Full text of "The Presbyterian Review"

See other formats

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

https://archive.org/details/presbyterianrevi9331unse

NOTE TO THE READER

The paper in this volume is brittle or the
inner margins are extremely narrow.

We have bound or rebound the volume
utilizing the best means possible.

PLEASE HANDLE WITH CARE

General Bookbinding Co.. Chesterland. Ohio

THE

^OLOGiCAL SE^i

PRESBYTERIAN

REVIEW.

managing editors :

CHARLES A. BRIGGS, FRANCIS L. PATTON.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS

RANSOM B. WELCH,
WILLIAM H. JEFFERS.
LLEWELLYN J. EVANS,
THOMAS H. SKINNER,
TALBOT W. CHAMBERS,

ROBERT FLINT,

HENRY CALDERWOOD,
WILLIAM G. BLAIKIE,
THOMAS WITHEROW,
WILLIAM CAVEN,

J. MUNRO GIBSON.

Each author is solely respo?isible for the views expressed in his article, the Editors
only for the propriety of admitting the article into the Review.

VOLUME IX.

1888.

NEW YORK:

Published for the Presbyterian Review Association, by

CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS,

743-745 Broadway, New York.

T. & T. CLARK, Edinburgh, Scotland.

Burr Printing House,

18 Jacob Street, New York.

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

JANUARY.

I.— THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT i

By Prof. Henry M. Baird, D.D., LL.D.

II. — SOME REASONS IN FAVOR OF RETOUCHING THE REVISED

ENGLISH VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES, ... 28

By the Rev. Elias Riggs, D.D., LL.D.

III. — THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION, .... 37

By Chancellor John Hall, D.D., LL.D.

IV. — THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE, . 46

By the Rev. Alexander Mair, D.D.

V.— THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA 69

By Prof. Francis Brown, Ph.D., D.D.

VI.— THE PRESENT STRUGGLES IN THE NATIONAL CHURCH OF

HOLLAND 87

By Principal John Cairns, D.D., LL.D.

VII. — Critical Note. — The New Theory of the Apocalypse, by Prof. Charles

A. Briggs, D.D 109

VIII. — Historical Note. — Thomas Cartwright’s Letter to Arthur Hildersham

on the Study of Divinity 116

IX. — Editorial Notes. — The Alliance of the Reformed Churches, by the Rev.

Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D., p. 122; Union on the Mission
Field, by Principal William Caven, D.D., p. 124; The One Hun-
dredth General Assembly, by Prof. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., p. 128.. . 122

X. — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by W. J. Beecher,

Francis Brown, H. P. Smith, W. H. Green, B. B. Warfield, L. J.
Evans, P. Schaff, S. M. Hopkins, R. B. Welch, I. H. Hall, S. M.
Jackson, C. A. Briggs, F. L. Patton, C. A. Aiken, W. G. T. Shedd,
Herrick Johnson, T. S. Hastings, T. W. Chambers, A. T. Ormond,

F. A. March, Allan Marquand. — Butler’s Bible Work, The Old Testa-
ment, I., p. 137 ; Spurrell’s Notes on Genesis, p. 138 ; Gossrau’s
Genesis, p. 139; Ryssel’s Micha, p. 140; Heinrici’s Korinthierbriefe,

II., p. 142; Hutchison’s Philippians, p. 144; Gloag’s Catholic Epis-
tles, p. 145; Parallel-Bible, p. 145; Lindsay’s Luke, p. 146; Kiihl’s
Briefe Petri und Judae, p. 146; Diisterdieck’s Offenbarung Johannis,

TABLE OF CONTENTS — 'January Continued.

p. 146 ; Fisher’s History of the Christian Church, p. 146 ; Hatch's
Growth of Church Institutions, p. 147 ; Funk’s Doctrina Duodecim
Apostolorum, p. 14S ; Schaff’s Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fa-
thers, p. 149; Kayser’s Canones Jacob von Edessa, p. 150; De
Hoop-Scheffer’s Gesch. der Reformation in den Niederlanden, p. 151 ;
Drew’s Wilibald Pirkheimer’s Stellung zur Reformation, p. 152 ; An-
drew’s Institutes of General History, p. 153 ; Friedrich’s Tempel
und Palast Solomon’s, p. 154; Manchot’s Die Heiligen, p. 154;
Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, Hermann Reuter zum 70 Geburtstag
gewidmet, p. 154 ; Jackson’s Dalmatia, p. 154 ; Good’s Origin of the
Reformed Church in Germany, p. 155; Schaff's Neander, p. 156;
Frank’s Christian Certainty, p. 156; De La Saussaye’s Lehrbuch der
Religionsgeschichte, p. 157 ; Morris’ Is there Salvation after Death ? p.

158 ; Fairbairn’s Doctrine of Morality, p. 160 ; Tolstoi’s Confession, p.

161 ; Brooks’ Tolerance, p. 161 ; Munger’s Appeal to Life, p. 161 ;
Porter’s Fifteen Years, p. 164 ; Gladden’s Parish Problems, p. 165 ;
McKim’s Sermons, p. 166 ; Smyth’s Christian Facts and Forces, p.

166; Seaman’s Manual for Worship, p. 168 ; Steinmeyer’s Gesprach
Jesu mit der Samariterin, p. 168 ; Hamburg’s Handbuch f. d. Kon-
firmanden-Unterricht, p. 169; Peterson’s Ich Lebe, p. 169; Dietel’s
Missions-Stunden, p. 169 ; Schleiermacher’s Predigtentwurfe, p. 169 ;
Warneck’s Mission in der Schule, p. 169 ; Phillipps’ Touto Estito
Soma Mon., p. 170; Exell’s Biblical Illustrator, p. 170; McCosh’s
Psychology, p. 170 ; Fowler’s Principles of Morals, p. 171 ; Murray’s
New English Dictionary, III., p. 173 ; Max Muller’s Carita of An-
drea del Sarto, p. 175 ; Letters of Thackeray, p. 176; Tolstoi’s What
to Do, p. 176 ; Hague’s Life Notes, p. 176 137

APRIL.

I.— PROGRESS AND POVERTY, 177

By Principal George Monro Grant, D.D.

II. -DIVINE LOVE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 199

By Prof. Edward Lewis Curtis.

III. — HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE WEST 20S

By President William C. Roberts, D.D., LL.D.

IV. — ORGANIZATION IN CHURCH WORK 222

By the Rev. Samuel J. Niccolls, D.D., LL.D.

V.— PRESBYTERIANISM IN CANADA 233

By Prof. Thomas Witherow, D.D.

VI.— LEGISLATIVE RESTRICTION OF EVILS 249

By Prof. Willis J. Beecher, D.D.

VII.— THE APOCALYPSE OF JESUS 263

By Prof. Charles A. Briggs, D.D.

TABLE OF CONTENTS — April Continued.

VIII. — Historical Note. — Woman’s Work in the Church, by Prof. A. H.

Charteris, D.D 285

IX. — Critical Note. — The Babylonian “ List of Kings ” and “Chronicle,”

by Prof. Francis Brown, Ph.D., D.D 293

X. — Editorial Notes. — Church Union or Christian Unity? Some Observa-

tions on “The Declaration of the House of Bishops,” by Prof. Ran-
som B. Welch, D.D., LL.D., p. 300; and A Plea for an American
Alliance of the Reformed Churches, by Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D.,
p. 306 300

XI. — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by W. Henry Green,

Francis Brown, C. A. Briggs, M. B. Riddle, H. M. Baird, C. R. Gil-
lett, Isaac H. Hall, R. B. Welch, P. Schaff, J. C. Moffatt, T. S. Hast-
ings, C. A. Aiken, W. G. T. Shedd, E. D. Morris, B. B. Warfield,
Herrick Johnson, A. F. Schauffier, C. Hamlin, T. W. Chambers, F.

A. March, F. L. Patton, J. O. Murray, and A. L. Frothingham. — De-
litzsch’s Genesis, p. 310 ; Klostermann’s Bucher Samuelis und Konige,
p. 314 ; Piepenbring’s Theologie de 1’A. T., p. 316 ; Usteri’s Petrus-
brief, p. 317; Zenas’ Apologia ad Habraeos, p. 318 ; Parallel-Bibel, p.

319 ; Lias’ Judges, p. 319 ; Lumby’s Kings, p. 319 ; Strack’s Joma, p.

319; Strack’s Uebungsstiicke, p. 319; Heidenheim’s Bib. Samaritana,
p. 319 ; Naville’s Land of Goshen, p. 320 ; Jahn’s Eustathius, p. 322 ;
Harnack’s Kirchenordnung, p. 322 ; Loof’s Leontius von Byzanz, p.

323 ; Augustine’s Sermon on the Mount, p. 323 ; Hauck’s Kirchenge-
schichte Deutschlands, p. 324 ; Creighton’s Papacy during the Ref-
ormation, p. 324; Prime Family Records, p. 327 ; Keil’s Archaeology,
p. 328; Schodde’s Book of Jubilees, p. 328; Manssurov Kirche d.
heiligen Grabes, p. 328 ; Jenning’s Manual of Church History, p. 328 ;
Yonge’s Apostles’ Creed, p. 328; Keller's altevang. Gemeinden, p.

328 ; Comba’s Histoire des Vaudois, p. 329 ; Patton’s Triumph of
the Presbytery of Hanover, p. 329 ; Preiss’ Rehgionsgeschichte, p. 329 ;
Clyde’s Mohammedanism, p. 330 ; Bohl’s Glaubenslehre, p. 330 ;
Reuter’s Augustinische Studien, p. 331 ; Bannerman’s Doctrine of
the Church, p. 331 ; Meyer’s Wahlfreiheit des Willens, p. 333 ; Herr-
mann’s Gewissheit des Glaubens, p. 333 ; Hodge’s Westminster
Shorter Catechism, p. 334 ; Salmond’s Shorter Catechism, p. 333 ;
Ebrard’s Apologetics, p. 334; Christianity and Evolution, p. 335 ; Non-
Biblical Systems of Religion, p. 33s ; Van Dyke’s Story of the Psalms,
p. 335 i Pierson’s Evangelistic Work, p. 336 ; Loomis’ Modern Cities,
p. 336 ; Autobiography of W. G. Schauffier, p. 337 ; Memorial
of C. W. Baird, p. 338 ; Spurgeon’s Best Bread and Golden Alphabet,
p. 338 ; Pierson’s Crisis of Missions, p. 339 ; Green’s Both Sides, p.

339 ; Strathesk’s Come and Go, p. 339 ; Parker’s People’s Bible, p. 339 ;

Ker’s Victory of Faith, p. 339; Philip’s Lights and Shadows, p. 339;,
Reid’s Living for the Master, p. 340 ; Miller’s Come ye Apart, p. 340 ;
Stanley’s Sermons for Children, p. 340 ; Watts’ Reign of Causality,
p. 340 ; Muller’s Science of Thought, p. 341 ; Schurman’s Ethical
Import of Darwinism, p. 345 ; Saintsburv’s Elizabethan Literature, p.

345 ; Mahaffy’s Greek Life and Thought, p. 347 ; Norton’s Remin-
iscences of Carlyle, p. 348 ; Tuckerman’s History of Architecture, p.

349 ; Merx Chrestomathia Targumica, p. 351 ; O. M. Mitchel, p. 352 ;
Moffat’s Story of a Dedicated Life, p. 352 310

TABLE OF CONTENTS— July.

JULY.

I— CHRISTIAN UNITY AND THE HISTORIC EPISCOPATE; or, the

Fourth Essential in the Declaration of the House of Bishops, . 353
By Prof. Ransom B. Welch, D. D., LL.D.

II.— PRIMITIVE JUSTICE, 364

By Prof. A. G. Hopkins, D.D.

III. — NINIAN BEALL: An American Elder of the Seventeenth Century, . 380

By the Rev. J. W. McIlvain.

IV. — CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE 388

By the Rev. William T. Herridge, B.D.

V.— RISE OF THE SCOTTISH PULPIT 407

By Prof. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D.

VI.— CAN THE BEING OF GOD BE DEMONSTRATED? . . .427

By the Rev. Erskine N. White, D.D.

VII. — Historical Note. — An Account of the Scripture Proofs Attached to the
Confession of Faith and Larger Catechism, by the Rev. Samuel T.
Lowrie, D.D 443

VIII. — Critical Notes. — A Critical Examination of Hebrews xii. 17, by the
Rev. M. W. Jacobus, p. 457 ; Christian Polemics against the Jews, by
Arthur C. McGiffert, p. 463 ; Genesis xli. 32, by the Rev. Thomas Lau-
rie, D.D., p. 474; Babylon and Egypt, B.c. 1500, by Prof. Francis
Brown, D.D., p. 476 457

IX. — Editorial Notes. — An American Alliance of the Reformed Churches, by
the Rev. Talbot W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D., p. 482 ; Co-operation in
Foreign Missions, by Prof. Henry Calderwood, D.D., LL.D., p. 485.. 482

X. — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by H. P. Smith, C. A.
Briggs, Francis Brown, M. B. Riddle, B. B. Warfield, R. B. Welch,

John DeWitt, S. M. Jackson, J. Mark Baldwin, T. S. Hastings, T.

W. Chambers, A. T. Ormond, G. Macloskie, C. A. Aiken. — Men of
the Bible, p. 488 ; Ley’s Hebraische Poesie, p. 490 ; Dod’s Book of
Genesis, p. 490 ; Pinnock’s Bible and Contemporary History, p. 491 ;
White’s Old Latin Biblical Texts, III., p. 492 ; Strack and Zockler’s
Kurzgefasster Kommentar, Neues Testament, 3te Abtheilung, p. 493 ;
Jukes’ Names of God, p. 494 ; Hupfeld’s Psalmen (Nowack), p. 495 ;
Knabenbauer’s Isaiah, p. 495 ; Sebok’s Syrische Uebersetzung d. 12
Kl. Propheten, p. 495 ; Cox’s Expositions, 4th Series, p. 496 ; Har-
ris’s Teaching of the Apostles, p. 496 ; Hilgenfeld’s Hermse Pastor, p.

499 ; Frothingham’s Stephen Bar Sudaili, p. 502 ; Augustin’s Homi-
lies and Soliloquies, p. 501 ; Schaff’s Church and State in the United
States, p. 503 ; Dorchester’s Christianity in the United States, p. 503 ;
Jenning’s Manual of Church History, II., p. 505 ; Tozer’s Church and
Eastern Empire, p. 506 ; Walker’s Theology and Theologians of Scot-
land, p. 506 ; Kellogg’s The Jews, p. 506 ; Martineau’s Study of Re-
ligion, p. 507 ; Mann’s Five Discourses on Future Punishment, p.

509; McCosh’s Religious Aspect of Evolution, p. 510; Faith and

TABLE OF CONTENTS — July Continued.

vii

Conduct, p. 511 ; The Inspired Word, p. 511 ; Baker’s Fire of God’s
Anger, p. 512 ; Buck’s Our Lord’s Miracles, p. 513 ; Harris and
Tucker’s Hymns of the Faith, p. 513 ; Pratt’s Songs of Worship for the
Sunday School, p. 514; National Perils and Opportunities, p. 514;
James Robertson of Newington, p. 515 ; Spurgeon’s My Sermon
Notes, p. 515 ; Pearse’s Blessed Life, p. 516 ; New Science of Elocu-
tion, p. 516; Armstrong’s Five-Minute Sermons, p. 516; Neely’s Par-
liamentary Practice, p. 516; Parker’s People’s Bible, VII., p. 516;
Stuckenberg’s Introduction to the Study of Philosophy, p. 517 ; Life
and Letters of Charles Darwin, p. 519; Ainger’s Letters of Charles-
Lamb, p. 523 ; Rhys’ Celtic Heathendom, p. 523 ; Delitzsch’s As-
syrisches Worterbuch, p. 524 ; Tiele’s Babylonisch-Assyrische Ge-
schichte, II., p. 524 ; Hommel’s Geschichte Babyloniens-Assyriens,

III., p. 524; Sayce’s Babylonian Religion, p. 524; Strassmaier’s
Inschriften des Nabonidus, p. 525 ; Smith’s Assurbanipal, p. 525 ;
Smith’s Miscellaneous Inscriptions, p. 525 ; Harper’s Cylinder A of
Esarhaddon, p. 525 ; Amiaud and M6chineau’s Tableaux Compares
des Ecritures Cuneiformes, p. 524 ; Brtinnow’s Classified List of Ideo-
graphs, p. 524 ; Jeremias’ Babylonisch-Assyrische Vorstellungen von
Leben nach dem Tode, p. 525 ; Life of Amos A. Lawrence, p. 528 ;
Barrow’s United States of Yesterday and of To-morrow, p. 528 ;
Richmond’s Woman First and Last, p. 528 ; Tolstoi’s Long Exile, p.

528 488

OCTOBER.

I.— THE INFLUENCE OF PAGANISM ON POST APOSTOLIC

CHRISTIANITY 529

By the Rev. George T. Purves, D.D.

II. — THE IMPECCABILITY OF CHRIST, .555

By Prof. William G. T. Shedd, D.D., LL.D.

III. — CHARLES DARWIN’S RELIGIOUS LIFE : A Sketch in Spiritual Biog-

raphy 569

By Prof. Benjamin B. Warfield, D.D.

IV.— THE TWO ISAIAHS, THE REAL AND THE IMAGINARY, . 602
By Principal George C. M. Douglas, D.D.

V. — Editorial Notes. — General Synod of the Reformed (Dutch) Church,
by the Rev. T. W. Chambers, D.D., LL.D., p. 638 ; The Fourth General
Presbyterian Council, by the Rev. W. G. Blaikie, D.D., LL.D., p. 641 ;
General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, by Principal
W. Caven, D.D., p. 645 ; General Conference on Foreign Missions, by
Prof. C. A. Aiken, D.D., p.649; The One Hundredth General As-
sembly, by Pres. F. L. Patton, D.d'., LL.D., p. 654; The Lambeth
Conference, by Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., p. 657 638

VI. — Reviews of Recent Theological Literature, by C. A. Briggs, F.

Brown, C. W. Hodge, B. B. Warfield, P. Schaff, T. S. Hastings, C. A.
Aiken, T. W. Chambers. — Forbes’ Studies on the Book of Psalms, p.

viii TABLE OF CONTENTS — October Continued.

660 ; Bredenkamp’s Jesaia, p. 661 ; Driver’s Isaiah, p. 663 ; Stapler’s
Palestine in the Time of Christ, p. 663 ; Johnstone’s First Peter, p. 664 ;
Weiss’ Hebraerbrief, p. 665 ; Ewald’s Old and New Testament Theol-
ogy, p. 666 ; Evans’ St. John, the author of the Fourth Gospel, p.

666 ; Wahle’s Evang. n. Johannes, p. 667 ; Bethge’s Paulinischen
Reden d. Apostelgeschichte, p. 667 ; Ciasca’s Tatiani Evang. Harm.
Arabice, p. 668 ; Wolfe’s Gesch. d. deutschen Protestanten, p. 668 ;
Wilken’s Gesch. d. spanischen Protestantismus, p. 669 ; McDonnold’s
History of the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, p. 670 ; King’s Julian,
the Emperor, p. 671 ; Wohlenberg’s Lehre d. zwolf Apostel, p. 671 ;
Gaussen's Theopneustia, p. 672 ; Manly’s Bible Doctrine of Inspiration,
p. 672 ; Ladd’s What is the Bible ? p. 673 ; Briefwechsel zwischen
Martensen und Dorner, p. 677 ; Strong’s Philosophy and Religion,
p. 679 ; Weidner’s Introduction to Dogmatic Theology, p. 679 ; Wat-
son’s Gospels of Yesterday, p. 680; Lowrie’s Lord’s Supper accord-
ing to the Directory, p. 680; Dollinger’s The Creator, p. 680;
Salmond’s Reign of Grace, p. 680 ; Macgregor’s Day of Salvation,
p. 681 ; Stuart’s Principles of Christianity, p. 681 ; Hitchcock’s
Eternal Atonement, p. 682 ; Handbook of Foreign Missions, p.

683 ; Stevenson’s Dawn of the Modern Mission, p. 683 ; Are Foreign
Missions doing any Good ? p. 683 ; Hill’s Social Influence of Christian-
ity, p. 684; Talmage’s Woman, p. 684; Tolstoi’s Life, p. 684; Tols-
toi’s Power and Liberty, p. 684 ; Bernard’s Mental Characteristics of
the Lord Jesus, p. 685; Christianity in the Conduct of Life, p. 686;
Brown’s The Risen Christ the King of Men, p. 686 ; Jaspis’ Denkmal
der Liebe, p. 686 ; Schultze’s Textgemassige Predigt-Entwiirfe, p. 686 ;

Von den letzen Dingen, p. 687 ; Blaikie’s First Samuel, p. 687 • Lorenz’s
Getting ready for a Revival, p. 687 ; Seeker’s Nonsuch Professor, p.

688 ; TheTrue-wine Theory Discussed, p. 688 ; Exell’s Biblical Illustra-
tor, St. Mark, p. 688 ; Parker’s People’s Bible, Kings and Chron., p.

689 ; Sermon Bible, Gen. -Sam., p. 689 ; Frothingham’s Christian Phil-
osophy, p. 689 ; Current Discussions in Theology, p. 690 ; Inge’s So-
ciety in Rome under the Csesars, p. 691 ; Hughes’ James Frazer, p.

691 ; Delitzsch’s Iris, p. 692 ; Frezbe’s Ziige deutscher Sitte, p. 692 ;
Topelius’ Vernas Rosen, p. 692 ; Verestchagin’s At Home and in
War, p. 660 660

GENERAL INDEX

693

THE

PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

No. 33.— January, 1888.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

THE Reformed Church of France found itself in a deplorable
condition after the recall of the Edict of Nantes by Louis
the Fourteenth, a little over two centuries ago. The majestic tree
which was the product of the growth of about one hundred and
seventy-five years was felled to the ground in an instant. By a
single dash of the pen every privilege granted by the law of Henry
the Fourth was forfeited. The Protestants not only lost what their
ancestors had won as the reward of almost unexampled patience
under adversity and heroic courage in the midst of wars, persecu-
tions, and massacres, but were robbed of those inalienable rights
which are the heritage of all mankind. The exercise of the Re-
formed worship was proscribed. Ministers and pastors, without
exception, were ordered to leave the kingdom within fifteen days
from the date of the publication of the law. Protestant schools
were closed. On the other hand, it was expressly commanded that
any Protestants that might have expatriated themselves should re-
turn to France, and it was forbidden that any Protestant, man or
woman, should leave the realm. Thus, while the teachers of religion
were expelled, the laity were compelled to remain in P'rance, but
were deprived of every means of instruction and of every oppor-
tunity of worshipping God according to the dictates of their con-
science. There was nothing said in the revocatory edict of con-
straining the Protestants to embrace Roman Catholicism. On the
contrary, the very last paragraph contained an assurance that, until
such time as God might be pleased to enlighten their minds, they
would be permitted to dwell in the kingdom, pursue their trades,
1

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

and enjoy their possessions without hindrance or molestation on
account of their religion, upon the sole condition of abstaining from
all religious assemblies. But the edict was dishonest from begin-
ning to end ; and inasmuch as it started with a mendacious pre-
amble, basing the revocation upon the alleged fact that “ the better
and greater part ” of the Protestants had become Roman Catholics,
it is not surprising that it concluded writh a delusive promise of im-
munity, which the court of Louis the Fourteenth had not the slight-
est intention of keeping. The Dragonnades, which had for some
years been industriously employed as a convenient instrument of
conversion, were by no means abandoned. The Protestants were
not left long in doubt respecting the fate that awaited them, and
they took their measures accordingly.

Many fled from France ; how many it is impossible to say. Trust-
worthy statistics are at all times difficult to obtain ; particularly so,
for some reason or other, in France and where Protestantism is con-
cerned. If the estimates of the number of its adherents in the mod-
ern republic differ so widely that we cannot be sure of being right
within a quarter of a million, much more is there uncertainty re-
specting the census of the Protestants in France before the Revoca-
tion, and the relative proportion of those who succeeded in making
their way out, .as compared with those who remained behind. The
refugees may have numbered eight hundred thousand, as some have
maintained, or only three hundred thousand, as others affirm with
greater probability of approximate correctness. In any case, they
constituted an astonishingly large body of men, women, and chil-
dren, willing for conscience’ sake to expose themselves to the perils
of the journey and the danger of incurring the penalty of the gal-
leys, or imprisonment in monasteries or in dungeons like the “ Tour
de Constance,” at Aigues-Mortes, not to speak of the certain loss of
home, friends, and property. But with the possible exception of
the inhabitants of some districts affording better opportunities than
the rest for their escape,* much the greater part of the Protestants
found themselves compelled to renounce all thought of escape, and
to endure as best they might the tyranny to which they were sub-
jected.

* The French Government is printing, in its magnificent collection of “ Documents
inedits sur 1’Histoire de France,” the “ M6moires” of the Intendants on the state of
the kingdom. In the first volume of this series, published in 1881, we have, on pages
151-54, the official answer to the questions respecting the Huguenots in the “ gen6-
ralitfe” of Paris. From this it would appear that of 1933 families which were there be-
fore the Revocation, 1202 had left, and only 731, or scarcely more than one third,
remained.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

It was otherwise with the ministers. A very few accepted the
tempting offers held forth to induce them to apostatize, including a
pension for life larger by a third than the salaries they had been
enjoying as Protestant pastors ; a very few consented to avail them-
selves of the facilities promised to renegade ministers — facilities
which consisted in a dispensation from the three years of study re-
quired of candidates for the bar or for the degree of doctor of laws,
and from one half of the accustomed fees. All the others, between
six and seven hundred in number,* left the realm rather than
renounce their faith. The propriety of their course in thus forsak-
ing their flocks has, indeed, been called in question. Their adver-
saries, naturally taking advantage of every circumstance that might
seem to impugn the sincerity of the convictions of the Protestants,
and thus to palliate, if not justify, the severities employed in refer-
ence to them, did not fail to comment upon the retreat of the min-
isters as of unfaithful shepherds fleeing upon the approach of the
wolf. But certainly any other course than that which they adopted
can scarcely be conceived as having been practicable. Their further
stay in France was at first prohibited on pain of the galleys. About
eight months later, by his Declaration of July 1st, 1686, the king
raised the penalty to death. It is evident that up to this date a
considerable number of pastors had either continued to lurk in the
neighborhood of their old parishes, giving such spiritual instruction
and consolation as they were able, or, after leaving France, had
secretly returned. This is proved by the circumstance that this
same Declaration ordered that any man found guilty of harboring
such ministers should be sent to the galleys for life, and any woman
should for the same offence have her head shaven and be incarce-
rated for the residue of her days. Confiscation of property followed
as a matter of course. Moreover, a reward of five thousand five
hundred livrcs — a very considerable sum for the period — -was offered
for information that might lead to the capture of a Protestant min-
ister within the dominions of the very Christian king. Under the
circumstances to remain in France would seem to mean certain
death, and that, too, without the opportunity of first doing such
effective work as would justify the rash exposure. The ministers
were marked men, whose long residence in the community had ren-

* It has sometimes been said that two thousand Protestant ministers left France at
the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. This is a mistake. The list drawn up for the
twenty-sixth national synod (of Alen5on) in 1637— the last list of the kind — gives the
names of six hundred and forty-seven pastors and of eight hundred and seven
churches. It is not likely that the number of either was ever greater. Aymon, Tous
les Synodes, i. 291-306.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

dered their features well known. The surveillance exercised over
the Protestants — both those that had abjured and those that still
remained constant — was unusually close. There were likely to be
few retreats to which they could find occasionally resort. They
would be, so they thought, of more practical utility in some neigh-
boring land, whence they might write to their former parishioners
letters of advice and exhortation to repentance or to renewed
fidelity.

Thus it came to pass that for the last ten or fifteen years of the
seventeenth century France was almost wholly destitute of Protes-
tant pastors and teachers. Meanwhile, what had happened to their
flocks ? Evidently the most resolute of the Protestants had early
made up their minds to forsake their country. Emigration had
assumed formidable proportions even before the actual promulga-
tion of the fatal decree of Louis the Fourteenth. It is a popular
error very current, especially among the descendants of the Hugue-
nots in foreign lands, that all who fled from France for religion’s
sake left at the time of the Revocation, and in immediate connec-
tion with it. The truth is, however, that there were a number of
emigrations. Rulhiere enumerates at least seven. Two of these
were before the revocatory edict — the first in 1666, when the ex-
treme severity of the provisions of the royal declaration of April 2d
caused many to despair of the possibility of leading quiet lives in
their native land,* and the second in 1681, when the Dragonnades,
authorized by the Intendant Marillac, in the province of Poitou,
drove out many who up to this time had neglected the signs of
coming disaster.! Those who remained in France after these emi-

* The most convenient collection of the anti-Protestant legislation of the reigns of
Louis the Fourteenth and Louis the Fifteenth is the volume entitled “ Edits, Decla-
rations et Arrests concernans la Religion P. Reformee,” reprinted on the occasion of
the Bicentenary of the Revocation, in 1885. It does not, however, contain the Decla-
ration of April 2d, 1666, for the reason that the court becoming alarmed at the magni-
tude of the losses to the kingdom flowing from the unprecedented emigration and the
consequent depopulation of extensive districts of country, the king was induced to
repeal it a little less than three years later, February 1st, 1669, and substitute a law in
many respects less offensive to the Protestants. The text of the Declaration of 1666
may, however, be read in Drion, Histoire chronologique de l’Eglise Protestante de
France, ii. 96-106.

f The other emigrations referred to above include the exodus that began at once after
the revocatory edict in 1685, and four that were subsequent and that to some extent
marked periods in the fortunes of the oppressed Huguenots. The first of these was in
1698, as a consequence of the disappointment caused by the law of that year. The
second followed upon the atrocious law of 1715, almost the last paper to which Louis
the Fourteenth affixed his signature, and probably the worst. The third was occasioned
by the law of 1724, in which all the distinct edicts and declarations issued during a long
course of years, even the most inconsistent and contradictory, were summed up and

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

grations and after the departure of those who succeeded in making
their way beyond the frontiers at once after the Revocation, bowed
before the tempest that swept over the land. Instead of being left
unmolested, as the mendacious edict had assured them that they
should be, they found themselves subjected to annoyances and per-
secutions, by means of the dragoons and otherwise, from which a
single word — a promise to go to mass — was at any moment sufficient
to relieve them. That word spoken, that promise given, all was
simple enough. Not much religion was required of the “ new con-
verts”— ” nouveaux convertis” — as they were called, if only they
abstained from the practice of the Protestant religion. Some few
persons — it will never be known exactly how many — persisted
through all the trials to which they were subjected in maintaining
their religious honor unsullied, and died, as they had lived, in the
open profession of their faith, either conveniently ignored by the
authorities or virtually given up as incorrigible. The greater num-
ber, however, reluctantly yielded. They regarded themselves as
cowards, deplored their own pusillanimity, detested the act to
which they were forced, felt an unconquerable aversion to the church
of which they were henceforth ostensibly reckoned as members,
but nevertheless they consented to go to the mass. In various ways
they strove to reconcile their conduct with their consciences. Some-
times they affected to look at it as a mere form, or a display of alle-
giance, and appended to their consent a phrase purporting to show
that they had so done simply ‘‘to obey the king.” Plainly theirs
was an instance, if ever there was one, where, if the lips had taken
an oath, the heart, to use the old dramatist’s thought, was yet un-
sworn.

This state of things was not calculated to produce inward peace.
The more indifferent and worldly might treat with levity the whole
affair, and content themselves with pointing to the constraint used
as sufficient excuse for an act which was not hypocritical, because it
neither deceived nor was intended to deceive any one, and was not
uncandid, because nobody could imagine it sincere. Others, how-
ever, could not cheat their own moral natures respecting the immo

re-enacted. The fourth resulted from the renewed severity in the excution of existing
laws, without the enactment of any new law of importance, in 1744 and 1745. Rulhiere,
Eclaircissemens historiques sur les causes de la Revocation de l’Edit de Nantes, et sur
l’fitat des Protestants en France, ii. , 342, 344. It was at this last date that the Protes-
tants of Upper Languedoc sent to the king a formal petition, begging his permission to
emigrate with their wives and children to some land “ where,” said they, “ we might
be able to render to the Deity the worship which we believe indispensable, and upon
which depends our misery or our happiness for all eternity.” Charles Coquerel, His-
toire des Eglises du Desert, i. 359, 360.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

rality of the entire procedure, and forgave themselves as little as they
forgave the authors of their misfortunes. Now that the voice of
the living preacher was silenced, the main source of religious in-
struction was to be found in such stray copies of the Bible and other
books of Protestant devotion as had escaped destruction at the
hands of the clergy. In the hope of a speedy interference of Heaven
in their behalf, the prophetic books of both Testaments, and the
Revelation in particular, became favorite subjects of study and med-
itation. The deliverance of God’s people from the heavy yoke of
their oppressors was believed to be prefigured in the mysteries of
the apocalyptic vision, and many minds beside that of the learned
and penetrating Pierre Jurieu, surnamed “ the Goliath of the Prot-
estants,” busied themselves with the endeavor to ascertain the date
of the approaching downfall of the Papacy and its votaries by the
aid of the numerical significance of letters and the obscure sym-
bolism of prophecy. In the provinces of Dauphiny and Vivarais,
the one on the east and the other on the west of the river Rhone,
among the most illiterate of the peasantry that had embraced the
doctrines of the Reformation, arose about this time a class of en-
thusiasts claiming to receive direct communications from Heaven —
men, and especially women and children, who fell into a trance,
and, while unconscious, pretended to utter words supplied to them
by the Holy Spirit. It mattered not that the language which they
uttered was rude and uncultivated, nor that the exhortations of
which they were regarded as being only the medium of communica-
tion were at times only commonplace repetitions of Biblical phrases,
at others little better than pure jargon. They deeply moved the
people, and excited the apprehension of enemies as much as they
raised the hopes of friends. Whether the “ little prophets” were
impostors or self-deceived is a question which it is not easy to an-
swer. Most probably there was the usual admixture of sincerity
and fraud, and a career which may have begun in honest but fanati-
cal zeal was later pursued with ardor from the desire of notoriety
and influence. At any rate, the French prophets of the Cevennes
soon gained a world-wide celebrity. They were even made the
actors in a show at one of the London fairs, where puppets were
made to imitate their strange convulsions to the delight of the spec-
tators.* A full narrative of this delusion would form an instructive
chapter in the history of modern enthusiasm.

* So Anthony, third Earl of Shaftesbury, informs us in his “ Letter Concerning
Enthusiasm,” pp. 26, 27 : “ I am told for certain that they are at this very time [1707]
the subject of a choice Droll or Puppet-show at Bait’lemy Fair. There doubtless their
strange voices and involuntary agitations are admirably well acted, by the emotion of
wires and inspiration of pipes."

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

The war of the Camisards, which arose a little later, grew directly
from the movement that has just been mentioned. Its scene was
the mountainous region of the Cevennes in southern France, in close
proximity to the region where “ the fanatical prophets,” as they
were styled by their enemies, first made their appearance. The
leaders in the conflict upon the Protestant side were either them-
selves “ prophets,” or persons who believed that they were commis-
sioned of God to execute His vengeance upon the ungodly adver-
saries of the truth. Impatient under the continued tyranny of
which they were made the victims, they renounced the popular doc-
trine of blind and implicit submission to constituted authority, and
grasped the sword to avenge the insults offered to the Almighty and
their own wrongs. The Abbe du Chailla, whom the Intendant
Baville had appointed Inspector of the Roman Catholic Missions in
the Cevennes, an ecclesiastic who, if the accounts that have come
down to us do not do him gross injustice, had shown himself, in his
treatment of such Protestants as had fallen into his hands, to be a
monster of cruelty, rare even in a century by no means wanting in
specimens of inhumanity, was the first victim of Huguenot or Carn-
isard revenge. His death, according to our best authority on the
general history of this war, was not the signal of the revolt, but the
occasion of the outbreak.* There ensued such a conflict as the
world has rarely seen — a conflict in which a handful of leaders, some
of them scarcely older than boys, none of them officers trained in
the military art, and mostly without any experience in actual war-
fare, held their own, at the head of bands of recruits drawn from
the ranks of the peasants and the mountaineers, against the whole
body of disciplined troops sent to reduce them to subjection. For
two whole years — 1702 to 1704— the war was waged with undimin-
ished vigor. In desperation the royal general, Marshal Montrevel,
resorted to the barbarous expedient of ordering a wholesale destruction
of the towns, villages, and hamlets in the upper Cevennes, which
might serve as a refuge for the Camisards, amounting in all, accord-
ing to one Roman Catholic writer of the period, to four hundred and
sixty-six places, with a population of nearly twenty thousand per-
sons. f It was almost an internecine contest, in which if Camisard
hamlets were ruthlessly destroyed by the Roman Catholic troops,
the inhabitants being turned out to live or die as it might chance,
the other side showed no greater compunction in burning churches
and monasteries, while life was held equally cheap by Papist and by

* Antoine Court, Histoire des troubles des Cevennes ou de la guerre des Camisards,
ii. 3-

f See Court, ii. 36, who regards the population as much greater.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Protestant. Even after the war virtually ended, the principal lead-
ers having either, like Cavalier, made terms with the royalists, or
lost their lives in the vicissitudes of the conflict, a desultory struggle
was continued for several years. It cannot be said that quiet was
fully restored in the Cevennes until about 1710.

The story of the fanatical prophets of Dauphiny and Vivarais and
of the war of the Camisards must be borne in mind by any one that
would understand the condition of the Protestants — the New Con-
verts, as the official language of the court still persisted in calling
them — in the year 1715, when the Churches of the Desert first began
to assume form and show faint indications of organic life. Just
thirty years had elapsed since the publication of the Edict of Nantes
— upon the whole the most dreary and discouraging years in all the
checkered existence of French Protestantism, from the days of
Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples to the present time. For almost an entire
generation the systematic preaching of the Word of God had ceased,
and the multitudes still Protestant at heart had been reduced to the
necessity of entertaining their secret piety by the uncertain means
of recollection and tradition. Fortunately, however, the people not
only longed for something better, but had occasionally a taste of it.
In the absence of settled pastors, a few fervent and adventurous
men had sprung up who did not shrink from the perilous task of
visiting the dispersed members of once flourishing churches, and
administering to them such spiritual strength and nourishment as
their circumstances would permit. The work called for great tact
and great caution. It was not easy to escape the watchful eyes of
government agents, ever on the alert to detect the first symptoms of
defection on the part of the New Converts — agents who always found
in the clergy of the established church both an active stimulus and
substantial support. The minister, travelling from place to place,
must throw about his movements an appearance of unconcern that
should disarm suspicion, and be taken by turns for a peasant, for a
teamster, a pedlar, or a shepherd. It was quite likely that the offi-
cials of the entire province, from the intendant down to the captain
of the most petty detachment of troops, had been furnished with a
description of his personal appearance, his height and gait, the color
of his hair and beard, the shape of his nose and mouth, even to the
style of the clothes he customarily wore. In fact, the spies of the
French Government have furnished us, in a paper of which a copy
is before us, the portraiture of over a score of obscure ministers cir-
culating in their humble mission through southern France, which
could scarcely have been more minute had the subjects been some
great historical personages, whose features it was desirable to per-

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

petuate for the benefit of posterity.* If the minister succeeded in
baffling detection, he would meet in some secluded spot, far enough
from the habitations of men to insure some degree of safety, a con-
gregation which might vary in number from fifteen or twenty souls
to many hundreds, and occasionally to thousands. To them he
preached a sermon, then prayed, using the prayers of Calvin’s lit-
urgy, or others of his own composition, administered baptism to the
children, and united in marriage couples that had come long dis-
tances or waited a long time for the privilege of being married
according to the rites of the Reformed Church. It is not matter
for surprise that many of these early preachers were ultimately
taken, some after a shorter, others after a longer term of service ;
some caught in the very discharge of their ministerial functions,
others betrayed by false brethren at a moment when the}'' thought
themselves in a safe retreat. The wonder is rather than any
escaped, that all did not share the fate of Claude Brousson, put to
death at Montpellier in 1697, or of Fulcran Rey, the promising
licentiate barely twenty-four years of age, to whom belongs the
honor of having been the first martyr after the Revocation of the
Edict of Nantes, inasmuch he was put to the rack and hung outside
of the Porte Beauregard, at Beaucaire, on July 7th, 1686.

The churches that arose as the consequence of the labors of these
devoted men early assumed the designation of “ the churches of the
desert,” or “wilderness” — “ Les eglises du desert.” The name
contained a manifest allusion to the preaching of John the Baptist
— “ The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, ‘ Prepare ye the
way of the Lord ’ ” (Is. xl. 3 ; John i. 23) — as well as to the apoca-
lyptic vision of the woman clothed with the sun, who was perse-
cuted by the dragon, and “ fled into the wilderness, where she hath
a place prepared of God ” (Rev. xii. 6). Nor were the toils and
sufferings endured by the children of Israel during the forty years
in the wilderness forgotten. Gradually an appellation which had
originally been metaphorical passed into current use, and became a
permanent name. The very minutes of ecclesiastical bodies accepted
the words as having a well-defined meaning, and, finding it danger-

* Thus the great preacher of Nimes figures on the list with this description : “ Paul
Rabaut, minister, about forty years old ; height five feet less two inches or thereabouts ;
face even, long and thin, somewhat swarthy ; hair black ; wears a wig ; nose long and
pointed, slightly aquiline ; eyes black, pretty well marked ; body leaning a little to the
right side ; legs very thin, the right one turned inward ; it is asserted that one tooth is
wanting in the upper jaw.” The list belongs, it is true, to a date about forty years
subsequent to the period of which we are speaking (1755), but is apparently only one
of a series of such papers, with which the emissaries of the court continually furnished
the secretaries of state. See Coquerel, Histoire des_figlises du Desert, ii. 568-70.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

ous to specify too narrowly the place of meeting, lest falling into
the hands of the enemy, they might be the occasion of annoyance,
if not of persecution, to the community that had harbored Protestant
synods, merely stated that they had met “ in the Desert.” This
use of language is found as early as in the minutes of the Synod of
Languedoc and the Cevennes, February 7th, 1718 ; and it survived
the publication of the Edict of Toleration of Louis the Sixteenth,
being employed so late as in the minutes of the provincial Synod of
Vivarais and Yelay, May 22d, 1788. It was at this last date, how-
ever, only a relic of the past, since with the ratification of the royal
edict by the Parliament of Paris all real danger to Protestant eccle-
siastical bodies disappeared. As a synonymous expression, the
words “ the churches under the cross” — “ sous la croix” — were
often employed ; and occasionally the present was referred to as
” the time of the captivity” — “ le temps de la captivite.” *

Thus it was that while the embers of the fanaticism which had
given rise to the ” inspirations” and ” visions” of the “ prophets,”
male and female, of Vivarais and the Cevennes still glowed under
the ashes, ready at any time to break out again into a devastating
flame, the Gospel began to be preached by an increasing number of
persons, especially in that region of country which had been the seat
of the bloody struggle of the Camisards. The situation of things
was not free of danger. On the one hand, the old delusion had not
lost its hold. Many of the Protestants still believed in the genuine-
ness of the pretended new revelations. There were still men and
women who claimed to have received supernatural communications.
If their visions did not serve as the vehicles for the inculcation of
much erroneous doctrine, they were a disorganizing and distracting
element in the public assemblies, which were liable at any moment
to be interrupted by the confusion occasioned by a pretended seer
falling into a trance, and in the midst of his or her convulsive throes
uttering incoherent predictions or meaningless exhortations. On
the other hand, the lack of concert and unity of action among the
preachers themselves began to breed confusion and discord. The
exercise of discipline was impossible where there was no central
authority, and where each minister in the district which he had
chosen for himself enjoyed a freedom from supervision and restraint
never contemplated by the standards of the Reformed Church.
Evidently to meet so critical a juncture in the history of French
Protestantism a man of keen perceptions, of strong will and excep-
tional powers of organization was needed. Such a man God had

* Minutes of the First National Synod, 1726.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

been preparing in the person of Antoine Court, a native of Ville-
neuve de Berg, in Vivarais, within the bounds of the modern depart-
ment of Ard&che.

Providence not infrequently makes use of strange and unexpected
instruments for the accomplishment of its high ends. It was so in
this case. Born in 1696, Antoine Court was barely nineteen years
of age at the date when he appeared upon the stage to do a work
which won for him the proud and undisputed distinction of being
the Restorer of French Protestantism. The precocious lad, who
was destined to perform for the faith of his ancestors a service
scarcely inferior to that of the great reformers of the sixteenth cen-
tury, had been, he tells us, dedicated to the Christian ministry even
before his birth. If his surroundings were apparently unpropitious
to the fulfilment of the vow of his parents — his father died when
Antoine was but four or five years old, his mother being left with
three small children and scanty means in the midst of a community
unfriendly to Protestantism — there was that in the boy himself which
was worth more than many external advantages. He was quick and
resolute to learn, his memory was retentive, his aspirations all ran
parallel with the course to which his parents’ hopes had destined
him, and he was ready to endure any amount of contumely rather
than swerve from a consistent Protestantism. His autobiographical
memoirs do not tell us anything of his inner religious life ; of the
record of spiritual experiences there is an entire absence. Possibly
he did not think that in the sketch, written with an apologetic pur-
pose, there was any call for such a record. But he does inform us
that he “ detested the mass with all his heart,” though, as he ad-
mits, prejudice had probably much more to do with his repugnance
than had any intelligent convictions. And he tells us how that on
one occasion four of his Roman Catholic fellow-scholars pursued
him to his home, determined to force him to go to mass, and overtook
him before he had time to climb the stairs to his mother’s apart-
ment. If they were resolute, so was he. As they drew him down,
he clung desperately to each successive step, as if his life depended
on the struggle. In the end his assailants had to admit their inabil-
ity to compel him, and withdrew in shame ; but Antoine had made
himself an object of hatred to the Roman Catholics, and not only
boys but full-grown men, as they passed him in the streets, would
shout derisively, “ There goes Calvin’s eldest son !” — “ Au fils aine
de Calvin !” It came at last to Antoine Court’s being compelled to
give up his attendance upon the schools and going into business.
He would not conform to the practices of the Church of Rome, even
for the sake of getting an education. But resolution supplied the

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

lack of opportunities ; with few books, even books of devotion, he
accumulated a considerable store of erudition, and the fragmentary-
leaves of a tattered Bible enabled him to make himself mighty in
the Scriptures. A few women used to meet, with great precautions,
to worship God together. His mother was of the number, but fear
had prevented her from speaking of the matter to her son. He dis-
covered her secret, and insisted upon going with her. Presently he
had the opportunity to attend the gatherings at which some women,
who united the functions of prophecy to those of preaching, held
forth. Finally, to his inexpressible joy, as he tells us, he enjoyed
the privilege of hearing a minister. It was Jacques Bonbonnoux, a
former Camisard captain, now turned preacher ; and his sermon was
simply one of the celebrated Pierre Dumoulin’s discourses, which he
had committed to memory. “ But hunger for the word made men
relish even that kind of preaching.” A few months later, and
Antoine Court, at the age of seventeen, found himself preaching, not
the productions of others, but sermons of his own composition, to
the great edification of many hearers.

The boy-preacher had before him a more important work than
even to speak to large assemblages of people famishing for the
truth. His suspicions had, some time before, been aroused that the
pretended revelations then current were not inspired by the Spirit of
God, and “ that, if they could not be attributed to fraud, it must at
least be believed that the greater number of those who were called
4 inspired ’ were dupes of their own zeal and credulity.” * The ex-
tended examination into which he now entered persuaded him that
his surmises were well grounded, and brought him to the settled
conviction that the only hope for the rescue of French Protestant-
ism from the double plague of fanaticism and confusion lay in
prompt and perfect organization. To effect this work Antoine
Court devoted all his energies.

First it was necessary to bring the principal laborers now at work
pretty nearly to his way of thinking ; in the next place to gather
them in one place for common action. Neither task was without
its difficulties. The preachers had been too long breathing the
atmosphere of fanaticism not to be somewhat affected thereby.
They were too busy men to be brought together from distant parts
of the region without an effort. At last, after the preparatory work
had been done, the meeting took place. The time was early dawn
on a summer’s day in 1715 ; the spot a deserted quarry near the

* Memoires d’Antoine Court (1696-1729), published for the first time in 1885, by
Edmond Hugues, page 43.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

village of Monoblet, in Lower Languedoc. Nine persons in all
constituted this first provincial synod. Of the occasion of its con-
vocation and of its action an account can best be given in Antoine
Court’s own words :

“ Whatever success attended my first endeavors, I perceived that, to extend them
and make them more effectual, it was absolutely necessary that I should at once labor
for the re-establishment of discipline. I found that the, prevailing disorder and the
unfortunate affair of the Camisards, in conjunction with fanaticism, had so alienated
the minds of the Protestants themselves and brought religion into disrepute, that
everybody and everything styled ‘preacher’ or ‘assembly’ was viewed with a sort
of horror ; that, on the other hand, such was the liberty with which men made them-
selves preachers, that whoever formed the plan of becoming one could carry it out with-
out hindrance ; that men, women— in short, everybody caught up the trade ; that such
license must bring very bad people into the Church ; that it was, moreover, little cal-
culated to remove the unfavorable opinions which the Protestants themselves had con-
ceived of the preachers and the assemblies. What, then, I said to myself, is more
necessary than to apply some remedy to these disorders, and stop the progress of such
great evils ?

“ To^compass this end, I called together on the 21st of August, 1715, all the preachers
that were to be found in the Cevennes and in Lower Languedoc. I invited to this
gathering a few of the most enlightened laymen. . . .

“ We began by conferring the office of elder upon the laymen who were present, and
it was agreed that elders should be established in all the places where preaching and
preachers were received ; that they should be charged, first, with watching over the
flocks in the absence of the pastors, and over the conduct of the pastors themselves ;
secondly, with selecting suitable places for the gathering of assemblies ; thirdly, with
convening them with all possible prudence and secrecy ; fourthly, with making collec-
tions to help the poor and prisoners ; fifthly, with providing sure places of shelter for
the preachers and with furnishing them guides to conduct them from one locality to
another.

“ I next submitted two resolutions : the first, that, according to St. Paul’s command,
women should hereafter be forbidden to preach ; the second, that it be ordained to
hold to the Sacred Scriptures as the only rule of faith, and that consequently all the
pretended revelations which were in vogue among us be rejected, not only because
they had no foundation in the Scriptures, but also because of the great abuses which
they had produced. These two articles were carried by a plurality of votes. . .

“ The laws enacted by this little assembly, of which I took great care to have copies
made and scattered abroad, made a great noise and produced excellent effects. It was
styled a synod , and was followed by many others that bore the same name.” *

There is often a strange significance in the comparison of dates.
On the 8th of March, 1715, Louis the Fourteenth, being then in the
seventy-seventh year of his age and the seventy-second year of his
reign, published a Declaration which deserves to be regarded as a
fitting capstone to the singular fabric of cruelty and proscription
which he had been rearing during the latter half of his life. The

* This extract is from a paper written by Antoine Court about thirty years later
(1744), and is somewhat more graphic than the account which he has left us in his
MGmoires already referred to. See Charles Coquerel, Histoire des Eglises du Desert,
i. 27-29.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

purpose of the law was savage and inhuman : it made every Protes-
tant who in his last illness should refuse the sacraments of the
Roman Catholic Church, to be liable to the penalties pronounced
upon persons relapsed into heresy — their bodies, that is to say, were
to be dragged on a hurdle and thrown into the common sewer, and
their property forfeited to the state.* What were the reasons
alleged for this treatment meted out to a class that had in point of
fact never abjured and that had been promised secure and unmo-
lested residence in France by the very paper that revoked the Edict
of Nantes ? First, that it was difficult, and in many cases impos-
sible to obtain sufficient proof of abjuration ; second, to use the very
words of Louis, “ That the sojourn which those who were of the so-
called Reformed religion, or were born of Protestant parents (parens
religionnaires), have made in our kingdom since we abolished all
exercise of the said religion therein is a proof more than sufficient
that they have embraced the Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion,
without which they would not have been suffered or tolerated
therein.” f It was the proud king’s last reiteration of the success
of his persistent efforts to overthrow Protestantism — the sentiment
expressed on one of the medals struck in honor of the Revocation,
‘ ‘ Haeresis extincta,” and the assertion on another medal, also struck
in 1685, affirming that two millions of Calvinists had been brought
back to the bosom of the Papal Church.:}: A few months later, on

the 1st of September, 1715, the “grand monarque” died in his
palace at Versailles, nursing in his breast the same illusion. Just
ten days before a synod of the despised and downtrodden Protes-
tants had been held in an obscure corner of Languedoc, the first of
a continuous series of bodies of the same kind that were to stretch
on for more than eighty years, and until the full recognition of the
Reformed Church on the part of the state, after the institution of
the first Republic. Thus the date of the restoration of the Protes-
tant religion in France coincides almost exactly with the date of the
death of the king who had boasted of its annihilation ; and the
restoration was effected by the humble exertions, unknown at the
time, of a beardless youth who had not reached his twentieth
birthday.

The acts of the Synods of the Desert have long been known in
part. Some of them were made use of forty years ago by Charles

* According to the provisions of the royal Declaration of April 26th, 1686. Edits,
Declarations et Arrests, p. 283.

f Edits, Declarations et Arrests, pp. 482-84.

| See the beautiful reproduction, by heliogravure, of these and other medals, in a
plate of E. Hugues, Les Synodes du Dfesert, vol. i.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

Coquerel in his remarkable history, to which we have already had
occasion to refer. Many more have since come to light, thanks to
the indefatigable researches of students in various parts of France.
It is not impossible that still others remain which will yet be rescued
from neglect and oblivion. Those that have come down to us seem
in many cases to owe their preservation to some happy accident.
Written on a loose sheet, in a fine but legible hand, the minutes of
some important synod, early in the eighteenth century, bear marks
of the care taken to conceal them from the eyes of prying soldiers
or government agents. The tell-tale scrap of paper, scarcely larger
than a man’s hand, which would have secured the incarceration,
possibly the death of him upon whose person it was found, was
folded carefully and hidden in the pocket or wallet of the preacher,
who was particularly interested in the decisions which it recorded.
It was a happy thought of M. Edmond Hugues to connect the
Bicentenary of the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes with a mon-
umental edition of these minutes, few of which had ever been put in
print. The first volume of his work appeared in 1885, covering the
years from 1715 to 1750 ; the second volume in 1886, reaching
from 1751 to 1770 ; the third in 1887, bringing the series down to
the last synod in 1796. In these magnificent quartos, in which
beauty of typography unites with all the most recent improvements
of the art of engraving to give value and attractiveness to the text,
we have an apparatus for the study of the growth of a church from
its almost insignificant beginnings, through all the successive stages
of its development. In intrinsic value the book is certainly quite
the equal of the great works of Aymon and Quick on the synods of
the Reformed Church of France prior to the Revocation ; while in
the wealth of illustration lavished upon the subject-matter, neither
Aymon nor Quick can enter at all into comparison. Moreover, it is
to be noticed that, whereas the two writers just named confine
themselves to giving the proceedings of the twenty-nine national
synods held between 1559 and 1659, M. Hugues’s work reproduces,
in addition to the eight national synods of the period of the Desert,
all the provincial synods, so far as they have been preserved, and
numbering some hundreds. Besides this, he places in the notes the
minutes of all the collogues, or meetings of presbyteries, which are
extant. The only possible matter of regret is that the work has
been printed in a very small edition and in a sumptuous manner,
which will preclude it from obtaining a wide circulation either in
France or abroad.

A fact that strikes the reader of these documents at the very start
as interesting, and impresses itself more and more upon his mind as

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

he proceeds, is that the Church of France in the period of the Desert
was devoted to the idea of a well-ordered government. There was
a dignity and decorum about all its proceedings not at all inferior
to the dignity and decorum that had characterized the ecclesiastical
convocations of the less troublous times under the Edict of Nantes.
In this, as in many other respects, the church, Phenix-like, had
sprung full fledged from its own ashes. The “ synod ” might con-
sist of a little handful of ministers and elders gathered in some out-
of-the-way place — a cave, a retired country-house, an open spot in
the wood, or a bleak hill-side — but wherever it was, the rules of
order were strictly observed. It had its moderator and assistant
moderator, its secretary, and its assistant secretary. The rights of
the chair were strictly enforced. The speakers were heard in turn,
and no interruptions were allowed. Speakers were limited as to the
number of times they might take the floor. The ministers who were
absent or late, the churches that failed to send an elder or elders to
the meeting, were expressly censured byname. Whatever might be
the case in time of prosperity, the new founders or restorers of the
Protestant Church of France recognized the truth that nothing will do
so well in a time of persecution as a strong government. They magni-
fied the office of the church judicatories, and they secured at once the
respect which decision and firmness always command. Having
started on their career of patient, persistent effort for the recovery
of the ground formerly held by the Reformation, the synods never
flinched or betrayed a sign of weakness or fear. It was a difficult work
at all times ; particularly difficult whenever persecution became, as it
did periodically, more severe. Many pastors fell by the way, victims
of the intolerance of their fellow-citizens ; those who remained took
no account of their losses, but pressed forward. In the minutes of
the synods there is absolutely no bewailing of misfortunes, no lament-
ing over losses. The sufferings of the churches are rarely referred
to save as the marks of the Divine displeasure justly burning against
the people because of sin. Every now and then the name of a min-
ister, perhaps a minister who has been frequently mentioned as
moderator or secretary, drops out of the minutes and appears no
more. From other sources we learn the cause. He was captured
by troops at such a place, was hurriedly examined, perhaps put to
the torture, sentenced, hung. His brethren in the synod never
mention the execution, unless it be incidentally when making pro-
vision for a slender pension for his necessitous widow and small
children, or when appointing some one to take up the work he was
compelled to lay down. In this there was nothing of insensibility.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

However much they might deplore the loss in private, the members
of the synod felt they had quite another task before them. The
blow had fallen upon their late comrade that might have fallen upon
them. They were all men appointed to die. Their turn might
come next ; whether it did or not, their time would be better em-
ployed in labor for the good cause, than in bemoaning the mishap of
a Christian minister who, at the execution, had declared himself most
blessed in the near prospect of his crown and reward.

