for the notion of a real connection, e. g., Iphigenia (p. 305), Polydamas and Hercules (p. 331), Onesilus (pp. 332–333), the rape of the Sabines (p. 451), “the Greek idea åτŋ” (p. 253), and others; while the calling upon Jehovah is always "consulting the oracle" (pp. 11, 389, 433). Meanwhile the idea of a "moral or religious pragmatism," with which the commentary sets out, is ostentatiously repudiated in individual comments on the several "stories." Deborah's allusion to Sisera's mother is not "the note of woman's pity," but "the pitilessness of triumph, we need not say the exultation of gratified revenge" (p. 167). The Levite's speech to his dead concubine "makes the impression of indescribable brutality, but the author had no such intention" (p. 419). We are twice told (pp. 104, 96) that "on the morality of Ehud's deed (assassination) the narrator certainly wasted no reflections." We are told that the slaying of Sisera by Jael "has occasioned great searchings of heart among the apologists," and "that the inspired prophetess should extol Jael for what in all the circumstances bears the appearance of treacherous murder, is of course the greatest difficulty of all"—a difficulty which no attempt is made to relieve, except to add, "We need not follow these interpreters into all the morasses of casuistry into which an unhistorical idea of religion and revelation leads them." That Jephthah in his vow deliberately "intended a human victim" (p. 299) certainly cannot be disproved by putting him on the witness-stand at the present time; but when the commentary pronounces any other view "trivial to absurdity" (ibid.), and insists that we must translate "whosoever cometh forth" (not whatsoever), it appears that the body of English and American revisers are guilty of that trivial absurdity, for they retain the "whatsoever," and put "whosoever" in the margin. And while we never have 1 This commentary deals as summarily with other Hebrew scholars of high repute as with Judges. Thus (p. 94) the rendering "quarries" of the Targum, Syriac, Jewish, and many Christian commentators, A. V., deemed it necessary to defend Samson for what the commentary terms "the scrapes into which his weakness for women brought him," and his "fits of demoniac rage," still we look for some hint of a moral or religious pragmatism in connection with Jephthah and Samson, or some dim intimation of the reason for the mention of them in the list of worthies in the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. The list of similar remarks and methods could be greatly enlarged, but we refrain. We have endeavored to state facts with as little of comment as was practicable. It could be wished that the facts were otherwise. One cannot avoid comparing the tone and method of this commentary with those of two others already issued in the same series: the Commentary on Romans by Sanday and Headlam, which earnestly and reverently devotes itself to the unfolding of the meaning and argument of the writer; and even Driver's Deuteronomy, which, though belonging to the same school of criticism, and therefore open to all the objections we have previously stated (October, 1895), is yet respectful and even eulogistic in its modes of statement, and devotes itself largely to the work of interpretation without flippancy or constant wrangling with its author. We offer a few concluding remarks. First, all apparently honest writers are entitled to respectful treatment. The book of Judges, which has for more than two thousand years been read by the devout men of all generations as a book of Sacred Scripture, certainly should command as respectful discussion as Tacitus or Thucydides, to say the least. Secondly, any historian worthy of a commentator is entitled to a sympathetic and friendly interpretation, unless he clearly shows intentional deception. Thirdly, the work of harmonizing an R. V.," is an unwarranted departure from the well-known meaning of the word." Examples of a certain usage "collected in the grammars of Green, Gesenius, and especially Driver," are "superficially similar" to the case in question (p. 142). intelligent and important and sometimes obscure or difficult narrative is perfectly legitimate and indispensable. If worthy of a commentary at all, it is deserving of such a commentary; and it is wholly a false position to take the attitude of wrangling with him and his work on every possible opportunity, especially of speaking flippantly and contemptuously of him, and, above all, endeavoring steadily to fasten on a book that has received the respect of all the world's best and wisest men an amount of stupid misstatements and glaring contradictions of which an intelligent child should be incapable. If this commentary had expended half its labor and learning in the endeavor to show that Judges has some consistency and actual permanent value as a religious history which has been expended in the opposite direction, it would be an important addition to modern expository treatises. It is freely admitted that the book of Judges presents many and grave difficulties; and therefore the greater need of a wise, candid, skillful, and reverent, as well as learned, commentator. We still wait for his appearance. ARTICLE V. WHAT THE WORKING CLASSES OWE TO CHRISTIANITY. BY THE REV. GEORGE FRANCIS GREENE. THE heart of the church of God is throbbing with interest in the Social Question. Never were the opposing forces of Christ and Belial working so zealously for the favor of the workingman. Is the battle to be won by the carpenter's Son, or by the spirit of irreligion? Serious minds discover almost a crisis in the existing relation between the gospel and the labor problem. Concerning the subject a thoughtful writer remarks, "The future is pregnant with the gravest potentialities for religion. We are not far off the crossroads, one of which leads to a truly Christian haven and the other to practical atheism. Is the freethinker or the churchman to be the pilot?"1 The issue is, indeed, most momentous. Clearly, Christianity cannot long survive without the faith of the common people. It was this class that gave kindliest welcome to Jesus, and heard his message most joyously. To the support of those about the base of the social pyramidits strongest portion-early Christianity owed its life and triumph. The loyalty of a thousand serving-men was apparently more sought by apostolic teachers than the favor of one Herod or Augustus. And it is true in the nineteenth century, as it was in the first, that the bone and sinew of the church. is found among the plain and lowly. The children of industry are to the church what granite blocks are to the bridge or monument. Edward Salmon in National Review, Vol. ii. If we are to believe Mr. Bryce, the American people excel the rest of the word in the matter of church attendance.1 Yet, if we inquire concerning the attitude of the so-called working classes of our country toward the church, the answer is alarming. The result of correspondence with two hundred labor leaders of Massachusetts points to the fact that the workingmen of that State are quite generally alienated. from the church.2 Dr. Strong informs us that more than onehalf of our farmers live apart from church life. After inquiry among the laboring people of a large number of manufacturing towns, Rev. A. H. Bradford, D. D., has declared, that "church neglect among the poorer classes is rapidly increasing." Washington Gladden, who has made special investigation of the subject, sums up his conclusion thus, "The proportion of wage workers in our churches is diminishing."5And finally, Mr. Moody, who has large opportunities of observing popular phenomena, observes, that "the gulf between the church and the masses is growing deeper, wider, and darker every hour." In England the matter is even worse, if the late Lord Shaftesbury is to be believed, for he is said to have stated that only two per cent of British workingmen attend any church, Catholic or Protestant.7 What the attitude of the working classes is toward Christianity, or toward the Divine Person who is the source of its life and power, is another question. For the visible church is not Christ any more than a cloak is a part of the man it covers. Happily we need not believe that it is the spirit of Jesus from whom America's working people are so largely alienated. The social democrats of Germany pronounce themselves followers of Jesus. We judge that likewise the majority of our own workingmen are not avowedly antichristian. 1 American Commonwealth, chap. ciii. 2 Josiah Strong's New Era, p. 214. Applied Christianity, p. 149. 8 New Era, p. 216. 8 Ibid., p. 207. 6 New Era, p. 204. 4 Ibid., p. 210. |