recommends itself by its pleasing, and indeed artistic forms, but which breaks down in the main thing, that is, in truth. While Strauss resolves the narrative of Lazarus in St. John into a myth, he has himself given us a specimen of fancy, which will draw from all readers. an acknowledgment of his splendid power of arrangement and of drawing conclusions, but from none of anything further. He has certainly shown two points of the evangelical account which, taken historically, may seem purely impossible. But, in fact, one must first either share the prejudices of Strauss, or realize his views, at least, clearly and precisely, before we can conceive how these features of the narrative can really be a stumbling-block to any one. For, on the one hand, there must be 'such a mode of proceeding on the part of any one,—that is, of preferring to allow a friend to die when he might have saved him, in order afterwards to have the power of reviving him,' which 'in the case of a real man, even the most divinely endowed and most closely united with God, would be inhuman and revolting.' Certainly a man, as Strauss represents Jesus Christ, a Jewish rabbi, who surpassed his companions in office without specifically differing from them,-such a man could not thus have acted, but would, on the receipt of the message, have immediately started, as a sympathizing friend, to Bethany. But even with an 'embodied conception' we gain nothing; a conception that acts (we do not say this in jest, but in deepest earnest, see Leben Jesu, 475) lies beyond our understanding. But the Son of God, who was guided by what was the design and the will of His Father, in this delaying and remaining, and in this finally rising and going, could and must yield the obedience to which He felt Himself bound, according to John v. 19, 20. On the other hand, according to Strauss, the thanksgiving prayer of Jesus at the grave of Lazarus

must appear as the very unskilful one.

conduct of an actor, and that a How? Is, then, a thanksgiving

to God so destitute of every degree of inner truth, that it can be conceived only in the mouth of an actor? or, if that is not exactly to be asserted, does the loudly outspoken thanksgiving justify the degrading comparison? Our Lord has elsewhere addressed to God a thanksgiving aloud: 'I thank Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for thus it seemed good in Thy sight' (Luke x. 21). Does this come under the same judgment? or is it only the express declaration of the petitioner, that He intended to bring His offering before the ears of the assembled people, which is not otherwise justifiable and conceivable than on the stage? As if the most satisfactory light is not spread on this circumstance by the tendency of the whole work as shown in the 4th verse, that it was in fact a manifestation of the Father through the Son, and of the Son through the Father! And is this really all that Strauss has to bring forward against the historical credibility of the narrative? In fact this is all, really all! And can he really be of opinion that this will afford more than a mere counterpoise to the impression of truth, which history has brought forward in accordance with experience in the course of nearly a thousand years? A particular avowal he himself could not suppress. He has not given it in his interpretation of the narrative before us, but in a later connection: "The profundity of the fourth evangelist excites our admiration . . . it is impossible not to see his eagerness for the inward and the spiritual; but this goes hand in hand with a propensity for what is most objective, most material in form' (Leben Jesu, 595; Eng. transl. ii. 393). We take action on this asser

tion, and think we may affirm that the critic has here spoken his own judgment. In fact, this mixture so distasteful to him of the most admirable 'profundity,' with its hold on the most outward and most sensible, whence does it arise? What key gives the explanation? No other will be found than this, that the external and sensible, or, more justly expressed, the historical reality of the events depicted by the apostle, is itself the source of this so-called 'profundity.' What John saw with his eyes, heard with his ears, felt with his hands, and afterwards understood and conceived, that is it which fitted him to be the exponent of the 'spiritual gospel.' Any other way of explanation is contrary to all experience. There have always been reflective minds, and speculating overprecise people; but this profundity of St. John is no mere reflectiveness, and has nothing in common with theosophic speculation. Perhaps one has no right to hazard the conjecture, whether Strauss, after he had completed the section on the resurrection of Lazarus, was really filled with thorough confidence in the correctness of his view, or whether there did not remain in him that sting of doubt of which, as is well known, Spinoza used to make no concealment. But there is a fact which justifies us in deciding on the second alternative. He has published a polemic entitled, Die Halben und die Ganzen (The half and the whole). For the second part of it he had not the motive which stimulated him in the first. Now, as it is impossible that he can be of opinion that he can agree with his chosen opponent at so little cost as he has done here,1

1 The second half of this polemic is one of the most unimportant that Strauss has ever published; and only perhaps on the part of the wellknown writer in the Liter. Centralblatt. (1865, No. 47) could it have obtained the praise, that it was comparable to an eyesalve for the blinded. One does not hereby disagree with this theologian, that a few exegetical meanings can be drawn from it,-meanings which by no means characterize

the suspicion arises that he considers it a convenient opportunity to come back again to the history of Lazarus, and as much as possible to weaken the opinion against the justice of his view of it (strange, but not also peculiar). But what does he do? He attacks the view which his opponent has given of the family relations in Bethany. He rejects it with scorn. He calls it a 'giddiness' ('Schwindel'). That may be. He will be of opinion that he can justify this harsh expression. But how does he conclude? He concludes: 'Consequently the history of Lazarus in St. John is not to be held without "giddiness." This conclusion he can never justify. In the whole literature of theological polemics, we have hardly met with a case which is open in a similar manner to the reproach of an unwarrantable feint. That is not called voμíμws ἀθλεῖν.

his standpoint, and of which it is known all the same that they are disputed by exegetists of all views. With regard to the first point taken into consideration by Strauss, we also are convinced that apologetics have gained nothing by the Tiburtinian Inscription, and that, by acknowledging a possible double governing of Quirinus over Syria, the difficulty of the history of the taxing is not taken away. Apologetic recognises its true interest when it ignores the assured results of historical investigation, when it ignores in the case before us the irrevocable conclusion, that at the time of the birth of Jesus, under the still existing government of Herod the Great, a Roman census over Judea was an impossibility. How far we are inclined, and how little we are necessitated, to give up the real substance of St. Luke's narrative,—that is, the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, and the forced journey of Joseph and Mary to the town of David,-we hope at a future time satisfactorily to show. However, we expect from Strauss the avowal, that views of the relations of the family at Bethany can be entertained quite different from those expressed by the theologian attacked, without our being thereby necessitated to doubt the historical credibility of the narrative in the 11th chapter of the fourth Gospel. Are these combinations mere makeshifts to support the latter? Does it fall as untenable without them? With what right does any one dare to assert this? The whole conduct of the critic in the second part of his polemic gives the impression, that he is either not inclined really to agree with those whom he calls the whole,' or that he was conscious that he was unable to do so with such means as he had at his disposal.

V.

FOURTH GROUP.

THE MIRACLES OF JESUS AS PROPHECIES OF THE FUTURE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN ON EARTH.

THE form of expression which we have chosen as a title for this group, embodies the opinion that the miracles belonging to it bear a twofold character. The exposition of them must therefore also be made from a double point of view; but only one of the two views need be a convincing one. In fact, if they are intended to prophesy the future sovereignty of the kingdom of God on earth, their character must be predominantly a prophetic one. But as this prophecy is expressed by means of an action, and thus is a language of signs, the symbolical element is often (certainly not always) indispensable. Only it does not take its place here in the sense of our second group, where the earthly gift signifies the present heavenly treasure which has become attainable, but it is rather a future condition that is symbolized by the sign. A future condition. It is not the everlasting order, the regnum gloriæ as the Parousia of Jesus will restore it, which is prophetically depicted in these miracles, but more thoroughly the victorious development which the kingdom of heaven will take on earth. Still more, as these deeds of our Lord happened especially, or rather exclusively, before the eyes of the disciples, they were intended to give them, in their position as elect organs