Augustine as equally inspired with Isaiah? His work furnishes no satisfactory answer to such questions. There abound, indeed, expressions about the development of germs of thought, the influence of other systems upon Jewish belief, and such like, which perhaps import more than is apparent in the direction of a recognition of Divine guidance and teaching; for it must not be forgotten that the Professor's account of the origin of the Psalter is intended as a contribution towards the defence of the faith!

In the discussion of dates and historical allusions, which forms the staple of the Lectures, strange things are uttered, which are full of significance as showing the standpoint of the writer. Some of these are the

following:

1. It is quietly assumed (p. 91) with the mere support of a note of four and a half lines, that "the promulgation of the first Scripture [was] by Josiah." This, of course, is in accordance with the temper of mind to which allusion has been made (p. 309, note 4), but a position of such importance in Old Testament exegesis surely demands some exposition and justification from the Oriel Professor.

2. It is a trifle in the prevalent looseness of theological language to read of the Reformed Churches (p. 358, note aa), but such an appellation as the Zoroastrian Church (e. g., on p. 395), and the recognition of both it and the Church of the Old Covenant as inspired by the Spirit of Holiness (p. 270), is startling to Anglicans who have been taught to acknowledge One Catholic and Apostolic Church.

3. Next we learn that instead of the Old Testament religion being a revelation from God to men (for the hypothesis of a "heaven-descended theology" is scouted-cf. Introd. p. xxxi.), it was arranged and set forth by the leaders of Jewish thought, who provided a programme, as caterers for an entertainment (p. 323).

4. This programme was corrected by St. Paul, who, however, himself was not free from the influence of its errors (p. 4; see also p. 173).

5. Bible doctrines are developed germs, not revelations from age to age (p. 336, note jj.). Precedent, rather than Divine call, impelled Bible writers who, without support, would not be likely to venture on a new path (p. 339).

6. Inspired writers were subject to illusions (p. 28).

7. Therefore, we are prepared to learn that the Gospels are not altogether authentic history, for they embody Jewish Christian traditions (p. 270).

8. The "old Messianic theory even in its latest form " is, as regards the Psalter, rejected (p. 261), and "the hope of a personal Messiah... is markedly absent from Daniel" (p. 200). And much more in the same tone, which space forbids to quote. The reader will observe that the method and details of the work all tend in the same direction.1

1 There is another point which, though minute, is too significant to be passed over. The writer constantly speaks of our Lord simply as Jesus Christ. Of course, no irreverence is

It will justly be said that this is no reply to Professor Cheyne's arguments. We are not attempting a formal refutation, but we maintain that it is well to inquire what will be the consequences of adopting the main conclusions of his work. The proof of Christianity is not a mathematical demonstration; rather, is it the harmonious blending of a variety of separate considerations. A want of proportion in the parts of the argument may result in a wholly inadequate conclusion. The two chief factors in the evidence for Christianity are tradition and criticism. Historical criticism has been fatal to the claims of some of the adventitious surroundings of the Christian Creed and the Catholic system. Anglicans have no reason to fear historical criticism, but they refuse to so apply it as to ignore the verdict of those men of ancient days, who have handed down to us opinions from out that dim and distant past into which history has not penetrated. Criticism may test these opinions, and if they be found to be contradictory and à priori impossible, our reason will reject them. But if the only objection to a tradition is, that it is unsupported, and is a priori improbable (I do not say, impossible), it is not for such reasons to be peremptorily set aside. This is one of the points at which we are compelled to join issue with the learned Bampton Lecturer. He appears to hold that if an opinion has been delivered by tradition it is necessarily suspicious. Now, it is one thing to say that a traditional opinion should be supported by a critical conclusion; it is another to affirm that a traditional view cannot stand alone, in the many cases where the grounds for that ancient opinion cannot now be tested. In fact, this method of dealing with ancient documents and traditional views is an exaggeration of the power of the critical faculty. The author expressly declares his intention of using that faculty as a set-off against the lack of a Pusey's learning (Pref. p. xii.). But he does himself scant justice. No one can peruse his pages, and scan the copious and often lengthy notes, without recognizing that his reading has been very wide,2 and that he is a man of general literary culture, as well as a student of what others have written on his own special subjects. But here we mark the fundamental difference between our author and the great divine whose learning he admires. Dr. Pusey in that mine of learning and research, his Lectures on Daniel, says that he cannot examine the prophet as one who doubts. He receives the book as part of the Canon which the Church had in ancient days received, and has now handed down to us. He applies his vast stores of erudition to the explanation of difficulties and the elucidation of obscurities, and to determining the grounds on which Daniel has always been

intended, but there certainly seems a design to place the Messiah on much the same level as e.g., Zoroaster, who is so often introduced. Such language does not help to commend Professor Cheyne's views to Catholics.

