Full text of "Voices of the church in reply to Dr. D.F. Strauss, comprising essays in defence of Christianity"

raft

Si:

VOICES OF THE CHURCH.

VOICES OF THE CHURCH,

IN REPLY TO

DR. D. F. STRAUSS,

AUTHOR OF "DAS LEBEN JESU,

COMPRISING

ESSAYS IN DEFENCE OF CHRISTIANITY, BY DIVINES OF VARIOUS

COMMUNIONS,

COLLECTED AND COMPOSED

BY THE EEY. J. E. BEAKD, D.D.

MEMBER OF THE HISTORICO - THEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF LEIPSIC, ETC.

Non est religio & philosophis qurcrenda, qui, de suorum deorum natura ac summo bono, diversaa contrariasque
sententias in scholis pcrsonab:mt. AUG. DE VERA REUO.

LONDON :

S I M P K I N, M A II S II A L L, AND CO.;

NUTT, GERMAN & FRENCH BOOKSELLER, FLEET-STREET;

WILEY & PUTNAM, AMERICAN AGENCY OFFICE, 6, WATERLOO PLACE.
MANCHESTER : THOMAS FORREST.

1845.

MANCHESTER :
PRINTED BY JOHN WILSON, YORK BUILDINGS, VICTORIA BRIDGE, SALFORD.

PREFACE.

THE following pages contain several essays in part original, in part
translated intended to furnish the English reader with some means of
becoming acquainted with the aims and tendencies of the work by Dr.
STRAUSS, entitled Das Leben Jesu, kritisch learleitet von Dr. David
Friederich Strauss, 2 vols. 8vo, fourth edit. 1840; as well as of forming a
calm estimate of the justness of its principles, the accuracy of its argumen
tation, the soundness of its views, and its general bearing on the historical
verity of the gospel. This reply was undertaken in consequence of the wide
diffusion in this country not least among the labouring classes of opinions
and impressions adverse to Christianity, derived more or less immediately
from the efforts and publications of Dr. STRAUSS. Even where the Leben
Jesu was not known, and could not be read, a conviction has prevailed, that
some great work had been put forth in Germany, which, as being destructive
of the Christian religion, its ministers in England wished to keep from
the knowledge of the people, and were afraid even to study themselves.
So untrue and unsound a state f feeling may well be regarded with regret,
if not alarm, by every enlightened disciple of Christ. The present work
will enable the reader to judge how far the attack made by STRAUSS on
the historical foundations of our common faith is of so deadly a character
as may have been supposed.

As this is the first work in the English language which addresses itself
to the Straussian controversy, it seemed improper to give a reply until the
general nature of the objections was made known. Accordingly, the first
Essay in the ensuing pages is designed to set forth the views which Dr.
STRAUSS has advanced. In drawing up the statement which it contains, the
writer was solicitous to give a fair and candid account. The same love of
equal-handed justice has animated him throughout the volume, alike in the
selection of his materials, and in the use which has been made of them.
With the deliberate conviction which he has formed from a review of the

VI PREFACE.

entire subject, that Dr. STRAUSS has had more than full justice done him in
the public mind, and that his work owes much of its seeming force to a
never-failing ingenuity and a dexterous rhetoric, the writer is not without
a hope, that the impartial, whatever their peculiar opinions, will, if com
petent to pronounce a judgment in the case, declare that the laws of
honourable controversy have not been broken or disregarded in this volume,
and that more deference or larger concessions to the objector might have
worn the appearance of compromising the cause of Christ.

Believing, as he does, that Christianity rests on an historical basis, and
that that basis is perfectly safe, believing also that the gospel, as revealed
of God in his Son Jesus Christ, is the one hope of the world, and the sole
sufficient remedy for our social ills, the writer would suffer indescribable
pain, had he reason to fear, that this attempt to defend its assailed foundations
should prove nugatory, or altogether insufficient. Prompted, however, by a
desire to learn, with some degree of accuracy, what were the real facts in
regard to the injury said to have been done to Christianity by " the new
learning" of the German theological schools, he some years since applied
himself to the study of the WTiters in question; and, having come to the con
clusion, that rumour had aggravated the evil and disowned the good, and
especially had given a false report touching the alleged damage to the gospel,
he felt himself impelled to make his convictions known, the rather because he
considers that every fear of the truth and certainty of the Christian religion
should, without delay, be looked fully in the face, and have its real nature
fully ascertained. The timid believer will of course deplore, and the
self-seeking sceptic harshly condemn, the course the writer has pursued:
he will, however, be neither dissatisfied nor discouraged, if the honest and
candid lovers of truth shall not refuse him a place in their ranks, or shall
admit that his efforts have given an impulse in a right direction.

It is deeply to be regretted, that a very exaggerated, if not a positively
false, notion prevails in this country, that the new school of German
theology is throughout bad ; being wild, visionary, sceptical, destructive,
running through nearly all varieties, except those of soundness and excel
lence. May the present work do something to correct this misapprehension !
The reader will here see, that, if Germany has produced a STRAUSS, she has
produced also a NEANDER and a THOLUCK. In truth, good and ill are
found in her teeming theological literature ; and scarcely any are qualified
to determine the proportions in which the good and the ill exist, but those
who have made a careful and impartial study of the chief works which it
contains. Whatever may be thought of the conclusions to which some

9 PREFACE. Vll

German theologians have arrived, there can be no question that in sonnd
knowledge, in patient research, in unwearying industry, in the love of
religious liberty, in candour and impartiality, all qualities of the highest
kind, German divines afford examples which may be beneficially imi
tated by Christian teachers and Christian learners, of all conditions and of
every land.

It is not denied that the destructive, as contradistinguished from the
reformative and the conservative party in Germany, is a large and influ
ential one. Yet is it gradually losing some of its worst peculiarities. Of
late years, a strong re-action against the extreme negative school has mani
fested itself, and the most promising men of the new generation are becoming
more and more inclined to receive and cherish the fundamental truths of the
New Testament. In a w^ord, the best minds are aiming at reformation,
rather than destruction. Nor have the extravagances to which STRAUSS
and the young Hegelian school have proceeded, been without an effect in
making men cautious as well as persevering in their inquiries, and reve
rential no less than fearless in their ameliorations. A pure and holy love
of truth one of the highest affections of our nature bids us be gentle
and tender even towards the mistakes and errors of the past, and to
renounce with regret what we cannot honestly continue to hold. In this,
German theology has still something to learn.

The fundamental error, however, of its rationalist party has lain in the
exclusive allegiance which in their inquiries they have paid to reason,
considered as the mere argumentative and logical faculty. The gospel
was given to man, and by man must it be appreciated and received. If
man s faculties are sundered, and truth is submitted for acceptance to some
one of them, to the exclusion of the rest, no wonder if, man himself hav
ing been first marred, he should, when the intellect predominates, disown and
reject, or, when the imagination and the feelings have gained the upper
hand, amplify and pervert, the truth. But in religion least of all is man s
faculty of ratiocination a safe or a sufficient guide ; for religion is an appeal
to all our higher endowments, and by them only by the entire man can
it be correctly know T n, properly estimated, and satisfactorily received. Logic
can no more make a man a Christian, than it can make him a poet or a
sculptor. And if the name Rationalism (from ratio, reason) is intended
to denote any thing more than the application of the reasoning faculty to
topics, to modes of thought, and sets of ideas, in the formation and reten
tion of which the imaginative and sensitive faculties have had undue scope,
then is it as a religious guide condemned by its very name. And though

VlH PREFACE.

there doubtless may be conditions of society in which the decomposing
influence of reason may be demanded, yet can the necessity be regarded in
no higher light than as an evil which should not by any means be enhanced,
but be removed and put out of the way as speedily as possible. The
negations which it occasions have no life to infuse into society. It is not
on denials that men can live, but on every word that cometh out of the
mouth of God. The food of the soul must be something definite and pure
indeed, but on that very account something positive, the bread that
cometh down from heaven to be the life of the world. To use the words
of AMBROSE : " Non in dialectica complacuit Domino salvare populum
suum." The difference there is between an age of inspiration and an age of
negatives has been well described by CARLYLE (" Miscellaneous Writings,"
vol. iii. p. 62): " Religion was everywhere; philosophy lay hid under it,
peacefully included in it. Herein, as in the life-centre of all, lay the true
health and oneness. Only at a later era must religion split itself into phi
losophies ; and thereby the vital union of thought being lost, disunion and
mutual collision, in all provinces of speech and of action, more and more
prevail. For if a poet or priest, or by whatever title the inspired thinker
may be named, is the sign of vigour and well-being ; so likewise is the
logician, or uninspired thinker, the sign of disease, probably of decrepitude
and decay. Thus, not to mention other instances, one of them much nearer
hand, so soon as prophecy among the Hebrews had ceased, then did the
reign of argumentation begin ; and the ancient theocracy, in its Sadduceeisms
and Phariseeisms, and vain jangling of sects and doctors, give token that
the soul of it had fled, and that the body itself, by natural dissolution,
with the old forces still at work, but working in reverse order, was on the
road to final disappearance."

" The old forces " are in Germany hastening to disappear. A new
life is springing up under the quickening and genial influence of new
powers. Man is again becoming one; thought is regaining its unity.
Reason and imagination have met together ; the present and the past have
embraced each other. Happy those who can do aught to promote so
desirable an accordance. The acceptance as well as the essential unity of
religion depends on the harmony of man s nature. When the heart is
allowed to feel, and the imagination to soar, no less than the head to think;
and when all these functions proceed in well-adjusted proportion ; then
will the divine perfection of the man Christ Jesus approve itself to, and
be welcomed, loved, and reverenced by, the human soul, and an era of new
religious life display its gratifying results.

PREFACE. ix

The title of Dr. STRAUSS S book points to its origin, Leben Jesu,
" Life of Jesus." Towards the close of the last century, the contents of the
evangelical narratives began among the Germans to be considered, not only
in their separate portions and constituent elements, but in their mutual
relations and totality, as forming one combined history of the life of Christ.
Special attention was drawn to the subject by publications, the tendency,
if not the aim, of which was to impair or even destroy the historic verity
of the recorded facts. "We may specify Vom Zwecke Jesu^ noch ein Frag
ment des Wolfenbiittler Ungennanten (H. Sam. Relmarus) Hrsgg. v.
Lessing. Brnschw. 1778, 1784; Berlin, 1835;^. Fr. Bahrdt, Briefe uber
d. Bibel, continued under the title, Ausfuhrung des Plans u. Zwecks Jesu;
Berlin, 1784-93; Venturini Naturliche Gesch. des grossen Propheten
v. Nazareth; Kophenh. 1800-2.

These and other assaults gave rise to works of an apolegetic character,
the authors of which made it their object to solve the alleged difficulties,
and to describe the life of Christ, in such a manner as to gain acceptance
for their views, while they professed to ground these views on the gospel
records. The sentiments, however, thus put forth were in reality as diverse
as were the several theological tendencies, which now took in each case a
decided tone, as well as a definite and individual shape ; giving rise, within
a brief period, to an affluence of literature which is perhaps unparalleled in
theological history, and which, in its abundance and multiplicity, seems
almost to justify the notion of a learned professor, who, in that love of sub
division for which German scholarship is remarkable, proposed to make
the subject the life of Christ a separate branch of theological study.
Those who wish to prosecute inquiries into the subject will find very ample
references to the chief works in Das Leben Jesu von D. K. Hase, third
edit. Leipzig, 1840; Einleitung, p. 27, seq. ; a work which, owing to a
power of condensation that strikes with amazement one who is young in
German studies, comprises, within some two hundred pages, the substance
of very many volumes, and an almost complete course of New Testament
theology.

In the midst of the thickly-crowded arena appeared Dr. STRAUSS, who,
following the fashion of the day, rather than the simple dictates of an
honest mind, denominated his attack on Christ and Christianity, not a
but " the Life of Christ," Das Leben Jesu. The appearance of this work
was the occasion of an outpouring of publications, so numerous, so differ
ent in aims, and so diversified in character, that it would be idle to attempt
here to enumerate their several titles. We refer, for a pretty full account

PREFACE.

of them, to the following works: Stimmen der Deutschen Kirche iiler
das Leben Jesu von Doctor Strauss fur Theologen und Nichttheologen, von
Johannes Zeller ; Zurich, 1837; Allgmneines Repertorium fur die Theo-
logische Liter atur, von Professor Dr. Rheinwald ; Bd. xxi. xxiii. xxiv.
xxxi. xliii. For the sake, however, of those who may wish for some
guidance, without having recourse to these sources of information, we will
put down the title of a few works, in addition to such as will be found
cited in the ensuing pages. It may be not undesirable to premise, that the
reader may in part judge from the following Essays, which, out of these
numerous publications, we consider best suited to an English public. Yet,
to prevent misapprehension, we must add, that our choice has been influ
enced by considerations which involved indeed the intrinsic merit of the
pieces, but also took into account that the present work is the first effort
which has been made to bring the questions raised by STRAUSS before an
English tribunal, in a manner befitting their importance. The following
are works that treat with more or less merit the general subject of the life
of Christ, the tendency of which is in favour of an historical Christianity,
and more or less of a positive form of faith : Otto Krable, Vorlesungen
iiber das Leben Jesu fur Theologen u. Nichttheologen, Hamb. 1839;
Kuhn das Leben Jesu wiss. bearbeitet, Mainz, 1838. HARTMANN (Das
Leben Jesu nach d. Evv. filr gebildete Leser, Stuttg. 1837) has written a
life of Christ, especially designed and suited to Christians of cultivated
minds, which presents to the reader the historical and divine elements found
in the four evangelists. THEILE (zur Biographie Jesu, Leipzig, 1837)
has successfully maintained a middle course in his views of the life of
Christ, between those who believe and those who deny all that is historical
and divine therein. WINER also, in several parts of his valuable Billi-
sche Realworterluch (second edit.), furnishes not only very useful literary
notices, but views and explanations, which bear with good effect on our
subject. CREDNER has given a general view, not merely of the events
comprised in the life of our Lord, but of the contents of the New Tes
tament (having continual reference to all the great questions at issue),
in his excellent work, Das Neue Testament nock Zweck, Ur sprung, Inhalt,
fur denkende Leser der Bibel ; Giessen, 1841 and 1843; which, though
a popular exhibition of the rich contents of his very learned and accurate
" Introduction to the New Testament " (Einleitung in das Neue Test.
Halle, 1836), and presenting ascertained results, apart from the more
strictly scientific processes by w^hich they have been gained, offers to the
reader (though with some rationalistic tendencies which we dislike) a very

PREFACE. XI

solid and trustworthy, as well as interesting, compendium and guide in
the study of New Testament theology. FLECK, professor of theology
in the University of Leipsic, has, in his Vertheidigung des Christenthums,
Leipzig, 1842, one vol. 8vo, given a judicious review of the whole question,
both philosophical and theological, involved in the Straussian controversy,
with great fairness, moderation, judgment, and skill. The work, in the
hands of a judicious translator, would be useful and acceptable to a large
and growing class of English students. The latest treatise on the subject
(Das Leben Jesu nach den Evangelier dargestellt^ von Dr. J. P. Lange ;
Heidelberg, 1844) manifests that disposition to return towards what is
positive in history and in doctrine, which is so marked a tendency in the
German theology of the present moment.

The battle to which the publication of STRAUSS S work gave occasion in
Germany was fought, on the part of Christianity, not merely by eccle
siastics, and professors of theology : laymen and literary works took part
in the strife. Among other journals, the Litteraturblatt, conducted by
WOLFGANG MENZEL (known in England by GORDON S bad translation of
his work on German literature, in which a useful historical sketch of Ger
man theology may be found), came forward with a view to explode the
mythical doctrines, by a kind of reductio ad absurdum similar to that which
will be found in the seventh of the Essays here presented to the public :
Des Doctor Strauss^ " Das Leben Jesu" eine Sage des I9ten hundrets, wn
Dr. V. Keyserlingk ; August, 1836. Making use of the principles and
modes of reasoning adopted by STRAUSS, the writer aims to show, that the
learned assailant is nothing more than a legendary personage of the nine
teenth century, as was Dr. FAUST of the fifteenth. Not least decided and
valuable of the answers issued by laymen is that which may be found
in a work by a benevolent educator, a friend of the justly celebrated
PESTALOZZI, Laienworte iiber die Hegel-Straussische Christologie, von
Dr. Ncigeli ; Zurich, 1836. Among the direct replies on the part of
persons who had drawn conclusions from the New Testament different
from those which established creeds set forth, we may mention in terms of
approbation, as containing a calm and moderate view of the matter, and
the opinions of a very learned divine (not long since deceased), who has
not improperly been termed the modern SEMLER, Do Mytldcco Evange-
liorum Interpretationis indole atque finibus^ by BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, in
his Opuscula Theologica ; Jense, 1836. HARLESS, a divine of orthodox
opinions, has with excellent effect turned the tables on STRAUSS, and put
him on the defensive, in his essay, Die kritische Bearbeitung des Lebens

Xii P K E F A C E.

Jesu wn Dr. Strauss, nach ikrem wissenschaftlichen Werthe beleuchtet ;
Erlangen, 1836. The Tubingen Zeitschrift for 1838 and 1839 contains
valuable papers on the subject, Erorterung des Hauptthatsacken der Ev.
Gesch. in rucks, auf Strauss s Schrift, das Leben Jesu, von Dr. Kern. The
works which STRAUSS himself judged most worthy of reply may be found
enumerated in his Streitschriften zur Vertheidigung meiner Schrift iiber
das Leben Jesu; Tubingen, 1841. A general view of the rise and progress
of the influences which led to the state of mind that produced STRAUSS S
Leben Jesu, accompanied by an estimate of its character and tendencies,
may, but in a somewhat discoloured form, be found in Histoire Critique
du Rationalisme en A llemagne, depuis son origine jusqu a nos jours, par
Amand Saintes ; second edit.; Paris, Brockhaus; London, Williams and
Norgate, 1843. A sound and searching critique on the philosophical influ
ences under which STRAUSS was led to undertake his task, and guided in
its execution, is presented in a short compass in Die Speculative Dogmatik
von Dr. D. F. Strauss, gepriift wn Dr. K. P. Fischer; Tubingen,
1841.

The English language contains very little of value on the subject.
HENNELL, in his " Inquiry concerning the Origin of Christianity," London,
1838, broke ground in the same direction as that taken by STRAUSS,
with an equal desire, but incomparably less ability, to undermine the his
torical foundations of Christianity. We are not aware that his volume has
been deemed worthy of any formal answer. It was not till the year 1841,
that a set effort was made to introduce into this country the views which
are developed in the Leben Jesu, when PHILIP HARWOOD published his
" German Anti-supernaturalism : Six Lectures on Strauss s Life of Jesus ;"
in which, while nothing is done towards confuting STRAUSS, his faults are
made worse, and his good qualities marred, by -the rhetorical manner in
which the subject is treated, a subject on which, of all others, the arts
of rhetoric are misplaced and deceptive. Not more sufficient and correct,
as a representative of the views of STRAUSS, is the pamphlet, " The
Opinions of Professor D. F. STRAUSS, as embodied in his Letter to the Bur
gomaster Hirzel," &c. translated from the- second edition of the original ;
London, Chapman, 1844. To say nothing of its brevity, this letter, spe
cially designed by STRAUSS to avert the popular odium occasioned by his
being elected Professor of Theology at Zurich, is, from first to last, a piece
of special pleading, fitted to throw dust in the eyes of the good people of
Zurich. There has been one translation of the Leben Jesu into our
tongue, published in penny numbers, and designed for circulation among

PREFACE. xm

the working classes, under the allspices of HETHERINGTON. The work
appears to have been done into English from the French translation (which
is a scholarlike production), Vie de Jesus traduite de I Allemand sur la troi-
sieme Edition, par E. Littre, and has not the slightest literary value
whatever ; being obviously brought out to supply food to the unhappily
depraved appetite for sceptical productions, so prevalent in these times
among our manufacturing populations. The translator is ignorant of the
most ordinary facts and circumstances connected with his subject. One
instance will suffice. In John xi. *6, these words are used of our Lord :
" He abode still two days in the place where he was." By referring to the
fortieth verse of the tenth chapter, we find this place was beyond Jordan
(Peraaa), whither Jesus had fled from his enemies. STRAUSS, in his criti
cism on the resurrection of Lazarus, referring to the fact, says that he
abode in Persea. . This Peraea is, with the usual manner of Gallic travesty
in regard to proper names, rendered in the French translation by the word
Peree^ which our English handicraftsman, in his ludicrous ignorance, trans
lates by the senseless term Pireus, " He still remained two days in the
Pireus" (verse G). An English work in which a scholar may find an
estimate of the Leben Jesu, as well as of the German theology of the last
three hundred years, is " German Protestantism and the Right of Private
Judgment, a brief History of German Theology, by E. H. DEWAR, M. A."
Rivington, London, 1844-. The writer is not uninformed on his subject,
and affords to the student valuable materials, though he has obviously
made free use of the work by SAINTES, previously mentioned. Viewing
German theology, however, as he does, with the eyes of Puseyism, he sees
nothing but confusion and disaster; and the work, in its general aim, calls to
mind BOSSITET S famous attack on Protestantism, Histoire des Variations
des Eglises Protestantes. The only just view of the opinions of STRAUSS that
we are acquainted with in the English tongue, may be found in a few pages
contained in the first volume, p. 115, of Mr. MILMAN S " History of Chris
tianity," in which there breathes the same spirit of sound scholarship and
Christian candour which are conspicuous throughout that excellent work,
a work which well points out the way in which the character of British
theology may be redeemed from its actual bondage, inertness, and degra
dation.

The writer requests of a candid public, that he may not be held account
able for any opinions found in the ensuing volume, to which he has not
himself given expression. In a work in which are found labours emana
ting from many persons, nothing more can be expected than that, in its

xiv P B E F A C E.

general tendency, each part may carry forward the argument, and promote
the aim, in favour of which the publication was undertaken. Wishful that
each contributor should enjoy full liberty of speech, the conductor of the
work did not think himself justified in requiring an exact agreement with
his own views on every point. His sole purpose has been to contribute
something in defence of the assailed foundations of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, as developed in the New Testament. He will be
glad if others shall agree with him in thinking, that the general argument
herein conducted, with a view to advance that important end, is rather
strengthened than impaired by any diversity of opinion on other points
which may prevail among the several contributors.

It only remains for the writer to acknowledge his obligations to those
friends who have kindly favoured him with their valuable aid. For the
translation of the second and third Essays, and for the translation and abridg
ment of the eighth piece, he is indebted to three ladies, whose names he is
not at liberty to mention. For the first and the sixth Essay, the projector
of the work alone is responsible. In regard to the rest, his office has, for the
most part, not extended beyond selecting and furnishing the materials
employed. The fourth and the seventh Essays were drawn up by the Rev.
G. V. SMITH, B.A. of Macclesfield. The fifth Essay was translated by
the Rev. R. SIIAEN, M. A. of Lancaster ; and the reader is indebted for the
Index to the diligent care of the Rev. W. MOUNTFORD, M.A. of Lynn.

CONTENTS.

* Page

I. Strauss, Hegel, and their Opinions, by the Rev. J. R.

BEARD 1

II. Review of Strauss s " Life of Jesus," from the French of pro
fessor QUINET 51

III. Reply to Strauss, from the French of Pasteur y ATIIANASE

COQTJEREL 77

IV. The Credibility of the Evangelical History illustrated, from

the German of Dr. A. THOLUCK 117

V. The Theory of Myths, in its application to the Gospel History,

examined and confuted, by Dr.^Juuus MULLER .1 169

VI. Illustrations of the Moral Argument for the Credibility of the

Gospels, by the Rev. fT. R. BEARD 211

VII. The Fallacy of the Mythical Theory of Dr. Strauss, illustrated
from the History of Martin Luther, and from actual Moham
medan Myths of the Life of Jesus Christ 313

VIII. Passages from the " Leben Jesu" of Professor NEANDER, selected

and abridged with reference to Strauss 359

Referring to the. folios at the foot of the pages.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

THE circumstances of a man s life, the position in which he has
been placed, the functions he has discharged, the discipline through
which he has passed, as they have much to do in the formation
of his mind, and in the direction which his influence takes, may
be expected to afford assistance in any attempt to set forth and
estimate the value of his opinions. A brief notice, therefore, of the
life of Dr. Strauss seems to be called for as preparatory to an expo
sition of his doctrines, as well as to that confutation of them which
we profess to be the object of this work. When we see and under
stand the position from which he directed his attack on the gospel,
we shall be prepared to learn the nature, and measure the force, of
his blows.

David Frederick Strauss, the author of the " Life of Jesus," was
born on the 27th of January, 1808, at Ludwigsburg, in Wiirtemberg,
one of the smaller states of Germany. When he had passed through
the ordinary school routine in his native town, he was, in the autumn
of 1821, placed in the theological seminary of Blaubeurn; whence
he was removed, in the autumn of 1825, into the theological aca
demy of Tubingen. Having completed his preliminary studies, in
the year 1830 he undertook to assist a country clergyman in the
discharge of his duties. The next year, however, we find him
engaged in tuition in the seminary of Maulbronn. Quitting this situa
tion after a few months, he proceeded to Berlin, which had peculiar
attractions for a mind like his, in being not only the capital of
Prussia, but also the great laboratory of new modes of thought.
Among the men who have rendered Berlin distinguished, none dis
played more vigour of mind or severity of logic, than the philosopher
Hegel. The master himself had died just before Strauss reached
Berlin ; but Schleiermacher, one of his most accomplished scholars,
occupied a chair of instruction, aiming to unite the deductions of
Hegel s philosophy with a certain mutilated shadow of orthodox
Christianity. And here we meet with the first marked indication
of the tendency of the mind of Strauss. A pupil s opinions may be
partly inferred from those of the teacher whom he chooses : Strauss
put himself under Schleiermacher.
1 B

2 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

It is by no means easy to present to English readers an intelligi
ble outline of Hegel s system of philosophy. In theology, and still
more in philosophy, the first German minds think and express
themselves in terms so abstract as to wear the appearance of a set
of symbols, the exposition of which in our language is almost im
possible, for want of equivalent terms, and corresponding modes of
thought.

Born at Stuttgart, in the year 1770, and having studied philo
sophy and theology at the University of Tubingen from 1788 to
1793, Hegel passed through several instructional offices, and at
length, in the year 1818, became ordinary Professor of Philosophy
in the University of Berlin ; in which honourable post he remained
till the year 1831, when he was earned off by the cholera at the
age of sixty-two. Intellectual progress in Germany proceeds step
by step, and not by sudden leaps or capricious bounds. Accord
ingly, Hegel began his career as a teacher by expounding the doc
trines of his master and friend, the philosopher Schelling. Gradually,
however, he left his predecessor, and evolved out of pre-existing
elements a system of his own. His has been called the PJiilosophy
of the Absolute. Continuing to hold, as he had been taught by
Schelling, that the ideal and the real are in truth but one, that
the conception in man s mind does not differ from the actual in the
universe, he perfected his teacher s doctrine by setting forth
the unity of these two as absolute knowledge and absolute truth.
Accordingly, existence is pure thought in itself, and only pure
thought is existence. The three chief departments of his system are
Logic, as the science of thought in itself; Natural Philosophy, as
the science of thought in its productions; Spiritual Philosophy,
as the science of thought in its reflex action on itself. Thus we
have thought contemplated in three ways in itself, in its effects, in
its return from those effects back to its own essence. Hence a
Trinity in unity. The identity of thought and existence necessitates
manifestation. Accordingly, thought denies itself, and passes into
existence ; in other words, God becomes a world. God is therefore
the perpetual development of the absolute, which continually
revolves back into itself; and so the entire universe goes incessantly
through this process of thought, existence, reversion. A is, A
passes into B, B turns back into A. But as A would not be itself
without B, nor without the relapse of B into A, so Deity exists in
nature, and by means of nature, and specially of man s mind, and the
necessary union of the finite with the infinite, the concrete with
the abstract, the real with the ideal. God, therefore, is nature, and
nature God. This, at least, is the inference which the opponents
of Hegel draw from his premises. There can, however, be no doubt
that the tendency of the system is towards pantheism. The Deity
is blended, if not confounded, with his works. In the A B C of
the Hegelian philosophy, we cannot, indeed, strictly say that A is B,
or B is C ; but as A cannot be A apart from B and C, so B and C

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 3

go to make A what it is : in other words, without nature there is no
God. But A, in order to be A, must pass into B, and be received
back into itself ; that is, God has no existence prior to nor apart
from nature.

And by nature what is meant? B is all that which is not A : B
is A in movement, in manifestation. Hence B is human kind ; but
B, returning into A, becomes C ; that is, God and nature unite to
produce religion, the arts, morality, social life, history. Hence,
every thing which is, is God made manifest. The infinite is but a
different mode of contemplating the finite : the union of the two is
perfection.

A Trinity which philosophy, by the misuse of language, calls the
Trinity ; that is, the Trinity of the church, a Trinity has already
developed itself in our remarks. The twofold nature of Christ was
easily deduced. He was the God-man the union of the absolute
with the human, not as a reality, but as a conception; the idea
of humanity and the idea of God meet, and are one in the idea of
Christ.

Not to pursue further this play of words, let it suffice to remark,
that after a similar manner Hegel and his school deduce from their
philosophical principles, and set forth as necessary truths, the
leading doctrines of orthodox Christianity. And if shadows could
be taken instead of substantial realities, it could not be denied that
they have rendered important services to existing communions of
the church of Christ.

Aware, however, of the abstruse nature of these statements, we
shall go back a little, and give some details which may aid the
reader in forming a notion of the Hegelian philosophy, in its appli
cation to religion, since some general conception of its import and
bearing is very needful, if not indispensable, for our future inquiries.
Strauss can be rightly understood only in the mirror supplied by
the philosophy of Hegel.

While at the University of Tubingen, Hegel began to assail the
prevalent theology. Though only a student in philosophy, he took
an active part in the theological disputations, which were partly
owing to the spirit of the times, but immediately and chiefly to the
" Life of Jesus," then recently published by Hess, of Zurich, which
was the parent of a multitude of publications relating to the plan
which Jesus formed for realising the purposes of his mission. In
these discussions, Hegel showed more of the philosopher than the
Christian; and, following the line marked out by Lessing and
Reimarus, he made of Jesus Christ nothing more than a second
Socrates. Soon, however, he grew dissatisfied with the views of this
naturalist school, and applied himself diligently to the study of the
Gospels, in the hope of devising a theory in which philosophy and
religion should be and act in harmony. The result was less dissi
milar to his former views than might have been expected. With
that industry which was a marked feature in his character, he com-

4 STJUtTSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

mitted his convictions to writing, in a systematic life of Christ, in
which Jesus is set forth as a man of divine excellence, in whom
every thing is pure and sublime, who distinguished himself chiefly
by his triumphs over vice, falsehood, hatred, and the servile spirit
of his age. Miracles enter not into the structure of the work.

A philosophical spirit and aim, which had from the first guided
his inquiries and shaped his conclusions, now began to exert an
exclusive control over Hegel s mind; and, in the midst of his theo
logical studies, he applied himself with characteristic ardour and
perseverance to discover a theory which should explain the origin,
and account for the progress, of Christianity, on purely abstract and
(so called) philosophical principles. Hence his philosophy of reli
gion. Hence a system, which, in his eyes, was at once a positive
religion and an exceptionless philosophy ; a system which should,
out of its own elements, prove religion and religious truths; and a
religion which should accord with his philosophical convictions.
The greatness of his mind made it impossible that religion and
philosophy should exist with him as two separate if not different
things. Unity was indispensable. Either religion must be philo
sophy, or philosophy religion, in such a sense that they were only
two aspects of the same reality ; and since philosophy had gained
the upperhand in his active impulses, it of course gave form,
feature, and complexion to his religion.

In the leading outlines of orthodox Christianity, he found a suit
able religious system. But this was an accidental circumstance ;
convenient, indeed, but not by any means necessary. Hacl ortho
doxy been less fitted and plastic to his hand, he would easily have
constructed a religion for himself. As it was, however, its phraseo
logy was most conformable to his philosophical terms. All that
had to be done was to use its language in a new sense, and then
his philosophy and the popular religion were in strict agree
ment. He extracted the kernel from the fruit, preserving the shell :
he killed the body, and destroyed the substance ; but could boast,
that he converted the shades of departed doctrines from probable
into necessary and unquestioned truths.

The precise fonn which his reflexions resulted in, we have already
attempted to describe. Repetition, in language somewhat different,
as it seems called for by the train of these remarks, may whet the
memory, if it does not also assist the understanding. Seeking to rise
to the primary Cause of universal being, and, in the comprehension
of its nature and operation, to trace, downwards and upwards, all
the outgoings of that first great principle; to make his way through
brake, bush, and forest, along the vales and up into the recesses of
the mountain heights, in order to find the fountain-head of life,
whence, proceeding in an opposite direction, he might see the
source ripple forth into a rivulet, and the rivulet expand into a lake,
and the lake feed many mountain-streams, and these unite to form a
noble river, whose fertile banks lead onwards to the ocean ; Hegel,

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 5

after a long, careful, and diverse analysis, in which he never refused
to avail himself of the labours of his philosophical predecessors, at
last adopted, as the ultimate cause of all things, the principle of love,
considered in its passage from itself to another, still preserving its
own identity, and returning from that other into itself, to pass again
into a third. According to this view, the sum and substance of
religion consists in the union of God and man ; the first and third
of these three terms (the Trinity) being, by the. mediation of the
second, brought into union. In other words, religion is the exist
ence of the infinite Spirit in the finite spirit ; spiritual things alone
are allied, and can co-exist ; and therefore God is, only so far as he
himself thinks, and is conceived in the mind. Thus, intelligence
and God are, if not one, referrible to the same first principle, the
absolute. In this case, nature is only God going forth from him
self, entering into finite limits, and assuming individual shapes ; so
that the intelligence of each human being, as well as external
nature, are nothing but manifestations of the absolute.

We do not intend to trace these views into a detailed application
to the various doctrines held in the church, because such a labour
could scarcely help wounding the feelings of some simple-minded
and sincere believer, by the air of travesty which it would, we fear,
present in the English language. It may suffice to add, that the
system has, with some diversity of forms and colourings, been
brought into an apparently harmonious union with established
standards of doctrine ; and that, when its partisans are charged with
the pantheism which starts from every pore of this philosophy, mis
called Christianity, they hasten to take distinctions which are as
little satisfactory as the original doctrine of the master itself. These
distinctions, however, have three directions, represented by language
borrowed from the French Chamber of Deputies: 1st, The party on
the right, represented by Usteri and Goschel; 2d, That in the
centre, represented by Rosenkrantz, Daub, and Conradi ; 3d, The
extreme left, where are found Eichter of Magdebourg, Strauss,
Bruno Bauer, and Feuerbach. And the reader will do well to
observe the position which Strauss thus holds. He is at the ex
treme point of a system of pantheism.

Some one may ask What is pantheism ? It is not easy to
define so shadowy and changeful a notion ; and the difficulty is not
lessened by the fact, that the writers who are generally accounted
pantheists, by no means agree in their representations. But, in
general terms, every mode of conceiving of God is pantheistic
which tends to divest him of personal qualities. And if I am asked
what I mean by personal qualities, I refer to the general import of
the words as understood in their application to human beings. All
our knowledge of God is analogical. We know God by knowing
ourselves ; and as of ourselves we know nothing but qualities, so
also of God we know not the essence, but simply the attributes.
We call him good, wise, merciful ; we designate him a Father, a

G STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIK OPINIONS.

Sovereign, a Judge, having in each case reference to similar excel
lencies presented and similar relations borne by men. In the same
manner, and with as much propriety, we assert personality of God.
Indeed, personality is only a general term for comprehending the
ideas conveyed by goodness, wisdom, mercy. These, among men,
are qualities of an intelligent being, a thinking, feeling, morally free
individual, a person. Corresponding qualities recognised in God
involve also the recognition of his personality. The moment we are
led to ascribe intelligence and goodness to the being whom we
denominate God, that moment we speak and think of God as a
person, in a sense, indeed, far higher than any in which the term
is applied to man, but still bearing to infinitude no other relation
than the same word, person, when applied to man, bears to finite
human intelligences.

It is the essence of pantheism to deny this or any other properly
so-called personality, in regard to God. Its essence, therefore, is
purely negative. It does nothing but deny. If it attempts to set
forth positive views, they fluctuate between mysticism and atheism;
the cloud of vapour is ever on the point of vanishing, to leave only
thick and impenetrable darkness. Indeed, pantheism is hardly
any thing else than atheism veiled with a drapery spun from shadows
of thought. It is an infirmity of speculative minds, which, in their
dread of being commonplace in their thoughts, and their equal
dread of a cold, lifeless atheism, aim to take up a position between
the two ; but, alas 1 they are not near enough to either heaven or
earth, to enjoy the light and the warmth which human beings need.

The name denotes the system ; pantheism all God ; God is
all, and all is God. It thus confounds the Maker with his works.
God does not so much pervade, as he is, the universe. The qualities
of nature thus become the attributes of God. And as man knows
nothing of essences, but solely qualities, so he can do no other than
identify nature and God. What, then, produced nature ? There is
no other answer, than that nature produced nature ; in other words,
that nature is self-produced. To a result not essentially dissimilar
to this, must all kinds of pantheism come, and therefore all kinds
of pantheism are at least atheistic in their tendencies ; that is to say,
they lead the mind to no sufficient cause of the visible creation.

If pantheism means "all God," it, in effect, declares "no God,"
denying the fundamental element in men s idea of God. By God,
different races, different ages, and different individuals, have doubt
less intended (most of them without being aware of it) very different
things. The word has stood for the most diverse conceptions. But
one notion pervades all the various ideas which men have had of
God: that notion is the acknowledgment of a superior power.
When men acknowledged a God in word or deed, they always
meant a being, in some respect or respects, higher not only than
themselves, but also than the outward universe. This was the case
even in the worship of the objects of nature. The sun, moon, stars,

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 7

rivers, groves, were honoured, not as such, but as the residence of
intelligent beings, possessed of great power and controlling inferior
agents. These things were but the emblems of the mental qualities,
which were in truth the objects of worship. It is to mind that even
superstition bent the knee ; for power, without mind, was felt to
be too unreal, too evanescent, to claim the homage of the human
soul. Man s mind worshipped the great Mind of the universe.
This, of itself, is enough to show that worship is natural. But these
remarks have been brought to this point, in order to prove that men,
by the word God, mean, whatever else they intend, a superior
power, an infinite mind. Pantheism, therefore, in making all things
God (man, of course, included), destroys the very essence of our
idea of Deity ; for whether God is brought down to a level with his
works, or his works are raised to rank with God, the result is the
same ; all is God, there is no superior, still less a supreme being ;
all lofty excellence is destroyed ; the idea of boundless perfection
and consummate holiness is lost ; religion has no beau-ideal, and
therefore ceases to exist ; and man has no alternative than to turn
self- worshipper, being himself at least as high as any other object
that lies within the sphere of his knowledge.

It is impossible to pass from this subject, without expressing the
regret that we feel at the presumptuousness which the speculations
of the Hegelian school manifest in their rash, self-confident, and
daring speculations regarding God. Any attempt on the part of
man a being who, in his highest state of culture, is exposed to so
many sources of error, who knows comparatively so little, is, let his
mind have its utmost scope, confined within so diminutive a district
of the wide universe, conducts processes of reasoning so imperfectly,
and has, even in the least incomplete and insufficient language, so
uncertain, variable, and vague an interpreter of his thoughts ; any
attempt on the part of man to lay down dogmatically what God is
or what God must be, what he can and what he cannot do ; to
put forth a system of abstract thought, a set of cabalistic formularies,
as an infallible instrument for fathoming the mysteries of the divine
essence, and defining the only true sense in which men may believe
in God ; to take the chair of a philosophical orthodoxy, and
proceed to expound the sole true way to a knowledge of God, and
so to dictate its faith to the human race - far more competent to ,
form a faith than any knot of cloistered philosophers : and so
to enchain the free mind of man to certain assemblages of words, or
even certain abstractions of thought, elaborated in some one petty
spot of this great earth, and this" far greater world ; is a proceed
ing which sins against the true spirit of philosophy, as much as
against that which each individual owes to himself in regard to
humility, to the human race in regard to respect, and to God in
regard to lowly reverence and awe.

It may, indeed, be said, that these remarks are an appeal from
philosophy to the judgment-seat of piety. We hold the objection

8 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

in very small account. We dislike any severance of the several
faculties of man. Reason and feeling, philosophy and piety, have
no separate existence but in the schools. Their severance has been
the source of untold errors. The appeal of the universe, the appeal
of religion, of God, and of Christ, is not to the reason, nor to the
imagination, nor to the feelings, but to man; and only when man,
with all his varied capacities, humbly and earnestly strives to learn
the truth, can the truth be disclosed to his mind. Our reference to
the emotional and religious part of man s nature is not to be
blamed, at least on a subject on which this divine faculty was speci
ally given to communicate light. The man who attempts to think
or speak of God, Christ, and eternity, without taking his heart into
his counsels, is not less unfit for the office he has assumed, than is
he who would study the stars with a veil over his eyes. We are,
moreover, of opinion, that the view now given is not only sug
gested by common sense, but in harmony with sound philosophy ;
for, if philosophy is the art of interpreting the universe to man, and
man to himself, it can execute this high and noble office only by
taking man as it finds him ; that is, man as he is, in possession of
all his faculties, and with these faculties in full activity and well-
adjusted operation.

It is very clear that the accident of the coincidence of the forms
of the Hegelian philosophy with the phraseology of orthodox
Christianity has afforded, and does afford, a convenient shelter,
under which the most extreme infidelity may carry on its destructive
work. Thus, insinuating itself into the very sanctuary of the
church, philosophy clothes itself in the robes of the ministers of
religion, and then withers the very spirit withers all but the mere
outward form of the gospel. The more vigilant does it behove
those to be who have the sacred fire of gospel truth under their
keeping ; lest, while they slumber and sleep, the enemy enter, and,
extinguishing at once all light and heat, leave only the sad and
unquickening images of a painted scene.

The pretensions of the system, however, have been well exposed.
Eschenmayer,* in his " Comparison of Hegel s Philosophy with
Christianity" (p. 160), says of it, that " it is nothing else than a sys
tem of logic, which strives to find expression in Christian truths.
Hegel has a God without holiness, a Christ without spontaneous
love, a Holy Ghost without a sanctifying power, a gospel without
faith, a fall without sin, a sinful nature without demerit, an atone
ment without the forgiveness of sins, a death without an oblation, a
community without divine worship, a freedom without imputation,
justice without judgment, grace without redemption, religious doc
trines without revelation, this world without the next, an immortality

* Eschenmayer, Die Hegel sche Religionsphilosophie verglichen mit clem Christlich.
Principe. Tubing. 1834.

STBAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 9

without individual existence, a Christian religion without -Chris
tianity in a word, a religion without religion." Leo,* moreover,
has unveiled the system in the following four distinct charges :

1. The party deny God as a person: God, with them, is not a
being endowed with his own consciousness, but has personal quali
ties only so far as he is united with man s consciousness ; that is,
according to the view of all Christian confessions, they teach atheism.

2. They deny that God became man in Christ in any other way, as
to the nature of the process, than he becomes man in every human
being who attains a spiritual culture. It is only in degree that the
first differs from the second. But this is no reality, since Christ is,
with them, only an ideal image of human perfection ; not an his
torical person, but a philosophical conception. And whatever
excellence they may ascribe to the man Christ Jesus, it is not an
liistorical reality actually possessed by the Son of Mary, but a notion
formed of him after his death, during the lapse of years, in and by
the Christian church; so that, whilst Christ may have had some
small influence on the church, the church may be said to have pro
duced Christ, such as he is contemplated in the Gospels, and by
his disciples at large. In consequence, the miraculous conception,
the resurrection, and the ascension of Jesus, are only myths; that
is, legendary stories, which grew up spontaneously in the church,
from the convictions, views, sympathies, and desires of its early
members ; an unintended poetical investment and augmentation
of a few scanty facts. 3. They deny the prolongation of our indi
vidual existence after death ; teaching a religion which has to do
exclusively with this side of the grave. 4. They gain, by means
of a certain Christian dress thrown over their irreligious doctrines,
a degree of attention and respect for their system with the unwary,
appealing to be a party in the Christian church.

That there is no exaggeration in these imputations is more than
we would affirm. We are certainly not fond of giving countenance
to general charges of heresy and atheism ; for we know that they
have often been rashly and injuriously brought against what in the
end proved to be God s truth. It was on a charge of blasphemy
that the Saviour of mankind was condemned to death.

But we are bound to say, that we believe these statements are in
substance true, and that the truth of them will appear more fully as
this narrative proceeds. What the Hegelian philosophy may have
been in the mind of Hegel himself, he alone knew ; but a mode of
thinking, and a system of views, which his comprehensive and highly
accomplished intellect may have found- clear, distinct, and inno
cuous, may appear to ordinary persons so obscure as to be unintelli
gible, or so shadowy as to be destitute of a local habitation and a
name among recognised realities. Certain it is that the speculations

Die Hegelingen ; Halle, 1838 ; second edit. 1839.
C

10 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

of philosophy, in regard to God and futurity, have often tended to
become refinements so unreal and visionary as to wear a pantheistic
appearance, against which, common minds, unapt for minute distinc
tions, and unversed in the more delicate and evanescent trains of
thought, may advantageously guard themselves. How far, indeed,
any philosophy which, whether in ks methods of inquiry or in its
results, cannot be apprehended by the general mind of European
thinkers, is likely to contain much that is either true or useful, we
will not undertake to decide ; but there does appear to us to exist a
strong presumption against a philosophy of such a character. The
true, indeed, may not lie on the surface ; but, when discovered, it is
found to be clear, definite, easy of apprehension. Philosophy pro
fesses in one sense to be only an exposition of human nature. It
reads the human soul, and hence the universe, aloud. Its sight
is more penetrating than that which commonly prevails, and, seeing"
the characters which are written within, proclaims them to the
world ; telling man what he is what nature, what God, what duty,
what eternity is. Hence we should expect all genuine philosophy
to be an interpreter, and as such to utter truths cognizable by all,
and acknowledged as soon as declared. But what exposition of
the human soul is that which only the initiated few can comprehend?
Philosophy, then, has its mysteries, no less than corrupt religion,
and in consequence may easily fall into suspicion ; while its obscure
and unintelligible phraseology can hardly fail to be regarded as- the
shibboleth of a party, and the jargon of the schools. Distinct con
ceptions, sound thought, and common sense, as the general charac
teristics of truth, may be seen and read of all men, and have a fail-
title to be held a surer and a better guide than hair-splitting and
transcendental speculations.

Little, at any rate, have the Hegelian philosophers reason to
complain, if, in the attempt to translate their doctrines into common
language, men are unintentionally led to deviate into representations
which are not in strict conformity with their own views. " What,
then, is this philosophy ? " asks Cousin. " Can I describe it here
in a few words ? Is it possible to give even the slightest intelligible
idea of it to those who have not passed through all the antecedents
of this philosophy, through all the degrees of the school of Kant?"*
If Cousin himself a philosopher, a scholar in this school, a
profound and ardent scholar, a teacher (in substance) of the new
doctrines one who had seen and conversed with the master him
self found the task of a brief and popular statement impossible,
others may be excused if they err when striving to understand and
set forth the character of a system which, under the mask of friend
ship, and with a Judas-kiss on its lips, has attempted, in the person
of Strauss, to destroy the faith of the Christian church in its very
foundations.

* Specimens of Foreign Literature, vol. i. p. 87.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 11

But in all this, there is consolation for the Christian. Doctrines
can never prove very formidable which find no suitable expression
in the language of ordinary literature and common usage. And
when one leams that years of training are needful for the mere
comprehension of certain opinions, the inference cannot easily be
avoided, that this may be so much drilling, in order to bring the
mind into attitudes which it would not naturally assume ; and that,
in consequence, this system is only a repetition of the old folly of
school philosophy, which attempts to gain respect by claiming to
be the highest expression of human intelligence. Nor have those
believers who know wherein they trust, any ground to fear, that a
champion from this cloud-compelling region, though armed cap-a-
pie, can eventually succeed in doing serious injury to the church of
Christ, which is founded on a rock, however much alarm he may
create in some minds by the boldness of his attack, or whatever
suspicions he may raise by the loftiness of his hostile pretensions.

Exception, however, may be taken to Eschenmayer and Leo, as
being avowed accusers, whose evidence, if not coloured and exag
gerated, must at least have the discommendation of being one-sided.
We shall therefore adduce the calm verdict of one who bears the
character of a judge. "Reinhard,* in his " Manual of Philosophy,"
after giving a general view of Hegel s system, speaks, towards the
close, of its religious aspect and tendencies in the following terms:

" If we consider the relation of the Hegelian philosophy to religion, it appears unques
tionable that it aims to present a view and a demonstration of the prevalent doctrines of
Christianity, which, being conformable to its own abstract conceptions, shall give them
the force of necessary truths; and yet it stands in the clearest contradiction with the
essence of religion, and the substance of pure Christian truth. The acknowledgment of
God as the sole self-existent Original of all things, eternal, all-supporting, omniscient,
from whose mind the universe sprang, and by whose will it is upheld, is the loftiest
conception, the highest and the noblest thought, of the human soul. To convey this
grand idetfto the human race at large, in its moral bearings and spiritual power, and by
this means to give to the life of man its true unity, safety, strength, and peace, is the
great object of Christianity, for which it possesses all that is required. The systematic
establishment of this essential truth in all its purity, and the explanation and exposition
of it so as to gain for it a permanent seat in, the mind of man, is the chief duty, and
should be the constant labour, of philosophical investigation. But, according to Hegel,
this acknowledgment belongs only to an inferior order of religious culture ; and God dis
closes himself in the highest kind of knowledge, as the logical transition of the absolute,
which attains to self-consciousness by means of a return from nature into the conceptions
and thoughts of the human mind. Accordingly, Hegel s doctrine, while attempting to
make common cause with orthodoxy, stands in a hostile attitude to a rational exhibition
of Christianity to an intelligent development of the essence and spirit of the Christian
religion, and, forcing on prevalent opinions a pantheistic exposition, maintains its own
purity of faith. With moral and religious influences, there is closely interwoven a con-

* Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophic, von E. Reinhard; second edition, 1839:
pp. 7534.
11

12 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS,

viction of the prolongation of our individual existence beyond the tomb. But, according
to Hegel s speculative decisions, the individual personality of man is perishable in its very
nature, a continually flitting thing in the dialectical severance and insulation of the abso
lute. In his view, reason demands that the thinking individual should acknowledge the
nothingness of his individual essence, and willingly meet self-annihilation in view of his
entering into that universal substance which, like Chronos in the old mythology, devours
all its own offspring."

Here, then, the reader may learn from the decision of a compe
tent and impartial judge, that Hegelianism is essentially pantheistic,
and that its alleged conformity with established opinions is unreal,
if not factitious. Aid for the confirmation of the faith proceeding
from such a quarter is worse than suspected : it is in itself con
demned as the offers of an enemy; and that the rather, because, as
will shortly appear, the friends of the system take special pains to
undermine the old foundations, to destroy the former structures of
Christian truth, ere they proceed to substitute their airy specula
tions in the sanctuary of the church.

The chief lesson, however, which the reader should learn from
this exposition is, that the attack which Strauss has made on the
Gospels has come from a philosophical school. This fact, too, will
appear in fuller evidence with the progress* of these observations.
An idea prevails very extensively out of Germany, that it is theo
logians who have assailed the gospel. And that its assailants have
been theologians is not denied, but they have been philosophers as
well ; and so have they been philosophers, that the philosopher has
mastered and bound the theologian hand and foot. Philosophy, in
fact, has had and still retains the predominance. Hence the prin
ciples of the mind ; hence the colourings of the imagination ; hence
the purposes and aims of the life. In the middle ages, theology
was master of philosophy, and dictated its doctrines. The slave
has become the lord, and, like all slaves, proves a tyrant. Revela
tion was once held supreme : revelation must now subnUt to be
criticised, proved, and established by philosophy. Inspiration was
formerly thought to give certainty ; but the spirit of God is, it seems,
trustworthy only so far as approved by the science of necessary and
universal truth. Bitter and lull is the revenge which philosophy is
taking for the misdeeds in which religion indulged in the days of
her power and pride. And this despotism will endure for a season.
But human nature, if slow, is yet sure to recover its senses ; and
the time will come when theology will have regained her rights.
Then, as we trust, religion and philosophy will appear as two inde
pendent and harmonious servants of the one God, and the one Lord
Jesus Christ. At all events, the gospel has this advantage: depressed
and maltreated as in some quarters it may now be, humanity is on
its side; the great human heart is its; human intelligence is a
rock on which the church is built ; the young, the old, the mature,
and the decaying, the rich, the poor, the noble and the ignoble,
men of all ages and conditions, have found the gospel a pearl of

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 13

great price in sickness and in health, in weal and in woe, in doubt,
in unbelief, in the full assurance of faith; and the world therefore
will not let itself be robbed of the sacred treasure. No: to say
nothing here of higher powers, man is for the gospel; while on the
other side there is merely a school of dark if not unintelligible
philosophers.

And now what, in truth, is the quarter whence comes this modern
Goliah ? In a word, it is human speculation. Yes : philosophy
must, in the majority at least of cases, be nothing more than
" science falsely so called," for this if for no other reason, that the
forms in which it has embodied itself have been as diverse as they
have been numerous; each succeeding one having exploded its
predecessor, or at least found it lacking in important if not in
essential points. .And the eclecticism which is now fashionable
the system which professes to gather good wherever good may be
found is doubtless destined to undergo the fate of all its pre
decessors, and will ere very long be consigned to the tomb, or
survive only in a mutilated form. Philosophies are scarcely less
numerous than philosophers ; every one has his own : but, though
they spring up with the fecundity of the warriors which the dragon s
teeth of old produced, like them they quickly perish, being slain by
each other s hands. The vital statistics of philosophy would show,
that the average duration of life in the schools scarcely exceeds two
generations ; while in Germany the life and death of thought pro
ceed with extraordinary rapidity, and the son himself becomes
ashamed of the follies of his father. Already Hegel is in danger of
suffering the fate of Actocon, who was torn in pieces by his own
hounds. Speculation, whether it be the amusement or the serious
labour of the few, has a basis equally void of solidity, with the
unreasoning prejudices and irrational apprehensions of the untaught
and unthinking crowd ; while the truths which are stamped on the
mind, and the sympathies which spring up in the soul, of humanity
at large, are co-extensive and co-eval with the race. These univer
sal signatures record the credibility and eternal worth of the gospel,
which has been too long in the world not to find a secure seat in
the glad hospitality of the human heart.

" Write for the pedant few, the vein shall grow
Cold at its source, and meagre in its flow;
But for the vulgar many wouldst thou write,
How coarse the passion, and the thought how trite !
Nor few nor many ? riddles from thee fall ;
Author, as nature smiles so write for all." *

The profound and practical philosophy of these lines, Christianity
has fully realised, and is in no danger, in consequence, of perishing
before an array of speculative abstractions.

Eva, and other Poems, by Sir Edward Bulwer Lytton, p. 157.

H STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

Having prepared himself by a careful course of study, Strauss
proceeded to read lectures at the university of Tubingen, expository
of the philosophy of Hegel, which were very favourably received.
By this effort, he openly connected himself with the school of that
philosopher, and may from this time (1832) be regarded as a herald
of the new philosophy. Aiming to discharge the purposes of his
mission in such a manner as seemed likely to be most effectual, he
availed himself of opportunities afforded by periodical literature ;
but, in whatever direction he turned his mind, he found an insu
perable barrier in the generally received religion of his country ; for
so long as the authority of the Gospels remained entire, or was
merely assailed by weapons which, in the very stroke they gave,
lost their edge, his philosophical views had no chance of finding
acceptance beyond college cloisters. Thus explicitly does Strauss
express himself:* "If these two things are attempted, namely,
to preserve the doctrine of Christ uncurtailed and philosophy un
injured, it must be said that there is deception in both." Hence
the necessity for fabricating arms of better temper. If philosophy
must be abandoned unless an historical gospel were exploded, the
man who firmly held the first could do no other than attempt to
subvert the second. The assailant was, however, himself a theo
logian ; as such, surely a friend of Christianity. An unseemly thing
it would be for an avowed theologian to assail the very system that
he was bound to defend. Hence the necessity of caution, and
that the rather lest the novelty of the new weapons which he was
fabricating, as well as the unsparing nature of his intended onslaught,
should awaken the attention, or even call forth the arm, of the civil
power, when the means of subsistence, if not personal liberty, would
be in imminent peril. But here his philosophy came to his aid.
True, it was destruction ; it eat out the very heart of the gospel ;
but it had a phraseology which could be thrown as a drapery over
the lifeless framework.

All these preparations, however, went on quietly in retirement. The
name of Strauss was still unknown. It was no unusual thing for
young men to plume their wings by reading in universities a course
of metaphysical lectures. Writing in reviews may be needful for
subsistence, but does little to advance a reputation. The more
unexpected, the more astounding, was the appearance of his Leben
Jesu, which was published at Tubingen in the year 1835. Private
friends had indeed busied themselves in order to draw attention to
the forthcoming work, as one which would constitute an era in theo
logical studies ; but their influence was necessarily restricted to a
narrow circle, and the production took the German public by sur
prise, which was perhaps rather enhanced than lessened by the
confidential whispers and ominous reports by which it was preceded.

Leben Jesu, Schlussabhandl. p. 090, fourth edition,

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND, THEIR OPINIONS. 15

To this surprise, as much as to the novelty of its positions to this
surprise, far more than to its argumentative worth, is the influence
to be ascribed which the work at first gained, and the loud acclaim
with which it has been trumpeted from land to land. Scholars
themselves were at first astonished, if only at the daring-ness of the
attack, and at all events acknowledged the importance which attached
to it, by the ready zeal with which many poured forth the copious
stores of their learning in reply. The author, it is true, in his pre
face declares, that the work was neither fitted nor designed for
uninstmcted laymen ; adding, with a simplicity that excites a smile,
" And if, through an imprudent curiosity, or -through an excess
of zeal against heresy, they allow themselves to read the work, they
will, as Schleiermacher said on a similar occasion, have to suffer
the penalty in their feelings ; for they cannot avoid the conviction,
that they do not understand that of which they wish to talk."* If
Strauss really desired that the book should remain sealed to all but
professed theologians, it is strange that he omitted to publish his
opinions in Latin ; by which means only, he must have well known,
could there be a chance of securing his object. However this might
be, the work soon ran beyond the universities, came into the hands
of all the more cultivated of the German public, and even found its
way into circulating libraries. From May, 1835, to April, 1838,
three editions were called for; and in 1840 there appeared a fourth.
The circulation of the book in foreign countries has been indeed
inconsiderable, owing partly, it is presumed, to a fear of social
consequences, but in the main, we believe, to that general disregard
to theological studies which is unhappily so marked a feature in
this age, and the consequent unpreparedness of mind which prevails
even in Great Britain, almost as much as in countries of far less
intellectual pretensions. In the year 1839, however, a translation
of the work was published in the French language, which is, for the
most part, executed on the third German edition, and deserves praise
for its fidelity to the original. The bookseller, Bolt of Groningen,
announced a translation into the Dutch, which, owing to the blame
worthy interference of Professor Hofstede de Groot, never made its
appearance. In this country, no scholar-like translation has been
published, though several have been prepared ; the booksellers hav
ing had the fear of the laws before their eyes. Yet the work is
widely circulated in England ; for it has been " done into English "
in a disgraceful manner, and sold in low-priced numbers, to satisfy
the truly infidel cravings of a portion of our town populations. But
for even a fair and intelligible account of the Leben Jesu, the Eng
lish student has had to resort to foreign literature. In this country,
the policy seems to have been suppression and silence, and con
sequently the work has had an altogether factitious attraction in the

* Preface to the first edition
15

16 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

eyes of the uninstructed ; and its argumentative force, known for
the most part solely by report even among the cultivated, has, like
all unknown things, been grossly exaggerated. And while there
have not been wanting expositions of the doctrines of Strauss,
designed and fitted to bring established opinions into discredit,
this, now after the book has been in existence nine years, is the
first attempt to acquaint the English reader with the i acts of the case ;
presenting to him these new doctrines, so that he may be able to
seize their import, and comprehend their bearing, and then pass on
to consider in detail some arguments which may be offered in

The attention which the Leben Jesu excited in Germany, and its
rapidly acquired celebrity in other lands, are partly to be ascribed
to other circumstances than those that have been noticed. Im
mediately on the appearance, in June 1835, of the first part of his
"Life of Jesus," Strauss received from the Wiirtemberg Council of
Education a formal inquiry whether he considered a position in
an institution, designed to prepare young men for the Christian
ministry, tenable by one who had put forth such views as he had
published in his book. In answer, Strauss endeavoured to show,*
that his opinions did not disqualify him for holding an office in the
church, since the clergyman conceived that as an idea which the
people assumed as history, and that the two must be brought into
accordance. The council, however, judged the answer unsatis
factory, and removed Strauss from his office, while they appointed
him to a situation in the Lyceum at Ludwigsburg, which, however,
Strauss resigned in the autumn of 1836.

The step which the council took was probably unavoidable, nor
does there appear in it any thing which wears the slightest hue of
persecution. No second party, no impartial person, can assert that
the author of the " Life of Jesus" is fit to hold a chair of Christian
theology, except the office was created in order to destroy the sap
of the gospel ; but, whatever the motives of the council, their con
duct gave encouragement to bigotry. The work was assailed by a
storm of abuse. Popular indignation and unreasoning prejudices
were invoked. Periodicals, that were much read by the people,
teemed with pieces which could have no other effect than to blind
their eyes with passion, and make the author personally odious.
In Berlin the question was discussed whether the work should be
prohibited by the public authorities. The minister of public wor
ship consulted Professor Neander on the duty of suppressing the
Leben Jesu; but that learned and excellent man, the founder of a
school of spiritual Christianity in which knowledge and intelligence
are not denied their rights, too well understood what religious liberty
meant and demanded, to give any countenance to the interference

Allgemeiiien Kirchen-xeitung, 1886, No. 39.

Jti

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 17

of a power so alien as that of the civil magistrate. Accordingly he
answered in substance, that the historical Christianity of the church
could not stand in conjunction with the views advanced by Strauss,
but that Strauss had written without frivolity, and in an earnest as
well as a scholar-like spirit ; and that, in consequence, his book was
answerable at no other bar than that of systematic theology, which
would not fail to bring it to trial, and pronounce a verdict. This
wise and Christian-like decision saved the work from suppression,
but increased the outcry of narrow-minded zeal, which long raised
its senseless clamour in Hengstenberg s Evangelischen Kirchen-
zeitung. It is, however, a happy thing that good feeling and right
principles prevailed : otherwise a most injurious impression would
have been created, and a lasting injury inflicted on Christianity.
We cannot afford the space requisite for presenting these facts in
all their details before the reader, but must stop to record the words
in which Strauss, in the Preface to his second edition, acknowledges
the service rendered by Neander ; a service far more valuable to
the gospel, to truth, and to the rights of the human mind, than
to Strauss, sorely pressed as he was by ill-judging and narrow-
minded foes : -r-

" These efforts contain scarcely any tiling else than the more or less violent expression
of the horror which their authors feel towards my opinions, my character, and my per
son. Answers of such a kind no more deserve attention than the shrieks which women
sometimes allow to escape them at the sudden going-off of a musket, not because the
bullet has missed its aim, or struck what was not intended, but solely because there has
been the report of a gun. Doubtless, these clamours may make a diligent police think
their intervention required; but immediately some reasonable man arrests the steps of its
officers, assiiring them that there is no real peril. This is the part which Neander, con
fining himself to a general estimate of my work, has pursued in the opinion he has put
forth ; and I cannot avoid expressing to him here my gratitude and my high esteem, for
having had the goodness to utter, in so worthy a manner, a voice so powerful as his, in
this my business."

Nothing, however, contributed more to fix the eyes of at least
foreigners on Strauss, than the events connected with him which
took place at Zurich, in Switzerland. Having thought it desirable
to quit the subordinate office which he held at Ludwigsburg, he
was, early in the year 1839, invited to occupy the chair of Dogma
tical Theology and Ecclesiastical History in the protestant University
at Zurich. The former professor, Rettig, died in the year 1836;
from which time the Council of Education had been desirous of
inviting Strauss to occupy the vacancy, but were deterred by the
expressed disapproval of the theological authorities in the university.
At length, however, the friends of Strauss prevailed, though only by
a majority of one voice. The invitation was accepted. Straightway
began strife and agitation, which, far from confining themselves to
the learned and the civil authorities, spread through the canton, lead
ing to popular tumults and threatened violence. With a view to
calm the agitations, Strauss addressed a letter (which has recently

17 D

18 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

been translated into English, and published in this country) to his
friend and patron, the layman Hirzel, as well as to Orelli and Hit-
zig, professors in the Zurich University ; which, though dexterously
constructed, by both what it said and what it did not say, for allay
ing the storm, served only to make it more violent. With no better
effect, Hirzel himself published an address to his countrymen ; and
equally vain was an attempt by the eminent German theologians,
Llicke and De Wette. A proposal was made, but not accepted, to
compromise the differences, by the appointment of an orthodox
professor of theology, who should teach in conjunction with Strauss.
Nothing short of his deposition would satisfy the excited, not to
say enraged, feelings of the commonalty, led on by their ministers.
At length, Strauss and his friends were compelled to yield. The
obnoxious professor was deprived of his chair, but consoled with a
pension of a thousand francs per annum. The ruling powers,
however, had given unpardonable offence to the people ; who,
rather encouraged than appeased by their success, rushed into the
city of Zurich, on the sixth of September, 1839, and overthrew
the government.

All this violence is most lamentable and blameworthy. If the
end sought was of itself good, the means employed were reprehen
sible. Strauss had been appointed by the proper authorities ; and
by them only, acting not under compulsion, but according to the
best of their judgment, could he properly be deposed. And though
it may have been proper for the clergy and their flocks to take
every legitimate means for making their opinions and wishes known
to the authorities of the university and of the state, yet they cannot be
excused for the precipitancy and violence with which they enforced
the deprivation, and then punished those who had yielded to popu
lar dictation. Nor can it be questioned, that conduct such as this,
in which all rights were set at nought, is equally discreditable and
injurious to the Christian religion : certainly, it has gone far to cause
Strauss to be regarded as a martyr to religious truth, and has made
his work to be so eagerly sought for, that, though perhaps to the
ordinary reader the most abstruse book of a theological kind that
was ever published, it is now passing through the fourth edi
tion. The inference, too, was natural, that a work whose author was
so warmly, not to say bitterly, assailed both at home and abroad,
was one which the guardians and professors of the popular religion
found it easier to defame than to confute. If, however, we had to
answer the question, whether the appointment of Strauss was judi
cious or proper, we should at once reply in the negative ; and, with
the opinions which we entertain of the tendency of his writings, we
would have employed every moral influence, in order to prevent or
to annul it. But violence is as bad in policy as it is in justice ; and
we doubt not, that, both in and out of Switzerland, persecution has
done more for Strauss than Strauss could have done for himself.

The opinions of Strauss have not remained stationary. In his

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 19

preface to the second edition of his work, he acknowledges that he
had, in objections alleged by his opponents, found valuable instruc
tion, which he had turned to account in revising his pages for the
press, thus, " filling up the gaps which had become visible,
retracting what I had found to be not maintainable, and insisting
with greater emphasis 011 what appeared to me established." But
the lapse of two years, in which nearly the whole theological mind
of Germany was directly or indirectly engaged with the contents of
his volumes, effected a far greater change in his mind, and rendered
even concession necessary. The third edition accordingly bears
marks of considerable deviation from the standard of thought exhi
bited in the first When called upon to prepare this third edition
for the press, he was engaged in preparing the second part of a
general answer to his opponents : much of the matter which had
thus been written, he incorporated in the new edition, expecting
thereby that the continuance of his defence in a separate form, would
be rendered unnecessary. In this he miscalculated. The first
volume has reached a second edition; and another volume may,
we hear, be expected, devoted to the work of repairing and buttress
ing up the structure of his hypothesis, which has been severely
battered.* In the preface to his third edition, after making a
genera^cknowledguient of the services which he had derived, in
preparing it for the press, in the adverse writings of Neander, Kem,
Tholuck, and Theile, Strauss thus speaks more specifically, and
in terms which are very important :

"With the Commentary of De Wette, and the Life of Jesus by Neander, in my
hand, I have recommenced the study of John s Gospel ; and this renewed study has
shaken in my mind the validity of the doubts which I had formed against the authenticity
of that Gospel, and the credence which it deserves : on this depend more or less the
changes which this new edition presents. I am not, indeed, convinced that John s Gos

pel is authentic ; but I am equally no longer convinced that it is not so In the first

edition of my work, I had, with the zeal of an exclusive polemic, exhibited the unfavoura
ble side ; but by degrees the opposite view has regained its rights. In consequence of these
facts, my book will appear to have lost in unity; but it has gained, I hope, in truth."

The candour displayed in these words is truly admirable. No
few Christian advocates may here learn a needful as well as an im
portant lesson. Nor does there fail, with some exceptions, to appear
in Strauss s volumes a similar honesty of purpose, and a love of truth,
which must take the work out of the ordinary class of infidel
publications, and render any other method of meeting its positions
than what theology, religion, and reason, may supply, condemnable
as being in the actual case unseemly and unsuitable, as it is always
improper, if not unrighteous.

These deviations may, however, be regarded in another light.
The love of a certain infallibility is not confined to Papists or

Streitschriften zur Vertheidigung meiner Schrift, 1837; second edition, 1841.
]9

20 STEAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

Protestants. Unbelief, with whatever inconsistency, seeks, and
often has, an infallibility of its own. Indeed, all men who have
not the means of forming an independent judgment (the rare
but happy privilege of a few, and, even in their case, not on many
topics) are prone to that species of " hero-worship " which prompts
them to select some one as their guide, who, if not always right,
may at least appear never to be in the wrong. To such a per
son, deference will be paid, and a clan-like adherence manifested,
always provided he fulfil the necessary conditions, and avoid
such departures from the assumed standard as may imply the
possibility of error. In a word, it is a stereotyped creed which even
unbelief desires; and those who find not what they want in the church,
are not slow to recognise it in some creation of their own brain, or in
some popular idol. For such a purpose Strauss is obviously unfit ;
and therefore is it very doubtful if he can ever do serious injury in
unsettling the convictions of the bulk of men. He is too candid
to be popular. He destroyed his own charm, and broke his wand,
when he confessed his errors. Neither the cultured nor the un
cultured can now be tempted to regard him with implicit reverence
as a certain guide. His theory has changed more than once, and
may change again. He even allows that Christianity has some
thing to say on its own behalf; and who knows, after what has taken
place, whether it may not in the long-run prove to have the best of
the argument ? At all events, Straussism is not a fixed, invariable
unit, and as such fitted to conciliate as well as command assent.

Had the doubts to which Strauss has given expression in the last
extract gone on to assume a more favourable character, and issued
in the recognition of the authenticity and credibility of John s
Gospel, the controversy would have been at once brought to a
termination ; for if John, an eye-witness, is to be believed, and his
account generally accepted as a true picture of real events, then
the resurrection of Jesus, as an historical fact, is beyond dispute,
and all the train of miracle which John narrates must be received.
In the hurry and confusion of mind consequent on the whirl of
attack, defence, proof, disproof, answer, rejoinder, abuse, defama
tion, and even persecution, in which his book involved him,
Strauss does not appear to have seen the full consequences of the
admissions which he honestly made in his third edition. Friends
and enemies, however, soon aided him to take a just view of his
new position ; nor was he himself, at the time he penned the con
cessions, unaware of the damage they inflicted on the unity of his
work. He had, in truth, taken a new direction. It was a direction
opposed to that in which his philosophy had guided him hitherto.
The question, therefore, came up for determination, Philosophy
or religion ? Hegel or Christ ? onwards or entire recantation ? the
head of a new school, or one among myriads ? The delay was not
long, the rather as some of the more zealous, if not less scrupulous,
members of the new school such as Bruno Bauer and Feuerbach

STKAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 21

were hastening forwards, and not only leaving Strauss himself in
the rear, but reproaching him for allowing that there was any histo
rical element in primitive Christianity, except, indeed, that Jesus
was bom and died.

Accordingly, our author, in the fourth edition, revokes his pre
vious admissions. After intimating that the warfare in which he
had been engaged, had injured the unity of his book in former
editions, and that he had been more intent on erasing passages
from it than on making additions, having yielded too much under
a love of peace, he adds that he had become almost insensible
to the idea and aim of his work, in the din of contention, and the
diligent comparison of conflicting views.

" In reviewing the volumes for a new edition, I consequently found changes at which
I was myself astonished, and by which I had clearly done myself injustice. In all these
places the former matter has been restored; and my duty in this new edition has chiefly
consisted in this, namely in whetting out of my good sword the notches which rather
myself than my assailants had hacked on its edge."

The direction which his mind had now decidedly taken, and the
influence under which the revoking of his concessions may be
presumed to have been made, appears from the aim of a work which
Strauss published cotemporaneously with the fourth edition of his
Leben Jesu, having for its object to set forth in detail what he con
sidered the conflict which there is between modern science and
Christian doctrine.* In this book there is evidence but too ample
of the extreme of negation to which his philosophy has driven Strauss.
The fact implied, if not already established, in these observations,
that it is a philosophical impulse under which he is acting, is put
in this new work beyond a question. Indeed in the volume of
which mention has been made, as the first of two, intended to form
a general reply to his opponents, Strauss has distinctly stated as
much. In a treatise which the volume contains on the general rela
tion of the Hegelian philosophy to theological criticism, he relates
the history of his " Life of Jesus," which, he says, from its very origin,
" has stood in an intimate relation with the philosophy of Hegel ; "
and with what cold and heartless rigour he follows his philosophy
into its remoter consequences is shown by the way in which he
speaks of a future life (Glaubenslehre, ii. 739): " A life beyond the
grave is the last enemy which speculative criticism has to oppose,
and, if possible, to vanquish." This, in truth, is speaking out. Much
as we regret that a man possessed of qualities so amiable as are
some which belong to Strauss should have so far allowed a dreamy
philosophy to throw a cloud over his natural feelings, hiding from
his eyes the stars of endless life which ever burn there, and which
cannot be quenched unless by the hand which kindled their fires;

* Christl. Glaubenslehre in ihr. geschichtl. Entwickel. und im Kfimpfe mit der modern
Wissensch. Tubingen, 1840.
21

22 STBAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

yet we are not sorry that he has thus boldly, not to say offensively,
enunciated

" The black creed of nothing in the tomb,"

because the prospect which his system thus presents in the distance
is one which has no attractions for the human heart, and may well
make any pause who i eel inclined to enter on a career in which the
author of the "Life of Jesus" is the leader. Even in his own
school there are men of distinguished ability who are not prepared
to go all his lengths. He informs us himself, in a treatise on the
" Relation of the Hegelian Philosophy to Theological Criticism,"
that, while even the master of the school fluctuated in his opinions
as to the evangelical history, some of his disciples hold that this
history entire, and others that this history in part, is tenable in con
junction with the philosophy of Hegel; but Strauss, surpassing them,
now places himself at the head of those who deny that there is or
can be any union, so that the gospel history must perish altogether,
or his own speculative views must be renounced. We translate,
however, his words themselves : *

" To the question, whether, and, if so, how far, the evangelical history can be held in
conjunction with the idea (the fundamental notion of the Hegelian school) of the identity
of the divine and the human nature, three answers are possible: either the entire of the
history is compatible with philosophy, or merely a part of it, or that neither in part nor at
all can the history be retained as history."

Then having divided the Hegelian scholars into three divisions,
according to these three answers, 1. the right side, 2. the centre,
3. the left or extreme ; and having given reason for being dissatisfied
with the other two ; he thus assigns his own position :

"With the conviction that the truth of the evangelical history is neither altogether nor
in part tenable with philosophy, but must be entirely left free to the scrutiny of historical
-criticism, I would take my post on the left side of the Hegelian school."

The title, Leben Jesu, " Life of Jesus," is a misnomer. The work
is not a narrative of any kind, not a biography, not a critical history,
but from first to last a commentary on the four Gospels, arranged
in such a manner as suited the writer s purpose. Nor with any
propriety can it be considered as furnishing materials for a history
of Christ, since its entire aim is to invalidate and destroy recognised
facts, leaving behind the smallest residuum of reality. Why such
a title should have been prefixed to such a work it is difficult to
conjecture. We are not aware that usage gave any sanction to such
a procedure, and are unwilling to suppose that it was designed for
any unworthy purpose,t though this is not the only case in which

* Verhaltniss der Hegel schen Philos. zur Kritik, pp. 95 and 120.

+ In his Streitschriften, Drittes Heft, p. 59, Strauss says the title originally belonged
to an intended work which had two other parts besides that published, which parts were to
describe the history of our Lord s actions and of his mind.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 23

it is difficult to give Strauss credit for entire sincerity. The con
clusion of his work, in which he attempts to rebuild by the aid of
philosophy the facts and doctrines which he asserts he has destroyed
in their historical sources and relations, has from the first appeared
to us, if not a departure from truth and simplicity, yet a pitiable
hallucination, and a gross self-deception. We refer to the last
chapter of his third edition, which either a respect for himself, his
readers, or his system, has induced Strauss to omit in the fourth
edition, though we cannot by any means affirm that the matter which
he has substituted, is free from objection in a moral point of view.
Under the title of" Relation of the Critical-speculative Theology to
the Church," Strauss, after Schleiermacher, here treats of the manner
in which it is possible for one to hold the office of a Christian
teacher who has renounced the historical credibility of the gospel.
The question would present no difficulties to the common sense and
straightforward feelings of an Englishman; and if an individual
were to be led by any cause to retain such an office, under the in
fluence of intellectual refinements and nice distinctions, the wounded
sense of English honesty would move the community to call for a
resignation. Four courses are, however, put forward; one of which
is, that a theologian who does not believe should not attempt to
teach Christianity. This position would seem to demand an im
mediate assent. Our author decides that nothing can be decided,
with an obvious leaning in favour of those remaining in the church,
who have done and are doing their best to unsettle if not destroy its
historical foundations. One of his plans amounts to this, that the
preacher should think with the wise, but speak with the vulgar. This,
course, however, he is of opinion, would not be without its difficulty :

" The difference between the theologian and the congregation would be regarded as a
total difference. The question would be put Do you believe in the Christ of history?
The proper answer would be No: if he says Yes, this would be a lie. The difficulty
would not be lessened, when, in the course of his spiritual teachings, he came to a matter
which was essentially of an historical character. Yet the real interest involved is of a
religious nature; it is a religious influence which has to be exerted, a religious influence
appearing in an historical form: and he who does not believe the history may still
recognise the religious influence, as well as he who receives the history: it is only a dif
ference of form, by which the substance remains unaffected. Wherefore it is discourteous
to impute a lie to a minister who preaches on the resurrection of Christ; and, while he does
not think this a reality as an individual, sensible fact, yet holds for time the spectacle
of the living process of the spirit which lies therein."*

The writer of the Leben Jesu, after giving an historical account
of the different systems of expounding the New Testament which
have prevailed from the earliest periods of the church, and laying
down those general principles by the guidance of which he thinks
the true may be severed from the false in the gospel narratives,

* Schlussabh. p.
23

t&gt;4 STHAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

proceeds, in the application of his doctrines, to consider severally
the chief events recorded in the ordinary life, death, and resurrec
tion of Christ. In each case, he examines with the severest scrutiny,
and by the aid of stores of learning which seem to answer every
demand, the alleged facts as given by the evangelist or evangelists
on whose authority they rest. In this undertaking, he always suc
ceeds in finding difficulties, contrarieties, if not contradictions,
at all events, miracles. The inference is, that the accounts cannot
be true. This is not history. What, then, is it ? He sets before
the reader the views taken by two diverse parties that of the
Rationalists, for whose representative he takes Paulus ; and that of
the Supernaturalists, as developed in the Commentary of Olshausen.
Both these views are weighed in the balance, and found wanting.
There remains his own. What is that? In brief this, that the
church made its founder, not consciously, nor with any evil design,
but naturally in the progress of events, and out of elements which
history, fact, and opinion, had put into the minds of its members.
Jesus was born, lived, and died, in the land of Judea, about the
usually alleged era. He believed himself to be the Messiah,
expected by the Jews. This belief gained converts in process of
time. The first believers recognised Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
But if he was really the Messiah, then he must have had all those
qualities which characterised the Messiah. Accordingly, whatever
element entered as a component part into the current idea of the
Messiah, was found in or ascribed to Jesus. Hence the bulk of
the so-termed facts of the Gospels : hence all the miracles. The
few scanty facts of the actual life of Jesus grew into an ample, com
plex, diversified, inharmonious mythology. In all this, there was
no deception, except self-deception ; there was no consciousness of
even self-deception certainly no intention to palm off on the world
an historical falsehood. The process was slow, gradual, unobserved.
By degrees all the bright lights which the Jews saw or fancied in
their expected Messiah, were thrown around the head of Jesus,
forming a halo a sacred nimbus, which, still more and more de
lighting its own parent, the human mind, was perpetually supplied
with fresh poetic materials, taken originally from the Old Testament
Scriptures, or the abundant sources afforded by tradition. Hence
Jesus became the focus where all the rays met which Judaism and
Christianity united to furnish. Christ was compounded out of old
Testament history, rabbinical tradition, popular desires and mistakes,
and the small element which his personal influence contributed.
The idea represented by the name Jesus Christ was an aggregation
of such materials as the spirit of past ages combined with the spirit
of the primitive Christian age to make active in the human mind.

If, now, you would decompose this idea in order to learn the origin
and estimate the value of each separate element, you must reverse
the process. You have been conducted through the synthesis.
Now submit the composite idea to analysis. If you do so under

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 25

the guidance of our author, you will find the smallest possible grain
of historical truth ; all the rest is what? Myths: in each case a
myth, perhaps more myths than one.

What is a myth ? We do not translate the word, because neither
fable nor legend, nor any other received term, exactly expresses what
is intended by myth. It is better to adopt the word itself, defining
its import in a case in which, like the present, a novel doctrine is
represented by it. Bretschneider* says, that the word myth (of
Greek origin, nvQoQ , or rather it is Indo-Germanic, Gemuth in
German) denoted originally the mind ; hence that which was formed
in the mind, thought; then thought uttered, or speech, narration.
With later writers, the word means a narrative coming from former
times, tradition ; finally, narrative iri a poetical form, story, tale,
fable. He adds, " The idea of myth which Strauss has, is not found
in ancient times." Indeed, myth, with Strauss, denotes rather a
process than an idea. It means the way or manner in which unreal
elements were thrown around the slender form of reality, in the
rise and progress of Christianity. Its reference, therefore, is to
an alleged fact, a state of mind in active operation, clothing
the man Christ Jesus with poetical and traditional investments,
and so making him the Jesus Christ which we now find in the
Gospels.

For instance, it is related in Luke iv. 30, that Jesus, when in
danger of his life at the hands of his townsmen of Nazareth, "pass
ing through the midst of them, went his way." The intention of the
writer, argues Strauss, was that Jesus performed a miracle in order
to effect his escape. The alleged miracle, however, was only a
poetic fiction, unwittingly imitated after certain recorded facts in
the Old Testament. " We cannot " to translate his language
" fail to acknowledge the influence of the myth, which, wishing to
embellish the history of Jesus, took a pleasure in representing Christ
as a personage from whom a heavenly hand drove enemies away, as
in former times it had protected Lot, by smiting his foes with blind
ness (Gen. xix. 11), and Elisha in the same manner (2 Kings vi. 18),
or rather as a personage who, by virtue of his superiority, protected
himself."

" We give the name of evangelical myth to a narrative which refers, directly or indi
rectly, to Jesus, and which we may consider, not as the expression of a fact, but as the
expression of an idea of his primitive adherents. In the gospel, as in other things, we
shall find that the myth, taken in this sense, is sometimes a pure myth, forming the sub
stance of the narrative, sometimes an accident in a real history.

" The pure myth in the gospel has two sources, which in most cases contribute simul
taneously to its formation ; only that now the one, now the other, predominates. The first
of these sources is the expectation of the Messiah, under all its forms ; an expectation
which existed among the Jewish people before Jesus, and independently of him. The

* Dogmatik, vol. i. p. 346.
2") E

26 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

second is the particular impression which Jesus left by season of his personal qualities,
his action, and his fate ; by which he modified the idea which his countrymen formed to
themselves of the Messiah. It is almost exclusively from the first source, that, for exam
ple, the history of the transfiguration comes : the second has probably furnished thereunto
only one circumstance that in which the personages that appear are represented con
versing with Jesus of the death which awaited him. On the other hand, it is from the
second source that is derived the account in which the rending of the temple, at the mo
ment of the death of Jesus, is described ; for the principal motive which appears to have
dictated the conception of it is the position of Jesus himself and, after him, of his disciples,
in regard to the Jewish worship and the temple. Here we find something historical : it is
not, it is true, any thing more than a mere general reflexion of the character and of the
relations of the age ; but that suffices to constitute the soil in which the creative idea of
the myth is born; and from this point we arrive at the historical myth.

" The myth belongs to history, when a particular and precise fact is the theme which
the imagination seizes in order to surround it with mythical conceptions which have for
their starting point the idea of Christ. This fact is at one time a discourse of Jesus ;
for instance, the discourses about the fishers of men, and the barren fig-tree discourses
which we read now transformed into miraculous histories : at another time, it is a real act
or circumstance of his life his baptism, a real event which has been ornamented with
the mythic details that the Gospels narrate. It is possible also that certain accounts of
miracles may have, for their foundation, natural circumstances, which have been either
presented in a supernatural light, or loaded with miraculous particulars.*

But how are myths to be distinguished from history ? Strauss
gives some rules, and, in so doing, lets the reader see what the
principles are which he brings to the study of the Gospels :

" The myth has two sides : First, it is not history; secondly, it is a fiction, produced by
the individual direction of a certain community. Consequently, the myth may be known
by two kinds of characters ; one negative, the other positive.

"1. A narrative is not historical that which is related did not take place in the
manner in which it is set down when the narrated events are incompatible with the
known and universal laws which regulate the procession of events.

" The first of these laws, conformable as much with just philosophical ideas as with
all experience worthy of credit, is this, that the absolute cause never intervenes by excep
tional acts, in the chain of second causes; and that it manifests itself only by the production
of the infinite web of finite causes, and of their reciprocal actions. Consequently, every
time that a narrative sets before us a phenomenon or an event, formally stating, or giving
the reader to understand, that the phenomenon or event was produced immediately by God
himself (for example, celestial voices, divine appearances), or by human beings who hold
from him a supernatural power (such as miracles, prophecies), we cannot in such cases
recognise an historical narrative. And, as the intervention of beings belonging to a higher
spiritual world either reposes on narrations without warrant, or is irreconcilable with just
ideas, it is impossible to receive as history that which is told of the appearance and of the
deeds of angels or of demons.

" A second law observable in all which takes place is that of succession. Even in the
most violent epochs, in the most rapid changes, every thing follows a certain order of
development. Every thing grows, successively, and declines in the same manner. If,

Leben Jesu. Introduction, xiv. third edition.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 27

then, we are told of a great man, that in his infancy he had and expressed the profound
feeling of grandeur which belonged to his mature age ; if it is told of his adherents, that
at the first sight they knew who he was ; if, after his death, their transition from despair
to enthusiasm is represented as the work of a single hour, we must here also more than
doubt the reality of the history which is placed before us.

" But a narrative ought, in order to have an historic value, to be in agreement, not
only with the laws which regulate events, but also with itself and with other narratives.

" The disagreement is the greater when it proceeds even to a contradiction, and one
narrative says what another denies. For example, one account says expressly, that Jesus
did not preach in Galilee till after the seizure of John the Baptist; and another account
remarks, after Jesus had long preached both in Galilee and in Judea, that John the Bap
tist had not yet been cast into prison.

" The positive characters of a legend or fiction show themselves both in the form and
in the substance.

" If the form is poetic ; if the actors engage in discourse resembling hymns, and longer
and more inspired than could be expected from their knowledge and their situation, the
discourse ought at least not to be considered as historical.

" If the substance of a narrative strikingly agrees with certain ideas which prevail in
the circle in which it is born, and which appear to be rather the product of preconceived
opinions than the result of experience, then it is, according to circumstances, more or
less likely that the narrative has a mythical origin. Thus we know, that the Jews loved
to represent great men as sons of mothers who had long been barren : this alone ought to
make us distrust the historical truth of the narrative which makes John the Baptist
to come into the world in such a manner. We know also, that the Jews saw, in the writ
ings of their prophets and their poets, predictions, and, in the life of the ancient men of
God, types, of the Messiah. This suggests to us the suspicion, that whatever in the life
of Jesus is visibly contrived according to such notions belongs rather to the myth than to
history.

" But, if we consider separately each of the motives on one side, and each of the
evangelical narratives on the other, we shall rarely obtain any thing more than a simple
possibility and likelihood, that the character of the accounts is not historical. In order
to gain a more precise determination, we must show that several considerations concur.
Thus the history of the Magi and the massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem agree, it is
true, in a striking manner with the Jewish ideas touching the star of the Messiah foretold
by Balaam, and with the precedent afforded by the sanguinary order given by Pharaoh ;
but this alone would not suffice to authorise us in regarding with certainty these two nar
ratives as mythical. But there is added the circumstance, that what is told of the star
contradicts natural laws, and what is attributed to Herod, the laws of the human mind ;
that the historian Josephus, who gives so many details regarding Herod, preserves silence,
as do other historical documents, in relation to the massacre at Bethlehem; and that
the visit of the Magi, with the flight into Egypt, according to one of the evangelists,
and the presentation of the child in the temple, according to another, deny and exclude
each other. When in this way all the criterions of the mythical concur, the result is
certain; and, in all cases, it is certain the more numerous and the more characteristic
the criterions are which you discover.

" In the second place, a narrative, taken in itself, may have perhaps little, if any thing,
of a mythical nature : but it stands as a part of other narratives ; it is related by the same
author as other accounts which are proved by irrefragable signs to belong to the domain
of myths, and which, in consequence, cast a suspicion on the first narrative . Thus every
narrative, however marvellous it may be, presents natural circumstances which in them-
27

28 STKAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIK OPINIONS.

selves might be historical, but which, by their union with the rest, become equally
dubious.

" This is the rule : In the case in which not only the details of an event are suspected
at the bar of criticism, and its external mechanism is exaggerated, but also the substance
even is not acceptable to reason, or is conformed in a striking manner to the ideas then
entertained by the Jews respecting the Messiah in this case, not only the pretended
circumstances, but the entire affair, ought to be considered as not historical."*

We have thus given, in the very words of the author, the chief
part of the contents of sections 14 and 15 of his introduction ; think
ing it to be important, that the reader should have Strauss himself
as the expositor of his doctrines, in that particular which constitutes
the essence of his work. Here, too, in his doctrine of the myth, is
found the novelty and peculiarity of his system. It is true, indeed,
that this is not the first time that the scholar meets with this mode
of interpretation, or rather with this instrument of destruction. The
appeal to mythology is an old weapon, employed by the enemies of
Christianity, which Strauss has taken from their armoury, and made
use of for his own purposes. An admission of his own to this effect
may be read in the eighth and ninth section of his introduction,
though he does not intimate that the real origin of his notion is to
be found in those early assailants of the Gospel, the Emperor
Julian and the philosopher Celsus. There may have been some
prudence in this silence ; for if the religion of Christ has survived
for many centuries the blow which this same arrow directed against
it when scarcely out of its childhood, its friends may well, now in
the days of its maturity, regard without alarm a missile, the efficacy
of which has more than once been tried in vain. Nor was it against
any fact of less importance than the resurrection that this missile was
sent by arms as vigorous as in primitive times, as those of Celsus
and Julian ; and in modern days, Spinosa and Woolston.f The
sole novelty, however, which Strauss can fairly claim, is found in
the facts, that he has attempted to define more strictly the idea of
the myth, and to discriminate between it and kindred influences
and conceptions ; and that he has not only presented, but employed
it systematically and thoroughly as a means of getting rid of every
thing in the Gospels which wears a supernatural hue.

A full examination of the system of myths will be given before
this volume is completed. In this general review, one or two
observations will suffice.

We here find a certain creative process asserted. As being
creative, it must have possessed internal and quickening power.

* Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 15, third edition.

t The passages on which this representation is made are given in the brochure, Das
Unhaltbare der Ansicht des L. J. mich D. Strauss, von Gelpke, Grimma, 1826, p. 11 17.
See also Beard s " Historical Evidence of Christianity Unassailable," in reply to Tay
lor and Carlisle ; and " A Discourse on the Miracles of our Saviour," by Thomas
Woolston, p. 4.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 29

What was that power? The general state of the public mind.
The alleged power did not exist in fact; and, had it existed, it
would have been unequal to the assigned effect. In regard to the
Jewish nation, there was no one view of the Messiah which was
general ; but there were several, and, in some particulars, conflicting
views. But diversity and conflict in such a case is weakness.
In particular, no one circle of Jewish conceptions regarding the
Messiah contained the idea of his death. Yet Jesus died; and
that death, of itself, was enough to destroy any former coherence
which might attach to a Jewish conception of the Messiah. Had
there, however, prevailed any one, and no other than one, set of
Jewish ideas regarding the Messiah, these ideas could form nothing
more than grounds for recognising as the Messiah him whose birth,
doctrine, deeds, and personal qualities, corresponded with the ex
pectation. Had Jesus the required qualities? Then was he the
Messiah. Had he them not ? Then how could that be ascribed to
him which could be ascribed only to the recognised Messiah ? In
truth, these conceptions were only a set of signs. The sign does
not create, but judge. The Messiah must have been acknowledged
before he could have been embellished. Without this acknow
ledgment, there was nothing for the imagination to work upon.
The system sets the effect in the place of the cause. Far more
easy is it to understand how Jesus created the church, than how
the church created Jesus. Great changes in society are never pro
duced without a very decided personal influence. The system of
myths has no such influence. It is, on the contrary, a mere play
of the imagination.

But there were, at a very early period, Gentile converts and Gen
tile churches. They were destitute of these elements of mythical
power. How, then, came they to believe ? The prevailing tone of
their minds was hostile to the character and pretensions of Christ.
Yet they received him. The alleged cause in this case altogether
fails. The assumed fact has no existence. Is it said, that the
myth converted Jews, and the Jews converted heathens ? But by
what means ? It is a moral and an intellectual change of which we
speak ; and there must have been a corresponding instrumentality.
Was the myth employed ? It could not be, for the appeal would
have been powerless with the heathen. What, then, was employed?
Facts and doctrines, which suppose, imply, assert, and prove the
reality of the historical Christ, which the Gospels, the Acts, and
the Epistles, unite to set before us.

We add, that, if you make Jesus into a Jewish rabbi, who taught
in agreement with Jewish notions touching the Messiah, we see not
why he should have been put to death ; nor why, after he was put
to death, and so had been stripped of his borrowed plumes, he
should then have been received, when he had been convicted of
error, if not falsehood. Nor, if possible, still less can we under-,
stand how, if, according to the mythical system, Jesus did nothing

30 STBAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

great or extraordinary, nothing beyond what Gamaliel or Socrates
performed, no miracle, how, under such circumstances, he could
have produced results of so extraordinary a kind. In our opinion,
the attempt to account for the rise and progress, the character and
influence of Christianity, without miracle, is so futile as to be
utterly unworthy men who profess to study history, and know the
human heart. Unquestionable facts lead, by a necessary and
inevitable sequence, to a miraculous original. No adequate cause
of Christianity and if no adequate, then no cause at all can be
assigned which does not presuppose the exertion of supernatural
influences. This is so clear to our mind, appears to ensue so
immediately from facts which are either before our eyes or written
clown in the broad page of unquestioned history, that we are uncon
sciously led, so soon as we meet with an author who denies the
alleged miracles of the gospel, to cast about in order to discover
what is the alien influence under which his mind has been misled.
In the case of Strauss, this alien influence is a modified Hegelian-
ism. It is beyond a question, that the idea of turning the entire
gospel history into a series of myths had its impulse, if not its
origin, in the philosophy of Hegel. This is admitted by the
school. Their position is, that the human mind, unknowingly and
instinctively, framed by anticipation the dogmas of the fall, original
sin, the Trinity, and the God-man, as a sort of popular expression
of the Hegelian doctrines. Accordingly, Strauss holds that the
first Christians, unintentionally and without fraud, threw a covering,
derived immediately from their own minds, over the few scanty facts
of the real history of Christ. There is a passage in the preface to
his first edition, full of significance in relation to the point now
before us :

" In our clay the best informed and most able theologians are generally destitute of one
fundamental condition, without which nothing can be effected in the department of criti
cism: that condition is a mind and a heart free from certain religious and dogmatic
suppositions ; and, at an early period, the author acquired this freedom by philosophical
studies."

By the side of this we place the following words:

" There is no right conception of what history is, apart from a conviction that the chain
of endless causation can never be broken, and that a miracle is an impossibility." *

This, taken in connexion with our other quotations from Strauss,
amounts to the assertion, that, in order to judge, you must first have
renounced Christianity ; nay, more, you must have formed in your
own mind a system of indubitable indubitable, because necesaary
troths, which imply and recognise the impossibility of the things
related as facts in the gospel narrative. Before you begin to inquire
into the historical evidence for miracle, you must be convinced that

Strauss, Leben Jesu, Einleitung, 6, 4th edition.

STEAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 31

miracle is an impossibility. The admission of an ultra-Hegelianism
is an indispensable preparation for the study of the New Testament.
To us, however, such a study seems altogether supererogatory after
these admissions and convictions. The philosophy in question is,
in itself, a denial of the fundamental, the all-pervading idea of the
gospel the intervention for the salvation of the world, by means
of a special instrumentality, of a personal God, the God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ. After having repudiated such an inter
position as impossible, Hegel s system may spare itself the trouble
of giving attention to any form of positive religion whatsoever,
and certainly can find in the gospel nothing but difficulties, the
substance of which, as it cannot solve them, it has no other course
than boldly to deny.

It is, then, very easy to account for the hostile position which
Strauss has taken up. Nothing can be clearer than that the neces
sity for the course of proceeding which he has adopted comes from
his speculations, and specifically from his pantheistic notions. If
God never intervenes specially, but all things in the universe
proceed in one chained and unbroken order of antecedents and
consequences chained and unbroken as much in relation to
human apprehensions as to reality ; if, in truth, there is properly
no God to intervene, then miracle, which looks to God as its
specific cause, and implies some outward or inward departure
from the ordinary course of events, is utterly out of the question ;
every miraculous narrative is false ; and philosophers can have
nothing to do with books which contain accounts of supernatural
events, except they condescend to tell the world, how, without a
God, such books, by the natural magic of myths, came into exist
ence. The moment miracle becomes inadmissible to a theologian,
the Gospels, according to the ordinary interpretation put upon
them, are an enigma, which, by some skill or other, must be solved;
else the philosophy itself may be endangered. In a case like this,
argument in favour of miracles is bootless ; for miracles there cannot
be in a system of pantheism. If you prove, that the Gospels were
written by the authors to whom they are ascribed, and within a
sufficiently early period of Christian history ; if you bring forward
witnesses, to whose credibility no exceptiqp. can be taken ; if you
also show, that Christianity is a doctrine HKhy of all acceptance,
and has been an immeasurable blessing to the world, you still effect
nothing with Strauss: he is entrenched behind his speculations;
your missiles reach him not : he has a simple and a decisive
answer to all you urge " Miracles are an impossibility,"* for there
is no God to work them. And did we believe that pantheism
unhappily prevailed in this country, we should not have taken the
course we are pursuing in this volume. Then the only argument

Strauss, Streitscbriften, iii. H. p. 01.

32 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

worth adducing in such an issue would be one showing that pan
theistic views of God and nature are as false as they are baneful.
In the actual case, however, there is no risk in predicting, that the
gospel itself will serve as a sufficient confutation of pantheism.
When the human mind is the judge, there can be no fear as to
which will gain the cause.

The reader will easily perceive how deeply the writer of the so-
termed "Life of Jesus" was, as a philosopher, concerned to find
grounds of impeachment^ against the Gospels. He went to them
for that very purpose. He went to them with a full assurance, that
they were not and could not be true. He went to them merely to
ascertain by what possible theory their origin could be plausibly
accounted for. What, in such a case, could be expected but a
result .adverse to these narratives ? We do not mean by these re
marks to imply, that Strauss made the difficulties which he professes
to find. By no means. Difficulties there are in the Gospels. But
this is clear, that the state of mind in which Strauss approached
the New Testament was least, of all others, favourable to the
discovery of truth ; that he could not avoid, under its influence,
searching with lynx-eyed diligence for all possible objections, or
exaggerating such objections as may really be found, if, indeed,
he should not sometimes be unconsciously led to suppose, or even
feign, difficulties where they had no real existence. Only one
result could there be, and that of no medium character. Unreality
must be reported of the Gospels from one end to the other, because,
from one end to the other, they are narratives of miracle. Here
and there, indeed, might a substantial fact be admitted; but its
miraculous accompaniments throw suspicion over it. So far as
Strauss is consistent with himself, he was bound and pledged to
bring in a verdict which should deprive the Gospels of all authority.
His opinion, therefore, can carry but little weight with it, if it does
not become positively suspected. At all events, we can account
for his hostility, and well understand the destructive efficacy of his
criticism. His own theory may here be turned against him. He
alleges that many things are recorded of Jesus under the feeling,
that so must it be because Jesus was the Messiah. This, at least, is
certain, that an unyiel^ng necessity lay upon Strauss ; for, if the
Gospels were true, they must be false : if Jesus did ascend into
heaven, he must be in the dust, otherwise an impossible alternative,
Hegel is not infallible : so, wherein other enemies of Christianity
had failed, the wonder-working power of the myth is brought to
bear, and all the necessities of the case are fully answered.

