1812, where he was wounded. In the campaign of 1813-1814, he commanded the 1st corps of Russian infantry, and distinguished himself at Leipsic and Paris. He was made general of infantry in 1819, and in 1828 retired from active service.-PRINCE PETER G. was born in 1790. Having made the campaigns of 1813 and 1814, he served in Caucasia under General Yermoloff. As chief of the general staff of Wittgenstein in 1826, he was one of the signers of the Treaty of Adrianople. In 1839, he was appointed governor-general of Eastern Siberia, and occupied that important post until, in 1851, he

On the outbreak of the

retired from active life. Crimean war, however, he offered his services, which were accepted; and at the battle of the Alma he commanded the left wing of the Russian troops. He also took part in the battle of Inkermann.

GORTSCHAKOFF, PRINCE MIKAIL, brother of the preceding, was born in 1795, commenced his military career as an officer of artillery, and distinguished himself in 1828 at the sieges of Silistria and Schumla. Chief of the staff of Count Pahlen in 1831, he gave proofs of extraordinary valour in the battle of Ostrolenka and at the taking of Warsaw. He was wounded at Grohow, and made general; succeeded Count Toll as chief of the staff of the whole army, was appointed general of artillery in 1843, and military governor of Warsaw in 1846. In 1853, he commanded the Russian forces in the Danubian provinces, crossed the Danube, at Braila, March 23, 1854, occupied the frontiers of Bessarabia, and in March 1855 directed the defences of Sebastopol, attacked by the armies of Great Britain and France. The ability he displayed in this defence, his courtesy to the enemy, and his humanity to the wounded and prisoners, have given him an exalted reputation. As a reward for his services in this unsuccessful but still brilliant defence, Prince G. was appointed by the Emperor Alexander II. lieutenant-general of the kingdom of Poland, and was for several years a wise and conciliatory representative of his youthful emperor at Warsaw. He died May 30, 1861.-PRINCE ALEXANDER G., Russian diplomatist, brother of the preceding, was born in 1800. He was secretary of the Russian embassy in London in 1824, chargé d'affaires at Florence in 1830, counsellor of the embassy at Vienna in 1832, and envoy extraordinary to Stuttgart in 1841. In 1854, he was charged by the Emperor Nicolas with the interests of Russia in the Vienna conferences; and in 1856 he succeeded Count Nesselrode as Minister of Foreign Affairs. GORUCKPORE, a city of Hindustan, in the sub-presidency of the North-West Provinces, and capital of a district of the same name, stands on the left bank of the Rapti, which joins, 85 miles further down, the Ghagra from the left, the whole of the intermediate course being navigable. It is in lat. 26° 42′ N. and long. 83° 23 E., being 430 miles to the north-west of Calcutta; and it contains about 50,000 inhabitants. The district of G. has an area of 7346 square miles, and a population of

2,376,000.

GORY DEW, a dark red slimy film not unfrequently to be seen on damp walls and in shady places; often on the whitewashed walls of damp cellars, where its appearance is apt to occasion alarm from its resemblance to blood. It is one of the lowest forms of vegetable life, one of the alga of the group Palmellacea (included in Confervacea), and nearly allied to the plant to which the phenomenon of RED SNOW (q. v.) appears to be chiefly owing. Its botanical name is Palmella cruenta. It sometimes extends over a considerable surface, and becomes a tough gelatinous mass. The structure

and mode of growth of this and allied plants will be noticed under the head PALMELLACE. Its characteristic red colour appears also in Hæmatococcus sanguineus, a nearly allied plant, found in similar situations, but which seems to extend more as an aggregation of cells, not soon melting down into an indefinite slime like the cells of the Palmella. The prevalent colour of the group, however, is green.

GÖRZ, or GÖRITZ, an important town of Austria, in the crown-land of the Kustenland (Coast Districts), (q. v.), and capital of a district of the same name, is charmingly situated in a fruitful plain on the left bank of the Isonzo, about 25 miles north-north-west from Trieste. Among its principal buildings are the old castle of the former Counts of Görz, now used as a prison; and the cathedral, with a beautiful sacrarium. G. has extensive sugarrefining, and manufactures of rosoglio, silks, linen, cotton, and leather; it has also a thriving trade in its manufactures and in dried fruits. Charles X. of France died here, November 6, 1837. Pop. 14,000.

