said, with only the briefest references to the explanation of the facts. And of the facts recorded, nearly all relate to the last three years of his life. Passing by all explanations of the nature of his life, and giving attention simply to the main facts of these three years and to their influence on those who were with Him, and through them, on the world, we are brought to the irresistible conclusion that he was a new type of man, possessed of a character of complete devotion to the good of others, and of unparalleled power in transforming and elevating the lives of others. In biological evolution a new type has influence only as its offspring multiply to the exclusion of other types; but, in rational evolution, a new character may propagate itself by transforming other types into more or less conformity to its own standards without any infusion of new blood. This is the method of Christ's influence on the world. In the language of the New Testament it is called, giving power to become the sons of God.

In closing, I may say, that our philosophical explanations undergo transformation, but the great facts of Christianity seem to me to remain untouched.

ARTICLE V.

ABRAHAM AT BONN.

BY PROFESSOR OWEN H. GATES, PH. D.

FOR three years, vacation courses of lectures have been given by members of the Theological faculty at Bonn. The school was based on that at Mansfield College at Oxford, and was undertaken in accordance with the expressed wish of various pastors of that locality. In 1892 there were sixty in attendance, and in 1894 nearly twice that number. At this last session Professor Meinhold delivered a lecture which has attracted great attention, perhaps more than it deserves, at least more and more diverse than the lecturer anticipated. It might have been said of it that it precipitated a conflict between the Church and the universities, were it not for the fact that the marvel is that the conflict was so long delayed. The subject was "Beginnings of the Religion and History of Israel." He chose it, he says, in response to inquiries as to the effect of criticism upon the Old Testament. In the treatment of it he has not shrunk from a frank avowal of his attitude toward the most delicate questions of Old Testament criticism, and his critics, though complaining sometimes of lack of clearness, yet find him clear enough to furnish them a good target.

First he gives a sketch of the subject in accordance with the teachings in the German schools, it being substantially the same as is found in Sabbath-schools in our own country, though perhaps at points more liberal. In the various children's text-books of religion he finds more emphasis upon historical matters than should be found in such books, and also

too great use of the typical meaning of religious usages and institutions. This misconception of the function of the Old Testament continues into the literature prepared for scholars of maturer years. It is needless to say that he judges the whole scheme to be erroneous; the excuse for its existence is found in the old theory of inspiration, which vouched for the credibility of all Bible narratives indiscriminately.

He continues as follows. The compilation of the Pentateuch from various post-Mosaic documents is a received fact among Old Testament scholars, and this origin carries inevitable consequences with it, this among others, that the patriarchal narratives disappear entirely as sources to be relied upon or used directly by historians of that period. He who wishes to retain the patriarchs as historical personages must maintain the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch, and the old view of inspiration too. He condemns Delitzsch for beginning with Gen. iii. his "Messianic Prophecies in historical order"; he finds that while Köhler sets out to give simply the biblical view of the early history of Israel (in default of agreement among critics as to the course of the history itself), he as a matter of fact fails to make it sufficiently plain that it is not necessarily history which he is writing. A saga may not be assumed to be history; it must first be proven historical before it can be used as such. He, therefore, disagrees with Lotz, who holds that the patriarchs existed because the case against them is not made out. He further opposes Kittel's practice (his theory is confessedly correct) of assuming that what is testified to by all the documents is historical; even Kittel's course results in the elimination of all but a small residuum, and this not the most important. He shows this by extensive illustration, and his writing at this point certainly shows, if not a lack of due reverence for the Scriptures, at least lack of consideration for the feelings of those who think that some reverence is due. He should have devoted a part of the time spent in this brilliant pas

sage to a brief reference to the question, certainly pertinent, whether the various documents are preserved to us in their completeness.

He now proceeds to say that there is no ground for maintaining a sojourn of the Hebrews in Canaan before Moses' time, and thus no possible room for the figures of the patriarchs. His proofs follow forthwith. Religion does not bring with it an extraordinary knowledge of affairs in the sphere of experience, so that Israel's being confessedly a religious people does not differentiate it in the least from others as to its knowledge of its own early history; the rule that no people knows its beginnings holds for Israel. No people develops from a family; it is rather an aggregation of diverse elements. The proper names in Gen. xlix. are used collectively, and what is here true of the so-called sons of Israel is true of the patriarchal names throughout Genesis.

Passing to another mode of argument, he notes that at the time when Abraham is supposed to have lived, Canaan had already passed beyond the stage of civilization which he represents. There were fixed cities with their kings and considerable culture. Nomadic Abraham is inconceivable in such surroundings. In a footnote added in the edition of the lecture which is before us, Meinhold remarks that this argument has been disputed, and he lays little stress upon it. His chief stress is laid upon an argument from biblical theology. The ancient notion was that Jahveh had his abode at Mount Sinai; that thence he issued and through his people possessed Canaan. The former conception is the one found in the song of Deborah, in the Elijah narrative and in Hos. v. 15. That is to say, not until long after the exodus. does the notion of Jahveh as dwelling in Canaan supplant the earlier view. Now the patriarchal narratives present the later conception, and that not incidentally but as an essential feature of the history. We are therefore compelled to assume a late origin of the tradition.

The conclusion at which he arrives is that the patriarchs are nothing further than ideal Israel, and their relation to Jahveh is but the reflection of the intercourse between Israel and their God in the best period of their history (800 B. C.). For a historical scheme of the beginning of Israel's religion and history the stories of the patriarchs possess no value. He confesses, he says, that the first impression from this result is extraordinarily disheartening; but it is to be borne in mind that the patriarchs do not hold an important place in biblical literature outside of Genesis; there is no reference to Abraham in the pre-exilic prophets, and only incidental allusion in later prophets. For Israel the beginning was the Exodus. It was later Judaism which emphasized the importance to the nation of descent from Abraham. Paul says much of him, but Paul's purpose in so doing is to show that physical descent from that patriarch is not essential for the inheritance of the promises made to him.

Meinhold now turns to the constructive side of his task, for which he reserves just one-half his time. Having rejected the Bible traditions because they originated not less than a thousand years after the period described, the information which he seeks to give he derives from Arabic sources. The comparative study of religions furnishes him his materials. Fetichism and Totemism he finds to be characteristic of the Semitic races, and he argues that this was the early form of religion in Israel. Naturally this involves a direct derivation. of the Hebrew race from the Arabian stock. Having this solid (?) foundation under our feet, we can turn to the Bible and admit as corroborative testimony what it says that harmonizes with these known (?) facts. Accordingly he finds hints of this Fetichism and Totemism in the numerous traditions of sacred stones and heaps of stones, in the stone altar itself, in the ark, in the mazzebah, the ashera, and the groves, in springs and wells, in calf worship, in the brazen serpent, and in the traditions of those ancestral heroes, the patriarchs.