Canon of the New Testament: Method of Settling It
Three methods of determining what books of the New Testament are canonical, have l)een adopted by different persons. The first is the authority of the Church, that is, the Church of Rome, which arrogates this authority to herself The second is internal evidence, which some i.ave deemed sudicient, without the aid of 3xternal testimony. The third is to refer historica testimony, as has been done in regard to
EVIDENCES OP CHRIST! ANI’lT. 267
tin; 01(1 rcstament. Some distinguished men among the Roman CathoUcs have asserted, that the Scriptures owe all their authority to the Church; so that if she did not give her attestation to the gospels, they would have no more authority than iEsop’s Fables. But when asked how the Church can establish her authority, they must answer, that it is proved by the testimoipy of the Scriptures. This is a perfect example of the sopliism called “a circle,” for they prove the aiUhority of the Scriptures by the Church, and the authority of the Church by the Scriptures. Some Protestants, to avoid having recourse to the testimony of the Church at all, have verged to the other extreme, and have insisted that internal evidence is sufficient to enable us to determine what books belong to the canon. The Reformed Church of France went so far as to make this an article in her public Confession of Faith. 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 by the Spirit of God, it derives from this source the most unwavering and soul-satisfying evidence of their truth and authority; but in regard to particular books, that every sincere Christian should be able to judge by this evidence alone whether they are canonical or not, cannot be admitted. For example, suppose the books of Ecclesiasticus and of Ecclesiastes were put into the hands of any plain, intelligent man, is it probable that he would be able to determine which of them had a right to a place in the canon? To adopt this principle would have a tendency to unsettle the canon, and there would be no certainty as to the rule of our faith. While, therefore, iiitcrnal evidence ought not to be rejected, but may aliord much light as an auxiliary source oH evidence, our principal reliance must be upon historical testimony: and it is a matter of thankfulness that this is so complete, as to leave little more to be desired for the st.iisfaction of every impartial inquirer. The question to be decided is a matter of fact. It is, whether the books which compose the New Testa.
meiil, were written by inspired men; that is, by tlifa men whose names are affixed to them, the apoitles and disciples of our Lord, who were eye-witnesses of the facts which they have recorded. And the proper method of deciding this question, is to inquire whether there was a general agreement among those ^athers who Uved nearest to the times of the apostles, on this point; for it can scarcely be supposed, that there could be a general error among them in regard Id a point of this kind. A general consent of the early fathers, and of the whole Christian Church, scattered all over and beyond the Roman empire, furnishes the best evidence which the nature of the case admits of, and is that species of evidence which is least liable to fallacy. The learned Iluet has, therefore, laid it down as a rule on this subject, “that every book is genuine, which was esteemed GENUINE BY THOSE WHO LIVED NEAREST TO THE TIME WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN, AND BY THE AGES FOLLOWING, IN A CONTINUED SERIES.”
The reasonableness and certainty of this rule will appear more evident, when it is considered, in what high esteem these books were held, with what diligence they were sought after, how constantly they were publicly read, and how soon they were quoted, and translated into other languages.
The early Christians were neither careless nor credulous on this subject. They pursued the only certain method of ascertaining the facts in the case. They searched into the records of the Churches, and Jearned by the testimony of all, what books had been received into the sacred volume, from the times of the apostles; and some of them even travelled into Judea, to learn accurately all that related to the origin and transmission of these sacred writings.
The question is often asked, luhen and by what authority was the canon of the New Testament constituted? It seems to be assumed as true in such inquiries, that these books could not be of authority until sanctioned by some council or other ecclesiasti- -^al body; whereas, they were of autii ^’Uy, as far as
KVIDENCE? OK Cll «ISTIANITY. 26fc
Aiiowii, from the clay of their ublicatii r.. Then right to a place in the canon does not depend on the vote of any coimcil, or the decision of any bishop, but U[)on the fact that they were given by inspiration; and this is known by the character of the men who wrote them. The appeal to testimony, therefore, is not to obtain the judgment of the Church, that these books were canonical; but to ascertain the foct, that they are indeed the productions of the apostles, to whom our Lord promised plenary inspiration. The Church confers no authority on these books. She merely testifies that they were written by the persons to whom they have been ascribed. And on this point, we seek testimony not only from the fathers of the Church, but from Jews, Heathen and Heretics. Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, Manes and Marcion, are our witnesses, as well as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Eusebius. The boast of the Romanists, therefore, is vain, that we are obliged to depend on the authority of the Church, for our sacred books. We defer nothing to this authority, but merely appeal to men of earning and probity who lived near the times when they were written, for their testimony, as to the source from which they were derived. That these witnesses were members of the Church is a mere incidental circumstance. If they had held no connexion with the Church, their testimony as to the origin of these books would not be invalidated, but rather strengthened; we call in witnesses from without the Church, wherever we can find them, and consider the testimony of such highly valuable, because altogether unsuspected. If by the constitution of the canon, be meant, the collection of the books of the New Testament into one volume, it is a question of no importance; for every Dne of these books had complete authority lefore such a volume was formed; and if tl ey had remained separate, and never been included in a single volume, neither their importance nor authority would have been less. Indeed, the testimony of ancient fathers dud manuscripts would lead t- flo conclusion, thai ii. very early times, the books of the New Testamen were not iiichided in one, but in two volumes; one of which was denominated gospels; the other apostles.
