ELEMENTARY THEOLOGY.

1. The Elements of the Gospel Harmony. By BROOKE FOSS WESTCOTT, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Cambridge: Macmillan. 1851.

2. Lectures on the Study of Theology. By REV. C. P. CHRETIEN, Fellow and Tutor of Oriel. Oxford: J. H. Parker.

1851.

THE first of these books is an enlarged Norrisian Prize Essay. The subject was, that "the plenary Inspiration of the four Gospels is not invalidated by the alleged discrepancies which are objected against them;" and hence has arisen the Elements of a Gospel Harmony. It is a good and sensible book, so far as it goes, though we rather doubt the benefit to religion and the Church by the multiplication of mere essays, involving a certain degree of research, the subjects of which require the labours of many years to bring them into anything like a state of perfection. The question of plenary, or indeed of any inspiration, has of late years been most fearfully handled; and we should rejoice to see it ably and extensively treated de novo, with all the appliances of ancient and modern research bearing upon it; so that as far as this country is concerned, the whole matter might be set at rest for a century at the least to come. Beyond that it might be too sanguine perhaps to hope. It is harassing and disheartening to be put continually on the defensive in things, on which, if religion be true at all, there should be no open opinion whatever. It prevents the Church's progress, and it diverts attention from comparatively lesser things to which our full and free energies ought to be directed to fill up the measure of the Church's system. It is clear enough, that if we have to battle on such a primary question as Inspiration, others of great moment must be placed in the rear until that contest is decided.

Hence, we rather doubt the usefulness of having these great subjects insufficiently treated. A large number of them form in the aggregate a powerful body of defence, and if harmonised together might be equal to repel any attacks; but taken singly, each would have certain weak points and deficiencies, and so be incapable of convincing a gainsayer and unbeliever. We find what may in some measure be considered an instance of this in a very early part of Mr. Westcott's volume. He is speaking on the two popular theories of Inspiration,-the objective, and the subjective; and contends for the union of both in the mind of a true prophet. "It is absolutely necessary to keep in sight these two meanings of the term, in order to obtain any full view of the reality which it expresses, for by dwelling exclusively on one of them, some writers have maintained, that inspiration is nothing but the manifestation VOL. XII.-NOVEMBER, 1851.

0 0

of a divine power; and others, that it is merely a particular form of the natural activity of the human mind. Thus, if we dwell solely on the objective side of inspiration, the prophet becomes a mere soulless machine, mechanically answering the force which moves it, --the pen and not the penman of the HOLY SPIRIT." (p. 5.) We believe him to be perfectly right in his view of the general union of the two: the schools of the prophets amongst other means show it; but surely Balaam was an exceptional case, as was also Saul, when he prophesied at "the hill of GoD," and perhaps Jonah might be included when he fled to Tarshish. A great deal might be said and written on each of these cases; but when a certain law is laid down with much positiveness and precision, and yet so loosely carried out in its wording as to leave such instances open to an objector, we must feel, that the question is insufficiently treated, and no real approach made to set it at rest. It is with no responsive feelings to our author, that we find this sentence in the next page: "It is scarcely necessary to enumerate the many fatal objections to the purely organic objective theory of Inspiration: it rests on no scripture authority, and is supported by no historical testimony, if we except a few ambiguous metaphors." The instance of Balaam alone would show, that it requires rather a closer analysis than this.

There is another equally loose mode of argument on a very important point, the fourfold form of the Gospel. CHRIST has thought fit, that those points of His life and doctrine which seemed right in the divine counsels to be recorded "for us men and for our salvation," should be given by four evangelists. In the mystic correspondence of one part of holy scripture, i.e. the scheme of man's Redemption, with another, it is both easy to see and to dilate upon this particular number. But is the following a true argument? is it one that could by any possibility have any weight whatever with an objector? "The bearings of each act, and the teachings of each discourse of our LORD, are necessarily infinite, for He spoke and acted for the world; the manifoldness even of His human life must exceed the limits of one historic type. Is it possible (?) that one narrative could have expressed the entire likeness of Him who sanctioned and purified the zeal of Peter, the love of John, and the reason of Paul;-who reproved without rejecting, the timid doubts of the Jewish Rabbi, and the earnest vehemence of the sons of thunder? We may indeed, well ask the converse of an ancient question: Could one Evangelist have told us all ?"

