Catalogues of the Books of the New Testament

Having declared our purpose, to place the settling of the Canon of the New Testament, on the fooling of authentic testimony, we will now proceed to adduce our authorities, and shall begin with an examination of the ancient cataiogrues 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 onlv 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 thoy were admilted into the Canon, and received as inspired, by the universal consent of Christians, in every part of the world. And as to those few books, concerning which some persons entertained doubts, it can be shown, that as soon as their claims were fully and impartially investigated, they also were received with universal consent. And that other books, however excellent as human compositions, were never put upon a level with the Canonical books of the New Testament; that spurious writings, under the names of the apostles, were promptly and decisively rejected, and that the churches were rept?aledly warned against such Apocryphal books.

To do justice to this subject, will require some detail which may appear dry to the reader, but should be interesting to every person who wishes to know assuredly, that what he receives as Sacrefl 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 comni tted the sacred deposit of divine truth, intended for the instrtiction and government of the church in all future ages.

In exhibiting the evidence of the Canonical authority of these books, we shnll first attend to some general considerations, which relate to the whole volume, and thon adduce tetimony in favour of each book, now included in the Canon. N 2

And here, as in the case of the Old Testanent, we find, that at a very early period, catalogu’.s of these books were published, by most of the distinguished Fathers whose writings hive come down to us: the same has been done also, by several Councils, whose decrees are still extant.

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

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 .Tiulea, in a situalion favonrablc fo accurate information, from every part of the church, where any of these books were originally published. Origen lived, and nourished, ahont one hundred years after the de ith of the Apostle John. He was, therefore, near enoug;h to the time of ti)e publication of these books, to obtain the most certain information of their authors. Most of the orijjinal writings of this great and learned man have per. islied, but his catidogue of the books of the New Testament has been preserved by Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History.* It was contained in Origen’s Homilies on the gospel of Matthtu; and was repeated in his Homilies on the gospel of John. In this catalogue, he mentions. The fopr gos* PELS, THE Acts op the Apostles, Foukteen Epistles of Paul, Two op Peter, Three op John, and The book op Revelation This enumeration includes all the present Canon, except the Epistles of James, and Judf, but these were omi ted 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, thnt in his time, the Canon was well settled aniong the learned; and that the distinction between inspired writings and human compositions, was as clearly marked, as at any subsciquent period.

* Lib. vi. c. 25.

In the work entitled, Apostolical Consti-TUTIO’S, ascribed to Clemewt of Rome, there is a catalogue of tle books of the Nev Testfiment; but as this work is not 8;enuine, and of an uncertain author and age, I will not make use of it.

So also, the catalogue ascrib’id to tl)e Council OF Nice, is not genuine, and is coijnect d with a story, which bears every nark of superstitious crcduliiy* This ihrrefore. shall be likewise omitted. We stand in no need of suspicious testimony, on this subject. Witnesses of the most undoubted ve.’iicity, and distinguiahed intelligence, can be found in every succes^ive age.

2. The next catalogue of the books of the New Testament to which I will refer, is that of EusE-Bius, the learned Hist< ri.jn of the church; to whose diligence and fidelity, in collecting Ecclesiastical fact-, we are more indebted, than to the labouis of all «.ther men, for that period which intervened between the days of the Apostles and his own times.

* The story is briefly this. The Fathers of the Council of Nice pn all the books which claimed a place in the Sacred Cannon under the comn)union table of the church, and then prayed that such of them as were inspired might be found upperniobt. and the Apocryphal below; whereupon the event occurred agreeably to their wishes; and thus a clear line of distinction was made between Canonical books and such as were not Canonii-al. 7’his story is related in the Synodicon of Popus, an obscure writer, and is undeserving of the smallest credit.

KtJSEBius may be considered as giving his testimony about one hundred years after Ori«en’. His catalogue may be seen in his Ecclesiastical History.* In it, he enumerates every book which we now have in the Canon, and no others; but he mentions that the Epistle of James, The second of Peter, and second and third of John, were (Joubted of by some; and that Revelation was rejected by some, and receivetl by others; but Eusebius himself declares it to be his opinion, that it should be received without d lubt.

There is no single witness among the whole number of Ecclesiastical writer — , who was more competent to give accurate information on this subject, than Eusebius. He had spent a great part of his life in searching i:ito the antiquities of the Christiai. church; and he had an intimate acquaintance with all the records relating to Ecclesiastical affairs, many of which are now lost; and almost the only information which we have of them has been transmitted to us, by this diligent compiler.

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.

* Enseb. Ecc. Hist. L. iii. c. 25. comp. with c 8.

4. Cyril, in his Catechetical work, has also givefl 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 or 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; and that this book was also generally a- mitted to be canonical, we shall take the opportunity of proving, in the sequel of this work.

6. But a lew years elnpsed from the meeting of this council, before Epiphanius, bishop of Salamis, in the Island of Cyprus, published his work ON Heuksif.s. 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 Conslantinojjle, in a Poem, on the riirjE 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 Jeho.aie, who translated the whole Bible into Latin. He furnrshcs 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 sjs the rest. *

10. The catalogue of Rufin varies in nothing from the Canon now received .t

11. Augustine, in his work on Christian

Epist. ad Paulinum.

t Expos, in Symbol. Apost.

