*

Olives, escort him with royal honors, and with acclamations expressive of his title of the Messiah, towards the city: many of them had been witnesses of the resurrection of Lazarus, and no doubt proclaimed, as they advanced, this extraordinary instance of power. They are met by another band advancing from the city, who receive him with equal homage, strew branches of palm, and even their garments in his way; and the Sanhedrim could not but hear within the courts of the Temple the appalling proclamation, Hosannah, blessed is the King of Israel that cometh in the name of the Lord.' Some of the Pharisees who had mingled with the multitude remonstrate with Jesus, and command him to silence what to their ears sounded like the profane, the impious adulation of his partizans. Uninterrupted, and only answering that if these were silent, the stones on which he trod would bear witness, Jesus still advances; the acclamations become yet louder; he is hailed as the Son of David, the rightful heir of David's kingdom; and the desponding Pharisees, alarmed at the complete mastery over the public mind which he appears to possess, withdraw for the present their fruitless opposition. On the declivity of the hill he pauses to behold the city at his feet, and something of that emotion, which afterwards is expressed with much greater fulness, betrays itself in a few brief and emphatic sentences, expressive of the future miserable destiny of the devoted Jerusalem.

*

Among the multitudes of Jews who assembled at the passover, there were usually many proselytes who were called Greeks (a term in Jewish language of as wide signification as that of barbarians with the Greeks, and including all who were not of Jewish descent). Some of this class, carried away by the general enthusiasm towards Jesus, expressed an anxious desire to be admitted to his presence. It is not improbable that these proselytes might be permitted to advance no further than the division in the outer court of the Gentiles, where certain palisades were erected, with inscriptions in various languages, prohibiting the entrance of all foreigners; or even if they were allowed to pass this barrier, they may have been excluded from the court of Israel into which Jesus may have passed. By the intervention of two of the apostles, their desire is made known to Jesus; who, perhaps, as he passes back through the outward court, permits them to approach. No doubt, as these proselytes shared in the general excitement towards the person of Jesus, so they shared in the general expectation of the immediate, the instantaneous commencement of the splendor, the happiness of the Messiah's kingdom. To their surprise, either in answer to or anticipating their declaration to this effect, instead of enlarging on the glory of that great event, the somewhat ambiguous language of Jesus dwells at first on his approaching fate, on the severe trial which awaits the devotion of his followers; yet on the necessity of this humiliation, this dissolution, to his final glory, and to the triumph of his beneficent

* John xii. 18,

religion. It rises at length into a devotional address to the Father to bring immediately to accomplishment all his promises, for the glorification of the Messiah. As he was yet speaking, a rolling sound was heard in the heavens, which the unbelieving part of the multitude heard only as an accidental burst of thunder; to others, however, it seemed an audible, a distinct, or, according to those who adhere to the strict letter, the articulate voice of an angel, proclaiming the divine sanction to the presage of his future glory. Jesus continues his discourse in a tone of profounder mystery, yet evidently declaring the immediate discomfiture of the prince of this world,' the adversary of the Jewish people and of the human race, his own departure from the world, and the important consequences which were to ensue from that departure. After his death, his religion was to be more attractive than during his life. I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.' Among the characteristics of the Messiah, which were deeply rooted in the general belief, was the eternity of his reign,—once revealed, he was revealed for ever; once established in their glorious, their paradisaical state, the people of God, the subjects of the kingdom, were to be liable to no change, no vicissitude. The allusion of Jesus to his departure, clashing with the notion of his perpetual presence, heightened their embarrassment; and leaving them in this state of mysterious suspense, he withdrew unperceived from the multitude, and retired again with his own chosen disciples to the village of Bethany.'-vol. i. pp. 302-304, 305-307.

These passages convey a fair idea of the way in which the gospel narrative has been reduced by Mr. Milman to the modern historic form. We miss, it is true, the simple pathos of the inspired writers, but this is no fault of the present author, who, being obliged to pre-suppose in his readers an acquaintance with the New Testament records, has naturally selected as his task, the construction of a narrative in which the "supplementary information necessary for modern readers shall be incorporated, and all the obscure hints and circumstances elucidated. That the carrying out of this idea has given even to his historical draughts a greater air of disquisition than the reader will at all times like is not improbable; it certainly has in several instances been unfavorable to condensation, but we must, at the same time, acknowledge that the light thus thrown upon the facts recorded in the gospels is often valuable, and that there are numerous passages which could be cited as specimens of Mr. Milman's well known graphic powers. But we have promised an extract of a more disquisitional character, and we will select one from the before-mentioned appendix to book i. ch. ii.

