Canonical Authority of the Seven Catholic Epistles
The First Epistle of Peter, and the First ot’’ 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 now here found in Scripture, in the Second of Peter. It is, That a day of the Lord is a thousand years.
DioGNETiis quotes several passages from the First of Peter, and the First of John.
Irenjeus quotes the First Epistle of Peter, expressly; “And Peter says, in his Epistle, JVhom 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,” Wliercfure also in his Epistle, he says, Little children it is the last time.’’ And again, “In the forementioned Epistle, the Lord c»3mmands u? tD shun those person?, who bring false doctrine, T 2 saying, Many deceivers are entered into the worldy loho confess not that Jesus Chynst is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and an Jlntichrist. Look to yourselves that ye lose not those things which ye have wrought.” Now these words are undoubtedly taken from John’s Second Epistle. Irenaeus, seems indeed, to quote them from the First, but this was probably a slip of the memory.
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 Jamesj and Second Peter.
Clement of Alexandria, often quotes First Peter; and sometimes Second 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, / will that ye should know, that God having saved the people out of Egypt, &c. He has a rcmai’k on Jude’s modesty, that he did not style himself the brother of our Lord, although he was r-lated to him, but begins his Epistle, Jude the servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James.
Tertcllian, often quotes the First Epistle of John; but he has in none of his remaining wriiings cited any thing from James, Second Peter, or the Second of John, He has, however, our express quotation from Judc, “Hence it is,” says lie, “that Enoch is quoted by the aposile Jude.>’
Obigi.x, in his commentary on Si. John’s dospel, expressly quotes the Epistle of James, in the following passa’jje, “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 Ijook 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 of Peter is often quoted expressly. In his book against Celsu’, he says, “As it is said by Peter, Ye a.^ lively stones are built up a spiritual hotise.” Again, ‘* Peter in his Catholic Papistic, says. Put to death in the Jleshbut quickened in the spirit
According to Eusebius, Origen considered the Second of Peter as doubtful, and in his Greek works there are no clear citations from it; but there are found a few in his Latin works.
In the passage preserved by Eusebius, he says, that some were doubtful, respecting the Second and Third of John, “but for my part,” says he, “let them i)e granted to be his.”
0“iOEN has cited several passages from Jiulc, which are found in no other part of Scripture; and in one plare remarks, ‘’Jude wrote an Epistle of few lines iruiced, but full of powerful words, and Heavenly grace, who at the beginning, says, **Jude ths servant of Jesits Christ, and brother of Janies.’^ 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 no where quotes the Epistle of James; but the Frst of Peter is oflen 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 Cj’prian. “The apostle John,” says Ii, “mindful of this command, writes in this Epistle, Hereby we perceive that toe know him, for we keep his commandments. He that saiih I know hiin, andkeepetli not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” The Second and Third of John, he never mentions, nor the Epistle of Jude.
The opinion of Eusebius of Cesarsea, 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 nDt allow, that he was one of the Twelve. In his commentary on the Psalms, be 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 doubtlully of this Epistle, and in one passage, whrre he distributes the books into classes, he mentions thiS Epistle 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 E|;istle 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 in:othe Testament. Nevertheless, it appearing to many to be useful, 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.”
A iHANAsius quotes the Epistle of James, as written by the a)^slle James. The First Epistle of Peter is frequently quoted by him; and he also cites passages from the second Epistle, and ascribes them to Peter, lioth the fust and second Episties of John, ;ue distinctly, and expressly quoted; the third is not mentioned. He also, in two instances, cites the words of Jude. -
Jerome’s testimony coiicerninjo; the Epistle of James, is full and explicit. His words are, ‘” James-, called the Lord’s brother, suniamed Justus, as some think son of Joseph, by a former wife; but as I rather thi-ik, the son of Mary, the sister of ou” Lord’s mofh’^r, 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 ha.ve 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.”
Attgustine received all the Catholic Epistles. H-’ quotes James as an apOstle. He often cites both the Ei)istles 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 4th (^entury, 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.
jg59
RrFix received all the l)oolis asCaiionical, vviucli are now so esleemed by christians generally. Why these Kpisilcs have received llu; appellation of Catholic, various reasons have been assigned.
Some have supposed that they were so called, because they contain the one catholic docirine which was delivered to the churches by Ike aposties of our Saviour, and which might be read by the universal church.
Others are of opinion that they received this appellation, because they were not addressed to one person, or church, like the Epistles of Paul; but to the Catholic church. This opinion seem>« not to be correct, for some of them were written to the Christians of particular countries, and others to indi iduals.
A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and adopted by Dr. IMacknight, 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 iVom 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
‘I’his denomination is as old as the time of Eusebius. and probably older, lor Origen repeatedly /called John’s First Epistle Catholic; and the same mo
IS done by Dyonisius, Bishop of Alexandria. The sanip 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, 4t has been much disputed, to which of them, this Epistle shoukl be attributed. Lardner and Mackiiight, have rendered it exceedingly probable, that this Epistle was written by James 1he Less, who is supposed to have been related to our Lord, and who seems for a long time to have had the chief authority in the church at Jerusalem: but Michaelis, is of a different opinion, and says, th;)t he sees no reason for the assertion, that James, the son of Zebedee, was not the author of this Epistle.” But the reasons which he assigns for his opinion, have very little weight.
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 earlyChristians, 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 Wesiern rhui’chesas niost utlicr buoks of Scrijpiure, but learned men hale obsi-rved, that Clrmeni of Rome has quoted it no kss than four limes; and it 18 also quottd by Ignatius m his genuine Epistle to theEphehians; and we have already shown, th;it it was received as the writing ot the apostle James, by Origo;., 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, Theophikis J3isiiopof Antioch, Papias, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandiia, and Tcrtullian. The only matter of doubt respecting this Epistle is, what place we are to understand by Babylon, where Peter was, when he wrote. On this subject, there are three opinions; the first, that by this name a place in Egypt is signified; the second, that Babylon in Assyria properly so called is meant; and the third, which is generally maintained by the Romanists, and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood, that this Epistle was written from Rome.
The time of this Epistle being written was probably about the year of our J^ord 65 or 66.
The date of the Epislle of Jude, may as well be placed about the same period as at any other time,for we huve nt; documents which can guide us to any certain decision. The objection to the Canonical au« thority oi this Epistle, derived from the author’s having quoted the Apocryphal book of Enoch, is of no validity; for the fct is, that Jucle makes no mention of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there is no evidence that the Apoci yphal 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 supposetl that the Apocalypse was the last written book of the New Testament, but Townsend insists, that the Three Epistles of John were lst written. See Townsend’s New Testament, Vol ii.