troubled by the fact, that the demoniac who gives occasion for this charge" is in both instances dumb"; though he immediately adds, in a parenthesis, "in the second only, blindness is added." Still, says our author, the fact is "suspicious"; he observes that "demoniacs were of many kinds," and appeared to suffer under "every variety of malady "; and asks, with great anxiety, "Why, then, should the above imputation be not once attached to the cure of another kind of demoniac, but twice to that of a dumb one ?" We candidly assure Dr. Strauss that we cannot tell; but as dumbness was quite a common manifestation of this prevalent form of insanity, as our Lord cured many demoniacs, and as such a charge was the one most readily prompted by the opinions of the people in that age and place, as a means of doing away with the effect of a wonderful action, perhaps some of our readers, who have known one or two cases of a rather odd coincidence of events in their own experience, may be able to inform him.

But this is not the only difficulty. Our Lord shows the absurdity of such an imputation, and the discourse he utters on this charge is appended by Matthew to the second occasion, to the cure of a dumb and blind demoniac; Luke reports the same discourse in connection with the cure of a demoniac, of whom it is said only that he was dumb. Hence Dr. Strauss sagaciously infers, that the legend has doubled one and the same incident. Tradition, he thinks, added new circumstances to the story, and as the old form of the legend was handed down together with the new one, "a compiler more conscientious than critical adopted both as distinct histories." Any one but a learned German critic, it is true, would simply say, that Luke describes but one of the two cases, and that one not so fully as Matthew, for he says only that the demoniac was dumb, while Matthew adds that he was blind. As the latter was an eyewitness of the affair, which Luke probably was not, this omission of a slight additional detail does not appear very extraordinary. But Dr. Strauss looks into the matter more profoundly. He finds in this apparently simple affair an important and characteristic trait of legendary or mythical influence, which he enunciates at the close of the section with great precision and earnest

ness.

"It is in the nature of traditional records, such as the three first Gospels, that one particular should be best preserved in this

narrative, another in that; so that first one, and then the other, is at disadvantage in comparison with the rest."

This proposition, says our author, has been "but too little regarded." We fear it has been, for its advantages are obvious. Whenever we have two accounts of the same set of occurences, this rule enables us to detect the mythical element in them with great facility, and to any extent. Livy and Polybius, for instance, both wrote narratives of the second Punic war; sometimes the Roman historian has the advantage, and sometimes the Greek; therefore they both compiled their accounts from tradition, and the history of Hannibal's campaign in Italy is a mere myth.

We crave pardon of our readers for a lighter strain of remark in the last few pages than may seem to be proper for the occasion and the subject. While examining only the prominent features, the general characteristics, of this infidel hypothesis, however silly and unreasonable it may appear, a regard for the topic to which it relates enables one to review it with becoming seriousness. But when we descend to particulars, to the absurd application of an absurd theory, the exhibitions of the author's elaborate folly become so ludicrous, that "to be grave exceeds all power of face." We will take refuge once more in a higher region, and in more comprehensive views.

Heroic legends and myths belong only to the infancy of society. A system of mythology properly so called, embodying the religious ideas of a people, can be created only in the faint morning twilight of civilization, and many centuries must elapse before it can acquire form and distinctness. It must be anterior even to the art of writing, for its only source is in the imaginations of bards and minstrels, in songs and ballads preserved only in the memory, liable to perpetual changes and additions, and sung at lofty banquets, or while wandering about the country, by a class of itinerants devoted to this profession alone. Men are exalted into heroes and demigods only when there is not light enough to see their true proportions. Hercules and Theseus, Numa and Egeria, Odin and Thor, are proper mythical personages, gigantic forms seen only in the mist of ignorance, fancy, and superstition, when the songs of wandering bards are the highest intellectual entertainment of a barbarous people. When the art of writing is invented or introduced, this process of formation ceases; written copies can be compared

with each other, and the additions to the poem or legend by the ever teeming fancy of the minstrels are detected and thrown out as spurious, not having the sacred stamp of antiquity. The formerly fluid elements of mythology curdle into shape, crystallize into rigid forms, and the religion of the people becomes fixed, though their poetry, recognized as such, may continue to advance. Even Homer and Hesiod did not invent their theogony; the work in great measure was done to their hands. Written copies of their poems contributed to stay the progress of invention in the national religion, and to check and control the imaginations of the bards who came after them. The mythology of the Greeks and Scandinavians, the legendary history of Rome under the kings, may be faintly traced back towards their poetical birthplaces by the light of the traditions embodied in them; but with the appearance of the first written record, authentic history begins.