That his philosophy has been Strauss s leading influence in his
attack on the Gospels ; that as he left Christianity under its guid
ance, so only by the guidance of philosophy he can return ; that it
is useless to offer to Strauss, explanations of the alleged Scriptural
difficulties ; and that, were these difficulties fewer than they are,
nay, were there in reality none whatever might be imagined, he

STKAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 33

would still, with his present philosophical views, remain an enemy
to the gospel, appears very clear from the following words :

" When, in the first place, a solution of the difficulties which I find in the Biblical
history, satisfactory to myself, is put before me ; and when, secondly, a solution of the
philosophical views which I have against the possibility of a miracle, then will I allow
myself to be convinced."* "A miraculous operation upon natural objects, or products of
art, as turning water into wine, multiplication of loaves, admits of no possible expla
nation. Even the conception of such a possibility is so far out of the question, that I
must lose my senses, before I could receive any thing of the kind."t

With these convictions, Strauss would, we cannot help thinking,
have acted a more straightforward and ingenuous part, had he sim
ply given up Christianity altogether. Finding an impossibility at
the very door of the sheepfold, he had nothing to do but to retire, and
can hardly be justified in taking a course which calls to mind the
words of the great Shepherd, how that the stranger climbeth up
some other way, in order to kill and to destroy.! The remark goes
on the supposition, that Christianity is essentially a supernatural
system ; and we confess our astonishment, that it should be other
wise regarded. But, if there be any who hold it to be possible to
separate its miracle from the gospel without changing its nature,
that person is not Strauss, who is of opinion, that the gospel of the
evangelists is full of miracles which no art of interpretation can
explain away. To him miracle is plainly inscribed on the porch of
the Christian church. He confessedly saw and read the inscription :
he disbelieved it ; yet he went into the church as a disciple, if not
a believer, and even held that he had a right to remain.

The theologians of the Strauss school, grown bolder by time,
have now no hesitation to declare, that the great question at issue
is one not of scriptural interpretation or historic testimony, but of
philosophic possibility. Thus, in reply to a question put by Doedes,
in his recent work, De Jesu in Vitam Reditu^ whether the
belief in the resurrection could, without the event, have grown up
of itself, a theological critic || observes :

" If this question must be answered in the negative, criticism is not without resource ;
and inquiry nftist direct itself to the question, whether miracle is possible, whether God
is personal, what the relation is which he bears to the world. The controversy about
the resurrection cannot be separated from first principles. If you are disposed to belief
in regard to miracles, the dispute about other matters is light; but first principles must be
settled on philosophical and dogmatic grounds, before the interpretation of the Scriptures
can take effect."

In other words, before you are in a condition to believe that an
event took place, you must be able to show how it could have taken
place. In regard to every alleged fact, the modus operandi has to
be comprehended ere you are justified in giving your assent. The

* Streitsclmfteii, Heft iii. p. 18. + Streit. iii. 154. { John x. 1, 10.
Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1841. |j Allgemeines Eepertorinm, 45 B. 4te Heft, p. 51 .
03 F

34 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

position, to have any weight, must be insisted on universally ;, but,
if insisted on universally, it would utterly destroy conviction ; for in
no case do we know more than effects : causes lie beyond the reach
of our minds. It is true that a certain system, like that of Hegel,
may have in its stock of symbols no one by which a miracle could
be produced ; but this want may disprove the philosophy, rather
than the gospel. An aged minister once said, " Explain to me the
wonders of nature, and then I will explain to you the wonders of
the kingdom of Christ." In truth, the entire universe is a sphere
of marvels, of which we know nothing but the antecedents and the
consequences. The grass grows without our being able to divine
the secrets of its vitality. The sun shines and vivifies, though we
know not the sources of his power. The why and the how are hid
den from the human mind, not more in the gospel than in nature.
At the utmost, it is only a few short paces that we can trace the
ever-retreating powers which produce the effects that we witness on
every hand. The divine and the human are united the spiritual
and the natural, the everlasting and the perishable ; but the bond
escapes from mortal sight. An antepedent is, we know, required
for every event. The essential laws of our mental being demand
what we term an adequate cause ; and it is only when, in any case,
that cause is reached, that the mind is at rest. Nor let it be sup
posed, that, in the case of the gospel miracles, such a cause is
wanting. God is assigned as the cause ; a cause equal, as to
create, so to restore, human life. It is no answer to say, that God
works in all things; since, though his operation is in all, it varies
in manner and degree, now sustaining the leviathan, now inspir
ing Milton, now guiding innumerable worlds, and now animating
the soul and raising the body of his dear Son. If, indeed, there is
no God, there can be no miracle. With atheism for a first princi
ple, it may be impossible to show how a miracle can be : but even
atheism cannot disprove the possibility of a miracle ; since it can
not presume to say, in a world where there is no governing Mind,
what combinations may take place, what extraordinary junctions
may be formed, what new analogies may be developed, what
marvellous facts may transpire. Where all is chance, all is uncer
tain ; and the attempt to reason from the past to the present or the
future is utterly idle. But as philosophy cannot show miracle to
be impossible, so is it enough for the Christian to prove, that on his
ground there is no inherent improbability in miracles; since, the
moment this is done, testimony may step in, and give its evidence.
If it is asserted that analogy is against miracle, we ask what analogy ?
General analogy is out of the question. What has the ebb and flow
of the tide to do with the introduction of a new religion ? Analogy
is of value only in things of a like nature. The case before us is
the establishment of the gospel. To what class of facts does this
belong ? Where can we look for our analogies ? Only to Moses,
and there we find miracles, Revelation is a case per se. It is a

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 35

special disclosure of truth touching God, duty, and eternity ; and, in
consequence, cannot take rank with other things in which the human
and the ordinary predominate. Vain, in consequence, is it to look for
similarity to civilisation, philosophies, social institutions, worldly
wisdom. Revelation stands by itself, and has its own analogies.
Besides, it betrays an ignorance of the nature of the argument to
demand analogies for the justification of miracle. Miracle has force
of evidence, because it is not analogical. In its very essence it is
extraordinary, and cannot therefore form part of any regular sequence.
It is God made manifest in a way to rouse attention, and lead the
thoughts, together with the affections, at once to him.

A miracle, then, is not a contravention of the laws of nature.
There is no force, no compulsion. Simply, a new antecedent
comes into action, and a new consequent necessarily ensues. The
operation, instead of being opposed to, is in strict harmony with,
pre-existing laws. The cause is precisely adapted to the condition
of the thing to be operated on, and to the desired effect. It is but
a change of key in the grand chorus of nature ; and there is the
hand of the divine musician ready to take the needful means for pro
ducing the change which he wills. A ball struck by a projectile force
goes straight forward. If a similar impulse is made to act at right
angles with the first force, the ball takes the diagonal of the paral
lelogram. Is the second power a violation of any law ? Yet it changes
the result. Thus the mind of the Deity wills an unusual effect, and
a corresponding change ensues. The multiform changes which the
science of chemistry offers, may afford similar illustrations. White
becomes black, sweet becomes bitter, a noxious becomes a whole
some beverage, by the smallest changes in the antecedents ; and
each antecedent produces its own effect. Is the mind of Deity the
only power in the universe which cannot, of its own free motion,
and by its own resources, produce alterations in created things ?

If the reader inquires whether there is no other course than that
pursued by Strauss, the answer is Not in the opinion of our author.
Strauss is too good a logician not to pay every respect to the esta
blished forms of argumentation : "It has appeared to the author
of this work, that it was time to substitute a new method of con
sidering the history of Jesus to the worn-out idea of a supernatural
intervention, and of a naturalist explanation." In these modest
terms does he introduce his work to the public, leading those who
look no further than the first few lines of his preface to suppose,
that he had discovered a theory which should remove all difficulties,
and make " the history of Jesus " to be universally accepted. These
words are, however, a brief epitome of his work. They show what
his office was in surveying the Gospels, and equally they show
what he has attempted to accomplish. His position is : " Mira
cles are not, and never were ; the explanation of the naturalists is
untenable ; therefore 1 must find another theory ; that theory must
be consistent with my philosophy." The doctrine of myths was the

36 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEJK OPINIONS.

result. In order to make good each step in this process, it was
necessary that Strauss should show, that the two previous modes of
interpretation were untenable to preserve his own" allusion, were
grown old, if not actually dead. Accordingly, he has a two-edged
sworcl in all his dealings with the evangelical narratives. With one
he slays Paulus and the rationalistic method: with the other he
slays Olshausen and miracle. Such is his procedure. Going from
the birth of Christ to his ascent into heaven, he proves (to his own
satisfaction) that the former methods of viewing each separate nar
rative and each single event are naught, whereby room is made for
the intervention of his mythical interpretation. He first clears the
field of competitors, and then claims the victory.

Nor can it be denied that he has dealt a fatal blow at that system
of explaining the gospel narratives, which resolves every thing into
merely natural, that is ordinary, causes. The purely naturalist
school of theology has no answer to give. They can never repair the
breaches Strauss has made in their strongholds. Hereafter the con
test must be with a miraculous gospel, and the myths, or some other
philosophical figment. Strauss deserves thanks for thus clearing the
ground, and narrowing the argument. He has proved beyond a doubt,
that the Gospels are miraculous in their texture, that the writers
intended to assert miracle, and that they believed in the miracles
whose reality they affirmed. How they came by this conviction is
now the sole question. Will the system of myths solve the problem ?
or are we of necessity driven to recognise a higher power ? This
simplification of the question at issue is a great service, which our
author has unintentionally rendered to Christianity.

It is, however, not a little curious to observe, that Strauss, who
has dealt so unmercifully with the naturalist theologians, is himself
only a naturalist of another school. What but nature does he
recognise ? God, with him, is solely an abstraction, having no
individual existence, except in the mind of man; and therefore
there is, in his treasury, 110 resources but such as man and the out
ward world supply for his exigencies as a theologian. His own
argument, then, may be called in to aid in confuting himself. He
has proved the insufficiency of the ordinary naturalist explanation ;
and all that remains for Christians to do is to show, that myths are
as unequal to the task as other merely natural causes. The elimi
nation of error is the establishment of truth. Strauss has put an
end to mere naturalism : his own system is by himself set in con
flict with the only competitor, miracle. Show the insufficiency of
myths to account for acknowledged effects, and super naturalism
remains alone in the field.

Such, there is no doubt in our mind, will be the result ; a result
to which Strauss will have contributed in another way than that
already pointed out. Discussion is the best ally of truth. Never
were historical documents subjected to a severer criticism than that
which the author of the Lc bcn Jcsn has applied to the Gospels.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 37

The consequence has been a fresh study, and new modes of defence,
on the part of their friends. Their real character has come to be
better understood, and their claims are more precisely estimated.
Strauss regarded them as formal histories ; and, in criticising their
contents, he applied the rules and criterions which would be appli
cable to the works of Thucydides, Tacitus, Gibbon, or Hallam.
Of course he finds innumerable faults, objections, contrarieties. If,
first, a false estimate is made of any composition, or circle of com
positions, it is then very easy to arrive at adverse conclusions. But
the Gospels are rather arguments than histories ; or, at least, they
are only histories, so far as historical, or rather biographical, particu
lars were required by the argument. And as the argument which
each writer had to conduct varied at least in colouring, if not some
what in substance, in order to meet the specific state of mind to
which his gospel was addressed ; so the precise details chosen out of
the general storehouse of evangelical facts, as well as the particular
line of illustration taken in each case, could not but differ in the
same manner, and to the same extent ; and thus lead to diversities
which false views will misunderstand, and corrupt ones exaggerate,
while both may equally do a serious disservice to the religion of
the cross.

Much has been said which may afford aid to the reader in com
prehending how a man of Strauss s abilities, learning, and candour,
may have arrived at conclusions so adverse to the historical reality
of the gospel narratives. Another remark of considerable weight
may, however, be introduced into this general summary. It is to
no small extent owing to the fact that our author takes every thing
in the Gospels at the worst, that he is able to make out a prima facie
case against them, and thus prepare the way for the introduction of
his own hypothesis. When we say that he takes every thing at the
worst, we mean that in any case where a word or a fact admits of two
interpretations, he gives the preference to that one which makes
against Christianity and for himself. Here the force of his precon
ceived opinions is perpetually made manifest; here his philosophical
bias comes constantly into play. Such a course we think equally
wrong with that which will allow no difficulties to exist in the
Scriptures ; but which, in the employment of every means, even that
of denying obvious facts, maintains that all, as proceeding directly
from the Divine Spirit, is in harmony, ideas no less than prin
ciples, words no less than ideas, as well as the least considerable
circumstances. The duty of the critic obviously is, not to carry his
own mind into the narratives of the New Testament, but to elicit
from its records the facts and truths which are there contained.
And in the case in which, two interpretations being equally admis
sible, the one would be in accordance, the other in conflict, with
other parts of the history, or with well-known facts, the first surely
has a right to be preferred. You prefer the second : why ?
Because you believe that the writer was a deceiver or a dupe. We

38 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

know no other reason that can be assigned. Perhaps your conclu
sion rests on your practice of taking every thing at the worst for his,
and at the best for your own, views. If so, your conclusion has no
value. If, however, your conclusion is founded on independent
evidence, then your proper position is that, not of an interpreter,
but of an assailant ; and we shall know what value to put upon your
opinions in any case where your bias may come into operation.
To an assailant whose business it is to make out a case against a
writer, the plan of turning every thing to his disadvantage may be
natural, but is scarcely creditable, and cannot fail to exert an un
favourable influence with the judicious and the impartial.

The opposite course is, in our opinion, the one which justice
demands. We say that, in a case where there is an exact balance
between two explanations, that should be preferred which is in agree
ment with the general tenor of the narrative, and makes for the system
of which the writer avows himself an advocate or a herald. And our
ground for this position is this: that analogy is in favour of the
authenticity and credibility of books in general, and especially of
those books which successive ages have taken care to transmit to the
present day. To sustain this ground, lengthened argument is not
necessary. It may suffice to state the undoubted fact, that, of all
the books which antiquity has sent down to us, a very small propor
tion indeed have been convicted of spuriousness and falsehood by
the rigorous processes of modem criticism. Most ancient works,
there is good reason to believe, are authentic and credible in the
main. This is a fact which is not without its causes. Those causes
are of a general nature. No inconsiderable one is this: that
antiquity, and successive generations, do not, without good reason,
put their stamp on a work ; and, consequently, a work which has
that stamp carries on its surface a testimony in its favour, and must
be presumed to be genuine until shown to be false. One great
principle of our English law expresses the same truth in different
words : " A man is to be accounted innocent until he is proved to
be guilty/ Any work, therefore, which has generally been received
as authentic and true, has, for that very reason, a prima facie
demand on our credence. If any book, then Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. And as Matthew, for instance, comes into my hands
with a presumption in favour of his being a trustworthy writer, I am
clearly bound to suppose, that as the whole, so each part, is credible,
until the reverse is demonstrated. But if there is a presumption in
favour of each part, then it is also presumed that each part is not
only true in itself, but accordant with every other part. Accordingly,
if, from the ambiguity of language, or any other cause, a word or a
passage admits of two meanings one agreeing, the other disagree
ing, with fact, or other parts of the work in such a case, I am
required to take the first, and reject the second. Justice requires
this. The position is a law of sound criticism. We are asking no
favour, only fair play. We are not bringing into the sphere of

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 39

interpretation the already-formed elements of Christian faith; we
are not putting the preacher and the divine in the professional chair
of theology. We make the claim at the tribunal of the human
mind.

If there is force in these remarks, then Strauss must be con
demned of unfairness, should we be able to show, that, in cases
where there is an exact equilibrium, he has given preference to that
interpretation which was most unfavourable to his author ; and how
much more unfair will he appear to be, if he is proved to have leaned
to what was detrimental to the evangelists, against the force even of
a slight preponderance in their favour ?

The establishment and illustration of the implications contained
in the last sentence, in all the fulness of which they are susceptible,
would require a volume, and we have only a page at our disposal.
It must, therefore, suffice to have indicated a general fact, whose
operation in the criticism of Strauss will obviously go far to account
for the adverse decision which, as a judge in the case, he has given
of the credibility of the Gospels. Yet as the fact thus indicated is
one of a general bearing, and especially as it tends to qualify the
reputation for candour which the author of the "Life of Jesus" has
obtained from opponents who, in wishing to be just, have perhaps
been sometimes a little too generous, we shall give an instance or
two which may serve at once to illustrate the tenor of these observa
tions, and justify the charge of some degree of unfairness which we
make against Strauss.

In Matt, xxvii. 45, it is said, that at the crucifixion " there was
darkness over all the land;" Markxv. 33 says, " there was darkness
over the whole land ; " Luke xxiii. 44, " there was a darkness over
all the earth." Let the reader observe, that what Matthew terms
" land," Luke is made to designate " earth." In truth, the word is
the same in the original. The variation, however, in the rendering
of the original shows the two significations of which the word is
capable land and earth. In one case, our translators have pre
ferred " land ;" in the other, "earth." Let it be supposed, that
the one rendering is as good as the other. Then, why should
Strauss take that as the sole meaning which he can best turn against
the sacred penmen ? Is such a step fair and candid ? This, how
ever, is what he does. These are his words :

"Without doubt, atmospheric obscurations may extend over entire countries; but it is
not the less true, that, when the evangelists relate that the darkness extended over the
whole land (or earth), that is, according to the most natural explanation, over the entire
globe, this must be considered as an exaggeration. Besides, according to the tenor of
their narrative, they manifestly suppose that this darkness had a supernatural cause ; but
this supposition is devoid of all foundation, seeing that such a miracle is without an
adequate end."

Now, all this rests on the assumption, that earthy not land, was
what the evangelists meant. If, on the contrary, they intended

40 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

land, not earthy then, by the admission of the objector himself,
there is no difficulty. He first makes the difficulty, and then, in
the second place, turns it to his own account, in order to bring the
sacred writers into discredit. On so unreal a ground is it, on an
assumption made by their assailant, that they are first charged with
exaggeration, and then with putting forth as miracle what was 110
miracle at all. By such unfair dealing does Strauss get to his
favourite doctrine of myths.

But let the reader remark how Strauss extends the meaning of
the word rendered land or earth. First he rejects land, and prefers
earth ; then earth is taken in the modem sense of " the entire
globe ;" and this extension is made in order to show the improba
bility of the alleged miracle : "So wide-spread a darkness could
have had no reasonable end, and did not therefore take place.
Consequently, this is all an exaggeration." Granted ; but whose
exaggeration is it ? The exaggeration of a foe to the gospel,
vamped up for his own purposes. Mainly it must be so, under
any circumstances ; for what could the evangelists know of " the
entire globe," in the modern import of these words ? Their earth
was a very circumscribed portion of " the entire globe." " The
entire globe," with Strauss, means the western as well as the eastern
hemisphere, the new world no less than the old world; the disco
veries at the two poles, as well as the islands in the South Pacific.
This, in regard to comprehensiveness, is what Strauss and his readers
understand by " the entire globe." But the earth, with Matthew,
was at most the Roman empire. Strauss has, then, in order to dis
parage Matthew, fixed on him ideas which Matthew could not have
had. Strauss can invent a charge, and yet claim for his criticism
the name and the demonstrative force of science !

We have intimated, that the original word may be indifferently
rendered land or earth. In truth the term yn (ghe), and its corre
sponding Hebrew word, denoted very different things according as
the knowledge of the earth expanded amongst the ancient Israelites,
and according as the writer intended to speak of a particular district,
or of the earth generally. That intention may be gathered from the
context ; but in no case could an ancient Jew mean what we under
stand by " the entire globe." In the instance before us, there is
nothing whatever to justify the preference given by Strauss. His
assumption of earth, instead of land, is altogether gratuitous; while
his transmutation of earth into ylole is so much of difficulty created
by himself. The term yrj is frequently applied to the land of
Judea, and even to the country about Jerusalem, and to the
district surrounding other cities. Thus in Matt. ii. 20, " Arise
and take the young child and his mother, and go [from Egypt] into
the land of Israel ;" Matt. x. 15, " It shall be more tolerable for the
land of Sodom and Gomorrah;" Matt. xiii. 6, "Seed fell into
good (/round. 1 " In order to make the distinction clear, we cite
another passage, where earth is obviously the correct rendering :

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 41

Matt. xii. 42, " The queen of the south came /rom the uttermost
parts of the earth" Here the import of the passage shows beyond
a doubt, that the earth in a general sense was meant ; but what is
there, in regard to the darkness at the crucifixion, which has a simi
lar effect ? The writers are manifestly speaking of that which was
observed and known at Jerusalem. They speak of a particular
spot of earth, and to that spot their observations naturally apply ;
nay, to that spot must they be referred, unless they themselves
render this reference improper by the language they employ. The
duty of the interpreter is to get to the mind of the writer whose
meaning he professes to expound. Here all the circumstances of
the case conspire to limit the words to that district or country in
which the writers were, and of which they spoke.

The case, therefore, is not one merely of equiponderant evidence.
The balance inclines in favour of the restrictive term land or coun
try. How great, then, is the " exaggeration " which Strauss commits
in making it equivalent to "the entire globe" ! Such a dealing with
facts and evidence cannot fail to throw suspicion over his work.

But all the consequences of this assumption and this invention
are not yet before the reader. The conclusion gained by these im
proper means is made to bear on another part of the narrative. The
evangelical writer records an earthquake, and, as one of its natural
effects, the sundering of rocks. What is to be done in this case ? If
a miracle is admitted, Strauss may at once terminate his labours, and
give up his theory. Yet the simple narrative itself supplies nothing
which he can turn to account ; for a more artless or a briefer record
there could not be no poetical adornment, no legendary details.
The case in itself seems hopeless. An appeal, therefore, is made
to previous conclusions: "The record can be judged only in
connexion with what has gone before." Thus, a conclusion gained
by improper means is appealed to, in order to discredit one of the
simplest records found in the pages of history.

But our author has not thus attained more than a presumption
against the fact. More, of course, is needed in order to destroy its
historical credibility. How can the work be carried on ? Com
pelled fo admit that there is nothing improbable in an earthquake,
nor in a consequent sundering of rocks, he adds :

" But it lias been employed as a poetical or mythical ornament at the death of a great
man ; as Virgil relates, that the death of Caesar was attended, not only by an obscuration
of the sun, but an extraordinary shaking of the Alps."

Therefore, concludes the critic, there is no reality in the passage.
Is not this a strange inference ? A poet adorns his narrative by
suitable imagery. This imagery happens to bear a resemblance
to a fact recorded by an historian ; therefore, the historian is not to
be believed, though his record is most simple, his tone most serious,
and the subject on which he writes surpassing every other in gravity
and importance.

u 41

42 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

Strauss, appearing to be aware that his logic here halts pitiably,
attempts to give it a crutch by stating, that Matthew is the only one
of the evangelists who speaks of the earthquake. What of that ?
Matthew is clearly one too many for our critic. The reader will
easily perceive, that, to a person who uses historical materials after
this manner, there can be no insuperable difficulty in appearing
to destroy their value, or in arriving at any desired conclusion.

The exclamation of the centurion " Truly this was a righteous
man" seems too natural, under the circumstances, to be denied.
But that exclamation is a testimony to Jesus, and therefore must
not be allowed to stand. Will the reader believe, that Strauss im
peaches its credibility, by reference to the conclusion of which we
have spoken ? Such is the fact.

" This exclamation was extracted from the Roman officer by the earthquake, and by
the other phenomena which accompanied the death of Jesus ; but the historical reality of
this exclamation, thus relying on these pretended miracles, falls with them."

The instances of unfairness which we have now given, are not
selected nor taken from different parts of the " Life of Jesus." The
simple truth is, that we happened, for another object, to be reading,
while this essay was under our hand, his criticism ( 134) on the
prodigies which accompanied the death of Jesus ; and these (with
other) specimens of the way in which Strauss sometimes pursues
his course, presented themselves within the space of a few pages.

The final effect of this criticism our readers should clearly and
fully understand, in order that they may know whither it is they are
invited to go, when Strauss offers himself to be their guide. We
would not, indeed, that any one should be deterred by consequences
from pursuing a course along which he is led by irresistible argu
ments. But, even in cases in which the chain of argumentation is
formed of links as obviously connected together as are the succes
sive parts of a mathematical demonstration, it is properly an object
of desire, that the student should know the intended result, if only
that he may, as he goes along, judge how far each branch of the
argument conduces or not, in a legitimate manner, to the ultimate
conclusion. But when no such strictness of logical connexion is
possible when each separate argument is made up only of vary
ing probabilities when often the utmost that can be gained
towards a general result is the slightest preponderance, and when
there may be no few considerations of equal or greater value on the
opposite side, in such a case (which, putting it at the worst for
Christianity, is more nearly the case before us than any rigorous
demonstration) then the result requires to be distinctly seen and
fully considered, because it will in all likelihood be found to stand
in relation with other facts, other branches of knowledge, the evi
dence derived from which may be sufficiently strong to turn the
balance, and alter the final decision. Besides, the heart has a
right to be heard in all moral questions, and is often found a surer

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 43

and a safer guide than the head. In the present instance, with
especial urgency may the heart put in its claim for the great reli
gious truths which concern life, death, and eternity : sin, pardon,
and redemption, if they have not (humanly) their origin, certainly
find their home and their nutriment, in the heart of man. The
rather, too, is this a case for the heart to make its voices heard in,
because Strauss has allowed it to have no influence whatever in the
processes through which he conducts his reader. Here, indeed,
with all its defects and all its faults, is the great defect and the great
fault of the book. Moral considerations are almost totally neglected.
Of profound and delicate moral estimates, the writer seems inca
pable. Whatever is open to the eye, whatever is palpable to the
touch, whatever is written down, all history and antiquities, distinct
processes of the logical faculty, and the vigorously-deduced for
mulas of an a priori philosophy, the author is skilled in so well as
to have scarcely his equal ; but he that would read history aright,
he that would expound the actions of human beings, he that aims
to be the interpreter of a book which, as much at least as any other,
is of a popular kind a book in which peasants, ordinary men and
women, sinful, mourning, diseased, afflicted, despairing, and trium
phant human beings, of almost all ages, as well as the learned, the
philosophic, the great, the violent, the unjust, and the wicked, are
made to fill and crowd the stage which, owing to the appearance
thereon of a confessedly superior personage, is all life and move
ment ; with more than one act of vivid interest, or heart-rending
pathos ; presenting altogether a drama of more awful import and
darker issue than any other real work; he that sits down to
explain a work containing elements such as these a work which
relates to a vanished state of society, and a people of strange tongue
and foreign manners, whose polity had come to an end ere the
elements of our present social system were produced must, if he
is to reap any solid and lasting success, be well versed in all the
moving powers of the human heart taking it as one of his first
principles, that those motives which lie on the surface are they
which have least influence over man s conduct, and that an entire
sphere of mysteries lie deep within each one s breast, which, how
ever to appearance shadowy, intangible, evanescent, and even
sometimes inappreciable they may be, constitute in truth the im
pulses which set men in motion, and the spring by which their
exertions are sustained. But of this most needful knowledge
Strauss appears to possess scarcely the rudiments. He reminds us
of those itinerant musicians who produce a certain harmony by
turning the handle of a machine. Were the mind of man a piece
of mechanism, his results might be less questionable. But he has
no native, no spontaneous musical skill. He can neither play at
sight, nor make music from his own breast. If you write down his
lesson, he may in time succeed in learning it ; and he is not an
indifferent player of old-fashioned and commonplace tunes : but
43

44 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

the soul of harmony is not in him, and therefore he cannot under
stand the moral harmonies of other men s souls, nor that of a grand
complex diversely-keyed piece like the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The consequences of his criticism are thus stated by Strauss
himself in the last dissertation of his book :

" The results of the inquiry which we have now completed have, it would seem,
annihilated the greatest and the most important part of what the Christian believes regard
ing Jesus, destroyed all the encouragements which he draws from that faith, dried up all
the consolations. The infinite treasure of truth and of life, which for eighteen centuries
has nourished human kind, appears dissipated for ever; all grandeur cast down into the
dust, God despoiled of his grace, man of his dignity, and the bond between heaven and
earth broken. Piety turns with horror from a crime so frightful ; and, in the boundless
certainty in which it cherishes its faith, it declares that, in spite of all the efforts of a daring
criticism, all that the Scripture says and the church believes in regard to Christ remains
eternally true, and that it is not possible to sacrifice a single syllable. Thus, in the con
clusion of the criticism of which the life of Jesus has been the object, there comes the
problem how to re-establish as faith what has been destroyed as history."

This problem the Hegelian philosophy is called upon to under
take. Strauss accordingly proceeds to make the attempt of restoring
the demolished edifice. The process through which he passes can
be likened to nothing so well as to that less unpleasing engagement
of the mind which is known probably to most of our readers under
the designation of building castles in the air.

One or two specimens, however, seem called for, in order that
the reader may clearly know what Strauss has to offer as a substitute
for an historical gospel, and a risen and glorified Saviour :

" If God is a spirit, it follows, as man also is a spirit, that in themselves the two are
not different. The knowledge of God as a spirit implies something more : the essential
property of the spirit is, while passing into another, to remain identical with itself, to possess
itself in another besides itself. This implies that God is not an inaccessible, infinite being,
who resides obstinately beyond and above the finite, but that he penetrates the finite; and
that finite nature that is to say, the world and the human mind is only a second self,
whence he eternally proceeds, in order to return eternally also into unity with himself.
Man has no truth, except as a finite spirit, and cleaving to his finite nature ; God, in his
turn, has no reality, except as an infinite spirit, and enclosing himself in his infinitude :
the infinite spirit is a real spirit, only when he opens himself to finite spirits ; so the
finite spirit is true, only when it sinks into the infinite. The true and real existence of
the spirit is, then, neither God in himself, nor man in himself, but it is the God-man : it is
neither his infinity alone, nor merely his finite nature, but it is the movement by which he
gives and withdraws himself to and from both a movement which, on the divine side,
is revelation ; on the human side, religion."

" If reality is ascribed to the idea of the unity of the divine and human natures, is this
to say that it is necessary it should have become real on one occaaion, in an indivi
dual, as it was never before, and never will be again ? This is not the manner in which
the idea is realised: it does not lavish all its riches on a single copy, to be miserly towards
all others ; it does not impress itself completely on this single copy, so as to leave on all
others only an imperfect impression ; but it loves to display its treasures in a variety of
copies, which complete each other, in an alternation of individuals who come and pass
away, each in his turn, And is not this a true realisation of the idea ? Is not the idea

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 45

of the unity of the divine and human natures if I conceive of humanity as a realisation
a real idea, in a sense infinitely more elevated than if I restrict this realisation to an
individual ? Is not an eternal incarnation of God more ti ue than an incarnation which
is limited to a point of time ?

" Such is the key of all knowledge of Christ. The subject of the attributes which the
church gives to Christ is, instead of an individual, an idea a real idea. Placed in an
individual, in a God-man, the properties and the functions which the church ascribes to
Christ contradict each other: they agree in the idea of the species. Human kind is
the union of the two natures, the God-made man ; that is to say, the infinite spirit which
has quitted itself so as to descend to finite nature, and the finite spirit "which remembers
its infinity. Human kind is the child of the visible mother and the invisible father of
the spirit and of nature. It is it which does miracles ; for, in the course of human history,
the spirit masters nature more and more completely, both within and without man ; and
nature, in presence of man, descends to play the part of inert matter, over which he exer
cises his powers. Human kind is impeccable, for the progress of its development is
irreproachable : pollution attaches only to the individual; it does not reach the species nor
its history. It is it which dies, rises, and ascends to heaven ; since for it, from the rejec
tion of its natural quality, there ensues a higher and higher spiritual life ; and from the
rejection of the finite, which limits it as an individual, rational, and planetary spirit, there
ensues its unity with the infinite spirit of the skies. By faith in this Christ, particularly
in his death and resurrection, man is justified before God; that is to say, that the indivi
dual himself, in vivifying in himself the idea of human kind, partakes of the divinely
human life of the species.

" This alone is the absolute foundation of Christianity the historical form of which
is the only cause which makes it appear to depend on the person and the history of an
individual. Schleiermacher was quite right when he said he felt that the opinion of
the speculative school scarcely left to the historical person of the Redeemer more than the
opinion of the Ebionites left him of old. The sensible history of the individual, says
Hegel, is only the starting point for the spirit."*

But enough. We can we need not pursue these visions
further. We have given them in as nearly as possible a literal
translation, in order that the reader may feel confident he has the
opinions of Strauss before him.

Here, then, on the showing of the author himself, is seen both
what Strauss destroys, and what he offers as a substitute. And the
sole historical remnant which he leaves is a Jewish rabbi, having
the name of Jesus Christ, and bearing to the human race the rela
tionship of genius :

" Criticism places Jesus in the category of individuals endowed with, high faculties,
whose vocation in the different walks of life is to raise the development of the spirit to
superior degrees ; individuals whom we ordinarily designate by the title of geniuses, in
the branches of knowledge that are not religious, and particularly in those of art and
science. This is not, it is true, to replace Christ in what, strictly speaking, is the Chris
tian sanctuary: it is merely to place him in the chapel of Alexander Severus, by the side
of Orpheus and Homer; where he finds himself not only near Moses, but Mahomet also ;

* Concluding chapter of the Leben 7Vw, third edition.
45

46 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

and where be ought not to disdain the company of Alexander and of Ceesar, of Raphael
and Mozart."*

It is not easy to write these things down with that coolness which
is demanded, whilst we are endeavouring to give a true and impar
tial account of Strauss s opinions. We will not therefore do more
here than mark our disapproval of these extraordinary words, which
are as injurious to Christ as they are painful to the Christian. In
strict consistency, however, the writer adds :

" As to the future, we have nothing, it would seem, to assure us there will not come
another who, though not expected by Christianity, may eqiial or even surpass Jesus Christ.
As Thales and Parmenides were succeeded by Socrates and Plato, and as, in religion, Moses
was followed by Christ ; as it is possible, in all other departments, to admit that the future
will bring forth geniuses equal, or even superior, to those which have already been pro
duced; so a similar possibility seems incontestable in regard to religion. Under all
circumstances, the later genius would be nearer to modern ages, more analogous to the
degree of their spiritual development, and more fit, consequently, to serve them as a type
of excellence, and an object of attachment. It results that a religious genius who, by
supposition, should rise in the future, though he were not endowed with higher faculties,
would nevertheless have more affinity than Christ with the pious souls of following ages."

We do not stop to show the impropriety of applying to a great
religious teacher a term which belongs exclusively to ait and sci
ence. We will admit, that our Lord is denominated a genius,
because that name best conveys the ideas of the writer; we will
also admit, that it would be improper, in this general sketch, to
take exception to any thing but that which is essential in the
theory thus put forward.

What, then, is the fundamental notion in this hypothesis ? It
is that the effects produced by Jesus Christ are attributable to high
personal endowments. This is a purely naturalist theory. It is
nature against miracles, in a new dress. It is essentially deistic,
save that there is no imputation of fraud. The power it supposes
is merely from below ; but then it is genuine and sound. In a word,
it offers us, as the cause of Christianity and its effects, the high
personal qualities of Christ, operating, of course, under the direc
tion and with the aid of mythology.

Now, genius produces well-known effects. It has on the page of
history, effects of its own ; high, lasting, and admirable effects ;
so numerous, so various, as to supply us with a means of discri
minating its operations from the operations of other great social
influences. Mohamedanism, the only other religious product of
genius, need not be taken into account, as it was mainly propagated
by the sword. Now, without entering into any general contrast
between the effects produced by genius, and the effects produced

* 149 section of the last Dissertation, second edition. In the fourth edition the passage
is omitted; but one almost identically the same may be found in his Streitschriften, 3 Heft,
p. 70, and folding, where the matter is more fully gone into.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 47

by the gospel, we ask, Is it an attribute of genius to present,
unfold, and enforce the idea of duty, and the claims of conscience,
in such a manner as to lead its disciples to endure all manner of
suffering, and finally to welcome even death, in attestation of cer
tain facts, and for a testimony to certain truths ? Genius excites
the imagination, stimulates the intellect, and so improves the moral
nature. The gospel goes at once to the heart and soul ; and, taking
its stand there, in the very depths of our nature, in our sense of
sin, our love of existence, our moral sympathies, moves the
entire of our being, by its awful truths and solemn disclosures ;
thus making men account not even their lives dear for the sake of
Christ. Martyrdom, therefore, is a peculiar heritage of religion ;
and the martyrs of the Christian church are distinguished favoura
bly from all others by broad, deep, and ineffaceable lines. Here,
however, the contrast is not between diverse forms of religion, but
between genius and Christianity ; and we say, that the effects of
each are well known and most diverse. No force of argument, no
sophistry, could induce any intelligent man to place, or, if to place,
to retain, in the same category, Shakspere and Jesus Christ. The
first belongs to the intellectual, the second to the spiritual world.

Besides, genius, if it improves and advances, also takes the
direction of, the spirit of the age in which it appears. Genius, in
one sense, is only the voice of the aggregate mind. Genius does sur
pass its fellows ; but then they are its fellows which it does surpass.
It does lead ; but it leads minds like its own. It does proclaim ;
but the voice of the herald has an echo in every heart. It presents
an image of lofty excellence ; but its counterparts are not wanting.
It is little else than an idealised image of the times.

If so, then is it like the men of its day. Essentially it must be
composed of elements which are found scattered in various parts
of the social system. Hence the acclaim which generally follows
its footsteps. Men love to hear their own voice.

Cases, indeed, there are in which genius takes up a hostile atti
tude in relation to its times. Milton fell on evil days. But, even
in these instances, the contrariety is only partial; and, if Milton
had his hardships, we must also bear in mind, that he was Latin
secretary to Cromwell, that Europe rung with his name from side
to side, and that he died, if in retirement, yet in peace.

We are, in consequence, unable to see any reason why Jesus
should have been put to death. The Genius of the age need not
have been crucified as a malefactor, even though he had given
utterance to a few daring truths. But the mythical theory demands
the belief, that Jesus was regarded as the Messiah. If so, then,
in the grand idea of his times, he was at one with its leading influ
ence. That influence was of a deep and most enthusiastic nature.
Why should it crucify its representative and advocate ? Had Jesus
been the idol of his generation, instead of its victim, there might have
been something to say in behalf of this groundless supposition.

48 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

Did we not possess historical documents, and were the subject
one for the indulgence of a mere critical ingenuity, these gratuitous
assumptions might admit of some justification. But neither the
Christian, nor the earnest and impartial inquirer, is permitted to
forget that there are books whose narratives must be taken into
account. These books never cease to set Jesus before our minds
as a worker of miracles. These books, from first to last, suppose
and assert a special divine influence. In this claim Jesus is dis
tinctly heard uttering his sublime voice. If, therefore, Jesus, as
the genius-theory implies, was true and honest, he possessed the
power which he claimed. Deny his claim, you deny his integrity ;
and, in denying his integrity, you strip him of the power even of
genius ; for that it was in the moral world he lived and laboured,
will not be denied. What means of extrication from this dilemma
others may possess is a secret to us; but for ourselves, we are
utterly ignorant of any way by which the truthfulness of our Lord s
character can be sustained, if the miraculousness of his influence is
denied. No such instrument can we recognise in the myth, until
it has not only explained away the miracles recorded in the New
Testament, but also taken from the history of the two first centuries
of our era the obviously supernatural influence which directly or
indirectly may be seen operating on society. In truth, the foun
dation, the very first stone of the Christian church, was laid in
miracle, in the resurrection. Strauss denies the miracle. On
what does he build the church ? His theory supplies not a germ
of influence out of which the church might grow. In the Gospels
the resurrection is a new starting point. Here was a fact on which
belief, love, hope, all might fasten themselves, and whence they
might readily and fully expand. Here was a point which might
first receive and then give both light and life. What similar object
does Strauss offer ?

" After his death, the belief in his resurrection, whencesoever it might come, was more
than sufficient to convince men that Jesus was the Messiah ; so that the residue of what
was miraculous in his life ought to be considered, not as the cause, but the consequence,
of a belief in his Messiahship."*

Here we have a quiet admission, that Strauss has nothing on
which to build the belief in the resurrection of the Saviour,
"whencesoever it might come." That such a belief did exist,
Strauss cannot deny : he makes all that is miraculous depend on
this belief; but on what does the belief itself depend ? He must
prove the first term of his series ; but the first term of his series
his philosophy cannot prove. His theory thus appears to spring
from nothing. A certain conviction produced the church; but what
produced that conviction ?

The apostles say they had met together, because Christ was risen

Einleitung, xiv.

STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS. 49

from the dead. And with this affirmation on their lips, they go
forth to the world. Deny the truth of what they affirm why, then,
did they assemble ? why did they preach ? why did they suffer ?
why did they die ? The assumption of genius will avail nothing
here. The personal influence of Jesus perished when he expired
on the cross. And if a sense of infamy did not take permanent
hold of the disciples minds if they did not feel the natural indig
nation which arises from a sense of having been deceived, duped,
or at least misled, it was owing to the deep personal reverence and
aifection which they entertained towards their dead master and en
deared friend which restraining feeling, however, could not have
had any existence unless Jesus was truthful and trustworthy ; and,
if truthful and trustworthy, then he came from God.

The supposition which we have thus passed under review must,
in any hands, prove insufficient to explain the facts of the case ;
but a system of pantheism is least of all competent to lend its
aid. With Strauss, every thing which is strictly extraordinary is
incredible. The exceptional has no existence, but in ignorant and
fanatical minds. The operation of genius, then, is limited within
certain bounds, and known by certain characteristics. We wish
our author had told us, with some degree of fulness, what they are.
And we challenge him to produce, in the entire field of history, a
case similar to the gospel. When has genius produced effects like
its ? Genius, as well as every other natural influence, is known
by its ordinary effects, especially in a system of philosophy which
recognises only ordinary agencies. At all events, genius must have
its own appropriate cycle of operations, in which it must be easy
for an Hegelian to find several cases parallel with Christianity. If
they are not produced; if no similar case not one has been or
can be produced ; then is the gospel, even to Strauss, exceptional
and extraordinary, sole and unparalleled. His system accordingly
fails to supply an explanation. It does not possess the means
within itself of accounting for the rise and progress of Christianity.
It is self- confuted ; for, while it denies that there is in the world
any but regular and ordinary influences, it admits that in Chris
tianity is found a genius-produced system which is exceptional and
extraordinary.

We have thus given a general account, and passed under review,
the system which Hegel, Strauss, and other writers, have ori
ginated and laid before the world. The chief aim which we
have had in view has been to prepare the reader s mind for the
investigations which will follow. As a subordinate object, we have
endeavoured to make this essay complete in itself, and have, in
consequence, striven to give a sufficient account of the influ
ences under which the system was elaborated the rather because
the believer in an historical Christianity can, at the first view,
scarcely fail to find some difficulty in understanding how a man
whose learning is so profound, various, and minute, as that of
49 H

50 STRAUSS, HEGEL, AND THEIR OPINIONS.

Strauss, lias, in studying the Gospels, been led to conclusions which
disallow their claims to credibility. It would probably not be easy,
at least within a few pages, to satisfy the ordinary reader, that such
conclusions are invalid, unless we at the same time proved that the
source whence they flowed has no right to special attention. For
this reason we have even profusely established the fact, that the
dominant influence in the school of Strauss is, from first to last, of
a purely speculative kind.

In the course of our strictures, we have spoken freely, as it be
came us to speak on a subject on which indifference is equally
impossible and improper. At the same time we deprecate even
the appearance of defamation. With pain did we not long since
read the following words, found as a note to an article in the
Eclectic Review (No. iii. p. 281, vol. xv.) on Hengestenberg s "Au
thenticity of the Pentateuch : "

"Strauss author* of the Leben Jesu, and other works of the most virulently auti-
Christian character. Recent intelligence from Germany informs us, that this unhappy man.
having married a public singer, is busy in composing an opera."

Now, virulence is the last quality that can be justly predicated of
any of Strauss s writings. And why, if such is his pleasure, should
he not marry a public singer, and even compose an opera, without
being characterised as " this unhappy man " ? The composition of
an opera is at least a harmless occupation. Would the accuser be
better pleased if Strauss was engaged in some other work of a
" virulently antichristian character"? Recent intelligence from
Germany informs us also, that the chief work which at present
occupies his energies is one in which he intends to apply to the
Acts of the Apostles the principles which he has already applied to
the Gospels. The same authority (which we believe to be at least
as trustworthy as that of the anonymous reviewer) gives us to under
stand, that the lady whom Strauss has married was an actress of
distinction, and that the tenor of his own life is blameless.

ft U I N E T

STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS."

THE pages which immediately follow contain portions of a review of the Lcben Jesu by
Strauss, inserted in the Revue des deux Mondes, vol. xvi. p. 585, seq. The review bears the
name of QUINET, one of the most gifted arid eloquent of the modern French writers.

Edgar Quinet, at present Professor of Modern Literature in the University of Paris,
was bom in 1803, at Strasburg, where as well as at Geneva, Paris, and Heidelberg
he pursued his elementary studies. Comprehensive in their scope, and solid in their
results, these studies, while they ceased not to have a general direction, were specially
designed to prepare him for the successful prosecution of philology. Nor did they fail in
their aim. As a philologist and critic, E. Quinet has in France, at the present hour,
no superior; and only Fauriel, Magnin, and Ampere, for equals. In philosophy and
poetry, he appears to have as yet only made trial of what his powers are.

While a student at Heidelberg, where he gained a thorough knowledge of German
literature, philosophy, and morals, he translated Herder s valuable and interesting work
Ideen, " Ideas on the Philosophy of History ; " adding to his translation a lengthened
introduction. Though comparatively a young man, Quinet is an extensive writer. His
works are for the most part connected with polite literature. Three poems " Ahasve-
rus, Mystere" (1833), "Napoleon, Poeme" (1836), " Promethee, Tragedie " (1838), may
be found in a collection of his writings, published in 1839, under the title of Allemagnc et
Italic, " Germany and Italy."

Quinet was appointed in 1840 to the honourable post which he now holds.

WHEN a fundamental question seizes, agitates, absorbs the noblest
minds of a neighbouring country, philosophers, historians, lin
guists, naturalists, theologians ; when it has given rise to a multitude
of works, all more or less remarkable ; is it permitted to abide, in
such grave matters, by the policy of silence ? Would it even
be desirable that all this agitation were suppressed, through fear of
adding doubt to doubt ? Or rather is not the hour come, when,
an intestine war having burst forth, it is necessary that the cause of
the warfare be made more and more evident, in order that the

51 I

2 QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

opinion of all may gradually interpose in the contest? What if
this were the trial of Christianity itself? Should it not be defini
tively judged by the general testimony of the Christian world ?

If the work I have to examine confined itself to a denial of the
supernatural portion of revelation, it would descend into the Eng
lish school of the eighteenth century. These doctrines having been
sufficiently diffused and controverted in France, it is probable that
I should never have occupied myself with a system which to us has
no longer any novelty : but the scepticism of the German schools
belongs to a train of thoughts so different from these, that we have
not an exact and correct expression for them in our language;
so that, even in clearly defining the object of the question, I meet
with a difficulty, and one which I cannot resolve without first
showing how it originated.

It has often been asked why the work of Dr. Strauss is so cele
brated. This celebrity certainly does not arise from the style
of the writer. His plain, heavy, geometrical language which,
throughout fifteen hundred pages, is never relieved by a lighter tone
has no attractions whatever. As for his doctrines, there is not,
I think, one of his boldest propositions which had not previously
been advanced, sustained, and debated. How, then, are we to
account for the extraordinary celebrity of a work which appears
to be the result of a general spoliation ? I answer that this arises
precisely because the new system rests on all that has preceded it,
and that its want of originality in the detail forms the strength of
the whole. If this work had appeared to be the thought of one
man, so many minds would not at once have been alarmed at it.
But, when it was seen as a sort of mathematical result of almost all
the labours which during half a century have been accomplished
beyond the Rhine, and that each had brought a stone to this sad
sepulchre, learned Germany started, and fled before her work.
Such, indeed, has been the case in Germany during the last three
years ; and, if one thinks for a moment of the intelligence which
has prevailed there in philosophy, in criticism, and in history, one
is only astonished that this result did not before appear. It is
easily seen, that Dr. Strauss has had forerunners in each of the
leading schoolmen who have flourished during the last half century,
and it was impossible that a system so many times prophesied
should not eventually show itself.

When the German philosophy succeeded to that of the eighteenth
century, it might have been thought that what Voltaire had destroyed
was to be re-established by Kant and Gothe. Could their spiritual
ism and his sensuality tend to the same results ? Assuredly not.
He who had dared to assert the contrary would have passed for an
idiot. How many lulled themselves with the idea, that Christianity
would be completely restored in the new metaphysics ! It even
appears that philosophy shared this illusion, and firmly believed
that peace was made with positive religion. The truth is, how-

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 3

ever, that philosophy was satisfied with changing the blunted
weapons of the last age, and carrying the quarrel into a new ter
ritory. This was plainly seen in Kant s work on religion, which
still serves as a sort of basis to almost all our modern innovations.
What are the Sacred Writings to the Konigsberg philosopher ? A
succession of moral allegories, a sort of popular commentary on
the law of duty. Christ himself is no more than an ideal being,
who solitarily hovers in the conscience of humanity. Moreover,
the resurrection being taken from this pretended Christianity, there
remained to confess the truth only a lifeless religion, a gospel
of mere reason, an abstract Jesus, without the manger and the
sepulchre. From the appearance of this work, self-deception was
no longer permitted in the species of alliance between the new
philosophy and the evangelical faith. In this treaty of peace,
criticism, reasoning, scepticism, reserved to themselves all their
rights. They crowned themselves. If they allowed religion to
exist, it was as a conquered province, whose limits were marked out
according to their will. At a later period, pantheism, being wildly
mingled with German metaphysics, more and more undermined the
old banks of orthodoxy. According to the half-mystical, half-
sceptical school of Schelling, the revelation of the gospel was no
more than one of the accidents of the eternal revelation of God in
nature and in history ; and, a little after, the abstraction continually
increasing, Hegel saw no more in Christianity than an idea, the
religious worth of which is independent of the testimonies of
history ; which is as much to say, that the moral principle of the
gospel is divine, even if the history be uncertain. Now, what is
this, if not bordering, in fact, on a profession of the faith of the
"Vicaire Savoyard"?* Thus, from deductions to deductions,
from formula to formula, the philosophy of the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, after having long struggled with and denied
each other, ended by a reconciliation, and embraced over the
ruins of the same belief.

Nevertheless, it is not enough to indicate the relation between
metaphysics, and the theology of our days. We must show, in a
more explicit manner, how, in the criticism of the Sacred Books,
methods diametrically opposite have been followed in France and in
Germany ; for the infinite differences which distinguish these two
countries have never been better demonstrated, than in the ways
they have both taken to arrive at scepticism. That of France was
straightforward, without disguise or circumlocution. It is of Pagan
origin : it borrows its. arguments from Celsus, from Porphyry,
from the emperor Julian. I do not think, that Voltaire has offered
a single objection which was not previously started by these last
apologists of the Olympic gods. In the spirit of this system, the

* See Rousseau s Emile, liv. iv.
53

4: QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

miraculous portion of the Scriptures reveals but the fraud of some,
and the blindness of others. Nothing is heard but imputations of
artifice and deceit. It seems as if paganism itself was complain
ing, in its own tongue, that the gospel had carried off its votaries
by surprise. The resentment of the old society still peeps through
these accusations ; and throughout this system, which was that of
the English school, as well as of the Encyclopedists, we see, as it
were, a classic reminiscence of the gods of Rome and Athens.

This kind of encounter appeared but little in Germany, except
in Lessing, who indeed transplanted it with supreme authority. By
his Letters, and his Defence of the " Fragmens d un Inconnu," * he
seemed, during some time, to be inclining his country towards the
foreign doctrines. But it was only an experiment, and was not
directed to the genuine judgment of Germany. That was to be
shaken by another influence. These fragments remained scattered
like the thoughts of an unbelieving Pascal, and the monument of
doubt was left as unfinished as the monument of faith had been.

He who in our days has given the greatest impulse to Germany
is neither Kant nor Lessing, nor the great Frederick : it is Bene
dict Spinoza. Mark the spirit which lurks in the depth of his
poetry, his criticism, his philosophy, like the unwieldy tempter
under the wide-spread tree of knowledge. Gothe, Schelling, Hegel,
Schleiermacher, to speak only of the master-minds, are the fruit
of his works. In his treatise on theology, and his astonishing letters
to Oldembourg, would be found the germ of all the propositions lately
maintained in the German method of interpreting the Scriptures.
From him especially came the practice of expounding the Bible
through the aid of natural phenomena. He had somewhere said,
" All that is related in the revealed books, happened in conformity
with the established laws of the universe." A school rapidly took
possession of this principle. To those who desired to remain sus
pended in scepticism, it offered the immense advantage of preserving
the practical teachings of revelation by means of a concealment, or
of a preliminary explanation. The gospel ceased not to be a code
of divine morals, and no one s sincerity was called in question.
Sacred history hovered above all controversy. What more ? The
point was to recognise once for all, that what is now presented to
us by tradition as a supernatural phenomenon, a miracle, was in
reality but a very simple fact, magnified at first by the surprise of
the senses, sometimes an error in the text, sometimes a copyist s
sign, more frequently a prodigy which never existed, save in the
arcana of grammar or of eastern rhetoric. The efforts thus made
to lower the gospel to the proportions of a moral chronicle, can
scarcely be imagined. It was deprived of its glory, to be saved
under the appearance of mediocrity. All that was narrow in this

* See Beitrag zur Gesh. und Lit. aus rt. Srhatzen cler Wolfenbiittel Bibliothek Heransg.
von G. E. Lessing. Braunschweig, 1778.

QU1NET ON STKAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 5

system speedily became ridiculous in its application ; for it is easier
to deny the gospel, than to reduce it to the standard of a manual of
practical philosophy. The pen which wrote the " Provinciales" *
would be necessary to lay bare the strange consequences of this
theology. According to its conclusions, the tree of good and of
evil is nothing but a venomous plant, probably a manchineel tree,
under which our first parents fell asleep. The shining face of
Moses on the heights of mount Sinai was the natural result of elec
tricity ; the vision of Zachariah was effected by the smoke of the
chandeliers in the temple ; the Magian kings, with their offerings
of myrrh, of gold, and of incense, three wandering merchants, who
brought some glittering tinsel to the child of Bethlehem ; the star
which went before them, a servant bearing a flambeau; the angels
in the scene of the temptation, a caravan traversing the desert,
laden with provisions ; the two angels in the tomb, clothed in white
linen, an illusion caused by a linen garment; the transfiguration,
a storm. This system faithfully preserved, as may be seen, the
body of the evangelical histoiy entire, suppressing only its soul.
It was the application of Spinoza s theory in its most limited sense,
after the manner of those who see, in his system of metaphysics,
no more than the apotheosis of brute matter. There remained the
shapeless skeleton of Christianity ; and, in its presence, philosophy
learnedly expatiated on the facility with which the source of its
life may be imagined ; and intimated, that, were it disposed, philo
sophy itself could do as much as the gospel had done. But could
the human race, during two thousand years, have been deceived by
an optical illusion, a meteor, an ignis-fatuus, or the conjunction of
Saturn and Jupiter in the sign of Pisces ? Be that as it may, this
interpretation, plausible as it was made, still was not that which
naturally suited Germany. This country might for a time adopt it,
on account of the sincerity on which it was based ; but it was by
no means the species of incredulity which was adapted to it.

To convert Germany to doubt, a system was wanted, which,
concealing scepticism under faith, using much circumlocution to
reach its object, dwelling 011 imagination, on poetry, on spirituality,
should transfigure what it threw into the shade, build up what it
destroyed, affirm in words what in effect it denied. Now, all these
charms are found in the system of the allegorical interpretation of
the Sacred Writings, or, to speak with the seventeenth century, in
the substitution of a mystical for a literal sense ; for that which was
originally the hidden principle of the Reformation is precisely that
which bursts into open daylight in the theological debates beyond
the Rhine.

This system, which in Germany is the only one that can be
truly dangerous to belief, is principally derived from Origen.

Les Provinciales, &c. par B. Pascal.

6 QUINET ON STBAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

This great man was one of the first to admit a double sense to the
facts related in the New Testament. He recognised the historical
truth of the greater part of the events contained in the Sacred
Books. But, according to him, the same events concealed a
mystical sense; so that these two truths, the one historical, the
other moral, existed at once. The middle ages entered into his
opinion : the facts of the gospel history were interpreted by the
schoolmen as a species of parables "which, however, they did not
the less regard as credible. It is not, however, less certain that
an imminent danger lurked in this doctrine; since, after having
speculated on events as upon figures, one step only had to be taken
to bring in an exclusive attachment to the ideal sense, and the alle
gory was always near to absorb the history. The letter killeth, but
the spirit giveth life this was the principle of Origen. But who
sees not, that, in its turn, the spirit in increasing may kill and
displace the letter ? Such is the histoiy of the idealist philosophy
in its relations with positive faith.

If attention is paid to Pascal s theology, it will be discovered
that it inclined to this, and that here was the real abyss open before
him. In the volume of his "Pensees," the Old Testament is but
figurative. The law, sacrifices, kingdoms, are to be regarded as
emblems, not realities: truth itself, with the Jews, is nothing but a
shadow or a painting. The Babylonians are offences; Egypt,
iniquity. When I read these pages, I always appear to have before
my eyes a man who undermines the foundations of his palace, the
better to establish himself in it; for is it not evident, that this
transformation of the Old Testament is very nearly allied to a change
in the New ? And if Mosaism be only figuratively the true religion,
what hinders me from saying as much of Christianity ? Take away
from the gospel its real foundation, which is in the ancient law, and
what will remain? a symbol suspended in a vacuum. Assuredly
the consequences of this theology, which was also in some measure
that of Fenelon, would not have long delayed appearing in France;
but they were violently arrested by the eighteenth century, which,
changing the principles of philosophy, changed also the forms of
scepticism.

These consequences were not fully deduced, save by Germany,
which, on this side at least, is allied to Pascal. The system of a
mystical explanation once adopted, it was easy to foresee what would
come next. Sacred history has more and more lost ground, in the
same proportion as the empire of allegory has increased. This
incessant progress might be described as that of a wave which at
last swallows up every thing. Eichorn (1790) admitted nothing as
emblematical but the first chapter of Genesis. He contents himself
with establishing the duality of the Elohim and of Jehovah, and with
representing, in the God of Moses, a sort of two-fold Hebraic Janus.
A few years passed, and in 1803 appears the Mythology of the Bible,
by Bauer. Moreover, this method of resolving facts into moral

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 7

ideas, at first confined to the Old Testament, soon leaps over its
limits, and, as was natural, attacks the New. In 1806, the venerable
ecclesiastic Daub said, in his " Theological Theorems," " If you
except all that relates to angels, demons, and miracles, there is
scarcely any mythology in the gospel." At this time, the accounts
of Christ s infancy only were attacked by the system of symbols.
A little after, the first thirty years of Jesus life were also converted
into parables: the birth and the ascension that is to say, the
beginning and the end were all that remained in their literal sense.
All the rest of the body of the history had more or less been sacri
ficed; and even these last wrecks of the sacred narrative were not
long after travestied as fables. Every one brought into this meta
morphosis the character of his own mind. According to the school
to which each belonged, there was substituted for the letter of ihe
evangelist, a theology which was metaphysical or moral, legal or
simply etymological: the most abstract minds saw little on the cru
cifix but the infinite suspended in the finite, the ideal crucified in
the real. Those who loved in religion the contemplation of the
beautiful, after having eloquently affirmed, repeated, established,
that Christianity is, in the highest sense, the poem of humanity,
ended by no longer recognising in the Sacred Books more than a
succession of fragments or rhapsodies of the great eternal Epic.
Such, towards the close of his career, was Herder. In his last
works (for the first have a totally different character), we can clearly
see how either his poetry or his philosophy imperceptibly perverts
religious truths. How ? Without altering the names of things,
he gives them new acceptations ; so much so, that, in the end, the
believer, who thinks he possesses a dogma, has in reality no more
than a dithyrambic, an idyl, a moral tirade, or an abstraction of
school divinity, with whatever fine term it may be adorned. Here
Spinoza s influence is again recognised. It was he who had said,
"I take literally the passion, death, and burial of Christ; but I
regard the resurrection as an allegory." * This idea having been
readily taken up, there remained not a single fact of Christ s life
which had not by some theologians been metamorphosed into an
emblem, a figure, a myth. Neander himself, the most believing of
all, extended this kind of interpretation to the vision of St. Paul in
the Acts of the Apostles. So much the less scruple was made to
use it thus, that each one thought the point about which he was
occupied, the only one which favoured this kind of criticism; and
besides, if any uneasiness remained, it was effaced by this singular
consideration, that after all they sacrificed but the mortal parts, and,
as it were, the body of Christianity ; while, by means of a figurative
explanation, they preserved the sense of it, that is to say, the soul
and the eternal part. It is this which Hegel, in his lessons on

* Epistola xxv.
57

8 QUINET ON STBAUSS S LIFE OF. JESUS.

religion, called " to analyse the Son ;" and thus, with the greatest
tranquillity of conscience, did the natural defenders of the opinions
of the church labour on all sides to change the established belief;
for it must be remarked, that this work was not accomplished,
as with us, by men of the world, and professed philosophers : on
the contrary, the revolution was almost entirely effected through the
exertions of theologians. It was from the heart of the church itself
that the destructive influence derived all its strength.

In the midst of this ever-increasing demolition, there is one thing
at which I cannot cease to wonder: it is the tranquillity of all those
men, who seem not at all to understand what they are doing, and
who, each day effacing some part of the Bible, are not a whit the
less at ease regarding the future fate of their belief. They seem to
live peaceably in their scepticism, as if it were their natural con
dition. There is one, however, who from afar had the presentiment,
and, as he himself says, assurance that a crisis was impending. He,
too, is the greatest of all, Schleiermacher, formed to reign in this
universal trouble, if the anarchy of spirits had consented to receive
a master; a noble genius, an eloquent preacher, a grand writer;
characterised in an equal degree as a theologian and a philosopher.
No man has made greater efforts to reconcile the old belief with the
new knowledge. The concessions into which he was drawn are
incredible. Like a man attacked by a violent storm, he sacrificed
masts and sails to save the hulk of his vessel. First, he renounces
tradition, and gives up the support of the Old Testament: this he
terms breaking through the old alliance. To satisfy the cosmopolite
spirit, he, in some respects, placed Mosaism below Mahometanism.
Having accustomed himself to an Old Testament without prophe
cies, he, at a later period, accustomed himself to a gospel without
miracles. Yet he did not arrive at this wreck of revelation, by the
Sacred Writings, but by a species of ecstacy of mind, or rather by
a miracle of the inner word. Still, however, in Christianity thus
desecrated, he had but little repose ; for philosophy was ever urging
him onwards; so that, unwilling to renounce either the belief or the
doubt, it only remained for him to change incessantly, and at last
blindly to bury himself in Spinozaism. This condition, which one
would think insupportable, is described with much truth in a letter
to one of his friends, who also was his disciple. The letter throws
so astonishing a light on the condition of thinking minds, that I
cannot refrain from quoting some passages of it. I do not believe
that an abyss has ever been regarded with a more tranquil despair:

"If, my dear friend, you consider the present state of the sciences, and their unexpected
development, what do you foresee for the future? I mean not only as regards theology,
but Christianity itself, such as the Reformation has made it. With the ultramontane
Christianity we have nothing more to do; for, if the knot of science and of human reason
be severed with the sword of authority, if power be used to escape from all examination,
it is evident that one is exempted from any trouble regarding what is going on elsewhere ;
but this we neither can nor will do: on the contrary, we take the times as they nre; and

QUINET ON STBAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. V

from these I foresee, that we shall soon set aside that which many still think to be the
main point, the soul even of Christianity. I speak not here of the work of the seven
days, bat rather of the very idea of the creation, such as is in general adopted, and even
independently of the chronology of Moses. Notwithstanding the labour and explanations
of commentators, how much longer will this idea prevail against the strength of theories,
founded on scientific combinations, from which none can escape in a time when general
results so soon become common property ? And our gospel miracles (for I will say
nothing of those of the Old Testament) how long will it be before they again fall in their
turn, through better-founded and more honourable reasons than those of the French
Encyclopedists? For they will be reduced to this dilemma: either the entire history to
which they belong, is a fable in which it is impossible to discern truth from fiction; and
in this case Christianity n&lt;5" longer appears to proceed from God, but from nothingness
itself; or, on the other hand, if these miracles be real facts, we must agree, that, since they
have been naturally produced, they must still have analogies in nature, and then the very
idea of a miracle will be destroyed. What then, my dear friend, will be the result? When
that time arrives, I shall be no more, then I shall be resting in the deep sleep of the
grave. But you, my friend, and those of your age, and so many others, who cherish
the same opinions as ourselves, what will you do ? Will you, too, make up your mind to
these encroachments, and allow yourself to be blockaded by science? I speak not of the
crusading fires of irony which shall be renewed from time to time; for irony will do you
but little harm, if you know how to bear it. But what isolation ! what intellectual
famine! Science, abandoned by you, surrendered by you, will hoist out the colours
of unbelief. Will history be divided into two parts, on the one side, Christianity
leagued with barbarism ; on the other, science hand-in-haiid with impiety ? This would
be, I know, the opinion of the greater number ; and from the ground shaking under our
feet, already usher forth phantoms of orthodoxy, for whom every examination which goes
beyond the worn-out letter is a counsel of Satan! But, God be thanked! we shall not
choose these hobgoblins for the guardians of the holy sepulchre ; and neither you nor I,
nor our mutual friends, nor our disciples, nor their successors, will ever belong to them."

This letter was published by Schleiermacher, in an ecclesiastical
journal, in 1829; and, remembering that its author was the chief of
the German theology, we cannot but pronounce it to be truly extra
ordinary. Here there is none of the subtle raillery of the eighteenth
century: you recognise in these words the inextinguishable curiosity
of a man, bending over the borders of an abyss, the murmuring gulf
drawing him onwards with all the strength of an enchanter. The
general aim was no longer to destroy but to gain knowledge a
passion of a different nature, and one which never stops until
the very depths of the mystery be fathomed; and from that time
the announced crisis approached daily.

M. de Wette, one of the most celebrated theologians of the day,
soon adopted this system. The first five books of the Bible are in
his eyes the great epic poem of the Hebraic theocracy : according
to him, they do not contain more truth than the epic poetry of
the Greeks. In the same manner as the Iliad and the Odyssey
are the hereditary work of the rhapsodists, so the Pentateuch is, with
the exception of the Decalogue, the uninterrupted and anonymous
work of the priesthood. Abraham and Isaac resemble Ulysses and
Agamemnon. As for the journey of Jacob, and the espousals of

59 K

10 QUINET ON STEAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Rebekah, " a Canaanitish Homer," says the author, " could have
invented nothing better." The exodus from Egypt, the forty years
sojourn in the desert, the seventy elders at the head of the tribes,
the expostulations of Aaron, even the legislation from Sinai, are but
an incoherent series of poems and myths. The character alone of
these fictions changes with each book, poetical in Genesis, juri
dical in Exodus, sacerdotal in Leviticus, political in Numbers,
etymological, diplomatic, genealogical, but almost always historical,
in Deuteronomy. The works in which M. de Wette has developed
this system have, like all his productions, the merit of a perspicuity
that cannot be too highly appreciated, above all in his country. The
results of his researches are never disguised under metaphysical
lures : a disciple of the eighteenth century would not have written
with a more lively precision. The author foresees that his criticism
will be applied to the New Testament ; but, far from being excited
by this idea, as might have been expected, he concludes with the
same repose as Schleiermacher: "Happy," said he, after having
torn page after page from the ancient law, " happy were our ances
tors, who, inexperienced in the art of exegesis, believed simply and
faithfully all they taught ! History lost, religion gained by it ! I
have not devised the criticism ; but, since it has begun its work, it is
right that it should be finished. Nothing is good but what is com
pletely carried out. The genius of humanity watches over criticism,
and will not wrest from it that which is most precious. Let, then,
each act in conformity with his duty and his conscience, and leave
the rest to fortune."

Fortune responded to the author, by soon raising him up successors
even bolder than himself, against whom he now vainly seeks to
re-act. It appeared to him, that he had exhausted doubt, at least
with regard to the Old Testament. The theological professors, De
Vatke, De Bohlen, and De Lengerke, soon showed him the contrary.
According to the spirit of this new theology, Moses is no longer the
founder of an empire. This legislator made no law: they contest
with him not only the Decalogue, but even the idea of the unity of
God. But, if that is admitted, how many diverging opinions are
there on the origin of the great body of history on which he has
left his name ! Bohlen, whose literal expressions I borrow, finds
a great poverty of invention in the first chapters of Genesis, which,
besides, was only composed after the return from the captivity.
According to this theologian, the history of Joseph and his brethren
was invented after Solomon s time, by a member of the tenth tribe.
Others assign Deuteronomy to the epoch of Jeremiah, or even
attribute its authorship to him. Moreover, together with the legis
lator, even the God of Moses is lowered in the opinion of the
critics. After having placed Jacob below Ulysses, how refrain from
comparing Jupiter and Jehovah ? It was inevitable. On this topic
mark what is said by the immediate precursor of Dr. Strauss; I
mean, the professor Vatke, in his " Biblical Theology." If you accept

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 11

his doctrine, Jehovah, long confounded with Baal in the minds of the
people, after having languished obscurely, and perhaps anonymously,
during a long infancy, at length displayed himself at Babylon: there
he was I know not what mixture of the Hercules of Tyre, the Chro-
nos of the Syrians, and the worship of the sun, so that he became
great in his exile. His name did not enter into the religious rites
until the time of David: one derives it from Chaldea, another from
Egypt. On the same principle they think they recognise other por
tions of tradition that Mosaism borrowed from foreign nations.
About the time of their captivity, the Jews took from the Babylonians
the fictions of the tower of Babel, of the patriarchs, of the clearing
of chaos by the Elohim ; from the religion of the Persians the images
of Satan, Paradise, the resurrection from the dead, and the last judg
ment; and the Hebrews thus stole, a second time, the sacred vessels
of their hosts. Moses and Jehovah destroyed, it was natural that
Samuel and David should be despoiled in their turn. " This second
operation/ said a theologian of Berlin, "rests upon the first."
Neither the one nor the other is any longer the reformer of the theo
cracy, which was not instituted until long after both. David was
specially wanting in religious feeling. His gross and almost savage
worship was not far removed from feticism. In short, the tabernacle
is no more than a simple coffer of acacia; and, instead of the holy
of holies, it contained a stone. You will naturally ask how the
inspiration of the Psalms can accord with so gross an idolatry.
This agreement is made by denying any of the Psalms, under their
actual form, to be the work of David. The prophet-king thus pre
serves nothing more than the sad glory of having been the founder
of a despotism deprived of the suffrages of the priesthood ; for the
promises made to his house, in the book of Samuel and elsewhere,
could only have been forged after the event, ex eventu. In this
same school, the book of Joshua is no more than a collection of
fragments, composed after the exile, according to the spirit of the
Levitical mythology ; Kings, a didactic poem ; Esther, a romantic
fiction, a tale imagined under the Seleucidae. With regard to the
prophets, the second part of Isaiah, from the fortieth chapter, would
be apocryphal, according to M. Gesenius himself. After a critic,
whom I have already quoted, and who is not less celebrated, Ezekiel,
descending from the poetry of the past, to a cowardly and drawling
prose, lost the sense of the symbols which he employed: in his
prophecies we see nothing but literary amplifications. Daniel, the
most controverted of all, is definitively banished by Lengerke to
the epoch of the Maccabees. To explain the instances of ver
bal agreement found in the three first evangelists, each has been
successively given as the primitive. Lessing looked on them as
free translations of a lost original, which has been by turns imagined
as Hebraic, Aramaic, Chaldaic, or Syriac, even Greek, and which,
at length, they have supposed never to have been written, but to have
been what they have named an oral gospel. To take away the

12 QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

difficulty, Schleiennacher attached himself to St. Luke, the com-

Jianion of St. Paul : but he depreciated St. Matthew, on account of
ris Judaical tendency ; and St. Mark, whom they have called, I do
not well know why, the patron of the materialists. Through so
many criticisms, which contradict and destroy one another, one
thing remains firm, which is, that the German theologians incline
more and more to consider the three first Gospels no longer as the
testimonies of eye-witnesses, but as the utterances, more or less
vague, of tradition.

From what precedes, the reader may judge what was the tendency
of things when, in 1835, appeared obscurely, with the royal privilege,
" The History of the Life of Jesus," by Dr. Strauss, tutor in the
Evangelical and Theological school of Tubingen. What, then,
was this book which, in the country of theological novelties,
disconcerted even the boldest ? It was the consequence of pre
mises laid during half a century. The author, for the first time,
put together the most contradictory doctrines, the schools of
Bolingbroke, Voltaire, Lessing, Kant, M. de Maistre, under what
ever names they were transformed or disguised, materialism,
spiritualism, mysticism ; amateurs of symbols, of natural, or figura
tive, or dogmatical explanations, of visions, of animal magnetism,
of allegories, of etymologies; and interpreting them, entangling
them, breaking them one against the other, by dint of an indefa
tigable logic, he drew from them all the same conclusion. In a
word, he concentrated all doubts in one, and formed into a bundle
the scattered shafts of scepticism. Add to this, that, in tearing aside
the metaphysical veil which palliated those doctrines, he brought the
question down to its simplest terms; and thus was openly seen,
and for the first time, what a work of destruction had been accom
plished. He lifted, like Antony, the robe of Caesar; and every one
could recognise in this great body the blows which he had given
in secret.

From the pantheism of the modern schools, the author had
borrowed the art of refining away historical personages ; for there is
an idealism which is essentially iconoclastic. All personal exist
ence annoys and displeases it, as being a usurpation. Heroes are for
it what statues of wood and of brass are for Mahometanism. They
must be overturned. A little further, and this idealism will regard
the life of the warbling bird, of the murmuring insect, as something
stolen from the absolute. It cannot be content without reducing
the universe and history to perfect silence, and then it would enjoy
in peace the harmony of its own ideas.

Dr. Strauss, however, does not absolutely deny the existence of
Jesus. He preserves the following shadow ; namely, that Jesus was
baptized by St. John that he gathered together disciples that
in the end he sank under the hatred of the Pharisees. These are,
with a few additional details, the foundation of truth, to which the
human imagination has added all thr wonders of the life of Christ.

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 13

The succession of events related by the evangelists is nothing in
reality but a succession of ideas clothed in a poetical form by tra-
ditidn ; that is to say, a mythology.

The manner in which the author conceives that this work of
imagination has been accomplished, merits above all to be remarked.
He thinks that, struck with the expectation of the Messiah, the
people of Palestine by degrees added to the true representation of
Jesus, all the features of the Old Testament which could appear to
relate to him. Popular tradition accepted as real the imaginary
actions that the ancient law attributed to the future Christ; thus
modelling, fashioning, aggrandising, correcting, deifying the cha
racter of Jesus of Nazareth, after the imaginary type at first
conceived by the prophets. On this principle, the New Testament
is, in fact, little else than a vulgar and hasty imitation of the
Old. In the same manner that the God of Plato formed the uni
verse according to a preconceived idea, the people of Palestine
formed Christ after the ideal furnished them by their ancient law.
It is evident, that in this doctrine it would not be Christ who
established the church, but the church which invented and esta
blished Christ. The political, religious, mystical prophecies were
the theme which the sentiments of the people soon converted into
events. Thus the world was not the dupe of an illusion of the
senses, but of something of its own creation ; and mankind, during
two thousand years, has knelt, not before an imposture, as said the
eighteenth century, but before an ideal being, wrongly decorated
with the insignia of reality.

The following is, in general, the method which the author employs
to arrive at these results. With a large number of critics, he admits
an interval of thirty years between the death of Jesus Christ, and
the compilation of the first of our Gospels. This space of time
seems to him sufficient for the popular fictions to take the place of
facts. His criticism applies itself successively to each moment
of Chiist s life. After the English school, taken up by Voltaire,
after the " Fragmens d un Inconnu," and a great number of other
predecessors, he draws forth the contradictions between the evan
gelists. He affirms that, if orthodoxy has not been able to satisfy
reason on this subject, the explanations taken from the natural course
of things are not less defective. These two kinds of interpretation
being discarded, it only remained to deny the reality of the fact
itself; to convert it into an allegory into a legend into a myth.
This is the uniform consequence with which the author terminates
each discussion ; and then not one word of grief not one regret.
The impression of the immense void which the absence of Christ
will leave in the memory of the human race, does not cost him a
sigh. Without anger, without passion, without hatred, he continues
tranquilly, geometrically, the solution of his problem. Is it to be
said, that he does not feel his work, and that, sapping the base of
the edifice, he is ignorant of what he does ? Certainly not. But
63

QUINET ON STEAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

this kind of impassibility is a fitting thing for Germany. There
the learned have such a fear of all appearance of a declamation
which might derange the temper of their plans, that they fall into a
defect of an opposite nature. That which rhetoric is for us in
France, set forms are for the Germans ; an aim which, changed
into a habit, finishes by becoming natural. Of their own accord,
they take in their books the inexorable form of Fate, on its seat of
brass. On the perusal of such a work, you would take the author
for a soul of bronze, that nothing human could reach. I confess
that such was my illusion regarding M. Strauss himself, until,
knowing him better, I found in him, under this mask of destiny,
a young man, full of candour, gentleness, and modesty ; one
possessed of a soul that was almost mysterious, and, as it were,
saddened by the reputation he had gained. He scarcely seems
to be the author of the work under consideration. Throughout
fifteen hundred pages, and in the same manner as if it referred
to an interpolation of Homer or of Pindar, Dr. Strauss disputes
with Christ his cradle and his sepulchre, leaving him nothing but
his cross. The circumstances connected with the birth of the
Son of Mary appear to him fabulously imitated from the birth
of Abraham and of Moses. Nimrod and Pharaoh are the models
after whom tradition imagined Herod s massacres. As to the
manger, it was only fancied to be in Bethlehem, in preference to
all other places, in order to conform to the prophet s words. The
star which conducted the shepherds is the remembrance of the
star promised to Jacob in Balaam s prophecy. The Magian kings
themselves had no existence, save in a passage in Isaiah, and one
in the seventy-second Psalm. Of the presentation in the temple
was made a legend, invented to glorify the man in the child. The
scene of Jesus explaining the Bible, at the age of twelve years, was
copied from the lives of Moses, Samuel, and Solomon, who at the
same age gave proofs of celestial wisdom. The relations of Christ
and of John the Baptist bring about interpretations of equal bold
ness. According to this system, the evangelists have attributed
to St. John, ideas which it would have been impossible for him to
conceive. His aim was narrower, his tendency less liberal, his
gei\ius of a ruder nature ; and thus he was rendered incapable of
understanding, still less of prophesying, the advent of Jesus. Be
sides, according to the author, if Jesus submitted to receive baptism,
it is a proof that he did not yet believe himself to be the Messiah.
At the utmost, he followed in the crowd the teaching of St. John,
and drew thence the maxims of the Essenians. On this subject an
observation full of justice has been made : it was said, that, if any
fabulous personage were concerned in this narration, it surely is
not he who passes his life in the midst of a people that touch him,
hear him, see him ; but rather the solitary, who, dressed in goats
skin, wandering far from towns, withdraws himself from his own
disciples, and leaves no trace of his progress, save on the sands of

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 15

the desert; that, consequently, the myth here should be -St. John,
and Jesus Christ the history.

To continue : Did Jesus propose to himself a temporal or a
celestial kingdom ? The author answers : Christ hoped to reconquer
the temporal sceptre of David, but by means which were wholly
divine. The legions of angels, the resuscitated dead, were to place
his disciples on the twelve thrones of Israel. Moreover, in all
which regards the ancient law, he rejected but the ritual, the exter
nal form, the abuses of worship. He accepted its spirit, so that
his mission was little more than negative ; and he was to Mosa-
ism just what Luther was to Catholicism. Let us speak yet more
clearly : he thought not of extending his reform beyond the Jews,
whose repugnance for foreign nations he partook. With regard to
his doctrine, properly so called, the Scriptures kept only a very
unfaithful image of it ; since his discourses, according to the three
first evangelists, were nothing but incoherent fragments, a species
of mosaic-work, in which St. Matthew merely surpassed the two
others. Strauss and his school had disputed the right of Moses to
the Decalogue : it was but natural that they should go on to dis
pute the right of Christ to the Sermon on the Mount, and the
Lord s Prayer, which, according to them, are no more than a com
pilation of Hebraic formulas. St. John still remains to us, and all
rests on this last foundation. What will be their decision ? The
conclusion is not long withheld. Behold it ! The discourses related
by St. John are still more open to contest than the preceding.
These must be regarded as free compositions, mingled with remi
niscences of the schools of Alexandria. Thus, to follow up the
argument, they would have Hebrew maxims on the one side ; and,
on the other, sentences from the Grecian philosophy ! But, to say
the truth, the doctrine of Jesus would have disappeared as much as
his person. No historical certainty, no authenticity, unless it be
in some relics of the arguments sustained by Christ against the
Pharisees ; and, in these contests, the author recognises the tone
and accent of the dialectics of the rabbins.

Ah 1 the rays of modern scepticism converge in the last part of
the work ; and here we find encroachments on questions which in
France we are more accustomed to see controverted. The model
of this kind of polemics is found in Rousseau s famous letter on
miracles ; but here the knowledge is much greater, and the system
quite different. The gospel miracles are either parables, taken at
a later period for real histories, or legends, or copies from those
of the Old Testament. The miracle of the loaves and fishes recalls
the manna in the desert, and the twenty loaves with which Elisha
nourished the people. The water changed into wine is a reminis
cence of the unwholesome water healed by the prophet. Sometimes
the New Testament would copy itself, as in the sign of the fig-tree
struck with barrenness : this prodigy is the counterpart of a parable
related just before. What is Christ s transfiguration on Mount
65

1C QUINET ON STKAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Tabor ? *A reflection a copy of that of Moses on Mount Sinai.
But does the appearance of Jesus between Moses and Elias imply
nothing peculiarly its own ? A pure emblem, to signify that Jesus
came to reconcile the law personified in the one, with the prophets
represented by the other. Then this had nothing to do, as I had
thought, with the transfiguration of Christ ? No, assuredly, but
with the transfiguration of a Christian idea.

It remains to be known where a catechism carried forward in this
manner would stop. I come to the passion. To speak correctly,
the author here admits nothing as historical but the crucifix, which
again reminds him of the brazen serpent set upon a pole by Moses.
In his language, the scenes which preceded the imprisonment are
myths of the second order, in the Gospel according to St. John ;
and myths of the third order, in the Gospels according to St. Mat
thew, St. Mark, and St. Luke. It results from this principle, that
the ancient law nowhere announced a suffering Messiah ; and the
figures taken from Isaiah apply only to the prophets considered as
a class, not to the person of the Messiah, whose temporal triumph
has, on the contrary, always been announced and exalted in the Old
Testament. The apostles, when their minds were filled with the
presence of their beloved Master, saw him in shining traits under
each of the emblems of the Bible ; naturally and invincibly, they
applied to him all the words which could be turned from a literal
sense : they deceived themselves. In consequence of a similar
illusion, after the event had occurred, they first supposed such a
thing possible, and then persuaded themselves that Christ must
have previously announced his death, his resurrection, and his
re -appearance. Hence the prophecies which the evangelists attri
buted to him. The scene in the Garden of Olives; the bloody
sweat ; the agony on the cross ; what more ? the cup brought
by the angel of the Passion : what do they make of this unutterable
grief? A plagiarism from the Lamentations of Jeremiah. That
deep presentiment which seizes each creature, even the vilest, at
the moment of death, is wanting in Jesus Christ. The two thieves
belong to Isaiah. The divided raiment the nailed feet and
hands the sword thrust into his side the gall and the vinegar
even the thirst on the cross; all, as well as the last words of
Jesus in expiring, " Eli, lama sabachthani ? " are word for word
taken from the sixty-ninth and the twenty-second Psalm ; which,
Dr. Strauss declares, are classical references for all which regards
the Passion. To this he adds, that one only of the evangelists
makes mention of the presence of the mother of Christ at the foot
of the cross ; and that her presence, if she were there, would not
have been neglected by the others. Here, I confess, I can neither
tolerate the manner, nor conceive the feeling, which induces the
author, in the midst of such a description, to say, in speaking of
the Passion according to St. John, " The narration of the scene
does honour to the ingenious and animated manner of the narra-

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 17

tor." At this sentence can you not imagine, that you see the
spectre of Voltaire rising erect, and applauding ? or rather would
not such a cruelty have astonished even him ? Be it as it may,
the author s coolness does not again contradict itself in the scenes
which follow. Certainly none but an erudite German could exa
mine, with an impassibility in which modern irony and the hyssop
of Golgotha are indissolubly mingled, into such details as whether
Judas, as a theologian has pretended, were not an honest man mis
represented ; if Christ were at the same time nailed by the hands
and the feet ; how many times he thirsted ; how many hours he
remained on the cross ; how deeply in his side the soldier s sword
was thrust ; if the blood and water could have issued from his wound ;
supposing that Jesus, after a long fainting fit, went forth from the
sepulchre, in what place he took shelter ; if, as is seriously pretended
by Paulus, the celebrated professor of dogmatic theology, Christ,
having escaped from the tomb, died of a slow fever, caused by the
wounds of the nail-prints on the cross ; or if, after the Passion, he still
lived for twenty-seven years in solitude, labouring for the welfare of
humanity, as says M. Brennesche, in his Dissertation ; and at last in
what lonely place, far from the looks of his disciples and his friends,
died the God-made-man. This portion of the work has all the
odious precision of a judiciary proceeding. Here M. Strauss
appears to deviate from his system of myths, and to make a conces
sion to an opposing school; for he admits, that the idea of the
resurrection originated in a vision of the disciples, similar to that
which St. Paul saw on his way to Damascus : he thinks, besides,
that this idea could not well be entertained, but in Galilee far from
the sepulchre, and the mortal remains of Christ. The ascension
reminds him of Enoch s ; of the fiery horses of Elias (which, says he,
to conform to the more gentle nature of Jesus, were transformed
into clouds) ; of the apotheosis of Hercules of Tyre, Romulus, &c.
Such is this book in its elements ; and in its frightful reality, were
the analysis to be recommenced, my heart would sink before such
an undertaking.

If now it be asked what effect this work should produce in the
mind of an impartial man, admitting that in these cases there be
any such, I will answer without delay. To pretend that this book
can be judged by the analysis that I have just presented, would be
to take an undue advantage of its not being translated into our
language. The spirit of any work whatever of philosophy, of art, or
of criticism is not thus reproduced in a few words: indeed much
more circumspection is required for this than is generally imagined,
and these difficulties are greatly augmented when it is a foreigner
who undertakes the work. Entirely occupied in presenting the
author s results in their crudity, I have probably neglected some
shades and modifications of meaning, and, above all, the display of
proofs which never fails him. In spite of myself, I may have been
most drawn to those striking passages which best exemplify the

67 L

18 QUINET ON STEAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

general spirit of a school, at the risk of leaving in the shade some
of the particular features of the writer. His penetration into the
world of details; his sincere love of truth; the success of his expla
nations on several occasions ; the stoicism of a pure, precise style,
which, disengaged from the jargon of the schools, is ever straight
forward, and which some of his adversaries have compared to that of
Lessing; his firmness, his independence of mind, even his stern
ness, which makes him enter as a sharpened iron into the very midst
of things, when others stop lazily on the surface these, together
with a rare and profound erudition, are qualities which no sensible
man will venture to deny. He has rendered the frightful service of
feeling, probing, enlarging the living wound of our time, with more
vigour, logic, and intrepidity, than any other person ; so that indif
ference itself has started at the sight ; and when one reads this book,
so sad, so icy, so cutting, one is compelled to echo the words of her
who, in stabbing herself, said, " It is not painful." With the same
desire to abide by the truth, I acknowledge that it may be clearly
seen from the opening of this work, that this system was conceived
beforehand; that it does not necessarily arise from facts; that, on
the contrary, the author, with a strong determination of bringing all to
agree with it, will not stop before any obstacle ; that thus he is drawn
onwards by a logical intolerance which resembles a sort of fana
ticism, and reveals, with a deeper shade of cold-bloodedness and
of maturity, the exterminating spirit of Dupuis and of Volney. I
have ground for believing, that, when he shall have recovered from
the first heat of the discussion, he himself will not fail to recognise
the justice of this criticism.

A second reproach that I shall make against this work and that
the rather because German criticism has not said enough about
it is, that the intelligence and the truly prodigious knowledge of
books which it displays, seems to stifle the feeling of all reality.
In the midst of this absolute negation of life, you are tempted to
interrogate yourself to know, if your most personal impressions, if
your breath and your soul, be not perchance a copy of a wandering
text of the book of fate ; and if your own existence will not sud
denly be disputed, as the plagiarism of some unknown history. As
soon as the author meets with a narration which goes at all beyond
the most ordinary course of affairs, he declares that it contains no
historic truth, and that it can be but a tradition. Now, is it not
impoverishing Nature and Thought thus to extend them together on
the bed of Procrustes ? Is it not strangely restricting the heart of
man to demand, that the impressions and circumstances of a past
state of society should conform to the general ideas of the present ?
Are we, then, so certain of being in all things the measure of what
is possible ? How many miracles pass within our souls which the
knowledge of books will never teach us ! How much are enthu
siasm, and love, and revolutions, our great masters ! How much
do they teach of things, that all the books in the world would never

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 19

tell us ! I feel that I should elucidate this by an example. Here
is one.

It is taken from the first meeting of Christ and his disciples on
the borders of the Lake of Galilee. Strauss, seeing how easily
Jesus by a word captivates the apostles, makes this reflection ; and
it is apparently a very judicious one: How strange it is that
Christ had not desired to try these men, before he chose them !
Still more incredible, that they, without having had long communion
with him, without having learned to know him by experience,
should quit their houses, their country, their station, their families,
to follow him in his ministry ; that, besides, there is an evident
contradiction between this docile obedience, and the doubt which
afterwards seizes them. From that and similar arguments, he con
cludes that this pretended meeting of Christ and the apostles is but
an allegory, a figure forged thirty years later, in imitation of the
meeting between the prophet Elijah, and his servant Elisha.

But, I ask, why refer to imitation and pharisaic erudition that
which is so clearly and so naturally explained in the evangelical
accounts? Who sees not, on one hand, the authority of Jesus,
the power attached to his features, his voice, his gesture, his mys
terious word; and, on the other, the fishermen attracted by that
word, carried away, overcome, fascinated by the grandeur which
appeared in the midst of them? Is it in any other way that
enthusiasm seizes on us, and that men give themselves up to
one another? Is it, as the German doctor supposes, by a slow
and successive experience of the Master s superiority, or not
rather by a sudden excitement, by an inconsiderate impulse,
by an entire abandonment of one s self to the will, the looks,
the thoughts of another ? Who has not known examples of this
nature, I do not say only in public but also in private, nay,
even in the most obscure life; which rarely passes without being
enlightened for a day, for an hour at least, by one of these
prodigious illuminations ? And the miracles of friendship, of
-heroism, is it experience, is it temporising, which calls them
forth? Is it not rather the affair of an instant, of which the
influences are overwhelming, and in which every thing is lost or
gained? The disciples doubted the moment after, say you; a new
proof that this is truth, reality, history. What is more natural than
depression after an excess of enthusiasm ? These are the features
which are never invented by poetic tradition or by mythology.
Truly these are men, not myths. For myself I cannot, I confess,
yet read this opening of the gospel, without hearing the echo of
that arousing voice which said to the fishermen of Galilee, " Rise
and walk, and go to the end of the world," so much is there in it of
an enthusiasm which is felt and recognised. That is the fiat lux
(" Let there be light") in the gospel creation : it is the movement
which itself produces all others. At this command you hear the
disciples rise, and thrust before them ancient civilization; the

20 QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Roman empire, in its turn, erects itself in its seat, and follows the
impulse ; then the Councils, the Papacy, the Reformation ; and this
movement, propagated from age to age, from generation to genera
tion, arrives at last, and without intermission, to ourselves.

Another example. I choose it because it contains an excellent
abridgment of the general style of the author. It is the scene of
Christ s temptation in the desert. Strauss begins by showing what
he considers the difficulties, the inconsistencies, the fictions, which
are met with in the evangelists : A fast of forty days ; the appear
ance of the demon under a palpable form ; Jesus transported firstly
to the summit of the temple, then to a mountain whence all the
kingdoms of the world could be seen ; the angels which came from
heaven, and ministered unto him. He successfully combats the
naturalist explanations which have hitherto been given of these
circumstances, and proves that this scene is neither a vision, nor a
dream, nor a parable. Above all, he has no difficulty in showing,
that Satan was not a disguised Pharisee, sent to propose that Jesus
should enter into a conspiracy against the Romans. This refuta
tion accomplished, he opens the Old Testament. There he finds
all the outline of the scene related in the New. Moses and Elias
fast forty days in the desert. Satan, during forty years there, tempts
the people of Israel. This number forty thus repealed, this temp
tation of the people who also called itself the Son of God, in fine,
the angels who prepared Elisha s food, are there not, in these
accounts, the principal traits or models of the recital afterwards
imitated by Christian tradition on the books of the ancient law ?
Then this scene has in itself nothing real, and no historical founda
tion. It does not answer to any actual circumstance in the life
of Jesus.

This analysis appears complete. In my opinion, it is wanting in
one important part, which is a deeper examination of Christ him
self. Jesus had just been baptized : he publishes for the first time
his mission, and then withdraws into the desert. Who may know
the anguish, the struggles, the internal foes, which assailed this new
Jacob, then wrestling in his solitude with the unknown angel ?
Before declaring war to all visible nature, before casting humanity
into the future, as a world into a new orbit, who knows if in his
heart he did not hesitate ; if the entire past did not raise itself
before him ; if the mute universe, clothed in its borrowed splen
dour, did not with a hundred voices command him to bow down,
and to adore, instead of contending with it; if his thoughts did
not take to themselves wings, and fly to the summit of the temple,
and the sacred mountain ; if from thence he did not see at his
feet, on one side the temporal kingdoms, with their prostrate and
submissive people, and on the other the immeasurable empire of
thought, with the passion and the cross, instead of the sceptre
of Judah? Who knows whether, in this moment, he were not
aware of the bloody sweat of Gethsemane ; and if, from this pinnacle

QU1NET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 21

of grief, he did not already cry out, at sight of the whole earth
raised up against him, " My God ! my God ! why hast thou forsaken
me ? " But, if doubt could reach him, then assuredly was Satan
on his throne of darkness ; then this history would not be such an
illusion as it is pretended to be : on the contrary, it would affect
all that is nearest that is to say, all that is most real in the life
of Jesus. Raised from this mortal dejection, his confidence returns.
The heavens are re-opened : he resumes his self-possession, and
retains it throughout the scene at Cavalry. The legion of immacu
late angels descend into his heart: his spirit, worn out in the struggle,
is fortified with their celestial food. In all this, where is the impos
sibility ? where the fable ? and how can one have an idea of the
gospel, without seeing in it a continual transfiguration of the inner
history and thoughts of Christ ? I stop here ; for this point alone
would draw me too far.

Another time the author substitutes, for the simplicity of the
Scriptures, an abstraction which seems to me strangely to clash
with their spirit. Thus Jesus conversation, at the well, with the
woman of Samaria, naturally reminds him of the meeting between
Eliezar and Rebekah, Jacob and Rachel, Moses and Zipporah.
These resemblances strengthened, it is true, by many circum
stances in the dialogue conduct him to his ordinary conclusion,
that this recital is nothing else than a myth, a legend. But, this
admitted, the difficulty augments. This short narration, which bears
such a seal of simplicity, what will it become ? A formula of the
philosophy of history. The Samaritan at the mouth of the well is
the emblem of an impure people, whose alliance with Jehovah
is broken. The entire dialogue is but a figure of the relations
maintained between the first Christians and the Samaritans. But,
as the author denies that these relations have in fact ever existed,
there remains to us no more than the symbol of a symbol, the
figure of a dream, the shadow of a shade : here the soil sinks under
our feet. In all sincerity, are not these abstractions taken as
legends, quite contrary to the spirit of the evangelists ? The author
is in the midst of modern theories, of Hegel s synthesis. He is in
the nineteenth century, no longer in the first.

Moreover, I regret that, alter having absorbed himself in the
literature of the Rabbins and the Talmud, he has not more fre
quently consulted books of modern voyages, illustrative of Eastern
life. I am convinced, ihat he would have found in descriptions of
the people of the Levant, some which would have thrown light on
his subject: nay, more, he would then have tempered his evidently
too strong tendency to reduce all to an abstraction. If he had a
little approached the homes of the apostles, the scenes of the Lake
of Galilee, Christ sleeping in the storm, the waves appeased by
his words, would no longer, I imagine, have appeared to him as
bodiless fictions, erudite imitations of the passage of the Red Sea,
or figures of Virtue embarked on a stormy ocean. On this account,

22 QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

whatever may be the contempt of theology and philosophy for all
observations not gathered from an old book, will it be permitted me
to quote here a fact to which I was myself an eye-witness ? It is
an occurrence I cannot easily forget ; for, when it happened, it gave
rise in my own mind to much reflection. It was at nightfall on the
shores of Malta. I was with four sailors, of the island of Ipsara,
in a boat without sail, and far from all refuge ; for, a little before, we
had been forced back from the island. The tempest was very high,
the night very dark ; the disconcerted rowers had left their oars, and
we were near foundering. In this distressing moment, the captain,
who held an oar, suddenly arose. He was a fine, bold fellow.
Inspired by the danger, he breathed mysteriously over the waters,
and cried out, while pointing with his fingers to the ebbing billows,
" Children ! look ! see the demons are flying away ! " The rowers
looked around them with an air of stupefaction, and then began
again to struggle with the wind. A little after, the vessel which we
pursued, was seen through the darkness. We were saved. Is it
not evident, that, from the recesses of a library, nothing would be
easier than to convert this narration into a myth, borrowed from the
Acts of the Apostles ? The place of the scene is the same as that
of the shipwreck of St. Paul. The demons which fled belong to
the mythology of the Pharisees, who themselves have borrowed it
from the religion of the Magi. It is impossible that the principle
of evil should have appeared under a personal form. Have demons
wings ? Do they inhabit the seas ? How many questions are there
on this simple incident, not to be solved by reason ! It is much
easier to admit, that all has been instinctively imitated from the reci
tal of St. Luke. On the other hand, it is probable that the rowers,
on arriving at their homes, would relate that they had seen marine
demons, with wave-coloured wings. Who is to be believed ? the
philosopher or the people ? And can pure science be so near
the borders of ignorance ? It may be so.

Without entering more into detail, how many questions remain
to be examined ? If the epoch of Christ were suited to the inven
tion of a mythology? In what could the science of Alexandria
control imaginations at Jerusalem? which would lead to the
examination of the spirit of criticism in the Roman world. If
thirty years sufficed for the establishment of a wholly fabulous
tradition ? If the tone of the apocryphal gospels is not wholly
different from that of the canonical books ? If the Acts of the
Apostles, allowed to be true, do not present accounts similar to
those of the evangelists ? If the parables in the primitive records
are not expressly separated from the historical narrative ? and if,
consequently, the demarcation between history and allegory were
not observed by the writers themselves ? The preface to the
Gospel according to St. Luke, so reasonable, so methodical, so
philosophical, can that be the introduction to a collection of
myths? Do not St. Paul s Epistles bear so much the impress

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 23

of reality, that their testimony turns back upon the preceding epoch ?
And this man, so like ourselves, so real in all things, that we
seem quite to know him, does he not plead with the voice of
truth for the historic integrity of the personages whom we only know
through him ? These are points that require close examination.
I do not object to a comparison of the Gospels, and poems of
popular origin. I admit that Charlemagne was transfigured by the
imaginations of the middle ages ; but under the fable was hidden
the history. Under the fiction of the twelve knights-errant, there
was the author of the Capitularies, the conqueror of the Saxons,
the legislator and the warrior. How comes it, that under the tradi
tion of the apostles there was nothing but a shadow ? It will be
enough now to leave these questions to the reflections of readers
who may thus far have followed me.