6

This appendix contains three articles: the first, on 'recent lives ' of Christ;' a second, on the Origin of the Gospels ;' and a third, on the Influence of the more imaginative incidents of the early evangelic history on the propagation and maintenance of the 'Religion.' Did our room permit, we should have preferred to

select a portion of the first article; but we must, in that case, either transgress our limits, or be guilty of destructive mutilation.* We shall therefore lay before our readers the following remarks, which occur in the second article, and were suggested by a prevailing habit of the modern German critics :

There is one point which strikes me forcibly in all these minute and elaborate arguments, raised from every word and letter of the Gospels, which prevail throughout the whole of the modern German criticism. It is, that following out their rigid juridical examination, the most extreme rationalists are (unknowingly) influenced by the theory of the strict interpretation of the evangelists. Weisse himself has drawn very ably a distinction between juridical and historical truth; that is, the sort of legal truth which we should require in a court of justice, and that which we may expect from ordinary history. But in his own investigations he appears to me constantly to lose sight of this important distinction; no cross examination in an English court of law was ever so severe as that to which every word and shade of expression in the evangelists is submitted. Now this may be just in those who admit a

The article above mentioned contains a notice of Strauss's Leben Jesu, to which we referred in a former volume of this journal, and of a subsequent work, which we have not yet seen, by Weisse, entitled, Die Evangelische Geschichte kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitte. (The Gospel-History critically and philosophically attempted.) 2 vols. Leipsic, 1838. The former of these publications has not only been repeatedly discussed in the magazines and reviews of Germany, (indeed, two reviews of it appeared in the same number of the Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Jahrg. 1836, drittes Heft, the one by Dr. Ullmann, then of Halle, now of Heidelberg, the other by Dr. J. Müller, recently appointed Prof. of Eccl. Hist. at Halle, the two articles running to the extent of 120 pages) but answers to it have been written by some of the most distinguished theologians; as Drs Neander and Tholuck. Indeed, the gospel history, as treated in the lectures of the theological professors, under the conventional name of 'Synopsis,' is one which now draws more attention, and requires greater mental effort than perhaps any other subject on which they are required to lecture. We quite agree with Mr. Milman in the remarks which he has made on Strauss's work; and approving, as he does, of the manner in which Dr. Neander has framed his reply, we also concur in his observation; that the best answer to Strauss is to show that a clear, 'consistent, and probable narrative can be formed out of that in the four gos'pels without more violence than any historian ever found necessary to har'monise four contemporary chronicles of the same events; and with a general ' accordance with the history, customs, habits, and opinions of the times, alto'gether irreconcilable with the poetic character of mythic history.' Such being our opinion, it is only justice to add, that we consider Mr. Milman has gone very far towards furnishing this answer; and the effect of his work, considered in this respect, is even heightened by the fact that he had compiled his narrative from the gospels before he had perused the work of Strauss. A few additional notes have however enabled him, without overloading his text, to dispose here and there of some particular objections of Dr. Strauss; and we consider that he has done good service in the notice which he has taken of him.

rigid verbal inspiration; but those who reject it, and consider the evangelists merely as ordinary historians, have no right to require more than ordinary historic accuracy. The evangelists were, either,

'I. Divinely inspired in their language and expressions, as well as in the facts and doctrines which they relate. On this theory the inquirer may reasonably endeavor to harmonise discrepancies; but if he fails, he must submit in devout reverence, and suppose that there is some secret way of reconciling such contradictions, which he wants acuteness or knowledge to comprehend.

'II. We may adopt a lower view of inspiration, whether of suggestion or superintendence, or even that which seems to have been generally received in the early ages, the inflexible love of truth, which being inseparable from the spirit of Christianity, would, of itself, be a sufficient guarantee for fidelity and honesty. Under any of these notions of inspiration (the definition of which word is, in fact, the real difficulty) there would be much latitude for variety of expression, of detail, of chronological arrangement. Each narrative (as the form and the language would be uninspired) would bear marks of the individual character, the local circumstances, the education, the character of the writer.

