quotes the "Memoirs" for anything which is not substantially found in our Gospels; and there is nothing in his deviations from exact correspondence with them, as regards matters of fact, or the report of the words of Christ, which may not be abundantly paralleled in the writings of the Christian Fathers who used our four Gospels as alone authoritative.

With this view of the state of the case, and of the character of the books used and described by Justin though without naming their authors, let us now consider the bearing of the indisputable fact (with which the author of Supernatural Religion thinks he has no concern) of the general reception of our four Gospels as genuine in the last quarter of the second century. As I cannot state the argument more clearly or more forcibly than it has been done by Mr. Norton, I borrow his language. Mr. Norton says:

The manner in which Justin speaks of the character and authority of the books to which he appeals, of their reception among Christians, and of the use which was made of them, proves these books to have been the Gospels. They carried with them the authority of the Apostles. They were those writings from which he and other Christians derived their knowledge of the history and doctrines of Christ. They were relied upon by him as primary and decisive evidence in his explanations of the character of Christianity. They were regarded as sacred books. They were read in the assemblies of Christians on the Lord's day, in connection with the Prophets of the Old Testament. Let us now consider the manner in which the Gospels were regarded by the contemporaries of Justin. Irenæus was in the vigor of life before Justin's death; and the same was true of very many thousands of Christians living when Irenæus wrote. But he tells us that the four Gospels are the four p llars of the Church, the foundation of Christian faith, written by those who had first orally preached the Gospel, by two Apostles and two companions of Apostles. It is incredible that Irenæus and Justin should have spoken of different books. We cannot suppose that writings, such as the Memoirs of which Justin speaks, believed to be the works of Apostles and companions of Apostles, read in Christian Churches, and received a sacred books, of the highest authority, should, immediately after he wrote, have fallen into neglect and oblivion, and been superseded by another set of books. The strong sentiment of their value could not so silently, and so unaccountably, have changed into entire disregard, and have been transferred to other writings. The copies of them spread over the world could not so suddenly and mysteriously have disappeared,

that no subsequent trace of their existence should be clearly discoverable. When, therefore, we find Irenæus, the contemporary of Justin, ascribing to the four Gospels the same character, the same authority, and the same authors, as are ascribed by Justin to the Memoirs quoted by him, which were called Gospels, there can be no reasonable doubt that the Memoirs of Justin were the Gospels of Irenæus.*

It may be objected to Mr. Norton's argument, that "many writings which have been excluded from the canon were publicly read in the churches, until very long after Justin's day." (S.R. i. 294.) The author of Supernatural Religion mentions particularly the Epistle of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians, the Epistle of Soter, the Bishop of Rome, to the Corinthians, the "Pastor" or "Shepherd" of Hermas, and the Apocalypse of Peter. To these may be added the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas.

To give the objection any force, the argument must run thus: The writings above named were at one time generally regarded by Christians as sacred books, of the highest authority and importance, and placed at least on a level with the writings of the prophets of the Old Testament. They were afterwards excluded from the canon: therefore a similar change might take place among Christians in their estimate of the writings which Justin has described under the name of "Memoirs by the Apostles." In the course of thirty years, a different set of books might silently supersede them in the whole Christian world.

The premises are false. There is no proof that any one of these writings was ever regarded as possessing the same authority and value as Justin's "Memoirs," or anything like it. From the very nature of the case, books received as authentic records of the life and teaching of CHRIST must have had an importance which could belong to no others. On the character of the teaching and the facts of the life of Christ as recorded in the "Memoirs," Justin's whole argument rests. Whether he regarded the Apostolic writings as "inspired" or not, he unquestionably regarded CHRIST as inspired, or rather as the divine, inspiring Logos (Apol. i.

Evidences of the Genuineness of the Gospels, 2d ed., vol. i. pp. 237-239.

33, 36; ii. 10); and his teaching as "the new law," universal, everlasting, which superseded "the old covenant." (See Dial. cc. 11, 12, etc.) The books that contained this were to the Christians of Justin's time the very foundation of their faith.

