A sort of compromise has been suggested by Klostermann and Bredenkamp, who suppose a kernel of oracles of the real Isaiah freely reproduced and enlarged by an author of Isaiah's school living in the Exilian period. But the compromise has gained little acceptance. The question is so complicated that it is unreasonable to expect the critics to agree among themselves. At present it is in the stage of free inquiry. The truth is only to be won by long and tedious striving.

On which side may we venture to say the balance of the evidence at present lies? For the theory of prophetic transference there is no support either in the book itself or in the general analogy of Old Testament prophecy. By implication, the ministry of the true Isaiah is limited to the reigns of "Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, Kings of Judah." Then one of the chief marks of Hebrew "prophecy" is its practical and present-day aspect. From his remotest excursions into the forward time, the prophet ever returns with lessons for contemporary life. He was more a preacher of righteousness than a prognosticator. "It is difficult to see what practical purpose such a riddle as the last twenty-seven chapters, read as a vision of the far-off future, could have served in the case of Isaiah's contemporaries. It is argued that portions of these chapters are quoted in the New Testament in Isaiah's name. But it is not clear that Christ quoted from these chapters, and New Testament writers dealt with the Old Testament as it was. No doubt this older view is venerable; but exact knowledge will not be hindered by any such plea. Even long-received notions are now required to produce their credentials."

For the newer view, it may be claimed that it is more natural; and it "works," it justifies itself by its results. We now see these chapters to have been a living message to living men. Against this newer view it is urged that a Babylonian standpoint does not necessarily involve a Babylonian residence, or a prophecy about Tyre would involve a Tyrian residence. The answer is easy. The prophet deals with the Tyre of his own day, and if Isaiah wrote the last part of the book, he deals with Babylon, and the condition of the Jews in it, one hundred and fifty years after his own day. Similarities of style and language between the two parts are insisted on; but differences of style and language are equally manifest.

How came such a man as the writer of these chapters to leave no name behind him? It is to be remembered that we know the authorship of few Bible books; and for some unknown reason this man desired to hide his personality behind that of his master.

There are other minor problems started by the disintegrating criticism of late years. It may be that both the first and the second parts of the book are composite. The following outline of contents, given by this writer, will be found suggestive to students and expository preachers:

A. First Main Portion, chap. i.-xxxix. I. Introduction to the whole, evidently referring to the invasion of Sennacherib (chap. i.). II. The Uzziah and Jotham group of prophecies, rounded off by the story of the prophet's call (chap. ii.-vi.). III. The Ahaz group of prophecies (chap. vii.-xii). IV. Oracles against foreign nations, of various dates (chap. xiii.-xxiii). V. A collection of later apocalyptic visions. Ideal descriptions of some great Day of Judgment, completing the woes on the foreign nations, and too general to be interpreted on any definite historical basis (chap. xxiv.-xxvii.). VI. The Hezekiah group of prophecies, with excerpts from the national annals, and cut in two by the Exilian chapters (xxxiv., xxxv.)—the earliest notes of the sublime strain of the second main part (chap. xxviii. -xxxix.).

B. Second Main Part (appropriately introduced by the reference to Babylon in chap. xxxix. 6, 7). I. Preparation for deliverance (chap. xl.-xlviii.). II. God's spiritual work on Israel, including the role of the "Servant of Jehovah" (chap. xlix.-lvii.). III. Deliverance imminent. The true Church of the future depicted (chap. lviii.-lxvi.). The ending of Divisions I. and II.

is clearly indicated by the refrain, "There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked" (see chap. xlviii. 22, and lvii. 21). The true unity of Isaiah must be regarded as a work of editorial enterprise.

