Canonical Authority of the Book of Revelation
Hermas gives many indications of having read the Revelation; for he often imitates John’s description of the New Jerusalem; and sometimes borrows his very words. He speaks of the Book OF Life, and of those whose names are written in it. He speaks also of the Saints, whom he saw, being clothed in garments white as snow.
Papias also, doubtless had seen the book of Revelation; for some of his opinions were founded on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas expressly cite the Revelation.
Justin Martyr, is the first, who gives explicit testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, “And a man from among us, by name, John, one of the apostles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has prophesied, that the believers in our Christ, shall live a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that shall be the general, and indeed eternil resurrection, and judgment of all men, together.”
In THE Epistle of the Church at Lyons AND ViENNE, in France, which was written, about the year of our Lord, one hundred and eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of Revelation: “For he was indepd a genuine disciple of Christ, following the Lamb, whiihepsoever he soes.’”
Irenus expressly quotes the Revelation, and ascribes it to John, the apostle. And in one place, he says, “It (The Revelation,) was seen no long tim*^ ago, in our age, at the end of the reign of Doniitian.” And in the passage preserved by Eusebius, he speaks of the exact and ancient copies of this book; which he says, ‘’ was confirmed likewise by the concurring testimony of those who had seen Jolm.”
Theophilus of Antioch, also, as we are assured by Eusebius, cited testimonies from the Apocalypse of John, in his book against Hermogenes. And in his works, which are extant, there is one passage which shows, that he was acquainted with the Revelation, “This Eve,” says he, “because she was deceived by the serpent — the evil demon, who is also called Satan, who then spoke to her by the serpent — Joes not cease to accuse: this demon is also called, the Dragon.”
The Revelation of John, is often quoted by Clement of Alexandria, In one passage he says, *<Such an one, though here on earth, he be not honoured with the hrst seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation.” That Clemeat be.
lieved if to he the work of the apostle John, is manifest, because in another place, he expressly cites a passage, “As the words of an apostle;” and we have just seen tha’t he ascribes the work to John.
Tertullian cites many things from the Revelation of John; and he seems to have entertained no doubt of its being the writing of the apostle John, as will appear by a few quotations; “John, in his Apocalypse, is commanded to correct those who atf things sacrificed to idols, and comniit fornication.” Again, “The apo.stle John, in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-edged sword, coming out of the mouth of God.” — “We have churches, dis’^iplcs of John, for though Marcion rejects his Revelation, the succession of bishops, traced to the original, will assure us, that John is the author.” And in another place, he has a long quotation from the book of Revelation.
HippoLYTL’s, who lived in the third century, and had great celebrity, both in the Eastern and Western churches, received the Revelation, as without doubt the production of the apostle John. Indeed, he seems to have written a comment on this book, for Jorome in the list of his works, mentions one, “Otp the R’’velati()n.”
Ilippolytus was hrld in so high esteem, (hnt a
noble monument was erected to hinr) in thr city of
Rome, which after lying for a long time biu’ied,
was dug up, near that city, A. I). 15!)1. 1V]<
7. 2 name, indeed, is not now on the monument, but* it -contains a catalogue of his works, sev»’ral of which have the same titles as those ascribed to Hippolytus, by Jerome and Eusebius; together with others, not mentioned by them: among which, is one, “Of the Gospel of John, and the Revelation.”
Origen calls the writer of the Apocalypse, “Evangelist and apostle;” and on account of the predictions which it contains, ^’ Prophet” also. In his book against Celsus, he mentions, “John’s Revelation, and divers other books of Scripture.”
It was Origen’s intention to write a commentary on this book, but whether he ever carried his purpose into execution, is unknown. Nothing of the kind has reached our times.
Dyonisius of Alexandria, who lived about ,the middle of the third century, and was one of the most learned men of his time, has entered into a more particular discussion, of the Canonical authority of the book of Revelation than any other ancient author. From what has been said by him,. we learn, on what account it was, that this book, after having been universally received by the earlier Fathers, fell, with some, into a certain degree of discredit. About this time, the Chiliasts, or Milienarians, who held that Christ would reign visibly on earth with his Saints for a thousand years, during which period, all manner of earthly and sensible pleasures would be enjoyed, made their appearance. This opinion they derived from a literal interpretation of some passages in the book of Revelation; and as their error was very repugnant to the feelings of the most of the Fathers, they were led to doubt of the authority, or to disparage the value of the book, from which it was derived.
