a degree of deception practised upon the reader, in presenting him with a brilliant list of names as "the writers," and then constructing the work, for the most part, of the contributions of the youngest and least trustworthy of the number. Thus, we find among the list of "writers" which follows the title-page, such names as these: "C. J. Ellicott, George Rawlinson, H. J. Rose, William Selwyn, John S. Howson, Alfred Barry, T. T. Perowne." But when we turn over the pages of the work itself, we meet with the initials of these writers very rarely indeed. On the other hand, the contributions of "F. W. Farrar" (author of Eric,) and "William A. Wright, B.A., of Trin. Coll., Cambridge," meet our eyes wherever we open the book. We cannot think this fair towards the reader. The best scholars of those who were associated in the work, ought to have had assigned to them the most difficult questions; instead of which, they give to it little more than the weight of their reputation, while the chief portions of the work are contributed by men whose names are yet new, and almost unknown in the literary world. The natural consequence of this great error will be perceived when we give a few specimens of the loose and unguarded speculations which abound throughout the work. This, indeed, is the chief duty which now remains to We shall give separately, and as briefly as possible, ten or twelve specimens of the sort of questionable matter which too frequently meets the reader's eye.

us.

The article ADAM is by "Stanley Leathes, M.A." In it we are told, that

66

"He is said to have been created in the image and likeness of God, and this is commonly interpreted to mean some super-excellent and divine condition which was lost at the Fall; apparently, however, without sufficient reason, as the continuance of this condition is implied in the time of Noah, subsequent to the Flood (Gen. ix. 6.); and is asserted as a fact by St. James (iii. 9), and by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi. 7).” ..... 'Upon this supposition the condition of Christians now is as favourable as that of Adam before the Fall; and their spiritual state the same, with the single exception of the consciousness of sin, and the knowledge of good and evil.” . . . . " Till a recent period it has been generally believed that the scriptural narrative supposes the whole human race to have sprung from one pair. . . . . But the full consideration of this important subject will come more appropriately under the article MAN."

On the great subject of ATONEMENT, as we have already observed, there is no article. But we have a paper on THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, by "Samuel Clark, M.A." in which the follies of German interpretation are largely intermixed. The scape-goat in Levit. xvi. 8. is asserted to be "for Azazel." And then we are told that

'Many of those who have studied the subject most closely, take Azazel for a personal being to whom the goat was sent..... Ewald speaks of Azazel as a demon belonging to the pre-Mosaic religion. Others, in the

spirit of a simpler faith, have regarded him as an evil spirit, or the devil himself."

Meanwhile, Atonement itself is thus frittered away:

"Philo regarded the day in a far nobler light. He speaks of it as an occasion for the discipline of self-restraint in regard to bodily indulgence, and for bringing home to our minds the truth, that man does not live by bread alone, but by whatever God is pleased to appoint."

And again :

"The high priest himself, with his person cleansed and dressed in white garments, was the best outward type which a living man could present in his own person of that pure and holy One who was to purify His people, and to cleanse them from their sins."

Thus, dropping out of Atonement the essential features of substitution and satisfaction, Mr. Clark very naturally refers his readers to "Maurice on Sacrifice, p. 85." And Mr. Clark, we regret to say, styles himself "Principal of the Training College, Battersea."

The article on CANTICLES is by "T. E. Brown, M.A., VicePrincipal of King William's College, Isle of Man ;" and it is one of the most offensive and profane productions which is to be found in the volume. Utterly disregarding the headings of chapters in our authorized version, Mr. Brown gives us a strong recommendation of the interpretation of one "Mr. Ginsburg," who tells us that "the song is intended to display the victory of humble and constant love over the temptations of wealth and royalty. The tempter is Solomon; the object of his seductive endeavours is a Shulamite shepherdess, who, surrounded by the glories of the court, and the fascinations of unwonted splendour, pines for the shepherd-lover from whom she has been involuntarily separated."

Mr. Brown tells us that "Professor Noyes adopts the extreme erotic theory," and that "the excessively amative character of some passages is designated as almost blasphemous when supposed to be addressed by Christ to His church."

On the whole, we have no other advice to give to Dr. Smith with reference to this article, than to reject it utterly from the work whenever he sends to the press a new edition.

