salem by the Chaldeans. The third is to treat of the captivity and on to the final extinction of Jewish nationality in the Hadrian war.

From Dr. Stanley's connection with the "Free Handling" Broad Church party, as well as from his avowed sentiments, we are not surprised to discover a laxness in his views on many crucial points in reading the earlier books of the Bible. He denies in his introduction, that the Books of Moses, Joshua, and Samuel were all written in their present form by those whose names they bear. If he means that Moses did not write the account of his own death and interment, and that other and subsequent hands have inserted sundry explanatory matters, we ask, who affirms this? But it is evident he means more than this. He more than insinuates a doubt about both the genuineness and authenticity of the Pentateuch. He refers the question of the authorship of the Pentateuch to biblical criticism; but he obviously mistakes the functions of biblical criticism, for this question must be a matter of history and tradition. Did our plan in this article admit of it, we might show that the existence of the Pentateuch was known in the days of Joshua, and also present such other evidence as leaves "almost all scholars" no resort but to receive these "five volumes" as the work of Moses. We are told that the "undeniably historical portions" of the Old Testament are brought out into full view in these lectures, leaving the doubt behind that some portions are "deniably historical," that is, unhistorical and unveracious, seriously "erring," as we are told here, "in chronology, exaggerations in numbers, contradictions between the different narratives." The poetical or parabolic elements interspersed with the narrative, and at times taking its place, "leave us in doubt what is poetry, what is parable, or what is history." This "free handling" is destructive handling, and is in the same direction as the Colenso raid. The author also "very seriously doubts" whether the sacrifices and ordinances of the law were given at all at the time of the Exodus, and the only thing he believes to have had any real connection with their desert life was the giving of the "Ten Words." This attempted innovation upon established opinions is so great and wide and has such slender grounds that we cannot admit it. Whether all of the ceremonial institutions were used in this desert life is quite another question, and may be doubted on very good authority. There is also an obvious unwillingness to admit fully and simply the miraculous element in this most ancient history. In the case of the fall of Jericho, we hear of "the natural agencies of the earthquake, or volcanic convulsion." What reason or date have we that an earthquake occurred at the propitious moment? And where is the gain in the supposition that God used an earthquake? It was still a supernatural interference in favour of the besieging

army. Against the Dean's "free handling" of the Book of Samuel we support the opinion of the veteran rationalist, De Wette, as quoted by Dr. McCaul, who affirms that they "bear genuine historic impress, and reveal the best historic writing." Too much is also made of the waxing and ripening of time and events for the coming of Christ and the establishment of his Church; from being a preparation of these events we are all through this volume reminded that the Jewish Church was the producing cause, the parent of the Church of Christ. In this sense we do not hold that "the Christian sprang out of the Jewish Church." In the preparation you may trace this continuity, but there could be nothing in the Jewish to produce the Christian. It was a distinct, a new and divinely ordained dispensation. How could a spiritual system spring from a ceremonial one?-a universal from a local and temporary one?

But we end our "bill of exceptions" and hasten to express our high admiration of the work as a whole. The style is rich, pure, and affluent; while the power and picturesqueness are such as we have met with in no other writer. In support of our view we might quote from the third lecture, in which a sketch of the career and character of Jacob is given. The "old wanderer, the Hebrew Ulysses," is traced till the close of his very eventful life. The grouping and setting of the facts connected with the wrestling with the Divine Presence are exceedingly well done, and the lecturer leaves the scenes of Peniel with quoting from the noble lines of Charles Wesley,—

"Come, O thou Traveller unknown,
Whom still I hold, but cannot see!"

We may also refer to lecture eleven, where the battle of Bethhoran is described, which is affirmed to "be one of the most important in the history of the world." The three principal personages in the book are Abraham, Moses, and Samuel. The lecturer's conception of the character of Abraham is worth our study. The root form of his name gives the idea of a father loved, the complete form expressing the father of a great host or multitude. We see him a "Bedouin Sheykh," living a nomadic pastoral life, abounding in hospitality; simple, yet manly; affectionate, yet not exempt from Eastern policy; a heroic warrior, but not a plunderer or fierce robber chief. But these are the outward aspects of the man. As a man of God we most delight to see him. He was the friend of God; building himself up in God, he obeyed because he believed in God. He is the father and patron of all believers. Few have been tried and few triumphed as he; whatever he was commanded he at once did; being strong in faith, he gave glory to God. We may venture however to ask, if it is a settled point among biblical

geographers, that the great trial of his life in relation to the sacrifice of Isaac took place on Mount Gerizim? It is, we believe, agreed among them, that it was not on Mount Moriah; but to affirm that it was on "the natural altar summits of Mount Gerizim" is open to many very serious objections.

The three lectures on Moses, the Exodus, the Wilderness, Sinai and the law, Kadesh and Pisgah, are freely conceived and written. The Dean rises to the full height of his great subject. He cites and compares the Scripture references, uses all the Jewish traditions in the Talmud, as well as heathen, Mussulman and Christian traditions bearing upon the subject. This "Child of the Water' rose to be of all men in Old Testament history the most influential and honoured. We are forbidden by our space, as well as by the plan of this paper, to dwell upon this part of the work, nor can we tarry on our way through the Books of Joshua or Judges. With regard to the fate of Jephtha's daughter we may just remark, that as far back as we can trace the sentiments of any who have read the history down through the first three centuries of Christendom, the opinion was that it must read in its literal sense. Then came spiritualising and allegorical interpretations of Scripture history, which led to the belief that she was not killed but immured in celibacy. But a more careful study of the Bible has brought us back to the original view, "and with it returns the deep pathos of the original story, and the lesson which it reads of the heroism of the father and the daughter, to be admired and loved in the midst of the fierce superstitions across which it plays like a sunbeam on a stormy sea." The writer has great aptness in quoting and applying the sentiments of great poets which bear upon his subjects. Here he brings in the grand "Melody" of Byron, and Tennyson's exquisite "Dream of Fair Women."

