THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
ASCERTAINED,
OR
THE
BIBLE COMPLETE
WITHOUT THE
APOCRYPHA AND UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.
A NEW EDITION,
Revised for the Presbyterian Board of
Publication.
BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER,
Professor in the Theological Seminary,
Digitized by Ted Hildebrandt,
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
Entered,
according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851,
BY A. W. MITCHELL, M. D.
In
the office of the Clerk of the District Court for the
Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by SLOTE & MOONEY,
Printed by Wm. S. MARTIEN.
CONTENTS.
PART. I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION--The
importance of ascertaining the true
Canon of the Holy Scriptures, 9
SECTION I.
Early
use and import of the word Canon, 17
SECTION
II.
Constitution
of the Canon of the Old Testament by Ezra—
The Canon of the Old Testament as it
now exists, sanc-
tioned by Christ and his
Apostles—Catalogues of the books
by some of the early Fathers—Agreement
of Jews and
Christians on this subject, 21
SECTION III.
Apocryphal
books—Their origin—Importance of distinguish-
ing between canonical and apocryphal
books—Six books of
the latter class pronounced canonical
by the Council of
ancient or modern, 36
SECTION
IV.
Testimonies
of the Christian Fathers, and of other learned
men, down to the time of the Council
of Trent, respecting
the Apocrypha, 46
SECTION V.
Internal
evidence that these books are not canonical—The
writers not prophets, and do not claim
to be inspired, 66
SECTION VI.
No
canonical book of the Old Testament has been lost, 84
SECTION VII.
The
Oral Law of the Jews without foundation, 94
PART II.
SECTION
I.
Method
of settling the Canon of the New Testament, 113
SECTION II.
Catalogues
of the books of the New Testament—Canonical
books only cited as authority by the
Fathers, and read in
the churches as Scripture, 124
4 CONTENTS.
SECTION III.
Order
of the books of the New Testament—Time of the gos-
pels being written—Notice of the
Evangelists, 144
SECTION
IV.
Testimonies
to Matthew's gospel—Time of publication—Lan-
guage in which it was originally
composed, 154
SECTION V.
Gospel
of Mark—On what occasion published—Ascribed to
the dictation of Peter by all the
Fathers, 165
SECTION VI.
Gospel
of Luke—Testimonies of the Fathers respecting it, 173
SECTION VII.
The
objections of J. D. Michaelis to the canonical authority
of the gospels of Mark and Luke,
considered and answered, 179
SECTION VIII.
The
gospel of John--Life of this Evangelist—Occasion and
time of his writing—Canonical
authority indisputable, 192
SECTION IX.
The
Acts of the Apostles—Luke the author—Canonical au-
thority undisputed by the Fathers —
Rejected only by
heretics, 200
SECTION X.
Testimonies
to the canonical authority of the fourteen epis-
tles of Paul, 205
SECTION XI.
Canonical
authority of the seven Catholic Epistles, 228
SECTION XII.
Canonical
authority of the book of Revelation, 236
SECTION XIII.
The
titles given to the sacred Scriptures by the Fathers —
These books not concealed, but
partially known and refer-
red to by enemies as well as
friends—Citations—Ancient
manuscripts—Remarks of Rennell, 245
SECTION XIV.
No
canonical book of the New Testament has been lost, 258
SECTION XV.
Rules
for determining what books are Apocryphal—Some
account of the Apocryphal books
which have been lost—All
of them condemned by the foregoing
rules--Reason of the
abounding of such books, 270
SECTION XVI.
Apocryphal
books which are still extant—Letter of Abgarus,
King of
Laodiceans—Letters of Paul to
Seneca—Protevangelion of
James—The gospel of our Saviour's
infancy—The Acts of
Pilate—The Acts of Paul and Thecla, 281
SECTION XVII.
No
part of the Christian Revelation handed down by un-
written tradition, 301
APPENDIX-NOTES,
343
PREFACE.
IN
this edition, the work has been carefully revised by the
author,
and many additions made to the testimonies adduced
in
the former editions; and also several important docu-
ments
not contained in the former editions have been placed
in
the appendix. Some alterations have also been made in
particular
passages, but not of sufficient importance to require
specification.
In the
Morison,
some complaint was made of the want of re-
ferences
sufficiently distinct, to the authors from which the
testimonies
have been taken. In most cases, the works from
which
they have been derived are mentioned; and in a
popular
treatise of this kind, which has more the character
of
a compilation than of a work of original research, it is
not
deemed important to burden the margin with many
notes
of reference; which indeed are seldom used when
most
abundant.
( v )
vi PREFACE.
The author has freely availed himself
of all the informa-
tion
within his reach; but the authors to whom he is espe-
cially
indebted are, Cosins's Scholastic History
of the Canon,
of the Old
Testament—Jones's New Method of Settling the
Canon of the New
Testament—and
Lardner's Credibility
of the Gospel
History—The Isagoge
of Buddaeus— The The-
saurus
Philologicus
of Hottinger, and Prideaux's Connection.
Dr.
Wordsworth's work on the Canon of the Old and New
Testaments,
and Routh's Reliquiae have also been
consulted.
Several
valuable works on the Canon have been published
in
edition
of this work; but, though more valuable for the
scholar,
none of them, in the judgment of the author, are
such
as to supersede this as a popular treatise, which can
be
read with advantage by the unlearned as well as the
learned.
In a Scotch edition of this work, a copy of which
the
author has seen, there is an important error in giving
the
author's Christian name in the title page. Instead of
Archibald, they have put Alexander; making the first and
second
name the same. The only reason for mentioning
this
is, lest some doubt should hereafter arise respecting the
genuine
authorship of the volume.
As the design of this work is to
ascertain where the
revelation
of God is to be found, it is assumed usually
that
the whole of divine revelation has been committed to
writing.
But there are many under the Christian name
who
strenuously maintain, that an important part of the
PREFACE. vii
revealed
will of God has been handed down through the
Church
by tradition. It therefore seemed necessary, in
order
to render the work complete, to examine the claims
of
tradition; in which the author has departed from the
common
method of treating this subject. And as the Jews,
as
well as the Romanists, pretend to have received an Oral
Law, handed down
from Moses by tradition, a chapter has
been
devoted to this subject, and another to the traditions
of
the Church of Rome.
As the inspiration of the gospels of
Mark and Luke had
been
called in question by John David Michaelis and others,
and
the author could find no satisfactory answer to the
objections
of this learned writer, he felt it to be a duty to
endeavour
to vindicate these books of the New Testament,
and
to prove that they have a right to a place in the Canon;
where
in fact they had always stood. And he has been
gratified
to learn that his arguments on this subject have
received
the approbation of learned and pious men. The
Rev.
Dr. T. H. Horne has inserted the substance of
them
in his "INTRODUCTION TO THE NEW TESTAMENT,"
and
the Rev. Richard Watson has extracted a part of
them
and inserted them in his Theological Dictionary.
There
never was a time when the friends of the Bible as
an
inspired volume had a more important duty to perform
in
its defence, than at the present. The assaults upon the
plenary
inspiration of the sacred Scriptures are, perhaps,
more
dangerous, because more plausible and insidious, than
viii PREFACE.
when
divine inspiration is openly denied. On this subject
the
friends of revelation must be firm, and not yield an
inch
of the ground hitherto occupied by the orthodox. "If
the
foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?"
If this volume may be in any measure
useful in the
defence
of divine revelation, the author will not regret the
labour
bestowed upon it. With an humble prayer for its
success
he commits it to the Christian public.
A. ALEXANDER.
INTRODUCTION.
THE
IMPORTANCE OF ASCERTAINING THE TRUE CANON
OF HOLY SCRIPTURE.
THE
Bible includes a large number of separate books,
published
in different ages, during a space of more
than
fifteen hundred years. Each of these books
when
first published formed a volume; or at least,
the
writings of each author were, in the beginning,
distinct;
and if they had continued in that separate
form,
and had been transmitted to us in many vo-
lumes
instead of one, their authority would not, on
this
account, have been less, nor their usefulness di-
minished.
Their collection into one volume is merely
a
matter of convenience; and if any persons choose
now
to publish these books in a separate form, they
cannot
with propriety be charged with casting any
indignity
on the word of God.
Hence it appears that besides general
arguments
to
demonstrate that the Bible contains a divine revela-
tion,
there is need of special proofs to evince that
each
of the books now included in that sacred volume,
has
a right to the place which it occupies; or does in
reality
contain a part of that revelation which God
has
given.
If, therefore, it could be shown
(which however it
never
can) that some particular book, now included in
(9)
10 INTRODUCTION.
the
Bible, is not authentic, the conclusion thence
derived
would only affect that single production; unless
it
were recognized as divine by the writers of the other
books.
The credit of the whole volume would not be
destroyed,
even if it could be proved that one half
the
books of which it consists are spurious. Infidels
have
much more to effect in overthrowing the Bible
than
they commonly suppose. It is incumbent on
them
to demonstrate, not only that this or that book
is
false, but that every one of these productions is
destitute
of evidence, that it has been derived from
the
inspiration of God.
On the other hand, it is manifest that
the advocate
of
divine revelation is bound to defend the claims of
every
separate portion of this volume; or to reject
from
it that part which has no evidence of a divine
origin.
It is necessary that he should be able to ren-
der
a good reason why he admits any particular book,
to
form a part of the inspired volume.
It is true that the antiquity of this
collection claims
for
it a high degree of respect. The transmission of
this
volume to us, through so many centuries, as HOLY
SCRIPTURE,
should teach us to be cautious how we
question
what is so venerable for its antiquity. But
this
only furnishes one presumptive argument in favour
of
each book. It by no means renders all further
investigation
unnecessary; much less, impious.
It is easy to conceive that books not
written by the
inspiration
of God, might, by some casualty or mis-
take,
find a place in the sacred volume. In fact, we
have
a striking example of this very thing, in the
Greek
and Latin Bibles which are now in use, and held
to
be sacred by a large majority of those who are de-
INTRODUCTION. 11
nominated
Christians. These Bibles, besides the books
which
have evidence of being truly inspired, contain
a
number of other books, the claim of which to inspi-
ration
cannot be sustained by solid and satisfactory
reasons.
This inquiry, therefore, is far from being
one
of mere curiosity: it is in the highest degree prac-
tical, and concerns
the conscience of every man capa-
ble
of making the investigation. We agree, in the
general,
that the Bible is the word of God, and an
authoritative
rule; but the momentous question imme-
diately
presents itself, What belongs to the Bible? Of
what
books does this sacred volume consist? And it
will
not answer, to resolve to take it as it has come
down
to us, without further inquiry; for the Bible has
come
down to us, in several different forms. The Vul-
gate
Latin Bible, which alone was in use for hundreds
of
years before the era of the Reformation, and also
the
Greek version of the Old Testament, contain many
books
not in the copies of the Hebrew Scriptures.
Now,
to determine which of these contains the whole
of
the inspired books given to the Jews before the
advent
of Christ and no more, requires research and
accurate
examination. The inquiry, therefore, is not
optional,
but forces itself upon every conscientious
man;
for as no one is at liberty to reject from the
sacred
volume one sentence, much less a whole book,
of
the revelation of God, so no one has a right to
add
anything to the word of God; and of conse-
quence,
no one may receive as divine what others have,
without
authority, added to the HOLY SCRIPTURES.
Every
man, therefore, according to his opportunity
and
capacity, is under a moral obligation to use his
best
endeavours to ascertain what books do, really, and
12 INTRODUCTION.
of
right, belong to the Bible. An error here, on either
side,
is dangerous; for, on the one hand, if we reject
a
part of divine revelation, we dishonour God, and
deprive
ourselves of the benefit which might be de-
rived
from that portion of divine truth; and on the
other
hand, we are guilty of an equal offence, and may
suffer
an equal injury, by adding spurious productions
to
the Holy Scriptures; for thus we adulterate and
poison
the fountain of life, and subject our consciences
to
the authority of mere men.
I think, therefore, that the
importance and neces-
sity
of this inquiry must be evident to every person
of
serious reflection. But to some it may appear that
this
matter has been long ago settled on the firmest
principles;
and that it can answer no good purpose to
agitate
questions, which have a tendency to produce
doubts
and misgivings in the minds of common Chris-
tians,
rather than a confirmation of their faith. In
reply
to the first part of this objection, I would say,
that
it is freely admitted that this subject has been
ably
and fully discussed long ago, and in almost every
age
until the present time; and the author aims at
nothing
more, in this short treatise, than to exhibit to
the
sincere inquirer, who may not enjoy better means
of
information, the subject of those discussions and
proofs,
which ought to be in the possession of every
Christian.
His object is not to bring forth anything
new,
but to collect and condense in a narrow space,
what
has been written by the judicious and the learned,
on
this important subject. But, that discussion tends
to
induce doubting is a sentiment unworthy of Chris-
tians,
who maintain that their religion is founded on
the
best reasons, and who are commanded "to
give to
INTRODUCTION. 13
every man a
reason of the hope that is in them." That
faith
which is weakened by discussion is mere preju-
dice,
not true faith. They who receive the most im-
portant
articles of their religion upon trust from
human
authority, are continually liable to be thrown
into
doubt; and the only method of obviating this
evil
is to dig deep and lay our foundation upon a rock.
If
this objection had any weight, it would discourage
all
attempts to establish the truth of our holy religion
by
argument; and would also damp the spirit of free
inquiry
on every important subject. It is true, how-
ever,
that the first effect of free discussion may be to
shake
that easy confidence which most men
entertain,
that
all their opinions are correct: but the beneficial
result
will be, that instead of a persuasion, having no
other
foundation than prejudice, it will generate a faith
resting
on the firm basis of evidence.
There is, undoubtedly, among
Christians, too great
a
disposition to acquiesce, without examination, in the
religion
of their forefathers. There is too great an
aversion
to that kind of research, which requires time
and
labour; so that many who are fully competent to
examine
the foundation on which their religion rests,
never
take the pains to enter on the investigation;
and
it is to be regretted, that many who are much
occupied
with speculations on abstruse points of the-
ology,
waste the energies of their minds on subjects
which
can yield them no manner of profit, while they
neglect
entirely, or but superficially attend to, points
of
fundamental importance.
The two great questions most deserving
the atten-
tion
of all men, are: first, whether the Bible and all
that
it contains is from God: secondly, what are
14 INTRODUCTION.
those
truths which the Bible was intended to teach us.
These
two grand inquiries are sufficient to give occu-
pation
and vigorous exercise to intellectual faculties of
the
highest order; and they are not removed entirely
out
of the reach of plain uneducated Christians.
From
the fountain of divine truth every one may
draw
according to his capacity. But these inquiries
are
neglected, not so much for want of time and capa-
city,
as because we take no pleasure in searching for
and
contemplating divine truth. Just in proportion
as
men love the truth and value the Bible, they will
take
an interest in all inquiries which relate to the
authenticity,
canonical authority, and correct inter-
pretation
of the sacred books. The time will come, I
doubt
not, when these studies will occupy the minds of
thousands,
where they now engage the attention of
one.
The Bible will grow into importance in the esti-
mation
of men, just in the same proportion as true
religion
flourishes. It will not only be the fashion
to
associate for printing and circulating the Holy
Scriptures;
but it will become customary for men of
the
highest literary attainments, as well as others, to
study
the sacred pages with unceasing assiduity and
prayer.
And, in proportion as the Bible is understood
in
its simplicity and momentous import, the mere doc-
trines
of men will disappear; and the dogmas of the
schools
and the alliance with philosophy being re-
nounced,
there will be among sincere inquirers after
truth,
an increasing tendency to unity of sentiment,
as
well as unity of spirit. The pride of learning and
of
intellect being sacrificed, and all distinctions counted
but
loss for the excellency of the knowledge of
Christ,
a thousand knotty questions, which now cause
INTRODUCTION. 15
divisions
and gender strifes, will be forgotten; and
the
wonder of our more enlightened posterity will be,
how
good men could have wasted their time and their
talents
in such unprofitable speculations; and, more
especially,
how they could have permitted themselves
to
engage in fierce and unbrotherly contentions about
matters
of little importance.
Then also men will no more neglect and
undervalue
the
Scriptures, on pretence of possessing a brighter
light
within them, than that which emanates from the
divine
word. That spurious devotion which affects a
superiority
to external means and ordinances, will be
exchanged
for a simple, sincere reliance on the re-
vealed
will of God; and those assemblies from which
the
sacred volume is now excluded, while the effusions
of
every heated imagination are deemed revelations
of
the Spirit, will become, under the influence of di-
vine
truth, churches of the living God.
In those future days of the prosperity
of
service
of the most high God will be considered by
men,
generally, as the noblest employment; and the
best
talents and attainments will be consecrated on the
altar
of God; and the enterprises, and the la-
bours
which they now undertake to gratify an ava-
ricious,
ambitious, or voluptuous disposition, will be
pursued
from love to God and man. The merchant
will
plan, and travel, and traffic, to obtain the means
of
propagating the gospel in foreign parts, and pro-
moting
Christian knowledge at home; yea, the com-
mon
labourer will cheerfully endure toil and privation,
that
he may have a mite to cast into the treasury of
the
Lord.
Now, many consider all that is given
to circulate
16 INTRODUCTION.
the
Bible, and to send missionaries and tracts for the
instruction
of the ignorant, as so much wasted; but
then,
all expenditures will be considered as profuse
and
wasteful, which terminate in mere selfish gratifi-
cation;
and those funds will alone be reckoned useful,
which
are applied to promote the glory of God and the
welfare
of men.
These, however, may appear to many as
the visions
of
a heated imagination, which will never be realized;
but
if the same change in the views and sentiments of
men
which has been going on for thirty years past,
shall
continue to advance with the same steady pace,
half
a century will not have elapsed from the present
time,
before such a scene will be exhibited to the ad-
miring
eyes of believers, as will fully justify the fore-
going
anticipations.
But I have wandered wide of my
subject—I will
now
recall the attention, of the reader to the consid-
eration
of the exceeding great importance of ascer-
taining,
the true Canon of Holy Scripture. This inves-
tigation
may, indeed, appear and unentertaining,
but
every thing which bears any relation to the great
Charter
of our privileges and our hopes, ought to be
interesting
to us. It has been my object, to bring
this
subject not only more conveniently within the
reach
of the theological student, but also to a level
with
the capacity of the common Christian. That
this
work may in some humble degree subserve the
cause
of the Bible, is the sincere prayer of
THE AUTHOR.
SECTION I.
EARLY
USE AND IMPORT OF THE WORD CANON.
THE
word Canon properly signifies a rule: and it is
used
in this sense several times in the New Testament,
as
Gal. vi. 16; "As many as walk according to this
rule."
Phil. iii. 16; "Let us walk by the same rule."*
But
in these passages there is no reference to the
Scriptures
as a volume.
The word Canon, however, was early
used by the
Christian
Fathers to designate the inspired Scriptures.
IRENAEUS,
speaking of the Scriptures, calls them "the
Canon
of truth." CLEMENT of
to
a quotation of the gospel according to the Egyp-
tians,
says, "But they follow anything, rather than
the
true canonical gospels."†
EUSEBIUS says of Origen, "But in
the first book of
his
commentaries on the gospel of Matthew, observing
the
ecclesiastical Canon, he declares that he knew of
four
gospels only."
ATHANASIUS, in his Festal Epistle,
speaks of three
sorts
of books; the canonical—such as were allowed to
* The word Kanwn
literally signifies a reed, by which the di-
mensions
of anything were measured; and hence it came figura-
tively
to signify a RULE.
The word was used by the Greek
grammarians to designate
those
authors who were considered as authority in matters of
criticism:
Vid. Wordsworth on the Canon, p. 5.
† Strom. Lib. iii. p. 453.
(17
)
18 EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON.
be
read—and such as were Apocryphal. By the first
he
evidently means such as we now call canonical.
The Council of Laodicea ordained,
"that none but
canonical books should be
read in the church; that is,
the
books of the Old and New Testaments."
RUFIN, after enumerating the books of
the Old and
New
Testaments, goes on to mention three classes of
books.
1. Such as were included in the Canon. 2.
Ecclesiastical,
or such as were allowed to be read. 3.
Apocryphal,
such as were not permitted to be publicly
read.*
JEROME often speaks of the Canon of
Scripture,
and
mentions books which might be read, but did not
belong
to the Canon.†
The third Council of Carthage
ordained, "That
nothing
beside the canonical Scriptures be read in the
church,
under the name of the divine Scriptures."
AUGUSTINE often makes mention of the
canonical
Scriptures,
and the whole Canon of Scripture, meaning
to
designate all the sacred books of the Old and New
Testaments.
"We read of some," says he, "that they
searched
the Scriptures daily, whether these things
were
so. What Scriptures, I pray, except the canoni-
cal
Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets? To
them
have been since added, the Gospels, the Epistles
of
the Apostles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the
Revelation
of John."‡
* Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum,
p. 26.
After giving a catalogue both of the
books of the Old and New
Testaments,
he says, " Haec sunt quae patres inter Canonem
con-
cluserunt."
†
Prolog. Gal. in multis locis.
‡ De Doctrina Christiana, vol. iii. Lib. ii.
pl. 1, p. 47. Ed.
EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON. 19
CHRYSOSTOM says, "They fall into
great absurdi-
ties,
who will not follow the Canon of the divine Scrip-
ture,
but trust to their own reasoning."
ISIDORE of Pelusium observes,
"That these things
are
so, we shall perceive, if we attend to the Canon of
truth—
the divine Scriptures."
And LEONTIUS of Constantinople, having
cited the
whole
catalogue of the books of sacred Scripture,
from
Genesis to Revelation, concludes, "These are the
ancient
and the new books, which are received in the
church
as canonical."
EUSEBIUS informs us that Origen, in
his Exposition
on
Matthew, "enumerates the books of
Scripture ac-
cording to the
Canon of the Church."*
EPIPHANIUS, speaking of certain
heretics, says,
"They received the apocryphal Acts of Andrew
and
Thomas,
rejecting the Canon received by the Church."†
PHILASTRIUS speaks of the distinction
of Canonical
and
Apocryphal as well known in his time.‡
From the authorities cited above, it
will evidently
appear,
that at an early period the sacred Scriptures
were
carefully distinguished from all other writings,
and
formed a rule, which all Christians considered to
be
authoritative: and that this collection of sacred
writings
received the name of Canon.||
The division of the sacred books which
is most an-
cient
and universal, is, into the Old Testament, and
the
New Testament. The apostle Paul himself lays
* Eus. Hist. Lib. VI. c. 25. † Hares. 61. ‡ De Haeresibus, 40.
|| It cannot be denied, however,
that the word Canon is not
always
used by the Fathers in the same definite sense. Some-
times,
under this name, they include books not inspired, and this
has
given some plausibility to the Popish doctrine respecting the
Apocrypha.
20 EARLY USE OF TIIE WORD CANON.
a
foundation for this distinction; for, in his second
epistle
to the Corinthians, 2 Cor. iii. 14, he uses the
phrases
Old Testament and New Testament; and in
one
instance, designates the Scriptures of the Law,
by
the former title: "For until this day," says he,
"remaineth
the same veil untaken away in the reading
of
the Old Testament."
It is our object, in this work, to
inquire into the
Canon,
both of the Old and New Testament, and to
discuss
all the principal questions connected with this
subject.
OLD TESTAMENT CANON. 21
SECTION II.
CONSTITUTION
OF THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT BY
EZRA--THE CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT,
AS IT NOW
EXISTS, SANCTIONED BY CHRIST AND HIS
APOSTLES--
CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE
EARLY FA-
THERS--AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND
CHRISTIANS ON THIS
SUBJECT.
The five books of Moses were, when
finished, care-
fully
deposited by the side of the ark of the Covenant,
Deut.
xxxi. 24-26. "And it came to pass, when
Moses
had made an end of writing the words of this
law
in a book, until they were finished, that Moses
commanded
the Levites which bore the ark of the cove-
nant
of the Lord, saying, Take this book of the law,
and
put it in the side of the ark of the covenant of
the
Lord your God, that it may be there for a witness
against
thee."
No doubt, copies of the sacred volume
were made
out,
before it was deposited in the most holy place;
for
as it was there inaccessible to any but the priests,
the
people generally must have remained ignorant,
had
there been no copies of the law. But we know
that
copies were written, for it was one of the laws
respecting
the duty of a king, when such an officer
should
be appointed, that he should write out a copy
of
the law with his own hand. Deut. xvii. 18-20,
"And
it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of
22 OLD TESTAMENT CANON.
his
kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this
law
in a book, out of that which is before the priests,
the
Levites. And it shall be with him, and he shall
read
therein, all the days of his life; that he may
learn
to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words
of
this law and these statutes to do them; that his
heart
be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he
turn
not aside from the commandment to the right
hand
or to the left: to the end that he may prolong
his
days in his kingdom, he and his children in the
midst
of
the
direction of Moses, a copy of the law was prepared
for
each of the tribes of
It seems that the book of Joshua was
annexed to
the
volume of the Pentateuch; for we read that
"Joshua
wrote these words in the book of the law of
God."
See Josh i. 8; xxiv. 26. And the matters
contained
in this book were of public concern to
the
nation, as well as those recorded in the law.
For,
as in the latter were written statutes and or-
dinances,
to direct them in all matters sacred and
civil;
so in the former was recorded the division
of
the land among the tribes. The possession of
each
tribe was here accurately defined, so that this
book
served as a national deed of conveyance. When
other
books were added to the Canon, no doubt, the
inspired
men who were moved by the Holy Spirit to
write
them, would be careful to deposit copies in the
sanctuary,
and to have other copies put into circula-
tion.
But on this subject we have no precise informa-
tion.
We know not with what degree of care the sa-
cred
books were guarded, or to what extent copies
were
multiplied.
A single fact shows that the sacred
autograph of
Moses
had well nigh perished, in the idolatrous reigns
of
Manasseh and Amon, but was found, during the
reign
of the pious Josiah, among the rubbish of the
temple.
It cannot, however, be reasonably supposed,
that
there were no other copies of the law scattered
through
the nation. It does indeed seem that the
young
king had never seen the book, and was igno-
rant
of its contents, until it was now read to him; but
while
the autograph of Moses had been misplaced, and
buried
among the ruins, many pious men might have
possessed
private copies.
And although at the destruction of
of
the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious vo-
lume
was, in all probability, destroyed with the ark
and
all the holy apparatus of the sanctuary; yet we
are
not to credit the Jewish tradition, too readily re-
ceived
by the Christian Fathers, that, on this occa-
sion,
all the copies of the Scriptures were lost, and
that
Ezra restored the whole by a miracle. This is a
mere
Jewish fable, depending on no higher authority
than
a passage in the fourth book of Esdras, and is
utterly
inconsistent with facts recorded in the sacred
volume.
We know that Daniel had a copy of the
Scriptures,
for he quotes them, and makes express
mention
of the prophecies of Jeremiah. And Ezra
is
called "a ready scribe in the law;" and it is said,
in
the sixth chapter of Ezra, that when the temple
was
finished, the functions of the priests and Levites
were
regulated, "as it is written in the
book of Moses."
And
this was many years before Ezra came to Jeru-
said
that Ezra, at the request of the people, "brought
24 CANON BY EZRA.
the
law before the congregation, and he read therein
from
the morning until mid-day. And Ezra opened
the
book in the sight of all the people." It is evi-
dent,
therefore, that all the copies of the Scriptures
were
not lost during the captivity. This story, no
doubt,
originated from two facts: the first, that the
autographs
in the temple, had been destroyed with that
sacred
edifice; and the second, that Ezra took great
pains
to have correct copies of the Scriptures prepared
and
circulated.
It seems to be agreed by all, that the
forming of
the
present Canon of the Old Testament should be
attributed
to Ezra. To assist him in this work, the
Jewish
writers inform us, that there existed in his
time
a great synagogue, consisting of one
hundred
and
twenty men, including Daniel and his three
friends,
Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego; the pro-
phets
Haggai and Zechariah; and also Simon the
Just.
But it is very absurd to suppose that all these
lived
at one time, and formed one synagogue, as they
are
pleased to represent it: for, from the time of
Daniel
to that of Simon the Just, no less than two
hundred
and fifty years intervened.
It is, however, not improbable that
Ezra was as-
sisted
in this great work, by many learned and pious
men,
who were cotemporary with him; and as pro-
phets
had always been the superintendents, as well as
writers
of the sacred volume, it is likely that the in-
spired
men who lived at the same time as Ezra, would
give
attention to this work. But in regard to this
great
synagogue, the only thing probable is, that the
men
who are said to have belonged to it, did not live
in
one age, but successively, until the time of Simon
the
Just, who was made high priest about twenty-five
years
after the death of Alexander the Great: This
opinion
has its probability increased, by the considera-
tion
that the Canon of the Old Testament appears
not
to have been fully completed; until about the time
of
Simon the Just. Malachi seems to have lived after
the
time of Ezra, and therefore his prophecy could
not
have been added to the Canon by this eminent
scribe;
unless we adopt the opinion of the Jews, who
will
have Malachi to be no other than Ezra himself;
maintaining,
that while Ezra was his proper name, he
received
that of Malachi, from the circumstance of
his
having been sent to superintend the
religious con-
cerns
of the Jews; for the import of that name a
messenger, or one sent.
But this is not the book of Nehemiah,* men-
tion
is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius
Codomannus,
king of
least
a hundred years after the time of Ezra.
In the
third
chapter of the first book of Chroncles, the gene-
alogy
of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down, at
least
to the time of Alexander the Great. This
book,
therefore,
could not have been put into the Canon by,
Ezra;
nor much earlier than the time of Simon the
Just.
The book of Esther, also, was probably added
during this interval.
The probable conclusion therefore, is
that Ezra
began
this work, and collected and arranged all the
sacred
books which belonged to the Canon before his
time,
and that a succession of pious and learned men
continued
to pay attention to the Canon, until the
whole
was completed, about the time of Simon the
* Nehemiah xii. 22.
26 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
Just.
After which, nothing was added to the Canon
of
the Old Testament.
Most, however, are of opinion that
nothing was
added
after the book of Malachi was written, except
a
few names and notes; and that all the books be-
longing
to the Canon of the Old Testament, were col-
lected
and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra him-
self.
And this opinion seems to be the safest, and is
not
incredible in itself. It accords also with the uni-
form
tradition of the Jews, that Ezra completed the
Canon
of the Old Testament; and that after Malachi
there
arose no prophet who added anything to the
sacred
volume.*
Whether the books were now collected
into a single
volume,
or were bound up in several codices, is a ques-
tion
of no importance. If we can ascertain what books
were
received as canonical, it matters not in what
form
they were preserved. It seems probable, how-
ever,
that the sacred books were at this time distri-
buted
into three volumes, the Law; the Prophets,
and
the Hagiographa. This division, we know to be
as
ancient as the time of our Saviour, for he says,
"These
are the words which I spake unto you while I
was
yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled
which
are written in the law, and in the prophets,
and
in the psalms, concerning me." Luke xxiv. 44.
Josephus
also makes mention of this division, and it is
* The Jews are accustomed to call
Malachi the "seal of the
Prophets."
Jerome says: "Post Haggaeum et Zachariam nul-
los
alios Prophetas usque ad Johannem Baptistam videram." That
is,
"After Haggai and Zacharias, even to the time of John the
Baptist,
I have found no other prophets." In Esaiam xlix. 2.
SANCTIONED
BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 27
by
the Jews, with one consent, referred to Ezra, as its
author.
In establishing the Canon of the Old
Testament,
we
might labour under considerable uncertainty and
embarrassment,
in regard to several books were it not
that
the whole of what were called "the Scriptures,"
and
which were included in the threefold division
mentioned
above, received the explicit sanction of our
Lord.
He was not backward to reprove the Jews for
disobeying,
misinterpreting, and adding their tradi-
tions
to the Scriptures, but he never drops a hint that
they
had been unfaithful or careless in the preserva-
tion
of the sacred books. This argument for the in-
tegrity
of the books of the Old Testament was used
by
Origen, as we are informed by Jerome, who says:
"Si aliquis dixerit Hebraeos libros, a Jutaeis esse
fal-
satos, audiat Origenem: Quod nunquam Dominus
et Apostoli, qui caetera crimina in Scribis, de hoc
crimine quad est
maximum, reticuissent." In Esai.
cvi,
tom. iii. p. 63. So far from this, he refers to
the
Scriptures as an infallible rule, which "must
be
fulfilled," Mark xiv. 49, and "could not be bro-
ken."
John x. 35. "Search the Scriptures," John
v.
39, said he, "for in them ye think ye have eter-
nal
life, and they are they which testify of me." The
errors
of the Sadducees are attributed to an igno-
rance
of the Scriptures: and they are never men-
tioned
but with the highest respect, and as the un-
erring
word of God. The apostle Paul, also, referring
principally,
if not wholly, to the Scriptures of the Old
Testament,
says, "And that from a child thou hast
known
the holy Scriptures, which are able to make
thee
wise unto salvation. All Scripture is given by
28 CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT
inspiration
of God." 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. They are also
called
by this apostle, "the oracles of God;" "the
lively
oracles," "the word of God;" and when
quotations
are made from David, it is represented as
"the
Holy Ghost speaking by the mouth of David."
Acts
i. 16; iv. 25. The testimony of Peter is not
less
explicit, for he says, "The prophecy came not
in
old time by the will of man, but holy men of God
spake
as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 2 Pet.
i.
21. And the apostle James speaks of the Scrip-
tures
with equal confidence and respect: "And re-
ceive
with meekness," says he, “the ingrafted word
which
is able to save your souls." James i. 21-23.
"And
the Scripture was fulfilled which saith," &c.
"Do
ye think that the Scripture saith in vain?" James
iv.
5, &c.
We have, therefore, an important point
established
with
the utmost certainty, that the volume of Scrip-
ture
which existed in the time of Christ and his apos-
tles
was uncorrupted, and was esteemed by them an
infallible
rule. Now, if we can ascertain what, books
were
then included in the Sacred Volume, we shall
be
able to settle the Canon of the Old Testament
without
uncertainty.
But here lies the difficulty. Neither
Christ nor, any
of
his apostles has given us a catalogue of the books
which
composed the Scriptures of the Old Testament.
They
have distinctly quoted a number of these books,
and,
so far, the evidence is complete. We know that
the
law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms were
included
in their Canon. But this does not
ascertain,
particularly,
whether the very same books which we
now
find in the Old Testament were then found in it
SANCTIONED
BY CHRIST AND HIS APOSTLES. 29
and
no others. It is necessary then, to resort to other
sources
of information. And, happily, the Jewish
historian
Josephus furnishes us with the very informa-
tion
which we want; not, indeed, as explicitly as we
could
wish, but sufficiently so to lead us to a very sa-
tisfactory
conclusion. He does not name the books
of
the Old Testament, but he numbers them, and so
describes
them that there is scarcely room for any
mistake.
The important passage to which we refer is
in
his first book against Apion. “We have,” says he,
“only-two-and-twenty
books, which are justly believed
to
be of divine authority---of which five are the books of
Moses.
From the death of Moses to the reign of
Artaxerxes,
the son of Xerxes, king of
Prophets,
who were the successors of Moses, have
written
in thirteen books. The remaining four books
contain
hymns to God, and precepts for the regulation
of
human life." Now, the five books of Moses are uni-
versally
agreed to be Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers,
and Deuteronomy. The thirteen books
written
by the prophets will include Joshua, Judges,
with
Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah with La-
mentations,
Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Pro-
phets,
Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles. The four
remaining
books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesias-
tes,
and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole
number
twenty-two. The Canon then existing proved
to
be the same as that which we now possess. It
would
appear, indeed, that these books might more
conveniently
be reckoned twenty-four; and this is the
present
method of numbering them by the modern
Jews;
but formerly the number was regulated by that
of
the Hebrew alphabet, which consists of twenty-two
30 TESTIMONY OF JOSEPHUS.
letters:
therefore they annexed the small book of Ruth
to
Judges; and probably it is a continuation of this
book
by the same author. They added, also, the La-
mentations
of Jeremiah to his prophecy, and this was
natural
enough. As to the minor prophets, which
form
twelve separate books in our Bibles, they were,
anciently,
always reckoned one book, so they are con-
sidered
in every ancient catalogue, and in all quota-
tions
from them. Josephus adds, to what is cited
above,
the following: "But as to the books which have
been
written since the time of Artaxerxes until our
times
they are not considered worthy of the same
credit
as the former, because they do not contain ac-
curate
doctrine sanctioned by the prophets."*
It will not be supposed that any
change could have
occurred
in the Canon from the time of our Saviour
and
his apostles, to that in which Josephus wrote.
Indeed,
he may be considered the contemporary of the
apostles,
as he was born about the time of Paul's con-
version
to Christianity, and was therefore grown up
to
man's age long before the death of this apostle;
and
the apostle John probably survived him. And it
must
be remembered that Josephus is here giving his
testimony
to a public fact: he is declaring what books
were
received as divine by his nation; and he does it
without
hesitation or inconsistency. "We have,"
says
he, “only twenty-two books which are justly be-
lieved
to be of divine authority."
We are able also to adduce other
testimony to prove
the
same thing. Some of the early Christian Fathers,
who
had been brought up in Paganism, when they em-
* Contra Apionem; Euseb. iii. 10.
CATALOGUES
BY THE EARLY FATHERS. 31
braced
Christianity, were curious in their inquiries
into
the Canon of the Old Testament; and the result
of
the researches of some of them still remains.
LITO,
bishop of
very
purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And
although
his own writings are lost, Eusebius has pre-
served
his catalogue of the books of the Old Testa-
ment;
from which it appears, that the very same books
were,
in his day, received into the Canon, as are now
found
in our Hebrew Bibles. In the catalogue of
Melito,
presented by Eusebius, after Proverbs,
the
word
Wisdom occurs, which nearly all
commentators
have
been of opinion is only another name for the same
book,
and not the name of the book now called "The
Wisdom
of Solomon." There is however, an omis-
sion
of Esther and Neheiniah. As to the latter,
it
creates
no difficulty for Ezra and Nehemiah are com-
monly
counted as one book; and some learned men
are
of opinion that Ezra being the author of Esther,
this
book also is included under the name Esdras.
The
interval between Melito and Josephus is not
a
hundred years, so that no alteration in the Canon
can
be reasonably supposed to have taken place in this
period.
Very soon after Melito, ORIGEN
furnishes us with a
catalogue
of the books of the Old Testament, which
perfectly
accords with our Canon, except that he omits
the
Minor Prophets; which omission must have been
a
mere slip of the pen, in him or his copyist, as it is
certain
that he received this as a book of Holy Scrip-
ture:
and the number of the books of the Old Testa-
tament,
given by him in this very place, cannot be
completed
without reckoning the twelve Minor Pro-
phets
as one.
After Origen, we have catalogues in
succession, not
only
by men of the first authority in the church, but
by
councils, consisting of numerous bishops, all which
are
perfectly the same as our own. It will be sufficient
merely
to refer to these sources of information. Cata-
logues
of the books of the Old Testament have been
given
by ATHANASIUS; by CYRIL; by AUGUSTINE;
by
JEROME; by RUFIN; by THE COUNCIL OF LAODI-
CEA,
in their LX. Canon; and by the THE COUNCIL OF
catalogues
exactly correspond with our present Canon
of
the Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think must ap-
pear
complete to every impartial mind that the Canon
of
the Old Testament is settled, upon the clearest his-
torcal
grounds. There seems to be nothing to be
wished
for further in the confirmation of this point.
But if all this testimony had been
wanting, there is
still
a source of evidence to which we might refer with
the
utmost confidence, as perfectly conclusive on this
point;
I mean the fact that these books have been
ever
since the time of Christ and his apostles in the
keeping
of both Jews and Christians, who have been
constantly
arrayed in opposition to each other; so that
it
was impossible that any change should have been
made
in the Canon, by either party, without being
immediately
detected by the other. And the conclu-
sive
evidence that no alteration in the Canon has oc-
curred
is the perfect agreement of these hostile parties
in
regard to the books of the Old Testament at this
time.
On this point, the Jew and Christian are har-
monious.
There is no complaint of addition to, or
AGREEMENT
OF JEWS AND CIIRISTIANS. 33
diminution
of, the sacred books on either side. The
Hebrew
Bible of the Jew is the Bible of the Christian.
There
is here no difference. A learned Jew and a
Christian
have even been united in publishing an excel-
lent
edition of the Hebrew Bible.* Now, if any alter-
ation
in the Canon has occurred, it must have been by
the
concert or collusion of both parties; but how
absurd
this idea is must be manifest to all.
I acknowledge what is here said of the
agreement
of
Christians and Jews can only be said in relation to
Protestant
Christians. For as to those of the Romish
and
Greek communions they have admitted other books
into
the Canon, which Jews and Protestants hold to
be
apocryphal; but these books will form the subject
of
a particular discussion, in the sequel of this work.
The fact is important, that a short
time after the
Canon
of the Old Testament was closed, a translation
was
made of the whole of the books into the Greek
language.
This translation was made at
in
delphus,
king of
these
sacred books in the famous library which he was
engaged
in collecting. It is called the Septuagint,
from
its being made, according to the accounts which
have
been handed down, by seventy, or rather seventy-
two
men; six from each of the tribes of
many
fabulous things have been reported concerning
this
version, that it is very difficult to ascertain the pre-
cise
truth. But it is manifest from internal evidence,
that
it was not the work of one hand, nor probably of
one
set of translators: for, while some books are ren-
dered
with great accuracy, and in a very literal manner,
* See the Biblia Hebraica, edited by
Leusden and Athias.
34 THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH.
others
are translated with little care, and the meaning
of
the original is very imperfectly given. The proba-
bility
is that the Pentateuch was first translated, and
the
other books were added from time to time by
different
hands; but when the work was once begun,
it
is not likely that it would be long before the whole
was
completed. Now this Greek version contains all
the
books which are found in our common Hebrew
Bibles.
It is a good witness therefore to prove that
all
these books were in the Canon when this version
was
made. The apocryphal books, which have long
been
connected with this version, will furnish a subject
for
consideration hereafter.
There is, moreover, a distinct and
remarkable testi-
mony
to the antiquity of the five books of Moses in
the
Samaritan Pentateuch, which has existed in a form
entirely
separate from the Jewish copies, and in a
character
totally different from that in which the
Hebrew
Bible has been for many ages written. It has
also
been preserved and handed down to us by a people
who
have ever been hostile to the Jews. This Penta-
teuch
has, without doubt, been transmitted through a
separate
channel ever since the ten tribes of
were
carried captive. It furnishes authentic testimony
to
the great antiquity of the books of Moses, and
shows
how little they have been corrupted during the
lapse
of nearly three thousand years. The Samaritans
were
the people transplanted from other countries into
the
places vacated by the captivity of the ten tribes of
annoyed
by wild beasts, they supposed it was because
they
knew not how to worship the God of the country.
They,
therefore, requested that a priest should be sent
THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 35
to
them of the Israelitish nation to instruct them.
Their
request was granted; and this priest, no doubt,
brought
with him a copy of the law. At one time it
was
doubted whether a Samaritan Pentateuch was in
existence,
but a learned man going into
obtained
several copies. And they have also a trans-
lation
of the whole into the Samaritan language.
The
Pentateuch, though Hebrew, is written in Sama-
ritan
characters, which many learned men think was
the
original Hebrew character.
36 THE APOCRYPHA.
SECTION III.
APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN—IMPORTANCE OF DIS-
TINGUISHING BETWEEN CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS—SIX BOOKS OF THIS CLASS
PRONOUNCED
NONICAL BY THE COUNCIL OF
HEBREW, NOR RECEIVED BY THE JEWS,
ANCIENT OR
MODERN.
THE
word Apocrypha signifies concealed, obscure,
without
authority.
In reference to the Bible, it is
employed
to designate such books as claim a place in
the
sacred volume, but which are not canonical. It
is
said to have been first used by MELITO, bishop of
An inquiry into this subject cannot be
uninteresting
to
the friends of the Bible; for it behoves them to
ascertain,
on the best evidence, what books belong to
the
sacred volume, and also, on what grounds other
books
are rejected from the Canon. This subject as-
sumes
a higher importance from the fact, that Chris-
tians
are much divided on this point; for, some re-
ceive
as of canonical authority, books which others
reject
as spurious, or consider merely as human com-
positions.
On such a point every Christian should
THE APOCRYPHAL CONTROVERSY. 37
form
his opinion upon the best information which he
can
obtain.
In controversy with the Romanists this
subject
meets
us at the very threshold. It is vain to dispute
about
particular doctrines of Scripture until it de-
termined
what books are to be received as Scripture.
This subject gave rise to a very
unpleasant contro-
versy
between the British and Foreign. Bible Society
and
some of the leading ministers of
principle
adopted at the beginning by the Bible So-
ciety
was, to circulate nothing but the text of the
Holy
Scriptures, without note or comment. But
in
order to get the Scriptures into the hands of the
Romanists,
Bibles containing the Apocrypha were
circulated,
which proceeding gave just offence to the
ministers
of the Church of Scotland, and, to the effi-
cient
auxiliaries of that country.
A strong remonstrance was therefore
made to the
Managers
of the British and Foreign Bible Society,
and
their answer not being entirely satisfactory, the
Scotch
ministers withdrew from the Society in Lon-
don,
and established one independent of the mother
Society;
and this breach has never been healed. But.
it
is due to the British and Foreign Bible Society to
state,
that in consequence of the discussion, they
adopted
a correct principle for their future proceedings.
The whole subject was referred to a
select and
learned
sub-committee; who, after mature delibera-
tion,
brought in a report which was adopted, and led
to
the following wise resolution in the General, Com-
mittee,
viz. "That the funds of the Society be ap-
plied
to the printing and circulation of the canonical
books
of Scripture to the exclusion of those books
38 APOCRYPHAL CONTROVERSY.
which
are termed apocryphal; and that all copies
printed,
either entirely or in part, at the expense of
the
Society, and whether such copies consist of the
whole
or of any part of such books, be invariably is-
sued
bound, no other book whatever being bound with
them;
and further, that all money grants to societies
or
individuals be made only in conformity with the
principle
of this regulation."
"In the sacred volume, as it is
to be hereafter
distributed
by the Society, there is to be nothing but
divine
truth, nothing but what is acknowledged by all
Christians
to be such. Of course all may unite in the
work
of distribution, even should they regard the vo-
lume
as containing but part of the inspired writings;
just
as they might in the circulation of the Pentateuch
or
the Book of Psalms, or the Prophets, or the New
Testament.
Such harmonious operation would not,
however,
be possible, if the books of the apocrypha
were
mingled or joined with the rest; and besides,
those
who have the strongest objection to the apocry-
pha,
are, ordinarily, those who are most forward in
active
and liberal efforts to send the word of God to
all
people."
This judicious decision of the
Committee of the
British
and Foreign Bible Society depends for its cor-
rectness
on the supposition that the books of the apo-
crypha
are not canonical; for, whatever may be said
about
circulating a part of the Bible, it was undoubt-
edly
the original object of this Society to print and
circulate the whole of the sacred volume. Hence
appears
the practical importance of the inquiry which
we
have here instituted, to ascertain whether these
THE APOCRYPHA CANONIZED BY
books
have any claim whatever to a place in the sa-
cred
Canon.
At a very early period of the
Christian church,
great
pains were taken to distinguish between such
books
as were inspired and canonical, and such as
were
written by uninspired men. It has never
been
doubted
among Christians, that the canonical books
only
were of divine authority, and furnished an infal-
lible
rule of faith and practice; but it has not been
agreed
what books ought to be considered canonical
and
what apocryphal. In regard to those which have
already
been enumerated, as belonging to the Old
Testament,
there is a pretty general consent of Jews
and
Christians, of Romanists and Protestants; but in
regard
to some other books there is a wide difference
of
opinion.
The council of
a
catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among
which
are included Tobit, Judith Wisdom
Ecclesi-
asticus, Baruch, and two books of the Maccabees.*
Besides,
they include under the name Esther and
Daniel,
certain additional chapters, which are not
found
in the Hebrew copies. The book of Esther is
made
to consist of sixteen chapters; and prefixed to
the
book of Daniel, is the History of Susannah; the
Song
of the Three Children is inserted in the third
chapter;
and the History of Bel and the Dragon is
added
at the end of this book. Other books which
are
found in the Greek or Latin Bibles, they rejected
as
apocryphal; as the third and fourth books of
* See Note A.
40 THE APOCRYPHA IN ENGLISH BIBLES
Esdras;*
the third book of Maccabees; the cli. Psalm;
the
Appendix to Job; and the Preface to Lamenta-
tions.
Both these classes of books, all
denominations of
Protestants
consider apocryphal; but as the English
church,
in her Liturgy, directs that certain lessons
shall
be read from the former, for the instruction of
the
people, but not for confirmation of doctrine, they
are
retained in the larger copies of the English Bible,
but
are not mingled with the canonical books, as in
the
Vulgate, but placed at the end of the Old Testa-
ment,
under the title of Apocrypha. It is certainly to
be
regretted that these books are permitted to be in-
cluded
in the same volume which contains the lively
oracles,—the
word of God,—the Holy Scriptures; all
of
which were given by inspiration; and more to be
regretted
still, that they should be read in the church
promiscuously
with the lessons taken from the cano-
nical
books; especially as no notice is given to the
people,
that what is read from these books is apocry-
phal;
and as in the Prayer Book of the Episcopal
church
the tables which refer to the lessons to be read,
* The first and second books of
Esdras are very frequently
called
the third and fourth; in which case the two canonical
books,
Ezra and Nehemiah, are reckoned the first and second:
for
both these books have been ascribed to Ezra as their author;
but
these are not included in the list of canonical books sanc-
tioned
by the Council of Trent, and therefore they do not come
into
controversy. Indeed, the second of these books is not found
even
in the Greek, but only in the Latin Vulgate, and is so
replete
with fables and false statements that it has never been
esteemed
of any value. They are both, however, retained in
our
larger English Bibles, and are honoured with the foremost
place
in the order of the apocryphal books.
41 NOT IN THE HEBREW.
have
this title prefixed—"Tables of lessons of Holy
Scripture
to be read at Morning and Evening Prayer,
throughout
the year." The Rev. Doctor Wordsworth,
in
his work on the Canon, defends the practice of re-
taining
in the Bible, and publicly reading in the church,
certain
lessons from the apocryphal books, principally
because
this was done by the ancient church; and he
apologizes
for the practice by saying, that these les-
sons
are never read on the Lord's day. But as he
acknowledges
that they are not inspired, and are not
canonical,
the inference is plain, that they ought not
to
be included in the same volume with canonical
books,
and ought not to be read as Scripture in the
churches.
Now, however good and instructive these
apocryphal
lessons may be, it never can be justified,
that
they should thus be put on a level with the word
of
God.*
But it is our object at present to
show, that none of
these
books, canonized by the Council of Trent, and
inserted
in our larger English Bibles, are canonical.
1. The first argument by which it may
be proved
that
these books do not belong to the Canon of the
Old
Testament, is, that they, are not found in the
Hebrew
Bible. They are not written in the Hebrew
language,
but in the Greek which was not known to
the
Jews, until long after inspiration had ceased, and
the
Canon of the Old Testament was closed. It is ren-
dered
probable, indeed, that some of them were written
originally
in the Chaldaic. Jerome testifies this to be
the
fact, in regard to 1 Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus;
* See Tables prefixed to the Book of
Common Prayer; also,
the
Sixth Article of Religion of the Episcopal Church.
42 REJECTED BY THE JEWS.
and
he says, that he translated the book of Tobit
out
of
Chaldee into Latin; but this book is now found in
the
Greek, and there is good reason for believing that
it
was written originally in this language. It is cer-
tain,
however, that none of these books were composed
in
the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament.
Hottinger, indeed, informs us, that he
had seen the
whole
of the apocrypha in pure Hebrew, among the
Jews;
but he entertains no doubt that it was translated
into
that language, in modern times: just as the whole
New
Testament has recently been translated into pure
Hebrew.
It is the common opinion of the Jews,
and of the
Christian
Fathers, that Malachi was the last of
the
Old
Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain
authors
afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned ca-
nonical,
and there is good reason for believing that
those
books were written long after the time of Ezra
and
Malachi, and some of them perhaps later than the
commencement
of the Christian era.
2. These books, though probably
written by Jews,
have
never been received into the Canon by that peo-
ple.
In this, the ancient and modern Jews are of the
same
mind. Josephus declares, "That no more than
twenty-two
books were received as inspired by his
nation."
Philo, who refers often to the Old
Testa-
ment
in his writings, never makes the least mention of
them;
nor are they recognized in the Talmud as ca-
nonical.
Not only so, but the Jewish Rabbies expressly
reject
them.
RABBI AZARIAH, speaking of these
books, says,
"They
are received by Christians, not by us."
R. GEDALIAH, after giving a catalogue
of the books
REJECTED BY THE JEWS. 43
of
the Old Testament, with some account of their
authors,
adds these words, "It is worth while to know,
that
the nations of the world wrote many other books,
which
are included in their systems of sacred books,
but
not in our hands." To which he adds, "They say
that
some of these are found in the Chaldee, some in
the
Arabic, and some in the Greek language."
R. AZARIAH ascribed the book called
the Wisdom
of
Solomon to Philo; and R. GEDALIAH, in speaking
of
the same book, says, "That if Solomon ever wrote
it,
it must have been in the Syriac language, to send
it
to some of the kings in the remotest parts of the
East.
"But," says he, "Ezra put his hand only to
those
books which were published by the prophets,
under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in
the
sacred language; and our wise men prudently and
deliberately
resolved to sanction none, but such as were
established
and confirmed by him."
"This book," says he,
"the Gentiles (i. e. Chris-
tians)
have added to their Bible." "Their wise men,"
says
Buxtorf, "pronounced this book to be apocry-
phal."
The book called Ecclesiasticus, said
to be written
by
the son of SIRACH, is expressly numbered among
apocryphal
books in the Talmud. "In the book of
the
Son of Sirach, it is forbidden to be read."
MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL has this
observation, "Those
things
which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus
are
nothing to the purpose, because that is an apocry-
phal
book." Another of their writers says, "The
book
of the son of Sirach is added to our twenty-four
sacred
books by the Romans." This book also they
call
extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be
44 REJECTED BY THE JEWS.
read.
With what face then can the Romanists pre-
tend
that this book was added to the Canon not long
before
the time of Josephus?
"BARUCH," says one of their
learned men, "is re-
ceived
by Christians," (i. e. Romanists,) "but not by us."
Of
TOBIT, it is said in Zemach David, "Know, then,
that
this book of Tobias is one of those which Chris-
tians
join with the Hagiographa." A little afterwards,
it
is said, "Know then, that Tobit, which is among us
in
the Hebrew tongue, was translated from Latin into
Hebrew
by Sebastian Munster." The same writer
affirms
of the history of Susannah, "That it is received
by
Christians but not by us."
The Jews, in the time of Jerome,
entertained no
other
opinion of these books than those who came after
them;
for, in his preface to Daniel, he informs us,
"That
he had heard one of the Jewish doctors deriding
the
history of Susannah, saying, ‘It was invented
by
some Greek, he knew not whom.’"*
The same is the opinion of the Jews
respecting the
other
books, which we call apocryphal, as is manifest
from
all the copies of the Hebrew Bible extant; for,
undoubtedly
if they believed that any of these books
were
canonical, they would give them a place in their
sacred
volume. But will any ask, what is the opinion
of
the Jews to us? I answer, much on this point.
The
oracles of God were committed to them; and they
preserved
them with a religious care until the advent
of
Messiah. Christ never censures them for adding
to
the sacred Scriptures, nor detracting from them.
Since
their nation has been in dispersion, copies of the
Old
Testament in Hebrew have been scattered all over
* See the Thesaurus Philologicus of
Hottinger.
NEVER QUOTED BY CHRIST. 45
the
world, so that it was impossible to produce a uni-
versal
alteration in the Canon. But it is needless to
argue
this point, for it is agreed by all that these books
never
were received by the Jewish nation.
3. The third argument against the
canonical autho-
ity
of these books is derived from the total silence
respecting
them in the New Testament. They are
never
quoted by Christ and his apostles. This fact,
however,
is disputed by the Romanists, and they even
attempt
to establish their right to a place in the Canon
from
the citations which they pretend have been made
from
these books by the apostles. They refer to
xi.
and Heb. xi., where they allege that Paul has cited
passages
from the Book of Wisdom. "For who hath
known
the mind of the Lord, or who hath been his
counsellor?"
"For before his translation he had
this
testimony
that he pleased God." But both these pas-
sages
are taken directly from the canonical books of
the
Old Testament. The first is nearly in the words
of
Isaiah; and the last from the book of Genesis;
their
other examples are as wide of the mark as these,
and
need not be set down.
It has already been shown that these books
were not
included
in the volume quoted and referred to by Christ
and
his apostles, under the title of the Scriptures, and
and
are entirely omitted by Josephus in his account of
the
sacred books. It would seem, therefore, that in
the
time of Christ, and for some time afterwards, they
were
utterly unknown or wholly disregarded.
46 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED.
SECTION IV.
TESTIMONIES
OF THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS, AND OF OTHER
LEARNED MEN DOWN TO THE TIME OF THE
COUNCIL OF
THE
fourth argument is, that these books were not
received
as canonical by the Christian Fathers, but
were
expressly declared to be apocryphal.
JUSTIN MARTYR does not cite a single
passage, in
all
his writings, from any apocryphal book.
The first catalogue of the books of
the Old Testa-
ment
which we have, after the times of the apostles,
from
any Christian writer, is that of MELITO, bishop
of
is
preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows:
"MELITO
to his brother ONESIMUS, greeting. Since
you
have often earnestly requested of me, in conse-
quence
of your love of learning, a collection of the
Sacred
Scriptures of the Law and the Prophets, and
what
relates to the SAVIOUR, and concerning our whole
faith;
and since, moreover, you wish to obtain an accu-
rate
knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects
their
number and order, I have used diligence to ac-
complish
this, knowing your sincere affection towards
the
faith, and your earnest desire to become acquainted
with
the word; and that striving after eternal life,
your
love to God induces you to prefer these to all
other
things. Wherefore, going into the East, and to
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 47
the
very place where these things were published and
transacted,
and having made diligent search after the
books
of the Old Testament, I now subjoin and send
you
the following catalogue:—"Five books of Moses,
viz.,
Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuter-
onomy,
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings,
two
of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Pro-
verbs
of Solomon, or Wisdom,* Ecclesiastes, the Song
of
Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in
one
book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."†
ORIGEN also says, "We should not
be ignorant, that
the
canonical books are the same which the Hebrews
delivered
unto us, and are twenty-two in number,
according
to the number of letters of the Hebrew
alphabet."
