page break

Lecture 1. The Date of the Book.

Brethren and Sisters in the Monotheistic Faith :—

A principal duty of Unitarians at the present time, as it seems to me, is to learn all they can about the Bible, to make themselves acquainted with the science of Biblical Criticism and, especially, with the criticism of the New Testament books. Other Churches, in spite of all the disadvantages under which they labour in this respect in consequence of their bondage to ancient creeds, are endeavouring to do this, as we know by the recent publication of a work on the Old Testament by a distinguished Anglican clergyman of this city; so that we shall soon lose our lead in this matter, and deservedly so, if we neglect this duty. The fact that the science of Biblical Criticism is an exceedingly interesting one only makes us the more culpable if we neglect it. I shall, therefore, assume at once, without any further words of introduction, that I have your sympathy to-night in my endeavour to set before you what seem to me the true facts of the case in reference to one of the most important books of the New Testament, the book of the Acts of the Apostles, certainly the most fascinating of all the writings of the New Testament canon.

Why, then, is this little writing so fascinating? I would ask. Even children delight in its pages, whilst, on the other hand, to the scholar and the antiquarian its narrative furnishes endless topics of study and research. The explanation is that it introduces us into the midst of the social life of the ancient Roman world of the time of the Cæsars. The curtain of the past is raised and we page 4 find ourselves making one amongst the actors in the drama of human life as that life was lived nearly 2000 years ago. Thus we ascend with the Apostles the steps of the Temple at Jerusalem at the hour of the evening sacrifice, or wander with Paul and Barnabas from city to city in Asia Minor in the days of its glory, long before the Turk had stifled its vitality with the benumbing hand of fanaticism and fatalism; or we stand by the side of the heroic Paul at the judgment bar of Cæsar where, not the prisoner in the dock, but the judge on the bench trembles and is dismayed as he listens to the mighty missionary discoursing of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come; or, finally, we take ship with the same unwearied servant of God on his voyage across the Mediterranean from Cæsarea to Rome and share with him, in all the privations and hardships that follow. We join in his bold protest to the captain when we get to the island of Crete against leaving harbour in view of the expected Euroclydon, and feel almost glad when the hurricane really comes and Paul triumphs over the captain with that aggravating phrase, "I told you so." Of course, we share in the shipwreck that follows, watching on deck through the long dark night by the side of the undaunted Apostle after the ship has struck; and, when at last the morning breaks, swimming to shore on the same plank with him. It is all a marvellous story and will remain so till the end of time, whatever view we as critics may take of the book to-night.

But certainly it is not the merely human interest excited in our minds by the narrative we are considering that gives it its chief significance in our eyes; very far indeed from that. We have in this book, as you know, or the church has hitherto thought we had, no less a phenomenon than the story of the origin of the Christian religion. If the book is really historical, as it professes to be, we know the events that constitute the infancy of the Christian church, nay, we know the story of its very babyhood and even of its birth. We are able to look back not only into its earliest years, but even into its earliest months, and weeks, and days; we know more about its beginning, I think I may say, than we do about that of any other human institution whatsoever, save perhaps such as date from our own lifetime; for example, the Mormon church or that of Mrs. Eddy. It is this that makes the work before us so interesting.

What, then, do we know or what can we know about this book? Well, as I have already said, it professes to be a history. Not an independent history, however, but only the second volume of the complete work. It is addressed to one Theophilus, a gentleman of whom we know nothing, except that the first volume also is elaborately dedicated to him. By the first volume I am referring, of course, to our third gospel—what we call the gospel according page 5 to Luke. Both these volumes claim to be by the same author, so that in any properly arranged New Testament the book of Acts ought to follow immediately after the gospel of Luke. Unfortunately, the author does not give us his name and we have only historical tradition, as indicated in the title of the gospel, for the suggestion that he was a disciple known to Christian antiquity as Luke, and perhaps Luke the beloved physician mentioned in the epistle to the Colossians. A very distinguished living church historian, Professor Harnack of Berlin, has recently written an elaborate book to prove that the book of Acts was really written by this Luke, the beloved physician, and of this I may perhaps have something to say bye and bye. All that I will say about it now is this : that, having to his own satisfaction proved Luke to be the author, Professor Harnack then goes on to demonstrate that Luke is the very worst historian in the New Testament.

