There were limits to the unanimity, as I have already said.  Paul and Peter had a great quarrel about circumcision and related subjects.  The Apostolic writings are wondrously diverse from one another.  Peter is far less constructive and profound than Paul.  Paul and Peter are both untouched with the mystic wisdom of the Apostle John.  But, in regard to the facts that I have signalised, the divinity, the person of Jesus Christ, His death and Resurrection, and the significance to be attached to that death, they are absolutely one.  The instruments in the orchestra are various, the tender flute, the ringing trumpet, and many another, but the note they strike is the same.  ’Whether it were I or they, so we preach.’

II.  Now, let me ask you to consider the only explanation of this unanimity.

Time was when the people, who did not believe in Christ’s divinity and sacrificial death, tortured themselves to try and make out meanings for these epistles, which should not include the obnoxious doctrines.  That is nearly antiquated.  I suppose that there is nobody now, or next to nobody, who does not admit that, right or wrong, Paul, Peter, John—­all of them—­teach these two things, that Christ is the Eternal Son of the Father, and that His death is the Sacrifice for the world’s sin.  But they say that that is not the primitive, simple teaching of the Man of Nazareth; and that the unanimity is a unanimity of misapprehension of, and addition to, His words and to the drift of His teaching.

Now, just think what a huge—­I was going to say—­inconceivability that supposition is.  For there is no point, say from the time at which the Apostle who wrote the words of my text, which was somewhere about the year 56 or 57 A.D.,—­there is no point between that period, working backwards through the history of the Church to the Crucifixion, where you can insert such a tremendous revolution of teaching as this.  There is no trace of such a change.  Peter’s earliest speeches, as recorded in Acts, are in some important respects less developed doctrinally than are the epistles, but Christ’s Messiahship, death, and Resurrection, with which is connected the remission of sins, are as clearly and emphatically proclaimed as at any later time.  So these points of the Apostolic testimony were preached from the first, and, if in preaching them, the witnesses perverted the simple teaching of the Carpenter of Nazareth, and ascribed to Him a character which He had not claimed, and to His death a power of which He had not dreamed, they did so at the very time when the impressions of His personality and teaching were most recent and strong.  It seems to me, apart altogether from other considerations, that such a right-about-face movement on the part of the early teachers of Christianity, is an absolute impossibility, regard being had to the facts of the case, even if you make much allowance for possible errors in the record.