valid for the belief in the facts as it existed in the Church from eighty to eighty-five years after the termination of Our Lord's ministry. This brings us within the range of trustworthy historical tradition. Of this testimony I shall make a very important use presently. I have here only to do with it as far as it bears on the date and authorship of the Gospels.

One thing the testimony of Justin places beyond the possibility of dispute, viz. that he derived his information, not merely from oral traditions handed down in the Church, but from written documents of some kind, which he designates "Memoirs of the Apostles," and occasionally, Gospels," and which he tells us that the Church was in the habit of publicly reading. It is also no less certain that in his time these memoirs did not stand on the same level in point of authority as the Old Testament Scriptures. The important question is, can they be identified with our present Gospels? If they could, this would not only afford evidence of their composition before the commencement of the second century, but would go far to establish the fact that they were the compositions of the writers whose names they bear. In effecting this identi

*The mode in which these "Memoirs of the Apostles" are referred to by Justin renders it impossible that at the time when he wrote they could have been recent compositions. They had already attained such notoriety as to be publicly read in the Church. His mode of speaking of them justifies us in inferring that this had been the case from his earliest recollections; and that the practice was no recent innovation. It is certain therefore that they must have been published several years earlier, as it could be only by gradual steps that they could obtain the currency requisite to entitle them to this distinction. Doubtless the Christian community possessed the means of bringing a work-such a work as a gospel-into earlier notice than it could obtain under ordinary circumstances. Still a considerable interval of time must have been necessary, before a book which professed to be a "Memoir of the Apostles" could have established its reputation so firmly as to be publicly read in the Church. It is hardly possible therefore that Justin's "Memoirs " can have been published later than the last ten or twelve years of the first century.

fication, the difficulty is caused by the inexactitude of the quotations, which it must be remembered, extends, although not in the same degree, to his unquestionable citations from the Old Testament Scriptures.

Another fact the writings of Justin establish beyond all doubt. If the Memoirs of the Apostles were not our three Synoptics, they must have been writings which bore the closest possible resemblance to them.

The following is the general conclusion on which we may safely rest. The writings of Justin establish to a very high degree of probability, although not to absolute certainty, that among the documents used by him were one or more of our present Gospels. It is also very probable, but yet not absolutely certain, that he used one or more documents besides these, which are no longer extant.

V. As we ascend upwards our evidence becomes less distinct. Our materials become few and meagre. Some of the earlier writings, once accepted as genuine, and referred to as such by Paley, are now with great reason rejected as spurious. Still they are not altogether without value, for their early date is unquestionable; but the evidence to be derived from them requires for its due appreciation such an amount of skill in textual criticism as can only be acquired by a long course of special study, to which few persons have either the leisure or the inclination to devote themselves. The references, as far as they go, are to the same facts and teaching as those in our present Gospels; and only to a very inconsiderable number in which they differ from them. But whether these references are made to them, or to other documents closely resembling them, or whether the information was derived from traditions of a similar character, the inexactitude of the citations prevents us from determining with certainty. Still the balance of evidence is in favour of the assumption that these writers used one or more of our present Gospels. If we could be certain that Clement of Rome, Polycarp, or Ignatius, used our Gospels, it would go far to establish

the date which has been usually assigned to them. But as they do not directly refer to written documents, it must be admitted that their information may have been equally well derived from the traditions of the Church. As a testimony to the existence either of traditions or of documents which substantially agreed with the contents of the Synoptics, their references are invaluable, for this they establish beyond a question.

Such then is the position in which the testimony of the Fathers leaves us as to the date and authorship of the Gospels. Let me briefly summarise it.

