BOOK NOTICES. 701 
and which had never before been made fully known. He also assumes that it 
will be found the most complete record of the events connected with the Chris- 
tian religion during the first two centuries which has ever been presented to the 
public. Whether these assumptions are fully borne out is possibly questionable, 
but that the work is the result of extensive reading and study, both of ancient 
and modern writers, and therefore well worth the examination and investigation 
of all readers, is unquestionable. 
The book is divided into six periods. First, The Apostolic age, A. D. 30 to 
A. D. 80; second, the Apostolic Fathers, A. D. 80 to 120; third, the Three 
Apochryphal Gospels, A. D. 120 to 130; fourth, Forty Years of Christian Writ- 
ers, A. D. 130 to 170, fifth, the Four Canonical Gospels, A. D. 170 to 185; 
sixth, close of the Second Century, A. D. 185 to 200. 
The first statement that attracts attention is that the gospels of the first cen- 
tury, with the exception of the epistles of Paul, the one epistle of Clement of 
Rome, a few legends and tradition, etc., are lost; also the great body of the 
Christian literature of the second century has been destroyed. Later, the author 
states, in a review of the third and fourth periods, that in the whole mass of 
Christian literature cited by him, including the writings of twenty-six Christian 
authors, besides others of note, there is not to be found a single mention of the 
canonical gospels; not a reference to Matthew, Mark, Luke or John, as the 
author of a gospel. Still later, he states, as a result of his investigation, that 
““no evidence is found of the existence, in the first century, of either of the fol- 
lowing doctrines: the immaculate conception, the miracles of Christ or his mate- 
rial resurrection. Finally, he declares that, notwithstanding all these absences 
and failures in what are usually regarded as authoritative writers and doctrines, 
the divine teachings of Christ, ‘‘ unlike the books referred to, can be traced back 
to well authenticated records of the first century.” 
Giving Mr. Waite all credit for laborious overhauling of authorities among 
early and later writers, and accepting his copious quotations as correct, and even 
allowing that his motives and purposes in the investigations he has made were 
pure and in the interest of exact history, we yet fail to be convinced that he has 
had access to better authorities or has read them to better effect than the thou- 
sands of scholars who have preceded him, who, doubtless, were actuated by as 
lofty motives in their researches, and who, doubtless, were as honest in their 
conclusions, though differing so widely from his own. 
Mr. Waite fixes the date of the canonical gospels approximately thus: Luke, 
A. D. 170: Mark, 175; John, 178; Matthew, 180. It seems impossible that 
such writers as Origen and Irenzeus, whose testimony shows that Matthew’s 
gospel was written about A. D. 58 to 60, should be so far mi taken; while the 
internal evidence of Mark’s gospel (xiii-r3, 24, 33), proves that it written before 
the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke’s gospel is known to have been in use before 
A. D. 120, and the internal evidence (Acts i, 1), proves that it was written before 
the Acts, which, since the latest time actually mentioned in the latter is the period 
during which Paul lived at Rome, must have been before the year 63. John’s gosp:l 
