When I find him saying, as he does, vol. ii. page 387, "We must, however, carefully restrict ourselves to the limits of our inquiry, and resist any temptation to enter upon an exhaustive discussion of the problem presented by the Fourth Gospel from a more _general_ literary point of view," I expect to find difficulties, which of course there are and must be, brought into prominence and carped at, while the general evidence upon which Divine revelation is immovably based is "carefully" avoided. The second part, on the Synoptic Gospels, is a long investigation, extending over five hundred pages, and dealing with three and twenty works by separate non-biblical authors of the first and second centuries; and its object is to disprove that they were written solely by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and to support the hypothesis that those Gospels were not in existence until long after the times of the apostles, and, therefore, that they furnish no evidence from eye-witnesses of the miracles they record. The third part deals with the Fourth Gospel in a similar manner, and occupies more than two hundred pages. Our author's inquiry into the reality of Divine revelation seems, at this point, to involve the following questions: Does the extant literature of the close of the first and the beginning of the second century quote from, or allude to, the three Synoptic Gospels? And if this cannot be answered in the affirmative, does such silence prove they were not then written; and, if so, is the conclusion deducible that the miracles recorded are not credible?