the care of the dead by the early Church. The Christians, following the usages of the Jews, entirely abjured the pagan practice of burning the dead. They seem also to have felt that proper burial was necessary, in order to share in the resurrection, a sentiment which added poignancy to their grief when the ashes of their friends were scattered by the pagan persecutor. This error some of the Fathers sedulously sought to correct.

It is not true, as has sometimes been asserted, that the early Christians had to seek secret places of burial for their dead, and that therefore they adopted the mode of sepulture in the subterranean catacombs. At first there was no attempt at concealment, nor was any needed. The Christian enjoyed the same protection by law as the pagan tombs. Even when Christianity fell under the ban of persecution freedom of sepulture was not at first interfered with. A beneficent Roman law declared that even the bodies of those who died by the hand of the public executioner might be given up to any who asked for them.* Even the remains of the martyrs were given to their friends for Christian sepulture. In the later persecutions, however, the persecutors ignobly made war even upon the dead.

A concise description of the catacombs, with several pictorial illustrations, concludes this admirable volume; but we have not space to refer more fully to this very interesting department of Christian archæology.

The publishers have done their part well in the preparation of this book. It is accompanied by two excellent colored maps, by one hundred and forty-eight engravings, and by ten full-page plates, which do much to make the explanations and interpretations of these sometimes difficult subjects more clear. The proof-reading-a very important matter in a work of this character, containing so many Greek and Latin citations-has been very accurately done. A copious glossary, index, syllabus of the literature of archæology, and translations of the inscrip tions add greatly to the value of the volume.

*Corpora animadversorum quibuslibet petentibus ad sepulturam danda sunt.— Digest., xlviii, 24, 2.

W.H. Withrow

EDITORIAL NOTES AND DISCUSSIONS.

OPINION.

BEWARE of the leaven of rationalism! Evangelical religion in Germany was on the point of expiring on the altar of a forged system of hermeneutics when Christian scholarship rallied to the defense of the integrity of the Scriptures, and Methodism lit revival fires in city and village, arousing the national Church from its torpor, and thus preserved a pure Protestantism in the land of Luther and of the Reformers. England is in the grip of the rationalists, and is overawed by a progressive but false and destructive criticism. Her universities are stocked with unbelievers, materialists, and rationalists, and many of her clergy are also under the pernicious influence of the new critics. A reformer is needed, as in the days of Wesley, to save the old Church from a spiritual decadence and to re-enlighten it in doctrinal truth. American rationalism is in the incipient stages of development, infecting the literature and theology of the country, and should at once be exposed and resisted, because it tends to spiritual paralysis and the ruin of the Church. It is not consciously infidel in tone or spirit, as is the Rationalism of France and Germany; it is not so outspoken or daring as is that of England; but because it is adorned with Christian graces, and blushes when properly stigmatized, it is all the more insinuating and dangerous. The Methodist Review is the first of its class in this country to sound the note of alarm and warn the Christian Church against the infection. In his addresses before fifteen Conferences in March and April the editor assailed the covert Rationalism in the faculties of Yale, Harvard, and Johns Hopkins Universities, and impeaches them now in the high forum of discussion. Three rationalists in the faculty of Johns Hopkins University are three too many; and as Yale and Harvard are harboring men of like faith in their faculties, who in the literature they produce are more than coquetting with the evil, they should be asked to justify their title to the appellation of Christian institutions. Literature as rationalistic as that of Kuenen and Wellhausen, emanating from these great universities, especially from Yale, reaches our table nearly every month, and in the name of Christianity we cry a halt. Error has its beginning, and this collegiate liberalism is as likely to undermine the Christian faith of this country as the Rationalism of England is silencing the Old Testament in that Protestant island. Let us not be idle in this time of evident peril. The Methodist Review calls upon good men of all names to join it in the work of preserving the Christian Church from so grievous a peril as now menaces it from those whose criticism is a snare, and whose knowledge is turned into an instrument of destruction.

