of it so far reaching that it extended even to the 'in-prison spirits'" (p. 13). But while it is true that the word kηpúσσew means "to proclaim after the manner of a herald," and that "in no sense is the Gospel or salvation a necessary part of its meaning" (p. 12); yet, as used in the Greek Testament, it almost always implies in a more or less direct way the good news of salvation through Christ. Once, indeed, it is used of preaching circumcision (Gal. v. 11), once of preaching Moses (Acts xv. 21); but in almost every other of the fifty times in which it occurs it relates more or less closely to salvation, while in two places at least (Luke iv. 18, 19, and Rom. x. 15) it is used as a synonym of the more distinct word evayyeλíčeσbai. So (though Dr. Bullinger thinks otherwise) we believe it to be used by St. Peter in iii. 19 and iv. 6. Indeed, it seems scarcely possible to believe that our Lord would have gone (after His resurrection Dr. Bullinger appears to believesee pp. 9 and 10) to proclaim to the fallen angels that victory which to them told not of joy, and hope, and salvation, but only of misery and everlasting despair.

MIRACLES.—The nature, place, and scope of the miracle, and especially of the Christian miracle, are illustrated by an original and suggestive analogy in an article in the Bibliotheca Sacra, by the Rev. A. H. Huizinga. He starts from the remarkable fact that in the Christian dispensation, true, undoubted miracles are found in the beginning of that dispensation, and at the time of the founding of the Christian Church and Christianity, as a distinct, Divine institution. Without the miracles of the incarnation, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit, no conception of Christianity is possible. In the physical world the origin of life can only be attributed to the direct exertion of the creative power of God. In the subsequent maintenance of life, and in its propagation, God works through the use of means, and by the operation and manifestations of vital forces and laws of nature which He has Himself established. The origin of life is supernatural, and not the object of scientific study, and hence scientific study can make nothing of it. The further manifestations of lifeits growth, maintenance, and propagation-are natural, and as such they come within the scope of scientific study and investigation. Just as in the history of life in general, the beginning of that life is due solely to the direct creative act of God without the use of any means whatever, so too in the beginning and founding of Christianity we have the manifestation of the direct, immediate power of God—sometimes, it is true, acting through men, but acting in a manner independent of the ordinary laws and forces of nature, and so as to produce effects which are above and beyond them; and such manifestations of the power of God, when taking place in the external world and recognizable by the senses, we call miracles. The occasion, then, of the miracle lay in the nature and condition of the times, in the fact that in Christianity God was imparting a new vital spiritual force to the history of humanity.

THE MEANING OF SHEOL OR HADES.-In the third article of a series, by the Rev. Dr. Fairfield, on Resurrection and Final Judgment (Bibliotheca Sacra), this question is discussed at great length. Does Sheol or Hades mean the abode of departed spirits-good as well as bad-between death and the final judgment? Is Paradise or Abraham's Bosom a portion of what is included under Sheol in the Old Testament and Hades in the New? After a minute consideration of the principal passages in which the words occur in Scripture, the author draws the following conclusions: 1. That these words, Sheol and Hades, are sometimes used of the place of physical burial. 2. That they are sometimes used also as the place of punishment after death. 3. That they are never used in speaking of the future abode of the righteous dead. "Whence then," he says, "the notion sprang, that all the dead, irrespective of character, are consigned to Sheol for any period of time whatever-whether it is originally a mythological tradition, or rabbinical, or papal, or a mixture of the three, I do not care to discuss. But it is entirely clear that it is pure tradition, without so much as a single verse of the Bible upon which to rest the sole of its foot."

RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS OF THE PRESENT DAY (Revue Chrétienne).—— Under this title M. Léopold Monod has given a spirited denial to the attempt made by M. Doumergue to identify his teaching with that of the unfortunate but gifted M. Scherer, and to accuse him of too great latitude in his interpretation of Holy Writ. He shows how absurd it is for any one who, like M. Doumergue, does not insist on the verbal infallibility of the Bible, virtually to object to allow others the same liberty of opinion he himself exercises, because they fix a different limit of individual interpretation. To show the inconsistency of his opponent's position, he quotes his own eloquent words, "I would be very glad if there had been a well-marked line between truth and error, between right and wrong in human affairs. It has not pleased God that it should be so. Not only to the worker, but to the thinker, has it been said, 'In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.' . . . . Now, that which is true of material bread, is still more true (as too many men, too many Christians forget) of spiritual bread. It is with fear and trembling that we must work out our salvation." He alleges, in answer to the accusation of allowing personal prejudice to affect his exegesis, that every teacher must work with his own brains, and it must follow that his teaching will have an individuality of its own. He shows by two examples that the advocates for literal interpretation of the Bible find themselves forced by conscientious scruples to ignore or deny precepts which, according to their theory, should be obligatory. Few of them would admit that we should give strong drink to the unfortunate to make them forget their woes, in spite of Prov. xxxi. 6, 7, or that we should shut our doors in the face of one who differs from us in religious belief, although 2 John 10, 11, according to their rigid theory, would prescribe that action. And he says naturally enough, Why not modify the theory which leads to interpretations that are repulsive

to conscience? He denies that he has ever made the heart and conscience of man the supreme authority in deciding what religion is. The life and teaching of the Saviour reveal religion, not as a formula, but as a power over the heart and conscience. These faculties of man apprehend religion, but do not determine it. Finally, to show how far he is from attributing to his own mental powers the infallible authority which he denies to the Church or to the Bible as a book, he takes as an example the reasons which lead him to repudiate the Calvinistic doctrine of election. These are not his own interpretations of special passages of Scripture, but the conception of the Divine Fatherhood as shown in the Gospels, which would be contradicted by such a doctrine. His concluding words make his position clear. "All is subjective, for I cannot discard myself. All is objective, for I do not pretend to derive anything from myself; poor and feeble as I am, my whole desire is to receive. To be very distrustful of oneself, to seek to come face to face with the teaching and life of the Saviour, in order to know Him well, though ashamed of serving Him so ill, to search for truth fearlessly in humble dependence upon the aid of the Holy Spirit-this is the method I would ever desire to use. Is this being carried away by reliance on one's own judgment? Is this finding all light and life in one's own self? Is this rejecting all authority because I wish to be my own teacher? Truly, I do not think it is."

THE INWARD LIGHT AND CHRIST'S INCARNATION (Friends' Quarterly Examiner). In an article marked by the "sweet reasonableness" which the Friends have led us to associate with their teaching, Mr. Tallack seeks to vindicate the doctrine of the Inward Light, which is falling somewhat into abeyance in their Society. The doctrine is that God has not left Himself without a witness in any age or in any nation of the world, and that in all forms of religion there are gleams-faint it may be, but real-of that true light that lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that the graces and virtues which appear even in the heathen are to be reckoned in the same class with those that spring from a conscious obedience to God's law. He emphatically declares that it is necessary to believe this in order to be convinced of God's justice and fairness. "It throws," he says, "precious light on the otherwise solemn enigma of the future destiny of the millions on millions of human beings who have lived without seeing a Bible, and gone down to the grave without hearing of God's exceeding love in the gift of His dear Son as the Saviour and Redeemer of the world." Of course, the doctrine of the Inward Light may be, and has been, abused, and our author is careful to guard against this. It is, apart from the revelation of God's love in the Incarnation, at best but as twilight compared to noonday. It should not be made a reason for indolence in missionary or evangelistic effort, or for withholding the Holy Scriptures from universal distribution. Natural Religion can only develop a stage of religious childhood, and necessarily leaves very much more to be desired for the soul's growth. It reveals God's eternal power, but not His sympathy and love; hence the

comparative coldness attendant on all devotion apart from God's personality in Christ. In a very winning manner he shows that light, even Divine light, does not necessarily give power over evil, or over the fear of death; but that faith in Him who died for our sins and was victor over death, does both. He says, "The noblest of the heathen, such as Plato and Socrates, had, at best, a faith which was as a guess, a conjecture. How sad their hopelessness under bereavement! But what a world of difference there is between the obituary inscriptions of the pagan Romans recording their sense of irreparable loss at the decease of their most dear' wives and daughters and sons, as compared with the later Latin inscriptions on the Christian dead: 'In hope,' ' in peace,' 'in Christ.' It was not a mere change, it was a revolution in human history, even in the history and life, and hope, and impulse of the inmost souls of men. And what brings this hope still to the poor Buddhist, or Hindoo, or Chinese, or Japanese? Not the Inward Light, blessed in its limited degree though it be; not even that, but only the Gospel record of the historic Christ, the first-begotten from the dead,' who alone, but finally, has conquered death, and 'opened the kingdom of Heaven, with its immortal youth and its glorious processes of eternal education, to all believers.'"