One thing cannot fail to strike those who will penetrate yet fur
ther into this examination ; and it is this, that, in the author s point
of view, Christianity would be an effect without a cause. How
could this despoiled Christ, this shade of which no appreciable
vestige remains, this wandering ghost in tradition, have influenced
all the time which has elapsed since? I see the moral universe
shaken, but the primum mobile escapes me. If in the New Testa
ment there be no spontaneity, whence did life come? Could a new
form of society be the result of a plagiarism ? If the new law be
nothing but the reproduction of the old, if the creative spirit have
nowhere manifested itself, if the miracle of the renewing of the
world were never accomplished, what do we here, and why are we
not within the walls of the ancient city ? That which in fact evinces
the personal grandeur of Christ is not so much the gospel he gave,
as the spirit of the times which succeeded him. Did T know nothing
of the Scriptures, and were the name of Jesus effaced from the
earth, I should still suppose that there had been somewhere an
omnipotent impulse about the time of the Roman emperors. When
Strauss says on this subject, " We look on the invention of the
mariner s compass and steamboats as superior to the cure of a few
sick Galileans," he is evidently the dupe of his own reasoning ; for
he knows well, that the miracle of Christianity is not this cure, but
rather the prodigy of humanity extended on its sick couch, there
cured of the leprosy of castes, of the blindness of pagan sensuality,
and which, suddenly rising, walks far from the threshold of the old
world. He knows well, that the miracle does not consist in the
water being changed into wine, at the marriage in Cana, but rather
in the change of the world by one single thought in the sudden
transfiguration of the ancient law in the casting-off of the old
man in the empire of the Cesars struck with stupor, as the sol
diers of the sepulchre in the barbarians mastered by the influence,
the ark of which they had conquered in the reformation which
discusses that influence in the philosophy which denies it in
the French revolution, which thought to destroy it, and which

24 QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

serves but to give it effect. These are the miracles which should
be compared to those of the astrolabe and the magnetic needle.

What ! Christ s incomparable originality nothing but a perpetual
imitation of the past ! and the most original personage in history
was ever occupied in forming himself after the model of the ancient
prophets ! It is in vain to object, that the evangelists contradict
each other : it must, in the end, be confessed, that these contradic
tions never bear on other than accessory circumstances, and that
these writers themselves all agree on the character of Christ.
Whence the unity of this character? From the most confused
mixture that history has ever allowed to appear ? a chaos of
Hebrews, Greeks, Syrians, Egyptians, Romans, of the gramma
rians of Alexandria, scribes of Jerusalem, Essenians, Sadducees,
Jewish monks, of the adorers of Jehovah, of Mithra, of Serapis ?
Shall we assert, that this vague multitude, forgetting the differences
of origin, of creeds, and institutions, is suddenly blended into one
spirit to invent the same ideal, to create from nothing, and to
render palpable to all the human race, the character which best
contrasts with all the past, and in which the most manifest unity is
discovered ? At least it will be confessed, that this is the strangest
miracle that has ever been heard of, and that the water changed
into wine was nothing in comparison to it. This first difficulty
draws after it a second ; lor, far from the plebeians of Palestine
having themselves invented the ideal of Christ, what difficulty had
not their obdurate minds in understanding the new doctrine ? If
the Bible is read with an unprejudiced mind, without the refine
ments of doctrine, without subtlety, will there not be a conviction,
that the crowd and the disciples themselves are ever disposed to
take the words of Christ in the sense of the ancient law ; that is,
in a material sense ? Is there not a perpetual contradiction
between the temporal kingdom expected by the people, and the
spiritual one announced by their Master ? Do not the greater part
of the parables conclude in these words, or in others equivalent to
them, "These things said he; but they understood him not"?
A manifest, an irrefragable proof, that the initiative, the teaching,
that is to say, the ideal, did not come from the crowd, but
that they belonged to the person to the authority of the Master ;
and that the religious revolution, before being accepted by the
greater number, was conceived and imposed by a supreme legis
lator.

If any one thing distinguishes Christianity from preceding
religions, it is that the gospel is not the apotheosis of nature
in general, but of personality itself. It has this character in its
beginning and in its end, in its monuments and in its dogmas.
How, then, should this be wanting in its histoiy ? If it had not
exclusively prevailed in the new institution, this would have been
but a sect of the great mythology of antiquity. On the contrary,
mankind has widely distinguished between them, because it was in

QUINET ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 25

fact established on a new foundation. The internal dominion of a
soul which feels itself greater than the visible universe this is the
lasting miracle of the gospel. And this prodigy is no illusion,
no allegory: it is a reality. In the same manner as in Paganism,
the sea, primitive night, the shoreless chaos, gave a solid base to
popular fictions, here also the infinite soul of Christ served as a
foundation for all Christian influence ; for what is the gospel, if it
be not an unfolding of the inner world ?

In this place I meet with strange reasoning. It is said, that the
first term of a series cannot be greater than that which terminates
it, which would be an effect contrary to all the laws of development ;
from whence it is inferred, that Jesus, being the first in the progres
sion of Christian ideas, must necessarily have remained inferior to
the thought and the type of succeeding generations. From this
position it would equally result, that Jesus should give place to St.
Paul, St. Paul to St. Augustin, St. Augustin to Gregory the Seventh,
Gregory the Seventh to Luther ; and on this moving territory each
destroying the other, and having no longer any thing stable in the
idea of the holy, the just, the beautiful, the true, who knows that we
shall not in the end find our ownselves to be the ultimate term in this
ladder of holiness ? for we also are at the extremity of a series. By
this it might also be proved, that, of Homer and Virgil, the second
would be the master. But how long has the inspiration of beauty, of
justice, of truth, been an arithmetical or a geometrical progression ?
It will be seen that this is no longer a point in which Christianity
only is concerned, but rather the grand principle of all person
ality, and that it leads to the denial of life itself. However, I am
persuaded, that the person of Christ makes so great a part of the
history of the last eighteen hundred years, that, if you take it away,
all other history should be denied^for the same reason, and by the
same right; nay, you must, as an inevitable consequence, admit a
humanity without nations, or rather nations without individuals,
generations of ideas without forms, which die, are resuscitated to
die again, at the foot of the invisible cross, where remains suspended
the impersonal Christ of Pantheism. The author expresses this
conclusion clearly enough, when he recapitulates his doctrine in
this sort of metaphysical litany : " Christ," says he, " is not an
individual, but an idea, that is to say, humanity. In the human
race, behold the God-made-man ; behold the child of the visible
Virgin and the invisible Father, that is, of matter and of mind;
behold the Saviour, the Redeemer, the sinless one ; behold him who
dies, who is raised again, who mounts into the heavens. Believing
in this Christ, in his death, his resurrection, man is justified before
God." I quote these words, not only because they sum up all the
author s system, but also because they are the clearest expression
of this apotheosis of mankind, in which, during some years past,
we have all more or less taken part. The aim of all this is to
despoil the individual, in order to enrich the species : the man is
75 M

26 QUINET ON STEAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

diminished, to enlarge humanity : that which none would dare say
of himself is put to the account of all. Self-love is at the same
time lowered and deified. This idea has a certain Titan gran
deur, which enchants all of us. Is this grandeur real ? or do we
not strangely abuse each other? That is the question. If the
individual cannot himself be the supremely just, the holy, if he
is not identified with God, if he is incapable of raising himself
to the supreme ideal of virtue, beauty, liberty, and love, what
is said ? and how will these attributes become those of the species ?
Tell me, how many men will make up humanity ? Will two will
three individuals attain this ideal ? If these do not suffice, will three
thousand three hundred thousand three millions ? What mat
ters the number, will they succeed better ? Heap up as much as
you please of these empty unities, will the result be less empty
than they ? Is it not evident, that we labour at a senseless work ?
that, if the human individual is but a nothing, alienated from
God, nations also on their side are but collections of nothing ; and
that; in adding nations to nations, empires to empires, whatever
fine names we may give them, India, Assyria, Greece, Rome,
the empires of Alexandria, of Charlemagne, of Napoleon, it is
in vain to multiply the zeros ? The product of them all will still
be zero ; and, always aiming at the infinite, we really do nothing
but embrace in humanity a more perfect nothing, since it is com
posed of all these nothings together. If that is true, it results that
all life, all grandeur, as well as all misery, rises from the individual.
Suppose, then, that we wish to exalt ourselves in union with all the
human race, we must not deny the dignity of the individual. The
noblest work of Christianity is to have consecrated the individual
in the highest manner ; for, if the life of the God-made-man have a
sense comprehensible to all, unexceptionable to all, it is because
it evinces that the infinite dwells in each conscience, as well as in
the soul of the human race ; and that the thought of each man may
spread and dilate itself, so as to embrace and penetrate all the
moral universe.

DR. STRAUSS S BOOK, "THE LIFE OF JESUS/

ATHANASE COQUEREL.

THE substance of the eloquent answer to Strauss, whose title we have placed above, will
be found in the ensuing pages. The Editor has taken leave to omit a few passages, found
in the original, both at the commencement and at the end of the Reply, because they
contained matter which, however appropriate in the essay itself, were not required in
this work.

The essay itself first appeared in Le Lien, a religious newspaper, conducted by liberal
members of the French Protestant Church, and was then published in the year 1841, in a
separate pamphlet. The essay has been translated into Dutch.

The writer, whose publications are numerous, holds most deservedly a high place
among the Protestant clergy of France ; being distinguished alike for learning, for elo
quence, and for personal worth. Among his works, it may be enough to mention here
his " Sacred Biography" (Biographic Sacree, second edition), which is in itself almost a
cyclopedia of sacred history, containing a compendium of most of what is good and Chris
tian in the German and Dutch theology of the present day.

Our readers will be pleased to read the following sketch of M. Coquerel s history,
which is given in his own language :

" I was born in Paris, in 1795, and never knew my mother. My grandmother was a
Hay, of Norton, of the ancient and numerous Scotch family of that name ; and I believe,
that, on my mother s side, I quarter (according to the English phrase) with the Earl of
Erroll; his Lordship being the head of this family, well known in the history of Scotland.
My mother s vacant place was filled by her sister, one of the most distinguished female
authors of the day, Helena Maria Williams, who justly bears the title of English historian
of the French Revolution, whose works have been translated into all the modern languages,
whose poems were put into French verse by Esmenard and the celebrated Chevalier de
Bouflers, and whose English translation of Paul and Virginia ranks among your classics.
This remarkable woman brought me up. I spent my youth with her, in the midst of the
first society, both of Paris and London ; and whatever I am, I owe to her. She was
intimate with the first men of the day, under Napoleon ; and I might have entered any
profession with brilliant hopes. But I never thought of becoming any thing else but a
minister of the gospel. I went through the four years course of theological studies at
77

28 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Montauban, our Protestant Academy in the south of France. At their close, I returned
to Paris. I was then too young to expect a call in France : twenty-five is the age accord
ing to our rules, and I was then twenty-one. A place was vacant in the French Reformed
Church of Amsterdam, and I was invited to Holland to preach a few sermons during the
vacancy. I had appeared only three times in the pulpit, when the situation was offered
me; and, after arriving at Amsterdam with the intention of remaining six weeks, I
remained twelve years ! Nothing can surpass the kindness with which my ministerial
labours were rewarded, and my sense of the excellent and generous marks of friendship
which I received from all sides. But the celebrated Cuvier, the geologist, who, as
Counsellor of State, and of the University of France, was-in 1830, before the Revolution,
at the head of the administration of the reformed churches and academies of France,
insisted (though I was then personally unknown to him) on my returning to this coun
try, and offered me the situation of Professor at Montauban. A trifling circumstance
prevented my arrival in Paris soon enough to have my name on the presentation -list; and
the consequence was, that Cuvier, who would not let me go, determined on the erection
of a new (and fourth) situation of Pasteur de VEglisc Reformee de Paris. I have now,
for these fourteen years past, fulfilled this laborious and difficult task in the capital of
France ; and I believe I may say, that, under the divine ble seing, my endeavours have
not been without some success in the holy cause of the Protestant faith. I preach
to a very crowded congregation (at the Oratoire, our principal church, I suppose that
there are assembled in general from fifteen hundred to two thousand persons) ; and I
may say, that the Reformed Church of Paris is increasing and prospering in every way.
A considerable number of Catholics are constantly present at my sermons, particularly at
the Oratoire.

" I forgot to say, that in the beginning of 1839, after three years professional duties in
Paris, I was very unexpectedly named by the king, Chevalier de la Legion d honnenr, a
distinction usually awarded only to a few senior ministers."

IN this reply, we intend to take a survey of the arguments which
confute the system of Dr. Strauss, and to explain the service he
has unintentionally rendered to the cause of the gospel. In short,
we will prove, by quoting the very words of the unbeliever, that, in
the midst of his unbelief, he is obliged to leave portions enough of
Christianity yet standing, on which we can reconstruct the whole.

Had Christianity, at its origin, in the main only the confused
mass of religious opinions current in the day when it appeared,
and out of which credulity formed a history for Jesus in the Gos
pels, and for the apostles in the book of the Acts ?

I. The first objection which presents itself, in refutation of this
strange error, is the very existence of Christianity; for, in the
system of Dr. Strauss, Christianity is an effect without a cause.
No other moral revolution, of which we have any record, approaches
in grandeur, in importance, or in duration, to the influence of the
Christian religion : even its enemies concede this. To use the ex
pressive language of Holy Writ, " All things became new." The
pure knowledge of God, and of the spiritual worship we should
offer him ; the rooting out of all idolatry, and its revival rendered
impossible ; the relations between man and God placed in their

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 29

true light, and the necessity of a reconciliation proclaimed; the
equality and brotherhood of man given as the basis of a new social
state ; families restored to their primitive foundations, divinely
instituted in the time of innocence (Gen. ii.), but forgotten in the
pagan world, and even amongst the Jews ; the value of human life
at last appreciated ; the tomb laid open, and disarmed of its terrors ;
immortality brought to light, and promised to man ; peace of mind,
forgiveness of injuries, charity those three things, of the very
names of which antiquity was ignorant ; the rights of conscience
re-established, and the broad way of human perfectibility ever
opened to our steps ; the glories, the knowledge, the joys, the affec
tions of a purely spiritual heaven calmly anticipated by the most
humble and most simple disciples of a crucified Saviour ; this, in
a few words, is the whole of Christianity ; for which, according to
our Christian faith, the whole of antiquity, till the advent of Christ,
was under God engaged in preparing; which, since the birth
of Christ, occupies* eighteen centuries, teeming with events, and
which in some degree constitutes their sole history ; and which, as
to time to come, seizes beforehand upon the whole of futurity, until
the end of the world, and of eternity beyond. Yet, in the system
of Dr. Strauss, Christianity, which has exercised so wonderful an
influence over the race of man Christianity, which man sees
everywhere around him, in the past, the present, and (if he have
faith) in the future Christianity, which has penetrated through
all the veins of the social body, for eighteen hundred years
Christianity, that religion which martyrs have borne witness to at
the stake, and Leibnitz, Newton, and Grotius, in their studies
Christianity has for its origin a few popular rumours, a few obscure
fables, a few traditions, that superstition borrowed from the Old
Testament, in order to construct the New. It may truly be said,
in the system of Dr. Strauss, Christianity is indeed an effect
without a cause. But no : every river has its spring, and religion
comes to us from that source whence all truth comes from God :
the effect is too great to have arisen from a less cause. The work
man is known by his work : Christianity has God for its author.

II. How is it possible to believe with our adversary, that Chris
tianity, of which we have just drawn the picture, is the production
of nothing more than some popular legends, collected at random,
when, from this sketch, brief as it is, it follows that Christianity
alone, amongst all religions, is suitable for all nations, all govern
ments, and all degrees of civilization ? False religions can only
exist on a certain zone of the earth. The sun and its fires are as
necessary to them as to the Greek mythologies, and to the poems
of Homer ; or as the north and its ice to the Scandinavian mytho
logies, and the poems of Ossiaii. And, to cite but one more
instance, who does not see in Mahometanism the impress of the
climate which gave it birth, and beyond which it has not been able
to spread, bounded on the globe by a line marked by the Caspian

30 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Sea in Asia, and by the Danube and the Pyrenees in Europe ? Who
does not see, in each false religion, the spirit of the government of the
time when it originated, the extent of the civilization and the man
ners of the period, the degree of knowledge then diffused abroad ?
Christianity alone rises above all these diversities; it is equally
adapted for every portion of the earth ; it is not dependent on differ
ences of temperature, or the aspects of the heavens. As to forms
of government, it flourishes in liberty and peace, but dies not in
tyranny and war. It sanctifies every advancement in civilization; it
embellishes the most polished manners ; it reasons with the philo
sopher ; it studies with the sage ; it legislates with the lawgiver ; it
assimilates itself with every thing, excepting what is evil and what
is false ; it is suitable to all circumstances ; iniquity can introduce
no scourge for which it cannot find a remedy, nor can genius
invent an improvement which it does not appropriate, and turn to
profit. How is it possible to believe, that this admirable religion,
at the same time so human and so divine, so perfectly adapted to
all the conditions of man, from year to year, and from age to age,
is mainly the product of popular legends, obscure, unconnected,
varied without end ? How is it possible, that from such a source
could emanate a religious system, in which each century in its turn
finds all it requires, and where every nation and every government
can learn the lesson it most requires. The dreamers, who, accord
ing to Dr. Strauss, imagined the history of Jesus by the help of
reminiscences from the Old Testament were they such diviners
as to presage all the future conditions of man, and adapt their
dreams to them accordingly ?

III. The question, thus placed, presents itself under another
aspect, which gives a new contradiction to the system of Dr. Strauss.
That which he calls a myth, or legend, that is, the personification
of the ideas of the age effected in a certain person, must neces
sarily bear the deep impress of the period when those ideas
prevailed, and of the opinions, sufferings, and wants of that age.
The more profound these opinions, sufferings, and wants, the
deeper will be the impression of them in the legends of the times.
Thus, in reading Homer, we discover, throughout his poems, an
age when Greece had as many kings as towns, when corporeal
strength was the great resource in the art of war, when manners
were yet rude and savage, and when religion imagined rude and
savage gods, gods but little civilized, if this term can be applied
to an Olympus. And if a poet, in order to give his work what is
now called an historical colouring, is obliged to put nothing into
the mouth of his heroes but what is suitable to that period, how
much more should writers, whose aim is to reform religion, cere
monies, manners, and laws, censure, in every page and every line,
the great abuses which prevail, and urge the necessity of great
reforms, those necessary consequences of the moral revolution
they had either attempted or dreamed ? But the gospel, the date

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 31

of whose origin Dr. Strauss himself places at the same epoch with
ourselves, about eighteen centuries ago, sprang up in an age
of frightful tyranny ; yet it does not contain a single word directly
in favour of political liberty, or against despotism. In an age when
slavery prevailed everywhere, it does not declare it illegal. In an
age when polygamy was universal, it does not break those destruc
tive bonds. Why this silence, which is by no means a concession ?
Why this caution, which is but a useful procrastination ? Because
Christianity did not aim at a political revolution : it did not come
to change by violence the social state, and to totally destroy all
things, in order to reconstruct all things anew. Christianity had
another mission. It assailed the human heart, whose correction
was its aim ; and it knew well, that to change the heart of man was
to change every thing. It struck thus at the root of all evil. It
was not by the shock of revolutions, but by the sway of principles,
that it sought to destroy all despotism, slavery, and polygamy. Is
it thus that public opinion left to herself, the opinions of the mass,
the prejudices or passions of the multitude, would proceed ? The
men who, according to Dr. Strauss, dreamed the gospel were either
Jews, subjects of Herod r or Gentiles, subjects of Caesar and of their
proconsuls ; and yet they dreamed nothing against tyranny. Their
dreams end in the scene of Christ s submission before the infamous
Pilate, so hated by some, so despised by others ; and in the com
mand of Paul, "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers."
The oppressed dream not thus.

IV. Dr. Strauss is obliged to own, that Christianity commenced
eighteen centuries ago, which, of all the epochs of ancient history,
was perhaps the least favourable to the growth of a religion that had
mainly fables, and not facts, for its foundation. This was, through
out antiquity, the epoch which most resembled our eighteenth
century ; an age of doubt, of unbelief, of continual derision and
scorn ; wanting in respect for all ancient faiths ; an age when
every thing was questioned, when novelty was desired in all things ;
an age, of which the true representative is Lucian, he who has
been called the Greek Voltaire, Lucian, the celebrated author
of " Dialogues of the Dead," " Dialogues of the Gods and God
desses," - - Lucian, who jested with Olympus, regardless of the
Pantheon at Rome, which was filled with innumerable divinities.
What a time was that to frame, for an obscure moralist of Judea, a
marvellous history, composed of wonders borrowed from the Old
Testament, appropriated, ill or well, according to circumstances ;
and to found on the fragile base of a manger, a cross, and a tomb
of three days, the belief in a universal and immortal salvation !
What a time was that to invent an ideal of human perfection ; to
create an allegory of divine virtue ; to propose a reconciliation
between God and man ! and then to tell the world, that this ideal
had presented itself that this allegory was realized that this
reconciliation was effected in whom ? In a renowned philo-

32 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

sopher of one of the Greek schools? In a sage of Asia, hastening
towards the West, with all his holy reputation ? No : but in this
Jesus, the son of a carpenter, who lived in poverty and obscurity ;
who, contrary to the constant custom of the philosophers of man
kind, taught only in his own country, and who died the ignominious
death of the Roman slaves. It is very true, that the inhabitants
of the East have always been, and still remain, more meditative
and more credulous than those of the West, and that the East was
the cradle of Christianity. But it is a remarkable fact, that Strauss
cannot find in this any support whatever for his system. Two
equally powerful reasons prevent this. Firstly, that was precisely
the epoch when, the victorious arms of the Romans continually
advancing, the East and the West mingled more and more toge
ther ; when the spirit of Europe had begun to modify that of Asia,
to teach it to doubt, and not to believe without examination, to prefer
facts to theories. Secondly (and this reflection is worthy of the most
attentive consideration), was it in Asia, where the people were more
in the habit of believing than in Europe was it in Asia, where
traditions had preserved greater sway, that primitive Christianity
penetrated the most quickly or the farthest ? No : at that period,
it made but slow and uncertain steps in Asia. We know nothing
of St. Paul s three years sojourn in Arabia : it is only by a mere
remark in the Epistle of St. Peter, we discover that he carried the
faith to Babylon ; and it needed all the science of Michaelis to
prove, that this letter was dated from the Babylon of the Euphrates.
No : it was in unbelieving Europe that Christianity at once took
root, and established itself in a decisive manner without delay. It
was in the most civilized, the most corrupt, the most learned cities
Corinth, Athens, Rome that the gospel found its first converts
and its first martyrs. Strange contradiction, that the people who
believed nothing of whose thoughts Pilate was the very echo,
when he scornfully asked, " What is truth?" should so quickly
learn to construct a new religion, by the assistance of some worn-
out legends from the East ! Dr. Strauss in vain combats this
overwhelming reply, that a mythology can be established only
in a simple, ignorant, and credulous age, and not in one of dispute
and doubt. Besides, the things of all others which at that period
were least believed and least esteemed, were the Jewish traditions.
Josephus, the Jewish historian, was well aware of this ; for, in order
to make his work agreeable to the tastes of the Romans and Greeks,
every time that he relates the marvels of the Old Testament, he
stops short in his recital to add complacently some limitation of
unbelief, and to flatter thus the propensity of his age to discredit
the Jewish traditions. The satires of Juvenal give abundant proofs
of the contempt in which the Jews and the chiefs of their synagogues
were held at Rome, where they were placed in the same rank as
the priests of Isis. According to Dr. Strauss, the whole fabulous
scaffolding of the gospel was erected on the recollection of the

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 33

prodigies of the Old Testament; so that the people who were
sceptical towards the Jews became all at once credulous towards
the Christians, who were successors and disciples of the Jews, and
were ready to adore in a church that which but the clay before they
had mocked in a synagogue. For us, we believe with St. John,
that " salvation is of the Jews." But, in spite of Dr. Strauss, we
do not believe that the Roman world would of itself, or from pre
ference, have sought among them for its salvation.

IV. The state of Judea, in particular, was not at that time more
favourable to the triumph of vague, mythological ideas, than the
state of the world in general. We have already seen, that Europe
and Asia drew nearer to each other; and that the unbelieving
spirit of the inhabitants of the West had, by the force of example
and the interchange of thought, lessened the former credulousness
of the inhabitants of the East. The same effect was produced in
Judea. The ancient simplicity of the Hebrew faith was no more ;
men no longer believed, only because their fathers had believed;
they did not feel themselves pledged to the faith of their ancestors ;
and the only remembrances of the past which still kept any empire
were traditions, not abstract and cloudy, in which mysticism could
lose itself with ease, and hide its dreams, but traditions of a sub
stantial kind, poor in fancies, but rich in facts, in minute obser
vances, in rigid austerities, and especially in doubts, doubts which
were changed into sarcasms. All that the New Testament, as well
as other authorities, teach us of the state of opinion in Judea, near
the time of Christ, shows that it was impossible for a purely mytho
logical religion to get established. The spirit of the two great rival
sects, the Pharisees and Sadducees, who at that time contended for
the favour of both the high and the low, is a confirmation of this.
The Pharisees, it is true, loved to trace their origin back to Moses,
and to follow from century to century, from Moses down to the
latest times, the long series of their traditional expositions of the
law. But upon what points did their theology especially dwell?
On outward customs, on observances, altogether material and cere
monial, which had the double advantage of soothing and lulling to
sleep their consciences, and of surrounding them with a great
reputation for sanctity. This excessive love of form whether it
originate in a superstitious but sincere ignorance, or serve as a
mask for hypocrisy is diametrically opposed to that tendency of
thoughtful minds, to give form and life to the traditions they cherish,
or the novelties they deify. The Sadducees, on their side, denied
precisely those doctrines which favour abstract ideas, and in which
ardent and gloomy imaginations have in all ages sought the notions
which they delighted to realize, and to change into facts: they
denied all Providence, all immortality, all resurrection. The other
sects, less numerous, less powerful, and less known, the Zelots and
the Herodians, which were sects more political than religious, the
one, whose patriotism was pushed to the extreme of fanaticism

83 N

34 COQUEEEL ON STBAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

against the violators of the law, and the enemies of the nationality
of Judea; the other, which served the interest of the dynasty of the
Herods, and strove earnestly to rally around it the interests and
passions of the Jews, were not more disposed in favour of those
popular legends from which Dr. Strauss holds that Christianity
originated.* In short, what is above all things worthy of remark,
and above every thing else gives a striking contradiction to the
assertions of the learned German, is, that the bias of the public
mind in Judea, at the period of the establishment of Christianity,
was far more political than religious : the gospel throughout bears
traces of this. Judea, then taken in the vast network of the Roman
conquests, governed by procurators who had not even the modera
tion to spare Jerusalem the affront of seeing graven images within
her walls, humiliated by its subjection to a pagan, and harassed by
the publicans, who, Jews though they were, troubled themselves far
more about the impost of the Romans than the didrachm of the
temple, Judea had lost the real intent of its oracles, and expected
in the Saviour only a political liberator, a king of this world, a
conqueror who would break the Roman yoke, and bring back again
the glorious days of a David and a Solomon, an Asa and a Jehosa-
phat. The memorable and fortunate struggle of the Maccabees
against the kings of Syria had resounded far and wide, and nattered
the national pride; and, in the spirit of a haughty and jealous
people, such remembrances become hopes. Thence all those false
Messiahs who called the Jews to arms, and promised them an
impossible independence ; fanatics who, in deceiving others, were
themselves first deceived ; or audacious impostors, who worked
upon the faith and passions of the moment, to serve their own
selfish ambition, and fell upon the power of Rome with an inde
scribable fury. The Romans drowned these seditions in floods of
blood ; and the blood of the last rebels was scarcely dry, ere other
unhappy wretches covered it again with theirs. One of the greatest
difficulties which Christ encountered in his mission was the obliga
tion to keep at a distance from all political parties, to advise tran
quillity and obedience to the people, to refuse the crown of Judea,
and to accept instead a cross for his trophy. The gospel abounds

* It appears unnecessary to bring forward the Essenes, as the absurd doctrine is now
renounced (and it was high time) which made Christ a secret pupil of the Essenes, and
Christianity an offshoot from that sect. On this point, science has yielded to faith. If
the spirituality of this sect, and even its virtues, have appeared to superficial and prejudiced
critics to bring its disciples near to those of the gospel, it must certainly be granted that
the principles to which they attached the most importance were in direct opposition to the
spirit of Christianity. It is not less evident, that the Essenes stood aloof from the events
of the gospel, and the foundation of the church. Their very opinions enforced their
absence; and the silence of Holy Writ, which makes no mention of this sect, is a proof of
their authenticity and truth. Those sectaries remained beyond the pale of the gospel
history, because they did not and could not take any part in its facts. Strauss himself
attaches no importance to the hypothesis, now abandoned, that the Essenes were the
precursors of the church. Sect. i. chap. ii. 41.

COQUEEEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 35

with proofs of the profound wisdom with which, without clashing
with the national sentiment, he avoided nourishing a vain hope, and
came forth to fulfil his mission as a religious Messiah and spiritual
Saviour. This wisdom he displayed even at the time of his trium
phal entry into Jerusalem amid the loudest acclamations. In perfect
confidence we ask this question: Where, in the midst of a nation
engaged to this extent in that which bears the most absolute sway
over the whole world, namely, political interests, and amid all
this rivalry of religious sects of which the one bestowed all its
attention on the mere letter and form, and the other endeavoured
to materialize religion and admitted no immortality, where is the
place for a system of myths, a systematic union of mystic fables and
abstract legends, such as Christianity could arise from ? So many
clouds could be seen only by stedfastly gazing on the heavens ; and
the Jewish people especially looked towards the earth.

VI. Dr. Strauss acknowledges (and we shall have occasion to
return again to this point) that the Christian movement began in Jeru
salem and Judea : there was its cradle, and thence the gospel cast
its beams around. This fable, engrafted on ancient fables, to speak
the language of the learned unbeliever, took in this centre, form,
consistency, and life. And this is according to the nature of things;
since the gospel, according to Strauss, being only a counterfeit of the
Old Testament arranged to meet the taste of the day, it was very
natural that the new illusion should be fabricated on the scene of the
former errors ; it was very natural that Jerusalem, filled with remem
brances of the law, should serve as the starting point for the legends
which credulity drew from those remembrances. But here again our
adversary furnishes us with weapons against himself. Christianity, he
owns, sprang immediately from Judea, and advanced triumphantly
amongst heathen nations. But Judea at this epoch was, as it were,
surrounded by pagan science, which met her everywhere on her
frontiers. On one side, Judea had, at her gates in Egypt, the cele
brated city of Alexandria, with its gymnasia, its schools, and its
far-famed library ; Alexandria, at that time filled with Jews, whose
connexion with Jerusalem was so intimate that in the latter place
there was an Alexandrian synagogue (Acts vi. 9) ; Alexandria,
whose doctors were acquainted with the mission of John, the precursor
of Christ (Acts xviii. 25), and where study more abounded than at
Athens. Towards the east was Arabia, where one portion of Greek
science had taken refuge from Roman conquest and oppression.
On the north were the cities of Asia Minor, almost all of them the
abodes of science ; Pergamos, whose library, so long the rival of that
of Alexandria, had, under Cleopatra, just been transferred thither ;
Tarsus (which gave its name to St. Paul), where even the Roman
youth were educated, and whose schools, according to Strabo, sur
passed those of Alexandria and Athens ; Antioch, to which Cicero, in
his oration in defence of Archias, rendered in strong terms the most
honourable testimony, on account of the great number of learned men

36 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

who dwelt there, Antioch, where the name of Christian was first
employed. Christianity, in extending beyond Judea, had to cross
these different centres of historical, critical, and philosophical learn
ing, to pass these barriers, to submit to this scrutiny, influenced far
more by partiality than by justice. Is it possible to believe, that le
gends adopted by popular credulity, and circulated under this single
guarantee, could have deluded these schools so far as to fill the Roman
world with Christians even so early as the time of Trajan ? What had
become of the science of Asia Minor, Greece, and Egypt? and how
was it that it failed to discover, nearly eighteen hundred years before
Dr. Strauss, that these fabulous legends were nothing more than
fables ? This argument, to any one who understands the scientific
spirit of that age, is an extremely forcible one, because at that time
philosophy was essentially critical: the great and glorious works of
antiquity are, as it were, smothered under an enormous mass of notes
and explanations. The poems of Homer especially served as the
subject for interminable criticisms, in which verse by verse, word by
word, and syllable by syllable, all was analyzed, dissected, and sifted in
a thousand ways ; sagacity and patience were tasked in order to dis
cover a new manner of understanding a word of the great poet; and
the school of Alexandria was distinguished, above all others, by this
unfruitful abundance ; its learned men tortured their minds in order
to conceive in their own way, by philosophy alone, what the great poet
had by his genius conceived many centuries before. In a word, dry,
minute, inflexible criticism, armed with innumerable inquiries and
quotations without number, was the order of the day. Yet Chris
tianity escaped safe This new mythology, the enemy of all others,
did not excite the curiosity, the suspicion, or the censure of that
contemporary criticism which so boldly explored all the inmost
recesses of ancient traditions. That criticism did not convict of
falsehood, fables made by the aid of more ancient ones, and which
threatened to change all things, including poetry, literature, and
philosophy. Subjects for commentary and disputation began to
fail, and yet it did not seize upon that which voluntarily presented
itself! This is in direct opposition to the unvaried habit of the
human mind. The critic seeks but to criticise. If Christianity
rests on facts, one can very easily understand why those endless
commentators of the school of Athens, and their rivals of Greece,
long neglected it, one can understand how it remained unobserved ;
for that kind of criticism, preferring antiquity, always applies itself
the least to contemporaneous history. But if, as Dr. Strauss con
tends, Christianity rests, on traditions, fancies, and remembrances, of
which credulity framed a history, one can no longer comprehend
why the criticism of the day did not interfere, why, without
remonstrance, it suffered this trenching on that antiquity which was
its own domain, its treasure, why it allowed this transfer, as it
were, of ancient fables into present times, without contending for its
own property. This reply to the errors of Dr. Strauss is so much

COQUEBEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS, 37

the more forcible, because all testimonies concur in exhibiting
Christianity, as from the period of its origin, addressing itself not
only to the low and ignorant, but also to the high and educated,
classes of society. The Acts and the Epistles are full of narratives
and allusions which prove this. It is impossible to conceive how
men of letters, casting off all at once the habils of the public mind
of this period, should have abjured the convictions and doubts of
their whole lives, to accept without inquiry, as a positive religion, a
mere collection of fables, whose imposture a very little attention
would have sufficed to discover and defeat.

VII. If the political and religious tendencies in Judea, the
scientific tendencies in the most nourishing of the Pagan schools,
and the popular tendencies in the whole Roman empire, offered
but little hope of success to fables converted into real events, and
but little means of causing all these scattered legends to be adopted
as the history of Jesus of Nazareth, would not these states of
feeling have had sufficient time to change between the appearance
of Christ on the one hand, and the foundation of the church and
the compilation of the Gospels on the other ? Dr. Strauss, in effect,
asks whether, " the space of rather more than thirty years, which
intervened between the death of Jesus and the destruction of Jeru
salem, during which time the greater portion of the evangelical
narratives must have been produced, or even the interval to the
middle of the second century, which is the latest period that can
be granted for the development of the most recent of these narra
tives, and the compilation of the Gospels, be not far too short for
the creation of a mythology so rich " as Christianity. The objec
tion has often been advanced, and appears to us fatal in its nature.
The indifference with which our opponent affects to treat it, and
the little skill which so learned an unbeliever employs in his
answer,* seems to us a proof that he closes his eyes on its import
ance, and can find no reply. The whole of history gives to it a
force which a few lines of criticism cannot take away. History
exhibits to our view all the mythological religions as lost in the
night of time, going back to an immemorial antiquity, forming
themselves with an extreme slowness, and taking, in the minds of
the people, the colour, appearance, and distinctness of positive facts,
only in consequence of growing old, when their origin was forgotten,
and the lapse of ages had formed a mysterious veil which concealed
from men their rude beginnings. The mind of man is so consti
tuted, that, in order to accumulate error upon error, it is necessary
to accumulate age upon age. How many ages passed -away before^
the fables of China, India, or Persia, took the consistence of a
system, or the form of a history ! Olympus, such as Homer repre
sents it in his poetry, is very different from the Metamorphoses of

* Introduction, 14.

38 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

Ovid; but then what a number of years, and what a mass of events,
had produced this great modification in the received opinions about
the gods sung by the two poets, and who in the two poems have
nothing in common but their names ! Was it in thirty or even a
hundred years, that Rome passed from the more moral worship
instituted by Titus and Numa, and from the first temples constructed
under the republic, to the deification of its emperors, and to the
conception of a Pantheon, that vast assemblage of foreign idols,
privileged with the right of Roman citizenship ? In less remote
times, was it in thirty or a hundred years that the imagination of
the people of the North created the mythology of Odin, Thor, and
Frega, with their palaces of ice and mist? To cite one more
example, less remote from the period of the Holy Scriptures, that
of Egypt. The Egyptian mythology (though perhaps, in studying
it, sufficient care may not be taken to mark its different epochs)
presents, according to both the Bible and profane history, a pro
gressive march, the traces of which one can only regret not being
able to follow on the monuments. It is very probable that, in a
very remote antiquity, all those symbolic figures that are now con
sidered as so many Egyptian idols, represented the attributes of a
Supreme God, and not those of different divinities. Thus Moses,
who prohibited the Hebrews from having any relations with foreign
countries, and whose laws are so severe on this point, authorises
friendly feelings with Egypt: " Thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian,
because thou wast a stranger in his land," Deut. xxiii. 7. And if
the Egyptian worship at the time of Moses however infected it
might then already be with superstitions and errors had resembled
the Canaanitish and Syrian idolatries, Moses would, no doubt, have
extended to the Egyptians his general interdiction against all
relations with Pagans; and the long sojourn of the Israelites in
Egypt would only have been another reason for condemning a
connexion which their remembrances of the land would have ren
dered only more dangerous and more easy. In the sequel, it was
especially with Egypt that the prophets so earnestly endeavoured
to prevent the Jews from having any alliance or intimacy. Isaiah
vehemently opposed that fatal inclination which drew the Hebrews
towards the Egyptians; and Jeremiah perished, the victim of the
intrepid perseverance with which he, in his turn, opposed it. The
Egyptian worship had become more gross, more material; the idola
try had become, as it were, more idolatrous; the darkness, more
dark; and this progress still continued, though fettered by the
, foundation of Alexandria, till towards the reign of the first emperors.
But through how many ages must we not follow this imperceptible
movement, in order to mark any certain differences ! All history
attests, that, thirty or forty years after the death of Christ, Chris
tianity existed everywhere, and everywhere amongst the most
polished nations. Dr. Strauss contends, that, in that brief space of
time, popular credulity, as if by a common plan, from East to West,

COQUEREL ON STKAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 39

from the Euphrates to the Tiber, was able to build upon the soil
of the Old Testament, the immense fabric which he calls the
Christian mythology. The birth and mission of the precursor ;
the birth and mission of Jesus ; all his wonders, precepts, and oracles ;
his passion, his death, his resurrection, his ascension; the wonderful
foundation of the church, comprising the calling of Saint Paul ; -
all this system, such as the four Gospels describe it, and still more,
not only they, but all the supposed Gospels that Christianity rejected
(Strauss owns this, In trod. 13) before the end of the second
century; all this system, which is so firmly knit together, that not
even the apocryphal writers have been able to tear it asunder, was
then imagined, divulged, repeated by a thousand voices, committed
to writing, believed above all, believed and formed into a regular
system of worship, and raised into a positive religion in the short
space of thirty or forty years ! No : imposture does not succeed so
quickly as this, imposture does not so easily gain credit; and,
what most completely proves the force of this reply, having almost
the force of a demonstration, to the allegations of the learned Ger
man, is the very refutation with which he attempts to oppose it.

" I reply," he says, " that it was not during this space of time that the greater portion
of the evangelical cycle was produced. The first groundwork of it was laid in the myths of
the Old Testament, composed before and after the Babylonian Captivity. Between die
time of the rise of the first Christian community, and that of the composition of the evan
gelical narratives, there was nothing more to be done than to transfer to Jesus the
Messianic myths, already for the most part entirely formed, and to modify them accord
ing to the Christian signification, and after the individual convictions of Jesus and his
followers. Only a small proportion of them remained to be composed."*

Who does not feel the weakness of this argument, the falseness of
this distinction? Who does not see that this is precisely the point
in question? We will freely arid unhesitatingly grant to our ad
versary, that, if the gospel be a fable, it is a fable borrowed from the
Old Testament. But the human mind has so much progress to
make, and credulity so many delusions to embrace, that the question
at issue is either the creation of new fables, or the re- establishment
and realization of old ones, and their transference into present times,
in order to frame a history of them, and especially a contemporaneous
history. In the system of the German doctor, the idea of a Messiah
amongst the Jews went back as far as Moses; arid it would be easy
to prove, that it could be traced still farther, even to Abraham.
Here, then, according to him, we meet with a popular credulity many
centuries old, which was slowly formed ; which, gaining new strength
from generation to generation, added unceasingly new features to
that imaginary form of a Messiah which it dimly saw in the future.
Here the darkness thickened with time : not less than from one to

Introduction, 14.

40 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

two thousand years were necessary to bring into vogue this prepara
tory mythology, formed altogether on a hope, a trust, an expectation.
Yet when this hope was looked upon as fulfilled, when the mythology
of accomplishment was added to that of preparation, and when the
New Testament had just completed the Old, thirty or forty years
sufficed to gain credence for it, not only amongst the Jews, but
amongst heathen nations, at that time entirely occupied with national
religions or ingenious scepticism. Thousands of years for the
growth of the Old Testament with the Jews, and half a century for
that of the New with the Jews and Gentiles, does not make the
balance equal. It is important to remark here, that, at first view,
the gospel seems even less probable, humanly speaking, than the
sacred annals of Israel. We shall have occasion to return to this
question of probability : at present it is sufficient for our purpose to
remark, that, to the readers of the Old Testament, the gospel added
one more, and that one the least credible of all, to the ideas of
Pagan antiquity, the most contrary of all to its experience, that
of an ideal of perfection, purity, and holiness. Thus people took
centuries to believe the less, and only a few years to believe the
greater. The names of Moses and the prophets deluded people
credulous and prone to idolatory, only by the aid of time : the name
of Jesus deceived the most argumentative and most sceptical nations;
on a sudden, in the space of a day, in the course of a single generation.
We do not fear to affirm, that the edifice of Dr. Strauss here totters
on its basis, and what he wishes to maintain is simply an impossi
bility. The progress of the human mind has been otherwise at all
times. Error needs age : it is powerful only when it is old. Truth
alone has no need of the consecrating influence which comes from
antiquity, and causes itself to be received at its first appearance.
If Christianity is only composed of unfounded legends, it will never
be explained how these wondrous legends so far gained a credence
in the East and in Europe within the space of half a century.

VIII. It appears as if Providence had condescended to offer us,
even in the annals of the Christian ages of the world, an example
which shows how an historical personage can become a fabulous
one, and how fable may be substituted for history ; thus furnishing
us with an unanswerable argument against the opinion which makes
of Christianity a simple amalgamation of badly arranged legends.
The last name which appears at the same time in history, and in
popular legends, belongs to our own country : it is that of Charle
magne. Even the briefest study of the reminiscences which this great
prince has left in history, properly so called, and of the place which
credulity, and even religious credulity, gave him in the romances
of chivalry, show what conditions are necessary for the formation of
a myth, an ideal, or a dream, in the popular mind ; conditions
which are not found in connexion with Christianity in its birth. Let
us call to mind the principal passages in the life of Charlemagne,
and the most glorious events of his reign : an immense empire ;

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 41

the title of emperor of the West, which spoke so powerfully to the
imagination ; an extraordinary activity, which led him to be con
tinually travelling over his provinces ; the project of joining the Da
nube with the Rhine ; a constant protection accorded to the church,
and an intimacy maintained with the court of Rome ; religious wars
in the North against the Saxons, and in the South against the Sara
cens of Spain ; relations with the Greek emperors at Constantinople
and the caliphs; his projected marriage with the empress Irene,
widow of Leo IV. ; the celebrated presents of Haroun-al-Raschid,
who, it is said, sent him the keys of the holy sepulchre, and even
seeds, shrubs, and fruits, to improve cultivation in his states ;
these were memorable facts, which struck the minds of the people,
seduced by their grandeur, and were engrafted in the popular
memory.

Charlemagne died in the beginning of the ninth century (814),
leaving one of those reputations which are obscure from their very
magnitude and brilliancy. Tradition took possession of it, and
covered with embellishments, at will, the soil already so rich. Two
powerful influences had begun to excite the imagination ; one, the
institution of chivalry, if chivalry can be considered an institution :
it was rather the natural effect of the ideas and wants of the age.
In whatever manner the origin of chivalry may be explained, it is
evident that its appearance and rapid progress greatly modified, in
peace and in war, in religion, and in the relations of the sexes, the
manners of the West, and at a later period affected even those of
Asia; it is evident that the principles of honour and of chivalrous
courtesy, the customs new or renewed, introduced by this brother
hood in arms, which became universal, appealed most forcibly to
the imagination of the people, dazzled their eyes, and rendered the
world more poetic. People were roused 011 every side, in presence
of this confederacy of the choice men of the age, which was establi
shed by the threefold enthusiasm of religion, valour, and love. The
crusades, where chivalry found the field of exploits and adventures
most suited to its tastes, to its faults, as well as its excellences,
was the second spring, which, in the course of the middle ages,
agitated the public mind; the crusades completed the flight of
chivalry, and reduced the powers and the virtues of society to this
single element, which gave its colour to every thing, to the art of
war, the union of families, the springs of government, poetry, litera
ture, even to religion. People were much less the disciples of the
gospel, than soldiers of the Virgin, or knights of the Holy Church.

With the crusades, and from the time of their commencement,
the marvellous, as it were, overflowed. So little was known of the
East, that every thing marvellous was credible, provided it was orien
tal. Chivalry became more and more flourishing; it was the
heroism of the time, and, like all heroism, it must have a type, an
ideal, a model; Charlemagne was chosen : no other name, no other
reputation, lent itself better than his to the illusion. Towards

91 O

42 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

the close of the eleventh century, a monk, borrowing the name
of Turpin, Archbishop of Rheims, during the reign of Charlemagne,
wrote or compiled the famous book* which became the model
for so many others of the same stamp, and in which a Charle
magne of fable takes the place of the Charlemagne of history,
a knight Charlemagne, who meets with the most extraordinary and
most fantastic adventures, who travels about the world followed by
his twelve peers, and who even undertakes a crusade, and goes to
make war in Palestine. Stories were heaped upon stories; the false
Turpin became quite otherwise celebrated than the true one, con
temporary with Charlemagne. Traditions and legends, adopted,
embellished, or invented by romancists or poets, were interwoven with
facts; and this chivalrous mythology attached itself so firmly to the
renowned name of the son of Pepin, that, for a long time, fable and
history were confounded in the reminiscences of his reign; and,
even at the present time, it is not possible to write his life without
a separate chapter devoted to the marvellous which imagination
added to his history. It is important to recollect, that the centuries
which intervened between the epoch of the historical Charlemagne
and that of the mythical Charlemagne, as found in the romances of
chivalry, were the most ignorant and credulous. The most absurd
magic had no difficulty in gaining credit ; geography and chronology
were completely violated; Jerusalem was placed in the centre of the
earth, and only three or four generations were reckoned between
the siege of Troy and the foundations of the kingdom of France :
even religion had scarcely any light or knowledge, and the most
profoundly absurd superstitions were revived during this period.
Here, then, we find united all the conditions favourable to the
invasion of fables into the territory of history, and for the creation
of a popular mythology : the hero s great renown ; an interval of
nearly three hundred years between the real history and the written
fiction; generations of unparalleled ignorance and credulity; the vast
extent of the theatre of events ; an excessive power of superstition,
and the double flight that chivalry and the crusades gave to the
imagination ; here a mythology was possible : thus fable became
engrafted upon history; but not one of these conditions can be
found around the cradle of Christianity.

IX. In all periods, it is true, fable has been mixed up with
history; and Christianity did not escape this common law of human
chronicles. In the early ages of the church, apocryphal Gospels,
invented and propagated by imposture or credulity, disputed their
place with the true Gospels. But when the point is to forge, in a

* Chronique et Histoire faite par Turpin. " Chronicle and History, by Turpin, Arch
bishop of Rheims, containing an account of the prowess and exploits which came to pass
in the time of king Charlemagne and his nephew Roland, translated from the Latin into
French." There are several editions of this work; but the latest were printed at Paris and
Lyons, with some variations in the titles, at the beginning of the sixteenth century.

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 43

supposed narrative, events of a nature so peculiar as those of the
mission of Christ, events circumscribed within a very brief space
of time, and upon a very limited extent of country, events occur
ring in the midst of political circumstances, to which nothing bore
any resemblance for some years before and afterwards, events, in
short, which had for witnesses and actors a people so different from
all others as the Jews, and a priesthood so strongly characterized as
theirs, imposture must have been wrought with a very rare ability,
or credulity have been well served by chance, for fraud or fable not
to be visible on every side. The truth of the gospel lost nothing of
its brilliancy, when human inventions attempted to rival it. In the
commencement of Christianity, and when, after the destruction of
Jerusalem and the ruin of the Jewish nation, Christianity removed
farther and farther from its cradle, a large number of apocryphal
gospels were spread abroad, several of which, for a time, deceived
some churches. Of these writings we must carefully distinguish
two kinds: some are serious books, of which, without any doubt,
St. Luke makes mention in the introduction to his Gospel (i. 1) :
these books, founded upon reputable documents, testimonies, and
traditions, reproduced, more or less exactly, the accounts of the
evangelists, and added deeds, and more especially words, of Christ
which they had omitted. There is nothing in this avowal to disquiet
or astonish the most timorous piety. St. John attests positively, in his
last page (xxi. 25), that our divine Master said and did infinitely more
things than he had related of him. St. Paul, in Acts xx. 35, cites
a saying of our Lord s, " It is more blessed to give than to receive"
which is not to be found in any of the four Gospels, not even
in that of St. Luke. It is evident that the greater part of the
conversations, discourses, and replies, of Jesus are only given in a
summary way. A single example is sufficient to show how the
words of Christ, not related in the Holy Scriptures, could be pre
served in the memory of the believers, and be at last committed to
writing. Our Lord, on the way to Emmaus, talked for a long time
with two disciples, and " beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
he expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concern
ing himself. Is it possible to believe, that Cleophas and his
companion, so deeply impressed with this divine instruction, should
retain nothing of it in their memory, or repeat nothing of it in their
discourses and conversations ? * It is quite useless to add, that all
these works were without inspiration or divine authority. The
second kind of apocryphal books of the New Testament is very-
different from the first: it consists of collections of borrowings
from the canonical Gospels, mixed up with fables, legends, and

* See, in a collection, by Fabricius, of the Apocryphal Writings of the New Testa
ment, the curious piece entitled, "Words of Christ our Saviour, which are not found
in the four canonical Gospels." Prem. part. p. 321.
93

44 COQUEKEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

wonders, so puerile, gross, and absurd, sometimes impure, and more
frequently barbarous, that the mythology of Christianity, so vainly
searched for by the ingenious scepticism of Dr. Strauss in the
Sacred Writings, is here. Remarkable fact ! It is especially the
works of this second class which have escaped the shipwreck of
time ; and, according to our deep conviction, not any defence of
Christianity, nor any introduction to the New Testament, is so well
adapted to enlighten an unbeliever if he has not surrendered
himself to some system as a simple perusal of the remains of this
heap of falsehoods, compared with our Gospels, though they affect
to be moulded according to the Sacred Records. The difference
is so palpable and so striking, that it compels belief; and the reader,
turning with disgust from these fables invented by raving imagi
nations, reposes with a pious delight upon the divine and touching
majesty of the word of God. Would that we had the power to read
these two collections the one in which the spirit of the Lord spoke,
the other where the inventions of men dared to counterfeit the
heavenly truth to all the superficial sceptics of our day, who
understand the one no better than the other, and who confidently
admire Christianity without tracing it to its source, and without
acknowledging that that source is a revelation ! We can only just
glance at the subject of the apocrypha, and but simply point out the
contrast between the Scriptures and these miserable imitations. One
feature, however, must detain us, because it furnishes a powerful
argument against the system of Dr. Strauss. It is known, and we
have already mentioned this, that the idea of a temporal Messiah
was prevalent amongst the Jews at the time of our Lord s advent,
and during the period of his mission : the whole Jewish nation was
imbued with it ; and the wisest and most pious, sharing this common
error, were satisfied with joining the hope of a moral and religious
reform with that of a political revolution and the foundation of a
new empire, of which Israel would be the head. This hope misled
the friends, the disciples, and even the apostles of Jesus to such a
degree, that his passion and death did not undeceive them; and
only a short time before his ascension they again asked him, " Lord,
wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel ? "
Acts i. 6. Hence it is easy to see, since the whole of Christ s
ministry took place in Judea, that true and exact Gospels ought
everywhere to offer traces of this idea, ever present to the minds
of all ; and, in fact, such traces may be found throughout the
four Gospels, and, as we have just had proof, even in the begin
ning of the book of Acts. But, on the contrary, the false Gospels,
compiled or fabricated by superstitious or deceitful writers, strangers
to the Jewish nationality, to its religion and its history, and to
all the interests of the day, would present no marks of this error
with which the patriotism of the degenerate posterity of Abraham
at that time fed itself; and this is precisely the case, for in all
the apocryphal writings now extant there is not a single allusion to

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 45

the expectations of a temporal Messiah. One single exception is
perhaps to be made for a sentence in the Gospel called the " Egyp
tian,"* quoted by Clement of Rome in his second epistle ( 12);
and yet this sentence, attributed by Clement of Alexandria to
Salome, the mother of the apostles John and James, and very pro
bably borrowed from a disfigured recollection of Salome s request
to Christ in favour of her two sons, may, in the apocryphal writing,
be with far greater justice applied to the heavenly kingdom of the
Saviour, than to his pretended temporal reign. What a simple and
yet powerful proof that the canonical Gospels are history, and the
apocrypha, which are extant, a true mythology ! In our sacred
books we recognise the results of the epoch, the fruit of the soil, if
we may so speak: Israel, such as it then was, the Israel of the
time of Tiberius and the proconsulship of Pilate ; Israel, with its
passions, its errors, its hopes, its vices, and its virtues, a true
Israel, breathes throughout, and constantly fills the scene. Thus
its favourite allusion to a Messiah, king of. this world, glitters every
where in the most lively national colours, even to the question of
the apostles, when the cloud of the ascension was already lowering
upon their heads. In the apocryphal writings we find ourselves
transported into the midst of an imaginary Israel, which has no
marks of the true one. The Jewish tint of nationality and religion
is effaced or falsified, and the idea of a temporal Messiah disappears.
Dr. Strauss wished to separate in Christianity fable from history,
legends from realities: the distinction to us appears already made.

X. The internal proofs, furnished by the New Testament against
the system which sees in Christianity the simple produce of popular
and traditional allegories that the credulity of the age grouped
around Christ, are worthy of profound attention, and would demand
a separate work. It must be acknowledged, that the Gospel has
nothing of the appearance of a mythology, nothing deep nor ab
struse, nothing empty and sonorous, no trace of emphasis, no
affectation of profundity, no love of mystery; the most wonderful
things are spoken of plainly, and the most solemn and most grave
are always simply attired; the narrative unrols itself, and goes on its
way along the earth without attempting to rise, because the subject
is lofty enough of itself. We do not there find any of those artifices
of preparation and transition, by the aid of which the compilers of
fictions introduce their most extraordinary and most incredible
fables. We remark a uniformity of colour, a unity of manner, a
steady familiarity of style, which present the profound impress of
truth ; the narration never changes its tone ; and the most striking
wonders, the most marvellous scenes, the baptism and consecration
of Christ in the river Jordan, his transfiguration, death, and resur
rection, are depicted with the same gentle shadowings and the same

Fabriciup. Codex Apocryphus, N. T. ; part. i. p. 335.

46 COQUEREL ON STEAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

quiet artlesness as his benediction on little children, and the hospi
tality shown to Jesus by the two sisters of Lazarus at Bethany. This
continued uniformity of language, this similitude in the contexture
of the narratives, exclude all idea of mythology or allegory. Peace
ful annalists write thus; and it is not thus that impostors write to
delude the people with the fables which they even borrowed from
them, or credulous enthusiasts occupied with changing mythology
into history. Fanatics, who are first to consecrate legends, and
introduce them into the region of facts, are delighted with the
brilliant dreams whose perpetuation they attempt ; they admire and
extol them; they remain in ecstasy before the picture they have set
themselves to paint. This is all natural ; the human mind is thus
constituted; it realizes, by a powerful effort of imagination and
credulity, only what strongly excites its admiration, its love, its fear;
it describes and relates with all the ardour of its sentiments, and the
subject foams beneath its pen. It is a torrent which overflows, and
rushes precipitately down its banks; and people believe in the
torrent by fancying they hear it roar. In the Gospels all is calm ;
it is a pure and transparent stream, of which we can see the bed,
and the bed is divine. The remark of Rousseau, so justly celebrated
and so true, receives here a new application : it is not thus, he says,
that people invent, or the inventor would be more astonishing than
his hero ; nor is it thus that people dream, or the dreamer would be
more astonishing than his dream. No : allegory does not borrow
with so much success the mask of history.

One of the most striking characteristics of the Sacred Writings,
attaching itself to that inimitable form of narration which is exclu
sively their own, and which we have endeavoured to define, is that
which may be called the spirit of detail. Under this aspect again
the Gospel is unique : the historians of the Saviour, in their pious
and admirable candour, saw nothing that might not be admitted
into their records, nothing that appeared to them low, mean, or
trifling ; they collect and relate every thing ; every thing, in their
view, partook of the greatness of the redemption of the world,
and their writings are full of minutiae. In the most solemn of their
narratives, suddenly, and when least expected, they turn their
attention to some circumstance, out of all proportion with the rest,
with the event itself; and then, without transition, they return to what
is most august and -most divine. St. Mark especially, accustomed
to hear from the lips of St. Peter the scenes of the ministry of
Jesus described with all the perspicuity (we should now say all the
actuality) of an eye-witness, so often an actor in the events he
relates, St. Mark, in his short and concise book, is astonishing in
this respect. The exact appreciation of this characteristic of the
Gospels is only possible by an attentive and diligent comparison of
the four accounts : then, at every step, we are struck with surprise
to find, sometimes in one, sometimes in another, a word, a touch, a
figure, which, taken separately, is insignificant, but which, in its

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 47

proper place, gives a new interest to all the narrative, throws a new
light upon it, a new air of truth, and acts like the last stroke of the
pencil which in the hand of a great artist perfects the resemblance.

One more observation corroborates the argument drawn from this
extreme abundance of details. It is, that these details are, as it
were, Jewish: they not only do not deviate from the subject, but
they do not wander from the nationality and religion of the He
brews, and moreover the Hebrews of that time ; they suppose an
accurate and profound knowledge of the thousand trifles which
enter into the every- day life of a nation, and into the habitual
practice of a religion ; they suppose a familiarity with the events
that no imitation can copy ; they suppose an historical foundation,
and, as it were, scatter truth through the whole tissue of the narratives.
Incontestably, this fidelity in details can belong only to a history, arid
not to a compilation of ideas. A mythology is differently fabricated
and constituted; it is a continuation of mosaics ; it may, it is true, be
rich in all kinds of details, and descend to mimitice, which, however,
but betoken a poverty of imagination. What, then, betrays the myth
or the dream is, that the embellishing details are of foreign origin,
drawn from afar, chosen at random, borrowed here and there from
the manners, opinions, and chronicles of diverse nations,* whilst
the local colouring is wanting. The reason is, that error is multi
form : truth alone is one, truth alone is faithful to itself.

XI. That candour, and that historical humility, which lead the
sacred writers to scatter through their recitals a multitude of
details, where real life is the subject, by no means prevented their
allowing imagination the share it had in the teachings of our Lord;
nor did it hinder them from introducing, in their work, allegory
in the midst of history. In short, and this fact is most worthy of
notice, Dr. Strauss has written four volumes of astounding learning
to prove, that Christianity rests on a fabulous foundation ; that its
sacred book is a work of imagination; that the wonders of the Gospel
are inventions, myths, and fables, of which the Old Testament gave
the first idea. Well, this book, to which Dr. Strauss refuses all
credence, because it is, as he says, an assemblage of popular fictions,
contains vast numbers of allegories and apologues, which form that
highly important part, the parables ; and these parables are throug;h-
out so different, from the recitals, so carefully separated and dis
tinguished from the simple narrative of events, that it is impossible
to confound the two. From one line to another, one feels the
difference, and sees it clearly: the least attention discovers that we
have left the region of reality, and passed over to the land of fiction.
It is true that these inimitable parables of our Lord, which nothing

* The myth, says Olshausen, whether it be historical or philosophical, adorns the idea
it contains by mixing with it unimportant traits, taken from the customs and opinions of
various nations. De Inteyritate Posterioris Petri Epistolae, sect. post. cap. v. 3.
97

48 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

in the literature of any other nation resembles, and which the pro
ductions of human genius have never approached; it is true that these
parables, when borrowed from the ordinary scenes of the world, are
so exact to nature, so wonderful for their probability and simplicity,
they so exactly resemble human life, that, when detached from their
frame, we are tempted to take them for history ; we sometimes ask
if the good Samaritan is not an anecdote rather than an apologue.
But for the illusion to be produced, illusion which adds to the glory
of the gospel, it is really requisite to take these parables from their
frame, to detach them, to contemplate them separately, and choose a
new point of view. By leaving them where the sacred historians
have placed them, by examining them within their frame, the
apologue is as evident in the good Samaritan (Luke x. 17), as
the allegory in the rich man and Lazarus (Luke xvi. 19); the
sower (Matthew xiii. 1), or the marriage feast (Matthew xxii. 1).
Ordinarily the evangelists interrupt the course of the recitals and
conversations, to give notice of the parables : when this indication
is not given at the beginning, it is often found at the end; and, even
when omitted, the march of ideas, the connection between questions
and replies, the contexture of the narrative, all unite to prevent
mistake, all serve to maintain that line of demarkatioii which sepa
rates the facts from the lessons given under the simple form of an
apologue, . or in the colours of a brilliant allegory. This is why,
without fear, the inspired authors of the New Testament throughout
so fearlessly enclosed, interwove, as it were, the one with the other,
facts with parables, certain that no confusion could possibly result.
This mixture of the real and the fictitious, the facility and ease with
which the text passes and repasses from the field of history to that
of imagination, furnishes grave objections to the system of Dr.
Strauss. It follows, that the authors of the Gospel made, long before
him, and in a very different manner, the distinction that he now
wishes to make between that which is historical and that which is
imaginary ; it follows, that the groundwork given as history differs
essentially from the accessory which does not belong to it ; that, if
the facts are, as Dr. Strauss believes, myths and fables, the sacred
writers, in reporting their parables, must have embellished very
complicated and learned allegories by very simple and clear ones,
and it is the contrary course which the human mind follows in
the invention of a mythology ; it passes from the simple to the
complex, from that which is clear to that which is dark: it follows,
in short, that the contemporaries of Jesus and the early Chris
tians, to whom there was no fear of presenting the most solemn lessons
under the form of ingenious and striking fictions, being able to
admit the moral value of apologues only after having admitted the
historical certainty of the facts, would have made this fundamental
distinction in time ; they are, therefore, so many well-informed and
sincere witnesses who unanimously attest that Christianity rests upon
history, and not upon mythology.

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 49

XII. All the considerations we have just brought forward, acquire
new force if we reflect, that, besides the parables, the New Testa
ment abounds in figurative language. We there frequently find,
by the side of the history, a representation of the facts, arid an
exposition of the doctrines, of the Gospel, under the form of either
pure allegory or historical emblem. Thus without stopping to
cite a multitude of examples of this kind, which offer sometimes
images, sometimes comparisons John the Baptist is announced and
received as the " Elias which was to come." Here is an historical
parallel between John and Elias, Elias the reformer of the ten
tribes, the contemporary of Ahab, and the precursor of the Messiah ;
a parallel that the evangelists did not hesitate to retain, in spite
of the error prevalent amongst the most ignorant of the Jews, that
Elias himself would arise from the dead, and re-appear. Again,
St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Galatians, giving notice that he
is about to make use of allegory, employs the name of Hagar,
bondwife of Abraham, and of Ishmael her son, a slave like her, in
order to represent the Jewish people groaning under the servitude
of the ceremonial law of Moses ; and the name Isaac, son of the free
wife, and like her free, to represent the Christian community
restored to the liberty of a purely spiritual religion. The Epistle
to the Hebrews is filled with historical emblems. Most interesting
to study, but far too lengthened to be possibly developed here, is
that of Melchisedec, who represents the Messiah. The sacred
author, with admirable skill, discovers traits of allegorical resem
blance* between the Saviour and this Canaanitish prince, all
most interesting to the Christians of Jewish origin, to whom he
addressed himself, and which a superstitious ignorance alone caused
to be taken for realities, and not for allegories. Finally, evangelical
allegory is found especially in the Apocalypse : there it reigns
alone ; there all is imagery and emblem, taken from the poetry of
the Hebrew prophets. The struggle of Judaism and Paganism
with the gospel their ruin, and the triumph of Christianity
are depicted in a series of imposing scenes, in which three cities
occupy the background of the pictures : Sodom, the city of the
crucifixion or our Lord (Rev. xi. 8), which represents Jerusalem
and Judaism; Babylon, the city with seven mountains (xvii. 9),
which represents Rome and Paganism; and a New Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven (xxi. 2, 10), which represents the church.
However brief j;his summary of the figures of the New Testament
may be, and even without including amongst them the description
of the Temptation in the desert, what confusion is possible between
those pages where allegory predominates, and the simple historical
narratives of the Gospels, where all is so positive, so circumstantial,
so characteristic, so living ? Are we not compelled to recognise,

* See my " Sacred Biography" (Biographic Sacree), article Melchisedec, where this
parallel is developed and explained.

50 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

between the parts where the form is imaginative, and those which
are purely historical, differences so clear and decided, that it is as
difficult in the sacred text to mistake allegory for history, as his
tory for allegory ? The very place that the Apocalypse has always
occupied in the collection of Sacred Books, since it has been
admitted amongst them, speaks in our favour : it closes the sacred
collection. Evangelical allegory came after evangelical history :
such is the order followed by truth. History commences, and
imagination terminates, the series. We should find less difficulty
in comprehending the error of Dr. Strauss, if the Apocalypse were
the first book of the New Testament.

XIII. The introduction to the Gospel according to St. Luke
namely, the first four verses of the first chapter excludes all idea
of a mythology. It is not thus that a collection of fables opens ;
and with good reason has sacred criticism, from the commence
ment of theological science, attached great importance to this
short introduction ; which is confirmed by that placed at the head
of the second book of St. Luke, the Acts of the Apostles. The
sacred author attests, firstly, that there already existed several
histories of Christ ; secondly, that these writings had been drawn
up from statements supplied by eyewitnesses ; thirdly, that these
witnesses had had cognizance of the facts from the beginning;
fourthly, that they subsequently had become ministers of Christ, and
of his word ; fifthly, that he, St. Luke, had carefully investigated
all these things from their origin ; sixthly, that he had resolved,
in consequence, to relate them in order ; seventhly and lastly,
that his purpose was, not to instruct Theophilus, an eminent person
to whom he addresses his work, but to make him certain on those
things of which he was already informed. Without admitting con
jectures, or without drawing inferences, and merely following word
by word the first lines of this Gospel, this is the purport of what
St. Luke states these the guarantees that he offers the details
that he enumerates. Is this the beginning of a mythology ? Is
this the imprudent preface of a collection of legends ? Is it thus
that an enthusiast enters upon his subject, or that, an impostor,
skilful enough to write two such books, prepares himself afar off
against inevitable contradictions ?

If we compare the first lines of the Gospel according to St.
Luke, with the pretended sacred writings which deluded and still
delude so many Asiatic nations, or with the apocryphal gospels,
the difference is palpable, and all to the advantage of the New
Testament. Two of the principal books of the Apocrypha are, at
their commencement, given as extracts from works which never
existed," The History of the Twelve Tribes of Israel," and " The
Book of Joseph the High Priest, commonly called Caiaphas."* It

* The Gospel of St. James, and one of the Gospels of the Infancy. See the Codex
Apocryphus N. T. Fabricii, prim. part. p. 66 et 168.

100

COQUEBEL ON STKAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 51

must not be forgotten, that St. Luke was a physician ; a profession
which no more in ancient times, than in our own day, disposed
men towards an easy credulity, but which, in all ages, has fostered
the spirit of research. A physician, in becoming one of the mini
sters and historians of Christ, would feel so much the more inclined
to doubt and inquiry, because the greater part of our Lord s
wonderful works were healings.

XIV. To these different internal proofs of historical reality offered
by the New Testament, we must add that which may be drawn from
the individuality of the personages whose names shine in the Holy
Scriptures. In order to develope this argument the better, and to
show its force, we shall point out a parallel, whose profane colour
ing need cause neither scandal nor fear. Strauss is an adversary
who can be combated only by descending to his own ground. We
have already cited the poems of Homer and the Metamorphoses of
Ovid. Between these two monuments of fabulous antiquity, one
may remark curious and profound differences, which it is important
to seize upon. One of the best proofs that the poems of Homer
are based on history a proof which no critic refuses, not even those
who deny the existence of a Homer, and are resolved that the
poems transmitted under his name are a collection of ancient songs
of the rhapsodists, compiled, at the latest, about the time of Peri
cles is the individuality of the heroes of this epic poem ; that is,
the strongly marked and distinctly drawn character of all the prin
cipal personages. In these celebrated poems, the combats resemble
each other : the men are not alike. Achilles, Agamemnon, Nestor,
Ulysses, Diomedes, Patroclus, Ajax, Priam, Hector, and many
others, have each their own genius, language, and valour, their
strength and their weaknesses ; and whatever embellishments the
poet may have added to these portraits, and however he may have
exaggerated the heroism of his characters, one feels that they are
portraits. The manners, religion, exploits, and festivals, in which
they are actors, -&gt; all, even to the private and national calamities
they suffer, lay bare the human heart, in all its variety so har
monious, and its similitude so varied. Every thing shows, that
imagination has worked upon recollections ; and the fabulous
embellishments, in spite of their richness, have not been able to .
completely cover and hide the historical foundation. On the con
trary, in that long gallery of pictures which Ovid has drawn in his
Metamorphoses, fable, with a very few exceptions, discovers itself
throughout by the similarity and monotony of the characters. All
these false gods are alike, and may be mistaken for each other.
They all possess the same air of falsehood : they all bear on their
front the same evidence of deceit, which deceives not. The adven
tures of one might be transferred to another, without changing
any thing in the recitals, except the name. The prolific mind of
the author has not succeeded in throwing into his verses that
variety of character, that appearance of individuality, which reality
101

52 COQUEREL ON STHAUSS S LIFE OE JESUS.

alone life alone can give ; and it is this fault which, in the end,
renders so fatiguing the perusal of the verses of the most ingenious
of Roman poets. In a word, fable or poetry invents, and the ima
gination suffices to introduce upon a scene of its own choice,
characters which are only half-men, and whose hearts are but half
formed like our own. But history does not invent : it has not yet
found a Prometheus, to steal the creative fire for its service, and to
paint characters which are altogether men, which are always con
sistent, and whose hearts are truly human hearts. They must have
existed : the pencil must borrow its colours from the realities of
life. The master-stroke of the greatest writers the world has ever
produced, consists in imitating some of these shades of character ;
in seizing, at distant intervals, a stroke of nature with an extreme
delicacy of touch, which makes one involuntarily exclaim, " This
is nature ; this is life ; this is man ! "

Let us with confidence apply these principles to our Gospels, and
they will stand the test better than any other book could do. All
the personages of the Gospels, those which are always on the scene,
and those which occupy but a corner of the picture, have each the
most decided, most distinct, and most clear individuality, and
always without a shade of exaggeration : there is not a single forced
trait. It is a curious circumstance, that hyperbole appears some
times in the names they bear: witness the surname of Boanerges,
the sons of thunder (Mark iii. 17), given by Christ to the two dis
ciples James and John ; but hyperbole never appears in their words
and deeds. It is essential to remark, that all these observations apply
with equal justice to the wicked as well as to the good. Who is
not struck with the individuality and character of the principal
apostles Peter, so sudden in action and speech, so impetuous,
but of an impetuosity so natural ; John, so faithful without vowing
fidelity, so mild without affecting charity, and who everywhere
appears surrounded, and in a manner covered, with the name of the
disciple whom Jesus loved; of the principal enemies of Christ
Caiaphas, the Jew at once wily and fanatical; Herod, so curious to
witness miracles, and who consoles himself with mockeries for the
mere satisfaction of his curiosity ; Pilate, the great Roman lord,
so indifferent when his indifference costs but a little blood ; and
Judas, that traitor whom it would have been impossible to invent,
who betrays but to get gold, and whose avarice is disabused only
by blood; the inferior characters, in short, which appear less fre
quently in the course of the mission of our Lord the Pharisees, so
pharasaical, to express the fact in one word; the Sadducees, who
were Israelites after the same manner as the encylopedists of the
last century were Roman Catholics ; and those pious friends of
Jesus Mary Magdalene, the first witness of the resurrection, so
absent in the perplexity of her grief, so prompt in the outpourings
of her joy; Nicodemus, that type of a Jewish doctor, not knowing
what course to take in order to become a Christian ; the two sisters

10-2

COQUEBEL ON STKAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 53

of -Lazarus, who occupy the scene but for a moment, and who at
once show themselves as different as two sisters can be ? Is it
possible to believe, that the credulity of the age, collecting and
retouching certain legends, extracted from more ancient ones,
could draw this rich gallery of portraits, which one is forced, in
spite of oneself, to take for exact resemblances ? What other
example does the intellectual annals of the world furnish, of a
credulity thus skilful in its reveries? And by what art could
religious falsehood, in giving so much relief to its inventions, and
in painting such decided characters, have effected in a collection
of popular fables, through the records of four books differing in a
thousand details, but agreeing in the main, that which the most
extraordinary geniuses the world ever produced, have had so much
trouble to accomplish, at distant intervals, in their masterpieces?

XV. To the names we have just mentioned, we must add one
more, which alone would be sufficient to prove our last position,
and which forcibly brings into relief the value of this argument
against the system of Dr. Strauss. The name is that of Mary. If
there is one subject in the gospel which could furnish to the mys
tical imagination of the people of the East, and to the more sensual
imagination of the populations of Greek or Latin origin, a field
where it could revel at will, in covering the truth with fables, some
times gross, sometimes elegant, it certainly is the history of the
Mother of the Saviour. This page of the gospel could so easily be
turned to the purposes of pious fraud, of sentimental reveries, or of
calculating deceptions, that it is precisely on this portion of the
Sacred Records that the authors of the apocryphal Gospels have,
from preference, exercised their ability ; authors who occupied
themselves even more with the Virgin than with Christ, and accu
mulated upon her name, fables the most serious in appearance,
but the most absurd in reality. In later times, and especially
since the Council of Ephesus, in 431, when Mary was declared the
Mother of God ; during the middle ages, and even to the present
day; the whole of ecclesiastical history loudly attests, that the
name of Mary became the central point of the errors with which
the gospel has been burdened. How many reminiscences it would
be easy to revive on this subject, by searching in the annals of the
dark ages, which preceded the revival of letters ! How many
examples of curious superstitions would the Christianity of the
South of Europe disclose to our view ! What a long course
has not credulity had to pass over from the retreat chosen by the
dying Christ for Mary in the home of St. John, to the house of
Nazareth transported from Judea into Italy by angels, and to the
throne that error has decreed to her as the Queen of heaven ! But,
when we return from all these superstitions to the august simplicity
of the records of the word of God, what honest and pure heart is
not struck with the immeasurable difference ? Where can one
better measure the distance which separates the delirium of super-
ma

54 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS,

stition, thickening century by century the bandage before its eyes,
and. the accents of truth, which naturally shun all embellishment and
all exaggeration ? If we suppose for a moment, that, under the
names of St. Matthew and St. Luke, two collectors of ancient
fables, agreeing to frame a Gospel, were resolved, in their credulity,
to attribute a miraculous birth to the Messiah, and for some reason
put his mother into their narratives, we must know very little of
the human heart and mind, and must have formed very false notions
of the mysticism of antiquity, to imagine that in such a case the
accounts of the nativity would have been what they now are,
stamped with that simple and heavenly sincerity which shines
therein; or to think that forgers or enthusiasts would have con
tented themselves with giving Mary the place she occupies in the
series of Sacred Records. We have said elsewhere, and we here
repeat it, the Gospel does not contain one word of panegyric upon
Mary. It speaks of her happiness and of her anguish, but not of
her virtue or her glory. What authors, animated only by human
genius, would have written the history of Jesus, without reflecting
his divine greatness upon his mother, without admitting her to
share their admiration, without paying her some tribute of honour ?
The absence of all attempt at panegyric that indirect humility,
as it were is certainly an effort of skill far above the credulity
which collected the legends, or the imposture which invented them.
Not only do the evangelists not offer one word to environ the name
of Mary with a useless lustre, but she very seldom appears in
the events of the gospel ; and the more the mission of Christ
advances, the more Mary remains in the shade, the more rare
becomes her presence. She is only present at his death ; and, save
one remark of St. Luke in the Acts (i. 14) that she prayed in the
midst of the first assembled church, there is no other mention made
of her. There remained nothing to be said of Mary. Her task, her
glory, her virtue, and her grief, were finished. She occupied a posi
tion unique in human nature, and it would have been indiscreet and
useless to wish to fathom her emotions : language would fail to
express them, as would experience to analyze them. She had no
longer her son near to her in this world, nor his grave over which
she could weep. Silence alone was suitable in regard to her, as
sequestered solitude became the rest of her life. This the inspired
historians well understood ; and they ceased to make mention of
her, at the point where good feeling commanded it. It is not thus
that a myth or dream proceeds. History can pause, and fear
to say too much : the myth never stops, and always things it
cannot say enough.

XVI. Let us now turn to the Apostle to the Gentiles. As to
St. Paul, it is truly unnecessary to stop to examine whether forgers
could have succeeded or not in imagining such a scene as that of
his call, when on his way to Damascus, or in writing in his name
such and such of his Epistles. We must consider St. Paul under

304

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 55

all aspects : St. Paul, the Jew and Christian ; St. Paul, the apos
tle and writer ; St. Paul, the persecutor and martyr ; St. Paul
at the martyrdom of Stephen, and at the approaches of his own
death ; St. Paul, the author of the eulogium upon charity, in his
Epistle to the Corinthians ; and the rigorous logician, who compares
the law and the gospel, in the Epistle to the Romans , St. Paul
before the Areopagus at Athens, before the people at Jerusalem,
before Felix, before Agrippa, and before Nero ; and one then
feels profoundly penetrated with the truth of the doctrine, and with
the veracity of the teacher. Is this a portrait of fantasy ? If reli
gious credulity makes choice of deceivers and enthusiasts to write,
of heroes to fight, of apologists to preach, and of martyrs to die,
can we believe it skilful enough to suppose such a character, or to
employ such an impostor? We spake of individuality what
individuality approaches that of St. Paul ? What man amongst
mankind resembles him? He does not resemble even his col
leagues in the apostleship : he is an apostle after his OW T II manner.
The Jewish type of apostles was exhausted : St. Paul is, as it were,
the gentile apostle, the universal apostle. His greatness of soul,
which shines as brightly in his acts of contrition as in his virtue
and his faith, possesses something unique. We must take a survey
of time to find two names which we dare place by the side of his
two only, those of Moses and Luther. Equal perhaps in energy of
character, in perseverance in duty, in humble confidence, equal
perhaps in their devotion to the end of their lives, it is delightful
to think that the meekness of Moses (Num. xii. 3) corresponds
with the charity of St. Paul. Many centuries after is found one,
the reformer of Christianity, who may probably endure a com
parison with its principal founder, especially by the indefatigable
ardour the unshaken courage of his apostleship, the simplicity and
the boldness of frs faith. Furnished with an imperial pledge of
his personal safety, of which the martyrdom of John Huss had, a
century before, shown the value, Luther proceeded to the Diet of
Worms, to testify to the truth, " not knowing the things that would
befall him" (Acts xx. 22), precisely as St. Paul repaired to Jerusalem
and Rome ; and how many other traits of equal courage might be
mentioned on both sides! In the religious history of mankind,
and during a space of three thousand years, are three names too
many to place at the same altitude ? What renders the powerful
originality of St. Paul s reputation so valuable, in the defence of
Christianity, is, that his history is mingled with that of Christ in an
indissoluble and intimate mariner. The name of the Saviour, and
that of the greatest of his ministers, are henceforth united : it is a
bond, formed by the holy spirit, which nothing can sunder. Dr.
Strauss himself does not attempt it. The bond consists in this,
that Christ was not " sent" thus he declares it " but to the lost
sheep of the house of Israel " (Matt. xv. 24) ; so that his immediate
and personal action was not out of Judea, however in principle
105

56 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESCJS.

Christ 1 taught tlie universality of Christianity: but it was St. Paul
who was charged to overthrow the last wall of separation between
the Jews and the Gentiles, and to point out to the view of all, that the
Sun of Righteousness rose, not only for the horizon of Israel, but to
shed its light over all the world. That a man like St. Paul could
allow himself to be deceived, or wish to deceive others, touching the
nature of the religion which he transplanted from the Jewish to
the Pagan soil; that a man of his genius, the author of the Epistles
we possess in the New Testament, could take for contemporaneous
facts some old legends, repaired - according to the wants of the
moment; or that a man of his character witness his letters
should become the accomplice in so flagrant an imposture, dupe
or accomplice ; these are two moral impossibilities in direct
opposition to human nature, without analogy in the annals of
mankind, and a thousand times more improbable and more incredi
ble than all the gospel. No : man is not thus constituted, and
such a man as St. Paul is not a witness to challenge. We do not
fear to say, that in him the apostle proves the apostleship, the
Epistles prove the individuality of the writer ; so that (if we may
be pardoned this mode of speaking) if Paul is real, Christianity is
so also ; if Paul is an apostle, Jesus is the Messiah ; if Paul has
indeed planted, God has truly given the increase. The glory
that our Lord dispensed by this chosen instrument returns to its
source, and the excellence of the work is attested by the choice of
the workman.

These reflections are not a begging the question, nor are they by
any means reduced to a circle of errors : they repose on an irresisti
ble alternative. If Christ is the Son of God, and the Saviour of
the world, if he came to reconcile, not a nation, but all mankind,
if the gospel is the real and inspired history of his mission on
earth, Paul s character may be understood. One easily under
stands, that, in the companion of the executioners of Stephen, our
Lord saw from afar the author of the Epistles, and the apostle of
the Gentiles ; and whatever there is extraordinary, unique, and indi
vidual in St. Paul, corroborates the task that he accepted, and the
faith that he spread abroad. But if Christianity be a mythology,
the gospel a badly arranged collection of popular legends, and
Jesus a moralist, a sage, a philosopher, the Socrates of Nazareth, as
people have wished to call him, then Paul s character is no longer
clear, either as an enthusiast, who is deluded he has too much
penetration and learning ; or as an impostor, who deludes he has
too much devotion and virtue. In a word, let the objector explain
to us a St. Paul with a fabulous Christianity, or a fabulous Chris
tianity with a St. Paul ! Neither one nor the other is possible.
What, then, remains ? There remains the historical certainty, that
Christianity is, as it were, individualized in St. Paul. There
remains the certainty, that his Epistles are a living witness of the
truth of the Gospels. There remains the certainty, that if, accord-

106

COQUEKEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 57

ing to his powerful expressions, Paul is Christ s, then Christ is
God s (1 Cor. iii. 22, 23).

XVII. The two names of Mary and St. Paul, then, appear in the
New Testament the one encircled by a halo whose glory and
purity are beyond the reach of human invention ; the other assum
ing a genius too real not to exclude the idea, that his apostleship
was an enthusiasm or a falsehood. If these two great and holy
names give the strongest of guarantees to Christianity, what can we
say of the name of Jesus himself? Here our courage begins to
fail : here, especially, we find it difficult to descend into the mere
earthly arena where Strauss stands, or to borrow his own language
in order to reply to him. What a strange perversion of mind
what a strange disposition of heart is that which considers, not
only the discourses, benefits, wonders, and excellences even of Christ,
such as the Gospels describe, as the produce of fabulous traditions
drawn from Jewish antiquities, but also his character ! It is quite
necessary to go that length in order to be consistent, and to main
tain the system to the end. In vain, Strauss, like so many other
unbelievers before him, pays Jesus a cold tribute of historical and
moral admiration. * In vain does he grant, that " the necessary
fire for so great a work, Jesus could have drawn only from the depths
of his own soul." It is evident, that, if the gospel be a mythology,
the virtues of Christ are mythological also, or at least for the most
part; since it is quite impossible to separate them from his dis
courses, his oracles, his sufferings, and his triumphs. It is in this
respect with his excellences as with his miracles they cannot be
detached from the whole of the records of the gospel, without
destroying the body itself. By not admitting the historical reality
of the New Testament, by maintaining that Christ, as the Messiah
and as the Saviour, is only a myth, it must also be admitted, that,
as a model, he is but an ideal. To pretend that religious credulity
supposed an imaginary Messiah, is to pretend that it endowed him
with an imaginary perfection. The dream is there also, if it be else
where ; and one remains painfully amazed in discovering, that the
delusion of part^ spirit can go so far as to see, in the holiness of
him who is the Holy One of God, only abstractions, emblems, and
legends; and not the palpable realities of life not the simple
efforts of active virtue not devotedness, sacrifice, and love, in all
the glory of its energy. When one has thoroughly contemplated
this world of sin, and selfishness, and war, in its moral nakedness,
when one has studied it well, not through the deceitful prism of a
system, but in the broad daylight of conscience and history, how
can one help being struck, awed, and moved by traits of character
which form, and have been called in language doubtless too dis
respectful, but expressive and clear the incomparable originality

* Sec. i. chap. v. 41.
107 Q

58 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

of Christ. Our adversary will pretend, that that is the Christian
point of view, and that we have by no means the right to take our
stand there, in order to reply to him ; that it is proving the question
by the question itself, and certifying the faith by the faith. No : it
is to take one s stand in the centre of conscience, which is his own
as well as ours ; and, according to conscience, according to that
reflected admiration which the benignity and holiness of Jesus
obtain, not only from the religious sentiment which animates be
lievers, but from the moral sense which ought to animate all mankind,
according to that instinctive admiration which made Clovis frankly
regret that he was not present at Jerusalem and Calvary with the
Franks, the benignity and holiness of Jesus can be only facts, and
not dreams : our world is too sinful for dreams so pure. It has
been said, Why dispute about the certainty of a creation, or the
excellence of the universe ? If there is a God, there is a Creator :
let the Creator make you believe in the creation ; let the infinite
perfection of the Supreme Workman make you believe in the excel
lence of his work. This reasoning is just, and is only a summary
of the remarkable system of optimism, produced by the genius of
Leibnitz. The vast and profound thoughts of this great man upon
the work of the Creator may be applied to the work of Christ : thus,
as the attributes of God demonstrate creation, so the virtues of
Christ prove Christianity.

To these general considerations, we would add but one more
thought, which it will be sufficient to point out rapidly to the atten
tion of our readers. Jesus is the ideal of virtue, such as the human
conscience conceives it, so perfect that all the efforts of the
most delicate conscience, the most fertile imagination, and the most
expansive charity, cannot add to it the least trait; that, from cir
cumstance to circumstance through all the gospel, one continually
asks oneself, but in vain, what Christ could possibly have done more,
otherwise, or better, than he did ; that, in a word, to figure to
oneself Christ more virtuous (may we be pardoned " the foolishness
of our preaching," according to the words of St. Paul, 1 Cor. i. 21 ?)
is a moral impossibility. But what forms an irresistible demonstra
tion against Dr. Strauss, and his deplorable doctrine, is, in our
opinion, that Jesus, the ideal of virtue, is a practical ideal. His
perfection has nothing of that impossible heroism which the imagi
nation of poets, and even sometimes the imprudent exaggeration
of moralists, attach to the models they exhibit. His perfection
has nothing of that of heroes, according to fable, or of angels,
according to revelation. His virtues are all human, and do not quit
the earth, or step out of the just proportions of humanity. He is
virtuous, as people may be in a world like ours, in the interval
comprised between a cradle and a tomb. He never forgets, in his
struggles with the wicked, in the devotedness of his charity, in the
most sublime flights of his piety, even in his indignations he
never forgets, that he had not taken the resemblance of angels

108

COQUEBEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 59

(Heb. ii. 9), but " the form of a servant " (Phil. ii. 7), and that he
was made " in all points like as we are, yet without sin " (Heb. ii. 17 ;
iv. 15). Man amongst men, he was Israelite amongst the Israelites,
taking part in all the interests of his age and nation, as well as in
the worship of his country ; mingling with all the agitations of the
moment ; suffering his heart to beat with the same emotions which
swelled all breasts ; " the last Adam," as St. Paul again says (1 Cor.
xv. 45), keeping so close to all of us, sons of Adam and his brethren,
that he condescends even to weep with mourners at the very moment
of a resurrection, as if to authorise and sanctify at the same time
our sorrows, our tears, and our hopes. From this complete and
continual absence of impossibility in the virtues of Christ, there
results to Christianity one advantage, which alone, amongst all the
religions of the world, it possesses and will possess ; namely, that of
having exhibited to the world a model which is the ideal of perfec
tion, but which is not inimitable ; which does not leave the sinner,
who is invited to follow this perfect model, the pleasing and legiti
mate excuse, " I cannot." When contemplating the virtues of
Christ, we feel ourselves in the presence of the ideal, but at the
same time of the possible. We admire, we extol, we worship, we
seek for some holiness beyond this, but find none. We search in
the most sublime conceptions of human genius for some virtue more
virtuous, some charity more charitable, an effort, an appearance,
a shade of devotion more generous, but find none. All is in Christ ;
and when, after these ecstacies of admiration, we come back to
ourselves, and recall the sanctities of that life into the midst of our
own, we are quite surprised to find them on a level ; and when,
after having embraced the cross, we by anticipation carry the hero
ism of that death to that which, awaits us, we are quite confounded
to see, that this heroism is suitable to us, adapted to our end, and
placed within our reach, so that we are all obliged to endeavour to
descend into our tomb, in the same manner as he ascended his
cross. And the ingenious and cold learning of incredulity would
fain rob us of this example, as reflection dissipates the prepossessions
of a dream of the night. No : poets, in their dreams, and the peo
ple, who are poets also, in theirs, may create an ideal, and make
it act in the midst of accumulating impossibilities ; but a practical
ideal is necessarily real. If Jesus were perfect only as the Son of
God, incredulity might be in the right ; but Jesus has clothed him
self with a perfection proportional to our faculties : he is perfectly
human, and consequently the Gospels are a history.

XVIII. The personal questions, if our preceding remarks may
be thus designated, are all in direct opposition to the error which
makes of Christianity a collection of mythological legends; and the
philosophical questions that the gospel raises, are equally contrary
to that system. The fulness given to the preceding topics of reply
permit us to compress this important part of the refutation, which
would otherwise require, in order to be treated thoroughly, discus-

109

60 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

sions that Itie limits of this essay do not permit. We must confine
ourselves to some indications.

In all the false religions of antiquity, there was pantheism ; there
was, under one form or another, something of that great error which
confounds, assimilates, intermingles the creation and the Creator;
which identifies them, which delights to present this axiom in all
its forms, " God is everything, and everything is God ;" and which,
in our day, we have seen essaying to get into credit again.* The
false religions of antiquity either commenced or finished with this;
and, if we reflect upon it, we shall easily discover how mythological
religions are lost in the error of pantheism, that is, those in which
opinions are personified, and presented as the history of certain
fabulous personages, instead of being admitted as a doctrine, a faith,
or a morality. These religions are, by the force of circumstances,
infinitely varied; yet, on the other hand, they proceed from abstrac
tion to abstraction. Fables are added to fables without number,
judgment, or connexion ; and when the want of connexion is felt,
pantheism alone can supply this defect : every thing even in God is
changed, in order to justify having changed every thing in religious
doctrine, the events of history, and the passions of the human heart ;
the phenomena of nature, and the movements of the celestial bodies.
Christianity is free from all these absurdities : it is not the apotheosis
of nature, or of humanity, or of the universe. Christianity sees
God only in God ; it in no way sanctions men in confounding the
Creator and the creature; it separates them completely and pro
foundly; it effects the consecration only of individuality. The
Supreme Being, according to its precepts, is a being entirely
individual, distinct from all that is not himself; and this enlightened
simplicity of the idea of the Divinity is owing to the circumstance,
that the gospel does not contain the least dissertation on the nature
of God. In a word, God, in Christianity, is only God. We see at
what a distance from Christianity the allegorical and fabulous
religions remain.

XIX. In religion, philosophy, morals, and even in politics and
jurisprudence, Christianity is essentially one : it never contradicts
itself, and it is the same in its origin, however far they may be
traced back, as in its applications and provisions, however far they
may extend. Its last words answer to its first. It is the same in the
first scenes of the world, where, after the origin of evil, God shows
himself as witness and as judge in the warning given to Cain,f and
the sentence pronounced against him ; and in the final judgment,
which St. Matthew has depicted in words so simple, yet so divine

* " The universe that is the God we adore," said the Journal of St. Shnonism,
8th January, 1831.

+ " And the Lord said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance
fallen ? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted ? and if thou doest not well, sin
lieth at the door." Gen. iv. 6, 7.

110

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 61

(xxv. 31 46). Again, we find them the same when we muse, with
its consolations and hopes, upon the first death mankind ever saw,
that of Abel ; as, when we are in imagination transported to the side
of the last tomb, this world will ever see opened. All the great
principles whence it emanates the holiness and goodness of
God, the responsibility and the brotherhood and equality of man ;
the great destinies it announces a retributive immortality, and the
chief event which establishes it, that is, the work of Jesus, placing
himself between man and God, to bring us unto him in this life and
in the next ; these sentiments, clearly the most glorious that can
occupy the human mind, form a unity, a series, and a harmony,
with which the most resolute of sceptics have often been struck.
This goes to the extent, that all the variations of different Christian
communions lie between these extreme points. The field, closed
against controversy, is closed only by these starting points, and
these conclusions of faith God, the Father ; Jesus, the Mediator ;
humanity, a family; and immortality after judgment. We may
discuss at will in the interstices and intervals of these admitted
truths ; but upon these bases themselves all discussion is impossible
between Christians, unless by undermining the very sanctuary itself;
that is, unless by passing into the ranks of infidelity. And why
does controversy expire before these august truths, like those poi
soned arrows that, according to the fable, could not even graze the
buckler of Minerva ? Because Christianity is one ; because, in its
unity, it is far above our disputes ; because, in its essence, it is so
simple, that it must be all admitted or all rejected at once. In
the mathematical sciences, we may discuss the value of such and
such a demonstration, the certainty of such and such a method of
analysis ; but we cannot dispute about the characters of the
point, the line, the curve, or the triangle, without ceasing to be
mathematicians. The same in Christianity : we vary on many points
of doctrine, whose importance is a subject of contention ; but to
carry the dispute to the question, Whether God is the common
Father of men whether men are brethren whether Jesus is the
Mediator between God and man is acknowledged by all sects,
all churches, and all clergy, from the sacred college of Cardinals to
the assembly-room of the Quakers, to be stepping beyond the bounds
of Christianity. This unity is again found under all forms of
worship, all varieties of opinion, all the influences of priesthoods;
under the rule of infallible authority, as well as under that of liberty
of conscience. This unity represents itself, from age to age, to all
intellects to those of Leibnitz and Newton, as well as those of the
most humble believers. This unity has moved the most exalted
imaginations, the most ardent sensibilities ; and sufficed for the love
of a St. Theresa, in the midst of the most exaggerated Spanish
ascetism, and for the calm and unshaken piety of a Protestant of
the North, who methodically arranges his affections in their legi
timate order : God and Christ first, his family next, his country and
ill

62 COQUEEEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

humanity beyond. Is it conceivable, that this powerful unity of
Christianity, a unity so strong that it is inviolable, is the result
of popular traditions, of legends subject to a thousand interpre
tations, a thousand different falsifications ? How could a most
confused medley of fables, heterogeneous and of very ancient date,
have given birth to the unity of Christianity? How could order
arise from disorder, the simple from the complex, or a single colour
of a uniform tint from that camelion confusion of a thousand
diverse reflections ? The Christianity of theologians, we own with
out scruple or fear, is very complex ; but the Christianity of the
apostles, the Christianity of Christ, is extremely simple ; and this
simplicity, ever shining forth in spite of all the corruptions which veil
it which every one can at his leisure study in the gospel, this
simplicity, which could not have been subsequently interposed in
the Christian faith, proves the fact, that the basis of Christianity is
historical and divine, and not fabulous and popular. It conies
from heaven, where truth can appear only simple and radiant, and
not from the dust of the earth, where truth is too often broken,
disjointed, and fragmentary, and loses its lustre by losing its sim
plicity.

XX. All the systems of scepticism that faith has encountered in
its progressive march through time, including that which we are
now combating, grant that Christianity is about eighteen centuries
old ; that is, that it commenced under the reign of the first Roman
emperors ; that it had Judea for its home, the Jewish nation for the
first proselytes, or for the first opponents, and Jerusalem for its
starting point. These facts are obtained from history, and con
sidered as beyond all dispute. It is also granted, that, thirty or forty
years after the epoch assigned for the death of Jesus, Christianity
already had numerous converts, in the most populous provinces and
the most flourishing cities. Unexceptionable testimonies, especially
those of Tacitus and Pliny, leave no doubt about this rapidity of
the first progress of Christianity, the place of its origin,* or the date
of its birth. And Dr. Strauss himself, in a remarkable passage of
his book,f agrees with Ullman (in his treatise upon the question,
" What is implied in the Foundation of the Christian Church by
one who was crucified?") in acknowledging, that "the apologists
were right in insisting upon this point, that the immense transition
which took place in the minds of the apostles, from the deepest
discouragement and utter hopelessness at the time of the death of
Christ, to the faith and enthusiasm with which they announced him
as the Messiah at the following Pentecost, could not be accounted
for, if, during the interval, there had not unexpectedly happened
some event, full of an extraordinary consolation, and, in particular,

* Judaum originem ejus mali, " Judea the source of the evil," said Tacitus.
(Ann. xv. 44.)

+ Sect. iii. chap. iv. 137.

112

COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 63

an event which convinced them of the resurrection of a crucified
Jesus." From these facts, which cannot be called in question, and
from these words, most worthy of meditation, the least that can be
concluded must be, that, about the epoch of the commencement of
Christianity, the spirit of religion received in Judea a powerful
impulse towards substituting the new law for the ancient law the
Christian principle for the Jewish principle ; that, leaving Jerusalem,
and consequently before the ruin of that city and the destruction of
the Jews by the Romans, this impulse was sufficiently powerful to
make its way abroad, and install Christianity in the very heart
of the Pagan world ; that this impulse was able to triumph over the
obstacles which the Pagan world, of all degrees, from the emperor
down to the meanest slave in his dominions, from the pontiffs to the
lowest servants of their temples, from the heads of the principal
schools of philosophy to the most humble of their disciples, would
necessarily raise against the projected conquest of a new religion,
that descended towards the palaces, the temples, and the academies,
from the summit of a mount commanded by a blood-stained cross.
Where was this impulse, this necessary impulse, since the result is
before us ? If Christ is the Saviour of the world ; if the Bible is a
revelation ; if the wonders of the mission of that Saviour present a posi
tive historical truth, this truth, we apprehend, is the impulse we
seek to discover. Let us, for one moment, admit the system of Dr.
Strauss. Let us suppose the gospel a collection of legends ; Jesus,
a mere reformer ; his death, simple martyrdom ; his resurrection, a
myth, an emblem ; and his ascension, a fabulous apotheosis ; where
is the impulse that alone can explain the facts of the case, and of
which our adversary himself owns the necessity? The religious
and moral world, the world of Tiberius and Nero, sunk so deep in
the sleep of selfishness, would have in that case had then awoke of
its own accord, without the voice of God crying in its ear. A few
obscure Jews, without credit, learning, or renown, artisans and
fishermen one day, changed themselves the next into founders of
this great society, which, in its principles, was the same at its dawn
as it is at the present hour, and which they named Christianity ;
these obscure and timid Jews conceived the idea of so great a work,
and succeeded in founding it upon borrowed fictions, upon legends
plundered here and there from the books of the Old Testament !
The mythological Christianity of Dr. Strauss, without the force of
impulse at its rise, is a thousand times more incredible than the
real Christianity of the gospel. At the beginning of this essay, we
endeavoured to show that the work of Dr. Strauss is reduced to
making Christianity an effect without a cause : it has just been
seen, that we could say much more. He acknowledges, that Chris
tianity was a living body, which progressed, fought, and triumphed,
on leaving its cradle, thirty or forty years after the day of its birth ;
yet in its cradle he sees nothing but a cold corpse, without motion
and without life.

