1846.] Christ's View of the Old Testament. 73 In the first place, on the supposition, that Mr. Stuart has established his premises, to wit, that Christ and his Apostles recognised the prophetic authorship and divine inspiration of all the books of the Old Testament, still his conclusion in reference to those whose opinions he opposes, is much too broad. For it is certainly conceivable, (we make the supposition to show how inconsequent is the Professor's reasoning,) that Jesus and the Apostles might be mistaken in some opinions, which they held in common with the Jews, and yet have been inspired in regard to the essential truths of the Christian revelation. The strongest inference that could be drawn from a mistake of Christ and the Apostles in regard to a question of criticism or history, would be their fallibility on certain subjects, and not their want of authority to make a revelation of divine truth. Many Orthodox divines have supposed that the Apostle Paul expected a personal and visible coming of Christ during his life-time, but this has not impaired their confidence in his being inspired with the great Christian ideas. Dr. Priestley and others have held Christ to be fallible on some subjects, while they have had undoubted confidence in his authority to reveal the essential doctrines of Christianity. Should any one, therefore, take the ground, -- which we would not be understood as taking, that Christ and the Apostles were fallible in regard to certain opinions connected with their Jewish education, he would not be compelled to renounce his faith in the Christian revelation. But we can by no means admit, that Mr. Stuart has shown it to be a fact, that Christ and his Apostles regarded all the books of the Old Testament as the genuine productions of inspired prophets, or all parts of them as given by infallible inspiration. The passages quoted by Mr. Stuart are far from proving the point. Some of them are wholly irrelevant, and the expressions used in others are too general and indefinite to answer the purpose for which they are adduced. From the references made by our Saviour to the Old Testament we may conclude, that in his view it contained much that is divine and can never pass away. But that he intended to sanction all that is contained in it, or to settle critical questions in regard to the genuineness and authority of every book in it, appears to us in the highest degree improbable, and not only not supported, but even VOL. XL. -4TH S. VOL. V. NO. I. 7 contradicted by his language. In the sermon on the Mount he spoke of some of the laws of the Old Testament in a very different manner from that in which he would have spoken of the laws of God. And how could he, who gave the command, "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you," have supposed that the extermination of the Canaanites by the Jews was by express Divine command? Or, how could he, who died praying for his enemies, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" have sanctioned the imprecations in the cixth Psalm, or other passages of the Old Testament having a similar character? The learned and impartial Neander, whose praise is equally high with Christians of all denominations, has remarked in reference to the diseases of the demoniacs of the New Testament: "In regard to the question whether Christ expressed any decided opinion respecting the origin of these diseases, it must be remembered that an investigation into their immediate cause appertained to scientific psychology, a subject which was left to the gradual development of natural science. Accordingly, from the circumstance of his leaving uncontroverted the popular theory, it cannot be inferred that he either sanctioned or approved it; the subject being one which from its nature did not come within the range of his instructions." * May it not be doubted with equal propriety, whether it came "within the range of his instructions" to decide all the questions, which might arise in the progress of scientific inquiry, relating to the character and criticism of the books of the Old Testament? We can see no stronger reason why, in his short mission upon the earth, our Saviour should have entered into controversy with the Jews on the subject of the character and claims of their sacred books, than on the subjects of psychology, astronomy, or geology. Criticism and interpretation, like psychology and astronomy, might well be left by him "to the gradual development of natural science." Let it be supposed,-what cannot be proved,-that Christ and the Apostles regarded all the books composing the Jewish canon as having been written by prophets, in the *See Extracts from Neander's 'Leben Jesu', translated by Rev. J. R. Beard, p. 44. 1846.] Erroneous Remarks. 75 sense in which the Hebrews understood the term. Still, before the conclusion could be established at which Professor Stuart has arrived, how much must be proved respecting the nature and the extent of the inspiration of the Prophets! Was it occasional, or universal? Did it relate to all subjects, or only to that of religious truth? Was it, or was it not, consistent with fallibility? Did it consist in the suggestion of objective truth, or in the general exaltation and strengthening of the prophet's faculties? Many questions of this kind must be settled, and settled in a particular way, before Mr. Stuart's conclusions from the language of Christ and his Apostles can be regarded as established. In regard to many passages, too, the question would arise, how far Christ and the Apostles may have reasoned ex concessis, or from opinions held by the Jews without intending to sanction those opinions. But we have neither space nor time for the discussion of the subject. We should be glad to close without saying anything of the spirit and tone of the book. We are aware that great latitude should be allowed for the expression of earnest feeling in a writer who is interested in his subject. But we might cite instances of superciliousness and discourtesy from Mr. Stuart's book, wholly unbecoming a Christian scholar and gentleman.