When Court gathered the first provincial synod near Monoblet,
there was scarcely an ordained minister in France, there was not one
in Languedoc. The preachers were at most “ proposants” — -can-
didates licensed to preach the Gospel, but by whom licensed was
not always so clear. According to the standards of the Reformed
Church of France, they had no authority to administer either the
sacrament of the Lord’s Supper or the sacrament of Baptism,
which, nevertheless, they sometimes undertook to do. The Church
must have ordained pastors, but how should she obtain them ? Two
men stood forth pre-eminent, admitted on all sides to be fit for the
sacred ofifice. These were Pierre Corteiz, next to Antoine Court the
most meritorious character in the history of the restoration of
French Protestantism, and Court himself. Both could not be spared
at once. Corteiz, being much the older man, was the first to be
sent to obtain ordination in Switzerland. He went first to Geneva,
thence to Zurich, where he was examined and received the imposi-
tion of hands. It had been agreed that Court should follow. But
on Corteiz’s return the synod interposed its authority. The season
was too far advanced for Court to enter upon a long journey of the
kind proposed ; one ordained minister had been secured, he could
ordain another ; it was useless to go to a distance to get what one
had at hand ; it would be to expose a preacher, upon whom the
hopes of the churches seemed particularly to rest, to dangers which
were great in themselves, and which might have the most alarming
consequences, consequences so much the more to be avoided, as
neither the good of the Church nor necessity required the risk.
Such, as Court himself tells us, were the arguments employed. Re-
luctantly he yielded his consent. He was publicly examined by the
synod, and then while he knelt before Corteiz, the latter, laying a
Bible on his head, conferred upon him, in the name of Jesus Christ
and by the authority of the synod, the power to exercise the full
functions of the ministry. Court’s fear was never realized “ that his
ministry might be rendered less fruitful by the difference which the
people might draw between a call received in a foreign university
2

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

and that of a synod in which there was but a single pastor.” * The
lawfulness of his ordination was never called in question.

The position of the Church in regard to the persons who could
administer the sacraments was an interesting one. In the earliest
stage, when there was a great scarcity of ordained ministers, the
synods and colloquies were undoubtedly disposed to extend the
privilege as far as possible. They did, indeed, deny altogether the
right to the ” proposant,” or simple preacher, to baptize or admin-
ister the Lord’s Supper of his own motion ; but they recognized the
power of a regularly constituted eldership to authorize him to do so.
In full consistency with this action, the Colloquy of the Cevennes,
December 13th, 1720, disciplined the licentiate Jean Vesson, basing
its sentence partly upon the fact that he had “ administered the sac-
rament of Holy Baptism to children, without having any right to do
so, not having ordination or approbation of the elders elected and
chosen by the faithful.”

As the number of pastors increased, the synods grew even more
strict, and it became the rule that under no circumstances should
the “ proposant ” or licentiate undertake anything beyond preaching
the Gospel.

In nothing do the minutes of the synods of the Desert show more
strikingly the wisdom of the founders and leading spirits of the
Church than in the scrupulous care taken to secure a ministry pious,
exemplary in conduct, able, and learned. Not even the great press-
ure brought to bear upon them in the early years of the century
could induce them to swerve from the line of prudence in this re-
gard. Ministers found guilty of conduct immoral or scandalous
were instantly deposed. No such persons could be restored until
they had given long and convincing proof of penitence. Even then
they must not return to the scene of their former labors, but must
remove to some other and generally distant part of France f In-
competent men, however well-meaning, were stopped in the midst
of their course of preparation or of service, thanked for their labors
or their good intentions, and recommended to enter into some other
calling.;}: At every step the closest supervision was exercised, and

even down to the time of the Revolution the appointment of a
commission to report upon the morals and studies of the candidates
for the ministry was one of the standing orders of the provincial
synods. As a general thing, promising youths were brought to the
notice of the synod by some pastor. On his recommendation the

* Memoires d’Antoine Court, pp. 149-153.

f See, for example the cases of Jean Betrine and fitienne DefTerre.

J So Grail, in 1730, Bornac, in 1744, Benezet and Allud, in 1749.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

young man was placed upon the list of students, and received an
annual sum for his support (unless his family were able to provide
for him) while receiving preparatory instruction at the hands of the
pastor who had recommended him or some other.* Next, upon
examination, he was by vote of the synod admitted to the number
of “ proposants” or licentiates. He could now make proof of his
abilities by helping the pastors in their general work, and particu-
larly by preaching in places which the pastors were unable to visit.
At first the licentiates were not expected to compose their own dis-
courses. We have seen that the first sermon that Antoine Court
ever heard was one written by the famous Dumoulin, and preached
by Bonbonnoux. The Synod of Lower Languedoc, September 30th,
1719, prescribed that the “ proposants” should use printed sermons,
‘‘or if they made them of their own capacity, they should have
them examined by persons chosen by the synod, or else they should
take no text.” The Synod of Vivarais, June 21st, 1725, in like
manner enacted : ‘‘It shall be left to the liberty of the preachers
to preach sermons of good authors which they shall have learned
by heart. If there be any who prefer to compose them for them-
selves, they shall not be permitted after composing them to deliver
them in public until the discourses shall have first been examined
by the commissioners named for this purpose.” The minuteness of
the care exercised over the candidates may be judged by the some-
what whimsical prohibition, intended apparently to check ostenta-
tion and conceit, to the effect that no licentiate should keep a horse
of his own use (Synod of Vivarais, September 14th, 1726, and
Synod of the Lower Cevennes, April 9th, 1747).

The “ proposant ” who proved acceptable to the churches, gener-
ally applied, after a few years, to the synod within whose bounds he
labored for a leave of absence, that he might go to Lausanne and
perfect his theological education under the care of the “ illustrious
friends” of the French Protestants in that city. If the synod ap-
proved and there was a vacancy in the seminary, leave was granted,
and a sum of money was voted to defray the candidate’s travelling
expenses.

The idea of establishing on the friendly soil of Switzerland a sem-

* A synodical meeting in which Languedoc and Vivarais were represented, October
25th, 1731, decided upon the establishment in each of the five synods then existing or
projected of a school designated as an hole ambulante, because it would seem to have
been intended that it should shift its quarters from time to time, accompanying the pas-
tor to whose care it was confided. Each school was to be limited to four pupils. The
proposal seems to have originated with Antoine Court. How he himself had conducted
a somewhat similar school may be seen in a graphic extract translated in an article in
the first number of the Presbyterian Review, p. 90.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

inary for the express purpose of educating for the ministry such
devoted young Frenchmen as might be willing to enter upon the
perilous work of the regeneration of their native land, seems first to
have occurred to Antoine Court, and it was he who carried it in
operation. It is doubtful, indeed, whether Protestantism is more
indebted to him for having planned and effected the restoration of
its church organization and discipline than for his indefatigable
labors, extending through about thirty years, to secure a proper the-
ological education for its rising ministry. It was in the summer of
1729 that Court reached the conclusion that the time had come for
him to begin his activity outside of France. To use his own words :
“ The number of pastors had greatly increased that year, and the
number of candidates was daily becoming greater. Meantime the
efforts to capture me were daily multiplying, so that, humanly speak-
ing, it was impossible that I should be able to escape so many
searches, however great the precautions I took, precautions which
led me, from the time so high a price had been set upon my head,
to avoid almost entirely sleeping in houses. I believed that the
moment had come for me to retire from the field.” * Arriving in
Switzerland, Court seems to have busied himself with writing to or
visiting the persons most likely to further his project of endowing a
seminary, and he was so successful that the necessary funds were
obtained, and the seminary opened about 1730. Why the students
were not sent to the theological school founded by Calvin at Geneva,
and why, if a new school was needed, it was not founded in Geneva,
will be clear enough to any one who will consider the proximity of
that city to French soil, the irritation which the presence of French
theological students in training for a course of life which French law
made a capital crime would produce in the minds of the French
resident and of the court of Versailles, and the timidity now charac-
teristic of the little republic. Thus it was that the city of Geneva
lost the opportunity of adding to its ancient glories the new distinc-
tion gained by the unpretending foreign seminary of Lausanne, of
becoming the saviour of the Protestant churches of France in the
eighteenth century. f

* Memoire d’Antoine Court, pp. 209, 210. This autobiographical sketch ends with
the author’s departure from France.

t “ Ce fut en effet,” truthfully observes Charles Coquerel, “ l’academie 6trang£re
de Lausanne qui sauva cette fois leseglises protestantes du pays.” Histoire desEglises
du D6sert, i. 204. It may not be uninteresting to notice that the seminary founded by
Antoine Court continued its useful career at Lausanne throughout the eighteenth cen-
tury, and when suppressed by Napoleon, in 1809, it was only to be transferred, as it
were, to Montauban, and to become in this way the most important theological institu-
tion for Protestants in France. Ibid. , i. 205.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

The length of the term for which the synods permitted their can-
didates to study abroad was a variable one. The Synod of Lower
Languedoc (February 2 1st, 1730, Art. VI.) was disposed to limit it
to precisely eighteen months ; but the national synod of the
same year (Art. I.) preferred to leave the matter to the prudence of
the friends in foreign parts. It would appear, however, that two
years was generally the limit. By that time the churches were
pretty sure to require the services of the preacher as a full pastor,
and an imperative call was sent to him. At first, while the number
of pastors in each province was very small, the synods favored the
candidate’s examination and ordination at Lausanne by the theo-
logical professors under whom he had studied. The first national
synod, in 1726 (Art. XV.), indeed, ordered that all candidates be
examined and receive the imposition of hands only by a national
synod, until such time as the provincial synods should possess a
sufficient number of regularly ordained pastors to take part in the
service. But the third national synod, 1 730, by its third article per-
mitted all the provincial synods to receive [ordain] their ministers,
provided there should be present not less than three pastors, and in
case there should not be that number in the body, to invite one or
two pastors from the nearest synods to come and help them. Its
fourth article declared that the French Protestants “ recognized,
and would recognize as true ministers all those of our body who
have been and shall be ordained in foreign countries.” Later in
the century, however, some of the larger synods, and particularly
the Synod of Lower Languedoc, the largest of all, insisted that all
students should come home to be ordained by the body by which
and at whose expense they had been sent to Lausanne.

What the examinations were, whether at Lausanne or in France,
which the candidates had to pass before ordination we know from
the record in the case of four young men who were examined at
Lausanne in the autumn of 1759. The circumstance that one of the
four was Franqois Rochette, who, after a brief but useful career,
was taken and executed at Toulouse, February 19th, 1762 — the last
Protestant minister that died as a martyr — lends particular interest
to this examination. The young men were first required to deliver
a sermon composed and committed to memory by them upon a text
assigned a week in advance. They were questioned orally on theol-
ogy and on ethics. They prepared in writing, without recourse to
any helps, three papers (” taches” or “ analyses”) : the first, ‘‘ upon
a question in positive theology,” discussed “ the motives which the
death of Jesus Christ affords men to be virtuous the second,
“ upon a question of controversy,” treated of the invocation of

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

saints ; and the third, “on a question of morals,’’ expounded the
fifth petition of the Lord’s Prayer. Finally they were subjected to
“ an oral examination on the Gospel, consisting in an explanation of
the parable of the tares or a discourse of nearly a half an hour’s
length on this subject, made after the same amount of time to think
it over. ’’ *

If the examinations of those who purposed entering upon the
pastoral office were careful and thorough, the pastors themselves
did not shrink from a close investigation of their life from year to
year. To this matter the veteran Corteiz refers in speaking of a
colloquy that met in the Cevennes, January 26th, 1730 : “ After
having remedied, so far as depends on us, the evil that afflicted
these elders, and after having set forth in general terms the things
that are necessary to remedy the evils which occur from time to
time, we entered upon what is always customary in the colloquies
which I call together — that is to say, the examination of the life and
morals, first of the pastors and then of the elders. Mr. Court and I
were the first to leave the room. We repeated to the elders, who
were in number thirty-one, those words of Solomon, ‘ A man that
flattereth his neighbor spreadeth a net for his feet,’ and those of
David, ‘ Let the righteous smite me ; it shall be a kindness ; and
let him reprove me ; it shall be an excellent oil.’ This method is a
good one to induce offenders to receive censure with a good grace.” f

So far as the laity were concerned, much of the legislation of the
synods of the Desert grew directly out of the extraordinary condi-
tions of Protestantism, arising from the persecution, more or less
severe, that raged during the whole of this period. The Roman
Catholic Church touched the Protestant population at many points.
It was not so much that the people were compelled by a direct exer-
tion of force to make a profession of Roman Catholicism. The
Dragonnades could not be kept up everywhere and for all time. If
parents were fined for neglecting to send their children to the
schools taught by monks and nuns, where attendance involved of
necessity an attendance upon the mass also, many Protestant parents
in some way or another escaped notice, and the unfortunates who
did not were often helped by the charitable contributions of their
brethren in the faith. The great trouble was that Protestantism

* See a letter of Court and his son, Court de Gebelin, October 9th, 1759, and the cer-
tificate of the examiners, October 25th, 1759, in E- Hugues, Les Synodes du Desert, ii.
199-201. The signatures appended to the latter document are those of “ Court, ancien
pasteur et repr6sentant “ A. Polier de Bottens, grand pasteur “ Besson, pasteur
and “ A. Court fils, lecteur en morale et logique.”

f Letter of Pierre Corteiz, in E. Hugues, Les Synodes du D6sert, i. 90.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

being by a legal fiction supposed to be altogether extinct, its adher-
ents had no standing in the sight of the law. One could neither be
born as a Protestant, nor be baptized as a Protestant, nor be mar-
ried as a Protestant, nor be buried as a Protestant. With every
civil act a profession of Roman Catholicism was closely bound up.
There could be no wedlock recognized by the State, unless the mar-
riage was performed by a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, and
to obtain his intervention it was necessary both to exhibit the evi-
dence of baptism and to partake of the communion. Without such
a ceremony the offspring of the union were branded as bastards,
and w’ere incapable of succeeding to the property of their parents.
Certificates of baptism and of marriage “ in the Desert” — that is, by
Protestant pastors, went for nothing ; in fact, they were to the
parents, in the one case, and to the husband and wife, in the other,
prima facie evidence that they had rendered themselves amenable
to the laws prohibiting all “ assemblies” for Protestant worship.

A single glance will convince any one of the difficulty of the task
of persuading the laity to renounce the easy-going policy of con-
formity into which the vast majority had fallen during the dark
period of a quarter of a century following the Revocation. Yet to
that task the synods unhe itatingly applied themselves, and by slow
degrees, using firmness tempered with moderation and prudence,
they made steady, if not rapid progress in checking the evil. Rea-
son was appealed to, motives of Christian duty were set forth, the
resources of the ecclesiastical discipline were drawn upon with due
consideration of human frailty. And the result was that the lax
practice which had been almost universal when Louis the Fourteenth
died became less and less frequent, until, when Louis the Six-
teenth, in 1787, published his edict of toleration, and provided
therein for the registry of the marriages and baptisms celebrated
“ in the Desert,” there were tens of thousands in different parts of
the kingdom instantly to avail themselves of the privilege for which
they had long been waiting.

The synods were equally firm in dealing with another vexatious
matter — the draping of the houses of Protestants on the annual fes-
tival of Corpus Christi, or La Fete Dieu% The festival, it is well
known, had been instituted in honor of the host, or wafer, in the
Romish mass, and was intended to attest belief in the dogma that
that wafer had really been transubstantiated and had become ‘‘ very
God.” When in a town or village every house inhabited by Roman
Catholics was gay with bright hangings, the absence of decorations
on the front of the house of a Protestant became painfully conspicu-
ous. On the other hand, how could a Protestant adorn his dwelling

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

for the festival without signifying to the world, by the very act, that
he believed the doctrine against which, as much as against any other,
the Reformation was a piotest? Of course there were plenty of
weak-kneed Protestants who promptly acquiesced in the custom,
and some of these maintained that they were “ compelled ” to do
so. But the synods made no account of such excuses. One of
them (the Synod of the Upper Cevennes, in 1751) took the pains to
show that no compulsion could justify an ungodly act, short of “ a
violence which it is not possible to resist ” (Art. V.). The synods
again and again protested against the “ cowardice” of those “ who,
to avoid certain penalties, drape the front of their houses, sweep the
streets, or strew them with branches on the Day of the Sacrament
of the Romish Church ; which is giving to the creature external and
religious marks of homage which belong to the Creator alone”
(Synod of Bearn, July 17th, 1758). The national synod of 1758, to
show its aversion for the doctrine of transubstantiation, appointed
a fast to be held on the day of the Romish feast (Art. IV.). This,
however, was probably as far as any ecclesiastical body of the
churches of the Desert ever went in the manifestation of hostility to
the Roman Catholic Church. Of malevolence toward the hierarchy
of that Church there is not a mark in the minutes of any colloquy or
synod from the beginning to the end of the century. While it was
notorious that all the vexations and persecutions which culminated
in the recall of the Edict of Nantes were directly due to the periodi-
cal entreaties of the clergy of France in their “ assemblies,” held
every five years — while it was equally notorious that the great ob-
stacle in the way of the renewed recognition of the civil rights of the
Protestants lay in the nearly unanimous opposition of the same
clergy, and that the parish priests seemed to regard themselves as
set apart, by virtue of their orders, to the congenial work of hunting
out and bringing to the gallows all Protestant pastors in France, it
was more than strange that in the synodical meetings of the latter
there is not a word dropped to the disadvantage of the Romish
priesthood. If the attitude of the synods of the Desert in regard to
the ecclesiastics of the Established Church is a rare example of
Christian charity and forbearance, their attitude in regard to the
monarchs who were persecuting them is an equally signal illustra-
tion of loyalty. The most brutal severity never provoked them to
retaliation, or even to harsh words respecting either the government
at Versailles or its agents in the provinces. Indeed, it is difficult
for a citizen of a republic, and for one who lives in the nineteenth
century, to repress the feeling that the loyalty of the Protestants
was too great, that their expressions of unconditional obedience
came dangerously near to servility. We are amazed when we re-

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

member the countless atrocities, the galleys, the executions, the
sufferings in the Tour de Constance and elsewhere, which character-
ized the period from 1715 to 1774— the reign of Louis the Fifteenth
— to read not in a public utterance, but in a private letter from one
pastor to another the words, “ We have lost a good king.

This good prince had his weaknesses, even his vices. What man
has not ? The hard and cruel man alone ought to be detested ; and
Louis the Fifteenth was mildness, humanity, beneficence itself.” *

Of doctrinal discussions there are but scanty traces in the records
of the synods of the Desert. The influence of the standards adopted
during what the French Protestants loved to regard as the golden
age of their history restrained them from any pronounced departures
from the creed of their fathers. The national synod of 1756, after
expressing its high opinion of the usefulness of the Lausanne semi-
nary, added to the thanks it tendered to the directors a very pointed
request, “ that they would more and more watch over the conduct
of the students and alzvays give them orthodox professors." The last
clause, at first sight unimportant, had its significance. Five years
before the Synod of Lower Languedoc had declined to send any
further licentiates to the seminary. The ministers were unwilling
to have their students taught in a school where an assistant professor
or tutor, the pastor Bournet, held what they believed to be errone-
ous views respecting the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. Antoine
Court, informed of the cause of the synod’s action, caused the
offending instructor to be removed, and the temporary disaffection
of the French pastors toward the seminary ceased.

The churches were, however, averse to the strict Calvinism of an
earlier day. This was evidenced by the growing preference for the
works of the well-known Swiss theologian, J. F. Osterwald, and
particularly for his catechism for the use of the yoqng. The national
synod of 1744, by its eleventh article, decided that in all the prov-
inces the abridgment of this catechism should be used, “ as the most
clear and methodical while the twelfth article directed the
churches to purchase Osterwald’s book of “ Reflections,” and to use
it in their devotional exercises. The Synod of Lower Languedoc, in
1771 (Art. XIII.), enjoined upon the elders to see to it that no
other catechism than that of Osterwald should be allowed to be in-
troduced into the public instructions, and referred to the action of
the national synod of 1744. Only a year or two before an interest-
ing controversy arose within the bounds of the Synod of Saintonge,
Angoumois, and Bordelais. Etienne Gibert, f pastor of Bordeaux,

* Pomaret to Olivier Desmond, 1774 ; Les Synodes du D6sert, iii. 83, 84.
f Etienne Gibert was a younger brother of Jean Louis Gibert, also a pastor of the

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

dissatisfied with the catechism of Osterwald, as well as with that of
Saurin, which also enjoyed some currency among the French Prot-
estants, had, without consulting the elders of his church, printed an
edition of the Heidelberg catechism. This he attempted to use in
the instruction of the young, but he was met by the determined
opposition of the consistory, to whom, presumably, the strong Calvin-
ism of the Palatine creed was displeasing. A warm discussion, with
a good deal of hard feeling, was the consequence. The case was
taken by appeal to the provincial synod. This body, at its meeting
in September, 1770, condemned M. Gibert’s course in thus introduc-
ing a new catechism without the knowledge of the elders, “al-
though it is approved among the Protestant communions in general.”
The synod farther decided that

“ the consistory was in the right, in view of the complaints of several of its members
and of a large number of the faithful, when it directed the said Sieur Gibert, as it did by
its different resolutions, and particularly by those of the 13th of August last, to express
himself as well publicly as privately respecting the matters of grace, the spiritual inabil-
ity of man, and the necessity of good works, in the terms set forth in the aforesaid reso-
lutions which are in our hands ; inasmuch as this manner of expressing one’s views
does not seem to the synod to impair orthodoxy in these matters, while it would have
prevented the said complaints, and put an end to the unhappy divisions which have
already ensued and which might yet arise.” * *

The references that have been given must have led the reader to
notice the remarkable fact that the history of the churches of the
Desert is to be studied rather in the minutes of the provincial , than
in those of the national synods. It was quite otherwise during the
times previous to the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes. Then
the national synods alone were of prime importance. After the
Revocation only eight national synods were held, the latest being
that of 1763. Far from seeking, as had been at first proposed, to
call a national synod every year, the churches of the Desert early
laid down the principle, distinctly stated in the “ Discipline” drawn
up in 1739 by Barthelemy Claris, in pursuance of the instructions of
the provincial synod of Lower Languedoc, that “ the national synod
shall assemble only in case of very great urgency.’’ f The reasons
for this were to be found in the fewness of the ministers, the long
distances they and the elders must travel in order to meet, the pov-
erty of the churches, which made it a burden to defray the expense

Desert, who, in 1764, brought over a colony of Huguenots to Charleston, S. C. Ram-
say, History of South Carolina, i. 19, 20.

* Not satisfied with this action, the synod having heard M. Gibert read a long trea-
tise of fifty-six pages treating of the matters in dispute, expressed the greatest anxiety
that it should not be published. Les Synodes du Desert, ii. 497-99.

\ “ Le synode national ne sera assemble que dans une tres-grande necessity.”
Ibid. , i. 367.

THE FRENCH SYNODS OF THE DESERT.

of bringing them together, and, especially, the very considerable risk
incurred by the delegates upon a journey which would almost cer-
tainly become known by the government. But if the national syn-
ods lost, the provincial synods gained in importance. This was
true, above all, of the Synod of Lower Languedoc. In 1719 it had
but two ordained ministers. In 1789 it had forty ordained minis-
ters and sixty-eight churches, divided into the five colloquies of
Nimes, Uzes, Sommieres, Massillargues, and Montpellier. It is
not surprising that so large and well equipped a body should have
exerted an almost controlling influence in many ecclesiastical mat-
ters. Meantime the missionary spirit had been strong. Districts
but poorly provided with ministers of the Gospel robbed themselves
in order that they might “ lend ” some one or more of them to
other districts even less favored. Thus it was at the price of great
self-denial and sacrifice that the Protestants of the Cevennes revived
religion among the descendants of those who had once been Protes-
tants in Upper Languedoc. Thence the movement advanced south-
ward into Foix, and westward into Guyenne and Bearn. So were
Saintonge and Angoumois, Aunis and the city of La Rochelle,
Poitou, Normandy, Picardy, and other provinces reclaimed. The
progress was steady. By the time of the national synod of 1756 the
number of ecclesiastical provinces had increased to ten, with forty-
eight pastors and seventeen licentiates, or simple preachers. In 1763
there were fourteen synods, with sixty-two pastors and thirty-five
licentiates. When the Edict of Toleration was signed, in 1787, there
were, if we may judge from the known increase in certain synods,
about one hundred and twenty-five Protestant pastors in all France.
The increase in the professedly Protestant laity was doubtless still
greater in proportion. In some districts of southern France the
Protestant families seemed to be about as numerous as before the
Revocation. It was a glorious work of resuscitation, and, under
God, it had been performed by devoted men, few in number but
strong in their determination to win back the ground which the Ref-
ormation had lost, through no fault of its own, but as the result of
merciless persecution. To men like Paul Rabaut, who took for the
motto on his seal, “ Ne a patir et mourir” — “ Born to suffer and
die” — to men who like him could playfully and fearlessly write, “ I
am worth more than I was awhile ago ; a sum of six thousand livres
was the price set on my head, now it is ten thousand ; and instead
of the halter, I am now threatened with the wheel ” — to such men
was it chiefly owing that the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes
proved so great a failure.

University of New York.

Henry M. Baird.

II.

SOME REASONS IN FAVOR OF RETOUCHING
THE REVISED ENGLISH VERSION OF THE
SCRIPTURES.

IT has been said by some earnest apologists of the Revised Ver-
sion that the work must be accepted or rejected as it is ; that
no re-revision can bethought of ; that better qualified men could not
be found for the work than those who have been engaged in it, nor
greater diligence and faithfulness expected from any body of work-
ers to whom a re-examination of the Revised Version might be en-
trusted. This may be true ; and yet it does not amount to a
demonstration that the Revised Version must be adopted as it is, or
not at all.

Let us look first at some reasons for retouching this work, and
then inquire whether, if the reasons are found to be valid, some way
cannot be discovered by which it may be accomplished.

The prime importance, in a work of this kind, of consistency with
itself will be readily acknowledged by all. If instances can be
pointed out in which the work of the revisers has not been consistent
with itself, they need not be many to constitute a valid reason for
such a retouching of the Revised Version as we advocate. We will
look first at the Old Testament.

In the third verse of the first Psalm the godly man is compared
to “a tree planted by the streams of water, that bringeth forth its
fruit in its season.” Here the revisers have done well to substitute
its for the his of the Authorized Version, as referring to an inan-
imate object, and from the manner in which this change is spoken
of in their Preface, it would seem to have been deliberately adopted.
And yet in Jer. xvii. 8, a parallel passage, where the man who trusts
in the Lord is compared to “ a tree planted by the waters, ” and
where the Authorized Version goes on to say, “ that spreadeth out
her roots by the river,” and “ her leaf shall be green,” the Revised
Version reads, “ that spreadeth out his roots by the river,” and
“ his leaf shall be green,” as if to bring the passage into accord with
Ps. i. 3 as it stood in the old version. We must either suppose this,

REASONS FOR RETOUCHING REVISED VERSION. 29

or that accidental majorities at different meetings of the committee,
perhaps separated by a long interval, came to different and incon-
sistent conclusions.

The words nSx and }D« are in the Authorized Version usually
both rendered oak. This rendering the revisers have retained, con-
tenting themselves, where nSs occurs, with adding in the margin,
“ Or, terebinth.” But in Isa. vi. 13 and Hos. iv. 13 both terms oc-
cur, showing plainly that they designate different species of trees.
In the first of these passages the Authorized Version rendered rthtf,
teil-tree , and in the second, elm. Such hap-hazard work as this the
revisers could not do otherwise than correct, and this they have
done by rendering it in both cases, terebinth. But to be consistent
(as well as accurate), they should have so rendered it wherever the
term occurs.

In Isa. xviii. 2, Revised Version, the Hebrew word is ren-
dered papyrus , in accord with the best lexicographers and commen-
tators. But in Exod. ii. 3 the old rendering, bulrushes , is retained,
the revisers contenting themselves with putting in the margin,
“ That is, papyrus.” But bulrushes does not signify papyrus. The
bulrush is not a suitable material for constructing boats, while the
papyrus plant is. The marginal note amounts therefore simply to
an acknowledgment that the text of the translation ought to be
changed.

So in Gen. xi. 3 and Exod. ii. 3 the revisers have retained slime in
the text, and say in the margin, “ That is, bitumen ;” but slime in
English has no such meaning as bitumen. Here again the marginal
note is a virtual acknowledgment that its reading ought to have been
inserted in the text. Members of the committee may have hesi-
tated to do this, because the word bitumen does not occur in the
old version. But neither does papyrus nor terebinth. Nevertheless,
they are correct, and for consistency’s sake should appear in an
English version wherever the corresponding Hebrew terms occur.

ha; is the name of a musical instrument, and doubtless desig-
nates the same instrument wherever it occurs. And yet in Isa. v.
12 it is rendered lute, in Amos v. 23 and vi. 5, viol , and in 2 Chron.
xx. 28 and in the Psalms, psaltery. The Authorized Version had
the two renderings psaltery and viol. The Revised Version, by
changing the rendering in Isa. v. 12, has made three instead of two.

In their preface to the Old Testament, the revisers state that they
had thought best to retain in general the usage of the Authorized
Version in rendering the name Jehovah by the terms Lord and
God, having employed the name Jehovah “ only in a few passages,
in which the introduction of a proper name seemed to be required.”

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

But if it is appropriate anywhere to retain this sacred name in a
version, surely it should be kept when employed by a heathen in
designating the God of Israel, as in Exod. v. 1,2, where (in verse 2)
Pharaoh says, “ Who is Jehovah, that I should hearken unto his
voice? ... I know not Jehovah;” also where Jehovah is
mentioned in contrast with a false god, as in 1 Kings xviii. 21, where
Elijah on Mount Carmel says to the assembled people, ‘‘If Jehovah
be God, follow him, but if Baal, then follow him,” and of course
also in the response of the people, verse 39, “ Jehovah, he is God,
Jehovah, he is God also where God himself challenges this as his
peculiar name, as in Isa. xlii. 8, where he makes the solemn declara-
tion, “ I am Jehovah, that is my name, and my glory will I not
give to another, neither my praise unto graven images.” But in all
these places the Revised Version has “ the Lord.”

The confusion in the rendering of the names of measures in the
Authorized Version is retained in the Revised Version. The names
homer, ephah, and kin are, I believe, consistently retained wherever
they occur in the Hebrew, and rightly, for modern languages have
no equivalent terms. Cor also (another name for the homer) is gen-
erally retained. But in 1 Kings iv. 22; v. 11, and several other
places, it is rendered by the indefinite term measure , while the same
indefinite term stands in Gen. xviii. 6, 1 Sam. xxv. 18, and other
places for the seah, a measure equal to one thirtieth part of a cor.

These may suffice for examples from the Old Testament. In the
New Testament the confusion in respect to the names of measures
is still greater. There (both in the Authorized Version and the Re-
vised Version) the same indefinite term measure is used to render
chcenix, seah , bath , and cor, the seah being about six times as much
as the chcenix, the bath equal to three scabs, and the cor to ten baths.
Surely confusion like this should be avoided.

The use of the word farthing to represent aGffdpiov and also
7ioSpdvrr)i, which was the fourth part of an daadpiov , is similar to
the above, and was in the Authorized Version an error, which the
revisers were bound to correct. Neither can' the apology be admit-
ted that the terms are used only in a figurative sense ; for Mark (xii.
42) specifies that two \ernd make one jcoS pdvrrj? ; and where Luke
(xii. 6) says that five sparrows are sold for two aOGapia, he is speak-
ing of a definite amount and of well-known coins.

In John xxi. 12 the Revised Version substitutes “ break your
fast ” for ‘‘ dine,” and in verse 15 “ broken their fast ” for ‘‘ dined ”
of the Authorized Version (doubtless because the meal referred to
appears to have been taken early in the day) ; but in Luke xi. 37,
where the same Greek word occurs, the rendering ‘‘dine” is pre-

REASONS FOR RETOUCHING REVISED VERSION. 31

served, and in verse 38 the corresponding noun is “ dinner,” a mar-
ginal note being appended stating that the Greek in both cases is
breakfast. Now it is well known that ixpiarov and Ssinvov repre-
sent the two principal meals of the Greeks, the former being taken
before the middle of the day and the latter at night. They must
therefore be rendered in English either breakfast and dinner , or
dinner and supper. If in Luke xi. 37, 38, as the marginal note of
the Revised Version informs us, the Greek words signify breakfast ,
they should have been so rendered in the text, as also in Matt. xxii.
4 and Luke xiv. 12 (on which passages there is no marginal note),
and the correlation dsinvov should have been everywhere rendered
dinner. But this the revisers have nowhere done. If apiorov is
breakfast , and Ssinvov supper , then the Greek language, with all its
wealth, has no word for dine or dinner.

The Revised Version of the New Testament exhibits in not a few
instances excessive literalness in rendering Greek words and forms.
It was a matter of course that such a mode of rendering could not
be carried through consistently. A few examples may suffice.

In Luke xx. 34 the rendering of viol roi) aicovoS tovtov is
changed from ‘‘ children of this world ” to “ sons of this world,” of
whom it is said that they neither marry nor are given in marriage ,
” marry” referring especially to sons, and ‘‘ are given in marriage”
to daughters. So in Gal. iii. 8 “ children of Abraham” is changed
to “ sons of Abraham,” where all believers are spoken of, male and
female. Similar remarks might be made of other passages, where
such phrases occur as “ children of the Highest,” ‘‘ children of
light,” ‘‘children of the prophets and of the covenant,” in all which
the Revised Version has “ sons,” while at the same time it retains
(very properly) the rendering ‘‘ children of Israel ” for viol IffpatjX.

In Heb. xiii. 2 cpiAogevia (the normal Greek term for hospitality)
is rendered in the Revised Version “ to show love to strangers,”
while in Rom. xii. 13 the rendering “ hospitality” has been pre-
served, consistently with which they might here have rendered “ to
exercise hospitality.”

In their zeal for an absolutely uniform rendering of aiobvios , the
revisers have rejected the familiar phrases, “ everlasting consola-
tion,” ‘‘ everlasting covenant,” “ everlasting destruction,” and
‘‘ everlasting gospel,” and given us “ eternal comfort ” (2 Thess. ii.
16), ‘‘eternal covenant” (Heb. xiii. 20), ‘‘eternal destruction” (2
Thess. i. 9), and “ eternal gospel ” (Rev. xiv. 6), while the Revised
Version of the Old Testament retains ‘‘ everlasting” as the render-
ing of the corresponding Hebrew term in such phrases as ‘‘ ever-
lasting burnings” (Isa. xxxiii. 14), ” everlasting joy” (Isa. xxxv.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

io), “ everlasting covenant ” (Isa. lv. 3), “ everlasting dishonor”
(Jer. xx. 1 1 ), “ everlasting love” (Jer. xxxi. 3), ” everlasting king-
dom” (Dan. iv. 3 ; vii. 27), etc. I shall have something to say
farther on about the necessity of a collation of the Revised Version
of the Old Testament with that of the New.

Striking instances of excessive literalness (involving a lack of con-
sistency with itself in the work of the Revised Version) are furnished
by the attempt, so manifest throughout, to give exact equivalents in
English to the Aorist and Perfect tenses of the Greek verb, accord-
ing to classical analogy and in disregard of the gradual change which
the language was undergoing in New Testament times.*

I am confident that a Greek professor of his own language, know-
ing thoroughly English idiom, could not be found who would say
that 6 ayaOoi in Rom. v. 7 means anything more than the English
phrase, ” a good man,” or 6 avdpo? in Matt. vii. 12, etc., any-
thing more, or more emphatic than “ weeping” (or ” wailing”). As
well might the revisers have gone on to say, “gnashing of the
teeth,” because the text has fipvypoi tc5v odovroov. I would not
go so far as some of their critics have gone in charging this crowd-
ing in of the definite article to pedantry ; but I think it does fairly
lie open to the charge of an incautious following of leaders.

A strong reason for revising the revision of the New Testament is
found in the excessive deference paid to certain ancient manuscripts,
and those notoriously inaccurate manuscripts, to the neglect of evi-
dence coming from quotations and versions still older. This is a
heavy charge ; but if there were no other instance, that of the read-
ing adopted in Acts iv. 25 (o tov narpo? ?)pwv did nvevpaTOi ayiov
GTopaToi AafhS) would sustain it. No evidence short of St. Luke’s
autograph would satisfy me that he ever wrote such a medley, and
in this opinion I am sure that I should be sustained by the best
Greek scholars. Even Drs. Westcott and Hort, whose influence
predominated in the adoption of Greek readings by the New Testa-
ment committee, acknowledge in the Appendix to their critical edi-
tion of the Greek New Testament that it is probably an error.

The adoption of the reading igts instead of gqgts in Jas. i. 19 is
(like the above) in disregard of the authority of the Syriac Version,
an authority two or three centuries older than the uncial Greek
manuscripts on which Drs. Westcott and Hort so implicitly rely.f

* On this point I cannot do better than refer to the preface of a little work which I
published in 1883 (Draper, Andover), entitled “ Suggested Modifications of the Revised
Version of the New Testament,” pp. vii., viii.

t Of course I do not mean that the Syriac mss. in our possession are older than the
Sinaitic or the Vatican, but simply that the testimony is in another and an independent

REASONS FOR RETOUCHING REVISED VERSION. 33

For other instances in which the testimony of the most ancient
versions, and particularly of the Syriac, has been disregarded, see
Mark ix. 49 ; 1 Cor. xv. 55 ; 2 Cor. iii. 3 ; xii. 7 and 19, and 1 Tim.
vi. 7.

Let us now look briefly at the imperative necessity of a collation
of the revised versions of the Old and New Testaments. That the
two should be prepared on the same plan, and so as not to exhibit
differences not existing in the original texts, would seem a matter of
course, and I am at a loss to account for no provision having been
made for conference between the Old and New Testament com-
panies of Revisers.

The eye of a reader of the Revised Version of the Old Testament
is struck by seeing the phrase “ spirit of the Lord ” printed with a
small initial s. In 2 Kings ii. 15, where the “ sons of the prophets”
are urging Elisha to permit them to go and seek for Elijah, they
say, “ lest peradventure the spirit of the Lord hath taken him up
and cast him upon some mountain or into some valley.” Here in
our ordinary Bibles the word Spirit is printed with an initial capi-
tal S. We do not need to inquire into the reasons which led to its
being printed in the Revised Version with a small s. But when
the reader comes to a precisely parallel passage in the New Testa-
ment, and reads (Acts viii. 39), “ the Spirit of the Lord caught away
Philip ; and the eunuch saw him no more,” he has a right to ask
why “ Spirit ” should be printed in the one case with a small initial
letter and in the other with a capital.

So when the reader of the New Testament finds the quotations
from the prophets printed in parallelisms ( e.g ., Acts ii. 17-21, com-
pare Joel ii. 28-32), and turning to the corresponding passages in
the Old Testament finds them printed solid, like prose, he may rea-
sonably ask, Why this difference of form ? It is true, there are pas-
sages in the prophets which are composed in plain prose. There are
others, however, in which the parallelism is as marked as in Job or
in the Psalms, and still others where it is less marked, and where, if
the same course had been pursued in printing the prophetical books
as in printing the Book of Job (viz., part appearing as prose, and
the rest as poetry), it might have been doubtful in which form cer-
tain passages ought to appear. Still, who does not see the desir-
ableness of having the quotations in the New Testament appear in
the same form in which the original passages are printed ?

But still more important than the form is the substance of the

ine, and shows what was the Greek text in the hands of the Syriac translators probably
not fifty years from the death of the Apostle John.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

translation. There are not a few passages from the Old Testament
quoted in the New where there is nothing in the shape of the
Hebrew and Greek texts to demand a different rendering in English,
and still others where a difference of one or two words in the ren-
dering would satisfy the slight difference of the originals. A glance
at these passages in the Revised Version shows that no such colla-
tion has been made as the circumstances demand.

In Isa. vii. 14, Revised Version, we read, “ Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son,” with a marginal note on “ a” or the. In
Matt. i. 23 this passage is quoted. But here we read, ” Behold, the
virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son.” The Greek
of Matthew is in this clause a fair rendering of the Hebrew of Isaiah,
and might be expressed in English by the same words. The definite
article is the same in both ; the first verb is in the Old Testament
often rendered to be with child, as in Isa. xxvi. 17, 18, Revised Ver-
sion, and the second is expressed indifferently in both the Old and
New Testaments by to bear or to bring forth ; compare “ bring
forth” (Gen. iii. 16), “is born” (Matt. ii. 2), “ bearest not” (Gal.
iv. 27), etc. I quote in all these cases from the Revised Version.
We need not undertake to decide whether in this important passage
we should read “ a virgin” or “ the virgin,” but since the Hebrew
and Greek texts have the article alike, surely the English rendering
of it should be the same in both passages.

In Matt. iii. 3 occurs a quotation from Isa. xl. 3, with some vari-
ations, but having the phrase, “ Prepare ye the way of the Lord ”
identical. In the Revised Version of the New Testament it is
changed to, “ Make ye ready the way of the Lord,” although in
the same version we have prepare as the rendering of the same Greek
verb (aToijud^oo) in Matt. xx. 23 ; xxv. 34, 41 ; Luke xxiii. 56 ;
xxiv. 1 ; John xiv. 2, 3, and other passages.

Again, in Matt. xiii. 14, 15, we have a quotation from Isa. vi. 10,
not exact, but having the words, “ lest they see with their eyes and
hear with their ears” identical. Here the Revised Version in Mat-
thew has substituted perceive for see, although only two verses farther
on the same verb is rendered see, as also in Matt. ii. 2, 9, 10, 16,
and multitudes of other cases.

In Joel ii. 28 we have the glorious promise, “ I will pour out my
Spirit upon all flesh,” and here the Revised Version agrees with the
Authorized Version, except that it gives the word spirit with a small
initial s. But the revised New Testament in Acts ii. 17, 18 substi-
tutes “ pour forth” for “ pour out,” although in many passages it
renders the same verb, “ pour out.”

The passage in Ps. xiv. 3, “ There is none that doeth good, no,

REASONS FOR RETOUCHING REVISED VERSION. 35

not one,” is quoted in Rom. iii. 12. A somewhat more exact ren-
dering of both the Hebrew and the Greek texts would have been,
“ There is none that doeth good ; there is not even one.” The re-
visers of 1 61 1 regarded “ no, not one” as an equivalent, and perhaps
more forcible, rendering of the last clause, and gave it in both the
Old Testament and the New. But in Romans the Revised Version
of 1 88 1 gives us, “ no, not so much as one,” where the revisers seem
not to have noticed that they were employing two negatives in Eng-
lish for one in the Greek.

The Hebrew term Sheol has been employed (sometimes) in the
Revised Version of the Old Testament as the name of the unseen
world, and Hades (throughout) in that of the New Testament.
Now, whatever differing ideas may have been entertained in different
ages respecting the unseen world, still it remains true that aSrjt is
the only Greek term corresponding to Sitw, and so was employed to
render it in the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament, and by
the inspired writers of the New. The term Hades was first adopted
in our English literature, and therefore had the prior claim to be
used throughout the Old and New Testaments as the rendering of
the corresponding Hebrew and Greek terms ; and it is to be regret-
ted that in Ps. xvi. io we must read,

“ For thou wilt not leave my soul to Sheol ;

Neither wilt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption,”

and in Acts ii. 27, of the same Bible, where the words are quoted
verbatim,

“ Because thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades,

Neither wilt thou give thy Holy One to see corruption.”

Here we have in a single verse the same particle rendered For and
Because , the same preposition rendered to and in , the corresponding
Hebrew and Greek proper names expressed by Sheol and Hades, and
the same verb rendered suffer and give ; also thine and thy , and Holy
One with and without initial capitals.

These examples may suffice. They could easily be multiplied.
There are also other points, not touched in this article, which would
confirm the same result if fully presented. Such are the different
treatment of proper names in the Old and New Testaments, the dif-
ferent degrees of concession to modern usages in such matters as
the substitution of who or that for which when referring to persons,
and the widely different degrees of strictness with which the revisers
of the Old and of the New Testament adhered to the rule, “ To
introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the Authorized
Version consistently with faithfulness .” But I am willing to submit

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW

the case without farther argument, confident of the verdict of the
great majority of my readers : The Revision ought to be revised.

As a method by which this desirable result might be reached, I
suggest the following plan : Let the Old and New Testament com-
panies be constituted one company in two sections, with power to
fill their own vacancies either separately or jointly, as the majority
may decide. Then let a sub-committee of at least three men be
appointed to have immediate charge of the work, and to give their
whole time to it until it is completed. “ Such a committee would be
able to render available all the aid offered from without, to watch
over the thorough consistency and harmony of the different parts of
the version, and to report to the general committees the changes
needed to secure these objects. Devoting their whole time and
energy to it, they would be far more likely to keep in mind the
great variety of points, often minute, which demand attention in
the progress of such a work, than ten times as many men of equal
ability who are earnestly devoting six sevenths of their time to
other duties.” *

One more suggestion, and I have done. Let the English Ver-
sion of the Holy Scriptures be frankly recognized, like the whole
body of English literature, as the common heritage and possession
of all the English-speaking peoples. To this end let the British and
American companies of Revisers (the one representing Great Britain,
with its leadership and prestige, and the other Greater Britain, in
the widest sense of the phrase, with its large and rapidly increasing
majority of those to whom the English language is vernacular) be
placed upon precisely the same footing, and a common result reached
by the votes of both bodies. The formalities necessary for such an
arrangement can easily be reached if those with whom they rest are
first satisfied that the arrangement is on the whole desirable. If
this reasonable concession cannot be secured , then (however much we
should deprecate the alternative) let rival editions of the revision
be published, and in a friendly way, without contention, compete
for the suffrages of all the English-speaking populations of the globe.

Elias Riggs.

Constantinople.

Suggested Modifications of the Revised Version, p. 4.

III.

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION.

A TRAVELLER entering a Jewish town nineteen hundred years
ago could not help seeing a building differing in form and
structure from the dwellings of the people, for it either stood on the
highest available ground, or it had a tall pole rising from its roof to
show its position and its purpose. At the door was a “ scraper,” so
that filth might be put from the feet of those who entered, A
notice-board was on the wall, on which occasionally one might see
the names of some who had been doing wrongly. Entering the
door one’s eye fell on a collection-box, into which donations could
be put, and looking forward it rested on a small platform with
chairs and a desk, at which one could conveniently stand up and
read. The building was large or small according to the population
of the town, and was built sometimes probably by subscription,
sometimes by assessment, and sometimes by a generous and religious
friend of the people ; sometimes even by a Gentile who lived among
them, and came to like them and their ways. It was the Jewish
“ meeting-house,” the synagogue in which on the Sabbath-day and
sometimes during the week the people met to worship and hear
God’s Word read and explained.

The synagogue was a prophecy. Coming into existence in connec-
tion with the sojourn of the people in a strange land, it developed
— by a kind of evolution in human life and ways of which the Provi-
dence of God often makes use — into a popular institution. In the
United States to-day, a region unknown to the world when the syn-
agogue grew up, there are a hundred thousand “ meeting-houses,”
not one of which is without some element traceable to the syna-
gogue. Even the vessel of ceremonial cleansing water and the
lights which — in imitation of the temple — were kept burning in the
synagogue have their counterpart to-day in the places of worship of
that church which clings to altar, priest, and sacrifice, as if Christ
had not fulfilled and so put away the preparatory types and shadows
of the law, and Himself taken their place.

The assembly of people coming together in the synagogue to
worship was known as the “ congregation.” The idea of supplica-

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

tion being connected closely with the building, it naturally came to
be called the place of prayer ; and the worshippers, from being called
together, became to Greek writers the ccclesia, the Church, a word
which in so many ways is mixed up with the history of the race
since the temple fell and the Hebrews were scattered.

Few side questions in Christian literature are more interesting
than the bearing of the synagogue on the formation of the Christian
congregation, with its body of ruling elders, its leader specially
charged with conducting the services, its prayers, its praises, its ex-
positions of Bible truth, its deacons, even its sexton, and its rever-
ence for the “ pulpit Bible.” Vitringa and others have labored
over the history and influence of the synagogue, and with good
results, if only we keep in mind that — as in every deteriorating sys-
tem— new usages creep in and are not to be confounded with the
original elements. The curses against Christians, for example, could
have had no sanction from our Lord, could not have existed in His
time, and are no more authorized by Him than the prayers for the
dead — noticed in the Book of Maccabees— and dwelt upon by the
advocates of corrupt Christianity.

Presbyterians have no reason to turn away from the contempla-
tion of the synagogue, for just as the prophet in the Hebrew history
took the place of the priest and prepared for the preaching of the
Christian dispensation, so the synagogue, in Palestine and in every
” city of the Gentiles” where even ten adult Hebrews were found,
prepared the way for the congregation, with its ruling elders, its
court of discipline, its Scripture-reading and exposition, and its care
of the poor. Nor will any intelligent reader of these disquisitions
be troubled by the use of the word “ liturgy.” He will remember
(though others often ignore it) that “ liturgy” is only the Greek
word for “service,” and that if a man were to-day describing in
Greek the “ ministry” or “ service” of the most loyal Presbyterian,
the word leitourgia would be employed as by Luke (i. 23) and the
apostle of the Gentiles (Phil. ii. 17).

The venerable institution that thus comes to us is entitled to care-
ful study, if we would make the most of it for the good of the people
and for the Divine glory. Whatever views Christian people may
entertain as to the General Council, or the Association, or the
Synod, or the Assembly, there is no diversity of view about the
congregation and its relation to the spiritual health of the com-
munity— the subject to which we now crave the attention of the
reader. A congregation is to be the means of bringing truth to
bear on the people for their conversion and sanctification, and of
witnessing for the truth of God among men. What are the ele-

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION.

ments that enter into it to make it efficient ? The efficiency of many
a congregation is seriously hindered by its genesis, if we may apply
that word to origin, constituent elements, and organization. A
group of individuals, for other than spiritual reasons, goes out of an
existing congregation, applies to the most convenient body for
organization, and proceeds more with the spirit of an ambitious sec-
ular corporation than of a religious community. The inspiration
may be in the social ambition or social discontent of a number of
leaders, or of a single leader, or a denominational zeal from outside
is exercised to detach and set up a new Church, the raison d' etre for
which is mainly to have a representation in the place, and swell the
ranks of the advancing army. This is the only sense in which some
companies of Christians are of the Church militant. The choice of
officers is determined by considerations such as led to organization.
Spirituality of feeling or consecration of life is secondary. The ex-
tent to which influence, money, and connection can “ carry us
along” is the primary thought. It does not need to be shown that
a process like this grieves the Spirit of God, drives away His bless-
ing, chills the sympathies of God’s people in the neighborhood,
brings Christian life down in the minds of onlookers, and tempts the
Church into following precedents that savor of a secular rather than
of a religious society. God, who overrules human folly, may in time
bring great good out of a community so organized ; but it has un-
healthy elements which have to be eliminated through new and bet-
ter influences. If the eye of the body politic is not single, the body
will not be full of light. It would sometimes be a saving in money
and in other denominational talents if a Presbytery said to a body
of applicants for reception and organization, “ Brethren, we do not
think your impulses of the sort God calls for in moving forward His
cause, and we decline to receive you.” Such a course would some-
times be a testimony to regard for the Divine honor rising above
denominational self-love.

There is that in the mode of settlement of a pastor which tells on
the moral power of a congregation for good or for evil. Has he
been the object of the choice of all the people ? Did they choose
him freely ? or had things come into that condition that they must
take somebody, and he turned up ? Or is he the protdgt of a section
— perhaps the giving section — of the congregation ? Is it conceded
that he was called spontaneously by them ? or did he so manage
that they could not well do otherwise ? Here is a man doing mis-
sionary work, and making a good record. “ Come and preach to us
as a candidate,” says a letter to him. “ You are very kind in in-
tention,” he replies, ” but were I to do so it would look as if I were

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

doing this work only because I could get no better, and that is not
the case.” Suppose they say, “ Now, that is the sort of man we
want,” and they give him the call without any “ candidating.” He
has, other things being equal, an immense advantage over a minister
who put himself on trial and in competition before them. A min-
ister called to a pulpit on his general record, and without his having
raised a beckoning finger to the people, has a good position among
the people around. The non-churchgoing will “ like to hear a man
like that,” and be prepossessed in his favor. The estimate of him
may be without definite basis, but it rests on ideas of self-respect,
manliness, independence, and readiness to work for work’s sake,
which Christian instincts connect with a “ good minister of Jesus
Christ.”

In recent years we have heard and read a great deal about “ en-
vironments.” The word covers much that bears on a minister’s
influence for good. The management, for example, of the financial
affairs of a congregation tells directly on its standing, and conse-
quently its usefulness. This matter is all too often set in a light that
misleads. The Christian man in business is not relieved from regard
to laws and rules of business by the fact that he is a man of faith.
If he proceeds on any such assumption, he will early find himself in
embarrassments. And precisely so it is with a Christian community.
When it has to do with property, it has a business side, and on that
side to put faith in the room of foresight, prudence, economy, or
liberality is to invite failure. Is the minister chosen because he
can, it is thought, get the congregation out of debt? Is the con-
gregation so burdened with debt, waiting for some one to be
“ raised up in the providence of God ” to pay it off, that the min-
ister has no encouragement from the people to preach a missionary
sermon or mention a ‘‘collection ”? Did the people, disregarding
the plane of their own living, begin an ambitious structure, implying
a large outlay ? Does the known debt on it deter people from tak-
ing a pew ? ‘‘I cannot afford it,” says the poor man, more or less

truly. “ I don’t want to go in,” says the richer man ; “ if I do they
will be down on me for the debt.” Does the bulk of the pecuniary
resources come from a clique, so that the rest of the worshippers
relieve their minds of responsibility ? Then two sets of evils come.
There is an understanding that the givers should choose the minis-
ter, and that is bad, for it ignores the Christian standing and obliga-
tion of the rest. And there is the further temptation to say when
the minister is settled, ‘‘ Well, the rich set chose him ; he is their
man ; let them take care of him.” All this is bad for the innocent
minister. All the members of a healthy Church have a voice in

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION.

the Church’s choice and responsibility, or privilege rather, in the
Church’s maintenance. New Testament Presbyterianism is on the
line of the national Government, “ of the people, for the people, by
the people.” Common sense is to be used in the management of
Church affairs as of the Christian’s affairs, and to be consecrated in
the exercise. The law of the United States puts much in the
power of trustees ; but the people choose them. Let them choose
rightly. Let them not say of A. B., ‘‘ He is not a religious man,
but he is well off. We could not make him an elder, but we can
put him into the Board of Trustees.” Men who are to manage the
affairs of a religious body need more than social standing or business
shrewdness. They need the wisdom that cometh from above. Only
religious men will feel this need and seek Divine direction. And
the Church-building ought to be the product largely of the zeal and
efforts of the resident worshippers. Human nature is such that it
likes to utilize that into which it has put its means. On the other
hand, a Church-building practically dropped in the neighborhood by
some distant owner of supposed ample means — an individual or a
society— is all too often left for the donor to take care of. It is like
a monument in the cemetery— they who erected it are expected to
look after it.

On all such matters as these there is a twofold obligation often
forgotten. Ministers are to teach their people on these matters.
“ The Scriptures principally teach what we are to believe concerning
God, and what duty God requires of man.” A Church-building has
gone up, and is two thirds paid for. “ Now,” says a shrewd mem-
ber, “ we have done our part. We can carry the remaining one
third easily, and let the next generation take that for its share.”
The thing looks plausible, and the selfishness of which we all have a
share rather favors it. “ No,” says the minister, “ we cannot do
that. We must dedicate this house to God as a clear gift. We
must leave as good an inheritance as we can to the next generation,
but debt is not a part of it. The next generation, if it is faithful,
will have its own work to do. Let us set it a good example.” The
result is a little more “ effort,” to use an abused word. The work
is done. No one is exhausted by it. The conscience of every one
approves of it, and the people say — and this is good for them, too —
“ Yes, the minister is right. The Church should owe no man any-
thing for its building.”

There is, in the second place, responsibility on the Presbytery.
The synagogue was one thing ; the council, the sunedrion, was an-
other, with local oversight. In too many cases a Presbytery installs
a minister, and, as a Presbytery , takes no more cognizance of him or

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

his work until he comes with his “resignation.” “Why, what is
the matter?” asks a presbyter of his neighbor. “ I believe there is
trouble in the Church ; it has been going on for a long time.” But
the body which installed him had no cognizance of it. He had no
moral support from his peers. No New Testament authority was
brought to bear on him or on the people to repress the trouble and
maintain moral and spiritual health. This is not an infrequent
occurrence, and it is given as an illustration of the inactivity — the
defective sense of that responsibility we urge on Presbyteries. Call
the session a Presbytery, as do German Presbyterians, and our Pres-
bytery a synod if you like, but there is a body over the congregation,
minister and people, with oversight and responsibility. Fidelity
on its part would often avert evils, and habituate the people to ask
its counsel and be guided by its wisdom. What is the use of us as
Presbyteries? Are we a mere “bureau of registration” of calls,
settlements, and dismissals ? or are we a body for counsel, direc-
tion, and good government, having such oversight that a minister in
difficulties can go to his peers and count upon justice, and a congre-
gation in doubts can go to its council and secure wise direction ?

Our form of Church Government provides two sets of co-operators
with the preaching Elder. One of these we know as the ruling
Elders, meeting in “ session.” The efficiency of many a congrega-
tion would be promoted by the extension of their activities. To
regulate collections, admit and dismiss members, and arrange details
of Church life are important official duties. They should be supple-
mented, however, by personal contact with the people in the inter-
course of life, and in their homes. How many when sick “ send
for the Elders of the Church”? In too many cases they assume
that the minister’s instincts will guide him to the sick-bed ; but as
for the Elders, they too rarely count on their help in spiritual life.
Yet an elder, doing his common duty as a business man, a farmer, a
lawyer, who will speak faithful and kind words to those of his own
class, will often exercise a power beyond the minister’s. When the
Elder is making his honest appeal, it is less easy for the enemy of
souls to whisper into the hearer’s ear, “ He is only earning his
salary,” than when the minister exhorts. Let John Smith come
into the Church and get seats for his family, and let Mr. Brown call
as an Elder of the Church, telling why, making their acquaintance,
and giving hints as to the best ways of utilizing the Church, and the
whole of the Smith family will be in a better mood for hearing and
worshipping the next Lord’s day, for they will have an actual sense
of the Church as a living organism, and of the communion of Chris-
tians as real and not merely nominal.

