quested to put up to auction the desired site. Intending purchasers, and sometimes the community at large, have been informed (occasionally by printed bills) that the site was to be purchased for church purposes, and have been requested not to bid for it. Through this stroke the Government may have got L.200, or less, for what, according to market value, should have brought L.1000, and would have brought it in fair and honourable competition. The Exchequer of the colony was thus minus L.800 of its due by the transaction. Men in high places spoke of the system under the name of the pious frauds.' It made Voluntaryism a byword and mockery. I confess, sir, that from the first day I set foot in the colony, it looked to me something very like the Church swindling the State. Rather than that I would have laid hands upon a site in this way, I would have gone honestly to the Government and asked one.

But I must draw to a close. There is one fact which I think might be accepted by the candid mind, as a guarantee that a man's Voluntaryism is safe enough in the Union Church if he only choose himself to retain it, and that is, that the United Presbyterian ministers who come out from home all cast in their lot with Presently we have had no fewer than five such: not a word, so far as I

us.

know, was spoken to one of these to induce him to join us; and yet not one of them, when in a position to judge of matters on the spot, seems to have had a moment's difficulty about the matter. And surely such men as the Rev. A. Robertson, late of Stow, the Rev. Mr Lambie, and others, are not the men to give an uncertain sound' on these questions. I should be prepared to find, that nine out of every ten United Presbyterian ministers, on coming out here, would do just as they have done. And now, sir, I trust that this painful system of annoyance and misrepresentation will cease. It is altogether uncalled for. There is no principle at stake. It is the fruit of mere personal feeling. I can bear the assaults, but I am grieved to think that men whom I have called brethren should be the assailers. Better surely that they were seeking that peace which is the glory of the Gospel, and which shall yet be the crowning adornment of the Church. While souls are perishing, there is work enough to be done; pity then it is that those energies should be expended on intestine feuds, which ought to be brought to bear on the kingdom of darkness for its overthrow.--I remain, dear sir, yours respectfully,

JAMES BALLANTYNE. 11 NICOLSON STREET, FITZROY, MELBOURNE, June 25, 1863.

THE GOSPEL HISTORY: A Compendium of Critical Investigations in support of the Historical Character of the Four Gospels. By Dr J. H. A. EBRARD, Professor of Theology in the University of Erlangen. Translated by JAMES MARTIN, B.A., Nottingham.

Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark.

THE work before us is one of decided excellence, and it covers a very extensive as well as most important field. It is not a mere harmony, such as we have in the works of Osiander, Gerson, Chemnitz, Calixt, and more recently of Roediger, Chapman, and Robinson; but it discusses, in the most thorough manner, the credibility of the whole Gospel History, and repels, with signal success, the assaults which have been made upon it on the ground of alleged contradictions and want of historical verisimilitude. The author is already well

known to the British public by his Commentaries upon Hebrews, and the Epistles and Apocalypse of John; and the present work deserves to be hailed as both valuable in itself and singularly seasonable. It answers Renan by anticipation.

The subject of the connection between the several Gospels is first handled, and the author sets himself, by patient investigation of the entire contents of each, to ascertain the specific design and plan of the writer. It is shown that Matthew's Gospel was intended primarily for Jews; and that accordingly the leading object of it is to demonstrate that Jesus was the Messiah, the Deliverer and King foretold in the Old Testament. The chronological order upon the whole is followed; but there occur near the middle of the book several large sections where particular topics are set forth, such as the need of disciples, the position of Jesus with respect to the Pharisees, and

the doctrine of His kingdom; and in these sections conversations and events are brought together for the sake of illustration, which may have belonged to different periods.

With regard to Mark it is shown that his purpose was to exhibit Jesus, rather as the Son of God than in His connection with the Old Dispensation as the son of David and Abraham. And with this view he paints scene after scene in the life of Christ, throwing his materials into a rhetorical and striking form, and abounding in minute, circumstantial, beautiful details. Mark's is the shortest Gospel, and yet his individual narratives often cover a larger space than the other Evangelists assign to the same events. There is no classification of subjects, as in Matthew, around which events are clustered; and therefore probably the chronological order is more closely followed throughout.

