Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET.
Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851,
By A. W. Mitchell, M.D.
In the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by Slote & Mooney, Philadelphia.
Printed by Wm. S. Martien.
IN this edition, the work has been carefully revised by the author, and many additions made to the testimonies adduced in the former editions; and also several important docuIments not contained in the former editions have been placed in the appendix. Some alterations have also been made in particular passages, but not of sufficient importance to require specification.
In the London edition of this work by the Rev. Doctor Morison, some complaint was made of the want of references sufficiently distinct, to the authors from which the testimonies have been taken. In most cases, the works from which they have been derived are mentioned; and in a popular treatise of this kind, which has more the character of a compilation than of a work of original research, it is not deemed important to burden the margin with many notes of reference; which indeed are seldom used when most abundant.
The author has freely availed himself of all the information within his reach; but the authors to whom he is especially indebted are, Cosins’s Scholastic History of the Canon of the Old Testament—Jones’s New Method of Settling the Canon of the New Testament—and Lardner’s Credibility of the Gospel History—The Isagoge of Buddæus—The Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger, and Prideaux’s Connection. Dr. Wordsworth’s work on the Canon of the Old and New Testaments, and Routh’s Reliquiæ have also been consulted. Several valuable works on the Canon have been published in Great Britain, and also in this country, since the first edition of this work; but, though more valuable for the scholar, none of them, in the judgment of the author, are such as to supersede this as a popular treatise, which can be read with advantage by the unlearned as well as the learned. In a Scotch edition of this work, a copy of which the author has seen, there is an important error in giving the author’s Christian name in the title page. Instead of Archibald, they have put Alexander; making the first and second name the same. The only reason for mentioning this is, lest some doubt should hereafter arise respecting the genuine authorship of the volume.
As the design of this work is to ascertain where the revelation of God is
to be found, it is assumed usually that the whole of divine revelation has been
committed to writing. But there are many under the Christian name who strenuously
maintain, that an important part of the
As the inspiration of the gospels of Mark and Luke had been called in question by John David Michaelis and others, and the author could find no satisfactory answer to the objections of this learned writer, he felt it to be a duty to endeavour to vindicate these books of the New Testament, and to prove that they have a right to a place in the Canon; where in fact they had always stood. And he has been gratified to learn that his arguments on this subject have received the approbation of learned and pious men. The Rev. Dr. T. H. Home has inserted the substance of them in his “Introduction to the New Testament,” and the Rev. Richard Watson has extracted a part of them and inserted them in his Theological Dictionary.
There never was a
time when the friends of the Bible as an inspired volume had a more important duty
to perform in its defence, than at the present. The assaults upon the plenary inspiration
of the sacred Scriptures are, perhaps, more dangerous, because more plausible and
insidious, than
If this volume may be in any measure useful in the defence of divine revelation, the author will not regret the labour bestowed upon it. With an humble prayer for its success he commits it to the Christian public.
A. Alexander.
Princeton, N. J., Jan. 1, 1851.
THE Bible includes a large number of separate books, published in different ages, during a space of more than fifteen hundred years. Each of these books when first published formed a volume; or at least, the writings of each author were, in the beginning, distinct; and if they had continued in that separate form, and had been transmitted to us in many volumes instead of one, their authority would not, on this account, have been less, nor their usefulness diminished. Their collection into one volume is merely a matter of convenience; and if any persons choose now to publish these books in a separate form, they cannot with propriety be charged with casting any indignity on the word of God.
Hence it appears that besides general arguments to demonstrate that the Bible contains a divine revelation, there is need of special proofs to evince that each of the books now included in that sacred volume, has a right to the place which it occupies; or does in reality contain a part of that revelation which God has given.
If, therefore, it could be shown (which however it never can)
that some particular book, now included in
On the other hand, it is manifest that the advocate of divine revelation is bound to defend the claims of every separate portion of this volume; or to reject from it that part which has no evidence of a divine origin. It is necessary that he should be able to render a good reason why he admits any particular book, to form a part of the inspired volume.
It is true that the antiquity of this collection claims for it a high degree of respect. The transmission of this volume to us, through so many centuries, as Holy Scripture, should teach us to be cautious how we question what is so venerable for its antiquity. But this only furnishes one presumptive argument in favour of each book. It by no means renders all further investigation unnecessary; much less, impious.
It is easy to conceive
that books not written by the inspiration of God, might, by some casualty or mistake,
find a place in the sacred volume. In fact, we have a striking example of this very
thing, in the Greek and Latin Bibles which are now in use, and held to be sacred
by a large majority of those who are denominated
I think, therefore, that the importance and necessity of this
inquiry must be evident to every person of serious reflection. But to some it
may appear that this matter has been long ago settled on the firmest principles;
and that it can answer no good purpose to agitate questions, which have a
tendency to produce doubts and misgivings in the minds of common Christians,
rather than a confirmation of their faith. In reply to the first part of this
objection, I would say, that it is freely admitted that this subject has been
ably and fully discussed long ago, and in almost every age until the present
time; and the author aims at nothing more, in this short treatise, than to
exhibit to the sincere inquirer, who may not enjoy better means of information,
the subject of those discussions and proofs, which ought to be in the possession
of every Christian. His object is not to bring forth anything new, but to
collect and condense in a narrow space, what has been written by the judicious
and the learned, on this important subject. But, that discussion tends to induce
doubting is a sentiment unworthy of Christians, who maintain that their religion
is founded on the best reasons, and who are commanded “to give to
There is, undoubtedly, among Christians, too great a disposition to acquiesce, without examination, in the religion of their forefathers. There is too great an aversion to that kind of research, which requires time and labour; so that many who are fully competent to examine the foundation on which their religion rests, never take the pains to enter on the investigation; and it is to be regretted, that many who are much occupied with speculations on abstruse points of theology, waste the energies of their minds on subjects which can yield them no manner of profit, while they neglect entirely, or but superficially attend to, points of fundamental importance.
The two great questions most deserving the attention of all
men, are: first, whether the Bible and all that it contains is from God:
secondly, what are
Then also men will no more neglect and undervalue the Scriptures, on pretence of possessing a brighter light within them, than that which emanates from the divine word. That spurious devotion which affects a superiority to external means and ordinances, will be exchanged for a simple, sincere reliance on the revealed will of God; and those assemblies from which the sacred volume is now excluded, while the effusions of every heated imagination are deemed revelations of the Spirit, will become, under the influence of divine truth, churches of the living God.
In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, the service of the most high God will be considered by men, generally, as the noblest employment; and the best talents and attainments will be consecrated on the altar of God; and the enterprises, and the labours which they now undertake to gratify an avaricious, ambitious, or voluptuous disposition, will be pursued from love to God and man. The merchant will plan, and travel, and traffic, to obtain the means of propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and promoting Christian knowledge at home; yea, the common labourer will cheerfully endure toil and privation, that he may have a mite to cast into the treasury of the Lord.
Now, many consider all that is given to circulate
These, however, may appear to many as the visions of a heated imagination, which will never be realized; but if the same change in the views and sentiments of men which has been going on for thirty years past, shall continue to advance with the same steady pace, half a century will not have elapsed from the present time, before such a scene will be exhibited to the admiring eyes of believers, as will fully justify the foregoing anticipations.
But I have wandered wide of my subject—I will now recall the attention of the reader to the consideration of the exceeding great importance of ascertaining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. This investigation may, indeed, appear dry and unentertaining, but every thing which bears any relation to the great Charter of our privileges and our hopes, ought to be interesting to us. It has been my object, to bring this subject not only more conveniently within the reach of the theological student, but also to a level with the capacity of the common Christian. That this work may in some humble degree subserve the cause of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of
THE AUTHOR.
THE word Canon properly signifies
a rule: and it is used in this sense several times in the New Testament, as The word Κανων literally signifies
a reed, by which the dimensions of anything were measured; and hence it came figuratively
to signify a rule. The word was used by the Greek grammarians to designate those
authors who were considered as authority in matters of criticism: Vid. Wordsworth
on the Canon, p. 5.
The word Canon, however, was early used by the Christian Fathers to designate
the inspired Scriptures. Irenæus, speaking of the
Scriptures, calls them “the Canon of truth.” Clement of
Alexandria, referring to a quotation of the gospel according to the Egyptians,
says, “But they follow anything, rather than the true canonical gospels.”
Eusebius says of Origen, “But in the first book of his commentaries on the gospel of Matthew, observing the ecclesiastical Canon, he declares that he knew of four gospels only.”
Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, speaks of three sorts
of books; the canonical—such as were allowed to
The Council of Laodicea ordained, “that none but canonical books should be read in the church; that is, the books of the Old and New Testaments.”
Rufin, after enumerating the books of the Old and
New Testaments, goes on to mention three classes of books. 1. Such as were included
in the Canon. 2. Ecclesiastical, or such as were allowed to be read. 3. Apocryphal,
such as were not permitted to be publicly read. Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, p. 26. After giving a catalogue both of the books of the Old and New
Testaments, he says, “Hæc sunt quæ patres inter Canonem concluserunt.”
Jerome often speaks of the Canon
of Scripture, and mentions books which might be read, but did not belong to the Canon.
The third Council of Carthage ordained, “That nothing beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the church, under the name of the divine Scriptures.”
Augustine
often makes mention of the canonical Scriptures, and the whole Canon of
Scripture, meaning to designate all the sacred books of the Old and New
Testaments. “We read of some,” says he, “that they searched the Scriptures
daily, whether these things were so. What Scriptures, I pray, except the
canonical Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To them have been since added,
the Gospels, the Epistles of the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the
Revelation of John.”
Chrysostom says, “They fall into great absurdities, who will not follow the Canon of the divine Scripture, but trust to their own reasoning.”
Isidore of Pelusium observes, “That these things are so, we shall perceive, if we attend to the Canon of truth—the divine Scriptures.”
And Leontius of Constantinople, having cited the whole catalogue of the books of sacred Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation, concludes, “These are the ancient and the new books, which are received in the church as canonical.”
Eusebius informs us that Origen, in
his Exposition on Matthew, “enumerates the books of Scripture according to the Canon of the Church.”
Epiphanius, speaking of certain heretics, says, “They received the apocryphal Acts
of Andrew and Thomas, rejecting the Canon received by the Church.”
Philastrius
speaks of the distinction of Canonical and Apocryphal as well known in his time.
From the authorities cited above, it will evidently appear, that at an early period
the sacred Scriptures were carefully distinguished from all other writings, and
formed a rule, which all Christians considered to be authoritative: and that this
collection of sacred writings received the name of Canon.
The division of the
sacred books which is most ancient and universal, is, into the Old Testament, and
the New Testament. The apostle Paul himself lays
It is our object, in this work, to inquire into the Canon, both of the Old and New Testament, and to discuss all the principal questions connected with this subject.
CONSTITUTION OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY EZRA—THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, AS IT NOW EXISTS, SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES—CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE EARLY FATHERS—AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THIS SUBJECT.
The five books of Moses were, when finished, carefully
deposited by the side of the ark of the Covenant,
No doubt, copies of the sacred volume were made out, before it was
deposited in the most holy place; for as it was there inaccessible to any but the
priests, the people generally must have remained ignorant, had there been no copies
of the law. But we know that copies were written, for it was one of the laws respecting
the duty of a king, when such an officer should be appointed, that he should write
out a copy of the law with his own hand.
It seems that the book of Joshua was
annexed to the volume of the Pentateuch; for we read that “Joshua wrote these words
in the book of the law of God.” See
A single fact shows that the sacred autograph of Moses had well nigh perished, in the idolatrous reigns of Manasseh and Amon, but was found, during the reign of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the temple. It cannot, however, be reasonably supposed, that there were no other copies of the law scattered through the nation. It does indeed seem that the young king had never seen the book, and was ignorant of its contents, until it was now read to him; but while the autograph of Moses had been misplaced, and buried among the ruins, many pious men might have possessed private copies.
And although at the destruction of Jerusalem and of the
temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious volume was, in all probability, destroyed
with the ark and all the holy apparatus of the sanctuary; yet we are not to credit
the Jewish tradition, too readily received by the Christian Fathers, that, on this
occasion, all the copies of the Scriptures were lost, and that Ezra restored the
whole by a miracle. This is a mere Jewish fable, depending on no higher authority
than a passage in the fourth book of Esdras, and is utterly inconsistent with facts
recorded in the sacred volume. We know that Daniel had a copy of the Scriptures,
for he quotes them, and makes express mention of the prophecies of Jeremiah. And
Ezra is called “a ready scribe in the law;” and it is said, in the sixth chapter
of Ezra, that when the temple was finished, the functions of the priests and
Levites were regulated, “as it is written in the book of Moses.” And this was many years
before Ezra came to Jerusalem. And in the
It seems to be agreed by all, that the forming of the present Canon of the Old Testament should be attributed to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the Jewish writers inform us, that there existed in his time a great synagogue, consisting of one hundred and twenty men, including Daniel and his three friends, Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; the prophets Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the Just. But it is very absurd to suppose that all these lived at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they are pleased to represent it: for, from the time of Daniel to that of Simon the Just, no less than two hundred and fifty years intervened.
It
is, however, not improbable that Ezra was assisted in this great work, by many learned
and pious men, who were cotemporary with him; and as prophets had always been the
superintendents, as well as writers of the sacred volume, it is likely that the
inspired men who lived at the same time as Ezra, would give attention to this work.
But in regard to this great synagogue, the only thing probable is, that the men
who are said to have belonged to it, did not live in one age, but successively,
until the time of Simon
But this is not all—in the book of Nehemiah,
The probable conclusion,
therefore, is that Ezra began this work, and collected and arranged all the sacred
books which belonged to the Canon before his time, and that a succession of pious
and learned men continued to pay attention to the Canon, until the whole was completed,
about the time of Simon the
Most, however, are of opinion that nothing was added after the
book of Malachi was written, except a few names and notes; and that all the
books belonging to the Canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted
in the sacred volume by Ezra himself. And this opinion seems to be the safest,
and is not incredible in itself. It accords also with the uniform tradition of
the Jews, that Ezra completed the Canon of the Old Testament; and that after
Malachi there arose no prophet who added anything to the sacred volume.
Whether the books were
now collected into a single volume, or were bound up in several codices,
is a question of no importance. If we can ascertain what books were received as
canonical, it matters not in what form they were preserved. It seems probable,
however, that the sacred books were at this time distributed into three volumes,
the Law; the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. This division, we know to be as
ancient as the time of our Saviour, for he says, “These are the words which I
spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled which
are written in the law, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.”
In establishing the Canon of the Old Testament, we might
labour under considerable uncertainty and embarrassment, in regard to several books
were it not that the whole of what were called “the Scriptures,” and which were
included in the threefold division mentioned above, received the explicit
sanction of our Lord. He was not backward to reprove the Jews for disobeying,
misinterpreting, and adding their traditions to the Scriptures, but he never
drops a hint that they had been unfaithful or careless in the preservation of
the sacred books. This argument for the integrity of the books of the Old
Testament was used by Origen, as we are informed by Jerome, who says: “Si aliquis dixerit Hebræos libros, a Judæis esse
falsatos, audiat Origenem: Quod nunquam Dominus et Apostoli, qui cætera crimina
in Scribis, de hoc crimine quod est maximum, reticuissent.” In
Esai. cvi, tom. iii. p. 63. So far from this, he refers to the Scriptures as an
infallible rule, which “must be fulfilled,”
We have, therefore, an important point established with the utmost certainty, that the volume of Scripture which existed in the time of Christ and his apostles was uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an infallible rule. Now, if we can ascertain what books were then included in the Sacred Volume, we shall be able to settle the Canon of the Old Testament without uncertainty.
But here lies the difficulty. Neither Christ nor any of his
apostles has given us a catalogue of the books which composed the Scriptures of
the Old Testament. They have distinctly quoted a number of these books, and, so
far, the evidence is complete. We know that the law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms
were included in their Canon. But this does not ascertain, particularly, whether
the very same books which we now find in the Old Testament were then found in it
It will not be supposed that any change could have occurred in the Canon from the time of our Saviour and his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote. Indeed, he may be considered the contemporary of the apostles, as he was born about the time of Paul’s conversion to Christianity, and was therefore grown up to man’s age long before the death of this apostle; and the apostle John probably survived him. And it must be remembered that Josephus is here giving his testimony to a public fact: he is declaring what books were received as divine by his nation; and he does it without hesitation or inconsistency. “We have,” says he, “only twenty-two books which are justly believed to be of divine authority.”
We are able also to adduce
other testimony to prove the same thing. Some of the early Christian Fathers, who
had been brought up in Paganism, when they embraced
Very
soon after Melito, Origen furnishes us with a catalogue of the books of the Old
Testament, which perfectly accords with our Canon, except that he omits the Minor
Prophets; which omission must have been a mere slip of the pen, in him or his copyist,
as it is certain that he received this as a book of Holy Scripture: and the number
of the books of the Old Testament, given by him in this very place, cannot be
After Origen, we have catalogues in succession, not only by men of the first authority in the church, but by councils, consisting of numerous bishops, all which are perfectly the same as our own. It will be sufficient merely to refer to these sources of information. Catalogues of the books of the Old Testament have been given by Athanasius; by Cyril; by Augustine; by Jerome; by Rufin; by the council of Laodicea, in their LX. Canon; and by the council of Carthage. And when it is considered, that all these catalogues exactly correspond with our present Canon of the. Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think, must appear complete to every impartial mind, that the Canon of the Old Testament is settled upon the clearest historical grounds. There seems to be nothing to be wished for further in the confirmation of this point.
But if all this testimony had been wanting, there is still a source
of evidence to which we might refer with the utmost confidence, as perfectly conclusive
on this point; I mean the fact that these books have been ever since the time of
Christ and his apostles in the keeping of both Jews and Christians, who have been
constantly arrayed in opposition to each other; so that it was impossible that any
change should have been made in the Canon, by either party, without being immediately
detected by the other. And the conclusive evidence that no alteration in the Canon
has occurred is the perfect agreement of these hostile parties in regard to the
books of the Old Testament at this time. On this point, the Jew and Christian are
harmonious. There is no complaint of addition to, or
I acknowledge what is here said of the agreement of Christians and Jews can only be said in relation to Protestant Christians. For as to those of the Romish and Greek communions they have admitted other books into the Canon, which Jews and Protestants hold to be apocryphal; but these books will form the subject of a particular discussion, in the sequel of this work.
The fact
is important, that a short time after the Canon of the Old Testament was closed,
a translation was made of the whole of the books into the Greek language. This translation
was made at Alexandria, in Egypt, at the request, it is said, of Ptolemy Philadelphus,
king of Egypt, that he might have a copy of these sacred books in the famous library
which he was engaged in collecting. It is called the Septuagint, from its being
made, according to the accounts which have been handed down, by seventy, or rather seventy-two
men; six from each of the tribes of Israel. So many fabulous things have been
reported concerning this version, that it is very difficult to ascertain the
precise truth. But it is manifest from internal evidence, that it was not the
work of one hand, nor probably of one set of translators: for, while some books
are rendered with great accuracy, and in a very literal manner,
There is, moreover, a distinct and remarkable testimony to the antiquity
of the five books of Moses in the Samaritan Pentateuch, which has existed in a form
entirely separate from the Jewish copies, and in a character totally different from
that in which the Hebrew Bible has been for many ages written. It has also been
preserved and handed down to us by a people who have ever been hostile to the Jews.
This Pentateuch has, without doubt, been transmitted through a separate channel
ever since the ten tribes of Israel were carried captive. It furnishes authentic
testimony to the great antiquity of the books of Moses, and shows how little they
have been corrupted during the lapse of nearly three thousand years. The Samaritans
were the people transplanted from other countries into the places vacated by the
captivity of the ten tribes of Israel. At first, they were all idolaters; but being
annoyed by wild beasts, they supposed it was because they knew not how to worship
the God of the country. They, therefore, requested that a priest should be sent
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN—IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL BOOKS—SIX BOOKS OF THIS CLASS PRONOUNCED CANONICAL BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT—NOT IN THE HEBREW, NOR RECEIVED BY THE JEWS, ANCIENT OR MODERN.
THE word Apocrypha signifies concealed, obscure, without authority. In reference to the Bible, it is employed to designate such books as claim a place in the sacred volume, but which are not canonical. It is said to have been first used by Melito, bishop of Sardis.
An inquiry into this subject cannot be uninteresting to the friends
of the Bible; for it behoves them to ascertain, on the best evidence, what books
belong to the sacred volume, and also, on what grounds other books are rejected
from the Canon. This subject assumes a higher importance from the fact, that Christians
are much divided on this point; for, some receive as of canonical authority, books
which others reject as spurious, or consider merely as human compositions. On such
a point every Christian should
In controversy with the Romanists this subject meets us at the very threshold. It is vain to dispute about particular doctrines of Scripture until it is determined what books are to be received as Scripture.
This subject gave rise to a very unpleasant controversy between the British and Foreign Bible Society and some of the leading ministers of Scotland. The principle adopted at the beginning by the Bible Society was, to circulate nothing but the text of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment. But in order to get the Scriptures into the hands of the Romanists, Bibles containing the Apocrypha were circulated, which proceeding gave just offence to the ministers of the Church of Scotland, and to the efficient auxiliaries of that country.
A strong remonstrance was therefore made to the Managers of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and their answer not being entirely satisfactory, the Scotch ministers withdrew from the Society in London, and established one independent of the mother Society; and this breach has never been healed. But it is due to the British and Foreign Bible Society to state, that in consequence of the discussion, they adopted a correct principle for their future proceedings.
The whole subject
was referred to a select and learned sub-committee; who, after mature deliberation,
brought in a report which was adopted, and led to the following wise resolution
in the General Committee, viz. “That the funds of the Society be applied to
the printing and circulation of the canonical books of Scripture to the
exclusion of those books
“In the sacred volume, as it is to be hereafter distributed by the Society, there is to be nothing but divine truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by all Christians to be such. Of course all may unite in the work of distribution, even should they regard the volume as containing but part of the inspired writings; just as they might in the circulation of the Pentateuch or the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New Testament. Such harmonious operation would not, however, be possible, if the books of the apocrypha were mingled or joined with the rest; and besides, those who have the strongest objection to the apocrypha, are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in active and liberal efforts to send the word of God to all people.”
This judicious decision of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible
Society depends for its correctness on the supposition that the books of the apocrypha
are not canonical; for, whatever may be said about circulating a part of the Bible,
it was undoubtedly the original object of this Society to print and circulate the
whole of the sacred volume. Hence appears the practical importance of the inquiry
which we have here instituted, to ascertain whether these
At a very early period of the Christian church, great pains were taken to distinguish between such books as were inspired and canonical, and such as were written by uninspired men. It has never been doubted among Christians, that the canonical books only were of divine authority, and furnished an infallible rule of faith and practice; but it has not been agreed what books ought to be considered canonical and what apocryphal. In regard to those which have already been enumerated, as belonging to the Old Testament, there is a pretty general consent of Jews and Christians, of Romanists and Protestants; but in regard to some other books there is a wide difference of opinion.
The council of Trent, in their fourth session,
gave a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among which are included Tobit,
Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and two books of the Maccabees.
Both these classes
of books, all denominations of Protestants consider apocryphal; but as the English
church, in her Liturgy, directs that certain lessons shall be read from the former,
for the instruction of the people, but not for confirmation of doctrine, they are
retained in the larger copies of the English Bible, but are not mingled with the
canonical books, as in the Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testament,
under the title of Apocrypha. It is certainly to be regretted that these books are
permitted to be included in the same volume which contains the lively oracles,—the
word of God,—the Holy Scriptures; all of which were given by inspiration; and more
to be regretted still, that they should be read in the church promiscuously with
the lessons taken from the canonical books; especially as no notice is given to
the people, that what is read from these books is apocryphal; and as in the Prayer
Book of the Episcopal church the tables which refer to the lessons to be read,
But it is our object at present to show, that none of these books, canonized by the Council of Trent, and inserted in our larger English Bibles, are canonical.
1. The first argument by which it may be proved that
these books do not belong to the Canon of the Old Testament, is, that they are not
found in the Hebrew Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew language, but in the
Greek, which was not known to the Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased,
and the Canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is rendered probable, indeed,
that some of them were written originally in the Chaldaic. Jerome testifies this
to be the fact, in regard to 1 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus;
Hottinger, indeed, informs us, that he had seen the whole of the apocrypha in pure Hebrew, among the Jews; but he entertains no doubt that it was translated into that language, in modern times: just as the whole New Testament has recently been translated into pure Hebrew.
It is the common opinion of the Jews, and of the Christian Fathers, that Malachi was the last of the Old Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain authors afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned canonical, and there is good reason for believing that those books were written long after the time of Ezra and Malachi, and some of them perhaps later than the commencement of the Christian era.
2. These books, though probably written by Jews, have never been received into the Canon by that people. In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the same mind. Josephus declares, “That no more than twenty-two books were received as inspired by his nation.” Philo, who refers often to the Old Testament in his writings, never makes the least mention of them; nor are they recognized in the Talmud as canonical. Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbies expressly reject them.
Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, says, “They are received by Christians, not by us.”
R. Gedaliah, after giving a catalogue
of the books
R. Azariah ascribed the book called the Wisdom of Solomon to Philo; and R. Gedaliah, in speaking of the same book, says, “That if Solomon ever wrote it, it must have been in the Syriac language, to send it to some of the kings in the remotest parts of the East. “But,” says he, “Ezra put his hand only to those books which were published by the prophets, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred language; and our wise men prudently and deliberately resolved to sanction none, but such as were established and confirmed by him.”
“This book,” says he, “the Gentiles (i. e. Christians) have added to their Bible.” “Their wise men,” says Buxtorf, “pronounced this book to be apocryphal.”
The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by the son of Sirach, is expressly numbered among apocryphal books in the Talmud. “In the book of the Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to be read.”
Manasseh Ben Israel has this
observation, “Those things which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus are
nothing to the purpose, because that is an apocryphal book.” Another of their writers
says, “The book of the son of Sirach is added to our twenty-four sacred books by
the Romans.” This book also they call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit
to be
“Baruch,” says one of their learned men, “is received by Christians,” (i. e. Romanists,) “but not by us.”
Of Tobit, it is said in Zemach David, “Know, then, that this book of Tobias is one of those which Christians join with the Hagiographa.” A little afterwards, it is said, “Know then, that Tobit, which is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into Hebrew by Sebastian Munster.” The same writer affirms of the history of Susannah, “That it is received by Christians but not by us.”
The Jews, in the time of Jerome, entertained no other opinion of these books than
those who came after them; for, in his preface to Daniel, he informs us, “That
he had heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding the history of Susannah, saying,
‘It
was invented by some Greek, he knew not whom.’”
The same is the opinion of the Jews respecting the other
books, which we call apocryphal, as is manifest from all the copies of the
Hebrew Bible extant; for, undoubtedly if they believed that any of these books
were canonical, they would give them a place in their sacred volume. But will
any ask, what is the opinion of the Jews to us? I answer, much on this point.
The oracles of God were committed to them; and they preserved them with a
religious care until the advent of Messiah. Christ never censures them for
adding to the sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them. Since their nation
has been in dispersion, copies of the Old Testament in Hebrew have been
scattered all over
3. The third argument
against the canonical authority of these books is derived from the total silence
respecting them in the New Testament. They are never quoted by Christ and his apostles.
This fact, however, is disputed by the Romanists, and they even attempt to establish
their right to a place in the Canon from the citations which they pretend have been
made from these books by the apostles. They refer to
It has already been shown that these books were not included in the volume quoted and referred to by Christ and his apostles, under the title of the Scriptures, and and are entirely omitted by Josephus in his account of the sacred books. It would seem, therefore, that in the time of Christ, and for some time afterwards, they were utterly unknown or wholly disregarded.
TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA.
THE fourth argument is, that these books were not received as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but were expressly declared to be apocryphal.
Justin Martyr does not cite a single passage, in all his writings, from any apocryphal book.
The first catalogue
of the books of the Old Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles,
from any Christian writer, is that of Melito, bishop of
Sardis, before the end of the second century, which is preserved by Eusebius.
The fragment is as follows: “Melito to his brother Onesimus, greeting. Since you have often earnestly requested
of me, in consequence of your love of learning, a collection of the Sacred Scriptures
of the Law and the Prophets, and what relates to the Saviour, and concerning our
whole faith; and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accurate knowledge of our
ancient books, as it respects their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish
this, knowing your sincere affection towards the faith, and your earnest desire
to become acquainted with the word; and that striving after eternal life, your love
to God induces you to prefer these to all other things. Wherefore, going into the
East, and to
Origen also says, “We should not be ignorant,
that the canonical books are the same which the Hebrews delivered unto us, and are
twenty-two in number, according to the number of letters of the Hebrew alphabet.”
Then he sets down, in order, the names of the books, in Greek and Hebrew.
Athanasius,
in his Synopsis, says, “All the Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired;
neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, and reduced into a
Canon. Those of the Old Testament are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
Hilary, who was contemporary with Athanasius, and resided
in France, has numbered the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following
manner: “The five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the seventh of Judges, including
Ruth, the eighth of first and second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth Kings;
the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the eleventh, Ezra (which included Nehemiah;)
the twelfth, the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs, the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth; the twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and Jeremiah,
including Lamentations and his Epistle, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making
up the full number of twenty-two.” And in his preface he adds, that “these books
were thus numbered by our ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them.”
Gregory Nazianzen exhorts his readers to study the sacred books with attention, but to avoid
such as were apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books of the Old Testament,
and according to the Jewish method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He complains
of some that mingled the apocryphal books with those that were inspired, “of the
truth of which last,” says he, “we have the most perfect persuasion;
Jerome, in his Epistle to Paulinus, gives us a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive: “Which,” says he, “we believe agreeably to the tradition of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.”
Epiphanius, in his book concerning Weights and Measures, distributes the books of the Old Testament into four divisions of five each. “The first of which contains the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third division he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth, first and second Chronicles, four books of Kings. The last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and Esther.” Thus he makes up the number twenty-two.
Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechism,
exhorts his
The Council of Laodicea forbade the reading of any books in the churches but such as were canonical; and that the people might know what these were, a catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we now receive.
Origen barely mentions the Maccabees. Athanasius takes no notice of these books. Eusebius, in his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees, and adds, “These books are not received as divine Scriptures.”
Philastrius, an Italian bishop, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century, in a work on Heresy says, “It was determined by the apostles and their successors, that nothing should be read in the Catholic church but the law, prophets, evangelists,” &c.—And he complains of certain Heretics, “That they used the book of Wisdom, by the son of Sirach, who lived long after Solomon.”
Chrysostom, a man who excelled in the knowledge of the Scriptures, declares, “That all the divine books of the Old Testament were originally written in the Hebrew tongue, and that no other books were received.” Hom. 4. in Gen.
But Jerome, already
mentioned, who had diligently studied the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best
Jewish teachers, enters into this subject more fully and accurately than any of
the rest of the Fathers. In his general Preface to his version of the Scriptures,
he mentions the books which he had translated out of Hebrew into Latin; “All besides
them,” says he, “must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, Wisdom, which is
ascribed to Solomon, the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor,
are not in the Canon. I have found the first book of Maccabees in Hebrew, (Chaldee;)
the second in Greek, and, as the style shows, it must have been composed in that
language.” And in his Preface to Ezra and Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by
the Jews,) he says, “Let no one be disturbed that I have edited but one book under
this name; nor let any one please himself with the dreams contained in the third
and fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author;
Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he says, “The book of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in Hebrew, nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have passed it over.” And in his preface to Daniel, “This book among the Hebrews has neither the history of Susanna, nor the Song of the three Children, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained lest we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed a large part of the Sacred Volume.”
