The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. The Text in the Au thorized Translation: with a Commentary and Critical Notes: by ADAM CLARKE, LL.D., F.S.A., etc. A New Edition, Condensed and Supplemented from the Best Modern Authorities: by DANIEL CURRY, LL.D. Vol. II.: The Apostolical Epis. tles and Revelation. Imperial 8vo, pp. 640. New York: Phillips & Hunt. Cincinnati: Cranston & Stowe.

Nearly four years ago the present editor of the Methodist Quarterly Review, at the request of the Book Agents at New York, undertook the revisal of Dr. Adam Clarke's "Commentary on the New Testament," according to the plan indicated in the title given above. The work grew upon his hands much beyond his original expectation, and with bringing it through the press it has continued to the present time-though the first volume was published more than a year since. But at length all is completed, and the publication of the concluding volume is about to be announced. To give our readers the information they may desire respecting the design of the work, agreeable to which it had been executed, we insert the "Editor's Preface" to the second volume:

"The Preface to the first volume of the Revised Edition of Clarke's Commentary on the New Testament set forth with sufficient fullness the principles which had been adopted respecting the whole work. But the rules there indicated, as those according to which the revision of that volume had been made, have, from the necessities of the case, led to more considerable emendations and additions than seemed to be necessary in the former portion of the work. But in respect to the editor's sympathies with the views and opinions, of his author, all that is there said may be here repeated and emphasized; and the fidelity to the general doctrinal opinions of the original work has been honestly adhered to, not simply as a yoke, but gladly, as felicitously indicating the mind of the Spirit as revealed in the written word. But in bringing the work of expounding and illustrating the apostolical writings up to the higher plane on which biblical learning now stands, as compared with its position fifty years ago, very considerable modifications have seemed to be necessary, and wherever that has appeared they have been made. All these, however, it is believed, have been made along the lines of the development of truth which the original work clearly marked out and pursued to a greater extent than had been done at that date by any other writer using the English language; for, as a biblical scholar and exegete, Dr. Clarke was at least a quarter of a century-perhaps twice that time-in advance of the learning of his age. But the regions in which he was a pioneer have since been

thoroughly explored, and the results, constituting a rich store of scriptural learning, duly appropriated. The reviser has sought to build the results thus obtained into the structure of evangelical and rational biblical theology, whose foundations he found so admirably made to his hands in the original. He therefore flatters himself that the now completed work of New Testament revision, while necessarily supplementary to the original, is in no important particular out of harmony with its spirit and purport; and that whatever has been added is substantially of the same character with the primitive stock. To pervert an author's meanings, while still utilizing his name and reputation, would savor of dishonesty; while to reproduce error or suppress truth would indicate a lack of prudence at once dishonorable and unjust.

"The authorities drawn upon (in the work) will be seen to be representative of the best and most scholarly Christian and biblical learning of the age, and at the same time free from any taint of the learned skepticism and the anarchical liberalism of a well-known school of rationalistic biblical critics and expositors. It has been the design in every case to evade no difficult passage, to recognize all really obscure points, and to give the chief renderings of them by the best and most trustworthy critics and expositors; and when all these fail to give satisfactory solutions of the cases in hand, to honestly confess that the subject remains unexplained. Cases in point will be found in the matter of 'tongues,' (1 Cor. xii, 10; xiv, 2, etc.,) and in the reasons rendered for the veiling of women in the public assemblies, 'because of the angels,' of which, with some others, no expositor has given any satisfactory solution: and this is freely confessed. In other cases, in which it is evident that a false exegesis (which in some things has widely prevailed in past times) has engendered popular misconceptions of the sense of Holy Scripture, it has been thought best simply to give the true expositions without polemical discussions, and so permit the truth to work the needed corrections. Considering the word of God-and eminently the apostolical epistles-as a mine of untold richness as yet only partially developed, it has been a ruling purpose to detect and bring to light some of these hidden stores; and where the gems of spiritual truth come to us in sensuous and materialistic coverings, the design has been to bring them to the light and to show their value.

