Abbildungen der Seite


Recordite, “ he must, says the “Edinburgh Review," combine his creed with the proper amount of ignorance and intolerance, and must enforce it in a damnatory spirit.” And not only so; he must, if his organ truly represents him, make every difference of opinion the ground of personal animosity, and must pursue his religious opponent with undisguised malice, and even without any regard to honesty and truthfulness. One would have thought indeed that it would be sufficient to gratify the most furious zeal of religious partizans if their journal attacked the published and acknowledged sentiments of those who differed from them. And even if the journalists were not called upon to vindicate their own view by calm and legitimate argumentation, it might seem that they had done enough when they directed attention to the fact that some clergyman or layman had published a book or made a public speech denying the correctness of the Haldane theory of inspiration, or dissenting from some other doctrine of exaggerated Evangelicalism. “But the religious journalist does not content himself with this. All that appears bad to him must be made a little worse. Opinions never expressed must be ascribed to the supposed offender. If he seems to have been guilty of little, he must be assumed to be guilty of much. Words spoken, printed, acknowledged, must be distorted from their true and obviously intended meaning; garbled extracts, which would be explained by the context, must be taken as conclusive samples of a book, which may have been written avowedly to establish a proposition of directly opposite import; and if a writer assents incidentally to another, whose general opinions may be totally different, he is at once stigmatized as responsible for all that is wrong in the author whom he quotes. Nor is this all. The strictures are not confined to public and avowed authorship. The rumour of anonymous publication is taken for granted, and treated as fact. And even the materials derived from the social espionage and ill-natured gossip of provincial towns are made available for the purposes of theological detraction.'

This witness, we repeat, is true, and these allegations are supported by innumerable instances, several of the more glaring of which are duly adduced by Dr. Donaldson. The print thus characterised has long been a scandal to Christendom—a reeking nuisance in the nostrils of honest men. It is to the credit of the secular world that it has put down the .Satirist,' and it is not to the credit of the religious world that it tolerates and upholds the “Record,' and other journals which ape it. If Dr. Donaldson helps us to understand the ancient Sadducees, these papers exemplify, in the bosom of Christianity, the worst features of Pharisaism, with its hollowness, bigotry, and truculent spite, and do more to taint the breath of society than all the productions of the infidel and licentious press put together.

VOLKMAR's · Religion Jesu' (The Religion of Jesus), is as palpable a misnomer as the title of Dr. Donaldson's book. It ought to have been styled · Rationalism Sweetened,' or something of that sort. Several of the author's previous publications have been already noticed in the • Christian Spectator. The present is of a more exoteric kind. It is


addressed less ad clerum than ad populum. It gives the substance or a series of lectures, delivered by its author at Zürich, to an audience of educated lay people of both sexes, in the winter of 1855. Like Dr. Donaldson, the Zürich Theological Professor also aims to harmonize Christian orthodoxy with the conclusions of modern biblical science, meaning, thereby, the conclusions of the small and, happily, dwindling sect of the Rationalists, of which he is one of the last expiring lights. It is gratifying to find, from the subdued and apologetic tone of his book, so different from the jubilant style adopted in the heyday of the school, that the consciousness of its approaching annihilation is creeping over himself, in spite of all his efforts to the contrary. He tries everywhere to find some mezzo termine between his party and the believers in the supernatural, although his attempts almost always turn out ridiculous failures. The manner in which he deals with that cardinal Christian fact, the resurrection of the Lord, is a striking instance. He throws overboard, without a sigh, all the former Rationalistic expedients for getting rid of that stupendous miracle, with which Paul tells us Christianity stands or falls. No merely apparent death, no illusive night-vision, is to be thought of. These pet devices of the elder Rabbis are stale, and no longer satisfy the exigencies of science. How then is the stumbling-block to be rolled away? Why he actually, to prevent the resurrection, does more than the angels did to facilitate it. They removed the stone; he removes the sepulchre altogether. The grave of Joseph of Arimathea is mere poetical ornament. Jesus was really buried along with the two thieves ! But, in process of time, the love of the believers got rid of this scandal, and substituted the other account! The spiritual triumph of Jesus over death, was, in like manner, gradually transformed into a bodily resurrection!

Not until He had risen was the glorious tomb constructed, the tomb in a rock, as befits exalted persons, according to Isaiah (xxii. 16); it was first erected by the love of the first evangelist, Mark, in his loyalty to him, and in his anxiety to bring to view his glory upon earth.' The

passage, Isaiah liii. 9, was misunderstood in consequence of the same desire to glorify Jesus, as though it meant "he was with a rich man in his death. Indeed, a rich man had actually disinterred the dishonoured body of the Saviour, and removed it to the sepulchre hewn in the rock. Nay, the stone at its mouth had been rolled away, but, if we understand Dr. Volkmar, not for the purpose of allowing the Redeemer to pass, but of receiving his corpse !

