the whole course of the ministry of Christ," of which Schürer (Vortrag 63-65) has made a strong point, Dr. Sanday shows (1) that it is not an accurate representation of the facts, as the first Apostles were very far from believing all that Messiahship implied, and Christ's own reserve is as marked in St. John as in the Synoptics; and (2) allowance must be made for the tendency to foreshorten which characterizes the action of memory exercised over a long interval. This may account for some antedating in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, the writer seeing facts in the light of the ideas that possessed him. And doubtless he "gives us a portrait of Christ which is all divinity" -the outcome of half a lifetime's meditation upon what he had seen and heard, and the stupendous results which had been wrought in the spirit and name of Jesus. But the Synoptists "have really the same substratum, the same underlying ideas, as the Fourth Gospel. They are not one whit less Christo-centric," and if they do not expressly state the pre-existence of the Logos, yet St. Peter and St. Paul in their Epistles imply the doctrine or take it for granted, a fact which "brings us back very near to the foundationhead of all Christian doctrine."

....

THE MIRACLES OF CHRIST. By the Very Rev. G. A. CHADWICK, D.D., Dean of Armagh (The Expositor).—The attempt to eliminate the supernatural from Christianity while retaining its ethical forces, to accept Christ and His marvellous teaching, and yet to reject His miraculous actions, is shown to be preposterous and futile. The supernatural is not a mythical adjunct, but the very essence of the life and history of Jesus. "The supernatural Person explains the supernatural events. The true key to every act is the personality of the actor. . . . . To the supernatural Christ the miracles are natural; they are simply good works which He shows. . . . . All this" (Christ's character, teaching, actions, and moral influence), "to the unbeliever in spiritual realities, is a physical product of natural forces. But then the evolution of Jesus by the religious influences of the first century is a far greater marvel than the turning of water into wine. And he cannot get rid of the supernatural by rejecting some five-and-thirty incidents which challenge him at intervals along the story." As to miracles contradicting what scientists call the law of the conservation of force, Dr. Chadwick answers, first, that this supposed law is only a generalization from observation of similar cases, and it is simply begging the question to assume that no new conditions are at work which might modify this routine; and secondly, this law applies only to physical forces, and not to thought, conviction, volition. In Christ's miracles, even in the raising of the dead, there was no creation of new forces, but a reassembling or rearranging of forces already existing by a transcendent will-working from within the universe. Hence come the conclusions: (1) that the miracles are not contra-natural, but certain acts which transcend the effects of natural forces wielded by merely human energies; (2) they are signs of ethical importance as implying and revealing a supernatural Personage; and (3) they are only known to be real

when conformable to the life and teaching of Christ, the natural works of a great Worker.

JESUS CHRIST THE GREAT SUBJECT OF PROPHECY.-Commenting on the Eunuch's question in Acts viii. 34, Dean Payne Smith, in the The Wesleyan Methodist Magazine, urges that the purpose of prophecy is not to be found in denunciations of sin, in moral lessons, or in struggles after holiness, but in its testimony to Jesus. To prepare for Christ's advent, to bear witness to His divinity and His work-this was the real scope and object of the prophets. But this portion of the Testament was a closed book to the saints of the Jewish Church till Christ broke the seals (Rev. v.) and "opened the book by fulfilling it." The Dean supports his position by discussing Isa. lii. and the following chapters, and showing their Messianic bearing. There is nothing new in the treatment, but the idea is put reasonably and forcibly, and must have weight with an unprejudiced reader, if such is to be found.

THE METHODOLOGY OF THE HIGHER CRITICISM AND ITS ALLIES DEMONSTRABLY UNSCIENTIFIC.-Dr. Watts bases his article in The Homiletic Review on the position that the Higher Criticism, and indeed all criticism that denies the plenary, verbal inspiration of Scripture, violate the Baconian laws relating to à priori arguments and induction. The Higher Criticism, he says, assumes à priori that miracle in any shape is impossible. Dr. Watts' generalization is as baseless as the error against which he contends. Admitted that individuals among the critics are unbelievers in the supernatural, and enemies to the idea of a Divine revelation, it must not be inferred that this is true of all critics, that all are animated by an ambition for destruction and a love of finding flaws, that all are atheistical or irreverent. It would be invidious to name individuals, but we could point to many, who are devout believers, whose only desire is to present the Word of God free from accretions, misinterpretations, and unwarranted applications. These do not consider it an axiom that revelation is incredible. Therefore Dr. Watts' assumption fails in this particular. At the same time, as he persists, there are many errors short of this displayed in the present day treatment of Scripture, e.g., that there were no foreseen conjunctures that furnished the opportunity of manifesting to the rational creature the presence of the Creator; or that the economy of grace is based upon natural law, to which principle the Incarnation of the Son of God gives the denial. Another indictment against the Higher Criticism is, that it signally fails in the inductive process, that its conclusions are not founded on a full examination of all the phenomena and a due regard to proportion. Explicit statements in the Bible with respect to inspiration and infallibility are minimized or set aside, while apparent discrepancies or moral difficulties are paraded and held up to the disparagement of the sacred text. This, it is argued, is not scientific, and, if substantiated, is a valid objection. A third postulate, against which the writer protests, is that the intervention of the Holy Spirit which is demanded by the theory of verbal inspiration transforms.