III. We may consider the evangelists as ordinary historians, credible merely in proportion to their means of obtaining accurate knowledge, their freedom from prejudice, and the abstract credibility of their statements. If, however, so considered (as is invariably the case in the German school of criticism) they should, undoubtedly, have all the privileges of ordinary historians, and indeed of historians of a singularly rude and inartificial class. They would be liable to all the mistakes into which such writers might fall; nor would trifling inaccuracies impeach the truth of their general narrative. Take, for instance, the introduction of Cyrenius, in relation to the census in the beginning of St. Luke's Gospel; in common historical inquiry, it would be concluded that the author had made a mistake as to the name, his general truth would remain unshaken, nor would any one think of building up an hypothesis on so trivial and natural an inaccuracy. But there is scarcely a work of this school without some such hypothesis. I confess that I am constantly astonished at the elaborate conclusions which are drawn from trifling discrepancies or inaccuracies in those writers from whom is exacted a precision of language, a minute and unerring knowledge of facts incident to, but by no means forming constituent parts of, their narrative, which is altogether inconsistent with the want of respect in other cases shown to their authority. The Evangelists must have been either entirely inspired, or inspired as to the material facts of their history, or altogether uninspired. In the latter, and indeed in the more moderate view of the second case, they would have a right to the ordinary latitude of honest narrators; they would, we may safely say, be read, as other historians of their inartificial and popular character always are; and so read, it would be impossible, I conceive, not to be surprised and convinced of their authenticity, by their general accordance with all the circumstances of their age, country, and personal characters.'-vol. i. pp. 127–129.

These remarks are certainly just, and as an application of the argumentum ad hominem,' perfectly convincing. We do not, however, believe that any person, who has had a fair opportunity, whether from books or personal intercourse, of becoming acquainted with their general style of reasoning, considers the German writers as a class possessed of a sound practical, logical faculty. That there are individual exceptions, we of course and cheerfully admit as who would not?-but certainly they seem, if they have any power, to have, as Jean Paul Richter said, the power of the 'air, that is, of fancy unrestrained by any law; and it is no less certain, they have used this power with equal want of scruple and reflection. The bold and presumptuous speculation' with which Mr. Milman charges Weisse, is their favorite element; and Dr. Strauss (we here, also, quote Mr. Milman) 'coolly contemplating, at the close of his work, the desolating effects of his own arguments, looking about in vain for the unsubstantial tenets which he has extirpated by his uncompromising logic, and plainly admitting, that if he has shattered to pieces the 'edifice of Christianity, it is not his fault,'* is an impersonation of the self-sufficient spirit of infidelity. But NENIKHKAΣ FAAIAAIE,' thou hast conquered, O Galilæan !' has already been the death-cry of one vain-glorious apostate; (we would that the same words might be employed by his modern follower in a better sense) and Christianity, we trust, having survived unharmed the sneers and imprecations of Voltaire, will survive' also the criticism of Dr. Strauss.'

In turning to the post-apostolic period embraced in Mr. Milman's work, we meet with many passages in which his extensive reading and philosophical acumen have poured an advantageous light. This remark applies particularly to the chapter headed 'Christianity and Orientalism,' in which he has illustrated the character of Gnosticism, and the influence of that imaginative creed on Christianity. We could willingly have quoted largely from this chapter, in which the legendary character of Simon Magus,

* Strauss's own expressions are-The result of the foregoing examination seems to be, that every thing which the Christian believes concerning his Jesus, is annihilated; all the encouragement which he derives from this belief are wrested from him; all his consolations made a prey. The exhaust'less treasury of truth and life, whence man has for eighteen centuries been nourished, seems hereby wasted; all that is most elevated, tumbled in the 'dust-God of his grace, man of his dignity to be despoiled; the connexion 'between heaven and earth to be torn asunder,' and, as though this were not enough, he coolly adds in a note-Theologians, who have got reproaches of this description in readiness for me, may here see, that I myself understand it all, and need not to have these reflections first suggested to me by them.' These remarks are, however, translated from the first edition, which differs in parts from Mr. Milman's copy.'-See vol. ii. 686, 1st edit.