But, after this sepulchre where he might rest, the glorious sepulchre for the King of Glory, had been once constructed, who that desired to exalt him, the Redeemer of souls, should have found it in his heart to injure and destroy it? Certainly none of the subsequent remodellers of the original gospel; none of the subsequent evangelists. Each one adorns it anew, and adds fresh sacredness to the corpse which had been so tortured. Luke expressly adds, that it was a holy tomb, wherein none had ever yet lain; and Matthew says the same thing, only with more brevity—“a new tomb,' “ a new linen cloth.” Yes, "a new sepulch wherein was never man yet laid,” chimes in the last evangelist (John xix, 39-41); and even the locality was fenced off; it was “a garden cnclosed." And still more highly does this loving heart honour him than with linen napkins. The atmosphere where my Lord rests must be more fragrant than that of a king's chamber, “ myrrh and alocs, about an hundred pounds weight." In accordance with these touching traits have been the honours paid to the glorious tomb of the Redeemer in Jerusalem, down to the present day. And even more free from the trammels of history has the worshipping soul become, until, at last, the old Gospels have been forgotten, and it has come to be situated within the city itself, in order to be safer from unbelieving hands, notwithstanding that Christ was crucified and buried "without the gate”—was huddled into the ground like a malefactor.'

• Who would lay hands on this holy sepulchre at Jerusalem ? It is in very deed a monument of the resurrection of Jesus. And who would not leave undisturbed the genial first beginning of this structure of love in the first Gospel, and its developement in the following Gospels. As a monument, I mcan, of this love, as a monument to the risen one. The Son of Man deserves it; he deserves all that man has which is fairest and best. Only it is not given to him by history, till after his resurrection. Even in death he was brought down to the lowest depths, and was treated as a malefactor even in the grave, whilst not one of his runaway disciples knew where they had laid him. Certain as they are that he has been exalted out of his deepest humiliation to the right hand of power, they have not a word to tell of his grave. That is what is yielded by the original account, out of the really apostolic time.'

• It is true that, looking at the matter thus, the whole evangelical narrative of the manner of the re-appearance of Jesus in that specific form must be regarded from the higher point of view of ideal history. For the rich man's tomb, the sepulchre in the rock, with the stone that closed its mouth, now needs, as a compensation for the runaway disciples, the beholding women as witnesses of the fact that “the sepulchre is empty.' And this is the hinge of the whole of the following description, which was afterwards filled up by succeeding narrators with more and more latitude and freedom. But manifold as are the ways in which they shape it, all of them express most truly the world-historical fact, the one eternal gospel of the apostles-that death and the grave are vanquished by the Risen One: the grave is empty; why seek ye the living among the dead ? Ye women especially are only too prone to have everything in a hodily shape, your dear ones, and accordingly to embrace bodily the dearest, truest, purest of all, the Redeemer. Your true womanly heart wants to bedew him with the tears of your affcction, to adorn him with all your precious things. But why seek ye the living among the dead? Why seek ye the body of him who has risen.'

"Sad stuff,' we fancy we hear the reader ejaculate. We think so too, and close the book with infinite loathing at the impiety which would represent as affectionate homage to the King of Truth, what, according to the author, must have been the lying testimony of the apostles and first Christians to the veritable resurrection of their Lord, and at the wretched sophistry by which this revolting conclusion is maintained. If this be modern science, truly ignorance is bliss, and 'tis folly to be wise.

WE ARE right glad to see a reprint of Professor Max Müller's admirable "Times review of M. Stanislas Julien's Voyages des Pelerins Boudhistes.' Budhism and Dudhist Pilgrims' is a valuable contribution to our knowledge of that puzzling system of religious atheism--for such Professor Müller demonstrates it to be—which encoils within its folds nearly or quite a fourth of the human race. It is a great advantage, moreover, to enjoy the guidance of so competent an authority as the present occupant of the chair of European


