virtues ought to be combined so as to form a perfect character. Yet the delineators of the portraiture of the Jesus of the Evangelists must on this point have been unanimous. No trait of discord can be found throughout it.

If then it was the delineation of many minds (and it cannot have been otherwise, if the legendary theory be true) it is evident that they must have all concurred in working out one common conception.

I have thus adduced a few examples of the unity of conception which underlies the whole structure of the Gospels. It would be easy to multiply them indefinitely. I contend that their existence is utterly inconsistent with any theory of the origin of the Gospels, which assumes that a large portion of their contents consists of legends which were gradually evolved during the first century, and afterwards mistaken for historical realities; and that the only theory consistent with the fact that the portraiture of Jesus is harmonious throughout is, that it is a copy of an historical reality.

The suggestion that the great character of the Gospels, one which is more perfect than the greatest of all ideal conceptions, can have originated in the agglomeration of a mass of legends, the creation of a multitude of minds, is as much opposed to our reason, as the supposition that an exquisite work of art can have been produced by any mere juxtaposition of the parts which compose it. We also know as a matter of fact that the moral ideal of a society in which the mythic spirit predominates is low. In proof of this may be quoted the whole mass of legendary literature. Such literature is invariably stamped with the moral impress of its inventors. What the legendary spirit was capable of perpetrating in Christianity, we have the means of verifying for ourselves by perusing the apocryphal Gospels, two of which in all probability date not later than the first half of the second century. These are just what we should expect that such productions would be. Their miraculous narratives are stamped with a low moral ideal. Our blessed Lord

Himself is depicted in them not unfrequently as a mischievous boy, armed with superhuman power, which he exerts with the utmost capriciousness. I do not think that they contain an account of a single dignified miracle, although the miraculous stories are numerous; they are all distinguished by every possible contrast from those recorded in the Canonical Gospels. It is simply incredible that the same spirit which has created the contents of the apocryphal Gospels, could have evolved those of the Canonical ones, or vice versa. The interval which separates the one from the other is enormous.*

It may perhaps be objected that a large amount of legendary matter was in existence when the Gospels were

* We cannot be too grateful for the preservation of these eighteen collections of myths and legends which still remain, and are inaccurately designated Gospels. It is deeply to be regretted that we are not now in possession of the entire body of apocryphal literature which is known to have been in existence during the early ages of Christianity. It would have made our means of instituting a comparison between it and the Canonical Gospels more perfect and thorough. If these Gospels have perished through the indiscreet zeal of friends to the Christian cause, it proves that nothing is more injurious than zeal undirected by discretion. Such as have been preserved, however, enable us to ascertain, not merely as a matter of theory, but of fact, what was the kind of creations effected by the legendary spirit, when it exerted itself on subjects connected with the history of the Founder of Christianity. Every person who wishes to form a definite opinion on this subject should carefully peruse these eighteen productions. I feel confident that whoever will do so, will rise from the perusal with deep conviction of the vastness of the interval which separates legendary from historical Christianity. The following will be found to be an accurate description of the contrast between these collections of legends and our Canonical Gospels. I quote a passage from the Jesus of the Evangelists, in which I have endeavoured to convey to the minds of those who have not read them a correct idea of this contrast: "Our Gospels present us with the picture of a glorious Christ; the mythic Gospels with that of a contemptible one. Our Gospels have invested Him with the highest conceivable form of greatness; the mythic ones have not ascribed to Him one action which is elevated. In our Gospels, He exhibits a

composed, and that their authors have incorporated only the more dignified portions into their narratives, and thereby consigned the rubbish to oblivion. I reply that this theory contradicts all known facts.

First, it is contrary to experience that the legendary spirit has ever invented anything of the elevated moral type such as that of the miraculous narratives, and the discourses found inseparably united with them in the Gospels.