* We might specify frequent instances of the argumentum ad invidiam, and of an offensive misstatement of the question under discussion. We might quote several passages, which are adapted to give false impressions of the opinions, not only of Mr. Norton,† but of Gesenius and Eichhorn, to persons unacquainted with those writers. What does Mr. Stuart mean, when he says that Gesenius was "most of his life a strenuous asserter of the late origin of the Pentateuch?" If he means that he ever altered his opinion on the subject, we believe the assertion to be destitute of foundation. Again, what does he mean, when he says of Eichhorn, that "he is left in the race of neological criticism immeasurably behind De Wette, Ewald, Lengerke, Mr. Norton and their compeers." Even in relation to the Old Testament this sweeping assertion * See pp. 20, 21, 329, 344. + See p. 20 at the top, and p. 22 at the middle. would be unjust to Mr. Norton. But we presume not one reader in a hundred would limit the assertion to the Old Testament. Now Eichhorn disbelieved every supernatural occurrence, recorded either in the Old Testament or the New. He had no faith in any miracle, or proper prediction. Though he maintains the Mosaic authorship of a considerable portion of the Pentateuch, he expressly excepts that part of Exodus, comprising nearly half of it, which treats of the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, and the miraculous events which preceded it. He denied the genuineness of the three first Gospels, and of several other books both of the Old Testament and the New.* And yet, says Mr. Stuart, he is left far behind in the race of neology by Mr. Norton. And it is of such a man as Eichhorn that Mr. Stuart says, "nobly has he managed the cause of what I believe to be sound criticism, and justly has he decided it." All this praise is given him for maintaining, in his declamatory way, the genuineness. of those parts of the Pentateuch, which he supposed to imply nothing supernatural. We have read of those who could "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel;" but we have never known the proverb more truly exemplified than in the case of a learned Professor, who could in the same breath laud Eichhorn, and condemn the author of the "Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels." It gives us no pleasure to make the general remark, that this book of Mr. Stuart, though coming from one who deserves high praise for the impulse which he has given to the cause of sacred literature in our country, is anything rather than a scientific, scholarlike production. It abounds in loose and inconclusive reasoning. It may please a certain class of readers, who are never troubled with doubts or difficulties of any kind, or who delight to see odium cast upon those who differ in opinion from themselves. It may restrain the researches of the timid, and bind them to what has been thought or believed. But it will not convince an earnest and thorough inquirer. We might remark upon some statements and opinions of Mr. Stuart, different from those commonly received by the *See Eichhorn's Einleitung in das Alte Testament III. p. 240 etc. and p. 432. See also Einleitung in das Neue Testament I. pp. 445, and 691, and III. pp. 12, 13. 1846.] Christianity without Christ. 77 Orthodox, and which appear to us not very consistent with the main point which he labors to establish. But we have already extended this notice beyond our original intention. We will only add, that the section on the use of the Old Testament under the Gospel dispensation, being considerably in advance of the popular view, is adapted to do much good. We think it the most useful part of the book. G. R. N. ART. VII.-CHRISTIANITY WITHOUT CHRIST. THE kingdom which Jesus Christ has already won in this world is wider than its enemies, or even its friends suppose. Had he the full and undiminished honor of all the influence in behalf of truth and righteousness which has really originated in him, he would be more worthily confessed among men. If his name had attached to it all the epithets which we do not hesitate to attach to the effects and institutions that are to be traced to it, it would win the homage and reverence of many more hearts. One of the most remarkable phenomena now presented throughout Christendom, is a professed reception of the truths, and an enjoyment of the fruits of Christianity, combined with a virtual rejection of the Author of Christianity. In some quarters Jesus Christ has been well nigh joined to the fellowship of certain unknown inventors and discoverers, certain nameless and unrecorded persons, to whom the world is indebted for many most valuable truths and processes. There have been many admirable discoveries and inventions in philosophy and science, the authors of which must forever lose their due honors, because we are ignorant of their names. In some cases, too, these honors are contested between rival claimants. The name of Christ has not perished; it is indissolubly associated with his Gospel. His life, indeed, is a large part of that Gospel. Still the strange phenomena present themselves, of the acceptance and enjoyment of Christianity as something that may be distinguished from its "Author and Finisher." In the professed faith, in the philosophical speculations, and in the |