Mighty and fat with store of death, their law
Shod with the iron permanence of fate.

Being cruel, they can glut their cruel wills;
Wrathful, allow their wrath its utmost way;
Insatiate, can almost lust their fill;

Listless, can drowse on tinted cloud all day,
Lulled by the nations wailing as they pray-
Nay, let us break our song, nor think on these.
To thee this conflict, Titan, doth belong;
We are but weak as ineffectual seas,

That roll and break their foam-lines all day long-
She is as lovely, lord, as thou art strong.

To us she cometh as some strange desire:
As a bird's voice thro' distance in the night:
Like scent of oaken woods: like perfumed fire
Floated among the pines in curling spire:
The loosening of her ringlets is like light.
Refresh thy lordly spirit at her lips,

They shall renew thy soul with subtle power.
Turn thee, O lord, to thy desired repose;

Time hath made ripe for thee this perfect flower,
And folded up her fragrance like a rose.
Arise and take thy joy and dream no wrong;
Who shall assail thee in thy mighty hall ?
Ours let it be to sing thy nuptial song,
Until some beam auroral touch the trees,
And wake thy palace with an ouzel's call;
And morn, on stress of mist-wreath borne along,
Arrive in sweet light cloud and shaken breeze.

WILLIAM P. LANCASTER.

Analytical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. By Rev. JOHN FORBES, LL.D. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark. 1868.

HE key to the peculiarity of this Commentary is expressed on its title-page, to be judged of hastily, nor to be dismissed summarily, and we can aver from experience that a second perusal will well reward the thoughtful student. In every point of view it is a valuable addition to critical Biblical literature, and possesses many attractions even for the unlearned reader. It has little of the repelling dulness which invests many attempts to analyze the text of Scripture, and to arrange in their true connection the various doctrines which are elucidated by the textual arrangement.

The author modestly, but needlessly, justifies his appearance from the con

viction that

"in Parallelism we possess an instrument of analytical investigation, the powers of which have hitherto been very imperfectly appreciated, and which, if used aright, enables even ordinary minds frequently to trace the sequence of thought, when it has escaped the penetration of the most highly gifted The object is not to furnish an exhaustive commentary, by repeating in my own words what has already been so much better expressed by others; but to illustrate those passages alone which Parallelism seems to place in a new and clearer light."

The intricate and much-disputed passage, chap. v. 12-21, is set forth by the aid of parallelism with order and perspicuity, as containing the central animating thought of the whole epistle. The writer maintains that the leading idea of the epistle is not justification by faith

"presented as has been objected to the bare forensic theory, in the cold lifeless form of imputation, as if by a legal fiction and mere outward reckoning of Christ's righteousness believers were justified without any necessary change passing immediately upon the heart. The grand truth here enunciated is the warm living reality of a personal Union with Christ (contrasted with the previous union with Adam) by which, in place of the "SIN" and "DEATH' " communicated by the first head of humanity, Christ's "RIGHTEOUSNESS " and "LIFE are communicated to the believer, and become the inward quickening mover of every thought, feeling, and action. Thus is the distinction preserved, yet the indissoluble connection always evinced between justification and

sanctification, as being but two aspects of one and the same union of the believer with Christ. In short, the result to which I have been brought by that strict comparison of different passages to which parallelism compels the student, is that our views of Scripture language, as of Scripture truth, are in general too limited and onesided, and that in Scripture as in a diamond with many facets, each reflecting a different ray of light, visible singly, to the exclusion of the other, to him who looks only on one side—he who would form a just appreciation of the whole, must turn it round and round, and survey it on every side."

The author begins by applying to this grand Epistle the test of parallelism first applied to the Old Testament prophecies by Bishop Lowth. The reader cannot fail to find in the arrangement and analysis of the words and sentences of each chapter a wonderful elucidation of the argument, which in no degree suffers by the almost poetical rhythm into which its expression falls. In the modest words of the author:

"If any still demur to the reality of parallelism existing in the New Testament, let them accept the present arrangement as a mere tabulated form, convenient for making the successive stages in the apostle's reasoning, and assisting the student to perceive the mutual relation of the various parts of the argument, and let them judge impartially of the present attempt to facilitate the study of this most difficult Epistle irrespectively of the question whether or not the form in which it is here presented was in the mind of the writer at the time of its composition."-(P. 89.)

A remarkable instance of the added light and force afforded by this arrangement, and especially by that form of it which Bishop Jebb pointed out as epanodos, is found in chap. xi. 33-36 (p. 375).

The volume consists of (1st) an analytical arrangement, (2nd) an expansion of this in the form of a commentary, and (3rd) a dissertation on Predestination and Free-will, in which some of the popular dogmas of the extreme Scottish school, as set forth, e.g., by Dr. Hodge, are boldly controverted, and the subject treated in a more practical manner than by many ultra-Calvinistic writers. while the doctrine of Augustine is separated from the supralapsarian views of writers both British and American.