It would be very helpful, of course, to know for certain, if we could, who was the author of this book of Acts, so we must certainly say a little more on the question. The most remarkable phenomenon about the book of Acts, possibly known to many of you already, is the change of person in the course of the narrative, the change from the third person to the first, from the pronoun "they" to the pronoun "we." This occurs for the first time in the 16th chapter, in th 8th verse of which we read, "They came down to Troas;" but in the 10th verse, "We endeavoured to go into Macedonia." What does that unusual change mean? Well, it has always been understood to mean that from this point onwards you have extracts from the journal of a personal companion of St. Paul throughout his missionary wanderings—that, and nothing less! Hence these extracts are usually called the journal sections, or the we-sections, and it is supposed you actually have here in these passages the testimony of an eye-witness to the facts narrated. These journal sections, you must notice, are not continuous throughout, but occur off and on from the 16th chapter till very near the end of the book; and, of course, they are a most significant phenomenon. Plainly it does seem at first sight, and, at all events, the author of the whole book wants us to believe, that he is here quoting from his own journal, and that for all that is said in these sections he himself is personally responsible. And this much at least we may admit at once : the incidents related in the we sections seem far more credible and trustworthy than those in the rest of the book, inasmuch as there is very little of the supernatural or miraculous element in them.

One thought more and then we shall be able to construct, and, perhaps, afterwards to demolish, the orthodox argument on behalf of the credibility of this most important work. More than one page 6 orthodox critic, of whom the chief is Professor Ramsay of Aberdeen, has been writing of late on the subject of the medical terms used in the composition of the book of Acts. It is said the author uses technical medical terms, like a doctor, or at all events, writes much more like a doctor than any other writer of the New Testament. The instances given of this are the Greek word achlus, a mist, for the darkness that came over the eyes of Elymas, the sorcerer, when he was struck blind (Acts 13-11), a word used nowhere else in the New Testament, but applied by the ancient physician Galen to cataract of the eyes. Then sphura, used for the ankle bones of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate of the Temple (Acts 3-7), and which is a recognised anatomical term. And, lastly, ekpsuchei, to expire, a purely medical word describing the sudden death of Ananias and Sapphira. There are other instances with which, however, I will not trouble you. It is argued by orthodox critics that we have in these peculiarities of phraseology a strong confirmation of the tradition that the author of the book of Acts was a medical man, and, therefore, Luke, the beloved physician. It is then said that the journal sections are extracts from Luke's own diary, i.e., the diary of an eye-witness of all he there relates. Further, that the rest of the book, though not of the same value as his own personal experience, is yet thoroughly credible as the work of such a man, evidently highly educated, and so upright ethically as to be adopted by the Apostle Paul as his personal companion and friend; and, finally, that our third gospel, being avowedly composed by the same author as the book of Acts, must itself be accepted by all reasonable people as good evidence for the truth of the marvellous story of which it consists.

Those who adopt this view, which may be called the Traditional or Orthodox view of the Book of Acts, usually hold like-wise that St. Luke wrote it at Rome about the year 65 A.D. You see it cannot possibly be put much earlier than that by anyone because its last verses include a reference to Paul's two years' residence in the city of Rome, which, in any case, brings the narrative down to 63 A.D., the year before the destruction of the city by fire. It is supposed that St. Paul perished in the persecution of the Christians which followed, though, for some reason or other, the author of the book of Acts says nothing about Paul's death.

