Church Schools and Colleges, must be brought to bear upon the sympathies of men. The rising generation must be educated to truer views and nobler aims. Canting Indifferentism is Treachery in times like these. The desperate maladies of the age demand positive not negative treatment; the Gospel remedy in its purity, not humanitarian quackery.

What the result of the disruption of the Confederacy is to be upon the Church, upon her organic Unity, and her plans of Church Work, this is now a great question, and one to which as Christian men we must address ourselves. The Church thus far has a clean record; she has been true to her God, her country, and herself. A few factious men within her have not disturbed her harmony. Let it be our united counsel and prayer now that the sacred bond of Brotherhood between Churchmen, North and South, be not weakened, much less severed. One in Faith; One in affection; One in the memories of a noble past; One in the perils around us and the duties before us; One in so many of the tenderest human ties—surely the bond that binds us together in One Communion and fellowship in the One Body of CHRIST, is so strong that the raging passions of the hour cannot sunder it. In any event, there is no necessity that the Church be disunited; provision can easily be made for existing relations between the several States; while the manifold evils and inconveniences that must attend a division of our National Church, greater, we are sure, than some seem now to anticipate, render such separation utterly impracticable. Let the Church, North and South, East and West, still be One, a glorious, loving, working Church, and standing as ever upon her immovable foundation, the ROCK CHRIST JESUS, she shall still cast her calm, clear, Heavenly light upon the angry waters; and GOD, "Who stilleth the raging of the sea, and the noise of his waves, and the madness of the people;" He Who is wonderful in His holy places; even the God of Israel, He will give strength and power unto His people." He will bring order out of confusion, and light out of darkness.

Such, as it seems to us, are the lessons of the hour. Such are the duties imposed upon us as American Churchmen at the present National Crisis.

EDITORIAL.

WITH the issue of the present Number of the AMERICAN QUARTERLY CHURCH REVIEW, we announce the removal of our Publishing and Editorial Offices from New Haven to New York. The facilities of every kind, in our new and more central position, for conducting the Review, and especially our ability here to bring to its pages a far greater variety and amount of literary resources, have for years suggested such an arrangement, but which until now, we have been unable to effect. With a subscription list now well established, with a corps of Contributors thoroughly in harmony with the spirit and aims of the work, we expect to make the Review, in a far greater degree, an element of power in the Church and the Country. We have no change to announce in the general character of the work. The Unity and peace of the Church on the basis of the Prayer-Book-a firm adherence to the Divine Institutions and to the great Doctrines of the Gospel as witnessed to by the Primitive and Reformed Church, with such measure of individual liberty as is consistent with true loyalty to the Church herself-and a more vigorous prosecution of Church work in its various departments as demanded by the wonderful exigencies of the age-these will still be primary objects, and leading principles in conducting the Review. We desire also to say, that, in these perilous times, there are certain great questions of Social Polity which must be met in a manly way, and boldly discussed on the highest of all principles, a true Christian Philosophy. To call things by their right names; to be positive, but not needlessly personal; to be temperate, but not tame, timid, or time-serving; to be earnest, but not narrow, or one-sided; to be charitable, and still to be loyal to the Church, and valiant for the Faith-this will be our study.

The scope of the Review will be broad enough to engage the attention of many who are not Churchmen. In Literature and Art, in Philosophy, Theology, and History, the discussions of the Review will be genial but thorough. On our list of Contributors some new names are engaged, of the highest reputation.

The Department of Ecclesiastical History alone will be worth more than the cost of the Review. Besides rare historical documents, not to be found elsewhere, the record of Current Events comprises full and accurate lists of Ordinations, Consecrations, &c., and other facts, Domestic and Foreign, suitable for our pages and worthy of preservation, and so arranged as to be easily referred to.

Testimony to the efficiency of the Review during the thirteen years of its establishment is before us, and of the very strongest character. Sixteen Bishops of the American Church have shown their interest in the work by writing for its pages. Our publishing and editorial Offices are at No. 14 Bible House, Astor Place, New York City, (near the Rooms of the Domestic and Foreign Committees,) to which address, all Letters, Communications, Books for notice, &c., must be directed. N. S. RICHARDSON,

NEW YORK, April, 1st, 1861.

EDITOR AND PROPRIETOR.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

COMMENTARY ON THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT, by Dr. A. THOLUCK. Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition. Philadelphia: Smith, English & Co.

