in 1875, and in the Grand
Council in Philadelphia in 1880. He was the orator always spontaneously
chosen to represent his denomination as a whole on its grandest occasions as
upon the tercentenary anniversary of Presbyterianism, A.D. 1872, in Philadel-
phia, and his own more immediate circle, as at the funerals of men so pre-
eminent in his section as the Rev. Dr, Elisha P. Swift and Rev. Dr. C. C.
Beatty. And if he had continued in his place for a century, all the elements
of power, and all the tributes of love and honor from a wide constituency
would more and more have gathered into his hands.

Western Pennsylvania has generously entertained, while they lived, many an
ally enlisted from other fields, and with equal generosity cherished their memory
after their death, But there is no risk in anticipating the judgment of history
in inscribing in letters of gold the name of their own son, Samuel Jennings
Wilson, at the head of the list, first and best beloved, and longest remembered
of anoble line. Dear friend, it was a blessing to know thy heart. It will be
a living joy to assist in keeping thy memory green.

He was born in Washington County, Pa., July το, 1828, and had therefore
just completed his fifty-fifth year at the time of his death, He was named at
his baptism after the Rev. Samuel C, Jennings, D.D., an eminently devoted
and successful preacher of the Gospel in that region, who still survives in ex-
treme old age, He united with the Presbyterian Church in Washington, Pa.,
March, 1849, under the pastoral care of Rev. Dr. J. I. Brownson, who assisted
at his burial. He graduated at Washington College in 1852, and at the West-
ern Theological Seminary in 1855. He was immediately made an instructor
in that institution, charged from the first with the department of Church His-
tory, and for many years vicariously performing the office of teacher of the He-
brew language. He became a full professor in 1858, and colleague of his
eminent teachers, Drs, Elliott, Jacobus, and Plummer. He was stated supply
or pastor of the church at Sharpsburgh, and then of the Sixth Presbyterian
church, Pittsburgh, from his licensure until the death of Dr. Jacobus in the au-
tumn of 1876, and he made his churches pre-eminent centres of ecclesiastical
and spiritual life.

816 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. *.

In December, 1859, he married Mary Elizabeth, daughter of the late Robert
H. Davis, of Sewickley, Pa. Beautiful, intellectual, spiritual, heavenly-minded,
full of love and grace, always known as Daisy, she was alike in the family, the
congregation, the faculty, and the wider circle of loving friends, always our
sweetest flower, She died after much suffering in the early summer of 1880,
He has now left their three children, one boy and two girls, orphans, singular
in sorrow because bereaved of such parents, but no less singular in their happy
fortune as the inheritors of such honors, and of such an inexhaustible weaith
of love. God wipe away their tears and comfort them, making them worthy
of their noble parents, and then uniting them to them in their joy.

Although delicate in appearance and reality, he finished his last year’s work
in perfect preservation. At the services extemporized last spring to commem-
orate the completion of the twenty-fifth year of his professorship, he said:
‘“The Lord has kept me alive these twenty-five years, and I am as strong
now as then. With your kind words to cheer me I am ready for twenty-five years
more, if God shall spare me.” Yet when he presided at the funeral of his
friend and colleague, Professor William Η. Hornblower,‘D.D., on the 17th of
July, he was unable to follow his body to its eastern grave in Paterson, Ν, J.,
because of just noticed indisposition. This proved eventually to be typhoid -
fever communicated by means of milk from an infected house. When informed
of the character of his disease he at once gave up all expectation of recovery,
as several members of his family had died in that way. Toward the last when
asked “ον he felt?” he answered, ‘‘ In perfect peace”; when asked ‘“‘ What
he wanted ?” he answered, “ Only rest.”

And surely all who are represented by this PRESBYTERIAN Review will cor-
dially sympathize with the losses, and pray for the renewed and ever-increasing
prosperity of that honored and beloved Theological Seminary so grievously, so
singularly bereaved. Dr. Hornblower, the enthusiastic teacher and universally
popular preacher and perfect Christian gentleman and loyal friend, died in July,
and Dr. Wilson, the Presbyterian prince, died in August. Not a colleague
was present at his death or burial, Dr. Jeffers was still in Europe, whence he
hastens to take the helm as Senior Professor; Dr. Kellogg in Dakota; Dr.
Warfield in Kentucky, detained by the sickness of a near relation.

The very mention of these names proves the present strength and future
promise of this grand old Seminary. The most essential chairs, those of the
Old and of the New Testament Literature and Exegesis, and of Systematic The-
ology, are already filled by men who for talents, piety, learning, and skill and
enthusiasm and success as teachers, were never surpassed in that or any other
Seminary. May God crown them with all the honors of his service, and make
their future surpass even the sacred traditions of which they are the heirs,

A, A, HopcE,

The General Synod of the Reformed Church in America met in Albany, N.
Y., on the 6th day of June last, and was well attended, 125 members answer-
ing to their names at the first roll-call, The Rev. W.R. Duryee, D.D., of

NOTES AND NOTICES. 817

Jersey City, was made President. The statistics of the year show a gain in
membership of 2,883, although the purging of the rolls in various cases has
made a slight apparent loss in the aggregate of this year as compared with that
of 1882. In offerings to the Lord there has been an increase of $23,398, and
the average contribution per member in the whole Church is $13.69, The
gain in churches for the year was seven, and in ministers thirteen. Special
outpourings of Divine grace do not seem to have been numerous, but in gen-
eral there was a steady advance in Christian life and activity. The necrology
includes the name of Dr, Staats Van Santvoord, in the ninety-second year of
his age, being then the oldest surviving minister in the denomination.

In Foreign Missions the statements are favorable. The expenditures were
over $69,000, all of which was met by the receipts, save some $3,000, a lack
due, it is supposed, to adventitious circumstances of a temporary nature. In
the three fields, India, China, and Japan, there are seventeen missionaries and
twenty-three assistant missionaries. The number of communicants increased,
notwithstanding all losses, 218, or more than eight per cent., and one of the
missions enjoyed a delightful work of grace. Still, as usual, the work outgrows
the means at hand. ‘There is an urgent call for more laborers, not only for
new fields, but to hold to advantage the positions already occupied. The
Synod urged an advance, and took measures to call forth more abundantly the
resources of the churches. The Woman’s Board reported an increase of
auxiliaries and of funds. An unpleasant feature of the proceedings was a
courteous remonstrance to the English Society for the Propagation of the
Gospel against the action of its Madras Diocesan Committee in re-entering
the field at Vellore from which the S. P. G, had formally withdrawn more than
twenty-five years ago, when the Arcot Mission purchased that Society’s prop-
erty with the distinct understanding that its work there should be relinquished.
Such a breach of faith, as well as of Christian courtesy, is much to be deplored.
It is to be hoped that the appeal which utterly failed when made to the Dioc-
esan Committee, will be more successful with the venerable parent Society in
Engiand. For Domestic Missions over $39,000 were received, and seventy
missionaries have been employed, Eleven churches became self-sustaining,
and with the exception of the small gifts to the Church Building Fund, the
outlook is encouraging. But the report made to the Synod by its own Com-
mittee sounds a vigorous alarm, comparing the Dutch Church’s additions of
one church in two months, with the Presbyterian and Lutheran addition of one
every day, and the Methodist of one every morning and every evening. The’
relative size of the bodies takes off something from the frightful disparity thus
shown, but enough remains to stimulate the most lethargic heart. It is to be
hoped that “improved methods and more vigorous efforts ’’ will ensure a grati-
fying increase of results. In #ducation for the ministry mention is made of
three new scholarships ($2,500 each) founded by bequests. The total income
of the Board was $18,000, of which a little more than a third was contributed
during the last year. The report of the Synod’s Committee is a vigorous de-
fence of the system of beneficiary education and a sharp exposition of the fal-
lacies by which it is commonly assailed. Attention is justly called by the

818 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Synod to the importance of establishing academies under classical care, and
of bringing all Sunday-schools under the control of the consistories. Hope
College, in Michigan, reported twenty-four students, of whom eight were
graduated. The scholastic year was finished without debt. Measures were
taken looking forward to an early resumption of theological instruction in the
institution. The Board of Publication reported itself out of debt, and with a
balance in the treasury. The Widows Fund was able to pay the maximum
allowance to all annuitants. The Disabled Ministers’ Fund had a total
income of nearly $5,000, but was very far from being able to meet-all the
meritorious claims made upon it, nearly three-fourths of the churches failing to
make any contributions to it.

The subject of greatest interest before the Synod was what is called the
Poughkeepsie Memorial, proposing certain changes in the questions pro-
pounded in the baptismal forms. The proposal was decided-adversely in 1881,
but came up again last year, when it was referred to a committee, which
reported this year. Their report was admirably drawn up, and gave a very
clear and full history of the matter, but unfortunately suggested as a solution
of the difficulty an additional question to the forms of baptism which was ac-
ceptable to neither the friends nor the opponents of the proposed changes.
The matter was then referred to the Committee on Overtures, whose report
was adopted, and is generally considered a happy settlement of the whole mat-
ter. Its features are these: 1. As the Church has a form for the reception of
persons.into full communion, which has been constitutionally adopted, and
concludes with questions which demand assent simply to the statements of the
Apostolic Creed, and an avowed purpose to “continue to the end of life in the
truth affirmed in these articles of the Christian faith as they are taught here in
this church,” it is allowed, when circumstances make it desirable, to substitute
these for the questions in the baptismal form which set forth specifically the
doctrines of divine sovereignty, original sin, guilt and helplessness, and Christ’s
redemption. The reason is that some of these doctrines are stated in terms
that are ambiguous, or at least are certainly at times misunderstood, and that
therefore in cases where immature thinking or imperfect instruction may make
them a stumbling-block in the way of persons to all appearance truly con-
verted, relief should be given. The cases of this kind would be very few, and
it would seem harsh to insist upon a confession which could not be sincerely
made, even though its substance were strictly held. The only difficulty in the
matter is that the Synod undertakes by a simple resolution to put in one place
what the Constitution puts in another, The fundamental law cannot be
altered in this way, or in any other save the one prescribed in its own articles.
2. To the word good in the confession, that one is ‘‘ wholly incapable of doing
any good,” there is appended a foot-note referring to a similar expression in
the Dordracene Canons (III. and IV. 3) which runs, ‘‘incapable of any sav-
ing good,” and to the Heidelberg Catechism (Ques. 91), where good works
are described as “‘ only those which proceed from a true faith and are per-
formed according to the law of God and to his glory.” This is simply ex-
plaining one part of the standards by another, and therefore legitimate and

NOTES AND NOTICES. 819

conclusive, 3. To the phrase ‘Articles of the Christian Religion,” to which
assent is required, is appended a foot-note stating that these articles are the
articles of the Apostles’ Creed, as is shown in the Heidelberg Catechism
(Question 22), and in the office for the administration of the Lord’s Supper.
It is not easy to see how any one familiar with the standards can doubt that
this note expresses the exact truth, Yet we believe that it would be safer and
better if all these changes were regularly submitted to the Classes, so that there
might be no question in any mind as to their legality. The entire discussion
for three years has revealed in a gratifying way the doctrinal soundness of the
Church, for not a single voice has been raised against any of the truths
involved, and the only matter discussed has been how to provide a remedy for
the confessedly few instances in which language might be misunderstood.

The old trouble of Free Masonry, which for,a generation has arisen in some
form, and which it was supposed had been effectually settled by the action of
the last few years, came up again in two ways. One was a respectful request
from a Western Classis for an investigation of oath-bound secret societies.
This was at once disowned as being beyond the powers of the Synod, and im-
practicable in its nature. But the body being kindly disposed, and willing to
do anything in reason which might allay hurtful agitation, while they reaffirmed
previous deliverances declining to make the denial of Masonry a term of com-
munion, did at the same time suggest to Christians the propriety of refraining
from connection with orders of this kind, on the ground that such connection
was an offence to many consciences. We do not see what objection even a
Mason could make to this, since it imposes no rule, and only proposes
action, or rather non-action, ‘‘in accordance with the law of Christian love.”
The other way in which the matter appeared was in a letter from “the Chris-
tian Reformed Church of Holland,” which in the severity of its denunciations
and the bitterness of its tone was unexampled in the history of our Synod.
The printed minutes do not state what answer was made toit. It is sad to
think that the brethren in the mother country who have separated from the
(formerly) established church for the sake of purity of doctrine, should throw
their influence in this land in favor of division and secession on a point like
Free Masonry, the toleration of which by any church, even if foolish, yet can-
not by any possibility undermine Christian character. Yet this is just what the
brethren in the Netherlands have done by direct correspondence with the
seceding churches here. They do not seem to remember for a moment that
the point for which they are contending as a matter of life or death is one upon
which nineteen-twentieths of Protestant Christendom lay no stress whatever.
If they are right, what becomes of the oft-repeated promise of the Holy Ghost
to guide God’s people “into all the truth” ?

The Synod showed its disposition to recognize and encourage the growth
of our Church in the West by appointing its next regular meeting at Grand
Rapids, near the shore of Lake Michigan. It passed the resolution laid over
from last year, substituting the terms Vice-President and ‘Treasurer for
Assessor and Questor—as conspicuous an instance of poverty of taste and
judgment as has been seen for a generation, and besides, an absurd usurpa-

820 ‘THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

tion of power as to the latter term, for the General Synod has no more right
to say what a Classis shall call its financial officer than the Legislature of New
York has—that is, none at all. Informal information was given of a bequest of
$50,000 by Gardner A. Sage for the purpose of founding a new professorship
in the Theological Seminary at New Brunswick, Concurrently with this a
committee was appointed to confer with the professors, and report a new clas-
sification of the curriculum of study in accordance with modern nomenclature,
an accurate definition of the duties of each professor according to such classi-
fication, and the feasibility of a fourth year of study—an important commis-
sion, the due performance of which will doubtless tend much to the growth
and enlargement of the institution. As the leading principles of Theological
Encyclopedia are now generally admitted, it is strange that its nomenclature
has not passed into use in all our Seminaries. The next year being the cen-
tennial anniversary of the inauguration of Dr, J. H. Livingston as Professor of
Theology in the Reformed Dutch Church, measures were taken for an appro-
priate observance of the occasion, and provision made for such efforts as may
be required in order to place every professorship upon a liberal and solid
foundation, It is to be hoped that these efforts will meet with complete suc-
cess. A learned and well-trained ministry is more and more the want of the
times, and to secure this there needs to be a fully endowed Seminary, well
furnished in personnel, books, and apparatus. T. W. CHAMBERS,

The Shapira Manuscript of Deuteronomy.—About August 1st there was
brought to London and offered for sale by M. Shapira, of Jerusalem, a Jewish
dealer in antiquities and curiosities, a manuscript which at once attracted the
attention of Biblical and Oriental scholars. It appeared to be very aacient,
the oldest of Hebrew manuscripts. Hundreds of thousands of pounds sterling
were asked for it ; and not without reason, if it really contained a portion of
the text of Deuteronomy as it stood at the time of the Mesa inscription.

M. Shapira professed to have been informed of its existence in 1878, by an
Arab Skeikh, who told him that certain Arabs were using as talismans some
strange black writings found a few years earlier in a rocky cavern. On three
successive visits Arabs brought to M. Shapira the forty-two sheets now under
investigation. First impressions had been unfavorable ; but, encouraged by a
favorable judgment of the German Consul at Beyrout, M. Shapira brought the
sheets to Europe. M. Clermont Ganneau pronounced against their preten-
sions. Prof. Lepsius, at Berlin, submitted them to Dillmann, Sachau, Schrader,
and two other experts, whose judgment was promptly given in condemnation
of their claim, :

The Zlustrated London News of August 25th published a fac-simile of one
sheet, to exhibit at the same time the general appearance of the manuscript
and the style of the text. The London Zimes of August 27th published a let-
ter from Dr, Ginsberg; which is preliminary to a more formal and final report
to the Librarian of the British Museum from the scholars who had been sum-
moned to guide its decision.

Dr. Ginsberg rejects the claims of the MSS. for reasons external and inter-

NOTES AND NOTICES. 821

nal, The external evidences of forgery are these: (1) The narrow slips of
rough sheep-skin on which the text is written were evidently cut from the mar-
gin of synagogue scrolls. (2) The Shapira MSS. exhibit, but not as marginal
lines to the columns of text (and sometimes under the text), the guiding lines
which are so drawn and used in the synagogue scrolls, (3) The slips under
examination have frequently one ragged and one smooth upper and lower edge,
while old scrolls generally have naturally become worn and ragged both at top
and bottom, (4) Some of the slips have manifestly been laid under a frame
and chemically treated.

The internal evidence points, in Dr. Ginsberg’s judgment, to the participa-
tion of four or five persons in the forgery, and to a Polish, Russian, or German
Jew, or one who had learned Hebrew in the North of Europe, as the compiler
of the text. (1) The text appears to contain a new and third version of the
Decalogue, modelled after and drawing upon the text of Lev. xviii. and xix.
(2) The text supplements the received text of Deut. xvii. 11-26, by giving the
benedictions for which the passage calls, and makes these harmonize with its
new version of the Ten Commandments. (3) The text of the maledictions is
changed so as to bring it into harmony with the new Decalogue. (4) Both the
archaic writing and characteristic expressions of the Mesa inscription are man-
ifestly imitated here. (5) The text contains errors in spelling which point
plainly to the North of Europe, especially by the letters which are compounded,
(6) The compiler or transcriber of the text failed, from want of familiarity with
the Phcenician characters, to detect these grave errors, the grossest of which,
in an attribute of God, instead of saying that he ‘‘was angry,’ declares by a
transposition of two letters that he ‘committed adultery.”

Such judgments from French, German, and English scholars will hardly pro-
mote M. Shapira’s mercantile schemes. Nor will “critical” views be greatly
reinforced by the establishment in this case and on this evidence of an ancient
text of Deuteronomy differing so widely from that current for more than 2,000
years, that no like claim in behalf of this or any other book could hereafter be
pronounced extravagant, CHARLES A. AIKEN.

.

Hebrews iv. 1-11 Explained—The author (whom we recognize as Paul)
has, in chap. iil. 7-19, warned his readers against an evil heart of perfidy, that
must result in apostasy from the living God. He enforces the warning, by an
appeal to Ps. xcv. 7-11, and makes the point of the warning, that they take
care not to harden their hearts as in the provocation in the wilderness, so that
they may not incur a like penalty. Thus the author draws a parallel between
that ancient situation and the situation of himself and his readers,

But the full force of this warning depends on the degree of likeness in the
two situations, In our chapter iv. 1-10, therefore, the Author continues
to press the likeness by showing that he and his readers have a promise
of entering God’s rest, as those had who saw God’s works in the wilder-
ness, Without this likeness, indeed, there would be no parallel, and, conse-
quently, little point in the warning example, What, in Paul’s Jewish Christian
readers, could be perfidy, hardening of heart, and apostasy like that of the Is-

822 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

raelites, unless they were under the same promise of a rest—or, at least a simi-
lar promise? And what application could there be in that warning example
of the extremity of God’s wrath, viz., exclusion from His rest (iii. 11, 18, 19),
if in the present situation there is no promise of entering that rest.

The warning example must, however, apply exactly and impressively, if the
readers have still the same promise extended to them. Then, beside
having the same /iving God (ili, 12) to deal with, they are related to Him by
the same conditions, only made plainer by His past judgments, and especially
by the fact that they ave become companions of Christ (iil. 14).

It is, then, as pressing the point of his warning and counsel in iil. 12, seq.,
that the Apostle proceeds, in our chap. iv. 1-10, to show that he and his
readers have still the promise of rest as well as those that were the compan-
ions of Moses. He comprehends himself and his readers in the present con-
text under the pronoun “ we,.’’ It is important to notice that, at 111. 6, he has
said of the same, “ We are the house of God,’ and identifies himself and his
readers with the notion, ‘he people of God (comp. ver. 9). In other words,
here, as in the whole epistle, the author addresses Hebrews as such, and as one
people of God, distinguishing only temporally between those of the present
(“us”) and “the fathers of old” (i. 1).

Taking the foregoing as representing the progress of thought from chap. iii.
to our chap. iv., we see how the Author proceeds by the use of the simple il-
lative particle οὖν as follows :

Ver. 1. Let us fear, then, lest haply a promise being left of entering into

his rest, any one of you should suppose himself to have been too late.

At ili, 12, 15, the Apostle addresses his readers only in the second person ;
and the predicates: Zake (ye) heed lest in any one of you; exhort (ye) lest any
one of you, express action that must be exclusively their concern. In our
verse he combines the first and second persons in a noticeable way. He says:
Let us fear, because it is his fear, and he would make it the fear of his readers,
The thing feared, however, is the danger of his readers and not his danger ;
therefore he says: Jest any one of you. Let us fear means, also, fake care ;
and he makes it his care to give the correction of the danger while warning
against it. By saying: a promise being left of entering into his rest, the Apostle
both affirms a fact and presents it as a matter for solicitude in the way ex-
pressed by: Zet us fear lest any of you, etc. His readers can only share his
fear when they see the fact to be as expressed. That any could suppose they
were too late for the promise was owing to their ignorance that such a promise
is left. The only way to obviate their supposing this is to show that the
promise is left of entering into God’srest. By saying: et us fear, the Apostle
intimates his purpose of offering such a demonstration. Thus our verse 1
proposes the subject of the following discourse to verse 11. So understood,
certain ambiguities of our verse explain themselves.*

* Viz. Whether καταλειπ. αὐτοῦ depends on ὑστερηκέναι͵, or whether καταλειπ. ἐπαγελλ,
is genitive absolute. Whether the latter means a promise neglected, or a promise being
left. These points are not to be settled as in LUENEMANN, ALFORD (comp. RAPHELIUS
Annot. Philol. ex PoLYB. et ARRIAN), by remarking on the absence of the article (comp.
von HOFMAN ix Joc.)

NOTES AND NOTICES. 823

It is important that Christians nowadays should recognize how unique is
the subject that the Apostle here represents to his readers. His exposition of
his Psalm-text makes it appear how the truth in question is found in the Old
Testament. But in the New Testament this representation of the goal of sal-
vation as being God’s rest, into which believers are to enter, stands quite
alone. After the Apostles passed away, the Christian form of this Old Testa-
ment truth must have been quite unfamiliar in Christian circles, except as this
epistle gradually won its way to general canonical recognition. This was long
after there had ceased to be churches made up of converted Hebrews, and
circumstanced as the original readers of this epistle were. This fact makes it
possible that much of our epistle, and especially this its most unique teaching,
would be read with Gentile eyes, that is, with habits of thought that would miss
the points as they would be apprehended by primitive Jewish converts, It is
the Gentile interpretation that has been handed down to us as traditional. The
fact now alluded to should remind us also how it is possible that, with our best
efforts to put ourselves in the place of the original readers, we still may fail to
see and read as intelligently as they. Such considerations have their impor-
tance in estimating the merits of conflicting interpretations. One of the most
important of these demands attention at the very threshold of our chap. iv.

It has been traditional to render μήποτε δοκῇ τις ἐξ ὑμῶν ὑστερηπέναι:
lest any one of you should seem to have come short of it, or similarly, the common
notion being, that vorepnx. expresses failure to reach the goal. The render-
ing given above, Zest any one of you should suppose himself to have been too late
(for it), is recommended by G. RapHet (+1740) in his Annot. Philol. ex
PoLyB. ef ARRIAN, 1715. It is that of SCHOETTGEN (7 1751), in his Hor, Heb.,
1733, and of J.S1ec. BAUMGARTEN (+1757), Zrklaerung d. Briefes ad Hebr.,
1763. It has been adopted later by BRETSCNEIDER and WauHLt in their Lexi-
cons,* and latest by EBRARD and voz HOFMANN in their commentaries on
our epistle.

According as the one or the other rendering is adopted, so the view of the
whole passage, vers. 1-10, will be affected. According to the traditional ren-
dering, the aim of the Author will appear to be to present considerations fitted
to prevent his readers from falling short of the promised rest. According to
the rendering now proposed, his aim will appear to be to show his readers that
they are not too late to enjoy the benefit of the promised rest ; and, also, not
too late to be excluded from that rest in requital of an evil heart of perfidy, as
were those of old. We shall confine our notice to the rendering now offered.

As a question of translation there can be no important objection made to it,
Such is the use of ὑστερέω, and the perfect Uorepenxévaz here can have no
other sense; and much the most common meaning of δοκέω in the New
Testament is 20 suppose.| ALFORD shows all this, and has nothing to object
to the rendering but logical reasons drawn from the context; and so also
De.itzscH. But precisely such reasons support it. Every reader sees that, as
a matter of fact, the burden of vers. 2-10 is to show that the promise of enter-

* Sub voce ὑστερέω. + Comp. x. 29.

824 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

ing God’s rest is still in force, and this constitutes the singular importance of
this unique passage of Scripture. On the other hand, the notion of falling short
of obtaining that rest is not again presented, except in a reference to those
who of old entered not in. Moreover, a warning against falling short of that
rest through ignorance of there being still a promise of it is, as a warning, much
inferior in pungency to that of iil. 12, 13, against perfidy and hardness of heart,
and is, in fact, included in the other, as the less is included in the greater.

In the foregoing prefatory remarks on our chapter an adequate and context-
ually logical motive has been shown for warning the readers not to suppose
they are too late to have the benefit of the promised rest. And, finally, the
unique and unfamiliar doctrine concerning God’s rest is itself evidence enough
that the illusion referred to was common. So that it seems incomprehensible
how DELITzscH can say “it could only be entertained by a deranged man.”
And, seeing the importance and preciousness of the doctrine, the need of setting
it forth was very great, as the dangers of ignorance must have been very serious.

The Author says again :* Jest haply any one of you, thus implying that the
illusion referred to is common, and that it is only a question whether ,
some of his readers should become the victims of it. Those that entertained
the illusion that they were too late for the promise of entering into God’s rest
were, in general, such as did not believe the truth implied in Ps, xcv.
τι asthe Apostle expounds it. This appears from τῇ πίστει ver. 2, and from
what is affirmed of of πιστεύσαντες ver. 3. We mean, of course, belief in
the truth involved in this Psalm, that is, the truth of the good tidings men-
tioned in the following verse ; not belief that the Psalm taught the truth
now in question. The latter would not have been believed or conceived to
the present day but for the exposition of the chapter before us.

The Apostle begins to confirm the statement, that there is left a promise of
entering into God’s rest, by affirming,

Ver, 2 a, For we, too, have had good tidings preached unto us even as those

also,

This statement is not to be taken as the equivalent of, there is left a promise
of entering into his rest, expressed in other words, with the additional notion
that the promise is extended to us. By employing the comprehensive term
ἐσμὲν εὐαγγελισμένοι, which he uses again, ver. 6, the Author shows that
he appeals to the fact of the proclamation of God’s grace in all its length and
breadth, for which, both in the Old and New Testaments the proper expression
is to preach good tidings. [Comp. Isa. lii. 7 in the LXX., ὡσ πόδες eVay-
γελιδομένου anonv εἰρήνες.) The same thing is referred to in the next
clause of our verse by the term ὁ λόγος τῆς ἀπκουῆς. This proclamation
“qe” have, as well as those others (€xeivoz), by whom are meant the Israelites
in the desert. By affirming this at the present point, the Author comprehends
all such hearers of all times under one class, This proclamation in Moses’ time
was a call to enter God’s rest. He means to show that it is the same now, as
indeed it has always been and will be while good tidings are preached. It was

* Comp. iii. 12, 13, and καϑώς τινες αὐτῶν, 1 Cor, x. 7, 8, 9.

NOTES AND NOTICES. 825

so in Moses’ time, because God’s rest remained as something for persons to
enter. It is so still; for the same reason. It is this the Author aims to show.

The fact that those of old were not able to enterin might seem to
end the proclamation (ἀκοή) ΟΥ̓ΔΈ asuite was tan offen
of sharing God’s rest. To show that such was not the fact, but
only that, for cause, the proclamation was inoperative in their case, the Author
adds the explanation of

Ver. 2 ὁ. But the word of proclamation did not profit those not combined by

Jaith with them that heard.*

Taking the text of our ver. 2 ὦ, as given in Westcorr and Hort, we trans-
late axon proclamation. It means, not ¢he hearing, but the thing
heard, announcement.t The word of proclamation, says the Author (by
which he means that which was the preaching of good tidings to those of old),
did not profit those not combined with them that heard. In this representation
he designates those that were not profited, and at the same time, by his descrip-
tive designation (those not combined by faith with them that heard), he
points to the reason why they were not profited. ouyxepavvuje means, fo
mix, commingle closely (comp. t Cor. xii. 24). So describing those that the
word did not profit, the Author ascribes the failure to the lack of faith in them,
and intimates, on the other hand, that others heard with profit; that faith, had
they had it, would have combined them with the others in this profiting.
By this is equally implied that faith was the profitable ingredient of the hear-
ing of them that heard. We have thus a very pregnant sentence, after the
manner of our Author, who not seldom has recourse to breviloquence.

By this rendering we understand the Author to distinguish two classes among
those of old that had good tidings preached to them, viz., those that did not,
and those that did hear with profit. And we understand him to designate the
latter by the simple expression, them that heard. Both of these notions have
been deemed inadmissible. The former because, as it is supposed, ili. 16
shows that the Author allows of no such distinction ;{ the second, because in
such close conjunction with a&of;, the following ἀκούσασιν cannot mean to
hearken or obey.§ To begin with the second objection, we may remark that
the meaning ¢o hearken or to obey is not necessary here, and is not implied by

* By the rules of textual criticism, that are regarded as imperative in other cases,
it is clear that we must accept as the correct text here, ἐκείνους μὴ συγκεκερασμένους τῇ
πίστει τοῖσ ἀκούσασιν. Only the difficulty of making sense out of it is against it. That
very fact, however, in the case of other disputed texts, is, by rule, put in the balance in
favor of the reading of whichit is true. It ought to be allowed the same influence here.
Comp. LUENEMANN on this point, who fairly represents the state of the question, yet
decides in favor of the reading of the T. R. (συγκεκραμένος), solely on the ground that
the other reading ‘‘ conflicts with the context, and is nonsense.” WestTcotT and Hort
adopt the συγκεκαρισμένους. But in their Motes on Select Readings, p. 129, having repre-
sented the state of the text, they say, ‘‘ After much hesitation we have marked this very
difficult passage as probably containing a primitive corruption.” ALFORD, adopting
the same reading, says, ‘‘ The passage is almost a locus desperatus.” Itis this reading
that has been adopted by the Revision of 1881.

+ Comp. LUEN., ALFORD, DEL., von HOFMANN, etc., and r Thess. ii. 13.
¢ So de WeTTE, LUEN, 8 So Luen., DEL., von Hor., Linpsay
ὃ

826 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the context, but only Azaring with profit, In support of this meaning for
τοῖς ἀκούσασιν let it be noticed that the Author’s Psalm-text, which under-
lies the whole context, and is constantly reiterated (iii. 7, 15; iv. 7), means
by, if ye will hear his voice (ἀκούσητε), just this genuine, profitable hearing.
This, then, ought to prescribe the sense in which we are to accept axovez in
the context ; so that where that meaning is notintended some qualifying words
must show it. And (to notice the former of the above objections) such is the
case at ili. 16. It must be admitted, when attention is called to it, that the
question, “ who, having heard, provoked ?” suggests also the contrary question,
who, having heard, did not provoke? And, (following the
Psalm-text, Zo-day, if ye will hear his voice), the latter would be described
simply as them that heard (robs ἀκούσαντες). And, further, the Author's
answer to his own question in iii. 16, given interrogatively, Way, did not all
they that came out of Egypt with Moses? allows us (even if we leave’ out of
view Caleb and Joshua, as the Author does) to think of all the rest of Israel
that did not come out of Egypt, viz., the minors and those born in the desert,
as excepted. And, in the end, these actually did hear the word of proclama-
tion so as to profit, as the others did not. Moreover, our Author shows that he
does not ignore these profitable hearers, for at ver, 8 he expressly refers to
them when mentioning Joshua’s performance.

This, then, is the purport of our ver. 2: Good tidings from God are preached
unto usas well as to them of old. In this respect the people of God of all time
are alike. While some of old did not profit by the preaching as others did, it
was because they had not faith. Faith would have combined them with those
that heard with profit. It is to be noted that, in this representation, the Author
expresses the antithesis only as that some heard without profit and some with
profit. He does not say that the one sort did not, and the other sort did, en-
ter into the rest, In fact, none of those that were preached to, entered in (ver.
6). And to the present none have entered into that rest (comp. xi. 13, 39,
40). Nevertheless, then and since, those that heard in faith held a very dif-
ferent relation to the promised rest from those that heard without faith, The
preaching profits the former ; it does not profit the latter, The profit of the
former is, that because they hear believingly, they still have left a promise of en-
tering into God’s rest. The profit of faith is even more than this, as appears
by the statement of

Ver. 3 a. For we enter into the rest, who believed.

The connection denoted by For is with the foregoing verse, especially the
latter clause of it. But it attaches to what we have noted is implied as the af-
firmative contrary of what is there denied, We may paraphrase the connection
thus : ‘‘ The word of proclamation profited them that heard it believingly,
for we enter into the rest, who believed.” Thus our ver. 3 @ explains what
the profiting is, viz., entering the rest.

The Author says, For we enter; not, For they enter, which most
readers expect to read. But he says “we,” because in ver, 2 @ he has just
comprehended all hearers of “the voice of God” (iii. 7) in one class without
regard to times. His we means the people of God (ver. 9). We enter, ex-

NOTES AND NOTICES. 827

pressed in the present tense, sets forth the truth in the abstract as the conse-
quence of believing, while dedieved (aorist) is said with reference to the preach-
ing which is represented as in the past (ὁ λόγος τῆς a 0775). When the an-
nouncement was made then it was believed,

The Author's statement, ver, 3 @, taken with ver, 2, affirms that they who
hear the Gospel believingly enter into the rest. He proceeds, in support of
this, to show that the promise of rest is still in force (ver. 3 2-10). This is his
main proposition of ver. 1: there is a promise left of entering Lis rest.
Though the proof of this first begins here, ver. 2, 3 @ cannot be treated as par-
enthetical. For the fact that the promise is still in force would be nothing
without the fact that good tidings are still proclaimed to us. The Author’s
whole proposition is: there is left a promise of entering into his rest, and
the offer of it is made to us. Continuing then in close connection by using
even as (γα 5), he says:

Ver. 3 ὁ. Even as he hath said, As I sware in my wrath, they shall not
enter into my rest; although the works were finished from the foundation of
the world, 4. For he hath said somewhere of the seventh (day) on this
wise: And God rested on the seventh day from all his works; 5. And in
this place again, They shall not enter into my rest.

The Apostle’s argument in this comparison of Old Testament passages is
evident enough. It is intended to show that God’s rest is something that con-
_tinues. J¢ remains (ἀπολείπεται) is his own way of stating the conclusion,
ver. 6. Quoting again his Psalm-text, he calls attention to how it signifies
that in Moses’ time an offer was made of entering God’s rest. Jy rest is the
significant expression, which the Apostle takes in its most literal sense as that
wherein God rests. And in the entire context, except in ver. ro, he
uses rest, both as substantive and verb, with this meaning only. In this he
reads the Psalm differently from any other reader. ‘The ordinary reader could
only understand the possessive my res¢ as meaning that rest which God had to
give His people inwhich they might rest. And by reference to Num.
Xiv. 23, 30; Deut. i. 35; xii. 9, the ordinary reader (comp, HENGSTENBERG,
J. A. ALEXANDER, on Ps, xcv. 11) infers that my rest refers to the promised
land. But the Apostle evidently identifies my res¢ with the rest wherein
“ God rested the seventh day from all his works,’ Gen, ii. 2, and thus assumes
this to be the meaning of the Holy Spirit (ii. 7) speaking in his Psalm-text.
He calls attention to the fact that God's works were done when He finished
the creation, and He rested then. Quoting Gen. ii. 2 he shows that this is
God's rest. Comparing with this his Psalm-text, he shows that, according to
the Psalm, the promise of rest was offered in Moses’ time, and that it was a
promise of participation in the rest wherewith God rested. This occurring
so long after shows that God's rest is a continuing thing, something that re-
mains, The inference presented is not that it did remain till the time of
Moses, but that, remaining till the time of Moses, itis something that
remains always. Moreover, the language appealed to shows, at the
same time, that God’s rest, begun on the seventh day, remains as something
He offers to share with them that believe.

828 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Instead of formally drawing these evident conclusions from the passages he
has collated to that effect, the Author proceeds to present them as premisses
for a further inference, viz., his main proposition that there is now a promise
of entering “that rest” (ver. 11).

Ver. 6 a. Since then it (the rest) remains for persons to enter into it.

It is thus the Author, by one expression, presents (4) the double inference
from the foregoing, viz., that the rest remains, and that it is for persons to en-
ter, and (4) a premiss (marked by sizce—ézei) for further inference. He
says 27 remains in the simplest meaning of ἐπολείπεται, to be left as or where
it was; as Paul says, “ J left (ἀπέλιπον) my cloke at Troas with Carpus” (2
Tim, iv. 13). He says 22 remains in the same sense that he says, using the
same word, that there remains a keeping of Sabbath (ver. 9), and that there re-
mains no more a sacrifice for sins (x. 26). He says that 1225 (the rest) re-
mains. For ἡ κατάπαυσις is the subject of the verb, not only because it
reigns over the whole context as the chief notion discoursed on, but also be-
cause it is actually expressed in the foregoing clause of ver. 5. It needs no
more to be expressed than the subject of ἀπέλιπον, 2 Tim. iv. 13. He says
in a universal way, for persons to enter in, For so t1vas is to be taken here
as in Rom. iii. 8, and often.* There is nothing in the context to jusify the very
common notion, that the Author means to say emphatically, that some must
enter in,t or (to express it differently), “ The table of the Lord shall not want
guests ; God will bring men to the rest.” ἢ

To this premiss is joined a second, still connected with the since (ἐπεί) that
introduces the first clause of our ver. 6.

Ver. 6 ὁ. And they to whom good tidings were before preached did not enter

in because of disobedience, :

If it were the Apostle’s purpose, in mentioning this with the foregoing, to
represent that, since some must enter, andthese did not, therefore
God set another day so as to have some enter, he would not add that
because of disobedience they entered not (comp. iil. 19). This
cause of their not entering is precisely the point of the present mention. It
resumes the statement of ver. 2 ὦ and pairs it with the other result obtained,
-viz,, that the rest remains for persons to enter. Since disobedience, and not
that the rest became non-existent, was the reason of their exclusion who
were first preached to, the promise of the rest may be extended to others.
And, having stated these premisses, the Author immediately points to the fact
that it was so extended and is still, saying,

Ver. 7. Again he sets a day, To-day, in David, saying after so long a time,

as was said above: To-day, if ye will hear his voice harden not your

hearts.
ie oe . . .
In he sets a day,§ neither ὁρίθει nor Tiva implies such a notion of special
. . . . . 5 . ‘
limitation as is expressed by the rendering, “ defineth a certain day.’|| τινὰ
* See Grimm’s Lex. sub. voc. + So ALFORD.

t So Linpsay; similarly SruART, MCLEAN.
§ So de WeTTE, LUEN., e¢ αἰ. render. On ὁρίζει comp. Acts vii. 26.
|| Revision of 1881.

NOTES AND NOTICES. 829

ἡμέραν, a day, is in apposition with σήμερον, To-day,* and προείρηται re-
fers to the Author’s own mention of it at iii. 7,1 and is equivalent to, as J said
before.

