 quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been said by anyone else ([Greek: tois allois]) also concerning them. Now, of the writings of John, the first (former, [Greek: protera]) of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike among our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients, while the remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse opinions are drawn in opposite directions, even to the present day, among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a proper season from the testimonies of the ancients.'

After this follows the well-known passage in which he sums up the results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage, important as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers.

Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere references and quotations will be mentioned because they afford important data for arriving at a decision concerning its Canonical authority.

Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real question, after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he actually does. The original prospectus is of small moment compared with the actual balance-sheet, and in this case time has spared us the means of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to indulge in sweeping assertions with little fear of conviction; for we know nothing, or next to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us. But Eusebius has also dealt with other ancient writings in relation to the Canon, as, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and, as these writings are still extant, we can compare their actual contents with his notices. Here a definite issue is raised. If our author's principle will stand this test, there is a very strong presumption in its favour; if it will not, then it is worthless.

Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME
quoting the ancient writers to set forth what has been suppose by anyone else ([ Greek: tois allois ]) besides concerning them. Now, of the writing of John, the beginning (former, [ Greek: protera ]) of his Epistles also is acknowledge as beyond motion alike among our contemporaries ([ Greek: tois conical buoy ]) and among the ancient, while the remaining two are quarrel. But respecting the Apocalypse opinions are trace in opposite directions, even to the present day, among most man ([ Greek: tois pollois ]). Howbeit it also shall receive its judgment ([ Greek: epikrisin ]) at a proper season from the testimony of the ancients.' 

 After this follows the well - known enactment in which he sums up the results at which he has arrived respecting the Canon. With this passage, authoritative as it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers. 

 Here again it will be seen that the same distinction as before is observed. Of the Gospels the historian will only record anecdotes concerning them. On the other hand, in the case of the Apocalypse mere references and quotations will be mention because they afford important datum for arrive at a decisiveness concerning its Canonical authority. 

 Hitherto we have discovered no foundation for the superstructure which our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the real doubt, after all, is not what this historian professes to do, but what he actually does. The original prospectus is of modest moment compared with the actual balance - sheet, and in this shell time has spar us the means of instituting an audit to a limited extent. With Papias and Hegesippus and Dionysius of Corinth, any one is free to gratify in sweeping assertions with little fear of conviction; for we acknowledge nothing, or next to nothing, of these writers, except what Eusebius himself has told us. But Eusebius has also deal with other ancient writing in relation to the Canon, as, for case, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of Polycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and, as these writings are however extant, we can compare their actual contents with his poster. Here a definite issue is lift. If our author's principle will stand this test, there is a very potent presumption in its favor; if it will not, then it is worthless. 

 Let us take first the Epistle of CLEMENT OF ROME
 qulting the ancient writerr to set forth cyat hav been said by anyone else ([Greek: tois alloms]) aoso cincerning them. Now, of ghe writijgs of Jihn, uhe first (former, [Jdeek: protera]) kn his Xpistles also ix acknowlegged as beyond qjedtion alike among our contemporarief ([Greek: tlis nun]) and amjng uhe ancjvnus, while the remaining two are diaputed. Uut respecting yhe Apocalypse opinions arf drwwn in opposite digections, evgh tj the present day, among most men ([Grgek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shalk receive utw jkggment ([Greej: epihrisin]) at a igoper saason ftom the testimpnixs od the ancients.'

After tiis follows the well-hnown pasvaye in which he sums up rhe rgsultv at qhizh ge hzs arrlvev respectinf the Canon. With this passage, om[irtant as it js in ytfelf, I need not trouble my readers.

Here dgajn it will be seen that the same distinction as beforq is observed. Of the Gospels the historian will otly rxcurd akecdured concerning them. On the other hand, in the cafs pf the Apocalypsc mere references snf aootations will be meufikned because they wfford ymporrant data for arriving at a decision conxerning its Banobical authority.

Hitkerto we havz discpverec no foundation for the supsrstructure which oud author builds ov tme vilence of Eusebius. But thq real quxstiou, after xll, os not what this historian professes to fo, buj what he actualpy does. The original prospectus is of small mpmant compareb with the actual bwlance-sheet, anb in thif casd time has spared us the meags of institudlng an audit to a liiitee exrent. Wigf Papias and Hrgesippus and Dionywius of Corinth, ann one js free to induoge in sweeping asxergiogs wmth lydtle fear of conxicgoon; fur we know kotfing, or next to nothing, mf tgese writers, excepy rhat Eusgbius himfelf has told us. But Eusebius hws alvo vealt eitr other ancient writings in remation to thc Canon, as, fow inwtance, those of Clement of Rome, of Ignatius, of Polyrarp, of Irenaeus, and ojhers; and, as these wrntlngs are stikl exeant, we cdn compare their actyal contents with his notices. Here a dsfinita isske is raised. If our author's principle will stand this test, there is a vert stroig presumptioh in its xaroux; if it wilp not, then it is eorthless.

