as thing outside the present life of mind, has no attraction for him. The powers it sets in action; the thought, the love, the integrity, the reverence, the loyalty, it keeps in glowing, blissful play, - these are its worth to man. It reveals to him his nature; it glorifies his life; it makes it a joy and dignity to be. Lessing's own oft-quoted, yet still unhackneyed, words are full of this brave conviction:

"Not the truth a man has stored up, or thinks he has stored up, not this constitutes the dignity of the man, but the conscientious work he has done in getting at the truth. For it is not the possession, but the pursuit, of truth, which develops the powers. Possession breeds content, sloth, pride. Did God hold shut in His right hand all Truth, and in His left but the unquenchable thirst for Truth (although with the condition that I should ever and eternally err), and say to me, 'Choose,' - with all humility would I fall upon His left hand, and say, 'Father, give. Absolute truth is for Thee alone.'"

It is the contagion of this example, far more than any positive results he reached, which constitutes the worth of Lessing to the reader's mind. The spirit he brings to bear in all his investigations, the sense we gain of the ennobling influence on character of the devout and brave pursuit of truth, -these are what do us good. It is not clear in every case what were his own conclusions. In his "Life," by Stahr, there is too much special pleading to rope him in with some given consistent school. In the chapter especially in which is discussed Lessing's position in regard to immortality, there is an amount of "reading between the lines," of interpolating what the writer thinks ought logically to have been his thought, which leaves an unsatisfactory feeling in the mind. But, alike whether man lives but his earthly day, or is conscious heir of the eternal future, one spirit alone is to animate his life. He is to seek his reward in the blessedness of doing right, and not in any ultramundane bribe. This much is clear in Lessing's view, and this is the substance of what he urges.

The motto prefixed to the "Life of Lessing" tells the faithful story, "To go back to Lessing means to go forward." No writings are more full of that perennial life which is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever. They are instinct with the primal qualities, ever old and ever young, which animate all enduring literature. Once more we give a hearty welcome to the work, and thank Professor Evans for it. May it give an impulse to the study of Lessing's works, and bring him in as a power in our young, growing land! We need him. He will leave his life-long mark on every mind which shall give him hospitable greeting.

ART. III. - SCHENKEL'S CHARACTER OF JESUS.

The Character of Jesus Portrayed; a Biblical Essay, with an
Appendix. By Dr. DANIEL SCHENKEL, Professor of Theology,
Heidelberg. Translated from the third German Edition, with
Introduction and Notes, by W. H. FURNESS, D.D. 2 vols.
Boston: Little, Brown, & Co. 1866.

We have here not merely two volumes, but two separate
works, one by Dr. Schenkel, and one by his translator. Nor
is one by any means the echo of the other. Dr. Furness is
not, after the fashion of most editors, continually bidding you
stop just to admire this or that sentiment or argument in his
author's book. When he agrees with Dr. Schenkel, he says
nothing; but, when he disagrees, he bids you stand. And
this he does so often, that, long before the reader reaches the
end, he wonders why Dr. Furness translated a book so care-
fully, only for the sake of afterward refuting it at every step.
It certainly seems very generous. But, after all the differ-
ence, there is a great deal in common between Schenkel and
his translator. The London "Quarterly," in a recent article
on the various lives of Jesus that have recently appeared,
ascribes to Schenkel "a certain democratic twang." What
the London "Quarterly" would be apt to characterize in this
way, enemy of all progress as it is, would be very certain to
attract a man like Dr. Furness, whose life has been divided:

:

between two great enthusiasms, - one, for the redemption of the slave from his bondage; the other, to redeem the character of Jesus from the unworthy representations that have disfigured it for so many centuries. In his own life, these two enthusiasms cannot have been separated; and, in his previous works, they often touch upon each other. But in Schenkel's "Character of Jesus" he found them melted into one. In his sympathy with the common people, Schenkel finds the root of Jesus' consecration, the key of his divinest purposes. It was probably this feature of his book that attracted Dr. Furness, and induced him, in spite of much with which he did not sympathize, to undertake the task that he has performed so handsomely. If we are not mistaken, Schenkel will find this English rendering of his book more fine and crisp than the original. We can scarcely imagine a greater contrast than between the muddy current of Strauss's "New Life of Jesus," in its English form, and the transparent clearness of Dr. Furness's translation. And yet we cannot but think that Strauss's stream bears costlier freights upon its bosom, and escapes at length into a deeper sea.

