in Eusebius, the facility of confounding the "avтn ʼn aλnoeia" there alluded to with the reported sentiments of Jesus or the apostles,-the inducement held out by unsatisfied curiosity, and controversial polemics to fill up the scanty outlines of what, in the absence of a fixed canon, seemed an ever unexhausted field of research,—an infinite vacuity, to be supplied out of the requirements and spiritual ingenuity of the present, it will excite no surprise to find the acts and teachings of Jesus, and still more the list of apostolic writings, continually augmented by the gratuitous interpolation of what was deemed by later belief to be their necessary and salutary consequences. But certainly the most striking example of the process of engrafting new views and discoveries on an old stock of revelation, and also of calm internal assurance of spiritual qualification for accomplishing the task, is the fourth gospel. Nowhere is the semblance of fidelity to the past so strongly contrasted with real originality and novelty. Confronted, like others,-as Papias, Irenæus, the author of Luke, etc.-with a vast multitude of incongruous writings and traditions,3 the writer seems to have felt convinced that the true gospel, though contained in these writings, was not to be identified with the literal terms of their expression; on the other hand, he felt authorised through possession of that spirit which was to "teach all things," and to "bring all things to remem 1 H. E. 3, 39. In this curious passage we have an illustration of the extreme avidity prevalent among the early Christians for precise information in regard to supervenient doubts and difficulties; e.g. the second coming, the millennium, the state of the dead, etc., etc. (see Irenæ. 1, 10); then of the overhasty, overconfident replies made to satisfy the credulous on these subjects by the "TOλλа MEYOYTES," contemned by the superior judgment and discrimination of the bishop, who however betrays by his use of the word "wpeλiola" that he was biassed in his views of "truth" by what he thought most suited to edify, and that he valued the "living voice" above the dead letter of a book chiefly because it could respond indefinitely to the curiosity of a questioner. 2 Comp. John xxi. 25, and Matt. iv. 23. Origen against Celsus. 6, 6, p. 279. 3 Αμύθητον πληθος αποκρυφων και νόθων γραφων.” Irenæ. i. 20, 1. 4 Compare ch. ii. 22; xvi. 25. brance," to undertake the task of unfolding the truth more accurately, and assuming ancient data as a basis, to treat his own speculative views as the unerring key to their obscure and figurative import. In this way he wrote what has been termed a "pneumatic gospel," carrying into his revised narrative all the intensity of the newly acquired feeling of the perfection and independence of Christianity, and treating the mass of ancient writings and traditions as a "dead body" from which the pure essence of "the word" together with "the signs" of its historical self-manifestation were still to be extracted. The plan of the work is sufficiently explained by itself, as well as its relation to the other New Testament writings. The basis of the writer's confidence is his assured possession of that spirit which is truth itself (xv. 26; xvi. 13), and which is presumed to communicate directly to man what it receives from Christ (xvi. 14). It seems at first strange that in adapting the prior materials for his work of art the evangelist should not have been startled by the obvious discrepancy of what he found and what he wrote;-that he should not have shrunk from the presumptuous thought of having discovered for the first time the true view of Christ's person and life. But his own words explain how -not half-consciously or instinctively, but with deliberate premeditation, he considered himself, whether an apostle or not, as empowered and entitled to take this freedom in virtue of the spirit continuously spread abroad in Christen 1 Ch. xiv. 26; xv. 26; xvi. 13. 2 As, for instance, in the curious application of Matthew xiii. 57, Luke iv. 24, in ch. iv. 44; and the expansion of Luke xvi. 31 into a dramatic act; xi. 43 practically exemplifying the fact that the "word" is avaσtaσıs and Śwŋ. 3 Compare xvi. 25. 4 Clem. Alex. in Euseb. H. E. vi. 14: "Tov Iwavvnv ovvidovтa óti ta σωματικά εν τοις ευαγγελίοις δεδηλωται,—πνευματι θεοφορηθεντα πνευματικον ποιησαι ευαγγελιον.” This by no means implies that the evangelist was an impostor; he does no more than he conceived himself rightfully entitled to do; no more in fact (see Baur's reply to Hase, p. 42) than the apocalyptic writer; both write ideally-one in the form of visionary anticipation, the other in a series of quasi-historical pictures. dom; and that as St. Paul maintained his claim to have seen Christ, so every partaker of Christ's "fullness" might be said to have been a witness of his "glory." Just as the writer of Ephesians (ii. 17; iii. 5) without any consciousness of self-contradiction, attributes to Jesus himself the communication of the gospel to the heathen which he immediately afterwards mentions as a truth first revealed to the apostles and prophets by the Spirit; or as in the first epistle containing so many analogies with the gospel, it is suggested that the testimony of the Spirit as to the human