the very A B C of modern Biblical criticism, as expounded by that scholar and others. Dr. Stebbins, indeed, falls into errors which, when we consider the position he has held, suggest curious questions as to the demands made by the "Meadville Theological School

professors.

on her staff of

Even so simple a matter as the technical use of the term historical “tradition," to signify the material that has come down to a writer from previous generations, takes Dr. Stebbins out of his depth, and he thinks he has caught Dr. Kuenen flagrante delicto, because he shows that a writer whom the latter describes as working up "materials supplied by tradition," had written sources on which to rely! (p. 11). Immediately after this (pp. 12, 13) Dr. Stebbins is equally pleased with himself because he finds it said in the Book of Chronicles that "the Levites were more upright in heart to sanctify themselves than the priests," a statement which he regards as fatal to a supposition he has seen good to attribute to Dr. Kuenen-viz., that the Chronicler's "purpose was to elevate the priesthood above the Levites." Here there is the grossest confusion. I am not aware that either Kuenen or any one else has ever attributed any such purpose to the Chronicler. Ezekiel, and the author of the Book of Origins did, indeed, labour hard and successfully to establish this distinction between priests and Levites, which had not previously been recognised; and the Chronicler, doubtless, wrote his history in conformity with the ideas and practices that had become prevalent in conse. quence of their efforts, and in the interests of the priestly and Levitical views of history; but he himself, living about two centuries after the introduction of the Law, and at a time when the elevation of the priests over the other Levites was no more challenged than the exclusive rights of the tribe of Levi itself, could have had no such purpose as Dr. Stebbins imagines Dr. Kuenen to attribute to him. In point of fact, the Chronicler's leaning towards the non-priestly Levites has been perfectly well noted and set forth by Kuenen and his school. Dr. Stebbins is simply beating the air.

But we are far from having sounded the depths of our author's misconceptions. By systematically ignoring the composite character of the Pentateuch, he produces the impression (it is not clear whether he means expressly to assert it [p. 21]), that Kuenen assigns all the narratives in the Pentateuch to a date at least as late as that of the Captivity. This is entirely untrue, and we have only to remember that Kuenen assigns the "Prophetic narratives" to the eighth century B. C. in order to see how completely Dr. Stebbins' argument collapses when he tries to show that the evidence of the earlier prophets reduces Kuenen's hypothesis to an absurdity. This assumption of the practical integrity of the Pentateuch, however, runs through the whole of our author's work, and he attempts to justify it on two grounds. What are they?

We are almost ashamed to remind cur readers that recent criticism recognises, as one of the most important documents of the Pentateuch, a work generally called "The Book of Origins," which is partly narrative

and partly legislative, and is distinguished, amongst other characteristic marks, by a scrupulous avoidance of the use of the Divine name of Yahweh previons to the moment of its revelation to Moses (recorded in Ex. vi. 2, 3). After this point the name Yahweh is freely used, and the critic is dependent upon other characteristics of the document in separating it out from the composite whole through which it runs. Owing to the exclusive use of the word Elohim (God), and the avoidance of the name Yahweh, in the early portion of this work, it has frequently been called the "Elohistic Document." Now Dr. Stebbins takes hold of this name, says that Dr. Kuenen regards the use of Elohim as a "chief characteristic " of the author's style, and then triumphantly points to a series of passages-all of them subsequent to Ex. vi.-in which the use of the name Yahweh prevails, and which Kuenen nevertheless assigns to the "Elohistic" author! "This," he adds, "is sufficient to show the fallacy of the whole criticism; for, if the chief characteristic' of one of the theoretical documents is found to be almost universally used in the others in practice, either the theory or the practice is sadly at fault" (p. 71). This is almost incredible. The merest tyro who had heard a single popular lecture on the criticism of the Pentateuch could not have made such a blunder. Yet Dr. Stebbins gives it as the result of "a careful and most minute study"!

