this volume. Accustomed to deal with evidence in inquiries quite as difficult and intricate, he has set himself to investigate the question of the authenticity of the Book of Daniel. And he ventures to think no competent judge would arrive at any other conclusion than that here recorded-that the indictment which the Higher Criticism has framed against this portion of the Scripture cannot be sustained. So striking is the apparent completeness of the hostile evidence adduced in support of that indictment, that persons unused to judicial inquiries are ready at once to accept an adverse verdict. But -to pursue the figure—that evidence fails under cross-examination; and when we come to hear the other side, which Higher Criticism ignores, the weight of proof in its favour seems overwhelming. A word as to the tone and manner of the reply here offered to the Dean of Canterbury's recent work.1 The character of the attack has naturally influenced the spirit of the defence. A treatise of another kind such, for example, as Professor Driver's or Professor Cheyne's, both so conspicuously moderate and fair-would invite discussion in a tone of philosophic calmness. But to maintain such an attitude of mind in dealing with the book here under review would betray deficiency of moral sense. In respect of some of the defects which mark the present volume, the author can only appeal to the indulgence of the reader. In a life of peculiarly engrossing and anxious work, hours which might fitly be devoted to recreation or rest are scarcely the most 1 The Expositor's Bible: The Book of Daniel. By F. W. Farrar, D.D., F.R.S. (Hodder & Stoughton, 1895.) suitable for such a task. But the result may perhaps be accepted for the moment, until some worthier pen supplies a want which Dr Farrar's book has brought into prominence. It only remains to add that these pages are based upon the writer's article in Blackwood's Magazine for April 1895. 39 LINDEN GARDENS, W., 14th October 1895. By "all people of discernment" the "Higher Criticism" is now held in the greatest repute. And discernment is a quality for which the dullest of men are keen to claim credit. It may safely be assumed that not one person in a score of those who eagerly disclaim belief in the visions of Daniel has ever seriously considered the question. The literature upon the subject is but dull reading at best, and the inquiry demands a combination of qualities which is comparatively rare. A newspaper review of some ponderous treat A |