GO'SHAWK (Astur), a genus of Falconida (q. v.), distinguished from the true falcons by a lobe or festoon, instead of a sharp tooth, on the edge of the

Goshawk (Astur palumbarius)
(Copied from Falconry in the British Isles).

upper mandible, and by the shortness of the wing, which reaches only to the middle of the tail. It is more nearly allied to the sparrow-hawks, from which it is distinguished by its more robust form, by its shorter legs, and by the middle toe not being elongated, as in that genus. The species to which the name G. originally and strictly belongs (A. palumbarius), is very widely diffused over Europe, Asia, the north of Africa, and North America, chiefly inhabiting hilly and wooded regions. It is now very rare in Britain, particularly in England. Although one of those that were called ignoble birds of prey, it was much used for falconry, being easily trained, and very successful in catching such game as is either confined to the ground, or does not rise far from it, or such as is to be found in woods, through the branches of which the G. readily threads its way in pursuit. The G. was thus flown at hares, rabbits, pheasants, partridges, &c. ordinarily seeks its prey by flying near the ground, and can remain a very long time on the wing. It follows its prey in a straight line, not rising in the air to descend upon it, like the falcons; and when baffled by the object of pursuit entering a wood

It

and hiding itself in some covert, will perch on a bough, and await its reappearance with wonderful patience for many hours. Its flight is very rapid. The G. builds in trees. Its nest is very large. The female, which is much larger than the male, is about two feet in entire length. Both sexes are of a dark grayish-brown colour, the upper surface of the tail-feathers barred with darker brown; there is a broad white streak above each eye; the under parts are also whitish, with brown bars and streaks. Other species are found in India, South Africa, Australia, &c.

GO'SHEN, the name of that part of ancient Egypt which Pharaoh made a present of to the kindred of Joseph when they came to sojourn in that country. It appears to have lain between the eastern delta of the Nile and the frontier of Palestine, and to have been suited mainly for a pastoral people, which the Hebrews were. Rameses, the principal city of the land, was the starting-point of the Exodus of the chosen people, who reached the Red Sea in three days. From this and other circumstances, it has been concluded that the Wade-t-Tumeylát (the valley through which formerly passed the canal of the Red Sea, and at the western extremity of which Rameses was situated) is probably the G. of the Old Testament.

GOʻSLAR, a small but ancient and interesting town of Hanover, is situated on the border of Brunswick, on the Gose, from which the town derives its name, 26 miles south-east of Hildesheim. It was at one time a free imperial city, and the residence of the emperor. Of all the fortifications of which it once boasted, the walls and one tower -the Zwinger, the walls of which are 21 feet thick -alone remain. Of the venerable cathedral, the porch (Vorhalle, date 1150) is the sole relic; the corn-magazine is a portion of an old imperial palace; the Gothic church in the market-place dates from 1521; the hotel called the Kaiserworth has eight portraits of German emperors. G. was founded by Heinrich I. about 920; and under Otto I. the mines, for which G. has ever since been celebrated, were opened in 986. The manufactures of G. are unimportant; and the mines of gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc are nearly exhausted. Pop. 8000.

GOSPEL SIDE OF THE ALTAR, the right side of the altar or communion table, looking from it, at which, in the English Church service, the gospel appointed for the day is read. It is of higher distinction than the epistle side, and is occupied by the clergyman of highest ecclesiastical rank who happens to be present. In some cathedrals, one of the clergy has this special duty to perform, and is designated the Gospeller.

GOSPELS. The expression is derived from the Anglo-Saxon, and means literally good news. The message of Christ, or the doctrine of Christianity, was called the Gospel (to euaggelion); and the inspired records by which this message or doctrine have been transmitted to the church in successive ages, have received the name of the Gospels (ta euaggelia). When this name was first distinctly applied to these records, is uncertain. The use of it in Justin Martyr, about the middle of the 2d c., is a subject of dispute. It appears to have been in common use in the course of the third century.