The long interval from the seventh day of creation to the Exodus, and the
offer at the latter period of entering God's rest, shows that this rest, as a rest
for persons to enter, remains. Now, by appeal again to his Psalm-text, the
Apostle shows that iz David (which means in inspired words [iii. 7] commonly
ascribed to David, as by the LXX., but means, in effect, particularly in David’s
day, as the clause, after so long a time, shows), the offer of entering that
rest is made again. Forsuchis the point of our ver. 7; not that
this long interval shows that the rest remains. This latter has been proved.
The Zo-day of the Psalm is the day of grace since it was uttered. And, Zo-day,
if ye will hear his voice, harden not your heart, by the Apostle’s exposition,
sets this day as a time when one may enter the rest; and, as a voice of God
calling to us, it isa promise to us of entering Hisrest. And this proves
the proposition announced in ver. 1, Zhere is a promise, etc.

Having now followed the Author’s reasoning from ver. 1 to this its result,
we note that nothing in it bears on the notion of failing to attain that rest ;
but everything shows that there is left a promise, and how it becomes opera-
tive. This, then, bears out the rendering : lest any one of you should suppose
he is too late for it.

The most remarkable thing in the foregoing exposition of the Apostle (iv.
1-6) is his identifying the rest, called in the Psalm xcv. 11 my rest, with God's
resting referred to Gen. ii, 2, and that he does so without any notice of the
fact that no one else had so read the words. This latter fact, because he
seems to read as if he supposed every one must so read, misleads his inter-
preters, and induces the effort to understand him in some way consistent with
the common way of reading Ps. xcv. Yet, penetrating minds easily discover
the impossibility of doing so, and resort to other expedients, CALVIN calls
the Author’s manner in this passage “embellishing” (exornare incepit) in con-
trast with his manner in ii. 7-19, which he calls treating the Psalm-text liter-
ally, 1.6. “in its general sense.” And he compares the present ‘manner of the
Author to what he calls Paul's way of working up (eweSeyacia) a text, Yet,
spite of what he says in justification of the performance he imputes to the
Apostle, this view of the passage makes it little better than blowing bubbles
with the water of life. Moreover, such a view could only encourage the “ tor-
turing” of the passage of which CaLvin complains as socommon, For what
the Apostle is supposed to allow himself, others will try to imitate.

If the Author’s manner of introducing Scripture here were in the free way
that we observe in chap. i. 4. seq., il. 11-13, viz., without formal citation and
without exposition, we might admit such a view as CaLvin’s. But it is impos-
sible to suspect him of taking such liberties, as Calvin supposes in the present
case, with Scripture that he introduces with the solemn words, As saith the
Holy Spirit (iil. 7). His concluding words (iv. 7) in taking leave of his Psalm-
text, ‘‘ As was said above, To-day,” etc., show that from ii, 7—-iv. 7 he treats it

* So CALVIN, de WETTE.

§30 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

in the same earnest spirit and with the same regard for its genuine sense that
CALVIN recognizes in ili. 7—19.

It is better to understand that the Apostle reads
the Psalm correctly, and that bythe words my rest the Holy Spirit
meant the rest with or in which God rests, though all other readers had failed
to see it. Paul also read the phrases, my righteousness, thy righteousness, and
the like, in the Old Testament, where the possessive pronoun refers to God,
in a way different from all that read before him, of whom we have knowledge.
Before his reading, such expressions were as universally supposed to mean a
righteousness that was God's exclusively, as in Ps. xcv. ii. my rest was sup-
posed to mean a rest that was man’s exclusively, so far as the enjoyment of the
rest was concerned.

Let us suppose that in Rom. i. 16, seq., Paul had written in this fashion :
“Let us fear lest some of you may be ashamed of the Gospel, for it is the
power of God unto salvation, to the Jew and also to the Greek. For there-
in is revealed a righteousness of God, as saith the Holy Spirit: The Lord
hath made known his salvation, his righteousness hath he openly showed
in the sight of the heathen.” Thus he read Ps. xcviii. as no one ever thought
of understanding “ his righteousness.” It is as like as not that, when writing
Rom 1, 16, 17, Paul had in mind Ps, χουν]. 3, as any other Old Testament
scripture.* Old Testament scripture obviously underlies what he says, and it
is such as speaks of God's righteousness, He says the Gospel reveals (ἐν αὐτῷ
αποπκαλύπτετατ), that righteousness. As we follow, while he gives the Gos-
pel, we see that such is indeed the fact. It is nothing less than a new revela-
tion of the righteousness of God, when we see that it is something imputed to
us, though he shows that its expression was there in the Old Testament. It
was there, unrevealed to readers; written, but not read.

In the hands of our inspired Author, my rest of Ps. xcv. 11 also unfolds with
a glory previously unsuspected. This, too, is a revelation aswell
as the other, and we have it through the same Gospel. It is another reason
for not being ashamed of that Gospel. It is something like being so ashamed
when one demurs to the meaning the Apostle attaches to my res?, because no
one ever before so read. We may expect revelation from him.

Paul secures prevalence for his interpretation of God's righteousness by the
fulness and point of his discourse about it. Yet we may remember that we
owe our understanding of itto one man, on whose authority we accept
it as an inspired interpretation of Old Testament truth, We may reflect, too,
that it would have been just as true had Paul announced it but once and as
briefly as the truth regarding God's rest is announced in the passage before us.
Let us accord the same authority to the present inspired interpretation. Had
the New Testament been as largely written for Christian Jews as for Christian
Gentiles, we might have had more about God's promised rest. What we have
is, anyway, as clear and unmistakabie as any single passage taken by itself
that treats of the righteousness of God or of the state of redeemed souls after
the present life.

* See Analytical Comm. on Rom., Rev. JNO. Forses, LL.D., p. 113.

NOTES AND NOTICES. 831

That the Author does not comment on the false, or rather imperfect, reading
of his Psalm-text that was universal, need occasion no surprise. Where, in
the many passages wherein he discourses of the righteousness of God, does
Paul take such notice of the corresponding ignorance of that? Finally, it ill
becomes any one to assume against the Author, that the universal way of read-
ing must be correct, or that it isa very important consideration in such a mat-
ter of interpretation, when we see how generations have read texts in a fashion
that has only been corrected lately, and is now universally conceded to have
been false (comp. ¢.g, ii. 16).

Let us, then, take the Apostle’s interpretation of my rest as correct, on
his authority. Grammatically and logically it has nothing against it, Once
the difficulty of adopting it is surmounted, all the rest of his reasoning from
it is as plain as any other New Testament comment on Old Testament
scripture. He himself shows, by appeal to Gen. ii. 2 (which we know is often
referred to in the Scriptures, and notably in the Fourth Commandment), that
there is a rest of God’s own. Moreover, when attention is called to it, we
notice that the Psalmist’s phrase, my rest, is peculiar, and even unique, as
applied to the events in the wilderness, It has no equivalent in the original
records, as 4.5. Num. xiv. 23, 30; Deut. i. 35; xii. 9. As the expression is
actually original with the Psalmist, so it might mean to express what was never
before expressed, viz., just what the Apostle takes it to mean, And this sense
might be adopted in the other instances of using the same form of expression,
and be found greatly to enrich the meaning of those passages (comp, Ps,
exusit &,,£45:-1sa, xi... 10,5 levi. 1).

And what we have as the result is a glorious doctrine. Jewish piety without
our passage,* and Christian piety with the aid of it, have entertained the notion
of a heavenly rest after this world, that is to be an eternal Sabbath. But here
it is revealed that we are to enter God’s own rest wherein He rested when the
creation was done. We are to rest with Him, rest as He rests, and with His
rest. This is the heavenly calling (ili. 1). When God gave the promise to
Abraham, and renewed it to those led forth from Egypt, it was to this rest He
was calling them. In connection with giving them Canaan He would have
realized this promise. This is what is intended when good tidings are preached
now unto us (ver. 2). It will continue to be so as long as we have the voice
of God saying Zd-day. A most important consideration involved in this doc-
trine is, that it reveals the unity of the people of God (ver. 9) of allages. They
have one heavenly calling (ver, 1), and are under the same divine discipline.
And—which is the special application of the doctrine in the present context—
it shows that unbelief and disobedience wil] be attended with the same sort of
punishment as fell on those whose carcasses fell in the wilderness, ili. 17. For,
having established the truth that there is left a promise of entering into His
rest, the Apostle, at ver, 11, exhorts, Zet us give diligence to enter into that
rest, and then adds the warning, that no one fall in the same example of diso-
bedience.

* See in DEL. and ALFoRD the presentation of this.

832 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

It is not quite true that the Author takes no notice of the erroneous ways of
Teading his Psalm-text. He has already reflected one of them in ver. 2 4. For,
supposing that my rest meant more than the land of promise, the inference
might be, that ¢he oath: they shall not enter my rest, ended that rest by with-
drawing the promise of it, This mistaken notion has been corrected. But, on
the other hand, supposing my ves? to mean only the promised land, it would be
thought that those whom Joshua led into Canaan did enter the rest, Therefore,
as a promise fulfilled, there can now be no promise of entering into that rest.
It is to this notion that vers. 8-10 are directed, and they are only supplement-
ary to the previous reasoning, They add nothing to that fin-
ished argument, but only fortify it against the misapprehension that
the rest was wholly a thing of the past.

Ver. 8. For if Joshua gave them rest, he would not speak after that of another

day.

By this statement the Author represents (hypothetically, εἰ) a situation when
it would be too late for a promise of entering the'rest.* But his appeal to
his Psalm-text, wherein God (for God is the subject of would speak) does
speak of another day, carries with it the proof that what Joshua did was no
giving rest in the sense of entering my rest, The supposed case did not
exist. When our ver, 8 says, if Joshua gave them rest (κατέπαυσιν), it
means by fo give rest just what the Author understands the Psalm to
mean by my rest, and that Joshua did not give that rest (ver. 11), When
it says, God speaks of another day, we are not to understand this as if
it in any way expressed the notion of speaking of another rest. This im-
pression is ἃ common one. Somet suppose the Author, in vers. 1-10, dis-
courses expressly of three rests, viz., of the seventh day, of Canaan, and
of eternal rest ; and they treat the speaking of another day as expressing the
notion of another rest. Thus they interpret, “If Joshua, in giving
them rest, had given them all that rest which God intended, God would not,”
etc. The only meaning of another day is another opportunity of embracing
the promise (one and the same) of entering the rest (one and the same) offered
before.

The statement of ver. 8 involves the denial that what Joshua did was a giv-
ing of rest in the sense of my rest in the Psalm. There is still another sense
in which the entering my rest might be supposed to be fulfilled by God, and
thus that it would be too late for a promise of entering His rest. God had
given the Sabbath day to rest as He rested. This notion, if it existed in his
readers, is counteracted by the statement of vers. 9, 10.

Ver. 9. Zhen there remains a keeping the Sabbath day to the people of God.

This statement, introduced by ἄρα, connects as an inference with the fore-
going verse, and particularly with the negative notion presented there, viz.,

* So von Hor. + ¢.g.. McLEAN, LINDSAY.

1 Whether this conception may be imputed to the Author’s contemporaries, may be
doubted. But that it can be entertained by Christian scholars while studying the pas-
sage before us, is illustrated by MCLEAN, LINDsAy, etc. This fact makes it more than
probable that the Author felt called on to deal with it in his readers.

NOTES AND NOTICES. 833

that entering Canaan was not entering my rest. It is a sudden and impromp-
tu inference, such as wpa is used to introduce,* that comes up much as a co-
incidence of notion, though, stated syllogistically. One notion involves the
other. The fact that entering Canaan was not entering God’s rest explains
the continued existence of the institution of the Sabbath day. And the con-
tinuance of the Sabbath-keeping is evidence that the true rest has not been at-
tained. σαββατισμὸός means, observance of the Sabbath. The Author says
this observance remains (ἀπολείπεται) in the same simple sense of the word
noted at ver. 6 (comp. x, 26), meaning that it was left and so remained as it
was before, an ordinance for the people of God. The import of this 15, that,
had Joshua given them God’s rest, observing Sabbath day would have ceased ;
there would have been no more keeping Sabbath day. The force of this rea-
soning, and the obviousness of it that justifies the terse way in which it is con-
veyed by an enthymeme, appears by comparison of x. 26, There the Author,
having set forth Christ’s offering for sin once for all, says, “ Zhere remains
(ἀπολείπεταὴ no more a sacrifice for οἵη." When the reality is come there
is no more use for the shadow. Here, on the contrary, he represents that
because the real rest has never been attained, the shadow does remain.
Thus the Author appeals to the great and significant and still existing institu-
tion of the Sabbath day. As a shadow it was evidence that the substance had
not yetcome. Yet, as a shadow with deep significance, from its connection with
God’s resting the seventh day, it looks forward to, and is a representation of,
the promise of entering God’s rest. The Author points to this significance in
Ver, 10. or he that entered its rest, he also rested from his works, as God
Jrom his own,

For connects this statement with the foregoing as its explanation. In τὴν
πατάπαυσιν αὐτοῦ, the αὐτοῦ refers to σαββατισμός of ver.9. The
aorists ὁ eigeAS@v, κατέπαυσε, he that entered, rested, are perfectly natural
when speaking of actions relating to an institution of ancient date, though con-
tinued in the present. It is said here from the view-point of entering Canaan
under Joshua, and still keeping the Sabbath, It is much against the rendering
that takes τ. κατάπαυ. αὐτοῦ here to mean God’s rest, that it is driven to
various desperate shifts to explain these aorists. As rendered above, ver, 10
is asimple statement of the nature and meaning of keeping the Sabbath. The
nature of it is rest from our works, The meaning of this is imitation (ὥσπερ)
of God’s resting. And in this connection it is appealed to as an institution
that remains as long as it is true that the people of God have not entered into
His rest,

In vers, 1-8 the Apostle has showed that there is left a promise of entering
God's rest, and that while the Gospel is preached no one is too late for it. In
vers. 9, 10 he has adverted to two supposed situations wherein it would be
too late for such a promise, and showed that they do not exist. He has now
prepared the way for an exhortation which follows

Ver. 11 a. Let us therefore give diligence to enter into that rest.

* See note (}) next page.

834 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

He says that rest (ἐκείνην τὴν κατάπαυσιν), and thus by ἐκείνην refers
back beyond the mention of a rest in the foregoing verse to the more remote
mention of ¢he rest, vers. 5, 6, that has been the principal subject of discourse.
Were the rest mentioned in this verse the same as the rest (τὴν κατάπαυσιν
αὐτοῦ) mentioned in the foregoing verse, it would read εἰς ταύτην."

That rest is only to be secured by diligence, viz., diligent heed or hearing of
the word of proclamation (ver. 2). As an incentive to such diligence, the
Apostle adds the warning, Zhat no one fall in the same example of unbelief, and
follows it up with a description of that word, which, as the Word of God, is
living and at work, The description points toa punitive energy resi-
dent in that Word, which will deal with disobedience now as it did in the
desert, As Curysostom says, φοβερόν τι r/viSato, he hints at something
dreadful.f SAMUEL T, LowRIE.

* Comp. Luke xviii. 14; BUTTMANN’s Gram., p. 104; also BUTTMANN’S Article on
ἐκεῖνος in the Stud. u. Krit., 1860, p. 505, seq.

+ The rendering of ver. 9, given above, is a departure from what is traditional, and
it is proper that, besides letting it speak for itself, we notice the reasons for rejecting
the common interpretation.

(1). It seems to have been overlooked that ἄρα is never used to introduce the con-
clusion of an extended argument. As a conjunction it keeps near its adverbial force,
which ‘‘expresses the intimate connection and coincidence of two notions,” JELF.
Gramm.,§ 787, 1; comp. KUEHNER, § 509, 1. ‘‘ It expresses an inference made from a
foregoing thought as something well established. In itself ἄρα has no syllogistic
meaning ; this lies rather in the context as a whole,” KUEHNER, § 545, 1. Excellent
normal examples of its use are Matt. xvii. 26, ‘‘ Then are the children free; Luke xi.
20, ‘‘ Then (version of 1611, No doubt) is the kingdom of God conre upon you.” It
may most always be best rendered by ¢hen. It refers in every other instance in the
New Testament to something expressed immediately before (comp. Rom. vii. 25 ; viii.
1). It may be doubted whether in any Greek it can be found introducing the conclu-
sion of an extended argument. Yet the common interpretation of our verse makes it
introduce a very triumphant conclusion of reasoning extending through eight verses
preceding.

(2). Supposing the common interpretation correct, that makes σαββατ. another ex-
pression for God's rest, the conclusion so announced would be rhetorically and logi-
cally weak. All through an extended argument the subject has been uniformly referred
to by one name κατάπαυσις, and in the conclusion it is referred to by another totally
different, and that a word that occurs nowhere else previous to this writing, and only
once in contemporary writers, viz., PLur. Morals de superstitione, c. 3, anda word that
has a meaning of its own quite different. Who would so announce a grand conclusion ?
Not the Author of this polished epistle. It may be supposed that the singularity of the
word suggests the extraordinary sense. Andinterpreters render ver. 9, There remains,
therefore, a Sabbatism, and fancy that it sounds welland suggestive. Yet they overlook
the fact that they need to explain this singular English expression. And our Author
would need to do the same if his word were as singular. But it is not conclusive that
σαββατισμός was an unusual word to his readers because it is not found in LXX>
PHILO. or JosEPpHuUs. It is as regularly formed as ἑορτασμόσ, βαπτισμός. Its use by
PLUTARCH proves that it was a current word with only an ordinary meaning. In
Christian writers it is of common enough occurrence, and used in its simple meaning
only, except in comments on our text, and then its supposed extraordinary sense is
only made plain by amplifications. JUSTIN uses it interchangeably with σάββατα φυλάσσειν
and σαββατίζειν (Dial. c. Tryph., c. 23.)

(3). Were the common interpretation correct it would not announce a proper conclu-
sion to the Author’s reasoning. This concludes that there remains a rest. His propo-

NOTES AND NOTICES. 835

The reading “"EdAnvas” in Acts xi, 20.—Westcott and Hort have re-
versed the judgment of preceding critical editors in regard to this text, and
have returned to “"EAAnvioras,” the reading of the Text. Rec. This return
was so unexpected, and at the same time appears to agree so entirely with
Westcott and Hort’s canons of textual criticism that we are led to ask whether
it must indeed be sustained, or whether the very strong considerations which
have led most critics to the other reading should still outweigh the opinion of
the new editors. The settlement of the text in such a case as this may in
turn become a partial test of the principles themselves by which the critics are
governed,

sition was (ver. 1) there ἐς left a promise of entering the rest. There might be a rest, and
yet no promise of it to the people of God now. Accordingly we have seen the Author
establish that the rest remains as a premiss to establishing farther that there is a prom-
ise of it offered now.

(4). As a conclusion (and even as a reiterated conclusion, which no once supposes it
to be) our ver. 9 would be flat, because the conclusion has been presented already at
verse 6, “‘ there remains the rest for persons to enter into 11. Moreover, that conclusion
is the glorious one that God’s rest remains, while this would only be a con-
clusion that a rest remains.

(5). Most decisive of all, σαββατισμός means, fo observe the Sabbath. This, of course,
is undisputed. The only question is, Does the Author mean to use it in an exalted
sense? There is nothing to intimate that he does. The word must have some history
to be able to stand itself for such a meaning. But the fact is, it hasno history previous
to its present use, being found in antecedent or contemporary Greek literature only in the
one other place mentioned above. Or it must have sucha meaning lent to it in the
context by qualification or previous use. Of this there is nothing. Only the assump-
tion, that in this verse the Author sums up the result of his reasoning, has induced the
notion that he means by σαββατ. the same as God’s rest, and thus that he calls that rest
a keeping of Sabbath. It is better to do as we have done—seek a meaning for the con-
text consistent with the primary and common sense of the word.

(6). We may-ascribe the traditional interpretation to something more than a mis-
take. Here mav be found one of the most important effects of our owing that tradi-
tional view to Gentile interpretation. It is obvious that the rendering we have given
ver. 9 involves the most important consequences concerning the observance of the
Sabbath. It makes our verse the most pointed New Testament proof-text for the per-
petual obligation of the Fourth Commandment. We have only to represent to our
minds the apprehension with which these consequences must be regarded by those that
now deny that obligation, and we will represent to ourselves the feelings with which
Gentile Christians of the second century would approach the statement of ver. 9. As in
the modern, so in the ancient mind, the assumption would be that the prima facie mean-
ing of the words could not be that which wasintended. Comp. de PRESSENSE, 77ots
Premieres Scitcle, I1., chap. vi.,§1. The ov σαββατίζομεν of Justin (Dial. com. Try-
phone, c. X.) may be taken as representing the fixed attitude of their mind that deter-
mined their interpretation of the Scriptures, as Hoc est corpus meum, chalked on the
table of the castle of Marburg, determined LUTHER’s. Consequently, they would
look for another sense, to which the allegorizing and imaginative exegesis of that period
would easily accommodate itself, with a haughty disregard of any correction that might
be offered from Jewish Christian quarters. The traditional interpretation, we may
suppose, was the consequence. (Comp. TERTUL., adv. Fudeos, c. 2; EPIPHAN., adver.
haeres. Lib. 1., Tom. II., xxx. c. 32.)

Those that maintain the obligation of the Fourth Commandment according to the
Westminster Confession of Faith, will observe that the rendering now given of vers. 9,
10, brings into the problem no element that was not there before, except a proof-text
that more directly than any other in the New Testament affirms the doctrine there

taught.

836 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The MS. authorities stand in this instance as follows: For EAAnviotas,
BD ** E, H, L, P, 61, all cursives but one, and probably 7 which has
ἐοαγγελιστάξ, a mistake due to ἐυαγγελιδόμενοι following, but implying
that ‘EAAnviotas was intended ; for Ἕλληνας, A Ὁ X* 112. In this evi-
dence we note first that the group X B, with some unimportant additions, is
strong evidence for “EAAnvioras, so strong as in W. and H.’s judgment to
decide the question. Secondly, the testimony of Ais peculiar. It deserts the
** Syrian”’ text and its casual companions, the cursives, and hence would seem
to give specially strong testimony for"EAAnvas. Its testimony is, however,
somewhat weakened by the fact that in the Acts A seems to betray a tendency
to put unduly forward the Gentile work of the Church, for in ix. 29 it alone
reads that Paul in Jerusalem “spake and disputed zpos τοὺς “EAAnvas”
instead of ““Ἑλληνισταξ." It may possibly be a further indication of the
saine tendency when in xvii. 4, in the sentence ‘certain of them (the Jews
of Thessalonica) believed and consorted with Paul and Silas, and of the devout
Greeks (ENAnv@yv) a great multitude,” etc., both A and D insert a xai be-
fore Ἑλλήνων, thus making the conversion of pure Gentiles more marked.
Nevertheless A is still a strong witness for"EAAnvas, for which, besides X*
there remains the older testimony of ἢ. Itmust be confessed A D are much
less powerful friends for a reading to depend on than are X B, and if external
authority is to rigidly overrule all other Ἑλληνιστάξ must be retained, The -
versions are unfortunately in this instance ambiguous and afford little aid.
But this is a passage where internal considerations are so strongly in favor of
“Ἑλληναξ as to render the other reading very difficult of interpretation. If we
are to understand the two words in their common New Testament senses of
** Greeks” and “ Greek-speaking Jews,” the use of the latter in this verse appears
scarcely comprehensible. Thus the immediate connection seems to require
“EdAnvas. ‘They that were scattered abroad upon the tribulation that arose
about Stephen, travelled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking
the word to none save only to Jews (Ἰουδαίοις). But there were some of
them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, when they were come to Antioch,
spake unto the Grecian Jews also.” Is not that obviously a strange sentence ?
Were not Hellenists Jews? Evidently the antithesis requires a word denoting
Gentiles. Moreover, the Gospel had been preached to Hellenists from the *
beginning; see vi. 1; v. 9. Why then should their conversion in Antioch
have led the mother church to send Barnabas to inquire into the matter, and
why should he at once have brought Paul on the scene, whose mission, as he
knew well, was to the Gentiles (cf. Acts xxii, 21)? Furthermore, vi. 1
shows that the natural antithesis of Ἑλληνιστής is with Ἑ βρᾶιος; whereas
Jovd dios and Ἕλλην are regularly antithetical to each other (cf. Acts xiv.
τ; Xvi. 13 xviii, 43 xix. r0;-Roms 4.~26,,ete,). » When; therclore;; the
internal evidence is considered, it seems overpoweringly in favor of the idea
that this preaching was to Gentiles, for which” EAAnvas would be the natural
word to use ; so that absolutely decisive evidence would be required to cause
another reading to be accepted.

But, say Westcott and Hort, while “Ἕλληνας has prima facie intrinsic evi-

NOTES AND NOTICES. 837

dence in its favour, as being alone in apparent harmony with the context,”
“this is true only if it be assumed that Ἰουδᾶτοι is used in a uniformly exclu-
sive sense throughout the book ; whereas it excludes proselytes in ii. ro, and
(τ. δεβομένοις) xvii. 17 (compare xiii. 43; xvii. 4 [taken with 1];
and the double use of Ἰουδατών in xiv. 1), and may therefore exclude ‘ Hel-
lenists’ here.” But, even supposing these ‘‘ σεβομέν οι" to have been always
proselytes, the latter were Gentile-born. In xvii. 4 “EAAnveor is explicitly
added to τῶν σεβομένων. In the face of the expressed antitheses already
mentioned (Ἑ βρᾶιος- Ἑλληνιστής and ἸουδᾶιοςΞ EAAnv), as well as in view
of the inferior position of proselytes in the Jewish system to that which the
Hellenists occupied, it is quite too much to say that because Toud d105 ex-
cludes proselytes it may also exclude Hellenists. Nor can we admit that “the
language of vv. 19, 20 would be appropriate if the ‘ Hellenists’ at Antioch,
not being merged in the general body of resident Jews, were specially singled
out and addressed (ἐλάλουν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ‘E., not as in verse 19,
λαλοῦντες... . Ἰομδαίος) by the men of Cyprus and Cyrene.” The im-
perfect indicative ἐλάλουν only the more points to these unusual acts, and
surely preaching in a synagogue of Hellenistic Jews, or even specially direct-
ing efforts toward them was not unusual, as we have noted above. Moreover,
the antithesis of Ἰουδαίοις would still weigh against this explanation.

The question therefore remains, can these internal considerations outweigh
the heavy authorities of X B and their less important companions? Westcott
and Hort say that “a familiar word [viz.: “EAAnvas] standing in an obvious
antithesis was not likely to be exchanged for a word so rare that it is no
longer extant, except in a totally different sense, anywhere but in the Acts and
two or three late Greek interpretations of the Acts; more especially when the
change introduced an apparent difficulty.’ But, while the principle of this
remark is certainly true, a valid reason may in this case be assigned for such a
change ; for, since this preaching beyond the bounds of the chosen race was
not authorized by an apostle, it might easily seem in the view of a later age
too presumptuous to have been possible. It is evident that the Church at
large had not yet heard of the baptism of Cornelius; probably, indeed, that
event had not occurred when these missionaries reached Antioch. Our MSS.
were written when ecclesiastical authority was rising high, and a wish to guard
the supremacy of the apostles may quite as possibly have led to a change
from Ἕλληνας to Ἑλληνιστάξ as a wish to rightly balance the sentence, or
a finer perception of the real progress of primitive church history may have led
to the change of Ἑλληνιστάς ἰο“ Ἑλληνας.

It should also be observed that according to Westcott and Hort’s own notes
on “Select Readings in the Acts,” even a group containing X B may give erro-
neous texts, Thus in vil. 46 they read “τῷ Ye Ta nes” with X* A C
E, P,, all cursives and versions, instead of « τῷ οἰκῷ 1.” with X Β Ὁ H,.
They consider; however, o7xq the older reading, but nevertheless a primitive
error. Dr. Hort thinks the original may have been κυριῷ. Again, in xiil.
32 they read “‘ τοῖς τέκνοις ἡμῶν " with X A BC Ὁ, but add that it “ gives
only an improbable sense,” and that ἡμῶν is probably a primitive corruption

838 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of ἡμῶν. See also Hort’s notes on xx. 28 and xxvi. 28, Instances like
these, although not precisely similar to our passage, certainly diminish the
weight of the evidence for “EAAnvioras, forbidding us to trust too implicitly in
even the best MSS. While not presuming to speak positively, we cannot but
think the force of the internal evidence in this passage will continue to induce
critics to retain"EAAnvas, unless still stronger evidence to the contrary ap-
pears, or unless ‘EAAnviotas be made to have practically the same meaning
as the other word. It is possible also that in this passage a warning is given
against over-confidence in even the most careful examination of groups of MSS.;
for, after the best classifying and estimating of them, the possibility of error in
detail still remains. If Ἕλληνας be retained, its most faithful witness D has
done at least something toward redeeming its character, which just now is
seriously threatened. It is doubtless far safer to be governed in determining
a text by external evidence than by the supposed demands of exegesis, but as
Dr. Hort has well taught us, there are limits upon every side to every rule. It
should be noted in conclusion that the Revised version, which is supposed to
have been much influenced by Westcott and Hort’s principles of criticism, has
nevertheless accepted Ἕλληνας, reading “Greeks” in the text, and merely
adding in the margin, “many ancient authorities read Grecian Jews.”
GeorGE T. PURVES.

The Discovery of Pithom-Succoth and the Exodus Route.—For Bible students,
especially those engaged in Oriental researches in their relation to the Script-
ure evidences, the discovery just made in Egypt under the auspices of the
“Egypt Exploration Fund Committee,’ * has a special value, We refer to its

* The ‘‘ Committee”? was formed ‘‘ to conduct excavations in Egypt, especially on sites of Bibli-
cal and classical interest.” Work has to be done according to the Egyptian law, which strictly
forbids any further exportation of ‘‘ finds.” All objects found in such researches are claimed for
the museum at Boolak. It was stated at the recent meeting of the Society held in July that the
Egyptian Government had presented to the Society two of the monuments recovered. It was de-
cided to present them to the British Museum. However, M. Maspero, the director-general of the
Egyptian museums, has consented that any ‘“‘ publication of results of the Society’s work, within
reasonable limit of time, shall belong exclusively to the Society.” The superintendence of the ex-
cavations is confided to M. Naville, a Swiss Egyptologist. The discovery just made is the result of
the first campaign under his direction. With an experienced engineer and some eighty laborers,
M. Naville selected the Wadi Tumilat as the locality for investigation, and chose as the
special spot to begin with, the celebrated mounds of Tell-el-Maskhutah, long supposed to
be the site of the town ‘‘ Rameses ’—one of the two ‘‘ treasure cities ” referred to in the first chapter
of Exodus as built by the Hebrews. It is interesting also to know that the Wadi was the scene of
the late war. The work was begun on the roth of January last, and continued for near seven
weeks. By the end of the first week M. Naville had discovered that the site was not ‘‘ Rameses,”
but Pithom—the other store-city of the Bible narrative. Also that Pithom was simply the sacred
name of the town (as Pa-Tum, Ζ. ¢., the dwelling-place of the god Tum). Its ordinary name was
Thukut, the Hebrew Succoth. Subsequent labors brought to light further interesting facts. (1)
That Rameses II. was the founder of the town, thus identifying Rameses II. as the Pharaoh who
compelled the Hebrews to build it. (2) That it was a ‘‘store-city ’—the store-chambers being dis-
covered. (3) A tablet of the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus was discovered (to be called ‘‘ the stele
of Pithom”’), similar in style to the Rosetta stone, except that the inscription is in hieroglyphics
only, giving an account of the founding of the city of Arsinoé, at the head of the gulf, and details
of work on the canal leading from the Nile to the Red Sea, on which Pithom-Succoth was a
station.

A full account is reserved forthe present. The committee proposes to undertake as its next work

NOTES AND NOTICES. 839

bearing on future attempts that may be made at solving the many remaining
problems connected with the subject of Egypt and the Bible. The simple his-
tory of Egyptology should make investigators very cautious in stating what are
often at best but plausible inferences, And yet even now, in a case where some
bottom facts have certainly been reached, heads ordinarily cool enough have
allowed fancy to lead, and conclusions have been too hastily drawn, and with con-
siderable of a flourish, which the facts discovered, at any rate as far as pub-
lished, cannot be said to justify, We all know how many scholars have occu-
pied themselves in investigating problems connected with the Exodus—such as
its date, its Pharaoh, the route taken from Egypt to Canaan, the locale of
Sinai and the like, and yet what a variety do we still find in the conclusions
reached, Take, δ. g., the Pharaoh of the Exodus, He has been identified
with one of the Usartesens (as far back as the Twelfth Dynasty), with Aahmes,
the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, with Thothmes III., of the same Dy-
nasty. J.atterly the common view identifies him with Mineptah, the son of
Rameses IT.,* though there are some who stoutly oppose this view.+

Then in what a muddle do we find ourselves as to chronology. Rawlinson
opens his story of the chronology of Egypt by saying,t “It is a patent fact .
that the chronological element in the early Egyptian history is in a state of
almost hopeless obscurity.”” And in the chapter he gives a synopsis of the
variety of views held by men who have made the subject a special study, from
Bockh, who asks for the longest time for Menes’ first year (B.c. 5702) to
Wilkinson, who asks for the shortest (B.c. 2691), and including the estimates
of Mariette, Brugsch, Lepsius, Bunsen, and Poole, who vary from B.c. 5004

the excavation of the vast mounds of San, the Zoan of the Bible, the Tanis of the Greeks. These
promise a rich harvest. But funds are needed before the work can be begun. The expenditure in
the excavations of Pithom-Succoth was £658. The subscriptions received left a balance in hand for

further work of £1,640, of which £1,000 had been received from Sir Erasmus Wilson, the presi-
dent of the committee.

* We add here ‘‘the son of Rameses II.” because while this son of the great Rameses was a
Mineptah, he was not the only one of that name, nor was it really his distinctive name whereby he
is distinguished on the monuments, Just as there were a number of Thothmes and many Rame-
ses, so there were at least four Mineptahs closely associated in the same Dynasty. Every Pharaoh
(at least from the Twelfth Dynasty) had two names, each in a separate cartouche—the one was his
family, the other his throne name. Now, in the case of the four Pharaohs referred to, the car-
touche enclosing the family name of each has ‘‘ Mineptah”’ as part of it, the fact amounting to at
least a claim of family relationship. The first is the father of Rameses II., commonly known as
Seti I., whose full family name was ‘‘ Mineptah Seti.’’? The second is the son of Rameses II.,
whose full family name was ‘‘ Mineptah Hotephimat.” The third is his son, commonly knownas Seti
II., whose full family name was that of another ‘‘ Mineptah Seti.” The fourth is the Pharaoh with
whom the Dynasty closed in disaster, and whose full family name was ‘t Mineptah Siptah.” Each
of these Mineptahs is, however, distinguished on the monuments just as in the case of the four
Thothmes and the thirteen Rameses, by his throne name. But tradition made the Pharaoh of the
Exodus a Mineptah, and thus, as the son of Rameses II., has come to be generally looked on as
that Pharaoh, and was a Mineptah, he has come to monopolize the name, albeit he is but the sec-
ond of the name. We therefore add, ‘‘the son of Rameses II.” We go into these details
because there are some of us who are glad to find, in view of difficulties attending the hypothesis
that the son of Rameszes II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, that another Pharaoh who may have
been the man was also a Mineptah,

+See Chabas’ ‘‘ Recherches pour servir a l’histoire de la XIX Dynastie,” sects. 2 and 3.
1 Rawlinson’s ‘' History of Ancient Egypt,” Vol. II., p. 1.

840 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

to B.C. 2717. The chronological schemes of even reasonably well-assured
eras are as various as their authors, while the era of the Exodus more especi-
ally is in almost inextricable confusion. Still there is this to be said by way of
compensation to any who may be disturbed by such statements, that the
monumental periods as they are being more fully deciphered are regularly
shortening, and dates are consequently shrinking to more reasonable figures.

In like manner, if we consider the route of the Exodus, scarcely an item can
be said to be definitely fixed, or at least generally accepted, except that the
part of Egypt concerned in the Hebrew history is its north-eastern delta. As
to the position of the “treasure cities” built by the Hebrews, or of Succoth or
Etham, or Migdol, or Pi-hahiroth, or Baal-Zephon, or Marah, or Elim, or the
wildernesses referred to as Shur and Sin, it can be said that until this last dis-
covery fixed the site of one of the “treasure-cities,” not a single point had
been identified beyond dispute. Many theories have been put forth for each
and with arguments that secured adherents for each theory, but that is the ut-
most that can be said. We have still to ask, where was even the starting-
point which the Bible asserts was the town ‘‘Rameses”? Brugsch in his
famous lecture* makes it Tanis, the ruins of which form such conspicuous
mounds, And starting from Tanis and explaining Succoth in a general way, he
finds an Ethamf in the eastern part of his Succoth plain, which at any rate
formed a station on the ordinary route from Tanis to Pelusium. There is a
drawing extant at Karnak of the time of Seti I., showing its position. It was
on both banks of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile, and the two opposite parts
were joined by a bridge. Behind the fortresses is represented the town called in
Egyptian Tabenet, which is the Daphne of Herodotus. The ruins still
exist called Tell Defenneh. It was the only route, according to Brugsch,
whereby a traveller coming from Palestine could enter Egypt dry-shod. He
cites from a papyrus now in the British Museum a parallel account of a scribe’s
pursuit of two servants of the royal palace of Rameses, how, starting on the
gth day of the 11th month, the next day the scribe entered Succoth, the next
day arrived at Khetam, where the desert begins, then turned northwards
toward Migdol and the Mediterranean as far as the wall of Gerrhon,t which
was situated at the western extremity of Lake Sirbonis. Migdol is Semitic,
meaning a tower. In Egyptian it is “Samout,” and accordingly Brugsch iden-
tifies this Migdol of the Hebrews’ route with a site that has the modern
name of “Tell-esSemout.” He also finds with great ingenuity in the
neighborhood of the old bog an explanation for the other terms of the Bible
story, and certainly with great plausibility explains the command (Ex. xiv. 2)
“to encamp before Pi-hahiroth between Migdol and the sea, opposite to Baal-
Zephon, Ye shall encamp opposite to it by the sea.”

The subsequent “turn” (Ex. xv. 12) he makes in a southerly direction
through the desert, which is his “ wilderness of Shur,” to Marah.

* Lecture on the Exodus, appended to Brugsch’s ‘‘ History of Egypt,” Vol. 11.

+In Egyptian ‘‘ Khetam,” meaning a fortress.

t~ The word means “ὁ wall,” or barrier, and so Dr. B. regards it as a translation of the Hebrew
‘Shur,” which means the same thing, and which gave its name to the ‘‘ wilderness of Shur.”

NOTES AND NOTICES. 841

But interesting and ingenious though this explanation is admitted to be, it
has received few, if any, adherents. At the same time it must be admitted
that the route as ordinarily accepted is also a very uncertain one, except in
its general direction. ‘The stations of the route from beginning to end have
been mere guesses, more or less plausible. Until this late find of Pithom-Suc-
coth, if it be the Succoth of the journey, it can be said that there was really
less argument for the old route than for that of Brugsch, except that the old
one is made to cross the generally accepted arm of the Red Sea,

It may be added that another view held by an anonymous author,* and
elaborated with scarcely less ingenuity than that with which Dr. Brugsch sup-
ports his theory, makes the starting point at On (Heliopolis), and carries
the line eastwardly on almost a parallel to the head of the Gulf of Akaba,
another arm of the Red Sea, and to Elath, or Ezion-Geber, and makes
the crossing (if there was one) in that region, And curiously enough he finds
names sufficient in the region thereabouts to suggest reminiscences of the old
Bible names. But we are not aware that the author has had any following.

In like manner, as to the locale of Sinai, and of the giving of the law, and
of the years of wandering, it is needless for us to do more than refer to the
subject. Most writers of course deal with the so-called Sinaitic Peninsula in
this inquiry, but he would be a fortunate man indeed who could to-day affirm
without contradiction that the ‘“‘Mount of God” has been identified even
there. We may only add that the anonymous writer above referred to, who
makes the crossing at the Gulf of Akaba, also locates Sinai in the region of
Petra and Mount Hor. Many of his arguments are very ingenious and plau-
sible, but he is a thorough-going rationalist, and often treats the details of the
Bible story as accounts that are scarcely more than fictions of a later age. It
is vitiating to any theory to relegate difficulties in a Scripture narrative to in-
terpolations of succeeding scribes,

In view, therefore, of the fact that the history of these investigations has
really been from the beginning a story of hypotheses, most certainly students
in this department should be led with great caution to state results of their
researches. We are led to say this in view of movements already set on foot
in the way of excavations, and to thus early enter a caveat against discoverers
being led away by the excitement attending their discoveries to conclusions
that the facts will not justify.

