Dr. Bledsoe, nor the intense pro-slavery sectionalism of Dr. Summers. The editor, though flinging in an occasional sectional and obstructive utterance, reveals a sympathy with the Young South. In this Quarterly the names of the authors are fairly given; but as they are not, we are sorry to say, given in the table of contents, they may often fail to appear in our Synopsis.

We specially note in the present number the admirable article on "Bushnell," by President Carlisle; "Prohibition and Temperance," by Walter B. Hill, Esq.; and "Bishop Andrew," by Rev. W. J. Scott. Mr. Hill's article is a powerful document, and indicates that our Southern brethren are marshaling rapidly and bravely in the temperance cause.

The blemish of the number is the article on the venerated Bishop. Its denunciations of the Abolitionists are precisely parallel to the ravings of the rumsellers at the temperance men. We give a specimen or so of its howls. The first is the following historic untruth regarding the Northern delegates in the General Conference of 1844: "These men, whose sires had waxed fat on the traffic in human flesh, were now in hot pursuit of Bishop Andrew for the sin of slaveholding, not by purchase, but by inheritance. To this deep-mouthed baying of the Boston kennel there was added the shrill cry of Tray, Blanche, and Sweetheart from the other hostile Conferences."—P. 332. There was not, we may safely say, ever a New England Methodist, or a New England Methodist's father or "sire," who bought, held, or sold a slave. If there were men in New England who did hold slaves, how were the antislavery men of New England responsible for their crime any more than Mr. Scott is responsible for the rumsellers in his State? The first war of the New England antislavery men was against slavery and slave-trade in their own States, and they abolished both. If any of the slavedealers or holders sold their slaves when emancipation was accomplished, how were the Abolitionists responsible for that? Surely Mr. Hill's mouth is not closed from denouncing drunkenness in this Quarterly because there are rumsellers and drunkards in his native section? Mr. Hill probably imagines that that is the very reason why his mouth should be wide open. And just so thought Northern abolitionists upon the slavery question. Howl the second sounds as follows: "The

Moloch of antislavery fanaticism must be appeased at the expense of justice and every other cardinal virtue of heathen and Christian morality. It was done by the tyranny of a mob, or else by the ruling of a star-chamber tribunal."-P. 332. Rumsellers would say, "the Moloch of total-abstinence fanaticism." Why was antislaveryism a "Moloch?" Did it raise an auction block on which human beings, sometimes handsome young mulatto girls, were sacrificed to the highest bidder? Did it forbid education of its victims in order that they might be brutalized into total subjection to their oppressors? Did it ever keep a bloodhound to chase the footsteps of the helpless fugitive? Did it ever subject its kidnapped victims and their offspring to the driver's whip, lashing them to toil, and then appropriating the income? O no! It simply proclaimed liòerty to the captive, asserted the rights of humanity, maintained the truth of the first sentence of our Declaration of Independ ence, and demanded the peaceful emancipation of four millions of native-born Americans from that despotic system that "spared not man in its cruelty nor woman in its lust." No; it was that system, the slave-power, which was the true Moloch, the Moloch of which Mr. Scott is the imbecile worshiper and infamous apologist. As for "mob," the mobs were all on the other side. The so-called "abolition mobs" were really pro-slavery mobs, raised to crush the abolitionists. With the exception of abolition rallies, made to rescue the innocent fugitive from Southern slave-catchers and kidnappers, there were no real "abolition mobs." Howl third is as follows: "In the course of a memorable debate on the American Crisis, he [Edmund Burke] stated that the Southern Colonies were more ardently and stubbornly attached to liberty than those to the northward. Furthermore, let it be proclaimed in Boston and published in the streets of Philadelphia, that Burke attributed this to the fact that, like Greece and Rome, they were slaveholding communities." Very well. Let it be proclaimed the world round that the slave-holders were earnest maintainers of freedom-for themselves, and the still more earnest maintainers of slavery for others. They were enthusiastic champions for the freedom to bind the fetter and flourish the whip upon their kidnapped victims. Howl fourth (too prolix for our quotation) parallels the secession of the Southern delegates from the Gen

eral Conference of 1844 with the secession of the Free Church of Scotland. The two unquestionably are parallelisms in that both were secessions, but they were contrasts in the causes for which the secession took place. The former was for religious freedom; the latter was for secular slavery; and the latter, as some would say, finds a more suitable parallel in the secession of the angels that kept not their first estate. Next to the cruelty of Mr. Scott's onslaught on abolitionism is that of his eulogy on the good Bishop; and it is agonizing to see that venerable man slavered over with such an overflowing gush of relentless bombast. We trust that this Quarterly will live long decades, and its bound volumes be deposited in many a library; and our worst wish for Mr. Scott is, that he may live to re-read his tirade with shame and ingenuous repentance. Nevertheless, in most cases Bourbonism can only die with the Bourbon, and in such event the disburdened world has good reason to ejacu late a hearty "good riddance" to both. It is right to say, that in the several pages added on the same subject by the editor we find a very different spirit, with the main of which we agree, and see no demand for making an issue where we differ. And here we note that so long as fierce pro-slavery leaders like Scott issue their manifestoes in the highest periodicals of the South the Methodist Episcopal Church is needed there. And it is not only a Negro Church we need there, but a body of white churches who will be a pillar of moral support for the advocates of the New South.

