Had these four Gospels emerged before A.D. 180, we should most certainly find some mention of them in the Mishna.  “The Mishna, a collection of Jewish traditions compiled about the year 180, takes no notice of Christianity, though it contains a chapter headed ’De Cultu Peregrino, of strange worship.’  This omission is thought by Dr. Paley to prove nothing, for, says he, ’it cannot be disputed but that Christianity was perfectly well known to the world at this time.’  It cannot, certainly, be disputed that Christianity was beginning to be known to the world, but whether it had yet emerged from the lower classes of persons among whom it originated, may well be doubted.  It is a prevailing error, in biblical criticism, to suppose that the whole world was feelingly alive to what was going on in small and obscure parts of it.  The existence of Christians was probably known to the compilers of the Mishna in 180, even though they did not deign to notice them, but they could not have had any knowledge of the New Testament, or they would undoubtedly have noticed it; if, at least, we are right in ascribing to it so high a character, attracting (as we know it does) the admiration of every one in every country to which it is carried” (Ibid, p. 35).

There is, however, one alleged proof of the existence of four, and only four, Gospels, put forward by Paley:—­Tatian, a follower of Justin Martyr, and who flourished about the year 170, composed a harmony or collection of the Gospels, which he called Diatessaron, of the Four.  This title, as well as the work, is remarkable, because it shows, that then, as now, there were four and only four, Gospels in general use with Christians ("Evidences,” pp. 154, 155).  Paley does not state, until later, that the “follower of Justin Martyr” turned heretic and joined the Encratites, an ascetic and mystic sect who taught abstinence from marriage, and from meat, etc.; nor does he tell us how doubtful it is what the Diatessaron—­now lost—­really contained.  He blandly assures us that it is a harmony of the four Gospels, although all the evidence is against him.  Irenaeus, as quoted by Eusebius, says of Tatian that “having apostatised from the Church, and being elated with the conceit of a teacher, and vainly puffed up as if he surpassed all others,” he invented some new doctrines, and Eusebius further tells us:  “Their chief and founder, Tatianus, having formed a certain body and collection of Gospels, I know not how, has given this the title Diatessaron, that is the Gospel by the four, or the Gospel formed of the four” ("Eccles.  Hist,” bk. iv., ch. 29).  Could Eusebius have written that Tatian formed this, I know not how, if it had been a harmony of the Gospels recognised by the Church when he wrote? and how is it that Paley knows all about it, though Eusebius did not?  And still further, after mentioning the Diatessaron, Eusebius says of another of Tatian’s books:  “This book, indeed, appears to be the most elegant