Whenever all the mspired books were written and
published, then was the canon completed, whether
any one Church possessed the whole or only a part;
whether they were bound in one volume or two, or
emained each separate from the rest.
The Church or individual, to whom any book was addressed, or for whom it was written, would of course enjoy the privilege of the first possession; but as these books were never locked up, but freely communicated, the nearest Churches would commonly be first suppi’’ed with a copy, and thus the sacred books would soon circulate through the whole Church. Every Christian Church would be solicitous to obtain, as soon as possible, an authentic copy of every writing known to be the production of an apostle, or other inspired man. If, for example, they had ever enjoyed the unspeakable privilege of hearing Paul preach, how eager would they be to read his epistles? And if they had never seen this “chief of the apostles,” their desire to see his writings would scarcely have been less.
It may occur to some reader, that the Churches might have been imposed upon by writings, not the genuine productions of the apostles. To guard against every thing of this kind, and to give full assurance of the gciuiineness of his epistles, Paul was accustomed to commit them to the custody of respectable men, whose names he commonly mentions in the epistle. And although he appears to have employed an amanuensis in writing; yet he made it a point to pen the concluding salutation loith his own hand; and this signature must have been well known among all the Churches with which he held correspondence. Accordingly, we read in the epistle to the Romans, “I, Tertius, wrote this epistle.” And in the first to the {/orinthiaiis, “The salutation of me Paul with m’ne own hand.” In that to the Galatian.<^, ‘V ou
EVIDKNCES C’i” CIl UlS 11 ANl TV. 27L
sec how large a btter I have written to you with mine own hand.” To the Colossians, “The sahitation by the hand of me Paul.” And to the Thessalonians, “The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle; so I write.’*
Thus, what at first view appears to be a mere form of salutation, is found to be an important cir eumstance in giving authenticity to his epistles; so that they cou!*”! not be successfully counterfeited.
It may be inquired, what has become of the autograph of these sacred books, and why cannot tht» very hand-writing of Paul, by which his episilch were authenticated, be now exhibited? The answci is, that no autograph of any book, as old as the New Testament, can be produced; unless it has been preserved in some extraordinary way, as is the fact in regard to numerous manuscripts found in Herculaneum; very kw of which however can be read. The autographs of the apostles could not have been preserved to this time without a miracle, and the occasion did not require such an interposition. And primitive Christians, although they appreciated the truths contained in these books above all price, had no great solicitude about the mere ink and paper A correct copy was as good as the original; anc considering the tendency of men to superstition, and how every pretended relic of the apostles is venerated and even worshipped, it seems to have been a wise ordination of Providence, that these autographs should perish.
How long these originals continued in existence, we have no way of certainly knowmg, but it is thought by many, that Tertullian refers to theni, as extant in his time, where he says, 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. If he had referred to authentic copies why send the inquirer to the Churches to which these epistles were addressed? Were there not copies to be found every where, in all the Churches, as well ?.s these? And it would be rather wonderful 172 EVIDENCKS OF CHRISTIAN ITT
if those autographs were not in existence wlitn Teitulhan wrote, who lived less than a hundred years after the last of the apostles: and we have now manuscripts of the New Testament, which cannot be much less than fourteen hundred years old, and are perha js older. It is, therefore, a most probable supposition, that the Churches referred to had in possession the autographs of Paul, when Tertullian lived and wrote.
