In the foregoing sketch of Hegel's life, we have put a constraint upon ourselves, and following his ardent admirer, have set forth at length his great abilities. To give an abstract of his system we have not attempted. Even Morell who, if any one, could have done it, has failed to furnish to English readers an intelligible view of the whole. To his epitome however we would refer, as the best extant. One closing word, as to the proclamation in Germany of bans between Hegelianism and evangelical Christianity. At a first view, it might appear, that the great philosopher, and his adherents of the extreme right, were deeply concerned for the interests of spiritual Lutheranism. They use its terms, de industria, and have the name of God, of the Holy Trinity, and of the Spirit, continually in their mouths. A little study suffices to show, that to every one of the familiar phrases of religion, they have annexed notions of their own. This is the most dangerous mode of bringing in heresy and infidelity. The very words of the Westminster catechism may be rehearsed from a professor's chair, and then explained to mean the exact reverse of their true import; this adds perfidy to falsehood. We do not charge it on the Hegelian divines, but employ it as an apt illustration. As a celebrated theological innovator of New England used to say of his novel expositions of the quinquarticular controversy, that he was "only taking the bear-skins off Calvinism;" so Strauss, while he is offering Christianity a holocaust in Hegel's temple, calls it a simple "cutting away of the extra fat of the church-dogma."* If we must choose, let us have an open enemy. Like Ajax, we pray for conflict in the light. Socinianism, about Boston, already affects half the language of the church: it will probably be her next finesse to return to the whole Athanasian creed, with private meanings of her own.

* Streitschriften, Heft iii. p. 59.

ART. V.-1. Wissenschaftliche Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte. Ein Compendium der gesammten Evangelienkritik mit Berücksichtigung der neuesten Erscheinungen bearbeitet von Dr. A. Ebrard. Frankfurt a. M. 1842. 8vo. pp. 1112. 2. Chronologische Synopse der vier Evangelien. Ein Beitrag zur Apologie der Evangelien und evangelischen Geschichte vom Standpuncte der Voraussetzungslosigkeit. Von Karl Wieseler, Licentiat und Privatdocent in Göttingen. Hamburg. 1843. 8vo. pp. 496.

3. Versuch zur Herstellung des historischen Standpuncts für die kritik der neutestamentlichen Schriften. Eine Streitschrift gegen die Kritiker unserer Tage von Heinrich W. J. Thiersch. Erlangen. 1845. 8vo. pp. 443.

4. Beiträge zur Evangelien-Kritik, von Dr. Friedrich Bleek. Berlin. 1846. 8vo. pp. 284.

5. Kritische Untersuchungen über die Kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniss zu einander, ihren Character und Ursprung. Von Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur, ordentl. Professor der ev. Theologie an der Universität zu Tübingen. K. v. O. w. K. Tübingen. 1847. 8vo. pp. 626.

THE New Testament, like the Old, has a well defined class of historical books, apart from the detached and incidental statements of fact in the prophetical and doctrinal divisions. The Historical Books, properly so called, are five in number, the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Taken together they contain the history of a period little less than sixty-five years. The only difference of their contents is that the Gospels are the history of the life of Christ on earth, the Acts that of his church in its first organization and extension. The closing point of the Gospels and the starting point of the Acts are one and the same, viz. the ascension of our Saviour. This gives to the whole history a character of perfect continuity. At the same time it affords a convenient principle of subdivision.

The word sayyov, denoting good news or glad tidings, is employed in the New Testament history to signify the annunciation of the Messiah's advent, and of the new dispensation or economy which he came to establish, under the name of the kingdom of heaven or of God. As the first preaching of Chris

tianity necessarily turned much upon the personal history of our Lord himself, it was natural that his history, when recorded, should receive the general name of sayyov. Whether it is ever so applied in the New Testament itself, may be considered doubtful. Some have imagined that when Paul says, more than once, according to my gospel, he not only uses the word in this sense, but applies it specifically to one of the four gospels now in our possession. This, however, is a mere conjecture. The designation of these four books as Gospels is traditional but very ancient. The titles form no part of the text, but run back far beyond the reach of our investigations. The oldest form appears to be the one retained in most modern versions, the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, &c., which does not mean, as some seem to imagine, that they were not really the authors of the books, but simply penmen, i. e. passive instruments by which they were reduced to writing. The meaning rather is that, although four in number, they are really one history; that Matthew did not write one gospel, Mark another, Luke a third, and John a fourth; but each a different form of the same gospel, hence called by one of the Fathers sayyλov τετράμορφον.