Luke's Gospel differs considerably in form and contents from both Matthew and Mark. It was designed more especially for Gentile readers; and one of its objects is to show that salvation was not a privilege to be restricted to Jews, but that Jews and Gentiles were to be united in Christ. In this Gospel there is a classification of subjects as in Matthew, but it is carried to a far greater extent. Not only are there certain larger sections, such as a collection of Christ's parables, a collection of His shorter sayings, and a description of the missions of the twelve and the seventy; but within these sections there are other subordinate topical arrangements often on the principle of contrast. The inference therefore necessarily forces itself upon us, that chronological order is not to be always expected

in Luke. Some have indeed made him the standard for chronology on the ground that he says he intended to write 'in order;' but the meaning of these words obviously is that he intended to exhibit his materials not in a confused heap, but grouped together in an orderly manner. And order certainly prevails in Luke from beginning to end. The principle of his arrangement, however, is not always chronology, but most frequently connection of topics. And indeed Calvin and Bengel long ago came to the conclusion, that Luke has preserved less of the chronological order than any of the other Evangelists.

The first three Gospels have much in common, and cover upon the whole the same field. But John's differs greatly from them all. His design was to set before his hearers the incarnate Logos, to exhibit Jesus as the manifestation of the glory of the Father, and to describe the conflict originated by the Gospel between light and darkness. He seems to have had in his

view enemies within the Church, who were corrupting the purity of the Gospel by de nying the incarnation of God in Christ. And with these objects before him he na turally directed his attention not so much to the proceedings of Jesus in Galilee, as to His journeys to Jerusalem, and the conflicts He had to maintain there with the powers of darkness. In narrating what occurred in Judea and the metropolis, John adopts the three journeys to the Passover as his leading epochs, and is very careful to mention place and time.

With regard to the sequence of events narrated in all the Evangelists, the author investigates each particular occurrence, and weighs the mode of its connection with what precedes in each book. He is thus enabled to construct a variety of chains of events; and in the end he fits them into one another with singular skill. With regard to apparent discrepancies, he avoids equally the extreme into which Osiander fell of making every narrative where any peculiar circumstance is noted refer to a separate event; and the extreme of making all similar accounts refer to one and the same occurrence, as if there never could be two things bearing a strong resemblance to one another.

In illustrating the principle that two accounts may differ considerably from one another, and yet both be literally true, nay, that they may seem at first sight contradictory, and yet after all perfectly harmonize when every circumstance is known, the author narrates a remarkable case that happened in his own experience. During the troubles of 1839 in Switzerland, the report that troops had been sent for to Berne to overawe the people had produced the greatest excitement. The people armed on every hand, and were ready to march to Zürich, or to meet the Bernese forces. On the evening of 5th September, information was received by the leaders of the popular movement that there was no foundation for the report. They immediately caused several hundred letters to be written and despatched in all directions to quiet the people. Now one person informed me (in Zürich) that late in the evening N. was sent with a letter to Pfäffikon; another told me that N. was sent in the evening to Pfäffikon, but after going a short distance returned with the report, that the alarmbell had already been rung in Pfäffikon. A third related that two messengers had been sent on horseback to Pfäffikon; a fourth said that N. had sent two men on horseback to Pfäffikon. If any four ac counts ever seemed irreconcilable, these did. And if a harmonist had attempted to reconcile the whole, on the supposition that N. was sent, but met two messengers from

and

Pfäffikon who reported the outbreak of the riot; that he turned back with them to Zürich, where he immediately procured horses, and sent them back in all speed to quiet the people; it would be rejected as a most improbable and artificial conjecture. Yet this was the simple explanation which I received from N. himself, when I asked him what the facts of the case really were.'

