Testimonies in Favour of the Canonical Authority of the Books of the New Testament
Although the precise time when these books were written is unknown, it has generally been believed. lh.lt Matthew’s gospel is among the earliest. The uinibrm testimony of the fathers is, that Matthew wrote in Hebrew; that is, in the vernacular language of Judea. To this opinion, modern critics have made serious objections. They allege, that there is no clear evidence of the existence of the Hebrew codex; that the work has no internal evidence of being a translation; and that this opinion tends to destroy our idea of the integrity of the sacred canon; for, according to it, one inspired work which belonged to the canon is lost, and its place supplied by a translation, made nobody knows by whom. For these, and such like reasons, a large number of our ablest critics have declared in favour of a Greek original. But as a mere argument cannot stand against a body of combined testimony, the opinion of a Hebrew original is likely’ to maintain its ground, especially as numbers among its advocates are men as learned and sagacious as those who appear on the other side. To reconcile these discordant opinions, an ingenious and plausible theory has been invented, which is, that Matthew first prepared his gospel for the Jewish converts; but others who did not understand the Hebrew, naturally wishing for an authentic account of the life of our Lord from the pen of an apostle. prevail(!d with him before he left Judea, to put it into Greek; or lo cause it to be translated under his own eye. The Hebrew copy being only in possession of the Ebionites and Nazarenes, was so )n corrupted and finally lost, when no Church of Hebrew Christians any longer existed. Thus they reconcile the testimony of the ancients with the opii.ion that the
EVIDENCES OF CHUISTIANIT f. 279
Gieek text is truly inspired, and therefore a part of (he sacred canop There i? much internal probahilit) in this theoiy, and all it wants to commend it fully to our acceptance is the want of external testimony But let us hear what the fathers say respectin* Matthew as an Evangelist.
Papias, bishop of Hierapolis, who had seen and conversed with the apostle John, mentions Matthew’s gospel, and says, “he wrote the divine oracles in Hebrew.”* We learn from this in what esteem the writings of apostles were held in the very earliest times. Matthew’s gospel is here denominated the divine oracles, by a man who was contemporary with John, and who, no dmbt, spoke the sentiments of the Church, in that day.
Irenseus, bishop of Lyons, who was acquainted with Polycarp the disciple of John, says, “Matthew, then among the Jews, wrote a gospel in their language, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome.”t In another place, he says, “The gospel of Matthew was delivered to the Jews.”J Origen says, “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 their own language.”§ Origen flourished about a hundred years after the death of John, lived most of his life near to judea, and was thoroughly versed in biblical learning.
Eusebius may be placed a century after Origen. No man had taken more pains to search into ecclesiastical antiq ities. He gives the following testimony, “xMutthew 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” II
Thus, in the Syrxjpsis ascribed to Athanasius, it is said, “Matthew wrote his gjspel in Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem. “IF
Lardner, Vol. III. p. 160. Lardner, Vol. IH. p &i.
1 Adv. Hacr. L. III. c. 1, Ibid.
t E-aseb L. V. c 8. Ibid. p. 150.
Cyril of Jerusalem also testifies, “that Matthew wrote in Hebrew.” Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen and Ebedjesu, say the same.
Jerome, in his commentary on this gospel, says, “Matthew the publican, snrnamed Levi, wrote hk gospel in Judea, in the Hebrew language.”*
Concerning the time when this gospel was published, there are several opinions; some placing it eight years after the ascension of our Lord; others bringing it down to the fifteenth year; and some so ‘ow as the year of our Lord sixty-four. While, on the other hand, some late critics carry it Uf to the third or fourth year after the ascension.
The gospel of Mark is also noticed by Papia, in a passage which has been preserved by Eusebius. He says, “that when Peter had come to Rome, they were so inflamed with love for the truths of Christianity, that they entreated Mark the companion of Peter, and whose gospel we now have, prayhig him that he would write down for them and leave with them an account of the doctrines which had been preached to them; and they did not desist from their request, until they had prevailed on him, and procured his writing that which is now the gospel of Mark. That when Peter came to know this, he was by the direction of the Holy Spirit pleased with the request of the people, and confirmed the gospel which was written for the use of the Churches.”! According to this testimony of an apostolical father, the gospel of Mark received the sanction of Peter, and is as apostolic as if this apostle had written it with his own hand. And as it was nothing else than the substance of Peter’s preaching, it is all one as if he had dictated it to an amanuensis.
