Method of Settling the Canon of the New Testament
At first view, it would seem, that there would bd fouiul much !esp diliiculty in determiii 11115 Canon of the New ‘restunuut,ihan thai of the Old; seeing the books vlhich comijose the former are much more recent, than those of the latter. And we have historical records, which reach up to the time, when tniDiinon of the New Testament was formed, but in regard to most of the books of the Old Festaiiiciiljtiicro are extant no coilaleril documenls,iior any autnentic h’storics, which j;o back to a j)eriod within some liundrcd years of the time, when they weie jjenned. But houever plausible this may appear, It is entirely fallacious; and, when we come to examine into the Canonical aulliority of the books of the New Tertament, much greater dilBcuIties are found to exist, than were e icountered, in esiasjiisiiing the Canon of the OkI Testament. The reasons of this dillerence, aie, such as these;
1. Canon of the Old Testament was settled by Ezra, an inspired m:ui, but the books of the iM’exv I’cstatneiit were collected into the Canon, after inspiration had ceased, in the Ciinsnan cimrch.
2. The Canon of the Old Testament received the sanction f)f Christ and his apostles, but when the Canon oftlie New Testament was completed, all the apostles were dead.
3. The number of Apocryphal books which claim admission into the Canon of the Old Testament is inconsiderable, and the invalidity of their title, easily demonstrated; but the Apocryphal books ol the New Testament are very numerous; and some of ihem have a much higher claim to Canonical authority, than any of those obscure books, which claim admittance into the Old Testament.
To land in his famous catalogue of the books of the New Testament, lays in a claim for more than eighty, which he pretends ought to be received into the Canon.
While there was a universal agreement, in the primitive church, in regard to the Canonical authority of most of the books of the New ‘J’estanient, there were some who doubted, respecting the Epistle of James, The Second of Peter, The Second and Third of John, The Epistle to the Hebrews, and the R( veiaiion.
4. There has been, moreover, much more doubt and controversy respecting some of the genuine books of the New Testament, than ever existed in regard to any contained in the Jewish Canon.
5. While some of the ancient Fathers disputed the right of some t f the books which have been received into the Canon, some modern doctors, of wo inconsulerable learning;, have been of opinion, that several, which were formerly excluded, oiip;ht yet to he receiveil. This opinion was explicitly declared by archbishop Wake, and Mr. VVhiston, to ay nothing about To land, who was an enemy to the gospel.*
6. To all which we may add, that some moderns, of great name, have expressed doubts respecting some of the books now in the Canon of the New Tesiani’Mit; as Luther, for a while, rejected the Epistle of James: and Erasmus, Calvin, Cajetan, and Kirslenius, hesitated respecting the authority of the book of Revelation: and J. D. Michaelis rejected this book from the Canon, and expressed himself very unfavourably respecting the gospels of iVIark and Luke.
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 any thing here on that subjVct, except to say, that this inquiry cannot be less interesting in rcgird to the New Testao’ent, than to the Old. It is a subject which calls for our utmost diligence and impartialty. It is one which we cannot neglect with a gool conscience; for the inquiry is nothing less than to ascertain, what revelation God has made to us, ami where it is to be found.
And, as to tlic proper method of settling the
Soc Jones on tlic Canon.
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 conlemporaries, and immediate successors of the apostles, are the most competent witnesses, in this case. If amon:^ 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 matter of this sort. A general consent of the CArly Fathers, and of the primitive church, therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence, on this point; and is that species of evidence, which is least liable to fallacy, or abuse. The learned Huet, hns, therefore, assumed it as a maxim, That every book is genuine, which was esteemed genuine, by those who lived nearest to the time when it loas written, and by the ages following, in a continued series.* The reasonaileness of this rule will appear more evident, when we consider the great esteem with which these books were at first received; the constant public reading of them in the churches; and the early” version of them, into other languages.
