[56] Does any one really mean to say that there is any internal or external criterion by which the reader of a biblical statement, in which scientific matter is contained, is enabled to judge whether it is to betaken _au sérieux_ or not? Is the account of the Deluge, accepted as true in the New Testament, less precise and specific than that of the call of Abraham, also accepted as true therein? By what mark does the story of the feeding with manna in the wilderness, which involves some very curious scientific problems, show that it is meant merely for edification, while the story of the inscription of the Law on stone by the hand of Jahveh is literally true? If the story of the Fall is not the true record of an historical occurrence, what becomes of Pauline theology? Yet the story of the Fall as directly conflicts with probability, and is as devoid of trustworthy evidence, as that of the creation or that of the Deluge, with which it forms an harmoniously legendary series. [57] See, for an admirable discussion of the whole subject, Dr. Abbott's article on the Gospels in the _Encyclopædia Britannica_; and the remarkable monograph by Professor Volkmar, _Jesus Nazarenus und die erste christliche Zeit_ (1882). Whether we agree with the conclusions of these writers or not, the method of critical investigation which, they adopt is unimpeachable. [58] Notwithstanding the hard words shot at me from behind the hedge of anonymity by a writer in a recent number of the _Quarterly Review_, I repeat, without the slightest fear of refutation, that the four Gospels, as they have come to us, are the work of unknown writers. [59] Their arguments, in the long run, are always reducible to one form. Otherwise trustworthy witnesses affirm that such and such events took place. These events are inexplicable, except the agency of "spirits" is admitted. Therefore "spirits" were the cause of the phenomena.