shows that Memoirs which were in the churches in the year 100 could not have displaced accepted and generally received Memoirs of any previous period. We know from the Epistle of Clement, as clearly as from Justin’s Apology, how Christians loved and adored their Divine Lord and Master, and how strongly attached they must have been to any Memoirs of him, which they accepted as authentic. And the testimony of Pliny is, that Christians in his day were accustomed to meet before daybreak and sing a responsive hymn to Christ as God. It is utterly incredible that accepted Memoirs of Christ, thus worshipped, should have been thrown aside by presbyters or bishops, and hundreds of churches, throughout the Roman Empire, without a shock that would have left unmistakable evidences of it in history. There being an entire absence of any evidence of displacement and substitution, it is _morally certain there was none_. John’s Gospel, however, stands upon a different footing, since it came in not to displace, but to supplement. John lived to the close of the first century. _Who dared_ to forge a spurious Gospel in his name, so soon after his death that it had obtained such a footing in the churches, at the end of forty years, as to be quoted as his production? _Who_, during that period, was _capable_ of composing it? And how were hundreds of presbyters or bishops, and churches, from Syria to Gaul, persuaded to receive a spurious Gospel, as the genuine work of the beloved disciple who was in life within the personal[4] recollections of many? It is a fact to be emphasized, that neither this Gospel, nor the others, can be assailed on historical or traditional grounds. _There is but one history or tradition_ concerning them. The objections to them are either negative or speculative, mere assumptions, not supported by any history or tradition.