ings were done in the 340th year"
(Eusebius does not state what he reckons from). The proof given by
Eusebius for the truth of the account is as follows: "Of this also we
have the evidence, in a written answer, taken from the public records of
the city of Edessa, then under the government of the king. For, in the
public registers there, which embrace the ancient history and the
transactions of Agbarus, these circumstances respecting him are found
still preserved down to the present day. There is nothing, however, like
hearing the epistles themselves, taken by us from the archives, and the
style of it, as it has been literally translated by us, from the Syriac
language" ("Eccles. Hist.," bk. i., chap. xiii.). And Paley calls this
an attempt at forgery, "deserving of the smallest notice," and dismisses
it in a few lines. It would be interesting to know for what other
"Scripture," canonical or uncanonical, there is evidence of authenticity
so strong as for this; exactness of detail in names; absence of any
exaggeration more than is implied in recounting any miracle; the
transaction recorded in the public archives; seen there by Eusebius
himself; copied down and translated by him; such evidence for any one of
the Gospels would make belief far easier than it is at present. The
assertion of Eusebius was easily verifiable at the time (to use the
favourite argument of Christians for the truth of any account); and if
Eusebius here wrote falsely, of what value is his evidence on any other
point? A Freethinker may fairly urge that Eusebius is _not_ trustworthy,
and that this assertion of his about the archives is as likely to be
false as true; but the Christian can scarcely admit this, when so much
depends, for him, on the reliability of the great Church historian, all
whose evidence would become worthless if he be once allowed to have
deliberately fabricated that which did not exist.

We have already noticed the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, and
pointed out the numerous forgeries circulated under their names, and the
consequent haze hanging over all the early Christian writers, until we
reach the time of Justin Martyr. Thus we entirely destroy the whole
basis of Paley's argument, that "the historical books of the New
Testament ... are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christian
writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the Apostles,
or who immediately followed them" ("Evidences," page 111;) for we have
no