pels? How far does he consider them to be trustworthy history? And upon examination it will be found that he has adopted one of three possible opinions:

(1) All four gospels are trustworthy. They give the testimony of honest men and competent witnesses. There may be minor errors or discrepancies, such as are found in the best of testimony, but as a whole their record is true and harmonious.

(2) The synoptics are trustworthy, but John is not. Its picture of Jesus and its record of his words must be taken with qualifications or rejected entirely as being late in origin and deeply influenced by theological ideas of the second century. In John we see Jesus, not as he really was, but as a later age thought he must have been; and, therefore, the actual life of Jesus must be constructed from the synoptics alone or with very cautious use of John.

(3) No one of the gospels is trustworthy. Either they were written too late for actual knowledge of the facts, or they are full of natural misconceptions and errors. All we can do is to take their statements as the basis of our work, and alter and reconstruct according to our best judgment. We may end by accepting the larger part of their narrative, or by going as far in scepticism as Schmiedel, who views with suspicion all except nine brief passages emphasizing the human weakness and ignorance of Jesus, and pronounces these

nine "the foundation pillars for a really scientific life of Jesus" (see his article on the gospels in Encyc. Biblica); but in any case our attitude toward the gospels is one of hostile criticism.

Logically a fourth position is possible, viz., that John is trustworthy, while the synoptics are not. But though certain critics give John the foremost place for accuracy, and would follow it rather than the synoptics in settling a vexed question, e. g., the time of the Last Supper, I know of none who accepts John but rejects the synoptics. The reason is evident-the problems presented in the synoptics are of the same character as those in John, but by no means as difficult; and the student who finds a solution for the latter is not troubled by the former.

A writer's attitude toward the gospels will affect his work at every point. For example, if he adopts the second of the three positions, it will influence his conclusion not only as to such a vitally important matter as the divinity of Christ, which is most clearly proclaimed in the Fourth Gospel, but also as to the comparatively unimportant question of the length of Christ's public ministry. For, while John distinctly mentions three Passovers, so that the ministry could not have been less than two years, the synoptics mention only the Passover of the crucifixion; and the writer who follows them alone is apt to put the whole ministry into the space of one year. It is necessary,

therefore, before accepting a writer's conclusions, even upon matters of chronology, to ascertain his position concerning the gospels. Usually he begins his work by definitely stating and defending it; and fairness to the reader would demand that he should always do so.

Evidently a critic's philosophical and practical attitude toward the supernatural will largely shape his opinion of the trustworthiness of the gospels. As Dr. Bruce says, "It is the miraculous element in the gospels that chiefly raises the question as to their historical trustworthiness. Eliminate that element, and hardly a doubt would remain; the residuary words and deeds of Jesus would be welcomed as a proof that in Judea there once lived a sage and philanthropist of unparalleled wisdom and goodness." In regard to the miracles of Christ, we may divide writers into a left and a right group, and also make a subdivision of each group, as follows:

Left.-Those who deny all miracles, and who therefore reject the gospel record of them as untrustworthy, the product of a credulous, unscientific age. They may explain the recorded miracles as myths and legends that sprang up after the death of Jesus and gained ready credence among the early Christians, or else as events for which a natural explanation may be found, and parables and sayings of Jesus that were misunderstood and distorted into miracles. But,

whatever the explanation, they insist that because miracles do not happen, the account must be untrue.

Left Centre.-Those who deny all miracles, but believe that Jesus possessed some power or knowledge by which he could perform deeds beyond the ability of other men. Possibly the psychic power which he exerted is latent in all of us, or the knowledge he possessed may some day be the common property of mankind, but up to the present time his wonderful deeds are unparalleled. Nevertheless, they were not supernatural; and whatever is related concerning them, that is evidently supernatural, must be rejected as unhistorical.

Right Centre.-Those who admit that Jesus performed real miracles-acts beyond not only present human power but all human power. Nevertheless, either from an unconscious aversion to the miraculous or from a desire to propitiate sceptics, these writers seek to diminish the number of his miracles as much as possible, by explaining away some of them as natural events or misreported parables, and questioning the reliability of the report concerning others.

Right. Those persons who recognize without reserve the power of Christ to work miracles. They may not accept all the miracles in the gospel record, but they do not question them simply because they are miracles. For example, certain writers of this group decline to believe that saints came forth from the grave

and went into Jerusalem after Christ's resurrection; but they do this, not because the story involves a miracle, but because it is found only in Matthew, and is of a very different character from the other miracles, and seems like a later invention arising from a misunderstanding of such teachings as I Cor. 15: 20 and John 5:25. The supernatural in the gospel story is not a stumbling block to these writers, for it harmonizes with their conception of God and his attitude toward man.

It is impossible to deny miracles and yet accept the gospels as the report of honest eye-witnesses. Paulus stands as a proof of this. In 1828 he wrote a book striving to show that the gospel story is from the apostles and is true, though none of the events in it were really supernatural. For every apparent miracle he found a natural explanation, "though the explanation is often more remarkable than the miracle." In some instances he thinks we read a miracle into the story, when the apostles themselves did not intend to relate one; e. g., the fish which Peter caught to pay the temple tax did not have a stater in its mouth, but was sold by him for that sum. In other instances he thinks the apostles honestly mistook a natural event for a miracle; e. g., when they thought Christ was walking on the water, he was in fact walking along the shore so close to the lake that it looked as if he were on the water; the paralytic borne by four supposed himself to be