Dr. J. P. Thompson of New York, in the third work mentioned above, has confined himself to the high, grand, noble theme of illustrating the 'theology of Christ.' He takes, as we think, higher and broader ground in his illustration of the 'kingdom of God' than either Dr. Oosterzee or Dr. Schmid, and admirably states the truth when he represents the Church as a form of the kingdom of God, embracing the whole 'commonwealth of believing souls who, through all diversities of race, language, and ecclesiastical institution, fraternise in the love of Christ.' Dr. Thompson developes the teaching of Christ under a great variety of themes which are not concatenated in any such classification as Dr. Schmid's, though they traverse much of the same ground. Such topics as 'prayer,' 'providence,' and 'eschatology,' occupy much of the space. The exposition is wise, candid, and eloquent.
A Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology. Edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, M.A., F.S.A. L—Z. Rivingtons.
We see no reason for modifying the judgment of Mr. Blunt's Dictionary which we ventured to pronounce upon the first section of it. His extensive knowledge is beyond all doubt, and his indefatigable industry beyond all praise. We give him all credit for both painstaking and conscientiousness; but he sorely lacks the scholarly faculty of using his knowledge in a dispassionate way. Rash assertion, hasty generalization, partial and illogical inference, disfigure every page of his Dictionary. Mr. Blunt is fairly carried away by his sacramentarian theories; they possess him like a fever, and affect both his vision and his judgment. Above most of his brethren even, and that is saying very much, he infuses a polemic into every scrap of antiquarian fact that he can collect, and into every particle of reasoning that his ingenuity can devise. We are aware that a statement like this is a very grave accusation, and that it can be substantiated only by a patient induction such as a brief notice will not permit; but we pledge our critical judgment to the assertion that there is not a page in which statements do not occur, which no judicial mind can accept. Thus, on the very first page, sub voce, 'Laity,' Mr. Blunt chooses to interpret the Hebrew word עַם, which Gesenius and all lexicographers render 'people'—in the sense of nations—by the ecclesiastical word 'laity,' i.e., the people as distinguished from the priests. This enables him to give to a number of instances in which the word occurs just the twist of interpretation that his theory demands. Surely a conscientious scholar would refrain from giving a general term such a special significance for the sake of sustaining an ecclesiastical theory. It matters not that the term is sometimes used in this sense, and is applied to the people as distinguished from the priests—Mr. Blunt treats it as the generic sense. Under the word 'Latitudinarianism,' among much prejudiced statement, we meet this astounding assumption, 'this article (the 18th of the Church of England) is somewhat loosely worded; but by comparison of the language used with the use of similar language in the New Testament, it will be plainly seen to amount to a statement that salvation is only to be obtained within the boundaries of the Church.' Under the word 'Lay-Co-operation' we have this unscholarly, and must we not say spiteful, assumption: 'Puritanism confounded the idea of the κλῆρος and the λαὸς, and if the phrase "co-operation of the laity" had been known to it, the theory of such co-operation, as well as the practice, would have been resolved into a substitution of the laity for the clergy, by setting the former to do those works chiefly or solely which especially belong to the office of the latter.' Is it the function of a theological dictionary to utter hypothetical prophecies founded upon rash and gratuitous statements, and conceived in a spirit of theological malice like this? Under the head 'Lay Priesthood' we read: 'This sacerdotal function of the Christian laity is a consequence of the anointing which they receive from God the Holy Ghost in baptism and confirmation.... The Holy Eucharist is offered at the altar by the priest ordained for that purpose, and the lay priest co-operates with him by saying "Amen" at the giving of thanks.' Will Mr. Blunt permit us to say that no lay scholar could possibly have been guilty of such desperate assertions?
Passing over the word 'Limbo,' and some regrets that it cannot be used on account of prejudice, although perfectly unobjectionable in itself, we find under the word 'Liturgy' the usual assumptions of men of Mr. Blunt's school, e.g., 'the circumstances under which, the Holy Eucharist was instituted, make it absolutely certain that the Apostles celebrated it from the first with a considerable amount of ritual preciseness, and the same circumstances make it probable that they also used from the beginning some liturgical form. It seems to be unnecessary to prove that the Apostles used some set form of liturgy in celebrating the memorial of their Lord.' And yet if Mr. Blunt would condescend to furnish such proof, it would convert to his views of things one-half of Protestant Christendom.