Secondly it is incredible that several writers, nurtured in the midst of such a spirit, should have concurred in selecting all the elevated ones, and rejecting all of a contrary character.*

superhuman wisdom; in the mythic ones, an almost equally superhuman absurdity. In our Gospels, He is arrayed in all the beauty of holiness; in the mythic ones this aspect of character is entirely wanting. In our Gospels not one stain of selfishness defiles His character; in the mythic ones, the boy Jesus is both pettish and malicious. Our Gospels exhibit a sublime morality; scarcely a ray of it shines in those of the mythologists. The miracles of the one and of the other are contrasted in every point. A similar opposition of character runs through the whole current of their thought, feeling, morality, and religion." This contrast is rendered all the more remarkable by the fact that the contents of these Gospels render it certain that if their authors had not read some of our Canonical Gospels, they must have drawn from a common source of information. They are chiefly confined to two portions of Our Lord's life, His infancy and boyhood, and His Passion, giving also a number of incidents respecting Mary and Joseph, but they leave the events of His ministry almost entirely unnoticed. Respecting Our Lord's infancy and boyhood, of which the accounts in the Canonical Gospels are extremely brief, the legendary ones furnish us with the most grotesque details. Portions of the account of the Passion and the Resurrection are nearly in the words of the Gospels; but they add a number of incidents of a character utterly unhistorical; and of speeches supposed to have been uttered by different persons connected with the scenes, the contents of which are simply incredible.

* The supposition at the foundation of all legendary theories of the origin of the Gospels is that the Evangelists, or the persons who composed the documents which they employed, were themselves deeply infected with the legendary spirit, This assumption is neces

Thirdly; even if this had been possible, yet as the popular legendary spirit always seizes on what is wild and grotesque, this new edition of chastened legends would never have gained acceptance by the popular mind; yet it is evident from the writings of the Fathers of the two first centuries, that the accounts in our Gospels, or at any rate, precisely similar ones, had attained universal acceptance as embodying the true type of the actions which the Church attributed to its Founder. If it be urged that in accordance with the theory of the survival of the fittest, the legends of an elevated type would survive, while the rest would perish, I reply that this theory is not true in a community which is thoroughly infected with the legendary spirit. On the contrary, the grotesque, as more adapted to the popular taste, survive, while the elevated ones, if such could spring up at all in such a soil, must perish.

Nor is the theory of tendencies more successful as a possible account of the facts. This theory has been very extensively propounded as affording an adequate ground for

sary in order to account for the miraculous narratives. Unless they had been profoundly credulous, it is impossible that they could have mistaken a mass of floating legends for historical facts, at a time when their verification was not only possible, but easy. Such persons could have possessed neither the requisite taste nor judgment to enable them to select from the mass of legends then in circulation those of an elevated type, and to reject the grotesque, which from the nature of the case must have been by far the most numerous and acceptable to the popular mind. It is also clear, whatever may have been the date of the Synoptic Gospels, that a large mass of legends must have been in existence when they were composed. Equally certain is it, although the common narrative may have been derived from a common document, that each of the Evangelists has incorporated into his own Gospel matter which is peculiar to himself, and which must therefore have been derived from legendary sources of information. This being so, it is inconceivable that each of these writers should have concurred with the others in rejecting every grotesque legend from his pages, unless they had all arrived at a previous understanding to do so, which is not even alleged as affording a probable solution of the facts.

some of the phenomena presented by the Gospels, and the gradual formation of Catholic Christianity. According to it the primitive Church was divided into a number of discordant sects, which elaborated a set of doctrines and fictitious stories for the purpose of realizing their own peculiar tendencies. When the sectarian spirit had risen to a dangerous height, it was found necessary to effect compromises between these discordant schools. Of this spirit St. Luke's Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles are adduced as striking examples. Both works are said to have been composed for the purpose of mediating between contending parties, and thereby creating a common Christianity. For the same purpose the author is alleged to have largely modified the materials of which he was in possession, and to have imparted a strong colouring to, if he did not actually invent, most of the miracles which are recorded in the latter book.

It is impossible for me in these Lectures to discuss the details of this theory.* It will be sufficient for my purpose to observe that it is absolutely negatived by the fact that the

It is important to observe that this theory, in common with every other which affirms the unhistorical character of the Gospels, is obliged to assume the existence of a legendary spirit, as that which has created their miraculous narratives. The only difference between it and other theories which account for them on this principle is that it is obliged to assume a certain amount of fraud on the part of their inventors. Thus it is affirmed of the Acts of the Apostles that a certain number of its miracles have been invented for the purpose of producing a parallel between Paul and Peter, by some disciple of the former, who was desirous of effecting a union between Petrine and Pauline Christianity. Whatever theory may be propounded on this point, it is impossible to avoid falling back on legend, or fraudulent invention, as the only means of accounting for the origin of miraculous narratives; and consequently the same line of reasoning which proves that all legendary theories are inadequate to account for the facts and phenomena of the Gospels, is equally subversive of the theory of tendencies, and of every other. This is also true of all attempts to explain the origin of the Gospel miracles on the theory