ever fragmentary may be the record." His work consists of an attempt to frame one continuous narrative of the Gospel history by interweaving the records of the four Evangelists with each other. The first volume consists of "The Story of the Gospels," in a New Translation, with a running paraphrase and short commentary. The second volume contains the Greek text, thrown into the same continuous form; and a bulky Appendix, in which will be found a "free discussion" of questions connected with the chronology, language, coherence, and order of events which have arisen in the analysis of the Gospels.

Mr. Pound's notion of inspiration may be inferred from the following quotation :

"We find that each" (i. e. of the Evangelists) "had independently an amount of human knowledge peculiarly his own, acquired by education or ordinary experience; and consequently that each, in speaking or writing, could, as he thought fit, draw from either source of information, and thus transmit to posterity a document, so far as it contained inspired knowledge true to the letter, but in human knowledge subject to the errors of ignorance or the mistakes of idiosyncracy." (Int. p. xxviii.)

Such being Mr. Pound's conception of the nature and extent of that guidance under which the Gospels were written, we are unable to understand why he should think it necessary, with a view (as we presume) to sustain his notion of a continuous chronological narrative, not only to refer to different periods such portions of the Gospel history as the call of the disciples, recorded in St. Matthew iv. 18, and that of the same persons as recorded in St. Luke v. 1, but also to have recourse to the somewhat singular hypothesis of the cleansing of two different lepers at different times, as recorded in St. Matthew viii. 1-4, St. Mark i. 40-45, and St. Luke v. 12-16; of the healing of two women with issues of blood, as recorded in St. Matthew xiv. 20-22, St. Mark v. 25-34, and St. Luke viii. 43-48; of two destructions of swine at different times in different districts; of three cleanings of the temple, as recorded in St. John ii. 13, St. Matthew xxi. 12, St. Mark xi. 15, and St. Luke xix. 45; of two rendings of the temple veil, the one when our Lord declared His work to be finished, and the other immediately upon His death, and of the crucifixion with Him of two malefactors and two thieves, of whom the former were crucified before, and the latter after, the division of the garments.

We are unable to enter into the discussion of the question how far the apparent discrepancies, in the records by the several Evangelists, of some of these events, may or may not justify the conclusion that similar but different events are respectively recorded by them. It is impossible, we think, to doubt that it is the exigencies of the theory which Mr. Pound has adopted which have led him, unconsciously, to magnify the critical diffi

culties which exist in some cases in the reconciliation of the details of several records when understood as applying to the same event, and to close his eyes to the much greater difficulties into which he has been insensibly betrayed, by multiplying the events whenever the chronological sequence seemed so to demand. But we have yet greater cause for dissatisfaction with this laborious and ingenious, but most disappointing production. We entirely acquit Mr. Pound of any design to derogate from the supreme honour due to the Incarnate Saviour. At the same time we should utterly fail to discharge our duty as honest and impartial reviewers were we to overlook, or to make light of, the very grave errors involved, in our judgment, in the exposition given by Mr. Pound of the nature and attendant circumstances of our blessed Lord's temptation. The following passages will suffice, we believe, to justify the expression of our unqualified disapproval of this portion of the work before us :

"Jesus, unconscious that His companion had been more than a man, appears to have set out on His way back from Jerusalem alone. . . . . By this demand of spiritual worship, Jesus perceived the devil's cloven foot." (pp. 41-43.)

And again:

"He did not know either the object for which He was led into the wilderness, nor did He recognize the person of the tempter in the various disguises in which he presented himself, until that he demanded the unholy act of spiritual worship; Jesus then 'knew the tree by its fruits."" (p. 47.)

It is but just to Mr. Pound to state, that these remarks are, in his judgment, in entire consistence with an unqualified recognition of our Lord's essential Divinity, and His knowledge, as God, of the thoughts and intents of men. We refer to them as instances of the prevailing tendency of the present day to indulge in unbridled speculation, and to intrude into those things which it is not given to man to see or to know.

NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

Considerations on the Revision of the English Version of the New Testament. By C. T. Ellicott, D.D., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. Longmans. 1870.-We have so recently considered the subject of the proposed Revision of the English Bible, that we are unable to do more than give a brief account of the general character of a work which we should gladly have noticed at greater length. The Bishop of Gloucester appears to us to entertain a just appreciation alike of the importance of the work of revision, of the manner and spirit in which it should be conducted, and of the difficulties with which it

is encompassed. Moreover, he speaks with considerable authority upon such a subject, inasmuch as he has had practical experience of the many and peculiar qualifications which it demands.

Originality is neither to be expected nor desired in the treatment of such a subject. It may suffice to say that Bishop Ellicott has not only discussed, within the limits of a comparatively small volume, the critical value of the text of the Authorised Version, its leading characteristics, the expediency of the proposed Revision, and the objections which lie against it, the principles in accordance with which it should be conducted, and the best manner of proceeding with the work; but he has also given his readers, in a revision of the Sermon on the Mount, and of four chapters of the Epistle to the Romans, samples of revision with a view to illustrate both the minimum and the maximum amount of alteration which in his judgment will be found to be desirable.

We think that the Bishop of Gloucester's book will not disappoint the expectations of those of our readers who may stand in need of such an easy and popular exposition of the whole subject as the writer undertakes to supply; whilst some of those who may be called to engage in the work without previous experience of its difficulties, may probably save both themselves and their colleagues the expenditure of needless time and labour by availing themselves of the experience which has been acquired by one who possesses many of those qualifications which the work of revision demands.

Controversy with the Cardinal Arcbishop of Santiago, in Letters between the Cardinal and the late Rev. A. Dallas. Edited by the Rev. E. B. Elliott. London: Seeleys. 1870.-In the Introduction to this correspondence we are informed that the late much lamented Rev. A. Dallas, among his other zealous labours as a champion of the Protestant cause, had, during the debates in the Cortes on the question of Religious Liberty, placed a Spanish copy of the English Book of Common Prayer in the hands of each of the Deputies. All these were acknowledged with great kindness and courtesy, and among the replies was one from the Cardinal Archbishop of Santiago, "in which his Eminence combated the principle of religious toleration, and opened several controversial points of importance. It seems that the Cardinal is the author of a "Catechism concerning Protestantism," which is largely circulated in Spain; a copy of this he sent to Mr. Dallas. Out of this correspondence arose the present publication, which has been sent, in Spanish, to the members of the Cortes, and is now published for use in England and Ireland. Before the final revision of the last letter, the fatal illness occurred which terminated Mr. Dallas's valuable life. It has been accordingly revised, and the whole published by his friend Mr. E. B. Elliott. Such are the interesting circumstances under which this little brochure is published; but it has an interest of its own in the value of the statements it contains. It is a handy compendium of Romish views, and of Protestant answers, on the great questions at issue between the two parties. We dare say Rome could furnish a more doughty champion than the Cardinal proves himself to be; but his rank in his Church gives weight to his utterances, albeit neither very subtle nor convincing.

It is not easy to imagine a Spanish Cardinal committing himself to such a statement as the following, even in a land where education is among the people almost unknown :

"All that there is of truth in your proposition is, that Jesus Christ did not give to his Apostles and their successors the right to compel by corporal punishment a man educated in a false religion to embrace the true. And so the Church has never used force to convert the Gentiles or the Jews, but has known no other means than persuasion. And if some, as our King Sisibus, used force to compel the Jews to embrace Christianity, the Church has always reprobated such conduct. Not thus did the first authors of English Protestantism work, who used every kind of violence to compel the Catholics to abandon the religion in which they had been educated, and pass to the new gospel. Review the doleful history of the change of religion in England, and you will be convinced of that truth. The Catholic Church never has used force to oblige anyone to abandon the religion in which he was born and had been educated."

Mr. Dallas replies with vigour, and brings his personal knowledge of Romanism in Spain and Italy to bear upon the Cardinal's statements. Altogether, though there is much that is familiar to controversialists on both sides, and the arguments may be termed popular, the book will be found a handy little manual, which may be circulated with confidence. We heartily wish it success.

Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Melbourne, at his Fourth Visitation. By Charles Perry, D.D., Lord Bishop of Melbourne. Melbourne: S. Mullen. 1870.-It is with great pleasure that we notice this valuable Charge of the excellent Bishop of Melbourne. After a brief introduction, he proceeds to dwell upon the trials of the parochial clergy in his diocese, and then passes on to make some observations upon their duties. From this portion we extract the following valuable remarks, which are as needful to be borne in mind here as in Australia:

"If people assemble themselves together for the gratification of the senses, or for any object other than the rendering of thanks to God for the great benefits received at His hands, the setting forth of His praise, the honouring of His holy Word, and the asking from Him of the things which they want for their souls and bodies, they are not likely to worship Him in spirit and in truth. Almost surely will they, by calling upon Him with their lips while their hearts are far from Him, take His holy name in vain, and so aggravate their guilt in His sight. . . . . . I therefore solemnly charge you to beware of using carnal means for carrying on the work of the Lord. I charge you to beware of attracting a congregation to hear fine music, and so turning the house of prayer into a place of public amusement. Music may rightly be employed by spiritual worshippers to show forth the praises of God; and provided that it be adapted to that object, it cannot be too good of its kind. But if music be used to attract the worldly-minded to our churches, to gratify the vanity of choirs, or to please the ears of a congregation, it is an abomination in the sight of God. Instead of promoting, it will greatly injure, the progress of pure religion and piety among your people, and will impair, not increase, your ministerial efficiency. Trust, my brethren, to the simple, earnest, loving proclamation of the Gospel, to the diligent and affectionate pastoral visitation of your people, for filling your churches and increasing the number of communicants. In the use of these means you may be assured of God's blessing; and if He grant

unto you to see a large attendance at public worship and at the Lord's Table, you may have a good hope that those who are thus brought together shall prove your joy and crown of rejoicing in the day of the Lord Jesus." (pp. 11, 12.)

Against the perilous tendency which at present exists, to substitute a mistaken liberalism and indifference to doctrine for sound dogmatic teaching, upon those doctrines which concern the essentials of Christianity, and immediately affect the present holiness and peace and future salvation of individuals, the Bishop delivers a hearty and earnest protest, in which we most fully concur. We would be thankful to find the following weighty and seasonable admonition more universally heeded by those who, to use the language of the new Bishop of Manchester, are "watering down principles till they become so weak that they could not distinguish them from the similarly watered-down opinions of those who differ from them":"At this time, while some holding high positions in the Church of England zealously labour to propagate doctrine which I hold to be contrary to the Word of God and perilous to the souls of men, others, admiring their earnestness, are disposed to think lightly of their erroneous doctrine, and to deprecate all controversy respecting it. They would seek peace at the expense of truth. I dread the consequence of this spurious liberality-this mistaken charity. It has no warrant in the Bible. It is wholly unlike the charity of the Apostles, and of all the eminent saints of God in later ages of the Church. What does the Bible --what does all ecclesiastical history-teach us, but that the truth must be maintained and propagated by an unceasing controversy with error? Not only were Luther and Calvin, Cranmer, Ridley, and Latimer, and the rest of the Reformers of the sixteenth century, controversialists, but so likewise were Athanasius and Augustine, and all the early Fathers; and so also were Peter and Paul, James and John. They not only proclaimed the truth, but they vehemently contended against error. Especially did they denounce those who taught false doctrine. In how strong language did Paul write of such to the Corinthians, calling them 'false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ;' and to the Galatians, pronouncing them to be accursed,' and wishing that they were even cut off!' How earnestly did he warn the Colossians against those who would 'beguile them with enticing words,' or 'spoil' them through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ! With what affectionate fervour did he exhort Timothy to keep that which was committed to his trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and opposition of science falsely so called; adding, which some professing have erred concerning the faith.' But why should I multiply references? Of one other passage only will I remind you, namely, that wherein John, the apostle whom Jesus loved, warned the elect lady' against receiving into her house any one who did not bring 'the doctrine of Christ.' Do not, therefore, my brethren, depreciate the importance of sound dogmatic teaching. Do not make light of doctrinal error. No one who does so can be a faithful steward of the mysteries of God.” (pp. 22, 23.)

Devotional Commentary on the Gospel Narrative. By Rev. Isaac Williams, B.D., &c. New Edition. London: Rivingtons. 1869-70.— This reprint is now complete, and is well executed in eight volumes. There is much that is beautiful in it, and much that is profitable, mostly drawn from patristic sources. Those who can distinguish between what is good and evil, between what is sound and unsound,