In the second part of the work, the theories of Strauss, Weisse, Gfrörer, and Bauer with respect to the mythical and unhistorical origin of the Gospels at a later period than the apostolic age, are subjected to the most searching examination; and it is shown that neither the circumstances of the times, nor the innumerable references made by the earliest writers to the sacred books, are at all compatible with such views. The true historical spirit is breathed in every page of the Evangelists. And with regard to alleged contradictions and discrepancies, the alacrity with which the idea of them is grasped at is apparent from the trifling character of the far greater number of them. Luke, we are told by Strauss, contradicts himself, because in Acts i. 3 he says that Christ was seen for forty days after His passion; whereas in Luke xxiv. 36-49, we are told that He appeared to the disciples in Jerusalem, conversed with them, and led them out as far as to Bethany, and then ascended into heaven. Now surely the idea of contradiction here is an utter absurdity, and would never have occurred to any one unless he were in eager search after it. The only difference between the two passages is that in the one mention is made of the length of time Christ remained upon the earth after His resurrection, and in the other not.

The result of the whole inquiry is to show that it is really on dogmatic grounds alone that opposition to the credibility and historical character of the Gospel rests. Men set out from the assumed principle that miracles are incredible, that the idea of the supernatural must be banished completely; and then as the Gospels undeniably do record many miracles, they are under the necessity of questioning their entire veracity. This is the fundamental fallacy of the whole negative criticism. It is the principle Renan proceeds upon throughout; and of course it is evident that if miracles be looked upon as altogether inadmissible, then Christianity must be denounced as an imposture. The idea of maintaining the authority and influence of the Gospel after miracles are eliminated from its records, is a vain dream. There is no middle ground between the historical truth of the Gospel miracles, and the falsehood of the whole scheme of revealed religion. Why, then, do Strauss, and Bauer,

and Schweizer, and such writers put themselves to so much trouble in writing about the Gospel history, and searching in it for minute discrepancies? Why do they not embrace infidelity at once, and end the matter? But the fact is that this is not so easily done. There are no books in the world which bear upon their face more evident marks of the true historical character than the Gospels; and the minds of unsophisticated men have ever felt this, and will do so to the end of time. Miracles it is impossible to deny. For on the supposition that you set aside every particular miracle mentioned in Scripture, and thus demonstrate Christianity to be a wilful imposture, then there starts up before you a new miracle greater than all the rest you have exploded; a scheme of imposture contrived by so many different minds, expounded by so many different pens, and embracing such a vast variety of details of all sorts; and yet the whole presenting such an aspect of historical verisimilitude as is surpassed by no true history in this world. Yes! The Gospel carries its evidence in its very face, and that is the reason why, notwithstanding all the attacks made upon it age after age, each of which was loudly vaunted as sure utterly to destroy it, it holds up its head as high as ever in the face of day, and is acquiring the mastery of a continually enlarging territory. Yes, it is of God, and it shall spread till it reach from sea to sea, and from the river even to the ends of the earth.

THE PRINCIPLES OF CHRISTIAN UNION AS LAID DOWN IN THE WORD OF GOD. By the Rev. WILLIAM WHITE, Knox's Free Church, Haddington.

Edinburgh: W. P. Kennedy. THIS is a very remarkable volume-the production of a powerful, liberal, and sanctified intellect. Whether we consider the freshness of its thought, the vigour of its reasonings, the scripturalness of its conclusions, or the breadth and generousness of its charity, we are constrained to think that it is the most important contribution that has yet been made to the cause of Christian union. Mr White used to be great in controversy: he had a strong arm and a sharp lance; and we thought that, as a strong man armed, he sometimes wantoned with his strength and weapons. He is an older, and a riper, and a greater man now, when he comes before the churches as a herald of peace, having in his hand this little book, like an olive branch which he hath plucked by much prayer, and thoughtfulness, and wrestling in the garden of God.

The volume consists of eight lectures,

mutually interdependent, like the stones that compose the arch of a bridge, the fourth or middle lecture being the key.

The first lecture treats of the Unity of the Spirit.' This unity our author defines to be harmony in the various operations that are the fruit of the common indwelling of the Spirit in the hearts of believers. This harmony may be broken through the interference of human passions with divine influence. So all Christians are taught in Scripture to endeavour to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.' Diversity of manifestation, arising necessarily from difference of individual temperament, disposition, knowledge, grace, is not subversive of this unity, but helpful of it,-in like manner as, to use a familiar figure, the spirit of a man is one, though its operations through the members of the body differ, just as the hands, or the feet, or the tongue serve it for the time.