As there is no dispute among Christians, of any denomination, respecting the books which belong to the canon of the New Testament, it will be unnecessary to go into any discussion respecting the multitude of apocryphal books, which at a certain period, were put into circulation under the names of the apostles or companions of the apostles. Most of these have long since perished; and were, as soon as published, declared to be spurious by the Church, almost with one consent. Such of these spuriou.’f Gospels, Acts, Revelations, &.C., as have come down to us, prove themselves to be apocryphal; and only serve by contrast, to reflect a brighter light on the genuine Scriptures.
The proof of the canonical authority of the book.s of the New Testament may be derived from the catalogues which have been left by the fathers and councils: from express testimony of competent wit- •lesses; from the fact that they were read as scripture n the primitive Churches; from the quotations made from them, and appeals made to ihcm as an authoritative rule of faith and practice; and from the early versions of the New Testament.
1. Catalogues of these books which are still extant, were made out by Origen, Eusebius, ^ithanasius Cyril, Epijihanhis, Gregory Naziaiizen, Phihistrius, Jerome, Ihijin, Jliigustin, and by the ancient author who goes under the name of Dionysius the Areojiagite. To these may be added the cataloguea prepared by two councils; that oi Laodixa, and that of Carthage. The catalogue found in the book entitle i. “J^jwsfolical ConstitiifionSf” B-nd ascribed to
Clement of Rome, and the catalogue of the ^uancil of Nice, are not referred to as testimony, because w<? are of opinion, that neither of these is genuine, liul we have no need of additional evidence. We have here thirteen catalogues of the books of the New Testament, all of which were prepared by men the most distinguished, and whG .lad bestowed greal attention on this subject. Out of these thirteen, seven (a majority of the whole) agree perfectly with our canon; and several of the others differ only by the omission o the book of Revelation, because it was not read in the Churches, and had fallen into some discredit on account of the use made of it by the Millenarians. The catalogue of Origen has an omission of James and Jude, but this was merely accidental, for he mentions both these epistles in his other writings. The catalogues of Jerome, Eusebius, Epiphanius, Augustin and Rufin, who of all others were the most competent judges of this matter, are perfectly the same as our canon. That of the council of Carthage is also the same; and that of the counci) ftf Laodicea differs only by the omission of Revelation.) the reason of which has already been assigned 2. These books were constantly read as Scripture iU the Churches. The primitive Christians imitated the Jews, in publicly reading the writings which they considered divine in their assemblies. This practice seems to have been introduced as early as the days of Paul, who says to the Colossians, “And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the Church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.” (Col. iv. 16.) Indeed, as Paul’s epistles were addressed to the people at large, they could in no way be so conveniently communicated to those to whom they were sent, as by the public reading of them, when the Churches assembled on the first day of the week. But we have express testimony on this point. Justin Martyr, who lived in the beginning of the second century, says, “On the day which is called Siuiday, there is a meeting f all (Christians) wl.’ live ( ithex- in cities or country places; and the meji.oirs of the apt. sties lnc writings of the prophets are read.”* Teitulhan 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 mentions “reading the Scriptures, singing psalms, &c.”t Cyprian gives a similar testimony,! and so does the ancient writer under the name of Dionysius the Areopagite, and others. Now nothing can be conceived better calculated to prevent deception by the introduction of apocryphal books, than this practice of the weekly public reading of the Scriptures, for by this means the people would know what books were of authority.
It is true, that the writings of some men who had been the companions of the apostles, were also read in the Churches for the edification of the people; particularly the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, and the “Shepherd” of Hermas; but the fathers were careful to distinguish these from the canonical Scriptures. They were accustomed to call such as were written by inspired men canonical, and the writings of other pious men, such as Clement, Barnabas, and Hermas, ecclesiastical.
3. Another evidence in favour of the canonical books is, that they were quoted as books of decisive authority by the doctors of the Christian Church, living in all parts of the world. Now, this can only be accounted for by supposing that they knew no other books which claimed to be canonical; or that they witn one consent rejected such claims, and acknowledged the books now included in the sacred volume, as the only writings which were divinely mspired. The conclusion is clear, then, that those books which were alone cited as authority, to decide questions respecting f lith or duty, and which were generally appealed to by the early writers cf the t’lvistian Church, are canonical. Thus, tJie first
Apol. II. p. 93. i Cyp. Ep. 3(., 39.
+ Tcrt’illian de Anima
epistle of Peter is universally acknowledged to be the Dnjdilction of that apostle, and is cited as authority oy all the fathers; but other books under the name of Peter, such as his Revelation, his Gospel, and his Acts, are never quoted as Scripture by any of the fathers. This argument is repeatedly used by Eusebius, and other ancient defenders of the canon of the New Testament; and if the premises are true, it is perfectly conclusive.