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION.

Socialists and Anarchists now make a stir, and in all likelihood
will for some time irritate and alarm society. These United States,
with their wide range, different States, and individual liberty offer
them a tempting field. The neglected condition of the poor, how-
ever real or imaginary, is their strong point. The Church has to
bear her share, and it is a large one, in weakening this point.
We have no parochial divisions. We have no Established Church,
which, as in England, may be like a branch of the civil service,
putting a minister into every parish, to whom, with more or less
success, the parochial poor can betake themselves. That this ar-
rangement effects all that is sometimes claimed for it is unhappily
made incredible by the condition, say, of London, where “ the
Church” has, it is alleged, furnished an inadequate share of the
Church accommodation, and where an alarming multitude has no
bona fide connection with any Church.

But the fact that the Church here has no State-provided machin-
ery of this sort makes it more incumbent to secure the best avail-
able machinery. A body of deacons chosen, of course, by the peo-
ple, having in charge the care of the poor of the congregation, on the
one hand securing the needful relief for them, and, on the other, per-
sonally dispensing it in the spirit of gentle Christian men — this would
be a living and a forcible plea for the Church as a Divine institu-
tion, and a partial reply to the sweeping charges recklessly flung at
not only all Christians, but at most of those who have secured com-
mon comforts, as being indifferent to the miseries of the class which
Socialism affects to take under its protection.

In commending the place and work of the deacon, we do not use
the word in its New England sense. The New England deacon is
to all intents and purposes a Scottish or, better still, a New Testa-
ment ruling Elder. We mean by deacons a group of church-mem-
bers set apart from the rest for the care of the poor. They may be
younger men than are commonly called into the session. To have
them meet with the session, without voting, make their reports
there, and learn by observation how the work is done — as is the
case in some congregations — is no mean preparation for the higher
place of ruling Elder. It is for such Church officers as we have
described to co-operate with the pastor in breathing the right spirit
into the Church. A congregation can take to itself an air not very
defined, and nowhere noted down in its books, but not the less
real on that account, more or less favorable to true spiritual advance.
It may be a bureau for mild, not irreligious entertainment. It
may be a social ladder with well-defined steps for the feet of those
who are known as “ climbers.” It may be a competitor more or

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

less successful in the work of “ drawing” numbers, and may treat
success therein as the chief end of its existence. Or — and this we
deem the true ideal of a Christian congregation — it may be a group
of Christian families associated together for solemn, decent worship
of Almighty God, for learning and teaching one another the saving
truth, and for witnessing for it before their fellow-men, and provided
with an edifice adapted for these high ends.

We have spoken of “ families” and of “teaching one another,”
and the ideas represented by these words we deem essential to the
healthy life of a congregation. Families, as such, should be to-
gether. Departures from this rule of nature are rarely taken without
loss along the lines of family and religious life. When individualism
is pushed so far that the parents go to one congregation, “ the
girls” strike out for another, and the sons, if they go anywhere,
patronize a third, there will be in a few years little home religion
under the roof which covers their place of living, or rather boarding.
And so, too, the Sabbath-schools, classes, young men’s societies,
and all the internal organizations of the Church should be in effect
the people of the congregation aiding one another in learning, in
Christian living and Christian working. Whoever has voyaged in
an ocean steamer knows that there are other pieces of machinery
than that which propels the ship. One can be set to work to drop
and lift the anchor. Another can be employed to heave up the
cinders. A third can work for the ventilation of the passages and
rooms. A fourth can keep the food required for hundreds of passen-
gers in the needed cool temperature. But one plan runs through
all ; one will centrals all ; and the subordinate appliances do not run
the ship nor interfere with the running. And on the same general
principle should work all the subordinate agencies of a living and
advancing congregation as God’s instrument, like the ship, carrying
many human beings through the changes and vicissitudes of life
below to the shores of the better land.

Of the distinctive work of the minister we have not here at-
tempted to write. It is an old but a wide subject, and requires an
article by itself. To be preacher, overseer, and friend ; to lift up
Christ and to go down with sympathy and good sense to the lowest
condition of the lowliest of His people ; to declare, explain, defend,
and recommend the truth of the All-Holy One to sinful men, so
that they shall be interested and drawn under its influence, and so
that the Holy Spirit will employ it for quickening into life and feed-
ing their souls — this is the loftiest work on which a human soul can
concentrate its energies. Parents toil, and enlist the co-operation
of their sons that they may be lifted to the places of lawyer, physi-

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE CONGREGATION.

cian, merchant, and the like. Where are there places so noble and
lofty as that whose occupants can say, “We are ambassadors for
Christ”? Trials, difficulties, hard labors must come to such officers
as surely as inconveniences come to soldiers on a battle-field ; but
brave soldiers deem these drawbacks a little thing compared with
duty and with victory. So let it be with ministers ; then spiritual,
living congregations will love them living, and bless their memories
when they have gone to minister in the upper sanctuary.

John Hall.

New York City.

IV.

THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO

SCIENCE.

“ Bien que cela sonne comme un paradoxe, la science moderne doit son origine an Chris-

tianisme.”*

WE are continually hearing in certain quarters at the present
day of the unspeakable debt which Christian Theology owes
to Physical Science. Science has been lopping off excrescences
here, removing huge errors there, dissolving false principles and
furnishing right interpretations all round, and, in general, exercising’
such a powerful reforming influence on the unshapely body of The-
ology as will likely by and by make her a passable subject, almost
presentable in modern society. On the other hand, in the present
pride and ingratitude of youthful Science, we hear but little of the
debt which she herself owes to Christianity ; and what is worse,
in the more bigoted circles of unbelief — and no bigotry can be more
bitter than that of the coarser forms of unbelief — the very idea would
probably be scouted as ridiculous that Science could owe anything
whatever to Christianity. “ Can any good thing come out of Naz-
areth ?” Yet we are old-fashioned enough to believe that Science
does owe a large debt to Christianity ; a debt much larger than
Christianity owes to Science ; a debt so large that Science has not
yet repaid it, and perhaps never can repay it. And it is most inter-
esting and satisfactory to notice that this indebtedness is at times
candidly admitted even by non-Christian scientists. For example,
the sentence which forms the text of the present article is a sentence
from the pen of an acknowledged scientist, who unhappily appears
to be far enough from being a believer in the Christianity of the
New Testament. It is Du Bois-Reymond, and not some benighted
theologian, who says, “ Although it may sound like a paradox,
modern Science owes its origin to Christianity.”

As Christians we ought frankly to admit the great and real debt
which Christian Theology owes to Physical Science. Our love of

Du Bois-Reymond, La Revue Scienti/ique, 19 Janvier, 1878.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 4?

the truth and our sense of gratitude alike should compel us to do
so ; and that Christian acts but a sorry and unworthy part who fails
in this duty. Why should not Science help to perfect our religious
system of truth, like philosophy, or the study of geography or his-
tory, or the growing knowledge of ancient languages, or the won-
derful discoveries of archaeology, especially in the ruins of Nineveh
and Babylon ? And if we acknowledge the fact in the latter case,
why should we not do so with equal cordiality in the former ? Why
should Christians hesitate to accept truths revealed in Nature any
more than truths revealed in the Bible, since the one is just as really
and directly a revelation of God as the other ? The one supreme
aim which we must ever keep before our minds as Christians is the
discovery of the truth, the very thoughts of God ; and as truth-
seekers we are bound to accept the truth from whatever quarter it
may come, whether from the Bible or from Nature, from Archaeol-
ogy or Physical Science, and whether it may tell for or against our
cherished dogmas.

Science has contributed a great deal to systematic Christianity in
the way of helping to bring Christian thinkers back to the right
method of searching after and attaining to truth. There can be no
doubt that the theological method of the Middle Ages was the hard,
self-confident method of a priori deduction. But this method was
not the outgrowth of Christianity itself. It was the result of Schol-
asticism, that morbid and monstrous development of Aristotelian-
ism, which was just as hurtful to sound Theology as to sound Sci-
ence, and for which Theology was no more to blame than Science.
But the truly scientific method proceeds by the induction of facts.
It asks, What are the facts ? Have we all the facts ? What is the
meaning of the facts ? Then, when the facts are all before it, it pro-
ceeds to deduce its conclusions and establish the great underlying
laws and principles. Now Science has helped to bring back Theol-
ogy to the method of Induction. It has put a new instinct into
theologians, teaching them consciously or unconsciously to follow
the method of induction rather than that of overgrown deduction.
It has led them to ask what are the facts ? And thus it has brought
them back more rigidly to the exact facts and statements of the
Bible as made known by an accurate exegesis. It has taught them
that it is only when all the facts are fully before the mind that the
time has come for sound theologizing with a view to discover the
grand truths and principles which are the very thoughts of God. It
has further trained them to take care that the conclusions deduced
shall not overlap the facts, so as to contain more than the facts
warrant.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

But Science has also contributed to Theology or Systematic
Christianity in the way of correcting not a few mistakes which had
become encrusted on it as earth may be encrusted on the precious
stone. These were mistakes which it properly belonged to Physical
Science to correct, mistakes about matters which God had revealed
in the volume of Nature, and which accordingly could not be accu-
rately known until that volume had been studied aright. These sci-
entific corrections are such as the following : that the sun is the
centre of the solar system and not the earth ; that it is the earth
which moves and not the sun ; and that God created the world by a
gradually progressive process or evolution extending throughout in-
definite ages, and not in the space of six ordinary days. In general,
we may say that Science has helped Theology to the conclusion that
the Bible is meant to be a revelation of religious truth and not of
scientific truth, the revelation of which is to be found in Nature.

Physical Science has also helped Theology not a little by con-
tributing to a fuller, wider, more realistic view of the infinitude of
God. It helps us better to realize His power when it reveals to us
the enormous masses of the planets and the stars, and their incon-
ceivable velocities. It gives us a deeper insight into His wisdom
when it reveals to us the laws which regulate the motions of the
heavenly bodies, the growth and the structure of plants, the organ-
ism of the animal, and especially of the human frame. It helps us
better to grasp the reality of His omnipresence when Science reveals
to us that the same material substances, forces, and laws as exist
around us on the earth are also found to exist in the distant stars.
It gives us a fuller sense of His absolute dominion when we see
law reigning everywhere, down to the minutest atom, so that the
astronomer can calculate the exact time of an eclipse a century or
even a thousand years before it takes place. In such ways as the
above Science has substantially contributed to the help of Christian
Theology.

Perhaps we should also mention here that Science has done not a
little to draw the attention of theologians more vividly to the fact
that the revelation of religious truth in the Bible has been a gradual
development or evolution. Physical Science has arrived at the con-
clusion that creation has proceeded by a gradual advance through
long ages, possibly, some think, by a God-directed and God-impelled
evolution. Now this discovery assuredly tends to annihilate the
dictum of Reimarus and others, that if God had really given us a
revelation of religious truth, it would have been in a systematic
form, perfect at once, like a creed, a confession, or a catechism.
It has certainly done something to make it more obvious that reve-

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 49

Iation has not proceeded by arbitrary, unconnected leaps, but is a
continuous river of light and life, flowing through the ages with a
constantly increasing fulness of development. We behold the begin-
nings of the heaven-descended stream in Genesis. Throughout the
centuries we see God forming the channel and directing the course
of the growing river by ten thousand providences. We trace Him
ever pouring fuller light and life directly from Himself into the
mystical current, so that the growth goes on almost imperceptibly ;
while at special times we see Him launching into it sudden and
visible supplies of the supernatural, so as to make a new start, akin
to the introduction of a new species in Nature. In other words,
Science has helped us to grasp more clearly that revelation is a God-
directed evolution, a river flowing down the ages in one historical,
organic continuity, ever advancing in its fulness until it reaches its
goal in Christ, the Christian religion, and the Christian Church.

Our present subject, however, is not the contribution of Science
to Christian Theology, but the contribution of Christian Theology
to Science. And here let it be noted that we use the expression
“ Christian Theology” as equivalent to systematic Christianity, or
the true Science of the facts of Christianity. In this sense the ex-
pression denotes the correct and systematic knowledge of Christian
truth as it really is, as distinguished from any old a priori system,
and, above all, as distinguished from any system of infallible, cast-
iron ecclesiasticism. It must be noted that this is the meaning we
attach to “ Christian Theology,” just as scientists mean by “ Physi-
cal Science” the correct and systematic knowledge of the facts of
the physical universe, and not the old and discarded scientific sys-
tems which have gone to form the rubbish of the ages. We admit
that Romish ecclesiasticism has at times proved a powerful enemy
to Science, as it has done to true religion ; and we do not deny that
hard a priori systems of Theology have occasionally tended in the
same direction even in Protestantism. What we undertake to show
is that Christian Theology, the Christian system of truth, or, in
short, Christianity, has made most valuable contributions to the help
of Physical Science.

This seems at first sight suggested by the fact that it is the Chris-
tian nations which stand and have always stood in the front rank of
scientific advance. We do not look for true and living Science in
China or India, under the influence of Confucianism, or Buddhism,
or Brahmanism ; and if we were to look for such Science there we
should not find it. It is only among Christian nations, and nations
which have imbibed the grand truths of Christianity, that we find
living and productive Science. We need only remind the reader
4

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

that it is countries such as Britain, Germany, and America, which
have stood or stand first in Christianity, that also stand first in the
march of Science. Nor is the fact that the Arabians in the Middle
Ages made some advance in Science any exception to the general
truth just stated. These Arabians were Mohammedans, and as
such had borrowed the doctrines of the unity, personality, and gov-
ernment of God from the Christian Scriptures, and thus far they
held the grand fundamental truth of our religion. We are convinced
that this religious belief was the inspiration and impelling power of
their new life and Science, so that their case so far falls in with our
general statement ;* and we are inclined to maintain that it was be-
cause they stopped short of Christianity that their scientific advance
proved abortive and transitory.

But the close connection of Christianity with Science may also
appear if we look at the most distinguished scientific discoverers of the
past and the present. They have been , as a ride , men ivho were believ-
ers in Christianity, or, at least, in Christian Theism. Naville even
goes the length of saying, “ There is not a single one of the found-
ers or great originators [of Physical Science] who has not been
placed under the influence of the idea of a mighty and wise Creator,
and who has not received from that lofty contemplation the rays of
light which have directed his steps.”]- It may seem to be going
rather far to affirm this dogmatically ; but it is much nearer the
truth than the sweeping boast sometimes made, that all the fore-
most scientific men of the age are unbelievers or materialists. The
great scientific discoverers of the past were men who believed in the
God of Christianity. This is true of such men as Copernicus and
Kepler, Galileo, Newton, and Herschel, Descartes and Pascal and
Leibnitz, Linnaeus and Cuvier and Davy. The same thing is true to
a great extent of the famous scientific discoverers of our own age,
who either are still alive or have passed away within the last fifty
years. We need only refer to such names as Liebig, Ampere, and
Faraday, Owen and Agassiz, Brewster and Clerk-Maxwell, Thomson
and Tait, Doma and Dawson, Lionel Beale and Pasteur. But per-
haps we cannot do better than hear what such an unexceptionable
authority as Dr. Maudsley has to say on the subject. He affirms,
“ There is hardly one, if indeed there be even one, eminent scien-

* “ That Mohammedanism exhibits most of that furtherance of natural study which
we assign to the monotheistic principle falls in, without doubt, with the circumstance
that the Monotheism of Mohammed was the most absolute, and comparatively the
freest from mythical adulterations.” (Lange, History of Materialism , Vol. I., p. 1S4,
Authorized Translation, second edition.)
f Modern Physics, p. 221, 1884.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 51

tific inquirer who has denied the existence of God, while there is
notably more than one who has evinced a childlike simplicity of
faith. ”* In other words, the distinguished discoverers in the domain
of Science have been almost entirely men holding at least those
grand theistic beliefs which lie at the very foundation of Christian-
ity. Now, at first sight, all this looks as if there was some real
causal connection between the spirit of Christianity and Science.

But even if there be scientific discoverers who make no profession
of Christian Theism, it by no means follows that Christianity has had
no influence on their investigations and discoveries. The very oppo-
site is almost certain to be the fact. They have grown up in the
midst of a Christian environment, breathing a Christian air, and in
spite of themselves they have contracted a Christian way of looking
at things. They have absorbed certain germinal principles, and
acquired certain habits and instincts from their Christian surround-
ings, just as they have acquired their speech and manners, their
morality and general character ; and whether they will or not, these
principles and habits of mind exercise a very subtle and powerful
influence upon their Science.

One very important preliminary way in which Christianity has
contributed to the aid of Science was in beginning and fighting out
the battle of freedom of conscience and of thought against the iron
tyranny of Rome. Writers like Draper, in his so-called History of
the Conflict between Religion and Science t would gladly make their
credulous readers believe that it was Science which fought out the
battle of intellectual freedom, and that it had to fight it out against
Religion. But this is a grievous mistake. The battle was not
fought against Religion, but against the infallible ecclesiasticism of
Rome ; and it was not fought out by Science, but by Religion, by
Protestant Christianity. It was Protestant Christianity, the Renais-
sance of true Religion, that began the great battle against Rome for
freedom, and first had the courage and the power effectively to beard
the lion in his den. Indeed, it is highly questionable whether Sci-
ence had in her the faith, the moral principle and power absolutely
necessary for such a tremendous conflict. At any rate, Draper ex-
cuses and palliates in a very significant way, if he does not positively
defend, Galileo’s lamentable recantation of his scientific beliefs
before the Inquisition. His words are, “ Knowing well that truth
has no need of martyrs, he assented to the required recantation, and
gave the promise demanded ” f— -a statement which seems to imply
that Draper himself does not believe very firmly in martyrdom for

* Body and Mind, p. 335.

t Conflict between Religion and Science, p. 171.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Science, or think that Science of herself is well calculated to support
a race of martyrs. In any case it was Protestant Christianity which
carried on the deadly war and purchased the pearls of intellectual
freedom at the expense of furious and unrelenting persecution, of
fines and banishment, of imprisonment and tortures unutterable, of
many a bloody field and many a fiery martyrdom. Not to speak of
the impulse which the Reformation gave to the whole circle of
thought, there can be no doubt that Protestantism was the chief
power in fighting out the battle of mental freedom ; and in this re-
spect it has greatly aided Science by securing a free and safe field
for her manifold research.

We come now more directly to inquire how or in what ways
Christianity of the thoughtful and systematic type positively con-
tributes to the help of Science. We do not mean to dwell upon the
moral help derived from the influence of Christianity, not because
we overlook or undervalue this line of argument, but because the
general fact is obvious. It is manifest that the loyalty to the truth
which genuine Christianity fosters, and the spirit of honest, thor-
oughgoing work which it inculcates, must have a healthful and stim-
ulating effect on scientific investigation. When Faraday enumerates
the qualifications of the true scientist, as a man “ willing to listen
to every suggestion, but determined to judge for himself ; not biassed
by appearances, with no favorite hypotheses, of no school, and in
doctrine having no master ; not a respecter of persons but of things,
with truth for his primary object, and with industry superadded,” *
what has he done but enumerate a few of the well-known qualities
of the genuine Christian ? From the very nature of things, true
Christianity must contribute to that “ patient industry,” that “ self-
renunciation of which the world never hears,” that “ single eye,”
that “ humility,” that “ upright determination to accept the truth,
no matter how it may present itself,” which Professor Tyndall de-
clares to be absolutely necessary for a genuine scientific investiga-
tor, f There can be no doubt that the healthful influence of Chris-
tianity in this direction has been powerfully felt even by men who
are not professedly Christian themselves, but have lived in a Chris-
tian atmosphere until they have become charged with the Christian
spirit.

A genuine Christianity gives a living , personal interest to scientific
research , and therefore a powerful and abiding impulse. To the
Christian, scientific research is the study of the works, the wisdom.

* Bence Jones’s Life of Faraday, Vol. I., p. 225.
Fragments of Science, Vol. I., p. 343.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 53

and the power of his Father in heaven. The Christian’s Bible tells
him that his Father has given us two volumes of revelation. The
first is the volume of Nature ; the second is Holy Scripture. It is
the grand lesson of the first chapter of Genesis, that the universe is
not the outcome of chance or of mere iron necessity, but is the free
work of our heavenly Father. In other words, the Bible teaches us
that Nature is just as really a revelation of God’s thoughts and will
as it is itself. When we are studying Nature, we are studying God’s
revelation of Himself just as truly as when we are studying the
Bible, although the former may be a lower stratum of that revela-
tion than the latter. Accordingly while other scientists study
Nature as a cold, lifeless, soulless system of matter and force, and
their blind mechanical laws, the Christian scientist addresses him-
self to the study of Nature with the belief that it is the revelation
of his God and Father, the crystallization and embodiment of His
thoughts and will. And who does not see how much living, loving
interest and impulse this must give to his scientific investigations?
Hence in such a man as Kepler we see that his devout Christianity
was the mainspring of his scientific research, and we find him, at the
close of one of his great works, breaking out quite naturally in such
words as these : “ O Thou who by the light of Nature promotest in
us the yearning desire of the light of grace, that Thou mayest
thereby transfer us into the light of glory, I thank Thee, Creator
Lord, that Thou hast given me delight in Thy creation, and exulta-
tion in the works of Thy hands.” *

The grand fundamental doctrine of Christianity which has more
especially borne with great effect on the progress of Science is its
doctrine in regard to God . It believes in one God, possessed of true
personality and freedom, of perfect intelligence and goodness, omni-
presence and omnipotence, the Creator and the Governor of the
universe. We do not need to prove that this view of God is not
borrowed by Christianity from modern Science ; for it existed in
the Bible and in the hearts of Christians when modern Science was
in its infancy, only beginning to lisp and walk. We can therefore
inquire with perfect consistency what influence such Theism has
had on Science ; and in doing so we shall find that Christianity
on its theistic side, by coming into direct contact with Nature
through its belief in God as the Creator and Governor of the uni-
verse, has exercised a powerful influence on Science. So obvious is
this truth in its general aspect, that it has been distinctly recog-
nized by men who are by no means orthodox Christians, or even ex-

* Harmonices Mundi , Lib. V., cap. 9.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

plicit adherents of Christianity. For example, we find Du Bois-
Reymond expressly saying, “ That idea of God, transmitted
throughout the ages, from generation to generation, has ended by
reacting on Science itself ; and, by accustoming the human mind to
the conception of a unique reason of things, has kindled in it the
desire of knowing that reason.” *

It seems to us that the Christian doctrine of the One God is almost
necessary in order to lay a basis for true Science and make it possible.
Such Science does not consist in merely gathering up empirically a
multitude of separate facts, and in laboriously and “ exhaustively
classifying them.” It is only when the facts are gathered that the
higher Science begins. True Science consists in discovering the
underlying laws and principles ; and if there be no real basis of
unity, no general underlying, unifying laws and principles, then Sci-
ence is quite impossible. “ Were this a Chaotic Universe, the pow-
ers of the mind employed in Science would be useless to us. Did
chance wholly take the place of order, and did all phenomena come
out of an Infinite Lottery , to use Condorcet’s expression, there
could be no reason to expect the like result in like circumstances.”
But “ happily the universe in which we dwell is not the result of
chance, and where chance seems to work, it is our own deficient
faculties which prevent us from recognizing the operation of Law
and of Design.” f Even materialistic no less than theistic Science
requires as its foundation “ the axiom of the intelligibleness of the
world” % — that is, there must be some underlying texture of intel-
ligence and causation running through things to make Science
possible.

Now it is difficult to see how general, intelligent principles and
laws must exist and reign without the One God at the basis of
them. If there be absolutely no God, or if there be a multitude of
gods, it is hard to see why there must be unity and order. Without
God, or without the divine Unity, why should the elements of mat-
ter not be antagonistic and at everlasting war with each other, and
therefore be utterly unable to form harmonious and permanent com-
binations? In like manner, why should not the forces in Nature be
mutually antagonistic, and constantly working for disorder? Why
should not the matter and forces existing in Sirius be altogether and
totally different from those in the Sun, and those in Arcturus differ-
ent from those in Sirius, and those in Aldebaran different from all
the three ? Why should not the laws which reign in the different

* La Revue Scientifque , 19 Janvier, 1878, p. 676.

f Jevons, Principles of Science, p. 2.

\ Lange, History of Materialism, Vol. III., p. 69.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 55

stars be throughout absolutely unlike? Indeed, why should not the
supposition which J. S. Mill propounds as quite feasible be really
the fact, that in some of “ the firmaments into which sidereal astron-
omy now divides the universe events may succeed one another at
random, without any fixed law”?* Why should he not be right
when he says again, “ In distant parts of the stellar regions it
would be folly to affirm confidently that this general law [of causa-
tion] prevails”? f If there be no God, or if there be many gods, it
is difficult to see why Mill should not almost certainly be right.
“ Apart from the supposition of a Supreme Intelligence, the chances
in favor of disorder against order, of chaos against cosmos, must be
pronounced all but infinite.” X Clearly, however, were such the
case, true Science, and especially cosmical Science, would be impos-
sible. But the existence of only one God at the basis of the uni-
verse removes this difficulty ; and the intelligent belief in Christian
Theism puts into our hand the grand guiding clew to all truest,
broadest, deepest Science. Making all due allowance for variety
arising from the freedom of God, it suggests to us that there are
sure to be universal principles and laws at the root of things, to
which all the facts are to be co-ordinated, and which bind them to-
gether in a systematic unity. It is in this spirit that Kant says,
” The sole condition, so far as my knowledge extends, under which
this unity [in the universe] can be my guide in the investigation of
Nature is the assumption that a Supreme Intelligence has ordered
all things according to the wisest ends. Consequently, the hy-
pothesis of a wise Author of the universe is necessary for my guidance in
the investigation of Nature.” % Even Lange, in his History of
Materialism, himself distinctly materialistic, says, “ Only when we
have a liberal theory of the harmonious guidance of the whole uni-
verse of things by one God does the cause and effect connection
between things become not only conceivable, but is, in fact, a neces-
sary consequence of the theory ; and so a way is opened on which
Science may freely enter.” || In short, the Christian doctrine of
God lays a basis for the higher Science, the Science of the broadest
principles, makes it clearly possible, and at the least is certainly con-
ducive to it, even in the judgment of those who are strongly
materialistic in their tendency.

Proceeding along the line just entered on, we affirm that the
Christian doctrine of God has largely contributed to guide Science

* System of Logic, Vol. II., p. hi (second edition). f It., Vol. II., p. 118.

X Flint, Theism, p. 137. § Critique of Pure Reason, Meiklejohn’s translation, p. 500.

|| History of Materialism, Vol. I., p. 173.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

to its belief in the unity of the universe. Science rightly maintains
that one of its approximate demonstrations is that the universe is
one. It has found by the spectrum analysis the same material ele-
ments with which we are familiar on the earth existing in the sun
and the stars. It has proved that the force of gravity which acts on
the earth acts not only in the planets, the comets, and the sun, but
in the stars and the nebulae. It has found also that the same laws
prevail throughout the visible universe, so far as within its sweep.
The action of gravity, for example, and the transmission of light
are guided by the same laws in the planets and comets, in the sun,
in the fixed stars, and the remotest nebulae. From all this Science
draws its conclusion as to the oneness of the universe. But to this
conclusion Science has been powerfully impelled and guided, con-
sciously or unconsciously, by the Christian doctrine of One God.
This doctrine naturally suggested to the investigator that as there
is only one God, therefore it is likely that the sum of physical worlds
should form a real universe, and not a chance conglomeration of dis-
connected materials and forces. It thus pointed out the direction
in which the truth lay, inclined the minds of investigators toward it,
and made them more ready to discover it, and to accept it when
discovered. Thus Kant felt and taught : “ The highest formal
unity is the unity of all things — a unity in accordance with an aim
or purpose ; and the speculative interest of reason renders it neces-
sary to regard all order in the world as if it originated from the in-
tention and design of a Supreme Reason. This principle unfolds to
the view of reason in the field of experience new and enlarged pros-
pects, and invites it to connect the phenomena of the world accord-
ing to teleological law, and in this way to attain to the highest pos-
sible degree of systematic unity We believe that the Duke of
Argyll is substantially correct when he says : “ One thing is cer-
tain : that whatever Science may have done or may be doing to
confirm man’s idea of the Unity of Nature, Science, in the modern
acceptation of the term, did not give rise to it. The idea had arisen
long before Science in this sense was born. Theology, no doubt,
had more to do with it. The idea of the Unity of Nature must be
at least as old as the idea of one God.”f While polytheism and
mere materialism naturally tend to lead away from the doctrine of
the systematic oneness of the universe, Christian Theism points to
this grand scientific truth, and has substantially contributed to its
discovery and reception.

Another of the great ascertained doctrines of Science is the Per-

Critique of Pure Reason , p. 420.

f Unity of Nature, p. 2.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 57

sistence of Matter and of Force , or, to express it more technically,
the Conservation of Matter and of Energy. By this, of course, is
meant the truth that matter and energy are alike indestructible by
any power or ingenuity on the part of man ; but it also implies the
converse truth that no new or additional matter or energy can be
called into being by any human effort. We may analyze or dis-
solve matter into its constituent elements; we may combine these
elements in new forms in the highest degree unlike the original ; but
throughout the whole process the aggregate remains the same, not
one atom more or less. The same thing holds good in regard to
energy. We may transmute a given amount of energy from one
form into another ; from mechanical force into heat ; from heat into
electricity; from electricity into magnetism, and so on, pursuing it
around the whole possible circle ; but in all this nothing of energy is
either annihilated or created. The Persistence of Matter and Energy
is a scientific truth, the aggregate amount of both in the universe
remaining the same in spite of any effort on the part of man. But
the fact is one to which Christian Theism explicitly pointed, and to
which it naturally guided all intelligent investigators. It declares
that God, and God alone, is the Creator of all things. It teaches
that man can do nothing in the way of either creating or annihilat-
ing matter and energy ; that God alone can create them and annihi-
late them. In other words, Christian Theism points and inclines the
scientific student in the direction of the so-called Persistence of
Matter and Force to such a degree that a Christian scientist could
scarcely avoid the conclusion.

Another grand principle of Physical Science is the reign of definite
law throughout the universe. Matter and force have fixed |laws
according to which they act, and which can be expressed in formulas
more or less exact. Now it is quite certain that Christian Theism
has had no small influence in pointing and impelling to this conclu-
sion. It firmly grasped the idea of God as a king, a lawgiver, a
governor, raised far above arbitrary caprice and impulse. Above
all, we get a most powerful demonstration of the law-principle in
the necessary nature of God in the life and death of Christ, for that
life and death most impressively proclaim that so paramount is the
law-element in God, that law must be fulfilled, and that to death
itself, even in the person of His own Son. Now the natural deduc-
tion from such a Theism is that law must reign everywhere through-
out the universe. Nor does the Christian’s belief in the miracles of
the Bible in any way invalidate the general fact that God is a God
who governs by uniform laws. Rather the idea of miracle implies
the reign of uniform law. Miracle in a sense is a relative term, rela

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

tive to the uniformity which springs from law. In this respect it is
something like sin, which miracles were worked to counteract. Sin
is related to law, and implies law. If there was no moral law there
could be no sin ; for “ sin is the transgression of the law,” and
“ where no law is, there is no transgression.” In something of the
same way, miracle stands related to that uniformity which results
from the reign of known physical law, and distinctly implies it. If
there was no such uniformity there could be no miracle. If every-
thing took place by arbitrary chance, how could any event be known
to be a miracle ? If diseases of the most deadly sort were some-
times healed in a moment ; if water sometimes changed itself into
wine, and loaves of bread took to multiplying themselves indefi-
nitely ; if men sometimes rose from the dead, and heavy substances,
such as human bodies, sometimes ascended in the air ; if, in short,
there was no reign of uniform law in the universe, miracles would
be practically impossible, or, at least, useless ; for no one could be
sure that the supposed miracle was not merely the ordinary play
of chance. In any case, miracles directly imply the reign of uni-
form law. Accordingly we hold to our assertion, that the Christian
belief in God as the universal Governor has had a large influence in
directing Science to the great truth of the reign of universal law.
It clearly had such an influence on the mind of Newton. We find
him writing thus at the close of his Principia : ‘‘God rules all
things, not as the soul of the world, but as the Lord of the universe.
And on account of His sovereignty He is wont to be called the Lord
God omnipotent ; for God is a relative term, and is related to ser-
vants ;” and again, ‘‘ A God without sovereignty, providence, final
causes is nothing else than fate and Nature.”* Clearly Newton’s
view of God helped him to his conviction of the reign of law in the
universe.

In close connection with the above, we add that Christian
Theism naturally suggests the ideal of order. Its belief in God
as King and Governor, and as the God of law, naturally, indeed
necessarily, leads to the idea of order in the universe. Still more
clearly must we see this to be the case when we find the New Tes-
tament explicitly teaching that God is “ not a God of confusion, but
of peace,” who will have everything “ in its own order.” Now this
fact of order is not only a great scientific truth in itself, but we
affirm that Christian Theism has contributed mightily to that re-
search which has succeeded in discovering and establishing the fact,
even in regions where confusion seemed to reign. For example,

* Scholium Generate at the close of the Principia.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 59

every one knows what a tangled skein was the geocentric or Ptolemaic
system of astronomy, with its complexity of cycles and epicycles.
Every one has also heard how Alphonso X., King of Castile, struck
with the inextricable confusion, bluntly exclaimed, “ If God had
called me to His council at creation, things would have been arranged
in better order.” If Alphonso had been a more enlightened Theist,
he would rather have been led to say, ” Such apparent confusion
cannot exist in God’s universe ; therefore the astronomers hitherto
must have certainly been wrong.” At any rate, it was Christian
Theism, the belief in a God of order, that set Copernicus upon the
right track, and led to the splendid discovery of the true or helio-
centric theory of the solar system. This he tells us himself at the
beginning of his great work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Ccelestium :
“ When I continued pondering long with myself about the uncer-
tainty of the mathematical traditions concerning the calculation of
the motions of the heavenly bodies, I began to be dissatisfied that
the philosophers [that is, the scientists] had discovered no more
certain explanation of the movements of the machine of the uni-
verse, which was constructed for us by the best and most orderly
Artificer of all things.” * Again, after giving a diagram of the solar
system, with the sun in the centre — such a diagram as all school chil-
dren are now familiar with — he adds, “ For who in this most beauti-
ful temple would place this lamp [the sun] in any other or better
place than that from which it may at the same time illuminate the
whole? Accordingly we find in this arrangement an admirable order
of the universe, and a sure and harmonious connection of the motion
and magnitude of the heavenly bodies, such as cannot be found in
any other way. ” f That is, the history of the grand discovery of
Copernicus was this : he first pondered over the Ptolemaic system
of astronomy, and was deeply dissatisfied with its confusion and in-
tricacy. He believed in God, the Creator, as a Being of the most
perfect order, not likely to have created a system so devoid of order.
This belief impelled him to look out for a more orderly system, be-
coming such a God of order, and the pursuit ended in one of the
noblest scientific discoveries — the true theory of the solar system.
According to Draper, ‘‘ Astronomers justly affirm that the book of
Copernicus, De Revolutionibus, changed the face of their science.”
If so, according to Copernicus himself this change received its grand
impulse from the belief in “ a most orderly Creator;” in other
words, is due to enlightened Christian Theism.

* “ Ab optimo et regularissimo omnium Opifice.” (De Revolutionibus , Preface to
Pope Paul III.)

f De Revolutionibus, p. 10(1543).

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Another far-reaching conclusion of Science is the adaptation of
means to end in nature, however we may explain the fact. We see
this truth most vividly and irresistibly^- set before us more especially
in the department of Physiology ; and few have done more to illus-
trate it than Darwin, whatever we may think of his method of ex-
planation. This principle of adaptation, previously known as the
doctrine of Final Causes, briefly stated is this : Organs which exist,
exist for something, and not in vain or by mere blind chance. Ac-
cordingly when any special organ is discovered or is under consider-
ation, the investigator naturally says, This exists for some purpose
or other ; the search for the purpose is entered on, and thus a clew
is got hold of which leads on to a new discovery. When Harvey,
for example, fixed his attention on the valves in the veins and arte-
ries, being a Theist he naturally concluded that they existed for some
purpose and with some design, and thus the doctrine of the adapta-
tion of means to end led to the discovery of the circulation of the
blood. “ I remember,” says Boyle,

“ that when I asked our famous Harvey what were the things that induced him to think
of a circulation of the blood, he answered me, that when he took notice that the valves
in the veins of so many parts of the body were so placed that they gave a free passage
to the blood toward the heart, but opposed the passage of the venal blood th"e contrary
way, he was incited to imagine that so provident a cause as Nature had not placed so
many valves without design ; and no design seemed more probable than that the blood
should be sent through the arteries and return through the veins, whose valves did not
oppose its course that way.” (Whewell, History of the Inductive Sciences, Vol. III.,
p. 401, 1837.)

Here, then, we have a specimen case in which the principle of the
adaptation of means to end, or the idea of design, led to a great dis-
covery. But this teleological principle is one to which Christian
Theism most necessarily leads, is, indeed, one of its fundamental ele-
ments. The God in whom Christianity believes is a God of perfect
intelligence and wisdom, who must manifest wise and intelligent
design in His work, and therefore the adaptation of means to end.
Accordingly scientists who were Christian theists must, from the
very beginning, have expected the adaptation of means to end in
the universe. In many cases confessedly and without doubt they
were guided by their teleological principle to make new discoveries ;
and hence it follows that these new discoveries were due to the in-
fluence and guidance of their Christian Theism.

We say that many discoveries were due confessedly and without
doubt to the teleology of Christian Theism, and it may be well to
support this statement by a reference or two. Thus Kant says, “ If
we presuppose in relation to the figure of the earth, or that of moun-
tains and seas, wise designs on the part of the Author of the uni-

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 61

verse, we cannot fail to make, by the light of this supposition, a
great number of interesting discoveries.” Then, referring to the in-
vestigations of the anatomist, he goes on to say, “ Thus medical
physiology, by the aid of a principle presented to it by pure reason,
extends its very limited empirical knowledge of the purposes of the
different parts of an organized body so far that it may be asserted
with the utmost confidence, and with the approbation of all reflect-
ing men, that every organ or bodily part of an animal has its use,
and answers to a certain design.”* * * § No one, however, furnishes a
better illustration of the truth than Cuvier. It is undeniable that
he was guided in his inquiries by the principle of Final Causes, the
teleological principle now before us. It was the grand instrument
by which he was enabled to discover ” a far larger portion of impor-
tant anatomical and biological truth than it ever before fell to the
lot of one man to contribute to the Science” to which he devoted
himself. He speaks of the “ harmony of Nature irresistibly regu-
lated by Providence ;” and he says, “ Natural History has a rational
principle which is peculiar to itself, and which it employs with advan-
tage on many occasions ; that is, the Principle of the Conditions of
Existence, commonly called Final Causes.” f Even the materialis-
tic Cabanis, to whom we owe the notorious phrase that “ thought
is a secretion of the brain,” expressly acknowledges the usefulness
of the teleological principle. “ I recognize,” he says, " that it is
very difficult for even the most cautious man never to have recourse
to the Philosophy of Final Causes in his explanations.” \ We add
only another testimony. “ The development,” says Whewell, “ of
this conviction — of a purpose in the parts of the animals — of a func-
tion to which each portion of the organization is subservient, con-
tributed greatly to the advance of Physiology ; for it constantly
urged men forward in their researches respecting each organ till
some definite view of its purpose was obtained.” § Again, still
speaking of the Science of Physiology, he says, “ The Doctrine of
Final Causes has been not only consistent with the successive steps
of discovery, but has been the great instrument of every step of dis-
covery from Galen to Cuvier." || Of this we have just had a notable
illustration in Harvey’s discovery of the circulation of the blood ; a
discovery to which Harvey explicitly tells us himself he was led by
the theistic idea of “ design.” In short, it is undeniable that in

* Critique of Pure Reason , pp. 420 f.

\ Le Rlgne Animal , Vol. I., p. 6 (Paris, 1817).

f Rapports du Physique et du Moral de 1' Homme, Vol. II., p. 292 (third edition).

§ History of the Inductive Sciences, Vol. III., p. 389 (1837).

| Indications of the Creator, p. 33 (second edition).

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the department of Physiology, Christian Theology, by means of its
doctrine of Final Causes, has been the fruitful mother of discovery.
Materialistic evolutionists may think they can now explain the ap-
pearance of design in the universe without the aid of God at all ;
but nothing can change the history of the past.

While Christianity has thus contributed in an enormous degree to
the discoveries of Science in the department of Physiology gener-
ally, it has done so very specially in the study of man himself. We
might here refer in detail to the influence which it has exercised on
the study of the human mind and body, both of which are alike
fearfully and wonderfully made. We content ourselves, however,
with a reference to the fact that in this department Christianity has
aided Science by guiding it to the grand truth of the unity of the
human race. It is one species, with all the ordinary characteristics
of an independent species. To this conclusion the investigations of
Science have long since led ; but it is one to which Christian scien-
tists were distinctly pointed by the teaching of the Bible. It is the
doctrine of the Old Testament as set before us in Genesis. It is the
doctrine of the New Testament ; for not only is it in accordance
with the inmost genius of Christianity as the universal religion, but
we are explicitly taught that “ God hath made of one blood all
nations for to dwell on all the face of the earth.” Its teaching is so
clear that it could not fail to have a positive effect on all anthropol-
ogists who came directly or indirectly under its influence, so as to
guide them to the great doctrine of the unity of the human race.
This is distinctly acknowledged by Humboldt : “ Christianity has
materially contributed to call forth the idea of the unity of the
human race.”* “The idea, ” says Max Muller, ‘‘of mankind as
one family, as the children of God, is an idea of Christian growth ;
and the Science of mankind and the languages of mankind is a Sci-
ence which, without Christianity, would never have sprung into
life.”f To some this statement may seem too strong; but there
can be no doubt of the fact that Christianity has in various impor-
tant ways contributed to the “ Science of Mankind.”

We now advance a step further, and take a glance at the Science
of History. Perhaps some may still hesitate to admit that any true
Science or Philosophy of History is possible ; nevertheless to most
thinkers there cannot be much doubt about the matter, whatever
our special theory may be. If we hold by a thoroughgoing evolu-
tion, like Herbert Spencer, our Science of History will be that it is
the outcome of a blind, necessary, physical development, guided by

Cosmos, Vol. II., p. 567 (Bohn). f Science of Language , Vol. I., p. 141 (1880).

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 63

the survival of the fittest. If we are Christian Theists, we shall
hold that the underlying, unifying principle is some grand divine
idea or purpose. In either case we shall hold that there is a Science
or Philosophy of History, and this is the fact immediately before
us at present.

Now there can be little doubt that Christianity has contributed
most powerfully to the conviction that History is not the mere play
of chance, but that it has a great divine idea at the basis of it, mak-
ing a scientific theory of it possible. Of course, as we might expect,
Christianity points to a Christian explanation of History, and we
may decline to accept its explanation ; still the fact that we have to
emphasize at present is the conviction that there is a Science of His-
tory, and that Christianity led the way to this conviction. We see
an interesting illustration of the statement just made in the experi-
ence of the great German-Swiss historian, Johannes von Muller.
When he began his laborious studies with a view to his life-work, he
was a positive disbeliever in Christianity. But as the mass of sepa-
rate facts increased before him, and he saw no purpose or scientific
connection in them, his mind was thrown into perplexity by the ap-
parent confusion. By and by, however, he was led to look into the
New Testament as a book which lay within the field of his necessary
reading, and the light burst upon him at once ; he saw that Christ
was the key to the whole, the true Science or Philosophy of His-
tory. He thus narrates his experience in a letter to a Christian
friend :

“ After settling down at Cassel I began to read all the ancient authors according to
the order of time at which they lived ; and when any noteworthy fact struck me I made
an extract of it. I know not why it came into my mind two months ago to take a
glance at the New Testament before my studies had reached the age in which it was
written. How shall I express to you what I found therein ? I had not read it for
many years, and before I took it into my hand I was prejudiced against it. The light
which blinded Paul on his way to Damascus was not more wonderful or startling for
him than it was for me when I suddenly discovered the fulfilment of all hopes, the
highest perfection of Philosophy, the explanation of all revolutions, the key to all
apparent contradictions of the physical and moral world, life and immortality. I saw
the most wonderful ends achieved through the simplest means. I recognized the rela-
tions of all the revolutions of Asia and Europe to that unhappy people to whom the
promises had been committed as we commit important papers to a person who can
neither read nor falsify them. The whole world appeared so ordered as to favor the
religion of the Redeemer. I had not read any book on the subject ; but up to this date,
in all my studies of the earlier ages, there was always something wanting ; and only
since I have known our Lord does everything appear clear to my eyes. With Him
there is nothing I cannot solve.” (Quoted in Luthardt’s Grundwahrheiten des Christen-
thums, p. 249, fourth edition.)

History appeared to Muller without scientific unity or aim until
Christ was flashed upon his mind as the explanation of it ; and so

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

clearly did our Lord appear to him to be the true Science of His-
tory, that the perception of the fact changed him into a Christian
from being a positive disbeliever.

As another most instructive illustration of the truth now before
us we may refer to the case of Herder, one of the greatest contribu-
tors to the origination and elaboration of the Science or Philosophy
of History. He tells us explicitly that it was his Christian Theism
that first suggested the idea to his mind. He says :

“ In my very early years the thought came often to me whether, since everything in
the world has its Philosophy and its Science, there ought not to be a Philosophy and
Science of that which concerns us most nearly, the History of Mankind. Everything re-
minded me of this — religion most of all. The God who has ordained everything in
Nature according to measure, number, and weight ; who, according to these, has de-
termined the nature of things, their form, their union, their progress, their continuance,
so that from the greatest things to the grain of dust only one wisdom, goodness, and
power rules ; He who also in human bodies, and in the powers of the human soul, has
conceived all so wonderfully and so divinely that, if we try to reflect on the All-Wise,
we lose ourselves in an abyss of His thoughts ; how, said I to myself, can this God have
departed from His wisdom in the destiny and direction of our race, and here be without
a plan ?” (Quoted in Professor Flint’s Philosophy of History , pp. 375 f.)

Herder’s Christian Theism suggested the thought of a real Phil-
osophy or Science of History, which afterward found its elaboration
in his Idcen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, “ one of
the greatest books of which historical Science can boast.” Christi-
anity guided both Muller and Herder to the belief in a Science or
scientific explanation of History. Indeed, it is difficult to see how
any Christian can study the Old Testament and the New without
having the truth borne in irresistibly upon his mind that there is a
Science of History, and that Christ is that Science. In any case,
Christianity has led to the belief in a Science of History, and, as Pro-
fessor Flint puts it, not only makes a “ Philosophy of History pos-
sible, but necessary.”

There are two doctrines which Christianity places in the forefront
of its teaching as all-important — namely, the existence of God and of
the human soul. Toward these two great doctrines Physical Science
has long been laboriously feeling and working its way up from the
lower side, through mere physical approaches. It has not been able
directly to reach them, and, from the nature of the case, it never can
directly reach them by purely physical methods and experiments.
Nevertheless in our day we find scientific thinkers who approach
Science only from the physical side, making their way up step by
step toward these doctrines, and seeing them before as the almost
necessary but unattainable goal. This is true with regard to the
doctrine of God. Herbert Spencer sees in the background and at

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 65

the basis of all things the vast unknowable as the ultimate and neces-
sary result of all philosophic and scientific research. “ This inscru-
table existence which Science, in the last resort, is compelled to rec-
ognize as 'unreached by its deepest analyses of matter, motion,
thought, and feeling stands toward our general conception of things
in substantially the same relation as does the Creative Power asserted
by Theology.” He describes this Unknowable as the Ultimate
Reality, infinite and eternal, transcending all phenomena, a neces-
sary datum of every thought, and of all things the most certain.*
But, after all, what is this Mystery toward which Science is labori-
ously feeling and working up from the under or physical side but
the shadow of God, which it sees in the transcendent heights above
it? That Ultimate reality is just a dim vision of the old truth which
Christianity has held for ages, the doctrine of an infinite God, im-
manent in the universe, yet independent of it. Indeed, Spencer
himself, in a manner, frankly admits the fact. “ In Religion,” he
says, ” let us recognize the high merit that, from the beginning, it
has dimly discerned the ultimate verity, and has never ceased to
insist upon it.” f Here also Christianity has led the way before the
philosopher and the scientist.

The other grand doctrine toward which Science has been groping,
and to which it is being driven by its investigations, is the reality of
the human soul. It was not altogether unnatural on the part of
non-Christian scientists at first to expect, as a consequence of the
discovery of the Correlation of Forces, that they should be able to
explain thought and feeling by mere mechanical motion. But even
after demonstrating the fact that molecular motion in the brain does
accompany thought, feeling, and will, they are nevertheless driven
to the conclusion that they have not yet reached a complete expla-
nation. ” The passage,” says Professor Tyndall, “ from the physics
of the brain to the corresponding facts of consciousness is inconceiv-
able as a result of mechanics . ” £ ” Between molecular mechanics

and consciousness is interposed a fissure over which the ladder of
physical reasoning is incompetent to carry us.” § And Du Bois-
Reymond is no less emphatic : ” Not only in the present state of
our knowledge is thought not explicable by means of its material
conditions, but, from the nature of things, it never will be.” | Now
what is really the gist of all this but the fact that Science is being
driven to the conclusion that mere physical force does not explain

* See Nineteenth Century for July, 1884, “ Retrogressive Religion.”
f First Principles, p. 99. % Fragments of Science, Vol. II., p. 87.

§ lb., Vol. II., p. 391. |j La Revue Scientifique, 10 Octobre, 1874, p. 341. "

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the phenomena of thought and feeling ; that there is something be-
hind deeper than matter, some mysterious reality, whether you call
it Mind or by some other name ? Science is slowly and laboriously
toiling up toward the doctrine of the reality of the human soul,
which Christianity has clearly and fully taught from the beginning.
In fine, we see modern Science steadily working its way, as far as it
can, up toward the doctrines of the existence of God and of the
human soul as ultimate facts ; but, as every one knows, these are
just two of the fundamental and oldest doctrines of Christianity.

The contradictory of Christian Theism is Atheism, or, to give it
its more modern and positive name, Materialism. It may bring out
more vividly the beneficial effect which Christian Theism has had on
Science if, before closing, we contrast with it for a moment the
narrowing effect of mere Materialism. This effect arises from the
very nature of the case. It is the spirit of Materialism to look only
at the little piece of matter before its eyes, at the narrow problems
which are placed before it in detail. It never gets high enough to
see things from the upper side. It never reaches the Mount of
God, whence it can obtain a broad view of the universe, and discover
those far-reaching laws and principles to which things and events
are all co-ordinated. No doubt it may grasp these laws after they
have been scientificially ascertained, but as a fact it has not con-
duced to the discovery of the highest and broadest truth. This has
been noticed and acknowledged as a matter of history not merely
by Christian thinkers, but even by writers who are strongly material-
istic. For example, we find Lange repeatedly bearing his testimony
to this weakness of Materialism. Speaking of the progress of dis-
covery among the ancient Greeks, he says : “ When we behold
knowledge thus accumulating from all sides, we must ask the ques-
tion, How far did ancient Materialism contribute to the attainment
of this knowledge and these views ? And the answer to this ques-
tion will at first sight appear very curious. For not only does scarcely
a single one of the great discoverers — with the solitary exception of
Demokritos — distinctly belong to the Materialistic School , but we find
among the most honorable names a long series of men belonging to
an utterly opposite, idealistic, formalistic, and even enthusiastic
tendency.” * And once more : “ Materialism lacks relations to the
highest functions of the free human spirit. It is, apart from its
theoretical inadequacy, unstimulating, barren for Science and Art." +
Surely all this points to the conclusion that it is not Materialism,
but Christianity which leads us to the proper or theocentric point of

* History of Materialism, Vol. I., p. 120.

f lb., Vol. III., p. 340.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CHRISTIANITY TO SCIENCE. 67

view of the universe, where alone the broadest discoveries can be
made.

We have thus briefly endeavored to establish the conclusion that
Christianity has rendered most substantial help and made many con-
tributions to Physical Science, and that Science has been largely in-
debted to Christianity for some of its grandest principles and not a
few of its discoveries. We have seen that Christianity helps Science
by its moral influence, by fighting out for it the battle of intellectual
freedom, and by giving a living, personal influence to the study of
Nature. By its doctrine in regard to God it lays a sound foundation
for Science, making it possible ; and it points to the unity of the
universe and the Persistence of Matter and Energy. It not less
clearly impels Science toward the belief in law and order, and
through the latter it led to the discovery of the Copernican theory
of the Solar System. It suggests the adaptation of means to end, or
design, and thereby has led to innumerable discoveries, more espe-
cially in Physiology. It has led the way to the belief in the unity of
the human race, and in a real Philosophy or Science of History ;
and it teaches explicitly the existence of God and of the soul toward
which, as we have seen, Science is working up from the under side.

This indebtedness of Science to Christianity has at times been
noticed and admitted not only by Christian writers, but by writers
who are not professedly Christian. Of Christian authors we may in-
stance Naville and Whewell. Naville divides scientists into three
classes : “ The first consists of those who have a firm belief in the
unity, wisdom, and power of the Creator and he adds, “ All the
founders and great initiators without exception belong to this cate-
gory.”* Whewell’s testimony is substantially the same: “We
conceive it will be found, on examining those to whom we owe our
knowledge of the laws of Nature, and especially of the wider and
more comprehensive laws, that such persons have been strongly and
habitually impressed with the persuasion of a Divine Purpose and
Power, which had regulated the events which they had attended to,
and ordained the laws which they had detected. To those who have
pursued Science without reaching the rank of discoverers, the above
description does not apply.” f But the same fact, as we have said,
is acknowledged even by writers of materialistic tendency. Lange
not only speaks of “ that furtherance of natural study which we
assign to the monotheistic principle,” but says, “ We have seen
how in antiquity Materialism remained sterile. The Idealistic School,

* Modern Physics , p. 222. Cf. also p. 175 ; and The Christ, p. 49.
f Bridgewater Treatise , p. 307. % History of Materialism, Vol. I., p. 184.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

on the contrary, especially the Platonists and Pythagoreans [the
Theists] gave antiquity the richest fruits of scientific knowledge.” *
And once more : “ If we survey the whole course of history, it seems
to me to be scarcely doubtful that we may in great part attribute to
the quiet but continual operation of Christian ideas not merely our
moral, but even our intellectual progress.” f Du Bois-Reymond
bears testimony to the same general effect. Speaking of the Semitic
race, he says : ” That race has not only taken a direct part in the
creation of Modern Science through the discoveries made by the
Arabian branch of it ; it has also contributed to it indirectly by
giving to the world the monotheistic religions. Although it may
sound like a paradox, Modern Science owes its origin to Christianity. ' ' X

Along with these most capable thinkers, we believe that Christi-
anity has rendered to Science most substantial help and many con-
tributions, and that Science still owes a large debt to Christianity,
which it will take many discoveries to repay.

Alexander Mair.

Edinburgh.

* History of Materialism, Vol. II., p. 337.
t La Revue Scientifique, 19 Janvier, 1878.

f Jb., Vol. III., p. 275.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.*

IT is no new thing to find the literature of an ancient people im-
bued with its religion. A sharp distinction between religious
and secular is of comparatively late growth, and represents a mind
emancipated from superstition, but not fully possessed by spiritual
belief. The distinction is not primitive. We should expect, then,
to find, as we do find, that religious conceptions play a large part in
the literary productions which the decipherment of the cuneiform
texts has made accessible to us. Even the self-glorifying records of
Assyrian kings are full of devout expressions, and almost all the
writings in the wedge-character that can be called literary, in the
narrower sense — to the exclusion of purely historical, scientific,
personal, and business documents — are deeply colored by religion,
and afford interesting materials, as yet but partly mastered, for a
history of religion and theology in Babylonia and Assyria. The
present article does not attempt to construct such a history, even in
outline, nor propose any novel and original views. The purpose is
simply to describe a few characteristics of the most considerable
body of literature thus far published from the Mesopotamian records
of clay and stone, in view of some qualities which give it special
interest.

We speak of the religious poetry of Babylonia rather than
Assyria ; for although the peoples which made these countries
famous were of one family and had a common language and a com-
mon stock of religious traditions, in productive literary activity, as
well as in the character of their religious life, they were different
from one another. Assyrian literature produced, so far as we know,

* F. Lenormant : Die Magie u. Wahrsagekunsl der Chaldaer, Jena, 1878. H. ZlM-
mern : Babylonische Busspsalmen , Leipzig, 1885. A. H. Sayce : The Religion of the
A ncient Babylonians (Hibbert Lectures), London, 1887. E. Schrader : Die Hollenfahri
der Istar, Giessen, 1874. P. Haupt : Die Akkadische Sprache , Berlin, 1883. F. Hom-
MEL : Die Semiiischen V biker u. Sprachen, I., 2. Die Vorsemitischen Kulturen, Leipzig,
1883. A. Jeremias : Die Babylonisch-Assyrischen Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem
Tode, Leipzig, 1887.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

comparatively little of original force and independent worth. The
Assyrians went out from Babylonia as colonists, and seem to have
retained to the end something of the bold, restless, adventurous,
aggressive spirit that made them successful as pioneers of Shemitic
civilization along the Tigris valley. They broke with traditional
habits, if not traditional ideas, when they left their southern home.
They were busy in conquering and keeping their conquests. They
had ample employment in military duties for all their energy, and
lacked the leisure, as well as the taste, for literary creation. When,
in the last century of their national existence, their wealth had vastly
increased, their empire had become more thoroughly organized,
and they found a little time for the amenities of life, their thoughts
turned toward the literary inheritance which belonged to them in
common with their Babylonian kindred, and under a munificent
royal patron a zealous study of ancient writings began at Nineveh.
The result was priceless to us, though it indicated mainly a power of
imitation on their part, for it filled the royal libraries in Nineveh with
copies of the Babylonian classics, and upon these copies we are
dependent for most of what we know of the originals. Some tablets
of the same general style which are not expressly marked as copies
may have been composed in Assyria, and some bear various local As-
syrian marks, but they are made after the old models. The Assyrian
genius marked out for itself no new literary path.