Then he sets down, in order, the names
of
the books, in Greek and Hebrew.‡
ATHANASIUS, in his Synopsis, says,
" All the
Scriptures
of us Christians are divinely inspired;
neither
are they indefinite in their number, but deter-
mined,
and reduced into a Canon. Those of the Old
Testament
are, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers,
*Whether Melito, in his catalogue,
by the word Wisdom,
meant
to designate a distinct book; or whether it was used as
another
name for Proverbs, seems doubtful. The latter has gene-
rally
been understood to be the sense; and this accords with the
understanding
of the ancients; for Rufin, in his translation of
this
passage of Eusebius renders paroimiai h sofi<a
Salomonis Pro-
verbia, quae est
sapientia;
that is, The Proverbs of Solomon, which
is Wisdom. PINEDA, a
learned Romanist, says, "The word
Wisdom
should here be taken as explicative of the former, and
should
be understood to mean, The Proverbs."
† Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c. 24.
‡ Origen's catalogue of the books of the
Old Testament is
presented
by Eusebius, in his Ecc. Hist. Lib. vi. c. 25.
48 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED
Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chroni-
cles,
Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Job,
the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel."*
HILARY, who was contemporary with
Athanasius,
and
resided in
books
of the Old Testament, in the following manner
"The
five books of Moses, the sixth of Joshua, the
seventh
of Judges, including Ruth, the eighth of first
and
second Kings, the ninth of third and fourth
Kings;
the tenth of the Chronicles, two books; the
eleventh,
Ezra (which included Nehemiah;) the
twelfth,
the Psalms. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the
Song
of Songs, the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth;
the
twelve Prophets the sixteenth; then Isaiah and
Jeremiah,
including Lamentations and his Epistle,
Daniel,
Ezekiel, Job, and Esther, making up the full
number
of twenty-two." And in his preface he adds,
that
"these books were thus numbered by our ances-
tors,
and handed down by tradition from them."†
GREGORY NAZIANZEN exhorts his readers
to study
the
sacred books with attention, but to avoid such as
were
apocryphal; and then gives a list of the books
of
the Old Testament, and according to the Jew-
ish
method, makes the number two-and-twenty. He
complains
of some that mingled the apocryphal
books
with those that were inspired, "of the truth of
which
last," says he, "we have the most perfect per-
* It is a matter not agreed among
the learned whether the
"Synopsis"
which has been ascribed to Athanasius was written
by
him. It is, however, an ancient work, and belongs to that
age.
† Proleg in Psalmos.
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 49
suasion;
therefore it seemed good to me to enumerate
the
canonical books from the beginning; and those
which
belong to the Old Testament are two-and-
twenty,
according to the number of the Hebrew al-
phabet,
as I have understood." Then he proceeds to
say,
"Let no one add to these divine books, nor take
any
thing away from them. I think it necessary to
add
this, that there are other books besides those
which
I have enumerated as constituting the Canon,
which,
however, do not appertain to it; but were pro-
posed
by the early Fathers, to be read for the sake
of
the instruction which they contain." Then, he
expressly
names as belonging to this class, the Wisdom
of
Solomon, the Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith,
and
Tobit.*
JEROME, in his Epistle to Paulinus,
gives us a cata-
logue
of the books of the Old Testament, exactly cor-
responding
with that which Protestants receive:
"Which,"
says he, "we believe agreeably to the tra-
dition
of our ancestors, to have been inspired by the
Holy
Spirit."
EPIPHANIUS, in his book concerning
Weights and
Measures,
distributes the books of the Old Testament
into
four divisions of five each. "The first of which
contains
the law, next five poetical books, Job, Psalms,
Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs; in the third
division
he places Joshua, Judges, including Ruth,
first
and second Chronicles, four books of Kings.
The
last five, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah,
Ezekiel,
Daniel. Then there remain two, Ezra and
Esther."
Thus he makes up the number twenty-two.
CYRIL of Jerusalem, in his Catechism,
exhorts his
* Epist. ad Theod. et Lib. Carm.
50 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED
catechumen
diligently to learn from the church, what
books
appertain to the Old and New Testaments, and
he
says, "Read nothing which is apocryphal. Read
the
Scriptures, namely, the twenty-two books of the
Old
Testament, which were translated by the seventy-
two
interpreters." And in another place, "Meditate,
as
was said, in the twenty-two books of the Old Tes-
tament,
and if you wish it, I will give you their
names."
Here follows a catalogue, agreeing with
those
already given, except that he adds Baruch to
the
list. When Baruch is mentioned as making
one
book with Jeremiah, as is done by some of the
Fathers,
it is most reasonable to understand those
parts
of Jeremiah, in the writing of which Baruch
was
concerned, as particularly the lii. chapter; for, if
we
understand them as referring to the separate book
now
called Baruch, the number which they are so
careful
to preserve will be exceeded. This apocry-
phal
Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never
mentioned
separately by any ancient author, as Bel-
larmine
confesses. This book was originally written
in
Greek, but our present copies differ exceedingly
from
the old Latin translation.
The Council of Laodicea forbade the
reading of any
books
in the churches but such as were canonical; and
that
the people might know what these were, a cata-
logue
was given, answering to the Canon which we
now
receive.
ORIGEN barely mentions the Maccabees.
ATHA-
NASIUS
takes no notice of these books. EUSEBIUS, in
his
Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Macca-
bees,
and adds, "These books are not received as di-
vine
Scriptures."
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 51
PHILASTRIUS, an Italian bishop, who
lived in the
latter
part of the fourth century, in a work on Heresy
says,
"It was determined by the apostles and their
successors,
that nothing should be read in the Catho-
lic
church but the law, prophets, evangelists,"
And
he complains of certain Heretics, "That they
used
the book of Wisdom, by the son of SIRACH, who
lived
long after Solomon."
CHRYSOSTOM, a man who excelled in the
knowledge
of
the Scriptures, declares, "That all the divine books
of
the Old Testament were originally written in the
Hebrew
tongue, and that no other books were re-
ceived."
Hom. 4. in Gen.
But JEROME, already mentioned, who had
diligently
studied
the Hebrew Scriptures, by the aid of the best
Jewish
teachers, enters into this subject more fully
and
accurately than any of the rest of the Fathers.
In
his general Preface to his version of the Scrip-
tures,
he mentions the books which he had translated
out
of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides
them," says
he,
"must be placed among the apocryphal. There-
fore,
Wisdom, which is ascribed to Solomon, the book
of
Jesus the son of Sirach, Judith, Tobit and Pastor,
are
not in the Canon. I have found the first book of
Maccabees
in Hebrew, (Chaldee;) the second in Greek,
and,
as the style shows, it must have been com-
posed
in that language." And in his Preface to Ezra
and
Nehemiah, (always reckoned one book by the
Jews,)
he says, "Let no one be disturbed that I have
edited
but one book under this name; nor let any one
please
himself with the dreams contained in the third
and
fourth apocryphal books ascribed to this author;
52 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED
for,
with the Hebrews, Ezra and Nehemiah make but
one
book; and those things not contained in this are
to
be rejected, as not belonging to the Canon." And
in
his preface to the books of Solomon, he speaks of
"Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus; the former of which,"
he
says, "he found in Hebrew, (Chaldee,) but not the
latter,
which is never found among the Hebrews, but
the
style strongly savours of the Grecian eloquence."
He
then adds, "As the church reads the books of Ju-
dith,
Tobit, and the Maccabees, but does not receive
them
among the canonical Scriptures, so, also, she
may
read these two books for the edification of the
common
people, but not as authority to confirm any
of
the doctrines of the church."
Again, in his preface to Jeremiah, he
says, "The
book
of Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, is not read in
Hebrew,
nor esteemed canonical; therefore, I have
passed
it over." And in his preface to Daniel, "This
book
among the Hebrews has neither the history of
Susanna,
nor the Song of the three Children, nor the
fables
of Bel and the Dragon, which we have retained
lest
we should appear to the unskilful to have curtailed
a
large part of the Sacred Volume."
In the preface to Tobit, he says,
"The Hebrews
cut
off the book of Tobit from the catalogue of Di-
vine
Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith,
he
says, "Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among
the
Hagiographa, which are not of authority to deter-
mine
controversies."
RUFIN, in his Exposition of the Creed,
observes,
"That
there were some books which were not called
canonical,
but received by our ancestors, as the
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 53
dom
of Solomon, and another Wisdom of the Son of
Sirach;
of the same order are the books of Tobit,
Judith,
and the Maccabees."
GREGORY the First, speaking of the
testimony in
the
Maccabees, respecting the death of Eleazer, says,
"Concerning
which thing we do not act inordinately,
although
we bring our testimony from a book which is
not
canonical."
AUGUSTINE is the only one among the
Fathers who
lived
within four hundred years after the apostles, who
seems
to favour the introduction of these six disputed
books
into the Canon. In his work On Christian
Doc-
trine, he gives a list
of the books of the Old Testa-
ment,
among which he inserts Tobit, Judith, the two
books
of Maccabees, two of Esdras, Wisdom, and
Ecclesiasticus.
These two last mentioned, he says,
"are
called Solomon's, on account of their resem-
blance
to his writings; although it is known that one
of
them was composed by the son of Sirach: which
deserves
to be received among the prophetical books."
But
this opinion he retracted afterwards.*
AUGUSTINE was accustomed to the Greek
and La-
tin
Bibles, in which those books had been introduced,
and
we must suppose, unless we would make him
contradict
himself, that he meant in this place merely
to
enumerate the books then contained in the sacred
volume;
for in many other places he clearly shows
that
he entertained the same opinion of the books of
the
Old Testament as the other Fathers.
In his celebrated work of "The
City of God," he ex-
presses
this opinion most explicitly—"In that whole
* See Note B.
54 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED
period,
after the return from the Babylonish captivity,
after
Malachi, Haggai, Zachariah and Ezra, they had
no
prophets, even until the time of the advent of our
Saviour.
As our Lord says, the law and the pro-
phets
were until John. And even the reprobate Jews
hold
that Haggai, Zachariah, Ezra, and Malachi, were
the
last books received into canonical authority."
In his commentary on the xl. Psalm, he
says, "If
any
adversary should say you have forged these pro-
phecies,
let the Jewish books be produced—The Jews
are
our librarians." And on the lvi. Psalm, "When
we
wish to prove to the Pagans that Christ was pre-
dicted,
we appeal to the writings in possession of the
Jews;
they have all these Scriptures."
And again, in the work first cited,
"The Israelitish
nation,
to whom the oracles of God were entrusted,
never
confounded false prophecies with the true, but
all
these writings are harmonious." Then in another
work,
in speaking of the books of the Maccabees, he
says,
"This writing the Jews never received in the
same
manner as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms,
to
which the Lord gave testimony as by his own wit-
nesses."
And frequently in his works, he confines the
canonical books to those
properly included in this three-
fold
division. He also repeatedly declares that the
canonical
Scriptures, which are of most eminent autho-
rity,
are the books committed to the Jews. But in the
eighteenth
book of the City of
Judith,
he says, "Those things which are written in
this
book, it is said, the Jews have never received into
the
Canon of Scripture." And in the seventeenth
book
of the same work, "There are three books of
Solomon,
which have been received into canonical
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 55
authority,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles; the
other
two, Wisdom and Ecelesiasticus, have been called
by
his name, through a custom which prevailed on
account
of their similarity to his writings; but the
more
learned are certain that they are not his; and
they
cannot be brought forward with much confidence
for
the conviction of gainsayers."
He allows that the Book of Wisdom may
be read
to
the people, and ought to be preferred to all other
tracts;
but he does not insist, that the testimonies
taken
from it are decisive. And respecting Ecclesias-
ticus,
he says when speaking of Samuel's prophesying
after
his death, "But if this book is objected to be-
cause
it is not found in the Canon of the Jews," &c.
His
rejection of the books of Maccabees from the
Canon
is repeated and explicit. "The calculation of
the
times after the restoring of the temple is not found
in
the Holy Scriptures, which are called canonical, but
in
certain other books, among which are the two books
of
Maccabees. The Jews do not receive the Macca-
bees
as the Law and the Prophets."
It may be admitted, however, that
AUGUSTINE
entertained
too high an opinion of these apocryphal
books,
but it is certain that he did not put them on a
level
with the genuine canonical books. He mentions
a
custom which prevailed in his time, from which it
appears
that although the apocryphal books were read
in
some of the churches, they were not read as Holy
Scripture,
nor put on a level with the canonical books;
for
he, informs us that they were not permitted to be
read
from the same desk as the Canonical Scriptures,
but
from a lower place in the church.
INNOCENT the first, who lived about
the same
56 THE APOCRYPHA DISOWNED
time,
is also alluded to as a witness to prove that these
disputed
books were then received into the Canon.
But
the epistle which contains his catalogue is ex-
tremely
suspicious. No mention is made of this epistle
by
any writer for three hundred years after the death
of
INNOCENT. But it is noways necessary to our
argument
to deny that in the end of the fourth and
beginning
of the fifth century, some individuals, and
perhaps
some councils, received these books as canon-
ical,
yet there is strong evidence that this was not the
opinion
of the universal church; for in the council
of
Canons
of the council of
catalogue
of the genuine books of the Old Testament,
are
adopted. And it has been shown already that these
apocryphal
books were excluded from that catalogue.
But it can be proved that even until
the time of the
meeting
of the Council of Trent, by which these books
were
solemnly canonized, the most learned and judi-
cious
of the Popish writers adhere to the opinions of
JEROME
and the ancients; or at least make a marked
distinction
between these disputed books and those
which
are acknowledged to be canonical by all. A
few
testimonies from distinguished writers, from the
commencement
of the sixth century down to the era
of
the Reformation, shall now be given...
It deserves to be particularly
observed here that in
one
of the laws of the Emperor JUSTINIAN, concerning
ecclesiastical
matters, it was enacted, "That the Canons
of
the first four general councils should be received
and
have the force of laws."
ANASTASIUS, patriarch of
Creation,
makes "the number of books which God
BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS. 57
hath
appointed for his Old Testament" to be no more
than
twenty-two; although he speaks in very high
terms
of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus.
LEONTIUS, a learned and accurate
writer, in his
book
against the SECTS, acknowledges no other canoni-
cal
books of the Old Testament, but those which the
Hebrews
received; namely, twelve historical books,
five
prophetical, four of Doctrine and Instruction, and
one
of Psalms; making the number twenty-two as
usual;
and he makes not the least mention of any
others.
GREGORY, who lived at the beginning of
the seventh
century,
in his book of Morals, makes an apology for
alleging
a passage from the Maccabees, and says,
"Though
it be not taken from the canonical Scripture,
yet
it is cited from a book which was published for the
edification
of the church."
ISIDORE, bishop of
books
of the Old Testament into three orders, the
Law,
the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and after-
wards
adds," There is a fourth order of books which
are
not in the Hebrew Canon of the Old Testament."
Here
he names these books, and says, "Though the
Jews
rejected them as apocryphal, the church has re-
ceived
them among the canonical Scriptures."
JOHN DAMASCENE, a Syrian Presbyter,
who lived
early
in the eighth century, adheres to the Hebrew
Canon
of the Old Testament, numbering only two-and-
twenty
books. Of Maccabees, Judith and Tobit, he
says
not one word; but he speaks of Wisdom and
Ecclesiasticus,
as "elegant and virtuous writings, yet
not
to be numbered among the canonical books of
58 TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN.
Scripture,
never having been laid up in the ark of the
Covenant."
VENERABLE BEDE follows the ancient
method of
dividing
the books of the Old Testament into three
classes;
but he remarkably distinguishes the Macca-
bees
from the canonical books by classing them with
the
writings of Josephus and Julius the African.
ALCUIN, the disciple of Bede, says,
"The book of
the
son of Sirach was reputed an apocryphal and
dubious
Scripture."
RUPERT, a learned man of the twelfth
century, ex-
pressly
rejects the book of Wisdom from the Canon.
PETER MAURITIUS, after giving a
catalogue of the
authentic
Scriptures of the Old Testament, adds the
six
disputed books, and says, "They are useful and
commendable
in the church, but are not to be placed
in
the same dignity with the rest."
HUGO DE S. VICTORE, a Saxon by birth,
but who
resided
at
Old
Testament, which includes no others but the two-
and-twenty
received from the Jews. Of Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus,
Tobit and Judith, he says, "They are
used
in the church but not written in the Canon."
RICHARD DE S. VICTORE, also of the
twelfth cen-
tury,
in his Books of Collections, explicitly declares,
"That
there are but twenty-two books in the Canon;
and
that Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and
the
Maccabees, are not esteemed canonical although
they
are read in the churches."
PETER LOMBARD, in his Scholastic
History, enume-
rates
the books of the Old Testament, thus—Five books
of
Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Ha-
giographa,
which leaves no room for these six disputed
TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 59
books;
but in his preface to Tobit he says expressly,
that
it is "in no order of the Canon;" and of Judith,
that
"Jerome and the Hebrews place it in the apocry-
pha."
Moreover, he calls the story of Bel and the
Dragon
a fable, and says that the history of Susannah
is
not as true as it should be.
In this century also lived John of
Salisbury, an
Englishman,
a man highly respected in his time. In
one
of his Epistles, he treats this subject at large, and
professes
to follow Jerome and undoubtedly to believe
that
there are but twenty-two books in the Canon of
the
Old Testament, all which he names in order, and
adds,
"That neither the book of Wisdom, nor Eccle-
siasticus,
nor Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Pastor, nor
the
Maccabees, are esteemed canonical."
In the thirteenth century, the opinion
of the learned
was
the same, as we may see by the Ordinary
Gloss on
the
Bible, in the composition of which many persons
were
concerned, and which was high approved by all the
doctors
and pastors in the western churches. In the
preface
to this gloss, they are reproached
with igno-
rance
who hold all the books, put into the one volume
of
Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference be-
tween
these books is asserted to be as great as between
certain and doubtful works. The canonical books are
declared,
"To have been written by the inspiration of
the
Holy Ghost; but who were the authors of the
others
is unknown." Then it is declared, "That the
church
permitteth the reading of the apocryphal books
for
devotion and instruction, but not for authority to
decide
matters of controversy in faith. And that
there
are no more than twenty-two canonical books of
the
Old Testament, and all besides are apocryphal."
60 TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN.
Thus
we have the common judgment of the church, in
the
thirteenth century, in direct opposition to the de-
cree
of the Council of Trent in the sixteenth. But
this
is not all, for when the writers of this Gloss come
to
the apocryphal books, they prefix a caution, as--
"Here
begins the book of Tobit, which is not in the
Canon;"—"Here
begins the book of Judith, which is
not
in the Canon," and so of every one of them; and
to
confirm their opinion, they appeal to the Fathers.
HUGO, the Cardinal, who lived in this
century, wrote
commentaries
on all the Scriptures, which were uni-
versally
esteemed; in these he constantly keeps up the
distinction
between the canonical and ecclesiastical
books:
and he explicitly declares that "Ecclesiasticus,
Wisdom,
Judith, Tobit, and the Maccabees, are apoc-
ryphal,—dubious,—not
canonical,—not received by the
church
for proving any matters of faith, but for in-
formation
of manners."
THOMAS AQUINAS also, the most famous
of the school-
men,
makes the same distinction between these classes
of
books. He maintains that the book of Wisdom
was
not held to be a part of the Canon, and ascribes
it
to Philo. The story of Bel and the Dragon, he
calls
a fable; and he shows clearly enough that he did
not
believe that Ecclesiasticus was of canonical autho-
rity.
In the fourteenth century no man
acquired so exten-
sive
a reputation for his commentaries on the Bible, as
Nicholas
Lyra, a converted Jew. In his preface to
the
book of Tobit, he says, "That having commented
on
all the canonical books, from the beginning of
Genesis
to the end of Revelation, his intention now
was
to write on those books which are not canonical."
TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 61
Here
he enumerates Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Judith,
Tobit,
and the Maccabees; and then adds, "The ca-
nonical
books are not only before these in time but in
dignity
and authority." And again, "These are not
in
the Canon, but received by the church to be read
for
instruction in manners, not to be used for deciding
controversies
respecting the faith; whereas the others
are
of such authority that whatever they contain is to
be
held as undoubted truth."
The Englishman, WILLIAM OCCAM, of
counted
the most learned doctor of his age, in his
Dialogues,
acknowledges, "That that honor is due only
to
the divine writers of Scripture, that we should esteem
them
free from all error." Moreover, in his Prologues,
he
fully assents to the opinion of Jerome and Gregory,
"That
neither Judith, nor Tobit, nor the Maccabees,
nor
Wisdom, nor Ecclesiasticus, is to be received into
the
same place of honour as the inspired books; "for,"
says
he, "the church doth not number them among
the
canonical Scriptures."
In the fifteenth century, THOMAS
ANGLICUS, some-
times
called the Angelical Doctor on account of his
excellent
judgment, numbers twenty-four books of the
Old
Testament, if Ruth be reckoned separately from
Judges,
and Lamentations from Jeremiah.
PAUL BURGENSIS, a Spanish Jew, who,
after his
conversion
to Christianity, on account of his superior
knowledge
and piety, was advanced to be bishop of
the
same distinction of books which has been so often
mentioned.
The Romanists have at last, as they
suppose, found
an
authority for these disputed books in the Council
62 TESTIMONY OP LEARNED MEN.
of
decree
in which the six disputed books are named and
expressly
said to be written by the inspiration of the
Holy
Ghost.
Though this Canon were genuine, the
authority of a
council
sitting in such circumstances, as attended the
meeting
of this, would have very little weight; but Dr.
Cosins
has shown that in the large copies of the acts
of
this council no such decree can be found, and that
it
has been foisted into the abridgment by some impos-
tor
who omitted something else to make room for it,
and
thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged,
while
the substance of them was altered.
ALPIIONSO TOSTATUS, bishop of
account
of his extraordinary learning, was called the
wonder
of the world, has given a clear and decisive
testimony
on this subject. This learned man declares,
"That
these controverted books were not canonical,
and
that the church condemned no man for disobedi-
ence
who did not receive them as the other Scriptures,
because
they were of uncertain origin, and it is not
known
that they were written by inspiration." And
again,
“Because the church is uncertain whether
heretics
have not added to them.” This opinion he
repeats
in several parts of his works."
Cardinal XIMENES, the celebrated
editor of the
Complutensian
Polyglot, in the preface to that work,
admonishes
the reader that Judith, Tobit, Wisdom,
Ecclesiasticus,
Maccabees, with the additions to Esther
and
Daniel, which are found in the Greek, are not
canonical
Scriptures.
JOHN Pious, the learned count of
Mirandula, ad-
TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN. 63
hered
firmly to the opinion of Jerome and the other
Fathers
on the subject of the Canon.
FABER STAPULENSIS, a famous doctor of
acknowledges
that these books are not in the Canon.
LUDOVICUS VIVES, one of the most
learned men of
his
age, in his commentaries on Augustine's City of
God,
rejects the third and fourth books of Esdras, and
also
the history of Susannah, and Bel, as apocryphal.
He
speaks in such a manner of Wisdom and Ecclesi-
asticus
as to show that he did not esteem them canoni-
cal;
for he makes Philo to be the author of the former,
and
the son of Sirach of the latter, who lived in the
time
of Ptolemy about an hundred years after the last
of
the Prophets; and of the Maccabees, he doubts
whether
Josephus was the author or not; by which he
sufficiently
shows that he did not believe that they
were
written by inspiration.
But there was no man in this age who
obtained so
high
a reputation for learning and critical skill as
ERASMUS.
In his exposition of the Apostles' Creed
and
the Decalogue, he discusses this question respect-
ing
the canonical books, and after enumerating the
usual
books of the Old Testament, he says, "The
ancient
Fathers admitted no more;" but of the other
books
afterwards received into ecclesiastical use,
(naming
the whole which we esteem apocryphal,) "It
is
uncertain what authority should be allowed to them;
but
the canonical Scriptures are such as without con-
troversy
are believed to have been written by the
inspiration
of God." And in his Scholia on Jerome's
preface
to Daniel, he expresses his wonder that such
stories
as Bel and the Dragon should be publicly read
in
the churches. In his address to students of the
64 TESTIMONY OF ROMANISTS.
Scriptures,
he admonishes them to consider well,
"That
the church never intended to give the same
authority
to Tobit, Judith and Wisdom, which is given
to
the five books of Moses or the four Evangelists."
The last testimony which we shall
adduce to show
that
these books were not universally nor commonly
received,
until the very time of the Council of Trent,
is
that of Cardinal CAJETAN, the oracle of the church
of
us
this as the rule of the church—"That those books
which
were canonical with Jerome should be so with
us;
and that those which were not received as canoni-
cal
by him should be considered as excluded by us."
And
he says, "The church is much indebted to this
Father
for distinguishing between the books which are
canonical
and those which are not, for thus he has
freed
us from the reproach of the Hebrews, who other-
wise
might say that we had framed a new Canon for
ourselves."
For this reason he would write no com-
mentaries
on these apocryphal books; "for," says he,
"Judith,
Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions
to
Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insuffi-
cient
to prove any matter of faith, though they may
be
read for the edifying of the people."
From the copious citations of testimonies
which we
have
given, it is evident that the books in dispute are
apocryphal,
and have no right to a place in the Canon;
and
that the Council of Trent acted unwisely in de-
creeing,
with an anathema annexed, that they should
be
received as divine. Surely no council can make
that
an inspired book which was not written by inspi-
ration.
Certainly these books did not belong to the
Canon
while the apostles lived, for they were unknown
TESTIMONY OF ROMANISTS. 65
both
to Jews and Christians. SIXTUS SINENSIS, a
distinguished
Romanist, acknowledges that it was long
after
the time of the apostles, that these writings came
to
the knowledge of the whole Christian church. But
while
this is conceded, it does not terminate the con-
troversy,
for among the many extraordinary claims of
the
Romish church, one of the most extraordinary is
the
authority to add to the Canon of Holy Scripture.
It
has been made sufficiently manifest that these apoc-
ryphal
books were not included in the Canon during
the
first three centuries; and can it be doubted whether
the
Canon was fully constituted before the fourth con-
tury? To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make
what
books they please canonical, is too absurd to de-
serve
a moment's consideration. If, upon this princi-
ple,
they could render Tobit and Judith canonical,
upon
the same they might introduce Herodotus, Livy,
or
even the Koran itself.
66 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA.
SECTION V.
INTERNAL
EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONI-
CAL--THE WRITERS NOT PROPHETS, AND DO
NOT CLAIM
TO BE INSPIRED.
I
COME now to the fifth argument to disprove the
canonical
authority of these books, which is derived
from
internal evidence. Books which contain mani-
fest
falsehoods; or which abound in silly and ridiculous
stories;
or contradict the plain and uniform doctrine
of
acknowledged Scripture, cannot be canonical. Now
I
will endeavour to show, that the books in dispute,
are
all, or most of them, condemned by this rule.
In the book of Tobit, an angel of God
is made to
tell
a palpable falsehood—"I am Azarias, the son of
Ananias
the great, and of thy brethren;"* by which
Tobit
was completely deceived, for he says, "Thou art
of
an honest and good stock." Now in chapter xii.
this
same angel declares, "I am Raphael, one of the
seven
Holy Angels, which present the prayers of the
saints,
and go in and out before the glory of the Holy
One."
Judith is represented as speaking scarcely
anything
but
falsehood to Holofernes; but what is most incon-
sistent
with the character of piety given her, is, that
she
is made to pray to the God of truth, in the following
* Tobit v. 12, 13.
INTERNAL
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 67
words,
"Smite by the deceit of my lips, the servant
with
the prince, and the prince with the servant."
Who
does not perceive, at once, the impiety of this
prayer?
It is a petition that he who holds in utter
detestation
all falsehood, should give efficacy to pre-
meditated
deceit. This woman, so celebrated for her
piety,
is also made to speak with commendation of
the
conduct of Simeon, in the cruel slaughter of the
Shechemites;
an act, against which God, in the
Scriptures,
has expressed his high displeasure.
In the second book of Maccabees,
RAZIS, an elder
of
for
destroying his own life, rather than fall into the
hands
of his enemies; but, certainly, suicide is not,
in
any case, agreeable to the word of God.
The author of the book of Wisdom,
speaks in the
name
of Solomon, and talks about being appointed to
build
a temple in the holy mountain; whereas it has
been
proved by Jerome, that this book is falsely
ascribed
to Solomon.
In the book of Tobit, we have this
story: "And as
they
went on their journey they came to the river
man
went down to wash himself, a fish leaped out of
the
river, and would have devoured him. Then the
angel
said unto him, Take the fish. And the young
man
laid hold of the fish and drew it to land. To
whom
the angel said, Open the fish, and take the heart,
and
the liver, and the gall, and put them up safely.
So
the young man did as the angel commanded him,
and
when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it.
Then
the young man said unto the angel, Brother
Azarias,
to what use is the heart, and the liver, and the
68
INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE
APOCRYPHA.
gall
of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the
heart
and the liver, if a devil, or an evil spirit trouble
any,
we must make a smoke thereof before the man
or
the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed.
As
for the gall, it is good to anoint a man that hath
whiteness
in his eyes; and he shall be healed."* If this
story
does not savour of the fabulous, then it would be
difficult
to find anything that did.
In the book of Baruch, there are also
several
things
which do not appear to be true. Baruch is
said
to have read this book, in the fifth year after
the
destruction of
king,
and all the people dwelling in
upon
hearing it, collected money and sent it to Jeru-
alleged
to have read this book in
canonical
Scriptures, to have been carried captive into
Jer.
xliii. 6. Again, he is represented to have read in
the
ears of Jeconias the king, and of all the people; but
Jeconias
is known to have been shut up in prison, at
this
time, and it is nowise probable that Baruch would
have
access to him, if he even had been in
The
money that was sent from
the
priests to offer sacrifices to the Lord, but the tem-
ple
was in ruins, and there was no altar.‡
In the chapters added to the book of
Esther, we
read,
that "Mardocheus, in the second year of Ar-
taxerxes
the Great, was a great man, being a servitor
* Tobit
c. vi. † Baruch i. 1-6.
‡ Baruch i. 10. " And they said,
Behold we have sent you
money
to buy you burnt-offerings, and sin-offerings, and incense,
and
prepare ye manna, and offer upon the altar of the Lord our
God."
INTERNAL
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA 69
in
the king's court." And in the same, "That he was
also
one of the captives which Nabuchodonosor carried
from
between
these two periods, there intervened one hun-
dred
and fifty years; so that, if he was only fifteen
years
of age, when carried away, he must have been
a
servitor in the king's court, at the age of one hun-
dred
and seventy-five years!
Again, Mardocheus is represented as
being "a great
man
in the court, in the second year of Artaxerxes,"
before
he detected the conspiracy against the king's
life.
Now, Artaxerxes and Ahasuerus were the same,
or
they were not; if the former, this history clashes
with
the Scriptural account, for there it appears, that
Mordecai
was not, before this time, a courtier, or a
conspicuous
man; if the latter, then this addition is
manifestly
false, because it ascribes to Artaxerxes,
what
the Scriptures ascribe to another person.
Moreover, this apocryphal writing
places the con-
spiracy
against the king's life before the repudiation
of
Yashti and the marriage of Esther; but this is
repugnant
to the canonical Scriptures.
It is also asserted, in this book,
(see chap. xvi.) that
Mardocheus
received honours and rewards for the
detection
of the conspiracy; whereas, in the Canonical
book
of Esther, it is declared, that he received no re-
ward.
And a different reason is assigned, in the two
books,
for Haman's hatred of Mordecai. In the
canonical,
it is his neglect of showing respect to this
proud
courtier; in the apocryphal, it is the punish-
ment
of the two eunuchs, who had formed the con-
spiracy.
And finally, Haman, in this spurious
work, is called
70
INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA.
a
Macedonian; and it is said, that he meditated the
design
of transferring the Persian kingdom to the
Macedonians.
But this is utterly incredible. The
most
obscure, and probably wholly unknown, at the
Persian
court. But this is not all: he who is here
called
a Macedonian, is in the canonical book said to
be
an Agagite. The proof of the
apocryphal charac-
ter
of this addition to Esther, which has been adduced,
is
in all reason sufficient.
The advocates of these books are
greatly perplexed
to
find a place in the history of the Jewish nation, for
the
wonderful deliverance wrought by means of Judith.
It
seems strange that no allusion is made to this event
in
any of the acknowledged books of Scripture; and
more
unaccountable still, that Josephus, who was so
much
disposed to relate everything favourable to the
character
of his nation, should never make the least
mention
of it. Some refer this history to the period
preceding
the Babylonish captivity; while others are
of
opinion, that the events occurred in the time of
Cambyses,
king of
priest
here mentioned, does not occur with the names
of
the high priests contained in any of the genealogies.
From
the time of the building of the
to
its overthrow by the Assyrians, this name is not
found
in the list of high priests, as may be seen by
consulting
the vi. chapter of 1 Chronicles; nor, in the
catalogue
given by Josephus, in the tenth chapter
of
the tenth book of his Antiquities. That this history
cannot
be placed after the captivity, is manifest, from
this
circumstance, that the
INTERNAL
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 71
standing
when the transactions which are related in
this
book occurred.
Another thing in the book of Judith, which is very
suspicious,
is, that Holofernes is represented as saying,
"Tell
me now, ye sons of
is,
that dwelleth in the hill country, and what are the
cities
that they inhabit." But how can it be reconciled
with
known history, that a prince of
wholly
ignorant of the Jewish people?
It is impossible to reconcile what is
said, in the close
of
the book, with any sound principles of chronology.
Judith
is represented as young and beautiful, when
she
slew Holofernes; but here it is said, "That she
waxed
old in her husband's house, being an hundred
and
five" years old. And there was none that made
the
children of
Judith
nor a long time after her death." In whose
reign,
or at what period, we would ask, did the Jews
enjoy
this long season of uninterrupted tranquillity?
Some writers who are fully convinced
that the his-
tory
of Judith cannot be reconciled with authentic
history,
if taken literally, are of opinion, that it contains
a
beautiful allegory;—that Bethulia, (the
virgin,)
represents
the
Nebuchadnezzar
signifies the opposition of the world
and
its prince; that the victory obtained by a pious
woman,
is intended to teach, that the church's deli-
verance
is not effected by human might or power, but
by
the prayers and the piety of the saints, &c. This,
perhaps,
is the most favourable view which we can
take
of this history: but take it as you will, it is clear
that
the book is apocryphal, and has no right to a place
in
the sacred Canon.
72 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA.
Between the first and second books of
Maccabees,
there
is a palpable contradiction; for in the first book
it
is said, that "Judas died in the one hundred and
fifty-second
year:" but in the second, "that in the one
hundred
and eighty-eighth year, the people that were
in
and
health unto Aristobulus." Thus, Judas is made
to
join in sending a letter, six-and-thirty years after his
death!
The contradiction is manifest. In the same
first
chapter of the second book, there is a story inserted
which
has very much the air of a fable. "For when
our
fathers were led into
then
devout, took the fire of the altar privily and hid
it
in a hollow place of a pit without water, where they
kept
it sure, so that the place was unknown to all men.
Now
after many years, when it pleased God, Nehe-
mias,
being sent from the king of
the
posterity of those priests that had hid it, to the fire:
but
when they told us they found no fire, but thick
water,
then commanded he them to draw it up and
bring
it, and when the sacrifice was laid on, Nehemias
commanded
the priests to sprinkle the wood and things
laid
thereon, with the water. When this was done
and
the time came that the sun shone, which before
was
hid in the clouds, a great fire was kindled." 2
Mac.
ix. But the Jews were not carried to
to
tion,
whatever, in truth.
In the second chapter we have another
fabulous
story
of Jeremiah's taking the ark and altar, and altar
of
incense, to
hollow
cave, and closing them up. This place Jere-
miah
declared should be unknown, "until the time
INTERNAL
EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 73
that
God gathered his people again together, and re-
ceived
them into mercy; when the cloud as it ap-
peared
unto Moses, should appear again." 1 Mac.
viii.
16.
There is another contradiction between
these books
of
Maccabees, in relation to the death of Antiochus
Epiphanes.
In the first, it is said, that he died at
Elymais,
in
year;
but, in the second book, it is related, that after
entering
temple
and city, he was repulsed by the inhabitants;
and
while on his journey from this place, he was
seized
with a dreadful disease of the bowels, and died
in
the mountains. 1 Mac. vi.; 2 Mac. ix.
Moreover, the accounts given of
Nicanor, in the
seventh
chapter of the first book, and in the fourteenth
and
fifteenth chapters of the second book, are totally
inconsistent.
In the first book of Maccabees an
erroneous account
is
given of the civil government of the Romans, where
it
is said, "That they committed their government to
one
man every year, who ruled over all their country,
and
that all were obedient to that one." Whereas, it
is
well known, that no such form of government ever
existed
among the Romans.
Finally, it is manifest that these
books were not
inspired,
and therefore not canonical, because they
were
not written by prophets; but by men who speak
of
their labours in a way wholly incompatible with in-
spiration.
Jerome and Eusebius were of opinion,
that Josephus
was
the author of the books of the Maccabees; but it
has
never been supposed by any, that he was an in-
74 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN
spired
man; therefore, if this opinion be correct, these
books
are no more canonical, than the Antiquities, or
Wars
of the Jews, by the same author.
It has been the constant tradition of
Jews and
Christians,
that the spirit of prophecy ceased with
Malachi,
until the appearance of John the Baptist.
Malachi
has, on this account, been called by the Jews,
"the
seal of the prophets."
Josephus, in his book against APION,
after saying
that
it belonged to the prophets alone, to write inspired
books,
adds these words, "From the time of Artax-
erxes,
there were some among us, who wrote books
even
to our own times, but these are not of equal
authority
with the preceding, because the succession
of
prophets was not complete."
EUSEBIUS, in giving a catalogue of the
leaders of the
Jews,
denies that he can proceed any lower than
Zerubbabel,
"Because," says he, "after the return
from
captivity until the advent of our Saviour, there
is
no book which can be esteemed sacred."
AUGUSTINE gives a similar testimony.
"After Mala-
chi
the Jews had no prophet, during that whole period,
which
intervened between the return from captivity
and
the advent of our Saviour."
Neither does GENEBRARD dissent from
this opinion.
"From
Malachi to John the Baptist," says he, "no
prophets
existed."
DRUSIUS cites the following words,
from the Com-
piler
of the Jewish History, "The rest of the discourses
of
Simon and his wars, and the wars of his brother,
are
they not written in the book of Joseph, the son
of
Gorion, and in the book of the Asmoneans, and in
the
books of the Roman kings?" Here the books of
BY INSPIRED MEN. 75
the
Maccabees are placed between the writings of
Josephus
and the Roman history.
The book of Wisdom does indeed claim
to be the
work
of Solomon, an inspired man; but this claim
furnishes
the strongest ground for its condemnation.
It
is capable of the clearest proof from internal evi-
dence,
that this was the production of some person,
probably
a Hellenistic Jew, who lived long after the
Canon
of the Old Testament was completed. It con-
tains
manifest allusions to Grecian customs, and is
tinctured
with the Grecian philosophy. The manner
in
which the author praises himself is fulsome, and
has
no parallel in an inspired writer. This book has
been
ascribed to Philo Judaeus; and if this conjecture be
correct,
doubtless it has no just claim to be considered
a
canonical book. But whoever was the author, his
endeavouring
to pass his composition off for the writ-
ing
of Solomon, is sufficient to decide every question
respecting
his inspiration. If Solomon had written
this
book, it would have been found in the Jewish
Canon,
and in the Hebrew language. The writer is
also
guilty of shameful flattery to his own nation, which
is
entirely repugnant to the spirit of all the prophets.
He
has also, without any foundation, added many
things
to the sacred narration, contained in the canoni-
cal
history; and has mingled with it much which is of
the
nature of poetical embellishment. And, indeed,
the
whole style of the composition savours too much
of
artificial eloquence, to be attributed to the Spirit
of
God; the constant characteristic of whose produc-
tions
is, simplicity and sublimity.
Ecclesiasticus, which is superior to
all the other
apocryphal
books, was written by one Jesus the son
76 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN
of
Sirach. His grandfather, of the same name, it
seems,
had written a book, which he left to his son
Sirach;
and he delivered it to his son Jesus, who took
great
pains to reduce it into order; but he no where
assumes
the character of a prophet himself, nor does
he
claim it for the original author, his grandfather.
In
the prologue, he says. "My grandfather, Jesus,
when
he had much given himself to the reading of the
law
and the prophets, and other books of our fathers,
and
had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on
also
himself to write something pertaining to learning
and
wisdom, to the intent that those which are desir-
ous
to learn, and are addicted to these things, might
profit
much more, in living according to the law.
Wherefore
let me entreat you to read it with favour
and
attention, and to pardon us wherein we may seem
to
come short of some words which we have laboured
to
interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew,
and
translated into another tongue, have not the same
force
in them. For in the eight-and-thirtieth year,
coming
into
continuing
there for some time, I found a book of no
small
learning: therefore I thought it most necessary
for
me to bestow some diligence and travail to inter-
pret
it; using great watchfulness, and skill, in that
space,
to bring the book to an end," &c. Surely
there
is no need of further arguments to prove that
this
modest author did not claim to be inspired.
The author of the second book of the
Maccabees pro-
fesses
to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene,
con-
sisting
of five volumes, into one volume. Concerning
which
work, he says, "therefore to us that have
taken
upon us this painful labour of abridging, it was
BY INSPIRED MEN. 77
not
easy, but a matter of sweat and watching." Again,
"leaving
to the author the exact handling of every
particular,
and labouring to follow the rules of an
abridgment—to
stand upon every point, and go over
things
at large, and to be curious in particulars,
belongeth
to the first author of the story; but to use
brevity,
and avoid much labouring of the work, is to
be
granted to him that maketh an abridgment." Is
any
thing more needed to prove that this writer did
not
profess to be inspired? If there was any inspira-
tion
in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of
work
is long since lost, and we now possess only the
abridgment
which cost the writer so much labour and
pains.
Thus, I think it sufficiently appears, that the
authors
of these disputed books were not prophets;
and
that, as far as we can ascertain the circumstances
in
which they wrote, they did not lay claim to inspira-
tion,
but expressed themselves in such a way, as no
man
under the influence of inspiration ever did.
The Popish writers, to evade the force
of the argu-
ments
of their adversaries, pretend that there was a
two-fold
Canon; that some of the books of Scripture
are
proto-canonical; and others deutero-canonical. If,
by
this distinction, they only meant that the word
Canon was often used
by the Fathers, with great lati-
tude,
so as to include all books that were ever read in
the
churches, or that were contained in the volume of
the
Greek Bible, the distinction is correct, and signi-
fies
the same, as is often expressed, by calling some
books
sacred and canonical, and others, ecclesiastical.
But
these writers make it manifest that they mean
much
more than this. They wish to put their deute-
78 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN
ro-canonical books, on a
level with the old Jewish
Canon;
and this distinction is intended to teach, that
after
the first Canon was constituted, other books
were,
from time to time, added: but when these
books
thus
annexed to the Canon have been pronounced upon
by
the competent authority, they are to be received
as
of equal authority with the former. When this
second
Canon was constituted, is a matter concern-
ing
which they are not agreed; some pretend, that in
the
time of Shammai and Hillel, two famous rabbies,
who
lived before the advent of the Saviour, these
books
were added to the Canon. But why then are
they
not included in the Hebrew Canon? Why does
Josephus
never mention them? Why are they never
quoted
nor alluded to in the New Testament? And
why
did all the earlier Fathers omit to cite them,
or
expressly reject them? The difficulties of this
theory
being too prominent, the most of the advocates
of
the apocrypha, suppose, that these books, after hav-
ing
remained in doubt before, were received by the
supreme
authority of the church, in the fourth century.
They
allege, that these books were sanctioned by the
council
of Nice, and by the third council of
which
met A. D. 397. But the story of the method
pursued
by the council of Nice, to distinguish between.
canonical
and spurious books, is fabulous and ridiculous.
There
is nothing in the Canons of that council relative
to
these books; and certainly, they cited no authori-
ties
from them, in confirmation of the doctrines estab-
lished
by them. And as to the third council of
it
may be asked, what authority had this provincial
synod
to determine anything for the whole church,
respecting
the Canon? But there is no certainty that
BY INSPIRED MEN. 79
this
council did determine anything on the subject;
for
in the same Canon, there is mention made of Pope
Boniface,
as living at that time, whereas he did not
rise
to this dignity, until more than twenty years after-
wards;
in which time, three other popes occupied the
See
of
formed
by the third council of
some
copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the
seventh
council of
we
may be confident, that no council of the fourth cen-
tury
had any authority to add to the Canon of Scrip-
ture,
books which were not only not received before, but
explicitly
rejected as apocryphal, by most of the
Fathers.
Our opponents say, that these books were
uncertain
before, but now received confirmation. How
could
there be any uncertainty, in regard to these
books,
if the church was as infallible, in the first three
ages,
as in the fourth. These books were either
canonical
before the fourth century, or they were not:
if
the former, how came it to pass that they were not
recognized
by the apostles? How came they to be
overlooked
and rejected by the primitive Fathers?
But
if they were not canonical before, they must have
been
made canonical by the decree of some council.
That
is, the church can make that an inspired book,
which
was never given by inspiration. This absurdity
was
mentioned before, but it deserves to be repeated,
because,
however unreasonable it may be, it forms the
true,
and almost the only ground, on which the doc-
trine
of the Romish church, in regard to these apocry-
phal
books, rests. This is, indeed, a part of the
Pope's
supremacy, Some of their best writers, how-
ever,
deny this doctrine; and whatever others may
80 THE APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN
pretend,
it is most certain, that the Fathers, with one
consent,
believed that the Canon of sacred Scripture
was
complete in their time: they never dreamed of
books
not then canonical, becoming such, by any
authority
upon earth. Indeed, the idea of adding to
the
Canon, what, did not, from the beginning, belong
to
it, never seems to have entered the mind of any
person
in former times. If this doctrine were correct,
we
might still have additions made to the Canon, and
that
too, of books which have existed for hundreds of
years.
This question may be brought to a
speedy issue,
with
all unprejudiced judges. These books were
either
written by divine inspiration for the guidance
of
the church in matters of faith and practice, or they
were
not; if the former, they always had a right to a
place
in the Canon; if the latter, no act of a pope or
council
could render that divine, which was not so
before.
It would be to change the nature of a fact,
than
which nothing is more impossible.
It is alleged, with much confidence,
that the Greek
Bibles,
used by the Fathers, contained these books;
and,
therefore, whenever they give their testimony to
the
sacred Scriptures, these are included. This argu-
ment
proves too much, for the third book of Esdras
and
the Prayer, of Manasses were contained in these
volumes,
but these are rejected by the Romanists.
The
truth, however, is, that these books were not
originally
connected with the Septuagint; they were
probably
introduced into some of the later Greek ver-
sions,
which were made by heretics. These versions,
particularly
that of Theodotion, came to be used
pro-
miscuously
with that of the LXX; and to this day,
BY INSPIRED MEN. 81
the
common copies contain the version of the book of
Daniel
by Theodotion, instead of that by the LXX.
By some such means, these apocryphal
books crept
into
the Greek Bible; but the early Fathers were
careful
to distinguish them from the canonical Scrip-
tures,
as we have already seen. That they were
read
in the churches, is also true; but not as Scrip-
ture;
not for the confirmation of doctrine, but for
the
edification of the common people.
Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited
them as author-
ity,
but very seldom, and the reason which rendered
it
difficult for them to distinguish accurately between
ecclesiastical
and canonical books has already been
given.
These pious men were, generally unacquainted
with
Hebrew literature, and finding all these books in
Greek,
and frequently bound up in the same volume
with
the canonical Scriptures, and observing that they
contained
excellent rules for the direction of life and
the
regulation of morals, they sometimes referred to
them,
and cited passages from them, and permitted
them
to be read in the church, for the instruction and
edification
of the people.
But the more learned of the Fathers,
who examined
into
the authority of the sacred books with unceasing
diligence,
clearly marked the distinction between such
books
as were canonical, and such as were merely hu-
man
compositions. And some of them even disap-
proved
of the reading of these apocryphal books by
the
people; and some councils warned the churches
against
them. It was with this single view that so
many
catalogues of the canonical books were prepared
and
published.
Notwithstanding that we have taken so
much pains
82 THE
APOCRYPHA NOT WRITTEN
to
show that the books called apocrypha,
are not
canonical,
we wish to avoid the opposite extreme of
regarding
them as useless, or injurious. Some of these
books
are important for the historical information
which
they contain; and, especially, as the facts re-
corded
in them, are, in some instances, the fulfilment
of
remarkable prophecies.
Others of them are replete with
sacred, moral, and
prudential
maxims, very useful to aid in the regulation
of
life and manners; but even with these, are inter-
spersed
sentiments, which are not perfectly accordant
with
the word of God. In short, these books are of
very
different value, but in the best of them there is so
much
error and imperfection, as to convince us, that
they
are human productions, and should be used as
such:
not as an infallible rule, but as useful helps in
the
attainment of knowledge, and in the practice of
virtue.
Therefore, when we would exclude them from
a
place in the Bible, we would not proscribe them
as
unfit to be read; but we would have them published
in
a separate volume, and studied much more carefully
than
they commonly have been.
And while we would dissent from the
practice of
reading
lessons from these books, as
Scriptural lessons
are
read in the church, we would cordially recommend
the
frequent perusal, in private, of the first of Macca-
bees,
the Wisdom of Solomon, and above all Ecclesias-
ticus.
It is a dishonour to God, and a
disparagement of his
word,
to place other books, in any respect on a level
with
the divine oracles; but it is a privilege to be
permitted,
to have access to the writings of men, emi-
nent
for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a
BY INSPIRED MEN. 83
matter
of curious instruction to learn, what were the
opinions
of men, in ages long past, and in countries
far
remote.
The infallibility of the church of
Rome is clearly
proved
to be without foundation, by the decree of
the
Council
of
have
been successful in proving that these books are
not
canonical, the infallibility of both popes and coun-
cils
is overthrown; for if they erred in one instance,
it
proves that the doctrine is false. One great incon-
venience
of this doctrine is, that when that church
falls
into any error, she can never retract it; for
that
would be to acknowledge her fallibility.
Some allege that the church of Rome is
not now
what
she was in former years; but that she has laid aside
opinions
formerly entertained. But this allegation.
inconsistent
with her claim to infallibility. According
to
this, the church of Rome has never erred; what she
has
declared to be true at any time she must forever
maintain
to be true; or give up her pretensions to in-
fallibility. In regard to the Apocrypha, it is immate-
rial,
whether the infallibility be supposed to reside in
the
pope or in a council; or in the pope and council
united;
for the council of
oecumenical
council regularly constituted; and all
its
acts were sanctioned by the popes. Their error
in
pronouncing the apocrypha canonical, is decisive
to
the infallibility of the church.
84 NO CANONICAL BOOK IIAS BEEN LOST.
SECTION VI.
NO
CANONICAL BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT HAS BEEN
LOST.
ON
this subject there has existed some diversity of
opinion.
Chrysostom is cited by Bellarmine, as say-
ing,
"That many of the writings of the prophets had
perished,
which may readily be proved from the his-
tory
in Chronicles. For the Jews were negligent, and
not
only negligent but impious, so that some books
were
lost through carelessness, and others were burned,
or
otherwise destroyed."
In confirmation of this opinion, an
appeal is made
to
1 Kings iv. 32, 33, where it is said of Solomon,
"That
he spake three thousand proverbs, and his
songs
were a thousand and five. And he spake of
trees,
from the cedar in
hyssop,
that springeth out of the wall: he spake also
of
beasts, and of fowl, and of creeping things, and of
fishes."
All these productions, it is acknowledged,
have
perished.
Again it is said in 1 Chron. xxix. 29,
30. "Now
the
acts of David the king, first and last, behold they
are
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the
book
of Nathan the prophet, and in the book of Gad
the
seer; with all his reign, and his might, and the
times
that went over him, and over
NO
CANONICAL BOOK HAS BEEN LOST. 85
the
kingdoms of the countries." The book of Jasher,
also,
is twice mentioned in Scripture. In Joshua x.
13,
"And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
until
the people had avenged themselves on their
enemies.
Is not this written in the book of Jasher?"
And
in 2 Sam. i. 18, "And he bade them teach the
children
of
written
in the book of Jasher."
The book of the Wars of the Lord is
referred to, in
Num.
xxi. 14. But we have in the Canon no books
under
the name of Nathan and Gad: nor any book
of
Jasher; nor of the Wars of the Lord.
Moreover, we frequently are referred,
in the sacred
history,
to other chronicles or annals, for a fuller ac-
count
of the matters spoken of, which Chronicles are
not
now extant.
And in 2 Chron. ix. 29, it is said,
"Now the rest of
the
acts of Solomon, first and last, are they not writ-
ten
in the book of Nathan the prophet, and in the
prophecy
of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions
of
Iddo the seer, against Jeroboam the son of Nebat?"
Now
it is well known, that none of these writings of
the
prophets are in the Canon; at least, none of them
under
their names.
It is said also in 2 Chron. xii. 15,
"Now the acts
of
Rehoboam, first and last, are they not written in
the
book of Shemaiah the prophet, and of Iddo the
seer,
concerning genealogies?" Of which works no-
thing
remains, under the names of these prophets.
1. The first observation which I would
make on
this
subject, is, that every book referred to, or quoted
in
the sacred writings, is not necessarily an inspired,
or
canonical book. Because Paul cites passages from
86 NO CANONICAL BOOK
the
Greek poets, it does not follow that we must re-
ceive
their poems as inspired.
2. A book may be written by an
inspired man, and
yet
be neither inspired nor canonical. Inspiration
was
not constantly afforded to the prophets, but was
occasional,
and for particular important purposes. In
common
matters, and especially in things noways
connected
with religion, it is reasonable to suppose,
that
the prophets and apostles were left to the same
guidance
of reason and common sense, as other men.
A
man, therefore, inspired to deliver some prophecy,
or
even to write a canonical book, might write other
books,
with no greater assistance than other good men
receive.
Because Solomon was inspired to write some
canonical
books, it does not follow, that what he wrote
on
natural history, was also inspired. The Scrip-
tures,
however, do not say, that his three thousand
proverbs,
and his discourses on natural history, were
ever
committed to writing. It only says, that he
spake
these
things. But supposing that all these discourses
were
committed to writing, which is not improbable,
there
is not the least reason for believing that they
were
inspired, any more than Solomon's private letters
to
his friends, if he ever wrote any. Let it be remem-
bered,
that the prophets and apostles were only inspired
on
special occasions, and on particular subjects, and all
difficulties
respecting such works as these will vanish.
How
many of the books referred to in the Bible, and
mentioned
above, may have been of this description, it
is
now impossible to tell; but probably several of them
belong
to this class. No doubt there were many books
of
annals, much more minute and particular in the
narration
of facts, than those which we have. It was
HAS BEEN LOST. 87
often
enough to refer to these state papers,
or public
documents,
as being sufficiently correct, in regard to
the
facts on account of which the reference was made.
There
is nothing derogatory to the word of God, in
the
supposition that the books of Kings and Chronicles,
which
we have in the Canon, were compiled by the
inspired
prophets from these public records. All that
is
necessary for us, is, that the facts are truly related;
and
this could be as infallibly secured on this hypo-
thesis,
as on any other.
The book of the Wars of the Lord,
might for aught
that
appears, have been merely a muster roll of the
army.
The word translated book has so extensive a
meaning
in Hebrew, that it is not even necessary to
suppose,
that it was a writing at all. The book of
Jasher, (or of rectitude, if we translate the word,)
might
have been some useful compend taken from
Scripture,
or composed by the wise, for the regulation
of
justice and equity, between man and man.
AUGUSTINE, in his City of
accurately
on this subject. "I think," says he, "that
those
books which should have authority in religion
were
revealed by the Holy Spirit, and that men com-
posed
others by historical diligence, as the prophets did
these
by inspiration. And these two classes of books
are
so distinct, that it is only of those written by in-
spiration,
that we are to suppose God, through them,
to
be speaking unto us. The one class is useful for
fulness
of knowledge; the other for authority in
in
which authority the Canon is preserved."
3. But again, it may be maintained,
without any
prejudice
to the completeness of the Canon, that there
may
have been inspired, writings which were not in-
88 NO CANONICAL BOOK
tended
for the instruction of the church in all ages,
but
composed by the prophets for some special occasion.
These
writings, though inspired, were not canonical.
They
were temporary in their design, and when that
was
accomplished, they were no longer needed. We
know
that the prophets delivered, by inspiration, many
discourses
to the people, of which we have not a trace
on
record. Many true prophets are mentioned, who
wrote
nothing that We know of; and several are men-
tioned,
whose names are not even given. The same
is
true of the apostles. Very few of them had any
concern
in writing the canonical Scriptures, and yet
they
all possessed plenary inspiration. And if they
wrote
letters, on special occasions, to the churches
planted
by them; yet these were not designed for the
perpetual
instruction of the universal church. There-
fore
Shemaiah, and Iddo, and Nathan, and Gad,
might
have written some things by inspiration, which
were
never intended to form a part of the Sacred
Volume.
It is not asserted, that there certainly existed
such
temporary inspired writings: all that is necessary
to
be maintained, is, that supposing such to have ex-
isted,
which is not improbable, it does not follow
that
the Canon is incomplete, by reason of their loss.
As
this opinion may be startling to some, who have
not
thoroughly considered it, I will call in to its sup-
port
the opinions of some distinguished theologians.
