45 from ch. xv. 1, to xvi. 14, are occasioned by the uncharitable spirit of the Pharisees towards the Publicans, Schleiermacher considering these as the parties designed by the elder and younger brother in the parable of the prodigal son. Even the variously interpreted parable of the steward (ch. xvi. 1-12) is referred by him to the same parties. "The master represents the Romans, the steward, the publicans, the debtors, the Jewish nation; and Christ means to say, if the publicans in their calling, and with that which they acquire in it, and consequently by means of a violent and iniquitous state of things, with reason termed μaμμõvas tñs áðining, shew themselves mild, indulgent and benevolent towards their nation, the Romans themselves will in their hearts praise them; and so you have all reason to allow them before hand the right of citizenship in the Baría Tes, and so admit them into the diwvíovs oxyvás." P. 214. This he supposes to be intended as a vindication of those publicans who were his disciples, and acted as Zaccheus, understanding i iyévede, of their being true to their countrymen, not faithful to their masters. We think he is more successful in explaining the parable of Dives and Lazarus, of which he observes, that the whole point lies in Abraham's answer, (ch. xvi. 31,) the rest being merely parabolic imagery; and this answer he connects with vers. 17, 18, in which he supposes there is an allusion to the conduct of Herod Antipas, which the Pharisees had endeavoured to justify. "If, by quibbling perversions of the law, made to recommend yourselves to men in power, (τò iv av≈páros úpnλdu ver. 15,) you weaken its authority, you incapacitate them for receiving moral impressions from any other dispensation of divine mercy." The expression zās eis duty Bialetα, ver. 16, he supposes to refer to such violent and unlawful means of promoting the advancement of the kingdom of God. Without, however, any allusion to Herod, the practice of the Pharisees to explain away the precepts of the law, would serve equally well to connect ver. 18 with ver. 31. Our author proceeds to justify at much length the connexion in which Luke has inserted the discourses, ch. xvii. xviii. 1–8; and he understands the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican not to be levelled against the Pharisees, in which case he observes, that it would not be a parable, but against some of his own disciples, who, hearing him insist on the necessity of constancy and faith, (ch. xviii. 8,) had expressed themselves too confidently, that if it came to the point they certainly would not be wanting. It is not difficult to imagine that such an incident may have given rise to it; but as the historian, though in the context he frequently distinguishes what our Lord said to his disciples and to the Pharisees, refers this to neither of them, the reasonable inference seems to be, that this rebuke of self-righteousness was called forth by some incident, in which neither of them was particularly concerned. There is good taste and judgment in Schleiermacher's remark, that the Pharisee and the Publican would not have their proper parabolic character, if these classes themselves were meant ; they must be the types of two opposite dispositions. So the Samaritan in the parable is not introduced to teach the Jews how they should feel towards Samaritans, but to illustrate the general duty of benevolent sympathy.

At ch. xix. 48, our author supposes the narrative to close, which began ch. ix. 51. Whether he considers the avans, as some have done, as meaning only his entrance into Jerusalem, he has not explained; but we can hardly suppose that he does, since the meaning of the verb is so clearly fixed by other passages. Yet if the ascension into heaven be meant, it should seem as if the writer of ch. ix. 51, had in view the last event recorded in the Gospel of Luke, and that he designed his narrative to extend to that

point; else, why assign an event, which Jesus himself had never disclosed to his disciples, far less' mentioned as the motive of his going up to Jeru

salem ?

Fourth division, ch. xx. 1, to the end. Chapters xx. and xxi. are considered by Dr. S. as having formed originally an independent whole, chiefly on the ground that the writer who had already said, ch. xix. 47, that our Saviour ἦν διδάσκων τὸ καθ' ἡμέραν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ, would there have added, τὰς δὲ νύκτας ἐξερχόμενως ἠυλίζετο εἰς τὸ ὅρος τὸ ἐλαιῶν, and not have given us this information separately, (ch. xxi. 37, 38,) and without any reference to his former statement. This criticism we should hardly have expected from so great a philologer; for To ka upay, (day by day,) could stand in no contrast with Tas dè vuuras (at night); and if any one will read the two passages with their respective contexts, he will see that, in ch. xix. 47, it was the Evangelist's object to inform us, that though our Saviour was to be found day after day teaching in the Temple, (as he himself urges, ch. xxii. 52,) and the priests and scribes had the greatest wish to apprehend him, they durst not do it, from the attachment of the people. How irrelevant here would have been the mention of his nightly lodging-place! Again, Dr. S. thinks that the celebration of the passover, which was the main object of the whole journey, must have been mentioned before ch. xxii. 1, by an author who had written continuously from ch. xviii. 14. If, however, we are right in our explanation of ch. ix. 51, the author had already announced a still remoter object of the journey of Jesus, his draλýfis, and the passover is only incidentally mentioned in ch. xxii. 1, in connexion with the machinations of the priests; for ipoßourтo Toy λaby (ch. xxii. 2) evidently refers, not to a fear which withheld them from aggression as before, but a fear which urged them to immediate measures, lest the popularity of Jesus with the vast multitude about to be assembled at the passover, should lead to some decisive movement in his favour. There is, therefore, no reason, as far as this goes, for detaching these two chapters. In commenting upon the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem in the two evangelists, (Luke xxi. 5-36; Matt. xxiv. 4-xxv. 46,) he gives the preference to Luke, on the ground that Matthew has connected with the destruction of Jerusalem (which is evidently the subject of all that precedes) a passage, ch. xxv. 3146, referring to a very different topic-meaning, we presume, the final judg ment. Of course those who believe that this passage also relates to the destruction of Jerusalem, will find in this an argument of the superior fulness and accuracy of Matthew's report. At ch. xxii. 1, begins another separate narrative, extending to ch. xxiii. 49, and of which the subject was the apprehension, trial and crucifixion of Jesus, the manner in which the women who accompanied the body to the tomb are mentioned, (ver. 55,) shewing, according to our author, that this verse was not written by the same person who had already told us (ver. 49), that the women had come from Galilee, since he would not certainly so soon have repeated his information, or at least would have referred to them as having been already mentioned. Even in this, which he supposes the compiler of our gospel to have found already united into one narrative, he distinguishes the portions, ch. xxii. 1—6, 24— 38, as originally distinct from the rest, both because they are much more crowded and abrupt, and because the same writer, who had spoken of Judas, ch. xxii. 3, would not have thought it necessary to introduce him (ver. 47) as an unknown person to the reader. With much ingenuity he then proceeds to analyze the narrative in Luke, and to point out where it has proceeded from an eye-witness, and where from intelligence at second hand.

