, 1880-10-10

and Mark cannot be identified: with the looia st
Matthew and the things sa,as 4na m dong by Jesus
wrter wEth doe does not himself: idenafy them. is
also a' noteworthy that sapata2oral TRADITION
ae.Ts ,Tbe wfft.s6 were either
not nscd or little regarded. By the prominent
Ecclesiastical writer's Of the first half OF the Sec
o,,d century. After Alb 1'o tney began to be
FTth-The canon, as far as It relates to the
four {iosueis wns not settled Mt the cluse Uf the
tHe t1ei latter h1ir Of the second century did the
nrose1it 1ur Gosuels assume n canonicni position,
ssupersedinr 81 other works of q similar character
aaa eapoa pgoe oe ts atSesX Testament that
ia M collection OF New Testament literature
like lie present ne sspPmsD9a e D sS possess Divine
apth9ity Ply from ven
craf,1e scholar who hns devoted lifetime to the
wt,rk Of critical investigation, little need be
been even more judctous. on the whole, than in
thar OF the Old Testament There are furtyone
apocryphul New Testament books now IN exist
nj narof1ll examination and comparison reaired
to sep..rate the wheat from the chafl; nr rather,
the hest wheat from the inferior aud worthless.
r,,oEs. which arc somewhat difficult to procure:
The General Epistle OF Darnahas, tho First and
Second Epfstlcs Of Clement 70 the Corinthians,
the DESCENT OF Christ into. He'll, the First, Sec
md. and Third BOOK of Hermas. tho EpIstle OF
Ignntjus to the E2hcsiang, the Gospel OF the In
fancy Of the Savior, the Gospel OF the Nativity
Of injury, the NarrattGe & o. @ yoseph OF Arlmath.e,
according to Davidson, was not finaiiy and con-
ci,lsIvciy closed even al the end OF the fifth
century indeed, the Catholic Church did not
reoard It closed Until the Council of Trent In
1875 when the seal of highest ecclesiastical nu-
thorty was at last PLACED upon IT, IN connection
Dible, so far as tho books are concerned, Ia the
snme MS the Protestant, except that it includes
ns cuuouiu;lt the up0eryphul portion of the Old
Testament. Tho bible Of the Greek Church Is
thfAsaue Us that Of. the Catholic.
Luther's opinion OF some Or the New Testa-.
nizeu P Dtestnnt standard Of tho present time.
He thought the Epistle TO the Hebrews was not
written by Paul. or by ,fny other Apostle, und
did not put it on I'm equality with the rest. Roy
eIation he considered neither apostolic nor pro-
phc1ic, aud .c!usscd It wttH the fourth book OF
cpistlc .; Jude he did notIhink proceeded fro1n
nh Apostle. Zwiu9li declares TINT Revelation is
not. B!biical book ut un. Nuis'in repldiuted the
Pauline authorship Of Hebrews, and did nut
think Second Peter was written by tho Apostle
lcu@,os, na % nor successors tosay that some
portions Of the Bible were Of far more value
fban others unil their views OF Inspiration would
hardly be accepted by the strictly orthodox
Protestant Of the present day. We do not know
that the members of the Revisory Commission
the curly reYortners. but from such specimens
Of their work as we hive seen It Ia evident they
fnyc been governed by the same Spfrit,-the
spirit nf Independent and fearless criticism,
anxious only TO get at the genuine Scripture us
to be hoped that such faithful aud conscientious
+, lnhor will be properly appreciated By those for
whom IL Is done. =: ....~~.~