"It has been observed," says
Francis Junius, "that
it
is one thing to call a book sacred, another to say
that
it is canonical; for every book was sacred which
was
edited by a prophet, or apostle; but it does not
follow
that every such sacred book is canonical, and
HAS BEEN LOST. 89
was
designed for the whole body of the church.
For
example,
it is credible that Isaiah the prophet wrote
many
things, as a prophet, which were truly inspired,
but
those writings only were canonical, which God
consecrated
to the treasure of the church, and which
by
special direction were added to the public Canon.
Thus
Paul and the other apostles may have written
many
things, by divine inspiration, which are not now
extant;
but those only are canonical, which were
placed
in the Sacred Volume, for the use of the uni-
versal
church: which Canon received the approbation
of
the apostles, especially of John, who so long pre-
sided
over the churches in
The evangelical WITSIUS, of an age
somewhat
later,
delivers his opinion on this point, in the follow-
ing
manner: "No one, I think, can
doubt, but that all
the
apostles in the diligent exercise of their office, wrote
frequent
letters to the churches under their care, when
they
could not be present with them; and to whom
they
might often wish to communicate some instruc-
tion
necessary for them in the circumstances in
which
they were placed. It would seem to me to
be
injurious to the reputation of those faithful and
assiduous
men, to suppose, that not one of them ever
wrote
any epistle, or addressed to a church, any
writing,
except those few, whose epistles are in the
Canon.
Now, as Peter, and Paul, and James, and
John,
were induced to write to the churches, on ac-
count
of the need in which they stood of instruction,
why
would not the same necessity induce the other
apostles
to write to the churches under their care?
Nor
is there any reason why we should complain of
*
Explic. in Numb. xxi.
90 NO CANONICAL BOOK
the
great loss which we have sustained, because these
precious
documents have perished; it is rather matter
of
gratitude, that so many have been preserved by the
provident
benevolence of God towards us, and so
abundantly
sufficient to instruct us, in the things per-
taining
to salvation."*
Although I have cited this passage
from this excel-
lent
and orthodox theologian, in favour of the senti-
ment
advanced; yet I do not feel at liberty to go the
whole
length of his opinion, here expressed. There is
no
reason to think, that any of the other apostles com-
posed
such works, as those which constitute the Canon
of
the New Testament. If they had, some of them
would
have been preserved, or at least, some memo-
rial
of such writings would have been handed down,
in
those churches to which they were addressed.
These
churches received and preserved the canonical
books
of those whose writings we have, and why should
they
neglect, or suffer to sink into oblivion, similar
writings
of apostles, from whom they first received
the
gospel?
Indeed, after all, this argument is
merely hypotheti-
cal,
and would be sufficient to answer the objections
which
might be made, if it could be proved, that some
inspired
writings had perished; but, in fact, there is
no
proof that any such ever existed. It is, therefore,
highly
probable, that we are in actual possession of all
the
books penned under the plenary inspiration of the
Holy
Spirit.
The last remark which I shall make in
relation to
the
books of the Old Testament supposed to be lost,
is,
that it is highly probable that we have several of
* Meletem. De Vita Pauli.
HAS BEEN LOST. 91
them
now in the Canon, under another name. The
books
of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, were,
probably,
not written by one, but by a succession of
prophets.
There is reason to believe, that until
the Canon of
the
Old Testament was closed, the succession of pro-
phets
was never interrupted. Whatever was
necessary
to
be added, by way of explanation, to any book
already
received into the Canon, they were competent
to
annex; or, whatever annals or histories, it was the
purpose
of God to have transmitted to posterity, they
would
be directed and inspired to prepare. Thus,
different
parts of these books might have been penned
by
Gad, Nathan, Iddo, Shemaiah.
That some parts of these histories
were prepared by
prophets,
we have clear proof, in one instance; for,
Isaiah
has inserted in his prophecy several chapters,
which
are contained in 2 Kings, and which, I think,
there
can be no doubt, were originally written by
himself.
See 2 Kings xviii. xix. xx., compared with
Isaiah
xxxvi. xxxvii. xxxviii.
The Jewish doctors are of opinion,
that the book of
Jasher,
is one of the books of the Pentateuch, or the
whole
law.
The book of the Wars of the Lord has
by many
been
supposed to be no other than the book of
Numbers.
Thus, I think, it sufficiently
appears, from an ex-
amination
of particulars, that there exists no evidence,
that
any canonical book of the Old Testament has
been
lost. To which we may add, that there are
many
general considerations of great weight, which go
92 NO CANONCAL BOOK
to
prove, that no part of the Scriptures of the Old
Testament
has been lost.
The first is, that God by his
providence would pre-
serve
from destruction books given by inspiration, and
intended
for the perpetual instruction of his church.
It
is reasonable to think, that he would not suffer his
gracious
purpose to be frustrated; and this argument,
a priori, is greatly
strengthened by the fact, that a
remarkable
providential care has been exercised in the
preservation
of the Sacred Scriptures. It is truly
wonderful,
that so many books should have been pre-
served
unmutilated, through hundreds and thousands
of
years; and during vicissitudes so great; and espe-
cially
when powerful tyrants were so desirous of anni-
hilating
the religion of the Jews, and used their utmost
exertions
to destroy their sacred books.
Another consideration of great weight
is, the reli-
gious,
and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews,
as
far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scrip-
tures,
have watched over their preservation. There
can,
I think, be little doubt, that they exercised the
same
vigilance during that period of their history of
which
we have no monuments.
The translation of these books into
Greek, is suffi-
cient
to show, that the same books existed nearly three
hundred
years before the advent of Christ.
And
above all, the unqualified testimony to the
Scriptures
of the Old Testament, by Christ and his
apostles,
ought to satisfy us, that we have lost none
of
the inspired books of the Canon.
The Scriptures are constantly referred
to, and quoted
as
infallible authority, by them, as we have before
HAS BEEN LOST. 93
shown.
These oracles were committed to the Jews as
a
sacred deposit, and they are never charged with un-
faithfulness
in this trust. The Scriptures are de-
clared
to have been written for our learning;
and no
intimation
is given that they had ever been mutilated,
or
in any degree corrupted.
94 ORAL LAW OF TIIE JEWS
SECTION VII.
THE
ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS WITHOUT FOUNDATION.
HOWEVER
the Jews may seem to agree with us, in
regard
to the Canon of the Old Testament, this con-
cord
relates only to the written law; for they obsti-
nately
persist in maintaining, that besides the law
which
was engraven on tables of stone, and the other
precepts,
and ordinances, which were communicated
to
Moses, and were ordered to be written, God gave
unto
him another Law, explanatory of the
first, which
he
was commanded not to commit to writing, but to
deliver
down by oral tradition.
The account which the Jewish doctors
give of the
first
communication and subsequent delivery of this
law,
is found in the Talmud. It is there stated, that
during
the whole day, while Moses continued on the
mount,
he was learning the written law, but at night
he
was occupied in receiving the oral law.
When Moses descended from the mount,
they say,
that
he first called Aaron into his tent, and communi-
cated
to him all that he had learned of this oral law;
then
he placed him on his right hand. Next he called
in
Eliezer and Ithamar, the sons of
peated
the whole to them; on which they also took
their
seats, the one on his right hand, the other on his
left.
After this the seventy elders entered, and re-
ceived
the same instruction as Aaron and his sons.
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 95
And
finally, the same communication was made to the
whole
multitude of people. Then Moses arose and
departed,
and Aaron, who had now heard the whole
four
times, repeated what he had learned, and also
withdrew.
In the same manner, Eliezer and Ithamar,
each
in turn, went over the same ground, and departed.
And
finally, the seventy elders repeated the whole to
the
people; every one of whom delivered what he had
heard
to his neighbour. Thus, according to MAIMO-
NIDES,
was the oral law first given.
The Jewish account of its transmission
to posterity
is
no less particular. They pretend that Moses,
when
forty years had elapsed from the time of the
Israelites
leaving
telling
them that his end drew near, requested that if
any
of them had forgotten aught of what he had de-
livered
to them, they should repair to him, and he
would
repeat to them anew what they might have for-
gotten.
And they tell us, that from the first day of
the
eleventh month, to the sixth day of the twelfth, he
was
occupied in nothing else than repeating and ex-
plaining
the law to the people.
But, in a special manner, he committed
this law to
Joshua,
by whom it was communicated, shortly before
his
death, to Phineas, the son of Eliezer; by Phineas,
to
Eli; by Eli, to Samuel; by Samuel, to David and
Ahijah;
by Ahijah, to Elijah; by Elijah, to Elisha;
by
Elisha, to Jehoiada; by Jehoiada, to Zechariah; by
Zechariah
to Hosea; by Hosea, to Amos; by Amos,
to
Isaiah; by Isaiah, to Micah; by Micah, to Joel;
by
Joel, to Nahum; by Nahum, to Habakkuk; by
Habakkuk,
to Zephaniah; by Zephaniah, to Jeremiah;
by
Jeremiah, to Baruch; by Baruch, to Ezra, the pre-
96 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
sident
of the great synagogue. By Ezra, this law was
delivered
to the high priest Jaddua; by Jaddua, to
Antigonus;
by Antigonus, to Joseph son of John, and
Joseph
son of Jehezer; by these to Aristobulus, and
Joshua
the son of Perechiah; by them to
of
Tiboeus, and Simeon son of Satah. Thence to
Shemaiah—to
Hillel—to Simeon his son, supposed
to
have been the same who took our Saviour in his
arms,
in the temple, when brought thither to be pre-
sented
by his parents. From Simeon, it passed to
Gamaliel,
the preceptor, as it is supposed, of Paul.
Then
to Simeon his son; and finally, to the son of
mitted
to writing.
But, although, the above list brings
down an un-
broken
succession, from Moses to
yet
to render the tradition still more certain, the
Jewish
doctors inform us, that this oral law was also
committed,
in a special manner, to the high priests,
and
handed down, through their line, until it was com-
mitted
to writing.
Judah Hakkadosh was the president of
the Academy
at
Tiberias, and was held in great reputation for his
sanctity,
from which circumstance he received his
surname,
Hakkadosh the Holy. The temple being
now
desolate, and the nation scattered abroad, it was
feared
lest the traditionary law might be lost; there-
fore
it was resolved to preserve it by committing it to
writing.
of
the second century, undertook this work, and di-
gested
all the traditions he could collect in six books,
each
consisting of several tracts. The whole number
is
sixty-three. But these tracts are again subdivided
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 97
into
numerous chapters. This is the famous Mishna
of
the Jews. When finished, it was received by the
nation
with the highest respect and confidence; and
their
doctors began, forthwith, to compose commen-
taries
on every part of it, These comments are called
the
Gemara, or the Completion; and the Mishna
and
Gemara, together, form the Talmud.
But as this
work
of commenting on the text of the Mishna was
pursued,
not only in Judea, but in
large
number of Jews resided, hence it came to pass,
that
two Talmuds were formed; the one called the
mud. In both these,
the Mishna, committed to writing
by
different.
The former was completed before the close
of
the third century of the Christian era; the latter
was
not completed until towards the close of the fifth
century.
The Babylonish Talmud is much the larger
of
the two; for while that of
printed
in one folio volume, this fills twelve folios.
This
last is also held in much higher esteem by the
Jews
than the other; and, indeed, it comprehends all
the
learning and religion of that people, since they
have
been cast off for their unbelief and rejection of
the
true Messiah.
MAIMONIDES has given an excellent
digest of all
the
laws and institutions enjoined in this great work.
The Jews place fully as much faith in
the Talmud
as
they do in the Bible. Indeed, it is held in much
greater
esteem, and the reading of it is much more
encouraged.
It is a saying of one of their most
esteemed
Rabbies, "That the oral law is the founda-
tion
of the written; nor can the written law be ex-
98 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
pounded,
but by the oral." Agreeably to this, in their
confession,
called the Golden Altar, it is said,
"It is
impossible
for us to stand upon the foundation of our
holy
law, which is the written law, unless it be by the
oral
law, which is the exposition thereof." In the
Talmud
it is written, "That to give attention to the
study
of the Bible is some virtue; but he who pays
attention
to the study of the Mishna, possesses a
virtue
which shall receive a reward; and he who occu-
pies
himself in reading the Gemara, has a virtue, than
which
there is none more excellent." Nay, they go
to
the impious length of saying, "That he who is
employed
in the study of the Bible and nothing else,
does
but waste his time." They maintain, that if the
declarations
of this oral law be ever so inconsistent
with
reason and common sense, they must be received
with
implicit faith—"You must not depart from them,"
says
Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, "if they should assert that
your
right hand is your left, or your left your right."
And
in the Talmud it is taught, "That, to sin against
the
words of the scribes, is far more grievous than to
sin
against the words of the Law." "My son, attend
rather
to the words of the scribes, than to the words
of
the Law." "The text of the Bible is like water,
but
the Mishna is like wine;" with many other similar
comparisons.
Without the oral law, they assert,
that the written
law
remains in perfect darkness; for, say they, "There
are
many things in Scripture, which are contradictory,
and
which can in no way be reconciled, but by the
oral
law, which Moses received on
conformity
with these sentiments, is the conduct of the
Jews
until this day. Their learned men spend almost
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 99
all
their time in poring over the Talmud; and he,
among
them, who knows most of the contents of this
monstrous
farrago of lies and nonsense, is esteemed the
most
learned man. In consequence of their implicit
faith
in this oral law, it becomes almost useless to
reason
with the Jews out of the Scriptures of the Old
Testament.
It is a matter of real importance, there-
fore,
to show that this whole fabric rests on a sandy
foundation;
and to demonstrate that there is no evi-
dence
whatever that any such law was ever given to
Moses
on Sinai. To this subject, therefore, I would
now
solicit the attention of the reader.
Here, then, let it be observed, that
we have no con-
troversy
with the Jews concerning the written law,
Moral,
Ceremonial, or Political; nor do we deny that
Moses
received from God, on
explication
of the written law. But what we main-
tain
is, that this exposition did not form a second dis-
tinct
law; that it was not the same as the oral law of
the
Jews, contained in the Talmud; that it was not
received
by Moses in a distinct form from the written
law,
and attended with a prohibition to commit it to
writing.
In support of these positions, we
solicit the attention
of
the impartial reader to the following arguments:
1. There is not the slightest mention
of any such
law
in all the sacred records; neither of its original
communication
to Moses, nor of its transmission to
posterity,
in the way pretended by the Jews. Now,
we
ask, is it probable, that if such a law had been
given,
there should never have been any hint of the
matter,
nor the least reference to it, in the whole
Bible?
Certainly, this total silence of Scripture is
100 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
very
little favourable to the doctrine of an oral law.
Maimonides
does indeed pretend to find a reference
to
it in Exodus xxiv. 12. "I will give
you, saith the
Lord,
a law and commandment;" by the first of these
he
understands the written law, and by the last the
oral.
But if he had only attended to the words next
ensuing,
he would never have adduced this text in con-
firmation
of an oral law; "which I have written that
thou
mayst teach them." And we know that it is
very
common to express the written law by both these
terms,
as well as by several others of the same import.
Now,
if no record exists of such a law having been
given
to Moses, how can we, at this late period, be
satisfied
of the fact? If it was never heard of for
more
than two thousand years afterwards, what evi-
dence
is there that it ever existed?
2. Again, we know that in the time of
king Josiah,
the
written law, which had been lost, was found again.
How
great was the consternation of the pious king
and
his court, on this occasion! How memorable the
history
of this fact! But what became of the oral
law
during this period? Is it reasonable to think, that
this
would remain uninjured through successive ages
of
idolatry, when the written law was so entirely for-
gotten?
If they had lost the knowledge of what was
in
their written law, would they be likely to retain
that
which was oral? If the written law was lost,
would
the traditionary law be preserved? And if this
was
at any time lost, how could it be recovered? Not
from
the written law, for this does not contain it; not
from
the memory of man, for the supposition is, that
it
was thence obliterated. If, then, this law, by any
chance,
was once lost, it is manifest that it could never
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 101
be
recovered, but by divine revelation. And when we
survey
the history of the Jews, is it conceivable, that
such
a body of law, as that contained in the Talmud,
immensely
larger than the written law, could have
been
preserved entire, through so many generations,
merely
by oral communication? The Jews, indeed,
amuse
us with a fable on this subject. They tell us
that
while the Israelites mourned on account of the
death
of Moses, they forgot three thousand of these
traditions,
which were recovered by the ingenuity of
Othniel
the son of Kenaz. This is ridiculous enough.
What
a heap of traditions must that have been, from
which
three thousand could be lost at once! And how
profound
the genius of Othniel, which was able to
bring
to light such a multitude of precepts, after they
had
been completely forgotten! But the proof of this
fact
is more ludicrous still. It is derived from Joshua
xv.
16, 17. "And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-
Sepher,
and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah my
daughter
to wife. And Othniel the son of Kenaz, the
brother
of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah
his
daughter to wife." The unlearned reader should
he
informed that Kirjath-Sepher, means the city, of
the
book.
But who retained the oral law safely
preserved in
his
memory during the long reign of Manasseh, and
during
the reign of Amon, and of Josiah? Where
was
that law, during the seventy years captivity in
fate
of this law in all the histories of those times?
What!
is there not a hint concerning the preservation
of
a deposit so precious as this law is pretended to be?
We
must say again, that this continued silence of
102 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
Scripture,
through a period of so many hundred years,
speaks
little in favour of the unwritten law.
3. The Jews again inform us, that this
law was
prohibited
to be written; but whence do they derive
the
proof of the assertion? Let the evidence, if there
be
any, be produced. Must we have recourse to the
oral
law itself, for testimony? Be it so. But why
then
is it now written, and has been, for more than
fifteen
hundred years? In the Talmud, it is said,
"The
words of the written law, it is not lawful for you
to
commit to oral tradition; nor the words of the oral
law
to writing." And SOL. JARCHI says,
"Neither is
it
lawful to write the oral law." Now we say, there
was
a law containing such a prohibition, or there was
not.
If the former, then the Talmudists have trans-
gressed
a positive precept of this law, in committing
it
to writing; if the latter, then their Talmud and
their
rabbies speak falsely. Let them choose in this
dilemma.
4. But it can be proved, that whatever
laws Moses
received
from God, the same he was commanded to
write. It is said,
"And Moses came and told the
people
all the words of the Lord. And Moses wrote
all
the words of the Lord." Exod. xxiv. 3, 4.
And again, it is said, "And the
Lord said to Moses,
Write
these words, for according to these words have I
made
a covenant with you and with
xxxiv.
27, 28. And it is worthy of particular obser-
vation,
that whenever the people are called upon to
obey
the law of the Lord, no mention is made of any
other
than the written law. Thus Moses, when his
end
approached, made a speech unto the people; after
which,
it is added, "And Moses wrote this law, and
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 103
delivered
it unto the priests the sons of Levi, which
bare
the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and unto all
the
elders of
saying,
At the end of every seven years, in the
solemnity
of the year of release, in the feast of taber-
nacles,
when all
Lord
thy God, in the place which he shall choose,
thou
shalt read it before all
Deut.
xxxi. 9, 24.
Here, observe, there is no mention of
any other but
the
written law. There is no direction to repeat the
oral
law, at this time of leisure; but surely it was
more
necessary to command the people to do this, if
there
had been such a law, than to hear the written
law
which they might read from time to time.
In
the time of Ahaz, the sacred historian informs
us,
"That the Lord testified against
against
seers,
saying, Turn ye from your evil ways, and keep
my
commandments and statutes, according to all the
law
which I commanded your fathers, and which I
sent
unto you by my servants the prophets." 2 Kings
xvii.
13, 37.
Now, it is very manifest that the law
which they
are
reproved for breaking, was the written law; for in
the
same chapter we have the following exhortation:
"And
the statutes, and the ordinances, and the law,
and
the commandments which he wrote for you, ye
shall
observe to do for evermore."
The prophets continually refer the
people "to the
law
and to the testimony," and declare, "if they
speak
not according to this word, it is because there
is
no light in them."
104 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
When
Jehoshaphat set about reforming and instruct-
ing
the people, and set on foot an important mission,
consisting
of princes and Levites, to teach them, they
confined
themselves to what was written in the Scrip-
tures,
"And they taught in
of
the law of the Lord with them, and went about
through
all the cities of
ple."
2 Chron. xvii. 9.
So also Ezra, when he instructed the
people who
had
returned from
the
written law; "And Ezra the priest brought the
law
before the congregation, both of men and women,
and
all that could hear with understanding. And he
read
therein before the street, that was before the
water-gate,
from the morning until mid-day, before
the
men and the women, and those that could under-
stand:
and the ears of all the people were attentive
unto
the book of the law. And Ezra stood upon a
pulpit
of wood, which they had made for the purpose;
and
Ezra opened the book in sight of all the people,
and
when he opened it, all the people stood up. And
the
priests and the Levites caused the people to un-
derstand
the law; and they read in the book, in the
law
of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused
the
people to understand the reading." Neh. viii.
2-5,
7, 8.
5. Besides, the written law is
pronounced to be per-
fect,
so that nothing need, or could be added to it;
therefore
the oral law was superfluous. "The law of
the
Lord is perfect, converting the soul." Psa. xix. 8.
"Ye
shall not add unto the word which I command
you,
neither shall ye diminish aught from it, that ye
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 105
may
keep the commandments of the Lord your God,
which
I command you." Deut. iv. 1, 2.
It is not a valid objection which they
bring against
this
argument, that Christians add the gospel to the
law;
for this is not, properly speaking, a new law.
The
gospel is a promise of grace and salvation. The
precepts
of the law are, indeed, specially employed in
the
gospel, to a purpose for which they were not origi-
nally
intended; but the gospel, in whatever light it
may
be viewed, is committed to writing, and no part
of
it left to depend on oral tradition.
6. In the numerous exhortations and
injunctions of
Almighty
God, recorded in the Old Testament, there
is
not an instance of any one being commanded to do
anything
not contained in the written law, which
proves,
that either there was no other law in existence,
or
that obedience to it was not required; and if obe-
dience
was not required, then, certainly, there was no
law.*
Moreover, many of the Jews themselves
concur with
us
in rejecting the oral law. The chief advocates of
traditions
were the Pharisees, who arose out of the
schools
of Hillel and Shammai, who lived after the
times
of the Maccabees. On this subject, we have the
testimony
of Jerome, who says, "Shammai and Hillel,
from
whom arose the Scribes and Pharisees, not long
before
the birth of Christ; the first of whom was
called
the Dissipator, and the last, Profane; because,
* It would be tedious to refer to
all the texts in which com-
mands
and exhortations are given, but the reader may consult
the
following:—Deut. x. 12, 13; xi. 32; xxviii. 1; xxx. 20. xi;
xxix.
9, 20; xxxii. 45, 46. Josh. i. 7; xxiii. 6. 2 Kings xiv. 6.
2
Chron. xxv. 4; xxx. 16.
106 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS
by
their traditions, they destroyed the law of God."
Isai.
viii. But on this point, the Sadducees were
opposed
to the Pharisees, and, according to Josephus,
rejected
all traditions, adhering to the Scriptures
alone.
With them agreed the Samaritans, and Es-
senes.
The Karaites, also, received the written word,
and
rejected all traditions; although in other respects,
they
did not agree with the Sadducees. And in con-
sequence
of this, they are hated and reviled by the
other
Jews, so that it is not without great difficulty
that
they will receive a Karaite into one of their
synagogues.
Of this sect, there are still some re-
maining
in
It now remains to mention the
arguments by which
the
Jews attempt to establish their oral law. These
shall
be taken from MANASSEH BEN ISRAEL,* one of
their
most learned and liberal men. He argues from
the
necessity of an oral law, to explain many parts of
the
written law. To confirm this opinion, he adduces
several
examples, as Exodus xii. 2. "This month
shall
be unto you the beginning of months, it shall be
the
first month of the year." On this text he remarks,
"That
the name of the month is not mentioned. It
is
not said, whether the months were lunar or solar,
both
of which were in ancient use; and yet without
knowing
this, the precept could not be observed. The
same
difficulty occurs in regard to the other annual
feasts."
"Another example is taken from
Lev. xi. 13, where
it
is commanded, that unclean birds shall not be eaten,
and
yet we are not furnished with any criteria,
by
* Concil. in. Exod.
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 107
which
to distinguish the clean from the unclean, as in
the
case of beasts. A third example is from Exod.
xvi.
29, ‘Let no man go out of his place on the
seventh
day,’ and yet we are not informed, whether
he
was forbidden to leave his house, his court, his city,
or
his suburbs. So, in Lev. xxi. 12, the priest is for-
bidden
‘to go out of the Sanctuary,’ and no time is
limited;
but we know that the residence of the priests
was
without the precincts of the temple, and that they
served
there in rotation."
"Again, in Exod. xx. 10, all work
is prohibited on
the
Sabbath, but circumcision is commanded to be per-
formed
on the eighth day; and it is nowhere declared,
whether
this rite should be deferred, when the eighth
day
occurred on the Sabbath. The same difficulty
exists
in regard to the slaying of the paschal lamb,
which
was confined by the law to the fourteenth day
of
the month, and we are nowhere informed what was
to
be done when this was the Sabbath." "In Deut.
xxiv.
we have many laws relating to marriage, but we
are
nowhere informed what was constituted a legal
marriage."
"In the Feast of the Tabernacles, beau-
tiful
branches of trees are directed to be used, but the
species
of tree is not mentioned. And in the Feast
of
Weeks, it is commanded, ‘That on the fiftieth day,
the
wave-sheaf should be offered from their habita-
tions;’
but where it should be offered is not said.
and,
finally, among prohibited marriages, the wife of
an
uncle is never mentioned."
In these, and many other instances, the
learned Jew
observes,
that the law could only be understood by
such
oral tradition as he supposes accompanied the
written
law.
108 ORAL LAW OP THE JEWS
Now, in answer to these things, we
observe first, in
the
general, that however many difficulties may be
started
respecting the precise meaning of many parts
of
the law, these can never prove the existence of an
oral
law. The decision on these points might have
been
left to the discretion of the worshippers, or to the
common
sense of the people. Besides, many things
may
appear obscure to us, which were not so to the
ancient
Israelites; so that they might have needed no
oral
law to explain them.
Again, it is one thing to expound a
law, and another
to
add something to it; but the oral law for which
they
plead, is not a mere exposition, but an addi-
tional
law.
It is one thing to avail ourselves of
traditions to
interpret
the law, and another to receive them as
divine
and absolutely necessary. We do not deny
that
many things may be performed according to
ancient
custom, or the traditions of preceding ages, in
things
indifferent; but we do deny that these can be
considered
as divine or necessary.
But particularly, we answer, that the
alleged diffi-
culty
about the name of the month has no existence,
for
it can be very well ascertained from the circum-
stances
of the case; and in Exod. xiii. the month is
named.
The civil year of the Jews began with the
month
Tisri, but the ecclesiastical with Abib. There
is,
in fact, no greater difficulty here, than in any other
case,
where the circumstance of time is mentioned.
There
was no need of understanding the method of
reducing
solar and lunar years into one another, to
decide
this matter. And if the Talmud be examined
on
this point, where the oral law is supposed to be now
WITHOUT FOUNDATION. 109
contained,
there will be found there no satisfactory
method
of computing time. And, indeed, the Talmudic
doctors
are so far from being agreed on this subject,
that
anything else may be found sooner than a law
regulating
this matter in the Talmud.
And in regard to the unclean birds,
why was it
necessary
to have criteria to distinguish them, since a
catalogue
of them is given in the very passage to
which
reference is made? And I would ask, does the
pretended
oral law contain any such criteria, to direct
in
this case? Nothing less. The difficulty about the
people
leaving their place on the Sabbath, and the
priests
leaving the temple, is really too trifling to
require
any serious consideration. And as to what
should
be done when the day of circumcising a child,
or
of killing the passover, happened on the Sabbath,
it
is a point easily decided. These positive institutions
ought
to have been observed, on whatever day they
occurred.
The question respecting matrimony
should rather
provoke
a smile, than a serious answer; for who is
ignorant
what constitutes a lawful marriage? Or who
would
suppose that the ceremonies attendant on this
transaction
ought to be prescribed by the law of God;
or,
that another law was requisite for the purpose?
As
well might our learned Jew insist on the necessity
of
an oral law, to teach us how we should eat, drink,
and
perform our daily work.
If the law prescribed beautiful
branches of trees to
be
used in the Feast of Tabernacles, what need was
there
of an oral law to teach anything more? If such
branches
were used, it was of course indifferent
whether
they were of this or that species.
110 ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS, &C.
Equally futile are the other arguments
of the author,
and
need not be answered in detail.
It appears, therefore, that there is
no evidence that
God
ever gave any law to Moses, distinct from that
which
is written in the Pentateuch. And there is good
reason
to believe, that the various laws found in the
Mishna,
were never received from God, nor derived
by
tradition from Moses; but were traditions of the
fathers,
such as were in use in the time of our Saviour,
who
severely reprehends the Scribes and Pharisees, for
setting
aside, and rendering of no effect, the word of
God,
by their unauthorized traditions.
The internal evidence is itself
sufficient to convince
us
that the laws of the Talmud are human inventions,
and
not divine institutions; except that those circum-
stances
of divine worship which were left to the dis-
cretion
of the people, and which were regulated by
custom,
may be often found preserved in this immense
work.
PART II.
THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 113
SECTION I.
METHOD
OF SETTLING THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTA-
MENT.
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 subject, except to say, that this in-
quiry
cannot be less interesting in regard to the Old
Testament
than to the New. It is a subject which
calls
for our utmost diligence and impartiality. It is
one
which we cannot neglect with a good conscience;
for
the inquiry is nothing less than to ascertain what
revelation
God has made to us, and where it is to be
found.
As to the proper method of settling
the 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 contem-
poraries,
and immediate successors of the apostles, are
the
most competent witnesses in this case. If, among
these,
there is found to have been a general agree-
ment,
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
114 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON
matter
of this sort. A general consent of the early
Fathers,
and of the primitive church, therefore, fur-
nishes
conclusive evidence on this point, and is that
species
of evidence which is least liable to fallacy or
abuse.
The learned HUET, has, 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 WAS WRITTEN, AND BY THE
AGES
FOLLOWING, IN A CONTINUED SERIES.”* The rea-
sonableness
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, have already been
disproved,
as it relates to the books of the Old Testa-
ment;
and the same arguments apply with their full
force
to the Canon of the New Testament, and need
not
be repeated. It may not be amiss, however, to
hear
from distinguished writers of that communion,
what
their real opinion is on this subject. HEUMAN
asserts,
"That the sacred Scriptures, without the
authority
of the church, have no more authority than
AEsop's
Fables." And BAILLIE, "That he would
give
no more credit to Matthew than to Livy, unless
the
church obliged him." To the same purpose speak
PIGHIUS,
ECKIUS, BELLARMINE, and many others of
their
most distinguished writers. By the
authority
of
the church, they understand a power lodged in the
church
of Rome, to determine what books shall be
* Demonstratio Evang.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 115
received
as the word of God; than which it is scarcely
possible
to conceive of anything more absurd.
In avoiding this extreme, some
Protestants have
verged
towards the opposite, and have asserted, that
the
only, or principal evidence of the canonical au-
thority
of the sacred Scriptures is, their internal evi-
dence.
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 strong; and
that
when the mind of the reader is truly illuminated,
it
derives from this source the most unwavering con-
viction
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 surely 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 evidence?
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-
nal
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 crite-
rion
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, would be to unsettle,
* See the Confession of the Reformed
116 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON
rather
than establish, the Canon of Holy Scripture;
for
it would be strange, if some persons, without any
other
guidance than their own spiritual taste, would
not
pretend that other books besides those long re-
ceived
were canonical, or would not be disposed to reject
some
part of these. If this evidence were as infallible
as
some would have it to be, then the authenticity of
every
disputed text, as well as the canonical authority
of
every book, might be ascertained by it. But, it is
a
fact, that some eminently pious men doubted for a
while
respecting the canonical authority of some genu-
ine
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 when 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 cir-
cumstance
in which an inspired narrative differs from
a
faithful human history, is that the one is infallible,
and
the other is not; but the existence of this infalli-
bility,
or the absence of it, is not apparent from read-
ing
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. Who could
undertake
to say, that from internal evidence alone,
he
could determine that the book of Esther, or the
Chronicles,
were written by inspiration? Besides,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 117
some
books are obscure and not easily understood;
now,
how could any one discern the internal evidence
of
a book, the meaning of which he did not yet un-
derstand?
The evidence arising from 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, therefore, to proceed
to our destined
point
in a more circuitous way. We must be at the
pains
to examine into the history of the Canon, and,
as
was before said, to ascertain what books were
esteemed
canonical by all those who had the best op-
portunity
of judging of this matter; and when the
internal
evidence is found corroborating the external,
the
two, combined, may produce a degree of conviction
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 infor-
mation
from others who were witnesses. It is only in
this
way that we know that Homer, Horace, Virgil,
Livy,
and Tully, wrote the books which now go under
their
names.
The early Christians pursued this
method of deter-
mining
what books were canonical. They searched
118 METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON
into
the records of the church, before their time, and
from
these ascertained what books should be received,
as
belonging to the sacred volume. They appeal to
that
certain and universal tradition, which attested the
genuineness
of these books. IRENAE
EUSEBIUS,
CYRIL, and AUGUSTINE, have all made use
of
this argument, in establishing the Canon of the New
Testament.
The question is often asked, When was
the Canon of
the
New 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 Eccle-
siastical
Council, or by some publicly expressed opinion
of
the Fathers of the church; and as if any portion 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 right 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
that any council of bishops, or others, gave sanc-
tion
to the book, but to show that it is indeed the
genuine
work of Matthew, or John, or Peter, or Paul,
who
we know were inspired.
The books of the New Testament were,
therefore,
of
full authority, before they were collected into one
volume;
and it would have made no difference if they
had
never been included in one volume, but had re-
tained
that separate form in which they were first pub-
lished.
And it is by no means certain, that these
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 119
books
were, 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 Gospel, and the other, the Apostles.
Some
of the oldest manuscripts of the New Testament
extant,
appear to have been put up in this form; and
the
Fathers often refer to the Scriptures of the New
Testament,
under these two titles. The question,
When
was the Canon constituted? admits therefore of
no
other proper answer than this,—that as soon as the
last
book of the New Testament was written and pub-
lished,
the Canon was completed. But if the question
relates
to the time when these books were collected
together,
and published in a single volume, or in two
volumes,
it admits of no definite answer; for those
churches
which were situated nearest to the place
where
any particular books were published, would, of
course,
obtain copies much earlier than churches in a
remote
part of the world. For a considerable period,
the
collection of these books, in each church, must
have
been necessarily incomplete; for it would take
some
time to send to the church, or people, with whom
the
autographs were deposited, and to have fair copies
transcribed.
This necessary process will also account
for
the fact, that some of the smaller books were not
received
by the churches so early, nor so universally,
as
the larger. The solicitude of the churches to pos-
sess
immediately the more extensive and important
books
of the New Testament, would, doubtless, induce
them
to make a great exertion to acquire copies; but,
probably,
the smaller would not be so much spoken of,
nor
would there be so strong a desire to obtain them,
120 METHOD OE SETTLING THE CANON
without
delay. Considering how difficult it is now,
with
all our improvements in the typographical art, to
multiply
copies of the Scriptures with sufficient rapi-
dity,
it is truly wonderful, how so many churches as
were
founded during the first century, to say nothing
of
individuals, could all be supplied with copies of the
New
Testament, when there was no speedier method
of
producing them than by writing every letter with
the
pen! "The pen of a ready writer" must then,
indeed,
have been of immense value.
The idea entertained by some,
especially by DOD-
WELL,
that these books lay for a long time locked up
in
the coffers of the churches to which they were ad-
dressed,
and totally unknown to the world, is in itself
most
improbable, and is repugnant to all the testimony
which
exists on the subject. Even as 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 citations
from
these books by the earliest Christian writers,
living
in different countries, demonstrate, that from
the
time of their publication, they were sought after
with
avidity, and were widely dispersed. How
intense
the
interest which the first Christians felt in the
writings
of the apostles can scarcely be conceived by
us,
who have been familiar with these books from our
earliest
years. How solicitous would they be, for ex-
ample,
who had never seen Paul, but had heard of his
wonderful
conversion, and extraordinary labours and
gifts,
to read his writings! And probably they who
had
enjoyed the high privilege of hearing this apostle
preach,
would not be less desirous of reading his
* 2 Pet. iii. 14, 15.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 121
Epistles.
As we know, from the nature of the case,
as
well as from testimony, that many uncertain ac-
counts
of Christ's discourses and miracles had obtained
circulation,
how greatly would the primitive Christians
rejoice
to obtain an authentic history from the pen of
an
apostle, or from one who wrote precisely what was
dictated
by an apostle! We need no longer wonder,
therefore,
that every church should wish to possess a
collection
of the writings of the apostles; and knowing
them
to be the productions of inspired men, they would
want
no further sanction of their authority. All that
was
requisite was, to be certain that the book was
indeed
written by the apostle whose name it bore:
And
this leads me to observe, that some things in
Paul's
Epistles, which seem to common readers to be
of
no importance, were of the utmost consequence;
Such
as, "I, Tertius, who wrote this epistle," &c.-
"The
salutation, with mine own hand."—"So I write
in
every epistle."—"You see how large a letter I have
written
unto you with mine own hand."—"The saluta-
tion
by the hand of me, Paul."—"The salutation of
Paul
with mine own hand; which is the token in
every
Epistle."* This apostle 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 con-
stantly wrote the salutation himself; so much care
was
taken to have these sacred writings well authenti-
cated,
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
* Rom. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal.
vi. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 17.
122 METHOD OP SETTLING THE CANON
seems,
that they were always committed to the care
of
men of high estimation in the church; and com-
monly,
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 re-
specting
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 oc-
curred,
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 manu-
scripts
of
that
in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and
persecutions,
as the Christian church endured, this
object
could have been secured by anything 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 which they were
communicated.
They had matters of such deep in-
terest,
and so novel, before their eyes, that they had
neither
time, nor inclination, for the minutia of criti-
cism.
It may be, therefore, that they did not set so
high
a value on the possession of the autograph of an
inspired
book as we should, but considered a copy,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 123
made
with scrupulous fidelity, as equally valuable with
the
original. And God may have suffered these auto-
graphs
of the sacred writings to perish, lest in process
of
time, they should have become idolized, like the
brazen
serpent; or lest men should be led supersti-
tiously
to venerate the mere parchment and ink, and
form
and letters, employed by an apostle. Certainly,
the
history of the church renders such an idea far
from
being improbable.
But, although little is said about the
originals of the
apostles'
writings, we have a testimony in Tertullian,
that
the Authentic Letters of the apostles might
be
seen by any that would take the pains to go to the
churches
to which they were addressed. Some, in-
deed,
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? Had 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 apostles, were
preserved
by the churches to which they were ad-
dressed,
in the time of Tertullian.*
But although the autographs of the
books of the
New
Testament are not extant, we have beautiful
copies
of the whole penned as early as the fourth or
fifth
century, and some think that our oldest manu-
scripts
of the New Testament have a still earlier
origin;
and we have versions which were made at a
period
still earlier, so that we have lost nothing by the
disappearance
of the autographs of the New Tes-
tament.
* See Note C.
124 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
SECTION II.
CATALOGUES
OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT--
CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE CITED AS
AUTHORITY BY THE
FATHERS, AND READ IN THE CHURCHES AS
SCRIPTURE.
HAVING
declared our purpose, to place the settling of
the
Canon of the New Testament on the footing of
authentic
testimony, we will now proceed to adduce
our
authorities, and shall begin with an examination
of
the ancient catalogues 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 estima-
tion;
that great pains were taken to distinguish the
genuine
productions of these inspired men from all
other
books; that they were sought out with uncom-
mon
diligence, and read with profound attention and
veneration,
not only 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 they
were
admitted into the Canon, and received as inspired,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 125
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 im-
partially
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 Testa-
ment;
that spurious writings, under the names of the
apostles,
were promptly and decisively rejected, and
that
the churches were repeatedly warned against such
apocryphal
books.
To do justice to this subject, will
require some de-
tail,
which may appear dry to the reader, but should
be
interesting to every person who wishes to know as-
suredly,
that what he receives as sacred 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 com-
mitted
the sacred deposit of divine truth, intended for
the
instruction and government of the church in all
future
ages.
In exhibiting the evidence of the
canonical autho-
rity
of these books, we shall first attend to some gene-
ral
considerations, which relate to the whole volume,
and
then adduce testimony in favour of each book now
included
in the Canon. And here, as in the case of
the
Old Testament, we find that at a very early period,
catalogues
of these books were published, by most of
the
distinguished Fathers whose writings have come
down
to us; and that the same has been done, also, by
several
councils, whose decrees are still extant.
These
catalogues are, for the most part, perfectly
126 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
harmonious.
In a few of them, some books now in
the
Canon are omitted, for which omission a satisfac-
tory
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 com-
mon
Christians were liable to be imposed on by spuri-
ous
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
some
time, that they might learn, accurately, every cir-
cumstance
relative to the authenticity of these writings.
1. 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
situation
favourable to accurate information from every
part
of the church, where any of these books were
originally
published. ORIGEN lived and flourished
about
one hundred years after the death of the apostle
John.
He was, therefore, near enough to the time of
the
publication of these books, to obtain the most cer-
tain
information of their authors. Most of the origi-
nal
writings of this great and learned man have
perished,
but his catalogue of the books of the New
Testament
has been preserved by Eusebius, in his
Ecclesiastical
History.* It was contained in Origen's
* Lib. vi. c. 25.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 127
Homilies
on the gospel of Matthew; and was repeated
in
his Homilies on the gospel of John.
In this catalogue he mentions the four Gospels, the
Acts of the
Apostles, fourteen Epistles of Paul, two
of Peter, three
of John, and the Book of Revelation.
This
enumeration includes all the present Canon, ex-
cept
the Epistles of James and Jude, but these were
omitted
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, that in his time the
Canon
was well settled among the learned; and that
the
distinction between inspired writings and human
compositions
Was as clearly marked, as at any subse-
quent
period.
In the work entitled, Apostolical Constitutions,
ascribed
to CLEMENT of
of
the books of the New Testament; but as this work
is
not genuine, and of an uncertain author and age, I
not
make use of it.
There has been preserved a fragment of
a very
ancient
writing on the Canon, ascribed to CAUIS the
presbyter,
which may be seen in Routh's Reliquiae,
an
abridgment of which is here given in a literal ver-
sion
from the Latin. What is said by the author con-
cerning
the first two evangelists is lost. The fragment
commences
by saying, "The third is the gospel ac-
cording
to Luke. Luke was that physician who, after
the
ascension, consorted with Paul . . . . Although
he
had never seen Christ in the flesh, yet having
acquired
a knowledge of his life, he commences his
narrative
from the nativity of John.
128 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
"The fourth gospel was written by
John, one of the
disciples.
To his fellow disciples, and to the bishops,
who
exhorted him [to write,] he said, ‘Fast with me
three
days, from this day, and whatever shall be re-
vealed
to any of us, we will declare to one another.’
The
same night it was revealed to Andrew, that John,
under
his own name should describe all things, so that
they
might be recognized by all. And so, though
various
elements are taught in the several gospels,
yet
the faith of believers is not diverse, since with one
pervading
spirit all things are declared by all concern-
ing
the nativity, the Passover, the resurrection, and
concerning
his conversation with his disciples, and his
double
advent; the first, when he was seen in a state
of
humiliation . . . . . in the second, with glorious
regal
power, which is yet future. . . . But the Acts
of
all the Apostles, Luke to Theophilus has compre-
hended
in a single book. The Epistles of Paul de-
clare
to all who wish to know, on what account, and
from
what place they were written. Paul, following
the
example of his predecessor John, wrote Epistles to
the
following seven named churches:—First, to the
Corinthians; the second to
the Ephesians; the third
to
the Philippians; the fourth to the Colossians; the
fifth
to the Galatians; the sixth to the Thessalonians;
and
the seventh to the Romans. But to the Corin-
thians and the Thessalonians, he wrote, for the sake
of
correction, a second time. One church is known,
diffused
through the whole world.
"And John, in the Apocalypse,
although he addressed.
himself
to seven churches, yet speaks to all. More-
over,
there is one [epistle] to Philemon;
one to Titus,
and
two to Timothy, on account of his
affection and
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129
care;
which, however, are in honour of the Catholic
Church,
and sanctified to the ordaining ecclesiastical
discipline.
"There is one [epistle of Paul]
carried about to the
Laodiceans,
and one to the Alexandrians under the name
of
Paul, forged to support the heresy of Marcion, and
many
others which ought not to be received into the
Catholic
Church. For it is unsuitable that gall should
be
mixed with honey. Indeed, the Epistle of Jude
and
two [smaller epistles] under the name of John are
in
the possession of the church. Also the book of
DOM,
written by the friends of Solomon in honour of him.
There
is an Apocalypse of John, and one of Peter;
the
church receives only the former, and some are un-
willing
that this should be read in the church."
From this ancient fragment of the
second century,
we
have nearly a complete catalogue of the canoni-
cal
books of the New Testament, and the rejection
of
some spurious books which, even at that early
age,
were put into circulation. This fragment
is
not noticed by Lardner. It was discovered
by
Muratorius, and has been largely commented
on
by several learned authors. Muratorius ascribes
it
to the presbyter Caius; but others to Papias.
Routh
considers it altogether uncertain who is the
author;
but all agree in referring it to the second
century.
The catalogue ascribed to the Council
of Nice, is
not
genuine, and is connected with a story which bears
every
mark of superstitious credulity.* This, there-
* The story is briefly this. The
Fathers of the Council of Nice
put
all the books which claimed a place in the sacred Canon un-
130 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
fore,
shall be likewise omitted. We stand in no need
of
suspicious testimony on this subject. Witnesses of
the
most undoubted veracity, and distinguished intelli-
gence,
can be found in every successive age.
2. The next catalogue of the books of
the New
Testament
to which I will refer, is that of EUSEBIUS,
the
learned historian of the church; to whose dili-
gence
and fidelity, in collecting ecclesiastical facts, we
are
more indebted, than to the labours of all other
men,
for that period which intervened between the
days
of the apostles and his own times. EUSEBIUS
may
be considered as giving his testimony about one
hundred
years after ORIGEN. His catalogue may be
seen
in his Ecclesiastical History.* In it,
he enumer-
ates
every book which we have now 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
doubted of by some; and that the Revelation was
rejected
by some, and received by others; but Eusebius
himself
declares it to be his opinion, that it should be
received
without doubt.
There is no single witness among the
whole number
of
ecclesiastical writers, who was more competent to
give
accurate information on this subject than Euse-
bius.
He had spent a great part of his life in search-
ing
into the antiquities of the Christian church; and
der
the communion table of the church, and then prayed that
such
of them as were inspired might be found uppermost, and
the
apocryphal below; whereupon, the event occurred agreeably
to
their wishes; and thus a clear line of distinction was made be-
tween
canonical books and such as were not canonical. This
story
is related in the Synodicon of Popus, an obscure writer,
and
is undeserving of the smallest credit.
* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 25.
comp. with c. 3.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131
he
had an intimate acquaintance with all the records
relating
to the 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. ( See Appendix Note D. )
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 Testa-
ment,
which perfectly agrees with the Canon now in
use.
4. CYRIL, in his Catechetical work,
has also given
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 here-
after.
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 cen-
tury,
we have the testimony of all the bishops assem-
bled
in the Council of 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;
132 CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
and
that this book was also generally admitted to be
canonical,
we shall take the opportunity of proving in
the
sequel of this work.
6. But a few years elapsed from the
meeting of this
council,
before EPIPHANIES, bishop of
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
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
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 JEROME, who
translated
the
whole Bible into Latin. He furnishes us with a
catalogue
answering to our present Canon, in all re-
spects.
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
as
the rest.*
10. The catalogue of RUFIN varies in
nothing from
the
Canon now received.†
11. AUGUSTINE, in his work on
"Christian Doc-
trine,"
has inserted the names of the books of the
* Epist. ad Paulinum. † Expos. in Symbol. Apost.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 133
New
Testament, which, in all respects, are the same
as
ours.
12. The Council of
was
present, have furnished a catalogue which per-
fectly
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
DIONYSIUS 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 Scrip-
ture
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
Africa
and
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. 0n either of these grounds
the
conclusion
is the same, that the books quoted as Scrip-
ture
are alone the canonical books. To apply this
rule
to a particular case—"the first Epistle of Peter"
is
canonical, because it is continually cited by the most
ancient
Christian writers, in every part of the world;
but
the book called "The Revelation of Peter," is
apocryphal,
because none of the early Fathers have
taken
any testimonies from it. The same is true of
134 THE CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE
"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 force was perceived by
the
ancient defenders of the Canon of the New Testa-
ment.
Eusebius repeatedly has recourse to it, and,
therefore,
those persons who have aimed to unsettle
our
present Canon, as TOLAND and DODWELL, have
attempted
to prove that the early Christian writers
were
in the habit of quoting indifferently, and promis-
cuously,
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,
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 Jere-
miah
Jones, in his "New Method of settling the
Canon
of the New Testament," but the work was left
incomplete.
This author, however, 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,
READ IN THE CHURCHES. 135
so
the early Christians transferred the same practice
to
the church; and it seems to have been in use even
in
the apostles' days, as appears by Col. iv. 16, where
Paul
speaks of reading the Epistles addressed to the
churches,
as a thing of course, "And when this Epis-
tle
is read among you, cause that it be read also in
the
church of the Laodiceans, and that ye likewise
read
the Epistle from
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 of the apostles,
and
writings of the prophets, are read."*
TERTULLIAN is equally explicit; for,
in giving an
account
of the meetings of Christians for worship, he
says,
"They assemble to read the Scriptures, and
offer
up prayers;" and in another place, among the
solemn
exercises of the Lord's Day, he reckons, "Read-
ing
the Scriptures, singing Psalms," &c.†
The same account is given by CYPRIAN,‡
and by
the
ancient author under the name of DIONYSIUS the
Areopagite;
§ and by 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 supposititious writings. A more effectual
method
of guarding against apocryphal writings ob-
taining
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 acknow-
* Apol. ii. p. 93. † Tertull. De Anima.
‡ Cyp. Epist. 36, 39. § Hierarch. Eco. c. 3.
136 THE CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE
edged
as canonical, and precluded all opportunity of
foisting
in spurious works; since, if this had been
done
in some one church, the practice of all other
churches
would quickly 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
CYRIL
to his catechumen, "and study carefully those
Scriptures
only which are publicly read in the church."
Again,
having given a catalogue of the books of
Scripture,
he adds: "Let others be rejected; and
such
as are not read in the churches, neither do you
read
in private."
It was decreed in the Council 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,
DIONYSIUS, bishop of
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 in most 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, according to Cyril, read
in
the churches; nor commanded to be read by the
READ IN TILE CHURCHES. 137
Council
of
first
view, that the application of this rule would
exclude
the book of Revelation from the Canon, and
take
in "the Epistle of 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 ap-
peared
in a former part of this work, that several
books,
not in the Canon of the Old Testament, were
nevertheless
read in the churches; but the Fathers
carefully
distinguished between these and the canoni-
cal
books. They were read for instruction and for
the
improvement of manners, but not as authority in
matters
of faith. They distinguished 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 Reve-
lation
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 de-
rived
from the early versions of this sacred book into
other
languages.
Although the Greek language was
extensively
known
through the
wrote,
yet the Christian church was in a short time
extended
into regions, where the common people, at
least,
were not acquainted with it, nor with any lan-
guage
except their own vernacular tongue. While
the
gift of tongues continued, the difficulty of making
known
the Gospel, would in some measure be obvia-
ted;
but when these miraculous powers ceased, the
138 EARLY VERSIONS
necessity
of a version of the Gospels and Epistles into
the
language of the people would become manifest.
As
far, therefore, as we may be permitted to reason
from
the nature of the case, and the necessities of the
churches,
it is 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
Mesopotamia,
and the various parts of
long
left without having these precious books trans-
lated
into a language which all the people could un-
derstand?
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 remains 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 Peshito, furnishes the strongest
proof
of the canonical authority of all the books
which
are contained in it. This excellent version has
a
very high claim to antiquity; and, in the opinion
of
some of the best Syriac scholars, who have pro-
foundly
examined this subject, was made before the
close
of the first century.
The arguments for so early an origin,
are not, in-
deed,
conclusive, but they possess much probability,
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 139
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 numer-
ous
sects of Syrian Christians, and must be anterior
to
the existence of the oldest of them. Manes, who
lived
in the second century, probably had read the
New
Testament in the Syriac, which was his native
tongue;
and JUSTIN MARTYR, when he testifies that
the
Scriptures of the New Testament were read in the
Assemblies
of Christians, on every Sunday, probably
refers
to Syrian Christians, as
place;
where, also, he had his usual residence. And
MICHAELIS
is of opinion, that MELITO, who wrote
about
A. D. 170, has expressly declared, that a Syrian
version
of the Bible existed in his time. JEROME
also
testifies, explicitly, that when he wrote, the Syriac
Bible
was publicly read in the churches; for, says he,
"Ephrem
the Syrian is held in such veneration, that
his
writings are read in several churches, immediately
after
the 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 Gos-
pels,
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
140 GENERAL EVIDENCE OF THE
small,
and probably were unknown to the translator or
the
evidence of their genuineness was not ascertained
by
him. And as it relates to the book of 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 books 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 book of Revelation, for which they had a par-
ticular
reason, consistent with their belief of its canoni-
cal
authority; and in two of the remaining catalogues,
it
can be proved, that the books omitted, or represented
as
doubtful, were received as authentic by the persons
who
have furnished the catalogues. It may be as-
serted,
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 clearly distinguished
from
other books, in the third, fourth, and fifth cen-
turies,
as it has ever been since.
* On this whole subject consult
Jones on the Canon, Mi-
chaelis's
Introduction, Mill's Prolegomena.
GENUINENESS OF THE CANON. 141
2. Let it be considered, moreover,
that the earliest
of
these catalogues was made by ORIGEN, who lived
within
a hundred years after the death of the apostle
John,
and who, by his reading, travels, and long resi-
dence
in
transactions
and writings of the church, until his own
time.
In connection 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
resided
in different and remote parts of the world.
As,
for example, in
Hippo
in Africa,
in
that
the Canon was early agreed upon, and that it
was
everywhere the same; therefore, we find the
Fathers,
in all their writings, appealing to the same
Scriptures;
and none are charged with rejecting any
canonical
book; except heretics.
3. It appears from the testimony
adduced, that it
was
never considered necessary, that any council, or
bishop,
should "give sanction 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 con-
sidered
deriving their authority from the Church,
or
from Councils, but 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
anything to the authority of inspired books; or to
add
other books to those handed claim the right
142 GENERAL EVIDENCE OF THE
down
from the apostles. The church is founded on
"the
apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the
chief
corner stone;" but the sacred Scriptures are no-
way
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
precious 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 apostles.
Our liveliest gratitude is due to the
great Head of
the
church for this divine treasure, from which we are
permitted
freely to draw whatever is needful for 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
heart;
it warns us when we are in danger, reclaims
us
when we go astray, and comforts us when in afflic-
tion.
The word of the LORD is "more to be desired
than
gold, yea, than much fine gold; sweeter also than
honey,
and the honey-comb." Psa. xix. 10. They who
are
destitute of this inestimable volume call for our
tenderest
compassion, and our exertions in circulating
the
Bible should never be remitted, until all are sup-
plied
with this divine treasure. But they who possess
this
sacred volume, and yet neglect to study it, are
still
more to be pitied, for they are perishing in the
GENUINENESS OF THE CANON. 143
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!
144 ORDER OF THE BOOKS
SECTION
III.
ORDER
OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT—TIME OF
THE GOSPELS BEING WRITTEN—NOTICE OF
THE EVAN-
GELISTS.
THE
order of the books of the New Testament is not
uniform,
in the manuscripts now extant, nor as they
are
mentioned by the Fathers. EUSEBIUS arranges
them
thus: the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apos-
tles,
the Epistles of Paul, the First Epistle of John,
and
the Revelation of John. "These," says he,
"were
received (except the last mentioned) by all
Christians."
Then, he mentions those which were
not
unanimously received; as, the Epistle of James,
the
Epistle of Jude, the Second of Peter, and the
Second
and Third of John.
IRENAEUS, who lived long before
Eusebius, has not
given
a regular catalogue of the books of the New
Testament,
but he seems to have followed the same
order.
But ATHANASIUS, in his Festal Epistle,
has given
the
following order: The Four Gospels, the Acts of
the
Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles, the Four-
teen
Epistles of Paul, and the Revelation. The
ancient
and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript fol-
lows
the same order; as also does CYRIL of Jerusalem,
but
he does not mention Revelation.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 145
The arrangement, in the catalogue of
the Council
of
book
of Revelation being left out. JOHN DAMASCENE,
and
LEONTIUS, follow the same order.
The order of the Syrian catalogues as
given by
EBEDJESU,
is—The Four Gospels, the Acts of the
Apostles,
the Three Catholic Epistles, (their Canon
at
first contained no more,) and the Fourteen Epistles
of
Paul.
RUFIN'S order is—The Gospels, the
Acts, Paul's
Epistles,
the Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation.
The
Council of Carthage has the same. GREGORY
NAZIANZEN
the same; only the Revelation is omitted.
AMPHILOCHIUS
the same, and the book of Revelation,
mentioned
as doubtful. NICEPHORUS of Constantino-
ple,
the same, and Revelation omitted.
This, therefore, appears to have been
the order in
which
the books of the New Testament succeeded each
other
in most ancient copies; and is the one now in
general
use.
But EPIPHANIUS has an order different
from any of
these,
as follows—The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles,
the
Acts of the Apostles, the Seven Catholic Epistles,
and
the Revelation. JEROME follows the same order;
and
also EUTHALIUS.
AUGUSTINE varies in his arrangement of
the sacred
books.
In one place, he puts the Acts last, except
Revelation;
and in another, he places it after Revela-
tion.
He also varies in his arrangement of the Epistles
of
Paul, and of the Catholic Epistles.
The order of INNOCENT the First,
bishop of
is:
The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, the Catholic
Epistles,
the Acts, and Revelation.