Those persons, Therefore, such as To land and Dodwell, who have endeavoured to unsettle our present canon, labour with all their might to prove that other books, now considered apocryphal, were as commonly cited by the fathers as those which are now deemed canonical. But learned men have thoroughly examined this subject, and have shown that this is not the fact; as Nye and Richardson, from an examination of all the passages in the fathers where other books are cited, have demonstrated.
4. The early versions of the New Testament furnish an additional argument in favour of the canonical authority of most of the books now admitted into the sacred volume.
As long as the gift of tongues remained with the ministers of the Church, the gospel could be preached to all the nations in their own vernacular language; but when miraculous gifts ceased, there was a great necessity that the sacred books should be translated into the languages of those people who did not understand Greek, in which the New Testament was originally written. Therefore learned men early applied themselves to this work; and although we have no exact information of the time when these versions were made, or the persons by whom the work was performed; yet we have good evidence that they were made very early. The Christians of Syria and Mesopotamia, who were accustomed to the use of the Syro-Chaldaic dialect, would, not have remained long without a Syriac or Aramean version of the New Testament, and, as many of the learned iji these countries were well acquainted with Greek, sj76 evidences of Christianity.
there exists a strong probability that a version intt. Syriac must have been at least begun, early in the second century, if not before the close of the first A-iid the fact, that the Syriac version called Peshito omits some of the books which were for awhile doubted of by some, favours the opinion that this version must have been made at a very early period, and probably in the beginning of the second century. Marcion, the heretic, Uvcd in this century, and waa acquainted with the New Testament; there was then a version into Syriac, his own vernacular tongue Without such a translation, a large number of the primitive churches must have been entirely destitute of the Scriptures.
The New Testament was also early translatea into Latin, and from the fragments that remain, it appears that there were several versions into this language, which were in use, when the Latin language prevailed; and especially in Italy. One of these is called by Augustine, Itala, and was the vulgate, before Jerome undertook a translation; but it was not long before veisions were made into various other languages, as the Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabif’. Armenian, &c. Now all these contain all the books which are now included in our canon, except the Syriac, which is probably the oldest of them all. The books omitted in this version are the Revelation, and some of the minor epistles which were not generally known when this version was made. As it relates to all the other books of the New Testament, this version furnishes a satisfactory proof of their canonical authority. J. D. Michaelis is of ophiion, that this is the best translation of the New Testament ever made, and that it is referred to by Melito, bishop of Sardis. In the time of Jerome, the Scriptures were read in Syriac in all the Churches in that country, and in Mesopotamia.
When the council of Nice met, and other general
councils, there was never any dispute among the
venerable bishops who attended, about the canon of
Scripture. In regard to this there seems to have
een a perfect agreement. The only persons who
BVIDENCES O^ CHlUiTIANlTV. 277
impugned the commonly received books vverc herelics; and even from the testimony of these, much Bvidence may be derived in favour of our canon. The Arians and Pelagians appealed to the same Scriptures as the orthodox Church. It was impossible, after the Church was widely extended, and the New Testament translated into divers tongies, that any book could have been added to the sacred volume, or abstracted from it. Such an attempt, if it could hnve p’-oved successful in a single Church, neve: could have prevailed to any extent. Detection of SUCH a fraudulent attempt would have been certain and immediate. We have, therefore, the utmost certainty, that we now possess the identical Scriptures which were given to the Churches by the apostles and other inspired men. The learned John David Michaelis has very needlessly stirred a question concerning the canonical authority of the writings of Mark and Luke, because they only of the writers of the books of the New Testament were not numbered among the apostles. But the ancient Church never entertained any doubt on this subject, and received their gospels with the same confidence and veneration as the others. Indeed, they seem to have esteemed the gospel of Luke just as if it had Deen dictated by Paul, and that of Mark as if dictated by Peter. And when we look into these gospels, we find no more evidence of human weakness or error, than in those written by Matthew and John. And we feel no hesitation in applying to this case the rule already mentioned, that books universally received as inspired by those who lived nearest to the times when they were published, ought to be considered canonical Ly us. And according to this rule, these gospels have as good a claim to a place in the canon as any books in the volume.
It will, we presume, be satisfactory to the reader to have some of the testimonies of the Christian fathers in regard to each book, or each class of books set before him This will be the subject of the next chapter.
ai