ten that if a
voice were really heard from heaven, it lies with man to understand it,
or, on his own authority, to declare it the voice of God or an angel. With
one-half of Christendom the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the four
Gospels never became an article of faith. It was first made so among the
Protestants to provide something incontestable in place of the councils
and the Pope. But this only drove Protestants from Scylla into Charybdis,
and landed them in inextricable difficulties, because they withdrew the
Gospels from the historical soil out of which they sprang. But we do not
escape Charybdis by steering again into Scylla, but by endeavouring to
rise above Charybdis, ay, even above the Gospels. In our human
shortsightedness we may believe that it would have been better for us had
Jesus or the apostles themselves left us something in writing. But as this
did not happen, why should we not be content with what we have? The ruins
of the true Christianity still remain; why should we not endeavour with
their help to restore the ancient temple?

Why should we contemptuously reject the tradition which arose in the
mouths of the people? Should we be worse Christians if it were clearly and
plainly demonstrated that we only possess popular traditions, out of which
we must ourselves form a conception of the career and teaching of Christ?
Is it not good for us, that we are free in many points to decide for
ourselves what Jesus was and what he taught?

And in a world in which everything develops, everything grows and changes,
why should religion alone be an exception? Do we not all freely confess
that certain precepts which are ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels are no
longer adapted to our times and to our circumstances? Does any Christian
turn his left cheek when he has been struck upon the right? Do we give our
cloak when our coat has been taken from us? Do we hold everything that we
possess in common as the first Christians did? Do we sell all that we have
and give it to the poor (Matthew xix. 21)?

It is quite true that under this method a certain personal freedom in the
interpretation of the Gospels is unavoidable, but is not this freedom at
the same time accompanied by a very important feeling of personal
responsibility, which is of the utmost significance for every religious
conviction? It cannot be denied, that this open and honest acknowledgment
of the undeniable influence of popular tradition has far-reachi