The article on DANIEL is of a very different kind. It is by Mr. B. F. Westcott, whose competency to such a task none will question. But even he seems infected with the rash and innovating spirit of the book. Without hesitation, he dismisses with apparent scorn, the interpretation of this great prophet which Mede and Newton, and a score of writers in all points equal to Mr. B. F. Westcott, have adopted, and determines, positively, that the whole of Daniel's eleventh chapter relates to Antiochus; and that "the four empires precede the coming of Messiah, and pass away before Him." Yet, in what way the ten kings of chapter vii. are to be explained, or the little horn, before which three horns fell, or the "time, times, and a half," Mr. Westcott does not stop to explain.

Vol. 59.-No. 275.

5 G

A more offhand way of dismissing a great question, which minds of the highest order had felt to require years of study and volumes of exposition, we never beheld. The generally-received interpretation is summarily condemned; yet nothing but the barest and most naked assertion is offered in its room. No sincere inquirer, of any class, can be satisfied with Mr. Westcott's hasty decision.

The article on EDEN is from the pen of Mr. " W. A. Wright, B.A., of Trinity College," to whom, with Mr. Farrar, we owe much of the questionable matter in this work. Both of these gentlemen seem to have drunk deeply of the muddy stream of German criticism, and most confused and confusing are their articles. Of this paper on EDEN we can only say, that the author has heaped together explanations of Genesis ii. 8-14, so multifarious, so contradictory, and often so absurd, as to tend greatly to lead the reader to embrace the last alternative mentioned ;-i.e., to doubt the story altogether. Mr. Wright says:—

"Other methods of meeting the difficulty have been proposed. Some, ever ready to use the knife, have unhesitatingly pronounced the whole narrative to be a spurious interpolation of a later age. But, even admitting this, the words are not mere unmeaning jargon, and demand explanation. Ewald affirms-and we have only his word for it-that the tradition originated in the far East, and that, in the course of its wanderings, the original names of two of the rivers at least were changed, to others with which the Hebrews were better acquainted. Hartmann regards it as a product of the Babylonian or Persian period."

The article on EXODUS is the work of Mr. Perowne, of King's College (J.J.S.P.). We deeply regret to read in it such language as the following :

"On the whole there seems much reason to doubt whether critical acumen will ever be able plausibly to distinguish between the original and the supplement in the book of Exodus. There is nothing indeed. forced or improbable in the supposition, either that Moses himself incorporated in his memoirs ancient tradition, whether oral or written, or that a writer later than Moses made use of materials left by the great legislator in a somewhat fragmentary form. There is an occasional abruptness in the narrative, which suggests that this may possibly have been the case...... We shall give reasons hereafter for concluding that the Pentateuch in its present form was not altogether the work of Moses."

In the same spirit is the paper on GENESIS conceived, and by the same writer. In this paper Mr. Perowne tells us, that—

"Astruc, a Belgian physician, was the first who broached the theory that Genesis was based on a collection of older documents. Of these he professed to point out as many as twelve.".... "Whilst contending against the theory of different documents in the later portions of the Pentateuch, we feel convinced that this theory is the only tenable one in Genesis." 66 Opinions have differed whether we ought to take the

story of the Fall in Gen. iii. to be a literal statement of facts, or whether, with many expositors since the time of Philo, we should regard it as an allegory, framed in child-like words as befitted the childhood of the world, but conveying to us a deeper spiritual truth. But in the latter case we ought not to deny that spiritual truth."

Two papers on HEAVEN and HELL, by "F. W. Farrar, M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge," are exceedingly unsatisfactory. In the first, the necessary and obvious distinction between the three heavens of the Bible,-the heaven of the clouds and of the birds, the heaven of the stars, and the heaven of God and the angels, is merely alluded to in a parenthesis. And hence, naturally, the whole paper throws no light on the subject, Mr. Farrar telling us, at the close, that "the omission is intentional." So that we have a paper on Heaven, which gives us not one particle of useful information or guidance on the subject. And the same may be said of the companion-paper, on HELL. Mr. Farrar's main object here seems to be, to convince us that the usual sense attached to this word is altogether a mistaken one. Thus, he says,

"The English word Hell is mixed up with numberless associations, entirely foreign to the minds of the ancient Hebrews." . . . . "In the New Testament the word Hades sometimes means merely 'the grave,' or in general' the unseen world.'"... "Respecting the condition of the dead, whether before or after the resurrect on, we know very little indeed; nor shall we know anything certain until the awful curtains of mortality are drawn aside."