The first rise of the Millenarians, of the grosser kind, seems to have been in the district of Arsinoe, in Egypt; where one Nepos composed several works in defence of their doctrine; particularly a book Against the Allegorists.” Dyor)isius took much pains with these errorists, and entered with them into a free and candid discussion of their opinions, and of the true meaning of the book of Revelation: and had the satisfaction to reclaim a number of them from their erroneous opinions. His own opinion of the Revelation he gives at large, and informs us, thai some, who lived before his time, had utterly rejected this book, and ascribed it to Cerinihus; but for his own part, he professes to believe, that it was written by an inspired man, whose name was John, but a different person from the apostle of that name; for which opiniouy he assigns several reasons, but none of much weight. His principal reason is, that the language of this book is different from that of the apostle John, in his other writings. To which Lardner judiciously answers, that supposing this to be the fact, it will not prove the point, for the style of prophecy is very different from the epistolary, or historical style. But this laborious and learned collector of facts, denies, that there is such a difference of style, as to lay a foundation for this opinion: and in confirmation of his own opinion, he descends to particulars, and shows, that there are some striking points of resemblance between the language of the Apocalypse and the acknowledged writings of the apostle John.
The opinion of those persons who believed it to be the work of Cerinlhus, is utterly without foundation; for this book contains opinions expressly contrary to those maintained by this heretic; and even on the subject of the Millenium, his views did not coincide with those expressed in the Revelation.
Caius seems to have been the only ancient author who attributed this book to Cerinthus, and to him Dyonisius probably referred, when he spoke of some before his time, who held this opinion.
CypRiAN, bishop of Carthage, received the book of Revelation, as of Canonical authority, as appears by the manner in which he quotes it. “Hear,” says he, “in the Revelation, the voice of thy Lord, reproving such men as these, Thou sayest I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of nothings and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked”
Again, ‘’So in the Holy Scripture?, by which
Rev. iii. 17- the Lord would have us to be instructed and warned, is the harlot city described.”
Finally, “That waters signify people, the divine Scriptures show, in the Revelation.”
VicTORiNUS, who lived towards the close ot the third c-ntnry, often cites the book of Revelation, and ascribes it to John the Apostle.
That Lactantius received this bi)ok, is manifest, because he has written much respecting the future destinies of the church, which is founded on the prophecies which it contains.
Until the fourth century, then, it nppears, that the Revelation was almost universally received; not a writer of any credit calls it in question; and but one hesitates about ascribinsj it to John the apostle; but even he held it to be written by an inspired man. But about the heginninej of the fourth century, it began to fall into discredit with some, on accoufit of the mysterious nature of its contents; and the encouragement w ich it was supposed to give to the Chiliasts. Therefore Eusebius of Cesaraea, after giving a list of such books as were universdly receive I, adds, “After these, if it be thought fit, may he placed the Revelation of John, concerning which we shall observe the different opinions, -At a priper time” And ‘g’hi, “There are, concerning this book, diflerent opinions.”
Rov. xvii. 1, 2, 3.
This is the first doubt expressed by any respectable >^riter, coiicernino; the Canonical authority of this book; and Eusebius did not reject it, but Would have it placed next after those which were received with universal consent.
And wp find, at this very time, the most learned and judicious of the Fathers received the Revelation witiioiit scruple, and annexed it to their catalogues of the books of the New Testament.
Thus, Athanasius, after giving an account of the twenty two Canonical books of the Old Testament, proceeds to enumerate the books of the New Testament, in the following manner, which he makes oight in number. 1. Matthew’s Gospel; 2. Mark’s; 3. Luke’s; 4 John’s; 5. The Acts; 6. The Catholic Epistles; 7. Paul’s Fourteen Ep’Stles; And, 8. The Revelations, given to John the Evangelist and divine, in Patmos.
Jerome, in giA’itig an account of the writings of John the Evana;elist, speaks also of another John, called the Presbyter, to whom some ascribed the Second and Third Epistles, under the name of John. And we have already seen, that Dyonisius of Alexandria, ascribe-i the Revelation to another John. This opinion, we learn from Jerome, originated in the fact, that two monuments were found at Ephesus, each inscribed with the name, John; but he says, “Somt; think, that both the monuments are of John the Evangelist.” Then be proceeds to give soire account of the Revelation;
«7l
^<Domitian,” says he “in ihv f<.ur)oentli v’^a’-of his rein,rai»iiigthe second pers’cu ion art*TNtro,.lohm w.is biitiislitrd iiitotrif Isle of P:’tm( s,w hrrc Ip wrote the Rt velation, which Justin JM;trtyrand Ircnaous explain.”
