sufficient exegesis of the words, 'Now abideth faith;' nor does it tell against Clement any more than Dr. Fisher's arguments tell against the position of St. Thomas Aquinas 'that as fast as science advances faith is displaced.' With a somewhat strange inconsistency Dr. Fisher says, 'Faith, to be sure, includes a perception of truth; ' and, again, he defines faith as a practical experience.' There is a sense, of course, in which these statements are true, but in writings of this kind more precision is expected. When we come to the body of the work, and to the statement of the opinions he has to cite and discuss, Dr. Fisher, in the chapters we have taken to test his work, is always fair and impartial. When dealing with the opinions of St. Augustine, as for instance, as to faith, he is a little perplexed, as writing from his strictly orthodox Presbyterian point of view he might almost be expected to be. The chronology of the concluding chapters is somewhat mixed, and the presentation of opinions, as, for instance, those of F. D. Maurice, is somewhat sketchy. There is no attempt to show, or rather to sum up, the gains of theological thought during the long course of its history; nor is there to show the influence which science has had upon it, or the way in which its contents have been enriched by scientific discoveries. Assuming with Dr. Fisher that phenomena are revelations of reality,' and with Spencer that there is an Ultimate Reality which all things are continually making manifest,' a doctrine, we suspect, which Dr. Fisher does not deny, one would have thought that in a book on the History of Christian Doctrine, and abounding so much in obiter dicta as Dr. Fisher's does, a chapter on this subject would have found a place. Still, though scarcely reaching up to the high standard set by Dr. Driver's work for the series, Dr. Fisher's volume fills a place hitherto vacant in English theological literature, and will doubtless prove acceptable to that large class of readers for whom it has been specially prepared. The Apostolic Gospel with a Critical Reconstruction of the Text. By J. FULTON BLAIR, B.D. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1896.

This volume divides itself into three parts, viz., an Introduction, a translation of what the author conceives to have been the text of the Apostolic Gospel, and lastly, an elaborate commentary, consisting for the most part of proofs and arguments in support of the reconstructed text. It will thus be seen that the volume is one of considerable importance, and that it is devoted to the solution of one of the most controverted theological problems of the day. Mr. Blair is not in entire agreement with the foremost critics in Germany. He is in agreement with Weiss and Wendt as to the existence of an Apostolic Gospel, but at variance with them as to its contents and the way in which it has been used in the compilation or construction of the first and third Gospels and as to its relations to the fourth Gospel, as also on other points. Like them he accepts the second Gospel as forming the framework of the first and third, and admits that if we had no more than the second and third Gospels any reconstruction of the text of the Apostolic source would be impossible, and the question he seeks to answer is, 'Can we with the help of the parallel incidents and logia in Matthew and in the fourth Gospel, or from a comparison of the data given in the whole of the Gospels, construct the text of the Apostolic source?' His argument is not without considerable ingenuity. First of all he calls in the aid of the scientific imagination and asks: If Luke had in his hands besides Mark's Gospel, a Gospel of high authority which he wished to combine with Mark's; if this Gospel consisted not merely of logia with a few selected events, but of all the facts which were known to

the writer from the beginning of the ministry to the Cross; if these facts were narrated in their chronological order, and in many cases were parallel to Mark's facts; and finally, if for reasons which are capable of definition, this Gospel had been largely superseded by Mark, which was richer in incidents but contained much less of the teaching, so that Mark had become the standard of history before the third Gospel was written, what would be the probable characteristics of the combination thus proposed and effected? Mr. Blair's answer is-'It is quite conceivable, on the one hand, that the editor, with such documents before him, would supplement Mark's narratives seriatim by material derived from the other authority, and would gather into long discourses the teaching which permitted such treatment. Or, on the other hand, he might, while not altogether neglecting this method, insert in Mark's framework, at appropriate places, accumulations of loose material derived from the other source; and in such a case the following phenomena might be confidently predicted. First, the incidents taken from Mark, and already recorded in the history, would not be repeated by the editor, although contained in the other source, if such incidents were recognised as identical. Secondly, a few incidents in their different versions would not be recognised as clearly identical, and therefore duplication would arise. Thirdly, Mark being accepted and followed as the standard, the original arrangement of the other source would be entirely upset by combination; the bones would be removed from the body, and thus a new editorial arrangement, especially of the teaching, would be permitted, and indeed would be inevitable.' Assuming the existence of the 'Apostolic Source' all this is of course quite conceivable. It is quite as conceivable also that an editor may have adopted another course. So too is it that the editors of the first and third Gospels may have used what were practically independent sources in order to fill out the framework supplied by the second Gospel. At the same time it cannot be denied that on the assumption of the existence of the Apostolic source, what Mr. Blair here says furnishes what may at least be called a working hypothesis, and is borne out by the contents and differences of the Gospels Matthew and Luke. For, as he points out, the characteristics of the combination, in the case of the first Gospel, agree precisely with the first of the imagined alternatives, while the method adopted in the third Gospel, on the other hand, is in agreement with the second, even to the extent of exhibiting the phenomena which might be expected in the case supposed. This fact, which has hitherto been overlooked by critics, is of supreme importance for Mr. Blair's theory. Accordingly in the passages occurring in the third Gospel and not occurring in the second, and in those occurring in the first Gospel and not in the second and third he finds traces of the Apostolic source; but not all the Gospels contain. 'We possess additional data,' he says, which enable us to advance to much larger results.' Some of these additional data are in the passages where the first and third evangelists differ both from St. Mark and from each other; others are supplied by textual evidence and a comparison of Luke's digressions with Mark, a process which brings to light the fact that Luke's omissions are much more numerous than they are usually supposed to be. So far Mr. Blair has dealt with the evangelical narrative from the Sermon on the Mount to the discourse on the Coming of the Kingdom, and he now proceeds to argue backwards and forwards, maintaining that the narrative preceding the Sermon on the Mount presupposes an earlier history, and that the discourse on the Coming of the Kingdom in like manner presupposes a subsequent history bringing the narrative down to the Passion. He is prepared to go further and to maintain that the critic who proceeds to the work of reconstruction and is