This designation leads us to consider more attentively one of the most striking features in the gospel history or life of Christ. While every other extended portion of the sacred history, both before and after, is presented to us in a single narrative, or at most in two, as in the case of Kings and Chronicles, the concurrence of three being restricted to a few limited periods, this important chapter in the history of the church is spread before us in four different shapes, all alike canonical and presenting the same evidence, inward and outward, of divine authority. The final cause or providential purpose of this singular arrangement, if not wholly inconceivable, would lead us too far into speculation to admit of being here discussed. Some light however will be thrown upon it by the proposed examination of the mutual relations which these books sustain to one another.

The points of resemblance are, that they all contain the life of Christ, and especially the record of his public ministry, beginning with his baptism and brought down below his resurrection. They are also alike in exhibiting the same Christ, as to character and doctrines and the main points of his history. The at

tempt made by some ingenious Germans, in our own day, to establish a difference and indeed an incongruity between the Jesus of John's gospel and the Jesus of the other three, is one of the most signal failures upon record in the annals of fanciful and paradoxical speculation. The alleged discrepancies are absolutely nothing in comparison with those between the Socrates of Xenophon and Plato, or the Napoleon of the French and English writers.

But with this remarkable agreement in the general there are still more remarkable differences of detail, from which arises the main difficulty in the vindication and interpretation of the gospel history. Had the four books been only so many paraphrases of the same substantial narrative, the difference of language might only have served to clothe the matter with an agreeable variety. Had the facts recorded been precisely the same, but in a different arrangement, the mere difference of order would have created no more difficulty than that of expression. But in point of fact, these four books, notwithstanding their resemblances, are as really distinct compositions as any four books in the world upon one and the same subject. Each contains something found in neither of the others, and that not only as to form but substance. Some things are found in only two and wanting in both the others. But besides all this, what is common to two, three, or all the gospels, is often variously expressed, and introduced in different connexions, and in some cases with an account of the accompanying circumstances, which, at first sight, is not only different but contradictory.

In making these comparisons, it soon becomes obvious that the variations of the four from one another, both in general and particular, are very far from being equal. The first two, according to the usual arrangement, are, in almost all points, nearer to each other than either of them is to the third or fourth. The third, however, is immeasurably nearer to the first and second, in the general character of its contents, as well as in detail, than it is to the fourth, which is thus left standing by itself, as less like any of the rest than they are like each other. We thus obtain a twofold classification of the gospels, one of which divides them equally, combining Mark with Matthew, and Luke with John; the other placing Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in common contrast with John. The latter division is

the most important, and the one most commonly adopted by the modern writers, who habitually call the first three the Synoptical Evangelists, because they admit, to a great extent, of being arranged and exhibited in parallels, while a large part of the matter contained in the fourth gospel has nothing corresponding to it in the other three. This distinction has no doubt been pushed too far in theory, and in practice has led to a distorted view of the whole subject; but the principle on which it rests is a sound one, and a knowledge of it is necessary to a correct understanding of most modern writers on the life of Christ.

Before proceeding to inquire more particularly into this mutual relation of the gospels, it will be convenient to advert to the testimony of tradition as to their names and order; not as finally conclusive, but as furnishing a hypothesis, from which we have neither right nor reason to depart without necessity. Nothing indeed can be more unreasonable than to reject a tradition, intrinsically credible, simply because its truth is not demonstrable. And yet this is the principle, on which the reasoning of the German neologists most commonly proceeds. That a fact is attested by an ancient uniform tradition, instead of being recognized as prima facie evidence of its correctness, seems to be with them a reason for rejecting it, and for giving the preference to any new view of the matter, which is not absolutely impossible and self-contradictory. The necessary tendency of all such reasoning is not to establish any one historical theory at the expense of every other, but to discredit history in general. The only alternative presented to us is, to renounce all history as fable, or to hold fast to the testimony of historical tradition, until forced to abandon it.

With this view of the matter, we cannot but feel some degree of interest in the traditional nomenclature and arrangement of the gospels. As to the first point, the tradition is a uniform one; no names whatever are connected, in ancient usage, with the gospels, but the four which we attach to them. As to the order, there is more variety. Some ancient versions, and some Latin Fathers, place Matthew and John, or John and Matthew, first as being apostles, while Mark and Luke, or Luke and Mark, stand after them as being merely apostolical, i. e. the pupils and companions of apostles. Another arrangement, mentioned by one of the Greek Fathers, puts together in the