a nervous constitution," which probably kept him subject to convulsions, or perhaps epileptic fits! Only Strauss forgets that the visions and revelations of which Paul speaks (2 Cor. xii. 1 et ss.) belong only to his Christian life, and not to his career as a Jew and a Pharisee, which closed with that first and greatest vision of Christ before Damascus.

It is evident, then, that the clear and certain meaning of that testimony points to an actual outward appearance of Christ. Nevertheless, it was merely an inward occurrence, and St. Paul must have deceived himself, since, with regard to visions in general, he was not sober and dependable enough; indeed, we may almost say, not a responsible agent. Another, too, of Strauss' manoeuvres is worthy of notice, viz. the way in which he changes what St. Paul evidently considers an incontestable objective fact (1 Cor. xv. 3 ff.) into the tradition of a subjective belief that the Lord had been seen, and that merely because St. Paul does not enumerate the reasons which induced the disciples to consider this appearance as something objective. Does Strauss think that the apostle in this short sketch ought to have made provision for the doubts of every future sceptic? Surely the absence of all such reasons rather tends to show that the disciples had so little doubt as to the reality of Christ's appearance, that it never occurred to them to give further reasons for their belief in what they had seen and experienced.

Having by coups de force such as these endeavoured to give colour to his supposition that the vision of Christ before Damascus was merely inward, Strauss proceeds from this to draw "regressive conclusions as to the origin of the belief in Christ's resurrection." The appearances of Christ to the elder disciples were of intrinsically the same character. "They, too, were merely internal events, which might easily appear to the persons concerned as outward and sensuous perceptions, but by us must be comprehended as inward facts resulting from an excitement of the emotional life, i.e. as visions" (p. 304). "The endeavour of the disciples after the death of Christ must have been to include the attribute of vicarious suffering, of violent but expiatory death, in their conception of the Messiah." Such a death which was undergone for all, could only be the entrance into the Messianic glory—a transition to a new and

higher life. And did not the Old Testament contain prophecies of the Holy One whom God would not suffer to see corruption,―of the Servant of God who should be taken away out of the land of the living, and yet see long life? But "from the Jewish standpoint, the soul without the body is a mere shadow" (p. 307). How else, therefore, could they imagine the soul of Christ to be exalted to His Father in heaven otherwise than by the reviving of His body? Hence their notion of His resurrection.

Some of the narratives about the appearance of the risen Christ may well make us "conjecture that the excitement of the disciples after the sudden death of Jesus, and their imagination which was constantly employed in renewing his picture, caused them to see a reappearance of their Master in any unknown person who met them under enigmatical circumstances, and made a special impression upon them" (p. 308). How is it that other mourners, whose imagination is also much occupied with the picture of their dear and suddenly departed ones, do not often suffer under a similar deception ? But even Strauss remarks of the first occasions on which Christ appeared to single individuals, that "it is scarce likely that they were of this description." How were they? 'The expression of Mark, that he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven devils, gives much food for thought. With a woman thus constituted in mind and body, there was no great step between inward excitement and a vision." The case of Paul and the (legendary) vision of Peter (Acts x.), show us that mental conditions of this kind were not rare even in the case of men of that period, and of simple culture. We may therefore well "suppose that during the days which followed the death of Jesus, there was among his followers a general frame of mind, an intensification of the emotional and nervous life, which would compensate for any want of disposition on the part of an individual" (p. 309). But how can we conceive that the belief in the resurrection should have arisen so early as the third day? Does not the mental revulsion from which the visions of Christ are supposed to have proceeded, need a longer space of time for its development? Certainly; but Paul only says that Jesus rose on the third day, not that he appeared at the same time (pp. 310, 311).

We must therefore suppose the matter to have taken place thus: "After the crucifixion of Jesus, his disciples, in their first panic, fled back to their homes in Galilee. There, in the regions which they had so often traversed with him, they were constantly aroused to recall anew his picture. The longer period which in this way elapsed would give time for the revolution in the feelings of the disciples" (pp. 315, 316). And here, then, the visions took place. True, this is contradicted by the Gospels, which all mention the first appearances of the risen Saviour as taking place in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood; and even Matthew, who tells of the angel commanding the disciples to come into Galilee, immediately afterwards relates how Jesus appeared to women from Jerusalem. But there never was a thing so utterly superfluous as this first appearance of Christ in Matthew; it is a later interpolation into the narrative on which Matthew founded his story of the resurrection" (p. 314). For it was not until afterwards that the manifestation of the resurrection was transferred to Jerusalem and the third day, in order that "death might only have a short-lived power over the crucified Messiah" (p. 316).