Now, all this is in the best possible type of Prize Essay writing, and should be got by heart by all Cambridge Bachelors of Arts;-but is this an argument to the Christian world at large, that the life of CHRIST should be transmitted to us by four Evan1 Chrysostom, Hom. I. in S. Matt. (Suicer. I. c.)

gelists? This weak, thin, fanciful rhetoric is the blight and bane, from Paley downwards, of our writers on Evidences, in all the variety of forms in which they come to us. A weakness of this kind, cleverly seized on by an objector, upsets the whole character of the book with similar minds to his own. "Is it possible," an author on Inspiration asks, "that one narrative could have expressed" the acts and discourses of JESUS CHRIST? Why, yes. If Inspiration came from the HOLY GHOST, could He not have directed one mind to record the substance of the things, or the things themselves, which He has now caused to be recorded by four? Does Mr. Westcott mean to say, either to believer or objector, or to both, that no one disciple, acting under the influence of the HOLY GHOST, could have written the birth of our Blessed LORD, His progresses, His miracles, His parables, His doctrines, His disputes with the Scribes and Pharisees, His Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension? And if one could, where is his argument? It is a mere flourish of words, and a mischievous flourish too. Besides, his reasoning proves too much, it defeats itself! Is the Gospel of S. Matthew so different from that according to S. Mark, that one Evangelist could not have combined the two? Every one knows, that in their main character they are identical. We must look for some sounder motive than this. Mr. Westcott, p. 50, gives one himself; and as far as it goes, it is the right one. "These variations" (as to style and matter) "in the scope of the Evangelists, which were implied in their circumstances, and unfolded by sectarian bigotry, were also recognized by the fathers of our faith. Irenæus finds a real and perfect whole in the Gospels,' a quadriform Gospel,'-four-sided, like the cherubim, yet forming the one foundation and stay of our religion. The same mysterious emblem of Ezekiel was applied to the Evangelists from one end of the Christian world to the other; from the Rhone to the Nile, from Carthage to Bethlehem."

In this passage, again, we have the Prize Essayist; the geographical sequence would have been from the Rhone to the Nile, from the Nile to Bethlehem; not so the rhetorical. But, however, that may be, he has lighted on the true idea, and might have fortified himself, and his readers too, by a far nobler view than his doubt of the possibility. He might have shown from various parts of Holy Scripture that a square, both in number and form, was a symbol of perfection, and that the number of the Evangelists was made thus to fall in and harmonize with this idea. Nay, the New Jerusalem itself at the close of the holy volume was four-sided and square, each side mystically representing one of the four Evangelists of the sacred city, of which JESUS CHRIST Himself was "the chief corner stone." If he held this view at all, why does he either not follow it out, or refrain from writing any thing which is against it? There is nothing more remarkable to the profound student of the

Holy Scriptures than their simplicity. It is difficult to find the true key, and this is not wonderful, considering the very fundamental law of all, that the HOLY SPIRIT who indited can alone give the true interpretation of their meaning,-but when on any branch it is found, the harmony of every part connected with it is truly marvellous. Now the true key to the number four in the persons of the Evangelists is the scriptural square or perfection, and any student who will fairly and honestly carry it out in his mode of interpretation will arrive at great results; we mean not in any Swedenborgian system, or Jacob Behmenism, but in a comparing, faithful, teachable spirit; and at any rate, whatever results he may reach, he will not be led into the folly of asking whether four Evangelists were not necessary, because the truths to be revealed were too great for one.