It is interesting to know that a party is to start from Marseilles who propose
to drag the Red Sea and the Bitter Lakes in hope of finding some remains of
Pharaoh's army, particularly jewels and gems that are supposed to be imper-
ishable, and which may tell the final tale. So nothing can quicker excite the
interest of all who are studying Ancient Egypt than the excavations of this
“Egypt Exploration Fund Committee,” but it will be necessary to remember
just what each “find” amounts to, and call into most abundant exercise the ju-
dicial faculty when inferences are drawn,

Our object in this article is not to state the- results of the discovery just
made (for the committee are alone authorized to do that), but to protest

* “The Hebrew Migration from Egypt,” London: Triibner & Co., 1873, pp. 436.
54

842 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

against the too sweeping conclusions already set forth in its first official state-
ment. Thus we read in the circular of the committee: “Among other
geographical indications, this tablet gives us for the first time the original
Egyptian name of a locality called Pi-Keheret, identified with Pihahiroth, near
which the Israelites crossed the Red Sea. Hence the site of this place is to be
looked for eastward or south-eastward of Pithom, and Dr. Brugsch’s theory of
the route of the Exodus must now be finally abandoned.”

This seems to ourselves to be arguing too soon and too strongly.

It is to be remembered that the discoveries of M. Navilie taken at their ut-
most value simply fix the site of the “store-city,” Pithom-Succoth, It is well
enough to say that it was in all likelihood the first halting-point of the Hebrews
after leaving ‘‘ Rameses” (wherever that was) from which they set out. But
it is to be noted that this is but an inference, not a fact proven, There are
indeed many difficulties that will at once suggest themselves to any one who
has studied the locality, when the attempt is made, on the supposition that this
store-city, Pithom-Succoth, was the Succoth where the first halt was made, to
bring the site into relations either with the starting-point “ Rameses,” or with
the subsequent stations of the journey. But this apart, the circular states that
the “tablet of Pithom” “gives us for the first time the original Egyptian name of
a locality called Pi-Keheret,” which is at once identified with the *‘ Pihahiroth”
of Exodus xiv. 2, near which the sea was crossed. The “ Pihahiroth” of our
English text should rather be written “ Pi-hakhiroth,” more closely to corre-
spond with the Hebrew form of the word. If the circular gives us the correct
consonantal spelling of the tablet, it can scarcely be said to be the same word.
At any rate, the circular states it as the name of a “locality ’’—it does not say
a “town.” Now, according to Dr. Brugsch, the word as given in the Hebrew
form means “entrance to the Khiroth,” and he finds Khirot as an Egyptian
form meaning “ gulfs,” so that the whole word really designates a locality, not
a town, and means “entrance to the gulfs,” or fens, and could refer to the
marshy, treacherous bogs either at the western end of the Sirbonian Lake
(according to Brugsch’s theory), or at the head of the Gulf of Suez, according
to the ordinary theory.

At any rate, the mere mention of the name on the tablet, though it be con-
ceded to be identical with the Hebrew word, without any further, indication of
its locality, does not fix its site even relatively, for the head of the Gulf of Suez
was as far from Pithom-Succoth as was the entrance of the Sirbonian fens.

It is therefore gratuitous to add, ‘‘hence the site of this place is to be looked
for eastward or south-easterly of Pithom,” and that “‘ Dr, Brugsch’s theory of the
route must now be finally abandoned.” This is a non-sequitur, and deserves
to be noted, for it is in just such a way that pet theories are often developed.

If it be conceded that Pithom-Succoth is really the Succoth of the Hebrews’
route, it really tells us nothing more whatever about the rest of the route. It
indeed only makes more uncertain still-where the starting-point was, But it can-
not be said to have demolished Dr. B.’s hypothesis, the distinctive feature of
which is not so much the earlier stages of the journey (unless it be his identifi-
cation of ““ Rameses” with Tanis), as whether the sea crossed was an arm of the

NOTES AND NOTICES. 843

Red Sea, as we knowit, or another sea, the old Sirbonian bog. That hypothe-
sis is not at all affected by the present discovery. There are serious objections to
Dr, Brugsch’s view, which have been pointed out long ago on other grounds,* no-
tably by Poole, but there are also very serious objections to the route as ordinarily
mapped down, We will liave to wait longer, until some of the really strategic
points are discovered, before we can discard either, and say it is to be “ finally
abandoned.’’ From this point of view the promise that the mounds of San are
next to receive attention will be hailed with delight by every student who is
hankering after facts.

The better to appreciate the point we are making—that this happy discov-
ery of the position of Pithom-Succoth does not necessarily give the ‘‘coup de
grace” to Dr. Brugseh’s theory—we would draw attention to the Bible require-
ments as to the problem. The Scripture story certainly notes three stages in
the Hebrews’ journey from ‘‘ Rameses” to Sinai.

(1) The stage from Rameses to Etham, (2) That from Etham to Baal-
Zephon. (3) That from Baal-Zephon to Sinai. It is to the first of these that
we would particularly call attention. With regard to it the Bible tells us (1)
that the journey was undertaken not by the direct road from ‘ Rameses”
(wherever it was) to Palestine, but by a roundabout way ;t (2) that it was not
until they reached Etham, “which is in the edge of the wilderness,” that any
ihtimation was given how they were to cross the desert,

We are told, ¢. g., in Ex. xii. 37, “And the children of Israel journeyed
from Rameses to Succoth,” and then in Ex. xiii. 17 we are particularly in-
formed that “‘when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not
through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near,’’ but
(ver. 18) “ God led the people about through the way of the wilderness of the
Red Sea.” Also (ver. 20), “" And they took their journey from Succoth, and en-
camped in Etham.’’ Now for the moment let us suppose Brugsch’s Tanis to
have been the ““ Rameses” from which they set out, and the discovered Pithom-
Succoth to have been the Succoth of the journey, and Etham to have been where
Brugsch locates it, and the whole story for this stage can be thus paraphrased :
They started from Rameses (Tanis) to go the protised land, but instead of
starting on the special road that led to it most directly, they journeyed first to
Pithom-Succoth, and only by this roundabout way reached Etham on the edge
of the wilderness. Then, having reached Etham, two courses would be pos-
sible,t viz., to turn northward or to turn southward—in both cases marching
through a desert. The Bible (Ex. xiv. 2) emphasizes the “turn” with which
the second stage began as of Divine direction. According to Brugsch they
“turned” and marched to the north-east, where they would be sure to find a

%* See Poole’s “" Lectures on Ancient Egypt,” in Contemp. Rev., May, 1879, p. 755; also p. 760.
Birch’s ‘‘ Ancient History from the Monuments,” p. 134. Rawlinson’s ‘‘ Ancient Egypt,” Vol. I1.,
Ρ. 334- F

+ This would seem to have been characteristic, not only of the forty years’ journey as a whole,
but of each stage of the journey. In Israel’s history it was the unexpected that happened.

+ The same would have been possible, if Etham is located on a lower parallel more to the east of
Pithom-Succoth,

844 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

‘* Migdol,”* a “sea,” and “gulfs” or fens, and a sanctuary called in Egyptian
* Baali-Zapouna,” According to the ordinary view they “turned,” and
marched in a southerly direction toward the head of the Gulf of Suez, where
they would in all likelihood also find another ‘‘ Migdol” (or tower), though it has
not been identified with any known spot, and a “sea” and “ gulfs” enough,
though no identification of any of the Scripture names in that direction has
been generally accepted.

The point we are making is, that even if Pithom-Succoth be the Succoth of
the Hebrews’ journey, it does not indicate anything decisive as to the remain-
der of the route any more than it does as to its direction and distance from the
town whence the Hebrews set out. Neither does the mention on the tablet
of a “locality” called “ Pi-Keheret.” Even if it be identical with the name
given in Ex, xiv, 2 (unless something more explicit is given by the tablet than
the mere name), its locality remains an unknown quantity.

As a “store-city’’ built by the compulsory labor of the Hebrews on the
canal that Rameses II. was opening up from the Nile to the Bitter Lakes, and
thence to the Red Sea, the discovery is a most welcome corroboration of the
Bible story.

We shall await with impatience a full account of the spoils that have been
gathered, and with only greater impatience the commencement of the Bees
excavations at San.

Since this article was‘ written there has appeared in the J//ustrated
London News of Aug. 4, 1883, an illustrated notice of Pithom-Succoth by
Mr. Stanley Lane Poole, wherein the sweeping inferences against which we
have been animadverting are repeated. Itis said, “‘ The identification of Pithom
with Succoth gives us the first absolutely certain point as yet established in the
route of the Exodus, and completely overthrows Dr. Brugsch’s theory. It is
now certain that the Israelites passed along the valley of the Freshwater
canal, and not near the Mediterranean and Lake Sirbonis.” And yet, as we
have above stated, the only ‘‘absolutely certain point” established by the
happy discovery is that the site of Pithom-Succoth, one of the “store-cities”
built by the Hebrews, has been settled. It does not settle the point whether
it be the first halting-spot of the Exodus, which in the Bible is called Succoth,
and not Pithom, as one would naturally expect, were it identical, inasmuch as
Pithom was already mentioned.

This is a point, therefore, not definitely settled by the discovery.

We emphasize this, for Mr, Reginald Stuart Poole himself, in a note to the
London Academy, dated Feb. 21, 1883, seems to have felt the difficulty
attending the identification of this Pithom-Succoth with the Succoth of the
Exodus alluded to above. He says, “And, though 216 rest of the journey 10
and from Succoth be still obscure, we have at last a fixed point, limiting this
obscurity and suggesting . . . . more exploration,’’ Mr, S. L. Poole, too, ad-
mits in his notice that “any identification of the sites of the Biblical cities in

* One way of describing Egypt was to say, ‘‘from Migdol to Elephantine or Syene,” just as
Canaan was described as ‘‘ from Dan to Beersheba.”

NOTES AND NOTICES. 845

Egypt was so far merely speculative. Pithom, Succoth. . . . Pihahiroth....
had all been hypothetically placed in totally different positions.”

We repeat that we cannot be too grateful for the identification of the site of
one of the “store-cities” built by the Hebrews, and for the identification of
Rameses II, as the oppressor under whom it was built, but it does not settle
beyond dispute the identity of this site with the Bible ‘‘Succoth,.” If it be the
same, students will find still greater difficulties than before in bringing the first
stop of the Exodus into relations both with the starting-point and with the rest
of the journey. We can only with patience await further facts,

ALFRED H, KELLocc.

Vil.
REVIEWS OF
RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

I.—EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

THEOLOGISCHER JAHRESBERICHT Herausgegeben. Von B. PUENJER. Zweiter
Band. Die Literatur des Jahres. 1882.

The time was when English scholars instructed the Germans, and that time
may come again. The dictionaries of Smith and his colaborers in the fields of
Christian archeology and biography are superior to anything of the kind in
German. But just at present the learned world waits for the verdict of Ger-
many. Our books and articles of a scholarly character bristle with reference to
German work. The man who does not read German is like him who could not
read Latin one huncred years ago—shut out from the avenues of learning. All
honor to the Germans. They are the pioneers in scholarship. They have
industry, patience, and perseverance, and in the course of years have accumu-
lated rich stores. Their books are commonly well done. Each writer is desir-
ous to show an absolute mastery of the literature of the subject. And the com-
prehensive study of the literature has the good effect of informing the author
respecting the ideas he adopts. He knows their age and probable value. He
does not claim originality, only to make the humiliating discovery that he had
been long ago anticipated.

These remarks are illustrated in the volume now under consideration. It is
an orderly record of the theological literature of 1882. It aims at completeness,
and takes account of books and articles outside of Germany. Some 1,200 au-
thors are named, and their contributions very briefly characterized. Space did
not allow much mention in any case, but so thorough is the acquaintance of the
reviewers with their respective subjects, that they are often able by a word to
give the gist of a volume. Of the 1,200 mentioned only 124 are English-speak-
ing, many of whom again are Americans.

The plan of the Fahresberichi is to divide the literature into 12 parts, thus:
O. T. and N. T. literature (2 parts); Church history to Nicza, to the Reforma-
tion, from 1517 to 1700, since 1700 (4 parts); history and philosophy of religion,
apologetics, etc.; dogmatics; ethics; practical theology, except ecclesiastical
law and polity ; ecclesiastical law and polity; homiletics. The general editor
furnishes a necrology as the closing part, and then follows the index. Each
department is given toa scholar particularly interested in it. Thus Gass has
“ ethics,” Lipsius “ dogmatics,” Holtzmann the “ Ν. T. literature.” The result
is satisfactory. Indeed, the Fakresbericht renders the theological scholar an
inestimable service. The books mentioned in it have each some value, for
worthless books are quietly ignored.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. ᾿ς Β47

But in trying to be omniscient these German scholars occasionally betray
ignorance. Thus it is rather startling to find E. Zittel, Dze Entstehung der Brbel
(pp. 180), and J. McClintock and J. Strong, A Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological,
and Ecclesiastical Literature, 16 vols. (sic), spoken of on p. 23 in this fashion :
“ Die Schriften von Zittel, Clintock, und Strong dienen praktischen Interessen,
wenn auch von sehr verschiedenen Ausgangspunkten.” It is novel, to say the
least, to class a book on the genesis of the Bible along with an Encylopedia in
16 (should be 10) vols. J. F. McCurdy is curtly called Curdy (p. 2). All the
articles of 1882 in the PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW upon the Pentateuchal question
come in for respectful mention. Quite characteristically, Lipsius gives a brief
list of Roman Catholic theological publications, and without a word of criticism
closes his section with the remark, “ No one cares about completeness in this
department.”

The necrology is a painful though valuable feature. The book, as a whole, is
to be warmly commended. SAMUEL M. JACKSON.

BIBLISCH-THEOLOGISCHES WOERTERBUCH DER N. TESTAMENTLICHEN GRAE-
CITAET. Von HERMAN CREMER. Dritte sehr vermehrte und verbesserte
Auflage. Dritte—Siebente Lieferungen [completing the work]. 8vo, pp.
257-834, and xiii. Gotha: Perthes. 1882 and 1883. [New York: B. West-
ermann ἃ Co.].

These five parts complete the third edition of Cremer’s “ Lexicon ’—the first
and second parts of which were noticed in the PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW, iii.,
413, and iv., 172. The work, as a whole, fully justifies the expectation of “a
much enlarged and improved” edition which the title-page raises and the
promise that was given by the first and second parts. Over three hundred
new words have been treated; and quite as many old articles (and these, nat-
urally, among the most important) have been rewritten. The incitement given
by Baudissin to their investigation of ἄγιος and its derivatives, for instance, as
well as that given by Diestel and Ritschl to the investigation of δίκαιος and its
derivatives have borne fruit. Such terms as βασιλεία, τῶν οὐρανῶν, ἐκλέγεσϑαι, πίστις,
σάρξ, have felt the revising hand very deeply.

With all its enlargement and improvement, however, the work has not lost
its original character. It is still a lexicon. The author is, indeed, anxious that
it should be remembered that its purpose is to deal with the history of speech
and concept, and that it is, therefore, a true lexicon, and not “a biblical the-
ology in lexical, that is, in unscientific form.’’ And it is as far as ever from
being a hand-lexicon, and almost as far from being a complete lexicon to the
New Testament. In general, only those words which have been affected by
“the language-moulding power of Christianity” are discussed, and the three
hundred additional articles of this edition probably raise the list of words
treated to only about one-third of the whole number of New Testament words.
This was, at all events, the result reached by a (no doubt very insufficient) sam-
pling of the matter: the first page of the alphabetical index contains eighty-eight
words against sixty-one in the corresponding section of edition 2, and some
two hundred and thirty-five (of which only twenty-nine are proper names) in
Grimm’s Clavis. There remains room, therefore, for a fourth and fifth edition
in the future; and the more so, that quite a number of terms remain thus far
untreated, the meaning of which was affected by their application to Christian
notions, and which thus, in the strictest sense, fall within the domain of the
book. We need instance only the group μακάριος, μακαρίζω, μακαρισμός, and μεριμνάω
and its synonyms. Doubtless a very few years will give us another “greatly
enlarged and improved” edition, and we promise to give it a glad welcome
when it comes. Meanwhile, we will profit by the third, and thank the author

848 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

that he was willing to let us have use of a part before he could give us the
whole.

Some minor items of improvement were spoken of in the previous notices.
It is worth mentioning that a new index—to the Hebrew words discussed—
has been added, and a greatly enlarged list of books consulted, prefixed. The
strange assertion that Tholuck almost alone among commentators had paid
much attention to or attained much success in biblico-theological word-study,
has been happily dropped out of this edition.

It is unnecessary to speak of the general worth or use of this Lexicon further
than, on the one hand, to reiterate our belief that it is indispensable to the
careful student of the New Testament; and, on the other, to warn beginners
that, like all lexicons and, by the very character of the task it undertakes, above
other lexicons, it is of the nature of a commentary and has an unavoidable per-
sonal element, and, hence, must be used with independent judgment as a serv-
ing aid, not with slavish acceptance as an infallible master.

BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD.

THE PULPIT COMMENTARY. Edited by the Rev. Canon H. D. M. SPENCE, M.A.,
Vicar and Rural Dean of St. Pancras and Examining Chaplain to the Lord
Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and by the Rev. JOSEPH S. EXELL, Editor of

_ the Homzletic Quarterly.

ST. MARK. Exposition by Very Rev. E. BICKERSTETH, D.D., Dean of Lichfield.
Homiletics by Rev. Prof. J. R. THomMsoN, M.A. 2 vols. pp. xii, vi, 371.
About 96 pages of Expository matter, and 646 of Homiletical.

JEREMIAH. Exposition by Rev. T. R. CHEYNE, M.A., Rector of Tendring, and late
Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Homiletics by Rev. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Vol. 1., pp. xix, viii, 598. About 80 pages of Exposition, and 518 of Homiletics.

JosHuA. Introduction to the Historical Books: Joshua to Nehemiah, by the Rev.
A. PLUMMER, M.A., Master of University College, Durham. Introduction to
Joshua and Exposition and Homiletics, by Rev. J. J. Litas, M.A., Vicar of St.
Edward’s, Cambridge, and late Lecturer in Hebrew at Lampeter College. pp.
lviii, xxviii, 384. About 126 pages of Exposition, 252 of Homiletics, and 6 of
indexes.

JupGEs. Exposition and Homiletics: Right Rev. Lord A.C. HERVEY, D.D., Bishop
of Bath and Wells. pp. viii, iv, 214. About 56 pages of Exposition, and 158 of
Homiletics.

RuTH. Exposition and Homiletics: By Rev. JAMES MorRISON, D.D., author of
“‘Commentary on the Gospel according to St, Matthew,” etc. pp. xviii, i, 72.
About 25 pages of Exposition, and 47 of homiletical matter. Judges and Ruth
form one volume. :

New York: Anson Ὦ. F. Randolph & Co. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co.

Under an arrangement with the English publishers, A. D. F. Randolph & Co. are
issuing the successive volumes of this work in New York from duplicate plates, and
at about one-half the price of the English edition.

Dr. Bickersteth regards the Gospel by Mark as giving the Petrine tradition of the
life of Jesus. Its sources he holds to have been the previously existing Gospel by
Matthew, certain memoranda by Peter, and the author’s own gifts, natural and
inspired, the author being the John Mark of the New Testament. He devotes two
pages to the dispute concerning the last twelve verses, concluding, that “On the
whole, the evidence as to the genuineness and authenticity of this passage seems
irresistible.”

Whether Dr. Bickersteth’s exposition is good depends upon the question what
one seeks in exposition. One will find it very empty if one comes to it for informa-
tion as to matters of difficulty, or for evidence to help him settle for himself the
living issues of the day. Our author quietly gives the conclusions he himself has
reached, without discussion, without going back to primary facts, without taking
much pains to present the evidence. Apparently he prefers to ignore difficulties,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 849

rather than settle them, and to avoid the raising of doubts, rather than attempt to
dispel doubts by throwing the light upon them. He displays no strong, overmaster-
ing grasp, either of his whole subject or of any part of it. But while these charac-
teristics diminish the value of his work for many, they doubtless enhance it for
others. Asa book of reflections upon Scripture texts, it is of an especially high
order of merit, both for thought and sentiment, and for skill in the expression of
them.

Mr. Cheyne holds that the Book of Jeremiah was probably edited and brought
into its present form after the time of the prophet himself (p. xvi). The editor
introduced passages which were not by Jeremiah (pp. xvi, 267). The Septuagint
text is untrustworthy (p. xvii), but is sufficiently trustworthy to be good evidence of
the untrustworthiness of the Hebrew text also (pp. xvi-xviii). Some of Jeremiah’s
earlier prophecies may have referred to a Scythian invasion, and afterward “have
been intermixed with later prophecies respecting the Chaldeans . . . . by an uncon-
scious anachronism”’ (pp. iv, v). He reconciles these and similar statements with
the doctrine of inspiration, by saying: “ The editors of the Scripture were inspired ;
there is no maintaining the authority of the Bible without this postulate. True, we
must allow a distinction in degrees of inspiration” (pp. xvi, 267).

The eighty pages of exposition on the first twenty-nine chapters of Jeremiah do
not constitute a very full comment, but the work seems to be carefully done, from
the point of view laid down in the introduction. ;

Mr. Plummer is no more characterized than several of his colleagues in this work
by a somewhat evident attention to the matter of fine writing, coupled with inatten-
tion to certain conventionalities in the use of English. The following specimen,
however, is more than usually tempting: “ There is a wild freshness about the Book
of Judges which tells of youth and independence, and freedom from restraint and
care: the freshness of nature and the freshness of human life. It is mountain and
woodland scenery filled with the thrilling incidents of the romances of chivalry. It
is a tale of ancient times, and therefore it has all the interest of what lays outside
our own every-day experience. It is a tale of men and women like ourselves, and
therefore we can realize it all,” etc.

During the past twenty-five years there has been a considerable amount of discus-
sion over the historical books of the Bible. During the same time, explorations
have been going on in Palestine, Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, the ancient land of the
Hittites, etc., from which an immense store of rich materials has accumulated for
studies connected with these same historical books. The writer of this introduction
might have looked up these matters, digested them, given his readers some account
of them. He might have packed his pages full of the most valuable materials, which
all the other great commentaries were too early to use. Instead of this, Mr. Plum-
mer has written a delightful essay on the old familiar facts and conjectures respect-
ing the Biblical history. If this is a satisfactory thing to do, he has done it well.

Mr. Lias, in his introduction to Joshua, fairly meets the existing issues. He holds
that the book was written about a generation after Joshua’s death, by Phinehas or
some like person (p. xi). He meets somewhat fully the objections based on the com-
mand to exterminate the Canaanites. He defends the doctrine of miracles, as con-
nected with this book, sharply discriminating between all other alleged miracles and
the miracles of the Old and New Testaments. In the matter of the sun and moon
standing still, he holds that the stupendous character of the miracle is no reason
whatever for regarding it as incredible; but also holds that it is doubtful whether
the narrative asserts that there was any miraculous interference with the length of
the day. :

The ethnographical views advanced by Mr. Lias are at least interesting. On the
basis of discoveries made at Carchemish since 1874, he identifies the Rutenun and
the Khita of the Egyptian monuments, and apparently the Kharu also, as one

850 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

people, making them to be identical with the Pheenicians, with the Hittites of the
Bible, and with the Canaanites, when this latter term is used in its wider sense (fp.
xxlv, 4). This people were originally Turanian, but had adopted a Semitic language.
Before the time of Joshua they had constituted a great empire, with its capital at
Carchemish, including Palestine in its south-west corner, while it extended indefi-
nitely to the north, and perhaps into Asia Minor, to the north-west. Just at this
time the empire had become somewhat disintegrated, so that it was the less able to
protect those of its dependencies which he invaded.

The expository work of Mr. Lias is, on the whole, notably valuable. The man
has industriously sought information, and has used it for elucidating Scripture. An
especial excellence is that each geographical proper name is treated in full, an index
of such names being appended, “so that if a preacher finds a name mentioned else-
where, he may turn to the Book of Joshua for additional information.”

Mr. Plummer (p. xvi) dates portions of the Book of Judges “after B.C. 721, and
probably a still later date must be taken for the final redaction in its existing form.”
Lord Hervey, however, assigns “the compilation to the reign of Saul, the separate
contents of the book being known even earlier”; but is not very decided as between
this and a later date. Lord Hervey’s introduction to the Book of Judges is brief,
but pointed and comprehensive. This is particularly true of his disposal of the
critical controversy. He cites a list of passages as “among the many proofs that
the Law of Moses was known to the writer or compiler of the Book of Judges,” and
infers that the silences or the statements of the book which seem to ignore the Law
must therefore be explained in some other way. As hints at such explanation, he
mentions the decentralization of Israel, and the consequent loss of influence of the
central worship at Shiloh, together with various peculiarities in the make-up of the
book itself. The exposition of Lord Hervey, though meagre and confining itself
mostly to details, is cautious and scholarly.

Mr. Morison thinks that the Book of Ruth was written in the time of King David,
though, in such a book, the date when it was written is not of great importance.
He regards it as neither history nor biography, but simply a story—though a true
story. His work is throughout spirited, sustained, and appreciative. Owing to Mr.
Morison’s simple Saxon way of saying just what he means, his pages of exposition
are, in contrast with the pages of homiletical matter, like a fresh young girl in a
company of overdressed women. It is a pity that preachers-are so apt to try to
spread themselves and use exclamation points, when they take up themes like those
in the Book of Ruth.

The different authors of the series all occupy the stand-point of the Church of
England. Few works recently issued have met with so decided and warm a
welcome from the religious press of the several denominations ; and the welcome is
deserved, and will be continued. Yet the position of “ The Pulpit Commentary” in
regard to monarchy, aristocracy, and hierarchy is different from that of the great
body of those who will buy and use it in America. The advocates of monarchy-find
their chosen field in the Book of Judges, in connection with the bad times “ when
there was no king in Israel.” Mr. Plummer is quite emphatic here; Lord Hervey
is less so. Both of them are mild by the side of Dr. Cassell, of Lange’s Com-
mentary. In the commentary on Mark, and in the various introductions and
many of the homilies, churchmen,—that is to say, Episcopalian churchmen,—have
one portion above their brethren. There is no objection to this, of course, but the
recognition of the bias is essential to the fair use of the commentary.

With some notable exceptions, the writers of this series sacrifice critical excellence
to their homiletical aim. Generally, they are diffuse. The introduction to Mark, for
example, is perhaps three times as long as the article on Mark in the Schaff-Her-
zog Encyclopedia, and contains less matter. The lists of the literature connected
with each book are apt to be general rather than specific. Contrast, for example,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 851

the list for Mark with that of the article just mentioned, Again, what is said, early
in this notice, of the exposition of Mark, might be truthfully repeated, not of every
piece of work in the series, but of the work in general. Toa characteristic extent
these authors avoid discussion, each simply presenting the opinions he himself has
formed, as if they were the only ones which he cared to have his readers notice.
When the conclusions of the different authors are contradictory (as, for instance, when
Mr. Lias makes Rameses II. to be the contemporary of Deborah and Barak, while
the others place him before the Exodus), the case becomes peculiarly perplexing to
unskilled readers. (See Notes on Joshua i. 4, and Introd., pp. xxiv, xxv.) For the
purposes of a large class of readers these are grave defects ; but they may be positive
excellences for another still larger class, who desire to read, not to study; to gain
general information rather than exact knowledge; to know what is held to be true
rather than why it is so held; to apprehend the moral and religious instructions
based upon a passage rather than their basis in the passage.

It is to the credit of this commentary, as contrasted with many other recent works,
that it follows the line of tradition which magnifies Christianity by tracing its main
elements back through the Old Testament, rather than that which magnifies the
New Testament by minifying the Old. Mr. Plummer insists upon it that the
Biblical history is the history of a religion and not of a people merely, or of individ-
uals. Dr. Bickersteth and some of his homilists find that Jesus held to the perpetual
obligation of the Sabbath, and interpreted the books of Moses as teaching the
doctrine of immortality, etc. These instances are characteristic. A curious excep-
tion is the treatment of Mark xi. 17, where Jesus cites from Isa. lvi. 7, Jehovah’s
declaration concerning foreigners who become his adherents and are faithful, to the
effect that he will bring them into his sanctuary and accept their sacrifices upon his
altar, “For my house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations.” At the
head of his paragraph on this sentence, our author gives a correct translation of it.
In his introduction, page ii, he speaks of the last clause as quoted. But in his exposi-
tion he seems to attribute the clause to Mark himself, and certainly follows the
traditional mistranslation of the passage. Our Saviour appealed, in behalf of the
sanctity of the temple, to the magnificent idea, familiar for centuries to every
Scripture-reading Israelite, that in being Israel’s house of prayer, it was a house of
prayer for all the nations. In order to belittle this into an explanation by Mark to
Gentile readers, that the outer court of the temple was partly as holy as the holier
parts, one must be pretty deeply under the shadow of that line of tradition which
distorts the exclusiveness of the Old Testament for the sake of glorifying the
universality of the New.

More in general, these volumes are marked by the type of orthodoxy which is
common to the Puritanical churches and the evangelical wing of the Church of
England. The Calvinism of some parts of them is quite pronounced. They have
been widely accepted by the religious press as representative of a very conservative
form of current orthodoxy. This circumstance gives an especial interest to the
attitude taken by the “ Pulpit Commentary ” on many questions. Prominent among
these are questions of Old Testament criticism. Most of these men make a special
point of holding to the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. They insist that
Moses wrote the Law in five books, and not merely that he wrote the Law. Mr.
Cheyne is an exception; he avoids committing himself by saying that the question
of the date of Deuteronomy is discussed elsewhere (p. ii, note). Mr, Plummer
believes himself to have disproved the notion “that the Book of Joshua is a mere
appendix to the Pentateuch, possibly by the same hand” (p. viii). Mr. Lias (p. x)
finds a difference of date between Deuteronomy and Joshua long enough for the
development of certain very interesting flexional changes in the Hebrew language.
Lord Hervey finds the Pentateuch constantly referred to in the Book of Judges.
And so with the rest. There is a conscious security in the orthodoxy of their posi-

852 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

tion, which is very comfortable to contemplate, and which renders us quite free to
ask questions concerning the other parts of the Old Testament.

We have seen how Mr. Plummer and Mr. Cheyne answer our inquiries concerning
the Books of Judges and Jeremiah. Mr. Cheyne also lets us know what he thinks
of several of the other books. He says that Deuteronomy, whether Mosaic or post-
Mosaic, was “a favorite reading book of religious people ” in Jeremiah’s time (p. ii).
This came to be a misfortune, for the book misled people into laying too much stress
upon outward prosperity or adversity as indicative of Jehovah’s disposition toward
them (pp. iii, x). The Books of Kings, the second part of Isaiah, and Psalms xxii.,
ΧΧΧΙ., xl, lv., Ixix., Ixxi., and others, he holds to have been written after Jeremiah’s
time, and more or less directly under his influence (pp. iv, v). As to historical
credibility, Mr. Lias says, page xxii: “The writer will have satisfied all the condi-
tions of authentic history if he tells us what was the current belief in his own day.
The succe§s of the Israelites was so far beyond their expectations . . . . that it may
have been their firm belief that the day was miraculously lengthened on their
behalf.” According to Mr. Lias, this is one of the laws which limit the historical
credibility of the Scriptures, though he regards it as only supposably (not actually)
applicable to the instance cited. Mr. Cheyne holds that in Jeremiah and the other
Old Testament books, the chronology and other historical data are often contra-
dictory, and therefore false (p. xviii). In particular, Jer. xxv. 1, and xxxii. 1, with
II. Kings xxiii. 36, contradict Jer. xlvi. 2, according to which “ The battle of Car-
chemish took place in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, which was the last year of
Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar.” So accurate a chronologist, by the
way, should not have dated the death of Josiah 609 B.C., on page iv, but 611 B.C.,
on page xix. Mr. Plummer says that the whole period of the Judges was about a
century and a half. He holds, therefore, that the 480 years, 1 Kings vi. 1, the 300
years, Judges xi. 36, and, in the meaning commonly received, the 450 years in Acts
xiii, 20, are all untruthful. Bishop Hervey and most of the others take the same
view. Mr. Lias, as we have seen, dates the Exodus further back, and perhaps
credits these particular numbers; but he holds that the numeral 30,000, Joshua viii.
3, is a mistake, and adds: ‘‘ The confused condition of the numbers in the present
text of the Old Testament is a well-known fact, and it is proved by the great
discrepancies in this respect between the Books of Chronicles and those of Samuel
and Kings.”

If assertions like these are mistaken, the mistakes are serious. That nearly all
of them are mistaken is the opinion of the writer of this notice, and of most of the
readers of the PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW. They are not mentioned here for the
purpose of refuting them, however, but for that of pointing out the significance of
the fact that they are present in so conservative a work as the one under considera-
tion.

After all, the most valuable as well as the most prominent part of this work is its
homiletical matter. The homilies range from a mere outline to a sermon printed in
full. They constitute a peculiarly rich collection of what wise and devout men have
been accustomed to regard as the doctrinal, moral, and spiritual teachings of the
Scriptures. They illustrate, among other points, the smallness of the extent to
which these teaehings depend on the questions on which the critics differ. It may
be doubted whether, as a cyclopedia of sermons, the “ Pulpit Commentary” has an.
equal in the English language. W. J. BEECHER.

ΙΕ BIBLISCHEN GESCHICHTEN A. UND N. TESTAMENTS, mit Bibelwort und
freier Zwischenrede anschaulich dargestellt. 2te Auflage. I. Band. Gii-
tersloh, 1883, C. Bertelsman. N. Y¥.: Β. Westermann ἃ Co.

This is the first volume of a new edition of a work which seems to have been
very favorably received in Germany. It is not a continuous exposition nora

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 853

series of homilies, but a lively representation of the historical portions of the
Scripture in the form best adapted to interest and impress. The selections are
made with judgment, and the treatment answers to the purpose. The tone
throughout is evangelical, reverent, and devout. We are not surprised to learn
from a preface to this edition that a Christian mother sent to the author a very
strong testimonial to the valueof the work, as one that enabled her to enter-
tain her children in a most satisfactory way, by reciting to them the holy his-
tories instead of the.stories and fables commonly employed for this end.
T. ΝΥ. CHAMBERS.

THE KINGDOM oF ALL-ISRAEL: its History, Literature, and Worship. By
JAMEs SIME, M.A., F.R.S.E. London. 1883. 8vo, pp. 621.

The author has been fortunate in the selection of his theme, and deserves
high praise for his admirable treatment of it. The kingdom of All-Israel is a
convenient and apt designation of the-undivided monarchy from Saul to Solo-
mon, in its contrast with the so-called kingdom of Israel after the schism,
which was limited to the ten tribes. It embraces a well-defined and important
portion of the sacred history, with peculiar features of its own, and which
stands in a very influential relation both to the estimate to be put on antecedent
periods and to the entire subsequent course of events. Succeeding the pro-
tracted term of weakness, dissension, and degeneracy under the judges, it
brought back the strength due to union and vigorous administration and a
return to the worship of their fathers, so that Israel could now at length enter
upon a true development of its national theocratic life, which preceding dis-
turbances had checked and well-nigh stifled.

This period has the special charm of a history cast in a biographical mould.
The events are grouped successively about the lives of Samuel, Saul, David,
and Solomon, who shape the course of public affairs, and whose deeds and
fortunes often impart to it the highest romantic or dramatic interest. It has
also, in contrast with the fragmentary accounts preserved of the times imme-
diately preceding, the advantage of a fuller and more continuous record, and
for two of the reigns a double record—one in Samuel and Kings, dwelling
chiefly upon events in their civil and personal aspects; and the other in Chron-
icles, which lays the principal stress upon ecclesiastical matters.

The author, whose trenchant pen is already known from his “ Deuteronomy
the People’s Book,” has portrayed this period in its general outlines and in its
minute details with great vividness and force. The character and motives of
the actors are strongly delineated; events are graphically described in their
circumstances and their localities, as well as in their general bearings on the
course of the history; and much ingenuity is shown in the combination of
widely scattered statements, and a genuine enthusiasm in entering into the
spirit of that with which he deals. His imagination is sometimes quite freely
exercised, as when the three years’ famine of 2 Sam. xxi. I is inserted among
the causes of discontent before Absalom’s revolt (p. 328); or in the battle in
which this usurper lost his life, “the scared prince ” is described as turning his
mule’s head and hurrying to the rear (p. 350); or the woman in Bahurim (2
Sam. xvii. 18, 19) is identified with the wife of Azmaveth (xxiii. 31); or the
angel with a drawn sword seen by David (2 Sam. xxiv. 17 ; 1 Chron. xxi. 16) is
converted into a haze topping the hills and betokening the oncoming of a pes-
tilence; and the fire by which God answered David upon the altar of burnt-
offering is ascribed to a storm of thunder and lightning brought on by the wind
which swept the plague away (p. 380 f.) ;

But the most valuable and significant service rendered by this volume is its

854 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

contribution to the department of Biblical Criticism, and particularly its de-
fence of the antiquity and genuineness of the Pentateuch and its legislation
against the objections which have been drawn from the anomalous condition
of affairs during the greater portion of this period. It is clearly and abundantly
shown that the startling and incredible conclusions of the most recent school
of critics are based on trivial grounds; and that sacred criticism in their hands
has departed widely from the sober caution and wise judgment which is de-
manded of classical critics and historians, and has adopted methods and results
which would be scouted as ridiculous and absurd in any other department of
literature.

The parallel suggested between certain prominent passages of Hebrew history
and the Greek tragedy (pp. I, 2) isingenious and striking, while at the same time the
author urges that the supreme regard paid to moral sequences in the former is an
evidence of truth rather than of fiction. It is convincingly argued that the narra-
tive of Saul’s election, so far from conflicting with the existence of Deuteronomy
and the law of Deut. xvii. 14 ff., actually presupposesthem. But we cannot see that
“national unity under one visible head” was “the oldest political Constitution
of the Hebrews ”’ (p. 14), if by this is meant the Constitution ordained by Moses,
and which it was his aim to perpetuate. Nor was it a departure from the
Mosaic ideal that no successor was appointed to Joshua, and that no one was
subsequently invested with supreme authority except in extraordinary emer-
gencies. This was no “secondary growth” which “men of the highest ability
like Samuel” confounded with their original divine Constitution. The law of
the king was only permissive, not mandatory. It prescribed what should be
done if the people ever desired a king, but gave no positive direction that one
should be appointed. Moses had a more exalted idea for Israel than a hered-
itary monarchy—one far freer, nobler, purer, better, if they were but capable of
putting it into successful operation. It was that of a people who, when settled
in their own land, should be submissive to the law of Jehovah and have Jeho-
vah alone as their invisible sovereign, whose power should be ever manifested
to bless and to guard them. If the people could thus be a law unto themselves
with God’s law written on their hearts, his sanctuary would be their capital, the
high-priest his earthly representative, the annual feasts their periodic assem-
blies, and no government would be needed beyond that of local tribunals and
magistrates but that of God himself. Moses foresaw that the people would be
incapable of realizing this magnificent ideal, for they would depart from God
and fail to keep his law (Deut. xxxi. 16ff.). The next alternative was a king to
rule them in a true theocratic spirit. Accordingly provision was made for this
at the proper time, but it was not to be introduced till the necessity had first
arisen.

