Schwegler has drawn an elaborate picture of the fierce controversies in the Church of Asia Minor, which the fourth Gospel was written to compose. One thing alone is wanting, but it is an important element. There is nothing in the Gospel about these hot disputes. The most careful Bible reader never suspects them; and even critics of any other school than that to which Schwegler belongs are compelled to allow that the premises of the writer lie merely in his imagination. And against these attempts, which after more than half a century of laborious, and in most cases honest labour, have issued at last in the wildest divergence of opinion, and in a dogmatic and pertinacious assertion of contradictory conclusions, as far as possible from true science, we have to set the fact that all ancient testimony assigns these writings to the apostles and inspired apostolic men whose names are upon them; and that, amid much that is fanciful and unhistorical in the ancient writers of the second century, amid much bitter controversy, there is no place to be quoted that casts any doubt upon the records in which for eighteen centuries Christendom has loved to gaze on the image of its Lord.

should take its place as an authority to be | Gospel or of any other by the contents is a quoted in a controversy, without some dis- thing impossible. cussion on the question of genuineness arising. This difficulty will always cleave to any theory save the obvious one of adhering to external testimony. Of Tischendorf's argument, however, we have given no idea. The section which he devotes to the apocryphal Gospels, as affording arguments for the genuineness of the true, it would be unjust to abridge. All these testimonies have been assailed, no doubt, by different critics. It is easy to say that when Valentinus or Basilides is mentioned as quoting St. John, it really must mean one of his later followers, or that by 'followers of Valentinus' we are to understand Ptolemy only, whose date happens to fit another theory. The Gospel of St. John has been the great battle-field of critical strife. Without dissembling the difficulties that undoubtedly surround this most precious document, which have been ably pressed against it, and at least as ably parried, we must hold that the acceptance of it as an inspired work of the Apostle from the first mention of it is a fact, whilst modern theories about it are theories, and no more. We are told that the new critical school of Germany has settled that the middle of the second century produced it As we have been drawn to speak of the that it contains in itself in a purified Gospel of St. John, we will not leave it with and spiritualised form all the elements of these merely negative remarks. A few the religious life and activity of that epoch, words of this Evangelist supply the key to with its gnosis, its doctrine of the Logos, his omission of many things already narrated, its Montanism, and its Easter controversy. and to the construction of his own narrative. All these things are glanced at in the book, And many other signs truly did Jesus in and do not come out distinctly: it is the the presence of his disciples, which are not calm expression of the religious conscious written in this book; but these are written ness of the time. The two Christian ten- that ye might believe that Jesus is the dencies that were manifested up to that Christ, the Son of God, and that believing time, the legal tendency of which Peter was ye might have life through his name.' (John the exponent, and the free Gentile ten-xx. 30, 31.) The old and received opinion, dency which Paul most adequately represented, are sublimed in this Gospel, and fused into higher, and freer, and universal unity; and this book was the ground on which the doctrine of Catholic unity, which began to prevail at the close of the second century, was based. But we for our part do not find all these fine things in the book, though we find what we value much more. Easter controversy and gnosis, and war of Petrine and Pauline tendencies! we find them not. This matter of tendencies has been enormously exaggerated always; but it has been thrust into this gospel: it came there, not in the middle of the second century, but in the middle of the nineteenth. To fix the date of the fourth

that the apostle wrote a supplement to the other three Gospels, must be understood with reference to these words. He wrote his Gospel that men might believe and have life; not that things omitted might be supplied. There may be truth in that surmise, that his spirit, kindled and informed by a higher light, looked back upon the growth of his own faith in the Master who loved him, and wrote for other men that which had led himself into the way of life, that his Gospel is not so much a history of the Lord, as a history of those things which led himself to know and believe in the Lord. At any rate the object of this Gospel is patent, to reveal to men the glory of Christ, as it was manifested in His earthly struggle.

