the rain in answer to Elijah's prayer on Carmel, let us by all means accept the explanation. But when it is declared to us that any visitation like those alluded to above, like that under consideration, or like the fire from heaven which consumed Elijah's sacrifice, was sent direct from God, and we are not told of any ordinary or so-called natural agency being employed,—if, in such cases, we are to suspend our belief in the occurrences until we have dug in the earth to find the records of natural causes, we may as well at once refuse all credence to the miraculous as beyond our own experience, and reduce the Word of God to the level of the tales of Egyptian priests, or the traditions of Livy. . . . But setting aside all preconceived notions, and taking the simple record of Genesis xix. as we find it, let us see whether the existing condition of the country throws any light upon the Biblical narrative. Certainly we do observe, by the lake, sulphur and bitumen in abundance. Sulphur springs stud the shore; sulphur is strewn, whether in layers or in fragments, over the desolate plains; and bitumen is ejected in great floating masses from the bottom of the sea, oozes through the fissures of the rocks, is deposited with gravel on the beach, or, as in the Wady Mahawat, appears, with sulphur, to have been precipitated during some convulsion. We know that, at the time of earthquakes in the north, the bitumen seems, even in our own day, to be detached from the bottom of the lake, and that floating islets of that substance have been evolved (see Robinson, Res. i. 518), coincident with the convulsions so frequent in northeastern Palestine. Everything leads to the conclusion that the agency of fire was at work, though not the overflowing of an ordinary volcano. The materials were at hand, at whichever end of the lake we place the doomed cities, and may probably have been accumulated there to a much greater extent than at present. The kindling of such a mass of combustible material, either by lightning from heaven, or by other electrical agency, combined with an earthquake, ejecting the bitumen or sulphur from the lake, would soon spread devastation over the plain, so that the smoke of the country would go up as the smoke of a furnace." (pp. 356-359.) Mr. Tristram thinks that the site of the cities was neither at the entrance of the Wady Mahawat, nor anywhere at the southern end of the lake. He gives his reasons against the south, and in favour of the north, derived from his local observations, and a consideration of the expressions used in Holy Scripture. Briefly they are these:-that the cities were in the plain or "circle" of Jordan, an expression appropriate to the north, and not suiting the south; that from Mamre Abraham might see the smoke rising from that plain, owing to the depression of the southern glen; that the history of the invasion of Chedorlaomer (Gen. xiv.), which extended to Engedi, requires that Sodom should not have been in the south; and that the view from Pisgah, granted to Moses, could not have included the south-east of the Dead Sea; whereas, if Lot's Zoar were under Ras Feshkhah, the Scriptural description would be literally and vividly correct. (See pp. 360-362.) We have now culled from this valuable work (for which we again thank its author, and the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge) the matter which appeared to us most suitable for introduction into our own pages. In doing this, we have necessarily passed over the details of the author's own personal adventures, and those of his friends; his descriptions of the general aspect of the country, its fertility and beauty, and the still existing evidences of its high cultivation in times past; its present desolateness and degradation, and the scantiness of its population-effects of Turkish misrule; the condition of the Christian population, of the Jews abiding in the land (Tiberias being a Jewish city), of the remnant of the Samaritans, and of the Druses of the Lebanon range; the architectural remains of the Romans and of the Crusaders; and, in addition to all this, the geology, botany, and natural history of the country, the very objects of the expedition. But under all these heads we can assure our readers that they will meet with much that is pleasant and instructive, and much that is also nowhere else to be found. And we conclude by observing that no intelligent person will read Mr. Tristram's volume without regarding it as a valuable contribution to our knowledge of the most interesting region in the whole world. ANGUS'S HANDBOOK OF ENGLISH LITERATURE. The Handbook of English Literature. By Joseph Angus, M.A., D.D., Examiner in English Language, Literature, and History, to the University of London. The Religious Tract Society. 1865. DR. ANGUS, though not belonging to our own communion, is well known, we doubt not, to many of our readers as a learned, pious, and truly catholic Christian, who has spent a good portion of his life in promoting sound and useful instruction, designed in an especial manner for those who wish to be in the highest sense Christian students. With this object, under the auspices of the Religious Tract Society, he undertook the Bible Handbook, and a new edition of Bishop Butler's works. Of this latter we may say, that it is principally valuable on account of the admirable analysis prefixed to each chapter of the Analogy, which Dr. Angus likewise extends to the Sermons. He now presents us with a handbook to English literature; and the first remark that we will make concerning it is, what at first sight may seem a very negative kind of praise, that not to have failed in such an undertaking is certainly great success. In a language so voluminous as that of England, extending over so many centuries, embracing so many subjects-history, travels, fiction, theology, philosophy, poetry-it requires a brave man, a man not afraid of hard work, to form anything approaching to a true conception of what is included in the phrase, "our national literature." Honestly to wade through all this, in order to gather together the pearls, or to tell others where the pearls may be found-to reject that which is vile and refuse, or to tell others what is vile and refuse, and utterly unworthy of being searched into again, this requires studious days and watchful nights, the quiet undisturbed closet, and the midnight oil, the possession of a noble library, or what is the next best thing, a free and generous access to one. Of course Dr. Angus has availed himself of the labours of predecessors in the same or a somewhat similar path; nor can we suppose that he has really and thoroughly read by any means all the authors whom he brings before us and criticizes; to have done so, amid his other occupations, would be more than the work of a life. So he expresses his great obligations to the lectures of Mr. Marsh on the history of language; and in other departments to the histories of Hallam, Arnold, and Shaw, as well as one or two others. It is no easy matter to review such a work as Dr. Angus's, so as to interest the