STRAUSS'S LIFE OF JESUS.*

THE work above named is one of profound theological significance. It marks the age we live in, and to judge from its character and the interest it has already excited, will make an epoch in theological affairs. It is a book whose influence, for good and for evil, will not soon pass away. Taken by itself, it is the most remarkable work that has appeared in theology for the last hundred and fifty years, or since Richard Simon published his Critical History of the Old Testament; viewed in reference to its present effect, it may well be compared to Tindal's celebrated work, "Christianity as old as the Creation," to which, we are told, more than six-score replies have been made. We do not propose to give any answer to the work of Mr Strauss, or to draw a line between what we consider false and what is true; but only to give a description and brief analysis of the work itself, that the good and evil to be expected therefrom may be made evident. But before we address ourselves to this work, we must say a brief word respecting the comparative position of Germany and England in regard to Theology.

On the fourth day of July, in the year of grace one thousand seven hundred and fifty-seven, died at Halle, in Germany, Sigismund Jacob Baumgarten; a man who was deemed a great light in his time. Some thought that Theology died with him. A few, perhaps more than a few, at one time doubted his soundness in the faith, for he studied philosophy, the philosophy of Wolf, and there are always men, in pulpits and parlours, who think philosophy is curious in unnecessary matters, meddling with things

:

Das Leben Jesu, Kritisch bearbeitet, von DR David FrieDERICH STRAUSS. Tübingen 1837. 2 vols. 8vo. The Life of Jesus, critically treated, &c. Second improved edition. (1st edition, 1835; 3rd, 1839; 4th, 1842.)--[From the Christian Examiner for April, 1840.]

that are too high for the human arm to reach. Such was the case in Baumgarten's time in Halle of Saxony. Such is it now, not in Halle of Saxony, but in a great many places nearer home. But Dr Baumgarten outlived this suspicion, we are told, and avenged himself, in the most natural way, by visiting with thunders all such as differed from himself; a secret satisfaction which some young men, we are told, hope one day to enjoy. Baumgarten may be taken, perhaps, as representing the advanced post in German theology in the middle of the last century. A few words, from one of the greatest critical scholars Europe has produced, will serve to show what that post was a hundred years ago. "He attempted, by means of history and philosophy, to throw light upon theological subjects; but wholly neglecting philology and criticism, and unacquainted with the best sources of knowledge, he was unable to free religion from its corruptions. Everything that the Church taught passed with him for infallible truth. He did not take pains to inquire whether it agreed with Scripture or common sense. Devoted to the Church, he assumed its doctrines, and fortified its traditions with the show of demonstrations, as with insurmountable walls of defence. His scholars were no less prompt and positive in their decisions than their master. Every dogma of their teacher was received by them as it were a mathematical certainty, and his polemics exhibited to them the Lutheran Church in exclusive possession of the truth, and resigned all other sects covered with shame and contempt to their respective errors. Everything appeared to be so clearly exhibited and proved by him, that there seemed to be nothing left for future scholars to investigate and explain; but only to repeat and enforce in an intelligible manner the truths already acquired. Baumgarten, indeed, accounted it nothing less than high treason against his discipline, for his scholars to presume to think and examine for themselves; and acknowledged him only for his genuine disciple, who left his school, confident that, with the weapons of his instructor in his hands, he could resist the whole theological world, and overcome it without a violent struggle." Philosophy was considered as a pest,

Eichhorn, Allgemeine Bibliothek, &c.; Leip., 1793. Vol. V. pp. 16, 17. We have followed the beautiful translation in "The General Repository and Review." Cambridge, 1812. Vol. I. p. 65, seq.

and its precincts forbidden to all pious souls. Ecclesiastical history was in the service of a mystical Pietism; its real province and genuine sources were unknown. Exegetical learning was thought unnecessary, and even a foe to genuine piety; the chimeras of Buxtorf, half Jewish, half Christian, ruled with despotic sway. Langen's method of salvation was esteemed an oracle in dogmatic theology, and pietistic and fanatical notions prevailed in morals. If a man was

not satisfied with this, or showed a desire for more fundamental theological learning, it was said, "He has forsaken his first love, and wants to study his Saviour out of the world.” * Such was Germany a hundred years ago. The fate of Lawrence Schmid, the "Wertheim Translator of part of the Pentateuch, is a well-known sign of the times. A young man was accused of Socinianism, and Arianism, because he doubted the genuineness of the celebrated passage, 1 John v. 7, now abandoned by all respectable critics; he was reckoned unsound because he openly, or in secret, studied Richard Simon, Grotius, Leclerc, and Wetstein.†

