that there is in existence no trace of any story of Jesus Christ “substantially different from ours” ("Evidences,” p. 69).  It is hard to judge how much difference is covered by the word “substantially.”  All the apocryphal gospels differ very much from the canonical, insert sayings and doings of Christ not to be found in the received histories, and make his character the reverse of good or lovable to a far greater extent than “the four.”  That Christ was miraculously born, worked miracles, was crucified, buried, rose again, ascended, may be accepted as “substantial” parts of the story.  Yet Mark and John knew nothing of the birth, while, if the Acts and the Epistles are to be trusted, the apostles were equally ignorant; thus the great doctrine of the Incarnation of God without natural generation, is thoroughly ignored by all save Matthew and Luke, and even these destroy their own story by giving genealogies of Jesus through Joseph, which are useless unless Joseph was his real father.  The birth from a virgin, then has no claim to be part of Paley’s miraculous story in the earliest times.  The evidence of miracle-working by Christ to be found in the Epistles is chiefly conspicuous by its absence, but it figures largely in post-apostolic works.  The crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension are generally acknowledged, and these three incidents compose the whole story for which a consensus of testimony can be claimed; it will, perhaps, be fair to concede also that Christ is recognised universally as a miracle-worker, in spite of the strange silence of the epistles.  We need not refer to the testimony of Clement, Polycarp or Ignatius, having already shown what dependence may be placed on their writings.  But we have now three new witnesses, Barnabas, Quadratus, and Justin Martyr.  Paley says:  “In an epistle, bearing the name of Barnabas, the companion of Paul, probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age, we have the sufferings of Christ,” etc. (Evidences p. 75).  “Probably genuine, certainly belonging to that age!” Is Paley joking with his readers, or only trading on their ignorance?  “The letter itself bears no author’s name, is not dated from any place, and is not addressed to any special community. Towards the end of the second century, however, tradition began to ascribe it to Barnabas, the companion of Paul.  The first writer who mentions it is Clement of Alexandria [head of the Alexandrian School, A.D. 205] who calls its author several times the ’Apostle Barnabas’....  We have already seen in the case of the Epistles ascribed to Clement of Rome, and, as we proceed, we shall become only too familiar with the fact, the singular facility with which, in the total absence of critical discrimination, spurious writings were ascribed by the Fathers to Apostles and their followers....  Credulous piety which attributed writings to every Apostle, and even to Jesus himself, soon found authors for each anonymous work of an edifying character....  In the earlier