salem" (Luke xxiv. 47); and they were also commanded to tarry in the city of Jerusalem until they were endued with power from on high (verse 49). How long they remained together at Jerusalem does not clearly appear; but when the disciples were scattered abroad on the persecution which arose after Stephen's martyrdom, the apostles are expressly excepted (Acts viii. 1). And even after Peter and John had been sent to Samaria, and after the conversion of Cornelius which ensues thereupon, the college of apostles, as we may call it, and the head quarters of the Church, was still Jerusalem; for it is said, " And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gentiles had also received the word of God" (Acts xi. 1). As if it had been quite an extraordinary and exceptional act to leave Jerusalem at all, as we know it was a most repugnant act to go in among the Gentiles; and therefore a special vision was vouchsafed to Peter to overcome his scruples, and he was called to account for his conduct, and justified himself by appealing to the direct interposition of God, which satisfied the Hebrew Church at Jerusalem.

We have been accustomed to place the conversion of Cornelius earlier than the year 40; but this is not essential to the argument; for some time would clapse before the Gentiles would need the Gospel to be translated into Greck, since the preachers by whom they were converted would continue among them giving viva voce instruction. And it is remarkable to find no allusion in the Acts of the Apostles, or in the epistles to the Churches, to any such books as the Gospels, leading us to infer that the living witness of men, filled with the Holy Ghost, was that which alone was regarded as of sufficient weight to warrant the substitution of a new religion, in place of that which God had himself given from Mount Sinai; or to break down the wall of partition placed by him between the Jews and the other nations of the earth. There were these valid reasons; and the natural prejudices in favour of their own people and language tended to increase their reluctance to forego these exclusive privileges, and to amalgamate with the one family of mankind out of all the tribes of which God was now about to gather the Christian Church, placing all believers on the same footing.

Even so late as St. Paul's second visit to Jerusalem, which was seventeen years after his conversion, we find that the preaching to the Gentiles was regarded as the proper work of Paul and Barnabas, from which therefore the other apostles ought rather to abstain; for he says that James, Peter, and John "gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fel

lowship, that we should go to the heathen and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. ii. 9). And the epistles both of James and Peter are addressed to the Jewish converts; whereas all the epistles of Paul, save one, are written to Churches which he had gathered from among the Gentiles. And the heading of St. Luke's Gospel shows that the first instructions were oral, and that written histories had been afterwards prepared to keep in memory the things wherein they had been instructed.

Our author, having satisfied himself that St. Matthew's Gospel was published within twelve years of the ascension, examines the relationship which the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke bear to this earliest of the Christian records, to discover, by internal evidence, in what order of time they have been composed. By this test, of a careful comparison of their several accounts of the same transactions, he thinks it is made evident that the evangelists had recourse to each other, and that St. Luke must have borrowed from St. Matthew, and St. Mark from both the preceding; and that Matthew, Luke, Mark, and John, is the order in which the Gospels were written; for all are agreed that St. John's Gospel was that which was last composed, shortly before the departure of the last of the apostles; and that it embodies the deepest mysteries of the faith which had been, among the spiritual, the subjects of discussion only in seasons of seclusion, and during their highest devotional acts and most confidential intercourse :

"To say that St. Matthew was one of the twelve; that he was consequently an eye or ear-witness of almost all he has put on record; and that he was in constant association for fourteen years with those who could supply the very few particulars removed from his personal experience, is to say that he must be considered an original author, and that his history must take rank as the fontal Gospel-the pure and only Protevangelium. Since St. Matthew's informants were his own senses, and he was in immediate contact with the scenes he depicts, his narrative borrows nothing from any other writing and admits no relation except to the events...... The mind, then the memory, of the first evangelist is the adequate and only credible source to which, so far as human agency is concerned, we can trace back the first Gospel. With the second evangelist (that is, St. Luke) however, the case is widely different. That he was no apostle nor original disciple of whatever degree-that his knowledge was mediate not immediate, the product merely of historical research not of personal observation-he distinctly admonishes his readers in his preface......I also (saith he), having traced all things exactly, &c. This qualifying adverb, exactly, affords the clearest proof of what is here intended-the judgment, namely, of the author, as the instrument of enquiry-not his eyes or his ears, as the channels of perception" (69).

But St. Luke declares that many had taken in hand the setting in order of the Christian history; consequently, there were floating traditions which needed to be set in order beside the Gospel of St. Matthew-the only published or generally acknowledged record: and, by comparing the narrative of these two evangelists, a close verbal resemblance often appears, as though St. Luke was quoting St. Matthew; yet the altered arrangement," and fluctuating degrees of approach, show quotation from memory; and the felicitous insertions, substitutions, and supplements, show an author who improves while he follows his original." In some passages, St. Luke spreads over two or three occasions, or two or three distinct parties, acts which St. Matthew leads us to regard as occurring on one occasion only. This dislocation, our author thinks, "is at least partially systematic;" and that St. Luke, in many instances, deviated intentionally from St. Matthew's track-deviated not dissented.