In the preface to Tobit, he says, “The Hebrews cut off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Divine Scriptures.” And in his preface to Judith, he says, “Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to determine controversies.”
Rufin, in his Exposition
of the Creed, observes, “That there were some books which were not called canonical,
but received by our ancestors, as the Wisdom
Gregory the First, speaking of the testimony in the Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says, “Concerning which thing we do not act inordinately, although we bring our testimony from a book which is not canonical.”
Augustine is the only one among the
Fathers who lived within four hundred years after the apostles, who seems to favour
the introduction of these six disputed books into the Canon. In his work On Christian
Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, among which he
inserts Tobit, Judith, the two books of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus. These two last mentioned, he says, “are called Solomon’s, on
account of their resemblance to his writings; although it is known that one of
them was composed by the son of Sirach: which deserves to be received among the
prophetical books.” But this opinion he retracted afterwards.
Augustine was accustomed to the Greek and Latin Bibles, in which those books had been introduced, and we must suppose, unless we would make him contradict himself, that he meant in this place merely to enumerate the books then contained in the sacred volume; for in many other places he clearly shows that he entertained the same opinion of the books of the Old Testament as the other Fathers.
In his celebrated work of “The City of God,” he expresses this opinion most explicitly—“In
that whole
In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he says, “If any adversary should say you have forged these prophecies, let the Jewish books be produced—The Jews are our librarians.” And on the lvi. Psalm, “When we wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was predicted, we appeal to the writings in possession of the Jews; they have all these Scriptures.”
And again,
in the work first cited, “The Israelitish nation, to whom the oracles of God were
entrusted, never confounded false prophecies with the true, but all these writings
are harmonious.” Then in another work, in speaking of the books of the Maccabees,
he says, This writing the Jews never received in the same manner as the Law, the
Prophets, and the Psalms, to which the Lord gave testimony as by his own witnesses.”
And frequently in his works, he confines the canonical books to those properly included
in this threefold division. He also repeatedly declares that the canonical Scriptures,
which are of most eminent authority, are the books committed to the Jews. But in
the eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking of Judith, he says, “Those things
which are written in this book, it is said, the Jews have never received into the
Canon of Scripture.” And in the seventeenth book of the same work, “There are three
books of Solomon, which have been received into canonical
He allows that the Book of Wisdom may be read to the people, and ought to be preferred to all other tracts; but he does not insist that the testimonies taken from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesiasticus, he says when speaking of Samuel’s prophesying after his death, “But if this book is objected to because it is not found in the Canon of the Jews,” &c. His rejection of the books of Maccabees from the Canon is repeated and explicit. “The calculation of the times after the restoring of the temple is not found in the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but in certain other books, among which are the two books of Maccabees. The Jews do not receive the Maccabees as the Law and the Prophets.”
It may be admitted, however, that Augustine entertained too high an opinion of these apocryphal books, but it is certain that he did not put them on a level with the genuine canonical books. He mentions a custom which prevailed in his time, from which it appears that although the apocryphal books were read in some of the churches, they were not read as Holy Scripture, nor put on a level with the canonical books; for he informs us that they were not permitted to be read from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures, but from a lower place in the church.
Innocent the first, who lived about the same
But it can be proved that even until the time of the meeting of the Council of Trent, by which these books were solemnly canonized, the most learned and judicious of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of Jerome and the ancients; or at least make a marked distinction between these disputed books and those which are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A few testimonies from distinguished writers, from the commencement of the sixth century down to the era of the Reformation, shall now be given.
It deserves to be particularly observed here that in one of the laws of the Emperor Justinian, concerning ecclesiastical matters, it was enacted, “That the Canons of the first four general councils should be received and have the force of laws.”
Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, in a
work on the Creation, makes “the number of books which God
Leontius, a learned and accurate writer, in his book against the Sects, acknowledges no other canonical books of the Old Testament, but those which the Hebrews received; namely, twelve historical books, five prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and one of Psalms; making the number twenty-two as usual; and he makes not the least mention of any others.
Gregory, who lived at the beginning of the seventh century, in his book of Morals, makes an apology for alleging a passage from the Maccabees, and says, “Though it be not taken from the canonical Scripture, yet it is cited from a book which was published for the edification of the church.”
Isidore, bishop of Seville, divides the canonical books of the Old Testament into three orders, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards adds—“There is a fourth order of books which are not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament.” Here he names these books, and says, “Though the Jews rejected them as apocryphal, the church has received them among the canonical Scriptures.”
John Damascene, a Syrian Presbyter,
who lived early in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament,
numbering only two-and-twenty books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he says not
one word; but he speaks of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, as “elegant and virtuous writings,
yet not to be numbered among the canonical books of
Venerable Bede follows the ancient method of dividing the books of the Old Testament into three classes; but he remarkably distinguishes the Maccabees from the canonical books by classing them with the writings of Josephus and Julius the African.
Alcuin, the disciple of Bede, says, “The book of the son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and dubious Scripture.”
Rupert, a learned man of the twelfth century, expressly rejects the book of Wisdom from the Canon.
Peter Mauritius, after giving a catalogue of the authentic Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the six disputed books, and says, “They are useful and commendable in the church, but are not to be placed in the same dignity with the rest.”
Hugo de S. Victore, a Saxon by birth, but who resided at Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, which includes no others but the two-and-twenty received from the Jews. Of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit and Judith, he says, “They are used in the church but not written in the Canon.”
Richard de S. Victore, also of the twelfth century, in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares, “That there are but twenty-two books in the Canon; and that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although they are read in the churches.”
Peter Lombard,
in his Scholastic History, enumerates the books of the Old Testament, thus—Five
books of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, which leaves
no room for these six disputed
In this century also lived John of Salisbury, an Englishman, a man highly respected in his time. In one of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and professes to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe that there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of the Old Testament, all which he names in order, and adds, “That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor the Maccabees, are esteemed canonical.”
In the thirteenth century, the opinion
of the learned was the same, as we may see by the Ordinary Gloss on the Bible, in
the composition of which many persons were concerned, and which was high approved
by all the doctors and pastors in the western churches. In the preface to this
gloss,
they are reproached with ignorance who hold all the books, put into the one volume
of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between these books is asserted
to be as great as between certain and doubtful works. The canonical books are declared,
“To have been written by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost; but who were the authors
of the others is unknown.” Then it is declared, “That the church permitteth the
reading of the apocryphal books for devotion and instruction, but not for
authority to decide matters of controversy in faith. And that there are no more
than twenty-two canonical books of the Old Testament, and all besides are
apocryphal.”
Hugo, the Cardinal, who lived in this century, wrote commentaries on all the Scriptures, which were universally esteemed; in these he constantly keeps up the distinction between the canonical and ecclesiastical books: and he explicitly declares that “Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apocryphal,—dubious,—not canonical,—not received by the church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners.”
Thomas Aquinas also, the most famous of the schoolmen, makes the same distinction between these classes of books. He maintains that the book of Wisdom was not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes it to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he calls a fable; and he shows clearly enough that he did not believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical authority.
In the fourteenth century no man acquired so extensive a
reputation for his commentaries on the Bible, as Nicholas Lyra, a converted Jew.
In his preface to the book of Tobit, he says, ” That having commented on all the
canonical books, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Revelation, his
intention now was to write on those books which are not canonical.”
The Englishman, William Occam, of Oxford, accounted the most learned doctor of his age, in his Dialogues, acknowledges, “That that honor is due only to the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem them free from all error.” Moreover, in his Prologues, he fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory, “That neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees, nor Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into the same place of honour as the inspired books; “for,” says he, “the church doth not number them among the canonical Scriptures.”
In the fifteenth century, Thomas Anglicus, sometimes called the Angelical Doctor on account of his excellent judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the Old Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from Judges, and Lamentations from Jeremiah.
Paul Burgensis, a Spanish Jew, who, after his conversion to Christianity, on account of his superior knowledge and piety, was advanced to be bishop of Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains the same distinction of books which has been so often mentioned.
The Romanists have at last, as they suppose, found an
authority for these disputed books in the Council
Though this Canon were genuine, the authority of a council sitting in such circumstances, as attended the meeting of this, would have very little weight; but Dr. Cosins has shown that in the large copies of the acts of this council no such decree can be found, and that it has been foisted into the abridgment by some impostor who omitted something else to make room for it, and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged, while the substance of them was altered.
Alphonso Tostatus, bishop of Avila, who, on account of his extraordinary learning, was called the wonder of the world, has given a clear and decisive testimony on this subject. This learned man declares, “That these controverted books were not canonical, and that the church condemned no man for disobedience who did not receive them as the other Scriptures, because they were of uncertain origin, and it is not known that they were written by inspiration.” And again, “Because the church is uncertain whether heretics have not added to them.” This opinion he repeats in several parts of his works.”
Cardinal Ximenes, the celebrated editor of the Complutensian Polyglot, in the preface to that work, admonishes the reader that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Maccabees, with the additions to Esther and Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not canonical Scriptures.
John Picus, the learned count
of Mirandula, adhered
Faber Stapulensis, a famous doctor of Paris, acknowledges that these books are not in the Canon.
Ludovicus Vives, one of the most learned men of his age, in his commentaries on Augustine’s City of God, rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras, and also the history of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal. He speaks in such a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus as to show that he did not esteem them canonical; for he makes Philo to be the author of the former, and the son of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the time of Ptolemy about an hundred years after the last of the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts whether Josephus was the author or not; by which he sufficiently shows that he did not believe that they were written by inspiration.
But there was no man in this
age who obtained so high a reputation for learning and critical skill as
Erasmus.
In his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed and the Decalogue, he discusses this question
respecting the canonical books, and after enumerating the usual books of the Old
Testament, he says, “The ancient Fathers admitted no more;” but of the other books
afterwards received into ecclesiastical use, (naming the whole which we esteem apocryphal,)
“It is uncertain what authority should be allowed to them; but the canonical Scriptures
are such as without controversy are believed to have been written by the inspiration
of God.” And in his Scholia on Jerome’s preface to Daniel, he expresses his wonder
that such stories as Bel and the Dragon should be publicly read in the churches.
In his address to students of the
The last testimony which we shall adduce to show that these books were not universally nor commonly received, until the very time of the Council of Trent, is that of Cardinal Cajetan, the oracle of the church of Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives us this as the rule of the church—“That those books which were canonical with Jerome should be so with us; and that those which were not received as canonical by him should be considered as excluded by us.” And he says, “The church is much indebted to this Father for distinguishing between the books which are canonical and those which are not, for thus he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for ourselves.” For this reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; “for,” says he, “Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insufficient to prove any matter of faith, though they may be read for the edifying of the people.”
From the copious citations of testimonies which we have given, it
is evident that the books in dispute are apocryphal, and have no right to a place
in the Canon; and that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in decreeing, with an
anathema annexed, that they should be received as divine. Surely no council can
make that an inspired book which was not written by inspiration. Certainly these
books did not belong to the Canon while the apostles lived, for they were unknown
INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONICAL—THE WRITERS NOT PROPHETS, AND DO NOT CLAIM TO BE INSPIRED.
I COME now to the fifth argument to disprove the canonical authority of these books, which is derived from internal evidence. Books which contain manifest falsehoods; or which abound in silly and ridiculous stories; or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine of acknowledged Scripture, cannot be canonical. Now I will endeavour to show, that the books in dispute, are all, or most of them, condemned by this rule.
In the book of Tobit, an angel of God is made to tell a palpable falsehood—“I
am Azarias, the son of Ananias the great, and of thy brethren;”
Judith is represented as speaking scarcely anything but falsehood to Holofernes;
but what is most inconsistent with the character of piety given her, is, that
she is made to pray to the God of truth, in the following
In the second book of Maccabees, Razis, an elder of Jerusalem, is spoken of with high commendation, for destroying his own life, rather than fall into the hands of his enemies; but, certainly, suicide is not, in any case, agreeable to the word of God.
The author of the book of Wisdom, speaks in the name of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to build a temple in the holy mountain; whereas it has been proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely ascribed to Solomon.
In the book of Tobit, we have this story: “And as they went
on their journey they came to the river Tigris, and they lodged there; and when
the young man went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of the river, and would
have devoured him. Then the angel said unto him, Take the fish. And the young man
laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To whom the angel said, Open the fish,
and take the heart, and the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely. So the young
man did as the angel commanded him, and when they had roasted the fish, they did
eat it. Then the young man said unto the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is
the heart, and the liver, and the
In the book of Baruch, there are
also several things which do not appear to be true. Baruch is said to have read
this book, in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the ears of
the king, and all the people dwelling in Babylon, who upon hearing it, collected
money and sent it to Jerusalem, to the priests.
In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we read, that “Mardocheus,
in the second year of Artaxerxes the Great, was a great man, being a servitor
Again, Mardocheus is represented as being “a great man in the court, in the second year of Artaxerxes,” before he detected the conspiracy against the king’s life. Now, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same, or they were not; if the former, this history clashes with the Scriptural account, for there it appears, that Mordecai was not, before this time, a courtier, or a conspicuous man; if the latter, then this addition is manifestly false, because it ascribes to Artaxerxes, what the Scriptures ascribe to another person.
Moreover, this apocryphal writing places the conspiracy against the king’s life before the repudiation of Vashti and the marriage of Esther; but this is repugnant to the canonical Scriptures.
It is also asserted, in this book, (see chap. xvi.) that Mardocheus received honours and rewards for the detection of the conspiracy; whereas, in the Canonical book of Esther, it is declared, that he received no reward. And a different reason is assigned, in the two books, for Haman’s hatred of Mordecai. In the canonical, it is his neglect of showing respect to this proud courtier; in the apocryphal, it is the punishment of the two eunuchs, who had formed the conspiracy.
And finally,
Haman, in this spurious work, is called
The advocates of these books are
greatly perplexed to find a place in the history of the Jewish nation, for the wonderful
deliverance wrought by means of Judith. It seems strange that no allusion is made
to this event in any of the acknowledged books of Scripture; and more unaccountable
still, that Josephus, who was so much disposed to relate everything favourable to
the character of his nation, should never make the least mention of it. Some refer
this history to the period preceding the Babylonish captivity; while others are
of opinion, that the events occurred in the time of Cambyses, king of Persia. But
the name of the high priest here mentioned, does not occur with the names of the
high priests contained in any of the genealogies. From the time of the building
of the temple of Solomon, to its overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not found
in the list of high priests, as may be seen by consulting the
Another thing in the book of Judith, which is very suspicious, is, that Holofernes is represented as saying, “Tell me now, ye sons of Canaan, who this people is, that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the cities that they inhabit.” But how can it be reconciled with known history, that a prince of Persia should be wholly ignorant of the Jewish people?
It is impossible to reconcile what is said, in the close of the book, with any sound principles of chronology. Judith is represented as young and beautiful, when she slew Holofernes; but here it is said, “That she waxed old in her husband’s house, being an hundred and five years old. And there was none that made the children of Israel any more afraid, in the days of Judith nor a long time after her death.” In whose reign, or at what period, we would ask, did the Jews enjoy this long season of uninterrupted tranquillity?
Some writers who are fully convinced that the history of Judith cannot be reconciled with authentic history, if taken literally, are of opinion, that it contains a beautiful allegory;—that Bethulia, (the virgin,) represents the church of God; that the assault of Nebuchadnezzar signifies the opposition of the world and its prince; that the victory obtained by a pious woman, is intended to teach, that the church’s deliverance is not effected by human might or power, but by the prayers and the piety of the saints, &c. This, perhaps, is the most favourable view which we can take of this history: but take it as you will, it is clear that the book is apocryphal, and has no right to a place in the sacred Canon.
Between the first and second books of
Maccabees, there is a palpable contradiction; for in the first book it is said,
that “Judas died in the one hundred and fifty-second year:” but in the second, “that in the one hundred and eighty-eighth year, the people that were in Judea, and
Judas, and the council, sent greeting and health unto Aristobulus.” Thus, Judas
is made to join in sending a letter, six-and-thirty years after his death! The
contradiction is manifest. In the same first chapter of the second book, there
is a story inserted which has very much the air of a fable. “For when our
fathers were led into Persia, the priests that were then devout, took the fire
of the altar privily and hid it in a hollow place of a pit without water, where
they kept it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men. Now after many
years, when it pleased God, Nehemias, being sent from the king, of Persia, did
send of the posterity of those priests that had hid it, to the fire: but when
they told us they found no fire, but thick water, then commanded he them to draw
it up and bring it, and when the sacrifice was laid on, Nehemias commanded the
priests to sprinkle the wood and things laid thereon, with the water. When this
was done and the time came that the sun shone, which before was hid in the
clouds, a great fire was kindled.”
In the second chapter we have another fabulous story of Jeremiah’s taking
the ark and altar, and altar of incense, to mount Pisgah, and hiding them in a hollow
cave, and closing them up. This place Jeremiah declared should be unknown, “until
the time
There is another contradiction between these books of Maccabees,
in relation to the death of Antiochus Epiphanes. In the first, it is said, that
he died at Elymais, in Persia, in the hundred and forty-ninth year; but, in the
second book, it is related, that after entering Persepolis, with a view of overthrowing
the temple and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants; and while on his journey
from this place, he was seized with a dreadful disease of the bowels, and died in
the mountains.
Moreover, the accounts given of Nicanor, in the seventh chapter of the first book, and in the fourteenth and fifteenth chapters of the second book, are totally inconsistent. In the first book of Maccabees an erroneous account is given of the civil government of the Romans, where it is said, “That they committed their government to one man every year, who ruled over all their country, and that all were obedient to that one.” Whereas, it is well known, that no such form of government ever existed among the Romans.
Finally, it is manifest that these books were not inspired, and therefore not canonical, because they were not written by prophets; but by men who speak of their labours in a way wholly incompatible with inspiration.
Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion, that Josephus was the
author of the books of the Maccabees; but it has never been supposed by any,
that he was an inspired
It has been the constant tradition of Jews and Christians, that the spirit of prophecy ceased with Malachi, until the appearance of John the Baptist. Malachi has, on this account, been called by the Jews, “the seal of the prophets.”
Josephus, in his book against Apion, after saying that it belonged to the prophets alone, to write inspired books, adds these words, “From the time of Artaxerxes, there were some among us, who wrote books even to our own times, but these are not of equal authority with the preceding, because the succession of prophets was not complete.”
Eusebius, in giving a catalogue of the leaders of the Jews, denies that he can proceed any lower than Zerubbabel, “Because,” says he, “after the return from captivity until the advent of our Saviour, there is no book which can be esteemed sacred.”
Augustine gives a similar testimony. “After Malachi the Jews had no prophet, during that whole period, which intervened between the return from captivity and the advent of our Saviour.”
Neither does Genebrard dissent from this opinion. “From Malachi to John the Baptist,” says he, “no prophets existed.”
Drusius cites the
following words, from the Compiler of the Jewish History, “’ The rest of the discourses
of Simon and his wars, and the wars of his brother, are they not written in the
book of Joseph, the son of Gorion, and in the book of the Asmoneans, and in the
books of the Roman kings?” Here the books of
The book of Wisdom does indeed claim to be the work of Solomon, an inspired man; but this claim furnishes the strongest ground for its condemnation. It is capable of the clearest proof from internal evidence, that this was the production of some person, probably a Hellenistic Jew, who lived long after the Canon of the Old Testament was completed. It contains manifest allusions to Grecian customs, and is tinctured with the Grecian philosophy. The manner in which the author praises himself is fulsome, and has no parallel in an inspired writer. This book has been ascribed to Philo Judæus; and if this conjecture be correct, doubtless it has no just claim to be considered a canonical book. But whoever was the author, his endeavouring to pass his composition off for the writing of Solomon, is sufficient to decide every question respecting his inspiration. If Solomon had written this book, it would have been found in the Jewish Canon, and in the Hebrew language. The writer is also guilty of shameful flattery to his own nation, which is entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the prophets. He has also, without any foundation, added many things to the sacred narration, contained in the canonical history; and has mingled with it much which is of the nature of poetical embellishment. And, indeed, the whole style of the composition savours too much of artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit of God; the constant characteristic of whose productions is, simplicity and sublimity.
Ecclesiasticus, which is superior to all the other apocryphal books,
was written by one Jesus the son
The author of the second book of the Maccabees professes to have reduced a work
of Jason of Cyrene, consisting of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning which
work, he says, “therefore to us that have taken upon us this painful labour of abridging,
it was
The Popish
writers, to evade the force of the arguments of their adversaries, pretend that
there was a two-fold Canon; that some of the books of Scripture are proto-canonical;
and others deutero-canonical. If, by this distinction, they only meant that the
word Canon was often used by the Fathers, with great latitude, so as to include
all books that were ever read in the churches, or that were contained in the volume
of the Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signifies the same, as is often
expressed, by calling some books sacred and canonical, and others, ecclesiastical.
But these writers make it manifest that they mean much more than this. They wish
to put their deutero-
This question may be brought to a speedy issue, with all unprejudiced judges. These books were either written by divine inspiration for the guidance of the church in matters of faith and practice, or they were not; if the former, they always had a right to a place in the Canon; if the latter, no act of a pope or council could render that divine, which was not so before. It would be to change the nature of a fact, than which nothing is more impossible.
It is alleged, with much confidence, that the Greek
Bibles, used by the Fathers, contained these books; and, therefore, whenever they
give their testimony to the sacred Scriptures, these are included. This argument
proves too much, for the third book of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses were contained
in these volumes, but these are rejected by the Romanists. The truth, however, is,
that these books were not originally connected with the Septuagint; they were probably
introduced into some of the later Greek versions, which were made by heretics. These
versions, particularly that of Theodotion, came to be used promiscuously with that
of the LXX; and to this day,
By some such means, these apocryphal books crept into the Greek Bible; but the early Fathers were careful to distinguish them from the canonical Scriptures, as we have already seen. That they were read in the churches, is also true; but not as Scripture; not for the confirmation of doctrine, but for the edification of the common people.
Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as authority, but very seldom, and the reason which rendered it difficult for them to distinguish accurately between ecclesiastical and canonical books has already been given. These pious men were generally unacquainted with Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in Greek, and frequently bound up in the same volume with the canonical Scriptures, and observing that they contained excellent rules for the direction of life and the regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to them, and cited passages from them, and permitted them to be read in the church, for the instruction and edification of the people.
But the more learned of the Fathers, who examined into the authority of the sacred books with unceasing diligence, clearly marked the distinction between such books as were canonical, and such as were merely human compositions. And some of them even disapproved of the reading of these apocryphal books by the people; and some councils warned the churches against them. It was with this single view that so many catalogues of the canonical books were prepared and published.
Notwithstanding that we have taken so much pains
Others of them are replete with sacred, moral, and prudential maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation of life and manners; but even with these, are interspersed sentiments, which are not perfectly accordant with the word of God. In short, these books are of very different value, but in the best of them there is so much error and imperfection, as to convince us, that they are human productions, and should be used as such: not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in the attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of virtue. Therefore, when we would exclude them from a place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them as unfit to be read; but we would have them published in a separate volume, and studied much more carefully than they commonly have been.
And while we would dissent from the practice of reading lessons from these books, as Scriptural lessons are read in the church, we would cordially recommend the frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and above all Ecclesiasticus.
It is a dishonour to God, and a disparagement of his word, to place other books,
in any respect on a level with the divine oracles; but it is a privilege to be permitted,
to have access to the writings of men, eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it
is also a
The infallibility of the church of Rome is clearly proved to be without foundation, by the decree of the Council of Trent, canonizing the apocrypha. If we have been successful in proving that these books are not canonical, the infallibility of both popes and councils is overthrown; for if they erred in one instance, it proves that the doctrine is false. One great inconvenience of this doctrine is, that when that church falls into any error, she can never retract it; for that would be to acknowledge her fallibility.
Some allege that the church of Rome is not now what she was in former years; but that she has laid aside opinions formerly entertained. But this allegation is inconsistent with her claim to infallibility. According to this, the church of Rome has never erred; what she has declared to be true at any time she must forever maintain to be true; or give up her pretensions to infallibility. In regard to the Apocrypha, it is immaterial, whether the infallibility be supposed to reside in the pope or in a council; or in the pope and council united; for the council of Trent is considered to be an œcumenical council regularly constituted; and all its acts were sanctioned by the popes. Their error in pronouncing the apocrypha canonical, is decisive as to the infallibility of the church.
NO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN LOST.
ON this subject there has existed some diversity of opinion. Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine, as saying, ” That many of the writings of the prophets had perished, which may readily be proved from the history in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and not only negligent but impious, so that some books were lost through carelessness, and others were burned, or otherwise destroyed.”
In confirmation
of this opinion, an appeal is made to
Again it is
said in
The book of the Wars of the Lord is referred to, in
Moreover, we frequently are referred, in the sacred history, to other chronicles or annals, for a fuller account of the matters spoken of, which Chronicles are not now extant.
And in
It is said also in
1. The first observation which I would make on this subject,
is, that every book referred to, or quoted in the sacred writings, is not
necessarily an inspired, or canonical book. Because Paul cites passages from
2. A book may be written by an inspired man, and yet be neither
inspired nor canonical. Inspiration was not constantly afforded to the prophets,
but was occasional, and for particular important purposes. In common matters, and
especially in things noways connected with religion, it is reasonable to suppose,
that the prophets and apostles were left to the same guidance of reason and common
sense, as other men. A man, therefore, inspired to deliver some prophecy, or even
to write a canonical book, might write other books, with no greater assistance than
other good men receive. Because Solomon was inspired to write some canonical books,
it does not follow, that what he wrote on natural history, was also inspired. The
Scriptures, however, do not say, that his three thousand proverbs, and his discourses
on natural history, were ever committed to writing. It only says, that he spake
these things. But supposing that all these discourses were committed to writing,
which is not improbable, there is not the least reason for believing that they were
inspired, any more than Solomon’s private letters to his friends, if he ever wrote
any. Let it be remembered, that the prophets and apostles were only inspired on
special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all difficulties respecting such
works as these will vanish. How many of the books referred to in the Bible, and
mentioned above, may have been of this description, it is now impossible to tell;
but probably several of them belong to this class. No doubt there were many books
of annals, much more minute and particular in the narration of facts, than those
which we have. It was
The book of the Wars of the Lord, might for aught that appears, have been merely a muster roll of the army. The word translated book has so extensive a meaning in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to suppose, that it was a writing at all. The book of Jasher, (or of rectitude, if we translate the word,) might have been some useful compend taken from Scripture, or composed by the wise, for the regulation of justice and equity, between man and man.
Augustine, in his City of God, has distinguished accurately on this subject. “I think,” says he, “that those books which should have authority in religion were revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men composed others by historical diligence, as the prophets did these by inspiration. And these two classes of books are so distinct, that it is only of those written by inspiration, that we are to suppose God, through them, to be speaking unto us. The one class is useful for fulness of knowledge; the other for authority in religion; in which authority the Canon is preserved.”
3. But again,
it may be maintained, without any prejudice to the completeness of the Canon, that
there may have been inspired writings which were not intended
“It has been observed,” says Francis Junius, “that it is one thing
to call a book sacred, another to say that it is canonical; for every book was sacred
which was edited by a prophet, or apostle; but it does not follow that every such
sacred book is canonical, and
The evangelical Witsius, of an age somewhat later, delivers
his opinion on this point, in the following manner: “No one, I think, can
doubt, but that all the apostles in the diligent exercise of their office, wrote
frequent letters to the churches under their care, when they could not be
present with them; and to whom they might often wish to communicate some
instruction necessary for them in the circumstances in which they were placed.
It would seem to me to be injurious to the reputation of those faithful and
assiduous men, to suppose, that not one of them ever wrote any epistle, or
addressed to a church, any writing, except those few, whose epistles are in the
Canon. Now, as Peter, and Paul, and James, and John, were induced to write to
the churches, on account of the need in which they stood of instruction, why
would not the same necessity induce the other apostles to write to the churches
under their care? Nor is there any reason why we should complain of
Although I have cited this passage from this excellent and orthodox theologian, in favour of the sentiment advanced; yet I do not feel at liberty to go the whole length of his opinion, here expressed. There is no reason to think, that any of the other apostles composed such works, as those which constitute the Canon of the New Testament. If they had, some of them would have been preserved, or at least, some memorial of such writings would have been handed down, in those churches to which they were addressed. These churches received and preserved the canonical books of those whose writings we have, and why should they neglect, or suffer to sink into oblivion, similar writings of apostles, from whom they first received the gospel?
Indeed, after all, this argument is merely hypothetical, and would be sufficient to answer the objections which might be made, if it could be proved, that some inspired writings had perished; but, in fact, there is no proof that any such ever existed. It is, therefore, highly probable, that we are in actual possession of all the books penned under the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
The last remark which I shall make in relation to the books
of the Old Testament supposed to be lost, is, that it is highly probable that we
have several of
There is reason to believe, that until the Canon of the Old Testament was closed, the succession of prophets was never interrupted. Whatever was necessary to be added, by way of explanation, to any book already received into the Canon, they were competent to annex; or, whatever annals or histories, it was the purpose of God to have transmitted to posterity, they would be directed and inspired to prepare. Thus, different parts of these books might have been penned by Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah, &c.
That some parts of these histories were prepared by prophets,
we have clear proof, in one instance; for, Isaiah has inserted in his prophecy several
chapters, which are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think, there can be no doubt,
were originally written by himself. See
The Jewish doctors are of opinion, that the book of Jasher, is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the whole law.
The book of the Wars of the Lord has by many been supposed to be no other than the book of Numbers.
Thus,
I think, it sufficiently appears, from an examination of particulars, that there
exists no evidence, that any canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost.
To which we may add, that there are many general considerations of great weight,
which go
The first is, that God by his providence would preserve from destruction books given by inspiration, and intended for the perpetual instruction of his church. It is reasonable to think, that he would not suffer his gracious purpose to be frustrated; and this argument, a priori, is greatly strengthened by the fact, that a remarkable providential care has been exercised in the preservation of the Sacred Scriptures. It is truly wonderful, that so many books should have been preserved unmutilated, through hundreds and thousands of years; and during vicissitudes so great; and especially when powerful tyrants were so desirous of annihilating the religion of the Jews, and used their utmost exertions to destroy their sacred books.
Another consideration of great weight is, the religious, and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews, as far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scriptures, have watched over their preservation. There can, I think, be little doubt, that they exercised the same vigilance during that period of their history of which we have no monuments.
The translation of these books into Greek, is sufficient to show, that the same books existed nearly three hundred years before the advent of Christ.
And above all, the unqualified testimony to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, by Christ and his apostles, ought to satisfy us, that we have lost none of the inspired books of the Canon.
The Scriptures are constantly referred to, and quoted as infallible authority,
by them, as we have before
HOWEVER the Jews may seem to agree with us, in regard to the Canon of the Old Testament, this concord relates only to the written law; for they obstinately persist in maintaining, that besides the law which was engraven on tables of stone, and the other precepts, and ordinances, which were communicated to Moses, and were ordered to be written, God gave unto him another Law, explanatory of the first, which he was commanded not to commit to writing, but to deliver down by oral tradition.
The account which the Jewish doctors give of the first communication and subsequent delivery of this law, is found in the Talmud. It is there stated, that during the whole day, while Moses continued on the mount, he was learning the written law, but at night he was occupied in receiving the oral law.
