of Natal has extended over eighteen years. It
closes in a different tone and amid different feelings on the subject
from those in which it was begun. It arose in a panic about the doctrine
of inspiration; and it created a panic. In the first volume sound
criticism could hardly see clearly or escape the series of absurdities
on account of the clouds of controversy. In the last volume all this is
changed. The author writes calmly and in the consciousness that many of
the views it propounds are no longer unacceptable. The present state of
theological thought in the English Church (how far brought about by the
work itself each man must judge for himself) is such that any serious
criticism will be weighed quietly and without prejudice.

* * * * *

The plan of the New Testament Commentary for English Readers (_A New
Testament Commentary for English Readers_.) By Various Authors. Edited
by C. J. Ellicott, D.D., Lord Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Vol. II.
Cassell, Petter and Galpin: 1879 has been given in our notice of the
first volume (CONTEMPORARY REVIEW for August, 1878). The second volume
is in every respect worthy of the first. The Acts of the Apostles and
the Second Epistle to Corinthians are taken by Professor Plumptre; the
Epistles to the Romans and Galatians by Mr. Sanday; the First Epistle to
the Corinthians by Mr. Teignmouth Shore.

The Acts of the Apostles afford Professor Plumptre a congenial field for
his powers. He considers that the main purpose of the book is "to inform
a Gentile convert of Rome how the Gospel had been brought to him, and
how it gained the width and freedom with which it was actually
presented." He admits, but justifies, the mediating or reconciling
character of the work. This is done successfully, for the most part; but
perhaps his vindication of the omission of the dispute between St. Peter
and St. Paul at Antioch will be felt to be somewhat constrained, both
when he remarks that "there is absolutely no evidence that he (St. Luke)
was acquainted with that fact," and when he says: "Would a writer of
English Church History during the last fifty years think it an
indispensable duty to record such a difference as that which showed
itself between Bishop Thirlwall and Bishop Selwyn at the Pan-Anglican
Conference of 1807?" The introduction, besides the usual dissertations
on the authorship, &c., contains some important and suggestive sections
on the relation of