them God is no conclusion, no creation of the Mind, which can only be conversant of the relative; it is, in short, no conclusion à posteriori, but it is produced, they maintain, in the human mind by a kind of d priori intuition of a peculiar nature; and in the Supreme Being thus revealed according to them à priori, or by intuition, they find the key to all the enigmas of the Universe. Still more, they pretend to discuss His Essence, whilst at the same time they laugh at Psychology, at the doctrine of common sense, and of the universal belief of Mankind.

Strauss undertook in 1835 a critical investigation of the New Testament, where he found the conceptions of the times, but which conclusion caused him, we believe erroneously, to infer that the foundation thereof was false. Even admitting the New Testament to constitute no real history, but only the human conceptions of surprising events expressed in analogous language, it certainly does not follow that Christ only represents Humanity in general, and did not appear as man appealing to men by means, which, though slow, have worked and continue to work their way. Therefore neither the admission of Mythic or subjective views abounding in the Gospel, according to Strauss, nor the still more decisive opinion of Feuerbach, who finds in all Theology mere Anthropomorphism, the issue of which is Worship addressed by Man to conceptions of his own creation,-so that he is somewhat like a man who should take his own image reflected in a mirror for something foreign or really objective,-nor indeed the socialistic conclusions drawn by Ruge from the adoption of such theological Liberalism, have to do with the inferences which we draw from the proofs beside Scripture. Such an admission, far from weakening the position adopted here, would, on the contrary,

greatly contribute to strengthen our conclusions relative to the inadequacy of human conception. It would not, however, weaken the positive fact of all such symbols and Mythic conceptions being based upon a Faith in God which Man attempted in vain to express adequately. Admitting of the Revelation of the Existence of God as the sole, and that Revelation which inspired Moses to have been renewed in Christ, we are at complete variance with Philosophy, and still more so with Theology. But rational proof of the Divine origin of Christianity is not to be transferred from its natural position, and made use of to prove all subsequent revelations. With us the Revelation is One; with Theology it has been renewed millions of times. But this admits of a deep line of demarcation existing between the Lord Jesus and His disciples. Therefore when we read in Scripture, that Christ rebuked them for requiring that Fire from Heaven should destroy a village that refused to receive Him; whilst we are told that he threatened with the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah the places that should refuse to receive His disciples, the cloven foot of Theology already displays itself too clearly to be mistaken;-and such Theology richly deserves the fate that awaits it.

But Theology, presented under the protection of a Whately, cannot be so readily dismissed. We shall not attempt any logical discussion with such an adver sary, being well aware of defeat. We shall merely refer to a position taken up by the learned Archbishop, which, if it be accurate, would foretell the inevitable downfall of Christianity. The remark is relative to the interpretations which might be given at later periods to the words transmitted to us as those of the Lord Jesus, but which, after having been for a time interpreted in one sense, come to be rendered in an

other, when it has appeared, on sufficient grounds, that the primary interpretation, though peremptory in appearance, does not tally with the real nature of things, but is a matter of judgment and discernment. Now, Archbishop Whately says, that to admit that the Saviour should utter in His time words which He well knew would be taken at a later period in a different sense, is blasphemy; because it is attributing a subterfuge to Him who "came into world that He might bear witness of the truth." The necessary conclusion, if that constituted blasphemy, would be that as God was well aware of the desperate struggles which the various interpretations of the words of Christ would occasion, He was, in that dispensation, purposely sowing the seeds of blasphemous explanations. The remark of Dr. Whately was elicited on the occasion of an answer addressed by that Prelate to the advocates of coercive means for extending Christianity. After giving the words of Christ, who enjoins to treat as "heathen men" those who refuse to listen to the Church, the Archbishop proceeds in the following

terms:

"The language of the Apostle Paul corresponds with his Master's, 'a man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject.' But no personal violence-no secular penalty whatever, is denounced against heretics and schismatics-'heathen men and publicans.' The whole of the New Testament breathes a spirit of earnestness indeed in the cause of Truth, and zeal against religious error, but of such a zeal as to manifest itself only in vehement and persevering persuasion.

"This, which the advocates of coercion cannot deny, they are driven to explain away, by saying that the Apostles and other early Christians were unable to

compel men to a conformity to the true faith; they abstained from the use of secular force, because (I cite the words of Augustine, a favorite authority with the Romanists as well as with many Protestants) that prophecy was not yet fulfilled, Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be learned, ye that are the judges of the Earth; serve the Lord with fear.' The rulers of the Earth, he adds, were at that time opposed to the Gospel; and therefore it was that the secular arm was not called in against the Church's enemies.

"But they might be asked in reply-if, indeed, such an argument be worth a reply,-why the Apostles had not this power? Surely their Master could have bestowed it;-He unto whom 'all power was given in Heaven and in Earth,'-He who declared that the Father was ready to send him 'more than twelve legions of angels' whose force, as it would have destroyed all idea of resistance, would at once have established his religion without any need of a resort to actual persecution. Or if for any hidden reasons the time was not yet come for conferring on his disciples that coercive power which was to be afterwards justifiably employed in his cause, we might expect that He would have given notice to them of the change of system which was to take place. But had he designed any such change, his declaration to Pilate would have been little else than an equivocation worthy of the school of the very Jesuits. Had He declared that 'His kingdom was not of this world,' meaning that though such was the case then, He meant it to be supported by secular force, or monopoly of civil rights hereafter, and consequently to become a kingdom of this world; and that his servants were not allowed to fight in his cause, with the mental reservation that they were hereafter to do so, He would have fully justified

the suspicion which was probably entertained by many of the heathen magistrates, that the Christians and their Master did, notwithstanding their professions, secretly meditate the establishment of a kingdom supported by secular force; and that though they disavowed this principle and abstained from all violent methods, this was only a mask assumed during the weakness of their infant power, which they would (according to the principle which Augustine avows) throw aside as soon as they should have obtained sufficient strength.

"But the very idea is blasphemous, of attributing such a subterfuge to Him who came into the world that He might bear witness of the truth. The immediate occasion indeed of our Lord's making this declaration to Pilate, was his desire to do away with the expectation so strongly prevailing both among Jews and Gentiles, of a temporal Messiah about to establish a triumphant kingdom; but no occasion would have led Him to make the declaration had it not been true; and it would not have been true had he meant no more than that his kingdom was spiritual, in the sense of its having dominion over the souls of men, and holding out the glories and judgments of the other world; for this was what the infidel Jews expected, and expect to this day. They look for a kingdom both of this world and also of the next; for a Messiah who shall bestow on his followers not only worldly power and splendor, but also the spiritual blessings of a future state besides. They did indeed expect the Messiah to reign over them forever in bodily person; but the main part of their expectation would have been fulfilled, had he merely founded a temporal kingdom, and delegated (as the Lord did of old, to the kings) his power to his anointed in whom his Spirit should dwell.