no funds to be raised for the support of a visible institution or a particular profession; but only for the direct obvious needs of the actual task in hand.* In proportion as this style of association is carried out, it will very much widen the range of religious action and efficiency, putting more and more of it in the hands of responsible committees of conscientious men and women, and dispelling the harmful delusion, that it is in any special sense "professional" work. It will not abolish or supersede the work of the Christian pulpit, or of a class of men who shall be the trained, devout, eloquent expounders of religious truth. But it seems probable, that, in course of time, it will greatly limit and specialize the function of the pulpit, and take more and more of its work from the hands of the ministry. Its office and use are more obvious in cities, where the first experiments have been made so hopefully. But if our ideal of a "working parish" should ever be realized, with something of the straightforward energy and efficiency that marked our great national charities during the war, it is easy to anticipate, that one thoroughly devoted and able man could do more real service, in inspiring and directing such a work over a whole State or country, than is now done by the harassed and fettered ministry of a dozen of our country parishes.

* A very interesting illustration of all that is here said will be found in "A Sermon preached by E. E. Hale, with the Reports of the Christian Unity from its Beginning" (Boston, 1866). We understand that a church is about organizing under similar auspices in a neighboring city, on the basis of a purely lay administration, with no provision for a stated ministry at all. Such were the churches founded of old at Corinth and Ephesus and Antioch. Of the "Christian Unity" Mr. Hale says, "Seventy families are united together in this mutual organization. They are united to help each other in any want of body, soul, and mind; and they ask help, they say, as readily as they offer it. As an organization, they undertake the work of a minister at large: they visit the suffering, they nurse the sick, they feed the hungry, they clothe the freezing. They maintain a Sunday school, a singing school, a regular Sunday service, a sewing society, a weekly meeting for religious conference, and a well-adjusted system of ministration to the sick. Connected with them is their Young Men's Improvement Society, — uniting, perhaps, fifty young men in the exercises of body, soul, and spirit, which I have described. Connected with the Sunday school, again, is a Temperance Society of the children" (p. 11).

And there is one more thought connected with this matter, for whose illustration we trust there will be only a single generation longer to wait. The ancient ecclesiastical system of New England rested on the conviction avowed in the Charter of Political Rights, that "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of a government, essentially depend upon piety, religion, and morality." But the method provided to meet this want was an organization avowedly "Protestant," really dogmatic and sectarian. In the course of time, it was inevitable that it should pass away. But meanwhile a system of public education has been growing up under State auspices, on a basis purely secular and unsectarian, very defective in method and aim as yet, but fast developing into great thoroughness and perfection in its kind. In it the State asserts the right and duty of educating every child, and of offering instruction to every ignorant grown-up person. It asserts the right and duty, at need, of compelling all to pay and all to learn. The system is even more important, perhaps, as a means of moral discipline, than as a means of intellectual improvement. As public intelligence gains ground, and the old doctrinal beliefs are more completely outgrown, there will come about, more and more, a tacit harmony of view as to those principles of piety and morality which must lie at the foundation of a true commonwealth; and with it an experience of the need, that they should be tenderly, constantly, effectually taught. The sophistical nonsense of political theorists, teaching that the State has nothing to do with character, will be discarded as soon as the true scientific basis of the formation of character comes to be understood. Instruction and charity and prison discipline are already adopted into our politics; and so it must come to be with the essential foundations of morality. In this way, and with a consent more intelligent, more harmonious, and far more permanent than was possible before, we look to see the State re-assert those functions which most nearly ally it with the Church, and frankly assume the task of providing for the spiritual health of all its children.

VOL. LXXXIV. -NEW SERIES, VOL. V. NO. II.

20

ART. VII.. -REVIEW OF CURRENT LITERATURE.

THEOLOGY.

"* is

THE Volume by Rev. Dr. Stowe, on the "Books of the Bible,' one of that useful class which make the results of scholarship accessible to the mass of the community. To prepare such a book is an undertaking having its peculiar difficulties. A middle way must be found between the extremes of the abstruse and the superficial; and the style, while it must not have the close, unornamented aspect of a theological treatise, must be guarded with equal care against the looseness of mere declamation. In this difficult task Dr. Stowe has succeeded, if not as well as Stanley in his book on the Jewish Church, yet to a creditable extent. The volume begins with a view of Popular Objections to the Bible; then speaks of the Evidence to the Books of the New Testament; and describes some of the most ancient manuscripts in an interesting manner, making the description clear by fac-simile illustrations. The fourth chapter gives brief biographies of one hundred of the ancient Fathers and other early witnesses. This is followed by the Testimony for the Historical Books, and particularly the Gospels. These are then compared with the Apocryphal Gospels, from which copious extracts are made. Then follows a chapter on the Biographies of Jesus, or works on the Gospel history, by Strauss, Weisse, Gfrörer, Bruno Bauer, F. C. Baur, Renan, and Schenkel. The remaining Books of the New Testament are considered, and the evidence for them presented, in the four succeeding chapters; the Acts, the Catholic Epistles, and Revelation being compared with apocryphal writings claiming similar character. Then follow a comparison of the Prophets of the Bible with the Heathen Oracles, and an account of the Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament. This last chapter is connected in subject with the portion of the work, still in preparation, on the Old Testament; but is inserted here chiefly to equalize the size of the volumes.

