the Vatican, in one of which the words are

all run together without any points, the next has entire words separated by a dot,

to the rules of Arsis and Thesis, or metrical scansion of feet. He states also that an initial B in the Beatus, first word of the first Psalm, is an Irish letter, of execution similar to that found in manuscripts from the sixth to the ninth centuries; and that some of the peculiarities of manuscripts of the sixth century are that the letters of the text are Roman capitals roughly formed, hence called "Rustic," "litteræ majusculae rustice," as in the volume under consideration; the words not separated and the headings in uncial characters. ments of the Gospels at the end of the Psalter The frag

forms of the uncial headings to the Psalms, which are poor and feeble by the side of the fine, bold, and spirited uncials of the fragments of Gospels at the end of the Psalter. Mr. Bond also insists upon a late date for the ornamental B, which is "erroneously stated to be of Irish execution and of early date," but "unmistakably of a different (probably the failed at first sight to comprehend, and in this Anglo-Frankish) school." What the AngloFrankish school is, or was, we confess we the "Further Report" of Sir Thomas Hardy bore us out. We can well, however, imagine that an people, skilled in

Psalter... and are also seemingly contem poraneous." Sir Thomas further considers the age of the drawings to be of the fifth or sixth

in the British Museum, during which time we may fairly presume that the various opinions Reports were

stamp of Roman or unlikely,” he adds, "that" the artist "had in his possession

We

shall leave it to Sir Thomas to comment, as he by the autotype printers carried on.

arts connected with the production of books, passed from one kingdom to the other, tutor to the children of Charlemagne, about Tours a circle of English followers, this must A.D. 782. If Alcuin gathered about him at

his purpose." These drawings exhibit classical architecture, dresses, arms, and musical instruments, and special attention is drawn to a curious candlestick, not likely to have been known to a Saxon artist. The superior hand

motives which induced the Dean to bring out under his auspices, and presumably in agreement with his own opinions, a series of statements, not actually couched in antagonistic language, but containing important refutations of opinions. advanced by that antiquarian. At the same Mr. Bond's-indeed every-Report is prepared, time, from the categorical manner in which from the ex cathedra statements that it contains, from the conspicuous absence of all mention of, or reference to, Sir Thomas Hardy's

name,

and from the evident desire rather

of a master is shown in the preliminary sketches on the lower margins, according to Sir Thomas; but it is difficult to reconcile this fact with the statement that the artist was merely copying from a more ancient set of drawings which he had before him. Many other arguments are brought forward to confirm the opinion that the manuscript was not the manuscript, with just sufficient comparison to put on record a technical description of written in England, but in some continental monastery, and the First Report concludes with other specimens of palæography to illustrate his arguments, we are led to suppose that with a conjecture as to the occasion of there was no wish to impugn Sir Thomas the Psalter being brought to England. Sir Hardy's statements, or to make any attack upon Thomas thinks that Bertha, daughter of Chari-theories advanced by that gentleman, unless, berhet, King of the Franks, on her marriage indeed, we except the theory of the bringing over the book to England by Queen Bertha. This legend, for not one single word of corroboration is suggested, is, we are willing to admit, perfectly possible, but unsubstantiated, and, as Mr. Bond shows, unconnected with the fact that a charter, of the Kentish King Hlotharius to Bercuald, Abbot of Reculver, A.D. 679, was, at one time, bound up with the Psalter.

to the Kentish king, Ethelberht, was allowed to retain her Christian religion, and maintained a Bishop, Liuthard, before the arrival of Augustine; and that the book was brought over by her and probably bequeathed to the monastery of Reculver, finding a subsequent resting-place at Canterbury, previously to passing into the hands of Sir Robert Cotton.

