of its venerable age” (Ibid, p. 240); and he refers it to “the first half of the second century,” while acknowledging that he does so “without conclusive authority” (Ibid).  The Peshito omits the second and third epistles of John, second of Peter, that of Jude, and the Apocalypse.  The origin of the Western version, in Latin, is quite as obscure as that of the Syriac; and it is also incomplete, compared with the present Canon, omitting the epistle of James and the second of Peter (Ibid, p. 254).  All the evidence so laboriously gathered together by the learned Canon proves our proposition to demonstration.  But, it is admitted on all hands, that “it is impossible to assign any certain time when a collection of these books, either by the Apostles, or by any council of inspired or learned men, near their time, was made....  The matter is too certain to need much to be said of it” (Jones “On the Canon,” vol. i, p. 7).  Jones adds that he hopes to confute “these specious objections ... in the fourth part of this book,” in which he endeavours to prove the Gospels and Acts to be genuine, so that it does not much matter when they were collected together.  In the time of Eusebius the Canon was still unsettled, as he ranks among the disputed and spurious works, the epistles of James and Jude, second of Peter, second and third of John, and the Apocalypse ("Eccles.  Hist.,” bk. iii., chap. 25).  It is not necessary to offer any further proof in support of our position, that it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings were selected.

D. That before about A.D. 180 there is no trace of FOUR gospels among the Christians.  The first step we take in attacking the four canonical gospels, apart from the writings of the New Testament as a whole, is to show that there was no “sacred quaternion” spoken of before about A.D. 180, i.e., the supposed time of Irenaeus.  Irenaeus is said to have been a bishop of Lyons towards the close of the second century; we find him mentioned in the letter sent by the Churches of Vienne and Lyons to “brethren in Asia and Phrygia,” as “our brother and companion Irenaeus,” and as a presbyter much esteemed by them ("Eccles.  Hist.” bk. v., chs. 1, 4).  This letter relates a persecution which occurred in “the 17th year of the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Verus,” i.e., A.D. 177.  Paley dates the letter about A.D. 170, but as it relates the persecution of A.D. 177, it is difficult to see how it could be written about seven years before the persecution took place.  In that persecution Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, is said to have been slain; he was succeeded by Irenaeus (Ibid bk. v., ch. 5), who, therefore, could not possibly have been bishop before A.D. 177, while he ought probably to be put a year or two later, since time is needed, after the persecution, to send the account of it to Asia by the hands of Irenaeus, and he must be supposed to have returned and to have settled down in Lyons before he