of men. by Mohammed, could not avail to take away sin, it has come to be maintained by many among the Shia sect, that Hassain, who perished upon the battle-field of Kerbela, in conflict with the rival Caliph, Muavia, died there in expiation for the sins And so at last was added to the original creed of the Arabian prophet, an imitation of every doctrine distinctive of the Christian system. That all Muslims have by no means accepted these doctrines; that in particular, the Sunnis detest these heretic Shias, does not affect our argument. It remains true, that if men had felt satisfied with the original creed of Islam, we cannot well conceive that they would have ventured to make changes and additions such as these. Thus, as regards Buddhism, Brahmanism, and Islam alike, has neither of them ever afforded a permanent resting-place for the soul. Along each of these so different roads have men groped, secking after three things-a personal God, an Incarnate Saviour, and a sufficient atonement for sin. In Buddhism, men found neither; Pantheism in India attempted to show man an Incarnate God. Mohammed alone proclaimed a personal God, but nothing more. Sooner or later, however, each of these three religions sought to find some place in itself for this transcendent trinity of truths, and has thus testified that no creed without them could meet the needs of men in any land or age. And thus we are brought to answer affirmatively the question with which we began. If Christianity be, in any true sense of the words, a revelation from God, it is involved in that very affirmation that other religions are excluded from the category. This exclusive claim is an integral and inseparable part of the revelation; its teachings on the most fundamental questions are in such irreconcilable contradiction with those of other religions, that it is logically impossible that they should also be from God. Finally, it is not more clear that the Gospel of Christ has really met and satisfied all the spiritual needs of man than it is that no other religion ever has or ever can. Charity in its place is very well; but when in the name of Christian charity we are asked to "trace God" and "see His workings" in re * See **Islam under the Arabs," Osborn, Part II., Chap. 1, for a full account of these developments. ܙܙ igions which deny His being or His personality, or to welcome our "best ally" in our labors for the salvation of men, a reIgion which, like Islam, denies the Godhead and Atonement of our Lord,' it is time to remember that not only charity, but also righteousness and loyalty to the revealed truth of God, are Christian virtues. Just at the present time, if we mistake not, the Church needs less to learn a larger breadth of charity, than a sterner intolerance of error and falsehood. Mohammed and Mohammedanism,” pp. xvi., xxv. S. H. KELLOGG. This is rendered in the A. V.: "Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O Lord of Hosts." The passage has given trouble to the commentators. It is objected that it would be most unseemly to have allowed birds to make their nests, and hatch their young, upon places constantly used in sacrifice. This, however, is readily answered by the consideration that the term for altars in Hebrew and iɛpa in Greek) may be used for any sacred place, and may be here rendered temples as well as altars. There has been, also, much doubt about the construction. Some would regard the passage as wholly allegorical, or, at least, as a comparison. The sparrow here, is the Psalmist himself, or one who compares himself to the sparrow (sicut passer). So Venema: "The interpreters," he says, "have erred in taking the sparrow and the swallow literally when they are used here emblematically: quid enim passeribus cum altare :-for what have sparrows to do with the altar"?" Birds making their nests in altars," he proceeds to say, "are suggestive of desolation." Hence it is David himself here, who compares himself to the sparrow, or calls himself the sparrow, and the swallow, to denote his wandering, unsettled state. But if there is an unseemliness in the idea of sparrows making their nests in temples, or sacred places, there would be the same unseemliness in the figure. In the comparison, too, viewed alone as such, and applied to David, there would be a still greater unfitness in the words, "where she may lay her young." All this, however, disappears when we regard the reference as made to an actual fact in the habits of these birds. Others regard it as a broken, unfinished sentence-the latter part of the verse having nothing to do with the swallows, but spoken by the Psalmist directly of himself, by way of contrast. The swallow hath found a nest, etc. (But I) thine altars, O Lord of Hosts! There is my rest and my abode. To this effect is the interpretation of Calvin and Stier. So also, in substance, is the translation and the exegesis of Hupfeld: "Auch der Sperling hat gefunden ein Haus Und die Schwalbe hat ein Nest wohin sie gelegt hat ihre Jungen: (Ich aber) deine Altäre, Jhvh der Heerscharen-" All this, however, proceeds upon the idea of there being an inconsistency or an impropriety in the common thought of birds visiting, and making their nests in such sacred places. It has come from some of the Jewish Commentators. Kimchi, commenting on the passage, tells us that there were iron pikes affixed to the roof of the sacred temple, to prevent the birds from