religion, give to the world a collection of writings (which without his intervention might have remained unknown), the object of which was to destroy faith in Revelation and undermine historical Christianity? The answer appears obvious from the considerations given above. Weary of the weakness and frivolity, the flippancy and superficiality of the assailants of the popular faith, and disgusted with the timidity, shallowness and dogmatism of its apologists in the orthodox camp, he wanted to transfer the contest, once for all, to the only ground on which it could be fought out with any hope of a definite result. Here, as everywhere, he proceeded as a Critic; and with the instinct of a critic he saw that the kernel of the controversy was historical, and that the battle must be decided by the determination of the relation of Religion and its Records. Brushing aside all shallow theories of Accommodation and the reconciling of contradictions, futile wranglings over constructions, and unfruitful refinements of the letter, he saw that the real question was whether the truth, and hence the value and authority, of revelation depends on the infallibility of its record. With the same critic's instinct he perceived that the writings which had come into his possession, however he might disagree with their conclusions on many points, handled in a vigorous and masterly way the questions which were fundamental in the whole controversy. He recognized in their author the one among all the assailants of positive religion who came nearest to his ideal of a genuine combatant; and he only wished he might soon awaken a man who should come as near to his ideal of a genuine champion of religion."

It was in the controversy kindled by the "Fragments" that Lessing's principal theological utterances were called forth. In 1768 died in Hamburg, Herman Samuel Reimarus, Professor of Oriental Languages in the Hamburg Academical Gymnasium, celebrated for his philological attainments and for acuteness and profundity in philosophy. He left a work in manuscript on which he had labored for many years, entitled, "Apology for the Rational Worshippers of God" (Apologie oder Schutzschrift für die vernünftigen Verehrer Gottes).

Lessing, taking up his residence in Hamburg at about this time, was for several years an intimate guest of the family of Reimarus, with whose daughter Eliza, a woman of remarkable endowments and rare culture, he formed a strong friendship, which continued until his death. It is probable that he received from her a copy of her father's work, and took it with him to Wolfenbütel, on receiving the appointment as librarian at this place. With this work, which had been written by its author for his "own repose of mind," and which was not intended for publication during his life-time, Lessing was profoundly impressed. He resolved to take advantage of his freedom from the censorship of the government as librarian at Wolfenbütel, and give at least portions of it to the world as one of the treasures of the library.

5

The publication commenced in 1774, under the general title of "Fragments of an Anonymous Writer" (Fragmente eines Ungenanten), with the issue of a piece on the "Toleration of Deists," in which the author maintains that the adherents of the religion of reason ought to enjoy from the State as much toleration as heathens, Jews and Turks. The persecutions which they suffer arise, he says, from the fact that the coarsest superstition is favorably regarded as after all a kind of faith by the priests and authorities, while the pursuit of knowledge excites their distrust. This was followed in 1777 by a volume of five Fragments under the general title, "Something more from the Papers of the Anonymous Writer, concerning Revelation." The titles were: "Of the Crying down of Reason in the Pulpit"; "Impossibility of a Revelation which all Men can Rationally Believe"; "The Passage of the Israelites through the Red Sea"; "That the Books of the Old Testament were not Written to Reveal a Religion"; "Concerning the History of the Resurrection." The "boldest and strongest," the Fragment, "Concerning the Purpose

5 The publication was to be delayed "until more enlightened times." And the author's wish was realized to the extent that, with the exception of the fragments published by Lessing, the whole work remained as a MS. in the libraries of Hamburg till 1851, when its publication was commenced in Friedner's Theologische Zeitschrift, by Dr. Klose.

NEW SERIES VOL XVIII

11

of Jesus and his Disciples," was reserved for the last, and published as a separate book in 1778.

