connected with the whole class of signs and wonders which men everywhere were discussing. He proves from the Hebrew Scriptures that Christ must needs die and be raised from the dead, and then be preached to the world as man's Saviour. To expect him under these circumstances to relate the story of the water turned to wine or the feeding of the three thousand by the bread of miracle is absurd. We have just what we should expect-the testimony to the death and resurrection of Jesus as the Messiah, the Redeemer, and the Saviour of men. He uses these facts as builders do the granite foundation on which stands the building, and out of which, architecturally, it seems to grow.

Turning now to the epistles we meet at the outset a difficulty which has perplexed not a few intelligent readers. They have wondered that we have so few words and works of Jesus expressly recorded by Paul; that we have no direct endorsement of our gospels. On this omission let it be remembered-(a) That it is not certain that either of our gospels was written until after Paul had sent out his epistles. One of them, that of John, we are nearly certain is to be assigned to a later date than any of Paul's writings. Our chronology, as to the dates of the four gospels, is singularly .unsettled. With such authorities, Robinson, Olshausen, Conybeare and Howson, Lange, and Thomson (in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible), all assigning different dates for the gospels, and for the epistles in their relation to the gospels, we cannot risk positive assertions. The tendency seems to be among later authors, in opposition to the belief of the earlier centuries, to assign to Mark the first place in order, and perhaps the average of authorities would give us A. D. 63-70 as the date of his gospel. This would make his gospel about parallel with Philemon, and after the Thesselonians, Corinthians, and Galatians. It is generally believed that our gospels are later than the epistles, the earliest of the latter appearing about A. D. 52, 53. If this be so, it accounts for the absence of any direct verbal quotation by Paul from the Evangelists. These gospel facts, if unwritten by the Evangelists as yet, were told from mouth to mouth, and fragments were doubtless written out by the many compilers mentioned by Luke in the introduction to his gospel. But for Paul to endorse all these would have been as impossible as it would have been gratuitous. Let it be remembered-(b) that if any one of our gospels, say that of Mark, was written in Paul's lifetime, there is no reason why Mark or Peter should have been endorsed by Paul any more than that Paul should have been endorsed by them. Let it also be remembered-(c) that it was no part of the work of the

2G

New Testament writers to endorse each other. Each had his work, and he did it. Had they been careful of their own harmony, mutually endorsing each other, their evidence would have been terribly weakened. But their carelessness in that matter, their "abandon" to their work, by which they each go straight to his own mark, without one thought that Peter's facts will cross Paul's, or Matthew's narrative injure Mark's story-their perfect unconsciousness of any suspicion-these are among the evidences of their divine commission.

And yet, after all, though Paul's work as God assigned it to him is not to write a connected history of Jesus-for in that case he must have taken the facts, as we do, at second-hand-yet is it very wonderful to notice how much of the gospel story he has incidentally told us. That he teaches again and again about "Christ's coming as the fulfilment of prophecy, we all know. That he has in mind the Bethlehem babe who can doubt, when he speaks of him "who though rich for our sakes became poor." He has pondered the baptism of Christ; for he tells us of "being buried with Christ in baptism," and of being "raised again in newness of life." He has in mind the temptation when he says that Jesus "was tempted" in all points like as we "are." He has meditated upon the transfiguration; for he speaks of Christ as "the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his person." The conversation with Nicodemus has been reproduced in his words about the "washing of regeneration aud the renewing of the Holy Ghost." He knew of the calling of the twelve, and describes them in the Ephesian letter as those who are "the foundation, even the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner-stone." His favorite phrase about being "in Christ" he has taken from the words in which the Master described the disciple and his Lord as the branches that were in the vine. He has wept over the garden scene, and has described Gethsemane in its "strong crying and tears" and how "he was heard in that he feared." He insists that the Master was "the man Christ Jesus," and yet he had pondered his words about being one with the Father, and he hesitates not to call him, also, "God manifest, i. e. manifested, in the flesh;" but how manifested except by signs, wonders, and mighty miracles which he wrought on earth. John's mission he knew, and his words about repentance, as they were endorsed by Jesus in his ministry and after his resurrection; and he too will preach "repentance towards God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ." The scene in the upper chamber is better told us by Paul than by either of the Evangelists. The "death" of Jesus he

asserts.

He did not vanish, he "died." He died, according to Paul "on a cross." He "was buried." He was "three days" in the grave. He names the meeting with Cleopas; the interview in Galilee with the five hundred; his final manifestation to the apostles; his ascension to the right hand of all power and majesty, where "within the veil" he waits to come "the second time without sin unto salvation." He will come in the clouds "with his holy angels." Indeed, these "last things" of the Christian dispensation are described in words which, down to their very figures, are copied after those of Jesus as recorded in the gospels.

