"All that is miraculous in the life of Christ, as given in the gospel, and recognized by the church, is mythical; that is, it is the natural exaggeration of a credulous and superstitious age, anxious to exalt its heroes into divinities. There was such a man, such a teacher and reformer, as Jesus, the principal natural events of whose life are probably real historical facts; but all else, all especially that is supernatural, his birth from a pure virgin, the song of the angels, the star in the East, the miracles, the resurrection, the ascension, &c., are legendary or fictitious. He was a native of Nazareth, the son of Joseph and Mary. Some exhibition of uncommon intelli gence may have given rise to the story of his sojourn in the temple, when twelve years old, though this is doubtful. He probably had some instructions from the Essenes or from the Jewish Rabbins, and intelligent persons whom he met at the feasts at Jerusalem. At about thirty years of age, he became a follower of John the Baptist, who appears to have belonged to the sect of the Essenes, and to have proclaimed the popular idea, very natural among an oppressed people, that the great national deliverer was at hand. Jesus probably remained a follower of John the Baptist much longer than the partiality of tradition would allow us to believe. At length he began to preach, at first the same doctrine with

John the Baptist, that the Messiah was about to appear. Gradually becoming conscious of his extraordinary power, the idea occurred to him that he was destined to fill that office. His conception of the Messiahship, at first probably similar to that entertained by the Jewish people, rose with his increasing experience, until, applying to himself the prophecies of the Old Testament, which speak of the Messiah as suffering, he was convinced that a violent death, which the malice of his enemies rendered probable, was a part of his mission. Having exercised the mission of a teacher and reformer of morals, he was at length put to death. He did not rise again, but the excited imagination of his followers presented his form in visions; a report spread of his resurrection, which was believed among his followers, and contributed chiefly to the success of his religion."

On this ground, Strauss and his followers ascribe no fraudulent designs either to Christ or his disciples. The whole conception of his Messianic character is attributed to the force of imagination. The myth, based upon a few fragmentary natural facts, grew, so to speak, by accretion, so that the church did not receive, but gave itself a divine Messiah. The followers of Christ, then, are in no sense impostors, but simply enthusiasts, who, finding certain things predicted

of the Messiah in the ancient prophets, imagined that they must have happened, as matters of fact, in connection with the life of Jesus.

It hence follows, that the Christian records were the gradually accumulated result of traditions, hearsays, and imaginings; and thence, that they contain a few grains of truth amid a vast accumulation of legendary fiction.

This theory, apparently ingenious as an hypothesis, and supported by minute and laborious learning, is contradicted by the facts in the case. At the best, it is a mere hypothesis. Its basis is gratuitous. Its main positions are simple historical guesses. Nay, its truth would seem to be impossible in the nature of things. On such a supposition the gospel is a production without a producer, an effect without a cause.

It is inconceivable, for example, either that the apostles, or Christ himself, with his vast intellect and serene affections, could have thus imposed upon themselves. His relations to John the Baptist, with the teachings and aims of both, are inconsistent with the supposition.

How, moreover, could the apostles, with their peculiar views and prejudices, spontaneously form and develop the idea of Christ's peculiar character and life, so far transcending any thing which had ever dawned upon their minds-so far, indeed, transcending the whole spirit of the Jewish

people? But, even supposing that they could have originated and sustained the idea, it is incredible that they should have persuaded themselves that it was actually realized in Jesus of Nazareth. Were such the case, we must conclude not only that their intellects, but that their senses, were deceived. The events to which they testify, in the most natural and deliberate way, are of the most striking and stupendous character. They happened, also, according to their own accounts, beyond their expectations, and often in opposition to their wishes. How is it credible, then, that they could have been deceived as to their occurrence? Would it be likely, for example, that sane men would imagine that they had witnessed the great events of the American revolution-the declaration of independence the battles of Lexington and Bunker's Hill- the crossing of the Delaware-the surrender of Burgoyne- the inauguration of the first president-if they had never witnessed them, above all, if these events had never occurred? Even supposing them superstitious and credulous -nay, more, looking for an American Messiah— could they be made to believe that they had found such in the illustrious Washington? that they had seen him perform the most stupendous miracles? that, after his death, he had risen from the grave, and held many conversations with them? and,

finally, at the end of forty days, had ascended, in their sight, to heaven? Above all, could any man with the calm intellect, sound heart, and generous nature of Washington, even if a religious enthusiast, be made to imagine himself the Son of God-a special divine messenger, who, possessing supernatural powers, and performing divine miracles, was first to die and then to rise again from the dead-and thus become the founder of a new religion? After having predicted his own death by violence, and his resurrection on the third day, is it likely that such a death, and, above all, such an imaginary resurrection, should become the basis of a great religious system, the most beautiful and comprehensive the world has ever seen?

After his death, "a report," says Strauss, "spread of his resurrection." Is Christianity founded upon a report? To say nothing of our Savior here, how could his apostles, who ever bore a decisive and uniform testimony to his miracles, especially the miracle of the resurrection, as the foundation of their faith, and that, too, immediately after the supposed occurrence of the events, have done so, if such events had never happened? By what strange device could they make themselves believe that these great and startling phenomena actually happened under their eyes? They testify not to opinions