ld then have but _one_ witness; and if certain parts of his
testimony could be successfully assailed, this would throw a measure of
suspicion on the whole. But now we have in the separate books of the New
Testament a _large number_ of witnesses, most of whom are entirely
independent of each other. Doubts respecting the testimony of one do not
affect that of another. We receive the seven books in question as a part
of God's revelation on grounds which we judge adequate, as will be shown
in the introductions to the several books. But if any one feels under
the necessity of suspending his judgment with respect to one or more of
these books, let him follow the teachings of the other books, which are
above all doubt. He will find in them all the truth essential to the
salvation of his soul; and he will then be in a position calmly to
investigate the evidence for the canonical authority of the so-called
disputed books.

2. The diversity of judgment which prevailed in the early churches in
respect to certain books of the New Testament, is in harmony with all
that we know of their character and spirit. It was an age of free
inquiry. General councils were not then known, nor was there any central
power to impose its decisions on all the churches. In the essential
doctrines of the gospel there was everywhere an agreement, especially in
receiving the writings acknowledged to be apostolic, as the supreme rule
of faith and practice. But this did not exclude differences on minor
points in the different provinces of Christendom; and with respect to
these the churches of each particular region were tenacious then, as
they have been in all ages since, of their peculiar opinions and
practices. It is well known, for example, that the churches of Asia
Minor differed from those of Rome in the last half of the second century
respecting the day on which the Christian festival of the Passover, with
the communion service connected with it, should be celebrated; the
former placing it on the fourteenth of the month Nisan, the latter on
the anniversary of the resurrection Sunday. Nor could the conference
between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, and Anicetus, bishop
of Rome, about A.D. 162, avail to change the usage of either party,
though it did not at that time break the bond of brotherhood between
them. We need not be surprised therefore to find a like diversity in
different regions respecting certain books of the New Testament. The
una