hension that the ecclesiastical era of Christianity is fitted to nourish in an elect body a peculiar sublimity of heavenly-mindedness, but not to realize the manifoldness of God's thoughts in the relations of general humanity.

The author believes that the renewal of the heavens and the earth, which shall finally remove from the whole creation its bondage to imperfection, begins with the setting up of the Messianic kingdom, goes on through the millennium, and is consummated, at least as respects our system, at the last judgment, when that which is finally irreconcilable with good is purged off into its own place outside the sphere of redemption. What will ensue when the Son surrenders his mediatorial kingdom to the Father, whether all the redeemed will be lifted into equality with the first fruits, or whether gradations will continue forever, the author holds himself incompetent to determine, though inclining decidedly to the latter belief. His theology being thoroughly geocentric, he holds that the final renewal of the whole creation begins with us, and esteems it not improbable that the redeemed may be a medium of God's workings in many worlds. He rejects with well-warranted repugnance the view of the Incarnation more Hindoo than Christian which deems it only a transitory spectacle, from which God ultimately withdraws himself again into the depths of inaccessible Deity. God, once incarnate, makes humanity thus exalted the medium of his workings in the creation forever.

The author's treatment of the varying forms and degrees of Messianic hope in the Old Testament and the Apocrypha, and other pre-Christian writings of the Jews, and also of the hope of immortality, follows all the variations of these with remarkable discrimination and distinctness, and shows how a thorough recognition of the human conditions of revelation can consist with the fullest apprehension of the divinely purposed result. The author's view of the relations of the Messianic kingdom to the present dispensation does not pretend to determine whether the present ordinances will be continued into it or the ancient revived, or both, or neither. The main purpose of the book is to emphasize, in what to the Church at large will doubtless appear too tenaciously traditional a form, first, the substantiality and all-embracing scope of redemption in the whole range of creation; and still more strenuously what so sound and central a thinker as Archbishop Trench insists upon, that the Church, till now, has been largely a success, but also largely a failure, and can only receive the full meaning of the promises in the second coming of her Lord.

Charles C. Starbuck.

CORRESPONDENCE.

LETTERS FROM H. CLAY TRUMBULL, D. D., AND THE REV. EDMUND M. VITTUM.

To the Editors of THE ANDOVER REVIEW.

ALTHOUGH I should never think of joining issue with a reviewer's opinion of the general merit or of the specific spirit of one of my published works, I do venture to protest, in the interests of truth, against the misrepresentations in matters of fact concerning my latest book, "The Blood Covenant," by its reviewer, Mr. Vittum, in the March number of

"The Andover Review." That these misrepresentations are unintentional and all unconscious I have no right to question; but none the less are they positive misrepresentations for all that.

To begin with, Mr. Vittum takes an incidental mention, in the Preface of my book, of my first meeting with "facts concerning the primitive rite of covenanting by the inter-transfusion of blood, which induced me to turn aside from my other studies in order to pursue investigations in this direction;" and, strangely enough, he declares : This we understand to be his own [Dr. Trumbull's] definition of blood-covenanting." On this assumption, and apparently with the idea that the term "transfusion" is to be taken only in its technical surgical sense of venous or arterial transfusion, Mr. Vittum proceeds to show that the universality of this "inter-transfusion of blood" between covenanting parties is not proved as a primitive rite.

Now as a matter of fact my "definition" of the primitive rite, between two covenanting parties, is given in my book (p. 4), as "the intercommingling of their blood by means of its mutual tasting or of its intertransfusion.' And this primary definition is expanded (pp. 38 f., 134, 136, 203) by the declaration, that in the estimation of primitive people, "the transference of life with all that life carries can be made by the simplest blood-anointing as surely as by blood-absorption." Moreover, I distinctly included in the scope of my definition of the primitive rite of blood-covenanting the use of substitute blood in lieu of personal blood (see pp. 154, 323, 334, 339 f.). This rite of blood-covenanting -as so defined it is of which I have endeavored to find traces among the different peoples of the world. On my success or failure in this line of investigation my book ought in fairness to be examined and judged. Even where I employ the term "transfuse," its use is certainly entitled to the breadth of meaning given it by Webster: "To cause to pass from one to another; to cause to be instilled or imbibed."

A single illustration of the manner in which Mr. Vittum would discredit the sufficiency of my proofs, through his misconception of my definings of the primitive rite itself, is perhaps as good as more. He

says:

"Before the Christian era the strongest evidence [adduced in the book] is from Herodotus, who mentions the shedding of blood in the making of covenants among the Scythians, and among the Arabians; but in neither case is there an inter-transfusion of blood."