But the evil of his system has not ended here. It has been an old objection that the Synoptists, or three first Evangelists, do not ostensibly harmonize with the fourth. It has been said that the former represented the outward form of Christianity, as exhibited in the acts and miracles of our SAVIOUR, while S. John laid open the doctrines and mysteriousness of the law of CHRIST, or in the words of our author, "the different purpose of S. John required the introduction of a new apostolic history widely separated from the first." Now, so long as any Harmony is attempted by putting together the outward letter of one Evangelist and comparing it with another, so that parable shall assimilate with parable, and miracle with miracle, and the doctrine openly declared by one shall be searched out in intimations by the rest, not only can no true Harmony be found, but the Synoptists, in spite of volumes of ingenuity and patching, will appear to an objector to differ from S. John. The great argument is, that the outward things revealed convey spiritual meanings: there is a secret coherence between them all as portions of one grand scheme. That is the true harmony. Mr. Westcott himself says, "Already in the earliest times a sect was found which rejected all the writings of S. John, in consequence of the difficulty which they found in combining his gospel with the others; and Origen in one place thinks that a metaphorical interpretation is the only possible means of maintaining the absolute truth of all." (p. 53.) We do not hold to Origen in most things; his interpretation is too Rabbinical: but his idea, as given in the above sentence, we believe to be a true one. That sect, the Alogi, rejected S. John, because they could perceive no inner nor doctrinal sense in the three.

We have hitherto spoken of Mr. Westcott rather as a type of many theological writers in our day than as standing out in any particular faultiness in the points we have mentioned, and we confess that we have little sympathy with the easy skimming manner in which the gravest subjects are so often treated, but we should

do injustice were we not to add that many of the harmonies which he has combined are extremely well done, and in some are a great improvement upon certain of our elder writers. We turn now to

Mr. Chretien.

This is a book of much greater pretensions, as being lectures delivered in Oriel College Chapel, but, like Mr. Westcott's, treats of elementary principles. Here, too, we have the old ground gone over again, even so far back as natural religion and the being of a God. What possible good is to be gained by thus retreating in these days into first principles? Is the age so far behind its needs and means of knowledge as to require every thing to be begun again, as if nothing could be taken for granted and believed as settled truth? And the fact after all is, that the arguments drawn from natural religion are unsatisfactory in their end and of very little worth. Mr. Chretien sees this himself, for he says,

"The being of a GOD has been more often considered by able writers from a metaphysical than a theological point of view. Allowing the truth most fully, they have exercised their ingenuity in inquiring how it may best be proved. The result has not always been happy. The religious reader cannot help wishing that some more indifferent subject had been chosen as the arena of disputation. We are creatures of association, and it is neither pleasant nor improving to have the primary truth of all religion, so certain in itself, mixed up with subtle arguments, not always convincing in proportion to their subtlety. Little good seems to have resulted from the prolonged discussions of the question, whether the existence of GOD admits of demonstrative proof? Those who are anxious to see what may be said in the affirmative may consult Clarke's Demonstration of the Attributes and Being of a GOD, and the Meditations of Descartes, especially the fifth. But they must be of a peculiar turn of mind, if they think the arguments at all approaching in certainty to the conclusion at which they point. Even an imperfect faith has in itself the elements of a far more convincing proof than can be supplied by any such philosophical reasonings."

Exactly so; and it may be asked, why after an opinion so admirably written should the two first Lectures be on the Being and Attributes of GOD? A Christian student has faith in those already, and he has books enough at command to bear out his faith. It is really time that we should "leave the principles and go on to perfection." These arguments in their beginning and end are a great evil. The Jews would not have suffered any written proofs of the existence of JEHOVAH, nor would Mohammedans of that of Mohammed. Why should it be reserved for Christians, or at least the English Church, to bear the disgrace of such vain philosophy? And, besides, the whole system of such reasoning is radically faulty. Mr. Chretien says,—

"It will of course be remembered, that we are not in the least de