It is curious that writers on this Epistle but seldom guard their language so as to exclude, as the author of the Epistle excluded, any reference to the Temple. It is not 'the rites of the Temple' with which he is concerned. His knowledge of

Judaism is apparently not derived from actual contact with it as a living religion; it is book-knowledge, like that of St. Clement of Rome. In each case it is quite possible that the author is a Gentile by birth, who may have been prepared for Christianity by an admiring study of the Greek version of the Jewish Scriptures. He may have found his way to the Synagogue, but not to the Temple. To such a man the Tabernacle and its rites are what he knows as divinely sanctioned; the Temple is a later development and of secondary importance. If this be so-and the possibility of it is at least worthy of consideration-'the feeling of being cut off from the rites of the Temple and the Jewish ordinances' is not the difficulty which the writer was seeking to mitigate, nor does the fall of Jerusalem much concern us when we are endeavouring to fix the date of the Epistle.

One other point in which this lecture will hardly escape criticism is the statement that the differences of style and subject-matter' which we observe in the Pastoral Epistles ' are hardly greater than between other groups of the Pauline Epistles, and may be quite sufficiently accounted for by the later date and the different style and character of the writings.' The recurrence of the word 'style' indicates that the lecturer has not quite clearly expressed his meaning, or that the sentence has suffered in the printing. But, apart from this, the statement is much too broad. If Dr. Hort's authority were quoted for the general conclusion that, in spite of all differences, we must continue to assign these Epistles to St. Paul-and this is, no doubt, what Mr. Headlam wishes to say yet it must be remembered that Dr. Hort allowed the existence of a problem in their literary history which, with our present knowledge, we are not in a position to solve. Difference in vocabulary may be partially explained (though only partially in this instance) by difference of subject-matter and of date; but the use of particles is one of the most unfailing of literary tests. The change in the use of particles

and the comparative rarity of the definite article form, together with the startling divergence in vocabulary, the chief ground of our perplexity. We must at present be content with saying that none of the modern ¡theories offer solutions which are satisfying from the literary and historical standpoint, and that accordingly we are not justified in deserting the well-supported tradition which assigns these Letters to St. Paul. If we knew what share the Apostle's amanuenses had in shaping the style of his Letters, we might conceivably find a clue that might help us; but on this point we are quite in the dark.

The whole of this lecture is vigorous and instructive. The author of it is right in claiming that the advance of our knowledge in recent years has been generally favourable to those who keep to the earlier dates, and generally unfavourable to the few critics now left who regard the second century as the creative period in Christian literature. The judicial temper of the lecture is as reassuring as its conclusions.'

The last lecture of the series is by the Dean of St. Patrick's. Its subject is of great importance; for the historical value of the Acts' has been much depreciated by continental scholars, and at home we have had till lately only the counterblast of Professor Ramsay's enthusiasm for St. Luke as an historian. Dr. Bernard gives us a quiet exposition of the literary problems of the book, and a useful recapitulation of the striking confirmations of its author's accuracy which the inscriptions have afforded. He brings

out well the difference in character between the first twelve chapters and the rest, and lays stress on their primitive and Hebraic tone. He makes out a fair case for 'an underlying document' in these earlier chapters: but we may hope that he will reconsider his present belief that this document was Semitic. There is no substantial evidence that any book of

1 A few misprints may be noted for the editor of a second edition. We can hardly suppose that Mr. Headlam, even when his imagination is at its liveliest, would put 2 Peter 'later than the year 464 A.D.' (see p. 180). On p. 176 'the letter' should be 'the latter'; on p. 152 'the Spirit' should be 'the spirit'; on p. 172 'Polycrates' appears as 'Polycartes.' Other lecturers have been treated more kindly by the compositors; but on p. 127 we find 'Cheltenhem.'

the New Testament, or any document underlying any part of any book, was originally written in a Semitic language. Of course, conversations and speeches were spoken in a Semitic language, and no doubt some primitive records were written by men who thought in Semitic while they wrote in Greek. That is all that we can securely say; and it is enough to meet our reasonable demands. To go farther in the present case is to raise the question on the other side, whether St. Luke could have read a Semitic document if he had come across one.

The writers of these lectures are not of the kind that would resent criticism; and the book has seemed well worthy of being criticized. It is a book to be commended not only to the general reader who wishes to know what our most learned and sober critics hold on many disputable points, but also to the younger students at our universities who are entering upon the serious investigation of the problems of New Testament criticism.

