resurrection of the Lord, a number of men who were contemporaries and companions of Jesus of Nazareth were willing to bear testimony, and did bear testimony sealed with their life's blood. So that if the four Gospels had been lost in early times, though the loss would have been incalculable and even as a matter of literature it would scarcely be possible to name a greater, still the belief in Jesus Christ as embodied in the Creed would not of necessity have been obliterated. Persons are apt to think of the four Gospels as of books out of which the Creed has been extracted, and upon which the Church stands as upon four foundation-stones: in a certain sense they are foundation-stones; but perhaps it would be more correct to say that they are four buttresses to a building already constructed, and that they explain a belief which existed in the world independently of them. In fact, in the case of St. Luke, we have the distinct assertion that his primary intention was to make known to the person to whom the book was addressed 'the certainty of the things in which he had been instructed.' The oral catechising came first, the written Gospel afterwards; and though Theophilus would gratefully appreciate the help which St. Luke had given him, he would have been equally a believer in Christ if St. Luke had never written a line.

But to go a little more into particulars. Is it quite within the mark to say, that it is wholly uncertain who were the authors of the Gospels, and when they were written'? It is easy to make a general assertion of this kind, and the complete answer involves a lengthened argument which might be extended to volumes; but when we bear in mind the early reception of the Gospels as records standing by themselves, the unique position universally accorded to them, and the absolute and undeniable distinction between these four documents and the apocryphal Gospels as they are termed-documents which it would be well for anyone to study, who wishes to form a just view of the character to be ascribed to the utterances of the four Evangelists-we seem to be driven to the conclusion that the four Gospels, as we have them now, are not materially different from those records which were in circulation in the primitive days. Perhaps I may venture to refer the reader, for one of the most recent and readable discussions of the Gospel controversy, to Professor Salmon's Historical Introduction to the Study of the Books of the New Testament; he will find there the conclusions of a hard-headed mathematician, who is also manifestly painstaking and scholarly. I shall be much surprised if any one rises from the study of that learned, but bright and popular volume, without coming to a conclusion very different from that which Sir James Stephen propounds for his adoption. For myself I will say that a careful and daily examination of the Synoptic Gospels which I undertook long ago, and which extended through some years, brought me to the conclusion, that the Gospel of

St. Luke was almost demonstrably the work of the 'beloved physician,' the companion of St. Paul; that the phenomena of the Second Gospel squared very well with the tradition, that the Gospel represents the account of our Lord's life as delivered by St. Peter to Mark, his interpreter;' and that in the First Gospel we have the work of Matthew the publican, though apparently not in the exact condition in which it originally came from his hand. I also arrived at a very distinct conclusion, that no one of the three had ever seen the work of the other two. I set down these results as indicating that I am writing upon a subject to which I have given not a little consideration, and that I am not merely repeating supposed orthodox opinions. I quite admit that the whole question of the mutual relations of the Synoptists is a complicated one, and I have not yet seen any hypothesis which appears to get rid of every difficulty; but as to the general result, namely, that we have in the first three Gospels original and independent testimonies to the works and doings of the same man, known as Jesus of Nazareth, I have no shadow of doubt. When therefore I find it stated in a tone of disparagement, that 'Luke is admittedly a compilation,' St. Luke having himself told us that he had taken pains to procure accurate information; when I come upon the curious statement that the title of the Gospel according to St. Matthew' suggests an unknown author; and when I see the final conclusion that the statements of the Gospels are uncertified hearsay,' I confess that I stand amazed.

With regard to the fourth Gospel, no doubt there has been plausible ground for controversy as to the authorship. I will only add to the statement 'there are very good grounds for thinking that it was not written by John the Apostle,' the opposite or supplementary statement, there are also very good grounds for thinking that it was.' Certainly the argument for the Johannine authorship has recently been on the winning side; and I may refer with satisfaction to the earliest work of one, whose theological position is now recognised, Professor Sanday, entitled The Authorship and Historical Character of the Fourth Gospel, as containing, after a careful, and (as it seems to me) a candid argument, an affirmative answer to the following four questions: Was the author of the fourth Gospel a Jew? Was he a member of the original Christian circle? Was he an eye-witness? Was he the son of Zebedee?'2

I feel that it is only by such remarks and references as those which I have above given, that I can adequately in a few sentences meet the sweeping charges which Sir James Stephen makes. It is easy in a single sentence to brand the statements of the Gospels as

It would be endless to refer to all recent contributions on the subject of the authorship of the Gospels; but I will venture to mention the late Mr. Smith's (of Jordanhill) volume entitled A Dissertation on the Origin and Connection of the Gospels, because it seems to me to be as valuable as it is apparently little known and appreciated.

'uncertified hearsay;' it would require the perusal of volumes, and a large amount of careful personal study, in order to have an adequate conception of the cruelty and injustice which, to the mind of a Christian student, are involved in these two words. Hence, so far as the general argument is concerned, I will not attempt to do more than I have done; but I will add just two remarks, one upon the miraculous conception, the other upon the Ascension.

Concerning the first Sir James Stephen tells us :

The evidence of the miraculous birth must, from the nature of the case, be ultimately that of Mary herself, and it is nowhere said that she ever said anything about it. The only writer who professes to have been intimate with her, the author who calls himself John, does not mention it.

Can any one doubt as to the person from whom St. Luke obtained those particulars which constitute what has been beautifully called 'The Gospel of the Infancy'? Does not the little sentence, 'His mother kept all these sayings in her heart,' reveal the authority almost as clearly as if St. Mary had signed the documents with her name? And as to the silence of St. John, is it not fair to remember that he never refers in any way to the birth, either as natural or as supernatural? But can any one doubt which kind of birth best falls in with the spirit of that Gospel, which, soaring above all questions of the kind, commences by telling us that 'in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God'? Whatever may be the truth as concerns the birth of our Lord, the omission of all reference to its character by St. John is clearly no argument against that which St. Luke has recorded, and which is embodied in the Apostles' Creed.

