bo quit Mr. As the same bidim and that there

of the people at Kadesh, but at Meribah, some thirty-seven years later.” These words present a somewhat singular instance of discrepancy with those which occur in p. 700 of this Commentary, where we read as follows:-“Finally the host was re-assembled at Kadesh. ..... Here it was that sentence was pronounced on Moses and Aaron for their sin." We presume Mr. Espin's meaning is that it was on occasion of the second, and not of the first, assembling at or near Kadesh, that the sentence on Moses was pronounced. Considering, however, (1) that the sentence was pronounced, to adopt Mr. Espin's own words, “at Kadesh," and (2) that the name of Meribah is common both to Rephidim and to Kadesh, by reason of the repetition of the same sin on the part of the people, we cannot acquit Mr. Espin of the charge, not only of extreme negligence, but of positive inaccuracy, in the words we have quoted above. This inaccuracy is the more remarkable, inasmuch as we believe that, with the exception of Psalm xcv. 8,* the name of Meribah, without some clue to the discrimination of the locality, is never given in Scripture to the fountain in Zin at or near Kadesh ;t and the ambiguity of the name is recognised by Mr. Espin himself in the following remark on Numbers xx. 13:" The place is called 'Meribah in Kadesh' (Num. xxvii. 14) and 'MeribahKadesh' (Deut. xxxii. 51) to distinguish it from the 'Meribah’ of Exod. xvii. 2, sqq.”

(2) Again, we find the following given as a literal translation of a portion of chapter xvi. 9 : «Upon the beginning of the sickle to the corn;" a translation which not only gives to English readers a less correct impression of the force of the original Hebrew than that in place, or explanation, of which it is proposed, but, in our opinion, one that is altogether erroneous.

(3) Mr. Espin objects to the insertions made in the Authorized translation of Deut. viii. 15, as “carrying the construction needlessly away from that of the original,” and observes that “ the words rendered 'fiery serpents' and 'scorpions,' singular nouns in the Hebrew, stand grammatically in 'apposition' with 'wilderness.'" We will not pause to remark upon the sense which Mr. Espin here attaches to the word “ apposition.” We observe only that the translation which he proposes to substitute, “who brought thee through that great and terrible wilderness, the fiery serpent and the scorpion," is, in our judgment, incomparably inferior to that of the Authorized Version, and appears to us to be the result of Mr. Espin's oversight of the true ground of the justification of the version adopted by our own, in common with the majority of ancient and modern translators, viz., that the word rendered “wherein,” though expressed only in the latter clause of the verb, must be understood in the former, and hence that the true meaning is exhibited as well in the Authorized Version as in the yet more idiomatic version of Luther, “ da feurige Schlangen und Scorpionen und eitel Dürre und kein Wasser war."

Once more, we greatly doubt the admissibility of Mr. Espin's proposed translation of xxxii. 43, notwithstanding the authorities which he cites in its support. We think that, in the confessed absence of any authority for the transitive sense of the verb rendered by Mr. Espin" praise,” it would have been safer either to adhere to the Authorized Version which has the sanction both of the LXX and of St. Paul's citation in Rom. xv. 10, or to have adopted that sense of the verb which is in analogy with its use in the other voices, and to have rendered the clause, “ Make His people to rejoice, O ye nations.” It is a matter of surprise to us, that neither Mr. Espin nor Bishop Wordsworth, in his Commentary on the place, has noticed the remarkable addition made to this verse in the LXX, from which, though, as we think, without sufficient ground, many critics suppose that Heb. i. 6 is derived.

Our time will not allow of our noticing at length errors of omission, as they appear to us, with regard to the correction of the Authorized Version. The following must suffice by way of illustration :-In Deut. ii. 37, the words rendered in the Au. thorized Version, “any place of the river Jabbok," should undoubtedly be rendered, the whole bank or side of the brook Jabbok," “ der ganzen Seite des Baches Jabbok," as it is translated by De Wette; or, “the side of the brook Jabbok,” as it is rendered by Benisch.

Our readers will now, we trust, be able to arrive at a tolerably correct conclusion as to the value which we assign to that portion of the Speaker's Commentary which is now under review. It was, perhaps, hardly to be expected that the learning and judgment displayed by Bishop Harold Browne, in his Introduction to the Pentateuch, and in his Commentary on Genesis, should be equally conspicuous throughout the succeeding portions of this work. Still less was it to be antici. pated that all the contributors to the Speaker's Commentary should possess, in an equal degree, the accurate scholarship, the profound research, and the terse and vigorous style of the general Editor.* If, then, we have criticised, somewhat more

• We cannot refrain from expressing fined more distinctly the extent of his our regret that the Editor has not de- own responsibility for this portion of

severely than we are accustomed to do, some of the defects which we have noticed in the subsequent portions of this important work, we wish it to be understood that such criticisms are by no means inconsistent with our strong conviction of its many and substantial excellencies, and of its great value as compared with that of preceding Commentaries. As in our remarks on the portion of this work executed by Mr. Clark, we felt it our duty to point out some inconsistencies which we thought that we detected in the theological views of the writer, as compared with those of his predecessors, so in the portion now before us, we think it right to express our conviction that there are very many passages which will well admit of correction or improvement; and also that there are some points which we should gladly have seen more fully discussed.

Under the latter of these two categories, we cannot refrain from noticing the extremely cursory manner in which the remarkable end of the great Lawgiver of his people is treated.

