mutilation, is the true original. He now acknowledges that Dr. Sanday's "able examination of Marcion's gospel has convinced us that our earlier hypothesis is untenable, . . . and, consequently, that our third Synoptic existed in his time, and was substantially in the hands of Marcion." He says that Dr. Sanday's argument must "prove irresistible to all" critics, and that "it is not possible reasonably to maintain" his previous view.* After such an admission coming from such a quarter, we may safely say with Professor Salmon of Dublin, "The theory that Marcion's form [of the gospel] is the original, may be said to be now completely exploded."

In the preceding pages we have dwelt on individual points by way of illustration; it now remains for us to give an indication of the general current of the tide of opinion in the critical world. Even in the negative critical world, in the very school of Baur himself, the current of opinion in regard to the dates of the leading books of the New Testament has begun distinctly to flow back. A brief general statement will be sufficient to make this luminous. Baur regarded Matthew as written after A. D. 130; Hilgenfeld, the present head of Baur's school, holds it to have been written immediately (εvéws) after the destruction of Jerusalem, say about A. D. 70; while Renan regards it as written about A. D. 84. Baur originally regarded Luke and Mark as written about A. D. 150 or later; but both Hilgenfeld and Renan agree in placing their date more or less decidedly within the first century, and therefore within the apostolic age. The case with John is very instructive. Baur regarded it as written about A. D. 160, or even 170; Hilgenfeld assigns it to A. D. 130-140; while Renan, after a good deal of vacillation, holds at present to about A. D. 125. Baur held Acts to be written about the middle of the second century; Hilgenfeld regards it as written after the close of the first century, but maintains that the portions narrated in the first person were the genuine work of Luke; while Renan assigns it to the first century. Baur regarded Romans, First and Second Corinthians, and Galatians as the only genuine Pauline epistles; but in addition to these, Hilgenfeld accepts also First Thessalonians, Philippians, and Philemon; while Renan, also in addition, accepts First and "Supernatural Religion," complete edition (1879), vol. ii, pp. 138, f.

Second Thessalonians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon, and although he regards Ephesians as doubtful, yet he says that "in any case it belongs to the apostolic age." Baur relegated all, or almost all, the remaining books of the New Testament, except the Revelation of John, to the second century. Besides those specified above, Hilgenfeld assigns to the first century Hebrews (c. A. D. 66) and James (A. D. 81–96); while Renan assigns to the same century Ephesians, Hebrews, James, and 1 Peter. To sum up in a general way, we have this approximate result. According to Baur, we have only about one fourth of the New Testament belonging to the first century; according to Hilgenfeld, we have nearly three fourths, and according to Renan, decidedly more than three fourths, falling within the first century, and therefore within the limits of the apostolic age. This surely indicates a very decided and significant retreat.*

Such are a few of the checks or even reverses sustained of late years by the critics of the extreme negative school, and such is their substantial retreat. The general result of the whole is most significant and confirmatory of the catholic belief in regard to the age of the leading books of the New Testament. And let it be noted that the strength of the argument is to be seen not so much in the points separately

It may be interesting and helpful to clearness to fix our attention more particularly on the four gospels. The following table gives the approximate dates according to different critics, and speaks for itself:

We have added up

The above table may be accepted as approximately correct. the different columns (making allowances), in order that the eye may see the gen eral results more distinctly. They are very significant. The sum under Baur is 600, and by comparing with this the sum under the other authors respectively, we see the aggregate retreat in regard to time in each case. We append Meyer as a specimen of the liberal but positive critic, only for comparison. We close the note with the words of Holtzmann himself: "Wir finden in der Tübinger Schule eine allgemeine Rückbewegung, bis zuletzt Hilgenfeld die evangelische Literatur in einer Zeit zum Abschluss bringt, wo sie nach Baur erst angefangen hae.-HOLTZMANN, "Die synoptischen Evangelien," p. 403.

as in the general drift of the whole. Every new discovery has not only fallen in harmoniously with the view commonly held in the Church, but has distinctly tended to confirm it, while in some cases it has been dead against the extreme school of unbelief. Moreover, the distinct and general tendency of the leading authorities on the side of negative criticism has been to move the date of the chief New Testament books back nearer and nearer to the apostolic age, until at last, instead of only one fourth, they agree that about three fourths of the New Testament were actually written before the death of the apostle John.

