heaven a temple not made with hands, it is surely this country, the true land of the Gospel, on which we as plainly read the history of the Redeemer as in the pages of our sacred books. The thoughts of Christ were cast in the mould of this tender scene of nature; from it He drew his chosen emblems. "No doubt, in order to form a just idea of the country, it should be seen animated and peopled as it was eighteen centuries ago, instead of as it now is-branded with the curse of Islamism. Formerly, on the shores of the lake rose numerous towns, inhabited by an active population; the inhabitants of the little plain of Gennesaret gave themselves up to agriculture, while the dwellers on the shore lived by fishing and trading. These little cities enjoyed much prosperity, owing to their excellent situation; they were, however, regarded rather as villages than towns; they had few men of mark among their inhabitants, on account of their distance from the capital. Each of them had its synagogue, and representatives of the various Jewish schools. The Pharisees and Sadducees strove for influence here as at Jerusalem, but their credit was far less than in the immediate neighbourhood of the Temple. The population would be tolerably dense in so rich a district. The lake was perpetually furrowed by the boats of the fishermen ; nothing was more easy than to gather a multitude in the open air in this fine climate."-(Pp. 345-8.) Two other extracts must be given as specimens of the more argumentative portion of the book; for the controversial element necessarily in our day enters rather largely into every survey of the facts of our Lord's earthly life intended for educated readers, still more of theological students. The first passage is, in form, a note, appended to the history of the resurrection of Lazarus: "The resurrection of Lazarus is one of the Gospel facts most called in question. The silence of the synoptics is first urged against it. Strauss, in his sarcastic pamphlet, 'Die Halben und die Ganzen,' lays especial stress on this objection. This silence is unquestionably a difficulty, but it can be understood if our three first Gospels are regarded as not the writings of eye-witnesses, and as mainly intended to record the events in Galilee. Lange's explanation (Leben Jesu,' iii., pp. 1, 132), which considers the silence of the synoptics as dictated by policy, for the safety of Lazarus, appears to us too ingenious. It would have been necessary to carry such precautions much further, and to have withheld all proper names. If in the synoptics we have no account of the resurrection of Lazarus, we have allusions to the facts immediately connected with it. Thus Mark (xiv. 39) records the act by which Mary of Bethany expresses her hearty gratitude for the resurrection of her brother. Still further, all the Gospels agree in relating the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem, and the implacable determination of the Sanhedrim to strike a decisive blow. Apart from the resurrection of Lazarus, neither the enthusiasm nor the outburst of hate are accounted for. There was nothing to suggest either in the sojourn in Peræa. Some great event must have transpired between the previous visit of Jesus to the holy city and his triumphal entry. John alone bridges over the gap. The very tone of the narrative has a ring of genuineness which at once strikes the unbiassed reader. The explanations given by those who dispute its veracity are, to us, so many confirmations of the truth. I shall not refer again to that of M. Renan, alluded to above; it has been doomed to ridicule. Baur, and after him, M. Réville, regard the account of the miracle as a symbolical illustration of the words, 'I am the Resurrection and the Life.' But this is a gratuitous supposition, which does not explain the crisis which follows, and which is opposed to the character of the narrative. Strauss, faithful to his system, regards it not as a philosophical myth, but as the reflection of the legendary miracles of Elijah and Elisha. He makes the narrative of the fourth Gospel the result of the most artificial combination that can be conceived. This Gospel, according to him, has taken from St. Luke the Lazarus of the parable, and has fulfilled the desire of the rich man by raising him from the dead (see 'Vie de Jésus,' p. 470). A marvellous theory! We find in this hypothesis the same confusion as in the popular legend. At Bethany the traveller is shown, opposite the house of Lazarus, that of the rich man. Thus overstrained criticism blends with vulgar fable. We will not discuss the theory of apparent death maintained by Schenkel. Martha's observation with reference to the state of the corpse conclusively sets this aside. Schleiermacher, in his remarks on the Vie de Jésus,' seems to shrink from his own theory of the mere semblance of death. He distinguishes this resurrection from the others, ascribing it directly to the Divine power invoked by Jesus (Leben Jesu,' p. 233). Ewald admits the authenticity of the narrative, but reproduces it without comment (vol. v. 405-7).”