Doctrine, has inserted the names of the books of the JNew Testament, which, in all respects, are the same as ours.

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

13. The unknown author, who goes under the name of Dyomsius 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 op Peter is Canonical, becaus’^ it is cob* tinually cited by the most ancient Christian writers, in every part of the vvorlci; but the book called, Thk Revelation of Peter, is Apocr phal, because none of the early Fathers have takm any testimonies from it. The same is true of the Acts OF Peter, and The Gospel of Peter. These writings were totally unknown to the primitive church, and are therefore spurious. This argument is perfectly conclusive, and its foice was perceived by the ancient defenders of the Canon of the New Testament. Eusebius, repeatedly has recourse to it: And, therefore, those persons who have aimed to unsettle our present Canon, as Poland and Dodwell, have attempted to prove that the early Christian writers were in the habit of quoting indifferently, and promiscuously, the books which we now receive, and others which are now rejected, as Apocryphal. But this is not correct, as has been shown, by Nye, Richardson, and others. The true method of determining this matter, is by a careful examination of all the passages in the writings of the Fathers, where other books besides those now in the Canon have been quoted. Some progress was made in collecting the passages in the writings of the Fathers, in which any reference is made to the Apocryphal books, by the learned Jeremiah Jon* s, in his New Method of skttlino THE Canon of the New Testament, but the work was left incomplete. This author, however, o positively denies, that it is common for the Fathers to cite these books as Scripture, and asserts, that there are only a very few instances, in which any of them seem to have fallen into this mistake.

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

As the Jews were accustomed to read the Sacred Scriptures of the Old Testament, in their Synagogues, so the early Christians transferred the same practice to the church; and it seems to have been in use even in the apostle’s days, as appears by Col. iv. 16’, where Paul speaks, of readmg the Epistles, addressed to the churches, as a thing of course, Jind 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 Mpistlefrom Laodicea.

Justin Martyr explicitly testifies, that this was the custom in the beginning of the second century. “On. the day,” says, he “which is called Sunday, there is a meeting of all (Christians) who live either in cities, or country places, and THE MEMOIRS OP THE AposTLEs, and writings of the prophets, are read.”*

Tertullian is equally explicit; for, in giving an account oi the meetings of christians for worship, he says, “They assemble to read the

* Apol. ii. p. 93.

Scriptures, and offer up prayers.” and in another place, among; the solemn exercises of the Lord 3 Day, he reckons, “Reading the Scriptures, sin- int; Psalms. &c.”*

The same account is given by Cyprian, t and by the ancient author under the name of Dyonisius THE Areopagitk X ^^’^ ^Y Several other ancient authors. Now this practice of reading the Sacred Scriptures in the christian churches, began so early, that it is scarcely possible, that they could have been imposed on by supposititous writings. A more effectual method of guarding against Apocryphal writings obtaining a place in the Canon, could not have been devised. It afforded all the members of the church an opportunity of knowing what books were acknowledged as Canonical, and precluded all oppoitunity of foisting in spurious works; since, if this had be mi done in some one churoh, the practice of all other churches would qtiickly have exposed the imposture. Accordingly, the Fathers often referred to this custom, as the guide to the people, respecting the books which they should read; “Avoid Apocryphal books,” says CvRiLto his catechumen, “And study carefully those Scriptures only, which are publicly READ IN THE CHCiicH.” Again, having given a catalogue of the books of Scripture, he adds, *’ Let others be rejected, and such as are not read

Tortull. DeAnima. f Cyp. EpisU 36, 39.

t Hiorarch. Eco. c. 3.

IN THE Churches, neither do you read in prr-Tate.”

It was decreed in the Cofncil 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, Dy-ONisius 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 inmost 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,aecording to Cyril,read in the churches; nor commanded to be read, by the Council of Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at first view, that the application of this rule would exclude the book of Revelation from the Canon, and take in the Epistle or Clement, and the Shepherd OF Hermas. But the rule does not apply to every thing which was read in the churches, but to such books as were read as Sacred Scripture. It has fippeared in a former part of this work, that several hooks, not in the Canon of the Old Testament, were nevertheless read in the churches; but the Fathers carefully distinguished between these, and the Canonical books. They were read for instruction and for the improvement of manners, but not as authority in matters of faith. They distinsuished the books read in the churches, into Canonical and Ecclesiastical; of the latter kind, were the books mentioned above, and some others. The reason why the book of Revelation was not directed to be read publicly, shall be assigned, when we come to treat particularly of the Canonical authority of that book.