And where does Dr. Strauss place his mythology, his account of the legendary and poetical formation of a new religion? Just at the close of the Augustan age of Roman literature, when civilization and refinement, in fact, had passed their culminating point, and were just beginning to decline. The fine arts had begun to give way to the more useful; laborious and faithful annalists were taking the place of the more elegant, but perhaps less trustworthy, historians; diligent observers of nature, like the elder Pliny, critics like Quintilian, ethical philosophers and dramatic poets combined, like Seneca, writers on law, antiquities, husbandry, military tactics and strategy, showed that an age of analytic and minute labor was succeeding to one of inventive genius and original and daring speculation. It was not a credulous, but a skeptical period. Law had become a complex science, and its practice was a distinct and honorable profession. Trials were held and facts investigated by shrewd and wary advocates, in a manner not unlike the sharp practice of our modern courts. The rude sounds of war were heard only on the distant frontiers, for the might of the Roman arms had long been peacefully acknowledged in the provinces and tributary kingdoms nearer the great heart of the empire. The arts, luxuries, and refinement of Rome were rapidly diffused in Judea, especially by the influence of Herod the Great, and were mingled with the indigenous elements of civilization and

learning. The priesthood and the scribes were bodies of learned and intelligent men; the luxurious and skeptical sect of the Sadducees alone opposed a strong barrier to the propagation of marvellous stories, or the rise of new superstitions. The people were fanatically attached to their ancient faith, were instructed from infancy in the Hebrew Scriptures, and looked for the august coming of their Messiah, under whom the renewed splendors of a theocratic government should far surpass even the majesty of hated Rome. Think of heroes and demigods, of heroic legends and a wholly novel species of myths, arising among such a race, and in such an age! "The idea," exclaims the honest and able historian, Dr. Arnold, "the idea of men writing mythic histories between the time of Livy and Tacitus, and of St. Paul mistaking such for realities!" It would hardly be a greater error in the opposite direction, if we were to talk of locomotives, gaslights, and cotton factories under the reign of Tiberius.

The confusion of ideas which is here exposed, the lack even of a shade of probability in the very elements of Dr. Strauss's theory, is enough to mark it as one of the most signal of all failures in speculation. There was no time for the formation of myths, always a slow process, even if the people and the age had allowed of their construction. The lowest theory of the origin of our four Gospels carries them back to the end of the second, or the beginning of the third century, and holds that they were then compiled from a primitive gospel which had long been in being. The preaching of those who had listened to the apostles themselves, who had received and studied the autograph epistles of Paul and John, who had heard the story of our Saviour's life from those who were fellow-sufferers with him, extended into the beginning of the second century. This primitive gospel, then, must have been in their hands, and could not have survived their day, if they had disclaimed it as unauthentic; for it assumed to be a record of the origin of their faith. The gospels compiled from it must have been tolerably faithful, if not complete, transcripts; for the written word admits not of such facile changes and enlargements as tradition. Where, then, is there any interval for tradition, in which to make its unconscious forgeries, and to indulge in the marvellous? How could abstract ideas simulate real events, and assume a narrative form, amid such an array of witnesses, all interested to

detect the falsity, and to keep pure the faith once delivered to the saints? In truth, the mythical hypothesis has arisen from a total misapprehension even of the theory which denies the genuineness of our present Gospels; Eichhorn's supposition is as fatal to it as the common view, that the Evangelists actually wrote the books which bear their names.

We have finished our brief view of the two most remarkable attempts, made by the most learned and skilful infidels of the present day, to account for the phenomena of the present existence of the four Gospels, and of the religion which is founded upon them, together with the mass of historical evidence in their favor, which exceeds in amount and value all the testimony that can be adduced for the authenticity of Greek and Roman history. It has been proved that these attempts are ludicrous failures, so extravagant in their first aspect, that a reasonable and judicious thinker will not waste his time in a further examination of them. Whatever may be the issue, then, of the subsequent part of the discussion, the historical inquirer must remember that these phenomena lie directly across the path of his future investigations, so that, if he declares the gospel accounts to be incredible, he must give up all confidence in outward testimony as to the fidelity of the past annals of mankind. He may try his hand, if he will, in framing a more plausible scheme for getting rid of the difficulty than that of Paulus or of Strauss; but judging from their experience, he cannot hope for much success in the undertaking.

Before we approach the abstract subject of miracles, a preliminary remark is necessary as to the effect which accounts of miraculous events, even supposing that these are impossible to be believed, should have on the general credibility of the narrator. If these accounts are interspersed in a record of other occurrences, which are in themselves thoroughly probable, are perfectly consistent with each other, and are supported to a reasonable extent by collateral testimony, and if the reputation of the narrator for veracity in all other respects is free from stain, then we affirm that his reputation is not destroyed by these accounts; and for support in this opinion we appeal to the almost unanimous judgment of historical critics. There is hardly one of the old Greek and Roman historians who does not occasionally introduce stories which are thoroughly incredible, so that no person hesitates for a moment in rejecting them. Yet he VOL. LXIII. - - No. 133.

36