New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1866-02-01

that no WAS the Messah,-that there were no per-
sons among the disciples to whom the origin OF inc
MYTHS cculd be nscribed that the commences OF
the canonical Gospels, the prof OF which cannot
be set inside, is decisive argument against the
mythicd iheoy,that there was no sufficient IN
terval between the death of Christ and The pro-
mitigation of the miraculous nerra,ves-that the
theory is incompatible with the Character OF The
times In which Christ appeared il neither
accounts 70, tie faith of the Apostles in the rcsuT
rrrton Of Christ nor disproves the fact which was
the object Of this aiththat it is inconsistent with
the book OF Acts,-;Lat the supernatural elements
in tho life of Christ are inseparaby connected with
mainly historical circumstances, and that the ar.
biilrry and sophstical character Of tho Criticism
nppied to tho contents Of the Gospels in order To
prove them Enthusiastically is conclusive against tho
mythical theory Several other collateral consider
atoms bring TO a close the powerful series of argu-
m mis-, which present perhaps tho most fcrmdable
assault Oh the hypothesis of Strauss, which ii has
vet received from any Of lis critics.
The strictly historical and critical portions Of the
volume orc succeeded by discussion OF the nature
and function Of the Christian miTaces and OF the
ulNiuN fttoohhiHl Va 'NP! W '"N
the Pantheist. In these latter ESSAYS, the author
exhibits the same familiarity with the great philo-
sophlcal issues which are now contested iy think
ers Of different schools, as he bed previously Shown
with the critical ard pathological inquiries which
occupy so large q space in modern theological liicr
ature. lie secris equally at home in every depar' :
ment of bis subject. They nre all treated with
learning with insight, with sense aid dseFi nina
ton. His volume eyinccs rare versatility OF intri-
lcct with scholarship, less souId and jadicious
in its Tone and extensive in its attainments, than
| il is modest in its lretensions.
We believe that this is the first important work
TO which Professor Fisher las given bis name, and
it may no well, therefore, to note with some degree
of distinctness, his position us philosoI hie
theol gian.
| On the vital question, which probably involves
more pregnant consequences than any issue Of the
day. between expcIielee and iniui'i Us the basis
of belief, Professor Fisher sides with the sdvo-
Gates of intuition. In the last anal ISIS, the source
and criterion of truth must be found hot in outs1i
authority, hut in interior conviction. Tie tes'i-
monv of the SOUL not the iniimaton OF the senses,
is the ultimate foundation Of religious faith The
| Urlnldi NtTllfS VI ItliE'u h"fF III i"N'i'''"'''
root. not drawing ,hcir life from miracle, from
tradition from any outward source, but from the
di"ine Instincts OF mani higher nature. Such, con-
| teIds Professor f., is the ancient and accepted
teaching Of Christian the oogy, the view not only
of The Rclormers, but also Of ell the mediayal
writers, including even the free thinking Abclaa
The belief. for example, in tho cardinal doctrine
of The Divine Existence according to Profess r..
docs not originate IN outward traditional reaching
! IL Is not handed down from one generation 10 an
9th, Ike the facts OF history and science. 1t dors
no, rest on view of the manifestations Of God In
tie worss Of nature, or the course Of events. Nor
can IL be traced to any deductions Of experience.
Eut it is inherent in the very structure OF the
human mind. The germs OF It are present, more
or less distinctly ia tho earliest opalctloas OF into!-
iigcncc.
The origin Of religion IN ;he powerful hold which
il has had upon mankind IN Gil ages and nations,
cannot be ascribcd TO tradition merely 70 processes
of argument addressed 10 the intellect, nor even
solely 10 q perception of the marks o: design IN
Nature An effect 50 profound and universal must
be due to moro powerful cause. without p1or
belief in the supernatural, the religious Of the
ORD could not have been established. Thov4Iious
arguments for the being Of God but the different
modes In which this l.or belief seeks expression
aud confirmation. In Acia, the object OF fai;h is
more exactly conceived and defined; they serve 10
1--WE il substantial and valuable support; but its
origin is To DO ascribed 10 the inherent, indestruc-
tib!e sources Of religion In tie soul
With regard to the Christian miracles, il is the
opinion of Professor j. that IL is not their function
to prove the Divinity of Cmist. His miracles 60
not differ in kind from those ascribed 10 the prophets
of the Old Testament by them the sick were
healed and the dead revived Nothing in the
quality of the Christian miracles, nor in tho teach
ing of Christ or tho apostles. authorizes Us TO al
,ach to them this peculiar significance. The gur-
pose Of the miracles in to authenticate the divine
mission of Christ. But according to Professor f.,
they are not the exclusive, or even the forcmo,t
proof Of that fact BY themselves alone, they are
not even adequate 10 the production Of an inward
faith. Compared with the moral evidence Of the
divine origin Of Christianity, the miracles afford an
inferior species of proof Such is the rank asst g1ed
to them by Jesus himself He laugh. that apart
from miracles, there was sufficient proof Of his
divine mission to satisfy tho mind. BIT unless
there was receptive olhlosltoni hlrucies had no
convincing efficacy. Without sense of the self
evideI cling power Of truth they could notca forth
faith, could rot kindlc spiritual life under the rbs
of death. Still, Professor +. throws no doubt on
the reality of the Christian miracles, aud does not
question their importance subordinate sources Of
evidence.
In the composition Of the work, Professor shcr
,ioWs mn Tendency ia ,Xtr,uu Xeus IN my Al ,r,c.
ton. While clinging in tho main, to The accepted