113

64 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

XXI. There remains one more consideration, which appears to
us so much the more important, as it proceeds from the very heart
of Dr. Strauss s system. Christianity, according to him, is a my
thology, the elements of which were furnished by ill-arranged
reminiscences and ill-understood texts, from the sacred books of
Israel. A mythology is always a popular creation. The learned
and the wise may adopt it at last may endeavour to disentangle
it from its absurdities, to insinuate skilfully a little specious philo
sophy, where the traditions had brought only coarse fictions. Then
the discovery is made of a hidden meaning, which spiritualised and
purified it from the superstitions, of which they thus struggle to
disguise the folly, and re-animate the decrepitude. This was pre
cisely the resource employed by the last of the Pagans to resist
the attacks which the .Christians unceasingly directed against the
indefensible absurdities of Paganism. This was the kind of tactics
adopted and established by the emperor Julian, whose genius knew
well that this ground was the only one on which Paganism could
defend itself.* But this progress, if it be one, belongs to the decline
of religious mythologies, and not to their rise. Far from commen
cing thus, it is thus that they end. At their origin, mythologies are
a popular production ; they are produced in the minds of the mul
titude ; they spring from the inferior classes of society ; they fortify
themselves in the heart of ignorance ; they enrich themselves from
the prejudices, traditions, and superstitions, in circulation. It is
very slowly that they reach the more enlightened classes, and become
adopted. In a word, mythologies do not descend from the elevated
classes to the crowd. On the contrary, they mount from low to
high. A senate of legislators, a council of politicians, an order of
priests, or a college of philosophers, will never found a mythological
religion : they might receive it, favour it, work it for their profit,
and even sanction it, but not found it. If, then, Christianity be a
mythology, it is the people who formed it ; it is in the ranks of the
people we must search for its rise. Yet who can believe, that
Christianity originated with the multitude, whether Jewish or Pagan,
of that time ? It is morally and religiously impossible for Chris
tianity to be a mere produce of the popular mind. Every thing in
Judaism, in the history, in the manners and opinions of the period,
is inferior to it, so much so that the greatest difficulty it had to
combat in its infancy was this evident inferiority. The apostles
themselves, after three years of intimate connexion with Jesus, did
not comprehend his mission, and understood it only after the events
of Pentecost. Christianity was so superior to the century in which
it appeared ; it was to so great an extent, according to the energetic
expressions of St. Paul, " a stumbling-block to the Jews, and to the

* " When contradictory and absurd fables are circulated touching divine things," said
Julian, " they warn us in some degree, and cry out to us not to give credit simply to the
words, but to consider, and seek again and again for what is hidden therein." (Orat. vii.)

114

COQUEEEL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS. 65

Greeks foolishness" that one ought to be even more astonished
that it found adherents to believe it, than that it found apostles to
preach it. The spirit of Judaism and the spirit of Paganism, with
out being leagued, were equally opposed to it. One characteristic
of the new faith was especially revolting to the spirit of Judaism, so
impregnated with that old national and religious pride which the
title of people of God had nourished irom father to son. This
characteristic of the new faith was its universality. Israel, in
becoming Christian, desired not to cease to be Israel : it went so
far as to wish that Christianity should drag after it, through the
world, the long and heavy chain of Mosaic ceremonies and obser
vances. This fundamental error prevailed with so much force, that,
in spite of the teachings of our Lord on the universality of his work,
a new direction from Heaven was necessary to inspire Peter with
courage to baptize a Roman, or to share the hopes of the faith with
a Pagan family. This great error not only formed an obstacle to the
gospel in Judea, but it misled and exasperated minds at Koine,
witness the Epistle to the Romans ; and in Asia Minor, witness the
Epistle to the Galatians. This prejudice gave great trouble to St. Paul,
in the course of his ministry ; and, in order to struggle against it with
advantage, it was necessary to hold a solemn council of the apostles at
Jerusalem. Besides its characteristic of universality, the absence of
all ceremonial worship, and of the buying-off of sins, the absence
of a sacerdotal hierarchy, and of an ecclesiastical discipline, the
absence of an hereditary system, all things so dear to the Jews,
formed so many points of decided opposition between the Israelite
mind and the new faith. Without swelling the list of these repug
nances, without longer searching how far the Christian conceptions
were superior to these disfigured reminiscences of the Mosaic insti
tutions, we lay down the inevitable alternative which this superiority
furnishes to our cause: A mythological religion proceeds from
the people ; but " a corrupt tree cannot bring forth good fruit ; "
and how could the withered trunk of Judaism, loaded with so many
parasitical branches, which destroyed it, produce a fruit so excellent
as Christianity ? The gospel could still less have been produced
in the midst of Paganism, because it is even more superior to Pagan
ism than to Judaism. Here the distance is truly immeasurable ;
here the difference is in every thing. This goes to the extent, that we
could draw a picture of the opinions, manners, and vices of the social
state of antiquity, by taking the reverse of the Christian truths and
virtues, or by uniting all .the censures found in the gospel in one
general act of accusation. The celebrated historian of the " Decline
of the Roman Empire," Gibbon, and all the critics who have
followed him, appear to us to have very well proved two things,
which, moreover, no one doubted, namely, that Paganism fell
from old age and absurdities, and that the social state, under the
reigns of the first emperors, had become insupportable. Is it
possible to avoid perceiving with the least reflection, that the

115 E

66 COQUEREL ON STRAUSS S LIFE OF JESUS.

principle of Christian charity, the system of human brotherhood,
and the sentiment of peace of mind, such as the New Testament
represented and taught, were completely beyond the efforts of
Pagan wisdom and virtue ? The system of man s carrying on a
trade in man, from an emperor working the lloman empire
for his profit, down to the meanest but one of his subjects trading
in the meanest, this was the predominating feature in the social
state of antiquity ; yet it is asserted, that from these elements
issued the command to love one s neighbour as oneself! In this
universal degeneracy, that which man had above all forgotten, was
his own dignity. The emperors and the proconsuls knew this well,
and acted accordingly; but, whatever they might do, they always
found men more vile than they needed: the slave consented to his
slavery, the client to his life of beggary, the gladiator to his holiday
death, the suicide to his extinction, as if rejoicing in a release;
and Christianity raised the individual man to the dignity of a child
of God, and the brother of Christ ; yet it is maintained, that popular
rumours imagined this redemption of mankind. We will add only
one more reflection : Paganism, when purified, was so little able
to produce Christianity, that the most admirable men of the age
failed to form any conception of the gospel, small though the dis
tance from it was at which they stood. The celebrated chapter of
Tacitus on Christianity, and the persecutions of the Christians in
the reign of Nero, have often been made the subject of remark. But
one observation still remains. If, from the time of the birth of the
Christian religion, there was one soul worthy to comprehend and
appreciate the gospel, it was that of Tacitus; and he so misunder
stood it, that the horrible tortures invented by the monster whom his
immortal work so eloquently brands, Christians covered with
the skins of beasts and torn to pieces by dogs in the circus, or
serving for torches at the imperial feasts, and buried alive before
the tyrant s eyes, all these atrocities were required in order to move
the soul of a Tacitus for a moment in their favour. Yet this sublime
religion that Tacitus so indifferently comprehended, our adversary
holds to be a mythology ; and, to be consistent, he must maintain,
that the multitude devised that which Tacitus did notj even con
jecture. Benjamin Constant believed in the divine mission of Moses,
because the epoch when that legislator appeared was, in his opinion,
incapable of furnishing the idea of one God, such as is found in the
books and institutions of the Old Testament; but if Moses is
superior to his age, far more is the Lord Jesus Christ superior to all
the combined influences which the first century of our era can gather
from what is best both in the Jewish and tne Pagan world.

1L6

THE CREDIBILITY

THE EVANGELICAL HISTORY

ILLUSTRATED,

WITH REFERENCE TO

THE " LEBEN JESU" OF DR. STRAUSS.
FROM THE GERMAN OF DR. A. THOLUCK.

FRIEDERIC AUGUSTUS DEOFIDUS THOLUCK, author of the work whence the following piece
is drawn up, holds the office of ordinary Professor of Theology in the University of Halle.
He was born on the 30th March, 1799, at Breslau. As early as his twelfth year, he began
to learn the trade which his father pursued, that of a goldsmith ; but, abruptly quitting
this mechanical pursuit, he returned to school, whence he in time proceeded to the uni
versity of his native state. In this last step, he was not influenced by any peculiar regard
for the gospel. A preference for oriental literature led him first to Kosegarten, and then
to Berlin. Here he was introduced to the Bishop von Diez, who adopted him, and
furnished him with means for a journey into the East. When Diez shortly after died,
Tholuck, through the minister Von Altenstein, who allowed him a considerable salary,
was enabled to remain at Berlin, where he enjoyed the instructions of Ideler and Wilken,
and thus to complete his oriental studies. But, about the end of this period, he under
went a great change. By the influence of Neander, and other Berlin friends, but still
more by the study of the New Testament, and particularly of the Epistle to the Romans,
he, with characteristic vivacity, freed himself from the Saul-like condition in which he
had hitherto lived, and entered on a new life of faith. His " True Consecration of a
Doubter," which first appeared about this time ( Wahre Weihe des Zweifters, fifth edition,
Hamb. 1836), offers the fullest evidence of this change, and of the new direction which his
mind had been led to take. Several works were now put forth by Tholuck, which serve
to show how entirely his new views occupied, and how deeply they moved, his soul. We
may mention his learned treatise " Ou the Essence and Moral Influence of Heathenism
considered with relation to Christianity," which appeared in Neander s " Memorable
Events" (Denkwurdiykeitcn, vol. i. 1823.) But the vigour of his new-born zeal appears
nowhere more than in his " Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans," especially as the
work was in the first edition: it came to a third edition in 1831.
117 S

J THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

When De Wette, in 1821, was removed from his professorship, the ministry employed
Tholuck to read Prelections on the Old Testament. In 1824 he was named extraordinary
Professor of Theology. A journey to England and Holland which, with the aid of the
Prussian government, he took in 1825 opened out to him new connexions, and with them
a greater sphere of operation. In the speeches which he made at the meetings of the
English Bible Society, he complained of the condition of German theology, which, as he
could only have studied it for a short time in conjunction with his oriental studies, occa
sioned him much reproach in Germany. So also it was unexpected by many, that in
1826, soon after his return, which a severe bowel-complaint accelerated, he was appointed,
in place of Knapp, ordinary Professor of Theology at Halle. His first years in Halle
were disturbed by much bodily suffering. A journey to Eome, however, where he for a
year filled the office of Chaplain to the Prussian Embassy, restored his health, and, with
that, the complete vigour of his mind. From Rome he returned to Halle, which he has
not since left.

Tholuck s writings are numerous. In addition to what we have already mentioned, lie
has published, in connexion with his oriental pursuits, a treatise entitled, Sstijismm, sive
Thcosophia Persarum Pantheistica (Berlin, 1821) ; also Blutensammlung aus der Mor-
genlandischen Mystik (Berlin, 1825) ; and a piece designated, Speculativen Trinitdlslehre
des Spatern Orients (Berlin, 1826). His last work on Eastern topics is his Commenta-
tioncs dc vi, quam Grceca Philosophia in Theologiam turn Muhamedanorum turn Judaorum
exercuerit (Hamburg, 1835-37). Among his works on strictly theological subjects, we
may cite the following : Commentar zum Evangelium Johannis, the sixth edition of which,
thoroughly revised, has just made its appearance ; a fact which may enable the reader to
judge of Tholuck s popularity, since the fifth edition was published no longer ago than the
year 1837. In the year 1835 appeared his Philosophisch-theologische Auslegung der
Bergpredigt, which has been translated into English ; in 1840, his Commentar zum Br tefe
an die Hebraer. Much valuable matter connected with historical theology may be found
in his Vermischten Schrifien (2 vols. Hamb. 1839).

The doctrinal opinions which Tholuck holds have been diligently set forth in a perio
dical which he founded, the Literarischen Anzeiger fur Christliche Theologie und
Wissenscliaft, The first edition of the work, Die Glaubwiirdigkeit der Evangelischen
Geschichte, of the substance of which the ensuing essay is in the main an abridgment,
appeared in the year 1836 (second edit. 1838, which is the one used in this case), and
was expressly intended as a criticism on the "Life of Jesus" by Strauss, set forth in such
a form as might be suitable at once for ordinary readers, as well as for theologians.

No German writer, with the exception probably of Neander, is better known or more
highly esteemed in England than Tholuck. In the United States of America also, his
name is held in high repute, of which a recent proof has been given in the appearance of
a translation of his Lectures on " Theological Encyclopedia and Methodology," in the
new series of the Bibliotheca Sacra (vol. i. No. 1 and 2, Wiley and Putman, London and
New York). This popularity he owes mainly, beyond a doubt, to the accordance of his
theological opinions with the current belief in England and America. But Tholuck has

118

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 3

other claims on attention. Independently of his most productive industry and varied
learning, he is distinguished for a comprehensive and highly cultivated mind, as well as
an unusual perspicuity and neatness of style; while he adds charity to zeal, and the
spirituality of a Christian to the good sense of a man of the world.

[The substance of the present part of " Voices of the Church " is taken from the
Glaubwurdlgkeit der evangelischen Geschichte, zugleich eine Kritik des Leben Jesu von
Strauss, Jur Theologische und nicht Theologische Leser dargestellt, von Dr. A. Tholuck.
Zweite Auflage, Hamburg, 1838. For the introductory remarks, as far as page 6, it is
proper to state, the writer alone is responsible; as they cannot claim to represent any
thing corresponding in the original work. A few references have been added to those of
Tholuck ; and, so far as the writer was able, the quotations and authorities of the German
theologian have been verified. Several of the topics discussed will be found more largely
treated by* Lardner. G. V. S.]

THE object of the present article is to offer some evidence and
illustration of the Credibility of the New Testament History. It is
not our intention, however, to attempt any thing like a complete
review of the whole subject. The limits to which we must confine
ourselves forbid this. We shall take, as sufficient for our purpose,
the writings of one evangelist, St. Luke ; and, in connection with
these, shall bring forward a few considerations which may enable
us to judge of the general historical value of the Gospels and the
Acts, and may show us how improbable is the supposition, that
these books are throughout a collection of mere mythi, in which
the historical element, if it exist at all, is no longer to be suffi
ciently discriminated to allow us to decide as to the actual facts of
the life and teachings of Jesus and his Apostles.

But here let us, at the outset, admit that we are not prepared to
say, that no mythical element whatever is to be found within the
compass of the historical books of the New Testament. Nor is it
necessary for the reasonable establishment of their general credi
bility, that this should be affirmable of them. It was natural, as
we take it, that, around the life of such a character as Jesus, some
unhistorical statements should collect. If asked to point out
instances in which this may be the case, we should refer to such
passages as $Tatt. iv. 1 11; xvii. 2 13; xxvii. 52, 53. Nor is it
difficult to conceive, that such narrations as these should have come
to form part of a history of the public ministry of Christ, composed
by one sufficiently informed respecting its most important inci&lt; lents,
and writing at an early date after its termination. The impression
which Christ had left behind him would be still vivid in the minds
of his followers; that impression would necessarily be one wherein
the miraculous in his history would hold the most prominent place;
and this element of the miraculous, we may readily admit, would
not in every instance be associated, in narrative, with literal histo-

119

THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

rical realities. That impression, we will suppose, was a true and
correct impression: no wonder, then, that, in a few cases, it gave
itself an outward form, devised by the unconsciously credulous or
exaggerating imaginations of simple-hearted and reverent disciples.
Hence may have originated, in some instances, narration, which,
though truly enough representing the impression left by Jesus on
the minds of his followers, is yet not to be received as literal history.
Such a narration, again, there is no difficulty in supposing, may
have been received by a disciple who was desirous to record only
the truth respecting his Master ; who, generally speaking, has
recorded only the truth, but who yet might not feel himself at
liberty to withhold an incident commonly received as a fact,
merely because he himself was not personally an eye-witness of it,
or even carefully assured of its historical reality. Miraculous and
strange though it might appear to him, yet where all in corfhexion
with that wonderful Prophet of Nazareth had been equally so,
as his own well-remembered experience, his own consciousness,
would inform him, how could he refuse to give it a place in his
narrative ? We do not pretend, that these primitive historians of
Christianity were possessed of the critical sharp-sightedness and
scepticism of a Strauss. Truly, therefore, may they be pardoned,
if they have not, in some few instances, rejected as unhistorical
that which they had not indeed seen and heard with their own
eyes and ears, bat which, nevertheless, was in perfect keeping with
what they had both seen and heard, and, moreover, was commonly
received as true within the circle of their friends and fellow-
disciples.

The process by which this partial association of unhistorical
matter with Jesus w r ould be effected, is in constant operation. A
remarkable, publicly known character (for instance, Napoleon,
Sheridan, George IV.) makes his impression upon his contempo
raries. For years after he is gone from the stage of life, anecdotes
of him, of his sayings and doings, circulate throughout society.
Some of these anecdotes are true ; some have a certain groundwork
of truth ; some are entirely false, and, we may say, mythical, serving
no other purpose than to show us the kind of impression left by the
subject of them upon those among whom he lived. And were a
biographer, not greatly skilled in the art of historical composition,
a simple-minded, unsceptical man, to include some of these
anecdotes in his narrative, would this be very wonderful ? or should
we, on this account, reject the whole narrative, even the most
circumstantially related matters of fact which it might contain, as
untrue and unhistorical ?

We repeat, then, that we are not prepared to say, that no mythical
element whatever is to be found in the gospel narratives. It was
natural that such accretions should, in the lapse of years, grow up
around the memory of Jesus. But, while freely making this admis
sion, our proposition is, that the general credibility of the New

120

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY.

Testament history is sufficiently demonstrable. Jesus himself
no one denies it was a reality. His public life, his teachings,
his death, were realities too. So were his apostles Peter, and James,
and John, and Paul : all these men were once living and moving,
doing and suffering, upon this our earth; and all these are now
historical realities. There were such men no one denies it.
But more than this : the accounts, originating in or near their own
age, which we have of these men, of what they said and of what
they did, are, on the whole, true. We do not affirm, that absolutely
nothing of a fictitious nature has added itself to those accounts ;
but that, generally speaking, in all essential features, they are
credible, admissible as real history ; and that they may be proved
to be so, to the satisfaction of the candid inquirer, who is willing to
be contented, in an historical question, with the evidence which
such a question properly admits of and requires.

For the sake of conciseness and unity of subject, we have" chosen
for our consideration the third Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.
These two works are recommended to us by the fact, that they are
admitted by Dr. Strauss himself to come from one and the same
author or compiler.* It is true, that the author of the Leben Jesu
does not regard it as sufficiently decided, whether Luke s Gospel
comes to us from the apostolical man of that name, or from some
otner and unknown hand. . He admits, however, that the author of
the third Gospel and the Book of the Acts was a contemporary and
disciple of the apostles, and a companion of Paul. This concession
is quite enough for our purpose. If the New Testament writings,
just mentioned, come from an apostolical man, it is of little moment
what was his name whether Luke, or some other. We must
judge of his credibility, not by his name, but by the internal
character and evidences of his works.

As, however, we shall continue, with Dr. Strauss himself, to give
the name of Luke to the author of the books referred to ; and as
some of our subsequent remarks will be based upon the conclusion,
that the author of those books is one person with the apostolical
Luke ; it will be well briefly to state the evidence on which this
conclusion rests, evidence which we certainly regard as enough
to warrant the belief in the identity of the two characters.

1. That a person called Luke, a companion of Paul, was the
author of the third Gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles, is
the early and unvarying tradition of the ancient church,f whose
report, on a mere matter of fact, unless some good reason for
disputing it can be assigned, we are surely bound to receive.
2. The author of the books mentioned, was, for several years, a
companion of Paul, and accompanied him to Rome ; so that the

* Lcben Jesu, s. 67 ()9, fourth edit.

t Kuinoel, Comment, in N. T. Winer, Realwb rterbuch, in Lucas
121

6 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

last incidental notice we have of that author leaves him in the
society of the apostle, in the imperial city (Acts xxviii. 16). In
letters written by Paul from Rome, during his captivity, he mentions
Luke by name, as being with him (Philem. 24 ; 2 Tim. iv. 11;
Col. iv. 14), and in one instance calls him his " fellow-labourer."
3. The companion of Paul, having brought the apostle to Rome,
terminates his history without saying a word respecting the decision
of the cause which had occasioned the visit to the capital. The
conclusion seems inevitable, that that cause was still undecided when
the history was closed ; and it is reasonable to believe, that the
book was written by the companion of Paul, while he was still with
the apostle at Rome, and could avail himself of his aid in the
composition of the work. This, again, goes to identify the com
panion of Paul, the author of the Acts, with " Luke the beloved
physician," Paul s " fellow-labourer," who, we know from indepen
dent authority, was with Paul during his sojourn at Rome.

We proceed to inquire, more particularly, at what date the
writings of Luke were probably composed.

That the evangelist was a companion of the apostle Paul, is
manifest from the fact, that, in several places in the Book of Acts,
he includes himself, along with Paul, in the narrative, by the use of
the first person plural (Acts xvi. 10 17; xx. 5 15; xxi. 1 \7,
&c.). Dr. Strauss, with somewhat of reluctance, concedes this;
thinking, however, that the expressions " we endeavoured," " we
were," " we went," and so on, may perhaps be accounted for on a
different supposition. He then proceeds to modify this concession,
by observing, that " the companion of Paul may possibly have
composed both his histories at a time when apostolical assistance
was no longer at hand to secure him against the influence of
tradition, whose statements, therefore, provided only they were
edifying and credible in his own judgment, which was by no
means averse to the miraculous, he would not feel himself bound
to reject, merely because he had not received them from Paul."*

But now let us consider, that, against this supposition of a com
paratively late origin of Luke s writings, a supposition, be it
observed, which its author himself qualifies with a " possibly,"
stands the fact that the history of Paul concludes abruptly with the
residence of the apostle at Rome. In the case of any ordinary
historian, we should infer that this so suddenly terminating narrative
was written- before the decision of the cause which brought Paul to
the Roman capital.f Why not make the same inference in the
case of this apostolical historian ?

If, however, it be " possible," that Luke composed his history
long after the Roman captivity of Paul, the contrary supposition,
that he wrote it during that captivity, is, in a high degree, probable.

* Leben Jesu, s. 68. t About the year 63 or 64, A.D.

122

THE NEW TESTAMENT HJSTOKY. 7

For the Book of the Acts, though commonly supposed to have
no regular conclusion, yet, in reality, terminates with a sentence
the very same in structure as the last verse of the Gospel by the
same author ; the participial formula being employed in the two
cases, and being evidently a regular concluding formula.* And is
it likely that Luke would thus deliberately have closed his account
of Paul, had he been writing at a time when the apostle had either
been released from prison, or suffered martyrdom ? If a biography
of Napoleon were to end with his residence upon the Island of
Elba, without mentioning his escape and subsequent fortunes, what
rational person would not infer, that, at the date of its composition,
the great captive was still living upon that island ?

Nor does the circumstance, that the evangelists Matthew and
John omit to mention the ascension of Jesus, invalidate this reason
ing. There was no natural internal necessity, in their case, to
lead them to introduce the event referred to. With the resurrec
tion, the earthly life of Jesus was completed : from thenceforward
be belonged not to this world as, indeed, is seen in the fact that
he no longer dwelt continuously in the society of his disciples, but
only, as a spirit from some loftier sphere, occasionally visited them.
Thus the history of Christ had its natural termination, not with the
ascension, but with the resurrection ; and hence we have an easy
explanation of the silence of the two evangelists respecting the
former event. If, however, Paul had either been released from
captivity or put to death, when the Book of Acts was composed, the
silence of Luke as to his subsequent life and labours admits of no
such natural explanation. There is nothing peculiar to the per
sonal character or circumstances of the apostle which renders a
conclusion so abrupt, an omission so considerable, appropriate or
pardonable.

But we have, also, external evidence for the position, that Luke
wrote the Acts while Paul was still a prisoner at Rome. In letters
written by the apostle during his captivity, he expressly mentions,
as we have seen, his companion Luke. How opportune, also, was
this season of quiet for the two friends to review their past labours
and journeyings together, for the one to write, the other to cor
rect, the history of their missionary life !

It is not unlikely that the composition of the Gospel belongs to
a similar period of comparative repose that, namely, in which
Luke remained in the vicinity of Paul, when a prisoner in Jerusalem
(Acts xxi. 17). For where was the evangelist more likely to think
of such an undertaking, than in Palestine, where both written and
oral testimony concerning the life of Jesus would be so easily attaina
ble ? And, receiving it as a fact that the third Gospel was written

* For this statement, Tholuck refers to Meyez-, a recent German commentator, much
esteemed.

123

8 TIIOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

during this imprisonment of Paul, it becomes the more probable
that the equally long imprisonment at Rome would suggest to Luke
the composition of the similar work, the History of the Apostles; or
it] as is more likely, this work had been previously planned, would
afford the necessary leisure for its execution. Thus tfre two sup
positions serve mutually to support each other, an evidence, to
some extent, of their correctness.

These different considerations, then, being taken into tlie account,
the unprejudiced reader will surely allow, that if, on the side which
Dr. Strauss defends, there be a " possibility, " on that which we
defend lies a considerable and satisfactory historical probability.

We infer, therefore, as a reasonable and well-warranted conclusion,
that the Book of Acts was written not later than the Roman captivity
of Paul, about the year 63 or 64, A.D. It follows of course, and
this is the most important point for our present notice, that the
Gospel of Luke is of still earlier date (Acts i. 1). Such being
the case, we are introduced at once, in the author of this Gospel,
whatever may have been his name, to an individual who lived in
immediate contact with apostles and disciples of Jesus, with those
who were eye-witnesses and hearers of his public life and teachings.
We are at once placed, in short, on the firm ground of historical
data, which, as we feel it solidly beneath us, in the progress of our
inquiries, it will be impossible for us to regard as the mere Fata
Morgana of the mythical hypothesis.

Before we can decide as to the credibility of an historian, we must
inquire, 1. Whether he was willing to record the truth; 2. Whether
he was able, both as regards his means of information and his own
competency, to record the truth. In the case of St. Luke, the first
question is answered by the proem of his Gospel; the second, by
the consideration of his mental character, and of his position and
circumstances in reference to the subject-matter of his histories.

1. The proem of the third Gospel shows us at once, that we have
to do with a man who well knew how to discriminate between tradition
and history, and whose wish it was to write history. For illustration :
Josephus, at the beginning of his work De Bello Jud. uses the follow
ing words : " Since, concerning the war of the Romans with the
Jews, so many have related, on the authority of uncertain reports,
what they have not themselves seen; while others, who were eye
witnesses, have allowed themselves to be led into error through
flattery of the Romans, therefore have I, who at one period
fought against the Romans, and at a later period was forced to be
an eye-witness, undertaken to relate the history of the same war."
Now, who is not convinced, that the man who can write thus
must have taken pains to ascertain whether the accounts which
came before him were or were not founded in fact ? And shall we,
in a similar case, deny to the Christian historian the credit which we
so readily grant to Josephus ?

The proem of Luke s Gospel suggests several considerations

124

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 9

which may serve to convince us of his trustworthiness as an histo
rian : 1. The evangelist seeks to justify himself in the composition
of his Gospel, by the fact that many others though, like him
self, not immediate eye-witnesses of what* they relate have yet
ventured to undertake the same task : " Forasmuch as many have
undertaken to set forth an account of those things which are most
surely believed among us, according as they who from the begin
ning were eye-witnesses of and participators in the matters related
have delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also," &c. It is
thus manifest, that Luke sets out with the idea, that none but eye
witnesses of the facts of the life of Jesus ought properly to be his
biographers. We learn from this, at once, how important he deemed
it to give, on this subject, nothing but the simple historical truth.
2. In the very earliest times after the death of Christ, many felt
the want of written documents for fixing and preserving the oral
accounts of his public life and teachings. 3. In endeavouring to
supply this want, they adhered from the beginning to eye-witnesses^
and persons immediately concerned in the incidents related.
4. Luke did not regard himself as relieved from the duty of accurate
investigation : " It hath seemed good to me also, having accurately
(or, diligently) investigated every thing from the first." 5. The
object of the work of the evangelist is a pledge for the due discharge
of this duty; that object being to show his friend "the certainty of
the things wherein he had been instructed," and which lay at the
foundation of his Christian faith.

These several propositions readily and naturally unfold themselves
from this proem, and surely render it impossible to doubt that Luke
was willing to record the truth.

2. But this goodwill of the evangelist is not in itself sufficient to
secure him against error, especially the error of receiving, as histo
rical fact, the merely mythical and false. We must therefore inquire,
in the next place, into his ability, both as to his own competency,
and his means of information, to discharge, with needful accuracy
and skill, the duties of the historian.

According to Dr. Strauss, the competency of the evangelists to
write simple matter-of-fact history is, at best, a very dubious thing.
They were, we are told, wonder-loving Jews ; deficient, moreover,
in the degree of education necessary to enable them to discriminate
justly between history and mythus. In the case of Luke, however,
this objection is wholly powerless; for he was not of Jewish birth.
His name itself, formed from Lucanus, indicates this ; and the pas
sage (Col. iv. 14) in which he is mentioned apart from Paul s fellow-
labourers " of the circumcision" (ver. 11) attests the same thing.
The fact of his Gentile origin is shown also by his written style,*

* For example, the Proem of the Gospel, in the manner of the Greek and Roman
historians. Compare the preface of Justin. See Kuinoel, in N. T. Act. Apost. Pro-
legom. 3.

125 T

10 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

and by the knowledge of Greek and Roman affairs which he mani
fests in the Acts of the Apostles. It is true, indeed, as we see in
Philo and Josephus, that Jews, and especially Hellenists, could
acquire the same knowledge of the Greek language, and acquaint
ance with Gentile affairs ; but, if we admit that Luke, being a Jew,
did this, the more favourable must be our opinion of his natural
abilities and education.

Of his education, indeed, it is impossible to think otherwise than
highly. We may appeal to the Book of the Acts, and confidently
ask, whether a writer who introduces so many facts and allusions,
geographical, historical, antiquarian, and in these various data has
hardly an error, is to be placed, in point of education and mental
character, below Josephus. In one respect, the Book of the Acts
is, certainly, unsatisfactory as an historical work : it wants unity of
plan. But, as these Christian writers of the apostolical age did not
seek to distinguish themselves as authors, their works are to be
regarded simply as memoirs. And, in writings of this kind, the
author allows himself to be directed, in the choice and arrangement
of his materials, very much according to the sources of his informa
tion, and his own private views of his subject. Since, then, we have
not, on either of these points, any certain knowledge in the case
before us, we must, at least, withhold the censure of want of unity
in the plan of the history of the Book of Acts.

The notices which we have respecting Luke lead us to the same
favourable estimate of his mental character and cultivation. He
was, according to Paul, a physician. Among ourselves, this profes
sion necessarily implies a considerable degree of education. If
this was less the case in ancient times, nevertheless is it true that this
class of men belonged to the number of the educated. Among the
Romans, physicians were generally either slaves or freedmen;* but
it is not to be inferred from hence, that they were deficient in edu
cation. It is known that slaves were often instructed in the artibus
ingenuis (Horace, Ep. 2. 2, 7), and the class of freedmen has fur
nished some authors of note.f At an early period of the Roman
empire, colleges of physicians were instituted, which had to provide
for the continuance and due training of this order of men, and to
examine into their qualifications for undertaking the practice of
their art. These external considerations evidently authorise us to
regard Luke as a man of no inconsiderable mental culture, and of
sober judgment. Hence the confidence which we have found him

* Tholuck refers here to Quintilian, Instit. 7. 2; Suet. Calig. c. 8; Senec. de Benef.
3. 24; Cicero pro Cluent. c. 63. He observes, also, that the ending of Luke s name
(ae) indicates that he was a freedman, because names terminating thus frequently occur
as the names of such persons.

+ Antonius Musa, a freedman and physician, was made a Roman knight; and a statue
in his honour was erected in the temple of ^Esculapius, on account of a cure he had
effected in the emperor Augustus.

126

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTOBY. 11

to deserve, on the score of willingness to record the truth, need not
be withdrawn on the ground of his want of the abilities necessary to
enable him to do so.

This result of our inquiries will be confirmed by the consideration
of his position and circumstances, in relation to the facts of his
histories. He was so placed as to possess the means of gaining
satisfactory information as to what he relates. According to Euse-
bius and Jerome, the birthplace of the evangelist was 4ntioch; a
city which, next to Jerusalem, was the chief seat of apostolical
Christianity, and which maintained a constant intercourse with
Palestine. From the Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians, we
learn that Barnabas, Agabus, Silas, Peter, were at different times at
Antioch; and would not Luke, even before his close connexion
with Paul, have met and conversed with these Palestinian preachers
of the gospel ? From the time of Paul s visit to Troas (Acts xvi. 11),
we find him becoming the intimate friend and companion of the
apostle of the Gentiles. He afterwards separated from him,
remaining probably at Philippi, or undertaking from that city various
missionary enterprises (Acts xvi. 12, 40). He again, however, after
a considerable time, joined the apostle; and we find him accom
panying Paul to Troas, Miletus, Tyre, and Ptolemais (Acts xx. 5 ;
xxi. 7). In all these places they meet with brethren, some of whom
were from Palestine (Acts xx. 21). They afterwards go up together
to Caesarea and Jerusalem (Acts xxi. 8 18). In the former town,
they abode in the house of Philip, one of the first deacons of the
church of Jerusalem. On the way to Jerusalem, they lodge with
Mnason, " an old disciple " (one, probably, who had known the
Lord). Shortly after their arrival in the capital, they seek James,
the brother of the Lord ; and " all the elders " assembled there to
meet them.

It is thus evident, that Luke had manifold opportunities of inter
course and conversation with Palestinian Christians, and the heads
of the primitive churches. We must remember also his constant
facilities in the society of Paul himself,- and in the discussions of this
apostle with Jews and Gentiles, for becoming acquainted with the
facts of the primitive Christian history. If we adopt the view,
already mentioned, that Luke wrote his Gospel during the year and
a half s captivity of Paul at Jerusalem, we must allow him to have
had abundant means of gaining information ; writing, as he was, on
the very scene of the events he records, and amidst the very persons
who had witnessed them. It is not impossible, that he here even
met and conversed with the mother of Jesus, who, so far as regards
her age, might be still alive ; and from whom, therefore, he might
obtain the particulars he gives us (ii. 1 7 ; 41 52) respecting the
birth and childhood of Jesus. And with what vividness would
the memory of Christ be preserved among those early disciples
whom Luke would meet in Jerusalem ! How, immediately after the
crucifixion, their thoughts lived only in the one event, we see in the

127

12 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

conversation of the two disciples going to Emmaus (Luke xxiv. 14).
After the ascension, we find them constantly together " in prayer ; "
and the corner-stone of their community was already the memorial-
meal of love (Acts ii. 42, 46). And, continuing to assemble thus
together, for years afterwards, would they not continue to recount
the great events which they had witnessed ? one asking another
what he could tell, and each contributing of the store of those
dear remembrances at which his heart still burned within him ;
this one recalling to mind the moment when first he heard the
words, " Follow me ; " that one describing how Jesus, mild and
earnest, stood before him, when he took the children in his arms,
and blessed them; another adding his experience too, how he
had been present at the washing of the disciples feet, when the
Master so beautifully taught his followers that divine lesson of
humility ; and another, again, relating how imperishably the
scene was impressed upon his memory, when he beheld the heavens
open above him, and heard the words, " This is my beloved Son, in
whom I am well pleased." *

These are the living scenes of historical reality, which present
themselves, from time to time, to the attentive reader, in the pages of
the New Testament, scenes which might refresh and soothe the
strained eye of the sceptical critic, would he but condescend to look
down upon them, in his wanderings through the cloud-enveloped
regions of mythus ; and it is unpardonable in Dr. Strauss and his
school, that they lead the attention of their readers so entirely away
from these clearly discernible historical relations of the primitive
disciples, and fix it so exclusively upon their own airy speculations
and imaginings.

To these various external evidences of the credibility of the
evangelist, affording the most satisfactory answer to our two questions,
is next to be added the internal character of his works. An historian
approves himself worthy of credit by the exactness of his narratives,
his carefulness in matters of chronology, above all, by his constant
agreement with what are known to us, from independent sources, as
facts of history and geography, of contemporary life and manners
generally. In the Gospels, this kind of evidence is not, to any
great extent, attainable ; because the scene of their history lies in a
land comparatively little known to contemporary writers, and the
occurrences related are connected more particularly with private
families and individuals. The history of the death of Christ is their

* Tholuck quotes a passage from the Rccognitiones dementis, by which the above
representation is strikingly confirmed: Peter is the speaker: " In consuetudine habui
verba Domini niei, quae ab ipso audieram, revocare ad memoriam et pro ipsorum desiderio,
suscitari animis meis et cogitationibus imperavi, ut evigilans ad ea, et singula quaeque
recolens ac retexens, possim memoriter rctinere. Ex hoc ergo, dum omni cum dulcedine
sermones Domini versare in meo corde desidero, consuetude obtinuit vigilandi." :Our
author refers also to Irenaeus, who speaks of himself, as often repeating the words of his
teacher Polycnrp, a disciple of St. John.

128

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 13

chief point of contact with the public and political life of the day.
But in the Acts of the Apostles it is different. Here, in the con
stantly changing scene, Palestine, Greece, Asia Minor, Italy, a
multitude of instances present themselves, wherein events, persons,
circumstances, are mentioned, of which we are informed by other
writers of the times, -*-by whose accounts, therefore, the accuracy and
credibility of the evangelists can be tested. These instances, in
truth, afford so many opportunities of detecting the careless inves
tigator, the credulous narrator, the superstitious believer in mythus
and fiction.

Leaving, however, the Book of the Acts for our future considera
tion, we have at present to mention what is peculiar to the Gospel,
in the point of view just spoken of. Between the contents of this
work, and what we have just had to state respecting the position
and opportunities of its author, we find a striking general agreement.
This consists in the affinity which may be traced between the
Gospel and certain features of the Pauline teachings, and which is
acknowledged even by the sceptical criticism of De Wette. He
says : "It must be allowed, that the evangelist was one of Paul s
school, since he introduces only such expressions of Jesus as serve
to confirm the Pauline doctrine of justification (xv. 11 32; xvii.
6 10; xviii. 14) ; and in his account of the Last Supper, he har
monises with 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25." * To these instances, we may add
the agreement with Paul in the account of the appearances of the
risen Christ (Luke xxiv. 34. 1 Cor. xv. 5).f

And is it likely that the disciple who is thus so anxious to con
firm the doctrinal views of his Master, that he expressly introduces
into his narrative such matter as is most nearly related to those
views, should never have conversed with Paul respecting his inten
tion to write his Gospel? should not, after it was written, have
submitted it to his perusal ? We have seen how improbable is the
supposition, that the Gospel was written after the death of Paul;
and, writing it during that apostle s life, it is surely in the highest
degree improbable, that the latter should have been ignorant of the
work of the man whom he terms " beloved friend," and with whom
he had shared the toils and dangers of many years.

Luke is known to us, by the Acts, as one not unacquainted with
the rules of historical composition. His Gospel is not wanting in
indications of the same fact respecting him. The proem with which
it commences, is peculiar to this evangelist. Occasionally, also,
we find in the third Gospel a more exact definition of time than we
meet with in the other evangelists. For example we may refer to
Luke ii. 1, 2, and iii. 1, 2. That an author, however, such as Luke,
should not in his Gospel have dealt with his materials more strictly
according to the rules of historical composition, is sufficiently

* Einleitung, s. 183. f Refer also to Luke xxiv. 47.

129

14 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

remarkable. But this is easily explained by the consideration, that
the sacred history must, when Luke wrote, have already attained so
decided an external form that the individual historian would not
lightly allow himself to alter it. Nor can we deny, that in this there
is a strong proof of the evangelist s good faith towards the sources of
his history, whether oral or written. In a similar manner has Livy,
though possessed of such command over language, not disdained
to follow the dry narrative forms of preceding historians ; making
himself so dependant upon them as not even to avoid their self-
contradictions.*

We have mentioned two instances, in which the evangelist s
definition of time connects his narrative with the contemporary
history of the period. Upon these two cases the attack of Dr.
Strauss has been especially directed, as each containing a gross
contradiction to acknowledged historical facts only, and presenting,
therefore, a decided proof of the unhistorical character of his Gospel.
We propose, on this account, to give particular attention to the two
passages referred to ; the more so, because, in thus doing, we shall
have the opportunity of introducing many positive proofs of the
credibility of the evangelical history.

I. Luke ii. 1, 2. We are here informed that Jesus was born at
Bethlehem, during a visit of his parents to that town, occasioned by
the general census of the Roman empire, ordered by Augustus. It
is objected, however, that no author of the period ever mentions any
such general census; and that, therefore, this statement is manifestly
unhistorical. The attempt has been made to obviate the difficulty,
by supposing the evangelist to mean by the words 7rd&lt;ra % oiKovpivri
(" all the world : " Eng. version), not the whole Roman empire, but
simply the land of Judea (all the land). But this, even if admissible,
does not much assist us ; for, as Jesus was born before the death of
King Herod, Judea was not yet a Roman province, and hence no
census could be ordered in it by the Roman emperor. Moreover,
it was not made a province, until some ten years after Herod s death,
when Archelaus was deposed and banished, and his dominions
annexed to Syria. Some writers have endeavoured, however, to
show that Augustus might have ordered a census to be taken in
the dominions of Herod, preparatory to the division of his kingdom
among his sons, after his death. But even this supposition does not
remove the difficulties of the passage. Luke tells us, that Cyrenius
was, at the time of the census, proconsul of Syria ; whereas he did
not assume that office till eleven or twelve years after the birth of
Christ, when he was sent from Rome, on occasion of the deposition
of Archelaus, to change Judea into a province, and institute a
general taxation of the inhabitants. At the birth of Jesus, Sentius
Saturninus was proconsul of Syria, as we learn both from Josephus

Lacbmann de Fontibus Livii, &c. p. 06.

130

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 15

and Tertullian. Hence, then, if the census of Judea did not take
place till some eleven or twelve years after our Lord s birth, the
cause assigned for the visit of his parents to Bethlehem could not
have existed, and the relation of the birth at Bethlehem must be
given up as unhistorical.

Nor is this all. The taxation under Cyrenius included only the
dominions of Archelaus, and therefore did not extend to Galilee :
hence it could not have occasioned the visit of the parents of Jesus
to Bethlehem at this time. Moreover, the census was a Roman
census ; yet it is made, according to Luke, after the Jewish manner,
the people going up to the chief town of the tribe to which they
respectively belonged ; whereas the Romans levied their taxes upon
the inhabitants of a country in the place of their residence. Accord
ing to the Jewish custom, also, the men only were required to
present themselves for enrolment; and hence no sufficient reason
appears why Mary should undertake such a journey at such a
time.

The above is a fair statement of the difficulties of this passage,
upon which Dr. Strauss grounds his attack upon it as unhistorical.

And now, let us observe, if we met with such errors as these
appear to be, in any ordinary writer, before we thought of condemn
ing his whole narrative as unworthy of credit, we might reasonably
ask, 1. Does what we know of this author personally, justify us in
making the supposition, that he could so grossly err in regard to a
simple matter of fact? 2. Is his character as an historian, in
other respects, such that violent anachronisms cannot surprise us ?
Should both these questions be answered in the negative, we might
reasonably conclude, that the mode of interpretation which evolved
so many errors from a single passage must itself have erred ; and,
if the difficulty could not be removed in this way, still would the
plan of historical combination be open to us.* Should we, after
all, be unable to attain a satisfactory result, we should, neverthe
less, at least be obliged to declare, that Dr. Strauss had laid too
much to the charge of the evangelist : we should at least confess
with Winer,f that such an anachronism as the predating of the
census under Cyrenius by so many years, in order to make the birth
of Jesus take place at Bethlehem, is certainly not to be thought of,
seeing that that census was well known to the evangelist (Acts v. 37).

That, in the case of Luke, the first of the above questions should
be answered in the negative, is evident both from the knowledge we
possess of his personal circumstances, and means of information,
and from the assurance of careful investigation with which he begins
his Gospel ; while the internal character of his two works compels
us to answer the second question in the same manner.

131

An instance of which is given, infra p. 21.
+ Realworterb. ; article, Quirinius.

16 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

Such being the case, we shall now cite from the writings of
Luke, various instances in which our evangelist speaks of contem
porary public characters, of whom we are also informed by other
and independent writers of the time. We shall thus be enabled to
judge what degree of credit is to be given to his statements in the
instance before us whether they ought to be at once, and without
further inquiry, dismissed as ignorant mistakes or wilful fabrications ;
or whether they are not, after all, admissible, even on the single
authority of Luke, and capable of a natural and satisfactory expla
nation.

The materials for our proposed inquiry must be chiefly taken
from the Book of the Acts. But even in the Gospel we find data
suitable for our purpose. At the time of Luke s visit to Palestine,
the political arrangements of the country were different from those
existing at the birth of Christ. But yet he gives us the same
accurate notices of the latter, that we find in the other Gospels.
He mentions the relative position of Herod and Pilate (xxiii. 12)
in a manner which implies a special knowledge on his part, and
which is occasioned by the relation of the Galilean tetrarch, at
this time, to the governor of the province. The first two verses of
the third chapter are characteristic of Luke. The definition of time,
according to the rulers of the different countries, bears upon its
face the character of genuine history. Even Strauss can discover
nothing in this case to which he can object, with the exception of
the reference to Lysanias, which we shall shortly consider. The
evangelist speaks of the fifteenth year of Tiberius ; and, with perfect
correctness, connects with this date Herod (Antipas), Philip, Annas,
and Caiaphas. That Annas is mentioned, indeed, is worthy of notice ;
for, had we not known from other authorities, that preceding high
priests sometimes took part with their successors in the adminis
tration of the office,* we should probably have had an outcry about
the mistake of the evangelist, in speaking of more than one high
priest at the same time (compare John xviii. 13). The reference
to the unimportant ruler of Abilene is another proof of Luke s
acquaintance with the political arrangements of the time ; a proof
which, though questioned by Dr. Strauss, we shall see good reason
to regard as quite admissible.

In the Book of Acts, however, as we have said, lie our chief
materials for testing the correctness of Luke. In this book there
are mentioned the high priest, Ananias ; two Jewish kings,
Agrippa I. and II. ; two Roman procurators, Felix and Festus ;
the wife of one of them, Drusilla ; Berenice, the mistress of
a Jewish king; two Roman proconsuls, Gallio and Sergius; and
Publius, the governor of the island of Melita. Here are surely
materials enough for the purposes of the sceptical critic. We will

Joseph. Autiq. 20. 9. 2.

J32

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 17

not attempt to present to our readers all the considerations which
they suggest to us, but shall select a few of the more important
and interesting.

In the year of our Lord s death, we find the same persons men
tioned as high priests, in the Acts, as appear from the Gospels to
have been his judges, namely, Annas and Caiaphas (Acts iv. 6).
Two other high priests are mentioned, one by name, Ananias
(xxiv. 1) ; the other without name (xxv. 2). In the former case,
the evangelist agrees with Josephus, who informs us (Antiq. 20. 5),
that Ananias, son of Nebedoeus, was high priest when Felix was
procurator.

Turning to the Jewish kings : amidst the various changes that
took place in the possession of the different territories of Herod the
Great by his sons of the same name, and other rulers, how easy was
it for a mythographer, writing long after the event, and residing out
of Palestine, to fall into error and confusion ! Yet we find, in Luke s
narrative, every thing relating to this part of the subject put down in
its proper order and connexion. In chap. xii. (A.D. 44), a Herod is
introduced; and what is said of his death is sufficient to show us
that Agrippa I. is meant. Let us remember, that, at the beginning
of the reign of Caligula (A.D. 37), this king possessed only Batanea,
Trachonitis, and Auronitis : in the second year of Caligula, Galilee
and Pera3a were given to him ; and under Claudius (A.D. 41), Samaria
and Judea. He reigned over the whole of Palestine only for three
years; and, immediately after his death, (A.D. 44), Judea again
became a Roman province. How easily, then, amidst these changes
in the disposal of Judea, might Luke have erred respecting its
government.

Of this king some particulars are recorded, with which our infor
mation, derived from another source, harmonizes in a remarkable
manner. Josephus tells us, that he strove anxiously to gain the
favour of the people (Antiq. 19. 7. 3). The history of the Acts
relates that he killed James, the brother of John; and that, "when
he saw that it pleased the Jews," he cast Peter into prison (xii. 3).

The notice of the death of this Herod is remarkable ; at first
sight differing from the account of Josephus, but yet in such a
manner as serves, in the end, only to show the exact knowledge and
sober judgment of the Christian historian. He introduces his
account of the event, by mentioning the warlike plans of the king
against Tyre and Sidon, and the request of the people of these
cities to remain at peace with him, " because their country was
nourished by the king s country" (xii. 20). This historical fact is
not mentioned by Josephus, probably as being too unimportant for
special notice. Luke, however, knowing it, it was characteristic of
his particularity to mention it. He was even so well informed on
the subject, as to be able to tell us of a court intrigue engaged in
by the people of Tyre and Sidon with the king s chamberlain,
whose name was known to him (xii. 20). The statement, " their
133 u

18 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

country was nourished by the king s country," is perfectly historical:
Josephus (Antiq. 15. 9. 6) informs us of the quantity of timber and
other articles of commerce which Palestine obtained from the
Phoenicians, and how, to their great advantage, Herod improved
the harbour of Caesarea.

We come next to the death of this prince ; and here is the dif
ference above referred to between the evangelist and Josephus.
The latter (Antiq. 19. 8. 2) tells us, that, early on the second day of
the games at Caesarea, Agrippahad presented himself in the theatre
splendidly arrayed ; all eyes were fixed upon him ; the people had
hailed him with the shout, " a god ! " when, suddenly, an owl was
seen perched above him ; an object with which an old prophecy
was connected, that the king must die when he had seen this bird
a second time. Agrippa had seen it once in Gaul, and now
therefore believed his end near. He was seized, on the spot, with
dreadful pains, which terminated in his death soon afterwards.
There are three points of difference between this account and that
of the sacred historian. A little examination will show us, how
this discrepancy serves, in reality, to commend to us the historical
character of Luke.

1. The evangelist says nothing of the owl, but relates that " the
angel of the Lord smote him." This statement reveals to us
the light in which the incident was regarded by the writer. The
death of Herod was sudden and extraordinary: hence the phraseo
logy in which it is recorded. 2. As to the sickness, Josephus speaks
only of disease in the stomach ; Luke, with more particularity, of
worms: the Christian historian is, evidently, the more exactly in
formed. As Meyer has observed, we have here an incidental proof,
that the author of the Book of Acts was Luke, " the beloved phy
sician." * 3. A more important difference is the following : Luke
relates that the occurrence took place while the king was giving
audience to the ambassadors; Josephus, that it happened when he
was in the theatre. But here, again, Luke gives us the more cir
cumstantial account. To be in the theatre, and, at the same time,
to give audience, were not, according to Greek custom, inconsistent
with each other, f Observe further, that, according to Josephus, the
king entered the theatre early in the morning. The ambassadors
must, as a matter of course, have been invited thither to meet him.
How natural also, that Herod, before the commencement of the
games, should take advantage of that opportunity of indulging his

* Compare also Luke iv. 38, " great fever." Galen distinguishes between the great
and the little fever. Matthew and Mark, in the parallel passages, speak only of " a fever.
Acts xiii. 11, Luke correctly uses a technical term (ci^Ave, " mist," Eng. ver.) to denote
temporary blindness. (Kuinoel, Proleg. 1. Schleus.)

+ Lipsius on the words of Tacitus, Hist. 2. 80: "Turn Antiochensium theatrum
ingressus, ubi illis consultare mos est."

134

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 19

own vanity, in the presence of the people. Thus, then, does Luke
show himself, on the whole, better informed of the details of the
occurrence even than Josephus.

Chap. xxv. introduces Herod II. expressly distinguished from
his predecessor (simply termed Herod) by his additional name
Agrippa. In this case, again, there was much room for error, not
only from the identity of the names, but also from the territorial
changes that had taken place. The emperor Claudius had given
him (A.D. 48), some time after his father s death, the principality
of Chalcis; then, four years later, the tetrarchies of Philip and
Lysanias, together with the title of king. Luke is quite correct in
his notice of him. He was king in the time of Festus (who came
to Judea, A.D. 60). The occasion on which he is here introduced,
is evidence of the historical accuracy of Luke. The king comes to
salute the new procurator (xxv. 13) ; an incidental allusion to his
dependence upon the Romans. Festus lays the cause of Paul
before Agrippa, a course to be expected from the Roman ; for the
case involved a question of religion, of which the Gentile under
stood nothing. Agrippa was a Jew ; and, besides this, according to
Josephus, was overseer of the temple, and invested with the power
of choosing the high priest.

Along with Agrippa appears Bernice, who is known to us also
from Juvenal, Sat. 6. How easily an historian, deriving his infor
mation only from uncertain and late tradition, might have erred
respecting this woman, is evident when we remember that, besides
the Egyptian ladies of that name, there was another celebrated
Jewish Bernice, niece of Herod the Great, who had gained at
Rome the favour of Augustus, and of Antonia, wife of Drusus. The
Bernice here introduced, had, in the first instance, married her
uncle Herod, king of Chalcis. After his death, she became the wife
of Polemo, king of Cilicia ; then, deserting him, she lived with her
brother Agrippa, here mentioned by Luke ; and ended by becoming
the mistress of Titus. She became connected with her brother
about the year 50, A.D. The date of Paul s captivity was pro
bably from 58 60, A.D. Hence the incident recorded by Luke,
the presence of Bernice with her brother, is in harmony with
history; although, from the different positions which this woman
occupied, it would be difficult for one not well informed, or writing
long after the event related, to avoid falling into error.

The evangelist mentions, incidentally, a third Herod (Acts xiii. 1),
with whom one Manaen had been " brought up." This is Herod
Antipas, to whom, though he had been deposed and banished
(A.D. 39) by the Roman emperor, Luke, with a proper accuracy,
gives his title of tetrarch ; thus distinguishing him from the two
Herods with whom he might so easily have been confounded.

And now let us pause to ask, whether an author, who thus, in so
many instances, shows his historical fidelity and competency, can
have been, as Dr. Strauss would represent him, an uneducated,

135

20 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

simple man, who, " long after Paul s death," and therefore many
years after the occurrence of the different events and circumstances
he so correctly notices, compiled his history from the mere uncertain
reports of current tradition ? How is it, again, supposing that this
author were, as the most ancient accounts state, of Gentile birth,
that he displays so exact a knowledge of Jewish history ? Or, if
those ancient accounts are mistaken, and he were a Jew, then how
do we explain his acquaintance with the facts of contemporary
Gentile history ? Whatever view we take, Luke stands before us as
a man of education and intelligence, sufficiently instructed in the
history of his own times ; as one, therefore, to whom we ought not
to refuse the credit of veracity and correctness in statements which
we possess on his sole authority.

In connexion with the Roman governor Felix, Luke alludes
incidentally (xxiv. 24) to his wife, the Jewish Drusilla. Josephus
confirms the evangelist, and mentions particularly how this illegal
connexion had been brought about (Antiq. 20. 7).

In xxi. 38, mention is made of an Egyptian, who had incited the
Jews to revolt, and led out into the wilderness " four thousand men
that were murderers." It would not be at all strange, in this case,
if, amidst the many similar events happening about the same time,
Josephus had omitted to notice this one. Yet the statement of
Luke is here again attested by that historian (De Bel. Jud. 2. 13. 5),
who, however, in some features of his account, differs from the
evangelist. He speaks of a conjurer, an Egyptian, who, assuming
the name of a prophet, led thirty thousand men out of the wil
derness to the Mount of Olives, with the promise that the walls
of Jerusalem should fall down at his command. Felix, however,
attacking this body, the Egyptian, with a small number, fled ; most
of the others were slain or captured ; and the remainder, dispersed.
The apparent discrepancy between the two accounts is easily remo
vable. Josephus speaks of the same Egyptian in his " Antiquities "
(20. 7. 6), and here at first sight appears to contradict his former
account; but, at the same time, affords the means of explaining
his variation both from himself and from the evangelist. In the
" Antiquities " (written some years after the work, De Bel. Jud.) we
are told, that this Egyptian came to Jerusalem, and persuaded a
multitude of the people to go out with him to the Mount of Olives,
by the promise above mentioned. Then we are informed of the attack
of Felix, in which, it is stated, four hundred of the followers of the
Egyptian were slain, two hundred taken captive without any
further information. On slighter discrepancies in the Gospels than
we have here between these two passages of Josephus, the imputa
tion of mythus is, in many cases, grounded. This example affords
us the opportunity of perceiving, that discrepancy is not always
contradiction ; and that, according to the system of criticism fol
lowed by Dr. Strauss, any historian might be degraded into a mere
mythographer. At first sight, Josephus grossly contradicts himself;

136

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 21

for, in the one relation, the Egyptian brings the multitude to the
Mount of Olives out of the wilderness, and in the other out of Jeru
salem. Again, we are first informed, that, of thirty thousand people,
the greater part were slain or captured ; and then, that the number
of the slain was only four hundred ; of the captured, two hundred.
We have here a case in which the good character of the historian,
previously and independently established, leads us to seek the
explanation of a difficulty in his writings by means of interpretation
or of combination. The latter will assist us on the present occasion.
The Egyptian must, in the first instance, have had a body of Sicarii
under his command ; and to this body a number of the people must
have joined themselves. These followers he left behind him at the
Mount of Olives, when he entered Jerusalem, out of which he led
an additional multitude back with him to the mount, so that the
united bands amounted to some thirty thousand. The greater
number had followed him chiefly through curiosity, as is usual*in
such cases. A comparatively small number were really attached
to him, among whom were the Sicarii : against these latter was the
attack of the Romans particularly directed; and of them Felix slew
four hundred, and captured two hundred. With a small part of the
whole thirty thousand that is, with the four thousand of whom
Luke speaks he fled into the wilderness: the rest, of whom the
first passage of Josephus speaks, were dispersed. In this way is
the Jewish historian reconciled both with himself and with the
evangelist.

Respecting Felix, Josephus reports nothing favourable: the
Jews brought heavy charges against him, for his tyrannical and
avaricious conduct. The Book of Acts agrees with this represen
tation. It was this governor that wished to induce Paul to bribe
him (xxiv. 26).

We next come to the Roman proconsuls. In the case of Gallio,
there would at first sight appear to be some misunderstanding on
the part of the evangelist (Acts xviii. 12). We certainly find him
correctly using the term Achaia, which was originally and strictly
the name of a portion of the Peloponnesus. In its Roman accep
tation, it denoted the whole of Greece south of Thessaly. We do
not expect, however, to find a proconsul * in this province. This
officer was sent only to provinces the governors of which were
appointed by the senate, while provinces governed by nominees of
the emperor were administered by procurators. Achaia was origi
nally a senatorial province, but was changed by Tiberius into an
imperial one ; and thus its governors were properly procurators
(Tacitus, Ann. 1. 76). Luke, however, terms Gallio, proconsul
Even so adverse a critic as Dr. Strauss might look upon such an
error as this as pardonable ; for what could the good Luke know,

* avdvjrciTOG, " deputy," Eng. ver.
137

22 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

he might say, of the difference between proconsuls and procurators,
between senatorial provinces and imperial ? And yet he did
know something of this. A passage in Suetonius (Claudius, c. 25)
informs us, that the emperor Claudius restored the province to the
senate. Had this piece of information not come down to us,
the outcry against the ignorance of Luke would, we may be certain,
not readily have ceased. Gallio was the brother of the philoso
pher Seneca, who mentions the residence of the former in Achaia
(Ep. 104), and writes in another letter to his mother, that his brother
had attained high honours. Seneca speaks also, in one of his works,
of the moderation and good nature of his brother, and is confirmed
in what he says by Statius (Silv. 2. 7. 32). The notice of Gallio
by Luke is quite in harmony. The impartial justice and forbear
ance of the proconsul are evident (ver. 14. 15).

We meet with another proconsul in Sergius Paulus, governor o
Cyprus ; but here, again, we should expect only to find a praetor,
since Cyprus was a province of the emperor. In this case, again,
the correctness of the historian has been remarkably attested. First
of all, coins were found of the reign of the emperor Claudius; on the
reverse of which, around the word " Cyprus," was the superscription,
ETTI Kojuu iov JTpo/cXou Avdvirarov, " Cominius Proclus, Proconsul" At
a later period, history also gave its testimony to the correctness of
Luke. A passage was found in Dio Cassius (54. 4.), stating that
Augustus had changed Cyprus into a senatorial province; and, as
if expressly to vindicate the evangelist, the Roman historian adds the
words, " Thus proconsuls began to be sent into that island also."

Acts xxviii. 7, Publius is termed, " chief (irp^Tog) of the island."
In this case, too, a coin has been found with the words upon it,
TIpwroQ MeXircuwv, " Governor of the Melitseans."

We may now, finally, hastily glance at the notices of judicial and
military objects and usages contained in the Book of Acts. Here,
also, we find the clearest proofs of correct information on the part
of the evangelist, and of the truly historical character of his entire
work. How peculiarly Roman is the tribunal introduced in chap.
xxiv. The delegates of the Sanhedrim bring Tertullus, an orator
forensis, as their counsel. After the information is laid, the accused
is summoned, and Tertullus begins his speech; of which how
characteristic is the pompous captatio benevolentice at the com
mencement (ver. 2 4). And yet the author who can thus describe
the proceedings of a Roman tribunal, was, according to Dr. Strauss,
an ignorant, superstitious man, who, long after the event referred
to, brought together, and committed to writing, the mere current
traditions of his day. The place where Paul lies in custody is the
"Prsetorium of Herod" (Acts xxiii. 35). Here, as at Rome, he is
subjected to the custodia militaris, from which his Roman citizen
ship could not free him. This custodia consisted in chaining the
captive and a soldier together; a state to which Paul alludes
(Acts xxviii. 20).

138

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 23

All the military allusions in the Book of Acts agree with the
information on such subjects to be derived from other sources.
Cornelius (x. 1) is called, " captain of the Italian cohort." He is
stationed in Ccesarea, where was the residence of the procurator,
and where troops, whose fidelity could be depended upon, were
especially needed. Here, therefore, we find a cohort, not of natives,
but of Italians. Over the centurions were the chiliarchs, the
tribunes of the Roman cohorts: the tribune Lysias, accordingly, is
the commander of the fort Antonia (xxiv. 22).

Peter is delivered (xii. 4) " to four quaternions of soldiers."
According to Polybius, the guard- detachment consisted among the
Romans of four men ; which number we find at the cross (John
xix. 23). In Peter s case there are four such bodies, because the
Romans divided the night into four watches. There were two
kinds of the custodia militaris : the lenior, in which the captive,
chained to a soldier, might remain in his own house; the durior,
in which he was kept in prison, bound to one or two soldiers as
here, in the instance of Peter (xii. 7).

All these various instances of the knowledge and accuracy of
Luke, enable us to perceive the unreasonableness of mistrusting the
assurance which he gives us at the commencement of his Gospel,
of " having accurately investigated every thing " in connexion
with his narrative; and, consequently, we must at least hesitate
before we lay to the charge of the evangelist such a mass of errors
in a single passage as Dr. Strauss imputes to him in reference to
chap. ii. 1, 2.

We cannot, therefore, after so many instances of accuracy, admit
the grand charge of predating the government of Cyrenius, and the
taxing by him. It is, indeed, self evident, that one who knew any
thing at all of this taxing could not but have been aware also of its
occasion (namely, the reduction of Judea to a Roman province on
the deposition of Archelaus), as well as of the disturbances which
it created throughout the country. And this taxing was well known
to Luke ; for (Acts v. 37) he expressly mentions it, together with
the outbreak under Judas the Galilean, which it occasioned ; and
in the particulars which he introduces respecting it, he is fully
confirmed by the account of Josephus. Luke could not, then,
mean to represent that taxing, happening as it did ten or eleven
years after the birth of Christ, as taking effect at the time of, or
before, this event, could not have intended to make such a
representation, in order to place the birth of the Messiah at
Bethlehem.

The kind of investigation which leads us to this conclusion, the
critic is surely bound in candour to institute, before passing a
decided sentence on the credibility of the evangelist. Our own
impression, indeed, from the considerations into which we have
entered, is so strong, that we could not ascribe so gross a mistake to
Luke, even if obliged to confess that the difficulties of the passage

139

24 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

could not be removed in any manner whatever. We believe, how
ever, that they admit of a satisfactory solution ; by which we mean,
not, indeed, an interpretation perfectly unconstrained, for this
is not to be expected in a passage that contains even grammati
cal difficulties, but one whose admissibility cannot reasonably be
disputed.

In turning our attention more closely to the passage itself, our
first inquiry is what are we to understand by the word airoypa^ecrdai
(" should be taxed," Eng. ver.). Among the Greeks it sometimes
meant, merely to write or note down, as in a catalogue ; some
times also it is used in a wider sense, including the idea of con
fiscation. In the instance now under our consideration, it is to be
remembered that King Herod was still alive; and hence, most
probably, the word signifies a mere registering of the names and
possessions of the people of the country, without any actual levying
of taxes upon them.

What are we to understand by the phrase traaa. // oi/cou/ieV?/ (" all
the world," Eng. ver.) the whole Roman empire, or simply the
land of Palestine? That the latter acceptation of the words is
impossible, Dr. Strauss ought not to have so decidedly pronounced.
If Greeks and Romans called their respective lands */ oiKovptvr], why
should not Jews, writing in Greek, have so denominated their
country? Besides there are cases (&lt;/ Actsxi. 28) in which it is
impossible to say positively that the words have not this signi
fication. As, however, no decisive examples of this signification are
to be produced, we think it more probably correct to regard the
words as really intended to denote the orbis Romanus, the whole
circle of the Roman empire.

The second verse is parenthetic, containing an incidental remark
on the " taxing." Passing by the view, as inadmissible, which
regards this verse as a mere gloss taken into the text, we shall find
the chief difficulties of the passage disappear, by adopting the follow
ing interpretation : * The superlative Trpwr//, Jirst, stands instead
of the comparative irpoTipa, before ; and the participle r/yf/^oveiWroe
is governed by this comparative ; so that the sense is, " this enrol
ment took place before Cyrenius was governor of Syria ; " and the
parenthesis is introduced expressly to provide against the objection
of those who should accuse the evangelist of an historical error, in
his previous statement ; thus resembling the parenthesis introduced,
John xiv. 22, " Judas said (not Iscariot)."

To this interpretation, however, the objection is urged, that,
instead of the participle with the adverb, we ought properly to have
the preposition with the genitive of the infinitive, -n-po TOV //ye^ovevaj ,
&c. It is urged also, that the use of Trpwn/ for Trportpa is altogether

* It may be useful to give a literal English translation of ver. 2 : " This census
first happened, Cyrenius governing Syria;" which becomes, according to Tlioluck s accep
tation, " This census happened before Cyrenius governing Syria."

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 25

contrary to the usual simplicity of the style of Luke. But many
instances of this usage may be produced out of classical authors : *
even the simple style of St. John has admitted it (i. 15, 30).

In reference, then, more particularly to the former objection,
which alone can be regarded as of any importance, let us remem
ber how common is the use of the participle with a preposition in
definitions of time : ETTI Kvpov fiaviXevovToc, pera TO iv Mapaflwvt
rpw/za ytvopfLvov (Herod. 6. 132). How easy, then, for an author,
not very anxious about grammatical niceties, to construe an adverb
of time in the same manner. An example of this, precisely the
same as the one now before us, is found in the Septuagint translation
of Jeremiah xxix. 2 : OVTOI ol Xdyot TJJQ fii\ov, ovg cnreffretXev

"fepepiciQ varepov ifcXOovTOc; Ityoviov rov fiacriXiws, that IS, "After

Jeconiah the king had departed," &c. instead of varepov TOV efcXOtiv.
Whatever, therefore, may be said as to the badness of the Greek of
Luke, if we adopt this construction of his words, here is an instance
in which that construction is actually used by a Greek writer.

This result of our investigation shows us, that Luke has neither
confounded two taxings (one at the birth of Christ, and the other
under Cyrenius some years later), nor predated this latter event in
order to account for the birth at Bethlehem; but, rather, that by
means of this very parenthesis, he has guarded against the imputation
of such errors. He tells us, in fact, " This taxing was not the one
instituted by Cyrenius on occasion of the deposition of Archelaus,
but one that took place before Cyrenius was governor of Syria."

Nor is the above explanation the only one of which the passage
is capable. For example, we might properly render it, "This
taxing (or enrolment) first took effect under Cyrenius ;"f that is,
although the enrolment of names began before the death of Herod,
yet the consequent levying of tribute did not take place till the time
of Cyrenius. Instead of avrrj, this, we might read avr//, itself,
by a mere change of the aspirate and accent which are of 110 very
ancient use or authority. Thus we have the sense, "the taxing itself
first took place under Cyrenius." This interpretation may be sup
ported by the most satisfactory evidence; into the consideration of
which, however, we cannot here minutely enter.

Would it not, then, we ask, seeing that Luke shows himself so
generally an accurate narrator, be reasonable to adopt one or the
other of these two methods of explanation, rather than at once set
him down as the blunderer, unworthy of credit as an historian, which

* Tholuck refers to the instances collected by D Orville ad Chariton, p. 457: Sturz
Lex. Xenoph. s. h.v. ; Jacobs ad Jiliani Auim. ii. p. 38.

+ We give Tholuck s defence of this in his own words : " Das lateinische demum liegt
ja in clem Trpwrwg oder Trpwror, sobald dasselbe den Begriff des zuerst mit in sich
schliesst : vvv Trp&rov oifia, \vie mine primuni novi, nun erst weiss ich; Romani
nullos illo tempore habebant annales, primus eriim Fabius Pictor scripsit historiam Ro-
manam, d.i. erst Fabius Pictor schrieb die Rbmische Geschiehte."
141 X

26 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

Dr. Strauss would represent him ? The author of the Leben Jesu,
however, urged on by his philosophical prepossessions, hastens with
indecorous speed to his hostile conclusion. The reader will judge
for himself, between his views of the passage, and those here
offered.

According to the interpretation we have adopted, a " taxing" (or
rather enrolment with a view to future taxation) did take place
about the time of the birth of Christ, as Luke states. Dr. Strauss,
however, thinks it in the highest degree improbable, that Augustus
should have ordered an enrolment in Palestine, while Herod was
still king in that country ; seeing that the reges socii, or allied kings,
were allowed themselves to regulate the taxation in their own domi
nions. It is true, that the Romans allowed the Jewish kingdom at
this time to continue under its own sovereign, as, to some extent, a
wall of defence against the Parthians. But they constantly treated
the country as their own possession. For example, Antony presented
Cleopatra with a portion of Palestine, sufficient to produce her a
revenue of two hundred talents. With the oath of allegiance, which
the subjects of a conquered country took to their own kings, was
united one of fidelity to the Romans. Even in family affairs, the
imperial will had sometimes to be consulted as when Herod,
wishing to execute his son, was obliged to ask for the permission of
Augustus. The levying of taxes for his own use was granted to
Herod; but he was bound to pay tribute to Augustus (Appian de
Bel. Civ. 5. 75.) So that even a "taxing" instituted for the treasury
of the emperor is not so utterly inconceivable. We have seen,
however, that the word aTroypa^ may be used of a simple enrolment
of names and property, for any future purpose, as taxation. That
such an enrolment as this, in the dominions of Herod, is not at all
inconsistent with the relation in which he stood to the Roman
emperor, may easily be shown. According to Suetonius, Octav.
c. 28. 101, and Tacitus, Ann. 1. 11, Augustus, at his death, left a
Breviary of the Roman Empire, part of which related to the army,
and the public income and expenditure. The reges socii were
obliged to contribute troops, to serve under the command of the
Romans: for fixing the amount of these contingents, Augustus must
have known the number of their subjects, and for this object may
have ordered a census to be taken in the different allied states.

But, in the case of Judea, there were special reasons why a census
should be instituted. The intention of the emperor was, after the
death of Herod, to reduce it to a Roman province. Josephus
informs us how, on that event taking place, a Jewish embassy sent to
Rome begged, on the one side, that their country might be united
to the province of Syria; while Archelaus, on the other, was a sup
pliant for the royal dignity. The emperor, after several days deli
beration, resolved to make Archelaus, not king, but ethnarch ; the
former title being reserved until merited by good conduct. The
deliberation of the emperor shows, that he had already entertained

142

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 27

the idea of granting the request of the ambassadors. We see, also,
in what light Augustus regarded the dominions of Herod, from the
threat which, on one occasion, he addressed to him, that " he had
formerly treated him as a friend, rex socius, but now he would treat
him as his subject." (Josephus, Antiq. 16. 11.)

These considerations being duly taken into the account, it is not
easy to see on what reasonable ground the great probability of a
Roman census in Judea, at the time in question, can be denied.
The statement of Luke, therefore, completely harmonizes with the
facts of Jewish history, as we have just related them : 1. A taxation
of the country to raise money for the Roman emperor is, indeed,
improbable ; but this it is quite unnecessary to suppose the evan
gelist to mean. He speaks of a mere enrolment, or registering, of
names and possessions, for whatever purpose this may have been
made. For a proper " taxing " (levying of tribute) Roman officers
were necessary, as when Cyrenius was sent from Rome expressly
for this object. A mere enrolment, such as Herod might have
ordered for his own private purposes, could be effected by Jewish
officers. 2. Hence we have an explanation of the circumstance,
that Josephus does not notice the matter : Augustus would send his
command to Herod himself, and the latter would cause it to be exe
cuted by his own officers. Thus it would be little, if at all, known
among the Jews, that the Roman emperor was concerned in the
matter. 3. Thus, also, we learn how it was that this enrolment was
not attended by the same agitations and resistance on the part of
the Jews, that were occasioned by the subsequent taxation, under
Cyrenius.

A main objection urged by Strauss against the historical character
of the passage may be speedily dismissed. The evangelist, he says,
causes this Roman taxing to be effected after the Jewish manner;
and yet, in the same breath contradicting himself, makes Mary
accompany her husband to Bethlehem. Hence the inference from
this alleged confusion, that Luke really knew nothing at all clearly
about the matter; or else, that from his desire of showing the fulfil
ment of the Messianic prophecies in the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem,
he invented a plausible, though historically false, motive for the
journey to that town.

In reference to the former part of this objection, we may cite the
testimony of Savigny.* From this author we learn, 1. That our
knowledge of the mode of imposing taxes on conquered nations,
under the Roman emperors, is defective, and does not enable us to
speak with certainty on the subject. 2. That the mode and the
amount of taxation varied, partly according to the circumstances
attending conquest ; partly as it was found convenient and advan
tageous to allow the native method of taxing, either wholly, or in
part, to continue.

* In the Zeitschrift fur geschictliche Rechtswissenschaft, Bd. vi.
143

28 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

The circumstance that Mary accompanied her husband to Beth
lehem, has been accounted for by Michaelis and others, by suppos
ing that she was an heiress according to the Mosaic law.* This
explanation, however, Strauss represents as " an hypothesis taken
out of the air." Be it so : still what difficulty is involved in the
circumstance objected to ? Mary may have accompanied her
husband, if not for the reason just mentioned, yet for some other,
doubtless sufficient, though unknown to us perhaps for no better
reason than that which led Luther s mother to accompany tier
husband to the fair at Eisleben, and occasioned the birth of the
great reformer to take place in this town, instead of in his parents
own house, at Mcera.

We have already stated, that Luke probably meant to represent
the census, of which he speaks, as having been taken throughout the
whole Roman empire. No contemporary author speaks of such a
census ; and therefore, according to Dr. Strauss, the evangelist states
what is not historically true. There could have been no such census
of "all the world" at this time.

Did our space allow, we would gladly introduce here the course
of reasoning, and the historical testimony, by which Tholuck com
bats this conclusion of Strauss ;f and shows that here, as elsewhere,
he speaks much more decidedly than his real means of information
can possibly warrant. But, after all that has been already said on
this passage, it seems to be unnecessary to dwell so much longer
upon it. Whether the enrolment extended to the whole Roman
empire or not, is really of but little moment. The evidence cited
by Tholuck from different writers leaves not a doubt upon our mind
that it did. But supposing it did not, then we must either take the
words Trao-a ?/ olwvuivri as simply denoting Palestine, or grant tllat
Luke has committed the slight error of representing the enrolment
which was limited to the dominions of Herod, as a part of a general
enrolment of the whole empire. We could readily, were it neces
sary, concede the advantage of this error to Strauss : for it would
little damage our historian, in the estimation of his readers generally.
It is, in fact, just such a pardonable error as would be committed
by a writer of the present day, who should incidentally speak of
the income-tax as affecting the whole United Kingdom, whereas it
is levied only withi^i the island of Great Britain. A well-informed
and careful writer would not, indeed, be likely to fall into such a
mistake; but neither should we, on account of such a mistake,
pronounce him unworthy of credit, and his whole narrative a mere
collection of myths ; especially if, on many another point, we found
him an accurate and a trustworthy historian.

II. The other of the two passages we proposed particularly to
consider, is chap. iii. 1, where Luke speaks of a Lysanias, tetrarch

Numb, xxvii, 8. -t- Glaubwiirdigkeit, p. 191 195.

144

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 29

of Abilene, in the fifteenth year of Tiberius. At first sight, the
mention of the insignificant district of Abilene would seem to indi
cate minuteness of information, on the part of the historian, as to
the political arrangements of the time referred to. Even, therefore,
though we found no other historian speaking of a Lysanias as ruling
at this time, still might we reasonably enough receive the fact on
the single authority of our evangelist. Dr. Strauss, however, is not
slow to lay hold of such means of attack as the passage affords.*
The difficulty is the following :

We learn from Josephus, that Abilene, with other territories,
before the year 33, B.C. was under the dominion of one Lysanias,
who was put to death by Antony, at the instigation of Cleopatra
(Antiq. 15. 4. 1). At a later date (23, B.C.), the greater part of the
possessions of Lysanias were given to Herod the Great (Josephus,
Antiq. 15. 10. 1. 3; comp. Antiq. 17. 14. 4; De Bell. Jud. 2. (&gt;. 3).
Among the provinces particularized as given to Herod, however,
Josephus does not mention Abilene. Probably, therefore, the
emperor had united this district to Syria, or else had disposed of
it in some other manner. In the year 37, A.D. we find the tetrar-
chy of Lysanias in the possession of the Romans ; for the emperor
Claudius gives it to Agrippa I. Dr. Strauss maintains, that Luke,
in representing Abilene as being in the fifteenth year of Tiberius
(A.D. 29), under its own ruler Lysanias, had erroneously in his
mind the Lysanias who had so long before been murdered at the
instigation of Cleopatra. But may there not have been a second
Lysanias, a son or grandson of the first ? and may not Augustus
have given to him a portion of the dominions of his predecessor ?
The hatred of Augustus towards Antony and Cleopatra renders it
not at all unlikely, that he would restore to the second Lysanias
the dominions, or a part of them, which they had taken from the
former.

Dr. Strauss, however, regards this later Lysanias as " an histori
cal fiction." Josephus nowhere mentions such a person, although
he several times speaks of the kingdom of Lysanias, and thus had
opportunities of informing us of the second ruler of that name.
That there should, however, have been two rulers of the same name
is perfectly conformable to the custom of the times. The whole
difficulty, therefore, rests on- the improbability of Josephus several
times mentioning the " kingdom of Lysanias," without expressly
telling us of a second ruler so called, who possessed a small portion
only of the entire kingdom of the elder ruler. But wherefore so
improbable ? The phrase, kingdom of Lysanias, had doubtless
come down from the first monarch, and had continued in use,
because so many different territories were included in that king
dom, that it would have been unnecessarily diffuse to particularize

* Leben Jesu, i. p. 341 343.
145

30 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

them whenever they were mentioned. Josephus thus continued to
employ this phrase, simply as being in common use ; and he may
evidently have done so, without stepping out of his way to tell us
of the second Lysanias, the ruler of the insignificant district of
Abilene, with whom he had no manner of concern. When the
New Testament writers mention a Herod, they leave their readers
to determine which of that name is intended; and so Josephus when
he speaks of an Agrippa. So, doubtless, it is in the case of Lysa
nias : neither Luke nor Josephus distinguishes between the first and
second of the name ; but it does not necessarily follow, that there
was only one.

An instance of the same kind of difficulty as we have here in
Luke may be cited from a classical author. Tacitus, speaking of
the year A.D. 36, says : " About the same time, the nation of the
Clita3, which was subject to Archelaus the Cappadocian," &c.
(Ann. 6. 42). Who would not believe, that this is the same king
of the Cappadocians whom Tacitus had mentioned (Ann. 2. 42) in
the year A.D. 17 ? But this king had been long dead, and Cappa-
docia had become a Roman province (Ann. 2. 56). What, therefore,
remains but the same historical conjecture which we have adopted
in the case of Lysanias ; namely, the supposition of a second
Archelaus, the son of the former ? *

The greater part of the remainder of Tholuck s section on the
Gospel of Luke is occupied by an examination of two narratives
which are peculiar to this Gospel one the account of the child
hood of Jesus (ii. 42 45); the other relating the appearance of
Jesus to the disciples going to Emmaus (xxiv. 13 35). These two
passages our author selects as standing at the beginning and at the
close of the history, and as being assailed by Dr. Strauss with
great vigour. He subjects them to a searching and elaborate exa
mination, with the view of showing their perfectly natural and
self-consistent character, all the circumstances considered, and the
imtenableness of the charge of mythus urged against them by
the author of the Leben Jesu. We cannot here follow him in this
examination, but must content ourselves with expressing the belief,
that a candid reader, not unduly swayed by philosophical prepos
sessions, and open to reasonable historical evidence, will not rise
from the perusal of Tholuck s pages, without a strong conviction,
that, in these portions of the third Gospel, he is really and truly
upon historical ground ; and that the evangelist here too evinces
his sobriety of judgment, his careful investigation, and his general
trustworthiness. We pass on, therefore, to Tholuck s observations
on the sources from which Luke probably obtained the materials
of his Gospel : afterwards, we shall proceed briefly to consider the
Acts of the Apostles.

* Lipsius ad Ann. 6. 42.

146

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 31

It is exceedingly probable, that the evangelist derived his infor
mation, in the composition of his Gospel, chiefly or exclusively
from the written accounts of " eye-witnesses, and those concerned
in the matters related." Adopting the conclusions of Schleierma-
cher s criticism,* the most important, in recent times, on the
writings of Luke, we are enabled to show this. The view of
Schleiermacher is, that the Gospel is a continuous cento of smaller
memoirs, or narratives, which the evangelist has collected and put
together, yet in such a manner that an acute sight is enabled
throughout to detect the lines of juncture. For our purpose there
can be no more welcome result than this. Yet we must observe,
that the criticism of Schleiermacher altogether disregards the pecu
liarities of the style of Luke, which nevertheless are such that we
can trace through the Gospel and the Book of Acts the same gene
ral features. Consequently, the author of these works could not
have been a mere collector and publisher of the writings of others.
Schleiermacher, therefore, goes too far in his view of the character
of the third Gospel.

But a distinct question from this is, whether we must acknow
ledge, as the source of the information of the evangelist, a mere
vague oral tradition, which, for some thirty years, had passed from
mouth to mouth, the view adopted by the mythical school, or
whether we must not recognise, as that source, not only the oral
reports of the original eye-witnesses (according to the proem, we
must, at least, acknowledge these), but even written accounts. The
criticism of Schleiermacher has placed it beyond doubt, that, in the
Gospel, traces of separate written memoirs, or narrations, discover
themselves. Independent of his work, however, all recent critics
are agreed, that from Luke ix. 51 to xviii. 14, the memoranda of
one who accompanied our Lord in his journeys form the foundation
of the narrative. Opinions vary only as to the continuance of such
memoranda beyond the latter limit, and as to whether they are from
the hand of one writer, or of several. In support of the view just
mentioned, we have the consideration, that the use of written docu
ments is still more evident in the Plistory of the Acts.t How also,
if Luke had no written memoranda before him, can the peculiarity
be explained, that his style, immediately after the proem, becomes
so strongly Hebraistic, and then again so much improves ? a
difference which is apparent too in the Acts. We shall not be far
wrong, if we regard the evangelist as in a state of dependance, partly
upon oral traditions, partly on written documents, similar to the
twofold dependance on public monuments, and on the old annalists,
which the work of Livy indicates ; only that these annalists certainly

* " Ueber die Schriften des Lukas ein Kritischer Versuch," Leipzig, 1817; of which
an English version appeared in 1825, understood to be from the pen of the present Bishop
of St. David s.

t Vide infra, p. 37.
147

32 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

wrote several centuries before Livy, while Luke as certainly may
have received his materials from eye-witnesses. In regard also to
the influence of the language of the written documents upon Luke s
style, Livy presents some points of comparison. That he some
times writes antiquely has been often remarked.* He himself says
(43. 13): Et milii vetustas res scribenti nescio quo pacto anti-
quus Jit animus ; " While I write of ancient things, my mind, I
know not how, becomes ancient." That, in Luke s case, the influence
would be incomparably stronger, is evident from the circumstance,
that his continual intercourse with Hellenists, and his familiarity with
the Septuagint, would make him more intimate with this style.

If we constantly look away entirely from the possibility of written
notes or memoranda of the discourses and deeds of Jesus, made at
the time ; if we so proceed as though the idea of such written
accounts among the followers of Jesus is absolutely not to be enter
tained, because those followers were uneducated and Jews, we
commit the anachronism of supposing, that we have to do with the
Israelites in the wilderness in the days of Moses. The art of writing
was, as the Talmud tells us, a part of youthful education. Is it
likely, then, that our apostles first learned that art after they became
Christians ? And had not Jesus followers even among the members
of the Sanhedrim ? Were there not even priests among the first
converts after the ascension? (Acts vi. 7.) And is it possible that
none of these persons ever stumbled upon the idea of recording the
remarkable deeds and discourses of their Lord ? Is not, indeed,
the proem of Luke s Gospel sufficient evidence on this subject?

Schleiermacher has some observations on the question before us,
which we will here transcribe ;f adopting the rendering of the Eng
lish version referred to on the other side :

" The earliest written history among the Christians was called forth by a reasonable
and natural desire on the part of those who had believed in Jesus, without having had a
knowledge of his person. These individuals would undoubtedly be glad to learn some
particulars of his life, in order to place themselves as nearly as possible on an equality
with their elder and more fortunate brethren. In the public assemblies of the Christians,
this desire was of course only incidentally and sparingly gratified, when a teacher hap
pened to refer to memorable sayings of Christ, which could only be related together with
the occasion that had called them forth : more copious and detailed accounts they could
only procure in familiar intercourse upon express inquiry. And in this way many particu
lars were told and heard, most of them probably without being committed to writing; but
assuredly much was very soon written down, partly by the narrators themselves, as each
of them happened to be pressed by a multiplicity of questions on a particular occurrence,
respecting which he was peculiarly qualified to give information; for writing became, in
that case, a convenience and a saving of time. Still more, however, must have been com
mitted to writing by the inquirers, especially by such as did not remain constantly in the
neighbourhood of the narrators, and were glad to communicate the narrative again to

* Lipsius, Queest. Ep. 4. 10. Berger de Naturali Pulchritudine Oratioiiis, p. 424.
Lachmann de Fontibus Livii, p. 117. t Versuch, p, 11.

J48

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 33

many others, who perhaps were never able to consult an eye-witness. In this way detached

incidents and discourses were noted down Notes of this kind were at

first no doubt less frequently met with among the Christians settled in Palestine, and
passed immediately into more distant parts, to which the pure oral tradition flowed more
scantily. They, however, appeared everywhere more frequently, and were more anxiously
sought for, when the great body of the original companions and friends of Christ was
dispersed by persecutions, and still more when that first generation began to die away.
It would, however, have been singular if, even before this, the inquirers who took those notes
had possessed only detached passages : on the contrary, they, and still more their im
mediate copiers, had undoubtedly become collectors also, each according to his peculiar
turn of mind : and thus one perhaps collected only accounts of miracles ; another, only
discourses; a third perhaps attached exclusive importance to the last days of Christ, or
even to the scenes of his resurrection. Others, without any such particular predilection,
collected all that fell in their way from good authority."

Another circumstance to which Schleiermacher draws attention,
and which attests the historical character of the evangelical reports,
is that the point of view from which the incidents are regarded and
related, often reveals the sources from which they were obtained. It
is with the apprehension of events, as with that of sensible objects:
each narrator regards the matter from his own point of view. Thus
Schleiermacher observes, that the narrative of the vision to the
shepherds does not give us the impression of having proceeded from
the parents of Jesus. The representation of the incident takes a
different starting point from what it would have done, had the account
proceeded from them. Chap. ii. 7 has spoken of the delivery of
Mary, and of the inn in which she was lodged. Had, then, the
subsequent narration proceeded from the parents, it must have con
tinued, without change of scene, in somewhat the following strain:
" But in the night, or early in the morning, there arose suddenly a
noise, caused by shepherds who came to the inn, and asked whether
a child had not been bom there on the previous day ; and they told
them it was so, and led them in, and the shepherds narrated how
that angels had appeared to them." The narrative of Luke says
nothing of any account given by the parents, but only of what the
shepherds said and did (ver. 16 18, 20; ver. 19 alone can be
regarded as ascribing to Mary a share in the confirmation of the
account). We obtain a similar result in regard to the narrative of
Jesus in the temple. The matter is throughout reported from the
point of view of the anxious parents, especially of the mother
(ver. 48, 51). It would have been represented in a different light,
had it been narrated by a mere spectator. The account of the two
disciples going to Emmaus bears on its face the indication of
having come from one of those disciples, as is, indeed, here to be
expected, seeing that Jesus himself could not have given any
account of the interview. We recognise, for instance (xxiv. 32), the
representation of the impression made on their minds as one which
the disciples alone could have given. How different is the account
of Zaccheus ! (chap, xix.)

149 Y

34 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

We might pursue, still further, the traces that we have in the
Gospels of the original reports which they embody, and should be
led to equally favourable results as to their historical character.
Here, however, we must leave this part of our subject, and pass on
to a short consideration of the other work of our evangelist.

According to the theory of Dr. Strauss, the early Christian church
made its founder out of the Messianic conceptions entertained by
the Hebrew nation at the birth of Jesus.* To Jesus, in conformity
with those conceptions, and, indeed, in consequence of them,
they ascribed the power of miracles. The Messiah was to be a
great worker of miracle, and therefore Jesus the Messiah did work
miracles.

In passing over, however, from the history of Jesus to that of the
apostles, we may expect to find no miraculous power ascribed to
the latter; for why should this power be ascribed to an apostle,
after the fulfilment of the Messianic prophecies and expectations
in the person of Christ ; or who among the apostles is to be placed
on the same lofty elevation with him? We may look, therefore,
henceforward for naked, unadorned naturalism.

But this expectation of the sudden disappearance of the miracu
lous from the history of Christianity is not realized. The apos
tolical history and epistles form, with the evangelical narratives, a
connected series, in which the miraculous is found from beginning
to end. Christ appears not like the tropical sun, which rises and
sets without twilight; but, as a thousand years of prophecy precede
him, so do many years of miracle follow him ; and the powers which
he first had exercised, continue in activity after his departure.
Even could criticism, then, shut out the sun from the world, still
would it have to account for the morning dawn and the evening
twilight. How it can do this, it has yet to inform us. Meanwhile
we proceed to show, that the history of the primitive church is an
unbroken chain, which, when electrically moved, indicates that a
divine power has passed through it from heaven to earth.

Where, according to the criticism of the Leben Jesu, does the
history of Jesus end? In the rock-hewn sepulchre of Joseph of
Arimathea. And around that sepulchre stand those trembling dis
ciples, who, along with the corpse of their Lord and Master, had
buried also their own fond hopes. And what was the medium of
transition between this scene of death, and that declaration of Peter
and John, " We cannot but speak the things which we have seen
and heard" ? (Acts iv. 20.) " If," says Dr. Paulus, in his Commen
tary, Part iii. p. 867, " if one reviews the Christian history from the
last evening of the life of Jesus up to a point of time some fifty days
later, it is undeniable that, in this short interval, something extra
ordinarily re-animating must have happened, before those timid and

Vide " Strauss, Hegel, and their Opinions," p. 24.

150

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTOKY. 35

fugitive disciples could have been brought to the position in which
they stood, when, lifted above all fear of death, they exclaimed in
presence of the imbittered judges of the murdered Jesus, We must
obey God rather than man. " To this opinion of the Heidelberg
critic, Dr. Strauss readily assents. " It is justly insisted," he observes,
" that the astonishing revolution from the deep despair and hope
lessness of the disciples, at the death of Jesus, to the strong faith
and energy with which they announced him as the Messiah at the
ensuing Pentecost, cannot be explained, without admitting that in
the interval something extraordinarily re-animating to their minds
had come to pass."* Yes, something had occurred; but what?
Any thing but a miracle. True philosophy can admit no miracle.
What should hinder but that the same opportune good fortune which,
in the lifetime of Jesus, had blessed the storm and the apparent death
with such fruitful results, should now also, in this last extremity,
have opened out one of its manifold sources of assistance? what
should hinder? The loss of blood, from the pierced hands and
feet? the stroke of the spear? the cold, confined air of the damp
grave ? Why, the last, together with the embalming spices, would
supply the place and render the service of a physician ; the second
might have worked a beneficial blood-letting ; and crucifixion, for
so short a time as seven or eight hours, could certainly not be fatal !
Thus has Rationalism argued since 1780; and, if it robbed the
Christian world of a Good-friday, it yet gave it a joyful Easter-
morning ! A " something " Dr. Strauss needs also a little
something the resurrection were too much ! With the Fragmentists
he takes from Christendom its Easter-morning, that he may allow it
to keep its Good-friday more suitable feast-day for the gloomy
religion of the Galileans !

This " something," sufficiently small, but yet sufficiently great to
work the change in the disciples from despair to victorious joy,
this something is visions, which appeared to the women and the
disciples. But, then, the apostle Paul, who in this matter is an
unimpeachable witness, speaks too decidedly of the resurrection as a
reality; yes, a reality for his own and his fellow-disciples fancy.
Still, however, there is a something necessary to account for the
revolution in Paul s own life. Nevertheless, let these visions be
allowed to stand as at least a temporary " preliminary something,"
to serve as a bridge of boats from the Gospels to the History of the
Acts, until a still higher criticism of the life of Jesus shall be able
at once to fly over the intervening gulf!

We pass over, therefore, on this slender bridge, which we know
not whether the fancy of oriental disciples or that of the German
critic has constructed for us, from the region of the evangelical to
that of the apostolical history ; and, to test the validity of the hypo-

* Leben Jesu, vol. ii. p. 631.
151

36 TIIOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

thesis of Dr. Strauss, we inquire, what inferences respecting the
life of Jesus does the history of the primitive Christian commu
nity enable us to make? A twofold view, as to the character of
that community, presents itself to him who regards the miraculous
history of Jesus only as the product of the fancy of the disciples,
eager to magnify and honour their Master : 1 . It will appear
probable, that the impulse which their minds had received through
visions, and through the belief that the risen Jesus was the Messiah,
extended among them ; so that, with the spirit-conquering power of
faith, they came to believe that something extraordinary was con
nected with their own lives, and thus a traditional account of ficti
tious miracles among themselves sprung into being. But then, if we
take away all the supernatural from the life of Jesus, as Dr. Strauss
would do, it is surely improbable that the disciples should have
come to ascribe to themselves, to regard as in their own possession,
what they had never beheld in immediate connexion with Christ
himself. 2. The other view, which would avoid this difficulty,
is that the fancy of the first Christian community, after it had
exhausted the materials which the Old Testament Messianic pro
phecies afforded for adorning with the miraculous the literal history
of Jesus, ceased from the labour, and, rejoicing in the one great
work which it had achieved, added afterwards only an occasional
and smaller contribution of the same kind. To this conclusion the
views of Dr. Strauss tend; his ground of encouragement in his
mythical interpretation of the life of Jesus being that it cannot be
shown, that any one of our Gospels was ever read and recognised
by an apostle. So favourable an opinion has he of the written his
tory of the primitive Christians, that (apart from the influence of the
visions before spoken of) he does not regard it as having participated
in the creation of the mythical Christ. But is it not all the less
to be expected, that these sober-minded disciples should come to
ascribe to themselves that which they had not ascribed to their
Master ? So that thus again, after all adventures upon enchanted
islands and magic fog-banks, we are at length enabled to reach the
firm land of literal, prosaic, every-day history in the lives of the
immediate companions of our Lord.

Now, we are so fortunate as to possess a history of St. Paul,
written by a companion of that apostle, and also epistles of several
apostles. The authenticity of these writings has not, to any con
siderable extent, been disputed. Thus we are placed in a condition
to judge, from the character of these documents, of the admissibility
of the two views above referred to, as well as of the assumption
which those views imply of the mythical character of the Gospels.
If, then, the former view be the correct one, the apostolical
history and letters will show us the apostles as persons in whom
a condition of enthusiastic excitement is plainly traceable, and to
whose judgment even ordinary occurrences assume the appearance
of the miraculous. If the latter view be the true one, then these

152

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 37

documents will show us the apostles as men so entirely belonging
to the ordinary course of things, that the miraculous is nowhere to
be traced in their lives.

These expectations, however, are contradicted both by the Acts
and the Epistles. We meet with the miraculous in these books, as
well as in the Gospels; but it comes before us in so sober a garb, and
the demeanour of the miracle-workers is so composed, that we can
not doubt the sobriety and truthfulness of these men s testimony,
considered in itself. On the other side, again, their lives were passed
upon a stage well known to us ; we recognise .on it persons, occur
rences, usages, which also come before us in other and independent
connexions ; but amidst this circle of ordinary life there streams
forth still the light of a higher world.

Let us proceed to consider the historical character of the Book
of Acts. Since the author of this work incidentally represents him
self as a friend and companion of the apostle Paul, we must recog
nise the derivation of the history from this quarter unless, indeed,
we regard the entire book as supposititious; and this it has not as
yet occurred to any one to do. The impression, also, given by the
whole work is decided enough. Read it over from chap. xvi. 1 1 to
the conclusion, and you cannot doubt that you stand here upon
purely historical ground. You even gain the frequent impression,
that you have before you a daily journal of the events recorded;
for example, in the account of the journey to Italy, in which port
after port, station after station, the soundings of the sea, the number
of anchors cast " out of the stern," all the incidents, are so circum
stantially related, that it is utterly inconceivable that so detailed a
narration should not have been composed until years after the
event, or out of the mere oral traditions of the time. The historian
must either have written his account, aided by a good memory,
shortly after the voyage ; or, writing later, must have had before him
some daily record of the whole course from Csesarea to Rome.

In the affairs related in the earlier part of the book, Luke was
not personally concerned. The supposition, however, of his having
inserted documents, without any change (as Schleiermacher, and
Riehm de Fontibus Act. Apos. maintain), is as little admissible here
as in the Gospel, on account of the one uniform idiom which runs
through the book. And yet the character of the language in this
earlier part shows, that, in this portion of his history, Luke either
employed written memoranda, or adhered very closely to oral nar
ratives. The language in the part referred to is much less classical
than it generally is from chap. xx. onwards, where the author appears
to have been more entirely self-dependent. *

In examining the Book of Acts more minutely, it is true that we
observe points of difference, in regard to chronological data, for

Bleek, in the Studien iintl Kritiken, 1836, 4 H. Ulrich, Stud. u. Krit. 1837, H. 2.
153

38 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

instance, between this book and the Pauline Epistles; but it is
true, also, that we find so many points of harmonious agreement,
that the history and the epistles serve materially to establish each
other s credibility. But the Book of Acts is peculiarly adapted to
inform us of the historical character of Luke, from its manifold
points of contact with classical history. The scene changes between
Palestine, Greece, and Italy. Thus a Grecian mythographer could
not fail to discover himself by his imperfect knowledge of Jewish
localities and usages ; still less could a Jewish mythographer, when
referring to Gentile relations. In this book we see the changes of
a varied and rapid life ; at one time in the circle of the Palestinian
communities; at another, in the capital of Greece among philo
sophical sects; now before the tribunal of Roman proconsuls,
and soon afterwards before Jewish kings ; now before the Gentile
judgment-seat of the Achaian province, and then again upon the
open sea; and everywhere we have, not slight, indefinite, indistinct
notices, but names and transactions well known to history and
geography. Here, then, is the place in which the unhistorical,
enthusiastic writer of mythi must be detected. We have already
subjected our evangelist to a strict examination in regard to the
Jewish and heathen rulers whom he introduces ; and he has borne
that examination. That investigation regarded only his historical
fidelity ; any thing of an antiquarian character was only incidentally
mentioned. Our materials were taken also from different parts of
the history. We will now, however, enter upon a still more compre
hensive kind of examination, following the thread of the narrative.
We may, in this examination, reasonably appeal to the candour of
the reader, if a deficiency or an obscurity should occasionally present
itself. We know how frequently the loss of a few words in one
ancient author would be sufficient to cast an inexplicable obscurity
over another.

We will not attempt to follow our author through more than
about three chapters of his work, beginning at the point where he
himself first appears as the companion of the great apostle (chap,
xvi. 11, to chap, xviii.)

