of critical results, and on the other an apparently insane desire to annihilate tradition, even though it be with fanciful and ridiculous inventions. Obviously, what we most need above all things. is the truth, and it is of first importance to the Christian public everywhere that the expositors of the critical elements of the Book of its religion should be animated less by a desire to maintain a particular position than to learn the truth, and that the truth should make them free. It is in the nature of human investigation to be fallible. No more conspicuous contrast between the Divine permanence and human transitoriness can be imagined than that which is exhibited in the comparison of the critical estimates of the bocks of the Old Testament as made by the critics for one hundred years past and the books themselves in the solid, permanent uplifting and intellectally spiritual stimulus which they have afforded to the reverent students of the Bible in the same period. As we have often said before, so we repeat again, that no criticism, no investigation, can be absolutely divorced from the practical life and the logical effect of living religion upon the purely intellectual outlook, and if the entrance of Semitic archæology into the field of biblical criticism shall force this practical element into the consciousness and thought of the literary critics, it certainly will be not the least of the victories which the Assyriologists have gained, not only for their own science, but for permanent knowledge as well.

THE PERSISTENCE OF ANTI-SEMITISM.

THE progress of civilization and the amalgamation of races, under the tremendous pressure brought about by increased commercial intercourse and the annihilation of separative influences, has not been equal to the question of securing a proper classification for the Jew in the social character of our modern life.

In spite of the fact that racial differences are constantly growing less marked, and the nations are becoming one in their common human interest far more rapidly than in the presence of the vast European armaments and the diplomatic imbroglios which are ever recurring one would imagine, no nation has as yet shown itself sufficiently cosmopolitan to successfully incorporate the Jew into its social human life without friction and without prejudice.

It has been a common supposition that the antagonism to the Jew was created chiefly by the events connected with the martyrdom of our Lord, as recorded in the New Testament; but this is not the case. Long before the New Testament was in existence, and longer even than before the expectation of a Messianic Redeemer became a part of the Jewish national life and hope, the anti-Semitic feeling was not only in existence but vigorously dominant among the nations of antiquity with whom the Jews had any considerable intercourse.

The increased attention which the Semitic peoples have been receiving, under the stimulus of recent Oriental study, indicates that they will still more receive, as they will properly merit, the interest and careful thought of the scholarly world, with reference to their permanent place in the final ethnological development of our race. Conspicuous among them will always be the Jews-not merely by reason of the fact that we have adopted their Scriptures as our rule of faith and practice; but because they will, apparently, remain forever socially exclusive and singular among the races whose origin and whose destiny will be one of the constant subjects of human speculation and thought.

Anti-Semitism, therefore, is not merely post-Christian, but pre-Christian, and classic also, if indeed it does not date from a period still farther back. Both the Romans and the Greeks despised and avoided them, except when political necessity, or some other sufficient cause, compelled respect or dictated interested intercourse. This history is of singular interest, because it illustrates how interest and prejudice have been battling with each other for centuries in the question of what to do with the Jews. No nation is free from the stain of having dealt with them brutally and unjustly-often without reason, or certainly without sufficient cause. The reasons for this prejudice are not always clear.

The distinctive Semitic trait, which has appeared in the Jew more than in the other Semitic peoples—at least in his contact with the Western world-has been his instinct for commercial supremacy in almost every field in which he ventures to try his hand. His success has been more or less marked also in political and artistic endeavors, and we shall never successfully forget how much we owe to him when we remember the scores of artists, who, for centuries, have furnished us our most delightful recreations in those distinctive occupations, where the genius of the religious sentiment could combine with the high æsthetic feeling in producing permanent monuments of art in melody and in song.

On the other hand, as M. Théodore Reinach has shown in the first volume of the "Fontes Rerum Judaicarum," the religious and social exclusiveness of the Jew impressed itself most distinctly upon the classic nations, and was probably the main cause of their anti-Semitic feeling. The inclusive character of the Greek religion contrasted so strikingly with the exclusive habit of that affected by the Jew, and these religious traits affected the daily and practical ideals of both peoples so sensitively, that something other than antagonism was hardly to be looked for if each adhered to its own ideal.

There are other elements, doubtless, which have caused the persistence of this peculiar race prejudice, but it is interesting to note that those which M. Reinach points out as animating the classical anti Semites, are essentially those which move the nations in their prejudice against the Jew to day. Wherever the Jew has gone, although from time to time he has been tolerated, he has never been incorporated into any national life

as a permanent element, except with fear and trembling, and then only because the motives of self-interest dictated his acceptance.

Professor Lombroso may well educe the persistence of this prejudice as a significant symptom of atavism. While barriers have been breaking down on every side, and under the motives toward universal peace and brotherhood, in the substantial acceptance of practical Christian ethics, we are proving that the fiercest antagonisms and the most persistent prejudices can be successfully overcome, this alone persists, and not only persists, but after slumbering through a score of years, breaks out with increased violence, and makes itself felt with redoubled barbarity and

outrage.