It could not be otherwise, therefore, than that Samuel should be grieved and
the Lord should be displeased with the people’s request fora king. The whole
occasion for such a request sprang from the sinful failure of Israel to realize
their true ideal as the people of Jehovah. It was, besides, most inopportune,
for the Lord had just signally broken the power of the Philistines, and thus
given them fresh proof of his readiness to save a repentant people. It was the
manifestation of an inward distrust in Jehovah himself; they desired a king
upon whom they might lean rather than upon God. This state of facts, which
rendered the kingdom necessary, was recognized, however, and acted upon.
The kingdom was established, but in such a way as to teach them that if it was
to prove a real blessing they must not have a king without God like Saul, but
one like David, to whom God was supreme, and who ruled only in his name.

The author seems to us to be at needless pains to minimize the deviations
from the ritual during the anomalous interval between the departure of the ark

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 855

from Shiloh and its being set up on Zion. Thus he repeatedly distinguishes
between what he calls popular and priestly sacrifices, meaning by the former
animals slain for food, and by the latter those which were offered upon the
altar. The word admits of this distinction no doubt, and probably Adonijah’s
sacrifice (1 Kings i. 9) was merely slaying sheep for a feast ; possibly, also, that
of Absalom (2 Sam. xv. 12, p. 264). But Samuel’s sacrifice at Ramah (1 Sam.
ix. 12, p. 24) and at Bethlehem (xvi. 2, p. 129) are with much less likelihood re-
ferred to the same class. It is suggested that “cook” (ix. 23) ‘may refer to an
officiating priest or Levite.” The sacrifices of peace-offerings “before the
Lord ”’ in Gilgal are assumed to be offered “before the ark of God; with the
ark went the priests, by whom according to the law the sacrifices would be
offered” (p. 50). Samuel on two occasions delayed seven days before going
down to meet Saul at Gilgal. This is explained by assuming that the people,
having no longer a divinely-sanctioned sanctuary, were observing the Passover
at Gilgal; but Samuel waited until the feast was over, so as not to sanction it
by his presence (p. 58). The men whom Saul met going up to God (1 Sam. x.
3), it is affirmed (p. 27), were not on their way to ‘‘ Bethel” (though invariable
usage makes this a proper name), but to “the house of God” at Nob. Such
unproved or improbable assertions weaken the cause which they are adduced
to support. Other irreguiarities confessedly remain, which cannot thus be ex-
plained away. And these are made to seem the more formidable by the
straining and forcing which has been resorted to, to reduce their number. A
principle that will satisfactorily solve this residue, would with equal ease solve
the whole.

The true significance of Samuel’s life and work cannot be apprehended with-
out a recognition of the total breach between him and the priesthood and
sanctuary which God had cast off. From the time that the ark deserted
Shiloh and God’s word against Eli’s priestly line entered upon its fulfilment,
Samuel ignored both the tabernacle and its ministers. God’s sanctuary in
Israel was for the time abolished, and the law requiring sacrificial worship there
necessarily lapsed. The ark was in existence, but was too terrible to be
. approached ; it was merely kept in reserve until God should return to his people
and once more establish his gracious habitation in the midst of them. Mean-
while Samuel, as God’s immediate representative, assumed the functions of the
discarded priesthood, and offered sacrifices freely wherever offerings were de-
manded. And the people, deprived of the Mosaic sanctuary, resorted to the
sacred spots, where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had built their altars and wor-
shipped God.

It is difficult to accept a reconciliation of Ex. xxii. 31 with Deut. xiv. 21,
which assumes that “dog” in the former passage means alien (p. 107). Why
not admit a modification or fresh provision in the law when repeated at the
close of the forty years’ wandering? It is hardly possible that the enumeration
of Levites from a month old and upward can have been based upon “ the pres-
entation of boys at the altar” (p. 126), which was not “three and thirty,” but
forty days after birth (33+7) (Lev. xii. 2, 4). The significations attributed to
Ishbaal, “lordly man,” and Ishbosheth, “bashful man” (p. 266), have at any
rate the merit of freshness. Is it not by an inadvertence that (p. 310, zo~e) the
book of Kings is spoken of as having been disparaged because of its omission
of the story of Uriah? Was not Chronicles meant? Though even in this case
the omission need imply no sinister design. It did not fall within the writer’s
plan to detail matters of domestic life, but only public official acts. The former
are regularly excluded.

While we have thus freely expressed dissent in a few minor particulars, we
wish once more to utter our sense of the great excellence and ability which

χ

856 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

characterize this volume throughout. We note also with pleasure the conserv-
ative position taken with regard to the titles of the Psalms (p. 241), which it is
now so much the fashion to discredit entirely. In respect to the authorship of
Ecclesiastes we agree with him that it is “a puzzle” (p. 558); while the histor-
ical objections to its composition by Solomon seem to us to be trivial in the
extreme, we confess that we do not know how to reconcile the language of the
book with the age of Solomon, and we do not see that our author has thrown
much light upon this, which is the real difficulty in the case.
W. H. GREEN.

DIE VORSCHRIFTEN DER THORA welche Israel in der Zerstreuung zu beobachten
hat.” Ein Lehrbuch der Religion fiir Schule und Familie. Von LUDWIG
STERN, Frankfurt am Main. Kauffmann, 1882. pp. xviii. and 288, 8vo.

An Israelite school-book would demand no notice from us, except as it might
make us better acquainted with Jewish thought. This, it is not too much to say, the
book before us does. It is written in an excellent spirit from the stand-point of a
tolerably strict orthodoxy. The style is clear and the arrangement good. The
author shows religious earnestness, and, in general, a sound moral sense. It would
be interesting to know how large a number of Jewish children receive such instruc-
tion as he gives.

Of course, we discover at once that we are not listening to one of our own num-
ber. The very first page gives us a view of the sources of moral instruction : “ The
only infallible and sufficient source of what is ordinarily called Judaism, or Jewish
religion, is the Revelation of God; z. ¢., the whole of the communications which God
himself has made us after a supernatural and, to us, incomprehensible manner. ....
We call the books containing this revelation 7ora.....The principal books of
the Thora are: I. the Scriptures ; II. the Talmud ; III. the Decisions.”

The Pentateuch is emphasized with its 613 precepts, of which 369 are obligatory
on the Jews in exile. The remainder cannot be carried out so long as they are
deprived of theirlandandtemple. These precepts are given in their order in a table at
the end of the book. In the body of the work they are grouped in natural connec-
tion under the heads: “ On the Recognition of God and his Law ”; “ On Honoring
God”; “On Walking in the Ways of God”; “On Consecration in the Service of
God.” All duties are in this way brought into relation to God. Duties to men
come under the head of walking in the ways of God. “As God reveals himself to
us as kind, merciful, righteous—as he shows his creatures good only, clothes the
naked, feeds the hungry—so should we also show as much good as possible to our
fellow-creatures.”” Under our fellow-creature or our neighbor the author then
includes all men without exception.

The following particulars may be noticed :

The author expects a personal Messiah. He will rebuild the Temple in unprece-
dented magnificence. By the spirit of divine wisdom he will clear up all the ob-
scurities of the Law, and bring it into complete observance. He will bring all men
to the recognition of the one God. The time of his coming is not revealed. There-
fore the Rabbinical authorities condemn those who try to ascertain the date by
computations based on the prophecies.

The thirteen articles of the Jewish faith are: God is the Creator; he is one; he is
a spirit ; he is the first and the last ; he alone is to be worshipped ; all the words of
the prophets are true; the Revelation by Moses is true, and he is the most excellent
of all the prophets ; the whole Law as it is now in our hands is the same that was
given to our teacher Moses ; the Law will never be changed, and no other will ever
be given ; God knows all the deeds of men; God rewards the good and punishes
the disobedient ; the Messiah is to come; there is to be a resurrection of the dead.

Traditional information is sometimes relied upon. We are told that the prayers

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 857

now in the Jewish ritual were composed by the men of the Great Synagogue, “ of
which the latest prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, as well as Ezra and
Nehemiah, were members.” Also, that Moses himself appointed the reading of the
Law on Sabbath forenoon, etc.

The Rabbinical casuistry occasionally crops out. On the Sabbath one must not
shake a fruit-tree or even lean against it, if it be small; and it is also forbidden to
pick up fruit lying on the ground. Food must not be cooked or put by an Israelite
in the stove to warm if it has got cold—if it be still warm it may be put back, how-
ever. Wool must not be shorn or hair pulled—hence as combing the hair usually
pulls some out, this is forbidden. The prohibition does not extend to the brush.
Honoring God’s Law involves honoring the written copy—one must stand when
such a copy is brought into his presence, and must not touch it with unwashed
hands. Even printed copies must never lie under other books, always above them.
The exactly prescribed mourning for friends must be observed.

Notwithstanding these (and some other) examples of formalism or undue scru-
pulosity, the book displays a sound moral sense, as we have already said, and its
perusal makes a favorable impression regarding Jewish ethics as now taught. Can
Reform Judaism show as good fruits ? H. P. SMITH.

THE following works in the department of Exegetical Theology deserve
notice: :

Proalegomena zur Geschichte Israels von J. Wellhausen. 2te Ausg. det
Geschichte Israels. Band I. Berlin: G. Reimer. 1883. This book of Well-
hausen has assumed a more modest and appropriate title in its second edition.
There has been no essential change; but there are many corrections and im-
provements, especially in Chapter VIII.—Essaz sur les Orggines des partis Sadu-
céen et Pharisien et leur héstotre jusgu’'a la naissance de Fesus Christ. Par
Edouard Montet. Paris: Lib. Fischbacher. 1883. We have no hesitation in
pronouncing this book to be the best treatise among many excellent ones upon
the Pharisees and Sadducees. The author has mastered all accessible materials,
and has used them tothebest advantage. He incidentally expresses his accord
with Reuss and Kuenen as to the composition of the Hexateuch. He calls
attention to the conflict between the New Testament and the Rabbinical views
of the relation of the Pharisees and Sadducees, and the influence of the Scribes
upon the nation, and does not hesitate to give the preference to the New Testa-
ment ; and to regard the Rabbinical views as colored by partisanship, and the
disposition to represent earlier times as the Rabbinical writers imagined them,
rather than to investigate what they were in fact. Josephus also must be used
with caution. The Pharisees were not the patriots of the Maccabean wars, but,
on the contrary, they set themselves in opposition to the Maccabean heroes,
and were essentially separatists. ,The Essenes were the left wing of the party.
The Sadducees were the national party, in entire accord with the Asmoneans,
holding the priesthood, and the chief official positions, and generally maintained
the control of the Sanhedrim, as we see from the New Testament. The Saddu-
cees were the orthodox official party, to which the priesthood, aristocracy, and
the higher classes generally were attached, and so long as the temple stood and
the national life continued, remained in power. The Pharisees were the strict,
separating, reforming party, who attained the control only after the nation was
overthrown and the temple worship destroyed. They cultivated the law rather
than the ritual of worship; they made the synagogue and the school their
places of operation rather than the temple and its courts. They rose upon
the ruins of the nation as the masters of the situation, and gave their own
interpretation to the previous history and literature.—Suggested Modifications
of the Revised Version of the New Testament. By Elias Riggs. Andover: W.

55

858 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

F. Draper. 1883. This is a stimulating and valuable little book. It is modest
and unpretentious, and yet contains a number of suggestions that ought to be
carefully considered by the Revisers after the revised Old Testament has ap-
peared, and when the final work of adjustment is undertaken. We think the
recommendation of a final sub-committee of three men, who shall devote their
whole time to it until the final revision is completed, an excellent one. We
would suggest, further, that one of these should be chosen from the Old Testa-
ment Company and one from the New, and that Dr. Riggs himself be the third.
One should be from Great Britain, one from America, and it would be appro-
priate that one who has spent a life in the translation of the Scriptures into
Oriental languages should be the third. C. A. BrRIGGs.

I].— HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.

Die APOCRYPHEN APOSTELGESCHICHTEN UND APOSTELLEGENDEN. Ein Beitrag
zur altchristlichen Literaturgeschichte, von RICHARD ADELBERT LIPSIUS.
Erster Band. Braunschweig. 1883. 8vo, pp. 622. [N. Y.: B. Westermann
ἃ Co.]

No branch of early Christian literature has been so neglected as the Apocrypha ;
and nothing could be more needed in that field of study than a thoroughgoing ex-
amination of any one division of it from the hands of Lipsius. His labors among
the Apocrypha have long since borne rich fruit, as his numerous short papers in the
periodical press, his articles on “ Apocryphal Acts,” “Abdias,” etc., in Smith &
Wace’s Dictionary of Christian Biography—his extended works on the “Acts of
Pilate,” the “Sources of the Roman Peter-legend,” and the “ Edessene Abgar-
legend”’ abundantly prove. And although he modestly tells us that a final investi-
gation into the Apocryphal Acts is as yet impossible, and that, owing to the mass
of material still buried in unpublished documents, the results now attainable, if not
altogether doubtful, will eventually need much modification ; it is no less true that
it is to Lipsius with one or two others that the Christian world must look for what
knowledge is attainable on the subject, and that it is time that what is known should
be made public. It is pleasant to learn also that much MS. material has been
placed by Bonnet and others at the disposal of the author in the preparation of this
volume, so that it has been prepared, not only by an exceptionally competent scholar,
but also under exceptionally favorable circumstances. For some years, at least, it
must rank as the standard work on the Apocryphal Acts, and though scholars will
not find themselves in studying it reduced to simply saying ‘‘ Ditto to Mr. Burke,”
they will not fail to find it, on the whole, an eminently satisfactory treatise.

The work opens with a short introduction (which is largely a German version of
the article “ Apocryphal Acts” in the Dictionary of Christian Biography), followed
by a thorough discussion of the legend of the Separation of the Apostles to preach
the Gospel through the world (pp. 11-34), and a Sketch of the Literature of the
subject (pp. 35-43). Then the basis of the work is firmly laid in an investigation
of the Extant Sources of the Apocryphal Apostle-legends (pp. 44-224), including
discussions (1) of Leucius Charinus and the Gnostic Acts of the Apostles, (2) of the
Latin Collection of Passzones which has come down to us under the name of Abdias,
and (3) of the remaining Greek, Latin, and Oriental sources. On the ground of this
investigation follows the main portion of the work: Special discussions of the Acts
and Legends of the Separate Apostles. This volume contains those on the Acts
of Thomas (pp. 223-349), John (pp. 348-542), and Andrew (pp. 543-622). The
next will contain those on Peter, Paul (with an Appendix on the Acts of Paul and

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 859

Thekla), Philip, Matthew, Bartholomew, Simon, Judas, and the two Jameses, fol-
lowed by an Appendix on those of Barnabas, Mark, Luke, Timothy, and Titus.

The second century already teemed with legends of the Apostles. Some of them
were talled out by the curiosity and thirst for wonders of the people; others met
local desires to find an apostolic origin for a church or line of Bishops; others were
meant to give apostolic authority to a special teaching, and thus were pure tendency-
writings. Once in existence, they were reworked by every mouth they passed
through until, although most of them sprang from heretical circles, they were grad-
ually shaped to tolerable orthodoxy and retained little of their original contents ex-
cept the miracles. Even wrztten legends of the Apostles were current as early as
the second century, which, in a more or less altered form, we still possess. There
are three classes of these: 1. Ebionite κηρύγματα and περίοδοι, such as we find, for
instance, in the Clementina; 2. Gnostic Acts of the Apostles, of which those of
Peter and Paul certainly, and that of John probably, are as old as the second cent-
ury; and 3. Orthodox Acts which sprang, for the most part, out of local traditions—
such as the Syrian Acts of Addzus, the Armenian and Coptic Acts of Bartholomew,
etc. Recent study has not led to the ascription of any great historical value to these
works ; they do contain real reminiscences, but these largely belong to the back-
ground of the stories rather than to the stories themselves ; Lipsius thinks they pre-
serve almost no facts concerning the Apostles. The important legend of the sepa-
ration of the Apostles and the distribution of the world among them, Lipsius thinks
sprang from Matt. xxviii. 19, and both originated and developed in Jewish-Christian
circles.

The discussion of Leucius Charinus and the Gnostic Acts takes largely the form
of a polemic against Zahn’s Acta Fohannzs! Certainly Zahn goes much beyond
the evidence when he contends that the Leucianic writings were held authoritative
in the Christian Church, and hence must have arisen before their heresy was ac-
counted heresy. But Lipsius no less is overanxious to prove that they were little
used in Orthodox circles, and even tampers with the evidence in the effort to demon-
strate the early existence of Catholic recensions of them. It is only, for instance, by
a very unjustified reconstruction of the text of Philaster of Brescia (p. 52) that he
can make him a witness for their existence in A.D. 380; they appear to be first
mentioned, rather, by John of Thessalonica in the seventh century (p. 57), who,
moreover, declares that they were made very near his own time (τοὺς ἔναγχος ἡμᾶς
mponynoaévovc)—a statement which Lipsius sets aside very arbitrarily. If the Syrian
MSS. containing them (p. 61) are correctly assigned to the sixth century, they prob-
ably set the beginning of the sixth century as the earliest date to which we can
assign the origin of Catholic recensions in the face of John’s words and the failure of
all earlier mention of them in the East and West. The Leucianic collection itself,
Lipsius holds, passed through two stages. Photius in one passage speaks of it as
if containing acts of all twelve apostles, and in such a way as to leave the impres-
sion that it existed in this form as early as the middle of the fourth century. Else-
where he enumerates only five parts for it; and this seems to have been at once its
earliest (against Zahn) and most widely circulated form, The existence of the Acts
of Peter, John, and Andrew in the first quarter, and of Paul and Thomas in the last
quarter, of the fourth century can be proved ; all of these seem older than Eusebius,
and probably none of them are younger than the middle of the third century. Traces of
the Acts of Peter, John, and Paul reach back to the second century ; the Acts of Thomas
belongs probably to the beginning of the third, and the Acts of Andrew scarcely later.
It seems to be probable that they were collected some time before the middle of the
third century into a collection of five, to which the other seven were added about a
half century later (p. 83). The polemic against Zahn is continued warmly into the
discussion of who “ Leucius” was, and what is his relation to these writings. The
conclusion is stated in the form of a dilemma (p. 116): he was ezther the author of

860 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the first collecton, or the “I” of the ‘‘ Wanderings of John’—he cannot be oth.
In the former case we must be content to say that he was an unknown Gnostic who
wrote these books, and must refuse credit to Epiphanius’ statement that he was
John’s companion (τοῦ ἁγίου ᾿Ιωάννου καὶ τῶν ἀμφ' αὐτὸν Aevkioy καὶ G2Agm¢ πολλῶ). In
the latter, we must still ask whether he was a pure myth, or whether the author of
this Gnostic life of John hid himself behind the name of a really historic personage,
“ἃ younger friend of John’s in Ephesus” (Zahn). This cannot be decided by sim-
ply saying that the latter is the only natural supposition ; one is ev se about as pos-
sible as the other, and most of the persons in these Acts are purely fictitious. The dave
of *‘Leucius’”’ is also somewhat, but in a less degree, dependent on the solution of
the dilemma: if the latter horn of the dilemma be true, the date of the second century
“Wanderings of John” settles it—if the former, his life must continue to the first
half of the third century. It is, however, not probable that the Wanderings of
Thomas and of John came from the same hand (although on internal grounds
those of John and Peter seem to have the same author). It is certainly not to be
supposed that the name is a pure invention; and the supposition has much in its
favor that behind this name we are to seek a real or putative author of the πράξεις
Ἰωάννου, to whom the whole collection was afterward attributed—certainly by the
fourth century, perhaps immediately on its collection.

The origin of the Abdias collection is investigated with equal care, although its
later date detracts from its interest. It is pointed out truly enough that it has been
ascribed to an Abdias only through a misunderstanding, although we can hardly
accept the confident account of the rise of the misunderstanding (pp. 118-120). It
is also shown that the collection of the vzrtu¢es is later than that of the Jasszones,
was mechanically made, and dates from a time subsequent to the sixth century.
The Jasszones themselves cannot be older than the second half of the sixth century,
although earlier than Gregory of Tours and Venantius Fortunatus ({ 609). Their
home was France; they are an original Latin work, although they use Greek
material ; and their value is small beyond their preservation of some earlier matter.

We ack the heart of the work, however, only when we turn to the discussion of
the Acts of the separate Apostles. We cannot pretend to give an abstract of these
closely-packed pages ; let us indicate the method of the discussion in one instance
only, asasample. Take the Acts of John (pp. 348-542). The Church traditions
concerning the Apostle are first collected and the question started how far they
belong to the Apostle and how far to the Presbyter John—for Lipsius still believes
in the exploded myth of a Presbyter John. The answer is returned that this ques-
tion canfot now be decided ; enough, it is said, that it was universally believed in
the last quarter of the second century that John was the Apostle of Asia. At all
events, the banishment of the Apocalyptist to Patmos and the long abode of John,
the disciple of Christ, at Ephesus, are the two firmly-established data which lie at
the base of all later legends in all their modifications. There follows an account of
the Patristic notices of the Gnostic “ Wanderings of John,” and of the attempts
which have been made to collect its fragments. The question is then broached as
to the light which may be thrown on its original form by its later use, and this opens
the way to a full discussion of Prochorus, Abdias, Pseudo-Melito, Pseudo-Isodore,
etc., etc., with especial reference to their notices concerning John and their relation
to the Gnostic περίοδοι. The fragments contained in the original are next discussed
in full, and an attempt is made to restore the original form, Other fragments are
pointed out beyond those which Zahn has’printed, The date of the work is assigned
to the second half of the second century (which is, perhaps, a little too late). Finally,
its historical value is investigated with the result of reducing it to nothing in regard
to the life of John (still against Zahn), but of pointipg out its high value in the his-
tory of Gnosticism. BENJ. Β. WARFIELD.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 861

CORRESPONDANCE DES R&FORMATEURS DANS LES PAYS DE LANGUE FRAN-
CAISE, recueillie et publiée, avec d’autres Lettres relatives 4 la Réforme et des
Notes historiques et biographiques, par A. L. HERMINJARD. Tome VI.éme
(1539 ἃ 1540), avec un Index alphab4tique des noms. 8vo, pp. 501. Genéve:
Bale. Lyon: H. Georg. Paris: G. Fischbacher. 1883,

Nineteen years ago M. Herminjard put forth the prospectus of a work that was
“to bring together the letters emanating from the pen of all those who, in lands
where the French tongue is spoken, labored, from near or {rom far, for the estab-
lishment of the Reformation.”’ The idea of such a publication had occurred to him
in connection with his studies on the life of the reformer Pierre Viret. He had detected
gross discrepancies between the fanciful and picturesque narratives of certain popu-
lar historical writers and the original authorities upon which those narratives were
ostensibly based ; and it had seemed to him that in no way could he better subserve
the true interests of religion, and of history as well, than by affording to intelligent
readers an opportunity of familiarizing themselves with documents hitherto hidden
away on the shelves of remote libraries, inaccessible save to a favored few even
among scholars. The first volume of the series thus announced appeared in 1866,
a second in 1868, a third in 1870, and the fourth and fifth respectively in 1872 and
1878. After the lapse of five years we have the volume now before us. How many
more volumes will be needed to complete the work we are not informed; but we
fear that the indefatigable editor will be compelled, under any circumstances, to stop
very far short of the proper term of his undertaking, whether that be the death: of
Beza in 1605, or even the death of Calvin in 1564.

M. Herminjard’s plan differs very essentially from that of any other extant collec-
tion. Dr. Jules Bonnet has collected and given to the world the French Letters of
Calvin, as well as an English translation of this reformer’s entire correspondence,
both French and Latin. The grand work of Baum, Cunitz, and Reuss also con-
tains that correspondence in the original form. Professor Baum, in connection with
his magnificent “ Life of Beza ᾿᾿ (unfortunately never completed), has printed many
of Beza’s letters down to the year 1563, together with a number of letters of other
workers for the reformation of France. But there are no collections of the letters
of Viret, Froment, Farel, and a host of other scarcely less important men. This
lack M. Herminjard has attempted to make good. It was an undertaking of her-
culean magnitude, quite beyond the ability of one worker to accomplish within the
brief limits of a single life. It is, however, greatly to the credit of M. Herminjard’s
conscientious scholarship that he has not, in his haste to get over the ground, been
tempted to slight any portion of it. We do not find in the last volumes any falling
off in the painstaking accuracy with which the documents, often well-nigh indecipher-
able, have been transcribed, or in the fulness and wide range of the very copious
notes by which they are accompanied and illustrated.

The volume before us contains one hundred and thirty letters, written by forty-
nine different persons, Between one-third and one-fourth of these documents were
previously inedited, while many of those which had been printed were to be found
only in books difficult to be obtained.

M. Herminjard’s collection has long enjoyed an established reputation in Europe
for its learning, accuracy, and great utility. Unfortunately its composition has been
altogether a labor of love, entailing an amount of hard work which those alone can
appreciate who have engaged in similar researches. We judge that the remunera-
tion, in money, has been very small, if, indeed, the book has not involved the author
in actual loss. So small is the Protestant reading public of France and French
Switzerland likely to be interested in such an enterprise as this, that all encourage-
ment ought to be afforded to it from abroad. r HENRY M. BAIRD.

&

862 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

THE WESTMINSTER ASSEMBLY: its History and Standards, being the Baird
Lecture for 1882. By ALEXANDER F. MITCHELL, D.D. London: James
Nisbet & Co. 1883.

No one living is more competent to give a history of the Westminster
Assembly than the author of this book.. Although the material is pressed into
the form of lectures, it is in decided advance beyond anything that has thus far
appeared on this neglected subject. The history of Hetherington, in view of the
material now accessible to scholars, is untrustworthy and worthless. Dr.
Mitchell has used the minutes of the Westminster Assembly, in the Williams
Library, London, which, owing to a strange lack of interest in our Presbyterian
churches, still remain unpublished. Indeed, a large and rich collection of
material for the illustration and historical exposition of our standards is
scattered in MSS. and pamphlets and books in a number of libraries, but no one
has yet appeared who has been found willing to undertake the expense and risk
of their publication. We would suggest whether it does not fall within the
province of the Presbyterian Board of Publication to look to the publication of
these sources of Presbyterian history and doctrine.

Prof. Mitchell rightly discerns that the Westminster Assembly can only be
understood by beginning at the headwaters of the Reformation, and tracing that
particular stream which had such a grand development in British Puritanism.
In the first lecture he starts with Wm. Tyndale, the chief reformer of England.
His Bible was the chief instrument used by God for the accomplishment of the
Reformation in England, giving it its Biblical characteristics. This Biblical
element entered at once into conflict with the ecclesiastical forms imposed by
royal authority, and continued the warfare through Hooper, Cartwright, Brad-
shaw, Reynolds, and the Westminster divines until they were thrown aside by
the Long Parliament and the Westminster Assembly, and the Scriptures were
raised to the supreme power in Great Britain.

“Tyndale maintained the sufficiency and authority of Holy Scripture in thorough Protestant and Puritan
style, and defended the doctrines of grace against the semi-pelagianism of Erasmus and Sir Thos. Moore
ere Calvin had yet entered the lists as the champion of Old Augustinianism”’ (p. 11). “* Hooper asserted
the principle: Men may have the gift of God to interpret the Scripture unto other, but never authority
to interpret otherwise than it interpreteth itself”’ (p. 17).

The second Lecture, on the Puritans under Queen Elizabeth, is less satisfac-
tory. Our author overestimates the influence of Knox in English Puritan-
ism, and fails to appreciate the important Presbyterian movement under
Cartwright and the doctrinal significance of his “Treatise of the Christian
Religion.” Both of these were the foundation upon which the Westminster
divines chiefly built. Cartwright is the real father of Presbyterian Puritanism,
and should be placed alongside of Knox, the father of Scotch Presbyterianism.

The third Lecture gives an excellent discussion of the Hampton Court
Conference and the Irish articles, and shows that both the Prelatical and
Presbyterian parties were forced by the circumstances of the debate to seek a
tus dtvinum in Scripture.

Lecture IV. treats of the preparation for and summoning of the Westminster
Assembly. It calls attention to the broad views of many of the chief divines of
the time; to the petition of Castell, signed by seventy English divines, for the
propagation of the Gospel in America and the West Indies; to the aims of
Henderson for a closer union of churches of Britain in order to the closer
union of all the Reformed churches; and to the design to make the West-
minster Assembly truly representative of the British nation. If the original
plan could have been carried out,4t seems as if the British Church might have
been reformed so as to retain the great mass of the nation in its bosom, and

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 863

satisfy the aspirations of the British people. The obstinacy of the king and
the prelates, and the fears of innovation on the part of the conservatives, really
played into the hands of the radicals. It was force of circumstances that made
the Westminster Assembly an essentially Presbyterian body. Prof. Mitchell
calls attention to the fact that the various types of Calvinism were fairly
represented in its chief divines. Indeed, he might have gone further, and have
said that the prevailing type among the English divines was a broad, moderate,
generous Calvinism. Prof. Mitchell well says:

““ If its members had one idea more dominant than another, it was not, a3 they are sometimes still carica-
tured, that of setting forth with greater one-sidedness and exaggeration the doctrine of election and
preterition (for they did little more as to these mysterious topics than repeat what Ussher had already
formulated), but that of setting forth the whole scheme of Reformed doctrine in harmonious development
in a form of which their country should have no cause to be ashamed in presence of any of the sister

churches of the continent, and, above all, in a form which would conduce greatly to the fostering of Chris-
tian knowledge and Christian life’’ (p. 127).

Lecture V., on the Proceedings and Debates of the Westminster Assembly, is
an excellent presentation of the subject. Among other things, it is shown that
the lengthy debates on the revision of the XX XIX. Articles prepared the way
for the construction of the doctrinal symbols; that many of the chief English
divines subscribed to the solemn league and covenant,.with the modification of
the clause as to “the extirpation of prelacy,” by attaching to it an explanatory
clause, taken from the ordinance calling the Westminster Assembly. In other
words, the English and the Scotch Presbyterians differed with reference to
episcopal government. The English Presbyterians were generally in favor of
Ussher’s model, and were only opposed to the usurpation of the entire govern-
ment of the Church by the prelates and their creatures. This difference
between English and Scotch Presbyterians needs to be traced to its roots and
fully developed. It will explain a great many interesting features of English
Presbyterianism which have been misunderstood by interpreting them from the
Scotch point of view. Indeed, our early American Presbyterianism was sustained
from London rather than Edinburgh; and the English breadth had a greater
influence in laying the foundations of the American Church than the descend-
ants of the Scotch-Irish have been willing to admit.

In Lecture VI. Prof. Mitchell discusses the debates on Church Government,
and discloses the difference of opinion as to the nature and divine right of the
ruling elder, and shows that many of the chief English Presbyterians differed
from the Scotch on the theory of the eldership. The American Church issmore
in accord with these English divines, notwithstanding the official documents.

The author rightly defends the Westminster divines against the charge of
intolerance, and shows that they were not a whit behind the Independents and
Baptists in forbearance and charity. He makes an apt citation from the “ Vin-
dication of the Presbyterian Government and Ministry” of the Provincial As-
sembly of London, in 1649:

ὁ“ For our parts, we do here manifest our willingness (as we have already said) to accommodate with you,
according to the word, in a way of union, and (such of us as are ministers) to preach up and practice a
mutual forbearance and toleration in all things that may consist with the fundamentals of religion,
with the power of godliness, and with that peace which Christ hath established in his church. But to
make ruptures in the body of Christ and to divide church from church, and to set up church against
church, and to gather churches out of true churches, and because we differ in some things to hold church
communion in nothing, this, we think, hath no warrant out of the word of God, and will introduce all
manner of confusion in churches and families, and not only disturb, but in a little time destroy the power

of godliness, purity of religion, and peace of Christians, and set open a wide gap to bring in atheism,
popery, heresy, and all manner of wickedness.”

Here is the question of toleration between the sixteenth century Presbyte-
rians and Baptists in a nutshell. The one sought peace, charity, and the unity

of Christ’s church. The other sought sectarian strife, division of churches and
families, and toleration in the exercise of all kinds of intolerance.

864 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Lecture VII. treats of the Directory for Public Worship. This was, in some
respects, the most important matter before the Assembly. The chief Engiish
divines were on the sub-committee. Marshall, the chief preacher of the time,
had charge of the preaching of the Word; Palmer, of catechizing; Herle, of
prayer and the sacraments; Young, of the reading of the Scriptures. But the
Scotch and the Independents were both hard to please. The Scotch wished to
force their ideas on the English brethren, but could not succeed. After a long
debate in the committee, the report was agreed upon. But it was then dis-
cussed in upwards of seventy sessions of the Assembly before it was adjusted
to the general satisfaction and adopted. It was substituted for the Book of
Common Prayer, by the authority of Parliament. It is exceedingly unfortunate
that these debates of the Assembly should remain unpublished. They are
greatly needed. to resolve the questions that are now pressing for answer in
many parts of our church. The English divines, who framed the Directory,
should be heard as well as the uncompromising Calderwood and the sects who
* took narrow ground.

In Lecture VIII., on Church Government, it is shown that the Assembly
adopted the jure divino Presbyterianism, but that the Parliament was unwilling
to commit itself thus far. It was this dispute that delayed the establishment
of Presbyterianism in England until it became too late. The views of the
Parliament are more generally held in our churches to-day than those of the
Assembly.

In Lecture IX. the debates on the Autonomy of the Church are considered.
In this connection, Prof. Mitchell overthrows the tradition of the single combat
between the youthful Gillespie and the giant Selden. It turns out that Her/e
is the real hero of the combat, who, in an extempore speech, replied effectively
to Selden on the spot, and that Gillespie and Young followed up his advantage
by carefully prepared speeches on the next day.

In Lectures X. and XI. the Confession of Faith is considered. In this
connection, Prof. Mitchell makes the correct statement :

“The doctrine of the Covenants was developed in this country (Great Britain) quite as much as in
Holland, particularly in its historical aspect, as bearing on the progress of God’s revelation to mankind,
and it was generally combined with the more liberal Augustinian views of Davenant ” (p. 344).

He shows the influence of the milder Calvinism of Cameron and Primrose,
Davenant and Ussher upon the chief divines of the Assembly. He makes it
clear that the Westminster Confession depended chiefly on the Irish articles,
and that Continental systems had little influence. He calls attention to the
doctrine of the Covenants, as it appears in Rollock, Cartwright, Preston, Per-
kins, Ames, and Ball. Weare able to reinforce Prof. Mitchell’s statements by
an extract from Thomas Blake (“Treatise of the Covenant of God entered with
Mankinde: in the several Kindes and Degrees of it.” Preface. London, 1653),
who says that the purpose of John Ball “was to speak on this subject of the
covenant, all that he had to say in all the whole body of divinity. That which
he hath left behind gives us a taste of it.” Ball’s “Covenant of Grace” was
published in 1645, after his death. We have also from Francis Roberts, a
London Presbyterian minister, “The Mysterie and Marrow of the Bible, viz.,
God’s Covenants with Man, in the first Adam, before the Fall; and in the last
Adam, Jesus Christ after the Fall, etc.”” 2 vols., folio, London, 1657. He began
this work as a series of lectures on Sept. 2, 1651. Compared with this immense
work on the Theology of the Covenants, the little treatise of Cocceius, published
in 1648, isa baby. Ball was certainly prior, and Roberts is entirely independent
of him. It seems that the Federal theology passed over from Great Britain
into Holland, and that the traditional view is without justification. In this

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 865

same chapter Prof. Mitchell makes a remark which deserves very careful con-
sideration :

““ We have several excellent commentaries on it (Westminster Confession), but they are mostly expository
or dogmatic, and have made comparatively little use of the vast mass of materials we possess in the writings
of those who framed it, to illustrate its spirit and expound the more delicate shades of its teaching. Quota-
tions from Owen and later men are not without their use, nor those from Hooker and Pearson ; but more
use must be made of the writings of the members of the Assembly, and of the writings of the great divine
from whose articles and catechisms they drew so largely.”

We would add to this, that Cartwright is even of more importance than
Ussher; for Ussher himself drew from Cartwright. A great deal that seems to
those who are not familiar with Cartwright’s works to come from Ussher, was
really derived by Ussher and the Westminster divines alike from the primary
source.

Dr. Mitchell defends the Westminster doctrines from some of the objec-
tions that have been unfairly made against them. In general, we are in
entire accord with Prof. Mitchell, but we are constrained to enter our protest
against his explaining away the meaning of “elect infants.” It is noteworthy
that in all the earnestness of his efforts to show that the standards do not
necessarily teach the damnation of non-elect infants, he can find no other
evidence than the probable one that some of the Westminster divines were in
accord with Bishop Davenant. Dr. Mitchell is too familiar with the writings
of the Westminster men not to have quoted them if he knew of any direct
evidence in support of his theory. That among the hundreds of volumes and
thousands of pamphlets written by the Westminster divines he has been unable
to find a single passage that favors the universal salvation of infants, is most
damaging to his theory. We shall add our own testimony, that we have hunted
through the most of these writings for evidence on this subject. We have
found abundant positive evidence.that Marshall and Burgess and Tuckney and
other chief divines did believe in the damnation of non-elect infants, and we
have not found a scrap of evidence that any one‘of the divines held any other
view. Indeed, the two classes, “elect infants’ and ‘all other elect persons,
who are incapable of being outwardly cailed by the ministry of the word,”
must be interpreted in the same way. Dr. Mitchell builds an argument upon
the change from the original draught, “elect of infants” to “elect infants,” that
there was a softening down of the expression. But the “elect of infants”
shows clearly what was in the mind of the Assembly. The softening down was
in order to avoid inelegance of expression, and not to change the meaning.
The wording of the Confession was, as Dr. Mitchell elsewhere states, in the
hands of Dr. Burgess. Now Dr. Burgess, when he wrote “elect infants” for
“elect of infants” in the Confession, meant exactly the same as when he used
the same expression in his book, “Baptismal regeneration of elect infants.”
There can be no shadow of a doubt that the Presbyterian churches have come
to hold a different view from the Westminster Standards on this subject, and
we ought to confess it and not try to interpret the standards to accord with the
changed views of the modern divines.

Lecture XII. is an interesting discussion of the Assembly’s Catechism. We
are pleased to find that Prof. Mitchel] has come over to our view to so great an
extent with reference to the catechism of Herbert Palmer. We only regret that he
is not in entire agreement with us. We are ready to admit that the catechisms
of Byfield, Ussher, Ball, Rogers, Gouge, Newcommén, and, we may add, Cart-
wright’s and Lyford’s, were used by the authors of the standards, as well as Pal-
mer’s. Yet the discussions in the minutes show that, from beginning to end,
the catechism of Palmer’s was the basis (see PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW, Jan.,

866 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

1880). We shall now present some additional evidence. Samuel Clark, in his
life of Herbert Palmer in “ Lives of 32 English Divines,” London, 1677, says:

δ And in the same method (e.g., Answer by Yea or No) he intended to digest the lesser catechism com-
posed by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster (and authorized for publique use) if God had afforded
him life to have seen that catechism perfected, to the compiling whereof he had contributed no small,
assistance, which therefore since his death hath been performed by one that was intimate with him, and
fully acquainted with his resolution in this particular.”

The reference is to John Wallis, who says, in his preface to his arrangement
of the Westminster Shorter Catechism after Palmer’s method :

“‘It was his earnest desire (as is well known) that the Assembly’s Catechism (intended for public use)
should be published in a like form, either by themselves, or at least by some private hand, and was fully
resolved to have done it himself had God afforded him to see that catechism fully finished. For which
cause, together with that intimate acquaintance which I had with him, I was the rather permitted to
undertake, that, wherein he was by death prevented, as well to accomplish his desires, as to gratifie those,
who from the use of it may receive benefit.”’