As to the works mentioned by Supernatural Religion, not only is there no evidence that any one of them ever held a place in the Christian Church to be compared for a moment with that of the Gospels, but there is abundant evidence to the contrary. They were read in some churches for a time as edifying books, the Epistle of Clement of Rome "in very many churches" according to Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 16),*—and a part of them were regarded by a few Christian writers as having apostolic or semi-apostolic authority, or as divinely inspired. One of the most definite statements about them is that of Dionysius of Corinth (cir. A.D. 175-180), who, in a letter to the church at Rome (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iv. 23), tells us that the Epistle of Soter (d. 176?) to the Christians at Corinth was read in their church for edification or "admonition" (vorica is the word used) on a certain Sunday, and would continue to be so read from time to time, as the Epistle of Clement had been. This shows how far the occasional public reading of such a writing in the church was from implying its canonical authority.-Clement of Alexandria repeatedly quotes the Epistle ascribed to Barnabas as the work of "Barnabas the Apostle," but criticises and condemns one of his interpretations (Strom. ii. 15, p. 464), and in another place, as Mr. Norton remarks, rejects a fiction found in the work (Pæd. ii. 10, p. 220, ff.).—“The Shepherd" of Hermas in its form claims to be a divine vision; its allegorical character suited the taste of many; and the Muratorian Canon (cir. A.D. 170) says that it ought to be read in the churches, but not as belonging to the writings of the prophets or apostles. (See Credner, Gesch. d. neutest. Kanon, p. 165.) This was the general view of those who did not reject it as altogether apocryphal. It appears in the Sinaitic MS. as an appendix to the New Testament.-The Apocalypse of Peter appears to have imposed upon some

*Comp. esp. Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, p. 272 ff.

as the work of the Apostle. The Muratorian Canon says, "Some among us are unwilling that it should be read in the church." It seems to have been received as genuine by Clement of Alexandria (Ecl. proph. cc. 41, 48, 49) and Methodius (Conv. ii. 6). Besides these, the principal writers who speak of it are Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. iii. 3. § 2; 25. §4; vi. 14. § 1), who rejects it as uncanonical or spurious, Jerome (De Vir. ill. c. 1), who puts it among apocryphal writings, and Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. vii. 19), who mentions that, though rejected by the ancients as spurious, it was read once a year in some churches of Palestine.*

It appears sufficiently from what has been said that there is nothing in the limited ecclesiastical use of these books, or in the over-estimate of their authority and value by some individuals, to detract from the force of Mr. Norton's argument. Supernatural Religion here confounds things that differ very widely.†

At this stage of the argument, we are entitled, I think, to come to the examination of the apparent use of the Gospel of John by Justin Martyr with a strong presumption in favor of the view that this apparent use is real. In other words, there is a very strong presumption that the "Memoirs" used by Justin and called by him "Gospels" and collectively "the Gospel," and described as "composed by Apostles of Christ and their companions," were actually our present Gospels, composed by two Apostles and two companions of Apostles. This presumption is, I believe, greatly strengthened by the evidence of the use of the Fourth Gospel by writers between the time of Justin Martyr and Irenæus, and also by the evidences of its use before the time of Justin by the Gnostic sects. But, leaving those topics for the present, we will consider the direct evidence of its use by Justin.

The first passage noticed will be examined pretty thoroughly both because the discussion of it will serve to illustrate the false reasoning of the author of Supernatural Relig

See, on this book, Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra canonem receptum (1866), iv. 74, ff. † On this whole subject, see Semisch, Die apostol. Denkwürdigkeiten des Märt. Justinus, p. 61, ff.

ion and other writers respecting the quotations of Justin Martyr which agree in substance with passages in our Gospels while differing in the form of expression; and because it is of special importance in its bearing on the question whether Justin made use of the Fourth Gospel, and seems to me, when carefully examined, to be in itself almost decisive.

The passage is that in which Justin gives an account of Christian baptism, in the sixty-first chapter of his First Apology. Those who are ready to make a Christian profession, he says, "are brought by us to a place where there is water, and in the manner of being born again [or regenerated] in which we ourselves also were born again, they are born again; for in the name of the Father of the universe and sovereign God, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the bath in the water. For Christ also said, Except ye be born again, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven (Αν μὴ ἀναγεννηθῆτε, οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν). But that it is impossible for those who have once been born to enter into the wombs of those who brought them forth is manifest to all."

The passage in the Gospel of John of which this reminds us is found in chap. iii. 3-5: "Jesus answered and said to him [Nicodemus], Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God ('Eàv μý Tis γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν, οὐ δύναται ἰδεῖν τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ θεοῦ). Nicodemus saith to him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (Εάν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, οὐ δύναται eioeĥleiv eiç tìp ßaothɛíav rov bɛoi). Compare verse 7, "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born anew" (dei vμãç revvnltī¡vai åvev); and Matt. xviii. 3, "Verily I say unto you, Except ye be changed, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven” οὐ μὴ εἰσέλθητε εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν).

I have rendered the Greek as literally as possible; but it