Yes, we can, and they did, at the link provided regardless of your own rhetorical dismissal, of your own truncated description of the ending "conclusion."
Did you miss the "in case you missed it" at 166?
Those highlights (but better, the fuller, but still few pages of narrative) point towards the why, concerning what was later established to be acceptable (as NT canon), and what was not, in brief synopsis.
It's very simple, and along the lines of showing by rationality, why the blue color we percieve as color of sky arrives to us as it does.
Now just what was this thing concerning some portion of the book of Acts? Was there some grounds for quibbling there? Something to show the neccassity of churchmen of old, doing as they did? All fine and well, but that doesn't mean it would always stay that way, once focus upon what was handed down in written form --- from the Apostles --- is departed from. That much was proven in putting down early heresies, disrgarding later arriving gnostic writings on the one hand, or truncated presentations limiting the gospels to the book of Luke, on the other, for what did those same churchmen whom prevailed rely upon, but the full written body (of texts) as best as could be assembled.
Leon Morris has the advantage of 1600 years to make his assertion. He is reasoning from his conclusion
David Dunbar confirms the authority of the Church.