written "Urevangelium;" and finding it vain to look for the required limiting document apart from the existing literature, Wilke thought that the common source of the gospels must be one of themselves, following Storr and others in selecting for this purpose that of Mark. The selection rested on trivial ground: such as the general consideration whether the shorter should be treated as an epitome of the longer compositions, or the latter as expansions of the former. Such reasoning was necessarily inconclusive, as it might easily be turned either way, and be used for opposite inferences. Mark, instead of being the original, might be only an abridgment or epitome; and thus we are referred back to Luke and Matthew, and have to recommence the wearisome round of abstract hypotheses without any definite clue to the labyrinth, or means of probable escape. Rather than re-embark on such a sea of vague contradictory fancies, it were far better to suspend our judgment, and to acquiesce in the modest negative of Strauss, whose matured though limited inferences thus forestall and override the whole of this rank aftergrowth of conjectural criticism. In fact we pass beyond Strauss only by following out the enquiries which he initiated. All effectual criticism of the writings is inseparable from that of their contents; these contents are the only data we really possess; and the freedom and completeness of our inferences as to these are the measure of all our knowledge on the subject. If, as assumed, the contents are unhistorical, the next question is, how did the unhistorical narrative originate; what relation exists between its mythical contents and the free agency of the writers? If the relation be ascertained to be one of mere caprice, enquiry is arrested; not so if traces be discovered of a necessary and appreciable connection between the agent and the work. If from internal evidence it be made clear that in dealing with tradition the writers had a deliberate purpose, a spontaneity directed not arbitrarily and mecha

nically, but by natural and intelligible design, we are no longer wholly in the dark as to the nature of the documents, and have obtained a clue to the solution of that proverbially difficult problem, the discovery of a sure boundary between the historical and unhistorical. The problem ceases to be unmanageable so soon as we are assured that the writer had a special interest, and viewed the subject from a particular side. Our business is to ask whether in the whole or any portion of his work the author had a strictly historical intent, or whether he only adopted the narrative form for the purpose of pleading a particular cause dramatically, or of giving authoritative sanction to a leading idea; in the latter case, to weigh accurately the external influences under which he wrote, and which gave the bias from which the narrative proceeded. A close investigation of the historical circumstances of the age is of course the only means of satisfactorily conducting the enquiry. Every writer belongs to the age in which he lived, and the more intense the partialities and rivalries of cotemporary feeling, the more surely may we anticipate that traces of these partialities will appear in the literature, and that any one undertaking to write a history under such circumstances must give it a corresponding colouring. By ascertaining the writer's aim in the assortment of unhistorical materials, we first touch the ground of real history. A few circumstances often suffice to betray the prejudiced reporter, enabling us to read the secret purpose of his soul: each author thus treated offers a new departure for conjecture; and if we succeed in wresting the secret from even one of the gospel writers, we have already gained a footing of observation from which to measure surrounding objects, and to obtain data for further comparison.

General Procedure of the Tübingen School.

The name of Tübingen School has been given to a series of writers, led by the late Dr. Ferdinand Christian Baur of Tübingen, who in a thoroughly free spirit endeavoured to supply what was yet wanting for the comprehension of early Christian literature. The task undertaken was to clear up the problem left unresolved by Strauss, uncramped by the usual timidities and unworthy hesitations. Strauss took the attitude of negation which seems the condition of all new discovery. He shewed what the gospels are not;-that they are not, strictly speaking, historical;—it remained for Baur and his coadjutors to approach nearer the discovery of what they are; to disclose the peculiarities of their structure; to shew how each of the New Testament writings grew out of cotemporary circumstances, and can only be understood in reference to those circumstances; how, in short, by giving up a delusive semblance of pragmatical history, we get substantial materials for a reliable literary history. The solution of the problem was based on a wide range of study, and a variety of erudite preliminary works chiefly relating to the history of early Christian opinion. Baur's "Symbolik u. Mythologie," published in 1825, was a useful preparatory labour, implying a general acquaintance with the mind and genius of antiquity. In a controversial work against Möhler on the "Contrast of Catholicism and Protestantism" (1833), Baur is admitted to have shewn himself at least the equal of his able opponent. Various separate treatises on religious history followed; the History of Gnosticism" (1835), supplying a valuable basis for later special enquiries into the history of Christian opinion during the first centuries, treats the subject not merely in its technical, but in its broad philosophical significancy, not only as influencing the phenomena of the first centuries, but as continued through medieval

66

mystics and theosophers down to the speculative theological theorists of modern times, including Schleiermacher, Schelling, and Hegel. In 1831 appeared a work by Baur on Manicheism; in 1838 a history of the doctrine of Atonement; in 1841-43 again the important "History of the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation;" a valuable work, including a large portion of the general history of theology and philosophy; shewing their separation during the middle ages and their tendency to approximate in later times, but somewhat impaired by a dry mode of expression rendered harsh through the peculiar phraseology of Hegelianism; wearying, perhaps, and bitter to the mouth, though sweet and satisfactory when properly digested. These works, with several others, including numerous controversial papers and articles in reviews, form the strong foundation of the critical labours of Baur on early Christian literature. In the tenth volume of the Tübingen Theological Journal, p. 294, he traces himself the course of his writings and speculations on these subjects; and here it is remarkable that instead of commencing with the Gospels, as had been usual since the time of Eichhorn, he begins with the Pauline Epistles. The cause of this difference is characteristic; it was because the aim of the former course of criticism, called "abstract," was to expose the discrepancies and contradictions of Christian literature, of which the synoptical gospels afford the most striking instances; whereas the object of Baur is to restore the continuity of historical affirmation, to link the facts consistently and intelligibly together, for which a distinct understanding of the historical position of St. Paul as exhibited in his genuine writings furnished the only reliable means. The gospel problem was doubtless the most

1

<< Ursprung des Episcopats," 1838. "Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte," 1847; 2nd edition, 1858. "Epochen der Kirchlichen Geschichtschreibung," 1852.

striking and generally important; but an exact determination of the Pauline question was the necessary preliminary to its solution. A careful study of the Pauline Epistles, especially Corinthians, first convinced the author that the real relation of St. Paul to the other apostles was very different from that commonly supposed; that instead of being amicable and confidential, as described in Acts (e. g. in chap. ix. 28), it was an antagonism carried by the conservative or Judaical party to the length of setting spies upon his conduct, thwarting in every way his missionary labours, and denying his apostolic character. Further enquiry shewed that traces of this antagonism extend throughout the whole post-apostolic age, which in its general development, as well as in the peculiar tone of its literary and legendary records, was mainly influenced by it. The results appeared in the Tübingen Journal for 1831, in an essay on the "Christ" party in the Corinthian church, the legend of Peter at Rome, etc. etc., in which for the first time the Pauline and Petrine controversies of the early church were carefully determined; the conclusion. arrived at being that the "Christ" party was essentially the same as the Petrine party-consisting more especially of those who, boasting immediate affinity or proximity to Christ, denied St. Paul's apostolic character. The study of Gnosticism next confronted the author with the socalled Pastoral Letters-the Epistles to Timothy and Titus-leading him to see that writings plainly alluding to the institutions and heresies of the second century, and containing other inconsistencies and anomalies, could not be St. Paul's; and the more he dwelt on the genuine writings-namely, the four chief Epistles, Galatians, Corinthians, and Romans-the stronger became his conviction that a great distinction must be made between these and the minor letters, indeed that many or all of the latter are of doubtful authority. The treatise on the Pastoral Letters was followed by an essay on the "Object and