But it is useless to disprove the assertion that there are no quotations from the Gospels, for we are met at every turn with the objection that those specified are probably quotations from the numerous lost Gospels known to have been in circulation. He says: "The great mass of intelligent critics are agreed that our Synoptics have assumed their present form only after repeated modifications by various editors of earlier evangelical works. The primitive Gospels have entirely disappeared, supplanted by the later and more amplified versions (p. 459). The first two Synoptics bear no author's name, because they are not the work of any one man, but the collected materials of many. The third only pretends to be a compilation for private use, and the fourth bears no simple signature, because it is neither the work of an apostle nor of an eye-witness of the events it records" (p. 401). I remark, if Luke's Gospel does only pretend to be for private use, does that affect its value? If Matthew wrote at all, and our author acknowledges he did in Hebrew, his work would be likely to be translated into Greek, either by himself or some one else, and many copies circulated. Supposing the original in Hebrew to be lost, it is not probable the Greek copies could be all collected from various places, and all altered and supplemented. How could any one do this? He might write and issue a new version, but he could _not_ suppress the original one unless all the existing copies were under his own control. As we have a certain work preserved, and no other, pretending to be Matthew's, it is highly probable that what Matthew contributed to the Church is that Gospel. A fictitious one would be less likely to be preserved than a real one, though we are asked to believe the contrary. Our author suggests that if we had the original writings we should find them minus the miracles, which is altogether inconsistent with what he has said about the prevalence of miraculous notions among the Jews at the time. At any rate, if the books in circulation did not relate miracles, they would not be in harmony with the gospel preached by Paul, and believed by the first Christians. Supposing that there were, as Luke intimates, and as our author asserts, many original writings, what more likely than that Matthew should collect some of them, and embody them, with his own record, in one book, under his own name? It is quite true that we meet with references to apostolic writings under other titles than those in the New Testament: we read of,-- "The Gospel according to the Hebrews." "The Gospel according to the Egyptians." "The Memoirs of the Apostles." "The Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew." "The Gospel of the Lord." "The Discourses of Peter." "The Collection of Discourses."