SECTION II.

CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE CITED AS AUTHORITY BY THE FATHERS, AND READ IN THE CHURCHES AS SCRIPTURE.

HAVING declared our purpose, to place the settling of the Canon of the New Testament on the footing of authentic testimony, we will now proceed to adduce our authorities, and shall begin with an examination of the ancient catalogues of the New Testament.

The slightest attention to the works of the Fathers will convince any one that the writings of the apostles were held, from the beginning, in the highest estimation; that great pains were taken to distinguish the genuine productions of these inspired men from all other books; that they were sought out with uncommon diligence, and read with profound attention and veneration, not only in private, but publicly in the churches; and that they are cited and referred to, universally, as decisive on every point of doctrine, and as authoritative standards for the regulation of faith and practice.

This being the state of the case, when the books of the New Testament were communicated to the churches, we are enabled, in regard to most of them, to produce testimony of the most satisfactory kind, that they were admitted into the Canon, and received as inspired, 125by the universal consent of Christians in every part of the world. And as to those few books, concerning which some persons entertained doubts, it can be shown, that as soon as their claims were fully and impartially investigated, they also were received with universal consent; and that other books, however excellent as human compositions, were never put upon a level with the canonical books of the New Testament; that spurious writings, under the names of the apostles, were promptly and decisively rejected, and that the churches were repeatedly warned against such apocryphal books.

To do justice to this subject, will require some detail, which may appear dry to the reader, but should be interesting to every person who wishes to know assuredly, that what he receives as sacred Scripture, is no imposture, but the genuine, authentic productions of those inspired men, whom Christ appointed to be his witnesses to the world, and to whom was committed the sacred deposit of divine truth, intended for the instruction and government of the church in all future ages.

In exhibiting the evidence of the canonical authority of these books, we shall first attend to some general considerations, which relate to the whole volume, and then adduce testimony in favour of each book now included in the Canon. And here, as in the case of the Old Testament, we find that at a very early period, catalogues of these books were published, by most of the distinguished Fathers whose writings have come down to us; and that the same has been done, also, by several councils, whose decrees are still extant.

These catalogues are, for the most part, perfectly 126harmonious. In a few of them, some books now ir the Canon are omitted, for which omission a satisfactory reason can commonly be assigned. In the first circulation of the sacred Scriptures, there was great need of such lists; as the distant churches and common Christians were liable to be imposed on by spurious writings, which seem to have abounded in those times. It was, therefore, a most important part of the instruction given to Christians, by their spiritual guides, to inform them accurately, what books belonged to the Canon. Great pains were taken, also, to know the truth on this subject. Pious bishops, for this single purpose, travelled into Judea, and remained there for some time, that they might learn, accurately, every circumstance relative to the authenticity of these writings.

1. The first regular catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which we find on record, is by Origen, whose extensive Biblical knowledge highly qualified him to judge correctly in this case. He had not only read much, but travelled extensively, and resided a great part of his life on the confines of Judea, in a situation favourable to accurate information from every part of the church, where any of these books were originally published. Origen lived and flourished about one hundred years after the death of the apostle John. He was, therefore, near enough to the time of the publication of these books, to obtain the most certain information of their authors. Most of the original writings of this great and learned man have perished, but his catalogue of the books of the New Testament has been preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History.³⁸³⁸Lib. vi. c. 25. It was contained in Origen’s 127Homilies on the gospel of Matthew; and was repeated in his Homilies on the gospel of John.

In this catalogue he mentions the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, fourteen Epistles of Paul, two of Peter, three of John, and the Book of Revelation. This enumeration includes all the present Canon, except the Epistles of James and Jude, but these were omitted by accident, not design; for in other parts of his writings, he acknowledges these Epistles as a part of the Canon. And while Origen furnishes us with so full a catalogue of the books now in the Canon, he inserts no others, which proves, that in his time the Canon was well settled among the learned; and that the distinction between inspired writings and human compositions was as clearly marked, as at any subsequent period.