the writers into mere "automaton compositors," as Coleridge calls them. But the theory is misrepresented in this assertion. "It assumes nothing inconsistent with the freedom or the conscious activity of the inspired agent. If the Spirit breathed into the lifeless form of Adam an energy that imparted to it all the attributes and faculties of an intellectual and moral nature, what ground is there for assuming that the same omnipotent Spirit cannot enter into the very penetralia of man's spirit, and control its thoughts and determine its volitions?" If such intimate relationship, he proceeds, be denied, "it must be manifest that there is no room for His agency in the regeneration of the soul or in the origination of faith or repentance." But, surely, we may reverently believe in this action of the Holy Spirit without holding that He controlled and inspired every word that the sacred authors wrote. The cause of Biblical criticism is not served by narrow restrictions and assumptions which involve more difficulties than they solve.

MONUMENTS AND PAPYRI ON THE HEBREWS AND THE EXODUS.-The Rev. Camden M. Cobern, Ph.D., discusses this subject in The Homiletic Review. The hopes inspired by recent Egyptian researches and discoveries. seem doomed to disappointment as regards the circumstances of the Exodus. At one time, especially some five-and-forty years ago, when the interpretation of hieroglyphics was still in its uncritical infancy, we were startled by numerous supposed discoveries of documents and monuments which were contemporaneous with the Exodus, and alluded to its actors and events. Later investigation proved the "total inanity" of the system of interpretation. on which these particulars were based. Since then no further success has attended those who have striven to find the history of Israel in Egyptian records. Nor, according to Dr. Cobern, is there any hope that any such history will ever be discovered in that country. The writer gives reasons for this opinion, which seem, unhappily, to be conclusive. The Hebrews had no costly sepulchres in Egypt, and certainly would not have put inscriptions upon them if they had possessed them; no private accounts preserved any notice of the stranger people, nor do the temple deposits or the native tombs afford any help. The national annals, of course, which, such as they were, were wholly eulogistic, could not be expected to record the history of the plagues or the defeat at the Red Sea. There is no Waterloo among the pictures of battles at Versailles, or on the grand tomb of Napoleon. But the absence of such records does not indicate that the Israelites were never resident in Egypt. Very few writings of that age have been preserved, and these remains are chiefly found in temples and cemeteries. If silence is an argument for non-existence, the fact that the Pyramids are not mentioned in the Bible might be taken to prove that they were not built at the time of the Jewish migration; just as from the silence of the monuments concerning the celebrated Labyrinth we might assume that this wonder of the world had no existence. It is also certain that there are numerous blanks even in the

fragmentary testimony that does occur. The remains of the Hyksos dynasties have disappeared, and scarcely a trace remains of those that followed the Exodus. "We only know that in the reign of Menephtah or his successor some terrible catastrophe happened, followed by anarchy, and then that night settled upon Egypt." Dr. Cobern does not mention the supposed discoveries made in connection with our Egyptian Expedition.