Our limits will not permit anything like an analysis of the contents of these celebrated Fragments, and we must content ourselves with such a general outline of them as will exhibit the theme of Lessing's contribution to the controversy which they excited. In the Fragment on the "Impossibility of a 'Revelation," &c., the writer maintains that the historical evidence for a revelation loses weight with each succeeding age; that no one faith can be accepted by all the different races of the world on account of their diversities and their attachment to their peculiar religions; that Christianity could never have been ordained as the religion of all men, from the fact that only a comparatively small number have ever heard of it. The fifth Fragment assails the Old Testament as a revelation on the ground that it lacks the essential marks of a revelation in not containing the doctrines of the immortality of the soul and of future rewards and punishments. The fundamental thought of the last Fragment was that Christianity as it is set forth in the New Testament is an after thought of the evangelists, and does not fairly represent the spirit and intention of Christ, who stood wholly on the ground of Judaism, the secular Messianic expectations of the sensuous Hebrew. The faith which he required was not a faith in certain doctrines nor in his Divine Sonship, but only in himself as the expected Messiah or temporal king of his nation. The followers of Christ, especially the apostles, who expected to sit in his kingdom on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, were disappointed in all their hopes by his death, and were consequently compelled to change the entire system, and to teach, instead of a temporal Messiah crowned with victory, a suffering and risen Messiah, who was to return for judgment. This point of view is justified by reference to the fact that the prophecies of the Old Testament which are referred in the Gospels to a suffering Messiah, his death and resurrection, and a universal, spiritual Christianity, are grossly misapplied and distorted from their original meaning by the arbi

trary interpretations of the writers, whose " metamorphosed system" required such arbitrariness of interpretation. The stories of the resurrection and ascension are fabricated. Christ understood by the Kingdom of Heaven, whose approach he announced, nothing but the Kingdom of God in the ordinary Jewish sense the fulfilment of a long-cherished hope in the coming of an Anointed, i. e., a King, who should restore the ancient glory and dominion of the nation."

These Fragments were accompanied with observations of Lessing's own, which are probably not to be taken as expressions of his deliberate opinions, but as intended to soften the effect of the statements of Reimarus. Admitting, for example, that the Old Testament does not teach the immortality of the soul, he urges that it is illogical to conclude that therefore it does not contain a revelation. Why should a revelation be supposed to communicate absolute truth? It may be adapted to the stage of intelligence and culture of those who receive it, and so be incomplete without thereby losing its character as a revelation. Lessing makes no attempt in his remarks on the fifth Fragment to reconcile the contradictions of the Gospels in the accounts of the Resurrection. But he does not consider the inference of the Fragmentist logical. For the contradictions are not those of the actual witnesses, but only of those who report what the witnesses claim to have seen. And even if the witnesses themselves had contradicted each other as they probably did that would prove nothing, since it is impossible for any one to give at all times precisely the same account of any event whcih he has witnessed. The broad fact is that the cause which depended upon the credible evidence of these witnesses has won. Christianity has triumphed over the heathen and Jewish religions. It is there. But this is not all. Suppose, says Lessing, all the objections urged in the Fragments were proved to be wellfounded; suppose it were found necessary to give up the 6 Schwarz, Lessing als Theologe, p. 114. Stahr, Life and Works of Lessing p. 242.

7 Sämmtl. Schr. X., p. 83. Sime II., p. 193.

Bible altogether, what then? Would it be necessary to give up Christianity? The theologian might be perplexed, the Christian would remain unaffected. "What has the Christian to do with the hypotheses, the explanations, the proofs of the theologian? To him it is once for all there, the Christianity which he feels to be true, and in which he feels himself so happy. If the paralytic feels the beneficent shock of the electric spark, what does it matter to him whether Nollet, or Franklin, or neither of them is right? In short, the letter is not the spirit, and the Bible is not religion. Consequently accusations against the letter and against the Bible, are not also accusations against the spirit and against religion."8

The last passage gives the key note to the observations on the Fragments. In reply to the outcry of the guardians of the orthodox faith against the danger of publishing such bold investigations and radical criticisms of the Biblical records, he not only maintains that such criticism can work no injury to religion, whatever may be its effect on the dogmas of the church, but also that the freest investigation is the unconditioned right of every man-a right which a protestant should be the last to yield. In regard to all subjects, he contends, criticism must have unrestricted scope and application, and the Bible must come to its searching tests as well as art or the drama. For the Bible as a writing, as a record, has a literary character and a historical origin, or in other words, a human element which can only be appreciated by applying to its investigation precisely the same tests that we apply to any other writing. There is not only a great deal in the Bible which does not affect religion, but a great deal which does not help prove religion. The proof of Christianity cannot be rested on anything historical, is the proposition maintained in the little writing directed against one of the assailants of the Fragments, the Director Schumann at Hanover, and entitled "On the Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power." Hence miracles, which are of a purely historical nature as they come to us furnish no proof of the truth of Sämmtl. Schr. X., p. 14. Sime, ibid.

• Sämmtl. Schr. X., p. 39.