his name under the general title of Recollections.  Justin clearly quotes from a written source and excludes oral tradition, saying that in the Recollections is recorded “everything that concerns our Saviour Christ.” (The proofs that Justin quotes from records other than the Gospels will be classed under position h, and are here omitted.) Justin knows nothing of the shepherds of the plain, and the angelic appearance to them, nor of the star guiding the wise men to the place where Jesus was, although he relates the story of the birth, and the visit of the wise men.  Two short passages in Justin are identical with parallel passages in Matthew, but “it cannot be too often repeated, that the mere coincidence of short historical sayings in two works by no means warrants the conclusion that the one is dependent on the other.”  In the first Apology, chaps, xv., xvi., and xvii. are composed almost entirely of examples of Christ’s teaching, and with the exception of these two brief passages, not one quotation agrees verbally with the canonical Gospels.  We have referred to one instance wherein the name of Peter is mentioned in connection with the Recollections.  Justin says:  “The statement also that he (Jesus) changed the name of Peter, one of the Apostles, and that this is also written in his ‘Memoirs,’” etc.  This refers the “Memoirs” to Peter, and it is suggested that it is, therefore, a reference to the Gospel of Mark, Mark having been supposed to have written his Gospel under the direction of Peter.  There was a “Gospel according to Peter” current in the early Church, probably a variation from the Gospel of the Hebrews, so highly respected and so widely used by the primitive writers.  It is very probable that this is the work to which Justin so often refers, and that it originally bore the simple title of “The Gospel,” or the “Recollections of Peter.”  A version of this Gospel was also known as the “Gospel According to the Apostles,” a title singularly like the “Recollections of the Apostles” by Justin.  Seeing that in Justin’s works his quotations, although so copious, do not agree with parallel passages in our Gospels, we may reasonably conclude that “there is no evidence that he made use of any of our Gospels, and he cannot, therefore, even be cited to prove their very existence, and much less the authenticity and character of records whose authors he does not once name.”  Passing from this case, ably worked out by this learned and clever writer (and we earnestly recommend our readers, if possible, to study his careful analysis for themselves, since he makes the whole question thoroughly intelligible to English readers, and gives them evidence whereby they can form their own judgments, instead of accepting ready-made conclusions), we will examine Canon Westcott’s contention.  He admits that the difficulties perplexing the evidence of Justin are “great;” that there are “additions to the received narrative, and remarkable variations