288 
rather than a desire for truth at whatever cost, which leads 
to a method of investigation so entirely at variance with the 
usual rules of criticism. 
21. But it must be admitted that the conclusions Mr. Arnold 
has formed in his first volume, are considerably modified in 
his second. It is impossible for the careful and diligent 
student of the Fourth Gospel, for instance, to treat it as M. 
Renan does in the Contemporary Review, except he holds a 
brief for its spuriousness, and therefore it is no matter of 
surprise to find Mr. Arnold, after a closer study of St. John 
and his critics, writing in a much more respectful tone in his 
later work. It is an important admission which is made there, 
that “if we had the original reports of the eye-witnesses, we 
should still have reports not essentially differing, probably, 
from those which ive now use.” We should, most likely, not 
have a miracle the less.”* 
22. But Mr. Arnold carrot quite give up his favourite theory. 
The Fourth Gospel has more of Jesus Christ's authentic 
sayings and doings in it than he was at first inclined to sup- 
pose. The First has met with a pretty general acceptance. 
But there was a “ preoccupation " in favour of the marvellous 
in their pages, just as, it may bo observed, in Mr. Arnold's 
pages there is a “ preoccupation " against it, which deprives 
their testimony, in the eyes of an intelligent thinker in tho 
nineteenth century, of that weight which it would unques- 
tionably possess did they only tell him that which he was 
previously inclined to believe. Since they lacked the wisdom 
to do this, they must be put peremptorily out of court, for 
“ neither his immediate followers, nor those being instructed, 
could possess " “ the pure and genuine doctrine of Jesus," so 
immured were they in the ideas of their time and in tho belief 
of the miraculous, so immeasui’ably was Jesus above tliem."t 
23. The most startling example, however, of the manner 
in which this inquiry is pursued, is certainly the passage 
in which it is argued, that the Resurrection is a myth 
which has gradually grown up. In order to prove this, 
the narrative is most strangely distorted. We are told 
that Jesus was not known by Mary Magdalene, not known 
by the two disciples going to Emmaus, not known by His 
most intimate Apostles on the Sea of Galilee. There is 
no mention of the many occasions on which he was known ; 
no reference to the manner in which on tho occasions 
specified He made Himself known ; not the most distant 
* God and the Bible, pp. 383, 384. 
+ Ibid. 