We have thus far given a fair synopsis of the leading theories of the First Report, and now proceed in like manner to analyze the Museum Reports, edited by the Dean of Westminster, confining our remarks, in the main, to the statements put forward by Mr. Bond, who is, as we have before remarked, avowedly the English representative of the Ninth-Century Men. The very reverend editor of these Reports seems to imply, in his observations by way of Preface, that the opinion already expressed by Sir Thomas Hardy of the manuscript's age in some way clashed with the conclusions arrived at by those who studied the question under its theological aspect alone,

In Mr. Bond's Report we may note the following salient points:

"The drawings intended to illustrate the subjects of the several Psalms. ... are ... by the pen. At the beginning of the Psalter the figures are slightly shaded, and the execution is firm and skilful, with careful treatment. But the first and best hand soon ceases, and the remainder of the subjects are by different and unequal draughtsmen. There are some exceedingly interesting designs towards the end, but the figures are....out of proportion, and the dress represented by a roughly drawn jagged outline, in the style common to English drawings of the tenth and eleventh cen

attention has been drawn. After some remarks upon the drawings, and their divergence from the classical model, Mr. Bond says of the drawings that,

"If compared with acknowledged works of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the connexion... style, and cannot easily be conceived to be of a is apparent. They are, in fact, Gothic in their period when the classical method was still imitated. The covering of the legs is the wrinkled hose, not the sandal.... Our Saviour's form is uncovered to the waist, a practice referred to ninth century innovation in Histories of Christian Art."

In summing up, Mr. Bond maintains "it impossible to refer the Psalter to an earlier time than the end of the eighth century, and

is more disposed to assign it to the ninth."

From Mr. Thompson's Report we shall only extract the following for after consideration:

Manuscripts having their text written in Rustic Capitals, and without separation of words, and not later than the sixth or seventh century. are generally to be accepted as of great antiquity, The impression which the writing of the Utrecht Psalter conveys to the eye is, that though the style is old, the forms of the letters are not true. There is a weakness and uncertainty about the strokes which force one to feel that the scribe is

writing in a character to which he is not habitually accustomed. The marks of punctuation the colour of the ink being the same." appear to be contemporaneous with the writing;

We cannot enter upon the other Reports which accompany these, and we conclude this portion of the subject with an extract from Prof. Westwood's Report:

"The use of the Rustic writing was common

from the sixth to the twelfth century; scarcely a good manuscript exists in which some portion is not in that character. In the ninth century Gospels, used for the Coronation of the Anglo-Saxon Kings (Tiberius A. II.), there is an entire page (p. 112) in golden rustic letters, and it is childish to affirm that, because an entire Manuscript is so written, it must necessarily be of the fourth, fifth, or sixth centuries."

This statement is contradictory of the Professor's opinion mentioned at the beginning of

this article.

Having proceeded thus far with our consideration of the subjects, we draw our remarks this week to a close. A careful

memnona."

People,' who, seeing everything through Norman-French spectacles, supposes that, of all the names in the London Postal Directory, the "Norman names constitute about a quarter of the whole," a proportion which we take to be nearly twice as large as the facts will warrant. When, for example, we find the name of Strong, it by no means follows that it is a mere translation of the French Fort; whereas, when we find, on the other hand, the name of Fort, we cannot always be sure that it may not, after all, be a mere translation of the English Strong. And, so far from conceding that Strong is a "translation," we hold that the English were capable of conferring such an epithet without any assistance whatever from the Normans. The title is not a very new one. "Vixere fortes ante AgaReturning, however, to the work now under notice, we may remark that the general outline of the book could hardly have been better. It is mainly divided into six chapters, the subjects of which are kept, as far as was practicable, quite distinct. These chapters severally treat of the following classes of surnames: 1, patronymic surnames; 2, local surnames; 3, surnames of office; 4, surnames of occupation in the country; 5, surnames of occupations in towns; and 6, nicknames. Strictly speaking, all surnames may be called nicknames, but the above division is perfectly intelligible and explicit, and nicknames may fairly be restricted to what Mr. Bardsley calls "those fortuitous and accidental sobriquets which, once expressive of peculiar and individual characteristics, have survived the age in which they sprang." Of all these classes, that which is treated in the least satisfactory manner is the first one, that of patronymics. This class is so well marked out from the rest, and so intimately connected with the subject of Christian names, that it deserves fuller treatment than we find here, especially in the direction of some discussion of the origin of the Christian names themselves; still, this defect is in a great measure supplied by the well-known work upon the subject by Miss Yonge, to which the reader must continually refer. We also notice a considerable want of system in the details; the author frequently wanders from one name to another without any particular connexion or reason, apparently with the design of making his book more readable; but what is gained in gossip is lost in distinctness, till the reader finds himself drifting hither and thither instead of making constant and steady progress. Failing other systems, the alphabetical order might have been adopted, and then one would at any rate have been enabled to turn readily to the name required. However, Mr. Bardsley promises us a Dictionary of Surnames hereafter upon a larger scale, and we hope his work will then appear in a form more convenient, and will be written in a style more thorough, scholarly, and systematic. Indeed, if such a Dictionary is to be of much service, it will be no light undertaking. It is requisite that the whole should appear under one alphabet, and that the sixfold division, here conveniently adopted, should be supplanted by a mark at once indicative of the class of the surname. Every modern variation of the surname, or at least all the most characteristic ones, should be set down in order, with cross-reference to the