AuousTiNE also received th(‘Ijook of Revelation, and quotes it very frequently.
He ascribes it to the same John, who wrote the Gospel and the Epist’es.
From the view which has been taktn of the tesliinonies in favour of the book of Revelation, I think it must appear manifest to evrry candid reader, that few hooks in the New Testament, have mort’ C0’ij)lete evidence of Canonical authorit)’, than the book of Revelation. The only thing which requires ex[)laiiation is, the oinission of this book in So many of ‘ho cataIoo;ues of the Fathers, and of ancient councils. Owing to the mysterious nature of the contents of this ho’.k, and to the abuse of its proph’ ci«.s. by the tou literal construction of iheni, by the Milleitarians, it was judged expedient not to have this book read publicly in the churches. Now the end of forming these catalogues was, to guide the people in reading the Scriptures; and as it seems not to have been desired that the people should road this myst(ri>)us book, it was omitted by many, in their catalogues. Still, however, a majority of them have it; and some, who onitted it, are known to have received it as Canonical.
This aUo will account for the fact, that many of the Manuscripts of the New Testament, are without (he Kevflatiun; so that iliere are extant couipratively f i w copies ol’ this book.
But the authenticity and authority of the Apocalypse stand on ground, which cn never be shaken; and the internal evidence is strojig in favour of a divine origin, Th’re is a sublimity, purity, and consistency in it, which could not have proceeded from an impostor. In addition to all which, we observe, that tl)e fulfilnient of many of the predictions of this book is o remarkable, that to many learned men who have attended to this subject, the evidence from this source alone, is demonstrative of its divine origin. And there is every reason to believe, that in the revolution of events, this book which is now to many, sealed with seven seals, will be opened, and will be so explamed, that all men will see and acknowledge, that it is indeed The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show xinto his servants, tilings which must shortly come to pass — and sent and signified it by his angel, to his servant John; tvho bare record of the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Alter having given a particular account of the several books of the New Testament, it may be useful to subjoin a few general remarks on the testimony exhibited.
1. The writings of the apostles, from the time
Rev. i. a, 2.
-of their first publication, were distinguished by all Chnstia.is from all other bo<.ks. They were spoken of by the Fathers as Scripture; as divine Scripture; as inspired of the Lord; as,
GIVEN BY the INSPIRATION OP THE HoLY GhoST.
The only question ever agitated, respecting any of these books, was, whether they were indeed, the prociuctions of the apostles. When this was clear, no man disputed their di ine authority; or f.oasidered it lawlul to dissent from their dictates. They were considered as occupying the same place, in reg;ird to inspiration and authority, as the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and iii imitation of this denomination, they were called the New Tcftament, The other names by which they were distinguished, were such as these, the Gosi’El; — theApostles; — riit: divinlGospels; -the
/1VANG1CLICAL INSTRUMENT; — THE ScRIPTURES OF
THE Lord; — Holy ScKirruitEs; — Evangelic VOICE; — DIVINE Scriptures; — Oracles of the Lord; — divine fountains; — fountains of the divine fulness.
2. These bo )ks were not in obs “Urlty, but were cad with veneration and avidity, by multitudes. They were read n. t only by the learned, but by the people; not only in private, but constantly in the public assemblies of Christians, as appears by the explii-it testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Kusebins, Cy[)rian, and Augustine. And no other books were thus venerated and read. If a a some other pieces were publicly read, yet the Fathers always made a wide distinction between them and the Sacred Scriptures.
3. In all the controversies which arose in the church,these books were acknowledged by all to be decisive authority, unless by some few of the very worst heretics, who mutilated the Scriptures, and forged others for themselves, under the names of the apostles. But most of the heretics entleavourcd to support their opinions, by an appeal to the writings of the New Testament. The Valentinians, the Montanists, the Sabelleians, the Artemonists, the Arians, received the Scriptures of the New Testament. The same was the case with the Priscillianists, and the Pelagians. In the Arian controversy, which occupied the church so long and so earnestly, the Scriptures were appealed to by both parties; and no controversy arose, respecting the authenticity of the books, of the New Testament.