Not a little of the perplexity in harmonizing the biblical records arises from the uncertainty and indistinctness of the chronology of the Old Tes tament. Without a definite beginning as to the creation it is difficult to establish a consecutive order of dates that will be satisfactory; in fact, every attempt in this direction is open to severe criticism. The Bible is not so much concerned with dates as with events, epochs, results. It is not scientific, but historic; it is not systematic, but didactic. The work of constructing a chronology is, therefore, most difficult if the student confine himself to the events or the genealogical tables of the Bible; and if he go beyond them, and trust to foreign systems of chronology, he will get into trouble, because they have been but imperfectly preserved, and are far from being trustworthy. The Hebrew system of chronology is incomplete, broken, and contradictory; but since Jerome indorsed it the Roman Catholic Church holds to it as authentic and inspired. In the absence of any thing better the Protestant world also naturally turns to it, but it is evident to the scholar that we have outgrown Archbishop Usher, and must wait until discoveries or interpretations that may settle some of the problems shall be announced. The chronology of the Septuagint, accepted by the Greek Church in preference to the Hebrew system, varies from the latter in allowing one hundred years more to some of the antediluvian patriarchs, and then subtracts one hundred years from their total longevity, harmonizing in the end with the Hebrew, but introducing difficulties in the details of events concerning the patriarchal period that annoy and disturb the regular order of history. The Samaritan version in some respects agrees with the Hebrew system, and in others with that of the Septuagint. It will give the reader an idea of the need of revision of these systems, and of a settlement of the chronological problems, if we say that students in this department have assigned nearly one hundred and fifty lengths of time from the creation to the birth of Christ. The problem is to reduce these lengths to one definite period. So also respecting the date of the exodus of Israel from Egypt there is no uniformity of opinion, but on the contrary a wide and irreconcilable variation as to time, and antagonistic interpretations of the event itself. Brugsch, a renowned Egyptologist, places the exodus at 1314 B. C.; Seyffarth's date is 1825 B. C.; Floigel's is 1143 B. C.; Manetho's, 1438 B. C. After a full examination of Manetho's table and a careful study of contemporaneous and biblical history, Jacob Schwartz concludes that the exodus occurred April 20, 1438 B. C., and that Tutmes III. was the Pharaoh of the period. This is specific, and is as a sunbeam in a dark place. Given the time of the exodus, and the chronology of all events from that period to the Christian era may be fixed, which certainly will be of incalculable worth in historic studies. As the Scriptures intimate that the foundations of Solomon's temple were laid 480 years after the exodus, it is merely a question of mathematics to determine exactly when the construction of the temple commenced; and so all other problems become mathematical and easy of solution. But we have one objection to this decisive chronology of Mr. Schwartz's, which he must first remove before his solution can

be accepted. According to the Hebrew chronology Aaron died A. M. 2515, and as he died in the fortieth year of the exodus Israel left Egypt A. M. 2475, or 1529 B. C. We are not responsible for this dilemma. If the monuments of Egypt make it plain that Tutmes III. was Pharaoh, then, as he reigned about 1438 B. C., the exodus occurred at that time, Hebrew chronology to the contrary notwithstanding. It is this difference, however, that is in dispute. Certain it is that a new system of chronology is needed if we are to make progress along some lines; and while it is evident that a beginning has been made in opposition to the old systems we should avoid haste in accepting any new announcement, even though it has a monument behind it. We shall patiently wait for additional evidence respecting the time of the great events recorded in the Old Testament.