Prof. Mitchell strongly urges that Wallis had a great deal to do with the
construction of our Shorter Catechism as it is. His opinion is fortified by the
fact that the intimacy of Wallis with Palmer would lead the committee, of which
Anthony Tuckney became the head, to commit Palmer’s papers to the hands
of Wallis. The Assembly used throughout Palmer's Catechism as the basis,
but rejected his method of intermediate answers by yea and no. But Wallis
subsequently published the catechism with Palmer’s method, probably based
on the papers of Palmer himself. In our judgment, Palmer's method, as given
by Wallis, is much better suited for use in Sabbath-schools than the catechism
in its present form.

In this connection, Dr. Mitchell explodes the tradition that Gillespie was the
author of the definition, What zs God? in the Shorter Catechism (as if it had
come from him in prayer). The facts are, that Gillespie returned home in
May, 1647, “ while the debate on the Larger Catechism was still going on, and
the answer to the question, What is God ? with which his name has been tradi-
tionally associated, had not as yet been adjusted—for that catechism, much
less for the shorter one.” We ask if it is not time that these baseless traditions
about the Westminster Assembly should disappear from our encyclopedias,
and other books that are presumed to have given some attention to the facts
of history.

Lecture XIII. presents the vesu/¢s of the Assembly. Here Prof. Mitchell is
extremely happy. He rightly discerns what is the greatest feature of our
Confession and its most distinctive principle, namely:

‘“God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of
men which are in anything contrary to His word, or besides it in matters of faith or worship. So that to
believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience,
and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience
and reason also.”

To this he remarks:

“Tf in the day of their prosperity they had affirmed this principle, a large number of them had failed
consistently and lovingly to carryit out in practice. God suffered them to be cast into a furnace seven
times heated, that they might learn in adversity the lesson they had not thoroughly mastered in prosperity,
and from bitter experience be led to realize the full value and extent of the principle enshrined in their
own Confession.”’

We may even go further than this, and say that the Presbyterian churches
have erred from this doctrine, this essential principle of their Confession, more
than from any other. The strict terms of subscription, which were not imposed
in Scotland till the close of the seventeenth century, were never thought of by
the Westminster divines, and would have been repudiated by them as contrary

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 867

to this essential principle. The English Presbyterians never designed that
their standards should be anything more than a general public standard that
should not be preached against. They never designed to impose them as a
yoke upon the conscience of men. They had been burnt in this way before, as
Tuckney says. The English Presbyterians were opposed throughout to such
subscription. The American terms of subscription are more in accordance
with the ideas of the London Presbyterians than with the methods that pre-
vailed in Scotland. The Scotch-Irish in this country have not neglected to
urge strict subscription upon the American Presbyterian churches, but they
have not succeeded in reducing the original and historic breadth of our
Church. ,

This volume of Prof. Mitchell is a noble one, and it ought to be repub-
lished in this country. We take this opportunity to announce that Prof.
Mitchell is ready to go on with the publication of the minutes of the West-
minster Assembly, provided two hundred subscribers can be secured in this
country. We do not know the exact cost; but it would probably be for the
three volumes somewhere about $6 a volume. We would suggest that those
who desire to secure these volumes should subscribe for them through the
Presbyterian Board of Publication, so that Prof. Mitchell may be encouraged
to proceed in his work. C. A. BRIGGS.

LIFE OF THE RT. REV. SAMUEL WILBERFORCE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Oxford, and
afterwards of Winchester. With selections from his diaries and correspondence.
By A. R. ASHWELL, D.D., late Canon of the Cathedral, etc., and REGINALD G.
WILBERFORCE. Abridged from the English edition, with portraits and illustra-
tions. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 39 West 23d Street. 1883.

To clear the way for some critical remarks on the life and character of Bishop
Wilberforce, we observe that this work gives, in a plain, unambitious manner, and
chiefly by means of his own letters, the biography of an interesting man acting at a
highly interesting period in the history of the Church of England. It was the time
of the Oxford tractarianism, of the Gorham controversy, of the struggle around the
person of Dr. Hampden, of the ecclesiastical titles bill, of the essays and reviews,
etc.; in all of which the subject of this memoir took an active,in some of them a
leading, part. The first half of the biography was edited by Canon Ashley ; after
his death it was completed by the Bishop’s son, Reginald. Neither of the writers is
distinguished by any merits as a biographer. A little annotation here and there,
and the filling of blanks with names, for the help of American readers at least,
would have made the work more satisfactory. Such as it is, it supplies an important
chapter in the history of the scheme for “ unprotestantising ” the Church of England.
The names of Newman, Pusey, Keble, of Hampden, of Mr. Gladstone (with whom
the Bishop was on terms of confidential friendship), and many other persons of dis-
tinction figure continually in these pages.

The most memorable thing about Bishop Wilberforce is that he was the son of
his father. The name of William Wilberforce will be remembered with honor,
wherever evangelical religion and heroic philanthropy are spoken of, when the
exploits of his son are forgotten.

Samuel Wilberforce was the third son of the great emancipator, and was born
at Clapham Common September 7, 1805. The family can be traced back to the
reign of Henry II.; but had never before contributed a member to the “ priesthood.”
With all the exacting claims made upon his attention by public affairs, William Wil-
berforce was a most watchful guardian over the religious education of his children,
More than six hundred letters remain addressed to Samuel alone, filled with tender
and earnest spiritual instruction. This parental fidelity was not without its reward.
Of his four sons all were religious, and three entered holy orders, Of his two daugh-

868 © THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW,

ters, one also married into the Church. After completing his studies at Oxford
Samuel became rector of the small country parish of Checkenham, near Henley-on-
Thames. From that time he was in a continual state, or rather progress, of eccle-
Siastical perferment ; rector of several churches in succession, each better than the
last; archdeacon of Surrey; chaplain to Prince Albert; Dean of Westminster;
Bishop of Oxford; Bishop of Winchester; with a fair show, if he had lived long
enough, for becoming Archbishop of Canterbury ;—a career which, from the point of
view of an English churchman, must be regarded as highly successful.

This rapid and steady advancement in the Church is accounted for by the posses-
sion of several characteristic qualities. He was an exemplary moral and religious
minister of the Gospel. The savor of his Clapham education never departed from
him. He had the religious earnestness, and habitually employed the evangelical
phrase, of Hannah More, Zachary Macaulay, and his own devout father. His pri-
vate journals and letters, as well as his theological examinations, charges, and ser-
mons, all showed him a profoundly religious man. If it stood asa bar to the pro-
motion of any parish priest that he was worldly-minded and might bring scandal on
the Church by his levity, it was not he. Sir Robert Peel, or Lord Aberdeen, or
Mr. Gladstone could lift him a peg higher in the Church, with the happy conviction
that it would gratify all serious and “sound” churchmen, and add a degree of
strength to their administration. His indefatigable activity of mind and body helped
his advancement. His constitutional tendencies as well as his convictions of duty
made him a man of extraordinary industry. He was forever travelling, catechizing,
confirming, preaching, examining candidates, or (after he became a spiritual peer)
debating in the House of Lords. Such sleepless activity commended him as a
watchful guardian of the Church’s interests.

Bishop Wilberforce’s fine personal qualities and accomplishments stood him in
good stead. He wasa ready and fluent speaker, a good debater, a warm, sympa-
thetic friend, a man of pleasing and gracefuladdress. His youthful likeness as Dean
of Westminster has much of the soft and poetical style of Major Theodore Win-
throp. His later portrait as Bishop of Winchester exhibits a noble face, not unlike
but improved upon the broad forehead and sensitive mouth of his father. Though
not without decided opinions on ecclesiastical and political questions, and sometimes
maintaining them in Parliament witha degree of heat that led him into undignified
collision with lay peers, he was smooth, adroit, and plausible. His enemies charged
him with lubricity of conscience. His popular sobriquet of ‘‘Soapy Sam ” indicates
the sentiment with which he was commonly regarded.

As an English churchman, Bishop Wilberforce belonged to the straitest sect. He
acted generally with the notorious Bishop of Exeter in the Gorham controversy ; and
held rigidly to baptismal regeneration. He was ἃ profound believer in the exclusive
divine right of episcopacy. When in Scotland he recognized no other worship than
that of the Episcopal dissenters. He accepted the use of one of the churches-of
the Scottish Establishment to preach in; but was careful “πο to give any sanction
to the Presbyterian asserted ministerial commission.” Indeed, he “ could not help
thinking of himself as in heathendom when inside a kirk,” His views of the sac-
raments and of the authority of the Church were such as to alarm his friends in his
early life, with the apprehension of his lapsing into the Romish Church. The same prin-
ciples actually carried into that “ultimate fact” not only his dear friends Newman,
Ward, and many others, but his three brothers, his two brothers-in-law, and his only
daughter. He had extreme difficulty in keeping his son Reginald, the author, in
part, of this biography, from following the other members of the family into the
“Romish schism.” Bishop Wilberforce did not abandon his principles. He simply
refused to follow where they actually led less timid and politic men.

Bishop Wilberforce was very active in his opposition to the appointment of Dr.
Hampden to the See of Hereford, on the ground of alleged heresy; and took an

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. "869

active part in the measures for bringing him to trial; all this without having ever
read Hampden’s Bampton lectures, which were said to contain the corpus delictz.
He trusted entirely to extracts made from them by Dr. Manning. On at length
reading the book for himself, he was quite unable to discover the supposed heresies,
and drew out of the prosecution ; a warning against joining in a hetzergeschrez sim-
ply from hearing others howl. Very ready to censure his brethren for interpreting’
the baptismal and communion services in a ‘non-natural sense,’ he himself sub-
scribed the XVIIth Article with a non-Calvinistic interpretation.

Bishop Wilberforce was the author of several publications, and, in particular, as
most interesting to ourselves, a “ History of the American Episcopalian Church.”” The
present writer has in his possession a copy of this work, formerly owned by the late
Dr. Cox, written all over the margins and blank half pages with the most caustic
comments on the errors of fact and reasoning it is filled with. A more tempting
occasion for Dr. Cox’s large power of sarcastic and witty remark it would not be
easy to find.

Bishop Wilberforce was not destined to climb higher than the See of Winchester.
On the 19th. of July, 1873, he was galloping over some open fields, when his horse
stumbled and threw the rider over his head. Lord Granville, who was riding a little
in advance, “‘ hearing a.thud on the ground,” turned, and saw that the Bishop’ had
broken his neck and was dead; a good, hard-working, ambitious churchman.

S. M. HOPKINS.

THE following works in Historical Theology deserve mention:

Church History as a science, as a theological discipline, and as a mode of the
Gospel. An inaugural discourse delivered by John De Witt on the occasion
of his induction into the chair of History in Lane Theo. Sem., Cin. 1883.
This is a fresh and vigorous production. It ought to have a wide circulation
and a careful reading. The author shows throughout the influence of Henry
B. Smith and R. D. Hitchcock, and makes it evident that he is to teach in their
spirit and methods. We would especially emphasize his point that Church
History should be introduced into the pulpit, and that it will freshen and enlarge
the preacher’s powers. There is no sufficient reason in history or in theory
why the preacher should be confined to the use of texts. Athanasius, Augus-
tine, and Luther will often furnish better themes for pulpit discourse than
even Abraham, David, or-Daniel, and it is no more difficult-to group Scripture
about the former than it is the latter. Let our ministers study Church History
by all means, and let them train their people in the history and life of the
Church.—Christéan Charity in the Ancient Church. By Gerhard Uhlhorn.
Translated from the German with the author’s sanction. N.Y.: Charles Scribner’s
Sons. 1883. This work has been fully noticed in the original (PRESB. REV., vol.
iii., 778). It is sufficient to remark, that it is indispensable for 411 who wish to study
the subject indicated in the title—7he Reformation of the Sixteenth Century in
zts relation to modern thought and knowledge. Uibbert Lectures, 1883. Lon-
don: Williams ἃ Norgate. 1883. This is a work of grasp and power. It
brings into prominence several features of the Reformation that are of especial
importance in relation to modern thought which are ordinarily neglected by
historians. The author is evidently more in sympathy with the Humanists
than the Reformers, and proclaims the need of a new reformation: ‘“ The
Reformation that has been is Luther’s monument; perhaps the Reformation
that is to be will trace itself back to Erasmus” (p. 73). In the discussion of the
principles of the Reformation, our author makes some trenchant remarks: “ It
is logically involved in the substitution of the authority of the Bible for the
authority of the Church, that every believer has the right of interpreting
Scripture for himself” (p. 124). ‘“ Whatever church says and means ‘priest’ is

870° THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

on the Catholic side of the great controversy of Christianity ; whatever church
says and means ‘minister,’ in that act proclaims itself Protestant” (p. 136).
“When Luther was gone, his followers wandered away into the deserts of
Protestant scholasticism in search of a definition of the essentially undefinable,
and spent their strength in sectarian hatreds and internecine wars” (p. 135).
The book is a model of clear, bright, forcible, and beautiful style. It is full of
gems of thought and powerful sentences. No man can write without an ani-
mus. The animus of our author is in favor of Erasmus and Zwingli and against
Calvin. He cannot refrain from expressing his regret that Zwingli and Oeco-
lampadius died so early ere they were able to systematize their thought, and
that the mastery of affairs passed into the hands of Calvin. ‘“ But it is at least
an allowable speculation that the milder, more rational, humaner spirit of the
great Reformer of Zurich reappeared in the Arminian theology which in the
17th century was so powerful a factor in European thought” (p. 228). Our
author is also appreciative in his treatment of the sects of the Reformation.
These give him the opportunity of keen criticism: “It is the experience of all
Christian centuries that men only need to bring to the Bible sufficiently strong
prepossessions, sufficiently fixed opinions, to have them reflected back in all the
glamour of infallible authority. So there is, if I may use the expression, a
flavor of Scripture in all Anabaptist extravagances.” “ Anabaptism ranged over
the whole gamut of human passions and possibilities, from the pure and pious
enthusiasm of a Balthasar Hubmaier, to the licentious and cruel fanaticism of
a John of Leiden.” “A few days after, Melancthon dispatched to the Elector
John Frederick a quite conclusive refutation, from his own point of view, of
these crude and ignorant heresies, which, nevertheless, he was able to silence
only by the same rough logic of axe and faggot as the Catholic Church was at
any moment ready to apply to himself. Since that time the world has threshed
out many of the questions which were in dispute between Jobst Moller, who
could neither read nor write, and the first Christian scholar of Germany; and
the result is not in all respects what the theologians of Wittenberg would have
expected” (p. 198). In his treatment of the Reformation in England he makes
two very just remarks: “ From the first, two distinct elements have been ‘pres-
ent in the English church, sometimes struggling for the mastery, sometimes
living peacefully side by side, and it is contrary to historical fact for either to
assert itself in such a way as to exclude the other” (p. 324). “Had a policy of
comprehension been frankly adopted in 1662, or when the opportunity came
again in 1689, I am convinced that the tone of English theology to-day would
have been far more accordant than it is with the best knowledge and characteristic
spirit of the age. Sed Dzs alitey visum,; and we can only look for the new
Reformation to restore the unity which was shattered by the old” (p. 335).
The lectures on the Growth of the Critical Spirit and Development of Philo-
sophical Method and Scientific Investigation are exceedingly valuable. All the
more do we regret that the author goes out of his way to attack the evangelical
doctrine of the Atonement. It is mere assertion without proof that “the whole
system of atonement of which Anselm is the author, shrivels into inanity amid
the light of the space, the silence of the stellar worlds” (p. 389). Perhaps the
chief significance of the book is found in the conclusion from this study of the
Reformation in the light of modern thought. It is a strong plea for a new
reformation: “ And so I venture to think that to restore Christianity to the place
which it has lost and is more and more losing in the hearts of thoughtful and
educated men, still more to give back to it its old victorious energy in dealing
with the sinful and. the wretched, what is chiefly needed is a prophet of this
latter day who, in the keenness and directness of his religious insight, will
speak at once a piercing and a reconciling word. Such an one will be deeply

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 871

penetrated with the scientific spirit, but he will be too full of the awe of direct
vision to lose himself in the arid wastes of criticism, or to be led astray by the
pedantries of scientific investigation. .... I have no fear lest he should fall out of
the ranks of Christ’s soldiers ; for I do not believe that religion has anything to
offer to men that the Gospel does not hold, and I notice that what is strong
and inspiring in newer systems is Christian in essence, if not always in name. I
know that when he speaks men will crowd to hear him, and lay their hearts and
lives in his hands ; for the religious instincts of humanity are ineradicable, and
even if they sometimes sleep, wake always to life and energy again.” However
much we may differ from the author in theological position and_ in-
terpretation of historical and theological facts, to this closing sentiment
of the book we give our full adherence.— The Reformation in Sweden. By Ὁ.
M. Butler. N. Y.: A.D. F. Randolph ἃ Co. 1883. This is an interesting
sketch of the rise, progress, crisis, and triumph of the Reformation in Sweden.
Gustavus Vasa is appreciatively and yet critically considered. He is one of the
most charming characters of the 16th century. If Europe had been blessed
with many such monarchs, modern history would have been much more fruit-
ful in religious and intellectual progress.—Martin Luther. Ein Lebensbild von
F. Schmidt. Leipzig: J. Lehmann. Martin Luther der deutsche Reformator.
Von Julius KGstlin. Halle: O. Hendel. 1883. Biographies of Luther are
pouring from the press in this gooth anniversary of his birth. Among them the
two given above are worthy of special attention. The first is plain, homely,
and interesting, designed for the people; the last is scholarly, compact, and
indeed a splendid piece of literary work for the more learned.
C, A. BRIGGS.

Hi-—SYSTEMATIC: THEOLOGY,

FINAL CAUSES. By PAUL JANET, member of the Institute, Professor at the
Faculté des Lettres of Paris. Translated from the Second Edition of the
French by WILLIAM AFFLECK, D.D.; with a Preface by ROBERT FLINT,
D.D., LL.D. Second Edition. Edinburgh: T. ἃ T. Clark. 1883. pp.
XXii., 520.

The same. Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York. 1883.

The theistic problem is one of absorbing interest at the present day, and this
volume is one of the most important contributions to its discussion. We wel-
come an American edition which in appearance is little, if at all, inferior to the
English, and which is offered at a price which brings it within the reach of all. It
has been the fashion to speak slightingly of the argument from’design; and even
Christian thinkers are sometimes found depreciating it. It would be well for men
of this class to remember the high estimate which John Stuart Mill put upon this
argument, and it would be particularly advantageous for them to read this ably-
reasoned work by M. Janet. It is absurdly elementary to say, but the mistakes
upon this subject are so common that it is necessary to say that a final cause is
not a first cause; in fact, is not a cause at all. Jt never means the agent, but
the agent’s motive. It is an argument from analogy. It is an inference based
upon an immense aggregate of as zfs. The question is not whether means and
ends existing, intelligence was the cause of them; but whether these colloca-
tions in nature are respectively means and ends.

The eye looks as if it were made to see’with. It looks as if its future use
determined its structure. Are we right in supposing this to be the case? The
most formidable objection to this view comes from those who say that the eye

72 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

was wholly determined by its antecedents; that being wholly conditioned by
its past, there is no need of supposing it to have been conditioned by its future.
Can the adaptations of nature be accounted for by evolution? or if they can,
does the doctrine of evolution supersede the argument from design ?

M. Janet in the first part of his book makes a most valuable defence of tele-
ology against the conclusions of those who-use the doctrine of evolution as an
argument against final causes. The next form of anti-teleological argument
comes from the region of speculative philosophy. It may be said that though
we are under the necessity of seeing adaptation of means and ends in nature,
there is no proof that the objective world corresponds to our subjective impres-
sions of it; or it may be said that though this finality in nature exists, it may be
an immanent finality, and not a finality due toa directing intelligence ; or that if
due to intelligence, it may be an unconscious intelligence like that of the ant
or bee. The first theory—that of subjective finality—involves the discussion of
the whole subject of knowledge; the second and third are concessions to the
common doctrine so far as the fact of finality is concerned ; and the last opposes
theism by denying the doctrine of the personality of God. It rejects anthropo-
morphism, as Janet says, only to accept zo6morphism. It is evident that the
objections to final causes, which are urged now are very different from those
offered by Bacon, Des Cartes, and Spinoza; and that, though the argument from
design is as old as Socrates, it needs fresh treatment. The man who supposes
that he is doing justice to the subject by repeating Paley’s argument and adduc-
ing a few new illustrations, does not understand the conditions of the problem
with which he has todeal. It is safe to say that there is little to be learned from
new illustrations of design. The questions, as Janet well says, are first, whether
there is finality in nature: this question must be answered affirmatively in
opposition to the anti-teleological evolutionist ; and secondly, what is the first
cause of the Finality? In answering this question, the personality of God and
his separate existence, must be defended in opposition to the speculations of
Hegel, Schopenhauer, and Hartmann. The ability with which M. Janet has dealt
with these questions entitles his book to the rank which has been accorded to
it, of being the very best discussion of Final Causes.

Changes have been introduced into the second edition, some of which are
valuable, while some are not improvements. The section on Herbert Spencer
is an important addition to the matter contained in the first edition. On the
other hand, we regret that the chapter on Objections has been transferred to
the Appendix. It is too valuable to be relegated to a subordinate place. The
last chapter, on the “ Supreme End in Nature,” does not add to the value of the
work. It is one thing to assume the existence of God and seek for the end of
creation ; it is quite a different thing to see manifest exhibitions of finality and
infer the existence of a divine intelligence. The chapter referred to belongs to
the first of these two kinds of teleological discussions, and though it raises a
perfectly legitimate question in teleology, it is of no special.advantage to the
theistic discussion. F..L. PATTON.

NATURAL LAW IN THE SPIRM'UAL WoRLD. By HENRY DRUMMOND, F.R.S.E.,
F.G.S. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 27 Paternoster Row. 1883.
I2mo, pp. 414.

The author of this interesting and original work is Henry Drummond, Pro-
fessor of Natural Science in Glasgow Free Church College. He is a member of
the family of Drummonds of Stirling, distinguished for evangelistic zeal, and
was himself one of the chief coadjutors of Moody on the occasion of his first
visit to Scotland. At the same time he isa distinguished student and professor
of science; at once intimately informed and thoroughly in sympathy with the

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 873

most genuine evangelical theology and practical religion, and learned and in
perfect sympathy with the most advanced progress of genuine physical science,
and its most prominent interpreters. He informs us in his preface, that for years
he has been inthe habit of lecturing on science during the week, and of con-
ducting Bible-classes among the plainer citizens each Sabbath day. For a long
time he was conscious that these two spheres of knowledge and of mental
activity were entirely separate and independent. Gradually, however, he found
the middle wall of division yielding, and at last he came to realize that his sci-
ence and his religious knowledge formed one consistent and coherent body.
“The great change was in the compartment which held the religion. The
actual contents remained the same. But the crystals of former doctrine were
dissolved; and as they precipitated themselves once more in definite forms, I
observed that the Crystalline System was changed. New channels, also, for
outward expression opened, and some of the old closed up; and I found the
truth running out to my audience on Sundays by the week-day outlets. In
other words, the subject-matter Religion had taken on the method of expression
of Science, and I discovered myself enunciating Spiritual Law in the exact
terms of Biology and Physics.”

Professor Drummond's theological views remain, however, thoroughly spiritual,
and, as far as he discovers them in this book, essentially, sometimes profoundly,
orthodox. He maintains that the great scientific principle of Continuity
requires that the laws governing every lower province of the universe must hold
good through every higher province, even the highest. These laws, character-
istic of the lower province, need not be the only laws, nor the prominent and
characteristic laws of the higher province. Other laws may come in and be-
come the most significant, but the laws regulating forces in the lower province
can never cease to be active in their proper sphere inthe higher. Thus gravity
is the great law which is characteristic of the inorganic material world, and it
prevails none the less surely, though far less prominently and characteristically,
in the world of organized matter. So the author argues that the great laws—of
Biogenesis, Degeneration, Growth, Death, Mortification, Environment, Con-
formity to Type, of Parasitism, and of Classification, which hold reign in the nat-
ural world of Biology, must be traceable throughout the great spiritual world,
although here it is to be anticipated that they will be brought under the regi-
men of higher laws characteristic of the higher province.

The book is unquestionably written in the interest of orthodox and spiritual
Christianity. It is original, suggestive, and must prove instructive. The author
has undoubtedly assisted in opening a vein of important truth, although he
naturally magnifies the extent of the changes which the wise application of his
method will effect either in the substance, the form, or even in the relations of
Christian Theology. A. A. HODGE.

CHRISTIANITY A Fact. Three questions: How, now, about your God, your
Hereafter, and your Bible? Mr. Orthodox versus Professor Evolutionist.
Christian evidence—much in little. Needed in every house. By Rev. WM.
G. Tuomas, A.M., Kansas City, Mo. Publishing house of Ramsey, Millett ἃ
Hudson. 1882.

This is a duodecimo of 208 pages, in which the ultimate tests of truth and
the evidences of the Being of God, of the immortality of the human soul, and
of evangelical Christianity are discussed in a popular manner, and with sufficient
fulness. It is a good book, and its extensive circulation among the classes of
people who need it ought to be encouraged. It is not of course intended for
scholars. And in the discussion of so great a variety of subjects there is room
for difference of opinion. Nevertheless in spite of the awkwardness and occa-

56

874 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

sional obscurity of the style, the work is well done, the argument upon the
whole worthy of confidence, and the book adapted to accomplish the very ex-
cellent purpose the author had in view. A. A. HODGE.

THE FREEDOM OF FAITH. By THEODORE T. MUNGER, author of “On the
Threshold.”

“* Peace settles where the intellect is weak ;
The faith heaven strengthens where He moulds the creed.”

—WoRDSWORTH.
Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 1883.

This is a volume of sermons from a Congregational minister settled in
Western Massachusetts, of a well-deserved high reputation for intellect, scholar-
ship, and literary skill. These sermons are well worthy of the very considerable
attention they have received as specimens of the new kind of sermonizing
in which is followed the theory of John Richard Green, preacher before he was
historian, “that high thinking put into plain English is more likely to tell upon
men than all the ‘simple Gospel sermons’ in the world.” But the chief interest
of the volume to us lies in its “Prefatory Essay” on the “ New Theology.”
The author declares the purpose of this essay to be “ to state, so far as is now pos-
sible, some of the main features of that phase of present thought, popularly
known as the ‘ New Theology ’: to indicate the lines on which it is moving, to
express something of its spirit, and to give it so much of definite form that it
shall no longer suffer from the charge of vagueness.” This isa task of the
greatest importance at the present time. And the author of these sermons»
although he emphatically disclaims speaking for any one but himself alone, is
eminently qualified for the work by his own position in the movement, and by
his knowledge of and sympathy with its leading representatives. As to its ulti-
mate form in the conception and statement of the great central doctrines of
Christianity, the “New Theology” remains after the light thrown upon it by
this essay as vague as it ever was before. This was inevitable because hitherto it
exists even in the apprehension of its most illuminated prophets, not as a body
of truth, but only as a spirit, a method, and a stream of tendency, the general
drift of which they are only beginning to calculate. Nevertheless, the author
has made a contribution to our knowledge in this direction of real value. Taken
in connection with the, at least, equally able sermon on the same subject
delivered by the Rev. Philip S. Moxom, pastor of the First Baptist church, Cleve-
land, Ohio, at Point Chautauqua this summer, and printed in full in the Stazd-
ard of Chicago, August 23d, this essay affords us sufficient grounds for a deliber-
ate if not final estimate at least of the spirit and method if not of the dogmas
of the “ New Theology.”

In the first place, although the usefulness of the “ Old Theolgy,” “in its time
and place,” is admitted, its entire spirit and method is declared to be false. By
the “Old Theology” is meant primarily New England Theology, since Edwards,
but none the less inclusively, Calvinistic, Lutheran, Arminian, Anglican, and
Roman Catholic Theology; in short, the entire method of comprehending the
great central truths of Christianity which has prevailed with various modifica-
tions in the historic churches since the time of St. Augustine. The “Old
Theology” failed in that it took too despairing a view of human nature, as
utterly impotent and blind with regard to things of the Spirit of God; be-
cause it regarded the Bible as too exclusively divine and as rendered bya plenary
and even verbal inspiration the absolutely authoritative and sole source of infor-
mation in matters of religion, and the sole and sufficient rule of faith ; because
it consequently built upon a false exegesis, taking texts according to their sound
out of their connections; because it has been crystallized into fixed mechanical

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 875

forms and correlations by an undue use of human logic—logic unscrupulously
applied to deficient premises, and under imperfectly discerned relations.

There is, of course, a great deal of truth in what is said in criticism of the
Old Theology as to the faults of many of its most eminent representatives in
the matter of the abuse of textual citation, and of logical inference, and of
speculative presumption. But in fact these criticisms are wholesale, indiscrimi-
nate, and utterly uncandid, since these interpreters of the “New Theology ”’
incontinently proceed from the criticism of the faults of the Old Theology to
the more than equal illustration of the same in their own work.

In the second place, the “ New Theology ” is positively marked by the following
attributes. The work of the destructive critics, as Colenso, Kuenen, Wellhausen,
etc., is recognized with qualified approbation, while their destructive results are
notadmitted. TheScriptures are admitted to be rather a revelation of God
than a peremptory revelation from God of what he requires man to believe and
to do—the various books of Scripture are to be interpreted therefore more as
separate human compositions, peculiarly illuminated with divine light, in view
of their historical genesis and surroundings, than, as by the old theologians, as
one homogeneous work, the expression of one mind; so the New Theology relies
far more than the Old upon ἀπε guidance of man’s natural, moral and religious
intuitions, limiting and guiding the exegesis of Scripture and the theological
applications of logic by ethical tastes and judgments. Hence it bases its judg-
ments far more upon the current experience of men of all classes and conditions
in actual life, following rather than resisting the great cosmical drifts of tend-
ency in thought and feeling, and “it claims for itself a larger, broader use of
reason than has been accorded to theology” in the past. It is a renaissance
rather than a new creation. The new movement allies itself with early Greek
theology, as it existed before the dominating influence of Augustine; “the
modern authors whom it most consults were Erskine, Campbell, McLeod, Maurice,
Stanley, Robertson, the Hare brothers, Bushnell”; it denies the current defi-
nitions of all the old doctrines, and the essence of some of them. Yet it uses
the old characteristic terms and phrases by which they have been immemorially
expressed, thus conciliating prejudice and confusing distinctions; “if its essays,
though largely negative and tentative, are met by contradiction and ecclesiastical
censure, it does not stay its hand nor heed the clamor.”

These brethren of the “ New Theology ” have two characteristics which must
never be forgotten in our most earnest hostile criticism, and which ally them to
us as most important confederates in the greater war which in these days should
unite all “who call themselves Christians’ against the enemies of all religion.
They are genuine and earnest opponents of materialism in all its forms; they
maintain and emphasize the freedom and responsibility of the human soul in
willing ; they emphasize the reality of the Incarnation, and worship and love the
divine human Person of our Lord. God bless them for all this, and keep us
from ever ceasing to love them.

Nevertheless their criticism of the “Old Theology” is pettish and absurdly
crude and exaggerated. Calvinism is said to be mechanically constructed of
Jive points, which involves an historical as well as critical blunder. The old
theologians are said to have neglected scientific exegesis. Who among the new
theologians has shown any skill in scientific exegesis? Did not Calvin devote
himself to the interpretation of Scripture on the widest scale? And is it not
true that his commentaries are recognized as masterpieces of successful inter-
pretation by the most scientific exegetes of to-day? Is not the leading exegesis
of to-day in the main consentaneous with the Old Theology? (See Delitzsch,

‘ Meyer and Weiss.) Does Mr. Munger himself discover any particular exegetical
skill or even interest in these representative sermons? Hedenies the Posszdzlzty

876 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of the future resurrection of our bodies on sczentzfic grounds. He assumes that
“science” makes this faith impossible, which is contrary to fact and absurd.
He makes his points throughout these sermons by appeals to reason and expe-
rience. They are characteristically but slightly tinged with any Biblical quality.
Where the Bible is referred to as authority it is cited in purely isolated texts in
the very worst manner of the “ Old Theology.”

These brethren profess to believe in the scientific law of development, yet
they reject the whole world-wide historic development of Christian thought
since Augustine and go back to the theology of the early Greek fathers.
The element of early Greek theology which was clearly wrought out, that,
namely, of the Trinity and the Person of Christ, they refuse to accept. The
elements of Greek theology of which the New is a renaissance are only the
fanciful exegesis, the Neo-Platonic speculation, the confused, logically chaotic,
statements of various vague segments of Christian truths by individual writers.
We regard their continued use of the old familiar religious language of the
church, while the sense in which it is to be understood is changed con-
stantly and indefinitely, as fitted if not designed to mislead, and as there-
fore immoral. The resurrection of the body from the grave is denied, and yet
the phrase “resurrection of the body” retained. , The reformation doctrine of
forensic justification through the instrumentality of faith is denied, while the
phrase “justification by faith” is retained. The objective reference of the
atonement is denied or obscured, while the phrases, “ vicarious sacrifice,” “ pro-
pitiation,” etc., are retained. The doctrines of election, regeneration, conversion,
sanctification, etc., are modified, and yet the old language is used unchanged.
Against this we protest in the name of truth and honesty.

They charge the “ Old Theology ” with want of humanity and of missionary
spirit. Surely this is ludicrous. It is notorious that it is precisely the “ Old
Theology ” which from the time of Calvin till to-day has inspired all missions,
all healthy and successful moral regenerations of individuals or communities,
and all successful revivals. Who are the missionaries, who the revivalists of
the “ New Theology ” ?

In conclusion, however much these brethren may personally differ in their
spirit or desires from the old Socinians, or the modern Rationalists and Unita-
rians, their working principle is precisely the same with theirs. The medizval
church built upon the doctrine of the infallible Church. The reformation
built upon the doctrine of the infallible Word of God written. These other par-
ties one and all build upon history—the Bible--the modern lights of science, etc.,
as all these are limited and interpreted by the INTUITIONS. These are the judges
of the court of last appeal. The following questions represent our judgment and
our fears. On what principle of their working philosophy (that philosophy by
which these new theologians are being so widely separated from the old) can
they limit their progress short of the position of Channing? On what princi-
ple could Channing limit his progress short of the position of Theodore Par-
ker? On what principle could Theodore Parker limit his progress short of
the position of the blankest Agnostic?

Dr. Ellis, of Boston, said to the writer this summer on the piazza of the Grand
Union Hotel, Saratoga: “ Sir, I tell you that it is precisely the repetition of the
movement transacted in Harvard in the early years of this century.’’ In this
judgment enlightened liberalism and conservative orthodoxy see eye to eye.

A. A. HODGE,

HANDBUCH DER THEOLOGISCHEN WISSENSCHAFTEN IN ENCYCLOPADISCHER
DARSTELLUNG, mit besonderer Riicksicht auf die Entwicklungsgeschichte der
einzelnen Disciplinen; in Verbindung mit Dr. CHR. ERNSYr LUTHARDT,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 8117

ZEZSCHWITZ, PLATH, a. u. herausgegeben von Dr. OTTO ZOECKLER, ord. Prof.
d. Theologie in Greiswald. Dritter Halbband. pp. 240. Nd6rdlingen, 1883.

This Handbook of Theological Science as it has appeared in successive volumes
thus far, has received due notice in the PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW (see Oct., 1882, and
July, 1883). The work promises to be unusually full and comprehensive. It has
evidently grown upon the author since the undertaking, for it has already reached
“The Third Half Volume,” although but fairly begun. It may become too volu-
minous for an easy handbook, but it cannot fail to be of great service to those who
have time to consult its ample references. This “ Dritter Halbband,” which treats
of Christian Ethics, properly begins with,—The Idea of Christian Ethics and its
Encyclopedic position.

According to Dr. Luthardt, Ethics in its general definition is, The Science of
Morals. To present the definition as more exact and clear, Luthardt promptly dis-
tinguishes between Ἔϑος and "Hioc,—the latter having a more subjective signifi-
cance, the former more objective ; the latter referring to custom as the expresséon
of personality (in disposition or character), 1 Cor. xv. 33, “ Evil communications
corrupt good manners,” or morals, or character (quoted from Menander), the former
referring to custom as a fixed zatzonal form (Acts xvi, 21, “customs which are
not lawful for us to receive, neither to observe, being Romans”); or, eccleszastzcal,
Acts vi. 14; or, zadzvédual, Luke xxii. 39, “went, as his custom was,” etc. (It
ought to be said, at the outset, that there are grievous errors in the type of this book
which embarrass a reviewer ; 6. g., as already encountered in the lirst Scripture ref-
erence, I Cor. xv. 23 instead of 1 Cor. xv. 33, as it should be, and in the Greek quo-
tation, which is at once jumbled and misprinted.)

It is, probably, not too much to say that, ἠθικά (Ethics), with deeper significance,
referred at first to ἦθος as character or disposition, and so as expressive of personality.
But by philosophical handling among the Greeks and Romans, it became gradually
modified. At length, as Luthardt mentions, the Latin mos passes from the idea of
willing to the habit or custom; hence, Cicero in his philosophy has introduced the
adjective soralzs.

Since it is so difficult precisely to define the subject, it is no marvel that the
science should have received a variety of names; 6. g., (as our author notes) Sitten-
lehre by Mosheim, De Wette, Oettingen, Schmidt, Schleiermacher; Moral by Kant
and his school, together with the Romish theologians generally ; Ethik by Hegel,
Rothe, Harless, Martensen, etc.

Dr. Luthardt proceeds to say, in determining the range of this subject, that the
Moral is that which is required of man through the immanent possession and deter-
mination of a purpose and the corresponding free personal being and conduct.
Thus the moral belongs to the realm of the personal in distinction from that of the
natural. He would, accordingly, mark an essential difference between natural law
and moral law. Morality cannot be predicated of the material unless in some sec-
ondary sense, as related to the will of the personal creator or the personal creature
in constituting or in employing the material. For the rational creature in what he
is, and in what he employs, the supreme (ultimate) relation of his purpose should
centre in God and in the realization of his will in the earthly life. Thus the moral,
in the ultimate and proper sense, is religious. Man, the rational creature, is related
not merely to the material, or to the material and the human, but, also, and
supremely to the Divine. Thus, again, the moral in the ultimate and proper sense
(and constant sense, may we say?) is religious. Rothe distinguishes (according to
the direction taken) between the ethical and the religious. But the distinction is re-
garded here as arbitrary, for the relation to God pervades the moral realm. Hence,
Dr. L. would say that the free personal conduct of man is truly moral only when it
has its root in the relation to God, and corresponds. to this relation as it is deter-
mined frst, through Creation ; and secondly, through Redemption, and therein finds

878 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

its verity. As Luthardt has elsewhere said, “The union between religion and
morality is an indissoluble one.”

Ancient moral philosophers (although perhaps not the most ancient) separated
morals from religion, particularly Aristotle and the peripatetic school of ‘‘ The Gym-
nasium ”; while the later school of ‘The Portico”’ sought to reunite them, but with-
out success, for they had only a false naturalistic or pantheistic-naturalistic religion,
and therefore no true basis on which to build. ‘ The organ for the facts and truths
of the moral world is conscience” (Luthardt’s “ Apologetic Lectures’’). But con-
science, that is, the moral consciousness, is inseparable from a consciousness of God.
Thus man was created. And, still, although man is fallen, morality in the proper
sense demands religion, and religion demands morality.

Now, the relation of man to God as it was determined in creation finds its verity
or fulfilment only in the relation of man to God in Christ. To this corresponds the
relation between philosophical and theological ethics. Dr. L. then proceeds to
describe or define the two. Philosophical ethics is the science of the moral life’of
man as it is conditioned by the relation to God in creation. Christian or theological
ethics is the science of the moral life of the Christian as it is conditioned by the new
relation of redemption in Christ Jesus. The difference is not guantztative, as
whether Christian morality adds to the natural, new and hard laws, virtues, and
duties (Romanism and Rationalism) ; nor forma/, as whether Reason is the source
of the natural and Scripture of the Christian (Supernaturalism), or the Church
(Romanism) ; nor whether the difference is only in the mode of treatment, here sys-
tematic; there, empirical, or the like; but it is primarily and specially as between
man and Christ. Just here lies its mutual reciprocal relation.