When Moses descended from the mount, they say,
that he first called Aaron into his tent, and communicated to him all that he had
learned of this oral law; then he placed him on his right hand. Next he called in Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of Aaron, and repeated the whole to them; on which
they also took their seats, the one on his right hand, the other on his left. After
this the seventy elders entered, and received the same instruction as Aaron and
his sons.
The Jewish account of its transmission to posterity is no less particular. They pretend that Moses, when forty years had elapsed from the time of the Israelites leaving Egypt, called all the people, and telling them that his end drew near, requested that if any of them had forgotten aught of what he had delivered to them, they should repair to him, and he would repeat to them anew what they might have forgotten. And they tell us, that from the first day of the eleventh month, to the sixth day of the twelfth, he was occupied in nothing else than repeating and explaining the law to the people.
But, in a special manner, he
committed this law to Joshua, by whom it was communicated, shortly before his death,
to Phineas, the son of Eliezer; by Phineas, to Eli; by Eli, to Samuel; by Samuel,
to David and Ahijah; by Ahijah, to Elijah; by Elijah, to Elisha; by Elisha, to Jehoiada;
by Jehoiada, to Zechariah; by Zechariah to Hosea; by Hosea, to Amos; by Amos, to
Isaiah; by Isaiah, to Micah; by Micah, to Joel; by Joel, to Nahum; by Nahum, to
Habakkuk; by Habakkuk, to Zephaniah; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah; by Jeremiah, to
Baruch; by Baruch, to Ezra, the president
But, although, the above list brings down an unbroken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy, yet to render the tradition still more certain, the Jewish doctors inform us, that this oral law was also committed, in a special manner, to the high priests, and handed down, through their line, until it was committed to writing.
Judah Hakkadosh was the president of the Academy at
Tiberias, and was held in great reputation for his sanctity, from which circumstance
he received his surname, Hakkadosh the Holy. The temple being now desolate, and
the nation scattered abroad, it was feared lest the traditionary law might be lost;
therefore it was resolved to preserve it by committing it to writing. Judah the
Holy, who lived about the middle of the second century, undertook this work, and
digested all the traditions he could collect in six books, each consisting of several
tracts. The whole number is sixty-three. But these tracts are again subdivided
Maimonides has given an excellent digest of all the laws and institutions enjoined in this great work.
The Jews place
fully as much faith in the Talmud as they do in the Bible. Indeed, it is held in
much greater esteem, and the reading of it is much more encouraged. It is a saying
of one of their most esteemed Rabbies, “That the oral law is the foundation of
the written; nor can the written law be expounded,
Without the oral law, they assert, that the
written law remains in perfect darkness; for, say they, “There are many things
in Scripture, which are contradictory, and which can in no way be reconciled, but
by the oral law, which Moses received on Mount Sinai.” In conformity with these
sentiments, is the conduct of the Jews until this day. Their learned men spend almost
Here, then, let it be observed, that we have no controversy with the Jews concerning the written law, Moral, Ceremonial, or Political; nor do we deny that Moses received from God, on Mount Sinai, some explication of the written law. But what we maintain is, that this exposition did not form a second distinct law; that it was not the same as the oral law of the Jews, contained in the Talmud; that it was not received by Moses in a distinct form from the written law, and attended with a prohibition to commit it to writing.
In support of these positions, we solicit the attention of the impartial reader to the following arguments:
1. There is not the slightest mention of any such law in
all the sacred records; neither of its original communication to Moses, nor of its
transmission to posterity, in the way pretended by the Jews. Now, we ask, is it
probable, that if such a law had been given, there should never have been any hint
of the matter, nor the least reference to it, in the whole Bible? Certainly, this
total silence of Scripture is
2. Again, we know that in the time of king Josiah,
the written law, which had been lost, was found again. How great was the consternation
of the pious king and his court, on this occasion! How memorable the history of
this fact! But what became of the oral law during this period? Is it reasonable
to think, that this would remain uninjured through successive ages of idolatry,
when the written law was so entirely forgotten? If they had lost the knowledge of
what was in their written law, would they be likely to retain that which was oral?
If the written law was lost, would the traditionary law be preserved? And if this
was at any time lost, how could it be recovered? Not from the written law, for this
does not contain it; not from the memory of man, for the supposition is, that it
was thence obliterated. If, then, this law, by any chance, was once lost, it is
manifest that it could never
But who retained
the oral law safely preserved in his memory during the long reign of Manasseh, and
during the reign of Amon, and of Josiah? Where was that law, during the seventy
years captivity in Babylon? Have we not a word to inform us of the fate of this
law in all the histories of those times? What! is there not a hint concerning
the preservation of a deposit so precious as this law is pretended to be? We
must say again, that this continued silence of
3. The Jews again inform us, that this law was prohibited to be written; but whence do they derive the proof of the assertion? Let the evidence, if there be any, be produced. Must we have recourse to the oral law itself, for testimony? Be it so. But why then is it now written, and has been, for more than fifteen hundred years? In the Talmud, it is said, “The words of the written law, it is not lawful for you to commit to oral tradition; nor the words of the oral law to writing.” And Sol. Jarchi says, “Neither is it lawful to write the oral law.” Now we say, there was a law containing such a prohibition, or there was not. If the former, then the Talmudists have transgressed a positive precept of this law, in committing it to writing; if the latter, then their Talmud and their rabbies speak falsely. Let them choose in this dilemma.
4. But it can be proved,
that whatever laws Moses received from God, the same he was commanded to write.
It is said, “And Moses came and told the people all the words of the Lord. And
Moses wrote all the words of the Lord.”
And again, it is said, “And the Lord said to Moses, Write
these words, for according to these words have I made a covenant with you and
with Israel.”
Here, observe, there is no mention of any other but the written law. There is no direction to repeat the oral law, at this time of leisure; but surely it was more necessary to command the people to do this, if there had been such a law, than to hear the written law which they might read from time to time.
In the time of Ahaz, the sacred historian informs us, “‘That
the Lord testified against Israel, and against Judah, by all the prophets, and
by all the seers, saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep my commandments
and statutes, according to all the law which I commanded your fathers, and which
I sent unto you by my servants the prophets.”
Now, it is very manifest that the law which they are reproved for breaking, was the written law; for in the same chapter we have the following exhortation: “And the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law, and the commandments which he wrote for you, ye shall observe to do for evermore.”
The prophets continually refer the people “to the law and to the testimony,” and declare, “if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”
When Jehoshaphat set about reforming and instructing the
people, and set on foot an important mission, consisting of princes and Levites,
to teach them, they confined themselves to what was written in the Scriptures,
“And they taught in Judah, and had the book of the law of the Lord with them,
and went about through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people.”
So also Ezra, when he instructed the people who had returned
from Babylon, made use of no other than the written law; “And Ezra the priest
brought the law before the congregation, both of men and women, and all that
could hear with understanding. And he read therein before the street, that was
before the water-gate, from the morning until mid-day, before the men and the
women, and those that could understand: and the ears of all the people were
attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra stood upon a pulpit of wood, which
they had made for the purpose; and Ezra opened the book in sight of all the
people, and when he opened it, all the people stood up. And the priests and the
Levites caused the people to understand the law; and they read in the book, in
the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused the people to
understand the reading.”
5. Besides, the written law is pronounced to be perfect, so
that nothing need, or could be added to it; therefore the oral law was
superfluous. “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.”
It is not a valid objection which they bring against this argument, that Christians add the gospel to the law; for this is not, properly speaking, a new law. The gospel is a promise of grace and salvation. The precepts of the law are, indeed, specially employed in the gospel, to a purpose for which they were not originally intended; but the gospel, in whatever light it may be viewed, is committed to writing, and no part of it left to depend on oral tradition.
6. In the numerous exhortations and injunctions of Almighty
God, recorded in the Old Testament, there is not an instance of any one being
commanded to do anything not contained in the written law, which proves, that
either there was no other law in existence, or that obedience to it was not
required; and if obedience was not required, then, certainly, there was no law.
Moreover, many of the Jews themselves concur
with us in rejecting the oral law. The chief advocates of traditions were the Pharisees,
who arose out of the schools of Hillel and Shammai, who lived after the times of
the Maccabees. On this subject, we have the testimony of Jerome, who says, “Shammai
and Hillel, from whom arose the Scribes and Pharisees, not long before the birth
of Christ; the first of whom was called the Dissipator, and the last, Profane; because,
It now remains to mention the arguments by which the
Jews attempt to establish their oral law. These shall be taken from
Manasseh ben Israel,
“Another example is taken from
“Again, in
In these, and many other instances, the learned Jew observes, that the law could only be understood by such oral tradition as he supposes accompanied the written law.
Now, in answer to these things, we observe first, in the general, that however many difficulties may be started respecting the precise meaning of many parts of the law, these can never prove the existence of an oral law. The decision on these points might have been left to the discretion of the worshippers, or to the common sense of the people. Besides, many things may appear obscure to us, which were not so to the ancient Israelites; so that they might have needed no oral law to explain them.
Again, it is one thing to expound a law, and another to add something to it; but the oral law for which they plead, is not a mere exposition, but an additional law.
It is one thing to avail ourselves of traditions to interpret the law, and another to receive them as divine and absolutely necessary. We do not deny that many things may be performed according to ancient custom, or the traditions of preceding ages, in things indifferent; but we do deny that these can be considered as divine or necessary.
But particularly, we answer, that the alleged difficulty
about the name of the month has no existence, for it can be very well ascertained
from the circumstances of the case; and in
And in regard to the unclean birds, why was it necessary to have criteria to distinguish them, since a catalogue of them is given in the very passage to which reference is made? And I would ask, does the pretended oral law contain any such criteria, to direct in this case? Nothing less. The difficulty about the people leaving their place on the Sabbath, and the priests leaving the temple, is really too trifling to require any serious consideration. And as to what should be done when the day of circumcising a child, or of killing the passover, happened on the Sabbath, it is a point easily decided. These positive institutions ought to have been observed, on whatever day they occurred.
The question respecting matrimony should rather provoke a smile, than a serious answer; for who is ignorant what constitutes a lawful marriage? Or who would suppose that the ceremonies attendant on this transaction ought to be prescribed by the law of God; or, that another law was requisite for the purpose? As well might our learned Jew insist on the necessity of an oral law, to teach us how we should eat, drink, and perform our daily work.
If the law prescribed beautiful branches of trees to be used in the Feast of Tabernacles, what need was there of an oral law to teach anything more? If such branches were used, it was of course indifferent whether they were of this or that species.
Equally futile are the other arguments of the author, and need not be answered in detail.
It appears, therefore, that there is no evidence that God ever gave any law to Moses, distinct from that which is written in the Pentateuch. And there is good reason to believe, that the various laws found in the Mishna, were never received from God, nor derived by tradition from Moses; but were traditions of the fathers, such as were in use in the time of our Saviour, who severely reprehends the Scribes and Pharisees, for setting aside, and rendering of no effect, the word of God, by their unauthorized traditions.
The internal evidence is itself sufficient to convince us that the laws of the Talmud are human inventions, and not divine institutions; except that those circumstances of divine worship which were left to the discretion of the people, and which were regulated by custom, may be often found preserved in this immense work.
AFTER what has been said, in the former part of this work, respecting the importance of settling the Canon on correct principles, it will be unnecessary to add anything here on that subject, except to say, that this inquiry cannot be less interesting in regard to the Old Testament than to the New. It is a subject which calls for our utmost diligence and impartiality. It is one which we cannot neglect with a good conscience; for the inquiry is nothing less than to ascertain what revelation God has made to us, and where it is to be found.
As to the proper method of settling the Canon of the New
Testament, the same course must be pursued as has been done in respect to the
Old. We must have recourse to authentic history, and endeavour to ascertain what
books were received as genuine by the primitive church and early Fathers. The
contemporaries, and immediate successors of the apostles, are the most competent
witnesses in this case. If, among these, there is found to have been a general
agreement, as to what books were canonical, it will go far to satisfy us
respecting the true Canon; for it cannot be supposed, that they could easily be
deceived in a
The high claims of the Romish
church, in regard to the authority of fixing the Canon, have already been disproved,
as it relates to the books of the Old Testament; and the same arguments apply with
their full force to the Canon of the New Testament, and need not be repeated. It
may not be amiss, however, to hear from distinguished writers of that communion,
what their real opinion is on this subject. Heuman
asserts, “That the sacred Scriptures, without the authority of the church, have
no more authority than Æsop’s Fables.”
And Baillie, “That he would give no more credit to Matthew than to Livy, unless
the church obliged him.” To the same purpose speak Pighius, Eckius, Bellarmine,
and many others of their most distinguished writers. By the authority of the
church, they understand a power lodged in the church of Rome, to determine what
books shall be
In avoiding this extreme, some Protestants
have verged towards the opposite, and have asserted, that the only, or principal
evidence of the canonical authority of the sacred Scriptures is, their internal
evidence. Even some churches went so far as to insert this opinion in their public
confessions.
Now it ought not to be doubted, that the internal evidence of the
Scriptures is exceedingly strong; and that when the mind of the reader is truly
illuminated, it derives from this source the most unwavering conviction of their
truth and divine authority; but that every sincere Christian should be able, in
all cases, by this internal light, to distinguish between canonical books and such
as are not, is surely no very safe or reasonable opinion. Suppose that a thousand
books of various kinds, including the canonical, were placed before any sincere
Christian, would he be able, without mistake, to select from this mass the twenty-seven
books of which the New Testament is composed, if he had nothing to guide him but
the internal evidence? Would every such person be able at once to determine, whether
the book of Ecclesiastes, or of Ecclesiasticus, belonged to the
Canon of the Old Testament, by internal evidence alone? It is certain, that the
influence of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a true faith in the word of
God; but to make this the only criterion by which to judge of the canonical
authority of a book is certainly liable to strong objections. The tendency of
this doctrine is to enthusiasm, and the consequence of acting upon it, would be
to unsettle,
And if the internal
evidence were the only criterion of canonical authority to which we could resort,
there would remain no possibility of convincing any person of the inspiration of
a book, unless he could perceive in it the internal evidence of a divine origin.
In many cases this species of evidence can scarcely be said to exist, as when for
wise purposes God directs or inspires a prophet to record genealogical tables; or
even in the narration of common events, I do not see how it can be determined from
internal evidence, that the history is written by inspiration; for the only circumstance
in which an inspired narrative differs from a faithful human history, is that the
one is infallible, and the other is not; but the existence of this infallibility,
or the absence of it, is not apparent from reading the books. Both accounts may
appear consistent, and it is only, or chiefly, by external evidence that we can
know that one of them is inspired. Who could undertake to say, that from internal
evidence alone, he could determine that the book of Esther, or the Chronicles, were
written by inspiration? Besides,
The evidence arising from a general view of the Scriptures, collectively, is most convincing, but is not so well adapted to determine whether some one book, considered separately, was certainly written by divine inspiration.
It is necessary, therefore, to proceed to our destined point in a more circuitous way. We must be at the pains to examine into the history of the Canon, and, as was before said, to ascertain what books were esteemed canonical by all those who had the best opportunity of judging of this matter; and when the internal evidence is found corroborating the external, the two, combined, may produce a degree of conviction which leaves no room to desire any stronger evidence.
The question to be decided is a matter of fact. It is an inquiry respecting the real authors of the books of the New Testament, whether they were written by the persons whose names they bear, or by others under their names. The inspiration of these books, though closely allied to this subject, is not now the object of inquiry. The proper method of determining a matter of fact, evidently is to have recourse to those persons who were witnesses of it, or who received their information from others who were witnesses. It is only in this way that we know that Iomer, Horace, Virgil, Livy, and Tully, wrote the books which now go under their names.
The early Christians pursued this method of
determining what books were canonical. They searched
The question is often asked, When was the Canon of the New Testament constituted, and by what authority? Many persons who write and speak on this subject, appear to entertain a wrong impression in regard to it; as if the books of the New Testament could not be of authority, until they were sanctioned by some Ecclesiastical Council, or by some publicly expressed opinion of the Fathers of the church; and as if any portion of their authority depended on their being collected into one volume. But the truth is, that every one of these books was of authority, as far as known, from the moment of its publication; and its right to a place in the Canon, is not derived from the sanction of any church or council, but from the fact, that it was written by inspiration. And the appeal to testimony is not to prove that any council of bishops, or others, gave sanction to the book, but to show that it is indeed the genuine work of Matthew, or John, or Peter, or Paul, who we know were inspired.
The books of the New Testament were, therefore, of full authority, before they were
collected into one volume; and it would have made no difference if they had never
been included in one volume, but had retained that separate form in which they were
first published. And it is by no means certain, that these
The idea entertained by some,
especially by Dodwell, that these books lay for a long time locked up in the coffers
of the churches to which they were addressed, and totally unknown to the world,
is in itself most improbable, and is repugnant to all the testimony which exists
on the subject. Even as early as the time when Peter wrote his second Epistle, the
writings of Paul were in the hands of the churches, and were classed with the other
Scriptures.
If it be inquired, what became
of the autographs of these sacred books, and why they were not preserved; since
this would have prevented all uncertainty respecting the true reading, and would
have relieved the Biblical critic from a large share of labour; it is sufficient
to answer, that nothing different has occurred, in relation to these autographs,
from that which has happened to all other ancient writings. No man can produce the
autograph of any book as old as the New Testament, unless it has been preserved
in some extraordinary way, as in the case of the manuscripts of Herculaneum; neither
could it be supposed, that in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and persecutions,
as the Christian church endured, this object could have been secured by anything
short of a miracle. And God knew, that by a superintending providence over the sacred
Scriptures, they could be transmitted with sufficient accuracy, by means of apographs,
to the most distant generations. Indeed, there is reason to believe, that the Christians
of early times were so absorbed and impressed with the glory of the truths revealed,
that they gave themselves little concern about the mere vehicle by which they were
communicated. They had matters of such deep interest, and so novel, before their
eyes, that they had neither time, nor inclination, for the minutiae of criticism.
It may be, therefore, that they did not set so high a value on the possession of
the autograph of an inspired book as we should, but considered a copy,
But, although little
is said about the originals of the apostles’ writings, we have a testimony in Tertullian,
that the Authentic Letters of the apostles might be seen by any that
would take the pains to go to the churches to which they were addressed. Some,
indeed, think that Tertullian does not mean to refer to the autographs, but to
authentic copies; but why then send the inquirer to the churches to which the
Epistles were addressed? Had not other churches, all over the world, authentic
copies of these Epistles also? There seems to be good reason, therefore, for
believing, that the autographs, or original letters of the apostles, were
preserved by the churches to which they were addressed, in the time of
Tertullian.
But although the autographs of the books of the New Testament are not extant, we have beautiful copies of the whole penned as early as the fourth or fifth century, and some think that our oldest manuscripts of the New Testament have a still earlier origin; and we have versions which were made at a period still earlier, so that we have lost nothing by the disappearance of the autographs of the New Testament.
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,
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
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.
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
“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.
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.
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
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;
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.
10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing
from the Canon now received.
11. Augustine, in his work on “Christian Doctrine,” has inserted the names of the books of the
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
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,
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.”
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.
The same account is given by Cyprian,
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
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
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,
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
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
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.”
ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—TIME OF THE GOSPELS BEING WRITTEN—NOTICE OF THE EVANGELISTS.
THE order of the books of the New Testament is not uniform, in the manuscripts now extant, nor as they are mentioned by the Fathers. Eusebius arranges them thus: the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John, and the Revelation of John. “These,” says he, “were received (except the last mentioned) by all Christians.” Then, he mentions those which were not unanimously received; as, the Epistle of James, the Epistle of Jude, the Second of Peter, and the Second and Third of John.
Irenæus, who lived long before Eusebius, has not given a regular catalogue of the books of the New Testament, but he seems to have followed the same order.
But Athanasius, in his Festal Epistle, has given the following order: The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles, the Fourteen Epistles of Paul, and the Revelation. The ancient and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript follows the same order; as also does Cyril of Jerusalem, but he does not mention Revelation.
The arrangement, in the catalogue of the Council of Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of Cyril; the book of Revelation being left out. John Damascene, and Leontius, follow the same order.
The order of the Syrian catalogues as given by Ebedjesu, is—The Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Three Catholic Epistles, (their Canon at first contained no more,) and the Fourteen Epistles of Paul.
Rufin’s order is—The Gospels, the Acts, Paul’s Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation. The Council of Carthage has the same. Gregory Nazianzen the same; only the Revelation is omitted. Amphilochius the same, and the book of Revelation, mentioned as doubtful. Nicephorus of Constantinople, the same, and Revelation omitted.
This, therefore, appears to have been the order in which the books of the New Testament succeeded each other in most ancient copies; and is the one now in general use.
But Epiphanius has an order different from any of these, as follows—The Four Gospels, Paul’s Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation. Jerome follows the same order; and also Euthalius.
Augustine varies in his arrangement of the sacred books. In one place, he puts the Acts last, except Revelation; and in another, he places it after Revelation. He also varies in his arrangement of the Epistles of Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles.
The order of Innocent the First, bishop of Rome, is: The Four Gospels, Paul’s Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, the Acts, and Revelation.
Isidore of Seville has, in his writings, given several catalogues, in all of which he pursues the order last mentioned. The same writer informs us, that the books of the New Testament were usually included in two divisions, or volumes; the first containing the Gospels; the second, the Acts and the Epistles; the book of Revelation being omitted.
Chrysostom follows an order which appears to be peculiar: he places first, the Fourteen Epistles of Paul; next, the Four Gospels; then, the Acts; and in the last place, the Catholic Epistles. Gelasius places Revelation before the Catholic Epistles. The Apostolical Canon, as it is called, contains the following catalogue: The Four Gospels, Fourteen Epistles of Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epistles of Clement, the Constitutions, and the Acts. If this were, indeed, the genuine Canon of the apostles, as the title imports, it would be decisive, and all other authorities would be superfluous; but it is acknowledged by all good critics, that it is spurious, and of no authority in settling the early Canon.
The order of the Four Gospels has generally been, as in our copies, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Irenæus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, the Council of Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, the Syrian Catalogues, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, the Alexandrian Manuscript with most others, agree in this order.
But that this order was not uniform, appears from Tertullian, who arranges them thus—Matthew, John, Luke, Mark. And the same order of the Gospels is followed, in the very ancient Manuscript, commonly called, Codex Cantabrigiensis.
There is very little variation observed in the arrangement of Paul’s Epistles. They are generally found in the same order as we have them in our copies; but this is not universally the case: for in some copies, the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the fourteenth place among Paul’s Epistles, and in others the tenth. But in all copies, the Epistle to the Romans stands first, though not first in the order of time.
With respect to the time when the gospels were written,
no precise information can be obtained, as ancient authors differ considerably on
the subject. It seems to be agreed, however, that they were not published immediately
after the ascension of Christ: nor all at the same time. The best thing which we
can do is to place before the reader the principal testimonies of the Fathers, and
leave him to judge for himself.
The earliest writer who says anything explicitly
on this subject is Irenæus; but he does not inform us what time intervened between
the resurrection of Christ, and the writing of these gospels. His words are; “For
we have not received the knowledge of the way of salvation, from any others than
those by whom the gospel has been brought to us, which gospel they first preached,
and afterwards, by the will of God, committed to writing, that for time to come
it might be the foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor, may any say that they preached
before they had a competent knowledge of the gospel; for after that our Lord
Now let it be considered, that Irenæus was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle John, and this testimony will have great weight in confirming the fact, that the gospels were written by the apostles, some time after they began to preach; and that, wherever the apostles went, they preached the same gospel to the people.
Eusebius, to whom we are obliged so
often to have recourse as a witness of ancient ecclesiastical facts, does not
fail us here; “Those admirable and truly divine men,” says he, “the apostles of
Christ, did not attempt to deliver the doctrine of their master, with the
artifice and eloquence of words. . . . Nor were they concerned about writing
books, being engaged in a’ more excellent ministry, which is above all human
power. Insomuch that Paul, the most able of all, in the furniture of words and
ideas, has left nothing in writing but a few Epistles. Nor were the rest of our
Saviour’s followers unacquainted with these things, as the seventy disciples,
and many others besides the twelve apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples
of our Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any Memoirs; who, also, as we
have been informed, were impelled to write, by a kind of necessity.”
Theodore of Mopsuesta, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century, has left us the following testimony; “After the Lord’s ascension to heaven, the disciples stayed a good while at Jerusalem, visiting the cities in the vicinity, and preaching chiefly to the Jews: and the great Paul was appointed, openly to preach the gospel to the Gentiles.” “In process of divine Providence, they, not being allowed to confine themselves to any one part of the earth, were conducted to remote countries. Peter went to Rome; the others elsewhere. John took up his abode at Ephesus, visiting, however, other parts of Asia. . . . . About this time, the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke, published their gospels, which were soon spread over the world, and were received by all the faithful with great regard. . . . . . . Numerous Christians in Asia having brought these gospels to John, earnestly entreated him to write a further account of such things as were needful to be known, and had been omitted by the rest; with which request he complied.”
By divers Christian writers of antiquity, it has been asserted, that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, at the earnest request of the brethren at Rome, wrote a short gospel, according to what he had heard related by Peter. This testimony, among others, is given by Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men.
It is probable that Peter did not visit Rome
before the reign of Nero; perhaps not until Paul had returned a second time to that
city, which must have been as late as the year A. D. 63 or 64. Now, as
The Jewish war, according to Josephus, began in the year of our Lord 66, and ended in September of the year 70; when the city and temple were brought to desolation. Now, there is strong probable evidence, that the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were finished before this war commenced; that is, before the year of our Lord sixty-six. Each of them contains the predictions of our Lord respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, and there is no hint in any of them, that the remarkable events connected with this overthrow had begun to make their appearance. But there are some expressions in these gospels, which probably indicate, that the writers thought that these wonderful events were at hand; such as the following admonition, “Let him that readeth understand.”
It is certain that the Acts of the Apostles could not have been finished before A. D. 62 or 63, because the history which it contains comes down to that time. The gospel by Luke was probably written a short time before. At least, this seems to be the common opinion of learned men. Jerome supposes that he composed his gospel at Rome. Grotius thinks, that when Paul left Rome Luke went into Greece, and there wrote his gospel and the Acts.
From the
introduction to Luke’s gospel, it would seem that he knew nothing of any authentic
written
There is an almost total obscurity resting on the history of this apostle and evangelist. The scene of his labours, after he left Judea, seems to have been in regions of which we possess very little accurate information to this day. But whether he had Parthia and Persia, or Ethiopia, for the field of his apostolical labours, the ancients are not agreed. It is by no means impossible that he should have preached the gospel, and planted churches, in each of these countries. The historian Socrates, in his distribution of the apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns Ethiopia to Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India to Bartholomew.
The testimony of Eusebius is as follows:
“This
then was the state of the Jews, but the apostles and disciples of our Lord, being
dispersed abroad, preached in the whole world, Thomas in Parthia; Andrew in Scythia,
John in Asia, who having lived there a long time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached
to the dispersed Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at length,
coming to Rome, he was there crucified, with his head turned down towards the earth,
at his own request. Paul also died a martyr at Rome, as we are informed by Origen,
in the third tome of his work on Genesis.” But Eusebius makes no mention of the
apostle Matthew; nor does Jerome, in his account of
Illustrious Men.
Clement of Alexandria mentions a
circumstance of
Chrysostom, in one of his Homilies, gives the character of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts.
It is probable, therefore, that very little was known in the west, respecting the lives, labours and death, of those apostles who travelled far to the east. None of them, it is probable, ever returned; and there existed no regular channels for the communication of intelligence from those distant regions. The honour of martyrdom has been given to them all, and the thing is not improbable; but there are no authentic records, from which we can derive any certain information on this subject. The Fathers, whose writings have come down to us, seem to have been as much in the dark as we are, respecting the preaching and death of the majority of the apostles. There are, it is true, traditions in Ethiopia and the east, in regard to some of them, but they are too uncertain to deserve any serious consideration.
TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW’S GOSPEL—TIME OF PUBLICATION—LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPOSED.
BUT while we know so little of the apostolical labours of the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that the testimonies respecting the genuineness of his gospel are so early and full. To these we will now direct our attention.
Barnabas, the companion of Paul, is said
by the ancient ecclesiastical writers, to have left an Epistle of some length. This
is mentioned by Origen, Jerome and Eusebius, and is frequently quoted by Clement
of Alexandria. An Epistle under his name is still extant, but whether written by
this apostolic man is very much disputed. Whoever was the author, it seems to have
been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by a zealous Christian.
In this Epistle, there are many sentences found in the gospel of Matthew, but no
reference to any book of the New Testament. In some of them, however, there are
evident signs that these passages which are found in the gospel were quotations.
One of these is in
As the Christians who lived at the beginning of
the
The circumstance above mentioned furnishes a satisfactory reason for the fact, that in the writings of the apostolical Fathers, there is so seldom any reference to the books of the New Testament. These men received their knowledge of Christianity before any of the books of the New Testament were written; and although they existed when they wrote, they would not be so likely to refer to them as if they had derived their knowledge from them.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who was
acquainted with the Apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew’s gospel; and
asserts,’ That he wrote the divine oracles in Hebrew.”
Justin Martyrr, who lived in the middle
of the second century, has in many places cited the very words of the gospel of
Matthew, but without mentioning his name. One instance will be sufficient: “And
it is written in the gospel, that he said, All things are delivered to me of my
Father, and no man knoweth the Son but the Father: neither the Father, save the
Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal
Irenæus, bishop of Lyons, who was born
in Asia, and was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John,
gives the following testimony: “We have not received the knowledge of the way of
our salvation by any others, than those through whom the gospel has come down to
us; which gospel they first preached, and afterwards, by the will of God,
transmitted to us in writing, that it might be the foundation and pillar of our
faith.”—“For after our Lord had risen
from the dead, and they were clothed with the power of the Holy Spirit
descending upon them from on high, were filled with all gifts, and possessed
perfect knowledge, they went forth to the ends of the earth, spreading the glad
tidings of those blessings which God has conferred on us, and announcing peace
from heaven to men; having all, and every one alike, the gospel of God. Matthew
among the Hebrews published a gospel in their own language; while Peter and Paul
were preaching the gospel at Rome and founding a church there. And after their
departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself delivered to us
in writing what Peter preached; and Luke, the companion of Paul, recorded the
gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who leaned
upon his breast, likewise published a gospel, while he dwelt at Ephesus, in
Asia. And all these have taught us, that there is one God, the maker of heaven
and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christt, the
Son of God.”
In another place Irenæus characterizes all the four
In another place he says, “The gospel of Matthew was delivered to the Jews.”
This early testimony from a learned man living so near the times of the apostles is invaluable, and must be satisfactory to every candid mind of the genuineness of the four gospels. Other decisive testimonies might be adduced from the same author, but they are unnecessary.
Hegesippus, who also lived and flourished in the second century, was the author
of an Ecclesiastical History extending from the death of Christ to his own times,
which unhappily has not come down to us. All that remains is a few fragments preserved
by Eusebius. In one of these he cites a passage from the gospel of
Athenagoras also was a writer of the
second century. He wrote two books, one on the Resurrection, the other, an
Apology for the Christians. Of this man Philip Sidetes says, “that he was a
heathen and determined to write against Christianity, but by reading the gospels
was converted. He has citations from nearly all the books of the New Testament.
From the gospel of Matthew he quotes the following words; “Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, pray for, them that persecute you, that ye may be the
children of your Father which is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise on the
evil and the good, and sendeth rain on the just and unjust.”