The same conditions which were unfavorable for the growth of an
independent literature in Assyria, affected also the mode of its
religious life. It does not appear that the Assyrians were lacking in
religious conceptions and beliefs. The royal inscriptions abound in
references to the gods, as authors of all success. How much of this
was perfunctory we cannot tell. It seems at least to indicate that
the gods occupied a considerable place in the thoughts of the kings
and royal scribes. Sometimes the gods are addressed in a style that
is really lofty ; but it would appear as if, on the whole, the Assyrian
religion were cooler, more rational, more prosaic than the Babylo-
nian. The priests were much less prominent. The ritual was much
less developed ; religious ceremonies and prescribed observances were
less numerous and less minutely provided for. There was less fond
care of temples.

As for the Babylonians, one is tempted at times to wish they had
not been so religious as they were. Their writings are religious to
the exclusion of much that is of great concern to students. The
royal inscriptions of Assyria interpret and supplement ancient history
for us. But the royal inscriptions of Babylonia, with a few excep-
tions, tell us how long and how high the temples were, what kinds

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

of stone and wood and brick they were made of, and a good deal
about altars and images. This is partly due to love of building, but
largely to religiousness. It makes the records of Babylonian kings
thus far discovered comparatively meagre in historical information,
and this is often tantalizing and disappointing. But their fondness
for religious expression gives a peculiar value to works of Babylonian
authors. It is to them that we must go for an account of Babylonian
doctrine and practice. Their doctrine was far better than their
practice, perhaps no one will be surprised to hear. Their theology
was of a higher type than the average heathen theology. Their
doctrine of God had fine elements, in spite of polytheism and
anthropomorphism. Their doctrine of man was at times profound.
Their soteriology was not altogether unhopeful. Their eschatology
was rather cheerless. Their ecclesiology was only mediocre. Their
demonology was exuberant. As already intimated, we find all this,
and more, in their poetry.

Almost all the poetry of the Babylonians thus far published is
connected in some way with religion, being either illustrative of
religious belief or expressive of religious emotion. The former class
is represented by the epics and legends, into which mythological
conceptions enter as largely as into any ancient literature known to
us. The latter class is made up of hymns of praise and of penitence,
and kindred lyrics. A third kind belongs more or less to both these
classes. It consists of conjurations and magic formulas, and of verses
containing omens and talismanic lines ; these occasionally have
poems of the other classes incorporated in them ; they are sometimes
of curious theological interest, are sometimes important as showing
vivid consciousness of an unseen world, and sometimes because of
the light they shed on ritual usage. There is little poetry in the
cuneiform writing, as far as it has yet been put before scholars,
which may not be assigned to one of these classes. A few fables
have been discovered in which the mythological element nearly dis-
appears, and the interest centres in beasts that speak. In some
aspects this small class, consisting of badly-mutilated tablets, re-
sembles that of the legendary stories already referred to, but at
present it may be dismissed with this brief mention. Turning to the
others, we will speak first, and briefly, of the epic and legendary
poems, then of the conjuration formulas, and finally of the psalms
and hymns.

We premise a few words on the question of date.

In regard to the age, absolute or relative, of these classes of
poetry, there is need of much careful study and weighing of all the
evidence before secure results can be reached. Nothing is yet fully

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

established as to the antiquity of the Babylonian civilization itself.*
All the probabilities point to the presence of a cultivated, non-
Shemitic race in Babylonia before the Shemitic people, which after-
ward dominated Western Asia and North-eastern Africa, established
its home there. To this non-Shemitic race are due the cuneiform
character, and, undoubtedly, a considerable part of that body of
religious belief and literary material of which we find the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians in possession. Many of the texts to which
reference has here been made show the same substantial contents in
two languages, in parallel columns or alternate lines. One of these
languages is the Shemitic Babylonian, or Assyrian ; the other, the
non-Shemitic (and pre-Shemitic) Akkadian or Shumerian.f But
these two languages unquestionably existed for a long time side by
side, and when the Akkado-Shumerian at length died out, it was
preserved as a scholarly and religious, or ritual, language. Priests
taught it to their neophytes ; it was considered appropriate to wor-
ship and worshipful utterances ; and there is some ground to believe
that Shemitic Babylonians, who had thus learned it, made use of it
in composing new hymns, psalms, and conjurations. In fact, it is
coming to be a commonplace among Assyriologists that this pre-
Shemitic language was a sort of “ monks’ Latin” to the cultivated
Babylonian of the Shemitic period. Of course all this greatly in-
creases the difficulty of determining the age of the texts. The rev-
erential care, however, with which many of them were copied and
labelled seems to indicate that these were old literary monuments in
Asshurbanipal’s time (B.C. 668-626), and internal considerations
point to great antiquity in not a few cases. We leave the topic with
these sadly indefinite remarks.

It is no part of the present plan to give an analysis or detailed
account of the epic and legendary poems, about which so much has
been already written. The best known of them are the Creation
tablets, the conflict between Marduk (Merodach) and Tiamat (or
" Bel and the Dragon”), the “ Nimrod ” epic, with the story of the
flood in the eleventh canto, and the “ Descent of Ishtar to Hades.”
Badly mutilated, but marked by imaginative power, are the
” Legend of the God Zu” (the storm-bird, or storm-cloud) and the
“ Legend of the Pest-God.” They are all characterized by strong

* The date of B.C. 3800 for Sargon of Agane depends on statements made as late as
the sixth century B.C., and vve do not yet know the basis of these statements. The
corroboration supposed to be afforded by recently published lists of Babylonian kings
still needs to be tested carefully at several points.

f The question of the dialects of the non-Shemitic language need not be raised for
the purposes of this article.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

poetic conception, and there are passages in them of not a little
expressiveness and even beauty. They are saturated with mytho-
logical conceptions, which, even amid the strong resemblances exist-
ing between some of them and certain Old Testament documents,
distinguish them widely from the latter in theological ideas and in
moral clearness, but which are invaluable as we try to reconstruct
the Babylonian system of belief. They offer us also a considerable
field for the study of poetic form and structure, and in this aspect
will be presently referred to again.

For another reason than the familiarity with them which most
readers have gained from popular books, we go into no farther detail
here. They are, after all, rather poems more or less concerned with
religious topics than religious poems in a strict sense. They utter
and illustrate some religious opinions and some theology, but show
little of religious experience. They are religious as Homer and
Virgil are religious. They represent literature as distinct from life.
Whatever religious emotion must be presupposed to account for the
conceptions they exhibit is remote. They give religion at second-
hand. Genuine movements of the heart toward unseen powers may
be behind them, but they are far behind. There is little or no
experimental religion in them. Their authors are not face to face
with divinity. There is no personal longing or personal dread.

The case is different with the other kinds of religious poetry just
recognized — the poems of conjuration, or exorcism, and the peniten-
tial lyrics and hymns to the gods.

The earliest stage of religion which can be traced in Babylonia
was distinguished for its demonology. Evil spirits abounded, and
attacked the life and happiness of men on all hands — spirits of air
and fire, of earth and water, spirits of disease and storm — myriads of
spirits unknown and unnamed, but deeply dreaded. There is an
ample class of literature, which was at the outset more than litera-
ture, due to the fear of these spirits, whose power might be exercised
by a voice unheard and a hand unseen. The tone of this class of
literature is not lofty, but it has more to do with personal religion
than the epics have. The man who uses the lines is himself really
concerned about the matter, really hopes for something, or fears
something', or intends something that has to do with the supernatural.

Among the most noteworthy of these texts is a series of twenty-
nine incantations, in which the “ spirit of heaven” and the “ spirit
of earth” are appealed to in behalf of sufferers from various misfor-
tunes, diseases, and demons.* Others introduce the gods as agents

* II. R. 17-18. Haupt, ASKT., pp. 82 sqq., No. n. Transl. Sayce, Babyl. Rel.,
pp. 441 sqq.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of cure and relief, or as giving efficacy to the spells employed.
Merodach appears frequently in this capacity. More than one set
of incantations contains a request from Merodach to his father Ea (?)
that he will give him the knowledge he needs to relieve a sufferer.*
Ea’s reply, in the case here cited, is as follows :

“ My son, what dost thou not know, what (knowledge) shall I add to thee ?
Marduk, what dost thou not know ? What shall I tell thee more ?

What I know, thou knowest !

Go, my son Marduk,

To the preparer of food, the house of pure sprinkling bring him,

His spell dissolve and his spell remove, and
The disturbing evil of his body,

Be it the curse of his father,

Or the curse of his mother,

Or the curse of his elder brother,

Or the destructive (?) curse of a man (whom) he knows not.

May the spell by the conjuration of Ea
Like garlic be stripped off,

Like a date be torn off,

Like a (flower) tuft be rent away !

The spell ! the spirit of heaven conjure 1
The spirit of earth conjure !”

The following illustration contains, like many of them, a prayer
to a more powerful god, uttered by the priest in behalf of the
sufferer, who seeks relief for some bodily disease due to the influ-
ence of an unheard voice :

“ Fire-god, mighty one, majestic in the land,

Hero, child of the deep, majestic in the land.

Fire-god, by thy clear shining dost thou make light in the house of darkness !
***********
Let the body of this man, son of his god, grow clean,

May he beam like the heaven,

May he shine like the earth,

May he shed light like the midst of the heaven,

The evil word, may it depart far from him 1” f

This illustration really gives a specimen of one of the “ hymns to
the gods” made to do duty as an exorcism, as the first seems like a
combination of the mythological element with that of conjuration.
These combinations are more valuable as literature than the conju-
rations pure and simple, like the series of twenty-nine already referred
to. Specimens of the latter are :

“ Him who possesses the images of a man.

The evil face, the evil eye,

The evil mouth, the evil tongue,

* E.g. , IV. R. 7, 8. Transl. (Latin) Jensen, Zeilschrift fur Keilschiiftforschung, I.
4, II. 5 (Nov., 1884, Jan., 1885). Sayce, Babyl. Rel., pp. 471 sqq.

+ IV. R. 14, No. 2. Haupt: ASKT., p. 77, No. 9, Rev., 1. 6 sqq. Transl., Haupt :
Akkadische Sprache , pp. 21, 22. Sayce : Babyl. Rel., p. 478.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

The evil lip, the evil breath,

Conjure, O spirit of heaven ! conjure, O spirit of earth !”

“ The painful fever, the potent fever,

The fever which quits not a man,

The fever-demon who departs not,

The fever unremovable, the evil fever.

Conjure, O spirit of heaven ! conjure, O spirit of earth !” * * * §

Another tablet begins :

“ Incantation. — The storm-like ghost, the tormentor of all things,

And the demon who disturbs the disturbers of Anu,

The plague-demon, the beloved son of Mul-lil,

The begetter of Nin-ki-gal,

Above destroy like consumption, and below cut down.

Above they roar, below they peep ;

The bitter breath of the gods are they.

The great worms who have been let loose from heaven are they !” f

But of greater interest still are the poems which make up the third
class, particularly the psalms of contrition, confession, and appeal,
the hymns of sorrow and penitence. Like those in the Hebrew
Psalter, they show variety in their contents. Some of them are the
voice of patriotic grief, like the following :

“ How long, my mistress, shall the mighty foe assail thy land ?

In thy chief city, Erech, wasting has broken out.

In E-ul-bar, house of thine oracle, is blood poured forth like water.

In all thy lands hath he borne fire, and poured (it) like incense,” elc.j:

But profounder griefs than these are uttered in the lyrics we are
considering. Some lines of the following extract are already familiar
to English readers :

“ Lord ! my transgressions are many, great are my sins 1
My god, my transgressions are many, great are my sins !

My goddess, my transgressions are many, great are my sins !

God, known (or) unknown, my transgressions are many, great are my sins !
Goddess, known (or) unknown, my transgressions are many, great are my sins !
******* * * *

The lord, in the anger of his heart, has looked upon me.

The god, in the wrath of his heart has afflicted me.

The goddess has been angry with me, and brought me into pain,

The god, known (or) unknown, has oppressed me,

The goddess, known (or) unknown, has brought me into suffering.

I sought help, but no one grasps my hand,

I wept, but no one came to my side.

I ciy aloud, but no one hears me.

I suffer, I lie prostrate, I look not up.” §

* IV. R. 17 . Haupt : ASKT., p. 84, 1. 30 sqq., 45 sqq. The translation here given
is from Sayce : Babyl. Rel., p. 442.

f IV. R. 1. Transl. Sayce : Babyl. Rel., pp. 450, 451, here followed.

X IV. R. 19, No. 3. Transl. Zimmern : Busspsalmen, p. 74. Sayce: Babyl. Rel., p.
524. With this may be compared such Hebrew Psalms as the 60th, 85th, and 137th.

§ IV. R. 10. Obv. 1. 36 sqq. Transl. Zimmern ; Busspsalmen, pp. 63, 64. Sayce :
Babyl. Rel., pp. 350, 351.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

These utterances, and others like them, are so striking that we
shall recur to them. We give one illustration of the hymns to the
gods, a hymn to Nergal, not particularly beautiful, but showing in
combination several characteristics of these texts :

“ O warrior, the mighty deluge, that sweepest away the hostile land !

O warrior of the great city of Hades, that sweepest away the hostile land !

O god that comest forth from Sulim, that sweepest away the hostile land !

O mighty ruler, illustrious lord, that sweepest away the hostile land !

O lord of Cutha, that sweepest away the hostile land !

O lord of the temple of Sulim, that sweepest away the hostile land !
*********

The mighty deluge, who has no rival.

The uplifter of the weapon, who threshes out opposition 1” *

Before calling particular attention to some features of the peniten-
tial psalms, we must consider briefly the poetical structure of these
poetical writings as a whole, and the uses to which they were put.

An examination of the poetical structure of the Babylonian (and
Assyrian) poems is somewhat embarrassed by the uncertainty of
many readings and the mutilated condition of many tablets, nor has
very much attention been thus far bestowed upon it. Some things
will at once strike the readers of these texts. One is that it is diffi-
cult to draw the line between the poetry and the higher style of
prose, between, e.g. , parts of the hymns to the gods and the lines
of prayer and pious hope with which some of the royal inscriptions
end. In general, however, either by the greater freedom of the
imagination, or by a distinctly perceptible rhythm of movement, or
in both ways, the poetical composition is clearly marked. The lines,
or verses, display, in many instances, a fully-developed parallelism
of members, from a mere repetition to a finely-conceived progression.
Some of the ly^rics show what we need not hesitate to call strophical
divisions, and in some we find strophe and anti-strophe, priest and
sufferer, e.g., alternating in the appeal to divine power. When we
look more closely still, to see whether there are traces of regular
measure, we find occasionally, at least in the Shemitic texts, what
appears to be a well-observed succession and regular number of word
beats. These are not carried out, however, through any long poems,
and even where they can be traced for considerable passages, there
is no absolute rigidity. . There is a primitive freedom and lack of
artificiality in the poetic movement, much greater than in the Hebrew
Psalms. Metre is felt and observed at times, but then abandoned — the
thought carries itself along beyond the strict boundaries of metrical
division. Probably, however, many cases where a first glance seems

* IV. R. 26, 1. Transl. Sayce : Babyl. Re/., p. 496, here followed.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

to show considerable irregularity, the ear was, in fact, satisfied by
joining short and subordinate words to the principal words, as by
Maqqeph in Hebrew. So, for example, the apparent unevenness of
some of the lines in the opening passage of “ Ishtar’s Descent” can
be removed :

‘ Ana irsit Id-tdirat

kakkari iti[i\

Istar mdrat Sin

uzunsa [ishun]

iskunma mdrat Sin

uzun[sa ]

ana bit ete

subat Irkalla

ana-biti sa eribusu

Id asA

ana-harrdni sa alaktasa

Id tdiral

ana-biti sa eribusu

zummd mira

asar $pru bubussunu

akalsunu tittu

ndrii ul inimaru

ina-etuli asba

labsuma khna issuri

subat kappe

eli dalti u-sikdri

sapuh bpru." *

The caesural division of the lines, making them pentameters of
three -f- two tones, is marked in the original, but is carried through
only the obverse of the tablet ; nor is the average regularity of the
movement at all equal to that of the lines here given.

We give one more illustration, in a passage of trimeter movement,
from an incantation :

“ KinAnu appuhu undh
isdti assubn urdba
pisirtu unakki ukabbat
kima-kindni appuhu unahhu
isdti assubbu urabbA
pisirtu zina k kit ukabbatu

? pasir Hi u-ameli-

kisir iksurra lippatir.” %

“ Foculum conflo, tranquillo,
ignem excito, opprimo,
panicum profundo, averro.

Sicut foculum conflo, tranquillo,
ignem excito, opprimo,
panicum profundo, averro,

( ?f) qui solvit deum et hominem,

nodum (quern) colligavit, utinam solvat.”

* IV. R. 31. Delitzsch : Assyr. Lesestucke, 3d ed., p. no. Translit. Lyon :
Assyrian Manual , p. 52. Translit. and transl. Schrader : Hollenfahrt der Istar, pp. 8,
9 ; Jeremias : Bab.-Assyr. Vorstellungen vom Leben nach dem Tode, pp. 10, 11. The
hyphens indicate words that may be joined by Maqqeph. The passage may be givpn in
English as follows :

“ To the land without return,
Ishtar, daughter of Sin
Yea, the daughter of Sin
To the house of darkness,

To the house whose entering
To the path whose way
To the house which cuts off
Where dust is their nourishment,
Light is never beheld,

They are clothed like the birds,
On the door and its bolt

the region of darkness (?)
her face did set.
did set her face,
the abode of irkalla,
knows no going out again,
has no returning,
him entering it from light,
their food is slime,
in darkness they dwell,
their garments are wings,
is lying the dust.”

See also Sayce : Babyl. Bel ., p. 221. Dyer, in Mme. Ragozin’s Story of Chaldea,
Appendix, gives a metrical version of the passage,
f The name of a god.

t IV. R. 8. Haupt : ASKT., p. 189. The transliteration here follows Jensen: De
Incantamentorum Sumerico- Assy riorum. Seriei qua dicitur “ surbu” tabula VI., in Zeit-

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Without attempting to illustrate the strophical arrangement of the
poems, which would require too much space for the limits of this
article, we raise the inquiry as to the use to which these writings, or
any of them, were put. The epics and legends may have had, and
probably did have, a purely literary worth in the eyes of the culti-
vated Babylonians, as well as being the depository of their cherished
mythological traditions. We have already seen, in addition to this,
how legendary and hymnic elements entered into some of the con-
jurations. Jeremias, the latest commentator on “ Ishtar’s Descent,”
propounds the theory that this, too, although an epic poem, was
incorporated in the response of a priest to a sorrowing suppliant,
and certain ceremonial directions at the end of it, which bear no
clear relation to the epic narrative, are well explained in this way.
There is, however, no other instance at present known of so long a
narrative poem being preserved as a mere incident in a poem of
ritualistic directions, although it will be remembered that the story
of the flood, also, is handed down to us in an incidental form, told
to ” Izdubar” by his ancestor Hasisadra, whom he visited for the
sake of healing.

That the conjurations and incantations were actually employed
with the design of driving away evil spirits and removing the disease
and suffering they caused is abundantly shown by the directions
accompanying them.* *

We find also mention, occasionally, of the use of the psalms and
hymns. Thus Asshurbanipal, of Assyria, tells us, after describing the
overthrow of rebels in Babylon :

“ Their enraged gods and goddesses,

I pacified with penitential psalm and sorrowing hymn.” f

The hemerology of the Second Elul (an intercalary month) pro-
vides that on certain days the king shall not utter a psalm, X indi-
catihg the practice of using them. There is thus little doubt that
they were habitually employed in worship. This adds a fresh inter-
est to those striking details which we find in them, and to which the
remaining pages of this article will be chiefly devoted.

schrift fur Keilschriflforschung, I., p. 293. Jensen’s Latin translation, which quite well
preserves the movement of the original, is given in the parallel column. A passage of
tetrameter movement is transliterated by Budge, PSBA, Nov., 1883, p. 7. The di-
meter movement appears, e.g., in the royal psalm, III. R. 66, Rev. Col. 3. Translit.
and transl., Schrader, H.I., p. 72.

* Cf. farther Jeremias, op. cit ., pp. 91 sqq.

f V. R. 4, l. 88, 89. Transl. S. A. Smith : Keilschrifttexte Asurbanipals, I., p. 35.
Cf. Sayce : Babyl. Re/., p. 77, for this and other instances.

f IV. R. 32, 33. Transl. Lotz : Queestionum de Historia Sabbati Libti Duo, pp. 39
sqq.; Sayce : Babyl. Re/., pp. 70 sqq.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

The penitential songs are full of religious ideas, emotions, and
phraseology which can be paralleled nowhere else in literature than
in the Hebrew Psalms, and in the devout utterances of those whose
spiritual life has been fed at these sources. Of course, the poly-
theism which appears in the Babylonian poems often mars the com-
parison. Yet it is sometimes surprising to see within what narrow
limits the polytheism confines itself in this class of poems, how
small the number is of the gods addressed, and how the nobler and
more spiritual conceptions of deity take prominence and assume a
directness and certainty which is almost startling. And the poly-
theism we do find, with all its crudities, is important — like the
various superstitions, from which even these psalms are not free-
such as belief in dreams and in the power of priests and exorcists,
as the connecting link between the poet and his times. It increases
our wonder that his conceptions are so lofty, while it assures us that
his poems are genuine. Polytheistic expressions hardly disturb or
distract the mind when we read mingled with them such utterances
as these :

“ Thou who causest the herbs to spring forth, mistress of mankind,

Maker of ail things” (addressed to Ishtar).* * * * §

“ Thou who orderest (our) days, who controllest death” (name of god wanting). f

“ Beside thee there is no god who guideth aright” (probably addressed to Ishtar). f

These expressions indicate belief in the deity as creator and ruler.
That man is created by the divine power is expressly and often
affirmed, e.g.:

“ . . . thy servant, the creature of thy hands.” §

Parallels from the Psalms and from Job will at once suggest them-
selves. In the following a number of parallel passages, some quite
striking, are placed side by side with the Babylonian quotations.
The first passages express the sin, ignorance, and violence of men :

“ Mankind is perverse, and has no under-
standing,

Men, altogether, what understanding has
any ?

Let them do good or evil, they have no
understanding.”!

“ They have corrupted themselves, done
abominations,

There is none that doeth good.

Yahweh from heaven looked down
Upon the sons of men,

To see if there were any that under-
stand.”

“ Have they no knowledge, all the workers
of iniquity?” — Ps. xiv. (=liii.), i,

2, 4.

* Haupt : ASKT., p. 116, No. 15. Transl. Zimmern : Busspsalmen, p. 33, 1. 8, 10.
Sayce : Babyl. Bel., p. 522, 1. 4, 5.

+ IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, p. 100, 1. 43.

£ IV. R. 29, No. 5, cf. ASKT., p. 115, No. 14. Transl. Zimmern, p. 10, 1. 2. Sayce,
p. 521, 1. 1, Rev.

§ IV. R. 61, No. 1. Transl. Zimmern, p. 91, 1. 10.

| IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, p. 65, 1. 30, 32, 34. Cf. Sayce, p. 351.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

“ Blood is poured out like water.” * * * § 1“ They have shed their blood like water.”

— Ps. lxxix. 3.

The following represent the sufferings of the petitioner :

Food I have not eaten, weeping was my
nourishment,

Water I have not drunken, tears were
my drink.” f

“ Thou hast caused them to eat the bread
of tears.

And caused them to drink of tears by the
measure.” — Ps. lxxx. 6 (Heb.)4

” In lordly fashion I go not.” §

“ I am in pain, I am overwhelmed, I can-
not look up.’ ’ |

“ Like doves I lament, of sighing I have
my fill.” Tf

It was felt that suffering was dr

“ The lord, in the anger of his heart, hath
looked on me,

The god, in the wrath of his heart, hath
afflicted me.”

“ How long . . . will the anger of thy
heart [continue] ?

When will thy sternness change to
favor ?” §§

“ Why go I mourning?” — Ps. xlii. 10.

“ I am bent with pain, I am bowed down
greatly.

All the day go I mourning.” — Ps. xxxviii.
7.** * * §§

“ I lament like the dove, my eyes are weak
for uplifting.” — Is. xxxviii. 14. ff

e to the divine anger :

“ Thy wrath lieth hard upon me.” — Ps.
lxxxviii. 8.

“ Over me hath gone thy hot anger,

Thy terrors have destroyed me.” — Ps.
lxxxviii. 17.

“ How long, Yahweh, wilt thou be angry,
forever?” — Ps. lxxix. 5.

“ Yahweh, God of hosts, how long wilt
thou be wrathful at the prayer of thy
people?” — Ps. lxxx. 5.

* IV. R. 19, No. 3. Transl. Zimmern, p. 74, 1. 49. Sayce, p. 524, IV., 1. 3.
f Haupt : ASKT., p. 116. Transl. Zimmern, p. 34, 1. 20, 22. Sayce, p. 522,
1. 10, 11.

t See also : “ Yea, I have forgotten to eat my bread.” — Ps. cii. 5.

” My tears have been to me as bread, day and night.” — Ps. xlii. 4.

“ Yea, ashes like bread have I eaten,

And my drink with weeping have I mingled.” — Ps. cii. 10.

§ Haupt : ASKT., p. 116. Transl. Zimmern, p. 34, 1. 26. Sayce, p. 522, 1. 13.

| IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, p. 64, 1. 4. Sayce, p. 351 (I. 4).

TT See also : “ Bowed down to the dust is our soul,

To the earth cleaveth our belly.” — Ps. xliv. 26.

** IV. R. 29, No. 5. Cf. ASKT., p. 115. Transl. Zimmern, p. 10, 1. 10. Sayce,
p. 521, 1. 5, Rev.

ff See also : “ We roar like bears, all of us,

And like the doves, we sorely lament ;

We look for judgment, and there is none ;

For salvation, — far is it from us.” — Is. lix. 11.
ff IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, p. 63, 1. 49, 51. Sayce, p. 350.

§§ IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, pp. 64, 65, 1. 26, 28. Sayce, p. 351.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

The loneliness and helplessness of the sufferer are emphasized :

" I sought for aid, and no one took me by
the hand,

I wept, and no one came to my side.” *

“ And I looked for one to pity, and there
was none,

And for comforters, and I found none.”
— Ps. lxix. 21.

But no expressions are more striking than the earnest and some
times even confident appeals to the divine mercy :

“ Lord, thy servant cast not down.” f

“ To my compassionate god I turn.” \

" To his compassionate god he cries.” §

“ My lord, merciful and compassionate.” ||

” To Marduk, the compassionate, for
grace, into his gracious hands com-
mit me.” T

“ Whoever hath transgression, his earnest
prayer thou receivest.” **

“ Put not thy servant away in anger.” — Ps.
xxvii. 9.

“ Yahweh, Yahweh, a God compassionate
and gracious,

Slow to anger and abundant in mercy
and truth.” — Ex. xxxiv. 6.

“ Compassionate and gracious is Yahweh,
Slow to anger and abundant in mercy.”
— Ps. ciii. 8.

“ When . . . may thy countenance turn
(toward me) ?” ff

“ In faithfulness look upon me, receive my
sighing. ”§§

“ Break his chain, remove his fetter, loose
his bonds.” [?]1HT

“ Lord, he who trusts in thee, to his soul
do thou good.”***

” In my darkness give light, my gloom
illumine,

My confusion make thou straight.” fff

“ According to the multitude of thy tender
mercies, turn unto me,

And hide not thy face from thy servant.”
— Ps. lxix. 16, 17.W

“ In thy faithfulness answer me, and in thy
righteousness.” — Ps. cxliii. 1. |||

“ Thou hast loosed my bonds.” — Ps. cxvi.
16.

“ I will sing to Yahweh,

Because he hath done me good.” — Ps.
xiii. 6.fff

* IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, pp. 63, 64, .1. 59, 61. Sayce, p. 351.
f IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, p. 65, 1. 36. Sayce, p. 351.

X IV. R. 10. Transl. Zimmern, p. 64, 1. 6. Sayce, p. 351.

§ IV. R. 26, No. 8. Transl. Zimmern, p. 85, 1. 61. Sayce, p. 526, VI., 1. 5.

| IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, p. 100, 1. 42.

If IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, p. ior, 1. 60.

** IV. R. 29, No. 5. Cf. Haupt : ASKT., p. 115. Transl. Zimmern, p. 9, 1. 6. Cf.
Sayce, p. 521, 1. 6.

ff IV. R. 29, No. 5. Cf. Haupt, ASKT., p. 115. Transl. Zimmern, p. 10, 1. 8.
Sayce, p. 521, 1. 4, Rev.

XX See also : “ Hide not thy face from me.” — Ps. xxvii. 9.

“ Why . . . hidest thou thy face from me ?’’ — Ps. lxxxviii. 14.

§§ IV. R. 29, No. 5. Cf. Haupt, ASKT., p. 115. Transl. Zimmern, p. 10, 1. 4. Cf.
Sayce, p. 521, 1. 2, Rev.

Ill See also : ” Look from heaven, and see, and visit this vine.” — Ps. Ixxx. 14.

ITT IV. R. 61, No. 1. Transl. Zimmern, p. 87, 1. 2.

*** Transl. Budge, PSBA., Nov., 1883, p. 7. Cf. Sayce, p. 379.
fft See also Ps. xviii. 21, cxvi. 7, cxix. 17, cxlii. 7.

ftt Haupt, ASKT., p. 75. Rev., 1. 3, 4. Transl. Zimmern, p. 105, 1. 3, 4.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

We find confession, prayer for forgiveness, and a recognition of
the blessings that follow forgiveness :

“ My acts will I tell thee, my acts, that are “
not to be told ;

My words will I recount to thee, my
words, that are not to be recounted ;

My god ! my acts will I tell thee, my
acts, that are not to be told.” *

“ Cleanse me from my sins, lift up my
countenance.” f

“ My lord, merciful and compassionate . . .
* * * * *

May mine iniquity be forgiven, may my
sins be blotted out.” J
” The man, son of his god, transgression
and wickedness rest (upon him).”§

" At thy bidding may his transgression
be pardoned.

His wickedness, may it be removed.” ||

” Grasp his hand, deliver him from his sin,
* * * * *

Let thy servant live, that he may praise
thy might,

That before thy greatness all lands may
bow !”^[

" A long life through before thee may I
walk.” **

“ Let me enter into Esagil, the temple of
the gods, house of life !

To Marduk the compassionate, for grace,
into his gracious hands commit me.
Then will I bow before thy greatness, I
will praise thy divinity,

The people of my city shall glorify thy
power !” ^

My sin will I make known to thee, and
mine iniquity have I not covered ;

I said, I will confess my transgressions
to Yahweh.” — Ps. xxxii. 5.

“ Wash me thoroughly from mine iniquity,

And cleanse me from my sin.” — Ps. li. 4.

“ Wash me and I shall be whiter than
snow,

Make me to hear joy and gladness.” —
Ps. li. 9, 10.

“ According to the abundance of thy com"
passions,

'•Blot out my transgressions.’’— Ps. li. 3.

” Deliver me from blood-guiltiness . . .
My tongue shall sing aloud of thy right-
eousness.”— Ps. li. 16.

” Then will I teach transgressors thy ways.
And sinners unto thee shall return.” —
Ps. li. 15.

“ With length of days will I satisfy him.”
— Ps. xci. 16.

“ I will walk before Yahweh,

In the land of the living.”— Ps. cxvi. 9. ft
“ That I may dwell in Yahweh’s house.

All the days of my life.” — Ps. xxvii. 4.

* IV. R. 27, No. 3. Transl. Zimmern, p. 86, 1. 41, 43, 45.

f Haupt, ASKT., p. 116. Transl. Zimmern, p. 34, 1. 8.

X IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, p. 100, 1. 42, 45.

§ IV. R. 17, 1. 50, a. Transl. Zimmern, p. 13, 1. 8, from bottom.

|| IV. R. 17, 1. 58, 59, a. Transl. Zimmern, p. 13, 1. 6, from bottom.

IV. R. 61, No. 1. Transl. Zimmern, pp. 89, 90. 1. 32, 38, 39.

** Haupt, ASKT., p. 123, No. 19. Transl. Zimmern, p. 53, 1. 6.
ff See also : “ Life he asked of thee, thou gavest to him.

Length of days forever and ever.” — Ps. xxi. 5.

IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, pp. 101, 102, 1. 59-62.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

r We have multiplied illustrations partly to give, through the agency
of quotations, something of the strong impression made by the
hymns themselves, and partly to show that the quality of these hymns
does not depend on the exact translation of this or that single word
or phrase. Many translations are tentative, and will have to be
modified ; but the general effect of this part of the Babylonian litera-
ture upon the religious reader is not likely to be thereby destroyed.
One class of details should be particularly noticed. The agreement
between the extracts given is not only in range of thought and in
imagery, in parallelism and (occasional) strophical division. The
technical terms for sin and grace are in important cases identical, or
in close correspondence. Thus we have Assyrian hittu and hititu,
44 sin,” corresponding to the Hebrew nxpn and nNtpn ; Assyr. remnu ,
44 compassion,” and its derivatives, matching the Hebrew DP? ; annu,
44 favor,” identical with [H ; masil (=nt^D ) means 44 wipe out,” like
the Hebrew nnn ; and so one may trace a connection in various
other characteristics of the phraseology.

We must, of course, recognize the possibility that these terms cor-
responded to somewhat different ideas in their use by the two kindred
peoples. But to go beyond this, as some have done, and deny all
spiritual significance to the expressions of sinfulness, etc., in Baby-
lonian psalms* is surely quite unwarrantable. That the external
and physical consequences of moral evil were prominently before the
mind is true, and it is also true that the conception of sin as a
grievous moral offence against absolute holiness could not exist as in
later and more enlightened ages ; the thought of deity was not pure
enough or the moral standard lofty enough for that. But, if words
have meaning, the words we have quoted from these old poems ex-
press a sense of ill-desert before beings of greater majesty and higher
character than the suppliant possessed ; beings that could pardon,
and perhaps would ; beings in whose graciousness, at all events, lay
the penitent’s only hope. A better conception of deity deepens and
enlarges the thought of sin, and of the need and hope of forgiveness.
The Jew had it in fuller degree than the Babylonian, and the Chris-
tian than the Jew. But because the advanced stage is better, it
does not follow that the earlier was wholly bad ; because the utter-
ances of more profoundly instructed lips are richer and riper, it does
not follow that the utterances of ignorance were empty and worth-
less. For sin and forgiveness are not mere concepts of philosophy ;
they are genuine and vivid experiences of human souls.

* Notably E. Meyer, GeschicJite des Alterthums , I., Stuttgart, 1884, § 147 (pp. 177,
178), Against him, see Schrader, Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, I., 1 (Jan., 1886), p. 75 ;
also Zimmern, Busspsalmen, pp. 1-3.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

While we cannot now say with as much positiveness as would, a
few years ago, have been thought quite in place, that the pre-
Shemitic Babylonians — the Akkado-Shumerians — possessed the con-
ceptions referred to in the degree indicated in these psalms,* it is
of no little theological importance that the Shemitic Babylonians,
elder cousins of the Hebrews, but quite out of the range of the
specific religious influence of the Hebrew theocracy, had developed
them to the point at which we here find them.

It is a matter of some concern to know the literary relationship
between the Hebrew and the Babylonian psalms. In the absence
of direct testimony we can, perhaps, approximate to a true answer
to inquiries on this point by a process of exclusion. Out and out
borrowing can hardly have taken place to any considerable extent.
Many of the Babylonian poems are undoubtedly too old to have
copied from the Hebrew, and many of the Hebrew too old to de-
pend immediately upon the Babylonian. There are some exilic
Psalms, and the temporal and local possibilities of a loan by Baby-
lonians to Hebrews, in the exile, are not to be denied ; but it is
most unlikely that the loftier religion of the Hebrews, with its rich
literature and highly-developed literary forms, should have borrowed
largely, either of ideas or of modes of expression, from their idol-
atrous conquerors. Numbers of the Jews preferred to remain in
Babylonia, even when permission was granted them to go back to
their own land ; but the religion of the captives, as it emerged from
the eclipse of the captivity, was in no sense or degree a Babylonian
religion. Besides this, the Babylonian poetry, with all its intrinsic
interest, is distinctly inferior, in variety of expression, in boldness
of imagery, and in the polish and artistic beauty of its forms, to the
Hebrew. Add to these remarks that the force and originality of the
Hebrew poetry, due to the influence of its informing spirit, forbid
any thought of it as an imitation, and that this applies not only to
pre-exilic, but also to exilic Psalms, and it will appear that the facts
do not countenance, but rather forbid, a dependence of the Hebrew
upon the Babylonian psalms resulting from loans in the exile. But
the strongest argument against a direct borrowing from either side
is the impression made by almost all these psalms, from both peo-
ples, of having been composed as the direct, personal utterance of a
soul that felt what was uttered.

We are left to conclude that the striking resemblances in idea and
form point to a common inheritance, linking the Hebrews in a pecul-

* Although sweeping remarks as to the impossibility of this (cf. Sayce, Babyl. Be/.,
pp. 328, 352) rest on assumptions or pre-judgments which themselves need the broom.

THE RELIGIOUS POETRY OF BABYLONIA.

far way with the great Shemitic people of the lower Euphrates,
Strengthening the argument for the location of their early home, and
affording, at the same time, new proof of the tenacity of the
Shemitic mind.

Let us recur, for a few paragraphs, in closing, to the question
about the significance of the resemblance, — how far it is inward and
real. We repeat that these Babylonian hymns breathe sincerity and
earnestness, and some apprehension, vague and imperfect, no doubt,
but genuine, of the truth of things, of the facts which most nearly
concern men in this present world. A vivid sense of the unseen — idol-
images are hardly alluded to — the conception of the highest power as
personal, the consciousness of sin as alienation, the longing for
pardon as restoration to divine fellowship — perhaps most notably of
all the manifest hope of pardon, very seldom on the ground of sacri-
fices, but because of the gracious, loving, and forgiving temper of
the deity addressed — these characteristics are startling, and put
much of more enlightened religion to shame.

How shall we explain these things among the old idol-worshippers ?
We can talk about traces of a primitive revelation. But what stirs
its in these hymns is no reminiscence of ancient truth. It is present,
living experience. We are never religious in memory or by tradi-
tion. Memory may be, and is, a powerful aid to the religious life ;
but to remember things once believed is not personal religion, nor
anything like it. There were men behind those psalms who re-
membered— nothings, but God ; and when aijy man remembers God
in the vital, Biblical sense, God himself is at hand. His grace is
moving upon the heart, his love is warming the atmosphere. The
sap-currents rise, and the buds swell, and the blades of grass shoot
forth, because the sun is in the sky and the spring zephyr in the air.

The average religious life of Babylonians through all the ages was
bad enough, we may be sure — as bad as their gods were. Those
who wrote these hymns and those who used them, with any appre-
ciation of their depths and heights, were, doubtless, sadly few.
Heathenism degrades and blinds. That proves beyond a question
that in these psalms of penitence there is a more than human power.
We need not now discuss the presence of vital piety among the
Mormons, or in a Babylonian who thought it his solemn duty to
sacrifice his daughter’s purity in a goddess’s temple ; but certainly
neither Mormonism nor the vile worship of Ishtar could beget true
piety.

That moral earnestness and spiritual energy are ever of purely
human origin — are not always and everywhere divine — is a dangerous
and pagan doctrine, deistical, if not atheistic. Moral and spiritual

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

movement implies life, and life implies a life-giver not only, but a
life-sustainer. The most pernicious error in opinion has not always
power to quench the flame whose oil is continually poured into the
soul from heavenly sources. Marcus Aurelius thought his best
“ Thoughts” under divine guidance. One may sympathize with the
spirit of Friedrich Heinrich Jacobi, and refrain from castigating his
extravagance when he says of Spinoza : “ And be thou blessed of
me, great, yea, holy, Benedictus ! However thou mightest phil-
osophize over the nature of the highest Being, and lose thy way in
thy words, his truth was in thy soul, and his love was thy life !” *
One may see in George Eliot’s lofty and dynamic moral utterances
the marks of a divine relationship, and for all the wrongness and
perverseness of opinion which limited her influence, and choked
her hope, and made her sometimes an opponent of that to which she
earnestly wished to be loyal, one may feel in her words the stimulus
of a divine touch, not hers, but his who made her, and made us all,
and whose gracious Spirit “ worketh when, and where, and how he
pleaseth. ”

But in these penitential hymns of Babylonia there is something
even more profound — self-abasement, and self-abandonment, and
humble appeal to the divine grace. Must not any man who wrote
such a hymn out of his own soul, or who used it, with heart-chords
vibrating in true harmony with it, have followed the divine leading ?
Must not “ Ishtar,” “ Shamash,” and “ Merodach” have been for
him a stammering way of pronouncing “ God ”? In appealing to
their mercy, and laying hold of their hands, must he not have
appealed, in truth, to the God of gods, and laid hold of the sceptre
of the King of kings ?

It is surely in a God of faithfulness that one may trust for a peni-
tent whose sincere longings could be expressed in a form like this :

“ Make me clear as the shining of gold,

Like a ring of diamonds let me be precious in thy sight !

Cleanse mine iniquity, deliver my soul !

Secure is thine altar, thy cords I grasp.

From mine iniquity let me depart ;

Let me be in safety, with thee !” t

Francis Brown.

* F. Harms : P hilosophic seit Kant , p. 90.
f IV. R. 66, No. 2. Transl. Zimmern, p. 101, 1. 51-54.

VI.

THE PRESENT STRUGGLES IN THE NA-
TIONAL CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

HE writer of this article has sought in vain among English and

American organs of opinion to find any intelligible account of
the present commotions and troubles in the National Church of
Holland. He therefore proposes, as the result of some study of
Dutch sources, and also of a personal visit to Holland several
months ago, to give a statement that may be somewhat more dis-
tinct, and that may prepare the Presbyterian world for what is pos-
sibly a great change for the better in that branch of their common
family which has had so interesting a history. This attempt, how-
ever, is made with great diffidence. Opinions are still greatly
divided even among the orthodox ; and movements have not
reached the development which makes inquiry into them fully trust -

The early history of the Dutch Church, from the Reformation to
the Synod of Dordrecht in 1 6 1 8, does not enter into our inquiry.
It is enough that a Teutonic people preferred the Reformation that
came from Calvin to that which came from Luther, following in this
the example of many among the Germans themselves, and that the
Synod of Dordrecht, which was a kind of council of the whole
Reformed (Calvinistic) world, left Holland, in spite of Remonstrant
agitation and influence, in the main attached to its own orthodoxy.
The Remonstrants when restored went their own way, in spite of
great fame and literary power bringing down Christianity in a cen-
tury to something like semi-rationalism ; while the National Church
longer resisted the process which all over Europe converted Prot-
estantism into an institution whose emblem was the “ sere and
yellow leaf,” and which seemed liker to burn in the heats of revolu-
tion than to carry over any fruit to after ages. Holland, however,
had no special place in the unbelief of the eighteenth century, such
as might rank with the ” modern” school of the nineteenth. Her
theologians, where they went over to English, French, or German
negation, did not stamp on it any national impress, and hence they

worthy.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

have not attained to the celebrity of the Scholtens and Kuenens of
our own days.

The great revolutionary wars, in which Holland suffered so
much from 1792 to 1815, probably, as in the rest of Europe, tended
to discredit French principles and to favor a reaction, such as it
was, in the direction of the older orthodoxy ; but this was more
formal than inward, and Holland has no such revival of national life
and of living religion, in connection with this struggle and the anni-
versary of the Reformation, to record as Germany. The separation
of Church and State, which the Revolution had proclaimed in 1795,
was, so far, recalled by William I. in 1816, when the National
Church of the Netherlands received by royal mandate its present
constitution, somewhat modified by subsequent regulations in 1852
and 1869 ; but this so-called Synodal system was to any Presby-
terian eye a poor outcome of the Synodal principle, retaining, indeed,
the ten Provincial Synods into which the two millions of the Prot-
estant population had been gathered up, out of some forty-four
classes or Presbyteries, but leaving the representation so meagre as
to make each Synod a mere Board of little more than a dozen mem-
bers, and only giving the Church organization a certain unity which
it had never had before, by binding together at the top all the Pro-
vincial Synods into a general Synod, or last court of appeal, sitting
at the Hague, which, however, was only a concentration of the
Board scheme, consisting of no more than thirteen ministers and
six elders.

Doubtless not a little living Christianity perpetuated itself in
Holland, such as is described by the Rev. A. Van Scheltema in an
address to the Presbyterian Alliance at Edinburgh, in 1877 :

“ Forty years ago, when I was called as a minister in one of the smallest and remotest
villages of our land, a population of peasants and farmers, I found there even in the
poorest cottages the old large family Bible, with its copper locks and ornaments, and
next to that Bible a larger or smaller library, where Baxter’s Saints' Rest and the best
practical works were to be found. The Bible was read at every meal, the first day of
the week was a real Sabbath, and a good many understood so thoroughly what they read,
that to me the four years I lived among this simple, pious people were quite anothei
course of practical theology for me, having a lasting effect on my future service in the
Church. ” *

It is to be feared, however, that of the thirteen or fourteen hundred
parishes of which the Church of the Netherlands is made up, only a
comparatively small minority were in a state so favorable, a wide-
spread laxity of doctrine being the rule, and where sounder views
were held, the mass of the people living at ease in formalism and
indifference. This repose was to a large extent broken by the sepa-

* Proceedings of First General Presbyterian Council, pp. 234, 235.

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

ration of a portion of the National Church, both on doctrinal and
practical grounds, in 1834, which ultimately took its present name of
“ The Christian Reformed Church.” This Church, associated with
the names of Drs. Brummel, Kamp, Van Velzen, and others, assigned
to the Presbyterian Alliance as its reasons for separation, while
retaining the standards of the Church — viz., the Belgian Confession,
the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of the Synod of Dor-
drecht— these, “ the excessive deviation, supported by leaders and
Church Courts in the National Church, from the original doctrine, dis-
cipline, and worship ; the indirect influence of the Revival, to which
these Church Courts were opposed ; and the deposition of faithful
ministers, who were followed by their flocks and subjected to severe
persecution.”* This event marked something like a turning point in
the history of the Netherlands Church. The movement was not
shared in its last passages by men like Da Costa and Groen van
Prinsterer, who were recognized leaders of the faithful minority, but
it had much of their sympathy and that of those who stayed in ; and
it set the example both of faithful contending for truth and of ulti-
mate separation. Hence, this Church, which is entirely independent
of State support, has had great success. It numbers, according to the
Belfast register of the Presbyterian Alliance, three hundred and sev-
enty-nine congregations, and has a theological school at Kampen with
eighty-five students. Nor did its withdrawal weaken, but rather
strengthen, the Church that was left behind ; for this is the testi-
mony of Dr. Hoedemaker at the Edinburgh meeting already referred
to in 1877 :

“ Forty years ago there were very few who preached the living Christ in their Church.
When their Secession friends left them forty years ago — he had almost said, God forgive
them — there was little left in the Church. Now they had four hundred ministers
preaching the gospel [out of sixteen hundred], and these ministers had taken a promi-
nent position in all their great cities, and crowds flocked to hear them, just in proportion
as they preached the living Christ.” ( Proceedings , etc., p. 209.)

In this revival a part was borne by the disciples of Schleiermacher,
who, as in Germany, reawakened the sense of sin, and concentrated
attention on the person of Christ, though with a defective view of
his supreme divinity, and also of the doctrines of atonement and
sovereign grace. Of this movement the University of Groningen
was the centre, and this school, by laying more stress upon experi-
ence than dogma, has come to be known as the Ethical, and by hold-
ing a middle place between the orthodox and rationalist, and striv-
ing to keep the latter in the Church, with a view to their recovery,
has been called the Irenical. As with the Schleiermacher school in

Proceedings, etc., p. 298.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Germany, the shades of this party have been great, so that we hesi-
tate to name its leaders ; and probably its members have shown less
tendency to advance toward the older orthodoxy than men like
Neander and Dorner in Germany. Still it cannot be doubted that
writers like the late Chantepie de la Saussaye and J. H. Gunning, Jr.,
have contributed to the defence of a supernatural Christianity, and
that the very conflict of the older or Utrecht school with them has
been a means of progress.

But, as in Germany, the revival, while victorious over the less
critical unbelief, had a hard battle to fight, with the newer rationalism
of the Baur or Tubingen school ; so was it in Holland ; and here the
University of Leyden was to come in, and in the persons of Scholten,
Kuenen, and other leaders of the so-called Modern school to rebuild
the whole history and doctrine of Christianity upon a humanitarian
basis. Dr. van Oosterzee, in a paper sent to the Philadelphia meet-
ing of the Presbyterian Alliance in 1880, states that whereas in
1835 the Leben Jesu of Strauss could hardly find a publisher in
Holland, just as Strauss himself was rejected by the University of
Zurich, the work of Renan in 1863 was at once spread over the -
whole country. At this time, in 1864, Professor Scholten came
forth with his work on the Fourth Gospel, denying it all connection
with the Apostle John, whose residence in Ephesus even, beyond
Hilgenfeld and Renan, was disputed, and excluding with the Resur-
rection every other miracle. So Professor Kuenen, in a succession
of works, handled the Old Testament, seeing in Jewish history only
the natural development of religion in which Jesus comes to hold
the highest place, but eliminating everything prophetic, and reduc-
ing redemption to the moral influence of Jesus as the best of
masters. The learning and ingenuity of these works, as well as a
certain honesty of profession, it is impossible to question ; but they
add nothing essential to the German school, which has already col-
lapsed ; and though their influence in Holland has been great, it is
decidedly on the wane, and but for a tendency to coalesce with the
ethical school it would probably soon fall.

All authorities agree that the return of Holland to a supernatural-
ist Christianity during the last twenty years has been decided. This
is the testimony of Mr. Cohen Stuart, in a paper read before the
great Evangelical Alliance meeting in New York in 1873 ; of Pro-
fessor van Oosterzee, in a writing sent two years before his death
to the Philadelphia Presbyterian Alliance, in 1880, as already referred
to, and of Dr. van Wyk, of the Hague, in an interesting paper read
before the Copenhagen meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in 1884.
But the two latter writers agree that as the revival movement has

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

advanced, it- has, as in Germany, assumed two aspects — the one
more favorable to a recast of orthodox Christian doctrine, and the
other more or less confessional, or tending to the forms of the older
orthodoxy. There is, however, this difference, that in Holland the
younger part demands a reconstruction of Church order, that the
confession may have fair play, while the older is more content with
the spirit of revival, though clogged by un-Presbyterian and even
Erastian forms. Of the older of these tendencies, Dr. van Ooster-
zee, so long an ornament of the University of Utrecht, was perhaps
the most conspicuous example ; of the later, the virtual, if not
always acknowledged leader, is Dr. A. Kuyper, one of the professors
of the Free University of Amsterdam. This Free University was
founded in 1880, with a design to make a more complete separation
between the believing and rationalist parties than could be effected
in the State Universities, and also to embrace not only theology, but
all other branches of learning in an institution controlled throughout
by Christian influence, and supported by extra-state funds and
resources. This school of Christian learning has already had very
considerable success, and the name of Dr. Hoedemaker has, along
with that of Dr. Kuyper, made it known wherever the Church of
Holland creates any interest.

This institution indicated a step forward in the direction of the
stricter Dutch orthodoxy, and the estimate of the school to which it
belonged represented, as given by Dr. van Oosterzee in the paper
already quoted, some shade in his otherwise liberal mind :

“ The ecclesiastical controversy in favor of ultra-Calvinism, under the leadership of
men like Drs. Kuyper, Rutgers, Hoedemaker, and others, rose during the last years to
a height which had not before been reached. The desire for restoring the Church upon
the historic national basis of Dordrecht (1618, 1619) asserted itself with growing emphasis,
but at the same time overshadowed the labor for the defence of the universal Christian
belief. The question as to that which is specially Reformed awakened in the Christian
public much more interest than that as to the Catholic Christian foundation, which
underlies all the different ecclesiastical communities.”

It is the party indicated in this somewhat ambiguous notice of Dr.
van Oosterzee which has now come to the front, and which, display-
ing an energy and decision such as in his days was perhaps not pos-
sible, has in the conflict with unbelief and also with the more neutral
Groningen school brought on the crisis of which an account has now
to be rendered. This stretches from 1885 to the present time.

This struggle has more or less agitated all Holland, but its chief
seat is the capital, Amsterdam. This splendid city of nearly three
hundred thousand inhabitants has some sixty thousand Roman
Catholics and thirty thousand Jews, so that if we discount twenty
thousand for the other Protestant churches it will leave the National

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Dutch Church some one hundred and eighty or one hundred and
ninety thousand adherents. This vast body, however, is very
imperfectly supplied with religious ordinances, there being only
eleven churches, though some of these are of vast dimensions and
capable of accommodating three or four thousand persons. Still the
disproportion is great, and the lack of spiritual superintendence is
increased by the enormous size of the parishes. Patronage, how-
ever, does not exist, the ministers being chosen by an electoral com-
mittee, which itself in every parish is elected by the male communi-
cants who are not paupers. With the ministers there are not only
elders but deacons, chosen in the same way, and the Amsterdam
Church as a whole is governed by the entire body of these, forming a
general session or consistory ( Kerkeraad ) of about one hundred and
forty members. This concession to ecclesiastical liberty was made
in 1867, and the result erelong appeared in the presence of a strictly
orthodox majority in the Session of Amsterdam. In other measures
this change appeared, and in 1885 it led to a controversy as to the
admission of members to the communion. Orthodox office-bearers
hesitated to admit those young persons who belonged to the modern
school, and even to countenance the service by their presence. A
mode of evading this difficulty was sought by asking the session to
comply with a prevailing practice, whereby an applicant might be
admitted by another consistory or session, provided his own session
granted him a certificate of mere moral good conduct. It need not
be debated how far this was legal or how far any session was bound
on the testimony of two householders to grant a certificate of
its own that a person was of good character, and thus to assist his
admission elsewhere into the National Church, with the certainty that
he was on the way by this roundabout path back to their own com-
munion. In point of fact the Session of Amsterdam refused any
longer to take this view, and when, in the beginning of 1885, the
young people of modern tendencies applied for these certificates, the
session, having appointed a committee to consider the question,
agreed on March 23d of that year to withhold the documents un-
less a declaration was made that it was thereby the purpose of the ap-
plicants “ to confess the Lord Jesus Christ as the only and all-suffi-
cient Saviour, who was delivered for our offences and raised again
for our justification.” This act of the session produced a great out-
burst of complaint on the part of the parents of the applicants, as
well as of themselves, and of all who denounced the act as an
infringement of liberty by setting up a doctrinal creed. An appeal was
made to the body called the Classical Bestuur (Classical Board),
which, according to the defective Presbyterian organization of the

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

Netherlands Church, locally works along with and controls each
session. This Board consists of some nine members, representing
the more bureaucratic element in the Church, and its sympathies are
more with the neutral party, not without an infusion of the modern.
Still this Board, overawed probably by the session, refused to inter-
fere, and it was only on an appeal to the next highest body in the
scale, the Provincial Synod (Bestuur) of North Holland, that the
decision was reversed, and instructions given to issue the certificates
as usual. This deed was dated October 2ist, 1885, and the term was
fixed (January 8th, 1886) within which the Kerkeraad was to deliver
the needful papers. This body accordingly took the matter up, but
shewed every disposition to refuse obedience. A committee was
appointed to prepare a report on the subject, of which Dr. Kuyper,
who sat as an elder in the body, was chairman ; but before this could
be finally discussed an extraordinary step was taken by the Classical
Bestuur , and a majority of the members of the Kerkeraad were sus-
pended from their functions on January 4th, and the Bestuur itself
carried out the decision of the Provincial Synod.

Had the matter gone forward there is every reason to believe that
the Amsterdam Kerkeraad would have resisted to the last, and drawn
down the censure of the highest powers in the form of deposition.
This, as we shall see, actually came on another ground. It is a
debated point in this history whether the party opposed to the
orthodox, seeing this conflict to be inevitable, and wishing to escape
the odium of a direct doctrinal controversy, ingeniously shifted their
ground and provoked a strife involving rather questions of Church
property and administration. This is denied, indeed, by the authors
and favorers of the suspension and ultimate deposition, who contend
that there was no such double play, and that the question of the
certificates was an entirely different issue. But the charge is stoutly
made by Dr. Kuyper in his various pamphlets. It is urged also by
certain members of the Kerkeraad , who were not suspended, and
who in their narrative ( Kort Verhaal ) treat the later ground of sus-
pension as a transparent fiction. Nor can it be questioned that the
Classical Bestuur itself, in its first publication of the sentence in the
official organ ( Kerkelijke Courant, January 9th, 1886), states a con-
nection between the certificate question and the acts which ulti-
mately, in their judgment, necessitated suspension. This, however,
may only mean that in this question the spirit of separation specially
asserted itself, and thus the views of both parties may be so far
reconciled without prejudice to the good faith of either. It is
beyond all doubt that the doctrinal question was the deepest ground
of difference ; and though technically the denial of its influence at

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

any particular point may be correct, the general contention of Dr.
Kuyper and his friends must be accepted.

We are thus brought to the point where confessedly the strife was
waged, and where the issue of ultimate disciplinary measures and of
consequent separation lay. This was the charge against the
Amsterdam Kerkcraad of conspiring to alienate the Church property
of the city, and thus to break the bond of ecclesiastical unity. This
is necessarily less interesting and edifying than a purely spiritual con-
flict. It is as if the Scottish Secession had been technically fought
out upon a question of manses and glebes, or the Free Church Dis-
ruption upon the temporalities of the parish of Auchterarder. Still
even here the spiritual element perpetually dominates the temporal,
and the question of spiritual independence is really the life of the
struggle. The question of Church communion and Church confes-
sion might be silenced, but the rights and liberties of the Church —
even in connection with material guarantees for them — still made
themselves heard.

