first-born, with his brothers and sisters, constitutes a pretty well defined family. Equally conclusive is the language of the Nazarenes, Mark vi, 3: "Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James and Joses, and of Juda and of Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?" Here are literal father, mother, sisters, and brothers, all combined in one family group. And here the term brother is applied to Jesus himself, and from other speakers than the evangelists, whose conformity with the evangelists in calling cousins brothers and sisters is utterly unaccountable. The family, be it noted, is all resident at Nazareth. 5. The cousins were apostles; the brothers were not apostles, but unbelievers. The Reviewer oddly considers this "the only difficulty" to his theory; whereas we have stated already some four or five points to which he scarce makes the offer of an answer. Of this "only difficulty," he states but a bare fraction, and to that fraction offers, we think, two very incomplete answers. His first answer is a quoted criticism on the word believe, to show that the disbelief of the brothers was not positive; to which he himself justly attributes little weight. His second answer is to attribute the disbelief to some other relatives at Nazareth, (called brothers,) which, inasmuch as no word in the text ever mentions their existence, is a purely arbitrary creation a nihil. Now, to cancel both these answers at one swoop, the disbelief of these brothers was positive, permanent, inclusive of them all, and utterly inconsistent with their being apostles. That it was positive is plain from our Lord's stern rebuke, closing the conversation in John vii, 3-7: "The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth," etc.; by the fact that they were probably the relatives who pronounced him "beside himself," Mark 3, 21; and by our Lord's declaration that he was without "honor in his own house." That this disbelief was inclusive of all his brothers is proved not only by this last expression of Jesus, but by John's words, vii, 5: Neither did his brethren believe on him; words that would not have been used, if true of but a part; showing both that the word brothers is specifically, not generically used, and that the whole species was disbelieving. 6. At this point we notice the strong argument of the Review, which is founded on the mere coincidence of names. For each name of three or four brothers, we grant there is a duplicate name among the two or three apostle cousins. There are at any rate duplicate Jameses, and Judes, and this duplication is, by a strong term for a feeble fact, styled by Lange, as quoted, "miraculous." Now it is, we think, about as miraculous as that there should be two Marys sisters; or two Herod Philips, brothers. It is not quite as miraculous as that there should be three duplicate names in the catalogue of the twelve; namely, two Simons, two Jameses, and two Judahs: for this duplication was accidental, whereas that in discussion was probably intentional. For if we will lay aside all prepossession from modern customs in regard to names, what marvel is it that two sisters, both whose names were Mary, should intentionally give duplicate names to three or four sons? Now between the two sides of these duplicates, we have in Matt. xii, 46–50, a very distinct separation. Jesus with his disciples is within a house, surrounded by the crowd; his mother, brothers, and sisters are announced to him as being without the house wishing to see him. Between the apostle cousins and the

unsympathizing brothers, therefore, there were the dense crowd and the house walls. Our Lord's refusal to see them, and his concluding declaration that his disciples were more to him than relatives, furnishes a significant intimation upon what errand the bixía had come. Moreover, the reviewer would require us to read Mark iii, 3, thus: Whoever shall do the will of God is my male cousin, and my female cousin, and my mother. 7. It is unaccountable, if these brothers and sisters are the children of the still living wife of Alpheus, that they are never found with their own mother, but are uniformly part of the bixia of the mother of Jesus. 8. In Acts i, 13, we have the eleven enumerated, including the apostle cousins, as present at prayer; and then in verse 14 we have added to the company present Mary the mother of Jesus, with his brothers. That is, all the living apostles are mentioned in one verse; and then the brothers of Jesus are separately mentioned in the next verse. If the brothers were apostles, then, they are most assuredly twice enumerated in the same sentence as being in the same company. If the passage means any thing, it means that the eleven apostles were present, and besides them the mother and brothers of Jesus.