In the work entitled, Apostolical Constitutions, ascribed to Clement of Rome, there is a catalogue of the books of the New Testament; but as this work is not genuine, and of an uncertain author and age, I will not make use of it.

There has been preserved a fragment of a very ancient writing on the Canon, ascribed to Caius the presbyter, which may be seen in Routh’s Reliquiæ, an abridgment of which is here given in a literal version from the Latin. What is said by the author concerning the first two evangelists is lost. The fragment commences by saying, “The third is the gospel according to Luke. Luke was that physician who, after the ascension, consorted with Paul. . . . . Although he had never seen Christ in the flesh, yet having acquired a knowledge of his life, he commences his narrative from the nativity of John.

“The fourth gospel was written by John, one of the disciples. To his fellow disciples, and to the bishops, who exhorted him [to write,] he said, ‘Fast with me three days, from this day, and whatever shall be revealed to any of us, we will declare to one another.’ The same night it was revealed to Andrew, that John, under his own name should describe all things, so that they might be recognized by all. And so, though various elements are taught in the several gospels, yet the faith of believers is not diverse, since with one pervading spirit all things are declared by all concerning the nativity, the passover, the resurrection, and concerning his conversation with his disciples, and his double advent; the first, when he was seen in a state of humiliation . . . . . . in the second, with glorious regal power, which is yet future. . . . But the Acts of all the Apostles, Luke to Theophilus has comprehended in a single book. The Epistles of Paul declare to all who wish to know, on what account, and from what place they were written. Paul, following the example of his predecessor John, wrote Epistles to the following seven named churches:—First, to the Corinthianss; the second to the Ephesians; the third to the Philpipians; the fourth to the Colossians; the fifth to the Galatians; the sixth to the Thessalonians; and the seventh to the Romans. But to the Corinthians and the Thessalonians, he wrote, for the sake of correction, a second time. One church is known, diffused through the whole world.

“And John, in the Apocalypse, although he addressed himself to seven churches, yet speaks to all. Moreover, there is one [epistle] to Philemonn; one to Titus, and two to Timothy, on account of his affection and 129care; which, however, are in honour of the Catholic Church, and sanctified to the ordaining ecclesiastical discipline.

“There is one [epistle of Paul] carried about to the Laodiceans, and one to the Alexandrians under the name of Paul, forged to support the heresy of Marcion, and many others which ought not to be received into the Catholic Church. For it is unsuitable that gall should be mixed with honey. Indeed, the Epistle of Jude and two [smaller epistles] under the name of John are in the possession of the church. Also the book of Wisdomm, written by the friends of Solomon in honour of him. There is an Apocalypse of John, and one of Peter; the church receives only the former, and some are unwilling that this should be read in the church.”

From this ancient fragment of the second century, we have nearly a complete catalogue of the canonical books of the New Testament, and the rejection of some spurious books which, even at that early age, were put into circulation. This fragment is not noticed by Lardner. It was discovered by Muratorius, and has been largely commented on by several learned authors. Muratorius ascribes it to the presbyter Caius; but others to Papias. Routh considers it altogether uncertain who is the author; but all agree in referring it to the second century.

The catalogue ascribed to the Council of Nice, is not genuine, and is connected with a story which bears every mark of superstitious credulity.³⁹³⁹The story is briefly this. The Fathers of the Council of Nice put all the books which claimed a place in the sacred Canon under the communion table of the church, and then prayed that such of them as were inspired might be found uppermost, and the apocryphal below; whereupon, the event occurred agreeably to their wishes; and thus a clear line of distinction was made between canonical books and such as were not canonical. This story is related in the Synodicon of Popus, an obscure writer, and is undeserving of the smallest credit. This, therefore, 130shall be likewise omitted. We stand in no need of suspicious testimony on this subject. Witnesses of the most undoubted veracity, and distinguished intelligence, can be found in every successive age.