We now proceed to the third representative man introduced in this volume-The last of the Judges. The Judges were rulers raised up as the exigencies of the State required; their office was occasional, irregular, and uncertain, yet in the lapse of time it tended to order and continuousness. While some of the earlier judges ruled only in the special crises which called them forth, afterwards the hereditary principle appeared, and the office became a fixed institution in the nation. The career of Gideon was remarkable; he was before his age, and above it, yet his character was unequal; there was a sweetness and nobleness blended with his courage, yet he was superstitious, and he failed as a statesman. While Gideon and some others were great as judges, Samuel the

The Hebrew form of the name is Mosheh, from Masah, "to draw out." In Coptic, mo-water, and ushe-saved. p 106.

last of the race, was unquestionably the greatest. He was an epochal man—a man for special critical times in the State or in the Church. The careful reader of history will meet with men whose lives hastened, and mark or sharply define epochs of growth and advancement in communities or nations. There might have been a long preparation and ripening of events, but a man of special gifts and qualifications was needed to precipitate the conclusion to seize the helm at the flood and bear the vessel on to fortune. We have here a case in point. The seat of the Sanctuary, and in some sense the national capital of the Jews, had been from the conquest to the days of Samuel in Shiloh. This valley of rest in its central and secluded situation was a fitting resting place for the Ark in times of commotion and war. From the death of Joshua, the conquest of the land by the Chosen Race had been carried on slowly and with varying fortunes. When Joshua died all the sea-board and the citidals in that magnificent tract of table-land, the Great Plain, or Plain of Esdraelon, were held by their foes. Much of the land had still to be conquered. They first repelled the invaders from distant Mesopotamia, under the leadership of "that Lion of the Tribe of Judah-Caleb." Then for the last time in deadly fight Israel and Canaan met face to face, under Deborah and Barak. They had next to drive out hordes of desert-rangersthe Midianites, who had overran the rich plains of central Palestine, and whose fierce warriors, camels, and tents were for numbers like an army of locusts. The victorious general in this case was Gideon-one of the best of the Judges. Finally came their contest with the most troublesome and bitter of all their foes—the Philistines. When Joshua crossed the Jordan, they were comparative strangers in the land. But in the rare fertility of the strip of country which they occupied, in the advantages which its elevations afforded for the construction of fortresses and strongholds, in the facility with which war chariots could be used on its plains, and in the favourable character of the sea-board for naval enterprise, we have sufficient explanation of their rapid acquisition of wealth and power, enabling them to terrorise and subjugate many of the neighbouring tribes. They were noted for the number, variety and completeness of their arms and armour, as well as for their huge stature. They seem to have been cunning and revengeful. Singular to say, this narrow portion of the country bearing their name has given a name to the entire land-Philistia has become Palestine. They continued to trouble Israel through the reigns of Saul, David, and their successors until the days of Hezekiah. After the destruction of the temple of the Fish-god, overwhelming Samson and his foes in undistinguished ruin, there succeeds a blank in sacred history. When the history opens again we find that Eli is both judge and high priest in Shiloh. In this

sequestered and beautiful village was the ancient tent, containing the Ark of the Lord. By the principal gateway inside the doorpost or pillar was a prominent seat or throne. Here Eli sat and judged Israel, surveying the crowds who came up at solemn or festive seasons to the sanctuary. Among the companys who came up year by year was Elkanah of Ramathaim Zophim, a rich, devout, well-disposed man, and his family. He was a Polygamist; but was so, in all likelihood, because his first wife was childless. His favourite wife bore the Phonecian name of Channah, Hannah, or Anna. Here we first meet this now well-known name. She was almost a Nazarite in her abstinence from strong drink, and almost a prophetess in her piety and spirit. Her childless state afflicted her sorely. In her trouble she went to God and "poured forth her soul in prayer." Women were not bound to attend the services of the sanctuary; but this woman was a regular and devout worshipper. On one memorable occasion she prayed earnestly, but inwardly, and wept sorely. Matthew Henry says quaintly, "her prayer was not a dry prayer." She prayed and vowed that would the Lord but answer in this behalf and give her a son, he should be dedicated to the service of the tabernacle perpetually, and observe the special obligations and austerities of a Nazarite. No words were articulated in this prayer, but her lips moved and her manner was earnest, if not expressive of agony. Only the Hearer of Prayer knew what she said. The venerable pontiff had watched her intensity, and took her to be one of those base women whose sin and degradation were increased by their mocking and profaning the worship of God. So respectfully, yet spiritedly, did she repell the imputation of inebriety, that Eli bade her depart with his benediction. Before the end of the year she became the rejoicing mother of a son, to whom she gave the name of Samuel— "Asked of God,” “Heard of God," or "Lent to God." When her maternal attentions could be dispensed with, she took the child to Shiloh, in compliance with her vow, that though no priest he might be even more than a priest unto the Lord for ever. She reminded Eli of the transaction, and poured forth her gladness in an exulting chant, the earliest of hymns, and the model of the first Christian hymn, used in a somewhat similar circumstance by the virgin Mother. Luke i. 46. Year by year Hannah failed not to visit Shiloh, taking with her a little coat or mantle. Henry says that it was "a new suit of clothes, a little coat and everything belonging to it." The mantle or coat is distinctly named; this mantle distinguished the prophet all through life, and may have been a kind of pattern for the peculiar robe or mantle which the order of the prophets wore, and was known as the Prophet's

Mantle.

Who has not been charmed with the account of the little child