obtain the special imprimatur of some ecclesiastical assembly. Nor was such a notion thought of until after many centuries. In the early period, churches and church fathers were cited, not as authorities to say what should or should not be done, but as witnesses to declare what had been done, to bear testimony that, as a matter of fact, certain writings had been received as apostolic and inspired, and certain others had not been. It nowhere appears that the New Testament writers had the design of conveying to their readers a full statement of the Faith. Their works are, so to speak, casual and fragmentary, designed simply to meet an existing want, as it revealed itself in the circle of their activity. And yet, as we know, those writings, taken together, form a unique and symmetrical whole, from which no part could be withdrawn without impairing the unity and richness of the rest. This, of course, was not apparent at first. Experience, diversities of opinion, doctrinal errors, corruption of life, turned the attention of the churches more and more to the original depositories of saving truth; and partial collections of apostolic writings began to be formed. The Fragment of Muratori shows how far this movement had proceeded in his day. But in the course of the last quarter of the second century the matter took a wider and more general development. Here we find no less than five great witnesses to the determination of the Canon. (1). First is Irenæus, born in Asia Minor, and trained there under Polycarp, who was a pupil of the apostle John. He removed to Gaul, and became Bishop of Lyons, where he exerted a wide influence. He quotes as Scripture all our present Canon, save James, Jude, 3 John, and 2 Peter. (2). Clement of Alexandria was a man of varied training and extensive knowledge, and famous alike for his ability and for his position as head of the catechetical school of his city. He quotes

as Scripture all our Canon, save Philemon, James, 2 and 3 John, and 2 Peter; but besides these, gives his sanction to a number of writings now deemed apocryphal. (3). In the neighboring province of North Africa was Tertullian, an able and eloquent orator, notable for his fiery zeal. He quoted almost identically the same books as Clement, and with the same respect. (4). Contemporaneous with them was the old Latin version of the S.S., known as the Itala, which was made in North Africa, but two centuries afterward being superseded by Jerome's revision, called the Vulgate, only fragments of it now remain. This Old Latin version did not contain Hebrews, James, and 2 Peter, but otherwise was like the present Canon. (5). Besides this was a still older version, made in the far East, the Syriac Peshitto, which contained Hebrews, but omitted Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, and the Apocalypse. Now, here are five witnesses, covering the greater part of the known world, from Lyons in Gaul, to Edessa near the Euphrates, and representing four or five of the great divisions of the Ante-Nicene Church, and they are all in substantial agreement as to the chief parts of the Canon. The Gospels, the Acts, and the Pauline Epistles are accepted by them as the work of apostolic men, as inspired of God, and as furnishing the rule of faith. Surely, the force of truth, some divine instinct, or the overruling hand of Providence, guided them to this remarkable unanimity. For no force was laid upon them, no external authority controlled them, but they were left to choose their course as seemed to them right. Yet living so far apart, and differing as they did in outward circumstances and inward characteristics, they still reached practically the same result-a result which, so far as its positive features are concerned, must be accepted. That is, the books which they all receive as divine, must be accepted by us in like manner. No valid, no

plausible reason can be assigned why we should distrust these concurring witnesses, and no explanation of their substantial agreement can be given, apart from the fact that they drew from a common source, viz., the first receivers of the inspired books.

Now, in regard to the books which these parties rejected, we have a full and clear statement in the words of Eusebius, the friend of Constantine, and the first of the long line of Church historians. He gives a catalogue of the writings of the New Testament, viz., the Gospels, the Acts, the (fourteen) Epistles of Paul, 1 John, 1 Peter, and the Apocalypse. These, he says, are the Acknowledged Books, received by all. Then he enumerates James, Jude, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John, as Disputed Books, which, although well known (and used) by most, were yet felt to be lacking in authority. Then he mentions a third class (Spurious), such as the Revelation of Peter, the Epistle of Barnabas, etc., which are pious and useful, but not canonical. To these he adds a fourth class, about which there was no dispute whatever, but they were to be set aside as worthless and impious. It is not necessary to trace the matter farther. As time. went on, the settlement of vexed questions on the subject became more clear and harmonious. Less than half a century after Eusebius, we find the great Athanasius giving a catalogue which in all respects is the same as our own, and after a century all differences of opinion died out, and the whole Christian body was of one mind on the point. The veteran critic and scholar, Reuss of Strasburg, recounts the list made by Eusebius, and then says: "This division is certainly very far from being scientific; as a matter of theory and dogma it is even absurd." It is somewhat hard to see what room there is for science in settling a question of fact of the nature of this one, or how Eusebius lies open to reproach for pursuing the very course followed by all

the lights of the Church from the beginning. Nothing is more certain from all the evidence in the case than that individuals and churches in accepting any writing as divinely inspired, were governed by their conviction as to its origin. The only question they asked was: Did it come from men who were themselves apostles, or so associated with apostles as to be under their influence? And the fact of its reception by any number of churches was of weight only as it bore upon this point. In fact, for a thousand years there was no conciliar action in the matter. The provincial council of Laodicea (363 A.d.), which acted on the subject, only decreed that canonical books alone should be read in the churches, but did not determine what these were. Afterward at Carthage, in 397, through Augustine's influence, there was a decree which named the books, and limited their ecclesiastical use, but this was not repeated anywhere else, much less sanctioned by any act of an ecumenical body. The whole question was regarded as out of the domain of conciliar action. The appeal was always made to tradition, to usage, to antiquity, and not to any decree of any ecclesiastical body, large or small.

As to the Disputed Books, it does not appear that the doubt or hesitation in their case arose from the nature of their contents, but from circumstances which admitted of an adequate explanation and afterward received the same. Thus, the Epistle to the Hebrews was circulated without the name of its author, as it still is, and this fact, of course, made men chary of acknowledging its apostolical authority. The second and third Epistles of John were very short, were addressed each to an individual, and, therefore, might easily escape notice for a considerable time. The Epistle of James was addressed to the believers of the Diaspora, who were widely scattered, but were mainly found in the East, and so it would naturally

be a long time in coming to the knowledge of the Church in the West. The second Epistle of Peter and the Epistle of Jude were apparently directed to Jewish believers, and were full of Hebrew memories and allusions, and so might have drifted into corners where they escaped attention. But whether these explanations be sufficient or not, the existence of the Antilegomena, or Disputed Books, is not a thing to be regretted. Rather the fact stands out as an undeniable evidence that the formation of the Canon was not a hasty enterprise, undertaken without deliberation, and concluded without reason, but, on the contrary, was conducted with all conceivable care. Not every writing claiming to be from an apostle's hand was welcomed and forthwith admitted, but there was delay and investigation, and in some cases two centuries elapsed before the case was closed. But it may be added, that even if the result had been other than it actually was, and the entire body of disputed books had been dropped as uncanonical, while our loss would have been serious and greatly to be lamented, it would have been anything but fatal. The body of the faith would have remained the same; the creed would have lost none of its articles, and the ethics of the New Covenant would still. have maintained their pure and lofty standard. But, blessed be God, we have not a mutilated Bible. The book contains all that it was intended to have. We have no reason to think that any inspired book was lost. The early believers were faithful to their high calling, and carefully preserved the precious deposit of living oracles committed to their hands, and oftentimes at sore risk and cost. Eusebius says that when he was young he saw, at Cesarea, under the persecution of Diocletian, the houses of Christians razed to the ground, and the sacred Scriptures consigned to the flames in the open market-place. The enemies of the truth were as quick then as in former