2. The next catalogue of the books of the New Testament to which I will refer, is that of Eusebius, the learned historian of the church; to whose diligence and fidelity, in collecting ecclesiastical facts, we are more indebted, than to the labours of all other men, for that period which intervened between the days of the apostles and his own times. Eusebius may be considered as giving his testimony about one hundred years after Origen. His catalogue may be seen in his Ecclesiastical History.⁴⁰⁴⁰Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 25. comp. with c. 3. In it, he enumerates every book which we have now in the Canon, and no others; but he mentions that the Epistle of James, the second of Peter, and second and third of John, were doubted of by some; and that the Revelation was rejected by some, and received by others; but Eusebius himself declares it to be his opinion, that it should be received without doubt.

There is no single witness among the whole number of ecclesiastical writers, who was more competent to give accurate information on this subject than Eusebius. He had spent a great part of his life in searching into the antiquities of the Christian church; and 131he had an intimate acquaintance with all the records relating to the ecclesiastical affairs, many of which are now lost; and almost the only information which we have of them has been transmitted to us by this diligent compiler. (See Appendix Note D. )

3. Athanasius, so well known for his writings and his sufferings in defence of the divinity of our Saviour, in his Festal Epistle, and in his Synopsis of Scripture, has left a catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which perfectly agrees with the Canon now in use.

4. Cyril, in his Catechetical work, has also given us a catalogue, perfectly agreeing with ours, except that he omits the book of Revelation. Why that book was so often left out of the ancient catalogues and collections of the Scriptures, shall be mentioned hereafter. Athanasius and Cyril were contemporary with Eusebius; the latter, however, may more properly be considered as twenty or thirty years later.

5. Then, a little after the middle of the fourth century, we have the testimony of all the bishops assembled in the Council of Laodicea. The catalogue of this council is contained in their sixtieth Canon, and is exactly the same as ours, except that the book of Revelation is omitted. The decrees of this council were, in a short time, received into the Canons of the universal church; and among the rest, this catalogue of the books of the New Testament. Thus, we find, that as early as the middle of the fourth century, there was a universal consent, in all parts of the world to which the Christian church extended, as to the books which constituted the Canon of the New Testament, with the single exception of the book of Revelation; 132and that this book was also generally admitted to be canonical, we shall take the opportunity of proving in the sequel of this work.

6. But a few years elapsed from the meeting of this council, before Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in the island of Cyprus, published his work “on Heresies,” in which he gives a catalogue of the canonical books of the New Testament, which, in every respect, is the same as the Canon now received.

7. About the same time, Gregory Nazianzen, bishop of Constantinople, in a Poem, “on the True and Genuine Scriptures,” mentions distinctly all the books now received, except Revelation.

8. A few years later, we have a list of the books of the New Testament in a work of Philastrius, bishop of Brixia, in Italy, which corresponds in all respects with those now received; except that he mentions no more than thirteen of Paul’s Epistles. If the omission was designed, it probably relates to the Epistle to the Hebrews.

9. At the same time lived Jerome, who translated the whole Bible into Latin. He furnishes us with a catalogue answering to our present Canon, in all respects. He does, however, speak doubtfully about the Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of the uncertainty of its author. But, in other parts of his writings, he shows, that he received this book as canonical, as well as the rest.⁴¹⁴¹Epist. ad Paulinum.

10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing from the Canon now received.⁴²⁴²Expos in Symbol. Apost.

11. Augustine, in his work on “Christian Doctrine,” has inserted the names of the books of the 133New Testament, which, in all respects, are the same as ours.

12. The Council of Carthage, at which Augustine was present, have furnished a catalogue which perfectly agrees with ours. At this council, forty-four bishops attended. The list referred to, is found in their forty-eighth Canon.

13. The unknown author, who goes under the name of Dionysisus the Areopagite, so describes the books of the New Testament, as to show that he received the very same as are now in the Canon.