1. Genuineness.-The primary and most interesting inquiry concerning the Gospels is as to their genuineness. They profess to be the inspired records of our Lord's life-of his sayings and doings-proceeding in two cases from men who were his apostles and companions (Matthew and John); and in the two other cases from men who,

although not themselves apostles, were apostolic in their position and character, the immediate companions and fellow-labourers of the apostles (Mark and Luke.) According to their profession, they were all composed during the latter half of the 1st c.; the three Synoptic Gospels, as they are called, probably during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (60-70), and the fourth Gospel of St John near the close of the century. The question as to their genuineness is in the main the question as to the fact of their existence at this early period; the special authorship of each Gospel is a comparatively less important question.

It is obvious that the existence of the Gospels within the 1st c. is a point which can only be settled by the ordinary rules of historical evidence. What traces have we of their existence at this early period? As Paley illustrates the matter, we can tell of the existence of Lord Clarendon's History of the Rebellion at a period antecedent to Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Times, by the fact that Burnet quotes Clarendon. the Gospels existed in the 1st c., therefore, we shall expect to find similar evidences of their existence in the Christian writings of the 2d and 3d centuries. We do find such evidence in abundance

If

during the 3d century. In such writers as Origen and Cyprian, we not only find quotations from the Gospels, but we find the Gospels themselves mentioned by name as books of authority amongst Christians. From the writings of Origen alone, if they had survived, we might have collected, it has been said, the whole text not only of the Gospels, but of the Old and New Testaments. At this point, then, there is no question. No one can dispute the existence of the Gospels in the age of Origen, or that immediately preceding-that is to say, in the beginning of the 3d century. But we can ascend the time of Irenæus, or the last quarter of the 2d with an almost equally clear light of evidence to century. The passage in which Irenæus speaks of the Gospels is so significant and important that it deserves to be extracted. 'We,' he says (Contra Hares. lib. iii. c. 1), 'have not received the knowledge of

the way of our salvation by any others than those through whom the Gospel has come down to us; which Gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God, transmitted to us in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. For after our Lord had risen from the dead, and they (the apostles) were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from on high, were filled with all gifts, and possessed perfect knowledge, they went forth to the ends of the earth, spreading the glad tidings of those blessings which God has conferred upon us. Matthew among the Hebrews published a Gospel in their own language; while Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding a church there. And after their departure (death), Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter himself delivered in writing what Peter had preached; and Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned upon his breast, likewise published a Gospel while he dwelt at Ephesus in Asia.' These words are very explicit and to the point; and elsewhere, Irenæus speaks still more particularly of the several Gospels, and endeavours to characterise them in a somewhat fanciful way, which, if it does not prove his own judgment, at least proves the kind of veneration with which the Gospels were regarded in his time. It is equally beyond question, then, that the Gospels were in existence in the end of the 2d c., and that they were attributed to the authors

whose names they bear. It is allowed by those who have reduced the genuine apostolic works to the narrowest limits, that, from the time of Irenæus, the New Testament was composed essentially of the same books as we receive at present; and that they were regarded with the same reverence as is now shewn to them.'-Westcott, History of Canon. The evidence upon which we accept as undoubtedly genuine the productions of many classic authors, is not to be compared in clearness and fulness to the evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels at this stage. Any difficulties that the subject involves begin at a point higher up than this.

The age of Irenæus is the fifth generation from the beginning of the apostolic era the third from the termination of it. The ascending generations may be characterised as those (4) of Justin Martyr, and (3) of Ignatius and Papias; and (2) of St John, or the later apostolic age. It is within these three generations, and especially within the third and fourth, that the subject of the genuineness of the Gospels gives any cause for hesitation and discussion.