typical form, under which should appear the class, the quotations or instances (with exact references), a list of the various spellings or variations, and, in many cases, a reference again to some form still more general under which the typical forms can be grouped. Thus, under the root-word David would come a list of all its derivatives, as Davies, Davidson, Dawe, Dawson, Dawes, Dawkes, Dawkins, Dayes, Dayson, Dakins, &c., whilst these would require to be again registered, each in its own place, with examples both ancient and modern. Or again, under the word Bow we might place Bowman, Bowyer, Bowmaker, &c., whilst Bowyer would include the variations Bower and Boyer; and it would be further necessary, under Bower, to consider the various sources of that form, since it may mean either, 1, a bowyer, from the root Bow; or 2, a bower, from the A.S. búan, to build. The more closely the matter is examined, the more the necessity for a perfectly clear, sharp, systematic arrangement will appear; and these remarks are the more necessary, because a thorough, trustworthy, and convenient dictionary of this character is really very much wanted.

It is because we look for something fuller and better at Mr. Bardsley's hands that we proceed at once to point out some of his errors, dismissing the book, as a whole, with the remark that it is a work with which all who are interested in the subject should certainly make themselves well acquainted.

It is a principle of philology to keep forms of words in chronological order, and not to look upon early forms as corruptions of late ones. Yet this simple principle is frequently lost sight of. Thus, Mr. Bardsley actually tells us that "atte-Borough" is now become Atten-borough or Atterbury" (p. 85); and, on the preceding page, that "atte, when a vowel preceded the name proper, was, for the sake of euphony, extended to atten." But we are not told what there is so peculiarly euphonious about the letter n that the word was extended by help of that letter instead of by b, or d, or x; whilst ther in Atterbury is left unexplained altogether, as if it were a mere vagary. If, for all this vagueness, we substitute the philological principle of chronological etymology, all the facts are both explained and reconciled. If we had to write "at the town" in Anglo-Saxon, we should put at there byrig, because the substantive burh (our borough) becomes byrig (bury) in the dative, and, being a feminine noun, must take the feminine article, viz., there. That this form can be corrupted into Atterbury is easily seen. But when the gender of borough was no longer remembered, and its mode of declination less cared for, the common masculine prefix atten❘ (a corruption of at them) was placed before it, and the result was Attenborough, so that the imaginary "euphony" of the letter n resolves itself merely into this, that it is easier to sound than the letter m. It was still easier to drop it altogether, and to turn "atten cliffe" into Atcliff.

At p. 93, two distinct words are confused, and we are told that "the lee afforded shelter to all manner of domestic livestock," and hence Horsley, Cowley, and the like. But the fact is that it is not always possible to say whether the ending ley means a lea or a lee, i. e., whether it is a pasture or a shelter. The former, lea, is

short for A.S. leah, the guttural of which is preserved in Leigh or Legh, and has the meaning of fallow-land, from the verb to lie; just as in Icelandic we have the phrase liggja í leg, to lie waste, literally to lie in lea. But lee is from A.S. hleó, a shelter, and connected with Icel. hlé, as in the phrases standa í hlé, to stand in shelter, sigla í hlé, to sail to leeward. The two ideas are not only totally different, but entirely unconnected; and, since the letter y commonly represents the A.S. h or g, the chances are that Mr. Bardsley has just selected the wrong word of the two. It is clear that he has entirely neglected a certain important work, known as Kemble's 'Codex Diplomaticus. So, again, when he proves from Stow that Billiter Lane is corrupted from Belzetars Lane, and, further, quotes the name Esmon Belleyeter, he should have added that the z in Belzetar is not a z at all, but merely the old character for the soft g or y, so that what he calls its "uncouth orthography" is, in fact, the key to the derivation. The A.S. geotan means to pour out, and the bell-yeter is the pourer out of the bell, and, we need hardly add, means a bell-founder, whom the Germans call a Glockengiesser, from the same root, giessen, to pour. Though we have not kept the word yet in the sense of to pour, we still have the cognate neuter verb to gush, and the substantive gutter. A "gushing" young lady is, of course, merely from a philological point of view, suggestive of an Icelandic Geysir.