Yet I cited (pp. 61-63) Herodotus as saying, that in Scythia the two covenanting parties drink of their commingled blood; and that in Arabia the two parties have their hands cut along the thumbs in order to secure the covenanting blood. That the hands thus jointly cut are clasped, in the customary pledge of friendship, so that the flowing blood shall inter-flow in literal transfusion would seem to be put beyond reasonable doubt not only by the inherent probability, but also by the subsequent description by Tacitus of Oriental covenant-making, wherein it is distinctly said that the hands of the parties are joined before the blood-drawing.

Not only the word "transfusion," but the word " 'proof," seems to be so employed by Mr. Vittum as to misrepresent the contents of my book. Thus, in commenting on my proofs of blood-covenanting, he says:

"The only proof, then, that Dr. Trumbull brings forward to support his

statement that it is an 'ancient Semitic rite' is, that he has seen one Syrian who has witnessed it, that other Syrians tell him that it is done in other places, and is an observance handed down in tradition, — but whether from Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Mahomet, or Haroun al Raschid we have no means of knowing."

Now if the word "proof" is here employed as conclusive evidence, it matters not, I suppose, whether it be much or little, since it is conclusive. But if "proof," as here used, includes the idea of proffered evidence, Mr. Vittum ought to know that I did proffer in evidence of the antiquity of this rite among Semites various apparent references to it in Arabic poetry and Arabic words, as also in the Hebrew; the above-mentioned description of it, in Arabia, by Herodotus, at least a thousand years prior to Muhammad, and twelve hundred prior to Haroon er-Rasheed; and again, the indications of its existence as a world-wide primitive rite, especially among peoples early allied with Semites, as in Egypt, Armenia,

etc.

In other words, I brought forward the fourfold proofs which are counted in the scientific world the indications of a primitive rite among an ancient race: 1. Vestiges of the rite itself in surviving local customs. 2. Traces of the rite in the language and literature of the people. 3. References to the rite in ancient history. 4. Indications of the same rite elsewhere through the world. Whether these proofs are in themselves convincing to Mr. Vittum is one thing; whether I brought them forward is another thing. It is on this latter point that I have been misrepresented by Mr. Vittum. The value of my proofs from Arabic literature has gained in appreciation by facts brought out by Professor W. Robertson Smith, in his work on "Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia," issued since my volume; but even as first presented they could not, in truthfulness, be ignored,

Yet again, Mr. Vittum misrepresents my book by his denial of facts which I never affirmed, and by his exclusion of proofs which are undeniable, while he claims to have indicated the fullest strength of the case presented by me. For example, he says:

"The great difficulty is that proof is generally lacking. The author cites the wearing of phylacteries as a token of this blood-covenant; but many scholars have been of the opinion that God never desired the Jews to wear phylacteries at all."

Now that looks as if an issue were squarely joined with some claim of mine; but I did not claim, suggest, or imagine that God desired the Jews to wear phylacteries. Mr. Vittum also says:

"Dr. Trumbull cites Wetzstein, who makes reference to the binding force and the profound obligation of the covenants of brotherhood, in that portion of the East [beyond the Jordan] ; although he gives no description of the methods of the covenant-rite.' It is an assumption, pure and simple, to call that bloodbrotherhood."

I certainly did not call it blood-brotherhood. I merely called attention to an implied allusion in Wetzstein's description to such a blood-union as would make marriage between the parties incestuous.

Proceeding in this way in his review, Mr. Vittum finally affirms as if in assurance of the thoroughness and fairness of his exhibit of the main facts of my volume:

"We have tried to notice the strongest facts and arguments adduced by the author to show that blood-covenanting is a primitive rite, and has 'bearings on

the Scripture;' but we fail to find such facts recorded in the volume as the title-page led us to suppose existed."

Yet in his endeavor "to notice the strongest facts" adduced by me in the line of my research, Mr. Vittum does not seem to have observed my specific proofs of the existence of this rite of blood-covenanting in the Transalpine East, before the Christian era (p. 320); in the Norseland (pp. 40-43); in Burmah (pp. 313-316); in China (pp. 43 f., 154); in Madagascar (pp. 44-49); in Borneo (pp. 49-52, 323); in Australia (pp. 331, 335-337); in Tahiti (p. 337 f.); in Yucatan (p. 54 f.); and among the Pawnee Indians (p. 339 f.); these facts covering more or less of the primitive peoples of Asia, Europe, America, and the Islands of the Sea. In fact it is only concerning the rest of the world, beyond these three continents and these islands, that he seems to have found any noteworthy facts in the volume he searched; therefore he says: "Of the rite in Africa there can be no doubt."

