In winding up the first part of the work, which was principally
concerned with the antecedent credibility of miracles, I said:--

"Now it is apparent that the evidence for miracles requires to
embrace two distinct points: the reality of the alleged facts, and
the accuracy of the inference that the phenomena were produced by
supernatural agency ... In order, however, to render our conclusion
complete, it remains for us to see whether, as affirmed, there be
any special evidence regarding the alleged facts entitling the
Gospel miracles to exceptional attention. If, instead of being
clear, direct, the undoubted testimony of known eye-witnesses free
from superstition and capable, through adequate knowledge, rightly
to estimate the alleged phenomena, we find that the actual accounts
have none of these qualifications, the final decision with regard to
miracles and the reality of Divine Revelation will be easy and
conclusive." [130:1]

Before commencing the examination of the evidence for the Gospels, I was
careful to state the principles upon which I considered it right to
proceed. I said:

"Before commencing our examination of the evidence as to the date,
authorship, and character of the Gospels, it may be well to make a
few preliminary remarks, and clearly state certain canons of
criticism. We shall make no attempt to establish any theory as to
the date at which any of the Gospels was actually written, but
simply examine all the testimony which is extant, with the view of
ascertaining _what is known of these works and their authors,
certainly and distinctly, as distinguished from what is merely