On the whole the account of Luke is preferred to that of Matthew. From cb. xxiii. 50—xxiv. 43 or 44, is supposed to be another narrative, of which, from the fulness of the account given of the walk to Emmaus, Cleopas, or his companion, may have been the author. Dr. S. thus sums up his Essay: "When I review the investigation which has thus been carried on step by step, and sum up the whole, it seems to me that though several of the details may be more or less open to objection, still the main position is firmly esta blished, that Luke in this part of his work is neither an independent writer, nor has made a compilation from works which extended over the whole course of the life of Jesus. For we meet with too many isolated pieces which have no relation to the rest, and the character of the several parts is too different to admit of either supposition. He is from beginning to end no more than the compiler and arranger of documents which he found in existence, and which he allows to pass unaltered through his hands. His merit in this capacity is twofold: first, that of the arrangement; this however is the slighter of the two. For as he found much already connected, not only is the correctness of his arrangement dependent on his predecessors, and much may be assigned to a wrong place without fault of his, but also the arrangement was by this rendered much easier than if he had found all the parts separate. But the far greater merit is this, that he has admitted scarcely any pieces but what are peculiarly genuine and good; for this was certainly not the effect of accident, but the fruit of a judiciously instituted investigation, and a well-weighed choice.”—Pp. 313, 314.

We have devoted so large a space to this work, because we regard it as one of the most able and original which has appeared in this department of biblical criticism for a long time. The author, we think, has, in most instances, succeeded in vindicating the order and connexion of Luke's Gospel, where he differs from Matthew and Mark; and this alone is of the highest importance for the evidences of Christianity and the interpretation of the New Testament. As it is evident that no art of the harmonist can every where reconcile the evangelists to each other, it becomes a question of the highest interest to determine which of them is to be followed, and this can only be done by such a close investigation as Schleiermacher has instituted. His object is very different from that of the late Mr. Evanson in his Dissonance; he does not set up Luke to the exclusion of the others, but follows him where he appears the preferable guide. Some of his speculations partake of the startling boldness which characterizes the German school of criticism; as his suggestion, that the account of the bloody sweat may have been derived from early Christian hymns, in which the trials of our Saviour had been embellished with angelic apparitions (p. 301), and the doubt expressed (p. 304) as to the rending of the veil of the temple. His general results, however, tend greatly to confirm the fidelity and accuracy of the Evangelist, and his language respecting the character and authority of our Lord is uniformly in the highest degree reverent.

We have already ventured incidentally to offer our opinion of some of the arguments by which Dr. S. endeavours to establish his second position, that the Gospel of Luke is composed of documents previously existing in a written form, which the Evangelist has only arranged, so that, except the introductory verses, and here and there a connecting phrase, the whole book contains nothing of his own composition. To prove this, it is necessary to distinguish between the phenomena which would be found in a gospel composed of traditionary accounts, obtained orally from those who had been present at the events, and reduced into writing from their words, and those which would be found in a compilation of documents previously written for this last is an

essential part of Schleiermacher's hypothesis. Now many of the appearances seem equally capable of explanation by the first supposition; as the hebraizing style, the fragmentary character of the whole gospel, the fulness of some parts and the brevity of others, the uncertain chronology of a considerable portion, the wide intervals of unoccupied time, and the appearance of a termination at the end of some of the narratives. If this be sufficient to account for the appearances of the gospel, it must, we think, be admitted to correspond better with the profession of the introductory verses, in which the author may seem to have taken too much credit to himself, if his na γράψαι, παρηκολουθηκότι ἄνωθεν πᾶσιν ἀκριβῶς, only means, that he had arranged and transcribed thirty-three documents, the composition of others.

