3.  Although we cannot account for the universal and undisputed reception of the acknowledged books by all the churches, except on the assumption of their genuineness, the non-reception of a given book by some of the early churches is no conclusive argument against its apostolic origin.  From the influence of circumstances unknown to us, it may have remained for a considerable period of time in comparative obscurity.  We have good ground for believing that some apostolic writings are utterly lost.  To deny the possibility of this would be to prejudge the wisdom of God.  As the apostles delivered many inspired discourses which it did not please the Holy Ghost to have recorded, so they may have written letters which he did not judge needful to make the sacred volume complete.  The question is one of fact, not of theory.  The most obvious interpretation of 1 Cor. 5:9 and Col. 4:16 is that Paul refers in each case to an epistle which has not come down to us.  And if an inspired epistle might be lost, much more might the knowledge and use of it be restricted for a time to a narrow circle of churches.  When such an epistle—­for example, the second of Peter—­began to be more extensively known, the general reception and use of it would be a slow process, not only from the difficulty of communication in ancient as compared with modern times, but also from the slowness with which the churches of one region received any thing new from those of other regions.

Then again, if a book were known, there might be in some regions hesitancy in respect to receiving it, from doubts in regard to its author, as in the case of the epistle to the Hebrews and the Apocalypse; or from the peculiarity of its contents also, as in the case of the latter book.  In the influence of causes like the above named, we find a reasonable explanation of the fact that some books, which the mature judgment of the churches received into the canon of the New Testament, did not find at first a universal reception.

4.  In the caution and hesitation of the early churches with respect to the books in question, we have satisfactory evidence that, in settling the canon of the New Testament, they acted with great deliberation and conscientiousness, their rule being that no book should be received whose apostolic origin could not be established on solid grounds.  Did the early history of the Christian church present no such phenomenon as that of the distinction between acknowledged and disputed books, we might naturally infer that all books that professed to have emanated from the apostles, or to have had their sanction, were received without discrimination.  But now the mature and final judgment of the churches is entitled to great consideration.  This judgment, let it be remembered, was not affirmative only, but also negative.  While it admitted to the canon the seven books now under consideration, it excluded others which were highly valued and publicly read in many of the churches.  On this ground it is entitled to still higher regard.  It is not, however, of binding authority, for it is not the decision of inspired men.  We have a right to go behind it, and to examine the facts on which it is based, so far as they can be ascertained from existing documents.  But this work belongs to the introduction to the several books.