scientific conception of the relation of the heavenly bodies to the light that figures on the first day's canvas. A significant change is made in the time rubric, which now speaks of 'one day,' a second day' 'a third day,' &c. It is an alteration that helps to make salient the literary and nonchronological structure of the narrative. When this fact is appreciated, the first chapter of Genesis will no more be extended on Procrustean beds to have its noble members twisted, stretched, and trimmed to fit the fancies of a conjectural geology and a capricious apologetic. The Old Testament passages that shadow forth the hopes and fears and faith of Hebrew saints regarding a future state are scant and vague. In some few instances they have been subjected to modification, but the substance of the problem is not touched by the change.* The Messianic portions of the Old Testament have been handled with extraordinary tenderness. This was well, for our unreasoning instincts cling affectionately to the old wordings. For the rest much greater changes might have been made than are made without touching the Christology of the Hebrew Scriptures. Since we have learned how the whole life and literature of the Jewish religion grew organically into the Christian, our faith in the genetic relation of the law and the prophets to Jesus Christ has come to rest very little on the superficial though striking coincidence of isolated prediction and secondary circumstance. For us the entire Old Economy, in its inmost fibre as well as in external feature, is preparative of redemption, and therefore Messianic. Had the Revision in Isa. vii. 14 read, Behold a maiden shall conceive,' as it is in the margin, or even rendered the undefined word almah, 'damsel,' or 'young woman,' the loss would have been slight save in respect of a familiar cadence. For no better reason we miss the beautiful but much misapplied phrase, 'The desire of all nations shall come (Hag. ii. 7), which in the Revised runs, 'The desirable things of all nations shall come '-that is, their gold and spices and purple, as a tribute to the restored temple. The celebrated prediction, 'After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself,' now reads, shall the anointed one be cut off, and shall have nothing. The

6

*The classical passage-Job xix. 25-which holds such a pathetic place in the Order for the Burial of the Dead has been materially altered. With the disappearance of 'the latter day,' the elimination of the italic worms' of the Authorized Version, and the substitution of 'from my flesh' for 'in my flesh,' the customary references to the last judgment and the resurrection of the body are cancelled, while the redemptive scope of the statement is limited in the first instance to the vindication of Job's innocence.

references of Gen. iii. 15, xlix. 10; Psa. ii. 12, xxii. 16,"xlv. 6; Micah v. 2, have not been altered except in the margin, while the slight modifications of tense in Isa. liii. and of definition in Isa. ix. 6 scarcely affect their Christological import. In this section of their responsibility the Company have walked so warily that not even conservative theologians can accuse them of anything unless it be of undue caution.

The task that was set the Revisers was one of exceeding difficulty and delicacy. It was their duty to renovate the noblest monument of English speech, and the dearest possession of English faith. They had to repair dilapidations, to alter the outer form and aspect, to correct not a few faults in the original structure, and generally to conform the whole to the requirements of modern scholarship. At the same time they were not to materially modify its artistic character, transform its cherished features, or impair its antique charm and reverent mien. This they were enjoined to do, and not to leave the other undone. Between this Scylla and Charybdis the Revisers have piloted their perilous way with marvellous patience, perseverance, and success. The vast majority of their greater emendations are indisputable improvements. In view of the myriad minor changes, English readers will think that in this department the Company have done a little too much. Hebrew scholars, on the other hand, will perceive that in respect of material amendment the Revisers, in not a few instances, have done too little. In the future and final revision-for with all its excellence this is not the last many renderings must stand in the text that as yet have found a footing only in the margin. But the supreme merit of their work consists in this, that they have made these vast and hazardous alterations without putting out of tune the music of our English Bible. With scarce an exception they have introduced no discords; they have preserved its cadences; they have guarded its noble diction, and they have even on occasion enhanced the grave and stately march of its majestic melody.

The Revised Bible will not speedily replace the old. That was the ripe result of a succession of revisions. Perchance this is the first of a new but shorter series. Its immediate acceptance as the popular version would be barred, if by nothing else, by the discordant character of the two Testaments, which is the result of the divergent ideals that presided over their construction, and which deprives the whole of literary unity. But each in its own way will remain of permanent value, and the joint production cannot but give a great and growing stimulus to

the public interest in and knowledge of the Bible. The possibility of the enterprise had its root in the modern detachment of the Church's trust from the outer framework, and the concentration of its faith in the inner essence of revelation. The Revision is an embodiment, as it is the outcome, of this spirit of emancipation from the letter and attachment to the living Lord of Scripture. Its disclosures will intensify the tendency of our time no longer so much to believe in Christ because we believe in the Bible, but rather to believe in the Bible because we believe in Christ. From such a spirit the record of revelation has everything to gain and nothing to lose. The age that has learned to think more of Christ will not think less of Scripture, for from its pages, as once from human flesh, His Spirit breathes, who lived and died and is alive for evermore-Jesus, our Lord and our God.

W. GRAY ELMSLIE.

ART. IX.-Political Review of the Quarter.