Another satisfactory source of evidence, in favour of the Canon of the New Testament, as now received, is the fact, that these books were quoted as sacred Scripture by all the Fathers, living in parts of the world the most remote from each other. The truth of this assertion will fully appear, when we come to speak particularly of the books which compose the Canon. Now, how can it be accounted for, that these books, and these alone, should be cited as authority in Asia, Africa and Europe? No other reason can be assigned, than one of these two; either, they knew no other books which claimed to be canonical; or, if they did, they did not esteem them of equal authority with those which they cited. On either of these grounds the conclusion is the same, that the books quoted as Scripture are alone the canonical books. To apply this rule to a particular case—“the first Epistle of Peter” is canonical, because it is continually cited by the most ancient Christian writers, in every part of the world; but the book called “The Revelation of Peter,” is apocryphal, because none of the early Fathers have taken any testimonies from it. The same is true of 134“the Acts of Peter,” and “the Gospel of Peter.” These writings were totally unknown to the primitive church, and are therefore spurious. This argument is perfectly conclusive, and its force was perceived by the ancient defenders of the Canon of the New Testament. Eusebius repeatedly has recourse to it, and, therefore, those persons who have aimed to unsettle our present Canon, as Toland and Dodwell, have attempted to prove that the early Christian writers were in the habit of quoting indifferently, and promiscuously, the books which we now receive, and others which are now rejected as apocryphal. But this is not correct, as has been shown by Nye, Richardsonn, and others. The true method of determining this matter, is by a careful examination of all the passages in the writings of the Fathers, where other books besides those now in the Canon have been quoted. Some progress was made in collecting the passages in the writings of the Fathers, in which any reference is made to the apocryphal books, by the learned Jeremiah Jones, in his “New Method of settling the Canon of the New Testament,” but the work was left incomplete. This author, however, positively denies that it is common for the Fathers to cite these books as Scripture, and asserts, that there are only a very few instances, in which any of them seem to have fallen into this mistake.

A third proof of the genuineness of the Canon of the New Testament, may be derived from the fact, that these books were publicly read as Scripture, in all the Christian churches.

As the Jews were accustomed to read the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament in their Synagogues, 135so the early Christians transferred the same practice to the church; and it seems to have been in use even in the apostles’ days, as appears by Col. iv. 16, where Paul speaks of reading the Epistles addressed to the churches, as a thing of course, ” And when this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laodicea.”

Justin Martyr explicitly testifies, that this was the custom in the beginning of the second century. “On the day,” says he, “which is called Sunday, there is a meeting of all (Christians) who live either in cities, or country places, and the memoirs of the apostles, and writings of the prophets, are read.”⁴³⁴³Apol. ii. p. 93.

Tertullian is equally explicit; for, in giving an account of the meetings of Christians for worship, he says, “They assemble to read the Scriptures, and offer up prayers;” and in another place, among the solemn exercises of the Lord’s Day, he reckons, “Reading the Scriptures, singing Psalms,” &c.⁴⁴⁴⁴Tertull. De Anima.

The same account is given by Cyprian,⁴⁵⁴⁵Cyp. Epist. 36, 39. and by the ancient author under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite;⁴⁶⁴⁶Hierarch. Eco. c. 3. and by several other ancient authors. Now this practice of reading the sacred Scriptures in the Christian churches, began so early that it is scarcely possible that they could have been imposed on by supposititious writings. A more effectual method of guarding against apocryphal writings obtaining a place in the Canon, could not have been devised. It afforded all the members of the church an opportunity of knowing what books were acknowledged 136as canonical, and precluded all opportunity of foisting in spurious works; since, if this had been done in some one church, the practice of all other churches would quickly have exposed the imposture. Accordingly, the Fathers often referred to this custom, as the guide to the people, respecting the books which they should read. “Avoid apocryphal books,” says Cyril to his catechumen, “and study carefully those Scriptures only which are publicly read in the church.” Again, having given a catalogue of the books of Scripture, he adds: “Let others be rejected; and such as are not read in the churches, neither do you read in private.”