1 Take, for example, the following remark on p. 339: "[certain views] are tenable, however, because they are based, not on mere tradition, but on criticism." Therefore if they rested only on tradition they would be untenable.

Even such a small and modest work (which, by the way, deserves more attention than it has yet received from theologians) as Mr. Mozley's David in the Psalms is quoted thrice.

accepted as part of the Word of God. The Professor-I apologize, if I misunderstand him-seems to use his powers for the mere purpose of calling into question every old and cherished opinion.

From criticism he proceeds to construction. But how? By the use of what he terms the historic imagination. Surely, to say the least, this is a dangerous weapon. First, by criticism of words and allusions, he shows that no psalm can have been written by the author and at the period which are commonly supposed. Next, he depicts the characteristics of different periods, and imagines the circumstances under which the psalm may have been written. Imagination and criticism combine to produce certainty; and the reader is assured that the period suggested is the only time when the psalm could have been composed. If generations of commentators have agreed on some other explanation of the occasion and purpose of this psalm, their verdict is swept aside.2

It has been said that on the authorship of the books of the Old Testament the Jews possess no tradition worthy of real credence or regard, but only vague and uncertain reminiscences. However this may be, at least three psalms are ascribed to David in the New Testament: Psalm ii., in Acts iv. 25; Psalm xvi., in Acts ii. 25; and Psalm cx., in St. Matthew xxii. 43. Opinions may differ as to the significance of these quotations; but it must be admitted that they are evidence of an ancient belief that the Warrior King was in some way connected with the Psalter and its composition. Now, if David never wrote a psalm, it seems incredible that any psalms should have been ascribed to him. The name of Samuel, still more that of Moses, would have naturally been chosen for the sprinkling of the Psalter (to borrow the Professor's curious expression), rather than the name of the man of war. Modern critics fully recognize this difficulty for themselves, and insist on the incongruity of ascribing spiritual songs to the bold warrior and hero of a hundred fights. They forget their English history, or they might see many a picture of a grim old Puritan slaying the enemies of the Lord by day, and thanking God at night for the opportunity of doing it with longwinded prayer and cento of Scripture texts. But the critics who cannot overcome the apparent contradiction between David or Samuel and the author of psalms forget that others might have noticed the same incon

1 Cf. Pref. xxxiv.

2 Take, as an example, the treatment of Psalm 1xxii. pp. 141-7 and 476-7.

3 By Professor Driver in his recent valuable work, Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.

4 It is safe to predict that, after a few more generations of luxury and refinement-I may add, of effeminacy and sentimentalism—the men of a future age, when socialism and physical science have procured universal peace, will doubt the real existence of such a personality as that of Hedley Vicars, who, while filled “with the gallant ardour of the soldier, leading to an almost boyish anticipation of a brush with the Russians, "" could write about meetings for Scripture-reading in his tent, and say, "I feel sad when I think of dearest

for I fear he has not been reconciled to God" (Memorials of H. V., pp. 212, 219, 222). We know that these Memorials are history, and not romance. So, also, the varied aspects of David's experience are marks of a real personality; they are not the creations of an idealizing fancy.

gruity; and if, in spite of this, psalms were ascribed to David, rather than to the saintly Samuel or the reputed author of Deuteronomy, there is here afforded a strong argument that some basis of historical fact must underlie the ascription. It was not such an ascription as would have been likely to occur to the imagination. On the other hand, if David was really the author of some psalms, and if a small collection was properly ascribed to him, it is highly probable that others would be ascribed to the great king which he had not composed. It is the business of criticism to determine which these are. And not the most conservative critic would wish to maintain the authenticity of every title in the Psalter. It would be hard to prove that any of them are a pr. m.; although they must be very old, for the LXX. did not understand them.1