In the first four chapters the Lord is seen | logue one of those whom the Lord had gathering to Himself those who seek the chosen to enrich her most. truth, whilst the evil storm of opposition and unbelief begins to lower and mutter. From the fifth to the twelfth chapters, the struggle with the unbelief of the world is open and severe; the Lord on the one side reveals Himself, and the Jews' on the other reject Him. From the thirteenth to the seventeenth chapters, He reveals Himself, and all that he is and can do, with the Father and on man's behalf. In the closing chapters He suffers when the rest of His work is finished, and rises again in final triumph, to send the promised Comforter, that through Him all that believe might have life. Some such plan most modern writers have endeavoured to trace. The glorious conquest of Christ over evil, shown to men in order that they might believe, and might have life through believing; this was the apostle's purpose. Who so fit to write on such a theme, as he that had been a near spectator both of the struggle and of the victory? Such an explanation is as far as possible from the notion that the writer had in view new doctrines about the person of the Lord; or from the opinion, to which the ancient writers gave too much countenance, that this is a polemic against Cerinthus, and Ebion, and the Gnostics. One writing of the incarnation in the midst of certain errors, could not but write so that the errors should meet their refutation. But of direct polemical matter, there is not one syllable in this Gospel. It is polemical in that, being true, it is a touchstone of error; it is against the modern Socinus almost in the same sense that it is against the ancient Cerinthus. Before the inspired Books were brought together, and the collected New Testament became one organ for spreading the truth, no Book wrought more potently than this Gospel for the advancement of the Church in the truth. What St. Paul did for the doctrine of grace and of freedom in the Gospel, that did the writer of the fourth Gospel for the contemplation of Christ the incarnate Son of God. Long after this creeds and councils attest the same influence, and their theme was a right conception of this mystery. If it is conceivable that to some teacher of a lower grade was permitted this great work, we must also conceive that the real instrument of this utterance has remained unknown, that his name and his memory are lost, and that a too careless Church ascribed to another those words so mighty in their operation. The Church, ready, even too ready, to preserve the names of benefactors, has let drop from her cata

Is it then true that, tested by results, the new criticism has failed to afford us even an approach to certainty in the questions that belong to the Gospels? Let us select one point only on which especial industry and energy have been expended - the place of St. Mark among the four Gospels. It is a question upon which almost every critic has pronounced an opinion: it has never been abandoned as answerless,' and to do them justice, modern critics are little open to the charge of pusiltanimity of this kind. If the principles of investigation are true, the answers ought to be coincident, or at least to offer some marks of general agreement. The facts to be dealt with in examining the second Gospel are these: the first three Gospels agree in a great measure as to the events which they select, and as to the words in which these are described. The resemblance is so great, both as to arrangement and choice of words, as to leave no doubt of some connexion between them, more than the usual coincidences of writers of like tastes and education describing the same things. But with this minute agreement, and even in the same verse with some marked examples of it, there are considerable differences, which put out of the question the notion that one passage is a mere transcript of the other, or that both are copied from some common original. The problem then lies not in the resemblance, nor yet in the variations, but in the combination of resemblances the most peculiar and minute with remarkable differences. The resemblance is greatest where the words of the Lord are recited, and least in the narrative portions. The Gospel according to St. Mark is shorter than the other two, and might be taken for an abridgment if it were not that some passages are found in his Gospel only, and a certain minuteness of description in several places has been thought to proceed from a quick and observant eye-witness of the facts; but at any rate it vindicates the independence of the narrative. As a good example of the occasional brevity, we may observe that the mocking command Prophesy!' found in the second Gospel, is difficult to understard without the Prophesy unto us, thou Christ, who it is that smote thee,' of the first. As an example of the fuller and more graphic description, such touches as these- When he had looked round about on them in anger, being grieved for the hardness of their heart' (Mark iii. 5) are commonly quoted. Here then is a brief sketch of the questions