Such writers as Justin Martyr and Ignatius nowhere quote the Gospels by name. In a fragment of Papias preserved by Eusebius, there is mention of Matthew and Mark having written accounts of the actions and discourses of our Lord; but with this exception, there is no mention of the Gospels, or of their authors by name, in these earlier Christian writers. Not only so, but Justin Martyr appeals constantly to sources of information which he styles not Gospels' of St Matthew, St Luke, or St John, but Memoirs of the Apostles (apomněmoneumata tōn apostolōn). The phrase a kaleitai | euaggelia (which are called gospels), which follows the former in the common versions of Justin's text, is supposed by many to be an interpolation. This has given rise to a good deal of discussion as to the effect of Justin Martyr's evidence on this subject. The discussion has been of this nature. Were these Memoirs of the Apostles our Gospels, or were they some other books of information as to Christ's sayings and doings to which he had access? Many German critics have been confident they were not our Gospels; and Bishop Marsh has gone the length of saying, that Justin did not quote our Gospels. The question, therefore, as to whether Justin Martyr quotes our Gospels, may be said to be the turning-point in the evidence for their genuineness. Although not altogether free from difficulty, it appears to us that no reasonable doubt can be entertained that the Memoirs of the Apostles to which Justin constantly refers were no other than our Gospels. This appears conclusively established by the three following considerations: (1) The degree of coincidence which exists between the numerous passages which Justin quotes from his Memoirs, and the corresponding passages in the Gospels.-The verbal coincidence with the text of the Gospels is sometimes exact, and sometimes so nearly so as to appear exact in a translation. The want of entire verbal coincidence is just what might be expected in a writer like Justin, who quotes the Old Testament in the same general manner, and is the very same as we find in other writers both before and after him. Further, the account which he gives of the origin of the Memoirs corresponds with the origin of the Gospels -viz., that two were written by apostles, and two by companions of the apostles. (2) The extreme improbability that there could have been other books besides the Gospels of the same apparently authoritative character, all trace of which have disappeared, and of which, in fact, we find no indication save in Justin Martyr.-Everything seems

against such a supposition. The books of which Justin speaks were read in the assemblies of the Christians on Sundays; they were regarded with respect and veneration; they were evidently looked upon as authoritative. It is wholly inconceivable, that if there were such books other than the Gos pels, they should not have been mentioned by other writers as well as Justin; or that they should have utterly perished. (3) The certainty, from the statements of such writers as Irenæus in the gener ation immediately following him, that Justin must have known our Gospels.-In this later generation we find the Gospels everywhere diffused: received and reverenced alike at Alexandria, Lyons, and Carthage; by Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, and Tertullian. They could not all at once have attained this wide diffusion, or started into this position of authority. The manner in which Irenæus speaks of them can only be accounted for by the fact, that he had received them from his teachers; that they had been handed down to him as inspired authorities from the first ages. We must take the light of such a statement with us in ascending to the age of Justin Martyr; and in this light it is unintelligible that the Gospels should not have been known to Justin, and consulted by him. The mere fact of his calling his authorities by the peculiar name of Memoirs cannot be set against all this evidence. The name of Memoirs, indeed, rather than Gospels, was only a natural one for this writer to use, with his classical predilections and philosophical training, and considering that he was addressing a heathen emperor, and through him the Gentile world at large.

When we ascend beyond the age of Justin to Ignatius and Papias, we find in a fragment of the latter, as has been already stated, mention of Matthew and Mark having written accounts of the life of the Lord; while in the letters of the former, as in the still earlier Epistle of Clemens Romanus and the so-called Epistle of Barnabas-both of which belong to the 1st c., and consequently reach the apostolic age itself—we find various quotations that seem to be made from the Gospels. The quotations from St Matthew are the most numerous. If these quotations stood by themselves, it might be doubtful how far they constituted evidence of the existence of the Gospels at this early period. They might possibly indicate merely a uniformity of oral tradition as to the sayings of our Lord; but when we regard them in connection with the position of the writers, and the whole train of thought and association in which they occur, they seem to bear out the widest conclusion we could wish to found on them. The existence and character of such men as Ignatius and Clemens are unintelligible save in the light of the Gospel history.

