sonal dislike. This whole question can be amazingly simplified. The point at issue is: who wrote the Gospels, by what authority were they written, and to what extent are they entitled to credit? By Catholic authority already cited we are assured that the Bible does not prove itself. That it "neither proclaims its own inspiration, nor can the sacred articles be proved by the testimony of the Bible. . . . Thus even our great Redeemer, when he had declared himself the Son of God, did not require the Jews to believe him, on the mere testimony of his word; but in order to prove the truth of his word, he referred them to his miracles."

Very well, all we ask is proof of those miracles, such as is sufficient to convince enlightened and unprejudiced minds of their verity. But who wrote the Gospels? The children in Sabbath-school can answer glibly. But suppose you ask them the further question, and repeat it to priest and preacher: "How do you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the Gospels?" What will be the response of each? The children will know little or nothing about it, except that they have been educated into an unquestioning belief; the priest, infantile and plastic as the Sabbath-school pupil, credits it on the authority of the church; and the preacher, he believes it, because—well, he believes it any way! Do not understand me as discounting the great, even vast erudition of some ecclesiastics, but too often they are weighted in their investigations by preconceptions which they deem it profane to question. When the eagle's wings are clipped he may not cleave the firmament. Suppose you ask the same question of the critic who has delved into ecclesiastical history, the thoughtful student, the man of laborious research and of independent thought; what answer will he give? He relies on historic proof, he weighs and sifts; his soul is not in bondage to fear. He can look at the sun of truth in its meridian splendor, nor

blink. To him knowledge is light, ignorance darkness: light is the parent of light: ignorance both the parent and child of darkness. Ask such an one who wrote the Gospels, by what authority they were written, and how far entitled to credit, and he will tell you: "This is a question on which I have read and thought much. The Gospel authors do not disclose their names. The first of the synoptical writers does not say: 'I, Matthew, write this book;' and so of the other three evangelists. True we see now printed over each book the words according to,' etc., but those titles were not affixed until late in the second century. We cannot positively say who wrote those anonymous productions, any more than we can affirm beyond dispute who wrote 'Beautiful Snow,' nor can we tell by whose authority they were written. Jesus, as far as we are informed, directed no one to write his memoirs. The evangelists do not pretend to write by authority, nor to be guided by inspiration. This claim is made for them, not by them. To what extent then are those writers entitled to credit? We are not sure we have the true text of the four Gospels, even if they were written by those to whom they are accredited. Manuscripts, some of the most ancient, differ. Additions have been made to the text to an extent which justified learned Christian writers in saying: 'Turning to the internal history of the New Testament text, it is evident that its original perfect purity was early lost.' Again, if we were certain that we have the true text in the original language, we still have no inspired translators. Translations made under the direction of popes, even, widely differ. And we are told in a Catholic work of high repute: 'And surely to condemn false versions, and to warn the faithful against them, is no other than an act of enlightened pastoral and Christian vigilance for the Bible, falsely translated, is no longer the word of God" ("The Bible Question Fairly Tested," p. 15, note).

Where then, we ask, is our authoritative translation? Neither the Catholic nor Protestant Church has furnished us with one.

Again, there were certain things written by the evangelists which raise a doubt as to their entire historical trustworthiness. Luke says: “And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Cæsar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed. (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was Governor of Syria.)”—Luke ii. 1, 2. At this time Luke fixes the birth of Jesus, who was born under the reign of Herod. Now, it is a fact, as stated by Josephus (the Father's Christian convert) and admitted by Christian commentators, that Cyrenius was not Governor of Syria until twelve or fifteen years after Jesus was born, and at least ten years after the death of Herod, and after Archelaus, his successor, was deposed. No doubt the author of "the Gospel according to Luke" was honest; he only got names and dates a little mixed.

Lambert.-" The fact that there were four inspired Gospels written is sufficient evidence that there was a reason for four."

This is a begging of the whole question. Would it not be well for the Father to prove that there is at least one Gospel which claims inspiration before assuming that there are four which possess it?

The Father tells us that Matthew wrote his Gospel to convince the Jews that Christ was the Messiah: if so, he signally failed of his object; that Mark wrote his Gospel for the Gentile converts: Mark does not say so. That, which is at least probable, Luke wrote more particularly for Theophilus; and that John wrote his Gospel to refute the heresies of the Cerinthians, Ebionites, and Valentinians. And yet, of Cerinthus, Mosheim says: "The learned are not entirely agreed

whether he belongs to the heretics of the first or the second century." The Ebionites, the same author considers, should be classed as of the second century. The Valentinians grew up, about the middle of the second century. Valentinus came to Rome in the reign of Antonius Pius, soon after 140 A. D. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, says Valentinus went from Rome to Cyprus, and there first became an open enemy to the church and a founder of a heretical sect. No one claims that John could have written his Gospel after the close of the first century. His age and infirmity would have forbidden it, even had he lived to such an extreme old age. Commentators place his death at about 100 A. D., so that if the Gospel imputed to him was written to confute the Valentinians, it must have been written, as claimed by many scholars it was, by some one beside John, for he could not have written it in refutation of the doctrines of a sect which sprung up forty or fifty years after his death.

Let the Father beware lest he convince us that John, the apostle, was not the author of the fourth Gospel.

We have nothing to do with the Father's grand peroration, in which he refers to Voltaire, Gibbon, Ingersoll, and others as plagues that will appear from time to time to curse the moral world. Such splenetic elocution, such cheap declamation, would appear unseemly in a sophomore oration; much less becoming are they in the work of a grave logician and profound theologian. It may be unfortunate when we read. vindictive drivel, that though we may be able to bridle our temper we cannot always smother our disgust.

CHAPTER XXI.

REPLY TO CHAPTER XX.

The Honest Infidel-Should Men be Punished for Honest Belief?—Judas Iscariot-If Catholicity is the True Faith the Whole Protestant World will be Sent to Hell to Keep Company with the Infidel-Vicarious Suffering, etc., etc.

IN Chapter XX. we are treated to a dissertation on the honesty (or dishonesty) of infidelity, and on the justice of God in condemning to endless torture those who honestly entertain what the church calls heretical beliefs.

Ingersoll.—“ For the honest infidel, according to the American evangelical pulpit, there is no heaven. For an upright atheist, there is nothing in another world but punishment. Mr. Black admits that lunatics and idiots are in no danger of hell. This being so, his God should have created only Iunatics and idiots. Why should the fatal gift of brain be given to any human being, if such gift renders him liable to eternal. hell? Better be a lunatic here and an angel there. Better be an idiot in this world if you can be a seraph in the next."

How does the Father answer this point? Not by affirming that honest belief or unbelief should or will be punished. Though he, as a Catholic, must hold the doctrine, it would be impolitic to avow it here, while he is aiming to conciliate Protestant sentiment. But, by covert insinuation, he denies the veracity of unbelief, and speaks ironically of honest skeptics as being the victims of "defective phrenal development."