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 litterateurs 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 party-spirit in the air.  And thus advocacy on one side is simply met by advocacy on the other.  Such has at least been hitherto the history of English thought upon most great subjects.  We may hope that at last this state of things is coming to an end.  But until now, and even now, it has been difficult to find that quiet atmosphere in which alone true criticism can flourish.