It is admitted on all hands that the property of the Amsterdam
Church as a whole belongs to the adhering people. This is conceded
by Dr. Van Doom, a leader of the Modern party, and also by Dr.
Hogerzeil, one of the more orthodox, who on this question has
taken up the defence of the present organization against the
reformers, and charged their measures with being organized revolu-
tion. He says in his pamphlet, Revolution Organized , p. 9, “ From
the year 1810 the Amsterdam congregation (as one body), so far as
Church property goes, has ‘ free administration that is to say, no
other college, ecclesiastical or otherwise, has anything to do with its
administration, or can exercise any control over it.” From 1810
the actual administration has been in the hands of the Kerkeraad ,
as understood mandatories of the people, which is all the more
reasonable as they are themselves elected by the whole body of male
church-members ; and then the Kerkeraad has not directly exercised
this control, but delegated it to another body, elected by itself, and
called “ The Church Commission,” composed half of members of
the Kerkeraad and half of other members of the Church, called
Notables. This administration by the “ Church Commission” in
harmony with the Kerkeraad and in virtual unity with the people
has given such satisfaction that when, in 1869, the State Government
wanted to introduce a more uniform system for the whole kingdom,
the Amsterdam church-membership by a large vote preferred to
abide by the existing regulation. The details were from time to
time corrected by the Kerkeraad , and in vindication of its own inde-
pendence this important clause was introduced into the statute, by

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

which the action of the Commission was controlled : “ Whenever a
member of the Commission, an elector, or an office-bearer falls un-
expectedly under Church censure of whatever kind, the Commission
decides whether or how far this censure has consequences bearing
on the rights of the party censured, as assigned him by this statute.
Till this decision is given the party remains in office and the case in
statu quo." This enactment, which goes back to 1875, and which
settled some debates of that time, passed quietly into the Amster-
dam Statute Book ; but it has been found to be the very battle-ground
of the present controversy and separation.

The Reforming party, which had the upper hand in the Kerkeraad ,
naturally found, not only in connection with the certificate question,
but from other indications, that the struggle was approaching a
crisis, and hence they wished to prepare for the worst issue by mak-
ing good what they believed to be their just title to the property of
the Church. For this purpose they introduced certain changes, which
they did not regard as affecting any vital principle, into the statute
( Reglement ) originally drawn up by the Kerkeraad , and modified
from time to time, under which the Church Commission carried out
its administration. Passing by other paragraphs and clauses, the
most important change was Article 41, which runs as follows :

“ In case that the Kerkeraad { both general and particular), in fulfilment of its call to
keep the Church steadfast to the Word of God and to preserve the three formularies of
unity as the bond of church-fellowship, should be so seriously involved that it should see
itself compelled to act out to the full the precept to obey God rather than men, and should
have its legal right to act as tepresentative of the [Christian] people contested, either by
suspension or deposition of a portion of its members, and either some other body should
interfere in the affairs of the people, by professing to do the work that belongs to the
Kerkeraad, or an opposition Kerkeraad should be formed, the Commission shall in such a
case continue to acknowledge the original Kerkeraad, which seeks to keep the people to
God’s Word, as the only legal one ; and in the carrying out of all the requirements of this
statute, where the word ‘ Kerkeraad' occurs, shall understand by it this alone.” *

This and other modifications of the statute, though opposed by
a party in the Kerkeraad , were adopted en bloc by the great majority
of that body on December 14th, 1885. It was hardly possible that
the non-reforming party should sit silent under such a challenge, and
hence there now appears on the scene the Classical Bestuur of
Amsterdam, which is destined to figure so largely in this history.
This was the lowest of the less popular governing bodies of the
Church, working up into the Provincial Bestuur of North Holland, as
that again into the General Synod at the Hague. It consisted of
seven ministers and three elders, most of them with a certain color

* Hogerzeil, Revolution Organized, p. 12.

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of orthodoxy, but all opposed to the reform movements of a more
confessional type, or which tended to substitute popular for bureau-
cratic administration. This body had avoided any decision in the
certificate question, leaving the North Holland Bestuur to suppress
that movement. But now it had to take action in the property
question, being probably directed from headquarters and assured of
the support which its strong measures would speedily require ; and
yet it was not easy to find a ground of interference, as the question
of property was confessedly in the hands of the Kerkeraad alone.
Some of the Classical members also, when acting before on the
Church Commission, had expressly taken the oaths of office which
laid stress on this [independence, and could hardly now repress it.
Hence they were compelled to regard the action of the majority of
the Kerkeraad as coming under their general discipline, in virtue of
which they could review all matters of property not on their
material but on their moral side, and by the application of that part
of the general Church Law which constituted them the guardians of
“ order and peace.” On this strained ground they might, as they
did, have annulled the new regulations of the Kerkeraad , and left
the standing of those who passed them otherwise untouched. This
would have been enough until some compromise or intervention suit-
able to an extraordinary time had been discovered. But they went
at once to the extreme length of suspending all who had voted for
the new regulations. The Kerkeraad had then one hundred and
thirty-six members, and seventy-nine were included in this sweeping
censure, of whom five were ministers of Amsterdam — Van Son, Van
Loon, Van Schelven, de Gaay Fortman, and Karssen — with forty-
two elders and thirty-two deacons. It was remarked that there
were included among the elders Dr. Kuyper, Dr. Rutgers, Dr. Van
Hartog, and other persons connected with the Free L’niversity.
This act of suspension from all official functions was dated January
4th, 1886, and was announced in a circular signed by Dr. Adriani,
President, and Dr. Vos, Secretary of the Classical Bestuur , which, as
already stated, itself consisted only of ten persons. This document
informed each suspended officer that the act for which he suffered
was annulled, and required his submission to the sentence in a fort-
night on pain of further procedure. Only four deacons, however,
made this submission ; but there still remained unaffected by the
stroke twenty-one preachers, eleven elders, and twenty-five deacons,
and these numbers may give some idea of the direction of sympathy
among the different classes of society in Amsterdam. Though there
thus remained members enough to make a Kerkeraad , the Bestuur
set it henceforth aside, and stepped into its place to do its work. It

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

was significant that on the afternoon of the day on which the sus-
pension had taken place at noon, the Bestuur , in this vicarious char-
acter, appointed two of its own number to give out certificates, by
way of ending that older controversy. It also claimed the possession
of the churches and other buildings, as if the Church Commission
had been suspended likewise. This, however, encountered resist-
ance on the part of members of that body. The police for a
time seemed to waver between the two authorities, but at length,
after a singular struggle (in which moral force approached the verge
of physical), the Bestuur had to give way, and the venerable Niewe-
Kerk on the Dam, which had been the prize of battle, remained in
the possession of the Church Commission.

These proceedings produced unexampled sensation, all the more
that there had been no regular process or trial. In fact, no minutes
of names of persons voting in the Kerkeraad were kept, and hence
the ministers and others suspected were simply asked formally to ac-
cept the annulment of their own act, and to make this known to this
higher tribunal — in other words, to criminate themselves. Besides,
very strong language was applied in the act of the Bestuur adopted
on the day after the suspension and published in the official Courant
of January 9th, 1886, to the conduct of the suspended parties, such
as “ extreme illegality, unfaithfulness, and abuse of ecclesiastical
functions;” while it was very soon after, in order to meet the ap-
pearance of harshness, expressly declared that the step had no other
ground than the act of self-defence on the part of the suspended in
connection with property, that has been already explained.

The Bestuur followed up its attack with great vigor. It asked
and received from the Commission of the Hague Synod power to
defend its title to the Church property before the civil courts.* It is
not certain whether it moved the next highest body, the Provincial
Bestuur , to take its work out of its hands and do all that further be-
longed to it. Certain it is that this higher body took up the prose-
cution of the suspended office-bearers with a view to turn suspension
into deposition, and sought to engage the General Synod in this trial.
The Synod, however, on a question of order corrected this provincial
court, and sent everything back again to the Amsterdam Bestuur to
judge whether there was a plausible case for deposition, and then to
bring the matter, if needful, to any higher body. This decision as
to procedure was not arrived at till March 9th, 1886, and meanwhile
the question of suspension alone, though with its threatening issues,
engrossed the whole public mind.

The official Courant (a Hague organ), in which the sentence ap-
peared, has an unofficial part edited by Dr. M. A. Gooszen, Theo-
7

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

logical Professor in Leyden, and this was employed at once to
influence the whole public mind in ecclesiastical circles. There was
prepared by January 9th, issued in Amsterdam, and largely repro-
duced in this organ, a pamphlet by Dr. Hogerzeil, of Amsterdam,
one of the ministers of the city, entitled the State of the Question, in
which he professes, with great impartiality, to handle the subject for
the uninitiated, and in which, followed up as it is by two other
pamphlets, Revolution Organized and The Preliminary Suspension , the
whole procedure of the Reforming party is set forth as wild and de-
structive of all law and order. As this writer was of the compara-
tively orthodox type, and as his works had not a little of fervor, with
a good deal of ingenuity and confidence in his cause, they made no
small impression, and sold by thousands.

But the other party, who have so much at stake, are not silent, and
among them by far the most prominent is Dr. A. Kuyper, of the
Free University, who in three truly vigorous pamphlets reviews and
badly damages Dr. Hogerzeil’s line of argument. In the first of
these pamphlets (which are full of wit and humor as well as of sharp
but not unkindly dialectic), and which is entitled Conspiracy and
Revolution, he shows that there had been in his party nothing more
than the legitimate assertion by constitutional means of a great
principle, and that the error of the other side lay in applying to
an essentially divided time such routine measures as provoked revo-
lution— a revolution that was still in the line of the Reformation and
of the nation’s great history. It was a passage in this pamphlet
that in the final trial was held by the Hague Synod as a confession
by Dr. Kuyper on his own part and that of his brethren of the
ordinary offence of ecclesiastical conspiracy, which the whole
pamplilet was written to deny. The second pamphlet of Dr. Kuyper
is entitled Our Free Management of Church Property Threatened and
Defended, and it goes over the same ground as in a separate work of
two distinguished lawyers of the party, De Savornan Lohman and
Rutgers’s The Legal Rights of our Local Churches. The substance of
this view, and how far it is accepted even by the other side, has been
already given. The reluctance of Dr. Hogerzeil to look this history
of often-asserted right in the face is strongly urged, and also the
want of generosity in expelling the reforming party from the whole
property, while the latter were willing to divide it in any proportions
even among the Modern, as might be settled by legal tribunals or
arbitration. The third pamphlet of Dr. Kuyper is entitled The
Lovers of Peace in Office. This is a review of the action of the
Irenical party since in 1870 they began to replace the Modern school
in the various boards to the Synod upward. It is drawn out in the

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

language of complaint that they had favored the Modern party and
discouraged the other, and much of the pamphlet is occupied with
the questions of detail as to the suspension and the struggle for the
possession of the Amsterdam public buildings. As the result of
these three pamphlets the position of Dr. Kuyper and his party
stands clear — an admitted right of the so-called Bestuur organization
to review the Kerkeraad on all spiritual matters (with right of the
latter and of the people to agitate for more purely Presbyterian
representation), but strenuous denial of all right of the Bestuur or
Synodal power to interfere in Beheer or Property administration, and
affirmation of duty to repel such sentences as ultra vires. It will
thus appear how Dr. Kuyper and his party, on this ground of a
“ double” quality in the Kerkeraad and all that it represented, could
honestly maintain their adherence to the unity of the Church.
They admitted their subordination to spiritual sentences, but they
did not hold the Synodal control of property, even in a State Church,
to be essential to unity.

Even their subjection to the spiritual sentence of suspension they
did not hold to be absolute. They did not intrude into any ecclesi-
astical functions, such as preaching or attempting to do the work of
elder or deacon in the sacred places. But they did not scruple to
preach in halls or other public places, and this was a means even as
powerful as the use of the press, whereby the suspended office-
bearers maintained their cause. Some six large halls were hired in
Amsterdam, and, with the suspended ministers preaching in them,
were filled with crowded audiences, while the large churches were — at
least some of them — comparatively deserted. This separate worship
Dr. Kuyper in his third pamphlet defends, saying that the people
would never return to their old sanctuaries till they saw their vener-
able leaders back in them. He calculates that of the church-going
people of the capital fully two thirds sympathized with the Reform-
ing party, and states that as a test of interest the collections in the
first month had amounted to three thousand gulden, or two hundred
and fifty pounds sterling. Six months afterward the present writer
was in Amsterdam on a Sabbath in September, and can attest that
while the vast spaces of the Oude Kerk were almost a solitude, the
neighboring hall of Frascati was crowded in the morning and almost
equally in the evening with worshippers listening to nothing more
than the ordinary preaching of the gospel, but with a sense of stir
and eagerness entirely new. It was, therefore, to be lamented, in
so anomalous a case, that the Amsterdam Classical Bestuur found
another call *to discipline, and in a circular dated May 31st, 1886
( Courant , June 12th), denounced to their several local authorities

100

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

seventeen other ministers, at the head of them M. Lion Cachet, of
Rotterdam, who had taken part in Amsterdam with the five sus-
pended ministers there in their so-called “ Bible readings,” and thus
encouraged disorder and separation in the Church.

Many, no doubt, equally disapproved of the suspension, but ex-
pressed their sympathies and perhaps also their difficulties in some
other way. Among these was the well-known Dr. Hoedemaker, of
the Free University, a great personal friend of Dr. Kuyper, and in
many other forms a helper of the common movement by his ability,
moderation, and Christian earnestness. Here he found himself un-
able fully to share Dr. Kuyper’s view and action ; and his conduct in
his several pamphlets, though we cannot share his scruples, is a
beautiful example of Christian candor and friendship.

He had exposed as ably as any one the unscript ural character of the
so-called Synodal administration, which committed to State-created
Boards, acting according to a State constitution, and not to regularly
called office-bearers of a Presbyterian church, acting according to
the Word and in the name of Christ, the affairs of His Kingdom.
And he had full sympathy with the aim of Dr. Kuyper and his
friends to recover the profession of sound doctrine which was so far
embodied even in the existing Church. But he despaired of this
under the present organization, and thought that this should first be
redressed. Nor was it by fighting the battle with a constant eye to
separation as the alternative, but, on the contrary, with an effort to
carry the whole Church along in this path, and even to find a modus
vivendi whereby even the Modern party might be embraced not in
the circle of the Church proper, but of a more general society, shar-
ing under certain regulations the use of the benefices and buildings
till the transition period, which was the occasion of conflict, had
passed away. We have endeavored to state as fairly as possible
these views of Dr. Hoedemaker, gathered from his Open Letter
to Dr. Kuyper, of date January 18th, 1886, and other publications.
He also distinguished himself by efforts at this time to have the
General Synod called together. But amid the excitement of the
controversy his voice was less regarded, and matters ran on to a far
more summary decision than he had proposed.

With this fermentation of the public mind occupying the daily
press to a degree which cannot be reported, the wheel of discipline
moved round. On March 15th, 1886, the Classical Bcstuur of Am-
sterdam found that there was a plausible case for deposition against
the seventy-five suspended members, and sent this finding up, as
directed, to the Provincial Bestuur of North Holland to complete
the trial. This body, consisting of seven persons, asked the accused

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

101

on March 30th to furnish any explanations or defences. In a paper
signed by M. Van Son and two others in the name of the rest, and
dated April 5th, exception was taken to the process as radically in-
competent. The Bestuur on May 29th complained that only three
had signed the document, and sought to make good the lack of
evidence by putting to each of the accused the question whether he
had voted for the Regulations, and on their declining, on May 29th,
to answer, it came, in a final judgment, on July 1st, to the conclusion
, that in the circumstances silence gave consent, and also regarded the
act thus not disclaimed as in the matter of it deserving of deposi-
tion, which it pronounced accordingly.

This naturally increased the agitation, all the more that the sen-
tenced parties had appealed to the final court, or General Synod.
As an indication of the sense of distrust which these proceedings
awakened may be mentioned an interesting pamphlet, published at
this date by Dr. J. H. Gunning, Jr., of Amsterdam, and reflecting
the opinion of the better type of the Irenical party. Dr. Gunning
is one of the theological professors appointed directly by the
Church and not by the State, filling that place in Amsterdam, and
the title of his pamphlet is One Witness More on the Amsterdam
Church Incident. Dr. Gunning is necessarily the advocate of lati-
tude. He had always protested against the exclusion of the Modern
section, though he wholly denied their right to a place in the Church.
Hence, the going out of the reforming party is to him still more un-
welcome. He grants the justness of the sentence on a wide con-
struction of what unity of government requires, but does not believe
that it is legally and technically defensible. Even if the Synod
should sustain it, he hopes that measures will be taken to restore the
deposed, and perhaps by their retracting their amended Regulations
for some equivalent to open a way for a reorganization of the whole
constitution of the Church, and for the placing in the foreground
questions of faith rather than of administration. While he protests
against the exclusiveness of Dr. Kuyper and his friends, he recog-
nizes their importance in the development of the future, and is
willing to give them a career as representing an element in the past
which had been too long neglected. Such is as fair a statement as
can be given of Dr. Gunning’s position, and it will be seen with
what anxiety men like him must have followed a legal conflict which
contained no element of conciliation whatever.

The Synod of the Netherlands Church decided the appeal made
to them first by a hearing before the so-called Contracted Synod, and
then, on a last revision, before the whole body. The first process was
the more elaborate. The “considerations” bearing on the com-

102

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

plaints of the appealing parties are too technical to be here repro-
duced, especially as they bear on informalities of procedure. Dr.
Kuyper, who appeared before the Synod on September 16th, wished
to raise the question of incompetency in the original action of the
Classical Bestuur , but on being driven from this line and held to an-
swer as to his own proceedings, he refused to compromise his rights,
and left the court. Under protest, however, grievances were stated
in writing, and the Synod, in a clear, if technical document, en-
deavored to answer them at great length. The most notable thing in
this conflict of legal wits is, that the Synod acknowledges that it
cannot put its hand on any express statute which is traversed, but
only makes out a case of constructive disorder, on the ground of
which, in this the ablest of all the judicial papers on that side, it
confirms on September 24th, 1886, the deposition already pro-
nounced. The appeal to the whole Synod follows, and its sentence
comes forth on December 1st. This goes over the five grounds of
revision summed up by the seventy-five appellants in a memoir sent
in on November 15th, finding each of them untenable, and confirm-
ing the sentence of deposition already pronounced. There is a cer-
tain hardness in the tone of this judgment, and this is possibly to be
ascribed to a remarkable document sent in at the same time by Dr.
Kuyper in the name of the rest, entitled Last Word to the Conscience
of the Members of the Synod. This is such a paper as has rarely been
presented to any judicial body, and can only be justified by the grav-
ity of the circumstances.

This Last Word breaks through all the forms of public judicial
pleading. It declares that both sides know well enough that the
real difference is not, as it appears, in the long-drawn and technical
windings of an ecclesiastical suit, but in a vital discord of inward
belief.

After repeating the old doctrines of the confession, the paper thus
proceeds :

“ And herein lies the painful wrongness of our mutual relation, which it does no good
to conceal ; that you, as a Synod, do not share our convictions. As a Synod you do
not confess the three-one God ; you do not find yourselves in sympathy with our sense
of guilt in the presence of the Holy One ; you do not believe in eternal punishment ;
you do not glory in Immanuel as God over all blessed forever ; you are not at home in
the holy mysteries of his miraculous birth, sin-atoning death, justifying resurrection,
and glorious ascension in our human flesh. All these are to you venerable forms of
human thought, but no sacred realities ; modes of expression used by a less advanced
age to body forth ideal truths, but long outgrown by our century.” ( Last Word, etc.,
pp. 12, 13.) Again : “Thus also the Church of Christ is not to you ‘a company of
believers with their seed Holy Scripture is not the sole authority by which all human
opinion is to be judged ; the Headship of Jesus is not to you an official sovereignty, but
a figure for the influence of his past appearance in history ; and you are bound to main-

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

103

tain that not a bond of confession, but a liberty of teaching, must be the rule of our
Churches” (p. 13). Further : “ And herein lies the deepest ground : why, so long as you
hold these convictions, you cannot yield to us, but also why we can as little yield to you.
Nay, it would be our duty, speaking from our own point of view, to say, that for you
and your views, according to sacred right, no place in the Church of Christ can be
allowed at all, and that for you nothing remains but either to give glory to the King of
heaven by returning to the old confession, or to send a bill of divorce to that Church
from whose confession you have been long estranged” (p. 13). The suspended, how-
ever, do not feel it to be the best course to urge this point of view : “ At this time we
do not pursue this strain. Our serious word might thus easily miss its mark. A spirit
of receptivity for so cutting a judgment of ours could not, constituted as human nature
is, be presupposed at this moment on your part” (p. 14).

This is rather stated in order to impress the duty of the Synod
toward the suspended, in the light of this confessed, world-wide differ-
ence of doctrinal conviction. Severity on the part of the Synod
would be in painful contrast to their latitude on graver questions :

“When just now those who stand at your bar are not in the line of Venator or
Coornheert, of Socinus or Vorstius, of Roe'll or Van Vlak, of Becker or Van Leenhof,
but rather have developed themselves in the direction of Marnix and Datheen, of Trig-
land and Voetius, k Marck and Brakel, of Smytegelt and Comrie, does not a delicate
sense of propriety demand that you, sitting as judges over men who are brought into
trouble solely through principle and a regard for their deepest convictions, should recall
your own past, and not forget your own principle ?”

No necessity for rigor existed such as could be pleaded in regard
to doctrinal points, and the opinions of eminent lawyers left the way
open. In closing, this appeal urges besides the harshness of casting
out men who had grown gray in the service of the Church, the
difference between a process of friendly and gradual separation, such
as they themselves were prepared for, and a violent ejection fraught
with bitter memories and grudges for the future.

No paper gives a clearer view than this Last Word of the mutual
relations of parties in this controversy, but its pleadings and depre-
cations were fruitless, and the spectacle was witnessed of a deposi-
tion on the question of outward order carried through by those to
whom all inward harmony had long been indifferent. The General
Synod accompany the publication of their own lengthened decision
and the still longer one of the Contracted Synod with briefer circulars,
of date December 2d, 1886, to the church courts and to the people,
and it creates a somewhat peculiar impression when, in these, appeals
to unity and fidelity are made without any definite gospel principles,
and when the past greatness of a Church is invoked against a party
whose reverence for it, even if mistaken in its methods of expression,
was the deepest cause of separation from its pale.

The decisive act of the official Church is met by an equally decir
sive on the part of the deposed office-bearers. They meet and re-

104

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

solve to set aside the deposition as null and void, stating their reasons
for refusing to hold it binding in the court of heaven. This paper
is dated December 8th. They farther resolve to claim to be the
historical Netherlands Church, and in that character to cast off the
yoke of the Synodal Hierarchy, taking the name of the Church under
the Cross ( doleerende ). And they also claim to be the lawful Kerk-

eraad of Amsterdam, and in the name of the Church to resume the
ministry and other functions, on the footing not of Separation, but
of Reformation, which is explained in an appeal to the Christian
people. These very important resolutions are adopted and pub-
lished in a document which bears date Amsterdam, December 16th,
1886, and to which are appended the reasons for setting aside the
Act of Deposition. From this impressive document, which, if not
the manifesto of a new Church, is at least the testimony of a renewed
one, there is here extracted the formal set of Resolutions, and the
substance of the Report oti Reformation.

“ Netherlands (Nederduitsche) Reformed Church (Under the Cross).

“ To the members of the Church is made known :

“ 1. That the Kerkeraad, again risen up, after having taken knowledge of the decision
on the first of December current in the Amsterdam Case of Discipline, has resolved to
cast off the yoke of the Synodal Hierarchy. 2. That the Kerkeraad has resolved to
revive the Church order in force before the introduction of the Synodal Hierarchy — i.e.,
before 1816. 3. That the Kerkeraad accordingly has resumed the earlier name, ‘Nether-

lands Reformed Church.’ 4. That the Kerkeraad, after past experience, has not seen its
way in the mean time to make good its title to the buildings, possessions, and goods of
the People, and for this reason, with an express reservation of all rights, comes forward
as the Church under the Cross. 5. That of this Reformation of the Church by the rejec-
tion of this second Hierarchy, knowledge is given to the People in the annexed ‘ Report
on Reformation.’ 6. That the grounds of retention of Office by the members of the
Kerkeraad who have been deposed are set forth in the annexed ‘ Statement.’ 7. That
next Sunday the ministry of the Word shall be renewed, and on the Sunday following
the Dispensation of the Holy Sacraments ; also that notice of Baptism in this instance
must be given in writing before Wednesday, December 22d, at six P.M., to P. Goed-
huis, Under Secretary of the Kerkeraad, Heerengracht 192, 8. That the members
of the Church shall erelong be placed in circumstances to make free-will offerings
for its support.

“ The Kerkeraad of the Netherlands Reformed Church (Under the Cross).

“ P. Van Son, President.

“ H. W. Van Loon, Secretary.”

Amsterdam, December 16, 1886.

Among causes of offence that called for Reformation are men-
tioned the preaching of error ; the neglect of ordinances to such a
degree that of an adhering population of one hundred and seventy-
five thousand, at most only a tenth attended worship ; the decay of
discipline ; the desecration of the Sabbath ; the utter incompetency
of a handful of office-bearers, bound down to other official duties, to

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

105

grapple with the wants of such a community. The governing body
in the Church, through want of a clear recognition of the headship of
Christ and of the authority of Scripture, and through its encour-
agement of error and formalism, must be shaken off. But the
Church was not to be forsaken, but carried, as it were, without the
camp.

“ To no separation do vve seek to seduce you. No ; we remain in the Church of God,
which has been aforetime hallowed by the blood of our martyrs, which we love with all
the love of our hearts, and to which we cling with an inseparable grasp. We set up no
Labadism in the midst of you, nor walk in sectarian paths, for we know that the Son of
God by his Word and Spirit gathers in his Church to life eternal believers with their
children, and that the discerning of the spiritual state of men lies with God and not with
our brethren. And far from wishing to lead you in the paths of Independentism, we
confess rather that all Independentism is contrary to Scripture, and that on all Churches
of Christ there rests an obligation to preserve the unity of his body. The same old
Church of Amsterdam, and the Church in its old historic bonds — to restore to something
of its old bloom, and to reform according to the demands of our present Church life —
this is the only way in which we seek to go.”

With an appeal to Christian liberality, on which alone the Church
had now to depend, and a still more earnest appeal to a higher strain
of Christian life, this solemn and elevated address ends.

By a singular coincidence, on the same day (December 16th) on
which these documents of the reorganized Church appear, there is
dated an able pamphlet by Dr. Hoedemaker, criticising the judg-
ment of the Synod, and especially its circular letters to Church
Courts and Members. This is entitled Human Authority or Lawful
Rule. This repudiates altogether the judgment against the deposed
office-bearers, and sets forth with great force the evils of the exist-
ing system as destitute of any sufficient recognition of the headship
of Christ, or provision for the full Scripture representation of Pres-
byters. It also protests warmly against the profession of any na-
tional church as such, according to the circular “ to be moved by
the spirit of the times,” and defends the effort to make a church as
strict as Scripture against their apparent charge of “ sectarianism.”
In relation to the question between the Synod and the Kerkeraad, it
meets the assertion of the former, that the deposed ministers could
have no complaint on the ground of religious liberty, as they could
easily remain in the Church on recalling their action, by showing
that this was wholly illusory, as the Synod knew well enough that
they could never admit “ Modern” communicants to the Lord’s
Table, or comply with other terms of fellowship. This pamphlet also
asks the defenders of the existing system — a system which had lasted
only seventy years — with unanswerable force how they could stand up
for it, with its narrow and bureaucratic suppression of true Presby-
terian order, as alone consistent with the genius of the Reformation,

106

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

since every Presbyterian church in the world, with the exception of
their own and of the Prussian, had adopted a more popular as well
as more Scriptural constitution ?

One might almost have expected that Dr. Hoedemaker, after these
judgments, would have declared himself ready to cast in his lot with
the deposed brethren. For this, however, he is not yet prepared.
He still thinks that the possibilities of work in the National Church
are not exhausted, and while he must, for sufficient reasons, decline
to preach in the pulpits of Amsterdam, he intends to watch and
help on the deliverance of the Church from the synodal organization
rather by reformation within than by separation, to the qualified
extent, of the new Kerkeraad. This is still his attitude in a later
pamphlet, addressed (June 9th, 1887) to the moderator of a gather-
ing held at Utrecht on April 21st, composed of what he calls the
“ conservative and optimist” part of the orthodox body in the Na-
tional Church. This body, according to him, had at that meeting
wrought no deliverance, and in relation to their meeting and to the
whole position, he opens up anew the evils of the synodal system
and of the general state of the Church as full of contradictions and
anomalies, which needed to be laid to heart and redressed before
any final reply to the so far premature step of the Amsterdam
Kerkeraad and to its dividing influence could be found.

To these counsels of Dr. Hoedemaker, who is candid enough to
admit that Dr. Kuyper and his friends are on the path to which the
action of the orthodox for a long time had seemed to point, though
he could not yet himself give up hope of inward reorganization such
as he suggests, there is a decided contrast in a pamphlet by Dr.
Hogerzeil, which came out on December 22d, 1886. This was en-
titled What Noxv ? and was intended as a reply to the documents of
the Kerkeraad (Under the Cross), but addressed to the members of
the National Church to keep them from separation. Dr. Hogerzeil
indeed grants the ability and earnestness of the Reformed manifesto,
but there is little in his statement of solid refutation. He makes a
great deal of the point that though the party professed not to leave
the Church, they still left it. He denies their title to “ Reforma-
tion,” because while the original Reformation stood as a unit over
against Popery, this new Reformation divided the orthodox. He
says there was nothing in the cry against “ synodal ” organization
which might not have been brought against the “ Synod ” of Dord-
recht, and that it was only a beaten party accusing the judge. The
only show of plausibility is, when he urges that as all the Courts of
the Church, to the Synod upward, embraced the principle of popular
election, the Church had only to complain of itself. But he forgets

STRUGGLE IN THE CHURCH OF HOLLAND.

107

what had been so often urged by Dr. Hoedemaker and others, that
mere Boards formed after a State model could never have the life
and freedom of proper synods and assemblies, and furnishes a con-
firmation of the objection in granting that even the orthodox had
ceased to take interest in these elections, which had degenerated into
routine. Dr. Hogerzeil also returns to his old ground that the de-
posed office-bearers had suffered nothing in connection with the cer-
tificate question, but he forgets that the issue of that matter showed
that they could only escape suffering in future by forcing their con-
sciences ; and in regard even to property he does not allow for
divergent consciences, but appeals to the oaths of office as if they
had only one meaning. Dr. Hogerzeil grants that error was toler-
ated, but he states per contra that truth was not forbidden.

These publications afford a glimpse of the keen conflict of argu-
ment contemporaneously with and after the time of deposition. An
instance will show how, though rarely in the generally passive Dutch
nature, the excitement could almost rise to physical violence. In
the congregation of Leiderdorp, near Leyden, an ancient seat of
piety and zeal, the Kerkeraad, consisting of the minister, Dr. Vlug,
and six office-bearers (two others having declined the step) sent in
on July 15th, 1886, to the Synod and also to the King of Holland
formal notice of their separation. A neighboring minister of the
State Church is appointed by the Leyden Classical Bestuur to preach
in the place, the Synod having meantime declared the Kerkeraad
fallen from office and membership. This minister accordingly ap-
pears on July 25th at the usual hour of worship, accompanied by
two other representatives of the Synod and two policemen. At the
same time the separated minister and his office-bearers come on the
scene, and on the church door bein'g opened, and the attempt first
made by the State minister from the pulpit to gain a hearing, the
crowded building is filled with cries and threatenings of violence,
whereupon he hastily departs and makes way for the other, who,
amid an excitement that can be easily conceived, conducts the
service.*

It is not possible to carry this narrative farther at the present
date. Arrangements are being made by the “ Reformed ” party to
hold, in the course of the summer, a Church Congress at Rotterdam,
which will bring out the strength of the adhering body. Meanwhile,
the only estimate which we have seen is that of the Rev. Lion

* The details are found in a pamphlet by the State Church minister, H. Wildeboer,
The Church Conflict at Leiderdorp. Leyden, 1866. M. Wildeboer belongs to the
orthodox, but bears this testimony in regard to the Syndd : “ I also deplore, that in the
Highest Court, the ‘ Moderns ’ are in a majority” (p. 10).

108

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Cachet, of Rotterdam, who, in a brief speech before the United
Presbyterian Synod at Edinburgh on May 5th, 1887, stated that some
forty or fifty ministers had already connected themselves with the
movement, and that the sum raised by the separate organization
amounted then to nine or ten thousand pounds sterling.

As stated in the beginning of this article, it is impossible as yet
to predict the future of such an agitation. We have been more care-
ful to furnish our readers with the means of forming a judgment of
its basis than a forecast of its history. There are doubtless excel-
lent men who refuse to be connected with it, and there may be
dangers of various kinds which will require to be avoided. But of
what movement of separation may the same thing not be said ; and
what great remedy for the evils of a Church, in doctrine and life,
has almost made any radical impression without this element of trial
and difficulty? As, therefore, former separations in Holland have
wrought for good, and as the whole history of Scotland for the last
two centuries, in its bearings on the Christianity and the Presby-
terianism of the world, is a mighty testimony to the good which can
come from such a bitter discipline, we cherish the sincere hope that
a movement which, as our article has shown, has in it so much of
intelligence, energy, and self-denial may, with whatever imperfec-
tions adhere to it, bring blessing in its train and give a much-needed
impulse to soundness in doctrine and earnestness in life among the
churches of Europe.*

John Cairns.

Edinburgh.

* Note. — This article was written in the summer of 1887. During the autumn the writer
spent some days in Holland. He has corrected his narrative in the light of this experi-
ence. The only facts he wishes to add to his paper are that Dr. Hoedemaker has re-
signed his office in the Free University ; that repeated conferences of the friends of the
deposed brethren have been held ; and that the members of the earlier separative
[Christian Reformed Church] have assumed a kindly and sympathetic attitude toward
the new movement.

VII.— CRITICAL NOTE. "

THE NEW THEORY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

The Apocalypse of John has been from the earliest times the most doubtful
writing in the New Testament. Pious bishops, theologians, and reformers have
either denied its canonicity or expressed grave doubts whether it ought to be in-
cluded in the canon of the New Testament. Harnack and Von Gebhardt agree
with Vischer in eliminating it Irom the canon, and in assigning it a place along-
side of extra-canonical early Christian writings in the Library of which they are
editors.*

Indeed, they were compelled to this course by the new theory of the Apoca-
lypse proposed by Vischer, which they have adopted. For if the Apocalypse of
John be indeed a Jewish apocalypse, like the apocalypses of Enoch, of Baruch,
of Ezra, of Moses, and the Sibylline oracles, re-edited and enlarged by a Chris-
tian author, it certainly has no place in the canon.

This hypothesis was first proposed by Vischer, while a student in the theologi-
cal class of Professor Harnack. It was at once adopted by Harnack ; and so
soon as it was made public it gained the consent of Schiirer, Dillmann, and
many other of the best critics of Europe. Some of our readers will ascribe this
to the German fondness for novelties. But those who understand German
scholarship, and recognize its thorough, scientific spirit, its ardent pursuit of truth
for its own sake, and its freedom from the fetters of traditional prejudice, will
rather conclude that there must be some strong reasons for the new theory, and
will give it serious examination.

The Apocalypse has been the theme of numberless works which are scattered
through the Christian centuries, but these have been either commentaries or ex-
positions of its visions in the light of Christian History. After all, the general
opinion among scholars has been that its key has not yet been found. If Vischer
has found the key, he is entitled to the thanks of the Christian world, even if we
must remove it from the canon.

Recent studies of the Apocalypse have placed it in an entirely new position in
its relation to the other books of the New Testament. It is so different in style
and doctrine from the other Johannine writings, that the old view that it was
written by the apostle very near the same time with the Gospel and Epistles is
untenable. The only way to save the Johannine authorship is to put it at a con-
siderable period earlier than the Gospel, in order to leave time for the doctrine
of the Apocalypse to grow into the theology of the Epistles and the Gospel.

* Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur.
Von Oscar von Gebhardt und Adolf Harnack. II. Band, Heft 3. Die Offen-
barung Johannis. Eine judische Apokalypse in christlicher Bearbeitung. Von Eber-
hard Vischer, mit einem Nachwort von Adolf Harnack. Leipzig : J. C. Hinrichs,
1886. See also Die Offenbarung Johannis keine ursprunglich judische Apoka-
lypse. Eine Streitschrift gegen Herren Harnack und Vischer. Von Daniel Volter,
Tubingen : J. J. Heckenhauer, 1886.

110

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

There are more features of resemblance with the Gospel of Matthew and the
Epistles of Peter and James than with Paul or John ; and yet there are so many
Pauline elements that Vischer thinks that the Christian author who worked it
over belonged to that school. And then there are certain elements that resemble
the Gospel and the Epistles of John which justify, to some extent at least, the
theory ol the Johannine authorship. But, after all of these relations to other
writings of the New Testament have been conceded, any one who has studied
the pseudepigraphical literature of the Jews will find more features of resem-
blance with these extra-canonical apocalypses than with any or with all ol the
writings of the New Testament.

It is only in recent years that these apocalypses have been studied by critics,
and it is not unnatural, under the circumstances, that those scholars, who have
done the most in this department of work, should recognize those features of re-
semblance between the Apocalypse of John and the other apocalypses, and ask
the question whether this Apocalypse has not shared the fortune of all the other
apocalypses, and whether this does not explain the difficulties that have envel-
oped it. Harnack tells us that when he first read the Apocalypse in the light of
Vischer’s theory the scales fell from his eyes, and difficulties that had appeared
insoluble were at once resolved.

This, then, is the strength of the new theory. It seems most natural that the
one apocalypse that has found its way into the New Testament should have
had the same fortunes as the one apocalypse that was admitted to the canon of
the Old Testament and the many Jewish and Christian apocalypses that were
current in the early Christian Church, two of which are cited in the Epistle of
Jude, one of which is quoted by Papias as giving the teaching of Jesus, and others
of which are used by the Fathers on a par with the Old Testament prophets.
It is highly important that the Apocalypse of John should be studied in these
historical relations. The new theory forces us to make the comparison. The
question must be considered whether the Apocalypse of John differs from those
other apocalypses to a sufficient extent to justily their exclusion from the canon
while it assumes a unique place therein. The theory of Vischer is certainly
favored by the history of these other apocalypses, and it was to be expected that
specialists who had devoted their attention to these would approve the new
theory. There are other arguments that re-enforce this presumption. These
must be overcome by stronger arguments, or the theory of Vischer will win the
day. We propose to test the theory by the principles of the Higher Criticism,
without regard to the views that have thus far prevailed in the Church. Chris-
tians have nothing to fear from the truth, and exact methods ought to be their
deiight.

(i) If the Apocalypse is to be divided between two authors, these ought to
show differences of language. This line of argument is avoided by Vischer, on
the ground that the original Jewish Apocalypse was written in Hebrew, and
that it was translated by the same hand that re-edited it and enlarged it, and
that therefore the words and phrases are the same. The only arguments for a
Hebrew original are the number of the beasi, which may be explained from
Hebrew letters, and the occurrence of Hebrew words with their Greek equiva-
lents in two instances. We cannot accept this avoidance of this line of argu-
ment as justifiable. If the greater part of the Apocalypse be a translation from
the Hebrew and the lesser part an original Greek composition, criticism ought
to be able to present sufficient evidence for it in differences in words and phrases.
A translator will, so far as possible, reproduce the words and phrases of the
original, and these will differ from his own favorite words and expressions. A
translation will also lack the ease and grace of an original. Vischer was bound
to justify his theory at this point and show the linguistic differences between the

THE NEW THEORY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

Ill

translation from the Hebrew and the Greek writing. In that he proposes the
theory ol translation as an explanation of the lack of linguistic differences, he
admits his inability to furnish the evidence required at this point. The theory
of a translation from the Hebrew seems to us to demand greater linguistic dif-
ferences than two Greek originals. Indeed, the words and phrases of the two
parts of the Apocalypse, as proposed by Vischer, are in remarkable agreement.
It will suffice to mention the rewards of the faithful in the Epistles to the seven
churches, assigned by Vischer to the Christian author, which recur in identical
words and phrases in the rewards of the blessed in chapters xx.-xxii. in the
parts assigned by Vischer to the Jewish author. This line of evidence of the
Higher Criticism counts against the new theory.

(2) The new theory was bound to show differences in style and methods of
compositioii between the two authors. This line of argument Vischer also
avoids. He attributes the Epistles to the seven churches to the Christian author
and the other groups of sevens to the Jewish author. If we compare these
groups we find that the method is the same. The groups are parallel. The first
group of seven does not present the appearance of a copy of the others. It is the
freshest, the most original and powerful of the groups, It is, indeed, the basis
for the explanation of the others. Its teachings pervade the Apocalypse more
than the teachings of any other groups. The other groups have their parallels
in the Jewish apocalypses. The first group is unique. This originality of the
first group and its correspondence in method with the other groups strongly
favor the view that the same author has made it the first and the basis of his
groups of sevens. Another striking characteristic of the style of the Apocalypse
is the frequent recurrence of little hymns. We have observed that half of these
hymns go with the supposed Jewish part and half with the supposed Christian
part, the latter being much the finer and stronger. This is a very singular result
of the analysis of Vischer, and it counts strongly against his theory. There is
no such difference of style and method between the two parts as the new theory
demands.

(3) Vischer does not present any differences in historical situatioti to justify
two different authors. We could hardly expect that the Jewish author and the
Christian editor and elaborator should be so near in time, that such differences
would not appear, especially in such a rapidly changing period as the last half
of the first Christian century. Harnack evidently saw this gap in the argument,
and tries to stop it. In his brief “ Nachwort ” he separates xvii. 11 from xvii.
9, 10. The latter he ascribes to the Jewish author who knew of but seven em-
perors, and who must have written in the year 68, just before the destruction of
Jerusalem. The former he ascribes to the Christian author who knew of eight
emperors, and was obliged therefore to add this verse in explanation. He must
have written in the reign of Domitian. Thus Harnack fixes the time of the com-
position of the two sections with remarkable precision. It seems to us that he
might have given his pupil this hint, and set him the task of inquiring whether
the two writings show any other traces of this difference of date. The world
could have waited a few months until Vischer had completed this line of investi-
gation. If Harnack and Vischer can prove this difference in date of the parts,
the theory will be accepted. But even Harnack can hardly expect that his in-
genious analysis and explanation of xvii. 9-1 1 should be accepted without con-
firmatory arguments. Many critics have studied the Apocalypse, and they differ
greatly as to its date. The older view made it date after the destruction of Jeru-
salem. But most modern critics think that it was written prior to the destruc-
tion of the city. If part of it were written before and part after, this ought to be
disclosed in more places than one, tor the destruction of Jerusalem was to Jew
and to Christian an event of immense importance. We have re-read the Apoca-

112

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

lypse in the light of this new theory and in view of Harnack’s opinion as to dif-
ference of date, and we have not been able to discern such a difference of his-
torical situation. Furthermore, the difference of date assigned by Harnack is
too short to explain the fascination of the Christian author with this supposed
Jewish apocalypse and his work in re-editing it, explaining it, and enlarging
it. The historical argument counts against the new theory, and Harnack's
attempt to overcome it only shows how greatly Vischer has sinned in neglecting
this field of inquiry.

(4) We have already intimated that there are many lines of connection be-
tween the Apocalypse and other writings, canonical and extra-canonical. These
lines need a thorough investigation, as Harnack states in his “ Nachwort.” This
would have been a profitable task for his pupil. His new theory required that
he should undertake it, for it presents evidence that has a great deal to do with
the validity of the theory. Thus the dependence of the Apocalypse upon the
Gospels of Matthew and Luke is clear, not only in the matter common to them,
but in the matter peculiar to each of them. This is especially the case in regard
1o the eschatological discourse of Jesus, which is to our mind the key to the
Apocalypse. This dependence is found not only in the so-called Jewish parts,
but also in the Christian parts. It is true that much of the common material in
the Jewish parts may be regarded as the common property of all the apocalypses,
as they are all alike based upon Old Testament prophecy. But even here a
careful comparison shows a much closer resemblance to the discourse of Jesus
than to the Jewish apocalypses. We are well aware that Vischer follows some
recent critics in the opinion that even the discourse of Jesus is the elaboration
of an earlier Jewish apocalypse. But the evidence for this is extremely slender,
and it can hardly be assumed with propriety in discussing the Apocalypse of
John. The Apocalypse of John and the discourse of Jesus agree in their pure
and genuine development of Old Testament prophecy, and they contain none of
those conceits and extravagances that are so characteristic ot the extra-canonical
apocalypses. The dependence of the Christian parts of the Apocalypse upon
the discourses of Jesus in the Synoptists is no less striking than in the Christian
parts, and this common dependence betrays a common original. How could
the supposed Jewish author be so dependent upon the words of Jesus ? It is
impossible to maintain the theory irom this point of view without the theory that
all the parts of the discourse of Jesus upon which the Jewish section of the
Apocalypse depends also belonged to a Jewish apocalypse. The relations to the
Jewish apocalypses in the so-called Jewish part are certainly very numerous,
but these do not indicate an earlier stage of composition than the Christian part.
If there is any argument here it rather reverses the chronological order, for
there are many features of resemblance with the apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch
which belong to the second Christian century. The argument from citation and
use of other writings counts against the new theory, so far as any evidence has
yet been presented on this subject.

(5) There remains but a single line of argument in favor of the new hypoth-
esis— namely, the argument from difference of doctrine. We admit that this
is ever the strongest line of evidence. But it must be very strong indeed to
overcome the arguments derived from the other lines ot evidence. Here is the
line of battle for the new theory. It will stand or fall here. Vischer separates
the Christian parts from the Jewish parts with little difficulty. With two or
three exceptions, we must admit that provided the theory be the true one, the
Christian parts are just where we should expect to find them. We also admit
that Vischer and Volter have both of them by their Higher Criticism rendered
great help to the Lower Criticism, and have indicated a number of passages
where the text should be amended by the removal of certain words or expres-

THE NEW THEORY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

113

sions that have crept into the text in the process of transmission. But these are
side issues, and do not determine the correctness of the theory. Vischer admits
that the Christian author has been very conservative in dealing with the Jewish
original. He found it suited to his purpose, and has given us almost all of it.
As Harnack says, a Christian who allowed vii. 1-8 and xi., xii. of the original
to stand, would not be likely to have stricken out much of it. He appropriated
the whole of it, and if there was anything in it inconsistent with the Christian
doctrine of the first and the second advents, he certainly did not see it.

But just here we must express our agreement with Volter in the opinion that
Vischer could not with propriety ignore the Introduction and Conclusion of the
Apocalypse as he has done. He assigns chapters i. — iii. to the Christian author,
without committing himself on the question, whether the introduction to the
Jewish original is not in part contained in chapter i. But this is important to
know. What shall we do with i. 7 ? It gives the text of the entire Apocalypse,
the theme that pervades the whole. It is derived from the words of Jesus in
Matthew. This would seem to force us to assign it to the Christian part, were
it not for the view of Vischer that a Jewish apocalypse is embraced in the words
of Jesus. If it belong to the Jewish author, how are we to explain the corre-
spondence with it in the parts assigned to the Christian author ? It presents
such a great difficulty in the way of the new theory, that it was unpardonable to
neglect it.

Furthermore, the title of the Apocalypse ought to have been explained. How
could the Christian author embrace a Jewish apocalypse and his own addi-
tions to it under the title 'At o/ca/li>i/vf ltjaov Xfuarov Ijv efiuKEV avru 6 1 Jsof delgai ~otg
rfou/loZf ai'-ov ? It was also necessary to consider xxii. 18, 19. Vischer assigns xxii.
6-21 in general to the Christian author, but leaves out of consideration the
objections that spring therefrom against his theory. Verses 18, 19 pronounce
a curse upon any one who adds to the book or takes from it. If this belonged
to the Jewish original, the Christian editor would hardly have retained this curse
upon him for everything that he had done. If they belong to the Christian
author, what sort of a conscience must he have had to pronounce a curse upon
any one else who should do with his work precisely what he himself had done
with the work of another ?

When now we compare the Jewish and Christian parts as analyzed by Vischer,
is there any such difference as to prove difference of authorship ? Vischer
claims that two entirely different views run along side by side in the Apocalypse,
the one essentially the same that we find in the Jewish apocalypses, the other
entirely Christian. And Harnack says that there are two pictures of the
Messiah, the one the Messiah of victory and judgment, whose birth is expected,
the other the Lamb who has already appeared and redeemed the nations by his
blood. Is there any such contrast as this ? We think not. We agree with
Volter, that after all the admittedly Christian elements have been removed, there
remains nothing that a Jewish Christian could not have written. There is no in-
consistency whatever between the two conceptions, any more than there is be-
tween Jewish and Christian in the compound Jewish Christian. We freely admit
all that is common between the Apocalypse of John and the Jewish apocalypses.
The common material is much greater than any one has as yet supposed. We
are not su prised that the early Christians esteemed many of the latter as inspired
writings. There is so much of genuine prophecy in them. It is true that they
are pseudonymes, but this does not in the least detract from their value. Those
pious enthusiasts who devoted themselves to the study of prophecy without the
aid of inspiration, yet followed the lines drawn by the Old Testament prophets,
and thus were able to reach many of the same conclusions that we find in the
inspired prophecy of the New Testament. We should not be surprised at this.

114

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

But granting all that can be fairly demanded in this regard, we find a simplicity,
a power, and a grandeur in the Apocalypse of John which exalts it above the
extra-canonical pseudepigraphs and ranges it with the Old Testament prophets,
with the discourses of Jesus and the Epistles of Peter and Paul. Even the
Jewish part as left by Vischer and Harnack transcends the apocalypses with
which they compare it so far that one would be surprised not to find the
Christian points, the Christian climax, the Christian consummation. It agrees
so far with the eschatology of Jesus, Peter, and Paul, that we expect it to agree
still more, and it is precisely this that we find in the Christian parts that have
been excluded. The Apocalypse is the work of a Jew who had become a Chris-
tian, of a man who had been saturated with Old Testament Prophecy, who knew
the pseudepigraphic apocalypses of his countrymen, and who yet had the higher
guidance of the word of Jesus and the inspiration of God. The Apocalypse of
John is thus the climax of the prophecy of the Old and New Testaments.

The citadel of the new theory is its exposition of chapters xi., xii. Chapter
xi. gives an account of the testimony of the two witnesses, their death, resurrec-
tion, and ascension. Vischer claims that the common Jewish opinion expected
Moses and Elias as precursors of the advent of the Messiah, and that the Chris-
tians did not have any such expectation with regard to the second advent. Elias
had already appeared — John the Baptist. This argument is plausible, and yet
not altogether convincing. It is true that we find this expectation in the Jewish
apocalypses. But it is more explicit in those of the second Christian century
than in the earlier ones, and is based more upon Persian theology than on the Old
Testament Prophets. It is true that these witnesses have striking resemblances
to Moses and Elias, and yet they are expressly identified with the lampstand and
olive-trees of Zechariah, which are in closer connection with the high-priest
Joshua and the prince Zerubbabel. These witnesses are, indeed, symbolic figures,
comprehending many biblical features, and they are not presented as precursors
of the advent at all. Vischer’s exposition of the passage is altogether false. Be-
sides, he insists upon a literal application of the city to the old Jerusalem, and is
obliged to erase “ rfjq p.eydXijg i/rig Ka/.elrat nrcvpariKuc; Xodopa nai' Atyvizrot; okov nai 6
Kvpioc avTtiv hravpAdr/,” which gives the Christian editor’s view of the city, and
brings out the symbolism in its heaping of epithets. He is also obliged to
erase the beautiful hymn in verses 17, 18. Those who decline Vischer’s inter-
pretation of the chapter will hardly agree with him in regarding it as the work
of a Jew who was looking forward to the first advent of the Messiah.

The real core of the problem, however, is in chapter xii., in the birth of the
Messiah of Mother Israel. Vischer and Harnack insist that the scope of the
Apocalypse limits it to future events, that a Christian author could not therefore
go back to the birth of Christ, that he could not ignore his life, his death, and
his resurrection, and limit himself to his birth and ascension, and represent the
latter as immediately following the former ; that chapter xii. is dependent upon
chapter xi., and that, therefore, the birth of the Messiah is announced by the
seventh and last trumpet. These arguments are extremely plausible, and taken
together they appear to be strong, but they rest upon certain presumptions that
are altogether false.

(a) This document, according to the theory, passed through the hands of a
Christian editor ; how could he have left the life, death, and resurrection of
Christ unmentioned ? He would have supplemented the Jewish original here,
as well as in other passages, if he had thought it necessary or important. If the
Christian editor did not find it difficult to omit these things, why should an
original Christian author have found difficulty ?

( b ) The scope of the Apocalypse is confined to the future, but that did not
prevent the author from seeking a basis in the past when it was necessary to

THE NEW THEORY OF THE APOCALYPSE.

115

explain the future. It seems to us that the Christian author was compelled
to refer to the birth of the Messiah, in order to explain his ascension, and to refer
to the ascension, in order to explain the conflict in heaven upon which the ex-
pulsion of the serpent from heaven and his persecution of the Church on earth
depended. But he does not dwell upon the birth and the interval to the ascen-
sion, for this very reason, that it was sufficiently well known to his readers, and
had nothing to do with his present purpose. It was sufficient to give the birth
and the ascension of the Messiah which included all the rest. It is not the method
of the Christian author in the supposed Christian parts to do more than make
very brief allusions here and there to the death of the Messiah. We find just
such a reference in verse 1 1 , but this is stricken out by the authors of the new
theory. According to this theory, the Christian editor ought to have written
more, or else less. To our mind the reference to the birth of the Messiah cor-
responds with the reference to the death of the Messiah, and is just what we
should expect of a Christian author of the entire chapter.

(c) The scope of the Apocalypse is to make the first advent merely incidental
to the second. The suffering Messiah is referred to only incidentally throughout
the Apocalypse. The reigning and judging Messiah fills the author’s mind.
The Epistles to the seven churches do not lay any less stress upon the Messiah
of Judgment than the other groups. They do not contain any more references
to the historical Messiah than the other sections. Taking the chapters as they
stand, the historical Messiah is less prominent in the Epistles of the seven
churches, which are supposed to be Christian, than in the second group, that is
supposed to be Jewish. The only way to overcome this conspicuous fact is to
strike out all references to the Lamb in the second group as editorial additions.
But the Lamb does not appear in the Epistles to the seven churches at all. He
first appears in the group of the seals, and if he is eliminated there who is to
take his place ? This forces to another conjecture, that the apviov is a mistake
for the Hebrew nx, which seems to us to be merely slipping out of a difficulty.

There is no such difference between the two figures of the Messiah as the new
theory claims. The differences do not appear where we ought to find them, and
these differences where they do appear are nothing more than the common New
Testament distinction between the suffering Messiah of the first advent, and the
victorious and judging Messiah of the second advent. The Jewish apocalypses
have the second, but Christian apocalypses have both.

The new theory does not bear serious examination. The principles of the
Higher Criticism are against it. It is a premature birth. If the authors had re-
tained itlonger for critical examination, they might possibly have strengthened it.
It is probable that they would have abandoned it. It will call to a fresh study
of the Apocalypse in its historical relations, and will therefore be of service to
Christian scholarship. But in its present form it certainly does little credit
to the critical judgment of Harnack, and impairs his reputation for scientific
criticism. C. A. Briggs. ,

New York City ,

VIII.

HISTORICAL NOTE.

THOMAS CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER TO ARTHUR HILDERSHAM
ON THE STUDY OF DIVINITY.

Thomas Cartwright was the father of Presbyterianism in England. He
has left many valuable printed works. There are also a number of ms.
writings of some importance in the British Museum and at Trinity College,
Dublin. We published one of these in Vol. VI. of this Review (pp. ioi sqq.)
The letter which we publish below I discovered in Trinity College Library,
Dublin, among the manuscripts of Archbishop Ussher. It is important for its
picture of the studies of a theological student in the latter part of the sixteenth
century. Arthur Hildersham was an eminent Puritan minister, the author of
not a few important works. He was a pupil of Cartwright. The letter is the
advice of a teacher to his pupil. The ms. is difficult to read, and is in parts
obscure. There are not a few quaint expressions and unusual uses of words, and
there are several words not to be found in the dictionaries, making the letter
interesting to philologians as well as to theologians. It was kindly copied and
afterward collated and annotated in proof for me by Mr. T. French, of Trinity
College, who has thereby earned the thanks of all who read the letter.

C. A. Briggs.

Thomas Cartwright' s letter to Mr. Hildershame for the Studye of Divinity e. — Ms.

