ment running through all history;' and that 'no phenomena -no practices, gifts, privileges, can elude these questions; and that Paul's ministry is characteristically more saturated with the phenomenal at Ephesus than elsewhere.' 2 We find a specimen (among many) of his good taste as well as of his scholarship in this illustration of the Lord's injunction, 'Swear not at all':-‘The adjuration, "My eye and Betty Martin," for instance, was simply the old Catholic swearing by a popular saint—“O mihi beate Martine” (“O blessed St. Martin hear me ").'3 Mr. Haweis is of opinion that 'expressions such as "seeing through a glass darkly" are very suggestive (the glass being the dim horn windows of the period) '4—a condemned interpretation, as his favourite authority, Dean Stanley, will tell him in loc. He finds it recorded, apparently in his private copy of the Acts, that 'Barnabas, the son of Consolation, was chosen to fill Judas Iscariot's place.' 5 His Roman history likewise tells him that Corinth was destroyed by Consul Memmius.' Perhaps we need hardly mention such peculiarities of spelling as hailed before the Sanhedrim, and elogium. But when Mr. Haweis R assumes that in the larger gospels of Matthew and Luke, parables on the model, and sayings in the spirit, of Jesus' teaching may find a not inappropriate place, and quotes in illustration of this principle, there was in Him what theologians term a communication of idioms,' we really cannot help concluding that he believes the term communicatio idiomatum, by which theologians express the mutual influence of the two natures in Christ, to mean the imparting of idiomatic terms of speech by the Lord to His disciples! 8 Mr. Haweis is not only sometimes at variance with common knowledge, but even with himself. Thus we find ourselves informed that St. Luke, ' as a medical student, might have known Paul about A.D. 52; then in A.D. 94 he would be only about sixty. We cannot place the date of his Gospel much before or much after A.D. 94.' While if we proceed forward about sixty pages, 'we conjecture in A.D. 90, when the evangelist and doctor may have been about sixty-seven, he issues his Gospel, following that up in about A.D. 94 with his Acts.' It would be of no great importance were we not dealing with a writer who professes to give us such dogmatic information that St. Mark wrote his Gospel 'probably about 1 The Picture of Jesus, 57. 5 Ibid. 59. 2 The Picture of Paul, 146, 147. 4 The Picture of Paul, 91. 7 Ibid. 193, 234. 9 Ibid. 71. 4 3 A.D. 70 to A.D. 74;' while, again, the earliest Gospel is by St. Mark, A.D. 75.' But we are somewhat staggered when again we learn that about A.D. 70, Mark, the companion and amanuensis of Peter, probably at Rome, worked up some of the floating traditions which he may have had by him for twenty We read that it is of little consequence years or more. whether the Sermon on the Mount in St. Matthew is the same as that recorded in Luke vi., or only one like it. Jesus no doubt often repeated the same things; if He had not, they would never have remembered, recorded, and handed them down to us. He used repetitions, but not vain repetitions. But a few pages further on 5 we are informed in respect of the Lord's Prayer, that 'Matthew says it was given in the midst of a crowd while Jesus was preaching. Luke says it was given in solitude to His disciples when Jesus was praying. The fragment stands much the same in both documents; but the setting, the editing, or the placing of it is only one more illustration of the way in which these evangelic fragments were combined and recombined; set, or, as we should say, edited, according to the taste or information of the special scribe, collector, or evangelist.' Why may similar phenomena be explained as examples of repetition on the Lord's part in one case, and furnish instances of editing on the evangelist's part in another? Mr. Haweis propounds the theory of irreconcilable difference between St. Paul and the Twelve in a form more exaggerated than we suppose any writer of the Tübingen school. No assurances on the part of the parties concerned will suffice to convince him that there was no such difference. He knows better. Accordingly he represents St. Luke as smoothing matters and making Paul agree with Peter (in spite of his own Epistle to the contrary, Galatians). But by the time he comes to vol. v. he seems to have discovered in how little credit the Tübingen hypothesis stands, and he says 'that Peter and Paul had never any personal differences beyond those related in the Acts and by no means toned down in St. Paul's Epistles, we may doubt; but that their disciples had we cannot doubt.' 1 The Story of the Four, 129. 2 Ibid. 24. The Picture of Jesus, 5. Ibid. 84. The same page contains a rich specimen of Mr. Haweis' expositions: He opened His mouth-took care to pronounce His words so as to be heard. What a lesson to all preachers! How many of the clergy mumble the lessons and mangle the sermon !' 5 Ibid. 95. The Story of the Four, 133-5, 149, 156, 167; The Picture of Paul, 170-2, 248; The Conquering Cross, 59. These references will probably convince our readers that we have not to do with a writer whose influence on religious belief is likely to be deep. Perhaps some may even question whether we are justified in devoting further space to his work. But though we can pretend no great respect for Mr. Haweis's treatment of his subject, the subject itself is of transcendent importance. And great though his defects be, we should do very wrong to despise him. The circulation of his various works is alone sufficient to show that he must meet the wants or hit the fancy of many minds. No doubt part of his popularity is due to the confidence with which he offers himself as a teacher who sees deeper into a millstone than the ordinary run, and flatters his readers with the notion that they must be superior persons in order to appreciate his teaching. But besides this he has the claim to popularity which results from representing in his own person and expressing with no lack of cleverness the mental condition of a multitude at this time: those, namely, who want to have the enjoyments of scepticism and Christianity at the same time. We live in a sceptical age, and our daily life is organized upon a material basis, behind which lie the great principles of natural science, with its vast pretensions and splendid triumphs, adding sanction to every claim of domination which the laws of earth assert in daily life. There is none of us who does not feel it. The most miraculous occurrence