generality of our readers. The very nature of the case prevents our being able to dwell long upon any one subject or author. But as, upon the whole, we think the volume decidedly calculated to be useful, we shall endeavour to give some account of its contents, noticing only a few of the principal authors; and likewise clearly stating our disagreement when we feel obliged to differ from Dr. Angus. Chronologically, Dr. Angus divides the history of English literature into three periods, the Anglo-Saxon, reaching from the Anglo-Saxon invasion to the Norman Conquest,-the Semi-Saxon and Norman-English, from the Norman Conquest to the accession of Henry VIII.,—and the English period, from the Reformation to the present time. It is this last period alone which we shall notice, as being incomparably the richest, the most interesting, and the most instructive. Before treating of any authors during the purely English period, Dr. Angus devotes a chapter to the English language, in which he traces its progress from the time of Chaucer to nearly our own day. The chapter is short, and will repay perusal. We only give one extract :— "In most Protestant countries, the national literature has commenced with the translation of the Scriptures into the tongue of the common people; which tongue the translation has fixed and preserved for all aftertime. This remark is true of Luther's German Bible, of the Danish Bible of 1550, and of the English versions of Wycliffe and Tyndale. The fact is generally admitted; nor is the explanation difficult to find. Most of these versions were made at a time when the vernacular language in each case was characterised by simplicity, both in the words, and in the combination of them. That language was therefore a better exponent of the original than more modern speech. They were made, moreover, when the mind of the translator and of the reader were in the state of great religious sensibility, and rejoicing in newly acquired freedom and in newly discovered truth. Add to these causes another-the translator himself generally felt the responsibility of his office, and girded up his mind to his task. Hence it is not suprising to be told that Wycliffe's New Testament is far superior in its English to his theological writings, superior in simplicity and purity and dignity, in all the elements, in short, that make a translation popular, and fit it to react upon the vocabulary and language of a nation. prac "With Wycliffe the religious dialect of this country may be said to have become fixed. For five hundred years it has continued, through Tyndale and the authorized version of 1611, to be the language of devotion and Scriptural translation. In our own day it remains tically unchanged. Any Englishman of common education will understand Wycliffe's New Testament; and if Wycliffe were now to reappear among us, it is probable that he would understand our authorized version, and need but few explanations." The man who used the plainest and most vigorous English in the times of the Reformation, was Bishop Latimer. Since in many cases Dr. Angus has given us a short outline of the personal life and character of his authors, we could wish that he had dwelt a little longer on this brave member of the noble army of martyrs. As it is, he only gives us a single specimen of his style in a foot-note, and tells us that he spoke bold truth in plain nervous English, which he enforced by a humour that produced a wonderful impression upon the people. He did this truly; but in our opinion he did much more. His humour and bold language were not the sole causes of the impression that he made. He appealed closely to the conscience of his hearers. He bade them search their own selves. There was but little dogmatic theology certainly, save on great cardinal points; but the revealed will of God in practical matters of every-day life-this was what he pressed home,God's anger against those who oppressed the poor, who thought the great business of life was to add house to house and field to field, but who regarded not the counsel of the most High. We certainly think Latimer deserved a few more lines on account of his excellence as a man and as a preacher; as many as Baxter, and Owen, and Chillingworth. It is however only fair to add, that this notice of Latimer occurs in the chapter on the 'history of the language." So perhaps Dr. Angus could not find more room for him there; but was it impossible to do so, when he treats of the prose-writers of Latimer's age? For the more lucid handling of his subject, authors are divided by Dr. Angus into four classes,-poets, dramatists, prosewriters, and novelists. To each of these he devotes a chapter. We proceed to take a brief glance at these four kinds of authors, following the order in which they are introduced by Dr. Angus. I. "What is Poetry?" is the first question that Dr. Angus asks; and then he lays before us the various answers which divers authorities have given, as Horace, Bacon, and Shakespeare; Milton, and Coleridge, and Aytoun; Macaulay, and Whately, and Johnson. Whately's and Johnson's he considers the worst definitions, as having to do more with the form than the essence of poetry. The former says, "Poetry is eloquent and decorated language in metre:" the latter, that it is "metrical composition." Shakespeare, who says, "As imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Bacon, who defines it as "the power which gives some shadow of satisfaction to the mind of man in those points wherein the nature of things doth deny it ;" and again," the power which has some participation of divineness, because it doth raise and erect the mind by submitting the shows of things to the desires of the mind, whereas reason doth bow the mind to the nature of things:"-and Aytoun, who calls it "the art which has for its object the creation of intellectual pleasures by means of imaginative and passionate language, and language generally, though not necessarily, formed into regular numbers:"-these three, Shakespeare, Bacon, and Aytoun, (so Dr. Angus considers,) approach nearest to the truth. It was an opinion of Dr. Johnson's, that religious subjects are not suitable for poetry. His remark on Dr. Watts is pretty generally known, that "he has done better than others what no one has done well." This view Dr. Angus most boldly combats, and fortifies himself with fact and with authority. The three principal epics of modern times are taken from religious themes, the master-pieces of Tasso, Dante, and Milton. The finest philosophical poems in our language, Pope's Essay on Man, and Wordsworth's Excursion, are largely religious, though both are, in a theological point of view, very defective; and Cowper's writings owe much of their beauty and power to their devotional sentiment, and even their direct religious teaching. In a noble passage in his "Recreations," Professor Wilson says,— "The statement of facts destroys at once all Dr. Johnson's splendid sophistry-splendid at first sight, but on closer inspection a mere haze. How far more truly, and how far more sublimely, does Milton, 'that |