At the commencement of our inquiry (ver. 11, 12), we meet with
correct geographical statements. The town of Philippi is denomi
nated, 7rpwr?7 TJ\Q fjiepiSog MaKeSoviag 7roXie&gt; KoXwvta, " the chief city of
that part of Macedonia, and a colony." The interpreters disagree
as to the exact force of Trpwny. This point we may leave, and
observe, 1. That the passage implies that Macedonia was divided
into several parts: according to Livy (45. 29), JEmilius Paulus
divided it into four parts. 2. Philippi is termed a colony. It was
made so by Augustus in order that he might place in it the partisans
of Antony. (Dio. Cas. 1. 51, p. 445. Pliny, Hist. Nat. 4, 11;
Digest. Leg. 36. 50.)

Near this town, on the bank of a river, we are informed, was a
an oratory, or place " where prayer was wont to be made."

154

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 39

The name of the river is not mentioned ; but we know, independently,
that Philippi was situated on the Strymon. The oratory is near the
river. We know, again, that the Jews, before prayer, washed their
hands; and, on this account, preferred to place their oratories near
a stream.

A Gentile woman is mentioned (ver. 14) as a proselyte of the
Mosaic religion. From Josephus we learn, that the Gentile women,
dissatisfied with their own religions, often embraced Judaism; as,
for example, in Damascus, where nearly all the Gentile women had
gone over to the Mosaic religion. The name of the woman men
tioned is Lydia, a name known to us from Horace as a common
one. She is a dealer in purple of Thyatira. This town was in
Lydia, and Lydia was famous for its purple dye. (Valerius
Flaccus, 4. 368; Claudian, Rapt. Proserp. i. 274; Plin. Hist. Nat.
7. 57 ; Julian, Hist. Animal. 4. 46.) An inscription found at Thyatira
has reference to the dyers company of that place. (Sponius,
MisceL Erud. Antiq. 3. 93.)

Luke mentions (ver. 16) a young woman, who had a Trvevpa 7rv0w*&gt;oe,
" spirit of divination." HvOwv was the name of Apollo, the god of
prophecy. Persons pretending to the prophetic gift were termed
TTvdwviKoi and 7rvd6\r)7TTot (Plutarch de Orac. Defectu, c. 2).

The jailor (ver. 27), thinking that the prisoners have escaped, is
about to kill himself. According to the Roman law, a prison-keeper,
allowing his captives to escape, was condemned to suffer the punish
ment allotted to them.

The authorities of the town (ver. 35) bear the name of orparr/yoe,
general. This was, at the time of the incidents here narrated, the
appellation of magistrates, especially in the Roman colonies. These
authorities do not send to Paul such officers (virripirai) as the Sanhe
drim at Jerusalem sent to Peter (Acts v. 22), but, according to the
Roman custom, lictors (pa&dovxovG, " sergeants," Eng. ver.). These
authorities, again, are alarmed on hearing that their prisoners are
Roman citizens. Cicero, in his fifth oration against Verres, ex
claims Ilia vox et imploratio, Civis Romanus sum, quce s&pe
multis in ultimis terris opem inter barbaros et salutem tulit ;
" That declaration, I am a Roman citizen, which often has
brought aid and safety to many, even in the remotest and most
barbarous lands." The Valerian law had given exemption from
the punishment by the rod or the whip to every Roman citizen.
This punishment, however, Paul had just undergone (ver. 23).

At the beginning of chap. xvii. we find the towns Amphipolis,
Apollonia, and Thessalonica, mentioned in their proper order from
Philippi. Ver. 5 speaks of a class of men peculiar to the Greek
and Roman cities, the ayopaioi (idlers in the forum " fellows of
the baser sort," Eng. ver.). Among the oriental nations, people
of this character would have assembled at the gates.

We meet with the accusation, so common at this time under the
suspicious emperors, that of spreading sedition among the people
155

40 THOLUCK ON THE CEEDIBJLITY OF

(ver. 6, 7). We find, again, a number of Gentile women, who have
embraced the new religion (ver. 12).

But especially worthy of notice is the account of the sojourn of
the apostle Paul at Athens. How every thing here harmoniously
unites to give us the impression that we are in Athens ! The apos
tle, as he walks along the streets, finds them everywhere full of
tokens of the superstitious reverence paid to the gods, altars, and
statues innumerable. Strabo, Pausanias, and other ancient authors,
afford testimony confirmatory of the account of the evangelist
(Wetstein, in loco). In the market, Paul encounters Epicureans
and Stoics. Ridicule at once issues from their proud lips; but
curiosity is stronger than ridicule a fresh proof of the truth of
the character which Demosthenes and Thucydides had long before
ascribed to the Athenians, and which Luke now substantially
repeats ; namely, that they are always wanting to hear something
new (Wetstein gives the passages referred to*). The old hill of
Areopagus appears next upon the stage, a place on which many
an oration before had been delivered, but never yet one such as
Paul s. What Jewish mythographer could have invented this
speech, which so entirely corresponds to the bold, free character
of the apostle ? It starts from an inscription, which Paul had just
seen, on an altar dedicated to the unknown God : Pausanias (1. 1. 4)
and Philostratus ( Vita ApoUonii, 6. 3) speak of such altars. It even
gives us the commencement of a Greek hexameter (ver. 28) ; and
we find the words, even to the yap (for), in a poem written by a
countryman of the apostle, the Phenomena of the Ciliciaii Aratus,
c. 5. An almost literally correct report of this speech must have
been before the historian, when writing this account ; as is indicated,
too, by the abruptness of the conclusion. The history does not
speak of hundreds or thousands of converts, as a merely mythical
account would have done, magnifying the effects of the first preach
ing of an apostle in the capital of Greece. Only a few of the
audience attach themselves to Paul. The philosophers stand
apart, some with the contempt of Epicureanism, some with the
proud self-sufficiency of Stoicism, " We will hear thee again of this
matter." Does this, we ask, look like mythus, or like genuine
history ?

In the following chapter, ver. 2, we have important historical
data,- the expulsion of the Jews from Rome by the emperor
Claudius. Suetonius (Claud, c. 25) informs us : Judaos, impul-
sore Chresto, assidne tumultuantes Roma expulit ; " Claudius
expelled the Jews from Rome, on account of the constant disturb
ances they caused, led on by Chrestus" (or, perhaps, " Christ
being the occasion, or cause, of dispute ").

A Jewish custom is alluded to (ver. 3) : Aquila and Paul are of

* See also Kuinoel, in loc.

156

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 41

" the same craft," namely, tent-cloth makers. This union of a trade
with learning would seldom be found in a Grecian philosopher.
Among the Jews, it was a national custom.* The trade adopted,
in Paul s case, had been determined by a peculiar circumstance.
In Cilicia, his native country, that trade was much carried on,
because there was found a species of goat, from the hair of which
the tent-cloth was manufactured, called u Cilician." (Plin. Hist.
Nat. 6. 28. Servius on Virgil, Georgics, 3. 313.) The interest
ing historical features presented by ver. 12, 13, we have already
considered.

We have now gone over but a small portion of the whole Book of
Acts ; but, in every part of the work, we gain the same favourable
result, in reference to the historian s knowledge, correctness, and cre
dibility. In the last chapter, among other instances, this is remarka
bly the case. In this chapter, when we observe how Luke in Italy
speaks of different places in that country as already well known to
his reader, and when we compare this feature of the narrative with
the particularity observed in respect to localities and distances on the
Asian and Greek coast, we cannot but regard it as most probable,
that Theophilus, for whom the book was written, was a native of
Italy. We find mentioned in this chapter, as places thus well
known, Syracuse, Rhegium, and Puteoli; even the insignificant
Forum Appii, mentioned by Horace, Sat. 1. 5. 3; together with the
inn, the Tres Taberna3, known to us from Cicero. When Jose-
phus and Philo mention the town of Puteoli, they do not give it
this, its Roman name. The former writer (in his Life, chap. 3)
introduces it by its Greek name, Dicaearchia; adding, " The Italians
call it Puteoli." In two other places, he uses the same Greek
name; and so also Philo (in Flaccum, i. ii. p. 521, 12). And how
much less would Josephus, who does not mention even Baiae
without some exacter definition, have introduced such a name as
Tres Tabernae without further explanation, except for readers well
acquainted with Italy.

And how exactly, in this last chapter, does every thing harmonize
with known facts of history. Paul lands from an Alexandrian ship
at Puteoli. According to Strabo, the Alexandrian merchant ves
sels were accustomed to prefer this harbour: from hence their goods
were distributed throughout Italy. From this town the travellers
proceed by land. "Friends waited his arrival at Appii Forum,
others at Tres Tabernae. He travelled by the canal which Caesar
had made through the Pontine Marshes, by which the journey
would be much easier than on the rough road along its side. Thus
he came to Forum Appii, where was the point of disembarkation
from the canal. Part of his friends would here receive him. Ten
miles nearer Rome, was the station Tres Tabernae. The bustle

* Winer, Realworterb. Handwerke.
157 Z

4:2 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

was here less, and the inconveniences fewer, than at Forum Appii
(Horace, Book i. 5. 3. 4. 11. 12), on which account the place seems
to have been a point of meeting for persons of the higher classes
(Cicero ad Attic. 1. 2. Ep. 11 and 13). Hence the friends of Paul
await his arrival in the most convenient place, and the whole
corresponds faithfully with the localities of the age and country." *

With such evidences before us, every doubt must surely disappear,
whether or not we stand upon historical ground in the Book of Acts.
We must confess also, that Luke is a man who knew, not less than
Josephus, how to write history. Should any one, however, deem
unimportant this continuous agreement of our historian with what we
know of ancient history and geography, from independent sources,
we would request him only to represent to himself the impression
that would be left upon the mind, if, in the multitude of instances in
which we can control and test our evangelist by a reference to other
authors, we found any considerable number of contradictions and
inconsistencies.

We have seen what a loud outcry against the historical credibility
of Luke, the alleged error in chap. ii. 1, 2, of his Gospel occasioned.
In the Book of Acts, also, there occurs an instance in which a
similar error appears to have been made. We refer to the passage
(v. 36) in which Theudas, the rebel, is introduced in the speech of
Gamaliel ; whereas, according to Josephus (Antiq. 29. 8), Theudas
appeared under the procurator Cuspius Fadus, that is, not earlier
than 44, A.D. Since, then, Gamaliel s speech was made in the
reign of Tiberius, and therefore at least seven years before the in
surrection of Theudas, it would appear that a fact is referred to by
the Jewish doctor, of which he could not have any knowledge. It
had not occurred. Supposing this to be really the representation of
the historian, it involves a second mistake : ver. 37, we are told that
after this Theudas, arose Judas the Galilean, who, however, appeared
before him, and so early as the year 7, A.D. Such a two-fold error,
on the part of our historian, has created no small difficulty ; a fact
which may serve, at all events, to show us how important it is, that,
in so many instances, as we have seen, no such difficulty presents
itself.

In the instance before us, it certainly would seem not improbable,
that Luke had fallen into an historical error. Nor is it difficult to
show how he might easily have done so. What Gamaliel had said
in the council could have reached the Christians only indirectly.
At the time when Luke accompanied Paul into Palestine, some
nine or ten years had elapsed since the outbreak of Theudas -
since the speech of Gamaliel, some twenty years. Supposing he
did not obtain his information from Paul, the person from whom
he did obtain it might easily have connected Theudas with the

Quoted by Tholuck from Hug.

158

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY, 43

Judas really mentioned by Gamaliel; and thus is it readily con
ceivable how Luke might allow himself to be led into error. But
certainly we should expect, that the historian would be informed of
what took place in the council by Paul himself; and we should
expect also, that the apostle would be sufficiently well acquainted
with what his teacher had really said. On this ground, the cautious
reader will hesitate before he decidedly pronounces the evangelist
chargeable with the supposed mistake. We shall be the more ready
to pause in our judgment, when we consider that this notice of
Theudas, mentioning even the number of his followers, seems to
indicate exactness of knowledge on the part of Luke ; and that what
is said respecting Judas, although this person lived more than forty
years before Luke s visit to Palestine, is very accurate, and agrees
entirely with the account of Josephus. The confidence which we
have learned to place in the evangelist surely lays upon us the duty
of at least endeavouring to reconcile his notice of Theudas with
that given by Josephus.

Nor have we far to look for the means of reconciliation needed.
The Theudas of Josephus made his appearance not earlier than the
year 44, A .D. The Theudas of Luke must have appeared some time
before the year 7, A.D. the date of the outbreak of Judas, who came
after him. Is it impossible, then, that, in the interval of some fifty
or sixty years, there should have been a second rebel leader of the
same name; the one some time before the year 7, the other some time
after the year 44 ? The name of Theudas was by no means of rare
occurrence (Wetstein) ; and conspirators among the Jews were, at
the time in question, numerous. It is true, indeed, that this is a
mere hypothesis, without direct historical evidence. But yet it is
an hypothesis of such a kind, that it would not be rudely rejected in
the field of profane history. A case in point may briefly be mentioned.
History speaks of a harp-player, in the time of Socrates, named
Connus, and also of a flute-player named Connas. Kiister and
others maintain, that these names belong to different persons; the
philologian F. B. Fritsche, that they belong to one and the. same ;
thus thinking, because, 1. The names are in reality identical;
2. Harp-players were often also flute-players ; 3. He says : Prceterea
in Conno Connaque mire congruunt temporum rationes, artis pra-
stantia, iniqua contemptio, magna paupertas; "Moreover, dates,
professional skill, unjust contempt, great poverty, are strikingly simi
lar in Connus and Connas." Professor Meyer, however, who takes
the side of Kiister, in his review of Fritsche s work, thus remarks:

" May not, even according to Fritsche, a great flutist and a great harpist, of the same
name, live at one time, each unjustly undervalued, and in great poverty ? Herr Fritsche
will permit me for a moment to make the slight change, contentio for contemptio, and to
leave out the magna paupertas; and now I ask him, Should his own name, as is not to he
doubted, go down to posterity, and should posterity be informed that there were once liv
ing at the same time, in the same town, even in the same university, two professors of the
name of Fritsche, each excellent in his department, a distinguished theologian the one,
159

44: THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

a great philologist the other, both known by their literary controversies, which very unrea
sonably the whole world has waged with them, not they with the whole world, would
posterity be permitted to make one individual out of the two? and would it be enough for
it to allege as its reason for so doing, mire congruunt temporum raiiones, artis prcestantla.,
iniqua content io"?

The inquiry concerning Theudas has been recently revived, with
great learning and elaborateness, by Sonntag (Studien und Kritiken,
1837, H. 3.) This author regards it as most probable that there
were two individuals of the name of Theudas. That the identity of
name need cause no difficulty he proves by the fact, that, between the
death of Herod the Great and the destruction of Jerusalem, there
appeared three rebellious leaders of the name of Judas, and Jive of
the name of Simon. Still there remains the difficulty, that Josephus
has passed over in silence a disturber of the peace, of such note as
the Theudas of Luke. This difficulty is obviated by the considera
tion, that, among the Jews, individuals frequently had two names;
and thus Josephus may have mentioned this Theudas under a dif
ferent name. Where, indeed, the presupposition, on the part of a
critic, is unfavourable to the historical character of an author, it is
but useless to point out such possibilities as these, as affording the
solution of any difficulty; but then let our hostile critic be reasona
ble enough to allow, that he, on his side, as much as we on ours,
sets out from a presupposition.

In the midst, then, of the sober narrative of Luke, so well corrobora
ted, as we have found it, by independent testimony of unquestionable
credibility, in the midst of this narrative we meet with the mira
culous. Some critics have expressed the wish, that, for the full
examination of the New Testament miracles, there could only have
been present a practised lawyer and a doctor of medicine. The
evangelical history complacently grants the wish even of those who
deal so strictly with it. The history of the man born blind (John ix.)
was investigated by legal officers, the members of the Jewish San
hedrim ; and the result of the inquisition was, that the man had
been born blind, but had received his sight from Jesus. The Book
of Acts gives a doctor of medicine as the miracle-investigator :
Luke the physician was an eye-witness of the mighty works of Paul.
An inordinate love of the miraculous, however, we cannot perceive in
him. When the youth Eutychus, overcome by sleep, falls from the
third story, and is taken up as dead, we might expect a highly
coloured picture of a miraculous restoration. Instead of this, we see
the apostle come forward with the simple exhortation, " Trouble not
yourselves: his life is still in him" (Acts xx. 10). When some forty
Jews in Jerusalem have sworn neither to eat nor drink until they
have slain Paul, we might expect a heavenly vision to warn and
protect the apostle. Instead of this, we have Paul s sister s son
discovering the plot to him, and Paul taking refuge with the chief
captain (xxiii. 12, &c.). When, in Malta, the snake fixes upon the
hand of Paul, we might expect some wonder-working form of adjura-

160

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 45

tion. We are simply told, " he shook off the beast into the lire, and
felt no harm" (xxviii. 5).

Not the less distinctly, however, are we told by this sober-minded
physician, that "God wrought special miracles by the hands of
Paul" (xix. 11). Upon the island of Malta, the apostle heals the
father of the chief man of the island; and many others come to him,
and are made whole (xxviii. 9).

Peter and John, again, are interrogated before the Sanhedrim, con
cerning a cure which they had wrought: Peter has the boldness
openly to accuse the rulers of the people of the murder of the Mes
siah; the healed man is led before the assembled council; the
members, according to the narrative of Luke, simply " marvelled "
although it might just as easily have been written, that horror and
dismay seized them, when they saw the power which they thought they
had put down for ever, in the person of Jesus, now sprung up afresh
in these "unlearned and ignorant" disciples (Acts iv. 13 18).
They venture upon no contradiction of the bold speech of Peter ;
the wrought miracle they cannot deny; they do not venture to
threaten with the punishment of death these brave wonder-workers;
the impression made upon the people by the incident is such, that
five thousand persons join the disciples: the rulers, therefore, have
no other resource than to take a middle course, and enjoin silence
upon the two apostles.

And these members of the infant church, we must observe, do
their mighty works not in their own name : " Silver and gold have
I none," said Peter, " but such as I have give I thee : in the name
of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, rise up and walk." We see, then, how
that he who had promised to be with his followers, even after his
departure from them, has kept his word: he does remain among
them. Christ was not the tropical sun, rising without a dawn, set
ting without a twilight; for as the dawn of prophecy announced
his advent, so the twilight of miraculous powers, shed down upon his
church, followed his departure from the world. And, if these powers
existed in his church, how should they have been wanting to him,
its head ?

In the history of the Book of Acts, we learn to recognise the
apostle Paul as a man who can compel even the coldest intellect to
respect him. Who can refuse to respect his spiritedness in the
presence of Festus ? (Acts xxv. 10, 11.) The Roman procurator
was himself so impressed by it, as, by his account, to excite the
curiosity of King Agrippa to make acquaintance with the extra
ordinary man. Who can deny either his courage or his acuteness,
in his speech before the same Agrippa? (xxvi.) Who can refuse to
respect his courage, his prudence, his presence of mind, in the pro
spect of impending shipwreck? (xxvii.) This brave man, then, is
no expert deceiver; this prudent and sober-minded man is no
enthusiast. As he represents to us, therefore, the power of Chris
tianity, as he represents to us the head of the Christian church,

161

46 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

so must it truly have been. Now, we possess thirteen Epistles of
this same apostle, from which we sufficiently learn his views. The
authenticity of the greater number and the more important of these
writings, no criticism has yet ventured to call in question. And
what now is the relation which these Epistles bear to the history of
the Acts, and to the conclusion to which this history brings us
respecting the character of the gospel narrative? They confirm
that history in all material points. They, too, exhibit the apostle as a
man of firm will and brave heart, animated with a joyful hope, even
in the midst of chains and imprisonment. Turn for a moment to
the Epistle to the Philippians, and read his words, " Rejoice in the
Lord always, and again I say rejoice" (iv. 4) ; and remember that
Paul had chains on his hands at the moment of writing this (Acts
xxviii. 20). These letters constantly, though incidentally, represent
him as sober-minded, prudent, and active ; more especially the two
to the Corinthians. His indignation against the exaction of mere
outward forms of piety, and against enthusiastic exaggeration, we see
in many places of his writings; for example, Col. ii. 16 23.

And yet this same sober-minded man speaks of extraordinary
powers, as things belonging to his ordinary experience. The Book
of Acts speaks of visions, in which the glorified Christ had appeared
to his apostle (Acts xxii. 17; xxiii. 11). He himself, also, speaks
of the same things (2 Cor. xii. 2) ; but yet even here manifests his
sobriety of judgment, by referring to the subject only in this single
instance. The Book of Acts mentions the miracles he had wrought ;
he himself speaks of " word and deed, mighty signs and wonders,"
whereby he had effected the diffusion of the gospel (Rom. xv. 19;
2 Cor. xii. 12). The Book of Acts speaks of the miraculous gift of
tongues among the first disciples of Jesus. Paul thanks God that
he possessed this gift more than others (1 Cor. xiv. 18) ; and here,
again, his judgment and moderation are visible. He is ready to
give up this gift, valuable as it was, if, by so doing, he can speak
instructive words of exhortation to others (ver. 19). In the speeches
which he delivers, as recorded by Luke, the appearance of Christ
to him on the way to Damascus is referred to as the critical point
of his life (xxii. 6 10 ; xxvi. 13). So Paul, in his Epistles, speaks of
the same occurrence as of the greatest importance ; on the one
hand, with exultation, regarding it as the foundation of his right to
be an apostle, on the other hand, with the deep humility inspired
by the remembrance that he once had persecuted the church of
God. He begins several of his Epistles, too, with the affirmation,
that he had been made an apostle, not by the will of men, but of
God. The history of the Acts represents him as undergoing per
secutions and trials of every kind, always sustaining them manfully,
constantly experiencing, amidst all, the wonderful assistance
of God. He himself gives us assurance of the same facts in his
Epistles (2 Cor. vi. 4 9; xi. 23 28). In the Acts we find mani
fold intimations of the existence of divine powers in the early church:

162

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 47

Paul speaks of the same thing as a fact universally known among
the Christians (1 Cor. xii. 8 10, 14). And what is the most
wonderful in all this is, that, whilst the apostle so continually
experiences the miraculous, he never expects it. He knows, indeed,
that a heavenly messenger had struck off the bonds, and opened
the prison doors, of his fellow- apostle Peter. Nor has he forgotten,
how at Philippi, amidst the heaving of the earth, he himself had
been similarly released. But yet he bears his bonds in Rome with
the quiet endurance of a man who has no expectation from the
miraculous. He knows not whether death or liberty awaits him
(Phil. i. 20). In all that he says from Csesarea to Rome, and in all
his Epistles afterwards, not a word gives us intimation of the hope
or the belief, that a miraculous interference will deliver him. And
this man we must place on a level with superstitious, enthusiastic,
miracle-loving Jews !

Our attention has hitherto been confined to the writings of St.
Luke, according to the plan proposed at the commencement of
this article. It seems necessary, however, before concluding, to
inquire what is the relation which the result we have attained in
favour of the historical credibility of the third evangelist bears
to the other books of the evangelical history. The answer briefly
is, that, so far as those other books agree with Luke, to establish
his historical character and credibility is to establish theirs. Where
they introduce matter entirely different from any thing that the third
evangelist records, this matter must stand on its own merits, and
those of the historian who introduces it. It would be unreasonable
to say, that because such additional matter is not in Luke, therefore
it is not to be received as historical and credible. Nor is it a ques
tion that we need be very anxious about, how one evangelist could
come to introduce what another omits, or the contrary. Each, we
may believe, looked at the history of Jesus from his own point of
view, wrote with his own objects, drew his materials from his
own sources, though sometimes, also, from sources common to
others with himself. This consideration is sufficient, to a con
siderable extent, to account for the diversities and discrepancies
presented by the gospel narratives.

One thing it is important to remember, namely, that, having
duly established the historical character and credibility even of
one Gospel, we have done all that is absolutely essential to vindi
cate the claim of Christianity to a supernatural origin, to vindicate
the claim of Jesus to a mission from on high. Each book evidently
stands on its own foundation of historical evidences and probabilities.
That foundation may be insufficient for one, for two, or for three ;
and yet the fourth remain uninjured in its essential character. If,
therefore, we have succeeded duly in establishing the credibility
of Luke s writings, we have evidently done all that is necessary for
vindicating to the Christ of the New Testament the realities of a
true historical existence.
163

48 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

It may be asked, however, supposing the Gospels of Matthew,
Mark, and John, to be the genuine works of contemporary biogra
phers of Jesus, and possessed of equal claims on our attention with
the third Gospel, must not the discrepancies or contradictions
which they present, as compared with Luke, materially lessen our
confidence in the latter historian? Or can such discrepancies or
contradictions in details consist with the supposition of substantial
truth throughout the great features of his and of their narratives ?
A few additional considerations will enable us to answer these
inquiries.

The discrepancies in the evangelical narratives have, from an
early date, been made to afford materials for the attack on their
credibility. To an unwarrantable extent, however, has this mode
of assault been carried; for were any two historians of antiquity,
who record the same facts, treated with the same strictness as the
evangelists, nothing would be easier than to make them appear
unworthy of credit. It needs but little reflection to tell us, that the
sources of inexactness and contradictory statements, in recording
the same facts, are manifold. Is it an object of sight which is
described? How much depends, then, on position and on light!
How easily may a slight movement of the observed object, or a
slight disturbance of the observer, by any external cause, render
his observation defective ! Or is it an object of hearing that is
described? How much, then, depends again on position, on the
condition of the organ of hearing, on the intervention of any thing
that may affect the sound ! But on these and similar sources
of inaccuracy and discrepancies we need not dwell : they are
obvious to all; they are experienced by all, continually. But
consider, further, how much depends on the degree of control
which a writer possesses over the means of conveying to others
his own ideas and impressions. As writers are endowed with
this power in different degrees, so will they give us different repre
sentations of the same object or occurrence. Add to this the
consideration of the position of the reader, and his greater or less
capacity readily to apprehend what is placed before him, espe
cially if he lives in a different age, amidst different forms of life and
manners, if he speaks a different language and thinks in a different
mould of thought from those whose writings he has to peruse and
understand. From these sources of discrepancy, of real or appa
rent contradiction, the evangelists were not free: to some of them
they were liable in a peculiar degree. How reasonable, then, that
we should allow the sacred historians the same latitude that we
allow to other historians ; that we should treat them not with a less,
but rather with a greater, indulgence than we grant to writers more
favourably circumstanced.

It will serve to confirm and justify our confidence in the New
Testament historians to show, that such discrepancies as we find
in the Gospels are not wanting even in authors in whose case

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 49

every thing would seem likely to preclude them, in authors
to whom it is impossible to deny honesty of intention, exact
knowledge of circumstances, and a practised control over the
means of expression.

It would be difficult to cite two historians of antiquity, who,
writing on the same subject, do not, when compared with one
another, present apparent or real contradictions. A few facts taken
from the lives of two of the greatest heroes of antiquity, Alexander
and Hannibal, will illustrate this assertion.

The history of the former has been written in part, or wholly, by
men from whom, as eye-witnesses of what they relate, we should
expect the most exact and mutually consistent accounts, viz. by his
own friends and generals, Aristobulus, Ptolemaeus, Eumenes, Near-
chus, and others. The original writings of these authors, indeed,
have not come down to us ; but yet, in the works of Arrian, Plutarch,
and Strabo, we possess extracts and materials carefully taken from
them. Credible, however, as the reports of these historians may be
in themselves, yet a continuous comparison of them with each
other discloses a continuous chain of discrepancies ; as the follow
ing examples will show us :

The high credibility of Arrian, in his history of Alexander, has
been abundantly established by Droysen, the latest historian of the
Macedonian conqueror. Now, Curtius (b. 7, c. 5), a credulous
writer, gives us an account of the vengeance which Alexander
inflicted upon the Branchidae, a people descended from the family
who had held the priesthood of the temple of Apollo, near Miletus,
and who had betrayed the temple and its treasures into the hands of
Xerxes. The more credible and exact Arrian passes over the whole
affair in silence. But are we, therefore, to regard it as a fable ?
Certainly not; for the fact is noticed by the conscientious Strabo,
from whom we learn that Callisthenes, in his Memorabilia, par
ticularly recorded the locality of the Branchidae. Whence, then,
the silence of Arrian ? No hypothesis is sufficient to solve the
mystery.

Who can explain the discrepancies in regard to the city of
Zariaspa? Arrian applies the names Bactra and Zariaspa to dif
ferent towns ; and Ptolemaeus distinguishes the river Zariaspes on
which the town of that name was situated, from the Dargidus,
on which Bactra lies; whereas Strabo represents Bactra and
Zariaspa as the same place. Droysen proposes the hypothesis,
that as, at the present day, many towns of this region of Asia bear
..the name of Balk, so, in former times, the name Bactra was applied
to more than one, to Zariaspa among others.

On what day did Alexander die ? Eumenes and Diodotus, the
king s daily chroniclers, record the eleventh of June, towards even
ing, as the time of his decease. Aristobulus and Ptolemaeus, who
stood beside his deathbed, mention the thirteenth! According to
Aristobulus, Alexander had reigned twelve years and four months;
165 2 A

50 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY OF

according to Diodorus Siculus, twelve years and seven months ; the
first book of Maccabees, Josephus, and Eratosthenes, make the
period twelve years; Cornelius Nepos and Livy, thirteen years;
while Justin extends it to thirty-five years and one month. We are
surprised to find differences such as these, where the possibility of
discrepancy would seem not to exist. But who will wonder at
different statements respecting the death of an Alexander, when
our most recent manuals disagree as to the time of the death of a
Napoleon? While other works name the fifth of May, 1821, as
the date of this event, we read in the fifth edition of Wachler s
Handbuch der Geschichte, s. 454, that it took place on the twentieth
of March, 1821!

Equally to our present purpose is the difference between the two
historians, Livy and Poly bius, respecting the route of Hannibal s army,
in his march from Spain to Italy, but hiore particularly as to his pas
sage over the Alps. Livy conscientiously took the materials of his
history from authorities nearly contemporary with the events recorded ;
he follows Cincitis Alimentus and Crelius Antipater, of whom the for
mer, while a captive of Hannibal, received his information respecting
the line of march from that commander himself; and the latter lived
in the time of the Gracchi. Polybius came to Rome in the year of the
city 587, some thirty-five years after Hannibal s departure. About
forty years after that event, he himself passed over the Alps in
search of materials for his history, and might have met and con
versed with old men, who, as youths, had been eye-witnesses of the
march of the Carthaginian army. But, nevertheless, what unac
countable discrepancies are there between the narratives of the two
historians! Zander, in his treatise on the subject (Der Heereszug
Ha nnibaVs uber die Alpen, Gottingen, 1828), has placed the account
of the Greek parallel with that of the Roman author ; and it is easy
to perceive whether the differences in this case are less or greater
than those existing in the synoptical Gospels. The learned recede
from each other on this question in every direction, clown to the two
most recent investigators of the subject, Zander and Uckert, in his
Geography. The following is a brief summary of the views that
have prevailed, as to the point at which the Carthaginian general
crossed the Alps :

I. THE COTTIAN ALPS:

(a) Over Mount Viso : Lipsius, St. Simond, and Denina.

(b) Over Mount Genevre: D Anville, Gibbon, Letronne, and others.

II. THE GBAIAN ALPS:

Over Little St. Bernard: Ferguson and Beck, Melville, De Luc, Larenau-
cliere, Zander, Eibaud, Wickhaui, and Cramer.

III. THE PENNINE ALPS :

(a) Over the Great St. Bernard : Cluver, Whitaker, Villars, De Lorges.
(&) Over the Simplon : Arneth.

IV. THE JULIAN ALPS : Lipsius.

166

THE NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. 51

It ought not to be surprising, if some future critic, boldly apply
ing the principles of Dr. Strauss, should altogether banish into the
regions of mythus this Alpine march of the Carthaginians !

But we find not only such contradictions and discrepancies as
these in the best historians, when compared with each other, but
also self-contradictions and inconsistencies. If, then, we meet with
similar appearances in the case of the New Testament historians,
can we reasonably found upon them the heavy charges urged, on
this ground, by Dr. Strauss and his school ? A few instances taken
from Wachsmuth s work on the older history of Rome will illustrate
this. According to Livy, 23. 30, Locri is taken by the Carthaginians ;
in 24. 1, it is still in the power of the Romans. So Thurii (25. 1)
comes again into the possession of the Romans (rediere) ; whereas,
at a later period, it only for the first time joins Hannibal (25. 15).
Livy, 30. 45, Scipip was the first to receive a surname from a con
quered people ; but in 2. 32, this honour had already been conferred
on Coriolanus. 25. 41, Sulpicius goes to Sicily, and Cornelius to
Apulia; but 26. 1, we find Cornelius in Sicily. In 36. 36, Livy
speaks of the first ludi scenici, in contradiction to the statement in
29. 14, and 35. 54. In 30. 43, Carthage grieves bitterly for the loss
of her fleet; 30. 44, no one lamented (nemo ingemuit).

Nor are omissions of a remarkable kind wanting, either in Livy,
or in other ancient historians omissions such as, when occurring
in the Gospels, Dr. Strauss seldom fails to employ as proofs of the
unhistorical character of their contents. Livy, 22. 4, does not tell
us that Hasdrubal, after his victory over the right wing of the Roman
army, proceeded to attack the left as may be conjectured, how
ever, from 22.48, and as Polybius (3. 116) thought it better to
record. Similarly, in the war of the Romans with Philip of Mace-
don, Amynander, having conquered Athamania, is protected by the
Romans (38. 9); but, in the account of the peace (38. 11), nothing
is said of him ; and 39. 24, the territory belongs again to Philip.
In 30. 33, Carthage gives the Romans a hundred hostages; in
32. 2, a hundred are restored, while the remainder ( ! ) change their
residence, and are only restored in 40. 35.

Are these contradictions and omissions to be ascribed to the
carelessness and haste of the historian ? Recent critics, as Lach-
mann, have made it probable, that the source of them, at least in
many cases, has been rather a too careful adherence to the written
documents employed by the respective authors. If it be so, the
parallel between those authors and the synoptical evangelists is
the more remarkable ; for a close adherence, on the part of the latter,
to written accounts in their possession, is not to be denied.

Nor are modern historians more fortunate in avoiding these errors
and contradictory statements ; in so much that all may well adopt
the humble confession of Bayle, the man whose life was devoted to
the work of searching for and exposing the errors of others, Je
ne doute point, qu outre mes peches d omission, qui sont infinis,

167

52 THOLUCK ON THE CREDIBILITY, &c.

il ne me soit echappe un grand nombre de commission. " I doubt
not that, besides my sins of omission, which are innumerable, a .
great number of sins of commission have escaped from my pen." And
is not Voltaire right, when he says, " Would it not be something even
frightful to be correct in every line, throughout fourteen volumes ? "
Frightful it would be, perhaps not for the historian himself, but
certainly for the rest of the human race, if the historian alone enjoyed
the privilege of an exception from the errare humanum.

That modern writers, with all their better conceptions of what
histoiy requires, are not more happy than their predecessors of
ancient days, in escaping error and contradiction, this assertion
Tholuck justifies by instances taken from the works of recent his
torians. We need not dwell upon these, but may state at once the
conclusion to which the argument conducts us.

It is plain, that, if absolute agreement among historians be neces
sary to assure us that we possess in their writings credible history,
we must renounce all pretence to any such possession. But in so
far as, generally speaking, we believe in the truth of history, it
follows that the demand of absolute agreement is an exaggerated and
unreasonable one. Hence, again, the circumstance that the synop
tical evangelists, in some points, vary from or contradict each
other, affords no reason whatever for regarding the great features in
which they agree, or the facts recorded only by a single evangelist,
as substantially unhistorical and mythical. Granted, that in some
things Luke differs from Matthew and from Mark, that in some
others he absolutely contradicts them: still, in the great facts of
Christ s character, miraculous powers, lofty claims, and divine
teachings, all agree. In substance they agree, though in details
they differ. With the above-cited instances before us, of unac
countable discrepancies, even in the best historians, it would be
absurd to infer the unhistorical and mythical character of the
substance of the Gospels from the similar phenomena which they
present.

Had our sceptical critic been able to approach the history of the
miracles without prejudice, he would have formed an entirely
different judgment respecting the discrepancies which it presents.
He came, however, to the study of that history, with the foregone
conclusion, that miracles are impossible ; and where an investigator
brings with him an absolute conviction of the guilt of the accused
to the examination of his case, we know how even the most innocent
may be implicated and condemned out of his own mouth. It is a
necessary consequence of this mode of proceeding, that neither
acuteness of mind nor correctness of reasoning has preserved Dr.
Strauss from an act of injustice, which only those will deny to be
such, who, like him, have formed their conclusion before inquiry.

168

THEORY OF MYTHS,

IN ITS

APPLICATION TO THE GOSPEL HISTOBY,

EXAMINED AND CONFUTED

DR. JULIUS MULLER.

THE writer of tlie following essay, which is a translation of a review (a few passages being
omitted) that appeared in the Studien und Kritlken in the year .1836, JULIUS MULLEB,

is now Professor of Theology in the University of Halle. He was born at Brieg,

in 1801, and is the brother of the late Otfried Miiller, so eminent for his philological
knowledge. His father was chaplain to a regiment, and is still living. A misfortune
in early life rendered his naturally serious disposition still more so, while it deprived him
of any advantages that might attend an early education. In consequence of some injury to
one of his eyes, he gradually lost the use of it. At the age of twelve, however, he entered
the Gymnasium (high school) at Brieg; and at eighteen, he went to the University at
Breslau, to devote himself to the study of law. The following year he continued his
studies at Gottingen, where his essay, entitled Ratio ct Historia Odii cut Fccnus hdbetur
("Keason and History of the Hatred with which Usury is regarded"), gained him a
prize in 1821. Meanwhile his attention and interest had been transferred from the study
of law to that of theology, which had great attractions for him, not so much from any
scientific interest, but from a higher feeling, as it possessed his whole soul; though even
here, and amidst the elevated seriousness with which he applied himself to the study, he
did not at first feel himself quite at home. He had, principally at one period, " hard
straggles and doubts, the solution of which, whilst wandering from theology, he sought
for in philosophy, and especially in Spiiiosa s ethics." But in 1823, after again studying
a year at Breslau, he found more peace and decision of mind in Berlin. This, however,
did not happen through Schleiermacher s influence, against whom he felt prejudices when
he came, which kept him continually from his society. He owed the groundwork of his
firmer theological convictions to the instructions and personal intercourse of Tholuck,
who then just began to teach in Berlin, with his early vivacity; as also to that of
G. Frederich A. Strauss, and before all others to that of Neander. The mental tendencies
which he here acquired, remained with him ever after, especially his firm adherence to
Scripture, his predilection for the theology of creeds, and for the older Lutheran doctrines,
169 2B

2 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

in connection with speculative aims, but not with such as are entertained by the phi
losophy of the day; and, above all, his habit of referring all theological knowledge
to practical life, and his view of faith as the " source of a new life which penetrates
the whole mind of man, purifying and reforming him." At the age of twenty-three, he
returned to Silesia, and was appointed preacher at a village near Straylin, where he
remained seven years. In 1831 he was called to Gottingen, as preacher at the Univer
sity; and at the same time he commenced Lectures on the Discipline belonging to Prac
tical Theology, on Practical Exegesis, and Education: where he was afterwards made an
extra Professor of Theology in 1834. With this began a new life for him. His experience
as preacher and pastor gave animation to his scientific treatises on Practical Theology.
His enlarged scientific and aesthetic education, along with a rich store of still more
important requisites in his mind and disposition, particularly suited him for a preacher to
an educated university congregation. His sermons entitled " The Christian Life, its
Struggles and Completion" (Bresl. 1834, 2d edit. 1838), preceded as they were by three
others, "Salvation in Christ, the Appropriation, and Rejection of him" show how he
worked here. These are concisely written, sparing in ornament, and very forcible. In
1835 he became Ordinary Professor of Theology at Marburg, where he devoted him
self to Lectures on Christian Doctrine, and Moral and Practical Theology. Here he had
leisure for greater literary labours, such as his admirable doctrinal essay " On the Nature
and Causes of Sin" (1839), in which he displays the most accurate knowledge of modern
philosophical systems, great independence of thought, and an unusual critical acuteness.
To this period belongs his programme, De Miracidorum Christi Natura et Necessitate
(" On the Nature and Necessity of Miracles," 1839), in which he endeavours to define the
biblical miracles, not as the effects of a higher power in the worker of miracles, but as
the immediate novel consequences of the Divine Will in nature, apart, however, from the
powers of nature already created ; and by this means he opposed the idea of miracles,
as merely relatively miraculous, advocated by Schleiermacher and others. At Michaelmas,
1839, he thought himself bound to obey a call to a larger sphere of activity, namely,
Halle, where he still lectures to the University.

ALTHOUGH the critical examination before us of the records of
Christ s life, contained in our canonical Gospels, exercises unde
niably a mighty influence on the present age, yet the reason for
this fact is not, perhaps, to be sought for in its having presented
to us quite new and previously unheard-of points of view for the
consideration of the evangelical narratives ; since the opinion,
that the mythical is mixed with the historical in these narratives is
well known to be any thing but new. It is now thirty or forty years
since this was asserted by Gabler and others; and, since then, this
view has never been wanting in advocates among theologians.
Doubtless, it was generally intended to apply the mythical interpre
tation only to the beginning and conclusion of the gospel history ;
whilst for the intermediate part the public ministry of Christ --

170

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 3

the historical mode of considering it was not interfered with. How
ever, as early as 1799, the anonymous author of a work on Revela
tion and Mythology; and somewhat later, Horst, in his treatise,
entitled " Ideas respecting Religion, Mythology, and Christianity,
in relation to the spirit of the times," ventured upon a more com
prehensive application of this principle of explanation, and sought
to bring the whole contents of the evangelical history within the
sphere of myth. All the particular difficulties, too, in the gospel
history, by the discovery of which Professor Strauss endeavours to
enforce a mythical interpretation of it, have been, with few excep
tions, subject already to various investigations. Whilst, therefore,
this work is most closely connected with a long series of preparatory
writings, it is on this fact that its power depends, namely, that
scientific endeavours, which were hitherto confined to particular parts
of our Gospels, or, if extended to the whole, were wanting in the requi
site learning to establish and to carry out the principle into detail, are
here maintained with a bold determination and a reckless consisten
cy, supported with the necessary knowledge. It is not an isolated
thought, or a suggestion of caprice, in order to excite astonishment,
with which we have here to do ; but this attack on the historical
character of the gospel narratives proceeds with a certain necessity,
from the whole modern development of criticism and interpretation,
in regard to the Gospels. Added to this, there is shown a distin
guished talent for graphic representation, which is peculiar to the
author. His train of thought flows on with the easiest and most
versatile motion ; and he maintains this power over his style, even
when involved in the most complicated investigations. The ex
pression remains throughout clear and simple, quite free from those
artificial charms by which a notorious literary coterie of our day
(who appear to greet the author as an ally, and to welcome his book
as a complete foundation of theological learning, to support their
disinclination to Christianity) endeavour to work upon the blunted
nerves of their own circle. Keeping himself clear of this and every
other mannerism, his style, free from all pretensions, is entirely
suited to express, in each case, the idea intended, as clearly as
possible. The well-understood interest of Christian theology, so cer
tainly as that the faith on which it rests is eternally true, can only be
promoted by a number of doubts on the historical basis of this faith,
which are current in our age, being here collected into a whole with
so much energy and ability. Though, too, there cannot fail to be
many minds, especially among the young, which, for the moment,
will be perplexed and led astray in their faith by this work, still
the fact, that a boundless historical scepticism in the criticisms
of the gospel narratives has here reached a certain conclusion, and
revealed its destructive consequences, contains a prophecy, that the
time for its overthrow is at hand.

The plan of the author is, in general, this : First, he endeavours
to point out in the gospel narratives, partly internal improbabi-
171

MULLEB ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

lities, partly contradictions, either with what the same evangelist
has elsewhere stated, or with the accounts of other evangelists and
New Testament writers, concerning the same events, or with the
historical statements of Joseph us, so far as they relate to events
within the limits of the gospel history. When he thinks the nega
tive part of his work to be thus completed, and the historical
character of the particular narrative to have been rendered suffi
ciently suspicious, he proceeds to the more positive side of his
work. He searches throughout the Old Testament to see if he can
not find in the history of the patriarchs of Moses, David, of the
prophets, especially Elijah and Elisha, or of other eminent men
traits which correspond to the accounts of Christ, and thus render
it intelligible how, out of their legendary poetry, the most ancient
church (which so gladly recognised in the deeds and destiny of
their Founder, i. e. of their supposed Messiah, every thing great
and noble that is preserved to us of those men) could manage to
fabricate the narrative. Just as easily is this explained, where a
kindred passage of the Old Testament is at hand, which was con
sidered by the Jews, at the time of Christ, and by the apostles, as a
Messianic prophecy. Since, according to the notion of the primitive
Christians, the life of Jesus must correspond accurately with those
prophecies (which is the reason for the formula, iva. TrXrjpwdrj TO
fader, in order that what was said might be fulfilled^ so oi teii
recorded in the Gospels), the author has no scruple in directly
reversing the mode in which the Biblical church views this con
nexion, according to which the prophecy arose directly out of
the prophet s vision; and in considering one portion of the gospel
records as a free invention, in accordance with the type of these
prophecies. For this purpose he makes use of particular declara
tions of Jesus, which bear a relation to the recorded events.

Thus, Strauss derives the narrative of the withering of the fig-tree,
which Christ had cursed, out of the parable of the tree, which, on
account of its bearing no good fruit, was hewn down and cast into
the fire; as well as out of the parable of the fig-tree, from which,
for three years, its master sought figs in vain, and on that account
would have it felled. In a similar manner, the account of Luke
(vi. 11), regarding the wonderful draught of fishes by Peter, is con
sidered by him as nothing but a mythical enlargement of the saying
concerning the " fishers of men," which Matthew (iv. 19) and Mark
(i. 17) refer to the call of Peter and Andrew (vol. i. p. 538*). If
neither an Old Testament parallel, nor a New Testament point of
connexion, presents itself, then Professor Strauss turns to the
apocryphal Gospels, and to the Rabbinical literature, in order to
find out what kind of notions and expectations of the Messiah, at
the time of the origin of our canonical Gospels, may have prevailed

All the passages referred to are from the first edition of Strauss s Lebcn Jesit.

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. O

in the Jewish theology, as well as in the popular faith, which could
induce the oldest Jewish-Christian communities, during the tradi
tional propagation of the history of Christ s life, to form narratives
without an historical foundation. Hereby, indeed, he tacitly takes
for granted, and without reason, that the Rabbinical writings, which
he chooses to use for his purpose, were trustworthy records of the
ideas concerning the Messiah, which prevailed among the Jewish
people, at the time when the Gospels were composed. In cases
where nothing suitable for an explanation is obtained from these
productive mines, he is satisfied at last to point out the significant
thought, the relations, so full of meaning, which are contained in
a fact, in order by this means to establish the conclusion, that the
whole narrative is only formed from legends, as a sort of historical
investment of this thought. Thus, to our author, the significant
thought contained in the fact of Christ s being born in a stall, and
first saluted by shepherds, is evidence for the mythical origin of
this narrative (vol. i. pp. 215, 216). This mythical origin betrays
itself to him in the narrative of Peter s walking on the Sea of Ga
lilee, because it speaks out, and that quite plainly too, the general
principle, that faith imparts power to man to accomplish things
the most difficult ; but, so soon as faith gives way, success also is
at an end. It may easily be conceivable, that, with these manifold
resources (for here only the most prominent have been noted : along
with these, for instance, analogies from heathen mythology are not
despised), the author can never have failed to render intelligible to
himself, in his own way, the origin of particular narratives, as the
product of a myth- forming industry. It is here also the miracles
of the gospel history, and, above all, the corner-stone of a Christian
faith the miracle of the resurrection of our Lord, against which
the attack is made. It is from first to last irrefragably certain
to the author, that miracles, as miracles, could not have really hap
pened ; for to assume this would be the same to him as giving up
thinking on the subject (vol. ii. p. 67, comp. p. 56). The controversy
about the reality of Christ s resurrection in particular is commenced
with the following reflection : " The proposition, that a person
once dead has returned to life, is composed of two parts so contra
dictory, that, whenever we desire to hold fast the one, the other
threatens to escape. If he really has returned to life, it is very
natural to think he may not have been quite dead ; but, if he was
really dead, it is difficult then to believe that he has come to life
again." That " natural to think," and this " difficult to believe,"
are only preliminary mild expressions, which, in course of the
investigation, are quickly strengthened into " must think " on
the one hand, and to " cannot believe " on the other ; so that
Professor Strauss, p. 647, under the name of enlightened views
concerning the relation of God to the world, and of modern civili
zation, puts forth this dilemma : Jesus either did not actually
die, or did not really rise again. There was now, doubtless, ready

173

6 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

for him the so-called natural explanations of the earlier school of
rationalists, in order to save the historical view of miraculous nar
ratives. But here the author holds the correct opinion, that these
explanations are totally wanting in an historical foundation, since
they endeavour to draw out of the accounts of the evangelists
something quite different from what they themselves intended to
relate to us. And this is almost everywhere proved by him in
detail in a very striking manner. Nothing else, therefore, remained
but to direct his explanations, not to the miraculous event itself, but
to the narrative concerning it, in order to show how this nar
rative may have originated without any historical foundation;
a resource which, as early as the commencement of this century,
was recommended by Krug* to interpreters of Scripture, and still
earlier made use of (though in a different manner, and under a
different hypothesis regarding the character of the Gospels) by the
author of the Wolfexibiittel Fragments. That form of this sort of
procedure, which is most forbearing and compatible with respect
for the New Testament writers, is evidently the mythical mode of
explaining miraculous narratives, which allows that they themselves
originated in popular tradition, out of the elements mentioned
above, and were related by the evangelists bond fide. The more
decidedly the enlightened judgment of our age turns away from the
formerly favoured natural explanations of the miracles of Christ,
the more must it doubtless feel inclined to the mythical treatment
of the gospel records, so long as it cannot simply acknowledge these
miracles in their reality. From this point of view, the author regards
it as a mark in itself of the mythical character of a narrative, when it
contains what is miraculous.

Professor Strauss justifies Schleiermacher when he said, in his
second Letter to Dr. Llicke, he anticipated, that, for the historical
person of the Saviour, not much more remained in a speculative
view than among the Ebionites (p. 736). Not much more ? In
reality, if Professor Strauss is an authentic interpreter of this specu
lative view, far less. Hitherto, rationalistic theology had scarcely
an idea of ascribing to the most ancient Christian communities,
especially to those of Palestine, deeper and more comprehensive
views of the nature of Christianity, namely, respecting its relation
to Judaism and Paganism, and their mutual differences, than were
entertained by the Founder himself. Our author, on the other hand,
professes this opinion, not only in one passage (vol. i. p. 507), but
it is a fundamental principle of his whole critical procedure. A
scholar, who generally passes for one of the most respectable repre
sentatives of this theological party, however his convictions often
break through the narrow limits of peculiarly rationalistic ideas,
I mean, Dr. David Schulz, has, in the introduction to his inter-

* Versuch iiber die genetische oder formelle Erklarungsart der Wunder. Henke s
Museum, i. 3.

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 7

pretation of the parable of the unjust steward, put forth a view
concerning the relation of the gospel narratives to the actual events
of Christ s life, which, without affecting the essentially historical
character of those narratives, still in some degree approaches our
author s mode of viewing the subject. When Dr. Schulz, however,
proceeding from this view, declares, " The divine character of
the Saviour of the world (whatever there may be of human frailty,
which mankind, properly or improperly, may continually extract
from the Sacred Volume), in its highest, unadulterated beauty and
majesty, is never to be reached by the searching eye of finite
mortals, and, above all things, must be regarded as not to be touched
by unholy and impertinent hands," here, this satisfaction respect
ing the veiling of Christ s true personality, owing to the individual
peculiarities of the evangelists, stands in a remarkable contrast to
the opinion of our author, that "the primitive Christian legend,
constructed out of Jesus, is something more elevated and noble
than he was historically ; " a contrast, I say, to the abominable
canon which he puts forth in vol. i. p. 351, and applies many times
with great confidence, for example in vol. i. pp. 473, 507, namely,
that in disputed cases those gospel narratives are ever least credible
which do most to glorify Christ ;* a contrast, indeed, is this to
the rash assertion, that Jesus, by receiving the baptism of John,
represented himself as one who needed conversion, and that he
doubtless might have justly ranked among the most excellent in
Israel, without, however, being himself an exception to what Job
says, iv. 18; xv. 15 (vol. i. p. 374).

The peculiar key to the whole Christology is found by our author
in this alone. He places, as subject to the predicates which the
church ascribes to Christ, an idea, instead of an individual, yet
not one of Kant s unreal ideas, but a real idea. It is the following,
the idea of the human species. This is the veritable incarnate
God, of which all the qualities and functions are to be predicated,
which the church doctrines ascribe to Christ, but which are self-
contradictory when imagined in an individual (vol. ii. pp. 734, 735).
At the formation of their Christology, there hovered before the
primitive community, in the form of a mythical history of their
Founder s life, the idea of humanity in its relation to duty, but
unknown to them ; and, for this very reason, they might happen to
transfer to the individual all those predicates which gave occasion,

* This canon rests on the supposition, that the gospel narratives have everywhere a
tendency to glorify Jesus. This supposition, however, in the sense in which it is taken
by our author, is nowhere established, but is smuggled *a on p. 351 by the most unjus
tifiable assumptions. The author here allows himself to be guilty of a most evident
reasoning in a circle. That the gospel narratives of Christ proceeded from a desire to
glorify him, and on this account possesses no historical, but a mythical character, this
is what the criticism of our author has to prove. But, in order to carry out this criticism,
a canon is laid as a foundation, which presupposes this glorifying tendency as an undis
puted fact. The circle is, in some measure, concealed by the double meaning of the
expression, glorifying tendency,
175

8 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS,

through his personality and his destiny, to exalt this idea into the
universal consciousness. In order to explain more particularly such
singular phenomena, our author has recourse to the old traditions
of the spirit of the East, and of the spirit of the people, who were
in a condition to appropriate and to express the new idea, not in
the abstract form of the understanding and conception, but only in
the concrete way of the imagination, as pictures and histories (voL i.
p. 71 ; vol. ii. p. 736).

This, then, is the promised veritable reconciler of faith! this
its elevation into knowledge ! (vol. ii. p. 688). These insipidities of
a modern pantheism, to which it appears quite suitable to represent
as divine, human life as it is, " which acknowledges the incarna
tion, the dying, and the resurrection (the duplex neyatio affirmat),
as the eternal cycle, as the ceaseless self-repeating pulsation of the
divine life" (vol. ii. p. 738), are offered us by our author as
the deepest mysteries in theology (p. 742), and as compensation for
a faith in the historical Christ, respecting whom he himself con
fesses, that from him the primitive church and, it may be hoped,
the present too derived a fulness of blissful and elevated, of
cheering and comforting thoughts ! And from this point of view,
whence the Saviour of the world is degraded into the simple and
mere outward category of the occasion for the development of the
beau-ideal, whence his miraculous acts become a mere symbol
for the power of the human mind over nature, such as is realized
far more evidently in the mariner s compass and the steam-packet
than it would be in the stilling of the sea by a mere word * (vol. ii.
pp. 175, 735-7), and whence his resurrection is regarded as a sym
bol of spiritual life ever rising higher and yet higher, such as occurs
to humanity from the negation of its natural state (p. 735), the
author ventures to condemn, not only the Christology of the rational
ists, because their Christ is not the one in whom the church believes
(p. 710), but also that of Schleiermacher s doctrinal system, because
according to it the facts of the resurrection and ascension do not
belong essentially to the Christian faith; whilst, nevertheless, faith
in the resurrection of Christ is the corner-stone, without which the
Christian community could not have built itself up ! (p. 718.)

Does Professor Strauss really suppose, that, with his so-called
speculative Christology, he can maintain a real agreement with the
faith of the Christian church ? When, in the concluding chapter,

* Strauss refers here to tlie fact, that Luther considered the bodily miracles infe
rior to the spiritual, as the really grand ones ; and he continues further : " And should
we interest ourselves for some *ures in Galilee, rather than for the wonders of univer
sal history, for the power of man, almost exceeding belief, over nature, for the
irresistible power of ideas, to which so great a mass of thoughtless people can offer no
resistance?" (p. 737). From this climax we see, that this power of man over nature
appears to the author as something more elevated and wonderful than the spiritual mira
cle of Luther, the regeneration of man by the spirit of Jesus Christ. The contempt of
"a few cures in Galilee," moreover, is nothing new : Julian speaks with particular dis
paragement of Christ s deeds that took place in the villages of Bethsaida and Bethany.

176

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 9

he has everywhere expressed himself as if this was subject to no
doubt whatever, when, in the preface, he has expressly maintained,
that the doctrinal contents of Christ s life remained unaffected by his
criticism, it is really difficult, considering the acuteness of the
author, to regard such declarations as meant in real earnest.

With an honourable candour, he has delineated, on the last pages
of the concluding treatise, the difficulties in which his critical and
speculative views must involve ministers who are attached to them,
in their pastoral relationship ; and he has confessed, that he knows
not how to solve them ; so that his work concludes, in a startling-
manner, with the revelation of a deplorable schism, which, were it
really so unavoidable for the Christian church as it appears to the
author, would threaten the church as such at least the Protestant
church with certain destruction, owing to the opposition between
an exoteric and esoteric Christianity. And this candour deserves our
respectful acknowledgment, all the more because there was so little
necessity for him to enter into these thorny investigations respect
ing the situation of the preacher who entertains his views. But,
with this bold love of truth which is frightened at no consequences,
he should not conceal, that, with the results of his historical and
doctrinal criticism, which have chosen for their support the spirit
and the necessities of the age, modern civilization, and such general
allies, he has declared war, not only against a particular form of
Christianity, but against Christianity itself; if, indeed, the con
ception of Christianity is in any way historically determined, and it
is not allowed for any one to define Christ and Christianity just as
it suits him. The professor may boast for ever, that he acknow
ledges the idea of the unity of the divine and human nature, in an
exceedingly higher sense than as an actual unity, when he imagines
the entire humanity as its realization, than he would by isolating
one particular man as its fulfilment (vol. ii. p. 734). It is thus the
Indians considered the announcement of the missionaries, that
the Son of God had once walked on earth as poor, in comparison
with the continually repeated incarnations of their Vishnu. He
should, however, also acknowledge, that the way in which the
Christian church, from the very commencement up to our day,
have % understood the idea of the unity of the divine and human
nature, not only happens to be very much deeper than his own, but
is directly opposed to it.

The opposition is particularly founded on the fundamentally
different view concerning the general condition of the human race,
previous to their partaking of the redemption, and respecting the
relation of this condition to the true development of human life.
In order to understand what Christ is, we must have already known
sin, its power, and the fearful earnestness of the divine displeasure
against it ; and every frivolous setting aside of evil, every superficial
quieting in regard to the schism that has arisen through evil, is
necessarily an inexhaustible source of errors in Christology. Ac-

177 * 2 C

10 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

cording to the author s opinion, a person has merely to exalt him
self to a speculative view of universal history, in order to conceive
the life of humanity as a progressive realizing of the unity of the
divine and human nature : " Pollution cleaves constantly to the
individual; but, in the race and its history, this is removed." Then,
truly, the human race requires no redemption : as a race it is sin
less, and for individuals the idea of the species is the true redeemer.
And if in this way the whole development of humanity is nothing-
else than an incarnation of Deity, what can there be of particular
moment in one single fact which exhibits this process ? (p. 738.)
Christianity, on the contrary, judges very differently of that con
dition : it considers it, not as a divine life, but as a life estranged from
God, in which evil has become a ruling power as a real falling
away from God. Hence Christianity knows of no restitution through
any sort of speculative knowledge, by which evil itself is conceived as
a necessary negative element for the development of character ; and
by the total exclusion of which evil from Christ s life (as Schleier-
macher on scriptural ground maintains), the author fears that the truth
of the human nature in Christ would be lost (pp. 717, 718).

Christianity knows of only the real, practical means of restoring
man s relation to God, regeneration and sanctification, an actual
liberation from the power of evil, by partaking of redemption by
means of faith. For the very reason that Christianity is in real
earnest regarding the need which the human race has of redemption,
it belongs to no passing and popular form, but to the inmost essence
of Christianity, that all salvation and life can be imparted to us, only
while we faithfully adhere to one historical person, to Jesus of
Nazareth, to the Holy One of God, to the incarnate Logos
(Matt. xxi. 42; Acts iv. 11, 12).

A speculative theology, like that of the author, will here naturally
urge the objection of outwardness; and that thus the object of
faith would ever remain a stranger to the mind. This charge is partly
removed by the scriptural doctrine of the Holy Spirit, and partly it
has been willingly conceded by us, but not as a reproach. It is
just in this point we cannot but recognise the most dangerous
aberration from the essence of Christianity, and a most thorough
perversion of its grandest revelation : the author considers oneness
with God as naturally belonging to the human spirit. In the extra
vagant presumption of such views, must all humility, in which the
Christian is conscious of his incapacity for the greatness of the
divine revelation of mercy ; all faith, in which we draw from a spring
of power and of life which does not flow in ourselves ; and all hope,
which contemplates, in a life beyond the grave, an incomparably
higher development of the divine life imparted by the Redeemer,
all must perish.

If the author, and those who think with him, should succeed in
spreading their views, along with the new proposition of connecting
another subject with the old predicates in Christology, among their

178

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 11

contemporaries, about as extensively as the rationalistic Ebionites
who allowed the subject to remain, but struck from the predicates
the greatest part have done in times just past; then, in the
place of a Pelagianism ever inconsistent, and one which rests on
the abstract and mechanical conceptions of Deism concerning the
relation of God to the world, there would arise a more consistent
pantheistic naturalism. The above fundamental virtues of a Chris
tian would be entirely transition steps, on the ruins of which a kind
of Promethean race had established themselves ; who trusted them
selves alone, and found in themselves a never-exhausted source of
all salvation and all peace of mind. We do not accuse the author
of desiring all these destructive consequences ; but, if he does not
desire them, he must abandon views from which they necessarily
flow. For what he says in the preface to the first volume, and in
some other passages, about the regardlessness of consequences in a
scientific inquiry, about its indifference respecting results, is by no
means correct when asserted in this general way : it rests on the
fundamentally erroneous supposition, that the right nay, the only
organ for the understanding of higher concrete truth, is the severe
necessity of a logical process. It is not from their logical defects
and contradictions, but from their unsatisfying and destructive
results, from their being at variance with the inevitable demands
of the soul, and with the facts of a higher original consciousness of our
spirits as they are established and replenished by divine words,
that the systems of Spinosa, Kant, Fichte, and others, have fallen
to the ground; and where the opposition between two modes of
thinking is one of principles, and extends into the deepest roots
of spiritual life, there is, within the mere human sphere, no other
ultimate criterion of truth. But, even in relation to special theo
logical investigations, this boasted indifference of scientific inquiry
respecting results is often only a favourite name for a disintegrating
process, which arbitrarily tears the object of the particular inves
tigation out of the comprehensive connexion to which it belongs,
and in which it alone can be really understood.

Were, however, the contents of Christian doctrine even better
preserved in this pretended speculative system than they are, still
any view of Christianity which considers the historical part of it as
a mere temporary form, and which thinks, for this reason, that it
may be as well treated as mythical, must affect the very vitals
of Christianity. If the historical were made to evaporate into the
mythical, then would Christianity cease to be a disclosure of
the divine counsels for the salvation of the human race. The free
acts of Deity, which only as such form the foundation of all con
fidence and hope to Christian communities, would change into
human thoughts. Myths may by all means express higher truths,
and reveal depths of religious feeling ; and who can deny but that in
the Grecian mythology, for example, not merely a fulness of vivid
and peculiar feelings for nature and contemplative views, but partly

179

12 MULLEB ON THE THEOHY OF MYTHS.

also deeply religious sentiments, have found their most expressive
garb, as in the myths connected with the worship of Apollo ?

But, however much truth and meaning myths may contain, they
still only draw their matter from what man s spirit already possesses.
Myths are no revelations, unless indeed a deceptive play upon words
is intended by this expression: they cannot contain the divine
decrees, and they cannot put an end to a breach which extends
through the entire life of man and all his spiritual possessions, since
they, on the contrary, bear this very feature in themselves. They
bring to light what is hidden in the depths of the human soul and
disposition ; but for this very reason they expose, along with grand
thoughts and lofty anticipations, also utter perverseness, and phe
nomena the most deplorable.

Christianity, as the revelation of God in Christ, as the perfect
revelation of divine truth and divine life, is essentially the end of
all mythology. Hence it belongs to its peculiar historical position
in the world, that it entered it in an historical age, and under cir
cumstances that may be known with historical accuracy ; whilst the
history of the origin of other religions falls in an obscure age, ante
cedent to all history. Yes : it is of the highest importance, and has
not yet been sufficiently considered, that Christianity, in all essen
tials, stands quite alone in this respect ; for the religion of Moham
med, whose origin besides is surrounded not so much with myths
as with intentional fictions, cannot come into consideration here,
on account of its wanting a nucleus originally peculiar to it. But
this importance of the historical character of Christianity, is just
what the author entirely misapprehends. He has the singular
opinion that the narratives of the historical facts respecting the
supernatural birth, miracles, the transfiguration, the resurrection
and ascension of Jesus, may have been fabricated, in order by this
means to portray, in an historical form, the idea already present,
the consciousness that had been awakened in man s breast
of his absolute oneness with God. According to the evidence of
history, the facts were in truth exactly the reverse to what are here
supposed. The most momentous passages in the life of Christ, for
the most part, were impressed on the minds of the oldest commu
nities and of the apostles.

These narratives formed, as we see from the Acts of the Apostles,*
the chief elements of the original preaching ; and from the germ of
these historical facts, naturally with the assistance of the discourses
of Christ preserved to us by the evangelists, there gradually was
developed a connected system of doctrine, as the letters of Paul in
particular evidently show. This prevailing historical type of the
church s Krjpvypa (preaching) this relatively retiring of the pecu
liarly doctrinal elements is still markedly evident in the writings

* Actsii. U 36; iii,12 26; v. 3032; x. 3443; xiii. 1541.

180

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 13

of the primitive teachers of the church, and in the form of the
ancient regulce fidei, as also of the so-called Apostles Creed ; and
in deed the chief contents of the first church s rar^x 7 ? ^ (catechizing)
were certainly historical (Luke i. 4) ; until gradually, according to
the natural course of development, the interest in the completion
of a doctrinal system acquired a predominance which continually
gained strength. If, then, the history is fiction, truly the doctrine
must be reared in the clouds. Whoever should succeed in destroy
ing the history as such, would have destroyed the doctrine too.

In respect to its inmost tendency, the work before us is the pro
duct of a certain fanaticism in speculation which will endure nothing
else above or about it in its efforts alter supremacy. Acknow
ledging the immense influence of Christianity upon history, the
Hegelian philosophy (by its most respectable advocates) has hitherto
endeavoured either to adhere to it as closely as possible, or to identify
itself entirely therewith, as the absolute contents for which the
adequate form alone was still wanting; but now, one of its most
distinguished followers, who certainly is not without adherents within
this school, has hit upon a very opposite system. This philosophy
is decidedly at variance with Christianity. In order that the pro
gress of philosophy may no longer be cramped by its interference,
the grand history of Christianity must cease to be a revelation, and
be degraded to the dignity of a mythology.

The aim of our investigations hitherto has been to explain the
theology of " ordinary " Christianity, in relation to the point of view
taken by our author ; to defend the common Christian faith against
the results of an investigation which, in opposition to every exami
nation that proceeds from premises based on faith, would pass itself
off for the only scientific one, owing to its pretended freedom from
assumptions.

We have now further to examine whether the procedure of the
author is tenable from his own point of view ; whether it is consist
ent with itself; and, further, whether the principle of explanation
given in his introduction with regard to the origin of the gospel
narratives, has been, or even can be, really maintained in treating
the matter in detail. The point of principal importance here is
the meaning of myths, and the conditions of their origin which
would thence become evident. Considering the great importance
which the idea of myths possesses in the work before us, it is indeed
striking that the author has nowhere entered into a connected
investigation of this idea, and especially into a more definite
settlement of the conditions under which alone a myth can origi
nate. If we accordingly cannot help here examining this idea
somewhat more closely, it cannot naturally be regarded as a com
plete development of it, but only such a brief investigation of its
principal points as is necessary to render the above conditions
evident to us.

To limit definitely the meaning of myth, for our purpose, is not
181

14: MULLER ON THE THEORY OF -MYTHS.

without its difficulties, even after the thorough investigations which
the researches into antiquity and the philosophy of our age have
occasioned. With the most general meaning of the word /-tvfloe, in
which, for example, it is used continually by Homer to denote
discourse as a whole, we have here naturally nothing to do. The
signification is more definitely expressed, when Suidas explains
HvQoQ (myth} as Xoyoe ^/ev^c ttKovtfav rr\v aXrjdtiav (a false saying,
simulating truth). In this sense, which is foreign to the use of
the word by the Epicureans, it is used by Plato, for instance, fre
quently, among other places in the Republic, in order to denote by
it the fictions by which the nurse and mother ought to form the
mind of children.* But even according to this more narrow limita
tion of the meaning, still much is contained in it, which no one
ascribes to myths in the sense in which this idea has its distinct
place in the province of the history of religion. Then every figura
tive representation of a thought by means of speech, which in its
form has no direct truth, but the truth of which is obtained by
explaining and interpreting the figure, would be fundamentally
mythical. We come nearer to the idea of the proper myth, when
we add, as a characteristic, that its form is constantly that of narra
tive. There is no kind of dispute respecting the characteristic
form: whatever myths may portray, is represented as history as
a particular occurrence of the time.

If this, then, is the form of a myth, what are its contents ? Here
we meet with the division of myths into historical and philosophi
cal ; which, if we do not err, was first employed by Heyne ; and,
although pretty nearly given up, as it appears, by philologians, still
is held in respect in the department of theology. According to this
division, the contents of a myth should consist partly in particular
facts poetically dressed up, and partly in general thoughts and prin
ciples of philosophy ; and this in such a way that, at one time, each
element separately would form of itself the contents of a myth, and,
at another, both elements would unite in the same myth ; whence
an additional third class of mixed myths would result.

With regard then, first, to the historical myth, no one can deny
that something or other historical is at the basis of a great part of
myths ; indeed, in the Grecian mythology, of by far the greater
part. Thus, undeniably, the whole Grecian heroic mythology rests
upon an historical basis, upon a copious recollection of an earlier
and nobler period, and upon the deeds and destiny of a more power
ful race ; and however much also the inventive legend may have
added to it, however often just that which appears as the very
historical nucleus of the legend must be ascribed to their fruitful
inventive power ; how extremely difficult, and in many cases inex-

* De Republ. book ii. (p. 94 of Bekker s edition). We do not speak here of myth, in
its narrower sense ; but to this the dialogue proceeds in the following part, where it is
expressly distinguished from the fJivOoi invented for children.

182

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 15

plicable, the problem may be, to distinguish with certainty the
original historical germ from that which has been added to it (from
the TTpofffj-vdevopevoVy as Strabo expresses it), still the myths con
cerning the deeds of Hercules, the Argonautic expedition, the
wanderings and adventures of Ulysses, cannot by any means be
considered as mere representations of certain general thoughts and
opinions, perhaps with the addition of a poetic fancy to adorn them
in unrestrained sport; but we must presuppose some groundwork
in fact, traditions of actual occurrences and historical circumstances,
which co-operated to the formation of these myths.

But however little this historical background of most myths is
to be mistaken, still we can by no means allow that the historical
can form the essence of myths as such. On the contrary, both the
mythical and the historical stand essentially opposed to, and mutu
ally exclude, each other. It is very compatible with this, that both
are often bound up in the same narrative, and unite with each other;
and there is nothing to object even against the direct collocation of
both ideas, as they are in the nvdurropia. (myth-history) of ^Elianus
Spartanus. But what makes a distinct narrative a myth, is evidently
not the facts which may be contained in it, but that in it which
transcends facts. The historical may belong to the matter of a
myth; but the peculiar essence of it must be sought in some
thing else.

What, then, is this something which either is added to any his
torical matter, transforming it, in order to create the myth, or which
produces it purely out of itself without having recourse to any such
materials ? A fairy tale is no myth : the unrestrained sport of fancy,
which readily enters the province of the wonderful and magical,
without containing within its gay apparel any deeper signification,
is not the source of the mythical. Nor is it sufficient for the
formation of a myth, that any occurrence be disfigured in the con
versation of the people, owing to the prevailing inclination to
exaggerate, or from any similar cause ; or that in this way an his
torical person may be, gradually perhaps, transformed into quite a
fabulous character. Whoever would seriously describe such as
these as mythical, however arbitrarily and accidentally he might
do so, must indeed entirely give up all hopes of showing any kind
of unity in the meaning of the term.

Even the age, in which first the name myth became a fixed term
for a definite kind of event (as in Plato, Aristotle, and afterwards
particularly in the Alexandrian doctors), understood by it something
more elevated and important than such arbitrary fictions. And what
Apollodorus collected in his library, or in the mythical book that
formed the basis to this collection, which arose at a later period,
was not a mere sport of fancy, or a mere disfiguring of history ;
and, though it is probable that many of the first kind have crept
into this and similar collections, we must consider that the authors
of them received the mythical materials principally out of the
183

1C MULLEK ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

secondary sources of poets, where the simple original form of myths
must have naturally experienced modifications of various kinds.

Hence it seems to follow, that we must regard a philosophical
doctrine as the essential character of the myth, as that within it
which first renders it a myth ; and the unfolding of these old philo
sophical doctrines (of the XO-/OQ ev juvflw, as Origen expresses it), as
the chief business of mythical interpretation. We could let this
pass as sufficient, if the expression, philosophical doctrine, was only
not too strictly taken, and might be allowed to denote peculiar views
of nature, glimpses into the deeper connexion of natural life, moral
convictions and views of human affairs, such as are in many ways
expressed in the myths of the Greeks. But then, just the inmost
and most essential of its characteristics would still be wanting, the
religious element the peculiar soul of the whole that relation to
the numen pr&sens which penetrates all these views and convic
tions?, and therein assumes a definite shape. Often does a myth
originate, indeed, simply by the act of a god being placed as the
cause of any occurrence which still lives in men s recollections.*

It is not, however, every representation of a religious idea in the
form of a particular fact, that is a myth : otherwise we should be
obliged to comprehend in this idea the allegory, and still more
decidedly, the parable. What is there, then, that specifically sepa
rates the above modes of representing a more exalted and particu
larly a religious truth, in the most definite manner, from a myth ?
It is evidently this, that the inventor of a parable or of an allegory
keeps distinctly separate in his mind both the historical form and
the ideal characteristic, that which is directly expressed by the nar
rative, and that which is particularly meant by it, its VTTOVOIO. (under-
thought] ; whilst in the origin of a myth both are inseparable, and
penetrate each other ; and it is only by the abstraction of a later age,
from which all faith in the myth as such has vanished, that they
are separated. The inventor of a parable or allegory has first the
thought, the doctrine which he desires to propound, and then chooses
the form of a narrative as most appropriate to represent it. The
myth, on the contrary, arises in such a way that the idea of it only
comes to the mind in the form of an individual act or occurrence,
which may yet, under certain circumstances, constantly recur. If
once the polytheistic principle of deifying the natural and the
human if the tendency to keep the divine constantly before
the mind, along with the suppression of a deep sense of the dispro
portion between sinful man and the Deity has become prevalent
in the life of a nation, then the production of myths proceeds with
an inward necessity from a certain step of mental development. It
is not for any didactic purpose that myths are invented ; but they
arise quite of themselves out of a certain form of religious faith ; and

* For example, the myth of the Thessalian maiden, Gyrene, who was loved by Apollo,
and brought to Libya. Compare K. 0. Miiller s Prolegomena, p. 63.

184

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 17

they remain alive in a nation only as long as faith prevails, not
merely respecting the truth of the doctrine conveyed by it, but with
regard to its primary truth.

It is certainly not only an arbitrary fiction, but one that is quite
unnatural, and irreconcileable with the character of this very ancient
period, with the complete universality with which this religious
phenomenon presents itself in the religious history of nations, and
with the whole appearance of myths themselves, to imagine a priestly
assembly of myth-makers, who grasped the idea of the myths with
out investments apart from the particular fact with which the myth
had been clothed, and who first gave to it the mythical vesture, in
order to implant it in the minds of a rude people that were not
capable of having it imparted to them directly.

Indeed, exactly that which was to be explained by this hypothe
sis namely, how all these myths could take root in the actual faith
of a nation is, on this supposition, quite inconceivable; for how
should a want of faith possess the power to produce so universal a
belief? Generally, every view is wide of the mark, which can ren
der the origin of myth conceivable, only by referring it to some sort
of author, whether priest, poet, or philosopher. We have rather to
imagine the origin of a myth as quite a gradual growth from the most
simple germs, which were already present in the belief in a continued
influence of the world of gods over the earth, and particularly as
a growth in the path of living tradition in the conversation of the
people (Pindar s avQpuiruv TmXcucu p^crae, ancient sayings of men}.
The influence which the poet may have exercised upon the form
of myths could only be a modifying one, either to extend and adorn
them, as, indeed, Homer and the tragedians have done ; or to
purify them, as is often done by Pindar ; but everywhere with the
good faith that thus only the true form of the myth is brought to
light. If the poets wished to invent myths quite out of their own
heads, it could properly happen with but rare exceptions (such as
depend on the nature of poetical inspiration in its most elevated
moments), only at a period in which the ancient actual faith in the
gods had already vanished from the minds of the nation, and in
which, for this very reason, what was invented could no longer pass
into a popular faith, and could no longer be an actual myth.*
A philosopher, when he would clothe a doctrine in the form of an
historical fact, might just as well invent an allegory; but he could
not, in any way, compose a myth.

Thus, the well-known story of the sophist Prodicos concerning

* Plato truly ascribes a great share to the poets, especially to Homer and Hesiod, in
the formation of myths, since he fathers upon them particularly every thing in the legends
of the gods which violates moral feeling, and gives a bad example to youth, certainly with
great injustice. See particularly De Republ. i. ii. iii. p. 05 117, Bekkcr s edition.
Respecting similar charges of Pindar against Homer and other poets, compare K. O.
Mailer s Prolegomena, pp. 87, 88.

18J 2 D

18 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

Hercules and the two roads, for instance, is by no means a myth,
but an allegory ; and, if it is adduced by ancient writers as a myth,
this happens partly from the fact, that, along with the more definite
use of the latter epithet, a less definite one was still retained, and
partly from the circumstance that the inventor had chosen a cele
brated mythical person for the hero of the allegory. Perhaps the
limitation of the meaning of myth, attempted here, may appear to
many too narrow. We have, however, no reason to fear such a
prohibition on the part of the author ; for we find that we com
pletely coincide with him, when he thus defines the idea of myth
in its application to the New Testament (part i. p. 75) : " A sort
of historical investment of primitive Christian ideas, originating in
unintentionally inventive legends." In the same sense he says
(p. 52), very accurately, in order to distinguish the mythical way
of interpreting from that employed by ancient allegorists : " In
accordance with the mythical view, the relater is conscious of the
idea embodied in his narrative, not purely as such, but only in
the form of the narrative." It is therefore only a misunderstanding
of the mythical view to charge it with making the evangelists
frivolous and unconscientious writers, who passed off their inten
tional fictions for historical truth. According to that view, allowing
that it is possible to apply it to the gospel narratives, the truth-loving
character of the writers remains quite unaffected : what had once
taken the form of history, through oral tradition, was received as such
by them in good faith, and put together in their narratives. By
thus correctly viewing the nature of myths, the professor, in his
introduction, and in various other places of his work, refutes very
many charges which depend on confounding mythical with poetical
productions, premeditated by an individual ; a confusion which even
Dr. Heydenreich has not avoided in his complete, and in many
ways instructive, treatise on this subject.* Of this kind are the
charges that the gospel narratives, if they were mythical, would
betray more art than they do ; that their accuracy and circumstantial
character, in traits of little moment, which is often peculiar to these
narratives, the appropriateness of the various local relations to which
the occurrences mentioned refer, cannot be reconciled with the
mythical character. We must also without a doubt allow him to be
correct, when in opposition to Schleiermacher (who, in his work
on Luke, will not regard the paragraph in Luke ii. 1 20 to be
mythical, because a poetical treatment would have necessarily
brought in more that is lyrical) he remarks, " Legendary poetry
is objective, and places the poetical entirely in the matter related;
and hence it may appear in quite a simple form, without any expense

* Ueber die Unzuldssigkeit der mythischcn Aujfassung des Historischen im Nenen
Testament; drei Denkschriften des Seminars zu Herborn, On the Inadmissibleness of
the Mythical View of the Historical in the New Testament; three Memoirs of the Seminary
at Herborn," 1831, 1833, 1835.

186

MULLEB ON THE THEOBY OF MYTHS. 19

of lyrical effusions, which last are only the later additions to a sub
jective poetry which is more premeditated and artificially employed."
A theology which rests on the belief in the historical revelation
of God in Christ, as its peculiar basis, will not indeed find the
idea of myth, as shown above, fit to be applied to the collective
contents, nor yet to the most remarkable passages, of the gospel
narrative. He, however, who, with the author, has once set aside
this firm basis as a " credulous presupposition," will, as it appears,
be obliged to welcome the genuine mythical view as a solution of
many difficulties in the gospel records, which is as thorough-going
as it is mild, and quite reconcilable, with respect to the evangelists,
and to the first Christian age.

However, even from this point of view, and taking for granted,
moreover, that the origin of such a series of myths may be in unison
with the historical relations amidst which the Gospels and their
respective foundations in tradition were formed, every unprejudiced
mind must allow, that the mythical view, whilst it on the one hand
solves many historical difficulties, involves the reader on the other
in a number of new difficulties, and doubtless even in historical
ones. How, for instance, could the communities in Palestine of the
first ten years after the death of Jesus (for undisputedly it must have
been these persons) have produced a pattern of human holiness
to enlighten all ages; a portrait, before the grandeur of which, often
even they, who in other respects were quite strangers, and were
disinclined to Christianity, were constrained to bow ? We have just
acknowledged, that the mythical mode of treating the Gospels is
reconcilable with a due respect to the first Christian age. On
further consideration, however, we shall be obliged rather to say,
that it does far too much honour to this early period, and especially
to the Jewish Christians in Palestine. If they have sketched, of
themselves, the holy portrait of the Redeemer, as the evangelists
unfold it to us, perhaps only induced by the relative excellence
of Jesus (respecting which, however, no more can with certainty be
made out, as to how far it lay at the foundation of these represen
tations), then, indeed, we must honour them as the redeemers of the
world. For the author cannot deny, because history testifies to it
too loudly, that it is just the powerful impression which the cha
racter of Christ, as a whole, makes upon every susceptible mind,
that has ever been one of the principal forms in which Christianity
has operated ; and that numbers exactly in this way, and proceeding
from this point, have been morally transformed by Christianity, and
numbers more are still being so daily. And could such an immense
influence have its peculiar source in the effort of the oldest commu
nities, even though unconsciously, to idealize their departed Teacher,
whereby they transferred to the historical appearance of Christ, all
their own conceptions repecting the highest degree of excellence
and perfect holiness ? In this way, in fact, they would not have been
glorifying their Master, whose true image would be as good as lost

187

20 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

to the world, but only themselves- Has this idealizing, which is in
truth nothing very rare, but is exercised sufficiently every day,
ever in any other case produced consequences which can be even
remotely compared with these ?

Yet, if we should consider the possibility of this representation in
.itself, apart from the powerful influences which the gospel narrative,
respecting a perfectly holy life, and a love giving itself up entirely
for a sinful race, has exercised upon the world, Schleiermacher*
has already shown that sinful man, owing to the connexion between
the understanding and the will, has by no means the power of pro
ducing a pure and perfect pattern. By this, Schleiermacher naturally
means to refer, not to the capacity of the imagination, by which any
one may without difficulty transfer a whole list of virtues, each raised
to perfection, to any man, but only to such a concrete individual and
living form as that in which the evangelists present to us this pattern.
Nor has Strauss refuted this position by the suspicion which (ii. p. 720)
he casts on the impartiality of the Christian world, in judging this
matter. We will here only point out how particularly unsuited the
communities in Palestine were, during the first ten years, to invent
such a form. We know these Jewish Christian communities, from
the Acts of the Apostles and the Apostolic Epistles, sufficiently
well to judge, that a mythical production, in such a sphere, must
have been of quite a different and incomparably more limited charac
ter, or one which, amidst some comminglings of more elevated and
liberal tendencies in the composition, would still have been con
fused and unconnected. It would not have been the Jesus of the
Gospels, ill which are nav-a Oeia rat Trarra. avQpuTriva (all tlldt is divine,
and all that is human), a character, the entire sketch of which
combines the most elevated courage with the greatest simplicity,
embracing opposite qualities, one of which contains such stupen
dous paradoxes, that individual traits often appear at first view con
tradictory; whilst, on a more familiar consideration, there is revealed,
in these very points, all the more, the depth and living truth of this
character. How this portrait, which the most ancient Christendom
never once fully understood, as documents out of the second cen
tury sufficiently show, and many of the features of which first came
forth from darkness to the full light of day through the Reforma
tion, and perhaps others will not reveal themselves for some time
to come, how this could have originated from the degree of
knowledge existing among the Jewish Christian communities of that
period, is quite inexplicable.

In such inexplicabilities, however, the author must be often
involved by his mythical views, whilst they in 110 way explain the
causes, without, however, enabling him to deny the effects. It is a
fact which he cannot question, that between the writings of a Paul,

GlauLonslehrc, ii. 93, 2. 0.

388

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 21

a John (or whoever may have written the fourth Gospel and the three
Epistles), or a Peter, and those of the most ancient Fathers, not to
mention the spurious Epistles, there is an immense contrast ; that in
the latter we see the childhood of the Christian church to have
begun, whilst the first reveals to us a fulness of religious life and
religious knowledge, towards which a more advanced generation
has still ever to strive. The New Testament history presents to us
especially a two-fold explanation of the striking phenomenon of
this contrast, namely, the mighty influence of the divinely human cha
racter of Christ on those who were in familiar intercourse with him,
and the miraculous gifts of the spirit of which the apostles partook.
Now, if all this is resolved by the author into a mist of myths and
mythical ideas, how is this phenomenon to be explained ? Further,
it is an undeniable fact, that it was extremely difficult for the most
ancient Jewish communities to raise themselves from their cus
tomary Jewish exclusiveness, in order to conceive the universal
destination of Christianity ; but that, nevertheless, only a few years
after Christ s death, and that too in Palestine itself, heathens were
incorporated with the community, without imposing on them any
other condition than faith in Christ. The Gospels and the Acts
solve for us the apparent discrepancy, particularly by the following
data, the manifold intimations in the discourses of Christ, respect
ing the call of the heathens; the express commission of the risen
Saviour to the apostles, to make all nations his disciples (Matt.
xxviii. 18 20; Luke xxiv. 47*); and, lastly, the vision of Peter,
and the revelation of the gift of the ww^a. aywv (holy spirit) in
Cornelius and his household, which preceded their baptism, when
the gospel was preached to them by Peter (Acts x.). All these data
disappear before the mythical view. This commission of our risen
Lord, especially, is first put into his mouth by the legendary poetry
of the communities in Palestine, of whose rigid adherence to the
Jewish restraints, from twenty to thirty years after Christ s death,
the fifteenth of Acts gives us so striking an account (vol. i. p. 507, 534,
fourth edit.). But what help does this view afford us to explain those
historical facts ? f

* To remove the difficulties which Dr. Strauss (i. p. 505, &c.) urges against the historical
possibility of this commission, as irreconcilable with the conduct of Peter and the com
munity at Jerusalem (Acts x. xi.) we will only remark here, that this commission is by
110 means to be taken so as to exclude from the apostle s mind the idea, that the reception
of heathens into the Christian community must take place upon their being circumcised,
and observing the Mosaic law. This idea may appear to us very singular and strange;
but to the apostles it was a very natural one.

+ One way would be to declare the whole narrative of the conversion of Cornelius to be
mythical, from its being interwoven with visions and appearances of angels, &c. and the
Christian church to have received the first heathens into their number, at a much later
period, induced perhaps by the superior influence of Paul s views ; but into what still worse
contradictions the author would involve himself, if he would apply his mythical view, not
merely to the Gospels, but also to the Acts of the Apostles, will soon appear. Moreover,
if he gave up the historical interpretation of Acts x. xi. he would destroy the force of his
attack on the historical truth of Matt, xxviii. 1 820. (See the former note.) Such self-
189 *

22 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

Moreover it is a fact, the acknowledgment of which lies at the
foundation of the entire mythical mode in which the author treats
the gospel, that even the earliest communities were well aware of the
unity of the divine and human nature, though perhaps, according
to the author s opinion, in a false form. -For the origin of this
knowledge, the historical view of the Gospels gives a satisfactory
explanation ; namely, the great deeds and occurrences of Jesus life,
especially his resurrection and ascension, in connexion with his
supremely exalted character, and with his own testimony to his
divine dignity, especially in John s Gospel. All these means of ex
planation are changed by the author into myths and pure fictions,
intended to glorify Jesus ; but does he give us any other explanation
of the wonderful fact of this knowledge? By no means; but this
knowledge is still there, and no one is able to say whence the com
munity obtained it.

Lastly, in order to comprehend this peculiar procedure in its
most general relations, and, at the same time, to turn again in some
degree to the issue of this investigation, it is an indisputable fact,
that Christianity has raised the world out of its difficulties, and
given quite a new direction to its spiritual life; that it has concluded
ancient, and begun modern, history. The gospel history of Jesus
Christ offers for this enormous effect a corresponding cause. The
mythical treatment of the Gospels makes out this Christ to be the
production of the community. He did not impart his majesty to
his disciples, as Christendom has believed, in accordance with John
xvii. 22, and Cor. iii. 18, but rather received it from them. But then,
whom does the author represent to us as the originator of this re
volution in the world ? No one. The origin of Christianity vanishes
into the thickest mist. Out of this mist a wonderful portrait is
produced by the most singular phantasmagoria, a portrait which,
though hitherto regarded as the creator of the modern world, now
dissolves into nothing. We do not assert, that with these results
the author involves himself in contradictions ; but we cannot believe,
that, even for the interest of the understanding alone, his mythical
view has any advantage over the historical one, since it breaks up a
certain connexion, in order to substitute in its place the darkest
night of incompreherisibles.

In order, however, to judge whether the author, in his application
of the mythical principle of interpretation to the Gospels, has
continued consistent with himself and with the idea of myths recog
nised by him, we must call to mind the general conditions according
to which a myth is formed. If Heyne s preposition is correct, that
a my this omnis priscorum hominum cum historia turn philosophia
procedit ( " from myths, all the history as well as philosophy of the

destruction no excessive historical scepticism can indeed escape; whilst advancing from
some points, every thing else is made to totter, till at last even the ground on which it first
stood is seized and torn away by the tumultuous movement,

190

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 23

ancients proceeds"), another also must follow from it, namely, that
myths are repressed in the same degree in which philosophy and
historical research enter into the life of a nation, so that they can
then no longer be formed afresh, though they may for a long period
continue objects of popular faith. That this must be the case we
may easily show. If a myth is, according to the author s expression,
" a sort of historical embodying of ideas, formed by undesignedly
inventive legends," it is evident that their production depends on
quite a peculiar disposition of inward life, owing to which the spirit
is unable to bring religious thoughts to the mind, otherwise than by,
not so much reflecting, as entirely resolving them into a parti
cular actual fact. This phenomenon presupposes, that it must be
carefully distinguished from the mere representation of an idea
to the senses, though this might be done quite unconsciously ; that
it requires a far bolder effort of the imagination, an extraordinary
predominance of a productive fancy the constructress of concrete
forms, and just as decided a repression of the analysing and abstract
ing understanding. So peculiar is the spiritual disposition and
activity on which this phenomenon depends, that, when it has once
vanished from the life of a people, it is not only impossible for a
later period to reproduce it, but it is even very difficult for them to
conceive clearly how it was possible in itself. Doubtless the inspi
ration of art, especially of the epic poets, seems to offer us a natural
and illustrative analogy, since it also directly grasps the spiritual
meaning in a certain material form : it views and expresses an idea
in a particular fact. However, even such a condition of poetical
inspiration, especially in an age when an intelligent view of things
has once secured its own authority, can never be completely
unaware that its productions belong only to the inward world which
is distinct from the world of outward reality. But here, where a
whole people is active in inventing, in order to express its highest
anticipations, feelings, and thoughts, they are embodied in particu
lar deeds and destiny of gods or heroes, entirely without any design.
This undesignedness must be at once destroyed by the first steps
towards philosophical views, of which the principal aim is to find
the general beneath the particular. And hence the further forma
tion of myths, even in the circles which are not immediately affected
by philosophical inquiries and their results, is rendered impossible.
Whatever afterwards might still appear in the mythical form, would
always, as regards the subject, fall under the category of intentional
fictions. It is only whilst, and as long as, philosophy is esoteric in
its strictest sense, that we can think of the impulse to form myths
continuing among a people. Not merely philosophy, however,
but all direct information concerning immaterial subjects, must
check the originating of myths ; for it is just because the adequate
expression for the highest ideas has either not been found, or
has again been lost, that the human mind makes use of the indi
rect and mythical. If both forms existed in the same sphere along
191

24 MULLEK ON TIFF, THEORY OF MYTHS.

with each oilier, it would ho scarcely credible that the mythical
representation, which had found in direct instruction only its na
tural control, would not he accompanied by a distinct knowledge of
its figurative symbolic character; but, as soon as this was the case,
it would cease to be a real myth.

Moreover, should any groat historical occurrence create a tissue
of myths, it could only happen in an age, or in a sphere of life, where
a sense; for the historical was riot yet awakened. When this is once
roused, a narrative which relates any thing extraordinary arid won
derful can hardly spread without mooting with a sort of criticism.
It will be received with doubt and mistrust by the prevailing mental
culture, which has boon accustomed to presuppose an intelligible
connexion everywhere in the development of historical occurrences.
It cannot escape being questioned respecting the outward credibility
of what is narrated; but with this, the originating of any real myth
is incompatible; for this is possible only upon the basis of the most
unreserved and general faith. Accordingly, the appropriate period
Cor the formation of myths in any nation exists previous to an his
torical age. It is one which not only possesses no historical know
ledge of itself, and its own origin and progress, but also remains
for later historical inquirers a problem that can never be completely
solved. If some particular mythical creations transcend this limit,
favoured by peculiar circumstances, still they remain quite isolated
cases, and have not the power to conceal entirely any important
character from being understood historically, and to plunge it into
a whirlpool of myths. Thus, then, we see, even in the Greek nation,
that the period for myth-productions was separated by a long inter
val from the commencement of historical writing ; and it was the
same with the origin of mythology in the East, and among the
northern tribes.

This limitation of the creation of myths to periods preceding
those of history, is opposed by Professor Strauss (vol. i. p. 71), with
the assertion, that a great person, especially when there is connected
with him a revolution that strikes deep into the life of man, will bo
very soon surrounded by an unhistorical circle of legendary glories,
even in the driest historical periods. And in this, it seems, we must
allow him to be right, since historical evidence for his assertion is
at hand, lie ought not, it is true, to have extended this assertion
to the driest times of history, since the mass of unhistorical anec
dotes which were, and still are, current among the Prussian people,
respecting their king Frederick, will not be seriously styled myths
by the author. If, % however, the life of an age, which, in other
respects, is entirely historical, contains still more poetical elements,
there is certainly often formed around an important historical cha
racter, whose deeds and destiny arc suited to exercise a stirring
influence on the imagination of the people, a tissue of marvellous
legends, in which all kinds of ideas, even religious ones, prevailing
among the nation, are expressed in the form of history; and which,

102

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 25

on this account, may be well called myths. Thus was it with the
series of legends, which in the middle ages gathered around
Theodoric and Attila, around Arthur and Charlemagne, and pre
sented a groundwork for the romantic poetry of this age, in the
same way as the hero-mythology of the Grecian people did to Homer.
Besides this, the wonderful influence of the supernatural upon
earthly life, by means of fairies and enchanters, and other demo
niacal agencies, is quite analogous to the manner in which the world
of gods works upon the impulses of the heroes in the Homeric
epic poem.

Howev r er, we must in the first place be careful to remember, that
this series of legends, as they were formed in an historical age, no
longer had life in the faith of the nation, but that they arose and
were propagated in the discourse of the people, in a confined sense
of the term ; whilst the better educated portion of the nation held fast
the certain historical reminiscences, and separated them from any
addition of inventive legends. In connexion with this, we observe
that the formation of such legends altogether happens in an histo
rical age, under modifications which separate them very decidedly
from proper myths, and which the author should not have left
uninvestigated. The entire unconsciousness of any difference
between the marvellous productions of legendary poetry and histo
rical reality, such as particularizes the proper mythical period,
the childhood of a nation, is here no longer possible ; since
the style of thinking among the people cannot remain entirely
unaffected by cultivated views. The people are disturbed in their
unreserved belief in the facts of their legendary marvels, and
can never, indeed, be entirely free from a suspicion with regard to
their unhistorical character. What is formed under such relations
is certainly never the object of so earnest a faith, as the contents
of their mythology was for the ancient Grecian people; but, in
respect to the minds of the people themselves, it exists in a certain
twilight between the world of reality, and that of poetry. Hence,
such legends do not preserve, in their gradual formation, any longer
the strict rule the necessity in the development the signi-
ficancy of particular traits, as the old mythology did ; but they owe
their character, for the most part, to an arbitrary, and in the highest
degree unrestrained, sport of an imagination to which what is
marvellous cannot be enough so. In general, it is certain that
the formation of these legends depends principally upon a poetical
necessity, whilst the myth-productions of antiquity, on the contrary,
rest upon a religious one. Moreover, whilst it is credible, that, in
the proper mythical age, many a hero may have become a mythical
person, even during his lifetime, particularly to foreigners, to whom
the fame of his deeds travelled, it requires, on the contrary, in an
historical period, a considerable time for a celebrated man to be
drawn into a circle of myths. The traces of his actual form must

193 2 E

26 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

gradually be effaced, and extinguished in the historical memory
of him, the relations under which he lived, must retreat into the
gloom of a certain remoteness, in order that tradition may have a
fair field for its new creations. Thus then also, the above-mentioned
legends have first arisen a considerable time after the life of their
hero. Even with respect to the legends which glorify Charlemagne
and his Paladins, by exchanging their real history for the most
unbridled fiction (not to mention others), there is no trace of their
existence, which certainly reaches as far as the ninth century, unless
perhaps we were to take for certain historical facts, the chronicles
of Archbishop Turpin, and that he was contemporary with Charle
magne, which are themselves only mythical data. Most decidedly
must a considerable interval of time be required for such a complete
transformation of a whole history by popular tradition, when the
series of legends are formed in the same territory where the heroes
actually lived and wrought. Here one cannot imagine how such a
series of legends could arise in an historical age, obtain universal
respect, and supplant the historical recollection of the true character
and connexion of their heroes life in the minds of the community, if
eye-witnesses were still at hand, who could be questioned respect
ing the truth of the recorded marvels. Hence legendary fiction, as
it likes not the clear present time, but prefers the mysterious gloom
of grey antiquity, is wont to seek a remoteness of age, along with
that of space, and to remove its boldest and most rare and wonder
ful creations into a very remote and unknown land.

If we turn to the gospel narratives, after these investigations, it is
very evident, that even the merely rational view, which seeks the
fame of impartiality, by remaining quite indifferent to their grand
and deep contents, can no longer regard them as proper myths.
For all the conditions necessary for their creation are too evidently
wanting in the sphere and at the period in which the gospel tra
dition was formed as the foundation for the synoptical Gospels.
What man of information would ascribe to the Jewish people of that
period, and to the most ancient Christian community springing out
of them, such an unconscious childlike mode of viewing things, that
they could not comprehend religious ideas, otherwise than by em
bodying them in one particular actual fact?

If we lay no particular stress on the fact, that it was exactly about
the same time that Philo formed his philosophical system, which,
although belonging to Alexandria, certainly did not remain unknown
to educated individuals among the Jews of Palestine, and to the
Jewish Christian communities, still the whole character of the age,
as made known to us by Josephus and in the apostolic Epistles and
in the Gospels themselves, testifies against such an assumption.
The dispute, for instance, which Jesus held with the Sadducees
(Matt, xxii.) concerning the possibility of the resurrection, and which,
together with the connected discourses, the author himself considers

194

MULLEB ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 27

to be genuine, because it was carried on so entirely in the spirit
and tone of the Rabbinical logic of the day (vol. i. p. 619),* proves
not merely, as so many other discourses of Christ do, that there
was at that time and in this sphere of society a direct teaching
of the doctrine (which without this proof no intelligent person will
doubt), but that faith had even then to overcome the scepticism of
an understanding which was just as much sunk in coarse sensualism
as it was in empty abstraction. Such truly is not the place nor the
time for the production of real myths. It is equally worthy of
attention, that the gospel tradition has preserved to us a rich store
of parables, the universal spread of which must have everywhere
kept men in remembrance of the difference between an historical
form, and the thoughts which it only embodies ; and must by this
means have stood in the way of any mythical creations. Parables,
like allegories, belong to a very different period to a far more
advanced character of mind from that to which myths do. Should,
however, the favourite category of " an oriental mode of view "
perhaps again justify the misplacement of mythical productions
within this age and under these relations, then a glance at the parts
of Christ s discourses which the author himself regards as genuine,
as well as at the forms of doctrine in the apostolic Epistles, is quite
sufficient to disperse this mist. Still more striking, if possible, is
the want of all requisites for the creation of myths, when we attend
to the historical side of the question. The period in which, and the
scenes where, Josephus wrote his history will be regarded by none
as prior to historical times, and as suited to the origination of myths.
The impossibility of so doing, as soon as ever the idea of myths is
strictly defined, is so very manifest that we need lose ^110 more
words about it.

