ARTICLE VIII.-NOTICES OF NEW BOOKS.

THEOLOGICAL AND RELIGIOUS.

SCHENKEL'S PORTRAITURE OF THE CHARACTER OF JESUS.*-Dr. Furness appends the following note at the end of his edition of this work: "In concluding a labor which he has found full of interest, the translator is free to confess that, with great respect for the learning and industry of German critics and commentators, he is struck with the fact that these eminent and laborious scholars appear never to perceive that the records owe their existence to the facts recorded. They search with wonderful acuteness for every shadow of a "dogmatic necessity," for every possible extrinsic consideration, in order to account for the telling of the story. They look everywhere but directly at the facts related, to solve the secret of their having passed into history. The facts of the Life of Jesus-it is one of the translator's strongest convictionswhen once they are truly and distinctly apprehended, will be felt to be so full of life and power, that it would have been strange indeed if "many" (Luke i. 1) had not taken it in hand to record them, and if also, of the numerous early records that must have sprung into existence, such narratives as we now have in the Four Gospels had not lived on from age to age, and proved themselves imperishable." We cannot agree with Dr. Furness in this sweeping condemnation of German scholarship. There are "German critics and commentators" who are better able to build up and defend than the destructive school is to pull down. To them we owe an immense debt. At the same time, we are highly gratified with this expression of confidence in the Gospel histories on the part of Dr. Furness; and we regard his reflections upon German criticism as eminently just when applied to the book which he "has taken in hand" to translate and edit His numerous notes are generally in opposition to the opinions of the author, and in

* The Character of Jesus Portrayed. A Biblical Essay, with an Appendix. By Dr. DANIEL SCHENKEL, Professor of Theology, Heidelberg. Translated from the third German edition, with Introduction and Notes. By W. H. FURNESS, D. D. 2 vols. 12 mo. pp. xxxvi. 279, 359. Boston: Little, Brown & Co. 1866. New Ha. ven: Judd & White.

favor of a more believing view of the Gospel narratives. It is with some surprise, therefore, that we find him willing to submit to the labor of rendering into English a work which he controverts on points of vital importance, and which he impliedly condemns, as unsound and untrustworthy, in the passage quoted above.

Schenkel's work produced some excitement in Germany, partly because it appeared in the wake of Renan's Life of Jesus, but chiefly because the author had been generally supposed to be an orthodox theologian. Its intrinsic merits are small. It throws no new light on any branch of the subject of which it treats. It simply echoes the theories of Baur and Strauss, with enough of modification to give the reader an impression that the author has a "stand-point" of his own, and that he has not utterly thrown away Christianity as a system supernatural in its origin. There is no important position which Schenkel takes in opposition to the genuineness and credibility of the Gospels, which has not been thoroughly refuted by scholars much more profound and accurate in their learning than he can claim to be. It is plain that he questions the truth of the Gospels, simply because he deems the miracles which they record-except certain cases of healing which he does not consider miraculous-incredible. He maintains, with Holtzmann and Meyer, that Mark was written first, before the other three. In this he may be right, but the dogmatic confidence with which he propounds this opinion is without warrant. He pretends that Mark has been recomposed since its first issue—a proposition that is supported by no conclusive evidence, to say the least. He assumes a collection of Discourses to have existed prior to our Gospel of Matthew, and to have served as the foundation of it. This judgment, though approved by some excellent scholars, appears to us to rest upon no sufficient proof. It is based entirely on an interpretation—a misinterpretation, as we think of the term λoya in Papias. Luke's Gospel Schenkel assigns to about the year 80. The genuineness of the Fourth Gospel he denies. It was written, he thinks, between A. D. 110 and A. D. 120, and is made up, to a considerable extent, of fictitious narratives, invented to embody certain ideas and sentiments. He talks about an "Ephesian group of legends" as furnishing the matter for this Gospel. That within twenty or thirty years of John's death, a document that John never composed, that contradicted the traditional conception of Christ's life, that was filled with incidents which John had known nothing of,-that such a document should

so soon be imposed on the Ephesian Church, where John had lived and died, and have speedily found acceptance everywhere, among Catholics and heretics, constitutes no difficulty to the mind of Herr Schenkel. The external evidences of the genuineness of this Gospel are handled, we are compelled to say, with inexcusable flippancy. Not content with refusing to admit that Justin Martyr was acquainted with the Fourth Gospel, he tries to show that the testimony of Irenæus has little, if any, weight! A man who had personally known Polycarp, a pupil of the Apostle John; a man who was acquainted with the churches of the East and West; a bishop of so much consideration that he could rebuke the Bishop of Rome for failing in Christian charity; a writer whom Tertullian styles "a diligent explorer of all sorts of opinions "-" omnium doctrinarum curiosisimus explorator;" a writer, too, who had prepared himself by diligent inquiries to combat, in a copious treatise, the various schools of Gnosticism, and whose uprightness is unquestioned,-such is the man whose testimony to the genuineness and universal acceptance of John's Gospel goes for nothing! He occasionally utters a fanciful argument, and, therefore, he is incompetent to testify on a question of fact!

