copy] has been received from its first publication." "The same authority," he adds, "of the Apostolical churches will support the other Gospels, (quæ proinde per illas, et secundum illas habemus) which we have through them and according to them," that is, "conformably to their copies." The only way of taking the written Gospels from the churches, according to the churches, would seem to be having them "conformably to their copies."

If these are to be taken as fair specimens of Mr. Norton's inaccuracy, his work is not likely to suffer from any severity of criticism. Some of its reasonings may fail to convince us, and some of its conclusions we may not accept; but the exactness of its scholarship may be called in question with more ease than success.

The other topic suggested by your correspondent is one which needs not be entered fully upon here. The explanation given in the Examiner for January, of the apparent contradiction of the first three Evangelists by the fourth as to the time of eating the Passover, was offered as a solution which had been given by an eminent scholar. The writer does not think that Dr. Robinson has fully made out his case, though his view is the one which was taken by Mr. Norton, and is entitled to great consideration.

In the article on the Genuineness of the Gospels, p. 58, in the first line of the last paragraph nativity is printed instead of maturity, thereby giving in very bad English a misstatement of an important fact. On p. 63, "the Memoirs by Peter" should be without quotation-marks. In the note on p. 65, Papias and Irenæus are spoken of as both hearers of Polycarp, and therefore contemporaries. This, certainly, is very inconclusive reasoning, and ought not to have been admitted. Perhaps, also, in the same note, the conviction is expressed with too little qualification, that Mr. Smith, in the passage quoted from him, proves that the Mark of Papias was the same as the Mark of Irenæus. But the decided assertion of Eusebius, who evidently had before him the now lost works of Papias, taken in connection with the fact that Irenæus had been a disciple of Polycarp, the friend of Papias, leaves in the writer's mind no doubt on this subject, though he did not feel at liberty to introduce this conviction, as of an undisputed fact, into the,

body of the argument for the genuineness of the Gospels. That argument has been often and sadly weakened by the introduction of irrelevant or doubtful matter.

Indeed, the great difficulty in the way of the argument, the one cause which perhaps more than all others prevents many intelligent and candid minds from feeling its force, is, that it is drawn from so many separate sources, and made up of so many independent parts, that the attention is occupied with the particulars, and the combined strength of all fails to be fully recognized. When we go back, through Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Theophilus, Irenæus, Justin Martyr, Papias, the Epistles of Paul, and the Acts of the Apostles, to the very time when the Gospels were written, we are apt to think of each writer as standing by himself, and only adding to the length of the chain which connects us with the age of the Apostles. But, in fact, each of these writers is to be regarded, not as an additional link in the chain, but as an independent authority, having access to original sources of information reaching back to the beginning, and thus adding to the strength of the testimony furnished by all the rest. Justin Martyr, for example, constantly speaks of Memoirs by the Apostles, and quotes from them as original and authentic writings; and his quotations, though not always verbally exact, are such as to create a strong presumption that those "Memoirs, called Gospels," which he says "were composed by the Apostles and their companions," were substantially the same as the Gospels which we now have. If he stood alone, a single voice from those distant ages, we should feel that there might be some mistake; that those early Memoirs might have been lost, and that the parts quoted from them by Justin Martyr might have been woven into other and more recent writings. But when, twenty or thirty years later, Irenæus who, as the hearer of Polycarp, who had been the disciple of St. John, must have had access to original sources of information— gives to us particular accounts of the Gospels of his time, which leave no room for scepticism itself to doubt that they were the same that we now have, we have here evidence that goes to explain, confirm, and establish the earlier testimony of Justin Martyr. We see that his "Memoirs by the Apostles and

their companions" must be the same as the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which are named, quoted from, and described by Irenæus. For how was it possible that those early Memoirs by the Apostles could, in the short interval that separated these two writers, have been so entirely superseded by other and later writings, that no trace of their existence should be left behind? On the other hand, the words of Justin Martyr, as of a witness entirely independent, writing nearly a generation earlier, by their informal and substantial agreement, corroborate the assertions of Irenæus. In like manner, Tertullian and Origen, reflecting back the light of a comparatively early period on the writings of still earlier times, and Papias and the author of the book of Acts, throwing forward their light from the very days of the Apostles, uniting and harmonizing, as they do, with Justin Martyr, Irenæus, and the rest, mutually explain and strengthen one another. And then the Gospels themselves, in the simplicity of their language, the grandeur of their moral precepts, the sublimity of their doctrines, and, above all, the character of Jesus, which they all sustain in its unparalleled combination of great deeds and words, shining like a new sun over the moral darkness of the world, furnish to us an adequate cause for the extraordinary revolution that took place in those days, and account for, illustrate, and confirm the assertions of subsequent writers. The Gospels, and the stupendous moral revolution connected with them, at their first appearance, are great monumental facts, which no reasoning can overthrow; and they must themselves be employed as essential elements in the investigation, giving its peculiar force and authority to all the other evidence.