Irenaeus, however, states the matter a little differently, in some respects. He says, “After their death (Peter and Paul,) Mark, also the disciple of Peter, delivered to us the things which had been preached by Peter.”t
See Lard. Vol. IJT. p ICO. t Lard Vol. III. p. 17*
Ibid, p 177.
Eln)ENCLS OF CHKISTIAMTY. 281
Augusdnecal-led Mark “the abridger of Matthew,” on account of his relating things so much in the same style as that apostle; but this gospel is not properly an abridgment, for iri some things he is more minute, and enlarges more tian Matthew; and he has many particulars not recorded by Matthew.
The testimony of Clement of Alexandria is much to the same purpose as what has already beer* stated; which shows that a uniform tradition existed in relation to this matter. He says, “when Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome, by the influence of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts desired Mark, as having been long a companion of Peter, and who well r.^membered what he preached, to write down his discourses. That upon this he composed his gospel, and gave it to those who made this request, which when Peter knew, he neither encouraged nor obstructed the work.”*
Tertullian informs us, “that the gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter’s, whose interpreter he was.“t And Origen concurs in the imiform testimony; “Mark,” says he, “wrote his gospel according to the dictates of Peter.” And Jerome also tells us, “that Mark, the disciple of Peter, wrote a short gospel, from what he had heard from Peter, at the request of the brethren at Rome, which when Peter knew, he approved and published it in our Churches, commanding the reading of it by his own authority,” J: which exactly agrees with what was cited from Papias. We see how full are the testimonies in favour of this gospel; and “accordingly, we never hear in all antiquity of any doubt or scruple respecting its canonical authority.
The only information that can be ‘-epended on respecting the time when this gospel was published, is, that in the testimonies cited above, it is said, that it was written after Peter came and preached at Rome; and one witness says, after his death. We have, it is true, something said on this subject by
Euseb. E3C. Hist. Lib. VI. c. 4.
* Lard. Ve. III. p. 178 Lard. Vol. III. j.. 173
282 EVIDENCES OF CHRIST! AMTT.
writers who lived in the middle ages, but their testimony is of little worth on such a subject. And one of these writers asserts, that Mark wrote his gospei at Rome, and in the Roman language; for which opinion there is no ancient authority. It was no doubt written, like the other books of the New Testament, in Greek.
Luke the penman of the third gospel, was selected Dy the Churches to travel with Paul, and was his companion during his confinement at Rome. Concerning this evangelist, Irenaeus also speaks in the same passage in which he mentions Mark, saying, “that Luke, the companion of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by him.” In another place, he says, “Luke was not only a companion but a fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul.” “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, nas delivered to us what he learned from them, as he says, “even as they declared them unto us, from the beginning, who were eye-witnesses and ministers of his word.”* Eusebius informs us, that Clement oi Alexandria, in a work not now extant, bore amplt testimony to the gospel of Luke, as well as to the other gospels. And he mentions a tradition which he had received from more ancient presbyters, “that the gospels with genealogies were first written.” Tertullian speaks of Mark and Luke as “disciples of the apostles,” but he ascribes the same authority to the gospels written by them, as to others. “Luke’s Digest,” says he, “is often ascribed to Paul.” And Origen, in speaking of the four gospels, says, “The third is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published for the sake of the Gentile converts.”!
The testimony of Eusebius to Luke’s gospel is very full. He says,” Luke, who was of Antioch, and by profession a physician, fcr the most part a companion of Paul, who had likevrise mm?, than a
Lard Vol III. i>. lUS. + Lard. Vol IH. p. VJd.
slight acq iiintance with the other apostles, has left us, in two Dooks divinely mspi.ed, 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 were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word, with all of whom 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 writ ten and published by the blessed apostle and physician Luke.” To these testimonies it will be unnecessary to add any others, except that of Jerome, which 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.” It is supposed that Luke did not learn his gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not conversed with the Lord in the flesh, but also from other apostles, which likewise he owns at the beginning of his volume, saying, “Even as they delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word.”t
In another place, he 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 BoBOtia.”
This gospel has from the time of its publication, oeen received as canonical by the whole Christian Church; has been constantly read in the Churches as a part of divinely inspired Scripture; has been cited as authority by all Christian writers; anc. has a place in every catalogu,^ of the books of the New Testament whic: was ever published. Its canonical
Lard. Vol. I 1 p. 198. t Ibid. Vol III. p 200
284 EVIDENCES OF CHRISriANIir.
authority is therefore placed beyond the reach of if.A sonable doubt, notwithstanding the injudicious scru pies which some learned moderns have entertained nd published to the world respecting it.*
The fourth and last of the gospels was written by John, the beloved disciple. This evangelist, according to ‘he universal testimony of the ancients, survived all the other apostles, and did not leave the world until about the close of the first century of the Christian era. The testimonies to the genuineness and canonical authority of this gospel are as full as could be desired.
