This Dr. Davidson has done for his part, with his usual exactness, in his notice on the Chronicles; in which as well as in a new article on the book of Ezra, he has been allowed to speak with entire freedom, not (we hope) as a preparatory compensation for the loss of his old subject, the Revelation.' Dr. Hengstenberg's article on Ecclesiastes (in which less than any other of his we saw necessity for change) has been replaced by a more elaborate one, nearly to the same effect, written by Mr. Ginsburg; and the Book of Lamentations receives a fuller and better treatment than before, from Mr. Deutsch. The concessions made to historical criticism are almost imperceptible; in some cases the present Editor shows a more decided opposition to its claims than his predecessor.

6

Nor is it only in the department of Introduction that the reactionary tendency of this new edition is displayed. Under the revising hands of Dr. Alexander, we lose a large portion of the more liberal articles which characterised the first edition of the work. We are sorry to exchange the clear and manly statements of the late Professor Powell on the facts of physical science for the elaborate attempts of Dr. M'Causland and others of the same school to prove that the statements of Moses and other sacred writers comport, with admirable pre'cision, with the profoundest scientific conceptions of modern 'times;' and we regret all the more the cancelled article on the 'Lord's Day,' when we observe the ominous reference to 'Sabbath' which takes its place. On the other hand, the Editor has preserved the article on Inspiration,' which was one of the weakest of the contributions to the first edition imported from America, and represents a phase of opinion which thoughtful divines, even in Scotland, have begun to feel and confess is no longer tenable.* Dr. Smith, happily, has committed himself to no such line of argument, and it is well, probably, that in the present state of opinion he has forborne to introduce any article on Inspiration at all.

Before we proceed to follow him in his survey of the several books of Scripture, we may be allowed a few prefatory remarks. We protested in a recent Number against the assumption popularly made that the ancient Jewish Scriptures were

* The reactionary character of the present edition may be seen especially in the following articles, some of which, however, we do not deny, are improved in other respects. Accommodation, Antilegomena, Canon, Chaos, Circumcision, Creation, David, Deluge, Demon, Demoniacs [retained under a protest from the Editor], Esther, Firmament, God, Hagiographa, Heavens, Hellenists, James, Jehovah, Joshua, Jude, Law, Logos, Longevity.

purposely and expressly adapted by Divine wisdom to the wants of the whole human race; that their teaching was not only adjusted to the capacities and circumstances of the Jews, but intended also to be a constant and essential element in Christian doctrine, furnishing an indispensable groundwork of primæval truth, and claiming coextensive (though subordinate) authority with the precepts of the Gospel itself. Recognising equally with our opponents the Divine origin and authority of those Scriptures, we conceive their use to be limited nevertheless by the conditions of their acknowledged purpose; and that the very peculiarities which fitted them for the part they originally fulfilled, disqualify them without special adjustment for universal application.

The writers of the canonical books, though divinely commissioned and supernaturally qualified to instruct the men of their own time and nation, were left nevertheless to their own resources in all departments of ordinary knowledge, including the knowledge of events and incidents. They depended, even for contemporary history, on the best information which they could obtain; and for bygone times they drew their knowledge from such oral or documentary channels as preserved and conducted the memory of the past. The area of their inspiration extended only to the doctrine which they had to deliver; and, in dealing with history, only to the spirit, the judgment, the mind with which they regarded the events they commented on, and applied the existing records to the instruction of their hearers. Inspiration did not imply a clairvoyant acquaintance with transactions and circumstances remote from the range of their natural faculties. These conclusions, in which thoughtful men are continually inclining more and more to acquiesce, are strictly in harmony, we believe, with the claims and assertions of Scripture itself. The position which we maintain admits of ample illustration from the earlier sacred history; it finds its culminating exemplification in the Apostles and Evangelists, whom all Christians agree in regarding as the highest adducible instances of inspired men. How then are we derogating from the inspiration by which prophets or sacred chroniclers spoke, if we deny that there is sufficient reason (still less any religious obligation) to suppose that the facts on which they comment, the events which they record, the recollections of the distant past by which they enforce or illustrate their precepts, were certified to them by divine light, or guaranteed to all ages as absolutely and unquestionably correct? We believe, for our own part, that such records and statements are freely open to

:

criticism; that we are perfectly at liberty as Christians, and indeed should be at liberty as Jews, to subject them to the keenest scrutiny, without invalidating the claims of the writers to inspiration, even when forced to question the accuracy of their statements-or, indeed, when convinced of their inaccuracy. Prove that such and such facts were beyond the scope of the sacred writer's knowledge, whether in science or in history-that even when satisfactory to himself the sources of his information did not deserve the implicit credence of others and errors of statement or conception on his part, as they will detract nothing from his truthfulness of purpose, so neither will they shake our belief in his inspiration, nor lessen the reverence due to the religious teaching of which those statements were the occasion and the vehicle. Were it not for this persuasion, we should shrink from challenging any assertion, however trivial, which is contained in the Scriptures. But armed with this principle, we see without dismay the necessity for doubting or qualifying many parts of the Biblical narratives, as well as for canvassing the received authorship of several of the Scriptural books.