In addition to this chain of direct Catholic evidence for the genuineness of the Gospels, the fragments which have been preserved of heretical writers furnish important, and in some respects singularly conclusive evidence. The Gnostic Basilides quotes the Gospels of St John and St Luke about the year 120. The heretics appealed to them as well as the Catholic writers, and in this fact there is a strong guarantee that no fictions or inventions could have been palmed off upon the church in the 2d c., as the most renowned German theory as to the origin of the Gospels virtually supposes. Upon a review of all the evidence from the apostolic Fathers down to the council of Laodicea, when the four Gospels are reckoned as part of the canon of Scripture, there can hardly be room for any candid person to doubt,' it has been said, 'that from the beginning the four Gospels were recognised as genuine and inspired-that a line of distinction was drawn between them and the so-called

apocryphal Gospels.' As a mere question of literary history, the genuineness of the Gospels certainly rests on far higher evidence than that on which we receive, without hesitation, many ancient writings. 2. Internal Character and Contrast.-After the genuineness of the Gospels, the next point of importance regarding them is the relation which they bear to one another in respect of their contents and arrangement the coincidences and discrepancies with one another which they present. The most obvious distinction among the Gospels as a whole is between the Gospel of St John and the three Synoptical Gospels, as they are called. Matthew, Mark, and Luke, in narrating the ministry, discourses, and miracles of our Lord, confine themselves exclusively to what took place in Galilee until the last journey to Jerusalem. We should not know from them of the successive journeys that our Lord made to Jerusalem. John, on the contrary, brings into view prominently his relation to Judea; and of the discourses delivered in Galilee, he only records one, that, namely, in the 6th chapter. It is obvious, on a superficial glance, that John had a special object in writing his Gospel, an object in some respects more dogmatical than historical; and it is probable that, having seen the preceding Gospels, he purposely abstained from writing what they had already recorded, and sought to supply such deficiencies as appeared to exist in their records. When we have no knowledge of the subject, this at least seems as probable a supposition as any other. A comparison of the three Synoptical Gospels reveals some interesting results. If we suppose them respectively divided into 100 sections, we shall find that they coincide in about 53 of them; that Matthew and Luke further coincide in 21; Matthew and Mark in 20; and Mark and Luke in 6. This, of course, applies to the substantial coincidence of fact and narrative in each case. The relative verbal coincidence is by no means so marked; it is, however, very considerable, and presents some interesting features, which Professor Andrew Norton has set forth clearly in his admirable work on the Genuineness of the Gospels.

It is not desirable to go into further details in this place; but the result of the extremely critical and minute scrutiny to which the text of the Gospels has been subjected may be stated as follows. There is a singular coincidence in substance in the three Synoptic Gospels. "Substantial unity with circumstantial variety,' is a saying strictly true of them more true of them than of any authors professing to narrate the same circumstances. The coincidence is greatly more apparent in the discourses than in the narrative parts of the Gospels, most of all apparent in the spoken words of our Lord. At the same time, there are certain portions of narrative of great importance, that shew in the several evangelists almost a verbal coincidence, as in the call of the first four disciples and the accounts of the Transfiguration. The agreement in the narrative portions of the Gospels begins with the baptism of John, and reaches its highest point in the account of the passion of our Lord, and the facts that preceded it; so that a direct ratio might be laid between the amount of agreement and the nearness of the facts related to the Passion. After this event, in the account of his burial and resurrection, the coincidences are few.' There are no parts that furnish more difficulty, in the way of formal harmony, than the narratives of the Resurrection.

The language of all the Gospels is well known to be Greek with Hebrew idioms, or what has been called Hellenistic Greek. The tradition, however, of a Hebrew original of St Matthew's gospel is

uniform. In the fragment of Papias, and in the statement of Irenæus-the earliest sources in which we have any distinct mention of the Gospels-it is plainly asserted that Matthew wrote his Gospel in the Hebrew dialect. The fact is made a mark of distinction between his Gospel and the others. The same uniformity of tradition ascribes the Gospel of St Mark to the teaching of St Peter. The Gospel of St Mark is the most summary of the three, yet, in some respects, it is stamped with a special individuality and originality. It describes scenes and acts of our Lord and others with a minutely graphic detail, throwing in particulars omitted by others, and revealing throughout the observant eye-witness and independent historian.

