tant topics, but in the number of its titles. No Biblical Dictionary in English is comparable to it in this respect. Most of the topics on which a student of the Scripture would wish for information receives some attention, and many of the subjects are fully and thoroughly discussed. Especially is this the case in the branches of geography and natural history. In these the scholarship is minute and comprehensive to an extraordinary degree. All that travellers have noticed, that men of science have discovered, whether in ancient or modern time, is freely used, and a great deal of curious and recondite learning is brought out. These articles have been committed to very competent hands. Next to these articles for fulness and in excellence are the biographical articles, which are by no means, as in some dictionaries, mere repetitions and amplifications of the Scripture narratives.

--

These are the merits of Smith's Biblical Dictionary, that it is well written, well arranged, and, in certain departments, very full in its information and learning. Against these we have to mention several important defects. In the department of Biblical criticism, the Dictionary is by no means up to the mark of Continental scholarship. Its references here are not always to the latest discussions or to the standard works. Many of the ablest German writers are not noticed at all, even in cases where their conclusions and knowledge would be of the highest value. Second-rate works are not unfrequently cited upon matters on which first-rate authorities have uttered their judgment. The article "Pentateuch" is a fair specimen of the defective scholarship in this department of the Dictionary; and the list of authorities at the close of the very inadequate article on the Psalms is ludicrous in its meagreness. Still more superficial is the article on the Books of Samuel, in singular contrast with the striking story of the man Samuel, by Dr. Stanley. In fact, very few of the critical articles in the Dictionary, on the age, origin, and authorship of the Biblical books, are satisfactory.

Next to this, a grave fault of the Dictionary, in our judgment, is its dogmatic and sectarian, and sometimes even its controversial tone. We do not want, in a Biblical Dictionary, any arguments for a creed, even if it be the creed of the majority of the Christian Church. Whatever opinions on theological subjects the writers may hold, they ought not to be intruded in the statement of matters of fact. Very often in these volumes such opinions are introduced, and made even to color the statements of fact. What can we think, for instance, of an argument for the personality of the Holy Spirit, which cites, not only proof-texts apart from their connection, but also the subjective emotions and "

ex

periences" of converts, and the superiority of Christian over Pagan civilization? Why should the word "Saviour" be made, in a book of this kind, the vehicle for a defence of the Orthodox doctrine of Atonement? Why should an article on Nicodemus be made to give an indirect hint of the Trinity? This defect is the more to be reprehended, since the Dictionary does not assume a definite theological position, and there are even some opinions advanced in it, as in the article on Miracles, which come near to Rationalism; yet in many of the articles there is an offensive and needless tone of dogmatism, not at all in harmony with the idea of such a work.

A third fault of this Dictionary is the admission of over-much extraBiblical matter and discussion. We do not ask that the titles of such a work should be kept rigidly to names or things mentioned in the Scripture. It is well that there should be articles on the Apocrypha, the Vulgate, and the Versions. So far as extraneous topics have a direct bearing upon facts in the Biblical history, or help in its illustration, it is fit to introduce them. But why should heathen or ecclesiastical mythology be allowed a place in a Dictionary of the Bible? Is Mary the mother of Jesus, about whom so little is said in the Gospel narrative, and whose whole reputation and influence are post-Biblical, a suitable subject for twenty columns of such a work, while James and John together, even with all the legends attached to their history, have only fourteen columns? This treatise on the legendary Virgin is undoubtedly the most conspicuous sin in this kind; but in numerous instances legendary matter is allowed so to burden and cover the trustworthy information, that it becomes difficult to distinguish between fact and falsehood. There is a great deal of cumbrous and fantastic learning in these volumes, which is likely only to bewilder the unlearned reader.

We have to complain, also, that in some instances very baseless and extravagant theories are allowed too much room in the discussion of critical or topographical questions. The most remarkable of these is Mr. Ferguson's attempt, in the article on Jerusalem, to transfer the site of the Holy Sepulchre to the area of the Temple enclosure, and identify it with the mosque of Omar. His argument is not only a strange specimen of special pleading, but no hint is given that its conclusion is contrary to those of all the other writers who have treated the topic.

Other faults of this Dictionary are the disproportionate space given to unimportant articles; the notes at the foot of the page, which distract the attention of the reader; the absence of any index; and the omission of many subjects on which information would be desired. The

omissions of the first volume, indeed, which were quite remarkable, are in a measure supplied in the Appendix. The supplementary articles upon Antichrist, Baptism, the Church, and Excommunication deserve notice for their fulness. Three of these and the supplement of the fourth are from the hand of Rev. Frederic Meyrick, and exhibit in a striking manner the tone of dogmatism to which we have already alluded.

It will be seen that we do not regard Dr. Smith's "Dictionary of the Bible" as answering to what such a Dictionary ought to be, or to what, in the present state of Biblical learning, it might be. It has not the breadth of scholarship, the freedom of thought, and the catholic temper which a work of this sort ought to have. Of the seventy-three different contributors to it, some are eminent as scholars and men of science, but more are distinguished simply by official station; and the list is quite as remarkable for the names which it does not contain as for those which it includes. Six of the contributors are Americans. In such a compilation as this, if the work is to be done speedily, it must of course be done by many hands; but it gains nothing in value by gathering in the labors of so many mere deans and archdeacons. It is the best work of the kind in the English tongue, but it cannot for a moment be compared with the great work of Winer.