This edition of the author's Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, differs so greatly from the First, (translated, in Clark's Cabinet Series, nearly thirty years ago,) as to be almost a new work. The difference, in our judgment, is wholly and immeasurably in favor of his first attempt. Dr. Tholuck had not then lost the feelings of reverence and humbleness of mind consequent upon his conversion to the truth. These qualities impressed themselves upon his early work-so that it was both profitable and pleasant to read. As to the present edition, there is a shocking absence of these qualities, so that it is impossible for any one who worships the Lord Jesus, to read it without distress and indignation. A comparison of the introduction to the first edition, with that which accompanies the present, exemplifies, to a mournful degree, the truth of the saying, "evil communications corrupt good manners."

The volume is wanting in almost everything that we mean by a Christian spirit. The words of our Saviour, and of inspired men, are handled as though they were common words, at best words of deep spiritual insight, into which Dr. Tholuck seems to think he has sometimes penetrated deeper than the authors themselves. He discards, with contempt, the orthodox views of Inspiration, and treats the holders of such views with a patronizing air, that would be amusing if it were not so distressing. It is incomprehensible to us, how any real Christian believer can assume an attitude towards the words of Inspiration, such as are taken throughout this book. In discussing the question of the identity of the Discourse of our Lord, called the Sermon on the Mount, as given by St. Matthew and by St. Luke, he pronounces them the same, giving the preference to St. Matthew, whose "arrangement generally is correct." As to St. Luke, who was not present at the delivery of the Discourse, it is by no means certain through how many removes he received his information-but undoubtedly at least secondary. "Yet, the discrepancies are not of such a nature, that we must conclude from them, that the author has taken the text of Matthew, and wilfully changed it in the interest of some doctrine or tendency." (We trust St. Luke will be properly grateful for so noble a concession on the learned Dr. Tholuck's part.) "All we are at liberty to conclude from these differences is, that St. Luke's informer (whether the information was oral or written) possessed less accurate knowledge. Thus Schleiermacher already remarked, as to the source whence St. Luke drew his information; our reporter appears either to have occupied an unfortunate position for hearing, in consequence of which he failed to catch all that was said, so that here and there he seems to have missed the train of thought; or, to have drawn up his account sometime subsequently, when a good deal of the discourse had escaped his memory." There is, however, one omission of St. Luke's, "which would appear to be wilful," and to have grown out of his Pauline tendencies, were it not that a prevalence of a "Judaizing element in other parts of his Gospel," fortunately comes in to save his truthfulness. "Certain formulæ of transition

in the discourse, occurring here and there in St. Luke's narrative, place it beyond a doubt, that his reporter loses now and then the thread of the discourse:"-" and made it out from the popular traditions ;"-" which were often very erroneous."

As it respects St. Matthew-it seems that he also, (though he, if not present himself, yet received his information from very intelligent listeners,) has, nevertheless, "lost several of the connecting links of the discourse." "The blame of these breaks in the logical continuity of the discourse, attaches, in all probability, to the Evangelists alone." What is the implication here? That, otherwise, it should attach to the reporters, or to the Author? Still, "our conclusion is, that the arrangement of the sayings of our Lord given by St. Matthew, is in the main correct.” "The genuineness and authenticity of these discourses of Jesus, so far as the matter is concerned, is to our mind an unquestionable fact!"

"How then are we to explain this erroneous arrangement on the part of St. Luke? We shall have to ascribe it either to himself, or to the traditions, oral or written, from which he derived his information. From the sources of his Gospel, we must expressly exclude that of Matthew; this he cannot have had before him when composing his Gospel. This is evident from this his imperfect account of the Sermon on the Mount, and from the way in which he breaks up its sayings into mere fragments. To affirm that St. Luke has cut into shreds and fragments the perfect web of the discourse, from a mere fancy for the 'disconnected and abrupt,' is gratuitously to ascribe to the author a want of taste, which ill accords with his method in the Acts." Perhaps, in the mean time, however, he may have taken lessons in Rhetoric. "We must suppose, therefore, that the Evangelist himself introduced into his narrative sayings which came to him singly, or had been derived by him from other sources"-that is to say, St. Luke heard of things which our Saviour had at some time said, at least so his informers told him, and inserted them as parts of the Sermon on the Mount. "And is it at all wonderful, that the words of our Lord, which St. Matthew presents in so admirable an order, should have been brought into such a form as would best correspond with the common Jewish-Christian notions, by the more superficial writer, who has handed down to us the narrative of St. Luke?"

