philosophy of Hegel was embodied by the early Christians in their conception of Jesus? Was Teutonic science anticipated by childish simplicity? If so, we are forced upon one of two conclusions: Either the early Christians were not such credulous children as Dr Strauss represents, or Teutonic philosophy is but a child's dream after all.'1

We only add, that the method of Strauss, if rigidly applied to other records, would make all history impossible. He starts with a foregone conclusion everything consistent, or which with a little manipulation can be made consistent, with that, he retains, and all else, on one pretence or another, he rejects. He is not sparing of dogmatism, and has at his command a whole corps of reserve resources to which in times of perplexity he betakes himself. He sets forth in imposing array the whole list of discrepancies, real or imaginary, which the Gospels contain, and works wonders by the mere 'silence' of Josephus and other writers. But who does not see that on such

1 Christ and Christianity, p. 117. The section of Dr Alexander's book which deals with Strauss is the most searching, trenchant, and scathing exposure of the mythical theory which has appeared among us.

1

principles all history may be rendered mythical? With a very little ingenuity, one might, after the example of Strauss, show most conclusively that the late Danish war never occurred, but is a purely mythical thing; while yet the bleeding, panting victim lies before the eye of Europe, and the haughty conquerors swagger over their success, or quarrel about the division of the prey.

But enough has been said to show the falsity of the principle on which the work of Strauss is based, and there is the less reason to dwell upon it, that even by rationalists themselves it is now to a large extent discarded. Recently, indeed, Strauss has reissued his work in what he means to be a people's edition; but as this newest form of his production has not yet reached our hands in an English dress, we are unable to speak positively regarding it. One who is well qualified to express an opinion has said: 'He still absolves Jesus from deception, ascribing the parts of the narrative which, if historical, would involve it, to the mis

1 Examples of this may be seen in Beard's Voices of the Church, in reply to Strauss; also in The Eclipse of Faith, in the paper headed The Papal Aggression Impossible,' p. 340.

representation of the evangelists; but it is no longer invariably unconscious, though often so, and thus the mythical theory, properly so called, is at an end. Still an understanding of its nature, and of the manner in which it is to be met, was needful to a proper comprehension of the position which has been taken up by Renan, to whose view we shall now seek to devote a little attention.

1 False Christs and the True, by Dr Cairns, p. 6, note.

VII.

THE LEGENDARY THEORY OF RENA N.

THIS writer differs from Strauss in preferring the legendary to the mythical in the source of the Gospels; and instead of setting himself to the work of critical destruction alone, he has, by the aid of a vivid imagination, attempted to build up a Life of Jesus, 'which shall constitute a logical, probable, harmonious narrative throughout,' while yet all that is miraculous is unceremoniously excluded. Whether he has succeeded in this will perhaps appear as we advance; but we shall seek to make plain the method on which he proceeds, premising that many of the objections already brought against the mythical theory, especially those which have regard to the age in which Christ appeared, and the inconsistencies involved in such a treatment of the narratives, apply with as much force to the legendary. The germ of his book is