When the age of historical criticisin came, it was impossible that the books of the New Testament could escape the fire. They had of necessity to pass through the ordeal just like other ancient books, and it will be found in the long run that it was well for the Church that it was so. We have reason to believe that the battle of the dates is drawing near its close, with the victory obviously inclining to the side of the catholic view, namely, that the Christian Scriptures belong to the apostolic age. When the battle has once been fought out, and our sacred books have been proved and acknowledged even by negative critics themselves to fall within the first century, we may reasonably hope that a day will dawn of firmer faith than ever in these books. After they have stood the fire of such criticism as no ancient books have ever undergone, and the unwilling testimony of enemies is found substantially to coincide with that of friends, surely all future ages may regard them as practically unassailable. The battle had to be fought out; but the end is now in view, and fought out once, it is fought out forever.

One of the most brilliant of our scientific writers draws a vivid picture of the "fear and powerless anger" with which he supposes some Christians contemplate the advance of the "realm of matter and of law," that is, of physical science. As drawn by him, the picture is a sad one. But one sadder still sometimes presents itself on the side of unbelief. Here is a man who was cradled in the Christian faith, and brought up in a reverent belief in the New Testament. But when he grew up to manhood, he came into contact with the advanced criticism, let us say, of Baur and hie school. It was to him

something quite new and startling. He was completely carried away by the originality of the principle which underlies the criticism; by the power, learning, and ingenuity with which the great master of the school supported it; and he ended in cordially accepting the position of extreme negation. In his own eyes he now became a free man, standing on the lofty rock of unassailable criticism, in the high, clear air far above the ignorant and superstitious multitude who grope in the twilight of the valley below. He has continued on in this course for years; he has, perhaps, proclaimed his views from the platform and the press; he has committed himself hand and foot to his position, and has become hardened in it. He is now, by "habit and repute," a member of the most enlightened school of infallible criticism; a well-known antagonist of superstitious supernaturalism, and, it may be, a prophet of the speedy downfall of Christianity. But as his generation glides away, a younger race of critics arise. They grow up accustomed to the negative criticism, and are not so easily bewildered and misled by the glamour of its novelty and ingenuity. They examine things more calmly, and in a healthier spirit; they almost unanimously give up the extreme negative position as utterly untenable, and retreat toward the catholic position. But what of our older friend? He has renounced his original faith, he has committed himself to his unbelief, and now it appears that he has been all wrong from the first! He has declared himself too publicly and too dogmatically, and it is too late for him to change. He is left high and dry by the receding tide, to maunder over his old arguments and objections, while the generation around looks on with pity or a smile. Doomed to see the conclusions of his infallible criticism rejected even by its friends-condemned to live to see the sacrifice of his faith in the New Testament proved to be a huge blunder and mistake-too proud, too crystallized, and too old to change--surely such a man presents to us one of the very saddest of spectacles; and, unhappily, it is one which is not altogether a mere picture of the imagination.

ART. VI.-THE CONGO.

THE legend that tells how Alexander of Macedon wept because his career of conquest was cut short for want of a field for its further extension, not only shows him to have been weakly sentimental, but also very inadequately informed in respect to the extent of the world. Other conquerors may have had like thoughts, though not so much since it was written, "Columbus has given a new world to the kingdom of Castile and Leon." From that time the "star of empire" set out anew on its westward course, and it has gone onward till there is no longer an unoccupied West to invite its farther progress. But as that progress followed pretty closely the lines of latitude, it left on either side, and especially within the opposite hemisphere, vast unexplored regions for future occupation. It has thus happened that the earth's great garden, a continent itself, that lies among the seas southward from Europe, has engaged a comparatively small share of the world's interest for three centuries. But the day has at length dawned upon "the Dark Continent," and for the adventurous spirits of the immediate future, traders, naturalists, or missionaries, Africa is becoming "the land of promise."

But, in waking up to the fact that there is an Africa, they who now begin to think and speak of it as an inviting field for study or enterprise must not forget that that fair land has been the arena upon which some of the greatest exploits of history, and also of prehistoric times, have been enacted. Within its area the Pharaohs built the pyramids, and shaped those massive monoliths, the obelisks and sphinxes at which our self-complacent age gazes with the vacant wonder of children. At the dawn of history Egypt, the seat of an advanced civilization, was already passing to its decadence. Rome, in her campaign of a thousand years for the conquest and plunder of the nations, encountered her most formidable antagonists in Africa, whose warriors carried victory to the very gates of the City of the Seven Hills. In medieval times the Italian republics found their mercantile supremacy challenged by the apparently insignificant States of Barbary, and even when the achievements of the Spanish navigator were sending Spain's hidalgos across