As we read Paul more and more there gains on us at every turn a sense of the thorough reality of these gospel facts. They were taken up into his life. They were a perpetual presence to him. He lives "in Christ" and Christ lives "in him." He speaks to all of "being rooted and grounded in Christ." His hope and that of those he addressed was "the hope in Christ," or else it was "Christ in them the hope of glory." All believers are "one in Christ Jesus." While they live, they "live unto the Lord," and when they die they "sleep in Jesus," in hope of the resurrection unto life "through Jesus Christ our Lord." And when "he shall appear," they are to be "like him," and to "see him as he is." Everything is full of the personal historical Christ.

And at last, in Nero's prison, the old man lifts up his manacled hands, and says: "I am ready to be offered; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness which the Lord the righteous Judge shall give to me at that day, and not to me only but unto all them also that love his appearing." As his first words on the way to Damascus, so his last words from his prison house, are the assertion of the Christian facts, in the spirit of which he lived, and in the consolations of which he died. Are we not right in claiming for the Apostle Paul that he is himself our Fifth Gospel? D. W. FAUNce.

CONCORD, N. H.

The Life of Trust: being a Narrative of the Lord's Dealings with George Müller, written by Himself. With an Introduction, by FRANCIS WAYLAND. A new edition, from the former issue, revised, enlarged, and improved, with the History continued to the Present Time. With fine cuts of the Orphan Houses. Duodecimo. Pp. 491. Boston: Gould and Lincoln. 1873.

The "former issue," in 1860, was compiled and edited by Rev. H. L. Wayland, D. D. The present edition has been prepared by Rev. Heman Lincoln, D. D. We have great respect for all the names directly associated with the volume, including its subject, but are compelled to dissent from what seems to be their estimate of the book and of the life which it partially commemorates. Mr. Müller is unquestionably a good man and is doing a good work, but his methods are personal, exceptional, and abnormal, rather than exemplary. In so far as the book is the record of a useful man's activity, we can welcome it; in so far as it claims to show the distinctively true form of a Christian life, we must dispute its pretensions. There are thousands of Christians, in America, Europe, and Asia, who are living "lives of trust" and showing "the power of faith and prayer," quite as Scripturally and quite as humbly and sincerely as Mr. Müller, though without his eccentricities and exceptional notoriety. His peculiarities could not be successfully copied by others, and are not attractions or commendable virtues even in him. Perhaps he tells no one but the Lord what his daily needs are; still he seems to have effective methods of letting others know that he has told no one

498

but the Lord. As an example, take the writing and publishing of this "Narrative." He says, I have not taken one single step in the Lord's service concerning which I have prayed so much." Then, after giving some of the considerations for and against the enterprise, he remarks:

When the manuscript was nearly completed I gave it to a brother to look over, that I might have his judgment; and the Lord so refreshed his spirit through it, that he offered to advance the means for having it published, with the understanding that if the book should not sell he would never consider me his debtor. By this offer not a small obstacle was removed, as I have no means of my own to defray the expense of printing. These last two circumstances, connected with many other points, confirmed me that I had not been mistaken when I had come to the conclusion that it was the will of God that I should serve his church in this way.

Not many authors could find it in their hearts to withhold their manuscripts from publication, under similar encouragement, and Mr. Müller was certainly fortunate in thus opportunely consulting the right man. Again, in the chapter (xviii.) on "reaping bountifully," as an illustration of the benefit of "reliance on the resources of the living God" and in "further proof of divine favor," we come upon this passage:

After our daughter had been at [boarding] school for half a year, I asked for the account, when it was stated to me by the Christian lady in whose establishment she was, that she had a pleasure in educating [and boarding] her gratuitously. However, as I pressed the matter, I obtained the account. It was paid, but the exact sum was returned to me anonymously, which, of course, I found out at once to be from the Christian sister at whose school my daughter was. From that time I could never more obtain the account, though my dear child was about six years longer at school. I refer to this point for this especial reason: God had laid it on my heart to care about poor destitute orphans. To this service I had been led to give myself: he, in return, as a recompense, even for this life, took care that my own beloved child should have a very good education, free of expense to me. I was able, and well able, to pay for her education, and most willing to do so; but the Lord gave it gratuitously; thus also showing how ready he is abundantly to help me, and to supply my wants.

It would seem, then, that Mr. Müller's devotion to "the poor destitute orphans" had not left him without the abundant ability to support and educate his daughter. Some men, quite as devoted as himself to objects not less worthy, though not evincing their devotion in his peculiar manner, would feel it hardly consistent with Christian honor and Christian self-respect to have their children boarded and educated gratuitously for six years, especially while they were "able and well able" to pay the expense, and thus save their children from the reproach of a needless mendicancy. We are not ready to admit that there is anything specially sacred or sanctifying in caring for orphans, as compared with the work of the Christian missionary, pastor, teacher, or laborer in any other department of worthy activity.

We have touched upon these points because they are characteristic of the book, and similar incidents are found upon almost every page. They are claimed as proofs of the peculiar Scripturalness and peculiar effectiveness of Mr. Müller's theory and practice of the Christian life. There is an exhibit of what might almost be called a debit and credit account between the Lord and his servant in temporal matters. We are asked to inspect the items, to observe the wonderful correspondence between the