sitting upon it. In the Talmud, Tract Menachoth, 13, 1074, we are told that there was no need of any such precaution in respect to the first temple, since, by reason of its ge Teater holiness and the impression of the divine presence, the birds did not dare to approach it. See Bochart, Hierozoicon, Vol. II., Lib. I., chap. 8. This, however, is at war with one of the most beautiful and touching ideas of antiquity, and which, as this passage shows, the Jews held in common with the rest of the ancient world. It was the idea of refuge and protection as connected with the holy place. It was the shelter of the sinful man. There the greatest criminal was safe, with the exception (in the Jewish law) of the wilful murderer. Emblematically it was extended to the animal world, and especially to the birds, regarded as the most innocent of them all. If the robber, or the shedder of blood, in certain cases, found shelter there, much more the birds that resorted to the temples for the protection of themselves and their young. Un clean birds might, perhaps, be driven away, and the more rapacious kinds would seek for other homes, but these places would be the favorite rescrt for the gentler species, and the impunity which the feeling referred to would give them, would make these, in time, their most common and crowded homes. There must have been some well-known fact of this kind, or it is difficult to account for the allusion here, whether we take it directly, or as a comparison. If it is a comparison, however, it is by way of contrast to the Psalmist's own supposed condition as houseless and wandering. It has the air of saddened expostulation: How safe are the dwellers in thy house! there even the birds find home and shelter, but I am yet "longing, yea fainting for the courts of the Lord." In this idea of the altar or temple's protection even to the animal creation we find the key to a passage in the Birds of Aristophanes, 499, 500, 523, 524, and, at the same time, the true illustration of the figure of the Psalmist. The poet is speaking of the wrongs done by wicked men to the birds, and among the greatest is their striking at them even upon the altars, or generally in the sacred places, where they were supposed to have a kind of impunity. ὥσπερ δ ̓ ἤδη τοὺς μαινομένους, Bothe cites the scholiast as showing this-"nam in templis tutæ debebant esse aves tanquam Diis supplices; nefas autem violare supplices." In connection with this there is a reference to the passage, Herodotus, Book I., 159: Pactyas, the Lydian, had fled for refuge to the oracle at Branchidae in the territory of Miletus. On the demand of the Persians they were about to surrender him; whereupon Aristodicus proceeded to take all the nests of young sparrows and other birds that he could find about the building, when a voice, proceeding from the inner shrine, thus addresses him: avoσiúrαTE ἀνθρώπων τί τάδε τολμᾷς ποίεειν; τοὺς ἱκέτας μου ἐκ τοῦ νηοῦ κεραίζεις ; ; "O, most impious man, what is this you dare to do? Will you tear my suppliants from my temple ?" It will be seen from the context that this was done by way of reproof to the conductors of the oracle, and to show the greater impiety of giving up the human suppliant who had fled there for shelter and defence. It is in this idea of protection that we see the great beauty and force of the expression, so frequent in the Scriptures, which represents the house of God, and God himself, as a home, a dwelling-place, a sanctuary. Compare Psalm xxiii. and I will dwell in the house of the " וְשַׁבְתִּי בְבֵית יְהוָה לְאֹרֶךְ יָמִים 6 Lord for length of days:" Also, Psalm xc. 1, 77777, “Lord, Thou hast been our dwelling-place generation after generation.' It is somewhat singular that no commentator, English or German, should have made any reference to classical ideas, and passages so strikingly applicable to this much controverted text of the Psalmist. TAYLER LEWIS. The Theological Faculties in the German Universities. The summer Semester of 1879 was marked by a very decided increase in the number of students in attendance upon the instruction of the Protestant Faculties. The twenty-one Universities ordinarily making returns in the Calendars which reach us (seventeen in Germany, three in German Switzerland, and Dorpat), had reported 1,879 as attending the preceding winter, while last summer the number is 2,144. The explanation of this sudden advance of one-seventh in a single Semester is not obvious. Ten years earlier (winter of 1868–9), nineteen Universities (Strassburg not having heen founded until 1872, and Dorpat not reporting through the German Calendars at that time), had reported 2,291. Between 1871-2, and 1876-7, there had been a decrease of nearly 500 in the number of students, only 1,660 being reported for the winter last named. There was much anxious inquiry into the reasons. The numbers are still considerably below those of former years, but are rapidly recovering. Among the Universities, Leipsic leads, with 379 and 419 for the last two Semesters. Halle, which had dropped to the fifth place, again stands second, Berlin, which had been second, is now fifth, Tübingen and Erlangen ranking third and fourth. Zürich, Bern, Giessen, and Heidelberg, had each less than twenty-five in attendance last summer. The recent changes in the Faculties are not numerous. The year 1878 had removed by death: Beck and Landerer, of Tübingen; Müller and Guericke, |