Obrázky na stránke
[blocks in formation]


mom to infer that he did not know it to tell? Why do Matthew and Mark speak so indefinitely of "a woman,' instead of mentioning Mary by name, while they yet record Jesus's word, that wherever the Gospel should be preached, her deed should be told for a memorial of her, thus giving the critics' room to suppose that they did not know the woman's name. These features give us to infer a certain degree of mysterious reserve in their treatment of Jesus's relations to the family in Bethany. And thus we are strongly swayed back to the hypothesis proposed by Grotius and Herden-viz., that any more particular divulgence of the facts of this story was guarded against, in order that danger might not accrue either to the still surviving Lazarus, who, according to John (xii. 10), became an object of persecution to the Jewish hierarchs, on account of the miracle which had been wrought upon him, or to his family, which in the later time when John wrote his Gospel was no more to be apprehended (see Strauss, ii., p. 154). Strauss, it is true, considers this hypothesis is hardly deserving of a serious refutation; and recounts how it has been observed, in objection to it, that the divulgence of this story among people living out of Palestine, for whom Mark and Luke wrote, could not have done any harm to Lazarus ; that even the author of the first Gospel, supposing he wrote in and for Palestine, would hardly have passed over in silence a fact in which the glory of Jesus was so remarkably displayed, out of regard to Lazarus, especially since Lazarus, who no doubt had become a Christian, would (even if, which was an improbable case, he were still alive at the writing of the first Gospel), no more than bis family, bave refused to suffer, if thereby the name of Jesus might be glorified. This tissue of arguments overlooks a variety of circumstances, on which, however, much depends. As to what, in the first place, relates to the glorification of Jesus, which resulted from this fact-there was not so scanty a supply of miraculous works in His history as to make it necessary, publicly and everywhere, to publish abroad every one of them, even if numerous members of the Church should thereby be decidedly brought into danger. In the next place, though this event could not fail to produce in the circle of eye-witnesses then present greater sensation than any other miracle which Jesus wrought, yet when the account of it was given later in wider circles, which were in part hostile, it was less calculated than many other narratives to extend among men faith in Jesus. And for this reason Jesus had wrought this miracle in the circle of His most intimate friends ; it was beyond many others a family miracle ; and when it was related, many both among the Jews and the Gentiles might feel tempted to have recourse to the evasion, that the story rested upon a secret understanding between Him and his confidential associates. But, lastly, we must carefully distinguish between the formation of the synoptic tradition and the composition of the synoptic writings. In the time and under the circumstances that the evangelical tradition, out of which subsequently Mark and Luke drew their materials, was assuming its fixed form, the Church might certainly have good reasons for not speaking too openly on the great event in Bethany. The question was not merely one of delicacy towards Lazarus, who might thus easily have become an object of irreverent curiosity with many ; but also one of delicacy towards the two sisters, who dwelt in a lonely town in the vicinity of the capital, which was both the abode and the resort of no small number of persons infected with feelings of zelotism. Here was a trefoil (so to speak) of persons wbose safety might easily be compromised-Lazarus, who had passed through death, and had been consecrated by a resurrection from the dead; the tender and large-hearted Mary; and the easily discomposed

and easily distressed Martha-requiring to be protected alike against the profane intrusions of curiosity, and against an unhealthy fanaticism, by a certain degree of circumspection in the publication of the Gospel history. Hence might very well arise the circumlocutions which we find in these narratives. A town, when Bethany was to be spoken of ; a woman, when Mary was referred to; the house of Simon the leper, when it was wished to indicate the dwelling of Martha. When, later, the synoptic Evangelists came to write, they, attaching themselves so closely as they did to the already fixed tradition of the Evangelical history, were naturally carried away from the particular story of the raising of Lazarus, so as to leave it out altogether, even though by that time the motives which formerly had led men to deal tenderly with the family at Bethany, when narrating the Gospel history, might more or less have died away.”—III., 479.)

The third book treats of the “Unfolding of the Life of the Lord Jesus, according to the various representations of the four Evangelists,” and contains not a little interesting matter. The whole work, in its English dress, dous great credit to all who have had a hand in it. Publisher, editor, and translators have severally fulfilled their parts in a way wbich scarcely leaves anything to be desired. The editor's supplementary notes are of much value, especially for the references which they contain to English writers, who, according to the custom of his country, are almost ignored by the author.

We hope and believe that the work will have a good influence over the theological thonght of the age, though it leaves much, very much, undone in the incomparably interesting and important field of research to which it is devoted.