'For no mistake,' says the writer, 'on this subject possibly can be greater or more pernicious, than the idea that the unity of the Spirit is a monotonous, uniform, dead-level sameness in every respect,-an idea which, if it has not been spoken out in theory, has been wrought out in practice, with immense detriment to the cause of unity in the Church of the living God. God never made anything, either in the works of creation, providence, or redemption, which was in all respects uniform. A race of beings, whether considered as in a state of nature or in a state of grace, whether viewed in their souls or in their bodies, who were in all respects the same, would be one of the dreariest and most dismal spectacles that could be presented to a reason constituted like that of man. They would not be men, but automatons, animated statues. Each would be the other's shadow. Society, among such a race of creatures, would be impossible, because they would have nothing to impart to each other, nothing to exchange. "There are diversities of operation, but the same Spirit worketh all in all."'

In the end of this lecture there are some admirable thoughts regarding the lowliness, meekness, long-suffering, and forbearance,' which are an essential moral condition towards the successful endeavour after the unity of the Spirit.'

In the beginning of the second lecture, which treats of the Basis of Union in the Invisible Church,' our author gives the following definition of unity:

'Unity is not identity, not sameness, not uniformity. Make two pieces of wood exactly the same, entirely uniform: the mind does not conceive of them as one, but as two objects, completely distinct from, independent of, and having no internal relation to, each other. The forms are one; the objects are two. In uniformity, the eye perceives an external oneness in the form. In unity, the mind per

ceives an internal oneness in the thing. If the uniform objects are a thousand, or ten thousand, each one of the thousand or the ten thousand objects has no organic relation to all the rest. But in unity, though the forms are a thousand or ten thousand, the mind perceives an internal oneness in each individual, by virtue of which it is indissolubly related to, and classed as one with, the thousand or the ten thousand. Diversity enters into the very essence of unity. In no instance does the idea of unity arise in our minds, unless from the perception of oneness, or harmony, in the relation of dissimilar parts, in the combination of dissimilar ingredients, in the action of dissimilar powers, or in perceiving some general idea of God or man pervading manifold forms. The less there is of diversity, in any object whatever, mental or material, it embodies the less of unity. The more the diversity, if it be harmonious, the unity is of the higher nature. Light is one. Its unity, however, arises from the combination of the whole variety of dissimilar colours; and were the number of dissimilar ingredients lessened, light would be imperfect and impure.'

We see it asserted contemptuously, by one who has set himself for the time in the seat of the scorner, that 'unity in variety' is not a new idea. Educated men did not need to be told that this is lightas old as Plato. Mr White's doctrine is, however, a little in advance of the old idea; nor are we aware that we have ever before met with a formal assertion of the doctrine that variety is essential to all unity. We agree with all that our author says here; but although he does mention oneness of purpose incidentally in some of his illustrations, we would humbly suggest that it should have had more prominence, inasmuch as we think that oneness of purpose is essential to the idea of unity, and that it is our sense of this oneness of purpose that harmonizes variety, and so

unites it.

In the third lecture it is shown that the Church visible is founded on, and grows out of, Christ's Lordship-'one Lord.' The supremacy of Christ is the very corner stone of the visible temple. On this one basis rests the Church's administrative authority, and from this springs her administrative unity. The practical differences in Church administration are perhaps not stated or discussed formally enough for some in this lecture; but there are sufficient indications in the argument that, with some, there can be no possible agreement until they come out of human cap tivity into the captivity of the obedience that is in Christ.'