"Of two versions of the same parable, or two applications of the same precept, it would be quite on the analogy of his general plan to prefer that which was not pre-occupied by St. Matthew; and for his opportunity of selection, in regard to a context, I conceive he was indebted to those auxiliary informants of which mention is made in his preface. That our Lord frequently repeated his moral maxims and parables sometimes word for word, at other times slightly altered, applying former lessons on fresh occasions and bringing from his treasures things new and old, we may well consider certain; and if St. Luke came to the knowledge of two occasions on which similar or the same sentiments were uttered he would naturally, while retaining the old matter as necessary for those who had not access to the former Gospel, select the new connection, as a suitable variety for those who had (p. 78).

St. Mark in composing his Gospel had recourse to the two already extant written by St. Matthew and St. Luke; but being a Jewish convert, and accustomed to meet the disciples in his mother's house, the Gospel of St. Matthew was known to him before that of St. Luke was written, and being also officially connected with St. Peter he had access to a living informant. All these circumstances account for his general adherence to St. Matthew, and the characteristic copiousness and minute accuracy of some of his details. "St. Mark's recourse to St. Matthew was closer than St. Luke's. And again: St. Mark's recourse to St. Luke was less close than his recourse St. Matthew. St. Matthew was a father and superior-St. Luke only a brother and an equal."

St. Mark omits some of the things mentioned in the two preceding Gospels concerning the birth and early history of our Lord in order to hasten to his ministry, which was the

chief point of interest to the Roman converts for whom this Gospel was primarily designed. With this intention kept in view, it will be found that St. Mark's omissions of historical matter peculiar to St. Matthew are few in number-small in bulk-and advantageous, on the whole, to the compactness and even flow of the narrative.

The testimony of Eusebius concerning the Gospel of St. John is, that it was written, not to supersede the other Gospels, but to add various discourses of our Lord which the other evangelists had omitted; but it not only supplies omissionsit also is, in its subject matter, of a deeper and higher kind, dealing with our Lord himself, and what he was essentially and inherently, rather than with his mere words or deeds. Clement of Alexandria draws the distinction by calling the three former Gospels corporeal, as relating to external and visible things; but he calls that of St. John the spiritual Gospel, as relating to invisible and heavenly things-such as the sixth chapter contains and the fourteenth on the Comforter. It begins with the declaration of the eternal subsistence of the Word which was God, and concludes in stating its purport to be that men may believe in Christ as the Son of God, and, believing, may have life through his name.

"Hence, in sublimity of subject matter, this evangelist far transcends his brethren: they find their theme on earth: he fetches his theme from heaven: they dwell on the objective humanity of Christ: he on the subjective divinity: theirs are the corporeal Gospels of the Son of Man: his the spiritual Gospel of the Son of God. The record of the life of Jesus was their directing idea: his was the manifestation of his glory: in them we have the Vita: in him the Pectus Christi."

Having pointed out so many things in which we agree with our author, it is due to him and to our readers that we should say that we do not agree with him in his assigning no longer a period than two years to the ministry of our Lord. We, on the contrary, think that it can be demonstrably shown that our Lord's ministry lasted, at least, three years; but the proof would require more space than we can at present command. Nor do we deem this point of such great importance as it is esteemed by many to be, for no doctrine is at all affected by it the facts stand the same at whatever time they may have taken place, and we have long felt persuaded that it is utterly impossible to fix to a certainty any of the great epochs in ancient history, such as the birth or the crucifixion of our Lord.

We scarcely need add that we think very highly of the volume before us, and most cordially recommend it to all who are engaged in the study of the Gospels.

233

Notices of Books.

Letters to a Waverer on the Romish Controversy. By the Rev. SAMUEL HOBSON, LL.B. London: Seeleys. 1848. 12mo.

THIS work supplies a desideratum in our modern controversial literature; and if it should come into the hands of any "waverer," who will give it a candid perusal and examination, it can scarcely fail, with the divine blessing, to preserve him from being perverted to Popery. It is written throughout with a calm, gentle, and serious temper; and its value is enhanced by the addition of references to the authorities from which the author has drawn his materials.

Mr. Hobson states that this work originated in his own want of a comprehensive manual, which he could put into the hands of a friend, who, "attracted by the pomp and splendour, and yielding to the fascination of the Romish mode of worship, had at length become entangled in the snares of Popery.' His design is to exhibit the more essential points of difference between Romanists and Protestants, and to contrast the errors and corruptions of Popery with the scriptural purity and excellence of the Church of England. In the prosecution of this design, he has enriched his pages with valuable quotations from Cranmer, Ridley, Jewel, Hooker, and other distinguished fathers of our Church; and he has placed the results of his enquiries before his readers in a perspicuous and popular form. The following are the subjects discussed by Mr. Hobson—viz., The outward Attractions of Romanism; Scripture the Test of Truth; the Opposition of the Romish Church to the use of the Scriptures, and the importance of studying them; Supremacy and Infallibility arrogant and unreasonable; and a comparison between Rome and Geneva, in which the Christian moderation of the Church of England towards non-episcopal Churches appears to great advantage. These topics are followed by an examination and refutation of the Romish doctrine concerning transubstantiation, the real presence, and the necessity of the priest's intention to the validity of a sacrament, baptism and the opus operatum, and justification by faith. Mr. Newman's erroneous views of justification are thoroughly sifted and refuted. Purgatory and prayers for the dead, auricular confession and its dangerous tendency, are next discussed and the demoralizing, antisocial, and destructive doctrines of the Romish Church, especially those taught in the writings of the recently canonized saint, Alphonso