That Jesus committed his mother to the care of John, and not to his brothers, is no stranger than his choosing John and not a relative to be his beloved disciple. That James the Lord's brother is afterward called an apostle, places him finally upon a par with Paul and Barnabas, as being an apostle extra of the twelve. That the apostle cousins should disappear from sight in the history subsequent, only places them in the same category with the majority of the apostolic college; who faithfully labored, but left no record, while new characters from Tarsus and Cyprus strangely spring into historic notoriety. Less strange, however, it is that the Lord's own brother, of the pure Davidic line, and he no less a character than James the Just, should rule as bishop where he had a lineal right to rule as prince. Let us, if it be parliamentary, "move a substitute" for this part of the reviewer's noble portraiture, to the following effect:

James, the eldest son of Joseph and Mary, resided at Nazareth with his mother after his father's death, and during the ministry of Jesus. He partook of the hardihood both of the Galilean and Nazarene character, added to the inflexibility which at this time formed the basis of the Jewish nature. There seems to have been some truth in the tradition which attributes to him tendencies to ascetism, and these strong Judaic tendencies rendered him reluctant to admit the claims of Jesus to supplant Judaism with a new dispensation. Hence he shared the opposition of his townsmen at Nazareth. With his younger brothers, he induced his believing mother and his sisters, under the persuasion that the ministry of Jesus was overtasking his strength, overstraining his intellect, and exposing him to danger, to attempt to recall him to the safe and healthful seclusion of his mountain home. But as Jesus drew near the end of his course, some strong evidences seemed to overcome the opposition of James. It may have been the final signal miracle of the raising of Lazarus; it may have been the scenes of sorrow and of stupendous miracle at the crucifixion; or it may have been the appearance to him of the risen Jesus, which converted James and brought him

with his mother and brothers to the prayer circle after the ascension. The same strong traits that made him so firm an unbeliever made him a firm servant of Jesus. As time developed his character and his religion, he became an apostle, a bishop, a pillar; the 'Apioréins ó dikaios of the Apostolic Church.

The article on American Slavery would be very useful for American perusal. It might show us where the disciples of Wesley and Watson, on the other side of the Atlantic, stand. The following passage introduces Rev.

J. D. Long's book:

66

The Pictures of Slavery are not very artistically drawn, nor is the book very methodical or systematic; but it is, nevertheless, valuable as embodying facts in the personal experience of an apparently pious and earnest minister of the Methodist Episcopal Church. He was born and reared in a slave state; but grew up with a horror of slavery. Finding, in after years, that this system was teaching his own sons hatred of work and of slaves,' he removed to Philadelphia. In the struggle respecting slavery which agitated his Church, he was of course on the right side, and remained with the Northern or Methodist Episcopal Church after the division. His volume, however, by its fearful denunciation of the slaveholding element in the border Conferences, has given umbrage to persons of influence and authority in that Church. Mr. Long adduces many facts in proof, not only that slaves are held, but that the breeding, buying, and selling of slaves are practiced by members of this Church, in those parts of her territory that abut upon the slaveholding Conferences of her southern rival. He argues, however, and as it seems to us conclusively, that, unless she shall declare slaveholding to be incompatible with Church-membership, except under the circumstances provided for in the old Discipline,' she will not be free from complicity in the atrocious practices which he describes. The social state which he depicts is fearful; the licentiousness both of whites and Negroes is proverbial; and it seems all but impossible to bring Church discipline to bear upon it, especially among the negroes. Indeed, how can it be otherwise, when the inviolability of the marriage bond as between slaves is nowhere recognized? when the power of the master-his legal power, we mean-overrides all Church authority? when he may drive from her house the husband of his slave-woman, and may compel her to take any colored man he pleases? Well may the author say, My opinion is, that the clergyman who believes chattel-slavery well-pleasing in the sight of God, and who justifies the master in separating husband and wife, ought not to marry slaves. If he does, he must do it under the impression that the master is equal in authority with the Deity, or the Lord of heaven and earth contradicts himself.' We understand that this question of slaveholding and membership is likely to be the prominent topic of discussion at the forthcoming General Conference; and we shall await the issue with much solicitude, though not without a sanguine hope that this great Atlantic Church will prove worthy of its English founder, who pronounced slavery to be the execrable sum of all human villany.'"-P. 511.