Irenasus asserts, “that the evangelist John designed by his gospel to confute the errors which Cerinthus had mfused into the minds of the people, and which had been infused by those called Nicolaitanes; and to convmce them that there was one God who had made all things by his word, and not as they imagined, one who was the Son of the Creator, and another the Christ who was impassible and descended upon Jesus the Son of the Creator.”! Jerome fully confirms this testimony of Irenaeus. He says, “that when John was in Asia, there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and others who denied that Christ had come in the flesh, that is, denied his divine nature; whom he in his epistle calls antichrist, and whom 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 concerning the word, not more bold than felicitous.”” It is related in Ecclesiastical history, that John, when solicited by the brethren to write, answered, that he would not do it unless a day of public prayer and fasting was appointed to implore the assistance of God: which being done, and tike solemnity being honoured with a satisiictory revelation from God, he broke forth in the
* See a discussion respecting tlic inspiraticn of the gospels of >Iark and Luke, in my work on the Canon. + Lard.Vol. ITI. p. 22’ words with which his gospel commence i, in the
BEGINNING WAS THE WORD,” &C. *
The same learned father, in his hook of “Illustrious Men,” says, “John wrote a gospel at the request of the bishops of A«;ia, against Cerinthus and other her3tics, and especially against the doctrine of the Ebionites then sprmging up, who say that Christ did not exist before his 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 having read the volumes of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his approbation of their history as true; but observed, that they had recorded an account of but one year of our Lord’s ministry, even the next after the imprisonment of John [the Baptist,] in which also he suffered. Omitting, therefore, that year, (for the most part,) the history of which had been written by the other three, he related the acts of the preceding time before John was shut up in prison, as may appear to those who read the four evangelists; which may serve to account for the seeming difference between John and the rest.”t
This ample testimony of Jerome is confirmed by Augustine, who says, “that this evangelist wrote concerning the co-eternal divinity of Christ, against lieretics.”J
Lampe, Lardner, and Titmann, have called in question this account of the occasion of John’s writing; but the plausible reasonings of ingenious men have little weight, when laid in the balance with the positive testimony of such men as those who have asserted the contrary. Whether this gospel was written before or after the destruction of Jerusalem, is a matter of dispute among the learned; but the opinion of the ancients, and most of the moderns is, that il was written afterwards; and with this, the inteTjal evidence best agrees.
The Acts of the Apostles was undoubtedly written y Luke, for it is dedicated to Theophilus, the samp
Larr Vol, III. p. 229. t Ibid. p. 228.
*Ibid
f8(> EVIDENCIS OF CHRISTIANITT.
excellent person to whom he had dedicated his gospel, and in this last dedication he refers to his formei work. The fact is also confirmed by the testimony of the whole Christian Church, no one having ever called it in question.
This book was in great esteem among the early fathers, and is often mentioned in their writings, ana always quoted as a part of inspired Scripture,
Irenaeus says, “Luke’s Acts of the Apostles ought to be equally received with the gospel.” “In them he has carefully delivered to us the truth, and given us a sure rule for salvation.” So also, Clement ot Alexandria,Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius,and Jerome, all ascribe the Acts of the Apostles to Luke.*
In the Syriac version of the New Testament, the name of Luke is prefixed to this book; the same is also said to be the fact in some very ancient manuscripts.
It must have been early circulated among the Churches, for it is plainly referred to by Clement of Rome, the fellow-labourer of Paul. And Polycarp, in his epistle to the Philippians, has cited a passage from the Acts; as also Justin Martyr, in his “Exhortation to the Greeks.” It is distinctly cited by Irenaeus more than thirty times, and is expressly denominated Scripture, which is also true of Tertul-Uan.
The Acts of the Apostles being found in all the catalogues of the books of the New Testament, have ing always been read in the Chiu’ches, uniformly quoted as Scripture, and possessing all the internal evidences of inspiration, as well as the express testimony of the early fathers, has an undoubted right la a p]?x;e in the sacred canon.
See Lirdncr, Vol. III. p. 207.
EVIDENCES OF CHRISriANITV. 28’