6

6

which have been agitated for a generation. bring out into strong light many great and What is the relation of these writings to deeply interesting questions which belong to each other, and how are the agreements the inspired records of our faith, but has and the differences to be explained? In not produced any approach to a solution of what order did these three books come forth? them. Some future mythical philosopher, Let the new criticism answer this as to one pondering this page of literary history, may Gospel, St. Mark, and let us see how far the doubt that such difference could have ocanswer gives proof of a solid result achieved curred: he may argue that it is a myth in by scientific principles. Now Dr. Strauss which the consciousness' of the nineteenth finds internal evidence that this Gospel was century has reproduced the story of the written after, and founded upon those of St. Tower of Babel; a 'reforming criticism' was Matthew and St. Luke; whilst Bleek, in to be built up high above all past dogma his introduction,' finds by the same evi- and doubt, but amidst a welter of confused dence that it was written even after St. and contradictory speech, such as never John. Whatever be the worth of this inter- could have been historically possible for nal evidence, it does not prevent Reuss rational men, the work was abandoned. from observing, We have proved elsewhere We are far from denying that theology has that St. Mark is the most ancient of those gained by this exploration, whilst we know we possess, and that it was one of the what has been lost and suffered. But sources to which the authors of the others science there is none. Let us not be disresorted by preference.' Schenkel, too, ap. mayed by being told that our opinion is peals to the simplicity, clearness, and vi- contrary to the last result of criticism;' it vacity' of this Gospel as proving its priority; only means the result that shall remain till and Holzmann refusing to accept as the another comes. One of the boldest of the oldest the Gospel as we have it, proposes to writers now before us ends a chapter thus: find in it a certain original Gospel of Mark' Can one ever hope to arrive at a satisfacwhich is one of the oldest documents of our tory solution? It is allowable to doubt it, faith. Renan approaches this view in some whatever may be one's confidence in human measure, imposed upon,' as Zeller tells us, sagacity.' 'by the picturesqueness so often attributed to this Gospel,' to which it can lay no claim. In spite,' continues Zeller, of all the ingenuity that has lately been applied to prove the opposite position, the dependence of Mark upon Matthew and Luke will always continue to be the last result of criticism.' Hilgenfeld sees clearly, or thinks so, that Mark made use of Matthew, and was in turn used by Luke; and that the second Gospel is such as a disciple of Peter, writing at Rome, weld produce out of the first. So speak to us the teachers of to-day, at the close of half a century of discussion, in which every word and every verse of every Gospel has been threshed out and winnowed many times over, Of three Gospels, if we would arrange them in order, only six combinations are arithmetically possible; and amongst those who adopt the theory that one Evangelist followed or used another, every one of these six has found able advocates. But what kind of evidence is that which in the hands of Griesbach, De Wette, Baur, and Kösdin, gives us the order of Matthew, Luke, and Mark, and in the hands of Wilke and Volkmar exactly reverses this, order, and places Mark at the beginning, with Luke making use of his Gospel, and Matthew beholden to both? The time is come for admitting that all the ingenuity that has been spent on the subject has sufficed to

Has the theory of myths, with which the name of Strauss is for ever connected, fared any better after the lapse of thirty years? The theory is this: assuming that no supernatural or miraculous narrative can be historical, this author accounts for such elements in the history of our Lord by supposing that when the disciples had once come to look upon their Master as the Messiah, they would naturally look for the fulfilment in Him of all the Old Testament types and prophecies, and even of all the rabbinical additions which by that time had been made to them. What they expected to find in Him they would supply if they did not find . Because Moses, the first deliverer of the people, had wrought wonders, and because the voice of prophecy promised that the reign of Messiah should be marked by the same wonder-working power, the disciples would not fail to expect miracles from their Master, the last Deliverer of His people. Minds full of love and devotion, and disposed to believe only those things which exalted the object of their homage, would themselves supply to the history that element of miracles which it had not at first, but which it wanted to complete the picture of Messiah. There is not necessarily a conscious falsification; the miraculous tale

M. Nicolas, 'Etudes Critiques,' p. 126.

would grow undiscernibly, even to the eyes of those whose minds were the soil in which it grew, and whose devout wishes were the dew that fostered it. Given a sufficient time, the unhistorical' portions of the Evangelical narrative would creep in insensibly (so thought our author), and no one could be pointed out as responsible for their introduction, for they would proceed out of the common consciousness of a generation or of two, out of the tendency in all minds to magnify what they hold to be great, out of the ferment of the thoughts of ignorant and uncritical men, full of wonder, love, and admiration.

