sition to Christianity. As a philosophy it certainly is one of the keenest, deepest products of the human mind. Dr. Ballantyne says of it, that it is "a calm, clear, collected exposition of principles which Germany constantly, and England occasionally, gropes after, without ever grasping them with any such grasp as that with which India has taken hold on them." And yet philosophy is not religion, and can never be used as its substitute; and human thought can never make unnecessary Divine mercy in the salvation of man. Hindus will soon completely learn this fact, and relegate their ancient philosophy to that class of antiquities whose interest will be only historical. In the meantime the conflict is waging mightily in India. To the missionary at least the issue does not seem doubtful nor remote. But the type of Christian piety which will issue as the result of this struggle will take its coloring from the East, and differ in many of its aspects and in its points of emphasis from the Western article. And he who best appreciates this fact, and studies well the Hindu mind. and nature, and adapts his teaching to the requirements of the land and to the capturing of the Hindu heart-he it is whose success will be greatest, and whose life will be happiest as a Christian missionary to the countless millions of Southern and Eastern Asia. ARTICLE II. THE EARLY RELIGION OF THE HEBREWS. BY THE REV. ARTHUR E. WHATHAM. It is my intention in this article to show, that, whereas the religion of the so-called Hebrews has been assumed by certain writers to have been from the first one of high monotheistic conception, and great morality,' it was, on the contrary, little, if any, removed from the religion of those people by whom the Hebrews were at this time surrounded. Before, however, I can directly enter upon this undertaking, it is necessary to ascertain as definitely as possible who these Hebrew people were, since it appears to me that this question has not received that attention so necessary on the part of those who seek to determine the true character of the religion of the early Hebrews. In Gen. xiv. 13, we find the first use of the term "Hebrew," where it appears as a cognomen for Abram. In Gen. xl. 15, we find it for the first time in its plural form; while from the language in Ex. iii. 18, it appears that those writers are somewhat justified who have affirmed that this term was subsequently extended from Abraham to his descendants exclusively through Isaac and Jacob.3 In Ex. v. 3, Moses is recorded as saying that the God of the Hebrews had met with the Israelites; while in chap. iii. 6, the Deity is there represented as peculiarly the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, from which it might be inferred that the 1 Cf. Hommel, Ancient Hebrew Tradition, p. 309. Hebrews were the immediate descendants of Abraham, through Isaac and Jacob. There is reason, however, to believe that this term must be extended not merely to include all the descendants of Abraham,1 but the entire members of a dynasty ruling in Ur of the Chaldees at the time Abraham was born.2 Now if the extension of this term as indicated above, is, as there is every reason for believing, a necessary undertaking in view of modern research, then, in discussing the religion of the early Hebrews, we cannot limit ourselves to the religion assumed to have been adopted by Abraham and his descendants through Isaac and Jacob, but we must, in conjunction with this, consider the religion of those other branches of the Hebrew people who came into existence both prior and subsequently to Abraham. According to the opinion of the writer of the article "Hebrew" in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, this term was "originally a Cis-Euphratian word applied to Trans-Euphratian immigrants, and accepted by these immigrants in their external relations." It would seem that not only is the above conjecture the true one, but that it has been adopted and enlarged with peculiar significance by Hommel, quoting from a recent article (1897) by Glaser. It appears that the term Ebir nari, signifying the further or western bank of a river, i.e. the river Euphrates, must have been applied to that locality long before the time of Abraham. Eber, or Ebir, is an abbreviated form of Eber hanahar, or Ebir nari, and stands for the land of Eber. Ibri, another form of Eber, stands for an inhabitant of the land of Eber, being employed as the race name. It further appears that the official name for Palestine adopted by the Babylonians who at the time of Abraham ruled Canaan as a dependency, was Ebir Nari, 1See Hommel, L.c., p. 260. 2 See Sayce, Patriarchal Palestine, p. viii, preface. and an interesting question to settle is, When, and for what cause, Canaan came to be thus designated by the Babylonians? Hommel produces sufficient evidence for his assertion, that, even at the commencement of the second millennium before Christ, Palestine had fallen under the influence of Babylonian civilization. About 2000 B.C. an Arabian people established themselves in Northern Babylonia, and one hundred years later commenced a struggle with Eri-Aku, king of South Babylonia. In this struggle they were successful. It was about this time (1900 B.C., according to Hommel) that Abraham migrated from Ur to Canaan. It appears that he belonged to the same race that had at this period conquered Southern Babylonia. Dr. Davidson suggested,1 that the true cause of his departure from his home was, that, upon his defeat as a leader of a horde worsted in some encounter, he had emigrated at the head of his adherents in quest of better fortune. Now it seems that, although this statement is not quite accurate, it yet contains more truth than at first appears. Abraham's people having made themselves masters of Babylonia, what more natural than that they should next seek to bring under their rule those outlying provinces which had been subject to the preceding rulers of Babylon. Abraham may have entered Canaan as a hostile conqueror, while he may equally have entered peacefully, being graciously received as the representative of a victorious people, which attitude accords more with the existing tradition. It further appears that when he did enter he experienced no difficulty in entering directly into conversation with the people of the country. Now how was this? Simply because the language of Abraham's people and the language of the Canaanites were kindred dialects of the same parent tongue. Professor Sayce informs us, that "the language of Canaan was practi 1 Ency. Brit., "Abraham.” cally that which we call Hebrew." There were, he adds, differences, but differences that were hardly appreciable.1 But how, it may be asked, came this similarity of speech? Because, suggests Professor Cheyne," "the Israelites, the Canaanites, and Phoenicians, all appear to have migrated successively from a Babylonian center." Now both Hommel and Sayce speak of the Hebrews as though, before they came into contact with the Canaanites, they spoke a different language. Hommel refers to the period when "they adopted the Canaanitish tongue in place of their original language” (p. 120); while Sayce says, "How the Israelites came to adopt the language of Canaan is a question into which we cannot here enter" (p. 246). But it is questionable whether there ever was such a difference between the speech of the Hebrews, before they came into Canaan, and that of the Canaanites, as the words of Sayce and Hommel imply. Even Sayce informs us, that the original tongue of the Israelites was as closely related to Hebrew "as French or Spanish is to Italian," and we must remember that he previously asserted that the language of Canaan and that which we call Hebrew were practically the same (p. 246). Thus Sayce further admits that the original language of the Hebrews before they adopted the language of Canaan was very closely related to the latter, in fact, to quote from Professor Cheyne, between the Phoenicians, Canaanites, and Israelites there existed a community of language. Perhaps were we to call all three dialects of the same parent language, we should be very near the true explanation of the matter. Hommel thinks that the Israelites originally spoke an Arabic idiom, which is questioned by Gray; while W. R. Smith, though admitting that Arabic is in many respects the elder brother of Hebrew, yet affirmed it is not its parent. It should be observed that neither Sayce nor Hommel 1L.c. p. 246. 2 Ency. Brit., "Canaanites." Expositor, Oct. 1897, p. 218. |