Thus arose a conviction, that Jesus had risen from the dead, and the foundations of the church were laid. For, pursuing the same process of transferring to the person of Jesus facts and passages found in the Old Testament, and held to refer to the Messiah, the first believers unconsciously made out of the few facts which constituted his real history, a full, detailed, but incongruous, and, being fraught with miracle, incredible history, which, growing as it passed from mouth to mouth, was at length set down in writing, and, somewhere about the middle of the second century, took a permanent shape in one and other gospels. Christianity has thus a historical basis, and a mythical development. The gospel as now found in our evangelical narratives, was produced by the church out of a few ordinary facts-the Jewish scriptures, and the false notions of the day, by the action of the minds of disciples of Christ, familiar with those scriptures, and actuated by those notions. Whatever, according to the books of the Old Testament, they conceived the Messiah was to be and do, that the disciples ascribed to Jesus; and this they did in good faith, and even unconsciously.'

The most extraordinary thing in this piece of imagination is the last sentence. To allow trustworthiness and good faith, and unconsciousness of falsehood, to men who are alleged to have made so much out of so little, and so many wonders out of no wonder at all, may pass with the thoughtless for a piece of very good-natured candor; but the veil is too thin to conceal the real intention of the writer, as well as too inconsistent with the previous charge of fable and fabrication, to hold the theory in keeping. It was an impossibility to have played the part of the evangelists or of the apostles, under the supposed circumstances, without the perfect consciousness of an enormous mass of fabrications. It had been far better and more consistent in the sceptic, at once to have alleged imposture, and then to have attempted, at least, to account for it, by exposing the motives that might have prompted it. But it seems never to have occurred to this infidel speculator, that it was not the disciples of Jesus alone who bruited such new and strange things of him. The populace, who were not his disciples, witnessed them and wondered; and the chief priests and pharisees, who were his bitterest enemies, said, 'What do we? For this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him. And the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation,' John xi. 47, 48. This led to his apprehension. What historic ground, then, had Dr. Strauss for the whole theory-that the facts were all natural, till they were afterwards distorted into miracles by the prolific-wonderfully prolific, indeed,-imaginations of his disciples, who im

parted to it all this air of miracle in good faith, and unconsciously. There is the double absurdity of making the catastrophe, which was brought on by the selfish and political fears of the rulers, arise out of nothing extraordinary in the life of Jesus; and then of attributing good faith to the disciples, who, after his death, threw this aspect of miracle and divinity over that whole life and character, which had really exhibited nothing whatever to excite wonder, alarm, or faith. The conclusion of common sense, in both cases, must be-first, if the life of Jesus was throughout so ordinary, then why all the stir, the alarm, the conspiracy, the rulers' fears of being supplanted by him in public esteem, and their final determination, at all hazards, to effect his destruction? and secondly, if the disciples had witnessed no miracles before his death, and none in his resurrection, then the fabrication of so many afterwards, and the open assertion of them in the presence of the people and the rulers, was a piece of impudent imposture, so ir mediately supervening upon the simple facts, as not to admit of mythical solution; and so gross as not to be, in any sense or in any degree, reconcileable with the good faith which Dr. Strauss is anxious to have us believe he attributes to the disciples. But it cannot pass. The reason is too obvious why he wished to ascribe to them good faith and sincerity,-because he was well aware that the opposite charge of fabrication and imposture could not be substantiated by even the shadow of evidence; but that the contrary was the natural and necessary conclusion. And if they were sincere. and wrote in good faith, then no theory can explain the entire history of the Saviour's life, and especially the facts of his trial and execution, but that which admits miracle as the prelude to all that followed, and the only key that can introduce us to a clear and full explanation of either the public excitement, or the conduct of the rulers in the great catastrophe which they hastened.

This ruinous admission of the infidel was speedily discovered by his followers, and attempts have since been made to repair it; but if this is retracted and corrected, then follows the charge of imposture,-designed, deep-laid, crafty imposture,-against the apostles; and we may then very quietly hand over the abettors of that charge to the cross-questioning of Professor Greenleaf, whose clear, calm, and judicial reasoning will soon convince them, or at least, it ought to do so, that no court in the civilized world could listen to such a charge for a moment. An acquittal, clear and unhesitating, must be pronounced. The excellent article to which we have referred, confirms these remarks, and is amply sufficient to set aside for ever the absurd theory of this learned infidel. His abettors and followers have

been trying to patch it up, and substitute better materials, but neither do they agree together. The open charge of imposture and fable has been often made, and as often shown to be baseless and untenable. The entire facts and circumstances of the case will bear the strictest scrutiny, and evince the honour, impartiality, and competency of the witnesses to the satisfaction of every candid inquirer. Upon no other ground than the entire trustworthiness of these evangelists and disciples of Jesus, can any basis be laid for the unquestionable fact of the orign of the Christian church at that time and in that place. The historical church did then commence. The infidel may attempt to explain it by the myth-theory, or the imposture theory, but it breaks down at every stage, and the theorist has to make his way amidst the opposing and reclaiming principles of human nature. A conviction of the truth of the gospel statements just as we possess them must have originated this church. Nothing else could have done it. And how to account for that conviction upon the theory of imposture, or of myths, is the exuperabile saxum which has always recoiled upon the infidel, and always will recoil till he abandons the attempt of raising it to a firm position.