In the second and largest portion of the work the various and tangled threads of St. Paul's arguments are tracked in a skilful and frequently original manner. The parallelistic arrangement elucidates (1st) the comparison between Adam and Christ; (2nd) the various meanings attached to the word "righteousness," with the theory of the Abrahamic and of the Christian justification by faith, including by a personal union with Christ by faith not imputation only, but impartation of the holy nature (p. 192, seqq. 217, segg).

The parallelistic elucidation is nowhere applied with greater force than on the question, Who is the husband of St. Paul's simile? (p. 274). Dr. Forbes argues (and we think with convincing force) that it is not the law first, but sin, as the law does not die, but sin is crucified first in Christ and secondly in the believer. If the law had been the husband, it must have been the law that generated fruit unto death in the sinner. But the whole of this chapter well merits the closest study from the theological student.

It is not, however, by the theologian alone that this work will be read. We believe that it will be read with deep interest by many whom dry theological disquisitions would deter, and that it is calculated to bring rest and satisfaction to minds which are apt to be disturbed by the difficulties of reconciling conflicting doctrines. Such readers will find-in the place of verbal contentions, attacks on opposing theories, or weak defences of doubtful hypotheses-a masterly system of comprehension, but expressed in its author's own words, "All the contending interpretations are right in their measure, all are defective." If Dr. Chalmers succeeded in popularizing the main threads of St. Paul's arguments, yet he has left many thoughtful readers who were capable of appreciating its intricate structure, and valued with a personal experience its doctrinal truths and practical lessons, but who have found difficulty in tracing, for instance, the true relations of the parallels he draws between the justification of Abraham, and of the Christian disciple; of the fall in Adam and the restoration in Christ; of the legal marriage, and of the Christian's union with Christ. For full satisfaction on every difficulty we have referred with complete satisfaction to this modest, yet learned and exhaustive work.

Observations on the Conversion and Apostleship of St. Paul. By Lord GEORGE (sic) LYTTELTON. With an Introductory Essay by HENRY ROGERS. London: the Religious Tract Society.

THE argument of George, Lord Lyttelton, is one of those inferences from psychological probabilities and analogies which it is much the fashion of the present day to set aside as superseded by deep reaching theories. Mr. Rogers's prefatory essay, occupying nearly half of this little book, goes thoroughly into that matter, and shows, what few sober thinkers would be disposed to doubt, that such arguments remain in their cogency and their cumulative force, unaffected by the elaborate sceptical systems of Paulus, or Strauss, or Renan. His book is one of the neatly-printed and bound works which are continually issuing from the useful Society whose name it bears. It is strange that the title-page should contain the error pointed out above. We hope it will not lead careful buyers to distrust the complexion of Mr. Rogers's essay. Probably he is in no way accountable for it.

Origin of the Four Gospels. By CONSTANTINE TISCHENDORF. Translated, under the Author's sanction, by WILLIAM L. GAGE. From the Fourth German Edition, revised and greatly enlarged. London: Jackson, Walford, and Hodder. 1868.

THIS translation, though published in London, was evidently printed in America. There is no mistaking transatlantic typography, spelling, and diction. Here are specimens:-"Irenæus, from 177 on, Bishop of Lyons, &c." p. 34. "From the closing decade of the second century on," p. 35. "As to only prove," p. 38. "An inexpugnable canon of historical criticism."

The English in some places reads very roughly, and suggests to us mistranslation. Possessing only the first edition of Tischendorf's pamphlet, we are unable to verify some of the most prominent examples. Such a sentence as this can hardly be a faithful transcript of any sane man's thoughts:

"What shall we think of the supposition that the dreary landscape of Judæa-with Jerusalem, the sacred centre of the Jewish faith and worship-drove the thoughts of the Galilean to the luxuriance of his own country's hills, and added to his grief?" -(P. 30.)

Our readers will remember that Dr. Tischendorf's pamphlet was noticed and its main argument explained, in a previous number of this Journal. In this later and rewritten edition, the argument remains the same, but the proofs are filled out, and references to the works of modern impugners of Christianity are given. It is a pity that the translator in his preface has given himself the somewhat supererogatory trouble of blowing a trumpet before Professor Tischendorf. Our good friend, whose valuable services to biblical literature none will question, always takes care to perform this office quite sufficiently for himself:

"Tischendorf, like all really great men, is as approachable as a child. . . . In talking, his countenance lights up pleasantly, his style becomes sprightly, his action vivacious; he jumps up, runs across the room to fetch a book or document or curiosity, enters into his guests' affairs, speaks warmly of friends, and evidently enjoys with great zest his foreign reputation.