Here is obscurity: "Have we not power to eat and to drink? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" 1 Cor. ix, 4, 5, A. V. The word "power" should be translated "right," or "privilege." The general sense seems to be that the apostle is defending his right to temporal support, and also his right to enter the marriage state. But it is strange that the occasion for defending such rights should arise, or that any one, though hostile to Paul, or an unbeliever in the apostleship, should deny the validity of these rights. Some things must be remembered in order to understand the defense Paul here makes of these rights. It was held by some that only those who had been personally called into the apostleship by the Lord Jesus before his ascension could claim the title and immunities of the office, and as Paul had not seen the Master until his journey to Damascus, at the time of his conversion, he was a pretender, and usurped the rights of an apostle, which were personal support and the right of marriage. Finding his apostleship called in question, Paul submits to an examination, and establishes his official character by the fact that the Corinthian Christians were the fruit of his labor, and that they could not reject him, though others might disallow his claim. He therefore insists upon two things: 1. Ministerial support. Other apostles were maintained by the Church, and though he and Barnabas-the "we" of the text-were able to support themselves, he insisted upon the right to claim the same commercial privilege as extended to others. The question of maintenance is not contingent upon the poverty or riches of the minister, but upon the fact that he is a minister. The ox that treadeth out the corn must not be muzzled. In insisting upon the right of the minister to "eat and drink" at the expense of the Church, Paul lays down a fundamental principle, overthrowing the theory of some that a paid ministry is a hireling ministry. 2. The ministerial right of marriage. Many of the apostles were married. Paul at the time was probably a widower; Cephas in particular is mentioned as married, corroborating Matthew's report of the fact in the statement that Jesus healed Peter's wife's mother of a fever. Hence, priestly celibacy founded upon any alleged bachelorhood of Peter,

or upon any advisory hint of Paul, or upon any scriptural teaching whatever, is an inexcusable perversion of the Scriptures. A married priesthood is legitimate, and, judging from the evils of a celibate priesthood, we should say necessary. We commend the teaching to Roman Catholics.

Like all great characters John Bright is a puzzle, not difficult of solution, but sufficiently intricate and mysterious to require patient investigation if he would be understood. The traveler's first impression of the pyramid of Cheops is somewhat disappointing; he does not at once comprehend its greatness, but as he lingers in its vicinity its proportions grow upon him, and at last he recognizes its sublimity. In some respects the great commoner of England scarcely rises to the average of a member of Parliament, and seldom exhibits any of those traits that distinguish the heroes of history. He was not a scholar in any sense; he knew no language but the English; he was quite unfamiliar with literature; he mastered the Bible and John Milton, but he was not a specialist in history, poetry, science, or law. It is not in evidence that he was a student in any department of learning; but he read the newspaper, the magazine, the pamphlet, and informed himself as to public affairs. Here is a man whose death smites

the world with grief, but it is not because of his mental attainments or his profound statesmanship, or a wide political influence secured by wealth, or the talisman of a noble ancestry. Nor was he a genius in politics, or a meteor of any sort, but rather a quiet, unobtrusive citizen of England, laboring without much noise for his country and for civilization. The puzzle is a large one. This unscholarly, unequipped man was one of the great orators of his time, moving the masses as with a magician's wand, and compelling parliaments and royalties to listen to his voice and often to yield to his dictation. Yet the secret of his fame cannot be explained by his matchless oratory any more than the fame of Demosthenes and Henry Clay can be explained in that way. Back of his eloquence was the nature that made him eloquent; underneath his sentiments were convictions born of communion with humanity and secret confidence in God; around him stood the race into whose condition he entered and in whose behalf he waged a valiant warfare. He was a man of the people and disdained aristocracy; he was a believer in human rights, and opposed the doctrine of social caste and the institution of human slavery; he was a patriot, and yet was broad enough to love the world; he was an Englishman, but he extolled and defended the American republic; he was untainted with ancestries, unburdened with royal dignities, a free man, a lover of the race, and a hater of wrong. Without scholarship, he was eloquent because he defended the right; without royal attachments, he exposed the iniquities of the throne and emphasized the rights of the people; without the prestige of the upper classes, he stood for justice and righteousness, and proclaimed the spirit of peace and good-will to all men. Living, working, believing, he could not but be eloquent; dying, he could not but be immortal.