It establishes the fact that those who flourished as late as 160 years after the events recorded in them, accepted them as indubitable authorities respecting the actions and teaching of Our Lord, and as written by the persons whose names they bear; but this leaves the question open, as to how far we can rely on their critical judgment. The evidence afforded by the earlier writers amounts only to a very high degree of probability, which diminishes in force as we ascend upwards, and will in no case carry us higher than the last ten years of the first century. But our greatest difficulty is this, that the evidence is made up of the balance of so large a number of intricate probabilities which vary greatly in weight, as to require an intellect highly trained in such studies, to estimate them at their proper value; and it is moreover a kind of evidence, which will be estimated differently by different persons. It must be conceded therefore, that our evidence that the Synoptics were written prior to the year A.D. 70, and the Gospel of St. John about A.D. 90, by the authors whose names they bear, if we rely exclusively on the literary testimony furnished by the writings of the Fathers, amounts not to certainty, but only to a high degree of probability.* Such a fact, I

*It has been affirmed by Bishop Butler that probable evidence constitutes the very guide of life. The truth of this I fully admit ; but it is a kind of probable evidence which those who are guided by it are capable of weighing and judging. This renders the maxim in

think, fully justifies me in placing another kind of evidence in the forefront of the Christian argument.

Such being the position in which our purely literary evidence leaves us, it becomes a question of the highest importance whether we have made the best possible use of the historical materials which we possess? I cannot think that we have. On the contrary, I am satisfied that they can be made to afford a far more conclusive proof of the truth of the supernatural events recorded in the Gospels, than any amount of mere citations from the Fathers, and of complicated reasonings upon them. I therefore proceed to address myself to the re-constructive portion of the argument.

I observe, in the first place, that far too much importance has been attached on both sides to these citations, as if the life of Christianity depended on them. They are doubtless very interesting in reference to many important questions of theology; but with regard to the truth or falsehood of the great facts on which Christianity is based, their value has been greatly over-estimated. We have abundance of materials for proving that the general contents of the Gospels are trust

a great measure inapplicable to the kind of evidence which we are now considering. Even the great majority of educated men are very imperfect judges of its value, because a special training in this class of historical studies is necessary for its due appreciation. The ordinary class of minds can form respecting it little or no judgment of their own, and are therefore compelled to accept it, if they accept it at all, in reliance on the judgment of those who are more learned than themselves. But in this particular case, the value of the judgment of the learned is greatly weakened in the eyes of ordinary men, because those who should be guides are at issue amongst themselves as to the importance which they assign to the evidence in question. The whole tendency of thought in modern times is to require evidence in religious matters on which men can exercise some judgment of their own. Scientific judgments are in numerous cases accepted without this, because many of them admit of verification in our actual experience, which imparts a credibility to the assertions of eminent professors on subjects which lie beyond its range; but the case is wholly different with respect to religious truth.

worthy accounts of the traditions which were handed down by the primitive followers of Jesus; and the value of the evidence would be only slightly increased if we could determine with certainty their genuineness and the date of their publication. I do not deny that our ability to prove that they were published between the years A.D. 60 and A.D. 70, and written by the authors to whom they have been ascribed, would strengthen the evidence; but that which we possess is so strong that we can well afford to dispense with this additional confirmation. If this be so, it is surely unwise on the part of the defenders of Christianity to rest their case exclusively on evidence which consists of a balance of intricate probabilities, when it is in our power to base it on that which amounts to a moral certainty.

Let us then for the purpose of the present argument lay aside the question whether the references to the actions and the teaching of our Lord, which are contained in the remains of the Patristic and heretical writings prior to the year 180, afford a valid proof that the authors used our present Gospels. One thing, however, these writings establish beyond all doubt, viz. that their authors used written documents of some kind, whether our Gospels or others. It is also no less certain that these documents contained an account which (whatever may have been its minor variations) was for all practical purposes the same as that which we read in the Synoptics. The actions and sayings attributed to our Lord in all the existing remains of Christian literature between A.D. 90 and A.D. 180, the complete counterparts of which cannot be found in our present Gospels, are about twelve in number. It follows, therefore, whatever the documents may have been, to which the Fathers referred, or whatever traditional sources of information they may have possessed, that the facts at their command were for all the purposes of history the same as those of our present Gospels, and that the minor differences in words and language are not worth taking into account in a controversy which is simply historical.