most remarkable fact and testimony is in the infant grip. Numbers of experiments have brought the conclusion that "a three-weeks-old baby can (through the remarkable strength of the flexor muscles of the forearm, as compared with the generally feeble state of the infantile muscular system), perform a feat of strength that would tax the powers of many a healthy adult." This special "gift of grip" is of no special use now. "We must look back into the remote past to account for its initiation and subsequent confirmation, and whatever views we may hold as to man's origin, we find among the arboreal quadrumana, and among these only, a condition of affairs in which not only could the faculty have originated, but in which the need of it was imperative, since its absence meant certain and speedy death."

Again, the apparently abnormal development of the head and upper extremities of the infant, relatively to the lower, not only before but at birth, have to be accounted for; so, too, the tendency to the forward bending of the thighs, which is not explained satisfactorily by prenatal conditions. Moreover, eighty per cent. of young children watched as to their natural position during sleep adopted precisely that of the orangs and chimpanzees at the Zoological Gardens, viz., limbs curled under them with one arm for a pillow.

To those who share, with the late Henry Ward Beecher a total indifference as to what man has descended from "so long as he has descended far enough," these suggestions will cause interest without alarm. Believers in theistic evolution who are content, with Mr. Wallace, to recognize a special Divine impulse when animalhood emerged into manhood, will hold on their course unmoved, and see no degradation in the conception that God should have built up by successive stages a house suited for the human consciousness. It remains to be seen what those who deride the evolutionary hypothesis, and in the name of religion repudiate all connection with bygone anthropoids, will say to these facts and their alleged explaining. The former, at all events, cannot be gainsaid; and in dealing with the latter men of faith must at least be as honest and thorough as men of science, else it will be said, and that truly, that the condition of faith is the absence of reasons. There is, however, no limit to the scope of the Master's question-" Yea, and why even of yourselves judge ye not what is right?" Christ's Christianity has nothing to fear, in this or in any age, from that which is proved to be true.

CURRENT

ENGLISH

THOUGHT.

BISHOP ELLICOTT ON OLD TESTAMENT CRITICISM: A Review of Christus Comprobator, or the Testimony of Christ to the Old Testament (Church Quarterly Review).— Different views are held coneerning the bearing of certain critical questions on theological belief. These questions may seem vitally to affect Christian truth; they

may seem to affect the methods of revelation by which God teaches man; and to some persons the relation of religious systems to one another largely depends on them.

After briefly sketching the history of the criticism of the Old Testament, which is now familiar to Bible students, the reviewer points out that modern critical theories are not confined to enemies of Christianity and religion. "Earnest and learned Christians have adopted them with greater or less fulness.' And many are cautiously feeling their way to the acceptance of them. Mr. Gore has endeavoured to help such inquirers by advocating that "the modern development of historical criticism is reaching results as sure, where it is fairly used, as scientific inquiry," and also that "the Christian faith does not require belief in the historical character of the early parts of Genesis, or the story of Jonah, in the utterance by Moses of the law 'put dramatically into his mouth' in the Book of Deuteronomy, or in a particular view of the authorship of any of the Psalms." Such matters Mr. Gore declares should be regarded as open questions for those who desire to be loyal to our Lord and the Faith of the Church.

There is evident need of a full and careful investigation of what the idea of inspiration and the authority of Christ really require. Sweeping statements are dangerous. And there is further need of critical study of the Old Testament from the definitely Christian point of view. "It may make all the difference in a study of this kind whether we begin with a belief in the miraculous and supernatural, or without it. The thing to guard against in the work of foreign critics is their bias against the supernatural."

Dr. Ellicott made this subject-the criticism of the Old Testament-the topic of his 1890 charge. He states carefully the "traditional" view, in the form in which it may be rightly held. The sacred writers certainly used existing documents. Genesis is a compilation; Exodus and Leviticus were written under the direction of Moses; Numbers was compiled from contemporary records and documentary annals, with oversight of Moses; Deuteronomy is a collection of the legislator's closing addresses, possibly arranged by Joshua; Joshua is a compilation from Joshua's personal narratives and from public records; Judges is made up from contemporary records and family memorials; Samuel and Kings are compilations of the same kind; Jeremiah seems to have been the last of such collectors; Chronicles was probably made up by Ezra; Ezra and Nehemiah contain personal narrative and official document. The prophetical books were written by the authors whose names are specified, and are mainly predictive. Dr. Ellicott adds, "The historical books, as we now have them, bear plain and unmistakable marks of the work having passed through the hands, not only of the early compiler or compilers, but of later editors and revisers— numerous notes, archæological and explanatory, some obviously of an early and some of a late date, being found in all the books, but particularly in the more ancient."

