is difficult to decide. It is, no doubt, possible that the first
gospel may have lent to the words of Jesus an Ebionite colouring
in some instances, and that now and then the third gospel may
present us with a truer account. To this supremely important
point we shall by and by return. For the present it must suffice
to observe that the evidences of an overruling dogmatic purpose
are generally much more conspicuous in the third synoptist than
in the first; and that the very loose manner in which this writer
has handled his materials in the "Acts" is not calculated to
inspire us with confidence in the historical accuracy of his
gospel. The writer who, in spite of the direct testimony of Paul
himself could represent the apostle to the Gentiles as acting
under the direction of the disciples at Jerusalem, and who puts
Pauline sentiments into the mouth of Peter, would certainly have
been capable of unwarrantably giving a Pauline turn to the
teachings of Jesus himself. We are therefore, as a last resort,
brought back to the first gospel, which we find to possess, as a
historical narrative, far stronger claims upon our attention than
the second and third. In all probability it had assumed nearly
its present shape before A. D. 100, its origin is unmistakably
Palestinian; it betrays comparatively few indications of dogmatic
purpose; and there are strong reasons for believing that the
speeches of Jesus recorded in it are in substance taken from the
genuine "Logia" of Matthew mentioned by Papias, which must have
been written as early as A. D. 60-70, before the destruction of
Jerusalem. Indeed, we are inclined to agree with our author that
the gospel, even in its present shape (save only a few
interpolated passages), may have existed as early as A. D. 80,
since it places the time of Jesus' second coming immediately
after the destruction of Jerusalem; whereas the third evangelist,