The name Peel, or Peile, is set down as a nickname, aud connected with the verb to peel, as used in Ezekiel xxix. 18. But, whilst we grant that it may have been thus used in a few cases, the obvious course is to regard it as a local name, from the old word peel, in the sense of a small fort; so that George Peele, for example, would mean George of the fortress. The word is found in Robert of Brunne, in Barbour, and in the third book of Chaucer's 'House of Fame,'—

God save the lady of this pele! The poet Leyden says—

Invidious rust corrodes the bloody steel;

Dark and dismantled lies each ancient peel. And what renders this explanation the more probable is that the name is most used in the North of England, where the small borderfortresses, known as peels, were most commonly found.

At p. 287, we read that "our modern linen is but enlarged from the old lin or line, flax." The distinction is rather that they differ just as golden differs from gold, the one being the substantive, the other the adjective form. The word linen is properly, then, an adjective, like woollen; but it is easy to see how it can be used by itself, exactly as woollen can be in the phrase "to wear woollen." Hence Lyndraper and Lyner are formed, naturally enough, from the same source as linseed. Attention to the old spelling is of much importance. Thus, with regard to the name Thackeray, we find the author of 'The Norman People' claiming it as Norman, as being a corruption of Tanqueray, or Tankeré, in Normandy. This supposition is, on the face of it, unlikely, because the sound of th may be relied upon as being English, not Norman-French. Mr. Bardsley notes the spelling Thackwray, and therein we see a possible solution of the puzzle. The w was not inserted for nothing, and the wr was a sound peculiarly English.

Now

If we could find any proof of the connexion of the syllable wray with the A.S. wréon, to cover, we might venture to interpret Thackwray as one who covers with thatch. In any case, we may be sure that the sense of the name does not widely differ from that of Thatcher.

In one or two passages, Mr. Bardsley speaks of the "author of Piers Plowman.'" Having thus shown that he is aware that Piers Plowman is the name, not of an author, but of a book, he in most other places cites it as if it were an author; and we are forced to regard such reprehensible carelessness as something worse than ignorance. Equally strange is the statement on page 72, that the author of 'Piers Plowman' speaks of "Bad Bette, the bocher," as if bad were an adjective. A reference to the passage, ed. Wright, p. 96, or B-text, V. 330, will show that bad is here the past tense of the verb to bid, and that, for all we know, the general conduct of Bette may have been sufficiently good. And when quotations are given from Chaucer, why should they be given in a garbled form? When Chaucer writes "For she was, as it were, a maner deye," Mr. Bardsley turns this into "a kind of dey"; and when Chaucer says that the widow had "doughtren tuo," this is modernized into the singular form "daughters three" (!) These mistaken modernizations serve no useful purpose; they do not make Chaucer any easier to read, and the value of the quotation is destroyed. There is, moreover, no reference to the tale of Chaucer in

which these expressions occur. These remarks will show that the book still requires consider able improvement and a careful revision, wherein such misprints as "Lawrence Mind" for "Lawrence Minot," p. 417, may advantageously be corrected at the same time. The derivations from the Old English, in particular, should receive much more attention. The danger of writing a "popular" book is, that it is so likely to become slipshod; and this danger Mr. Bardsley has by no means always

avoided.

"On his way (into Georgia) the inhabitants of Shesha offered to deliver up to him that important fortress. Three days after he had occupied it two of his personal attendants offended the King in remembering that it was Friday evening, which some way, and he ordered them to be killed; but was devoted to prayer, he agreed to spare them until the next morning. To Agha Mohammed that morning never came. By an extraordinary oversight, these men were allowed to be at liberty and about his person. They determined to murder their King, but to make sure of their prey persuaded another man to assist them. These three to death. There seems some reason for suspecting entered the monarch's tent, and soon stabbed him that one of the leading generals, Sadek Khan Shekaki, knew something beforehand of this deed, for he protected the assassins."

The above, but for the names, is an exact description of the death of Abbas Pasha, the late Viceroy of Egypt, in which case also the murderers were protected by a personage high in authority. One of them was living quite recently in good circumstances at Constantinople.

