clusion be fairly established, and we shall need no elaboration of criticism to crush our faith in the gospels. But until it is proved, reason does not bind us to proceed to an investigation of the New Testament narratives as if it were proved. Until we have been satisfied on this head, we do not feel ourselves precluded from admitting evidence which, in other matters, unless compelled by a foregone conclusion, we should never feel ourselves warranted in rejecting-nor do we consider ourselves bound to interpret discrepancies affecting only nonessential details of historical events, into proofs that the writers cannot be describing realities. We set something down, as we ought to do, to the character of the men-something, to their opportunities of acquaintance with the scenes and events which they portray-something, to the impracticability of their palming off a series of fictions upon observant contemporaries-something, to the ready belief and wide circulation which their works obtained—something, to the simplicity of their style-something, to the unaffected candour and deep sincerity of their tone-something, to the exquisite moral beauty of the character they have depicted-something, also, to the sublime spiritual purpose which gleams through the entire life of that man whose memoirs they have sketched-and we are not to be oblivious of all this instantly upon being told in an authoritative manner that a mira

cle is an impossibility; and, in the moment, and under the influence, of our forgetfulness, proceed to rake together all the superficial difficulties, anomalies, and contrarieties, which an already suspicious mind may torture into "confirmation strong as Holy Writ." Our reason, Our reason, whatever may be the case with others, constrains us to examine, as we have done, separately and apart, the question whether supernaturalism may be a necessary, a becoming, and a credible feature of any revelation to man by man of God's moral character—and having determined that question in the affirmative, we find no justification for allowing incredulity to cast a dark shadow of suspicion over the history in which we discover a worthy purpose wrought out in connexion with an appropriate supernatural display. On the contrary, we feel ourselves impelled by what appear to us rational considerations, to take our stand upon the preponderant proof in favour of the fidelity of the New Testament writers, and from that ground, rather than from a dogmatic position arbitrarily assumed, to pass in review, for the purpose of comparison, their several accounts of their Master's life and deeds-to take notice of their agreements, as well as their differences to mark in what respects their separate testimonies induce conviction, and in what they suggest doubt-to weigh the substantiality of the one against the triviality of the other to judge of their conflicting

statements, in their bearing upon the trustworthiness of the penmen, according to those rules the benefit of which we should deem ourselves obliged to extend to all other historians-and to set down nothing as necessarily subversive of their credit which will admit of a probable explanation consistent with their honesty. For, be it remembered, these witnesses, strange as may be the facts to which they depose, come into court with a character which no mere criticism can set aside. They are heralded by events, and are surrounded by favouring probabilities, which no judgment can do wisely to overlook. And if they ask only that measure of respectful treatment which is readily accorded to profane historians, it cannot surely be unreasonable that their demand should be complied with. To this, however, our philosophical critics stoutly demur. They have already settled that no testimony can prove a miraculous event-and they expect others to join with them in regarding every real or seeming discrepancy as satisfactory evidence that these men are not to be believed. Now this is not the manner in which we are wont to act in courts of justice. Such are not the rules by which we test evidence in matters arising daily out of the common relationships of life. This is not the spirit in which we apply ourselves to ascertain historic facts in general. Therefore we hold that conclusions reached by means of such a process are

not ordinarily depended upon as valid-and this being the case, we see no reason why we should subject the evangelical record to a violence of unfriendly criticism under the tortures of which all history would be obliged to confess itself a lie, and then expire.

§ 7. CONSIDERATIONS CORROBORATIVE OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF

THE RECORD SUGGESTED BY THE PROBABLE SOURCE OF THE FIRST THREE GOSPELS.

When we look at some of the peculiar features of the record itself, we discover marks upon it, which, while they strongly corroborate the integrity of the writers, open up to us also the probable sources of those diversities and discrepancies of statement upon which such unfavourable stress has been laid by modern critics of the philosophical school. Every one must be struck with the remarkable similarity of the first three gospelsshowing itself sometimes in the selection of the same occurrences for description, sometimes in the order in which the occurrences are narrated, and sometimes in the use, throughout whole passages, of the selfsame words. Combined, however, with this similarity, there are not only material differences in all three respects, but there are also upon the face of each gospel such characteristics as must satisfy the mind that each writer had access to a considerable stock of materials common to all; that

each also availed himself, to some extent, of information either not possessed or not used by the other two; and that each so far modified what passed through his hands, as to leave upon his work a well-defined and cognisable stamp of his own individuality of purpose, style, and manner. Ancient patristical writers make mention of a gospel by Matthew, written in Hebrew, and published and circulated among the churches in Judea at a very early date. This gospel, it is thought, constituted the common root out of which eventually sprang the three which we now possess. But another suggestion has been made of late, deserving considerable attention. During the interval between the death of Jesus Christ and the publication of the first gospel, a large number of converts was made, and not a few churches must have been scattered over the face of what we now call the Holy Land. Authentic information respecting the life and ministry of the Messiah would, of course, be earnestly coveted by these Christian societies—indeed, we can hardly imagine how they could have been "built up in the faith," save as a solid groundwork was laid in the communication to them of historic facts. Upon facts the new religion was based, and, no doubt, much of the "preaching of the kingdom," by the apostles and elders, would partake of a historical cast, and be largely intermingled with narrative memorials of their risen Lord. Every pas