6

faithful to the data observed cannot stop short until he stands beside the empty tomb with a clear conception of the ministry, a new comprehension of the teaching, and a firm appreciation of that great personality which has gained the homage of men.' Want of space prevents us from dwelling upon any of the many points which Mr. Blair's argument raises, as well as from entering more minutely into it. What we have said, however, is sufficient to show the line of argument he follows, and to exhibit his theory. The further and larger question which his hypothesis raises Mr. Blair does not argue. As might be expected he is prepared to join issue with those who uphold the generally received opinion as to the origin of the synoptic Gospels, and the relation in which their sources stand to each other, and to the fourth Gospel. He does not believe,' he says, 'that the two sources are really independent. On the contrary, he is prepared to prove-by arguing, of course, from probabilities-that the second Gospel is not a recollection of the preaching of St. Peter. He believes that the Apostolic source, which existed at first as an oral tradition, was committed to writing, at different places by different men, to meet the requirements of the Christian society, and that Mark is a combination of the versions. He is also prepared to prove that the fourth Gospel is a primitive commentary, or in other words an elaborated version of the Apostolic source, with the incidents adapted to the evangelist's purpose, and the logia partly reproduced and partly displaced by reflections which the original suggested. He does not accept the common assumption that the synoptic problem is altogether distinct from the Johannine. He maintains that the two coalesce, and that in solving the one the critic will solve also the other. He believes, in short, that the four Gospels are simultaneous equations, that the unknown quantity is the Apostolic source, and that the value of x can be discovered.' This belief has certainly the merit of simplicity. It has that also of reasonableness. Whether it can be vindicated is a question on which we cannot enter. We can only commend Mr. Blair's scholarly volume to the careful attention of students, and leave them to form their own opinion as to the theory it so ably maintains.

A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek after the Westcott and Hort Text. By the Rev. ARTHUR WRIGHT, M.A. London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1896.

This scholarly piece of work on the part of one of the members of the new School of Cambridge theologians will attract attention both on account of its comparative novelty, and because of the skill and thoroughness with which it has been done. It is an attempt to analysis the Gospels, and to exhibit their primitive sources. Mr. Wright has brought much painstaking labour to his task, and whether his results be wholly accepted or not, what he has done will considerably facilitate the work of the student in arriving at something like definite conceptions as to the sources whence the Gospels were derived, and the way in which they have been brought into their present shape. The truth of the oral hypothesis is assumed, and in a carefully written preface Mr. Wright exhibits the principles by which he has been governed in the construction of his synopsis. Accepting the theory, the truth of which is now generally but not everywhere admitted, that there were at least two main sources from which the materials for the synoptic Gospels were obtained, and that these sources correspond to what Papias calls St. Peter's Memoirs of Our Lord,' and the 'Logia,' or ' Utterances of St. Matthew,' and that the former consisted chiefly of narrative, and the latter of discourses or isolated apophthegms, Mr. Wright inclines to the

