by articles on Selah [Petra] by Dr. Boyle, and on the Wanderings of the Israelites,' by Dr. Beard. The passage of the Red Sea is discussed by Dr. Beard, (s. v. Exodus). The plain of Baideah, on the south-side of Mount Attaka, which last Sicard identifies with Baal-zephon, is, in Dr. Beard's judgment, the spot where the passage was effected. He justifies his position with great skill, and shows, we think, successfully, in opposition to Dr. Robinson's, that the passage could not have been made at the very head of the gulf, close to Suez. We should have quoted with pleasure from this article, but it would require too long an extract to do justice to Dr. Beard's argument. The article, we should add, is written with much learning, and contains some original matter.

The article on Jerusalem, by Dr. Kitto, is very elaborate and excellent, comprising thirty-five columns and a half. It is partly historical and partly descriptive. That on Babel, six columns ; Babylon, ten columns; and Egypt, twenty-five;-all by Dr. Beard-are admirable articles, and evince a very exact acquaintance with all the most recent sources of information. These articles are profusely and well illustrated by cuts. 'Assyria,' by Mr. Morren, and Phoenicia,' by Dr. Baur, of Giessen, are learned and well written papers.

Passing, as we must do, to the Archæological articles, we should feel that we had a difficult work before us, were we obliged to exhibit any quantity, even of the more prominent improvements of the present work in this department. It is the department, which is, if we except Biblical History, by far the most frequently explained of all; consequently all our readers may be expected to be tolerably familiar with it. It is in fact illustrated, and well illustrated too,-witness the Tract Society's publication on the 'Manners and Customs of the Jews,'-in treatises accessible even to sunday-scholars. It might be sufficient, therefore, to remark, that the same superiority of information distinguishes this branch of the work, which we have had occasion to recognize in others. But among the multifarious contents of this department, there will be some that are excluded from all but scientific treatises in dictionaries, and we must be permitted to say a word or two on one or two of these.

The article on the Hebrew language, by Dr. John Nicholson, the translator of Ewald's grammar, though comprised in six columns and a half, is far superior to any which we have met with in any dictionary. We prefer it on some accounts to any of those historical accounts of the language which are prefixed to the most scientific grammars. It gives just that sort of information respecting the relation of the language to its cognates, its changes of form, cessation as a living vernacular language, the

distinction between ordinary and poetic diction, and the origination of the vowel points, which such a cyclopædia as we have before us should give, indicating the sources of fuller information, and prompting to the use of them. Another article, by the same writer, on the Arabic language, though shorter, is equally good. Under the titles' Alphabet,' written by Dr. John Nicholson, and 'Alphabetical Sounds,' written by Mr. Francis W. Newman, now professor of the Roman language and literature at University College, London, the student may also find some very valuable information on a subject deeply interesting to the learned. The researches of Seyffart, Kopp, Gesenius, Hoffman, are laid under contribution in the former [we were a little surprised that Hupfeld's briefer, but very acute investigations, were forgotten] and the most useful general results stated. It is enough to say that Mr. Newman's alphabetical comparisons, or rather comparisons of alphabetical sounds, are worthy of his distinguished and accurate scholarship.

The articles under this branch include, of course, all names of offices, and as those of the New Testament, as well as the Old, are elucidated, we found in its proper place one on the office of Bishop.' This also is by Professor Newman. Our readers know, as well as we do, that this long discussed subject is not one which controversy has abandoned yet, and since it is one of the most vexed questions of our own times, and one in which all ecclesiastical parties take a deep interest, and especially as the article in question is an unusually able one, we shall venture to extract from it. We shall not, however, extract from that portion of it with which we most nearly agree,-this would be to reproduce matter with which all anti-prelatical readers are familiar, but a smaller part of it, on which we shall take the liberty to offer a few remarks:

The apostles themselves, it is held by some, were the real bishops of that day; and it is quite evident that they performed many epis. copal functions. It may well be true, that the only reason why no bishops (in the modern sense) were then wanting, was because the apostles were living; but it cannot be inferred that in any strict sense prelates are co-ordinate in rank with the apostles, and can claim to exercise their powers. The later 'bishop' did not come forward as a successor to the apostles, but was developed out of the presbyter; much less can it be proved, or alleged with plausibility, that the apostles took any measures for securing substitutes for themselves (in the high character of apostles) after their decease. It has been with many a favorite notion, that Timothy and Titus exhibit the episcopal type even during the life of Paul; but this is an obvious misconception. They were attached to the person of the apostle, and not to any one church. In the last epistle written by him (2 Tim. iv. 9)

he calls Timothy suddenly to Rome, in words that prove that the latter was not, at least as yet, bishop, either of Ephesus or of any other church. That Timothy was an evangelist is distinctly stated, (2 Tim. iv. 5), and that he had received spiritual gifts (i. 6, &c.) there is then no difficulty in accounting for the authority vested in him (1 Tim. v. 1; xix. &c.), without imagining him to have been a bishop, which is, in fact, disproved even by the same epistle (i. 3). That Titus, moreover, had no local attachment to Crete is plain from Titus iii. 13, to say nothing of the earlier epistle, 2 Cor. passim. Nor is it true that the episcopal power developed itself out of wandering evangelists any more than out of the apostles.