The high claims of the Romish church, in regard to the authority of fixing the Canon, has already
* Demonstratio Evang-.
lS.T
bern disprnvcl, as it relates to the bonks of the Old Testmnent; and the same arsjuments apply wiih their full force, to the Canon of the New Testament, and need not be- repealed. It may not he amiss, however, to hear from distingnislied writers of that oommunion, what their real opinion is, on this subject. Hkuman asserts, <’ That the Sa. red Scriptures, without the authoi’ity of the cluuchj have no more authority than ^sop’s Fables;” And Baili.ik, “That he would give no more credit to St, Matthew, than to Livy, unless the church obliged him.” To the same purpose, speak, PiGHius, EcKius, Hkllarmixe, and many othei-s of thf’ir most distinguished writers. By the auihority of the church, they understand a power” lodged in the church of Rome, to deiermine what books shrill be received as the word of God, than which it is scarcely possible to conceive of any thing more absurd.
In avoiding this extreme, some Protestants have verged towards the opposite, and have asserted, that the only, or j)rincipal evidence of the Canonic cal 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
* See the Confession of the Reformed Galilean Cbureh. M 2 strons:; and that when the mind of the reader is truly ilkiminated, it derives from this source, the most unwavering convicti m 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 sur /ly 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 evi. dence? 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 inter al 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, yvould be to unsettle, rather than establish the Canon of Holy Scripture; for it would be stiange, if some peisons, without any other guidance than their own spiritual taste, would not pretend that other books besides those long received, were Canonical; or, would be disposed to reject some part of these. If this evidence were as infallible as some would Imvc it to he, Oicn the auHienticity of every* disputed text, as well as the Cationical authority of every book, mifj;ht he asccrt;iincd bjv it: Hut we have already seen, ihai a few eiiiiuently pious men doubted for a while, respecting the Canonical authority of sonic genuine books of the New Testament.
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 hen 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 diObrs 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 A’ho cuuld undertiike to say, that from inteinal evidence alone, he could determine, ihat the book of Kslher, or the Chronicles, were written by di ine inspiration.’’ Besides, some books are obscure and not easily understoorl; now, how couVl any one discern theinternalevidenceof a book, the meaning of which he did not yet understatid?
The evidence, arising frona 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, theiefore, to proceed to our destined point, in a more circuitoi;s way. We must be at the pains to examine into the history of the Canon; and as was before said, to ascertoin what books were esteemed Canonical by all those who had the best opportunity of judging of this matter ‘, and when the internal evidence is lound corroborating the external, the two combined, may produce a degree of conviolion, 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 Homer, Horace, Virgil, Livy, and TuUy, wrote the books, which now j;o under their names.
The early Christians pursued this method of determining what books were Caiionicul. They searched into the njcons of the chuich, l)efore their time, and from these ascertained what bonks should be received, as belonging to the Sacred Volume. They appealed to that certain and universal tradition, which attested the genuineness of these books. Irenjeus, Tertullian, EnsEBixTs, Cyril, and ArorsTiNE, have all made use cf this argument, in establishing the Canon of the New Testament,
The question is often asked, when wns the Canon of ilie JNew 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 ptirtinn 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 r’gi;t 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, tijat any
Council of bishops, or others, gave sanction to the boL’lc, but to show, that it is indeed the g;pnuirie work of Matthew, or John, or P’ter, or Paul, whom we know 1o have been inspired.