born in the isle of Delos, in Greek waters; it was of course necessary that his mythical antitype should be born in an island under French rule, hence Corsica came to be thought of. Leto was the mother of the Greek deity, Lætitia of the French Emperor. In order to make their auspicious ruler, who came in good part' to be the son of gladness, they have unconsciously done violence to etymology, being unaware that Leto (being akin to now and lateo) has reference to darkness. The mythical invasion of the North, which caused the downfall of Napoleon, has reference to the vain attempts of the sun to overcome the northSuch was the doctrine of Strauss' earlier ern cold, whilst the invasion of France from work, enforced by great logical power and the same quarter represents the frost oversufficient erudition; and men recoiled from powering all the effects of the sun; and the it as from the lowest deep to which Chris- tricolor is replaced by the white flag, the tian truth could be brought down, not sus- colour of winter, for the parti-coloured dress pecting that they might yet be allowed a of summer. Napoleon was summoned from glimpse into a lower still. The amazing fa- triumphs in the East to deliver France from cility of this doctrine has struck most theo- disorder; and his career was terminated by logians; it is an acid capable of eating into his death in a small island, a speck in the and dissolving the most solid body of his- Western sea. Who does not see here the tory. Only shut the eyes to all collateral reference to the course of the Sun? its evidence, and then proceed to turn any nar- day commencing in the East, and ending rative as it stands into myth, and the success in the West. The letter from the diwill be great; so great, however, that no rectory which recalled him, received on sensible student will care to have recourse the battle-field of Aboukir, was dated to so potent an agent again. Wurm has the 7th Prairial; seven, as we know, was written a life of Martin Luther on this prin- the sacred number of Apollo, who was ciple, rather ponderous for a jeu d'esprit, born on the seventh of the month; and it but leaving little certainty about its subject. may be mentioned that the birthday of NaSome years since, M. Peres wrote a tract to poleon is uncertain, and that one record prove that Napoleon never existed.' The places it too on the 7th (January 7th, 1768), whole story, he said, was produced by a case where the mythical element is seen French vanity out of the myth of Apollo. contending with the small groundwork of The etymological relation of the two names historical fact. The twelve years' rule of is sufficiently obvious. In the surname Bo-Napoleon are the twelve hours' course of naparte, we have a glance at the Persian the Sun-god; as Casimir Delavigne says of Ormuzd and Abriman, the good and evil the French hero, Il n'a régné qu'un jour.' principle, light and darkness; the name sig- And if the testimony of history is invoked, nifies that Apollo was sent for the good side there are acts of Louis XVIII., the dates of or element to the French, bonâ parte. The which are quite at variance with the notion ancients it is well known ascribed all sud-of a real Emperor Napoleon reigning at the den deaths to the darts of Apollo, but some- same time over the French people. times viewed them as rewards, sometimes as punishments. The name Bonaparte secures that the activity of Napoleon should be interpreted for good. Apollo The story of the Declaration of Indepenrequires this qualification, for the name of dence is liable to many objections, if we examthe far-darting punisher of the wicked was ine it à la mode Strauss. The Congress was connected by some of the ancients with held at a mythical town, whose very name is susúñóλλvu, as by Eschylus. Apollo was picious, 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 depart

*

The fact is that Napoleon has very clearly an etymology which shuts out the supposed connection with Apollo; the form in middle-age Latin being Neapoleo, just as Naples was Neapolis. It is probable that M. Peres was glancing at the false etymology, as well as other absurdities of the Straussian

school.

This is too fanciful. Theodore Parker's exercise of the same kind is better.

Q.E.D.