* Origin and History of the Books of the Bible, both the Canonical and the Apocryphal, designed to show what the Bible is not, what it is, and how to use it. By Professor C. E. STOWE, D.D. (The New Testament.) Illustrated. Published by subscription only, by Hartford Publishing Company, Hartford, Conn., 1867. 8vo, pp. 583.

There is much in this extended view of the evidence for the New Testament books that is interesting and important; and perhaps it is all that, from Professor Stowe's point of view, could properly be brought before his readers. Still the plan seems to promise, in some respects, more than is performed; more, probably, than Professor Stowe would think expedient or even safe to perform. It is, indeed, a grave question for a conscientious scholar, how far he should mention doubts, which the popular character of his work must prevent him from fully examining and completely removing; yet some notice of the most important of those doubts seems indispensable. With regard, for instance, to the Fourth Gospel, while we agree with Dr. Stowe in his opinion of its apostolic origin and authority, we are somewhat surprised at his coming to this conclusion so easily. It seems strange to find a book from so respectable a source professing to defend the Gospels, and yet giving no hint, in the whole section relating to that of John, of the objections against it which have been urged with so much learning and ingenuity, and have made the question of its origin the very central point of recent Scriptural controversy. So, too, the Hegelian philosophy, and the writers who own allegiance to it, meet with justice so stern, yet so brief, that, with some remembrance of pretty hard argument in their pages, we are tempted to question whether it be really justice. Dr. F. C. Baur, for example, is despatched in two pages and a half, extracted chiefly from an English review. If it was expedient to mention him at all, it seems as if this formidable critic, with his " Tendency" theory, might have been allowed more space; even if the story of Paul and Thecla had been omitted to make room for it.

But there is one passage in this book on which we must comment more particularly. It is on the seventy-eighth and seventy-ninth pages, where, after describing the five most ancient manuscripts. known, the Alexandrian, Vatican, Sinaitic, Ephrem, and Beza,— he says,

"These all give substantially the same text that we now have. There are diversities among them, and divergences from our common text; and these are to be frankly acknowledged, and their real importance fully indicated, without any attempt at concealment or palliation or apology. No ancient Greek manuscript, hitherto discovered, contains 1 John v. 7: There are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. In our common text, the verse John i. 18 reads, The only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him; but the old Greek manuscripts read, The onlybegotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. In Col. ii. 2, our common text reads, To the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, and of the

Father, and of Christ; but the old Greek manuscripts read, To the acknowledgment of the mystery of the God Christ. And so there are other diversities between the old text and the present one; but these, I think, are the most striking examples that can be found. Do they in the least degree necessarily change or even modify our ideas respecting any Scriptural fact, doctrine, or precept? They somewhat disturb those who hold to the notion of a strictly verbal inspiration and exact verbum verbo dictation by the Holy Spirit in the composition of the Scriptures; but these, I suppose, are very few in number, and not the most thoughtful or intelligent."

We cannot, from our Unitarian point of view, agree with Dr. Stowe in his estimate of these various readings as unimportant. Nor are we prepared to yield to the proposed changes, without an examination of the authority for making them. Dr..Stowe is indeed right in saying, "No ancient Greek manuscript hitherto discovered contains 1 John v. 7:" for the Dublin manuscript and the Codex Ottobonianus are not ancient, but of date as recent as the art of printing; and the Berlin manuscript, which was once relied on, is a mere transcript from printed editions. Yet it is hard for Trinitarian writers to surrender the one text which saves their fundamental doctrine from being one of inference alone; and even last year a book appeared, by Mr. Charles Forster, in defence of this notorious interpolation. Honor, therefore, to Dr. Stowe for his candor in rejecting it! In the other instances he has not been equally correct. The evidence respecting them may be found in the Appendix to Norton's "Statement of Reasons" (edition of 1856; note C., pp. 448-469, 476), and, with regard to John i. 18, still more fully in an article in the "Bibliotheca Sacra" for October, 1861. The note and the article are both by Mr. Ezra Abbot, of Harvard College Library, whose thorough acquaintance with the subject will hardly be questioned. In his communication to the "Bibliotheca Sacra,” Mr. Abbot fully describes the evidence from the writings of the Fathers, in relation to the proper reading of the text in question; pointing out the inaccuracy of Wetstein's statements, and the still more surprising representations of Dr. Tregelles. He shows, by a very close and full examination, that the great majority of the Fathers, as well as of the ancient versions, confirm the present reading, "the only-begotten Son." It is, however, only to the evidence of manuscripts that Dr. Stowe appeals. The testimony of these may be briefly given as follows. It should, in the first place be remarked, that the difference between the words, viós and Oɛós is only in a single letter, as they were written by contraction TC and OC.