of dates, the sequence of occurrences, or even the actual details of facts, were to them matters of the very slightest importance. "What can it signify?' we can understand that such a writer should argue, "whether the Baptist preached in Judæa or in Batanea beyond Jordan, that is in Perea? What does it matter whether he was born in the reign of Herod the First, or in that of Herod the Second? whether he was beheaded in one year of Tiberius or in another? The real point is whether he was the voice crying in the wilderness, in accordance with the prediction of Isaiah, and whether his baptism was in harmony with the immutable law of the great master, Moses."

We may naturally wish that we had a biography of Jesus Christ which, in accuracy of dates, observance of order of events, accurate delineation of detail, geographical and other phenomenal references, careful report of speeches, and indication whether the actual language, or only the purport or spirit of the teaching, had been preserved, would fulfil the requirements of a modern European biography. But this, however we may desire it, we have not. The Church, so far as we can tell, never possessed any record of the kind. It is equally beside the mark to attempt to construct, from the theological tractates of the Evangelists, an objective Life of Christ, and to multiply and magnify those discrepancies which the Evangelists would, in all probability, have been the first to admit, with the remark that they were matters of minute detail entirely irrevelant to the main object of their respective arguments.

That such is an accurate view of the books of the New Testament

cannot, we think, be for a moment denied by those who are conversant with Semitic literature, whether ancient or modern. It may be urged that this view is as hostile to the Christian argument as even the destructive analysis of the author of Supernatural Religion. And this part of the inquiry is of far more positive importance than is the due appreciation of the value of that work.

The effect of an accurate appreciation of the method of the sacred writers on Religious Faith, must depend mainly on the idea formed of the essential character

religion.

of

If religion be a matter of rule and prescription, a series of observances, bidding this, forbidding that, and leaving man at perfect liberty on all matters not distinctly specified, it is needful to have an exact law, laid down by supreme authority, providing for every duty. This the Jews had, or believed that they had, in the time of Christ, in the Mikra and the Mishna, that is to say, in the Pentateuch, illustrated and explained by the traditional law, and by the series of Synhedral decisions. This the Christian has not. He never had anything approaching to it. And if this be an essential of religion, we can only go back to the injunctions of Jesus. "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." "It is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than for one tittle of the law to fail.” †

Secondly, if religion be a matter of exact intellectual conception, defining the nature of the Deity, the mode of Divine operations, the purposes of Divine will, the exact form, order, and regulation of the invisible world, in the past, the

present, and the future-all this not shadowed forth, not intimated with the gentle and prescient wisdom with which a wise parent would speak to a child of matters altogether beyond his range of comprehension, but reduced to clear, hard, formal dogma, to be accepted as a duty, and to be denied only at utmost peril-no exact basis for religion is to be found either in the Old Testament or in the New. On all these points the Law is silent, and even with regard to the very first and simplest inquiry that ranks under this head, that as to personal immortality, Jesus only answered the question of the Sadducees by inference from a certain expression of the Pentateuch. Nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels are these matters dogmatically treated. All the references to them, either in these books or in the Pauline Epistles, are in exact accordance with one or other of these four great schools, or divisions, of opinion as to the future and the unseen, of which we learn the outlines from Maimonides s; all of which, as touching a matter on which Moses had been silent, were within the limits of orthodox Judaism. And as, from the days of Marcion to our own, opinions of the widest diversity have been supported, by their advocates, from the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, it is clear that no greater certitude has yet been attained than existed in Herodian times. If such certitude be of the essence of religion, we are yet at sea without a pilot.

But if, instead of being a system of minute observances, or of hard and exact dogmas, religion be a mode of life, of progress, and of education; if our habits and ideas be only of importance in so far as they contribute to the elevation and purity of the soul; if an approach to whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are pure, what