146 ORDER OF THE BOOKS
ISIDORE of Seville has, in his
writings, given several
catalogues,
in all of which he pursues the order last
mentioned.
The same writer informs us, that the
books
of the New Testament were usually included in
two
divisions, or volumes; the first containing the
Gospels;
the second, the Acts and the Epistles; the
book
of Revelation being omitted.
CHRYSOSTOM follows an order which
appears to be
peculiar:
he places first, the Fourteen Epistles of
Paul;
next, the Four Gospels; then, the Acts; and
in
the last place, the Catholic Epistles. GELASIUS
places
Revelation before the Catholic Epistles. The
Apostolical
Canon, as it is called, contains the follow-
ing
catalogue: The Four Gospels, Fourteen Epistles
of
Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epistles of Cle-
ment,
the Constitutions, and the Acts. If this were,
indeed,
the genuine Canon of the apostles, as the title
imports,
it would be decisive, and all other authorities
would
be superfluous; but it is acknowledged by all
good
critics, that it is spurious, and of no authority in
settling
the early Canon.
The order of the Four Gospels has
generally been,
as
in our copies, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Iren-
mus,
Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, the Council of
Syrian
Catalogues, Jerome, Rufin, Augustine, the
Alexandrian
Manuscript with most others, agree in
this
order.
But that this order was not uniform,
appears from
Tertullian,
who arranges them thus— Matthew, John,
Luke,
Mark. And the same order of the Gospels is
followed,
in the very ancient Manuscript, commonly
called,
Codex Cantabrigiensis.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 147
There is very little variation
observed in the ar -
rangement
of Paul's Epistles. They are generally
found
in the same order as we have them in our
copies;
but this is not universally the case: for in
some
copies, the Epistle to the Hebrews occupies the
fourteenth
place among Paul's Epistles, and in others
the
tenth. But in all copies, the Epistle to the
Romans
stands first, though not first in the order
of
time.
With respect to the time when the
gospels were
written,
no precise information can be obtained, as
ancient
authors differ considerably on the subject.
It
seems to be agreed, however, that they were not
published
immediately after the ascension of Christ:
nor
all at the same time. The best thing which we
can
do is to place before the reader the principal
testimonies
of the Fathers, and leave him to judge for
himself.*
The earliest writer who says anything
explicitly on
this
subject is IRENIEUS; but he does not inform us
what
time intervened between the resurrection of
Christ,
and the writing of these gospels his words
are;
"For we have not received the knowledge of the
way
of salvation, from any others than those by whom
the
gospel has been brought to us, which gospel they
first
preached, and afterwards, by the will of God,
committed
to writing, that for time to come it might
be
the foundation and pillar of our faith. Nor, may
any
say that they preached before they had a compe-
tent
knowledge of the gospel; for after that our Lord
* The testimonies here adduced are,
for the most part, selected
from
the collections of Lardner, to whose works the reader is
referred.
148 WHEN THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN.
rose
from the dead, and they were endued, from
above,
with the power of the Holy Ghost, which had
come
down upon them, they received a perfect know-
ledge
of all things. They went forth to all the ends
of
the earth, declaring to men the blessing of heavenly
peace;
having all of them, and every one of them,
the
gospel of God."
Now let it be considered, that Irenaeus
was the dis-
ciple
of Polycarp, who was the disciple of the apostle
John,
and this testimony will have great weight in
confirming
the fact, that the gospels were written by
the
apostles, some time after they began to preach;
and
that, wherever the apostles went, they preached
the
same gospel to the people.
EUSEBIUS, to whom we are obliged so
often to have
recourse
as witness of ancient ecclesiastical facts,
does
not fail us here; "Those admirable
and truly
divine
men," says he, "the apostles of Christ, did not
attempt
to deliver the doctrine of their master, with
the
artifice and eloquence of words. . . . Nor were
they
concerned about writing books, being engaged in
a
more excellent ministry, which is above all human
power.
Insomuch that Paul, the most able of all, in
the
furniture of words and ideas, has left nothing in
writing
but a few Epistles. Nor were the rest of our
Saviour's
followers unacquainted with these things, as
the
seventy disciples, and many others besides the
twelve
apostles. Nevertheless, of all the disciples of
our
Lord, Matthew and John only have left us any
Memoirs;
who, also, as we have been informed, were
impelled
to write, by a kind of necessity."*
* Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 29.
Eusebius also, in c. xxx, mentions
several
spurious books, falsely attributed to the apostles. "Among
WHEN TIIE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN. 149
THEODORE of Mopsuesta, who lived in
the latter
part
of the fourth century, has left us the following
testimony;
"After the Lord's ascension to heaven,
the
disciples stayed a good while at
the
cities in the vicinity, and preaching chiefly to the
Jews:
and the great Paul was appointed, openly to
preach
the gospel to the Gentiles." "In process of
divine
themselves
to any one part of the earth, were con-
ducted
to remote countries. Peter went to Rome;
the
others elsewhere. John took up his abode at
About
this time, the Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and
Luke,
published their gospels, which were soon spread
over
the world, and were received by all the faithful
with
great regard . . . . Numerous Christians in
entreated
him to write a further account of such things
as
were needful to be known, and had been omitted
by
the rest; with which request he complied."
By divers Christian writers of
antiquity, it has been
asserted,
that Mark, the disciple and interpreter of
Peter,
at the earnest request of the brethren at
wrote
a short gospel, according to what he had heard
related
by Peter. This testimony, among others, is
given
by JEROME in his book of Illustrious Men.
It is probable that Peter did not
visit
the
reign of Nero; perhaps not until Paul had re-
turned
a second time to that city, which must have
been
as late as the year A. D. 63 or 64. Now, as
those,"
says be, "which must be numbered among the spurious
is,
The Acts of Paul," "The Pastor," and "The Revelation of
Peter."
150 WHEN THE GOSPELS WERE WRITTEN.
the
brethren requested of Mark to give them in
writing
the substance of Peter's preaching, his gospel
could
not have been written at an earlier period.
And,
it would seem, if this fact be undoubted, that
they
had, until this time, never seen a written gospel;
and,
probably, did not know that there was one in
existence.
The Jewish war, according to Josephus,
began in
the
year of our Lord 66, and ended in September of
the
year 70; when the city and temple were brought
to
desolation. Now, there is strong probable evidence,
that
the gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, were
finished
before this war commenced; that is, before
the
year of our Lord sixty-six. Each of them con-
tains
the predictions of our Lord respecting the de-
struction
of
them,
that the remarkable events connected with this
overthrow
had begun to make their appearance. But
there
are some expressions in these gospels, which
probably
indicate, that the writers thought that these
wonderful
events were at hand; such as the following
admonition,
"Let him that readeth understand."
It is certain that the Acts of the
Apostles could not
have
been finished before A. D. 62 or 63, because the
history
which it contains comes down to that time.
The
gospel by Luke was probably written a short
time
before. At least, this seems to be the common
opinion
of learned men. Jerome supposes that he
composed
his gospel at
when
Paul left
there
wrote his gospel and the Acts.
From the introduction to Luke's
gospel, it would
seem
that he knew nothing of any authentic written
THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 151
gospel
at that time; for he cannot be supposed to
refer
to such, when he says, "Forasmuch as many
have
taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration
of
those things which are most surely believed among
us;"
and if he had known that Matthew had written
a
gospel, he could not easily have avoided some refer-
ence
to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner
from
this fact, that no authentic gospel had been writ-
ten
before this time, is unauthorized, and repugnant
to
all the testimony which we have on the subject.
The
gospel of Matthew might have been circulating
for
some time among the churches in
not
be known to Luke, whose labours and travels led
him,
in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile coun-
tries
and cities. If we pay any regard to the opinions
of
those, who lived nearest the times of the apostles,
we
must believe that the gospel of Matthew was first
written,
and in the vernacular dialect of
monly
called Hebrew. The writer of this gospel is
also
called Levi, the son of
ilean
by nation, and a publican by profession. When
called
to follow Christ, he was sitting at the receipt
of
custom, where the taxes were paid, but he immedi-
ately
left all these temporal concerns, and attached
himself
to Christ, who afterwards selected him as one
of
the twelve. From this time he seems to have been
constantly
with Christ until his crucifixion, of which
event
he was doubtless a witness; as he was also of
the
resurrection and ascension of his Lord. On the
day
of Pentecost, he was present with his brethren,
and
partook of the rich spiritual endowments, which
were
then bestowed on the apostles. But afterwards
there
is no explicit mention of him in the New Testa-
152 THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW.
ment.
In his own catalogue of the twelve, his name
occupies
the eighth place, as it does in the Acts; but
in
the lists of the apostles, contained in the gospels of
Luke
and Mark, it occupies the seventh place.
There is an almost total obscurity
resting on the
history
of this apostle and evangelist. The scene of
his
labours, after he left
regions
of which we possess very little accurate infor-
mation
to this day. But whether he had
labours,
the ancients are not agreed. It is by no
means
impossible that he should have preached the
gospel,
and planted churches, in each of these coun-
tries.
The historian Socrates, in his distribution of
the
apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns
to
Bartholomew.
The testimony of EUSEBIUS is as follows:
"This
then
was the state of the Jews, but the apostles and
disciples
of our Lord, being dispersed abroad, preached
in
the whole world, Thomas in Parthia; Andrew in
Scythia,
John in
time,
died at
persed
Jews in
docia,
and Asia; at length, coming to
there
crucified, with his head turned down towards the
earth,
at his own request. Paul also died a martyr at
of
his work on Genesis." But Eusebius makes no
mention
of the apostle Matthew; nor does JEROME, in
his
account of Illustrious Men.*
CLEMENT of
* Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. I.
THE GOSPEL BY MATTHEW. 153
this
apostle's mode of life, but nothing more: he says,
"That
he was accustomed to use a very spare diet,
eating
vegetables, but no flesh."
CHRYSOSTOM, in one of his Homilies,
gives the cha-
racter
of Matthew, but furnishes us with no facts.
It
is probable, therefore, that very little was known
in
the west, respecting the lives, labours and death, of
those
apostles who travelled far to the east. None of
them,
it is probable, ever returned; and there existed
no
regular channels for the communication of intelli-
gence
from those distant regions. The honour of
martyrdom
has been given to them all, and the thing
is
not improbable; but there are no authentic records,
from
which we can derive any certain information on
this
subject. The Fathers, whose writings have come
down
to us, seem to have been as much in the dark as
we
are, respecting the preaching and death of the
majority
of the apostles. There are, it is true, tradi-
tions
in
them,
but they are too uncertain to deserve any serious
consideration.
154 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
SECTION IV.
TESTIMONIES
TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL--TIME OP PUBLICA-
TION--LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS
ORIGINALLY COM-
POSED.
BUT
while we know so little of the apostolical labours
of
the Evangelist Matthew, it is pleasing to find that
the
testimonies respecting the genuineness of his gospel
are
so early and full. To these we will now direct our
attention.
BARNABAS, the companion of Paul, is
said by the
ancient
ecclesiastical writers, to have left an Epistle
of
some length. This is mentioned by Origen, Jerome
and
Eusebius, and is frequently quoted by Clement of
but
whether written by this apostolic man is very much
disputed.
Whoever was the author, it seems to have
been
written shortly after the destruction of
and
by a zealous Christian. In this Epistle, there are
many
sentences found in the gospel of Matthew, but
no
reference to any book of the New Testament. In
some
of them, however, there are evident signs that
these
passages which are found in the gospel were
quotations.
One of these is in Matthew xx. 16. And
in
this Epistle it is thus introduced; “Let us, there-
fore,
beware, lest it should happen unto us, as
it is
written, There are many
called, but few chosen."
As the Christians who lived at the
beginning of the
TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 155
gospel,
did not receive their instruction from written
gospels,
but from the preaching of the apostles, they
would
often express in their writings the same things
in
substance which we read in the Evangelists, so that
unless
they use marks of quotation, it cannot be cer-
tainly
known that these phrases are cited from any
book.
They may have learnt them from hearing the
apostles,
or even Christ himself. But when they in
the
text cited, say, as it is written, it
may fairly be
inferred,
that when found in one of the gospels it was
taken
from it.
The circumstance above mentioned
furnishes a satis-
factory
reason for the fact, that in the writings of the
apostolical
Fathers, there is so seldom any reference
to
the books of the New Testament. These men re-
ceived
their knowledge of Christianity before any of
the
books of the New Testament were written; and
although
they existed when they wrote, they would not
be
so likely to refer to them as if they had derived
their
knowledge from them.
PAPIAS, bishop of
with
the Apostle John, expressly mentions Matthew's
gospel;
and asserts, "That he wrote the divine oracles
in
Hebrew."*
JUSTIN MARTYR, who lived in the middle
of the
second
century, has in many places cited the very
words
of the gospel of Matthew, but without men-
tioning
his name. One instance will be sufficient:
"And
it is written in the gospel, that he said, All
things
are delivered to me of my Father, and no man
knoweth
the Son but the Father: neither the Father,
save
the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal
* See Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c.
xxxix.
156 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
him."
This is taken from the gospel of Matthew,
xi.
27.*
IRENAEUS, bishop of
and
was acquainted with Polycarp, the disciple of the
apostle
John, gives the following testimony: "We
have
not received the knowledge of the way of our
salvation
by any others, than those through whom the
gospel
has come down to us; which gospel they first
preached,
and afterwards, by the will of God, trans-
mitted
to us in writing, that it might be the foundation
and
pillar of our faith."—"For after our Lord had
risen
from the dead, and they were clothed with the
power
of the Holy Spirit descending upon them from
on
high, were filled with all gifts, and possessed per-
fect
knowledge, they went forth to the ends of the
earth,
spreading the glad tidings of those blessings
which
God has conferred on us, and announcing peace
from
heaven to men; having all, and every one alike,
the
gospel of God. Matthew among the Hebrews
published
a gospel in their own language; while Peter
and
Paul were preaching the gospel at
founding
a church there. And after their departure,
Mark,
the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself
delivered
to us in writing what Peter preached; and
Luke,
the companion of Paul, recorded the gospel
preached
by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of
the
Lord, who leaned upon his breast, likewise pub-
lished
a gospel, while he dwelt at
And
all these have taught us, that there is one God,
the
maker of heaven and earth, announced by the law
and
the prophets; and one Christ, the SON
OF GOD."†
In another place Irenaeus characterizes
all the four
* Dialogue with Trypho. † Contra Haeres. lib. iii. c. i. p. 173.
TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 157
gospels,
by setting down the beginning of each; where
of
Matthew he says, "Matthew proclaims his human
generation,
saying, The genealogy of Jesus Christ, the
Son
of David, the Son of Abraham."
In another place he says, "The
gospel of Matthew
was
delivered to the Jews."
This early testimony from a learned
man living so
near
the times of the apostles is invaluable, and must
be
satisfactory to every candid mind of the genuine-
ness
of the four gospels. Other decisive testimonies
might
be adduced from the same author, but they are
unnecessary.
HEGESIPPUS, who also lived and
flourished in the
second
century, was the author of an Ecclesiastical
History
extending from the death of Christ to his own
times,
which unhappily has not come down to us. All
that
remains is a few fragments preserved by Euse-
bius.
In one of these he cites a passage from the
gospel
of Matthew xiii. 16, "Blessed are your eyes
which
see, and your ears which hear."
ATHENAGORAS also was a writer of the
second cen-
tury.
He wrote two books, one on the Resurrection,
the
other, an Apology for the Christians. Of this
man
Philip Sidetes says, "that he was a heathen and
determined
to write against Christianity, but by read-
ing
the gospels was converted. He has citations from
nearly
all the books of the New Testament. From
the
gospel of Matthew he quotes the following words;
"Love
your enemies, bless them that curse you, pray
for
them that persecute you, that ye may be the
children
of your Father which is in heaven, who maketh
his
sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sendeth
rain
on the just and unjust." Matt. v. 44, 45.
158 TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
ORIGEN, who was born in the second
century, and
wrote
and flourished in the beginning of the third, has
left
us the following testimony: "According to the
traditions
received by me, the first gospel was written
by
Matthew, once a publican, afterwards a disciple of
Jesus
Christ, who delivered it to the Jewish believers,
composed
in the Hebrew language." And in another
place
he says, "Matthew wrote for the Hebrews."
EUSEBIUS, who lived about a hundred
years later
than
Origen, informs us, that "Matthew, having first
preached
the gospel to the Hebrews, when about to go
to
other people, delivered to them, in their own lan-
guage,
the gospel written by himself; by that sup-
plying
the want of his presence with them, whom he
was
about to leave."*
In the Synopsis, which has been
ascribed to ATHA-
NASIUS,
it is said, "Matthew wrote his gospel in the
Hebrew,
and published it at
EPIPHANIES
says the same, and adds, "Matthew wrote
first,
and Mark soon after him, being a follower of
Peter
at
Matthew
wrote for the Hebrews." EBEDJESU, the
Syrian,
"That Matthew, the first Evangelist, pub-
lished
his gospel in
JEROME, in his Commentary on Matthew,
testifies
that
"The first Evangelist is Matthew, the publican,
surnamed
Levi, who wrote his gospel in
Hebrew
language chiefly for the Jews who believed
in
Jesus, and did not join the shadow of the law with
the
truth of the gospel."
* Euseb. Ecc. list lib. iii. c. 21.
TESTIMONIES TO MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 159
Again, in his book of Ecclesiastical
Writers, he says,
"Matthew,
called also Levi, of a publican made an apos-
tle,
first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language,
for
the sake of those in
it
was afterwards translated into Greek is uncertain."
CHRYSOSTOM, in his introduction to
this gospel,
writes,
"Matthew is said to have written his gospel at
the
request of the Jewish believers, who desired him
to
put down in writing what he had said to them by
word
of mouth; and it is said he wrote in Hebrew."
THEOPHILUS, bishop of
part
of the second century, and wrote several works.
Jerome
in his prologue to the gospel of Matthew, says,
"I
have read the commentaries of Theophilus, bishop
of
the
seventh bishop of
lected
into one the words of the four gospels."
It would be unnecessary to adduce any
testimonies
from
later writers; but as they mention some circum-
stances
probably received by tradition, and not con-
tained
in the earlier testimonies, I will subjoin a few
of
them.
COSMAS, who lived in the sixth
century, reports,
that
"Matthew is the first that wrote a gospel. A
persecution
having arisen after the stoning of Stephen,
and
he having resolved to go from that place, the be-
lievers
entreated him to leave with them a written
instruction;
with which request he complied."
Another author of this century, who
wrote a dis-
course
on Matthew, has left this testimony: "The
occasion
of Matthew's writing is said to have been this
—there
being a great persecution in
there
was danger lest the faithful should be dispersed;
160 TIME OF WRITING MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
that
they might not be without teaching, they re-
quested
Matthew to write for them an accurate history
of
all Christ's words and works; that wherever they
should
be, they might have with them the ground of
their
faith."
In the Paschal Chronicle, written in
the seventh
century,
it is intimated, that Matthew published his
gospel
about fifteen years after our Lord's ascension.
EUTHYMIUS, in the beginning of the
twelfth century,
says,
"That this gospel was first written in the He-
brew
language for the Jewish believers, eight years
after
our Lord's ascension."
From these testimonies, it appears,
that the Fathers
had
no certain knowledge of the exact time when
Matthew
wrote his gospel. Irenaeus refers it to the
period
when Paul and Peter were preaching at
but
he speaks vaguely on the subject.
The writers who mention a precise
time, lived at
too
late a period to give testimony on this subject.
But
all agree, that this was the first gospel written.
Among the moderns, there is much
diversity of
opinion,
as might be expected, where there is little
else
than conjecture to guide them. LARDNER and
BASNAGE
supposed that this gospel was not written
before
A. D. 64. CAVE thought that it was written
fifteen
years after the ascension of Christ. JEREMIAH
JONES
is in favour of that opinion which places it
eight
years after the ascension. GROTIUS and G. J.
Vossius
are of the same opinion. So also is WET-
STEIN.
But TILLEMONT carries it up to the third
year
after the crucifixion of our Saviour.* LARDNER
* Towline, Townson, Horne. Townsend,
&c. plead for an early
origin
of this gospel, referring it to A. D. 36 or 37.
ORIGINAL
LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 161
and
PERCY have adduced arguments for a late origin
of
this gospel, derived from internal evidence, but
they
are of very inconsiderable weight.
As it is agreed that it was written
before Matthew
left
as
this event seems to have occurred after the perse-
cution
which was raised at
it
seems probable, that they are nearest the truth,
who
place it about eight years after the ascension of
Christ;
which date unites more writers in its support
than
any other.
Not only the date, but the original
language of this
gospel
has been made a subject of controversy. By
the
testimonies already cited, it seems that there was
but
one opinion among the ancients in regard to this
matter.
With one voice they inform us, that it was
written
in Hebrew; or in the vernacular tongue of
the
Jews, which in the Scriptures, and by the Chris-
tian
Fathers, is called Hebrew. This language is now
called
Syro-Chaldaic, or Western Aramean, but it
consisted
chiefly of words derived from Hebrew origin,
and
was, in fact, the Hebrew corrupted by a large
mixture
of foreign words, and by various changes in
the
prefixes and affixes of the words. This was the
language
in which Jesus Christ spoke and delivered
all
his discourses; and which the apostles were accus-
tomed
to speak from their childhood.
Although the Greek language was
understood by
all
the learned in
the
people, yet it was not the vernacular language of
the
Jews dwelling in
for
the immediate use of the churches in
necessary
that it should be in that language which they
162 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE
all
understood; which was neither pure Hebrew nor
Greek.
The testimony of the Fathers is, therefore,
strengthened
by a consideration of the nature of the
case.
And if it were not so, yet when the judgment
of
modern critics stands opposed to the universal testi-
mony
of the ancients, in regard to a matter of fact,
which
occured not long before their time, there ought
to
be no hesitation which is most deserving of credit.
There is, however, one difficulty
attending this
opinion,
which is, that it supposes that the original of
this
gospel is lost, and we have now nothing but a
translation,
which opinion would lessen its canonical
authority.
It must be confessed, that this is a
consequence of a
serious
kind, and one which ought not to be-received
respecting
any canonical book without necessity. But
does
this conclusion necessarily follow from the admis-
sion,
that this gospel was originally composed in the
Hebrew
language? Might there not have been a ver-
sion
immediately prepared by the writer himself, or by
some
other person under his superintendence? This
being
the first gospel that was composed, it would
naturally
be in great request with all Christians who
knew
of its existence; and as none but the Jewish
Christians
could understand it, as first published, it is
exceedingly
probable, that a request was made of the
author
to publish an edition of it in Greek, also, by
those
who did not understand the Hebrew; or, by
such
as were going to preach the gospel in countries
where
the Greek language was in common use.
It has been considered a strong
objection to the
Hebrew
original of this gospel, that no person, whose
writings
have come down to us, has intimated that he,
OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL. 163
had
ever seen it; and from the earliest times it seems
to
have existed in the Greek language. But this fact
is
perfectly consistent with the supposition now made;
for
the desolation of
ish
Christians, having taken place within a few years
after
the publication of Matthew's gospel, the copies
of
the original Hebrew would be confined to the Jew-
ish
converts; and as other Christians had copies in
the
Greek, of equal authenticity with the Hebrew, no
inquiries
would be made after the latter. These Jew-
ish
Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in
a
short time, and a large part of them became erro-
neous
in their faith; and though they retained the
Hebrew
gospel of Matthew, they altered and corrupted
it
to suit their own heretical opinions. There is rea-
son
to believe, that the gospel of the Nazarenes, was
the
identical gospel of Matthew, which in process of
time
was greatly mutilated and corrupted by the
Ebionites.
Of this gospel much is said by the Fa-
thers,
and, in the proper place, we shall give some
account
of it.*
The only remaining objection of any
weight against
the
ancient opinion, is, that the gospel according to
Matthew,
as we now have it, has no appearance of
being
a translation, but has the air and style of an
original.
But if the hypothesis, suggested above be
adopted,
this objection also will vanish; for according
to
this the Greek is an original, as well as the He-
brew,
it having been written by Matthew himself, or
by
some disciple under his direction. But whether
the
Greek of Matthew was written by himself or
not,
it is certain that it was not later than the apos-
tolic
age, and received the approbation of apostles
* See Note E.
164 ORIGINAL LANGUAGE OF MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
or
apostolic men, which is sufficient to establish its
authenticity.
*
* The learned world have been nearly
equally divided on the
question,
whether Matthew wrote his gospel in Hebrew or Greek.
In
favour of the former opinion, may be cited, Bellarmine, Gro-
tius,
Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave,
wood,
Owen,
pin,
Calmet, Michaelis, and others. In favour of the Greek
origin
of this gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less
respectable.
Among these may be mentioned, Erasmus, Paraeus,
Calvin,
Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre,
Basnage,
Wetstein, Rumpuus,
Moldenhawer,
Viser, Harles, Jones, Jortin, Lardner, Hey,
Hales,
Hewlett, and others.
The two opinions were supported by a
weight of argument
and
authority so nearly balanced, that Dr. Townson, and a few
others,
have adopted a middle course, viz. the opinion stated
above,
that there were two originals; by which theory all diffi-
culties
are removed. The only objection is the want of evidence.
Horne
and Townsend have adopted this opinion. See Horne's
Introd.
vol. iv. Part ii. c. ii. Sec. p. 267.
GOSPEL OF MARK. 165
SECTION V.
GOSPEL
OF MARK--ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED--AS-
CRIBED TO TILE DICTATION OF PETER BY
ALL THE
FATHERS.
THE
author of the second gospel, as they stand in the
Canon,
was Mark; the same who is mentioned in the
first
Epistle of Peter, (v. 13 ;) but whether he was the
same
as John Mark, of
while
with Paul and Barnabas, has been doubted by
Grotius,
Cave, Dupin and Tillemont; but the common
opinion
is in its favour, and the objections to it are
not
of much weight: and as there is no clear evidence,
that
there were two persons of this name mentioned
in
Scripture, I shall consider all that is said of Mark,
as
having reference to the same person.
Paul was offended at him because he
declined accom-
panying
him and Barnabas on the whole tour which
they
made, to preach the gospel; for, when they came
to
Perga, Mark departed from them, and returned to
to
undertake a second journey together,the latter
insisted
on taking Mark as their minister, but Paul
would
by no means consent to it, because he had for-
saken
them on their first mission. This difference of
opinion
gave rise to a sharp altercation, which termi-
nated
in the separation of these venerable Colleagues.
166 GOSPEL OF MARK, WHEN WRITTEN.
Mark
now travelled with Barnabas, but, probably,
soon
afterwards attached himself to Peter, with whom
he
seems to have continued until the death of that
apostle.
But Paul himself seems to have been
reconciled to
Mark,
and to have valued his assistance in the work
of
the ministry; for, in his second Epistle to Timothy,
he
writes, "Take Mark and bring him with thee, for
he
is profitable unto me for the ministry." 2 Tim. iv.
11.
He also mentions him in his Epistle to Philemon.
Phil.
24.
When this gospel was composed, has not
been par-
ticularly
mentioned by any ancient author, except that
it
is said to have been after Peter came to
could
not be much earlier than A. D. 62 or 63. It is
stated,
that Mark was requested by the brethren at
preaching;
and on this account, this gospel among
the
primitive Christians was as familiarly known by
the
name of the gospel of Peter as of Mark. This
circumstance
has led some to assert, that Mark wrote
his
gospel in Latin, as this was the language of
but
in those days almost all the Romans understood
Greek.
And the Jewish converts, who composed a
large
portion of the first churches, understood Greek
much
better than Latin. But there is no need to
argue
this point. There is no ancient author who tes-
tifies
that Mark wrote in Latin. The testimony is
uniform
that he wrote in Greek.
Baronius is almost the only learned
man who has
advocated
the Latin origin of the gospel of Mark,
and
he has nothing to produce in favour of this opinion
from
antiquity, except the subscription to the Syriac,
TESTIMONIES
TO THE GOSPEL OF MARK. 167
Arabic
and Persic versions of the New Testament,
where,
at the end of Mark's gospel, it is said, "He
spoke
and preached in Latin at
not
say that he wrote his gospel in Latin. But these
subscriptions
are of very little authority in matters of
this
kind. No one knows when, or by whom they
were
placed there; and, although three versions are
mentioned,
they make up no more than one witness,
for,
probably all the others borrowed this inscription
from
the Syriac.
AUGUSTINE called Mark "the
abridger of Mat-
thew;"
and it must be confessed, that he often uses
the
same words, and tells more concisely what the other
had
related more copiously; yet, there is satisfactory
evidence,
that Mark's gospel is an original work. It
contains
many things which are not in the gospel of
Matthew,
and some mentioned by that Evangelist are
here
related with additional circumstances.
All authors do not agree that Mark
wrote his gospel
at
opinion,
however, was received with almost universal
consent.
See the testimony of Irenaeus before cited.
To
which may be added what he says in another place,
that,
"Mark begins with the prophetic spirit which
came
down from above to men, saying, the beginning
of
the gospel of Christ."
Some of the testimonies of the Fathers
respecting
this
gospel will now be given.
EUSEBIUS out of PAPIAS, and a lost
work of CLE-
MENT
of Alexandria, relates, "That when Peter in
the
reign of Claudius, had come to
--
defeated Simon Magus, the people were so inflamed
with
love for the Christian truths, as not to be satisfied
168 MARK'S GOSPEL.
with
the hearing of them, unless they also had them
written
down. That accordingly they, with earnest
entreaties,
applied themselves to Mark, the companion
of
Peter, and whose gospel we now have, praying him
that
he would write down for them, and leave with
them
an account of the doctrines which had been
preached
to them; that they did not desist in their
request,
till they had prevailed on him, and procured
his
writing that which is now the gospel of Mark;
that
when Peter came to know this, he was, by the
direction
of the Holy Spirit, pleased with the request
of
the people, and confirmed the gospel which was
written
for the use of the churches."*
The same EUSEBIUS relates in another
part of his
works,
what PAPIAS had testified concerning Mark's
gospel,
"That Mark, who was Peter's interpreter,
exactly
wrote down whatsoever he remembered, though
not
in the same order of time in which the several
things
were said or done by Christ; for he neither
heard
nor followed Christ, but was a companion of
Peter,
and composed his gospel, rather with the intent
of
the people's profit, than writing a regular history;
so
that he is in no fault, if he wrote some things ac-
cording
to his memory, he designing no more than to
omit
nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing
false."†
Another testimony from CLEMENT of
is
given by Eusebius, in which it is said, "When
Peter
was publicly preaching the gospel at
the
influences of the Holy Spirit, many of the converts
desired
Mark, as having been long a companion of
Peter,
and who well remembered what he preached,
* Ecc. Hist. lib. ii. c. 15. † Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39.
MARK'S
GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED. 169
to
write down his discourses: that upon this he com-
posed
his gospel, and gave it to those who made this
request;
which when Peter knew, he neither ob-
structed
nor encouraged the work."*
IRENAEUS says, "That after the
death of Peter and
Paul
who had been preaching at
ciple
and interpreter of Peter, wrote down what he
had
heard him preach." Tertullian informs us, "That
the
gospel published by Mark may be reckoned Peter's,
whose
interpreter he was." ORIGEN adds, "That
Mark
wrote his gospel according to the dictates of
Peter."
JEROME tells us, "That Mark the disciple
and
interpreter of Peter, wrote a short gospel from
what
he had heard of Peter, at the request of the
brethren
at
proved
and published in our churches, commanding
the
reading of it by his own authority."
Besides these testimonies which are
very explicit,
and
all go to show that Mark received his gospel from
the
preaching of Peter, there are some internal evi-
dences
which look the same way. There are in the
other
Evangelists several circumstances and facts which
make
very much for the credit of Peter, not one of
which
is hinted at in this gospel. Particular instances
of
this kind may be read in the third volume of
"Jones'
New Method of Settling the Canon."
Of the canonical authority of this
gospel no one of
the
ancients, I believe, ever entertained a doubt.
Some
of the moderns, however, have questioned whe-
ther
we have any evidence, that Mark and Luke wrote
by
a plenary inspiration since they were not apostles.
But
that Mark's gospel is canonical, is established by all
* Ecc. Hist. lib. vi. c. 14.
170 MARK'S GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED.
the
rules applicable to the case. It was always con-
tained
in the early catalogues; was read as Scripture
in
the churches; was quoted as Scripture by the
Fathers;
was inserted in the earliest versions; and
never
doubted formerly, by any Christian writer.
But
this subject will be resumed hereafter.
Eusebius reports, "That Peter,
out of the abun-
dance
of his modesty, did not think himself worthy to
write
a gospel; but Mark, who was his friend and
disciple,
is said to have recorded Peter's relations, and
the
acts of Jesus." And again, "Peter testifies these
things
of himself, for all things recorded by Mark are
said
to be memoirs of Peter's discourses."
In the Synopsis ascribed to Athanasius
it is said,
"That
the gospel according to Mark was dictated by
Peter
at
by
him in
The testimony of EPIPHANIUS is,
"That Matthew
wrote
first, and Mark soon after him, being a com-
panion
of Peter at
seventy
disciples, and likewise one of those who were
offended
at the words of Christ, recorded in the sixth
chapter
of the gospel of John; that he then forsook
the
Saviour, but was afterwards reclaimed by Peter,
and
being filled with the Spirit wrote a gospel."
GREGORY NAZIANZEN says, "That
Mark wrote his
gospel
for the Italians." CHRYSOSTOM testifies, that
"Mark
wrote in
there;"
but in another place, he says, "It cannot be
ascertained
in what place each of the Evangelists
wrote."
VICTOR informs us, "That Mark was
also
called
John, and was the son of Mary; that he wrote a
gospel
after Matthew; that for a while he accom-
MARK'S
GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED. 171
panied
Paul and Barnabas his relation, but when he
came
to
to
quit
write
a history of his preaching, and of his heavenly
doctrine;
with which request he readily complied."
COSMAS of Alexandria writes,
"That Mark the
second
Evangelist wrote a gospel at
tation
of Peter." OECUMENIUS says, "This John who
also
is called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the
gospel
which goes by his name; and was also the dis-
ciple
of Peter."
THEOPHYLACT informs us, "That the
gospel accord-
ing
to Mark was written at
ascension
of Jesus Christ, at the request of the be-
lievers
there; for this Mark was a disciple of Peter.
His
name was John, and he was nephew to Barnabas,
the
companion of Paul."
EUTHYMIUS concurs exactly in this
testimony. His
words
are, "The gospel of Mark was written about
ten
years after our Lord's ascension, at the request of
the
believers at
that
Mark was, at first, much with his uncle Barnabas
and
Paul, but afterwards went with Peter to
from
whom he received the whole history of his gos-
pel."
NICEPHORUS says, "Only two of the twelve
have
left memoirs of our Lord's life, and two of the
seventy,
Mark and Luke." And a little after, "Mark
and
Luke published their gospels, by the direction of
Peter
and Paul." EUTYCHIUS, patriarch of Alexan-
dria,
has the following words: "In the
time of Nero,
Peter,
the prince of the apostles, making use of Mark,
wrote
a gospel, at
The reader will recollect, that this
last writer lived
172 MARK'S GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED.
as
late as the tenth century, which will account for
his
calling Peter the prince of the apostles, a language
entirely
foreign to the early ecclesiastical writers.
And
guage
he meant the Greek, which was then in com-
mon
use at Rome; and it is well known, that in our
times
the modern Greek language is called Romaic.
Jones
and Lardner concur in the opinion of
GOSPEL OF LUKE. 173
SECTION VI.
GOSPEL
OF LUKE--TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS RESPECT-
ING IT.
THE
third gospel is that of Luke. He is mentioned
in
Scripture as the companion of Paul in his travels;
and
when that apostle was sent a prisoner to home
this
evangelist accompanied him, and continued with
him
during his two years' confinement in that city, as
may
be gathered from Paul's Epistles, written during
this
period. Whether he was the same as "the be-
loved
physician," Col. iv. 14, mentioned by Paul, is
uncertain,
but the general opinion is in favour of it.
It
is also disputed, whether or not he was one of the
seventy
disciples. Without undertaking to decide
these
points, I will proceed to lay before the reader
the
principal testimonies of the Fathers respecting
this
gospel and its author.
IRENAEUS asserts, "That Luke, the
companion of
Paul,
put down in a book the gospel preached by him."
Again,
he says, "Luke was not only a companion but
a
fellow-labourer of the apostles, especially of Paul."
He
calls him, "a disciple and fellow-labourer of the
apostles."
"The apostles," says he, "envying none,
plainly
delivered to all the things which they had
heard
from the Lord." So likewise Luke, envying
no
man, has delivered to us what he learned from
174 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS
them,
as he says, "even as they delivered them unto
us,
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses, and
ministers
of his word."*
EUSEBIUS informs us, that CLEMENT of
bore
a large testimony to this, as well as to the other
gospels;
and he mentions a tradition concerning the
order
of the gospels, which Clement had received from
presbyters
of more ancient times—"That the gospels
containing
the genealogies were written first."
TERTULLIAN speaks of Matthew and John
as dis-
ciples
of Christ; of Mark and Luke as disciples of the
apostles;
however, he ascribes the same authority to
the
gospels written by them as to the others. "The
gospel,"
says he, "which Mark published, may be
said
to be Peter's, whose interpreter Mark was; and
Luke's
digest is often ascribed to Paul. And indeed
it
is easy to take that for the Master's which the dis-
ciples
published." Again, "Moreover, Luke was not
an
apostle, but an apostolic man; not a master but a
disciple:
certainly less than his master; certainly so
much
later, as he is a follower of Paul, the last of the
apostles."
ORIGEN mentions the gospels in the
order com-
monly
received—"The third," says he, "is that ac-
cording
to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, pub-
lished
for the sake of the Gentile converts." In his
commentary
on the Epistle to the Romans, which we
now
have in a Latin version only, he writes, "Some
say
Lucius is Lucas, the evangelist, as indeed it is not
uncommon
to write names, sometimes according to the
* "The gospel according to
Luke, being of a priestly charac-
ter,
begins with Zacharias the priest offering incense to God."
CONCERNING LUKE'S GOSPEL. 175
original
form; sometimes according to the Greek and
Roman
termination."
EUSEBIUS has left us the following
testimony con-
cerning
Luke the evangelist—"And Luke who was
of
part
a companion of Paul, who had, likewise, more
than
a slight acquaintance with the other apostles, has
left
us, in two books, divinely inspired, evidences of
the
art of healing souls, which he had learned from
them.
One of them is the gospel which he pro-
fesseth
to have written, as they delivered it to him,
who
from the beginning were eye-witnesses and min-
isters
of his word." "With all whom," he says, "he
had
been perfectly acquainted from the first." And
in
another place, he says, "Luke hath delivered, in
his
gospel, a certain account of such things as he had
been
assured of by his intimate acquaintance and
familiarity
with Paul, and his conversation with the
other
apostles." *
In the Synopsis ascribed to
ATHANASIUS, it is said,
"That
the gospel of Luke was dictated by the apostle
Paul,
and written and published by the blessed apostle
and
physician Luke." GREGORY NAZIANZEN says,
"That
Luke wrote for the Greeks;" and GREGORY
NYSSEN,
"That Luke was as much a physician for the
soul
as the body."
The testimony of JEROME concerning
Luke is as
follows:
"Luke, who was of
sion
a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language,
a
disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant com-
panion
of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another ex-
cellent
volume, entitled, the Acts of the Apostles
* Ecc. Hist. lib.iii. c. iv.
176 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS
.
. . . It is supposed that Luke did not
learn
his
gospel from the apostle Paul only, who had not
conversed
with the Lord in the flesh, but also from
other
apostles, which likewise he owns at the beginning
of
his volume, saying, ‘Even as they delivered them
unto
us who from the beginning were eye-witnesses
and
ministers of the word.’ Therefore, he
wrote the
gospel
from the information of others; but the Acts
he
composed from his own knowledge."*
The same writer in his preface to his
commentary
on
Matthew, says, "The third evangelist is Luke the
physician,
a Syrian of Antioch, who was a disciple of
the
apostle Paul, and published his gospel in the coun-
tries
of Achaia and Eceotia." In another place he
observes,
"That some said that Luke had been a pro-
selyte
to Judaism, before his conversion to Christian-
ity."
CHRYSOSTOM, in his first homily on the gospel
of
Matthew, has this remark: "Luke had
the fluency
of
Paul, Mark the conciseness of Peter, both learning
of
their masters."
ISIDORE of Seville, says, "Of the
four evangelists,
the
first and last relate what they had heard Christ
say,
or had seen him perform. Matthew wrote his
gospel
first in Judea; then Mark in
third,
in Achaia; John, the last, in
again,
"of all the evangelists, Luke, the third in order,
is
reckoned to have been the most skilful in the Greek
tongue.
For he was a physician, and wrote his gos-
pel
in Greek."
In THEOPHYLACT'S preface to Matthew's
gospel, it
is
said, "There are four evangelists, two of whom,
Matthew
and John, were of the apostles; the other
* Book of Illustrious Men.
CONCERNING LUKE'S GOSPEL. 177
two,
Mark and Luke, were of the number of the sev-
enty.
Mark was a disciple and companion of Peter;
Luke
of Paul . . . . Luke wrote fifteen years after
Christ's
ascension."
In his commentary on Luke he observes,
"That it
appears
from Luke's Introduction, that he was not
from
the beginning a disciple, but only afterwards.
For
others were disciples from the beginning, as Peter,
and
the sons of Zebedee, who delivered to him the
things
which they had seen or heard."
EUTHYMIUS says, "Luke was a
native of
and
a physician. He was a hearer of Christ, and,
as
some say, one of his seventy disciples, as well as
Mark.
He was afterwards very intimate with Paul.
He
wrote his gospel, with Paul's permission, fifteen
years
after our Lord's ascension."
E UTYCHIUS, patriarch of
down
the following account: "In the time
of the
same
emperor, (Nero) Luke wrote his gospel in Greek,
to
a notable and wise man of the Romans, whose name
was
Theophilus; to whom also he wrote the Acts, or
the
history of the disciples. The evangelist Luke was
a
companion of the apostle Paul, going with him
wherever
he went. For which reason the apostle
Paul,
in one of his epistles, says, ‘Luke the physician
salutes
you.’"
The same arguments by which the
canonical au-
thority
of the gospels of Matthew and Mark were
established,
apply with their full force to the gospel
of
Luke. It was universally received as canonical
by
the whole primitive church—has a place in every
catalogue
of the books of the New Testament, which
was
ever published--is constantly referred to and cited
178 TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS, &c.
by
the Fathers as a part of sacred Scripture—and
was
one of the books constantly read in the churches,
as
a part of the rule of faith and practice for all be-
lievers.
MARCION, the heretic, it is true, had
a gospel ac-
cording
to Luke, which differed essentially from that
in
the Canon, but his authority has no weight.
OBJECTIONS OF MICHAELIS. 179
SECTION VII.
THE
OBJECTIONS OF J. D. MICHAELIS TO THE CANONICAL
AUTHORITY OF THE GOSPELS OF MARK AND
LUKE, CON-
SIDERED AND ANSWERED.
J.
D. MICHAELIS, in his introduction to the New
Testament,
as translated from the German by Bishop
Marsh,
in the third section of the third chapter,
speaking
of the gospels of Mark and Luke, and of the
Acts
of the Apostles, and of the grounds of placing
them
in the Canon, says, "I must confess that I am
unable
to find a satisfactory proof of their inspiration,
and
the more I investigate the subject, and the oftener
I
compare their writings with those of Matthew and
John,
the greater are my doubts." He then goes on
to
say, that in a former edition of this work he had
stated
the arguments on both sides of the question,
but
although uncertain which he should prefer, yet he
had
rather inclined to the affirmative. But now he
tells
us, that he is strongly inclined to the negative.
The first argument for the inspiration
of these gos-
pels,
which the learned professor considers, is derived
from
the fact, that Mark and Luke were companions
and
assistants of the apostles. This, he says, can
afford
no proof of their inspiration, even if it could be
shown
that they were endowed with the extraordinary
gifts
of the Holy Ghost, of which, however, there is
180 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
no
historical proof. Because a disciple might possess
these
gifts, and yet his writings not be inspired.
And
if we ground the argument for their inspiration
on
the character of an apostle's assistant, then we
must
receive as canonical the genuine epistle of Cle-
ment
of
Fathers.
The next argument which he considers
is, that the
apostles
themselves have recommended these gospels
as
canonical in their epistles. That the passages
depended
on for proof, do refer to these or any other
written
gospels, the professor denies: but even if they
did,
he considers the evidence unsatisfactory; for he
supposes
that they might have commended a book as
containing
genuine historical accounts, without vouch-
ing
for its inspiration.
The testimony of the Fathers, that
these gospels
were
approved by Peter and Paul respectively, and
with
Matthew's gospel were shown to the apostle
John,
the learned professor sets aside with very little
ceremony.
And, finally, he demurs, in regard to
the evidence
of
the canonical authority of these books, derived from
the
testimony of the whole primitive church, by which
they
were undoubtedly received into the Canon; and
suggests,
that the apostles might have recommended
them
and the primitive church have accepted them,
as
works indispensable to a Christian on account of
the
importance of their contents, and that by insensi-
ble
degrees they acquired the character of being in-
spired.
On these reasonings and objections
against the inspi-
ration
and canonical authority of several important
MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 181
books,
which have hitherto held an unquestioned place
in
the Canon of the New Testament, and coming from
the
pen of a man, too, of such extensive Biblical learn-
ing,
I think it necessary to detain the reader with
some
remarks, which I hope will have the effect of
counteracting
the pernicious influence of the opinions
which
have been exhibited above.
1. In the first place, then, I would
observe, that it
will
be admitted that Mark and Luke were humble,
pious
men; also that they were intelligent, well in-
formed
men, and must have known that the commit-
ting
to writing the facts and doctrines comprehended
in
the gospel, was not left to the discretion or caprice
of
every disciple, but became the duty of those only
who
were inspired by the Holy Ghost to undertake
the
work. Now, if these two disciples had been unin-
spired,
or not under the immediate direction of apostles
who
possessed plenary inspiration, it would have
argued
great presumption in them, without any direc-
tion,
to write gospels for the instruction of the church.
The
very fact of their writing, is, therefore, a strong
evidence
that they believed themselves to be inspired.
There
is then little force in the remark of the learned
professor,
that neither Mark nor Luke have declared
in
any part of their writings that they were inspired;
for
such a declaration was unnecessary; their conduct
in
undertaking to write such books, is the best evi-
dence
that they believed themselves called to this
work.
And the objection to this argument,
from the wri-
tings
of other apostolical men, is not valid; for none
of
them ever undertook to write gospels for the use
of
the church. All attempts at writing other gospels
182 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
than
the four were considered by the primitive
church
as impious; because the writers were unin-
spired
men.
2. But the universal reception of
these books by the
whole
primitive church as canonical, and that while
some
of the apostles were living, is the evidence, which
to
my mind is conclusive, that they were not mere
human
productions, but compared by divine inspira-
tion.
That they were thus universally received, I
think
is manifest, from the testimonies which have
already
been adduced. There is not in all the wri-
tings
of antiquity a hint, that any Christian belonging
to
the church ever suspected that these gospels were
inferior
in authority to the others. No books in the
Canon
appear to have been received with more univer-
sal
consent, and to have been less disputed. They are
contained
in every catalogue which has come down to
us.
They are cited as Scripture by all that mention
them;
and are expressly declared by the Fathers to
be
canonical and inspired books.
Now, let it be remembered, that this
is the best evi-
dence
which we can have that any of the books of the
New
Testament were written by inspiration. I know,
indeed,
that Michaelis places the whole proof of inspi-
ration
on the promise made by Christ to his apostles;
but
while it is admitted that this is a weighty conside-
ration,
it does not appear to be equal in force to
the
testimony of the universal church, including the
apostles
themselves, that these writings were penned
under
the guidance of the Holy Spirit; for it is not
perfectly
clear, that the promise referred to was con-
fined
to the twelve. Certainly Paul, who was not of
that
number, was inspired in a plenary manner, and
MICHAELIS'S
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 183
much
the larger part of the twelve never wrote any-
thing
for the Canon. There is nothing in the New
Testament
which forbids our supposing, that other
disciples
might have been selected to write for the use
of
the church. We do not wish that this should be
believed,
in regard to any persons without evidence;
but
we think that the proof exists, and arises from the
undeniable
fact, that the writings of these two men
were
from the beginning received as inspired. And
this
belief must have prevailed before the death of the
apostles;
for all the testimonies concur in stating, that
the
gospel of Mark was seen by Peter, and that of
Luke
by Paul, and approved by them respectively.
Now,
is it credible, that these apostles, and John who
survived
them many years, would have recommended
to
the Christian church the productions of uninspired
men?
No doubt all the churches at that time
looked up to
the
apostles for guidance in all matters that related to
the
rule of their faith; and a general opinion that
these
gospels were canonical could not have obtained
without
their concurrence. The hypothesis of Michaelis,
that
they were recommended as useful human produc-
tions,
and by degrees came to be considered as inspired
writings
is in itself improbable, and repugnant to all
the
testimony which has come down to us on the sub-
ject.
If this had been the fact, they would never
have
been placed among the books universally ac-
knowledged,
but would have been doubted of, or dis-
puted
by some. The difference made between inspired
books,
and others in those primitive times, was as great
as
at any subsequent period; and the line of distinc-
tion
was not only broad, but great pains were taken to
184 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
have
it drawn accurately; and when the common opin-
ion
of the church respecting the gospels was formed,
there
was no difficulty in coining to the certain know-
ledge
of the truth. For thirty years and more before
the
death of the apostle John these two gospels were
in
circulation.
If any doubt had existed respecting
their canonical
authority,
would not the churches and their Elders
have
had recourse to this infallible authority? The
general
agreement of all Christians over the whole
world,
respecting most of the books of the New Testa-
ment,
doubtless, should be attributed to the authority
of
the apostles. If, then, these gospels had been mere
human
productions they might have been read pri-
vately,
but never could have found a place in the
sacred
Canon. The objection to these books comes
entirely
too late to be entitled to any weight. The
opinion
of a modern critic, however learned, is of small
consideration
when opposed to the testimony of the
whole
primitive church, and to the suffrage of the uni-
versal
church in every age since the days of the
apostles.
The rule of the learned Huet already cited
is
sound, viz. "That all those books should be deemed
canonical
and inspired, which were received as such
by
those who lived nearest to the time when they were
published."
3. But if we should for the sake of
argument con-
cede
that no books should be considered as inspired,
but
such as were the productions of apostles, still these
gospels
would not be excluded from the Canon. It is
a
fact, in which there is a wonderful agreement among
the
Fathers, that Mark wrote his gospel from the
mouth
of Peter; that is, he wrote down what he had
MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 185
heard
this apostle every day declaring in his public
ministry.
And Luke did the same in regard to Paul's
preaching.
These gospels, therefore, may, according
to
this testimony, be considered as more probably be-
longing
to these two apostles, than to the evangelists
who
penned them. They were little more it would
seem,
if we give full credit to the testimony which has
been
exhibited, than amanuenses to the apostles on
whom
they attended. Paul we know dictated several
of
his Epistles to some of his companions; and if
Mark
and Luke heard the gospel from Peter and Paul
so
often repeated, that they were perfect masters of
their
respective narratives, and then committed the
same
to writing, are they not virtually the productions
of
these apostles which have been handed down to us?
And
this was so much the opinion of some of the
Fathers,
that they speak of Mark's gospel as Peter's,
and
of Luke's as Paul's.
But this is not all. These gospels
were shown to
these
apostles and received their approbation. Thus
speak
the ancients as with one voice; and if they had
been
silent, we might be certain from the circumstances
of
the case, that these evangelists would never have
ventured
to take such an important step as to write
and
publish the preaching of these inspired men, with-
out
their express approbation. Now let it be con-
sidered,
that a narrative prepared by a man well
acquainted
with the facts related, may be entirely
correct
without inspiration; but of this we cannot be
sure,
and therefore it is of great importance to have
a
history of facts from men who were rendered in-
fallible
by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It
should
be remembered, however, that the only advan-
186 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
tage
of inspiration in giving such a narrative, consists
in
the proper selection of facts and circumstances, and
in
the infallible certainty of the writing. Suppose,
then,
that an uninspired man should prepare an account
of
such transactions as he had seen or heard from eye-
witnesses
of undoubted veracity, and that his narrative
should
be submitted to the inspection of an apostle,
and
receive his full approbation; might not such a
book
be considered as inspired? If in the original com-
position
there should have crept in some errors, (for to
err
is human,) the inspired reviewer would of course
point
them out and have them corrected; now, such a
book
would be for all important purposes an inspired
volume;
and would deserve a place in the Canon of
Holy
Scripture. If any credit then is due to the tes-
timony
of the Christians Fathers, the gospels of Mark
and
Luke are canonical books; for, as was before
stated,
there is a general concurrence among them,
that
these evangelists submitted their works to the
inpection,
and received the approbation of the apostles
Peter
and Paul.
4. Finally, the internal evidence is
as strong in
favour
of the gospels under consideration, as of any
other
books of the New Testament. There is no
reason
to think that Mark and Luke were capable of
writing
with such perfect simplicity and propriety
without
the aid of inspiration, or the assistance of in-
spired
men. If we reject these books from the Canon,
we
must give up the argument derived from internal
evidence
for the inspiration of the sacred Scriptures
altogether.
It is true the learned professor whose
opinions
we are opposing, has said, "The oftener I
compare
their writings (Mark's and Luke's)--with those
MICHAELIS'S
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 187
of
Matthew and John, the greater are my doubts."
And
speaking in another place of Mark, he says, "In
some
immaterial instances he seems to have erred,"
and
gives it as his opinion, "That they who under-
take
to reconcile Mark with Matthew, or to show that
he
is nowhere corrected by John, experience great
difficulty,
and have not seldom to resort to unnatural
explanations."
But the learned professor has not
mentioned
any particular cases of irreconcilable dis-
crepancies
between this evangelist and Matthew; nor
does
he indicate in what statements he is corrected by
John.
Until something of this kind is exhibited,
general
remarks of this sort are deserving of no con-
sideration.
To harmonize the evangelists has
always been found
a
difficult task, but this does not prove that they con-
tradict
each other, or that their accounts are irrecon-
cilable.
Many things which, at first sight, appear
contradictory,
are found, upon closer examination, to
be
perfectly harmonious; and if there be some things
which
commentators have been unable satisfactorily to
reconcile,
it is no more than what might be expected
in
narratives so concise, and in which a strict regard
to
chronological order did not enter into the plan of
the
writers. And if this objection be permitted to
influence
our judgment in this case, it will operate
against
the inspiration of the other evangelists as well
as
Mark; but in our apprehension, when the discre-
pancies
are impartially considered, and all the circum-
stances
of the facts candidly and accurately weighed,
there
will be found no solid ground of objection to the
inspiration
of any of these gospels;—certainly nothing
which
can counterbalance the strong evidence arising
188 MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
from
the style and spirit of the writers. In what re-
spects
these two evangelists fall short of the others,
has
never been shown; upon the most thorough exami-
nation
and fair comparison of these inimitable pro-
ductions,
they appear to be all incited by the same
Spirit,
and to possess the same superiority to all human
compositions.
Compare these gospels with those which
are acknow-
ledged
to have been written by uninspired men, and
you
will need no nice power of discrimination to see
the
difference; the first appear in every respect worthy
of
God; the last betray, in every page, the weakness
of
man.
I beg leave here to use the words of
an excellent
writer,
in a late work: "The gospel of Luke
was
always,
from the very moment of its publication,
received
as inspired as well as authentic. It was pub-
lished
during the lives of John, Peter, and Paul,
and
was approved and sanctioned by them as in-
spired;
and received as such by the churches, in con-
formity
to the Jewish Canon, which decided on the
genuineness
or spuriousness of the inspired books of
their
own church, by receiving him as a prophet, who
was
acknowledged as such by the testimony of an
established
prophet. On the same grounds Luke must
be
considered as a true evangelist; his gospel being
dictated
and approved by an apostle, of whose authority
there
can be no question. There is, likewise, sufficient
evidence
to warrant the conclusions of
both
Mark and Luke were of the number of the
seventy,
who had a commission from Christ to preach
the
gospel, not to the Jews only, but to the other na-
tions—that
the Holy Ghost fell on these among
MICHAELIS'S
OBJECTIONS ANSWERED. 189
the
numbers of the seventy, who formed a part of the
hundred
and twenty, assembled on the day of Pente-
cost,
and from that time they were guided by the
influences
of the Holy Spirit, in writing or preaching
the
gospel. And if the universal church, from the
first
ages, received this gospel as divinely inspired,
on
these satisfactory grounds, distance of time cannot
weaken
the evidences of truth, and we are required
to
receive it on the same testimony. That which satis-
fied
those who had much better means of judging,
should
certainly satisfy us at this time."*
There is something reprehensible, not
to say im-
pious,
in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which
has
led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in
books
of Scripture, and next to call in question the
inspiration
of the whole volume. To what extent this
licentiousness
of criticism has been carried, I need not
say;
for it is a matter of notoriety, that of late the
most
dangerous enemies of the Bible have been found
occupying
the place of its advocates; and the critical
art
which was intended for the correction of the text,
and
the interpretation of the sacred books, has, in a
most
unnatural way, been turned against the Bible;
and
finally, the inspiration of all the sacred books has
not
only been questioned, but scornfully rejected by
Professors of
Theology!
And these men, while
living
on endowments which pious benevolence had
consecrated
for the support of religion, and openly
connected
with churches whose creeds contain orthodox
opinions,
have so far forgotten their high responsibili-
ties,
and neglected the claims which the church had
* New Testament, by the Rev. George
Townsend. Vol. i. p. 5.
190 GERMAN SCEPTICISM.
on
them, as to exert all their ingenuity and learning
to
sap the foundation of that system which they were
sworn
to defend. They have had the shameless hardi-
hood
to send forth into the world, books under their
own
names, which contain fully as much of the poison
of
infidelity as ever distilled from the pens of the most
malignant
deists, whose writings have fallen as a curse
upon
the world. The only effectual security which we
have
against this new and most dangerous form of
infidelity,
is found in the spirit of the age, which is so
superficial
and cursory in its reading, that, however
many
elaborate critical works may be published in
foreign
languages, very few of them will be read, even
by
theological students, in this country.