The books of the New Testament were, therefore, of full authority, before they v ere colled ed into one volume; and it would have made no difference, if they had never been included in one volume, but had retained ‘haf separate f.rm, in which they were first published. And it is by no means certain, that these books vlere, at a very early period, bound in one volume. As far as we have any testimony on the subject, the probability is, that it was more customary to include them in two volumes; one of which was called the Gof^PEL, and the other, the Apostles. Some of the oldest MSS. of the New Tesiament extant, appear to have been p’lt up in this form; and the Fathers often refer to the Scriptures of the New Testament, U!)der these two titles. The qaeption, when was the Canon constituted, admits th refore, of no other projier answer than this, that as soon as the last book of the New Tes; anient was written and published, the Canon was completed. But if the question i-elates to the time when thi-se b)oks were coHoctec! tojjeiher, and p iblished in a single volume, or in two volumes, it admits of no definite answer; for those churches which were situated nearest to the i-lace, where any particular bonks were published, would, of course, obtain copies much earlier, than churches in a remoto part of the world. For a considerable p.-riod, tin- collection uf thrsi books, in ctcli clr.rch, nmst have bet-n necc s irily incumplete; for il would lake some time to sciul to the church, or people, with whom the autojyraphs were dep sited, and to write o(T fair copies. This necessary process will also account for the fact, th.it soni’, of the smaller books were not received by the churches so eirly, nor so univers.illy, as the laryer. Tiic solicitude of the churches to possess, ininiediately, the more extensive books of the New Testament, would, doubtless, induce them to make a ^reat exertion to acquire copies; but prubably,the smaller, would not be so much spoken of, nor would there be so strong a desire to obtain them without delay. Considering how ditTicult it is now, with all our improvements in the typograjjhical art, to multiply copies of the Scriptures with sullicient rapidity, it is) truly wonderful, how so many churches as were foundtd during the first century, to s.iy nothing of individuals, could all be supplied with copies of the Nfw Testament, when there was no speedier method of producing them, than by writing every letti r with the pen! The pen of a ready wriier must then, indeed, have been of immense v due. The idea entertainetl by some, es,jecialiy by D.jdwtLL, thai .hese books lay f<jr a long lime h.ck d up in the cotfers of the churches to which they were ad’lre-soil, and totally unknown to the ii si of the world, IS ii ilaclf most improbable; anil is repugnant to all the testimony which cxisls on the subject. Even ap 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.* And the citation from these books by the earliest Christian writers, living in diff rent countries, demonstrates, that from the time of their publication, they were souoht after with avidity, and were widely dispersed. How intense the interest which the fiist Christians felt in the writings of the apostles can scarcely be conceived b) us, who have been fjuniiiai- with these books from our earliest years. How solicitous would they be, for example, who had never seen Paul, but had heard of his wonderful conversion, and exlraordiiiary labours and gifts, to read his writings? and probably they who had enjo) ed the high privilege of hearing this apostle prciicd, wiiuld not be less desirous of reading his Epistles! As we know, from the nature of
the case, as well as from testimony, that many uncertain accounts of Cia-ist’s discourses and nnracles had obtain»;d ciicuiation, how greatly would the primitive Christian rejoice, to obtain an authentic history, from the pe.i of an apostle, or from one who wrote precisely what was uict;iteu by an apostle y We need no longer wonder, therefore, that every church should wish to possess a collection of the
2 Pet. ill. 14, 15.
writings of the apostles; and knowing them to be the productions of inspired men, they would want no furiher sanction of their authority. All that was requisite was to be certain, that the book was indeed written by the apostle, whose name it l)ore. And this leads me to observe, that some tilings in Paul’s Epistles, which seqm to common readers to be of no importance, were of the utmost consequence. Such as, / Terfius luho wrote this Epistle Sf’c. — The salutation with mine own hand. — So I write in every epistle. — Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with 7nine own hand. — The salutation by the hand of me Paul. — The salutation of Paul with mine own handy which is the token in every Epistle.* This aposile commonly employed an amanuensis; but that the churches to which he wrote, might have the assurance of the genuineness of his Epistles, from seeing his own hand writing, he constantly wrote the Salutation, himself. So much care was taken to have these sacred writings well authenticated, on their first publication. And on the same account it was, that he and the other apostles, were so particular in giving the names, and the characters, of those who were the bearers of their Epistles. And it seems, that they wera always committed to the care of men of highesti-
Rom. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Tlies. iii. 17.
Miation in the church; and commonly, more than one appears to have been intrusted with this important commission.
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 Ilerculaneum; 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 any thing 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 vvliich 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, ihcrelbrc, that they did not set so high a value on the possession of the autograph of an inspired hook, as we shouhl, but considered a copy, made with scrupulous fidelity, as equally valuable with the original. And God may have suffered these autographs of the sacred writings to perish, lest in process of time, they should have become idolized, like the brazen serpen!; or lest men should be led superstitiously to venerate the mere parchment and ink, and form and loiters, employed by an apostle. Certainly, the history of the church is such, as to render such an idea far from being improbable.
But, although, little is said about the originals of the apostle’s writings, we have a testimony in Tcrtullian, that the Authentic Lktters 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? Mad 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 A|)Ostles, were preserved by the churches to which they were addressed, in the time of Tertullian.’’
* Soe note B.