CANON DRIVER ON THE BOOK OF THE LAW. By PRINCIPAL CAVE, D.D. (Contemporary Review).—This is a criticism of one portion of Dr. Driver's Introduction to the Old Testament, and treats of the Hexateuch, which Principal Cave has made a special study. It would appear, however, that he attacks the position of the school to which Dr. Driver belongs, and fails duly to recognize the modifications and qualifications on which Dr. Driver insists. After commending the religiousness of tone, the sobriety of judgment, and the candour of Dr. Driver's work, and pointing out the valuable material for students in "the lists of phrases peculiar to the several writers of the Old Testament, the tables of comparison of the laws of Exodus, Deuteronomy, and Leviticus, the chronological tables, the tabular representations of the constituent portions of books assigned to different writers, and the analysis of the contents of the several books," Principal Cave confines his attention to Dr. Driver's hypothesis upon the origin of the Books of the Law (including Genesis).

He states that two rival theories occupy the field in Higher Criticism, and it is well to have these sharply defined, though each may be held with such modifications as to bring it almost, if not quite, into harmony with the other. Dr. Cave calls them the Journal Theory and the Evolutionary Theory, but Dr. Driver does not approve of the term Evolutionary. The point of importance in the Journal Theory is this—“The homogeneity of the Books of the Law is due to their contemporaneousness with the events described." "The Evolutionary Theory affirms that the parts of the Pentateuch do not all date from the age of Moses." It does not readily appear why these two positions should be treated as necessarily antagonistic.

Dr. Cave places the two theories side by side, stating each in his own way. According to the Evolution or Development Theory, there are in the Pentateuch three strata of laws: viz., (1) The Prophetic Code; Exod. xx.-xxiii., and the repetition in xxxiv. 17-20. (2) The Priests' Code; contained in the rest of Exodus, in Leviticus, and in Numbers. (3) The Deuteronomic Code; contained in the Book of Deuteronomy. These strata so differ in style and contents, as to belong to very different authors and very different ages.

According to the Journal Theory, these strata are recognized, but are affirmed to belong to the Mosaic age, save as the Books were subjected to conservative revision. The first stratum was given three months after the Exodus, as the general conditions of the covenant-relation. The second stratum was the permanent code of the theocratic rule in the wilderness. The third stratum was a popular presentation of this theocratic law made forty years after, and immediately prior to the entrance into Canaan. Deuteronomy in some sense adapts the laws to the passage from nomad to settled life.

Dr. Driver's objections to the Journal Theory are (1) It cannot explain the variations in phraseology incompatible with the theory; (2) or the variations in contents, also incompatible with the theory; (3) or the variations of the Book of Joshua from the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and its harmonies with the Pentateuch. Dr. Cave examines these objections. Dr. Driver's contention is, that there are variations in style, phrase, and vocabulary in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, quite as conspicuous as in Genesis. If such variations imply a composite origin of Genesis, they imply equally the composite origin of the other books. And these variations are found not only when the narrative is compared with the legal portions, but when the narrative portions are compared with the narrative. Dr.

Cave replies that this may argue a variety of authors, but not necessarily a variety of authors of very different dates. He asserts that "critics of all schools are agreed, that linguistic evidence is insufficient of itself to show different authors in these books, separated from each other, and from the events they describe, by centuries?” Moreover, the Journal Theory allows that Moses may have employed secretaries; its chief point being the "contemporaneousness of the record with the events." Dr. Cave examines the list of variations given, and firmly asserts that he can find nothing answering to the variations on which this view of the composite character of Genesis is based.

Dr. Cave then deals with the argument from the contents of the books. Dr. Driver takes three positions-(1) The Levitical Code (see above Priests' Code) belongs to a widely different age from the Law of the Covenant (see above Prophetical Code). (2) The Law of the Covenant, and not the Levitical Law, is the basis of Deuteronomy. For there are fundamental institutions of the Levitical Code unknown to the author of Deuteronomy. Examining carefully the instances given as proof of this position, Dr. Cave comes to the following conclusions: "The Deuteronomic Code expands the Law of the Covenant, but it also expands the Levitical Law. If there are many parts of the Levitical Law not referred to in Deuteronomy, these are the parts which refer to the erection and cultus of the Tabernacle, which were addressed to a class, whether of artificers or ministrants, and were not of special interest to the whole people. Where the Deuteronomic Code differs from the Levitical, itself an expansion of the Law of the Covenant, the differences are explicable on two principles-either by the prospective change of circumstances from the nomad to the settled life, or by a relaxation of severity possible after some years' experience of the harder law. Where the Deuteronomic Code has laws which are without parallels, either in the Law of the Covenant or in the Levitical Code, these laws are wholly explicable by the change of circumstances which it was the duty of the departing legislator to forecast and to provide for." Dr. Cave elaborates one illustrative case: the requirement, during the wilderness-time, that all animals should be killed at the tabernacle, and the relaxation of this law when the people were scattered in Canaan.