personality of Jesus was quite as important, or rather much more so, than any other evidence, so we are told in the gospel that the Spirit would bear future witness of Christ, and would glorify Him (xv. 26; xvi. 14); that it would bring all his sayings to remembrance (xii. 16; xiv. 26); and in the time to come communicate a far clearer revelation than before of the objective relation of the Father to the Son and to man. In these announcements we have a prophetically expressed delineation of the writer's own impressions and actual faith; nor could he entertain any misgiving as to his possession of the privilege which he extols; for the internal witness was to be the infallible property of all who in the distracting diversities of controversy and party clung to the peace and simple unity of Christ (xvii. 11, 21, 23), who loved him and kept his commandments (xiv. 21, 23). It had been elsewhere laid down that "evangelists," "pastors," and "teachers," as well as "prophets and apostles," are all missionaries of " one spirit,"2 so that all have a common object, namely, "the perfecting the work of the ministry and edifying the body of Christ, in order that all may come in unity of faith and knowledge of the Son of God, unto perfection, and be no more, as children, tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine."3 Such is the aim 1 Expressed by the word aqua. See ch. v. 6. Comp. ii. 27. of the evangelist. Without pretending to be himself the apostle whose "witness" or authority he represents, but only one of the many ("Tavres," i. 16, "we," as distinguished from the apostles-xx. 30; xxi. 24) partakers of the one spirit, he comes forward anonymously, in full reliance on the intrinsic credibility of the cause he pleads; and while indirectly admitting his glorifying narrative to be the result of later thought-expressed in the future "Soğaσe" (xvi. 14)-intimates by the word "remembrance" his firm belief in the exact correspondence of this later thought with the real history of Jesus. The Replies.-Ewald's "Life of Christ." An account of the Tübingen School should be followed by a notice of its reception, and of the criticisms passed upon the critics. But this would entail the discussion of minutiæ unsuited to a rapid sketch, as well as a wearisome and unprofitable enumeration of those evasive shifts and doublings with which we have already had occasion to become familiar. Among the number of would-be critics there are but few possessing all the necessary qualifications in combination, and whose knowledge and impartiality can be thoroughly trusted. Baur's ordinary antagonists may be placed under three heads: whiners, mystifiers, and arguers. Hase sentimentalises; Ewald wraps his virtue in an obscurity of inflated verbiage; Hilgenfeld, though claiming an independent position, is really the most active present representative of the School, pleading only for a few more or less important modifications; Volkmar, after rectifying the hypothetical relation of Marcion's gospel to Luke's, seems to have embarked on a precarious voyage of conjecture; Bleek takes the orthodox side upon certain disputable points, and is generally a fair opponent. Yet surely it is no fair statement of the subject when placing himself at the point of view of the mere Biblicist, he asserts that Baur's criticism is merely negative and destructive; that, after pleading for the unhistorical character of the fourth gospel on the ground of the reliability of the others, he immediately proceeds to reduce the latter to the same low level of uncertainty; as if, forsooth, there were no certainty but pragmatical certainty; as if Baur, when resigning the literal veracity of all the gospels, had not at the same time admitted a higher degree of historical fidelity in the synoptics.-Generally speaking, the Tübingen criticism has stood its ground, and may be said to be alive and thriving, although its ill wishers make a pretence of celebrating its obsequies, and erecting a cenotaph to its memory. The method, initiated by Baur, of interpreting the New Testament writings as records of the development of early Christian opinion, is proved, says Dr. Hilgenfeld," to be the only correct one. The antagonism between a liberal and an anti-liberal party, and the various attempts to mediate and build up catholic unity out of elements of conflict, supply the true hypothetical key to the historical comprehension of the New Testament; in particular the objection to the fourth gospel derived from its relation to the Passover controversy of the second century, has been successfully maintained.3 Of course, the main aim of apologists has been to reinstate the tottering authority of this gospel. Bleek's argument is perhaps the most noticeable effort of the kind. He asserts the superior credibility of the gospel in its chief points of variance, in regard, for instance, to the early journeys to Jerusalem, and the day of the crucifixion. In regard to the former he urges-1st, That it is in itself unlikely that Jesus should not have gone to Jerusalem before the last Passover; 2ndly, That the words of Matt. xxiii. 37, and Luke xiii. 34, must be understood in their literal sense as implying earlier jour 1 Synoptische Erklärung, p. 15. 4 Einleitung, N. T., p. 178 seq. 3 Ibid., p. 170. |