fact that this suggestion fell in with his own experience of the spread of certain erroneous opinions, his Gospel would in all human probability never have been written at all.

Is it not infinitely more probable that S. John should have been at least as anxious as the other Evangelists to give to the early Church a record of teaching, which he of all others would be the least likely to undervalue? and how can we account for any very long delay in his undertaking a work so important, and for which we can hardly conceive it possible that he did not recognize himself as responsible from the first?

Again, what evidence is there that he wrote after the destruction of Jerusalem? and why should we assume as a matter of course that when he speaks of the five porches at the Pool of Bethesda as still existing, he is speaking inaccurately? It is indeed only a single expression, but it is not counterbalanced by a single one which would require us to suppose it to be an error; whilst it is supported by the existence in his Gospel of a multitude of minute references all strongly indicative of an authorship at least much more nearly contemporary with the facts related than is generally supposed.

Why too should we feel bound to assume that, because he did not allude to the destruction of Jerusalem, he wrote long after any more than we should assume that he wrote long before that event?

Such an assumption ignores altogether the most obvious peculiarities of S. John's Gospel, and omits to give the slightest weight to what seems almost a selfevident fact, that such a notice of that event as is appropriate enough to the plan of the other Evangelists,

would, when contrasted with the treatment of his subject by S. John, have been as incongruous as a crape scarf would be upon a bridal dress.

On the evidences, which I believe to be overwhelmingly strong, of S. John's Gospel forming an integral part of the architectural design, if I may so speak, which dominates the narratives of all the Evangelists, I do not attempt to insist at present.

It is then, I cannot help thinking, only when we break loose from the fetters of traditional ideas, that we can really expect to be able to attach its proper value to what without exaggeration we may term the only available testimony of any real value, the internal evidences presented by the Gospels themselves.

And foremost amongst these stands S. Luke's preface interpreted by the rest of his Gospel.

If we can shew that he not only promises to do certain things but also does them, if, that is, we can shew that he promises to establish the truth of certain previously existing Gospels, and that he does establish the truthfulness, often to their minutest details, of the Gospels of S. Matthew, S. Mark and, though somewhat less directly, of S. John, how is it possible to set mere tradition, were it a hundredfold more authentic than it is, against the irresistible conclusion that these three Gospels were those to which he referred, that they were the ones which had been the subjects of the misdirected efforts of 'many' would-be Harmonists, that they were the Gospels which had the sanction of being written and handed over to the Church by eye-witnesses and Ministers of The Word, and that, long before S. Luke's Gospel was published, long enough that is for many spurious

rearrangements of the earlier Gospels to be compiled and disseminated, they were the recognized and all-sufficient subject of Christian instruction in the Faith?

Can we say that there is either any ground for, or any reasonable probability in, the supposition, that, whilst 'many' were engaged in the task of committing to writing apocryphal accounts of our Lord's life, the Apostles, with the promises of their Master still sounding in their ears, should alone have been idle, and have left a want, shewn to have been so urgently felt, to be supplied by other and utterly incompetent hands?

For what purpose was the Holy Spirit to enlighten their understanding and to recall to their minds all that Christ had said, unless it was that they might make known these things to others? and when, if not at the very first, was it most likely that they would recall, and make trial of, the reality of the assurances thus given them? Or upon what other foundation than upon records prepared by virtue of this power, were they at all likely to ground the instruction given to those who were daily pressing into the Church? In other words, what is there in all which is here contended for as stated or implied in S. Luke's preface, which goes one whit beyond what may thus be regarded as the obvious probabilities of the case, or which, when supported by overwhelming internal evidence in the whole structure and composition of all the Gospels, should not be regarded as proved by the certain warrant of Holy Scripture?

CHAPTER V.

THE PLAN OF S. MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.

Proposition 9 in enumeration of proofs of displacement.

That the correctness of the principles of construction, which suggest and require the alteration contended for, is testified by the fact that when the alteration is made it becomes apparent that, with two or three very minor exceptions, the order of events given by S. Luke is identical with that given by S. Mark, and that we are thus enabled on the testimony of two witnesses, both being Evangelists, to perceive at what points S. Matthew's order is unchronological, and so to ascertain the exact plan upon which his Gospel is written.

THAT the order of events in our Lord's life as given by S. Luke and S. Mark is, with a few very minor exceptions, absolutely identical will be shewn by the annexed arrangement of the Gospels, as well as by the conspectus of this arrangement given on pp. xvii-xliv.

Regarding S. Matthew's Gospel in the light of this fact, we perceive at once that, whilst it shews a distinct chronological framework, upon which the whole narrative is built up, yet that the idea of chronological order, so far from being the paramount idea or controlling principle of narration, is altogether subordinated to the design of giving special prominence to the Oral Teaching of our Lord.

It is this exceptional combination of the historical and didactic method of writing which, in the absence of the true

'order' supplied by S. Luke, has imported so many elements of uncertainty into the question of the real order of events.

Before S. Luke's Gospel was written S. Matthew, S. Mark, and S. John must have appeared to give conflicting evidence on the subject, and the truthfulness of one or the other must necessarily have been called in question by any one attempting to form from them a connected narrative.

As, according to our contention, it originally stood, S. Luke's Gospel by confirming the 'order' of S. Mark and S. John at once removed this difficulty, being in fact-supposing the view of its preface, already suggested, to be correct —written with this express purpose.

No sooner, however, was his text altered, and serious and irreconcileable discrepancies between his order and that of the previously existing Gospels introduced, than the original difficulty appeared in an aggravated form, there being then four instead of three conflicting records, and not the slightest means of determining which of the four was

correct.

On the other hand, no sooner is this alteration recognized and rectified than the confirmation which S. Luke's Gospel affords to the 'order' of S. Mark and S. John is again apparent, and, as a necessary consequence, the plan of writing adopted by S. Matthew becomes, as S. Luke doubtless intended it should do, perfectly plain and unmistakeable.

Desiring to present Christ as the Divine Teacher (1) of all the people, and (2) of the Apostles, S. Matthew begins by setting forth His Oral Teaching, as addressed now to the multitudes, now to the Apostles; and then proceeds in each case to shew how that teaching was illustrated and enforced by His actions.