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

Although the Greek language was extensively known through the Roman empire, when the apostles wrote; yet the Christian church was in a short time extended inio 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 to such people, would, in some measure, be obviated, but when these miraculous powers ceased, the necessity of a version of the Gospels and Epistles into o 2 the language of the people, would become manifest. As far, therefore, as we may be permitted to reason from the nature or the case, and the necessities of the churches, ilis exceedingly probable, that versions of the New Testament were made shortly after the death of the apostles, if they were not begun before. Can we suppose that the numerous Christians in Syria, Mesopotamia, and the various parts of Italy, would be long left, without having these precious books translated into a language which all the people could understand? But we are not left to our own reasonings on this subject. We know, that at a very early period, there existed Latin versions of the New Testament,which had been so long in use before the time of Jerome, as to have become considerably corrupt, on which account, he undertook a New Version, which soon superseded those that were more ancient. Now, although, nothing remims of these ancient Latin Versions, but uncertain fragments, yet we have good evidence.that they contained the same books, as were inserted in Jerome’s Version, now denominated, the Vulgate.

But, perhaps the Old Syriac Version of the New Testament, called Pkshito, fiirnisiies the strongest proof of the Caaouical authority, of all the books which are conained in it., This excellent version has a very high claim to antiquity; and in the opinion ofsomeof the bestSyriuc scholars, who have prufoanily examined this subject, .was made before the close of the fiist century.

The arguments for so early an orio;in,are not, indeed, conclusive, but they possess much probabi’ lity, whether we consider the external, or internal evidence. The Syrian Christians have always insisted that this version was made by the apostle Thaddeus; but without admitting; this claim, which would put it on a level with the Greek original, we may believe, that it ought not to be brought down lower than the second century. It is universally received by all the numerous sects of Syrian Christians, and must be anterior to the existence of the ‘ddest of them. Manes, who lived in the second century, probably had read the New Testament in the Syriac, which was his native tongue; and JustinMartfr, when he testifies that the Scriptures of the New Testament, were read in the Assemblies of Christians, on every Sunday, probably refers to Syrian Chrislians, as Syria was his native place; where aiso he had his usual residence. And, JVIiCHAELlsis of opinion, that Mkhto, who vvtote about A. D 170, has expressly declare!, that a Syrian Version of the Bible existed in his time. Jerome alsotestifip s, explicitly, that when h*^ wrote, the Syriac Bihle was publicly rea I in the churches; fir, says he, ‘’ Ephr.’m th ‘Syrian is held in such veneration, that his writitigs are read in several churches, iminediately after ‘i he Lessons FROM THE Bible. It is also well known, that the Armenian Version, which itself is ancient, was made from the Syriac.

Now, this ancient Version contains the Four Gospels, The Acts of the Apostles, The Epistles of Paul including that to the Hebrews, The First Epistle of John, The First Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of James. Thus far then, the evidence of the present Canon is complete; and as to those books omitted in this Version except Revelation, they are few,and small, and probably were unknown to the translator; or, the evidence of their geunineness was not ascertained by him. And as it relates to Revelation, the same reasons which excluded it from so many ancient catalogues, probably operated here. It was judged to be too mysterious to be read in the churches, and by common Christians, and therefore was not put into the Volume which was read publicly in the churches.

The arguments for a Latin origin of this Version, possess, in my judgment, very little force.*

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 bo ks 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. hook of Revelation, for which they had a particular reason, consistent with

* On this whole suhjpct, consult Jones on the Canon, Michaelis’s Introduction, MiU’e I’roJegomena.

their belief of its Canonical authority; and in tw« of the remaining; catalogues, it can be proveil, that the books omitted, or represented as doubtful, were received as authentic, by the perwjns who have given 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 rle.irly 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 given by Okigen, who lived within a hundred years of the death of the Apostle John, and who by hi.s 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 connexion 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, repided in different and remote parts of the world; as for example, in Jerusalem, Cesaraea, 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 every where the same; therefore, we fuul the Fathers, in all their writings, appealing to the same Scriptures; and none are charged with rejecting any Canonical book, except herelios.

S, It appears from the testimony adduced, that it was never considered necessary, that anj’ Council or bishop, should give s;inction 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 tl e Church, or from Councils, hat 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 any thing to the authority of inspired books; or to claim the right to add other books to those banded down from the Apostles. The church is founded on THK Apostles and prophets, Jes’ s Christ BEING THE CHIEF CORNER STONE; but the Sacred Scriptures are no how dependent for their authority, on any set of men, who lived since they were written.

4 We may remark, in the last place, the benignant providence of God towards his church, in causing these pn cious 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 Aposilet*.

Our liveliest p;ratilude is due to the great Head of the cliuich fortius divine treasure, from which we are ptrmilted freely to draw, whmtever is needful lor 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 heait; 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 ninre to be desired than gold, yea than 7nuch fine gold, sweeter also than hotiey, and the honey comb. They who are destitute of this inestimable volume call for our tenderest compassion, and our exertions in circulating the Biljle should never be remitted, until all are supplied with this divine treasure; but they who possess this Saered Volume, and yel neglect to study it are still more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the midst of plenty. In the midst of light, they walk in darkness. God has sent to them the word of LIFE, but they have lightly esteemed the rich gift of his love. 0 that their eyes were opened, that they might behold wondrous things in the Law of the Lord!

Ps. xix. 10.