Let us now turn to England. Before this time the Deists had opened their voice; Hobbes, Morgan, Collins, Chubb, Tindal, Bolingbroke, had said their say. The civil wars of England, in the century before, had awakened the the soul of the nation. Great men had risen up, and given a progress to the Protestant Reformation, such as it found in no other country of the world perhaps, unless it were in Transylvania and Holland. There had been a Taylor, Cudworth, Secker, Tillotson, Hoadly, Hare, Lardner, Foster, Whitby, Sykes, Butler, Benson, Watts,-yes, a Newton and a Locke, helping to liberalize theology. The works of Montaigne, Malebranche, Bayle, even of Spinoza, had readers in England, as well as opponents. The English theologians stood far in advance of the Germans, among whom few great names were to be reckoned after the Reformation. Take the century that ended in the year of Baumgarten's death, and you have the period of England's greatest glory in science, literature, and theology. The works which give character to the nation were written then. Most of the English theology, which * Eichhorn, 1. c. Vol. III. p. 833, seq.

+ See Semler's Lebenbeschreibung; Halle, 1781, Vol. I. p. 250, seq. et passim.

pays for the reading, was written before the middle of the last century; while in Germany few books had been written on that general theme since the sixteenth century, which are now reprinted or even read. Such was England a century ago.

What have the two countries done since? Compare Taylor's Liberty of Prophesying, the writings of Cudworth, Locke, Butler, and Tillotson, or Foster, with the writings of the men who occupy a similar relative position at this day, with the general tone of the more liberal writers of England, and what is the result? Need it be told? Theology, in the main body of English theologians, has not been stationary. It has gone back. The works of Priestley, and others like him, bear little fruit.

Now in Germany, since the death of Baumgarten, there has been a great advance. Compare the works of Neander, Bretschneider, De Wette, and F. C. Bauer, with Baumgarten, and "the great theologians" of his time, and what a change! New land has been won; old errors driven away. It is not in vain that Michaelis, Semler, Eichhorn, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Schleiermacher, have lived. Men study theology as the English once studied it, as if they were in earnest. New questions are raised; old doubts removed; some principles are fixed; and theology studied as a science, in the light of reason. But as another has said, "In the English theology there is somewhat dead, and immoveable, catholic, external, mechanical; while the industrial power of England is active, and goes ahead with giant strides, from invention to invention; while the commercial and warlike spirit of the nation 'goes storming forth, with manly and almost frantic courage, into the remotest distance, embracing the globe with its gigantic arms, and in the midst of its material concerns, pursues without wearying the interests of science, too haughty to disturb itself about the truth of religions foreign to its concerns,-Theology remains, as it were, to represent the female element in the mind of the nation, sitting at home, domestic as a snail, in the old-fashioned narrow building she has inherited from her fathers, which has been patched up a little, here and there, as necessity compelled. There she sits, anxiously fearing, in her old-womanly way, lest she shall be driven

out of doors by the spirit of enlightened Europe, which sports with heathen religions. In English theology a peace has been established between the understanding and Christianity, as between two deadly foes. Theology preserves unhurt the objective contents of the Christian religion; but in the dull understanding, it lies like a stone in the stomach." But let us now turn to the work of Mr Strauss.

It is not our aim to write a polemic against the author of the "Life of Jesus," but to describe his book, or "define his position," as the politicians are wont to say. The work in question comprises, first, an introduction, relating to the formation of "the Mythical stand-point," from which the Evangelical history is to be contemplated; second, the main work itself, which is divided into three books, relating respectively to the History of the Birth and Childhood of Jesus; his Public Life; his Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection; third, a conclusion of the whole book, or the doctrinal significance of the life of Jesus. The work forms two closely-printed volumes, and comprises about sixteen hundred pages, thus making a work nearly as large as Mr Hallam's History of Literature. It is not properly called a Life of Jesus; but a better, a more descriptive title would be, A Fundamental Criticism on the Four Gospels. In regard to learning, acuteness, and sagacious conjectures, the work resembles Niebuhr's History of Rome. Like that, it is not a history, but a criticism and collection of materials, out of which a conjectural history may be constructed. Mr Strauss, however, is not so original as Niebuhr (who yet had numerous predecessors, though they are rarely noticed), but is much more orderly and methodical. The general manner of treating the subject, and arranging the chapters, sections, and parts of the argument, indicates consummate dialectical skill; while the style is clear, the expression direct, and the author's openness in referring to his sources of information, and stating his conclusions in all their simplicity, is candid and exemplary.*

The introduction to the work is valuable to every student of the Scriptures who has sufficient sagacity to

*He professes very honestly, that he has no presuppositions. We shall touch upon this point.