It was decreed in the Council of Laodicea, “That no private Psalms should be read in the churches, nor any books without the Canon; but only the canonical writings of the Old and New Testament.” The same thing was determined in the Council of Carthage. But notwithstanding these decrees, and the opinions of learned Fathers, there were some pieces read in some of the churches which were not canonical. Thus, Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in the second century, in a letter to the church of Rome, tells them, “That they read in their assemblies, on the Lord’s day, Clement’s Epistle.” And Eusebius declares, “That in his, and the preceding times, it was almost universally received, and read in most churches.” He says also, “That the Shepherd of Hermas was read in many churches,” which is confirmed by Athanasius and Rufin. Whilst these books, which are not now in the Canon, were publicly read in many churches, the book of Revelation was not, according to Cyril, read in the churches; nor commanded to be read by the 137Council of Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at first view, that the application of this rule would exclude the book of Revelation from the Canon, and take in “the Epistle of Clement,” and “the Shepherd of Hermas.” But the rule does not apply to everything which was read in the churches, but to such books as were read as sacred Scripture. It has appeared in a former part of this work, that several books, not in the Canon of the Old Testament, were nevertheless read in the churches; but the Fathers carefully distinguished between these and the canonical books. They were read for instruction and for the improvement of manners, but not as authority in matters of faith. They distinguished the books read, in the churches, into Canonical and Ecclesiastical; of the latter kind, were the books mentioned above, and some others. The reason why the book of Revelation was not directed to be read publicly, shall be assigned, when we come to treat particularly of the canonical authority of that book.

A fourth argument to prove that our Canon of the New Testament is substantially correct, may be derived from the early versions of this sacred book into other languages.

Although the Greek language was extensively known through the Roman empire, when the apostles wrote, yet the Christian church was in a short time extended into regions, where the common people, at least, were not acquainted with it, nor with any language except their own vernacular tongue. While the gift of tongues continued, the difficulty of making known the Gospel, would in some measure be obviated; but when these miraculous powers ceased, the 138necessity of a version of the Gospels and Epistles into the language of the people would become manifest. As far, therefore, as we may be permitted to reason from the nature of the case, and the necessities of the churches, it is exceedingly probable, that versions of the New Testament were made shortly after the death of the apostles, if they were not begun before. Can we suppose that the numerous Christians in Syria, Mesopotamia, and the various parts of Italy, would be long left without having these precious books translated into a language which all the people could understand? But we are not left to our own reasonings on this subject. We know, that at a very early period, there existed Latin versions of the New Testament, which had been so long in use before the time of Jerome, as to have become considerably corrupt, on which account he undertook a new version, which soon superseded those that were more ancient. Now, although nothing remains of these ancient Latin versions, but uncertain fragments, yet we have good evidence that they contained the same books, as were inserted in Jerome’s version, now denominated the Vulgate.

But, perhaps, the Old Syriac version of the New Testament, called Peshito, furnishes the strongest proof of the canonical authority of all the books which are contained in it. This excellent version has a very high claim to antiquity; and, in the opinion of some of the best Syriac scholars, who have profoundly examined this subject, was made before the close of the first century.

The arguments for so early an origin, are not, indeed, conclusive, but they possess much probability, 139whether we consider the external, or internal evidence. The Syrian Christians have always insisted that this version was made by the apostle Thaddeus; but without admitting this claim, which would put it on a level with the Greek original, we may believe that it ought not to be brought down lower than the second century. It is universally received by all the numerous sects of Syrian Christians, and must be anterior to the existence of the oldest of them. Manes, who lived in the second century, probably had read the New Testament in the Syriac, which was his native tongue; and Justin Martyr, when he testifies that the Scriptures of the New Testament were read in the Assemblies of Christians, on every Sunday, probably refers to Syrian Christians, as Syria was his native place; where, also, he had his usual residence. And Michaelis is of opinion, that Melito, who wrote about A. D. 170, has expressly declared, that a Syrian version of the Bible existed in his time. Jerome also testifies, explicitly, that when he wrote, the Syriac Bible was publicly read in the churches; for, says he, “Ephrem the Syrian is held in such veneration, that his writings are read in several churches, immediately after the Lessons from the Bible. It is also well known that the Armenian version, which itself is ancient, was made from the Syriac.

