a

and "signs," and his remarks on the refusal of Jesus to grant sign" to the people or to the Pharisees are only a specimen of the many passages which give value to the book. But whenever a miracle is in question we meet with expressions which show a desire to introduce as much as possible of the natural or simply providential element. Thus, in speaking of the blind man at Bethsaida, the writer says: "Jesus wet the eyes of the blind man with spittle, and laid His healing hands upon him. At that very moment, by God's miraculous power, the light began to dawn upon him." In a note Dr. Weiss adds: "It is indubitably evident that the power of vision, which was restored by a divinely miraculous operation, was gradually strengthened through the influence of natural means as well as of the bodily gift of healing which was connected with Jesus' unique personality" (p. 23). Here the miracle is fully admitted, but with a sort of uneasiness which often recurs, and stamps the phraseology with an uncertain character. Of the Syrophenician woman Dr. Weiss says: "Divine assistance could not be refused: Jesus gave her the desired promise without delay, and when the mother got home she found the daughter well." But in the note we read: "If criticism, as is reasonable, will disclaim the idea of any medical remedies having been sent to the house, or of Jesus's words having merely held out the consoling prospect of possible improvement, nothing else is left but to regard this as a mythical or poetical description of the proclamation of the Gospel among the Gentiles." Dr. Weiss does indeed reject the solution, but he seems to do so only because there are two such miracles of what the Germans call "miracles wrought from a distance," and both are derived from "the oldest apostolic source" (p. 39). Again, in the healing of the man born blind, we are told that this could only be due to "an absolutely divine miracle;" but "that does not preclude the possibility that in a case where, according to God's good counsel, this was to happen, the physiological conditions for it were not awanting" (p. 190). The Transfiguration, again, is, with elaborate arguments, reduced to a subjective vision (ch. ix.). In the account of the raising of Lazarus we are told that "if in the counsel of God Lazarus was to be called back to life, it is self-evident here, as in all cases, that the separation of soul from body had not yet taken place, and therefore the latter could not yet fall a victim to decay," though there was "a sleep of death which could not be dispelled by any natural remedy." The Bath Qol, or voice from heaven, heard by Jesus in Jerusalem is thus described :—" It was just at this moment that the roll of thunder was heard from the heavy clouds which had gathered above Jerusalem. There is no reason for supposing that this was any miraculous phenomenon, for the narrative distinctly says that the crowd heard nothing but a thunderpeal" (p. 248). Again: "The prevalent opinion that Jesus foreknew the terrible details of what was before Him, certainly assumes the possession of a divine omniscience which, according to the testimony of the Gospels, was not His " (p. 320). The "darkness over all the land" at the Crucifixion becomes little more than a cloudy afternoon (p. 368). These are but a few of the passages which show an uneasiness about miracles which we can hardly understand in one who fully accepts the Resurrection, and says of the Ascension that there

is nothing in it which can be shown to be contrary to the divinelyappointed laws for the government of this world (p. 409). It is easy to understand the position of Reimarus, or Paulus, or Strauss, or Renan; but for one who believes in the divine Christ, who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven, we cannot see what difficulties there can be in the record of His miracles. They are lost in the miracle of Christ himself, since they were wrought by One whose very Being was the most infinite and unique of all possible miracles. Nothing is farther from my desire than either to misjudge or criticize Dr. Weiss's position. I only say that men in the future will have to make up their minds absolutely on this point: Are or are not miracles to be believed, on adequate human testimony? If they are not, then the faith of Christendom has been built on an absolute illusion. If they are, then, since the Incarnation and the Resurrection and the Ascension were events transcendently miraculous, the works of healing and other miracles narrated in the Gospels rest merely on questions of evidence, and the supernatural element in them may be accepted without difficulty as belonging to what St. John calls the pya-the natural manifestations of a divine existence.