OUR LORD'S SURRENDER OF THE MEDIATORIAL KINGDOM.-Dr. Gloag, in the pages of The Homiletic Review, commences an interesting discussion on our Lord's Surrender of the Mediatorial Kingdom (1 Cor. 24-28). On the conclusion of this passage, which occasions the chief difficulty, he does not at present give any opinion, occupying this paper with the exegesis of preliminary clauses. The passage is unique in Scriptural declarations. "It reveals to us a condition that shall follow the resurrection of the dead, the universal judgment, and the restitution of all things. It pierces into the darkness of a future eternity, and makes known to us the great mystery that Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God even the Father, and that the Son also shall be subject unto Him that put all things under Him, that God may be all in all." Dr. Gloag explains the nature of the difficulties in the exposition of these verses. "Now, precisely in consequence of the singularity of this revelation, and especially in consequence of its mysterious nature-the mystery of the relation which subsists between the Father and the Son, and the subordination of the Son to the Father-great caution must be exercised in its exposition. We cannot here compare the statements which it contains, or, at least, we can only inferentially support them with other declarations of Scripture." Reserving his own decision concerning the subjection of the Son to the Father, Dr. Gloag mentions some of the interpretations which have been given by commentators ancient and modern. Briefly they are these: Hereby is expressed the entire harmony of Son and Father; the subjection of Christ in His human nature to God, being equal to the Father in His Divine nature, subordinate in His human; the transference by Christ of the kingdom from His humanity to His glorious divinity; a reference to Christ's mystical body, the Church. The only passage bearing on the subject, according to this writer, is that dealing with the Kenosis (Phil. ii. 6).

THE BEST BOOKS OF THE PAST YEAR.-The North American Review is wont in its January number to give some articles on the best books of the past year. Dr. C. A. Briggs utters his verdict on the most notable theological works that the last twelve months have produced. He gives the palm to three which have emanated from Oxford-viz., those by Canon Driver, Principal Gore, and Canon Cheyne. Of the two former he contents himself with speaking in general terms. "Canon Driver gives a masterly exposition of the present state of opinion as to the criticism of the entire literature of the Old Testament. Principal Gore gives an able and brilliant statement of one of the most important topics of Christology." But he deals

more at length with Canon Cheyne's Bampton Lectures on the Psalter, which he considers to be the most important theological work of the year. "The author," he says, "is somewhat cramped by the form of the lecture, but he has managed by numerous notes and appendices to give the freshest, richest, and most fruitful piece of criticism that has appeared for many a year; showing an amount of original research and a wealth of knowledge that can hardly be surpassed by any Biblical scholar now living." This opinion will be endorsed by all competent students. As to the conclusions. at which Canon Cheyne arrives, and which are altogether adverse to traditional opinion, much controversy may be expected; indeed, its mutterings are already heard. The time-honoured view will not be surrendered without a struggle, and humble Christians will long be disinclined to regard David's Psalm-book as being only the expression of the religious experience of Israel in the Persian, Greek, and Maccabean periods.

PROFESSOR CHEYNE'S BAMPTON LECTURES ON THE PSALTER.-This important work is briefly reviewed in The Critical Review by Professor Whitehouse, who, while thoroughly appreciating the philological portion of Dr. Cheyne's labours (of which department, indeed, he thinks-and we agree with him-that we have too large a share in modern commentaries), is more pleased with "the insight and freshness of his treatment of a well-worn, and, at the same time, obscure and baffling theme, the Chronology of the Psalms." From many of the lecturer's conclusions on this head the critic, however, finds cause to dissent. He agrees with the opinion about Books iv. and v., assigning them to the post-Exilian or Maccabæan period; e.g., the 118th Psalm " harmonizes with no event so well as with the purification of the temple by Judas Maccabæus in B.c. 165." "How pathetic," he adds, "the sad thankfulness of Ps. cxvi. 12-15 becomes when read in the light of the immediate past of suffering and victory described in 1 Maccab. i.-iv.!" Prof. Whitehouse also concurs with Canon Cheyne in placing the composition of Ps. cx. about B.C. 142, during the peaceful period of Simon's rule. We do not suppose that conservative critics will easily subscribe to this statement concerning a Psalm whose authorship they consider to be endorsed by our Lord Himself; nor will they consent to see in Ps. lxxii. nothing but an allusion to Ptolemy Philadelphus. On these points, however, the two Professors are at one. But in their views of the chronology of Books i. and ii. they diverge considerably. Thus in the case of Ps. 1., while Dr. Cheyne attributes to it a post-Exilian origin, his critic deems his arguments wanting in cogency, and sees in it a pre-Exilian poem in full harmony with contemporary sentiment. The lecturer thinks so meanly of the musical attainments of early days that he at once excludes from those times all the odes and references which imply art or use in Divine service. On the other hand, Mr. Whitehouse claims for Semitic religious songs a certain artistic merit, which may well have found scope in the Jerusalem sanctuary. Babylonian monuments of very primitive date represent flutes and harps; the Phoenicians were