It only remains to observe that the translator of this work has discharged his task with great ability; his version is perspicuous and smooth, and yet retains the characteristic qualities of the author's style. We have observed only one passage in which the meaning is obscure, p. 114: "Not that the TX must be exactly the poor in spirit, but they who were not able to distinguish themselves in the legal sense, the πτωχοὶ κατὰ νόμον καὶ κατὰ παράdoo." Not having the original at hand, we can only conjecture that the German would have been better rendered by "able to distinguish themselves in the meaning of the law."

ART. II.-The State of the Protestant Religion in Germany, in a Series of Discourses, preached before the University of Cambridge. By the Rev. Hugh James Rose, M. A. Cambridge and London. 1825.

HAD the Four Discourses of Mr. Rose contained a fair and candid view of the progress of Biblical Criticism, and the change of Theological opinion for which, since the middle of the last century, Germany has been so remarkable; had he examined those opinions which he condemns, and shewn us where their fallacy lies, we should have rejoiced in laying the contents of his work fully before our readers. For while we claim for the Germans the merit of nearly all that has been done within the period which we have mentioned for the improvement of Biblical Criticism, we readily acknowledge that many crude and hasty opinions have been promulgated by them, and that some of them, in their attempts to refine Christianity, have deprived it of the essential characters of a Revelation. Such a task, however, as it required the union of extensive knowledge, with a liberal and candid spirit, and a mind not fettered to any particular system of opinions, but ready to receive them, whether new or old, according to their evidence, was not very likely to be fulfilled by the Quarterly Reviewer of Mr. Belsham's Translation of the Epistles; and the object of these Discourses is a very different one indeed. The recent history of theology in Germany is regarded by him only as an illustration of the awful consequences, both to individual faith and the unity of churches, of men's allowing themselves to consider theological truth as a thing left to be discovered by those who have lived since the Articles of the English and Lutheran Church were framed; and more especially of their fancying that it is to be found by a blind confidence in the powers of the human understanding. The view which is presented of German theology is calculated solely for the purpose of enforcing these representations; to have separated the good from the evil, to have shewn where the Germans had deviated from the principles of sound criticism and logical reasoning, would have been to admit that some

benefit might be expected from such pursuits, and that the application of the understanding to the doctrines of religion was subject only to the same restrictions which in every other employment of it are necessary to prevent its use from becoming its abuse. Mr. Rose possesses one advantage over those who had previously warned the English public against the infection of German theology; he is acquainted with the German language, and his notes contain a vast mass of references to German authors. With all this appearance of extensive reading, however, we very much doubt if Mr. R. is intimately acquainted with their theological literature. Following the clew given him by two or three popular authors, he appears to have looked into others only to obtain a confirmation of their statements. While the really eminent names are passed over in silence, no writer is too obscure, or disesteemed, or forgotten among his countrymen, to be brought forward by him, if by so doing he can fix upon German theology the odium of some rash assertion or hasty inference. He has read it, in short, as an attorney-general reads the works of an obnoxious political writer, looking only for passages on which to ground his indictment.

As concerns individual faith, the lesson taught us by the aberrations of the Germans is, according to Mr. Rose, the danger of making our own reason the arbiter of the doctrines of Scripture, instead of submitting our reason to its doctrines; and accordingly he represents the Rationalists of Germany as led by this principle to reject not only the doctrines of Scripture, but its inspiration and its miracles. Under this name of Rationalists, it must be observed, that he confounds all shades and degrees of departure from the orthodox standard; and thus the imputation, which might not unfairly rest on those who deny every thing miraculous in the scriptural history, and of whom he justly observes that their opinions are only Deism in a new form, is artfully thrown on the whole body of interpreters of Scripture, who, in the exercise of an independent judgment, have abandoned the ancient views of doctrine. No principle can be more just than that in interpreting the Bible we are not to determine beforehand what is rational or important, and bend its language to this standard; the one and only object of the biblical interpreter should be to ascertain the meaning of his author, and that, by the same process as he would use in the case of any other writer. But if some men have sate down to the study of the Scripture, with minds pre-occupied by an opinion that certain doctrines, not being rational, are not to be found there, and have misinterpreted it under the influence of this prepossession, they should not reproach them who make the reason of other men their guide instead of their own, and talk of "the leading power of articles which guide their faith." P. 12. Let any one look to an orthodox comment on our Saviour's decla ration, Mark xiii. 32, that he himself knew not the hour of his second coming, and say whether ever a German Rationalist did more violence to words, in order to make them furnish a sense consistent with his opinions. charge is more common, none is urged more bitterly or more in violation of charity and meekness, by those who call themselves orthodox, against the impugners of their system than this, that from want of due humility they will not submit to be taught by Scripture. There will be, of course, among the miscellaneous adherents of either party, some who reject doctrines without examining their scriptural evidence, from the mere opinion of their absurdity, and some, on the other hand, who embrace them, equally without examination, from respect to authority; and they may pair off together: but we deny that the men who, either in England or in Germany, have led the way in the great change of theological opinion, followed any such principle as the

No