but a full letter, thereby increasing the number by ten, making 676. This would entirely destroy the identification of the numhers with Nero. It is, indeed, given up by such rationalistic scholars as De Wette, Lücke, Bunsen, and Düsterdieck. We consider the Neronian solution of this name, like the Neronian date of the Apocalypse, a very plausible, yet entirely preposterous, fable.

There could be no very destructive inferences drawn from the partial identification of Nero with the beast, as symbol of the Roman Empire in its most persecuting phase, if the identification. could be proved. Daniel said to Nebuchadnezzar, "Thou art the head of gold;" that is, Thou art the Empire of Babylon. And John could as truly have said to Nero, during Nero's reign, "Thou art the Roman Empire." Just so Louis XIV. could say, despotically, "I am the State." And so in Daniel, followed by the Apocalypse, kings stands for kingdoms. And as this identification of Nebuchadnezzar with Babylon did not at all affect the shape or nature of the great symbolism of empires in Daniel's image, so Nero's identification with Rome might leave the Apocalyptic interpretation untouched.

But the most untenable, as well as repulsive, part of the rationalistic exegesis is the making John base important Apocalyptic conceptions upon a contemptible whim of the Roman rabble. Nero was driven from the throne and had committed suicide; but the baser rabble, with whom the bloody despot was popular, cherished the hope that he had escaped, was truly alive, and would yet return to the throne. On this John is imagined by these commentators to have founded the image that one head of the beast received "a deadly wound;" that the wound was “healed," that he shall "ascend out of the bottomless pit and go into perdition." That is, the resurrection of the beast is to be identified with Nero's escape and return. But in point of fact the idea of a resurrection from the dead by Nero formed no part of the popular notion even of the Roman rabble at the time of the writing of the Apocalypse. All that the historians of the day or the contemporaneous literature say is that the fancy was current that Nero had escaped, would return, and would take a terrible revenge on Rome. It was not until a later generation, especially of Christians, remembering Nero as the typical bloody persecutor, identified him with the Antichrist, and found him in the Apocalypse. Augustine first mentions the idea of his resurrection, and later still Primasius is the first commentator that

connects the idea of a resurrect Nero with the sacred texts. And that furnished a notable mare's nest for modern rationalism.

Gebhardt, admitting this discordance between John's conception of the beast's resurrection and the Neronian rumor of a mere return, nevertheless maintains that John modifies the rumor to his own purposes. The modification, we reply, is much the largest part of the modified subject. And if the nucleus was a miserable falsity, the modification enlarges it to an enormity. We cheerfully admit that John does often take a nucleus of fact and modify it to his own needs. We may admit that chap. xii abounds in such modifications. But we call attention to the most decisive fact, that every nucleus John appropriates for such modification in his Apocalypse is drawn from the sacred records. Hengstenberg has well shown, in discussing another point, that John never goes to classic or profane literature for any of his conceptions. He forcibly denies on that ground that the "palms" of chap. vi are borrowed from pagan customs. All John's imageries arise from within the sacred domain. Perfectly unendurable, then, is the thought that John goes to the slums of Rome and picks out from the very dregs of heathendom a base canard, overlays it with a wretched, lying superstition of his own, and brings it into the sublimest of all prophecies. We pity the moral taste of the man who, on a full survey of the case, does not repel such a notion with disgust.

But there are some points of peculiar significance both in the figures 666 and the combination of the Greek letters that form the number as they present themselves to the eye.

First, as to the significance of the 666: as seven is the perfect number, so 777 would be the trinal symbol of divine perfection, the Trinity. Three half-sevens would be the reverse of perfection; the directly bad. Three sixes are an attempt to attain or display the divine perfection, but are a failure, a falling short; and that perhaps by a divinely-imposed limitation. And thus in this 666 is numerically figured the antichrist.

And as to the combination of Greek letters that form the number 666, they are in John's Greek text xs, that is, chi, xi, st. But striking out the middle letter, the remaining two, X-s, are the customary abbreviation in the manuscripts of the name Christ. Now let the serpentine § crawl in between these two letters, and what have we in x5s? A central serpent wearing the externals of Christ, a serpent-Christ, an antichrist! Nor, says Godet, must this be promptly dismissed as a puerility. The Orientals were

thus accustomed to express conceptions in figured forms to the eye, as even in our modern West we have our coat of arms, and in our America our stars and stripes. An ingenious, reflective Oriental people, before books were ever printed, were inclined to shape a momentous thought into an impressive mnemonic form. Thereby we get coin stamps, monograms, signet-rings, abraxases, symbols pregnant with impressive import. There is certainly presented here a curious combination of agreements. They are a numerical name, Lateinos, that points to Rome; a trine number 666 that suggests the pseudo-divine; and a monogrammic triplet of letters xs that imports a Satanic Christ. It has taken centuries of thought to unriddle this combination, indicating that vous has been exerted here in large amount. The reader can decide for himself whether the combination was really planned by the vous of John.

The Atonement in Christ. By JOHN MILEY, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology in Drew Theological Seminary. 2mo., pp. 351. New York: Phillips & Hunt. Cincinnati: Hitchcock & Walden. 1879.

