AND HISTORICAL RESEARCH UPON THK NEW TESTAMENT. 181 



form we have them now, bear the stamp of the Apostles of the Lord, 

 which, from a spiritual point of view, is a matter of no little conse- 

 quence. Moreover, St. Paul preached the same Gospel, though he 

 had no asociation with the Lord or with the Twelve, and was wont 

 to speak of doctrines received by revelation as ' according to my 

 Gospel,' and so on. See Kom. ii, 16, and xvi, 25, ii Tim. ii, 8, 

 I Thess. i, 5, and other passages. What force, then, there is in the 

 words, ' If any man think himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let 

 him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the com- 

 mandments of the Lord' (i Cor. xiv, 37). May we not apply 

 them also to the things written by commandment of the Apostles 

 for the establishment of the Church in all true doctrine and 

 knowledge 1 " 



Mr. Schwartz, Jun.,said : I would strongly emphasize our author's 

 statement on page 139, that "historical and archseological research 

 can only yield probable results " as to historical statements in the New 

 Testament, and I infer that he is willing to give careful considera- 

 tion to views that differ from some of the orthodox conclusions at 

 the end of his paper. Surely there is a middle course between the 

 extreme views stated on p. 110, "that .... the whole atmosphere 

 of New Testament times are invariably correct in their reference to 

 these things (persons, places, opinions, etc.) as only writings of con- 

 temporaries could be," and "that the New Testament writings are 

 spurious." Broad Churchmen heartily endorse the central truth of 

 all, printed in large type by our author on p. 169, Jesus is "the 

 Christ, the Son of the living God," but many of the so-called central 

 truths previously enumerated appear to them to be relatively unim- 

 portant and in some cases to be accretions, the result of uncritical 

 enthusiasm. Protestants and Anglicans admit such accretions in 

 later times, without any aspersion on the bona fides of the holders 

 of such views, and I fail to see that they can fix any reasonable line 

 of demarcation. Our author's appeal to quantity of manuscripts as 

 against the historical quality of them I consider a false criticism. 

 Historians are practically unanimous about most of the accepted 

 works of Sophocles, Horace, etc., and there is not the same unanimity 

 about our Gospels, which bore no superscription at all. "According 

 to " was apparently added at a later date to differentiate various 

 accounts, and a mistake would not imply falsification by the actual 

 authors, but error on the part of Church fathers. 



