But beyond their more general testimony it is not clear what else the early Fathers could be expected to do.  They could not prove—­ at least their written remains that have come down to us could not prove—­that the Gospels were really written by the authors traditionally assigned to them.  When we say that the very names of the first two Evangelists are not mentioned before a date that may be from 120-166 (or 155) A.D. and the third and fourth not before 170-175 A.D., this alone is enough, without introducing other elements of doubt, to show that the evidence must needs be inconclusive.  If the author of ‘Supernatural Religion’ undertook to show this, he undertook a superfluous task.  So much at least, Mr. Arnold was right in saying, ’might be stated in a sentence and proved in a page.’  There is a presumption in favour of the tradition, and perhaps, considering the relation of Irenaeus to Polycarp and of Polycarp to St. John, we may say, a fairly strong one; but we need now-a-days, to authenticate a document, closer evidence than this.  The cases are not quite parallel, and the difference between them is decidedly in favour of Irenaeus, but if Clement of Alexandria could speak of an Epistle written about 125 A.D. is the work of the apostolic Barnabas the companion of St. Paul [Endnote 346:1], we must not lay too much stress upon the direct testimony of Irenaeus when he attributes the fourth Gospel to the Apostle St. John.

These are points for a different set of arguments to determine.  The Gospel itself affords sufficient indications as to the position of its author.  For the conclusion that he was a Palestinian Jew, who had lived in Palestine before the destruction of Jerusalem, familiar with the hopes and expectations of his people, and himself mixed up with the events which he describes, there is evidence of such volume and variety as seems exceedingly difficult to resist.  As I have gone into this subject at length elsewhere [Endnote 347:1], and as, so far as I can see, no new element has been introduced into the question by ’Supernatural Religion,’ I shall not break the unity of the present work by considering the objections brought in detail.  I am very ready to recognise the ability with which many of these are stated, but it is the ability of the advocate rather than of the impartial critic.  There is a constant tendency to draw conclusions much in excess of the premisses.  An observation, true in itself with a certain qualification and restriction, is made in an unqualified form, and the truth that it contains is exaggerated.  Above all, wherever there is a margin of ignorance, wherever a statement of the Evangelist is not capable of direct and exact verification, the doubt is invariably given against him and he is brought in guilty either of ignorance or deception.  I have no hesitation in saying that if the principles of criticism applied to the fourth Gospel—­not only by the author of ‘Supernatural Religion,’ but by some other