Theological ethics is dogmatically conditioned, so that dogmatics represents the
realization of communion with God for time and eternity, on the side of God; on
the same basis ethics represents the realization of communion with God in the
earthly life of the Christian, on the side of man. Hence there is a two-fold view of
theological ethics, the Divine and the human. Thus, domatics and ethics are not two
parallel sciences, as is generally considered, no more than the love of God and the
love of man are parallel; but the latter is conditioned, supported, and embraced
by the former. The relation is expressed by the apostle (1 John iv. 19, ‘“‘ We love
[him], because he first loved us.””) This connection with dogmatics fixes the eccle-
siastical character of ethics. That the Romish and the Evangelical morals differ, is
evident. Less apparent is the difference between the Lutheran and the Reformed
views ; but the difference exists here. Dr. L. would characterize as legal both the
Romish and the Reformed ethics (although in a different way), while he would
characterize the Lutheran ethics, not as legal, but rather as religious. He has else-
where defined religion as “ The expression of consciousness of God”; morality as
“The expresston of conscience”; while ‘‘dogma treats of communion with God,
and ethics treats of likeness to God.’ Hence, “ Morality is based upon religion,
and ethics upon dogma. God, who is the object of religious faith, is also the source
of moral practice. Communion with God is the prerequisite of likeness to him.”

Such Dr. L. declaresis the moral stand-point of Christianity. We findit, he says,
in all parts of Holy Scripture, but especially in the First Epistle of John. ‘Here
and elsewhere, particularly in his “ Apologetic Lectures,” he argues this at great
length and with great earnestness. He never wearies of repeating and maintaining
“ the connection of religion and morality.” This, he asserts, is a fundamental thought
of Christianity. To sever religion and morality, he affirms, is to destroy the unity
of human nature. To intensify his affirmation he defiantly asks, ‘‘ What kind of
religion would that be which was of no moral importance ? And how should morality
be permanent unlessits source is in God?” This vital connection between religion
and morality he illustrates and vindicates by the Decalogue, where morality, he says,
is reduced to love to God and love to man. These the Saviour designates as the two

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 879

great commandments. ‘ We accordingly divide the law into two tables. In so doing
we express the connection of religion and morality.” This teaching thus appears in
the Old Testament and the New, and culminates in Christ, “ who in his own per-
son exhibited the union of religion and morality.”

But if Ethics is thus intimately related to Theology, it is, also, closely connected
with Psychology—a point which our author does not fail to note. As an expression
of personality, Ethics implies a theory of the will which is a central element of per-
sonality. Dr. L. couples responsibility and freedom; and as if to guard against
every possible objection, asserts that, ‘‘ however bound we may be to our nature,
we are yet freein our bonds.’’ While the faculty of willing is primary, yet there is a
distinction between formal and real freedom. Self-control does not conquer the op-
position between lust and inclination—does not regenerate. ‘He that committeth
sin is the servant of sin.” From the stand-point of Psychology and that of Scripture,
Luthardt maintains that “true freedom of the will is conformity with the will of
God,” Are we in bondage, natural or spiritual? Ethics, Psychology, and Theology
are interested in the practical and momentous question—How shall we become truly
free? The Scriptures reply, “If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be
free indeed.” Thus, again, by the converging lines of Psychology, Ethics, and The-
ology would Luthardt reach the central characteristic of his system, the indissolu-
ble union of morality and religion. And with threefold reference he asserts, “ There
is true moralzty only where there is freedom, and true freedom is /ove to God.”

Ancient philosophers distinguished four cardinal virtues as comprising all.morality
—wisdom, justice, fortitude, prudence. But Dr. L. would, with St. Paul, record
above these, three Christian virtues or graces,—faith, hope, charity; and of these
three, charity, or love, as the greatest.

Thus, already, we have found not only the key to the ethical system of Dr-
Luthardt, but access, also, to some of its more important departments. The limits
of a review notice forbid us to linger here, however we might feel inclined; and
leave us space only for a brief mention of what remains in this “ Dritter Halbband”’
of Zéckler’s.

The History of Ethics is largely treated by Luthardt. In traeing this history in
the early Church, he carefully distinguishes between Christian morality and that of
antiquity. Historically, the difference is not merely gradual, but is specific.
Christianity entering the world as a new fact of life which renewed the relation of
God and man in its inmost reality, also renewed from its foundation the moral con-
sciousness of the being and destiny of human personality in its relation to God and
the world.

Ancient philosophers placed the origin and end of morality in man himself and his
world. If there was a mythology, even a polytheistic mythology, it was not the source
of morality or ethics. If there should be piety it was not vitally connected with
morality or ethics. The cardinal virtues, justice, wisdom, fortitude, prudence, dis-
tinguished by the philosophers as comprising all morality, had supreme relation to
society, or to the State, and were only social or civil virtues, differing essentially
from the cardinal Christian virtues, faith, hope, love, which have supreme rela-
tion to God in their origin and end. Socrates and Plato in the earlier Grecian
philosophy represented wrong action as the result of ignorance, right action as the
result of knowledge. Aristotle taught that morality was regulated by social and
civil rule; that virtue was moderation of indulgence and desire ; and that the proper
ethical aim was personal happiness.

The Stoics inculcated obedience to nature and reason, with indifference toward
pleasure and pain; and taught that rightness instead of happiness should be the
ethical end or aim, and that the virtuous man is self-sufficient ; while Epicurus en-
couraged the pursuit of enjoyment as the supreme good and aim. The transition to
Christian Ethics marks a difference in origin and end—a radical difference.

880 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Luthardt proceeds to trace the moral life of the early Christians ; the ethics of the
Church before Constantine (Writings of the Apostolic Fathers) ; of the Church after
Constantine in the East and the West ; of Church discipline (synods, canons, constitu-
tions, books of penance, etc.) ; ethics of the scholastic period; Antinomian ethics ;
mystical ; Waldensian; distinguishing John Wessel as the most evangelical of all
the forerunners of Luther.

Ethics shared with theology the transforming influence of the Reformation. The
Pauline doctrine of Justification by Faith was restored to its place in theology; and
Christian morality was re-centered in love toward God in Christ instead of slavish
submission to Papal authority. Luther (in the estimation of Luthardt) Sg the
way of return to a true system of Christian ethics.

The interest deepens with every step of advance in the history of ethics since the
time of the Reformation. From what we have already noted in this too rapid re-
view, can be readily forecast what Dr. Luthardt would regard as the direct line of
advance and what the divergences.

As our notice of Luthardt’s ethical treatise could only be genetal and brief, our
criticism must, especially, be brief and general. His fundamental position seems to
us to be wanting in breadth and, so far forth, in strength. The range of the system
is accordingly too confined. Some of the definitions are indefinite, and the dis-
tinctions are not always clear. Though difficult to attain, a work on ethics de-
mands the utmost precision in thought and expression, together with a fulness of
detail. In each of these directions this treatise seems to us defective, although it is
highly interesting, and in a “ Handbook” may fulfil its purpose.

In addition to Dr. Luthardt’s contribution, ‘ Die Christliche Ethik ” in-“* System-
atic Theology,” this ‘Third Half Volume” of Zéckler’s ‘‘Handbuch” contains
three brief treatises in “ Practical Theology.” The frst of these, by Prof. Zezschwitz,
is styled “ Einleitung in die praktische Theologie.” This introduction treats of:

1. Position and Province of Practical Theology in relation to the other depart-
ments of Theology.

2. History of Practical Theology (a) to the Reformation; (4) onward to the close
of the eighteenth century; (c) thence to the present time.

3. Introduction to the system of Practical Theology: (4) Nature and subject of
practical church activity ; (4) natural functions of, etc.; (ὦ the order of, etc.; (Z)
practical theological technics in relation to the system.

The second of these, by Instructor Plath, is styled “Die einzelnen Ficher der
Praktischen Theologie.” Of these individual branches or departments, Instructor
Plath discusses “ Evangelistik,” especially the theory and history of missions, in
eleven different directions.

The ¢hzrd of these treatises, under the same style as the second, is by Prof. Zez-
schwitz, Prof. Z. discusses “ Katechetik und Homiletik”’; Catechetics in six sub-
divisions ; Homiletics in seven subdivisions.

These three treatises are at once vigorous and comprehensive, and although not
especially novel to American students, they offer and urge many valuable suggestions.
While we question some of the positions assumed in this Dritter Halbband, especially
in ‘ Die Christliche Ethik,” we regard the whole as interesting and valuable. We
admire the courage of Dr. Zéckler in undertaking a work so comprehensive, and, at
the same time, so important and timely. We recognize his careful selection of help-
ers, and his faithful superintendence of the work. We congratulate him upon the
success already achieved, while with deepening interest we await the forthcoming
volumes. We are gratified to learn that Messrs. T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh, have in
press the first volume of a translation of the entire work. R. B. WELCH.

THE SCRIPTURAL IDEA OF MAN. Six Lectures given before the Theological
Students at Princeton on the L. P. Stone foundation. By MARK HOPKINs,
D.D. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. 1883. pp. 148.

The title of this work may awaken the expectation that it is a treatise on

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 881

Biblical psychology, a field in which, notwithstanding the labors of Delitzsch,
Beck, Heard, Laidlaw and others, there is still room for some one to do good
work. Dr. Hopkins, however, does not treat his subject eXegetically. He
considers man as created; and as in the image of God in knowledge, in feeling, in
moral nature, and in dominion. We are glad that Dr. Hopkins approached his
subject from the philosophical point of view here indicated, for besides giving
scope for the discussion of some very important topics in the sphere of ethical
and social science, it has enabled him to give us the results of his own independ-
ent thinking in the departments which are peculiarly his own, and in which he
has been for many years one of the foremost men of our time.

The first lecture deals with the creation of man, the author taking strong ground
against evolution. He finds the same inconsistency which others have found
between Mr. Spencer's evolution formula and his doctrine of the Unknowable,
and evidently feels, as others have felt, that Mr. Fiske’s kind offices as inter-
preter at the New York banquet have not helped matters. Mr. Fiske might
say, however, that his scheme of reconciliation contemplated science and
religion, and not science and Christianity, and that Dr. Hopkins ought not to
assume that evolution is incompatible with religion because it is incompatible
with Christianity, or to waive discussion by remarking that “no system that
denies a personal God can have an object of worship or be rationally made the
basis of religion.” Itis of great moment in the present state of things that this
position be maintained, and for this reason we wish that it had been dwelt upon
at greater length.

In the next lecture the writer deals with knowledge, belief, faith, and con-
sciousness. He distinguishes between intuitive truths and truths of the
reason. Faith he distinguishes from belief, as J. J. Murphy and others have
done. Belief, in his judgment, expresses a lower degree of assurance than
knowledge. In this he agrees with Locke. And he antagonizes with force,
and, we think, successfully, the position of Calderwood and Hamilton respect-
ing the priority of faith to knowledge. But when he remarks: “ Faith—belief
of any kind regarded as mere belief, except as based on evidence—what is it
but weakness and folly?” the question arises, What evidence is there to
support self-evident truths? Is belief in them also “weakness and folly” ?

The third lecture, on Feeling and Causation, is admirable. Dr. Hopkins
argues very forcibly that in the agency of which we are ourselves conscious we
have the true type of causation. Here he agrees with Bowne, Bowen, Diman,
Flint, Jackson, Kirkman, Mozley, Martineau, and, as Prof. Adamson says, with
the theistic writers generally.

The fourth lecture deals with man’s moral nature; the fifth is a well-consid-
ered and timely presentation of the scriptural idea of man, so far as his social
relations are concerned. Here the author takes the good old conservative
ground that the family is the unit of the social organism, and that the race
began its housekeeping history under ideal conditions.

“This was Adam’s idea, and it has not been improved upon since. Here was the most delicate and
complex relation of all time, one involving all human interests, and yet no statesman or philosopher has
been able to improve upon the ideal of it that Adam had and expressed when God brought his wife to him.
Men have invented spinning-jennies and telegraphs, and have made progress in many things, but in a right
apprehension of the underlying relation of society they have not gone beyond Adam. He struck the key-
note of social harmony for all time.”

The lecture on “The Man Christ Jesus” was the fitting close of a series of dis-
courses which were listened to with profound interest by large audiences. Terse
as Tacitus, lucid as a sunbeam, gleaming with humor and wedded to an elocution
that seemed to be expressly made to match the style, these lectures have revealed
to us a single point in which we differ seriously with their venerable author,

882 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

for in words which do not appear in print he cautiously introduced his course
by telling his audience that they were prepared with the wants of a class-room
in view, and weré’not, and were not meant to be, popular at all.

F. L. PATTON.

THE ASSOCIATE CKEED OF ANDOVER THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY. By EDWARDS
A.PARK. Boston: Franklin Press; Rand, Avery & Co. 1883. Published
at the request of Drs. R. S Storrs, Mark Hopkins, William M. Taylor, A. C.
Thompson, and many other Congregational Ministers.

The recent controversy between the different parties existing among the
friends of Andover Seminary, as far as it involves personal relations, or any
criticism whatever as to theological! belief or official integrity of any individual
or of any party, lies beyond the province of this REvrEw. On the other hand,
it is evident that the points so prominently raised in that controversy relating
to the ethics of creed subscription in general, and to the special elements
involved in the terms and the history of the Associate Creed of Andover Theo-
logical Seminary, are questions in which all men of our profession have a vital
interest, and which we are all presumably competent to discuss.

This paper of the veteran professor, Edwards A. Park, is in the highest de-
gree of public interest and value, and should have a wide circulation and in-
telligent study. Its interest is, in the first place, historical. His discussion
necessarily involves a resumé of the remarkable history of the genesis of An-
dover Seminary and its Creed. Professor Park relates that the great motive
which led to the foundation of this first of the permanent American Theological
Seminaries, was the general alarm occasioned by the inroads of Unitarianism
when, on May 14, 1805, Rev. Henry Ware, D.D., was inaugurated Hollis Pro-
fessor of Divinity in Harvard College. The new Seminary was grafted upon
Phillips Academy, in the town of Andover, and intrusted to the government of
the already existing Board of Trustees of that Academy. Of these Trustees a
majority were, by their constitution, required to be laymen, while only one was
required to be an educated man, or an orthodox believer, or even a professing
Christian, or either a Congregationalist or Presbyterian in ecclesiastical connec-
tion. More than one of these Trustees had been an avowed Unitarian, and one
continued to be so, long after this Board had accepted the trust of the Theolog-
ical Seminary.

Eliphalet Pearson, LL.D., with the aid of Dr. Jedidiah Morse, draughted the
Constitution and Statutes of the new Seminary. These men and their coadju-
tors were old Calvinists, and were severally followers of Watts, Doddridge, or
of President Dwight. The Westminster Assembly’s Shorter Catechism is espec-
ially made the standard of their doctrinal covenant in their original Statutes
and Declaration of faith, and the Constitution of the Seminary states that the
funds of the original Founders were given “on thz following express condition,”
that the “institution be forever conducted and governed by them (the trustees
and their successors) in conformity to the following general principles and regu-
lations.”

In the meantime a circle of Hopkinsian Calvinists, Drs. Samuel Spring, Na-
thaniel Emmons, Leonard Woods, etc., had accumulated funds in 1806 to estab-
lish a Seminary at Franklin, or afterward at Newbury, Mass., to be consecrated
to the war against Unitarianism, and specifically to the defence of what they
called “ Coms¢stent Calvinism.” After a lengthened period of consultation and
much concession on both sides, these two parties co-operated in the establish-
ment of the historical Seminary at Andover. The original Calvinists of An-
dover desired to found their Seminary on a Theological basis equivalent to that
assumed as the condition of ministerial communion in the Presbyterian Church,
viz., the Westminster Confession and Catechism as containing the system of

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 883

doctrine taught in the Sacred Scriptures, or, as they phrased it, “for substance
of doctrine.” Under the circumstances of the case, their new Hopkinsian As-
sociate Founders were unwilling to accept this basis. They were unwilling to
subscribe the Westminster Standards as expressing their belief, both for sub-
stance and form, because that was not in truth the fact. They were also unwill-
ing to leave the matter open by binding the Trustees and the Professors of their
Seminary to the acceptance of their standards only for substance of doctrine ;
leaving that “substance” undefined. They therefore insisted upon the prepa-
ration of a definite Creed in which the “substance” of the Catechism, as z-
derstood and admitted by them, is explicitly stated and forever bound upon the
officers of the Seminary. This is the ASSOCIATE CREED of Andover Theolog-
ical Seminary which every Professor is required to read and subscribe before
the Board of Trustees as the condition of his installation, and once every five
years thereafter as long as he holds the office. This Creed does not contain all that
the Hopkinsians believed, nor does it contain anything which they did not be-
lieve, and it expresses, on both sides, the very utmost that either party of the
founders of the Seminary were willing to concede, and what they united in de-
termining to demand as a condition forever of office-bearing in their institu-
tion. The Original Constitution of the Andover Calvinists, written by Dr.
Pearson, with the aid of Dr. Morse, also remains in perpetual force, except in
those instances in which the Additional or Associate Statutes have modified it.

Also because of the above-stated extraordinary Constitution of the Board of
Trustees of Phillips Academy, who had now become the Trustees of the Theo-
logical Seminary, the Associate brethren in 1808 insisted that a Board of
Visitors should be created, to preside over, and to a degree control, the actions
of the Board of Trustees. This Board consists of three persons, two of whom
must be Congregational ministers. They, like the Professors, must, upon induc-
tion and every five years thereafter, subscribe the Associate Creed, and declare
it to express their own personal belief. ‘They are in our (original founders)
place and stead, the guardians, overseers, and protectors of this our foundation
in the manner as is expressed in the following provisions,” in order “that the
trust aforesaid may be always executed agreeably to the true intent of this our
foundation; and that we may effectually guard the same in all future time
against all perversion, or the smallest avoidance of our true design as herein
expressed.”

This Board of Visitors is held responsible for “ determining, interpreting,
and explaining the Statutes (including the Creed) of this foundation with re-
spect both of professors and students, and in general to see that our true inten-
tions, as expressed in these Statutes, be faithfully executed.” They have also
the power of vetoing the act of the Trustees appointing a professor, and of
removing any professor for heterodoxy. “The Board of Visitors, in all their
proceedings, are to be subject to our Statutes herein expressed, and to conform
their measures thereto; and if they shall at any time act contrary to these, or
exceed the limits of their jurisdiction and constitutional power, the party ag-
grieved may have recourse, by appeal, to the Justices of the Supreme Judicial
Court of this Commonwealth for the time being for remedy, who are hereby
appointed and authorized to judge in such case, and, agreeably to the determi-
nation of a major part of them, to declare null and void any decree or sentence
of the said Visitors, which, upon mature consideration, they may deem contrary
to said Statutes, or beyond the just limit of their power, herein prescribed ; and by
the said Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court for the time being, shall the said
Board of Visitors at all times be subject to at restrained and corrected in the
undue exercise of their office.”

In the second Place, this paper of the great assed dialectician is a specimen

884 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of thorough, masterly, and triumphant argument. Dr. Park’s assertion is, that
with respect to four great doctrines emphatically affirmed in the Andover Creed,
viz., the entire trustworthiness of the religious and moral teachings of the
Bible ; that all the moral actions of men previous to conversion are sinful; the
objective reference of the atonement, or its effect upon God as a pre-condition
of pardon; that probation is confined to the present life; that these, one or
all, are perverted or denied by certain parties who, as Trustees or Professors,
are now administering the Andover trust. Of this assertion he offers no direct
proof in this paper, and of course we have no adequate information, and there-
fore no definite opinion, and no proper occasion to proclaim it, even if we en-
tertained it. But the real motive of this able paper, and its great contention,
which we believe the author establishes with absolutely unanswerable conclu-
siveness, is (1) that the intention of the founders of Andover Seminary was to
bind its Trustees and Visitors forever to the selection of such professors as
would believe and teach, and to bind the professors so selected to believe and
teach, the very doctrines in substance and form as they (the founders) believed
them, and intended to express them in their Creed; and further, that these
Founders made this conformity in doctrinal faith and teaching the condition of
the gift andof the continued enjoyment of their money. And (2) Dr. Park’s
contention is that this certain intention of the original Founders of Andover
Seminary morally and legally binds the Visitors "and Professors in succession
through all time.

The first of these propositions Professor Park proves in every possible way
from the known opinions and intentions of these Founders; from the history
of their consultations and compromises; from the design and constitution of
Phillips Academy, and the known opinions of its Founder; from the occasion,
genesis, substance, and form of the Associate Creed itself. He shows that the very
structure of the Creed requires each professor to declare its several propositions in
succession as eacha part of his personal faith—the phrase “1 believe’’ being neces-
sarily grammatically understood before each of the successive propositions. It is
by them styled a “common and permanent Creed.” They say, “ it is strictly
and solemnly enjoined, and left in sacred charge, that every article of the above
said Creed shall forever remain entirely and identically the same, without the
least alteration, or any addition or diminution.” The Trustees did “cheerfully
accept the same” (the endowment funds) “for the purposes and upon the
terms and conditions expressed in the said instrument ; and that we covenant
and engage faithfully to execute the sacred trust reposed, agreeably to said
Statutes” (which include the Creed, etc.) Besides saying, “I believe,” with
reference to every proposition of the Creed in succession, every professor must
promise to hold and teach the Christian faith “45 expressed in the Creed by me
now repeated.” The Statutes require that “every professor shall be a Congre-
gational or Presbyterian minister; an orthodox and consistent Calvinist,” and
that he shall “publicly make and subscribe a solemn declaration of his faith
in Divine Revelation, and in the fundamental distinguishing doctrines of the
Gospel as expressed in the following Creed.” The Visitors and the Professors
are required to repeat their personal declaration of faith and subscription to
the Creed every five years, with the same solemnity that is required at their
installation. The Visitors, in their successions, to act “in the place and stead
of” the original founders, thus perpetuating the personal providence of those
founders over their institution, not with discretion, but specifically to “guard
the same in all future time against all perversion, or the smallest avoidance of
our true design as herein expressed.”

Professor Park argues the same from the early history of the Seminary, from
the opinions of the first Professors, and from the discussions attending their

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 885

installations. He also states, discusses, and answers all the objections made to
the fact or to the reasonableness of the proposition he has undertaken to prove.
Upon the whole, he has made it as certain as possible that if any men in found-
ing an institution, and in conditioning the enjoyment of their benefactions, are
capable of expressing definite and immutable intention, then the Founders of
Andover Seminary did intend, and did in clear language give force to their in-
tention, that in all the matters covered by the propositions of the Associate
Creed, all the Visitors, and all the Professors of their Seminary, fiduciaries and
beneficiaries of their gifts, should believe and teach, and required the others to
believe and teach in their successions, as the Founders in their day believed and
defined in the words of their Creed. If this be not true, language is incompetent
to express thought, and human covenants are impracticable.

The second point included in the Professor’s contention is, that the certainly
ascertained intention of the Founders morally and legally binds the Trustees,
Visitors, and Professors forever. It is not a question of reasonableness, or
desirableness, but simply of contract, the sacredness of which the Constitution
of the United States recognizes as fundamental and essential to the welfare of
human society. The Founders gave their money on the express condition that
the Creed in their sense of it should be maintained without any change forever.

The Fiduciaries and the Beneficiaries must accept the trust on the same con-
ditions. Justice William Strong, of the Supreme Court of the United States,
in his Lectures before Union Theological Seminary, New York City, on “The
Relations of the Civil Law to Church Polity, Discipline and Property,” says
that when the Will, or Deed of Gift, or Terms of Subscription of the original
donors of the property, define and prescribe a specific doctrine, or particular
ecclesiastical connection, the civil courts will protect and enforce the trust.

It is credibly reported that one of the most honored of the Professors now
in the Andover Faculty said, at the meetings associated with the last Seminary
anniversary, “that he had that day, as he had on a number of previous occa-
sions, subscribed the Associate Creed deliberately and prayerfully as a religious
act. But that he would allow no man to dictate to him his interpretation of
that Creed.” Literally this last sentence is a matter of course. No max should
dictate to another in such a case. But if the implication is that the interpreta-
tion which a Professor or Visitor signing puts upon the Creed is the private
business of the signer alone, it is a radical error. To every contract there must
be two parties. The moral and legal principle upon which all test oaths or
pledges is interpreted, is that of the anzmus zmponentzs. In the case of the
subscription to the Westminster formularies of a candidate for the Presbyterian
ministry as the condition of his ordination, the anzmus zmponent7s is the gen-
eral mind of the Presbyterian Church expressed in its history, and in its con-
temporaneous higher courts. In the case of the Andover Professors, that anz-
mus is the intention of the Founders, expressed in their Statutes interpreted,
as they have provided, first by the Visitors, and ultimately by the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts.

As to the question of law, that Court will undoubtedly enforce the intention
of the Founders in their own sense of their words. But as to the matter of
fact, unless a Professor either refuses to sign, or point blank in words denies the
propositions of the Creed, it is not probable that the Court will pretend to de-
cide. No civil court, much less the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, will un-
dertake the interpretation of the propositions of that Creed severally, nor the
decision of metaphysical or of theological consistencies or diversities.

The part of Professor Park’s paper in which he appears to us unsuccessful, is
that in which he undertakes to prove unfounded the charge that he has himself
ever fallen below the strict and literal measure of fidelity to the Creed which he

886 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

now requires of others. He does very successfully show that the Andover Creed
is Hopkinsian to a degree, and that it so far departs from Old Calvinism and
the Westminster Catechism. He successfully shows that in respect to several
of the peculiar and controverted points of his theological teaching he was
clearly within the limits of the Creed. But at times his keenness is put to a
severe test. The Professor has taught that God did not covenant with Adam
as the representative of his descendants, and that consequently Adam’s sin is
not imputed to his descendants; and yet the Professor has every five years of
his official life declared “1 believe—that Adam, the federal head and representa-
tive of the human race, was placed in a state of probation.” Thus it appears
that God did not enter into a covenant of works with Adam in English, but he
did in Latin, and that although Adam represented us, we were not represented
in him. Itisto be feared that this want of entire clearness in the explanation
of a part of the history of the Seminary, will prevent this righteous and power-
ful argument from having all the influence otherwise due to it over its present
and its future.

Nevertheless, the paper is a grand one. The reading of it is an education.
It ought to be universally circulated and read. A. A. HODGE.

THE following deserve brief notice:

Present Day Tracts, on Subjects of Christian Evidence, Doctrine and Morals.
By various writers. Vol. I., containing first six numbers, which may also be
had separately. (The Religious Tract Society, London.) These tracts are for
popular use rather than for scholars, nevertheless they are strictly scholarly and
able, and upon subjects of the highest and freshest interest The Tracts have
all been published in the first instance separately. In that form they number at
present 15. Six of these are collected in the present neat volume. They are
on the following subjects: “Christianity and Miracles at the Present Day,”
“ Christ the Central Evidence of Christianity,’ and “ The Success of Christian-
ity and Modern Explanations of it,” by the Rev. Principal Cairns, D.D.; “ The
Historical Evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the Dead,” and
“The Existence and Character of God,” by the Rev. Prebendary Row, M.A.;
and “Christianity and the Life that Now Is,” by the Rev. W. G. Blaikie, Ὁ. D.,
LL.D.—Studies of Creation and Life. By Rev. F. Godet, D.D., Professor in the
College, Neuchatel, Switzerland. American edition. (Boston: Congregational
Society. 1882.) Professor Godet’s “ Lectures in Defence of the Christian
Faith” have already been noticed in this REVIEW, vol. iii., p. 427. The pres-
ent selection from his Essays is the first that has been published in America,
and is presented as an experiment. If well received by the public, the rest are
promised by the same publishing society. The subjects are of the highest
importance and their treatment learned, original, and essentially evangelical and
spiritual. We trust the public will demand the entire series.—Avéethezsm: Re-
marks on tts Modern Spirzt. By Richard Hill Sandys, M.A., of Lincoln’s Inn,
Barrister-at-law, author of “In the Beginning,” etc., ‘They wist not what it
was.” Exodus xvi. 15. 12mo, pp. 224. (London: Pickering ἃ Co. 1883.)
This book is from an able and truly Christian layman, and is full of valuable
thoughts. But the order is obscure, since there are no divisions indicative of
the progress of thought, or of the transitions from one topic to another, in the
entire book.—Does Science Aid Iaith in regard to Creation? By Rt. Rev. Henry
Cotterill, D.D., F.R.S.E.; Ave Miracles Credible? By Rev. J. J. Lias, M.A. ;
Life: Is It Worth Living? By J. Marshall Lang, D.D. These are all trea-
tises on the most important subjects of present interest, and in defence of the
truth, by able and well-known writers. They are published by Hodder &

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 887

Stoughton, Paternoster Row, London, 1883. They form the initial volumes of
The Theological Library. A Series of Volumes dealing with current Religious
Questions in a Catholic Spirit and in a style suitable for general readers.”
A. A. HopGE.

IV.—PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.

ENGLISH STYLE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE, with special reference to the Usages of
the Pulpit. By AUSTIN PHELPs, D.D., late Bartlet Professor of Sacred Rhetoric
in Andover Theological Seminary. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1883.

Most books of rhetoric are only repetitions. From Aristotle down to the latest
text-book, they repeat the same principles and almost the same illustrations, Pro-
fessor Phelps, of course, does not claim to have written a strictly original treatise,
and yet certainly he has given us many “ variations upon that which has been said.”
Like all the books which he has recently published upon this general theme, these
lectures are remarkable for their freshness and interest and practicality. They indi-
cate wide reading and observation, acute discrimination, and careful and just
thought. As in his other books, so in this, the author’s illustrations are remarkably
novel and interesting and pertinent. And they are all the better because so many
of them are humorous, for these not only are enjoyed the more, but remembered
the longer. Perhaps it is too much to expect, yet how little humor one can find in
Quintillian, or Blair, or Campbell !

These lectures are systematic, and this is not a matter of course, for as the author
truly remarks in his preface, “ Criticism must consist of a vast amount of miscel-
laneous suggestion. Yet the teaching of an art creates a corresponding science.
This is susceptible of systematic treatment,” and such treatment is here given.
The fundamental qualities of style are analyzed, and under each of these are
arranged the practical suggestions relevant to it, and valuable to the literary or
professional reader. In the first lecture, the definition of style is discussed, and in
successive lectures: purity of style, precision, perspicuity, energy, elegance, variety,
and naturalness are considered. Now and then, related topics are discussed by
means of excursus. The whole is followed by an appendix containing a catalogue
of words and phrases which are chiefly violations, either of English purity or of pre-
cision, or are of doubtful authority in the usage of good writers.

The method of the whole book is clear and natural, yet now and then the sub-
ordinate principles and rules are not stated as perspicuously as we could desire,

certainly not as clearly as would be desirable in a text-book. Perhaps, however,
this apparent obscurity arises, in this case, from the critic’s dulness.

In the first lecture several pages are devoted to the definition of style. Five or
six definitions of other critics are given, followed by his own conclusion, that “ style
is thought.” There is much acuteness and ingenuity and vigor in our author’s
discussion, but his definition is certainly unsatisfactory. We cannot here discuss
the subject fully, and yet in our judgment, no better definition can, after all, be
given than that “style is the manner of expressing thought in language, whether
oral or written.”’

Style is not the thought itself, nor is it the language, but it is the way in which
the language is used to express the thought. Of course, we admit that thought is
given by the speaker or the writer to the manner of expression.as well as to the
original subject of thought itself ; but to say this is a mere truism : it does not define
the resu/¢ of such thought which is s¢y/e,

These lectures claim to have “ special reference to the usages of the pulpit.” As
we read the earlier pages we wished that those “ references’ had been more fre-

888 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

quent, but they increase as the lectures proceed, greatly to the profit of the pro-
fessional reader.

There is no doubt as to what school in theology the writer belongs. It is to be
hoped that his discussions of the examples that he gives of impropriety in the
coinage of words such as “ guilt’ and “ punishment ” and “ original sin,” will not
prejudice any clerical readers against his excellent homiletical precepts.

Professor Phelps has no patience with those preachers who make clear thinking
obscure, by clothing it in philosophical forms, or else try to give dignity to puerile
thought by an artificial style, or who make their sermons obscure by the desire to
avoid commonplace. He wisely warns our preachers to be on their guard against
those affectations of style, which he well names “ the disease of artificial depth,” and
for which they can find no excuse on the ground of its necessity to what they call
“the higher thinking.” There can be no doubt that Coleridge “ advanced a perilous
principle,” when he maintained that clearness of style is evidence of superficial-
ness. It is perilous, for it has tempted more than one author into the grossest
affectations of style. Even that brilliant writer, Horace Bushnell, could say in his
“ Dissertation on Language,” “Shall I say that of all the ‘clear’ writers I have
met with—those, I mean, who are praised tor their transparency—I have never yet
found one, who was able to send me forward an inch, or one that was really true,
save in a superficial or pedagogical sense, as being an accurate distribution of that
which is known.” Who that is familiar with Dr. Bushnell’s later books, cannot
recognize the evil effect of this idea upon his style? What a contrast, in this direc-
tion, do we find in the style of the lectures of Dr. Charles Hodge! So careful was
he to be perspicuous, that every sentence in his lectures not intelligible to his wife,
was rewritten, until to her it was made perfectly clear. In his writing, surely, there
is “ higher thinking” enough without any symptom of the “disease of artificial
depth.”

There is much in this latest of the books of Professor Phelps that should receive
the heartiest endorsement. We believe, with him, that it is the duty of the Chris-
tian preacher to guard our language from degeneracy, to handle it as a sacred trust.
We believe, with him, that all our preachers should assist the tendency of popular
thought to systematize Christian truth. We believe, with him, that it is an invalu-
able mental habit for the preacher to picture an audience in the solitude of the
study. This will give reality to the sermon as nothing else can. This will turn
soliloquy into discourse. And yet one of the strongest and clearest writers in this
country to-day can say that, in writing a sermon, he never thinks of his audience ;
his only object is the complete development of his theme. No wonder that in the
pulpit he is a comparative failure !

The excursus, which answers the question, ‘ Ought the biblical emblems of eter-
nal punishment to be employed by the modern pulpit?” is an earnest and faithful,
and, in the main, truthful discussion of a most serious as well as very timely topic.
And yet we have thought that if modern symbols of retribution could be used in
preaching, which would produce the same effect upon modern audiences which
those symbols used by our Lord produced upon those who heard him, the same
purpose would be effected, with less prejudice perhaps,

Nothing can be more true than what our author says about “ intemperate expres-
sion,” “ vituperation,” “ frenzied discussion,” “‘ malign denunciation ” in the pulpit.
And yet there are preachers to-day who are evidently intensely anxious to attain
distinction, and wonder why they do not achieve permanent influence, when the
reason is they have not yet found out that “ unmitigated reproof is never powerful,
because it is never true. The power of reproof is augmented by kindly expression.”

‘« Feebly must they have felt
Who in old times attired with snakes and whips
The vengeful Furies, Beautiful regards
Were turned on me, the wife and mother,
Pitifully fixing tender reproaches.”’

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 889

We wish we had the space to call attention to many more excellent suggestions
which our author has given us in this excellent and useful book. Among many
other things we could mention, we thank him for calling attention so often, by quota-
tion and otherwise, to De Quincey—a writer who, though profuse and discursive,
had a most delicate and subtle critical faculty, with a style remarkable for a felicit-
ous selection of words. We wish somebody would publish a judicious selection
of his master-pieces from the twenty-one volumes courageously published in Boston,
And we thank Professor Pheips for the sanction that he gives to the word “climactic.”
It ought to be established by usage, beyond dispute. ANSON J. UPSON.

ABIDE IN CHRIST: Thoughts on the Blessed Life of Fellowship with the Son of
God. By A.M. “Abide in me, and I in you.” New York: A. Ὁ. F. Randolph
& Co.

The title of this little book suggests clearly its design. It discusses, in a very
practical way, the meaning of these words of our Lord, the possibility of abiding in
him, the advantages of such union, and the means of attaining it.

It is not a book to be read rapidly. It is intended rather as a little manual for
frequent use. It is divided into thirty-one chapters, which the author calls “ days,”
and read thus, day by day, thoughtfully and prayerfully, it could not fail to be useful.

It opens with the parable of “ The Vine and the Branches,” and its value consists
in the author’s study of this parable, and the explanations and suggestions he has
found there. But while this parable furnishes the main topic of the book, each
chapter has its own text, and is a meditation on that text. Each one sets forth,
with simplicity and directness, some definite thought ; and there is an agreeable
absence of the exclamation points and ejaculations, which seem, too often, to make
a large part of books of this class. An interesting chapter is on Christ’s conde-
scending love in appointing his disciples to reveal him to the world, by their rich
fruitage of Christian virtues and graces. Another is on Christ as our wisdom. It
treats of that combined mental and moral culture which we call wisdom, by which
men see justly and judge wisely in both temporal and spiritual affairs; and which
comes to the believer as he aéédes in Christ. The twenty-first “day ” discusses
prayer. It is, says the author, by abiding in Christ that we learn to know and love
his will. The earnest wishes of a soul thus in harmony with Christ, will seldom be
such as he must deny. When one is taught of the Spirit what to pray for, he may
ask whatsoever he will and it shall be given to him.

In the treatment of such a topic as this, there is certainly danger of becoming ~
mystical, or of forcing from an illustration meanings it was never intended to convey.

There are, in certain chapters of this book, indications of both of these faults, and
yet, it seems to us, that on the whole the author gives us the simple meaning of our
Lord’s words and such lessons as they plainly teach; and the result has been a
manual well worth reading. A. J. UPSON.

THE LAMB IN THE MIDST OF THE THRONE; or, The History of the Cross.
By JAMEs M. SHERWOOD. New York: Funk ἃ Wagnalls.

This large and handsome volume testifies to the diligence and zeal of the
author. Its more than five hundred pages are filled with Scripture truth set
forth with power and unction, although without the /uczdus ordo which enables
one to state, in few words, its precise design or the exact scope of the discus-
sion. To do this it would be necessary to transcribe the table of contents. The
chief incitement of the author to produce the work was the state of the times,
which, to him, is so discouraging that, being cut off by years and physical
infirmity from the oral proclamation of the truth, he avails himself of the press
to exercise the critic’s function, and hold up the principles which require to be
set forth anew and enforced in every pulpit,

57

890 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Mr. Sherwood draws in the opening chapters what he confesses to be a sombre
picture of the present condition of things. Materialism prevails everywhere—
in science, in art, in literature, in music, in the drama, even in the hymnody of
the Sunday-schools, and in the popular conceptions of the future life. So, too,
the pulpit is debased by the spirit of the age, by neglect of the written Word,
by timidity ; defects which, it is held, are due to the deficient teaching of the
theological seminaries, which lacks elasticity, overlooks the Word, is given to
theorizing, cultivates the critical spirit, and fails to produce men fitted for the
needs of the times, as may be seen by comparing the present average pulpit
with the apostle Paul or with the early triumphs of Christianity. This is, in
our view, much the best part of the book. It is always good to have a trenchant
criticism honestly performed. Many of Mr. Sherwood’s points are well taken.
Others are utterly groundless (as, e. g., beneficiary education, and the cost of
seminaries); but it will do no harm to subject all these matters to a thorough
scrutiny. ‘“ Faithful are the wounds ofa friend.” The office of a reprover is so
distasteful that few are willing to undertake it, and when any one does unbur-
den his mind in a kindly way, the part of wisdom is to welcome the service and
turn it to the best possible use.

