The Gospels in the Second Century | Page 3

I shall have put forward few that have been already tried and
found wanting.
As I have made rather large use of the argument supplied by text-
criticism, I should perhaps say that to the best of my belief my attention
was first drawn to its importance by a note in Dr. Lightfoot's work on
Revision. The evidence adduced under this head will be found, I
believe, to be independent of any particular theory of text-criticism.
The idea of the Analytical Index is taken, with some change of plan,
from Volkmar. It may serve to give a sort of _coup d'oeil_ of the
subject.
It is a pleasure to be able to mention another form of assistance from
which it is one of the misfortunes of an anonymous writer to find
himself cut off. The proofs of this book have been seen in their passage
through the press by my friend the Rev. A.J. Mason, Fellow of Trinity
College, Cambridge, whose exact scholarship has been particularly
valuable to me. On another side than that of scholarship I have derived
the greatest benefit from the advice of my friend James Beddard, M.B.,
of Nottingham, who was among the first to help me to realise, and now
does not suffer me to forget, what a book ought to be. The Index of
References to the Gospels has also been made for me.
The chapter on Marcion has already appeared, substantially in its
present form, as a contribution to the Fortnightly Review.
BARTON-ON-THE-HEATH, SHIPSTON-ON-STOUR, _November_,
1875.

[Greek epigraph: Ta de panta elenchoumena hupo tou photos
phaneroutai pan gar to phaneroumenon phos estin.]



CHAPTER I
.

INTRODUCTORY.
It would be natural in a work of this kind, which is a direct review of a
particular book, to begin with an account of that book, and with some
attempt to characterise it. Such had been my own intention, but there
seems to be sufficient reason for pursuing a different course. On the
one hand, an account of a book which has so recently appeared, which
has been so fully reviewed, and which has excited so much attention,
would appear to be superfluous; and, on the other hand, as the character
of it has become the subject of somewhat sharp controversy, and as
controversy-- or at least the controversial temper--is the one thing that I
wish to avoid, I have thought it well on the whole to abandon my first
intention, and to confine myself as much as possible to a criticism of
the argument and subject-matter, with a view to ascertain the real facts
as to the formation of the Canon of the four Gospels.
I shall correct, where I am able to do so, such mistakes as may happen
to come under my notice and have not already been pointed out by
other reviewers, only dilating upon them where what seem to be false
principles of criticism are involved. On the general subject of these
mistakes--misleading references and the like--I think that enough has
been said [Endnote 2:1]. Much is perhaps charged upon the individual
which is rather due to the system of theological training and the habits
of research that are common in England at the present day. Inaccuracies
no doubt have been found, not a few. But, unfortunately, there is only
one of our seats of learning where--in theology at least--the study of
accuracy has quite the place that it deserves. Our best scholars and
ablest men--with one or two conspicuous exceptions--do not write, and
the work is left to be done by _littérateurs_ and clergymen or laymen
who have never undergone the severe preliminary discipline which
scientific investigation requires. Thus a low standard is set; there are
but few sound examples to follow, and it is a chance whether the
student's attention is directed to these at the time when his habits of
mind are being formed.
Again, it was claimed for 'Supernatural Religion' on its first appearance
that it was impartial. The claim has been indignantly denied, and, I am
afraid I must say, with justice. Any one conversant with the subject (I
speak of the critical portion of the book) will see that it is deeply
coloured by the author's prepossessions from beginning to end. Here

again he has only imbibed the temper of the nation. Perhaps it is due to
our political activity and the system of party-government that the spirit
of party seems to have taken such a deep root in the English mind. An
Englishman's political opinions are determined for him mainly (though
sometimes in the way of reaction) by his antecedents and education,
and his opinions on other subjects follow in their train. He takes them
up with more of practical vigour and energy than breadth of reflection.
There is a contagion of