This is the view of Strauss. He uses the same violence towards the records in carrying through his hypothesis as in making way for it. What he really offers as an explanation of the belief in the resurrection, amounts merely to powerful imagination, excitement of the nervous life, intensified emotions, and visions resulting therefrom.

For a historical demonstration of the actuality of Christ's resurrection, Strauss demands a double proof: first, it must be shown that the direct testimonies to the reality of this fact should meet all the requirements of historical testimonies; second, it must be proved that without the occurrence in question, other events which are historically certain could not have taken place.1 Well, we think that these two things may be proved: the historical credibility of our testimonies, and the impossibility of explaining certain indubitable facts, such as the belief of the disciples in Christ's resurrection; the sudden revolution in their consciousness, their preaching, and the Church thereby gathered and founded on this belief; but 1 Die Halben u. die Ganzen, p. 125; cf. Leben Jesu, p. 289.

especially the sudden conversion of St. Paul,-without having recourse to the resurrection as a fact, and not a mere vision. We will now proceed to consider the historical testimonies,first, that of the Gospels, then that of St. Paul (especially his vision of Christ before Damascus),-and we shall see whether the enemies of these records are right, or whether their credibility fulfils the first half of Strauss' demand.

II.—THE HISTORICAL TESTIMONIES.

Strauss demands that these should be direct testimonies, proceeding from eye-witnesses. Now, according to his presuppositions, the only book of the New Testament which could possibly have proceeded from an apostle is the Revelation of St. John; and this book, he says, "does not go beyond the general belief that Jesus had been killed, and was now alive again and immortal" (p. 289). Is this correct? The contradiction which this proposition contains shows how untenable such an interpretation of the passages in question must be. For only that can live again which was before dead; but this was not the case with the immortal spirit of Christ, only with His body. If, then, the Book of Revelation teach that Christ is living again, it witnesses to His resurrection. But it does so even directly. In chap. i. 5, Christ is called "the Firstbegotten of the dead." This certainly cannot mean the first of those who lived immortal after death, for there were enough such before Christ; it must mean the first among the dead who again came to life, and who, because He had broken the power of death, has become the source of new life for all who have died, ie. the first risen One, who is the resurrection and the life for all others. In the same manner, chap. ii. 8—" which was dead and lived” (ëÇŋoev)—mentions both, dying and coming to life, equally as historical facts, and must be understood in the same way. What our Lord says in i. 18, "I have the keys of hell and of death," i.e. power over death and the kingdom of the dead, would not be fully true if a part of Christ, viz. His body, had remained in the bondage of death. Here, then, we have (especially in ii. 8) an historical testimony from an apostle for the resurrection of Christ's body, which can be overlooked only by a most superficial exegesis.

Strauss will not acknowledge the Gospels as direct testimonies, because none of them was written by an apostle or eye-witness of the life of Christ. But we have already seen that even the most negative critics in our day grant that they belong to the apostolic age, when there must at least have been many such eye-witnesses living. Moreover, it should be borne in mind that the Gospel of St. John declares itself to have been written by an eye-witness (xix. 35, xxi. 24), and would therefore, if genuine, abundantly fulfil Strauss' first postulate. But its genuineness is maintained even by such critics as Schleiermacher, Credner, Lachmann, Ewald, Hase, and Ritschl, to say nothing of more orthodox men, such as Gaussen, Hengstenberg, Tischendorf, Riggenbach, Oosterzee, and many others. Time and space would fail us to go into this question here. Only to one thing I would draw your attention. Notice the extraordinary vividness in St. John's narrative of the resurrection, and see how, in a multitude of minute and delicate details, it bears the impress of personal experience (e.g. the way in which Peter and John go together to the grave; the description of the interior; the bearing of Mary Magdalene, etc.). None but an eye-witness can have described the event with such original freshness and vividness. In fact, their exactness in isolated details speaks strongly for the authenticity of these narratives; the more so, the more numerous the appearances which they relate as vouchsafed to different persons, and under different circumstances.

Here Strauss (like his predecessor, the author of the Wolfenbüttel Fragments) meets us with a second objection, viz. the variations and contradictions in the narratives of the resurrection. We will not deny that there may be certain differences and inexactnesses of statement in the gospel accounts. But are these really important and irreconcilable contradictions, casting suspicion on the great fact itself? Let us see.

Even in the succession of Christ's appearances there are supposed to be serious differences. According to Mark xvi. 9, He appears first to Mary Magdalene; according to Matt. xxviii. 9, to her and the "other Mary" together; and according to St. Paul's account in 1 Cor. xv. 5, to Cephas (Peter). But does any one of these pledge himself to relate all the appearances of the risen Saviour? Strauss himself confesses that this is