Thirdly. Besides the gospels universally received by the churches, other narratives of our Lord’s life were attempted, as we learn from the evangelist Luke (1:1); but those never obtained general currency.  The churches everywhere received the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, because of the clear evidence which they had of their apostolic origin and trustworthiness; and because, also, these gospels, though not professing to give a complete account of our Lord’s life and teachings, were nevertheless sufficiently full to answer the end for which they were composed, being not fragmentary sketches, but orderly narratives, each of them extending 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 were universally received by the churches as genuine and authoritative records of our Lord’s life and works, to the exclusion of all others.