It is probable that before this reaches our readers the country will be once more under a Tory Administration. It is the unexpected that always happens, and at the very time when his position seemed most assured Mr. Gladstone has retired from office rather than attempt any longer to contend against the factious combination which threatened the Ministry in front, and the half-hearted support it received from some of its own followers. The story of the change of administration, of the strange alliance by which the Opposition secured a majority, of its cowardly attempts to evade the consequences of its own action, of its pitiful appeals to the Liberal chiefs not to do unto it as it had done unto them, is sufficiently discreditable, and will not soon be forgotten. For the present the country waits to see the results of this strange but passing phase in a conflict in which personal feeling seems to have played so large a part.

It is not easy to fathom the reasons of the fierce party passion which has marked the conduct of the Opposition during the last five years, and which has attained its culminating point during the last few weeks. Without pretending to regard it as a phenomenal development in our political life, we still feel that there are elements in it which are exceptional. It is not often that a recognized party chief, who, according to the laws of the game, ought to be the next Tory Premier, stoops to de

scribe the statements of his opponents on questions of political controversy and not of personal reputation as 'stout, big, thumping lies,' and the shock which such rude violence must cause to all who desire that our leaders should not sink to the level of a Kansas legislature is increased by the fact that Sir Stafford Northcote was the speaker. Happily it is not possible to conceive of such language falling from the lips of Mr. Gladstone or of Lord Hartington, or lively times might indeed be before us. But Sir Stafford Northcote claims to be on the same level as these two distinguished Liberals, and as he has the credit of being a milder-mannered man than either of them, there must surely be something specially evil in the atmosphere of the Opposition benches in general and of the front bench in particular when he adopts this style of speech. It would almost seem that in the Tory party the ordinary rule is reversed, and that the higher we rise the more virulent becomes the temper. Its representatives in the House are fiercer than their followers in the country, and ex-Ministers or expectant-Ministers are the fiercest of all.

There is nothing to explain this bitterness in the nature of the questions by which the two parties are apparently divided. Last year there was a distinct antagonism, and of a kind to provoke very intense feeling. The Franchise Bill raised a distinct issue as to the governing power of the country, and we supposed that the Opposition in the course which they adopted in regard to it were making a resolute stand against the advancing tide of democracy. But when they declared this view of their action to be an entire mistake, insisted that if there was one thing on which they were more anxious than another it was to give the vote to the unfranchised householders in counties, and even went so far as to unite with the Liberal chiefs in securing for the country a measure of Redistribution, which made the Franchise Bill doubly effective, and was in advance of anything which the most sanguine Radical would have ventured to propose, the most marked line of cleavage seemed to be absolutely effaced. So far as electoral reform was concerned the Tory leaders had become as Radical as any rational man could wish, and in truth they are exceedingly angry if any one hints that they ever were anything else.

There has hardly been time as yet for any new line of separation on home politics to develop itself. Liberal tendencies lead in a direction opposite to that of Tory tendencies. Whether the subject be finance or administration, the Budget or an Irish Crimes Act, a social question like marriage with a

deceased wife's sister or an educational one, even such as the alleged over-pressure in Board Schools, it is pretty easy to decide where a man will be found if we know the drift of his political sympathies. So, of course, there are differences, but they are not such as to produce the rancour which has been so prevalent of late. It may be that the Tories believe that a tax on tea is better than a tax on beer. It is quite natural that they should. Toryism has two sheet anchors at the present time-the one is the established Church, and the other is the public-house. If proof be needed, it may be found in a significant letter from Mr. Shirley Blackburne in 'The Times of June 12th, in which he tells how many of the country clergy are allowing their schools, largely paid for out of public funds, to be turned into Tory lecture-rooms, and to the action of the publicans generally against the Government. We are not surprised, therefore, that the Tory leaders should object to a tax on beer and whisky, and prefer that it should be laid upon tea. But there is, surely, nothing so exciting in this particular opinion as to make them so angry with all who adopt the contrary view. It is true that the conversion of beer or whisky-drinkers into tea-drinkers would be a very serious blow to Toryism, but the mere imposition of a tax on the former is not likely to tell so powerfully in that direction as that its prospect should rouse the party to such frenzy.

The proposal of the death-duties was, as Mr. Gladstone well pointed out, more obnoxious; but it was not new, and it was not even a drastic application of a law already admitted, and which, though objectionable to landlords, is certainly just. Foreign policy, of course, has been the chief point of attack, but even in that it is not easy to discover any opposition of principle. Indeed, it would not be possible to discover any rule for the conduct of international affairs on which the Tory party are at one. Most of the leaders are imperialist in tone, and seem to favour a national attitude of distrust and defiance to all the world. Even in this, however, they are not consistent; but while they raise a howl of indignation and accuse the Government of cowardice if they are not ready to fight Germany about some strip of territory which we have not even cared to annex, they complain in the next breath of Mr. Gladstone because he is not acceptable to Prince Bismarck. Their maxim seems to have been to object to everything done and to contend for everything left undone. It mattered little what particular line of policy might be adopted by the Ministry, the one thing certain was that in the eyes of