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 Irenæus 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