So again with the handling of the Gospels. On page after page Dr. Weiss seems to accept or reject any particular statement of the Evangelists as it pleases him. He sets aside the two miraculous feedings of the multitude, and, quietly sweeping away a mass of dissimilar details, reduces them to one (p. 37). In the narrative of the arrest in Gethsemane he asserts that St. Matthew is directly contradicted by St. John, and "educed an incredible view of the occurrence from the obscure account of Mark" (p. 295). St. John, in the account of the Last Supper, "formed into a new unity his fragmentary recollections." Matthew in some cases makes an "entirely literary" aud "completely secondary elaboration" of passages in Mark (pp. 325, 339, 366). St. Luke's account is "far behind Mark in perspicuity and reliability," and he makes highly dubious combinations into a picture which presents "not a little incongruity in some of its details" (p. 351). If Luke describes "how the people, overawed by the sight of the death on the cross, smote on their breasts and returned home," that "is of course no traditionary fact, but a reflection by the writer himself on the impression made upon the spectators" (p. 367). In one of the details of the Crucifixion "Luke is certainly mistaken" (p. 370), and "it may be that the account given by Luke, in which Jesus affirms he has flesh and bones, and calls upon the disciples to handle him, &c., rather belongs to the later idea of the way in which they convinced themselves that this was no mere ghostly appearance" (p. 391). The watch of Roman soldiers at the grave of Christ is set aside, because it only rests on the authority of St. Matthew, and "it is quite possible that Jesus' tomb had no other watchers than the loving women who wept for him before the well-closed grave on the evening of Good Friday" (p. 381). I am only trying to show what is the writer's standpoint;. but if every critic is at liberty thus to pick and choose, and combine and re-combine, and to set aside one narrative as incongruous, and another as improbable, and a third as a pure mistake; then, since no two persons see these details from the same point of view, and endless difficulties may be suggested at point after point, it

seems that everything must be left in complete uncertainty, and nothing resembling a harmony of the Gospels, or a Life of Christ, is possible at all. But by this time, while the more violent expedients of harmonists are justly rejected, and the total abandonment of the degrading and mechanical theory of verbal dictation leaves us no difficulty about trivial nuances of variety in small details, Christian theology has arrived at a general agreement about the order and interpretation of events in the Gospels; and Lives of Christ have frequently proved that, to one who does not deny the supernatural, it is possible, without a single violation of historic probabilities, and with the fullest examination of every detail of textual criticism, local custom, and extraneous evidence, to attend to every word of the Gospel narratives, and by their aid to produce a perfectly clear and consistent picture.

But while I have spoken thus freely of this book, I would add a cordial recognition of its high merits. There is scarcely a single chapter in which the reader will not find something which is worthy of his careful consideration, and on every subject of controversy he will be glad of the well-weighed opinion of so eminent and thoughtful a theologian as Dr. Weiss. Even more than Neander, Dr. Weiss has felt the deep influence of a time of crisis, and we may rejoice that in all essential particulars he remains unshaken in his hold on the Christian faith.*

The translation of Professor Reuss's "History of the Sacred Scriptures" by Mr. Houghton, which has just been published by Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh, is one of the most valuable volumes of their valuable series. The "Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Neuen Testaments" was published in a fifth edition in 1874, and was followed in 1882 by the "Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften Alten Testaments." The writings of Professor Reuss, both in French and German, are well known to all English theologians. His "Histoire de la Théologie Chrétienne" is even more highly esteemed than his extensive and original "Commentary on the Books of the Bible." The present work was originally published more than forty years ago, and its usefulness is attested by its undiminished vitality. It consists of five sections, which treat of the history of the New Testament writings and the pseudoapostolic literature; the history of the canon, of the text, of the circulation and versions, and of the exegesis of the New Testament writings. With every one of these topics Professor Reuss deals in the most thorough way. His references to the bibliography of each subject are full and exact, except that he seems to have but a very slight acquaintance with English writers, to whom indeed he scarcely ever refers. His method is admirable, and he unites German exhaustiveness with French lucidity and brilliancy of expression. The fifth book, on "The Exegesis of the New Testament," is specially noteworthy. The English reader might derive from other sources much of the information collected under the other divisions, but except in the untranslated works of Rosenmüller, Diestel, Meyer, and Clausen-or

* It does not fall under my purpose to criticize the translation, but if we must acquiesce in such novelties as historicity" and "reliability," we hope that in future editions we may be spared "declinature" (pp. 40, 292), and such phrases as "almost worse than the disputation of the experience" (p. 371).

"History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New Testament." By Professor Reuss. Translated by E. L. Houghton, A.M. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark.

in older treatises, like those of R. Simon and Buddeus-we do not know any book in which we can find the information so compendiously gathered under this head. The sketch of the great exegetic epochs, their chief characteristics, and the critical estimate of the most eminent writers, is given by the author with a compression and a mastery that have never been surpassed.