—(Pp. 444-5.) The other passage relates to difficulties felt in the different narratives of our Lord's own Resurrection, and the unbelieving attempts to explain the testimony borne to the fact, without admitting the reality of the fact itself: "The resurrection of Jesus Christ is a truth of such central importance to Christianity, that we cannot content ourselves with a simple statement of the facts, but feel bound to answer the principal objections brought against it. In the first place, there has been a very exaggerated statement of the discrepancies among the Gospel narratives of the event. We do not dispute these discrepancies, and we make no claim to do away with them on any preconceived system; but, estimated at their proper value, they never assume the importance of irreconcilable contradictions. They are perfectly naturally explained when it is remembered that only one of the accounts which we possess is entirely by the hand of an eye-witness. These very differences serve to establish the genuineness of the fourth Gospel, by discovering to us the evident traces it bears of a truly primitive account. If it is indeed John (as everything tends to show) who relates that which he saw, we possess an irrefragable testimony, so much the more conclusive, that in all essential facts it is confirmed by the synoptics. From all our four Gospels it appears that Jesus rose from the tomb on the morning of the third day; all agree in speaking of a vision of angels, of the doubts of the pious women on the morning of this great day, and of the obstinate unbelief of the disciples. The fourth Gospel, like the two first, mentions a meeting in Galilee only; while those who have preceded him confound distinct events, John distinguishes them, and reconciles Matthew's story, which speaks only of Galilee, with Luke's, which speaks only of Jerusalem. The incontestable discrepancies of our canonical narratives are proofs of their perfect honesty, and are readily accounted for by the strange agitation into which the disciples were thrown in consequence of so unexpected an event. "Beside the objections of criticism we must notice the principal explanations of the resurrection, all tending to repudiate the miracle. The third theory, which has recently found many advocates, is that of Paul, it is said, puts in the same category the appearance visions. of the risen Redeemer to the disciples present at Jerusalem, and that to himself on the road to Damascus, which was the beginning of his new life. . . It is concluded that the various appearances of Jesus after his resurrection belong to the realm of imagination, and not of fact. The apostles believed indeed that Jesus was risen; they were no rogues, but visionaries. Such is the argument recently put forth in a very ingenious form. 'He "We may give it a peremptory reply. It is certain that Paul, in his letter to the Corinthians, intends to speak of an actual appearance. was seen,' he says, 'of James, then of the Apostles, then of me.' Let us not forget, that in the chapter of the Epistle to the Corinthians in which Paul declares that he has seen the risen Christ, that which is spoken of is the bodily resurrection of believers. His argument would fall to the ground if what was intended was only a simple vision, not an actual manifestation of Jesus. . . Thus is the resurrection of Christ on the third day certified by a tradition older than that of our three first Gospels. This tradition is not only contained in texts, but is incorporated into the very worship of the Church, by the setting apart of the first day of the week as the Lord's day. "The hypothesis of visions clashes with the most elementary principles of psychology. How can we suppose the repetition of the same delusion in many different minds? Such a coincidence would be conceivable only in an atmosphere of heated and fanatical expectation of a particular event. Now it is indisputable, from all evidence, that despondency was deep and general in the young Church. It was from that upper chamber, the doors of which were closed for fear of the Jews, in which was heard only the voice of sighs and lamentation, that the assurance of this greatest of miracles burst forth spontaneously. How could those who were so slow to believe in the event have been its inventors? "And yet they did believe, and this faith in the resurrection became their lever to move the world. What will account for such a change? 'Christ is risen,' replies the Church; and unless we are prepared to abandon the principle of causality, we feel driven to the same conclusion; for in attestation of the fact, she shows us not only the disciples at Jerusalem elevated, confirmed, transformed, and sealing their faith in this event with their blood, but Judaism and Paganism vanquished, one world crumbling away, another rising; she shows us all generations of Christians coming in succession to derive strength and consolation from this eternal fact. The Christian Church, as young, as living to-day, as eighteen centuries ago, does not rest upon a vision or a lie! Whether we contemplate the circumstances which preceded this day, or the great events which have followed it, it is not possible to place anything but the great fact of the resurrection between. the blank