There are

a number of capital stories scattered throughout the book, and told in an entertaining manner, but not altogether free now and then from an insinuation of political scandal. Thus,—

"When the Governor of Bombay sent Mehdi Ali Khan to persuade the Shah of Persia to go to war with Afghanistan, he brought with him a letter of credentials, empowering him to make a substantial offer for the services of the Persian monarch. But when he found the Shah eager to attack Afghangeneral document for this, and returned to India istan, the cunning envoy substituted a more in triumph."

THE British public when asked to read a work on Persia likes to be told that it takes an interest in the "cradle of civilization," the "home of the Early Aryans," &c.; but Mr. Piggot is more honest and plain-spoken, for he owns that he has written the present work to meet "the demand for information respecting the Land of the Shah.'" Although professing to give an account of both ancient and modern Persia, the author does not tell us much about the former, dismissing the whole history, legendary and otherwise, from Cyrus to Tamerlane in one chapter; in the next he hurries us over the Seffavean (Sufí) dynasty, the career of Nadir Shah, &c., and comes without loss of time to the Cajar dynasty, to which the late London Lion belongs. The account of these princes will be found pleasing, if not instructive, reading. The tone is temperate, and the details, for the most part, correct; although in certain cases,as in the narrative of the execution of Mirza Tekí Khán, the Shah's brother-in-law, and of the affair with Mr. Murray, who, in 1858, conceiving himself insulted, withdrew the

A certain Persian prince's excuse for polygamy is amusing and original. Speaking of English ladies, he said, "Wallah! they are fresher and more lovely after forty than our women are at twenty-five. Thus, one English woman is worth, at least, ten Persians, and so we take quantity to make up for quality. Had we English women, then one would suffice."

Mr. Piggot does not lay claim to original research, but he has made good use of the materials collected by others, and the result is a clear, readable, and truthful account of the political history of modern Persia. The chapters on the religion of the country are also well done, the abstracts of the Magian, Muslim, and Bábí doctrines being both clear and accurate. The Passion Play appears to be as popular in Persia as in Bavaria, and the death of Hassan and Hussein, the two great martyrs of the Shiah sect, is yearly commemorated by a dramatic representation of the tragic incident. "When the audience has

been worked up into passionate grief, it is not unusual for men to rush through the streets cutting themselves with knives, and crying 'Hassan! Hussein!'" It is curious to see existing at the present day in the Land of the Sun the self-same barbaric enthusiasm as that exhibited by those other Sun-worshippers whom Elijah so signally defeated on Mount Carmel. Interesting, too, is the notice of the Nestorians of Persia, a small community of Christians retaining many Jewish customs, and still calling themselves Kaldání or Chaldean. They represent, probably, one of the earliest forms of Christianity.

To compile from extraneous sources an account of a literature with which one is the history of the people to which it belongs. unacquainted, is a different thing from writing It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that this portion of Mr. Piggot's book is the least satisfactory. Instead of being an intelligent and comprehensive account of the literature itself, it is a confused jumble of biographical of Persian works by Sir Gore Ouseley, Sir J. notices taken at random from the translations Malcolm, &c.; while to quote Oriental names as authorities, and to make such blunders as "Habib us sayr, 'the traveller's friend,' by Feriata," for Habib us siyar, "the lover of biographies," by Ferishta, is sheer pedantry. The remaining chapters on the commerce, arts, and military organization of the country, as well as those on the inhabitants, produce, physical characteristics, &c., contain a great deal of useful and well-digested information. chapter on the Crown Jewels will also, no doubt, interest many, especially as some of the gems described were so recently displayed in this country on the person of their royal owner. pretending but carefully compiled work, and 'Persia, Ancient and Modern,' is an unif the distorted and mis-spelt Oriental names which disfigure its every page were but corrected, the book might be confidently recommended to all who desire information about ordinary interest for the antiquarian, but a country which not only possesses extra

The

seems destined to afford a new field for modern enterprise.

The Superhuman Origin of the Bible Inferred from Itself. The Congregational Lecture for 1873. By H. Rogers. (Hodder & Stoughton.)

Supernatural Religion: an Inquiry into the Reality of Divine Revelation. 2 vols. (Longmans & Co.)

