glory of the Nicene theology that it emphasized the nearness between God and man, so that a real Incarnation was possible. Arius thought there was an impassable barrier, so that an intermediate created being had to be postulated who eventually became man. God and man are akin, said Athanasius. There is no necessity for an intermediate being. The Eternal Son of God himself, he of the very essence and life of God, this One became man, and so actually and historically united God with man forever. To disprove the proper divinity of Christ Donaldson quotes, "I and my Father are one" (v, John 10. 30), by which Christ meant to say, "I and my Father are united in the closest relationship of activity and feeling." But this says more than the author intended. No created being has ever been in the closest relationship of activity and feeling with God. Even the angels-in the figurative and poetic language of the seer —are charged with folly. The closest relationship of activity and feeling can only be said of the Eternal Son. "Afterward he uses the same expression (v) to indicate the unity of himself and his disciples." Yes, for

denotes the oneness that is possible according to the nature of each case of which it is affirmed. The oneness between Wesley and his followers is one kind of oneness, that between Christ and his disciples is another, that between Christ and his Father is yet another. What the latter denoted must be found out from the context, from Christ's claims, from the light of the gospels, etc., etc. But outside of that, who has ever said, before or since, "I and my Father are one"? The skepticism underlying all this part of Donaldson's book is portentous. It is a Unitarian manifesto, to be eagerly seized by those constantly heralding the downfall of orthodoxy. It belongs to the famous Scotch Sermons of 1880, and to Alexander Robinson's The Saviour in the Newer Light of 1895, and is another evidence of the effects of the Ritschlian and other modern movements on the established Church of Scotland. Chapters iii-vii are very instructive, and must be read by anyone who would understand the present religious condition of Scotland and the questions precipitated by the famous decision of 1904. All through them, however, runs the cultivated skeptical layman's nonchalant attitude toward creeds and positive doctrinal Christianity as things outworn and left in the rear in the progress of intelligence. Another assumption is that all must assent to every single statement in the creed. It is seriously to be doubted if the framers and imposers of any Protestant creed ever thought of subscription in that sense. They had common sense at least, and they knew that such microscopic allegiance was impossible among Protestants.

Pseudo-Criticism. By SIR ROBERT ANDERSON, K.C.B., LL.D., Author of The Bible and Modern Criticism, Daniel in the Critics' Den, etc. 12mo. pp. 123. New York and Chicago: Fleming H. Revell Company. Price, cloth, 75 cents net.

The peculiar value of this author's writings against the rationalistic critics of the Bible is that in them a distinguished jurist and scientific expert as to the force of different kinds of evidence tells these critics that the evidence by which they support their destructive biblical theories is

of a sort that would be rejected as worthless by any law court competent to judge of evidence; and that the men who presented such evidence in court and claimed for it any force or value would make a laughingstock of themselves. He tells them flatly that their evidence is contemptibly worthless: it either proves nothing at all, or else it proves something very different from what they claim. The particular value of the volume now before us is in its discrimination between the genuine Higher Criticism, which the author knows to be of great service in the study of the Holy Scriptures, and the antisupernatural, rationalistic, destructive method which he properly names Pseudo-Criticism, and which struts about with pretentious but unwarranted airs of authority and speaks great vaunting words of vanity concerning its own vast "scholarship." This false system of biblical criticism Sir Robert Anderson ably exposes and demolishes. He cites Professor Driver's Book of Genesis as containing examples of both the true and the false criticism. The first section of the Introduction to that book contains an analysis of the text of Genesis which is an interesting and valuable study in Higher Criticism; but the two following sections pursue the false method, being mainly a presentation of the opinions and theories of foreign pseudo-critics who approach the Bible from rationalistic presuppositions and whose endeavor is to dissolve, discredit, and degrade it. The author makes it clear that we have to take our choice between accepting the Bible as a divine revelation or giving up our belief in Christianity. He refers to the valuable service rendered by what is called Lower Criticism, which is the study of the Text of Scripture by the aid of the oldest and best manuscripts, and to the excellent, though less important, service rendered to modern Bible study by the genuine Higher Criticism. In his first chapter he says: "My subject is a defense of the Higher Criticism against the reproach which has fallen upon it, and an exposure of the vagaries and errors of a pseudoCriticism which has filched a title to which it has no just claim. It is manifestly of greater consequence that we should have wholesome unadulterated bread than that we should know who baked it and by whom the wheat was grown and ground. And it is incomparably more important that we should have an accurate text of the Bible than that we should know where and when and by whom the various books were written or compiled. The pure loaf-to keep up the figure-we owe to 'Textual Criticism'; while 'Higher Criticism' claims to enlighten us about its history. It is obvious, therefore, that, by the test of practical usefulness, the Higher Criticism must be content with a secondary place. But this is no disparagement of a system of study which has thrown new light upon many parts of Holy Scripture, and has brought us new proofs of its authenticity and accuracy, proofs of a kind that preceding generations knew nothing of. And even if its legitimate results should disturb certain 'orthodox traditions,' the Bible is the gainer; and those who make that a ground for refusing its help do a great disservice to the cause of truth. The Higher Criticism is admirable in its aims, and its results should be hailed with thankfulness by every Christian." This extract may serve