We cannot undertake to review this pretended "Portraiture" of Christ. If we have spoken of it in severe terms, we have not gone so far in our condemnation as Strauss, who, at least, has the method of proposing theories not wholly destitute of plausibility. Dr. Furness shows himself to be a modest, candid, and reverential scholar, and we cannot but wonder at the deference which he seems to pay to the dogmatism of his author, whose groundless propositions he so frequently calls in question.

The mechanical execution of these volumes is exceedingly neat and tasteful.

THE LIFE AND Light of Men.⭑-Any work from the author of the "Christ of History" will of course attract attention and be read with interest in this country. This volume will be read with the greater interest and attention when it is known that the author contends for substantially the same view of the work of Christ which is taught by Dr. Bushnell in his "Vicarious Sacrifice." The arguments of the two writers are not always the same—either

* The Life and Light of Men. By JOHN YOUNG, LL. D. (Edin.) Alexander Strahan, publisher, London and New York. 1866.

for the rejection of the received doctrine, or for the acceptance of the theory which both would substitute in its place. Their interpretations of proof texts do not always agree. But the positive import which they find in the death of Christ as sacrificial is precisely the same. As we have so recently and so fully subjected this theory to critical discussion, we may very properly excuse ourselves from repeating our own arguments. We notice two or three particulars which seem worthy of comment.

First of all, the theories by which the doctrine of the atonement is defended in Scotland must be very antiquated. Dr. Young seems to take it for granted that if such theories of this doctrine as those of Anselm and Dr. Shedd can be shown to be inconsistent with common sense and the conscience, then the doctrine itself must be abandoned. The readers for whom Dr. Young writes are evidently those who have been taught to believe that the doctrine of the atonement rests on the theory of a literal transfer for the advantage of the believer of the righteousness of Christ's heart and life. These assumptions involve by logical necessity the inference that Christ died only for a part of the human race, and that there must, of course, be some qualification in the gospel offer, and some hesitation or misgiving in the faith with which it is accepted, until the recipient is in some supernatural or mystical way assured that he is one of the elect. We cannot very much wonder when the alternative is presented, of accepting this as the only conceivable doctrine of the atonement or of rejecting any doctrine of atonement at all, that such a thinker as Dr. Young should choose the latter view. We regret he should be driven to this necessity, and especially that he should fail to see the more excellent way of escape from the pressure upon his conscience and reason; but if it is true that the whole theological world of Scotland has willfully and dogmatically rested in such traditions, notwithstanding the better light upon these points, their only help and deliverance seems to be in a vigorous reaction to an opposite extreme in the form of an earnest protest against the traditional dogmas which involve such serious error.

Second: Dr. Young's attempts to reconcile his theory with the declarations of the Scriptures are on the whole less successful than those of Dr. Bushnell. His exegesis of the words to justify and justification, and his readings of the passages in which these words occur are apparently more elaborate and minute than his, but they are, if possible, more forced and untrue. His theory of sacrifice

is on the whole less successfully sustained, in respect both to the origin and divine sanction of the rite and the transfer to the work of Christ of the ideas and symbolism which sacrifice has furnished. Third: His theories of the Divine government and of the nature of penalty are more objectionable than Dr. Bushnell's; being less clear, farther from the truth, and weaker in moral energy and tone than those of the American theologian. We notice here the results of the more thorough discussion of these subjects to which American theologians have been accustomed, and their greater familiarity with elementary principles of prime importance.

Fourth The earnest Christian spirit of this treatise cannot be too highly commended, and the positive tone of its faith in the incarnation, as a manifestation of the personal love and condescending mercy of God, redeem this work from many objections which otherwise would lie against it. The moral and religious power of the positive parts of the Essay is by no means inconsiderable. The pathos with which the author contends for the views of the gospel which he considers most honorable to God, is always moving and elevating, and the energy and warmth with which he contends for the Christian truths which he accepts, go far to reconcile us to the omission of those which he rejects. There are many fine thoughts in the work, and they are uniformly presented in eloquent and flowing diction. In these particulars the author sustains the reputation which he had deservedly acquired by his previous writings.

-In common with other

PROFESSOR PHELPS ON REGENERATION. readers of the Bibliotheca Sacra, we have been charmed with the four dissertations from Professor Phelps which enriched the successive numbers of that work in 1866. We were even meditating a request to the author for the republication of them in a more popular form, when we received a copy of the four dissertations or discourses with another appended, and found that our thought was more than realized. This little volume, entitled "The New Birth, or the Work of the Holy Spirit," is in every respect excellent. We can commend it without any fear that our words of commendation will be too strong. As a theological treatise it is characterized by accuracy of definition and statement, by thorough soundness of evangelical doctrine, and by freshness of conception.

* The New Birth: or, The Work of the Holy Spirit. By AUSTIN PHELPS, Professor in Andover Theological Seminary; Author of "The Still Hour." Boston: Gould & Lincoln. 1867 18mo. pp. 253. Price $1.25.