The subject of the Mosaic writings is first in importance as in order. We admire the candour, ability, and extensive knowledge of his subject with which Mr. J. Stewart Perowne has treated this weighty matter, especially in his concluding article 'Pentateuch,' conceding as he has done so much to the just claims of criticism, while maintaining on the whole an essentially conservative position. Such articles as the one we speak of, and even, to a certain degree, those on the five Mosaic books, would have raised a few years ago a perfect storm of alarm and indignation. We rejoice to see an acknowledged member of the Evangelical school venturing to look such questions in the face, and not only rising above the prepossessions of his party, but eschewing the elaborate evasions and mystic dogmatism of Hengstenberg. He fully and fairly allows the composite nature of the Pentateuch, and the certainty both that it was originally in part a compilation, and that it has undergone various recensions and additions since its first appearance. If we do not altogether agree with his conclusions as to the proportion in which the books are to be ascribed to Moses himself, we value his articles none the less on that account, believing them to be most important indications of what has been established already, and serviceable contributions to a discussion which must continue to be carried on, though it may never admit of a complete solution. Perhaps it may never be possible to decide indubitably when or by

whom the Pentateuch, either in its present or its primary form, was committed to writing. But in the face of this uncertainty it is much if we can satisfy ourselves how little such uncertainty affects the value of the book as a religious manual, when the true limits of its use among Christians are understood. Indeed, if we were obliged to accept the hypothesis that it is only in an oral form that any strictly Mosaic element has been preserved, the marvellous fidelity with which ritual, legislative, and didactic formularies have been transmitted in other cases through an hereditary priesthood (though without the guarantee of perpetuity which attends divine truth), would be almost as great a security to us as writing itself for the correct preservation of those essential parts. If the narrative parts have not been equally safe from traditional enlargements, we must bow to the laws which govern the world, and thankfully remember that our faith as Christians is not bound up with the details of Israelitish history.

The pre-eminent importance of the Pentateuch and of the questions respecting it, makes the date and authorship of the Book of Joshua comparatively unimportant, except, indeed, (and this is a weighty consideration) in so far as it bears upon and illustrates the former problem. But in the Book of Judges we enter on ground distinctly separate and more ascertainable. Here we have an undeniable instance of a narrative, or series of narratives, compiled long after the events; and one, also, for which the most tenacious critic will hardly claim the authority of contemporary chronicles, incorporating though it does some most precious fragments of undoubted antiquity. The article upon this subject in the Dictionary, mainly following Bertheau, is a fair and reasonable one. it hardly does justice to the exceeding interest which attaches to this portion of Scripture. The Book of Judges would have been better treated by one who was investigating seriatim the sources and the character of all the historical Scriptures. Here, if anywhere, we are enabled to penetrate to indubitable elements of antiquity, to obtain some unquestionable data concerning the condition, the ideas, and even the language of the Israelites before their consolidation under Samuel, and thus to obtain a basis for exploring matters of more doubtful certainty, a criterion whereby to estimate the dimmer objects and distances beyond.

Yet

With the Books of Samuel opens a new era of the Hebrew annals. We have already expressed our admiration of the ability and acumen with which Mr. Twisleton has handled this

subject; and we cannot but add our regret also, that this is the only article belonging to the department of Introduction' which has fallen to his share. A layman possessed of the requisite learning, and qualified in other respects for the task, has advantages over clergymen which no honesty of intention on the part of the latter can altogether compensate.

The fundamentally historical character which Mr. Twisleton claims for the Books of Samuel belongs still more undeniably to those of Kings. Throughout this period we are resting, without doubt, on the authority of contemporary records, though the date of the compilation as it actually stands, and the amount of license which the compiler allowed himself, are matters which involve points of great difficulty. Lord Arthur Hervey's article on these books is a good specimen both of the merits and the peculiarities of that eminent clergyman, and furnishes a satisfactory supplement to the very insufficient notice of the Chronicles which he contributed to the first volume. He gives a fair and candid estimate of the way in which the compilation grew; though maintaining, we think, much too confidently the Rabbinical tradition that Jeremiah was the compiler; and his revolutionary boldness in matters of chronology and genealogy, and the readiness with which in these matters he supposes the sacred text to have been handed over to the mercy of empirics, contrast rather strangely with his belief in the absolute impeccability of the narrative, and with his exalted idea of the divine purpose which has both produced and preserved the entire volume of the Hebrew Scrip

tures.

After a period of so solid an historical character as that of the Kings, illustrated too so fully during the most important part of the time by the contemporary utterances of the Prophets, it is strange to come once more upon uncertain ground at the epoch of the Captivity. But the way in which the Books of Daniel and of Esther are to be regarded is so obviously questionable, that the question was raised even in the Jewish Church, and has been revived whenever there has been a revival of criticism. The case of the former book has been stated by Mr. Westcott in the Dictionary before us, with a strong conservative leaning, and not altogether with his usual fairness and judicial exactness; that of the latter by Lord A. Hervey with a still more settled determination to uphold the popular view. We cannot say that we are convinced by the calmer or the more eager arguments of either; and we believe that were the same measure meted to a Scriptural as to a secular book, no doubt would remain in the minds of competent critics that