ART. X. THE BIRMINGHAM BISHOPRIC.

1. Worcester Diocesan Calendar, 1902. (Birmingham: Midland Educational Company.)

2. Census Returns, 1901, Counties of Worcester, Warwick, and Stafford. (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.)

3. A Bishopric and a Cathedral for Birmingham. By S. ROYLE SHORE. (Birmingham: Midland Educational Company, 1902.) 6d.

4. Birmingham Daily Gazette, April 15, 1902, &c.

5. Worcester Diocesan Magazine, November 1902 (containing report of Diocesan Conference). (Birmingham: Midland Educational Company.)

And private information.'

THE returns of last year's census, now in course of publication, cannot fail to arouse grave questions in the mind of a

1 We desire to thank Mr. Walter N. Fisher for information kindly placed at our disposal, and also Mr. S. Royle Shore for the loan of a useful collection of newspaper cuttings and other papers.

thoughtful Churchman. For they tell of a steady drift of population into the great industrial centres; they remind us of the long lines of mean streets extending all round our large towns, of suburban parishes submerged and overwhelmed, of Church extension societies struggling with inadequate resources to cope with an ever-increasing demand. In the last decade the population of Leeds has grown from 367,000 to nearly 430,000, that of Sheffield from 324,000 to 380,000, and that of Leicester from 174,000 to 211,000. These are examples, chosen almost at random, of the process that has been going on in all our larger towns, and the problem thus presented to our Church is one of appalling gravity. Perhaps the most hopeful sign of the times is the gradual growth in these great centres of population of a municipal feeling which, though weak as yet, may ultimately convert the amorphous masses into organized communities. But meanwhile, how far is the Church meeting the new claim thus being made on her? That she has a message to these great industrial centres she is every day learning to realize with stronger conviction. But how can the message be spoken?

Much is being done in the creation of new parishes and the development of archidiaconal activity, but if unity and force is to be given to these efforts it must be by a large increase of the episcopate. A bishop who emerges occasionally from the quiet haven of his cathedral city to attend a committee, or preach a sermon, or take the chair at a meeting in Leeds or Leicester or Birmingham, can never hope to be other than a stranger to the masses of the people -welcomed respectfully and even warmly, but a stranger still. If a bishop is to be in any real sense an overseer, he must be at the centre of the organized life of the community over which he is set, in touch with the men who are making its history, standing for the Church in civic life, asserting, unobtrusively but not the less definitely, her right to voice the claims of Christ in the social life of our great cities.

There is another reason that may be urged for dividing some of our present dioceses. Unrestricted parochial independence is, we may hope, destined soon to become a thing of the past. But the reassertion of episcopal authority, if it is to achieve any real good, must mean a great additional

burden. Our bishops must meet in conference to insure and maintain uniformity of interpretation, they must be much more fully in touch than they are at present with the mass of the Church laymen of their dioceses, they must be prepared to advise and admonish with adequate knowledge of local conditions. And, besides all this, they must be protected against the danger of devoting to the importunate claims of their dioceses time that rightly belongs to their own intellectual life. While every effort is being made to encourage systematic study among the clergy, it would be deplorable if our bishops became too much overwhelmed with diocesan business to keep in touch with the development of current theology; and this is the danger from which a bishop of such a diocese as Rochester or Worcester can hardly escape.

The necessity for facing the situation has been staved off for a time by the revival of suffragan bishops, but it is impossible to regard this as more than a makeshift. For the problem of finding adequate stipends for suffragan bishops grows constantly more difficult, and is leading to the same demand for men with 'private means' that has introduced a new form of simony into our parochial patronage system. And, again, what a bishop deputes to his suffragan is necessarily that part of his work, such as confirmations, that is most directly spiritual and that brings him most into contact with the people of his diocese. The diocesan bishop is, in consequence, becoming more and more an administrator rather than a teacher.

That the time is ripe for a forward movement in the creation of new dioceses seems clear, but before embarking on any such scheme one further step is needed to round off the programme initiated by the Bishoprics Act of 1876. At the time when this Act was being prepared Lord Cross, then Home Secretary, offered to include Birmingham among the bishoprics to be sanctioned. Dr. Philpott, then Bishop of Worcester, replied that the idea was premature, and accordingly Birmingham was omitted from the Bill.

This omission probably lost for the great Midland centre its most hopeful opportunity for securing diocesan independence; for it is difficult to believe that, aided by the