Dr. Driver's third position is-Deuteronomy belongs to the age of Manasseh. This Dr. Cave restates with a running criticism, which is a doubtfully wise method, as the effort to be sharp is a temptation to be unfair. Dr. Driver supports his position by showing that the differences between Deuteronomy and Exodus xx.-xxiii. imply a changed social condition of the people, that the law of the kingdom is coloured by reminiscences of the Solomonic age, that the forms of idolatry alluded to seem to point to the middle period of the monarchy, the language and style suits the age of Jeremiah, &c.

According to Dr. Driver, the Levitical Law is later than the Deuteronomic. Dr. Cave replies that the differences in the character of the books account for all that Dr. Driver urges. Leviticus is a code. Deuteronomy is a sermon. Dr. Driver suggests that Leviticus may be later than Ezekiel, later even than the Exile. His idea being that the older Mosaic system was elaborated at that late date, and the system so elaborated is what we now have. Dr. Cave replies that the known books of the postExilic period, such as the Maccabees, in no way suggest such elaboration, as a requirement or as an existing fact. As to Joshua, Dr. Cave also finds the standpoint and style like the Pentateuch, and unlike Judges, Samuel, and Kings; but he asks for evidence that the Pentateuch is not Mosaic, and that Joshua is not post-Mosaic in the strictest sense of the word, allowing in both cases for a subsequent conservative revision. Dr. Cave concludes by suggesting that the example of Wellhausen should

be followed for a while, and attention be concentrated, not upon minutiæ of language, but upon the relations and age of the three Pentateuchal Codes, viz., the Law of the Covenant, the Levitical Code, and the Deuteronomic Code.

PRINCIPAL CAVE ON THE HEXATEUCH. BY DR. DRIVER (Contemporary Review).— While greatly preferring constructive work, Dr. Driver thinks Principal Cave's article requires an answer and explanation from him. He deals, however, with only a portion of that article, and reaffirms, and fully illustrates, his position that "Whatever grounds exist (in Principal Cave's judgment) for believing in the composite structure of Genesis, grounds of equal cogency exist for believing in the composite structure of the books from Exodus to Joshua." After following Dr. Cave's reasons for believing in the composite origin of Genesis, which all belong to literary usage, Dr. Driver finds it an easy task to present answering instances to each peculiarity in the later books. But he carefully remarks that "neither these nor other literary usages would be evidence of the compilatory structure of the books in which they occur, provided they occurred in them indiscriminately; in point of fact, however, they are found aggregated in particular sections, to which, in consequence, they impart a character, or colouring, so distinct from that of the neighbouring sections as only to be explicable by the supposition of different authorship." It is this feature which Dr. Cave does not seem to have adequately appraised. Dr. Driver shows that Dr. Cave has placed himself in a dilemma. Either he must go back and abandon the composite origin of Genesis, or he must go forward and accept the composite origin of the rest of the Hexateuch, which he has not less strenuously denied; for his own arguments in relation to Genesis can be effectively used against him in relation to the rest of the Hexateuch.

Dr. Driver reasonably complains that Dr. Cave has not mastered what he has written. Dr. Cave represents Dr. Driver as cautiously saying that the Levitical Code is later than Ezekiel, and than the Exile; but this is an imperfect representation of Dr. Driver's views, and omits all recognition of his most careful qualifications. As this brings to view the conservative element in Dr. Driver's valuable work, we give his quotation from the book which Dr. Cave somewhat imperfectly apprehends.