Conceding that Mr. Vittum's failure to observe these prominent facts was a result of no lack of honest and earnest endeavor to find them in the pages he was turning, it is hardly to be wondered at that he should say of his former experience in another field of research :

"The present writer [Mr. Vittum] has lived three years in Western Asia on exceptionally intimate terms with many natives, taking care to learn all he could in regard to peculiar customs, but never heard blood-covenant mentioned either by natives or by any of the many missionaries with whom he became acquainted."

PHILADELPHIA, PENN.

To the Editors of THE ANDOVER Review.

Permit me to add a few words on this subject.

H. Clay Trumbull.

We do not understand that the sentence quoted from the preface differs essentially from the definition given on page 4. We noticed the matter of substitute blood, etc., which the author himself classes under the general head of "Suggestions and Perversions of the Rite." We understand that the essential thing in the Primitive Rite is that the blood of one should enter the physical organism of the other.

In regard to the Scythians, an apology is due Dr. Trumbull. In the writer's original MSS. the statement was made to apply only to the Arabians, the Scythians being noticed separately. In copying, the phraseology was changed somewhat, and this error was overlooked. This is offered as an explanation, not as an excuse. There can be no excuse for such a misrepresentation. The writer can only acknowledge his mistake and offer his apology.

As to the next point noticed by Dr. Trumbull, we would call his attention to the fact that the paragraph from which he quotes has reference only to those eight pages of his First Lecture which follow the heading, " An Ancient Semitic Rite," and we see no reason to change our original conclusion: "We cannot deny that it is an ancient Semitic rite, neither have we evidence sufficient to justify the assertion."

We did not attempt to say what is the author's theory in regard to phylacteries; but under the heading, "The Blood Covenant and its Tokens in the Passover," more than half of the space is devoted to the subject of phylacteries. What we intended to suggest was this: If God did not command the Jews to wear phylacteries, the fact that they did wear

them is not a proof or token that God regarded the covenant with his people as a covenant of blood-brotherhood.

As to the relative importance of the facts noticed, we would refer to page 263, where we understand the author to regard as clearly established the fact that "blood-covenanting was well known in the lands of the Bible at the time of the writing of the Bible." We understand that the bearing of the Primitive Rite on the Scripture depends largely, if not wholly, upon this fact or assumption. The case of the American school-girls, cited on page 43, would not prove that blood-covenanting is well known among Americans in the present century, and so it should be very conclusive evidence that would justify us in seeing "in the Bible much that would otherwise be lost sight of." Consequently we looked at the evidence of blood-covenanting among the Semitic people and the neighboring nations. Remote savage tribes we did not regard as equally important. Africa was mentioned, not as discrediting the evidence from Borneo, but because the suggestion was made that the Africans learned the rite from Semitic people. We gave the suggestion for what it is worth. We turned aside only to notice the Dakotas, thus dissenting from the sweeping statement on page 57.

In regard to Dr. Trumbull's closing words, let us note again the fact that of all the earnest, devoted, scholarly Americans who have occupied mission fields in the Turkish Empire for years past, Dr. Trumbull does not cite one as testifying to the existence of such a thing as blood-covenanting. If the present writer had a reputation to lose, he would gladly stand or fall with that noble band of Christian scholars to whom we owe so much of our knowledge in regard to Eastern manners and customs.

We do not agree with the reviewer who says in "The Nation" of April 1: "While the judicious grieve, iconoclasts of the Ingersoll variety will be immoderately pleased. They will declare that Dr. Trumbull has furnished them with such an armory of weapons as they could not have themselves collected without an infinite deal of trouble." But we repeat that "the book is interesting and suggestive," and hope that any who may be interested in the subject will procure the work and study it for themselves. Edmund M. Vittum.

GUILFORD, CONN.

BOOKS RECEIVED.

Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston. Signs and Seasons. By John Burroughs, author of "Wake Robin," "Winter Sunshine," "Birds and Poets," etc., etc. 16mo, pp. 289. 1886. $1.50;— Saint Gregory's Guest and Recent Poems. By John Greenleaf Whittier. 16mo, pp. 66. 1886. $1.00 ; - American Commonwealths. California. From the Conquest in 1846 to the Second Vigilance Committee in San Francisco. A Study of American Character. By Josiah Royce, Assistant Professor of Philosophy in Harvard College. 16mo, pp. xv., 513. 1886. $1.25; A Harmony of the Four Gospels in English. According to the Common Version. Newly Arranged, with Explanatory Notes. By Edward Robinson, D. D., LL. D., lately Professor of Biblical Literature in the Union Theological Seminary, New York, author of "A Greek and English Lexicon of the New Testament," "Biblical Researches in Palestine," etc., etc. Revised edition, with foot-notes from the Revised Version of 1881, and Additional Notes by M. B. Riddle, D. D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Hartford Theological Seminary. 8vo, pp. xix., 205. 1886. $1.50.