But I am willing to allow (for the sake of argument) that the Psalms were of later than Davidic times. If for the names of men who flourished before the Exile we substitute Ezekiel, Nehemiah, or any other saint of the Church of the Circumcision, I do not see that there is any difference theologically, although such a view affects the history of the Psalter. Again, I will allow (still for the sake of argument) that even the Psalms quoted in the New Testament were not really Davidic. I cannot indeed grant that there could have been any error in the sacred speaker or in his inspired apostles; but still, for argument's sake, I will recognize that there may be a modus dicendi here, something like what occurs when, in Matt. xxvii. 9, Zechariah is quoted as Jeremiah, because (apparently) Jeremiah stood at the head of the collection, and the books of the prophets was known familiarly as The Jeremiah—some such modus I am willing to grant, but the most significant features of Professor Cheyne's position will remain. It is not a mere alteration in dates, but it is a complete change in the mode of regarding the sacred records. Trite, indeed, is the objection to the Bible stories on the ground of their miraculous character, and hitherto Christian apologists have been wont to join issue and meet the objection. Not so our author, for he is a rationalist 2 himself. Read his Hallowing of Criticism. Does he admit any supernatural workings? He seems to me to avoid, or else to rationalize, every account of a miracle. He says that no one can believe

1 The LXX. presents a grave difficulty in the way of that late date to which the lecturer would assign the completed Psalter. It is no answer to be told, "I do not myself feel the objections to be important" (p. 458, par. 2). Probably not! And the further reply which is made is not of a kind to silence an objector.

* I use this term in no invidious sense, and I allow that it is open to objection, but so are most, perhaps all, the epithets by which opponents label one another in theological and philosophical controversy. A Christian may be called a rationalist when he has passed beyond the stage of blind assent to an hereditary creed, and is ready to give a reason of the hope" which is in him. But a Christian is also a supernaturalist, for he believes in Divine operations which supersede the ordinary workings of nature. He accepts the accounts of these on reasonable evidence, although the comprehension of such wonders may transcend the powers of his reason. Professor Cheyne appears to relegate to the realm of myth and legend whatever is not susceptible of a naturalistic explanation. He accepts what his reason admits, and rejects the rest, as do all "rationalists."

that Elijah was really fed by birds; it is a poetical way of declaring that God would never let His servant starve. In describing the story of the Ascension of Elijah, he plays, indeed, with words, but they import no more than that Elijah was killed in a thunderstorm, and then he adds the following comment that the story of the Ascension of Elijah is a prose poem to show that the Jewish Church of the writer's time was ready to believe that some extraordinary persons might, and would, escape death. So the miraculous element is got rid of.

Whether the Professor would in like manner explain away every account of the miraculous intervention of Divine Providence, I should not wish to decide. Would that he had spoken more clearly on so important a point! As an Anglican priest he must believe in the resurrection of our Lord as an historical fact to be received in a strictly literal sense, although the way in which it was brought about may transcend the comprehension of human reason. And if, then, he accepts the greatest miracle, why reject the lesser and attendant wonders? This will not satisfy one caviller or convince one unbeliever.

But all this is intended as a defence of the faith! Is such a diluted faith worth having? A revelation which is only the dream of poets, and the developed germs of the thought of ancient days, is not worth troubling about. I admire the exalted tone in which the Professor can even yet speak of working " for the best of masters and the greatest of causes" (p. 425), but I fear the majority who are of a coarser grain will say, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." 1

I do not hesitate to use plain language in expressing the effect produced by the perusal of Professor Cheyne's lectures, although he intended them, he says, for the defence of the Christian religion. It may be our ignorance, but we do not yet understand how a complete and all-round surrender of our position can prepare the way for victory. Not thus has the faith been preserved and handed down from age to age. The question is not of some trifling difference of opinion as to a name or a date, but is one of first principles. If the Professor is right, then the men of the old covenant, the inspired Apostles of the new, a multitude of theologians in every age, are wrong. We have misunderstood our Bible, and elevated it to a false position. Henceforth we must recognize that other sacred books, besides the Jewish Scriptures, are inspired; that the Jewish teachers invented a programme of doctrine, which was corrected by Paul of Tarsus, who however himself was not always right; that much of the history of the New Testament is mythical, and that Bible writers were subject to harmless illusions; henceforth we shall look in vain for prophecies of the Messiah either in the Psalter or in Daniel. When thus all the great positions of Revelation are abandoned one after another, what will remain worth

1 For I venture to agree with a certain philosopher born at Tarsus, that if faith in the facts of revelation (see 1 Cor. xv. 32) is lost, there is no adequate motive for self-denial, and no sufficient and universal safeguard against licentious living.