Dr. Driver wrote thus: "These arguments are cogent, and combine to make it probable that the completed Priests' Code is the work of the age subsequent to Ezekiel. When, however this is said, it is very far from being implied that all the institutions of the (Priests' Code) are the creation of this age. The contradiction of the pre-Exilic literature does not extend to the whole of the Priests' Code indiscriminately. The Priests' Code embodies some elements with which the earlier literature is in harmony, and which, indeed, it presupposes; it embodies other elements with which the same literature is in conflict, and the existence of which it even seems to preclude. This double aspect of the Priests' Code is reconciled by the supposition that the chief ceremonial institutions of Israel are in their origin of great antiquity; but that the laws respecting them were gradually developed and elaborated, and in the shape in which they are formulated in the Priests' Code that they belong to the Exilic or early post-Exilic period. In its main stock, the legislation of P was thus not (as the critical view of it is sometimes represented by its opponents as teaching) ' manufactured' by the priests during the Exile: it is based upon pre-existing Temple usage, and exhibits the form which that finally assumed.

Institutions or usages, such as the distinction of clean and unclean, the prohibition to eat with the blood, sacrifices to be without blemish, regulations determining the treatment of leprosy, vows, the avenger of blood, &c., were ancient in Israel, and as such are alluded to in the earlier literature, though the allusions do

not show that the laws respecting them had yet been codified precisely as they now appear in P."

If Dr. Driver's qualifications are estimated at their full value there is surely very little left to dispute about.

CHRISTIANITY AND GREEK THOUGHT (London Quarterly Review).—This is a review of the Hibbert Lectures, 1888, by the late DR. HATCH, which were left by him in an incomplete state, and have been recently edited for the press by DR. A. M. FAIRBAIRN.

Much is now made of the "historic method" in the consideration of religious questions. It is assumed that to trace out the history of a doctrine, an institution, or a form of thought, is to explain it, and that to furnish an outline of its growth and development is to account for its existence, and set it in its right place in the general order of things. But the application of historical analysis in matters theological requires especial care. The historical theologian must be careful to secure all the facts, and to see that they are simple facts, free from personal or sectional bias; and he must ensure that his deductions are drawn without prepossessions. And the religious historian often finds that the materials essential to a safe conclusion are lacking.

66

Dr. Hatch had dealt with the "Organization of the Early Christian Churches" in a former volume; in this the doctrine of those Churches is treated. Dr. Fairbairn says, "It is a study in historical development, an analysis of some of the formal factors that conditioned a given process and determined a given result." "As an attempt at the scientific treatment of the growth and formulation of ideas, of the evolution and establishment of usages within the Christian Church, it ought to be studied and criticized."

Dr. Hatch draws a sharp contrast between the Sermon on the Mount and the Nicene Creed. The one is the promulgation of a new law of conduct; the other is a statement made up of metaphysical terms. "The one belongs to a world of Syrian peasants; the other to a world of Greek philosophers." This change in the centre of gravity of the Christian religion from conduct to belief, Dr. Hatch thinks is coincident with the transference of Christianity from a Semitic to a Greek soil. The presumption then is, that it was the result of Greek influence. The many-sided influence of Greek ideas and usages is illustrated in relation to education, to ethics, and to theology. Stating that dogmas are simply personal convictions, Dr. Hatch says, "the belief that metaphysical theology is more than this is the chief bequest of Greece to religious thought, and it has been a damnosa hæreditas." The assumptions-(1) That metaphysical distinctions are important; (2) That these distinctions which we make in our minds correspond to realities in the world around us; (3) That the idea of perfection which we transfer from ourselves to God really corresponds to the nature of His being-are assumptions only. But they lie at the basis of Greek speculation, and have entered accordingly into the very substance of the Christian religion as we have received it. In his last two lectures Dr. Hatch dwells upon the incorporation of Christian ideas into a body of doctrine, and the transformation of the basis of Christian union, placing doctrine in the room of conduct; both processes being influenced by prevailing Greek ideas.

In criticizing Dr. Hatch's position, the reviewer asks whether primitive Christianity is to be discerned in the Sermon on the Mount. And how far does the Nicene Creed represent a corruption, how far a growth or development of primitive Christian religion?

The application of the historical method, pure and simple, in theology is