The gist of the book, and its special claim on the attention of the Church, lie in the fourth lecture, which discusses the question of the 'One Faith.' In this our

author girds his loins to show wherein Christians must agree, and wherein they may differ, and yet be one. The answer he gives to this question lies in the distinction he makes between faith and knowledge. This distinction he expresses thus:

Faith, as distinguished from every other act of the mind, means belief in testimony. Christian faith is belief in the divine testimony. The things of the Christian faith are things which we know on the ground of the divine testimony, and which we would not otherwise know. Knowledge acquired in any other manner than by testimony, or that can be acquired in any other manner than by testimony, is not faith. And nothing is an article of faith which is discoverable by the natural exercise of our own faculties. All that we ascertain by observation, experience, reflection, reading, or study, is knowledge; but it is not faith in the appropriated sense of that term. Faith is belief in testimony, and Christian faith is belief in the divine testimony; and the things of faith all lie in a region above reason, and are

such

a nature that they would for ever have remained unknown, had not God discovered them to us by supernatural revelation.

'It is an essential feature of every article of faith, properly so called, to be undiscoverable by reason. Hence it is not said to be discovered by the saints, but to be delivered to the saints-bestowed on them as a gift, and committed to them as a trust.'

If Mr White has not in this distinction actually laid his hand upon the key, he is at least in the region where the key is to be found. He is, in his answer, in advance of any who have ever attempted to answer this vexed question. One vital advantage of this answer over any answer that has ever been given, is this, that it throws us upon Scripture. The distinction of essentials and non-essentials, of fundamentals and circumstantials, is left too much to human judgment-to the verdict of opinion. Mr White's distinction between faith and knowledge, as he defines these terms, assigns limits to dogmatism on the one hand, and to rationalism on the other -gives faith supremacy in the region of pure revelation, and allows reason licence in the sphere of observation and experience. Thus is the balance struck between authority and liberty, and that is the question of all governments, human as well as divine. It may be objected to this theory, that it does not admit of definitions, but Jeaves all things vague and nebulous. This is a mistake. Articles of faith, properly so called, do not admit of definition, for this simple reason, that finite minds cannot comprehend and define the infinite, nor can natural terms define what is properly supernatural. Articles of faith, however, being essentially and necessarily of a positive nature, admit of being stated as

revealed facts with the same precision as other facts.

On the other hand, inferences drawn from articles of faith, being human inferences from that which is divine, admit of definition with everything of a similar kind. Things of pure supernatural revelation, resting on testimony (and therefore the proper objects of faith), are essentially historical, and not logical, in their nature. They are in consequence concrete things, while the inferences from them are abstract thoughts. The latter can be defined, the former cannot. The former are out of the sphere of reason, and must be accepted as they are revealed. The latter are out of the sphere of faith; with them reason has to do. It is a property of Mr White's theory, that it distinguishes between what can be defined and what cannot. It gives us a principle whereby we may know what is fixed and what may vary. The old terms of essential and non-essential, fundamental and circumstantial, expressed the fact of a distinction, but did not distinguish. They were variable quantities, that might mean anything. They just meant what the man who might happen to use them meant-no less and no more. Mr White's distinction is a fixed one. use a figure to illustrate our meaning. Before the invention of the mariner's compass, the sailor far out on the sea knew the terms north, south, east, and west, but could not with any certainty distinguish the directions. He got the compass, whose needle always points with trembling sensitiveness towards the one pole; and north, south, east, west, were no longer mere terms they became positive directionsthe compass fixed them. So our author's distinction between faith and knowledge, if it is true, fixes the old variable terms, essential and non-essential. It fixes also the meaning of that terrible word, 'latitudinarian.' Alas for the sectaries!

То

'Is there one faith? Then this shows wherein latitudinarianism, properly so called, consists. That term is tossed and bandied about in discussions about union, as if its pronouncement dispensed alike with thought and the exposition of Scripture, and settled the controversy, as by the utterance of a spell, in favour of him who could say, when he had nothing else to say, "That is latitudinarian." What is latitudinarianism? Is it like the term North-a constantly shifting term-one thing on the Thames, and another on the Tweed? Are there as many kinds of latitudinarianism as there are men? Or, is there some fixed principle, every deviation from which is latitudinarianism? There is such a principle in the "one faith." Whoever makes the basis of union less than the one faith, is a left-hand latitudinarian. Whoever makes the basis of union more than the one