4. The avowed enemies of Chiistianity, who wrote against the truth, recognized the books which are now in the Canon, as those acknowledged by Christians in their times, for they refer to the matters contained in them, and some of them mention several books by name; so that it appears from the accounts which we have of these writings that they were acquainted with the volume of the New Testament. Celsus, who lived and wrote less than a hundred years after the apostles, says.
•9 is testified by Origen who answererl him, “I coulxl say many things conceriiinsi; the aflfiirs of Jesus, and thuse too, diflVreni from what is wiilten by the disciples of Jesus, but I purposely omit them.” That Celsus here refers to the gospels, there can be no doubt. In another place, he says, These things then, we have alleged to you, out of your own writings.^’ And that the gospels to which he referred, were the same as those which we now possess, is evident from his references to matters contained in them.
PoRPKYRV, in the third century, wrote largely, and professedly, against the Christian Religion; arxl although his work has shared the same fate as that of Celsus, yet from some fragments which have been preserved, we can ascertain, that he was well acquainted with the four gospels; for the things to which he objects, are still contained in ihcm.
But the emperor, Juliav, expressly mentions Matthew and Luke; and cites various things nut of the Gospels. He speaks also of John, and alleges, that none of Christ’s disciples beside, ascribed to him the creation of the world; — And also, “That neither Paul, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, have dared to call Jesus, God;” — “That John wrote later than the other Evangelists, and at a time, when a great number of men in the cities of Greece and Italy were convened.” He alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and Sergius Paulus; to Peter’s vision; and to the circular
27e
letter sent by the apostles, at Jerusalem, to the churches; which things are recorded in the Acts of the n pestles.*
Now, if the g;enuineness of these books could have been impugned, on any plausible grounds; or if any doubt had existed respecting this matter? «ureiy such men as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have been ignorant of the matter, and would not have failed to bring forward every thing of this kind which they knew; for their hostility to Christianity was unbounded. And it is certain, that Porphyry did avail himself of an objection ‘of this kind, in regard to the book of Daniel. Since, then, not one of the early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament, we may’ rest assured, that no ground of doubt existed, in their day; and that the fact of these being the genuine writings of the men whose names they bear, was too clearly established, to admit any doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies, — by the orthodox and heretics, in those ages, when the fact could be ascertained easily; it is too late in the day, now, for infidels to call this matter in question.
5. But the testimony which we possess, is not only sufficient to prove, that the books of the Ne’’ Testament were written by the persons whose names they bear; but also, that these books, ia the
* See Lardner and Paley. early ages of the church, contained the same things which are now read in them. Omitting any particular notice of ahont half a dozen passages,the genuineness of which is in dispute, I would remark, that when we compare the numerous and copious quotations from these books, which are found in the writings of the Fathers, with our own copies, the argument is most satisfactory. Ft is true, indeed, that the Fathers do sometimes apparently quote from memory; and in that case, the words of the sacred writer are a little changed or transposed, but the sense is accurately retained. In general, however, the quotations of Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers, are verbally exact: there being no other variation, than what arises from the different idiom of the language which they use. I suppose, that almost every verse, in some books of the New Testament, has beeti cited by one or another of the Fathers; so that if that book were lost, it might be restored, by means of the quotations from it in other books.
I3ut, besides these quotations, we have versions of the whole New Testament, into various languages, some of which were maae very early, probably, not much later than the end of the first, or beginning of the second century. Now,on a comparison, all these versions contain the same discourses, parables, miracN-s, doctrines, precepts, and divine institutions. Indeed, so literal have been most versions of the New Testament, that
A A 9
they answer to one another, and to the original, ahiiost word for word.
Besides, there are in existence, hundreds and thousands of Manuscripts of the New Testament which were written in diflerent agos of the church,from the fourth or fifth century, until the sixteenth. Most of these have been penned with great care, and in the finest style of Calligraphy. The oldest are written on beautiful parchment, in what are called uncial, or capital letters. Some of these Manuscripts, contain all the books of the New Testament; others only a part; and in some instances, a single book. Some are in a state of good preservation, while others are worn and mutilated; and the writing so obscure, as to be scarcely legible. And what is very remarkable, some copif s of the New Testament on parchment, have been found written over again with other matter, after the original words had been as fully obliterated as could easily be done. This seems a very strange practice, considering that good copies of the Bible must have been always too few; but the scarcity of parchment was so great, that men who were anxious to communicate their own lucubrations to the public, would resort to any shift, to procure the materials for writing. And this is not more culpable or more wonderful, than what has been known to take place in our own land and times, where the leaves of Walton’s Polyglot
Bible, have been torn and used lor wrapping pa- ])er.
The exact age of the oldest MSS. of the Neu Testament Ciinnot be accurately ascertained, as they have no d ites accompanying them which can .safely be depended on: but as iJ is pretty well known at what period Greek accents were introduced; and also, whon the large or uncial letter, as it is called, was exchanged for the small letter now in common use; if a MS. is found written in the old fashion, in large letters, without intervals between the words, and without accents, it is known that it must be more ancient than the period when the i mode of writing was changed. Now, it is manifest, that when these MSS. were penned, the Canon was settled by common consent; for thoy all contain the same books, as far as they
go-I will sum up my observations on the Canon, ot the New Testament, by quoting a sensible and very appropriate passage, from the late learned Mr. Rknnell. It is found, in his Remarks on Hone’s Collection of the Apocryphal writings of the apostolic age.
*’ frjien, was the Canon of Scripture determined. It was determined immediately after the death ,of St. John, the last survivor of the Apostolic order. The canon of the Gospels was indeed determined before his death, for we read in Ensebius, that he gave his sanction to the three other Gospels, and completed this part of the New-Testament with his own. By the death of St. John the cataloecue of Scripture was completed and closed. We have seen both from the testimony of themselves and of their immediate successors, that the inspiration of writing was confined strictly to the apostles, and accordinsjly we find, that no similar pretensions were ever made by any true christian to a similar authority.
^’ By whom was the Canon of Scripture determined? It was determined not by the decision of any individual, nor by the decree of any council, but by the general consent of the whole and every part of the Christian Church. It is indeed a remarkable circumstance, that among the various disputes which so early agitated the church, the Can- on of Scripture was never a subject of controversy. If any question might be said to have arisen, it was in reference to one or two of those books which are included in the present canan; but with respect to those which are out of the Canon, no difference of opinion ever existed.
“The reason of this agreement is a very satisfactory one. Every one who is at all versed in Ecclesiastical History is aware of the continual intercourse* which took place in the Apostolical age between the various branches of the church universal. This communication, as Mr. Nolan has well observed, arose out of the Jewish polity, under which, various synacjosjiies of the Jews whioh were dispersed throu2;iiout the Gentile W)rl(l, were all subjected to the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and maintained a constant correspondence with it. Whenever then an episiie arrived at any particular church, it was first authenticated; it was then read to all the holy brethren, and was subsequently transmitted to-some other neighbouring church. Thus we find that the authentication of the Epistles of Paul was, ^’ The salutation with his own hnnd,” by which the church to which the Epistle was first addressed, might be assured that it was not a forgery. We find also a S)lemn adjuratiijn of the same apostle, that his Epistle, ‘should be read to all tlic holy brethren.* ‘When this Epistle is read among you, cause that it be read ;dso in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise read the Epistle from Laidicea.* From this latter pissage we infer, that the system of transmission was a vory general one, as the Epistle which St. Paul directs the Oolossi.ms to receive from the Laodiceans was not origi’ially directed to the I itter, but was sent to them from some other chuich. To prevent any mi’stake or fraud, this trans nission was made by the higiicst authority, nnnely by ihat of the bishop. Through him, oflicinl co.oTiunicalioiis were sont from one church toaiio’iier, eveo in the re notest couniries, Clemi.nl, the bishop 6f Ro:iio, convmuiiiculed with
2 Thes. iii. 17, 1 Thes. v. 27. Col. is*. 6.
the church at Corinth; Poly carp, the bishop of Smj’rna, wrote an Epistle to the Philippians; Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, corresponded with the churches of Rome, of Magnesia, of Ephesits, and others. These three bishops were the companions and immediate successors of the apostles, and followed the system of correspondence and intercourse which their masters had begun.- Considering all these circumstances, we shall be convinced how utterly improbable it was, that any authentic work of an apostle should have existed in one church, without being communicated to another. It is a very mistaken notion of Dodwell, that the books of the New Testament, lay concealed in the cofters of particular churches, and were not known to the rest of the world until the late days of Trajan. This might have been perfectly true, with respect to the originals, which were doubtless, guarded with peculiar care, in the custody of the particular churches, to which they were respectively addressed. But copies of these originals, attested by the authority of the bishop, were transmitted from one church to another, with the utmost freedom, and were thus rapidiy dispersed throughout the Christian world. As a proof of this, St. P’ter, in an Epistle addressed generally to the churches in Asia, speaks of ‘’ All the Epistles of Paul,” as a body of Scripture universally ciriulated and known.