It is the opinion of Dr. Miley that Arminianism has furnished much less discussion of the atonement than Calvinism. We think it is true that Arminianism has furnished, in proportion to its magnitude in the Christian Church, much less theological discussion generally than Calvinism. The contradictions of Calvinism, contradictions between its different dogmas and contradictions between its dogmas and "the universal common sense of mankind," have kept the Calvinistic mind ever restless and on the stretch for reconciliation. The whole system is like the Irishman's cane, 66 SO crooked that it cannot lie still." Meanwhile we Methodists have held firmly and deeply to the atonement; have sung it in our most favorite hymns, have prayed it in our most fervent intercessions, have firmly preached its reality, and boldly claimed its universality and all-embracing mercy, without a great amount of critical analysis of its precise terms. There was room, therefore, for Dr. Miley's monograph, and that room he has well filled. His work is the result of an extended and searching analysis, crystallized into a very clear and symmetrical synthesis. The language is lucid; its brief and pointed sentences seldom or never obscure, generally even and level, yet now and then rising into a glow, and sometimes becoming eloquent. Our young ministry especially will, we think, find in its transparent pages a great aid in clearing their views and symmetrizing their conception of the whole subject. We recommend Dr. Miley's manual

as a clear and conclusive exhibit of the Wesleyan-Arminian view of the atonement.

Upon the old oppressive doctrine of "Satisfaction," according to which the atonement covered the elect alone with a completed and perfect righteousness, by which they were justified and truly sanctified and saved, Dr. Miley is full and very conclusive. The doctrine usually embraces the absolute absurdity that by intrinsic justice one man can be righteously punished for another man's sin. If there be such a thing as a moral axiom, it is that, guilt and penalty are untransferable. The clumsy evasion introduced by some thinkers, that the word guilt has two meanings, is here untrue. For what we are talking about is absolute justice and literal guilt, as seen by the intuitive faculty. Such guilt is one and sole; and it inheres solely in the personality of the agent in the guilty fact. To foist in here a secondary meaning of the word guilt is simply to introduce a gratuitous muddle into a discussion where clearness is an all-important desideratum. That second sort of guilt has no real existence.

And when the universal character of guilt is fully seen, and due perception is secured that Christ endured not literal punishment, but only took upon himself suffering for others, the atonement is brought into clear analogy with the course of things in the Providential system. When men are told that Christ was guilty of and punished for another's sins, the intuitive feeling is that it is absurd, impossible, out of the nature of things; but when they are told that he assumed suffering that another man might be relieved from the consequences of his guilty doings, it becomes one of an immensely large class of facts. Indeed, without the possibility of suffering for others the profoundest exhibitions of benevolence would be impossible in the world. Our skeptical friends are proud of Socrates. His death as a classic martyr is a thousand times rehearsed. But, with all his goodness and wisdom, to how much less he would amount were it not for his dose of hemlock. He died for others. Without that possibility he would sink nine tenths in the scale. Leonidas died to save his country, and oratory and song have for ages grown rapturous over the deed. But surely the highest ideal would have been wanting had it not been possible for One higher than all to have died; died not for the good, but for the criminal and condemned; died for those who inflicted his death; died not for somebody else, but for us! That is, indeed, for us, theme for eloquence and anthem.

A Compendious and Complete Hebrew Lexicon to the Old Testament, with an English-Hebrew Index. By BENJAMIN DAVIES, Ph.D., LL.D. Carefully revised. With a Concise Statement of the Principles of Hebrew Grammar, by EDWARD C. MITCHELL, D.D. 8vo., pp. 752. Andover: Warren F. Draper. 1879.

This Lexicon is founded upon those of Gesenius and Fürst, but is essentially a new work. Though the product of authoritative scholarship, it is adjusted to the wants of beginners. It claims to be at once "compendious and complete," having "over a thousand more Hebrew words or forms than appear in Tregelles' or Robinson's Gesenius, besides incorporating into the body of the work all the grammatical forms contained in Robinson's Analytical Appendix." The "Concise Statement of Principles of Hebrew Grammar" is placed in the beginning, under the persuasion that the better way for the beginner is to forego all intermediate "lesson books," and take to Bible and Lexicon at once, grammar coming in as a felt want to be directly applied. The English-Hebrew Lexicon " is brought in at the end, embracing about forty-five pages, and contains the English word with a numeral reference to the page and place where the correspondent Hebrew word stands. It thus forms an aid for Hebrew composition. Both pupil and master will, doubtless, find the work a valuable part of the "apparatus."

History, Biography, and Topography.

The North Americans of Antiquity: Their Origin, Migrations, and Type of Civilization Considered. By JOHN T. SHORT. 8vo., pp. 544. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1880.

Though possessing little interest, either as history or romance, the antiquities of our more Northern America have awakened much enthusiasm of late as matter of science. Even as science their investigation scarcely crosses the path of the biblical scholar or theologian, and scarce passes out of the limits of archæology and anthropology. Yet every liberal inquirer must feel an interest in the question, Who and what were our ancestors on this continent? and must feel obliged for this thorough and convenient summary of the whole subject by Mr. Short.

Our Red Indian, whosesoever fault it is, persists in being a very uninteresting specimen. His predecessors, the Mound Builders, were better, but not very much. The Cliff Dwellers of the South-west had a slight touch of romance and a very faint hue of poetry to them. As to the question, How came they here?