which in many cases there are only a few lines of print to show, and they give one just what he wants.

This dictionary has also the acceptable note of general fairness and freedom from bias. It has to deal with a considerable number of subjects on which opinion is sharply divided, and on which the mind is apt to be swayed by doctrinal leanings and ecclesiastical preferences. The words Baptism, Bishop, Church suggest much, and one turns with some curiosity, if not anxiety, to the articles which grapple with such perilous terms. It will be generally confessed, however, that they are done with remarkable impartiality, that the controversial element has not been permitted to obtrude itself, and that the writers have succeeded in keeping by an objective treatment of these questions. Nothing could be better than the short paper on the word Bishop by Professor Gwatkin, of Cambridge, (a model of precision, sobriety, and impartiality), the longer paper on the word Church, by Mr S. C. Gaysford, and another by Professor Gwatkin on Church Government. It may be noticed that the general equivalence of the offices of bishops and elders in the Apostolic age is admitted, while it is added that we are not to assume that every bishop was an elder, or vice versa, or that "there never were any minor differences between them." Professor Gwatkin refers to Harnack's theory that the duties of elders and bishops differed in so far as the care of public worship and of the poor belonged to the bishops (with the deacons), while the elders looked to government and discipline. He acknowledges that it explains some things, and that there may be a germ of truth in it. But he is not prepared to accept it without important reservations, considering it unlikely that there should have been so distinct a separation of duties. "If the elders," he says, "began with discipline and general oversight, they would be likely soon to take up more spiritual duties, as the seven did. Those who had gifts to minister the word and teaching would rather be honoured than hindered; so that many of them might easily be doing pastoral work (especially if they were bishops also) before the end of the Apostolic age."

The larger articles are a tempting field, which one can do little more than glance at, however, in present circumstances. Most of them are, in a high degree, satisfactory. Some of them are of conspicuous merit. Those on Assyria and Babylonia are worthy of the reputation of their author, Professor Hommel. There is a particularly full, informing and attractive paper on Egypt, by one of our best Coptic scholars, Mr W. E. Crum. The subjects Architecture, Bible, Cosmogony, Ethiopia are well handled. The paper on the Chronology of the Bible, by Professor Curtis and Mr C. H. Turner, is of an extremely elaborate order. It amounts almost to a

treatise, and is of marked ability. The papers on geographical words, Argob, Bashan, Carmel, Corinth, Damascus, Dead Sea, Ephesus, &c., by the hands of scholars like Professors Driver, Ramsay, G. A. Smith, Mr W. A. Ewing, and others, are full of interest. The Route of the Exodus, by Professor Rendel Harris and Mr A. T. Chapman; the Apocalyptic Literature, by Mr R. H. Charles; and the Apocrypha, by Professor F. C. Porter, are also pieces of excellent workmanship.

But we must not omit to refer to the articles which deal with subjects belonging to the department of Introduction. Of the Old Testament, the books of Amos, Chronicles, Daniel, Deuteronomy, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Exodus, Ezekiel, and Ezra come within the limits of this volume; of the New Testament books, Acts, Colossians, Corinthians, and Ephesians. These present some of the greatest difficulties in criticism. There could be no better test of one's capacity or of one's judgment than is furnished by some of these. They will be examined with special interest. We cannot say that they are each of them all that could be desired. They differ in quality. But they all give one more or less what he looks for in a dictionary. Some of them have a dash of originality, and make a distinct contribution to their subject. Ezekiel is done by a scholar who has already written ably on that book, and is a very satisfactory performance. Exodus is treated with great fulness of knowledge, and with evident command of the criticism of the subject, by one whose hand is new to us in this line of thingsMr G. Harford-Battersby. Professor Ryle, of Cambridge, gives us seven pages of compact statement and clear analysis on Deuteronomy, and contrives within these modest limits to carry us over questions on which volumes have been written. Professor Francis Brown, of Union Seminary, New York, is the author of an article on the books of Chronicles, which represents a vast amount of work of a minute and detailed kind. An elaborate analysis of the style is given, with all the different classes of peculiarities-lexical and syntactical. The question of date is examined with exhaustive care, the conclusion reached being that Chronicles was not written before B.C. 300, and may have been as late as B.C. 250. The questions of the sources, the character of the Chronicler, and the value of his chronicles, are also handled very fully and with marked ability. The Chronicler is shown to be a man of "great sincerity and moral earnestness," incapable of falsification, although in writing of David and Solomon he presented "strongly and without qualification those sides of their character which appealed to him," and depicted "the religion of their time according to what seemed to him the necessary conditions of righteousness." As to the history, the whole conception

66

of it, it is added, was not that of a mere individual, but that of an age, from which the individual could not separate himself." And as to the value of the books, though "it is not mainly that of an accurate record of past events," it is real and great-the value, however, more of a sermon than of a history." Chronicles is a particularly difficult subject to deal with. Professor Brown has performed his task in an eminently thorough and judicious way, keeping in the main by a critical position similar to that of Professor Robertson Smith.

