It will be observed that the reference to the Epistles of Paul is of such a character that it leads us to infer that those Epistles were well and generally known by the church at large; for this Epistle of Peter's which we quote, is written to no particular branch of the church, but "to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ;"[B] in other words, to the church universal; and it can scarcely be doubted that some of the larger branches of the church, even in that early day, had the Epistles of Paul in a collected form. It will also be observed that Peter places these Epistles of Paul on equal authority with Scripture by saying, that the unlearned and unstable wrest them, "_as they do also the other scripture_, unto their own destruction." [Footnote B: II. Peter i: 1.] There is a tradition that the apostle John, on his return from his banishment to Patmos--96 A. D.--made a collection of what he considered the inspired writings of the apostles and disciples of Christ; but the tradition seems not to be well founded. It is generally admitted, however, that he must have had before him the three other gospels when he wrote the one which bears his name, because his book called "The Gospel according to St. John," is supplemental in its character, and in it he gives prominence to those incidents in the life of his Master and the doctrines he taught, about which the other writers are either silent or have said but little. This peculiarity is accounted for by the supposition that John had before him the other three narratives of his Master's life and mission, and that he sought to make prominent what they had omitted or treated but briefly, that the church--in the four books--might have a complete history of Messiah's life, and labors and doctrines. In his admirable work on the "Evidences of Christianity," Archdeacon Paley maintains that the following allegations respecting the books comprising the New Testament are capable of proof; in fact, to my mind, the learned Archdeacon does prove them, and places them beyond the power of successful contradiction: I. That the historical books of the New Testament, meaning thereby the four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, are quoted, or alluded to, by a series of Christian writers, beginning with those who were contemporary with the apostles, or who immediately followed them, and proceeding in close and regular succession from their time to the present. II. That when they are quoted, or alluded to, they are quoted or alluded to with peculiar respect, as book _sui generis_;[C] as possessing an authority which belonged to no other books, and as conclusive in all questions and controversies amongst Christians. [Footnote C: That is, of its own kind.] III. That they were, in very early times, collected into a distinct volume. IV. That they were distinguished by appropriate names and titles of respect.