Our author's second reason for rejecting as entirely baseless the results of the critical dissection of the Pentateuch is almost equally astonishing. It rests on the want of agreement amongst critics as to the division of the books. Now the fact is that in this matter the almost absolute agreement of recent critics of very different schools, is one of the most encouraging phenomena on the field of Biblical investigation. This agreement is so remarkable that Dr. Robertson Smith, who regards the "Book of Origins" as the latest great stratum of the Pentateuch, is able to accept, as the basis of his argument, the list of passages assigned to that book by Nöldeke, who regards it as the earliest! But Dr. Stebbins does not know. or does not choose to know, anything of this, and thinks he has established his point by comparing Nöldeke's list with that of Stähelin, as given in Parker's De Wette! On the strength of such arguments as these, the Pentateuch is treated as a single whole, and when Dr. Stebbins passes from criticising Kuenen to attempting an independent investigation into the age of the Pentateuch, every reference to a passage in Deuteronomy, the Book of the Covenant (Ex. xxi.-xxiii. 19), or, the Prophetic narratives is fearlessly accepted as evidence that the whole Law, as known and enforced by Ezra and Nehemiah, existed at the time when the reference was made. By this style of argument, backed by a good deal of equally valuable "internal evidence," Dr. Stebbins reaches the conclusion that nearly the whole of the Pentateuch was written in the age of Moses.

The publication of such a book is in itself a matter of very small interest or significance. In the long run matters of historical criticism are decided by a select committee of students, and "the public" simply

accepts their conclusions. A book, on a question adhuc sub judice, intended "for popular reading" may delay or accelerate the process of public enlightenment, but it will not affect the final result unless it can affect the judgment of students; and we find it difficult to suppose that Dr. Stebbins' work will give students of the Bible cause to reconsider any position assailed, or to feel more secure in any position defended by him. In itself, then, the book in no way merits the long notice we have given it. It is a bad specimen of a bad style of book. Those who agree with its conclusions will, if they are wise, regret its publication more than those who dissent from them. The fact, however, that it has been published by an "ex-Lecturer on Hebrew Literature and Professor of Theology," and at the request of "scholars" and "professors in theological schools," is one which invites more serious consideration than the book deserves on its own account. This must be the excuse for so long a notice. P. H. W.

"TH

THE SYNOD OF ELVIRA.*

HE City of Elvira for long has been a mere name; its very site is uncertain, matter only of inference and conjecture; and to the world of our own day the Synod to which the city gave its name is hardly more familiar." If this statement is incontestable it will not be amiss to say that Elvira, or Illiberris, was a city of the South of Spain, standing, there is good reason to believe, on the site of the modern Granada, though some place it on the hills four miles away; and that the council of Spanish bishops and clergy called after it met early in the fourth century,“ primarily to restore order in the Church of Spain after its disturbance in the recent persecution." Strange that the canons of this council have come down to us without any hint, beyond their own internal evidence, as to the time when it was held; stranger still that historians have differed about the date by no less than five hundred years! Reasonable doubts, however, would seem to contract themselves within the more modest limits of a quarter of a century, and even these limits are still farther reduced by the fact that most writers bring the Synod into more or less intimate connection with the Diocletian persecution. Discarding the authority of almost all the great historians of the Spanish councils, Mr. Dale contends, with convincing force, that the Synod of Elvira must have been held, not during, but after the persecution, and places it accordingly in the early part of 306 A.D. In truth, the canons all through imply times of peace rather than of trouble. Some of them are directed against offences to which there could be no temptation when persecution was

The Synod of Elvira and Christian Life in the Fourth Century. An Historical Essay. By ALFRED WILLIAM WINTERSLOW DALE, M.A. London: Macmillan and Co. 1882.

raging, and if one canon decrees a penalty for non-attendance at church, and another, to the scandal of the devout Catholic, prohibits paintings on the walls of churches, it follows that the Christians must have been, at the time, in quiet possession of their places of worship. Moreover, a principal figure at this council was Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, the statesman of the Church. Now, at no other time than that here assigned, could Hosius have been present. Not earlier, for we have his own testimony that he was a confessor when the persecution took place under Maximian. And not very easily later, for from the accession of Constantine, in July, 306-so we correct Mr. Dale, who (p. 41) inadvertently says 307 -he would seem to have been closely absorbed in State affairs as private adviser to the Emperor. Thus the name of Hosius alone might seem to fix the date of the council with tolerable certainty, while in another respect his presence was of marked significance. Mr. Dale at least would have it believed that the convening of the Synod was the result of a policy which even then the far-sighted Churchman was pursuing that of drawing together the antagonistic powers of Church and State and uniting them in permanent reconciliation. There can be no doubt, at any rate, that it aimed at the unity of the Church, and a uniform system of discipline.