Of the New Testament writings, the Book of Acts is dealt with at greatest length. Mr Headlam's article goes into all the great questions of text, transmission, literary history, sources, relations of the book to Josephus, and historical value. It gives also a very full bibliography, and is altogether an important contribution. The statement of the case for and against the early date is put with great care. The arguments against placing it soon after the close of the narrative are pronounced to be not very strong. But the final view is rather the other way. "Perhaps, on the whole," says the writer, "the amount of perspective contained in the book is hardly compatible with the earlier date, just as the relation of the third Gospel to the other two suggests the later date, and a period shortly after 70 is the more probable." Colossians by Mr J. O. F. Murray, and Ephesians by Dr Walter Lock are also able performances. The article on the latter is of special interest for the view it gives of the structure of the Epistle. What is lacking in it is a completer statement of the great doctrinal ideas. Some of the largest and most characteristic of these are barely noticed. All else in this scholarly article is dealt with at length and with great precision.

Publishers and editor are to be congratulated on what they have accomplished. They have laid us under great obligations. Their enterprise deserves the best return.

S. D. F. SALMOND.

Die theologische Schule Albrecht Ritschl's und die evangelische Kirche der Gegenwart.

Von Gustav Ecke, Pastor am evang. Diakonissenhause in Bremen. 1 Band. Berlin Reuther & Reichard; Edinburgh and London: Williams & Norgate, 1897. 8vo, pp. xii. 316. Price, M.5.

THE above volume opens a new line in the criticism of Ritschl's teaching. Hitherto, that criticism has been mainly hostile. Herr Ecke, while criticising as an earnest evangelical believer all that

he holds unevangelical, is much more anxious to discover points of agreement or, at least, of approximate agreement. This he does with ample knowledge of his subject. Much of his information as to the present views of members of the Ritschlian school is gathered from the pages of scattered periodicals and pamphlets, which are difficult of access to those at a distance. He writes, too, in a clear, flowing style. While possibly it may be open to debate whether his eirenical spirit has not sometimes coloured his judgments, there can be no doubt that he has succeeded in removing or modifying some serious misconceptions, and in showing that the views of the school have undergone very considerable development. Our author says, truly enough, that some misconceptions have been due in great measure to Ritschl himself, to his obscure modes of expression, and to strong idiosyncrasies of temperament. Ritschl is pictured as predominantly intellectual and ethical, with little or no feeling for the spiritual or mystical side of religion. Everything is brought to the test of practice. What does not submit itself to experience is condemned. The stress laid on valuejudgments (Werthurtheile) is evidence of this, although we are surprised to find that little is made of this element in the present volume. Such judgments are virtually discarded as of little importance in Ritschl's system, as they have been discarded by noted Ritschlians. Another surprising feature is what is said respecting R.'s theory of knowledge. With his intensely utilitarian spirit, it always seemed strange that so much emphasis should be laid on a philosophy of knowledge. We are now assured that this is no essential part of the system. Noted disciples, like Professor Herrmann, disclaim it altogether. How, then, is the importance attached to the question by Professor Kaftan, in his Truth of the Christian Religion, to be explained?

As an example of misconception due to obscurity of expression, we may instance R.'s views of the nature of sin, which was described as springing from ignorance. The inadequacy of such an account is evident at a glance. It is now said that all that R. intended was to distinguish sin that is forgiveable from the impenitence that has no forgiveness. Writers who use such circuitous phraseology invite misunderstanding.

The striking feature in the book is the account of the modifications that have taken place in the views of the Ritschlian school. These amount to little less than a transformation. Nothing is clearer than that the rift between the right and left wings is ever becoming more pronounced, the former apparently having the predominance. The left wing is represented by Professors Harnack, Gottschick, and Wendt. Even here there is serious modification in a negative sense. Our author well points out that, while

Ritschl himself held to apostolic teaching as interpreting Christ's, Harnack and his school give apostolic teaching an inferior position, making Christ's teaching our sole authority. On the whole, however, these writers adhere most closely to Ritschl's main lines.

The right wing, represented by Häring, Kattenbusch, Herrmann, Loofs, Drews, Lobstein, has made quite remarkable approaches to the evangelical position on such fundamental doctrines as Christ's Godhead, the Atonement, and individual fellowship with God. The two last questions are decisive examples of the change in progress. It is well known how emphatic Ritschl was in his opposition to the ideas of propitiation and of personal fellowship with God in every shape and form. Our author gives a long list of quotations, showing beyond question that both ideas are accepted and earnestly advocated by prominent Ritschlians. On the question of fellowship, Herrmann's pronounced subjectivism is remarkable. How it could have escaped the heavy lash that fell on Pietism, it is difficult to see. Evangelical believers can only rejoice at the development and its promise of future co-operation. It would seem as if the only difference will soon be simply modes of expression, and Protestants need not quarrel about these.

What binds members of the school together is the acceptance of Ritschl's three canons of method or procedure. These are- -(1) The confession of the first Christian Church is the source and norm of Dogmatics; (2) The Person of Christ is the measure for grouping the matter of Scripture; (3) Theological knowledge in its innermost essence has salvation for its end (p. 175). This seems to be all that is accepted as distinctive of R.'s teaching; all detail is optional. It may well be said that it is no longer possible to speak of " a homogeneous Ritschlian school.' The differences between master and followers are more numerous than the points of agreement. Of course it will be said that the unity is in the essential principle or method, the divergence in details. "This development, as delightful as it is surprising, within the Ritschlian school has been made possible by the fact that the formal arrangement of the Ritschlian system admits a richer employment of the Biblical matter than was found in Ritschl himself, so that R.'s principles of method, when they are logically carried out in the sense of the deeper motives at work in them, must of necessity lead to a transformation of the contents of his entire system " (p. 311). J. S. BANKS.