English Biblical Criticism and the Pentateuch, from a German Point of

View. By John MUEHLEISEN ARNOLD, B.D., Honorary Secretary to the Moslem Mission Society. Vol. I. London : Longman, Green,

Longman, Roberts, and Green. 1864. This is a calm, temperate, firm, and in a certain line effective, vindication of the Pentateuch from the aspersions cast upon it recently, and especially by Bishop Colenso. It is remarkable for conciseness of expression, and directness in argument. The absence of the usual German prolixity may be accounted for from the work being intended as “an abstract ;” and its freedom from involved and indistinct modes of reasoning is, perhaps, due to a cause which the author himself would not naturally suspect-namely, his connexion with Britain. The expression contained in the title, “ from a German point of view," does not necessarily imply superiority to an English point of view. But the patronizing air, the affected modesty, the tone of pity, sometimes bordering on contempt, shown towards the natives of these Islands, from the outset and throughout the volume, indicate unmistakeably that it is assumed to be beyond dispute that the English point of view must be inferior to the German. Germany abounds in princes ; and this country once received one of them for its monarch. But, we took care to stipulate that his monarchy should be a limited one. And in regard to this and all other German writers, we receive their statements, not simply on account of their coming from “Fatherland," but only in so far as they are provod in open court to be in accordance with the laws of evidence.

Mr. Arnold, in his “Dedication,” carefully sets forth his own high estimate of his claim to attention, arising from his eminent position in relation to German writers and their works. In order to justify his attempt to sift and reproduce German thought upon the

[blocks in formation]

great theological question of the day, the author feels it right to state that he was born and educated in Germany; and of the four degrees, acquired at German Universities, the last one empowers him to fill a chair as Professor of Divinity at any Protestant University on the Continent. No small benefit has further accrued to him from personal intercourse with most of the leading German divines who have either asserted or disputed the authenticity and historical veracity of the Pentateuch, not excluding the late Dr. de Wette. . . The writer is particularly indebted to his kind friends, Dr. Wilhelm Hoffman-heretofore distinguished as Professor of Theology, and for some years past General-Superintendent of Ecclesiastical Affairs, and Hofprediger to the Court of Prussia—and to Dr. Oehler, the eminent Professor of Divinity at the University of Tübingen, for their valuable advice and encouragement in this undertaking.” He goes on to say that “ Dr. Hoffman is intimately acquainted with the theology of the Church of England ;” and by him, among others, “the boldest champion of the mythical principle,” Dr. Strauss, was so effectually repulsed” that he "withdrew from all theological controversy, married an actress, and betook himself to novel writing !

“ German divines have as a body recovered from the distemper of theological scepticism." And, in fine, we are warned not to disdain to benefit by the remedy which they supply for the same malady now broken out among ourselves. “Since what is now deemed poison in Germany has been admitted into England, it is earnestly hoped that the antidote, which proverbially grows in the same soil, may not be unfairly excluded. With this bope, the following abstract of German thought is cordially inscribed to the undergraduates and students of the English, Scotch, and Irish Universities and theological seminaries, to whose future labours the Church in these realms will have to look for deliverance from the supremacy of a dormant orthodoxy, and for protection against the tyranny of a rationalistic and hyper-critical Neology.” Thus, contrary to what has always been the custom in this country, Mr. Arnold, in his dedication, dwells entirely on his own excellencies and those of his friends and countrymen, without giving those to whom he dedicates his work the least credit for their present possession of anything good, and does not condescend even to mention them till the very close.

Bat we turn from the pretensions of the author in order to notice the work itself, in its plan and principles. It consists of three chapters. The first chapter is on “ The Theological Crisis." Here, “ the root of the matter” is said to be the success of recent critics in showing that, in the extant remains of the ancient history of all heathen nations, a mythological era preceded the historical epoch, and the plausible argument founded thereon that the ancient history of the Jews also must be mythological. This argument has been welcomed, because it seemed to afford the much-desired opportunity of pruning the superstitious and supernatural element from what were termed the unreasoning and uncritical ages of man's existence, and of acquiring what this intellectual age had long desired—that is, a faith without miracles, a creed without mystery, and a religion without the stern authority of historical reality. “The great struggle of Neology is to substitute what is called a spiritual for a historical Christianity. This new school magnifies what are denominated the truths, whilst it strives to question the great historical facts of revealed religion." The Higher Criticism” proposes to sift our Bible, our creeds, our articles, till modern thought can accept them in a readjusted form. The principles of this school, the author not only calls in question ; he also takes exception to the name of “The Higher Criticism ” which is


