alled the Second and Third of John, whether they are of the
Evangelist, or of some other of the same name. Among the spurious
must be numbered both the books called the Acts of Paul, and that
called Pastor, and the Revelation of Peter. Besides these, the books
called the Epistle of Barnabas, and what are called the Institutions
of the Apostles. Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear
right, the Revelation of John, which some, as before said, reject,
but others rank among the genuine. But there are also some who
number among these the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly
delighted." (Bk. iii. ch. xxv.)

Such are the statements of the oldest ecclesiastical historian whose
work has come down to us.

With respect to the Gospels, he knows but four as canonical, and has
never heard of any other as accepted by the Church. He mentions
Apocryphal and disputed books. Amongst the latter he mentions the Gospel
to the Hebrews as acceptable to a local church; but he is wholly
ignorant of any doubt having ever been cast upon the authority of the
four in any branch of the Catholic Church.

Now let the reader remember, that however Eusebius, like all other
writers, _might_ be liable to be mistaken through carelessness, or
prejudice, or any other cause of inaccuracy; yet that each of these
statements respecting the authorship of the various Gospels is, on all
principles of common sense, worth all the conjectural criticisms of the
German and other writers, so copiously cited in "Supernatural Religion,"
put together.

For, in the first place, Eusebius flourished about 1500 years nearer to
the original source of the truth than these critics, and had come to
man's estate within 200 years of the publication of the Fourth Gospel.

Now, at a time when tradition was far more relied upon, and so much more
perfectly preserved and transmitted than in such an age of printed books
and public journals as the present, this alone would make an enormous
difference between a direct statement of Eusebius and the conjecture of
a modern theorist. But far more than this, Eusebius had access to, and
was well acquainted with, a vast mass of ecclesiastical literature which
has altogether perished; and the greater part of which is only known to
have existed through notices or extracts to be found in his work. For
instance, in a few pages he