With all this array of evidence against the present and in support of the restored order of S. Luke's text-evidence which is equally strong at every one of six points-is it for a moment possible to say that, beyond the fact of its existing, there is a single word to be offered in favour of the present arrangement? Well indeed may theologians have wearied themselves in the vain endeavour to produce any 'scheme ' which should really reconcile even one or two of the endless difficulties and contradictions which are thus shewn to be inseparable from S. Luke's text as it now stands. And who shall wonder, if men, used to weighing evidence, should have come to the conclusion, at which so many have arrived, that S. Luke, whatever else he intended to do, certainly could not have intended to write in chronological order?—a conclusion evidently inconsistent with the fact that one alteration makes his 'order' and that of S. Mark and S. John identical; or even that occasionally scholars, prejudiced from the first rather against than in favour of the most modified theories of inspiration, should have felt that the Gospels could not so bear the test of critical investigation as to make good their claim to be Inspired Documents?

Or, on the other hand, how can we fail to regard with the deepest thankfulness the wonderful testimony to the strength of the internal and external evidences of the truth of the Gospel story as a whole which is afforded by the fact, that not even the demonstrable historical contradictions caused by this single error have ever seriously affected the Faith, with which for eighteen centuries it has been, so almost universally, received?

CHAPTER IV.

S. LUKE'S PREFACE'.

See Proposition 8 in enumeration of proofs of displacement.

To appreciate the force of a statement, however simple, it is generally necessary that we should know with tolerable exactness the circumstances to which it refers. Failing this knowledge, there is considerable danger that either the general drift of the statement, or the points of detail which it involves, or both, should be misunderstood. Whilst if it should so happen that the circumstances alluded to are not only not understood, but from some cause or other should have become the subject of positive misconception, this danger is of course greatly increased.

That this proposition applies with peculiar force to S. Luke's preface will be at once apparent. Not only is it couched in language which is susceptible of many modifications in its actual rendering into English, but it contains several expressions which, save in the light of facts of which there is confessedly no certain record, are wholly unintelligible.

The temptation under such circumstances is first to assume the correctness of what seems to be the most

1 See also pp. lxxxi-lxxxv.

probable view of the language used, and then to deduce our facts from the meaning thus given to the statement as a whole.

Obviously such a method would never be resorted to so long as there seemed the least possibility of adopting the reverse process, i. e. of first ascertaining the facts, and then seeing how far the expressions in the original statement could be made to fit in with them. Obviously also should this possibility at any time arise, it would constitute an allsufficient reason for reviewing the previously adopted interpretation of the language used, and the opinions subsequently based upon it.

Now, if the main contention of this volume can be established, we have at once revealed to us the very facts which are so absolutely essential to enable us to understand what S. Luke's preface really means, and are so far placed much more nearly in the position of those to whom it was originally addressed.

The two main facts, from which several subsidiary ones are merely unavoidable deductions, are these:

(1) That S. Luke did, as a matter of fact, write in exact historical and chronological order.

(2) That he so wrote as to elucidate the order, and confirm the truthfulness, of the Gospels which have come down to us as the writings of those who were either eyewitnesses or ministers of the word, viz. the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. John.

Both these facts are established by evidence which it seems impossible to gainsay. The one displacement in S. Luke's Gospel being rectified, we see at once that there is not a shadow of real discrepancy between his order and that

of the other three Evangelists, or in other words that whenever there is any appearance of such discrepancy his 'order' at once explains it, and that we have therefore all the evidence, which the full support of their testimony can give, to his order being what we have termed it, exactly chronological and historical.

Nor does the second fact rest on evidence one whit less indisputable. To deny it is to affirm that, though S. Luke expressed his intention of elucidating the order and confirming the truthfulness of certain logoi or Gospels, and that though he has undoubtedly done this with regard to S. Matthew, S. Mark and S. John, yet this is a mere accidental coincidence, and moreover that the Logoi to which he really refers, though of sufficient authority to be accepted by the Church up to the time of S. Luke, as the basis of all catechetical instruction, have disappeared without leaving any trace behind them.

We might almost as well suppose that every sentence in the present page came into its place by accident, as suppose that S. Luke's narrative could bear the relation which it does to the other Gospels, whilst all the time it was not intended to have any specific reference to them. Not only do they all four traverse precisely the same ground, not only does the actual wording of prolonged narratives constitute a background of exact verbal agreement, but-not to assume what is not dealt with in this volume-there is at least a presumptive probability, (1) that this background is intended to throw out into bold relief the variations on which the peculiarity of each narrative turns, and (2) that the very omissions and additions form part of a definite plan of writing.

Nor, if we look at the arrangement of the Gospel narrative regarded as a whole, and mark the relative bearing of its several parts, does it seem possible to doubt that there is as clear and unmistakeable evidence of the working of some One Master Mind in the composition and ordering of the whole, as there is in any elaborate and exquisitely concerted piece of music.

Even those who may not be prepared to accept such phenomena as the Gospels present as an illustration of the Scripture statement that there was ever working in Evangelists, as in Pastors and Teachers, the Selfsame Spirit dividing to every man severally as He would, still cannot deny the existence of the main facts of the case, or their bearing upon the present issue.

Assuming then that the two facts stated above cannot be gainsayed, let us see what are the conclusions which they necessarily involve.

(1) They shew negatively that there is no necessity whatever for attributing to S. Luke the meagre and inconclusive reasoning which the accepted interpretation of his Preface involves, whilst

(2) They shew positively that all the statements of his preface are intimately connected with each other, and form together an introduction to his Gospel, which has the closest and most logical bearing both upon its design and execution.

(1) For what does the ordinarily accepted interpretation of S. Luke's preface amount to? Simply to this, that because many other persons had written Gospels, S. Luke considered that the accuracy of his information was a sufficient justification for his doing the same. Thus understood it is rather