This Quarterly contains a full critical notice of Dr. Miley's valuable volume on the Atonement, a volume which, we are pleased to see, attracts a decided interest among our Southern theologians. The critic speaks of Christ's "punishment," and holds it to be defensible from its voluntary undergoing. He does not seem to recognize that the real objection is not merely to the justice of such "punishment," but to its possibility. The punishment of the guiltless is a solecism, in thought and word and thing; as axiomatically absurd as a round triangle. You can no more transfer one being's guilt or moral character to another than you can his personal identity. I can be no more guilty of another man's sin than I can suffer his headache. The making Christ literally guilty, a sinner, in order that he can be said to be punished, is an appalling fiction. An

innocent man can indeed voluntarily endure suffering in order to prevent by substitution a guilty man's punishment; but the suffering of the innocent is not punishment. If Damon die for Pythias' crime, Damon is not thereby a criminal, a rebel; neither is he guilty, nor is he punished. But we are sometimes told there are two meanings to the words guilt and punishment; one where they are real, and the other where they are imputed. Undoubtedly, if you import into your words an esoteric theological meaning, unknown elsewhere in language, you can say the innocent is guilty, and the sufferer is punished. By special definition any thing can be truly affirmed, even a round triangle. You can have an innocent guilt and a guilty guilt, just as you can have a white black and a black black. But what is the use of introducing such an elaborate bungle into our theological language? When you say that guilt is not real, but only imputed, you actually deny that there is any genuine guilt. What do we gain by such verbal quirks and quirligigs but the power of uttering to the public ear statements that are offensive to the moral sense and common sense of mankind? And the final gains are disgust, skepticism, and hatred of the Gospel of Christ. Away with such paltering equivocations in our theology, remembering that by its very etymology our orthodoxy is a straight doxy.

HEBREW STUDENT, May, 1883. (Chicago.)-1. The Authorship of the Fifty-First Psalm; by Rev. P. A. Nordell. 2. The Little Book of the Covenant; by Prof. C. A. Briggs. 4. Notes from Abroad: by Rev. John P. Peters. 4. General Notes: The Relationship of Christianity to Judaism. 5. Prepositions of the Verbs Meaning to Believe or Trust; by Prof. F. B. Denio. The "Hebrew Student" is the organ of a very interesting movement in Old Testament scholarship. It is in connection with an Institute of Hebrew, the purpose of which is to rouse an interest in Hebrew studies through organized action; to furnish instruction in Hebrew, both by a correspondence system and a Summer Hebrew School; to make provision for furnishing Hebrew books at cheapest rates; and to sustain a periodical, ten numbers a year for one dollar, devoted to the publication of articles from able pens, both American and foreign, in the department of Hebrew literature. The whole movement is worthy the highest encouragement. It furnishes valuable aids for all who wish to commence, or to perfect themselves in, the language of Moses and the prophets. The articles of the peri

odical are delightful reading for enthusiasts in the sacred tongue. Our ministers generally who take our Quarterly may be safely advised that their one dollar will be a paying investment.

In the present number the first article, on the Authorship of the Fifty-first Psalm, maintains very conclusively its Davidic source. This psalm undergoes a vigorous assault from the Robertson Smith school, who find its Levitical character too clear to be allowed so early a date as David, and so maintain it to be, of course, "post-exilic." The second article aims to show that Moses' Little Book of the Covenant has a parallelism with the Decalogue. Next, Dr. Peters' Notes from Abroad put us in very interesting communication with the biblical scholarship of Germany.

Whatever future effects may result from the theories of Wellshausen and followers, their present influence is to awaken a deep interest in Old Testament investigation. There is no dozing just now over the ancient records. The editor is confident, as we are, that the outcome will be auspicious.

From the editorial department we give the following reminder to investigators of the value of the "traditional opinions, both Jewish and Christian :

CRITICISM AND THE CANON.-Has Biblical Science the right to re-examine the historic foundations of Christianity and re-test the Canon of Scripture? Without a doubt. But in this process of re-examining and re-testing, has it also the right to reject entirely the traditional testimony of the Church to the Sacred Books? To this question the arrogant spirit of the extreme modern Criticism gives an affirmative answer. Happily there are those who deny this right. Van Oosterzee says, "As concerns the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures, the Christian Church received from the Jews, yet not without critical investigation. Melito of Sardis and Origen made accurate investigations among the Palestinian Jews as to what writings belonged to the Canon, although, along with these, a certain value was attached to the Apocrypha of the Old Testament. To the question (then raised) whether it was wise, generally speaking, to rely on the Jewish Tradition, an affirmative answer seemed justified, for this Tradition itself was the fruit of a critical examination made at the time of the close of the Old Testament Canon, and assuredly not without earnestness and conscientiousness. As to particular details, the accuracy of this critical judgment of antiquity is, perhaps, not to be defended against every possible objection. But well may it, with grateful appreciation of the help of a thorough Isagogics, regard