3. Origin of the Gospels.-This is a separate inquiry from their genuineness, although intimately connected with it, and springs immediately out of those facts as to the internal agreement and disagreement of the Gospels of which we have been speaking. The inquiry has been treated in an extremely technical manner by many critics, and it would not suit our purpose to enumerate and examine the various theories which have been propounded on the subject. We may only state generally, that the object of these theories has been to find a common original for the Gospels. Some profess to find such an original in one of the three Gospels, from which the others have been more or less copied, and each of them in turn has been taken as the basis of the other two. The more elaborate theories of Eichhorn and Bishop Marsh, however, presume an original document, differing from any of the existing Gospels, and which is supposed to pass through various modifications, into the threefold form which it now bears in them. It appeared to Eichhorn that the portions which are common to all the three Gospels were contained in a certain common document from which they all drew. It had been already assumed that copies of such a document had got into circulation, and had been altered and annotated by different hands. But Eichhorn works out an elaborate hypothesis on such a presumption. He requires for his purpose no fewer than five supposititious documents. The conditions of the problem cannot be met otherwise. These are in order: 1. An original document; 2. An altered copy which St Matthew used; 3. An altered copy which St Luke used; 4. A third copy made from the two preceding, used by St Mark ; 5. A fourth altered copy used by St Matthew and St Luke in common. Bishop Marsh, in following out the same process of construction, finds it necessary to increase the supposititious documents to eight, which we need not describe. There is not the slightest external evidence of the existence of such documents; and theories of this kind, which, in order to explain difficulties, call into existence at every stage an imaginary solution, do not require serious refutation.

Another and more probable supposition is, that the Gospels sprang out of a common oral tradition. The preaching of the apostles was necessarily, to a great extent, a preaching of facts; and so zealously did they give themselves to the task of promulgating the wondrous life and death of Christ, that they early divested themselves of the labour of ministering to any of the lower wants of the congregations of disciples that they gradually gathered round them. It is obvious that, in the course of their active ministry of the word,' the facts of our Lord's life and death, of which they had been eye-witnesses, would gradually assume a regular outline. What the reading of the Gospels is to us, the preaching of the apostles would be very much to the early Christians. The sermon of

Peter at Cæsarea (Acts x. 34) may give some imperfect idea of the character of this preaching. The facts thus briefly indicated would expand in frequent communication to something of the more detached and living form which they exhibit in the Gospels, or rather in what we may suppose to have been the common substratum or groundwork of the Gospels. It is to be remembered that the apostles were promised that the Holy Spirit would bring all things to their remembrance, whatsoever the Lord had said unto them.' And this constant guidance and superintendence of the Divine Spirit would sufficiently account for the uniformity and consistency of their oral instruction, even although not reduced to writing for a considerable number of years. Allowing for the widest space of years it may be necessary to assume before the writing of the first Gospel, the chief apostles themselves are yet living at the end of this space. It is not a mere tradition of their teaching that survives, but it is their own living witness that is circulated from church to church, as they pass to and fro in their evangelistic labours. It is impossible to say whether this hypothesis of the origin of the Gospels be really the correct one or not; all we need to say is, that it seems to possess more probability in itself than any hypothesis of a common written source, from which they were respectively borrowed, and which has disappeared. It fits, moreover, into the facts of the case.- -Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 189.

According to this view of the origin of the Gospels, that of St Mark, if not the oldest in composition, is yet probably the most direct and primitive in form. In its lifelike simplicity and comparative unconsciousness of aim, it represents most immediately the apostolic preaching; it is the testimony delivered by St Peter, possibly with little adaptation. Historical evidence, as we have already said, is uniform as to the association of Mark and Peter: Mark is everywhere interpres Petri. The Gospels of St Matthew and St Luke, again, represent the two great types of recension to which it may be supposed that the simple narrative was subjected. St Luke represents the Hellenic, and St Matthew the later Hebraic form of the tradition, and in its present shape the latter seems to give the last authentic record of the primitive Gospel.'

