BURGE'S "ORIGIN AND FORMATION OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES.'

THE ORIGIN AND FORMATION OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. By Lorenzo Burge. Pp. 132. Boston: Lee & Shepard.

1889.

The truth of Scripture is constantly receiving unexpected illustrations. The captious criticisms of yesterday are exploded by the startling discoveries of to-day. The correctness of this statement is strikingly confirmed in connection with the book now under review. From time immemorial skeptics have cavilled at the longevity ascribed to the antediluvians in Scripture. They can cavil no more. The nineteenth century, among its other glories, has produced a number of men whose longevity throws that of the antediluvians into the shade. Mr. Burge, for instance, seems likely entirely to eclipse the venerable Methuselah in the matter of age. The famous antediluvian only reached the age of nine hundred and sixtynine years. Mr. Burge, however, seems to be, upon the most modest estimate, from two thousand to two thousand five hundred years old-possibly much older. He is, of course, too modest to give us his age in exact numbers, but he lets out his secret by giving us to understand that he lived upon terms of closest intimacy with "that eminent Persian nobleman Nehemiah," who himself lived about 350 B. C. This at least seems to be a not unwarranted inference from the way in which Mr. Burge writes. For example, he says:

"A careful examination of the Old Testament shows that the most important part of the book is the work of one person. Who that person is we shall see later.

"The main portion, including a part of Genesis to Esther, is a history of the covenants made by the Deity with Abraham," etc., etc.

"This history is written in a free and flowing style," etc., etc. "It covers the whole life of the Hebrew nation to the captivity, records. the formation of

the Jewish nation and its history to and including Nehemiah, and could not have been the work of any one previous to his time." (Pp. 15, 16.) "In Nehemiah we have a continuation of the history of the new nation in the first person until he returned to Persia...

....

"Still greater honor belongs to him for his labors in collecting the Hebrew records, scattered as they were throughout Persia and Babylonia, translating into the Aramaic tongue (the language of Babylonia) the contract made by their fathers with Jehovah, together with the law, and the blessings and cursings connected therewith, and also from the records mentioned translating into the same vernacular an epitome of the history of their people for a thousand years, with particular reference to the results of their contract with Jehovah, as shown in each period of their existence; a work without which we should to-day have no Old Testament, and perhaps no Bible. (P. 36.) .... "When he (i. e., Nehemiah,) returned to Persia, in accordance with his original promise to the king, he left the country prosperous.. He found the king at Babylon, and he employed his time while in Babylonia and in Persia in searching for and gathering together the various religious, biographical and historical works mentioned by him as authorities for his history." (P. 44; italics ours.)

"These 'writings and commentaries' of Nehemiah were ever after treasured by the Jews, and, with the prophetical works, became the law and the prophets' of the Hebrew Scriptures of the time of Christ."

All this, and much more in the same vein, would be profoundly interesting but for the deep-seated incredulity of the human heart. Let him speak with never so much assurance, yet there are those who will not believe that Mr. Burge ever saw Nehemiah, or sustained any such intimate relations to "that eminent Persian

nobleman," as are so delicately hinted at in the foregoing reminiscences. This is to be greatly deplored, not for Mr. Burge's sake, but for their own.

It is scarcely necessary to say, that should the reader of this belong to the class of unbelievers just referred to, it would be useless for him to purchase this admirable memoir of Nehemiah by his oldest surviving friend. We have not seen Mr. Burge's other books, but we have a shrewd suspicion that they would reveal the fact that he is a pre-Adamite. If so, he owes it to himself, no less than to science, to speak out. Adieu, venerable man, adieu. W. M. MCPHEETERS,

BESANT AND PALMER'S "JERUSALEM."

THE HISTORY OF JERUSALEM, THE CITY OF HEROD AND SALADIN. By Walter Besant and E. H. Palmer, late Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. New edition. New York: Scribner & Welford. 1889. Pp. xiv.,

525.

This is a new edition of a book which first appeared in 1871. So thoroughly was the work done in the first instance, however, that very few changes are necessary even after the lapse of twenty years. The chapter on "Modern Jerusalem " has been properly suppressed, because so many changes have taken place there in the last two decades that it was no longer a faithful account. But we do not see why the appendix to the first edition should have been omitted, since the recent discoveries in Jerusalem have only tended to confirm the positions there taken as to the site of the Holy Sepulchre and the location of Herod's temple. With the exception of these two omissions the alterations have been very slight indeed.

It must not be inferred from the foregoing remarks, by those who are not familiar with this work, that it is taken up with those interminable controversies about the topography of Jerusalem, from which, as Dr. Thompson prays, libera nos, Domine, though it was the study of these vexed questions that suggested to Mr. Besant the first thought of the volume before us. It is not a geography, then, nor a topographical polemic, but a history. It gives the history of Jerusalem "from about the year 30 to the present time," and as this period includes the siege and capture by Titus, the last revolts of the Jews, the Christian occupation of three centuries, the Mohammedan conquest, the Crusades, the Christian kingdom, the reconquest and the Mohammedan domination to the present day, there ought to be no lack of interest. And yet to how many scholars even is the history of Jerusalem during all these centuries a great blank!

