The position here taken might be made much clearer by reviewing the course of the prophet's argument contained in his book. The unity of the book and the strength and beauty of the author's conception from this standpoint may thus be conspicuously illustrated. But that will not now be attempted. It may be objected, that if this were the thought of the writer, it would have been more clearly stated. But the obscurity that appears to attach to the thought is because our conception of one God who is the sovereign of the whole world is fundamentally different from the prevalent notion of that time. To a people steeped in the idea that the worship of a deity was dependent upon residence in the land where he exercised sway, no clearer statement would be needed. The first thing that occurred to David as he faced the possibility of being driven from his own land was, that this would mean "serving other gods" (1 Sam. xxvi. 19). When Naaman desired to worship Jehovah in Syria, the first preparation he made for that was to take "two mules' burden of earth" from Israel, Jehovah's land, that such an act might be possible (2 Kings v.). So, in this case, the thought that would first naturally present itself would be just in this direction. Hence the important message of Amos came in connection with this very lofty conception of himself which God had given to this prophet. It is usually said that the people in general did not grasp the idea of monotheism until the later exile in Babylon. This at least cannot be said of Amos. As the book now stands, the passages iv. 13; v. 8, 9; ix. 5, 6, are sufficient to prove this. But, as these passages are claimed by many to be later insertions, there is enough in the book without them to establish this doctrine. Considering the power that is ascribed to God in various lands such as Syria and Philistia (i. 3ff.; i. 6ff.; ix. 7) in connection with such a thought as that in iii. 6, "Shall evil befall a city, and the Lord hath not done it?" our conclusion is that the logical result, at least, of Amos's view is Omnipotence. Similarly we obtain the idea of God's omnipresence by comparing ix. 2, 3 with God's presence in the various nations. But, admitting this, it is scarcely possible to stop short of monotheism. Amos, then, could prophesy as he did, simply because God spoke to him in that far-distant day so plainly, and gave to his prophet such a wondrously clear conception of himself, towering far above all others of his time, and scarcely surpassed by all the succeeding line of prophets until the Prophet of the Perfect Vision came to clear away many mysteries that necessarily remained, in spite of the fact that these great men of the olden time came into such close contact with God, and delivered so faithfully the important messages they received from him. OBERLIN, OHIO. EDWARD E. BRAITHWAITE. ARTICLE XIV. NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS. CHRISTIAN LIFE AND THEOLOGY; or, The Contribution of Christian Experience to the System of Evangelical Doctrine. (Stone Lectures, 1900, Princeton Theological Seminary.) By FRANK HUGH FOSTER, Ph.D., D.D., Professor of Theology in the Pacific Theological Seminary. 8vo. Pp. ix, 286. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co. 1900. $1.50. Christian experience is related to Christian doctrine as some experiments in science are related to scientific theories. The doctrines which we are called upon to believe come to us ready-made from Scripture and from the interpretations which believers have put upon Scripture. The evidence for the truth of these doctrines is in no case demonstrative, but it is so strong and clear as to compel fair minded men to give assent to them as working hypotheses. This assent of the will to what we may call "the experiment" of trusting to the best light we have, constitutes what is called faith. In this case, as in scientific investigations, the theoretical proposition is followed by verification. It is the continual production of the fruits of the gospel in the minds of believers in conformity to the promises, which gives the higher degree of certainty characteristic of the faith of the church. Accepting this truth, which is scarcely doubted by any, Professor Foster makes a careful study of Christian experience as displayed in all forms of church history, to test by this method the truth of the main doctrines of Christianity. The argument is like that from prophecy. The fruits of the Spirit are definitely foretold, and we may not expect them to appear in full measure except in connection with the most complete and symmetrical development of doctrine. Proceeding from this basis, Professor Foster shows that the experiences of the new birth are a constant witness to the doctrines of depravity and of the personal presence of the Holy Spirit in conformity with the universal consensus of the church respecting prevenient grace. In similar manner it is shown that the fruits of the Spirit in their highest form are dependent upon the orthodox doctrines concerning the person of Christ. The "love, joy, and peace" of which the apostle speaks, could not flow from any fountain less elevated than that which contains the doctrine of the divinity of our Lord. And this, as Professor Foster points out (page 159), was recognized by the earliest Christian apologists. In theology, as in mechanics, that principle which in the long run works best in the production of the highest Christian character must have in it the essential elements of truth. With great force Professor Foster appeals to the results of the ortho. dox revival in New England in the early part of the last century. As a result of this revival, we have the growth of orthodox churches till they number in the single State of Massachusetts as many as the Unitarians do in the whole country, while their work in foreign and in home missions is one of the marvels of the past century. "The theology of Nice proves itself to have vital power to-day as of old. There is now no strong and aggressive Christian church, full of good works, and historically deserving the name first given the disciples at Antioch, which is not established upon the Nicean foundation" (page 166). And so through a long series of examples Professor Foster shows, from his profound knowledge both of church history and of the controlling features of Christian experience, that the maintenance of the orthodox faith is justified by the fruits which it has borne. As a man soweth, so also he reapeth. From the harvest we may judge the character of the seed which has been sown, and the value of that which is to be sown. Professor Foster's volume is clearly written, and embodies the best results of profound scholarship, and merits the attention of all classes of intelligent readers. With THE WORLD BEFORE ABRAHAM, ACCORDING TO GENESIS I.