Now, this ancient version contains the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul including that to the Hebrews, the First Epistle of John, the First Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of James. Thus far, then, the evidence of the present Canon is complete; and as to those books omitted in this version, except Revelation, they are few, and 140small, and probably were unknown to the translator or the evidence of their genuineness was not ascertained by him. And as it relates to the book of Revelation, the same reasons which excluded it from so many ancient catalogues, probably operated here. It was judged to be too mysterious to be read in the churches, and by common Christians, and, therefore, was not put into the volume which was read publicly in the churches. The arguments for a Latin origin of this version possess, in my judgment, very little force.⁴⁷⁴⁷On this whole subject consult Jones on the Canon, Michaelis’s Introduction, Mill’s Prolegomena.

On the general evidence of the genuineness of our Canon, I would subjoin the following remarks:

1. The agreement among those who have given catalogues of the books of the New Testament, from the earliest times, is almost complete. Of thirteen catalogues, to which we have referred, seven contain exactly the same books, as are now in the Canon. Three of the others differ in nothing but the omission of the book of Revelation, for which they had a particular reason, consistent with their belief of its canonical authority; and in two of the remaining catalogues, it can be proved, that the books omitted, or represented as doubtful, were received as authentic by the persons who have furnished the catalogues. It may be asserted, therefore, that the consent of the ancient church, as to what books belonged to the Canon of the New Testament, was complete. The sacred volume was as accurately formed, and as clearly distinguished from other books, in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as it has ever been since.

2. Let it be considered, moreover, that the earliest of these catalogues was made by Origen, who lived within a hundred years after the death of the apostle John, and who, by his reading, travels, and long residence in Palestine, had a full knowledge of all the transactions and writings of the church, until his own time. In connection with this, let it be remembered, that these catalogues were drawn up by the most learned, pious, and distinguished men in the church; or by councils; and that the persons furnishing them resided in different and remote parts of the world. As, for example, in Jerusalem, Cesaræa, Carthage and Hippo in Africa, Constantinople, Cyprus, Alexandria in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Thus, it appears, that the Canon was early agreed upon, and that it was everywhere the same; therefore, we find the Fathers, in all their writings, appealing to the same Scriptures; and none are charged with rejecting any canonical book, except heretics.

3. It appears from the testimony adduced, that it was never considered necessary, that any council, or bishop, should give sanction to these books, in any other way, than as witnesses, testifying to the churches, that these were indeed the genuine writings of the apostles. These books, therefore, were never considered as deriving their authority from the Church, or from Councils, but were of complete authority as soon as published; and were delivered to the churches to be a guide and standard in all things relating to faith and practice. The Fathers would have considered it impious, for any bishop or Council, to pretend to add anything to the authority of inspired books; or to claim the right to add other books to those handed 142down from the apostles. The church is founded on “the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone;” but the sacred Scriptures are noway dependent for their authority on any set of men who lived since they were written.

4. We may remark, in the last place, the benignant providence of God towards his church, in causing these precious books to be written, and in watching over their preservation, in the midst of dangers and persecutions; so that, notwithstanding the malignant designs of the enemies of the church, they have all come down to us unmutilated, in the original tongue in which they were penned by the apostles.

Our liveliest gratitude is due to the great Head of the church for this divine treasure, from which we are permitted freely to draw whatever is needful for our instruction and consolation. And it is our duty to prize this precious gift of divine revelation above all price. On the Law of the Lord, we should meditate day and night. It is a perfect rule; it shines with a clear light; it exercises a salutary influence on the heart; it warns us when we are in danger, reclaims us when we go astray, and comforts us when in affliction. The word of the Lord is “more to be desired than gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than honey, and the honey-comb.” Psa. xix. 10. They who are destitute of this inestimable volume call for our tenderest compassion, and our exertions in circulating the Bible should never be remitted, until all are supplied with this divine treasure. But they who possess this sacred volume, and yet neglect to study it, are still more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the 143midst of plenty. In the midst of light, they walk in darkness. God has sent to them the word of life, but they have lightly esteemed the rich gift of his love. O that their eyes were opened, that they might behold wondrous things in the law of the Lord!