opinion of those who hold that on the whole the second Gospel corresponds to St. Peter's Memoirs, and that the author of the said Gospel was unacquainted with the Logia. That this and not the Logia is the oldest source is shown, he argues, by its wide diffusion, its contents, and its frequent mixture with the other sources. Hence in his first Division he places the Gospel of St. Mark, and side by side with it the identical or equivalent passages from SS. Matthew and Luke, together with the parallels from St. John and other sacred writers. In his second Division he places thirty-six discourses from St. Matthew's Gospel with the identical or equivalent passages from St. Luke, and parallels from St. Mark and other sacred writers. The third Division contains nineteen discourses, parables, and stories from St. Luke, chiefly in the central third, ix. 51-xviii. 14, five of which find parallels in the first and second Gospels, two in the first only, and one in the fourth. In the fourth Division, we have no fewer than a hundred and thirty-four fragments, some of which are common to SS. Matthew and Luke, others of which are peculiar to the first Gospel, and others to the third; but none of which are to be found in the second Gospel. The fifth Division contains a group of sixteen historical narratives peculiar to St. Luke. In the sixth Division we have a number of Editorial notes contributed by the writers themselves, and not by their authorities. The analysis is made still more exhaustive by the use in many places of brackets and different kinds of type. To appraise a work of this kind, or to enter into anything like an examination of it in the space here assigned to us, is of course impossible. We must content ourselves with but one or two remarks. That an oral Gospel or Gospels preceded the written Gospels must be assumed. But whether there were originally but two written Gospels from which the present Synoptic Gospels were derived is an open question. If Mr. Wright's Analysis be correct, there were more; at any rate the solution of the problem is made much more difficult. By Mr. Wright the Logia is reduced to a minimum. It is quite possible that many of the fragments included in his fourth Division are derived from this source. Any how, it will be exceedingly difficult to prove that they were not. That no principle of selection was adopted by the authors of the primitive written sources, and that any one who undertook to write a life of Christ would endeavour to put into it all that he knew, or all that was accepted in the Church to which he belonged, or all that he could collect from trustworthy witnesses, are positions which seem to us to be too confidently assumed. It is reasonable to suppose that a modern author would do something of this sort, but whether the authors of the primitive Gospels or of the Synoptics did this is another and different question. Altogether, while we cannot but admire the skill and scholarship, and patient industry which Mr. Wright has brought to bear upon the problem he has sought to solve, it seems to us that its final solution is not yet in sight. Perhaps it never will be so long as our knowledge of the written sources remains what it is. All the same, such work as Mr. Wright has here done can not fail to incite to a more detailed study of the evangelical narratives, and to prove of great assistance to the student.

The Bible for Home Reading.

Edited with Comments and Reflections for the use of Jewish Parents and Children by C. G. MONTEFIORE. First Part. London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1896.

This volume of Bible readings, the first of two, has been compiled, as the title-page bears, for the use of Jewish parents and children. The period covered by the readings is from Abraham to the second visit of

Nehemiah to Jerusalem. The first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis are represented by a series of extracts given at the end of the volume, in which are the stories of Creation, Paradise, etc. The chapters from which these extracts are taken, are, in the opinion of the author, 'too full of grave moral and religious difficulties to form a suitable beginning.' The text used in the extracts is virtually that of the Authorised Version, though here and there Mr. Montefiore has adopted readings which seem to him to be better. Besides selecting the passages and editing them, Mr. Montefiore has contributed to each of them an introduction with comments, sometimes explanatory, sometimes historical, and sometimes of a homiletic nature, which are all remarkable for the frankness and freeness of their criticism, as well as for the spirit of devout appreciation of the Scriptures by which they are pervaded. More remarkable than the notes, however, is the general introduction to the volume. Here Mr. Montefiore treats of the origin and character of the Bible, and touches upon many points of the greatest interest. His critical standpoint is that almost of the most advanced school of Biblical criticism; but though one may not be always able to agree with him in his critical opinions, when he comes to speak of the moral teaching of the Old Testament one's sympathies go entirely wth him. He emphasises the fact that it exhibits different stages of morality among men; but his main point is its intrinsic value and wherein this value consists. 'The Bible,' he says, 'tells us about God and Goodness; this is what gives it its unity. This is what gives it its unique value. No other book has told men so well and so truly of goodness and God as the Bible. All that it says about God, and all that it says about goodness, is not indeed of equal value, of equal truth; there are degrees of excellence and of worth. But, taken as a whole, no book has spoken and still speaks of God and goodness as this book, the Bible. And this is what has made the Bible precious and beloved through so many ages, and to so many different peoples. For God and goodness never grow old. Men and women always want to know about them, and in this respect one age is the same as another.' In this passage we have the key to most of his comments, and an indication of the spirit in which the volume has been compiled. Mr. Montefiore's aim is edification, and his volume may be read with profit by the old as well as the young, whether Jews or Christians. A second volume is promised to complete the work.

Documents Illustrative of English Church History. Compiled

from Original Sources by HENRY GEE, B.D., F.S.A., and WILLIAM JOHN HARDY, F.S.A. London and New York: Macmillan & Co. 1896.

This volume will serve a very useful purpose, and help to lighten the labours of the student of English Church History. All the documents illustrative of English Church History it does not contain, nor does it profess to contain them; but in its pages will be found many of the more important, and especially those to which reference is most frequently made. Sixteenth and seventeenth century documents are fairly well represented, but for a number, as for instance some of those belonging to the reigns of Elizabeth and James I., the student will require to consult other collections, such as the volume prepared for the Clarendon Press by Professor Prothero. The selection from pre-Norman documents is admittedly meagre. Originally it was not intended that the collection should contain any, but, acting on the suggestion of Dr. Bright, twelve of the more important, beginning with the British signatories at the Council of Arles, 314, and end