The sixth is a condensed summary of words related by St. Matthew; the seventh alone presents an important variation in the text of a verse, which is, however, otherwise very uncertain” (pp. 130, 131.  The italics are our own).  That is, there are only seven distinct quotations, and all of these, save two, are different from our Gospels.  The whole of Dr. Westcott’s analysis of these passages is severely criticised in “Supernatural Religion,” and in the edition of 1875 of Dr. Westcott’s book, from which we quote, some of the expressions he previously used are a little modified.  The author of “Supernatural Religion” justly says:  “The striking result, to summarise Canon Westcott’s own words, is this.  Out of seven professed quotations from the ‘Memoirs,’ in which he admits we may expect to find the exact language preserved, five present three variations; one is a compressed summary, and does not agree verbally at all; and the seventh presents an important variation” (vol. i., p. 394).

Dr. Giles speaks very strongly against Paley’s distortion of Justin Martyr’s testimony, complaining:  “The works of Justin Martyr do not fall in the way of one in a hundred thousand of our countrymen.  How is it, then, to be deprecated that erroneous statements should be current about him!  How is it to be censured that his testimony should be changed, and he should be made to speak a falsehood!” ("Christian Records,” p. 71).  Dr. Giles then argues that Justin would have certainly named the books and their authors had they been current and reverenced in his time; that there were numberless Gospels current at that date; that Justin mentions occurrences that are only found related in such apocryphal Gospels.  He then compares seventeen passages in Justin Martyr with parallel passages in the Gospels, and concludes that Justin “gives us Christ’s sayings in their traditionary forms, and not in the words which are found in our four Gospels.”  We will select two, to show his method of criticising, translating the Greek, instead of giving it, as he does, in the original.  In the Apology, ch. xv., Justin writes:  “If thy right eye offend thee, cut it out, for it is profitable for thee to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one eye, than having two to be thrust into the everlasting fire.”  “This passage is very like Matt. v. 29:  ’If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.’  But it is also like Matt, xviii. 9:  ’And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee; it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell-fire.’  And it bears an equal likeness to Mark ix. 47:  ’And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out; it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell-fire.’  Yet, strange to say, it is not identical in words with