"We have found no adequate reason either for removing the Lord's Prayer from the position which St. Matthew has assigned to it, or, on the other hand, for setting aside the account of St. Luke as unhistorical!" As it respects the question of the Doxology to this prayer, "although in other cases St. Luke has borrowed materials to fill up his shorter edition from the more perfect narrative of St. Matthew, yet it is certain, that this clause is wanting in all the codices of St. Luke's Gospel." But we thought St. Matthew must be "expressly excluded from St. Luke's sources, that he could not have had St. Matthew before him."

But enough of this. Scores if not hundreds of sentences of the same sort will be found anywhere in the volume. Reply would be useless upon Theological ground; but simply upon the grounds of civility, it might be asked, if this is a gentlemanly or even decent way of treating an author, who avers, that of "all the things of which he spoke, he had perfect knowledge from the very first?" In more than a hundred places, Dr. Tholuck implicates St. Luke in falsehood, in making this assertion.

We have not as yet, however, noticed the worst things, by a long reach, which occur in this most wretched book. It seems that in these days the privilege must

be conceded to Commentators to know much more, as to the sources of the sacred writings, than their authors knew, and to bring the words of inspired men under the exhaustive criticism of their superior insight-but it was to be hoped, in the case of critics professing to be Christian believers, that this license might stop, when it came to the words of our Lord Himself. As it respects the author before us, if by "Christian believer" is meant one who believes that Jesus of Nazareth is the Lord our God, then Dr. Tholuck is no longer such a believer. He certainly is not a Trinitarian in any Church definition of the term. The omission in the fourth edition of a passage in the first, which beautifully resolves the petitions of the Lord's Prayer into a Trinitarian scheme, confirmed our suspicions, that his exegetical rationalism had run on (as it very naturally should) into doctrinal Socinianism. The following passages will show what he now thinks of “Him Who was made Flesh."

"The question resolves itself into a Christological one, whether we are to regard the Redeemer as restricted within the boundaries of religious thought which characterized that period, or as raised above these limits?" After discussing this question as against Keil, who thought it doubtful "whether the designs of Divine Providence were known to Jesus," the most which Tholuck has to say is, that as Jesus belongs to the "category of great religious geniuses, his religious consciousness ought not to be confined within the limits of his own age." "If we believe at all, that the Saviour foresaw the fulfilment of the kingdom which he founded, we can entertain no doubt, that He had it before His eyes when He spoke these words." Whether Prof. Tholuck believes this, he has left very questionable;-the belief that the Lord Jesus, as God, had fore-knowledge, he has expressly denied. The highest thing he has said of Christ in this book is, that He is the "visible representative of God." The very lowest Nestorianism, if even that, is his highest orthodoxy.

"It is not with Rabbinical hair-splittings, but with simple depth of insight, that Jesus points out these truths." "We are carried beyond the O. T. stand-point, by that consciousness in the Saviour, in virtue of which He promises righteousness to those who long for it." "Now Christ, in full consciousness of His own Messiahship, declares the kingdom of God to be present." "The moral earnestness of the Saviour is shown in his pronouncing punishment upon the germ of crime in the heart." "With a deep psychological insight, our Lord expresses in high, figurative language, that which psychological reflection shows to be the ground of these oaths." "In these sayings, we cannot fail to recognize in Christ a healthy appreciation of the manifestations of nature."

"That a sense of poverty of mind should have constrained our Lord (to avail himself of prevalent ideas) no one would for a moment maintain!" "Bleek's observations lead him to the conclusion, that the repeated discourses of Christ display, at all events for the most part, this dependence on the translations" (of the Septuagint.) Dr. Tholuck endorses the view.

We shall give one more quotation in Tholuck's own words, from p. 313. "It is a question whether these repetitions of heathen prayers were known to the Jews and to the Saviour."

And this from a man who is reputed a leader in German orthodoxy! It is our opinion, that this extreme heresy of Dr. Tholuck has grown directly out of the growing laxity of his views of Inspiration. It is to be hoped, that the respected publishers of this book were not aware of the character of the production. If they