three prophetic passages together, and mixed them up with remarks of his own; once he quoted Zachariah professedly, but the passage is really his own composition, founded on words nnd thoughts derived from Zechariah, Isaiah, and Joel. The only 'luotation from Plato is from the 'Timreus,' and consists of words which, though attributed by Plato to Timmus, are cited by Justin as the words of Socrates, and are, moreover, strangely modified. Hoaco the worcls that Justin quoted from the Gospels cannot, on nny show of fairness, be put down to any other source, simply on the ground of the variation from the text of our Gospels (Norton,' Genuineness of the Gospels,' vol. i. note E, pp. 306-330; Mangold and Bleek, 'Einleitung,' p. 270). A further proof thnt Justin was not aiming at verbal accuracy is that he has not infrequently quoted the same passage more than once with characteristic varfo.tions. The fact that Justin is not more explicit than we have found him to be concerning the documentary sources of his information, is parallel with the circumstance that Tertulliaa, who knew and said so much in his controversial works about the four Gospels, yet, when writiag his • Apologia' or his 'Ad N ationes,' makes no distinct reference to them whatever; and that Cyprian, in writing in the third century to Demetrian, a heathen, does not once name either the Gospels or evangelists. The same remark may be made about Arnobius, and the very same kind of objection taken to the modification of Gospel narrative by Justin may bo brought against L,ctantius towards the end of the third century (' Div. Ins.,' v. 3). Now, if we suppose the existence of even a modified text of the Gospels, and a harmony of the Gospels, to have been in his hand, there can be no reasonable doubt that these Gospels were in existence locg before his day-an argument confirmed by the pheno- mena of the Gospel of Marcion. The bearing of this argument upon the Fourth Gospel, even if no quotation from it could be found at any earlier period, is remarkable. When Ireneaus, 'l'heophylact, Clemens Alex., and Tertullian wrote, there is no manner of doubt that the four Gospels were in current use, and held a lofty position in the estimation of the Churches of Gaul, Alexandria, Antioch, and Carthage. Now, the Gospel of John is so different in form, scene, and subject-matter from the first three Gospels, that, if it had been fashioned in the interim between Justin and Irenams, surely some trace would have been left behind of the difficulty of its reception. Unless it had stood on the highest authority of tradition and long usage, it would cever have borne the assault to which it would have been exposed. It must have been believed to be apostolic in its origin, and the trustworthy report of apostolic memorials, or it would never have been accepted as genuine. The oft-quoted discrepance of style and chronology, etc., therefore becomes a powerful argument to show that the Fourth Gospel must be much older than Justin.
IV. THE SPECIFIC EXTERNAL EVIDEKCE FOR THE EARL'2' EXISTENCE OF THE FouRTH GosPEL.
1. Testimony of Justin Martyr to the Fourth Gospel. I shall, therefore, proceed with the proof that Justin was acquainted with, and cited, the Fourth Gospel, as well as the other three. (1) One of the most remarkable quotations is from eh. iii. 3-5; to which Ju~tin refers thus (' Apol.,' i. 61)- Kiil 'Yd.P 6 XplCTTOS .r,.•.,, • Ar, µ11 ilvcryEJJV7je;)TE, oJ µ¾, .1cr.M71n .:s Tfll/ fliicrtA.eillJI T0111 oupa.vwv. "OT& Ii~ ,ciil a.liJviiTOJI •ls Tch µf,Tpiis TiiiJI T<ICOIICTWJI TOUS &m~ 'YEJIYW/l<JIOUS lµfJ71val ~llJIEpov 1riicr{v lcrT{v.
Let this be compared with the Gospel- •A1re,cp{611 cl 'I11crous, 1tiil •11rev iiJTcp, 'Aµ.¾v, li.µ.¾v Al'Yoo cro,, 'E,l.,, µ.f, .,.,s ., • .,.,.,,0p /£vw8,v, OU livv<iT<ic lliii'v T¾,v /3iirnJ...Ciiv TOV E'•ou. A.-,.,1rpos <iUTOJI cl N11t&li11µ.os· 'lrWS liuv<iTaJ ~8ponros "Y•vv110,jvii1 'Ylpwv If,.,; µf, liv11<iT<i1 •ls n/11 1to1ll.Ciiv T71s /J-1/Tpos 11~Toii li•vnpov •lcr<>,.8,iv, 1<1il 'YfllJ17J67111a1;
Many efforts havo bean made to resist the force of this remarkable coincidence. Schwegler imagined tuat Justin had the passage Matt. x.viil. 3 in his eye, which, how- ever, does not sustain the central point of the comparisoc between the first and secl•ntl INTRODUCTION TO