worked with it for a couple of months-not half long enough for the critic, though possibly too long for the author's patience-and can honestly report that so far it has stood the test very well. The one point at which it seems most open to improvement is a more copious and precise definition of the shades of difference between Hebrew words which are translated by the same English word in our Version. On the whole, Dr. Young's work-an immense advance in every way on that of Cruden-will be found, we believe, to be of great and sterling value.

THE HEBREW UTOPIA: a Study of Messianic Prophecy, by Walter F. Adeney, M.A. (London: Hodder and Stoughton), is a bright, thoughtful, well-written Essay, to which the author has done some injustice by the title he has given it; although, to the initiated, this very title will be significant of the position he assumes and defends. To the popular mind the word Utopia carries some suggestion of unreality, of a world at least unrealized, if not unrealizable-a suggestion very far from his intention: his intention. being, as experts will suspect, to contend that, in place of distinct foresight of the Man Christ Jesus and of the details of the work He came to do, the Hebrew prophets had an ideal of the true King of men and of the kingdom He came to set up floating before their minds, vague in outline at first, but gradually assuming a more definite shape as the Spirit of God moved over the brooding thoughts of one Hebrew man of genius after another. This thesis he works out with much force and beauty, illustrating it by a careful examination of the leading Messianic prophecies in their historical order, and shewing how, in the event, the Christ of God at once fulfilled and exceeded all that the ancient seers had afore written of Him. If the work be that of a young man and author, it is of good performance and of still better promise. The style has certain "vital signs" in it, and the cast of thought is broad and generous.

Messrs. F. R. Conder and C. R. Conder, R.E., do themselves an injustice in another way. If Mr. Adeney in his title promises less than he gives us, they promise somewhat more. A HANDBOOK TO THE BIBLE (London: Longmans) is a somewhat pretentious name to give to a small volume of some four hundred pages, since a handbook should contain much that cannot be crowded into so small a compass, much even-as, for example, the linguistic and literary aspects of the Bible-with which the special studies of its authors

have not qualified them to deal. Nor is the matter mended by a hint in the Preface that much pains have been taken with the Index in the hope that the volume may be "used as a Bible Dictionary!” -not a modest hope, to say the least of it. Nevertheless, the book is a good book, and cannot fail to be useful; within its own limits, indeed, there is none better. All will do well to keep it at hand, among their books of reference, who wish to possess, in brief compass and succinct form, the best and most recent information to be had on the chronology of the Bible, its weights and measures and coins, and, above all, on its geography. Mr. C. R. Conder's services on the Trigonometrical Survey of Palestine and in the excavations. recently conducted by the Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, qualify him to speak with authority on the geography of the country and on the topography of Jerusalem and the Temple area. The main value of the book lies in its capital summaries of the latest information on these points. And if these services do not raise it to the dignity of a Bible Dictionary, or even make it a complete Handbook to the Bible, they nevertheless render it a very convenient and valuable book of reference.

The Rev. H. C. G. Moule, M.A., has made a valuable addition to THE CAMBRIDGE BIBLE FOR SCHOOLS in his brief commentary on the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. The "Notes" are very good, and lean, as the notes of a School Bible should, to the most commonly accepted and orthodox view of the inspired author's meaning; while the Introduction, and especially the Sketch of the Life of St. Paul, is a model of condensation. It is as lively and pleasant to read as if two or three facts had not been crowded into well-nigh every

sentence.

The Theological Review is dead, but the Modern Review has sprung into life. And in the first number of this new Unitarian Quarterly there are three capital papers: "The Force behind Nature," by Dr. Carpenter; "In the Name of Christ," by Mr. Picton; and, above all, "Fervent Atheism," by Professor Upton. There are also two allusions to THE EXPOSITOR which are somewhat curious, and, to speak plainly, absurd. The first is made by Dr. Vance Smith, who, in an article on "A Recent Discussion on Romans ix. 5," very naturally refers to THE EXPOSITOR, since that Discussion appeared in our issue of last year. His article contains an argument against