But so free is Dr. Furness to differ from the author he translates, that these volumes should be carefully avoided by that class of persons whose opinions are invariably those of the last book which they have read; for they would be sure to breed confusion in their tender minds. They should, at least, wait a week or two after reading Dr. Schenkel's Essay before reading the Introduction and the Notes, so that they may accept, successively, entirely different views, and not be pained by an attempt to judge between them. But the man who thinks for himself, and tries to form his own opinions, will rejoice at such a fund of provocation as awaits him here. Upon the very threshold of the discussion, Dr. Schenkel is opposed by his translator. When and by whom the Gospels were written is the first consideration. To Schenkel it is allimportant. For the most part, Dr. Furness goes with him in his investigations. But, when the work of destruction is completed, and the Gospels have been assigned to a late period, and in but one case out of four-and then only in part, and doubtfully at that - to a disciple of Jesus, is he alarmed at the result? Not in the least. For he has a touchstone of his own by which to try the various accounts that criticism has left not one upon another, and discover whether they were ever parts of the great living temple of the Galilean's soul. The nature of this touchstone is thus indicated in the closing paragraph of the book:

"In concluding a labor which he has found full of interest, and which he trusts is to serve the truth, the translator is free to confess, that, with great respect for the learning and industry of German critics and commentators, he is struck with the fact, that these eminent and laborious scholars appear never to perceive that the records owe their existence to the reality of the facts recorded" (vol. ii. p. 359).

"They look everywhere," he says (these German critics), "but directly at the facts, to solve the secret of their having passed into history." But Dr. Furness looks "directly at the facts," and nowhere else. They are sufficient for his purposes. They bear upon their faces the proofs that they are genuine. But he cannot help seeing that there were many reasons why they should not have been reported by the immediate followers of Jesus. These men lived not in the past, but in the future. The Jesus of their meditations was not a Jesus of the past, but of the future. He was not so much a glorious memory to his disciples as a glorious hope. Nothing that he had said or done was of account, in comparison with what he would say or do when he should come again in the glory of his Father with all his holy angels. What mattered it if words and deeds were not recorded, that were so soon to be eclipsed? Why be so careful to report the beauty of a few violets and anemones that had been nipped by not un. timely frost, when, in a little while, the Messianic summer was to burst in a great tide of fragrant beauty over all the land? It was not to be expected, therefore, that these men would go about to write biographies of Jesus as soon as he was dead. If, then, these facts must be reported, who should report them? Dr. Furness's answer is original. The first records of Christianity, he suggests, were written by half-converts, half-followers of Jesus, lukewarm disciples, men of the Nicodemus sort, "neutral and uncommitted lookers-on." But, if any thing is certain, is it not that neither the Gospels as they now stand, nor the first memoranda from which they were compiled, were written by members of this class? Every line, every word of them, is written con amore. Whoever wrote them, whoever cherished the remembrances out of which they were written, must have been adoring followers of Jesus, undoubted converts to his teachings, in so far as they could understand them.

But this unique hypothesis, convenient as it would be, does not begin to be so sweeping as the principle, that "the records owe their existence to the reality of the facts recorded." But can this be allowed? Does the existence of these records imply the certainty that these events took place? Is it not possible to conceive of the genesis of these accounts from any womb but that of sober fact? Does not Dr. Furness allow, that Strauss is right in supposing that some of these accounts are mythical? If it was thought that the Messiah would do certain things, and if it was also thought that Jesus was the Messiah, was it not natural that those things that were expected of the Messiah should be ascribed to him? If part of the record can be thus accounted for, cannot another part be credited, as M. Renan supposes, to the play of highly wrought imaginations? How can the "naturalness" of any statement concerning Jesus attest its authenticity, until we know enough about him to determine what is "natural"? What is natural to one man is not natu.. ral to another. How shall we know that it was natural for Jesus to arouse the dead and rise from his own grave, until it has been proved that he did so? It certainly is not natural for other men, however good, to do such things. Dr. Furness says, "the manner in which they are told" proves that these stories are trustworthy. But, however fresh and simple and artless an account may be, if it involves the preternatural it is much easier to believe that we are dealing with a legend, notwithstanding all these traits, than that any thing so excерtional ever happened. Indeed, it is notorious that the popu