that preaching is placed between his death (v. 18) and his resurrection (v. 21).  The saving by baptism (v. 21) is also alluded to in this connection in Nicodemus, wherein (chap, xi.) the dead are baptised.  The Latin versions of the Gospels of Nicodemus vary in details from the Greek, but not more than do the four canonical.  In these, as in all the apocryphal writings, there is nothing specially to distinguish them from the accepted Scriptures; improbabilities and contradictions abound in all; miracles render them all alike incredible; myriad chains of similarity bind them all to each other, necessitating either the rejection of all as fabulous, or the acceptance of all as historical.  Whether we regard external or internal evidence, we come to the same conclusion, that there is nothing to distinguish the canonical from the uncanonical writings.

C. That it is not known where, when, by whom, the canonical writings were selected.  Tremendously damaging to the authenticity of the New Testament as this statement is, it is yet practically undisputed by Christian scholars.  Canon Westcott says frankly:  “It cannot be denied that the Canon was formed gradually.  The condition of society and the internal relations of the Church presented obstacles to the immediate and absolute determination of the question, which are disregarded now, only because they have ceased to exist.  The tradition which represents St. John as fixing the contents of the New Testament, betrays the spirit of a later age” (Westcott “On the Canon,” p. 4).  “The track, however, which we have to follow is often obscure and broken.  The evidence of the earliest Christian writers is not only uncritical and casual, but is also fragmentary” (Ibid, p. 11).  “From the close of the second century, the history of the Canon is simple, and its proof clear...  Before that time there is more or less difficulty in making out the details of the question....  Here, however, we are again beset with peculiar difficulties.  The proof of the Canon is embarrassed both by the general characteristics of the age in which it was fixed, and by the particular form of the evidence on which it first depends.  The spirit of the ancient world was essentially uncritical” (Ibid, pp. 6-8).  In dealing with “the early versions of the New Testament,” Westcott admits that “it is not easy to over-rate the difficulties which beset any inquiry into the early versions of the New Testament” ("On the Canon,” p. 231).  He speaks of the “comparatively scanty materials and vague or conflicting traditions” (Ibid).  The “original versions of the East and West” are carefully examined by him; the oldest is the “Peshito,” in Syriac—­i.e., Aramaean, or Syro-Chaldaic.  This must, of course, be only a translation of the Testament, if it be true that the original books were written in Greek.  The time when this version was formed is unknown, and Westcott argues that “the very obscurity which hangs over its origin is a proof