In their collaboration Messrs. Besant and Palmer have used both Mohammedan and Christian sources; Prof. Palmer, who was the most accomplished Arabic scholar in Europe, contributing the chapters on the Mohammedan views of the city's history. These views had never before appeared in English. This book, therefore, was the pioneer of all such valuable works as Mr. Guy Le Strange's Palestine under the Moslems, which has just appeared, and which makes such scholarly use of the works of medieval Mohammedan geographers and travellers. Jerusalem is a holy place to Moslem as well as Christian. The American tourist, when shown the projecting column of the wall at Jerusalem on which Mohammed will sit when he comes to judge the world, muttered the wish that Mohammed would judge the world "from some roost of his own at Mecca," and not interfere with our holy places. We all sympathize with the sentiment of our fellow-citizen. But we must

admit the fact that Jerusalem is, and for centuries has been, a holy place to the Mohammedans. And it were the blindest bigotry to decline the aid that may be gotten from Mohammedan authors in our study of her history and topography. freely and effectively used here.

It is No less thoroughly has Mr. Besant ransacked the Christian literature of the subject. To his practised hand is due also the charm of style which pervades the book. These brilliant chapters on the Crusades are almost enough to make one regret that Mr. Besant did not continue to work in this field instead of giving himself to fiction and philanthropy. He is an honest historian. The immoralities of the Crusaders are fearlessly exposed. When Saladin and Richard are described, the latter suffers in the comparison. Faithful research, historic imagination, and vivid style, these are the chief characteristics of the work, and it is the combination of these that make it the best book on its subject in our language. Hampden-Sidney, Va.

HUNT'S "STUDIES IN LITERATURE," ETC.

W. W. MOORE.

STUDIES IN LITERATURE AND STYLE. By T. W. Hunt, Ph. D., Professor of English Philology and Discourse in the College of New Jersey. New York: A. C. Armstrong & Son, 1889.

"Ten

"About a page-and-a-half," says the potentate of the QUARTERLY. pages wouldn't do either the subject or the author justice," groans the tortured reviewer inwardly; but the powers are inexorable, and if injustice is done, theirs be the blame, not ours. Yet, if criticism is to be a sample, neither of the "foreordained favorable," nor of that "war-whoop-and-tomahawk" ferocity, so deservedly deprecated by Prof. A. S. Hill, one can do but scant justice in so limited a space. Here inductive or constructive criticism of literature and style is impossible, and a judicial view of the book itself only partly feasible.

But a truce to space-wasting apologies, called forth only by the undoubted merits of the book and its subject, both of which must be so slightly treated. Mr. Hunt's new book follows the beaten path of its predecessor, Representative Prose Authors, and illustrates the faults and excellencies of this work. The faults, however, are minimized in the later work, and the excellencies are more "sharply accentuated.' The most conspicuous defect of the book is its style. Clear, cleancut, correct, if we may be allowed to tease the initial letter somewhat, it lacks vigor, beauty and variety. The level is fairly high, but it is a level cultivated, well harrowed, and with but few patches of "greenth" and floral beauty. We could scarcely suspect the author of ever being guilty of an "impassioned parenthesis." He wields his intellectual scalpel with the precision of an expert. To change the figure, everything is neatly labeled, pigeonholed, and warranted to keep for an unlimited time. After going through with chapter after chapter of heads and sub-heads, flesh and blood revolt at so much unseemly obtrusion of the skeleton frame-work. Even if the book were intended only for the students, the teacher's passion for analysis should be held in abeyance, and more be left to the reader's penetration. But after all this is said, and it sounds much harsher than it really would if one only had space to explain one's self fully, the book is an admirable exhibition of judicious criticism, not warped by prejudice nor swayed by passion or favoritism. A genuine catholicity of taste, rare as it is commendable,

is displayed throughout. The author shows a wide acquaintance with the best literature, and always has "the courage of his convictions. His conservative estimate of such "men of light and leading" as Matthew Arnold and Emerson, well illustrates his fairness. These two chapters, and the one on "Prose Style and Poetry," are the freshest and best in the book.

In the introductory chapter, too, the author rises to the height of his great argument, and sets forth the dignity of literature, and its claims upon the time and attention of the student, with commendable zeal. We hope that some time in the future Mr. Hunt will add some more studies of individual authors. Such topics being more specific than the literary problems discussed by him, cannot fail to arouse greater interest and direct the reader's attention to the best and the worthiest names in our noble literature. Even in Pandemonium 'the lesser infernal deities were reduced to pigmies in the presence of the "thrones and imperial powers." But with us "the scrannel pipes of wretched straw" threaten to silence Milton's "organ notes."

