[55] Here, as always, the revised version is cited.

     [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 serieux 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
          Encyclopaedia 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.

And the heads of the reply are always the same.  Remember Goethe’s aphorism:  “Alles factische ist schon Theorie.”  Trustworthy witnesses are constantly deceived, or deceive themselves, in their interpretation of sensible phenomena.  No one can prove that the sensible phenomena, in these cases, could be caused only by the agency of spirits:  and there is abundant ground for believing that they may be produced in other ways.  Therefore, the utmost that can be