The revival, by the infidel party in Germany, of the charge of fraud is most satisfactorily disposed of by Professor Greenleaf, from whose work we shall now take a few specimens. It will be understood that he disclaims all doctrinal or theological discussion, his simple object being to give the grounds of a judicial decision upon the first and main question-the trustworthiness of the evangelic testimony.

The genuineness of these writings really admits of as little doubt, and is susceptible of as ready proof, as that of any ancient writings whatever. The rule of municipal law on this subject is familiar, and applies with equal force to all ancient writings, whether documentary or otherwise; and as it comes first in order, in the prosecution of these inquiries, it may, for the sake of more convenience be designated our first rule.

Every document apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

Now this is precisely the case with the sacred writings. They have been used in the church from time immemorial, and thus are found in the place where alone they ought to be looked for. They come to us, and challenge our reception of them as genuine writings, precisely as Domesday Book,' the Ancient Statutes of Wales,' or any other of the ancient documents which have recently been pub

lished under the British Record Commission, are received. They are found in familiar use in all the churches of Christendom, as the sacred books to which all denominations of Christians refer, as the standard of their faith. There is no pretence that they were engraved on plates of gold, and discovered in a cave, nor that they were brought from heaven by angels; but they are received as the plain narratives and writings of the men whose names they respectively bear, made public at the time they were written; and though there are some slight discrepancies among the copies subsequently made, there is no pretence that the originals were anywhere corrupted. If it be objected that the originals are lost, and that copies alone are now produced, the principles of the municipal law have also afforded a satisfactory answer. For the multiplication of copies was a public fact, in the faithfulness of which all the Christian community had an interest; and it is a rule of law, that, in matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs. Therefore it is that, in such matters, the prevailing current of assertion is resorted to as evidence, for it is to this that every member of the community is supposed to be privy. The persons, moreover, who multiplied these copies, may be regarded, in some manner, as the agents of the Christian public, for whose use and benefit the copies were made; and on the ground of the credit due to such agents, and of the public nature of the facts themselves, the copies thus made are entitled to an extraordinary degree of confidence; and, as in the case of official registers and other public books, it is not necessary that they should be confirmed and sanctioned by the ordinary tests of truth. If any ancient document concerning our public rights were lost, copies which had been as universally received and acted upon as the Four Gospels have been, would have been received in evidence in any of our courts of justice, without the slightest hesi tation. The entire text of the corpus juris civilis is received in all the courts of continental Europe, upon much weaker evidence of its genuineness; for the integrity of the sacred text has been preserved by the jealousy of opposing sects, beyond any moral possibility of corruption; while that of the Roman civil law has been preserved only by tacit consent, without the interest of any opposing school, to watch over and preserve it from alteration.'-pp. 6—9.

The learned author then proceeds to a brief historical account of the Four Evangelists, particularly exhibiting the opportunities which each enjoyed of knowing or ascertaining the facts they severally record, as well as all that is discoverable of the objects they proposed to themselves in writing their separate accounts. This part of the examination is not so full, nor so complete as it might have been. It is, however, quite sufficient for the author's purpose, though it does not contain the whole that modern criticism has discovered concerning the character

istics of each gospel, their agreements and differences, together with the best methods of explaining them.

After these biographical and historical notices we come to the criteria by which they are to be judged upon the question of their credibility.

'Such are the brief histories of the men, whose narratives we are to examine and compare; conducting the examination and weighing the testimony by the same rules and principles which govern our tribunals of justice in similar cases. These tribunals are in such cases governed by the following fundamental rules:

'In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether it is possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

'It should be observed that the subject of inquiry is matter of fact, and not of abstract mathematical truth. The latter alone is susceptible of that high degree of proof, usually termed demonstration, which excludes the possibility of error, and which therefore may reasonably be required in support of every mathematical deduction. But the proof of matters of fact rests upon moral evidence alone; by which is meant not merely that species of evidence which is employed in cases respecting moral conduct, but all the evidence which we do not obtain either from our own senses, from intuition, or from demonstration. In the ordinary affairs of life we do not require nor expect demonstrative evidence, because it is inconsistent with the nature of matters of fact, and to insist on its production were unreasonable and absurd. And it makes no difference, whether the facts to be proved relate to this life, or to the next, the nature of the evidence required being in both cases the same. The error of the sceptic consists in pretending or supposing that there is a difference in the nature of the evidence, where there is no difference in the nature of the things to be proved; and in demanding demonstrative evidence concerning things which are not susceptible of any other than moral evidence alone, and of which the utmost that can be said is, that there is no reasonable doubt of their truth.

In proceeding to weigh the evidence of any proposition of fact, the previous question to be determined is, when may it be said to be proved? The answer to this question is furnished by another rule of municipal law, which may be thus stated :—

'A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

'Proceeding further to inquire whether the facts related by the Four Evangelists are proved by competent and satisfactory evidence, we are led, first, to consider on which side lies the burden of establishing the credibility of the witnesses. On this point the municipal law furnishes a rule which is of constant application in all trials by