The following paragraph is a graphic picture of the Southern oligarch: "It remains to say a little (and not much is needed) respecting the social aristocracy of the South-the wealthy planters. Their portrait has often been drawn: Refinement of manner and of taste; the power of being agreeable to social equals; elegance of dress and equipage; attachment to literature and art; (that is, to belles lettres and dilettantism;) profuse and graceful hospitality; chivalrous gentlemen, and ladies of the highest grace and accomplishment. These are the lights of the picture, and have had full and repeated justice done to them. Nay, they have often misled susceptible Englishmen and Americans from the North, who refuse to believe any ill of that courtly and generous race whose home is among the orange-groves and magnolias, and beneath the balmy skies of the sunny South. But there are dark and terrible shadows. Intemperance, gambling, unrestrained licentiousness, dueling, assassination-who has not heard of these things as equally characteristic of Southern society? The

men who have made the sacred halls of the National Congress a proverb of vulgarity, ribaldry, and ruffianism, come chiefly from the South. And how can it be otherwise? It is not in human nature to withstand the enervating and demoralizing effect produced by the possession of such stupendous powers as belong to the slaveholder. Selfish, lordly, implacable, revengeful, must any community so circumstanced become; and it is both weak and sinful to be deceived by the roseate hue of the mere surface of its life. It is hard to say whether the system works more mischief to the poor slave or to his master. Its pestilential breath invades the negro hut, and poisons its inmates with squalidity, indolence, slovenliness, profanity, indecency, despair; or with that childlike thoughtlessness and mirth which, in an enslaved MAN, is worse than even despair. But the same breath floats through the scented atmosphere into boudoir and drawing-room; enervates the Southern beauty with voluptuousness and indolence, and kills her with ennui; sometimes, alas! makes the bosom that heaves and the heart that beats beneath the silken boddice as cold as marble and as cruel as death; while it steals away from the lord of the soil his Saxon manliness, selfreliance, candor, forbearance, self-control, and love of freedom, and makes him helpless, idle, prodigal, reckless, irascible, sensual, and cruel."-P. 531.

III.-French Reviews.

L. REVUE DES DEUX MONDES, January 1, 1860.-1. Une Réforme Administrative en Afrique. I. Des Conditions de Notre Etablissement Colonial: 2. Salomé, Scénes de la Forêt-Noire: 3. Les Dégénérescences de L'Espéce Humaine. Origines et Effects de L'Idiotisme et du Crétinisme: 4. D'Espagne et le Gouvernement Constitutionnel Depuis le Ministère O'Donnell. Les Partis et la Guerre du Maroc: 5. La Marine Française dans la Guerre D'Italie. L'Escadre de L'Adriaque et la Flotille du lac de Garde: 6. Les Drames de la Vie Littéraire. Charlotte et Henri Stieglitz: 7. De L'Alimentation Publique. Le Thé, son role Hygiénique et les diverses préparations Chinoises: 8. Chronique de la Quinzaine, Histoire Politique et Littéraire: 9. Revue Musicale. January 15, 1860.-1. Les Commentaires d'un Soldat. I. Les Premiers Jours de la Guerre de Crimée: 2. Une Réforme Administrative en Afrique: 2. L'Ancienne Administration et les Gouverneurs-Généraux: 3. Souvenirs d'un Amiral. III Série. La Marine sous la Restauration. I. Une Expéditio Ango-Française Après 1815: 4. De la Métaphysique et de son Avenir: 5. Scénes et Souvenirs du Bas-Languedoc. Les Financés de la Gardiole: 6. Le Roman Satirique et les Mours Administratives en Russie. Mille Ames, de M. Pisemski, etc.: 7. Etudes D'Economie Forestière La Sylviculture en France et en Allemagne: 8. Chronique de la Quinzaine, Histoire Politique et Littéraire.

