his palace, who stood beneath the cross, and was entrusted with the mother of his Lord,—who saw his side pierced, and ran before Peter to the sepulchre,-who first knew Jesus on the lake, and of whom that mysterious rumour went abroad that he was not to die,-must be one of the twelve, must be one of the three; and as no one could be less like Peter, and as James died too soon to be the author of this Gospel, the unanimous tradition of the ancient church is true, that it was written, in his old age, by the last survivor of the twelve, John the son of Zebedee, the disciple whom Jesus loved and yet rebuked, the son of thunder, the perpetual associate of Peter in the Acts, and with him a pillar of the church at Jerusalem long after Paul's conversion. After giving some account of the modern neological reaction against this Gospel, represented by the "Probabilia" of Bretschneider, and the counter-reaction in its favour, represented by Bretschneider's recantation; and after showing how many of the traits peculiar to this one of the four Gospels may be also traced in the Epistles and Apocalypse, Da Costa takes the only miracle recorded by all four evangelists, the feeding of the five thousand, and employs it to illustrate their peculiarities. He then repeats this process on a larger scale, filling more than a hundred pages (of the English volume) with a thorough analytical comparison of our Saviour's passion, as recorded in the different Gospels. This, though not so satisfactory to general readers, on account of its descending into such detail, is of the highest value to the critical inquirer; even its failures and its over refinements being not only interesting but instructive. Into this, of course, we cannot enter further, as it does not admit of either abstract or abridgment, but must hasten to present some of the general conclusions which the author draws from these distinctions and comparisons. His grand result is, HARMONY NOT UNISON,-perfect accordance in design and substance, with the utmost individuality of character and form. The author's mind, prolific in analogies, exhausts itself in efforts to illustrate this idea, by architectural and musical comparisons, which, like most others, do not always run upon all-fours. Some of his distinctions, if not altogether just, are striking and suggestive; as that Matthew presents Christ as a king and prophet, Luke as a king and priest; Matthew writes as a Jew for Jews, Mark as a Roman for Romans, Luke as a Greek for Greeks, John as a cosmopolite for Jews and Christians. The chronological relation of the Gospels is presented in a manner equally original, whatever may be thought of its ratio cination. He who writes always as a Jew, an eye-witness, an apostle, building on the Old Testament, combining things that are alike, and drawing gigantic outlines,-must be first in time. He who follows the first closely, often using the same words, but omitting, transposing, and particularly filling up the outline with details-must be the second. He who takes outlines from the first, and details from the second, but enriches both with fresh additions, and professes to write ns-must be third. He who repeats little from the other three, but is ever presupposing their existence, yet continually adding what is found in none of them-must be the fourth. This mutual relation he illustrates and confirms by Old Testament analogies, or rather by the uniform organic progress, which he thinks may be traced alike in nature, providence, and revelation. As the prophecies are, so to speak, evolved out of the Pentateuch and one another; as the New Testament thus grows out of the Old, and each successive part from that before it; so Matthew's argument, though it maintains its place, gives birth to Mark's description, and both to Luke's history, and all to John's Sooyia, the infancy, youth, manhood, and old age of one and the same revelation, or, to change the figure, as our author sometimes does without sufficient notice, a quaternion of evangelists, the two apostles marching outside, to cover, as it were, the apostolicals, though clothed at the same time with the authority of Paul and Peter. Whatever may be thought of these particular distinctions and analogies, it must be owned that the ingenious author has established his right to ask the triumphant question at the close, Can all this be the work of chance or human contrivance? In accordance with his fundamental principle, he holds that these four views of Christ were necessary to produce the requisite effect; that none of them could have been spared; that though the inspiration of the authors was the same, their human gifts were different; that each Gospel is perfect in its kind, but not complete by itself, like the members of the body; that each answers its own purpose, but not God's, which requires and comprehends them all. If we had only Matthew's outline record of some facts, it would be perfect as an outline, yet not all we need. One side of a building may be perfect in design and execution; yet it cannot be the whole, or any other side but itself. As to apparent or alleged discrepancies, our author holds that they are aggravated, not relieved, by fusion and assimilation; that the actual diversities are not to be ignored or even extenuated, but allowed to give the key (another musical allusion) to the entire harmony, so that the more differences we find, the more distinctly will the Gospels stand forth in their individuality; and yet these differences, far from being contradictions, will be found to be the necessary elements and indispensable conditions of the highest unity. However transcendental this may seem in form, we do believe that it embodies an intelligible and important truth, the same that was propounded at the outset of this abstract, as the radical idea of Da Costa's work. We shall close our crude account of this extraordinary book with the author's own summary harmonic rules, or rather pregnant statements of the consequences flowing from the previous discussion. He concludes, then, that the earlier evangelists were well known to the later, and were used by them, but independently, or only in dependence on the Holy Ghost, whose will was not that they should use precisely the same matter, still less the same manner, but that each should choose from the common material, with a view to his own specific task and calling; that they consequently might, or rather must, differ widely in selection, arrangement, and expression. Matthew combines like with like; Mark frequently, by transposition, makes it chronological; Luke gives it a historical construction, to which John