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 •vith this excep tion,'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 Memoir's of the Apostles (apomnemanea main aim apostoiiz). The phrase a kaleitai euaggelia (which are called gospels), which follows the former in the common version 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 llemmrs 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 that 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 MellitliTS of the Apostles to which Justin constantly refers were no oilier 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 coinci dence with the text of the gospels ik sometimes exact, and sometimes so nearly so as to appeal 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 liefore and after him. Further, the account which lie gives of the origin of the Nemoiricorresponds 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 incon ceivable, that if there were such books other than the gospels, they should not have been mentioned by other writers as well as Justin; or that they should have utterly per ished. (3) The certainty, from the statements of such writers as Tremens in thegenera thm 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; V Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenams, and Tertullian. They could not all at once have attained this wide diffusion, or started into this position of authority. The manner in which Ireumus speaks pf them can only be accounted for by the fact that lie had received them from his teachers; that they had been handed down to hint 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 unin telligible that the gospels should not have been known to Justin,. and consulted by him. The were 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 lie 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 frag ment 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 impor tant, and in some respects singularljeconclusive 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 Laodieea, when the four gospels arc 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 recognized as genuine and inspired—that a line of dis tinction 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 highdr evidence than that on which we receive, without hesitation, many ancient writings.
11. 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 iu Galilee until the last journey to JernsaliAliWP)PciiktiLuft ironi them of Ihe..tmccesivojourueys that our Lord made to Jerusalem. John, on the contrary, brings into view prominently his relation to Judea; and of the discourses delivered iii 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 coincilie 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 prof. Andrew Norton has set forth clearly in his admirable work on the Genuineness of the Gospels.