accounts of Church historians were correct, how would that support
Paley's argument? His contention is that the "eye-witnesses" of
miraculous events died in testimony of their belief in them; and myriads
of martyrs in the second and third centuries are of no assistance to
him. So we will retrace our steps to the eye-witnesses, and we find the
position of Gibbon--as to the lives and labours of the Apostles being
written later by men not confining themselves to facts--endorsed by
Mosheim, who judiciously observes: "Many have undertaken to write this
history of the Apostles, a history which we find loaded with fables,
doubts, and difficulties, when we pursue it further than the books of
the New Testament, and the most ancient writers in the Christian Church"
("Eccles. Hist.," p. 27, ed. 1847). What "ancient writers" Mosheim
alludes to it is difficult to guess, as may be judged from his
criticisms quoted below, on the "Apostolic Fathers," the most ancient of
all; and in estimating the worth of his opinion, it is necessary to
remember that he was himself an earnest Christian, although a learned
and candid one, so that every admission he makes, which tells against
Christianity, is of double weight, it being the admission of a friend
and defender.

To the credit of Paley's apostolic evidences (Clement, Hermas, Polycarp,
Ignatius, and letter from Smyrna), we may urge the following objections.
Clement's writings are much disputed: "The accounts which remain of his
life, actions, and death are, for the most part, uncertain. Two
_Epistles to the Corinthians_, written in Greek, have been attributed to
him, of which the second has been looked upon as spurious, and the first
as genuine, by many learned writers. But even this latter seems to have
been corrupted and interpolated by some ignorant and presumptuous
author.... The learned are now unanimous in regarding the other writings
which bear the name of Clemens (Clement) ... as spurious productions