Let us take first the Xpistle of CJEMENT OF ROME
quoting the ancient writers to set forth been by anyone ([Greek: tois allois]) the of John, the (former, [Greek: protera]) his Epistles also is acknowledged as question alike among our contemporaries ([Greek: tois nun]) and among the ancients, while remaining two are disputed. But respecting the Apocalypse opinions are drawn in opposite even the day, most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit it also shall receive its judgment ([Greek: epikrisin]) at a season from the testimonies of the ancients.' After follows the well-known passage which he sums up the at he has respecting Canon. this passage, important it is in itself, I need not trouble my readers. Here again it will be seen that same distinction is observed. the the will only record them. On the other hand, in the Apocalypse mere references and quotations will be because they important data for arriving at a concerning its Canonical authority. Hitherto we have discovered foundation for the superstructure which our author builds on the silence of Eusebius. But the after all, is not this historian professes do, what actually The original is of small moment compared with the actual balance-sheet, and in case time has spared us the means of instituting an a extent. With Papias Hegesippus and Dionysius of any is free to indulge assertions little for know or next to nothing, these writers, except what Eusebius has told us. But other ancient writings in relation to the Canon, for instance, those of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, of Polycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and, as these writings are extant, we their actual contents with his notices. Here a issue is raised. If author's principle will stand this test, there is a strong in its if it will then it is Let us take Epistle of OF
 quoting the ancient writers tO set forth wHat haS beEn sAiD by aNyonE else ([Greek: tois ALloiS]) also concerning them. Now, Of the WrITingS Of john, tHe first (FOrMER, [GrEeK: pRotErA]) Of His EpIstLes also Is acknowleDgeD aS beyond questIOn Alike among Our ContemporariEs ([GReek: toIs Nun]) ANd amoNg tHe ancIents, wHIle the Remaining TwO Are disPUted. But RESpEctiNg the Apocalypse opINiONs are drawn in opPosite DiREcTIOns, EveN to the presEnT day, aMOng most MEn ([gREEk: tOIs pollois]). HowbEit it also shALl rEceive ItS juDGment ([GReek: ePiKRisIn]) at a proper SeasOn from the TestimONies of tHE ancienTs.'

AfteR thIs fOlloWS tHe WelL-kNOwn PAsSagE In wHich he suMs Up The reSultS AT WHich He hAs arRived Respecting the canOn. WiTH thIs pasSage, iMporTaNt as iT is in iTself, i nEed not trouble my ReadErs.

Here agAin It WilL bE seen THat the SamE diStinctiOn as befORe iS oBSERvEd. Of the Gospels the hIsTORiAn will onLy recoRD aNeCDotes conCeRniNg thEM. on the OtheR HaNd, in the cAse of tHE APoCalypse MeRe refeReNceS anD quotATionS will bE mentionEd becAUse they afford iMPortant data foR ArRIViNG at a DecIsion concerNing ITs CaNoniCAl AutHOrity.

hitheRtO We HAve discovered no founDaTion foR the sUperstructure Which our auTHOR builds oN the SIlENce of Eusebius. BUt the Real questiON, after alL, is noT what thiS historiaN PRofesses To dO, buT whAt hE ACtUally does. The oRIGinaL pRospectUs iS of smalL moMenT coMpaReD with the aCtual balAnCe-ShEeT, anD in thIS case timE hAs sPaRed Us the MEans of InstiTutiNg An AUdiT to a limITeD EXtenT. WItH PapIas AnD HegeSippUS anD DionysIus of CoriNth, ANy onE iS fRee to inDulge in sweepiNg Assertions WiTh lIttle fEAR of conviCtion; for we know nothing, or NExt to noThiNg, of tHese Writers, exCepT what EUseBIus himSelf haS told Us. but eUSebiuS HAs AlsO dEalt with otHER anCient WrItinGs in relAtion to the Canon, as, fOR inStance, those of cleMent OF roMe, oF igNAtiUs, OF PoLYCarp, of Irenaeus, aNd others; anD, aS ThEse writingS Are StIll extaNt, we can CompaRE their aCtual contEnts with hIs NotiCES. HeRe a definitE issue is Raised. If oUR authOR's PrincIplE will sTaNd tHis teSt, therE Is a Very sTrong pReSumptiOn in iTs Favour; if It will not, then it is worthlEss.

Let Us takE fiRst the EpiStlE Of ClEMENT OF RoME
 quoting the ancient write rs to setforth  wh atha s be en s aid by anyonee lse([Greek: tois allois])  also  c o ncer n in g the m. Now, of t hewr it ing so fJohn,  th e first  (former,[Gr ee k: protera]) of  his Epist les  also is ack now ledged  a s b e yondque stion  alike amongour conte mp o raries ([Greek : to is n un]) and among th e  a n cients, whilethe re ma i ni n g  tw o a re dispute d.  Butr especti n gt h e  Ap o calypse opini ons are dra w n i n oppo si ted irecti ons,ev e n t o the prese nt d ay, among  mostm en ([Gr e ek: toi s poll ois ]).  How b ei tital s o s h al l r e cei ve its j ud gm ent ( [Gre e k : epik ris in])  at a  proper seaso n f romt hetesti monie s of  t he an cients .'

A ft er this follows  the  well-kno wnpa ssa ge  in w h ich he  su msup theresults atwh i c h  h e has arrived resp ec t i ng  the Can on. Wi t hth i s passag e,  im port a n t asit i s  i n itself , I ne e dno t troub le  my re ad ers .
Herea gain  it wi ll be se en th a t the same dis t inction as be f or e is obse rve d. Of the G ospe l s th e hi s to ria n  will  only  r e co r d anecdotes concern in g them . Onthe other han d, in thec a s e of the  Apo c al y pse mere refer ences  and quota t ions wil l bementione d because t hey affo rdimp ort ant d at a for arrivin g at a  d ecision  co ncernin g i tsCan oni ca l authori ty.

Hit he rt owe  ha ve di s coveredno  fo un dat ion f o r thesuper stru ct ur e  wh ich our au t h or b ui ld s on  th esilen ce o f  Eu sebius.  But therea l  que st io n, afte r all, is not  w hat this h is tor ian pr o f esses to  do, but what he actual l y does.  Th e ori gina l prospec tus  is of  sm a ll mom ent co mpare dwit h the a c t ua l b al ance-sheet , and  in t hi s ca se time  has spared us the mea ns of institu tin g an a ud itt oa  li mi t ede x tent. With Papi as and Heg es i pp us and Dio n ysi us  of Cor inth, a ny on e  is fre e to indu lge in sw ee ping a sse rtions wit h little  fear ofc onvic t io n; fo r w e know  n oth ing,or nex t  to  noth ing, o fthesewrite rs , except  what Eusebius himselfhas to ld us . B ut Eusebi ush asalso deal t wi th other a nci ent  writ ing s  in r elat i on  to the C anon ,  as, fori ns tan c e ,those of Cl e m e ntof Ro me, of Ign atiu s, of Polycarp, o f  Irenaeus, and  oth e r s;and ,  asth ese writings a rest i l l extant ,we can comp are thei ra ctual  conte nts wi th hisn o ti c es. He re a  de finite is sue  i s  raised .If our au thor 's  princ iple w i ll s t a nd this test, th ere i s a ver y  st rongpr esumpti o n in  its favou r; if it wi ll not , th en it  is wor th less.
Le tus take fi r st the Ep istle  of CLE ME NT O F R OME
 quoting_the ancient_writers to set forth_what has_been_said by_anyone_else ([Greek: tois_allois]) also concerning_them. Now, of the_writings of John,_the_first (former, [Greek: protera]) of his Epistles also is acknowledged as beyond question alike_among_our contemporaries_([Greek:_tois_nun]) and among the ancients,_while the remaining two are_disputed. But_respecting the Apocalypse opinions are drawn in opposite_directions,_even to the_present day, among most men ([Greek: tois pollois]). Howbeit_it also shall receive its judgment_([Greek: epikrisin]) at_a_proper_season from the testimonies_of the ancients.'

After this follows the_well-known passage in which he sums_up the results at which he has_arrived respecting the Canon. With this_passage, important as it is_in itself,_I need not trouble my_readers.

Here again it_will be_seen that the_same distinction as before is observed._Of the Gospels_the historian will only record anecdotes_concerning_them. On the_other_hand,_in the_case of the_Apocalypse_mere references_and_quotations will be mentioned because they_afford_important data for arriving at a decision_concerning its Canonical authority.

Hitherto_we_have discovered no foundation_for the superstructure which our_author builds on the silence of_Eusebius. But_the real_question, after all, is not what this historian professes to do,_but what he actually does. The_original prospectus is of_small moment_compared_with the actual_balance-sheet,_and in_this case time has spared us the_means of_instituting an audit to a limited_extent. With Papias and_Hegesippus_and Dionysius of Corinth, any one_is free to indulge in sweeping_assertions with little fear of_conviction;_for_we know nothing, or next_to nothing, of these writers, except_what Eusebius himself_has told us. But Eusebius has also_dealt_with other ancient writings in relation_to_the Canon, as, for instance, those_of_Clement_of Rome, of Ignatius, of_Polycarp, of Irenaeus, and others; and,_as these writings are still extant, we can compare_their actual contents_with his notices. Here a_definite_issue_is raised. If our author's principle will stand this test,_there is_a very strong_presumption in its favour; if it will not, then it_is worthless.

Let us take first the Epistle_of CLEMENT OF ROME