The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1867-06-26
The Four-Fold Biography.

One of the most interesting features of
the New Testament is its quadruple me-
moir of the man Christ Jesus. Why the
account should have been repeated, and
that four times, why no more and no less,
what the relations of the writers to each
other, and what the special object of each,
and why each one has the peculiarities
that are found in it, are all questions OF
moment. The subject has been attended
to in measure from the earliest period,
and of late years, since vital controver-
sizes have begun to crystalline around the
literary history of the Gospel, it has been
the theme of much labor. The field,
however, has not yet been exhausted
There is abundance of room for some new
critic, full of learning, insight, tact, feel
ing, and judgment, who shall expound the
rationale of the evangelists to the salts
faction of all inquirers.
Meanwhile there is some profit in look
ing attendencies in this direction. The
latest one we have seen is by an evan
gelical clergyman of the Church of Eng
land. Mr.. Jukes' volume is entitled,
characteristic Difference of the Four
Evangelists." 1t has gone to a third
edition in London, but has not been, and
is not likely to be, reprinted in this coun-
try. The writer has considerable learn
ing, is very devout, and shows an excel
lent spirit, but his book is, in our judg-
ment, utterly worthless. He adopts the
old patristic view of the four cherubim as
| representing the four gospel-writers, and
the entire volume is simply an expansion
of this improved land unprovable) as
sumption. Another assumption is that
the order of the cherubic faces as seen by
John REV. iv: 7, has an Intentional
meaning as compared with the order as
seen by Ezekiel g.: 10; x: 14) The
latter gives in the first instance, man,
lion, an OK, an eagle; in the second, a
cherub, a man, lion, and an eagle |;
while the former arranges them thus:
lion, calf, man, an eagle. An ordi-
nary reader would naturally, and we
think Justly, infer from this variety of
representation that the order of success
sion was of no significance. But not so
Mr.. Jukes. He thinks Johns is "the
true order" and bases his book upon the
hypothesis.
He works out his scheme in manner
equally fanciful. Matthew is indicated
by the lion, and -hcncc his gospel rs UNI
derstood to set forth our Lord as the seed
of Abraham and the heir of an elect
kingdom, whereupon it is enough to say
that the lion in Scripture has nothing to
do with Abraham, and that the first evan
gelist does not make Christ's kingship
whit more prominent than does any of
the others. Mark is set forth by the calf,
and as the calf is used for service in sac
ri6ce, so Mark is said to hold up our
Lord as the patient servant and sacrifice
for others. That he does this with par
ticular emphasis is, we are sure, the
merest delusion. Luke corresponds to
the man, and, according to Mr.. Jukes'
theory, he sets forth the Saviour pecu-
liarly as the Son of Adam or the Son of
Man, and as such related to the race
John is the flying eagle, who scars up to
heaven and reveals the mysteries res
pecting Jesus as the Son of Ged.
Such is an outline of scheme which
is most laboriously elaborated through
volume. Much ingenuity and close OBJ
servation are shown, but it would be
equally easy to arrange new distribu-
ton of the faces, and find proof enough
from the contents of the Gospels to make
the showing every whit as probable as
Mr.. Jukes'. The book is instructive as
specimen of time and pains thrown
away. 1t is full of orthodox truth, and
yet every point of this truth could be
better stated and enforced apart from the
theory than it is by its aid. No inter-
prefer of Scripture is fit for his office
who does not make some use of his i'm
agination; but he who relies upon this
faculty alone, makes sad work, and in
lures rather than benefits his readers
His book, too, is of evil tendency as fore
stalling the market for other and better
books upon the same important theme;
books marked by solid learning, sober
judgment, and that indefnable but indis-
pensable quality known as exegetical
REHABILITATION Intelkgencer.