we receive from the Gospels? If it have been truly impressed on our hearts, we turn away unsatisfied from the highest efforts of painting to embody in his lineaments the expression of his character. Poetry can add nothing to our conceptions. It may render them more distinct and vivid, but it will affect us only in proportion as we believe it conformed to reality. It is to the perception of essential reality that we owe the thrilling sense of moral interest and grandeur produced by the image it has called up of

"that calm, sorrowful, prophetic eye With its dark depths of grief, love, majesty;

And the pale glory of the brow, -a shrine

Where Power sat veiled, yet shedding softly round

What told that He could be but for a time uncrowned."

SUCH as we have seen is the representation of the office, life, and character of Jesus contained in the Gospels. We have been reasoning, it will be remembered, on the supposition that all the early history of our religion before its establishment among the Gentiles is essentially fabulous. But the existence of this conception of Jesus in the midst of the pagan world remains to be accounted for. A solution, likewise, is to be given of the other phenomena of which we have taken so rapid

a view. What explanation does infidelity afford? The subject early exercised the minds of unbelievers. During the last two or three centuries strong efforts have been made to disprove the miraculous origin of Christianity; and of late the work has been laboriously carried on by many writers, some calling themselves Christians, and others not assuming that name. What, then, are the last results? What is the theory now most approved by such writers concerning the origin and establishment of Christianity?

The theories which have been advanced may be resolved into one. It is this, that the origin and establishment of our religion, with all the phenomena to which our attention has just been directed, are the result of the efforts of certain Jews, who, if not fraudulent fanatics, grossly misconceived, in some way or other, the character of him whose history and office they pretended to make known; that, by means which are not explained, they imposed their fabulous stories, not only on some of their own countrymen, but also on the Heathens, while at the same time they presented to them the highest conceptions ever formed of religion and duty; and that these stories, after having been somewhat changed by tradition, finally

coalesced into the four Gospels. Whatever may be the first thoughts that such a solution suggests to a philosopher, one of his last reflections may probably be on the vast difference which it has pleased God to ordain among men in their intellectual capacity and their moral perceptions and feelings.

CHAPTER III.

EXAMINATION OF STRAUSS'S TWO FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF CRITICISM.

FROM these general considerations we return to our immediate task, a notice of the work of Strauss. His general theory concerning the origin and establishment of Christianity is such as we have seen. The main body of his work is occupied in supporting this theory by an attack on the credibility and genuineness of the Gospels.

“The sole purpose of the whole work that follows," he says, in his Introduction, "is to examine the Gospels in detail in order to determine on internal grounds the credibility of their relations, and in connection with this the probability or improbability that the Gospels are the work of eyewitnesses, or, generally, of well-informed writers."*

In this examination the two principles which he lays down as tests, either of which is sufficient to

* Leben Jesu, I. 64; Engl. Translation, I. 57.

determine that "an account is not historical," that is, that it is not to be believed, are these:

First. "An account is not historical, when it is irreconcilable with the known and universal laws which govern the course of events."

Second. "An account which lays claim to any historical value must not be inconsistent with itself, nor contradict other accounts."†

With respect to the first of these principles, "the impossibility of a miracle," a conclusion which, according to Strauss, has been established "by a series of the most laborious researches, continued for centuries," it must rest on the truth of one of two assertions.

He who affirms it must either maintain that there is no power capable of producing other effects than those which men witness in the regular course of nature; or he must maintain that, if any being possesses such power, we may be fully assured that he will never exercise it.

But if there is a being who may properly be

*Leben Jesu, I. 100; Engl. Translation, I. 87.

As this is so extraordinary a proposition, it seems right to give the original: "Mit sich selbst und mit anderen Berichten darf eine Relation nicht in Widerspruch stehen, wenn sie geschichtliche Geltung ansprechen will."- Leben Jesu, I. 101; Engl. Translation, I. 89.