"obligated to be at peace; " 1, 11, "for thou rejoicedst, for thou exultedst, robber of my heritage, for thou skippedst like a thrashing calf, and neighedst like the strong steeds;" 1, 13, "the ell of thy section;" the frequent use of will for shall, e. g., xiv, 13, “ye will not see the sword, and famine will not come to you." The phrase, "ground property" (xii, 10), we are afraid, was not compared either with the Hebrew, or with the English version; it is too unmistakably German. As an editor Mr. Asbury has contented himself, we are happy to say, with few additions to the work of Naegelsbach, an act of self-denial which we appreciate the more highly from the fact that the Commentary on Lamentations has been swollen by Dr. Hornblower's additions to double the size of the original. Especially Naegelsbach's opinion that Jeremiah was not the author of Lamentations, Dr. Hornblower has combated with great warmth and at great length. Naegelsbach's arguments are drawn from the differences in the style of the two books, differences partly of a general nature, especially the very artificial alphabetic structure of Lamentations, partly specific differences in the usus loquendi. Of the latter he gives a list founded on a comparison, word for word, of Lamentations with Jeremiah. The question cannot be regarded as settled, indeed it hardly admits of more than a probable solution, but toward such a solution Naegelsbach has made a contribution of some value. Dr. Hornblower meets the arguments of Naegelsbach by such as these. Admitting that "the modern acrostic is justly regarded as a species of literary trifling, pleasing only to a fanciful, finical, or puerile taste," he thinks it "not impossible that the Hebrew alphabetical acrostic may have belonged to the highest art of ancient Hebrew poetry." To show that the difference in language is not inconsistent with unity of authorship, he has taken the trouble to compare the poems and plays of Shakespeare, and finds, for example, in the first stanza of Venus and Adonis, the following expressions which do not occur in the plays; purple-colored face, weeping morn, hied, sick-thoughted, and two that occur only once in the plays; rose-cheeked, bold-faced. The parallel will satisfy one of the conditions of the mathematical definition; the things compared will certainly never come together, no matter how far the comparison is pushed. The relation which the vocabulary of poetry bears to that of prose is by no means the same in Hebrew as in English. One difference only, the facts that compounds are hardly to be found in Hebrew (except in proper names), will strike off perhaps the major part of Dr. Hornblower's

examples. Many of the points of divergence noted by Naegelsbach are it is true of little or no weight, and to insist on them rather weakens than strengthens his case. But all are not so easily disposed of. For example, Adonai occurs as a name of God in Jeremiah seven times, and always in the combination Adonai Jehovah; in Lamentations it occurs fourteen times and always alone. Dr. Hornblower charges Naegelsbach with a want of ingenuousness in not raising the question of the correctness of the reading, inasmuch as "many manuscripts, some early editions and some of the older versions, have Jehovah instead of Adonai in every one of the fourteen places referred to in the Lamentations." A moment's consideration will relieve Naegelsbach from this imputation, though we are sorry to say it leaves Dr. Hornblower under one hardly less grave. Of the 350 manuscripts of Lamentations collated by Kennicott, 30 on the average (17 being the lowest and 45 the highest number in any one instance) give the reading Jehovah in the place of Adonai in the fourteen cases above mentioned. These manuscripts are of no more than average authority, so that we may set down the evidence from this quarter in favor of Adonai as at least ten to one. And this evidence is strengthened a hundred fold by another consideration. The name Jehovah occurs in Lamentations forty times, and the manuscripts are so nearly unanimous that the reading Adonai is found on the average in hardly more than one manuscript. Now it is altogether impossible that in the fourteen instances above mentioned, Adonai can have been introduced in place of Jehovah by accident or carelessness so generally that the evidence is ten to one in its favor, while in the remaining forty cases the evidence is three hundred to one against it. Just as little can we suppose an intentional substitution. No reason can be assigned for the change in these cases which would not equally require a change in the other forty. Nor is Dr. Hornblower's case at all strengthened by the appeal to "early versions." None of the important ones at least lend it any support.

Not having the original German at hand, we cannot speak of the faithfulness of either Mr. Asbury's or Dr. Hornblower's translations. Dr. Hornblower's poor success in the attempt to correct a mistranslation of Bishop Wordsworth disturbs a little our confidence. It is found in a special note, p. 113. Wordsworth had translated Gedenke, ja gedenke, dass meine Seele sich beruhige in mir, "Remember, remember Thou, that my soul sinks within me;" Hornblower, "Remember, yea remember that my soul composes

itself in me." Wordsworth's error, in regard to the signification of beruhige, is quite venial compared to that of which both are guilty in taking it to be an indicative, in violation both of the form and the sense. Of course the translation should be, "Remember, yea remember, in order that my soul may be quieted within me."