C. 3.10 Trin : Coll : Dublin.

Grace and peace fro[m] God our father and from our lord Jesus Christ I see
not my brother wher in you have ned of my pardon my desertes are not such
towards ether you or the Church as could procure any obligation of a thanke-
full letter from you, much les cast you into forfiture for a foorestoed letter. As
for that wher in you make so earneste a sute unto me I confes that I in the
comon love wher with our Savior Christ hath loved us both and put us in trust
with the ministerie of his holy word you have intereste to require that at my
hand which for love sake you had rather thus bashfully to intreate for. If
ther be any fault with you it is that by a letter painfully and carfully written
you have as it were taken a longe journey to fetch water wher it is not to be
had, for though the lord hath in greate mercy exempted me from the number
of those cloudes which promising rayn throught ther lightnes wher by they are
scattered by the wind, yeeld no mosture at all, yet I must in the conscience of

CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER TO ARTHUR HILDERSHAM. 117

mine own weakenes confes that my lott lieth amongst those which doth teach
the simple and unlearned and as it were to furnish of somnecessarie moisture
the valles and low groundes contented with less raine, and not to be a teacher
of the teachers themselves, as one that were able with liberal and plentifull
showres to watter and make frutfull the hilles and mountaines : I see not
with standing what reply my profession in the universitie some tyme giveth you
against me, in this behalfe. But I think you se also how the lords speedie
displacing me from thence was a warning unto me to make my provision for a
lower place wherby it is easie for you to understand that the thing which
semeth of some difficultye unto you semeth tharderunlo me wher in I my selfe
would be glad ether to learne of him that would teach me or to learne with
him that is desirous to confer with me. I confes I have ben longe upon the
waye but goeing as it were in the night tyme without any light of order or
method which you seke for what’direction can I give to them that shall aske
the way of me. besides that it pleaseth the lord so to dispose of me that I am
fitter to tell you the way from one towne to another cittie, and frome countrie
to an other kingdome then to re solv you of your demand and tho I write to
you is not as though 1 ment by a longer day taken to get some advantage to
over come the difficultie to the which as to a thing above my reach I never
stretched forth my hand, but rather that when by silence I saw my selfe like to
com into suspition ether of inhability or arrogancy I might by confession of
the les avoyed the greater, as that which will stricke deep into my ministrarie
for the rest I am well contented that there be that opinion of my skil which
removing me from the highest forme of^the learnedest and exquiste teachers
leveth me yet a place amongst those that may use some frutefull labour in the
lords worke howbeit not fearing but that through my long silence I have
driven you to enquire of som skillfuller guide I may now with les danger of
hindering your good speed write in few wordes unto you what I think in this
matter, for wherein I agree with your lords man you should in a fuller per-
swasion of being in the right way travell with better courage and wher I shall
mislead you, your direction shalbe at hand to keep you from danger of wan-
dering. And this I doubt not wilbe agreed betwen us that the studye of the
scripture it selfe which for some yeares as you write hath worthyly shut forth
the studie of all bye writers that profes ther attendance upon, it shal kep his
prehemnence stille that the studie of no other writter how frutfull soever shal
shut forth som daily reading and meditation therin. for whether soever you
goe out of the Paradice of the holie Scriptures you shall in the best groundes
met with thornes and thistils of which you are in danger to be pricked yf you
carre not the forest bil of the lords word wher 'with to stub them and grub
up, nether is ther any so free from evil eares when you go from the holsome
and sweet brethes of the lord garden wher you are not in som peril of infection
unles by som forereceit of the words next your hart, (as y4 were) you stop the
plage against it. Now the Bible being continually to be studied it may be
dubted whether the old or new testament is principally to be laboured in : that
for being the foundation of thother, and of greater capacite of doctrine to the

118

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

decidinge of all maner of controversies ; or this for the plainess and light of
those pointes which are of greater use in Christian religion : for me I think
and (s/c) equal study of them is comended unto us not only by the things
wher in the resemble ech other but also by thos thinges wher by they are one,
most unlike unto an other Therfore it is not amiss so to carrie our selves towards
them that as they are the tow bresles alike melche so they may be also drawen
alike coures by coures, and one after another : And as the studie of them all
is to be preferred before all others so I would esteme it there are some bokes
of them which require oftener and more attentive reading then other som
more speciall attendance then other ether for ther necessary and genrall use,
or els [which] ther difficultie may more justly procure them. In the first kind
are the bookes of Moses and especially the booke of Deut. the fountayne of the
rest of the Scripture and wherewith all the prophate after Moses even the last of
the Apostles themselves have watered ther gardens The bookes of Joshua which
even in that part of it which seemeth to be of the lest frute is very frntfull as
that which is the Topography almost of the whol bible next unto it foloweth
the storres which bring a singulor light unto the profetes by comparison of the
state and goverment of every tim with the exhortations and rebukeinges of the
prophetes that prophecied in the same and especially of that gover ment toward
the which the prophet was by calling more particularly directed as to Juda
sometimes and sometymes to Israeli wher the bookes of the Kinges serve the
prophetes which executed their minesteiie unto the Captivitie : Esdras and
Nehemiah carrie the torch unto those which wer after, the bookes of the
Cronicles particularly with the prophetes of both tymes. Among those which
for their difficulite (s/c) require more attention and which will not so easely be
acquainted with unles they have more suit mad unto them, some are hard for
the matter which they handle as are the bookes of Daniel Ezekiel Zacharias, or
throng of much matter in few wordes as are in the old testament the poetical
bookes wherin (no doubt the versses hath caused some cloude.

And amongst them the proverbes from the io chapter which besides the
difficultie that the poesye drawethe withal even by little professe some farther
obscuritie unto thes may be aded the prophecy of Hoseas which semeth to cary
a sma[t]ch of his old age in the shortnes of his speche applied as much as
might be to the measure of his breath where of ther semeth also to be some
steppes in Ecclesiastes written in Salomon’s later dayes. I suppose also amongst
those ther is some further degree of paines to be taken in everie one of them as
they are of longer receit of doctrine then ther fellowes. In which number
I account the bookes of the psalmes the proverbes and the epistal to the
Romanes. And although it be long or ever a man can fall into any familiar
acquintance with them yet are they not like the proud and quov dances which
contemne their sutores as those that beinge written in the spirit of humblenes
be open to them that seeke to them in the same spirit, And albeit they speak
somwhere as it were but halfe a word, yet being much about them and accus-
tomded often to talke with them, wee shall as the hand mayds which giv their
continuall attendance upon their mistris even by a beck understand their mean-

CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER TO ARTHUR HILDERSHAM. 119

inge. But if the tyme seem longer or ever they take us in* * * § as it were to their
privite chambers the fruite of theirf neare acquaintance is so ritch as will easilie
recompence all our travel and attendance. In the writteres which have digged
to discover this treasure unto us, howsoever other have digged deeper and with
more knowledge of this golden minerall then other som : yet when you re-
member the de[e]Jpes and heights of thother ; when you remember that the
foote of no living thing hath troden upon it : nor any bird soer it never so highe,
and have it never so quicke an eye hath sein y4 it will not be needfull to put you
in remembrance of the saying of our Savior Christ that you take no man to be
your father or Rabie§ heer upon the earth, nor that you bind your judgment
in these thinges as it wer apprentice to any man, nor to suffer your eare to be
naylled to the door of any mans private interpretation considering that the privi-
lege belongeth only to the holy men of god which spake and wrote by the
holy Spirit of god and whom god hath given to be his publicke notaries and
recorders of his good pleasure as whom he did sitt by and as it wer continually
held their handes whiles they were writing. As touching thordere of reading
them : I thinke the newe writeres are to be red before thold for that we under-
standing by them what sutes thes are depending betwene us and oure adver-
saries of all sortes, we my both the better know what evidence is layd up in
the monumentes of thold writeres ether for us or them and make our note
acordingly : likewise the freindes and favoreres unto the truth are to be red be-
fore thadversaries to thend that our vessels being fore seasoned with the truth
thother corrupt lickores may be so contayned in us as they may not by cleav-
ing to us hurt us : which admonition hath the princepal use in the new writeres
the falshood of thold being for the most part laid forth together with their con-
futations. And every part of these in their severall times to be red with obser-
vation of the tymes wher in they wrote. In the writeres of both times neue and
old wher som labour the knowledge of the word by interpretation of it either
generally by commentary comonplace wise or perticularly in confirming or
confuting certaine special pointes which the circumstance (?) of tyme giveth
occasion of, other som comitt to memorie ether the persons or thinges that
are of anie speciall note in the Church. I esteme that these later wch story
the Church matters are first to be red according to ther times that is the later
stores before the|| other later writers and thauncient stories before the ancie[n]ter
writers wher of the reason is apparant ynaigh that the stories may be well un-
derstood without the other writers wher they cannot be understood without the
stories, now in what choise and in what order they ought to be red which are
generall of the whol churches and which are particular I remember ther is a very
profitabl treatise written by John Phrigius unto the which I would think y4
you might resort for your better dirrection I would also esteeme that the

* This word is written above the line by a later hand,

f The word is “ the ” with “ ir ” added above by a later hand.

f This e is added above in a later hand.

§ Thus in original hand ; a later has put a second b above and struck out the final e.

| || In a different hand.

120

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

comentaries should be red before the other workes for that by them the holy
Scrip[ture] from whence al sound knowledg is drawen to judge of al doct[rine]
is made more familiar unto us, and also for that they having their the rule
befor their eyes to drawe a right interpretation by they are like to square it out
better then when they did not so directly and so norowly looke therunto wch I
understand especially of the nue and old greek writers, who as they were
inferiuer to the latines in the soundnes of certen doctrines so seme they much
more religuous and simple in commentinge uppon the Scripture then they whose
commentaries for the most part, I would think a man might without any
great hindrance spare the reading of farther then upon particular ocasion, heer
and ther. And in this part, if it were to me I would content myself amonge
the newe writeres with Mr. Calvin who performeth of all other y‘ that other
wher he of him self profeseth, that a man in reading his expositiones taketh this
bennfit, that for the shortnes he useth he departeth [not] far from reading of the
text it self. Although I would also for exxcellent lerning read Oecolanpadius
likewise for singular and much reading Mr Martyr saving that (as) his comen-
taries are rather comon places then comentaries so are they by Monnseir de
la Fountone very fietly as it wer marshalled in their proper place, and theirfore
amongst the comon places to be red. Amongst the Greekes I hold Chrysastom
to have the crown of all, who besides his interpretation is another Apollos and
furnished the pulpit better then any that I remember to have red. Next unto
the contraries [commentaries] followe the comon places wher in the whole
bodie of the doctrine ol the gospell is professed to be taught that seeing the
knitting and joyning of one part with an other wee might be the beter able
to iudge of them when they are by treateses a part dismembred and severed
one from another, and also the easier discover al macching them with such as
they have no nyghtbourhood or correspondence with, heer you are not igno-
rant what place is given to Calvins institution to Mr. beza his confestions Me-
lancsttions comon places Amongst the Adversaries after the master of the
sentences and Aquinas Hosaus Canisius seem to carrind [? have carried] the
bell In the rest of the writinges I thinke the coficels and canons have the
first place as those which* being mad with greater assistance carrie the most
creadit with them wher with all understand thelder they are the farther they are
from coruption which notwithstanding is not alwaies so in the ancient writers
apart, especially if these be ther workes which are fathered of them howbeit for
the greeke fathers they seme all worthie the reading for the traces of greeat
learning which are to be seen in them so far as I have red of them even ther
wher the some [? sum] of divinitie of many leves may be brought into a few
pages, yet is Gregorye Nazianzen for his profound knowledge sur named the
devine & for the latine doctores Tertillian howsoever towards the later end he
stained him selfe : yet his adge and the greate readinge he was of maintained
his credit so in the church that Cypriain asking for his workes would call for his
master Cypriain also for his singular pielie hath ben alwayes reverenced and

* Above in later hand.

CARTWRIGHT’S LETTER TO ARTHUR HILDERSHAM. 121

ought so much more to be amiable as he with the whole Affrican mi[ni]sterie
both be fore and after kept more steppes of the Aposlilick disceplin then the
other Bishopes did wher uppon the doctrin also (so long as they keept them-
selves free from the heresies of their time) was pur[er] then the other were
Hilares bookes of they trintie are very wel written In Ambrose Augustin and
Jerom their epistles those especially that are not base born seen [? seem] to be
amongst the flowre of the works But Ambrose and especially Austin in their
warlike writinges as they are termed are saving in a point of Baptisme against the
pelagian at gretest peace with the truth yet now I remember Austins bookes de
civitate dei are of al other thevident seales of his learning and especially of his
much reding contra wise Jerom with his heat is osted out of his thinges* and
declareth how true it is that anger worketh not the wil of god and therfore is
to be taken heed of especially when hee hath an adversarie conserning the
newe writers. I need say no farther considering that herin you may gather
what I thinke by my Judgment of their comentaries and comon places suing
that Luther both for his noble service in the worke of the Gospel as also for
the pregnancie of his witt shold not be passed bye for other faihous [famous]
men of our time as Bucer and Calvin hath in a maner taken that wch is the
fattest in them as I thinke Mr Colvon himselfe somewhere confesseth and
therfore need not so much but by occation to be red and none of this also
need but that it mor nedfull for me to yeldf to your honest request in answer-
ing somthing then profittable for you not receving that which you wer in
hope of And it is so litell that If Mr Fild had in your behalfe pressed it out I
suppose I should have taken further day of writing any thinge in this matter
therfore I desire that it may remain with you as a letter [] manj in the
secrecie of your own bosom or eles let it smel of the fire that you can read my
good affecction it is enoughe I crave no favor for it and as with my hartie
comendations unto you I comend your and yor godly stuidies to the gracious
both direction and blessing of the lord our God in Jesus our Savior I pray you
commend me harttily to Romolds and all other the godly bretheren to whom you
thinke my comendations wilbe gretefull.

Your most lovinge frend,

Tho. Cartwright.

* The word originally was “ livinges.” This is stroked out, and the word “ thinges”
written in the same hand.

f It was first hold and the h was corrected to y.

X The letters man are most distinct, but the first part of the word is not readable. I
think, however, it was intended for ‘‘ remain” mentioned just before.

IX.

EDITORIAL NOTES.

THE ALLIANCE OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES.

The next council of this body will be held in London from the third to the
twelfth of July the present year, and the executive commission, appointed to
act in the interim, has been actively engaged, in both its sections, the British
and the American, in making provision for the meeting. The services are
to be held in Exeter Hall, a building which by virtue of its numerous apart-
ments, its reading-room and restaurant, as well as its large place of assembly,
all under one roof, is well fitted for such a conference. The attendance, it is
thought, will be large, and the arrangements, modified in view of former ex-
periences, will be such as to give more room for debate, and allow a more
general expression of opinion on the subjects brought before the body. Hence
there is reason to anticipate more direct and practical results than followed
from the Councils of Edinburgh (1877), or Philadelphia (1880), or even Bel-
fast (1884). Indeed, it would be strange were the case otherwise, for in all
such matters much of the first work done can be only provisional and tenta-
tive. It requires time to bring counsel as well as action to maturity.

The Alliance may well awaken the attention and interest of all in any way
connected with any of the bodies represented in it. Its usefulness can hardly
be overrated, while, as it neither claims nor desires any legislative power, there
seems to be no reason for apprehending any danger from it. It is a great
matter that already through its agency the different branches of the Reformed,
holding the Presbyterian system, so widely scattered through the four quarters
of the globe, have become aware of each other's existence and character and
situation. Plitherto such knowledge was confined to a few, and even by them
was not very distinctly held ; but now the presence of living representatives
from each of these bodies, furnishing fresh and authentic evidence of their
faith as formulated, their position, their aims, and their works, has given a
mighty impulse to the sense of Christian fellowship in the larger communions
represented, and at the same time imparted no small encouragement and stim-
ulus to those of smaller size. Not a few ministers and a multitude of laymen
have been surprised to learn that there are on the globe sixty-six different
churches, all of which claim a title to the historic name Reformed, and main-
tain the parity of the ministry. These, of course, represent many races and
employ various languages, but they are practically one in symbols and in polity.

THE ALLIANCE OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES. 128

The Alliance "also promotes the true idea of the unity of the spirit in the
bond of peace, which is what is really desirable among the followers of Christ.

It wastes no time or effort upon questions of organic union, with the agitations
and heart-burnings which such questions engender, but seeks simply recognition,
fellowship, co-operation, and sympathy. Nor is this merely talk. Words that
are nothing but words rarely amount to much. The words of the Alliance
have a direct practical aim. This is to canvass all points of common interest,
to gather useful information, to compare methods, to bring to light the pecul-
iar experiences of each body, so that thus a solid basis may be laid for legisla-
tive action by those to whom such action belongs. The very fact that a Council
does not pretend to exercise authority, but confines itself rigidly to recommen-
dations, and is even somewhat chary of these, gives the largest liberty of speech,
and ensures a free interchange of opinion. And this consulting together on
great subjects — for there is no room for small and narrow themes — greatly pro-
motes the feeling of unity by accustoming all parties to dwell more upon the
points in which they are agreed than upon those in which they differ. How-
ever opinions may vary upon certain topics, the underlying conviction becomes
yet stronger that all the Reformed are essentially one, and that this fact should
be emphasized and brought conspicuously to the front on every proper occasion.

The usefulness of the Alliance has been signally illustrated in the matter of
co operation in Foreign Missions. This subject has been before every coun-
cil ; it has been considered by large and influential committees ; it has been
matured in formal papers and reports ; and already the blessed fruits have be-
gun to appear. This does not mean that the missionaries themselves have been
thus influenced. They did not need it. A true servant of Christ when face to
face with a hoary and gigantic pagan system is ready to join any other servant
of the common Master. The mischiefs of divided counsels in such a conflict
are so apparent that, with or without instructions from home, all on the field
are prompt to work together just as far as they possibly can. It is, or rather
has been, different in this country. Many undoubted friends of the cause
cherished misgivings as to the result of any closer union than what already ex-
isted. Here the discussions, reports, and communications of the Councils
have been of great service. The fact of their undenominational origin gave
them access to the attention, the respect, and the confidence of thinking men.
The result has been a great and widespread change of opinion. It is generally
agreed that the various branches of the Reformed should have but one church .
in a heathen land, and that this church should have its autonomy, its own
ministry, its own symbols, and should develop in accordance with its soil,
climate, and people under the leadings of Providence. Hence the extraordi-
nary action of the missionaries in Japan, taking such a huge step in advance of
all that had hitherto been contemplated as to union, met with a hearty recep-
tion from all the parties concerned ; and it is now regarded as a settled thing,
and one that is to furnish a pattern that is at least to be aimed at in all other
similar fields. This result, this prompt response of the Church at home to the
Church abroad, seems to be largely due to the influence of the calm, patient,

124

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

wise, and fraternal deliberations set on foot and maintained from year to year
by the Alliance.

Apprehensions have been felt and sometimes expressed that there is danger
to doctrinal soundness, because some of the bodies represented in the Alliance
have diverged somewhat from the doctrines of grace which have always con-
stituted the distinguishing and glorious feature of the Reformed. The correct-
ness of the fact alleged it is not proper or needful to canvass here. But even if
the fact be admitted, it may be urged that so many of the larger bodies hold fast
with such an unrelaxing grasp the time-honored inheritance from Paul and
Augustine that one may much rather expect that their quiet influence will tend
to bring the others into line with themselves than that the masculine theology
of the Reformation should be in any degree weakened or compromised. There
may be, doubtless there will be, improved modes of statement ; but for sub-
stance of doctrine the faith of the fathers will prove as immovable as the eternal
Rock upon which it was founded.

Once more, the Alliance is in harmony with the spirit of the age, which is
very far from being in this respect the same with the Zeit-geist of Rationalism.
The marked tendency of the present generation is for all assimilated churches
to draw more closely together. This is seen in the Pan-Anglican Synods held
at Lambeth and in the CEcumenical Conferences of Methodism, the first of
which was held at London in 1 88 1, and the second it is proposed to hold in
1891 at some point in this country. These movements are wise in themselves,
as promoting strength, courage, and fellowship in the several constituencies,
and of happy omen in furthering the arrival of the day when the different
branches of Protestant Christendom, while allowing for each other's peculiari-
ties, can yet so arrange their action as to present a common front to the foe, and
also avoid friction, intrusion, and waste in their endeavors to occupy their own
country and other lands for Christ. And surely such a result must be a pleas-
ing subject of contemplation to every pious heart, and one therefore to which
all true followers of our Lord will wish a hearty God speed. What has been
done in the last thirty years warrants bright hopes for the future.

T. W. Chambers.

New York City.

UNION ON THE MISSION FIELD.

A strong Union sentiment prevails at the present time in nearly all Protestant
churches, and has borne valuable fruit, especially among Presbyterians and
Methodists. We can point to several auspicious unions already accomplished,
and it has been clearly demonstrated that churches with an honorable history
may cease to have separate existence, and yet the cause of Christ gain rather
than lose thereby. The progress and the happy effects of Union have been
well illustrated in the United States and the British Colonies ; and while equal
results have not yet been achieved in Britain itself, the Union forces are obvi-
ously working toward happy consummations.

UNION ON THE MISSION FIELD.

125

It were impossible that the spirit of Union should be strong enough to ac-
complish what we have witnessed in the Home Churches without the question
of Co-operation and Union on the Foreign Mission Field coming forward for
earnest consideration. Missionaries, almost without exception, are advocates
of Union ; and in no part of the Church’s work do our divisions seem more
reproachful than in our efforts to overthrow false religions, and rescue men
from the terrible moral degradation of heathenism.

The subject of Co-operation and Union in the Foreign Missions of the Re-
formed Churches came before the first General Council of the Alliance, which
met in Edinburgh in 1877. At the two subsequent meetings of the Alliance
it was carefully considered, and a real impulse was given to the good cause.
Men’s hearts were warmed and expanded with the consciousness of a wider
brotherhood, and powerful words were spoken in favor of Union both at home
and abroad. Steps were taken to ascertain the views of the churches in the
Alliance on Union and Co-operation in Foreign Missions, as well as upon
some other related matters. With not an exception these churches reply in
favor of co-operation, and with hardly an exception in favor of organic Union
of Mission Churches in countries occupied by churches of the Presbyterian
order. This general reference to the history of the question must here suffice,
but every friend of Union will regard the situation with thankfulness and
hopefulness.

Union, as we here speak of it, has reference to native churches raised up by
different denominations of Presbyterians on the same Mission field ; and the
question is, Should these work separately on the foreign field, each Church
claiming its own converts and organizing them apart, or, should missionaries
of the several churches work together and build up one Mission Church, as in
Japan ?

There are, of course, fields occupied by churches, British and American,
which are remote from other missions, as in some parts of India. In relation
to such fields the question of Union may in the mean time be of less practical
importance ; but there are other fields where several churches are operating,
with stations intermingled or contiguous. In such instances weighty argu-
ments can be urged on behalf of Union, and not very much that is entitled to
serious consideration can, we respectfully think, be said on the other side.

1. The duty of practising economy in the expenditure of missionary resources
is a reason for Union. The churches should, of course, send forth more men
and contribute more money than they are doing at present. But no increase
of agents or of funds could justify the want of economy in the use of them.
We are bound to employ to the utmost advantage the means and instruments
with which the Lord has entrusted us. In working separately, whatever care
may be taken to avoid collision, and even to render acts of mutual courtesy
and helpfulness, greater expenditure would be necessary in carrying on our
operations. Our experience of Union and of Disunion on the home field
amply illustrates and enforces this consideration. Every one knows cases in
which our home Unions have enabled us to work more economically, and,

126

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

without diminution of efficiency, to devote to new objects funds which were
saved at certain points.

Should it be replied that this argument goes further than the application of
it here made, and would sanction still more extensive Union in home work, we
shall not maintain the opposite, nor regard the argument as the less sound on
this account. There may, however, be especial difficulties, historical and
otherwise, which stand in the way of Union at home ; these do not exist in
the foreign field, and need not be imported ; so that there is little to detract
from the force of the argument here presented for Union in Mission work.
Let us do for our Lord the most we can with all that is committed to our
stewardship.

2. There is obvious advantage in placing the Christian religion before the
nations free from our divisions. Division and separate interest on the part of
those who are presenting a new faith will naturally be more or less a hindrance
and stumbling-block in the way of those whom we would win for Christ.
Though denominations of Christians do seldom, if ever, oppose each other on
the Mission field, their presence side by side, with distinct organization, cannot
commend the common faith to those who are totally ignorant of it. We know
too well the use which the Church of Rome makes of Protestant divisions.
Rome says : “ Agree among yourselves what the true faith precisely is, and
then offer to us the religion for which you wish us to exchange our own.
There may be nothing in this objection to Protestantism, but it is often urged
with too good effect. Heathenism is not always as subtle as Popery, and in
the absence of conflict among missionaries, little attention may be called to the
fact of our churches working separately ; but we do know that, in some in-
stances, our divisions are cited against us, and the very argument of Romanism,
with all its exaggeration of our diversities, employed by heathen against the
Gospel. Now we should, as far as possible, keep this weapon out of the hand
of the enemy ; and in the encounter with the terrible forces of paganism the
Christian religion should not unnecessarily be placed under any disadvantage.

3. Union on the Mission Field would tend to cheer and encourage our mis-
sionaries. As a class, missionaries are pre-eminently advocates of Union. We
see the instinct of the missionary in the conventions for counsel and sympathy
which are held from time to time, as in India. But in complete Union op-
portunity of sympathetic and helpful conference would be still better provided.
Those who have felt the joy of Union at home can well understand how breth-
ren far from home, and continually in presence of a dismal and depressing
heathenism, need that joy, and would value it even more than we can.

4. In some instances the churches which work side by side on the foreign
field are different churches simply because their headquarters are in different
countries ; they are so near each other in everything of consequence that they
would not be separate were they in the same country. Were the adherents of
the Church of Scotland, or the Free Church of Scotland, or the United Presby-
terian Church of Scotland transported in a body to the United States of America,
would they not unite with the churches on this side the ocean rather than set

UNION ON THE MISSION FIELD.

127

up another Church ? Why, then, should churches almost identical seek to
establish separate churches in India or China ? As long as these Mission
Churches are locally distant from each other there may be no serious evil ; but
as they expand and approximate in the great countries, the semblance of reason
for separation would disappear. Whether separation can be fully justified, even
at present, seems doubtful.

We do not know any satisfactory answer to these reasons for Union. It has
been said that union in Mission work would prevent us from teaching our dis-
tinctive principles, and that the Truth would thus suffer. If the Reformed
Churches are bound so to propagate their peculiarities on the Mission field as
to forbid their working together and uniting their converts in one Church,
nothing more can be said. Very reluctantly, it seems to us, should churches
at one in all the doctrines of the Gospel, and substantially at one in their
polity, come to this conclusion. In this large agreement we surely find an
adequate basis for the fellowship of those, at least, who have just been turned
from idols to serve the living God.

We are supposing that the churches in question are evangelical, and are
really teaching the great Gospel truths. Should they, then, from the first in-
doctrinate converts in their distinctive principles or differences, and count these
so important that, in presence of heathenism, they must organize separately for
the maintenance and diffusion of these principles ? Holding it indisputable
that every man should be absolutely faithful to his convictions, and should seek
even in less momentous things to have truth prevail, we must yet say No. We
cannot here consider whether such differences as those in question — differences
as to the relations of the civil and the ecclesiastical, as to details of worship and
of administration, etc. — justify separation at home ; for even if they do, it does
not follow that Mission Churches should be organized apart on these grounds.
We have no hard thing to say of brethren who think otherwise ; we can only
pray that the Spirit may be so poured out upon churches at home, and upon
their work abroad, that all hindrances to the evangelization of the world which
come out of our divisions shall speedily and utterly vanish away.

Another objection to Union on the Mission field is, that our people would
be less interested in foreign work, and would less zealously support it, were
we not in a position to point to the distinct and separate results accomplished
by their own branch of the Church. But we refuse to think so poorly of the
piety of our churches as to imagine that any great importance would be at-
tached to this consideration. If Christ is honored in the entire work, is not
that sufficient to stimulate the zeal of his loyal followers ? Besides, we should
no more be ignorant of what is achieved in a united mission by the labors of
the missionaries sent by our own Church than we are ignorant of the prosperity
accorded to this or that congregation, through the labors of this or that servant
of Christ, in the Church at home. Let us not lean too much upon “ the
flesh.”

Nothing is here said about the missions of Churches not Presbyterian. If
divisions must exist on the Mission field as on the home field, there are plenty

128

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of them, though our Presbyterian Churches should work together. The time
for advantageously considering the question of wider Union may not yet have
come. Organic union with non- Presbyterian Churches may not be prac-
ticable, though in regard to these our churches will bid them God speed, will
avoid all collision with them, and will study helpfulness and co-operation in
all legitimate ways.

William Caven.

Toronto.

THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

By appointment of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in the
United States of America, the One Hundredth General Assembly will be held,
with special services, in the city of Philadelphia, on the third Thursday of May,
1888, and the year closing at that time will be devoted to the preparation of
historical papers in connection with the several Synods, Presbyteries, and the
numerous congregations of the Church, and especially to efforts for the endow-
ment of the great literary, benevolent, and missionary institutions of the
Church.

By special invitation the Southern Presbyterian Church was invited to share
in the services of commemoration. It has accepted the invitation, and joint
exercises are to be held. In our opinion a grave blunder was committed in
neglecting to invite the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, which also has a
common interest with us in the General Assembly of 1788, from which it is no
less a legitimate descendant than the two churches that have resolved to meet
together. The Cumberland Presbyterian Church will be greatly missed by a
large section of our Church, and their absence will mar the commemoration.

It is eminently fitting that this occasion should be used for a thank-offering,
and that this thank-offering should be devoted to the endowment of the great
interests of the Church. It is also a wise policy for the Centennial Committee
to limit their special efforts to the raising of one million dollars for the endow-
ment of the Board of Ministerial Relief. The most serious defect of our
American Presbyterianism is its neglect of its own ministry. The Church needs
very greatly a scheme of sustentation that will provide a method by which the
feeble churches may be aided by those that are wealthy or in comfortable cir-
cumstances. The scheme that was zealously presented some years ago was not
sufficiently adapted to the conditions of our country ; it was too closely mod-
elled after the method of the Free Church of Scotland, and therefore has been
a failure. But this failure ought to teach us lessons that will make a second
attempt a great success. The One Hundredth General Assembly could do no
better work than to undertake such a task. In the meanwhile the Board of
Relief should be handsomely endowed. It would be better that they should
receive two million dollars than the one million that has been proposed.
Nothing should be done by any other institution to withdraw attention from
this scheme, in which all ministers are deeply interested.

THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 129

The chief interest in the One Hundredth Assembly is historical. It gives an
opportunity for a review of one hundred years of the history of American
Presbyterianism. This century is not so interesting or eventful to the student
of history as the previous century, in which American Presbyterianism was
founded and shaped by the heroes of our Church ; but it has its own peculiar
features of interest. We propose to give some reflections upon the history,
and draw some lessons therefrom.

One of the first things to attract attention is the great increase of the Church.
In 1788 there were 16 Presbyteries, 177 ministers, and 419 churches. These

have increased,

according to the Minutes of 1887, to

Presbyteries.

Ministers.

Churches.

201

5.654

6,436

Presbyterian Church in U. S. A.

1,116

2,236

Presbyterian Church in U. S.

119

1,563

2,540

Cumberland Presbyterian Church.

389

8,333

11,212

Total.

This seems

to be a

very flattering

increase, and yet when we compare

with the marvellous increase of the population of the country, and the vastly
greater increase of the Baptist and Methodist-Episcopal Churches, we are con-
strained to inquire why American Presbyterianism has allowed itself to fall so
far behind these other denominations and its own splendid opportunities.
There can be no doubt that at the close of the previous century Presbyterian-
ism was the dominant factor in the religious life of the Middle States, as Con-
gregationalism had the control of New England. But Presbyterianism and
Congregationalism have both lost their supremacy in this country.

This failure on the part of these two great Puritan bodies which shaped the
early history of the United States and influenced to so great an extent their
political constitution is due, in my judgment, chiefly to two reasons : (1) The
inadequate supply of educated ministers and (2) the expenditure of strength
in unprofitable doctrinal controversies.

It is a marked feature of American Presbyterianism that it has never been
able to supply a sufficient number of educated ministers. All through the
eighteenth century repeated appeals were made to the Presbyterian Churches of
Great Britain for ministers ; and although a considerable supply was received
from these sources, it was altogether inadequate. The Log College was erected
by the Tennents to supply this defect ; but unfortunately it became the occa-
sion of strife and division. A considerable party in the Presbyterian Church
have always been willing rather to let the outlying districts suffer from a lack
of ministers and go without the Gospel, than to give them a ministry without a
full education. The consequences of this policy have been disclosed in the
history of the American Churches. During the separation between the Old
and New side, the side that insisted upon no preaching except by an educated
ministry gained only four ministers during the period of separation, while the
side that pursued a more liberal policy made the most rapid advance that has
ever been made in the history of American Presbyterianism, increasing from
9

130

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

20 ministers to 72. Nor did it neglect to educate its ministers, for it estab-
lished the College of New Jersey, which has been a fountain of blessing to
American Presbyterianism throughout its history. Within the present century
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church separated for similar reasons, and its
rapid increase in the first half of the century was due to the same cause. The
fields belonging by historic right and by the class of emigrants to the Presby-
terian and Congregational Churches, but which they could not supply with an
educated ministry, and refused to supply with an uneducated ministry, were at
once occupied by the Baptists and Methodists, and these denominations reaped
the fruits of their wise policy and self-sacrificing zeal.

I would be the last one to advocate an uneducated ministry, or to lower in
any degree the requirements of our standards and of our customs for ministerial
education. Our theological education ought to be still further advanced, and
more should be required of theological students rather than less. But I am
convinced that it is of the first importance that the simple Gospel of Christ
should be preached to the people, and that this must be accomplished in the
best way that is practicable. If we cannot find a sufficient number of educated
ministers, we should not hesitate to use pious men who are less well equipped
for their work. It is evident that if the Presbyterian Church had adhered to
the policy of the Tennents. it would have retained its mastery over this country.
When the Reunited Church departed from that policy it forfeited its great
empire, and gave it into the hands of the Methodists and the Baptists.

Any one who will examine the Minutes of our General Assembly will be
convinced that the American Presbyterian Church is unable at the present time
to educate a sufficient number of ministers. If the supply of ministers and the
preaching of the Gospel in our own churches depended upon the ministers
educated in our own theological seminaries, the Church would be in a wretched
condition. During the past year 188 young men were ordained to the min-
istry, and 88 ordained ministers were received from other denominations. It
is true that 38 ministers were dismissed to other denominations, but this leaves
a gain of 50 to us. During the past six years our church has received from
other denominations 441 ordained ministers, and ordained only 937. The
Minutes of 1887 show a loss by death of 130 ministers and a gain in churches
of 155, and ministers of 108. The graduates from all our seminaries were
194. Many of these graduates belong to other denominations, who attend
Presbyterian theological seminaries on account of the well-known thorough-
ness of their theological instruction. It is evident that our seminaries do very
little more than supply the places of the dead. There ought to be at least 150
more students in our theological seminaries at the present time to supply the
needs of the Church, if it do not grow. But taking into consideration the
sure growth of the Church ere these young men can complete tljeir studies, it
is clear that the supply of theological students in our seminaries is 200 less
than it ought to be. 1 grant that there are serious objections to the present
methods of giving aid to students in their preparation for the ministry. If any
better methods can be adopted, we should not hesitate to use them. But it

THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

131

ought to be evident to any one who takes a survey of the entire field, that it is
the interest of the Church to aid the young men to complete their studies as
soon as possible, so that their services as effective ministers may be secured.
The two, three, or four years added to the time of preparation by the necessi-
ties of self-support would doubtless in some respects be better for the ministers ;
but, in fact, the Church cannot afford to do without their services for these
years, and in its own interest must help them to rapidly complete their studies
and go forth into the mission field. The One Hundredth Assembly would do
well to appoint a committee to consider this whole subject.

The other cause for the failure of American Presbyterianism in reaching its
ideal and maintaining its supremacy has been the conflict about doctrines. It
is now commonly conceded that these conflicts have been unprofitable. The
very fact that the Old and New School came together, after a long period of
separation and conflict, without compromise, on the basis of the common
Standards, without giving up any differences of opinion on these doctrines,
and with a mutual recognition of the right to differ on these questions, is suffi-
cient to show that the separation itself was a very great mistake. It retarded
the progress of Presbyterianism in America. The Southern branch of the
Presbyterian Church was the first to see the evils of separation, and to accom-
plish a reunion of the Old and the New School. It was not long before the
Northern branch followed their example.

There are differences of doctrine in the American Presbyterian Church.
There have been such differences from the beginning, and they will continue
until the end of time. These differences are recognized in the original Adopt-
ing Act of 1729 and by the Constitution of 1788. American Presbyterianism
is by nature broad, catholic, and generous. It embraces all the legitimate
types that were developed in the history of British Presbyterianism, and it has
combined them in its own type of American Presbyterianism. The American
formula of subscription is a model of its kind. It points the path in which all
the British churches must walk in their revision of their formulae. The Ameri-
can formula binds the subscriber to the Westminster system, and does not tol-
erate any departure from that system. At the same time, it does not bind to
the letter of the statement, or every detail of the statement, or, indeed, to any-
thing that is not essential to the integrity of the system.

There are those who would insist upon strict subscription to the letter of the
Standards, if they could do so. But these are often the very ones who are
least able to subscribe to the Standards in their historic sense. They claim
the right of logical deduction and of private interpretation — a right that cannot
be conceded ; for the Westminster Standards, like the Bible and all historical
documents, must be interpreted by the grammatico-historical method. Those
who insist upon a strict subscription to the letter of the Standards are guilty of
violating the terms of subscription no less than those who crave more liberal
terms than the formula allows. The subscription binds on the one side, and
it protects on the other. It binds the minister to the Westminster system, and
it protects him from the imposition of extra-confessional doctrines and the

132

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

hobbies of theologians or ecclesiastical demagogues who may gain a chance
majority in an ecclesiastical body. It binds the Presbyteries, Synods, and
General Assemblies no less than the minister. These bodies cannot make new
doctrinal definitions or exact anything of their ministers beyond the terms of
subscription to the Standards. Any infringement of the rights of a minority or
of an individual in this respect is a violation of the Constitution of the Church,
which would be rebuked by the civil courts of our nation in case of appeal to
them. The Constitution of the American Presbyterian Church guarantees the
right of free discussion and statement of all doctrines that are beyond the range
of its own definitions, and are not essential to the integrity of the Westminster
system. If there is one lesson that the history of the past one hundred years
has taught, it is that American Presbyterianism should avoid the path of intoler-
ance and division, and pursue catholicity and union.

The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church in the United States is not so
much a constitution that marks the limits of legislation. It is rather a Code
of Law which cannot be increased or diminished without the consent of two
thirds of the Presbyteries. The ecclesiastical bodies have no power to add to
this Code of Law in any other w’ay. Their functions are not so much legis-
lative as executive and judicial. They may make executive Acts such as are
necessary to carry into effect the Code of the Church. They may make
judicial decisions in connection with trials of cases, and they may also make
deliverances of opinion. The Minutes of the General Assemblies are covered
with deliverances on all sorts of subjects, which, if they were meant to be a part
of the law of the Church, are altogether unconstitutional and void, and if they
were designed merely as deliverances of opinion, confuse the minds of the
people and the majority of the ministers, who are unable to make the distinc-
tion in authority between the several kinds of items that pass the Assemblies.
It is to be feared that the General Assemblies are burying the Standards them-
selves under a mass of heterogeneous deliverances, some executive, some
judicial, and some that seem to be legislative as well as advisory. It seems to
me that the One Hundredth Assembly would do well to appoint a committee
to digest the Digest, and remove from it all matter that does not properly be-
long there, such as obsolete deliverances, some of them contrary to the present
opinion of the Church ; some of them, as the deliverance on the invalidity of
Roman Catholic Baptism, contrary to the Standards themselves ; and still more
of them upon matters where there is considerable difference of opinion in the
Church. It would be a great gain if they could all be blotted out, leaving
nothing in the Digest but judicial decisions and executive acts, which alone
have authority, and are binding upon the ministry and the churches.

The Synod in 1788 adopted a Constitution that is sufficiently extensive, em-
bracing the Confession of Faith, the Larger and Shorter Catechisms, the Form
of Government and Discipline, and the Directory of Worship. That these
documents are all embraced in the Constitution is clear from the final action
of the Synod :

f “Ordered, That Dr. Duffield, Mr. Armstrong, and Mr. Green be a Committee to su-
perintend the printing and publishing the above Confession of Faith and Catechisms,

THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 133

with the Form of Government and Discipline, and the Directory for the Worship of God,
as now adopted and ratified by the Synod, as the Constitution of the Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America.”

The fact that the minister subscribes only to the Confession of Faith and the
Form of Government and Discipline does not exclude the Catechisms and the
Directory from the Constitution ; and yet there can be little doubt that many
ministers, who are more familiar with their ordination vows than with the
Adopting Act of the Synod, do not regard the Catechisms and the Directory
as so much a part of the Constitution.

In looking back to the action of the Synod in adopting the Constitution,
two things impress themselves upon us : (i) What great liberties the Synod
took in the matter of revision of the Standards before adopting them as the
Constitution, and (2) what liberties the Presbyterian Church has taken in its
attitude to the Standards during the one hundred years past.

(1) There are few who apprehend to what an extent the Synod of 1788 re-
vised the Westminster Standards, and how greatly our Constitution differs from
that of the Presbyterian Churches of the Old World.

(<2) The Westminster Confession was revised in chap. xx. 4 by omitting
the phrase, “ and by the power of the civil magistrate," and chaps, xxiii. 3 and
xxxi. were entirely changed.

( b ) The Larger Catechism was amended in Question 109 by striking out
the clause “ tolerating a false religion . ”

(d ) The Form of Government and Discipline was so thoroughly revised that it
is a new form rather than a revision. I have before me a copy of the original
edition as it was adopted by the Westminster divines, and also a Scotch edition of
1788, the very year of the American revision. A comparison discloses very
radical changes on the part of the American Synod. I shall give but a single
specimen. The original document reads under the head of :

Of the Officers of the Church.

“ The officers which Christ hath appointed for the edification of his Church and the
perfecting of the Saints are some extraordinary, as apostles, evangelists, and prophets,
which are ceased. Others, ordinary and perpetual, as pastors, teachers, and other church
governors and deacons.”

The American Form reads :

“ I. Our blessed Lord at first collected his church out of different nations and formed
it into one body by the mission of men endued with miraculous gifts, which have long
since ceased. II. The ordinary and perpetual officers in the church are Bishops or
Pastots ; the representatives of the people, usually styled Ruling elders, and Deacons

It is clear that very serious changes were made here in the doctrine of the
ministry : (1) In neglecting to specify the extraordinary officers that have
ceased, the question was left open which these were ; and although there has
never been a difference of opinion in the American Presbyterian Church as to
the fact that apostles and prophets have long since ceased, yet there has grad-

134

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

ually arisen in the Church a different opinion with regard to evangelists. The
Westminster divines represented that these passed away with the apostles and
prophets, and have no place in the present ministry of the Church. And yet
there are efforts in many parts of the Church at the present day to recognize
the evangelists as a distinct kind of ministers, and to magnify their office. But
there is another no less serious difference in the doctrine of the ordinary officers
of the Church. The Westminster divines included teachers among them,
and gave this class of officers a separate treatment, in a section of the Form of
Government, between the sections on pastors and other Church governors.
This was also the method of the Scottish Book of Discipline. But the American
Synod blotted this all out, and removed the Doctor from the list of ordinary
officers of the Church. A third change of considerable importance is in the
substitution of the name Ruling Elders for the Westminster term Church Gov-
ernors. In this connection there is the insertion of the phrase “ representa-
tives of the people,” which is the introduction of the American republican idea
of the eldership in place of the Westminster theory, which represents them,
equally with the pastors, as “ appointed by Christ.” It is significant that the
American Synod left out this phrase, ‘‘appointed by Christ,” when they in-
serted the phrase, ‘‘representatives of the people. ” This section will suffice
as an example of the liberty that the American Synod took with the venerable
Westminster document.

” (e) But the greatest changes were made in the Directory for Worship. Here
the order of topics was changed, and the whole greatly compressed and modi-
fied in many particulars. I shall give a few specimens. I think it was wise
that the following section was omitted :

‘‘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 one Lord’s Day, it is
to begin the next.” But the following section ought to have been retained :
“ When the minister who readeth shall judge it necessary to expound any part
of what is read, let it not be done until the whole chapter or psalm be ended.”

There are several omissions in the directions for public prayer and adminis-
tration of the sacraments, among which we may mention : ‘‘To pray for the
propagation of the Gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations ; for the con-
version of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the
hastening of the second coming of our Lord.” “ That children, by baptism,
are solemnly received into the bosom of the visible Church, distinguished from
the world and them that are without, and united with believers.” The pre-
vailing neglect to pray for the second coming of Christ, and the error that
infants of believers are born into the visible Church, might have been prevented
if these sections had been retained.

The change in the form of administration of the Lord’s Supper has tended
to lower views of the sacrament. The words : “ Take ye, eat ye ; this is the
body of Christ, which is broken for you ; do this in remembrance of him,” imply a
higher view of the sacrament than that now prevalent in the Presbyterian

THE ONE HUNDREDTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 135

churches of America. The Westminster Directory made the Long Prayer
begin with Confession of Sin. The American Directory makes Confession the
third topic, and gives Adoration and Thanksgiving as the first and second
topics. These examples will suffice to show what great changes were made in
the Directory for Worship.

II. We shall now briefly state some of the changes that have taken place
with reference to the Standards during the past century.

(a) At the last General Assembly an amendment of the Confession of Faith
was consummated by the removal from xxiv. 4 of the prohibition of marriage with
a deceased wife’s sister. It would not be difficult to point out other matters in
which the American Presbyterian Church has changed its mind. But it is the
general opinion that there is peril in constant revisions of the Confession of
Faith, and that our terms of subscription are broad enough to cover the most,
if not all, of these cases.

(h) One of the most remarkable things in Presbyterian history is the neglect
into which the Larger Catechism has fallen. It is the most mature and the
fullest expression of the faith of the Westminster divines in many respects. It
was the most carefully prepared of all the doctrinal standards, and yet it is
little used and, indeed, little known among ministers and teachers.

(c) On the other hand, the Shorter Catechism, which was hastily prepared,
after a large number of the ablest divines had died or left the Assembly, has
become the favorite doctrinal standard. And yet it is short, and often un-
garded in its definitions. It tends to a sterner Calvinism than the Larger
Catechism on account of this brevity and conciseness, and in many cases
needs to be put in the light of the Larger Catechism.

(d ) The Form of Government and Discipline was entirely revised a few years
ago in its second book on Discipline, and in its first book on Government it has
been revised at different times in several particulars. But a more radical re-
vision will soon be required, in view of the proposed union with other denom-
inations. These changes will probably — some of them at least — be in the direc-
tion of the older document, which is at once more comprehensive and flexible
than the American revision. In view of union with other denominations, it
might be wise to at first set our own house in order. There can be no union
unless we come to the Westminster plan of Synodical Representation ; and if
we are to recognize the different customs of the Reformed bodies and of some
of our Presbyterian denominations, we will be obliged to give up the territorial
principle in the organization of Presbyterians, and allow some liberty of choice so
far as the connection of ministers and local churches with Presbyteries, and pos-
sibly even synods, are concerned. Another change should be made erelong in
the direction of the Presbyterianism of the Old World — namely, the removal
from the roll of Presbyteries of ministers without charge, so that the Presby-
teries will consist only of the representatives of Church sessions or Congrega-
tional Presbyteries. -

(e) The American Presbyterian Church has taken the greatest liberty with its
Directory for Worship. This was revised in 1886 by inserting a chapter “ Of

136

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the Worship of God by Offerings. ” But it is noteworthy that the Directory
makes no provision for the modern Sunday-school, the Prayer-meeting, the
Service of Song, women’s meetings, and other such religious exercises in which
the religious life of our people finds expression.

It is also evident that the Directory for Worship is not followed by a consid-
erable portion of our ministers. They seem to have lost the feeling that the
Directory is a part of the Constitution, and so all uniformity of Presbyterian
worship has disappeared ; and no one knows what the order of worship is to be
in any Presbyterian church he enters as a stranger. It will be necessary ere-
long to revise the Directory to correspond with the religious life of the
churches, in order that it may have any importance in directing our worship ;
for it is clear that the present neglect of this part of our Constitution is under-
mining the whole Constitution. The One Hundredth Assembly should take
the Directory for Worship in hand.

I have raised a number of important questions that should be fairly and
squarely discussed. Presbyterians should not only meet in Philadelphia for
congratulations and glorification of Presbyterianism, and for the raising of
large endowments, but there are also important lessons to be learned from
our history, such as will enable us to avoid the mistakes and errors of the
past, and such as may guide us to a better policy and more efficient methods,
that the next century may in every respect be more fruitful.

New York City .

C. A. Briggs.

REVIEWS OF

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

I.— EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY.

The Bible-Work : The Old Testament. Vol. I., Genesis, Chap. I., to Exodus,
Chap. XII. From the Creation to the Exodus. Prepared by J. Glentworth
Butler, D.D. New York, Chicago, and London : Funk & Wagnalls.

This volume has six hundred and forty-seven pages, each page containing five
inches by eight of printed matter. In other words, it is about as full as the
Lange or the Pulpit commentaries on the same part of the Scripture. The paper
and print are better than is usual in large commentaries.

Whether the reader of this commentary will find it satisfactory will depend
on what he is seeking in a commentary. As a collection ot the sayings of gifted
men concerning the Bible or concerning particular passages in the Bible, it
is superb. The larger part of the volume, in bulk, is composed of materials of
this sort. The selections are mainly made not from previous commentaries,
though these have been freely used, but from every department ot literature.
From a literary point of view, the selecting has been done with good judgment
and good taste. Very likely it is the finest collection of the kind in existence.
The Pulpit commentary is richer in homiletical literature, but the literature used
in the “ Bible-work” is of a much wider range, and, on the whole, ot a higher
order.

Let it be understood that this is no small praise to give to a commentary. If
a man would study the Bible for himself, he must study it directly from the
text, and not from men’s comments upon the text. But next to the study of the
sacred Word itself is the study of the reflection of it which shines from the minds
of great and good men ; and the study of this reflection is often a help in the
study of the text itself. This volume is every way full of mental and spiritual
stimulus. It is a storehouse of materials for illustration and citation. It is not
mainly a book for closely critical students, though the most critical student may
gather many a good suggestion from its pages. But the large majority of those
who use commentaries are not closely critical students, but persons who may
fairly be said to read rather than study. Some of them read rather than study
because they prefer this course, and some because they suppose they have no
time for any other course. For the use of all such, the good points in this vol-
ume are especially good, and its deficiencies are less important than they would
be for the use of some others. ,

138

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

With so much said in praise of the book, it is no undue dispraise to say that
one would seek in vain if he here sought for clear and intelligible accounts of
the critical questions concerning the Pentateuch now before the Biblical schol-
ars of the world ; or if he sought information as to the condition of the text, and
the question whether the present text should be retained or emended ; or. gen-
erally, if he sought grammatical or philological explanations ; or if he sought
clear and simple statements of primary facts concerning the recent geographical
and archaeological investigations that have thrown so much light upon these
passages of Bible history. He will find all these things abundantly mentioned,
it is true ; he will find the conclusions that some men have reached on some
points, and the admirable remarks that other men have made on other points ;
but he will find no adequate simple accounts of these matters, such as he, in his
lack of information, needs, to enable him to understand and test the conclusions
and appreciate the admirable sayings.

Again, the careful student, whether he be a beginner or an advan ed scholar,
will not find in this volume the kind of help he needs to guide him in seeking
his own understanding of the text. The best editions of classical authors, pre-
pared for use in schools, contain annotations that really h*elp the student to the
understanding of the author’s meaning : explanations of grammatical or histori-
cal facts, with information as to how the facts may be verified ; cuts, maps, and
plans, illustrating the topography of places where events occurred, or illustra-
ting peculiar terms used, or other like points ; exact statements in regard to
difficulties, and methods of obviating them ; and all these put into compact
shape, so that the student can learn the statements of the notes and apply them.
It is astonishing that simple, clear, trustworthy annotation of this sort has so
small a place in our popular commentaries on the Bible. The “ Bible-Work” is
here no improvement on its predecessors.

In fine, this commentary, sought and used for what it is really worth, is of
great value ; it is no severe attack upon it to say that if one looks in it for what
is not there, he will be disappointed. Willis J. Beecher.

Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Book of Genesis. With two Appen-
dices. By G. J. Spurrell, M.A., Late Scholar of Balliol College, Oxford.
Pp. xii., 380. Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1887.

This is a good book on a practical plan, and will be of great service to stu-
dents. One who studied it thoroughly would not, indeed, be able to disregard
commentaries, but would be in a position to deal with commentaries intelli-
gently, on the basis of solid grammatical and critical acquaintance with the
original text, ^uch acquaintance is the prime need in Biblical study. The
author — Professor Driver’s assistant at Oxford— presupposes a knowledge of the
elements of the Hebrew language, and of its position among languages. At
least the alphabets of the Arabic and Syriac are needed for a full appreciation of
many arguments. But with this simple equipment one may take up the study of
Genesis under the guidance of Mr. Spurrell’s “ Notes,” and not only find one’s
self enabled to read the book in Hebrew with much satisfaction, but also make
steady advance toward mastery of the language. Difficult points of morphology
and syntax, of the derivation of words, of textual criticism, even of history and
geography, are discussed with great clearness and brevity, with abundant ref-
erences to illustrative passages from other Old Testament books, to grammars,
commentaries, periodicals, and monographs, and, indeed, to all authorities likely
to be accessible and useful to students. Questions of literary criticism are not
examined in detail, but in Appendix I. the author states some of the critical views
of the composition of the Hexateuch. Appendix I. treats of the derivation and
meaning of the divine names, D'nT^, and HITT. The author, in his preface.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

139

expressly disclaims originality, but he generally states to what one of the diver-
gent or conflicting opinions which he cites with such fairness his own view in-
clines. We cannot accept all of his decisions, but the book is, in scope and
method, most admirable. It does not, perhaps, always give to Assyriology quite
its due prominence, though it by no means neglects it ; one wonders, too, why
no mention is made, in Appendix I., of Dillmann’s treatment of the Hexateuch
question at the end of his Commentary on Joshua ; there are, however, few
omissions like this. We commend the book warmly to theological students.

Francis Brown.

Commentar ZUR Genesis. Von G. W. Gossrau. Halberstadt, 1887 ; New
York : B. Westermann & Co. 8vo, pp. 390.

The object of this commentary is to show that “ Genesis is written by a single
author, with a distinct plan and clear connection. This author was Moses, the
leader of the children of Israel out of Egypt, their lawgiver and the mediator
between God and Israel” (p. 31). It is written, of course, with direct reference
to recent critical theories, although the author is constrained “ to admit it as
probable that Moses had written documents before him from which he drew.”
With the best will in the world to follow and applaud his argument, however,
I must confess that I can do neither. His method is one too common now — to
argue by means of exclamation and interrogation points. He gives the contents
of each chapter in a paraphrase or summary, to which he attaches remarks
giving his own views or the views of those from whom he differs. These latter
are quoted at some length, and the interjected points are often the only answer.
It is curious to observe that Dillmann and Delitzsch, neither of whom can be
called radical in his views, are those who most frequently excite the author’s ire.
Even when he attempts to controvert their views by a distinct argument, the
argument does nothing more than to point out an “ unbecoming” expression.
His own view is often difficult to discover. But when expressed it is distinctly
literalistic. He holds fast, for example, to the literal six days of creation. He be-
lieves that the Flood was absolutely universal, and even goes so far as to suppose
that the rainbow had never appeared until after the covenant of which it was
made a sign.

As is well known, the difference in the use of the divine names is one of the
standing arguments for the existence of different documents in the Pentateuch,
and one of the criteria by which the analysis is made. Our author gives an ex-
tended table showing where the different names occur, and attempts to show that
Moses purposely chose one or the other in accordance with the exigencies of the
case. His theory on this point is not new, but as a new attempt to apply the
theory to the facts, we may be excused for dwelling a little longer upon it. He
says (p. 38; :

‘‘God’s omnipotence is indicated by Elohim ; Jehovah [so written always]
is so called as the ever-unchangeable eternal Benefactor and Friend of mankind ;
hence as the Covenant God of Israel, who especially receives this people. While
now in this first chapter the omnipotence of God is conspicuous, in the detailed
description of God’s care for mankind the writer adds to the name Elohim the
name Jehovah, to show that the same almighty God has shown an eternal
unchangeable love and truth toward man. . . . Could the narrator more con-
cisely and more distinctly express what he meant ?”

The question here asked might be differently answered ; it might seem doubt-
ful to some whether the union of the two names in Gen. ii. and iii. would convey
to the reader all that is here implied. But granting that ft would convey all,
the difficulty is just begun, and this we discover as we endeavor to follow what
Professor Gossrau says. For example, in chap. iv. 1 Eve connects the birth of

140

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Cain with Jehovah, while in v. 25 Elohirn gives her Seth ; in vi. 11, 12 Elohim
sees the corruption of mankind, and tells Noah that he will destroy the earth ; in
vs. 3, 5, 6 Jehovah grieves over the evil of men, and resolves to destroy them ;
vii. 1, Jehovah commands Noah to make the ark, but (9 and 16) the animals go
into the ark as Elohim commanded. This might be accounted for on the ground
“ that the anima’s are not saved on their own account but what shall we think
when Elohim remembers Noah (viii. 1) ? In the first banishment of Hagar
Jehovah hears her need, and the Angel of Jehovah speaks to her ; in the second,
Elohim hears the voice of the lad, and the Angel of Elohim calls to her out of
heaven. While Jehovah destroys Sodom, Elohim thinks graciously on Abraham
and rescues Lot ; just the reverse ought to be the case according to the theory.
Elohim blesses Isaac with riches ; Jehovah blesses Laban for Jacob’s sake in the
same manner. Rebecca prays to Jehovah for children ; Rachel receives a son
from Elohim.

These instances are probably enough to convince any one that the argument
will not stand the test. In fact, as a defence of traditional views concerning the
authorship of the Pentateuch the book is a failure. Its sharp arraignment of the
critics is occasionally of value. The author nowhere gives evidence of thorough
scholarship, certainly not enough to justify him in adding to the already formid-
able list of commentaries on Genesis. H. P. Smith.

Untersuchungen uber die Textgestalt und die Echtheit des Buches Mi-
CHA. Ein kritischer Commentar zu Micha. Von Lie. Dr. Victor Ryssel,
ausserord. Professor an d. Univ.Leip. Leipzig, 1887, 8vo, pp. 284. New York:
B. Westermann & Co.

This critical commentary is preliminary to the exegetical treatment of the
Prophet Micah, which is promised by the same author. It consists of two
parts ; nearly two hundred pages are first devoted to the discussion of the text,
based upon a minute and careful comparison of the Hebrew with the various
ancient versions. If the complicated problem of Old Testament criticism shall
ever reach a definite and satisfactory solution, it must be on the basis of such
laborious and thorough investigations. For the present it is not so much a
question of details as of primary and fundamental principles. The manuscripts,
it is generally conceded, yield a uniform text. The most extensive collations
thus far made have been comparatively barren of results. The deviations of the
ancient versions, and particularly of the Septuagint, the oldest of them all from
the Massoretic text, are almost numberless and often very considerable. How
are they to be accounted for ? What conclusions do they warrant respecting
the contemporary Hebrew text ? What help do they afford in correcting the text
as we possess it ?