“The number of the apostles, including Paul ami Barnabas was but fourteen — to these, and these aloiu’, ill the opinion of the early church, was the inspiration of writing coiifinecl, out of these, six only deemed it necessary to write; what they did write, was authenticated with the greatest caution, and circulated with the utmost rapidity; what was received in any church as the writing of an apostle, was pul)licly read; no church was lef? to itself, or to its own direction; but was frequently visited by the apostles, and corresponded with by their successors. All the distant members of the church universal, in the apostles’ age, being united by frequent intercourse, and cf)mmunication, became one body in Christ. Taking all these things into consideration, we shall see with what ease and rapidity the Canon of Scripture would be formed, there being no room either for fraudulent fabrication on the one hand, or for arbitnify rejection on the other. The case was too clear to require any formal discussion, nor does it appear that there was any material forgery, that could render it necessary.
The writings of the apostles, and of the apostles alone, were received as the word of God, and were separated from all others, by that most decisive species of authority, the authority of a general, an immediate, and an undisputed consent.
This will appear the more satisfictory to our minds, if we take an example frbm the age in which we live. The letters of Junius tor instance, were published at intervals within a certain peHod. Since the pubiication of the last aui hen tic letter, many under that signature have appeared, purporting to have been written by the same author. But this circumstance throws no obscuritj’ over the matter, nor is the Canon of Junius, if I may transfer the term from sacreo to secular writing, involved in any difficulty or doubt. If it should be hereafter inquired, at what time, or by what authority the authentic letters were separated from the spurious, the answer will be, that such a separation never took place; but that the Canon of Junius was immediately tleiermined after the last letter. To us who live so near the time of publication, the line of distinction between the genuine and spurious is so strongly marked, and the evidence of authenticity on the one side, and of forgery on the other, is so clear and convincing, that a formal rejection of the latter, is unnecesary, I’he case has long since been determined by the tacit consent of the whole British nation, and no man in his senses would attempt to dispute it.
‘* Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scriptural Canon. The author of Junius was known to noi-e, he could not therefore of himself bear any testimony to the authenticity of his works; the audiersof the New Testament were knuwn to all, and were especially carelul to mark, to authenticate, and to (iislms:”ish their wri’ings. I’he author of Junius had no personal character which could stamp his writiiifi; with any hisjh or special authority; whatever proceed tl from the apostles of Christ, wa immediately rea;arded as the ofTsprinoj of an exchisive inspiration. For the Canon of Junius we have no external evidence, but that of a single publisher J lor the Canon of Scripture we have the testimony of churches which were visited, bishops who were appointed, and converts innumerable, who were instructed by the apostles themselves. It was neither the duty nor the interest of any one, excepting the publisher, to preserve the volume of Junius from spurious editions: to 2;uard the integrity of the sacred volume was the buunden duty of every Christian who believed that iis words were the words of eternal life.
“If then, nolwiihstanding these and other difficulties, wliicli might be adduced, the Canon of Junius, is established beyond controversy or dispute, by the tacit consent of all who live in the age in which it was written; there can be no reason why the Canon of Scripture, under circumstances infinitely sir mger, should not have be m determined in a manner precisely the same; especially when we remember, that in both case’s, t!ui forgciit s made their apj)earance, subsequently to the determinati pn of the Canon. There is lot a single b’)(dc in ilic spurinus department of tjie Apocryphal v du iie which was even known, when thi Canxij of Scipure was determine I.!”his is a fact which consider ibly strengthens the case. B u
28G
fl’here was no difficulty or dispute in li-aming the Canon of Scripture, because there were no competitors, whose claims it was expedient to examine, no forgeries whose impostures it was necessary to detect. The first age of the church, was an age of too much vigilance, of too much communication, of too much authority for any fabrication of Scripture, to hope for success. If any attempt was made it was instantly crushed. When the authority of the apostles and of apostolic men had lost its influence, and heresies and disputes had arisen, then it was that forgeries began to appear... Nothing, indeed, but the general and long determined consent of the whole Christian world, could have preserved the sacred volume in its integrity, unimpaired by the mutilation of one set of ht-retic?, and unincumbered by the forgeries of another.’’
Xi>/.