This view coincides very nearly with that of the late Dr. Edersheim; and it would be very satisfactory if we could rest with this, and re-study the Old Testament on these lines. But Dr. Ellicott sharply contrasts the Analytical Theory, for which acceptance is now asked. He states it thus: "(1) The Old Testament did not assume its present form till a somewhat late date in the period of the Exile. (2) The later historical books, especially Chronicles, disclose methods of constructing history which justify the limited estimate which has been formed of the trustworthiness of the earlier books. (3) Critical investigation, in the case of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua . . . . discloses at least three strata of narrative and legislative details, of different dates and distinctive peculiarities, which, after having been revised and

....

re-edited possibly several times, have at last been not unskilfully combined in the form in which they have now come down to us. (4) The three strata to be particularly recognized are: (a) a History Book-itself composite. . . . dating from the period of the early kings and prophets; (b) the Book of Deuteronomy, compiled in the days of Manasseh or Josiah by some unknown writer; (c) a document, in its earliest state of perhaps the same date as (a), historical only in form. . . . which, after having been carefully revised, became expanded in the time of the Exile into what is called the Priestly Code, its basis being Leviticus and allied portions of Exodus and Numbers. (5) The three Codes of Law found in the Pentateuch conform to and corroborate this analysis. (6) In the present Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, we have remodelled history, and a re-painting of the original picture on a generally uniform principle, and with some reference to Deuteronomy-the accretions and corruptions in the Books of Samuel being numerous . . . . and the revision of the Books of Kings being also very unrestricted, though closer to the facts than in Judges or Samuel. (7) The prophets used history as a vehicle for their own ideas."

Dr. Ellicott considers the relative probability of these views, and finds three fundamental differences between them. (1) The traditional view presupposes the supernatural and miraculous; the analytical assumes from the very first a naturalistic basis. (2) The views differ in the general character they present of the Old Testament history. According to the traditional view, the character of the history is perfectly natural and simple. It begins with the pre-historic, and through the family history passes into the national. In the analytical view the simplicity entirely disappears; we no longer have to do with the unfolding story of a nation, but only with the efforts of a priestly party. (3) The purpose and design differ. "Under the traditional view the whole object of the narrative is to set forth the history of the Covenant people, and God's dealings with the nation from which, according to the flesh, the Saviour of the world was to come. Under the analytical view all this becomes subordinated to the one dominant principle of establishing the priestly code, and consolidating priestly authority."

Dr. Ellicott deals with some of the leading objections to the rectified traditional view. The minute details of the ceremonial laws he thinks were illustrations of the wide ethical bearing to which the primary commandments were to be understood to extend; but they may be later revisions. The absence of references to the observance of the Mosaic law from Joshua to the early Kings is explained by the ". 'sharply defined local separations" of the tribes newly settled in Canaan. To the objection that the history is "honeycombed with anachronisms, contradictions, repetitions, and inconsistencies," the reply is twofold. They are far fewer than is usually assumed; and they are sufficiently explained by the fact of successive re-editing.

Dr. Ellicott thinks that more serious difficulties lie in the way of accepting the analytical view. Especially he points out that by it the period of the Exile is too heavily weighted; and that the work of Moses, if so limited as it is by this view, could not have given him his fame. Of course Dr. Ellicott scorns the idea of deliberate falsification on the part of any of the sacred writers; but such falsification is involved in the advanced analytical theory.

The larger part of Dr. Ellicott's book deals with the bearing of the teaching of our Lord on Old Testament criticism, but this the reviewer does not deal with. Some of the closing words are of special value. "An inspiration of the Holy Ghost in writing the history of the past or present we can understand; we can realize an inspiration by which the working out of the will of God may be foreseen in the future; we can believe in an inspiration of reminiscence, and an inspiration of selec

tion; but an inspiration of the idealizing of history, or, in simpler language, of re-painting history, must be pronounced to be, in the case of the great majority of Christian minds, incredible and inconceivable."

ANTHROPOMORPHISM IN PRAYER. By VEN. G. R. WYNNE, D.D. (Clergyman's Magazine). Dr. Wynne notices the union of the actual and mystical in art. In Dante Rossetti's picture of the Annunciation, the Virgin is sitting beside her tapestry frame with only the far-off look of wonder in her eyes, but the Archangel Gabriel and the Holy Dove have the nimbus round each head. He remarks that a photograph would have shown Mary's figure, attitude, and look, and nothing else. Would the photograph have given us all that was there? The symbolism of the painter may be truer to the whole circle of facts. This suggests the reality of those spiritual things which are only anthropomorphically apprehended by our present faculties.