Baehr on the BOOKS OF THE KINGS.*-This volume deserves the same qualified commendation which we gave to the one just noticed, and the translation is entitled to a somewhat warmer welcome, because the field which it covers was so nearly unoccupied. The author's previous publications on the symbolical character of the Mosaic worship, and of the Temple of Solomon, were hardly the best preparation for the present work; and it is not to be wondered at if the simple historical fact is not to him everywhere the object of the first importance. The translators, each in a different way, have performed their work well. There are, it seems to us, but two rational modes of procedure with such a book, either to confine oneself to a simple translation, without additions and corrections, or to keep up a pretty constant protest against the author's methods and conclusions. Dr. Harwood has chosen substantially the first of these methods, his remarks being very few and brief, and Mr. Sumner the last. Mr. Sumner's additions, which are very considerable, are not open to the objection which we have brought against some of the earlier volumes of this commentary, which have grown greatly in size, without increasing in value, under the hands of their editors. He has shown sound scholarship, and, what is no less important, the ability to enter into sympathy with the writer and to place himself at his point of view. In applying the results of recent Assyrian researches to the illustration of Jewish history, he has, it appears to us, proceeded with hardly sufficient caution. This is a quarter from which we shall no doubt in time gain assured and valuable results, but the want of agreement among the few scholars who are competent to express an opinion on the subject is still too great to warrant us in accepting the conclusions reached as more than provisional. Lenormant, of whose "Ancient History of the

A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. By JOHN PETER LANGE. D. D. Vol. xi. of the Old Testament; the Books of the Kings, by KARL CHR. W. F. BAEHR, D.D. Translated, enlarged, and edited; Book I. by EDWIN HARWOOD, D.D.; Book II. by W. G. SUMNER, B.A. New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co. 1872. 8vo, pp. 260, 312.

East" Mr. Sumner has made frequent use, is too obviously weak in other parts of his work to be entitled to much weight here.

DELITZSCH'S COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS* possesses some rare excellences. It is the work of a man of genius and great learning. The author is remarkably familiar with all the intricacies of Hebrew punctuation and accentuation, with Hebrew phraseology and syntax, and with Rabbinic literature. In this last respect his work is an important supplement to other modern commentaries. Meanwhile the author is equally conversant with the results of recent scholarship. A man of less originality would have been overborne by his learning. Indeed, we often feel that he magnifies the mechanics of the Psalms, finding abundantly "Sabbatic numbers," "heptatichs," "hexastichs," "sevens," "three-fold septiads," "threes," and even "the unmistakable strophe-schema 6, 6, 7, 6, 6, not without significance" (p. 67). We are also occasionally reminded that so far as he has a bias, it is toward Jewish interpretations. And we weary of the perpetual "Johoe," running all through this translation, as the substitute for our ineradicable English "Jehovah :" a weariness not diminished by once hearing a yearling Hebrew student affect the same barbarism. But when we approach the substantial excellencies of the Commentary, we find them very great: thorough knowledge of Hebrew philology, remarkable acquaintance with the Scriptures, a wide range of kindred scholarship, a deeply spiritual tone, an eminently fertile mind, abounding in pointed and poetic suggestion. The brilliancy of the exposition is partly concealed by the difficulties of a translation, and is somewhat obscured in the original by the unartistic commingling of cold grammatical remarks with sparkling gems of thought. In this, as in the previous volumes, there is scarcely a page which does not offer some characteristic mark of genius, however brief; while in some of the Psalms, e. g., the 84th, 132d, 138th, 148th, there is a sustained richness and beauty, dimmed only by the two influences already mentioned. This brightness of thought shows itself often in the titles: "Sabbath Thoughts" (Ps. xcii), "The harvest of joy after the sowing of tears" (cxxvi), "The vows of a king" (ci), "The Royal Throne above the sea of purple" (xciii), "An Gottes Segen ist alles gelegen" (cxxvii), etc. It breaks out not seldom in his descrip

* Biblical Commentary on the Psalms. By FRANZ DELITZSCH. From the German, 2nd edition. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark. For sale by Scribner, Welford & Armstrong, N. Y. Vol. III. Pp. 420, 8vo.

tions of the very movement of the Psalms: "The music is hushed; the song dies away with an iambic cadence into a waiting, expectant stillness" (lxxxiv). "The deeds of God at the time of the Exodus are here brought together to form a miniature as majestic as it is charming. There are four tetrastichs which pass by with the swiftness of a bird, as it were, with four flappings of its wings" (cxiv).

If we were to fix upon the most striking quality of all exhibited in this Commentary, we should incline perhaps to specify its poetic appreciation; a trait so indispensable and so commonly dispensed with in expositions of the Psalms. In this respect it is often admirable. We could cite illustrations by the page.

Considered strictly as an exposition, this Commentary deserves high praise. It is careful and judicious. We should not advise any student to consult it alone, but to compare it with others. The strong individuality of the author sometimes inclines him to doubtful views, which a writer even of less ability would avoid. Its value as a complement to the ordinary expositions, as well as its independent worth, is very great. It is, however, too learned for a popular Commentary.

THE FOURTH GOSPEL THE HEART OF CHRIST.*-This is one of the most valuable contributions to theology which the press of late has furnished. It is scholarly without being pedantic, argumentative but not dry, at the same time theological and critical, and marked throughout by an unaffected and elevated piety. The author begins with a discussion of miracles and the supernatural, and the immanence of God in nature. He shows that a miracle is no contradiction to nature, no violation of the divine attributes; in short, nothing monstrous, or, under the circumstances, presupposed in the Gospels and proved to be actual, unexpected. He then proceeds to "the Historical Argument," in which we have a clear, correct, and succinct statement of the proofs of the genuineness of the fourth Gospel which are afforded by ecclesiastical history. The objections and hypotheses of Baur, Scholten, and other disbelieving critics are dispassionately weighed, under the title of "Historical Memorials." Dr. Sears then takes up the organic unity of the Gospels, the mutual relation of the respective conceptions of Christ which are presented in them, and other topics, which, as they are treated, serve to corroborate the main proposition that

*The Fourth Gospel the Heart of Christ. By EDMUND H. SEARS. Boston: Noyes, Holmes & Co. 1872.