In the last fragment of early literature examined--the Canon of Muratori--the Book of Luke is alluded to as "_the third Gospel_," and our author says (p. 241) "the statement regarding the Third Gospel _merely_ proves the existence of that Gospel at the time the fragment was composed," and that "the inference" that there was a first and second Gospel is a _mere_ conjecture. I remark that if the statement does prove that Luke's Gospel existed at the time the fragment was composed, we gratefully accept the acknowledgment; and as to the adverbs "_mere_" and "_merely_," which qualify the noun "_conjecture_" and verb "_proves_," when our author's third volume appears, if it does not furnish more than "_mere conjecture_" that the first and second preceded it, we will allow the adverbs properly applied, and the logic perfect. The sentences in which such words as _certainly_, _it is certain_, _it is undeniable_, _there is no question_, _it is impossible to suppose_, _it is obviously mere speculation_, &c., are used, where the reasoning does not warrant them, are innumerable; and it is only after becoming familiar with the special pleading which is characteristic of the work throughout, that the unsophisticated reader escapes from the bewilderment into which the evidences of Christianity seem to get entangled. The author seems to have got the reader into a gloomy cavern of criticism, and it is only after the eye has become accustomed to the partial darkness that he can make out whether what he is taken to see are real figures, images, or ghosts. When he has got to the middle of the second volume, however, he begins to see the light again, and breathe more freely. He sees a way right through the cavern, and finds that the figures of this underground chamber of horrors are all phantoms. The "Examiner" justly says: "For our part we see no reason why the Synoptic[54] Gospels may not have assumed their present form by the end of the first century;[55] and we cannot think that our author's German oracles have succeeded in establishing their dissimilarity from the documents quoted by the Primitive Fathers. Justin Martyr's references to the Sermon on the Mount, for instance, appear to us to be actually derived from Matthew. If, however, as is contended, they were taken from the lost "Gospel of the Hebrews," this merely proves the substantial identity of the two. The question of Justin's acquaintance with the Fourth Gospel is more difficult. We are nevertheless disposed to resolve it in the affirmative." [54] The word Synoptics, applied to Matthew, Mark, and Luke's Gospels, indicates abridgment--the bringing of all parts under one view.--_See Dr. Hyde Clark's Dictionary_. [55] "Negative critics, as we have seen, have been compelled again to raise the age of the Gospels, and to place them in the apostolic age, between A.D. 50 and A.D. 100."--_Dr. Christlieb_, p. 541. This is a sensible comment on our author's general argument. CHAPTER V.