On the other hand, it would seem that the bishop began to elevate himself above the presbyter, while the apostle John was yet alive, and in churches to which he is believed to have peculiarly devoted himself. The meaning of the title angel, in the opening chapters of the Apocalypse, has been mystically explained by some; but its true meaning is clear from the nomenclature of the Jewish synagogues. In them, we are told, the minister who ordinarily led the prayers of the congregation, besides acting as their chief func tionary in matters of business, was entitled a name which may be translated literally nuncius ecclesia, and is here expressed by the Greek ayyλos. The substantive also (which by analogy would be rendered dyyɛλía, as TM is ayyɛλos) has the ordinary sense of opus ministerium, making it almost certain that the 'angels of the churches' are nothing but a harsh Hebraism for 'ministers of the churches.' We therefore here see a single officer, in these rather large Christian communities, elevated into a peculiar prominence, which has been justly regarded as episcopal. Nor does it signify that the authorship of the Apocalypse is disputed, since its extreme antiquity is beyond a doubt; we find, therefore, the germ of episcopacy here planted, as it were, under the eyes of an apostle.' -(Neander Pflanzung und Leitung, ii. 468.)

We must here close our quotation, though some admirable matter immediately follows. There are two statements in this extract on which we would say a word. 'It may well be true,' says Mr. Newman, 'that the only reason why no bishops (in the modern sense) were then wanting, was because the apostles were living.' This is a concession to the argument in favour of diocesan episcopacy, though a very slight one, certainly, and one the value of which is annihilated by what immediately follows. The concession itself being simply gratuitous, is not worth disputing; or it might perhaps be shown-indeed the claim set up in favour of the diocesan episcopacy of Timothy and Titus implies as much, that such bishops, if wanted at all, were wanted in the apostles' times. Having noticed the subsequent part of the paragraph, we would add that it coincides in part with the argument by which Mr. Binney has so admirably refuted the claims of diocesan episcopacy in his recent sermon occa

sioned by the refusal of a grave to Mr. Guyer. The bearing of Paul's farewell address to the elders of Ephesus, and the true relation of Timothy and Titus to the churches of Ephesus and Crete are there exhibited with a force unanswerably destructive of the diocesan hypothesis. The passage we particularly refer to may be seen in the Biblical Review' for August, pp. 142, 3, but the entire discourse, like everything of its author's, well deserves perusal.

We do not agree with Mr. Newman, though he has in his favour, we believe, the general voice of the learned, when he says, in the second paragraph of the preceding extract, we therefore here see a single officer, in these rather large Christian communities, elevated into a peculiar prominence, which has justly been regarded as episcopal.' It is clear that the designation 'Angel of the church' is figurative. The whole of the imagery of the Apocalypse is cast in the ancient forms of the Old Testament symbolism. The visions of John correspond in character with those of Daniel and Zechariah. Hence the introductory references to the officers of the seven churches are expressed under Old Testament designations. This being the case, it would have been a violation of the propriety of the Old Testament form to have spoken of the angels' of one congregation, because under the Old Testament each synagogue had but one. The ministry which in the New Testament churches performed the same general duties as devolved on the angel of the synagogue under the Old, is therefore, we consider, even though consisting of more than one person, symbolically represented as the 'angel' of the church, not the angels,' because each synagogue had possessed but one angel. Mr. Newman's statement is also discountenanced by chronological considerations. The Book of Revelation (see Dr. Davidson's elaborate article on the subject, vol. ii. pp. 621, 622) was probably written before the destruction of Jerusalem, i. e., in the year 67 or 68. Now Paul had only a few years earlier, most probably in the spring of 58 or 59, addressed an assembly of Ephesian elders at Miletus. It is hardly probable that the constitution of the church had changed so greatly in that time. Besides, supposing, what though not improbable, cannot be fairly assumed, that John's epistle, which was undoubtedly addressed to a leading Christian in the Ephesian Asia, if not in Ephesus itself, was written before the Apocalypse, this would only show that Diotrephes, one of the elders, (Demetrius, whose conduct is contrasted with his being another) sought something like prelatical authority; but that John both disapproved and threatened to punish his conduct. These hints, therefore, afford no countenance to Mr. Newman's view, though sanctioned by the general consent of theologians.

The last department of the Cyclopædia which we have to notice is that of biblical history and biography. For the general excellence of this department, also, we have a guarantee in Dr. Kitto's previous labours. Considering, however, the numerous difficulties which scripture history embraces, and the various pens which the editor was obliged to engage to assist him, it was morally impossible that all the articles should be equally convincing and satisfactory. It is but justice to the editor of such a work, that we should give his own account of his position and responsibilities, as he realized them himself:

The only drawback likely to arise from co-operation so various and extensive, lay in the probability that considerably different views might be manifested in the several articles; and that, too, on subjects on which every reader is likely to have formed some opinion of his own, and will be disposed to regard as erroneous or suspicious, every opinion which may not entirely coincide with that which he has been accustomed to entertain. In this lay the sole danger and the greatest difficulty of such an undertaking. Here was to be a book which no one man, and not even a very few men could produce; and which the public would yet probably expect to exhibit as much unity, not only of plan and execution, but of opinion and sentiment, as if it were the produce of a single mind. The editor, however, felt that he could not undertake to find forty independent thinkers among whom there could be no visible diversities of sentiment. But he thought that much might be done in producing so near an approach to uniformity on matters of real importance as would satisfy every reasonable reader. .. Entire uniformity, if attainable at all, could only have been attained at the cost of providing a very different and greatly inferior work.'-Preface, p. viii.

Having then stated that it did not consist with his ideas to dictate to the contributors the views they were to take of the subjects entrusted to them, and that, except in his own instance, the initials of each contributor were appended to the articles he had furnished, the editor adds:

Yet though some explanation is due to those who may possibly find in this work, in a few articles, opinions in which they cannot agree, and views from which their own differ, it is right that the persons engaged in producing it should claim for it a judgment founded, not on particular articles, but upon its general character, which was intended to be, and is, in accordance with the known standards of orthodox opinion in this country, as may be ascertained by reference to those leading articles, which may be regarded as stamping the character of any work in which they are found,' etc.— Preface, pp. viii, ix.

This claim is just. We can also testify to the sound character