Under the word 'Lollards,' Mr. Blunt is disingenuous enough to cite against Wickliffe the articles prepared for his indictment in the trial before Archbishop Courtenay; among them, '7. That God ought to obey the devil;' and then to say, 'Such was the teaching initiated by Wickliffe, and assiduously promulgated by his followers.' It is surely a new thing to adduce an indictment of enemies as a witness to character. Does Mr. Blunt really believe that this was Wickliffe's teaching? If he does, what are we to think of his scholarship? If he does not, what are we to think of his candour?
This brings us only to 'Ló,' under the first letter in this division of Mr. Blunt's work. We need not say that these are fair samples of the whole. We protest against such gross assumptions and perversions in the name of simple scholarship. We greatly regret that so much labour and knowledge are thus perverted to the aims of the fanatical polemic. His book is not without its value, but it sorely tries the patience of a simple inquirer after fact and truth. Mr. Blunt has done his best to make worthless a work that might have been a valuable contribution to popular ecclesiastical knowledge.
The Leading Christian Evidences, &c. By Gilbert Wardlaw, M.A. Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark.
The Evidences of Christianity in the Nineteenth Century. By Albert Barnes. Blackie and Son.
We have bracketed these two volumes together, not simply because they are alike in theme, but because by a peculiar coincidence they are complementary of each other. Written as we need scarcely say, altogether independently, they yet arrive by opposite methods at similar conclusions. From Scotland and from America come the same earnest, forcible national testimony to the truth of Christianity. There are both likeness and unlikeness. Each author treats his subject in a clear, attractive, popular manner, candidly confessing difficulties where such exist, yet carrying the reader forward by the almost irresistible power of his reasoning to the most decided conviction. The literary style is eminently different, as is to be expected when two diverse thinkers express themselves on a common topic. This, however, arises not only from the individuality of the writers, but also from the very circumstances in which their works were produced. Mr. Gilbert Wardlaw has been 'secluded, during the later years of life, from other opportunities of service to the cause of truth,' and his book therefore bears the impress of a thoughtful mind evolving for itself arguments in support of a faith in which has been found the truest consolation during years of retirement. We imagine that his very seclusion from active life has compelled him to re-examine in the light of modern scepticism the foundations of his belief. His work is characterized by a calmness and quiet force which we cannot too highly admire, and which must be productive of the happiest results upon the minds of sincere doubters. Mr. Barnes's volume, on the other hand, had a different origin. It consists of a series of Lectures in a Theological Seminary, which are somewhat elaborate, diffuse, and theoretical, and were evidently intended to produce an immediate impression on an audience by their style as well as their matter. Yet each work is admirable. Both should be studied together, since they look at the argument from diverse stand-points. Their methods of treatment, not only in manner but substance, are in harmony with the circumstances in which these volumes originated. The one may be described as the subjective, the other the objective method. Mr. Wardlaw, believing that the moral aspect of the Christian revelation and the attitude of the inquirer are the most important preliminary questions in determining the truth of Christianity, commences with the internal and experimental evidences; while Mr. Barnes deals with external proofs, looking at the Bible as a book to be accounted for on historical grounds. It has been a real mental gratification to study these diverse methods, and to watch how, though travelling by distinct lines of thought, both authors arrive at the conviction that Christianity is from God. The volumes are in many ways helpful to each other, for if Mr. Wardlaw's seems to suffer from condensation, leaving too much to his readers' minds, the same points are often elaborated by Mr. Barnes with abundance of detail. It would have been an improvement if, in 'The Leading Christian Evidences,' italics or some other form had been adopted by which the successive stages of the argument would have been indicated, so that we could at a glance gather up the main points discussed. We do not venture on any criticism of positions which we consider weak or unsound, as our space is limited, and therefore content ourselves with congratulating these authors on their well-reasoned additions to our apologetic literature.
The Brahmo Somaj. Lectures and Tracts. By Keshub Chunder Sen. First and Second Series. Edited by Sophia Dobson Collett. Strahan and Co.