What proves so much, however, does not prove enough for the purposes of those who would reject the testimony of Justin in favour of our present canonical Gospels.

Besides, there is one simple test of this whole matter. Justin has repeatedly quoted the same passages from the Gospels more than once. Now in doing this, he has varied in the same way from himself as he has from the originals. This Mr. Norton has abundantly exhibited, by submitting to our inspection the various passages of Justin where this is done. The reader will find them in the Notes, pp. ccxx seq. He will also find passages quoted from the Old Testament by Matthew, with variations from the Septuagint version, in quoting which passages again Justin has followed the peculiarities of Matthew, and not of the original Greek or Hebrew Scriptures.

If any one doubts, after all, whether there is not some force in the argument of Credner and others in respect to the discrepance between Justin's quotations and the Gospels, let him spend a few days in studying the quotations from the Scriptures, which exist in the works of the early Christian writers. I might even say: Let him peruse the New Testament, where he will find a discrepance between the quotations from the Old Testament and the originals themselves, whether Greek or Hebrew, which is not much unlike that exhibited by Justin.

For these reasons I cannot doubt that Mr. Norton is in the right, in this very important matter; so clearly in the right, that, as it seems to my mind, no reasonable objections can be made against his conclusions.

At all events, the reader cannot fail to perceive, if he attentively peruses the views which Mr. Norton has given us in relation to this subject, that he has bestowed great pains and labour upon the consideration of it, and that his conclusion is not to be rejected on the bare ground of hypothesis, or for the sake of establishing some favorite theory.

In justice to the labour which Mr. Norton has expended on this subject, I ought to give a passage from him which states his reasons for it.

The examination of the passages which we have gone over, is of more interest than may appear at first sight. Justin carries us back to the age which followed that of the apostles. His writings have been searched for the purpose of finding some notices of Christ, or some intimations relating to him, different from the accounts of the evangelists. It will be perceived that nothing which can be regarded

as of any importance has been discovered. On the contrary, he gives a great part of the history of Christ, in perfect harmony with what is found in the Gospels, sometimes agreeing in words, and always in meaning. We may infer, therefore, that the account of Christ, contained in the Gospels, was that which his followers had taught, and had received, as true, from the beginning; that it was the account which Christians acknowledged as the foundation of their faith; and that there were no opposing narratives respecting him, which disappeared in part, and in part coalesced into the forms which the four Gospels present. It is remarkable, that in so early a writer as Justin, we discover so little matter, additional to what is contained in the Gospels; so little, which it is necessary to suppose derived from any other source. The most satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon seems to be, that the Gospels had come down from the apostolic age with such a weight of authority, there was such an entire reliance upon their credibility, that it was generally felt to be unwise and unsafe to blend any uncertain accounts with the history contained in these works. Such accounts, therefore, were neglected and forgotten. The Gospels extinguished all feebler lights; pp. 222 seq.

All there is to meet such an array of proof in favour of the position that Justin quoted our canonical Gospels, is the supposition that he quoted the Gospel according to the Hebrews or the Petrine Gospel, as Credner is fond of namning it. But in Justin's day this Gospel, whatever it was, seems to have existed only in Hebrew, so far as we can gather from ancient testimony.

Now there is little or no probability that Justin made use of a Hebrew Gospel. All his quotations of the Old Testament shew that he used the Septuagint version, and not the Hebrew Scriptures. And so in respect to the New Testament. He quotes passages, for example, from Matthew and Luke, where these Evangelists do not agree exactly either with the Septuagint or with the original Hebrew, and in these quotations Justin exhibits the peculiarities of the Evangelists in distinction from both of the originals. Now, even if we suppose Justin to have well understood the Hebrew, and to have translated from it in his Old Testament quotations, how can we suppose, with any degree of probability, that his translation would minutely accord with the peculiarities of Luke or of Matthew?

There can be no doubt that Justin, living as he did at Flavia Neapolis, and surrounded as he was by those who spoke the later Hebrew, must have had some good understanding of the conversation-Hebrew of his day. But it would be difficult indeed, to find in all his works any traces of a literary or critical

knowledge on his part, of the Hebrew. The instance of his etymologizing in regard to the word Earáv, produced by Mr. Norton in a Note on p. 226, is amusing, and instructive with respect to the point in question. He says, that Zaráv signifies apostate, in the language of the Jews and Syrians; and-res (the Greek case-ending of the word) means a serpent, (pronounced with a feeble sound of the л, which was often the case with the ancients). Such an etymology he must have obtained, one would naturally suppose, from some Jewish Rabbi who meant to impose upon his credulity. The slightest grammatical knowledge of the Hebrew must have taught him that neither part of such an explanation is correct; and that the latter part is even ridiculous.

It is not probable, therefore, that Justin used the Gospel according to the Hebrews; nor even that he used the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew, if that were indeed extant and in circulation at his time. The proofs that he used the Gospel of Matthew as it now is, are indeed unanswerable; for he has copied some peculiarities of it, which we cannot rationally suppose would have been adopted by accident.