BIBLICAL THOUGHT.

CANON DRIVER ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. 1

BY REV. G. A. CooкE, M.A., ST. JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD. THE appearance of the third edition of Dr. Driver's book in less than six months from its publication is sufficient proof of its importance, and of the interest with which it has been received. It is not necessary to enlarge upon the characteristics of Dr. Driver's work; scientific thoroughness, lucidity, caution, and reverence are the qualities with which he has made us familiar in his criticism. There is no mere theorizing or special pleading. Now and again we cannot help wishing that the exigencies of the series, of which this is the first volume, had not made compression a necessity; but we have sufficient facts presented to enable us to form a judgment for ourselves; the entire process of the "higher criticism" is exhibited as fully as possible; and at the same time we feel throughout that the deeper interests. of the Old Testament revelation are never lost sight of, however subtle the analysis, however penetrating the scrutiny.

But we must whet the reader's appetite for a thorough digestion of the book by giving, in the short space at our disposal, a more detailed account of its contents. It will be well to quote a few sentences from the Preface to indicate what may be expected later on. The method of scientific investi

1 An Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament. By S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1891.)

gation must, of course, be the inductive, though naturally this cannot always be formally exhibited. "The argument in the majority of cases is cumulative," as irresistible as it is often inexhaustible (p. xi.). We are next reminded of an important distinction in the critical study of the Old Testament," that of degrees of probability." Because the critic must sometimes speak with hesitation about the conclusion he arrives at, it does not therefore follow that the entire result is discredited. For instance, the "Priests' Code " can be readily distinguished from the rest of the Hexateuch; and when this document has been marked off, there are facts which indicate that the remainder is not homogeneous, though the precise limits of the component elements can only be defined with more or less probability; but this does not entitle us to reject the analysis which shows that this remainder, "JE," is composite in structure. Then Dr. Driver goes on to state that critical conclusions, based upon "the ordinary principles by which history is judged and evidence estimated," involve no sort of "conflict either with the Christian creeds or with the articles of the Christian faith. Those conclusions affect not the fact of revelation, but only its form" (pp. xiv. xv.). "The whole is subordinated to the controlling agency of the Spirit of God"; and the human factor in the revelation which criticism brings into clearer light, while it is "quickened and sustained by the informing Spirit," is "never wholly absorbed or neutralized by it" (p. xvii). The various writers are not lifted above the current literary habits of their day. This is the explanation of what, upon the traditional review, has been found a great difficulty in the Historical Books, viz., that we find in them traditions which have been unconsciously modified and coloured by the associations of a later age, and that "some freedom was used by ancient historians in placing speeches or discourses in the mouths of historical characters" (ib.). The application of these principles meets us constantly throughout the book. Thus, for instance, the account of the conquest of Palestine given by the Deuteronomic editor of the book of Joshua is found to be made up of "generalizing summaries" of the oldest Israelitish tradition, which represented the conquest as being far less considerable in extent and affected rather by the exertions of individual tribes than by an organized nation (p. 108). Similarly, the Priests' Code presents "an ideal picture of the Mosaic age," and "includes elements, not, in the ordinary sense of the term, historical" (p. 120). Other examples will be, the Song of Hannah (p. 164) and Solomon's Prayer of Dedication, " which has received its present form at the hands of the compiler" (p. 181); the book of Esther, too, while resting on an historical basis, "includes items that are not strictly historical" (p. 454). The most striking illustration of the principles laid down occurs in the case of the Chronicles, in whose age "a new mode of viewing the past history of his nation began to prevail the past, in a word, was idealized, and its history (where necessary) re-written accordingly" (pp. 500-1). We cannot but feel grateful to Professor Driver for these clear and emphatic statements.