Childhood finds no difficulty in anthropomorphic conceptions of, or addresses to, the Divine Being. But there is a stage in mental development when reason rebels against the childlike simplicity of our early impressions and practices. As children, the question did not suggest itself whether our literal conceptions were objective realities, or only the necessary clothing for our thoughts of unspeakable truths. But presently this question presses even painfully on our attention, and we discover that, though we are rapidly losing our standpoint, we have nothing to put in its place. There are not with us thoughts capable of accurately representing Divine things, much less words capable of expressing them clearly. "One thing after another which had formerly been held unquestioningly, presented itself to us as only held anthropomorphically, and we felt we were being driven out of our faith by these discoveries." There are, however, degrees of anthropomorphism, and there is a great difference between ignorant and reflective anthropomorphism. (1) There is a vigorous anthropomorphism like that of the early chapters of Genesis. It may have seemed to the earliest Israelites to describe simple fact, but later ages accept it only as affording a series of figures of speech. (2) There is a great difference between that which supposes the symbolic to be the actual, and that which uses the symbolic consciously as the only possible vehicle for the most of mankind of real thought of God. The peril of the time when the "falseness" of anthropomorphic language is discovered, is that of letting go the thing symbolized when the symbol is seen to be only a symbol. Anthropomorphic presentations of Divine things are but figures of speech, nevertheless, by them actual facts are presented to the mind. For practical purposes we must speak of unseen and spiritual things in this way. "Once we have taught ourselves to accept the inevitable, and to hold that, if we do not think and speak of God thus, we cannot think or speak of Him at all, at least, to the mass of mankind, we can with calmness continue to use such language both in description and in prayer."

It is impossible to consider this question without reference to the Incarnation. In it anthropomorphism became an actual fact. The possibility of the Divine attributes being expressed in the shape of human feelings and will was there demonstrated. If we keep a watch over our anthropomorphism, so as to guard ourselves and our children from confounding the symbol and the thing symbolized; if once we carry in our minds the two facts, (1) that the spiritual can only be presented to us in terms drawn from visible things, but that (2) the mind must never allow itself to rest idly in the use of figures, but must make humble attempts to pierce through the figures so far as it can, we are safe.

It may seem to be going too far to say that in devotional thought and worship we

must use anthropomorphic language; but illustration may be taken from the prayers of the Prayer-book, which are wholly free from sentimentalism and superstition, but are steeped in anthropomorphism-for instance, "O God, make speed to save us"; "Who dost from Thy throne behold," &c., &c. The truth is that our whole speech partakes of this character, and we need not be troubled that it should be found in our religious worship and prayer.

THE PROBLEM OF ISAIAH. By J. D. T. (Primitive Methodist Quarterly Review).— It is a significant sign of the times that this problem is being discussed by all sections of the Christian community, and, it must be added, with a growing disposition to favour the modern critical view. This writer presents a very clear comparison between the older and newer views, and gives a very suggestive outline of the contents of Isaiah from the modern standpoint.

A hundred years ago there was practically no critical problem of Isaiah. Koppe first suggested doubts concerning the fiftieth chapter. Doderlein and Eichhorn extended the new-born doubt to the second part as a whole. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Ewald raised the criticism to the dignity of a science. What is clear to the simplest reader is that in passing from chap. xxxix. to chap. xl., he enters on a new region. He seems suddenly to awake to find the world completely changed. He has been transported from the eighth century B.c. into the sixth, and from Jerusalem to Babylon. A new scenery, unaccustomed manners, a strange civilization are about him. He, and a new generation of Jews, are all in Babylon. Jerusalem is far away, ruined and deserted. "Those whom the prophet addresses, and whom he addresses in person, are not the men of Jerusalem, contemporaries of Ahaz and Hezekiah, or even of Manasseh; they are the exiles in Babylonia." Exiles indeed, but with a dawning prospect of deliverance. The prophet passionately points his compatriots to the rosy flush of hope on the far horizon. In the second part of Isaiah there are no such social and political questions as constitute the charm and significance of the earlier part. The second part deals with a people wholly in exile, and partly in servitude, with no civic life and few social responsibilities. How are we to account for the marked differences between the two portions of this book?

Take first the older form of explanation. We must suppose a kind of transference of the prophetic consciousness of the real Isaiah, out of and away from his own times, into the circumstances and events of a distant country, and an age later than his own by, at least, one hundred and fifty years. And this transference is to be regarded as so sustained that Isaiah not simply dipped into the future, but dwelt in it, and saw, not only as it would be, but as it actually was-t -the wonder of the national deliverance. In a prolonged ecstasy—a literal standing outside himself and his own times-he saw and spoke.

The later view of these twenty-seven chapters is, that the author of them actually lived in the period which he thus describes, and is not merely Isaiah immersed in spirit in the future. He writes from the standpoint of his own times, looking backward from that standpoint, but never forward from the pre-Exilian position. But whoever he was, he had steeped himself in the spirit, and even reproduced the style, of the first Isaiah. These chapters were written somewhere between the date of Cyrus's first appearance on the stage of history, 555 B.C., and his capture of Babylon in 538. Prof. Herbert E. Ryle, of Cambridge, affirms that the newer view is "among the best scholars now scarcely disputed, and is rapidly passing out of the sphere of Biblical controversy." Prof. Banks, of Headingley, says, "It is difficult to see how the arguments in favour of this view can be met."