[ocr errors]


languages at Oxford, in pointing out the immense gain in our acquaintance with almost unknown regions of the earth, for which we are indebted to such early pilgrims as Hiouen-thsang, the first of the series of these Budhist travellers, edited by M. Julien. This Chinese Anacharsis, who, in the middle of the seventh century, wandered from the flowery land through Central Asia to India, 'describes part of the world which no one has explored since, and where even our modern maps contain hardly more than the ingenious conjectures of Alexander von Humboldt. What is more, his observations are minute ; his geographical, statistical, and historical remarks most accurate and trustworthy. Amongst the curious revelations thus unexpectedly brought to light, what does the reader think of a high state of civilization at that early epoch, in Tatary? Yet so it was according to the following extract from this interesting brochure of the profoundly learned German Professor, who has so happily pitched his tent amongst us on the classical banks of the Isis :

What is most important, however, in this early portion of the Chinese traveller, is the account which he gives of the high degree of civilization among the tribes of Central Asia. We had gradually accustomed ourselves to believe in an early civilization of Egypt, of Babylon, of China, of India ; but now that we find the hordes of Tatary possessing, in the seventh century, the chief arts and institutions of an advanced society, we shall soon have to drop the name of barbarians altogether. The theory of M. Oppert, who ascribes the original invention of the cuneiform letters, and a civilization anterior to that of Babylon and Nineveh, to a Turanian or Scythian race, will lose much of its apparent improbability ; for no new wave of civilization had reached these countries between the cuneiform period of their literature and history, and the time of Hiouen-thsang's visit. In the kingdom of Okini, on the western frontier of China, Hiouen-thsang found an active commerce; gold, silver, and copper coinage ; monasteries, where the chief works of Buddhism were studied, and an alphabet derived from Sanskrit. As he travelled on, he met with mines, with agriculture, including pears, plums, peaches, almonds, grapes, pomegranates, rice, and wheat. The inhabitants were dressed in silk and woollen materials. There were musicians in the chief cities, who played on the flute and the guitar. Buddhism was the prevailing religion; but there were traces of an earlier worship, the Bactrian fire-worship. The country was everywhere studied with halls, monasteries, monuments, and statues. Sumar kand formed at that early time a kind of Athens, and its manners were copied by all the tribes in the neighbourhood. Balkh, the old capital of Bactria, was still an important place on the Oxus, well fortified, and full of sacred buildings. And the details which our traveller gives of the exact circumference of the cities, the number of the inhabitants, the products of the soil, the articles of trad can leav doubt in our minds that he relates what he had heard and seen himself. A new page in the history of the world is here opened, and new ruins pointed out, which would reward the pickaxe of a Layard.'

[ocr errors]


The Fables of Gotihoid Ephraim Lessing.





When Jupiter held his marriage festival, and all the animals brought him their presents, Juno missed the sheep. "Where is the sheep lingering?' asked the goddess. Why does the sheep delay to bring us his complimentary offering?' And the dog took up the word and said, 'Be not angry, goddess! I have seen the sheep this very day; it was in great distress, and was lamenting loudly.' *And why was the sheep lamenting?' asked the goddess compassionately. "I

so miserably poor !' said the sheep. I have now neither wool nor milk ; what shall I present to Jupiter? I will rather go and beseech the shepherd to offer me up to him!' Meanwhile the smoke of the sacrificed sheep penetrated through the clouds, with the prayers of the shepherd, a sweet scent to Jupiter. And now Juno might have wept the first tear, if tears ever moistened immortal eye.

NO. XXIV.—THE GOATS. The goats besought Jupiter to give them also horns; for at first the goats had no horns. • Consider well what you ask,' said Jupiter ; * with the gift of horns another is inseparably connected, which might not be so agreeable to you.' But the goats persisted in their request, and Jupiter said, “Then have horns. And the goats received horns, and a beard ! For at first the goats were without beards. Oh, how the hateful beard vexed them! Far more than the proud horns gladdened them!

NO, XXV.-THE A swarm of bees settled in the hollow stem of a wild apple-trec. They filled it with the treasures of their honey, and the tree became so proud of it, that it despised all the other trees in comparison with itself. Then a rose-tree called out to it,' Miserable pride, founded on borrowed sweetness! Is thy fruit any the less sour on account of it? Let the honey appear in thy fruit, if thou canst; and then, indeed, man will bless thee!'


[ocr errors]



NO. XXVI.THE STAG AND THE FOX. The stag said to the fox, 'Woe to us poor weaker animals now! the lion has joined with the wolf.' • With the wolf?' said the fox. “Oh, never mind them. The lion roars, the wolf howls; and so you will often be able to save yourselves by timely flight. But if it had occurred to the powerful lion to unite with the sneaking lynx, then it might have been all over with us.'


NO. XXVII.--THE THORN-BUSH. But just tell me,' asked the willow of the thorn-bush, 'why thou art so greedy after the clothes of the passer-by? What wilt thou do

« ZurückWeiter »