But in the critical inquiries that meet us by the way, and the discussions on minor points that are constantly coming up, we are often diverted from the main argument, and fail to appreciate the combination of unquestioned doctrines, facts, and assertions which go to make up its force. For this reason, we should be careful to remember, in any small controversies like the present, that it is of little consequence which way they are decided. The fundamental principles of our religion, the integrity of the Gospel of Christ, and the authority of

the Evangelical writings, will remain wholly unaffected by such discussions. If any criticism were to be made on Mr. Norton's work, it would be, that he has sometimes, as in his note on the Old Testament, introduced matters which are not essential to his argument, and which, by diverting the thoughts or awakening the prejudices of the reader, turn him aside from the main argument, or create in him unnecessary apprehension and distrust.

J. H. M.

NOTICES OF RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

The Relation between Judaism and Christianity. By JOHN GORHAM PALFREY, D.D., LL.D. Boston: Crosby, Nichols, & Co. 1854. 8vo. pp. 344.

Ir is a singular feature in the theological literature of the time, that several distinguished men, in the two opposite sections of religious opinion, have been the authors of very able works that are not likely to have the effect of convincing any person whatever. Dr. Bushnell, whose admirable power as a thinker and skill as a writer is admitted on all sides, takes up the whole orthodox faith for a reconstruction. He crumbles it in pieces with the dissolving logic, which he professes not to think much of, and the higher forces of his religious sentiment; and lo! the "substance of doctrine" collapses into quite an unsubstantial ruin. And yet it looked so strong, and was really so symmetrical as a mere system of iron and flint, and was tall enough to overshadow the world! Then he waves the magic wand of his rhetoric, and it reappears as if in a vision,-in the clouds and like a cloud, with the highest splendor of coloring that mists can wear. He declares that it makes just as good a figure as it did before his incantation, and a great deal better. But he cannot persuade his brethren to think so. The liberal party smile; and the Calvinistic party shake their heads and bite their tongues, and say, This will never do. Dr. Furness, a fine and generous spirit, comes out with a biography of Jesus on an entirely new plan. His darling hypothesis, on which he has spent so much time and toil, is for ever before his eyes. He cannot forget it, nor let any one else forget it. But as we never heard of any convert to his theory, we suppose that he has the comfort 4TH. S. VOL. XXII. NO. I. 12

VOL. LVII.

of it all to himself. Then we have Dr. Edward Beecher, with his "Conflict of Ages." He is an able child of a great name; a name to conjure with, and to keep the sea out, if that were possible, of unbelief and unrighteousness. And what does he do in his "Conflict "? He faces directly about against the ancient Augustinian camp. He whirls its canvas into the air before the flame of a just moral indignation, and the dark hosts that it covered are routed, horse and foot. But when he has accomplished all this, he says, Friends, I mean you no harm, but am only exerting myself to put you in a right position. Here is a contrivance, the only one that can save your intrenchments from the scorn and wrath of the human mind. Here is the grandest sketch of an army in the field that was ever heard of. It is better than barracks. Do but look at it, and believe in it, and you are all as you should be, and your defences are as good as new. The friends, however, look askance upon one another, and with an expression not particularly tranquil, upon him. His scheme is worse than anything in Der Freischutz, or Robert le Diable, and not a man will believe a word of it. These three accomplished and ingenious writers might whisper a caution, by their signal failure to establish just what they intended, to any scholar who should think he had discovered an original plan of settling "The Relation between Judaism and Christianity." We do not mean to say that Dr. Palfrey, in his last elaborate work, will make absolutely not a single convert to his opinion, though we have heard that thought expressed; but we seriously think that the converts will be few. Our learned friend attaches great importance to the Divine mission of Moses, to the supernatural character of the institutions he set up, and to his inspired prophecy of the Christ that was to come, "the Prophet like unto himself." At the same time, he maintains that none of the prophets who came between that prediction and its fulfilment had any such inspired foresight; but, on the contrary, that every man of them was misled on the subject, was not divinely guided at all, and whenever he said anything on the matter spoke erroneously. Now it is very easy to suppose either of these things to be true, but extremely difficult to imagine how they can both be true. We can run no such contrasting line between the lawgiver and the seers of the Hebrew nation. We cannot send one off with all the honors of his miraculously shining face, and leave none of that heavenly illumination, but gross darkness rather, for the long line of sacred worthies that came after him. We cannot interfere so roughly with the harmony of the Biblical notes of preparation for a supposed Messiah. We cannot so break asunder a series of Divine communications to man, putting all that is beyond the range of natural causes at the beginning and the end,