"

66

Their notions

of the Messiah must have been the current popular notions; no one on any side pretends that there was among the Christians any great student of the Law who, profoundly reflecting on the prophecies, told his fellow converts that they spoke of a Messiah who should be the Son of God, who

ments of affairs; four divisions of the political | in the Gospels were also the attributes which powers, namely, the people, the congress, the the current rabbinical theology assigned executive, and the judiciary, &c. Besides, which to the expected Messiah. Myths, if there is still more incredible, three of the presidents, were any in the Gospels, must have been two of whom, it is alleged, signed the declaration, produced in the first few years after the died on the fourth of July, and the two latter Lord's death, and produced out of the minds exactly fifty years after they had signed it, and about the same hour of the day. The year also of the common people, by no means inis suspicious; 1776 is but an ingenious combi- structed in the Jewish law. nation of the sacred number, four, which is repeated three times, and then multiplied by itself to produce the date; thus, 444 X 41776, Still farther, the declaration is metaphysical, and presupposes an acquaintance with the transcendental philosophy on the part of the American people. Now the "Kritik of Pure Reason was not published till after the declaration was made. Still farther, the Amer- should suffer and be rejected of men, who icans were never, to use the nebulous expres- should die with ingnominy, after founding a sions of certain philsophers, an "idealo-trans-kingdom bare of all earthly glory, and great cendental-and-subjective," but an objective- only with a spiritual grandeur, and who and-concretivo-practical" people, to the last should come hereafter in the glory of heavdegree; therefore a metaphysical document, and en, to judge the quick and dead. Has it yet most of all a "legal-congressional-metaphysi- been shown, then, that the popular opinion cal document, is highly suspicious if found of the Jews of that day had attained among them. Besides, Hualteperah, the great this high, spiritual idea of the Messiah? historian of Mexico, a neighbouring state, never mentions this document; and farther still, if this There is much to make this highly improbdeclaration had been made, and accepted by the able. In the Gospels themselves, the more whole nation, as it is pretended, then we cannot spiritual views of the office of Christ were account for the fact, that the fundamental maxim received by the disciples by the most stolid of that paper, namely, the soul's equality to it- misapprehension. The disciples asked for self-"all men are born free and equal". high places in an earthly kingdom. The was perpetually lost sight of, and a large por- first intimation of Christ's approaching tion of the people kept in slavery; still later, sufferings was received by Peter and the petitions, supported by this fundamental arrest with pious incredulity: Be it far ticle, for the abolition of slavery, were rejected by Congress with unexampled contempt, when, if the history is not mythical, slavery never had a legal existence after 1776, &c., &c. But we could go on this way for ever."*

from thee, Lord; this shall not be unto thee.' When the first hands were laid upon the Lord to arrest Him, the disciples were scattered like sheep. When His crucifixion seemed to have ended all their hopes, they ex-gave way to dejection, and almost to despair. The discourse in St. John upon the appropriation of the healing power of His death, the eating His flesh and drinking His blood, so perplexed them that many of them walked with Him no more.

Such illustrations, whether they are aggerated or not, remind us of the chief faults of the method of Strauss. The gamut of human acts and motives is so limited, that phrases must repeat themselves; neglect the differences, and search narrowly for the similitudes; and any one period may be represented as the mythical reproduction of any other. And when distance of time favours, and the records of contemporary history, by which alone this kind of dreaming can be corrected, are sparse and faint, then the mythical philosopher wanders unchecked, and a distaste for the supernatural needs never falter for want of arguments.

This theory, however, has to meet with another formidable objection, the force of which the author in his later work seems to admit. It is essential to its application here, that there should be sure proof that the attributes of the Messiah assigned to Jesus

Miscellaneous Writings,' p. 278.

Recent researches fail to confirm Dr. Strauss' assumption; the popular expectation did not turn towards a suffering Messiah, but towards a chieftain, who with strong sword and stirring appeal to ancient promises, should wake the slumbering courage and faith of the Jews, and retrieve their ruined fortunes as a conquered nation. Of a Messiah who should be the pure and holy Son of God, of a Messiah glorified by a meek and silent triumph over suffering, of a Messiah whose kingdom should be spiritual only, of a Messiah who should hereafter judge the quick and dead,

the Jewish opinion of that time knew nothing. This has been shown over and over again since the former Leben Jesu'