The literatures of the civilized nations bear a striking testimony as to how constantly the stream of virulent attack against the Jew has been kept full and overflowing. And while there may have been, from time to time, reason for such hatred, it is undoubtedly true that, for the most part, it has been irrational and undeserved.

What significance for the further understanding of the relation of the Semitic peoples to the non-Semitic nations of the globe this fact may have, cannot now be determined, but it seems to be one of the survivals of barbarism, against which Christian thinkers and scholars should put forth their strongest efforts in the interest not only of a simple human civilization, but also for the credit of a cosmopolitan Christianity.

ARTICLE XI.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

OUTLINES OF SOCIAL THEOLOGY. By the Rev. William DeWitt Hyde, D. D., President of Bowdoin College. New York: Macmillan & Co. 1895. (Pp. x, 260. 55%x3%.) $1.50.

The epoch of reconstruction in Systematic Theology is fairly upon us. After a long period in which the main processes of thought have been critical and more or less destructive, scholars are seeking to rearrange their theological thinking and to incorporate in their views of the truth what they deem the assured results of the critical work which has been already completed. Thus we have recently had Fairbairn's “Christ in Modern Theology," Stearns' "Present-Day Theology," Denney's “Studies,” and now have Hyde's "Social Theology,"-all works which cover the whole ground of Systematic Theology, but all small in compass, and engaged rather in the work of showing what general lines the system as conceived by their authors is to follow than in developing that system in detail or establishing it by elaborate proof.

The title of this work deserves a moment's attention. "I have called it Social Theology," says the President, "because the Christianity of Christ and his disciples was pre-eminently a social movement, and because we are looking at everything to-day from the social rather than the individualistic point of view. In ethics, in economics, in sociology, in politics, we no longer treat man as capable of isolation. Unus homo, nullus homo. Man is what he is by virtue of his relations to that which he is not. . . . At this period of transition the adjective 'social' serves to call attention to the shifting of emphasis from the abstract and formal relation of the isolated individual to an external Ruler, over to man's concrete and essential relations to the Divine Life manifested in nature, history, and human society."

There are three main divisions of the book, the "theological," treating of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; the "anthropological," treating of sin and law, repentance and faith, regeneration and growth; and the "sociological," treating of the church, the redemption of the world, and the organization of the kingdom. Under these successive heads almost all the great doctrines of religion are touched upon, or discussed more at length. The general impression left upon the mind by the book is excellent. It is pervaded throughout by the genuine evangelical spirit, and it presents the doctrines often with a clearness and with a power of con

viction which carries them home to the reader as eminently reasonable, and sometimes as axiomatic. For men standing outside the Christian church, particularly for those who are much exercised over the problems of society at the present time, and to whom the title of the book will be a recommendation, it will be very useful indeed.

We might well dismiss the book with these words of praise. It is not a work for the theological scholar, for the constructive, critical thinker. It is a product of theological thought, not a tool for theological thinking. That work is done with other tools; and it may seem unfair to criticise this book from the standpoint of the constructive theologian. Still it is at the same time an indication of present thought, a way-mark upon the road of progress, and as such raises for the thinker the question, What does it suggest as to the modes of arriving at theological conceptions in vogue now, and what are the points at which the writer thinks himself to have made an advance upon previous thinking?

The sources from which the writer has drawn his materials seem to be all three of the main sources, the Bible, the world interpreted by the illuminated natural reason, and Christian experience. To all these sources, he is loyal in heart. He has no contempt for historical theology, though he seeks to improve it. His mind is permeated with biblical truth, and he is nowhere intentionally disloyal to the Bible. The book is the general result at which he has arrived in all his studies, the general impression made upon his mind by all he has received from every quarter, including the Bible. No doubt the biblical element has been uppermost in his reading and thinking. Still, we fail to find that the Bible is the determinative element in his thinking. It is not the standard to which the results of religious thinking are brought to test them and determine their value. The Scriptures are not "authority" in the sense of Protestant theology. For example, in treating the question, Will the righteous survive death? President Hyde says: "Strict proof is impossible." It is not impossible if the Bible has "authority." To be sure, Dr. Hyde comes to a satisfactory conclusion in his own mind. "Out of this deep experience of the present love of Christ; out of the strong courage with which the Spirit helps us to give our lives unsparingly in social service, there is bora the lively hope and the serene confidence that can come to us in no easier way and on no cheaper terms;-the practical certainty that 'he that doeth the will of God abideth forever'" (p. 259). This is no doubt true, but the conviction of most Christians is largely dependent upon the direct testimony of the Bible, which Dr. Hyde seldom, if ever, employs as proof. The Bible is to him "the church's most precious heritage... the history and literary expression of the life of God in humanity. As such it is the product of the Holy Spirit. It is inspired. . . . The inspiration of the Bible is deeper and clearer than this inspiration which is common to all honest literary men. It is the added inspiration of love and worship and service, which in very different degrees gives to the Sacred Scriptures