"Special attention has been devoted to the Prefaces and In

troductions to the several epistles. It was necessary that these should be brief and concise, and it was also desirable that they should present the literary history and the occasion of the writ ing of each epistle; especially as these things tend to throw light upon the text. The results rather than the processes of inquiry are given; and as far as possible the time and place of the writ ing of each epistle, the people addressed, and the special occasion that called it forth, are considered. In these brief documents a large amount of valuable learning is given in a concise but comprehensive form, derived from the best sources; and while the information they give is necessary to the proper understanding of the several epistles, it is believed that for all non-professional students of the Bible they will prove sufficient helps in the matters of which they treat. For all others, distinct works, treatises, or manuals are required.

"In closing a work to which a large share of his time, for more than three and a half years, has been devoted, the editor would render devout thanks for the good Providence that has blessed him with health and strength for his work and enabled him to bring it to completion. The intimate mental and spiritual relations into which it has brought him to the divine word and its great Author have at once confirmed his faith and enlarged his appreciation of the inestimable value of the Holy Scriptures, and assured him, by a blessed experience, that Christ reveals himself to those who seek for him in the written word.”

D. C.

In the preceding number of this Quarterly we gave a brief history of the Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, and at the conclusion (p. 419) indicated, as results of that criticism which onght in all fairness to be conceded, (1) that the Pentateuch contains some passages which were not written by Moses; (2) that it contains documents of various dates and authorship; (3) that many of its laws were unknown or neglected during the period between the conquest of Canaan and the Babylonian captivity; and (4) that the last four books exhibit different stages and forms of legislation. Let us now inquire if these four propositions are inconsistent with the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch.

I. PASSAGES NOT WRITTEN BY MOSES.

Our space will not allow a full discussion of all the passages in the Pentateuch which have been thought to be inconsistent with Mosaic authorship; nor need we, for our purpose, more than mention some of the more prominent examples. Those most frequently cited are Gen. xii, 6; xiii, 7, where the observaion is made that "the Canaanite was then in the land:" the mention of Dan in Gen. xiv, 14, and Deut. xxxiv, 1, a name not given to the place until the times of the Judges, (Judg. 40-FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XXXVI.

xviii, 29 :) Gen. xxxvi, 31, where a list of Edomite kings is given who reigned "before there reigned any king over the children of Israel." Exod. xvi, 35, contains a statement which seems inappropriate at that place, breaks the otherwise natural connection of verses 34 and 36, and may not unreasonably be believed to be an interpolation. The laudatory remark touching Moses in Num. xii, 3, is hardly such as a meek man would write about himself, and no one believes that Moses wrote the account of his own death in Deut. xxxiv. The words in Deut. ii, 12, have been thought to point to a time when Israel had taken possession of the promised land, and the whole context, verses 10-12, and also verses 20-23 of the same chapter, and verses 9-11 of chap. iii, may easily have been an editorial addition. So, too, the words, "Unto this day," in Deut. iii, 14, most naturally imply a time subsequent to the days of Moses.

Some of the above passages, we doubt not, may be legiti mately explained so as to harmonize with the idea that Moses wrote them. Thus the statements made in Gen. xii, 6, and xiii, 7, do not necessarily imply that the Canaanite was not in the land at the time of the writer, for his purpose may have been to show that Abram was not the first dweller in that land; the Canaanites and the Perizzites had already settled there. So, too, Dent. ii, 12, is most accurately translated: "Even as Israel has done to the land of his possession, which Jehovah has given to them;" and this might well have been written by Moses after the Israelites had taken possession of the land east of the Jordan. But granting that all these, and probably other passages also, are of later date than the time of Moses, what must be our conclusion? Two methods of accounting for such facts at once suggest themselves: (1) The books of which these passages form a part were not composed until sometime after the Mosaic age, or (2) these passages are additions made by a later hand. Either of these suppositions is sufficient to account for the facts; but these facts alone are not sufficient to determine the date or authorship of the Pentateuch, taken as a whole. If we have other reasons sufficient to convince us that these books are in substance the work of Moses, or originated in his day, the class of passages cited above present no considerable difficulty, for it is perfectly reasonable that such additions may have been inserted by the hands of editors and transcribers.