With regard to the Ascension, we read as follows:

The Ascension, though mentioned in the Acts, is not mentioned at all in the Gospels, except in what is regarded, on independent grounds, as a spurious addition to St. Mark.

I will not argue as to the genuineness of the closing verses of St. Mark's Gospel, and will only say concerning them, that if they be, as I think is not improbable, by another hand, they nevertheless undoubtedly represent the general belief of primitive times. When Sir James Stephen says that the Ascension is not mentioned in the Gospels, I presume he has made a slip; because we read in St. Luke xxiv. 51,' It came to pass, while He blessed them, He was parted from them, and carried up into heaven.' But besides this, St. Matthew may be said to imply the truth; because, without some such event being supposed, his Gospel closes without any account of the Lord's

3 Some authorities omit the words and carried into heaven;' but it seems clear that the phrase 'He was parted from them' implies something different from an ordinary parting.

final departure from His disciples. He appoints them to meet Him on a certain mountain: they do so: they worship, though some doubt. He gives them a charge; and then-what? What could have happened except some supernatural removal, such as all Christians were taught before their baptism to believe? As for St. John, writing as he did later on, when the ordinary facts of Christianity were everywhere known, and when his manifest purpose was to supplement the Gospels already written and received, there is nothing more surprising in his omission of the Ascension than there is in his omission of the birth. On the whole, instead of saying that the Ascension is not mentioned in the Gospels, except in a spurious addition to St. Mark, I should be disposed to put it thus, that the Ascension is mentioned either expressly or by implication in each of the Synoptic Gospels, though in the case of the second there may be some reason to believe that the record is by another hand.

3. Having now written all that appears to me to be immediately necessary with regard to the expression of belief in God the Father Almighty' and in 'Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,' it would seem to tend towards theological completeness that something should be added concerning the Holy Ghost.' I the rather make this addition, though a brief one, because Sir James Stephen assumes that the doctrine of the Trinity has ceased to interest the great mass of mankind.' This may in a certain sense be true; that is to say, it may be true that a scholastic argument concerning the precise relation of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, an attempt to revive the Arian or any other early controversy, or a discussion of the double procession, would probably not excite any general interest; though even this assertion would require to be made with some considerable reservation; but it seems to be forgotten in the words above quoted, that the doctrine of the Trinity, in the form in which the mental movements of the present century bring it before the minds of thinking people, is a most living and energetic thing. Scores of contributions to current literature, of which Sir James Stephen's is one, prove that this is so. For the question is not concerning some dry definition; but it is whether men are in living relation, by creation, redemption and sanctification, with an Eternal Almighty unspeakable Author of things visible and invisible,' or whether they are not. Certain men of unquestionable scientific standing and ability answer this question in the negative; and an awful negative it is! We, who hold the Apostles' Creed, answer it in the affirmative; we cling to the affirmation as to something dearer to us than life itself; even if it be true that difficulties can be raised concerning this or that portion of our belief, even if it be possible to throw a cloud of obscurity, especially for minds of a certain class, over the whole question of accepting on faith that which we cannot

prove or propound as knowledge, still we believe and confess God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

In saying which I trust that I shall not be accused of having 'two standards of truth.' This is a charge which Sir James Stephen brings against some theologians, and, for anything that I know to the contrary, with justice. He speaks of having a double standard of truth, of using the word truth in its ordinary sense upon all other occasions, but in reference to one particular class of subjects, the extent of which is determined from time to time by the Church, in the sense of "that which is according to the doctrine of the Church.” This state of mind, Sir James Stephen adds, 'is perhaps best illustrated by a saying ascribed, justly or otherwise, to Cardinal Newman in one of his sermons at Oxford: "In science the earth goes round the sun; in theology the sun goes round the earth." The saying to which reference is apparently here made has been long familiar to me; it was spoken of at the time of its utterance as having produced a prodigious effect upon the mind of Oxford. I am glad to have the opportunity of declaring how utterly I myself, in company I believe with most reasonable men, abjure the temper of mind which such a saying appears to indicate. The saying, however, is not quoted quite correctly: here is the passage as it appears in the sermon on 'The Theory of Developments in Religious Doctrine,' being the last in the famous volume of 'Sermons on the Theory of Religious Belief':

Scripture says that the sun moves and the earth is stationary; and science, that the earth moves, and the sun is comparatively at rest. How can we determine which of these opposite statements is the very truth, till we know what motion is?

6

I do not wonder that, in the next paragraph of the sermon, Cardinal Newman should have endeavoured to meet the objections of those who fear lest thoughts such as these should tend to a dreary and hopeless scepticism.' Who will venture to say that they do not at least tend in that direction? Of course it is obvious to answer, that Scripture and science do not make the assertions respectively attributed to them and it is equally obvious to assert, that the very truth concerning the motion of the heavenly bodies can be ascertained without waiting for any more knowledge as to what motion is than we have at present. But I do not wish to say more about the passage than that, having been familiar with it and some similar passages. for many years, I have constantly wondered at them and deplored them, and, moreover, have thought that I could discover in the existence of such passages a clue to the enigma of the writer's life. What I wish to do, however, just now is to point out the possibility of religious belief and scientific certainty having each its appropriate province, without that kind of confusion which Cardinal Newman seems to admit, and which Sir James Stephen criticises. There can be no question of a proposition being true in theology but not in