It may be doubted whether it is a wise thing to revive the Congregational Lecture. The religious denomination from which the project proceeds had tried the thing with indifferent success. No fund had been collected or invested for the purpose; and, when at length the series degenerated into an exposition of the old covenant theology, the publishers refused to undertake such matter unless they were secured against loss. The rival of the Bampton Lecture came to an end because it did not sell or pay. Whether there is more literary ability or taste in the body at present, we cannot tell: shrewd observers think there is less; the decline in the quality of the students proceeding out of the colleges being pretty well marked. In truth, literature does not thrive in the soil of Dissent. Theological

The volume before us comes from a littérateur rather than a theologian, and consists of a series of essays about the Bible. In it, the author flutters around a multiplicity of topics with considerable tact. He writes in a lucid style, prudently setting forth such characteristics of his theme as are fitted to confirm the reader in the belief everywhere implied as the only true one. As a thinker, his ideas move in a limited region, without depth or compass. They are weighed in a small scale, and are comparatively light. The volume is occupied with the internal evidences for the Bible's superhuman origin. Hence, miracles and prophecy are merely touched upon in a few places, without any proper treatment. The tone is apologetic. Butler's analogy-argument is urged and expanded. So is that of "undesigned coincidences," which Paley and others have ingeniously developed. Familiar with the old deistical controversy, especially with the replies which the Deists called forth, Mr. Rogers's mind is saturated with the method of Butler, the writings of Whately, Hampden's essay on the philosophical evidence of Christianity, Dr. Mozley's Bampton Lecture, Davison on Prophecy, with Pascal's 'Thoughts' and Paley's works, as well as Boyle on the style of Scripture. He advances nothing that has not been said as well before, and his studies savour of the past. The lectures in substance might have been published many age. His belief must have been formed and years ago, as the writer is much behind the stereotyped at a time when criticism had not made the advances it has within the last thirty

years.

The object of the nine lectures is to prove that the Bible, in its substance, had a superhuman origin; but the lecturer never describes what is meant by superhuman, and, therefore, he often beats the air, arguing against shadows, and conjuring up objections that have no existence. The very first thing he should have clearly defined is, how and how far the Bible is superhuman. How and how far were the sacred writers inspired, aided, guided, superintended, in all their productions? The gene ralities to which the author confines himself, the negations of his argumentation, the vague reflections he indulges in, the abstinence from grappling with the great difficulties of the Bible, and the errors he falls into, render the work all but valueless. Cautious as he is, superficial, and ignorant of much that has. been well written on the books of Scripture, he does not see the vulnerable character of Butler's argument; for if it is natural to meet with the same mysteries in a written revelation as belong to external nature, the idea will suggest itself, why was a revelation given? If it do not solve difficulties and clear up mysteries, what object worthy of God does it serve? Is it encumbered with the like insoluble problems as natural religion? Is it not the very object of a revelation to unfold what is not otherwise known, to make clear what is otherwise dark, to do away with at

least the principal difficulties inherent in the constitution and course of nature by showing God's interpretation of them?

It is superfluous to point out how the author's assumptions are not warranted by the language of the Gospels, as in pp. 37-39; or how he of the Gospels, as in pp. 37-39; or how he argues against opinions held by nobody, as where he supposes that certain critics hold the Jewish histories contained in the Old Testament to be fictions. The evasion of difficulties, or at least an inadequate explanation of them, is exemplified in p. 134; wrong interpretations of Scripture in pp. 61 and 166, 167. Many of his statements about the unity of the Bible need qualification. But it did not suit his purpose to emphasize the diversities: rather was it required to pass them in silence. At the same time we observe a good spirit in regard to rationalists, and an amount of fair dealing not often met with. The best part of the book is that in which he walks closely in the path of Butler's 'Analogy' and Hampden's essay. Where an intimate acquaintance with the Bible is most needed he is weakest, for he has no critical acquaintance with its contents, some of the ablest treatises written to explain them being beyond the sphere of his knowledge. The age has outgrown Mr. Rogers's circle of books and authorities; and serious inquirers, we fear, will not be satisfied with his arguments as long as they consist of feeble sentences hiding pertinency and poverty of thought. It is not enough to move on in sleepy unconsciousness of all that the best Biblical Introductions contain, or in self-complacent disdain towards their writers. When he boldly affirms that the four Evangelists have all written in the same unique style, and talks largely about unity of style in the writers of the Bible generally, he looks Chronicles with the Kings, or of the Apocalypse away from a comparison of the books of with the Fourth Gospel. The gradual develop ment, too, of which he speaks in the Old Testament is not marred in his eyes by such books as Esther or Ecclesiastes, for they are unnoticed. What is wanted is the union of Mr. Rogers's devout belief with a better appreciation of the divine records; the combination of faith with reason, not the absolute subjection of the latter to the former, to which his view would reduce religion. In the present instance he has undertaken a task to which he is unequal. Holding with him that the Bible is in substance superhuman, though, perhaps, not precisely in his way, we find the subject treated in the narrow fashion of Dissenting orthodoxy aged fifty years. He is not an impartial inquirer, but an apologetic essayist, throwing a multitude of little stones together to form an edifice which he thinks impregnable, though the stones are sometimes injurious to it. The discussion is conducted on an antiquated level, apart from thorough acquaintance with the divine records.

