of the earliest Christian antiquity. The only drawback we find in the performance, may be resolved into difference of opinion on a given point. It is a regret with us that a considerable share of the article is employed in identifying St. James the Just with the apostle James the Less, son of Alpheus and Mary sister of the Virgin Mary, and cousin of Jesus. This is transforming "the Lord's brother" into his cousin, reducing the three Jameses to two, and perpetuating the ecclesiastical ban upon the sacredness of marriage, by making the Lord's mother both a wife and a celibate.

That the blessed Mary was mother of children who were half brothers of Jesus; that none of them were apostles, but unbelievers, during most if not all of our Lord's ministry; that three or four of them had names corresponding with some of the apostles, who were cousins, sons of Alpheus and the Mary sister; and that one of these half-brothers was this same James the Just, would, we think, never have been questioned but for dogmatical reasons. Our regret in reading this able article is, that it contributes to the disparagement of the exegesis and the permanence of the dogma. Let us give a compressed view of the argument:

1. The argument for Mary's subsequent maternity from the expression, Matt. i, 25, He knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son, is only weakened by all the solutions offered, not refuted. Until naturally, though not necessarily, implies a terminus to he knew her not; first-born naturally, though not necessarily, implies a second born. No exegete can honorably deny our claim, that though this passage is not conclusive, it is, after every extenuation, a presumptive proof of the birth of younger brothers or sisters to Jesus. It leaves the burden of proof on the negative side, while the mass of proof will be found on the affirmative. 2. In accordance with this presumption, we actually find the adɛλooi of our Lord more than ten times occurring; they are never called cousins; and though there were clearly cousins, the word brothers is never used in clear application to them. The cousins could never be ten times brothers, and never once cousins. To say that the word udɛλooi was used in a more extended sense than that of strict fraternity, is little to the purpose. Such extensions are generally vague and generic, and founded on some affectional purpose. Such extension can never cover a case like this, of a uniform and exclusive use of one specific and fixed term for another specific term. The argument, though scarcely commenced, might rest here. Without exegetical violence, our Lord was a first-born with brothers. 3. But Jesus had not only brothers, but ¿dɛλḍaí, sisters; a term still more unsusceptible of extension. And these sisters, like their brothers, reside at Nazareth, at the home of their mother. 4. From their home at Nazareth, that mother, those brothers, and those sisters, all come to Jesus at Capernaum, apparently for the purpose of inducing him to return with them, from his ministry, home to Nazareth. Now if that mother was a literal mother, in all reason, the brothers were literal brothers, and the sisters were literal sisters. Here then we have a mother with her first-born, his brothers and his sisters; and to clinch the whole, they are expressly by himself called his oixía, family. And this answers a strange remark of the Review, that our Lord's family is never mentioned. An oixía, including a mother, her FOURTH SERIES, VOL. XII.-21

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 bixia 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 oxía 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 Sikatos 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.

J. D. Long's book:

The following passage introduces Rev.

"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.

I. 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 Foret-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. IIIe 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 Moeurs 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, imprison, 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