And now for the other side of the question. Rationalistic scholars are now almost unanimous in the conclusion that the book of Acts, so far from being written in the year 65 A.D., was not composed in the first century at all, but is a second century product, dating at the earliest from about the year 125 A.D., i.e., as late as the fourth generation of Christians, according to the ordinary calculation, and when, not the wicked Nero, but the good page 7 Emperor Hadrian occupied the throne of the world. Perhaps there never was a time in the history of the world when the human race was happy, but all historians are agreed that, if there ever was such a time, it was in the second century A.D., the age of Hadrian and his immediate successors, the good Antonines; and I cannot help thinking that something of the spirit of peace and goodwill, which made that age so exceptional, breathes throughput the book of Acts an A constitutes part of its charm. All the nations had long since been merged into one; with a single exception, civil war had everywhere ceased, and the Pax Romana, like the Pax Britannica in India during the reign of good Queen Victoria, turned men's attention to the pursuits of commerce and the study of philosophy. The philosophers were in great request in those years and the problems of religion greatly occupied men's minds. That gave Christianity a chance, a chance of making itself heard, and a book like our book of Acts, which professed to give a history of the rise of the Christian religion and church in the preceding age, would be highly popular.

There are many reasons which may be urged in support of the suggestion here made that this book of Acts was written at least as late as the beginning of the second century. I will, however, only discuss one of them at any length, and that one is to this effect, viz., that there is strong reason to believe the author was acquainted with the works of the Jewish historian Josephus, a fact, of course, which gives us an unassailable mark of time. This is a new argument in the discussion of the Acts, and so, one calling for the closest investigation. And what critics say is this : Let the writer have lived when he may, he cannot have been his own authority for much that he tells us; he must have fallen back on the usual sources of information, viz., the historians of the period. He was not a Jew himself evidently, and so must have learnt his Jewish history and antiquities from some member of that nation. It is true he nowhere informs us who his authority is, but a close examination of the contents of his book makes it almost certain that he was a student of the writings of Josephus. For not only do we find in that author a good account of all the famous state officials and others mentioned in the Acts and the third gospel, but even the very phrases and words used in connection with them are often the same in both authors. Of course, it is impossible for me to show this fully here to-night, but I may at least give one or two instances of it by way of illustration. Thus, you all remember the speech which the author of Acts puts into the mouth of Rabbi Gamaliel in the Sanhedrin at the trial of the Apostles Peter and the rest. Gamaliel advises the council, you recollect, to show forbearance and toleration to the Christian teachers, and that on the ground that, if they are wrong, the Christian movement will soon page 8 come to an end, and he then attempts to prove his case by reference to two other revolutionary movements that did thus come to an end, viz., the one led by a man of the name of Theudas, and that headed by Judas, the Galilean (Acts 5-86-87). Now, both these agitators are mentioned by Josephus, and, as far as we know, by Josephus alone (Ant 20/4/1-2 and Ant 18/1/1-6). It is necessary to suppose, therefore, that the Author of Acts is here making use of the Jewish historian. Unfortunately for himself, however, the so-called Luke is here guilty of two outrageous chronological blunders. First, he is altogether wrong in making Gamaliel refer to Theudas at all, inasmuch as, according to Josephus, the rebellion of Theudas did not take place till about a dozen years after the date at which Gamaliel is supposed to be speaking. And, secondly, our author makes Gamaliel say that the rebellion of Judas of Galilee was subsequent to that of Theudas, whereas, as a matter of fact, it was just the other way about, Judas of Galilee having predeceased Theudas, and that by no less a period than forty years. But this last "howler," as schoolboys would call it, throws considerable light on the situation. For, although Josephus tells us in one place that Judas lived a long time before Theudas, it so happens that, in referring to the men afterwards, he mentions them in the reverse order, and our author, reading his authority carelessly, imagines the order of reference here to be the chronological order—a blunder which reveals to us the historian he was consulting. "Always verify your references," said the Cambridge Don to his pupil when bidding him a final adieu; the failure to do so, however, on the part of an author is sometimes very useful to his critics.