-XI. So thoroughly does Professor Mitchell accept all the conclusions of the Wellhausen school of literary critics in their analysis of the documents of the Pentateuch, that he scarcely finds it necessary to refer to any opinions that differ from them. In this way the results of the destructive critics cease to become tentative inferences, and appear as dogmas, which the reader is to receive on the strength of a new tradition. The preacher who relies on this book, therefore, will find himself proclaiming as facts a great number of doubtful theories which go so in the face of the prima facie evidence, that he will astonish the people without instructing them. For example, we find in this volume, as in many similar ones that are now coming out for the instruction (?) of the common people, that there are two accounts of creation in the first two chapters of Genesis, which are so contradictory that the redactor who put them together in close juxtaposition must have been a writer of very dull perception. Whereas his work as a piece of literature shows marks of rare ability. Otherwise it would never have so riveted the attention of the world as it has done. It must seem strange to Professor Mitchell's school of critics that Bible readers have not discerned these contradictions before. We would suggest, however, that the reason is, that there is no contradiction, but that when looked at from a literary point of view, there is perfect harmony coupled with such a skillful transition from a general account to a particular phase of creation as shows rare literary ability. The first chapter of Genesis is a grand figurative account of the creation of the heavens and the earth, ending with that of man. This treats of all things from "the beginning." But, having got the world and its inhabitants into existence, it is necessary to narrow the field down to the events connected with the history of man. This is partly accomplished by the section heading, which is the same as that which occurs ten times in Genesis where a similar narrowing of the historical horizon is to be accomplished. "These are the generations" naturally carries on into detail some special fact involved in the preceding account. "This is the book of the generations of Adam" introduces an account of Adam's descendants. "These are the generations of heaven and earth" naturally introduces some more particular account of the earth in its relation to man, the hero of the history. In the text this phrase is introduced at the beginning of the second chapter. The efforts of the critics to place it somewhere else, or give it some other meaning, seems to betray a judgment which is already warped by a theory, rather than to reveal the calm judicial attitude of an inductive reasoner. In fact, the contradictions between the first and second chapters all disappear when we take into account that the chapters relate to different things. The first chapter treats, as we have said, of creation in general; the second, of the preparation of the garden of Eden, which was to be the scene of the temptation, prefacing it with a brief summary, just as is done in the fifth chapter in the transition from the history of Adam to that of his descendants. The second chapter says, that at the time "when Jehovah had created heaven and earth, no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no herb of the field had yet sprung up"; which accords perfectly with the early part of the first chapter. Furthermore, it adds that, at that time, "Jehovah had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground"; which was all very true, and which prepares us very deftly for the picture of the garden which is presently introduced. Things did not, however, remain in this condition. In due time “a mist arose from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground”; which is certainly not contradicted in the first chapter. "Jehovah also formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Thus man became a living creature," which is perfectly in accord with the first chapter, though it turns the facts over in a somewhat different light. In other words, it is not a dull repetition. This recapitulation, with the introduction of the sidelights necessary for the proper appreciation of the picture now to be given of the garden of Eden, has nothing in it contradictory of the first chapter, except when the Hebrew tenses are twisted into a rigidity of meaning which never belongs to them. In making the contradiction, the critics both misconstrue the Hebrew and betray a dullness of literary apprehension that makes an ordinary reader lose faith in their judgment, and to look upon them as leaders whose eyes are blinded by their own folly in keeping them so close to the page that they can see only one letter at a time, while that is forgotten before their eyes get focused upon another. And so it is in a long list of instances in this, in many respects, admirable commentary of our author. Every minute difference in style is magnified into evidence of difference of authorship, without regard to the fact, that difference of subjects, as well as difference of authorship, affects style. Every similarity between two stories is set down as evidence that they relate to the same event; so that each variation becomes a contradiction. Professor Mitchell, for example, affirms that "the story of the covenant of God with Noah has two forms, Gen. viii. 20-22 and ix. 8-17 "; whereas, in the first passage, there is no reference to a covenant at all, but a statement of a purpose in the mind of God which was not made known to Noah until afterwards when a covenant was made. And so on, without end, the most superficial resemblances are transformed into infelicitous combinations of different accounts of the same thing. One wonders what conception the critics can have of literature, when they forbid the author to turn up now one side of his fact and now another, so that a comprehensive view can be had of it; or when they systematically assume that, when one sin like that of Abraham in the case of denying Sarah has been committed, neither he nor anybody else can commit another like it. It is to be hoped that the readers of this volume will follow the injunction of Scripture, and "prove all things," holding on only to that which is good; for, if they accept a tithe of the things as scientifically proved which the author asserts to be true, they will be led far away from the real facts. HISTORY, PROPHECY, AND THE MONUMENTS; or, Israel and the Nations. By JAMES FREDERICK MCCURDY, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Oriental Languages in University College, Toronto. Vol. III. Completing the Work. Pp. xxiii, 470. New York: The Macmillan Co. 1901. $3.00. This concluding volume of an elaborate and valuable work is supplied with full indexes of the subjects and of the biblical texts referred to in all three of the volumes; also with a chronological outline. In this we find 7000 B.C. given as the date of the first agricultural settlements in the valley of the Euphrates; 6000 as the date of the Semitic emigration to Egypt, and 5000 as that of the founding of the cities of Erech and Ur. The date of the Exodus is fixed at 1200 B.C.; while that of the "entrance of Egyptian Israelites into Canaan" is set down as 1170. Isaiah finds no place in the chronological outline, though most of the other prophets are assigned their proper position. This is perhaps because Isaiah has been cut up into so many fragments in the body of the book, that there is no longer any personality left; for not only is Professor McCurdy ab |