The author, then, cannot call the gospel narratives, myths, in the
strict sense of the term ; but, if he does so at all, it must be by
attaching a more enlarged meaning to the term, as legendary trans
formations of the real life of Christ arising chiefly from the poetical
feelings and wants of the people, and, on this account, formed
according to the free play of the imagination. But how can we
reconcile this careless legendary production with the vast religious
importance which the most eminent Christian community attached
to accurate information regarding the real history of Christ s life ?
(Luke i. 4; John xx. 31; 1 Cor. xi. 23, xv. 1 4). And if we

* It must appear strange, that, whilst in other cases the individual impression of a
narrative can by no means move the author to consider it as historical, he is very ready
to do so when this individuality is found in Rabbiuicai logic. Why does not the author,
then, explain the form which these discourses must possess out of the traditions of the
Jewish Christian community, accustomed, as they were, to the forms of Rabbinical logic?
His procedure here, however, is closely connected with the Trpwrov i//evo (first error} in
his criticism ; that is, with his rule that a gospel narrative of mythical origin is the more
suspicious in proportion as it would, in the opinions of the oldest communities, tend
to glorify Christ; and the more authentic, the less this may be the case.
195

MULLER ON THE THEOBY OF MYTHS.

attend to the most ancient Fathers, to Irenaeus, Tertullian, and
others, who opposed so vehemently the adulterated Gospels of
heretics, and so confidently boasted of the purity of their own ; and
if we listen to Papias in the well-known passage of Eusebius
(Ch. Hist. \\\. c. 39) assuring us that Mark has taken pains " to pass
by nothing that he had heard, nor to falsify any thing in them" (rov
fjL^er iitv rjKovffe, TrapaXiTreii/ fj -^evtraardai n ev aurote), had, then, these
Fathers, who were so near to the period at which the Gospels arose
(especially according to the author s view, who is inclined to place
their origin as late as possible), any suspicion how they were formed
out of inventive legends ? And how, altogether, is it conceivable,
if the true history of the life of Jesus must have been essentially
different from that contained in the Gospels,* that not even the
smallest intelligence concerning it has survived; that distorting
legends have succeeded in becoming or remaining so nearly con
sistent with themselves, and in entirely destroying the true tradition ;
that we find no traces of a history of his life without miracles,
which are nevertheless individually and collectively declared to be
mythical productions.-^

At the same time we have no right to regard the most ancient
community as made up of merely totally uneducated people ; for,
even among them, there were educated persons, by whose historical
knowledge and quiet examination, this fantastic legendary poetry
must have been rejected. For if we may not, according to the
author, appeal to Nicodemus, because he might readily be turned
into a mythical person, he will not at any rate regard as a myth
the dry remark of the Acts, that even a great many priests had
adopted the faith (Acts vi. 7).

Meanwhile, were it even possible to solve all these difficulties ,
and to render the rise of legendary fictions of this sort, at that
period and under the given relations, conceivable, still a longer
interval would be requisite, according to the above statements, than
can at all be made out. Professor Strauss doubtless supposes
(vol. i. p. 67), that the thirty years which might perhaps be found
between the death of Christ, and the composition of the oldest of
our Gospels, are sufficient for it. But we must regard his opinion
as groundless, unless he gives proof, that within thirty years, on a
clear historical scene, not strange fables, for thirty years are not
requisite for that, but a grand series of legends, the most prominent

* For, if not so, our Gospels may indeed remain historical records.

+ For the accusation which we sometimes meet with in Celsus, that the miracles of
Christ s life were invented partly 4?y himself (as the supernatural birth), partly by the
evangelists (Oriyenes cont. Cclsum, ed. Spencer, lib. i. p. 22, ii. p. 85), is the less likely
to be regarded by the author as an historical trace, inasmuch as this versatile opponent of
Christianity thinks it by no means unfit to recognise the historical reality of these facts
in other passages, and to explain them as magical acts of Christ (vol. i. pp. 30, 33).
The singular opinion, however, that there are traces in Mark s Gospel of a natural view
of Christ s deeds, is expressly rejected by the author.

196

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 29

elements of which are fictitious, have anywhere gathered round an
important historical individual, and been firmly fixed in the gene
ral belief.* It is evident, that the sort of legendary narrations
in Herodotus, concerning some wonderful occurrences at the time
of the Persian war, adduced by the author, present no real analogy
with this. If we recollect still more closely the limited character
of the scene in which all these poetical legends must have arisen,
and that it is the very same in which the object of these legends
lived and wrought, the insufficiency of so short an interval must
be still more glaring. There must have been everywhere eye
witnesses of the real occurrences and acts of Jesus, still living ;
and how would not the desire of information have led them to be
applied to ? How should not the greater influence of these have
easily checked the very germs of a mythical creation, which here
and there might spring up, or at least have restrained them within
the narrowest limits ? f

Who would ascribe, at least to the apostles, such extreme care
lessness, as that they should not have remarked the formation and
general diffusion of unhistorical legends, like these, among the
communities of Palestine; or, if they remarked them, that they should
not have opposed them with all earnestness ? Truly, the verbal
propagation to which the historical information respecting Christ
was at first chiefly subject, has not the logical accuracy of our own
historical writing. Particular traits may have gradually become
obscure, quite effaced, or confused with others ; and that this has
happened in many ways, the whole form and the mutual relation
of our Gospels bear ample evidence. Their discrepancies are so
open and certain, that no satisfactory solution of them is to be
thought of by any kind of harmonizing. But, with this acknow
ledgment, nothing in fact is obtained for the mythical views of the
author, who would have the most important elements of the gospel
history of Christ formed purely from ideas of the early communities,
and declares it to be a want of confidence in spirit and ideas, when
historical occasions alone are considered necessary for the pro-

* For the very reason that this kind of legendary poetry requires time, the author is
wrong, when he declares it to he quite inconsistent to refer the first chapters of Matthew
and Luke to a mythical basis, and still, in the representation of the public ministry of
Jesus, to bar the way to mythical ideas (vol. i. p. 49). We do not coincide with this
view ; but it is still evidently a very different thing to regard as mythical the narratives
of the commencement of Christ s life, which lay in so much more remote a period, and
whose proper witness may have indeed died early, and to consider that of his public mini
stry as such. To the mythical interpretation of the history of the temptation, resurrection,
and ascension, this distinction, indeed, does not apply; and with regard to these, the author
is right in charging their advocates with inconsistency.

+ The author believes doubtless (vol. i. p. G8), that these eye-witnesses, who must
have seen Jesus once or twice, were very much inclined to fill up the gaps in their know
ledge of the course of Christ s life with mythical ideas. But he forgets, in this his
presupposition, that these mythical ideas by no means coincided with the truth of Christ s
history, of which therefore these were individual fragments, and gave to him quite a
different character, both marvellous and supernatural.
197

30 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

duction of all these narratives (vol. i. p. 46). Professor Strauss
believes all this to be capable of explanation, if we suppose a young
community, who venerated their founder the more enthusiastically
on account of the unexpected and tragical manner in which he
was torn away from his course of life ; a community pregnant with
a mass of novel ideas, which should renovate the world. But this
idea of the manner in which the myth may have arisen of itself,
out of the enthusiasm of the community, is only a means of expla
nation to him, by leaving it in still greater uncertainty. The
narratives which constitute the Gospels were not delivered from one
person to another, in a corner they were not propagated in a
narrow sphere ; but they evidently belong, as the Acts and the apos
tolic Letters show, so far as regards their essential elements, to
the Kr)pvy/jia (preaching), by which the glowing zeal of the early
communities for making converts thought to win both Jews and
heathens to salvation in Christ. They were proclaimed on the
housetops, and, of course chiefly in Palestine, were conveyed from
one place to another, by travelling evangelists (euayyeAtorcu), Now,
if an entirely unhistorical account of the life of Christ was formed
by the primitive Christian (TrapacWic) tradition of it, and also by the
outward (n/pvyjua) preaching of it; if he was gradually turned into
a worker of miracles before all the people, without any historical
foundation, the then numerous opponents of these communities,
indeed all who were still impartial, would certainly have been in no
want of contradictions and refutations. It might be easily supposed,
that the community, completely enwrapped in their own fantasies,
were quite shut out from and hardened against all, even the best
established contradictions. But this would undeniably be making
the earliest communities a set of cloudy and fanatical enthusiasts,
whom it would be most absurd to regard as the root of a vast
and powerful, and universal historical phenomenon, like that of
Christianity, and as the instrument of the spirit, to manifest the idea
of the oneness of the divine and human nature. If this community,
whom the author elsewhere, however, raises to the highest eleva
tion, by making them the creators of their Christ, were capable of
any sober and intelligent judgment, such contradictions must
have quite disturbed them from that state of simple, honest, and
unembarrassed faith, which the author himself so distinctly acknow
ledges to be the condition to the formation of myths, and which is
also essential, though in an inferior degree, to the production of
these secondary myths, to which, as we have seen above, the
mythical view must at any rate ascribe the origin of our Gospels.
The growth of a poetical series of legends out of the popular faith
is not compatible with a criticism, accompanying and even denying
the alleged facts. What it is that the propensity to form religious
legends will bring to light, when this tendency has no longer a
sound root in the general life of the period, and in the particular
circumstances in which it moves, and when it must, on this account,

198

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 31

retire within the- limited range of fanatically-toned spheres, which
are obstinately closed against all disturbing criticism, of this
we have clear evidence before us in the apocryphal Gospels. In
the history of the childhood and of the sufferings of the Redeemer,
how much is there distorted into the most strange and fantastic
anecdotes, which the canonical Gospels relate to us with the
imprint of truth, with the noblest simplicity, and the most wary
moderation, with the most sacred earnestness, and the most
chaste abstemiousness ! When the latter relate a miracle of Christ,
they employ plain, short words, never labouring to produce an effect :
the material side of the miracle is shortly pointed out without any
colouring; and in the foreground of the representation stands the
disposition of Christ, so full of love and active benevolence, from
which these miracles altogether sprung. In the apocryphal Gos
pels, on the contrary, we see everywhere how the interest is almost
exclusively directed to the miracle as such, as an outward occurrence.
They are never tired of pulling it to pieces to display it on all sides,
in order thereby continually to engage attention, and to excite the
imagination. Hence, the most nauseous depictings of the miraculous
in the birth of Jesus, which our Gospels treat with a tenderness
and dignity, that is first set in its full light by such a contrast
as this.

In these false accounts, the boy Jesus appears everywhere as a
mere worker of miracles, in order to excite surprise ; indeed, often,
as in the Gospel of Thomas, misusing his power by fearfully
revenging every injury with the inevitable consequences of his
curses. Here it is everywhere evident that the representation is
entirely in the power of the fancy : she sports with her materials,
and has a childish delight in the marvellous and incomprehensible.
But where are these properties to be found in the narratives of our
canonical Gospels ? Who, then, could ever believe that productions
which are so fundamentally different, should have arisen essentially
in the same way ? And this difficulty is certainly not solved by a
distinction between a primary and secondary production of myths
(vol. i. p. 61); for we are considering here, not an historical oral tra
dition, but a free, poetical fabrication of legends according to ideas.
Thus, in fact, we should sooner expect a sound production from
legendary inventions, which were made after a longer interval of
time, and at a greater distance from their historical occasion, than
from any pretended ones in Palestine within the first ten years after
Christ s death. And must not the author acknowledge this himself,
when (vol. i. pp. 246, 247) he expressly says, "The new Christians
from amongst the Jews, could justify and establish their faith in
Jesus, as the Messiah, to themselves and to others, only by endea
vouring to prove that all the attributes which the Jewish notions of
the day gave to the Messiah were realized in Jesus; and this would
be accomplished with the less bad feeling and contradiction in
proportion to the remoteness of the age of Jesus" ?
199

32 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

Yet, even if it could be made to appear probable, that, in a part
of the communities in Palestine, a legendary poetry respecting the
life of Jesus could be formed within so short a period, and obtain
general respect, we should still by no means be justified in assuming
that this legendary poetry is contained in our Gospels, and that,
accordingly, no historical character in general can be ascribed to
them. This is allowed by the author himself, in case any one of
these Gospels were certainly of apostolic origin; and if, conse
quently, the authors were eye-witnesses of what they record. There
does not appear to him to be sufncient external evidence to prove
this and very naturally, when he can make the singular demand,
that some one of the acquaintances of the apostles, Matthew and
John, should have communicated the fact that they wrote Gospels,
and, indeed, those very ones which we now possess under their
names ! Upon internal grounds, however, the authenticity of the
Gospels cannot be established until the entire narrative has been
considered, with regard to its requiring an historical or a mythical
interpretation; since every narration which cannot be interpreted
otherwise than mythically, possesses internal evidence against the
apostolic composition of it (vol. i. p. 63). And, since the author
concludes, from this examination, that the greater part of the entire
Gospels must be regarded as mythical creations, or as something
still more worthless, he would consider this as evidence, at the same
time, that none of the Gospels can be of apostolic origin. Import
ant objections may be raised against his order of proceeding; for,
if we even admitted that the external testimony of the first century
for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel (that for the first Gospel
must not be considered here, as the testimony expressly refers only
to a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, and therefore not to the form in
which we have it), only brought as a result a high degree of proba
bility, still this and the author seems to acknowledge as much
himself (p. 64) would be an important consideration in the opposite
scale, each time that the possibility of the mythical interpretation of
any particular narrative was investigated. But this consideration is
entirely omitted by the author. Moreover, it is an erroneous suppo
sition that there can be no internal evidence for the authenticity
concerning which a decision might be made previous to, and
independently of, the question concerning the historical or mythical
interpretation. Such reasons, which the author ought not to have
left out of consideration, are the following in relation to the fourth
Gospel : the decided stamp of its being from an eye-witness, which
the narrative as a whole bears on its face, the simple grandeur and
the elevated nobleness of the whole representation, such as are
worthy only of an apostle, but are far from being the style of a
deceiver; which, on the contrary supposition, the nineteenth chap
ter, ver. 35, particularly would make out the author to be.

However, even supposing the apostolic origin of our fourth Gos
pel was so dubious as the author would readily represent it, still,

200

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 33

from a Gospel written by one who was not an apostle, there arises
a new and mighty bulwark against this mythical interpretation.
Dr. Paulus, in his exegetical " Hand-book," has very justly referred
to the proem of Luke as evident proof that his Gospel does not
contain a mythical, but an historical representation. The author
takes this refutation very easily, when he merely remarks, in oppo
sition to it, that Luke was not at all aware of his narratives being
mythical (vol. i. p. 57). A person s belief, that he is writing history,
is doubtless no proof against the substance of his information
being mythical: the Greek logographoi undeniably believed so
too; and yet what they relate is, for the most part, only myths.
But here the matter stands thus: Luke expressly appeals to those
who had been from the beginning eye-witnesses and ministers of
the word, as authorities for his certain information concerning the
facts of Christ s life. This appeal, which, together with the whole
passage, is a clear and distinct proof that Luke was well aware of
the qualifications for an historical writer, will not willingly be set
down as a falsehood by the author, any more than it can be recon
ciled with his mythical views. If, however, Luke had eye-witnesses
for the source of his narratives, then, considering the similarity of
his information with that of the first and second Gospels, the pos
sibility of a decidedly mythical interpretation is altogether removed,
so far as the synoptical Gospels are concerned. As to the substance
of the fourth, the author himself, as we shall soon see, does not
venture to vindicate his mythical ideas respecting it.

Lastly, it would be hard to say what Professor Strauss will attempt
with the Acts consistently with his mythical view. They not only have
the same author as the third Gospel, but they cannot be separated
from the Gospels in regard to their internal character. The mira
cle, which, indeed, is especially the stone of stumbling (ffKarSaXov)
from which myths are to free us, whilst they take it with them as if
it were their child, is not wanting, even in the Acts, from first to
last (chap. xxvi. 13; xxvii. 23, &c. ; xxviii. 3, &c.). If, then, the
author must everywhere treat miracles as certain signs of mythical
creations, consistency seems to require that the facts contained in
the Acts be given up to the mythical notions; and this, accord
ingly, is done by the author beforehand, in regard to the first and
second chapters.* On the other hand, the author will hardly be
able to escape from the impression which this book bears of its

* The boundless caprice with which the author endeavours to push out of its certain
position the occurrence related in the second chapter namely, the Pentecost after the
Passover at which Christ died and rose again is, indeed, a stern necessity for him, since
otherwise it would be too evident that it does not agree with the explanation he gives of
the belief in Christ s resurrection, as spring-ing from the imagination of his disciples.
How, too, without this pressing necessity, could he have forgiven himself for an argument,
the import of which is just this : Since the first announcement of the new doctrine, at the
feast of the giving of the ancient law, would be very suitable and significant, the account
of it must be historically of no value ? (vol. ii. p. 062.)
201 2F

34 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

being quite historical ; the scene, everywhere clear and distinct ;
evident historical relations, which may in part be supported from
other quarters ; the accurate connexion of events and persons, who
are presented by profane writers in a corresponding way ; in one
part, too, an accurate journal of travels, which no one will be able
to conceive of as a myth. To this must be added, that the histo
rical character of this book is so strongly supported by its agreement
with a number of historical references in the Epistles of Paul (not
withstanding some difficulties), that, if the substance of the Acts
were mythical, there would be scarcely any other course left than
to declare St. Paul s letters to be the produce of the deepest cun
ning, in order to procure for this book an historical consideration.
Lastly, we have in the author evidently an eye-witness of a great
part of the occurrences related by him, and, indeed, an eye-witness
who, according to the most probable opinion, wrote down his records
not long after those which are last mentioned by him had taken
place. Amidst such circumstances, it would truly be an adven
turous idea to wish to turn the Acts of the Apostles into a collection
.of myths. The rash criticism of the author steps timidly back from
such an enterprise, and here resolves to adopt the natural expla
nation of the conversion of St. Paul ; a course which, in other in
stances, he so decidedly repudiates (vol. ii. p. 657). If, however, the
Acts are to be considered as historical, the chief argument against
the historical character of the Gospels is done away with, since the
substance of each is essentially of the same nature ; and if the
Gospels, on the other hand, are chiefly mythical, so must also be
the Acts. A fixed boundary can by no means be here drawn : if
the idea of the myth has once passed the gates of the first and
second chapters, it will also claim for itself other narratives of this
book : first, the healing of the lame man at the beautiful gate of
the temple; then, the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira; and
then, the miraculous deeds of Philip, in Samaria : and, further on,
the mode in which Paul was converted ; the healing of ./Eneas ; the
restoring to life of Tabitha; and so forth, one after another. Accord
ingly, to turn the author s weapons against himself, " the mythical,
despising these arbitrary bounds, makes its appearance on every
point" of the Acts (vol. i. p. 71).* Should this, however, be never
theless utterly impossible, then the whole theory of myths falls to
the ground.

And that in fact the idea of myths, even when taken in that more
extended and subordinate sense which we have above pointed out,
is worthless in a scientific point of view, so far as the explanation
of the gospel narratives is concerned this is most clearly estab
lished by the author himself, by the manner in which this explanation
is accomplished in particular cases. If it is right to construe these

* These words are applied by Professor Strauss to the life of Jesus : they occur at
page 54 of the fourth edition. R. S,

202

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 35

narratives as myths, then at least the ideas on which they are founded
must first of all be pointed out, and it must be proved in each
instance how the undesigned creation of the legendary among the
earliest communities happened to express these distinct ideas, just
in the form of the narrative we possess. As the fundamental idea,
we are instructed in the concluding treatise to regard the unity of the
divine and human nature. This, however, should unfold itself in
full volumes of thoughts, in order to form this entire tissue of myths.
But such solutions as the Introduction justifies us in expecting, ow
ing to the way in which the meaning of myth was there fixed, we seek
for in vain in the work itself. It is in the concluding treatise, p. .735,
that we first meet with some short notices concerning the distinct
substance of these ideas, according to which the gospel narratives
must have taken their forms, but which only hold good in quite a
general way. In treating of particular cases, however, the gospel
narratives for the most part are by no means formed out of particular
ideas; but they are brought about generally by outward relationships
and analogies, such as have been specified at the beginning of this
essay, indeed often by means of the most incidental and unimportant
causes. Not once is a rich thought presented to us as a compen
sation for the facts of which he would rob us; but when we collect
together the results of a pure ideal character, which are obtained by
resolving each gospel narrative into so-called myths, these prove
so monotonous and so meagre, that the gospel mythology could
not stand a day, in comparison with that of classical antiquity, so
far as richness in ideas and variety of significant thoughts are
concerned.

And how, then, are the particular narratives in the gospel formed
out of these elements? Does this take place so unwittingly, so
undesignedly, as the author himself requires it should, in order to
bear the character of mythical creations? Very far from it; and
the author, in carrying out his mythical view into particular cases,
seems to have entirely forgotten the rule which he had himself laid
down in the introduction. Indeed, if he derives the narratives of
the fourth Gospel, for the most part, out of various clever reflexions
and mental tendencies of its author, this must not be considered as
so very unfaithful toward this rule, since altogether he considers
that the substance of this Gospel originated far less than that of the
other three in popular legends, but that it was rather the inven
tion of an individual. Accordingly, he would have his mythical
view, when strictly taken, only applied to the first three, but not to
the fourth, which, by his treatment, is evidently degraded to a much
lower rank.

Here we need only compare what Professor Strauss says re
specting the mode in which the accounts of this fourth Gospel
originated; concerning the relation of the Baptist to Christ; con
cerning the conversations with Nicodemus, and with the Samaritan ;
concerning the healing of the infirmity of thirty-eight years standing;
203

36 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

concerning the raising of Lazarus ; concerning the last conversation
of Jesus with his disciples, previous to his sufferings. According to
the way in which he represents this, it is impossible, that the author
of this Gospel should not have been aware of the difference between
his glorifying idealizing fictions, and the historical truth. However,
if we keep Professor Strauss only to the synoptical Gospels, and to
the legendary fictions on which he would suppose them to be
grounded, still we see, even here, design and reflection everywhere
incessantly peeping out. We must support this charge with some
examples, which may, at the same time, serve as samples how the
author elsewhere also represents the creation of myths to the mind.
He considers as a myth the narrative in Lute concerning the visit
of Mary to Elizabeth, when with child.

" For," says he, " as we already know the principal purport of the first chapter in Luke
to he this, to glorify Jesus, by giving as early as possible to the Baptist a reference to Jesus,
hut one of subordination, this aim could not have been heller effected, than by first bringing
together, not the sons, but tbe mothers, and yet with reference lo the sons, and therefore
while with child; and, along with this, something occurred which was suited to prefigure
significantly the future connexion between the two men " (vol. j. p. 196).

In order to render intelligible the mythical origin of the narrative,
by the same evangelist, respecting Jesus teaching at the age of twelve
in the Temple at Jerusalem, the author has referred to the Jewish
traditions concerning the early spiritual travels of Moses, given in
Josephus and Philo, to the Rabbinical notions respecting the sig
nificance of the twelfth year, to the legends formed therefrom con
cerning the first manifestation of prophecy and of elevated views in
Samuel and Solomon at the same age ; and then he proceeds thus :

" If it was hilherlo tbe evident aim of oar account in Luke to pass over no epoch in
the first years of Christ s life, without surrounding it with a divine glory, and with signi
ficant signs of the future (as he treated the birth in this style, named [!] at least the
circumcision iu a most significant manner, and particularly employed the presentation in
the Temple, for this purpose), there remained for him, in accordance with the Jewish
customs, still one epoch, namely, the twelfth year, with the first journey to Jerusalem.
How could he do otherwise than follow the legends, and embellish this period also in the
way we find it done in. his narrative ! and what can we do but consider this narrative as a
legendary adorning of that period in the life of Jesus, by means of which we learn nothing
respecting the real unfolding of his character, but only something concerning the high
opinion that was entertained in the first communities, concerning the precocious mind
of Jesus!" (vol. i. p. 292.)

The mythical explanation of the narrative concerning the raising
of the dead by Jesus is thus established:

" According to Rabbinical writings, as well as passages in the New Testament (such as
John v. 28, vi. 40, 44 ; 1 Cor. xv.; 1 Thess. iv. 10), the resurrection of the dead was
expected from the Messiah on his coming. The Trapovaia (coming) of the Messiah
was, however, in the opinion of the early communities, severed by his death into two
portions; namely, his preparatory presence, which began with his human birth, and
concluded with the resurrection and ascension ; and, secondly, his coming in the clouds

204

MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 37

of heaven, still to be expected, in order actually to open the aiuv jucXXwv (future age}.
As the first parousia of Jesus was wanting in the majesty that was expected of the Messiah,
the magnificent exercise of Messianic power in a general resurrection was removed to the
second parousia, still in the future. Yet, as the pledge for that which was expected, even
the first presence, must in some instances be lighted up by the majesty of the second,
Jesus announced his mission, at a future period to raise all the dead, by raising some
dead persons at his first arrival. When questioned regarding his Messiahship, he must
have been able to adduce amongst the proofs of it, the f net that " tbe dead are raised 1
(veKpoi eyapovrcu), Matt. xi. 5 ; and be able to impart the same authority to his apos
tles (Matt. x. 8, compare Acts ix. 40; xx. 10). For instance, as an accurate prelude to
the event, that hereafter all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and come forth
(TTCLVTEQ ol ev TOLQ jjLvr)jj.ioi CLKOVGOVTCLL TV]Q (jtcjyrjs CLVTOV, KCLL K7ropvo~ot&gt;TCLi) t
John v. 28, 29, he must bave uttered the Come forth (cevpo ^w) to one who had
lain in the grave already four days (reffaapaQ r/jLiepci 77^77 eyovTi ev rw
fttyaXrj), John xi. 17 40." (Vol. ii. pp. 171, 172.)

It could scarcely be managed more conveniently with the origin of
a New Testament myth, then boldly to place that which really
belongs to the eternal significance of the fact, in preference to the
fact itself, down to the mere conceptions of the earliest community,
and to declare without ceremony that the narrative of this fact was
formed afterwards out of this conception, as its historical investment.
This simple operation which, since the New Testament facts are,
as a whole, tolerably full of significance, might in truth serve once
for all is employed by the author repeatedly; for example, even
in the mythical interpretation of the transfiguration, though in an
incomplete way, and too outwardly. Here accordingly, at the con
clusion, he expresses a naive delight, because by this explanation
the spirit the idea of the narrative is preserved, whilst he has
sacrificed the historical corpse (vol. ii. p. 274). Moreover, this idea,
as it is there developer!, cannot, naturally, be to the author the eter
nal truth, by which the spirit should indeed have produced the myth;
but it is still always only a conception, and one rich in meaning,
of the early community. It is at the same time remarkable here how
hostilely the author everywhere expresses himself against whatever
in the gospel occurrences is significant and rich in references.
Throughout, every thing in the life of Jesus must have been the
most ordinary and insignificant possible : only so far as they
are so, is the narrative historically probable to him. Accordingly,
he endeavours to transform significant traits into myths, even where
there is no apparent occasion, either in miracles or in contradic
tions. It is particularly .so in the history of Christ s sufferings.

In order to justify the mythical understanding of the narrative
respecting the agony of Jesus in Gethsemane, we are reminded
first of the object of the gospel narrative, namely, to ascribe to
Christ a supernatural foreknowledge of his sufferings; and then
the reasons for magnifying this foreknowledge into an actual pre
sentiment, and for thus completing the scene in Gethsemane, are
developed thus :

205

38 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

" On the one hand, there would be no manifest proof, that there was any foreknowledge
of the result, or of his actual condition, unless it had risen to the vividness of a presenti
ment : on the other hand, the suffering must appear all the more dreadful, when, in the
mere presentiment, it forced out the agony occasioned by it, to a bloody sweat, and
extorted the prayer for the removal of the bitter cup. Further, the sufferings of Jesus
appear voluntary in a higher sense, when, previous to their coming on him from without,
he inwardly resigned himself to them; and, lastly, the devotion of the early Christians
must have wished to withdraw the peculiar nature of these sufferings from the profane
eyes to which he was exposed on the cross, and to transpose them as a mystery into the
narrower circle of a few initiated. For the enriching of this scene, there was at hand,
along with the description of the grief and prayer which were natural enough, partly the
figure of a cup (TTOT^LOV], used by Jesus himself (Matt. xx. 22), to express his suffer
ings; partly passages in the Old Testament, from Psalms of lamentation, xlii. 6, 12;
xliii. 5, where in the Septuagint the expression, ^X^ TfptXvTroe, occurs ; in addition to
which, the words Wg Savarov (Jonah iv. 9) were all the more suitable, since Jesus
here was actually approaching death." (Vol. ii. p. 47 J.)

In Matthew s account of the watch at the sepulchre of Jesus, and
of the events connected with it, the author considers, as the only
historical basis, the report spread abroad among the Jey/s, that the
disciples must have stolen away the body; the origin of which,
besides, according to his view of the history of the resurrection,
would be certainly difficult. From this germ, then, the narrative
must have been formed, according to him, in the following way :

" Since the Christians wished to refute this calumny, there arose among them the
rumour, that a watch had been stationed at the sepulchre ; and then they might boldly
meet the calumny by the question, How could the corpse have been removed, while you
set a watch at the sepulchre, and sealed the stone ? And since, in the course of the
investigation, it has been made evident [the author would seem, by this sarcastic expres
sion, to wish to treat his own conceit with irony], that the groundlessness of a report is
fully proved, as soon as it can be successfully shown how it could have originated without
any historical support, it was attempted, on the part of the Christians, to prove the
origin of the false rumour, at the same time that they explained the supposed actual facts,
by tracing the Jewish falsehood that was spread abroad to a contrivance of the Sanhedrim,
and to their plan of bribing the watch." (Vol. ii. p. 590.)

And such dry, clumsy fictions which in parts could by no means
be more studied or more designed, and which can in no way be
construed without coming upon one particular inventor, who must
have had a distinct consciousness of the unhistorical character of his
patchwork are called by the author myths ; " a sort of historical
investment of primitive Christian ideas, formed by unintentionally-
invented legends " !

It may perhaps be objected, "Why lay all the stress on this
epithet, as if one s judgment of the value and strength of this whole
critical undertaking depended upon whether it was a suitable or a
correct one ? If the name myth does not please you for the gospel
narratives, well, then, call them free fictions respecting the life of
Jesus, originating in an apologetic interest, formed by oral tradi
tion, fixed, arranged, brought as much as possible into agreement

306

MULLER ON THE THEOKY OF MYTHS. 39

with each other, and perhaps enlarged and increased by the evan
gelists, and for the most part quite fresh and independently drawn up
by the fourth of them." But, if the mythical mist which the intro
duction spreads around this criticism of the gospel history once
vanishes, we shall also see the whole undertaking sink as untenable,
down to the ground on which the Fragmentary Essays at Wolfen-
biittel, and similar attacks upon the truth of the gospel history, rest.
For, to give out intentional fiction in complete earnest for historical
facts, and for this purpose to lend to it the form of the most quiet
and unadorned narrative, this is quite correctly called to lie,
whether it happen in the east or in the west ; * and the more void
of all conscience, and the more criminal is the lie, in proportion as
the object to which such fictions refer is holy and of vast importance.
Then, however, the whole character of the gospel narratives the
honest, true-hearted meaning of their authors, which lights up
the whole all that we know of the religious and moral condition
of the earliest communities the appearance of a man like the
apostle Paul the joyous martyrdom of the church, which began
even at the time in which our Gospels originated the irresistible
power which Christianity exercises over the whole spiritual develop
ment of the human race all its sanctifying and blessed effects in
history, all this would be the most incomprehensible riddle, and
the most tormenting contradiction. The holy and divine form of the
Redeemer of the world would then appear no longer merely as an
enlightening portrait upon a thick cloud of myths, but it would rear
itself out of a dark abyss of deception, and of wild unbridled fana
ticism. And if thus the highest phenomenon, in the sphere of
religious life, dissolve itself into a monstrous deception, then would
it indeed be all over with religion, and it would be high time for
philosophy to take charge of the orphaned race. And yet what kind
of weapons in the end would philosophy possess, in order to protect
itself against a scepticism that swallows up every thing, if it must
acknowledge idle dreams, sly and fanatical fictions, to be the
mightiest impulses in the development of the human mind ?

However little we may be able to acknowledge as true the posi
tive results of the author s inquiries, the mode in which he regards
the origin of the gospel narratives as a whole, still we are very far
from denying an important negative merit to his work, that of
having resolved, with unusual acuteness, many difficulties in the
gospel histoiy ; of having pointed out, with great clearness, their
peculiar points of importance ; and of having successfully shown
the unsatisfactory character of the attempts hitherto made to solve

* The author will perhaps consider it as ungentlemanly to speak here of " lying," as
in his concluding treatise he calls it so to describe as a liar the preacher who, against his
own convictions, treats the historical foundation of Christianity as historical truth, before
his congregation. It appears to us, however, to be much more the part of a gentleman to
recognise the lie, not merely in its gross, but also in its more refined forms.
207

40 MULLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

them, especially by those who adopted the principles of the old
harmonizers. Often, indeed, he involves himself in difficulties, only
through his own fault ; since, by means of his doctrinal prejudice
against the idea of miracles, which does not allow him to go beyond
the negative element, the breaking through of nature s earthly laws,
and to arrive at a more complete view of it, he bars himself out
from the direct and simple way of explaining the constituent facts.
Many other difficulties which he has brought to light have, however,
a more real foundation in the undeniable fact, that the traditions
which form the basis of our synoptic Gospels have here and there
experienced a partial disturbance in the representation of particular
occurrences ; that the reminiscences of eye-witnesses also, to whom
Luke, for example, appeals as authorities, and who certainly did
not stand in a less close relation to the author of the first Gospel
in the form in which we have it (however connected it may be with
the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew), in the course of time became
somewhat uncertain ; that even the Gospel of John, in particular
cases, bears many signs of this darkening influence of a considera
ble interval of time upon the memory of its author. The presence
of real contradictions in our gospel records can never for a moment
be denied ; but we are able to see how the existence of these, under
the given circumstances, could only be entirely guarded against by
a continuous miracle, the assumption of which is not established
by John xiv. 26. Nor do we, on account of the impossibility
thereby occasioned of accurately collecting the particular facts in
all their relations, consider ourselves to be justified in stamping the
narratives as poetical legends, any more than we should be in doing
so in similar cases, which often present themselves to the historical
investigator in other departments. That in this imperfect security
of all individual particulars which the gospel relates, a hard thrust
is given to the faith in ancient creeds, and to that theology which
depends on it (even quite apart from the theory of inspiration,
which doubtless is quite incompatible therewith), this we cannot
overlook. However, it never becomes us to dictate, in accordance
with what appears to us desirable, the form in which the divine
revelation must be imparted, and then to force those records of
it that lie before us into this particular form ; but, if we have
acknowledged the gospel at first to be, as it is, essentially a divine
revelation, then we must learn the particular form in which the
revelation is given to us, from the historical data that lie before us ;
and, where this form appears strange to us, and not to correspond
to the wants and expectations of a pious mind, we must endeavour
to understand them in humility, and to discover the more recondite
aims of divine wisdom. Strikingly has Sieffert directed attention to
the " weakness of the flesh " (aadeveia TTJQ a-aprae), which is apparent
even in the word of God, as the Bible is named. The contradic
tions in the Gospels belong to the " earthen vessels " (ofrrpct
in which the Christian church bears its treasure.

208

MLTLLER ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS. 41

Our space obliges us to refrain entirely from characterizing his
critical proceedings any further, since, by so doing, we should only
put forth accusations which we could not sufficiently substantiate
within a moderate compass. We will only take the liberty of re-
marking, that the author could hardly have meant to give a full and
an essentially exhaustive criticism of the gospel history ; but, as a
decided advocate for the negative side of the question, he has wished
only to bring forward that which favoured his views, and to arrive
at a certain conclusion, to collect, and put in its clearest light, all
contradictions, all that can at all render doubtful the historical cha
racter of the narrative ; while, on the other hand, he would pass over
in silence the positive features, however naturally they might occur
to him, those clearest marks of an historical character, which often
betray themselves in a way quite unintended by the writers them
selves, indeed at times even in their erroneous statements. Doubtless
the author does so in the expectation, that this last side will obtain its
rights from his opponents ! Lastly, we feel ourselves compelled to
protest against the suspicious narrow-mindedness and unjust caprice
with which the professor treats the author of the fourth Gospel.
When, for instance, he asserts, and comes back to it repeatedly as
an important discovery, that this author aims at putting Peter in the
shade, and at glorifying John at his expense (vol. i. p. 560, ii. 602,
and other places), it is scarcely conceivable how he could venture
so grave a charge ; the utter baselessness of which must appear
on an attentive view of this Gospel. For it is very natural that the
fourth Gospel alone should have some traits which indicate a more
intimate relation between John and our Lord, since they are just
these that possessed most interest for John, and must have been
indelibly impressed on his memory ; whilst common gospel tradi
tion either did not adopt them at all, or soon lost them again, along
with many other details. This must appear very probable to the
author, while he rejects the apostolical origin of the fourth Gospel,
since he himself recognises as probable a close connexion between its
author and John, by means of which he would have access to par
ticular sources of information (vol. i. p. 563). But does he ever place
Peter in the shade by the side of John ? On the contrary, he passes
by in silence some particulars which the Gospel of Matthew relates
of Peter, and which are by no means to his credit (Matt. xiv. 30, 31 ;
xvi. 22, 23 ; xviii. 21). The history of his denial, too, is related by
him more leniently than it is by Matthew and Mark. He omits
what is related by Matt. xxvi. 72, 74, and by Mark xiv. 71. On
the other hand, he has preserved some peculiar traits, which are to the
honour of Peter, and which the other Gospels have not, such as
the significant manner in which he was received into the number
of the disciples, chap. i. 42 ; the noble confession of his faith, vi. 68,
69 ; the courageous struggle for his Master, xviii. 20 (the other evan
gelists do not name the person) ; the eager, affectionate zeal with
which he hastens to his risen Master, xxi. 7 ; the honourable charge
209 . 2 G

42 MULLEB ON THE THEORY OF MYTHS.

which he receives from Christ, xxi. 15 17: the fervent utterance,
xiii. 9, also must not be omitted. And if the author thinks it parti
cularly evident, that there is a design to show John off at the expense
of Peter in xx. 3 8, we must on the contrary maintain, that it
displays a considerable narrowness of view to imagine any thing of
the kind in so harmless a narrative. Peter and John hasten to the
sepulchre; John, quickerin speed, because probably younger, arrives
first, looks into the sepulchre, but does not venture to enter ; Peter
comes up, and goes directly in, that he may accurately survey the
whole. Then first, John also acquires courage to enter. If, then, it
is particularly remarked of the latter, that he believed (Wtorevo-e), the
same faith in Peter is not thereby in the least excluded. That this
iriffTwziv (believing), however, is only expressly remarked of John,
must again appear to us in the highest degree natural, since we
consider John to be the author of the narrative. He records the
impression which the empty sepulchre, and the napkin lying in a
place by itself, made upon his own mind, because of that he alone
could be conscious. In fact, had John here been desirous of
glorifying himself at the expense of Peter, it would have been very
awkward for this purpose to represent himself as the irresolute loi
terer, when they came to the business, and Peter as the active
manager.

If we consider the whole character of the spiritual life of
our age, how deeply rooted in it are certain fundamental views,
which stand essentially in opposition to Christianity, though to
numbers unconsciously so ; how these views have been in part
advocated by the greatest minds of this and of the last century ;
we can easily imagine how the force of scepticism might gradually
seize a serious inquirer so strongly as to lead him to the negative
results of the author. But one thing we confess not to understand,
how he can, in a tone so cheerful, light, and even jesting, labour to
destroy an edifice in which he is himself aware, that millions per
ceive the only foundation for their salvation. Indeed the author
has not been able to keep his narrative free from some assertions
that are entirely frivolous, and from extremely unworthy jokes,
such as we find, for example, in vol. ii. pp. 274, 291, 292, 454, 457,
642, 643. Or was it really impossible (as the history of the attacks
hitherto made on the historical foundation of Christianity, by all
means seems to show) to prosecute such an attack with a consistency
regardless of any results, and yet at the same time strictly to pre
serve that dignity in the narrative, which the grandeur of the
subject, and the immeasurable importance of the question here
considered, require of every person who undertakes their consi
deration ?

ILLUSTRATIONS

OF THE

CREDIBILITY OF THE GOSPEL NARRATIVES,

DRAWN FROM MORAL CONSIDERATIONS.

THE evidences which offer themselves in favour of the truth of
Christianity may be divided into two great classes, I. The His
torical, II. The Moral. The first establish the divinity of the
gospel by historical arguments ; such, for instance, as are drawn
from the origin, authorship, reception, spread, and general authority
of the several compositions of which the New Testament is com
posed. The second take the books as they are presented to the
ordinary reader, and, requiring nothing more than a general idea of
their rise and progress, deduce from their contents proofs of their
credibility. Of this moral argument we here intend to offer some
illustrations.

We enter on the task the rather, because chiefly this is an argu
ment of an essentially popular character. The gospel was given
to man; by man it is to be judged, and either condemned or
accepted. It appeals not to the erudition of scholars, nor to the
prejudices of the ignorant, but to the human heart ; and, in making
this appeal, carries with it its own evidence. There is no proposi
tion in theology which we account more certain, or more important,
than that the Scriptures of the New Testament (with them only have
we here to do) establish their divinity by evidences supplied by
themselves. The scholar s argument may be sound and convincing
to the scholar ; but the ordinary reader can but imperfectly enter
into it, even under favourable circumstances ; and, though all know
ledge is good, and every kind of knowledge is to be sought as
opportunity serves, yet plain and unlettered men are not left without
sufficient guarantees of the divinity of the gospel, nor need go
beyond the pages of the New Testament themselves for proofs,
that it is in substance as in spirit true, and worthy of all accepta
tion. In adverting, then, to this mode of proof, we study an argu
ment which is not of man, but of God, one furnished by the same
hand that gave the Scriptures, one stamped indelibly on the pages
of the everlasting gospel. When the Creator set the sun in the
firmament of heaven, as a witness of his own godhead and majesty,
211 2 H

2 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

he so made that luminary as to attract the heart of man, and tead
it, even unconsciously, to himself, without the aid of either astro
nomer or theologian ; and there, for thousands of years, has this
majestic teacher instructed, refined, and elevated mankind, though
no voice be heard, and no sound be uttered. In a not dissimilar
manner have the Scriptures tacitly, but most powerfully, spoken for
God and Christ to the human heart, winning, and, at the same
time, bettering, man s affections, from the equator to the pole,
from the first to the nineteenth century, from the philosopher to
the peasant.

In order to comprehend and estimate this argument, we have
only to open our eyes, and cast them on the sacred page. No
lengthened preparation is requisite, no abstruse propositions have
to be considered, no web of historical difficulties has to be dis
entangled. Take the New Testament as it is, study its contents.
Be not concerned about various readings, nor about disputed pas
sages : even the common translation will answer every essential
purpose. Take the book as presented to you, with all its imper
fections, take it, and make it the subject of careful study; and,
unless your experience is different from our own, you will find
evidence and truth, at the same time divine light and divine heat,
you will know of the doctrine that it is of God, at the very
moment that you receive into your souls the bread of life.

In truth, this, and no other this moral argument it is which
has convinced the world. It is only a few, a much smaller num
ber than may at first appear, who have sifted, or can properly
appreciate, the scholar s argument. But the one of which we speak
is open to all minds, and ready to enter all hearts. It lies on the
surface of the Scriptures, as the lily and the rose and the wild
flower lie on the lap of nature, telling of God and eternal provi
dence. True, the argument has its depths ; and in these depths
there are, for those who can safely dive to them, precious pearls,
which will well repay their trouble. But sufficient evidence is
there without that labour to satisfy the unprejudiced, confirm the
wavering, and build up, while it gratifies, the believer.

There is, indeed, one pre-requisite : we must possess honest
hearts. It is only when good seed falls into good ground, that it
will bear abundant fruit. And by honest hearts we mean a sound
judgment, an earnest, truth-loving mind, unperverted and, above
all, unpolluted affections. We must be free alike from the blight
of scepticism, and the morbid and craving appetite of credulousness.
We must neither believe without evidence, nor disbelieve against
evidence. We must simulate nothing, affect nothing, fear nothing
but untruth and unfaithfulness. And the reason why this moral
rectitude is needful is obvious and clear. The Scriptures profess
to contain a system of influences designed to make man happy, by
making him holy. Their very aim, in consequence, presupposes a
disposition on our part in favour of goodness. Music cannot be

212

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 3

taught to those who disregard its harmonies. No more can religion
be evidenced to persons whose evil habits indispose and disqualify
them to comprehend and feel the force of its proofs. The appeal
of the gospel is to the heart, but to the heart of course as God made
it, and intended it to be in its normal state ; with its energies
active, its affections pure, its aims unsullied. Yet this is not the
requirement of perfect holiness ; otherwise the proof would be nul
lified : it means that there should be a predisposition in favour of
goodness, a general bearing of the moral nature towards upright
ness : it is such excellence as man can possess, as may be possessed
by a being who is a sinner, and who, as a sinner, is in need of that
salvation which the gospel offers. It is, indeed, that common con
dition which enables men to know that they labour under a disease,
and prompts them to seek a physician. We must be conscious of
our own condition, before we can appreciate the gospel. We must
feel and admit our wants, ere we are likely to seek or welcome a
supply.

This moral argument is very full and very diversified. The field
is large and most prolific. We are of opinion, that there is not a
chapter, scarcely a verse, of the New Testament, which does not
present elements of moral proof to the intelligent Christian reader.
In particular, every aspect of the mind of our Lord and those
aspects, in shape, colourings, and hues, are all but endless offers
evidence of the divinity of his mission and character. That mind
we regard as a transcript of the divine mind. In it we recognise the
element as of inspired, so of infallible truth ; for " God was in
Christ, reconciling the world to himself." The divine we behold
in a human form in him who, in the inner lineaments of his soul,
was the image of God. It may be, it often is, difficult to penetrate
through its outward investments sometimes accidental, of a mere
earthly origin, and perishable and transitory, to penetrate to the
mind of Christ itself; but, when we have succeeded in thus knowing
the Son, we have come to know the Father also, and are thus in
possession of truth, and in the way to holiness and peace.

We have previously intimated, that, in regard to the Scriptures
of the New Testament, no more is necessary in order to appreciate
our present argument, than some general notions of their origin and
character. Such general knowledge we must presume in our read
ers. The Scriptures are in the hand, or by the side, of all who are
likely to give attention to this essay. These, then, are the evidence
which is to go before the jury. Let us investigate portions of that
evidence : perhaps it speaks for itself, in the obvious honesty of its
statements, the tone of sincerity which pervades them ; the deep
knowledge it displays of spiritual truth and life, and the unity of
character which is everywhere manifest. Yet the Gospels appear
to us to be somewhat seriously misconceived ; and, as they contain
the life of Christ, in which mainly the moral argument is found, we
can, we feel, make no sure and satisfactory progress, till we have

213

4 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

with some precision ascertained what are their real claims, and
what is their true character. And we enter on this inquiry the
rather, because, in the course of it, we shall have opportunities of
offering illustrations of the moral argument for the credibility of the
New Testament.

The criticism of the modern German school, in its application to
the Gospels, proceeds on the assumption that these books are
histories. And by history is intended a minute, strictly accurate,
complete, and philosophical narrative of actual events. A work
accounted to be a history of Jesus Christ must, according to this
conception, contain a development of his outer and inner life in
strict agreement with the facts of which it consisted, containing the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ; with the several
parts placed, if not according to the closest connection of chrono
logical, certainly of philosophical sequence ; thus exhibiting before
the eye of man, a narrative of events in their origin, their causes,
and their effects ; which, as being at once perfect and complete, is
not altogether dissimilar to the view taken of the history of his Son
by the all-seeing God himself. Starting with the implication, that
the Gospels are or ought to be histories in this lofty and compre
hensive sense, German criticism subjects their contents to the severest
scrutiny ; applies, in judging them, the most rigorous and unbend
ing logic ; and frames for its guidance rules which emanate from,
and can be justified only by, the lofty ideal set forth as a standard.
The results are not unknown. The reality of the gospel history, in
its parts and as a whole, has been questioned, and some would say
destroyed. Certainly old difficulties have been urged with fresh
force ; new difficulties have been propounded ; narratives have been
questioned, which had been considered safe from attack ; and varia
tions between the several writers have been exhibited, for which
nothing can be pleaded at the bar before which they have been
brought. The enemies of Christianity rejoice as in a triumph : its
friends are almost ready to mourn a defeat.

But is this ideal conception a just one in its application ,to the
Gospels ? This is a very grave question. Should an answer in
the negative appear to be authorised, then the very basis of the
modern criticism is undermined, and its vaunted destructiveness is
itself destroyed.

Now, the conception is obviously gratuitous ; for it is beyond a
question, that the Gospels do not profess to be philosophical histo
ries, whatever they may in reality be. The conception has no other
source, and no other authority, than may be found in the minds of
those with whom it Originated. But, if the Gospels are judged by
an arbitrary standard, they may easily be condemned. In the same
manner, criticism might invalidate the credibility of Tacitus, and
transform Herodotus into a collection of myths.

The conception is also modern. It is an offspring of the nine
teenth century. From the features which it has, it could obviously

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 5

not have come into existence till after Voltaire had scoffed, and
Gibbon generalised, and Niehbuhr upturned the foundations of
Rome. Can any thing be less conformable with reason than to put
an ancient work to the rigid test of modern criticism ; than to invest
a German doctor with all his varied learning, his cool, imper
turbable logic, his minute, not to say petty accuracy with full
authority to sit in trial on certain warm-hearted easterns, full of
imagination, and overpowered by resistless religious emotions ? If
it is right to make modern criticism the judge, then, of course,
at any period of its existence. Now, there was a time when that
criticism involved a recognition of miracle as an essential element
in the great circle of causation which planted the gospel in the
world. At present, criticism disowns miracle. The criticism, then,
which formerly approved, now unhesitatingly condemns, the gospel.
Who can infallibly decide at which period then or now criti
cism had attained to perfect wisdom ? Besides, what has changed
may change again. Miracle may once more be not tolerated,
but demanded. A test so fluctuating can have but humble pre
tensions. .

The assumption is not only gratuitous and modern, but, in its
very nature, nugatory and inconsistent. It presents a perfect
standard. It requires the very beau ideal of excellence. Now,
perfection is in any case necessarily a unit : there cannot be two
perfections. A history perfect in all its parts must stand alone.
Any deviation from a perfect history is a deviation from perfection,
if not a lapse into error and fault. But, in fact, there are four so-
callecl histories of our Lord : they cannot therefore be intended to
claim perfection. Four perfect histories would be the same history
four times repeated. In such a case, the slightest discrepancy
would be a forfeiture of perfection. But there are diversities : they
are not one Gospel, but four; and may well, therefore, .refuse to be
judged by a standard which so grossly misconceives their character.
If the first Gospel had been an absolutely perfect history, the second
would not have been written ; or, if it is allowed that a difference of
locality, of view, of circumstances generally, called for a second, a
third, a fourth Gospel, then let the arbitrary requirement oY con
formity to abstract excellence be renounced, and let it be frankly
admitted that diversities, as being in the case inevitable, are, pro
vided they do not affect the fundamental facts, rather corroborations
than impeachments of the historic verity of these compositions.

The only way in which we can hope to arrive at a just verdict on
the Gospels, is to account them for what they are. The tale which
the books themselves tell alone can put the critic into a position for
estimating their credibility.

Do the Gospels, then, claim to be histories ? In the strict sense
of the terms, claim and history, they certainly do not. If they may
be allowed to bear the name of histories, it is merely in a general
and popular manner. The merest superficial inspection shows, that

aio

6 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

it is only as popular histories, simple, inartificial, and unpretend
ing biographies, that they can be brought within the class of
historical compositions. We purposely, at present, omit details,
and postpone qualifications ; but, taking the Gospels in their general
character, we say they make no pretension to rank with Thucydides
or Hallam. Nothing can be clearer than that they are, in general,
the work of men unskilled in the art of composition, unversed in
the refinements of literature, and solely intent on recording, in
some way, the impression which, directly or indirectly, they had
received from the great Master-mind. In a word, the Gospels are
a product of the heart : by the heart, therefore, they must be
judged. They came from the hands of comparatively unlettered
men ; and in the consciousness of the people not of a learned class,
can they alone find the tribunal to which they are amenable. Nor
is there need for the trial to be again gone over. The great human
heart has judged the Gospels, and found them worthy to be received.
It may, indeed, humble the pride of learning to admit the justness
of the sentence ; but there are many and very solid reasons which
combine to show, that the verdict of men in general-, in such a case,
is better and more trustworthy than that of a learned few, who, if
they abound in knowledge, may not the less possess, in scanty
measure, other essential requisites. Popular narratives may be best,
if not solely, appreciated by the popular mind.

In describing these compositions as popular narratives, we have
not taken into consideration any thing beyond their general and
obvious qualities ; but, if we now cast an eye on their reputed
authors, we shall find our description confirmed. We say their
reputed authors. We enter not into the question whether the
books were written by the persons to whom they are ordinarily
ascribed ; because, whichever way that dispute is settled, it mat
ters little for our present purpose. We debate not about a
name. Let Matthew have composed the Gospel so called or not,
and let the author be or be not Matthew the tax-gatherer, still
the testimony of those who were best able to judge declares, that
the Gospel proceeded from the pen of some unlettered person in
humble life. Criticism may be concerned, as an affair of what
she affects in Germany to denominate by the high-sounding name
of "science," to determine, whether or not Matthew, the pub
lican mentioned in the Gospel, wrote or compiled the work, or
some other Matthew, or equally some other person. The church,
which means the great body of believers, including the learned (as
learning then was) as well as the unlearned, the church, at a very
early period, said that some one at least like the said Matthew
produced the Gospel ; thus probably writing down and confirming a
tradition which for years had passed from lip to lip, and which may
eventually have sprung from the tongue of the author himself, or
the not less credible testimony of those who knew him. Well, then,
cither Matthew, or some one who was in a similar condition of life,

216

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 7

had similar opportunities of knowledge, and possessed a similar
degree of culture, wrote the first Gospel. From an author of this
class what was to be expected ? Literary excellence ? a philoso
phical history? absolute accuracy ? Clearly not. He would set
down what he had seen, or learned, or known, so far as he believed
this or that was true, in the most inartificial manner. Did he pos
sess the lawyer-like ability of scrutinising evidence, and sifting out
a fact from a heap of varying statements ? Could he discern the
precise time when the sober hues of fact began to blend with the
colourings of feeling, and the richer tints of an excited and glowing
imagination ? Had he the minute knowledge of Roman and Jewish
history requisite to shelter his chronology from the piercing glance
of modern scepticism ? We need not press the point : all impartial
persons will at once admit, that the composition of a tax-gatherer
may be open to the objections of a German professor, and yet pos
sess qualities rendering it worthy of credit in general, as well as of
high esteem.

That it is only in a qualified sense the term history, or the term
biography, can be applied to the Gospels, appears from the fact
that they narrate but a brief part of the life of our Lord. Even
Luke s Gospel, which has a larger claim to an historical character
than the others, omits the very important period which intervened
between the twelfth year of Jesus, and the commencement of the
Baptist s ministry. So, also, there is scarcely any thing recorded of
the interval which begins after the presentation of the child Jesus
in the temple, and terminates with the visit to the metropolis.
Luke s account of Christ is limited to his infancy, one general fact
in his boyhood, and to his public ministry, comrrfenced when he
began to be about thirty years of age (Luke iii. 23). In other
words, the evangelist has given us an account of his public life, and
passed almost in silence the thirty years which preceded it. If we
suppose that public ministry lasted for three years, then it is almost
only of one-eleventh of the life of the life of Christ that Luke speaks ;
while the other ten-elevenths he leaves, for the most part, blank.
The evangelist John narrates nothing of the first thirty years of the
life of his Master, so that his account is literally confined to the
closing years of Christ s brief career.

Now, these are facts which we may regret, but cannot deny. It
is our duty not to form an imagination of what sort of a history of
Christ we could wish to have, but to take that which Providence
has provided us with ; and, after endeavouring to understand its
real character, to gather from it all the information it is fitted to
convey.

The facts developed seem, however, to prove that these brief nar
ratives are not to be regarded as strictly histories or biographies of
the Saviour. At any rate, they are not more than accounts of his
latter days, with here and there a fact relating to his earlier history.
Now, if these omissions are ascribed to the want of materials, that

217

8 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

implies and assigns a purely human origin of the Gospels, and, what
is more, brings their composition down to a very late period, since
more than one or two generations must have passed away before
witnesses could have been wanting to narrate the facts which con
cerned our Lord s boyhood, youth, and first manhood. If the
reader is unwilling to make these admissions, then the writers must
have had some good reason, in the very nature of their undertaking,
for passing in nearly total silence the greater part of their Master s
days. But such a motive is inconceivable, had they purposed to
compose histories of Christ, properly so called. They, therefore,
had no such intention. In truth, we believe their intention was of
a far higher order. They meant to give a true and credible account
of the dispensation of God s grace in and through his Son Jesus
Christ; and, in so doing, to prove to those for whom, in each case,
they intended their Gospels, that Jesus was the Christ. Such com
positions cannot, in our opinion, be properly placed in any class of
ordinary literature ; nor, in consequence, be judged by any estab
lished rules. They are siii generis, they form a species of writing
by themselves ; or, if they have their like, we must look for such in
the Scriptures of the Old Testament or the Apocrypha; not the
classical productions of Greece, Rome, Germany, or England. If,
however, we may give them a name which is only somewhat less
appropriate than that which they commonly bear, we should call
them arguments. We believe that they are arguments more than
histories, that proof is their aim, and that the record which they
make is only employed in subordination to the main purpose of
establishing the divine mission of Jesus the Christ. In this view they
may be designated historical arguments. But, if they are historical
arguments and not histories, then the application to them of the
severe rules which literary men have at length been taught to apply
to every thing which assumes the name of history, is plainly unwar
ranted and unjustifiable.

There is one literary work which, to some extent, resembles the
Gospels. We allude to the Memorabilia, " The Memorable Things
of Socrates," written by his pupil Xenophon. This is not a his
tory, nor a biography, but rather an argument, an argument in
proof of the innocence of Socrates. Yet much biographical matter
is found in the book. But these biographical snatches and inci
dents are introduced merely in order to serve the main purpose of
the writer, and carry forward the proof that Socrates suffered death
wrongfully.

Other materials towards a life of Socrates may be found in Plato s
writings ; but here, too, in the way of disputation, argument, and
disquisition.

Add to these sources the defence of Socrates, as given by Xeno
phon, and the defence, as given by Plato, and we have the chief
materials before us out of which a biographical memoir of the cele
brated philosopher may be constructed.

818

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 9

But let the reader observe, that memoir has to be written.
Xenophon and Plato afford but materials for history. There is,
then, nothing peculiar in the fact, that Christian antiquity has
not furnished us with (in the strict sense of the term) a life of Christ.
The same is the case in regard to Socrates. In both instances
the elements out of which a history may be formed have been pre
served in the shape of arguments.

The Gospels are said to differ. John s wears a different com
plexion from that of the three others. Does the Christ of John
differ from the Christ of Luke, so much as the Socrates of Xenophon
differs from the Socrates of Plato ? Wherever there is a free and
truthful action of the human mind, in conducting an argument
which unfolds a character, must there not be individual peculi
arities ? of colouring ? of position ? of general effect ? pecu
liarities referrible to the mental and moral constitution of the writer,
his point of view, his aims, his outward circumstances ? If,
then, there are four writers who conduct the same argument,
they must vary more or less, since each will, we have seen, have
his own individual peculiarities ; and as these peculiarities will obvi
ously be greater or less, the variance will be in proportion to the
idiosyncrasies of the writer. If one writer is very different from
another, of a higher culture, greater power of mind, more inti
mate acquaintance with his subject, then, clearly, his composition
will vary greatly from the compositions of his fellow- workers ; and
this variation may obviously be increased to a great, not to say,
indefinite extent. The question, then, is not whether John differs
from Matthew, but solely whether the difference is greater than the
peculiar condition and circumstances of John lead us to expect. A
study of John s history, aided by a comparison of Socrates, as de
picted by Xenophon and Plato, will, we think, justify an answer in
the negative. But we shall have to refer to this subject again.

Then, as to details, the evangelists, we are told, differ in many
particulars : many instances in the life of our Lord they relate
differently. We ask, how can it be otherwise, when the accounts
proceed from four persons who are conducting an historical argu
ment, for the same end indeed, but before different tribunals, and
under very diverse circumstances ? In the case of Xenophon and
Plato, the divergent influences were, if not less, certainly not greater ;
yet the result is not more free from discrepancies. Who, however,
on account of minute, or even considerable diversities, thinks him
self justified in denying the historical truth of the life of Socrates,
or resorts to legends, fables, and myths, to explain away its reality,
and undermine its moral significance ?

The qualities in which the Gospels are said to be wanting are
those which emanate, not from the first moments of religious en
thusiasm and divine inspiration, but from the cooler and calmer
processes of meditation and study. They are the result of a pos
terior, and, as a posterior, so a lower state of mind. They are the

219 21

10 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

product c i tiie Stlicly,-ancl the off^pnng N l5Hiie^b?aiy. . What did
Matthew or Mark know of either, in the strict sense of the terms ?
The primitive disciples were believers, not students, martyrs, not
critics. The great theatre of public and social life was their sphere.
Their days were one ceaseless round of inspiration, labour, and peril;
and only at moments snatched from active exertion, could they find
time to record an event, or note down a memorable saying.

The actual character of the Gospels, then, corresponds with the
condition of their authors. It is the personal qualities of the great
Teacher that they offer in every page. All other topics are passed
in silence, or noticed with the utmost brevity. And the records
which we have, resemble, at least in the three first Gospels, rather
a collection of notes and memoranda, than the set and formal nar
rative of professed historians. Professed historians ! Were the
evangelists such ? Could they be such ? Then what learned trifling
is it to treat them as such, in our criticisms ! In truth, theology has
not seldom forgotten her mission, and thus not only missed the
truth, but patronised error. Her business is to learn, and then
to expound actual facts. Instead of that, she has first raised herself
on the stilts of a so-called science, and afterwards proceeded to apply
to the least artificial of writings the most artificial rules. The
truth she has in consequence missed is this, that the very defects
imputed to the Gospels are vouchers to us of their authenticity and
credibility ; for they show us qualities which were to be expected
from Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The error which she has
patronised is this, that, if the Gospels do not endure the rigid test
of modern criticism, then neither their own worth, nor the facts
which they detail, can be considered as proved and established.
But, suppose that the false requirements of this assuming and irra
tional criticism were complied with, and that we had, instead of our
present Gospels, compositions which both individually and collec
tively were as perfect as art could make them ; the chronology all
right, the sequence of events exact ; no trouble for the harmonists,
no miracle to revolt Strauss and the Hegelians ; what then ?
Would such pieces be credible ? The very reverse. If they bore
the names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, they would have
falsehood stamped on their brow. Every competent judge would
look either to Alexandria, to Athens, or to Rome, rather than to
Galilee, for their authors ; but, whatever scholar might have written
them, one thing i? ^-ertain, namely, that they never could have
come from the pen of any primitive disciples of Christ. Let it be
further observed, that just in proportion as any mere literary excel
lences displayed themselves in the Gospels, would their credibility
be diminished; since in the same proportion would there be an
increase of suspicion, that they proceeded from some Greek sophist,
or from some Alexandrian college. No : the very essence of the
life which filled the primitive church forbade such immunity from
trivial errors as criticism now demands, and could not, the moment

220

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 11

it found a written record, do otherwise than flow forth in some such
simple, artless, confused if you will, but graphic and deeply impres
sive compositions, as the narratives of the four evangelists. The
period in which they appeared was that of religious inspiration:
the period of ecclesiastical art came only after its decline, in later
and spiritually degenerate times. Christianity, indeed, did not, any
more than other great movements of the human mind, fail to give
birth to works which may take rank among literary productions,
some of them of a peculiar and high excellence. To them apply,
if you will, your mere literary tests. But the Gospels are like all
the spontaneous outpourings of the human soul, above any stan
dard of the sort ; and, while they present a merit new in its kind,
become the source of new tastes, new rules of judging, as well as
of new spiritual and intellectual life.

The subject which occupied the mind of the evangelists leads to
the conclusion, that we are not to expect in the Gospels a history
conformed to our modern notions. What was that subject ? No
history whatever, properly so called ; no history, whether of a
nation or an individual, in either the ancient or the modern sense
of the term history. It was the personal character of Jesus, as
exhibited during the brief period of his public ministry, and as em
bodying the doctrine he came to teach, and the salvation he had to
accomplish, it was the personal character of Jesus, considered as
one continued proof, that God was indeed in Christ, reconciling
the world unto himself; this it was which filled the minds of the
first Christians, engaged their affections, and would naturally find
expression whenever any of them undertook to write down the won
derful things of God. With the thought and the narration of
these personal qualities, the evangelists were too much occupied
to think of any merely literary requirements. How could they
busy themselves with calm inquiries regarding unknown or latent
causes and events, when the one great idea was pressing on their
souls, and starting from their pens? What were chronological
considerations, excellence of composition, and minute harmony of
details, to unlettered men, who were absorbed by the work of pro
claiming the great message of the Gospel, whether with their pen
or their lips ?

It is a surprising thing that any one should have ever regarded
or criticised the Gospels as legitimate histories. A careful inspec
tion of their contents suffices to show, that, whatever else they are,
they come not within the category of history. There is, indeed, in
John s Gospel, more consecutiveness, but rather of thought than of
event : there is a sequence and a deduction, by no means, however,
of causes and effects, but such as are necessary for carrying forward
a moral, rather than an intellectual purpose ; or, if an intellectual
purpose, then only in subordination to a great spiritual end. If the
discourses and disputations found in the fourth Gospel were
removed from it, there would be little left; but discourses and

12 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

disputations do not constitute history. Luke, indeed, professes to
follow some order, without stating what the intended order was ;
while nothing more than a general accuracy of chronological
sequence appears to have been intended. The other two Gospels
have still less pretension to be regarded as historical narratives.
Mark s is eminently a collection of anecdotes ; designed, however,
to bear on the great question of the times, and to establish the
Messiahship of Jesus of Nazareth. In general, the historical ele
ment found in the Gospels, though it pervades their entire texture,
is not that texture itself, but something out of which, in conjunction
with other elements, that texture is woven : the historical element
exists in the Gospels, but as certain threads running through the
web, and conducing to the general effect. The metaphor imper
fectly describes the fact, for there is little continuity in the Gospels,
at least of form : continuity of argument and general effect there is
throughout, but not as of an historical narrative. They wear the
character of collected fragments. The lights are scattered, not
concentrated. They furnish materials for history, not history itself.
They look like a collection of minute records of records in many
instances obviously made at or near the time when the events
themselves took place. And thus they wear a character which
might be antecedently expected. Among the disciples who followed
the footsteps and hung upon the burning lips of our Lord, there
would never fail to be some who, not content with receiving his
divine words into their souls, would be irresistibly impelled to make
notes of what he said and did, primarily for their own use, or for the
mere pleasure of reproducing the glad and hallowing emotions
of their hearts, by writing down the spiritual wonders of which
they had been eye-witnesses. Thus in every part of the land
wherever Jesus Christ came, there would be in men s souls living
and glowing remembrances of the gracious words and the be
nign deeds of Christ ; and there would also be written records,
inartificial indeed and brief, mere summaries for the most part,
yet truthful and touching from their very simplicity, truthful
and trustworthy from the character of their origin ; no unworthy,
if still imperfect, representation of the great Master s doctrine.
And this record on the heart, and this record on tablets of wax,
would exist in various forms, with more or less variety from the
original found in the words and acts of the Saviour, and so existing
in various forms among individuals, would be subjected to
comparison and scrutiny, would be talked over by fellow-towns
men and neighbours ; whence changes would come in the way
of increase, diminution, correction, till at length there would be
formed, in more localities than one, a general type, a standard of
accuracy, which, while it would be employed in testing intended
additions, and therefore in sometimes effecting rejections, could
not fail to be liable to augmentations from the influence of that
principle of reverence in the human soul which has always inclined

222

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 13

men rather to add to than take from religious records and institu
tions. Thus, however, was there formed, at a very early period,
the material out of which Gospels could be made. Jesus himself
committed no part of his doctrine to writing. But his divine pre
sence stamped itself on the souls of his attendants ; his words sank
into their hearts, where they remained in their original form, their
identity unmodified, embalmed and so preserved in reverence and
love. It is no peculiar case. So do the living words of a great
master partake of the undying nature of his doctrine. Every
divinely original mind creates a vehicle for the thoughts and feel
ings which it utters. The frame, as well as the picture, is from the
artist himself. It is sterling gold from the royal mint, bearing
the image and superscription of God ; and therefore, whether
hoarded or put into circulation, it would still retain essentially
unimpaired its original worth and impress. Thus, in oral and in
written records, were the doctrines and deeds of Jesus safely pre
served, till, in process of time, these golden testimonies were gathered
up, and put together, here by one collector, there by another, who
in each case would give preference or prominence to those of his
materials which were, from whatever reason, most approved by
himself.

Such appears to us the process which, under the circumstances,
the formation of the Gospels would naturally follow. The impress
of such a process seems to stand out in high relief on their surface.
They look like a gathering of oral traditions and fragmentary
records, bearing in every page the stamp of reality, and radiant
with scattered points of the divine light which beamed from the
Son of God. To us, therefore, are they not only credible, but pre
cious. We thank God, that they escaped the hand of the literary
artist. These gems of the new creation could not gain in lustre or
value by any polish which human skill could impart. As they are,
these words and speeches retain somewhat of the divine freshness
and heavenly brilliancy which they had in falling from the lips of
Jesus. Certainly, they come in their actual condition in so natural,
so unadorned, so artless a shape to the intelligent student, as to
give him no reason to suspect their genuineness, or question their
credibility. If, indeed, entirely forgetting what is before him, the
reader passes from the man into the critic, and proceeds to try
these artless children of nature by rules and laws that spring from
a highly artificial civilisation, then difficulties may well arise which
can hardly fail to end in false conceptions and injurious judgments.
But such a method of proceeding is no less unphilosophical than it
is unjust, unless it can be shown, in opposition to the views now
developed, that the Gospels were designed to be set and formal
histories. Even then they are to be judged in relation, not to our
present age, but to the age when, the country where, and the
circumstances under which, they were produced. There is in
literature a canon which modern philosophy has established on the
223

14 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

firmest basis, and which bids the student, in proceeding to judge
an ancient book, to place himself in the position of its author, and
to form a just conception, not only of the writer s aim and purpose,
but also of the state of civilisation under which he was prepared for
his work, and the state of mind to which it was addressed. The
canon is equally valid in relation to the Gospels. They are not to
be estimated and criticised by any abstract standard, but by the
mental, moral, and spiritual peculiarities in connexion with which
they were compiled and put forth. Perhaps a German professor
of the nineteenth century who has sat at the feet of Hegel, and
known nothing whatever of that sin the effects of which Christ came
to repair, or of that holiness which it is the peculiar privilege of his
system to foster and produce, is least of all men in a favourable
condition for rightly appreciating the qualities, and feeling the
worth, of documents which, whatever else they may be, are cer
tainly records of a great religious movement, and the depositary of
great and, we believe, undying religious truths.

The formation of a gospel history, in the strict meaning of the
term history, was postponed by a very powerful influence, which
was at work in the primitive church. The belief was no less power
ful than universal, that the second coming of the Messiah was at
hand. This belief sprang up immediately on the death of Christ,
and continued actively at work in the church, certainly till the
destruction of Jerusalem, if not till near the close of the first cen
tury. Now, while this opinion prevailed, history would not be
thought of. If Christ was about to return, and this world was on
the point of coming to an end, why write the history of Christ ?
Clearly, all the thoughts and affections of the church would be
absorbed by the grand idea "the Lord is at hand." Thus, not
even the desire for history, not even the notion of a Christian history,
could have existed in the church, till this engrossing expectation
had waned, and the believers began to recognise their misconcep
tion. And even then, what shape would history begin to assume ?
Not its own. Unbelievers began to argue against the gospel, and
scoffers asked, " Where is the sign of his coming ? " and, under the
general disappointment, the faith of some wavered, and the love of
many grew cool. Then there arose the need of evidence ; proof
was required ; arguments were constructed and sustained. Accord
ingly, an appeal was made to the past. The aid of tradition was
invoked ; written documents were diligently sought for ; the trea
sures, their most highly esteemed treasures, the treasures of
different churches in several parts of the world, were brought
forth; which, being examined and approved, were wrought into
Gospels ; and these Gospels, thus compiled, were submitted to the
churches, who, in the exercise of their judgments, received such as
wore the marks of Christian truth. And thus several verdicts were
pronounced by most competent judges on the materials of which
the Gospels consist: a first verdict by those who saw and heard the

224

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 15

Saviour himself; a second, by those who received and treasured up
those oral and written records ; a third, by the compilers of the
Gospels ; and a fourth, by the churches, who thus received back in
a new form their endeared records ; and so, having sanctioned this
Gospel or that, the believers handed it down to their sons, and they
to their descendants, till in time it was subjected to the press, and
was thus stereotyped for all nations and for all generations.

But if the formation of a history was thus delayed, then clearly
the only materials out of which history could have been constructed,
were such as those which we have attempted to describe. Oral tra
dition and fragmentary records must, in the nature of the case,
have been the sole elements, furnished by the church, when, about
the beginning of the fourth quarter of the first century, she began
to feel the want of written and formal documents, in order to with
stand hostile influences, and carry forward the evangelizing of the
world. Her want, however, was not history, but proof; or, if history,
history by way of proof, an historical argument, such as that
which our Gospels present; and for such a thing there were ma
terials in abundance. No longer, however, were there materials for
a history such as criticism fancies or desiderates. It was among
Galilean peasants that Jesus had lived and died, not ignorant, but
illiterate men, and, as unlettered, so unapt to draw up a sort of
proces verbal, a case for lawyers or learned theologians, touching the
things which the Lord said, did, and suffered ; though of all persons
the best for treasuring up what they saw, and reporting it when
the proper season came, and thus transmitting the holy influence ;
if indeed slightly tinged by their prejudices, and not without some
inconsiderable variations, still substantially the same as at the first,
and certainly, always and throughout, in sincerity and truth.

If, however, there had been, as there was not, at the time when
the Gospels were composed, materials for the construction of phi
losophical histories, there was unquestionably another want, the
want of writers endowed with the necessary qualities for weaving
such narratives out of existing resources. Even if a Livy or a
Joseph us would satisfy our critics, the Christian church possessed
them not : how much less a Xenophon or a Tacitus. In truth, the
idea of such a need could never have occurred to the Christian
mind of the primitive ages, which was mainly, if not almost exclu
sively, of a religious complexion, and was not only satisfied, but
pleased beyond measure, in possessing, as in opposition to the gain
say er, so for themselves and their offspring, a written and formal
" declaration of those things which were most surely believed " in
the church (Luke i. 1).

The term gospel, by which the narratives are now designated,
proves nothing in favour of the common notion. Some may pro
bably fancy that gospel is only a religious synonyme for history. In
truth, it signifies something of far higher importance. The original
term denotes good news, " the good tidings of great joy" which the
225

16 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

angelic band brought to earth (Luke ii. 10). We are not disposed
to claim an apostolic origin for the titles which the evangelical
accounts bear. These titles are most probably of a later date.
Still they serve to show in what light the Gospels were held in
primitive times : they mark the opinion of Christian antiquity ; and
that opinion is in favour of the view which makes them a popular
account of certain great events, designed to spread the proclamation
of pardon and life through the world, by means of conviction and
faith. The book of Mark opens thus : " The beginning of the
gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God ; " and, having done so, im
mediately commences a process of evidence which is pursued
directly or indirectly to the end, illustrative of the import of the
words just cited, showing that the object of the writer was, in record
ing the hitherto spoken gospel, to establish the great and funda
mental truth, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. The object of
Mark obviously was to set down in writing an outline of that verbal
proclamation which had been made by those who were eye-witnesses
of the word of life, when God and their own intelligence bore wit
ness of the truth and certainty of what they taught. A proclamation
implies a herald; a herald must have credentials; and, if he has a
point to gain or a position to establish, he must be furnished with the
requisite means of proof. Indeed, it was not history that the church
wanted, but argument. Its writers, whether they wrote Gospels
or Epistles, wrote indeed to inform, but this only as a means to the
great end which was to convince, and so to convert, the world.
These writers sent forth their writings to do that which their tongues,
and the tongues of others, had long done ; namely, to prove that
Jesus was the Christ. That this was the great question at issue in
the earlier period of the church is shown by the entire Book of Acts :
with Jews and only under certain modifications of language
with Gentiles, this was the first point which all the primitive teachers
laboured to establish. They had an argument to conduct, rather
than a narrative to relate, or a history to write.

The apostle John has himself declared the object of his Gospel
to be, " that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ ; and that,
believing, ye might have life through his name" (xx. 31). A declara
tion so explicit needs no illustration. But, if this was John s purpose,
the inference is not unwarranted, that the three first evangelists had
the same aim ; for these four compositions bear a manifest and
decided resemblance in form, structure, and general design, one to
the other. Matthew, indeed, uses terms, at the commencement of
his Gospel, which may be misunderstood, " the beginning of the
generation of Jesus Christ." But these words do not denote
the commencement of a history. They are the usual heading of such
genealogical registers as that which forms the introduction to this
book. And a careful study of the Gospel, in its several parts, will
not fail to convince the impartial reader, that here too we have a
series of arguments put together, intended to prove the Messiahship

226

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 17

of Jesus of Nazareth. The opening verses of Luke s Gospel tend
to the same result. Taking as a basis that which Theophilus had
been taught in the catechetical instructions of the oral teachers in
the church, Luke proceeds to furnish his friend with accurately
ascertained and well-authenticated evidence of these his convictions,
in order to strengthen his faith, and put it beyond the reach of
doubt.

Of history narrative is the essence, and information the leading
aim. Of argument conviction is the sole object, the means are
various, admitting narrative, and most, if not all, other species of
composition. History is a literary production, and is constructed
for literary purposes in the main. Conviction is the right arm of
religion, and the handmaid of faith, which is the source of hope,
of charity, and of eternal life. The two, then, history and con
viction, however much they may lend each other mutual aid, are
distinguished by certain clear and broad lines of difference ; and,
the moment their differences are understood, it is seen that the
Gospels can be histories only so far as they make history subser
vient and conducive to faith.

But we must, in order not to be misled, take a distinction
between what the Gospels are, and what they contain. They
are not, but they contain, history, historical materials of trans
cendent value, materials whose importance throws all other
history into the shade, and whose trustworthiness is ascertained by
the strongest vouchers. And as these works contain history, so do
they also contain doctrine. Moreover, in their history and in their
doctrine, they contain the life of Christ, which is an impersonation
of God s will, and a living exhibition of man s duty. Indeed, these
historical materials derive their value from that divine life which is
so true, so beautiful, so sublime, as to rise very far beyond the
reach of fancy, tradition, deception, or imposture. And yet would
we not speak harshly of these or other misconceptions of the rise
of our religion, since the life of Christ which is at once its
all -explaining cause, its source of vitality, its consummation, and
its honour has been as yet only very imperfectly conceived by
even his professed followers, and still more imperfectly set forth in
writing. Good men and women have, indeed, gone to the gospel
narratives, and, by a certain natural affinity, taken thence, and
incorporated with their own souls, the heavenly features of the
Lord, which are scattered everywhere over their pages ; but few
have the discernment to give a reason, even to themselves, why they
have left unappropriated other elements of an earthly or merely
Jewish character ; and perhaps fewer still have been able to work
the elements thus acquired, into one grand harmonious whole. Yet
it must be said, that the plastic life of a holy and loving heart has a
wonderful power to cause congenial ideas and sentiments to range
themselves in order, and assume a moral oneness. And whenever
the true life of Christ shall be written, it will be not with the dark

227 2 K

18 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

hues, or hesitating pen, or the destructive hand of scepticism, and
still less of absolute unbelief, but by some one who, to the ability
to seize the great fundamental idea of his character, that which
lay at the bottom of his soul ; to follow out this idea in all its actual
ramifications, and present the idea itself, and the several manifesta
tions of it, in the ordinary routine of Christ s daily existence, and
emphatically in the awful scenes which immediately preceded its
termination, shall add a glowing sympathy with the great subject
of his narrative, in all that Christ intended, aimed at, and achieved ;
such a glowing and loving fellow-feeling with Jesus as may open to
the writer the deep things of the Saviour s bosom, and give him a
sort of infallible test whereby to know what is of Christ, and what
is of man, to distinguish between the divine reality, and any
merely human accretions which, from whatever cause, may have
fixed themselves upon it ; so that, while cherishing the divine in the
most reverential affections of his own heart, he may unfold and display
its traits in simple but electric words, before the minds of his
fellow-men. And whenever this high work shall be accomplished,
then will there be a history of our Lord reaching to the period of
his crucifixion and death, drawn up, it may be, in part in the very
words of Scripture, for there are portions of them which exceed,
in vivid and kindling portraiture, the best efforts of ordinary men,
but also constructed out of the rich historical materials with
which they abound, and which their writers have happily left to all
posterity, while proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and endea
vouring to persuade men that that kingdom is of God.

The French literature has a species of composition which is

termed, Memoires pour servir a Vhistoire de ; " Memorials

towards the history of such a one." This species of composition
is least unlike what our conception of the Gospels is; only that the
Gospels are the productions of, for the most part, unlettered men,
men whose culture was rather religious than literary, and are also
of all writings, even more so than Exodus or Deuteronomy, the
most free, unpretending, unartistic, the unconscious memoranda,
or truthful flowings-forth, of minds who were bent only on setting
down w r hat they had seen or heard of the dispensation of the gospel.
And how much more valuable are documents of this kind than any
mere formal and elaborated histories ! Truth stamps itself on every
page of these natural outpourings of hearts, filled with knowledge and
love to overflowing. They need not, and they ask not, the aid of
philosophy or criticism to gain credit among men. They are
believed while they are read. Full of correspondencies with the
experience of every human being, and especially of every good
man, they go at once to his heart, and find a welcome. Those
touches of nature, far beyond the reach of art, which you meet with
in every page of the Gospels, convince you of the truth of the nar
ration before you have though of asking why, or of knowing whither,
your heart is being led.

228

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 19

We wish, also, to add in this connexion, that there is, in our
opinion, no fact in history which admits of better or fuller proof,
than that the writings of the New Testament present to us a true
picture of Christian doctrine, and a true portrait of their great sub
ject Jesus Christ. Perhaps undue importance has been attached
to questions of names and dates, in regard to the New Testament
writings. It may be desirable, but it is in no way essential, to show,
that Matthew wrote the first, and John the fourth Gospel. It is of
the greatest moment, however, to know, that these Gospels, and
other writings on the same subject, are a trustworthy record of
actual facts. Now, in this matter, the writings speak for themselves.
Besides, manifold external considerations conspire to show, that the
New Testament contains books that were received by the primitive
church, which had the best means of judging of their credibility, and
every possible reason against being misled. The several docu
ments of the New Testament afford to each other a strong, if not a
literally singular testimony. The Gospels are corroborated, first
in the main by each other ; then, secondly, by the writing called
the Book of Acts. The Book of Acts is corroborated by Paul s
Epistles : other documents lend aid in strengthening this manifold
cord. But, the moment we quit the pages of the New Testament,
we find Josephus bearing concurrent evidence with that of the evan
gelical writers, touching the state of Judea, and the sad doom of
Jerusalem : then Tacitus tells us of the origin of our religion in
terms which are in exact agreement with what we have learned from
our own books ; and, to mention only one ecclesiastical writer, we
find Justin Martyr, at the commencement of the first century, filling
his pages with quotations from books which could not, at the least,
have been very dissimilar to our evangelical narratives. It is, then,
unquestionable that the Gospels, and, generally, the books of the
New Testament, are a genuine product of the first century of our
era, and carry the mind safely back, at least in leading historical
facts, in all the substantial facts, and very many of the minute
details, to Christ himself, and the immediate circle of his opera
tions and influence. True, Strauss may here and there nibble a hole
in the less important parts of the Christian temple ; but it stands too
firmly on its foundations, and its walls are too strong, for it to be
endangered by so tiny a procedure.

Some of the departures from historical verity, which are attribu
ted to the writers of the New Testament, are sought to be established
by an appeal to Josephus and other historians. We have some
times had a smile forced from us by the curious union which this
appeal presents of credulity and incredulity ; for, in order to inva
lidate Luke, Josephus is accounted infallible. Some fixed point is
necessary on which unbelief may fix its destructive lever ; and
therefore Josephus and other ancient writers are allowed or
assumed to be immaculate. Unbelief has sometimes a short
memory. The writer of the " Philosophical Dictionary " denied that

229

20 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

Josephus this now unquestioned authority was worthy of belief.
Other far greater names than that of Voltaire might be adduced as
more or less impeaching the credibility of the Jewish historian ;
and who can say, that, should a German divine find a dearth of
novelty, or fail in a subject by which to gain distinction, the only
way to get his daily bread, he may not, after the manner of Strauss,
ere long rake together all the objections which have been taken to
Josephus, and, writing his life, do his best to undermine his author
ity, and destroy his fame. For ourselves, we do not believe that
the charges adduced against the Jewish historian can, in all their
breadth, be sustained. Yet is he by no means a faultless writer ;
and we are very far from thinking, that, in any case in which his
statements may appear to contradict or qualify the statements of an
evangelist, the presumption is necessarily in favour of the first, and
against the second. And, if the general tenor of the narrative
say of John, and of a book of Josephus is to be taken into account,
we have no hesitation in giving the preference to the former.

In truth, the laws of historical writing were not, in ancient times,
understood . as they are at present. The experience of eighteen
centuries has taught lessons to the historian, and, we may add, to
the logician as well. One result is, that Niebuhr has destroyed
Livy. We may add, that Hallam and Lingard have invalidated
much of the authority of our English Livy the sceptic Hume.
The wonder, in regard to the evangelists, is, not that they have been
rudely assailed, but that they have received so little damage. When
we think of the fate that has awaited ancient historians, and of the
numerous errors that have been fastened on modern writers, we
express our unfeigned surprise that the evangelists have escaped
so well. Such is the reward of sterling honesty, of simplicity of
purpose, of a pure and deep religious sense of duty, in the first
outbreaks of its own spontaneous life.

John Milton has not yet been two centuries in his tomb. His
life has been repeatedly written : first, a short period after his death ;
recently, by Sir Egerton Brydges. Our eye has fallen on discrepan
cies of no ordinary kind. The register of his birth, and his biographer
Todd, fix the time when he was bom as the ninth of December,
1608. Another biographer, Toland, who wrote near Milton s own
day, says he was born in the year 1606; while Hallam declares
" John Milton was born in 1609." His biographer Symmons states,
that he died on the eighth of November, 1674 ; Wood gives the ninth
or the tenth as the clay of his decease ; while the register shows,
that the interment took place on the twelfth of the same month.
Wood affirms, "his eyes were none of the quickest;" Symmons,
" their lustre, which was peculiarly vivid, did not even fade even when
their vision was extinguished." Todd reports that Milton mar
ried a daughter of Justice Powell, of Sandford, in the vicinity of
Oxford, and lived in a house at Forest-hill, about three miles
from Oxford: Brydges states, in opposition, that the family of

230

MOKAL ABGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 21

Powell of Sandford, and that of Powell of Forest-hill, were not, in
the remotest degree, connected. Hallam gives it as his opinion,
that none of Milton s extant poetry reaches back beyond the sonnet
which he composed on arriving at his twenty-third year : Brydges
speaks, without hesitation, of other poems, written at earlier periods ;
fixing, for instance, his poetical versions of the hundred and
fourteenth and hundred and thirty-sixth Psalms in his sixteenth
year.

Now, these discrepancies afford good materials for critical inge
nuity to work with. Surely, there could be no difficulty in
ascertaining the true day of Milton s birth. He could not be born
in the years 1606, 1608, and 1609. Who can say that he was born
at all? These discrepancies look very suspicious. Was Milton
any thing more than a poetical impersonation of the republican spirit
which produced the Commonwealth ? Then, in regard to his eyes,
were they lustrous, or were they not ? This, in the contradictory
state of our evidence, cannot be determined. One thing is clear :
both accounts cannot be true. Is either true ? Had Milton any
eyes at all ? In other words, was he any thing but a free invention
of the myth-forming tendency of the days of the first Charles ?

But, if the Gospels are not so much histories as arguments, if
their essential purpose was to convert by means of conviction, rather
than inform or gratify by means of narrative, then it will be
acknowledged, that diversity not only may, but must, be expected
in them ; since, being addressed to persons of different characters,
their writers must have suited their -arguments to the preposses
sions, the knowledge, the general state of mind of those for
whom, in each case, the book was designed. These diversities
appear. They appear in the writings ; and, so far from creating
surprise, they ought to conciliate our approbation ; for they are
what the circumstances of the case warrant us to expect. No
four writers ever undertook to prove the same" point, even if they
addressed the same persons, without varying, more or less, from
each other. And when the wide difference that there was between
the state of the mind of the Jews and the mind of the Heathen,
between the mind of the Jew in, and the mind of the Jew out of,
Palestine, between the views and feelings of the refined and
classic Athenian, and the pompous and tumid Asiatic, when these
differences are called to mind, and fairly and definitely appreciated,
then are we prepared to find great diversities in the hue, if not in the
substance, of the several modes of proof by which they were each
addressed. It may not be easy to assign with certainty the audi
ences to which each evangelist spoke. Enough will be said for the
illustration of our remarks, if we put down the view which we take
of the purpose which each of the evangelists seems chiefly to have
entertained. Matthew wrote to prove the Messiahship of Jesus of
Nazareth to the Jews ; and, accordingly, makes ample use of the
Old Testament in the sense, and with the interpretation, current.
09

22 MOEAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS.

among his countrymen in the first century. Mark, on the con
trary, conducted the same argument for the Heathen ; in doing
which, he took from his proofs the merely Hebrew investment in
which he found them, and added such explanations of Jewish cus
toms and usages as he judged desirable. Luke applied himself
more to the historical argument, and so brought his Gospel, espe
cially the second part, as found in the " Acts," to the form of a
popular history. There still remained a mode of representing the
great question of the divine mission of Christ, a mode which
should recommend the subject to minds of higher culture, and given
to abstract speculations ; which should unite, in regard for Christ,
the philosophy of Athens and of Alexandria. This led to the philo
sophical argument as carried out by John. Hence, the beloved
disciple makes use of the doctrine of the Logos, which had its cor
respondencies, if not its immediate origin, in Philo and the Platonists.
This last view was recommended, not only by the promise which it
afforded of conciliating the Heathen, and bringing philosophy into
the Christian camp, but also by its appearing, after the manner of
all strictly philosophical arguments, to afford an absolute and irre
futable proof of the Messiahship of Jesus.

We have, we are aware, done very insufficient justice to the sub
ject; but we must leave it in its actual state of development, to pass
on to other branches of what lies before us.

There are, we have intimated, diversities, and even discrepancies,
in the four writings of which we speak. Some have used a harsher
term, and called them contradictions. We are satisfied ourselves,
however, that the imputation cannot be substantiated, and that the
variations in these accounts are less in number and in magnitude
than even some friends may think. It is by not merely an unfriendly,
but an unjust, method of proceeding, that Strauss often gains the
appearance of succeeding to display variations and discordancies
between the evangelists. The extent to which his method is unjust,
can be measured only by a systematic study of the Gospels, in con
nexion with his perverted comments. We may, however, give a
specimen : suppose that one narrator, A. states, that Fenelon, in the
thirtieth year of his age, visited Rome, and saw St. Peter s Church.
Another narrator, B. records, that Fenelon, in his fortieth year, came
to London, and saw Westminster Hall. These two accounts are
first considered different versions of the same journey. Here, then,
are contradictions. A. declares that Fenelon went to Rome ; B. that
he went to England : both cannot be right ; one must be, and both
may be, in error. At any rate, here is contradiction the first. The
second contradiction is found in the divergent statements, that
Fenelon inspected St. Peter s Church and Westminster Abbey.
But there is a third contradiction, one in regard to time : A. fixes
on the age of thirty ; B. prefers the later period of forty years, both
doubtless with reasons quite satisfactory to themselves. But what
is the value of two writers that thus contradict each other ? Now,

232

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 23

let the reader observe, that this heap of cloud is built on pure
assumption ; namely, that there was but one journey, and that the
times specified, which explain every thing, are adroitly turned into
an objection, and even made to appear as an additional contra
diction.

But let the question, whether the alleged discrepancies in the
Gospels can be reconciled or not, wholly or in part, be for
the present sunk. What are the diversities? Take a specimen.
Matthew reports, that the parents of Jesus fled with their child into
Egypt, of which Luke says nothing. Matthew makes them go to
Nazareth from Bethlehem, immediately after the visit of the Magi ;
while Luke says, they went to Jerusalem. From Jerusalem, Luke
represents them as returning to their home at Nazareth, at the very
time when, according to Matthew, they were in Egypt. Let these
be discordances, let there be others like them, equally let a
solution be impossible. What then ? Is the substance of the his
torical element in these accounts undermined ? It still remains
certain, that Jesus was born of Jewish parents, and in humble life ;
and that he entered on his public ministry in the fifteenth year of
Tiberius Csesar; Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea. They
are, for the most part, trifling points on which these diversities
exist, points whose importance is, for a great part, factitious,
points which have been unduly thrust forward, even by the solicitude
of Christians to give them a reply. The world has stood by, looking
on, and inferred that some great question must be hidden beneath
the thick cloud of all the learned dust which the combatants have
raised in their struggles. In truth, the matters at issue are compa
ratively inconsiderable. Let the opponent make the most of his
objections ; he will avail very little ; and the friends of the gospel,
instead of giving aid to his bad cause, by joining issue with him,
had better be employed in unfolding, and proclaiming to the world,
" the unsearchable riches of Christ." One just and truthful exhi
bition of the character of Christ is, for the bulk of mankind, answer
enough, even to Strauss.

Theological history presents an instructive instance. When first
critical editions of the Greek New Testament were prepared and
published, the world was astounded by the fact, that thousands of
various readings that is, diversities between one manuscript and
another had been discovered. The superficial thought the trust
worthiness of the New Testament destroyed. If there were diver
sities so numerous between the several copies of the New Testament,
then all certainty had come to an end. It certainly was a
startling fact. But its force lay in its novelty. The timid were
alarmed; the self-seekers counselled concealment; the bold and
reckless openly denied the allegation; the men of faith and
truth mildly asserted what they knew, and left the result with
Divine Providence, and the good sense of really Christian people.
After a short time, the glare of novelty wore away. Christianity was

233

24 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

still " believed on " in the world ; and, ere a few years had elapsed,
it was discovered and acknowledged, that, with a few exceptions,
which themselves affected no great Christian truth, these variations
were, for the most part, scarcely more important than the dotting of
an i, or the crossing of a t. And so the alarm came to an end, and
honesty was justified in its deeds.

We ask the reader to transport his mind over the space of a few
years from the present, and he will find himself in a tranquil and
serene atmosphere, where Strauss will be no more heard of, and
the alleged discrepancies be valued at their just price.

We do not utter a paradox, but set down a simple truth and a
firm conviction, when we say, that the authority of the evangelists
would be less with us than it is, were they free from discrepancies.
Such immunity no miracle could accomplish. That four persons,
writing independently one of another on the same subject, in differ
ent places, at different times, for a different end, with different
means of information, should construct four narratives all precisely
alike, each to each, alike in what they said, and in what they
did not say, alike in colouring as in substance, seems to us a
clear impossibility. Certainly, no action of the divine Mind, analo
gous to any of which we have a record in the Bible, none that
would not imply a total subversion, and, for the time, destruction of
the laws of man s intellectual and moral being, could bring about
such a result. And did the phenomenon actually appear before
us in the New Testament, we should have grounds indeed to deny
the independent action of the four, whose testimony would sink to
a unit, and whose honesty would be open to grave suspicions. In
the actual circumstances, there are (let it be granted for the sake of
argument) diversities and variations ; so ought there to be, if these
writers wrote free from concert and collusion : we say these writers ;
for, of all authors, the evangelists are, speaking generally, the
most inartificial. Of the rules of art, of the requirements of phi
losophy, history, of the canons of either Aristotle or Strauss, they knew
nothing, but merely wrote down a simple tale, and followed out a
convincing argument, for the great purpose which filled their souls.
Oh! strange it is that men men of learning cannot see that
the evangelists have all the features of truth about them, all the
simple, straight-forward earnestness of the first fresh life of a new
religion ; and that religion such a one as was the gospel. In their
writings, every thing is spontaneous and unconscious: there is a
child-like simplicity in their works. What makes for them, their
Master, and their object, they set down, if graphically, still with the
utmost conciseness ; what makes against themselves individually,
they do not attempt to conceal, and as little to explain or extenu
ate. Their pictures have all the ease and freshness of portraits,
copied, by a master s hand, from actual life. They tell you what
they have to say, thinking and caring nothing of the effect it may
produce. So full are they of the glorious things which it is their

234

MOKAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 25

happy lot to announce, that they simply deliver their burden as if
sure it must be to others what it has proved to themselves; or,
rather, as if they never had any other feeling than to discharge their
duty as ambassadors of Christ. They sow their seed, broad cast
over the land, and think only that there is a God above, whose ser
vants they are. Efforts so thoroughly unconscious cannot be false ;
but may, and can hardly fail to be attended by diversities of ope
ration, while they are actuated by one spirit.

Whatever variations there may be in the several evangelical nar
ratives, they are, however, for the most part, in the outward form ;
or, if in the substance, they lie merely on the surface, affecting in
no material manner either the body of Christian history, or the
body of Christian doctrine. An unfriendly criticism may unjusti
fiably multiply and exaggerate the existing discrepancies, and, by
arts of rhetoric, succeed in shaking the foundations of the faith of
those who want the knowledge or the industry requisite to form a
sound self-judgment. But what system of truth is not liable to a
similar procedure ? There have been, and are, persons who would
persuade the world that the Newtonian philosophy is false and
visionary. The virtuous Socrates was charged with opprobrious
misdeeds. Aristides was too just for the vain, fickle, and selfish
Athenians. We do not deny that there are discordances ; but, if we
may borrow a metaphor from geology, they are only inequalities and
fissures in the crust, the outer shell, leaving the great sphere of
religious truth untouched and uninjured. Nor do we deprecate the
diligence that the unfriendly criticism to which we have referred,
has employed, in detecting and exposing these variations. We
only wish the facts of the case to be ascertained, and made known.
He renders a service to truth a great service who explodes an
error. The gospel has often been served more effectually by its
concealed enemies than by its professed friends. Let the closest
inspection of a lynx-eyed criticism, united with the most hostile
philosophy, do its utmost against the gospel. When the worst that
its enemies can do has been done, we shall, at least, have nothing
more to fear ; and may then, with some assurance, go round our
Zion, and count those of her towers which have withstood the siege.
The explosion of error is often the establishment of truth ; for, when
hostility has done its worst, what remains may well be accounted
safe. And, in the case before us, what is it that remains ? Nay,
rather, what tower has fallen? What mode of proof, hitherto
deemed satisfactory, has been shown to be unsound ? The labours
of the older harmonists have, we grant, been proved to be fruitless.
But it required not the criticism of Strauss to establish this point.
We will confess to have derived little satisfaction from those labours,
long before we knew German theology, except by name. But we
suffer no loss in abandoning the idea of a verbal harmony. This is
but the wood, hay, and stubble of the gospel ; man s fancy, not
God s truth. If, in theology as in physics, speculatists will dream

235 2 L

26 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

of " pre-established harmonies," they must expect the fate of all
unreal things. But truth is an eternal reality ; and, in the religion
of Jesus Christ, truth, we are bold to say, remains* uninjured, after
all that the most extreme rationalism has attempted or achieved.
As when Newton, by the disclosure of the simple laws which regu
late the movements of the universe, swept away the cobwebs which
men had hung on the face of the heavens, and taught the world a
grander unity than fancy had devised, bringing forth the true har
mony that pervades the universe ; so, even the unfriendly criticism
of Germany has touched and broken bubbles which injudicious
friends had thrown around the sphere of Christian truth, declaring
to the world that they were particles of heaven s own light, and
thus, by destroying the unreal, this criticism has left the simple and
imperishable form of truth to be seen in its own divine loveliness
and unbroken unity.