The second book, that on Supernatural Religion, is of a character wholly different. The author of it affirms that his main object "has been conscientiously and fully to state the facts of the case, to make no assertions the grounds for which are not clearly given, and, as far as possible, to place before the reader the materials from which a judgment may be intelligently formed regarding the important subject discussed." After an Introduction the book is divided into three parts, the first treat

ing of miracles in six chapters. Here the whole subject is copiously handled with reference to the latest expositors. The author comments on Archbishop Trench, Prof. Mozley, and Dr. Newman; criticizes Paley and Mill; and defends Hume's reasoning. About two hundred pages are devoted to the subject in its different aspects, all bearing on miracles as evidence for a divine revelation. The second part examines the date and authenticity of the literary evidence for miracles, beginning with the apostolic fathers. Here Clement of Rome, Barnabas, Hermas, Ignatius, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Hegesippus, Papias, are minutely canvassed. These are followed, in successive chapters, by the Clementines, Epistle to Diognetus, Basilides, Valentinus, Marcion, Tatian, Dionysius of Corinth, Melito, Apollinaris, Athenagoras, Epistle of Vienne and Lyons, Ptolemy and Heracleon, Celsus and the Muratorian Canon. After exhausting the literature and the testimony relating to the synoptic Gospels, he finds no distinct trace of any one of those Gospels during the first century and a half after the death of Jesus. The third part is occupied with the fourth Gospel, its authorship and character, as well as the external evidence in its favour. The general conclusion arrived at is thus stated:

"We gain infinitely more than we lose in abandoning belief in the reality of Divine Revelation, Whilst we retain pure and unimpaired the treasure of Christian Morality, we relinquish nothing but the debasing elements added to it by human superstition. We are no longer bound to believe a theology which outrages Reason and moral sense. We are freed from base anthropomorphic views of God and his government of the universe; and from Jewish mythology we rise to higher conceptions of an infinitely wise and beneficent Being, hidden from our finite minds it is true in the ever perceive in operation around us. impenetrable glory of Divinity, but whose Laws of wondrous comprehensiveness and perfection we We are no longer disturbed by visions of fitful interference with the order of Nature, but we recognize that the Being who regulates the universe is without variableness or shadow of turning. It is singular how little there is in the supposed Revelation of that which is beyond the limits of human thought, alleged information, however incredible, regarding but that little is of a character which reason de

clares to be the 'wildest delusion.' Let no man whose belief in the reality of Divine Revelation may be destroyed by such inquiry complain that he has lost a precious possession, and that nothing is left but a blank. The Revelation not being a reality, that which he has lost was but an illusion, and that which is left is the Truth. If he be content with illusions he will speedily be consoled; if he be a lover only of truth, instead of a blank he will recognize that the reality before him is full of great peace."

The book proceeds from a man of ability, a scholar and reasoner, whose discussions are conducted in a judicial method. He writes like an earnest seeker after truth, looking around at all particulars pertaining to his inquiries, and following up every question to its proper end. We have been struck with his complete mastery of the literature. He knows well all German and Dutch books relating to the criticism of the New Testament, as well as the English ones. His scholarship, indeed, is apparent throughout. In discussing the passages in Justin Martyr, supposed to show that father's acquaintance with the Gospels, he can criticize the acutest German authors, and expose the defects of Dr. Westcott on the Canon. Too much attention, indeed,