Origen, who was born in the second century, and wrote and flourished in the beginning of the third, has left us the following testimony: “According to the traditions received by me, the first gospel was written by Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple of Jesus Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers, composed in the Hebrew language.” And in another place he says, ” Matthew wrote for the Hebrews.”
Eusebius, who lived about a hundred
years later than Origen, informs us, that ” Matthew, having first preached the
gospel to the Hebrews, when about to go to other people, delivered to them, in
their own language, the gospel written by himself; by that supplying the want of
his presence with them, whom he was about to leave.”
In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, “Matthew wrote his gospel in the Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem.” Cyril of Jerusalem testifies, “That Matthew wrote in Hebrew.” Epiphanius says the same, and adds, “Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower of Peter at Rome.” Gregory Nazianzen says, ” That Matthew wrote for the Hebrews.” EBEDJESU, the Syrian, “That Matthew, the first Evangelist, published his gospel in Palestine, written in Hebrew.”
Jerome, in his Commentary on Matthew, testifies that “The first Evangelist is Matthew, the publican, surnamed Levi, who wrote his gospel in Judea, in the Hebrew language, chiefly for the Jews who believed in Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the law with the truth of the gospel.”
Again, in his book of Ecclesiastical Writers, he says, “Matthew, called also Levi, of a publican made an apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language, for the sake of those in Judea who believed. By whom it was afterwards translated into Greek is uncertain.”
Chrysostom, in his introduction to this gospel, writes, “Matthew is said to have written his gospel at the request of the Jewish believers, who desired him to put down in writing what he had said to them by word of mouth; and it is said he wrote in Hebrew.”
Theophilus, bishop of Antioch, lived in the latter part of the second century, and wrote several works. Jerome in his prologue to the gospel of Matthew, says, “I have read the commentaries of Theophilus, bishop of Antioch.” In another place he says: “Theophilus, the seventh bishop of Antioch after Peter, who collected into one the words of the four gospels.”
It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimonies from later writers; but as they mention some circumstances probably received by tradition, and not contained in the earlier testimonies, I will subjoin a few of them.
Cosmas, who lived in the sixth century, reports, that “Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A persecution having arisen after the stoning of Stephen, and he having resolved to go from that place, the believers entreated him to leave with them a written instruction; with which request he complied.”
Another author of this century, who wrote a discourse
on Matthew, has left this testimony: “The occasion of Matthew’s writing is said
to have been this—there being a great persecution in Palestine, so that there was
danger lest the faithful should be dispersed;
In the Paschal Chronicle, written in the seventh century, it is intimated, that Matthew published his gospel about fifteen years after our Lord’s ascension.
Euthymius, in the beginning of the twelfth century, says, “That this gospel was first written in the Hebrew language for the Jewish believers, eight years after our Lord’s ascension.”
From these testimonies, it appears, that the Fathers had no certain knowledge of the exact time when Matthew wrote his gospel. Irenæus refers it to the period when Paul and Peter were preaching at Rome, but he speaks vaguely on the subject.
The writers who mention a precise time, lived at too late a period to give testimony on this subject. But all agree, that this was the first gospel written.
Among the moderns, there is much diversity of opinion, as might be expected,
where there is little else than conjecture to guide them. Lardner and
Basnage supposed
that this gospel was not written before A. D. 64. Cave thought that it was written
fifteen years after the ascension of Christ. Jeremiah Jones is in favour of that
opinion which places it eight years after the ascension. Grotius and
G. J. Vossius
are of the same opinion. So also is Wetstein. But
Tillemont carries it up to the
third year after the crucifixion of our Saviour.
As it is agreed that it was written before Matthew left Judea to preach the gospel in foreign parts, and as this event seems to have occurred after the persecution which was raised at Judea against the church, it seems probable, that they are nearest the truth, who place it about eight years after the ascension of Christ; which date unites more writers in its support than any other.
Not only the date, but the original language of this gospel has been made a subject of controversy. By the testimonies already cited, it seems that there was but one opinion among the ancients in regard to this matter. With one voice they inform us, that it was written in Hebrew; or in the vernacular tongue of the Jews, which in the Scriptures, and by the Christian Fathers, is called Hebrew. This language is now called Syro-Chaldaic, or Western Aramean, but it consisted chiefly of words derived from Hebrew origin, and was, in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a large mixture of foreign words, and by various changes in the prefixes and affixes of the words. This was the language in which Jesus Christ spoke and delivered all his discourses; and which the apostles were accustomed to speak from their childhood.
Although the Greek language was understood by all the learned
in Judea at this time, and by many of the people, yet it was not the vernacular
language of the Jews dwelling in Palestine. In a book composed for the immediate
use of the churches in Judea, it was necessary that it should be in that
language which they
There is, however, one difficulty attending this opinion, which is, that it supposes that the original of this gospel is lost, and we have now nothing but a translation, which opinion would lessen its canonical authority.
It must be confessed, that this is a consequence of a serious kind, and one which ought not to be received respecting any canonical book without necessity. But does this conclusion necessarily follow from the admission, that this gospel was originally composed in the Hebrew language? Might there not have been a version immediately prepared by the writer himself, or by some other person under his superintendence? This being the first gospel that was composed, it would naturally be in great request with all Christians who knew of its existence; and as none but the Jewish Christians could understand it, as first published, it is exceedingly probable, that a request was made of the author to publish an edition of it in Greek, also, by those who did not understand the Hebrew; or, by such as were going to preach the gospel in countries where the Greek language was in common use.
It has been considered a strong
objection to the Hebrew original of this gospel, that no person, whose writings
have come down to us, has intimated that he
The only remaining objection of any weight against the ancient
opinion, is, that the gospel according to Matthew, as we now have it, has no
appearance of being a translation, but has the air and style of an original. But
if the hypothesis, suggested above be adopted, this objection also will vanish;
for according to this the Greek is an original, as well as the Hebrew, it having
been written by Matthew himself, or by some disciple under his direction. But
whether the Greek of Matthew was written by himself or not, it is certain that
it was not later than the apostolic age, and received the approbation of
apostles
The learned world have been nearly equally divided
on the question, whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Greek. In favour
of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellarmine, Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline,
Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius,
Dupin, Calmet, Michaelis, and others. In favour of the Greek origin of this gospel
the names are not less numerous, nor less respectable. Among these maybe mentioned,
Erasmus, Paræus, Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre, Basnage,
Wetstein, Rumpæus, Whitby, Edelman, Hoffman, Moldenhawer, Viser, Harles, Jones,
Jortin, Lardner, Hey, Hales, Hewlett, and others. The two opinions were supported
by a weight of argument and authority so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and
a few others, have adopted a middle course, viz. the opinion stated above, that
there were two originals; by which theory all difficulties are removed. The only
objection is the want of evidence. Horne and Townsend have adopted this opinion.
See Horne’s Introd. vol. iv. Part ii. c. ii. Sec. ii. p. 267.
GOSPEL OF MARK—ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED—ASCRIBED TO THE DICTATION OF PETER BY ALL THE FATHERS.
THE author of the second gospel, as
they stand in the Canon, was Mark; the same who is mentioned in the first Epistle
of Peter, (
Paul was offended at him because he declined
accompanying him and Barnabas on the whole tour which they made, to preach the gospel;
for, when they came to Perga, Mark departed from them, and returned to Jerusalem.
And when Paul and Barnabas were about to undertake a second journey together, the
latter insisted on taking Mark as their minister, but Paul would by no means consent
to it, because he had forsaken them on their first mission. This difference of opinion
gave rise to a sharp altercation, which terminated in the separation of these venerable
colleagues.
But Paul himself seems to have been reconciled to Mark, and to
have valued his assistance in the work of the ministry; for, in his second
Epistle to Timothy, he writes, “Take Mark and bring him with thee, for he is
profitable unto me for the ministry.”
When this gospel was composed, has not been particularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, which could not be much earlier than A. D. 62 or 63. It is stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren at Rome to put down in writing the substance of Peter’s preaching; and on this account, this gospel among the primitive Christians was as familiarly known by the name of the gospel of Peter as of Mark. This circumstance has led some to assert, that Mark wrote his gospel in Latin, as this was the language of Rome; but in those days almost all the Romans understood Greek. And the Jewish converts, who composed a large portion of the first churches, understood Greek much better than Latin. But there is no need to argue this point. There is no ancient author who testifies that Mark wrote in Latin. The testimony is uniform that he wrote in Greek.
Baronius is almost the only learned man who has
advocated the Latin origin of the gospel of Mark, and he has nothing to produce
in favour of this opinion from antiquity, except the subscription to the Syriac,
Augustine called Mark “the abridger of Matthew;” and it must be confessed, that he often uses the same words, and tells more concisely what the other had related more copiously; yet, there is satisfactory evidence, that Mark’s gospel is an original work. It contains many things which are not in the gospel of Matthew, and some mentioned by that Evangelist are here related with additional circumstances.
All authors do not agree that Mark wrote his gospel at Rome, but some think at Alexandria: the former opinion, however, was received with almost universal consent. See the testimony of Irenaeus before cited. To which may be added what he says in another place, that, “Mark begins with the prophetic spirit which came down from above to men, saying, the beginning of the gospel of Christ.”
Some of the testimonies of the Fathers respecting this gospel will now be given.
Eusebius
out of Papias, and a lost work of Clement of Alexandria, relates,
“That when Peter
in the reign of Claudius, had come to Rome, and had defeated Simon Magus, the people
were so inflamed with love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied
The same Eusebius relates in another part of his works, what
Papias had testified concerning Mark’s gospel, “That
Mark, who was Peter’s interpreter, exactly wrote down whatsoever he remembered,
though not in the same order of time in which the several things were said or
done by Christ; for he neither heard nor followed Christ, but was a companion of
Peter, and composed his gospel, rather with the intent of the people’s profit,
than writing a regular history; so that he is in no fault, if he wrote some
things according to his memory, he designing no more than to omit nothing which
he had heard, and to relate nothing false.”
Another testimony from
Clement of Alexandria is given by Eusebius, in which it
is said, “When Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome, by the
influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts desired Mark, as having been
long a companion of Peter, and who well remembered what he preached,
Irenæus says, “That after the death of Peter and Paul who had been preaching at Rome, Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he had heard him preach.” Tertullian informs us, ” That the gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter’s, whose interpreter he was.” Origen adds, “That Mark wrote his gospel according to the dictates of Peter.” Jerome tells us, “That Mark the disciple and interpreter of Peter, wrote a short gospel from what he had heard of Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, he approved and published in our churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority.”
Besides these testimonies which are very explicit, and all go to show that Mark received his gospel from the preaching of Peter, there are some internal evidences which look the same way. There are in the other Evangelists several circumstances and facts which make very much for the credit of Peter, not one of which is hinted at in this gospel. Particular instances of this kind may be read in the third volume of “Jones’ New Method of Settling the Canon.”
Of the canonical authority of this gospel no one of the
ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt. Some of the moderns, however,
have questioned whether we have any evidence, that Mark and Luke wrote by a
plenary inspiration since they were not apostles. But that Mark’s gospel is
canonical, is established by all
Eusebius reports, “That Peter, out of the abundance of his modesty, did not think himself worthy to write a gospel; but Mark, who was his friend and disciple, is said to have recorded Peter’s relations, and the acts of Jesus.” And again, “Peter testifies these things of himself, for all things recorded by Mark are said to be memoirs of Peter’s discourses.”
In the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius it is said, “That the gospel according to Mark was dictated by Peter at Rome, and published by Mark, and preached by him in Alexandria, Pentapolis and Libya.”
The testimony of Epiphanius is, “That Matthew wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome; that Mark was one of the seventy disciples, and likewise one of those who were offended at the words of Christ, recorded in the sixth chapter of the gospel of John; that he then forsook the Saviour, but was afterwards reclaimed by Peter, and being filled with the Spirit wrote a gospel.”
Gregory Nazianzen says, “That Mark
wrote his gospel for the Italians.” Chrysostom
testifies, that “Mark wrote in Egypt at the request of the believers there;” but
in another place, he says, ” It cannot be ascertained in what place each of the
Evangelists wrote.”
Victor
informs us, “That Mark was also called John, and was the son of Mary; that he wrote
a gospel after Matthew; that for a while he accompanied
Cosmas of Alexandria writes, “That Mark the second Evangelist wrote a gospel at Rome, by the dictation of Peter.” Œcumenius says, “This John who also is called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the gospel which goes by his name; and was also the disciple of Peter.”
Theophylact informs us, “That the gospel according to Mark was written at Rome, ten years after the ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request of the believers there; for this Mark was a disciple of Peter. His name was John, and he was nephew to Barnabas, the companion of Paul.”
Euthymius concurs exactly in this testimony. His words are, “The gospel of Mark was written about ten years after our Lord’s ascension, at the request of the believers at Rome, or, as some say, in Egypt; that Mark was, at first, much with his uncle Barnabas and Paul, but afterwards went with Peter to Rome, from whom he received the whole history of his gospel.” Nicephorus says, “Only two of the twelve have left memoirs of our Lord’s life, and two of the seventy, Mark and Luke.” And a little after, “Mark and Luke published their gospels, by the direction of Peter and Paul.” Eutychius, patriarch of Alexandria, has the following words: “In the time of Nero, Peter, the prince of the apostles, making use of Mark, wrote a gospel at Rome, in the Roman language.”
The reader will recollect, that this last
writer lived
GOSPEL OF LUKE—TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS RESPECTING IT.
THE third gospel is that of Luke. He is mentioned in
Scripture as the companion of Paul in his travels; and when that apostle was
sent a prisoner to Rome this evangelist accompanied him, and continued with him
during his two years’ confinement in that city, as may be gathered from Paul’s
Epistles, written during this period. Whether he was the same as “the beloved
physician,”
Irenæus asserts, “That Luke, the
companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.” Again, he
says, “Luke was not only a companion but a fellow-labourer of the apostles,
especially of Paul.” He calls him, “a disciple and fellow-labourer of the
apostles.” “The apostles,” says he, “envying none, plainly delivered to all the
things which they had heard from the Lord.” So likewise Luke, envying no man,
has delivered to us what he learned from
Eusebiuss informs us, that Clement of Alexandria bore a large testimony to this, as well as to the other gospels; and he mentions a tradition concerning the order of the gospels, which Clement had received from presbyters of more ancient times—That the gospels containing the genealogies were written first.”
Tertullian speaks of Matthew and John as disciples of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the apostles; however, he ascribes the same authority to the gospels written by them as to the others. “The gospel,” says he,’ which Mark published, may be said to be Peter’s, whose interpreter Mark was; and Luke’s digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed it is easy to take that for the Master’s which the disciples published.” Again, “Moreover, Luke was not an apostle, but an apostolic man; not a master but a disciple: certainly less than his master; certainly so much later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the apostles.”
Origen mentions the gospels in the order commonly received—“The third,” says he,
“is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published
for the sake of the Gentile converts.” In his commentary on the Epistle to the Romans,
which we now have in a Latin version only, he writes, “Some say Lucius is
Lucas, the evangelist, as indeed it is not uncommon to write names, sometimes
according to the
Eusebius has left us the following testimony concerning Luke
the evangelist—“And Luke who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for
the most part a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more than a slight acquaintance
with the other apostles, has left us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences
of the art of healing souls, which he had learned from them. One of them is the
gospel which he professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him, who from
the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of his word.” “With all whom,” he
says, “he had been perfectly acquainted from the first.” And in another place,
he says, ” Luke hath delivered, in his gospel, a certain account of such things
as he had been assured of by his intimate acquaintance and familiarity with
Paul, and his conversation with the other apostles.”
In the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, “That the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle Paul, and written and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.” Gregory Nazianzen says, “That Luke wrote for the Greeks;” and Gregory Nyssen, “That Luke was as much a physician for the soul as the body.”
The testimony of Jerome concerning
Luke is as follows: “Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician,
not unskilful in the Greek language, a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the
constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another excellent volume,
entitled, the Acts of the Apostles
The same writer in his preface to his commentary on Matthew, says, “The third evangelist is Luke the physician, a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of the apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the countries of Achaia and Bœotia.” In another place he observes, “That some said that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity.” Chrysostom, in his first homily on the gospel of Matthew, has this remark: “Luke had the fluency of Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning of their masters.”
Isidore of Seville, says, “Of the four evangelists, the first and last relate what they had heard Christ say, or had seen him perform. Matthew wrote his gospel first in Judea; then Mark in Italy; Luke, the third, in Achaia; John, the last, in Asia.” And again, “of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order, is reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek tongue. For he was a physician, and wrote his gospel in Greek.”
In Theophylact’s preface to Matthew’s
gospel, it is said, “There are four evangelists, two of whom, Matthew and John,
were of the apostles; the other
In his commentary on Luke he observes, “That it appears from Luke’s Introduction, that he was not from the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards. For others were disciples from the beginning, as Peter, and the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the things which they had seen or heard.”
Euthymius says, “Luke was a native of Antioch, and a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and, as some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as Mark. He was afterwards very intimate with Paul. He wrote his gospel, with Paul’s permission, fifteen years after our Lord’s ascension.”
Eutychius, patriarch of Constantinople, has handed down the following account: “In the time of the same emperor, (Nero) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek, to a notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name was Theophilus; to whom also he wrote the Acts, or the history of the disciples. The evangelist Luke was a companion of the apostle Paul, going with him wherever he went. For which reason the apostle Paul, in one of his epistles, says, ‘Luke the physician salutes you.’”
The same arguments by which the canonical authority
of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were established, apply with their full force
to the gospel of Luke. It was universally received as canonical by the whole primitive
church—has a place in every catalogue of the books of the New Testament, which was
ever published—is constantly referred to and cited
Marcion, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel according to Luke, which differed essentially from that in the Canon, but his authority has no weight.
THE OBJECTIONS OF J. D. MICHAELIS TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND LUKE, CONSIDERED AND ANSWERED.
J. D. MICHAELIS, in his introduction to the New Testament, as translated from the German by Bishop Marsh, in the third section of the third chapter, speaking of the gospels of Mark and Luke, and of the Acts of the Apostles, and of the grounds of placing them in the Canon, says, “I must confess that I am unable to find a satisfactory proof of their inspiration, and the more I investigate the subject, and the oftener I compare their writings with those of Matthew and John, the greater are my doubts.” He then goes on to say, that in a former edition of this work he had stated the arguments on both sides of the question, but although uncertain which he should prefer, yet he had rather inclined to the affirmative. But now he tells us, that he is strongly inclined to the negative.
The first argument for the inspiration
of these gospels, which the learned professor considers, is derived from the fact,
that Mark and Luke were companions and assistants of the apostles. This, he says,
can afford no proof of their inspiration, even if it could be shown that they were
endowed with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, of which, however, there
is
The next argument which he considers is, that the apostles themselves have recommended these gospels as canonical in their epistles. That the passages depended on for proof, do refer to these or any other written gospels, the professor denies: but even if they did, he considers the evidence unsatisfactory; for he supposes that they might have commended a book as containing genuine historical accounts, without vouching for its inspiration.
The testimony of the Fathers, that these gospels were approved by Peter and Paul respectively, and with Matthew’s gospel were shown to the apostle John, the learned professor sets aside with very little ceremony.
And, finally, he demurs, in regard to the evidence of the canonical authority of these books, derived from the testimony of the whole primitive church, by which they were undoubtedly received into the Canon; and suggests, that the apostles might have recommended them and the primitive church have accepted them, as works indispensable to a Christian on account of the importance of their contents, and that by insensible degrees they acquired the character of being inspired.
On these reasonings and objections
against the inspiration and canonical authority of several important
1. In the first place, then, I would observe, that it will be admitted that Mark and Luke were humble, pious men; also that they were intelligent, well informed men, and must have known that the committing to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended in the gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice of every disciple, but became the duty of those only who were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake the work. Now, if these two disciples had been uninspired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have argued great presumption in them, without any direction, to write gospels for the instruction of the church. The very fact of their writing, is, therefore, a strong evidence that they believed themselves to be inspired. There is then little force in the remark of the learned professor, that neither Mark nor Luke have declared in any part of their writings that they were inspired; for such a declaration was unnecessary; their conduct in undertaking to write such books, is the best evidence that they believed themselves called to this work.
And the objection to this argument, from the writings of other
apostolical men, is not valid; for none of them ever undertook to write gospels
for the use of the church. All attempts at writing other gospels
2. But the universal reception of these books by the whole primitive church as canonical, and that while some of the apostles were living, is the evidence, which to my mind is conclusive, that they were not mere human productions, but compared by divine inspiration. That they were thus universally received, I think is manifest, from the testimonies which have already been adduced. There is not in all the writings of antiquity a hint, that any Christian belonging to the church ever suspected that these gospels were inferior in authority to the others. No books in the Canon appear to have been received with more universal consent, and to have been less disputed. They are contained in every catalogue which has come down to us. They are cited as Scripture by all that mention them; and are expressly declared by the Fathers to be canonical and inspired books.
Now, let it be remembered, that this is the best evidence which
we can have that any of the books of the New Testament were written by inspiration.
I know, indeed, that Michaelis places the whole proof of inspiration on the promise
made by Christ to his apostles; but while it is admitted that this is a weighty
consideration, it does not appear to be equal in force to the testimony of the universal
church, including the apostles themselves, that these writings were penned under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not perfectly clear, that the promise
referred to was confined to the twelve. Certainly Paul, who was not of that number,
was inspired in a plenary manner, and
No doubt all the churches at that time
looked up to the apostles for guidance in all matters that related to the rule of
their faith; and a general opinion that these gospels were canonical could not have
obtained without their concurrence. The hypothesis of Michaelis, that they were
recommended as useful human productions, and by degrees came to be considered as
inspired writings is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all the testimony which
has come down to us on the subject. If this had been the fact, they would never
have been placed among the books universally acknowledged, but would have been doubted
of, or disputed by some. The difference made between inspired books, and others
in those primitive times, was as great as at any subsequent period; and the line
of distinction was not only broad, but great pains were taken to
If any doubt had existed respecting their canonical authority, would not the churches and their Elders have had recourse to this infallible authority? The general agreement of all Christians over the whole world, respecting most of the books of the New Testament, doubtless, should be attributed to the authority of the apostles. If, then, these gospels had been mere human productions they might have been read privately, but never could have found a place in the sacred Canon. The objection to these books comes entirely too late to be entitled to any weight. The opinion of a modern critic, however learned, is of small consideration when opposed to the testimony of the whole primitive church, and to the suffrage of the universal church in every age since the days of the apostles. The rule of the learned Huet already cited is sound, viz. “That all those books should be deemed canonical and inspired, which were received as such by those who lived nearest to the time when they were published.”
3. But if we should for the sake of argument concede that no books should be considered
as inspired, but such as were the productions of apostles, still these gospels would
not be excluded from the Canon. It is a fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement
among the Fathers, that Mark wrote his gospel from the mouth of Peter; that is,
he wrote down what he had
But this is not all. These gospels were shown to these
apostles and received their approbation. Thus speak the ancients as with one
voice; and if they had been silent, we might be certain from the circumstances
of the case, that these evangelists would never have ventured to take such an
important step as to write and publish the preaching of these inspired men,
without their express approbation. Now let it be considered, that a narrative
prepared by a man well acquainted with the facts related, may be entirely
correct without inspiration; but of this we cannot be sure, and therefore it is
of great importance to have a history of facts from men who were rendered
infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It should be remembered,
however, that the only advantage
4. Finally, the internal evidence is as strong in
favour of the gospels under consideration, as of any other books of the New Testament.
There is no reason to think that Mark and Luke were capable of writing with such
perfect simplicity and propriety without the aid of inspiration, or the assistance
of inspired men. If we reject these books from the Canon, we must give up the argument
derived from internal evidence for the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures altogether.
It is true the learned professor whose opinions we are opposing, has said, “The
oftener I compare their writings (Mark’s and Luke’s) with those
To harmonize the evangelists has
always been found a difficult task, but this does not prove that they contradict
each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable. Many things which, at first
sight, appear contradictory, are found, upon closer examination, to be perfectly
harmonious; and if there be some things which commentators have been unable satisfactorily
to reconcile, it is no more than what might be expected in narratives so concise,
and in which a strict regard to chronological order did not enter into the plan
of the writers. And if this objection be permitted to influence our judgment in
this case, it will operate against the inspiration of the other evangelists as well
as Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discrepancies are impartially considered,
and all the circumstances of the facts candidly and accurately weighed, there will
be found no solid ground of objection to the inspiration of any of these gospels;—certainly
nothing which can counterbalance the strong evidence arising
Compare these gospels with those which are acknowledged to have been written by uninspired men, and you will need no nice power of discrimination to see the difference; the first appear in every respect worthy of God; the last betray, in every page, the weakness of man.
I beg leave here to use the words of
an excellent writer, in a late work: “The gospel of Luke was always, from the very
moment of its publication, received as inspired as well as authentic. It was published
during the lives of John, Peter, and Paul, and was approved and sanctioned by them
as inspired; and received as such by the churches, in conformity to the Jewish Canon,
which decided on the genuineness or spuriousness of the inspired books of their
own church, by receiving him as a prophet, who was acknowledged as such by the testimony
of an established prophet. On the same grounds Luke must be considered as a true
evangelist; his gospel being dictated and approved by an apostle, of whose authority
there can be no question. There is, likewise, sufficient evidence to warrant the
conclusions of Whitby—that both Mark and Luke were of the number of the seventy,
who had a commission from Christ to preach the gospel, not to the Jews only, but
to the other nations—that the Holy Ghost fell on these among
There is something reprehensible, not to say impious,
in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which has led many eminent Biblical scholars,
especially in Germany, first to attack the authority of particular books of Scripture,
and next to call in question the inspiration of the whole volume. To what extent
this licentiousness of criticism has been carried, I need not say; for it is a matter
of notoriety, that of late the most dangerous enemies of the Bible have been found
occupying the place of its advocates; and the critical art which was intended for
the correction of the text, and the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in
a most unnatural way, been turned against the Bible; and finally, the inspiration
of all the sacred books has not only been questioned, but scornfully rejected by
Professors of Theology! And these men, while living on endowments which
pious benevolence had consecrated for the support of religion, and openly
connected with churches whose creeds contain orthodox opinions, have so far
forgotten their high responsibilities, and neglected the claims which the church
had
Even among those who profess to be orthodox in doctrine, a new and dangerous opinion of the nature and degree of inspiration possessed by the writers of the New Testament, has been broached. It is, that all true Christians as they possess the Holy Spirit, are, in a measure, inspired; and that the inspiration of the apostles differed from that of other Christians only in degree. But that such plenary inspiration as precludes the possibility of error, was never granted to any man.
According to this theory, inspiration differs not at all from that spiritual
illumination which is granted to every true Christian. But this brings no new truths
to light, and secures none from all error in his opinions, and in his manner of
communicating them. It is a theory which destroys the certainty and infallibility
of the rule of faith. For if the apostles were subject to error, every man when
he finds anything in their writings which he dislikes, will be at liberty to
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN—LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST—OCCASION AND TIME OF HIS WRITING—CANONICAL AUTHORITY INDISPUTABLE.
THE fourth gospel was written by John, the son of Zebedee and Salome, who was originally a fisherman of Galilee, and brother of James; and, we may suppose, was the younger of the brothers, as he is generally mentioned last, and is commonly reported to have been the youngest of all Christ’s disciples. They were plain uneducated men, as their occupation sufficiently indicates. Probably they had been disciples of John the Baptist, and some have conjectured that John the Evangelist was one of the two to whom John the Baptist pointed out Jesus, and who went after him to his lodging. The other we know was Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother; and John, in other cases, has concealed his own name, where anything is mentioned which could be interpreted to his honour.
Why these two brothers were
surnamed Boanerges, by the Lord, does not clearly appear, unless we suppose that
the names were prophetic of the manner of their preaching, when commissioned as
apostles. But there are no facts recorded, from which any inference can be drawn
in relation to this subject. John has been long celebrated for his affectionate
temper, and
We know that John was the bosom friend of Jesus, the disciple whom he loved with a peculiar affection; and that he was admitted to all those scenes of a very interesting nature, from which most of the other disciples were excluded.
It is also certain that he was present at the crucifixion; stood near the cross in company with Mary the mother of our Lord; and that he remained at the place until the body of Jesus, now dead, was pierced with a spear. On the morning of the resurrection John visited the sepulchre, in company with Peter, and was present when Christ made his first appearance to the eleven; and when he manifested himself to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. After Pentecost he was with Peter in the temple, when the lame man was healed; he accompanied Peter also to Samaria, and was present at the council of Jerusalem. From the book of Revelation we learn, that this evangelist was for a time an exile in the island of Patmos, for the testimony of Jesus, where he was favoured with wonderful visions and communications from the Lord.
It seems to have
been intimated to him by his Lord, at the sea of Tiberias, that he should survive
the destruction of Jerusalem; for when Peter asked,
Irenæuss, in two places of his work against Heretics, says, “That John lived to the time of Trajan,” which will bring us down to A. D. 98. Eusebius understands Clement of Alexandria to say the same thing. Origen also testifies, ” That John having lived long in Asia was buried at Ephesus.” Polycrates, who wrote in the second century, and was bishop of Ephesus, asserts, ” That John was buried in that city.”
Jerome, in his book of Illustrious Men, and in his work against Jovinian, says, “That the apostle John lived in Asia to the time of Trajan; and dying at a great age, in the sixty-eighth year of our Lord’s passion, was buried near the city of Ephesus.” This account would bring down the death of John to A. D. 100, in which year it is placed by this writer in his Chronicon. The testimonies for the genuineness of the gospel of John are as full and satisfactory as could be desired.
Irenæus tells us, “That the evangelist John
designed, by his gospel, to confute the errors which Cerinthus had infused into
the minds of the people, and had been infused by those who were called Nicolaitons;
and to convince them that there was
Jerome fully confirms this testimony of Irenæus, and says, “That when St. John was in Asia, where there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and others, who denied that Christ was come in the flesh—that is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his Epistle, calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequently condemns in his Epistles—he was forced by almost all the bishops of Asia, and the deputations of many other churches, to write more plainly concerning the divinity of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a discourse on the Word, not more bold than happy.”
“It is related in ecclesiastical history, that John, when solicited by the brethren to write, answered, that he would not do it unless a public day of fasting and prayer was appointed to implore God’s assistance; which being done, and the solemnity being honoured with a satisfactory revelation from God, he broke forth into these words, In the beginning was the Wordd,” &c.
Jerome in his book of Illustrious Men, says, “John wrote a gospel at the desire
of the bishops of Asia, against Cerinthus, and other heretics, especially the doctrines
of the Ebionites, then springing up, who say that Christ did not exist before the
birth of Mary: for which reason he was obliged to declare his divine nativity. Another
reason of his writing is also mentioned, which is, that after having read the volumes
of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his approbation
Augustine, in conformity with the account of Jerome, says, ” That this evangelist wrote concerning the co-eternal divinity of Christ against heretics.” Lampe has called in question these early testimonies respecting the occasion of writing this gospel, and has attempted to prove by argument that John had no view to any particular heretics, in the commencement of his gospel. Lardner has taken the same side, and adduces several arguments in favour of Lampe’s opinion. Titman adopts the same opinion. But the probable reasonings of ingenious men when opposed to such a weight of ancient testimony, in relation to a matter of fact which occurred at no long distance before their time, deserve very little consideration. And, indeed, after reading Lardner’s arguments, I must say that they appear to me to have no high degree of plausibility.