What is that unity ? There is a unity in the facts of the gospel ;
there is a unity, also, in the doctrines of the gospel ; there is a still
more sublime unity in the image which the New Testament presents
of its great and divine subject, the Lord Jesus Christ. If these pro
positions are true, then all is true and unassailable that constitutes
the source of spiritual life ; all that is needful for duty, for self-
perfection, for eternal happiness ; all that the heart craves all
that the intellect needs.

The facts of the gospel are summed up in what is termed the
Apostles Creed. This formulary does not, in its actual state, run
back to the apostolic age. Yet, that it is very ancient, all external
testimony goes to show ; and, in particular, that article in it which
speaks of Christ s descent into hell, that is, to Hades, the unseen
state, the dark and shadowy abode of departed spirits ; belief in
which came from the Jewish into the Christian church, and existed
in the Christian church only in its earlier days, and then disappeared
before the Chaldean notion of hell, considered as a place not of
mere detention, privation, and darkness, but of punishment, "wrath,
tribulation, and anguish." But, whatever be the age of the so-called
Apostles Creed, in substance there can be no doubt that it does,
with the exception before mentioned, present the belief of the
earliest Christian communities, and even of the apostles them
selves. Now, what article, what portion of this creed, has Strauss
disproved. He has attempted, indeed, to turn the fact of the
resurrection into a vision : we speak not of his attempts, but his
success. Do the discrepancies which he adduces invalidate and
deny the fact of the resurrection ? He spares no labour to make
the four writers who attest the fact contradict each other ; and, as
if he were conscious that grave argument did not accomplish his
purpose, he does not disdain to borrow a shaft from the poisoned
quiver of Voltaire ; but, after all, he cannot disprove that without
disproving which his efforts amount almost to nothing, he cannot
and does not disprove, that these witnesses are unanimous in the

236

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 27

testimony which they bear, that "the Lord has risen indeed."
There may be more or less difficulty in showing that the four
accounts agree in every minute particular ; but what truly reason
able man could make the presumption of their disagreement the
ground of an attack, in the case of such writers as those of the Gos
pels, in the case of documents which pretend not to say all that
could be said, and which were written some eighteen hundred years
ago, in Eastern lands, and in a state of society totally different from
our own ? Whatever the actual diversities may amount to, one
thing remains beyond a question ; namely, that, do what you will,
you cannot get rid of the testimony which these four men bear, with
one voice, to the fact that Christ did rise from the dead. Were it
not our present purpose to confine our remarks to what is contained
in the New Testament itself, we could prove, with no great labour,
that the- facts embodied in the Apostles Creed are, more or less,
directly substantiated by witnesses who were not members of the
church of Christ ; but this argument would occupy more time and
space than we can now afford, and is of importance enough to
deserve a separate treatise.

If now we turn from the history to the doctrine, from the hull
to the kernel, and take, as our exponent of what the Christian
doctrine is, the universal consent of the church, omitting, of
course, what some have doubted and others denied, we find that
this is its sum ; namely, that there is one God, the Creator of the
universe, who, in the fulness of time, sent his Son to be the Saviour
of the world ; the blessings of whose life and death are appropriated
by faith working by love, under the divine assistance of the Holy
Spirit; that, as an indispensable preliminary, alike to the com
mencement of the divine life which the gospel aims to impart, and
to the exercise of God s grace in pardoning and remitting sins, is
that sincere and heartfelt contrition which leads to repentance,
brings forth an entire change of mind, and issues in such a new,
spiritual creation as implies reconciliation with God ; sanctification
of soul ; peace of heart ; calm, gentle, but bright and inspiring
hope ; large and unfailing charity ; undoubting and unwavering con
fidence in God s wisdom, love, and faithfulness ; and so prepares the
happy child of heaven for the yet further display of grace, and for
the full blessedness of eternal life. Now, this ample system of spi
ritual good remains entire, with at least a sufficiency of instances,
exemplifications, encouragements, with, in a word, a large and
full assemblage of spiritual aids, after all that our modern " science
falsely so called " has been able to effect in the way of destruction.
We know not that more is necessary than thus to indicate the
fact. We do not expect, that any competent judge will call
that fact in question. One illustrative remark, however, may not
be out of place, if only for the confirmation of any who may be
weak in faith. The gospel is inwrought into nearly every portion
of the New Testament, so deeply, thoroughly, and in all its essen-

237

28 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THB GOSPELS.

tial elements, that no mere verbal criticism can reach or damage it.
A single document is enough whence to reproduce its substance :
even in fragments of the New Testament, as in the ruins of some
famous temple, you can trace, not only the outlines of the original,
but its simple grandeur. The parable of the Prodigal Son has not
evaporated in the crucible of this Hegelian theology; and with that,
had we no other offspring of the mind of Jesus, we could learn the
will of the gracious heavenly Father, and also our own duty and
destiny as well. But, let it be supposed that the Gospels have
been hacked in pieces by Strauss so pitiably and so completely as
never more to resume their former proportions, the Book of the
Acts remains entire; and, should it perish, then there are all the
Epistles, on each of which might the defender of the cross take
his stand, nor fear to be defeated in contending for the faith.

Of the unity of the image of Jesus, as presented in the New
Testament, we shall speak here but briefly, considering the mag
nitude and importance of the subject: we advisedly reserve much
of what might be now alleged for the conclusion of this essay. It
will be sufficient for our purpose if we refute two objections which
have been raised, and so leave the oneness of our Lord s character
in that quiet and unimpeached state of recognition in which it had
for ages lain.

First, then, it is said, that the Christ of the latter period of our
Lord s ministry is not the Christ of its commencement ; that there
was a gradual unfolding of the idea of the Messiah, which, being at
the first purely Jewish, eventually became somewhat else, some
thing which approached to the idea of a spiritual and universal
Saviour, as the notion was taken up and elaborated to perfection by
Paul. A grosser form of the objection is, that Jesus, having begun
with the Jewish conception of the Messiah, and finding the specu
lation not answer, set up, when in extremity, to be a spiritual King.
Strauss, however, goes further still. According to him, Jesus
intended nothing more than a general moral reform ; but, as his
followers would have it that he was the Messiah, he at last adopted
the idea. The sole feasible ground for this enormous error may, by
an unfriendly eye, be, under the aid of misinterpretation, found in
the material notions of the yet unconverted apostles, and in the
consequently darkening hues in which they have reflected on their
page the pure heavenly light of the Saviour s mind. That their
notions of the Messiah were low and worldly is not doubted; audit
is equally clear that they could scarcely do otherwise than tinge,
with the discolourings of their own gross hearts, the doctrine of
their great Teacher. Still, through these discolorations, the unjaun-
diced eye can discover the silvery light of heaven. Take the
Sermon on the Mount, and say if that is evidence that our Lord s
plan was at first that of a mere Jewish Rabbi. We care not whether
you consider that so-called sermon as one discourse, or as a cento
of fragments. Its doctrine is clear, and its doctrine far transcends

238

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 29

" that of the Scribes and Pharisees." We cannot enter into length
ened details, and must content ourselves with one or two more
instances. Take the dramatised history of the Temptation. You
do not understand its form ; but you can hardly miss its doctrine.
Does the Saviour appear here as a mere Jewish aspirant for the
throne of the world? What ideas are embodied in this scenic
representation, if not that Jesus was, from the first, proof against all
the wiles of mere earthly grandeur, and far above the dark and
perturbed sphere of Rabbinical Judaism ? And in what character is
Jesus announced by the Baptist but " Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh aivay the sins of the world?" (John i. 29.) Is
the conversation of our Lord with Nicodemus in the spirit and after
the manner of Rabbinism ? Surely nothing in all his ministry, nor
in the ministry of Paul, was ever uttered having a wider compre
hension, or involving more momentous truth, than those words
which occur in the very beginning of John s Gospel : " God so
loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son, that whosoever
believed on him should not perish, but have everlasting life ; for
God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that
the world through him might be saved" (iii. 16, 17).

But, if an objection is made to John s testimony, then turn to
Matthew (chap, v.), and read the Beatitudes, as declared by the
lips of the Son of man himself. Can it be said, that this is
the voice of Rabbinical morality of a political adventurer, or of
a pseudo-Jewish Messiah, or of one who was yet only a child in
spiritual religion ? Rather, is not this early transcript of our Lord s
mind in full and beautiful harmony with its latest developments ?
The same spirit which bore the tortures and ignominy of the cross
with entire composure and unruffled patience, breathes throughout
these inspired verses. The prayer which Jesus put up, when in
the agony of death, for his brutal executioners, is the same sublime
power in act which we read in these divine oracular sentences.
And here is the only signal difference which we can see between
the close and the commencement of our Lord s ministry ; namely,
that the second is the realization of the first. He began by teach
ing he ended with practising his own doctrines. In the former
we have divine truth in his words : in the latter we see and admire
divine truth in his life and death. The character of Christ, as
known of men, was only an unfolding of his inward being, which
was, so far as we can learn, fully formed when first he came forth
from God, and began his labours for the salvation of the world.

The other objection which we intimated an intention of endea
vouring to answer, is this that the character of our Lord is
diversely drawn by his four biographers. There is, as we have
already intimated, a difference in the portraits drawn by these four
hands. The essential conditions of truth require that there should
be a difference. A difference was unavoidable. The sole ques
tion is this Is the difference greater than the circumstances would

30 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

seem to demand or justify ? "John s Christ differs from the Christ
of Matthew." In colouring it does. But the great features of the
original are preserved and presented in both. Every hand has its
own touch ; every artist, his own style. No writer is free from a
certain mannerism. My mind cannot see an object in precisely the
same outline, much less the same lights and shades, as yours. If
not, then how can my pencil fail, if it be true to the guiding mind,
to produce an image of an original somewhat varying from that
which proceeds from your hand ? We again refer to the Athenian
philosopher. How dissimilar the Socrates of the simple, inornate,
but highly refined intellect of Xenophon, to the Socrates which his
his other great pupil, Plato, produced from the gorgeous creations
of his imagination ! Far greater is the diversity that there is between
these two, than any real or fancied difference in the case of the
evangelists. The life of John Milton was written by his nephew,
Philips, and by Wood, shortly after the poet s death. Johnson
treated the same subject. Hayley also drew Milton s portrait.
Todd and Symmons each wrote a biography of this "blind old
man of Britain s isle." Each piece -has its characteristic differ
ences. We will set Johnson s Life of Milton aside, as the extra
vagant result of his political and religious bitterness. Then we
say, without fear of contradiction, that there is not a greater
difference between the dry, cold, and fragmentary memoir drawn
up by Todd, and the warm, glowing, sympathising, and high-
sounding portraiture which came from the friendly pen of Symmons,
than you may find or imagine between the Christ of Matthew and
the Christ of John. And while Wood, with his touches of nature,
and anecdotes of real life, may not unaptly bear a comparison with
the graphic fragmentist, Mark ; Hayley, in the professional skill,
and, in some sense, artistic refinements of his style, as well as in his
hearty love of his subject, in the easy flow, and the full volume
of his narrative, may call to mind the Gospel of Luke. Whether,
however, the parallels now intimated may hold good or not, it still
remains true that each of these biographers has a style and manner
of his own, by the characteristics of which any portion of his memoir
may be as easily recognised, as the capital of a Corinthian column
in ruins may be distinguished from one of the Doric order. Were
it necessary to pursue the illustrations further, we think that there
are few great men in history, having had several biographers, of
whom the same remarks may not be made. Take the Schiller
of Carlyle, and compare it with that of Bulwer. The following pas
sage, translated from the preface of Eckermann s Mittheilungen
liber Gothe, "Biographical Communications respecting Gothe,"
has much force and relevance in the point before us :

"Far am I from the opinion, that the entire inner man of Gothe is here pourtrayed.
This extraordinary man may be compared to a many-sided diamond, which puts forth a
colour varying with each change of its direction ; and as he was a different man in dif-

240

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 31

ferent relations and to different persons, so can I, very modestly say, in my own case,
This is my GSthe. This remark relates not only to the way in which he offered
himself to my mind, but also to the manner in which I have been able to form a concep
tion of him, and set that conception before the reader. In such cases there is a trans
mission of light ; and it very seldom happens, that the ray, in passing through another
individual, does not lose something of its own, and take a foreign hue.* The portraits
of Gothe s person, by Rauch, Dawe, Stieler, and David, are all, in a high degree, true;
and yet they all, more or less, bear a stamp of the individual mind by which they were in
each case, produced. And if this may be said of corporeal things, how much more of the
fleeting and impalpable essences of the soul ! That which we call truth, even in relation
to a single object, is in no way some small, narrow, limited thing ; much rather is it, if
simple, yet something comprehensive, which, like the varied manifestations of a wide
and deep natural law, is not easily described. It is not to be set forth by a mere decla
ration, nor even by declaration and counter-declaration; but by all these means taken
together we may attain, not, indeed, the object itself, but approximations to it."

No ! not the object itself, certainly, in the case of our Lord: none
of the four who have left us his portrait have, we believe, done
more than given even distant approximations to the divine original :
no wonder, therefore, that, in transmitting the image of their Master,
they produced a likeness, in each case, of him, rather as seen by
themselves, than as he existed in reality. Just in proportion as
they differed one from the other in original endowments, and in
opportunities of self-culture, would their several portraits of their
Master differ. And, surely, no two minds, living and acting
within the same spiritual sphere, can well be conceived more dis
similar, than that of " Matthew the tax-gatherer," and " John the
divine."

There is another unity of which we must here speak one not,
indeed, of substance, but of form ; yet of a form which, like each
person s own personality, is so mingled and blended with the sub
stance of the gospel, as to live and perish (if the gospel could perish)
with it: we allude to miracles. And here we say, that miracle
pervades the entire system, is unfolded in every part of the sys
tem, not merely as an element, but as an essential element, of the
system, as the explaining cause of events we had nearly said all
the events, and could scarcely have been accused of exaggeration
had we made our assertion universal. This, at least, is certain, that
miracle runs through the entire texture of the gospel history, in
such a manner that it is essential to account for each successive group
of facts ; that, if you take it away, you leave nothing but scattered

* The force of this striking image is impaired in the translation given of it in Fuller s
"Conversations with Gothe." See "Ripley s Specimens of Foreign Literature," vol. iv.;
author s preface, p. 5 ; where it stands thus : " In such cases each ray is reflected ; and
it is very seldom, that, in passing through the individuality of another being, nothing of
the original is lost, and nothing foreign interfused." To pass over the fine language
of the passage, so alien from the simplicity of Eckermann, what are we to make of a ray
which, being reflected, passes through the very substance from which it is reflected ? The
translation confounds the reflection with the transmission of a ray of light.
241

32 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

heaps of unconnected and lifeless things, which came together by
chance or some other equally energetic cause, and may, for aught
you know, pass as freely into any other state. For ourselves, indeed,
if we may say a word on the evidence afforded by miracles, we do
not believe the gospel because of them ; but it is equally true, that
we could not believe the gospel, as it is actually presented, without
them ; for to us they are an indispensable element in accounting for
the rise, spread, and triumph of Christianity. We repeat it, miracle
pervades the entire history of primitive Christianity. Here there is
in the church no diversity of opinion. Paul and Peter had their
differences. There were rivalry and disputing even in the circle
of Jesus himself. The admission of the Gentiles into the Christian
church, at least unless they came through the synagogue, was a
subject of long and severe controversy, and required, for its settle
ment, the convening of something like a formal council at Jerusa
lem. Paul s apostleship was vehemently gainsaid. The moment we
pass from the apostolic age, we find the church engaged in a violent
dispute touching the right time for keeping Easter; and even
the earlier days of ecclesiastical history were troubled and darkened
by vain debates. Yet respecting miracles there is no diversity of
opinion ; no heresy arises, no sect is formed, which impeaches
or denies miracles. This cannot be ascribed to a discreet silence,
for, where there were diversities, silence did not prevail. There is
on the point a universal agreement, an agreement which prevails
in and out of Judea ; in the East and in the West ; wherever Chris
tian communities are found. What is not less remarkable, if
miracle was merely a thing which rose from the foam of the
imagination, as Venus is fabled to have been born of the sea,
not even the enemies and assailants of Christianity deny the exist
ence of miracle, or allege that there were Christians who called the
power in question. And, unless we are mistaken, we shall show
that the enemies of our faith are obliged, even in their attacks, to
concede that miracles were claimed, if not performed.

Let it be observed, then, that Christianity presents itself uniformly
to the world as a miraculous system. It appears so now, and so it
appeared at the first. The record of Pagan historians, and the
cavils of its earliest assailants, agree in exhibiting Christianity as
claiming the resources of miraculous power. There is on this point
no discrepancy. Not even in the vestige of a tradition does the
notion find support, that the historical, at any given period, existed
as yet unconnected with the miraculous. The natural and the
supernatural are not two streams rising, remote one from another,
in the shades of antiquity, but one indivisible current, flowing from
the great fountain of moral and spiritual life. In fact, Christianity,
in its history, exhibits the miraculous in bold relief. The miracu
lous is stamped deeply and indelibly on its character. It has no
one feature so marked as this. The time has been when men con
trived to hide the loveliness of its spirit; but never have there

242

MOBAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 33

failed to be disciples to maintain, even by their corruptions, the
miraculous in its form. For what is that pretence to the power of
working miracles, which extends from the present hour back to the
first ages of the Christian church, but an indirect recognition
of the miraculous character of Christianity ; as the counterfeit
implies the genuine original from which it is copied, and the echo
leads the thought to the parent sound ?

Now, it surely is somewhat strange if, after all, there is nothing
miraculous in Christianity. How, then, can the invariable tradition
of successive centuries be accounted for ? The question is not of a
dubious feature in the system, of one marked so indistinctly as
to be scarcely recognised by some, and actually denied by others,
but of what has been ever deemed to be an essential a character
istic peculiarity, one so broad, and deep, and full, as to be seen
and read of almost all men. Yet it is all a mistake, we are now
required to believe. Miracles never were performed, though a broad
belt of what at least appears miraculous light spreads over the
infant church ; and from it men lighted torches, made of wood, hay,
and stubble, with which to kindle each his own little fire. The con
current voice of antiquity has, both directly and indirectly, declared
Christianity to be miraculous, both in its origin and in its early
progress; and we cannot understand the structure of that man s
mind who should deny, that there is a presumption in favour of its
declaration.

Those who reject the aid of the miraculous in accounting for
the progress of Christianity, may justly be required to inform us
how it was that the religion made its way in the world. Did it
want enemies ? The whole power of earth was arrayed against it :
the power of the Roman state in all its complex relations,
of the interested priest and the sceptical philosopher, of the
ignorant and prejudiced peasant, the glory of centuries, and
the associations of religion, the endearments of domestic life,
and the ties of blood. Yet Christianity triumphed; the shrines
of idolatry sank ; the temples were deserted ; the veil was stripped
from an imposture which time had rendered venerable ; priest and
philosopher bowed the knee to Jesus; and the peasant suffered
death, rather than cast a few grains of incense on the altar of an
emperor, whom, before, he had worshipped as the giver of life and
happiness.

What was the might that levelled these mountains ? Independ
ently of the miraculous, the might that lay in the arm of a few
Galilean fishermen, of a tent-maker, and some others, whom Judea
had cast out of its borders for attempting the revival of a super
stition which had been originated by a crucified malefactor. Is
this possible ? The conquest of idolatry was, to no small extent,
the conquest of the Roman state ; for the civil and religious func
tions were blended most intimately together. Was Rome, then,
conquered by the offscouring of the most despised land on earth ?
243 2 M

34 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

Are degradation and contempt the instruments by which great
moral and social changes are ordinarily effected ?

An attempt has, indeed, been made by one whose hatred to
Christianity prompted him to use any arms in the warfare he waged
against it, to show that there were causes, independently of the
miraculous, to which the early spread of Christianity may be
ascribed. But, even in his own manner of treating the subject,
there do not fail to be intimations that he himself was aware of the
insufficiency of his basis to sustain the superstructure he was raising
on it. And whatever truth there may be in the general train of his
remarks, not a cause is there, of any consequence, assigned by
Gibbon, as concurring to the propagation of Christianity, but
needs another cause to account for its own existence. He may, in
part, have succeeded in assigning the secondary causes of the pro
gress of the gospel : but that which is second implies that which is
first ; and the primary cause remains as much unimpaired by him,
as it is unallowed. With our present knowledge of astronomy,
the man would be accounted insane who should persist in account
ing for the light of the night, by discoursing exclusively of the
light of the moon. Whence that light ? So miracle is the sun of
Christianity.

What shall we say of the first promulgation of the religion of
Christ. Could that have been effected apart from the aid of miracle ?
Reflect, for a moment, on the difficulties to be encountered, and the
instrumentality that was employed. What a disproportion ! Omitting
other things, we, for ourselves, find in the preservation of the life
of Jesus, till his hour had come, a sufficient proof that he was under
the protection of more than mortal power. For more than one, if
not for three years, he goes up and down the land, preaching in
such a manner as to excite the hatred of all who were concerned
in the maintenance of the then existing system, and exposing him
self to the fury of angry multitudes. Yet, in the midst of peril, he
is safe ; and when, at last, the period of his existence drew near, he
delivers himself, of his own accord, into the hands of his enemies
and dies, not because they had power to take his life away, but
because he had the moral heroism to lay it down for the salvation
of the world. How is this ? His enemies wanted neither malig
nity, nor craft, nor activity. From almost the first, they employ all
their resources in order to compass his death. Where could have
been the difficulty ? That it was not in the purity of their judicial
administration, nor in any scrupulousness as to the means employed,
nor in any very stern reluctance on the part of the Romans to gra
tify the heads of the nation in their wishes, the mockery of a trial
through which Jesus was hurried makes but too manifest. " They
feared the people," an objector may allege. Why did they fear
the people ? The people themselves were more than once on the
point of putting Jesus to a violent death ; evidence this itself
sufficient to show, that Jesus did not throw himself for support on

244

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 35

the passions or the prejudices of the people ; and who but the
people swelled the brutal cries that smote the ear of Jesus, during
the tragedy which ended in his death ? If, then, as they appear to
have done, the authorities feared the people, they had other grounds
for their fear than any which compromise the integrity of Christ ;
and, if it was by the employment of honest means that Jesus ingra
tiated himself with large masses of the people, at least for a time,
these means could scarcely, in the circumstances, have been any
thing else than the splendour and beneficence of his miraculous
power. Of earthly resources fitted to win the hearts of the people,
he was all but destitute ; nay, there was much, very much, both in
his character, which the people could not appreciate, and in his
teachings, by which they would be revolted; so that, on the whole,
all that belonged to him strictly as a man would rather pre
judice than benefit his cause. Yet so high was he held in the
esteem and veneration of the people, that the great ones of the land
were checked in their eager malignity. This can be accounted for
in no way but by the admission, that he possessed a power beyond
that of man. Were the Jewish authorities likely to be arrested in
their purpose by the airy castles of their own imagination, or the
vapours which fanaticism, operating on ignorance, might raise and
cast around the person of Christ ; especially, too, when the very
existence of their power was at stake ? Those know little of the
malignity of their hearts, and the strength of their purpose, and
the recklessness of their conscience, who suppose that they were
stopped by imaginary fears, or by any thing short of a power before
which the giant and the babe are weak alike. No : it was the divine
presence that went with Jesus, which was a wall of fire round about
him. And as the wicked are unable to bear the sanctity of the
good man s aspect, and the gaze of his eye, so the High Priests
and Pharisees shrank from the divinity which beamed mildly, but
strongly, around Jesus; while those who had a heart to feel the
sublime of moral power, and no bad purpose to turn back the cur
rent of their souls, bowed in venerating love before the holy imper
sonation, and proclaimed rapturously that a " great Prophet had
risen up among them, and that God had visited his people."

If, from the more prominent features of the evangelical narratives,
we turn to some minor incidents, we shall find the miraculous so
incorporated with ordinary events, that the one cannot be separated
from the other; and both must be taken, or both rejected. And
here, as no induction of particulars can exhibit the connexion in
the closeness and strength in which it exists in the record itself,
we must beg our readers to review the sacred historians, as we have
done, with the special purpose of gathering information on the sub
ject ; and then, nor till then, will they be able fully to know how
thoroughly miracle runs through the web of the four Gospels.

With particulars, however, we must deal; and we proceed to
notice the circumstances, so far as they can be learned, which are
240

36 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

connected with the village of Bethany. In the last chapter of
Luke s Gospel, at the fifth verse, it is related that Jesus, after his
resurrection, " led his disciples out as far as to Bethany ; and there,
having blessed them, he was parted from them, and carried up to
heaven." In Mark xiv. 3 we read, " And being in Bethany, in the
house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman,
having an alabaster-box of ointment of spikenard, very precious ;
and she brake the box, and poured it on his head." (See also
Matt. xxvi. 6, seq.) From John xii. 2 we learn that the supper was
given in honour of Jesus : " There they made him a supper, and
Martha served ; but Lazarus was one of them that sat at table with
him." In Luke xix. 29, words are found which make it at least
probable that it was to Bethany that Jesus sent his disciples to
procure the colt on which he purposed to ride into Jerusalem. In
John xii. 1 it is simply recorded, " Then Jesus, six days before
the Passover, came to Bethany." In Matt. xxi. 12 it is written,
that, after Jesus had been teaching in Jerusalem, and acting with
the authority of the special Messenger of Heaven, " he left them,
and went out of the city into Bethany ; and he lodged there ; " and,
from the parallel passage in Mark xi. 11, we learn that he left Jeru
salem in the " even-tide," and together " with the twelve."

Now, we ask, why all this about Bethany ? There was nothing
in the village itself to merit especial notice. Why this place among
all the villages of the land chosen as the favourite resort of Jesus ?
and how comes it to pass, that the several writers should all without
concert agree in pointing to this ordinary hamlet ? Let it be
noticed, that the passages we have put together are scattered up
and down in the different books which give the history of Jesus, and
are introduced both without preparation and without special object,

mentioned merely incidentally in the course of the narrative, as
writers would be likely to do who wrote of things of which they
themselves had personal knowledge. Such statements thus sim
ple in themselves, thus casually mentioned, and thus harmonious in
relation to our subject every one will admit to be natural, and
to wear every appearance of truth. But all these passages point to
some event, and that event of a remarkable, if not miraculous cha
racter. If not, why does Jesus lead his disciples out to Bethany ?

and why is he found at supper at Bethany ? and why does he
direct his followers to procure in Bethany the colt which he needed
for his triumphal entry into Jerusalem ? and why, in going up to
Jerusalem for the last time, does he make Bethany the object of his
special attention, by visiting it in preference to any other place ?
and why, after the toil and turmoil of the day, does he retire at
nightfall from Jerusalem, where doubtless he had some friends, to
Bethany of all places, situated some two miles from the capital,
and take with him no fewer than twelve persons ? Let us for a
moment suppose, that we knew nothing more than we have now
detailed : could we hesitate to affirm, that all these concurring

246

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 37

circumstances declared, that there was something peculiar about
Bethany ; that it must have possessed attractions of an unusual and
powerful kind ? " Jesus," we should say, " must have had friends
there, and friends warmly attached to him ; and how could he have
acquired these attached friends, but by some signal display of
affection ? " Thus the circumstances themselves lead us to the
recorded fact. Bethany, we are informed, was the scene of a
remarkable display of Christ s love and power. It was there that
he raised Lazarus from the dead. No wonder that the place was
sacred in the eyes of others, and dear to himself. Take this single
fact, as a key to these scattered passages, and their meaning and
pertinency are at once disclosed. Where, rather than to Bethany,
was Jesus likely to conduct his disciples, when on the point of
leaving them for ever ? where rather than to Bethany, the scene
where clustered so many sacred and pleasing associations ?
where was an entertainment so likely to be made for him as at
Bethany ? where would a greater or a more eager crowd assem
ble ; coming, not only " for Jesus sake, but that they might see
Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead"?* and who
more likely to be found at table with him at Bethany than this
Lazarus ?f or who more likely to " serve,"f in ministering to his
wants and gratification, than Martha, the sister of Lazarus ; the
same Martha who, on a prior occasion, " received him into her
house," when, in journeying, " he came to a certain village," and
" was cumbered about much serving ?" J Admit the restoration of
Lazarus to life, and every minute circumstance recorded about this
" certain village " becomes pregnant with meaning : deny it, and no
rational account can be given of facts recorded in such a manner as
to be indisputable.

In the account of the anointing of Jesus in Simon s house at
Bethany, as given by Matthew and Mark, no mention is made of
the woman s name. It is simply said, " there came a woman." But
what does the act itself imply, if not the reception, on the part of
the woman, of some great benefit ? It was not only a striking proof
of gratitude, but a costly one, so costly, in the circumstances, as
to call forth the blame of the byestanders as an unwarrantable extra
vagance. Did we possess only the Gospels of Matthew and Mark,
we should infer that the woman had received some extraordinary
mark of Christ s favour. John supersedes the necessity of conjec
ture, by supplying information which agrees with what conjecture
would lead us to believe, when he states, that the woman was Mary,
the sister of Lazarus (John xii. 3). The whole matter is thus at
once explained. She had good reason to spare nothing which
might evince her affection for Jesus ; for she was a sister of him
whom Jesus had restored to life. What more natural than Mary s

* John xii. 0. t John xii. 2. j Luke x. 40.

247

38 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

conduct in the actual circumstances? But her act might have
merited the reproof that it called forth, had she not been deeply
indebted to Jesus. Admit the debt, in other words, admit the
miracle, and her conduct is as true to nature as it is becoming in
itself, and honourable to her heart.

The conduct, moreover, of both Mary and Martha, on occasion
of their brother s demise, is replete with evidence, showing the pos
session, on the part of Jesus, of miraculous power.

Let us premise, that the hour of bereavement is emphatically the
hour of nature. The genuine feelings of the heart display them
selves then, if ever ; and, especially in seeking the removal or the
mitigation of the calamity, truth and not falsehood actuates the
conduct. Who, on the dangerous illness of a friend, could play
the part of sending for a physician known to be deceptive or incom
petent ? How, then, do Mary and Martha act on the decease of
their brother ? They send for Jesus. What clearer testimony
could there be to his power ? And they send for Jesus, not to heal
but to re-animate Lazarus. What is the language of their conduct
but that they knew Jesus had power over life and death ? Jesus
arrives near their abode, and how is he addressed ? Remember, the
words that are uttered are the words of genuine emotion, whatever
may be their import. The whole scene is truthful. Nature speaks
in every act and word. For the truth of what we say, we appeal
to any person who has suffered the grief of bereavement, or has
witnessed its unsophisticated manifestations. Indeed, the entire
narrative is invested with a beautiful simplicity. What, then, is the
address of the sisters ? In their conduct they had evinced the most
trustful reliance. Does a doubt of Jesus power escape in their
words ? does the faintest shade of doubt appear to have crossed
their minds ? The moment that Martha heard of the approach of
Jesus, she hastens to meet him, and says, " Lord, if thou hadst
been here, my brother had not died ; but I know, that even now,
whatsoever thou wilt ask of God, God will it give thee." Decisive
evidence that Jesus possessed supernatural power. Martha s eager
ness, so true to nature in the actual circumstances, shows her
sincerity and her faith ; while her words are the expression of a heart
full of assurance. Meanwhile, Mary sat in the house. Apprised,
however, by Martha of the advent of Jesus, she, too, " arose
quickly," and, coming unto him, falls down at his feet, saying, " Lord,
if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." A remarkable
coincidence with the declaration of her sister. The same eagerness,
the same confidence in both, bear testimony to the strength and
steadiness of their faith. The sisters had obviously conversed
together, in the privacy of their grief, about their loss, and the ability
of their friend, the great Prophet ; and had again and again given
utterance, one to another, of the conviction of their souls, that, if
Jesus, who had so often been their guest, had but happened to be
present on the occasion of their brother s illness, his life would have

248

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 39

been saved ; and still, that he of whose power and love they had
heard and seen so many manifestations, could, were he aware of
their brother s death, reanimate his lifeless frame. Let any one
attempt to account for their acts and words, without some such
supposition as we have now put, and he will speedily discover the
strength of evidence which the whole of this interesting incident
bears to the miraculous endowments of Jesus.

An effort has, indeed, been made to throw suspicion on the
narrative, by alleging that it is unlikely the two sisters would have
used precisely the same words in addressing Jesus, as " Lord, if
thou hadst been here, my brother had not died." The two addresses,
however, are not the same : that of Martha is more than double the
length of Mary s, and is succeeded by a conversation with Jesus.
The identity is limited to the words given above. We have already
seen reason to expect, that, in their private conferences, these two
sisters would be led to entertain the same idea, the import of which
is expressed in the words to which we have just referred. But, if
the idea was in both minds the same, the clothing of it would not
probably be greatly different. The idea would, in their conversa
tion, naturally take no very dissimilar words, when enunciated by
the lips of each ; and, when the time came to give utterance to the
idea in the presence of Jesus, the associated words could hardly fail
to fall from the tongue. It must be remembered, that these two
women were sisters. Relatives have a language of their own, which
is common to all the members of a family ; and if these sisters had
repeatedly said to each other, " If the Lord were here, our brother
would not have died," they might easily utter the same words, each
for herself, when they spoke to the Saviour. At any rate, the objec
tion affects only the outward form of the narrative, over which, there
can be no doubt, the writer in general exerted an influence of a
personal nature.

What particular exertions of miraculous power the family at
Bethany may have witnessed, the history does not furnish us with
the materials for determining. That prior to the restoration of
Lazarus, however, Jesus was intimately known to the family, there
can be no doubt. It is implied in the whole narrative of John,
whose story bears the clearest evidences of being the story of an
eye-witness. Particularly is it implied in the manner in which
Lazarus is spoken of. The message of the sisters was, "Lord,
behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." The statement of the histo
rian is, " Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus ;"
a message and a statement confirmed by Jesus himself, when he
says, " Our friend Lazarus sleepeth." And since, in these words,
he says not merely " my," but " our friend Lazarus sleepeth," he
declares indirectly, not only that Lazarus was well known and
esteemed by his constant associates, as well as himself, but seems
to point to the frequent hospitality and friendliness which his fol
lowers, as well as himself, had in common experienced under the

249

40 MOBAL ARGUMENT FOE THE GOSPELS.

roof of Lazarus. These conclusions are corroborated by what we
read in Luke x. 38 : " Now it came to pass, as they went, that he
entered into a certain village ; and a certain woman, named Martha,
received him into her house." The way in which the statement is
made seems to imply, that Bethany and Martha s house was the
ordinary place of resort for Jesus and his companions, whenever
they were in the neighbourhood. While on their journey, they enter
the village of Bethany, and proceed to Martha s house, where they
are at once received. It would be interesting and useful if we pos
sessed more specific and fuller details ; but what has been cited
and said is amply sufficient to show the connexion that subsisted
between Jesus and the family at Bethany. The conclusion is, that
Martha and Mary had enjoyed sufficient opportunities for acquiring
a thorough knowledge of the character and claims of .our Lord. We
say a thorough knowledge ; for their opportunities were not in the
press and bustle of the crowded square, nor in the set discourse of
the synagogue, but in the stillness of the village of Bethany, and
the retirement of their own home. It is in privacy that the true
features of character unfold themselves; in privacy, simula
tion and concealment are all but impossible. The warmth of the
hearth expands even the bud into the full-blown flower; and if
Jesus was ever known, he was known in the intercourses of the house
of Lazarus. He was known there. In what character ? As " a
Prophet, mighty in deed and word," as one able to save, and able
to restore life. The image of him was embalmed in the affections
of the family ; and, with the solemnity of reverence, they believed
that whatsoever he should ask of God, God would give it him. They
knew Jesus and knew him well as the Son of God. " I believe,"
said Martha, " that thou art the Christ, the Son of God, who should
come into the world." The truth of the religion of Christ is wrought
into the whole narrative of the raising of Lazarus ; while every thing
recorded of the Bethany family, subsequently to that event, points
to it as the effect points to the cause. As the events stand recorded
in the New Testament, all is clear and truthful : no effect is without
a cause ; each cause is proportioned to its effect ; human nature
appears in its genuine attributes ; the conditions of truth in history
are observed ; in a word, all is natural. But why ? Because Jesus
had raised Lazarus from the dead.

We have previously intimated, that writers who were not Chris
tians had left in their works passages which seemed to implicate the
fact, that miracle existed in the primitive church of Christ. Our
main position is, that these writers do not deny that a power to
work miracles was claimed on behalf of Christ; that the language
they employ, in either speaking of or against his religion, unde-
signedly concedes the existence of miracles ; and that the rapid
spread of Christianity as a miraculous religion, which is recorded
or implied by these same writers, involves as its chief cause the
existence and operation of miracle, without which that wonderful

250

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 41

progress remains, not only inexplicable, but the greatest moral
paradox, if, indeed, we might not have said a pure moral im
possibility.

We shall here transcribe from Lardner the celebrated passage
which occurs in Tacitus (Ann. xv. c. 44), respecting the persecu
tion of the primitive Christians by Nero, as serving not only to
establish several leading facts in the gospel history, but also as a
basis for some of the remarks made in this essay. And we place
the passage here in preference, because it is no unfit introduction
to the vestiges of miraculous influence which are found in Heathen
writers.

After a description of the terrible fire at Rome in the tenth year
of Nero s reign, and the sixty-fourth of our Lord, in which a large
part of the ci$y was consumed, Tacitus adds :

" But neither all human help, nor the liberality of the emperor, nor all the atonements
presented to the gods, availed to abate the infamy he lay under of having ordered the city
to be set on fire. To suppress, therefore, this common rumour, Nero procured others to
be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence
for their crimes, arid were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their
denomination from Christus, who, in the reign of Tiberius, was put to death as a criminal,
by the procurator, Pontius Pilate. This pernicious superstition, though checked for a
while, broke out again, and spread, not only over Judea, the source of this evil, but reached
the city also; whither flow from all quarters all things vile and shameful, and where they
find shelter and encouragement. At first, those only were apprehended who confessed
themselves of that sect; afterwards, a vast multitude discovered by them; all which were
condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind.
Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some
were covered over with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs ; some were
crucified; others, having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as
lights, in the night time, and thus burned to death. Nero made use of his own gardens,
as a theatre, upon this occasion, and also exhibited the diversions of the Circus; sometimes
standing in the crowd, as a spectator, in the habit of a charioteer ; at other times driving
a chariot himself: till, at length, these men, though really criminal, and deserving exem
plary punishment, began to be commiserated, as people who were destroyed, not out of a
regard to the public welfare, but only to gratify the cruelty of one man."

Several indirect proofs that miracle constituted an, element in
primitive Christianity might be adduced, founded on evidence
supplied by Heathen writers. For instance, there are abundant
testimonies to show, that the early Christians had to endure the
utmost ignominy and the cruellest torture, in consequence of faith
fully holding the new opinions. Now, Strauss and his school may
well be called on to show another instance in which martyrdom
was suffered, of the same kind, and to the same extent, in behalf of
a mere delusion, a compound of very little history and very great
self-deception. In the year 64, certainly, Christians underwent
torture and death for their faith. Strange that, within the space
of some thirty years, a Jewish Rabbi, who had committed the great
mistake of fancying himself the Messiah, and, as a consequence of that

251 2N

42 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

error, had only thirty years before been put to death, should have had
numerous disciples, even in the capital of the world, who maintained
that he had risen from the dead, and was seated at the right hand
of the Majesty on high, and were so sure of being received to him
in the world of spirits, that they counted not their lives dear for the
sake of him and of his gospel. Nor did the impulse stop either
with Nero s persecution or with the fir st century. A new element
was introduced into social life, and martyrdom became a part of a
Christian s inheritance ; which was at first borne with simplicity
and fortitude, then, in process of time, with triumph ; and, at last,
the degeneration still proceeding, was even coveted, and sought for
fanatically. The progress of corruption can be distinctly traced,
and satisfactorily accounted for, on known principles of human
nature. But when, in following the stream upwai^ls to find its
fountain-head, we come to what should be its source, of a sudden,
according to our philosophical theologians, it vanishes from sight ;
being lost in a thick, dark mist of something which is called myths.
Grant that the scriptural accounts are substantially true, and, accord
ingly, that God had been made manifest to man in Jesus Christ,
for the redemption of the world, and we have a cause completely
adequate to account for the existence of this long line of Christian
martyrs ; but who, if the divine and the miraculous in the gospel
are made to disappear by the solvent of Strauss or any other unbe
liever, were fools enough to give their hearts, their good name, their
property, and even their lives, to a cause which was utterly worth
less, and that not in Home merely, but in several widely-separated
parts of the civilised world. Surely it requires a strong and easy
faith to believe, that mothers and fathers, the aged and the young,
a few years and many years after Christ s death, should have thus
offered themselves up, not unwilling victims, to an ill-shapen mass
of Jewish legends.

Not merely, however, in the sufferings of the martyrs, but in the
rapid and wide-spread progress which, as we have intimated, Chris
tianity made within the first century, do we see a convincing evidence
that there was something in the system, as it originally offered itself
to the world, to strike the imagination, as well as to win the heart,
satisfy the intellect, and save the soul ; qualities which, to our mind,
necessarily imply the immediate presence and mighty working of
God.

That every implication found in our remarks, respecting the
progress of the gospel in the earliest times, and the firmness
with which thousands endured the loss of all things rather than
even outwardly profess Heathenism, is fully justified by facts,
will appear from a letter, addressed by Pliny the Younger, who
was consul of Rome in the year 100, A. D. Ixi the year 107,
when he was governor of Pontus and Bithynia, he sent the following
epistle to the emperor Trajan, whose reply, written immediately
after, is subjoined :

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 43

" Pliny, to the Emperor Trajan, wishes health and happiness.

" It is my constant custom, sir, to refer myself to you in all matters concerning which
I have any doubt; for who can better direct me where I hesitate, or instruct me where I
am ignorant ? I have never been present at any trials of Christians ; so that I know not
well what is the subject-matter of punishment or of inquiry, or what strictness ought to
be used in either. Nor have I been a little perplexed to determine whether any difference
ought to be made upon account of age, or whether the young and tender, and the full-
grown and robust, ought to be treated all alike ; whether repentance should entitle to
pardon, or whether all who have once been Christians ought to be punished, though they
are now no longer so; whether the name itself, although no crimes be detected, or crimes
only belonging to the name, ought to be punished. Concerning all these things I am in
doubt.

" In the meantime, I have taken this course with all who have been brought before me,
and have been accused as Christians. I have put the question to them, whether they were
Christians. Upon their confessing to me that they were, I repeated the question a second
and a third time, threatening also to punish them with death. Such as still persisted, I
ordered away to be punished ; for it was no doubt with me, whatever might be the nature
of their opinion, that contumacy and inflexible obstinacy ought to be punished. There
were others of the same infatuation, whom, because they are Roman citizens, I have noted
down to be sent to the city.

" In a short time, the crime spreading itself, even whilst under persecution, as is usual
in such cases, divers sorts of people came in my way. An information was presented to me,
without mentioning the author, concerning the names of many persons, who upon exami-
tion denied that they were Christians, or had ever been so ; who repeated after me an
invocation of the gods, and with wine and frankincense made supplication to your image,
which for that purpose I have caused to be brought and set before them, together with the
statues of the deities. Moreover, they reviled the name of Christ. None of which things,
as is said, they who are really Christians can by any means be compelled to do. These,
therefore, I thought proper to discharge.

" Others were named by an informer, who at first confessed themselves Christians, and
afterwards denied it. The rest said they had been Christians, but had left them ; some
three years ago, some longer, and one or more above twenty years. They all worshipped
your image, and the statues of the gods : these also reviled Christ. They affirmed that
the whole of their fault or error lay in this, that they were wont to meet together one stated
day before it was light, and sing among themselves alternately a hymn to Christ as a god,
and bind themselves by an oath not to the commission of any wickedness, but not to be
guilty of theft, or robbery, or adultery ; never to falsify their word ; not to deny a pledge
committed to them, when called upon to return it. When these things were performed, it
was their custom to separate, and then to come together again to a meal which they ate in
common without any disorder ; but this they had forborne since the publication of my
edict, by which, according to your commands, I prohibited assemblies.

" After receiving Siis account, I judged it the more necessary to examine, and that by
torture, two maid-servants, which were called ministers ; but I have discovered nothing
beside a bad and excessive superstition.

" Suspending, therefore, all judicial proceedings, I have recourse to you for advice ; for
it has appeared unto me a matter highly deserving consideration, especially on account of
the great number of persons who are in danger of suffering : for many of all ages, and
every rank, of both sexes likewise, are accused, and will be accused. Nor has the contagion
of this superstition seized cities only, but the lesser towns also, and the open country.
Nevertheless it seems to me, that it may be restrained and corrected. It is certain that

44 MOKAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS.

the temples, which were almost forsaken, begin to be more frequented ; and the sacred
solemnities, after along intermission, are revived. Victims likewise are everywhere bought
up, whereas for some time there were few purchasers. Whence it is easy to imagine what
numbers of men might be reclaimed, if pardon were granted to those who shall repent."

Here follows the emperor s answer :

" Trajan, to Pliny, wisheth health and happiness.

" You have taken the right method, my Pliny, in your proceedings with those who have
been brought before you as Christians ; for it is impossible to establish any one rule that
shall hold universally. They are not to be sought for. If any are brought before you,
and are convicted, they ought to be punished. However, he who denies being a Christian,
and makes it evident in fact, that is, by supplicating to our gods, though he be suspected
to have been so formerly, let him be pardoned upon repentance. But in no case of any
crime whatever, may a bill of information be received without being signed by him who
presents it ; for that would be a dangerous precedent, and unworthy of my government."

In the evidence which we possess in Pliny s letter to the probity
and purity of these primitive martyrs, we find a good guarantee, not
only of their sincerity, but of the trustworthiness of their judgment.
Fanaticism is commonly linked with immorality. Superstition is
regardless of the homely and prosaic duties of sobriety and tem
perance. But men whose bond of union was found in a high-toned
morality were persons of sound minds, as well as honest hearts.
A pure morality is the best preservative against the deceptive
influences which fanaticism or superstition may attempt to employ.
The household virtues are of all soils the worst for unreal things to
grow and flourish in. And when these homely excellencies are known
to be connected with sufferings, privation, and death, in attestation
of any cause, we must be ignorant of human nature if we feel not a
presumption in favour of that cause, and are riot thereby led to
investigate its claims at least with impartiality. But no ! says Dr.
Strauss, these good people were indeed honest, but they were not
proof against the fascination of myths ; their eyes were dazzled by
a bright vapour of frustrated Jewish hopes, that lingered on the hori
zon of the land of Judea, and therefore they defied public opinion,
disregarded the sundering of family ties, and underwent death itself,
often in its most aggravated forms.

These martyrs have, however, left us in Pliny s letter their opi
nion of the Lord Jesus, which, though it may have been somewhat
coloured in passing from the pen of a Roman governor, doubtless
retains in substance its original character. And how does their opinion
comport with that of Dr. Strauss ? They were wont in their religious
assemblies to sing hymns to Christ as to a god. Yet this divine
being was, if we follow our German guide, a deceased and entombed
Rabbi, who had been led to set up for the Messiah, and met his death
in the enterprise, having as his only merit that he taught sundry
good doctrines which others had taught before him. And against
this modicum of merit, there was to be thrown into the opposite
scale, the fact that, if he was not a deceiver, he was weak enough to

254

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 45

be grossly deceived ; or, if the learned philosopher wishes to relieve
Jesus himself, then his followers were either deluders or dupes, let
the delusion be where it may, in their fancies or in their hearts.
And if, in truth, there was this gross error or grosser deception some
where in the Christian community, either in its head or in its mem
bers, then passingly strange, or rather utterly unaccountable, is this
conduct of the Asiatic Christians, who give their lives a testimony to
the sincerity with which they pay their, homage to him whom they
hold to be the Son of God. It is of small avail to answer, that, while
their sincerity is unquestionable, their conviction might still be
erroneous. Possibly it might ; but we think it quite as likely to
be right in the very peculiar circumstances of the case as any which
the philosophy, so called, of the nineteenth century is able to form.
Men do not throw away their lives for groundless fancies and ill-
digested legends, nor were a Heathen yeomanry or Heathen citizens
likely persons to be fascinated by empty Jewish myths. Had there
not been something great, nay, divine as well as true, in the primitive
gospel, the effects which it is known to have produced are incon
ceivable. Even with the aid of miracle, the progress of Christianity
at the first is, and will always remain, a wonder ; but without its divine
element, its progress as well as its revival after the crucifixion, we
consider an impossibility.

A passage in Suetonius must also be adduced. In the life of Nero,
whose reign began in 54 and ended in 68, this writer says "The
Christians were punished ; a sort of men of a new and magical
superstition." The reader must see the impression which Christianity
made in the world. It was not a political system ; it was not a new
school of moral philosophy ; it was not merely a new religion, but
a new religion which had or professed to have extraordinary powers,
something more than a mere Jewish Rabbi could possess, or could
persuade men to think, for more than a moment, that he possessed.
We transcribe " the judicious" Lardner s remark on this passage : -
" From his (Suetonius) calling it a magical superstition, it may be
argued that there were some things of an extraordinary nature per
formed by the Christians, or that they endeavoured to justify their
embracing the religion of Christ as of divine original, upon the ground
of some wonderful works which bore testimony to its truth and
authority." *

The "Antiquities" of Josephus, the Jewish historian who flourished
in the first century of our era, contains a passage which bears
direct evidence to the miraculous character of the gospel. The
authenticity of the passage has, indeed, been called in question ; but
we consider that the evidence in its favour greatly preponderates, and
we are no little swayed in our judgment by the fact that some of the
most learned German theologians, and those, too, least likely to yield

* Vol. vi. p. 043.

46 MORAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS.

to insufficient evidence, give the passage their support, and cite it
in evidence.* One of the strongest considerations which speak for
the passage is the circumstance, that, in a later part of his history,
Josephus speaks of Jesus as a person who was already known to his
readers. Thus, "He (Ananus) assembled the Sanhedrim, and brought
before them the brother of Jesus, who is called Christ : James was
his name" (Antiq. xx. 9. 1). These words, which recognise the
existence of Jesus Christ andjiis brother James, require something
more to make their application clear ; and, had that something not
been already laid before his readers, Josephus would here have
doubtless added the necessary particulars. The only way in which
this view can be invalidated is in the supposition, that Jesus, called
Christ, was so well known, that no reader, either Heathen or Jew,
could be at a loss to see at once who was the person meant a de
gree of celebrity which is hardly compatible with Jesus being merely
a mistaken and crucified Rabbi. The more celebrated passage runs
thus: "About this time (the time of Pilate) there lived Jesus, a
wise man, if he may be called a man ; for he was a doer of wonder
ful works, a teacher of men who received truth with pleasure ; and
he brought over to his views many Jews, and many also of the
Greek nation. This person was the Christ, whom Pilate crucified at
the instigation of some of our principal men ; but those who had pre
viously loved did not desert him ; for he appeared to them alive
again on the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold this and
many other wonderful things concerning him. The sect of Chris
tians, so named from him, are not yet extinct." (Antiq. 18. 3. 3.)

Remarks here are not needed. The words supply distinct and
decisive testimony, not only to the possession by our Lord of mira
culous power, but also that he rose again from the dead on the third
day, as is related in the Gospels.

We ask a moment s attention to Celsus (A.D. 176), a Heathen
philosopher of the Epicurean school, who wrote a treatise against
Christianity, entitled " The True Word," to which the celebrated
Origen gave a reply. The objections of Celsus are, for. the most
part, put into the mouth of a Jew.

Of course the evidence to be here adduced is indirect ; but indi
rect evidence is often the best. If a law is passed prohibiting popular
games on a Sunday, we may be sure, without the aid of a preamble,
that popular games were pursued on a Sunday. If an adversary
charges Christians with magical practices, there can be little doubt
that Christians make some appeal to powers beyond the ordinary
course of nature ; and if, instead of confuting these claims as ground
less pretensions, the adversary contents himself with giving them
an invidious name, we may consider this as a tacit admission that

* Die Religiose Glaubenslekre nach cler Vernunft uncl der Offenbarung, von Dr. K, G.
Bretschnciclcr. Hallo, 1844.

250

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 47

the appeal rests on grounds which the adversary could not overturn.
An adversary will always do his best ; and, if he goes not beyond mis
representation and abuse, we may be sure that he is unable to con
fute. The accusation of magic is the indirect admission of miracle.
In such a charge there are two things to be observed first, a fact
admitted ; secondly, an interpretation given, or a cause assigned.
In the case of magic the fact admitted is that there was a power
among the accused party greater than what ordinarily belongs to
man; the cause assigned are certain occult agencies of nature.
Separating the admitted fact from the alleged cause, and considering
the nature and validity of each, we arrive at a clear concession that
the apostolic church possessed the power of working miracle. The
fact remains, the interpretation is discarded, because the testimony
of an adversary is good in relation to a fact which he would have
denied if he could ; while his opinion on that fact must be taken at
its own intrinsic value, which in the allegation of magic is nothing ;
since magic is a mere offspring of human weakness, fancy, and cre
dulity. The progress of knowledge has dissolved the outward crust
in which the fact was held, and left us the fact itself, to bear a valua
ble testimony to the miraculous in Christianity.

We now turn lo the words of Celsus : we can transcribe only a
few of his indirect admissions which make in favour of the Christian
system. The following words seem to show, that Celsus could not
confute the resurrection, and therefore met it by a parallel case,
alleging that it was a Jewish doctrine : " We (the Jews) certainly
expect a resurrection of the body and eternal life, of which he who
is to be sent to us is to be a pattern ; and thereby to show that it is
not impossible for God to raise up a man with a body." Celsus has
a story which we shall presently find in the Talmudists : " Jesus,
being in want, served in Egypt for a livelihood ; and, having there
learned some charms, such as the Egyptians are given to, he
returned home, and then, valuing himself upon these charms, he set
up for a god." The malice and the impotency of Celsus are both
apparent Jin what ensues. Origen remarks " Celsus, well knowing
what great works may be alleged to have been done by Jesus, pre
tends to grant that the things related of him are true, such as heal
ing diseases, raising the dead, feeding multitudes with a few loaves ;"
and then adds " Well, then, let us grant that all these things were
done by you." After which he instances the tricks of Egyptians
and other impostors, and then asks this question, " Because they do
such things, must we esteem them to be God s sons ? or must we not
rather say, that these are the artifices of wicked and miserable men ?"
Celsus has anticipated Strauss : " But let us consider whether any
one that has really died ever rose again in the same body ; unless
you think that the stories of others are indeed, as well as seem to be,
fables ; whilst your fable is probable and credible, because of his
voice on the cross when he expired, and the earthquake and the
darkness ; and because that when he was living he could not defend

48 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

himself, but after he was dead he arose, and showed the marks of his
punishment, and how his hands had been pierced. But who saw
all this ? Why, a distracted woman, as you say, and one or two men
of the same imposture, and some dreamers who fancied they saw
things as they desired them."

This charge of believing in the resurrection of Christ merely on
the delusions of the imagination will be investigated hereafter. At
present the reader will observe, that Celsus admits that the Chris
tians declared Jesus to have risen, and that he had no better explana
tion to give than such as he could derive from referring the belief
to the parentage of dreaming fancy. How much better would it
have been for his cause, could he have shown that these visions and
delusions had been investigated in a formal manner by the Jewish
authorities, and condemned as false, or had been exploded by some
earlier if not cotemporaneous writer ; and, having no foundation in
reality, had, after having produced a momentary excitement in the
minds of the Jews, vanished into thin air their congenial element,
without affecting the opinions or the conduct permanently of any
considerable portion of the world ?

Hierocles (A.D. 303), president in Bithynia, made a comparison
of our Saviour with Apollonius of Tyana, giving the preference to
the latter. This Apollonius was advisedly made use of by the ene
mies of the gospel to countervail the claims of Christ. The coun
terfeit bears the image of the genuine coin. So Apollonius is made
to work miracles, greater, according to the ideas of his masters, than
were those of our Lord. Here, then, we have an admission that Jesus
did wonderful works. These, it seems, philosophy could not deny
or explode : it therefore did its best to countervail them by exhibit
ing Apollonius as a more surprising thaumaturg than Jesus Christ,
who was now rapidly making his way to the sole dominion of the
human mind.

Of Hierocles, Lactantius reports : " This writer endeavours to
overthrow Christ s miracles, though he does not deny the truth of
them : he aims to show that like things, or even greater, Tjrere done
by Apollonius. Christ, it seems, must be reckoned a magician,
because he did many wonderful things ; but Apollonius is more able,
because, as you say, when Domitiaii would have put him to death,
he escaped ; whereas Christ was crucified."

The life of Apollonius, who, according to Hierocles, lived in the
reign of Nero, written by Philostratus, was the authority on which
Hierocles relied. The work was not composed till a hundred years
after the death of Apollonius. It was examined and confuted by
Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian. A full investigation of this
subject may be found in Lardner (vol. vii. chap. 39). Speaking of the
work of Philostratus, this very competent judge says : "A history
that is false or uncertain, and not to be depended upon, cannot be
of much value." The pretensions, then, of Apollonius are ground
less ; but the implied admission of our enemies remains to the effect,

258

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 4:9

first, that they could not deny that Jesus wrought miracles ; and,
secondly, that what they could not deny, they could neither confute
nor explain away. Their only resource was to employ falsehood
and fraud, in order to outface the advocates of Christianity.

The emperor Julian (A.D. 361) wrote a work against the Christians,
to which Cyril gave an answer. Here, again, we meet with the same
silent confession of inability on the part of unbelief either to deny or
to confute the Christian miracles. " They introduced," he says, "a
heap of wonderful works into their religion to give it the appearance
of truth." The bitterness of his animosity seen in the following
words would have urged him to show, if he could, the ground
lessness of these wonderful works : " Jesus the Nazarene and Paul
exceeded all the jugglers and impostors that ever were." "Jesus,
who rebuked the winds, and walked on the seas, and cast out demons,
and, as you will have it, made the heaven and the earth, could not
save his friends and relations." " But Jesus, having persuaded a
few among you (Jews), has now been celebrated about three hun
dred years, having done nothing in his lifetime worthy of remem
brance, unless any one thinks it a mighty matter to heal lame and
blind people, and exorcise demoniacs in the villages of Bethsaida
and Bethany."

There is in the Talmudical writings an acknowledgment of the
power of miracles in Jesus and his disciples. Thus we read as fol-
lows : " No man may converse with heretics, nor receive medicines
from them, though the disease be mortal. Of this there is an exam
ple in the son of Dama : when he had been bit by a serpent, a
disciple of Jesus came to heal him ; but Rabbi Ishmael did not allow
it to be done. The son of Dama said to Rabbi Tshmael, O Rabbi
Ishmael, my uncle ! let me be healed by him : I will allege a text out
the law which allows of it. But before he had finished all he would
say, he expired. Then Ishmael pronounced this speech over him :
6 Thou art happy ! O son of Dama ; for thy body has remained pure,
and thy soul also has gone pure out of it ; and thou hast not trans
gressed the words of thy brethren. "

Another instance may be alleged from the Jerusalem Talmud : "A
child of a son of Rabbi Joses, son of Levi, swallowed somewhat poi
sonous. There came a man who pronounced some words on him in the
name of Jesus, and he was healed. When he was going away, Rabbi
Joses said to him, f What word did you use? He answered, ( Such a
word. Rabbi Joses said to him, Better had it been for him to die than
to hear such a word ; and so it happened, that is, he died instantly."

The Talmudists further relate, that Jesus, going down into Egypt,
learned there magical arts, which he brought to Palestine in a
secret manner, and then set himself up to be something extraordinary,
wholly surrendered himself to magical practices, seduced many of
his nation, and, causing Israel to sin, was at length excommunicated.*

* Lardner, vol. vi. pp. 505, seq. 518, 560.
259 2 O

50 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

It is difficult to assign an exact date to these passages. There
are two Talmuds, the Babylonish and the Jerusalem. The first,
Prideaux says, was compiled about the year 300, A.D. ; the second,
not before the year 600, A.D. Of these there are two parts, the
Mischna, which is the oldest, and which contains nothing regarding
our Lord : the other portion is styled the Gemara, which was com
piled between the third and the sixth century.* Some learned
GermanSjf however, carry the authority of the Talmuds back to the
days of our Lord himself, and draw from them materials for exhibit
ing a picture of the first century. It is enough for our purpose
to regard these books as containing a body of Jewish traditions,
which, either in themselves or in their implications, reach back
near to the times of Christ. And as the Talmud is a compilation
of Jewish teachings and opinions made at different periods, and
merely completed and closed at the dates before mentioned, there
is nothing to prevent our regarding them as containing, in the pas
sages cited above, vestiges of impressions and of modes of assault on
Christianity which go back to its infancy. The Jews would be com
pelled to take some notice of Christianity in their schools. Doubtless
they would say as little as they well could. Silence in such a case
was the best policy. But what they did say privately would, in some
faint echoes, find its way into their writings. Now, it is but little
that these writings actually present; and that little is in no very
definite form. It has, however, one feature sufficiently marked a
feature which was antecedently to be expected it is inculpatory
and calumnious. Nevertheless, these accusations afford a proof that
there was at least a claim to miracle in the first Christian church.
This implied admission is very clear in the passages given above ;
and when it is considered that this concession is made on the part
of bitter enemies, made incidentally in the midst of accusations
designed to discredit the cause of Christ, it cannot be denied that
the admission has no small force. If our Lord had never performed
miracles, but all that has a miraculous appearance in Christianity
was owing to the imaginations of his followers, surely the Jewish
doctors would not have left to Strauss the task of exposing these
empty pretensions.

There is no need for carrying our instances down to a later
period. We have seen Jews, Greeks, and Romans, who did not
hold the faith of Christ, confessing against their will, that miracles
were alleged to be wrought by Christ, and indirectly admitting their
inability to show that the pretension was groundless ; resorting there
fore, in order to sustain their own hostile position, to calumny
which only betrays the weakness of their cause, or to explanations
the validity of which no one will now venture to maintain.

* Bretschn eider Glaubenslehre, p. 245.

t Das Jahrhundert des Heils durch A. F. Gfrorer, pp. 5. 11. scq, Stuttgart, 1838.

260

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. ol

We see, then, what the impression was that our Lord made on
his contemporaries, what impression he left behind in the world,
what impression of him was received, not only by his apostles
and immediate successors, but also by enemies, by Josephus, by
Celsus, by Julian, by his Hebrew adversaries. This impression
was, that at least he assumed to work miracles. He ever appears
on the page of history as a worker of miracles. Is all this delu
sion ? Were his enemies deceived as well as his friends ? Did
they, too, readily admit a pretension with which it is clear they
knew not well how to deal ? Must not the stamp of the miraculous
on this system have been deep and broad, which Josephus could
not disown, and which compelled a record from the pen of Sueto
nius ; and which neither the philosopher Celsus nor the emperor
Julian could assail except with sarcasm or invective ? For our
selves we can give 110 satisfactory account of this perpetual appeal
or reference to miracle, which we find alike in the Christian Scrip
tures, and in most of those early writers who speak of Christian
affairs, unless we admit that there was some reality on which all this
was founded. Mahomet made no pretence to the possession of the
power of working miracles, and the tradition which he has left behind
is equally free from vestiges of miracle. The same may be said of
Zoroaster ; the same, of Socrates. The last, indeed, had some mysti
cism about a good demon, which urged him to what was right, and
deterred him from what was wrong. Accordingly, in the writings of
his scholars and friends, a corresponding vapour of the supernatural
may be traced, like a belt of thin airy cloud across the moon s disk.
But, in the case of Christ, the miraculous and the historical are blended
together as constituent parts of one system, which claims from first
to last to be divine, because God was in Christ, working with and
by him to rouse the world from its slumbers of indifference, nay, its
death of sense and sin, that he might thus bring men in lowly
and devout obedience to the performance and fulfilment of his
own will.

The central miracle of the Christian religion is the resurrection
of Christ. To this great fact we will now advert. We have just
cited passages from Heathen writers which show how widely spread
the gospel was, even within the limits of the first, and at the com
mencement of the second century. We ask if these facts can be
accounted for apart from the supposition that Christ had risen
from the tomb ? What adequate cause of the indubitable pro
gress of Christianity can be found in any thing which does not
recognise as its basis the resurrection of Christ ? No competent
judge can for a moment suppose, that the followers of Jesus had
skill and power of themselves to bring about the mighty revolu
tion that ensued. Supposing that, instead of flying into secresy
at the death of their Master, they had maintained their posts,
and grown in courage in proportion to the increase of their difficul
ties, were they a few of the humbler classes without the resources

261

52 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

of eloquence or knowledge, were they likely to be able to revive a
cause which even Jesus could not sustain, and, after having been con
victed publicly of being accessories in a religious imposture, and after
having been bereft of him who was at once their head and their power,
to give effect to all that Jesus wished, and to win triumphs over an
enemy, who, to all his other fearful advantages, added that of being
flushed with victory ? And if, as must have been the case, the disci
ples resumed the position they had a little while before dishonourably
abandoned, whence did they derive the thought of so doing, and the
courage to give their thought effect ? If they fled before the death
of Jesus, they were little likely to rally after his death, except some
new and unforeseen event had intervened. Perhaps, then, a new
leader presented himself to take the office from which Jesus had
been forced. Survey the little band as they begin and proceed to
labour for the dominion of the world. Can any adventurer be dis
covered among them ? Is there a new name or a new earthly power ?
Is the ground that they take changed ? Is there a change of prin
ciples ? Can any attempt be discerned to conciliate the Jewish or
the Roman power ? Their mission is obviously the revival of the
old cause ; in the name of Christ they come forth, in his power they
allege their own to stand ; his doctrines they preach, his purposes
they profess to fulfil, his denunciations against the wickedness of
the priesthood and the philosophers they reiterate, and distinctly
declare what he only shadowed forth, that the Jews had been " the
betrayers and murderers of the just one," whom God had raised from
the dead. If, then, there was no change of an earthly nature to pro
duce the undeniable change in the conduct of the apostles, how
came it to pass ? How came it to pass, that desertion and pusilla
nimity should in a brief space be converted into the steadiest fidelity,
and the very heroism of devotedness ? that some dozen of unedu
cated and dispirited followers should of a sudden appear in the high
places of the land, as the intrepid conductors of an undertaking
which defied, as well as provoked, the resources of an empire ? For
this change there must have been an adequate cause ; nor can an
adequate cause be assigned but in what they indirectly allege, the
resurrection of Christ. Let this be admitted, and their conduct is
as rational as it is heroic ; and in every step they take onward to the
conversion of Jew and Gentile, they are accompanied by a power
competent to the achievement of their accumulated conquests. Then
it is not surprising, that the gospel was carried from land to land ;
for it was wafted on the gales of His power whose spirit breathes
over the earth, and life and beauty spring forth on every hand.

We do not, however, intend to enter upon the general evidence
in favour of the resurrection. We will fix our minds upon one
point. We will take one witriess, and give heed to his evidence.
After having recorded the death and burial of our Lord, John, the
disciple whom Jesus loved, proceeds to declare in the most express
terms that he rose from the dead. The following is his statement :

262

MOKAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 53

On the first day of the week, that is, the Sunday which followed
the crucifixion, Mary Magdalene proceeded early in the dusk of the
morning to the sepulchre where Jesus had been laid. On arriving
there, she saw the stone was removed which had been rolled up
to the mouth of the cave for the sake of security. Immediately she
leaves the place, and hastens to Simon Peter, and to John, the dis
ciple whom Jesus loved, reporting, "They have taken away the
Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid
him." On hearing this, Peter and John left their abode, and hurried
towards the sepulchre, in a pious rivalry of speed, in which John out
ran Peter. Coming first to the cave where Jesus had lain, John did
not venture to enter, but merely stooped down, and, looking in, saw
the grave-clothes lying there, without him whom they had recently
enshrouded. Peter soon came up, and, at once entering the sepul
chre, also saw the grave-clothes, but not Jesus. On this John went
into the tomb, and, in union with Peter, satisfied himself that Jesus
was not there. As to what had become of the corpse, they do not
appear to have formed an opinion. And so they went away again
unto their own home in an uncertain and fluctuating state of mind.

On retiring, they leave Mary Magdalene behind, who, after stand
ing for some time weeping on the outside of the sepulchre, at length
gained courage to look into it herself, when she beheld two angels
clad in white ; the one at the head, the other at the feet, where the
body of Jesus had lain. As her tearful eyes became visible in
the dark interior, the angels asked her why she wept, and received
for answer, " Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know
not where they have laid him." Before they could reply, she was in
some way warned that a person was near,. when turning she beheld
one whom she took to be the gardener ; and, thinking him not unlikely
to know something of the disappearance of the dead body, she
entreated him to tell her where it was, in order that she might take
it under her care. The only answer she received was her own name,
but her name pronounced in tones that she could not mistake. The
moment, therefore, that her name was pronounced, she instinctively
uttered in reply the usual appellation of Jesus ; and at once Mary
knew that she was in the presence of her living Master. Her first
impulse was to fall at his feet, and embrace them in token of reve
rential love. This is, however, forbidden. She is requested to go
and declare to the brethren of Christ, that, being now delivered from
the bondage of death, he was about to ascend to their ever-living,
and common God and Father. This command Mary instantly
obeyed.

The same evening, however, Jesus suddenly stood in the midst of
the disciples, who had assembled together for mutual consultation.
Having given them the salutation of peace, he showed them his hands
and his side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the Lord.
Thomas, however, was not present at this interview ; and, when
informed that the other disciples had seen Jesus, he refused to
263

54 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

believe, unless he received a proof which he himself described. After
an interval of eight days, Jesus made a second appearance before
the assembled disciples ; Thomas being now present, when the
required evidence was given, and the incredulity of Thomas was
overcome. " Many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of
his disciples ; but these are written, that men may believe that Jesus
is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing they may have
life through his name."

Such is the record and such the testimony of John, the apostle
and evangelist. In attempting to offer some illustrations of the
nature and the force of this evidence to the resurrection of Jesus, we
shall speak, while the narrative is fresh in the memory of the reader,
of some internal marks which it bears of being an account of an
actual event. First, however, let us rightly conceive of our position
in regard to the narrative what is it we assume in proceeding to
exhibit these internal marks of credibility ? We assume nothing
except that human nature of old was essentially the same as it is
now. This is our position the narrative is before us ; it exists,
whatever is its character ; howsoever it originated, there it is, and
may must be dealt with as a positive and now imperishable reality.
Taking the narrative, then, as we find it, we shall endeavour to ascer
tain what evidence it offers itself of the credibility of its contents.
Truth and falsehood have their distinctive marks, and are doubtless,
either the one or the other, to be recognised in this account of the
alleged resurrection of Jesus from the dead.

Now, let the reader first give attention to the general tone and
character of the narrative. What is that tone ? what is that character ?
Is the narrative simple or ornate, artificial or inartificial, ambitious or
unpretending, straightforward or circuitous, consistent or inconsist
ent? Intellectually do you discover any signs of poetic invention,
or legendary ornament, or rhetorical affectation ? Morally does
any thing betray a double aim ? Is there any attempt to conceal or
obtrude a purpose ; any covert appearance of fear or hope ? Does the
writer seek to recommend either himself or his hero ? It is a very great
event of which he speaks a greater never took place on earth, perhaps
a greater cannot be conceived ; but these terms are ours, not his.
No single word escapes from his pen tending to extol the subject of
which he writes. The most ordinary facts could not have been
recorded in a less pretending manner. The words employed how
simple I the diction -how free from imagery ! the tone how quiet !
yet the general effect is extremely touching and impressive. So
ought the great things of God to be recorded by the pen of man. So
was the first sublime record of the creation made in language and
tenor not unlike our present narrative. A Heathen critic has adduced
the beginning of Genesis as an instance of the true sublime ; and the
words under consideration deserve a similar eulogy. Both, indeed,
are alike sublime, from that noblest of all created influences, the
grandeur of simple religious truth. A pure and lofty tone, such as

264

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 55

that of this passage, lies far beyond the reach of either fiction, false
hood, or self-delusion.

There are incidents in the narrative which seem to show, that the
writer was now an eye-witness, and now a narrator after the testi
mony of an eye-witness. Notice the particularity of some parts.
The time is accurately marked " The first day of the week, early,
when it was yet dark, cometh Mary Magdalene." An ordinary his
torian would have thought it enough to say, that the visit was made
in the morning, if, indeed, he had not confined himself to mention
ing the day of the week. The writer speaks like one who was
present, who took a part in the scenes described, who knew every
particular, and therefore, without thinking of it, put down the precise
description of the time with which the story commences. Then how
minutely particular is he in his details respecting the way in which
the actors went to and fro ! Mary, as soon as she has found the tomb
empty, does not merely return, but runs. Peter and John, when they
have received her message, run also ; and not only run, but run together,
in emulation one of the other, both eager to reach the sepulchre
first. In this race John is described as outstripping Peter. But,
though first at the tomb, he is last to venture within. The account
given, moreover, of the way in which the grave-clothes were found,
is minute and particular beyond the reach of art. The words
obviously fell from one who had seen what he described. Impostors
cannot venture on these detailed accounts without risking exposure.
They are almost sure to overact their part. They outrage the modesty
of nature ; or when there are several concerned the assertion of
one is contradicted by another ; or detection is facilitated by the
details^given, and exposure ensues.

The entire narrative presents evidences of proceeding from eye
witnesses. Simple and artless as it is, a more graphic description
never perhaps fell from a pen. But there is still one part which
we must take out from the rest. " Mary stood without at the sepul
chre, weeping ; and, as she wept, she stooped down, and looked into
the sepulchre." Who does not behold the scene ? Disconsolate
woman ! Her worst fears appeared to her to have been realised.
Her friends, Peter and John, had come and gone only to confirm
her in the belief, that some enemy had stolen the body of her beloved
Lord. Still she could not leave the tomb. Peter and John returned
home ; but her feet were riveted to the spot ; and there, all alone,
with a wounded heart, she stood weeping. And as she wept, she
thought she would even go so far as to look into the tomb herself;
and she stooped down, and looked into the sepulchre. The graphic
force of the passage is injured by our modern associations. A grave
with us is a hole dug in the bosom of the earth. The sepulchre in
question was an excavation in the side of a rock, some distance from
the level of the ground. Accordingly, every word used by the nar
rator is accurately descriptive. Mary stood at, or side by side with,
the sepulchre, not improbably leaning disconsolately against the

260

56 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

rock. And, so standing, she must needs stoop down to look into
the tomb, otherwise she could not direct her eyes within ; and when
thus looking, not downwards but forwards, she beheld two angels,
the one at the head, and the other at the feet ; she saw a chamber,
empty indeed and narrow, but still large enough (as our graves would
not be) to give room for these heavenly messengers in the positions
in which she beheld them.

All this is minutely descriptive. It could not be more minutely
descriptive, had it been written by an eye-witness. It may, there
fore, be justifiably accounted the description of an eye-witness.
Doubtless it is the description which Mary herself, the actor, gave
to John, the narrator.

It is equally true that the account is in entire agreement with
well-known facts. Jerusalem stands on hills ; the place of the holy
sepulchre is at the present day a rock. Matthew also declares, that
the sepulchre was hewn out in the rock (xxvii. 60), and that the stone
was not put upon, but rolled up to, the mouth of the cave. And
Matthew unites with Luke and John to assure us, that it was a new
sepulchre wherein never man before was laid ; so that there could
be no fear of confounding the body of Jesus with that of any one else,
nor of interference on the part of any other family; nor could there
be a doubt either, that, when Jesus had disappeared, there was room
enough for the two angels in the new tomb ; or if Jesus, the only
person ever placed there, was not still within, he must have been in
some manner removed. Alike with the peculiarities of the place,
*rd with the customs of the country, is the account from first to last
in strict agreement. This looks like reality, if it does not also
bespeak the pen of eye-witnesses.

How many touches of nature are there found in these few verses !
One or two of them we will present.

Why is Mary Magdalene made so prominent ? why those
copious tears of hers ? and why that lingering near the sepulchre ?
Oh ! it is all most natural. She was a woman, and therefore loved
much ; she had received special favours from the Saviour, and there
fore loved more than others. Yes, with a truly masculine self-
possession, Peter and John, when they had satisfied themselves
that the tomb was empty, return tranquilly to their own home. But
Mary cannot quit the spot. She must fain still linger where her
Lord had lain ; and her love, as is all true love, was soon well
rewarded, for she saw and conversed with her resuscitated and
now deathless friend.

And mark how she speaks of Jesus, whom she believes to be a
corpse, and supposes to have been stolen : " We know not where
they have laid him" she said to Peter and John ; " They have taken
away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him" she said
to the angels ; " Sir, if thou have borne him hence, tell me where thou
hast laid him, and I will take him away." This is the language of
nature, the language of affection, the language of a recent bereave-

266

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 57

merit. "Who speaks of a recently departed friend as of a corpse ?
The sanctity of death but makes his personality more prominent. The
heart and tongue feel and speak only of him or her. The term " it"
could not escape from the lips of a relative or friend. Those,
indeed, to whom the corpse is a corpse, and nothing more, may speak
of it ; but affection clings to every personal quality and index. As
with Mary, it is still "my lord" or "my child." It is still he or
she ; and I know not that, even after the lapse of years, we could speak
of a father s or a child s corpse in any but personal terms. Surely,
if this is acting on the part of the narrator, it is very like nature.
But no : these are the true voices of the human heart, recognised
by all who have lost a beloved friend, and know that death does but
embalm and perpetuate every pure affection.

Then this incident with the gardener. How natural the mistake
that the unseen person was the gardener ! for the tomb was in a
garden, and the time was morning, when such a person might well
be in such a place. Nor could she recognise the features of Jesus,
since the party whom she addressed was behind her, and she had
to turn ere she could get even an imperfect view of him whom she
addressed. Besides, the covering which Jesus most probably had on
aided the deception. The garment which immediately enwrapped
the body of a corpse was, both in shape and colour, like the garment
which was ordinarily worn by persons in the condition of the sup
posed gardener. Her sight, then, as well as the circumstances,
hurried her troubled mind to the conclusion that it was the gar
dener. And if so, whom could she so properly question touching
the lost body ? Here was the gardener who knew the place,
and had the care, if not the custody, of it approaching the pro
faned sepulchre. Yes ! he might have been at the tomb before even
this early hour : at any rate, he might know where the body was.
Naturally, therefore, did Mary address her entreaty to him.

But of all natural and touching events, the recognition between
Mary and Jesus holds the first place. Circumstances may mis
lead, sight may deceive ; but the language of affection is infallible.
One word sufficed to disabuse Mary s mind. Often had the Lord
addressed her by name. His tones were familiar to her ears. Her
heart, too, knew and treasured them. No : there could be no
mistake the moment the word "Mary" fell from Jesus lips, she
knew in whose presence she was, and echoed the recognition by her
" Rabboni." This is truth. This is reality. This is fact which needs
no evidence ; for all men carry the proof in their own bosoms. The
endeared name and the well-known tongue need no interpreter.
The accents of mutual affection are as true to each other as the
echo is to the sound. Words linked together by the intercourses
of friendship never fail to follow in immediate succession, because
the corresponding emotions exist in the mind in the closeness of the
connexion of cause and effect. Of the truth of this, every one who
has experienced the endearments of social life must have known

267 -2 P

&gt; MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

something in his own history. The child s name, uttered by the
parent in the darkness of night, will call forth at once the parent s
name from the lips of the child. The voice is the key to the
soul. It is Jesus himself who said, said with a truth as deep as
it is beautiful, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them,
and they follow me" (John xx. 27). As a part of this interesting
event, it must not be passed unnoticed, that the moment Mary had
acknowledged Jesus, she is met by the command not to touch him.
The reasons for this command it is not our purpose to inquire into,
but merely to observe the implication it involves, that Mary had,
immediately on uttering the words, " my Master," proceeded to cast
herself at the feet of Jesus. What more natural in the circum
stances ! Her lost friend a friend proved and found dearer than
any earthly friend could have been --her lost friend was before her
not in the cold repose of death, but most unexpectedly warm
with the energies and affections of his own existence : she could
not avoid giving utterance to her feelings in the accost which reve
rence and love dictated. And here, again, the promptitude she
displays to touch the person of Jesus, so true as it is to nature,
shows that she was playing no feigned part was conscious of 110
collusion. Pre-eminently, indeed, in the whole of this incident is
fabrication out of the question. The story is of a nature not to
be fabricated ; for as the truthfulness of it is not to be discovered
but by a knowledge of the more delicate and hidden workings of
tl*e human breast, so does it surpass the narrow ken and coarse
and blunted feelings of the impostor to devise and to depict. It
is, however, a story in which the heart is a better judge than
the head ; and, without attempting to reason the reader into a
belief of its reality, we leave it with his feelings, in the assurance
that a well - ordered breast cannot do otherwise than feel that it
must have happened, and consequently that Jesus had "risen
indeed."

It is a remarkable circumstance, that John makes Mary Magda
lene the prominent figure in his picture ; that she is the first cause
which sets the rest in motion ; and that, for the greater part, the
interest of the narrative hangs upon her. In such a course, he may
have been influenced by his knowledge of the special love which
she felt for Jesus ; but this scarcely accounts for his making her
the sole female in his account. That there were more women
than one engaged in these stirring scenes is known from other
sources. Why, then, does John speak of Mary Magdalene only ?
The reason seems to have been twofold ; a congeniality of nature
between John and Mary ; and the fact that Mary was John s
informant.

The alleged congeniality of nature is apparent. John and Mary
were distinguished for warm affections, for most loving hearts, and
for constancy and faithfulness, as well as ardour, in their friendships.
They, accordingly, are mentioned among the few disciples who were

268

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 51)

at the foot of the cross when Jesus was on the point of expiring
(John xix. 25, 26). Of the female attendants there, John names
only Mary Magdalene, besides the mother and aunt of our Lord ; so
that the ties of affection on the part of Mary Magdalene equalled
the ties of blood on the part of others. A similar instance of the
affectionate trustworthiness of John is found in that very interesting
statement, this, too, told with inimitable simplicity, that Jesus
with his dying lips consigned his weeping and bereaved mother to
the pious care of John, who from that hour took her unto his own
home (ver. 25, 27).

This congeniality of disposition, existing between John and Mary
Magdalene, found a common object of interest in Jesus himself.
On him their two loving hearts were fixed. He was to each the
centre towards which their feelings ran. He was for each the source
of spiritual life, and of all their higher and more cherished emotions.
He who thus engaged their affections must have occupied their
thoughts. Of him, therefore, they often discoursed together. In
him they avowedly placed their loftiest hopes. Their very lives
had their highest being together in his. When, in consequence, he
was no more ; when apparently he had been stolen ; and when,
finally, he was known to have risen from the dead ; well may John
and Mary have conferred together thus still living with each
other in the common thought of their endeared, injured, and glori
fied friend. Congeniality of feeling is a powerful as well as a subtle
principle in human hearts. A community in all things in act as
well as thought, in word no less than in emotion is its natural if
not necessary result ; and especially when it has found a common
object of concern or interest, then all the active powers of the soul
run and flow together on both sides towards that object, honouring
it while it feeds and strengthens itself.

Accordingly, Mary it was who bore the intelligence to John, that
the tomb was empty. In this fact is reason sufficient why John
should mention her alone ; why he should make his whole narrative
depend on her. By so doing, he was confining his record to actual
knowledge, to knowledge peculiar to himself, to knowledge which he
knew to be trustworthy. Other narrators might bear witness to
other points, and introduce other actors on the scene. John spoke
of what he had heard, seen, and knew. How far preferable was
such a course to any other ! How much would his narrative have
lost in value, did it afford us reason to think that he reported indis
criminately all that was said on the point ! Then his testimony
would have sunk to mere hearsay, or at any rate could have had
little individual and independent value. As it is, however, the nar
rative is a record of the highest character. It emanates from
personal knowledge. John and Mary are the sole vouchers ; and
they are both known to have possessed the best opportunities for
making an exact, and the best qualities for making an honest, and
as an exact and honest, so a true report.

60 MO1UL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS.

Nor was it a matter of chance that Mary resorted to John and
Peter, in order to bear the news that the tomb was empty. The
narrative itself seems to imply this. Mary proceeds to find these
two disciples, as though she felt that they were the most fitting parties
to whom the intelligence should be first conveyed.

In regard to John, her congeniality with his character was reason
enough. To him nature would prompt her to fly. Sorrow always
brings kindred hearts together. Those who love each other may
keep apart in the full light of open day, but are sure to approach
when darkness and distress are at hand. Besides, was not John the
disciple whom Jesus loved ? To whom so properly could she hasten,
if she considered what was required by a regard to the cause in which
they were all embarked, and in which they now appeared to have
suffered a fatal shipwreck ?

But why select Peter ? There is no need to seek out any latent
reason. The obvious fact that Peter was the rock on which the
Saviour had himself declared he would build an imperishable church,
justified, nay, required the step she took.

And if we may judge from well-known events which took place at
a later time, well was it that Mary chose Peter and John as her
advisers and companions in this emergency; for they afterwards
became pre-eminently pillars of the church, a position which they
were qualified to hold from the personal knowledge which they thus
had of the great event of the resurrection of their Lord. And as
the nature of their knowledge fitted and prepared them for their
great subsequent influence, so does the influence which they exerted
tend to show what propriety there was in the selection made by
Mary among the great body of the disciples of Christ. Surely these
several and combined congruities have great weight in proving the
reality of the recorded events. Who can believe that a narrative on
which falsehood had employed her " prentice hand," or poetry exer
cised her art, or mythology had lavished her meretricious ornaments,
or rather a narrative in which these heterogeneous but distorting
influences were all combined with the smallest modicum of fact,
could have offered natural features and minute points of agreement,
so numerous, so interesting, so obviously undesigned, as are those of
which we have spoken ?

John presents to the reader but one female herald. Yet we know
that there were several women at the sepulchre. Why he speaks of
only one we have already endeavoured to explain. But the terms
in which this one announces her message to Peter and John imply
that other women besides herself had found the tomb empty. " We
know not," she said, "where they have laid him." " We know not."
Who are we ? Obviously the other women as well as herself. Now,
on proceeding to find Peter and John, she appears to have been
unaccompanied ; so that we have here one of those unintentional
and latent references which are among the most certain vouchers of
the reality of events. Just having left her female companions at

270

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 01

the tomb companions with whom she had anxiously conferred
respecting the removal of the corpse, and probably respecting the
best course to be taken she most naturally alludes to them in
conveying the intelligence she had come to bring. But would
it not have been proper for her to preface her report, by stating
that she had had companions, and who her companions were ? Oh !
no : such is not the way human nature acts when under strong and
sudden impressions. Least of all would a surprised and grieving
woman make a formal speech. The fact, and the fact alone the
fact that weighed upon her heart would burst from her lips. Yet,
in reporting that fact, nothing but a positive effort could well keep
her language free from implications in regard to leading circum
stances connected with the fact ; and so it is that unintentionally
her words assume a plural form, and " We ice know not where
they have laid him" drops naturally from her tongue. And if
there is one class of persons, who more than another are liable to
natural implications of this nature in their speech, it is unlettered
women, who to a minute and philosophical observer make many
disclosures, while in each case they intend only to communicate
one fact.

We have already adduced the haste with which Peter and John
went to the sepulchre, as an illustration of that minute particularity
by which this entire narrative is characterised. We now speak of
the same fact with another view. We use it again to show how
characteristic these few words are, and therefore how credible is the
narrative of which they form an essential part.

Three persons proceed to the tomb, Mary, Peter, and John.
Peter and John are recorded to have run ; but Mary ran not. Why
this difference? Mary had just come from the tomb, and knew
that which the t\vo others were only going to learn. Her mind was
satisfied; theirs, merely excited. The slowness of dejection and grief
was natural to her; to them the swiftness of fear, hope, and desire.

Of the two, however, who were impelled to run to the sepulchre,
John outstripped Peter. Why ? John was the disciple whom Jesus
loved ; John had just received a sacred trust at the hands of Jesus
a trust which implied, on the part of Jesus towards John, con
fidence as well as affection. All this would make John s sensitive
and earnest nature tremblingly alive to the news which Mary brought,
and put twofold speed into his limbs Yes : love has light feet,
especially when the object of our affection is in peril. Wings then
are demanded by the heart, that we may fly to the aid or the rescue
of our friend.

But Peter was not without a reason for haste. His nature, too,
was ardent ; arid he was the appointed rock of the church. But the
reason for haste with him was of a less impulsive kind, for it was
less of a personal nature : it Ijiy rather in the head than the heart,
and may well have failed to enable Peter to keep pace with John.
Besides, he had disgraced himself at the apprehension and trial of

62 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

his Master, whose look of pity he had not forgotten, and may well
have been less swift in approaching his tomb.

The same distinction is seen in operation when the two arrive at
the grave. The moment John reaches it, he stoops and casts his
eyes within but shrinks at once back. Peter comes up, and boldly
enters without delay. Such was the natural result of their respec
tive impulses. The ardent intellect of Peter gave him strength to
perform a task before which the moral sensitiveness of John instinc
tively retreated. Yet his love still urged John to enter ; for love will
not be content unless it sees, in such a case, with its own eyes. Thus,
when Peter with his sturdier nature had given the example, John,
with a natural leaning to imitation, and prompted by his love,
at last entered the place from which he had shrunk just before. The
conduct of both corresponds with the laws of their being. What an
incongruity would there have been, had their parts been exchanged
had John been made the less fleet and the more bold ; and Peter,
the more rapid, but the less venturous !

We conclude our notice of these internal marks of reality, by
eliciting another lesson from the description which John has given
of the time when Mary paid her first visit to the tomb. It was early
in the morning, while it was yet dark that is, at the first break of
day, in the dusk of morning dawn.

At first sight it does not appear why the visit should itself have
been so early, or why the record of the time should have been
so exact and minute. Nor does the reason present itself, until we
have looked a little into the inner world of the bereaved infant
church.

Where does John leave Mary Magdalene on the evening of the
crucifixion? At the foot of the cross. Matthew (xxvii. 61) gives a
notice of her at a yet later hour. After Jesus had been entombed,
she sat herself down, oppressed with woe, over against the sepulchre.
Next she appears hastening to the sepulchre early on the first day
of the week. Two entire nights and a day intervene, and she pays
no visit to the grave ; but on the third morning she is all speed, up
before the sun, on her way to the sepulchre. Jn fact this was the
earliest hour that she could make the visit. The intervening day
was a sabbath, during which religious influences forbade even a visit
to the grave of a deceased friend. But no sooner was the sabbath
over, than she is found hastening to the tomb. Here is the reason
of the record, and the reason of the early hour of her visit. As
long as she could, she had stood at the foot of the cross ; as long
as she could, she had sat over against the sepulchre ; and, when the
beginning of the sabbath on the Friday evening had compelled her
to retire, she seized the first light of the third day to return to the
place where her heart lay buried with her Lord.

How true is all this to nature, and especially true to Mary s
nature ! Long did the intervening space appear ; tardy was the step
of the departing hours ; darkness and light, and again darkness, came

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 63

wearily to her, ere she could yield to the impulse of her breast. At
length the night was -nearly gone ; the dawn of the third day begins
to break ; the hours of delay are all counted ; and with eyes that
had neither had nor needed sleep, and with a heart beating audibly
in the stillness of the dawn, she repairs to the sepulchre.

So would such love do under such circumstances all over the
world ; but in no country more readily than in Judea. There
the purer affections of the breast were as faithful and constant as
they were warm. Friendship and love partook of the steady bril
liancy and almost quenchless ardour of the skies which covered and
blessed the land.

The incidents connected with the resurrection of our Lord afford
a striking illustration of the fact, that there was no precipitancy on
the part of the primitive witnesses to believe the great truths of the
gospel. The contrary opinion has, indeed, been alleged ; and we
have reason to think, that many persons are kept out of the fold of
Christ by a fear, that, if they yield their minds to the testimony of the
New Testament witnesses, they will take part in the consequences
of their too easy and too ready faith. In this issue we wish to
invite attention, especially in the first place to the recorded conduct
of Thomas; and for this purpose we shall recall to the reader s
mind two or three facts.

The report of Mary Magdalene, that she had seen the Lord, had
raised the dejected and despairing minds of the disciples ; so that on
the same day they assembled together for consultation and mutual
support. Timid through their recent affliction, and afraid of their
now triumphant enemies, the Jews they met in secret, the doors
closed, and with the word " hush" bursting from every lip when,
lo ! to their amazement, Jesus stands in the midst, saying, "Peace be
unto you/ And when he had so said, he showed them his hands
and his side. Then were the disciples glad when they saw the
Lord ! All doubt had vanished, and the most lively joy succeeded,
to give birth within a brief period to the brightest and loftiest hopes.

But Thomas was not present at this impressive meeting. The
other disciples, therefore, report to him what they had seen. He
refuses to believe that Jesus was alive, unless he himself had what
he considered an infallible proof. That proof is given. Thomas
believes, and spends his life in the service of the risen and exalted
Jesus ; the oldest and best tradition of the church being, that he
dedicated his days to preaching the gospel in Parthia, and was
finally buried at Edessa.

Now, we beg the reader to observe the kind of evidence here pre
sented. It is threefold: there is that of Mary Magdalene, that of
the assembled disciples, that of Thomas. Are there any marks
of haste and precipitancy in any one of these three ? Mary had
recognised her Lord by a truly infallible sign the tones of his voice.
He pronounced her name with his own lips, and the accents rang
through her heart. His "Mary" called forth her " Rabboni ;" and
273

64 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

they knew each other, as friends, and friends alone, ever know. The
congregated disciples must have been well acquainted with the per
son of Jesus ; and his appearance among them was evidence enough.
Lest, however, they should with their notions imagine it was some
vision that they saw, some unreal creation of their own disturbed
fancy, he showed them the wounds which the cross and the spear
had left in his mangled body. They believed. They announce the
fact " we have seen the Lord" to Thomas. The witness which
they thus bore was evidence sufficient. Mistake there could not be
they well knew the person of Jesus. Deception was out of the
question ; for there was nothing to be gained by making Thomas a
dupe. Yet will Thomas not believe. " It may be so," he in effect
says, " but seeing is believing ; and, unless I see not only him, but
his wounds, I will not believe." He saw, and did believe.

In all this there is no want of caution, of inquiry, of knowledge.
The parties in the case were competent they were also, it is evident,
cautious and slowly-believing witnesses. But the case of Thomas
is altogether peculiar. There is a self- will edness in his state of mind,
the overcoming of which makes his attestation to the resurrection of
especial value. It was not merely evidence that he needed. Suffi
cient evidence would not satisfy him. He must have his own kind
of proof, or he will not believe. Ordinary proofs were of no avail,
since proofs address the judgment, and his will had first to be moved
before his judgment could even be reached. His was one of those
rough natures in which the will has the mastery, self predominates,
and passion assumes the attributes of the intellect. In his eyes no
one is of so much importance as Thomas himself; no consideration
to be set in comparison with the satisfaction of his own desires.
What he wills is law as much for others as for himself. He, there
fore is, as to be pleased, so to be convinced, in his own way. The
evidence to which he will yield must be defined by himself.

We have reason to be glad, that there was in the number of the
apostles a person of this character. He may, indeed, have proved
a troublesome companion and an indocile disciple ; but he is a very
valuable witness. The intervention of his will is a guarantee to us
against error. This was a new element in the problem which Jesus
had to solve a new source of difficulty which evidence had to
overcome. And it was a difficulty of a very peculiar kind, being
not mere doubt or denial, but an arbitrary act of self-will. Doubt
and denial are states of mind for which evidence is the appropriate
cure. But even infallible proofs may fail to overcome the active
opposition or the stern reluctance of an obstinate and impassioned
will. He who will be content with only one kind of evidence, and
that one an evidence of his own choosing, neither is nor can in many
cases be convinced ; since that proof which is arbitrarily chosen the
circumstances of the case may either not supply, or not even admit.
Yet, in the case before us, the demand was met. Thomas s incre
dulity was transformed into the liveliest faith. He saw and felt what

274

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 65

he required, and yielded conviction when he could no longer with
hold it.

Under these circumstances, we have peculiar guarantees of the
care and caution which the first Christians employed, ere they took
up the cause of Christ for good and all. An evidence which satis
fied Mary Magdalene, and the company of the half-believing, half-
cloubting disciples, and vanquished the natural self-will and hard
obstinacy of Thomas, comes recommended to our acceptance with
a force which testimony rarely possesses.

And mark what the burden of that testimony is. What is it to
which these bear witness ? " The Lord is risen indeed ;" " We have
seen the Lord." It is to the great miracle and the fundamental fact
of the gospel ; that which, being established, establishes every other
important fact, or renders its establishment of comparatively small
importance. If Christ is risen, the gospel is true, and eternal life
awaits his faithful followers. Well, indeed, is it that the obstinate
incredulity of Thomas bore on this grand truth ; for the faith which
he gained by sight thus becomes a source of strong conviction to
those to whom the evidence of sight is denied. " Blessed are they
who have not seen, and yet have believed."

In these words our Lord indirectly conveys some slight blame
on Thomas ; for his was an undesirable, if not improper and sinful,
state of mind. Every intervention of the will in belief or disbelief
is wrong. To the judgment alone belongs the right to weigh
evidence, and to forbid or authorise conviction. Thomas, therefore,
inasmuch as he brought into play his will in a case where the intel
lect should have been left in unimpaired freedom, broke a law of
his moral nature, and therein broke a law. of God.

But there are words of Christ on record in which he utters a
severer blame on some who disbelieved. Two disciples are, immedi
ately after the resurrection, proceeding together from Jerusalem to the
village of Emmaus, when, while deep in conversation about the great
events which had just taken place, they are joined by Jesus, whom,
however, from some cause they do not recognise. The three fall
most naturally to converse about that topic which filled all hearts,
and dwelt on every tongue " Jesus of Nazareth, a prophet, mighty
in deed and word before God and all the people," whom the chief
priests and rulers of the Jews crucified three days ago. Yet these
two disciples, with many others, had trusted that he was the person
who should redeem Israel from the Roman yoke. But, strangest of
all these strange things, " certain woman of our company made us
astonished, which were early this morning at the sepulchre, and
affirm that he is alive." Notwithstanding all this all these vivid
and exciting scenes these painful and distressing events, this
blighting of the brightest hopes ; and notwithstanding the declara
tion of the women, strange, wonderful, and interesting as it was,
these two disciples are found by Jesus quietly wending their way
from Jerusalem to Emmaus, proceeding on their ordinary business,
275 o Q

66 ^ MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

or about to pay a visit of friendship or of pleasure ; for the alleged
resurrection is so improbable to their minds as not to be worthy of
deliberate attention. They find, indeed, in these things a superficial
interest, which is sufficient to make them converse thereon ; but so
incredulous are they, that they do not think it worth while to remain
in the city the very day on which Jesus rose, in order to inquire
into the truth of his alleged restoration to life. What strength of
incredulity have we here ! Is there in this state of mind a proneness
to believe the resurrection ? a readiness of faith which would credit
any idle tale ? The resurrection is evidently regarded by these men
as an impossibility, a thing not within the range of probable events.
No : they need not waste their time in looking into the incredible
story" told by the women. Business or pleasure calls, and away they
go unconcerned to Emmaus. These were the circumstances which
drew from our Lord the condemnatory words " O fools and slow
of heart to believe !" (Luke xxiv. 25.) The conduct of these and of
other disciples, was, in regard to faith in Christ, slow, not hasty ; cau
tious, not precipitate ; and their eventual conviction was the growth
of years, not the birth of an hour. Hence is it that we find in the
Gospels that request " Lord, increase our faith." Those who were
near Jesus felt their hearts often smite them for the slowness arid
the weakness of their faith, which they knew was disproportionate
to the evidence, and unworthy the relation which they bore to
Christ. Hence, too, those exhortations of our Lord s in favour of a
lively, actuating faith ; for he who knew what was in man, saw how
slow conviction was in penetrating through the thick folds of Jewish
prejudice towards the centre of moral life and power, and was well
aware that no reliance could be placed on any of his attendants, till
the confession of the lips glowed with all the ardour, and beat with
all the force, of a faith embedded in the heart.

Indeed, the general course which events took from the baptism of
Jesus by John till his crucifixion and burial, was such as to impede
the formation of a full and implicit faith, and make the experience
of the apostles one in which belief, doubt, hope, misgiving, and dis
trust, were strangely intermingled, till at last all issued and vanished
in the one emotion of overwhelming despair. And this fluctuation
and this disappointment arose from the diverse views which Jesus
and his apostles entertained 011 the very point on which they were
outwardly united. That Jesus was the Messiah they believed, no
less than Jesus himself. But what ideas were attached to the term
Messiah ? Did the word stand for the same reality in the mind of
Jesus, and in the mind of the apostles ? Far from it. There was
the greatest divergency between his conception and theirs. And as
this divergency took an outward shape in words, acts, or sufferings,
so was the faith of the apostles shaken, till at length that faith
expired, when Jesus drew his last breath on the cross.

