have wrought the whole effect. Let the reader try to form an estimate of this effect, in its length and breadth, as far as history has yet revealed it, and then turn to the solution of it offered by the skeptical theory. It was all produced, we are told, by a weak young man-an untaught, Galilean Rabbi, who brought under his influence for one, or two, or three years, a few unlearned Jewish laborers! We say "a weak young man," for only great weakness or great depravity can explain the monstrous delusion that is imputed to him. Now, is this an adequate solution? In view of the power which has been exerted by Christianity to subvert rival and long established systems of belief, to command the homage of the highest intellect, to reform and mould society, in view also of the adaptations of Christianity to the human mind and heart, of its harmony with natural religion while providing for great wants which reason discovers but cannot supply, an eloquent writer has justly said: "it seems no more possible that the system of Christianity should have been originated or sustained by man, than it does that the ocean should have been made by him."* XIII. The Straussian theory is connected with a false and demoralizing scheme of philosophy. At the conclusion of his work, Strauss describes the apparently ruthless and destructive character of his own criticism. He confesses that in appearance he is robbing humanity of its chief treasure. But all this he pretends to be able to restore in another form. Christianity is the popular expression of philosophical truth. This last he has no intention of sacrificing, but he will return to the believer all that he has wrested from him, though he will return it in a different form. Proceeding to inquire wherein lies the substance and power of Christianity, Strauss examines the various definitions given by the older Rationalism, and discards them. It is not as a collection of ethical precepts, it is not as a legal system, he holds, that Christianity has its characteristic quality and power over mankind. This distinguishing quality and power inhere in Christianity as Evidences of Christianity, by President Hopkins, Section VII. a religious system, and proceed from the great central doctrine of a union of God and man in Jesus Christ. This branch of his discussion is carried forward with a penetrating analysis. How, then, does he propose to modify Christianity? What is the philosophical truth underlying this popular conception of the unity of divinity and humanity in Jesus Christ? The real truth, answers Strauss, is, not that God and man are one, or God becomes man, in a single individual, but rather in mankind collectively taken. That is to say, God is in each individual, in each the infinite becomes the finite, yet not fully or exclusively in any one,-but for the indwelling and full expression of the infinite, all the members of the race are required. In plainer language, there is no Divine Person, with a selfconsciousness separate from the consciousness of men. There is no being higher than man who can hear prayer. If a man prays, he prays to himself. God is man, and man is God. Jesus Christ is divine, so far and in the same sense as every other individual of the race is God. Men are the transitory products of the evolution of impersonal being. Freedom, sin, accountability, personal immortality are merged and lost in an all-engulfing necessity. Such is the apotheosis of man and denial of God which constitutes the philosophy of Pantheism, and which we are invited to accept as an equivalent for the living, personal God, and the incarnate Redeemer! The demoralizing tendency of this necessitarian and atheistic philosophy is obvious to every serious mind. Strauss gives a specimen of the fruits of his philosophy by no means fitted to recommend it, when he elaborately justifies the continued preaching of the facts of Christianity, including the resurrection of Christ, by those who have espoused his interpretation of them and, therefore, disbelieve in their historical truth. We can scarcely suppose that Strauss is in earnest in pronouncing his speculative dogmas the sum and substance of Christian doctrine. He is rather paying a decorous outward respect to history, in which Christianity has performed so mighty a part, and to the church whose faith he has assailed. But let it be observed that his work is an attack upon the truths of Natural as well as of Revealed Religion. That God is a Person, that man is free and accountable, that sin is the voluntary and guilty perversion of human nature, are denied not less than the miracles attending the establishment of Christianity. The postulates, on which the need of revelation is founded, being thus put aside, it is natural that Christianity itself and the miracles which attest it, should receive no credence. A clear perception of the primary truths which God has written upon the heart, might have induced in Strauss an appreciation of the Christian system and its founder, such as led Thomas Arnold to feel that miracles are but the natural accompaniments of Christian revelation; accompaniments, the absence of which would have been far more wonderful than their presence. * NOTE UPON THE CRITICAL OPINIONS OF THEODORE PARKER. Theodore Parker's theory, as to the New Testament narratives of miracles, did not differ materially from that of