That Cerinthus lived in the time of the apostle John, and was known to him, is evident
from another testimony of Irenæus, which has been often quoted. It is a story which,
he says, some persons in his time had from Polycarp, the disciple of John; which
is as follows: “John going to a certain bath at Ephesus,
For the testimony of Irenæus see remarks on the gospel of
Matthew. To which we may here add the fanciful reason given by Irenæus why the
number of gospels was four, and no more nor less. “Nor can there be more or
fewer gospels than these. For as there are four regions of the world in which we
live, and four cardinal winds, and the church is spread over all the earth, and
the gospel is the pillar and support of the church, and the breath of life, in
like manner it is fit it should have four pillars, breathing on all sides
incorruption and refreshing mankind, whence it is manifest that the Logos, the
maker of all things, who sits upon the cherubim, and holds together all things,
having appeared to men, has given us a gospel four-fold in its form, but held
together by one Spirit.”
In another part of this work this Father gives characteristics of this gospel, thus—
“The gospel according to John declares his princely, complete,
and glorious generation from the Father, saying, ‘In the beginning was the
Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.’”
Augustine, moreover, asserts, “That
John is the last of the evangelists.” Chrysostom supposes, that John did not write his gospel till
after the destruction of Jerusalem. Paulinus says, “It had been handed down by
tradition, that John survived all the other apostles, and wrote the last of the
four evangelists,
Cosmas of Alexandria, informs us, “That when John dwelt at Ephesus, there were delivered to him by the faithful the writings of the other three evangelists. Receiving them, he said, that what they had written was well written; but some things were omitted by them which were needful to be related. And being desired by the faithful, he also published his writing, as a kind of supplement to the rest.”
Isidore of Seville, says, “That John wrote the last in Asia.” Theophylact computed that John wrote about two and thirty years after Christ’s ascension. Euthymius says, ” That this gospel was not written until long after the destruction of Jerusalem.” Nicephorus, “That John wrote last of all, about six and thirty years after our Lord’s ascension to heaven.” Having exhibited the testimonies of the ancients, it may not be amiss to set down the opinions of some of the moderns, relative to the time when this gospel was written.
Mill, Fabricius, Le Clerc, Jones, and many others,
agree that John wrote his gospel about the year of our Lord 97. Wetstein thinks
it might have been written about thirty-two years after the ascension.
Basnage
and Lampe are inclined to believe that it was written before the destruction of
Jerusalem. Whiston and Lardner adopt the same opinion. The gospel of John is cited
by Clement of Rome; by Barnabas; by
Ignatius; by Theophilus of Antioch; by
Irenæus;
and by Clement of Alexandria, in more than forty instances. And by all those writers
That the number of genuine gospels was four
and no more, is evident from the testimony of all the Fathers who have spoken of
them; and especially from the fanciful reason assigned by Irenæus to prove that
there could be no more nor fewer. The same is manifest from the fact that Tatian,
a learned disciple of Justin, who afterwards became the founder of a sect of ascetics,
out of the four gospels formed a volume called Diatessaron.
THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES—LUKE THE AUTHOR—CANONICAL AUTHORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE FATHERS—REJECTED ONLY BY HERETICS.
THAT the Acts of the Apostles is the writing of Luke the evangelist, is manifest from the dedication to Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gospel, which was first written. And it is also evident from the uniform testimony of all antiquity; the fact never having been once questioned by any member of the catholic church. All that has been argued in vindication of the inspiration and canonical authority of Luke’s gospel, is applicable to the Acts of the Apostles, and need not be here repeated.
But it
is pleasant to read the explicit testimonies of the Fathers to the sacred books
of the New Testament: I will, therefore, bring forward the most important.
Irenæus
repeatedly cites passages from this book, saying, “Luke, the disciple and follower
of Paul, says thus.” “Luke, the inseparable companion and fellow labourer of Paul,
wrote thus.” He takes particular notice of Luke’s using the first person plural,
“we endeavoured—we came—we went—we sat down—we spoke,” &c.; and enters into some
discussion
In another place he shows, “That Luke’s Acts of the Apostles ought to be equally received with his gospel; for that in them he has carefully delivered to us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for salvation.” Again he says, “‘Paul’s account of his going to Jerusalem exactly agrees with Luke’s in the Acts.”
Clemens Alexandrinus citing Paul’s speech at Athens, introduces it thus, “So Luke in the Acts of the Apostles relates.” Tertullian cites several passages out of the Acts of the Apostles which he calls, “Commentarius Lucæ, The Commentary of Luke.” Origen ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke. Eusebius says, “Luke has left us two inspired volumes, The Gospel and The Acts.” Jerome expressly asserts, “That the Acts was the composition of Luke.” The Syriac Version of the New Testament ascribes the Acts to Luke; and in some very ancient manuscripts of the New Testament his name is prefixed to this book.
To this uniform body of ancient testimony there is
nothing which can be objected, except that the author of the Synopsis, commonly
ascribed to Athanasius, says, “Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but Luke
wrote them.” But if this were true it would not in the least detract from the authority
of the book, but rather increase it. One testimony, however, can be of no avail
against so many; and we know that Luke knew most of the facts recorded in this book
by his own personal observation, and needed no one to dictate them to him. Besides,
Peter was not an eye-
The time when the Acts of the Apostles was written may be determined pretty accurately, by the time when the history which it contains terminates; that is about A. D. 62; for no doubt he began to write soon after he left Rome.
That the Acts of the Apostles is of canonical authority, is proved from its having a place in all the ancient catalogues of the books of the New Testament. The same is evinced by the numerous citations from this book by the early Fathers, who explicitly appeal to it as of divine authority—as an inspired book. It is plainly referred to in more instances than one by Clement of Rome, the fellow-labourer of Paul. Polycarp the disciple of John also cites a passage from the Acts, in his Epistle to the Philippians. It is cited by Justin Martyr in his Exhortation to the Greeks. It is distinctly cited by Irenæus more than thirty times, in some of which instances it is expressly called Scripture; and the credit and authority of the book are largely discussed in his work against heretics.
The citations of Tertullian from this
book are too numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it expressly under
the name of Scripture; “Which part of Scripture,” says he, “they who do not
receive, must deny the descent of the Holy Ghost, and be ignorant of the infant
state of the Christian church.”
This book was also constantly read as Scripture in the weekly
assemblies of Christians all over the world. From the testimonies adduced above
it will appear,
The Acts of the Apostles, therefore, has an indisputable claim to a place in the sacred Canon. No better or stronger evidence can be desired. It is true that some of the earliest heretics did not receive this book as canonical. Tertullian informs us that it was rejected by Cerdo, the master of Marcion, and some others whom he does not name, but whom he refutes.
Philastriuss informs us that the Cerinthians did not receive this book. And Augustine tells us, that the Manichees did not, because they considered Manes to be the Paraclete, promised by the Saviour; but in the Acts, it is declared to have been the Holy Ghost which descended on the apostles on the day of Pentecost.
“But,” says Father Simon, “let us leave these enthusiasts, who had no other reason for rejecting the books received by the whole church, except that they did not suit with the idea which they had formed of the Christian religion.”
TESTIMONIES TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL.
ON the subject of Paul’s epistles, there is a universal consent among the ancients, except as it relates to the epistle to the Hebrews; which having been published without the apostle’s name and usual salutation, many conjectured that it was the production of another person; and while some ascribed it to Barnabas, others thought that either Clement or Luke was the writer. There seems to have been a difference between the eastern and western churches on this subject; for the Greeks appear to have entertained no doubts in regard to Paul’s being the author of this epistle: it was only among the Latins that its genuineness was a matter of uncertainty. And the most learned among these adopted the opinion, that it was the production of Paul; and by degrees its authority was fully established in the west as well as the east. The true state of the case will, however, appear more clearly by citing the testimonies of the Fathers, than by any general representation.
Although Clement, the fellow-labourer
of Paul, frequently cites passages from the gospels and epistles, yet he never
expressly mentions any book of the New
Hermass and Ignatius also often quote the words of Paul’s epistles, but the books from which they are taken are not designated.
Polycarp, the disciple of the apostle John and bishop of Smyrna,
who suffered martyrdom in extreme old age, about the middle of the second century,
after sentence of death was pronounced upon him, wrote an epistle to the Philippians,
in which he makes express mention of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians—“Do
ye not know that the saints shall judge the world, as Paul teaches?” See
He also quotes a passage from the epistle to the Ephesians, under the name
of Holy Scripture. “For I trust,” says he, “that ye are well exercised in the Holy
Scripture—as in these Scriptures it is said, ‘Be ye angry and sin not: let not
the sun go down upon your wrath.’”
Justin Martyr quotes many passages in the very words of Paul, without mentioning his name. But Irenæus distinctly and frequently quotes thirteen of Paul’s epistles. He takes nothing, indeed, from the short epistle to Philemon, which can easily be accounted for by the brevity of this letter, and the special object which the apostle had in view in penning it.
It would fill a large space to put down all the passages cited
by Irenaeus from the epistles of Paul. Let it suffice to give one from each as
quoted in his work “Against Heresies.”—“This same thing Paul has explained
writing to the Romans, ‘Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ, separated to the gospel
of God.’
As to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is anonymous,
there is ample evidence that Irenæus was acquainted with it; but it is doubtful
whether he
Athenagoras quotes from several of
Paul’s epistles; but, as has been seen to be the custom of the early Fathers, he
commonly uses the words, without informing the reader, from what author they
were borrowed. There is, however, a passage in which he refers to both the first
and second epistles to the Corinthians, as being the production of the apostle
Paul. “It is manifest, therefore,” says he, “that according to the apostle,
‘this corruptible and dissipated must put on incorruption, that the dead being
raised up, and the separated and even consumed parts being again united, every
one may receive justly, the things he hath done in the body, whether they be
good or bad.’”
Clement, of Alexandria, abounds
in quotations from Paul’s epistles; a few of which will be sufficient for our purpose.
“The apostle, in the epistle to the Romans, says, ‘Behold, therefore, the goodness
and severity of God.’” “The blessed Paul, in the first epistle to the
Corinthians, says, ‘Brethren, be not children in understanding; howbeit, in
malice, be ye children, but in understanding be ye men.’”
Clement also quotes the epistle to
the Colossians, and the epistles to the Thessalonians. From the first epistle to
Timothy he cites this passage, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy
trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely
so called, which some professing, have erred concerning the faith.”
Tertullian frequently, and expressly
quotes most of Paul’s epistles. In one place he says, “I will, therefore, by no
means say, God, nor Lord, but I will follow the apostles; so that if the Father
and the Son are mentioned together, I will say, God the Father, and Jesus Christ
the Lord. But when I mention Christ only, I will call him God, as the apostle
does, ‘Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.’”
Speaking
of the Christian’s hope, he says, “Of which hope and expectation, Paul to the Galatians says,
‘For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.’ He does
not say we have obtained it, but he speaks of the hope of the righteousness of
God in the day of judgment, when our reward shall be decided. Of which being in
suspense, when le wrote to the Philippians, he said, ‘If by any means, I might
attain unto the resurrection of the dead; not as though I had already attained,
or were already perfect.’
That remarkable passage of Tertullian, in which he is supposed to refer to the existing autographs of the epistles of Paul, although referred to already, may with propriety be here introduced. “Well,” says he, “if you be willing to exercise your curiosity profitably, in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolical churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their very authentic letters (authentiæ literæ) are recited, sending forth the voice, and representing the countenance of each one of them. Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi—you have Thessalonica. If you can go to Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, from whence also we may be easily satisfied.”
There are three opinions respecting the meaning of this phrase authenticæ literæ; authentic letters; The first is, that it signifies the original manuscripts of the apostles—the autographs which were sent severally to the churches named, to all of which Paul addressed epistles. The second opinion is, that Tertullian meant to refer his readers to the original Greek of these epistles, which they had been accustomed to read in a Latin version. And the third is, that this phrase means well authenticated letters; epistles which, by application to these churches, could be proved to be genuine writings of the apostles.
Now, that the first of these is the true sense of Tertullian’s
From these considerations I conclude, that in Tertullian’s time these churches had in possession, and preserved with care, the identical epistles sent to them by Paul. This sense is confirmed by what he says, of their being able to hear the voice, and behold the countenance of the apostles, and see the very seats on which they had been accustomed to sit when they presided in the church. These seats were still occupied by the bishops, and seemed to preside, as they were venerable from having been once occupied by the apostles.
Tertullian was acquainted
with the epistle to the Hebrews, for he quotes several passages from the sixth
Theophilus of Antioch quotes the
following passage from the epistle to the Romans, but seems to have quoted from
memory, “He will search out all things, and will judge justly; rendering to all
according to the desert of their actions. To them that by patient continuance in
well-doing seek for immortality, he will give eternal life, joy, peace, rest, and
many good things, which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard, nor have entered into
the heart of man. But to the unbelieving, and the despisers, and them that obey
not the truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath and indignation, tribulation
and anguish; and in a word, eternal fire shall be the portion of such.” This passage
is evidently taken from
This early and learned Father has also cited, in the same loose manner, passages from the epistles to the Ephesians—to the Philippians—to the Colossians—to Timothy—to Titus—and from the epistle to the Hebrews, but without naming the book from which the passages are taken; which is in accordance with the practice of all the apostolic Fathers.
The following passage is worthy of notice,
not only because it contains an undoubted reference to the second epistle of Peter;
but because it shows what opinion was in that early age entertained of the inspiration
of the sacred Scriptures: “But men of God, filled with the Holy Ghost, and becoming
prophets, inspired by God himself, and being enlightened were taught of God, and
were holy and righteous, wherefore
Clement of Alexandria lived and wrote toward the close
of the second century. After Pantænus he was president of the Alexandrian
school. Several of his works have come down to us, from which the following
citations from Paul’s epistles are taken. “Behold, therefore,” saith Paul, “the
goodness and severity of God.”
Origen quotes Paul’s epistles, as expressly and frequently as is done by almost any modern writer. To transcribe all the passages cited by him, would be to put down a large portion of the writings of this apostle. A few instances will be sufficient.
In one passage, in his work against Celsus, he mentions several of Paul’s epistles together, in the following manner—“Do you, first of all, explain the epistles of him who says these things, and having diligently read, and attended to the sense of the words there used, particularly in that to the Ephesians, to the Thessalonians, to the Philippians, to the Romans, &c.” The epistle to the Ephesians is elsewhere quoted by Origen with the inscription which it now bears.
After employing an argument founded on a passage quoted from
the epistle to the Hebrews, he observes: “But possibly some one, pressed with
this argument, will take refuge in the opinion of those who reject this epistle
as not written by Paul. In answer to such we intend to write a distinct
discourse, to prove this to
But Origen not only expresses his own opinion on this subject, but asserts, that by the tradition received by the ancients it was ascribed to Paul. His words are, “For it is not without reason that the ancients have handed it down to us as Paul’s.” Now, when we take into view that Origen lived within one hundred years of the time of the apostles, and that he was a person of most extraordinary learning, and that he had travelled much through different countries, his testimony on this point is of great weight; especially, since his opinion is founded on the testimony of the ancients, by whom he must mean the contemporaries of the apostles. At the same time, however, he mentions, that some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Clement of Rome.
Cyprian often quotes the epistles of
Paul. “According,” says he, “to what the blessed apostle wrote in his epistle to
the Romans, ‘Every one shall give account of himself to God, therefore, let us
not judge one another.’”
Cyprian expressly quotes the epistle to the Ephesians under that title.
“But the apostle Paul, speaking of the same thing more clearly and plainly,
writes to the Ephesians, and says, ‘Christ loved the church, and gave himself
for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it, with the washing of water.’
Cyprian no where quotes the epistle to the Hebrews. It is probable,
therefore, that he, like some others of the Latin Fathers, did not believe it to
be Paul’s, or was doubtful respecting it. Neither does he cite the epistle to Philemon;
of this no other reason need be sought, but its contents and brevity. How many Christian
authors have written volumes, without any citation of that epistle!
Victorinus,
who lived near the close of the third century, often quotes Paul’s Epistles; and
among the rest, he cites the epistle to the Hebrews, which he seems to have believed
to be the production of Paul. Dionysius of Alexandria, also a contemporary of Origen,
and a man of great learning, in the few fragments of his works which remain, often
refers to Paul’s Epistles. Novatus, presbyter of the church of Rome, who flourished
about the middle of the third century, expressly cites from the epistle to the Romans,
that famous testimony to Christ’s divinity, so often quoted by the Fathers, “Whose
are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all, God
blessed for ever.” And it deserves to be recollected, that although so many, beginning
with Irenaeus, have cited this passage, yet none of them appear to have thought
the words capable of any other meaning, than the plain obvious sense, which strikes
the reader at first. That it was a mere exclamation of praise, seems never to have
entered their minds. Novatus also
Methodius, who lived in the latter part of the third century, quotes Paul’s epistle to the Romans, first and second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, the first to the Thessalonians, and the first to Timothy. He has also taken several passages from the epistle to the Hebrews, and quotes it in such a manner, as to render it highly probable that he esteemed it to be a part of sacred Scripture, and ascribed it to Paul.
Eusebius, the learned historian,
undoubtedly received thirteen epistles of Paul as genuine; and he seems to have
entertained no doubt respecting the canonical authority of the epistle to the
Hebrews; but he sometimes expresses himself doubtfully of its author, while at
other times he quotes it as Paul’s, without any apparent hesitation. In speaking
of the universally acknowledged epistle of Clement of Rome, he observes: “In
which, inserting many sentiments of the epistle to the Hebrews, and also using
some of the very words of it, he plainly manifests that epistle
Ambrose, bishop of Milan, received fourteen epistles
of Paul. Jerome received as undoubted all Paul’s epistles, except that to the Hebrews,
concerning which he says in his letter to Evangelius, “That all the Greeks and some
of the Latins received this epistle.” And in his letter to Dardanus, “That it was
not only received as Paul’s by all the churches of the east, in his time, but by
all the ecclesiastical writers in former times, though many ascribe it to Barnabas,
or Clement.” He also says, “that it was daily read in the churches; and if the Latins
did not receive this epistle, as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, he
received both; not being so much influenced by present times, as by the judgment
of ancient writers, who quote both; and that not as they quote apocryphal
Jerome, in speaking of the writings of Paul, gives the following very full and satisfactory testimony: “He wrote,” says he, “nine epistles to seven churches. To the Romans, one; to the Corinthians, two; to the Galatians, one; to the Philippians, one; to the Colossians, one; to the Thessalonians, two; to the Ephesians, one; to Timothy, two; to Titus, one; to Philemon, one. But the epistle called to the Hebrews is not thought to be his, because of the difference of argument and style; but rather Barnabas’s, as Tertullian thought; or Luke’s, according to some others; or Clement’s, who was afterwards bishop of Rome; who being much with Paul, clothed and adorned Paul’s sense in his own language. Or if it be Paul’s, he might decline putting his name to it in the inscription, for fear of offending the Jews. Moreover, he wrote as a Hebrew to the Hebrews, it being his own language; whence it came to pass, that being translated, it has more elegance in the Greek than his other epistles. This they say is the reason of its differing from Paul’s other writings. There is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by every body.” Jerome commonly quotes the epistle to the Hebrews as the apostle Paul’s; and, as we have seen before, this was his prevailing opinion, which is not contradicted in the long passage just cited.
Augustine received fourteen epistles of Paul, the
last of which, in his catalogue, is the epistle to the Hebrews; he was aware, however,
that some in his time thought it of doubtful authority. “However,” says he, “I am
inclined to follow the opinion of the
The time when each of these epistles was written cannot be ascertained with any exactness. It is not even agreed among the learned which was the first of Paul’s epistles. Generally, indeed, it has been thought that the two epistles to the Thessalonians were composed earlier than the others; but of late some learned men have given precedence to the epistle to the Galatians. And this opinion is not altogether confined to the moderns, for Tertullian mentions this epistle as among the first of Paul’s writings. But the more common opinion is, that it was written during the long abode of this apostle at Corinth. Among the advocates of this opinion, we find L’Enfant, Beausobre, Lardner, &c., while Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and Wall, suppose that it was written at Ephesus. These last, together with Fabricius and Mill, place the date of the epistle to the Galatians, after that to the Romans. Macknight maintains that it was written from Antioch, after the Council of Jerusalem; and offers in support of his opinions several plausible arguments, which, if they do not prove all that he wishes, seem to render it probable that the time of this epistle being written was soon after the Council of Jerusalem. Semler, however, is of opinion that this epistle was written prior to the Council of Jerusalem.
From
these various opinions, it is sufficiently evident that the precise date of the
epistle to the Galatians cannot be ascertained. If we take the opinion of those
who give the earliest date, the time of writing will not be later than A. D. 47.
But if we receive as more probable the opinions of those who think that it
There seem to be better data for determining that the first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from Corinth, about the year 51; and the second epistle to the Thessalonians was probably written a few months afterwards from the same place. Michaelis and Dr. Hales unite in giving the next place in the order of time to the epistle to Titus. Lardner, however, places it considerably later; and Paley assigns to it a date later than any other author. On this subject there is little else than conjecture to guide us. The year in which this epistle was written, according to Michaelis and Hales, was 53; according to Lardner, 56; according to Barrington, 57; and according to Whitby, Pearson, and Paley, 65.
The epistle next in order is the first to the Corinthians, the
date of which can be determined with considerable precision from the epistle
itself. “I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost.”
The first epistle to Timothy will stand next, if we follow
the opinion most commonly entertained by
The second epistle to the Corinthians was written probably about a year after the first, which will bring it to A. D. 58.
In the same year it is thought that Paul wrote his very important epistle to the Romans. On this point, however, there is some diversity of opinion. But the epistle itself contains internal evidence that it was written at Corinth, when the apostle was preparing to take the contributions of the churches to Jerusalem.
The date of the epistles to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, and to the Colossians, can be ascertained pretty nearly, from the circumstance, that Paul was prisoner at Rome when they were written. The epistle to the Ephesians may, with much probability, be referred to A. D. 61; the epistle to the Philipplans to A. D. 62; and the epistle to the Colossians to the same year.
The short epistle to Philemon was written, as appears by several coincidences, about the same time as those just mentioned.
The epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been written about the termination of Paul’s first imprisonment at Rome. Its date, therefore, may without danger of mistake be referred to A. D. 62 or A. D. 63.
J. D. Michaelis who, as has been seen, has done
Paul’s second epistle to Timothy seems to have been written during his second imprisonment at Rome, and shortly before his death, A. D. 66.
CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
THE first epistle of Peter, and the first of John, are quoted by
Ignatius,
Polycarp and Papias, but not expressly as the writings of these apostles. For the
particular passages cited the reader is referred to Lardner. Justin
Martyr has a saying which is nowhere found in Scripture; except in the
second of Peter: it is, “that a day of the Lord is a thousand years.” Diognetus quotes several passages
from the first of Peter, and the first of John. Irenæus quotes the first epistle
of Peter expressly; “And Peter says, in his epistle, Whom having not seen ye love.”
And from the second he takes the same passage which has just been cited, as quoted
by Justin Martyr. The first and second of John are expressly quoted by this Father,
for after citing his gospel he goes on to say, “Wherefore also in his epistle, he
says, Little children, it is the last time.” And again, “In the
forementioned epistle the Lord commands us to shun those persons who bring false
doctrine, saying, “Many
deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come
in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and an Antichrist. Look to yourselves that ye
lose not those things which ye have wrought.” Now these words are undoubtedly taken
from John’s second
Several passages out of the epistle of James are also cited by this father, but without any distinct reference to the source whence they are derived. Athenagoras also has some quotations which appear to be from James and 2 Peter. Clement of Alexandria often quotes 1 Peter, and sometimes 2 Peter. The first epistle of John is often cited by him. Jude also is quoted several times expressly, as, “Of these and the like heretics, I think Jude spoke prophetically, when he said, ‘I will that ye should know, that God having saved the people out of Egypt,’” &c. He has a remark on Jude’s modesty, that he did not style himself the brother of our Lord, although he was related to him, but begins his epistle, “Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.”
Tertullian often quotes the first epistle of John; but he has in none of his remaining writings cited anything from James, 2 Peter or 2 John. He has, however, one express quotation from Jude, “Hence it is,” says he, “that Enoch is quoted by the apostle Jude.”
Origen,
in his commentary on John’s gospel, expressly quotes the epistle of James in the
following passage, “For though it be called faith, if it be without works, it is
dead, as we read in the epistle ascribed to James.” This is the only passage in
the remaining Greek works of this father where this book is quoted; but in his Latin
works, translated by Rufin, it is cited as the epistle of James the apostle and
brother of our Lord; and as “divine Scripture,” The first epistle of Peter is
often quoted expressly. In his book against
Origen has cited several passages from Jude, which are found in no other part of Scripture; and in one place remarks, “Jude wrote an epistle of few lines indeed, but full of powerful words and heavenly grace, who at the beginning, says, ‘Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.’” In another place, he shows, that some were doubtful of this epistle, for he says, “But if any one receives also the epistle of Jude, let him consider what will follow, from what is there said.” This epistle is cited in his Latin works also; and several times in a Latin epistle ascribed to Origen.
Cyprian nowhere quotes the epistle of James; but the first of Peter is often cited. Several times he speaks of it as the epistle of Peter to the people of Pontus. He expressly ascribes it to “Peter the apostle,” “the apostle of Christ,” &c.
The second of Peter he never quotes. The first of John is often
quoted by Cyprian. “The apostle John,” says he, “mindful of this command, writes
in this epistle, ‘Hereby we perceive that we know him, if we keep his commandments.
He that saith I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the
The opinion of Eusebius of Cesaræa, respecting the epistle of James, was, that it was written by one of Christ’s disciples by the name of James, but he makes three of that name. Although he admits that the writer of this epistle was the brother of our Lord, who was made the first bishop of Jerusalem, yet he will not allow that he was one of the twelve. In his commentary on the Psalms, he says, “Is any among you afflicted? let him pray. Is any merry? let him sing psalms, as the sacred apostle says.” In other parts of his works, he speaks very doubtfully of this epistle, and in one passage, where he distributes the books into classes, he mentions it among the books which he calls spurious; by which, however, he only means that it was not canonical. In his ecclesiastical history, he speaks of the epistles of Peter in the following manner, “One epistle of Peter called his first, is universally received. This the presbyters of ancient times have quoted in their writings as undoubtedly genuine; but that called his second epistle, we have been informed, has not been received into the Testament. Nevertheless, appearing to many to be useful, it has been carefully studied with the other Scriptures.” And in another passage, he says, “That called the first of John and the first of Peter are to be esteemed authentic. Of the controverted, yet well known or approved by the most, are, that called the epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they were written by the evangelist, or by another.”
Athanasius quotes the epistle
of James as written
Jerome’s testimony concerning the epistle of James is full and explicit. His words are, “James, called the Lord’s brother, surnamed Justus, as some think son of Joseph, by a former wife; but as I rather think, the son of Mary, the sister of our Lord’s mother, mentioned by John in his gospel, (soon after our Lord’s passion ordained by the apostles bishop of Jerusalem) wrote but one epistle, which is among the seven Catholic epistles; which too has been said to have been published by another in his name; but gradually, in process of time, it has gained authority. This is he of whom Paul writes in the epistle to the Galatians, and he is often mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and also several times in the gospel, called, “according to the Hebrews,” lately translated by me into Greek and Latin.”
Augustine received all the Catholic epistles. He quotes James as an apostle. He often cites both the epistles of Peter. He also refers to John’s three epistles, and quotes Jude, and calls him an apostle.
In the works of Ephrem, the Syrian, who
lived, and wrote voluminously, in the fourth century, there are express quotations
from the epistle of James, from the second of Peter, the second and third of John,
and from Jude, as well as from those Catholic epistles which were undisputed. Rufin
received all the books
A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and adopted by Dr. Macknight, and which has some probability, is, that the first of Peter, and first of John, being received by all Christians, obtained the name of Catholic, to distinguish them from those which at first were not universally received; but, in process of time, these last, coming to be universally received, were put into the same class with the first, and the whole thenceforward had the appellation of Catholic.
This denomination is as old as the time of Eusebius, and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called John’s first epistle Catholic; and the same is done by Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria. The same appellation was given to the whole seven by Athanasius, Epiphanius, and Jerome. Of these, it is probable, that the epistle of James was first written, but at what precise time, cannot be determined.
As there were two disciples of the name of James, it has been much disputed
to which of them this epistle should be attributed. Lardner and Macknight
The date of this epistle may, with considerable probability, be referred to the year 62; for it is supposed that James was put to death in the following year. Its canonical authority and divine inspiration, although called in question by some, in ancient as well as modern times, ought to be considered as undoubted. One strong evidence that it was thus received by early Christians, may be derived from the old Syriac version of the New Testament; which, while it leaves out several other books, contains this.
It seems not to have been as well known in the western churches as most other books of Scripture; but learned men have observed, that Clement of Rome has quoted it no less than four times; and it is also quoted by Ignatius, in his genuine epistle to the Ephesians; and we have already shown that it was received as the writing of the apostle James, by Origen, Athanasius, and Jerome.
The first
epistle of Peter has ever been considered authentic, and has been cited by Clement
of Rome, Polycarp, the Martyrs of Lyons, Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, Papias, Irenæus,
Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting it is,
what place we are to understand by Babylon,
The date of the epistle of Jude may as well be placed about the same period, as at any other time, for we have no documents which can guide us to any certain decision. The objection to the canonical authority of this epistle, derived from the author’s having quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, is of no validity; for the fact is, that Jude makes no mention of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there is no evidence that the apocryphal book of Enoch was then in existence; but if he did quote a truth from such a book, it argues no more against his inspiration than Paul’s quoting Epimenides does against his being an inspired man.
The three epistles of John were probably written about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been supposed that the Apocalypse was the last written book of the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the three epistles of John were last written.—See Townsend’s New Testament, vol. ii.
CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
Hermas gives many indications of having read the Revelation, for he often imitates John’s description of the New Jerusalem, and sometimes borrows his very words. He speaks of the Book of Life and of those whose names are written in it. He speaks also of the saints whom he saw, being clothed in garments white as snow. Papias also, doubtless, had seen the book of Revelation; for some of his opinions were founded on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas expressly cites the Revelation.
Justin Martyr is the first who gives explicit testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, “And a man from among us by name John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that, shall be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and judgment of all men together.” In the epistle of the Church of Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was written about the year of our Lord one hundred and eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of Revelation: “For he was indeed a genuine disciple of Christ, ‘following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.’”
Irenæus expressly quotes the Revelation, and ascribes it to John the apostle. And in one place, he says, “It (the Revelation,) was seen no long time ago in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian.” And in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks of the exact and ancient copies of this book; which he says, “was confirmed, likewise, by the concurring testimony of those who had seen John.”
Theophilus of Antioch, also, as we are assured by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, in his book against Hermogenes. And in his works which are extant, there is one passage which shows that he was acquainted with the Revelation. “This Eve,” says he, “because she was deceived by the serpent—the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her by the serpent—does not cease to accuse: this demon is also called the Dragon.”
The Revelation of John is often quoted by Clement of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, ” Such an one, though here on earth he be not honoured with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.” That Clement believed it to be the work of the apostle John is manifest, because in another place he expressly cites a passage, as the words of an apostle; and we have just seen that he ascribes the work to John.