Even among those who profess to be
orthodox in
doctrine,
a new and dangerous opinion of the nature
and
degree of inspiration possessed by the writers of
the
New Testament, has been broached. It is, that
all
true Christians as they possess the Holy Spirit,
are,
in a measure, inspired; and that the inspiration
of
the apostles differed from that of other Christians
only
in degree. But that such plenary inspiration as
precludes
the possibility of error, was never granted
to
any man.
According to this theory, inspiration
differs not at
all
from that spiritual illumination which is granted to
every
true Christian. But this brings no new truths
to
light, and secures none from all error in his
opinions,
and in his manner of communicating them.
It
is a theory which destroys the certainty and infalli-
bility
of the rule of faith. For if the apostles were
subject
to error, every man when he finds anything in
their
writings which he dislikes, will be at liberty to
GERMAN SCEPTICISM. 191
suppose
that the sacred writer has, in that particular,
fallen
into error. Unless the sacred Scriptures can
be
referred to as an infallible standard, their use is in
a
great measure destroyed. No inspiration but that
which
is infallible will at all answer the purpose for
which
the Bible was written.
192 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN.
SECTION VIII.
THE
GOSPEL OF JOHN—LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST—OCCA-
SION AND TIME OF HIS WRITING—CANONICAL
AUTHORITY
INDISPUTABLE.
THE
fourth gospel was written by John, the son of
Zebedee
and Salome, who was originally a fisherman
of
pose,
was the younger of the brothers, as he is gene-
rally
mentioned last, and is commonly reported to
have
been the youngest of all Christ's disciples. They
were
plain uneducated men, as their occupation suffi-
ciently
indicates. Probably they had been disciples
of
John the Baptist, and some have conjectured that
John
the Evangelist was one of the two to whom John
the
Baptist pointed out Jesus, and who went after him
to
his lodging. The other we know was Andrew,
Simon
Peter's brother; and John, in other cases, has
concealed
his own name, where anything is mentioned
which
could be interpreted to his honour.
Why these two brothers were surnamed
Boanerges,
by
the Lord, does not clearly appear, unless we sup-
pose
that the names were prophetic of the manner of
their
preaching, when commissioned as apostles. But
there
are no facts recorded, from which any inference
can
be drawn in relation to this subject. John has
been
long celebrated for his affectionate temper, and
LIFE OF JOHN. 193
for
the suavity of his manners, which appear very
remarkably
in all his writings; but there is no evi-
dence
that he was naturally of a meek temper. The
facts
in the gospel history would seem to indicate that
both
he and his brother were of a fiery temper, and
by
nature very ambitious; and some have supposed
that
their surname had relation to this ardour of tem-
per,—but
this is not very probable.
We know that John was the bosom friend
of Jesus,
the
disciple whom he loved with a peculiar affection;
and
that he was admitted to all those scenes of a very
interesting
nature, from which most of the other dis-
ciples
were excluded.
It is also certain that he was present
at the cruci-
fixion;
stood near the cross in company with Mary
the
mother of our Lord; and that he remained at the
place
until the body of Jesus, now dead, was pierced
with
a spear. On the morning of the resurrection
John
visited the sepulchre, in company with Peter,
and
was present when Christ made his first appear-
ance
to the eleven; and when he manifested himself
to
his disciples at the
cost
he was with Peter in the temple, when the lame
man
was healed; he accompanied Peter also to Sama-
ria,
and was present at the council of
From
the book of Revelation we learn, that this
evangelist
was for a time an exile in the island of
favoured
with wonderful visions and communications
from
the Lord.
It seems to have been intimated to him
by his
Lord,
at the
the
destruction of
194 CANONICAL AUTHORITY 0F JOHN.
"Lord,
what shall this man do? Jesus saith unto him,
if
I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee?"
which saying gave rise to an opinion among
the
disciples that that disciple should not die: "Yet
Jesus
said not unto him, he shall not die; but if I will
that
he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?" And
this
accords very well with the testimonies of the
ancients,
who inform us that John lived to a great
age.
IRENAEUS, in two places of his work
against Here-
tics,
says, "That John lived to the time of Trajan,"
which
will bring us down to A. D. 98. EUSEBIUS
understands
CLEMENT of
thing.
ORIGEN also testifies, "That John having
lived
long in Asia was buried at
CRATES,
who wrote in the second century, and was
bishop
of
that
city."
JEROME, in his book of Illustrious
Men, and in his
work
against Jovinian, says, "That the apostle John
lived
in
great
age, in the sixty-eighth year of our Lord's pas-
sion,
was buried near the city of
account
would bring down the death of John to A. D.
100,
in which year it is placed by this writer in his
Chronicon.
The testimonies for the genuineness of
the
gospel of John are as full and satisfactory as
could
be desired.
IRENAUS tells us, "That the
evangelist John de-
signed,
by his gospel, to confute the errors which
Cerinthus
had infused into the minds of the people,
and
had been infused by those who were called
Nicolaitons;
and to convince them that there was
CANONICAL
AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 195
one
God, who made all things by his Word; and not,
as
they imagined, one who was the Creator, and an-
other
who was the Father of our Lord; one who was the
Son
of the Creator, and another who was the Christ,
who
continued impassible, and descended upon Jesus,
the
Son of the Creator."
JEROME fully confirms this testimony
of Irenaeus,
and
says, "That when
there
arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and
others,
who denied that Christ was come in the flesh—
that
is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his
Epistle,
calls Antichrists, and
demns
in his Epistles—he was forced by almost all
the
bishops of
other
churches, to write more plainly concerning the
divinity
of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a dis-
course
on the Word, not more bold than happy."
"It is related in ecclesiastical
history, that John,
when
solicited by the brethren to write, answered, that
he
would not do it unless a public day of fasting and
prayer
was appointed to implore God's assistance;
which
being done, and the solemnity being honoured
with
a satisfactory revelation from God, he broke forth
into
these words, In the beginning was the Word," &.c.
JEROME in his book of Illustrious Men,
says, "John
wrote
a gospel at the desire of the bishops of
against
Cerinthus, and other heretics, especially the
doctrines
of the Ebionites, then springing up, who say
that
Christ did not exist before the birth of Mary: for
which
reason he was obliged to declare his divine na-
tivity.
Another reason of his writing is also men-
tioned,
which is, that after having read the volumes
of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke, he expressed his appro-
196 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
bation
of their history as true: but observed, that
they
had recorded an account of but one year of our
Lord's
ministry, even the last after the imprisonment
of
John, (the Baptist) in which also he suffered.
Omitting
therefore that year, (in a great measure) the
history
of which had been written by the other three,
he
related the acts of the preceding time, before John
was
shut up in prison, as may appear to those who
read
the four evangelists, which may serve to account
for
the seeming difference between John and the rest."
AUGUSTINE, in conformity with the
account of
Jerome,
says, "That this evangelist wrote concerning
the
co-eternal divinity of Christ against heretics."
LAMPE
has called in question these early testimonies
respecting
the occasion of writing this gospel, and has
attempted
to prove by argument that John had no
view
to any particular heretics, in the commencement
of
his gospel. LARDNER has taken the same side, and
adduces
several arguments in favour of Lampe's opi-
nion.
TITMAN adopts the same opinion. But the proba-
ble
reasonings of ingenious men when opposed to such a,
weight
of ancient testimony, in relation to a matter of
fact
which occurred at no long distance before their
time,
deserve very little consideration. And, indeed,
after
reading Lardner's arguments, I must say that
they
appear to me to have no high degree of plausi-
bility.
That CERINTHUS lived in the time of
the apostle
John,
and was known to him, is evident from another
testimony
of IRENAEUS, which has been often quoted.
It
is a story which, he says, some persons in his time
had
from POLYCARP, the disciple of John; which is
as
follows: "John going to a certain
bath at
CANONICAL
AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL. 197
and
perceiving that Cerinthus, that noted arch-heretic,
was
in the bath, immediately leaped out, and said,
Let
us go home lest the bath should fall down upon
us,
having in it such a heretic as Cerinthus, that enemy
of
truth."
For the testimony of Irenaeus see
remarks on the
gospel
of Matthew. To which we may here add the
fanciful
reason given by Irenaeus why the number of
gospels
was four, and no more nor less. "Nor can
there
be more or fewer gospels than these. For as
there
are four regions of the world in which we live,
and
four cardinal winds, and the church is spread
over
all the earth, and the gospel is the pillar and sup-
port
of the church, and the breath of life, in like man-
ner
it is fit it should have four pillars, breathing on all
sides
incorruption and refreshing mankind, whence it
is
manifest that the Logos, the maker of all things,
who
sits upon the cherubim, and holds together all
things,
having appeared to men, has given us a gospel
four-fold
in its form, but held together by one Spirit."*
In another part of this work this
Father gives char-
acteristics
of this gospel, thus--
"The gospel according to John
declares his princely,
complete,
and glorious generation from the Father,
saying,
‘In the beginning was the Logos, and the
Logos
was with God, and the Logos was God.'"†
AUGUSTINE, moreover, asserts,
"That John is the
last
of the evangelists." CHRYSOSTOM supposes, that
John
did not write his gospel till after the destruction
of
down
by tradition, that John survived all the other
apostles,
and wrote the last of the four evangelists,
* Iren. Con. Her. lib. iii. c. 11. †
Ibid.
198 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OP JOHN'S GOSPEL.
and
so as to confirm their most certain history."
Again,
he observes, "That in the beginning of John's
gospel
all heretics are confuted."
COSMAS of Alexandria, informs us,
"That when
John
dwelt at
by
the faithful the writings of the other three evan-
gelists.
Receiving them, he said, that what they had
written
was well written; but some things were omit-
ted
by them which were needful to be related. And
being
desired by the faithful, he also published his
writing,
as a kind of supplement to the rest."
ISIDORE of Seville, says, "That
John wrote the last
in
about
two and thirty years after Christ's ascension.
EUTHYMIUS
says, "That this gospel was not written
until
long after the destruction of
CEPHORUS,
"That John wrote last of all, about
six and
thirty
years after our Lord's ascension to heaven."
Having
exhibited the testimonies of the ancients, it
may
not be amiss to set down the opinions of some of
the
moderns, relative to the time when this gospel was
written.
MILL, FABRICIUS, LE CLERC, JONES, and
many
others,
agree that John wrote his gospel about the year
of
our Lord 97. WETSTEIN thinks it might have been
written
about thirty-two years after the ascension.
BASNAGE
and LAMPE are inclined to believe that it
was
written before the destruction of
WHISTON
and LARDNER adopt the same opinion. The
gospel
of John is cited by CLEMENT of
BARNABAS;
by IGNATIUS; by THEOPHILUS of Anti-
och;
by IRENAEUS; and by CLEMENT of
in
more than forty instances. And by all those wri-
TATIAN'S DIATESSARON. 199
ters
who lived with, or immediately after the apostles,
this
gospel is appealed to as inspired Scripture; and
the
same is the fact in regard to ORIGEN, JEROME,
AUGUSTINE,
and all the Fathers, who came after this
period.
Nearly the whole of this gospel could be made
up
from citations of the writers of the first four centu-
ries.
It was never excluded from any church, or any
catalogue
of the books of the New Testament, and
therefore
possesses every evidence of being canonical,
which
any reasonable man could demand.
That the number of genuine gospels was
four and
no
more, is evident from the testimony of All the Fa-
thers
who have spoken of them; and especially from
the
fanciful reason assigned by Irenaeus to prove that
there
could be no more nor fewer. The same is mani-
fest
from the fact that Tatian, a learned disciple of
Justin,
who afterwards became the founder of a sect
of
ascetics, out of the four gospels formed a volume
called
Diatessaron.* In this, however, he left
out
such
things as did not suit his views. But the exist-
ence
of such a book which is attested by Irenaeus, Eu-
sebius,
Jerome and Theodoret, shows that the num-
ber
of gospels commonly received by heretics, as well
as
catholics, was four and no more. The same might
be
proved from the writings of Julian the apostate.
* Harmony of the four gospels.
200 THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
SECTION IX.
THE
ACTS OF THE APOSTLES--LUKE THE AUTHOR--CA-
NONICAL AUTHORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE
FATHERS--
REJECTED ONLY BY HERETICS.
THAT
the Acts of the Apostles is the writing of
Luke
the evangelist, is manifest from the dedication
to
Theophilus, in which reference is made to his gos-
pel,
which was first written. And it is also evident
from
the uniform testimony of all antiquity; the fact
never
having been once questioned by any member of
the
catholic church. All that has been argued in vin-
dication
of the inspiration and canonical authority of
Luke's
gospel, is applicable to the Acts of the Apos-
tles,
and need not be here repeated.
But it is pleasant to read the
explicit testimonies of
the
Fathers to the sacred books of the New Testa-
ment:
I will, therefore, bring forward the
most im-
portant.
IRENAEUS repeatedly cites passages
from this book,
saying,
"Luke, the disciple and follower of Paul, says
thus."
"Luke, the inseparable companion and fellow
labourer
of Paul, wrote thus." He takes
particular
notice
of Luke's using the first person plural, "we
endeavoured—we
came—we went—we sat down—
we
spoke," &c.; and enters into some discussion
LUKE THE AUTHOR OF THE ACTS. 201
to
prove "Luke's fitness for writing a just and true
history."
In another place he shows, "That
Luke's Acts of
the
Apostles ought to be equally received with his
gospel;
for that in them he has carefully delivered
to
us the truth, and given to us a sure rule for sal-
vation."
Again he says, "Paul's account of his
going
to
the
Acts."
CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS citing Paul's
speech at
the
Apostles relates." TERTULLIAN
cites several
passages
out of the Acts of the Apostles which he calls,
"Commentarius Lucae, The Commentary of
Luke."
Origen
ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke.
EUSEBIUS
says, "Luke has left us two inspired
volumes,
The Gospel and The Acts." JEROME ex-
pressly
asserts, "That the Acts was the composition
of
Luke." The Syriac Version of the New Testa-
ment
ascribes the Acts to Luke; and in some very
ancient
manuscripts of the New Testament his name
is
prefixed to this book.
To this uniform body of ancient
testimony there is
nothing
which can be objected, except that the author
of
the Synopsis, commonly ascribed to ATHANASIUS,
says,
"Peter dictated the Acts of the Apostles, but
Luke
wrote them." But if this were true it would not
in
the least detract from the authority of the book,
but
rather increase it. One testimony, however, can
be
of no avail against so many; and we know that
Luke
knew most of the facts recorded in this book by
his
own personal observation, and needed no one to
dictate
them to him. Besides, Peter was not an eye-
202 THE ACTS CANONICAL.
witness
of the greater number of the facts related in
this
book.
The time when the Acts of the Apostles
was written
may
be determined pretty accurately, by the time
when
the history which it contains terminates; that is
about
A. D. 62; for no doubt he began to write soon
after
he left
That the Acts of the Apostles is of
canonical autho-
rity,
is proved from its having a place in all the ancient
catalogues
of the books of the New Testament. The
same
is evinced by the numerous citations from this
book
by the early Fathers, who explicitly appeal to
it
as of divine authority—as an inspired book. It is
plainly
referred to in more instances than one by CLE-
MENT
of Rome, the fellow-labourer of Paul. POLY-
CARP
the disciple of John also cites a passage from the
Acts,
in his Epistle to the Philippians. It is cited by
JUSTIN
MARTYR in his Exhortation to the Greeks. It
is
distinctly cited by IRENAEUS more than thirty times,
in
some of which instances it is expressly called Scrip-
ture;
and the credit and authority of the book are
largely
discussed in his work against heretics.
The citations of TERTULLIAN from this
book are
too
numerous to be particularized. He also quotes it
expressly
under the name of Scripture; "Which
part
of
Scripture," says he, "they who do not receive,
must
deny the descent of the Holy Ghost, and be igno-
rant
of the infant state of the Christian church."*
This book was also constantly read as
Scripture
in
the weekly assemblies of Christians all over the
world.
From the testimonies adduced above it
will appear,
* De Praescriptione.
THE ACTS CANONICAL. 203
with
convincing evidence, how unfounded is the opinion
of
some learned men, that the Acts in the early period
of
the church was very little known comparatively, and
very
little esteemed. This opinion has been favoured
by
such men as Father Simon and Dr. Mill; and has
no
other foundation than a passage in the Prolegomena
to
the Acts, ascribed to CHRYSOSTOM, the genuineness
of
which is very doubtful. But if CHRYSOSTOM was
the
author of tins passage, how little can it weigh
against
such a host of witnesses? The passage referred
to
is, "This book is not so much as known to many;
they
know neither the book nor by whom it was
written."
Now the same might be asserted
respecting
all
the books in the Canon. There are many persons
ignorant
of what they contain and unacquainted with
their
object. But there is no need to dwell longer on
this
objection.
The Acts of the Apostles, therefore,
has an indis-
putable
claim to a place in the sacred Canon. No
better
or stronger evidence can be desired. It is true
that
some of the earliest heretics did not receive this
book
as canonical. TERTULLIAN informs us that it
was
rejected by Cerdo, the master of Marcion, and
some
others whom he does not name, but whom he
refutes.
PHILASTRIUS informs us that the
Cerinthians did
not
receive this book. And AUGUSTINE tells us, that
the
Manichees did not, because they considered Manes
to
be the Paraclete, promised by the Saviour; but in
the
Acts, it is declared to have been the Holy Ghost
which
descended on the apostles on the day of
Pentecost.
204 THE ACTS CANONICAL.
"But," says Father Simon,
"let us leave these
enthusiasts,
who had no other reason for rejecting the
books
received by the whole church, except that they
did
not suit with the idea which they had formed of
the
Christian religion."
EPISTLES OF PAUL. 205
SECTION X.
TESTIMONIES
TO THE CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE
FOURTEEN EPISTLES OF PAUL.
ON
the subject of Paul's epistles, there is a universal
consent
among the ancients, except as it relates to the
epistle
to the Hebrews; which having been published
without
the apostle's name and usual salutation, many
conjectured
that it was the production of another per-
son;
and while some ascribed it to Barnabas, others
thought
that either Clement or Luke was the writer.
There
seems to have been a difference between the
eastern
and western churches on this subject; for the
Greeks
appear to have entertained no doubts in regard
to
Paul's being the author of this epistle: it was only
among
the Latins that its genuineness was a matter
of
uncertainty. And the most learned among these
adopted
the opinion, that it was the production of
Paul;
and by degrees its authority was fully estab-
lished
in the west as well as the east. The true state
of
the case will, however, appear more clearly by citing
the
testimonies of the Fathers, than by any general
representation.
Although CLEMENT, the fellow-labourer
of Paul,
frequently
cites passages from the gospels and epistles,
yet
he never expressly mentions any book of the New
206 EPISTLES OF PAUL.
Testament,
except Paul's first epistle to the Corin-
thians;
to whom also Clement's epistle was addressed.
His
words are, "Take into your hands the epistle of
blessed
Paul the apostle. What did he at first write
to
you in the beginning of the gospel? Verily he did
by
the Spirit admonish you concerning himself, and
Cephas
and Apollos, because that even then you did
form
parties." There are in this epistle
of Clement
many
other passages in which the words of Paul are
cited,
but this is the only one in which his name is
mentioned.
HERMAS and IGNATIUS also often quote
the words
of
Paul's epistles, but the books from which they are
taken
are not designated.
POLYCARP, the disciple of the apostle
John and
bishop
of
old
age, about the middle of the second century, after
sentence
of death was pronounced upon him, wrote an
epistle
to the Philippians, in which he makes express
mention
of Paul's first epistle to the Corinthians—
"Do
ye not know that the saints shall judge the
world,
as Paul teaches?" See 1 Cor. vi. 2.
He also quotes a passage from the
epistle to the
Ephesians,
under the name of Holy Scripture. "For
I
trust," says he, "that ye are well exercised in the
Holy
Scripture—as in these Scriptures it is said, 'Be
ye
angry and sin not: let not the sun go down upon
your
wrath.'" Ephes. iv. 26. POLYCARP
also cites
passages
from the second epistle to the Corinthians;
from
the epistle to the Galatians; from the first and
second
to the Thessalonians; from the epistle to the
Hebrews;
and from both the epistles to Timothy; but,
as
is usual with the apostolical Fathers, he does not
QUOTATIONS
FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 207
refer
to the books or authors from which he makes his
citations.
JUSTIN MARTYR quotes many passages in
the very
words
of Paul, without mentioning his name. But
IRENAEUS
distinctly and frequently quotes thirteen of
Paul's
epistles. He takes nothing, indeed, from
the
short
epistle to Philemon, which can easily be ac-
counted
for by the brevity of this letter, and the
special
object which the apostle had in view in, pen-
ning
it.
It would fill a large space to put
down all the
passages
cited by Irenaeus from the epistles of Paul.
Let
it suffice to give one from each as quoted in his
work
"Against Heresies."—"This same thing Paul
has
explained writing to the Romans, ‘Paul an apostle
of
Jesus Christ, separated to the gospel of God.’
i.
1. And again writing to the Romans concerning
concerning
the flesh, Christ came who is God over all,
blessed
for evermore.'" Rom. ix. 5.
"This also Paul
manifestly
shows in his epistle to the Corinthians,
saying,
‘Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye
should
be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under
the
cloud.' 1 Cor. x. 1. Paul in his second
epistle to
the
Corinthians, says, 'In whom the God of this world
hath
blinded the eyes of them that believe not.'" 2
Cor.
iv. 4. "The apostle Paul says, in his epistle to
the
Galatians, Wherefore then serveth the law of
works?
It was added until the seed should come
to
whom
the promise was made.'" Gal. iii. 10. "As
also
the blessed Paul says, in his epistle to the Ephe-
sians,
For we are members of his body, of his flesh,
and
of his bones.'" Eph. v. 30. "As also Paul says
208 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to
the Philippians, 'I am full, having received of
Epaphroditus,
the things which were sent from you,
an
odour of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well
pleasing
to God.'" Phil. iv. 13. "Again
Paul says,
in
his epistle to the Colossians, Luke the beloved
physician
saluteth you.'" Col. iv. 14. "The apostle
in
the first epistle to the Thessalonians, says, ‘And
the
God of peace sanctify you wholly.'" 1 Thess. v. 23.
"And
again, in the second epistle to the Thessalo-
nians,
speaking of Antichrist, he says, ‘And then
shall
that wicked one be revealed.'" 2
Thess. ii. 8.
In
the beginning of his work against heresies, he says,
"Whereas
some having rejected the truth, bringing in
lying
words, and vain genealogies, rather than godly
edifying,
which is in faith,' 1 Tim. i. 4, as
saith the
apostle."
This epistle is often quoted by Irenaeus,
in
the
work above mentioned. Speaking of Linus bishop
of
tion
in his epistle to Timothy, ‘Eubulus greeteth thee,
and
Pudens, and Linus;" 2 Tim. iv. 21. "As Paul
says,
‘A man that is an heretic after the first and
second
admonition, reject.’" Tit. iii. 10.
Thus, we
have
seen that IRENAEUS who lived in the age imme-
diately
succeeding that in which Paul lived and wrote,
has
borne explicit testimony to all the epistles of that
apostle
which have his name prefixed, except the short
epistle
to Philemon, from which it is probable he had
no
occasion to take any authorities, as it is very con-
cise,
and addressed to a friend on a particular subject
in
which Paul felt deeply interested.
As to the epistle to the Hebrews,
which is anony-
mous,
there is ample evidence that IRENAEUS was
acquainted
with it; but it is doubtful whether he
QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 209
esteemed
it to be the production of Paul, or some
other
person. As he resided in
possible
that he participated in the prejudice of the
western
church on this point. EUSEBIUS informs us,
that
he had seen a work of IRENIEUS which has not
reached
our times, in which he cites passages from the
epistle
to the Hebrews; but he does not say that he
quoted
them as Paul's. And in his works, which are
still
extant, there are several passages cited from this
epistle,
but without direct reference to the source
whence
they were derived.
ATHENAGORAS quotes from several of
Paul's epis-
tles;
but, as has been seen to be the custom of the
early
Fathers, he commonly uses the words, without
informing
the reader, from what author they were
borrowed.
There is, however, a passage in which
he
refers to both the first and second epistles to the
Corinthians,
as being the production of the apostle
Paul.
"It is manifest, therefore," says he, "that
according
to the apostle, this corruptible and dissi-
pated
must put on incorruption, that the dead being
raised
up, and the separated and even consumed parts
being
again united, every one may receive justly, the
things
he hath done in the body, whether they be
good
or bad.'" 1 Cor. xv. 54; 2 Cor. V. 10.
CLEMENT, of
from
Paul's epistles; a few of which will be sufficient
for
our purpose. "The apostle, in the epistle to the
Romans,
says, Behold, therefore, the goodness and
severity
of God.'" "The blessed Paul,
in the first
epistle
to the Corinthians, says, ‘Brethren, be not
children
in understanding; howbeit, in malice, be ye
children,
but in understanding be ye men.’" 1
Cor.
210 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES.
xiv.
20. He has also many quotations from the
second
to the Corinthians—"The apostle," says he,
“calls
the common doctrine of the faith, ‘a savour
of
knowledge,’ in the second to the Corinthians.”
2
Cor. ii. 14. "Hence, also, Paul
says, Having
these
promises, dearly beloved, let us cleanse our
hearts
from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, per-
fecting
holiness, in the fear of God.'" 2 Cor. vii. 1.
"Whereupon
Paul, also writing to the Galatians,
says,
‘My little children, of whom I travail in birth
again
until Christ be formed in you.’" Gal. iv. 19.
"Whereupon
the blessed apostle says, 'I testify in
the
Lord that ye walk not as other Gentiles walk.'
Eph.
iv. 17, 18. Again, submitting yourselves one
to
another in the fear of God.'" Eph.
v. 21. He
quotes
part of the first and second chapters of the
epistle
to the Philippians expressly; and in another
place
he quotes the same epistle, after this manner:
"The
apostle of the Lord also exhorting the Mace-
donians,
says, 'the Lord is at hand, take heed that we
be
not found empty.'" Philip. iv. 5.
CLEMENT also quotes the epistle to the
Colossians,
and
the epistles to the Thessalonians. From the first
epistle
to Timothy he cites this passage, "0 Timothy,
keep
that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding
profane
and vain babblings, and oppositions of science,
falsely
so called, which some professing, have erred
concerning
the faith." 1 Tim. vi. 20, 21. On
which
he
observes, "Heretics confuted by this saying, reject
both
epistles to Timothy." The epistle to Titus is
also
quoted several times; and he remarks, in one
place,
"that Paul had cited Epimenides, the Cretan,
in
his epistle to Titus, after this manner, ‘One of
QUOTATIONS
FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES. 211
themselves,
a poet of their own, said, the Cretans are
always
liars.'" Tit. i. 12, 13. The
epistle to the
Hebrews
is also distinctly quoted, and is ascribed to
Paul
as its author. "Wherefore, writing
to the He-
brews,
who were declining from the faith to the law,
Paul
says, ‘Have ye need that any teach you again,
which
be the first principles of the oracles of God, and
are
become such, as have need of milk, and not of
strong
meat.'" Heb. v. 12.
TERTULLIAN frequently, and expressly
quotes most
of
Paul's epistles. In one place he says, "I will,
therefore,
by no means say, God, nor Lord, but I will
follow
the apostles; so that if the Father and the Son
are
mentioned together, I will say, God the Father,
and
Jesus Christ the Lord. But when I mention
Christ
only, I will call him God, as the apostle
does,
Of whom Christ came, who is over all, God
blessed
for ever.'" Rom. ix. 5. "Paul, in his first
epistle
to the Corinthians, speaks of those who
doubted,
or denied the resurrection." In his
Treatise
on
Monogamy, he computes that it was about one
hundred
and sixty years from Paul's writing this
epistle,
to the time when he wrote. "In the second
epistle
to the Corinthians, they suppose the apostle
Paul
to have forgiven the same fornicator, who in the
first,
he declared, ought to be delivered to Satan for
the
destruction of the flesh." "But
of this, no more
need
be said, if it be the same Paul, who, writing to
the
Galatians, reckons heresy among the works of the
flesh;
and who directs Titus to reject a man that is a
heretic,
after the first admonition, knowing that he
that
is such is subverted and sinneth, being condemned
of
himself.’” "I pass," says he,
"to another
212 QUOTATIONS FROM PAUL'S EPISTLES.
epistle,
which we have inscribed to the Ephesians;
but
the heretics, to the Laodiceans." Again,
"Ac-
cording
to the true testimony of the church, we sup-
pose
this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians,
and
not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion has endea-
voured
to alter this inscription, upon pretence of hav-
ing
made a more diligent search into this matter.
But
the inscriptions are of no importance, for the
apostle
wrote to all, when he wrote to some."
Speaking of the Christian's hope, he
says, "Of
which
hope and expectation, Paul to the Galatians
says,
‘For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of
righteousness
by faith.’ He does not say we have
obtained
it, but he speaks of the hope of the righteous-
ness
of God in the day of judgment, when our reward
shall
be decided. Of which being in suspense,
when
he
wrote to the Philippians, he said, 'If by any means,
I
might attain unto the resurrection of the dead; not
as
though I had already attained, or were already
perfect.'
Phil. iii. 11, 12. The apostle, writing
to
the
Colossians, expressly cautions against philosophy,
‘Beware
lest any man spoil you through philosophy
and
vain deceit, after the tradition of men, and not
after
the instruction of the Spirit.’" Col. ii. 8.
"And
in the epistle to the Thessalonians, the apostle
adds,
‘But of the times and the seasons, brethren,
ye
have no need that I write unto you. For your-
selves
know perfectly, that the day of the Lord so
cometh
as a thief in the night.'" 1 Thess. v. 1-3.
"And
in his second epistle to the same persons, he
writes
with greater solicitude: ‘But I beseech you,
brethren,
by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that
ye be not soon shaken in mind, nor be troubled.'
PAUL'S AUTOGRAPHY. 213
2
Thess. ii. 1, 2. "And this word, Paul has used in
writing
to Timothy, 0 Timothy, keep that which is
committed
to thy trust.'" 1 Tim. vi. 20.
That remarkable passage of TERTULLIAN,
in which
he
is supposed to refer to the existing autographs of
the
epistles of Paul, although referred to already, may
with
propriety be here introduced. "Well," says he,
"if
you be willing to exercise your curiosity profit-
ably,
in the business of your salvation, visit the apos-
tolical
churches, in which the very chairs of the apos-
tles
still preside, in which their very authentic letters
(authenticae literae) are recited,
sending forth the
voice,
and representing the countenance of each one of
them.
Is Achaia near you? You have
you
are not far from
—you
have Thessalonica. If you can go to
you
have
have
fied."
There are three opinions respecting
the meaning of
this
phrase authenticae literae; authentic
letters;
The
first is, that it signifies the original manuscripts of
the
apostles—the autographs which were sent severally
to
the churches named, to all of which Paul addressed
epistles.
The second opinion is, that Tertullian meant
to
refer his readers to the original Greek of these epis-
tles,
which they had been accustomed to read in a
Latin
version. And the third is, that this phrase
means
well authenticated letters; epistles which, by
application
to these churches, could be proved to be
genuine
writings of the apostles.
Now, that the first of these is the
true sense of Ter-
214 PAUL'S AUTOGRAPHY.
tullian's
words, will, I think, appear very probable, if
we
consider, that if those autographs were preserved,
even
with common care, they would have been extant
in
the time of Tertullian, who reckons only 160 years
From
the time of Paul's writing to his own time. And
again,
unless he meant this, there is no reason why he
should
direct his readers only to those cities which had
received
epistles; for doubtless many other churches,
which
might be more accessible, had authentic copies
in
the Greek language. Such copies undoubtedly ex-
isted
in
not,
however, have been directed to go to
see
the epistles of Paul in Greek. Neither was it ne-
cessary
to take a journey to these cities to be fully
convinced,
that the letters which had been received by
them
were genuine; for the evidence of this fact was
not
confined to these distinguished places, but was dif-
fused
all over the Christian world.
From these considerations I conclude,
that in Ter-
tullian's
time these churches had in possession, and
preserved
with care, the identical epistles sent to them
by
Paul. This sense is confirmed by what he says,
of
their being able to hear the voice, and behold the
countenance
of the apostles, and see the very seats on
which
they had been accustomed to sit when they
presided
in the church. These seats were still occu-
pied
by the bishops, and seemed to preside, as they
were
venerable from having been once occupied by the
apostles.
Tertullian was acquainted with the
epistle to the
Hebrews,
for he quotes several passages from the sixth
TESTIMONY OF THEOPHILUS. 215
chapter,
but he ascribes it to Barnabas, and not to
Paul.
In this opinion, I believe, lie is singular.
THEOPHIFILUS of Antioch quotes the
following pas-
sage
from the epistle to the Romans, but seems to have
quoted
from memory, "He will search out all things,
and
will judge justly; rendering to all according to
the
desert of their actions. To them that by patient
continuance
in well-doing seek for immortality, he
will
give eternal life, joy, peace, rest, and many good
things,
which neither eye hath seen, nor ear heard,
nor
have entered into the heart of man. But to the
unbelieving,
and the despisers, and them that obey not
the
truth, but obey unrighteousness, shall be wrath
and
indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in a
word,
eternal fire shall be the portion of such." This
passage
is evidently taken from Rom. ii. 6-9, and
as
evidently cited from memory. It also contains a
quotation
from 1 Cor. ii. 9.
This early and learned Father has also
cited, in
the
same loose manner, passages from the epistles to
the
Ephesians—to the Philippians—to the Colossians
—to
Timothy—to Titus—and from the epistle to the
Hebrews,
but without naming the book from which the
passages
are taken; which is in accordance with the
practice
of all the apostolic Fathers.
The following passage is worthy of
notice, not only
because
it contains an undoubted reference to the
second
epistle of Peter; but because it shows what
opinion
was in that early age entertained of the inspi-
ration
of the sacred Scriptures: "But men
of God,
filled
with the Holy Ghost, and becoming prophets,
inspired
by God himself, and being enlightened were
taught
of God, and were holy and righteous, wherefore
216 TESTIMONY OF CLEMENT.
they
obtained the honour to become the organs of
God."*
CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA lived and wrote
toward
the
close of the second century. After Pantaeus he
was
president of the Alexandrian school. Several of
his
works have come down to us, from which the fol-
lowing
citations from Paul's epistles are taken. "Be-
hold,
therefore," saith Paul, "the goodness and seve-
rity
of God." Rom. xvi. 19. "The blessed Paul, in
the
first epistle to the Corinthians, says, ‘Brethren, be
not
children in understanding, but in malice be ye
children,
but in understanding be ye men.’ And he
says,
the apostle in the second epistle to the Corin-
thians,
calls the gospel "a savour of knowledge," 2
Cor.
xi. 14. "Again, Paul says, 'Having these pro-
mises,
dearly beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from all
filthiness
of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in
the
fear of God.' 2 Cor. vii. 1. He cites
the follow-
ing
from the epistle to the Ephesians: "As blessed Paul
saith,
‘Walk not as other Gentiles walk.’ Ephes.
vi.
17,
and ‘submitting yourselves one to another in the
fear
of God." Eph. v. 21. He also cites
the following
words
from the epistle to the Galatians, "My little
children,
of whom I travail in birth until Christ be
formed
in you." Gal. iv. 19. And from the Philip-
pians,
these words, "Not as though I had already at-
tained
or were already perfect," Phil. iii. 12. He also
cites
texts frequently from the epistles to the Colos-
sians
and Thessalonians, and always quotes them as
written
by Paul. From the first epistle to Timothy,
vi.
20, he has the following, "0 Timothy, keep that
* Theoph. ad Antolycuin lib. ii. For
other citations see Lard-
ner,
Vol. 1.
ORIGEN'S TESTIMONY. 217
which
is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane bab-
blings,
and oppositions of science, falsely so called."
He
also refers to the second epistle to Timothy, and
the
epistle to Titus he quotes several times. It is sa-
tisfactory
to have the testimony of so early and so
learned
a Father in favour of the canonical authority
of
the epistle to the Hebrews, and of its having Paul
as
its author. "Blessed Paul, writing to such as were
declining,
says, Ye have need that one teach you again
which
he the first principles of the oracles of God, and are
become
such as have need of milk and not strong meat.'"
Heb.
v. 12.
ORIGEN quotes Paul's epistles, as
expressly and
frequently
as is done by almost any modern writer.
To
transcribe all the passages cited by him, would be
to
put down a large portion of the writings of this
apostle.
A few instances will be sufficient.
In
one passage, in his work against Celsus, he men-
tions
several of Paul's epistles together, in the follow-
ing
manner—"Do you, first of all, explain the epistles
of
him who says these things, and having diligently
read,
and attended to the sense of the words there
used,
particularly in that to the Ephesians, to the
Thessalonians,
to the Philippians, to the Romans,
&c."
The epistle to the Ephesians is elsewhere
quoted.
by Origen with the inscription which it now
bears.
After employing an argument founded on
a passage
quoted
from the epistle to the Hebrews, he observes:
"But
possibly some one, pressed with this argument,
will
take refuge in the opinion of those who reject this
epistle
as not written by Paul. In answer to such
we
intend to write a distinct discourse, to prove this to
218 CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY.
be
an epistle of Paul." In his citations of this epistle,
therefore,
he constantly ascribes it to Paul in such ex-
pressions
as these, "Paul, in his epistle to the He-
brews,"
"In the epistle to the Hebrews, the same
Paul
says."
But Origen not only expresses his own
opinion on
this
subject, but asserts, that by the tradition received
by
the ancients it was ascribed to Paul. His words
are,
"For it is not without reason that the ancients
have
handed it down to us as Paul's." Now, when
we
take into view that Origen lived within one hun-
dred
years of the time of the apostles, and that he was
a
person of most extraordinary learning, and that he
had
travelled much through different countries, his
testimony
on this point is of great weight; especially,
since
his opinion is founded on the testimony of the
ancients,
by whom he must mean the contemporaries
of
the apostles. At the same time, however, he men-
tions,
that some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Cle-
ment
of
CYPRIAN often quotes the epistles of
Paul. "Ac-
cording,"
says he, "to what the blessed apostle wrote
in
his epistle to the Romans, ‘Every one shall give
account
of himself to God, therefore, let us not judge
one
another.’" Rom. xiv. 12. In his first
book of
Testimonies,
he says, "In the first epistle of Paul to
the
Corinthians, it is said, 'Moreover, brethren, I
would
not ye should be ignorant, how that all our fa-
thers
were baptized unto Moses, in the cloud, and in
the
sea.' 1 Cor. x. 1. Likewise, in the
second epistle
to
the Corinthians, it is written, ‘Their minds were
blinded
unto this day.’ 2 Cor. iii. 15. In like
man-
ner,
blessed Paul, by the inspiration of the Lord, says,
CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY. 219
‘Now
he that ministereth seed to the sower, minister
bread
for your food, and multiply your seed sown, and
increase
the fruits of your righteousness, that ye may
be
enriched in all things.’ 2 Cor. ix. 10.
Likewise
Paul
to the Galatians says, ‘When the fulness of
time
was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a wo-
man.’"
Gal. iv. 4.
CYPRIAN expressly quotes the epistle
to the Ephe-
sians
under that title. "But the apostle Paul, speak-
ing
of the same thing more clearly and plainly, writes
to
the Ephesians, and says, ‘Christ loved the church,
and
gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and
cleanse
it, with the washing of water.’ Ephes. v. 25, 26.
So
also, Paul to the Philippians says, ‘Who being ap-
pointed
in the form of God, did not earnestly affect to
be
equal with God, but made himself of no reputation,
taking
on him the form of a servant; and being made
in
the likeness of man, and found in fashion as a man,
he
humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death,
even
the death of the cross.’ Philip. ii. 6-8. In the
epistle
of Paul to the Colossians, it is written, ‘Con-
tinue
in prayer, watching in the same.’ Col. iv. 2.
Likewise,
the blessed apostle Paul, full of the Holy
Ghost,
sent to call and convert the Gentiles, warns and
teaches,
'Beware lest any man spoil you through philo-
sophy,
&c.'" Col. ii. 8. He also quotes both the epistles
to
the Thessalonians. In his book of Testimonies he
says,
"If the apostle Paul writing to Timothy, said,
‘Let
no man despise thy youth,’ 1 Tim. iv. 12, much
more
may it be said of you and your colleagues, ‘Let
no
man despise thy age.’" "Therefore
the apostle
writes
to Timothy and exhorts, that a bishop should
not
strive, but be gentle, and apt to teach.'" 2 Tim.
220 CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY.
ii.
24. These two epistles are elsewhere quoted dis-
tinctly,
as the first and second to Timothy. He also
quotes
from the epistle to Titus, the passage, "A man
that
is an heretic after the first and second admoni-
tion
reject." Tit. iii. 10.
CYPRIAN no where quotes the epistle to
the He-
brews.
It is probable, therefore, that he, like some
others
of the Latin Fathers, did not believe it to be
Paul's,
or was doubtful respecting it. Neither does
he
cite the epistle to Philemon; of this no other rea-
son
need be sought, but its contents and brevity.
How
many Christian authors have written volumes,
without
any citation of that epistle! VICTORINUS,
who
lived near the close of the third century, often
quotes
Paul's Epistles; and among the rest, he cites
the
epistle to the Hebrews, which he seems to have
believed
to be the production of Paul. DIONYSIUS of
man
of great learning, in the few fragments of his
works
which remain, often refers to Paul's Epistles.
NOVATUS,
presbyter of the church of Rome, who
flourished
about the middle of the third century, ex-
pressly
cites from the epistle to the Romans, that
famous
testimony to Christ's divinity, so often quoted
by
the Fathers, "Whose are the fathers, of whom is
Christ
according to the flesh, who is over all, God
blessed
for ever." And it deserves to be recollected,
that
although so many, beginning with Irenaeus, have
cited
this passage, yet none of them appear to have
thought
the words capable of any other meaning, than
the
plain obvious sense, which strikes the reader at
first.
That it was a mere exclamation of praise, seems
never
to have entered their minds. NOVATUS also
TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES. 221
quotes
the first and second epistles to the Corinthians,
the
epistles to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, and to
the
Philippians. From this last epistle he cites these
remarkable
words: "Who being in the form of God,"
Phil.
ii. 6, and interprets the following clause in exact
accordance
with another of the Fathers, “did not ear-
nestly
seek to be like God, or to be equal with God.”
He
quotes from the epistle to the Colossians these
words:
"Whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or
principalities,
or powers, things visible and invisible,
by
him all things consist." Col. i. 16, 17. The epis-
tles
to Timothy and to Titus are also cited by this
author.
METHODIUS, who lived in the latter
part of the
third
century, quotes Paul's epistle to the Romans,
first
and second to the Corinthians, to the Galatians,
to
the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians,
the
first to the Thessalonians, and the first to Timothy.
He
has also taken several passages from the epistle to
the
Hebrews, and quotes it in such a manner,
as to
render
it highly probable that he esteemed it to be a
part
of sacred Scripture, and ascribed it to Paul.
EUSEBIUS, the learned historian,
undoubtedly re-
ceived
thirteen epistles of Paul as genuine; and he
seems
to have entertained no doubt respecting the
canonical
authority of the epistle to the Hebrews;
but
he sometimes expresses himself doubtfully of its
author,
while at other times he quotes it as Paul's,
without
any apparent hesitation. In speaking of the
universally
acknowledged epistle of Clement of Rome,
he
observes: "In which, inserting many sentiments of
the
epistle to the Hebrews, and also using some of
the
very words of it, he plainly manifests that epistle
222 TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to
be no modern writing. And hence it has, not
without
reason, been reckoned among the other writ-
ings
of the apostle; for Paul having written to the
Hebrews
in their own language, some think that the
Evangelist
Luke, others, that this very Clement trans-
lated
it; which last is the more probable of the two,
there
being a resemblance between the style of the
epistle
of Clement, and that to the Hebrews; nor are
the
sentiments of these two writings very different."
In
his Ecclesiastical History, he speaks, "of the
epistle
to the Hebrews, and divers other epistles of
Paul."
And Theodoret positively asserts, that Euse-
bius
received this epistle as Paul's, and that he mani-
fested
that all the ancients, almost, were of the same
opinion.
It seems, from these facts, that in the time
of
Eusebius, the churches with which he was ac-
quainted,
did generally receive the epistle to the He-
brews
as the writing of Paul.
AMBROSE, bishop of
of
Paul. JEROME received as undoubted all Paul's
epistles,
except that to the Hebrews, concerning which
he
says in his letter to Evangelius, "That all the
Greeks
and some of the Latins received this epistle."
And
in his letter to Dardanus, "That it was not only
received
as Paul's by all the churches of the east, in
his
time, but by all the ecclesiastical writers in former
times,
though many ascribe it to Barnabas, or Cle-
ment."
He also says, "that it was daily read in the
churches;
and if the Latins did not receive this epis-
tle,
as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, he
received
both; not being so much influenced by pre-
sent
times, as by the judgment of ancient writers, who
quote
both; and that not as they quote apocryphal
TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES. 223
books,
and even heathen writings, but as canonical
and
ecclesiastical."
JEROME, in speaking of the writings of
Paul, gives
the
following very full and satisfactory testimony;
"He
wrote," says he, "nine epistles to seven churches.
To
the Romans, one; to the Corinthians, two; to the
Galatians,
one; to the Philippians, one; to the Colos-
sians,
one; to the Thessalonians, two; to the Ephe-
sians,
one; to Timothy, two; to Titus, one; to Phile-
mon,
one. But the epistle called to the
Hebrews is
not
thought to be his, because of the difference of
argument
and style; but rather Barnabas's, as Ter-
tullian
thought; or Luke's, according to some others;
or
Clement's, who was afterwards bishop of
who
being much with Paul, clothed and adorned Paul's
sense
in his own language. Or if it be Paul's, he
might
decline putting his name to it in the inscription,
for
fear of offending the Jews. Moreover, he wrote as
a
Hebrew to the Hebrews, it being his own language;
whence
it came to pass, that being translated, it has
more
elegance in the Greek than his other epistles.
This
they say is the reason of its differing from Paul's
other
writings. There is also an epistle to the Lao-
diceans,
but it is rejected by every body." Jerome
commonly
quotes the epistle to the Hebrews as the
apostle
Paul's; and, as we have seen before, this was
his
prevailing opinion, which is not contradicted in the
long
passage just cited.
AUGUSTINE received fourteen epistles
of Paul, the
last
of which, in his catalogue, is the epistle to the
Hebrews;
he was aware, however, that some in his
time
thought it of doubtful authority. "However,"
says
he, "I am inclined to follow the opinion of the
224 DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES.
churches
of the east, who receive it among the canoni-
cal
Scriptures."
The time when each of these epistles
was written
cannot
be ascertained with any exactness. It is not
even
agreed among the learned which was the first of
Paul's
epistles. Generally, indeed, it has been thought
that
the two epistles to the Thessalonians were com-
posed
earlier than the others; but of late some
learned
men have given precedence to the epistle to
the
Galatians. And this opinion is not altogether
confined
to the moderns, for Tertullian mentions this
epistle
as among the first of Paul's writings. But
the
more common opinion is, that it was written dur-
ing
the long abode of this apostle at
the
advocates of this opinion, we find L'Enfant, Beau-
sobre,
Lardner, &c., while Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and
Wall,
suppose that it was written at
last,
together with Fabricius and Mill, place the date
of
the epistle to the Galatians, after that to the
Romans.
Macknight maintains that it was written
from
offers
in support of his opinions several plausible argu-
ments,
which, if they do not prove all that he wishes,
seem
to render it probable that the time of this epistle
being
written was soon after the Council of Jerusalem.
Semler,
however, is of opinion that this epistle was
written
prior to the Council of Jerusalem.
From these various opinions, it is
sufficiently evident
that
the precise date of the epistle to the Galatians
cannot
be ascertained. If we take the opinion of
those
who give the earliest date, the time of writing
will
not be later than A. D. 47. But if we receive as
more
probable the opinions of those who think that it
DATE OP PAUL'S EPISTLES. 225
was
written after the Council of Jerusalem, we shall
bring
it down to the year 50; while, according to the
opinion
more commonly adopted, its date will be
A.
D. 52 or 53. And if we prefer the opinions of
those
who assign the latest date to this epistle, we
shall
bring it down several years later, and instead of
giving
it the first place, will give it the ninth or tenth.
There seem to be better data for determining that
the
first epistle to the Thessalonians was written from
to
the Thessalonians was probably written a few
months
afterwards from the same place. Michaelis
and
Dr. Hales unite in giving the next place in the
order
of time to the epistle to Titus. Lardner, how-
ever,
places it considerably later; and Paley assigns
to
it a date later than any other author. On this
subject
there is little else than conjecture to guide
us.
The year in which this epistle was written,
according
to Michaelis and Hales, was 53; according
to
Lardner, 56; according to
according
to
The epistle next in order is the first
to the Corin-
thians,
the date of which can be determined with
considerable
precision from the epistle itself. "I
will
tarry at
These
words teach where this epistle was written, and
by
a comparison with other passages of Scripture,
that
it was penned near the close of Paul's long resi-
dence
at
about
A. D. 57. This then is the proper date of this
epistle.
The first epistle to Timothy will
stand next, if we
follow
the opinion most commonly entertained by
226 DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES.
learned
men; and its date will be A. D. 57 or
A.
D. 58. This opinion is supported by the authority
of
Athanasius, Theodoret, Baronius, Capellus, Blondel,
Hammond,
Grotius, Salmasius, Lightfoot, Benson,
Pearson,
Rosenmuller, Macknight, Paley, Tomline,
&c.,
place it as low as the year of our Lord 64 or 65.
The second epistle to the Corinthians
was written
probably
about a year after the first, which will bring
it
to A. D. 58.
In the same year it is thought that
Paul wrote his
very
important epistle to the Romans. On this point,
however,
there is some diversity of opinion. But
the
epistle itself contains internal evidence that it was
written
at
to
take the contributions of the churches to
The date of the epistles to the
Ephesians, to the
Philippians,
and to the Colossians, can be ascertained
pretty
nearly, from the circumstance, that Paul was
prisoner
at
epistle
to the Ephesians may, with much probability,
be
referred to A. D. 61; the epistle to the Philip-
pians
to A. D. 62; and the epistle to the Colossians
to
the same year.
The short epistle to Philemon was
written, as
appears
by several coincidences, about the same time
as
those just mentioned.
The epistle to the Hebrews seems to
have been
written
about the termination of Paul's first im-
prisonment
at
out
danger of mistake be referred to A. D. 62 or
A.
D. 63.
J. D. Michaelis who, as has been seen,
has done
DATE OF PAUL'S EPISTLES. 227
much
to unsettle the Canon of Scripture, by calling
in
question the genuineness of some of the books, as
well
as the inspiration of some of the writers, has, in
an
elaborate essay, (vol. iv.) endeavoured to lessen,
the
authority of this epistle. For an answer to the
arguments
of this learned, but sceptical Professor, I
would
refer the reader to TOWNSEND'S New Testa-
ment,
arranged in chronological and historical order.
Paul's second epistle to Timothy seems
to have
been
written during his second imprisonment at
and
shortly before his death, A. D. 66.
228 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
SECTION XI.
CANONICAL
AUTHORITY OF THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
THE
first epistle of Peter, and the first of
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 no-
where
found in Scripture, except in the second of Peter:
it
is, "that a day of the Lord is a
thousand years."
DIOGNETUS
quotes several passages from the first of
Peter,
and the first of John. IRENAEUS quotes the first
epistle
of Peter expressly; "And Peter says, in his
epistle,
Whom 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, "Where-
fore
also in his epistle, he says, Little
children, it is
the last time." And
again, "In the forementioned
epistle
the Lord commands us to shun those persons
who
bring false doctrine, saying, "Many
deceivers are
entered into the
world, who confess not that Jesus
Christ is come
in the flesh. This is a deceiver, and
an Antichrist.
Look to yourselves that ye lose not
those things
which ye have wrought." Now these
words
are undoubtedly taken from John's second
THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 229
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 James and 2 Peter. CLEMENT of Alex-
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, ‘I will that ye should know,
that God hav-
ing saved the
people out of Egypt,’"
&c. He has a
remark
on Jude's modesty, that he did not style him-
self
the brother of our Lord, although he was related
to
him, but begins his epistle, "Jude the servant
of
Jesus Christ, and brother of James."
TERTULLIAN often quotes the first
epistle of John;
but
he has in none of his remaining writings cited
anything
from James, 2 Peter or 2 John. He has,
however,
one express quotation from Jude, "Hence
it
is," says he, "that Enoch is quoted by the apostle
Jude."
ORIGEN, in his commentary on John's
gospel, ex-
pressly
quotes the epistle of James in the following
passage,
"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 book 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 epistle
of
Peter is often quoted expressly. In his book against
230 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
Celsus,
he says, "As it is said by Peter, ‘Ye as
lively
stones are built up a spiritual house.’ Again,
Peter
in his Catholic epistle, says, ‘Put to death in
the
flesh, but 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
be granted to be his."
ORIGEN has cited several passages from
Jude, which
are
found in no other part of Scripture; and in one
place
remarks, "Jude wrote an epistle of few lines
indeed,
but full of powerful words and heavenly grace,
who
at the beginning, says, 'Jude the servant of Jesus
Christ,
and brother of James.'" 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 nowhere quotes the epistle of
James; but
the
first of Peter is often cited. Several times he
speaks
of it as the epistle of Peter to the people of
tle,"
"the apostle of Christ," &c.
The second of Peter he never quotes.
The first of
John
is often quoted by Cyprian. "The apostle John,"
says
he, "mindful of this command, writes in this
Hereby
we perceive that we know him, if we
keep
his commandments. He that saith I know him,
and
keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the
THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 231
truth
is not in him.'" The second and third of John
he
never mentions, nor the epistle of Jude.
The opinion of EUSEBIUS of Cesarae,
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
will
not allow that he was one of the twelve. In his
commentary
on the Psalms, he 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 doubtfully of this
epistle,
and in one passage, where he distributes the
books
into classes, he mentions it among the books
which
he calls spurious; by which, however, he only
means
that it was not canonical. In his ecclesiasti-
cal
history, he speaks of the epistles of Peter in the
following
manner, "One epistle of Peter called his
first,
is universally received. This the presbyters of
ancient
times have quoted in their writings as un-
doubtedly
genuine; but that called his second epistle,
we
have been informed, has not been received into the
Testament.
Nevertheless, appearing to many to be
useful,
it has been carefully studied with the other Scrip-
tures."
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."
ATHANASIUS quotes the epistle of James
as written
232 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
by
the apostle 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.
Both
the first and second epistles of John are dis-
tinctly
and expressly quoted: the third is not men-
tioned.
He also, in two instances, cites the words of
Jude.
JEROME'S testimony concerning the
epistle of James
is
full and explicit. His words are, "James, called
the
Lord's brother, surnamed Justus, as some think
son
of Joseph, by a former wife; but as I rather
think,
the son of Mary, the sister of our Lord's mo-
ther,
mentioned by John in his gospel, (soon after our
Lord's
passion ordained by the apostles bishop of
seven
Catholic epistles; which too has been said to
have
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."
AUGUSTINE received all the Catholic
epistles. He
quotes
James as an apostle. He often cites both the
epistles
of Peter. He also refers to John's three epis-
tles,
and quotes Jude, and calls him an apostle.
In the works of EPHREM, the Syrian,
who lived, and
wrote
voluminously, in the fourth century, 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. It RUFIN received all the books
THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 233
as
canonical, which are now so esteemed by Christians
generally.
Why these epistles have received the ap-
pellation
of Catholic, various reasons have
been as-
signed.
Some have supposed that they were so called,
because
they contain the one catholic doctrine which
was
delivered to the churches by the apostles 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 seems not to be cor-
rect,
for some of them were written to the Christians
of
particular countries, and others to individuals.
A third opinions advanced by Dr.
Hammond, and
adopted
by Dr. Macknight, and which has some pro-
bability,
is, that the first of Peter, and first of John,
being
received by all Christians, obtained the name
of
Catholic, to distinguish them from
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.
This denomination is as old as the
time of Euse-
bius,
and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called
John's
first epistle Catholic; and the same is done by
Dionysius,
bishop of
tion
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,
it
has been much disputed to which of them this epis-
tle
should be attributed. Lardner and Macknight
234 THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
have
rendered it exceedingly probable that this epis-
tle
was written by James the 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
and
says, that 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 pro-
bability,
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 mo-
dern
times, ought to be considered as undoubted.
One
strong evidence that it was thus received by early
Christians,
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
western
churches as most other books of Scripture;
but
learned men have observed, that Clement of Rome
has
quoted it no less than four times; and it is also
quoted
by Ignatius, in his genuine epistle to the Ephe-
sians;
and we have already shown that it was re-
ceived
as the writing of the apostle James, by Origen,
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, Theophilus Bishop
of
and
Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting
it
is, what place we are to understand by
THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES. 235
where
Peter was when he wrote. On this subject
there
are three opinions: the first, that by this name
a
place in
lon
in
third,
which is generally maintained by the Romanists,
and
some Protestants, is, that
epistle
was written from
written
was probably about the year of our Lord 65
or
66.
The date of the epistle of Jude may as
well be
placed
about the same period, as at any other time,
for
we have no documents which can guide us to any
certain
decision. The objection to the canonical
authority
of this epistle, derived from the author's
having
quoted the apocryphal book of Enoch, is of
no
validity; for the fact is, that Jude makes no men-
tion
of any book, but only of a prophecy, and there
is
no evidence that the apocryphal book of Enoch
was
then in existence; but if he did quote a truth
from
such a book, it argues no more against his inspi-
ration
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 sup-
posed
that the Apocalypse was the last written book
of
the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the
three
epistles of John were last written.—
send's
New Testament, vol. ii.
236 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF
SECTION XII.
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 pro-
phecies
of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas
expressly
cites the Revelation.