The wide divergence between critics in this matter is apparent from a com-
parison of the recent treatise of Cornill on Exekiel with that of Ryssel, now before
us. With similar data, their conclusions are as far asunder as possible. Cornill
finds occasion to make corrections everywhere, and, in fact, recasts the entire
text. Ryssel, after minutely examining, point by point, every word or clause in
the Book of Micah in which the versions depart from the Hebrew, finds that
they seldom, if ever, justify any correction whatever ; and he expresses his belief
that the same is the case in the books of the prophets generally. Even where
there seems reason to suppose that the Hebrew is at fault, he claims that in
most cases there is no resource but critical conjecture. The divergence of the
LXX. from the Hebrew is much greater than that of subsequent Greek versions,
not because the original text had in the interval undergone serious changes, but
because the later translators adhered more rigorously to the ipsissima verba of
the text before them than their predecessors had done. In numberless instances

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

141

critics have needlessly assumed a variant text of the original by the purely
mechanical method of translating back from the version into Hebrew, without
inquiring first whether the translator may not have purposely varied the expres-
sion, for the sake of giving a more adequate or a smoother rendering, or one
more accordant with the genius of the language in which the version was made,
or more closely conformed to a parallel clause or some reminiscence of a like
passage elsewhere ; or the translator may have mistaken the meaning of the
passage or some of its principal words, or have given a conjectural sense where
he was at a loss as to the true meaning. Errors of the eye or of the ear have
often been assumed, which imply impossible Hebrew phrases and unaccount-
able negligence or ignorance on the part of the translators, when the phenomena
can be more readily and satisfactorily explained otherwise.

Ryssel lays down the rule that no deviation in the version, whether in form or
sense, which may easily have been due to the translator, should be laid to the
account of a discrepant original. And further, that when it seems probable that
a discrepant text lay before the translator, it does not necessarily follow that
this is to be preferred to or even put on a par with the Massoretic text. It must
still be tested by critical rules ; it may prove to be a worthless variant, due to
careless transcription. He finds but one improved reading yielded by the Tar-
gum— viz., iv. 13, “ thou shalt devote” for “ I will devote,” where the other
ancient versions concur with it against the Massoretic text ; and yet even here it
is questionable whether the translators have not merely united in altering an
unusual form of speech, which nevertheless suggests a true and profound mean-
ing. Among all the variants of the Septuagint he finds very few that are worth
accepting or even discussing. He instances (p. 185) only iii. 6, rDB'ni, darkness,
for rotypl, it shall be dark j iv. 14, sceptre, for t33t 'i , judge (where lew prob-
ably would be in inclined to follow him) ; vii.12, where he thinks it ” worthy of
serious consideration,” whether unto thee, should not be thy cities.

The second portion of the volume, comprising the last eighty-six pages, is
devoted to a discussion of the genuineness of the text on internal grounds. He
here again occupies what in Germany would be accounted an extremely conserv-
ative position, though he admits interpolations in i. 1, where he fancies that the
kings named are inconsistent with Jer. xxvi. 18 and with the contents of the
book ; and in i. 10, “ Declare ye it not at Gath,” which he thinks inappropriate.
He holds that ii. 12, 13 is the genuine language of the prophet ; but its want of
connection with what precedes leads him to suppose that it was spoken on some
different occasion. He draws a like inference from imagined discrepancies in
iv. 9-14. He regards Mic. iv. 1-4 as original with Micah, and inserted in Isaiah
ii. 1-4 not by the prophet himself, but by the collectors of his book ; also the
words ” Hear, ye people, all of you,” as in their proper place — Mic. i. 2 — but inter-
polated in 1 Kings xxii. 28 from the extraordinary conceit that the Book of Micah
contains the prophecy uttered by his more ancient namesake. In regard to these
transpositions, he quotes (p. 223) with approval the language of Dr. Cheyne :
“ It is becoming more and more certain that the present form, especially of the
prophetic Scriptures, is due to a literary class (the so-called ‘ scribes ’ or ‘ scrip-
turists’), whose principal function was collecting and supplementing the scattered
records of prophetic revelation.” He defends the genuineness of the words
“ thou shalt come even to Babel ” (iv. 10), while insisting that they were not ful-
filled in the sense intended by the prophet ; inasmuch as from his “ prophetic
horizon” he must have expected the Assyrians to be the executioners of the
judgment which he foretold. The captious objections of Stade and others to
various other paragraphs and sections of the book are likewise minutely exam-
ined and convincingly set aside. W. Henry Green.

142

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

ErklaRUNG der Korinthierbriefe. Zweiter Band : Das zweite Send-

SCHREIBEN des Apostel Paulus an die Korinthier. Erklart von Dr. C.

F. Georg Heinrici. Berlin : Wilhelm Hertz, 1887. 8vo, pp. x., 606.

New York : B. Westermann & Co.

The detailed results of Dr. Heinrici’s exegesis of the epistles to the Corinthians
have been, since 1881 and 1883, before the public in the (so-called) new edition
of Meyer’s “ Commentary on the New Testament.” The preparation ot that
work interrupted the completion of the undertaking now before us, the first vol-
ume of which, containing the exposition of 1 Corinthians, appeared so long ago
as 1880. In the review of that volume which was published at the time in this
Review, the purpose and characteristics of the work were sufficiently pointed
out, by which its publication alongside of the purely exegetical commentary in
the Meyer series is entirely justified. Dr. Heinrici’s motive, it will be remem-
bered, is to seek a secure basis for the reconstruction of the life and surround-
ings of an apostolical congregation — the discovery of the forces which prepared
the heathen world for and brought them to the Gospel, and the clearer appre-
hension of the struggles through which the Gospel conquered a place for itself
amid the teeming life of the time. He rightly considers that the only sound
way ot coming to a realization of the origines of the gentile churches is to work
carefully through the whole of these wonderfully rich epistles ; to select out the
notices which, to the superficial view, appear germane to the subject, and to
build from them a picture ot early Christian life and organization, he fitly char-
acterizes as a making of Mosaics (they may even be beautiful Mosaics) out of
broken bits of the rock of history, rather than digging down to the rock itself.

The reader of this commentary is not likely to be long in discovering Dr.
Heinrici's eminent qualifications for the task he has set before him. His histori-
cal is matched by his philological equipment ; and apart lrom its ulterior pur-
pose, the commentary marks an epoch in philological exegesis, and is enriched
on every page with a wealth of linguistic and other parallels from the later
classics— such as Polybius and Plutarch, Diodorus and Dionysius, Ailian and
Arrian — such as places it easily in the first rank of contributions to the study
of the New Testament language. Some ot the results of this work are gathered
together in a valuable short chapter on Das Sprachgut der Briefe (pp. 594-604),
which makes the mouth water for more. Here Dr. Heinrici teaches (in har-
mony with the general view) that Paul’s language is not Hebraizing, but moves
throughout within the boundaries of pure Hellenistic Greek ; that although a
coloring from his use of the LXX. no doubt is traceable, yet the true analogies
with his speech are to be found in the later classical rather than in the Judaistic
writings. Along with this chapter should be read its companion on the Dar-
stellungsmittel der Briefe (pp. 573-578), where we may find a very suggestive
study of Paul’s use of language, which does full justice to its individuality and
power, and insists that it finds no exact parallel among other Judaeo-Greek liter-
ature, not even in the Book of Wisdom or Philo, but, especially in its mode of
appealing to the moral consciousness, is most closely paralleled in the dialectic
of the Stoics, particularly of Epictetus, who preached rather than taught.

There is a deep truth in this representation, which has been much too long
neglected. No one will care to deny that it is from the writers ot his own day,
rather than from the Attic Greek of centuries earlier, that Paul’s speech should
be illustrated. But we may easily go too far upon even so plain a path ; and
with Dr. Heinrici all this is but a part of a more general contention which he
does press at times decidedly beyond the centre of gravity. The significance of
Dr. Heinrici’s volumes lies in the reaction which they lead against the tendency
which has long reigned to over-judaize the origins of Christianity, and especially
its first beginnings on heathen ground. That the gentile Christian congrega-

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

143

tions, and even Paul himself, had their roots deeply planted in the Greek life of
their day and grew and waxed strong out of its fecundity, is certainly true ; and
Dr. Heinrici has done good service in reasserting it and illustrating it with such
richness of material. But shall we, therefore, deny that Paul was a Jew and a
Pharisee, and refuse to see the traces of his Rabbinical training in his life and
writings ? Because there were points of contact between the Christianity which
Paul brought to and proclaimed at Corinth and the teachings of the heathen
eclecticism of the times (a most admirable sketch of which is given on pp. 557-
565), shall we almost doubt whether all the tenets of the Corinthian Church were
not imported from their heathen thought ? Because elements of the club-life of
the Greeks found their way into and conditioned the Church-organisation which
Paul brought with him and imposed on the congregations which he founded,
shall we shut our eyes to everything in the ordering of the gentile churches,
except what may have come from the clubs, and even fill up what we do not
know of the Church life from what we can dimly discover in the club-life of the
times ? We cannot doubt that Dr. Heinrici presses his thesis too far in all these
directions ; but we cannot fail to be grateful to him for emphasizing this side
of the composite of influences that moulded the growth of the infant Church
when planted among the heathen. He especially felicitates himself that his
theory of the origin of the Church order (which he broached as early as 1876,
although it is best known among us under Dr. Hatch's name), which points to
the clubs as the source of much of its machinery of government, has received
not only the negative support that comes from the abandonment of the thesis
that the synagogue formed the pattern for the heathen churches by Holsten,
Weiss, and Weizsacker, but also much positive support from the investigations
of Weingarten, Holtzmann, Hatch, and Haruack. The last word is not said as
yet, however, in this controversy either.

Nowhere are the good sense and historical insight of Dr. Heinrici more ap-
parent than in the conclusions which he reaches on the very vexatious introduc-
tory questions that beset the study of 2 Corinthians. The extreme license of
exegetical and historical conjecture which critics of every school — from Weiz-
sacker to Godet — have allowed themselves here, are corrected by Heinrici’s
thorough and sympathetic exposition of what the apostle actually tells us of his
own movements and the situation of the Church to which he was writing. He
rightly identifies the evil-doer of 2 Cor. ii. 5 seq. with the incestuous man of 1
Cor. v. 1 seq. ; he rejects the hypotheses of an intermediate visit and of an in-
termediate letter to Corinth ; he brings the time between the two letters down to
five or six months ; and he assigns 2 Cor. to the autumn of 58. In all these
points we hold him to be certainly right ; and we know little in recent exegetical
literature more careful or more sound than his exposition of the passages of the
epistle on which he bases these conclusions. The chief point in which we find
ourselves out of agreement with his reading of the introductory problems con-
cerns the relations of Timothy and Titus to the two letters ; and out of his de-
termination of these grows all that we account erroneous in his view of the cir-
cumstances and purpose of 2 Cor. Dr. Heinrici holds that Timothy visited
Corinth and brought word to Paul at Ephesus of the stress of the Judaising
danger at Corinth, whereupon Titus was sent to Corinth on a mission supple-
mentary to the first epistle, while the apostle fled with his companions north-
ward, from the danger which now attacked him at Ephesus. But would not this
mission of Titus be the equivalent of the intermediate letter which has already
been rejected ? Whether Timothy reached Corinth or not on the journey men-
tioned in 1 Cor. we can never know. But the conditions of the problem appear
to point to Titus as the bearer of 1 Cor., which was written not in the real
quietude of heart that Dr. Heinrici supposes, but in a calmness which was as-

144

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

sumed for the occasion out of the apostle’s love for his children (2 Cor. ii. 3 seq.).
We need only to assume that Titus’s mission was to bear the first epistle to re-
duce all confusion to order ; and why he should have been chosen for this
important mission Dr. Heinrici has admirably explained on pp. 55 seq.

The exegesis proper occupies no less than four hundred and seventy pages,
and is as acute and suggestive as it is elaborate, often broadening into excur-
suses on important passages. It will not be possible to give specimens of it here,
and this is the less necessary, as its chief results are already known from the vol-
ume in the Meyer series. Surely, however. Dr. Heinrici has wrongly decided
against the genuineness of the section, vi. 14-vii. 1.

Benjamin B. Warfield.

Lectures Chiefly Expository on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philip-
pians. With Notes and Illustrations. ByJOHN Hutchison, D.D., Bonning.
ton, Edinburgh. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark ; New York : Scribner & Wel-
ford.

The general aim of these Lectures is that indicated in the Preface : “ Encour-
aged by the favorable reception given to previous volumes on ‘ Our Lord’s Mes-
sages to the Seven Churches of Asia ’ and on ‘St. Paul’s Epistles to the Thes-
salonians,’ I now publish these ‘ Lectures on the Epistle to the Philippians.’ Like
its predecessors, the book is chiefly expository. It is, indeed, more strictly so
than they. While, however, as distinguished from a mere series of pulpit
homilies, it professes to be a commentary, it is one in which the course of the
apostle’s thought is not only carefully traced, but also to a certain extent
applied.” These words outline a type of expository lecture treatment which is
becoming more and more characteristic of the evangelical pulpit of our time.
On the one side, the lectures iorm what is substantially “ a commentary,” as
distinguished from a series of detached pulpit homilies, suspended on an ex-
egetical thread. On the other side, it is a commentary in which prominence is
given to the “ application” of the annotated thought.

There are obvious liabilities connected with this plan. On the one side is the
danger of following too exclusively the exegetical bent, burdening the text with
the details of abstract criticism, being carried away by hermeneutical will-o’-the-
wisps, or being drawn aside into the polemics ol disputed passages. On the
other side is the liability of sacrificing the exegetical to the practical, of drift-
ing into the platitudes of so-called edification, and, if not of disregarding the
apostle’s course of thought, at least of overlooking some of its important links,
while unduly magnifying others. To steer between the Syclla of scholastic
pedantry and the Charybdis of homiletical discursiveness requires the exact bal-
ancing of the exegetical and the practical interest, the harmonious combination
of the instinct and temper of the commentator with the method and stress of the
homilist.

Dr. Hutchison realizes in admirable measure this equipoise, and his book is
to be welcomed as a substantial addition to our expository literature. The
exegesis is scholarly, independent, and thorough ; while the application is per-
vaded by unction, earnestness, and spirituality. The author is, indeed, fortu-
nate in his book. As he himself recognizes, the Epistle to the Philippians more
readily, perhaps, than any New Testament book, lends itself to the treatment
here bestowed upon it. Its structure is simple, its style familiar, its tone affec-
tionate and urgent, its contents for the most part not too ponderous for effective
practical treatment. The lecturer happily adapts his pace to that of the apostle.
His discussion of the weightier passages, and especially ol the Christological
passage in chap. ii. 5 f., is full and satisfactory. But especially in the unfolding
of the more purely personal and perceptive passages his sympathetic insight,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

145

clear discriminations, felicitous illustrations, and earnest appreciation of the
noble and affectionate temper of the great apostle as reflected in this unique and
fascinating production of his mind appear conspicuous. The literary form of
the work is fine. Special points of interest or difficulty are briefly treated in a
series of Notes and Illustrations at the close. It goes without saying that the
work is based on the Revised Version. Llewellyn J. Evans.

Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. By Paton J. Gloag, D.D.

Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark ; New York : Scribner & Wellord.

This work is intended to form a companion volume to the author's “ Introduc-
tion to the Pauline Epistles,” published twelve years ago. It follows the general
plan of that work, and exhibits the same characteristic excellencies and delects.

The author’s construction of the term Introduction, at least in the present
volume, is somewhat broader than the current one, and especially in the space
and prominence given to topics pertaining to Biblical Theology. Something
may be said, no doubt, in favor of a comparative exhibit of fundamental doc-
trinal contents in their eisagogical significance. What Dr. Gloag gives us, how-
ever, is not so much such an exhibit as the amalgamation under one title of two
distinct branches of Biblical study. At the same time the biblico-theological
treatment is partial. We have a discussion of ” Petrine Theology,” but not of
the Jacobean or Johannean. We have the Eschatology of Peter, but not the
Antichrist of John. To some extent the book is evidently a receptacle for the
author’s “ chips,” as, indeed, the last paragraph in the Preface intimates — a
procedure not to be commended in a work of this sort.

There is also some disadvantage connected with the separate discussion of
particular collections of the New Testament writings, such as the Pauline Epistles
and the Catholic Epistles, in so far as it necessitates repetition in the traversing
of common ground — as, e.g., in the discussion of common authorities.

There is some objection to the author’s method of treating controversial points
by giving a resume of the discussion respecting them, stating opinions, objec-
tions to the opinions, replies to the objections, and, it may be, counter-replies, etc.
The mind of the average reader, for whom it is evident the book is chiefly
designed, is liable to become somewhat confused by the cross-firing. Indeed,
a skilful critic would at times find it difficult in some instances to unravel all the
threads of the discussion, and to distinguish between what the author says for
himself and what he says for others.

A still more serious objection is that, in regard to so many of the mooted points
considered by him, he finds it difficult to come to a decisive conclusion. So
many of these points are left in the air that readers who seek from our author a
solution of their own perplexities cannot fail of being disappointed.

It must be added that the book furnishes no independent contribution of
importance to the solution of the standing problems furnished by the Catholic
Epistles. As is implied in what has been already said, it is valuable chiefly as
a risumi of the views and discussion of the leading authorities consulted by
the author. As such it will doubtless be found helplul.

Llewellyn J. Evans.

The following works in Exegetical Theology may be briefly noticed :

Parallel-Bibel , oder Die Heilige Schrift Alten u. Neuen Testaments in der
Verdeutschung durch D. Martin Luther , nach der Originalausgabe von 1545,
mit nebenstehetider worigetreuer ijbersetzung, nach dem Grundtext. Parts 4-7.
(Giitersloh : C. Bertelmann, n. d ; New York: B. Westermann & Co.) This
work is to fill three volumes, containing, respectively, the historical books of the
Old Testament, the poetical and prophetical books of the Old Testament, and
10

140

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

the New Testament. Part 7 ends with the beginning ol 1 Kings xvi., on p. 672
of Vol. I. The two versions are given in parallel columns, and are distinguished
by a difference in type. The new version is more accurate than the old, and
there are some marginal notes of interest and value to the general reader. But
no version will be satisfactory to scholars or approach finality until the Old

Testament text has been thoroughly revised. The Gospel According to St.

Luke. With Introduction, Notes, and Maps. Chapters X1II.-XXIV. By Thomas
M. Lindsay, D. D., Professor of Divinity and Church History, Free Church College,
Glasgow. (In Hand-Books for Bible Classes, edited by Rev. Marcus Dods, D.D.,
and Rev. Alexander Whyte, D.D.) (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, n. d. [1887];
New York : Scribner & Welford.) Professor Lindsay’s Commentary on Luke
l.-XII. was issued a few months ago, and noticed briefly in this Review, July,
1887. The present volume contains pp. 173-268, and completes the commentary.
The exposition is brief, condensed, and often epigrammatic and pungent. Fol-
lowing the commentary proper is a “ Summary View of the Life of Christ from the
Four Gospels,” which is hardly needful or desirable in a short hand-book on Luke ;

and there is an Index at the end. Kritisch exegetischer Commentar iiber das

Neue Testament. Von Dr. Heinr. Aug. Wilh. Meyer. Zwolfte u. Sechszehnte
Abtheilungen. Die Brief e Petri und fudae. 5te Auflage umgearbeitet von Lie.
Dr. Ernst Ktihl, Inspector am Johanneum zu Breslau. Pp. vi., 442. Die OJfen-
barung fohannis. 4te Verbesserte Auflage, von Dr. Friedrich Diisterdieck.
Pp. vi., 574. (Gottingen : Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1887 ; New York : B. Wester-
mann & Co.) The New Testament Commentary which bears Meyer’s name
is industriously kept alive by means of frequent revisions. Neither of the two
volumes before us was originally the work of Meyer. Huther, who prepared
several editions of the former, has found a successor in Dr. Ktihl. Dr. Kiihl
has considerably changed the attitude of the Commentary on 1 Peter by adopt-
ing Weiss's view of its date, relatively to the Pauline epistles. He makes it
precede these in time, and deiends this view on historical and biblico-theolog-
ical grounds. It is certainly much easier on this theory to account for the atti-
tude of the writer to theological and practical questions, and for his silence on
many points, without calling in the tendenz- hypothesis. In the Commentary on
the Apocalypse, Diisterdieck maintains, with little modification, his old posi-
tions. One is surprised to find that while he devotes a little attention to Vol-
ter’s fragment-hypothesis, he almost wholly passes by Vischer’s much more im-
portant and influential theory, elsewhere discussed in this number of the Review.
The reason he assigns in his preface for this omission is surely insufficient.

Francis Brown.

II.— HISTORICAL THEOLOGY.

History of the Christian Church. By George Park Fisher, D.D., LL.D.
With Maps. Pp. 701. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887.

Finally, we have a Manual of Church History prepared by an American for
American students, and fit to be used as a text-book in our seminaries and
colleges.

Every teacher of Church history must have felt the need of just such a book.
The German manuals of Hase, Kurtz, Guericke, Niedner are very useful in their
way, especially the first two, which are kept up to the times and undergo impor-
tant changes and improvements in new editions. Those of Hase and Kurtz have
been several times reproduced and adapted, so that the older editions are en-
tirely superseded. But these books were written by German professors for Ger-

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

147

man students, with special reference to the Continental churches. They ignore
English and American church history and literature entirely, or treat it so super-
ficially and erroneously as to be worse than useless, and to shake the confidence
of the reader in the other parts which are good and reliable. The American
Chapter in the posthumous volume of Gieseler is so faulty and misleading that
the translator deemed it best, in the interest of the work and the public, to omit it
altogether. We should remember that the exportation of theological books from
America to Germany has not yet begun, and even if German divines are pre-
sented with works in the English language by the author or publisher, they can-
not read them, at least not with ease and comfort. When I studied in German
universities, Tholuck of Halle and Meander of Berlin were the only uivines of
my acquaintance who could speak English. Now things have changed. The
rising generation of divines pay more attention to the English language and lit-
erature. But the change has not yet affected the character of church histories.

Dr. Fisher’s book is evidently the product of many years of professional teach-
ing and experience. It is no compilation based upon superficial acquaintance
with the subject, but an original and therefore reliable work of one who has
looked into the primary sources. The writer had already won a high place
among church historians by his “ History of the Reformation” and the ‘‘His-
tory of the Beginnings of Christianity.”

Dr. Fisher, besides ample learning and a clear polished style, has that catholic
and irenic spirit and that impartial, judicial temper which are among the high-
est qualifications for a historian. He writes not in the interest of any particular
sect or school, but in the interest of truth and the Church at large. It is difficult
to find from his book to what denomination he belongs. He may be called an
evangelical Catholic, in sympathy with all that is Christian, on the principle,
” Christianus sum, Christiani nihil a me alienum puto.” We need such his-
torians if the problem of the reunion of Christendom is ever to be solved. They
prepare the way for it.

The author adopts the natural division into three eras : ancient (1-800), medi-
aeval (800-1517), and modern (1517-1887), and subdivides them into nine periods.
This agrees with my own, except that he carries the ancient church with four
periods to Charlemagne instead of Gregory I., and subdivides the modern era
into two instead of three periods.

He gives most space to the modern era from p. 287 to p. 664, and least to the
Middle Ages (pp. 163-286). This is a disproportion, hut may be justified by the
great importance of the Reformation for all the churches in America. The
English and Scotch Reformation and the colonization and chief ecclesiastical
bodies and events of the United States receive due attention, and constitute one
of the principal advantages of this over European manuals.

It is unnecessary to recommend such a book, which meets a felt want, and will
naturally find its way by its obvious merits and usefulness.

The author might improve its usefulness by appending a dozen pages of select
bibliography similar to those at the end of his “ History of the Reformation.”

Philip Schaff.

The Growth of Church Institutions. By the Rev. Edwin Hatch, M.A.,
D.D., Reader in Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford. New
York : Thomas Whittaker.

There is no more encouraging sign of the progress toward a true Christian
unity than the broad and irenical character of the later ecclesiastical literature.
The transition from the Episcopal writers of forty or fifty years ago to the style
of Stanley, Lightfoot, and the writer of the treatise before us is like passing
from sage-brush barrens to a fertile prairie. The difference is that the later

14S

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

writers are not bent on sustaining at all hazards a particular theory of the
Church, and willing to wrest Scripture and History to its support, but are simply
studying the problem in a broad historical spirit, and trying to get at the facts
regardless of their bearing on any particular church or system. Such is the
spirit in which this treatise of Dr. Hatch is conceived. His object is “ to trace
the growth of church institutions,” or to show ” how the congregational system
of early Christianity passed into the Diocesan system of mediaeval and later times.”

Dr. Hatch’s title itself recognizes the fact that such institutions, including the
ministry and the whole church organization, were not cast in a fixed immovable
form from the beginning, but were developed by the existing conditions of the
Christian society from the germinant ideas posited by the Apostles. He finds,
therefore, in the most primitive church, neither absolute Presbytery nor absolute
Prelacy, but some simple arrangement for the government and instruction of
the early communities, which gradually, through the shaping of circumstances,
grew into more unified and centralized forms. If Dr. Hatch does not exactly
comprehend the true genesis of Episcopacy, he is at least wholly clear of the
common and stereotyped errors on the subject. He could not accept the too
hasty generalization of Dean Stanley that “ it is as certain there was no Episco-
pacy before the second century as it is that there was no Presbyterianism after
it.” But he perceives that the Presbyterianism of the apostolic churches was
gradually and necessarily changed during the course of the first three centuries
into a system which threw more power into the hands ot the clergy, and unified
the Church by a vigorous Episcopal administration. ” It has, no doubt, been
sometimes maintained” (he observes, p. 1 6) “ that the diocese, in its modern sense,
is an institution of primitive times. But the recorded facts are far from sup-
porting this view. They show that in the large majority of cases a bishop, pres-
byters, and deacons existed for every Christian community. As a rule, a city
had but a single community (church), and consequently a single organization.

. . . Every town and sometimes every village had its bishop.”

This last sentence, it we leave out the word ” sometimes," or change it to “ as
a rule," contains an absolute truth, and furnishes the key to the origin ot the
Episcopal system. When the fact is once fairly appreciated that all the believers
in a place, large or small, made up the church of that place, and that for one
church (no matter whether consisting of one congregation or many) there must
be one and could be but one bishop, the whole matter becomes perfectly plain.
If all the Christians in Rome made up the one Church of Rome, and that Church
could have but one Bishop, then the necessary historical genesis of Episcopacy
is patent. In the one Church of Rome there were many congregations, each of
which had its own presbyter as pastor ; but they all made up the one church,
presided over by its one bishop. This is Diocesan Episcopacy. The whole
thing lies in a nutshell, and dispenses with the elaborate attempts of Harnack
and his correspondents in the Expositor to invent explanations of the origin of
Episcopacy. And this is further illustrated by the fact that Episcopacy first
comes to our view in a few large cities, and that down to the middle ot the third
century we do not know of its existence anywhere else than in Rome, Carthage,
and Alexandria. This illustrates the “ growth of church institutions,” and while
ignoring the Apostolic origin ot Episcopacy, furnishes its full historical justifica-
tion. Samuel M. Hopkins.

Doctrina Duodecim Apostolorum. Canones Apostolorum Ecclesiastici ac
Reliquae Doctrinae de Duabus Viis Expositiones Veteres. Edidit, Annota-
tionibus et Prolegomenis illustravit, Versionem Latinam addidit. Fran-
ciscus Xaverius Funk. Tubingae, in Libraria Henrici Laupp, 1887. Pp.
lxvii., 1 1 3.

This edition of the Didache is a new evidence of the extraordinary and lasting

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

140

attention which the literary discovery of Bryennios has excited. We may well
say that it ranks in importance next to the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus by
Tischendorf. Germany and America have been foremost to turn it to account.
Drs. Hitchcock and Brown first introduced it to the American public in Greek
and English a few weeks after a copy of the editio princeps by Bryennios had
reached New York. The number of works written about it during the last four
years exceeds two hundred. The list given by Funk (pp. xlvii.-lii.) is not nearly
as complete as those given in two well-known American monographs on the
Didache. It is quite unnecessary here to discuss the contents and value of the
Didache. We present simply a brief account of this latest edition, which must be
ranked with the most complete and valuable.

Dr. Funk is Professor of Church History in the Roman Catholic Faculty ol the
University of Tubingen, successor of Bishop Hefele, and editor of the Tubinger
Theologische Quartalschrift , the chief quarterly organ of Roman Catholic
Theology in Germany. He took part in the discussion of the merits of the
Didache alter its first appearance, and now presents the results of his continued
studies. He assigns it the first place among the works of the Apostolic Fathers,
which he edited in two volumes on the basis of Helele’s edition. The Pro-
legomena discuss the origin, genuineness, time and place, contents, editions and
versions of the Didache, and its relation to the cognate documents, the ecclesi-
astical canons, the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions, the Epistle of
Barnabas (ch. 18-20), the Latin fragment. Then follow the Greek texts with a
Latin version.

Dr. Funk, with most American and English scholars, puts the Did. before the
close of the first century, before the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of
Hermas (against Bryennios and Harnack). He finds, with Prof. Zahn, of
Erlangen, traces of it in Justin Martyr ( Apol ., I., 15-18, compared with Did. , I.,
3-5 ; perhaps also in Apol., I., 61), and in Tatian’s Diatessaron, which com-
bines the text of Matthew and Luke as the Did., I., 4. As to the place of com-
position, he denies the Egyptian and maintains the Syrian or Palestinian origin.
The text is accompanied by Latin comments.

Dr. Funk has also written a special essay on the Didache in the Tubingen
Theol. Quarterly for 1887, pp. 276 sqq.

In connection with this notice, we may also mention an Italian monograph of
288 pages by R. Majocchi : La dottrina dei dodici apostoli. Documento della
chiesa primitiva pubblicato nel suo testo originate con versione (latina) e com-
mento. Ed. ii. Modenae, 1887. Philip Schaff.

A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian
Church. Edited by Philip Schaff, D.D., LL.D. Vols. IV. and V. The
Christian Literature Company, New York City.

This “Select Library” is intended to supplement the Library of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers, edited by Bishop Coxe, and issued by the same publishing
house.

We have already referred to this combined and comprehensive undertaking.
Its object is to place within the easy reach of American ministers and laymen
this early Christian literature, so varied and desirable, yet hitherto well-nigh in-
accessible. Indeed, the average reader, lay and clerical, had come almost to
despair of any ready access to these writings of the Christian Fathers ; the period
was so great, stretching from the second to the ninth century ; the writers were
so numerous and so productive ; the Library of Migne was so vast, comprising
three hundred and eighty-nine volumes ; the language foreign, and the cost im-
mense. This American enterprise is to include all in thirty-three volumes, and
at a proportionate reduction in cost.

150

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Whatever may be his doctrinal tendencies, no intelligent reader will question
the historical value of such a library. Indeed, with marked interest and expec-
tation have individual clergymen and laymen and the public press welcomed this
noble undertaking. The prompt and thorough work performed has deepened
the interest and encouraged expectation. Not only has the library of the Ante-
Nicene Fathers been already completed in eight volumes, with an additional in-
dex volume, but within the year 1887 have appeared five volumes of the library
of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. The first of these volumes contains
“ The Confessions and the Letters” of Augustin. The latest volume contains
his “Anti-Pelagian Writings.” Thus properly does this ‘‘Select Library”
begin with Augustin, whom Leibnitz styled “ a man of true greatness and stu-
pendous genius and concerning whom Dr. Schaff says in the Prolegomena ,
Vol. I., p. 19, “ No other of all the Church Fathers has produced so permanent
effects on both Catholics and Protestants, and no other stands in so high regard
with both, as Augustin.” Page 21 : “ He is of all the Christian Fathers nearest
to Evangelical Protestantism, and may be called, in respect of his doctrine of sin
and grace, the first forerunner of the Reformation.”

The works of Chrysostom and the Church History of Eusebius will come next
in order, according to the plan of the editor. The two series of twenty-five or
thirty volumes will include the Latin Fathers down to Gregory the Great and the
Greek Fathers from Eusebius to Photius. The undertaking can no longer be
regarded as an experiment. Its execution is guaranteed. The competency and
trustworthiness of Dr. Schaff, the editor-in-chief, no one will question. “ The
co-operation of competent patristic scholars in Great Britain and the United
States is assured.” The form and finish of the work is not only satisfactory,
but is of superior order, and the promise in the first volume of this first series
is more than verified in its successors. Such a library, thus placed within the
easy reach of our ministers and intelligent laymen, is worthy of our American
enterprise and American patronage. Ransom B. Welch.

Die Canones Jacob’s von Edessa ubersetzt und erlAutert, zum Theil
auch im Grundtext veroffentlicht. Von C. Kayser. 8vo. Leipzig :
Heinrichs ; New York : B. Westermann & Co.

In Paul de Lagarde’s “ Reliquiae Juris Ecclesiastici Antiquissimae” (Lipsiae,
1856) were first published, from a famous Paris (Syriac) manuscript of about the
ninth century, the Canons of James, or Jacob, of Edessa (who flourished in the
seventh century). They were repeated by T. J. Lamy in his “ Dissertatio de
Syrorum Fide et Disciplina in Re Eucharistica” (Lovanii, 1859). The general
interest of these Canons was too great to suffer them long to remain buried in
technical works ; and now Pastor C. Kayser has published a German transla-
tion. The work is critical and excellent. The text that underlies the translation
is based on the same Paris manuscript, but emended from the other extant manu-
scripts in London, Paris, etc., of which Kayser gives a careful account. The
translation proper occupies only thirty-six pages ; but the additional matter —
viz., the Life of Jacob, with an account of his writings and a dissertation on the
genuineness and authenticity of these Canons, and a body of very rich and mas-
terly notes — swell the German portion of the work (with its Syriac quotations) to
one hundred and eighty-five pages. The accompanying Syriac text, thirty-one
pages, consists chiefly of text not published elsewhere. One portion of this is
matter supplied from other manuscripts where a leaf is missing in the Paris
manuscript, and consequently not found in either Lagarde or Lamy. The miss-
ing portion consists of questions and responses .11-34 ; Addai Philoponus being
the questioner, and Jacob the respondent. How desirable it is to have this por-
tion supplied will appear from the following extracts :

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

151

“ 31. Addai. — When an unbaptized infant is in danger of death, and its
mother carries it in haste even to the field, to a priest who is at work there,
where there is no stream, and no basin, and no water-vessel, if there is only
water there for the priest’s use, and necessity requires haste, what is proper tor
him to do ? Jacob. — In necessity like this it is right for the priest, if water hap-

pens to be with him, to take the pitcher of water and pour it upon the infant’s head,
even though its mother is holding it in her hands, and say, ‘ I baptize such a one ’
(literally, such a one is baptized) ‘ in the name of ihe Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit.’ (Here the ‘ basin ’ is the same word used in the Peshitto for Gide-
on’s bowl, Judges vi. 38, the ‘ basons ’ of Exodus xxiv. 6, and sundry other
kindred places. The ‘ water-vessel ’ is a stone receptacle such as we see at
drinking fountains, holding from a pint or so to a few gallons. Kayser cites
Ezekiel xxxvi. 25 as a parallel to this baptism.)

“ 33. Addai.— Can the water of baptism in any way be made common ?

Jacob. — The holy water of baptism can in no way be made common, not even
when the priest has washed his hands in it after baptizing, for he washes them
because of the smeariness of the [baptismal] oil ; nor even when many have been
baptized, and the water thereby becomes diminished so that some more must
be added ; nor even when it stands over night and remains till the next day, for
sometimes a child is baptized in it after it has stood over night ; and not even
when the baptismal basin is broken and the water is spilled out, does it become
profane or common.”

This, however, is one of the least interesting portions of the text. Through-
out, however, in translation, introduction, and notes, the book is full of interest-
ing and valuable matter, and nowhere padded. Isaac H. Hall.

Geschichte der Reformation in den Niederlanden von ihrem Beginn
BIS zum Jahre 1531 von Dr. J. G. de Hoop-Scheffer, Prof, in Amsterdam.
Deutsche Originalausgabe herausgegeben von Dr. P. Gerlach. Mit einem
Vorwort von Dr. F. Nippold. Pp. 563. Leipzig (S. Hirzel), 1886.

A valuable contribution to the History of the Reformation in Holland, but con-
fined to its first period, from 1520 to 1531. The author gives first an account of the
state of the clergy and people before the Reformation and the preparatory move-
ments. The Low Countries were subject to Charles V., who inherited them from
his father, as he inherited Spain from his mother. No favor could be expected
for Protestant opinions from a grandson of Isabella the Catholic. He was a faith-
ful son of the Roman Catholic Church, and approved of the papal bull of ex-
communication, which condemned Luther and his writings. But when he was
elected German emperor and convened his first Diet at Worms, he felt that he
must pay some decent regard to the Elector Frederick of Saxony, the protector
of Luther, and allowed the heretic to appear before the Diet in May, 1521, where
he made his memorable testimony and refused to recant. After his departure the
Diet issued the Edict of Worms (May 26th), which gave legal force to the
papal bull and pronounced the ban of the empire upon Luther as an obstinate
and convicted heretic.

This edict was carried out in the Low Countries under the eyes of the emperor,
and Luther’s writings were burnt and forbidden. Thus began that fearful perse-
cution of Protestants in the Netherlands which culminated in the atrocities of
Duke Alva under the reign of Philip II., son of Charles V., and one of the
gloomiest bigots and tyrants known to history. But the persecution was over-
ruled by Providence for the political emancipation of Holland from the tyranny
of Spain and the triumph of the Reformed Religion.

The book is divided into three sections. The first describes the origin and

152

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

spread of the Reformation in Holland down to 1522 ; the second, the conflict from
1522 to 1525 ; the third, the suppression of the Reformation from 1525 to 1531.

Philip Schaff.

Wilibald Pirkheimer’s Stellung zur Reformation. Ein Beitrag zur Be-
urteilung des Verhaltnisses zwischen Humanismus und Reformation. Von
Lie. Theol. P. Drews. 8vo. Leipzig, 1887. New York : B. Westermann & Co.

The author is to be congratulated upon his theme. Pirkheimer, whose shaggy
head and striking face are familiar to us, thanks to Diirer’s pencil, played a
prominent part in the Humanistic movement. It was worth while, therefore, to
inquire how he stood toward that far greater religious movement which excited
so much attention in his day. His life was mostly spent at Nuremberg, near
which city he was born, December 5th, 1470. His father was a member of the
city council, and a man of wealth. Pirkheimer made good use of his oppor-
tunities. By travel and by prolonged residence in Italy he became cosmopolitan
in his tastes. He drank in the Renaissance enthusiasm for the classics, and in
his learning rivalled Erasmus. He was, however, more a diplomatist than a
literary man. His writings are few, and are mostly translations from the Greek,
quite evidently made for his own amusement primarily. His wealth enabled
him to keep open house to all scholars, and thus he made the acquaintance of
every Humanist passing through Nuremberg. His library was the wonder of
the city, and the envy of his learned friends. It contained every book on the
classics published in Italy, and the best books published elsewhere. He was
consulted upon learned matters by persons throughout Europe, and reigned as
intellectual king of Nuremberg. He was indeed a great man, and basked in the
sunshine of prosperity, and swelled with the praises so lavishly bestowed upon
him. By family ties he was closely linked to the Church of Rome, for six of his
seven sisters and three of his five daughters were nuns ! Like Erasmus, how-
ever, he hailed the Reformation, only, like him, to refuse to cast in his lot with
the Protestants, when the time came to choose between the Old Church and the
Older Church.

Herr Drews has no love for Pirkheimer. In fact, he seems to take satisfaction
in presenting the reverse side to the picture so charmingly given by Hagen in
his Deutschlaiids literarische und religiose Verhdllnisse im Reformationszei-
talter. Mit besondercr Riicksicht atif Wilibald Pirkheimer (cf. Bnd. 1, espe-
cially pp. 260-277) ; for while conceding to him learning, eloquence, states-
manlike ability and professional morality, he brings the proofs to show that he
was hypocritical, dead to spiritual truth, unchaste, quarrelsome, and a moral
coward. In fact, Pirkheimer was a man personally unworthy of respect, how-
ever in some respects desirable to know. It was his wealth, both in purse and
learning, and the splendor of his life which drew people toward him. Self-inter-
est made them his clients, but they did not love him when they really knew him.

In the early days of the Reformation period, Pirkheimer, like the other
Humanists of Germany, appeared as the defender of Reuchlin and Luther against
the stupid and malicious monastic attacks. He won great repute by flaying
alive Dr. Eck in a Latin satirical dialogue, Eccius dedolatus (Erfurt, 1520). Eck
did not, of course, fancy being “ polished off ” after such a fashion, and soon after
took revenge by putting Pirkheimer among those excommunicated by the Papal
Bull of that year directed against Luther and his friends. This conduct greatly
surprised Pirkheimer, and he hastened to assure the authorities, temporal and
spiritual, that he had been named rather because he had offended Eck than be-
cause he had been prominent in defending Luther. After much deliberation,
argument, and intercession on the part of the Nuremberg council, he was
allowed by Dr. Eck to make peace with the Church, but ere his submission

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

153

reached Rome he had been a second time excommunicated, and from this second
decree he was never formally released, although no action against him in conse-
quence seems to have been taken.

As the Reformation progressed he withdrew more and more from the Protest-
ants, for he found little comfort in the purer faith, and was destitute of spiritual
enthusiasm. Still he mediated between Luther and Erasmus, and took Luther’s
side against the Zwinglians. The disturbances of the time pained him, as they
interfered with his personal comfort. When the new doctrines permeated
Nuremberg, and led to the abrogation of monasticism, he was fairly driven into
a defence of the cloister wherein his sisters and daughters lived, in order to save
himself greater unrest. The Reformation had gone too far for him. It had not
stopped, as Erasmus and the Humanists generally joined with him in desiring,
with the correction of acknowledged abuses and the assertion of liberty of
thought. It had unsettled doctrines and divided Christendom into hostile camps.
He was unable to go back, for he had put himself on record as opposed to the
unreformed Church of Rome, and over him hung the papal bann. He could
not go forward, for he had no interest in spiritual things. Luther’s doctrine of
justification by faith, Zwingli’s doctrine of predestination, were things not dis-
cerned by his fleshly mind. So in the miserable middle way, which he found
neither safe nor pleasant, he stumbled along until he died (December 22d, 1530),
with a prayer, says Erasmus, for the welfare of his country and the peace of the
Church upon his lips.

These are the principal points covered by Herr Drews’s book, and they receive
very elaborate handling. The style is rather heavy, and the pages are filled, not
to say loaded, with long quotations, translated, however, from Pirkheimer’s writ-
ings and letters, and from other sources. The book has no index, not even a
table of contents, and the notes, with few exceptions, are at the back. These
are very serious defects, and all the more to be regretted since the book has
very solid merits. It is the fruit of much patient investigation, and its materials
have been drawn from a wide field. The author has gone to the sources, and
formed independent judgments. He has not attempted to write a biography of
Pirkheimer, but to set him forth as a representative Humanist face to face with
the Reformation, and to answer the question, How far could Humanism take up
with Protestantism ? His conclusion is the same as that to which all serious stu-
dents must come : Humanism as such had but a preparatory part in the great
deliverance from the soul bondage of the Mediaeval Church. It awoke the slum-
bering past. It exorcised the demon of ignorance. It ushered in the Zeitgeist.
It quickened the pulses of all life. It laid great stress upon morality. It ridi-
culed religious monstrosities. But it did not tend to produce a spiritually-minded
man, nor the stuff of which martyrs are made. Not Pirkheimer, with his wealth,
his culture, his eloquence ; not Erasmus, with his learning, his wit, his refine-
ment ; but Luther, with eyes full of holy fire, and Zwingli, bent on declaring the
whole will of God, were the leaders of the Reformation. The latter were also
learned men, but the Spirit of God moved in them and made them turn from the
dry bones of classical study to the living Word of God, from which they drew
their inspiration to lead the people to evangelical truth.

Samuel M. Jackson.

We notice the following in the department of History :

Brief Institutes of General History. By Professor E. B. Andrews, D.D.,
LL.D. (Boston : Silver, Rogers & Co.) This is a valuable compendium of his-
tory, containing, in compact and comprehensive form, a vast amount of material,
with a rich selection of authorities. It is in the German Lehrbuch style, and is
suited for the use of college students. It is not so well adapted for general read-

154

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

ing or lower grades of instruction. The living teacher will be necessary to sup-
plement these Institutes , and make them attractive and useful even to students.

Tempel und Palast Salomo's, Denkmdler Phoenikisclier Kunst. Von Dr.

Thomas Friedrich. (New York : B. Westermann & Co.) This is an important
contribution to the study of the temple of Solomon, but it is too theoretical a
reconstruction to meet with the approval of Biblical scholars. The idea that
the with its three cedar-wood stories, was within the stone walls of the
temple is against the essential principle of sanctity that rules the entire construc-
tion of the tabernacle and temple. Die Heiligen. Ein Beitrag zum geschicht-

lichen Verstdndniss der Offe)ibarung Johannis und der altchristlichen Ver-
fassung. Von Dr. C. H. Manchot. (Leipzig : Veit & Co. ; New York : B.
Westermann & Co.) This is an interesting attempt to show that ui ayioi, in the
Apocalypse of John, indicate a body of holy men, embracing the apostles, proph-
ets, and teachers of the apostolic Church. This was a brotherhood organized by
the apostles, and devoted to the care of the poor and sick, to evangelization in
all its forms, and which had the government of the churches in its hands. It
subsequently gave way to the organized ministry of bishops, presbyters, and
deacons. The author examines with great care all the passages of the New
Testament, and the literature of the apostolic and sub-apostolic age. He main-
tains that en-ioKOTroc and tt pea()vTepos are not the same in the epistles of Clement,
and that i Tim. v. 17 gives two kinds of presbyters. The author does not
convince us of the correctness of his theory. At the same time he calls attention
to a number of important facts that indicate that there was a growth in the
organization of the Apostolic Church that can be traced in its progress even in
the writings of the New Testament ; and he gives evidence alongside of the
recent discussions of Harnack, Hatch, Lightfoot, and Sanday, that the whole
subject of the origin of the Christian ministry needs a more thorough investi-
gation than any one has yet given to it ; and that for the most part the polemic
between the churches on these matters should be suspended for the present, and

that all sides should unite in a search for the exact truth. Kirchengeschicht-

liche Siudien. Hermann Reuter zum 70 Geburtstag gewidmit von The-
odor Brieger t Paul Tschackert, Theod. Kolde, Fried. Loo/s, und Karl Mirbt.
(Leipzig : J. C. Heinrich ; New York : B. Westermann & Co.) These historical
papers by the pupils of Hermann Reuter not only do honor to the teacher, but
also to his pupils. I do not know anywhere of a more valuable collection of
historical monographs, all of them based on fresh investigations, and with rich
fruit in new materials of history. These papers treat of the MSS. of Irenseus, of
the legal questions connected with the conflict between Henry IV. and Gregory
VII., of George von Polentz, of several contributions to the history of the Ref-
ormation relating to Cochleus, Adrian, John Denk, and Luther, with documents
never before published ; of the Torgau articles and the Fragment of Augus-
tine’s de arte rhetorica. These are just the sources of history that are invaluable

to the scholar. Dalmatia, the Quarnero, and Istria, with Cettigne in Monte-

negro and the Island of Grado. By T. G. Jackson, M.A., F.S.A. Three Vol-
umes. (Oxford : Clarendon Press ; New York : Macmillan & Co.) These vol-
umes will be a delight to students of history and of architecture, and to all who
are capable of enjoying a rich, full, and scholarly work. The author is an archi-
tect, and he dwells fondly upon the choice and %'aried specimens of architecture
that abound on these north-eastern shores of the Adriatic, where Latin, Greek,
Slavonic, and Turkish forms of civilization met in conflict and left their traces
in construction, destruction, reconstruction, fusion and confusion. The well-
chosen illustrations with which the volumes abound give ample evidence of
the existence of native genius in Dalmatia, as well as of the gifted hands of
Latin, and especially of Venetian architects and builders. The author is also a

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

historian. He writes with the vigor of one who knows the facts and under-
stands how to group them and handle them. We doubt whether any section of
the earth has had a more eventful history than Dalmatia, unless it be the land of
Palestine. The author appreciates his theme, enlists our interest, and satisfies
us. We have seldom read a book with more pleasure. The Origin of the Re-

formed Church in Germany. By Rev. James I. Good, D.D. (Reading, Pa. :
Daniel Miller.) Dr. Good has given us a much-needed book, based upon a
careful study of the sources of his history, and also upon a personal inspection
of the principal cities and towns in which the history has taken place. This
gives a graphic simplicity and power to the work that is a rare excellence. It is
evident that Dr. Good is an enthusiastic writer of the history of the Church in
which he was born, and of which he is an honored and successful pastor. His
enthusiasm, however, while it adds to the interest of the book, on the other hand
detracts from its value. For while the author is an open-minded, straightfor-
ward man of generous impulses and catholic spirit, yet he is so earnest and enthu-
siastic that he sometimes becomes, as it seems to us, unconsciously a partisan.
We think that in some respects the author is more of a Puritan than a Reformed
Churchman of the seventeenth century would have been. There is doubtless
truth in the statement that Calvinism was a second reformation on the Continent,
as Puritanism was a second reformation in Great Britain ; yet there is danger in
carrying the parallelism too far, and it seems to us that this is what Dr. Good
has done. In our judgment, it is not a correct historical statement that “ the
Reformed Church, then, was a reformation of the Lutheran Church of that age.”
The Lutheran Church and the Reformed Church had different origins in history
and different principles in accordance with these origins. The Reformed Church
is in no historic sense and in no logical sense a reformation of the Lutheran
Church. Certain Lutheran lands were won over to the Reformed Church
through various influences, some of them political, some of them by the bridge of
Melancthon and crypto-Calvinism, owing to the intolerance of the Anti-Phillip-
ists, as the author has so admirably shown in many places in his book. But he
has not given a single instance in which Lutheranism became Reformed by any
revival in itself independent of external influences. The Lutheran and the Re-
formed represent two distinct types of doctrine, two distinct phases of piety, and
two distinct theories of Church life. They both originated in the Reformation,
and are twin brothers of Protestantism. They both have had their development.
The saddest thing in the history is this fraternal war, which prevented the exten-
sion of Protestantism in Europe, which paved the way for the success of the
counter Reformation of Romanism, and which would have totally ruined the
Protestantism of entire Europe if it had not been for little Holland and the
great Swedish captain. The author is none too severe upon the intolerance that
was pushed to an extreme on the basis of the Formula of Concord. But he
does not go far enough in his history to show the ruinous intolerance that pre-
vailed no less in the Reformed Churches on the basis of the Canons of Dort.
These two symbols of Protestant Scholasticism, which are now, both of them,
dead documents so far as the Continent of Europe are concerned, are responsible
for a vast amount of intolerance and strife in Protestantism, and also for that
decay of Protestantism which was the inevitable result of the restriction of its free-
dom of thought. We would call attention to the irenic men whom Dr. Good hap-
pily does not overlook. It ought to be the glory of the Reformed Church that she
has had so many of these, such as Bucer and David Pareus, Berg and Dury.
All honor to the Elector of Brandenburg, who proclaimed liberty of conscience in
his dominion in 1614, and to the theologians of his University of Francfort, like
Pelargus, Franck, and the Bergs, and to the great unknown with a kindred
spirit, Rupertus Meldenius, who laid down those principles of Union, which

156

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

were first realized in the present century in the Evangelical Church of Prussia,
and which, it is to be hoped, will erelong influence the entire Protestant world.

We would thank Dr. Good for the excellent book that he has given us. It ought
to have a large circulation not only in the Reformed Church of the German

branch, but in all branches of the Reformed family. August Neander. Erin-

ncrungen von Philipp Schaff. Mit einem Bildniss. (Gotha: Friedrich August
Perthes, 1886), 76 pp. This is a translation of the Reminiscences of Neander,
which form a part of Schaff's Three Biographies : St. Augustin , Melanchthon,
Neander (New York, 1886). The author has revised the translation and enlarged
it by personal reminiscences of Leopold von Ranke, and a complete list of Nean-
der’s works, and the sources for his biography. It is expected that such a biog-
raphy will appear before or at the time of the centennial of the birth of the great
church historian, in 1889. The German edition is adorned with a good picture
of Neander, representing him in his study gown surrounded by patristic folios.

C. A. Briggs.

III.— SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY.

System of the Christian Certainty. By Dr. Fr. H. R. Frank, Professor
of Theology in the University of Erlangen. Second Edition Revised and
Improved Throughout. Translated from the German by Rev. Maurice
J. Evans, B.A. Edinburgh : T. & T. Clark, 1886.

The author of this book does not mean by the system of Christian certainty
the system of Christian truth, the exposition and vindication of which is the task
of dogmatics ; nor does he mean simply certitude of salvation, which the Chris-
tian may have without having addressed himself to the work of asking for the
Why of his faith. According to the writer whose work is before us, there is given
in Christian experience a certain dogmatic content which vindicates itself in the
terms of certitude to the Christian believer. The systematic exhibition of this
dogmatic content as involved in religious experience is the burden of the present
volume. The Christian certainty that is the theme of the volume embraces cer-
tain immanent, transcendent, and transient objects of faith. The discussion
proceeds by affirming first the Christian certainty in relation to the immanent
objects of faith, this being followed by a chapter on the opposition of Rational-
ism ; and then the Christian certainty in relation to the transcendent objects of
laith, this again being followed by a chapter on the opposition of Pantheism.
In a second volume we presume — though this is not promised— the transient
objects ol faith, together with some antithetical error, will be presented. The
book is the product of much thought and learning, but the discussion is tedi-
ous and the style very uninviting. Those who are interested in the very im-
portant question concerning the basis of Christian certitude will find helpful hints
scattered through the volume, but we do not think that they will find in it a sat-
isfactory solution of the problem.

Like all writers who overstate the subjective side of the case in giving the
reasons for the hope that is in them, this author underestimates the objective
presentation of evidence. He has no sympathy with apologetics ; speaks after
the style of Kant of the “ proofs” of the Divine existence ; and goes so far as to
say that we endanger our principle that the natural man receiveth not the things
of the Spirit of God, when we try to convince the unconverted. Thus : “ It
apologetics, as ofttimes happens, addresses its establishment of the Christian truth
to the opponents of the same, and in general to those standing outside thereof, in

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

157

order to overthrow their objections and teach them something better, it forgets
that it runs the risk at the same time of surrendering an important article of this
truth — namely, that it is, at least in its centre, to the ‘ natural man’ foolishness,
and cannot cease to be toolishness to him so long as it continues to be what
it is.”

The central position of the work is that the regenerated man as a new creature
in Christ Jesus has experimental knowledge not only of his new life, but by im-
plication also of sin and guilt — these being the immanent objects of faith ; and
not only so, but that these immanent objects of faith involve by logical conse-
quence the transcendent objects of faith, such as the atonement and the relations
of the Triune God to the Christian in the work of salvation.

There is much in the discussion of these topics that is worthy of very carelul
study, and even when we do not follow assentingly along every page, we at fre-
quent intervals fall upon suggestions that are very fruitful. The close relation
between the ethical experiences of the Christian and his belief in what the author
calls the transcendent objects of faith is very clearly presented, and is a subject
that calls for very careful consideration by those who are watching the movements
of religious thought in our own day. Defective views respecting the atonement
and false conceptions regarding the divinity of Christ will very frequently be
found to have theTr origin in inadequate ideas respecting the nature and the
guilt of sin. The author well says : ” It is, indeed, undeniable that the fact of
the atonement, the substitutionary satisfaction of Christ, became very early an
object of the anti Christian attacks ; and one might conclude therefrom, externally
regarded, that this portion of the Christian truth, which belongs not to those
which are immanent, were touched earlier than these, or at least simultaneously
with them, by the opposition. But in point of fact and in reality the matter
stands rather thus : that after the distinctness and certainty regarding human sin
and guilt, after the understanding of the removal of the relation ot unrighteous-
ness and guilt — a removal of necessity preceding all deeds of human rightous-
ness — has been lost, then first the foundations are given on which the denial or
misapprehension of the redeeming work builds itself up.”

F. L. Patton.

Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte. Von P. D. Chantepie de la Saus-
saye, Dr. und ord. Professor der Theologie in Amsterdam. Erster Band.
(Large 8vo, pp. x., 465.) Freiburg im Br., 1887. Akademische Verlags-
buchhandlung von J. C. B. Mohr. New York: B. Westermann & Co.

This volume belongs to the collection of Theological Manuals issued at Frei-
burg, the first of which, Holtzmann’s ” Introduction to the New Testament,” was
noticed in the Presbyterian Review for April, 1886. But one other volume
in the Series, Vol. I. of Harnach’s Dogmengeschichte, had appeared before the
publication of the “ History of Religion,” which we have now to notice. If the
Series maintains the high level of these first volumes, it will be of great value.
The Series professes to be non-partisan, while strictly and in the highest degree
scientific. The meaning of such a claim is often so perfectly transparent that no
one need be deceived by it. Just as in certain quarters nothing is “ natural
science” that is not naturalistic, so in theological science we often know what
sort of freedom from partisanship to expect from those who most vehemently
protest that their presentation ot fact and truth is absolutely colorless. We shall
expect to find in many of the volumes of this Series a very high order ot ability
and scholarship, and shall judge ot the freedom from partisanship and of the
type and quality ot the science in each work by itself.

Our author’s work is to be mainly historical, half of the present volume and
the whole, we presume, ot the second, being devoted to a description and history

158

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of the world’s religions. Judaism and Christianity are not to be included in this
survey. These systems could not be adequately treated here, and, moreover,
demand a treatment of their own. “ The Science of Religion and that of the
Christian Religion go their own ways and follow their own ends” (p. 7). These
systems are therelore dealt with only in the introductory parts ot the present
volume, especially in the ” Phenomenological part” (pp. 48-170), and dealt with
incidentally.

The author gives us first a “ General part ” (pp. 1-47), in which he treats of
the science of religion, considered by itself and then in its relation to the doc-
trine of evolution, of primeval history, of prehistoric archaeology, of the origin of
religion, the classification and the chief lorms of religion. Of course it is only
the most condensed view that can be given within the limits that are available.
The presentation is in the main exceedingly judicious, and olten very satisfac-
tory. The author sets aside many of the most positive dicta of naturalistic sci-
ence especially as not proven, and many of its methods as out of place on these
subjects. With respect to much ol the early Biblical history, he declares his
prelerence for a symbolical or allegorical interpretation, such as we are obliged
to resort to in dealing with the legends of other peoples (p. 14). He holds that
“ neither the animists nor the mythologists hold the key to the riddle of the
origin of religion” (p. 33), and in respect to the relation of religion and morality
takes the ground that, being equally universal and equally primitive, ” in their
origin divided, they have later united ; that the religious relation in the course
of its development moralized itself” (pp. 33, 34). We simply indicate the
author’s positions on a point here and there of the many that he touches in pass-
ing. These suggest his scientific quality.