Tertullian cites many things from the Revelation of John; and
he seems to have entertained no doubt of its being the writing of the apostle John,
as will appear by a few quotations; “John in his Apocalypse, is commanded to correct
those who ate things sacrificed
Hippolytus, who lived in the third century, and had great celebrity, both in the eastern and western churches, received the Revelation as without doubt the production of the apostle John. Indeed, he seems to have written a comment on this book, for Jerome, in the list of his works, mentions one, “On the Revelation.” Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that a noble monument was erected to him in the city of Rome, which, after lying for a long time buried, was dug up near that city, A. D. 1551. His name, indeed, is not now on the monument, but it contains a catalogue of his works, several of which have the same titles as those ascribed to Hippolytus by Jerome and Eusebius, together with others not mentioned by them; among which is one “of the gospel of John and the Revelation.”
Origen calls the writer of the Apocalypse, “evangelist and apostle;” and, on account of the predictions which it contains, “prophet” also. In his book against Celsus he mentions “John’s Revelation, and divers other books of Scripture.” It was Origen’s intention to write a commentary on this book, but whether he ever carried his purpose into execution is unknown. Nothing of the kind has reached our times.
Dionysius of Alexandria, who lived about the middle of the third century, and was one of the most learned men of his time, has entered into a more particular discussion of the canonical authority of the book of Revelation than any other ancient author. From what has been said by him, we learn on what account it was that this book, after having been universally received by the earlier Fathers, fell with some into a certain degree of discredit. About this time the Chiliasts, or Millennarians, who held that Christ would reign visibly on earth with his saints for a thousand years, during which period all manner of earthly and sensible pleasures would be enjoyed, made their appearance. This opinion they derived from a literal interpretation of some passages in the book of Revelation; and as their error was very repugnant to the feelings of most of the Fathers, they were led to doubt of the authority, or to disparage the value of the book from which it was derived.
The first rise of the Millennarians, of the grosser kind, seems to have
been in the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt, where one Nepos composed several works
in defence of their doctrine; particularly a book “Against the Allegorists.” Dionysius
took much pains with these errorists, and entered with them into a free and candid
discussion of their tenets, and of the true meaning of the book of Revelation; and
had the satisfaction to reclaim a number of them from their erroneous opinions.
His own opinion of the Revelation he gives at large, and informs us, that some who
lived before his time had utterly rejected this book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus;
but, for his own part, he professes to believe that it was written
The opinion of those persons who believed it to be the work
of Cerinthus, is utterly without foundation; for this book contains opinions expressly
contrary to those maintained by this heretic; and even on the subject of the millennium
his views did not coincide with those expressed in the Revelation. Caius seems to
have been the only ancient author who attributed this book to Cerinthus, and to
him Dionysius probably referred when he spoke of some, before his time, who held
this opinion. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, received the book of Revelation as of
canonical authority, as appears by the manner in which he quotes it. “Hear,” says
he, “in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord, reproving such men as these, ‘Thou
sayest I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothing, and knowest not
that thou art wretched, and
Victorinus, who lived towards the close of the third century, often cites the book of Revelation, and ascribes it to John the apostle. That Lactantius received this book is manifest, because he has written much respecting the future destinies of the church, which is founded on the prophecies which it contains.
Until the fourth century, then, it appears that the Revelation was almost universally received; not a writer of any credit calls it in question; and but one hesitates about ascribing it to John the apostle; but even he held it to be written by an inspired man. But, about the beginning of the fourth century, it began to fall into discredit with some on account of the mysterious nature of its contents, and the encouragement which it was supposed to give to the Chiliasts. Therefore Eusebius of Cesaræa, after giving a list of such books as were universally received, adds, “After these, if it be thought fit, may be placed the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall observe the different opinions at a proper time.” And again, “There are, concerning this book, different opinions.”
This is the first doubt expressed by any respectable writer
concerning the canonical authority of this book; and Eusebius did not reject it,
but would have it placed next after those which were received with universal
consent. And we find at this very time,
Jerome, in giving an account of the writings of John the evangelist, speaks also of another John, called the presbyter, to whom some ascribed the second and third epistles under the name of John. And we have already seen that Dionysius of Alexandria ascribed the Revelation to another John. This opinion, we learn from Jerome, originated in the fact, that two monuments were found at Ephesus, each inscribed with the name John; but he says, “Some think that both the monuments are of John the evangelist.” Then he proceeds to give some account of the Revelation. “Domitian,” says he, “in the fourteenth year of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero, John was banished into the isle of Patmos, where he wrote the Revelation, which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus explain.” Augustine, also, received the book of Revelation, and quotes it very frequently. He ascribes it to the same John who wrote the gospel and the epistles.
From the view which has been taken of the testimonies in favour
of the book of Revelation, I think it must appear manifest to every candid reader,
that
This also will account for the fact, that many of the manuscripts of the New Testament
are without the Revelation; so that there are extant, comparatively, few copies
of this book. But the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypse stand on ground
which can never be shaken; and the internal evidence is strong in favour of a divine
origin. There is a sublimity, purity, and consistency in it, which could not have
proceeded from an impostor. In addition to all which, we observe, that the fulfilment
of many of the predictions of this book is so remarkable, that to many learned men
who have attended to this subject, the evidence from this source alone is demonstrative
of its divine origin. And there is every reason to believe, that in the revolution
of events this book, which is now to many sealed with seven seals, will be opened,
and will be so explained,
THE TITLES GIVEN TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES BY THE FATHERS—THESE BOOKS NOT CONCEALED, BUT PARTIALLY KNOWN AND REFERRED TO BY ENEMIES AS WELL AS FRIENDS—CITATIONS—ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS—REMARKS OF RENNELL.
AFTER having given a particular account of the several books of the New Testament, it may be useful to subjoin a few general remarks on the testimony exhibited.
1. The writings
of the apostles, from the time of their first publication, were distinguished by
all Christians from all other books. They were spoken of by the Fathers, as “Scripture;”
as “divine Scripture;” as “inspired of the Lord;” as, “given by the inspiration
of the Holy Ghost.” The only question ever agitated, respecting any of these books,
was, whether they were indeed the productions of the apostles. When this was clear,
no man disputed their divine authority, or considered it lawful to dissent from
their dictates. They were considered as occupying the same place, in regard to inspiration
and authority, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and in imitation of this
denomination they were called the New Testament. The other names by which they were
distinguished, were such as these, the gospel;—the
2. These books were not in obscurity, but were read with veneration and avidity by multitudes. They were read not only by the learned, but by the people; not only in private, but constantly in the public assemblies of Christians, as appears by the explicit testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyprian, and Augustine. And no other books were thus venerated and read. If some other pieces were publicly read, yet the Fathers always made a wide distinction between them and the sacred Scriptures.
3. In all the controversies which arose in the church, these books were acknowledged by all to be decisive authority, unless by some few of the very worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and forged others for themselves, under the names of the apostles. But most of the heretics endeavoured to support their opinions by an appeal to the writings of the New Testament. The Valentinians, the Montanists, the Sabellians, the Artemonites, the Arians, received the Scriptures of the New Testament. The same was the case with the Priscillianists and the Pelagians. In the Arian controversy, which occupied the church so long and so earnestly, the Scriptures were appealed to by both parties; and no controversy arose respecting the authenticity of the books of the New Testament.
4. The avowed enemies of Christianity, who wrote against
the truth, recognized the books which are
Porphyry in the third century wrote largely, and professedly, against the Christian religion; and although his work has shared the same fate as that of Celsus, yet, from some fragments which have been preserved, we can ascertain that he was well acquainted with the four gospels, for the things to which he objects are still contained in them.
But the emperor Julian expressly mentions Matthew and
Luke, and cites various things out of the gospels. He speaks also of John, and alleges
that none of Christ’s disciples beside ascribed to him the creation of the world;—and
also, “that neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, has dared to call
Jesus, God;”—“that John wrote later than the other evangelists, and at a time when
a great
Now, if the genuineness of these books could have been impugned on any plausible grounds; or if any doubt had existed respecting this matter, surely such men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have been ignorant of the matter, and would not have failed to bring forward everything of this kind which they knew; for their hostility to Christianity was unbounded. And it is certain, that Porphyry did avail himself of an objection of this kind in regard to the book of Daniel. Since then not one of the early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, we may rest assured that no ground of doubt existed in their day; and that the fact of these being the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear, was too clearly established to admit any doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies—by the orthodox and heretics, in those ages when the fact could be ascertained easily, it is too late in the day now for infidels to call this matter in question.
5. But
the testimony which we possess, is not only sufficient to prove that the books of
the New Testament were written by the persons whose names they bear, but also that
these books, in the early ages of
But besides these quotations, we have versions of the whole New Testament into various languages, some of which were made very early, probably not much later than the end of the first, or beginning of the second century. Now, on a comparison, all these versions contain the same discourses, parables, miracles, doctrines, precepts, and divine institutions. Indeed, so literal have been most versions of the New Testament, that they answer to one another, and to the original, almost word for word.
Besides, there are in existence hundreds and thousands of
manuscripts of the New Testament, which were written in different ages of the church,
from
The exact age of the oldest manuscripts
of the New Testament cannot be accurately ascertained, as they have no dates accompanying
them which can safely be depended on; but as it is pretty well known at what period
Greek accents were introduced, and also when the large uncial letter, as it is called,
was exchanged for the small letter now in common use; if a manuscript is found written
in the old fashion, in large letters, without intervals between the words,
I will sum up my observations on the Canon of the New Testament, by quoting a sensible and very appropriate passage from the late learned Mr. Rennel. It is found in his Remarks on Hone’s Collection of the apocryphal writings of the apostolic age.
“When was the Canon of Scripture determined? It was determined immediately after the death of John, the last survivor of the apostolic order. The Canon of the gospels was indeed determined before his death, for we read in Eusebius, that he gave his sanction to the three other gospels, and completed this part of the New Testament with his own. By the death of John, the catalogue of Scripture was completed and closed. We have seen, both from the testimony of themselves and of their immediate successors, that the inspiration of writing was confined strictly to the apostles, and accordingly we find that no similar pretensions were ever made by any true Christian to a similar authority.
“By whom was the Canon of Scripture determined? It was determined not by the decision
of any individual, nor by the decree of any council, but by the general consent
of the whole and every part of the Christian church. It is, indeed, a remarkable
circumstance, that among the various disputes which so early agitated the church,
the Canon of Scripture was never a subject of controversy. If any question
“The
reason of this agreement is a very satisfactory one. Every one who is at all versed
in Ecclesiastical History is aware of the continual intercourse which took place
in the apostolical age between the various branches of the church universal. This
communication, as Mr. Nolan has well observed, arose out of the Jewish polity, under
which various synagogues of the Jews which were dispersed throughout the gentile
world, were all subjected to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and maintained a constant
correspondence with it. Whenever then an epistle arrived at any particular church,
it was first authenticated; it was then read to all the holy brethren, and was subsequently
transmitted to some other neighbouring church. Thus we find that the authentication
of the epistles of Paul was, ‘the salutation with his own hands,’ by which the church
to which the epistle was first addressed might be assured that it was not a forgery.
We find also a solemn adjuration of the same apostle, that his epistle ‘should be
read to all the holy brethren.’ ‘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.’
“The number of the apostles, including Paul and Barnabas, was but fourteen. To these, and these alone, in the opinion of the early church, was the inspiration of writing confined: out of these, six only deemed it necessary to write; what they did write, was authenticated with the greatest caution, and circulated with the utmost rapidity; what was received. in any church as the writing of an apostle, was publicly read; no church was left to itself, or to its own direction, but was frequently visited by the apostles, and corresponded with by their successors. All the distant members of the church universal, in the apostles’ age, being united by frequent intercourse and communication, became one body in Christ. Taking all these things into consideration, we shall see with what ease and rapidity the Canon of Scripture would be formed, there being no room either for fraudulent fabrication on the one hand, or for arbitrary rejection on the other. The case was too clear to require any formal discussion, nor does it appear that there was any material forgery that could render it necessary.
“The writings of the apostles, and of the
apostles alone, were received as the word of God, and were separated from all others,
by that most decisive species of authority, the authority of a general, an immediate,
and an undisputed consent. This will appear the more satisfactory to our minds if
we take an example from the age in which we live. The letters of Junius, for instance,
were published at intervals within a certain period. Since the publication of the
last authentic
“Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scriptural Canon!
The author of Junius was known to none. He could not therefore of himself bear any
testimony to the authenticity of his works; the authors of the New Testament were
known to all, and were especially careful to mark, to authenticate, and to distinguish
their writings. The author of Junius had no personal character which could stamp
his writing with any high or special authority; whatever proceeded from the apostles
of Christ, was immediately regarded as the offspring of an exclusive inspiration.
For the Canon of Junius we have no external evidence, but that of a single publisher:
for the Canon of Scripture, we have the testimony of churches
“If then, notwithstanding these and other difficulties which might
be adduced, the Canon of Junius is established beyond controversy or dispute, by
the tacit consent of all who live in the age in which it was written, there can
be no reason why the Canon of Scripture, under circumstances infinitely stronger,
should not have been determined in a manner precisely the same; especially when
we remember, that in both cases the forgeries made their appearance subsequently
to the determination of the Canon. There is not a single book in the spurious department
of the apocryphal volume which was even known when the Canon of Scripture was determined.
This is a fact which considerably strengthens the case. There was no difficulty
or dispute in framing the Canon of Scripture, because there were no competitors
whose claims it was expedient to examine; no forgeries, whose impostures it was
necessary to detect. The first age of the church was an age of too much vigilance,
of too much communication, of too much authority for any fabrication of Scripture,
to hope for success. If any attempt was made it was instantly crushed. When the
authority of the apostles and of apostolic men had lost its influence, and heresies
and disputes had arisen, then it was that forgeries began to appear . . . .
NO CANONICAL BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS BEEN LOST.
THIS was a subject of warm dispute between the Romanists and Protestants at the time of the Reformation. The former, to make room for their farrago of unwritten traditions, maintained the affirmative; and such men as Bellarmine and Pineda asserted roundly, that some of the most valuable parts of the canonical Scriptures were lost. The Protestants, on the other hand, to support the sufficiency and perfection of the Holy Scriptures, the corner stone of the Reformation, strenuously and successfully contended, that no part of the canonical volume had been lost.
But the opinion, that some inspired books, which once belonged to the Canon, have been lost, has been maintained by some more respectable writers than those Romanists just mentioned. Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, and Whitaker, have all, in some degree, countenanced the same opinion, in order to avoid some difficulty, or to answer some particular purpose. The subject, so far as the Old Testament is concerned, has already been considered; it shall now be our endeavour to show that no canonical book of the New Testament has been lost.
And here I am ready to concede, as was before done, that there may have been books written by inspired men that have been lost: for inspiration was occasional, not constant; and confined to matters of faith, and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in matters of mere science. If Paul or Peter, or any other apostle, had occasion to write private letters to their friends, on subjects not connected with religion, there is no reason to think that these were inspired; and if such writings have been lost, the Canon of Scripture has suffered no more by this means than by the loss of any other uninspired books.
But again, I am willing
to go further and say, that it is possible, (although I know no evidence of the
fact,) that some things written under the influence of inspiration for a particular
occasion, and to rectify some disorder in a particular church, may have been lost
without injury to the Canon. For as much that the apostles preached by inspiration
is undoubtedly lost, so there is no reason why every word which they wrote must
necessarily be preserved and form a part of the canonical volume. For example, suppose
that when Paul said,
1. The first argument to prove that no canonical book has been lost, is derived from the watchful care of Providence over the sacred Scriptures.
Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part of the Canon, which is the rule of faith to the church, should be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not very honourable to the wisdom of God, and no way consonant with the ordinary method of his dispensations in regard to his precious truth. There is good reason to think that if God saw it needful, and for the edification of the church, that such books should be written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, by his providence he would have taken care to preserve them from destruction. We do know that this treasure of divine truth has been in all ages, and in the worst times, the special care of God, or not one of the sacred books would now be in existence. And if one canonical book might be lost through the negligence or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And thus the end of God in making a revelation of his will might have been defeated.
But whatever other corruptions have crept into the Jewish or Christian churches, it does not appear that either of them, as a body, ever incurred the censure of having been careless in preserving the oracles of God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who perverted the sacred Scriptures to their own ruin, with having lost any portion of the sacred deposit intrusted to them.
History informs us of the fierce and malignant design of Antiochus Epiphanes to abolish every vestige of the sacred volume; but the same history assures us that the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortitude and invincible patience in resisting and defeating his impious purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice their lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver up the copies of the sacred volume in their possession. And the same spirit was manifested, and with the same result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the Christians. Every effort was made to obliterate the sacred writings of Christians, and multitudes suffered death for refusing to deliver up the New Testament. Some, indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel persecution did, in the hour of temptation, consent to surrender the holy book; but they were ever afterwards called traitors; and it was with the utmost difficulty that any of them could be received again into the communion of the church after a long repentance, and the most humbling confessions of their fault. Now, if any canonical book was ever lost, it must have been in these early times when the word of God was valued far above life, and when every Christian stood ready to seal the truth with his blood.
2. Another argument which appears
to me to be
The considerations just mentioned would, I presume, be satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not that it is supposed, that there is evidence that some things were written by the apostles which are not now in the Canon. We have already referred to an epistle to the Corinthians which Paul is supposed to have written to them previously to the writing of those which we now possess. But it is by no means certain, or even probable, that Paul ever did write such an epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the least mention of any such letter; nor is there any where to be found any citation from it, or any reference to it. It is a matter of testimony in which all the Fathers concur, as with one voice, that Paul wrote no more than fourteen epistles, all of which we now have.
The testimony of Clement of Rome is clear on this subject; and he was the friend and companion of Paul, and must have known which was the first epistle addressed by him to the Corinthian church. He says, in a passage before cited, “Take again the epistle of the blessed apostle Paul into your hands. What was it that he first wrote to you, in the beginning of his epistle? He did truly by the Spirit write to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even at that time you were formed into divisions or parties.”
The only objection which can be conceived to this
But still, Paul’s own declaration, stands in the way of our
opinion, “I wrote to you in an epistle.”
In confirmation of this interpretation we can adduce the old Syriac
version, which having been made soon after the days of the apostles, is good testimony
in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable version, the meaning of the
It deserves to be mentioned here, that there is now extant a
letter from Paul to the Corinthians, distinct from those epistles of his which
we have in the Canon; and also an epistle from the church of Corinth to Paul.
These epistles are in the Armenian language, but have been translated into
Latin. The epistle ascribed to Paul is very short, and undoubtedly spurious. It
contains no prohibitions relative to keeping company with fornicators. It was
never
The only
other passage in the New Testament, which has been thought to refer to an epistle
of Paul not now extant is that in
Now, there is clear evidence, that so early as
the beginning of the second century there existed an epistle under this title; but
it was not received by the church, but was in the hands of Marcion, who was a famous
forger and corrupter of sacred books. He was contemporary with Polycarp, and therefore
very near to the times of the apostles, but was stigmatized as an enemy of the truth;
for he had the audacity to form a gospel, according to his own mind, which went
by his name; and also an apostolicon, which contained only ten of Paul’s
epistles; and these altered
Tertullian, however, gives a very different account of this matter. He asserts, “that Marcion and his followers called that the epistle to the Laodiceans, which was the epistle to the Ephesians: which epistle,” says he, “we are assured, by the testimony of the church, was sent to the Ephesians, and not to the Laodiceans; though Marcion has taken upon him falsely to prefix that title to it, pretending therein to have made some notable discovery.” And again, “I shall say nothing now of that other epistle, which we have inscribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics entitle it ‘to the Laodiceans.’”
This opinion, which, by Tertullian, is ascribed to Marcion, respecting the true
title of the epistle to the Ephesians, has been adopted, and ingeniously defended
by several distinguished moderns, as Grotius, Hammond, Whitby, and Paley. They rely
principally on internal evidence; for unless Marcion be accepted as a witness, I
do not recollect that any of the early writers can be quoted in favour of that opinion;
but in the course of this work, we have put down the express testimony of some of
the most respectable and learned of the Fathers, on the other side; and all those
passages in the epistle which seem inconsistent with its being addressed to the
Ephesians, and neighbouring
But there is also an epistle to the Laodiceans, now extant,
against which nothing can be said, except that almost everything contained in it
is taken out of Paul’s other epistles, so that if it should be received, we add
nothing in reality to the Canon; and if it should be rejected, we lose nothing.
The reader may find a translation of this epistle inserted in the notes at the end
of the volume.
But what evidence is there that Paul ever wrote an epistle to the
Laodiceans? The text on which this opinion has been founded, in ancient and modern
times, correctly interpreted, has no such import. The words in the original are,
και την εκ Λαοδικειας
ἱνα και ὐμεις αναγνωτε.
“And that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.”
Many learned Protestants, also, have embraced the same
interpretation; while others suppose that Paul here refers to the epistle to the
Ephesians, which they
1. Paul could not with any propriety of speech have called an epistle written by himself, and sent to the Laodiceans, an epistle from Laodicea. He certainly would have said, προς Λαοδικειαν, or some such thing. Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to any individual, or to any society, denominated an epistle from them?
2. If the epistle referred to in this passage had been one written by Paul, it would have been most natural for him to call it his epistle, and this would have rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruction.
3. All those best qualified to judge of the fact,
and who were well acquainted with Paul’s history and writings, never mention any
such epistle: neither Clement, Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew anything
of such an epistle of Paul; and no one seems to have had knowledge of any such writing,
except Marcion, who probably forged it to answer his own purposes. But whether Marcion
did acknowledge an epistle different from all that we have in the Canon, rests on
the authority of Epiphanius, who wrote a criticism on the apostolicon of Marcion;
but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a different story. It is of little importance
to decide
But it may be asked, To what epistle then does Paul refer? To this inquiry various answers have been given, and perhaps nothing determinate can now be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul’s first epistle to Timothy was here intended. But this is not probable. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that it was the first epistle of John, which he supposes was written from Laodicea. Others have thought that it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it seems safest, in such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and to believe that it was an epistle written by the Laodiceans, probably to himself, which he had sent to the Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their perusal.
That the epistle which is now extant is not the same as that which formerly existed, at least as early as the fourth century, is evident from the quotations from the ancient epistle, by Epiphanius; for no such words as he cites are in that now extant. But candour requires that it be mentioned that they are contained in the epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh as much as it is worth in favour of the opinion, that the apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers to the epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, however, is perfectly consistent with our position, that no canonical book of the New Testament has been lost. This proposition, we hope, will now appear to the reader sufficiently established.
RULES FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL—SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH HAVE BEEN LOST—ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED BY THE FOREGOING RULES—REASON OF THE ABOUNDING OF SUCH BOOKS.
OF the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the greater part have long since sunk into oblivion, but a few of them are still extant. All of them can be proved to be spurious, or at least not canonical. Their claims have so little to support them, that they might be left to that oblivion, into which they have so generally fallen, were it not that, from time to time, persons unfriendly to our present Canon bring forward these books., and pretend that some of them, at least, have as good claims to canonical authority as those which are received. It will be satisfactory to the reader, therefore, to know the names of these books, and to understand the principles on which they have been uniformly rejected by the church.
In the first place, then, I will mention the rules laid down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it may be determined that a book is apocryphal, and then I will give some account of the books of this class which have been lost; and finally, consider the character of those which are still extant.
1. That book is certainly apocryphal which contains manifest contradictions.
The reason of this rule is too evident to need any elucidation.
2. That book is apocryphal, which contains any doctrine or history, plainly contrary to those which are certainly known to be true.
This rule is also too clear to require anything to be said in confirmation of its propriety.
3. That book is apocryphal which contains anything ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly and fabulous stories.
This rule is not only true, but of great importance, in this inquiry; as on examination it will be found, that the largest part of apocryphal books may be detected by the application of this single rule.
4. That book is apocryphal which mentions things of a date much later than the time in which the author, under whose name it goes, lived.
This rule does not apply to predictions of future events, which events occurred long after the death of the prophet; but to a reference to facts, or names of places, or persons, as existing when the book was written, which are known to have existed, only at a period long since the time when the supposed author lived. The rule will be better understood, if illustrated by particular examples. The book entitled, “The Constitutions of the Apostles,” speaks of the controversy which arose in the third century, respecting the rebaptization of heretics, therefore, it is not the work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been ascribed; nor was it written in his time, but long afterwards.
Again, the book under the name of Hegesippus is not genuine, for it mentions Constantine and Constantinople, which had no existence until long after the death of Hegesippus.
Moreover, in “The Constitutions of the Apostles,” there is mention of rites and ceremonies, relative to baptism, fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had no existence in the times of the apostles, therefore this book was not written by an apostolical man, nor in the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards.
5. That book is apocryphal, the style of which is entirely different from the known style of the author to whom it is ascribed.
It is easy to counterfeit an author’s name, age, country, opinions, &c.; but it will be found almost impossible to imitate his style. An author, it is true, may vary his style to suit different subjects, but there is commonly some peculiarity by which he may be distinguished from all others. “Jerome,” says Sixtus, “writes one way in his epistles, another in his controversies, a third in his commentaries;—one way when young, another when old, yet he always so writes that you may know him to be the same Jerome still, as a man knows his friend under all the various casts and turns of his countenance.” Thus Augustine says of Cyprian, ” His style has a certain peculiar face by which it may be known.”
It should be remembered, however, that this rule,
although it may often furnish a certain detection of spurious writings is one which
requires much caution in the application. There is need of a long and intimate acquaintance
with the style of an author, before we are competent to determine whether a book
could
6. That book is spurious and apocryphal, whose idiom and dialect are different from those of the country to which the reputed author belonged.
The idiom and dialect of a language are very different from the style of an author. Every language is susceptible of every variety of style, but the idiom is the’ same in all who use the language: it is the peculiarity, not of an individual, but of a whole country. But as every writer has a style of his own, which cannot easily be imitated by another, so every country has an idiom, which other nations, even if they learn the language, cannot, without great difficulty, acquire. And for the same reason that a writer cannot acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot divest himself of the peculiarities of his own.
An Englishman can
scarcely write and speak the French language, so as not to discover by his idiom
that it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence also, a North Briton can be distinguished,
not only from the peculiarity of his pronunciation, but by his idiom. And this is
the reason that modern scholars can never write Latin, in the manner of the classic
authors. This rule, therefore, is of great importance in detecting the spuriousness
of a book, when the real author lived after the time of the person whose name is
assumed, or in a country where a different language,
The fact is, as has often been observed by learned men, that while the words of these books are Greek the idiom is Hebrew. The writers had, from their infancy, been accustomed to the Syro-Chaldaic language, which is a corruption of the ancient Hebrew. Now, this peculiarity of idiom could never have been successfully imitated by any native Greek; nor by any one, not early conversant with the vernacular tongue of Palestine at that time. When, therefore, men of other countries, and other times, undertook to publish books under the name of the apostles, the imposture was manifest at once, to all capable of judging correctly on the subject; because, although they could write in the same language as the apostles, they could not possibly imitate their idiom. This, therefore, furnishes a most important characteristic, to distinguish between the genuine writings of the apostles and such as are supposititious.
7.
That book is spurious which exhibits a disposition
This rule depends on a principle in human nature well understood, and needs no particular elucidation.
8. That book is not genuine, which consists principally of mere extracts from other books.
This is also so evident, that it requires no illustration.
9. Those books which were never cited, nor referred to as Scripture, by any writer of credit for the first four hundred years after the apostles’ days, are apocryphal.
10. Those books which were expressly rejected by the Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and attributed by them to heretics, are apocryphal.
By the application of the foregoing rules, it can be shown, that every book which claims canonical authority, not included in our present Canon, is apocryphal. When we denominate all books apocryphal which are not canonical, we do not mean to reduce them all to the same level. A book which is not canonical may be a very instructive and useful book. As a human composition it may deserve to be highly esteemed; and as the writing of a pious and eminent man of antiquity it may claim peculiar respect.
The ancient method of division was more accurate than ours. They divided all books into three classes; first, the canonical; secondly, the ecclesiastical; and thirdly, the spurious. And there is reason to believe that some books which were written without the least fraudulent design, by anonymous authors, have, by the ignorance of their successors, been ascribed to the wrong persons.
That the Fathers did sometimes cite apocryphal books, in their writings, is true; but so did Paul cite the heathen poets. If these books are sometimes mentioned, without any note of disapprobation annexed, it can commonly be clearly ascertained from other places in the same author, that he held them to be apocryphal. Thus Origen, in one place, quotes “the gospel according to the Hebrews,” without any expression of disapprobation; but in another place he rejects it as spurious, and declares, “That the church receives no more than four gospels.”
Sometimes the
Fathers cited these apocryphal books, to show that their knowledge was not confined
to their own books, and that they did not reject others, through ignorance of their
contents. Remarkably to this purpose are the words of Origen. “The church,” says
he, “receives only four gospels: heretics have many, such as the gospel of the Egyptians,
the gospel of Thomas, &c.: these we read, that we may not seem to be ignorant to
those who think they know something extraordinary, if they are acquainted with those
things which are recorded in these books.” To the same purpose speaks
Ambrose;
for, having mentioned several of these books, he says, “We read these that they
may not be read by others: we read them, that we may not seem ignorant; we read
them, not that we receive them, but that we may reject them; and may know what those
things are, of which they make such a boast.” In some instances, it seems probable
that some of the Fathers took passages out of these books, because they were acknowledged
by those against whom they were writing; being
It may perhaps be true also, that one or two of the Fathers cited passages from these books, because they contained facts not recorded in the canonical gospels. The apostle John informs us that our Lord performed innumerable miracles, besides those which he had recorded; “The which, if they should be written every one, I suppose the world itself could not contain the books which should be written.” Now, some tradition of some of these things would undoubtedly be handed down as low as to the second century, and might find its way into some of the apocryphal gospels, and might be cited by persons who did not believe the book to be of canonical authority; just as we refer to any profane author for the proof of such facts as are credibly related by them. There is, at least, one example of this. Jerome refers to the gospel according to the Hebrews for a fact; and yet he most explicitly rejects this book as apocryphal.
The only books which were ever read in the churches, besides the canonical, were a few written by apostolical men; which, although not written by a plenary inspiration, were the genuine writings of the persons whose names they bore, and were pious productions, and tended to edification; such as, the “Epistle of Clement,” the “Shepherd of Hermas,” and the “Epistle of Barnabas;” but no spurious books were ever read in the churches.
None of the writings falsely ascribed to Christ and his
apostles, ever acquired so much authority, as to be publicly read in any church,
as far as we know. Indeed, although the apocryphal books of the New
If it be inquired, how it
happened that so many apocryphal books were written, it may confidently be answered,
that the principal cause was the abounding of heresies. Almost all the spurious
writings, under the names of the apostles, are the productions of heretics, as we
learn from the testimony of those Fathers who have made mention of them. It is
however true, that some mistaken well-meaning people thought that they could add
honour to the apostles, or contribute to the edification of the church, by resorting
to (what have improperly been called) pious frauds. They imagined, also, that they
could recommend Christianity to the Gentiles, by inventing stories, which they rashly
pretended were sayings or actions of Christ: thus adopting the pernicious maxim,
so peremptorily denounced by Paul, “that we may do evil that good may come;” or
that the goodness of the end will sanctify the badness of the means.
It is probable, also, that some of these books were written without any evil purpose, by weak men, who wrote down all the stories they had received by tradition; for, no doubt, a multitude of traditions respecting Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distortions and additions, would be handed down for several generations.