4. Hours with the Evangelists. By I. NICHOLS, D. D. In Two Volumes. Vol. II. Boston: Crosby and Nichols. 1864. 8vo. pp. 388.

On the appearance of the first volume of this work, we entered into a careful examination of its merits, and expressed our respect for the wisdom and excellence of its author. The volume now before us is a worthy sequel of the first. Dr. Nichols intended to make these volumes a Life of Christ, compiled from the four Evangelists, preceded by appropriate preliminary discussions, and accompanied by such comments as might seem desirable, whether to explain the record, to harmonize seeming discrepancies, to meet objections and cavils, or to deepen the moral and spiritual impression of the Saviour's words and deeds. In the second volume this design is pursued from an early period in the public ministry of Jesus to the morning of his ascension. The style is peculiar, and, to all who knew the writer, bears the stamp of his massive intellect, his deeply meditative habit, and his thoughtful piety. It has a stately, solemn movement, yet the simplicity of one who could not speak or write in other than transparent words, and, withal, the sweetness of a singularly childlike and loving trust in the Divine verities

which constitute his theme. The work is one of profound and earnest belief; yet its author shows no disposition to drop out of sight the grounds of modern scepticism, whether as to the authenticity or the contents of the canonical Gospels. Many of the points in controversy are treated with equal candor and ability; while the whole tone of the treatise is adapted to win the reader to the writer's own elevated point of view, and to commend Christianity as the postulate no less of sound philosophy than of man's moral and emotional nature. The chapters comprised in this last volume, though the result of long study and medi tation, were committed to writing during the season of infirmity and suffering which preceded the author's fatal illness, and therefore lacked his last revising touch. But they have been edited with sedulous care by one whose theological learning and critical skill well fitted him for a task so delicate, and we welcome the completion of this not inadequate memorial of a divine, whose name is held in loving reverence by all who were wont to listen to his eloquent words, or were conversant with his still more eloquent life.

5.- The Fœderalist: a Collection of Essays, written in favor of the New Constitution, as agreed upon by the Fœderal Convention, September 17, 1787. Reprinted from the Original Text. With an Historical Introduction and Notes. By HENRY B. DAWSON. In Two Volumes. Volume I. New York: Charles Scribner. 1863. pp.

cxxxix. and 615.

THE present crisis in American affairs has revived the fame and enhanced the honors of this memorable work, both at home and abroad. Though it needs no European sanction, we may cite with a patriotic pride in its enduring renown the admiring judgments of intelligent Englishmen. Before the war, Mr. Stuart Mill, in his Essay on Representative Government, had pronounced it to be "even now the most instructive treatise we possess on Federal Government." His eulogium has been recently followed by Professor Bernard of Oxford, in his Lectures on the present American War. He says, "I know no finer model of political writing than some of these papers"; and Mr. Freeman, the author of an able and scholar-like volume on the History of Federal Government, the first instalment of an elaborate work which ought not to lose its chance of republication through an unfortunate title-page and the independent neutrality of certain passages, has made the Federalist his constant companion.

The time has clearly come for a fresh edition. Elderly and middle

aged men have no need to be reminded of the excellences of a standard authority like this, but every new generation in a country so prolific of new lights must be kept carefully informed of the existence of the old. Our torches must not put out the constellations. It was time, too, to gather up, digest, and present the array of illustration and commentary furnished by the gains and losses, the glories and disgraces, of three quarters of a century.

This laborious task has been undertaken with a most creditable zeal and pursued with the most painful industry by Mr. Dawson. He has as yet completed only the less difficult, though perhaps the more harassing, portion of his work. "In the first volume," as he says, "of the work, preceded by a historical and bibliographical Introduction and an analytical Table of Contents, will be found the entire text of The Foederalist, with such notes only as the authors themselves appended to their productions." For the second, he reserves his own notes on the text, the marginal and other annotations of eminent men, and other illustrative matter. He has taken very great pains with the bibliographical section of his Introduction, and by patient investigation has collected a mass of information respecting the various editions of the Federalist. He has even furnished his readers with literal copies of the several title-pages. Certainly he has not erred in underrating the value of minute detail. The elements of the singular dispute about the authorship of certain of the papers are stated at length, but the discussion of the conflicting claims is postponed to the other volume. This is inconvenient to the reader, as well as unjust to the editor himself; the latter being obliged to hint at his own opinion without establishing it, and the former to suspend his judgment till he can collate the two volumes. Indeed, the chief objection to which in several places this Introduction is open, is the separation of question from solution, and of assertion from evidence.

The matter of chief moment in this volume was the choice of a text. And here Mr. Dawson's principle and practice are very simple and very strict. He rejects (with the exception of patent typographical errors) whatever he does not find in the papers as originally printed; departing in this, both as to phrase and arrangement, from all the previous collective editions. But the rule is more simple in statement than easy of application. The greater part of the work was first published in New York newspapers. These numbers were again printed (with some "few and trivial" alterations in the text, and more considerable changes in the order) in March and May, 1788, in two volumes; in the second of which appeared also, for the first time, the last eight papers of the series. Thus the original text was to be sought for in