older materials.

Paley begins his argument by supposing that the first and fourth Gospels
were written by the apostles Matthew and John, "from personal knowledge
and recollection" ("Evidences," p. 87), and that they must therefore be
either true, or wilfully false; the latter being most improbable, as
they would then be "villains for no end but to teach honesty, and
martyrs without the least prospect of honour or advantage" (Ibid, page
88). But supposing that Matthew and John wrote some Gospels, we should
need proof that the Gospels which we have, supposing them to be copies
of those thus written, have not been much altered since they left the
apostles' hands. We should next ask how Matthew can report from
"personal knowledge and recollection" all that comes in his Gospel
_before he was called from his tax-gathering_, as well as many incidents
at which he was not present? and whether his reliability as a witness is
not terribly weakened by his making no distinction between what was fact
within his own knowledge, and what was simple hearsay? Further, we
remark that some of the teaching is the reverse of teaching "honesty,"
and that such instruction as Matt. v. 39-42 would, if accepted, exactly
suit "villains;" that the extreme glorification of the master would
naturally be reflected upon "the twelve" who followed him, and the
authority of the writers would thereby be much increased and confirmed;
that pure moral teaching on some points is no guarantee of the morality
of the teacher, for a tyrant, or an ambitious priest, would naturally
wish to discourage crime of some kinds in those he desired to rule; that
such tyrant or priest could find no better creed to serve his purpose
than meek, submissive, non-resisting, heaven-seeking Christianity. Thus
we find Mosheim saying of Constantine: "It is, indeed, probable that
this prince perceived the admirable tendency of the Christian doctrine
and precepts to promote the stability of government, by preserving the