despair of the evening and the exultant joy of the morning, with all its mighty results for mankind." (Pp. 546-52.) We would fain have extracted the beautiful passage (pp. 559-60) which concludes the whole work, but that its theme is almost. too sacred for criticism. We say with all sincerity that we have found nothing in the volume unworthy of the reverential humility of the solemn act of adoration at its close. There are passages, no doubt, which the timidity of some good but not wise believers will regard as dealing too freely with the mere outward letter of the Gospel narratives. The author honestly and fearlessly By Strauss in his "New Life of Jesus." avows that he has no à priori theory of the inspiration of the Gospels, and finds the actual facts of their mutual relation, their inter-dependence, their variations, in minor matters even their discrepancies, entirely incompatible with some of the theories which have been most confidently propounded as essential parts or conditions precedent of Christian belief. But no man can hold more firmly the perfect truthfulness of each Evangelist; no one is more entirely persuaded of the deep harmony between them, the substantial unity of representation which lies beneath the diversity of outward form and colouring. No man more firmly believes than M. de Pressensé that the four Gospels, separately and together, are the casket divinely given to the Church, in which its one inestimable treasure, the life-giving knowledge of the Saviour, is enshrined. Those who seek that treasure there, under the teaching of the same Spirit who prompted the Evangelists to write, and who so controlled and directed their labour that its results should be adequate to all the demands of the Divine purpose in their ministry, will never fail to find all which their real need requires. In the words with which, as M. de Pressensé believes, St. John's Gospel in its earliest form concluded, "These things are written that we may believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, and that believing we might have life through his name." He who believes that the Gospels were so given for such an end, has good reason also to be assured that the Giver did not suffer any error to find place in them which could interfere with the attainment of the end for which He gave them. We want no other doctrine of inspiration than this: it is for honest examination of the Gospels themselves to show what were the objects and the nature, and what were the divinely appointed limits, of that special work of the Spirit in the Apostles and their companions, of which our Gospels are the result. He who believes, indeed, will not be in haste to admit contradictions even in unimportant points; but he will be still more afraid to accept evasive interpretations, or complicated and artificial hypotheses, for the sake of avoiding an honest recognition of the existence here and there of a real difficulty, insoluble in our present state of knowledge. Without accepting his conclusions always in detail, we cordially and thankfully acknowledge that M. de Pressensé has shown English theologians in what spirit every question connected with the criticism and harmony of the Gospels should be treated. He has written on the greatest of all subjects, and has written with a simplicity of intention to instruct, with a ripeness of ability and learning and Christian wisdom, and a largeness of apprehension, well worthy to be devoted to the illustration of so great and sacred a theme. EDWARD T. VAUGHAN. UNIVERSITY EDUCATION IN IRELAND. IT University Education in Ireland. By WILLIAM K. SULLIVAN, Pro- University Education in Ireland. By J. E. CAIRNES, Professor of Freedom of Education, what it means. By JAMES LOWRY WHITTLE, is of no slight importance that members of the Church of England should form a just estimate of the merits of the Irish University question, which has now entered upon a critical phase; and with the aid of the very able pamphlet, the title of which stands at the head of this article, we propose to examine briefly what the issues raised really are, so that our readers may better comprehend in what way it is desirable that they should be settled. The position of affairs is this: the institution known as the Catholic University of Ireland is seeking from Government, not as formerly, a charter conferring on it a corporate character, and recognising its right to confer degrees upon its students, but simply facilities enabling those whom it has trained to obtain, upon examination before a properly constituted public examining body, public degrees and certificates in arts, science, medicine, and law, which shall place them on an equal footing, in starting for the race of life, with the graduates of other universities. The authorities of the Catholic University consider that they have a strong case. Since the design of the institution was first taken up, in 1850, the Irish Roman Catholics, one of the poorest populations in Europe, have raised and applied the sum of £130,000 to found and support the university.* Four Faculties have been organized,-those of Theology, Medicine, Philosophy and * Professor Sullivan, p. 23. |