It will not be denied, whatever view be taken of the meaning of the words with regard to the actual transcription of the law by the hand of Moses, that chap. xxxi. 24-26 may well be regarded as forming the probable beginning of the addition made to the Book of Deuteronomy after the death of the great legislator. The words are as follows :-"And it came to pass, when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law in a book, until they were finished, that Moses commanded the Levites which bare the ark of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness against thee."

After confiding the book to the custody of the Levites, or Levitical priests, Moses appears to have assembled the elders of the tribes, in order to rehearse in their ears the memorable song or ode contained in chapter xxxii., a song which embraces the whole of the future history of Israel, and which bears, as Keil has well observed," all the marks of a prophetic testimony from the mouth of Moses, in the perfectly ideal picture which it draws, on the one hand, of the benefits and blessings conferred by the Lord upon His people; and, on the other hand, of all the ingratitude with which Israel repaid its God for them

The same day, Moses received a renewed announcement of his death, and the command already given to him (Num. xxvii. the work. Those of our readers who not but feel that it would have been have carefully examined the Commen- well that the measure of responsibility, tary upon the first nineteen chapters which rests upon the Editor, should, of Exodus, will have little difficulty in in this instance, have been distinctly drawing their own conclusions upon stated. this point. At the same time, we can

12–14) was repeated, that he should ascend Mount Nebo, and, from the heights of the mountain, take a survey of that good land into which he was not permitted to enter; and the solemn words were added to the command, “ And die in the mount whither thou goest up, and be gathered unto thy people.” (Deut. xxxii. 50.)

But ere his departure from them, Moses was directed to pronounce a final prophetic blessing (recorded after his death in chap. xxxiii.), of which we must not pause to enter upon the contents, but must satisfy ourselves with the simple observation that the objections brought against itsgenuineness resolve themselves, as has been pointed out by Keil, eitherinto interpretations of particular passages which are altogether untenable, or into a general denial of the reality of the inspiration of the sacred writers of the Old Testament Scriptures by the prophetic spirit. The final blessing being now concluded, the aged lawgiver ascended the Abarim mountains, as he had been commanded; and there, from the peak or ridge of Pisgah, he surveyed, in its length and breadth, the land which the Lord had promised that He would give unto Abraham and to his seed, but from which, by reason of his transgression, he himself was to be excluded.

Theretheservantof God with whom Jehovah had condescended to commune face to face, tasted the bitterness of that sentence pronounced against sin, which he himself had been the first to record: “In the day thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt die.” Into the mysteries of a burial such as had awaited none since the bitter sentence of death had taken effect, we presume not to enter. Difficulties encompass us on every side. On the one hand, Scripture seems to point to Christ Himself, the prophet like unto and at the same time greater than Moses as the first of those to whom, being raised from the dead, it was given to die no more, and over whom death had no more dominion. On the other hand, it seems instinctively to suggest itself to the mind, that a burial such as that of Moses was probably the prelude either to a preservation from the ordinary law of corruption, or to a nearly approaching deliverance from its power. It is not for us to divine what was the nature or the ground of the contest between Michael the Deliverer and Satan the Destroyer, or to pronounce upon the manner in which Moses, who had passed through death, became the fitting companion and -so far as we may judge from the recognition of the Apostles -the compeer in glory of Elijah who was exempted from its influence. This only we know, that as, during his life-time, God was pleased to reveal Himself in a pre-eminent degree to Moses, so also, after his death, He conferred pre-eminent honour upon him.

Nor can we marvel, when we ponder the history and hearken

to the words of Moses, that it should be so. In his ardent zeal for the glory of his God, and in his complete surrender of self for the welfare of his brethren,-in his high and intimate converse with the God of the spirits of all flesh, and in his office as a mediator between God and the people,—there arose no prophet like unto him, so long as the ancient covenant continued in power; and until the greater Prophet was revealed, Israel was not permitted to behold his equal. In the majesty of his conceptions, and the comprehensive range of his predictions, we are apt to lose sight of the prevailing characteristics of his dispensation,—to be transported by his triumphant song, as though the sweet Psalunist of Israel swept the lyre,—to hang upon his majestic utterances, as though Isaiah were describing the glory with which the earth shall hereafter be filled, or St. John were revealing the mysteries of the temple which was opened to him in heaven.

With regard to those who, in their meditations upon the character and the writings of Moses, are thus borne onward to the close of the Jewish dispensation, and even to the dawn of the Christian, our hearts are expanded in sympathy, and our pulse beats in unison. With regard to those who can muse upon the song and the blessing of Moses, and yet regard them as the deliberate invention, or the fortuitous discovery, of some unknown impostor, who thought to ensure the success of his forgery by the archaisms of some long-forgotten ode, or by the addition to it of a piece of contemporary history disguised in the garb of a poetic prophecy, we are free to confess that we can discern as little in their “higher criticism” to commend, as in their degraded conceptions of inspiration to attract.

MARCO POLO. The Book of Ser Marco Polo, the Venetian. Translated by Col.

Henry Yule, C.B. London : Murray. 1871. WITHIN the memory of many now living, the only practicable route to India and China was round the Cape of Good Hope. It was, indeed, possible for some solitary and adventurous traveller to prosecute a journey overland, through countries so little known that they might almost be termed undiscovered ; and sometimes well-protected officials, with all the prestige of English power and influence at their back, made their way with difficulty through Persia to and from the East. But the attempt was toilsome, if not hazardous : those who are Vol. 70.-No. 408.

6 B