I am aware that Credner supposes the Petrine Gospel, which he thinks was quoted by Justin, to have existed at a very early period; and also that the real Gospel of Matthew and this ficti tious one, or at any rate the Gospel according to the Hebrews, were alike as to the peculiarities in question. It is, indeed, a very convenient and easy way of getting rid of difficulties, when we are at liberty to imagine any kind of facts which are adapted to our purpose, and then conclude that they must have actually existed, because they dispose of our difficulties so happily. This, at all events, is one of Credner's ways of getting himself out of trouble. He is undoubtedly a man of great industry and of much reading, but of a strong bias in favour of his own theories, and filled to the brim with them. His book affords much useful material for more sober and judicious writers, and he is often striking and original in his remarks; but he lacks egregiously lacks the Bedachtsamkeit of such men as Morus, Ernesti, and the younger Tittmann.

It would seem then to be quite probable, if not altogether certain, from the circumstances above exhibited, that Justin did not quote the Gospel according to the Hebrews. What then did he quote? In answer to this I must present a paragraph from Mr. Norton.

If it be still denied that he used our present Gospels, then, in regard to any other single book, which he may be conjectured to have quoted, it must answer to the following conditions. It must have been one which he and other Christians believed, or professed to believe, "written by apostles and companions of apostles;" it must gave been of high authority among Christians, a sacred book, read in their churches; and it must, immediately after he wrote, have fallen into entire neglect and oblivion; for no mention of it, or allusion to it, is discoverable in any writer who succeeded him. But it is impossible to believe all these propositions to be true of any book. Excepting the Gospels, therefore, no history of Christ can be named, or imagined with any probability, which Justin might have used. The presumption, then, arising from the coincidence of his quotations with the text of the Gospels, is left to operate with its whole force; pp. 230 seq.

In the sequel Mr. Norton proceeds to adduce various testimonies from Justin, which serve both to show that he quoted our canonical Gospels, and to confirm the fact that they were regarded by him as undoubtedly genuine.

In particular should it be noted here, as a fact which is of much importance, that Eusebius, who quotes so many ecclesiastical writers that preceded him, and makes it a point to produce any thing peculiar or striking in them, although he gives a full account (for him) of Justin and his writings, says not a word of his quoting any spurious Gospels; while at the same time he tells us, that Hegesippus, the contemporary of Justin, appeals to the Gospel of the Hebrews. It is quite clear, therefore, that Eusebius did not consider Justin as making such an appeal.

When, in addition to all this, we call to mind that Justin speaks of the books to which he appeals for his evangelical history, as being counted sacred, as read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's day in connection with the Old Testament, and other like things, there does not seem to be much room for even suspicion that Justin did not quote our present Gospels.

Mr. Norton then sums up his discussion in the following

manner:

The argument urged in the last chapter is, in its nature, cumulative; and the accession of force to be derived from the evidence afforded by the writings of Justin Martyr is not to be disregarded. He carries us one step higher in our advances toward the apostolic age. What was before a matter of inference, it may be thought of

necessary inference, becomes a matter of testimony. We learn directly from his writings, that the Gospels were received by Christians of his age, that is by those Christians, during the first half of the sec ond century, as the authentic and sacred records of the history of their master, the works of his apostles and their companions.

Finally Mr. Norton makes the appeal to the testimony of Papias, as recorded by Eusebius, and to that of Luke himself as exhibited in Acts 1: 1, 2. Papias expressly mentions the Gospels of Matthew and Mark; and Luke appeals, in the pas sage to which reference is made above, to a Gospel that had been composed by himself. Thus is testimony carried back to the very age of the apostles; and if any credit is due to it, it is decisive. Can any one produce a good reason why it should not be credited?

Mr. Norton does not appeal to the first Epistle of Clemens Romanus, (to the second which is undoubtedly spurious be could not appeal), nor to the Epistle of Polycarp to the Ephe sians, nor to the Shepherd of Hermas, nor to the Epistles of Barnabas or Ignatius. The two last of these are of such doubtful authority, that an appeal would be out of place in such a book as his, unless he had the intention of collecting together every thing, whether strong or weak, apposite or inapposite. As to the Shepherd of Hermas, there is no satisfactory evidence that it quotes any portion of the Gospels. But in respect to the Epistles of Clement of Rome and of Polycarp, there is room to doubt, inasmuch as the genuineness of them in general cannot be fairly called in question, whether Mr. Norton has judged well in omitting the evidence from them. He has, indeed, given us his reasons for so doing, in § VII. p. cclxxxiv. of his Addenda. But I am not fully satisfied with them, although I acknowledge that they deserve very serious consideration.

Mr. Norton alleges that the Gospels are not named in these writings; and although there are passages in them which accord with some portions of the Gospels, yet they may have sprung from traditionary reports, and not from written documents. Consequently, as he thinks, it would only weaken his cause to rely on arguments which might be of dubious efficacy. Some one might say, when appeal was made to these writers, that they who lived so near to the apostles, or rather, who were contemporary with them, might have drawn their quotations from other sources than those of our canonical Gospels.

This caution on the part of Mr. Norton is certainly much