the doctrine of the Sacred Trinity which he says, quite truly, that I did not "consider admissible" to the pages of this Magazine. And he congratulates himself and the Editor of the Modern Review on its advantage over THE EXPOSITOR, in that he can "allow to his contributors a little more of the liberty of prophesying"" than I can, or do, to mine. Now it is very possible that the Editor of the new Quarterly may enjoy a wider liberty than I, and be able to give a freer scope to his colleagues; though I would venture to remind both him and them that it is not those who say the bitterest things against sectarianism who are always the most unsectarian, nor those who are always boasting of their freedom who are most free. But surely Dr. Smith is very unlucky in the modern instance by which he illustrates that ancient saw of "the liberty of prophesying." Mr. Armstrong, an Unitarian, and the Editor of an Unitarian Magazine, admits an argument against the Trinity, which I, a Trinitarian, and the Editor of a Trinitarian Magazine, had declined. How does that prove that the Editor of the Modern Review has, or gives, a wider liberty than I? So far as it goes, it would rather seem to prove that we both of us quite naturally and reasonably, insert arguments for that which we hold to be true, and decline to insert arguments for what we hold to be untrue. My main motive for declining Dr. Smith's argument, however, was that I did not think it well to suffer a critical discussion to degenerate into a doctrinal polemic for which I had neither space nor taste. I am very glad, however, that his argument should be given to the world in an appropriate organ; for, now, if I should want any justification of the course I took beyond my disinclination to insert an attack on the Trinitarian conception of God in a Trinitarian Magazine, and my reluctance to being drawn into a doctrinal polemic, I can appeal to his argument itself; which, as The Scotsman very justly observes, "adds nothing that is really material to his former statements."

But the Editor himself also alludes to THE EXPOSITOR, and that in a way still more curious. At the close of his opening article he sings quite a little pæan over himself and his excellent intentions. And in the course of it, while enumerating in a somewhat Pindaric mood the objects which he has set before himself as Editor of the new Magazine, he says: "The scholar shall entice the reader into the practice of that criticism which, to many who have not understood its spirit or its aim, appears 'malicious,' but to us seems beneficently 'Reconstructive,'" &c. The reference indicated by the star over the word "malicious" is given thus at the foot of the page: "The

Expositor, No. I. p. 1," and is likely, of course, to generate the impression that, in a formal enunciation of the principles on which THE EXPOSITOR was to be conducted, a certain kind of "reconstructive" criticism was branded as "malicious." Now if the reader will turn to page 1 of No. I. of THE EXPOSITOR, he will discover, with some natural surprise, that the word criticism is not once used; that the word "malicious" is used only in speaking of the "malicious delight" with which "those who hold the Christian Faith to be an outworn creed," pounce on certain passages of Scripture, and make fun of them while, if he reads on for a page or two, he will find, with deepening surprise, that the passage I had mainly in view was one in which, as I tried to shew, certain opponents of the Christian Faith first insert "an extraordinary and exorbitant miracle," and then proceed to ridicule the miracle which they themselves have thrust upon the Bible. For what criticism is it, then, that the Editor of the Modern Review is so jealous that he rebukes me for having misunderstood and misrepresented it? Is it the criticism of those who "reject the Christian Faith as an outworn creed"? That cannot be; for he himself has just affirmed that "the modern spirit," which is to animate the Modern Review, "shall not quench the flame of faith, but fan it to a ruddier blaze;" and, as I understand his somewhat dithyrambic utterance, it is a leading object of his Review to reconcile Reason and Faith-a noble enterprise in which I heartily wish him all success. I am quite unable, therefore, to determine what the offence is with which I am charged: and, until I know my sin, how can I seek any place of repentance? It is very possible, of course, that I may have failed to "understand either the spirit or the aim" of a certain criticism which, whatever it may be, is very dear to the valiant and poetic Editor who has taken me publicly to task for my ignorance. But surely it is quite certain either that he, in his turn, has altogether failed to understand the spirit and the aim of the sentence in THE EXPOSITOR to which he refers; or that there is but one word which will adequately characterize his reference to this Magazine, and that the word which he himself quotes from it and misquotes. Meantime is it not rather a pity that, if we are both set for the defence and furtherance of the Christian Faith, though from very different points of view, that time and energy should be wasted on brief and baseless insinuations which cannot be so briefly met?

EDITOR.

THE VALUE OF THE PATRISTIC WRITINGS FOR THE CRITICISM AND EXEGESIS OF THE BIBLE.

II. THE LOWER CRITICISM.

It ought perhaps to have been explained sooner that the terms Higher and Lower Criticism are used in their technical sense, the one for that larger criticism which deals with the questions that are commonly included in Prolegomena or Introductions; the other for the smaller or more detailed criticism which is concerned with the investigation and reconstruction of the text. No doubt the phrase Higher Criticism" at least is frequently used in another sense. From the fact that not a few of those who have treated of the genuineness, date, and historical character of the sacred books have done so to a great extent from a subjective a priori point of view that seemed to carry with it a character of assumption, "the Higher Criticism” has come to be with some writers a term of reproach, implying arrogant subjectivity. This, however, is both a secondary usage and also one which, from its invidiousness, it seems desirable to avoid. The term has, therefore, been confined in these papers to its strict and, I think it may be said, original sense; there was besides the further reason, no other single title seemed to describe what was meant so conveniently.

When we ask ourselves what is the worth of the Patristic Writings for the Lower Criticism, the same MARCH, 1880.

13

VOL. XI.