"His relations with the great English scholars and divines are very intimate; and archbishops and deans and civil dignitaries of the highest rank are proud to enjoy the friendship of this great and genial German scholar.”—(Translator's Preface.)

We had marked many curious blemishes indicating either great carelessness or great ignorance on the part of the translator. Some of these are:-In p. 152 we read of the Christian Apocraphy (sic). In p. 156, 66 an old Latin translation, greatly incomplete, supplies the deficiency." In p. 183, we have the "JudoChristian" heretics twice spoken of. In p. 186 we read, "as we learn of Catenen and Ammonius." The writer evidently thinks that "Catenen" is a Christian Father (we suppose an ambassador in bonds), and is quite innocent of its being the German plural, equivalent to Catena. In p. 193, the Hypotyposa" of Clement is mentioned, for "Hypotyposes" or -seis." In p. 204,"the learned Parisian printer Robert Stephens "is mentioned, but a few lines down "the Robert Etienne Edition" occurs, apparently with no suspicion that the name is that of the same man. In p. 223, we have "Epiphanios" and Irenæus" in the same sentence; and in p. 231, 'Hegesippus" and "Eleutheros." Despite these inaccuracies, the book may be very useful, as conveying fairly to English readers the substance of Tischendorf's argument.

66

The Book of Moses; or, The Pentateuch in its Authorship, Credibility, and Civilization. By the REV. W. SMITH, Ph.D. Vol. I. London: Longmans. Svo. 1868.

THE appearance of such a work as this by Dr. Smith, of which the first volume gives excellent promise, is specially opportune at the present time. The immediate interest excited by the Colenso controversy, so far as it concerned the first five books of the Old Testament, has indeed died out. By some the Bishop's conclusions have been thankfully accepted as tending to make more and more incredible what in point of fact they had long ceased to believe, and destroying the last vestiges of authority traditionally supposed to be due to books which from some accident or other had got bound up with less questionable parts of the Bible, such as the Psalms and the New Testament. By others they have been with as little hesitation rejected, not because they saw their way in every instance to a satisfactory answer to the alleged objections, but because these objections were not even held permissible within the circumscribed limits of their creed. They have pre-judged the questions involved to the disadvantage of the Bishop; and have contented themselves with counterbalancing the feebleness of their reasons for differing from him by the violence and vehemence of their denunciations. And again, as in most cases, there are others who have believed that the maintenance of a middle position was still possible, that neither of these extremes was a fair representation of the truth, and that the Bishop was after all very likely no less wrong, if they could only prove it, than the most virulent of his assailants. For the justification of such a belief as this, Dr. Smith's book will supply not a little. We shall, however, mislead our readers if we give them occasion to suppose that the work before us is only one of the numerous answers to Colenso in a more pretentious form. It obviously and necessarily bears upon the subject, but in scope, purpose, and execution, it is something very much more than this. It may fairly lay claim to being a scientific inquiry into the specified matters, of which on the title-page it professes to treat. The first volume is occupied solely with the discussion of the authorship of the Pentateuch, and the consideration of this question alore will, we are given to understand, demand another volume. The credibility and civilization of the Pentateuch are matters which the writer reserves for yet future treatment. If, then, the authorship of the so-called books of Moses is to be discussed in two octavo volumes, of which the first contains nearly 600 pages, the reader may form some idea of the exhaustive manner in which this is done thus far. Not indeed that we have here an imperfect work, strictly speaking: the points dealt with are handled in detail, but others remain to be handled which bear upon them.

"Although I have endeavoured," says Dr. Smith, "to round off the part which I now publish, and to give it, as far as I could, a certain character of completeness, there remains yet much in that department to be added-a full refutation of the Separatist Theory; which, not satisfied as it should have been, with pointing out in Genesis pre-Mosaic documents, breaks up the whole Pentateuch into un-Mosaic fragments, contributed chiefly by post-Mosaic writers."

The writer must speak for himself as to the way in which he has endeavoured to treat his subject :

"I take up the records of the Old Testament simply as furnishing the historic data on which the argument is to proceed. I make no account either of their inspiration or their infallibility. I do not even assume that they are trustworthy. I merely consider them as the only works that give us any information on the matter; then examine what credence is due to their historical statements; and, lastly, draw the inference naturally deducible from the simple and unmiraculous facts which they contain." That is, he takes the records simply as he finds them, leaving them to stand or fall on their own merits, only not approaching them with the foregone conclusion that they cannot have been written by Moses, and that they cannot be true. As indeed is only just and fair, he considers the burden of proof to rest upon the deniers and impugners of the narrative. He does not believe that a work professing to be from a particular author, to whom from time immemorial it has been assigned, is on à priori ground to be regarded as proceeding from some one else. He keeps his own convictions and conclusions out of the argu