A common oral Gospel seems also to present the most natural explanation of the accordances and variations of the three Synoptic Gospels. The words of the Lord, which present in all such a marked uniformity, would necessarily assume a more fixed character in such an oral tradition, while the narrative surrounding them would remain comparatively free. Single phrases of a peculiar and important character would be closely retained; there would be, exactly as we find, a uniform strain of hallowed language mingling with variations in detail-a unity of tone, and even of speech, with variety of modulation and emphasis.

This theory of a common oral origin of the Gospels is of course widely separated from the wellknown Tübingen theory, which carries the period of tradition down to the middle of the 2d c., and supposes the Gospels to have been then called forth by the influence of opposing teachers. The facts of the case, as well as the evidence for their genuineness, which we have already quoted, are wholly opposed to such a supposition, for in this case the representation of the Gospels would be wholly ideal. There might be a ground of fact in the mere existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but the picture of His life and death would be merely the imaginative dream of men intoxicated by religious enthusiasm. And this is

the Tübingen explanation of the rise of Christianity! It may be surely said that there never was a more inadequate explanation of a wonderful historical phenomenon; for how was the Jewish mind, in its feebleness and decay, capable of conceiving such an ideal as the life and character of Christ? Their inspired origin in the 1st c., and as the records of a life and death witnessed by the apostles, is -whatever difficulties it may present-the conclusion alike sanctioned by orthodoxy, and approved by impartial historical inquiry.-The reader who desires further information on the subject may consult Professor Norton's work on the Genuineness of the Gospels, and Westcott's Introduction to the Study of the Gospels.

It is 14 miles

GO'SPORT (God's port'), a market-town and seaport of England, in the county of Hants, stands on the western shore of Portsmouth Harbour, and directly opposite Portsmouth, with which it is south-east of Southampton, and 89 miles south-west connected by a floating bridge. of London by the London and South-Western Railway. It is enclosed within ramparts, which seem a portion of those which also surround Portsmouth connected with the town, is used for hauling up and and Portsea. The Haslar Gun-boat Ship-yard, keeping in repair all the gun-boats belonging to this port. An extensive iron foundry for the manufacture of anchors and chain-cables, and conmain feature of G., however, is the Royal Clarence siderable coasting-trade are here carried on. Victualling Yard, which contains a brewery, a biscuit-baking establishment worked entirely by steam, and numerons storehouses. The bakery can immediate vicinity is Haslar Hospital, erected in 1762, the chief establishment in Great Britain for dated and supplied with medical attendance. Pop. invalid sailors, of whom 2000 can be accommo

The

turn out ten tons of biscuit in one hour. In the

(1861) 22,610.

GO'SSAMER, a light filamentous substance, which often fills the atmosphere to a remarkable degree during fine weather in the latter part of autumn, or is spread over the whole face of the ground, stretching from leaf to leaf, and from plant to plant, loaded with entangled dew-drops, which glisten and sparkle in the sunshine. Various opinions were formerly entertained concerning the nature and origin of gossamer, but it is now sufficiently ascertained to be produced by small spiders, not, however, by any single species, but by several, not improbably many species; whilst it is also said to be produced by young, and not by mature spiders, a circumstance which, if placed beyond doubt, would help to account for its appearance at a particular season of the year. The production of gossamer by spiders was first demonstrated by the observations of Dr Hulse and Dr Lister in the 17th c., but these observations did not for a long time meet with due regard and credit, particularly amongst the naturalists of continental Europe. It is not yet well known if the gossamer spread over the surface of the earth is produced by the same species of spider which produce that seen floating in the air, or falling as if from the clouds. Why gossamer threads or webs are produced by the spiders at all, is also a question not very easily answered. That they are meant merely for entangling insect prey, does not seem probable; the extreme eagerness which some of the small spiders known to produce them shew for water to drink, has led to the supposition, that the dew-drops which collect on them may be one of the objects of the formation of those on the surface of the ground, whilst it has been also supposed that they may afford a more rapid and convenient mode