We all know how meagre and obscure the narrative of the New Testament would be, comparatively speaking, if we had not the works of Josephus to fall back upon for further information in respect to the historical characters mentioned in its pages. What should we know, for instance, of King Agrippa, or the procurators, Felix and Festus, as well as a host of other persons, if we could not look them all out, in the "Jewish War" and the "Antiquities" of Josephus? And this fact is to be specially observed, that scarcely a public character, save, of course some of the Christian leaders, referred to in the Acts of the Apostles or the third Gospel, but can be found mentioned likewise in the secular author I am referring to. Nay, so close is the connexion between the two books that a public man, introduced anonymously into the narrative of Josephus, is referred to in exactly the same obscure terms by the writer of the Acts, who evidently does not know the man's name because Josephus doesn't know it. I refer, of course, to the leader of banditti described as "the Egyptian." The Roman Tribune, Lycias, asks Paul, you remember, when he arrests him in a tumult of the people, whether he is not "that Egyptian" (Acts 21-88) who some page 9 time ago raised a political agitation in Jerusalem and marched away into the neighbouring desert with some 4000 followers pleasantly called "Sicarii," or "Assassins." (See Jo. Ant. 20/8/6, and B.J. 2/13/3-5). Now, Josephus gives much the same account of him, sometimes in the very same words, describing him as a false prophet from Egypt, but gives him no name, and consequently, the so-called Luke is in the very same dilemma; he can't go beyond his authority, and evidently Josephus is his authority.

A further confirmation of this theory may be seen in another small particular. In a speech put into the mouth of Paul at Pisidian Antioch, that great missionary is made to refer to the reign of his namesake, King Saul, which, he declares, extended over 40 years. (Acts 13/21). How does the writer of the Acts know that? There is no mention of it in the Old Testament anywhere, whence does the so-called Luke get that bit of information? Whence does he get it? Why, from the Antiquities of Josephus to be sure (6/14/9)—there is no other place from which he could get it—from the Antiquities of Josephus where that author says:—"Now Saul, when he had reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive and after his death two-and-twenty, ended his life in this manner." A debt, of course, may exist without acknowledgment and this seems to be an instance of it. Indeed, in one place our canonical author seems to have copied from Josephus almost word for word. Thus, where the latter writes:—"But Porcius Festus, having been sent by Nero in Felix's room" (Ant. 20/8/9), the corresponding passage in our sacred Unknown, as I may call him, is:—"But after two years Porcius Festus came in Felix's room." (Acts 24/27).

And, finally, as you all know, our third gospel, of which the Acts is a continuation, differs from all others in that it begins with a dedication, a dedication to the most excellent Theophilus. It is a dedication also that is expressed in very stilted language. What is the significance of that phenomenon? I should like to know. Why should Luke have a dedicatory preface when nobody else in the New Testament has? Why? Because his guide, philosopher and friend, Josephus, has got one, and that both for his Antiquities and his two treatises against Apion. Josephus writes "to the most excellent Epaphroditus" just as Luke writes "to the most excellent Theophilus;" the same epithet is common to both, you see. And more than that. About one-fourth the number of words used by Luke in his dedication are found also in that of Josephus. Nor must it pass unnoticed in addition that just as Luke renews his dedication at the beginning of his second volume, i.e., the Acts, saying, "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus," so does Josephus renew his at the commencement of his second treatise against Apion, thus:"In the former book, most honored Epaphroditus, I have "so and so.

page 10

Looking back then on all these coincidences I will only say if we may not infer from them that this Christian writer of ours was cognisant of the works of our Jewish historian, then there is no validity in literary criticism at all. So certain does the matter appear to me, indeed, that I think we can now almost see this canonical writer of ours sitting in his study, probably at Rome, with his copy of Josephus lying open before him. I do not think the two authors can have conversed together, as Josephus must have died early in the second century, but the Christian writer, as a boy, may have seen the aged Josephus passing in and out at the imperial palace, which, we know, the old Jewish historian frequented, along with Tacitus and other great men.

But now you will see that, if I have established the dependence of this New Testament writer on Josephus, I have got firm standing-ground for determining the date at which the Acts of the Apostles was written. For we know absolutely the years in which the different works of Josephus were published; the "Jewish War" at any time between 75 and 79 A.D., the "Antiquities" (the work we are chiefly concerned with) in 93, the "Contra Apion" a year or two later than the "Antiquities," and the "Autobiography" subsequent to 100 A.D., because the author mentions in it the death of King Agrippa II, which happened in that year. It is plain therefore that the man who used these books, and especially the "Antiquities," as his authority, could not very well have written earlier than the first quarter of the second century, and may not have written till long afterwards. Hence the Acts of the Apostles, as a whole, could not have been composed by a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, either Luke or anybody else, though it is still possible that the Journal sections might have been.