given to them. He says, truly, that "it would prove a radical gain or theology, even in a scientific or merely literary point of view, were the principles of the so-called Higher Criticism more critically examined before they are applied either to the Pentateuch or the Gospel.” In the second section, we have a succinct and clear display of the distinctive features of Romanism, Protestantism, and Rarionolism. Among Protestant Reformers, the authority of the Scriptures is supreme, In Romanism, human tradition; in Rationalism, human speculation, dominates over the authority of the Scriptures. There is next a charge made in regard to the Heterodox Defection of Protestant Orthodoxy. By this is meant the alleged “one-sided study” of the Scriptures, the ceasing to study them “in their organic connexion,” and the form into which “ the dogma of inspiration shaped itself soon after the Reformation.” It was argued by our old divines that the Holy Ghost dictated the Bible word for word. This “ mechanical view" is combated by Mr. Arnold. But his reasoning on this subject is not so close as could be desired. He fails to state precisely and clearly his own theory of inspiration, except in regard to one point; and here his own defection is unmistakeable. If the language of our old divines, regarding the mode in which every word of the Scriptures was communicated by the Holy Ghost to the Sacred Writers, is liable to objection ; yet that language has this recommendation—that in several instances, as appears on the face of the record itself, the precise words were literally dictated. Mr. Arnold himself subsequently argues from an instance of this dictationnamely, a command given by God to Moses to write certain words in The Book. But Mr. Arnold's new view of the mode of inspiration is altogether destitute of authority from the Scriptures, is contrary to common sense, and, if received, will be most pernicious. We give it in his own words : “As God breathed, or more literally inspired, the breath of life into the dust-formed body of Adam, so the Holy Ghost was pleased to inspire the Bible in all its parts with His own life and power, in spite of the dust of seeming imperfections, which the hyper-critical eye of the Higher Criticism seeks to magnify." This mistaken notion is followed out. We are gravely warned of the danger of dissecting the Divine mysteries as we would dissect a corpse. “Scripture must be apprehended, in theology at least, in its organic comprehensiveness and connexion.” The language of Paul, most appropriately used of individual Christians as members of a living organism—the Church of which Christ is the living Head-is by this author perversely applied to the several parts of the written Word. If the old theory be, as he says it is, “a bad theory, which cannot be supported,” this new theory is unspeakably worse ; and, as to support, none is given except the bare word of the author, which, perhaps, hé holds should “supersede” all other kinds of support.

Having, as he supposes, “laid bare some unorthodox defection” among our forefathers in regard to their “characteristic watch word Inspiration, the author comes to the main subject of his work, the Biblical Criticism of the Neological movement. The mythical theory of the Pentateuch, Mr. Arnold ably refutes by arguments drawn from the other books of the Old Testament. And he well exposes the fallacy of the argument founded on the supposed analogy between Hebrew literature and that of other nations, by proving that in many respects there is a contrast instead of a resemblance. Copious quotations are made from Plato's Republic, proving that the emphatic protest of Plato against the mythical creations of Homer," was based on moral rather than historical grounds. The chapter concludes with a description of the need

[blocks in formation]

that existed in England for “the recent infusion of German Neology," and the benefits to be derived from the approaching crisis, if it be properly met. The essence of the remedy proposed we give in the author's own words : “Whilst therefore we seek to expose the shallow pretensions of our opponents, let us re-examine our own theological arsenal, and supply the deficiency, not only with regard to the Pentateuch, but with regard to the whole Bible. Rather than spend breath in idle protests or unseemly vituperation, or even in hasty, undignified, and superficial refutations, let the Church of England thank God, and take courage in the work now before her. ... Feeble counter-attacks, or hollow declamation against the victims of scepticism, will give place to calm, grave, and scholarly productions ; and public prosecutions, which seldom fail to fan the subtle flame they are meant to extinguish, will be superseded by worthy exposures of the fallacies of specious theological abnegations.” Every one will see that here the remedy, so far as those infected with Neology are concerned, is expressly limited to "worthy exposures” of their fallacies. And if this be all that the Church has to do, what becomes of her government ? The subject of Church government has from the beginning of the Reformation been neglected by the Germans. And yet, surely, the Church being “a living organism,” which the written Word is not, must, in order to health, possess the power of taking in and retaining what agrees with her constitution, and of casting out what disagrees with it. This element of power, which Mr. Arnold would exclude from his remedy, is by the Apostle Paul declared to be the more important element of the two. Speaking of the teachers of erroneous doctrines among the Corinthians, he says, “I will know not the speech of them that are puffed up, but the power; for the government (hi Baotleta) of God is not in word, but in power.” And apart from Scripture altogether, the common sense of Englishmen is shocked at the proposal to continue to pay men for controverting the doctrines which they of their own accord solemnly swore to maintain and defend. This is no case of persecution or of martyrdom. It is a simple case of fulfilment or violation of a contract. Tbat the contractors are in this case clergymen, or even bishops, makes no difference as to the principle involved. And, notwithstanding the sneer at the “lay multitude” for their want of learning, they are not so destitute of it as to render expedient a return to the practice of the Middle Ages, by giving the benefit of clergy to disloyal Churchmen.

The second chapter is on the “Unity of the Pentateuch.” After describing the nature of the arguments employed to prove the dualistic authorship of the Pentateuch, founded on the use of the names Elohim and Jehovah, the writer gives the result. He says : “ After a century of gigantic but aimless toil, such as the German mind alone could sustain, what is the result? Not two men, living or dead, are found to agree. The advocates of the theory are as far asunder as the poles.” He goes on to examine laboriously and minutely the various arguments adduced against the unity of the Pentateuch ; and from the necessary connexion of its parts, and their mutual dependence, he proves in a satisfactory manner that the work is one. By the application of the principle of unity, extended so as to comprehend the whole Bible, the author is enabled to solve, as we think in a simple and clear way, the passage in Exodus vi., which by many has been thought difficult. “ The sense is simply that this covenant name (Jehovah) was not known to the Fathers in its full meaning, as nomen proprium, by actual experience. This is the emphatic sense in the original, and is confirmed by Ezekiel xx. 9, and xxxviii. 23.” He explains it further by the parallel passages, John i. 17, vii. 39. Had he gone deeper into

« PredošláPokračovať »