278 THE EEV. W. ST. CLAIR T1SDALL_, D.D.^ ON MITHRATSM. 



sufficient to point out a resemblance between the Christian and any 

 other religion in order to prove that Christianity must of necessity 

 have borrowed it from that other religion. To assert, with a critic 

 of this stamp, is to prove ; to maintain the Divine origin of the 

 Christian scheme is to show yourself incapable of reasoning and 

 unworthy of attention. And he further assumes, and if experience 

 is to go for anything, is quite wrong in assuming, that his belief is 

 the final verdict of inquirers on the points wdth which he deals. 

 I thought the last reader of a paper before the Institute seemed 

 a little daunted by this attitude on the part of many critics. I am 

 glad that Dr. Tisdall is not afraid to say — and tc prove the truth 

 of — what he thinks. 



Before I sit down I should like to dissociate myself from the 

 remarks of my predecessor in the chair on Dr. Tisdall's reference to 

 Harnack on p. 240. But I will venture to go further than he does. 

 I really don't care what the opinion of Harnack, or any other writer 

 who may happen to be popular just now, may be on the question 

 of the authority of the Gospels. I have lived long enough to have 

 seen a whole array of theories as positively put forth as those which 

 are supposed now to hold the field, pass away like a morning cloud. 

 Strauss, Baur, Oldshausen, Tholuck, Meyer, De Wette, Lange, 

 Pfleiderer, and a host of other authorities supposed in their time to 

 be infallible, have had "their day, and ceased to be." I have read 

 a good deal on both sides of the question whether the historical 

 portions of St. Matthew or St. Mark are to be regarded as the 

 earlier, and I venture to predict that a good deal more will have to 

 be said before that difficult question can be regarded as settled. 

 And as to the idea that the facts of Christ's life and teaching have 

 been coloured by the prepossessions of those who handed them 

 down to us, I would remind you that St. Mark was to St. Peter 

 what Timothy was to St. Paul, was the cousin of St. Barnabas, and 

 despite an unfortunate misunderstanding the friend and companion 

 of St. Paul. His mother was, to use a Pauline expression, the 

 hostess of St. Peter and of the whole Church in Jerusalem. Such 

 a man got his information at first hand, and knew thoroughly well 

 what he was saying. And as a previous speaker has said, the first 

 disseminators of the Christian faith, strong in their personal know- 

 ledge of Christ and His truth, assumed a decided attitude of detach- 

 ment from the prevalent opinions of their day. They were definitely 