Such an important point as this, however, ought not to be dependent on one line of evidence alone; we may ask therefore now, Are there any other reasons that can be adduced in confirmation of the late date to which we have here assigned the book? And in reply I would observe that every other indication of time presented in the work points in the same direction. We can, however, only touch very briefly on these confirmations. One of the most convincing of them is the idea the writer has of the Gift of Tongues amongst the first Christians. In the Epistles, you will remember, especially the Epistles to the Corinthians, the gift of tongues is just a morbid muttering on the part of disciples,—an incoherent, inarticulate noise, the result of the nervous excitement or ecstasy into which the disciples fell under the powerful appeals made to them by their preachers. There is nothing miraculous about it at all, and it sometimes occurs still at revival meetings. In the book of Acts, on the contrary, it would seem that these early excitements were all page 11 things of the past—the writer knows nothing about them at all. He has to fall back on his own imagination for his idea of the gift of tongues, and, consequently, he represents the gift as a miraculous affair, a supernatural knowledge of foreign languages, an altogether different thing, and, evidently, a much later development of thought. It is very plain, therefore, that the writer of Acts is far removed from the time of the first generation of Christians.

The same inference must be drawn too from another feature in the book, viz., the gross sacerdotalism the writer imputes to the Apostolic age. According to him, the Apostles are a unique order of men, almost divine, anyway possessed of magical powers peculiar to themselves. They had been endowed with the Holy Ghost and that to such an awlul degree that with a word they could strike the sinner dead on the spot, as we see in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. And the same superstitious sacerdotal ideas appear in the fact that whilst a mere evangelist like Philip could convert his hearers, it was necessary to send down the great Jerusalem Apostles to the scene of action before the converts could receive the gift of the Holy Ghost, and so speak with tongues. No common person, no mere preacher, could confer such sacerdotal unction. Just as at the present day in the Anglican church no ordinary clergyman can confirm young people, there is no unction in the imposition of his hands at all, nothing short of an episcopal blessing can convey any spiritual gift. But, for such ideas as these to grow up in a community a long time must elapse; These ideas of sacerdotal power and pride are far removed from the primitive Christian simplicity as you see it in the Epistles. And that I am not misrepresenting the ideas of our author becomes still plainer when you notice the arrogant insolence of the words put into an Apostle's mouth on one occasion. I refer, of course, to what is called the first general council of the church at Jerusalem, the couucil that issued a decree to be binding on all the churches. This decree contains, as you know, the impious words : "It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us"—the Apostles! (Acts 15/28.) Surely the Pope of Rome to-day hardly ventures nearer to blasphemy than that I Late, very late, in point of time, must be the document which so misrepresents the humble Galilean fishermen; the church must have been in existence a very long time before such a high order of ecclesiastics as that could have been manufactured even in imagination.

And those are not by any means the only confirmations of my contention. The writer knows far too much altogether to have belonged to the first century. He knows, for example, that the peace of the church is to be broken up by heretics; that Gnostic missionaries will make their way into it perverting the disciples and almost page 12 annihilating the Cause. Our author, you know, represents Paul as addressing the Elders of Ephesus in the words: "For I know this, that after my departing," (i.e., after my death) "shall grievous wolves" (i.e. Gnostic teachers) "enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples after them.". (Acts 20/28, 29). How, I ask, did the writer know that? There was little Gnosticism in the Christian church in the first century. Well, he knew it, not from any miraculous foresight, you may be sure,—miraculous foresight is all moonshine—he knew it because he lived and wrote in the second century, and so was acquainted with the ravages that Gnosticism was making then in the Christian church.