Such a work as Mr. Hunt's makes the unreasoning public, bobbing up and down amidst the flotsam fads of the hour, look to their pilots, and ask the pertinent question, "Whither ?"

Davidson College.

VAN DYKE'S LECTURES ON THE CHURCH.

W. S. CURRELL.

THE CHURCH: HER MINISTRY AND SACRAMENTS. Lectures Delivered on the L. P. Stone Foundation at Princeton Theological Seminary, in 1890. By Henry J. Van Dyke, D. D., Pastor of the Second Presbyterian Church of Brooklyn. 8vo., pp. 265. New York: Anson D. F. Randolph & Co., 38 West Twentythird street. 1890.

In his preface the author gives a cautionary statement, which ought to be held in mind. "It may be proper," he says, "though hardly necessary, to add, that while these Lectures were delivered in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J., by invitation of its Faculty, no one but their author is in any way responsible for them." Any strictures, consequently, that may in this notice be passed upon the views presented in this work must not be construed as having reference to those taught in Princeton Seminary, except, of course, where it is a matter of notoriety that there is a coincidence between them. With his wonted manliness the author assumes the sole responsibility for his positions.

Dr. Van Dyke is known from Maine to the Rio Grande. It is, therefore, almost needless to remark that he is a prominent, able, distinguished minister of the Northern Presbyterian Church. We have been accustomed to hold him in honor and admiration for his great ability, his literary attainments, his splendid rhetoric, and his undoubted courage in maintaining his convictions in the face of odds the most formidable. These qualities are illustrated in the book before us. It is able, the style is clear, vigorous and elegant, and some of its doctrinal positions, boldly enounced, must have caused the atmosphere of Princeton to palpitate. While cheerfully rendering this tribute to the author, we confess that, as we have been disposed to regard him as a standard-bearer of orthodoxy, according to the conception of Calvinists and Presbyterians, we have been surprised by some of the views which are maintained in his work. We have no inclination to pass strictures upon

Dr. Van Dyke. If we were compelled to couch a lance we would much prefer to level it against some one else, rather than the man who has in past times so gallantly done battle for the great principle of the spirituality of the church. But where the interests of truth are involved, we are at liberty to make no compromise of our convictions, to know neither master nor father, neither mother nor brothers nor sisters. The deeply interesting question, to one who endeavors to scan the signs of the times as they are registered upon the ecclesiastical firmament, is, how far the author's views represent those of the great church of which he is so conspicuous a member?

There are, as was to be expected, many things in the work which are well and truly said, and had we room, in a notice like this, we would gladly expatiate upon them; but we must confine ourselves to the less pleasant, but perhaps more useful, task of pointing out some of those things from which we are obliged to dissent, and which we believe to be, either in spirit or in the letter, inconsistent with the traditional and scriptural orthodoxy of the Presbyterian Church. This is done, we say again, not from any wish to criticise the author, but for the purpose of indicating the answer, which is astonishingly in the process of rendition to the significant question that constituted the title of a preceding and notorious book— "Whither?"

1. The preface distinctly and candidly foreshadows the main contention of the work. It gives its essence. It uncorks the vial and sets free an aroma which impinges strongly upon the emunctæ nares of Presbyterians. It reveals the fact that the author is under the spell of a dream, which mighty men before him have dreamed, of the unification of the visible church. It is, under the conditions which at the present mark the development of the church, but a dream; and the desire for its realization, even within the circle of Protestantism, in this period of its history through human effort, without a remarkable interposition of God's providence, is objectionable for several reasons: First, Because it supposes the relinquishment of important truths. It needs little argument to show that the only basis of such unity would be the mere essentials of the gospel; that is, those doctrines the holding of which is necessary to salvation. That would involve the excision by each denomination of what is peculiar to itself. Look at some of those which the Presbyterian Church would be called upon to surrender-the covenant of works, imputation, unconditional election, the covenant of redemption, particular atonement, perseverance of the saints, the parity of the eldership, the parity of the ministry, and its representative courts. Secondly, Because it.is hopelessly impracticable. Will the Presbyterian Church give up those doctrines which have been mentioned? the Baptist Church the exclusive validity of immersion? the Episcopal Church the “historic episcopate" and the necessity of prelatical ordination? the Methodist Church its Arminianism? the Lutheran Church its efficacy of the word and the sacraments? the Congregationalist Church its independency of particular churches? It were a mere rhapsody to talk of such possibilities before the millennium. Thirdly, Because its expression does injustice to the Presbyterian Church. That church, while true to its principles, cannot be a high-church body. It recognizes every branch of evangelical Protestantism as a true church of Christ. It excludes none from its pulpits, none from its communion table. It is not correct to represent its denominationalism as inconsistent with the unity of the Protestant Church. It is not correct to intimate that it is chargeable with schism. It discriminates, and justly discriminates, between an external amalgamation and