as a lesson in discrimination to those who fail to discriminate between Higher Criticism and Pseudo-Criticism, and who indulge in blind, rabid, wholesale denunciation of all kinds of higher critics, as if there were no difference in them. As a matter of fact, the lower, or textual critics have made more alterations in our Bible with general acceptance than the higher critics have succeeded in gaining acceptance for. Sir Robert Anderson commends to the pseudo-critics Dean Alford's comment on a passage in the Sermon on the Mount: "It is important to observe in these days how the Lord here includes the Old Testament and all its unfolding of the divine purposes regarding himself in his teaching of the citizens of the kingdom of heaven. I say this, because it is always in contempt and setting aside of the Old Testament that Rationalism has begun. First, its historical truth-then its theocratic dispensation and the types and prophecies connected with it, are swept away; so that Christ came to fulfill nothing, and becomes only a teacher or martyr; and thus the way is paved for a similar rejection of the New Testament-beginning with the narratives of the birth and infancy as theocratic myths-advancing to the denial of his miracles-then attacking the truthfulness of his own sayings which are grounded on the Old Testament as a revelation from God-and so finally leaving us nothing in the Scriptures but, as a German writer of this school has expressed it, ‘a mythology not so attractive as that of Greece.' That this is the course which unbelief has run in Germany should be a pregnant warning to the decriers of the Old Testament among ourselves. It should be a maxim for every expositor and every student that Scripture is a whole, and stands or falls together." The author then says: "Dean Alford was no stranger to the Pseudo 'Higher Criticism.' Not even the Essays and Reviews had appeared when he wrote these words; but he was well versed in the German literature upon the subject. And has anything since transpired to weaken their force? Archæological research has been rewarded by unprecedented success, but every discovery tends to confirm the truth of the Bible. Can anyone point to a single exception?" And the indignant words of Professor Sayce concerning these pseudocritics are quoted: "Baseless assumptions have been placed on a level with ascertained facts, hasty conclusions have been put forward as principles of science, and we have been called upon to accept the prepossessions and fancies of the individual critic as the revelation of a new gospel. If the archæologist ventured to suggest that the facts he had discovered did not support the views of the Critic, he was told that he was no philol. ogist. The opinion of a modern German theologian was worth more, at all events in the eyes of his 'school,' than the most positive testimony of the monuments of antiquity." Sir Robert Anderson has recently pub lished a small volume entitled Christianized Rationalism and the Higher Criticism, which is a reply to Professor Harnack's What is Christianity?

The Divine Opportunity. By F. B. STOCKDALE. 12mo, pp. 136. New York: Eaton & Mains. Cincinnati: Jennings & Graham. Price, cloth, net, 50 cents.

