30 JANUARY 1869, Page 21

CURRENT LITERATURE.

The Theological Review. January. (Williams and Norgate.)—The chief feature of this number is the article in which Mr. J. E. Carpenter reviews works by Mr. Liddon and Mr. Reville on the Divinity of Christ. The writer follows with considerable ability and some display of learning the usual line of argument, which seeks to show that the orthodox creed of the fourth century was the result of the action of Gnosticism and Greek philosophy on the simpler faith of primitive times. We consider the argument to be, in its nature, inconclusive, but Mr. Carpenter has every right to demand a discussion of the question under this aspect, nor need the orthodox be afraid to meet him. Orthodoxy may well allow, has always, in a certain sense, allowed, that the scientific form of Nicene theology was a development; but the idea of development is the unfolding of that whIi is implicitly contained ; nor need we have any reluctance to ascertain what share Egyptian, Syrian, and Hellenic schools of thought may have had in helping forward the process. We cannot but think that Mr. Carpenter gives fair cause of complaint against his manner of arguing. He makes, not once or twice only, but many times, statements which he must know to be doubtful as if they were acknawledgad certainties. The date of the Apocalypse matters lit lo to the controversy, but we see the indication of a dogmatizing habit when we find it fixed at 68 A.D., without hint that many commentators place the date much later. Again, Mr. Carpenter speaks of the "undoubted difference of authorship" botweeu the two Epistles of Peter. The difference we are ourselves slightly inclined to believe in, though it should not be forgotten to what largo variations the style of an uncultured man like Peter would naturally be subject. But the difference is certainly not undoubted. Mr. Carpenter must take the consensus of orthodox critics as valueless. And is it not an error to say that the two bishops Eusebius refused to sign the Nicene Confession ? Their subscription was given, by whatever explanation they may have justified it then and afterwards. When we are told that the language of the first chapter of St. John's Gospel really excludes the doctrine of the eternity of the Word, we can only express astonishment. If it is so, a great deal of argument has been wasted on it. We gladly pass from controversy to a very pleasant narrative of a risit to the Unitarian Churches of Transylvania, by Rev. J. J. Taylor. A festival at which Calvinist ministers and Roman Catholic priests joined in celebrating the tercentenary of a Unitarian community was a sight worth recording. We heartily share in the wishes for greater unity of spirit at home which it suggests to Mr. Taylor. We cannot say that we felt any pleasure in roading Mr. J. E. Smith's essay on "Goethe and Religion." The character of the great poet displayed what we cannot but call an intense selfishness, disfiguring his life in some relations most painfully. It seems monstrous to speak as if he had been successful beyond other men in attaining the true religious spirit. Mr. 0. Kogan Paul points out in detail a fault in our Authorized Version which few readers will have failed to notice, the mistaken and imperfect headings of the chapters. All this strengthens the case for revision.

Tom Brown's School Days (Macmillan) appears in a more attractive form than ever, with illustrations by Arthur Hughes, and Sidney Prior Hall. It is of those only that there is any nood for us to speak. Mr. Hughes is an artist of established reputation, which these drawings will not diminish, though from the nature of the case they could hardly be expected to increase it. If wo may be allowed a criticism, we should say that the figures of his boys are scarcely vigorous enough. We should prefer to any of them Mr. Hall's "Night Fag" (p. 145). Mr. Hall will be known to many of our readers as the author of some admirable caricatures of Oxford celebrities. We congratulate him on the successful appearance which he makes in this book before a larger public. We may specify "Old Thomas in his Den" as a capital sketch.

A Century of Binning/jam L. By John Alfred Langford. Second volume. (Birmingham—Osborne ; London—Sinipkin and Marshall.)— Mr. Langford completes his work in this volume, carrying his chronicle down to 1841. We expressed our opinion of the method of the book when the first volume appeared, and we need do little more than record the publication of the second. Of local events there is nothing to relate so exciting as the story of the Priestley riots ; the agitation about the Reform Bill was, however, localized in Birmingham more than any other place ; and the whole period, including as it does the great wars that we carried on with the French Republic and Empire, presents, on the whole, a greater interest than belongs to the preceding halfcentury. Among so many things worthy of notice it is not easy to select. The story of the frantic attempts to keep the buckle trade alive is permanently instructive ; and there is a remarkable instance of a man who was wise before his time in Philanthropes, who, writing in 1796, anticipates conceptions which we have even now hardly carried out—really cheap eating-places, and institutions where girls may learn domestic management. Readers will find the volume full of such details, and as they need not feel any scruple about skipping, will have no reason to complain of its being dull.

The History of the Hebrew Nation and its Literature. By Samuel Sharpe. (J. R. Smith.)—Mr. Sharpe, the well known Egyptologist and Hebraist, is a writer whose books we always read with respect, if not always with pleasure. The volume before us will be a grievous offence to many, and it has to the calmest critic an appearance of dogmatism whioh is not attractive. This doubtless is owing chiefly to the form of Mr. Sharpe's work. Ho puts into a very small compass the results of much study, and as he follows the most advanced, not to say destructive, of modern critics, he deals his blows at many cherished beliefs in a very rapid succession. Many who are quite willing to listen to argument will object to being told in two or three sentences that their most cherished convictions are mistakes ; that the history which they consider to be sacred is not even authentic, and the books which they believe te be inspired are of doubtful value and uncertain origin. We cannot follow Mr. Sharpe into details, but must say that he is not free from the vice of excessive confidence, with which modern criticism is so much infected. Why, to mention one instance of trifling importance, should he say that the stories u‘David sparing the life of Saul as "interesting, but improbable." Surely both as to the motive of the action and as to the details of the narrative, they might easily be matched in history. And is it not clearly going too far to say that it is doubtful whether David wrote any of the Psalms that are called by his name ? Again and again we are told that this or that poem or narrative is "modern," and are not even permitted to know whether it is the matter or the language which leads Mr. Sharpe to his conclusion. Did the matter, or the language, or even the handwriting enable scholars to determine with certainty -whether the lately discovered "Epitaph" was really Milton's ?

Lives of the English Cardinals. By Folkestone Williams. 2 vols. (W. H. Allen and Co.)—We must say that in this book a good idea which the author seems quite capable of carrying out well has been spoilt. Two thick volumes,—a thousand pages together,—take us no further than Wolsey. Of the lives that we have, four only, those of Nicholas Breakspear, Beaufort, Morton, and Wolsey himself, call for more than a very brief notice. If we had also had in the compass of these volumes the lives that yet remain to be told, from Cardinal Pole to the Cardinal of York, Mr. Williams's labours would have been better appreciated than they are likely to be now. Tho most patient reader is provoked by finding page after page filled with what some person, about whom nothing is known, probably saw, or heard, or read. We are sorry for this, because Mr. Williams is evidently capable of better things ; he is industrious and impartial, and when he really has any materials at hand, is capable of working with them. We should advise him, if the opportunity should occur, to spend his labour on some eight or ten principal biographies, and to content himself with an enumeration or notice of the briefest kind of tbe minor personages. The intrinsic interest of the lives which he would have to narrate, and the importance of the subject which is common to them all, the relation between the Roman See and the Church of England, would combine to make such a book a valuable work.