There are other points I should like to have dwelt upon in illustration of my assertion that the whole tenor of the book of Acts harmonises with the later date to which modern criticism assigns it, but we cannot spend more time on what is after all a minor branch of our subject; and in passing from it I will only observe that the first definite reference to the book by the early Christian Fathers occurs in a letter written by the churches in Vienne and Lyons, in France, as late as the year 177 A.D. That, at all events, is the statement made by Dr. Samuel Davidson on the subject in his famous volumes, entitled, "Introduction to the New Testament" (vol. ii, p. 270). We don't, of course, say that the book must have originated as late as 177 A.D., but only that the absence of any trustworthy earlier reference to it in the Fathers leaves us free to fix the date, as we have already done on internal evidence alone, at the year 125 or thereabouts. The orthodox date of 65 A.D. is simply absurd.

But now we have dwelt long enough for to-night on tedious details, but may, perhaps, say a few words more on the general subject. What is the use, some people may ask—some people do ask—of discussing at such length the date of an ancient book? Who cares about the date of it—whether it was produced in the first century or the second? And, in reply, I am ready to acknowledge that, except as a matter of literary curiosity, the date at which a book was written is of no great importance in itself or for its own sake. But in the case of a book that has exercised a vast influence on the human mind generally for more than one millennium, it is of very great importance indeed that we should know the intrinsic worth of its statements, whether the history it professes to relate to us is true history or not; in other words, that we should know the credibility or trustworthiness of the book. This is of the very last importance, and it is as one of the greatest helps towards determining this point that we ascertain, if we can, the year, or, at least, the generation, in which it first saw the light. As you know, the subject an- page 13 nounced for my lecture to-night was, "Is the book of Acts History or Romance Now, I have not dealt directly with that subject to-night, though, of course, I have done so indirectly. More than one subsequent lecture will be necessary to decide the law-suit "History v. Romance" as applied to the book of Acts, and that, of course, is what we want to get at. But we have made some progress towards it even to-night, as you will see immediately.

The book goes, as you know, into the most minute particulars of the most obscure incidents. If, now, that book was written by a contemporary, as orthodox scholars claim, there is some chance that the writer may have been telling us of what was personally known to himself, and, therefore, that the statements he has made may be all true. If, on the other hand, it can be shown that the author did not live and write till nearly a century after the events of which he speaks his minute details at once awaken suspicion, and, unless he discloses to us his authorities, we attach very little credit to his words. We say in this case there is plainly plenty of room for the growth of legend and romance in this long interval of time, and we want to know that our author is not romancing. And with respect to this particular book there would be little difficulty in showing, had time allowed, that it is little better than a beautiful romance from end to end, that it is scarcely history at all, and that, save perhaps for a little biography contained in the journal sections, the whole of its contents, I might say, should be almost disregarded by every serious student of Christian origins. As far as this book is concerned, we know almost nothing of the rise of Christianity. It has simply deceived the world and the church for nearly 2000 years.

Although it may not appear so at first glance to many of you, as a matter of fact, there is a great appropriateness in the discussion of this subject at this particular time. The book of Acts is closely related to the gospels, especially to the third gospel, of which, as I mentioned before, it is simply a continuation by the same author, and, as those of you who read the Unitarian periodicals know, the gospels are now on their trial. Well, perhaps you will say, there is nothing very new in that, the gospels have been on their trial for the last 200 years at least; as early as the eighteenth century one writer, I think it was Dr. Samuel Johnson, complained, in view of the scores of controversial books on the origin of Christianity that were pouring from the press even then, that the twelve Apostles were now put on their trial once a week on the capital charge of forgery. Yes, but these same gospels were never so hard put to it as they are to-day. The question : Are they substantially fact or are they fiction pure and simple from end to end? is now being page 14 raised, and that in all seriousness, not by cold sceptics from the world, but by some of the most earnest and faithful ministers within the church itself. Was there ever a historical Jesus at all? Or has he ever been anything else than a mere mythical ideal existing in the imagination of the ancient world? That is the question that is being asked in your "Hibbert Journals" and your "Inquirers" to-day and echoed on all sides by the secular press too. As far as existing controversies are concerned, that question was first raised, I had almost said, by the Rev. Mr. Roberts, a Congregational minister, strange to say, in an article he wrote in the "Hibbert Journal" for January, 1909. But that, as some of you will remember, would not be quite correct. As a matter of fact, this question was raised before that in a sermon addressed to this very congregation by myself more than a twelvemonth earlier.