ART. XI.-QUARTERLY BOOK-TABLE.

Ir is of greatest concernment in the Church and Commonwealth to have a vigilant eye how books demean themselves as well as men, and thereafter to confine, im- . prison, and do sharpest justice on them as malefactors; for books are not absolutely dead things, but do contain a potency of life in them to be as active as that soul was whose progeny they are.-MILTON.

I.-Religion, Theology, and Biblical Literature.

(1.) "The Divine Human in the Scriptures. By TAYLER LEWIS, Union College." 12mo., pp. 400. New York: Carter & Brothers. 1860. Professor Lewis is one of the most accomplished scholars, subtle thinkers, and elegant writers of our country. His scholarship is profound and searching; yet rather graceful and ornamental to the texture of his productions than re

pulsive or plodding. He is, if we mistake not, on some points ultra-conservative; and yet on others a deep digger for originality and a daring theorist. When we hesitate as to full acceptance of his theories and except to some of his extreme statements, we acknowledge the contribution of valuable thoughts and plausible illustration; nor do we at all admire the tone with which some of his productions have been treated in certain quarters.

The present volume we place among his best efforts. There is much for which the Christian public should be grateful, and very little indeed liable to objection. Its object is to show that the Bible is a book at once most truly divine and most intensely human. It is divine in all its thoughts, emotions, words. It is also truly human in all its thoughts, emotions, words. Its anthropomorphism is a true, sole, necessary method of intercommunication between the Infinite person and finite humanity. That method no human growth of mind can ever make obsolete. And as in this anthropomorphism consists the possibility of revelation, so in this is the source of its power; by which the Bible, and the Bible alone of all so-called sacred books in the world, can and must be a universal book. Originating in a secluded race, it is the book of the universal soul, most easily translatable into all languages, and making its conquests as sure and as sweeping in the modern Occident as the ancient Orient. The Professor sends a rapid glance through the Old Testament, and traces in the very text itself a striking line of internal proof of the truthfulness of its entire range of books. Less striking, but still impressive, is the same argument as applied to the New Testament. Upon the whole, both as to the inspiration and the truth of the sacred Word, it is a learned, an eloquent, an impressive book.

The following passage furnishes his view of the nature of inspiration:

"It must, then, be one of the most unfaltering deductions of such a subdued spirit, thus believing in revelation as a fact as well as an idea, that not only its thought but its very language is divine. This one may hold without being driven to that extreme view of verbal inspiration which regards the sacred penmen as mere amanuenses, writing words and painting figures dictated to them by a power and an intelligence acting in a manner wholly extraneous to the laws of their own spirits, except so far as those laws are merely physical or mechanical. We may believe that such divine intelligence employed in this sacred work, not merely the hands of its media, not merely the vocal organs played upon by an outward material afflatus, not merely, the mechanical impressions of the senses, or the more inward, though still outwardly reflected images of the fancy and the memory, but also the thoughts, the modes of thinking, modes of feeling, modes of conceiving, and hence, of outward expression-in a word, the intellectual, emotional, and imaginative temperaments, all their own, each peculiar to the respective instruments, yet each directed, controlled, made holy, truthful, pure, as became the trustworthy agents for the time being of so holy a work. The face is human, most distinctly human; yet each lineament, besides its own outward expression, represents also some part of that photographic process that had its origin in the world of light, and came down from the Father of lights,' with whom there is no parallax or shadow of turning.

In this sense, the language, the very words, the very figures outwardly used, yea, the etymological metaphors contained in the words, be they ever so interior, are all inspired. They are not merely general effects, in which sense all human utterances, and even all physical manifestations may be said to be inspired, but the specially designed products of emotions supernaturally inbreathed, these be coming outward in thoughts, and these, again, having their ultimate outward forms in words and figures are truly designed in the workings of this chain, and