The Dean of Wells adds one word more to the controversy on Eschatology. His book is called "The Spirits in Prison,"* from the title of a sermon preached in St. Paul's on April 30, 1871, in which he endeavoured to revive a forgotten article of the Creed by calling attention to the Descent into Hades and Christ's Gospel to the Dead. To this sermon, which at the time of its original publication received the favourable notice of Cardinal Newman and the warm approval of Bishop Thirlwall, are appended sixteen short studies on the Teaching of the Old and New Testament, on the Life after Death, on Purgatory, Prayers for the Dead, the Word "Eternal," the Damnatory Clauses of the Athanasian Creed, Conditional Immortality, and other analogous topics. Among the more important of these studies are three on the Eschatology of the Early Church, on Modern German Thought in its relation to Eschatology, and on the history of "the wider hope" in English theology. Calm, learned, thorough, written without a trace of acrimony, this book is well adapted by its judicial tone, its reverential spirit, and its thoughtful originality to be regarded as a most welcome summary of a discussion of which the general effect has been to convince many Christians that popular teaching respecting future retribution had become largely mixed up with traditional and untenable elements. Thousands have learnt, with a sense of deep thankfulness, that very much which had been written about the torments and the duration of Hell rested on no certain basis of scriptural teaching, and represented the dark reflex of human fear, and the inferential dogmatism of human systems, rather than the truth of God. Like all Christians, Dean Plumptre believes in the existence of a punishment beyond the grave for all who die in impenitent sin, but refuses to say more respecting its universal and inevitable endlessness than is warranted by true explanation of the passages which touch upon it. Within the permissible limits of the teaching of the English Church he leans to that view which is known as "the larger hope."

Dr. Scrivener's book on "The Authorized Edition of the English Bible" is marked by all the learning, the thoroughness, and the inexhaustible patience which have characterized the previous labours of the author. It is a reprint, with additions and corrections, of his Introduction to the "Cambridge Paragraph Bible" of 1873, which "was itself the result of seven years' continuous labour, and has generally been recognized as the only attempt hitherto made to construct a critical edition of the 'Authorized Bible' of 1611." The writer tells us a fact, of which few perhaps are aware, that "numberless and not inconsiderable departures from the original or standard edition of the authorized translation, as published in 1611, are to be

"The Spirits in Prison, and other Studies on the Life after Death." By Dean Plumptre. London: Isbister.

+ The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611), its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives." By Dr. F. A. Scrivener. University Press, Cambridge.

found in the modern Bibles which issue from the press by thousands every year." These differences do not always rise from oversight or negligence; many of them have been deliberate changes, which are by no means invariably for the worse, though they have been "introduced, silently and without authority, by men whose very names are often unknown." There is no other book in which the reader will find information so full and so accurate on this important subject. He will here find a full account of the improvements and corrections made, among others, by Dr. Paris in 1762, and by Dr. Blayney in 1769. He will also find some notice of the influence exercised over our translators by Tremellius in the Old Testament, by Junius in the Apocrypha, and by Beza in the New Testament. The name of Beza stood so high among the Reformers that we can hardly be surprised that they yielded too much to his arbitrary decisions in days when as yet the rules of criticism were uncertaiu, and there were but scanty means of arriving at an independent judgment. Out of 252 passages which Dr. Scrivener has compared, he finds that in 113 our translators preferred the readings of Beza to those of Stephens, Erasmus, the Complutensian, and the Vulgate. Beza's influence was sometimes unfortunate; as, for instance, in the marginal renderings of Mark i. 34, Luke iv. 41, Acts i. 8, and Rom. xi. 17, where he has unhappily misled our English scholars. They might have been led by him into far more serious and glaring errors if they had not been protected by their own victorious good sense. Dr. Scrivener instances Matt. i. 23 and John xviii. 20; but we may add, Acts ii. 31, Rom. ii. 7, v. 16, xi. 32, 1 Cor. xiii. 2, 1 Tim. ii. 4-6, iv. 10, James ii. 14, as passages which would have suffered still more disastrously if they had not had the courage to resist the authority of that great scholar and theologian. On the subjects of the use of the italic type in our version, of the punctuation, orthography, and grammar, Dr. Scrivener has much to tell us which has a literary as well as a theological interest. His remarks on the parallel references in the margin deserve careful attention. Parallel passages, as they are called, have been spicuously abused from the days of the early Fathers, and the abuse of them was increased by the post-Reformation dogmatists, who, in enumerating the affectiones of Scripture, placed among them the semet ipsam interpretandi facultas. In the Bible of 1611 there were about 9,000 marginal references; in modern Bibles there are perhaps 60,000. Some of these are hopelessly wrong; others are founded on mistaken views; others again are inaccurate; and not a few are questionable, irrelevant, unintelligible, or completely misleading. Still, there remains a residuum of those which are helpful and excellent. Some of those added by Dr. Paris and Dr. Blayney have the very serious defect of being merely semblable parallels, true only for the English version, but not true for the original Greek or Hebrew. Those who are familiar with the commentaries of even the greatest schoolmen-men like Albertus Magnus and St. Thomas Aquinas-will know what systematic and elaborate remarks they build upon purely verbal resemblances which exist in the Vulgate only. The references given in the "Cambridge Paragraph Bible" have been carefully revised, and are often extremely suggestive. This chapter of Dr. Scrivener's little book has a special interest, and might be profitably expanded and illustrated in future editions.

con