ng over the whole course of our Lord's
ministry. The other narratives meanwhile gradually passed into oblivion.
The general reception of these four gospels did not, however, come from
any formal concert of action on the part of the churches, (as, for
example, from the authoritative decision of a general council, since no
such thing as a general council of the churches was known till long
after this period;) but simply from the common perception everywhere of
the unimpeachable evidence by which their apostolic authority was
sustained.

The narratives referred to by Luke were earlier than his gospel.
They were not spurious, nor, so far as we know, unauthentic; but
rather imperfect. They must not be confounded with the
apocryphal gospels of a later age.

3. In respect to the quotations of Scripture by the early fathers of the
church, it is important to notice their habit of quoting anonymously,
and often in a loose and general way. They frequently cite from memory,
blending together the words of different authors, and sometimes
intermingling with them their own words. In citing the prophecies of the
Old Testament in an argumentative way, they are, as might have been
expected, more exact, particularly when addressing Jews; yet even here
they often content themselves with the scope of the passages referred
to, without being particular as to the exact words.

With the above preliminary remarks, we proceed to consider the
evidences, external and internal, for the genuineness of the gospel
narratives.

II. _External Evidences._ 4. Here we need not begin at a later date than
the last quarter of the second century. This is the age of Irenaeus in
Gaul, of Tertullian in North Africa, of Clement of Alexandria in Egypt,
and of some other writers. Their testimony to the apostolic origin and
universal reception of our four canonical gospels is as full as can be
desired. They give the names of the authors, two of them--Matthew and
John--apostles, and the other two--Mark and Luke--companions of apostles
and fellow-laborers with them, always associating Mark with Peter, and
Luke with Paul; they affirm the universal and undisputed reception of
these four gospels from the beginning by all the churches; and deny the
apostolic authority of other pretended gospels. In all this, they give
not their individual opinions, but the common belief of the churches. It
is conceded on all hands that in their day these four gospels wer