would be sceptically received by every mind of the day, and even those best prepared to accept supernatural intervention upon due proof feel themselves forced to class phenomena as natural, except upon rigorous proof that they belong to another sphere. Thus we judge of Lourdes, of Knock, of spiritualism, table-turning, and phantasms of the living. This is our habit of mind, and we have no right to be astonished that it should operate in the sphere of religion and upon the New Testament record as well as upon events which come to light to-day. Yet side by side with this naturalistic and material bent of mind there exists among us an appreciation of the moral power and spiritual value of Christianity and a yearning after its helps, such as no previous age has exceeded. The absolute freedom of the press has given to unbelievers the fullest opportunity of producing a substitute for Christianity if they can, and they have completely failed. General society takes none of their attempts at the manufacture of religion with seriousness. Christianity, so far as our public is concerned, is in sole possession of whatever moral and spiritual recommendations a credible and effective religion brings with it. And though in some eyes these recommendations are but slight and to be the best of religions seems only to be the best of a quite useless commodity, yet such is not the feeling of the majority of society. In various degrees, but almost universally, they are persuaded that religion is a good thing, and Christianity as the best of religions comes to them with an irresistible claim. Mr. Leslie Stephen may ask, are we Christian? and return for himself the decisive answer No; but he will not find many to follow him. We quite allow that of those who refuse to follow there are a large proportion who do so merely for want of his clearsightedness and courage. Be that as it may, the mass of men among us cling to the name of Christian. And so we are all drawn by two systems, two influences, each of vast reach and power in its way, but of opposite character and tendency. To say that the spiritual and natural influences which bear upon us are irreconcilable in their claims would be to pronounce a sentence of despair upon human life and progress; but they are constantly in collision at some point or other. The marches are not defined by any formal treaty, and there is a constant border warfare. To multitudes, indeed, of humble Christian men and women this brings no grievous trouble. They do not live in the border land, but in the settled peaceful country. They are able both to act upon physical principles in life and to give religion its place and power without too closely examining where the claims of the one end and those of the other begin. Also it has been proved by many examples that it is possible for men who have searched as deeply and as fearlessly as any into the laws of nature to believe that they still leave room for the supernatural, and to be Christians with an ungrudging and devoted faith. But we should naturally expect, and do in fact find, that at such a time there would be many trimmers who, either through natural tendency of mind, or education, or the influence of other people, would be drawn practically by the one influence while unwilling wholly to renounce the other. They are like the Whig statesmen of William and Mary who maintained a secret correspondence with St. Germains, or like the Jacobite lairds who took care that their eldest sons should be Hanoverians. Which is right, Religion or Science? Who can tell? Let us then keep well with both. That this kind of backstairs friendship with one of the great contending parties, while the heart really goes to the other, is possible among the friends of religion, cannot be candidly denied. We cannot refuse to recognize the presence in the Church of a great many VOL. XXV.-NO. XLIX. D persons who view the progress of human knowledge with jealousy, and accept its conclusions only because they cannot help it. Men of science often assume somewhat unfairly, and yet with a degree of plausibility, that this is the universal and necessary attitude of the Church towards their favourite pursuits. And they also are prone to suspect, and very often with good reason, that this half-hearted friendship to science deprives the acceptance which of necessity is extended to it of all real claim to the scientific temper. You avail yourself of the principles of nature, say they, merely because they are in undeniable existence, and because they bring you palpable advantages. But your spirit is unscientific at the root; science bears no real rule over it. You are always watching for an opportunity of revolt. Such accusations are frequently well grounded. But this very fact would lead us to expect that a corresponding suspicion on the other side would equally often be justified. We should expect that there would be people whose real adherence would be given to nature and the world, for whom natural causes and operations would alone possess reality, yet who would not desire to break with religion. The advantages and blessings of religion are as manifest to them as any inventions of natural science can be. Religion pervades the society in which they move. Their parents and their wives are under its dominion, and from its influence comes all that is best in them. They know not how to bring up their children without it. They recognize the beauty of its affections and of its morality, and they could not bear to appear either to others or even to themselves devoid of that unique form of feeling and of conduct of which religion is the only known source. How to pay just sufficient honour to religion, to retain this degree of friendship with it, and yet not infringe upon their primary devotion to nature: this is their problem. Any teaching will be welcome to them which helps to its solution. There is a class of writings justly suspected by scientific men which professes to reconcile Science and Religion by treating the former from the point of view of the latter: such as Moses and Geology, the Testimony of the Rocks, and so forth. Whatever amount of truth they may contain, their principle is not good. For science should have perfect liberty, and be allowed to work out its conclusions in its own sphere. Precisely similar on the other side is the class of writings which professes to give you a religion from the natural point of view: equally bad in principle and equally sure of wide popularity. For just as the one cries out, Assemble, ye men of religion, and |