But when we consider the positive presentation of Mr. Sherwood’s views, it
does not appear that he who points out a fault is the precise person to remove
it. Nothing in the choice of topics or the treatment of them meets the exigency
of the case. What is said is true and scriptural and fervent, but it has all been
said before just as well. And, besides, the respected author seems to write from
the point of view a generation and a half ago. He quotes Jenkyn on the Atone-
ment, and refutes Dick’s “ Philosophy of a Future State,” as if these were live
books and not long since put by Time in his wallet as alms for oblivion. He
has hardly kept up with the progress of theology, which, though in its essence
absolute and unchangeable, yet from age to age incessantly changes front and
presents a new side to meet emergent errors. And while Mr. Sherwood is val-
iant for doctrinal truth in general, he yet asserts one of the wildest of delusions :
viz., the pre-existence of our Lord’s humanity. The only authority all the past
yields for this is Dr. Watts, who, although the most amiable of men and the
sweetest of Israel’s modern singers, is by no means a great name in theology.
It is Dr. Watts and Mr. Sherwood contra mundum. The first appendix to the
volume contains a notice of the late Prof. Henry B. Smith, with whom the
author was for many years closely connected in editorial work. In this are
mentioned some interesting statements which escaped the notice of all previous
writers. T. W. CHAMBERS.

STUDIES OF NEGLECTED TEXTs. By CuHas. 5. ROBINSON, D.D., Pastor of the
Memorial Church, New York City. New York: American Tract Society.

In a “ Prefatory Note” the author thus explains the title and contents of his book :
“ This volume of sermons, selected from those delivered in the course of ordinary
pastoral work, is peculiar in that the discourses are founded upon passages of Script-
ure seldom chosen for the pulpit.” Beyond question the Bible abounds in passages
which lie comparatively unnoticed in their surroundings, which are yet weighty with
Divine thought of precious and profound significance. The homiletical advantage
flowing from the use of such texts, the gain in suggestiveness, freshness, and fer-
tility, is well illustrated in several of these discourses. In some the choice of text
and theme is peculiarly happy, as when the words of Rey. xii. 16, “And the earth
helped the woman,” are used to suggest the helpfulness of science to the Church.
In some instances we note a felicitous harmony between the choice of texts and the
statement of the theme, as when “ Two Pulpits” (the sick-bed, and the restored
health) is given as the theme of the text, “ And immediately she was made straight, and

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE. 891

glorified God ” (Luke xiii. 13). In other instances the statement is somewhat more
fanciful, verging on the sensational, as when “ Drawing Lightning” is announced as
the theme of the text, “ And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children” (Luke i. 17), the subject of the ser-
mon being the work of the Sunday-school organization, as “ discharging harmlessly
the Old Testament malediction, and becoming the instrument of fulfilling the bene-
dictions of the New.” In the sermon on Ps. cxix. 99, we fail to appreciate the
perfect appositeness of the theme, “ Wiser than My Teachers,” to the chief topic
discussed, the successful use of Bible texts in public address, There are, moreover,
a number of texts used, which, so far as our observation goes, can scarcely be called
“neglected ”; such as Ps. Ixxxiv. 5, 6; John xviii. 40; Rom. i. 14; 1 Cor.ix.27; Ps.
exlvi. 4; Col. iii. 15 ;*Matt. xxii. 42; Rev. iv. Ἂς

As a whole the volume will be found to contain striking and suggestive views of
Scripture passages, such as, it may be hoped, will interest the mind, fix themselves
in the memory, and serve for spiritual edification. LL. J. EVANS.

Porms. By JONES VERY. With an Introductory Memoir by WILLIAM P. AN-
DREWS.
“ And all their motions upward be,
And ever as they mount, like larks they sing.
The note is sad, yet music for a king.’ -Gzorce HERBERT.

Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co. 12mo, pp. 155. 1883.

This book is in many ways unique. It is intrinsically interesting, but its great
attraction is found in the very unusual and noble personality of the author, as
disclosed alike by the Memoir and by his poems. He was that strange phenom-
enon—a Unitarian Mystic, a disciple of Channing, and an intimate friend of
Emerson, and an enthusiast for holiness, and intimate personal communion with
God. He regarded himself as inspired. He uttered his poetry as it was given
him. Dr. Clarke said of him that “ he believed that one whose object is not to
do his own will in anything, but constantly to obey God, is led by Him, and
taught in all things. He is a son of God, as Christ was THE SON, because He
always did the things which pleased the Father.” Mr. Very said every man
would attain to this when he made the final sacrifice in filial obedience, and he
believed himself to have done so.

He wasa regular Unitarian clergyman, born in 1813, and died in 1880, and
spent nearly all his life in Salem, Mass. Those who best knew him said that
Isaak Walton’s description of the saintly George Herbert most exactly pictures
Mr. Very as he appeared in later life. His poetry is not remarkable for its per-
fection of form, but chiefly for its expression of profound spiritual life and
insight. He held that having made a complete sacrifice of himself, and being
consequently hidden in Christ, he had become the voice of the Holy Ghost, who
spake through him. Emerson urged him to speak whenever he was moved,
and not to neglect his gift. Yet he never attempted to proselyte. He held that
his whole duty was to utter the words “given” to him. He was not responsible
for their effect or non-effect on others. A. A, HODGE.

BOOKS FOR PRACTICAL EDIFICATION:

Love for Souls. By the Rev. Wm. Scribner. (American Tract Society.)
This is a reissue, as No. 5, of a series of Tracts for the Times, of a volume first
published a year or two since. It is eminently worthy of a wide circulation.
The subject is of great practical importance and needs to be pressed upon the
attention of the church. Mr. Scribner has a happy faculty of seizing the salient
points of the matter and presenting them with simplicity and earnestness. Not
a tinge of extravagance is found in his counsels, for zeal never runs away with

892 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

judgment. The author is serious and incisive, but takes the reader with him
by the profound reasonableness of his suggestions. The book may be warmly
recommended. Even experienced and active Christians could read it with
profit, much more all beginners in the religious life. Certain it is that the rank
and file of the sacramental host must be much more thoroughly engaged than
they now are, before the day of victory arrives.—Our Eastern Sisters. By H.
W. Ellis. (London Tract Society and A. D. F. Randolph & Co.) This volume
gives an account of what has been done by women among the women of the
East. Successive chapters treat of the work carried on in the various provinces
of India, in Batavia and Borneo, in Persia, in Egypt, China, Burmah, Syria,
concluding with a record of some female medical missions. It is very gratify-
ing to see that in so many fields this indispensable part of the method of
spreading the Gospel is carefully attended to. The book is filled with incidents
showing the need of just such an agency, and the success which has so far been
gained. It has the true missionary ring in that the work of all denominations
is treated with equal regard, and nothing indicates to which fold of the Church
Catholic the authoress belongs.—Among the Mongols. By Rev. Jas. Gilmour.
(Same publishers.) This very handsome volume eschews history and statistics,
and aims simply to note the manners and customs and beliefs and practices of
the tribes living in Mongolia. The author by itinerating in the region for mis-
sionary purposes for a series of years attained very full and accurate knowledge
of these people, and his record seems to be every way trustworthy. The book
is illustrated by native sketches. which without being prodigies of art, yet help
the reader to understand the letterpress. The author writes in a direct, simple,
and manly style, and his pages are both interesting and instructive. His ac-
count of Buddhism as a working force, its idolatry, superstition, and emptiness,
the ignorance and immorality of the /amas or priests, and the degradation of
the people, furnishes a very vivid contrast to the rose-colored pictures we often
see of Sakya Mounz’s religion. Mr. Gilmour also shows the difficulty of bring-
ing the Mongols to a better faith, and acknowledges the small success of his
mission thus far. Τ. W. CHAMBERS.

V.—GENERAL LITERATURE.

A HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES, FROM THE REVOLU-
TION TO THE CIVIL WaR. By JOHN BACH MCMASTER. In five volumes.
Vol. I., 8vo, pp. xv. and 622. New York: Ὁ. Appleton & Co. 1883.

Mr. McMaster has conceived the plan of an extensive work, the execution of
which will require many years spent in the accumulation of material and in labo-
rious comparison and sifting of authorities. The task he has undertaken might well
discourage a student less persevering and enthusiastic, or a writer less facile with
the pen. The period which he intends to cover is, indeed, not a very long one as
reckoned by the number of years—only one or two years beyond three-quarters of a
century—but it is a period of surpassing importance, not so much in itself, as in its
bearing upon the succeeding period of unexampled national growth and material
development upon which the United States have entered. Should Mr. McMaster
be permitted to complete his design, and give us in four more volumes (will four
prove sufficient for the purpose ?) the chronicle of the process that gradually trans-
muted, before the eyes of mankind, thirteen feeble and loosely-confederated States,
without manufactures and almost without commerce, into one of the leading powers
of the civilized world, he will have rendered a service entitling him to the grateful

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. 893

recognition of thoughtful men in both hemispheres. Such a history, the result of
conscientious and thorough study, composed with impartiality and inspired through-
out by singleness of purpose to be truthful in the highest sense, will prove an
indispensable guide to the correct understanding of the causes of the war between
the States, of which the memory is yet fresh in the minds of the older part of the
present generation. As the first volume of a treatise of this character the book
before us will serve a very useful end—among other things, in dispelling many
inveterate prepossessions. The reader will not advance many pages in the fasci-
nating narrative before finding fresh corroboration of the folly of the inquiry, What is
the cause that the former days were better than these? For he will come to the
conclusion that, not only in those matters of personal convenience and every-day life
that contribute so much to the comfort of each individual, but also in many things
in which we are wont to deem the times of our forefathers to have been superior to
our own, the pleasant places have in reality been reserved for us. It is a graceful and
not unfilial habit of ours to make of the men that fought for liberty in the war of
the Revolution heroes of a somewhat Homeric type. We endow these creations of
our imagination with every conceivable human or superhuman perfection, and de-
plore the impossibility of finding their counterparts in our own times. But an attentive
reading of Mr. McMaster’s pages will dispel much of this illusion. In the virulence
of party spirit to which we shall be made witnesses as prevailing in the years imme-
diately following the close of the peace with England, we may find proof that the
world in general, and our own country in particular, had reached a much lower plane
of civilization than that now attained. We shall be led to doubt whether, after all,
that was the age of gold, as compared with which we are at present living in an age
of iron or brass. Possibly we may arrive at an estimate not unlike that which Socrates
formed respecting the responsibility attaching to Miltiades, Themistocles, and Peri-
cles and other statesmen of the same exalted type, for the evils that came toa head a
score or two of years later, in what was reputed a degenerate age. We may come to
believe it probable that the moral and economic errors that brought on, and seemed
to render almost unavoidable, the most bloody conflict our country has ever beheld,
were directly traceable to the earlier transgression of laws, divinely instituted, which
can never be violated with impunity. The age of Jefferson and Madison must, then,
be held to account for evils that culminated in the age of Buchanan and Douglas.

The theme which Mr. McMaster has chosen is, therefore, a worthy one, and one
that calls for the greatest skill on the part of him who would do it justice. And
our historian has, in the treatment of it, spared no time or trouble. He has pre-
pared himself bya wide study of the best authorities, including the lives and the corre-
spondence of the principal actors in the scenes described. He has made himself
very familiar with a source of which few before him have availed themselves so
much ; we mean the contemporary newspapers and other periodicals, the political
pamphlets, handbills, and broadsides. In fact, there is no bit of printed matter so
insignificant or ephemeral from which he has not been anxious to extract whatever
fact it might afford him bearing upon the social or intellectual condition of the
people. And all this information, gathered from so many quarters, has been care-
fully co-ordinated and arranged, and has been set forth in language singularly read-
able and attractive. In the formation of this style the influence of a familiarity with
the essays and historical writings of Macaulay is undoubtedly traceable, and instances
of unconscious imitation can certainly be pointed out. But the blemishes, if blem-
ishes they are, are insignificant in number, and might easily be removed ; and the
fact remains that our author’s natural style is brilliant, never falling to the level of
commonplace, and always enlivened by apposite illustrations and comparisons.

The only serious objection which we find to Mr. McMaster’s volume is the almost
total absence of the religious element. If the Church is ever mentioned, it is but
incidentally. The New England minister is, indeed, referred to in the introductory

894 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

chapter, devoted to a highly entertaining and instructive view of the manners and
customs of our fathers at the close of the Revolution ; but that personage, though
too essential a factor of society to be altogether ignored, is evidently a distasteful
subject of discussion, and is gladly dropped after two or three pages, in which his
“sectarianism,” his ‘‘ narrow-mindedness,” and his “absurd pedantry” play the
most prominent part. Apart from these unsympathetic allusions, we look in vain for
any adequate view of the religious tenets and institutions of our country at the critical
juncture with which the book is concerned. The omission is a grave one ; we wish
that we might hope that it would be filled in a future edition of a work destined, we
confidently believe, to occupy a permanent and an honored place in American his-
torical literature. HENRY M., BAIRD.

IN THE SHADOW OF THE PYRENEES. From Basque-Land to Carcassonne. By
MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D. With etchings and maps. Charles Scribner’s
Sons. Z

This volume introduces Americans in a very attractive way to a region of
great natural beauty and historic interest, and as yet comparatively little visited
by us. To write a good book of travels demands various and high qualities of
mind and heart. Most such books are sufficiently dry to repel readers from
going to see the lands and people they describe. There are, however, good
books of travel, which give us almost the delight of journeying, without its
weariness or expense. Theophile Gautier in his charming volumes on St.
Petersburg and Spain; H. A. Taine’s Tour through the Pyrenees, are specimens
of the better class.

With these Dr. Vincent’s may be ranked. Like them, it has the charm of
literary excellence. Like them too, it has the art of description which paints
scenes or scenery vividly and accurately. It resembles them, once more, in
weaving into the narrative, many characteristic points of ancient or modern
history, and in giving a critical insight into the inner life and habits of the
communities visited. The author, as the reader will find, has read what others
have had to say on the region and has thus given us his views compared with
and tested by those of other travellers.

Dr. Vincent’s aim seems to have been to give, by a principle of selection, an
account of towns and places which may be regarded as fairly representative of the
country and the life of the people he visited. This he describes for us in his
chapters Bayonne, Biarritz, Euscaldanac, San Sebastian, Lourdes, Toulouse,
Carcassonne. In the seventeen chapters which make up the book, the reader
will find that something distinctively peculiar to the region is brought out in
every one. It may be scenery or institutions, or mode of travel, or a peculiar
people, but it is a salient feature of his journey. The result is that by his
method of selection, Dr. Vincent has given us modestly but effectively a true
and lifelike picture.

If we were called upon to name the most striking chapters in the volume, the
account of Anglet (ch. 2) would be first mentioned. The author’s description
of one of the noblest fruits of Christian charity, and one of the oddest develop-
ments of Romish superstition, is in his best vein. His chapter (ch. 7) on the
Basques, with that following on Euscaldanac, brings to notice a most interesting
people, around whose descent hangs so much mystery, and whose language has
provoked from philologists so much discussion. Readers who are interested in
modern Romish miracles would do well to examine the calm and thorough ac-
count of Lourdes (ch. 15). In historical interest, however, no chapter is richer
than that on Toulouse (ch. 16). That city has so bad an eminence in the story
of religious persecutions as fully to justify the author in his careful digest of its
history. If any one desires to complete and verify Dr. Vincent’s studies let

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. 895

him read chapter iv. in Christie’s Life of Etienne Dolet, the martyr of the Re-
naissance.

The descriptive power evinced by the author is a noticeable feature through-
out. Dr. Vincent has the gift of seeing the best points in everything he under-
takes to depict. Some of his descriptions of the scenery are of very great
beauty. In fact, the only criticism we should venture to make would be that
his rare facility may have tempted him to excess; yet this must be the basis in
every good book of travels. Excellent maps and handsome etchings accom-
pany the volume and enrich it. We commend the book heartily to readers,
especially to such as may be thinking of a trip to this fascinating region.

J. O. MuRRaAyY.

THE LIFE AND ACHIEVEMENTS OF EDWARD HENRY PALMER, late Lord Al-
moner’s Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge, and Fellow of
St. John’s College. By WALTER BESANT, M.A. London, 1883.

Opposite to the title-page of this volume is the wood-cut portrait of a man
dressed in Oriental costume, fez and all. The features are Oriental. The full
eyes are those of a linguist; the long, tapering fingers seem fitted for deft,
skilful work. The picture is itself a biography, an epitome of the book. For
Palmer was exactly what we should expect from his likeness—a man saturated
with Oriental life and thought, an eloquent talker, full of resources, eager to
see new things, and able to extricate himself from the most desperate straits.
The life here told is a romance, and its close has the appropriateness of clever
fiction. We turn page after page, to find new incidents of an extraordinary
character. This statement is made in ail seriousness. Here we are told how a
boy, destined to be a great scholar, born in Cambridge, the site of the great
English university, grew up without scholarly tastes ; how by dint of persever-
ance and ingenious devices he acquired a knowledge of Romany, the
Gipsy language ; how he was dock clerk in a London importing house, and used
his position to learn Italian of all kinds, from the pure Tuscan to the sailor
lingo; how he learned French in similar fashion and variety. This was cut short
after three years by a pulmonary trouble, and in 1859 he went hometodie. But
he did not die. His restless nature would not allow him to be idle during his
convalescence, so he tried writing poetry, acting with an amateur corps, wood-
engraving, modeling, drawing, and painting. He resumed his classical reading ;
produced two plays, which were acted in Cambridge in 1860, and, finally, began
the study of Arabic under an accomplished Indian Mohammedan. It was then
he first found his life-work. In an incredibly short time he spoke and wrote
Persian, Hindustani, and Arabic with ease and correctness. In 1862 he attracted
marked attention, and the next year he matriculated at Cambridge, and in 1867
was elected to a fellowship at St. John’s. The election was quite irregular, and
due entirely to his marvellous attainments in Oriental languages and literature.

Shortly afterward he went in the capacity of interpreter and linguist to
Arabia, with the Sinai Ordnance Survey party (1867-69). It was a great chance
for him. He applied himself assiduously to the Bedawin dialect and mastered
it. He studied Bedawin character and fathomed it. His special work was to
ascertain from the Bedawin the correct nomenclature of the Peninsula, a task
extremely delicate and difficult. In 1869 he was sent out with Tyrwhitt Drake
by the Palestine Exploration Fund Committee to explore the Tih country. It
was on this expedition, at Nukl, that Palmer received the sobdvdguet of “ Sheikh
Abduliah,” which he afterward adopted. The results of these two journeys he
embodied in his Desert of the Exodus (Lond., 1871, 2 vols.). In 1871 he became
Lord Almoner’s professor of Arabic at Cambridge, with a stipend of £40, but
his fellowship brought his income up to £350. He was married Nov. 11, 1871,

896 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the day after his appointment. His wife died in 1878, and in 1879 he married
again. In 1874 he published his complete Arabic grammar, his Outlines of Scrépt-
ure Geography and his Hzstory of the Fewish Natton. In 1874 he began a Per-
sian dictionary. The first part (Persian-English) was published in 1876; the sec-
ond (English-Persian), found nearly completed at his death, has just been issued
under competent editorship. In 1880 he published his Lzfe of the Caliph
Haroun Alraschid, a striking contrast to the preceding A7zs¢ory, fresh, lively,
intelligent, and instructive ; the hero of the “ Arabian Nights ” lives once more ;
and his translation of the Koran, in 2 vols., for Max Miiller’s “ Sacred Books of
the East.” By this last work he greatly increased his reputation. In 1881 he
published the Arabic and English name-lists of the Palestinian Surveyors, with
explanations, a valuable but tedious labor. In the next year appeared his Sz7-
plified Grammar of Hindustani, Persian, and Arabic, a very small book, which
awakens expectations that the by-path to the royal road to learning has been
discovered at last, for if three such difficult languages can be presented in so
small a compass, not much study is requisite to acquire any tongue. In that
year he revised for the British and Foreign Bible Society, in connection with
Dr. Bruce, Henry Martyn’s Persian New Testament.

In 1881 Palmer gave up his connection with the University and became a
writer for the London S¢audard daily newspaper. He thoroughly enjoyed his
work ; its constant change was very congenial. In June, 1882, he volunteered
to go among the Bedawin of the Arabian desert and dissuade them from mak-
ing common cause with Arabi Pasha, and also to arrange for a sufficient guard
for the Canal. He was formally commissioned to do this, and also to buy
camels. He sailed from Brindisi July 3d, went to Jaffa, then to Gaza and into

he desert. There he met various sheikhs, and succeeded admirably in his com-
mission. On August Ist he arrived in Suez and made his report. It was noth-
ing short of marvellous, for “alone, and single-handed, he [had] induced the
tribes to trust his promises ; to rise at his bidding ; to guard the Canal; to line
it with guards, if necessary; and, if called upon, to fight Arabi’s Nile Bedawin
with fifty thousand men” (p. 235). On August 6th, Palmer, Captain Gill, and
Flag-Lieutenant Charrington started to meet sheikhs upon the Sinai desert to
buy 750 camels. On the roth, Thursday, they were taken prisoners in the Wady
Sudr. The next evening they were driven toward the edge of the gully to be
shot. But before the signal was given one of the Bedawin fired upon Palmer
and killed him. The others endeavored to get down the cliff, but all the party
were finally killed. Thus died a man to whom England is greatly indebted.
Among her heroes he will forever be reckoned, It is fitting that his dust lies
in the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral.

This meagre sketch fails to do justice to its subject. But we trust that enough
has been said to call attention to the book. The story of such a life is the best
of reading. We are glad to notice that the book is now in its second edition,
and that an American reprint is announced. In these prosaic days, to find a
man who was scholar, poet, orator, linguist, translator, painter, actor, magician,
mesmerist, and good-fellow, all combined, is a great discovery. And when it is
added that Palmer had the power to work hard and to do deeds of daring and
courage, it is seen that his acquaintance is very desirable.

SAMUEL M. JACKSON,

THE ALPHABET: An Account of the Origin and Development of Letters. By
Isaac TAYLOR, M.A., LL.D. Intwovolumes. London: Kegan Paul, Trench
& Co. 1883. 8vo.

The author has given us two large volumes on a large and extensive subject
Tables, cuts, illustrations, and the study evinced on each page, go to prove the state-

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. 897

ment that “ This book represents the labor of many years.” Few authorities are
quoted in the notes on the plea that, to specialists, they are needless, and to the
ordinary reader useless, while making the book cumbrous and ugly. To this plan
we take exception. The volumes have a beautiful appearance, with superb typog-
raphy. An occasional mistake in the printing of an Egyptian sign, and in the only
name which we have seen in the book, that of Sent (I., p. 61), which as it now
stands read zfs, indicate a lack of familiarity with the hieroglyphic writing. This
portion of the work is based on De Rougé, so that he is to be held partially respon-
sible for any errors,

Briefly stated, the author’s theory of alphabetic signs is, that they are the result of
development. Pictorial writing is the original so far as we are able to find, and only
at the end of centuries gives place to a syllabic form, derived, as a rule, on the
“acrologic”’ principle. Thus the Chinese picture-writing was taken to Japan, and
selected forms were applied to the writing of a polysyllabic language. From a syl-
labic writing a true alphabetic system is developed, through adoption and adapta-
tion by nations having a language of a different type. Thus the Persian and Medic
alphabet was developed out of the cuneiform syllabaries.

Theoretically, this is the course of development. To the English alphabet it can
be applied only in a limited degree. The forms which we use are traced back
through the Latin to a local form of Boeotia and thence to the Phcenician, the old-
est monuments of which are the Siloam Inscription and the Moabite Stone. Thus
far the development has been only internal. A gap in the pedigree is here found,
and to bridge it our author calls in the theory of De Rougé. It.assumes Egypt as
the ultimate source, and the Hieratic of the tenth or eleventh dynasty as the particu-
lar model. The later Hieratic (Ζ. 2, that used after the expulsion of the Hyksos)
does not answer the requirements of the problem as to either form or date, accord-
ing to the assumption of De Rougé, though the statement that there is such a
marked difference must be taken with caution. The work of Sim. Levi (“ Segni
Ieratici Egizi.” Turin, 1880), the most complete of the sort, giving all of the
Hieratic forms known to us, does not support it nor show the divergence claimed.
As to date he is probably right. The time between the tenth or eleventh dynasty
and the date of the Moabite Stone (beginning of the 9th century B.C.), would be
required for the explanation of certain variations of form, for, as the author says
(1., p. 86), “‘ The two alphabets agree neither as to the number, the order, the
names, or the forms of the respective letters.” And when we come to examine the
details of the theory and its proof, we find some points which are questionable, to
say the least. It has been usually supposed that there is no connection between the
Egyptian writing and the Hebrew alphabet, except in the case of wp, whereas,
according to the statement of Mr. Taylor, “It will probably be admitted that with
respect to sixteen of the Semitic letters his (De Rougé’s) identifications with the
suggested Hieratic prototypes are reasonably satisfactory. In the remaining cases
his conclusions may be deemed open to correction on the discovery of additional
epigraphic materials” (I., p. 116). These prototypes are taken from the “ Papyrus
Prisse”’ written in the fourth dynasty, and preserved in a copy from the tenth or
eleventh dynasty. The papyrus is said to be a most beautiful specimen and clearly
written. One of the points upon which the identifications rest is the ‘tail,’ which
appears in the case of several letters, but as this is an accidental and not an essen-
tial feature, the theory may lose a part of its worth. This is notably the case with
5, where essential features are ignored in favor of the accidental “ 1411}. The iden-
tification of our letter M with the Egyptian symbol, the “ owl,” may be regarded as
conclusive, though to find an owl in our letter, and to point out beak and ears,
besides breast, in the modern form is very fanciful (I., p. 10). In regard to 5, the
whole discussion amounts only to conjecture. To find a letter where none existed
must prove difficult, for, according to the best authorities, Egyptian had no “ L.”

898 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The form given as the prototype of the letter ἡ, the “ mouth,” cannot be regarded
as the normal form of the Hieratic sign, though in its present shape it lends itself
easily to the theory. It may be remarked in general, that specimen letters from an
Egyptian papyrus or text must be selected with great caution, in order to be abso-
lutely correct and to avoid giving a false impression. The forms are not uniform in
size, but are liable to far more variation than in our script. According to position,
the same letter may vary as much as one hundred per cent., so that the selection of
a small form of a letter which should properly be large, may give a false probability
to the argument. This seems to be the case in the identification of the letter 5
with the “ water line,” in which length, its distinguishing feature, has been sacri-
ficed to an accidental “ tail.”

An objection to the theory not sufficiently met by the author, is that it is based on
insufficient data. The forms of letters in different papyri, and often in the same
one, vary so much that it would not require a very long search to find forms which
approximate to the Phoenician letters. We do not say that this has been done, but
without the presentation of all the varying forms or an exceedingly judicious selection,
the theory rests on somewhat doubtful ground. Of course the paucity of material
(only three papyri exist) will condition the problem, but for this reason all the helps
available should be used. It is also necessary that the greatest care be exer-
cised in building up a theory of this sort. There is a rival in the field trying
to derive the Semitic alphabets from the Cuneiform. In the present work we find a
lack ; to wit, a failure to distinguish sharply between the forms originally used and
what the author calls “ variants ”; for instance (L., p. 66) for, 2, represented by the
“shutter,” he gives the “flying bird” as the variant. For the most part this is
incorrect, and his statement that its use is “rare, especially in the earlier monu-
ments,” is inadequate. It is zever so used in the earlier monuments, but ov/y as the
demonstrative pronoun, and only as a syllabic sign in the later epochs after the pro-
nominal force had been entirely lost.

As a theory this one is more probable than the one which derives the Semitic
letters from the Cuneiform, but it has not yet come to the position of being a dem-
onstration. The objections of Profs. Lagarde, Robertson Smith, and R. S. Poole
have not been fully met.

In the Egyptian writing the author finds a “latent syllabism”’ underlying the
alphabet, and applying the theory of development, he arrives at some conclusions
as to its beginning, and, consequently, that of the Egyptian civilization. In his own
words, ‘‘ The alphabetic characters must have grown out of syllabic signs, and
these in turn must have been developed out of verbal phonograms ”’ (I., p. 63). The
lowest estimate which he makes of the time so required is a thousand years, and as
the writing had reached the alphabetic stage in the time of King Sent (4000-4700
B.C.), some startling results are reached. He adds, “ It must be affirmed as proba-
ble that the beginnings of the graphic art in the valley of the Nile must be relegated
to a date of seven or eight thousand years from the present time.” The lack of
records prevents our seeing the course of this growth and the stages through which
the postulated development passed.

The first volume is taken up, as we have indicated, by a discussion of the proba-
ble origin of the English writing in the Egyptian Hieratic. The various Semitic
systems are then taken up and discussed, including the Phoenician, the Aramean,
and the South Semitic alphabets. The theory is that the original form was brought
from Egypt by the Hyksos at the time of their expulsion. Out of this the later
forms were differentiated and developed. The second volume discusses the Greek
alphabet and those of Hellenic origin, passing on to the Iranian (Persian) and
Indian. The legend of Cadmus and its origin in historic fact is adopted. The
island of Thera is indicated as the place where the first writing was done in Europe,
in a form similar to the Phoenician, but of a type older than that of the Moabite

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. 899

Stone. The possibility of a second, an Aramean, source is mentioned, and the con-
jecture made that such an origin would account for the final vowel of the Greek
alpha, as the emphatic “aleph” of that idiom. As an illustration of this the author
speaks of the double origin of the Greek metric system. The development of the
various forms derived from Hellenic sources is discussed and note taken of the fol-
lowing: Italic, Latin, Greek and Latin uncials, Coptic, the Sclavonic and Albanian
alphabets, the Runes, and the Oghams.

The Iranian group covers the Indo-Bactrian, the Pehlevi, the Armenian, and the
Georgian. The Indian alphabets, whose name is legion, are to be traced back to a
single form, the Asoka, to which various origins have been assigned, but of which
the Semitic seems to be the most probable. A short account of the vernacular
alphabets follows, and the last chapter of the book contains contributions toward a
sort of philosophy of the science of such investigations. There are two indices, one
of alphabets containing 247 entries, and a general index occupying 22 pages.

GFR Giprerc.

THESAURUS INSCRIPTIONUM AEGYTIACARUM. Altaegyptische Inschriften,
gesammelt, verglichen, tibertragen, erklart und autographiert, von HEINRICH
BrucGscH. Leipzig: J. C. Hinrich’sche Buchhandlung. 4to. 1883.

The first Aéthezlung of the above work, entitled “ Astronomische und astrolo-
gische Inschriften altaegyptischer Denkmiler,” has appeared. The work is litho-
graphed, and presented to the public in the handwriting of Dr. Brugsch, so familiar
to students of Egyptology. The qualifications of the author for his work are based
upon forty years of special study, and a twenty years’ residence in Egypt, besides
extensive travels through Europe and America. During all of these years he has
been busy in gathering these materials, which are now to be placed before the world
in beautiful shape, and a knowledge of monuments and museums said to be utterly
unrivalled. It has been complainingly said that these inscriptions and records have
been accessible only to him, and their publication is designed to meet this statement.
The attempt has been made to make this large amount of material accessible to all,
both specialists and others, and to give it in a corrected, complete, and perfect form.
The translations which accompany the texts have been made in accordance with
the latest results of the study of the Egyptian monuments and language, and the
author has aimed to distinguish sharply between the certain and the uncertain. The
plan of the work is as follows, each part containing from 150 to 180 pages, large
quarto size: I., as above; II., Kalendarische Inschriften ; III., Geographische In-
schriften ; IV., Mythologische Inschriften ; V., Historische, Biographische, Genea-
logische Inschriften; VI., Bau-Inschriften ; VII., Inschriften verschiedenen Inhalts.

Of this Lzeferung, it may be said that it contains copies of astronomical inscrip-
tions from the earlier and later epochs, so far as they are visible and accessible. All
of them have been copied and carefully compared with the originals. The editor
lays claim to correctness as well as to completeness. Of the contents of the book
the following may be cited : The astronomical inscriptions on the ceiling of the portito
of the temple of Dendera, from the time of the Emperor Tiberius; the zodiac of
Dendera: table of planets, from the XVIII. and XIX. dynasties, and from the
Greco-Roman period ; the constellations of the heavens ; the table of the hours in
the tombs of the kings Ramses VI. and Ramses IX. at Thebes.

Of the usefulness and importance of the results to be derived from this work there
can be no doubt, for in such records are to be found the points in the chronology
which can be astronomically fixed. ‘This fact was pointed out by Lepsius as early
as 1849, in his work on Egyptian chronology, and an outline indicated. Later discov-
ery has not seriously modified his plan, but only altered some of the details. Brugsch
does not pretend to be an astronomer, and, consequently, refrains from entering
into calculations which call for the knowledge and skill of a specialist. Having

900 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

placed the facts as presented by the monuments before the public, he leaves the
determination of specific results to others. He has, also, been at no pains to men-
tion or refute erroneous theories propounded by persons of one-sided information,
but has passed them by in silence.

When complete the work will be very extensive, and being on a different plan
from the volumes edited by Lepsius, will be of service to those to whom that work
was a sealed book, and, being lithographed, may be procured by those whose means
forbade the purchase of the “ Denkmiiler.” CoRR. ΟΥ̓ Ε

HEBRAEISCHE GRAMMATIK, mit Uebungsstiicken, Litteratur und Vokabular zum
Selbststudium und fiir den Unterricht, von Lic. Dr. HERM. L. STRACK, a.o.
Prof. d. Theol. New York: B. Westermann ἃ Co. 1883. 16mo, pp. 163.

The material facts of Hebrew Grammar are here condensed into the briefest
possible compass, and at the same time clearly stated and lucidly arranged.
The exercises are not sentences for translation, but words for practice in read-
ing the text, and in the various forms of verbs and nouns. It will be a very
valuable aid in the elementary study of Hebrew for those who are acquainted
with the German language. It is numbered as the first volume of the Porta
Linguarum Orientalium, or Petermann’s series of brief Grammatical Manuals.

W. H. GREEN.

THE LIFE OF IMMANUEL KANT. By W. W. STUCKENBERG, D.D., Special Pro-
fessor in Wittenberg College, Ohio. London: Macmillan & Co. 1882.
PP. 474.

This volume is uniform with the handsome Centenary Edition of the “ Critique
of the Pure Reason.” (Max Miiller’s translation), published by the Messrs. Mac-
millan in 1881. It is a biography in the truest sense of the word, being more
than a recital of threadbare facts, and not pretending to be a discussion and
criticism of the critical philosophy. Kant’s life was uneventful, and the student.
of philosophy must expect to find in this work a great deal that was already
familiar to him. Of Kant’s Scottish ancestry; of his disappointing early
expectations, as Lessing and Winklemann also did, by refusing to enter
the ministry; of his fifteen years of poverty while acting as przvat-docent
and lecturing on mathematics and physics, as well as on fortifications
and fireworks; of his appointment at the age of forty-six to a profes-
sorship in his native city at a salary which never exceeded five hundred
dollars per annum; of the appearance of the “Critique” in 1781, the fruit
of twelve years’ thought, though written out in the short space of four
months; of his bachelor home and his curious attachment for his old servant
Lampe—of all this, every one who knows anything of recent Kantian literature
must already be pretty thoroughly informed. The present biographer goes
over these facts again, enters into more minute detail respecting the every-day
life of the philosopher, supports his statements with abundant citation of au-
thorities, and, in fact, performs his work with the thoroughness of one who
evidently intends to write the standard life of Kant for English readers. Dr.
Stuckenberg tells us, of course, for the thousandth time, that it was Hume who
first woke Kant from his dogmatic slumbers; but besides tracing his philo-
sophical pedigree in this way back to Scotland, he also shows the influence of
early religious impressions upon his subsequent life. Spencer’s Pietistic move-
ment was at its height when Kant was born, and though there may seem to be
no sympathy between this emotional type of religion and the cold intellectual-
ism of Kant’s ethical system, his biographer is, nevertheless, of the opinion
that the high place which the conscience had in his philosophy, was due to the

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. 901

religious training that he received from his mother, and that, adopting the
words of another writer, “ Pietism forged that brass logical chain whose last
link was the categorical imperative.”

Kant was about to enter the university when Frederick the Great ascended
the throne. The Pietistic influences of his childhood were thenceforth ex-
changed for the free-thinking influences that were then setting in. The biog-
rapher devotes a few pages to the consideration of these, and to the literary
revival that was imminent, and proceeds uninterruptedly with the narrative of
Kant’s life—telling us of his struggles with poverty, of his habits of study, what
books he loved ; that he was not a specialist but a polymathist ; that he dis-
liked music, and had a poor opinion of oratory; his appointment as professor ;
his marvellous memory ; his fund of humor and his fine powers as a conversa-
tionalist ; his punctilious attention to dress ; his unflattering estimate of wom-
an ; and, finally, of “ Kant’s authorship.” Chapter VIII. is specially interesting,
inasmuch as it gives us the genesis of the “Critique of the Pure Reason,” and
shows us how prevalent dissatisfaction with the Wolfian philosophy paved the
way for its reception ; and hence, however, Kant himself was gradually led up
to it by his earlier works. Following this, comes the account of the rapid
popularity which Kant gained, and the wonderful influence that he exerted—
an influence so great, that “ Professor Reuss of Wurzberg felt it incumbent on
him, in 1792, to prove that the French Revolution did not spring from the
Kantian criticism.” Kant had his trials, however, even when his popularity
was at its height. Some of his intimate friends did not accept his philosophy,
and among them Kraus lost no opportunity of ridiculing it. His favorite pupil,
Herder, was too independent to be a Kantian; and Fichte, who began his
acquaintance with professions of affection, had taken Kant’s advice to “stand
upon his own feet,” in a way which led to a bitter alienation. The subsidence
of enthusiasm in regard to Kant’s philosophy went on 2472 fassu with the decay
of Kant’s powers, so that long before he died he was unable to read other men’s
systems or to defend his own. Of the decline of Kantianism, of course it was
not necessary for Dr. Stuckenberg to speak, but in view of the cry of “back to
Kant,” which is now heard on every hand, and which indeed has created the
demand which the present volume is intended to supply, he would have been
justified in attempting to account for the present Kantian revival. Instead of
doing this, however, he has been true to the single purpose of giving us a pict-
ure of the man and that immediate environment in which he lived and moved
and had his being. Dr. Stuckenberg does well to disavow sympathy with much
that is written about Kant that “is not biography, but hero-worship.” For
Kant’s character, in spite of its many virtues, had great imperfections. His
neglect of his relations cannot be explained in any way that is creditable to
him. His explanation of a certain broken promise, is in strong contrast to his
severe ethical theory. He ridiculed prayer, had a low opinion of the Bible,
eliminated the supernatural from the Person of Christ, and resolved religion into
morality. F. L. PATTON.

A Stupy or Spinoza. By James MartINeAu, LL.D., D.D., Principal of
Manchester New College, London, with a Portrait. London: Macmillan &
Co. 1882. pp. 371.

Spinoza, says Auerbach, has fed the thoughts of two centuries. But it is
only within a recent period that general attention has been favorably turned
toward him. That period began with a certain conversation between Lessing
and Jacobi. Up to that time there had been little or no abatement of the
odium theologicum which led to his excommunication from the synagogue, which
inspired the book where some account of him as well as of Hobbes and Lord

902 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Herbert of Cherbury is given under the title De trzbus impostorzbus, and which
prompted one Karel Tuinman, a century and a half ago, to say: “Spit on that
grave—there lies Spinoza.” It is the fashion now to go to the other extreme.
Ignorant praise is quite as common to-day as bigoted spite was in former years.
Coleridge was certainly saying a great deal when he affirmed that Bacon’s
“ Novum Organum,” Spinoza’s “ Ethic,” and Kant’s “ Critique of the Pure Rea-
son,” were the three great books since the introduction of Christianity. Cole-
ridge would find many to-day who would sympathize with his admiration of
Spinoza, even if they could not assent to this strong dogmatic statement. Mr.
Arnold and Mr. Froude have both given us their estimate of the great philos-
opher of Amsterdam, and the former has assured us that Spinoza is coming to
the front. The celebration of the bicentenary of Spinoza’s death, on the 21st of
February, 1877—itself a part of the movement of which Mr. Arnold speaks—
has also tended perhaps to hasten that movement on. At all events, there
have resulted from it the erection of a statue to Spinoza at the Hague, the for-
mation of a Spinoza society, the publication of a new edition of Spinoza’s
works, and of innumerable contributions to Spinozistic literature. The ad-
dresses delivered on the occasion just referred to have been published under
the editorship of Professor Knight during the current year. Mr. Pollock’s
masterly volume appeared two or three years ago. Principal Caird has in
hand a monograph on Spinoza, for Blackwood’s series of ‘“ Philosophical
Classics.’”’ And now the present volume, intended at first for the same series,
but outgrowing the limits assigned to the volumes belonging to it, appears as
an independent study of what must be conceded to be a very interesting theme.
Dr. Martineau has prepared himself most thoroughly for the execution of his
task. He is familiar with the entire range of Spinozistic literature, whether it
pertain to questions of biography or of exposition, and his volume, it scarcely
need be said, gives evidence on every page of that literary care, and that genius
for philosophical expression which invest all his writings with such peculiar
charm.