Mr. Farrar should observe, that this topic, which he thus wishes to put away as something about which we know very little indeed," was a topic which the gracious and compassionate Saviour was constantly introducing. Thus, in His very first sermon, He warns men of the danger of being "cast into hell;" of the broad road which "leadeth to destruction ;" and of the danger of hearing the sentence, "Depart from me." (Matt. v. 26; vii. 13, 23.) Immediately after, he tells them of the "outer darkness, where shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth." (viii. 12.) Then He urges them to "fear Him who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell." (x. 28.) Soon after, He gives the plain assurance that, at the end, His angels shall gather together the wicked, and "shall cast them into a furnace of fire." (xiii. 42.) Again, He warns them of "everlasting fire." (xviii. 8.) And, in His plain and positive declaration of the nature of the last judgment, we have the simple and clear assertion, that the wicked "shall go away into everlasting punishment." (xxv. 46.) These are some of the passages found in a single gospel ;-in St. Luke there are others equally plain; and in the closing page of the New Testament, the same positive warning is again repeated. Instead, therefore, of agreeing with Mr. Farrar, that "of the condition of the dead, whether before or after the resurrection, we know very little in

deed," we must maintain that our Lord and His apostles have taken care that we shall know a great deal : shall know, in fact, all the main features of the case; and all, perhaps, that, with our limited faculties, it is possible for us to know.

In the article JAEL we meet with the same Mr. Farrar again, and again find him a most perilous guide. He adopts Coleridge's dislike to Jael, and inveighs against this woman, who, in God's word, and by the mouth of God's prophet, is described as "blessed above women," as if her guiltiness were unquestionable. The Dictionary is here, as usual, inconsistent with itself; for Judith, the slayer of Holofernes, passes without a word of censure; and Ehud is said to have been "specially chosen to destroy Eglon," and the manner in which he killed the tyrant is not even adverted to. Sisera was a cruel tyrant, the agent of a mighty oppressor. Of the grinding nature of this tyranny we have a few glimpses in the song of Deborah, Judges v. 11, 30. But "the children of Israel cried unto the Lord," and the Lord heard them. He sent by His prophetess Deborah to call Barak to the destruction of Sisera and his army. In the ordinary course of things, Barak might have been expected to take Sisera prisoner, and to put him to death. (See Judges vii. 25; viii. 21.) But it pleased God to ordain another sort of close to the tyrant's career. Barak was warned at the outset, "The Lord shall sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." It is impossible for any plain man, reading these plain words, to doubt that it was then ordained of God that Sisera should flee away, should take refuge in Jael's tent, and should by her be slain. Mr. Farrar suggests it as probable, that Deborah, in these words, was referring to her own share in the transaction!-which is about the most violent wresting of Scripture that we ever saw.

Sisera, then, in his defeat, flies, and takes shelter in Jael's That this should be foreknown and described beforehand by God's prophet, is only what is found in fifty other places of Scripture. See 1 Sam. x. 3-7; 1 Kings xxi. 19. Jael receives him as a fugitive, hospitably and kindly. There is not one word in the history which charges her with treachery or deceit; nor have we any right to impute such crimes to her.

Jael rises, and suddenly, with the most unfit and unlikely weapons that could be imagined, kills this great captain. But she was only thus fulfilling what had been predicted of her by Deborah several days before. What, then, is the inevitable conclusion, but that He who had before ordained Sisera's death, its time, place, and manner, now carried into effect His own purposes? And if we are asked how, we reply, in the mode and manner described in 1 Kings xiii. 20, 21; Numb. xxiii. 16; 1 Cor. xiv. 30,

Yet Mr. Farrar, adopting Coleridge's view, thus inveighs against the woman who simply carried out God's purposes, and delivered Israel from a terrible persecutor: