latter_ of Peter, the _second_ and _third_ of John, _whether
they were John the Evangelist, or some other of the same
name_."[464:4]

Though Irenaeus, in the second century, is the first who mentions the
evangelists, and Origen, in the third century, is the first who gives us
a catalogue of the books contained in the New Testament, Mosheim's
admission still stands before us. We have no grounds of assurance that
the mere mention of the _names_ of the evangelists by Irenaeus, or the
arbitrary drawing up of a particular catalogue by Origen, were of any
authority. It is still unknown _by whom_, or _where_, or _when_, the
canon of the New Testament was settled. But in this absence of positive
evidence we have abundance of negative proof. We know when it was _not_
settled. We know it was not settled in the time of the Emperor
Justinian, nor in the time of Cassiodorus; that is, not at any time
_before the middle of the sixth century_, "by any authority that was
decisive and universally acknowledged; but Christian people were at
liberty to judge for themselves concerning the genuineness of writings
proposed to them as apostolical."

We cannot do better than close this chapter with the words of Prof. Max
Mueller, who, in speaking of Buddhism, says:

"We have in the history of Buddhism an excellent opportunity
for watching the process by which a canon of sacred books is
called into existence. We see here, _as elsewhere_, that
during the life-time of the teacher, no record of events, no
sacred code containing the sayings of the Master, was wanted.
His presence was enough, and thoughts of the future, and more
particularly, of future greatness, seldom entered the minds of
those who followed him. It was only after Buddha had left the
world to enter into _Nirvana_, that his disciples attempted to
recall the sayings and doings of their departed friend and
master. At that time, everything that seemed to redound to the
glory of Buddha, however extraordinary and incredible, was
eagerly welcomed, while witnesses who would have ventured to
criticise or reject unsupported statements, or to detract in
any way from the holy character of Buddha, had no chance of
ever being listened to. And when, in spite of all this,
differences of opinion arose, they were not brought to the
test by a careful weighing of evidence, but the names of
'_unbe