Strauss. Mr. Weiss, in his recently published life of Parker, has attempted to strike a distinction between the two theories; but his remarks are founded on a partial misapprehension of the position of Strauss. He, as well as Parker, pronounces Christ a man of preeminent excellence. Parker agreed with Strauss on the essential point that the New Testament narratives do not spring from dishonesty, as the former infidelity supposed, but are "mythical stories." Parker, also, seems to have adopted the critical theories of the Tübingen school, respecting the origin and date of the Gospels, and generally in respect to the canon of the New Testament. His changes of opinion were remarkable. In the review of Strauss's second edition, which he published in April, 1840,8 he takes a tone of opposition to the author, implies his own belief in the resurrection of Christ and in other miracles, and welcomes the partial admission, which Strauss then made, (but afterwards recalled), of * Arnold's Lectures on History, Lecture II. Weiss's Life of Theodore Parker, Vol. I. p. 122, seq. § Christian Examiner, Volume xxviii. the genuineness of John's Gospel. In May, of the next following year, Parker delivered the noted sermon in which he expressed his disbelief in the miracles. Afterwards, in his Discourses of Religion, and elsewhere, he adopts the Tübingen notions concerning the Gospels and the Canon. "The Gospel of John," he says, "is of small historical value, if of any at all." Nothing can be more loose and unsatisfactory than Parker's mode of handling the historical questions connected with the origin of the Christian Church and of the evangelical histories. He dilates upon the prevalence of credulity and superstition in the world, upon the medieval legends, and kindred topics, and then refers his readers to a crowd of authors whose merits are as diverse as their opinions. To talk after this manner is simply to shroud in mist the most momentous of historical questions. Without any wish to disparage Mr. Parker, (for he was not without strong qualities of intellect as well as lovable qualities of character), we must say that we have been surprised in looking through his works to find his historical criticism so destitute of scientific value. We observe that various positions of the Tübingen school are reproduced, but they are not sustained by any careful, well digested learning. The Gospel miracles are summarily and dogmatically discarded as being incredible, which seems the more singular since Parker, unlike Strauss, professed to hold that miracles are possible. We are moved to subjoin word upon Mr. Parker's theological principles. He finds "the absolute religion" in the principle of love to God and man. Now, it was no secret, before Mr. Parker's time, that goodness consists essentially in loving God and man. This announcement is no discovery to any one who has attentively read the New Testament. But why should Mr. Parker take an attitude of hostility to Christianity as generally understood? In answering this question we shall state what we conceive to be the fundamental errors in his system. In the first place, Mr. Parker did not firmly and consistent Discourses of Religion, p. 258. ly adhere to his theism. He not unfrequently slides into a sentimental Pantheism. Especially, in treating of the origin of sin in the race and of the nature of sin, he meets the Pantheist half-way. The degradation and superstition of mankind are held to be not so much moral-voluntary-in their origin, as they are necessary and physical; and the sin of the individual is an inevitable step and vanishing element in his progress. To one entertaining such ideas, the holiness of God could be an object of only the feeblest, most unpractical faith. The earnest conception of the moral government of God, must, of course, be wanting. Of one side of the Scriptures, and of one side of the all-sided excellence of Christ, there could be no just appreciation. Hence the abundant declamation about "a revengeful God," and the criticism of the Saviour's character, which is so repugnant to all reverential feeling, and serves only to betray the narrowness and defectiveness of the critic's own standard of moral perfection. In the second place, there was obviously little room in Mr. Parker's scheme for the feeling of personal unworthiness and sinfulness. It is amazing that a man who was more or less conversant with deep-thinking writers, like Pascal and Luther, should have taken the shallow views of the character and needs of man, which Mr. Parker cherished. He speaks of the Christian doctrine of sin in terms of derision. As a matter of course, he saw no need of redemption coming from a supernatural source. In a word, he received "the law," but not so practically and consistently as to discern with Paul that "the law worketh wrath." Hence, he supposed himself to have soared above Christianity, when, in reality, he had only learned, and imperfectly learned, its alphabet. Mr. Parker's idea of absolute religion is of no more avail to save men from their sins, than a definition of health to cure an obstinate disease. St. Paul's reply to him would be, "we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin;" "for what I would, that do I not, but what I hate, that I do."* Who can avoid discerning that the Christianity of the New Testament * Romans vii. 14, 15. |