soever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, be the path of virtue and subject of praise, we may not only be well content with the Gospels and Epistles as they exist, but may understand why they are not other than they are. If human life be, as we cannot doubt, a state of transition and of change-of progress, not only in the unit but in the masscreeds and institutions which at one moment are admirably suited for human welfare, become by degrees inappropriate and decrepid. All that was said of the immutability of the law of Moses is not enough to convince us that that law will hereafter not only be re-established but become universal, with its tithes, and offerings, and sacrifices, and Temple rite. Nor can we conceive that anything, whether it be rule or dogma, that was established in minute detail at any given period of human history, can ever be permanent, durable, appropriate, and therefore, in the best sense of the word, true, at a very distant date, or among a very different race. We can, therefore, see that it has been well for the world that no such hard, exact definitions as the polemic loves to invent are to be derived from a candid study of the books of the New Testament. If a detailed system had been authoratively established which was suitable to the Jews in Palestine who accepted Jesus, before the fall of their polity, it would have been unsuitable for Gentile Christians at Corinth, Ephesus, Alexandria, Athens, or Rome. If such a system had been laid down in accordance with the exigencies of Christianity under the Roman rule, it would have been altogether unsuited for the people of France under Henry the Fourth, of England under Elizabeth or Victoria, or of America under no regal head. If we look, then, to the New Testament for

institution or for dogma minutely, distinctly, and undeniably given, we shall look in vain. What we can study is the subjective history of Christianity. We may note how opinions have risen, grown, and gradually become transformed; and may estimate the influence of such opinions on the growth of the human mind. And if we find that in aid of all that can ennoble and invigorate the moral and intellectual life we have high precepts, wise suggestions, and tender thoughts; that while we have an elasticity of doctrine that will enable religious sentiment and ethical habit to rise yet higher and higher as the intellectual culture and physical vigour of the race are developed by the rightful pursuit of truth, and gain of positive knowledge, we then have a truer estimate of the character of the books of the

New Testament than that formed by the author of Supernatural Religion. One study, indeed, may be that of a truth and beauty as dependent on ever changing conditions as are the hues of the rainbow. But we observe that lovely vision as it exists. Poetry listens to its message

as to that of the Iris of Heaven. Science tells us of the laws that produce it; laws which are eternal, although sunshine and rainfall are transitory. The dogmatist, like Calvin, and the antidogmatist, like the author of Supernatural Religion, are respectively like a man who should attempt to perpetuate the rainbow by nailing it to a tree on which its lustre fell, and another man who, observing the failure of the first, should conclude that the arc of Heaven was a delusion and an unreality.

F. R. CONDER, C.E.

"Ir is long since we have met, and doubtless you did not expect to meet me in such a scene as this; yet surely my old friend has not altogether forgotten me?"

The lady to whom these words were addressed looked up. She was seated in a velvet chair that stood upon a dais at the end of a large and handsome room; and all the floor was thronged with gaily and often beautifully dressed figures, mingling in dance in the centre, and talking in groups

at the sides of the room. Her eyes were wandering here and there among them with an amused interest, as she sat enjoying the few moments of quiet. For she was too bright and beautiful a woman to be a wall-flower for long together and she had so many friends and acquaintances among this butterfly crowd that she held herself ready at any instant to. respond to some fresh greeting. And yet she started as she caught the tones of the voice that addressed her, and looked quickly up.

"What! is it you!-and here!" she exclaimed, with a bright smile of recognition, as she extended her hand to the darkly-cloaked figure that bent before her.

"I felt bold indeed," he replied, with a half-humorous smile, "when I ventured upon this royal dais. I hope," he went on, turning to another lady, who occupied one of the gorgeous velvet chairs, but who was marked out from those

around her by her crown and royal robes, "I hope your Majesty will forgive me. I feel very much afraid of you, for I am not used to Courts."

Her Majesty laughed gaily, and blushed a little, as she replied to him. Like many a royal dame before her, she was somewhat flattered by the presence of the student and philosopher who was so seldom seen in drawing-roomsespecially in his proper dress. And she thought, as she looked at him, that his Academic robes were his by right; while hers of royalty were only a superficial and temporary apparel. For though we stand within the walls of a palace it is no royal one. We are only in a magnificent modern drawing-room, amid the quaintlyassorted forms that make up a fancy ball.

"I will go with you among the crowd awhile," said the lady with the bright sweet face, when the philosopher turned again to speak to her. "It will carry me back to my girlhood to lay my hand upon your arm again."

She rose and stood by his side, the diamonds upon her neck and arms flashing as she moved. "No," he said, 66 never can you return to that; an added grace is yours. I saw the bud and knew the flower must follow; and now the flower has opened it cannot close its petals again, or gather to itself its fragrance."