304 OF THE AUTHENTICIT

of St. Paul's manner; and, finall epistle, the precept, ver. 10, is i character of St. John the Evange other sources; and that, in the t position of Diotrephes to our auth recommendations, is not in confo solute and universally prevailin Apostle like St. John, which was apostolic age.

But, against this, may be reason lowing objections:

In the first place, as to the vag furcation of the eeclesiastical trad some probative force, only in eas our epistles were incompatible cannot be maintained. The ei allusion to our epistles occurs be second century, and that, after cond only is more particularly down to the fourth century, teachers of the church, and tho formed respecting early tradition fully guarantees the authenti epistle,) entertained more or les them; is accounted for, partly of both epistles, (and specially their didactic substance, and pa manner, according to which proceeded, in the first collect of the New Testamental canon. stance explains why, even in ch dental, which seem to have in

tles in the ecclesiastical canon, the teache church, in their writings, so seldom makeof them, and, when they do so, only allud second, aye, and confine themselves to its 11th, and still more rarely quote its 7th verse. Nay more, as that which was in di respect important in the second epistle, se o be of a polemical character, it was at frequently made use of for polemical s. We owe to polemics the first def nies respecting this epistle. And the t on the contrary, is scarcely ever ment this very reason, that it seemed not in anything of importance, either for c cs or polemics. It was, therefore, cle historical conviction of their spuriousness, ered the more rapid propagation, and the m ral and certain use of o 4los in the sec third century; but p ly also, and still more ctical respect. Now, as

onical books were first collec

d, admitted only what was universa