In his second division, the “ Phenomenological part,” he touches under nearly
twenty heads the topics that belong to a study of religion as objective, including,
among the last, religious writings, forms of doctrine, mythology, and the rela-
tions of religion to morality and art. Here again multitudes of points are
treated that are of great interest and importance. The author has a rare power
of condensation, as well as of clear and intelligible statement. Whether we
agree with him or not, we cannot refuse to recognize his breadth of view and his
intended fairness.

An “ Ethnographical part ” (pp. 171-231) describes from the point of view of
anthropology and ethnography the races and families of man, whose religious
systems the author describes in detail in the fourth, the “Historical part,”
which in the volume before us treats of the Chinese, Egyptians, Babylonians
and Assyrians, and Indians.

The bibliographical paragraphs which introduce successive sections, wherever
required, are full and rich, and show an unusual breadth of knowledge, with a
disposition to concede that there may be wisdom which is not German or Dutch.
The author knows that he is doing a work not attempted in similar form before,
and very properly asks that the fact be borne in mind in estimating and using
his volumes. He has produced a work characterized by many excellences, and
meeting a serious want in our theological literature. It is everywhere instruc-
tive, and in those particulars in which we disagree most decidedly with its con-
clusions, it renders us the important service of showing us what an unusually
cautious scientific expositor holds to be tenable, or established in theory or fact.

Charles A. Aiken.

Is there Salvation after Death ? A Treatise on the Gospel in the Inter-
mediate State. By E. D. Morris, D.D., LL.D., Lane Theological Seminary.
New York : A. C. Armstrong & Son.

One benefit which the truth obtains from the rise of error is a yet stronger

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

159

statement of itself, and a stronger defence. The recent revival of Universalism
in German}-, Great Britain, and the United States has drawn lorth from the
Church, in all its denominations, a large number of tracts and treatises in sup-
port of the historical faith. Among these, this volume of Dr. Morris is one of
the most valuable. His argument in refutation of a redemption from sin after
death is derived from Scripture, from the Creeds, from Systematic Theology,
and from the Christian Experience.

The argument from Scripture makes nearly one fourth of the volume, and is a
good example of careful exegesis. The Word of God is not handled deceitfully,
but the texts cited are explained by the context, and without torture. Scripture
interprets scripture. The Old Testament as well as the New is drawn from in
support of the tenets of eschatology. The author finds the ideas of immortality,
resurrection, and a final judgment in the elder Revelation. We think that the
Scripture argument would have been more impressive if the words of the pas-
sage had been more uniformly given, instead of only the chapter and verse.
This seems to us to be a defect in the modern mode. The old theologians, in
their argumentation, are careful to put down the text of Scripture, so that the
reader can immediately see if it has any force in supporting the writer’s position
— whether it is pertinent and probative. The present style is to assert that the
Bible teaches thus and so, and to give only the place where the passage is to be
found. The reader too often does not verify the quotation, and if he does, the
impression is not so vivid, owing to the delay and the intermission of time. Any
one will feel the truth of this by reading a tew pages of Calvin’s or Turretin’s
Institutions, and remarking how very many are the texts which are cited not by
numbers, but word for word. These old divines were mighty in the Scriptures,
as the old lawyers are mighty in the law, because they reasoned out of the Scrip-
tures as the latter reason out of the reports and codes. And there is uncom-
mon reason for giving the ipssissima verba of Revelation in an argument
against Universalism, because so very much depends in this case upon what
God has actually said he will do.

The second argument against the extension of redemption into the next world
drawn from the universal consensus of the creeds is compactly stated. The
author rightly infers that a tenet which has never, in the nineteen centuries of
the Church’s existence, been incorporated into any of the ancient oecumenical
symbols, or any of the principal denominational creeds of modern Christendom,
cannot be a Biblical tenet. To suppose that it is is to suppose that the Church
of the past has not understood the Bible.

The third argument from Christian Theology is kindred to that from the Chris-
tian Creeds. The creeds are the condensed substance of the dogmatic systems,
as these are the condensed substance of the Bible. The theologians of the vari-
ous churches have drawn of the creeds of the churches, as the jurists of the vari-
ous nations have drawn of the constitutions and codes of the nations. The
relation of the Augsburg Confession, the Second Helvetic, and Heidelberg Cate-
chisms, to the dogmatic writings of Luther, Calvin, and Ursinus, and their coad-
jutors, is precisely like that of the Code Napoleon to the legal treatises of the
French jurists, or of the Constitution of the United States to the political writings
of Hamilton, Madison, Jay, and Jefferson. The notion that a religious creed is
not to be made by theologians, but by the newspapers and public opinion, is
absurd.

Dr. Morris contends that the results to which the systematic students of Scrip-
ture in the patristic, mediaeval and modern churches have arrived are trust-
worthy, and have a presumption in favor of their correctness which is not to be
set aside without stronger reasons than are given by the advocates of a future
redemption. That the great body of theologians, Augustinian and semi-

1G0

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

Pelagian, Calvinistic and Arminian, have been mistaken in not finding future
redemption in the Word of God is improbable.

The fourth and last argument is derived from the Christian Experience, or
Consciousness. This also is cognate with the argument from the creeds and the-
ology ; for the religious experience of Christendom is formed by the creeds and
doctrinal systems of Christendom. It is because Christians know and believe
certain creeds and read and reflect upon certain books that they think and feel
as they do upon matters of religion — that is, that they have a Christian con-
sciousness. They experience their creed. All consciousness, be it religious or
philosophical, issues from opinions of some kind. The infidel consciousness
differs from the Christian consciousness, because the infidel creed and books are
different from the Christian. Thus it appears that the Christian experience, the
Christian dogmatics, and the Christian creed are modes of the same thing —
namely, Christian truth. The last two are Christian truth in a theoretic form ;
the first is the same truth in a practical form — that of experience.

Dr. Morris takes this view of the subject, and clearly shows that the “ Chris-
tian Consciousness,” to which the advocates of a future redemption so confi-
dently appeal, is against them. The sixth chapter, in which this is done, is as
conclusively reasoned as any part of the volume. It is a discriminating and
timely definition of a much-abused and misapplied term. The Church has no
reason to fear an appeal to the Christian Consciousness, provided a spurious
consciousness is not palmed off for a genuine one. When the Judaizers ap-
pealed to the law as the source of justification before God, St. Paul said to them :

Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? Cursed
is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of
the law to do them” (Gal. iv. 21 ; iii. 10). The Apostle took them at their word,
and stated the nature and effect of the law, from which they expected to obtain
salvation, so plainly that they immediately saw that it would yield them nothing
but damnation. In like manner, when error in any of its forms appeals to the
Christian Consciousness for support, let this consciousness be delineated in its
real nature and its true source in Scripture, and a confident appeal may be made
to its decision by the advocate of truth. This work has been well done by Dr.
Morris.

This treatise is valuable and important not only intrinsically, but also incident-
ally. It is the product of a professor of theology in one of the oldest and most
influential seminaries of the Presbyterian Church. It indicates the type of doc-
trine and the tone of teaching that prevail there, and in this church generally.
It is sometimes said by those whose wish is father to the thought, that the ortho-
dox nowadays do not believe their orthodoxy, and that the clergy of this advanced
age take the form of sound words with a reservation. Such treatises as this of
Dr. Morris effectually refute such an assertion. The candor, judicial fairness,
yet serious tone of living conviction and implicit confidence in Divine revelation
characteristic of it evince that the truth of God is still intrenched as profoundly
as ever in the intellect and heart of his ministers, and of those who are called to
educate and train his ministers. William G. T. Shedd.

The following books have also been received :

Of the Doctrine of Morality in Its Relation to the Grace of Redemption. By
Robert B. Fairbairn, D.D., LL.D., Warden of St. Stephen’s College, Annan-
dale, New York. i2mo, pp. 331. (New York : Thomas Whittaker, 1887.) A
series of academical lectures, written in the simple style suited to their original
destination, the object of which is to show that “ morality is of the nature of
man, while the Church is the minister of grace.” Strong ground is taken for a
natural system of morals ; Christianity did not create a new system, it did not

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

161

even announce a system which it especially enjoined ; “ if we should classify all
the virtues named in the New Testament, we should not have a complete system
of morals.” It adopted the already current natural system ; and all it did was
to shed new light on its details and impart power to realize it in life. The
psychological chapters in which the constitution of the soul and the nature of
conscience are discussed are admirable examples of simple explanation of ab-
struse truths to young minds. The theological chapters are less satisfactory ; what
is said as to how Christianity gives power to live morally is even saddening in its
externality ; we do not even hear whether there be any Holy Ghost. My Con-

fession, and the Spirit of Christ' s Teaching. By Count Lyof N. Tolsto'I.
Translated from the Russian. i2mo, pp. 242. (New York : Thomas Y. Crow-
ell & Co., 1887.) Here we have additional aid in understanding the great Rus-
sian novelist’s amiable, but unreasonable and dangerous fanaticism. The first
part of the volume is an autobiographical sketch of the origin and growth of his
religious life, forming a suitable prelude to the more dogmatic exposition of its
chief outlines in “ My Religion.” The second part is a fragment which is
further described as ” a commentary on the essence of the Gospel,” but which
is really only another of the multitudinous apocryphal gospels, the design being
apparently to commend the Count’s teaching to simple readers by placing it in the

mouth of the Lord. Tolerance. Two Lectures Addressed to the Students of

Several of the Divinity Schools of the Protestant-Episcopal Church. By Phillips
Brooks, Rector of Trinity Church, Boston. i6mo, pp. 111, 1887. (New York :
E. P. Dutton & Co.) Dr. Brooks discourses in these lectures in his usual de-
lightful manner on a theme especially worthy of his powers. In view of our
Lord’s command, however, we dare not brand with him the ” tolerance of
policy” — “ the leaving of the tares for the wheat’s sake” — as a tolerance which
has ” something base about it.” And, 011 the other hand, the kind of tolerance
which Dr. Brooks most admires, “ the tolerance which grows up in any man
who is aware that truth is larger than his conception of it, and that what seem
to be other men’s errors must often be other parts of the truth of which he has
only a portion,” appears to us no tolerance at all, but catholicity of spirit. We
are not “ tolerant ” of known or suspected truth ; true tolerance comes into play
only when we are confronted with what we recognize as error ; and this is the
reason why, as Dr. Brooks admirably argues, there can be no real tolerance in
a mind which has no strong convictions and no firm grasp on truth. By the
way, Dr. Brooks is in error on p. 78 ; our Presbyterian Church will stand this
test. B. B. Warfield.

IV.— PRACTICAL THEOLOGY.

The Appeal to Life. By Theodore T. Munger. Boston : Houghton,
Mifflin & Co.

The purpose of this book is given in the Preface — viz.: ‘‘To set forth the
identity of the Faith with the action of man’s nature in the natural relations of
life ; to show that the truth of God is also the truth of man.” This is very like
a clipping from Drummond. The fundamental error of Drummond’s “ Natural
Law in the Spiritual World ” seems to be embosomed in the avowed purpose of
Munger. Each sets out to show the “ identity" of law in the natural and spir-
itual world ; or that “ the truth of God is also the truth of man.” Each succeeds
in showing analogy — only this and nothing more ; varied, beautiful, often brill-
iant, but simply analogy.

1(52

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The reason for this “ Appeal to Life" is stated to be the excess and faultiness
of the two prevalent methods of presenting the Gospel : the dogmatic method, as
the author styles it, or the worship of a system ; and the text-buttressing method,
or the worship of a text. The dogmatic method " interprets the revelation
through credal forms." The text-buttressing method quotes and matches single
texts, and demands for them arbitrary acceptance. These two methods, it is
frankly confessed, are " entrenched in sentiments that are not only to be re-
spected, but maintained." The one grows out of a demand for order and con-
sistency ; the other, out of a reverent and docile respect for revelation. But
there is a better method of presenting the Gospel — a vital method, says Munger ;
that is, “ Truth set in the light of daily life and the real processes of human
society." It does not reject dogma, but regards it " as liable at any time to be
set aside"! It does not reject a specific statement of revelation, but regards
the quoting and matching of texts for a truth as having its analogy “ in the
childish task of arranging the parts of a dissected map , atid so discovering a
country!" Manifestly the "vital method," so called, takes a good deal of
swing to itself, and means to make room for a large liberty. According to its
dictum, eighteen centuries of sifting and conflict have given us no certainty as
to a single dogma ; and to demand a " thus saith the Lord ” for a belief or a
theory is narrowing and " childish”!

" The thing to be done at present," says the author of this “ Appeal to Life,”
is " not to crowd upon men a system, nor to bind them down to a hard, literal
reception of texts ; but to show the identity of the Faith with the action of man’s
nature in the natural relations of life.” The first ten sermons of this book are
expressly avowed to be efforts in this direction.

Now, if all that the author means by this " vital way" of presenting the Gospel
is implied in what he says ot Christ's teaching — to wit, " It Christ can interpret
a shepherd to himself as he seeks a lost sheep, he can easily make him under-
stand God seeking lost men ; the truth of God immediately allies itself with the
truth ot the shepherd,” then he is only saying that to which the most zealous
advocate of dogma and the most rigid stickler for texts would at once and
heartily respond, " Amen 1" But, then, all this thunder in the Preface about
" the thing to be done at present” by this third and " vital method " is super-
fluous. What is true and substantial in the method is not new. And if there
be anything new in the hazy indefiniteness and fog ot this method, it is not true.

We will not need to go far in our search through these sermons to find the
ample warrant for this conclusion.

The first sermon has for its title, “ The Witness from Experience," and is based
upon the parables ot the lost sheep, the lost piece of money, and the lost son.
The author here finds striking illustration ot what he deems the " vital " way
of presenting the Gospel. Christ appeals to the daily experience of the people,
" to the way in which shepherds and housewives and fathers every where acted
and felt" when they lost sheep or money or sons. " The shepherd seeking a
lost sheep is God saving a world. A woman rejoicing over her found money
is the joy of God and angels over repenting sinners."

Now, if by this and much more of the same sort it is simply meant that the
yearning, seeking, and welcoming love of men lor what they have once lost is
analogous to the love of God for the lost sinner, and that this way ot presenting
the Gospel is the " vital" way, then clearly we have nothing new, or justifying
the somewhat remarkable imputations and claims of the Preface. The distinc-
tions the author there seeks to make between other methods of preaching and
his own not only " seem slight,” as he admits, but are slight. Take Arnot on
these same parables, and he more than matches Munger in the sympathetic
emphasis and power of pathos he puts into these wonderful stories illustrative of

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

163

God’s compassionate and yearning love for the lost. Yet Arnot was no prophet
of a new method, setting aside the “ traditional ” and the “ dogmatic,” but one
of these very dogmatists against whom we have this ” appeal to life.”

In what he calls “ Christ’s Treatment of unwilling Sceptics,” as found in his
conversation with the two disciples on their way to Emmaus, our author claims
another example of the “vital” way of presenting the Gospel. He says:
“ Christ has not joined these two men merely to show them the fact of his resur-
rection, and so drive them into a belief by a physical process.” “ Why does
not Christ come and spread before us his pierced hands and offer them to the
touch of our faith? Not in such ways is faith wrought . ” Jesus “might
have said at once, ‘ Your fears are groundless ; I am the Christ.’ ” But he
“ wished to put a broad and rational basis under their faith.” “ So he began
with Moses and all the prophets, and expounded unto them the Scriptures con-
cerning himself.” But how was it with Thomas ? Was not Christ’s “ Reach
hither thy finger and behold my hands” a rational method of dealing with an
unwilling sceptic ? What answer did it get ? Thomas’s struggling soul shot
at once up through the haze and fog of unbelief into the God-light of that revela-
tion hour, and grasping th e person of Christ in the fact of his resurrection, he
said, “ My Lord and my God !” And millions since have as instantly and as
fully swung to divine moorings under the flashing revelation of the meaning of
“ the print of the nails,” as Thomas did.

A reference to one more sermon must suffice. Its title is, “ Faith Essential
Righteousness,” founded on the Scripture statement that Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him tor righteousness. The author does not leave us
in doubt about his meaning. He says : “ When the relation of character to con-
duct is fully understood, it is seen that faith is righteousness ; the flower of
character grows from the root of belief.” He says again, Abraham’s faith
“ was counted to him as righteousness because, being real , it yielded righteous-
ness ”/ And after picturing Abraham’s trust in God up to the last point of
obedience in the sacrifice of Isaac, he says again : “ Shall not this faith be
counted as righteousness ? What shall the future life of such a man be but
righteousness ?"

There can be no mistaking all this. The author means that the righteousness
counted to Abraham was his own personal, inherent, essential righteousness,
potentially in him when he believed, and proved and prophesied by his faith.
His faith evidenced a state of soul from which righteousness would inevitably
spring ; so that his faith was essential righteousness, and counted as such. In
other words, Abraham, in being justified by faith, was justified by his own
righteousness. And this, Mr. Munger declares, “ is the great principle which
St. Paul elaborated, and which became the key-note of the Protestant Reforma-
tion !”

But where is Christ in all this rational method, this “ vital way” of presenting
the Gospel ? Faith in him is no longer the instrument, but the ground of our
justification. The righteousness is not his, but our own. God has set him forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, not to show his righteousness,
but to develop ours ; which is very much the same as saying a wound is not
healed by the plaster applied , but by our applying the plaster. Our appropri-
ating faith does the business, not the Christ we appropriate. That “ full faith
in God leads to Godlike action” is true, lor faith without works is dead ; but it
does not follow that a man is justified on account of this result of faith. If so,
he is justified by works.

But enough has been cited to make it manifest that this vital method of pre-
senting the Gospel needs some vital modifications to make it square with Scrip-
ture.

164

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

All through the book, along with much that is poetic in form and conception
and tender and noble in feeling, there is a vagueness and looseness that is the
prevalent vice of the new theology. What, for example, must be the view of
inspiration that can be adjusted to a conception of Paul as one “ who often
begins a logical process, but forgets it or uses it carelessly or inconsequently,
and finally falls back on intuition and assertion” ?

Think of the immensity of the egotistical assumption claiming that to be the
Christ-like method of preaching the Gospel which involves such views of justifica-
tion and inspiration, while relegating the orthodox of all the Christian centuries
to the company of the Pharisees ! And think of the strength of the pinion
feathers and the weakness of the steering feathers of the imagination that has
gotten a man where he can honestly say (p. 40) : “ We are standing to-day in
the midst of this theological wreck [Calvinism], its ruins around us, its dust
filling the air, and the question on many lips is, Where is the Christ ? Has he
perished with the system ?” Herrick Johnson.

Fifteen Years in the Chapel of Yale Coelege. By Noah Porter. 1871-

86. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1888. Crown 8vo.

This book is in Dr. Porter’s best vein of thought and diction. This simple
statement implies high commendation. Eighteen discourses compose the vol-
ume. Of these, fifteen may be properly characterized as Baccalaureate Sermons,
covering a period of fifteen years, and discussing the following topics : Christ a
Witness to the Truth 14872) ; The Conquest over the World (’73) ; Obedience
the Condition of Knowledge (’74) ; Christianity an Ethical Force (’75) ; The
Fruit that Shall Remain ( 76) ; By Faith ye Stand (’77) ; The Light of the
World ('78) ; The New and the Old Commandment (’79) ; Agnosticism a Doc-
trine of Despair ('80) ; Seek First the Kingdom of God (’81) ; The Evil Heart
of Unbelief (’82) ; The Fight of Faith (’83) ; In Understanding be Men (’84) ;
Success in Life (’85) ; The Christian College (’86).

The other three discourses have special historic interest : I. On Leaving the
Old Chapel (’76) ; II. On Entering the New Chapel (’76) ; III. Christian Wor-
ship ('76), the occasion being the first Sunday of regular worship in the Battell
Chapel, September 17th, 1876. All these discourses were delivered in the chapel
of Yale College during the presidency of Dr. Porter. Some of them were also
delivered at other places, as the noticeable and noted one, ” The Christian Col-
lege,” which was given at Yale in 1886 and at Wellesley as early as 1880. The
themes are profound and practical. The treatment is philosophic, but plain.
The spirit is Christian and catholic. The discourses are positive, but not partisan ;
trenchant, but tolerant.

The first two and the last are placed in the volume in their proper order, so as
to include the rest, since, in an important sense, they comprehend and condition
the intervening discourses. Intentionally or unintentionally, the fifteenth and
last Baccalaureate seems to condense and summarize the thoughts so fully elab-
orated in the preceding discourses. The mere mention of the main points in
this grand Baccalaureate will indicate its immense scope and importance :

1st. The ideal Christian college should continue and supplement the functions
of the family and the Church.

2d. Christianity needs the college to improve its own spiritual quality, and
enlarge its attractiveness and power.

3d. The college should be Christian in order to elevate and improve the qual-
ity of our science and culture.

4th. A vigorous Christianity is required in our colleges and universities to
counteract and overcome evil tendencies which are active in the science and
culture ol our time.

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

165

5th. Christianity must control the college in order to exclude its antagonist
or rival, in the form of some false religion.

The author’s strength is signally manifest in maintaining and defending these
truths. The book is specially adapted to interest and help college students, while
it cannot fail to be interesting and helpful to every reader. R. B. Welch.

Parish Problems. Hints and Helps for the People of the Churches. Edited
by Washington Gladden. New York : The Century Company. 8vo, pp.
xii., 479.

This is an admirable book. It is so full and comprehensive that it may be
regarded as an encyclopedia of parochial work. Dr. Gladden modestly styles
himself the editor, but he is much more than that. He has contributed twelve
important chapters to the work. There are in all twenty-four writers, most of
whom are popularly recognized as specialists with reference to the subjects here
assigned them. The Table of Contents indicates a careful arrangement of the
manifold themes treated. There are nine general divisions : I. The Pastor’s
Call ; II. Parish Business ; III. Parish Buildings ; IV. The Pastor at Home ;
V. The Pastor at Work ; VI. Helping the Pastor ; VII. The People at Work ;
VIII. The Sunday-school ; IX. Worship.

Each of these general divisions is treated in several chapters, none in less than
six, and only one in so many as seventeen. The book professes on its title-page
to be for the people rather than for the pastors ; but really it is tor both. Many
a minister would be greatly improved by reading carefully this condensation of
the best thinking and of the most mature experiences of men who have been
successful in the work of the Church. The general impression which the book
leaves upon one’s mind is that it contains a great deal of sanctified common
sense which is wholesome alike tor preachers and for hearers. Of course there
are here and there some things to which objection may be made. So compre-
hensive a book must be vulnerable at some points. On p. 59 we find an account
of extraordinary autocracy in Church discipline, which is fairly startling in its
summary way of disposing of a large minority. We are told that certain men
in the Church, “ and they were-leaders, too,” being dissatisfied with the pastor,
waited upon him, and requested him to resign. Whereupon the energetic man
delivered this ex cathedra judgment :

“ Now do you get about your business ; leave the church, or I’ll turn you out of it,
and I’ll turn out or discipline every man and woman in the church that dares to inter-
fere with me in my ministry. Go at once, or you will repent of it. The minister forth-
with cleared out some forty of these disturbers, who, had they been permitted to have
their own way by a timorous, nervous man, would have kept that pastor, and probably
his successor, in torment for many years.”

This is indeed heroic treatment, and we have tried to conceive of circum-
stances so extraordinary as to justify such a high-handed proceeding ; but our
imagination fails us, and we can but think such conduct on the part of a pastor
utterly inconsistent with any idea or order of Church government of which we
have ever heard. Naturally there is a great deal said in this book about
woman’s work, which under various organizations has become of late so large
and important a part of the whole work ot the Church. But Dr. Gladden gives
us one excellent chapter on “ Man’s Work in the Local Church,” in which he
says some excellent and most timely things upon the disposition ot business men
to feel that by giving money they may be exempt from the obligation to work.

The eighth general division treats of the Sunday-school. Under this head
there are ten chapters : five by Dr. J. H. Vincent, three by Dr. A. F. Schauffler,

166

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

one by Dr. A. E. Dunning, and the'last one, “ On the Sunday-school Music,” by
W. F. Sherwin. There is a great deal of valuable suggestion in these chapters,
and very little to which one could object. The delicate, difficult, and most im-
portant subject is most admirably handled. We specially like the tone and spirit
of Dr. Schauffler’s chapters. His criticisms are bright and keen and timely, and
his suggestions are as judicious as they are spiritual. Of course we do not
agree with what he says on p. 369 with reference to Church history, ” Would
that our theological seminaries would spend less time in teaching the Church
history of one thousand years ago, and more time in showing the students how
to shape the Church history of one thousand years hence by wise methods of
work to-day.” The printer by mistake has put an interrogation mark at the
end of that sentence, but the mark corresponds well with our feeling. We ques-
tion the wisdom of the first part of the sentence, but agree heartily with Dr.
Schauffler in the desire that in our seminaries there may be more instruction as
to the wisest methods of work. All the seminaries are seeking this end ; but at
the same time they are trying, as they should, to do more and better work in the
department of Church history. What Dr. Schauffler says about Christmas and
Easter celebrations in the Sunday-school is most timely and excellent.

The thought which is left in our minds after a careful examination of this
comprehensive book is that the rapid multiplication of organizations within the
Church is a sign of the times which demands thoughtful consideration. What a
formidable list of these organizations we are getting ! Of course there is power in
organization, but there is also in it peril. Too many heads in a parish will make
friction, if not collision. Rivalries and jealousies and then dissensions may
come with these manifold subdivisions of Christian work, and then the rightful
leadership of the pastor and of the elders will be sacrificed. There surely is
need of caution just at this point. Too many captains may spoil a company for
good service in the army of the Lord. Thomas S. Hastings.

Bread in the Desert, and Other Sermons. By Randolph H. McKim,

D.D., Rector of Trinity Church, New Orleans. New York : Thomas Whit-
taker.

In the Preface to this handsome volume we are told that these sermons were
given to the press in obedience to the wishes of the author’s late parishioners in
Holy Trinity Church, Harlem, whom Dr. McKim had served as their rector for
eleven years. The volume must be a pleasant and profitable legacy and
memorial to that congregation, by whom the author was, and still is, greatly be-
loved. There are seventeen of these sermons, evidently carefully selected.
They are practical and thoughtful in character and catholic in spirit. In struc-
ture the sermons show the hand of a true workman. In style they are easy and
elegant, with frequent illustrations well chosen, and with other signs of careful
adaption to popular impression, while through all of these sermons one sees very
clearly the warm-hearted and earnest pastor seeking the spiritual good of his
people. After reading these sermons it is easy to understand why the church in
Harlem loved its rector, and was so unwilling to let him go. New Orleans is
certainly to be congratulated upon having secured such a preacher, at once so
scholarly and so evangelical. Thomas S. Hastings.

Christian Facts and Forces. By Newman Smyth. New York : Charles
Scribner’s Sons.

This is a sheaf of sermons gathered, as the author says, from his last year's
ministry, and dedicated to the memory of the beloved dead of his flock, whose
lives evidenced the vital Christian laiths he would confess. Doubtless the con-

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

167

fession is voiced in this volume of sermons. And certainly some of the vital
truths of life are here touched. We doubt if it will be thought by unbiassed
readers that any new light of value is thrown upon our fundamental beliefs by
these discourses. They betray the excellencies and the defects that have marked
the previous productions of the same author. It is hardly possible, however,
that the volume will make anything like the impression made by “ Old Faiths in
New Light," or by others of the author’s earlier works.

The reader will find here the same pleasantness of style and the same genial
and generous catholicity of spirit to which the author has made him accus-
tomed. He will find, too, the same indefiniteness, and even more than the old
lack of energy and verve and climax. The thought is graceful rather than force-
ful, never once bearing the reader along with a mighty vehemence. But it is
frequently poetic, sometimes philosophic, always subdued, calm, and tender.
Not a drop of bitterness is in the book. A profound regard for the Christ of the
Scriptures is apparent all along the pages, albeit there is frequently betrayed an
inadequate conception of the profounder relations of His life and work to our
being and destiny.

Turning for illustration to ‘‘ A Study for a Doctrine of the Atonement,” which
is the title of one of these discourses, we find the author undertaking to show
why Christ “ must needs suffer,” by showing what we must needs do or suffer
in forgiving those who trespass against us. He calls this ” the vital method in
which we may study the doctrine of the atonement of Christ for the sin of the
world.” And he finds three definite truths in such study. First, there must be
penitence or confession on the part of the person who has done us wrong, or
there can be no actual forgiveness of the wrong done. Secondly, human for-
giveness involves a painful knowledge of the wrong which has been inflicted.
You cannot forgive a friend if you have never known and felt the hurt of his un-
kindness. Thirdly, the suffering of the injured person must be so discovered to
the wrong-doer that he can know it and have some appreciation of it, in order
that forgiveness may be granted and received.

Doubtless there are three essential conditions in any act of human forgiveness.
The wrong-doer must repent of his wrong, and the one wronged must be con-
scious of having been wronged, and must disclose his injury to the wrong-doer
before forgiveness is possible. The first of these needs especially to be empha-
sized ; for repentance is regarded by many as an arbitrary condition of forgive-
ness, when its necessity in order to pardon is laid in the very structure of our
moral nature. We find no fault with these conditions in the human relation-
ships. It is to the application of these conditions to Christ that we object. Our
author says, Christ, “ identifying Himself with our sinful consciousness, makes a
perfect repentance for sin and confession of it unto the Father.” Christ also
” realizes the cost of the sin of the world.” And still further, He “ reveals to
the world what its sin has cost.” The last two conditions are fulfilled in Him
beyond a doubt. But in what justifiable sense can Christ be said to have made
” repentance ” for sin ? “ Penitence for the wrong done,” the author rightly

says, is vital to forgiveness. But is it conceivable that Christ could realize any-
thing like this ? There is not an element of repentance possible to the Son of
God, even as a substitute for the sinner ! He could suffer. He could know the
cost, and make the sinner know it. But though He was ” made sin for us,” He
had no sin to repent of. He could have no new view of sin, no change of feel-
ing, nor of conviction, nor of conduct. He “ bore" our sins. He atoned for
them. How could He repent and make confession of them as if He were their
guilty and criminal doer ! “ My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ?” is

the cry of conscious innocence suffering in some mysterious way for the guilty ;
but it is not the cry of penitence.

168

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

The boasted “ vital method ” of unfolding the Gospel fails here, as it fails
wherever it grapples with a profound, lundamental truth of God, from undertak-
ing to make “ the supernatural most natural.” The mysteries of the cross are
not all to be fathomed by the plummet with which we go sounding the depths of
our poor human relationships.

There are other features of these sermons that deserve attention. “ The Great
Requirement,” the title of a sermon on the text, “ Take up the cross and follow
me,” is defined to be the Christian law of sacrifice ; but the reader must trav-
erse three fourths of the track of the sermon before he will learn what this law
of sacrifice is, and then he will find it to be no new law at all to which he has
been led by this protracted and labored and high-promising prelude. Newman
Smyth rarely, if ever, goes early and vigorously to the heart of his theme.

” The Beginnings of Discipleship” has some capital thoughts on what Jesus
required of men when He first met them. “ The Positiveness of Jesus” is a dis-
course of merit on the verities of our Lord, and the author voices a profound
conviction when he says “ that Christian unity is to be realized up on the high
plane of this positiveness, and along the line of these great spiritual affirmations
of Jesus Christ.” Herrick Johnson.

Seamen’s Manual for Public and Private Worship. i6mo, pp. 199.

New York : American Seamen’s Friend Society.

This little book is published anonymously. We violate no confidence in saying
that if the secretary had announced the names of those whom he has called to
his aid in its preparation, their fitness for the work that they have severally
undertaken would be at once recognized. Twenty-four pages are taken up with
forms of worship for the Lord’s day, for daily worship, and for special occasions.
These are either taken from the Book of Common Prayer, or composed with
excellent taste and judgment after this model. The collection of hymns consists
of 171 well-chosen hymns, with a few chants and doxologies. The hymns are of
sterling value, being for the most part such as have most widely and perma-
nently commended themselves to Christ’s people in Great Britain and America
for their evangelical character and their fitness to be used in the “ service of
song.” A very few of the more recent evangelistic hymns are included in the
collection. The 130 tunes are of the same substantial and approved quality.
The collection meets a real want, in both its parts, and cannot tail to find favor.
No friend of the men of the sea need hesitate to aid in its prompt and wide
circulation. Charles A. Aiken.

Books for Practical Edification :

Das Gesprach Jesu mit der Samarterin. Von F. L. Steinmeyer. (Berlin :
Wiegandt und Grieben.) Westermann & Co. send us a number of recent foreign
publications. We notice first this little treatise, which is one of a series that
the author is issuing under the title, ” Contributions to the Understanding of
John’s Gospel.” The first one treated of our Lord’s sacerdotal prayer. The
third will take up the Resurrection of Lazarus. Between these comes this care-
ful review of our Lord’s conversation with the woman of Samaria. In it the
author shows the same curious proclivity to a threefold division of matter which
was noticed in his work on the Sermon on the Mount. (See this Review, VII.,

1 95.) The introduction has three heads ; the essay has three divisions, each of
which, again, is distributed into three parts. As might be expected, this
arrangement is arbitrary, being evidently suggested not by the character of the
theme, but by the purpose of Dr. Steinmayer to fit all he has to say into a frame-
work of this sort. But this does not interfere with the excellence of his treatise,

RECENT THEOLOGICAL LITERATURE.

169

which abounds in nice criticism and acute suggestion. The author is familiar
with the writings of his predecessors on the same subject, and is candid in his
comments upon them. He treats the conversation and its results as an expres-
sive manifestation of our Lord’s prophetic office, and shows its relation to what
went before and what followed after. His tone is always reverent and devout,
and his lucubrations may be read with pleasure even by those who do not agree

with him in all points. Handbuch fur den Konfirmanden-Unterricht.

Zweiter Teil. Von Dr. Georg Hamburg. (Leipzig : Fr. Richter.) The first
part of this careful manual for a confirmation class was noticed by us last year.
The second is of the same general character. It takes up the second head of
Luther’s Small Catechism, the Creed, and treats its contents under the three
persons of the Trinity, giving a clear and orderly conspectus of the main articles
of faith. This is done with abundant citations of Scripture and with constant
reference to the drift of thinking in our day, so that the matter is suited not only
to the young, but also to maturer persons. It is gratifying to perceive that there

is a call for such works. Ich lebe und lhr sollt auch leben. V on Hermann

Peterson. (Leipzig : Bustorff.) This brochure contains six prelections upon
the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians. The author, a pastor in Diisseldorf,
writes with vigor and animation, and in a thoroughly evangelical spirit. On
the vexed question of baptism for the dead, he rejects the notion that it means
the reception of the ordinance on the graves of the martyrs as destitute of any
historical basis, and also the fancy that it means a representative administration
on behalf of believers hindered from receiving it before death as an irrelevant
superstition, and considers it baptism in reference to the dead — viz.: the deceased
member of that one body into which the sacrament introduces us ; and he makes
the argument to be, if the dead rise not, what gain is it to come into such a
fellowship, consisting of those who are already dead, and of others who are to ex-
perience the same fate and have no resurrection ? — a view whiqh is clever, if

not satisfying. Missions-stunden. Von R. W. Dietel. IV. Heft. (Leipzig :

Fr. Richter.) This new portion of Pastor Dietel’s missionary narratives and ad-
dresses is like those which preceded it, full of information presented in a stirring
way and calculated to awaken an intelligent interest in the great work of evan-
gelizing the heathen world. All the hours in this heft are devoted to Southern

Africa. Predigtentwurf e von Friedrich Schleiermacher aus dein fahre 1800.

Von Lie. Dr. Friedrich Zimmer. (Gotha : A. Perthes.) These outlines of ser-
mons are interesting as the work of so eminent a man, but they vary very much
in character. Some are rich and suggestive, while others are quite common-
place, and all have a formal and precise aspect very different from the natural
and easy progress of thought which characterizes the best specimens of English
and American preaching. Yet one cannot deny the logical analysis, the fine
unfolding of thought, and the richness of invention which the editor claims for
these memorials of the celebrated preacher. Still, the student will value them

more as a mental discipline than a model for imitation. Die Mission in der

Schule. Ein Handbuch filr den Lehrer, Von Gustav Warneck. Dritte
Auflage. (Giitersloh : C. Bertelsmann.) One cannot take up a publication of
Dr. Warneck without large anticipations. In this case they are amply fulfilled.
The book is designed to forward the cause of missions in the schools, and furnishes
an admirable manual for that purpose. It first treats of its claims on the school,
and then discusses its nature and methods, after which comes an intelligent
survey of what bears upon the subject in the Old Testament, in the Gospels,
and especially in the book of Acts. To this succeeds a fine sketch of missions
through the centuries, then an exposition of the Catechism in relation to it,
and finally a geographical conspectus of the matter. The book (183 pp., 8vo)
is simply perfect. A translation of it would be very useful. Touto Esii

170

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

To Soma Mon. Vier Abhandlungen iiber das Wort des Herrn, “ Das is t mein
Leib.” Von W. Phillipps ; pp. 479 (Ibid.). This is an elaborate treatise, written
with an irenical aim. The author thinks that while it is the right and the duty
of every portion of the Christian Church to maintain, defend, and develop that
part o( the truth committed to it, it is also their duty to accept that statement of
the truth in which their confessional views may find a harmonious adjustment.
This he endeavors to ascertain, discussing the identity of the elements with our
Lord s body, then their unity, then the sacramental bearing of the Church as
Christ’s peculium, and finally the efficacy of the sacrament. The work shows a
great deal of learning and acumen, but does not reach its aim, as, indeed, how
could it ? The Tridentine definition of Transubstantiation must needs cut off
the least hope of reconciliation with any of the Reformed. Pastor Phillipps,
with all his honesty and acuteness, seems to evade difficulties rather than

surmount them. The Biblical Illustrator ; or Anecdotes , Similes, Emblems,

Illustrations , Expository , Scientific, Geographical, Historical, and Homiletic ,
Gathered from a wide Range of Home and Foreign Literature on the Verses of
the Bible. St. Matthew . By the Rev. Joseph S. Exell, M.A. (A. D. F. Ran-
dolph & Co.) This volume is so fully described on the title-page as to need no
further remark than that it is a most industrious compilation, from an immense
variety of sources, of whatever can help to explain and enforce the teachings of
the first Gospel. Opinions differ as to the wisdom of using so full an account
of men’s views on the Scripture, but there can be but one opinion as to the com-
pleteness and adaptedness of this book to the purposes for which it was intended.

Talbot W. Chambers.

V.— PHILOSOPHY.

Psychology. The Motive Powers, Emotions, Conscience, Will. By James
McCosh, D.D., LL.D. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887.

This volume on the Motive Powers completes Dr. McCosh’s psychological
treatise, the first volume of which was published a year ago. Starting with a
threefold classification of the Motive Powers into Emotion, Conscience, and
Will, the first and larger portion of the book is devoted to the first topic. The
author’s treatment of the emotions is, perhaps, the most original feature of his
book. He opposes the physiological theory which reduces emotion ultimately
to a nerve shock or discharge, and claims that an adequate analysis will discover
four separate elements. In the illustration with which the volume opens the
author points out that all emotion has its primary spring in some appetence or
emotive principle implanted in our nature. The appetences are classified into
primary or connate, and secondary or acquired ; an example of the first beiDg
love of family and friends, of the second, a miser's love of gold. But besides
these root-principles three other elements are necessary to give rise to an emotion
— namely, the idea, the organic affection, and the conscious feeling. Next to the
emotive principle, the most essential element is the idea. Emotion does not
arise blindly or aimlessly, but in presence of some moving object or idea. Thus(
in the illustration referred to above, the fourth traveller's grief burst forth only
after he had grasped the idea of his brother's death. The organic affection or
the nervous discharge, which manifests itself in the general diffusion oi nerve-
excitation throughout the system and in the external manifestations of leeling,
follows the intelligent apprehension of the moving object or idea as its physical

PHILOSOPHY.

171

accompaniment. The fourth element, the conscious feeling or emotion proper,
may be considered a consequence of the concurrent action of the three factors al-
ready stated. Emotion has, the author maintains, mental as well as physical
antecedents, and cannot be explained as a mere nervous phenomenon.

An elaborate analysis of the constituents of emotion is followed by a classifica-
tion on the basis of the ideal or intellectual element which, as the author main-
tains, is essential to the existence of an emotion. Emotions are grouped accord-
ing as they are aroused by animate or inanimate objects. The first group is
subdivided into retrospective, immediate, and ^prospective emotions. Under
the second head the doctor groups the aesthetic emotions, or feelings, aroused
by the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the ludicrous. The chapter on ^Esthetics
is both fresh and interesting, containing many observations which betray the
author’s keen appreciation of the beauty of natural objects.

A brief reference to the remaining divisions of the volume must suffice. The
moral powers are treated under the head of Conscience. Dr. McCosh refuses to
regard conscience as either a purely emotional or a purely intellectual power.
He insists that it contains both cognitive and motive elements. On the intellect-
ual side it is an intuitive power cognizing directly the distinction between right
and wrong and the moral quality of particular acts. The decision of conscience
is accompanied with a moral emotion, a feeling of approbation or reprobation,
according as the act is approved or condemned. The author does not believe
in a derivative morality deduced from considerations of utility or founded on
pleasure and pain. He is an intuitionist of a very pronounced type, stoutly
maintaining that fundamental moral deductions are given in intuitive judgments
of the moral faculty.

The last division of the book treats of the Will or optative power. The great
function of will is choice. This may be either spontaneous or deliberate. To
choice, whether instantaneous or after deliberation, some motive is necessary.
But the author repudiates the current separation between will and motive. We
may have impulses or incitements to actions. But these do not rise into the
sphere of motives of choice until the will has assented to them and thus identified
itself with them. The author declines to enter into the dispute of the ages over
the freedom of the will. He has, however, very positive views on the subject.
The fact that every act cf will is accompanied with the conviction of freedom is,
he thinks, sufficient evidence that the will is actually free.

The two volumes of McCosh’s Psychology on the Cognitive and Motive Powers
contain the ripened fruit of a lifetime spent in the study of mental philosophy.
They are incomparable text-books for classes in colleges and high schools. They
combine with a clear and untechnical style conciseness of statement and masterly
analysis of topics. To these attractions we must add an unfailing supply of fresh
and pertinent illustrations and copious notes on subjects cognate to the topics
treated in the body of the volumes. Alexander T. Ormond.

The Principles of Morals. (Introductory Chapters.) By John Matthias
Wilson, B.D., and Thomas Fowler, M.A. Pp. 133.

The Principles of Morals. Part II. (being the body of the work). By Thomas
Fowler, D.D. Pp. 370. Oxford : At the Clarendon Press, 1886, 1887.

The first part of this work, under the joint authorship given in the title, ap-
peared in 1875. The second part, for which Dr. Fowler alone is responsible,
was published during the year 1887. The volumes are handsome octavos, and
present the attractive appearance for which the issues of the Clarendon Press
are famous. After exhibiting in a very sensible way the relation of ethics to
kindred sciences, the authors in part first proceed to a distribution of the material

172

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

of Theoretical Ethics according to the following plan, which is, to say the least,
unusual : ‘‘The main divisions of Theoretical Ethics to be now treated may be
enumerated as follows : the nature, development, and regulation of the feelings
considered as self-regarding, sympathetic, resentful, and semi-social ; the Reason
in its relation to the feelings ; the place of the Imagination in morals, and the con-
struction of moral ideas ; the Will and the question of liberty and necessity ; the
nature of moral Approbation and Disapprobation ; the moral standard, or criterion
of action ; and, finally, the religious feeling in its bearing on moral conduct.”
To the discussion of these topics there is prefixed a somewhat meagre history of
modern and especially English ethics. The topics themselves, as the chapter on
the “ Method of Morals,” which closes the first volume, makes clear, are intended
to represent the historical order in which ethical phenomena manifest themselves
in individual experience. Adopting an a posteriori method of inquiry, the
author seeks for the origin of fundamental ethical concepts in the springs of
action commonly called the feelings. The second volume opens with an account
of the self-regarding feelings ; and the author closes his discussion of this topic
by showing that these feelings, under the direction of intelligence, may lead to
a very high type of morality — may, indeed, have the perfection of character
as their object. This is not only true, but if it be asked what end a man should
have before him as his chief good, it would be hard to find any other than his
own moral perfection. Self-realization, in other words, is the goal of moral
endeavor.

Next to the self-regarding feelings come the sympathetic, which the author
regards as constituting an original element in human nature. The discussion
of Sympathy is followed by a chapter on Resentment. The author holds that
disinterested malevolence is not natural to man ; that resentment always pre-
supposes harm or injury ; that malevolent feelings, though liable to abuse, may
nevertheless be restrained, and with the growth of intelligence will be held in
abeyance ; and that the law of the land is intended to obviate the necessity for
private vengeance. The relation of law to the resentful feelings in man is very
clearly put ; and now to complete the natural history of morals, it would be
necessary for the author to derive justice and obligation from the law. The
connection of ideas is not very close in this part of the discussion, and we do not
think that the author has been more successful than previous empirical writers
have been in accounting for the genesis of the idea of duty and obligation. It
must not be supposed, however, that Dr. Fowler follows Bain in making a
wrong act mean simply one that is punishable, though the discussion of the rela-
tion of morality to law might lead naturally to this conclusion. In subsequent
chapters, alter dealing with the semi-social feelings, the author proceeds to give
his account of the genesis and growth of the moral faculty. We feel satisfaction
■ — this substantially is Dr. Fowler’s view — when we follow the higher rather than
the lower impulse, and this satisfaction we call moral approbation, and it is the
foundation of our idea of right and of obligation. The idea of “ ought,” accord-
ing to this author, is not a simple and unanalyzable idea. “ It will,” he says,
” always be found to attach itself to that course of conduct which, on reflection,
we conceive to be the greater good ; or, in other words, to be most conducive to
the welfare of all those, ourselves included, whom it may affect.” It will occur
to many readers of Dr. Fowler to ask, however, whether the words “ higher”
and ” lower” as predicates of actions do not already presuppose the idea of right,
and whether the sense of obligation is not a very different thing from the feeling
of satisfaction. I may have more satisfaction in following my altruistic rather
than my egoistic feelings, but this does not account for the feeling of obligation,
which takes no account of consequences.

Dr. Fowler’s analysis of the feelings is interesting, and there are several chap-

GENERAL LITERATURE.

173

ters in the second part of this work which show penetration and keen psy-
chological insight ; and it should be said, moreover, that while he attempts (with-
out success, as we suppose) to give an a posteriori account of fundamental
moral ideas, he does not found morality upon a purely human basis. Speaking
upon this subject, he says, “ Believing as 1 do that human nature had its origin
in a Divine source, and that it has been divinely appointed to work out great
ends in the economy of the universe, I regard the moral nature of man as a con-
summate example of the divine workmanship, and none the less so because it
has been developed and is being developed still, instead of being an instantane-
ous product incapable of improvement or growth. Though, therefore, my ulti-
mate reference in all matters of conduct is to the constitution of man's nature, it
is to man’s nature as God’s work.”

The closing chapters of the book deal with The Will and The Religious Feeling.

F. L. Patton.

VI.— GENERAL LITERATURE.

A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Founded Mainly
on the Materials Collected by the Philological Society. Edited by James
A. H. Murray, B.A., etc., sometime President of the Philological Society,
with the Assistance of Many Scholars and Men of Science. Part III., Batter
— Boz. Oxford : at the Clarendon Press. New York : Macmillan & Co.,
1887.

The appearance of a Third Part of the Historical Dictionary of the English
language, the publication of which has been undertaken by the University of
Oxford, calls fresh attention to this great work. The story of its origin and prog-
ress runs through thirty years. Dean Trench, since Archbishop of Dublin, in
1857 proposed to the Philological Society that they should undertake the collec-
tion of materials for a complete dictionary. This material consists of quotations
illustrating all the uses of all English words, with dates and references to the
books from which they are taken. To obtain it all the books in the language
were to be read, if possible. This work was begun with enthusiasm by several
hundred readers, under the editorship of Mr. Herbert Coleridge. It was found
that a large number of works of the early period were still in manuscript, and
nothing satisfactory could be completed till they were printed. The Early Eng-
lish Text Society was organized, and printed a most important series of books.
The quotations accumulated to indefinite numbers, and at length began to be
spoken of by the million, and the slips of paper on which they were written to be
reckoned by the ton. No publisher would print them. Mr, Coleridge and
other leading workers died. The work seemed to have fallen from its own
weight, and it lay in a heap for several years ; but in 1878 Dr. Murray brought
forward a plan of publication, prepared specimen sheets and laid them before
the Clarendon Press of the University of Oxford in such form that the University
undertook the expense of printing and publication. New interest was at once
excited in reading for quotations, and arranging them for study. In 1883 the
First Part appeared, A — Ant, pp. xvi., 352. At this time Dr. Murray and his
helpers had in hand about three and a half millions of slips, selected by about
thirteen hundred readers from the works of more than five thousand authors, at
least twenty thousand separate works. The readers have volunteered from all
parts of the world, Americans in fair proportion. The largest contribution is

174

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

from an Englishman, T. Austin, Esq., one hundred thousand quotations ; the
next is from Rev. J. Pierson, D.D., Ionia, Mich., thirty-six thousand ; and among
those having sent upward ot ten thousand are two Pennsylvanians, Professor
G. M. Phillips, ot West Chester, Pa., and H. Phillips, Esq., Ph.D., Philadelphia.

By Dr. Murray's plan a selection is made from the slips, and only so much of
each quotation is printed as is necessary. From the year 1150 to 1500 all the
books are read, and every word is taken. Before 1150 the important Anglo-
Saxon books are read, but only such quotations are printed as belong to words
which survived beyond 1150. Alter 1500 a distinction is made between standard
English and the dialects, and of course only a selection of books and other
printed matter has been read. A separate series of quotations is made for each
meaning of a word, beginning with the passage in which the word first appears
in an English book, and coming down to that in which it is found latest. Dr.
Murray has the perfervidum ingenium, delights in his work, and distinguishes
every shade of meaning, so that the number of quotations used is very liberal.
Under bear, the verb, there are eighty-two distinct meanings, and perhaps four
hundred and more quotations. Under bear , the animal, there are thirteen
meanings and fifty quotations, while Johnson has two meanings and four quota-
tions. Under the verb be Johnson has thirteen quotations, Murray six to seven
hundred. About one hundred and twenty-five thousand quotations are used in
the three Parts now printed ; there will be a million at least in the completed
Dictionary. Each ot these quotations has with it its date, author, work, page, or
other exact reference ; and it is given literatim , the exact spelling, capitals, and
all of the first edition being preserved. These quotations constitute the body of
the book, and its greatest value to scholars. It has, however, all the accom-
paniments of a complete dictionary. The typical or common spelling is pointed
out, though other spellings are given and the dates of their currency.

The present pronunciation of all current words is given, and with a nicety of
notation not approached in other dictionaries. Dr. Murray distinguishes sixty-
six vowel sounds.

The etymology is of the same excellence. It displays the whole form history
of each word back to its first appearance in English, and then in other languages
as far as it can be traced in documents, and into the theoretic forms ot pre- his-
toric speeches as far as the current science of the latest neo-grammarians has
gone. In all this Dr. Murray uses the advice and consent of the best-accepted
German scholars, and the etymology of Grimm and Littr6 is old fashioned beside
him. He also has the aid of eminent men of science and learning in determin-
ing the exact senses of scientific terms and words of difficult meaning. The
Dictionary claims to “ represent in a condensed form the accumulated knowl-
edge of very many of the first scholars of our time,” and to “ be found in all
respects abreast of the actual state of science

In its plan it is certainly the foremost dictionary of the world. The German
Dictionary of the Grimms is its forerunner and exemplar, but there has since
been a great advance of scientific method in philology, and an immense gather-
ing ot materials for the history of language. The English language is the
largest field for the use of this learning and science, and the New Dictionary
claims to have it at command. Its form corresponds to its substance. Every
resource of the printer’s art is used to make the book not only convenient lor
use, but strikingly handsome. The general reader or the amateur philologist
or picker-up of linguistic curiosities cannot look at this dictionary without admi-
ration and delight. It is packed lull of the most curious and interesting facts,
presented in the most happy form. It is now four years since the first number
appeared. The reviews of each successive part have been more and more laud-
atory. The London Times, the Academy, the Alhenceum, vie with each other ;

GENERAL LITERATURE.

175

"a monumental work,” “an achievement without parallel,” “a great Enter-
prise of National Interest,” seem to be meant for sober critical comment by these
staid authorities. The philological reviews all over the world have commended
it with few reserves. That it really is what it appears to be, a thoroughly good
piece of work in the view of the masters of the science of language, and an indis-
pensable part of the apparatus of every student of the English language and lit-
erature, may now be confidently asserted. F. A. March.

La Carita of Andrea del Sarto in the Chiostro dello Scalzo at Flor-
ence. By F. Max Muller, M.A., Professor of Comparative Philology in
the University of Oxford. 4to, pp. 23. London : The Fine Art Society,
Limited, 1887.

The chips which Max Muller throws off from his workshop are always inter-
esting, and this little pamphlet is no exception to the rule. In it he presents
to our notice a very beautiful sketch, here reproduced by the collotype process, of
the Carita of Andrea del Sarto, a similar group to that in the cloisters of the
Collegio dello Scalzo at Florence. The sketch is on a number of small sheets
of very old paper carefully pasted together, and forming a picture 5 ft. 2^ in.
x 2ft. 10 in. It was found to be inscribed, ” Abozzo di Andrea del Sarto" — the
first sketch of Andrea del Sarto. Face to face with it is given a reproduction of
the fresco itself, so that we have a fair opportunity of examining the characteris-
tics of each. In matters of detail the one is almost an exact reproduction of the
other, though the differences of touch in the two drawings are so marked as to
incline us to attribute them to different artists. The sketch is evidently from
the hand of no mean artist, and exhibits more refinement and tenderness of feel-
ing, though less technical ability, than the other. Can it be that we have here
the original sketch of the artist ? This is what Professor Muller wishes to
believe, basing his hypothesis upon what we may term epigraphical evidence.
He judges not so mucli from the style of the drawing as from what he calls the
external evidence, such as the antiquity of the paper and the inscription upon it.
Now this inscription, he tells us, was where the paste had almost obliterated it,
was written with a hurried hand, and was scarcely legible. The chirography is
not very clear, certainly not a decisive index of the date of the drawing. We
may presume that the distinguished Professor of Comparative Philology in the
University of Oxford is capable of judging palaeographic evidence, but he is very
guarded in assigning a date to this inscription. The nearest to an exact state-
ment which he ventures to make is that ” the very handwriting of the words,

' Abozzo di Andrea del Sarto,’ is certainly not of this century." This leaves us
in doubt whether to assign the drawing to the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eigh-
teenth century — not a very exact demonstration in favor of Andrea. We owe a
debt of gratitude to Professor Muller for having discovered this very interesting,
perhaps very valuable sketch, and for his glowing description of it. But when
we remember that the known sketches of Andrea del Sarto are of a more linear
and less finished character than this, it is safer to believe that we have here an
early copy rather than the original sketch. Nevertheless, the copy, if it be such,
is singularly attractive, and retains for us much which in the original fresco is
peeling and dropping away. Allan Marquand.

We notice further :

A Collection of the Letters of Thackeray, 1847-1885. Pp. 189. (New York:
Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1887.) These letters, which constituted so marked a
feature in Scribner s Magazine for 1887, are here issued in attractive form, as
they deserve to be, in an independent volume. They exhibit the great novelist

176

THE PRESBYTERIAN REVIEW.

in a most delightful way. All that is genial and tender comes out in this corre-
spondence, and will surely and effectually correct many impressions that have
been formed in regard to him. The satirist, the supposed cynic, had a softer
side to his nature, which drew strongly to him the friends to whom it was no-
where better presented than in such correspondence as this. His memory will be

the sweeter with us all for these revelations. What to Do f Thoughts evoked

by the Census of Moscow. By Count Lyof N. Tolstoi. i2mo, pp. 2 73. (New
York : Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1887.) All that is most generous and chiv-
alrous in Tolstoi is brought before us in these pages, while at the same time his
radical and scornful opposition to what he often calls the “ scientific science,” and
the practical injustice of the modern world in its dealing with social problems, is
expressed with all the power and intensity that he can command. Anywhere
else we should call such a man a ‘‘ crank” of the first water. Money is only
and utterly evil ; the only good use that can be made of it is to get rid of it in
the way that shall do the least harm to one's self or others. The only corrective
of the social inequalities of our modern life is that every man should do the
utmost by himself and for himself, and produce the most that he can produce,
so as to bring the smallest number of his fellow-men into any possible relation
of dependence upon him. The forms and measures of cleanliness, e.g., on
which we have come to insist, are “ useless to everybody, and objectless, except
for the purpose of separating one’s self from others, and of rendering impossible
all intercourse with them, when this cleanliness is attained by the labors of
others” (p. 106). Moral : Go dirty, except as you can do your own washing.
“ Education consists of those forms and acquirements which are calculated to
separate a man from his fellows” (p. 107). ” Money accumulated itself repre-
sents violence” (p. 126). ” Money is a new form ol slavery, which differs from

the old form of slavery only in its impersonality” (p. 129). Tolstoi has the
courage of his convictions, and conforms his own life to his theories ; he gives
expression to them with his pen with a style of rare vigor. We wonder less
after reading this volume that the government censor prunes his pages well be-
fore allowing them to appear among those whose circumstances and whose

provocations are Russian. Life Notes ; or. Fifty Years' Outlook. By William

Hague, D.D. i2mo, pp. 362. (Boston : Lee & Shepard, 1888.) Dr. Hague’s
fine personal qualities, his prominence as one of the foremost preachers, pas-
tors, and counsellors of his denomination, and the wide acquaintance with men
and affairs which began in the favorable conditions of his early life and was
promoted by the changes incidental to his eleven pastorates in influential
churches, give more than an ordinary interest to his life notes. His comments
on men and things are very pleasant reading, and carry with them the weight
which belongs even to the lighter work of such a man.

Charles A. Aiken.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Presbyterian Review"

See other formats