Dr. Martineau deals first with Spinoza’s life, and then with his philosophy.
Of the sources of his philosophy and his indebtedness to Des Cartes he has little
to say, and in regard to these points the pages of Mr. Pollock are more satis-
factory. It is easy to understand how the ves cogztans and the res extensa
of Des Cartes should, by means of a generalization that blotted out the dualism,
be succeeded by the Pantheism of Spinoza. But, in spite of Saisset’s attempt
to make it clear to us, we do not see why this should make Des Cartes a pan-
theist. But opinions vary, as is well known, even in regard to Spinoza himself.
Some say with Jacobi, that he was an atheist; some, with Hegel, call him an
acosmist; some have tried hard to make him out a theist, while the vast
majority continue to call him a pantheist. Martineau sides with Jacobi, and if
any definite meaning is to be attached to the word ¢hezsm either in its simple
or its compound form, Martineau is right. What he says here is worthy of
notice :

“The duty of not applying to one a term which he disowns is conditioned on his not altering
its meaning in order to disown it: the obligation is reciprocal, resting on a common understanding,
and violated by tricks of perversion on either side. The Romans had no right to charge atheism on the
early Christians for not believing in Jupiter Capitolinus. On the other hand, it is no valid disclaimer to
say, ‘Iam not an atheist, for I believe in a First Cause,’ if that first cause should happen to be hydrogen
or other blind element of things. It cannot be desirable that the word ‘God’ should be thrown into the

crucible of metaphysics, and reserved for any caput mortuum that may be left when the essential constitu-
ents of its meaning have been dissipated.”’

Yet Dr. Martineau shows that in the antitheism which resulted from
Spinoza’s extreme aversion to anthropomorphism, Spinoza was inconsistent with
himself. What he says upon this point is so clear and so illustrative of the
author’s style that we quote it: -

RECENT GENERAL LITERATURE. ~. 90B

“ The objection to predicate of ‘God’ anything that is found in man, comes the less appropriately from
Spinoza because his own conception embodied in that word is wholly made up of human predicates ; and in
no system more than in his do the two natures stand in relation of microcosm and macrocosm. The two
known attributes of Extension and Thought are simply the two factors of our own life thrown into
universal form. Further, in order to learn the first, we go to school to our own body, and thence, as a
base, plant out other bodies in space, and affirm as common to all what is familiar tous at home. Similarly
we become acquainted with what Thinking means by the sample of it in ourselves ; and though we follow
out the res cogitans to infinitude, we do but look in our own glass.”

Upon another point, the most difficult of all, in the interpretation of Spinoza—
the eternity of mind—Dr. Martineau expresses himself with decision, agreeing
here with Mr. Pollock, and opposing some modern German critics, who try to
show that Spinoza held the doctrine of personal immortality. Here, as
in regard to Spinoza’s theism, the author of the present volume seems to differ
from Mr. William Hale White, who has studied Spinoza enough to give us a
very luminous translation of the Ethic—a translation,we may add, which has more
than satisfied the Horatian canon of onumgue prematur zn annum, since it has
been waiting for the last twenty years for an opportunity to see the light, and the
publication of which within the past few months may itself be taken as an indi-
cation of renewed interest in Spinoza. We are not sure that we understand
Mr. White’s exposition of Spinoza’s position, but we take his strong recommenda-
tion of Schwegler as throwing some light upon it. Schwegler says that
Spinoza’s doctrine is that of the most abstract theism that can possibly be
conceived. He thinks it stands closely related to his Jewish education, and is
“an echo of the morning-land.”’

Dr. Martineau devotes the last chapter of his book to an account of Spinoza’s
relations to Biblical criticism, revealing here his sympathy with Rationalism, and
awakening regret that one who has done such good work as a great religious
thinker in his opposition to Materialism and his defence of a frzorz knowledge,
should in his declining days be departing more and more from the super-
naturalism of historic Christianity.

His criticism of the Ethic, as Mr. Pollock said, who reviewed it in (znd
(Jan., 1883), “ will not be easy reading . . . . to a student who has not the text
of the ‘Ethic’ before him.” This could not well be otherwise. It is neverthe-
less a model piece of expository writing. F. L. PATTON.

WE make brief mention of the following works:

Ethic demonstrated in geometrical order and divided into five parts, etc. By
Benedict de Spinoza. Translated from the Latin by William Hale Smith.
London: Trubner ἃ Co, 1853. pp. 297. This work (referred to above, see
notice of Martineau’s “ Spinoza”) is the twenty-first volume of the English and
Foreign Philosophical Library. It is handsomely printed, and will doubtless
be the standard translation of the Ethic.—Pol¢tzcal Economy. By Arthur
Latham Perry, LL.D., Orrin Sage Professor of History and Political Economy
in Williams College. Eighteenth edition. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
pp. 600. A book that has reached its eighteenth edition needs no further
recommendation to the public. This is particularly true of this well-
known text-book in Political Economy. It should be said, however, that
the present edition has been printed from new plates; that the work has
been rewritten; that it has been greatly improved since the appearance
of the first edition in 1865. In its present form it ought to attract fresh
attention, and deserves an extended notice by one who has a right to an
opinion in regard to the subjects of which it treats—<Kant’s Prolegomena
and Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Scéence. Translated from the original,
with a biography and introduction. By Ernest Belfort Box. With a portrait of
Kant. London: George Bell & Sons. 1883. pp. 254. A readable biography

904 THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of Kant, and an appreciative essay on Kant’s position in philosophy occupy one
hundred and nine pag2s of this volume. Following this is a translation of the
“Prolegomena,” a work written after the “Critique,” and designed by Kant to
be an abstract of it; and the “ Metaphysical Foundations of Natural Science,’
which is here presented in an English dress for the first time. The volume be-
longs to the Bohn Series, and is a very fitting companion to Meiklejohn’s trans-
lation of the “Critique of the Pure Reason.”— Topics of the Time. Studies in
Literature. Edited by Titus Munson Coan. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.
1883. Paper, pp. 267. This is the third volume in the series just named ;
previous volumes being devoted respectively to Social Problems and Biograph-
ical Studies. Well-printed, well-edited, and cheap. Price, 25 cents.
F. L. PATTON.

THE FOLLOWING WORKS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED:

FroM THE PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION, PHILADELPHIA:
THE BANQUET OF Love. By the Rev. JAccB HELFFENSTEIN, D.D. pp. 156.

THE WESTMINSTER SABBATH-SCHOOL HyMNAL. A collection of Hymns and Tunes
for use in Sabbath-schools and social meetings. Prepared by Rev. JoHN W. DULLEs,
D D., and Mr. THEO. F. SEWARD. pp. 192.

Dr. GRANTLEY’S NEIGHBORS. By ELLA BECKWITH KEENEY and ANNETTE L. NOBLE.
PP. 320.

Tom BARD AND OTHER NORTONVILLE Boys, By the Rev. J. A. DAvis. pp. 408,
From ROBERT CARTER & BROTHERS:
A Bac or Stories. By ANNA B. WARNER. pp. 238.

How sHALL I Go To Gop? By Horatius Bonar D.D. pp. 145.

EN DE.

N. denotes NOTES OR NOTICES;
butions begin.

ABIDE INCuRisT. By A. M.......R. 889
Aiken (Charles A.) N. 820; R. 188, 211;
219, 461, 461, 469, 470, 670, 675, 678.
Alexander (Archibald). John Henry New-

man and the Oxford Revival. Article. 139

aS to oc Oe Ore R. 210
Allen (J. H.), Our Liberal Movement in
ΠΗ OUR ΣΡ τς ρου δωκε R. 447
Arnot (W.), The Church in the House.
R. 462

Ashwell (A. R.), Life of Samuel Wilber-
τ τ ois isle 6-0/0 4,00 ora R. 867
Assyriological Notes......... N. 164, 420

Auburn Theological Seminary (General
MEAIAIOOME) ttre cas ue τς νος cas εἰς N. 424

BABA BATHRA of the Talmud and the Old
Testament (The tract)........... N. 417
Bacon (L. W.), The Church Book..R. 670

Baird ( ), Hibbert Lectures, 1883.
R. 869

Baird (Henry M.)........ R. 448, 861, 892
Barrows (Wm.), Purgatory........ R. 200
Baur (Aug.), Die Weltanschauung des
ΘΗΣΙΞΕΘ ΗΠ δ. : ες ose ces cess Ε. 201
Beecher (Willis 7.}..............Ψ.--- R. 643, 848
Beet (J. A.), Commentary on Corinthians.
A R. 652

Beitrige zur siachsischen Pee
GUINTS oid eA Op See IS eC iar R. 450
Besant (Walter), Life of E. H. Palmer.
R. 895

Bestmann (H. J.), Geschichte der christ-
ener sittes ΠῚ τ΄. ᾿ς. cies) Sees R. 188
Betts (J. T.), Valdés’ Commentary on
ERIE Te a Seis Scie: ἐς οὐ Gino R. 656
Bezold(Carl), Die Achiamenideninschriften.
N. 165

Biblischen Geschichten (Die), A. und N.
ΠΟ ΓΑΕ ΒΟ Acne ccs cise mcsiersiss ols R. 852
Boehl (E.), Zum Gesetz und zum Zeugniss.
R. 642

Bogatsky’s Giildenes Schatzkastlein. R. 209
Bonnet (M.), Acta Thome......... R. 658
Book of Discipline (The Revised). Article
Pp ἘΠ Re Craver. at cle sj εν ν τος ον 0 44
Book of Discipline (The Revised). Article
DY εἶν Et NID NT EVs +! clo olacelove > τὴς: 325
Bee (T.), Hebrew Course..... R. 470
Brace (C. i.) »Gesta Christi. ον ἐνὸς R. 448
Bredenkamp (C. J.), Gesetz und Propheten.

R. 166

R. REVIEWS,

Figures refer to pages on which contri-

Briggs (C. A.), A critical study of the his-
tory of the Higher Criticism, with spe-
cial reference to the Pentateuch. Article.

69

—— N. 417, 425, 425, 638; R. 190, 436,
439, 449, 454, 640, 647, 648, 654, 662,
677, 857, 862, 869.

Brown Sarees .N.164, 420; R. 180, 219,

441, 463.
Bruce (A. B.), The Parabolic Teaching of
CRLISEMES artis ἀπε bios nc mateo R. 439
Brugsch (H.), Thesaurus Inscriptionum
AE RY ΕΘ αι πῆι οἷος ς εις πον οἱ R. 899

Buddha (The doctrines of the) and the
doctrines of the Christ. Article by S. H.

MeN Oeeran cick: Goes cane eles 503
Buckley (C. H. R.), D’Aubigne’s Martyrs
of the Reformation +. τ το 35s: ΕΝ. 662
Butler (C. M.), Reformation in Sweden.
R. 871

CHAMBERS (John D.), Hermes Trismegistus.
R. 190

— (Talbot W.)..N. 160, 411, 816; R.

168, 188, 188, 209, 462, 652, 657, 671, 672,
672, 852, 889, 801.
Charteris (A. H.), The New Testament

ΘΕΟΣ Β ΘΝ τς ca κις oye sins είς eracine R. 437
Cheever (G. B.), God’s timepiece for man's
CUOEB LOY) τς οὐ 5 στ celetale(eyayeorstnie! ofa ars R. 671
Chossat (Ed. de), Répertoire Sumérien
(Aiccadienyr: στον cieitr st c/e0i ore R. 165

Christ (The doctrines of the Buddha and
the doctrines of the). Article by 5. H.

GCAO perce pay stain) nate Ἐπ γον alain s sisters 503
Christianity (The evolution of)..... R. 670
Coan (T. M.), Topics of the time. No. 1.

SOC PLrOPlEMS. reise ale τἰς aleisiel cies R. 678

Vol ἢ ΒΡ sisi’ R. go4

Collette (C. H.), Saint Augustine...R. 669
Cotterill (H.), Does Science aid faith in re-
Paraeto Creation γε τ τς ον else > = ie R. 886
Craig (Oscar), Spencer’s Philosophy and
LRG Gi oor Stole Coa Ὁ ἘΩ τ Article, 581
Craven (Elijah R.), The Revised Book of
PSCIplinerets «icin πα ον at Article, 44
Creighton (M.), History of the Papacy
during the period of the Reformation.
R. 445

Cremer (Hermann), Bibl. Theol. Woerter-
buch der N. T. Graecitaet. 2te Lief.
Re δ. 5388 --ἰ ΕΣ Lief. t's τς Ε. 847

906

Crosby (Howard), Responsibility before

the Gospel. A sermon.......... R. 673
Cross (J. A) Hints to English Readers of
the ‘Old Destament. τ πιο. eee R. 441
Current discussions in Theology. (Board-
man, Curtis and Scott). Vol. I..R. 654
Curtis (Edward) Γι τ εν ἐδ. ΠῚ Ε. 171

Cuyler (T. L.), God’s light in dark clouds. |

R. 209
DALE (A. W. W.), Synod of Elvira.R. 443

Darwinism and the Dakota Group. Article
bys Wins ewan. το τ ες 131
Deir-el-Bahari, Notes on the ‘‘find” at
N. 152

De Witt (John), Church History, Inaugural.
(Address: δὺς οἷς κε ΝΣ R. 869

— pe diverter he! Marcle Pee R. τοί, 659

Dictionary of the Anonymous and Pseu-
donymous Literature of Great Britain,
by S. Halkett and J. Laing. Vols. I
and GUS iiss see Ao πε σιν ει R. 677

Dieckhoff (A. W.), Justin, Augustin, Bern-

hard (und Luther) on. See eoe R. τοι
Diepolder (J. N.), Theologie und Kunst im
Uxrcehristenthumins2 2.2 <t ἘΣΎ Ὁ R. 190
Dippold (G. T.), The great epics of me-
dizval \Germanyiiso. scien ete R. 471
Dods (Marcus), (Handbooks for Bible
elasses) Sar Genesis smn cee cere R. 441
Donnelly (I.), Ragnarok........... R. 470
Drummond (Henry), Natural law in the

spiritual world: ὃς τς ge se tee R. 872
Duffield (Samuel W.), Hilary of Poictiers

and the earliest Latin hymns. Arti-
CLE xia πος τ πα ones Se ake oie e eee 710
Dykes (J. Oswald), The Manifesto of the
SETI Oyrat «| ata falols laine cia eee het ς 500᾿ R. 460

EATON (S. J. M.), Memorial of Rev. Cyrus
Dickson sD: οτος τόσο eects R. 449
Natural Re-

tie) AA SSS ASO SS s0e moda ace: R. 194
Paditorial Note! oo..cj00- 2s eee N.-152
Statementhiavicieis οἷς τὐτ τ wes ale N. 425
Eells AGAMES) heaton cole icisiarereteceees R. 204

“Ἕλληνας (The reading) in Acts xi. 20.N. 835
Ellis (H. W.), Our Eastern Sisters..R. 892
Eschatology, Studies in. Article by Philip

Sohaihie cpt: ss letavearcievoserseoaeee ater 723
Evans (Llewellyn J.), Doctrinal Signifi-
cance of the Revision...

Evolution of Christianity (The) ....R. 670
Exegetical Note on 2 Pet. ii. 8..... N. 629
tS Efeb; Mv. I DEN 521

FAITHS OF THE WoRLD (The), St. Giles
LLECilIneSie net «stelle ete ee ger R. 195
Farrar (F. W.), The early days of Chris-
NEVIS PARA RH Sous one acicg doe R. 185
Field (Henry M.), On the Desert...R. 436
Fisher (Geo. P.), The Christian Religion.

R. 201
Forget (J.), De Vita et Scriptis Aphraatis.
R. 449
Froude (J. A.), Short Studies. Fourth

SOLES craleial ote lemtelolent sete 5. τ... R. 471

. Article, 275°
ἜΤ lee ciao ΚΣΤ ἢ. ἼΒ 178, 437, 890°

INDEX.

GEBHARDT (O. v.), Novum Testamentum
Graece et Germanicae........... Ἐπ 172
Geddie (J.), The Russian Empire...R. 469
General Assembly (The) of the Presby-
terian Church in the United States of

δε Ὁ τι 22s Sa cle ee eee N. 603

| General Synod (The) of the Reformed
Church in America...........- N. 816
ΟΠ ΒΟ) τ ἘΞ ΤΥ R. 433, 896, 899
Gilmour (James), Among the Mongols.
R. 892

Godet (F.), Studies of creation and life.
R. 886

Golden Sands. εἶς scctawc ΠΣ ΤῊ R. 673
Gosman((As) Ὁ τον Ε. 204
Graetz (H.), Krit. Commentar zu den
Psalmen./}*BdSivand Meese R. 647
Graham (W.), Lectures on Ephesians.
R. 656

Green (W. Henry), Moses and the Proph-
Ὁ, AS TOM aoa oc R. 168
—— ..-R. 166, 168, 437, 470, 642, 650, 853,
goo

Greenfield’s Greek and English Lexicon.
R. 182

Griffisi(WE.); οσεα- τ τ πε" R, 211
Guerrier (L.), Madame Guyon..... R. 186

HAAN (W.), Geschichte der Vertheidigung
des'Christenthumis: "ον τὰς τε τον R. 202
Halévy (J.), Documents Religieux de l’As-
syrie et de la Babylonie ........ R. 165
Half hours with the lessons of 1883.R. 182
Halkett (S.), Dictionary of anonymous and
pseudonymous literature, etc. ...R. 677
Hallowell (R. P.), The Quaker Invasion

of, Massachbusetts)..\. πον R. 662
Hamilton, The Catechism set forth by
Archbishop Fen oso sac S obs tee R. 207
(E. J.), The Human Mind..... R. 212

Hare (A. J. C.), Cities of Southern Italy
ANG SICILY. are ς ἐπ R. 678
Harris (J. ἊΣ The Principles of Agnos-

LICISM: F3.ofs sc wiealo alee eee R. 670
——(S. S.), The Bohlen Lectures, 1882.
R. 669

Harrison (J. A.), Library of Anglo-Saxon
Poetry. ΒΟΌΣ τι τι cisesckiee R. 468
Harsha (Wm. J.), Darwinism and the Da-
Kota ‘Group, ἘΠ τς σῶς ker Article, 131
Hart (W. R.), Eternal Purpose.....R. 457
Hastings (GEhOS..S%).. ass sees ΒΕ. 202, 205
Hatheld (E. Bi) τ νον τ τ R. 449, 459, 461
Heard (J. Β.), The tripartite nature of man.
R. 670

Hebrew Student (The)............ N. 425
Hefele (C. J.), A History of the Councils.
DUT Ὸ εξ λον δ hart eee Ε. 444

Heldring’s (O. G.), Leben und Arbeit.R. 450
Herminjard (A. L.), Correspondance des
Reformateuirsy,\. sc ρὸν νον τ eae R. 861
Hicks (L. E.), Critique of Design-Argu-
re) CIS OO dione Go πὸ R. 663
Higher Criticism (A critical study of the
history of the), with special reference to
the Pentateuch. Article by C. A. Bae:

9

INDEX.

Hilary of Poictiers and the earliest Latin

hymns. Article by Samuel W. Duffield.

710

Hill (Thos.), Geometry and Faith..R. 200
Hirsch (S. R ), Die Psalmen....... R. 441 |

PIRCUEGGL (SDL) τ crest. ον sie iecrne R. 445

Hobart (W. K.), The medical language of
St. Luke . 652
Hodge (A. A.),Manual of Forms. . :R. 458
—— Ν᾿ 152, 603, 813; R. 194, 196, 197,
198, 207, 447, 453, 456, 666, 669, 872, 873,
874, 882, 886, 891.
ee ΟΕ ΡΟ sicin « Re 173, 285
Holland (H. S.), Logic and Life ...R. 204
Holsten (C.), Die drei urspriinglichen,noch
ungeschriebenen Evangelien R. 442
Holtzmann (H.)and Zoepffel(R.) Lexicon
fiir Theologie and Kirchenwesen.R. 188
Homer (The Iliad of), done into English
Prose R. 471
Hood (Paxton), Oliver Cromwell...R. 191
Hopkins (Mark), Scriptural idea of man.
R. 880
— (S. M,), A general liturgy and book
of Common Prayer . 672
—— (Samuel M.)........ R. 182, 446, 867
Howson (J. S.), Hore Petrine.....R. 656

Hudson (C. F.), Greek and English Con-

cordance of the New Testament.R. 182

Hughes (Thomas), Memoir of Thomas |

R. 220 | —— Histoire ancienne de 1 Orient, Tom.

Macmillan
Humphrey (Edward P.), The Revised Book
BEVENSCIBIIGES. τον οῖς ες Article, 325
Hunt (T.
Hurst (J. F.), Bibliotheca

theologica.

R. 443
Hutton (C. F.), Unconscious testimony.

R. 655 |

INFANT SALVATION and its theological
bearings. Article by George L. Pren-
ΕΟ Δ ΓΟ ΡΟ Beers 548

International Revision Commentary, Vol. |

III., Luke, (M. B. Riddle) ; Vol. V, Acts,
(Dean Howson _and Canon Spence).

R. 180 |

Jackson (Samuel M.). Lee R. 658, 846, 895

Jacobi (D. J. L.), Erinnerungen an den |

Baron Ernst von Kottwitz........R. 663
Jacobsen (Aug.), Untersuchungen iiber die

synoptischen Evangelien........ R. 442

Janet (Paul), Final Causes. Trans. by

Nr COs τον δὶ τ ωπον ica 5 νοις: R. 871

Judson (E.), The life of Adoniram Judson.

R. 660

Jukes (A.), The new man and eternal life.

R. 457

KAnt’s Prolegomena (trans. by E. B. Box).

- 903

Keller (L.), Ein Apostel der Wiedertiufer.

R. 450

Kellopp (Alired 1.) -........Ψὕβ.ὲ N. 152, 838
—— (S. H.), The doctrines of the Buddha |

and the doctrines of the Christ.

Article, 503

— The inspiration of Paul. A Sermon.

R. 456

— The Jews.........+. eiatstaieten kes ΘΗ πῆ

907

Kessler (J. C. A.), Chronologia Judicum τ
Primorum Regum Israelitarum...R.

Killen (W. D.) The Ancient Church.R. ἡ

King (E. G.), The Yalkut on Zechariah.

R. 656

Η.), Theology of

BAERELHOOGS sac ον ares aoc ete

. 457

Koelling (H.), Der erste brief Pauli an
Timotheus, R. 181
Koestlin (J.), Martin Luther R. 871
Kolde (A.), Bogatsky’s Guldenes Schatz-
kastlein R. 209
Kiichler (F.), Zur Freiheit des Gewissens.

Kinnebrew (J. The

ΟΞ -

R. 201
Kiihn (E.), Die Revision der lutheran-
ischen Bibeliibersetzung......... R. 442

Kuenen (A.), National religions and uni-
versal religions R. 191

LAING (J.), Dictionary of anonymous and

pseudonymous literature......... R. 677

| Lang (J. M.), Life: is it worth living?
R. 886

Lanier (S.), The English novel..... R. 673

Latin Hymns, Hilary of Poictiers and the
earliest. Article by Samuel W. Duffield.
710

Lenormant (F.), Les Origines de |’Histoire,
UAT πο aller eiste's 5. ath τορος R. 219
—— The Beginnings of History...R. 432
᾿Ξ ἘΠ Ses AES pean ΞΕ τς

WA Sta asc « « ΕΒ. 467, 467, 673 | Lias J. J.), Are miracles credible ?.. R.886

Liliencron (A. v.), Wera Paulowna.R. 220
Lindsay (T. M.), The Reformation.R. 446
Lippert (J.), Christenthum, Volksglaube
mines VOlKSDrauchy..2)./j.c0 occas. © R. 198
Lipsius (Rich. A.), Die Apocryphen Apos-
telgeschichten und Apostellegenden.
R. 858

Litton (E. A.), Introduction to Dogmatic

ἘΠΕ ον EE Ew Shak ap oes socane en R. 196
ΓΕ τε (ΘΕ ΘΕ a), Σιν νιν τ το τον aici N. 821
Luckock (H. M.), After death.... .R. 456
MacpvurF (J. R.), Early graves..... R. 672
— Sunsets on the Hebrew mountains.
R. 209

Mackenzie (R.), America. A History.
R. 219

Macloskie (G.), Elementary Botany.R. 679
Stereo Re Nena iloin se οἷς τὰ R. 214, 663

Madsen (B.), Das geistliche Priesterthum
der Christos etta)ceke oo'aiei-i.o R. 201
Mahaffy (J. P.), The decay of modern

Peete ass nics τᾶν 5 ain She's, τὸ SEN R. 202
Marshi(Ga PAs; Works..22 hot. ao. R. 220

| Martensen (H.), Christian Ethics. Special
| Part. Second division. Social Ethics.
R. 669

—— Jacob Boehme......:........ R. 201
Martineau (James), A study of Spinoza.
R. got

Martius (W.), Die innere mission..R. 209
McCosh (J-), Criteria of divers kinds of
R. 210
Mcllvaine (J. H.), The holy Sabbath.

Article, 253

908

INDEX.

McLane (W. W.), The cross in the light of } Patterson (R. M.), Presbyterian Worship.
. 666 |

to-day
McMaster (J. B.), History of the people of |
the United States. Vol. I R. 892
Merrill (Selah)
Meyer (H. A. W.), Commentary on the
New Testament: Hebrews (G. Luene-

ee

"πριν

mann); Epistles of James and John

(J: B=; Ruther τ de eee R. 181 |
Miller (J. R.), Home-making....... R. 462
Milton and Tennyson. Article by Henry

Το: Dykes Irene ee er eee 681

Miracles (Modern). Article by M. R. Vin-

CONES. * ΠΥ seek ee nants 473
Missionary Exercises ............- R. 463
Missionsharfe,Grosse ............- R. 461 |
Mitchell (Alex. F.), The Westminster As-

Sembly:: spaces create R. 862
Motian(amest@.) eee eteeer err R. 657

Mombert (J. I.}, A handbook of the Eng-
lish versions of the Bible........ R. 640
Momerie (A. W.), The basis of Religion.
R. 670

Montet (E.), Essai sur les origines des
partis Saducéen et Pharisien
Moody (W. G.), Land and labor in the
United States, τον τ τος ctejantsletsats
Moras (ED) ne eee R. 195, 451
(George S.), Kant’s Critique of the
Pure Redsont.£ ..-- τ| 2 aeee ce a R. 211

R. 857 |
R. 678 |

| Prentiss,

Morrison (C. R.), The proofs of Christ’s |

Article, 744
—w— (Robert W.), The Second Advent not
Premillennial (sce 3 osc see, Article, 221

Patton (Francis L.), The dogmatic aspect
of Pentateuchal criticism...Article, 341
ες «ἘΝ 198, 200,251, 212; #286, 688,

677, 871, 880, 900, go, 903.
— (J. Harris). The separation of Church

and State in Virginia........ Article, 20
—— History of the American People.
R. 465

Paul (C. K.), Biographical Sketches. R. 663
Pentateuchal criticism (The dogmatic as-
pect of). Article by Francis L. Patton.
341

Perry (Arthur L.), Political Economy.
< R. 903

Phelps (Austin), English style in public
GISCONISES: wi ws os Στ eee R. 887
Phillippi (F. A.), Kirchliche Glaubenslehre.
Registerbandie.)2.2 er ae ee R. 201
Pick (Bernhard), The Psalter of Solomon.
Article,’ 775

Pithom-Succoth (Discovery of), and the
Exodus route...... N. 838
Plitt (G. D. G.), D. Martin Luther’s Leben
und Wirken:..52)../ sf paces R. 662
Porter (N.). Science and sentiment. R. 200
The life and letters of Eliza-
R. 206
—— (George L.), Infant Salvation and its
theological bearings Article, 548
BaD sce τι ode R. 186, 186, 660

| Presbyterian Worship. Article by R. M.

TESUELECHIONG Πρ R. 197 |
Mozley (T.), Reminiscences....... R. 186
Munger (Theo. T.), The freedom of faith.

R. 874
Murphy (J. N.), The chair of Peter.R. 659
Murray: (i) 1 On) oe seen R. 206, 466, 894
WATURAL Reliston< ce. 2. nae. R. 194
Nearer to Jesus... = 2-22... .- cece R. 210
Newell (W. M.), Revivals...... .. R. 461

Newman (John Henry), and the Oxford
Revival. Article by Archibald Alexan-
der 139

Newton (R. Heber), The right and wrong
uses of the Bible... R. 655

weed cere wcrc ce cet ee see ees estes

Noesgen (Ὁ. F.), ‘Apostelgeschichte des |

Lukas R. 180

OEFHLER (D. G. F.), Theologie des Alten

Testaments. 2te Aufl........... R. 656
Oliphant (Mrs.), Literary history of Eng-
land cn Seki See wail olduie eterna R. 466
Olssen (W. W.), Personality....... R. 457

Orelli (C. V.), Die Alttestamentliche Weis-

SA GTO on aieraicheiaw τ ἴσα γε alaietolo Δ ἘΣ eee
OrmsHS HSA eee esse στο τ R. 469
Park (E. A.), Discourse at the installa-

tion of “Hi ΗΣ Wenvitt. πος ΕΟ R. 201

The associate creed of Andover

Theological Seminary .......... R. 882

Parkhurst (C. H.), The blind man’s creed
and other sermons R. 459
Patterson (George), The teaching of our
Lord regarding the Sabbath, and its
bearing on Christian work...

. Article, I |

PattersOns τις Ἐπ te ee eae
Presbyterianism in its relation to Congre-

gationalism. Article by Joseph K.
δι cre So we enn oe ier τς - 308
Present day tracts, Vol. I.......... R. 886
Priest and the man (The).......... R. 678

Prime (S. I.), Prayer and its answer.R. 209

Psalter of Solomon (The). Article by
Bernhard Picks .2s sect ct ees 775
Puenjer (B.), Theologischer Jahresbericht.
R. 846

Pulpit Commentary (The), Genesis and

Exodus ateees cose ae mee R. 643
—— Mark, Jeremiah, Joshua, Ruth, and
FUSES. τς τ π ~ eet erase ΚΕ. 848
Pure offering, The world-wide..... N. 160
Purves (George 10) 40:27. seein N. 835

RAWLInsON (G.),(The Pulpit Commentary).

ἘΣποδεῖς,,.. ἢ. cee ας nee een ee R. 643
—— The religions of the ancient world.
R. 664

Renan (E.); Souvenirs ........... R. 663
Revision (Doctrinal significance of the).
Article by Ll. J Evans. 2520: scneloe 275
Riggs (E.), Suggested modifications of the
Revised Version of the N. T..... R. 857
Roberts (Alex.), Old Testament Revision.
R. 655

Robinson (Chas. S.), Studies of neglected
PORES: ees sadn ahs ae R. 890

Riickert (Fr.), The wisdom of the Brahmin.
R. 470

INDEX.

SABBATH (The teaching of our Saviour re- |
garding the), and its bearing on Chris- |
tian work. Article by George Patterson. τὴ ees (W. W.), Life of ies are

(The holy). Article by J. H. Mcll-

ΜΕ ρα νον erase inte + αὐειξνε σα τος Ὁ 253
St. Giles Lectures. The faiths of the
War G he B hans 2ht Goce ae ee Nadel - 195
Sandys (R. H.), Antitheism........ R. 886
πον ἢ W-), Dr. Pusey -).j.6-1jetand R. 663 |

Schaff (Philip), Studies in Eschatology.
Article, 723
— History of the Apostolic Church.
R, 182
A Popular Commentary on the New
Testament. (Vol. III., Epistles of Paul).
R. 178
= AOC CD τ΄’ πο πεῖς τα Ε. 443
Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious

909

ter im 2ten Band der Cun. Inscr. of
West. Asia, I R. 165

AGATE ον al ΙΕ avadeesh eo γος baci aes R. 9

| Swedenborg Library (The). Vol. XII.
R. 457
TAHTIM Hodshi and Dan Jaan.....N. 414
‘Taylor (Isaac), The Alphabet...... R. 896
ἀπ FMR) erat; tor, ΟΕ φτοῦ te R. 458
Tennyson (Milton and). Article by Hen-
BY ai ich Mette ENGIEE) {ποτ 4.19 9,010 e\als 681

| Thomas (D.), Book of Psalms (Ps. i.-lxi.,
OIE eatetaletaye tsteetavasslaiele ens. oy chats R. 441
(Wm. G.), Christianity a fact..R. 873

Knowledge. Vol. I. R. 188; Vol. II.
R. 657 |
Schmid (R.), The thecries of Darwin, etc.
R. 214
Schmidt (F.), Martin Luther....... R. 871 |

— (Karl),

Die Apostelgeschichte. |

R. 180 |

Schrader (E.), Die Keilinschriften und das |

PAS EGSEAIMENT: eine 0 . sececdcaieieie = R. 433
Scribner (William), Love for souls.R. 204,
801.

Second Advent not premillennial (The). |

Article by Robert W. Patterson..... 221
Shapira manuscript of Deuteronomy.
N. 820 |
Seg Grn Le) oar ais to.'= are sfedeiarsi ars R. 443 |

Sherwood (James M.), The Lamb in the |
_ Verhandlungen des fiinften Intern. Orien-

Didistiol fhe ἙΗ ΠΟ τίσ |. τινος 0: «s,+ 10 R. 889
Sime (James), Kingdom of All-Israel.
R. 853
Simms (E.), Commentary on the Psalms.
R. 441
Smeaton (George), The doctrine of the |
ERO UMM tatcle) si sielafaiieds οὖ eseicts R. 453

Smith (Henry B.), Introduction to Chris-

R. 451
— (Henry P.).....-... R. 429, 432, 856
— (R. B.), Life of Lord Lawrence.

R. 675 |

Smyth (Newman), Dorner on the Future
AUR tpraie cis laveigoaitie o-« cave mjcins «3 R. 454

tian Theology. (Edited by W. S. Karr). |

Thompson (A. C.), Moravian Missions.
R. 461

Thoms (J. A.), Concordance to the Re-
vised Version of the N. T R. 437
Thorold (A. W.), The claim of Christ on

EEE AU OLIN ECs τεσ, τν crac say ογττν, of 3 R. 463
Mowards thesunsetiis. ..o2 0.4.5.5 R. 673
Toy (C. H.), History of the Religion of

MSL Uipete repeats. sais) 3 suerscctecite Sepa se R. 442

UuLnorn (G.), Christian charity in the an-
cient church R. 869
Wipsony Δ ΒΟΗ͂Ι 1}. νον ν ον τες R. 887, 889

VAN Dyke (Henry J., Jr.), Milton and
LGTY Cols a τ. Ὁ. - «τος «εἶ, ἐδ :Article, 681
(J. C.), Books and how to use them.
R. 678

Van Norden (Ch.), The outermost rim and
beyond R. 463

tal CONSTESSES)/ γ95.2... 6 2: τον N. 164
Wenyegiones) cr OCMS. ././)- «05 serene R. 891
Vincent (Marvin R.), Modern miracles.

Article, 473
—— The minister’s handbook..... ΒΕ. 205
—— In the shadows of the Pyrenees.
R. 894
SACS CRBS OC DO ΚΟ O CSO OEE R. 465
Virginia (The Separation of Church and

State in). Article by J. Harris Patton.
20
WARFIELD (Benjamin B)..N. 629; R. 172,

172, 652, 847, 858.
Watson (J.), Schelling’s transcendental
idealism R. 677

Ce ei a ee

| Weiss (Bernhard), Das Leben Jesu.R. 173

| —— Bib. Theol. of the N. T., (trans. by

Society of Biblical Literature and Exege-
SiS ΠΟΘ ΕΣ ΘΙ Ol CHE)5.<\6.2- eae se N. 638 |

Socrates. A translation of the Apology,
RUSE ONCE ced rete etavatatelercicta\e sieis sie! ss! R. 469

Songs of the Kangdomly <5). - 2)... R. 210

Spencer’s Philosophy and Theism. Arti-

ele by Oscar rare aiden sien «Ὁ τον ss 581
Spinoza (Β. de), Ethic............. R. 903
Spirits in prison (The) He TIO τυ Δ Νὰ Ν. 411

Stephen (L.), The science of ethics.R. 216
Stern (Ludwig), Die Vorschriften der Tho-
R. 856
Strack (Hermann L.), Pirke Aboth.R. 168
Hebradische Gram-

matik. . .R. goo
Strassmaier ὭΣ: Ν. ), "Alph. ” Verzeichnis

der assyrischen und akkadischen Wor-

ALG) Were ser) τε ἈΞ crys ss setae R. 181
—— Evangelium des Matthaeus...R. 442
ΝΕ ΕΗ ΓΕ 13) Baeoeaae N. 424, 664; R. 876
Wellhausen (J.), Prolegomena zur Gesch.

Istaelsy ete Ausg-s Bde. Is sion R. 857

Welsh (A. H.), Development of English
Literature and Language...... -R. 467
(H.), Four weeks among some of the
DIORA ES a. tet ΟΣ ΟΕ ΤΑ overs faa R. 209
Wendt (H. H.), Die christliche Lehre von
der menschlichen Vollkommenheit un-
HCTSUG Ie tovar tae a2 -, okstele aisles cistel aye R. 202
Westcott (B. F.), The historic faith..R. 670

910 INDEX.

Whitelaw (T.), The Pulpit Commentary. | Wright (G. F.), Relation of death to proba-

ΘΈΠΕΘΙΘ. ὑπ ΣΡ eae cee ΠΡ Ε. 643
Wickes (W.), Accentuation of the three
poetical books of the O. T.......R. 655
Wight (Joseph K.), Presbyterianism in its
relation to Congregationalism. Arti-

2 eee Se Ort seer ee εις 308
Wilson (Samuel J.)........... R. 444, 460
Note on death of............ N. 813
Woerner (E.), Die Lehre Jesu, and, Ausle-
gung des Briefes an die Galater..R. 181
Wright (C. H. H.), The book of Koheleth.
Ε. 648

tion

sofas whe fate ΝΕ aja malaise eae a Seen R. 198
ZIMMER (Fr.), Exegetische Probleme des
Hebrier und Galaterbriefs....... R. 181
Concordantiae Novi Testamenti
Graeci

οι en R. 442
Zitslaff. Luther auf der Koburg...R. 191

Zoechler (Otto), Gotteszeuger im Reich.
der Natur ..22 05-bit R. 201
Handbuch der theologischen Wissen-
schaften...... I. 2, R. 429; II. 1.R. 876
Zoepffel (R.), vide sub Holtzmann, H.

ie ἢ
Ned. |
ἌΚΩΝ

J hanes es -o% t= ome

(παι
oe Se Vl ails mere Ar “- τας
᾿ ων - A *
=m Vous on ope a eae gaalis δα’ “mse ot
“ μ

μόν"

hist Sg ae

ἀπε Pha cigees me a sree
; nee
re onda

ἔσω κα oP

Ps ages Moh ᾿
a ii eee hia