Here again, we ask the reader, do you recognise any tokens of
precipitancy ? any disposition to believe at all events and under all

276

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE! GOSPELS. 67

circumstances ? to take things for granted, merely because alleged,
or for proved and indubitable, merely because once admitted ? The
state of the apostles minds seems to have been, with few exceptions,
one constant struggle. Evidence conflicted with evidence. This
proved that Jesus was the Messiah ; but that proved that he was
not. His doctrine was divine ; his miracles showed the hand of
God : but then he ran counter, in his whole course of teaching and
acting, to that which the Messiah was to take. Why was John his
harbinger in prison ? why was he allowed to suffer death ? Why
did Jesus keep aloof from the capital, or retire from it after the
shortest stay ? Why avoid publicity ? Why hurry away from popular
honours ? Why refuse to become the king he was sent to be, and
which the people were eager to make him ? And why in a word
does he stand at the judgment-bar? why is he arraigned, con
demned, buffeted, spat upon, crowned in scorn, and finally crucified
on a charge of sedition and blasphemy ? he who ought to be the
honoured and revered head of the Jewish state, " far above all"
earthly " principality and power," in order that he might destroy the
enemies of his nation with the breath of his mouth, and so establish
a kingdom, universal in its sway, eternal in its duration, and retri-
butory to Jew, Greek, and Roman, each according to his works, in
its irreversible effects ? Why is what the apostles see, so contrary
and opposite to what they hoped, believed, and expected ? So,
however, it is ; and therefore " they all forsook him and fled."

Therein, they gave the strongest proof of their sincerity. Their
renunciation of Christ has proved, in the course of time, a stronger
evidence of the credibility of the gospel, than even their espousal
of his cause. These men must have been in earnest. They must
have been slow and cautious in their conduct. It was no easy thing
for them to renounce all they had hoped, believed, and loved. They
could not have had intercourse with Jesus for months and years,
without having formed a strong and tender personal attachment to
him ; and, when at length their faith began to fail, we may be well
assured their hearts would long and earnestly plead in favour of one
so good and gentle, one so holy, harmless, and undenled ; one whose
gracious words had dropped like dew on their souls, whose divine
benignity had won their hearts, whose powerful intellect had mas
tered as well as enlightened their minds. Yet they tore themselves
away from his side in the very hour of his need. The sacrifice was
great, heart-rending ; but truth (as understood by them) required the
costly effort, and they made it. Where, then, is the unseemly haste
to believe, which some adduce against their evidence ? where the
alleged want of care to inquire ? where a credulousness which takes
ordinary fact for miracle, and cannot distinguish between the resur
rection of Lazarus from the tomb, and his restoration from a bed of
sickness ?

The primitive witnesses of the gospel have been contemplated
as they were before, and as they were after, the resurrection. We

68 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS,

have considered their conduct, we have endeavoured to realise their
position, we have looked into the state of their minds ; and the gene
ral result is, that they appear to have acted as most prudent, honest,
prejudiced, ordinary men in their circumstances would have acted;
that is, with a degree of care, caution, delay, hesitation, misgiving,
doubt, disbelief, and full assurance of faith, all of which states of
mind were natural and proper in the actual case, but in one or two
instances with an unusual indisposition to receive evidence, and a
blameworthy disregard o facts which combine with what was ordi
nary and natural in their conduct to assure us of the trustworthiness
of their testimony, and of the certainty of the things in which we
have been instructed.

But, in order to see the argument in its full force, the reader must
bear in mind that they are in the main the same men who first
renounced Jesus ; then were slow to believe the resurrection ; and,
finally, held not their lives dear for the testimony of the gospel.
Yes: the very persons who showed their sincerity, by forsaking
Jesus when he had at length failed to prove what they expected,
showed afterwards the same simplicity of purpose, the same regard
to evidence, the same entire truthfulness of character, when facts
had proved too strong for doubts, and events had thrown light on
God s designs; when, in a word, the resurrection first distrusted,
then disregarded, then investigated, then half believed, then held as
a certainty, and known as a fact had shown what the nature of the
Messiah s kingdom was, and what was the message which was to be
borne to the world ; and finally, the same persons who thus believed
and disbelieved, as they found evidence vary, unconsciously esta
blished to all ages their own honesty, and therein their credibility,
by going forth with their lives in their hands, and the good news
on their lips, as sheep to the shearers, and lambs to the slaughter.
And so they proclaimed the gospel, converted the world, and sealed
their testimony with their blood. Their reward ? to be counted
the filth and offscouring of all things. Not a city did they enter,
but the Jew scorned or the Greek scoffed at them ; and contempt,
bonds, and scourging, did but prepare the way for a speedy or a tardy
martyrdom. Are these the influences which prompt men to believe
in haste, or prevent them from repenting at leisure ? Yet those who
preached Jesus and the resurrection persevered to their last hour in
maintaining their testimony in the face of the world, and with a
ceaseless reference and appeal to God. Fools ! fools indeed they
were, if they believed without a sufficient reason, or persisted in
propagating a fiction or a legend, or an unworthy compound of com
monplace truth and miraculous falsehood. Fools were they, and
strange their conduct ; but there is a fact which is stranger still,
a greater folly, a less conceivable, yet an undoubted event, the
crumbling away, in the brief space of a century, of the old civilisation,
and the gradual substitution of a new and higher state of society,
undor the influence of these men these Galilean peasants, so rash

278

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 69

in their mental changes, so rapid in their convictions, of so easy and
unquestioning a faith. Yes : men whom you make too weak to be
feared, and too contemptible to be loved ; and withal so credulous,
that, after their influence has lasted two thousand years, they are
unworthy of being credited, not on their words merely, but on their
lives ; these men some twelve Jews, with no learning, and only
natural eloquence on their side, but all the world against them suc
ceed in so planting a gross error, if not a vile falsehood, in the heart of
society, that it has ever since grown, till now it is held and honoured
by all the most civilised nations on earth ! The simple alternative
is, that they knew that which they declared, scrutinised the facts
which they proclaimed, and only gave up all for Christ because
such was the overpowering nature of the evidence they could not
help it.

To these manifold considerations, which concur to prove the reality
and credibility of the resurrection of Jesus, what has Strauss to
oppose ? Let us see. We have not space to examine his criticism
page by page, nor would the labour bring a due reward. We shall,
therefore, content ourselves with stating and investigating his theory,
together with some of the difficulties by which he is led to its adop
tion ; taking the opportunity of presenting one or two specimens of
a most unseemly spirit,

Having found or made contradictions in the narrative of the
evangelists touching the resurrection, and given reasons for being
dissatisfied with other modes of explaining facts which cannot be
denied, he proceeds to set forth his own hypothesis :

" In the years during which the connexion of Jesus with his disciples lasted, he had
made upon them, in a more and more decided manner, the impression of being the
Messiah ; but his death, which they could not reconcile with their Messianic ideas, for a
moment annihilated this impression. The first terror having passed away, when the pre
vious impression began to revive, they spontaneously felt the necessity of removing the
contradiction which the death of Jesus formed with their first opinion respecting him, and
to receive into their conception of the Messiah the circumstance of suffering and of death.
But, for Jews of this time, to comprehend a thing signified deriving it from the Sacred
Scriptures: thither, accordingly, were the disciples of Jesus ever led, in order to see if they
furnished any indications of a suffering and dying Messiah. However foreign the idea of
such a Messiah may be to the Old Testament, the disciples did not^the less find the indica
tions which they wished, in all the poetical and prophetic passages which such as Isa. liii.
Ps. xxii. represented the men of God as persecuted, and sinking under misfortune even
unto death. Accordingly, that which Luke states to have been the chief engagement of
the risen Jesus, in his interviews with his disciples, is, "Beginning at Moses and all the
prophets, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself"
(Luke xxiv. 27, 44) ; and especially he taught them, that " it was necessary that Christ
should suffer these things" (ver. 40 ). From the moment that they had in this way received
into their conception of the Messiah the idea of opprobrium, suffering, and death, Jesus,
who had been ignominiously tortured, far from being lost was preserved to them : by his
death, he had only entered into his Messianic glory (Luke xxiv. 26), in which he was
invisibly "with them always even to the end of the world" (Matt, xxviii. 20). But from
270

70 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

the midst of that splendour in which he lived, could he neglect to give his disciples a
knowledge of himself? And if their eyes, up till now closed, opened to the doctrine of
a dying Messiah contained in the Scripture, and if their " heart burned within them"
(Luke xxiv. 32) with an extraordinary enthusiasm, could they help considering this change
as an influence on them of their glorified Christ, as " an opening of their understanding"
(Luke xxiv. 45), which had its cause in him, and even as a discourse which he had
addressed to them ? Finally, it is surely credible, that, in the case of individuals, and par
ticularly women, these feelings should rise to a true sight of Christ, only interior and
subjective; while, in the case of others, and even entire assemblies, an external object
something sensible to the ear or to the eye, sometimes perhaps the aspect of some unknown
person gave them the impression of a manifestation or appearance of Jesus.*

Such, in his own words, is the theory of Strauss ; a theory which,
according to some, is to root up the gospel, and destroy the Christian
church. We have given this theory in the words of its author, in
order that the reader might be sure he had the thing itself, and not
a misrepresentation of it (a travesty could not well be given) before
his eyes. And now that the terrific reality is produced, does it,
reader, look so very formidable ? For ourselves, we are free to say,
that we never, within the same space, saw so thick a tissue of assump
tions and falsities. If this is the best which unbelief can achieve
in the way of logic, we think its cause is desperate indeed. But to
particulars.

The apostles, having had something approaching to a conviction
that Jesus was the Messiah, are divested of this almost belief by the
fact of his death. What changed their despair into an assurance
that Jesus had risen from the tomb ? This is the point on which
the reader should intently fix his eye. The previous impression
had been " annihilated." -The disciples were sure that Jesus was not
the Christ. Well, then, what happens to change their opinion ? The
Scriptures say the resurrection. The cause is adequate ; and all
that ensues is clear, and in agreement with the laws of the human
mind. But what does Strauss assign as the first mover in the long-
series of effects which from then stretch down to the present day ?
What ? Nothing, literally nothing. His church is built on no
foundation whatever ; " the first terror having passed away, when
the previous impression began to revive." Yes : but why revive at
all? What caused it to revive? The impression, you just before
said, was annihilated what gave it life again ? The resurrection
of this annihilated impression is for you harder than the resurrec
tion of Jesus on our side ; because you are without a prime moving
cause, and we recognise the agency of God. Thus the theory of
Strauss is built on no reality whatever.

We need say no more. The objector s theory is purely gratuitous.
The disciples could not have acted subsequently as he asserts they
did, because, according to his theory, they could not act at all, since

* Sect. 14(1; vol. ii. p. 030, xrq. fourth edit.

-2KO

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 71

there was nothing to set them in motion. It may, however, be
desirable to pursue this shadow a little farther.

The impression that Jesus was the Messiah having begun to
revive, the disciples spontaneously felt the necessity of reconciling
his death with their notion of him as a triumphant prince. Why ?
How came they to feel this necessity ? All that they felt was that
Jesus might be the Messiah, which would prompt them to look for
some outward display of his power, not to go to the Scriptures to
look after passages predicting his sufferings and death. The implied
necessity Strauss may feel for the safety of his theory ; but there was
nothing to give the notion to the disciples. Their idea of the Mes
siah was the low material Jewish one whence could they be led
to think, that the Scriptures would authorise the introduction into it
of higher elements ? The very supposition of the possibility of this
was an acknowledgment, that the impression which now only began
to revive was wrong, and so would act to undermine arid destroy it.
Strange, indeed, that the revival of an impression that Jesus "was
merely a temporal prince should have the effect of sending the dis
ciples to inquire if the very opposite was not his real character !

However, they go to the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In
truth, the idea of a suffering and dying Messiah is not contained
in those Scriptures, according to our German authority. Yet the
disciples were so clever as to find it there, and that too with eyes
dazzled with the pomp of a mere material, temporal, and triumphant
Messiah. They were not, indeed, quite sure that Jesus was the
Messiah at all. Yet they learned in documents which do not prove
any thing of the kind, that he was a suffering Messiah !

And so now being satisfied that he was the Messiah, they forth
with leaped to the conclusion, that he whom they saw die on the
cross was still in being. The Scriptures had proved that the Mes
siah must die : hence they believed Jesus was in existence. Never
before did a proof that a* person was dead prove also that he was
alive.

But as Jesus was alive, so must he have entered into his glory.
This was the next step in the mental process through which they
went. But what was the Messiah s glory with them ? Earthly
dominion. Here, then, once more the theory breaks down.

However, they hold Jesus to be in existence, what connexion can
they have with the living Messiah ? They had all forsaken him and
fled whence, then, came the flame of enthusiasm alleged to have
burned in their hearts ? Most reasonably might they have felt, that
one whom they had pusillanimously deserted would now reject them,
and seek other instruments. Self-condemnation was their only
natural, their only proper emotion. Not the faintest spark of glad,
enthusiastic joy could they, under the supposition, have experienced.
But, if their hearts were rather dejected than elated, whence the
heated brain which made them see visions which they saw not, and
dream a dead man into actual life ? Their enthusiasm, we are told,

281

72 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

rose into a real vision. But they had, and could have had, no
enthusiasm. Consequently, they neither had its offspring " a real
vision." This real vision or sight, however, was, it seems, no sight
at all ; for it was purely interior and subjective. These are perhaps
a sort of cabalistic words to the reader. Tn plain English, they mean
that the disciples fancied they saw Jesus ; and the writer means to
intimate that it was all a self-delusion. His theory, then, is that the
witnesses to the resurrection first deluded themselves, and then
deluded the world. We add, all this delusion was practised, though
the loss of all things was the penalty. Surely, if this was indeed the
basis on which the Christian church was built, it would not long
have survived the assaults of its enemies. The martyrdom of Stephen
was enough to remove the film of thin delusion which covered the
apostles eyes.

The learned professor, however, seems to feel that his hypothesis
totters with its own weight, and therefore he casts about for a prop
to sustain it. He finds three ; but they are all rotten. First, he
quotes Scripture, and every passage he cites he perverts from the
meaning which it bears in the New Testament. Thus he uses
the words, "Then opened he their understanding" (Luke xxiv. 45).
The evangelist ascribes the act to the risen Jesus : Strauss refers
the influence to their thinking, that the Messiah was to suffer and
die. But this acknowledgment of suffering was the result not, as
he makes it, the cause of the opening of their understanding. In
truth, the learned doctor affirms this they believed that Christ was
to suffer, and this belief opened their understanding to believe that
Christ was to suffer : so that there was no opening of the under
standing at all.

The second prop he finds in the peculiarity of the female tem
perament. There doubtless is a peculiarity ; but women have eyes,
and can use them, as well as men, and were as little likely as Peter
or John to fancy they saw Christ, whom they did not see. And if
women are susceptible, they are equally guileless and truthful, and
were not likely to play a part in an imposture in which the only
extenuation was that the deceivers were in some way self-deceived.
If, however, individual females were not likely either to admit or to
propagate a delusion, what shall we say of the wonderful credulity of
this unbeliever, who gravely intimates that entire assemblies might
be so misled by their own fancies as to believe they saw and con
versed with one who was actually in his tomb ?

The third prop is still more groundless if possible. Finding
that this reference to the subjective that is, to the dreams and
visions of the minds of the disciples wanted substance, Dr. Strauss
introduces "an external object, something sensible to the ear or to
the eye, sometimes perhaps the aspect of an unknown person." Was
there ever a more purely gratuitous assumption? This external
object is a pure and very clumsy fiction ; we say clumsy ; for
what purpose could it answer ? An unknown person appears amid

282

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 73

the assembled disciples. Hence they believe they have seen Jesus.
Why, surely they knew Jesus, and could not have been so egre-
giously imposed upon ; and, being an unknown person, he would
come in a " questionable shape." How did he gain admittance ?
Whence did he come ? What was his object ? These interroga
tories would not fail to be pressed upon him, and every reply would
show that the unknown person was not Jesus. Besides, what
unknown person would care to intrude himself into the company of
these dejected, humble Galileans ? Those who were likely to know
of their meetings would have neither the wish nor the hardihood to
attempt a deception, and other people had enough in their own
affairs to occupy their thoughts and their hands.

If these assumptions and falsities needed further confutation, there
yet remains a very decisive one. All the time that these delusions
were going forward, there was at hand an infallible test. Jesus
(according to the theory) was in his tomb. Strauss saw, and has
tried to answer, the objection which herein arises. Vain, however,
are the many words which he employs; vain every impartial reader
will at once see they must be. Even supposing that, for any cause
whatever, not one of the disciples had either the sense or the honesty
to apply this test by a visit to the grave, surely the enemies of the
cross would not have failed to try its power, the moment these
enthusiasts began to proclaim their egregious falsehood. Nor does
even Strauss attempt to untie this knot, by recurring to the old fiction
of the Jews, that the disciples stole the corpse; for this supposition
would convert them into vile self-conscious impostors, which is a
view that has been too thoroughly exposed for him to adopt.

And now what is the urgent and irresistible necessity under which
a man of learning could be led thus to expose himself, and make so
groundless an attack on a fact that lies at the bottom of the faith,
hope, and charity of myriads, and which we, in common with most
of these myriads, regard as involving the great hope of the world ?
Surely it is an ungrateful as well as a tHankless and a bootless task.
Why was it attempted ? Because the author had persuaded himself
of the abstract impossibility of a resurrection from the dead. These
are his words : " When we form a just idea of the relation between
the soul and the body, we cannot, I will not say, conceive but even
imagine the return of a dead person to life. It is impossible." *
And so every thing must be made to bend to the preconceptions
of an infallible philosophy. It is more impossible that Jesus should
have risen from the dead, than that Strauss should be wrong. Indeed,
the mind of a pantheist may well have a power and authority ascribed
to it which are denied to the airy abstraction which, more from
courtesy than necessity, he denominates God.

In conducting an argument such as that which we have endea-

* Chap. 140 ; vol. ii. p. 623, fourth edit.
283 2 R

&lt;* MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

voured to probe, an unbeliever might justifiably be expected to
pay a due regard to the feelings of the Christian world, if not
to speak in a tone at once of self-distrust and general respect.
The writer of the Leben Jesu has done neither, in writing on a
branch of his subject in which Christians not only feel the deepest
interest, but have their most sacred and cherished emotions engaged.
We subjoin two or three citations :

"It is in the fourth Gospel that the members of this contradiction jostle each other; since
Jesus, immediately after having penetrated into the closed chamber through the walls and
the doors, allows himself to be touched by the doubting Thomas." Vol. iv. p. 023, 4th ed.

" As to the removal of the stone by the angel, it is evidently due to reflection on the
part of a man, who asking himself how the great stone had been removed from the tomb,
and the watchmen driven away could find no better reply than to employ, for this twofold
purpose, the angel who was offered to him by the current narrations about the appearances
which had fallen to the lot of the women. And, in order to adorn the scene still more, he
added the circumstance of the earthquake."

" With a view to escape from the confused runnings hither and thither of the apostles
and the women, from that phantasmagoria of manifestations, of vanishings and re
appearances of angels, from the objectless accumulation of appearances of Jesus before
the same person, we," &c.

" What a wonderful game of bo-peep do the harmonists, who attempt to put together
these narratives [of the resurrection], make the angels play at ! At first a single angel
shows himself to a group of women ; then two show themselves to another group ; after
wards these two hide themselves from the eyes of the apostles; but, after their departure,
they again show themselves. In order to remove these ceaseless vanishings," &c.
Vol. ii. pp. 576, 577, 580, fourth edit.

F Such is the tone which Strauss assumes. With what right ? We
are of opinion, that nothing could justify the display of so mocking
a spirit on a subject of so grave a nature ; and we are very con
fident, that there is nothing in the severity or efficacy of our writer s
criticism which can offer, in the actual case, even an extenuation.
A minute and detailed examination of that criticism, if we went no
further than its application to the resurrection, would of itself occupy
a volume. But its character may be briefly exhibited. And lest
we should be suspected of taking only the weaker points, we will
examine in order the first five objections which he brings. Having
remarked (chap. 137, vol. ii. p. 570, seq. fourth edit.) that agreeing
in one fact, namely, that the first news of the tomb of Jesus being
found open and empty, was brought by some women to the apostles on
the morning of the next day but one after his burial, he adds " But,
in all the details, the evangelists differ one from another in a manner
which has furnished abundant aliment to the hostilities waged by
the author of the Wolfenbiittel Fragments, and who in return
has given abundance of employment to harmonists and apologists,
without as yet any satisfactory arrangement having been effected
between the contending parties."

The first of these irreconcileable discrepancies that he mentions
is in the object which the women had in view in proceeding to

284

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 75

the tomb. That object, according to Mark and Luke, was, we are
informed, to embalm the body : according to Matthew, they only
intended to pay a visit to the tomb. We do not think the gospel
likely to be destroyed by blows such as this.

First we must correct our critic s errors. John says nothing of
any object, but merely recounts that Mary went to the tomb. Mat
thew, who states that the women went to see the sepulchre, does not
use the small but very important word which Strauss, for his own
purpose, has inserted, and without which his alleged discrepancy
would have not even the show of a foundation. The interpolated
word is the term only; the original being to see (3-w,o&gt;/&lt;rat, to
visit) the sepulchre. And now where is the disagreement ? Those
who went to embalm the body went also to visit the sepulchre, inas
much as the first could not be accomplished without the second.
Had Matthew asserted that they went merely to visit the sepulchre,
and Mark and Luke that they went to embalm the body, there would
be a disagreement. In the actual case, there is a diversity, but no
variance. Take from Strauss his own word " only," and his objec
tion is without point.

His second assault is this : " We find the most varied divergen
cies in regard to the number of the women who paid this visit.
According to Luke, they are a great but undetermined number ; in
Mark there are only three women ; Matthew has only the two
Marys; finally, John has only one of these, Mary Magdalene."

Here, again, the whole force of the objection lies in an assumption,
and the consequent adoption of the word only. Thrice is this word
forced on the evangelists. Is not such a proceeding most unjusti
fiable. And why such being the simple fact has this criticism
being deemed so formidable ? For the most part, we verily believe
because it has not, at least in this country, been subjected to a care
ful examination. In relation, however, to these alleged " most varied
divergencies" where is there, in this instance, any divergence
which can throw a moment s doubt on the narratives ? The greater
does not exclude the less. If you, reader, and a party of friends
taking a tour through the district of the lakes, " climb the dark brow
of mighty Helvellyn," and a friend of yours write to another friend
that you have ascended the mountain ; while a friend or two of your
party mentions in his account two other persons ; a third, for his
own reasons, gives the names of three ; and a fourth states generally,
that several persons, of whom you were one, went up the steep
ascent; and if, by any chance, these four accounts came together,
would any man of sense think for a moment of attempting to throw
discredit on them, or any of them, in consequence of the variations
of which we have spoken ?

" The time when the women proceed to the tomb is, moreover,

not designated in a completely uniform manner. In reality, if

Matthew s description does not constitute a difference, it is not the

loss true that Mark s description is in contradiction with that 01

285

70 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

John, and with that of Luke." We here place these four descrip
tions :

MATTHEW.

In the end of the sab
bath as it began to dawn,
towards the first day of
the week.

MARK.

II.

When the sabbath was
past, very early in the
morning, the first day
of the week, at the rising
of the sun ; early the
first day of the week.

LUKE.

III.

Upon the first day of
the week, very early in
the morning.

JOHN.

IvT

The first day of the
week, early, when it was
yet dark.

Number two contradicts both number three and number four. So
our critic affirms. But what is the opinion of the unprejudiced
reader ? Let him look at these contradictions apart from their acces
sories : they stand thus :

Very early in the morning ; at
the rising of the sun, early the
first day of the week.

III.

Very early in the morning.

IV.

Early, when it was yet dark,
or dusk.

If there was to be any variety of language employed by authors
writing each for himself, on his own documents, without concert or
collusion, how could the same fact be described with less divergency ?
Yet here we have two of Strauss s contradictions. If others are no
weightier than this, they will not sink the gospel. It is clear that all
the writers meant to fix the time at early dawn. The words they
employ answer the intended purpose. If we described an event
which happened at early dawn as taking place " very early in the
morning," or " at sunrise," or " in the dusk of the morning," or
" at break of day," should we be open to the charge of self-contra
diction ?

His fourth objection is thus put : " The state in which the women
first saw the tomb appears to be the object of a divergency between
Matthew and the three others. According to the last,* they, on
approaching and casting their eye on the tomb, perceive the stone,
already removed by an unknown hand : on the contrary, the recital
of the first evangelist has appeared to many to signify, that the
women had themselves witnessed the removal of the stone by an
angel."

The reader will observe, that Strauss here speaks with a less
confident tone, and seems to wish to throw the responsibility of the
argument on others. This proceeding we account more skilful than
ingenuous. What was it to him what others thought in the case,
unless their opinion coincided with his own ? And if, as would
appear, he himself saw the weakness of the argument, then why this
earnestness to enlist in his cause a recruit whose worth he at least
suspected ? This looks too much like using any weapon, provided
it will help forward his purpose. But a critic we expect to weigh,
not accumulate, arguments. In fact there is no discrepancy.
Matthew in the second, third, and fourth verses (chap, xxviii.), relates

286

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 77

an event which had happened before the women reached the tomb.*
All the narrators agree in representing the women as, on their arrival,
finding the stone already rolled away.

Discrepancy the fifth is thus stated : " The divergencies relative
to what the women saw at the tomb, are more various. Accord
ing to Luke, they enter the tomb ; do not find the body of Jesus ; and,
surprised at this circumstance, they see standing near them two men
with glistening raiments, who announce to them his resurrection.
According to Mark, who also says that they entered the tomb, they
perceive only {only again] one man in white garments, not stand
ing, but sitting on the right hand, who gives them the same informa
tion. According to Matthew, it is before they go into the tomb
that they are informed of the event by the angel, who, after having
removed the stone, had seated himself upon it. According to John,
Mary Magdalene, without having seen any angelic messenger, returns
into the city the moment she sees the stone was removed."

And now, we say boldly for ourselves, that were all this true to the
letter, it would create no difficulty in our mind : rather we should
experience considerable difficulty, were there here no variations at
all. If these men were false, why are there any divergencies ?
Impostors would have removed these stumbling-blocks, which are in
the way of those who say they see. Had the narrators, too, been
imperfectly informed, yet, wishful to tell the truth, they might have
compared their accounts together, and brought them into harmony.
But, with a confident reliance on the purity of their motives and the
goodness of their cause, the evangelists simply relate, and, having
related, leave behind to posterity each what he believed true, or
judged desirable. In so doing, they give us the best vouchers of
their credibility. They acted, as trustworthy men always act, inde
pendently, and thinking not at all of the effect which their state
ments might produce, or whether they harmonised or not with the
statements of other witnesses.

But let us look at this array of divergencies. One thing is
reported by all four evangelists that the women found the stone
removed, and the tomb empty. Now, this is the great fact. Diver
sities in detail we are willing, after having ascertained this fact, to
make a present of to our critic, for his own special use and advan
tage. The tomb was found empty. " Yes, but the informants of
the women are variously represented." True, yet these informants
make the same report ; and moreover the women could see with

* In support of this view may be mentioned the following authorities: Griesbach,
Kuinoel, Kern, Ebrarcl. The last has published a very thorough and very valuable reply
to Strauss, in which he subjects the critic to criticism with most satisfactory results; giv
ing, as a preliminary, learned and well-wi itten dissertations, which bring down the history
of the interpretation of the New Testament to Strauss and his shade, Bruno Bauer. The
title of the work which ought to be translated into English is Wisscnschaftliche Kritik
dcr Evanqel. Gfescftickte ) Ein Compendium der geswnffittn Ercfngelicnkritik, von A.Ebrarrl.
Frankfurt, 1842.

387

78 MOKAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS.

their own eyes, that the stone was removed, and the tomb empty.
Was it, however, one or two angels ? and were these within or without
the tomb? We will make a remark or two on the subject, with
out thinking it of the slightest consequence which way the question
is decided.

The women, as may well be believed, were in the greatest alarm
and perplexity. The day was only just dawning. A tomb is a dark,
and to some a fearful place. Where the wonder, if, under these cir
cumstances, one of the women reported two angels ; another, one ?
Neither their minds, nor the time nor the place, were favourable to
arithmetical accuracy. If there were two angels, this woman might
see only one : if there were one, he might, in the confusion and
obscurity, appear in two places, or be seen under two aspects, so as
to be reckoned two. " But surely they could say distinctly whether
the angelic appearance was within or without the sepulchre." Pos
sibly so; but, even in this less difficult matter, we can easily
understand how a different impression might be made on different
minds. Besides, an angel which was first seen without, might after
wards be seen within, the tomb. We question, however, the so-
termed diversity. The three last evangelists represent the angelic
appearance as taking place inside the tomb. Matthew alone may
be understood as representing the angel as being, when he addressed
the women, on the outside. But it is equally true, that his language
may be understood so as to imply that the angel was within the sepul
chre. Let the reader look carefully at these words : " He [Jesus]
is not here, for he is risen ; come, see the place where the Lord lay."
" The place where the Lord lay" was the interior of the tomb ; thence
it was that the invitation proceeded, as appears from the peculiar
meaning of the term come (deurf), which expresses an invitation to
a second person to proceed to the place where the person speaking is.
If the angel, when addressing this invitation, had been without the
tomb, he would have said, not " come," but " go," or "let us go ; " " let
us enter the tomb, and see the place where the Lord lay." The angel
appears to have stood and spoken from the interior of the cave.
But are Matthew s preceding words in agreement with this view ?
Yes : we have already said that the words which occur in ver. 2,
3, and 4, refer to a prior event. The circumstance of his sitting on
the stone, which is relied upon by Strauss, is sundered from the
statement of his address to the women by two verses, which obviously
relate things that had taken place before they arrived.

We pursue these minute details no further. Enough has been
done to put the reader into a position to judge for himself how far
Strauss has undermined the evidence given by the witnesses to the
resurrection of Jesus.

We have, in a former part of this piece, renounced the idea of any
verbal harmony. We have not, we candidly confess, even a wish to
see the existing variations entirely removed. The books are to our
mind more credible with than without them. At the same time, it

288

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 79

is the duty of every one who would have his faith in Christ rest 011
a good foundation, to examine carefully, in order that he may judge
with his own judgment whether the alleged variations are such in
reality, and whether or not they affect more than the superficies of
the narratives. With this view we have carefully studied the four
accounts left us of the resurrection : the result we place here, not to
guide, but to aid, other inquirers. Let it be supposed, that the
events of that early hour, on that important morning, happened as
set forth in the following words ; and no serious difficulty will, we
believe, be found in the narratives by any impartial student :

Early on Monday morning next following the crucifixion, Mary
Magdalene and other women visit the sepulchre of Jesus. They
find the stone rolled away, and are informed by an angel that Jesus
has arisen. Immediately, while the other women enter and inspect
the grave, Mary hastens back, and informs Peter and John that they
had found the tomb empty. Peter and John proceed with all speed
to the sepulchre, followed by Mary, find the tomb empty, and so
believe Mary s report. After Peter and John had inspected the
sepulchre, and were satisfied that it was empty, they retired, leaving
Mary behind, to whom Jesus himself appeared. The other women
had left the tomb before the arrival of Peter, John, and Mary.
While these women were on their way back to Jerusalem, Jesus,
having first apeared to Mary, now appears to them also. On enter
ing the city, the other women, joined by Mary, report to the disciples
generally, that the tomb had been found empty, and that they had
seen the Lord. The disciples did not believe that Jesus was alive.

The same day, Jesus appeared, and made himself known to two of
the disciples, as they were going to Emmaus. In the evening also,
he appeared to the eleven as they sat at meat, giving them the evi
dence of sense that he was alive, and consequently had risen from
the dead.

These are the great facts of the case, stripped of accessory details.
One or two additional remarks may, however, not be useless. As
the women go onward to the tomb, they speak to each other of the
sole difficulty of which they were aware. They had seen the stone
rolled up to the mouth of the cave. But of the watch which was
set they knew nothing ; for, as women, they had other cares which
demanded their attention ; and the watch, the request for which
had proceeded from their enemies, was set only after the disciples
had left the tomb late on Friday was set, that is, not before Satur
day, probably Saturday evening.

Mark reports that the women, on leaving the sepulchre, said nothing
to any man ; and yet they are represented to have made a report of
what they had seen to the disciples. But the time of these two facts
was different. When the women fled in amazement from the tomb,
silence was both natural and necessary : their tongues were frozen
by fear ; they had not courage even to speak to each other. But,
when they had come to the disciples, they had had some time to
280

80 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

recover themselves the day had grown lighter ; the presence of
their companions gave them assurance ; they remembered the mes
sage with which they were charged, and delivered it.

Yet their report was not credited ; so that there was no undue
haste to believe. On the contrary, their words seemed to the disci
ples as idle tales ; and it required two appearances of Jesus himself
to create the conviction, that he had indeed risen from the dead.

If any one goes to the evangelical narratives, expecting to find in
each a full, detailed, and complete account in every particular of all
the events of that important morning, he will commit a great mis
take, and probably miss the truth as a penalty of his unwarranted
assumption. In proof of this, let the reader compare together the
few words in which Mark has recorded the appearance of our Saviour
to the two disciples when on their way to Emmaus, with the long
particular narrative of the same event written by Luke. A perverse
criticism may arbitrarily choose to allege contradictions as existing
between the two : common sense and sound feeling see at once,
that the longer account supplements the shorter, and yet that the
longer leaves much unsaid, and at the least implied. Another
instance is found in John s narrative. This evangelist represents
Mary Magdalene as running back to Peter and John the moment
she saw the stone removed, and the tomb void. He says not a word
of her return thither ; yet, after a few verses, the reader finds her by
the side of the sepulchre. How many things may after a similar
manner be omitted, the supplying of which, were it possible, would
solve existing difficulties, remove variations, and place in harmony the
minutest details ! But these not unimportant ends could be secured
only on one condition, namely, an entire change in the character of
the gospel records, which would probably lose in evidence and cre
dibility what they thus gained in completeness. At all events, with
such documents as we have, dogmatism is most unreasonable, and
scepticism would do well to suspend its judgment, or, at any rate, to
spare its sarcasm.

The morning of which we have spoken was, under divine providence,
intended to be as the opening of a new era so the commencement
of a new worship. In Justin Martyr, Apol. 1. 671, we read " We
(Christians) come together in common on the Sunday (TI\V TOV &gt;/\tov
ryjuepav), since it is the first day of the week on which our Saviour
rose from the dead." The seventh had been the day for the cele
bration of divine service in the synagogue. The seventh day was
held in respect even among the heathen. A great change all at
once took place. Men gave up their former practices, and surren
dered their long-cherished associations. Within a century after the
great event on which our minds have been occupied, we find the first
day of the week observed as a day for public worship by the entire
Christian church ; and the reason assigned for observing the first
day was, that this was the day on which Jesus left the tomb. The
usage as being universal must have been, in the time of Justin, long

290

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 81

established. Surely a fact like this affords a strong corroboration
of the reality of tjie resurrection. Public observances are among
the most valid proofs of great events. The ancient philosopher
was wise who wished that school-boys should have a holiday on the
day of his death. The tenacity with which these observances cling-
to life, and the certainty with which they point to the event which
they are meant to commemorate, may be seen in the continued
retention, in our own land, of the bonfires and the fireworks of the
fifth of November. And, as these blameworthy practices point, by
their nature, to the historical event, the memory of which they are
designed to perpetuate ; so did the worship of the Christian church,
in the beginning of the second century held, not on the seventh,
but the first day point to the rising of our Lord, which took place,
as the Scriptures state, on this same first day of the week.

There is one witness of the resurrection of Jesus, and, generally,
of the existence of miracle in the primitive church, of whom we
have not yet spoken ; but who is far too important to be passed in
silence. We allude to the apostle Paul. This witness gives the
fullest and clearest evidence, that miracles were performed by and
among the early Christians, evidence which no perversion of
mind can deny, and no critical ingenuity get rid of (1 Cor. xii. xiv).
Paul, also, himself lays claim to having performed miracles, and
describes them as the signs of an apostle (2 Cor. xii. 12 ; Rom. xv.
19). His own conversion he ascribes to a direct interposition on
the part of the living Jesus, thereby attesting the existence of Jesus,
as well as the reality of miracle. Equally full and emphatic is his
declaration, that Jesus arose from the dead. In 1 Cor. xv. 3 8,
after stating that the fact of the resurrection was among the funda
mental truths of the gospel, and that he had received from others
that fact, he gives a summary of evidence in its favour, ending with
his own personal experience, to this effect, that Jesus was seen of
Cephas, then of the twelve, of above five hundred brethren, the
greater part of whom were still alive ; then of James, then of all the
apostles, or apostolic men ; and, lastly, " he was seen of me." Now,
if all this was a mistake or a delusion, it is unparalleled in the his
tory of man. Here is the most full and explicit declaration made
by one who, having been a foe, became a friend, of the gospel, and
gave his life in proof of his sincerity ; a declaration made in face
of individuals actually named, and of a much larger body, most of
whom were alive to expose the delusion, or lay bare the fraud, if
delusion or fraud there were. The evidence acquires force from
the fact, that Strauss himself admits (chap. 138, vol. ii. p. 607,
towards the end), that the first Epistle to the Corinthians " is incon-
testably authentic, and was written about the year A.D. 59 ; conse
quently, less than thirty years after his resurrection. According to
the statement in this passage, we must believe that members of the
first community, still alive at the time when the epistle was written,
and among them the apostle himself, were convinced that they had

291 -2 S

82 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

had apparitions of the risen Christ. Does it follow that these
apparitions rested on any thing real ? This we sjiall examine." Ac
cordingly, the writer maintains that these appearances were merely
visions and dreams. " Paul," he says (chap. 140, vol. ii. p. 633),
" puts the appearance of Christ to himself, in the same rank as the
appearances on the day of the resurrection : this authorises us to
conclude, that, with the apostle, these earlier appearances were of
the same nature as that which he had himself/ Then, appealing
to the authority of Eichhorn and Ammon, he declares that the
appearance of Jesus, at Paul s conversion, was altogether an inward
notion, a conviction superinduced on an ardent and inflamed
mind by the favourable influence exerted upon it " by the doctrine
of the Christians, their life, their conduct, and especially the
martyrdom of Stephen."

The authority valeat quantum, valet of Eichhorn and
Ammon is countervailed by the authority of Grotius,* Wetstein,f
Hess, % Niemeyer, Neander. || Every intelligent reader, how
ever, can easily satisfy himself by recurring to the passages in the
Book of Acts (ix. 1, seq.; xxii. 3, seq. ; xxvi. 12, seq.}, in which
accounts are found of the conversion of the apostle. Indeed, we
know not that there is any necessity for attempting to prove to
Englishmen, that, in the account there given, miracle is assigned
as the cause in the apostle s mind and conduct. If we are to be
guided in the matter by Paul s opinion, then, clearly, the change
was not merely psychological, but had its occasion and its cause in
the appearance and language of Jesus. Here, however, Strauss
steps in, and declares that appearance to have been merely in the
apostle s mind ; indeed, that Paul intends, by the language he
employs, to represent the appearance of Christ to himself, and,
consequently, his resurrection, as purely subjective, some vision,
some conception, something that arose in his own mind.

Now, it by no means follows, as Strauss would have us believe,
that if the appearance of Jesus, 011 occasion of Paul s conversion,
was a fancy of the apostle s mind, without any corresponding
external reality, he meant to assert the same to be the case in
regard to the appearances which assured the disciples of the resur
rection of Jesus from the dead. This is a point which has to be
proved, and must not be quietly assumed.

In truth, however, the entire argument is a mere notion, without
support either in scripture or reason ; and, as such, unworthy the
attention we are bestowing upon it, were it not part of a work which
has gained some undesirable celebrity, and has exerted much
unenviable influence. On this account we shall briefly examine
this gratuitous theory.

* De Veritat. Rel. C. ii. 6. + Wetstein, Commentary in loc. J Geschichte der

Apostol. Th. i. p. 111. Niemeyer, Cliarac. i. 85. 1] Gescbichte der Pflanzung,

i. 74.

292

MOKAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS. 83

The superior virtue of the Christians is alleged to have influenced
Paul favourably towards their religion. Whence came that excel
lence ? Why are these fishermen so good as to gain the eye and
move the heart of one who had sat at Gamaliel s feet, and who
valued himself no little on his birth, rank, and learning ? The
reality of the life and resurrection of Christ, as set forth in the Gos
pels, explains this otherwise inexplicable fact. Nor, unless you
admit these fundamental truths, can we see the peculiar excellence
that you assert. Men that inconsiderately believe, and cannot dis
tinguish between actual facts and their own wishes bodied forth
into visions, if not unamiable, can surely be little respected ; and if
they venture to quit the privacy for which alone their weaknesses
fit them, they run a great risk of making themselves a laughing
stock, well if they do not excite contempt. Nor can persistence in
a visionary cause either benefit the character of the actors, or secure
the esteem of the world. The mythic theory, if it saves the apos
tles honesty, performs the office at the expense of their intellect :
it may serve to repel the already exploded imputation of fraud, but
only so far as it lays the primitive Christians open to that of egre
gious folly.

. But the martyrdom of Stephen aided to convert Saul. If so,
this is a unique case. Never before nor since, so far as we know
or can judge, did the persecutor yield his heart to the cause of
those whom he persecuted. Saul was a consenting, if not a co
operating party, in the murder of Stephen; the effect of which
would be to decide his mind against the Christians, had it wavered
before. He had committed himself to the enemies cause. That
step had been taken which, of all others, the priests and Pharisees
would, in their bigotry, most desire, in order to secure the young
high-spirited zealot, and make him irrevocably their own. The
persecutor who has once tasted blood thirsts for more, as the first
gun fired in battle entails a myriad, and issues in a protracted
war.

But why did Stephen die ? Did he die for the shadow of a shade ?
for a thin tissue of myths ? for a vision of the day, still more
unreal than the visions of the night ? He died for a risen Saviour ;
and the appearance to him, while cruelly beaten to death, seems to
have been the chief source of his fortitude and faithfulness. Strange,
indeed, if, a few weeks after the resurrection, one of the leaders of
the Christian community should be weak enough, or foolhardy
enough, to surrender his life for a fancy or a dream, for some
thing, whatever it was, which he did not and could not know. The
strength of his conviction points to a cause no less momentous
than real.

To us it appears that all the leading influences which were at
work in Saul s mind bore in one direction, and combined to hurry
him onward, in full complacency, towards the fell purpose he had
in visiting Damascus. If this is the fact, then there is no contra-

293

84 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

riety between what Saul felt, and what Paul has stated that he felt
and did. Scripture and fact are in harmony. But then Saul was
converted by some other than what we term natural means.

But, in his theory of Paul s conversion, Strauss has forgotten one
of his own fundamental positions, which is this : "A second law
observable in whatever happens, is that of succession. Even in
the most violent eras, in the most rapid changes, every thing fol
lows a certain order of development. If, then, the partisans of a
great man, after his death, are represented as passing, in an hour,
from the deepest discouragement to the most lively enthusiasm, we
must, in such a case, more than doubt the reality of the history
related to us." Now, after having spoken of the alleged effect on
Paul of the doctrine and life of the disciples, our critic adds: " All
this threw his mind into a state of anxiety and conflict, which, with
out doubt, he subdued during some time ; but, at last, this extraor
dinary pressure would have a rebound in a decisive moral crisis."
And so the very influence which he denies to the apostles generally,
he calls to his aid, to account for the conversion of Paul. Their con
version is more than suspicious, because it is sudden: his is natural,
philosophical, and true, for the very same reason. A regular and
unbroken sequence of ordinary causes and effects is demanded, in
order to nullify the resurrection, and set aside, in favour of " a
crisis," in order to nullify the miraculous conversion of Paul. With
a man who thus glaringly contradicts himself, it is impossible not
to see that neither Scripture nor philosophy is held of value, unless
so far as they serve his ends by undermining the foundations of the
Christian church.

But we hasten on to consider a philological reason assigned by
our critic. The word &^0rj, rendered in 1 Cor. xv. was seen, does
not, we are assured, signify to see, except with the mind s eye. What,
then, did this same Paul, who here, as if seeking for emphasis,
repeats the word " was seen " four times, when twice using it might
have sufficed, what did he mean in declaring to the church at
Ephesus, that they should see his face no more ? (Acts xx. 25.) Or
what was intended by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
when he used these words : " Know ye that our brother Timothy
is set at liberty ; with whom, if he come shortly, I shall see you ?"
(xiii. 23.) It would, indeed, be a somewhat curious fact in lan
guage, if O7rro/icu, I see, might be used metaphorically, but not literally
in its derivative, but not its primary signification. Originally,
the word has a reference to the knowledge communicated by means
of the organ of vision ; and the presumption is, in all cases, rather in
favour than against this its primary meaning. Facts may, indeed,
lead the philologist to ascribe to it, in a particular instance, a
secondary or derivative import ; but, in the case before us, there
are no facts of the kind, as, indeed, there is no difficulty, except to
a person who, not believing in a God, could not admit the actual
appearance of his risen and glorified Son. When the scriptural

294

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 85

writers are desirous of showing that they employ the word tropi
cally, they know well how to accomplish their end : if they mean to
use it of mental states merely, they join the term visions, " your
young men shall see visions" (Acts ii. 17); thus leaving it to be
presumed, that, when they do not make the addition, they wish not
that the addition should be mad$ by others.

Let the reader, however, look back a few words in the passage
(1 Cor. xv.), and he will see at once that the writer is speaking, not
of imaginations, but most important realities, " how that Christ
died for our sins, and that he was buried, and that he rose again
the third day." The appearance to the brethren is, then, alleged
as the evidence of this resurrection, and must therefore, in the
apostle s judgment, have been a reality, as much a reality as the
resurrection, as the burial, as the death.

But what is that at which the apostle aims in the entire chapter ?
Is it not to prove the general resurrection of the dead, from the fact
of Christ s having risen ? What else can be the import of the words,
" Now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the first-fruits of
them that slept ; for as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive " ? The entire chapter would be merely a play upon
words, a mocking of the dearest hopes of the human heart, if
there was no objective reality in the appearance and resurrection of
Jesus. It would be easy to prosecute this scriptural argument.
Let the reader turn to these passages, Acts xxii. 30; xvii. 31 ; Rom.
i. 4 ; Ephes. i. 20 ; and we are mistaken if he is not inclined to our
opinion, that we have, in this theory of Strauss, the ne plus ultra of
critical audacity.

But, as the church is built on the resurrection, we will mention
one or two more circumstances which oppose equally the suppo
sition of myths and that of visions.

Jesus appeared, not merely to one or two persons, but to the
apostolic body, who knew his person well. He did not appear to
the entire city of Jerusalem, by whom he was not known, and could
not have been recognised, but to five hundred of his disciples at
once, witnesses of the best kind, and in number sufficient to
convince the most incredulous. And, in these his appearances, he
afforded every opportunity by which his identity could be ascer
tained.

Nor were these appearances made in the darkness of the night,
or the solitude of the desert, where the imagination might have been
excited, and led to body forth its creations into a living form ; but
in a variety of places, and under most dissimilar circumstances,
which were generally of a nature to preclude self-delusion. Our
Lord s appearance took place, now in a garden, now on a highway,
now in the midst of his assembled disciples ; by the seaside, 011
a mountain, in the atmosphere ; for the most part in places where
he had been accustomed to have intercourse with his disciples
while alive, and at times when he was least expected.

86 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

And then the words of the risen Jesus are they not in keeping
with what we learn of his character while yet dwelling among men ?
Consult his discourse with Peter on the Lake of Genesareth (John
xxi. 15). Surely the gentle reproof which is here administered to
Peter, more in manner than in substance, came from the soul of
him that turned and looked on thi same ardent but infirm disciple,
who, not able to bear the majestic pity of that look, went out and
wept. What deep truth, too, is there in the words with which Jesus
concludes his interview with Thomas, " Blessed are they that have
not seen, and yet have believed " ? (John xx. 29.) And surely the
words, " All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth," &c.
(Matt, xxviii. 18), rise to a grandeur far above the reach of Jewish
fishermen, involuntarily turned myth-makers. Besides, if a few
women, or even the chosen apostles, could have mistaken their
fancies for the person of the risen Saviour, on the day of his resur
rection, the impression would soon have worn away; commenta
delet dies ; facts would speedily have obliterated impressions ; the
stern opposition of the Jews would not fail to make the disciples
scrutinise their position, and shrink before illusions.

Yet the risen Jesus, having appeared on the first day, appears
again and again, confirming his disciples ; and when at length the
foundation-stone of the church is laid, on the day of Pentecost, and
the Spirit poured forth on the assembled body, then, from that time
onward, till the apostles had fallen asleep, does Jesus, directly or
indirectly, display his power, and manifest his glory, by aiding and
guiding the young community, especially in the gift of miracle.
That all this was a delusion is surely incredible. If so, what is
reality ?

The testimony which the apostle Paul, then, bears to the fact of
the resurrection, is clear and explicit. His words, in the Epistle to
the Corinthians, when read in the light of his general doctrine, and
of the first planting of the gospel, have but one signification, which
goes to declare and affirm that Christ had given infallible proofs
of being alive. Still more : the evidence, thus given in word, found
the fullest and the most decided corroboration in the entire life of
Paul after his conversion. This argument, however, has been fre
quently handled : we shall not pursue it in detail. Probably some
novelty, if not some point, may be given to it, if we here present it
in the way of a contrast.

In the philosopher Seneca, we have a contemporary with Christ
and Paul. All that philosophy could contribute to his education
he abundantly enjoyed. Whatever Rome, Greece, or Egypt, could
teach him, he had full opportunities of making his own ; and his
diligence seems to have been equal to his advantages. Thus
furnished with the highest knowledge and accomplishments of the
age, he rose to very high offices in the Roman state. But no sooner
does he appear on the stage of public life, than he gives evidence
that his knowledge was not wisdom, and that philosophy had failed

296

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 87

to make him a good man. Accused of adultery, he was sent into
banishment ; while his alleged paramour, Julia, was first exiled, and
then put to death. Occupying himself here with the study of phi
losophy, and writing speciously on " Consolation," he contradicts
his pretensions, and falsifies himself by meanly adulating the
emperor Claudius, in order to obtain permission to return to the
sensualities of Rome.

Being at length allowed to return, he is appointed tutor to the
young Nero, in whose case again the philosophy of the day was put
to the test ; nor are there wanting reasons to conclude, that, instead
of forming the mind of the young prince to virtue, he descended
to be the pander to his worst vices. The philosopher had his
reward. He grew rich, rich beyond measure; and accordingly
gave himself up to all the luxuries which the gorgeous capital of
the world could supply. Within four years he accumulated in
money, gardens, villas, a superb palace, and sumptuous furniture
an amount of wealth which might have satisfied even Nero, and
formed a strange contrast with the precepts of his stoical philosophy,
and the tenor of his writings. Nor is it possible to believe, that
these heaps of opulence were thus speedily accumulated by un
sullied hands.

No wonder that the emperor himself cast a jealous eye on the
wealth of one whom he had no reason to respect. Seneca on this
grew afraid, and offered to give up all, if only he might be allowed
to retain a small competency. Nero was inexorable: the philo
sopher turned ascetic in vain. Having attempted to poison Seneca,
Nero was assailed in his turn by a conspiracy in which the philoso
pher took part. Convinced of his guilt, the emperor commanded
his tutor to put himself to death. He complies; thinking it more
dignified to terminate his existence himself, than to wait for the
fatal blow from the vulgar hand of an official executioner.

Thus lived and thus died the stoic philosopher Seneca. Now
turn to the life and death of the apostle to the Gentiles. Surely
there must have been a very dissimilar state of mind, very dissimilar
motives and aims, to produce results so totally dissimilar.

In truth, death with Seneca was a relief from the weariness and
disgust occasioned by ceaseless indulgence. Wealth had proved a
mockery. Philosophy had shown its emptiness. All this regal
splendour was only a whited sepulchre, which within was full of
dead men s bones. His heart wanted the nutriment supplied by
wise designs, virtuous deeds, and pure domestic affections ; and it
had been fed with the swinish husks of royal vices, splendid crimes,
and all the gewgaws of a dazzling opulence. The philosophy of
the age had either made him, or could not prevent Seneca from
becoming, an empty, hollow, gilded thing, which felt its own worth-
lessness, and had nothing better to look for than these same unreal
shadows, only stript of their gaudy hues. Therefore, devoid of any
decided feeling whatever, he would as soon die as live ; and accord-

297

88 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

ingly felt it no great task to obey his pupil s mandate, by laying
violent hands on his own life.

But that which chiefly prepared him for his self-inflicted death
as doubtless it had much aided in making and keeping him morally
a mere sounding brass and tinkling cymbal was his belief thus
expressed in his own words: Post mortem nihil est, ipsaque mors
nihil; "There is nothing after death, and death itself is nothing."
His life and his death are a striking and painful exhibition of the
tendency of the pantheism of Strauss, one of whose aims (miserable
aim ! ) is to root up the conviction from men s minds, that after
death the judgment ; and, after the judgment, endless bliss or last
ing woe. It is well that the reader should be fully aware, that these
" rudiments of this world " are neither new nor untried, and there
fore we shall translate one or two passages found in Seneca (Epist.
70), which, while they show a contempt of death itself, no less
unphilosophical than unnatural, expressly justify, and in certain
junctures recommend, the crime of self-murder :

" The wise man, if he experiences many troubles, not merely sets himself free in the
last extremity ; but, as soon as fortune wears a suspicious aspect, he carefully looks around
to see whether he should not put an end to all on that very day. He thinks it of no con
sequence to him, whether he puts an end to himself, or waits till his end comes ; whether
this happens sooner or later. Therefore, most effeminate does he consider the speech of
that Rhodian, who, being cast by a tyrant into a pit, and fed like some wild animal,
replied to a person who advised him to abstain from food, All things may be hoped
for by a man while life lasts.

"You cannot, then, lay down a universal rule as to whether death is to be seized or
waited for, when force from without threatens you with it. There are considerations
which bear in both directions. If one death is to be attended with torture, the other to
be free from it, why should we not lay hold on the last ? In nothing more than in
death we ought to pay due regard to our inclinations. Let life go forth at the point on
which it is bent: whether it prefers a sword or a halter, or poison, let it have its way,
and break asunder the chains of slavery. That which you prefer is the best death."

" You will, indeed, find philosophers who deny that you ought to lay violent hands on
yourself. He who says so does not see that he closes against himself the door of free
dom. The eternal law has done nothing better than this, that it has given us but one
way of entering life, but many ways for quitting it. Is it your will to live ? Live. Is it
not your will to live ? You may return thither whence you came. To relieve the head
ache, you have often been bled; to reduce a plethoric habit of body, a vein was opened; a
large wound is not needed in order to let out life itself, or with a penknife a way is opened
to that liberty, and your safety depends on a puncture. What is it, then, that makes us
sluggish and tardy ? The man who does not want courage, will not want an expedient.
He is the great man, who has not only ordered, but accomplished, his death. If you can,
die without pain : if you cannot, do as well as you can, and lay yo ur hand on the first
instrument that comes in your way. It is disgraceful to live by plunder, but, on the con
trary, most beautiful by plunder to die."

While this voluptuary, clad in the cloak of philosophy, was
revelling among lords of the earth, and, by base services to its
supreme earthly ruler, earning his contempt, and preparing the way

298

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 89

for his hatred; and while, after his own fall, he was sinking, in a
marble bath and under a self-inflicted blow, luxuriously and deli
cately, into what he deemed an everlasting sleep, there abode, in
a crowded but unsightly part of the city, and in a dwelling of the
meaner kind, one who, having come to Rome, on an appeal which
he had made to Caesar for justice, was a prisoner at large ; free,
indeed, to go whither he would, and to converse with all. who did
not disdain to converse with him ; yet bound by a chain to a Roman
soldier, whose caprices he found it prudent to humour, and whose
will he was compelled to obey. And as this man, mean in person,
rude in dress, bearing in his countenance the unmistakeable tokens
of a Jewish origin, goes up and down the city, he grieves to see
how entirely it is given over to idolatry and voluptuousness ; and,
while longing for the power to convert these holiday myriads to the
purifying and elevating doctrines of a new faith, he is encountered,
at every step, either by contemptuous and scornful looks, or by
barely subdued expressions of hatred; while even his Hebrew
brethren study to shun, or are eager to defame him. Here and
there, it is true, he meets with the warm pressure of a friendly hand,
and is repaid for the general aversion by a hearty greeting. Yet, in
the midst of so huge a power of evil, he cannot but wear an anxious
and beclouded brow, though a closer inspection would prove that
there is peace, and hope, and a serene joy, blended with his solici
tudes. In truth, he had of late witnessed but too many indications,
which made him fear the approach, of a terrible storm; and, if
a persecution against the Christians should break out, Paul well
knew that his own life would be, among the first, offered on the altar
of superstition, cruelty, and philosophic indifference. Not, indeed,
that his thoughts ran on self-preservation ; for he remembered his
Master had said, that those who were eager to save should lose
their lives ; but he had one great object which he wished to fulfil
ere he was removed from earth, he desired to preach the gospel
in all, as he had already proclaimed it with effect in many, parts of
the world; believing that this was the divinely appointed pre
requisite and harbinger of the still longed-for second appearance of
Christ, and fully convinced that this gospel was the power of God
unto salvation to every one that believed. His forebodings, however,
were too well founded. In a brief period, the monster Nero fell in
fury on the Christian church ; and the apostle, in consequence, suf
fered martyrdom.*

* Christian tradition (Chrysost. Homll. 40) represents, as the immediate cause of the
death of Paul, the indignation which Nero felt in consequence of the apostle s having
converted to Christianity a favourite concubine, and a cupbearer, belonging to the
emperor. According to the same authority, the apostle was beheaded. There is also an
account to the effect, that Paul had a personal knowledge of Seneca, and letters are in
existence, said to have passed between them (Jerome, Scrip. Eccl. 12 ; Augustin, Epist.
153); but they have no solid claim to authenticity. They may be seen in Fabric.
Apocryph. ii. 880, wq. who lias also exploded their pretensions (Biblioth. Lai. 2. 9,
299 2 T

90 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

It may be supposed, that at least the imputation of some crime
had occasioned his presence, and brought on his death in the metro
polis of the world. His sole fault was proclaiming " the glorious
gospel of the blessed God." And his encouragements ? We will
not recount his numerous sufferings. One fact shall suffice. He
had been in bonds for a period of five years, immediately prior to
his martyrdom, for the cause of Christ, and what he accounted the
highest good of mankind. This is the language of his conduct.
Surely greater fatuity was never exhibited, unless Paul well knew
in whom and on what ground he had believed. Surely men do not
thus sell their lives for a heap of gossamer unrealities. Surely this
apostle had a mind penetrating enough to dissect, and reduce to its
nothingness, an ill-assorted compound of Jewish myths and Chris
tian visions. And surely virtue like that of Paul virtue so
incomparably superior to what his age or its philosophy could pro
duce, grew up on a more substantial and nutritious soil, than any
furnished by the mixture of an effete Judaism with the baseless
fancies of a few half-crazed women.

Let us turn for a moment to the language of his lips. Shall we
find the dishonouring contrast which Seneca exhibited between his
fine sayings and his foul conduct ? Shall we find the apostle weary
of life, worn out with ennui, and blase with voluptuousness ? In
the midst of sufferings which may stand next in complexity and
weight with those of his divine Master, he is not querulous, nor agi
tated, nor alarmed, but realising, as Heathenism never realised, the
poet s description,

Sperat infestis, metttit sccundis,
Alteram sortem bene pr&paratum
Pectus;

he was at peace, with well-balanced affections, prepared to live
or to die as God might please ; and assured that whatever happened,
would, as being the ordinance of infinite wisdom and goodness, be
promotive of the gospel of Christ, and of the highest good of the
world.

The entire Epistle addressed by Paul to the church at Philippi
may be advantageously perused in this connexion. We cite a few
verses : "I would ye should understand, brethren, that the things
which happened unto me have fallen out rather unto the furtherance
of the gospel ; so that my bonds in Christ are manifest in all the
palace, and in all other places ; and many of the brethren in the

and Apocryph. N. T. iii. 710, seq.), which have, however, found an advocate in Gelpke,
De Famillaritate qua Paullo cum Seneca intercessisse traditur, 1812. That the gospel
was not disgraced in having Seneca as a convert has been proved by Eckhard, in the
" Leipsic Miscellany," ix. 90, seq.

In the text, we have confined ourselves to the great outlines of the lives of Paul and
Seneca, as furnished by the Sacred Scriptures and undoubted history.

aoo

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 91

Lord, waxing confident by my bonds, are much more bold to speak
the word without fear." " I know that this shall turn to my salvation
through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ,
according to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing
I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now
also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life or
by death. For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But if I
live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour : yet what I shall
choose I wot not. For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire
to depart, and to be with Christ ; which is far better : nevertheless,
to abide in the flesh is more needful for you." " Unto you it is given
in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on him, but also to suffer
for his sake." " Be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, with
out rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among
whom ye shine as lights in the world ; holding forth the word of
life ; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in
vain, neither laboured in vain. Yea, and if I am offered upon the
sacrifice and service of your faith, I joy, and rejoice with you all.
For the same cause also do ye joy, and rejoice with me." " Doubt
less, I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge
of Christ Jesus my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all
things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ, and be
found in him;" "that I may know him, and the power of his
resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made con
formable unto his death ; if by any means I might attain unto the
resurrection of the dead." " Brethren, I count not myself to have
apprehended : but this one thing I do, forgetting those things which
are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God
in Christ." " I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therewith
to be content. I know both how to be abased, and I know how to
abound : everywhere, and in all things, I am instructed both to be
full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need. I can do
all things through Christ which strengtheneth me."*

We know not how we can sum up these numerous considerations
in favour of the resurrection of our Lord, better, than by translating
the words of an old theologian, who, though he well defended the
foundations of the gospel, was punished because, in some points,

* We entirely agree with Ullman + in the statement, " The apostle Paul, who is an
image of internal harmony and moral greatness, appears, if there is no reality in the resur
rection, full of self-contradictions, and becomes an enigmatical and incredible phenome
non, if we take from undef his feet his peculiar resting-place, and the basis of his life
the truth of the evangelical history."

f Historiscli Oder MytUsch, p. 64. Sec also Einl. Bemcrk. in d. Studium dcr Paul. Briefs die
Lebensumst inde den Character d. Apostcls letre/end in Tholuck s Vermischten Schriften, ii. 272, seq.
301

92 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

his opinions deviated from those that were popular in his day, by
having his very valuable writings burnt : *

" Now, what shall we say of those who first emhraced the religion of Jesus ? They,
unless they had the firmest arguments on which to rely, would certainly never have put
themselves under the guidance of Jesus, nor have constantly followed him, since they saw
him despised and rejected, as a base and seditious man, convicted of the greatest crimes,
and put to a most disgraceful death. Hence it is proved, that they, besides knowing that
he was holy, harmless, and undefiled, saw also that he had been raised from the dead.
Otherwise, they would by no means have either given themselves to his religion, or re
mained its faithful advocates ; since there can be no doubt but the religion of the crucified
Jesus would have perished altogether, unless it had been supported by the resurrection, as
by an irresistible argument ; nor would the first Christians have poured forth their lives
for the sake of a thing at once unheard of, and surpassing human intelligence, unless they
were assured of its reality by the evidence of sight. Unless, indeed, we are to believe
that they knowingly and willingly suffered death, robbing themselves of common sense,
and even the essential qualities of human nature, for the sake of what they knew to be a
shameful falsehood ; than which, nothing can be more absurd."

We do not think that the force of these considerations is at all
diminished, if, for falsehood, we substitute self-delusion. The stake
was far too great to allow either fancy or fiction to come into play.
If, according to the allusion of our Lord, those who are about to go
to war, first sit down and count the cost, we may be assured the
plain Galilean peasants, on whom our faith rests, were too much
matter-of-fact men to undertake a cause which, without the resur
rection of Jesus, was hopeless and lost, and could, in the nature of
the case, have had no other recommendations than such as their
own minds might bestow upon it. " What," to translate a few words
from the eloquent Herder, " what a senseless plan, that these
eleven Galileans should proclaim, and attempt to set up, in Jerusa
lem, before the assembled nation, the kingdom of a Messiah, who,
a few days before, had, as a malefactor, died the most shameful
death, a death inflicted only on slaves and reprobates !"

" Believing," to adopt the words of Hase, " that Christianity was
successfully introduced, and the church grounded, on the grave of
the risen Jesus," f we have dwelt on the moral argument as appli
cable in proof of his resurrection. In order that justice should be
done to the proof derivable from the early spread of our faith, we
ought to enter into a consideration of the peculiar states of mind
and of society with which it came into contact, both in the Jewish

* The writer was the celebrated Sociman Volkel, born at Grimma, about the year
1560. His work, entitled De Vera Religione Libri Quinque, was committed to the flames,
by order of the civil authorities of Amsterdam, on the 20th January, 1642. A second
edition, however, was put forth at Amsterdam itself, where the city authorities caused
the printer to be apprehended, and four hundred and fifty copies of the offensive .publi
cation were seized and burnt. The work is very rare. See Bayle, under the name, and
Vogt, Catalogus Librorum Bariorum, p. 888.

f- Leben Jesu, 125. p. 217.

302

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 93

and the Heathen world, in Eastern and Western civilisation ; in
quiring whether there was any thing in the peculiar character and
principles of Christianity, which, apart from the divinity of its ori
gin, its truth, its adaptation to the wants of the heart, could gain it
acceptance among men, and secure to it so speedily formed and so
widely spread a dominion. We believe that its principles and aims
were, in the main, so contradictory to leading features of the human
mind as then developed, that it was generally regarded, and. met at
the first, with hostility ; and that nothing but the divine arm, which
was plainly outstretched on its behalf, could have gained for it
the victory. Take away the risen Saviour from the church, and what
church would there have ever been ? Take away the risen Saviour
from the church, and you rob it of the very essence of that
sphere of divine qualities by which it made its way into the
depths of the human heart. The faith of the classic nations was
a religion (such as it was) for the happy : Christianity offered
itself as a religion for the wretched, as the great remedy for
sin ; the divine and omnipotent peace-maker ; the one great means
of restoring each man to self-harmony, and reconciling the en
tire world to God, all which high claims, and noble efficiencies
would have been unmeaning and empty, had God not raised
Jesus from the dead, and given him power over all flesh; all
would have been one continuous system of solemn and vile mock
ery, had it been in truth nothing more than a worn-out Rabbin-
ism, some way fastened on visions bred of disappointment, or begot
of fatuity.

There remains one view to be presented, one to which we
attach no small importance. Would that we were able to do it
something like justice ! With one consentient voice, all the writers
of the New Testament declare the divinity of the Christian religion,
as embodied in the life and teachings of its holy Founder. Vary as
they may on minor points, and vary as they do in the manner and
the phraseology in which they set forth the fact, they unite in one
grand testimony, respecting the divine origin of what the Saviour
was, did, and taught.

This testimony we propose briefly to illustrate. Our position is,
Let all the miracles of the New Testament be explained away,
or exploded, or denied, the great miracle still remains, we mean
the character of Christ. There is a fact with which we must deal,
since it cannot be denied, or evaded, or expunged. Jesus was,
and Jesus is. The essential features of his character are written
down in the New Testament in a way to admit of no dispute, as,
indeed, no dispute worthy of notice now has ever been raised about
them. Whatever else the Gospels may be supposed to fail in, they
have handed down to us, in broad and deep relief, the image and
superscription of our Lord ; and far more more in minute detail,
more in general amount, more incomparably in impression, do we
know may the simplest Christian know of the founder of
303

94 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

Christianity, than is known by the most learned, of any other per
sonage of antiquity.

Let us first advert to the personal excellence of Jesus Christ.
How is this represented in Scripture ? He was, we are told,
" holy, harmless, undefiled." " He did no sin, neither was guile
found in his mouth : who, when he was reviled, reviled not again ;
when he suffered, threatened not ; but committed himself to Him
who judgeth righteously." These are comprehensive summaries of
excellence, yet how far are they surpassed by the reality t Confes
sedly, Jesus, in his moral relations, stands at the head of hu
manity.

His rule of right was perfect, not only in regard to the time in
which he appeared, but also to the highest attainments which a
progressive civilisation has been able to achieve. Equally perfect
and entire was his fidelity to that rule ; so that his life was only
the simple but energetic expression of his convictions. One result
of this moral power was his entire freedom from the dominion of the
lower passions. In all his personal relations, he was unspotted from
the world.

Pure, however, as he. himself was, he had the tenderest pity for
the impure. With no fear that the lustre of his virtue would be
sullied by the foulness of others, he ate and drank with sinners, in
order to win them from the error of their way ; and thus, far from
remaining satisfied with the delights which spring from pure affec
tions, he used his virtues as instruments for advancing the good of
others.

But his virtue was any thing rather than mere immunity from
fault. The highest excellencies excellencies the most difficult
of attainment appear in his character. Benevolence with him
was not a name, but an actuating reality. It embraced, not his
family merely, nor his neighbours, nor his country, but the world.
Nor did it lose in intensity what it gained in expansion ; for, while
he taught and practised the love of enemies, he possessed the secret
of making and retaining friends : and, if we may judge from the
house of Lazarus, and the devotedness of not a few affectionate
women, the private affections which he inspired, and therefore felt,
were as ardent and pure as his love to man was comprehensive
and self-denying. His piety was not an impulse, not a devo
tional excitability, but a habit of the soul, a moving power within
him, no less steady than perpetual and intense, enabling him to
realise the constant presence of God, and making his whole life one
act of obedience and devotion.

Of all his excellencies, what more distinguished, what more diffi
cult, than his patience under insult, ignominy, and torture ? When
in the endurance of sufferings, as excruciating as they were unme
rited, he was not only calm and forbearing, but benignant and
merciful ; and, instead of exposing the malice of his foes, he prayed
for their forgiveness. Even the captain of the Roman guard, that

304

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS. 95

attended his execution, was smitten with his unparalleled gentle
ness, and exclaimed, " Truly this is a righteous man !" There is,
indeed, no virtue which Jesus did not possess. Nay, he exhibited
every possible excellence, carried to the highest degree of perfec
tion. It is not that he surpasses ordinary men in any one quality,
but in all.

And what is still more extraordinary, in his excellencies we see
none of those extremes to which men are wont to cany the best
qualities. Jesus knew how to temper zeal with charity ; to regulate
his moral enterprise by the dictates of prudence ; to live at once
for God and man, neither absorbed in the musings of a rapt
devotion, nor borne downward on the current of pressing human
interests.

And so we behold in him the most opposite virtues, virtues so
dissimilar that they can scarcely be found in the same bosom.
Gravity he united with sweetness ; a dignity truly divine, with a
lowliness which placed the humblest on a level with himself; and
the warmest and loftiest devotion, with entire sobriety of mind.
Mark the force of character displayed in his virtuous indignation
against hypocrisy, and then turn to the gentleness with which he
bore himself toward Mary and Martha. His mildness never tempted
him into a compromise with wrong-doing : his hatred of sin was
accompanied by the most kind and tender regard for sinners.
His countenance could assume the awful grandeur which smote the
satellites of injustice to the ground, and yet was habitually clothed
with such sweetness as won little children into his arms, stranger to
them though he was. Though he had not where to lay his head,
yet did he possess the most generous and delicate domestic affec
tions ; and, while undisciplined by the intercourse of a home of his
own, he took the liveliest interest in the feelings of the fathers and
mothers of the land.

Equally free was he from the faults of his age. Bigotry, the
most intense, was its chief characteristic. Jesus also was zealous
for God, but without any bitterness, any narrowness : on the con
trary, he raises in that temple and nation whose pride and boast
were founded in exclusiveness, a voice which proclaims the most
unbounded philanthropy, making the wide earth one home, and
throwing open the gates of heaven to all. Noble distinction this
conceded to the land of Judea, to have given birth to the Saviour
of the world, the friend of universal man ! while philosophy, in the
proudest centres of her influence, was ingloriously occupied with
class interests, furthering the aggrandizement of some petty state,
or even attempting to justify the foul crime of slavery.

So, too, with the philosophy of Judea. Jesus had no other agree
ment than so far as each sect may have caught some ray of that
eternal truth whose voice and whose image he was. The purity of
the Esseries our Lord therefore possessed without their asceticism,
and was fond of solitude, but never became its slave. He united

305

96 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

in his conduct the publicity of the Pharisees with the sternest dis
approval of their ostentation; and he exhibited in his doctrine the
rationality of the Sadducees, apart from the withering influence of
their scepticism.

As a natural result of the qualities we have named, there prevailed
an unbroken harmony throughout his being. Intellectually, he was
not made up of the incongruous materials of other men s opinions ;
morally, he was not " beaten about by every wind" of circumstance,
but was in unison with himself in his whole nature ; because his
outward life was only an outflowing of his inward life, and his inward
life was the development of convictions and inspirations which
sprung from his own soul. Jesus, therefore, was eminently one.
All is continuous, proportional, and lovely. No breaks, no out
bursts, no startling inconsistencies, no failures, no transgressions,
those invariable attendants on the best of ordinary virtue ; but all
is attuned as if to the moral harmony of some higher sphere ; all is
sublime like the grandeur of the heavens revolving for ever in un
broken and undiminished state round the throne of God.

We will now consider our Lord in the relations which he sustained
as the messenger and image of God. In this capacity he bore the
office of instructor ; and surely no one ever taught like the great
Teacher, Jesus Christ. The subjects of his instruction were of
infinite importance. They concern at once our highest and our
lowest interests. They reach in their ultimate bearings into futurity,
but at the same time take account of the most ordinary and most
trivial of our actions. They are sublime, without ceasing to be
practical; they are as plain as they are beautiful; they spring up
in a Jewish soil, but are found to grow in any climate of the wide
earth. Nothing visionary, nothing impracticable, nothing local,
nothing transient, do they present. Wherever difficulties may have
been found or imagined, an improved knowledge of the Scriptures,
greater fidelity to the spirit of the gospel, an increased acquaintance
with the capabilities of human nature, have not failed to vindicate
the wisdom of the great Teacher, and may well justify such a con
fidence in his guidance as to induce us to follow him whithersoever
he leads the way.

The stamp of divinity is on his teachings. You see it, not only in
the qualities to which we have now referred, but also and chiefly
in the two facts, that Jesus grounds his doctrines on the relations
which man bears to God ; thus making his lessons universal in their
applicability, and omnipotent in their sanctions ; and also that he
deals primarily and chiefly with the inner man, with the source
of our thoughts, our wishes, our actions, aiming to make the heart
pure, and invest it with power, assured that out of the abundance
of the heart the mouth speaketh ; and, as a good tree cannot bring
forth evil fruit, so a holy and honest heart cannot prompt unholy
and dishonest deeds.

And where for manner shall we find a teacher we do not say

303

MORAL ARGUMENT R)R THE GOSPELS. 97

equal, but even second, to the Lord Jesus ? There are parables in the
Old Testament of great worth and no small beauty; yet even they
are inferior to those of Jesus Christ. Can any thing be conceived
more attractive, more striking, more graphic, than the parable of
the Prodigal Son ? The whole scene, in all its parts, is placed
before your eyes. You see it all ; and you feel it too. You feel
the wretchedness of the prodigal, his folly, his contrition.
Your heart goes with him in his return home ; shares in his anxiety
respecting his reception ; and rejoices in his joy, when the good
father, even coming forth to meet him, not only pardons his trans
gressions, but loads him with marks of special favour.

But Jesus was a prophet as well as a teacher. How admirably
was this character sustained by our Lord ! What a mysterious
awe does his knowledge of futurity throw around him ! We feel
in his presence, when he is foretelling the future, as if we had drawn
somewhat nearer to God, and saw, through a veil of diminished
darkness, into the sanctuary of the central light of the universe.
But what I wish to mark particularly, is the fidelity of the great
Prophet. Fidelity was the characteristic of the prophets generally.
They were men, faithful in their day and generation, to warn, rebuke,
and entreat. Accordingly, they suffered the loss of all things,
leaving behind them a noble example, and a most instructive lesson.
Holy and illustrious men ! individuals here and there have, in after
times, emulated your example ; but, as a class, you stand alone.

It was no insignificant comparison that Jesus challenged, when
he assumed the prophetic character ; but here, too, he is unparal
leled. He is not only the last, but the.greatest, of all these holy and
noble-minded seers. You know for you have read his history
how unshrinkingly he delivered his awful burden, alike before the
people, the philosophers, and the priests. You know how he
bewailed the sad fate which it was his duty to announce ; and you
know how, disregarding all personal considerations, he ceased not
to reprove, caution, and foredoom, till he paid his life a forfeit to
his fidelity.

The prophets were the great social reformers of their day ; and,
in this attribute of the Messiah, Jesus appears perfect. I do not
refer so much to his intense desires for the general good ; nor to
the boldness of his spirit ; nor to the steadiness with which he pur
sued his purpose ; nor to his special regard towards the poor and
neglected ; but to the conception which he had formed of social
regeneration, and to the means which he employed. His concep
tion is both true and grand ; his means, simple and efficacious.
He knew what was in man, and therefore knew also, that institu
tions, and all the outward elements of society, take their form and
pressure from the character within. Social reform he, in conse
quence, identified with individual reform. As are the parts, so he
knew, would the total be. Accordingly, he went at once to the
intellect and the heart. He began with education, he ended with

307 2 U

98 MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

education; for religion with him was but education, extending from
the cradle to the grave.

And so with the instruments which he employed. You witness
no violence, no force, no din of arms, no outrage on human feelings,
no sudden breaking-up of ancient institutions ; but ceaseless appeals
to the mind ; pleadings, as penetrating as they are gentle ; a pour-
ing-forth of new light ; the rousing of dormant sympathies ; in
general, a call to the spirit of man to be up and doing, for the day
of the Lord was at hand, and great things were to be accomplished
for the world. In a word, he realised his own parable, and was a
sower that went forth to sow. We shall only add, that the whole of
history combines to show the exquisite wisdom of our Lord, in thus
aiming to bless the world ; for, while those who take the sword have
ever perished by the sword, the great benefactors of our race are
they who have cast the bread of new and inspiring thoughts upon
the waters of society, or stirred with a master s hand the affections
of the human heart.

Authority was another attribute which we find possessed, and
most successfully sustained, by Jesus. If ever an assumption of
authority was put to a severe test, it was in the case of our Lord.
Yet how easily, how gracefully, does his authority sit upon him !
Surely there is something wonderful in this carpenter s son, who goes
up and down the land, doing as he will, and as if all were his own.
Jesus is not merely heard, but reverenced, not merely reverenced,
but feared, not merely feared, but obeyed. The people attend
him in crowds ; the philosophic sects are eager to learn his doc
trines ; and some, who cannot confute, are content to follow him.
Above all, those in high places, while they watch him, now yield
before, now sternly withstand, his influence ; and those there are
who are convinced against their will, and will his destruction against
their convictions. If an angel from heaven had come down on the
land, he would not more firmly have riveted all eyes, and fascinated
all hearts. In this authority this power over men is there no
evidence of divinity ? Divinity is of the very essence of this author
ity. Jesus assumed to be divine in his origin, his purposes, and
his instruments ; and the assumption is its own proof. Had he not
been what he professed to be, he could never have been what, in
the New Testament, we see he is in his influence over human
hearts.

We remark farther, that Jesus, while he claimed the title and
exercised the functions of " the Christ of God," left and abandoned
the conception which the Jews entertained of the Messiah, at the
very point where it parted from reality, and began to run counter
both to the will of God and the good- of man. Their chief idea of
the Messiah was that of a conquering prince. Not that they were
without other ideas ; but these were all subordinate, and deemed of
value, for the most part, as they conduced to give effect to the con
ception of a great national deliverer and universal monarch.

308

MORAL ARGUMENT FOB THE GOSPELS. 99

Now, how is it that Jesus is free from this error ? It was the
opinion of his day ; it formed a part of the national mind ; it was
embedded in the national heart. But this carpenter s son, who has
lived all his life in a class of persons that could do no other than
transmit borrowed ideas, is free from the prevalent contagion,
disowns the flattering illusion. Say he was a benevolent enthusiast.
For that very reason he would lay hold of the predominant feeling ;
he would place himself on the foremost wave of the advancing tide ;
he would seize the power which the intense love of liberty, and
lively faith in the Messiah as a liberator, would have given. And,
even had he seen the futility of the idea, and aimed at a moral
reform, still he would have tried to humour the popular feeling, in
order to turn it to his own purposes. Say he was an impostor.
Then clearly he would have taken up the first effective instrument
he met with ; using, for the furtherance of his deceit, the prevalent
idea of the Messiah ; which, had it been nurtured under favourable
circumstances, might have proved that Rome was less than invin
cible. But Jesus discountenances the error, both in word and
deed, and thereby vindicates the divinity of his mission. He does
more : he expands the idea of the Jewish Messiah into the idea
of the Saviour of the world.

This grand conception, of itself, stamps him with the indubitable
impress of originality, and of originality of such a kind as could
have had no other origin than the bosom of the universal Father.
The idea of a universal religion is the grandest that can be con
ceived. Of all others, it is, too, the most beneficent ; since it offers
good, of the purest and highest description, to all nations, kindreds,
and individuals. And when, as in the case in the gospel, the idea
is enshrined in a system of truths, and connected with an instru
mentality, eminently fitted to convey its good to the human family
at large, then we behold a blessing, far too ample for man to con
ceive, much more to confer, and which, like all the great blessings
of nature, the air, the rain, the light, must have come down
from the Giver of every good and perfect gift. In fact, no approach
to such an idea existed either in the Heathen or the Jewish world,
at the time of our Lord : there were no elements out of which it
might have been compounded. And the conception and suc
cessful realisation of a universal religion, a religion proved to be
suitable for all, a religion, found to be a blessing by every sincere
believer, such a work, so far surpassing the tiny doings of men,
if not a miracle, is an impossibility.

Such is the grand the sublime aim of the gospel of Jesus
Christ, the Son of God. Look carefully at that aim. It is by the
power of truth, and the love of God, to make the entire world holy,
perfect, and happy, in time and in eternity. Was the mind of a
Jewish artisan, or of Galilean fishermen, likely to originate, and
equal to form, so majestic a conception ? What grandeur is there
in it ! what benignity ! what wisdom ! It is no mere vision ; it is

309

H)0 MOKAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS.

no splendid illusion. It has, in untold instances, proved the power
of God unto salvation ; it has, beyond a question, shown its admi
rable suitableness to human nature. It meets us in our great wants,
and supplies them ; it meets us in all our national and individual
peculiarities, and, in each case, gives the needful aid. No ! I can
not fail to recognise the finger of God in the person and gospel of
his Son. If the heavens show forth the glory of God ; if the ocean
attests his presence ; if the movements of society indicate the
superintendence of his providence, not less does the existence of
Christianity, as seen in Christ, declare that God was in him, recon
ciling the world to himself; and that the great Father worketh in
intimate union with his dear Son, for the redemption of mankind.

Or are we to believe (for this is the alternative), that Christianity,
which has gone some way to mould the institutions and form the
morals of the world, for the last two thousand years, which is
now the herald of a civilisation that is advancing with rapid strides
in the North, the South, the East, and the West ; which, never
theless, seems only just beginning to put forth its real power, and
holds out to man a far brighter future than even the brightest gleam
of sunshine in the past, am I to believe that Christianity, which
in past ages has proved the patron of knowledge, the vindicator of
freedom, the handmaid of the arts, the seminal principle of a new
order of civilisation; which has converted the slave-trade into
piracy, and made slave-holding infamous ; which has developed the
true principles of government, banished vindictiveness from our
criminal code, cruelty from our amusements, and grossness from
our manners ; which, in private life, has brought forth the lovely
train of the domestic virtues ; which directs the young, preserves
the mature, upholds the aged ; which can alarm or soothe, arouse
or allay, can strengthen, can purify the human heart, as needs may
be ; which human beings of all ages, and in every conceivable
variety of condition, have found an unspeakable blessing ; those
who were in sin, in temptation, in distress of mind or body, the
penitent and the impenitent alike, the young and the old, the be
reaved mother and the orphaned child ; are we to believe, that
this grand universal remedy, this unfailing friend of man,--
wearing, as it does, every mark of divinity, is in truth only an impos
ture, or an ill-digested mass of legends, or an alloy of much false
hood with the smallest grain of truth ? And this illusion it was
this fiction or dream this grand untruth which rallied the dis
persed apostles after the death of Jesus, and sent them forth to suffer
and die in its assertion and maintenance. This grand untruth
undermined Judaism, overthrew idolatry, took its seat on the throne
of the CaBsars, and remodelled the Roman empire. This grand
untruth secured for itself advocates in all nations and all ranks, who
endured torture, and went to death, rather than renounce their
hope ; and having, in a succession of centuries, made the conquest
of all civilised nations, this fable is now held and believed by the

MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE GOSPELS, 101

most enlightened men all over the world, and is avowedly made the
great instrument of beneficence, in an age which has given rise to
the missionary enterprise, and begun to raise the great mass of
society by the omnipotent lever of education. This is the alterna
tive which unbelief, in what form soever it appears, requires us to
admit.

And could I do so, I should find no difficulty in receiving, not
the miracles of the New Testament, but all the fables in the world ;
simply because such an admission is contrary to the great laws
which regulate the actions of human beings. The intellectually
illustrious Bacon has intimated, that atheism is less worthy of cre
dence than all the fictions of superstition; and for myself, while
I venture not to judge for another, I must declare that I should
be prepared to adopt any absurdity, could I once bring my mind to
believe that God or man, or both, permitted in Christ and Christi
anity a gross delusion to gain the empire of the world. A cunningly -
devised fable indeed is this, which has imposed on the greatest, the
wisest, and the best of the human race ! Were such a grand delusion
possible, truly pitiable would be the state of man. He loves truth,
he. pursues truth ; yet would he be destined to believe a lie, and that
in a case which touches all his vital interests. Oh ! what a melan
choly condition ! made and fated as he is to be the sport of delusion,
to have his dearest interests trifled with, his fondest hopes mocked,
his purest affections cheated ; and, after all this conflict with error,
to lie down and rot. Approach, ye advocates of unbelief, and, over
his tomb, see what you make of man, read his history in the light
of your boasted systems. Cast your eyes over the wide earth, and
mark the toil, the trouble, the woe, that are on it. The earth is
withoutjbrm and void ; for there is no Providence, or at least none
that can or will preserve man from delusion,

But 1 turn to reality, I turn to God s truth, I turn to the
one hope of the world, Jesus, who proceeded forth and came from
God, and hath the words of eternal life.

I close this attempt to illustrate the moral argument on behalf
of Christianity, by quoting a few words from Sack : * " Since
Christ is presented to us as the true personal and divine miracle,
and has been proved to be the Lord of life, his miracles generally
appear as the natural expressions and effects of his own personality,
as true miracles, wrought out of his own oneness with God as the
works of his Father."

Polemik, p. 196.

311

THE FALLACY

THE MYTHICAL THEORY OF DR. STRAUSS

ILLUSTRATED

FROM

THE HISTOEY OF MAETIN LUTHEE,

AND FROM

ACTUAL MOHAMMEDAN MYTHS OF THE LIFE OF JESUS.

SOON after the appearance of the Leben Jesu, a celebrated church historian of Germany
remarked, that the best method of refuting the work would be to apply its mode of
treating the evangelical history to some well-known portion of profane history, such
as the life of Napoleon or of Luther. This has been done in the case of Luther, in the
first of the two short pieces which follow the subjoined "sketch" of his life. The little
work referred to was published at Tubingen, in 1837, under the title of Ansziige aus der
Sclirlft: Das Leben Luther s kritisch bearbeitet von Dr. Casuar (Mexico, 2830); "Ex
tracts from the work, The Life of Luther critically set forth by Dr. Casuar (Mexico,
2836)". Its author is J. F. Wurm, not long since Professor in the Seminary at Blau-
beuern. The model after which we might almost believe it to have been written is a
pamphlet entitled " Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Bonaparte," published many
years ago by the present Archbishop Whately, and not unknown in Germany.* The
object of Dr. Whately s pamphlet was to expose the fallacy of the principles of evidence
laid down by the philosopher Hume, in his essay on miracles, by an actual application
of those principles to the history of Napoleon Bonaparte. By an ingenious course of
argument, Dr. Whately shows that the existence and achievements of the French empe
ror cannot be received as facts by any reasonable man who chooses to proceed, in his
estimation of their credibility, on the sceptical principles of Hume. Similarly, the object
of Wurm s piece is to prove the untenableuess of the mythical theory of Dr. Strauss, in
reference to the Gospels, by the application of the principles on which it is founded to the
life of Martin Luther.

The pamphlet professes to be written in the year 2836, by a disciple of the Hegelian
philosophy. At this date, it is not difficult to believe, much of the multifarious literature
on Luther s history will no longer be in existence ; there will be doubts and difficulties,

* Indeed, this tract has been translated into German, with special application to the
work of Strauss.

313 2 X

2 THE THEOKY OF MYTHS FALLACIOUS.

in connection with the German Reformer, for the removal of which, materials are not to
be found ; and, consequently, there will be scope enough for the exercise of a sceptical
and unfriendly criticism : just as, at the present day, in connection with the life of Jesus,
there is, on some points, a want of data, matter for doubt and uncertainty, a deficiency of
confirmatory testimony, by taking advantage of which the new criticism has succeeded in
gaining an appearance of support and trustworthiness. In these supposed circumstances,
our author shows with what destructive effect the theory and reasonings of Strauss may
be applied to the history of Luther, well-known, authentic, and credible as it now is, in
all its great leading features. After the manner in which the German critic of the nine
teenth century resolves the gospel records of the life of Christ into mere fictions, so does
our Mexican, of the twenty-ninth century, easily enough prove, that much in Luther s his
tory is mythical, and unworthy of credit ; arguing himself, while so doing, into many an
absurd and false conclusion, on what, to us of this earlier age, is plain and substantial
matter of fact.

The following passage, from an American writer,* well illustrates the aim and argu
ment of Wurm, if it does not indeed, in one place, refer to his identical work :

" Dr. Strauss takes the idea, which forms the subject, as he thinks, of a Christian myth,
out of the air, and then tells us how the myth itself grew out of that idea. But he does
not always prove from history or the nature of things, that the idea existed before the
story or the fact was invented. He finds certain opinions, prophecies, and expectations
in the Old Testament, and affirms at once, these were both the occasion and cause of the
later stories, in which they re-appear. This method of treatment requires very little inge
nuity on the part of the critic : we could resolve half of Luther s life into a series of
myths, formed after the model of Paul s history : indeed this has already been done.
Nay, we could dissolve any given historical event in a mythical solution, and then preci
pitate the seminal ideas in their primitive form. We also can change an historical cha
racter into a symbol of universal humanity. The whole history of the United States of
America, for example, we might call a tissue of mythical stories, borrowed in part from
the Old Testament, in part from the Apocalypse, and in part from the fancy. The Bri
tish Government oppressing the Puritans is the great red dragon of the Revelation, as
it is shown by the national arms, and by the British legend of St. George and the Dragon.
The splendid career of the new people is borrowed from the persecuted woman s poetical
history ; her dress clothed with the sun, " &c. &c. " The story of the Declaration of
Independence is liable to many objections, if we examine it a la mode Strauss. The
Congress was held at a mythical town, whose very name is suspicious, Philadelphia,
Brotherly Love. The date is suspicious ; it was the fourth day of the fourth month
(reckoning from April, as it is probable the Heraclidae and Scandinavians, possible that
the aboriginal Americans, and certain that the Hebrews, did). Now, four was a sacred
number with the Americans ; the president was chosen for four years ; there were four
departments of affairs ; four divisions of the political powers, namely, the people, the
congress, the executive, and the judiciary, &c. Besides, which is still more incredible.,
three of the presidents two of whom, it is alleged, signed the Declaration died on the
fourth of July; and the two latter, exactly fifty years after they had signed it, and about

* Quoted in the " Christian Teacher," for April, 1844, from " The Critical and Miscel
laneous Works of Theodore Parker," p. 30.1.

THE THEORY OF MYTHS FALLACIOUS. 3

the same hour of the day. The year also is suspicious ; 1770 is but an ingenious combi
nation of the sacred number four, which is repeated three times, and then multiplied by

itself to produce the date; thus, 444 X 4 = 1776, Q.E.D." "Still farther, the

Declaration is metaphysical, and presupposes an acquaintance with the transcendental
philosophy on the part of the American people. Now the Critik of Pure Reason was
not published till after the Declaration was made. Still farther, the Americans were never,
to use the nebulous expressions of certain philosophers, an idealo-transcendental-and-
subjective, but an objective-and-concretivo-praeticaT people, to the last degree; therefore
a metaphysical document, and, most of all, a legal-congressional-metaphysical docu
ment, is highly suspicious if found among them. Besides, Hualteperah, the great histo
rian of Mexico, a neighbouring state, never mentions this document ; and farther still, if
this Declaration had been made, and accepted by the whole nation, as it is pretended, then
we cannot account for the fact, that the fundamental maxim of that paper, namely, the
soul s equality to itself, all men are bom free and equal, was perpetually lost sight of,
and a large portion of the people kept in slavery: still later, petitions supported by this
fundamental article for the abolition of slavery, were rejected by Congress with unex
ampled contempt, when, if the history is not mythical, slavery never had a legal existence
after 1776," &c. &c. (p. 30i).

It is of course necessary, for the proper appreciation of the Auszuge, to possess some
knowledge of the chief events of the history of Luther. A good outline of that history
will be found in the articles " Luther," " Reformation," and " Protestant," in the " Penny
Cyclopaedia," a work referred to as likely to be accessible to most of the readers of
these pages. The little American work, " The Life and Times of Martin Luther," lately
republished in this country, will also be found useful by the general reader ; as well as the
notices of the Reformation in Germany, in Robertson s History of Charles V. With
the special object of introducing and explaining the allusions of Wurm s pamphlet, so far
as this can be done within so narrow a compass, we subjoin a brief sketch of Luther s
history, chiefly drawn up from D Aubigne s " History of the Great Reformation of the Six
teenth Century, in Germany, Switzerland, &c." (Lond. 1841).

That, in the opinion of eminent German writers, the author of the Auszuge has exe
cuted his task well, is shown by the declaration of Tholuck,* that this little tract is a proof
that voluminous works are by no means necessary to inflict mortal wounds on the two
ponderous volumes of Strauss ; and that it exemplifies, not merely the forms of reasoning,
but also the essential critical spirit, of the Lcben Jem. In order, in some degree, to illus
trate to the English reader the latter part of this remark, we here introduce an example of
Strauss s method of treating the gospel history, and resolving it into myths. It is from
the section designed to prove that the narrative in Luke ii. 41 52 is mythical. Did our
space permit, we would give the whole of the two sections on this portion of Luke s Gos
pel ; as it is, we can only include the substance of the one entitled, " This part also
mythical:" t

"If," says Strauss, "we must recognise in this passage also, as heretofore, the influ
ence of the myth, yet, as the groundwork of the narrative is thoroughly natural, we might

* In his Literarischer Anzeiger, No. 37, 1836.
+ Leben Jesu, vol. i. p^ 316 321, fourth edit.
315

THE THEORY OF MYTHS FALLACIOUS.

here prefer the medium course, and, after striking away what is mythical, seek to preserve
a residue of history. We might thus, perhaps, receive the statement, that the parents of
Jesus really once took their son with them, in his early youth, to Jerusalem, to the feast ;
and that having lost sight of him, before their departure homeward, they went in search
of him, and found him sitting in the temple, listening eagerly to the teachings of the Rab
bins. Being questioned, he may have said that the house of God was the place most
pleasant to him ; an answer which would gratify his parents, and find approval among
the bystanders. What more there is in the narrative may have been added by the glorify
ing myth, after Jesus had been recognised as the Messiah. Thus would every thing
arousing doubt and hesitation in a reader of the passage, namely, the boy s sitting in
the midst of the teachers ; his speaking of God as his Father, in a peculiar sense ; perhaps
also the departure of the parents without their son,* be thrown away; but there would
still be left the journey of the youthful Jesus to Jerusalem, his manifestation of the desire
to learn, and his preference for the temple. There is certainly nothing to object to in
these features, since they do not involve anything improbable; but, nevertheless, their
historical truth becomes doubtful, if any strong interest, on the part of the myth, presents
itself, out of which the whole narrative, including these not in themselves improbable
features, may have originated."

This " strong interest," Strauss discovers in the tendency to ascribe to great men
early and prophetic indications of their future character, and to invent stories of such
early indications, where they have not historically existed. He refers to instances of this
in the Old Testament, as Samuel (1 Sam. iii.) ; and in what Josephus and Philo, following
current traditions, say of Moses, namely, that, while he was yet a boy, his intelligence
and acquired knowledge were beyond his years.

" Moreover," says Strauss, " according to the Jewish custom, the twelfth year was n
point in the age of a youth, with which special proofs of awakening genius would be
readily connected, since from this year the boy was regarded as having outgrown the state
of childhood." Thus, in a Rabbinical work referred to by our critic, Moses is said to
have been taken from his father s house in his twelfth year, in order to become the organ
of divine revelations ; Samuel, according to JeAvish traditions, received the gift of pro
phecy, and Solomon and Daniel pronounced wise judgments, at the same age. " Hence,"
continues Dr. Strauss, " if the spirit which inspired these Old Testament heroes had
manifested itself actively in their twelfth year, it could not have remained hidden till a
later period in the case of Jesus : and if Samuel and Daniel had revealed themselves at
that early age, in their later characters, as divinely inspired seers ; Solomon, in that of a
wise ruler ; even so must Jesus, equally early, have disclosed the character, which after
wards was to be his, of Son of God and Teacher of mankind." Thus, Strauss infers, the
twelfth year of Jesus could not well fail to be seized upon as a suitable point for mythical

* That Jesus should have sat, as Luke relates, " in the midst of the doctors," Strauss
deems incredible, seeing that the scholars of the Rabbins sat (as St. Paul says, Acts xxii.3)
"at the feet" of their teachers; the latter sitting in chairs, the former upon the ground.
So, also, Strauss thinks it improbable that the parents of Jesus should have set out from
Jerusalem, unaccompanied by their son ; and hence, he says, they must have lost him
before their departure, and not, as Luke represents, have missed him, for the first time,
after a day s journey.

316

THE THEORY OF MYTHS FALLACIOUS. 5

adornment ; and, from the narrative of the evangelist, he says, we merely learn something
of the opinion entertained in the primitive Christian church, respecting the early spiritual
development of Jesus.

He concludes the section by observing:

" Whence this narrative originated is easily perceived. The image of Jesus would
stand out the more conspicuously from the obscure background of his narrow family cir
cumstances, if it were seen how little even his parents were able to comprehend his lofty
spirit, and if he himself at times let them feel his elevation, so far as this could be done
without violating the obedience he owed them as a child, which, indeed, is expressly
guarded against by the words of the narrative" (ver. 51).

The view thus advanced by Strauss, respecting the passage referred to, may be coin-
pared with Wunn s remarks on Luther s birth at Eisleben, on the Disputation at Leipzig,
or on the Diet of Worms.

The second of the two pieces here brought together is a translation of Die Mythen
des Lebens Jesu : Auszuge, &c. " Myths of the Life of Jesus : Extracts from Haiat ul
Kulub, by Mohammed Bachir; with an Appendix concerning the Life of Jesus by Dr.
Strauss." This piece was published at Stuttgart in 1837, and is from the pen of M. C. G.
Earth, a clergyman at Mottlingen. These Auszuge of Earth, unlike those of Wurm, are
really what they profess to be, and are connected with the latter simply by having a com
mon object in view, namely, the illustration of the untenableness of Strauss s theory.
Earth seeks to attain his object by giving a series of extracts from the work of a Moham
medan historian, presenting instances of actual Mohammedan myths, relating to Jesus.
The extravagance or absurdity of some of these is sufficiently remarkable ; though, it
must be confessed, in some instances, bordering too closely upon the profane. The
liberty, however, which they seem to take with a sacred subject must be pardoned, for the
sake of the good service which they render, by enabling us to perceive how perfectly sober
and rational is the evangelical history in comparison with the genuine myth. The entire
force of the argument, it will be seen, depends on bringing out the contrast between these
myths and the gospel narratives ; and this could be done only by allowing the former to
stand in all their native extravagance. Earth appends to his series of extracts some
remarks of his own, pointing out the unreasonableness of regarding the Gospels as works
of the same origin and character as these Mohammedan absurdities ; and enumerating
the more important characteristics of the really mythical, as compared with the properly
historical, narrative.

Chiefly for the sake of brevity, a few passages have been omitted in the translation of
the two pieces. Marginal notes, added by the translator, are placed within brackets.

G. V. S.

317

THE THEORY OF MYTHS FALLACIOUS.

SKETCH OF THE LIFE OF LUTHER,

MARTIN LUTHER was born at Eisleben, in Saxony, on the tenth of
November, 1483. His parents, at the time of his birth, were pro
bably resident at Eisleben, having removed to that town shortly after
their marriage, although, according to Seckendorf,* one of the histo
rians of Luther, they had merely gone from Mora, a village near
Eisenach, and their usual abode, to the fair of Eisleben. Luther
himself, in one of his epistles, speaks of Eisleben as his birthplace.
In his own lifetime, a rumour prevailed that he was born in Bohe
mia. His mother, when questioned by Melancthon, was not certain
as to the year of her son s birth, but could well remember the day
and the hour. James, a brother of Luther, said, however, that,
" according to the opinion of all the family," Martin was born in
1483. The day was the eve of St. Martin, and hence the child was
baptized Martin.