But the chief interest of the decrees of this council lies in their bearings on the life of the time, and it is in this aspect that they are here for the most part discussed. "The fourscore canons of the Synod stereotype in outline a faithful picture of the Spanish Church as it existed in the early years of the fourth century; and although it is the dark and ignoble elements of thought and action that must inevitably preponderate in a representation of this nature, through the shadow and the shame of penal legislation we catch glimpses of a noble ideal, present then in aspiration and hope." It is this outline which Mr. Dale undertakes to fill in, and the picture which he presents to us may be profitably compared with that so powerfully drawn by Mr. Lecky in his History of European Morals. If any fault is to be found with Mr. Dale, it is that he is, perhaps, a little reluctant to acknowledge any influences, other than Christian, tending to mitigate the horrors of a time when even professing Christians could think themselves obliged, as State officials, to assist at human sacrifices, when ladies (Christians, too!) sometimes beat their slaves to death, and when there was à continual demand for bloodshed and slaughter. That such things were utterly at variance with the spirit of Christianity will be denied by no one, and the only point of difference can be as to the extent and nature of the influence exercised by the Church in attempting to suppress them. Mr. Dale complains that " Lecky, in his History of Rationalism, does scant credit to the exertions of the Church to put an end to these scandalous cruelties;" yet, in his later work, Mr. Lecky distinctly and exclusively ascribes to Christianity" the destruction of the Gladiatorial games" (European Morals i. 282). Indeed, on this point, Mr. Dale himself does not utter an altogether certain sound. As a Christian, he would no doubt wish to give all the credit to Christianity. As a Pro

testant, is he not a little afraid of seeming to ascribe too much to methods which afterwards became identified with Rome ? At any rate, he tells us, in regard to the evils of that age and the attempts made by the Synod of Elvira and other Synods to suppress them, that "it was all in vain ; the penal law could not reach a disease which lay at the very heart of life, and would yield only to spiritual remedies." Is this, it may be asked, altogether true? The moral evils inherent in the Roman civilisation were not, of course, to be healed in a day, and they gave way at last only before the slow and gradual diffusion of those humaner principles which it will not be denied that Christianity was a chief agent in promoting; but the Church probably did the best that could be done at the time with the means at her disposal, and, after all, the penalties which she enforced her only weapon was excommunication-were of the kind which are usually called "spiritual." However, we have no inclination to quarrel with Mr. Dale's views, which have evidently been thought out with great care, and are very moderately expressed; and on whatever points we might be inclined to differ from him, we have no hesitation in saying that he has produced an essay of more than ordinary value, and one which well deserves the attention of the historical student.

R. B. D.

DR. VANCE SMITH'S 'TEXTS AND MARGINS OF THE REVISED NEW

TESTAMENT.'

THE publication of a second edition, in pamphlet form, of Dr. Vance Smith's useful notes on certain Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament,* gives us an opportunity of mentioning them here for the benefit of those of our readers who are interested in the doctrinal questions which have been raised in connection with the revisers' work. It would be absurd to suppose that a theological system which has been formed in the course of so many centuries, and considered from every imaginable point of view by scholars and divines, could be upset or materially weakened by the correction of a few passages in the English translation of the original documents. At the same time, so long as those documents are appealed to in support of the popular doctrines of Christianity, it is interesting to see how far and in what way the "proof texts" have been affected by the changes which have been made by a body of picked scholars, and (for the most part) divines of the orthodox school, in either the Greek text or the English translation. The texts in question have been by this time pretty thoroughly discussed, the acceptance or rejection of the new version of them being almost

*Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament affecting Theological Doctrine briefly reviewed. By G. VANCE SMITH, B.A., Theol. and Philos. Doct. Second edition. London: British and ForeignUnitarian Association, 37, Norfolk Street, Strand. 1882.