Paley’s further plea that “these apocryphal writings were not read in the churches of Christians” ("Evidences,” p. 187) is thoroughly false.  Eusebius tells us of the Pastor of Hermas:  “We know that it has been already in public use in our churches” ("Eccles.  Hist.,” bk. iii., ch. 3).  Clement’s Epistle “was publicly read in the churches at the Sunday meetings of Christians” ("Sup.  Rel,” vol. i., p. 222).  Dionysius of Corinth mentions this same early habit of reading any valued writing in the churches:  “In this same letter he mentions that of Clement to the Corinthians, showing that it was the practice to read in the churches, even from the earliest times.  ‘To-day,’ says he, ’we have passed the Lord’s holy-day, in which we have read your epistle, in reading which we shall always have our minds stored with admonition, as we shall, also, from that written to us before by Clement’” (Eusebius’ “Eccles.  Hist.,” bk. iv., ch. 23).  So far is “reading in the churches” to be accepted as a proof, even of canonicity, much less of genuineness, that Eusebius remarks that “the disputed writings” were “publicly used by many in most of the churches” (Ibid, bk. iii., ch. 31).  Paley then takes as a further mark of distinction, between canonical and uncanonical, that the latter “were not admitted into their volume” and “do not appear in their catalogues,” but we have already seen that the only MS. copy of Clement’s first Epistle is in the Codex Alexandrinus (see ante p. 246), while the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas find their place in the Sinaitic Codex (see ante p. 246); the second Epistle of Clement is also in the Codex Alexandrinus, and both epistles are in the Apostolic constitutions (see ante p. 247).  The Canon of Muratori—­worthless as it is, it is used as evidence by Christians—­brackets the Apocalypse of John and of Peter ("Sup.  Rel.,” vol. ii., p. 241).  Canon Westcott says:  “‘Apocryphal’ writings were added to manuscripts of the New Testament, and read in churches; and the practice thus begun continued for a long time.  The Epistle of Barnabas was still read among the ‘apocryphal Scriptures’ in the time of Jerome; a translation of the Shepherd of Hermas is found in a MS. of the Latin Bible as late as the fifteenth century.  The spurious Epistle to the Laodicenes is found very commonly in English copies of the Vulgate from the ninth century downwards, and an important catalogue of the Apocrypha of the New Testament is added to the Canon of Scripture subjoined to the Chronographia of Nicephorus, published in the ninth century” ("On the Canon,” pp. 8, 9).  Paley’s fifth distinction, that they “were not noticed by their [heretical] adversaries” is as untrue as the preceding ones, for even the fragments of “the adversaries” preserved in Christian documents bear traces of reference to the apocryphal writings, although, owing to the orthodox custom of destroying unorthodox books, references of any sort by heretics are difficult to find.  Again, Paley