Ib. p. 25.

This argument (said Luther), concludeth so much as nothing; for,
although they had been angels from heaven, yet that troubleth me
nothing at all; we are now dealing about God's word, and with the
truth of the Gospel, that is a matter of far greater weight to have
the same kept and preserved pure and clear; therefore we (said
Luther), neither care nor trouble ourselves for, and about, the
greatness of Saint Peter and the other Apostles, or how many and great
miracles they wrought: the thing which we strive for is, that the
truth of the Holy Gospel may stand; for God regardeth not men's
reputations nor persons.

Oh, that the dear man Luther had but told us here what he meant by the
term, Gospel! That St. Paul had seen even St. Luke's, is but a
conjecture, grounded on a conjectural interpretation of a single text,
doubly equivocal; namely, that the Luke mentioned was the same with the
Evangelist Luke; and that the 'evangelium' signified a book; the latter,
of itself improbable, derives its probability from the undoubtedly very
strong probability of the former. If then not any book, much less the
four books, now called the four Gospels, were meant by Paul, but the
contents of those books, as far as they are veracious, and whatever else
was known on equal authority at that time, though not contained in those
books; if, in short, the whole sum of Christ's acts and discourses be
what Paul meant by the Gospel; then the argument is circuitous, and
returns to the first point,--What 'is' the Gospel? Shall we believe you,
and not rather the companions of Christ, the eye and ear witnesses of
his doings and sayings? Now I should require strong inducements to make