adheres, except for cause, in what is common to them both. As a general thing, Matthew abounds in topics and in words; Mark and Luke in more minute details; while John is full in both respects, yet different from all. In speaking of the same thing, Matthew sometimes has the plural,-Mark and Luke the singular; the former being more generic and collective in his thoughts and words, -the others more specific and individual. Even where John is like the others in his general mode or manner, as in local description or exact specifications of time and number, the details are for the most part peculiar to himself. In recording speeches, all convey the true sense; but Mark and Luke more generally give the precise words,-Matthew the substance, sometimes with ideas that were not expressed, though really implied, and John with the echo or reflection of the language from his own soul. In giving an idea of Da Costa's singular production, we have chosen to retain, as far as possible, his own arrangement and peculiar form, although the one is often desultory and the other odd. But the very fact that these peculiarities are so much out of keeping with the old-fashioned harmonistic methods of the English school, may lead to wholesome action and reaction between systems so antipodal in form, though really concurring in the same essential views of inspiration, and of Christ himself. We should not have thought our author's speculations, striking and ingenious as they are, entitled to be brought before our readers at such length, if they were not imbued, and we may say instinct, with vital Christianity, with clear and large views of the most important doctrines, and with pure affections corresponding to them. In parting from the books which have detained us so long, it is pleasing to reflect that every one of them is likely to be useful, in its way, and to a certain class of readers. We are glad to think that Anger will lead some German students of the Gospels to compare them with the fathers of the first two centuries, not only for their own improvement, but for that of others, and not only in the way of illustration, but of critical authentication. We are glad that such a name as that of Tischendorf is here pledged to the possibility of harmonising all the Gospels, and not merely three of them, which is the maximum conceded by the modern German theory and practice. We are also glad that a synopsis so coincident with that adopted by our own best harmonists, is thus put into German circulation with a needless but respectable endorsement. We are glad that many buyers of fine books in England will be led, perhaps insensibly, by Dr Stroud, to learn far more than they would otherwise have known about the life of Christ, not only in its outlines, but in its details. We rejoice that our Methodist brethren, of whom we are informed, though not by himself, that Mr Strong is one, have so intelligent and accurate a writer of their own on this important and delightful part of sacred learning. And lastly, we congratulate ourselves and others that such principles and sentiments as those of Da Costa-leaving out of view particular exceptions-are in active circulation through so wide a sphere, in Holland, Britain, and America. To ministers and students of our own church we recommend as helps in this most interesting study, the Greek text of Robinson, and Scott's English version of Da Costa. We have not compared the same parts of the latter work in Dutch and English; but our strong impression is that the translation is a good one, and its beautiful typography is not the least of its attractions. We have only one defect, or rather one excess, to criticise, which might be deemed too small for notice, but for its doing great injustice to the author's judgment and good taste, merely to gratify a freak of his translator. When we first cast our eye upon the English volume, we were struck with the multitude of saints scattered over the surface. Not knowing this to be a Low Dutch fashion, we regretted that the author, however great a stickler he might be for this saintly etiquette, had not sought or seized a dispensation from the rule, if only to save space and spare the reader's eyes. On coming to a sight of the original, we found, to our surprise and indignation, that this host of saints was intro duced by the translator, who might almost seem from this officious act to be a convert from dissent to churchmanship, as scarcely any other would have thought of overloading and defacing such a book in such a way, lest either of the four evangelists should once appear without a handle to his name; although it might be hard to say why such a deprivation would be more unjust to them than to the saints of the Old Testament, to whom even Puseyites and Papists do not scruple to refer as plain Noah, Moses, David, and Elijah. Against this absurd exaggeration of a harmless though unmeaning practice, and especially this vast multiplication of words, without the addition of a single new idea, we appeal, not to Scripture or sectarian distinctions, but to taste and common sense. Many a reader, we have no doubt, though accustomed and attached to such formalities in other cases, will consider their use here a work of supererogation, and perhaps be ready to say, "Is it a custom ?-Ay, marry, is it ; But to my mind, though I am native here, More honoured in the breach than the observance." ART. II.-Guido and Julius; or, Sin and the Propitiation, exhibited in the true Consecration of the Sceptic. By FREDERICK AUGUSTUS D. THOLUCK, D.D., Professor of Divinity in the University of Halle. Translated from the German by JONATHAN EDWARDS RYLAND, with an Introductory Preface by JOHN PYE SMITH, D.D. Gould and Lincoln, Boston, 1854. Pp. 238. THIS book was published in Germany more than thirty years ago. The demand for five successive editions attests its merits and general popularity. The present translation was published in England in 1836. It may occasion surprise to some, that the work is republished in this country at so late a day. But however desirable its appearance at an earlier period might have been, there was perhaps no time when this book would have attracted so large a number of readers as at the present. The literature of Germany and the United States have, especially of late years, been brought into more intimate and pleasant relations. And much of the theological literature imported from the Continent, that land of scholars, has become naturalised on our shores. The particular object the pious and learned author had in view in the preparation of this work, was to provide an antidote to the more subtle and fascinating |