JUSTIN MARTYR is the first who gives
explicit testi-
mony
to the Apocalypse. His words are, "And a
man
from among us by name John, one of the apos-
tles
of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has
prophesied
that the believers in our Christ shall live
a
thousand years in
be
the general and indeed eternal resurrection and
judgment
of all men together." In the epistle of the
written
about the year of our Lord one hundred and
eighty,
there is one passage cited from the book of
Revelation:
"For he was indeed a genuine disciple of
Christ,
following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.'"
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 237
IRENAEUS expressly quotes the
Revelation, and
ascribes
it to John the apostle. And in one place,
he
says, "It (the Revelation,) was seen no long time
ago
in our age, at the end of the reign of Domitian."
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 John."
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—does not
cease
to accuse: this demon is also called the Dra-
gon."
The Revelation of John is often quoted
by CLE-
MENT
of
an
one, though here on earth he be not honoured
with
the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty
thrones,
judging the people, as John says in the Re-
velation."
That Clement believed it to be 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 that 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 ap-
pear
by a few quotations; "John in his Apocalypse,
is
commanded to correct those who ate things sacri-
238 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF
ficed
to idols, and commit fornication." Again, "The
apostle
John in the Apocalypse, describes a sharp two-
edged
sword, coming out of the mouth of God."--
"We
have churches, disciples 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.
HIPPOLYTUS, 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 Jerome,
in
the list of his works, mentions one, "On the Reve-
lation."
Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that
a
noble monument was erected to him in the city of
dug
up near that city, A. D. 1551. His name,
indeed,
is not now on the monument, but it contains a
catalogue
of his works, several 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, "evan-
gelist
and apostle;" and, on account of the predic-
tions
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 in-
tention
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.
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 239
DIONYSIUS of Alexandria, who lived
about the mid-
dle
of the third century, and was one of the most
learned
men of his time, has entered into a more par-
ticular
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 uni-
versally
received by the earlier Fathers, fell with some
into
a certain degree of discredit. About this time
the
Chiliasts, or Millennarians, who held that Christ
would
reign visibly on earth with his saints for a thou-
sand
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 Reve-
lation;
and as their error was very repugnant to the
feelings
of 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 Millennarians,
of the grosser
kind,
seems to have been in the district of Arsinoe,
in
in
defence of their doctrine; particularly a book
"Against
the Allegorists." Dionysius took much
pains
with these errorists, and entered with them
into
a free and candid discussion of their tenets, 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, that
some
who lived before his time had utterly rejected
this
book, and ascribed it to Cerinthus; but, for his
own
part, he professes to believe that it was written
240 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF
by
an inspired man, whose name was John, but a
different
person from the apostle of that name; for
which
opinion 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 Lard-
ner
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 col-
lector
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 Cerinthus, is utterly without foundation;
for
this book contains opinions expressly contrary to
those
maintained by this heretic; and even on the
subject
of the millennium 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 Dionysius probably
referred
when he spoke of some, before his time, who
held
this opinion. CYPRIAN, bishop of
ceived
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
nothing,
and knowest not that thou art wretched, and
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 241
miserable,
and poor, and blind, and naked.'" Rev.
iii.
17. Again, "So in the Holy Scriptures, by which
the
Lord would have us to be instructed and warned,
is
the harlot city described." Rev. xvii. 1-3. Finally,
"That
waters signify people, the divine Scriptures
show
in the Revelation."
VICTORINUS, who lived towards the
close of the
third
century, often cites the book of Revelation, and
ascribes
it to John the apostle. That LACTANTIUS
received
this book 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
appears that the
Revelation
was almost universally received; not a
writer
of any credit calls it in question; and but one
hesitates
about ascribing it to John the apostle; but
even
he held it to be written by an inspired man.
But,
about the beginning of the fourth century, it
began
to fall into discredit with some on account of
the
mysterious nature of its contents, and the en-
couragement
which it was supposed to give to the
Chiliasts.
Therefore Eusebius of Cesaraea, after
giving
a list of such books as were universally re-
ceived,
adds, "After these, if it be thought fit, may be
placed
the Revelation of John, concerning which we
shall
observe the different opinions at a proper time."
And
again, "There are, concerning this book, differ-
ent
opinions."
This is the first doubt expressed by
any respectable
writer
concerning 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 we find at this very time,
242 CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF
the
most learned and judicious of the Fathers received
the
Revelation without 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 eight 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
epistles; and 8. the Revelation, given to
John
the evangelist and divine in
JEROME, in giving an account of the
writings of
John
the evangelist, 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 Dionysius of Alexandria ascribed
the
Revelation to another John. This opinion, we
learn
from Jerome, originated in the fact, that two
monuments
were found at
with
the name JOHN; but he says, "Some think
that
both the monuments are of John the evangelist."
Then
he proceeds to give some account of the Revela-
tion.
"Domitian," says he, "in the fourteenth year
of
his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero,
John
was banished into the isle of
wrote
the Revelation, which Justin Martyr and Ire-
naeus
explain." AUGUSTINE, also, received the book
of
Revelation, and quotes it very frequently. He as-
cribes
it to the same John who wrote the gospel and
the
epistles.
From the view which has been taken of
the testi-
monies
in favour of the book of Revelation, I think it
must
appear manifest to every candid reader, that
THE BOOK OF REVELATION. 243
few
books in the New Testament have more complete
evidence
of canonical authority. The only thing
which
requires explanation is, the omission of this
book
in so many of the catalogues of the Fathers, and
of
ancient councils. Owing to the mysterious nature
of
the contents of this book, and to the abuse of its
prophecies,
by the too literal construction of them by
the
Millennarians, 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 read this
mysterious
book, it was omitted by many in their
catalogues.
Still, however, a majority of them have
it;
and some who omitted it, are known to have re-
ceived
it as canonical.
This also will account for the fact,
that many of
the
manuscripts of the New Testament are without
the
Revelation; so that there are extant, compara-
tively,
few copies of this book. But the authenticity
and
authority of the Apocalypse stand on ground
which
can never be shaken; and the internal evi-
dence
is strong in favour of a divine origin. There
is
a sublimity, purity, and consistency in it, which
could
not have proceeded from an impostor. In
addition
to all which, we observe, that the fulfilment
of
many of the predictions of this book is so remark-
able,
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 explained,
244 THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
that
all men will see and acknowledge that it is in-
deed
"The Revelation of Jesus Christ,
which God
gave
unto him, to show unto his servants things which
must
shortly come to pass—and sent and signified it
by
his angel to his servant John, who bare record
of
the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus
Christ."
Rev. i. 1, 2.
GENERAL REMARKS. 245
SECTION XIII.
THE
TITLES GIVEN TO THE SACRED SCRIPTURES BY THE
FATHERS--THESE BOOKS NOT CONCEALED,
BUT PARTI-
ALLY KNOWN AND REFERRED TO BY ENEMIES
AS WELL
AS FRIENDS--CITATIONS--ANCIENT
MANUSCRIPTS--RE-
MARKS OF RENNELL.
AFTER
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 of
their
first publication, were distinguished by all Chris-
tians
from all other books. They were spoken of by
the
Fathers, as "Scripture;" as "divine Scripture;"
as
"inspired of the Lord;" as, "given by the inspira-
tion
of the Holy Ghost." The only question ever
agitated,
respecting any of these books, was, whether
they
were indeed the productions of the apostles.
When
this was clear, no man disputed their divine
authority,
or considered it lawful to dissent from
their
dictates. They were considered as occupying
the
same place, in regard to inspiration and authority,
as
the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and in imita-
tion
of this denomination they were called the New
Testament.
The other names by which they were
distinguished,
were such as these, the gospel;--the
246 GENERAL REMARKS.
apostles;—the
divine gospels;—the evangelical in-
strument;—the
Scriptures of the Lord;—holy Scrip-
tures;—evangelical
voice;—divine Scriptures;—Ora-
cles
of the Lord;—divine fountains;—fountains of
the
divine fulness.
2. These books were not in obscurity,
but were
read
with veneration and avidity by multitudes. They
were
read not only by the learned, but by the people;
not
only in private, but constantly in the public as-
semblies
of Christians, as appears by the explicit tes-
timony
of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cy-
prian,
and Augustine. And no other books were
thus
venerated and read. If 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 endeavoured to
support
their opinions by an appeal to the writings
of
the New Testament. The Valentinians, the Mon-
tanists,
the Sabellians, the Artemonites, 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 Christianity,
who wrote
against
the truth, recognized the books which are
CELSUS, PORPHYRY AND JULIAN. 247
now
in the Canon, as those acknowledged by Chris-
tians
in their times, for they refer to the matters con-
tained
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, as is testified by Ori-
gen,
who answered him, "I could say many things
concerning
the affairs of Jesus, and those too differ-
ent
from what is written 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 reference to
matters
contained in them.
PORPHYRY in the third century wrote
largely, and
professedly,
against the Christian religion; and al-
though
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 ac-
quainted
with the four gospels, for the things to
which
he objects are still contained in them.
But the emperor JULIAN expressly
mentions Mat-
thew
and Luke, and cites various things out 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, has dared
to
call Jesus, God;"—"that John wrote later than
the
other evangelists, and at a time when a great
248 CELSUS, PORPHYRY AND JULIAN.
number
of men in the cities of
converted."
He alludes to the conversion of Corne-
lius
and Sergius Paulus; to Peter's vision, and to the
circular
letter sent by the apostles at
the
churches; which things are recorded in the Acts
of
the Apostles.*
Now, if the genuineness of these books
could have
been
impugned on any plausible grounds; or if any
doubt
had existed respecting this matter, surely such
men
as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, could not have
been
ignorant of the matter, and would not have
failed
to bring forward everything 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 re-
gard
to the book of Daniel. Since then not one of
the
early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a
doubt
or 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 ene-
mies—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 New Testa-
ment
were written by the persons whose names they
bear,
but also that these books, in the early ages of
* See Lardner and Paley.
EARLY VERSIONS. 249
the
church, contained the same things which are now
read
in them. Omitting any particular notice of
about
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.
It
is true, indeed, that the Fathers do sometimes ap-
parently
quote from memory; and in that case, the
words
of the sacred writer are a little changed or trans-
posed,
but the sense is accurately retained. In gene-
ral,
however, the quotations of Scripture, in the wri-
tings
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 been 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.
But besides these quotations, we have
versions of
the
whole New Testament into various languages,
some
of which were made 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,
miracles,
doctrines, precepts, and divine institutions.
Indeed,
so literal have been most versions of the
New
Testament, that they answer to one another,
and
to the original, almost word for word.
Besides, there are in existence
hundreds and thou-
sands
of manuscripts of the New Testament, which
were
written in different ages of the church, from
250 ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS.
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 writ-
ten
on beautiful parchment, in what are called un-
cial, 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 remark-
able,
some copies of the New Testament on parch-
ment
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 cul-
pable
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
for wrapping paper.
The exact age of the oldest
manuscripts of the New
Testament
cannot be accurately ascertained, as they
have
no dates accompanying them which can safely
be
depended on; but as it is pretty well known at
what
period Greek accents were introduced, and
also
when the large uncial letter, as it is called,
was
exchanged for the small letter now in common
use;
if a manuscript is found written in the old fashion,
in
large letters, without intervals between the words,
REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 251
and
without accents, it is known that it must be more
ancient
than the period when the mode of writing was
changed.
Now, it is manifest, that when these manu-
scripts
were penned, the Canon was settled by common
consent,
for they all contain the same books, as far as
as
they go.
I will sum up my observations on the
Canon of the
New
Testament, by quoting a sensible and very ap-
propriate
passage from the late learned Mr. RENNEL.
It
is found in his, Remarks on Hone's Collection of
the
apocryphal writings of the apostolic age.
"When was the Canon of Scripture
determined?
It
was determined immediately after the death of
John,
the last survivor of the apostolic order. The
Canon
of the gospels was indeed determined before
his
death, for we read in Eusebius, 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 John, the catalogue of Scripture was
completed
and closed. We have seen, both from the
testimony
of themselves and of their immediate succes-
sors,
that the inspiration of writing was confined
strictly
to the apostles, and accordingly 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 indi-
vidual,
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 cir-
cumstance,
that among the various disputes which
so
early agitated the church, the Canon of Scripture
was
never a subject of controversy. If any question
252 REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL.
might
be said to have arisen, it was in reference to
one
or two of those books which are included in the
present
Canon; 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 satisfac-
tory
one. Every one who is at all versed in Eccle-
siastical
History is aware of the continual inter-
course
which took place in the apostolical age be-
tween
the various branches of the church universal.
This
communication, as Mr. Nolan has well ob-
served,
arose out of the Jewish polity, under which
various
synagogues of the Jews which were dispersed
throughout
the gentile world, were all subjected to
the
Sanhedrim at
stant
correspondence with it. Whenever then an
epistle
arrived at any particular church, it was first
authenticated;
it was then read to all the holy breth-
ren,
and was subsequently transmitted to some other
neighbouring
church. Thus we find that the authen-
tication
of the epistles of Paul was, 'the salutation
with
his own hands,' by which the church to which
the
epistle was first addressed might be assured that
it
was not a forgery. We find also a solemn adju-
ration
of the same apostle, that his epistle ‘should be
read
to all the holy brethren.’ '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
epistle from
v.
27; Col. iv. 6. From this latter passage we infer,
that
the system of transmission was a very general
one,
as the epistle which Paul directs the Colossians
to
receive from the Laodiceans was not originally
REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 253
directed
to the latter, but was sent to them from
some
other church. To prevent any mistake or fraud,
this
transmission was made by the highest authority,
namely,
by that of the bishop. Through him official
communications
were sent from one church to another,
even
in the remotest countries. Clement, the bishop
of
Polycarp,
the bishop of
the
Philippians; Ignatius, the bishop of
responded
with the churches of
of
the
companions and immediate successors of the apos-
tles,
and followed the system of correspondence and
intercourse
which their masters had begun. Con-
sidering
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 I lay concealed in the coffers of par-
ticular
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 rapidly dispersed
throughout
the Christian world. As a proof of
this,
Peter, in an epistle addressed generally to
the
churches in Asia, speaks of all the epistles of
254 REMARKS OF MR. RENNET.
Paul,'
as a body of Scripture, universally circulated
and
known.
"The number of the apostles,
including Paul and
Barnabas,
was but fourteen. To these, and these
alone,
in the opinion of the early church, was the in-
spiration
of writing confined: out of these, six only
deemed
it necessary to write; what they did write,
was
authenticated with the greatest caution, and cir-
culated
with the utmost rapidity; what was received
in
any church as the writing of an apostle, was pub-
licly
read; no church was left 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 apos-
tles'
age, being united by frequent intercourse and
communication,
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 arbitrary rejec-
tion
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 neces-
sary.
"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
satisfactory to our minds if we take an example
from
the age in which we live. The letters of Junius,
for
instance, were published at intervals within a cer-
tain
period. Since the publication of the last authen-
REMARKS OF MR. RENNET. 255
tic
letter, many under that signature have appeared,
purporting
to have been written by the same author.
But
this circumstance throws no obscurity over the
matter,
nor is the Canon of Junius, if I may transfer
the
term from sacred to secular writing, involved in
any
difficulty or doubt. If it should be hereafter in-
quired,
at what time, or by what authority the authen-
tic
letters were separated from the spurious, the an-
swer
will be, that such a separation never took place;
but
that the Canon of Junius was immediately deter-
mined
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 unnecessary. The
case
has long since been determined by the tacit con-
sent
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 Scrip-
tural
Canon! The author of Junius was known to
none.
He could not therefore of himself bear any tes-
timony
to the authenticity of his works; the authors
of
the New Testament were known to all, and were
especially
careful to mark, to authenticate, and to
distinguish
their writings. The author of Junius had
no
personal character which could stamp his writing
with
any high or special authority; whatever pro-
ceeded
from the apostles of Christ, was immediately
regarded
as the offspring of an exclusive inspiration.
For
the Canon of Junius we have no external evi-
dence,
but that of a single publisher: for the Canon
of
Scripture, we have the testimony of churches
256 REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL.
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 pre-
serve
the volume of Junius from spurious editions: to
guard
the integrity of the sacred volume was the
bounden
duty of every Christian who believed that
its
words were the words of eternal life.
"If then, notwithstanding these
and other difficul-
ties
which might be adduced, the Canon of Junius is
established
beyond controversy or dispute, by the ta-
cit
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 stronger,
should
not have been determined in a manner pre-
cisely
the same; especially when we remember, that
in
both cases the forgeries made their appearance
subsequently
to the determination of the Canon. There
is
not a single book in the spurious department of the
apocryphal
volume which was even known when the
Canon
of Scripture was determined. This is a fact
which
considerably strengthens the case. There was
no
difficulty or dispute in framing the Canon of Scrip-
ture,
because there were no competitors whose claims
it
was expedient to examine; no forgeries, whose im-
postures
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.
REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL. 257
Nothing,
indeed, but the general and long determined
consent
of the whole Christian world, could have pre-
served
the sacred volume in its integrity, unimpaired
by
the mutilation of one set of heretics, and unincum-
bered
by the forgeries of another."
258 NO CANONICAL BOOK
SECTION
XIV.
NO
CANONICAL BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT HAS BEEN
LOST.
THIS
was a subject of warm dispute between the Ro-
manists
and Protestants at the time of the Reforma-
tion.
The former, to make room for their farrago of
unwritten
traditions, maintained the affirmative; and
such
men as Bellarmine and Pineda asserted roundly,
that
some of the most valuable parts of the canonical
Scriptures
were lost. The Protestants, on the other
hand,
to support the sufficiency and perfection of the
Holy
Scriptures, the corner stone of the Reformation,
strenuously
and successfully contended, that no part
of
the canonical volume had been lost.
But the opinion, that some inspired
books, which
once
belonged to the Canon, have been lost, has been
maintained
by some more respectable writers than
those
Romanists just mentioned. Chrysostom, The-
ophylact,
Calvin, and Whitaker, have all, in some
degree,
countenanced the same opinion, in order to
avoid
some difficulty, or to answer some particular
purpose.
The subject, so far as the Old Testament is
concerned,
has already been considered; it shall now
be
our endeavour to show that no canonical book of
the
New Testament has been lost.
HAS BEEN LOST. 259
And here I, am ready to concede, as
was before
done,
that there may have been books written by in-
spired
men that have been lost: for inspiration
was
occasional,
not constant; and confined to matters of
faith,
and not afforded on the affairs of this life, or in
matters
of mere science. If Paul or Peter, or
any
other
apostle, had occasion to write private letters to
their
friends, on subjects not connected with religion,
there
is no reason to think that these were inspired;
and
if such writings have been lost, the Canon of
Scripture
has suffered no more by this means than
by
the loss of any other uninspired books.
But again, I am willing to go further
and say, that
it
is possible, (although I know no evidence of the
fact,)
that some things written under the influence of
inspiration
for a particular occasion, and to rectify
some
disorder in a particular church, may have been
lost
without injury to the Canon. For as much that
the
apostles preached by inspiration is undoubtedly
lost,
so there is no reason why every word which
they
wrote must necessarily be preserved and form
a
part of the canonical volume. For example, sup-
pose
that when Paul said, 1 Cor. v. 9, "I wrote to
you
in an epistle not to company with fornicators," he
referred
to an epistle which he had written to the
Corinthians
before the one now called the first, it
might
never have been intended that this letter should
form
a constituent part of the Canon; for although it
treated
of subjects connected with Christian faith or
practice,
yet, an occasion having arisen, in a short
time,
of treating these subjects more at large, every
thing
in that epistle, (supposing it ever to have been
written,)
may have been included in the two epistles
260 NO CANONICAL BOOK
to
the Corinthians which are now in the Canon. Or,
to
adopt for illustration, the ingenious hypothesis of
Dr.
Lightfoot, the epistle referred to, which was sent
by
Timothy, who took a circuitous route through
wrote
the long and interesting epistle called the first
to
the Corinthians, and thus the former one would
be
superseded. But we adduce this case merely for
illustration,
for we will attempt presently to show
that
no evidence exists that any such epistle was ever
written.
1. The first argument to prove that no
canonical
book
has been lost, is derived from the watchful care
of
Now, to suppose that a book written by
the inspira-
tion
of the Holy Spirit, and intended to form a part
of
the Canon, which is the rule of faith to the church,
should
be utterly and irrecoverably lost, is surely not
very
honourable to the wisdom of God, and no way
consonant
with the ordinary method of his dispensa-
tions
in regard to his precious truth. There is good
reason
to think that if God saw it needful, and for
the
edification of the church, that such books should
be
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
by
his providence he would have taken care to pre-
serve
them from destruction. We do know that this
treasure
of divine truth has been in all ages, and in
the
worst times, the special care of God, or not one
of
the sacred books would now be in existence. And
if
one canonical book might be lost through the negli-
gence
or unfaithfulness of men, why not all? And
thus
the end of God in making a revelation of his will
might
have been defeated.
HAS BEEN LOST. 261
But
whatever other corruptions have crept into the
Jewish
or Christian churches, it does not appear that
either
of them, as a body, ever incurred the cen-
sure
of having been careless in preserving the oracles
of
God. Our Saviour never charges the Jews, who
perverted
the sacred Scriptures to their own ruin,
with
having lost any portion of the sacred deposit
intrusted
to them
History informs us of the fierce and
malignant de-
sign
of Antiochus Epiphanes to abolish every vestige
of
the sacred volume; but the same history assures us
that
the Jewish people manifested a heroic fortitude
and
invincible patience in resisting and defeating his
impious
purpose. They chose rather to sacrifice
their
lives, and suffer a cruel death, than to deliver
up
the copies of the sacred volume in their possession.
And
the same spirit was manifested, and with the
same
result, in the Dioclesian persecution of the
Christians.
Every effort was made to obliterate the
sacred
writings of Christians, and multitudes suffered
death
for refusing to deliver up the New Testament.
Some,
indeed, overcome by the terrors of a cruel
persecution
did, in the hour of temptation, consent
to
surrender the holy book; but they were ever after-
wards
called traitors; and it was with the utmost
difficulty
that any of them could be received again
into
the communion of the church after a long repent-
ance,
and the most humbling confessions of their fault.
Now,
if any canonical book was ever lost, it must have
been
in these early times when the word of God was
valued
far above life, and when every Christian stood
ready
to seal the truth with his blood.
2. Another argument which appears to
me to be
262 NO CANONICAL BOOK
convincing
is, that in a little time all the sacred
books
were dispersed over the whole world. If a
book
had, by some accident or violence, been destroyed
in
one region, the loss could soon have been repaired by
sending
for copies to other countries.
The considerations just mentioned
would, I pre-
sume,
be satisfactory to all candid minds, were it not
that
it is supposed, that there is evidence that some
things
were written by the apostles which are not
now
in the Canon. We have already referred to an
epistle
to the Corinthians which Paul is supposed to
have
written to them previously to the writing of
those
which we now possess. But it is by no means
certain,
or even probable, that Paul ever did write
such
an epistle; for not one ancient writer makes the
least
mention of any such letter; nor is there any
where
to be found any citation from it, or any refer-
ence
to it. It is a matter of testimony in which all
the
Fathers concur, as with one voice, that Paul wrote
no
more than fourteen epistles, all of which we now
have.
The testimony of Clement of Rome is
clear on this
subject;
and he was the friend and companion of
Paul,
and must have known which was the first
epistle
addressed by him to the Corinthian church.
He
says, in a passage before cited, "Take again the
epistle
of the blessed apostle Paul into your hands.
What
was it that he first wrote to you, in the begin-
ning
of his epistle? He did truly by the
Spirit write
to
you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos,
because
even at that time you were formed into
divisions
or parties."
The only objection which can be
conceived to this
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 263
testimony
is, that Clement's words, when literally
translated,
read, Take again the gospel (euaggeliou)
of
the blessed apostle Paul;" but it is well known
that
the early Fathers called any book containing
the
doctrines of Christ the gospel; and
in this case,
all
reasonable doubt is precluded, because Clement
identifies
the writing to which he referred, by men-
tioning
some of its contents, which are found in the
first
epistle to the Corinthians, and no where else.
But still, Paul's own declaration,
stands in the way of
our
opinion, "I wrote to you in an epistle." 1 Cor. v. 9, 11.
The
words in the original are, Egraya u[min e]n t^
e]pistol^,
the
literal version of which is, "I have written to you
in
the epistle, or in this epistle;" that is, in the for-
mer
part of it; where in fact we find the very thing
which
he says that he had written. See v. 2, 5, 6, of
this
same fifth chapter. But it is thought by learned
and
judicious commentators, that the words following,
Nuni de egraya u[min "but now I
have written unto you,"
require
that we should understand the former clause
as
relating to some former time; but a careful atten-
tion
to the context will convince us that this refer-
ence
is by no means necessary. The apostle had told
them,
in the beginning of the chapter, to avoid the
company
of fornicators, &c.; but it is manifest, from
the
tenth verse, that he apprehended that his mean-
ing
might be misunderstood, by extending the prohi-
bition
too far, so as to decline all intercourse with the
world,
therefore he repeats what he had said, and in-
forms
them, that it had relation only to the professors
of
Christianity, who should be guilty of such vices.
The
whole may be thus paraphrased: "I wrote to you
above,
in my letter, that you should separate from
264 NO CANONICAL BOOK
those
who were fornicators, and that you should
purge
them out as old leaven; but fearing lest you
should
misapprehend my meaning, by inferring that I
have
directed you to avoid all intercourse with the
heathen
around you, who are addicted to these shame-
ful
vices, which would make it necessary that you
should
go out of the world, I now inform you that my
meaning
is, that you do not associate familiarly with
any
who make a profession of Christianity, and yet
continue
in these evil practices."
In confirmation of this interpretation
we can ad-
duce
the old Syriac version, which having been
made
soon after the days of the apostles, is good tes-
timony
in relation to this matter of fact. In this ve-
nerable
version, the meaning of the 11th verse is thus
given,
"This is what I have written unto you," or,
"The
meaning of what I have written unto you."*
Dr.
Whitby understands this passage in a way dif-
ferent
from any that has been mentioned; the reader
is
referred to his commentary on the place. And we
have
before mentioned the ingenious conjecture of Dr.
Lightfoot,
to which there is no objection, except that
it
is totally unsupported by evidence.
It deserves to be mentioned here, that
there is now
extant
a letter from Paul to the Corinthians, distinct
from
those epistles of his which we have in the Ca-
non;
and also an epistle from the
to
Paul. These epistles are in the Armenian lan-
guage,
but have been translated into Latin. The
epistle
ascribed to Paul is very short, and undoubt-
edly
spurious. It contains no prohibitions relative to
keeping
company with fornicators. It was never
* See Jones on the Canon, vol. i.
pp. 139, 140.
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 265
cited
by any of the early writers, nor indeed heard
of
until within a century past. It contains some un-
sound
opinions concerning the speedy appearance of
Christ,
which Paul, in some of his epistles, took pains
to
contradict. The manner of salutation is very dif-
ferent
from that of Paul; and this apostle is made to
declare,
that he had received what he taught them
from
the former apostles, which is contrary to his re-
peated
solemn asseverations in several of his epistles.
In
regard to the epistle under the name of the church
of
eration,
for though it were genuine it would have no claim
to
a place in the Canon. The curious reader will find
a
literal translation of both these epistles in Jones's
"New
Method of settling the Canon."*
The only other passage in the New
Testament,
which
has been thought to refer to an epistle of Paul
not
now extant is that in Col. iv. 16. " And when
this
epistle is read among you, cause also that it be
read
in the church of the Laodiceans, and that ye like-
wise
read the epistle from
Now, there is clear evidence, that so
early as the
beginning
of the second century there existed an
epistle
under this title; but it was not received by the
church,
but was in the hands of Marcion, who was a
famous
forger and corrupter of sacred books. He
was
contemporary with Polycarp, and therefore very
near
to the times of the apostles, but was stigmatized
as
an enemy of the truth; for he had the audacity to
form
a gospel, according to his own mind, which
went
by his name; and also an apostolicon, which
contained
only ten of Paul's epistles; and these altered
* Vol. i. p. 14.
266 NO CANONICAL BOOK
and
accommodated to his own notions. These,
according
to Epiphanius, were, "The epistle to the
Galatians,
the two to the Corinthians, to the Romans,
the
two to the Thessalonians, to the Colossians, to Phil-
emon,
and to the Philippians.—And," says he, "he
takes
in some part of that which is called ‘the epis-
tle
to the Laodiceans,' and this he styles the ele-
venth
of those received by Marcion."
Tertullian, however, gives a very
different account
of
this matter. He asserts, "that Marcion and his
followers
called that the epistle to the Laodiceans,
which
was the epistle to the Ephesians: which epis-
tle,"
says he, "we are assured, by the testimony of the
church,
was sent to the Ephesians, and not to the
Laodiceans;
though Marcion has taken upon him
falsely
to prefix that title to it, pretending therein to
have
made some notable discovery." And again,
"I
shall say nothing now of that other epistle, which
we
have inscribed to the Ephesians, but the heretics
entitle
it to the Laodiceans.'"
This opinion, which, by Tertullian, is
ascribed to
Marcion,
respecting the true title of the epistle to the
Ephesians,
has been adopted, and ingeniously de-
fended
by several distinguished moderns, as Grotius,
pally
on internal evidence; for unless Marcion be ac-
cepted
as a witness, I do not recollect that any of the
early
writers can be quoted in favour of that opinion;
but
in the course of this work, we have put down the
express
testimony of some of the most respectable
and
learned of the Fathers, on the other side; and all
those
passages in the epistle which seem inconsistent
with
its being addressed to the Ephesians, and neigh-
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 267
bouring
churches of
See
Lardner and Macknight.
But there is also an epistle to the
Laodiceans, now
extant,
against which nothing can be said, except
that
almost everything contained in it is taken out of
Paul's
other epistles, so that if it should be received,
we
add nothing in reality to the Canon; and if it
should
be rejected, we lose nothing. The reader may
find
a translation of this epistle inserted in the notes
at
the end of the volume.*
But what evidence is there that Paul
ever wrote
an
epistle to the Laodiceans? The text on
which this
opinion
has been founded, in ancient and modern
times,
correctly interpreted, has no such import.
The
words in the original are, kai thn ek Laodikeiaj
i[na
kai u[meij anagnwte. "And that ye likewise read the
epistle
from
have
been differently understood; for by them some
understand,
that an epistle had been written by Paul
to
the Laodiceans, which he desired might be read in
the
church at Colosse. Chrysostom seems to have
understood
them thus; and the Romish writers, al-
most
universally have adopted this opinion. "There-
fore,"
says Bellarmine, "it is certain that Paul's
epistle
to the Laodiceans is now lost." And their
opinion
is favoured by the Latin Vulgate, where we
read,
Eamque Laodicensium—that which is of the
Laodiceans;
but even these words admit of another
construction.
Many learned Protestants, also, have
embraced the
same
interpretation; while others suppose that Paul
here
refers to the epistle to the Ephcsians, which they
* See note G.
268 NO CANONICAL BOOK
think
he sent to the Laodiceans, and that the present
inscription
is spurious. But that neither of these opi-
nions
is correct may be rendered very probable. In
regard
to the latter, we have already said as much as
is
necessary; and that Paul could not intend by the
language
used in the passage under consideration an
epistle
written by himself, will appear by the follow-
ing
arguments.
1. Paul could not with any propriety
of speech
have
called an epistle written by himself, and sent to
the
Laodiceans, an epistle from
tainly
would have said, proj Laodikeian, or some such
thing.
Who ever heard of an epistle addressed to
any
individual, or to any society, denominated an
epistle
from them?
2. If the epistle referred to in this
passage had
been
one written by Paul, it would have been most
natural
for him to call it his epistle, and this would
have
rendered his meaning incapable of misconstruc-
tion.
3. All those best qualified to judge
of the fact,
and
who were well acquainted with Paul's history
and
writings, never mention any such epistle: neither
Clement,
Hermas, nor the Syriac interpreter, knew
anything
of such an epistle of Paul; and no one
seems
to have had knowledge of any such writing,
except
Marcion, who probably forged it to answer
his
own purposes. But whether Marcion did ac-
knowledge
an epistle different from all that we have
in
the Canon, rests on the authority of Epiphanius,
who
wrote a criticism on the apostolicon of Mar-
cion;
but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a dif-
ferent
story. It is of little importance to
decide
OF TIIE NEW TESTAMENT LOST. 269
which
of these testimonies is most credible: for Mar-
cion's
authority, at best, is worthless on such a sub-
ject.
But it may be asked, To what epistle
then does
Paul
refer? To this inquiry various answers have
been
given, and perhaps nothing determinate can
now
be said. Theophylact was of opinion, that Paul's
first
epistle to Timothy was here intended. But
this
is not probable. Dr. Lightfoot conjectures that
it
was the first epistle of John, which he supposes
was
written from
that
it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it
seems
safest, in such a case, where testimony is de-
ficient,
to follow the literal sense of the words, and
to
believe that it was an epistle written by the Lao-
diceans,
probably to himself, which he had sent to
the
Colossians, together with his own epistle, for their
perusal.
That the epistle which is now extant
is not the
same
as that which formerly existed, at least as early
as
the fourth century, is evident from the quotations
from
the ancient epistle, by Epiphanius; for no such
words
as he cites are in that now extant. But can-
dour
requires that it be mentioned that they are con-
tained
in the epistle to the Ephesians. Let this weigh
as
much as it is worth in favour of the opinion, that
the
apostle, in the passage under consideration, refers
to
the epistle to the Ephesians. This opinion, how-
ever,
is perfectly consistent with our position, that no
canonical book,
of the New Testament has been lost.
This
proposition, we hope, will now appear to the
reader
sufficiently established.
270 RULES FOR DETERMINING
SECTION XV.
RULES
FOR DETERMINING WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL
--SOME ACCOUNT OF THE APOCRYPHAL BOOKS
WHICH
HAVE BEEN LOST--ALL OF THEM CONDEMNED
BY THE
FOREGOING RULES--REASON OF THE
ABOUNDING OF SUCH
BOOKS.
OF
the apocryphal books of the New Testament, the
greater
part have long since sunk into oblivion, but a
few
of them are still extant. All of them can be
proved
to be spurious, or at least not canonical. Their
claims
have so little to support them, that they might
be
left to that oblivion, into which they have so gene-
rally
fallen, were it not that, from time to time, per-
sons
unfriendly to our present Canon bring forward
these
books, and pretend that some of them, at least,
have
as good claims to canonical authority as those
which
are received. It will be satisfactory to the
reader,
therefore, to know the names of these books,
and
to understand the principles on which they have
been
uniformly rejected by the church.
In the first place, then, I will
mention the rules
laid
down by the Rev. Jeremiah Jones, by which it
may
be determined that a book is apocryphal, and
then
I will give some account of the books of this
class
which have been lost; and finally, consider the
character
of those which are still extant.
WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL. 271
1. That book is certainly apocryphal
which con-
tains
manifest contradictions.
The reason of this rule is too evident
to need any
elucidation.
2. That book is apocryphal, which
contains any
doctrine
or history, plainly contrary to those which
are
certainly known to be true.
This rule is also too clear to require
anything to
be
said in confirmation of its propriety.
3. That book is apocryphal which
contains any-
thing
ludicrous or trifling, or which abounds in silly
and
fabulous stories.
This rule is not only true, but of
great importance,
in
this inquiry; as on examination it will be found,
that
the largest part of apocryphal books may be
detected
by the application of this single rule.
4. That book is apocryphal which
mentions things
of
a date much later than the time in which the au-
thor,
under whose name it goes, lived.
This rule does not apply to
predictions of future
events,
which events occurred long after the death of
the
prophet; but to a reference to facts, or names of
places,
or persons, as existing when the book was
written,
which are known to have existed, only at a
period
long since the time when the supposed author
lived.
The rule will be better understood, if illus-
trated
by particular examples. The book entitled,
"The
Constitutions of the Apostles," speaks of the
controversy
which arose in the third century, respect-
ing
the rebaptization of heretics, therefore, it is not
the
work of Clement of Rome, to whom it has been
ascribed;
nor was it written in his time, but long
afterwards.
272 RULES FOR DETERMINING
Again, the book under the name of
HEGESIPPUS is
not
genuine, for it mentions Constantine and Constan-
tinople,
which had no existence until long after the
death
of HEGESIPPUS.
Moreover, in "The Constitutions
of the Apostles,"
there
is mention of rites and ceremonies, relative to
baptism,
fasting, celibacy, &c. which it is certain had
no
existence in the times of the apostles, therefore
this
book was not written by an apostolical man, nor
in
the days of the apostles, but centuries afterwards.
5. That book is apocryphal, the style
of which is
entirely
different from the known style of the author
to
whom it is ascribed.
It is easy to counterfeit an author's
name, age,
country,
opinions, &c.; but it will be found almost
impossible
to imitate his style. An author, it is true,
may
vary his style to suit different subjects, but there
is
commonly some peculiarity by which he may be
distinguished
from all others. "Jerome," says Six-
tus,
"writes one way in his epistles, another in his
controversies,
a third in his commentaries;—one way
when
young, another when old, yet he always so
writes
that you may know him to be the same Je-
various
casts and turns of his countenance." Thus
Augustine
says of Cyprian, "His style has a certain
peculiar
face by which it may be known."
It should be remembered, however, that
this rule,
although
it may often furnish a certain detection of
spurious
writings is one which requires much caution
in
the application. There is need of a long and inti-
mate
acquaintance with the style of an author, before
we
are competent to determine whether a book could
WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL. 273
have
been written by him: and the difference ought
to
be very distinctly marked before we make it the
ground
of any important judgment, respecting the
genuineness
of a work ascribed to him, especially if
there
be external evidence in its favour. In
fact, too
free
an application of this rule has led to many errors,
both
in ancient and modern times.
6. That book is spurious and
apocryphal, whose
idiom
and dialect are different from those of the coun-
try
to which the reputed author belonged.
The idiom and dialect of a language
are very dif-
ferent
from the style of an author. Every language
is
susceptible of every variety of style, but the idiom
is
the same in all who use the language: it is the
peculiarity,
not of an individual, but of a whole coun-
try.
But as every writer has a style of his own,
which
cannot easily be imitated by another, so every
country
has an idiom, which other nations, even if they
learn
the language, cannot, without great difficulty,
acquire.
And for the same reason that a writer can-
not
acquire the idiom of a foreign tongue, he cannot
divest
himself of the peculiarites of his own.
An Englishman can scarcely write and
speak the
French
language, so as not to discover by his idiom
that
it is not his vernacular tongue. Hence also, a
North
Briton can be distinguished, not only from the
peculiarity
of his pronunciation, but by his idiom.
And
this is the reason that modern scholars can
never
write Latin, in the manner of the classic au-
thors.
This rule, therefore, is of great importance in
detecting
the spuriousness of a book, when the real
author
lived after the time of the person whose name
is
assumed, or in a country where a different language,
274 RULES FOR DETERMINING
or
a different dialect was in use. It will be found al-
most
impossible to avoid phrases and modes of speech,
which
were not in use in the time of the person under
whose
name the work is edited: and the attempt at
imitating
an idiom which is not perfectly familiar,
leads
to an affectation and stiffness of manner which
usually
betrays the impostor. The influence of native
idiom
appears nowhere more remarkably than in the
writings
of the New Testament. These books, al-
though
written in the Greek tongue, contain an idiom
so
manifestly different from that of the language in
common
use at that time, that it cannot but be
observed
by all who have even a superficial acquaint-
ance
with Grecian literature.
The fact is, as has often been
observed by learned
men,
that while the words of these books are Greek
the
idiom is Hebrew. The writers had, from their
infancy,
been accustomed to the Syro-Chaldaic lan-
guage,
which is a corruption of the ancient Hebrew.
Now,
this peculiarity of idiom could never have
been
successfully imitated by any native Greek; nor
by
any one, not early conversant with the vernacular
tongue
of
men
of other countries, and other times, undertook
to
publish books under the name of the apostles, the
imposture
was manifest at once, to all capable of
judging
correctly on the subject; because, although
they
could write in the same language as the apos-
tles,
they could not possibly imitate their idiom. This,
therefore,
furnishes a most important characteristic,
to
distinguish between the genuine writings of the
apostles
and such as are supposititious.
7. That book is spurious which
exhibits a disposi-
WHAT BOOKS ARE APOCRYPHAL. 275
tion
and temper of mind very different from that of
the
person to whom it is ascribed.
This rule depends on a principle in
human nature
well
understood, and needs no particular elucidation.
8. That book is not genuine, which
consists princi-
pally
of mere extracts from other books.
This is also so evident, that it requires
no illustra-
tion.
9. Those books which were never cited,
nor referred
to
as Scripture, by any writer of credit for the first
four
hundred years after the apostles' days, are apo-
cryphal.
10. Those books which were expressly
rejected by
the
Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and attribu-
ted
by them to heretics, are apocryphal.
By the application of the foregoing
rules, it can be
shown,
that every book which claims canonical au-
thority,
not included in our present Canon, is apo-
cryphal.
When we denominate all books apocryphal
which
are not canonical, we do not mean to reduce
them
all to the same level. A book which is not
canonical
may be a very instructive and useful book.
As
a human composition it may deserve to be highly
esteemed;
and as the writing of a pious and eminent
man
of antiquity it may claim peculiar respect.
The ancient method of division was
more accurate
than
ours. They divided all books into three classes;
first,
the canonical; secondly, the ecclesiastical;
and
thirdly, the spurious. And there is reason to
believe
that some books which were written without
the
least fraudulent design, by anonymous authors,
have,
by the ignorance of their successors, been as-
cribed
to the wrong persons.
276 APOCRYPHAL BOOKS
That the Fathers did sometimes cite
apocryphal
books,
in their writings, is true; but so did Paul cite
the
heathen poets. If these books are sometimes
mentioned,
without any note of disapprobation an-
nexed,
it can commonly be clearly ascertained from
other
places in the same author, that he held them to
be
apocryphal. Thus ORIGEN, in one place, quotes
"the
gospel according to the Hebrews," without any
expression
of disapprobation; but in another place he
rejects
it as spurious, and declares, "That the church
receives
no more than four gospels."
Sometimes the Fathers cited these
apocryphal
books,
to show that their knowledge was not con-
fined
to their own books, and that they did not reject
others,
through ignorance of their contents. Remark-
ably
to this purpose are the words of Origen. "The
church,"
says he, "receives only four gospels: here-
tics
have many, such as the gospel of the Egyptians,
the
gospel of Thomas, &c.: these we
read, that we
may
not seem to be ignorant to those who think they
know
something extraordinary, if they are acquaint-
ed
with those things which are recorded in these
books."
To the same purpose speaks AMBROSE; for,
having
mentioned several of these books, he says,
"We
read these that they may not be read by others:
we
read them, that we may not seem ignorant; we
read
them, not that we receive them, but that we may
reject
them; and may know what those things are, of
which
they make such a boast." In some instances,
it
seems probable that some of the Fathers took pas-
sages
out of these books, because they were acknow-
ledged
by those against whom they were writing; be-
CITED BY THE FATHERS. 277
ing
willing to dispute with them on their own princi-
ples
and to confute them by their own books.
It may perhaps be true also, that one
or two of the
Fathers
cited passages from these books, because
they
contained facts not recorded in the canonical
gospels.
The apostle John informs us that our Lord
performed
innumerable miracles, besides those which
he
had recorded; "The which, if they should be writ-
ten
every one, I suppose the world itself could not
contain
the books which should be written." Now,
some
tradition of some of these things would undoubt-
edly
be handed down as low as to the second century,
and
might find its way into some of the apocryphal gos-
pels,
and might be cited by persons who did not be-
lieve
the book to be of canonical authority; just as we
refer
to any profane author for the proof of such facts
as
are credibly related by them. There is, at least,
one
example of this. JEROME refers to the gospel ac-
cording
to the Hebrews for a fact; and yet he most
explicitly
rejects this book as apocryphal.
The only books which were ever read in
the
churches,
besides the canonical, were a few written
by
apostolical men; which, although not written by
a
plenary inspiration, were the genuine writings of
the
persons whose names they bore, and were pious
productions,
and tended to edification; such as, the
"Epistle
of Clement," the "Shepherd of Hermas," and
the
"Epistle of Barnabas;" but no spurious books
were
ever read in the churches.
None of the writings falsely ascribed
to Christ and
his
apostles, ever acquired so much authority, as to
be
publicly read in any church, as far as we know.
Indeed,
although the apocryphal books of the New
278 CAUSES OF THE WRITING
Testament
were very numerous, yet they did not ap-
pear
in the age of the church next after the times of
the
apostles. In the first century no books of this de-
scription
are referred to, unless we suppose that Luke,
in
the beginning of his gospel, intends to speak of
such.
In the second century a few spurious writings
began
to be first put into circulation, as, "the Gospel
according
to the Hebrews;" "the Gospel of Truth,"
used
by the Valentinians; "the Preaching of Peter;"
"the
Traditions of Matthias;" "the Acts of Paul and
Thecla:"
"the Gospel of Marcion;" "the Revelation
of
Cerinthus;" and a few others of less note. But in
the
third century the number of apocryphal books
was
considerably increased; and in the fourth and
fifth
centuries they were exceedingly multiplied.
If it be inquired, how it happened
that so many
apocryphal
books were written, it may confidently be
answered,
that the principal cause was the abound-
ing
of heresies. Almost all the spurious writings, un-
der
the names of the apostles, are the productions of
heretics,
as we learn from the testimony of those Fa-
thers
who have made mention of them. It is however
true,
that some mistaken well-meaning people thought
that
they could add honour to the apostles, or contri-
bute
to the edification of the church, by resorting to
(what
have improperly been called) pious frauds.
They
imagined, also, that they could recommend
Christianity
to the Gentiles, by inventing stories,
which
they rashly pretended were sayings or ac-
tions
of Christ: thus adopting the pernicious max-
im,
so peremptorily denounced by Paul, "that we
may
do evil that good may come;" or that the good-
ness
of the end will sanctify the badness of the means.
OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS. 279
Of
this we have one remarkable example, in the spu-
rious
book still extant, entitled, "the Acts of Paul and
Theela,"
which a certain Asiatic presbyter confessed
that
he had forged, and assigned, as his reason for
this
forgery, that he wished to show respect to Paul.
But,
in connection with this fact, we have satisfactory
proof
of the vigilance of the church, in guarding the
sacred
Canon from corruption; for the book was no
sooner
published, than a strict inquiry was instituted
into
its origin, and the presbyter mentioned above,
having
been detected as the author, was deprived of
his
office in the church. This account is given by
Tertullian;
and Jerome adds that the detection of
this
forgery was made by the apostle John.
It is probable, also, that some of
these books were
written
without any evil purpose, by weak men, who
wrote
down all the stories they had received by tra-
dition;
for, no doubt, a multitude of traditions respect-
ing
Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distor-
tions
and additions, would be handed down for several
generations.
By all these means, the number of
apocryphal
books
of the New Testament was greatly multiplied.
But
by far the greater number of these have perished;
yet
there is no difficulty in determining, that none
of
them had any just claim to a place in the Canon.
By
one or more of the rules laid down above, they
can
all be demonstrated to have been apocryphal:
and
indeed most of them are never mentioned by any
ancient
author, in any other light than as spurious
writings.
There is a famous decree of pope
SIUS,
in which at least twenty-five of these books are
280 DECREE OF GELASIUS.
named,
and declared to be apocryphal. It is not cer-
tain,
indeed, whether this decree ought to be ascribed
to
GELASIUS, or to one of his predecessors, DAMASUS;
but
there can be no doubt that it is very ancient. It
is
by most supposed to have been formed in the coun-
cil
which met at
this
decree, extracted from Jones, will be found in the
notes
at the end of the volume.*
* See Note F.
LETTER OF ABGARUS. 281
SECTION XVI.
APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS WHICH ARE STILL EXTANT--LETTER
OF ABGARUS KING OF
SWER--EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS--LETTERS
OF PAUL
TO SENECA --PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES--THE
GOS-
PEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S INFANCY--THE ACTS
OF PILATE
--THE ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA.
WE
come now to consider those apocryphal books
which
are still extant, and concerning which, there-
fore,
we can speak more particularly.
The first of these is, "the
letter of Abgarus, king
of
Ananias."
EUSEBIUS is the first who makes
mention of this
epistle,
and the sum of his account is, that our Sa-
viour's
miraculous works drew innumerable persons
to
him, from the most remote countries, to be healed
of
their diseases;—that ABGARUS, a famous king be-
yond
the
afflicted
with a malady incurable by human art. Our
Lord
promised to send one of his disciples to him,
and
Thaddeus, one of the seventy disciples, was sent
by
Thomas after the ascension of Jesus, by an inti-
mation
given him from heaven. For the truth of this
story,
Eusebius appeals to the public records of the
city
of
282 LETTER OF ABGARUS.
the
reign of Abgarus are preserved in the Syriac
language,
out of which he translated these epistles,
and
the accompanying history. He proceeds to re-
late
that Thaddeus having come to
many
miracles, and healed many that were diseased.
Abgarus,
supposing that this was the person whom
Christ
had, in his letter, promised to send to him, as
soon
as Thaddeus was introduced to him, perceiving
something
extraordinary in his countenance, fell down
before
him, at which his nobles were greatly surprised.
The
king having inquired whether he was the person
sent
by Christ, he answered, that on account of the
faith
of Christ he was sent, and assured him that all
things
should be according to his faith. To which the
king
replied, that he believed so much in Christ, that
he
was resolved, had it not been for fear of the Ro-
mans,
to have made war with the Jews for crucify-
ing
him. Thaddeus informed him of the ascension of
Christ
to his Father. The king replied, I believe in
him,
and in his Father also: on which the apostle
said,
I lay my hand on you in the name of the Lord
Jesus
Christ; and the king was instantly cured of his
disease.
He also cured others who were diseased;
and,
on the morrow, the king ordered all the city to
meet
together, to hear the apostle preach. The king
offered
him gold and silver, which he refused, saying,
"We
have left our own, and should we take that which
is
another's?"
These epistles are also mentioned by
EPHREM, the
Syrian,
who was a deacon in the
in
the latter end of the fourth century. His account
of
this matter, as given by Dr. Grabe, is as follows:
"Blessed
be your city, and mother
LETTER OF ABGARUS. 283
was
expressly blessed by the mouth of the Lord, and
his
disciples, but our apostles; for when Abgarus the
king,
who built that city, thought fit to send and ac-
knowledge
Christ, the Lord and Saviour of all, in
his
pilgrimage on earth; saying, I have heard all
things
which are done by you, and how much you
have
suffered by the Jews, who contemn you, where-
fore,
come hither, and take up your residence with
me;
I have a little city which shall be equally yours
and
mine; hereupon the Lord admiring his faith
sent
by messengers a blessing unto the city, which
should
abide for ever, till the Holy One be revealed
from
heaven, even Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and
God
of God."
No other writer of the first four
centuries makes
any
explicit mention of this epistle; but PROCOPIUS,
in
the sixth century, in his history of the Persian war,
relates,
"That Abgarus had been long afflicted with
the
gout, and finding no relief from the physicians,
but
hearing of the miracles of Christ, sent to him,
and
desired that he would come and live with him;
and
that upon his receiving an answer from Christ,
he
was immediately cured; and that our Saviour, in
the
end of his letter, gave Abgarus assurance, that his
city
should never be taken by enemies."
EVAGRIUS, in the latter end of the
sixth century,
appeals
to this account of PROCOPIUS, and confirms
the
story that the city never should he taken by ene-
mies,
by a reference to some facts, particularly the
failure
of Chosroes to take the city, when he laid
siege
to it. But this author adds a circumstance,
which
has much the air of a fable, that this failure
of
capturing the city was brought about by a picture
284 LETTER OF CHRIST
of
Christ's face, which he had impressed on a hand-
kerchief,
and sent to ABGARUS, at his earnest request.
CEDRENUS adds to all the rest that
Christ sealed
his
letter with a seal consisting of seven Hebrew let-
ters,
the meaning of which was, "the divine miracle of
God
is seen."
Among the moderns, a very large
majority are of
opinion
that this epistle is apocryphal. Indeed, the
principal
advocates of its genuineness are a few
learned
Englishmen, particularly Dr. Parker, Dr.
Cave,
and Dr. Grabe, but they do not speak confi-
dently
on the subject; while on the other side are
found
almost the whole body of learned critics, both
Protestants
and Romanists. Now, that this epistle
and
history existed in the archives of
time
of Eusebius, there is no room to doubt, unless
we
would accuse this respectable historian of the
most
deliberate falsehood; for he asserts that he him-
self
had taken them thence. His words, however,
must
not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had
himself
been at
tle
from the Syriac; for there is reason to believe
that
he never visited that place, and that he was not
acquainted
with the Syriac tongue. The words will
be
sufficiently verified, if this document was trans-
lated
and transmitted to him through an authentic
channel
from
It is probable, therefore, that this
story has some
foundation
in truth. Probably Thaddeus, or some
other
apostle, did preach the gospel and perform
miracles
in that city; but how much of the story is
credible,
it is not now easy to determine. But I
TO ABGARUS SPURIOUS. 285
think
it may be shown that this epistle was never
penned
by Jesus Christ, for the following reasons:
1. It is never mentioned in the
genuine gospels;
nor
referred to by any writer of the first three
centuries.
2. If this account had been true,
there never could
have
been any hesitation among the apostles about
preaching
the gospel to the Gentiles.
3. It is unreasonable to believe that
if Christ had
been
applied to by this king for healing, he would
have
deferred a cure until he could send an apostle
after
his ascension. This does not correspond with
the
usual conduct of the benevolent Saviour.
4. It seems to have been a tradition
universally re-
ceived
that Christ never wrote anything himself; and
if
he had written this letter, it would have been more
prized
than any other portion of Scripture, and would
have
been placed in the Canon, and everywhere read
in
the churches.
5. After it was published by Eusebius,
it never
gained
so much credit as to be received as a genuine
writing
of Christ. As it was unknown in the first
three
centuries, so in the fourth when published it
was
scarcely noticed by any writer.
6. The plain mention of our Lord's
ascension in
the
epistle, is an evidence of its spuriousness; for in
all
his discourses, recorded by the evangelists, there
is
no such explicit declaration of this event; and it
cannot
be supposed that he would speak more expli-
citly
to a heathen king than to the persons chosen
to
be witnesses of his actions, and dispensers of his
doctrine.
There is, however, nothing in the
sentiments ex-
286 PAUL TO THE LAODICEANS.
pressed
in this epistle unsuitable to the humble and
benevolent
character of the Saviour; but learned men
have
supposed that there are several internal evi-
dences
of spuriousness besides the one just mentioned.
I
conceive, however, that the reasons already assigned
will
be considered as sufficient to prove that this letter
forms
no part of the sacred Canon. It is excluded
by
several of the rules laid down above; and even
if
it were genuine, it seems that it ought rather to be
received
as a private communication than as intended
for
the edification of the whole church. The history
which
accompanies the letter has several strong marks
of
spuriousness, but as this does not claim to be canoni-
cal,
we need not pursue the subject further. It may,
however,
not be amiss to remark that the story of the
picture
of our Saviour impressed on a handkerchief
and
sent to Abgarus, is enough of itself to condemn
the
history as fabulous. This savours not of the sim-
plicity
of Christ, and has no parallel in anything re-
corded
in the gospel.
II. There is now extant an epistle
under the title
of
"Paul to the Laodiceans," and it is known that as
early
as the beginning of the second century, a work
existed
under this name which was received by MAR-
CION
the heretic. But there is good reason for think-
ing
that the epistle now extant is an entirely different
work
from the one which anciently existed; for the
present
epistle does not contain the words which
Epiphanius
has cited from that used by Marcion;
and
what renders this clear is, that the ancient epis-
tle
was heretical, and was rejected by the Fathers of
the
church with one consent; whereas, the one which
we
now have contains nothing erroneous; for it is a
PAUL'S LETTERS TO SENECA. 287
mere
compilation from the other epistles of Paul with
a
few additional sentences which contain no heretical
doctrine.
As the epistle is short, a translation of it
will
be given in the notes at the end of the volume.*
Concerning the ancient epistle under
this title Phi-
lastrius
says, "That some were of opinion that it
was
written by Luke; but because the heretics have
inserted
some (false) things, it is for that reason not
read
in the churches. Though it be read by some,
yet
there are no more than thirteen epistles of Paul
read
to the people in the church, and sometimes that
to
the Hebrews." "There are some," says Jerome,
"who
read an epistle, under the name of Paul to the
Laodiceans,
but is rejected by all." And Epiphanius
calls
it "an epistle not written by the apostles." The
epistle
now extant never having been received into
the
ancient catalogues, read in the churches, or cited
as
Scripture, is of course apocryphal. It is also
proved
not to be genuine, because it is almost entirely
an
extract from the other epistles of Paul.
III. Another writing which has been
ascribed to
Paul
is, "Six Letters to Seneca," with which are
connected
"Eight Letters from Seneca to Paul."
These
letters are of undoubted antiquity, and several
learned
men of the Jesuits have defended them as
genuine,
and allege that they are similar to other
epistles
received into the Canon which were addressed
to
individuals. That such letters were in existence as
early
as the fourth century appears from a passage
in
Jerome's Catalogue of Illustrious Men, where he
gives
the following account of Seneca: "Lucius An-
naeus
Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio,
* See Note G.
288 PAUL'S LETTERS
Stoic,
uncle of Lucan the poet, was a person of very
extraordinary
temperance, whom I should not have
ranked
in my Catalogue of Saints, but that I was de-
termined
to it by the "epistles of Paul to Seneca,"
and
"Seneca to Paul," which are read by many. In
which,
though he was at that time tutor to Nero, and
made
a very considerable figure, he saith he wishes
to
be of the same repute among his countrymen, as
Paul
was among the Christians. He was slain by
Nero
two years before Peter and Paul were honoured
with
martyrdom."
There is also a passage in Augustine's
54th epistle
to
Macedonius, which shows that he was not unac-
quainted
with these letters. His words are,
"It is
true,
which Seneca, who lived in the times of the
apostles,
and who wrote certain epistles to Paul which
are
now read, said, he who will hate those who are
wicked
must hate all men.'"