Nine sermons on these subjects: "The Divine Opportunity," "A Great Definition,” “The First Thing God Did,” “Every Man's Picture," "When is a Man Himself?" "The Suicide of Fear," "The Preparation of a Man for a Prophet's Place," "How to Live Outside One's Self," "A New Position on An Old Battleground." Dr. W. F. Anderson's introduction to this volume says that the author of it is a preacher with a message, a seer, a herald, a messenger of the divine; readers of the sermons will subscribe to this statement. The sermons have the directness and urgency, the edge and energy of a message. The style wears no mere ornaments; it is stripped to the muscle, clean and firm. The discourses rise to the height of great arguments and the reasoning has from point to point what is lacking in many sermons and writings convincingness. Two sermons are on the Prodigal Son, the first on his sin, the second on his coming to himself. He sinned, first, in going away from home to a far country, and, second, in wasting his substance in riotous living. "He took his journey into a far country;" that is the beginning of sin, and if continued will reach the end of sin. Time and a wrong direction will bring a man to the place or the state which is without God and without hope. "Sin," says the preacher to the sinner, "is a straight line away from God; only keep that course and time will bring you to a worse hell than any parable ever had power to picture. You have only to go on. One by one the truths of God are losing their influence over you; go on! One by one your scruples are dying out; go on! One by one praying people are being discouraged about you; go on! You are not yet fifty, but you have rejected more gospel invitations than would have saved the world had they been accepted; go on! One by one your life is taking on additional sins, they do not seem to burden you; go on! The door of home, the garden gate, you no longer see; go on! You have lost sight of the curling smoke from the chimney of the Father's house; go on! The light that flames in God's great Book looks rather dim; go on! You are even wondering if your godly mother was not mistaken; go on! One by one the stars are fading from your heaven; go on! Eternal day is at your back, eternal night is right ahead; go on! go on! But remember, it is you who are going. Don't blame God, neither the church. We are none too good, I know, but we have brought you enough gospel to have saved you a thousand times if you would. Men still stand beside the Christ, and more people weep over the wickedness of our cities to-day than ever wept over them before; but do n't you mind that, go right on. Go on till you grow gray, and the gray turns to white, and the white is carried to the grave, and then go on. Somewhere in that far country you have reached, and in which you are still going farther away, there is darkness that you will feel, and the worm that never dies. You will find them all; if you only go on! But remember it is you who move. Time and direction is all that it needs to make hell. Eternity is long and the universe is large. Do not think of yourself as a fixture and everything else as moving.

You do the going. 'He took his journey into a far country.'” The discourse on "We love, because he first loved us" (Revised Version) begins thus: "The history of a sermon is sometimes its best introduction. You will follow me better if you walk the path I trod. Last Tuesday morning, entering my study, thinking of this morning service, a casual look through the window started a train of thought that led to this text. It was a beautiful morning. The air was clear, the sky was blue, and beyond the hills looked like the sea. The suggestion led me to say, 'I wish I were by the sea.' Then, as if some visitor had asked a question, there came, 'Why do I love the sea? Is it because I am, as all other life is, related to it? Is the sea the path by which life reached the earth? Or, am I related to it by my love?' 'O,' said I to the visitor, 'what is the difference?' Then, as if I might not put him off, came this: 'Why do you love at all? Why does anybody, everybody, love?' With the question came the text: 'We love him, because he first loved us.' 'Him'-that cannot be right; did he love us that we might love him? That is business, barter, loving one's self by proxy; and is selfish. Taking up a parallel edition of the New Testament, which gives the various readings of different Greek manuscripts, I found that the oldest of them do not give the personal pronoun 'Him' as the object of 'We love.' So the statement in the Revised Version is correct: 'We love, because he first loved us.' The context clearly shows that the object of 'We love' is 'his brother.' Of human love for human beings John is speaking. 'Him' takes his place among those we love; or, better still, 'We love' Him by loving others. 'We love.' That is 'the greatest thing in the world.' The wonders of life are not all outside of us. The starry heavens have nothing more marvelous than this fact of human life. In the presence of the grave we have given our heart to another. In the darkness of death we have pledged the fealty of life. We have built our circles in the knowledge they would be broken; but we built them in love, and we love them none the less when they are shattered. The growing flower and the rolling sphere are marvels, but they are simple beside the perseverance of human love. This emotion is far beyond all the experiences of life, and springs forever fresh from the depths of the soul. It outlives war and hate, and shines in the world to-day as fresh as when first it lit the path of life. The things within us are worthy of as patient study as the things that are without. The marvels of God's handiwork are inside. In the consciousness that 'we love' dwells the most marvelous work of God. Of all the wonders of creation this is the most wonderful. Mind, memory, conscience, love, a constellation beside which the Pleiades are small. For to which of the worlds hath he ever said, 'Let us make it in our image?' These internal planets swing in orbits that are eternal and widen with the rolling years. Onward they sweep, becoming freighted with what it might task an angel to carry. Within the span of finite man are gathered the greatest wonders of the Almighty. But of these worlds, that move inside, none swing with such majestic splendor as this thing we call love. This is the marvel of the world. We need no one to teach us that we love; we are sadly in