By all these means, the number of apocryphal books of the New Testament was greatly
multiplied. But by far the greater number of these have perished; yet there is no
difficulty in determining, that none of them had any just claim to a place in the
Canon. By one or more of the rules laid down above, they can all be demonstrated
to have been apocryphal: and indeed most of them are never mentioned by any ancient
author, in any other light than as spurious writings. There is a famous decree of
pope Gelasius, in which at least twenty-five of these books are
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS WHICH ARE STILL EXTANT—LETTER OF ABGARUS KING OF EDESSA TO JESUS, AND HIS ANSWER—EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS—LETTERS OF PAUL TO SENECA—PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES—THE GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR’S INFANCY—THE ACTS OF PILATE—THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA.
WE come now to consider those apocryphal books which are still extant, and concerning which, therefore, we can speak more particularly.
The first of these is, “the letter of Abgarus, king of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, and sent by his footman Ananias.”
Eusebius is the first who makes mention
of this epistle, and the sum of his account is, that our Saviour’s miraculous works
drew innumerable persons to him, from the most remote countries, to be healed of
their diseases;—that Abgarus, a famous king beyond the
Euphrates, wrote to him, because he was afflicted with a malady incurable by
human art. Our Lord promised to send one of his disciples to him, and Thaddeus,
one of the seventy disciples, was sent by Thomas after the ascension of Jesus,
by an intimation given him from heaven. For the truth of this story, Eusebius
appeals to the public records of the city of Edessa, where, he says, all the
transactions of
These epistles are also mentioned by Ephrem, the
Syrian, who was a deacon in the church of Edessa, in the latter end of the fourth
century. His account of this matter, as given by Dr. Grabe, is as follows: “Blessed
be your city, and mother Edessa, which
No other writer of the first four centuries makes any explicit mention of this epistle; but Procopius, in the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war, relates, ” That Abgarus had been long afflicted with the gout, and finding no relief from the physicians, but hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him, and desired that he would come and live with him; and that upon his receiving an answer from Christ, he was immediately cured; and that our Saviour, in the end of his letter, gave Abgarus assurance, that his city should never be taken by enemies.”
Evagrius, in the latter end of the sixth century, appeals
to this account of Procopius, and confirms the story that the city never should
be taken by enemies, by a reference to some facts, particularly the failure of Chosroes
to take the city, when he laid siege to it. But this author adds a circumstance,
which has much the air of a fable, that this failure of capturing the city was brought
about by a picture
Cedrenus adds to all the rest that Christ sealed his letter with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew letters, the meaning of which was, “the divine miracle of God is seen.”
Among the moderns, a very large majority are of opinion that this epistle is apocryphal. Indeed, the principal advocates of its genuineness are a few learned Englishmen, particularly Dr. Parker, Dr. Cave, and Dr. Grabe, but they do not speak confidently on the subject; while on the other side are found almost the whole body of learned critics, both Protestants and Romanists. Now, that this epistle and history existed in the archives of Edessa in the time of Eusebius, there is no room to doubt, unless we would accuse this respectable historian of the most deliberate falsehood; for he asserts that he himself had taken them thence. His words, however, must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had himself been at Edessa, and had translated the epistle from the Syriac; for there is reason to believe that he never visited that place, and that he was not acquainted with the Syriac tongue. The words will be sufficiently verified, if this document was translated and transmitted to him through an authentic channel from Edessa.
It is probable, therefore, that this story has some foundation in truth.
Probably Thaddeus, or some other apostle, did preach the gospel and perform miracles
in that city; but how much of the story is credible, it is not now easy to determine.
But I
1. It is never mentioned in the genuine gospels; nor referred to by any writer of the first three centuries.
2. If this account had been true, there never could have been any hesitation among the apostles about preaching the gospel to the Gentiles.
3. It is unreasonable to believe that if Christ had been applied to by this king for healing, he would have deferred a cure until he could send an apostle after his ascension. This does not correspond with the usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour.
4. It seems to have been a tradition universally received that Christ never wrote anything himself; and if he had written this letter, it would have been more prized than any other portion of Scripture, and would have been placed in the Canon, and everywhere read in the churches.
5. After it was published by Eusebius, it never gained so much credit as to be received as a genuine writing of Christ. As it was unknown in the first three centuries, so in the fourth when published it was scarcely noticed by any writer.
6. The plain mention of our Lord’s ascension in the epistle,
is an evidence of its spuriousness; for in all his discourses, recorded by the
evangelists, there is no such explicit declaration of this event; and it cannot
be supposed that he would speak more explicitly to a heathen king than to the
persons chosen to be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his doctrine.
There is, however, nothing in the sentiments expressed
II. There is
now extant an epistle under the title of “Paul to the Laodiceans,” and it is known
that as early as the beginning of the second century, a work existed under this
name which was received by Marcion the heretic. But there is good reason for thinking
that the epistle now extant is an entirely different work from the one which anciently
existed; for the present epistle does not contain the words which Epiphanius has
cited from that used by Marcion; and what renders this clear is, that the ancient
epistle was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of the church with one consent;
whereas, the one which we now have contains nothing erroneous; for it is a
Concerning the ancient epistle under this title Philastrius says, “That some were of opinion that it was written by Luke; but because the heretics have inserted some (false) things, it is for that reason not read in the churches. Though it be read by some, yet there are no more than thirteen epistles of Paul read to the people in the church, and sometimes that to the Hebrews.” “There are some,” says Jerome, “who read an epistle, under the name of Paul to the Laodiceans, but is rejected by all.” And Epiphanius calls it “an epistle not written by the apostles.” The epistle now extant never having been received into the ancient catalogues, read in the churches, or cited as Scripture, is of course apocryphal. It is also proved not to be genuine, because it is almost entirely an extract from the other epistles of Paul.
III. Another writing which has been ascribed to Paul is, “Six Letters to
Seneca,” with which are connected “Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul.” These letters
are of undoubted antiquity, and several learned men of the Jesuits have defended
them as genuine, and allege that they are similar to other epistles received into
the Canon which were addressed to individuals. That such letters were in existence
as early as the fourth century appears from a passage in Jerome’s Catalogue of Illustrious
Men, where he gives the following account of Seneca: “Lucius Anneus Seneca, born
at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a
There is also a passage in Augustine’s 54th epistle to Macedonius, which shows that he was not unacquainted with these letters. His words are, “It is true, which Seneca, who lived in the times of the apostles, and who wrote certain epistles to Paul which are now read, said, ‘he who will hate those who are wicked must hate all men.’”
There is no authentic evidence that these letters have been noticed by any of the rest of the Fathers. Indeed, it has been too hastily asserted by several eminent critics, that Augustine believed that the letters of Paul to Seneca were genuine; but the fact is, that he makes no mention whatever of Paul’s letters; he only mentions those of Seneca to Paul. The probability is that he never saw them, for had he been acquainted with them, it is scarcely credible that he would have said nothing respecting them in this place.
Neither does Jerome say anything from which it can with any certainty
be inferred that he received these letters as genuine. He gives them the title by
which they were known, and says they were read
But the style of these letters sufficiently demonstrates that they are not genuine. Nothing can be more dissimilar to the style of Paul and of Seneca, than that of these epistles. “The style of those attributed to Seneca,” says Dupin, “is barbarous, and full of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue.” “And those attributed to Paul,” says Mr. Jeremiah Jones, “have not the least tincture of the gravity of the apostle, but are rather compliments than instructions.” The subscriptions of these letters are very different from those used by these writers in their genuine epistles. Seneca is made to salute Paul by the name of brother; an appellation not in use among the heathen, but peculiar to Christians. By several of these letters it would appear that Paul was at Rome when they were written, but from others the contrary may be inferred. It seems strange if they were both in the city, that they should date their letters by consulships; and, indeed, this method of dating letters was wholly unknown among the Romans; and there are several mistakes in them in regard to the consuls in authority at the time.
Their trifling
contents is also a strong argument of spuriousness. “They contain nothing,” says Dupin,
“worthy either of Seneca or of Paul; scarcely one
IV. There is extant a spurious gospel entitled, the “Protevangelion of James,” in the Greek language, which was brought from the east by Postell, who asserts that it is held to be genuine by the oriental churches, and is publicly read in their assemblies with the other Scriptures. This learned man, moreover, undertakes the defence of this gospel as the genuine production of the apostle James, and insists that it ought at least to have a place in the Hagiographa. But his arguments are weak, and have been fully refuted by Fabricius and Jones.
This apocryphal book,
however, appears to be
There is also another
work which has a near affinity with this, called “The Nativity of Mary.” And although
these books possess a similar character, and contain many things in common, yet
in other points they are contradictory to each other, as they both are to the evangelical
history. The internal evidence is itself sufficient to satisfy any candid reader
of their apocryphal character.
V. The largest apocryphal gospel extant is entitled “The Gospel of our Saviour’s Infancy.” There is also remaining a fragment of a gospel ascribed to Thomas, which probably was originally no other than the one just mentioned. These gospels were never supposed to be canonical by any Christian writer. They were forged and circulated by the Gnostics, and altered from time to time according to their caprice.
The “Gospel of our Saviour’s Infancy,” seems
to have been known to Mohammed, or rather to his assistants; for according to his
own account, in the Koran, he was unable to read. Many of the things related in
the Koran, respecting Christianity, are from this apocryphal work. This gospel is
condemned by almost every rule laid down for the detection of spurious writings;
and if all other evidence were wanting, the silly, trifling and ludicrous stories,
with which it is stuffed, would be enough to demonstrate, that it was spurious and
apocryphal. To give the curious reader an opportunity of contrasting these apocryphal
legends with the gravity and simplicity of the genuine gospels, I have inserted
some of the miracles recorded in this book, at the end of the volume.
It seems
highly probable that this “Gospel of the Saviour’s Infancy,” and the book of the
“Nativity of Mary,” were originally parts of the same work; an evidence of which
is, that in the Koran, there is a continued and connected story, which is taken
partly from the one, and partly from the other.
Both these apocryphal books have been formerly ascribed to Lucius Charinus, who lived in the latter part of the third century, and who rendered himself famous, by forging spurious works under the name of the apostles.
VI. There is another apocryphal gospel, entitled, “the Gospel of Nicodemus,” or, “the Acts of Pilate,” which was probably forged about the same time as the one last treated of, and it is very likely by the same person. That it was the custom for the governors of provinces in the Roman empire, to transmit to the emperors an account of all remarkable occurrences under their government, is capable of proof from the Roman history, and Eusebius expressly informs us that this was customary: and Philo Judæus speaks of “the daily memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula, from Alexandria.”
That Pontius Pilate transmitted some account of the crucifixion of Christ, and of his wonderful works, is, therefore, in itself, highly probable; but it is rendered certain, by the public appeal made to these “Acts of Pilate,” both by Justin Martyr and Tertullian, in their Apologies; the one addressed to the Roman emperor Antonius Pius, and the other probably to the Roman senate. The words of Justin Martyr are, “And of the truth of these facts you may be informed, out of the acts which were written by Pontius Pilate.” And in the same apology he refers to these acts for proof, ” That our Saviour cured all sorts of diseases, and raised the dead.”
Tertullian, in two places of his Apology, appeals to records
which were transmitted to Tiberius from Jerusalem. His testimony is remarkable in
both places, and deserves to be transcribed: “Tiberius,” says he, “in
whose time the Christian name became first known in the world, having received
information from Palestine in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there given manifest
proof of the truth of his divinity,
In the other passage, after enumerating many
of the miracles of Christ, he adds, “All these things, Pilate himself, who was in
his conscience for following Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Cæsar; and even the Cæsars themselves had been Christians, if it had been consistent with their secular
interests.” Both Eusebius and Jerome, cite this testimony of Tertullian as
authentic. It seems therefore certain, that some account of Christ and his
actions was transmitted by Pilate to the emperor. “For,” to use the words of an
eminent man, “Tertullian, though a Christian writer, durst never have presumed
to impose upon the senate themselves, with such a remarkable story, if he was
not able to prove it; and that he was, is evident from Justin Martyr, who often
appeals to the Acts of Pilate, concerning the history of our Saviour-That Pilate
did send such acts is evident, for scarce any man, much less such a man as
Justin Martyr, would have been so foolish, or so confident, as to affirm a thing
in which it would be so easy to convict him of falsehood.”
And another, speaking of the same thing, says, “They were men of excellent learning
and judgment; but no man who could write an apology, can be supposed to have so
little understanding, as to appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tiberius,
concerning the resurrection of Christ, in apologies,
It does not follow, however, that these Fathers had ever seen these Acts, or that they were ever seen by any Christian. During the reigns of heathen emperors, Christians could have no access to the archives of the nation; but the fact of the existence of such a record might have been, and probably was, a matter of public notoriety; otherwise, we never can account for the confident appeal of these learned and respectable writers. There is no difficulty in conceiving how such a fact might have been certainly known to these Fathers, without supposing that they had seen the record. As the learned Casaubon says, “Some servants or officers of one of the Cæsars, who were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity of searching the public records at Rome, gave this account to some Christians, from whom Justin and Tertullian had it.”
It may seem to be an objection to the existence of such Acts,
that they were never made public when the emperors became Christians; but it is
altogether probable, that they were destroyed through the malice of the senate,
or of some Roman emperor who was hostile to Christianity. They who took so much
pains to destroy the writings of Christians, would not suffer such a monument of
the truth of Christianity to remain in their own palace. But as to those Acts of
Pilate which are now extant, no one supposes that they are genuine. They have
every mark of being spurious. The external and internal evidence is
It may, however, be worth while to inquire into the motives which probably led some mistaken Christian to forge such a narrative. And there seems to have been two: first, to have it in his power to show the record, to which the Fathers had so confidently referred. The heathen adversaries might say, after the destruction of the genuine Acts of Pilate, Where is the document to which this appeal has been made? let it be produced. And some man, thinking that he could serve the cause of Christianity by forging Acts, under the name of Pilate, was induced through a mistaken zeal, to write this narrative.
But there was another
reason which probably had some influence on this fact. About the close of the third
century, the heathen had forged and published a writing called “The Acts of Pilate,”
the object of which was to render the Christians odious and contemptible to the
public, by foul calumnies against their Founder and his apostles. Of this fact,
Eusebius gives us express and particular information. “From whence,” says he,
“the
forgery of these is manifestly detected, who have lately published certain Acts
against our Saviour. In which, first, the very time which is assigned to them discovers
the imposture; for those things which they have impudently forged, to have come
to pass at our Saviour’s crucifixion, are said to have occurred in the fourth consulship
of Tiberius, which coincides with the seventh of his reign; at which time, it is
certain, Pilate was not yet come into Judea, if any credit is due to Josephus, who
expressly says, that Pilate was
Here it may be observed,
that while this impudent forgery clearly shows with what malicious efforts the attempt
was made to subvert the gospel, it proves at the same time, that there had existed
a document under the name of “The Acts of Pilate.’” Now, the circulation of such
an impious piece of blasphemy, probably instigated Charinus, or whoever was the
author of these Acts, to counteract them by a work of another kind, under the same
name. How this book came to be called, “The Gospel of Nicodemus,” will
appear by the subscription annexed to it, in which
VII. The last apocryphal
book which I shall mention, is that entitled “The Acts of Paul and Thecla.” There
is no doubt but that this book is apocryphal. It was so considered by all the Fathers
who have mentioned it. Tertullian says respecting it,
“But if any read the apocryphal books of Paul, and thence defend the right of
women to teach and baptize, by the example of Thecla, let them consider that a
certain presbyter of Asia, who forged that book, under the name of Paul, being
convicted of forgery, confessed that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so
left his place.”
It is manifest,
however, that the primitive Christians
No doubt the book now extant is greatly altered from that
ancient history referred to by the Fathers, and probably the original story was
founded on some tradition which had a foundation in truth; but what the truth
is, it is impossible now to discover among
NO PART OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANDED DOWN BY UNWRITTEN TRADITION.
IN the former part of this work it was seen that it was not only necessary to show that the apocryphal writings had no right to a place in the sacred volume, but that there was no additional revelation which had been handed down by oral tradition. The same necessity devolves upon us in relation to the New Testament; for while it is pretty generally agreed by all Christians what books should be received into the Canon, there is a large society which strenuously maintains that besides the revelation contained in the divine record written by the apostles and their assistants, by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit, there is a further revelation consisting of such things as were received from the mouth of Christ himself while upon earth, or taught to the churches by his inspired apostles, which were not by them nor in their time committed to writing, but which have come down to us by unbroken tradition.
The importance of this inquiry is manifest; for if, in
addition to the written word, there are important doctrines and necessary
sacraments of the church which have come down by tradition, it would be
This doctrine of traditions is most convenient and favourable to the church of Rome
in all her controversies with Protestants and others; for whatever she may assert
as an article of faith, or teach as a part of Christian duty, although there be
no vestige of it in the word of God, may readily be established by tradition. For
as the church alone has the keeping of this body of oral law, she only is the proper
judge of
To exhibit
fairly the true point of controversy on this subject, it will be requisite to make
several preliminary
1. In the first place then, it is readily admitted that a law revealed from heaven and communicated to us orally, with clear evidence of its origin, is as binding as if written ever so often. When God uttered the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, in the midst of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as obligatory upon the hearers, as after he had written them on tables of stone. It is a dictate of common sense, that it is a matter of indifference how a divine revelation is communicated, provided it come to us properly authenticated.
2. Again,
it is conceded, that for a long time there was no other method of transmitting the
revelations received from heaven, from generation to generation, but by oral tradition,
and such external memorials as aided in keeping up the remembrance of important
transactions. As far as appears books were unknown, and letters not in use, until
a considerable time after the flood. During the long period which preceded the time
of Moses, all revelations must have been handed down by tradition. But while this
concession is willingly made, it ought in connection to be remarked, that this mode
was then used because no other existed; and that, in the early ages of the world,
the longevity of the patriarchs rendered that a comparatively safe channel of communication
which would now be most uncertain; and notwithstanding this advantage, the fact
was, that in every instance, as far as we are informed, in which divine truth was
committed to tradition, it was utterly lost, or soon became so corrupted by foreign
mixtures,
It is, therefore, not an improbable supposition, that God taught letters to Moses for the express purpose of conveying, by this means, his laws to distant ages, without alteration; and it deserves to be well considered, that after the command was given to Moses, to write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to him, nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been shown in the former part of this work.
3. It will be granted also, that tradition, especially when connected with external memorials, is sufficient to transmit, through a long lapse of time, the knowledge of particular events, or of transactions of a very simple nature.
Thus it may be admitted, that if the gospels had not come down
to us, we might by tradition be assured that Christ instituted the eucharist as
a memorial of his death; for, from the time of its institution, it has, in every
successive age, and in many countries, been celebrated to perpetuate the
remembrance of that event. And it is not credible that such a tradition should
be uniform at all times, and everywhere, and be connected with the same external
rite, if it was not founded in fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in
There is one fact, for the truth of which we depend entirely on tradition, so far as external testimony is concerned, and that is the truth which in this work we have been attempting to establish, that the books of the New Testament were written by the persons under whose names they have come down to us. This fact is incapable of being proved from the Scriptures, because we must first be assured that they contain the testimony of inspired men before we can prove anything by them. The point to be established here is, that the apostles wrote these books. If it were ever so often asserted in a book, that a certain person was its author, this would not be satisfactory evidence of its genuineness, because any impostor can write what falsehoods he pleases in a book, and may ascribe it to whom he will; as in fact many have written spurious works, and ascribed them to the apostles. We must, therefore, have the testimony of those who had the opportunity of judging of the fact, given either explicitly or implicitly.
In most cases, where a book
is published under the name of some certain author, in the country in which he lived
and was known, a general silent acquiescence in the fact, by the people of that
age and country, with the consent of all that came after them, may be considered
as satisfactory evidence of the genuineness of such book. But where much depends
on the certainty of the fact in question, it is necessary to have positive testimony;
and in order that it be satisfactory, it should be universal, and uncontradicted.
When, therefore, a certain volume is expressly
The very purpose of written records is to prevent the necessity
of trusting to the uncertainty of tradition; and as to the allegation that the Scriptures
owe their authority to the church, it amounts to no more than this, which we freely
admit, that it is by the testimony of the early Fathers that we are assured that
these writings are the productions of the apostles, and it is true that most of
those witnesses who have given testimony were members of the Catholic church. But
our confidence in their testimony on this point, is not because they were members
of the church, but because they lived in times and circumstances favourable to an
accurate knowledge of the fact which they report. And accordingly we admit the testimony
of those who were out of the church; yea, of its bitterest enemies to the same fact,
and on some accounts judge it to be the most unexceptionable. While we weigh this
evidence it would be absurd to make its validity depend on the witnesses being members
of the church; for that would be to determine that the church was divine and infallible,
before we had ascertained that the Scriptures were the word of God. Surely, if on
examination it had turned out that the Scriptures were not inspired, the authority
of the Christian church would have been worth nothing, and therefore previously
to the decision on this point we cannot defer anything to the authority of the church.
The truth is, that the witnesses being of the church is, in this inquiry, merely
an incidental circumstance. A sufficient number of competent and credible witnesses,
not of the church, would establish the fact just as well as those who have given
testimony, and, as was before observed,
The testimony of Jews and heathen has, on this account, been demanded by infidels, and has been sought for with avidity by the defenders of Christianity, and in the view of all considerate men is of great weight. But it is not just to ascribe the authority of these books to the church, because the greater number of the witnesses of their apostolical origin were members of the church. The law enacted by the supreme legislature of the state does not owe its authority to the men who attest its genuineness. It is true, it would not be known certainly to be a law without the attestation, but it would be absurd to ascribe the authority of the law to the persons whose testimony proved that it was really a law of the state. The cases are exactly parallel. The Scriptures cannot owe their authority to the church, for without them the church can have no authority, and although she may, and does give ample testimony in favour of their divine origin, this confers no authority on them, it only proves to us that they have authority which is derived from the Spirit of God, by whom they were indited. It is truly wonderful how this plain case has been perplexed and darkened by the artifice and sophistry of the writers of the church of Rome.
But if it be insisted, that if we admit tradition
as sufficient evidence of a fact in one case, we ought to do so in every other where
the tradition is as clear, we answer, that to this we have no objection, provided
this species of proof be as necessary and as clear in the one case as the other.
Let any other fact be shown to be as fully attested as the genuineness
4. We are, moreover, ready to acknowledge that
the gospel was at first, for several years, communicated orally by the apostles
and their assistants. The churches when first planted had no written gospels; they
received the same truths now contained in the gospels and epistles, by the preaching
of the apostles and others; and, doubtless, were as well instructed as those churches
which have had possession of the
I have now presented
the argument in favour of traditions in the strongest light in which I am able to
place it; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that it wears at first sight a
face of plausibility: and if the whole case as here stated, could be made out with
satisfactory evidence, I think we should be constrained to receive, to some extent,
this oral law of the Romish church. But before any man can reasonably
But it is incumbent on the advocates of tradition
to show, by undoubted proofs, that what they say has come down by tradition was
really received from the mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his apostles.
As they wish to claim for this rule an authority fully equal to that which is given
to the Scriptures, they ought to be able to produce the very words in which these
instructions were given. But this they do not pretend to do. It may be said, indeed,
that words and sentences, in their just order and connection, cannot be conveyed
by tradition, and therefore this demand is unreasonable. I answer, that this allegation
is most true, but instead of making in
But it is essential to the credit of traditions, that it be
proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or institutions of worship,
said to be received from this source, have indeed been handed down, without
alteration or corruption, from Christ and his apostles. It is not sufficient
that they have been long received, and have now the sanction of the belief and
practice of the whole Catholic church. It ought to be shown, that they have
always, from the very days of the apostles, been received with universal
consent. We know that the church has undergone many vicissitudes; that she has
sometimes been almost extirpated by the sword of persecution; has been overrun
with dangerous errors; has been overwhelmed with the darkness of Gothic
ignorance; and we believe, has greatly apostatized from purity of doctrine and
worship; and this accords with the prophecy of Paul, who clearly intimates that
a time would come,
Besides, there is a multitude of other things received and held to be important
by the church of Rome, of which there is no vestige in the Scriptures, and concerning
which there is no early tradition. Many rules and ceremonies which have been long
in use, can be traced to their commencement at a period much later than that of
the apostles. Now amidst such a mass of traditions, how can it be ascertained which
have come down from Christ and his apostles? Perhaps we shall be told, that the
infallible head of the church can determine with certainty what we ought to believe
and practise; but if there be on earth an infallible judge, we have no need of traditions.
All that is necessary is, for this person to establish his claim to infallibility,
and then all will be as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they were expressly
written in the holy Scriptures. On this ground the controversy between the Romanists
and Protestants first commenced. The defenders of
The council
of Trent, therefore, early in their sessions, made a decree on this subject, in
which, after recognizing the Scriptures, they add: “The Holy Synod receives and
venerates traditions relating both to faith and manners, as proceeding from the
mouth of Christ himself, or as dictated by the Holy Spirit, and preserved in an
uninterrupted succession in the Catholic church, with equal affection and reverence,
Before leaving this subject, it will be proper to consider some of the other arguments, which the Romanists bring forward in support of their beloved traditions.
And the first is imposing, as it is derived from the express
declarations of Scripture, in which we are exhorted to obey traditions. “Now we
command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus, that ye withdraw
yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the
tradition which he received of us.”
It is manifest, therefore, that the argument derived from the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair examination.
2. Their next and principal argument is derived from the frequent declarations of the early Fathers in favour of tradition. Cyprian refers those who might be in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the holy tradition received from Christ and his apostles; and Irenæus, as cited by Eusebius, says, “that those things which he heard Polycarp relate concerning Christ, his virtues and his doctrines, which he had learned from converse with the apostles, he had inscribed on his heart, and not on paper.” But after a few sentences he informs us “that all which he had heard from them was in accordance with the Scriptures, (παντα συμφωνα ταις γραφαις.”) This sentence of Irenæus is of great importance, for it teaches us how the Fathers understood this subject. They received such traditions as came down through pious men from the apostles, but they compared them with the Scriptures; even then the Scriptures were the standard by which all traditions must be judged. Irenseus insinuates, plainly enough, that if what he had heard from Polycarp, had not been in accordance with the Scriptures he would not have considered it as deserving attention.
But
the same Irenæus and Tertullian have spoken in still stronger terms in favour of
tradition in their controversies with heretics. The former, in the third chapter
of the third book of his work on Heresies, says, “The tradition of the apostles
is manifest in the whole world. In the church it is exposed to the view of all who
are willing to know the truth.” And in the fourth chapter, “It is not necessary
to seek the truth from others which can easily be acquired from the church, since
the blessed apostles have deposited
Tertullian, in his work concerning “Prescriptions,” says, “If Christ commissioned certain persons to preach his gospel, then certainly none should be received as preachers except those appointed to office by him. And as they preached what Christ revealed unto them, what they taught can only be known by applying to the churches which the apostles planted, by preaching to them, whether viva voce, or by their epistles. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees with that held by the apostolical churches is to be considered as true and held fast, because the churches received it from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God; but all other doctrine which is repugnant to that received by the churches should be rejected as false, as being repugnant to that truth taught by the apostles, by Christ, and by God.”
These declarations from such
men in favour of tradition seem, at first view, to be altogether favourable to the
doctrine of the church of Rome; but we despair
Nothing can be more manifest,
therefore, than that the matters in dispute were not such as could only be proved
by tradition, but they were such truths as lie at the very foundation of the Christian
religion, and to record which, the gospels and epistles were written. But still
the question returns, why did these Fathers appeal for proof to tradition, when
they had testimony so full and decisive from the Scriptures? The answer to this
question will show us, in the
From these quotations,
the reason why these Fathers had recourse to traditions is most manifest. It was
the only ground on which these heretics could be met; for they denied, (as the Romanists
now do,) that the Scriptures were a certain and sufficient
It is now easy to see why the appeal was made by the Fathers to universal tradition;
and they show, that in their day tradition and Scripture were harmonious; and that
if the apostles had written nothing, the consent of all the churches would be sufficient
to prove, that the doctrines which they defended were received from the apostles.
Instead, therefore, of using tradition, as the Romanists do, to prove some doctrine
not contained in the Scripture, they used it merely to confirm the truths which
are manifestly contained in the New Testament. They were at no loss for Scripture
testimonies to establish these truths, but they were disputing with men who did
not admit the authority of the Scriptures to be decisive, and therefore they appeal
to universal tradition in support of them. It is said, indeed, by Irenæus, that
many barbarous nations had received the faith, among whom letters and writing were
unknown. They must, therefore, it is concluded, have received it from tradition.
Very good. Just as heathen tribes now receive, from those missionaries who preach
the gospel to them, a short summary of the most important doctrines
In the second chapter of the first book of the same work, Irenaeus describes
the apostolical doctrine, thus: “The church, planted by the apostles and their
disciples throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, receives the
same faith; which is, in one God Almighty, the Father, who made heaven and earth,
the sea, and all things which are therein; in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who by the prophets, predicted
the good will of God; his advent; his generation of a virgin; his passion, and resurrection
from the dead; and the ascension in the flesh of our beloved Lord Christ Jesus;
and his coming again from heaven, in the glory of his Father, as our Lord Jesus
Christ; our God, Saviour, and King; before whom, according to the good pleasure
of the Father invisible, every knee shall bow, of things in heaven and things in
earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue shall confess the justice of
his judgments towards all, when he will send wicked spirits, fallen and apostate
angels, and blaspheming men, into eternal fire; but the just and upright who have
kept his precepts, and persevered in his love, some indeed from the beginning, and
others as having received the gift of repentance, he will surround with eternal
glory. This faith, the church spread over the whole world, diligently keeps, as
if she inhabited one house, and believes in it, as if possessing but one soul and
one heart; and in accordance with the same, she teaches and preaches, as with one
mouth. Although the languages which are in the world are different, yet there
This then is the apostolical tradition, of which these Fathers speak in such high terms: not any secret doctrine, never committed to writing; not any articles of faith, or rites of worship, of which no vestige can be found in the Bible; but the plain, prominent, fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion: the very doctrines contained in the Apostles’ Creed. That the preaching of the gospel preceded the circulation of the Scriptures we admit, but this preaching we insist and have proved, contained nothing different from that which is written in the gospels and epistles.
Tertullian speaks to the same purpose, and furnishes us with another
summary of the common faith of primitive Christians; “The rule of faith,”
says he, “is that by which it is believed, that there is no more than one God,
and no other beside the Creator of the world, who produced all things out of
nothing, by his Word, first of all sent forth, which Word is called his Son; was
seen under different forms by the patriarchs; was always heard by the prophets;
and finally, by the Spirit and power of God, being conceived by the Virgin Mary,
became flesh in her womb. Jesus Christ having thus become man, published a new
law, and a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; was
These are the apostolical traditions which were universally received; the very plainest and most fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, which are written amply in every gospel, and recognized fully in every epistle. Thus far then, it does not appear that anything was left to unwritten tradition, to be communicated to future ages; for those very truths which were at first delivered orally by the apostles, were afterwards recorded by inspiration; and when the preachers of the gospel instructed the ignorant, who were unacquainted with letters, they taught them, precisely, but in a summary way, what is written in the New Testament.