There is no authentic evidence that
these letters
have
been noticed by any of the rest of the Fathers.
Indeed,
it has been too hastily asserted by several
eminent
critics, that Augustine believed that the let-
ters
of Paul to Seneca were genuine; but the fact is,
that
he makes no mention whatever of Paul's letters;
he
only mentions those of Seneca to Paul. The pro-
bability
is that he never saw them, for had he been
acquainted
with them, it is scarcely credible that he
would
have said nothing respecting them in this
place.
Neither does Jerome say anything from
which it
can
with any certainty be inferred that he received
these
letters as genuine. He gives them the title by
which
they were known, and says they were read
TO SENECA SPURIOUS. 289
by
many; but if he had believed them to be genuine
letters
of Paul, would he not have said much more?
Would
he not have claimed for them a place among
Paul's
canonical epistles? And what proves that this
Father
did not believe them to be genuine is, that in
this
same book he gives a full account of Paul and his
writings,
and yet does not make the least mention of
these
letters to Seneca.
But the style of these letters
sufficiently demon-
strates
that they are not genuine. Nothing can be
more
dissimilar to the style of Paul and of Seneca,
than
that of these epistles. "The style of those
attributed
to Seneca," says Dupin, "is barbarous, and
full
of idioms that do not belong to the Latin tongue."
"And
those attributed to Paul," says Mr. Jeremiah
Jones,
"have not the least tincture of the gravity of
the
apostle, but are rather compliments than instruc-
tions."
The subscriptions of these letters are
very
different
from those used by these writers in their
genuine
epistles. Seneca is made to salute Paul by
the
name of brother; an appellation not in use among
the
heathen, but peculiar to Christians. By several
of
these letters it would appear that Paul was at
when
they were written, but from others the contrary
may
be inferred. It seems strange if they were both
in
the city, that they should date their letters by
consulships;
and, indeed, this method of dating letters
was
wholly unknown among the Romans; and there
are
several mistakes in them in regard to the con-
suls
in authority at the time.
Their trifling contents is also a
strong argument of
spuriousness.
"They contain nothing," says
Dupin,
"worthy
either of Seneca or of Paul; scarcely one
290 PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES.
moral
sentiment in the letters of Seneca, nor anything
of
Christianity in those of Paul." What can be more
unlike
Paul than the fifth letter, which is occupied
with
a servile apology for putting his own name before
Seneca's,
in the inscription of his letters, and declar-
ing
this to be contrary to Christianity? These let-
ters,
moreover, contain some things which are not true,
as
"that the emperor Nero was delighted and sur-
prised
at the thoughts in Paul's epistles to the
churches:—and
that Nero was both an admirer and
favourer
of Christianity." But very incongruous with
this,
and also with Paul's character is that which he
is
made to say in his fourth epistle, where he entreats
Seneca
to say no more to the emperor respecting him
or
Christianity; lest he should offend him. Yet, in
the
sixth letter he advises Seneca to take convenient
opportunities
of insinuating the Christian religion, and
things
favourable to it to Nero and his family. But
for
further particulars the reader is referred to the
epistles
themselves, a translation of which may be
found
in "Jones on the Canon."
IV. There is extant a, spurious gospel
entitled,
the
"Protevangelion of James," in the Greek lan-
guage,
which was brought from the east by Postell,
who
asserts that it is held to be genuine by the ori-
ental
churches, and is publicly read in their assemblies
with
the other Scriptures. This learned man, more-
over,
undertakes the defence of this gospel as the
genuine
production of the apostle James, and insists
that
it ought at least to have a place in the Hagiogra-
pha.
But his arguments are weak, and have been
fully
refuted by Fabricius and Jones.
This apocryphal book, however, appears
to be
PROTEVANGELION OF JAMES. 291
ancient;
or at least there was formerly a book under
the
same name, but that it is not canonical is easily
proved.
It is quoted by none of the ancient Fathers
except
Epiphanius, who explicitly rejects it as apo-
cryphal.
It is found in none of the catalogues, and
was
never read in the primitive church. It contains
many
false and trifling stories; and in its style and
composition
is a perfect contrast to the genuine gospels
of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. From the
Hebraisms
with which it abounds, it has been supposed
to
be the work of some person who was originally a
Jew;
but as it was anciently used by the Gnostics,
there
can be little doubt that the author when he
wrote,
belonged to some one of the heretical sects
which
so abounded in primitive times.
There is also another work which has a
near affinity
with
this, called "The Nativity of Mary." And
although
these books possess a similar character, and
contain
many things in common, yet in other points
they
are contradictory to each other, as they both
are
to the evangelical history. The internal evi-
dence
is itself sufficient to satisfy any candid reader
of
their apocryphal character.*
V. The largest apocryphal gospel
extant is entitled
"The
Gospel of our Saviour's Infancy." There
is
also
remaining a fragment of a gospel ascribed to
Thomas,
which probably was originally no other than
the
one just mentioned. These gospels were never
supposed
to be canonical by any Christian writer.
They
were forged and circulated by the Gnostics, and
altered
from time to time according to their caprice.
* Both of these apocryphal works may
be seen in the second
volume
of Jones' learned work on the Canon.
292 GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S INFANCY.
The "Gospel of our Saviour's
Infancy," seems to
have
been known to Mohammed, or rather to his
assistants;
for according to his own account, in the
Koran,
he was unable to read. Many of the things
related
in the Koran, respecting Christianity, are
from
this apocryphal work. This gospel is condemned
by
almost every rule laid down for the detection of
spurious
writings; and if all other evidence were want-
ing,
the silly, trifling and ludicrous stories, with which
it
is stuffed, would be enough to demonstrate, that it
was
spurious and apocryphal. To give the curious
reader
an opportunity of contrasting these apocryphal
legends
with the gravity and simplicity of the genuine
gospels,
I have inserted some of the miracles recorded
in
this book, at the end of the volume.*
It seems highly probable that this
"Gospel of the
Saviour's
Infancy," and the book of the "Nativity of
Mary,"
were originally parts of the same work; an
evidence
of which is, that in the Koran, there is a
continued
and connected story, which is taken partly
from
the one, and partly from the other.† The
same
thing
is proved by the fact, that Jerome in one place
speaks
of a preface which he had written to the "Gos-
pel
of our Saviour's Infancy," in which he condemns
it,
because it contradicts the gospel of John, and in
another
place, he uses the same words, and says they
are
in the preface to the "Nativity of Mary."
Both these apocryphal books have been
formerly
ascribed
to LUCIUS CHARINUS, who lived in the latter
part
of the third century, and who rendered himself
famous,
by forging spurious works under the name of
the
apostles.
* See note H. † See Koran, chap. iii.
THE ACTS OF PILATE. 293
VI. There is another apocryphal
gospel, entitled,
"the
Gospel of Nicodemus," or, "the Acts of Pilate,"
which
was probably forged about the same time as the
one
last treated of, and it is very likely by the same
person.
That it was the custom for the governors of
provinces
in the
perors
an account of all remarkable occurrences under
their
government, is capable of proof from the Roman
history,
and Eusebius expressly informs us that this
was
customary: and Philo Jucheus speaks of "the
daily
memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula,
from
That Pontius Pilate transmitted some
account of
the
crucifixion of Christ, and of his wonderful works,
is,
therefore, in itself, highly probable; but it is ren-
dered
certain, by the public appeal made to these
"Acts
of Pilate," both by JUSTIN MARTYR and TER-
TULLIAN,
in their Apologies; the one addressed to the
Roman
emperor ANTONINUS Pius, and the other pro-
bably
to the Roman senate. The words of Justin
Martyr
are, "And of the truth of these facts you
may
be informed, out of the acts which were written
by
PONTIUS PILATE." And in the same
apology he
refers
to these acts for proof, "That our Saviour cured
all
sorts of diseases, and raised the dead."
TERTULLIAN, in two places of his
Apology, appeals
to
records which were transmitted to Tiberius from
places,
and deserves to be transcribed: "Tiberius,"
says
he, "in whose time the Christian name became
first
known in the world, having received information
from
given
manifest proof of the truth of his divinity,
294 THE ACTS OF PILATE.
communicated
it to the senate, insisting upon it as his
prerogative,
that they should assent to his opinion in
that
matter; but the senate not approving it refused.
Caesar
continued in the same opinion, threatening those
who
were accusers of the Christians."
In the other passage, after
enumerating many of
the
miracles of Christ, he adds, "All these things,
Pilate
himself, who was in his conscience for follow-
ing
Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Caesar; and even
the
Caesars themselves had been Christians, if it had
been
consistent with their secular interests." Both
Eusebius
and Jerome, cite this testimony of Tertul-
lian
as authentic. It seems therefore certain, that
some
account of Christ and his actions was trans-
mitted
by Pilate to the emperor. "For,"
to use the
words
of an eminent man, "Tertullian, though a
Christian
writer, durst never have presumed to impose
upon
the senate themselves, with such a remarkable
story,
if he was not able to prove it; and that he was,
is
evident from Justin Martyr, who often appeals to
the
Acts of Pilate, concerning the history of our Sa-
viour—That
Pilate did send such acts is evident, for
scarce
any man, much less such a man as Justin Mar-
tyr,
would have been so foolish, or so confident, as to
affirm
a thing in which it would be so easy to convict
him
of falsehood."*
And another, speaking of the same
thing, says,
"They
were men of excellent learning and judg-
ment;
but no man who could write an apology,
can
be supposed to have so little understanding, as
to
appeal to that account which Pilate sent to Tibe-
rius,
concerning the resurrection of Christ, in apol-
* Dr. Parker.
THE ACTS OF PILATE. 295
ogies,
dedicated to the Roman emperor himself, and
to
the senate, if no such account had ever been sent."*
It does not follow, however, that
these Fathers had
ever
seen these Acts, or that they were ever seen by
any
Christian. During the reigns of heathen em-
perors,
Christians could have no access to the ar-
chives
of the nation; but the fact of the existence
of
such a record might have been, and probably was,
a
matter of public notoriety; otherwise, we never
can
account for the confident appeal of these learned
and
respectable writers. There is no difficulty in
conceiving
how such a fact might have been certainly
known
to these Fathers, without supposing that they
had
seen the record. As the learned Casaubon says,
"Some
servants or officers of one of the Caesars, who
were
converted to Christianity, and had opportunity
of
searching the public records at
account
to some Christians, from whom Justin and
Tertullian
had it."
It may seem to be an objection to the
existence of
such
Acts, that they were never made public when
the
emperors became Christians; but it is altogether
probable,
that they were destroyed through the ma-
lice
of the senate, or of some Roman emperor who
was
hostile to Christianity. They who took so much
pains
to destroy the writings of Christians, would not
suffer
such a monument of the truth of Christianity
to
remain in their own palace. But as to those Acts
of
Pilate which are now extant, no one supposes that
they
are genuine. They have every mark of being
spurious. The external and internal evidence is
* Dr. Jenkin.
296 MOTIVES FOR THE FORGERY
equally
against them; and it would be a waste of time
to
enter into any discussion of this point.
It may, however, be worth while to
inquire into the
motives
which probably led some mistaken Christian
to
forge such a narrative. And there seems to have
been
two: first, to have it in his power to show the
record,
to which the Fathers had so confidently re-
ferred.
The heathen adversaries might say, after the
destruction
of the genuine Acts of Pilate, Where is the
document
to which this appeal has been made? let it
be
produced. And some man, thinking that he could
serve
the cause of Christianity by forging Acts;
under
the name of Pilate, was induced through a mis-
taken
zeal, to write this narrative.
But there was another reason which
probably had
some
influence on this fact. About the close of the
third
century, the heathen had forged and published
a
writing called "The Acts of Pilate," the object of
which
was to render the Christians odious and con-
temptible
to the public, by foul calumnies against
their
Founder and his apostles. Of this fact, EUSE-
BIUS
gives us express and particular information.
"From
whence," says he, "the forgery of these is
manifestly
detected, who have lately published cer-
tain
Acts against our Saviour. In which, first, the
very
time which is assigned to them discovers the
imposture;
for those things which they have impu-
dently
forged, to have come to pass at our Saviour's
crucifixion,
are said to have occurred in the fourth
consulship
of Tiberius, which coincides with the
seventh
of his reign; at which time, it is certain,
Pilate
was not yet come into
due
to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was
OF THESE ACTS. 297
not
constituted governor of
year
of Tiberius."* And in another place
he says,
"Seeing
therefore that this writer, (Josephus) who
was
himself a Jew, has related such things in his
history
concerning John the Baptist and the Saviour,
what
can they possibly say for themselves, to prevent
being
convicted of the most impudent forgery, who
wrote
those things against John and Christ." And
in
the ninth book of his ecclesiastical history, this
writer
gives us information, still more particular, re-
specting
this malicious forgery. "At length, (the
heathen)
having forged certain Acts of Pilate, con-
cerning
our Saviour, which were full of all sorts of
blasphemy
against Christ, they caused them, by the
decree
of Maximinus, to be dispersed through all
parts
of the empire; commanding by letters, that
they
should be published to all persons, in every place,
both
in cities and country places; and that school-
masters
should put them into the hands of their chil-
dren,
and oblige them to learn them by heart, instead
of
their usual lessons."
Here it may be observed, that while
this impudent
forgery
clearly shows with what malicious efforts the
attempt
was made to subvert the gospel, it proves at
the
same time, that there had existed a document
under
the name of "The Acts of Pilate." Now, the
circulation
of such an impious piece of blasphemy,
probably
instigated CHARINUS, or whoever was the
author
of these Acts, to counteract them by a work
of
another kind, under the same name. How this
book
came to be called, "The Gospel of Nicodemus,"
will
appear by the subscription annexed to it, in which
* Euseb. Ecc. Hist. lib.
298 ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA.
it
is said, "The emperor THEODOSIUS the great, found
at
public
records, the things which were transacted in
the
nineteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, emperor of the
Romans—being
a history written in Hebrew by Nico-
demus,
of what happened after our Saviour's cruci-
fixion."
And if this subscription be no part of the
original
work, still it may have occasioned this title;
or
it may have originated in the fact, that much is
said
about Nicodemus in the story which is here told.
But
even if we had the original Acts of Pilate, or
some
history of Nicodemus, it needs no proof that
they
could have no just claim to a place in the
Canon.
VII. The last apocryphal book which I
shall men-
tion,
is that entitled "The Acts of Paul and Thecla."
There
is no doubt but that this book is apocryphal.
It
was so considered by all the Fathers who have
mentioned
it. TERTULLIAN says respecting it, "But
if
any read the apocryphal books of Paul, and thence
defend
the right of women to teach and baptize, by
the
example of Thecla, let them consider that a
certain
presbyter of
under
the name of Paul, being convicted of forgery,
confessed
that he did it out of respect to Paul, and so
left
his place."* And JEROME, in his life of Luke,
says,
"The Acts of Paul and Thecla, with the whole
story
of the baptized lion, I reckon among the apo-
cryphal
Scriptures." And in the decree of Pope
Gelasius,
it is asserted, "That the Acts of Thecla
and
Paul' is apocryphal."
It is manifest, however, that the
primitive Chris-
* Tertull. De Baptismo.
ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA. 299
tians
gave credit to a story respecting Paul and
Thecla,
on which this book is founded: for it is often
referred
to as a history well known and commonly
believed.
Thus Cyprian, or some ancient writer
under
his name, says, "Help us, 0 Lord, as thou
didst
help the apostles in their imprisonment, THECLA
amidst
the flames, Paul in his persecutions, and Peter
amidst
the waves of the sea." And again, "Deliver
me,
0 Lord, as thou didst deliver Thecla, when in the
midst
of the amphitheatre she was in conflict with the
wild
beasts." EUSEBIUS mentions a woman by this
name,
but he places her long after the apostle Paul,
and
she is, therefore, supposed to be another person.
EPIPHANIUS
relates, "That when Thecla met Paul,
she
determined against marriage, although she was
then
engaged to a very agreeable young man."* AU-
GUSTINE
refers to the same thing, and says, "By a
discourse
of Paul's, at Iconium, he incited Thecla to
a
resolution of perpetual virginity, although she was
then
actually engaged to be married." Many others
of
the Fathers speak of Thecla as of a person whose
history
was well known. And among the moderns,
Baronius,
Locrinus, and Grabe, look upon this history
as,
true and genuine, written in the apostolic age, and
containing
nothing superstitious or unsuitable to that
time.
But none have ventured to assert that these
Acts ought to have a
place in the Canon.
No doubt the book now extant is
greatly altered
from
that ancient history referred to by the Fathers,
and
probably the original story was founded on some
tradition
which had a foundation in truth; but what
the
truth is, it is impossible now to discover among
* Epiph. Haer. lxviii.
300 ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA.
such
a mass of fables and ridiculous stories as the
book
contains. As it now stands, it contains numer-
ous
things which are false in fact; others which are
inconsistent
with the canonical Scriptures, and some
totally
incompatible with the true character of Paul.
Moreover,
it is favourable to several superstitious
practices
which had no existence in the apostles'
days;
and finally, the forgery was acknowledged as
it
relates to the ancient Acts, and those now existing
cannot
be more genuine than the original; but to
these
many things have been added of a silly and
superstitious
kind.
UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 301
SECTION XVII.
NO
PART OF THE CHRISTIAN REVELATION HANDED DOWN
BY UNWRITTEN TRADITION.
IN
the former part of this work it was seen that it
was
not only necessary to show that the apocryphal
writings
had no right to a place in the sacred volume,
but
that there was no additional revelation which had
been
handed down by oral tradition. The same
necessity
devolves upon us in relation to the New
Testament;
for while it is pretty generally agreed
by
all Christians what books should be received into
the
Canon, there is a large society which strenuously
maintains
that besides the revelation contained in the
divine
record written by the apostles and their assist-
ants,
by the plenary inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
there
is a further revelation consisting of such things
as
were received from the mouth of Christ himself
while
upon earth, or taught to the churches by his in-
spired
apostles, which were not by them nor in their
time
committed to writing, but which have come down
to
us by unbroken tradition.
The importance of this inquiry is
manifest; for if,
in
addition to the written word, there are important
doctrines
and necessary sacraments of the church
which
have come down by tradition, it would be a
302 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
perilous
thing for us to remain ignorant of those
things
which God has enjoined, or to deprive ourselves
of
the benefits to be derived from those means of grace,
which
he has instituted for the edification and salva-
tion
of the church. But seeing traditions are much
more
liable to alteration and corruption than written
documents,
it is very necessary that we should be on
our
guard against imposition; and if it is a duty to
exercise
much care and diligence in distinguishing
between
inspired books and such as are spurious, it
cannot
be less incumbent to ascertain first whether
any
part of God's revealed will has been handed down
by
tradition only, and next to learn accurately what
those
things are which have been thus communicated.
And
as there are apocryphal books which claim a
place
in the Canon, so doubtless there would be apo-
cryphal
traditions, if any truths had been conveyed to
the
church through this channel. But if there be no
satisfactory
evidence of any such revelation having come
down
to us, nor any possibility of ascertaining what
proceeded
from the apostles, and what from the fancy
and
superstition of men, then we are right in refusing
the
high claims of tradition, and adhering inflexibly
to
the written word, "which is able," through faith,
"to
make us wise unto salvation."
This doctrine of traditions is most
convenient and
favourable
to the church of Rome in all her contro-
versies
with Protestants and others; for whatever she
may
assert as an article of faith, or teach as a part of
Christian
duty, although there be no vestige of it in
the
word of God, may readily be established by tra-
dition.
For as the church alone has the keeping of
this
body of oral law, she only is the proper judge of
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 303
what
it contains, and indeed can make it to suit her-
self.
If we should concede to the Romanists what
they
claim on this point, the controversy with them
might
well be brought to an end, and all we should
have
to do, would be to yield implicit faith to what-
ever
they might please to teach us. And even if we
should
be required to believe and practise, in direct
opposition
to the plain declarations of holy Scripture,
yet,
as the true interpretation of Scripture on this
plan
is only in the hands of the infallible head of
the
church, and is indeed understood by means of
unwritten
traditions, we must not trust to our own
understanding
in the most evident matters, nor even
to
our own senses, although several of them should
concur
in giving us notice of some fact. Now, be-
fore
we give ourselves up to be led blindly in such
a
way as this, it behoves us diligently and impartially
to
inquire, whether God has required of us this im-
plicit
submission to men. We ought to be assured
that
their authority over our faith and conscience
has
a divine warrant for its exercise; and especially
we
should be satisfied, on sufficient grounds, that
these
unwritten traditions, on which the whole fabric
rests,
are truly the commands of God; for if they are
not,
we have the highest authority for rejecting them.
And
if their claim to a divine origin cannot be made
out
clearly, they cannot in reason bind us to obedi-
ence;
for when God gives a law he promulgates it
with
sufficient clearness that all whom it concerns may
know
what is required of them.
To exhibit fairly the true point of
controversy on
this
subject, it will be requisite to make several pre-
304 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
liminary
observations, that it may be clearly under-
stood
what we admit and what we deny.
1. In the first place then, it is
readily admitted
that
a law revealed from heaven and communicated
to
us orally, with clear evidence of its
origin, is as
binding
as if written ever so often. When God ut-
tered
the ten commandments on
midst
of thunderings and lightnings, it surely was as
obligatory
upon the hearers, as after he had written
them
on tables of stone. It is a dictate of common
sense,
that it is a matter of indifference how a divine
revelation
is communicated, provided it come to us
properly
authenticated.
2. Again, it is conceded, that for a
long time there
was
no other method of transmitting the revelations
received
from heaven, from generation to genera-
tion,
but by oral tradition, and such external memo-
rials
as aided in keeping up the remembrance of im-
portant
transactions. As far as appears books were
unknown,
and letters not in use, until a considerable
time
after the flood. During the long period which
preceded
the time of Moses, all revelations must have
been
handed down by tradition. But while this con-
cession
is willingly made, it ought in connection to
be
remarked, that this mode was then used because
no
other existed; and that, in the early ages of the
world,
the longevity of the patriarchs rendered that
a
comparatively safe channel of communication
which
would now be most uncertain; and notwith-
standing
this advantage, the fact was, that in every
instance,
as far as we are informed, in which divine
truth
was committed to tradition, it was utterly lost,
or
soon became so corrupted by foreign mixtures,
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 305
that
it was impossible to ascertain what part of the
mass
contained a revelation from God. It is there-
fore
the plausible opinion of some, that writing was
revealed
from heaven, for the very purpose of avoid-
ing
the evil which had been experienced, and that
there
might be a certain vehicle for all divine com-
munications:
and it is certain, that all that we know
of
the history of alphabetical writing, leads us to con-
nect
its origin with the commencement of written re-
velations.
It is, therefore, not an improbable
supposition, that
us God taught letters to Moses for the express
purpose
of
conveying, by this means, his laws to distant ages,
without
alteration; and it deserves to be well con-
sidered,
that after the command was given to Moses,
to
write in a book the laws and statutes delivered to
him,
nothing was left to oral tradition, as has been
shown
in the former part of this work.
3. It will be granted also, that
tradition, especially
when
connected with external memorials, is sufficient
to
transmit, through a long lapse of time, the know-
ledge
of particular events, or of transactions of a very
simple
nature.
Thus it may be admitted, that if the
gospels had
not
come down to us, we might by tradition be as-
sured
that Christ instituted the eucharist as a memo-
rial
of his death; for, from the time of its institution,
it
has, in every successive age, and in many countries,
been
celebrated to perpetuate the remembrance of that
event.
And it is not credible that such a tradition
should
be uniform at all times, and everywhere, and
be
connected with the same external rite, if it was not
founded
in fact. Besides, the thing handed down, in
306 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
this
instance, is so simple in its nature, that there was
no
room for mistake.
There is one fact, for the truth of
which we de-
pend
entirely on tradition, so far as external testimony
is
concerned, and that is the truth which in this
work
we have been attempting to establish, that the
books
of the New Testament were written by the
persons
under whose names they have come down
to
us. This fact is incapable of being proved from
the
Scriptures, because we must first be assured that
they
contain the testimony of inspired men before we
can
prove anything by them. The point to be esta-
blished
here is, that the apostles wrote these books.
If
it were ever so often asserted in a book, that a
certain
person was its author, this would not be sat-
isfactory
evidence of its genuineness, because any
impostor
can write what falsehoods he pleases in a
book,
and may ascribe it to whom he will; as in
fact
many have written spurious works, and ascribed
them
to the apostles. We must, therefore, have the
testimony
of those who had the opportunity of judging
of
the fact, given either explicitly or implicitly.
In most cases, where a book is
published under the
name
of some certain author, in the country in which
he
lived and was known, a general silent acquies-
cence
in the fact, by the people of that age and
country,
with the consent of all that came after them,
may
be considered as satisfactory evidence of the
genuineness
of such book. But where much depends
on
the certainty of the fact in question, it is neces-
sary
to have positive testimony; and in order that it
be
satisfactory, it should be universal, and uncontra-
dicted.
When, therefore, a certain volume is ex-
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 307
pressly
received as the work of certain individuals,
by
all who lived at or near the time when it was pub-
lished,
and all succeeding writings concur in ascribing
it
to the same persons, and not a solitary voice is
raised
in contradiction, the evidence of its genuine-
ness
seems to be as complete as the nature of the
case
admits. Just such is the evidence of the gen-
uineness
of the books of the New Testament; or,
at
least, of most of them. It is, however, the evi-
dence
of tradition; but of such a tradition as is abun-
dantly
sufficient to establish a fact of this sort. The
thing
attested is most simple in its nature, and not
liable
to be misunderstood. This necessity of tradi-
tion
to establish the authenticity of the books of the
New
Testament, has been made a great handle of
by
the Romanists, in the defence of their favourite
doctrine.
They pretend that the point which we
have
here conceded, is all that is necessary to estab-
lish
their whole system on the firmest foundation.
They
argue, that if we must receive the Scriptures
themselves
by tradition, much more other things.
Indeed,
they ascribe all the authority which the
Scriptures
possess to the testimony of the church,
without
which they assert that they would deserve
no
more credit than any other writings. But because
a
single fact, incapable of proof in any other way,
must
be received by tradition, it does not follow that
numerous
other matters which might easily have been
recorded,
must be learned in the same manner. Be-
cause
a document requires oral testimony to establish
its
authenticity, it is not therefore necessary to prove
the
truth of the matters contained in that record by
the
same means.
308 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
The very purpose of written records is
to prevent
the
necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of tradi-
tion;
and as to the allegation that the Scriptures
owe
their authority to the church, it amounts to no
more
than this, which we freely admit, that it is by
the
testimony of the early Fathers that we are as-
sured
that these writings are the productions of the
apostles,
and it is true that most of those witnesses
who
have given testimony were members of the
Catholic
church. But our confidence in their testi-
mony
on this point, is not because they were mem-
bers
of the church, but because they lived in times
and
circumstances favourable to an accurate know-
ledge
of the fact which they report. And according-
ly
we admit the testimony of those who were out of
the
church; yea, of its bitterest enemies to the same
fact,
and on some accounts judge it to be the most un-
exceptionable.
While we weigh this evidence it would
be
absurd to make its validity depend on the witnesses
being
members of the church; for that would be to
determine
that the church was divine and infallible,
before
we had ascertained that the Scriptures were
the
word of God. Surely, if on examination it had
turned
out that the Scriptures were not inspired, the
authority
of the Christian church would have been
worth
nothing, and therefore previously to the
decision
on this point we cannot defer anything to
the
authority of the church. The truth is, that the
witnesses
being of the church is, in this inquiry,
merely
an incidental circumstance. A sufficient num-
ber
of competent and credible witnesses, not of the
church,
would establish the fact just as well as those
who
have given testimony, and, as was before observed,
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 309
such
testimony on the score of freedom from all
partiality
has the advantage.
The testimony of Jews and heathen has,
on this
account,
been demanded by infidels, and has been
sought
for with avidity by the defenders of Christi-
anity,
and in the view of all considerate men is of
great
weight. But it is not just to ascribe the
authority
of these books to the church, because the
greater
number of the witnesses of their apostoli-
cal
origin were members of the church. The law
enacted
by the supreme legislature of the state does
not
owe its authority to the men who attest its genu-
ineness.
It is true, it would not be known certainly
to
be a law without the attestation, but it would be
absurd
to ascribe the authority of the law to the per-
sons
whose testimony proved that it was really a law
of
the state. The cases are exactly parallel. The
Scriptures
cannot owe their authority to the church,
for
without them the church can have no authority,
and
although she may, and does give ample testi-
mony
in favour of their divine origin, this confers no
authority
on them, it only proves to us that they have
authority
which is derived from the Spirit of God, by
whom
they were indited. It is truly wonderful how this
plain
case has been perplexed and darkened by the arti-
fice
and sophistry of the writers of the church of Rome.
But if it be insisted, that if we
admit tradition as
sufficient
evidence of a fact in one case, we ought to
do
so in every other where the tradition is as clear,
we
answer, that to this we have no objection, pro-
vided
this species of proof be as necessary and as
clear
in the one case as the other. Let any other
fact
be shown to be as fully attested as the genuine-
310 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
ness
of the books of the New Testament, and to
need
this kind of proof as much, and we will not
hesitate
to receive it as true, whatever may be the
consequence.
But the very fact which we have
been
considering, seems to raise a strong presump-
tion
against the necessity of depending on tradition
for
anything else. Why were these books written?
Was
it not to convey to us, and to all future ages,
the
revelations of God to man? Because it is neces-
sary
to authenticate by testimony this record, must
we
depend on the same testimony for information on
the
points of which the record treats? Surely not.
For
the proof of these we have nothing to do but
refer
to the document itself; otherwise the posses-
sion
of written records would be useless. If, indeed,
a
doubt should arise about the meaning of something
in
the record, it would not be unreasonable to inquire
how
it had been understood and practised on by
those
who received it at first; but if we should find
a
society acting in direct opposition to a written
charter
on which their existence depended, and pre-
tending
to prove that they were right by appealing
from
the written documents to vague traditions, all
sensible
men not interested would judge that the case
was
a very suspicious one.
4. We are, moreover, ready to
acknowledge that
the
gospel was at first, for several years, communi-
cated
orally by the apostles and their assistants. The
churches
when first planted had no written gospels;
they
received the same truths now contained in the
gospels
and epistles, by the preaching of the apostles
and
others; and, doubtless, were as well instructed as
those
churches which have had possession of the
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 311
whole
inspired volume. And what they had thus
received
without book they could communicate to
others,
and thus, if the gospels and epistles had never
been
written, the Christian religion might have been
transmitted
from generation to generation. Then it
may
be asked, why the writing of these books should
hinder
the transmission of many things, which might
not
be contained in them, to future generations? for
it
cannot be doubted that many things were said and
done
by Christ which were not recorded in the gos-
pels;
and there is reason to think that the apostles
were
much fuller in their sermons than in their
writings;
and that they established many rules for
the
good order and government of the church, of
which
we have in their epistles either no account
or
only brief hints; which though they might be
readily
understood by those who had received their
verbal
instructions, are insufficient without tradition to
teach
us what rules and institutions were established
in
the churches by apostolical authority. Now, if
these
were transmitted by tradition to the next gene-
ration,
and by them to the following, and so on in
an
uninterrupted series until the present time, are we
not
as much bound to receive such traditions, and be
governed
by them as by the written word?
I have now presented the argument in
favour of tra-
ditions
in the strongest light in which I am able to
place
it; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that
it
wears at first sight a face of plausibility: and if
the
whole case as here stated, could be made out with
satisfactory
evidence, I think we should be constrained
to
receive, to some extent, this oral law of the Ro-
mish
church. But before any man can reasonably
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 311
whole
inspired volume. And what they had thus
received
without book they could communicate to
others,
and thus; if the gospels and epistles had never
been
written, the Christian religion might have been
transmitted
from generation to generation. Then it
may
be asked, why the writing of these books should
hinder
the transmission of many things, which might
not
be contained in them, to future generations? for
it
cannot be doubted, that many things were said and
done
by Christ which were not recorded in the gos-
pels;
and there is reason to think that the apostles
were
much fuller in their sermons than in their
writings;
and that they established many rules for
the
good order and government of the church, of
which
we have in their epistles either no account
or
only brief hints; which though they might be
readily
understood lay those who had received their
verbal
instructions, are insufficient without tradition to
teach
us what rules and institutions were established
in
the churches by apostolical authority. Now, if
these
were transmitted by tradition to the next gene-
ration,
and by them to the following, and so on in
an
uninterrupted series until the present time, are we
not
as much bound to, receive such traditions, and be
governed
by them as by the written word?
I have now presented the argument in
favour of tra-
ditions
in the strongest light in which I am able to
place
it; and it would be uncandid not to admit, that
it
wears at first sight a face of plausibility: and if
the
whole case as here stated, could be made out with
satisfactory
evidence, I think we should be constrained
to
receive, to some extent, this oral law of the Ro-
mish
church. But before any man can reasonably
312 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
be
required to rest his faith on tradition, he has a
right
to be satisfied on several important points; as,
whether
it was the purpose of God to permit any
part
of the revelation intended for the use of the
church,
in all future ages, to be handed down by
tradition.
For, as he directed everything in the law
given
at
and
practice of the Israelites, to be committed to writ-
ing
by Moses, it is noways improbable that the same
plan
was pursued, in regard to the writings of the
New
Covenant; especially, when it is considered how
much
superior written communications are to verbal,
as
it respects accuracy. When a channel for con-
veying
the truth had been provided, calculated to
preserve
all communications from corruption, and
when
it is acknowledged, that this was used for a
part
of the matter to be transmitted, how can it be
accounted
for, that another part should be committed
to
the uncertainty of oral tradition? Why not com-
mit
the whole to writing?
But it is incumbent on the advocates
of tradition
to
show, by undoubted proofs, that what they say has
come
down by tradition was really received from
the
mouth of Christ, or from the teaching of his apos-
tles.
As they wish to claim for this rule an autho-
rity
fully equal to that which is given to the Scrip-
tures,
they ought to be able to produce the very
words in which these
instructions were given. But
this
they do not pretend to do. It may be said, in-
deed,
that words and sentences, in their just order
and
connection, cannot be conveyed by tradition, and
therefore
this demand is unreasonable. I answer, that
this
allegation is most true, but instead of making in
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 313
favour
of traditions, it is a strong argument to prove,
that
nothing thus received can be of equal certainty
and
authority with the written word. When an arti-
cle
of faith is proposed, which is contained in the
Scriptures,
we can turn to the sacred text and read
the
words of Christ and his apostles, and may be as-
sured
that they express the truth contained in said
article.
But if an article of faith be asserted to have
come
down by tradition, we have no opportunity of
knowing
the words in which it was expressed: for,
while
it is pretended that the doctrine or instruction
has
reached us, the words have been lost; for what
advocate
of tradition is able, in any single case, to
furnish
us with the words of any divine revelation,
which
is not contained in the sacred Scriptures?
But it is essential to the credit of
traditions, that it
be
proved clearly, that those articles of religion, or
institutions
of worship, said to be received from this
source,
have indeed been handed down, without al-
teration
or corruption, from Christ and his apostles.
It
is not sufficient that they have been long received,
and
have now the sanction of the belief and practice
of
the whole Catholic church. It ought to be shown,
that
they have always, from the very days of the
apostles,
been received with universal consent. We
know
that the church has undergone many vicissi-
tudes;
that she has sometimes been almost extirpated
by
the sword of persecution; has been overrun with
dangerous
errors; has been overwhelmed with the
darkness
of Gothic ignorance; and we believe, has
greatly
apostatized from purity of doctrine and wor-
ship;
and this accords with the prophecy of Paul,
who
clearly intimates that a time would come,
314 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
when
there should be a falling away. Now
it may
have
happened, that during this long period of adver-
sity,
heresy, darkness, and corruption, many things
may
have crept in, and may have obtained an exten-
sive
and firm footing, which were totally unknown
in
the days of the apostles, or in the primitive church;
and
that this has in fact occurred, we are not left to
conjecture.
It is a matter of historical record, which
cannot
be disputed, and which is not denied even by
the
Romanists themselves. Who that is not insane
with
prejudice, could persuade himself that all the
opinions,
rites and ceremonies, which now exist in the
Romish
church, were prevalent in the times of the
apostles,
and were received from them by tradition?
Besides, there is a multitude of other
things re-
ceived
and held to be important by the church of
tures,
and concerning which there is no early tradi-
tion.
Many rules and ceremonies which have been
long
in use, can be traced to their commencement
at
a period much later than that of the apostles. Now
amidst
such a mass of traditions, how can it be as-
certained
which have come down from Christ and his
apostles?
Perhaps we shall be told, that the infalli-
ble
head of the church can determine with certainty
what
we ought to believe and practise; but if there
be
on earth an infallible judge, we have no need of
traditions.
All that is necessary is, for this person
to
establish his claim to infallibility, and then all will
be
as much bound to receive his decisions, as if they
were
expressly written in the holy Scriptures. On
this
ground the controversy between the Romanists
and
Protestants first commenced. The defenders of
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 315
the
old system appealed to the authority of the Pope,
and
the infallibility of the church, but as it was im-
possible
to sustain themselves by Scripture on these
points,
they found it very convenient to have recourse
to
the doctrine of unwritten traditions, which they
pretended
had been handed down from Christ and
his
apostles. Grant them this, and there is no doc-
trine,
however absurd, which may not be supported.
Grant
them this, and it will be in vain to appeal any
more
to the sacred Scriptures as a standard of truth;
for
this traditionary law not only inculcates what is
not
found in the Scriptures, but teaches the only true
interpretation
of Scripture. Traditions may, there-
fore,
be considered as the bulwark of the Romish
church.
Concede to them the ground which they
assume,
and the whole body of their ceremonial laws
and
unscriptural practices is safe. For as they
can
feign what traditions they please, having the
keeping
of them entirely in their own hands, they
are
prepared to defend every part of their system:
but
take this away from them, and their defence is
gone.
Bring them to the ground of clear scriptural
testimony,
and they are weak; for it is manifest
that
the Bible knows nothing of their monstrous ac-
cumulation
of superstitious rites.
The council of
sions,
made a decree on this subject, in which, after
recognizing
the Scriptures, they add: The Holy
Synod
receives and venerates traditions relating both
to
faith and manners, as proceeding from the mouth
of
Christ himself, or as dictated by the Holy Spirit,
and
preserved in an uninterrupted succession in the
Catholic
church, with equal affection and reverence,
316 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
as
the written Scriptures!" This was the first decree
of
the fourth session of this famous Council.
Before leaving this subject, it will
be proper to
consider
some of the other arguments, which the Ro-
manists
bring forward in support of their beloved
traditions.
And the first is imposing, as it is
derived from the
express
declarations of Scripture, in which we are
exhorted
to obey traditions. "Now we command you,
brethren,
in the name of our Lord Jesus, that ye with-
draw
yourselves from every brother that walketh dis-
orderly,
and not after the tradition which he received
of
us."* Here Paul makes express
mention of tradi-
tion.
And in the preceding chapter, "Therefore
brethren
stand fast and hold the traditions which ye
have
been taught whether by word, or our epistle."
Now
all that is necessary to refute the argument de-
rived
from these and such like passages, where the
word
traditions is used, is to observe,
that Paul em-
ploys
this word in a very extensive sense, to signify
whatever
doctrines or institutions he had delivered to
the
churches, whether by his preaching or writing.
And
in the verse first cited, he evidently refers to
what
he had said to them in his first epistle, for the
words
following are, "For yourselves know how ye
ought
to follow us; for we behaved not ourselves dis-
orderly
among you; neither did we eat any man's
bread
for nought, &c." Now, this
tradition which he
commanded
the Thessalonians to obey, was contained
in
the former epistle addressed to them, where it is
said,
"And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your
own
business, and to work with your own hands, as we
* 2 Mess. iii. 6, 7, 11, 15.
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 317
commanded
you." 1. Thess. iv. 11. And in the
quo-
tation
from the second chapter, it is clear, that by
traditions, the apostle
did not mean merely oral com-
munications,
for he explains himself, by saying,
"whether
by word or epistle." It is not denied, that
Paul
delivered many things orally to the churches, as
has
been already acknowledged. All the instructions
given
to the churches first planted, were oral, for as
yet
no gospels nor epistles were written; but the true
point
in dispute is, whether any article of faith, or
any
important institution, thus originally communi-
cated,
was omitted, when the books of the New Tes-
tament
were written by divine inspiration. Whether,
while
a part of the revelation of God, for the use of
his
church, was committed to writing, another import-
ant
part was left to be handed down by tradition.
That
the word tradition, as used by Paul,
makes no-
thing
in favour of the doctrine of the Romish church,
is
evident, because by this word he commonly means
such
things as were distinctly recorded in the Scrip-
tures.
Thus, in his first epistle to the Corinthians, he
says,
"For I delivered unto you first of all," where
the
word for transmitting by tradition, is used; but
what
were those things which he had by tradition
communicated
to them? He informs us in the next
words,
"How that Christ died for our sins according
to
the Scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he
rose
again the third day, according to the Scrip-
tures." 1 Cor.
xv. 3, 4.
It is manifest, therefore, that the
argument derived
from
the exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but
a
shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair
examination.
318 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
2. Their next and principal argument
is derived
from
the frequent declarations of the early Fathers
in
favour of tradition. Cyprian refers those who
might
be in doubt respecting any doctrine, to the holy
tradition received from
Christ and his apostles ; and
Irenaeus,
as cited by Eusebius, says, "that those
things
which he heard Polycarp relate concerning
Christ,
his virtues and his doctrines, which he had
learned
from converse with the apostles, he had in-
scribed
on his heart, and not on paper." But after
a
few sentences he informs us "that all which he
had
heard from them was in accordance with the
Scriptures,
(panta sumfwna taij grafaij.") This sentence
of
Irenaeus is of great importance, for it teaches us
how
the Fathers understood this subject. They re-
ceived
such traditions as came down through pious
men
from the apostles, but they compared them with
the
Scriptures; even then the Scriptures were the
standard
by which all traditions must be judged.
Irenaeus
insinuates, plainly enough, that if what lie
had
heard from Polycarp, had not been in accordance
with
the Scriptures he would not have considered it
as
deserving attention.
But the same Irenaeus and Tertullian
have spoken
in
still stronger terms in favour of tradition in their
controversies
with heretics. The former, in the third
chapter
of the third book of his work on heresies,
says,
"The tradition of the apostles is manifest in
the
whole world. In the church it is exposed to the
view
of all who are willing to know the truth." And
in
the fourth chapter, "It is not necessary to seek the
truth
from others which can easily be acquired from
the
church, since the blessed apostles have deposited
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 319
in
her, most fully, all those truths which are needful,
so
that every one who will may drink of the water
of
life. This is the true door of life, and all others
are
thieves and robbers); them we should avoid; but
those
things which appertain to the church we should
delight
in with great diligence, and should lay hold
of
the tradition of truth. For what if
the apostles
had
left us no writings, ought we not to follow the
order
of traditions, which they to whom the
churches
were
committed have delivered to us? To which in-
stitution
many barbarous nations have submitted, hav-
neither
letters nor ink, but having the tradition of the
apostles
inscribed on their hearts, which also they
follow."
Tertullian, in his work concerning
"Prescriptions,"
says,
"If Christ commissioned certain persons to
preach
his gospel, then certainly none should be re-
ceived
as preachers except those appointed to office
by
him. And as they preached what Christ re-
vealed
unto them, what they taught can only be
known
by applying to the churches which the apostles
planted,
by preaching to them, whether viva voce,
or
by
their epistles. Therefore, all doctrine which agrees
with
that held by the apostolical churches is to be
considered
as true and held fast, because the churches
received
it from the apostles, the apostles from Christ,
and
Christ from God; but all other doctrine which
is
repugnant to that received by the churches should
be
rejected as false, as being repugnant to that truth
taught
by the apostles, by Christ, and by God."
These declarations from such men in
favour of tra-
dition
seem, at first view, to be altogether favourable
to
the doctrine of the church of Rome; but we de-
320 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
spair
not of being able to convince the candid reader,
that
when the occasion on which these things were
said,
and the character and opinions of the persons
against
whom these Fathers wrote are considered,
their
testimony instead of making against the suffi-
ciency
of the Scriptures will be found corroborative
of
the opinions which we maintain. They do not
appeal
to tradition, let it be observed, for confirma-
tion
of articles of faith not contained in the Scrip-
tures;
but the doctrines which they are defending
are
among the most fundamental contained in the
New
Testament. They are precisely the doctrines
which
are comprehended in the Apostles' Creed.
Now,
to appeal to tradition for the confirmation of
such
doctrines as these, never can be of any force to
prove
that other doctrines not contained in the Scrip-
tures
may be established by tradition. But it may be
asked,
if those doctrines concerning which they dis-
puted
are plainly inculcated in the New Testament,
why
have recourse to tradition? Why not appeal at
once
to the Scriptures? To which I would answer,
that
Irenaeus does little else in the third, fourth, and
fifth
books of his work than confirm the truth by a
copious
citation of Scripture.
Nothing can be more manifest,
therefore, than that
the
matters in dispute were not such as could only
be
proved by tradition, but they were such truths as
lie
at the very foundation of the Christian religion,
and
to record which, the gospels and epistles were
written.
But still the question returns, why did these
Fathers
appeal for proof to tradition, when they had
testimony
so full and decisive from the Scriptures?
The
answer to this question will show us, in the
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 321
clearest
manner, that the views of Irenaeus and Ter-
tullian,
relative to the Scriptures and to traditions,
were
such as are now held by Protestants, and that
the
heretics whom they opposed, occupied nearly the
same
ground as the Romanists now do, in this con-
troversy.
These heretics either rejected the Scrip-
tures
as being an insufficient rule, and asserted that
they
were not competent for the decision of such
matters;
or they so corrupted them, that it was use-
less
to appeal to them for proof; for testimonies de-
rived
from the genuine Scriptures they would not
admit.
This is not conjecture; for Irenaeus has ex-
plicitly
stated the case. "When," says
he, "they
are
confuted from the Scriptures themselves, they al-
lege
that they are not correct, or not of authority,
and
assert that they speak so variously, that the truth
cannot
be established by them without tradition;
for,
say they, it was handed down, not by letters, but
viva voce." And
Tertullian says, "This heresy does
not
receive some parts of the Scriptures; and what
they
do receive is so corrupted by additions, or de-
tractions,
to suit their own doctrine, that they cannot
be
said to receive the Scriptures entire, &c." Again:
"They
pretend that the apostles did not wish to re-
veal
all things plainly, for while they made known cer-
tain
truths to all, there were others which they com-
municated
secretly, and to a few persons, which they
say
the apostle Paul meant by the depositum."
From these quotations, the reason why
these Fa-
thers
had recourse to traditions is most manifest. It
was
the only ground on which these heretics could
be
met; for they denied, (as the Romanists now do,)
that
the Scriptures were a certain and sufficient
322 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
standard
of truth. They said that their meaning
could
not be ascertained without tradition; that they
were
defective; and also, that there were some parts
which
they did not acknowledge; and they held,
moreover,
that some things were never committed to
writing,
but designedly handed down by tradition.
We
did not, indeed, expect to find the exact doctrine
of
the Romanists respecting the Scriptures and tra-
dition,
at so early a period of the church: but unfor-
tunately
for their cause, the persons who are found
agreeing
with them are gross heretics.
It is now easy to see why the appeal
was made
by
the Fathers to universal tradition; and they show,
that
in their day tradition and Scripture were har-
monious;
and that if the apostles had written no-
thing,
the consent of all the churches would be suffi-
cient
to prove, that the doctrines which they defended
were
received from the apostles. Instead, therefore,
of
using tradition, as the Romanists do, to prove some
doctrine
not contained in the Scripture, they used it
merely
to confirm the truths which are manifestly
contained
in the New Testament. They were at no
loss
for Scripture testimonies to establish these truths,
but
they were disputing with men who did not admit
the
authority of the Scriptures to be decisive, and
therefore
they appeal to universal tradition in support
of
them. It is said, indeed, by Irenaeus, that many
barbarous
nations had received the faith, among
whom
letters and writing were unknown. They must,
therefore,
it is concluded, have received it from tradi-
tion.
Very good. Just as heathen tribes now re-
ceive,
from those missionaries who preach the gospel
to
them, a short summary of the most important doc-
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 323
trines
of the New Testament. The truths which these
barbarous
nations received, were not different from
those
contained in the sacred Scriptures, but the very
same,
taught in a short comprehensive creed. In
fact,
we have here the true origin of that symbol of
doctrine,
commonly called the Apostles' Creed, which
was
a summary of Christianity, used in very early
times,
in the instruction of those who were not able to
read
the New Testament, or who had, as yet, no ac-
cess
to it. There are extant a number of these creeds,
which
at first were very short; but were afterwards
increased,
as new heresies arose. Bishop Usher found
several
of these in very ancient manuscripts, all of
which
are substantially the same as the creed called
'the
Apostles' Creed.' That Irenaeus actually
re-
ferred,
in the passage alluded to, to these elementary
doctrines,
he explicitly informs us; for, immediately
after
mentioning these barbarous nations, who were
destitute
of "letters and ink," he adds, "Believing in
one
God, the maker of heaven and earth, and all
things
which are therein; and in Jesus Christ the Son
of
God, who for his exceeding great love to his crea-
tures,
submitted to be born of a virgin, by himself
uniting
man to God; and having suffered under Pon-
tius
Pilate, and having risen again, was received into
heaven;
about to come again in glory; the Saviour
of
those who are saved, and the judge of those who
are
judged; and will send into eternal fire, the per-
verters
of the truth, and the despisers of his Father,
and
of his coming; which barbarians, if any one
should
announce to them the doctrines invented by
heretics,
stopping their ears, they would fly far away
from
them. Thus, the ancient apostolical tradition
324 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
does
not sanction those monstrous opinions inculcated
by
heretics."
In the second chapter of the first
book of the same
work,
Irenaeus describes the apostolical doctrine,
thus:
"The church, planted by the
apostles and their
disciples
throughout the whole world, even to the ends
of
the earth, receives the same faith; which is, in one
God
Almighty, the Father, who made heaven and
earth,
the sea, and all things which are therein; in
one
Jesus Christ, the Son of God, incarnate for our
salvation;
and in the Holy Spirit, who by the pro-
phets,
predicted the good will of God; his advent;
his
generation of a virgin; his passion, and resurrec-
tion
from the dead; and the ascension in the flesh of
our
beloved Lord Christ Jesus; and his coming again
from
heaven, in the glory of his Father, as our Lord
Jesus
Christ; our God, Saviour, and King; before
whom,
according to the good pleasure of the Father
invisible,
every knee shall bow, of things in heaven
and
things in earth, and things under the earth, and
every
tongue shall confess the justice of his judgments
towards
all, when he will send wicked spirits, fallen
and
apostate angels, and blaspheming men, into eter-
nal
fire; but the just and upright who have kept his
precepts,
and persevered in his love, some indeed from
the
beginning, and others as having received the gift
of
repentance, he will surround with eternal glory.
This
faith, the church spread over the whole world,
diligently
keeps, as if she inhabited one house, and be-
lieves
in it, as if possessing but one soul and one heart;
and
in accordance with the same, she teaches and
preaches,
as with one mouth. Although the lan-
guages
which are in the world are different, yet there
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 325
is
one and the same tradition. Neither do the
churches
which are founded in
ferently
from those in
are
in
world.
But as the sun is one and the same through
the
whole world, so the light and preaching of the
truth,
everywhere shines, and illuminates all men,
who
are willing to come to the knowledge of the
truth,"
&c.
This then is the apostolical
tradition, of which these
Fathers
speak in such high terms: not any secret doc-
trine,
never committed to writing; not any articles of
faith,
or rites of worship, of which no vestige can be
found
in the Bible; but the plain, prominent, funda-
mental
doctrines of the Christian religion: the
very
doctrines
contained in the Apostles' Creed. That the
preaching
of the gospel preceded the circulation of the
Scriptures
we admit, but this preaching we insist and
have
proved, contained nothing different from that
which
is written in the gospels and epistles.
Tertullian speaks to the same purpose,
and fur-
nishes
us with another summary of the common faith
of
primitive Christians; "The rule of
faith," says he,
"is
that by which it is believed, that there is no more
than
one God, and no other beside the Creator of the
world,
who produced all things out of nothing, by his
Word,
first of all sent forth, which Word is called his
Son;
was seen under different forms by the patriarchs;
was
always heard by the prophets; and finally, by
the
Spirit and power of God, being conceived by the
Virgin
Mary, became flesh in her womb. Jesus
Christ
having thus become man, published a new law,
and
a new promise of the kingdom of heaven; was
320 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
crucified;
rose again the third day; was caught up
into
heaven; sat down on the right hand of God the
Father;
sent, as his substitute, the power of the Holy
Spirit,
to influence those who believe; will come again
in
glory to take his saints to the fruition of eternal
life
and of the celestial promises, and to adjudge the
profane
to eternal fire; at which time, there will be a
resuscitation
of both parts, and the flesh will be re-
stored.
This rule of faith was instituted by Christ,
and
is questioned by none but heretics, and such as
teach
those things which make heretics."*
These are the apostolical traditions
which were
universally
received; the very plainest and most
fundamental
doctrines of the Christian religion,
which
are written amply in every gospel, and recog-
nized
fully in every epistle. Thus far then, it does
not
appear that anything was left to unwritten tra-
dition,
to be communicated to future ages; for those
very
truths which were at first delivered orally by the
apostles,
were afterwards recorded by inspiration;
and
when the preachers of the gospel instructed the
ignorant,
who were unacquainted with letters, they
taught
them, precisely, but in a summary way, what
is
written in the New Testament.
3. Another argument, depended on by
the advo-
cates
of tradition, is derived from the fact, that there
are
some doctrines, not expressly mentioned in Scrip-
ture,
which are universally inculcated by the Fathers,
which
all true Christians have received as articles of
faith,
in all succeeding ages, and which are not denied
even
by Protestants themselves. To this class belong
the
doctrine of the Trinity; the doctrine of the Son
* Tertull. De Prescriptionibus.
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 327
being
of the same substance as the Father; the deity
of
the Holy Spirit; his proceeding from the Father
and
the Son: the two natures in Christ constituting
one
person; the baptism of infants; the religious ob-
servance
of the Lord's day, &c. Now, in regard to
these
articles of religion, we observe, that although
they
are not contained in Scripture, in so many words,
they
may be derived from Scripture by legitimate in-
ference;
and conclusions fairly deduced from the
declarations
of the word of God, are as truly parts of
divine
revelation, as if they were expressly taught in
the
sacred volume. All the articles mentioned above,
are
capable of satisfactory proof from Scripture; and
if
we did not find them taught there, we should feel
under
no obligation to receive them. We do not deny,
however,
that the universal consent, and uniform
practice
of the primitive church, ought to have great
weight
in confirming our faith in important doctrines,
and
in satisfying us that certain things not explicitly
mentioned
in Scripture were practised by the apostles.
Although
the doctrine of the Trinity, and the
tial
deity of the Son and Holy Spirit, are doctrines
very
plainly taught in the New Testament, yet in a
matter
of such vast importance, it cannot but afford
satisfaction
to every sincere inquirer, to find that these
doctrines
were universally believed by the Fathers, to
be
taught in the writings of the apostles.
And although there are principles and
facts re-
corded
in the New Testament, from which it can be
fairly
concluded, that the first day of the week was
set
apart for public worship, and that the infants of
believers
were, from the beginning, baptized, and thus
connected
with the visible church; yet, as these insti-
328 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
tutions
are not so expressly included in Scripture, as
to
remove all uncertainty, the fact of their universal
observance,
in the primitive church, has, deservedly,
great
influence in convincing us, that our reasonings
and
inferences from Scriptural principles are correct.
But
why should we be required to receive these things
merely
on the authority of tradition, when the Fathers
themselves
appealed for their truth to the infallible
rule
contained in the New Testament? Thus, on
the
subject
of infant baptism, which the Romanists pretend
is
derived solely from tradition, we find the Fathers
appealing
not only to universal practice and apostoli-
cal
tradition, but frequently to the words of Scripture,
in
which they believed that the practice was implicitly
authorized.
Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Cyprian,
Ambrose,
and Chrysostom, do all appeal to Scripture,
when
treating this subject, although they do, indeed,
lay
great stress on the derivation of this practice from
the
apostles by undoubted tradition. It is not de-
nied,
however, that after some time an undue defer-
ence
was paid to traditions. It will be shown here-
after,
that many were misled from the simplicity of
the
gospel by this very means. By yielding too
ready
an assent to traditions, they were led to adopt
false
opinions, some of which were directly repugnant
to
the written word. It can have no weight with us,
therefore,
to adduce such a writer as Epiphanius
extolling
tradition; for it can be proved, that from
this
source he imbibed many foolish notions, and
fabulous
stories, which the more impartial among the
Romanists
are as far from receiving as we are. Nor
do
we feel bound, on this subject, to adopt all the
opinions
anywhere found in the writings of Origen,
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 329
Basil,
Augustine, &c.; for we are persuaded, that
this
was one of the errors of antiquity, and that it
was
prolific of numerous evils, by which the church
of
God became greatly corrupted in after times.
But
it answers no purpose to the Romish church to
plead
these authorities; for they themselves do not
receive
as articles of faith or parts of divine worship,
all
that these Fathers derived from tradition. The
principle
of Protestants ever has been, that the Scrip-
tures
contain all things necessary to guide the faith
and
practice of believers; and they feel under no
obligations
to receive any article of religion, which
cannot
be proved to be contained in the sacred
volume.
If, in the explanation of Scripture, light
can
be derived from tradition, or the universal opi-
nion
or practice of the primitive church, they are
very
willing to avail themselves of it, as they are to
derive
aid from any other quarter: but since they are
convinced
that the Fathers were fallible men, and
actually
fell into many mistakes, it would be folly to
build
their faith on their opinions, much more to
adopt
their errors, knowing them to be such. "THE
BIBLE
IS THE RELIGION OF PROTESTANTS."
The fact is, that the Fathers
generally depended
on
Scripture for the proof of their doctrines; and
called
in the aid of tradition, only to confirm the doc-
trines
which they derived from the written word.