That sermon, entitled "The Pre-Christian Jesus, or the New Testament Problem Solved," was subsequently printed and distributed; and that, as far as I know, was the first effort made in the Unitarian donomination to re-open the question of the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Mr. Roberts' article, of course, attracted great attention and most adverse criticism—criticism which culminated last Christmas in the production of a supplementary volume to the "Hibbert Journal," entitled "Jesus or Christ," and consisting of some eighteen essays by as many of the most liberal theologians in England; the majority, I believe, admitting that the Christ was a mythical being, but all equally bent on establishing a human Jesus as an actual historical character, the real founder of the Christian faith. And so the controversy stood up till last January, when there fell a bolt from the blue in the shape of a "Hibbert Journal," issued that month, containing another contribution to this startling discussion, a contribution written not in defence but in attack, and again by a Congregational minister, this time the Rev Dr. Anderson, of Dundee. You can judge of the significance of this article by its formidable title, "The Failure of Liberal Christianity," and that, remember, from a scholar hitherto known as a Liberal Christian. His article is a far more trenchant attack than Mr. Roberts', as you will see when I tell you that it claims that Liberal scholars have all along been pursuing an ignis fatuus, i.e., that the historical human Jesus, whom they posit as the originator of Christianity and whom they think they find in the pages of the New Testament, is not there at all and never has been there. That what you really find in the New Testament is a god, a god surrounded by worshipping devotees from the very first, yes, even in the synoptic gospels. Thus, even in the synoptic gospels, Jesus is a being who forgives sins. "What sort of a human being is that?" Dr. Anderson asks. Who can forgive sins but God only?—as the Jews are reported to page 15 have said on the occasion. Can you mention any other human being known to history who thus usurps the function of Deity itself? "It is vain" Dr. Anderson declares, "to attempt to separate Jesus from Christ." If Christ is a mythical deity so is Jesus also, and there is no historical personality at the nucleus of the Christian religion.

As I said before, you will find this crucial question discussed in the current numbers of the "Inquirer," and that, too, with this strange feature, that the Unitarian writers generally are now on the conservative side; they are all trying to find a historical Jesus in the pages of the New Testament. The end of the controversy is, of course, not yet, but anyway you will now see what an important contribution to the decision of it is the discussion which we have initiated to-night—the question of the credibility of the Acts of the Apostles. If that book is really sober history, then there is some chance that the gospel that precedes it may be of the same character. If, on the other hand, and as I am prepared to maintain, "the Acts" is at best only a historical romance, then, a fortiori, such also must be the character of the gospel narrative, and the hero of whom it speaks must be, or at any rate may be, an ideal of the imagination only.

Plainly, brethren, we are living in stirring times, the clarion notes of battle joined are everywhere in the air around us. Christianity has come to its Waterloo. Does that announcement disturb you—you, the soldiers of truth? I know the flesh is sometimes weak; I know there are gentle souls amongst us who would gladly avoid all further change of opinion, all further controversy, who, having already renounced much instilled into them in early life and made sacrifices for their new convictions too, ask to be let alone in the future and conclude all their petitions to Heaven with the prayer, "Give peace in our time, O Lord!" As one also, who is himself now advanced in years and conscious of the infirmities and .weaknesses of age, I can myself sympathise with that prayer, "Give peace in our time, O Lord!" Yet, dear as peace is to every right-minded man, there is undoubtedly something far dearer still, and that is the trumpet-call of duty, the summons to search his mind once more to see whether he is not cherishing delusion still in its inmost recesses, whether he is not still the sport of a lie after all his efforts to cleanse his soul from such pollution. No true man and no true woman will be deaf to that call, especially in the Unitarian church. Every Unitarian declares that his religion is simply the pursuit of truth, and that no religion purifies the heart like that one. For my part, and in spite of old age, I rejoice in the new controversy, rejoice that I have lived long enough to see the question raised, and I am thankful that even in this Wellington page 16 of outs a church has at last been established that affords an arena for such discussions as this; that we, too, may take our part in the foremost struggles of our day, struggles that shall sanctify and dignify our lives, and make them of some worth to ourselves and our fellow men.

—Amen.