that want of humility which is the sure indication not so much of impiety, as of ignorance and unintelligence.

10. One word is necessary in regard to the records-the documents-which will, throughout our inquiry, be used as the source from which the facts and words of our Lord's Life will be drawn.

The vital importance of this point is, of course, very clear. We must be assured of the credibility of the writers who record the personal claims of Christ before we can arrive at any trustworthy conclusion upon the meaning of those claims. We must know whether or not we can believe that Christ really spoke and acted in a certain way before we can realize or believe in the logical outcome of words and doings which are attributed to Him.

II. Now, it is obviously out of the question to recapitulate, however briefly, within our present limits, even the barest outline of those great and farreaching problems which are here suggested.

As some of you have lately been reminded,1 it is not without adequate evidence that the Church of England claims our acceptance of the Gospels as genuine historical documents. And you will readily

1 A course of addresses had recently been given upon the History and Criticism of the New Testament.

understand that that evidence is of a minute and circumstantial kind, such as could not without prejudice to its real power be treated within the limits of less than an entire series of addresses like

the present.

All therefore that can now be attempted is that I should state the general results of scholarly investigation into the historical credibility of the Gospels, as already arrived at by experts in criticism. This, and this only, you will feel is an indispensable preliminary to a candid treatment of the subject upon which we are now entering.

12. So far, then, as the most recent criticism of the Evangelistic writings is concerned, I have no apology to offer for treating them, throughout these addresses, as actual histories.

To this conclusion, it can hardly be denied, the industry of English and Continental students is gradually forcing the opinion of many who yet fail to recognize the logical outcome of such an admission.

13. With regard to the Synoptists, the case may be said to be practically beyond all serious dispute.1

1 "J'admets comme authentiques les quatre évangiles canoniques," writes M. Renan. This admission will not be forgotten by those who are yet well aware that, for very obvious reasons,

Since the beginning of the present century the text of the first three, and indeed of all the Evangelists, has been submitted to the minutest investigation. Scholars and critics of every shade of opinion have, with an instinctive sense of the great issues involved in the question of Gospel credibility, bestowed an amount of laborious research upon their task such as no mere forgeries, however skilful, could for a moment have resisted. And although it can hardly be said, even yet, that their assiduity has been crowned with success sufficient to recommend any one theory as to the actual composition of the Gospels as entirely beyond dispute; yet it is hardly too much to say that the historical reliability of the Synoptics, as genuine and authentic records of actual events, has now been fairly established.1

M. Renan adds, “Mais leur valeur historique est fort diverse.” -Vie de Jésus, Introd., p. xxxvii.

1

1 Perhaps one of the best—that is, the best suited to ordinary readers—as also one of the most recent works upon the Criticism of the Synoptics, will be found in the Encyclopædia Bri tannica (9th edition, 1879), vol. x., Art. Gospels, pp. 789–843. The article is by the hand of the Rev. E. A. Abbott, D.D., and deals exhaustively, and yet within popular compass, with the questions at issue. By examples of synoptical "harmonies,” Dr. Abbott argues in favour of a "triple tradition,” shared by the three Evangelists in varying proportions, of the actual words and works of our Lord. He places Mark at the head, chronologically, of the Synoptists; and minutely comparing the peculiarities of the

14. Turning to the Fourth Gospel, we approach the very central point of modern critical assault. You

three, he places St. Matthew's date at "the crisis immediately preceding the siege of Jerusalem," and St. Luke's at "80 A.D. at the earliest." From this internal evidence Dr. Abbott proceeds (pp. 814, sqq.) to summarize the testimony of the Church and of early Christian history generally, passing in review the evidence of (1) Paul [1 Cor. xi. 23]; (2) Peter [2 Pet. i. 17]; (3) Clement of Rome, "Epistle to Corinthians," ? 95 A.D. ; (4) Ignatius, Barnabas, Polycarp, "Shepherd" of Hermas, Papias (his evidence" negative," ," but "strongly in favour of our Gospels," p. 816), and Justin Martyr. He then arrives (p. 818) at conclusions more or less conjectural, but still such as "would enable the reader to feel additional confidence," as being "supported by the double confirmation of indirect as well as direct evidence."

Referring (p. 842) to the rivalry of the several theories in view of the possibilities of the future, Dr. Abbott aptly quotes the following words of Dr. Sanday's (Academy, Sept. 21, 1878): "It has been pointed out that there has been of late an increasing tendency in the three theories—the Tübingen or adaptation theory, the documentary or Mark theory, the oral tradition theory-to approximate to each other."

Not the least valuable portion of this article is Dr. Abbott's concise summary (p. 841) of these theories and his historical survey of the literature of the Tübingen and other criticism. The article in general is based, Dr. Abbott tells us, on the work of Holtzmann (in Schenkel's Bibel Lexicon). See also Archbishop Thompson's Introduction to the Gospels in the Speaker's Commentary (published also separately, in Word, Work, and Will, pp. 1-136); and for the whole subject, see Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, Art. Gospels, Canon, etc., and Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, and History of the N. T. Canon; also Sanday, The Gospels in the Second Century; Tischendorf, Origin of the Four Gospels (translated

will be aware, of course, that many of the most mysterious and important sayings of Christ in regard to His own Personality are only recorded by the author of the Fourth Gospel.1 So that, while it is important not to overrate this fact, it is yet very necessary to know how far the results of destructive criticism serve to show whether the Gospel of St. John is honestly believable by a candid reader.

15. Now although it can hardly be maintained that Ewald, the great Rationalist, is, in courtesy, justified in maintaining that, in view of the facts before us, "no man who does not will knowingly to choose error and to reject truth can dare to say that the

by W. L. Gage); Plumptre, Boyle Lectures, Christ and Christendom, Lect. II. pp. 29-83; Lange, Life of Christ, Parts III. to VII. pp. 119–286. A popular summary of the sceptical view of the Gospels will be found in E. Clodd's Jesus of Nazareth, pp. 223, sqq., and Note E, pp. 375, sqq.

1 Mr. Greg, indeed, turns this fact into a direct argument against the genuineness of St. John's Gospel. "The public discourses of Jesus in this Gospel turn almost exclusively upon the dignity of His own Person. . . . In the first three Gospels we have the Message; in the fourth we have nothing but the Messenger;" and therefore we cannot here be dealing with the genuine language of Jesus, but simply with a composition arising out of deep conviction of His superior nature left in the mind of the writer by the contemplation of His splendid genius and His noble and lovely character."-Creed of Christendom, vol. ii. p. 41 (4th edit.).

2 See below, Lecture VI.