3. Another argument, depended on by the advocates of
tradition, is derived from the fact, that there are some doctrines, not
expressly mentioned in Scripture, which are universally inculcated by the
Fathers, which all true Christians have received as articles of faith, in all
succeeding ages, and which are not denied even by Protestants themselves. To
this class belong the doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the Son
And although there are principles
and facts recorded in the New Testament, from which it can be fairly concluded,
that the first day of the week was set apart for public worship, and that the infants
of believers were, from the beginning, baptized, and thus connected with the visible
church; yet, as these institutions
The fact is, that the Fathers generally depended on Scripture
for the proof of their doctrines; and called in the aid of tradition, only to
confirm the doctrines which they derived from the written word. And here it is
important to remark, that tradition, in the earlier and purer times of the
church, was a very different thing from what it is now. Men who lived within one
or two hundred years of the apostles, had an opportunity of ascertaining their
opinions and practices from tradition, with a degree of certainty
But it is capable of the clearest proof, that great uncertainty attended all matters received by tradition, which were not contained in Scripture, even in those times that were nearest to the days of the apostles. This fact is manifest, in the case of Papias, who was contemporary with the last of the apostles; and of Clement of Alexandria, who lived in the second century. If then tradition was so uncertain, at its very source, who can place any confidence in this channel of communication, after it has been increasing in impurity for seventeen hundred years? If the stream had even been pure in its commencement, it would, by this time, have become so turbid, and so poisoned, that no dependence could be placed in the information conveyed by it. But where certain things are said to have been received by tradition from the apostle John, at second hand, it was deemed important to verify them, by a comparison with the Scriptures, as we have already seen. How unreasonable then is the demand, that we should now receive all traditions, which have come down to us, without any test of their genuineness, or any comparison of them with the oracles of God!
Here
also it is necessary to observe that there is a wide distinction to be made between
articles of faith
It is of no consequence, therefore, to adduce
testimonies of the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth ages of the Christian
church, to show that such ceremonies were then in use in some particular part of
the church; or even in the church universal. All know
4. I come now to consider the last argument for unwritten traditions which I have been able to discover. It is this, that without the aid of tradition the Scriptures will be of no real benefit to us, because it is only by this means that we can arrive at their true meaning. And it is alleged that the Fathers in all disputes with heretics, when they referred to Scripture, still appealed to universal tradition for a true exposition of the meaning of the passages adduced.
In returning an answer to this argument I would
observe, that should we even grant all that is contended for, it would not be a
concession of the main point in controversy. The claim of the Romanists, so unblushingly
advanced in the decree of Trent already cited is, “That traditions relating both
to faith and manners, are to be received with equal affection and reverence as the
canonical Scriptures.” And lest we should be at any loss to know what articles of
faith are pretended to be received by tradition alone, Peter a Soto, one of the
great defenders of the decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member of that Council,
explicitly declares, “That the rule is infallible and universal; that whatever things
the Romish church believes and holds, which are not contained in the Scriptures,
are to be considered as derived from the apostles; provided the observances
But the argument now under consideration relinquishes
this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures as the foundation of faith, but insists
that the true interpretation
That many things in Scripture are so clear that they stand in need of no interpretation. They are already as plain as any exposition can make them. Who wants tradition to teach him that Christ is the Son of God; was born of the virgin Mary; was crucified under Pontius Pilate, rose again the third day, and ascended to heaven, whence he will come again to judge the world? If we cannot understand the plain declarations of Scripture, neither could we understand an exposition. If we cannot know what the apostles and evangelists mean in their plainest declarations when we have their very words before us, how shall we know what is the meaning of the vague language of tradition?
There are many parts of the New Testament of which tradition has handed down no interpretation. If we wish to know their meaning, it is in vain that we apply to the Fathers for instruction. They are silent. They have not commented on these books and passages. To which of the Fathers shall I go for an exposition of the book of Revelation? Or will the Pope himself, aided by all his cardinals, or by an œcumenical council, undertake to give us the true interpretation of this prophecy? It cannot be true that Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition; unless we agree to give up a large part of the New Testament as wholly incapable of being understood.
We cannot build our faith on the interpretation of the Fathers,
in all cases, because they often fall into palpable mistakes, which is not denied
by the Romanists themselves; and again, they differ among themselves.
An implicit believer in the infallibility of the Pope, would deem it sufficient to answer, that his holiness at Rome knows certainly what is apostolical, and what not; what is obligatory and what not. All we have to do, is to believe what he believes, or what he tells us to believe. Now, without disputing the pretensions of the bishop of Rome to such extraordinary knowledge, at present, I would ask, if we must go to an infallible judge to learn what are apostolical traditions, what use is there in traditions? Why does not this infallible teacher declare at once what is truth in all cases, without the trouble of searching into antiquity after traditions, which never can be found?
But if it be alleged that the traditions which ought to be received as the rule of our faith, are such as were universal, and concerning which there cannot be any doubt, I answer, that many such traditions may indeed be found, but what do they respect? Those very doctrines which are most plainly and frequently inculcated in Scripture, and of which we need no exposition; for, as was said before, they are expressed as perspicuously as any exposition can be. But it affords us satisfaction to find the church openly professing, from the beginning, those truths which we find recorded in Scripture. If it does not add confirmation to our faith in these points, it gives us pleasure to find such a harmony in the belief of true Christians.
Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon traditions. Heretics in all ages sheltered themselves under this doctrine. Those with whom Tertullian contended, alleged that the apostles did not know everything necessary, as Christ declared he had many things to say, which they could not bear yet; or there were some things which they did not teach publicly, nor commit to writing, but communicated privately to a few chosen persons, and therefore they declined the authority of Scripture. The same is true of those against whom Irenæus wrote. They appealed from Scripture to tradition, and he answers them by showing that universal tradition was conformable to Scripture.
Eusebius informs us that Artemon, who asserted that
Christ was a mere man, pretended that he had learnt, from tradition, that all the
apostles were of his opinion.
Papias one of the hearers of John the
apostle, was
Clement of Alexandria, too, than whom no man of the ancient
church was more celebrated, speaks of certain persons who had taken much pains to
preserve the sayings of the apostles handed down by tradition, among whom he mentions
a Hebrew who is supposed to be Papias; but when he comes to tell us what he had
learned from these unwritten traditions which is not contained in Scripture, it
amounts to this, “That there was a public doctrine and a secret doctrine; the one
exoteric, and the other esoteric; that the former was committed to writing, and
was in the hands of all; but the latter was communicated
There is much reason to believe that the corruption of the church, which commenced about this time, was owing to a disposition which began to be indulged of lending too credulous an ear to traditions, and to apocryphal writings.
But among the Fathers no one gave himself up so entirely to
unwritten traditions and apocryphal fables as Epiphanius. His writings abound
with things of this kind; but who would assert that we are bound to receive
these stories as articles of faith? Even the Romish church with all her store of
legends, will not receive as true and necessary all that is
From what has been said, therefore, the conclusion is clear that the Scriptures are complete without unwritten traditions; that no articles of faith, nor institutions of worship, concerning which the Scriptures are silent, have come down to us by tradition.; that we have uniform, universal tradition on those points which are plainly taught in Scripture; that many things pretended to have been received from the apostles by tradition cannot be traced to them, and that many other things made equally necessary by the Romish church, can be proved to have originated many hundred of years since the death of the apostles. It has been also shown that there is no certain method of distinguishing between what is apostolical, and what has been derived from other sources, unless we make the Scriptures our standard; that tradition cannot be our guide even in interpreting Scriptures; and finally, that tradition has been the common refuge of heretics, and has greatly misled good and orthodox men, by inducing them to adopt wild theories, fabulous stories, and paradoxical opinions, some of which are directly repugnant to Scripture.
The traditions of the Romish church stand on no higher ground
than the traditions of the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of our Saviour; but
he rejected these traditions as having no authority, and as making void the law
of God. “Why do ye,” says Christ, “also transgress the commandment of God by
your tradition? Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your
tradition.”
Thus have we brought
this work to a close, and it affords us pleasure to believe that most who read
these pages will be convinced that the Bible is a complete rule, both of faith and
practice. “The law of the Lord is perfect.”
Let us then be grateful to God, and give him unceasing thanks
for this precious deposit which he has committed to his church, and which, by
his Providence, he has preserved uninjured through all the vicissitudes through
which she has passed. Let us praise God that in regard to us, that night of
darkness is past in which there was a famine, not of bread,
“The holy œcumenical and general Council of Trent, legitimately
convened in the Holy Spirit, under the presidency of three legates of the Apostolic
see, constantly proposing this before all things, that all errors being taken away,
the gospel in its purity may be preserved in the Church, which was promised before
by the prophets in the holy Scriptures, but which was promulgated by our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Son of God, with his own mouth; moreover, he commanded it to be preached
to every creature by his apostles, as the fountain of all saving truth and moral
discipline: which truth and discipline he provided should be contained in the books
of Scripture, and in unwritten traditions, received from the mouth of Christ by
the apostles, or from the apostles speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
and handed down to us; therefore this Synod, following the example of the orthodox
Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious affection and reverence, all the
books both of the Old and New Testament (for one God is the author of both:) likewise
those traditions relating to faith and manners, which were received from the mouth
of Christ himself, or from his inspired apostles, and which have been preserved
in an uninterrupted succession in the Catholic Church. Moreover, this Synod judges
it proper to give a catalogue of the sacred books, lest any doubt should arise in
the minds of any respecting the books received by them, the names of which are here
inserted in this decree: viz. the five books of Moses—Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. Next, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of
Kings, two of Chronicles, two of Ezra, viz. the first and the second, which is
called Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, CL Psalms of David, Proverbs of
Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Twelve Minor Prophets, viz. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, two of
Maccabees, first and second. Of the New Testament, the four gospels, viz.
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the
“But if any one shall not receive as canonical and sacred all these books, with all their parts, as they are used to be read in the Catholic Church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin edition; or shall knowingly and intentionally contemn any of the aforesaid traditions, let him be anathema.
“Hence all may understand in what order and way the Synod, after laying the foundation of the Confession of their Faith, will proceed; and what testimonies and proofs they will especially use in confirming doctrines, and in the reformation of manners in the church.”
Sed nos ad tertium gradum illum considerationem referamus, de
quo disserere quod Dominus suggesserit atque tractare instituimus. Erit igitur divinarum
scripturarum solertissimus indagator, qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit,
etsi non dum intellectu, jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas quæ appellantur canonicæ.
Nam cæteras securius leget fide veritatis instructus, ne præoccupent imbecillem
animum, et periculosis mendaciis atque phantasmatibus eludentes præjudicent aliquid
contra sanam intelligentiam. In canonicis autem scripturis Ecclesiarum catholicarum
quamplurium authoritatem sequatur, inter quas sane illæ sunt quæ Apostolicas sedes
habere et epistolas accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis
canonicis, ut eas quæ ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catholicis, præponat eis quas quædam non accipiunt. In eis vero quæ non accipiuntur ab omnibus, præponat
eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque authoritatis
Ecclesiæ tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi,
quanquam hoc invenire non possit, æqualis tamen authoritatis eas habendas puto.
Totus autem canon scripturarum in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his
libris continetur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio,
et uno libro Iesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis
ad regnorum principia videtur pertinere. Deinde quatuor Regum et duobus Paralipomenon,
non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis simulque pergentibus. Hæc est historia quæ sibimet annexa tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt
aliæ tanquam
ex diverso ordine, quæ neque huic ordini, neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est
Job et Tobias et Hester et Judith et Maccabæorum
The original of this passage is as follows; “Age jam, qui voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuæ percurre Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipsæ adhuc cathedræ præsident. apud quas ipsæ authenticæ literæ eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repræsentantes faciem uniuscujuscunque. Proxima est tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia, habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam tendere, habes Ephesum. Si autem Italiæ adjaces, habes Romam unde nobis quoque auctoritas præsto est.”—De Præscrip. cap. 36.
The Order of the Gospels.
Let us now also show the undisputed writings
of the same apostle, [John.] And of these his gospel, so well known in the churches
throughout the world, must first of all be acknowledged as genuine. That it is,
however, with good reason, placed the fourth in order by
The Sacred Scriptures acknowledged as genuine, and those that are not.
This appears also to be the proper place to give a summary statement
of the books of the New Testament already mentioned. And here, among the first,
must be placed the holy quaternion of the gospels; these are followed by “the book
of the Acts of the Apostles:” after this must be mentioned the epistles of Paul,
which are followed by the acknowledged first epistle of John, as also the first
of Peter, to be admitted in like manner. After these are to be placed, if proper,
the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall offer the different opinions in
due time. These, then, are acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although
they are well known and approved by many, is reputed that called the epistles of
James and Jude; also the “Second Epistle of Peter,” and those called “the Second
and Third of John,” whether they are of the evangelist or of some other of the same
name. Among the spurious must be numbered both the books called “the Acts of Paul” and that called
“Pastor,” and “the Revelation of
There is no apocryphal book of the New Testament which has been so much spoken of, both by the ancients and moderns, as the gospel of the Nazarenes. By some, not only of the Romanists, but also of the Protestants, it has been exalted very nearly to an equality with the canonical books of the New Testament. It seems necessary, therefore, to examine its claims with more attention than is requisite in the case of other books of this class.
This gospel was known among the ancients under several different titles. It was sometimes called “the gospel according to the twelve apostles;” “the gospel of Bartholomew;” “the gospel according to the Hebrews;” “the gospel of the Ebionites,” &c.
It is the opinion of some that this is the gospel to which
Paul alludes,
Clement of Alexandria
Origen speaks of it in
this manner, “If any one will receive the gospel according to the Hebrews, in which
our Saviour says, ‘The Holy Ghost my mother lately took me by one of my hairs, and
led me to the great mountain of Thabor.’” And in another place, “It is written
in a certain gospel, which is entitled according to the Hebrews, (if any one be
pleased to receive it, not as of authority, but only for illustration of the
present question,) ‘A certain rich man said to Christ, What good thing shall I
do that I may inherit life? He said to him, O man, keep the law and the
prophets; he answered him, That I have done. He said to him, Go sell all things
that thou hast, and distribute among the poor, and come and follow me. The rich
man hereupon began to scratch his head, and was displeased. And the Lord said
unto him, How can you say that you have kept the law and the prophets, seeing it
is written in the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; but behold,
many of thy brethren, children of Abraham, are clothed with nastiness, and ready
to perish for hunger, while thy home abounds with all sorts of delicacies, and
nothing is sent out of it to them. And turning about, he said to his disciple
Simon, who sat by him, Simon, son of Joanna, it is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of
heaven.’”
Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal and spurious books,
says, “In this number some have placed the gospel according to tile Hebrews, with
which they of the Jews who profess Christianity are very much delighted.” And
speaking of the Ebionites, he says, “They made use only of that which is called
the gospel according to the Hebrews, very little esteeming any others.”
Epiphanius has left several testimonies respecting this gospel, among which are the following: “The Nazarenes have the gospel of Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language; for this is still preserved among them, as it was at first, in Hebrew characters. But I know not whether they have taken away the genealogy from Abraham to Christ.
In another place, speaking of the Ebionites, he says, “They also receive the gospel according to Matthew. For this both they and the Corinthians make use of, and no other. They call it the gospel according to the Hebrews; for the truth is, that Matthew is the only one of the New Testament writers who published his gospel and preaching, in the Hebrew language and Hebrew characters.”
And again, “In that gospel which they
(the Ebionites) have called, according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and perfect,
but corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew gospel, it is written,
‘That there was a certain man called Jesus, and he being about thirty years of age,
made choice of us. And coming to Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon called
Peter, and opening his mouth, said, When I passed by the lake of Tiberias, I chose
John and James the sons of Zebedee, and
And in a work against Pelagius, he says, “In the gospel according to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldo-Syriac
language, which the Nazarenes use, and is that according to the twelve apostles,
or as most think, according to Matthew, which is in the library of Cæsarea, there
is the following history: ‘Behold
The same author, in his commentary on Isaiah, mentions this gospel in the following manner: “According to their gospel, which is written in the Hebrew language, and read by the Nazarenes, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended upon him. Besides, in that gospel just mentioned we find these things written. ‘It came to pass when the Lord ascended from the waters, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended and rested upon him, and said to him, My son, among (or during the time of) all the prophets, I was waiting for thy coming, that I might rest upon thee; thou art my first begotten Son, who shall reign to everlasting ages.’”
And in his commentary on Ezekiel, “In that which is entitled the gospel according to the Hebrews, it is reckoned among the chief of crimes for a person to make sorrowful the heart of his brother.”
In his commentary on the gospel of Matthew he has the following: “In the gospel which the Nazarenes and Ebionites use, which I lately translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which is by most esteemed the authentic gospel of Matthew, the man who had the withered hand is said to be a mason, and prayed for relief in the following words: ‘I was a mason, who got my livelihood by my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst restore me to my strength, that I may no longer thus scandalously beg my bread.’”
“In the gospel which the Nazarenes use, for the son of Barachiah, I find written, the son of Jehoiada.” “In this gospel we read, not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel or beam of a prodigious size fell down.” “In the Hebrew gospel we read, that our Lord said to his disciples, ‘Be ye never cheerful, unless when you can see your brother in love.’”
Concerning this gospel according to the Hebrews, very different opinions have been expressed by learned men. Some have even pretended, that if it was now in existence it would be greatly superior to the Greek copy, but generally it has been considered apocryphal, for very good reasons, some of which I will now set down.
1. It was never received by any of the Fathers as canonical, or cited as of any authority, by any writer, during the first foul centuries.
For full proof of the fact here stated, I would refer the reader to Jones on the Canon, vol. iii.
2. This gospel was apocryphal, because it contained several things contrary to known
and undoubted truths. Of this sort are the passages which have been cited respecting
Christ’s manner of speaking, in regard to the baptism of John. Also the account
3. A third argument of the apocryphal character of this gospel, is derived from the ludicrous and silly relations which it contains—as that of the rich man scratching his head, and the Holy Ghost taking up Christ by one of his hairs, and carrying him to the great mountain Tabor, &c.
The most probable opinion of the origin of this gospel is, that it was a corruption of the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew, by the Ebionites. These heretics having this gospel in their possession, and having departed from the true faith, mutilated the gospel of Matthew, by striking out such things as were unfavourable to their heresy, and adding such fabulous stories as suited their purpose. Of the fragments which remain, there is not one which agrees exactly with the authentic gospel of Matthew. Epiphanius expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel of Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but corrupted and adulterated; and that they had taken away the genealogy from the beginning, and commenced their gospel with these words, “And it came to pass in the days of Herod,” &c.
1. The Travels under the name of Peter, which is also called the Eight Books of St. Clemens. 2. The Acts under the name of Andrew the apostle. 3. The Acts under the name of Philip the apostle. 4. The Acts under the name of Peter. 5. The Acts under the name of Thomas the apostle. 6. The gospel under the name of Thaddeus. 7. The gospel under the name of Thomas the apostle. 8. The gospel under the name of Barnabas. 9. The gospel under the name of Bartholomew. 10. The gospel under the name of Andrew the apostle. 11. The gospels corrupted by Lucianus. 12. The gospels corrupted by Hesychius. 13. The gospel of the Infancy of our Saviour. 14. The book of the Nativity of our Saviour. 15. The book called the Shepherd. 16. All the books made by Lentitius the disciple of the devil. 17. The Acts of Paul and Thecla. 18. The Revelation of Thomas. 19. The Revelation of Paul. 20. The Revelation of Stephen 21. The travels or acts of Mary. 22. The book called the Lots of the Apostles. 23. The book called the Praise of the Apostles. 24. The book of the Canon of the Apostles. 25. The Letter of Jesus to king Abgarus—are apocryphal.
Paul, an apostle, not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, to the brethren which are at Laodicea. Grace be to you, and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and persevere in good works, looking for that which is promised in the day of judgment.
Let not the vain speeches of any trouble you, who pervert the truth, that they may draw you aside from the truth of the gospel which I have preached. And now may God grant that my converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works, which accompany salvation. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, in which I rejoice and am glad. For I know that this shall turn to my salvation for ever, which shall be through your prayer, and the supply of the Holy Spirit; whether I live or die; (for) to me to live shall be a life to Christ, to die will be joy. And our Lord will grant us his mercy, that ye may have the same love, and be likeminded.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have heard of the coming of the Lord, so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life eternal; for it is God who worketh in you; and do all things without sin. And what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ, and avoid all filthy lucre. Let all your requests be made known to God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ. And whatsoever things are sound, and true, and of good report, and chaste, and just, and lovely, these things do. Those things which ye have heard and received, think on these things, and peace shall be with you. And all the saints salute you. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
Cause this epistle to be read to the Colossians, and the epistle of the Colossians to be read among you.
Christ is represented as speaking in the cradle, and telling his mother that he was her son.
The swaddling clothes in which he was wrapt, when thrown into the fire, would not burn. When his parents entered Egypt, in their flight from the cruelty of Herod, the girth of the saddle on which Mary rode broke, and the great idol of Egypt fell down at the approach of the infant Jesus.
By means of the babe’s swaddling clothes, several devils were cast out of a boy’s mouth, in the shape of crows and serpents.
A company of robbers, at the approach of Jesus, were frightened by being made to hear a sound, as of an army, &c.
It is related, that a girl was cured of a leprosy by means of water in which Christ’s body had been washed.
That a young man, who by witchcraft had been turned into a mule, was, upon Christ’s mounting him, turned again into a man.
On one occasion he is said to have turned certain boys, who hid themselves from him, into kids, and then at the intercession of their mothers restored them again to their proper shape.
A boy having put his hand into a partridge’s nest, to take out the eggs, was bit by a serpent, whereupon they brought him to Jesus, who directed them to carry him before him, to the place where he had received the injury. On coming to the spot, Jesus called for the serpent, and it presently came forth; and he said, “Go and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that boy:” so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison again. He also cures his brother James, who, in gathering sticks, was bitten by a viper.
Being one day on the house-top, playing with some boys, one of them fell down, and was instantly killed. And the boy’s relations came and said to the Lord Jesus, “Thou didst throw our son down from the house-top;” but he denied it, and said, “Let us go and ask himself.” Then the Lord Jesus, going down, stood over the dead body, and said with a loud voice, “Zeinunus, Zeinunus, who threw thee down?” Then the dead boy answered, “Thou didst not throw me down, but such a one.”
Being, on a certain occasion, sent by his mother to the well for water, the pitcher broke, and he gathered up the water in his garment, and brought it to her.
When at the age of twelve years Jesus was at Jerusalem, a certain astronomer asked him whether he had studied astronomy. Upon which he told him the number of the spheres and heavenly bodies, &c. There was there also a philosopher, who asked the Lord Jesus whether he had ever studied physic. He replied, and explained to him physics and metaphysics, the powers of the body, its anatomy, &c. But from this time he began to conceal his miracles, and gave himself to the study of the law, till he arrived to the end of his thirtieth year.
See the “Gospel of our Saviour’s Infancy,” complete in the second volume of Jones on the Canon.
“It has been asserted that ‘the question of the Canon is a point of erudition, not
of divine revelation.’ This is to undermine both the certainty and the importance
of the sacred Canon. The assertion, that the question of the Canon is not a point
of revelation, is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament or of the New.
The integrity of the Canon of the Old Testament is a matter of revelation, as much
as anything contained in the Bible. This is attested, as has been shown, by the
whole nation of the Jews, to whom it was committed; and their fidelity to the truth
has been avouched by the Lord and his apostles. Is not this revelation? The integrity
of the Canon of the New Testament is equally a point of revelation. As God had said
to the Jews, ‘Ye are my witnesses,’ and as they ‘received the lively oracles to
give unto us,’
“While it has been denied that the question of the
Canon is a point of revelation, it has been asserted that it is a point of erudition.
But erudition has nothing farther to do with the question, than as it may be employed
in conveying to us the testimony. Erudition did not produce the revelation of the
Canon. If the Canon had not been a point of revelation, erudition could never have
made it so—for erudition can create nothing; it can only investigate and confirm
truth, and testify to that which exists, or detect error. We receive the Canon of
Scripture by revelation, in the same way that the Jews received the Law which was
given from Mount Sinai. Only one generation of the Jews witnessed the giving of
the Law, but to all future generations of that people it was equally a matter of
revelation. The knowledge of this was conveyed to them by testimony. In the same
way Christians, in their successive generations, received the Scripture as a matter
of revelation. The testimony through which this is received, must, indeed, be translated
from a foreign language; but so must the account brought to us of any occurrence,
the most trivial, that takes place in a foreign country. If in this sense the question
of the Canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself must be called a
point of erudition; for it, too, must be translated from the original language in
which it was announced, as also
“The assertion that the question of the Canon is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of revelation. We have no way of knowing that the miracles related in the Scriptures were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated were taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of the books themselves. We have the evidence of miracles, as that evidence comes to us by the testimony which vouches the authenticity of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and authenticity of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is everything contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always be remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to question the claim of a book to a place in the Canon, and at the same time to acknowledge its contents to be a revelation from God. There can be no evidence that the doctrines of Scripture are revealed truths, unless we are certain that the books of Scripture are revelation. If the books which compose the Canon are not matter of revelation, then we have no revelation. If the truth of the Canon be not established to us as matter of revelation, then the books of which it is composed are not so established; and if the books be not so, then not one sentence of them, nor one doctrine or precept, which they contain, comes established to us as a revelation from God. If, then, the question of the Canon be a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, so is every doctrine which the Scriptures contain; for the doctrine cannot be assured revelation, if the book that contains it be not assured revelation. There can be no higher evidence of the doctrine being revelation, than of the book that contains it: and thus were not the Canon a matter of divine revelation, the whole Bible would be stripped of divine authority Anything, therefore, that goes to unsettle the Canon, goes to unsettle every doctrine contained in the Canon.
“Without a particular
revelation to every individual, it does not appear that the authority of the Canon
could be ascertained to us in any other way than it is at present. The whole of
the Scriptures was given at first by revelation, and afterwards this revelation
was confirmed by ordinary means. The testimony concerning it has been handed down
to the churches from one generation to another. On this, and on their own internal
characteristics of being divine, we receive the Scriptures with the most unsuspecting
confidence, and on the same ground the Jews received the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
In these ways it is fixed by divine authority, and not left in any uncertainty;
for, if its truth can be ascertained by ordinary means, it is fixed by the authority
of God, as much as if an angel from heaven were every day to proclaim it over the
earth. When Paul says, that his handwriting of the salutation was the token in every
epistle, he at once shows us the importance of the Canon, and warrants us in receiving
it as a divine revelation attested by ordinary means. Those to whom he wrote had
no other way of knowing
“If it should be asked,
Should we be precluded from inquiring into the grounds on which the Canon is received?
it is replied, Certainly not. But we should remember that the permanent ground on
which it stands is testimony; and such must be the ground of every historical fact.
Internal evidence may confirm the authenticity of a book sanctioned by the Canon,
but to suspend belief till we receive such confirmation, argues an ignorance of
the principles of evidence. A book might be inspired, when no such internal confirmation,
from the nature of the subject, might be found. And when a book is substantially
approved, by testimony, as belonging to the Canon, no evidence can, by a Christian,
be legitimately supposed possible, in opposition to its inspiration. This would
be to suppose valid objections to first principles. Sufficient testimony deserves
the same rank as a first principle with axioms themselves. Axioms are not more necessary
than testimony, to all the business of human life. Internal evidence may be sufficient
to prove that a book is not divine; but it is absurd to suppose that such a book
can have valid testimony, and therefore it can never be supposed by a Christian,
that any of those books that are received as part of the sacred Canon, on the authority
of sufficient testimony, can contain any internal marks of imposture. This would
be to suppose the possibility of the clashing of two first principles. The thing
that can be proved by a legitimate first principle, can never be disproved by another
legitimate first principle. This would be to suppose that God is not the author
of the human constitution. If, then, in a book recognized by the Canon, as the Song
of Solomon, we find matter which to our wisdom does not appear to be worthy of inspiration,
we may be assured that we mistake. For if that book is authenticated by testimony
as a part of the sacred Scriptures, which the Lord Jesus Christ sanctioned, it is
authenticated by a first principle, to which God has bound us, by the constitution
of our nature, to submit. If, in this instance, or in any particular instance, we
reject it, our own conduct in other things will be our condemnation. There is no
first principle in the constitution of man that can entitle him to reject anything
in the Song of Solomon, coming, as it does, under the sanction of a first principle.
Those persons who reject any book of the Canon on such grounds,
“It is a wonderful circumstance in the providence of God, that while the two parts of Scripture were delivered to two classes, with the fullest attestation of their divine original, both the one and the other have been faithful in preserving the precious trust respectively committed to them, while they have both been rebellious in regard to that part of which they were not originally appointed the depositaries. The Jews always held the books of the Old Testament in the highest veneration, and continued to preserve them, without addition or diminution, until the coming of Him concerning whom they testify, and they have kept them entire to this day; yet they have altogether rejected the New Testament Scriptures. And while Christians have all agreed in preserving the Scriptures of the New Testament entire and uncorrupted, they have wickedly adulterated those of the Old by a spurious addition, or have retrenched certain portions of them. Of the divine original of the sacred Scriptures, as we now possess them, we have evidence the most abundant and diversified. It is the distinguishing characteristic of the gospel, that it is preached to the poor, and God has so ordered it, that the authenticity of that word by which all are to be judged, should not be presented to them as a matter of doubtful disputation.
“Were there no other evidence of the
truth of divine revelation than the existence of the holy Scriptures, that alone
would be conclusive. The Bible is not a book compiled by a single author, nor by
many authors acting in confederacy in the same age, in which case it would not be
so wonderful to find a just and close connection in its several parts. It is the
work of between thirty and forty writers, in very different conditions of life,
from the throne and sceptre down to the lowest degree, and in very distant ages,
during which the world must have put on an entirely new appearance. and men must
have had different interests to pursue. This would have led a spirit of imposture
to vary its schemes, and to adapt them to different stations in the world, and to
different fashions and changes in every age. David wrote about four hundred years
after Moses, and Isaiah about two hundred and fifty years after David, and John
about eight hundred years after Isaiah. Yet these authors, with all the other prophets
and apostles, wrote in perfect harmony—confirming the authority of their predecessors,
labouring to enforce their instructions, and denouncing the severest judgments on
all who continued disobedient. Such entire agreement in propounding religious truths
and principles, different from any before or since Promulgated, except by those
who have learned from them, establishes the divine mission of the writers of the
Bible beyond dispute, proving that they all derived their wisdom from God, and spake
as
Exodus
12:2 13:4 16:29 20:100 24:3-4 24:12 34:27-28
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
4:1-2 10:12-13 11:32 17:18-20 24:1-22 28:1 29:9 29:20 30:20 31:9 31:24 31:24-26 32:45-46
Joshua
1:7 1:8 10:13 15:16-17 23:6 24:26
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
14:6 17:13 17:37 18:1-37 19:1-37 20:1-21
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Nehemiah
Psalms
Isaiah
8:1-22 8:20 36:1-22 37:1-38 38:1-22
Jeremiah
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
Romans
1:11 2:6-9 9:5 9:5 11:34 14:12 16:19 16:22
1 Corinthians
2:9 5:2 5:5 5:6 5:9 5:9 5:11 5:11 6:2 10:1 10:1 14:20 15:3-4 15:54 16:8 16:21
2 Corinthians
2:14 3:14 3:15 4:4 5:10 7:1 7:1 9:10 11:14
Galatians
1:6 3:10 4:4 4:19 4:19 6:11 6:16
Ephesians
4:17-18 4:26 5:21 5:21 5:25-26 5:30 6:17
Philippians
2:6 2:6-8 3:11-12 3:12 3:16 4:13 4:55
Colossians
1:16-17 2:8 2:8 4:2 4:6 4:14 4:14 4:16 4:16 4:16
1 Thessalonians
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
2:24 3:15-16 3:16-17 4:11 4:21
Titus
Philemon
Hebrews
James
1 Peter
2 Peter
Revelation
Tobit
Baruch
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1 2 3 vi vii viii 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359