And
here it is important to remark, that tradition, in
the
earlier and purer times of the church, was a very
different
thing from what it is now. Men who lived
within
one or two hundred years of the apostles, had
an
opportunity of ascertaining their opinions and
practices
from tradition, with a degree of certainty
330 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
which
is utterly unattainable after the lapse of ages
of
error and darkness. If it should be agreed, to re-
ceive
as apostolical everything which the early Fa-
thers
professed to have received by tradition from
the
apostles, yet it would be most unreasonable to be
required
to admit as divine, the monstrous mass of
traditions
held by the Romish church, which has been
accumulating
for ages.
But it is capable of the clearest
proof, that great
uncertainty
attended all matters received by tradition,
which
were not contained in Scripture, even in those
times
that were nearest to the days of the apostles.
This
fact is manifest, in the case of Papias, who was
contemporary
with the last of the apostles; and of
Clement
of
tury.
If then tradition was so uncertain, at its very
source,
who can place any confidence in this channel
of
communication, after it has been increasing in im-
purity
for seventeen hundred years? If the stream
had
even been pure in its commencement, it would,
by
this time, have become so turbid, and so poisoned,
that
no dependence could be placed in the information
conveyed
by it. But where certain things are said
to
have been received by tradition from the apostle
John,
at second hand, it was deemed important to
verify
them, by a comparison with the Scriptures, as
we
have already seen. How unreasonable then is the
demand,
that we should now receive all traditions,
which
have come down to us, without any test of their
genuineness,
or any comparison of them with the
oracles
of God!
Here also it is necessary to observe
that there is
a
wide distinction to be made between articles of faith
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 331
and
institutions of worship which are obligatory on
all,
and such modes of worship as were adopted under
the
general rule of "doing all things decently and in
order,"
or from notions of expediency, with a view of
conciliating
those that were without. It may be
proved,
indeed, from the writings of the Fathers that
many
things of this kind existed, which they never
thought
of placing on a level with the faith received
from
the apostles. And it may be here remarked,
that
it was one of the first and greatest mistakes into
which
the church fell, after inspiration ceased, to make
too
free a use of this doctrine of expediency.
The
abuses
which have crept in under this specious dis-
guise
were not foreseen. The Fathers saw no harm
in
an indifferent ceremony to which, perhaps, their
new
converts were attached from long custom. By
adopting
things of this kind, the church which was at
first
simple and unincumbered with rites, became
strangely
metamorphosed; and in place of her simple
robe
of white, assumed a gorgeous dress tricked off
with
gaudy ornaments and various colours. This
practice
of inventing new ceremonies went on increas-
ing
until, in process of time, the burdensome ritual of
the
Levitical law was not comparable to the liturgy of
the
Christian church. Who that now attends a
Romish
chapel on some high day, would suppose that
the
service performed was connected with the religion
of
the New Testament?
It is of no consequence, therefore, to
adduce testi-
monies
of the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth
ages
of the Christian church, to show that such cere-
monies
were then in use in some particular part of the
church;
or even in the church universal. All know
332 THE ROMISII DOCTRINE
by
what means these things were received and obtained
prevalence.
But let it be kept in memory that the
Fathers
do not assert that these usages were derived
from
the apostles; nor do they pretend that they were
necessary;
and accordingly we find that in different
countries
they were not the same.
4. I come now to consider the last
argument for
unwritten
traditions which I have been able to dis-
cover.
It is this, that without the aid of tradition
the
Scriptures will be of no real benefit to us, because
it
is only by this means that we can arrive at their
true
meaning. And it is alleged that the Fathers
in
all disputes with heretics, when they referred to
Scripture,
still appealed to universal tradition for
a
true exposition of the meaning of the passages
adduced.
In returning an answer to this
argument I would
observe,
that should we even grant all that is con-
tended
for, it would not be a concession of the main
point
in controversy. The claim of the Romanists,
so
unblushingly advanced in the decree of
already
cited is, "That traditions relating both to
faith
and manners, are to be received with equal affec-
tion
and reverence as the canonical Scriptures."
And
lest we should be at any loss to know what arti-
cles
of faith are pretended to be received by tradition
alone,
PETER A SOTO, one of the great defenders of
the
decrees of the Council of Trent, and a member
of
that Council, explicitly declares, "That the rule
is
infallible and universal; that whatever things the
Romish
church believes and holds, which are not
contained
in the Scriptures, are to be considered as
derived
from the apostles; provided the observances
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 333
cannot
be traced to any certain origin or author."
Everything
in use in this church, of the commence-
ment
of which we are ignorant, must be ascribed to
the
apostles without doubt, and without further proof!
And
then he descends to particular doctrines and
rites
which, according to this sweeping rule, we
must
receive as handed down by tradition from the
apostles.
Among these are "the oblation of the
sacrifice
of the altar, unction with chrism or the
holy
oil, invocation of saints, the merit of good
works,
the primacy of the Roman pontiff, the con-
secration
of the water in baptism, the sacrament of
confirmation,
of orders, of matrimony, prayers for
the
dead, extreme unction, auricular confession, and
satisfaction,"
&c. But beside these there are innu-
merable
other things which are held sacred by the
Romish
church which cannot be proved from Scrip-
ture,
such as the mutilation of the Lord's Supper, the
celibacy
of the clergy, the distinction of meats, pur-
gatory,
pilgrimages, indulgences, the worship of im-
ages
and relics, the canonization of saints, &c. Now,
she
cannot pretend that all these were received from
the
apostles, for some of them are in direct repug-
nance
to the plain declarations of Scripture; and the
occasion
of the introduction of some of them is matter
of
history; as is acknowledged by the Romanists them-
selves.
And surely it is not a very convincing argu-
ment
of the apostolical origin of doctrines or cere-
monies,
that we do not know when they took their
rise.
But the argument now under
consideration relin-
quishes
this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures as
the
foundation of faith, but insists that the true inter-
334 THE ROMISII DOCTRINE
pretation
of Scripture can only be known by tradition.
On
which we remark:
That many things in Scripture are so
clear that
they
stand in need of no interpretation. They are
already
as plain as any exposition can make them.
Who
wants tradition to teach him that Christ is the
Son
of God; was born of the virgin Mary; was
crucified
under Pontius Pilate, rose again the third
day,
and ascended to heaven, whence he will come
again
to judge the world? If we cannot understand
the
plain declarations of Scripture, neither could we
understand
an exposition. If we cannot know what
the
apostles and evangelists mean in their plainest
declarations
when we have their very words before
us,
how shall we know what is the meaning of the
vague
language of tradition?
There are many parts of the New
Testament of
which
tradition has handed down no interpretation.
If
we wish to know their meaning, it is in vain that
we
apply to the Fathers for instruction. They are
silent.
They have not commented on these books
and
passages. To which of the Fathers shall I go
for
an exposition of the book of Revelation? Or will
the
Pope himself, aided by all his cardinals, or by
an
oecumenical council, undertake to give us the true
interpretation
of this prophecy? It cannot be true
that
Scripture can be interpreted only by tradition;
unless
we agree to give up a large part of the New
Testament
as wholly incapable of being understood.
We
cannot build our faith on the interpretation of
the
Fathers, in all cases, because they often fall into
palpable
mistakes, which is not denied by the Roman-
ists
themselves; and again, they differ among them-
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 335
selves.
How then can it be known what that in-
terpretation
is, which was received from the apos-
tles?
Must I follow JUSTIN, or IRENAEUS, or
CLE-
MENT
of
allegorical
interpretations contained in the Homilies
of
Origen, according to which, the plainest passages
are
made to mean something perfectly foreign from
the
literal sense? If the tradition which brings down
this
interpretation, is not found in the writings of the
Fathers,
where is it? And how has it come down?
Surely
that which was never mentioned nor recorded
by
the ancient church, ought not to be received as an
apostolical
tradition; for, as the great CHILLINGWORTH
says,
"A silent tradition is like a silent thunder," a
thing
inconceivable. But we shall be told, that the
church
has preserved this deposit, and can testify that
it
was derived from the apostles. What church?
And
where is her testimony? And how do we know
that
among such a mass of traditions, some have not
crept
in, which originated in other sources than the
teaching
of Christ and his apostles? Who kept these
traditions
securely when the church was overrun with
Gothic
ignorance and barbarism? Who kept this
treasure
unadulterated, when Arianism was predomi-
nant?
If there be such an oral law, containing an
exposition
of Scripture, how has it happened that there
have
existed such dissensions about doctrine in the
Romish
church itself? And, as it is
acknowledged,
that
many usages of the church have had their origin,
long
since the apostles' days, what authority is there
for
these innovations? If the authority of the church
was
sufficient to establish these, it could as easily es-
tablish
all the rest, and there is no need of apostolical
336 THE ROMISH. DOCTRINE
tradition:
but if there is a distinction to be made be-
tween
observances derived from the apostles, and such
as
have been invented by men, how can we draw the
line
between them?
An implicit believer in the
infallibility of the Pope,
would
deem it sufficient to answer, that his holiness
at
what
not; what is obligatory and what not. All
we
have to do, is to believe what he believes, or what
he
tells us to believe. Now, without disputing the
pretensions
of the bishop of
nary
knowledge, at present, I would ask, if we must
go
to an infallible judge to learn what are apostolical
traditions,
what use is there in traditions? Why does
not
this infallible teacher declare at once what is
truth
in all cases, without the trouble of searching
into
antiquity after traditions, which never can be
found?
But if it be alleged that the
traditions which ought
to
be received as the rule of our faith, are such
as
were universal, and concerning which there can-
not
be any doubt, I answer, that many such tradi-
tions
may indeed be found, but what do they respect?
Those
very doctrines which are most plainly and
frequently
inculcated in Scripture, and of which we
need
no exposition; for, as was said before, they are
expressed
as perspicuously as any exposition can be.
But
it affords us satisfaction to find the church openly
professing,
from the beginning, those truths which
we
find recorded in Scripture. If it does not add
confirmation
to our faith in these points, it gives us
pleasure
to find such a harmony in the belief of true
Christians.
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 337
Finally, it is dangerous to rely upon
traditions.
Heretics
in all ages sheltered themselves under this
doctrine.
Those with whom Tertullian contended,
alleged
that the apostles did not know everything
necessary,
as Christ declared he had many things to
say,
which they could not bear yet; or there were
some
things which they did not teach publicly, nor
commit
to writing, but communicated privately to a
few
chosen persons, and therefore they declined the
authority
of Scripture. The same is true of those
against
whom Irenaeus wrote. They appealed from
Scripture
to tradition, and he answers them by show-
ing
that universal tradition was conformable to Scrip-
ture.
Eusebius informs us that Artemon, who
asserted
that
Christ was a mere man, pretended that he had
learnt,
from tradition, that all the apostles
were of his
opinion.*
Thus also Clement of Alexandria says,
"that
Basilides gloried in having received his doc-
trine
through a few hands from Peter; and Valenti-
nus
boasted of having been instructed by one who had
been
a disciple of Paul."† The
Marcionites professed
to
have received their doctrines from Matthew. The
Arians,
as appears by an oration against them by
Athanasius,
appealed to tradition for the confirmation
of
their tenets. In fact, this doctrine of unwritten
traditions
has been justly compared to Pandora's box,
which
is calculated to fill the world with evils and he-
resies.
But not only have heretics availed themselves
of
this corrupt fountain, but good men have been de-
ceived
by lending too credulous an ear to traditions.
PAPIAS one of the hearers of John the
apostle, was
* Liber v. c. 28. † Strom. xiii.
338 THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
a
great collector of traditions. He was inquisitive to
know
what each of the apostles had at any time
said;
and there was some chance at coming at the
truth
from oral tradition, by one who was a hearer
of
one of the apostles. But what valuable informa-
tion
did this good man obtain by all his inquiries,
which
is not in Scripture? Let Eusebius answer,
"Papias
adopted many paradoxical opinions, by
giving
heed to unwritten traditions, (paradosewj agrafou)
and
received certain strange parables of our Saviour,
mixed
with fabulous things, among which was the
error
of the Chiliasts; by which many other excel-
lent
men were deceived, paying too much deference
to
antiquity and unwritten traditions. Even such
men
as Irenaeus, Apollinarius, Tertullian, Victorinus,
and
Lactantius, were misled by these ancient tradi-
tions,
so that they adopted an opinion for which there
is
no foundation in sacred Scripture, and not only
so,
but which is repugnant to the doctrine of Christ
and
his apostles."*
Clement of
the
ancient church was more celebrated, speaks of
certain
persons who had taken much pains to pre-
serve
the sayings of the apostles handed down by
tradition,
among whom he mentions a Hebrew who is
supposed
to be Papias; but when he comes to tell
us
what he had learned from these unwritten tradi-
tions
which is not contained in Scripture, it amounts
to
this, "That there was a public doctrine and a
secret
doctrine; the one exoteric, and the other es-
oteric;
that the former was committed to writing, and
was
in the hands of all; but the latter was communi-
* The reference is to the
Millennarian doctrine.
OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS. 339
cated
secretly to chosen disciples. And if we may
judge
of the secret doctrine handed down by tra-
dition
from some specimens of it which he had learned,
we
will not appreciate unwritten traditions very highly
in
comparison with the written word. Among these
is
the opinion that the Greek philosophy answered
the
same purpose as the law of Moses, and was a
schoolmaster
to bring those that professed it to
Christ;
that this philosophy as well as the law of
Moses
was able to justify men, and that there were
many
ways of obtaining life. From the same tra-
dition
he teaches that Christ's ministry was finished
in
one year, which opinion Irenaeus ascribes to heretics,
and
declares it as a tradition from John that Christ,
when
he was crucified, was nearly fifty years of age.
Clement
relates it as a tradition, "That the apostles
after
their death, went and preached to the dead, who
descended
with the apostles into a place of water, and
then
came up alive," and many other like things.*
There is much reason to believe that
the corruption
of
the church, which commenced about this time, was
owing
to a disposition which began to be indulged
of
lending too credulous an ear to traditions, and to
apocryphal
writings.
But among the Fathers no one gave
himself up
so
entirely to unwritten traditions and apocryphal
fables
as Epiphanius. His writings abound with
things
of this kind; but who would assert that we
are
bound to receive these stories as articles of faith?
Even
the Romish church with all her store of legends,
will
not receive as true and necessary all that is
* Strom. lib. II.
340 THE BIBLE A COMPLETE RULE
handed
down by tradition from one and another of the
Fathers.
From what has been said, therefore,
the conclu-
sion
is clear that the Scriptures are complete with-
out
unwritten traditions; that no articles of faith, nor
institutions
of worship, concerning which the Scrip-
tures
are silent, have come down to us by tradition;
that
we have uniform, universal tradition on those
points
which are plainly taught in Scripture; that
many
things pretended to have been received from
the
apostles by tradition cannot be traced to them,
and
that many other things made equally necessary
by
the Romish church, can be proved to have origi-
nated
many hundred of years since the death of the
apostles.
It has been also shown that there is no
certain
method of distinguishing between what is
apostolical,
and what has been derived from other
sources,
unless we make the Scriptures our standard;
that
tradition cannot be our guide even in interpret-
ing
Scriptures; and finally, that tradition has been
the
common refuge of heretics, and has greatly mis-
led
good and orthodox men, by inducing them to
adopt
wild theories, fabulous stories, and paradoxical
opinions,
some of which are directly repugnant to
Scripture.
The traditions of the Romish church
stand on no
higher
ground than the traditions of the Scribes and
Pharisees
in the time of our Saviour; but he rejected
these
traditions as having no authority, and as making
void
the law of God. "Why do ye," says Christ,
"also
transgress the commandment of God by your
tradition?
Thus have ye made the commandment of
God
of none effect by your tradition." Matt. xv. 3-6.
OF FAITH AND PRACTICE. 341
"Howbeit,
in vain do they worship me, teaching for
doctrines
the commandments of men." Mark vii. 7.
The
same questions and reproofs may with equal pro-
priety
be addressed to the Pope, and the doctors
of
the Romish church. But, say we, "To the law
and
to the testimony; if they speak not according to
these,
it is because there is no light in them." Isaiah
viii.
20.
Thus have we brought this work to a
close, and it
affords
us pleasure to believe that most who read these
pages
will be convinced that the Bible is a
complete
rule, both of
faith and practice.
"The law of the Lord
is
perfect." Psa. xix. What a treasure have we in the
Old
and New Testament! Here God speaks to us
by his
"lively
oracles." The way of life is
delineated so dis-
tinctly,
that the wayfaring man, though a fool, shall not
err
therein. We have, indeed, "a sure word of prophecy
to
which ye do well that ye take heed as to a light shin-
ing
in a dark place until the day dawn, and the day
star
arise in your hearts." 2 Pet. 7-19.
There is
nothing
lacking to him that is in possession of the
Scriptures;
for "all Scripture is given by inspiration
of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
correction,
for instruction in righteousness: that the.
man
of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto
all
good works." 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.
Let us then be grateful to God, and
give him un-
ceasing
thanks for this precious deposit which he has
committed
to his church, and which, by his Provi-
dence,
he has preserved uninjured through all the
vicissitudes
through which she has passed. Let us
praise
God that in regard to us, that night of dark-
ness
is past in which there was a famine, not of bread,
342 THE BIBLE A COMPLETE RULE, &C.
nor
of water, but of the word of the Lord; when the
light
of this brilliant lamp was put out, or rather "put
under
a bushel," and the feeble erring light of tradi-
tion
was substituted in its place. Let us be glad and
rejoice
that we have lived to see the day when copies
of
the Bible are multiplied, and when many run to
and
fro to circulate them; and let us wait in assured
hope
for the day when "the knowledge of the Lord
shall
cover the earth as the waters cover the sea.
Even
so, come Lord Jesus. Amen."
APPENDIX.
NOTE A. (Page
39.)
FIRST
DECREE OF THE FOURTH SESSION OF THE COUNCIL
OF TRENT, A. D.
1546.
"The
holy oecumenical and general Council of Trent, legiti-
mately
convened in the Holy Spirit, under the presidency of
three
legates of the Apostolic see, constantly proposing this
before
all things, that all errors being taken away, the gospel in
its
purity may be preserved in the Church, which was promised
before
by the prophets in the holy Scriptures, but which was pro-
mulgated
by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, with his
own
mouth; moreover, he commanded it to be preached to every
creature
by his apostles, as the fountain of all saving truth and
moral
discipline: which truth and discipline he provided should
be
contained in the books of Scripture, and in unwritten tradi-
tions,
received from the mouth of Christ by the apostles, or from
the
apostles speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and
handed
down to us; therefore this Synod, following the example
of
the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with equal pious
affection
and reverence, all the books both of the Old and New
Testament
(for one God is the author of both:) likewise those
traditions
relating to faith and manners, which were received
from
the mouth of Christ himself, or from his inspired apostles,
and
which have been preserved in an uninterrupted succession in
the
Catholic Church. Moreover, this Synod judges it proper to
give
a catalogue of the sacred books, lest any doubt should arise
in
the minds of any respecting the books received by them, the
names
of which are here inserted in this decree: viz. the five
books
of Moses—Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuter-
onomy.
Next, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two
of
Chronicles, two of Ezra, viz. the first and the second, which is
called
Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, CL Psalms of
David,
Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wis-
dom
Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel,
Twelve
Minor Prophets, viz. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah,
Micah,
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi,
two of Maccabees, first and second. the New Tes-
tament,
the four gospels, viz. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John; the
343
344 APPENDIX.
Acts
of the Apostles, written by Luke the Evangelist; fourteen
epistles
of the blessed apostle Paul, viz. to the Romans; to the
Corinthians,
two; to the Galatians; to the Ephesians; to the
Philippians;
to the Colossians ; to the Thessalonians, two; to
Timothy,
two; to Titus; to Philemon; to the Hebrews. Of the
apostle
Peter, two; of the apostle John, three; of James, one;
of
the apostle Jude, one; the Apocalypse of John the apostle.
"But
if any one shall not receive as canonical and sacred all
these
books, with all their parts, as they are used to be read in
the
Catholic Church, and are contained in the old Vulgate Latin
edition;
or shall knowingly and intentionally contemn any of the
aforesaid
traditions, let him be anathema.
"Hence all may understand in
what order and way the Synod,
after
laying the foundation of the Confession of their Faith, will
proceed;
and what testimonies and proofs they will especially use
in
confirming doctrines, and in the reformation of manners in the
church."
NOTE B.
(Page 53.)
EXTRACT
FROM AUGUSTINE "DE DOCTRINA CHRISTIANA,"
LIB. III.
CAP. 8.
Sed nos ad tertium gradum ilium
considerationem refera-
mus,
de quo disserere quod Dominus suggesserit atque tractare
instituimus.
Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertissimus
indagator,
qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit, etsi non-
durn
intellectu, jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas quae appel-
lantur
canonicae.
structus,
ne praeoccupent imbecillem animum, et periculosis
mendaciis
atque phantasmatibus eludentes praejudicent aliquid
contra
sanam int elligentiarn. In canonicis autem scripturis Re-
clesiarrun
catholicarum quampluri urn authoritatem sequatur, inter
quas
sane illae sunt quae Apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas
accipere
meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis
canonicis,
ut eas quae ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catho-
licis,
prwponat eis quae quaedam non accipiunt. In eis vaero quae
non
accipiuntur ab omnibus, praeponat eas quas plures gravior-
esque
accipiunt, eis quas pauciores mmorisque authoritatis Ec-
clesiae
tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravior-
ibus
haberi, quanquam hoc invenire non possit, aequalis tamen
authoritatis
eas ha hendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum
in
quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris conti-
netur.
Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Nu-
meris,
Deuteronomio, et uno libro lesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno
libello
qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad regnorum principia vi-
detur
pertinere. Deinde quatuor Regum et duobus
lipomenon,
non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis si-
mulque
pergentibus: Haec est historia quae sibimet annexa
tempora
continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt aliae tanquam ex
diverso
ordine, quae neque huic ordini, neque inter se connect-
untur,
sicut est Job et Tobias et Hester et Judith et Mac-
APPENDIX. 345
cabaeorum
libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur
ordinatam
illam historian, usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipome-
non
terminatam. Deinde Prophetae, in quibus David unus liber
Psalmorum
et Salomonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica cantico-
rum,
et Ecclesiastes.
et
alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, de quadam similitudine
Salomonis
esse dicuntur. Nam Jesus filius Sirach eos scripsisse
constantissime
perhibetur. Qui tamen quoniam in authoritatem
recipi
meruerunt, inter Propheticos numerandi sunt. Reliqui
sunt
eorum libri qui proprie Prophetae appellati sunt, du-
odecim
Prophetarum libri singuli; qui connexi sibimet, quo-
niam
nunquam sejuncti sunt pro uno habentur. Quorum pro-
phetarum
nomina sunt haec, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Mi-
chaeas,
Naum, Abacuk, Sophonias, Aggaeus, Zacharias, Malachias.
Deinde
quatuor Prophetae sunt majorum voluminum, Esaias,
Hieremias,
Daniel, Ezechiel. His quadragintaquatuor libris vete-
ris
testamenti terminatur authoritas.
Evangelii
secundum Matthaeum, secundum Marcum, secundum
Lucam,
secundum Joannem; quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli Apos-
toli,
ad Romanos, ad Corinthios duabus, ad Galatas, ad Ephesios,
ad
Philippenses, ad Thessalonicenses duabus, ad Colossenses,
ad
Timotheum duabus, ad Titum, ad Philemonem, ad Hebraeos,
Petri
duabus, tribus Joannis, una Judae, et una. Jacobi, Actibus
Apostolorum
libro uno, et Apocalypsis Joannis libro uno.
NOTE C. (Page 123.)
PASSAGE FROM TERTULLIAN.
The original of this passage is as
follows; "Age jam, qui vo-
les
curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuae percurre
Ecclesias
apostolicas, apud quas ipsae adhuc cathedrae praesident:
apud
quas ipsae authenlicae literae eorum
recitantur, sonantes vo-
cem,
et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujuscunque. Proxima est
tibi
Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a
habes
Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam tendere,
habes
Ephesurn. Si autem Italiae adjaces, habes Romam unde
nobis
quoque auctoritas praesto est."---De
Praescrip. cap. 36.
NOTE D. (Page 131.)
PASSAGE FROM EUSEBIUS.
The Order of the
Gospels.
Let
us now also show the undisputed writings of the same apostle,
[John.]
And of these his gospel, so well known in the churches
throughout
the world, must first of all be acknowledged as genuine.
That
it is, however, with good reason, placed the fourth in order by
346 APPENDIX.
the
ancients, may be made evident in the following manner. Those
inspired
and a truly pious men, the apostles of Christ, as they were
most
pure in their life, and adorned with every kind of virtue in
their
minds, but unskilled in language, relying upon the divine
and
wonderful energy granted them by the Saviour, neither knew
how
nor attempted to propound the doctrines of their master,
with
the art and refinement of composition. But employing only
the
demonstration of the divine Spirit, working with them, and
the
wonder-working power of Christ, displayed through them,
they
proclaimed the knowledge of the kingdom of heaven through-
out
the world. They bestowed but little care upon the study of
style,
and this they did because they were aided by a co-operation
greater
than that of men. Paul, indeed, who was the most able
of
all in the preparations of style, and who was most powerful in
sentiments,
committed nothing more to writing than a few very
short
epistles. And this too, although he had innumerable mys-
terious
matters that he might have communicated, as he had at-
tained
even to the view of the third heavens, had been taken up
to
the very paradise of God, and had been honoured to hear the
unutterable
words there. The other followers of our Lord were
also
not ignorant of such things, as the twelve apostles, and the
seventy
disciples, together with many others; yet of all the dis-
ciples,
Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us re-
corded
comments, and even they, tradition says, undertook it
from
necessity. Matthew also having first proclaimed the gospel
in
Hebrew, when on the point of going also to other nations, com-
mitted
it to writing in his native tongue, and thus supplied the
want
of his presence to them by his writings. But after Mark
and
Luke had already published their gospels, they say that John,
who
during all this time was proclaiming the gospel without
writing,
at length proceeded to write it on the following occasion.
The
three gospels previously written, having been distributed
among
all, and also handed to him, they say that he admitted them,
giving
his testimony to their truth; but that there was only want-
ing
in the narrative the account of the things done by Christ,
among
the first of his deeds, and at the commencement of the
gospel.
And this was the truth. For it is evident that the other
three
evangelists only wrote the deeds of our Lord for one year
after
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, and intimated this in
the
very beginning of their history. For after the fasting of forty
days,
and the consequent temptation, Matthew indeed specifies the
time
of his history, in these words:
"But hearing that John was de-
livered
up, he returned from Judea into
manner
writes: "But after John was
delivered up, Jesus came in-
to
in
much the same way designates the time, saying, " Herod thus
added
yet this wickedness above all he had committed, that
lie
shut up John in prison." For these reasons the apostle John
it
is said, being entreated to undertake it, wrote the account of
the
time not recorded by the former evangelists, and the deeds
done
by our Saviour, which they have passed by, (for these were
the
events that occurred before the imprisonment of John,) and
this
very fact is intimated by him, when he says, "this beginning
of
miracles Jesus made;" and then proceeds to make mention
of
the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at
APPENDIX. 347
that
time "baptizing at Aenon near Salim." He plainly also
shows
this in the words, "John was not yet cast into prison."
The
apostle, therefore, in his gospel, gives the deeds of Jesus be-
fore
the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evange-
lists
mention the circumstances after that event. One who at-
tends
to these circumstances can no longer entertain the opinion,
that
the gospels are at variance with each other, as the gospel of
John
comprehends the first events of Christ, but the others, the
history
that took place at the latter part of the time. It is pro-
bable,
therefore, that for these reasons John has passed by in
silence
the genealogy of our Lord, because it was written by
Matthew
and Luke, but that he commenced with the doctrine of
the
divinity, as a part reserved for him by the divine Spirit, as if
for
a superior. Let this suffice to be said respecting the gospel
of
John. The causes that induced Mark to write his have already
been
stated. But Luke also in the commencement of his narra-
tive,
premises the cause which led him to write, showing that
many
others, having rashly undertaken to compose a narration
of
matters that he had already completely ascertained, in order
to
free us from the uncertain suppositions of others, in his own
gospel,
he delivered the certain account of those things, that he
himself
had fully received from his intimacy and stay with Paul,
and
also his intercourse with the other apostles. But this may
suffice
respecting these. At a more proper time we shall endea-
vour
also to state, by a reference to some of the ancient writers,
what
others have said respecting the sacred books. But besides
the
gospel of John, his first epistle is acknowledged without dis-
pute,
both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients.
The
other two epistles, however, are disputed. The opinions re-
specting
the Revelation are still greatly divided. But we shall, in
due
time, give a judgment on this point also from the testimony
of
the ancients.
The Sacred Scriptures acknowledged as
genuine, and those
that are not.
This appears also to be the proper
place to give a summary
statement
of the books of the New Testament already mentioned.
And
here, among the first, must be placed the holy quaternion of
the
gospels; these are followed by "the book of the Acts of the
Apostles:"
after this must be mentioned the epistles of Paul,
which
are followed by the acknowledged first epistle of John, as
also
the first of Peter, to be admitted in like manner. After these
are
to be placed, if proper, the Revelation of John, concerning
which
we shall offer the different opinions in due time. These, then,
are
acknowledged as genuine. Among the disputed books, although
they
are well known and approved by many, is reputed that called
the
epistles of James and Jude; also the" Second Epistle of Peter,"
and
those called "the Second and Third of John," whether they
are
of the evangelist or of some other of the same name. Among
the
spurious must be numbered both the books called "the Acts
of
Paul" and that called "Pastor," and "the Revelation of
348 APPENDIX.
Peter."
Besides these, the books called "the Epistle of Barna-
bas,"
and what are called "the Institutions of the Apostles."
Moreover,
as I said before, if it should appear right, "the Reve-
lation
of John," which some, as before said, reject, but others
rank
among the genuine. But there are also some who number
among
these the gospel according to the Hebrews, with which
those
of the Hebrews that have received Christ are particularly
delighted.
These may be said to be all concerning which there
is
any dispute. We have, however, necessarily subjoined here a
catalogue
of these also, in order to distinguish those that are true,
genuine,
and well authenticated writings, from those others which
are
not only not embodied in the Canon, but likewise disputed,
notwithstanding
that they are recognized by most ecclesiastical
writers.
Thus we may have it in our power to know both these
books,
and those that are adduced by the heretics under the name
of
the apostles, such, viz., as compose the gospels of Peter, Tho-
mas
and Matthew, and others beside them, or such as contain the
Acts
of the Apostles, by Andrew, and John, and others, of which
no
one of those writers in the ecclesiastical succession has con-
descended
to make any mention in his works; and indeed the
character
of the style itself is very different from that of the
are
advanced in them, deviating as far as possible from sound
orthodoxy,
evidently proves they are the fictions of heretical
men;
whence they are to be ranked not only among the spurious
writings,
but are to be rejected as altogether absurd and impious.
Eccles. Hist.
lib. iii. cap. xxiv. xxv.
NOTE E. (Page
163.)
GOSPEL OF THE NAZARENES.
There is no apocryphal book of the
New Testament which has
been
so much spoken of, both by the ancients and moderns, as
the
gospel of the Nazarenes. By some, not only of the Roman-
ists,
but also of the Protestants, it has been exalted very nearly
to
an equality with the canonical books of the New Testament.
It
seems necessary, therefore, to examine its claims with more
attention
than is requisite in the case of other books of this
class.
This gospel was known among the
ancients under several dif-
ferent
titles. It was sometimes called "the gospel according to
the
twelve apostles;" "the gospel of Bartholomew;" "the gospel
according
to the Hebrews;" "the gospel of the Ebionites,"
It
is the opinion of some that this is the gospel to which Paul
alludes,
Gal. i. 6, where he speaks of "another gospel." How-
ever
this may be, if we credit Euscbius, we must believe that it
existed
as early as the beginning of the second century; for he
represents
Hegesippus as writing some things concerning "the
gospel
according to the Hebrews and Syrians."
*Ecce. Hist. lib. iv. p.
58.
APPENDIX. 349
Clement of
"He
who admires shall reign, and he who reigns shall be at
ease
"
Origen speaks of it in this manner,
"If any one will receive
the
gospel according to the Hebrews, in which our Saviour says,
‘The
Holy Ghost my mother lately took me by one of my hairs,
and
led me to the great
place,
"It is written in a certain gospel, which is entitled accord-
ing
to the Hebrews, (if any one be pleased to receive it, not as of
authority,
but only for illustration of the present question.) A cer-
tain
rich man said to Christ, What good thing shall I do that I
may
inherit life? He said to him, 0 man, keep the law and the
prophets;
he answered him, That I have done. He said to him,
Go
sell all things that thou hast, and distribute among the poor,
and
come and follow me. The rich man hereupon began to
scratch
his head, and was displeased. And the Lord said unto
him,
How can you say that you have kept the law and the pro-
phets,
seeing it is written in the law, Thou shalt love thy neigh-
bour
as thyself; but behold, many of thy brethren, children of
Abraham,
are clothed with nastiness, and ready to perish for
hunger,
while thy home abounds with all sorts of delicacies, and
nothing
is sent out of it to them. And turning about, he said to
his
disciple Simon, who sat by him, Simon, son of Joanna, it is
easier
for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a
rich
man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.’”†
Eusebius, speaking of apocryphal and
spurious books, says,
"In
this number some have placed the gospel according to the
Hebrews,
with which they of the Jews who profess Christianity
are
very much delighted." And speaking of the Ebionites, he
says,
"They made use only of that which is called the gospel ac-
cording
to the Hebrews, very little esteeming any others.”‡
Epiphanius has left several
testimonies respecting this gospel,
among
which are the following: "The Nazarenes have the gospel
of
Matthew most entire in the Hebrew language; for this is still
preserved
among them, as it was at first, in Hebrew characters.
But
I know not whether they have taken away the genealogy
from
Abraham to Christ.
In another place, speaking of the
Ebionites, he says, "They
also
receive the gospel according to Matthew. For this both
they
and the Corinthians make use of, and no other. They call
it
the gospel according to the Hebrews; for the truth is, that
Matthew
is the only one of the New Testament writers who pub-
lished
his gospel and preaching, in the Hebrew language and
Hebrew
characters."
And again, "In that gospel
which they (the Ebionites) have
called,
according to St. Matthew, which is not entire and perfect,
but
corrupted and curtailed, and which they call the Hebrew
gospel,
it is written, That there was a certain
man called Jesus,
and
he being about thirty years of age, made choice of us. And
coming
to
Peter,
and opening his mouth, said, When I passed by the lake
of
Tiberias, I chose John and James the sons of Zebedee, and
* Strom. lib. ii. p. 380. †
Hom. in Jerem.
‡ Ecc. fist. lib.
iii. c. 25, 27.
350 APPENDIX.
Simon
and Andrew, and Thaddeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas
Iscariot,
and thee Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom, I
called,
and thou didst follow me. I will therefore that ye be my
twelve
apostles, for a testimony to
of
John the Baptist, according to this gospel, was wild honey, the
taste
of which was like manna, or as cakes made with honey and
oil.
Thus they change the true account into a falsehood, and for
locusts
put cakes made with oil and honey." "The beginning
of
the gospel was this, It came to pass in the days of Herod,'"
&c.
After relating the baptism of Christ, as it is recorded in the
other
gospel, except that it asserts, that the voice from heaven
saving,
"This is my beloved Son,' &c., was repeated, it goes on to
say,
'That hereupon John fell down before him, and said, 0 Lord,
I
pray thee baptize me; but he hindered him, saying that it is fit
that
all these things should be fulfilled.' "See," says Epiphanius,
"how
their false doctrine appears everywhere; how all things are
imperfect,
disordered, and without any truth!" So also Cerin-
thus
and Carpocrates, gospel using this same Gospel of theirs, would
prove
that Christ proceeded from the seed of Joseph and Mary."*
But the testimony of Jerome
respecting this gospel is the most full.
"Matthew,
also called Levi," says he, "who became from a pub-
lican
an apostle, was the first who composed a gospel of Christ,
and
for the sake of those who believed in Christ among the Jews,
wrote
it in the Hebrew language and letters, but it is uncertain
who
translated it into Greek. Moreover, the Hebrew copy is to
this
time preserved in the library of
the
martyr with much diligence collected. The Nazarenes, who
live
in Beroea, a city of
granted
me the favour of writing it out. In which gospel there
is
this observable, that wherever the evangelist either cites him-
self,
or introduces our Saviour as citing, any passage out of the
Old
Testament, he does not follow the translation of the LXX,
but
the Hebrew copies, of which there are these two instances,
viz.
‘Out of
called
a Nazarene.'" This testimony is found in Jerome's life
of
Matthew. And in his life of James we find the following ac-
count.
"The gospel also, which is called according to the He-
brews,
and which I lately translated into Greek and Latin, and
which
Origen often used relates, That after our Saviour's re-
surrection,
when our Lord had given the linen cloth to the priest's
servant,
he went to James and appeared to him; for James had
sworn
that he would not eat bread from that hour in which he
drank
the cup of the Lord, till he should see the Lord risen from
the
dead. And a little after the Lord said, ‘Bring the table and
the
bread;' and then it is added, He took the bread and blessed
it,
and brake it, and gave it to James the Just, and said to him,
My
brother, eat thy bread, for the Son of man is risen from the
dead.'"
And in a work against Pelagius, he
says, "In the gospel ac-
cording
to the Hebrews, which is written in the Chaldo-Syriac
language,
which the Nazarenes use, and is that according to the
twelve
apostles, or as most think, according to Matthew, which is
in
the library of
Epiph.
APPENDIX. 351
the
mother and brethren of Christ spoke to him; John the Bap-
tist
baptizes for the remission of sins; let us go and be baptized
of
him. He said, In what have I sinned, that I have need to go
and
be baptized of him? Unless my saying this proceeds, per-
haps,
from ignorance.' And in the same gospel it is said, ‘If thy
brother
offend thee by any word, and make thee satisfaction, if it
be
seven times in a day, thou must forgive him. Simon his dis-
ciple
said unto him, What! seven times in a day? The Lord
answered
and said unto him, I tell thee also till seventy times
seven.'"
The same author, in his commentary
on Isaiah, mentions this
gospel
in the following manner: "According
to their gospel,
which
is written in the Hebrew language, and read by the Naza-
renes,
the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended upon him.
Besides,
in that gospel just mentioned we find these things writ-
ten.
It came to pass when the Lord ascended from the waters,
the
whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended and rested upon
him,
and said to him, My son, among (or during the time of) all
the
prophets, I was waiting for thy coming, that I might rest
upon
thee; thou art my first begotten Son, who shall reign to
everlasting
ages.'"
And in his commentary on Ezekiel,
"In that which is entitled
the
gospel according to the Hebrews, it is reckoned among the
chief
of crimes for a person to make sorrowful the heart of his
brother."
In his commentary on the gospel of
Matthew he has the follow-
ing: In the gospel which the Nazarenes and
Ebionites use,
which
I lately translated out of Hebrew into Greek, and which
is
by most esteemed the authentic gospel of Matthew, the man
who
had the withered hand is said to be a mason, and prayed for
relief
in the following words: was a mason, who got my liveli-
hood
by my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst re-
store
me to my strength, that I may no longer thus scandalously
beg
my bread.'"
"In the gospel which the
Nazarenes use, for the son of Bara-
chiah,
I find written, the son of Jehoiada." "In this gospel we
read,
not that the veil of the temple was rent, but that a lintel or
beam
of a prodigious size fell down." "In the Hebrew gospel
we
read, that our Lord said to his disciples, Be ye never cheer-
ful,
unless when you can see your brother in love.'"
Concerning this gospel according to
the Hebrews, very differ-
ent
opinions have been expressed by learned men. Some have
even
pretended, that if it was now in existence it would be greatly
superior
to the Greek copy, but generally it has been considered
apocryphal,
for very good reasons, some of which I will now set
down.
1. It was never received by any of
the Fathers as canonical,
or
cited as of any authority, by any writer, during the first four
centuries.
For full proof of the fact here
stated, I would refer the reader
to
Jones on the Canon, vol. iii.
2. This gospel was apocryphal,
because it contained several
things
contrary to known and undoubted truths. Of this sort are
the
passages which have been cited respecting Christ's manner
of
speaking, in regard to the baptism of John. Also the account
352 APPENDIX.
which
it contains of the oath of the apostle James; for it is evi-
dent
that the disciples knew nothing of Christ's resurrection from
the
dead until after that event occurred.
3. A third argument of the
apocryphal character of this gospel,
is
derived from the ludicrous and silly relations which it con-
tains--as
that of the rich man scratching his head, and the Holy
Ghost
taking up Christ by one of his hairs, and carrying him to
the
great mountain Tabor, &:c.
The most probable opinion of the
origin of this gospel is, that
it
was a corruption of the original Hebrew gospel of Matthew,
by
the Ebionites. These heretics having this gospel in their pos-
session,
and having departed from the true faith, mutilated the
gospel
of Matthew, by striking out such things as were unfavour-
able
to their heresy, and adding such fabulous stories as suited
their
purpose. Of the fragments which remain, there is not one
which
agrees exactly with the authentic gospel of Matthew.
Epiphamus
expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel
of
Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but cor-
rupted
and adulterated; and that they had taken away the gene-
alogy
from the beginning, and commenced their gospel with these
words,
"And it came to pass in the days of Herod," &c.
NOTE F. (Page
280.)
THE
DECREE OF POPE GELASIUS CONCERNING APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS.
1. The Travels under the name of
Peter, which is also called
the
Eight Books of St. Clemens. 2. The Acts under the name
of
Andrew the apostle. 3. The Acts under the name of Philip
the
apostle. 4. The Acts under the name of Peter. 5. The Acts
under
the name of Thomas the apostle 6. The gospel under the
name
of Thaddeus. 7. The gospel under the name of Thomas
the
apostle. 8. The gospel under the name of Barnabas. 9. The
gospel
under the name of Bartholomew. 10. The gospel under
the
name of Andrew the apostle. 11. The gospels corrupted by
Lucianus.
12. The gospels corrupted by Hesychius. 13. The
gospel
of the Infancy of our Saviour. 14. The book of the Nati-
vity
of our Saviour. 15. The book called the Shepherd. 16. All
the
books made by Lentitius the disciple of the devil. 17. The
Acts
of Paul and Thecla. 18. The Revelation of Thomas.
19.
The Revelation of Paul. 20. The Revelation of Stephen.
21.
The travels or acts of Mary. 22. The book called the Lots
of
the Apostles. 23. The book called the Praise of the Apostles.
24.
The book of the Canon of the Apostles. 25. The Letter of
Jesus
to king Abgarus—are apocryphal.
APPENDIX. 353
NOTE G. (Page 287.)
PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE LAODICEANS.
Paul, an apostle, not of men,
neither by man, but by Jesus
Christ,
to the brethren which are at
and
peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I
thank
Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and per-
severe
in good works, looking for that which is promised in the
day
of judgment.
Let not the vain speeches of any
trouble you, who pervert the
truth,
that they may draw you aside from the truth of the gospel
which
I have preached. And now may God grant that my con-
verts
may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gos-
pel,
be beneficent, and doing good works, which accompany sal-
vation.
And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are mani-
fest,
in which I rejoice and am glad. For I know that this shall
turn
to my salvation for ever, which shall be through your prayer,
and
the supply of the Holy Spirit; whether I live or die; (for)
to
me to live shall be a life to Christ, to die will be joy. And our
Lord
will grant us his mercy, that ye may have the same love,
and
be likeminded.
Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have
heard of the coming of the
Lord,
so think and act in fear, and it shall be to you life eternal;
for
it is God who worketh in you; and do all things without sin.
And
what is best, my beloved, rejoice in the Lord Jesus Christ,
and
avoid all filthy lucre. Let all your requests be made known
to
God, and be steady in the doctrine of Christ. And whatsoever
things
are sound, and true, and of good report, and chaste, and
just,
and lovely, these things do. Those things which ye have
heard
and received, think on these things, and peace shall be
with
you. And all the saints salute you. things, grace of our Lord
Jesus
Christ be with your spirit. Amen.
Cause this epistle to be read to the
Colossians, and the epistle
of
the Colossians to be read among you.
NOTE H. (Page
292.)
MIRACLES
ASCRIBED TO CHRIST IN THE BOOK ENTITLED
"THE GOSPEL OF OUR SAVIOUR'S
INFANCY."
Christ is represented as speaking in
the cradle, and telling his
mother
that he was her son.
The swaddling clothes in which he
was wrapt, when thrown
into
the fire, would not burn. When his parents entered
in
their flight from the cruelty of Herod, the girth of the saddle
on
which Mary rode broke, and the great idol of
at
the approach of the infant Jesus.
354 APPENDIX.
By means of the babe's swaddling
clothes, several devils were
cast
out of a boy's mouth, in the shape of crows and serpents.
A company of robbers, at the
approach of Jesus, were fright-
ened
by being made to hear a sound, as of an army, &c.
It is related, that a girl was cured
of a leprosy by means of
water
in which Christ's body had been washed.
That a young man, who by witchcraft
had been turned into a
mule,
was, upon Christ's mounting him, turned again into a man.
On one occasion he is said to have
turned certain boys, who hid
themselves
from him, into kids, and then at the intercession of
their
mothers restored them again to their proper shape.
A boy having put his hand into a
partridge's nest, to take out
the
eggs, was bit by a serpent, whereupon they brought him to
Jesus,
who directed them to carry him before him, to the place
where
he had received the injury. On coming to the spot, Jesus
called
for the serpent, and it presently came forth; and he said,
"Go
and suck out the poison which thou hast infused into that
boy:"
so the serpent crept to the boy, and took away all its poison
again.
He also cures his brother James, who, in gathering sticks,
was
bitten by a viper.
Being one day on the house-top,
playing with some boys, one of
them
fell down, and was instantly killed. And the boy's relations
came
and said to the Lord Jesus, "Thou didst throw our son
down
from the house-top;" but he denied it, and said, "Let us go
and
ask himself." Then the Lord Jesus, going down, stood over
the
dead body, and said with a loud voice, "Zeinunus, Zeinunus,
who
threw thee down?" Then the dead boy answered, "Thou
didst
not throw me down, but such a one."
Being, on a certain occasion, sent
by his mother to the well for
water,
the pitcher broke, and he gathered up the water in his
garment,
and brought it to her.
When at the age of twelve years
Jesus was at Jerusalem, a
certain
astronomer asked him whether he had studied astronomy.
Upon
which he told him the number of the spheres and heavenly
bodies,
&c. There was there also a philosopher, who asked the
Lord
Jesus whether he had ever studied physic. He replied, and
explained
to him physics and metaphysics, the powers of the
body,
its anatomy, &c. But from this time he began to conceal
his
miracles, and gave himself to the study of the law, till he ar-
rived
to the end of his thirtieth year.
See the "Gospel of our
Saviour's Infancy," complete in the
second
volume of Jones on the Canon.
APPENDIX. 355
EXTRACT
FROM HALDANE'S " EVIDENCE AND AUTHORITY
OF DIVINE
REVELATION."
"It has been asserted that 'the
question of the Canon is a point
of
erudition, not of divine revelation.' This is to undermine both
the
certainty and the importance of the sacred Canon. The as-
sertion,
that the question of the Canon is not a point of revela-
tion,
is false. It is not true either of the Old Testament or of the
New.
The integrity of the Canon of the Old Testament is a
matter
of revelation. as much as anything contained in the Bible.
This
is attested, as has been shown, by the whole nation of the
Jews,
to whom it was committed; and their fidelity to the truth
has
been avouched by the Lord and his apostles. Is not this re-
velation?
The integrity of the Canon of the New Testament is
equally
a point of revelation. As God had said to the Jews, ‘Ye
are
my witnesses,' and as they ‘received the lively oracles to
give
unto us,' Acts vii. 38, so the Lord Jesus said to the apostles,
'Ye
shall be witnesses unto me, both in
and
in
first
churches received the New Testament Scriptures from these
witnesses
of the Lord, and thus had inspired authority for those
books.
It was not left to erudition or reasoning to collect that
they
were a revelation from God. This the first Christians knew
from
the testimony of those who wrote them. They could not be
more
assured that the things taught were from God, than they
were
that the writings which contained them were from God.
The
integrity of the sacred Canon is, then, a matter of revela-
tion,
conveyed to us by testimony, like everything contained in
the
Scriptures.
"While it has been denied that
the question of the Canon is a
point
of revelation, it has been asserted that it is a point of eru-
dition.
But erudition has nothing farther to do with the question,
than
as it may be employed in conveying to us the testimony.
Erudition
did not produce the revelation of the Canon. If the
Canon
had not been a point of revelation, erudition could never
have
made it so—for erudition can create nothing; it can only in-
vestigate
and confirm truth, and testify to that which exists, or
detect
error. We receive the Canon of Scripture by revelation,
in
the same way that the Jews received the Law which was given
from
the
giving of the Law, but to all future generations of that people
it
was equally a matter of revelation. The knowledge of this
was
conveyed to them by testimony. In the same way Christians,
in
their successive generations, received the Scripture as a mat-
ter
of revelation. The testimony through which this is received,
must,
indeed, be translated from a foreign language; but so must
the
account brought to us of any occurrence, the most trivial,
that
takes place in a foreign country. If in this sense the ques-
tion
of the Canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself
must
he called a point of erudition; for it, too, must be translated
from
the original language in which it was announced, as also
356 APPENDIX.
must
everything which the Scriptures contain. When a preacher
inculcates
the belief of the gospel, or of a doctrine of Scripture,
or
obedience to any duty, would he be warranted in telling his
audience
that these are questions of erudition, not of divine reve-
lation?
Erudition may be allowed its full value, without sus-
pending
on it the authority of the word of God.
The assertion that the question of
the Canon is a point of eru-
dition,
not of divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of reve-
lation.
We have no way of knowing that the miracles related in
the
Scriptures were wrought, and that the doctrines inculcated
were
taught, but by testimony and the internal evidence of the
books
themselves. We have the evidence of miracles, as that
evidence
comes to us by the testimony which vouches the authen-
ticity
of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and au-
thenticity
of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is every-
thing
contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always
be
remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to ques-
tion
the claim of a book to a place in the Canon, and at the same
time
to acknowledge its contents to be a revelation from God.
There
can be no evidence that the doctrines of Scripture are re-
vealed
truths, unless we are certain that the books of Scripture
are
revelation. If the books which compose the Canon are not
matter
of revelation, then we have no revelation. If the truth
of
the Canon be not established to us as matter of revelation,
then
the books of which it is composed are not so established;
and
if the books be not so, then not one sentence of them, nor
one
doctrine or precept, which they contain, comes established
to
us as a revelation from God. If, then, the question of the
Canon
be a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, so is every
doctrine
which the Scriptures contain; for the doctrine cannot
be
assured revelation, if the book that contains it be not assured
revelation.
There can be no higher evidence of the doctrine
being
revelation, than of the book that contains it: and thus were
not
the Canon a matter of divine revelation, the whole Bible
would
be, stripped of divine authority. Anything, therefore, that
goes
to unsettle the Canon, goes to unsettle every doctrine con-
tained
in the Canon.
"Without a particular
revelation to every individual, it does
not
appear that the authority of the Canon could be ascertained
to
us in any other way than it is at present. The whole of the
Scriptures
was given at first by revelation, and afterwards this
revelation
was confirmed by ordinary means. The testimony
concerning
it has been handed down to the churches from one
generation
to another. On this, and on their own internal char-
acteristics
of being divine, we receive the Scriptures with the
most
unsuspecting confidence, and on the same ground the Jews
received
the Scriptures of the Old Testament. In these ways it
is
fixed by divine authority, and not left in any uncertainty; for,
if
its truth can be ascertained by ordinary means, it is fixed by
the
authority of God, as much as if an angel from heaven were
every
day to proclaim it over the earth. When Paul says, that
his
handwriting of the salutation was the token in every epistle,
he
at once shows us the importance of the Canon, and warrants
us
in receiving it as a divine revelation attested by ordinary
means.
Those to whom he wrote had no other way of knowing
APPENDIX. 357
the
handwriting of the apostle, than that by which they knew any
other
handwriting. Even at that time the churches knew the
genuineness
of the epistles sent to them by ordinary means; and
Paul's
authority warrants this as sufficient. We have, then, the
authority
of revelation for resting the Canon on the ordinary
sources
of human evidence, and they are such as to preclude the
possibility
of deception. The claim of the epistles sent to the
first
churches, and of the doctrine they contain as divine, rested
even
to those churches on the same kind of evidence on which
we
now receive them. It is very important to settle what kind
of
evidence is sufficient for our receiving the Scriptures. Many
have
rated this too high; and as the Scriptures contain a revela-
tion,
they wished to have them attested to every age by revela-
tion,
which is, in fact, requiring the continuance of miraculous
interference,
which it might easily be shown would be perni-
cious."—Pp.
147-150.
"If it should be asked, Should
we be precluded from inquiring
into
the grounds on which the Canon is received? it is replied,
Certainly
not. But we should remember that the permanent
ground
on which it stands is testimony; and such must be the
ground
of every historical fact. Internal evidence may confirm
the
authenticity of a book sanctioned by the Canon, but to sus-
pend
belief till we receive such confirmation, argues an ignorance
of
the principles of evidence. A book might be inspired, when
no
such internal confirmation, from the nature of the subject,
might
be found. And when a book is substantially approved, by
testimony,
as belonging to the Canon, no evidence can, by a
Christian,
be legitimately supposed possible, in opposition to its
inspiration.
This would be to suppose valid objections to first
principles.
Sufficient testimony deserves the same rank as a first
principle
with axioms themselves. Axioms are not more neces-
sary
than testimony, to all the business of human life. Internal
evidence
may be sufficient to prove that a book is not divine; but
it
is absurd to suppose that such a book can have valid testimony,
and
therefore it can never be supposed by a Christian, that any
of
those books that are received as part of the sacred Canon, on
the
authority of sufficient testimony, can contain any internal
marks
of imposture. This would be to suppose the possibility of
the
clashing of two first principles. The thing that can be proved
by
a legitimate first principle, can never be disproved by another
legitimate
first principle. This would be to suppose that God is
not
the author of the human constitution. If, then, in a book re-
cognized
by the Canon, as the Song of Solomon, we find matter
which
to our wisdom does not appear to be worthy of inspiration,
we
may be assured that we mistake. For if that book is authen-
ticated
by testimony as a part of the sacred Scriptures, which
the
Lord Jesus Christ sanctioned, it is authenticated by a first
principle,
to which God has bound us, by the constitution of our
nature,
to submit. If, in this instance, or in any particular in-
stance,
we reject it, our own conduct in other things will be our
condemnation.
There is no first principle in the constitution of
man
that can entitle him to reject anything in the Song of Solo-
mon,
coming, as it does, under the sanction of a first principle.
Those
persons who reject any book of the Canon on such grounds,
358 APPENDIX.
would
show themselves much more rational, as well as more
humble
Christians, if, recognizing the paramount authority of a
first
principle universally acknowledged, they would view the
Song
of Solomon and the book of Esther, as any other part of the
word
of God, and humbly endeavour to gain from them the in-
struction
and edification which, as divine books, they must be
calculated
to give. This questioning of the Canon, then, pro-
ceeds
on infidel and irrational principles, which, if carried to their
legitimate
length, must end in complete unbelief."—Pp. 153, 4.
"It is a wonderful circumstance
in the providence of God, that
while
the two parts of Scripture were delivered to two classes,
with
the fullest attestation of their divine original, both the one
and
the other have been faithful in preserving the precious trust
respectively
committed to them, while they have both been rebel-
lious
in regard to that part of which they were not originally ap-
pointed
the depositaries. The Jews always held the books of the
Old
Testament in the highest veneration, and continued to pre-
serve
them, without addition or diminution, until the coming of
Him
concerning whom they testify, and they have kept them en-
tire
to this day; yet they have altogether rejected the New Tes-
tament
Scriptures. And while Christians have all agreed in pre-
serving
the Scriptures of the New Testament entire and uncor-
rupted,
they have wickedly adulterated those of the Old by a
spurious
addition, or have retrenched certain portions of them.
Of
the divine original of the sacred Scriptures, as we now possess
them,
we have evidence the most abundant and diversified. It is
the
distinguishing characteristic of the gospel, that it is preached
to
the poor, and God has so ordered it, that the authenticity of
that
word by which all are to he judged, should not be presented
to
them as a matter of doubtful disputation.
"Were there no other evidence
of the truth of divine revela-
tion
than the existence of the holy Scriptures, that alone would
be
conclusive. The Bible is not a book compiled by a single au-
thor,
nor by many authors acting in confederacy in the same age,
in
which case it would not be so wonderful to find a just and close
connection
in its several parts. It is the work of between thirty
and
forty writers, in very different conditions of life, from the
throne
and sceptre down to the lowest degree, and in very dis-
tant
ages, during which the world must have put on an entirely
new
appearance, and men must have had different interests to
pursue.
This would have led a spirit of imposture to vary its
schemes,
and to adapt them to different stations in the world,
and
to different fashions and changes in every age. David wrote
about
four hundred years after Moses, and Isaiah about two
hundred
and fifty years after David, and John about eight hun-
dred
years after Isaiah. Yet these authors, with all the other
prophets
and apostles, wrote in perfect harmony—confirming the
authority
of their predecessors, labouring to enforce their in-
structions,
and denouncing the severest judgments on all who
continued
disobedient. Such entire agreement in propounding
religious
truths and principles, different from any before or since
promulgated,
except by those who have learned from them, estab-
lishes
the divine mission of the writers of the Bible beyond dispute,
proving
that they all derived their wisdom from God, and spake as
APPENDIX. 359
they
were moved by the Holy Ghost. In all the works of God there
is
an analogy characteristic of his divine hand; and the variety
and
harmony that shine so conspicuously in the heavens and the
earth,
are not farther removed front the suspicion of imposture
than
the unity that, in the midst of boundless variety, reigns in
that
book which reveals the plan of redemption. To
forge the
Bible is as
impossible us to forge a world."--Pp. 156, 7.
THE END.
Please
notify me, Ted Hildebrandt, of any errors:
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium