THE
CANON
OF THE
OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS
ASCERTAINED,
OR
THE BIBLE COMPLETE
WITHOUT THE
APOCRYPHA AND UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.
A NEW EDITION,
i3ttsizt  for tlbt Brtftoviasn Boarb   of pubTifatiotr.
BY ARCHIBALD ALEXANDER, D. D.
Professor in the Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey.
PHILADELPHIA:
PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION,
No. 265 CHESTNUT STREET.




Entered, according to the Act of Congress, in the year 1851,
BY A. W. MITCHELL L. M.D.
In the office of the Clerk of the District Court for thea
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
Stereotyped by S L O T E & Mo o N, Y, Philadelphia.
Printed by W M. S. M A RTIE N.




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 EzraThe Canon of the Old Testament as it now exists, sanctioned 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 distinguishing between canonical and apocryphal books-Six books of
the latter class pronounced canonical by the Council of
Trent-Not in the Hebrew, nor received by the Jews,
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
(3)




4                     CONTENTS.
PAGH
SECTION III.
Order of the books of the New Testament-Time of the gospels being written-Notice of the Evangelists,  - -  -  144
SECTION IV.
Testimonies to Matthew's gospel-Time of publication-Language 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 authority undisputed by the Fathers - Rejected only by
heretics, -------— 200
SECTION X.
Testimonies to the canonical authority of the fourteen epistles 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 referred 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 Edessa, to Jesus, and his answer-Epistle to the
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 unwritten 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 docuIments 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 London edition of this work by the Rev. Doctor
Morison, some complaint was made of the want of references 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.
1*                                   (v)




vi                   PREFACE.
The author has freely availed himself of all the information within his reach; but the authors to whom he is especially 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 Thesaurus Philologicus of Hottinger, and Prideaux's Connection.
Dr. Wordsworth's work on the Canon of the Old and New
Testaments, and Routh's Religuice have also been consulted.
Several valuable works on the Canon have been published
in Great Britain, and also in this country, since the first
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 whict
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. Home 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.
Princeton, N. J, J an. 1, 1851.




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 volumes instead of one, their authority would not, on
this account, have been less, nor their usefulness diminished. 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 revelation, 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 render 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 mistake, 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 inspiration 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 practical, and concerns the conscience of every man capable 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 immediately 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 Vulgate 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 consequence, 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 derived 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 necessity 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 Christians, 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 Christians, 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 prejudice, not true faith. They who receive the most important 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, however, 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 theology, 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 attention of all men, are: first, whether the Bible and all
that it contains is from God: secondly, what are
2




14            INTOD U CTION.
those truths which the Bible was intended to teach us.
These two grand inquiries are sufficient to give occupation 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 capacity, 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 interpretation 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 estimation 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 doctrines of men will disappear; and the dogmas of the
schools and the alliance with philosophy being renounced, 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 revealed 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 divine truth, churches of the living God.
In those future days of the prosperity of Zion, the
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 labours which they now undertake to gratify an avaricious, 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 promoting Christian knowledge at home; yea, the common 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             IN TR OD U CTION.
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 gratification; 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 admiring eyes of believers, as will fully justify the foregoing anticipations.
But I have wandered wide of my subject-I will
now recall the attention of the reader to the consideration of the exceeding great importance of ascertaining the true Canon of Holy Scripture. This investigation may, indeed, appear dry 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.
IRENBaUS, speaking of the Scriptures, calls them "the
Canon of truth." CLEMENT of Alexandria, referring
to a quotation of the gospel according to the Egyptians, says, "But they follow anything, rather than
the true canonical gospels."t
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 KavCv literally signifies a reed, by which the dimensions of anything were measured; and hence it came figuratively 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.
f Strom. Lib. iii. p. 453.
2*                              (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.t
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 canonical 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."T
* Expositio in Symbolum Apostolorum, p. 26.
After giving a catalogue both of the books of the Old and New
Testaments, he says, " Hec sunt quae patres inter Canonem concluserunt."
t Prolog. Gal. in multis locis.
t De Doctrina Christiana, vol. iii. Lib. ii. pt. 1, p. 47. Ed.
Paris. Epist. ad Hieron, 19. Jld Paulinum, 112.




EARLY USE OF THE WORD CANON.           19
CIIRYSOSTOM says, "They fall into great absurdities, who will not follow the Canon of the divine Scripture, 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 according 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."t
PHILASTRIUS speaks of the distinction of Canonical
and Apocryphal as well known in his time.t
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. l
The division of the sacred books which is most ancient and universal, is, into the Old Testament, and
the New Testament. The apostle Paul himself lays
* Eus. Hist. Lib. VI. c. 25. + Haeres. 61. t De Haeresibus, 40.
l1 It cannot be denied, however, that the word Canon is not
always used by the Fathers in the same definite sense. Sometimes, 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 THE 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 APOSTLESCATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS BY SOME OF THE EARLY FATHERS-AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS ON THIS
SUBJECT.
The five books of Moses were, when finished, carefully 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 covenant 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. IDeut. xvii. 18-20,
"And it shall be when he sitteth upon the throne of




22            OLD TESTAMENT CANOT.
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 Israel." It is related by Josephus, that by
the direction of Moses, a copy of the law was prepared
for each of the tribes of Israel.
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 ordinances, 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 circulation. But on this subject we have no precise information. We know not with what degree of care the sacred books were guarded, or to what extent copies
were multiplied.




OLD TESTAMENT CANON.            23
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 ignorant 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 Jerusalem and
of the temple by Nebuchadnezzar, this precious volume 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 received by the Christian Fathers, that, on this occasion, 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 Jerusalem. And in the eighth chapter of Nehemiah, it is
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 evident, 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 prophets 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 assisted in this great work, by many learned and pious
men, who were cotemporary with him; and as prophets had always been the superintendents, as well as
writers of the sacred volume, it is likely that the inspired 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




CANON BY EZRA.               25
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 consideration 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 concerns of the Jews; for the import of that name is, a
messenger, or one sent.
But this is not all-in the book of Nehemiah,* mention is made of the high priest Jaddua, and of Darius
Codomannus, king of Persia, both of whom lived at
least a hundred years after the time of Ezra. In the
third chapter of the first book of Chronicles, the genealogy 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.
8




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 belonging to the Canon of the Old Testament, were collected and inserted in the sacred volume by Ezra himself. And this opinion seems to be the safest, and is
not incredible in itself. It accords also with the uniform 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 question 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, however, that the sacred books were at this time distributed 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 nullos 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 traditions to the Scriptures, but he never drops a hint that
they had been unfaithful or careless in the preservation of the sacred books. This argument for the integrity of the books of the Old Testament was used
by Origen, as we are informed by Jerome, who says:
" Si aliquis dixerit Hebreeos libros, a Judaeis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem: Quod nunquam    Dominus
et Apostoli, qui cetera crimina in Scribis, de hoc
crimine quod 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 broken." John x. 35. " Search the Scriptures," John
v. 39, said he, " for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me." The
errors of the Sadducees are attributed to an ignorance of the Scriptures: and they are never mentioned but with the highest respect, and as the unerring 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 Scriptures with equal confidence and respect: "And receive 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 Scripture which existed in the time of Christ and his apostles 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 information which we want; not, indeed, as explicitly as we
could wish, but sufficiently so to lead us to a very satisfactory 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,'4 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 Persia, the
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 universally 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, Jerem`iiah with Lamentationrs, Ezekiel, Daniel, the twelve minor Prophets, Job, Ezra, Esther, and Chronicles.  The four
remaining books will be, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, which make the whole
number twenty-two. The Canon then existing is 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
3*




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 Lamentations 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 considered in every ancient catalogue, and in all quotations 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 accurate 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, 9s he was born about the time of Paul's conversion o Christianity, and was therefore grown up
to man'u 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
testimon.y 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 believed 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. MELITO, bishop of Sardis, travelled into Judea, for the
very purpose of satisfying himself, on this point. And
although his own writings are lost, Eusebius has preserved his catalogue of the books of the Old Testament; 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 omission of Esther and Nehemiah. As to the latter, it
creates no difficulty, for Ezra and Nehemiah are commonly 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 Scripture: and the number of the books of the Old Testatament, given by him in this very place, cannot be




32     CATALOGUES BY THE EARLY FATHERS.
completed without reckoning the twelve Minor Prophets 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. Catalogues of the books of the Old Testament have been
given by ATHANASIUS; by CYRIL; by AUGUSTINE;
by JEROME; by RUFIN; by THE COUNCIL OF LAODICEA, in their LX. Canon; and by the THE COUNCIL OF
CARTHAGE. And when it is considered, that all these
catalogues exactly correspond with our present Canon
of the. Hebrew Bible, the evidence, I think, must appear complete to every impartial mind, that the Canon
of the Old Testament is settled upon the clearest historical 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 conclusive evidence that no alteration in the Canon has occurred 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 harmonious. There is no complaint of addition to, or




AGREEMENT OF JEWS AND CHRISTIANS.      3,
diminution of, the sacred books on either side. Thf
Hebrew Bible of the Jew is the Bible of the Christian
There is here no difference. A learned Jew and t,
Christian have even been united in publishing an excellent 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 th2 Old Testament was closed, a translation
was made of the whole of the books into the Greek
language. This translation was made at Alexandria,
in Egypt, at the request, it is said, of Ptolemy Philadelphus, king of Egypt, that he might have a copy 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 seventytwo men; six from each of the tribes of Israel.  So
many fabulous things have been reported concerning
this version, that it is very difficult to ascertain the precise 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 rendered 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 probability 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 testimony 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 Pentateuch has, without doubt, been transmitted through a
separate channel ever since the ten tribes of Israel
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
Israel. At first, they were all idolaters; but being
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 Palestine,
obtained several copies. And they have also a translation of the whvle into the Samaritan language.
The Pentateuch, though Hebrew, is written in Samaritan characters, which many learned men think was
the original Hebrew character.




36              THE APOCRYPHA.
SECTION      IIL
APOCRYPHAL BOOKS, THEIR ORIGIN-IMPORTANCE OF DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN CANONICAL AND APOCRYPHAL
BOOKS-SIX BOOKS OF THIS CLASS PRONOUNCED CANONICAL BY THE COUNCIL OF TRENT-NOT IN THE
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
Sardis.
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 assumes a higher importance from the fact, that Christians are much divided on this point; for, some receive as of canonical authority, books which others
reject as spurious, or consider merely as human compositions. 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 is determined what books are to be received as Scripture.
This subject gave rise to a very unpleasant controversy between the British and Foreign Bible Society
and some of the leading ministers of Scotland. The
principle adopted at the beginning by the Bible Society 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 efficient 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 London, 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 deliberation, brought in a report which was adopted, and led
to the following wise resolution in the General Committee, viz. " That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the canonical
books of Scripture to the exclusion of those books
4




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 issued 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 volume 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 apocrypha, 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 correctness on the supposition that the books of the apocrypha are not canonical; for, whatever may be said
about circulating a part of the Bible, it was undoubtedly 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 TRENT.      39
books have any claim whatever to a place in the sacred 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 infallible 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 Trent, in their fourth session, gave
a catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, among
which are included Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, IEeclesiasticus, 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 Lamentations.
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 Testament, under the title of Apocrypha. It is certainly to
be regretted that these books are permitted to be included 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 canonical books; especially as no notice is given to the
people, that what is read from these books is apocryphal; 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 sanctioned 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.




NOT IN THE HEBREW.             41
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 retaining 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 lessons 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 rendered probable, indeed, that some of them were written
originally in the Chaldaic. Jerome testifies this to be
the fact, in regard to 1 Mliaccabees and Ecclesiasticus;
" See Tables prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer; also,
the Sixth Article of Religion of the Episcopal Church.
4*




42           REJECTED BY THE JEWS.
and he says, that he translated the book of iTobit 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 certain, however, that none of these books were composed
in the pure Hebrew of the Old Testament.
HIottinger, 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 ]lalachi was the last of the
Old Testament prophets. Books written by uncertain
authors afterwards, have no claim to be reckoned canonical, 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 people. 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 Testament in his writings, never makes the least mention of
them; nor are they recognized in the Talmud as canonical. 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. Christians) have added to their Bible."  "Their wise men,"
says Buxtorf, "pronounced this book to be apocryphal."
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 apocryphal 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 pretend that this book was added to the Canon not long
before the time of Josephus?
"BARUCH," says one of their learned men, " is received 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 Christians 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 CIRIST.           45
the world, so that it was impossible to produce a universal 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 authority 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 Rom.
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 passages 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
TRENT, RESPECTING THE APOCRYPHA.
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 Testament which we have, after the times of the apostles,
from any Christian writer, is that of MELITO, bishop
of Sardis, before the end of the second century, which
is preserved by Eusebius. The fragment is as follows:
" MELITO to his brother ONESIMUS, greeting. Since
you have often earnestly requested of me, in consequence 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 accurate knowledge of our ancient books, as it respects
their number and order, I have used diligence to accomplish 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 Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings,
two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, or Wisdom,* Ecclesiastes, the Song
of Songs, Job, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Twelve [prophets] in
one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra."t
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.t
ATHANASIUS, in    his Synopsis, says, "All the
Scriptures of us Christians are divinely inspired;
neither are they indefinite in their number, but determined, 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 generally 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 7rapoLta /q aooia Salomonis Proverbia, quce 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."
t Euseb. Hist. Ecc. Lib. v. c. 24.
t Origen's catalogue of the books of the Old Testament is
presented by Eusebius, in his Ecc. Hist. Lib. vi. c. 25.




48          THE APOCRYPIA DISOWNED
Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles,
Job, the twelve prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
Daniel."*
HILARY, who was contemporary with Athanasius,
and resided in France, has numbered the canonical
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 ancestors, and handed down by tradition from them."t
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 Jewish 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.
t 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-andtwenty, according to the number of the Hebrew alphabet, 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 proposed 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 catalogue of the books of the Old Testament, exactly corresponding with that which Protestants receive:
" Which," says he, "we believe agreeably to the tradition 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,
5




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 seventytwo interpreters."  And in another place, " Meditate,
as was said, in the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, 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 apocryphal Baruch never existed in the Hebrew, and is never
mentioned separately by any ancient author, as Bellarmine 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 catalogue was given, answering to the Canon which we
now receive.
ORIGEN barely mentions the Maccabees. ATHANASIUS takes no notice of these books. EuSEBIUs, in
his Chronicon, speaks of the History of the Maccabees, and adds, "These books are not received as divine 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 Catholic church but the law, prophets, evangelists," &c.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 received." 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 Scriptures, he mentions the books which he had translated
out of Hebrew into Latin; "All besides them," says
he, "must be placed among the apocryphal. Therefore, 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 composed 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 Judith, 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 Divine Scriptures." And in his preface to Judith,
he says, " Among the Hebrews, Judith is placed among
the Hagiographa, which are not of authority to determine 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 Wis



BY THE CHRISTIAN FATHERS.         58
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 Doctrine, he gives a list of the books of the Old Testament, 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 resemblance 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 Latin 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 expresses this opinion most explicitly-" In that whole
* See Note B.
5*




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 prophets 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 predicted, 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 witnesses."  And frequently in his works, he confines the
canonical books to those properly included in this threefold division.  He also repeatedly declares that the
canonical Scriptures, which are of most eminent authority, are the books committed to the Jews. But in the
eighteenth book of the City of God, speaking 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 Ecclesiasticus, 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 Ecclesiasticus, he says when speaking of Samuel's prophesying
after his death,' But if this book is objected to because 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 Maccabees 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 extremely 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 canonical, yet there is strong evidence that this was not the
opinion of the universal church; for in the council
of Chalcedon, which is reckoned to be oecumenical, the
Canons of the council of Laodicea which contain a
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 judicious 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 Antioch, in a work on the
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 canonical 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 Seville, divides the canonical
books of the Old Testament into three orders, the
Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa; and afterwards 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 received 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-andtwenty 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 Maccabees 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, expressly 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 Paris, gives a catalogue of the books of the
Old Testament, which includes no others but the twoand-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 century, 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, enumerates the books of the Old Testament, thus-Five books
of Moses, eight of the prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa, 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 apocrypha."  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 Ecclesiasticus, 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 ignorance who hold all the books, put into the one volume
of Scripture, in equal veneration. The difference between 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 decree 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 universally 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 apocryphal,-dubious,-not canonical,-not received by the
church for proving any matters of faith, but for information of manners."
THOMAS AQUINAS also, the most famous of the schoolmen, 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 authority.
In the fourteenth century no man acquired so extensive 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 canonical 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 Oxford, accounted 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, sometimes 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
Burgos, wrote notes on the Bible, in which he retains
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
6




62        TESTIMONY OF LEARNED MEN,
of Florence, from the Acts of which they produce a
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 impostor who omitted something else to make room for it,
and thus preserved the number of Canons unchanged,
while the substance of them was altered.
ALPHONSO TOSTATUS, bishop of Avila, who, on
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 disobedience 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 PICUS, 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 Paris,
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 Ecclesiasticus as to show that he did not esteem them canonical; 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 respecting 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 controversy 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 Rome. In his commentaries on the Bible, he gives
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 canonical 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 otherwise might say that we had framed a new Canon for
ourselves."  For this reason he would write no commentaries on these apocryphal books; "for," says he,' Judith, Tobit, Maccabees, Wisdom, and the additions
to Esther are all excluded from the Canon as insufficient 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 decreeing, 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 inspiration. 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 controversy, 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 apocryphal 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 century? To suppose that a Pope or a Council can make
what books they please canonical, is too absurd to deserve a moment's consideration. If, upon this principle, they could render Tobit and Judith canonical,
upon the same they might introduce Herodotus, Livy,
or even the Koran itself.
6*




66 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA.
SECTION      V.
INTERNAL EVIDENCE THAT THESE BOOKS ARE NOT CANONICAL-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 manifest 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 inconsistent 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 APOCRYPIIA. 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 premeditated 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 Jerusalem, is spoken of with high commendation,
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
Tigris, and they lodged there; and when the young
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 Jerusalem, in the ears of the
king, and all the people dwelling in Babylon, who
upon hearing it, collected money and sent it to Jerusalem, to the priests.t  Now Baruch, who is here
alleged to have read this book in Babylon, is said, in the
canonical Scriptures, to have been carried captive into
Egypt, with Jeremiah, after the murder of Gedaliah.
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 Babylon.
The money that was sent from Babylon was to enable
the priests to offer sacrifices to the Lord, but the temple was in ruins, and there was no altar.1
In the chapters added to the book of Esther, we
read, that "Mardocheus, in the second year of Artaxerxes the Great, was a great man, being a servitor
* Tobit c. vi.                   f Baruch i. 1-6.
f 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 Jerusalem, with Jeconias, king of Judea."  Now,
between these two periods, there intervened one hundred 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 hundred 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 conspiracy against the king's life before the repudiation
of Vashti 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 reward. And a different reason is assigned, in the two
books, for iHaman's hatred of Mordecai.   In the
canonical, it is his neglect of showing respect to this
proud courtier; in the apocryphal, it is the punishment of the two eunuchs, who had formed the conspiracy.
And finally, Haman, in this spurious work, is called




70 INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA.
a IMacedonian; and it is said, that he meditated the
design of transferring the Persian kingdom to the
Macedonians. But this is utterly incredible.  The
kingdom of Macedon must have been, at that time,
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 character 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 Persia. But the name of the high
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 temple of Solomon,
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 temple of Solomon was still




INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. (1
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 Canaan, who this people
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 Persia should be
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 Israel any more afraid, in the days 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 history 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 church of God; that the assault of
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 deliverance 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 Judea, and Judas, and the council, sent greeting
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 Persia, the priests that were
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, Nehemias, being sent from the king, of Persia, did send 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 Persia but
to Babylon, and the rest of the story has no foundation, 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 mount Pisgah, and hiding them in a
hollow cave, and closing them up. This place Jeremiah declared should be unknown, "until the time




INTERNAL EVIDENCE AGAINST THE APOCRYPHA. 73
that God gathered his people again together, and received them into mercy; when the cloud as it appeared 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 Persia, in the hundred and forty-ninth
year; but, in the second book, it is related, that after
entering Persepolis, with a view of overthrowing the
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 inspiration.
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 in7




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 Artaxerxes, 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 Malachi 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 Compiler 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 evidence, 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 contains 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 Judoeus; 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 writing 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 canonical 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 productions 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 desirous 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 Egypt when Euergetes was king, and
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 interpret 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 professes to have reduced a work of Jason of Cyrene, consisting 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 inspiration in the case, it must be attributed to Jason of
Cyrene, the original writer of the history;-but his
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 inspiration, 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 arguments 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 latitude, 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 signifies 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 concerning 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 having 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 Carthage,
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 authorities from them, in confirmation of the doctrines established by them. And as to the third council of Carthage,
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 afterwards; in which time, three other popes occupied the
See of Rome; so that this Canon could not have been
formed by the third council of Carthage. And in
some copies it is inserted, as the fourteenth of the
seventh council of Carthage. However this may be,
we may be confident, that no council of the fourth century had any authority to add to the Canon of Scripture, 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 doctrine of the Romish church, in regard to these apocryphal books, rests.  This is, indeed, a part of the
Pope's supremacy, Some of their best writers, however, 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 argument 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 versions, which were made by heretics. These versions,
particularly that of Tlheodotion, came to be used promiscuously 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 Scriptures, as we have already seen.  That they were
read in the churches, is also true; but not as Scripture; not for the confirmation of doctrine, but for
the edification of the common people.
Some of the Fathers, it is true, cited them as authority, 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 human compositions.  And some of them even disapproved 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 recorded 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 interspersed 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 Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, and above all Ecclesiasticus.
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, eminent for their wisdom and piety. And it is also a




BY INSPIRED MEN.              88
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 Trent, canonizing the apocrypha. If we
have been successful in proving that these books are
not canonical, the infallibility of both popes and councils is overthrown; for if they erred in one instance,
it proves that the doctrine is false. One great inconvenience 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 is
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 infallibility. In regard to the Apocrypha, it is immaterial, 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 Trent is considered to be an
oecumenical council regularly constituted; and all
its acts were sanctioned by the popes. Their error
in pronouncing the apocrypha canonical, is decisive as
to the infallibility of the church.




84     NO CANONICAL BOOK HAS 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 saying, " That many of the writings of the prophets had
perished, which may readily be proved from the history 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 Lebanon, even unto the
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,
nave 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 Israel, and over all




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 Israel the use of the bow: behold it is
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 account 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 written 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 nothing 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
8




86             NO CANONICAL BOOK
the Greek poets, it does not follow that we must receive 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 Scriptures, 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 remembered, 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 hypothesis, 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 God, has distinguished
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 composed 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 inspiration, 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 religion; 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 mentioned, 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. Therefore 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 existed, 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 support 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 universal church: which Canon received the approbation
of the apostles, especially of John, who so long presided over the churches in Asia."*
The evangelical WITSIUS, of an age somewhat
later, delivers his opinion on this point, in the following 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 instruction 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 account 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.
8*




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 pertaining to salvation." *
Although I have cited this passage from this excellent and orthodox theologian, in favour of the sentiment 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 composed 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 memorial 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 hypothetical, 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 prophets 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, ~c.
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 examination 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 preserve 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 preserved unmutilated, through hundreds and thousands
of years; and during vicissitudes so great; and especially when powerful tyrants were so desirous of annihilating the religion of the Jews, and used their utmost
exertions to destroy their sacred books.
Another consideration of great weight is, the religious, and even scrupulous care, with which the Jews,
as far as we can trace the history of the Sacred Scriptures, 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 sufficient 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 unfaithfulness in this trust.  The Scriptures are declared 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 THE JEWS
SECTION VI.
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 concord relates only to the written law; for they obstinately 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 communicated 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 Aaron, and repeated 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 received the same instruction as Aaron and his sons.




WITHOUT FOUNDATION.            95
And finally, the same compmunication 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 MAIMONIDES, 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 Egypt, called all the people, and
telling them that his end drew near, requested that if
any of them had forgotten aught of what he had delivered to them, they should repair to him, and he
would repeat to them anew what they might have forgotten. 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 explaining 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 Judah son
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 presented 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
Simeon, JUDAH HIAKKADOSH, by whom it was committed to writing.
But, although, the above list brings down an unbroken succession, from Moses to Judah the Holy,
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 committed 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; therefore it was resolved to preserve it by committing it to
writing. Judah the Holy, who lived about the middle
of the second century, undertook this work, and digested 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 lMishna
of the Jews. When finished, it was received by the
nation with the highest respect and confidence; and
their doctors began, forthwith, to compose commentaries on every part of it, These comments are called
the Geemara, or the Complletion; and the  lishna
and remara, together, form the Talmud. But as this
work of commenting on the text of the Mishna was
pursued, not only in Judea, but in Babylonia, where a
large number of Jews resided, hence it came to pass,
that two Talmuds were formed; the one called the
Jerusalem  Talmud, the other, the Babylonish Talmud. In both these, the Mishna, committed to writing
by Judah, is the text; but the commentaries are widely
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 Jerusalem has been
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 foundation of the written; nor can the written law be ex9




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 occupies 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 Mount Sinai."  In
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, therefore, to show that this whole fabric rests on a sandy
foundation; and to demonstrate that there is no evidence 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 controversy with the Jews concerning the written law,
Moral, Ceremonial, or Political; nor do we deny that
Moses received from  God, on Mount Sinai, some
explication of the written law. But what we maintain is, that this exposition did not form a second distinct 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 confirmation 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 evidence 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 forgotten? 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 KirjathSepher, 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 JKirjath-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
Babylon? Have we not a word to inform us of the
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
9 *




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 transgressed 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 Israel." Exod.
xxxiv. 27, 28. And it is worthy of particular observation, 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.            108
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 Israel. And Moses commanded them
saying, At the end of every seven years, in the
solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all Israel is come to appear before the
Lord thy God, in the place which he shall choose,
thou shalt read it before all Israel in their hearing."
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 Israel, and
against Judah, by all the prophets, and by all the
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 instructing 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 Scriptures, "And they taught in Judah, and had the book
of the law of the Lord with them, and went about
through all the cities of Judah, and taught the people." 2 Chron. xvii. 9.
So also Ezra, when he instructed the people who
had returned from Babylon, made use of no other than
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 understand: 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 understand 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 perfect, 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 originally 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 obedience 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 commands 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 Essenes. The Karaites, also, received the written word,
and rejected all traditions; although in other respects,
they did not agree with the Sadducees. And in consequence 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 remaining in Poland, Russia, Turkey, and Africa.
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 forbidden'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 performed 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, beautiful 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 habitations;' 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 OF 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 additional 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 difficulty about the name of the month has no existence,
for it can be very well ascertained from the circumstances 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
oe 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.
10




110        ORAL LAW OF THE JEWS, &O.
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 circumstances of divine worship which were left to the discretion 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.
(111)








CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.        113
SECTION I.
METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
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 anything here on that subject, except to say, that this inquiry 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 contemporaries, 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 agreement, as to what books were canonical, it will go far
to satisfy us respecting the true Canon; for it cannot
be supposed, that they could easily be deceived in a
10*




114     METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON
matter of this sort. A general consent of the early
Fathers, and of the primitive church, therefore, furnishes conclusive evidence on this point, and is that
species of evidence which is least liable to fallacy or
abuse. The learned HUET, 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 reasonableness 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 Testament; 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
/Esop'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 authority of the sacred Scriptures is, their internal evidence. Even some churches went so far as to insert
this opinion in their public confessions.*
Now it ought not to be doubted, that the internal
evidence of the Scriptures is exceedingly strong; and
that when the mind of the reader is truly illuminated,
it derives from this source the most unwavering conviction 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 iEcclesiastes, or of Scclesiasticus,
belonged to the Canon of the Old Testament, by internal evidence alone? It is certain, that the influence
of the Holy Spirit is necessary to produce a true faith
in the word of God; but to make this the only criterion by which to judge of the canonical authority of a
book is certainly liable to strong objections.  The
tendency of this doctrine is to enthusiasm, and the
consequence of acting upon it, would be to unsettle,
* See the Confession of the Reformed Gallican Church.




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 received 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 genuine books of the New Testament.
And if the internal evidence were the only criterion
of canonical authority to which we could resort, there
would remain no possibility of convincing any person
of the inspiration of a book, unless he could perceive
in it the internal evidence of a divine origin. In
many cases this species of evidence can scarcely be
said to exist, as 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 circumstance 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 infallibility, or the absence of it, is not apparent from reading the books. Both accounts may appear consistent,
and it is only, or chiefly, by external evidence that we
can know that one of them is inspired. 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 understand?
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 opportunity 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 information from others who were witnesses. It is only in
this way that we know that Iomer, Horace, Virgil,
Livy, and Tully, wrote the books which now go under
their names.
The early Christians pursued this method of determining 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. IRENJEUS, TERTULLIAN,
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 Ecclesiastical 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 sanction 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,
3f 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 retained that separate form in which they were first published. 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 published, 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 possess 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 OF SETTLING THE CANOT
without delay. Considering how difficult it is now,
with all our improvements in the typographical art, to
multiply copies of the Scriptures with sufficient rapidity, 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 DODWELL, that these books lay for a long time locked up
in the coffers of the churches to which they were addressed, 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 example, 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 accounts 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 salutation 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 constantly wrote the salutation himself; so much care
was taken to have these sacred writings well authenticated, on their first publication. And on the same
account it was, that he and the other apostles were so
particular in giving the names, and the characters, of
those who were the bearers of their Epistles. And it
* Rorn. xvi. 22. 1 Cor. xvi. 21. Gal. vi. 11. 2 Thess. iii. 17.
11




122      METHOD OF SETTLING THE CANON
seems, that they were always committed to the care
of men of high estimation in the church; and commonly, more than one appears to have been intrusted
with this important commission.
If it be inquired, what became of the autographs of
these sacred books, and why they were not preserved;
since this would have prevented all uncertainty respecting the true reading, and would have relieved the
Biblical critic from  i large share of labour; it is
sufficient to answer, that nothing different has occurred, in relation to these autographs, from that
which has happened to all other ancient writings. No
man can produce the autograph of any book as old as
the New Testament, unless it has been preserved in
some extraordinary way, as in the case of the manuscripts of Herculaneum; neither could it be supposed,
that in the midst of such vicissitudes, revolutions, and
persecutions, as the Christian church endured, this
object could have been secured by 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 interest, and so novel, before their eyes, that they had
neither time, nor inclination, for the minutiae of criticism. 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 autographs 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 superstitiously 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, indeed, think that Tertullian does not mean to refer to
the autographs, but to authentic copies; but why then
send the inquirer to the churches to which the Epistles
were addressed? 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 addressed, 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 manuscripts 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 Testament.
* 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 estimation; that great pains were taken to distinguish the
genuine productions of these inspired men from all
other books; that they were sought out with uncommon diligence, and read with profound attention and
veneration, not 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 impartially investigated, they also were received with
universal consent; and that other books, however
excellent as human compositions, were never put upon
a level with the canonical books of the New Testament; that spurious writings, under the names of the
apostles, were promptly and decisively rejected, and
that the churches were repeatedly warned against such
apocryphal books.
To do justice to this subject, will require some detail, which may appear dry to the reader, but should
be interesting to every person who wishes to know assuredly, that what he receives as 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 committed 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 authority of these books, we shall first attend to some general 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
11s 




126         CATALOGUES OF THE BOOKS
harmonious. In a few of them, some books now ir
the Canon are omitted, for which omission a satisfactory reason can commonly be assigned. In the first
circulation of the sacred Scriptures, there was great
need of such lists; as the distant churches and common Christians were liable to be imposed on by spurious writings, which seem to have abounded in those
times. It was, therefore, a most important part of
the instruction given to Christians, by their spiritual
guides, to inform them accurately, what books belonged
to the Canon. Great pains were taken, also, to know
the truth on this subject. Pious bishops, for this single
purpose, travelled into Judea, and remained there for
some time, that they might learn, accurately, every circumstance relative to the authenticity of these writings.
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 Judea, in a
situation favourable to accurate information from every
part of the church, where any of these books were
originally published.  O.IGEN 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 certain information of their authors. Most of the original 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.           137
Homilies on the gospel of Matthew; and was repeated
in his Homilies on the gospel of John.
In this catalogue he mentions the four G'ospels, 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, except 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 subsequent period.
In the work entitled, Apostolical Constitutions,
ascribed to CLEMENT of Rome, there is a catalogue
of the books of the New Testament; but as this work
is not genuine, and of an uncertain author and age, I
will not make use of it.
There has been preserved a fragment of a very
ancient writing on the Canon, ascribed to CAIUS the
presbyter, which may be seen in Routh's Reliquice,
an abridgment of which is here given in a literal version from the Latin. What is said by the author concerning the first two evangelists is lost. The fragment
commences by saying, "The third is the gospel according 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 revealed 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 concerning 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 comprehended in a single book. The Epistles of Paul declare 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 Philpipians; the fourth to the Colossians; the
fifth to the -alatians; the sixth to the Thessalonians;
and the seventh to the Romans. But to the Corinthians 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. Moreover, 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 WISDOM, 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 unwilling that this should be read in the church."
From this ancient fragment of the second century,
we have nearly a complete catalogue of the canonical 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 intelligence, 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 diligence 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 enumerates 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 Eusebius. He had spent a great part of his life in searching into the antiquities of the Christian church; and
aer 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 between 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.




OP 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 Testament, 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 hereafter. Athanasius and Cyril were contemporary with
Eusebius; the latter, however, may more properly be
considered as twenty or thirty years later.
5. Then, a little after the middle of the fourth cen.
tury, we have the testimony of all the bishops assembled 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 TIE 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 EPIPHANIUS, bishop of Salamis, in the
island of Cyprus, published his work "on Heresies,"
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 Constantinople, in a Poem, "on the True
and Genuine Scriptures," mentions distinctly all the
books now received, except Revelation.
8. A few years later, we have a list of the books of
the New Testament in a work of PHILASTRIUS, bishop
of Brixia, in Italy, which corresponds in all respects
with those now received; except that he mentions no
more than thirteen of Paul's Epistles. If the omission
was designed, it probably relates to the Epistle to the
Hebrews.
9. At the same time lived JEROME, who translated
the whole Bible into Latin. He furnishes us with a
catalogue answering to our present Canon, in all respects. He does, however, speak doubtfully about the
Epistle to the Hebrews, on account of the uncertainty
of its author. But, in other parts of his writings, he
shows, that he received this book as canonical, as well
as the rest.*
10. The catalogue of RUFIN varies in nothing from
the Canon now received.t
11. AUGUSTINE, in his work on "Christian Doctrine," has inserted the names of the books of the
* Epist. ad Paulinum.  f Expos in Symbol. Apost.




OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.            133
New Testament, which, in all respects, are the same
as ours.
12. The Council of Carthage, at which Augustine
was present, have furnished a catalogue which perfectly agrees with ours. At this council, forty-four
bishops attended.  The list referred to, is found in
their forty-eighth Canon.
13. The unknown author, who goes under the name
of 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 Scripture by all the Fathers, living in parts of the world
the most remote from each other. The truth of this
assertion will fully appear, when we come to speak
particularly of the books which compose the Canon.
Now, how can it be accounted for, that these books,
and these alone, should be cited as authority in Asia,
Africa and Europe? No other reason can be assigned,
than one of these two; either, they knew no other
books which claimed to be canonical; or, if they did,
they did not esteem them of equal authority with those
which they cited. On either of these grounds the
conclusion is the same, that the books quoted as Scripture are alone the canonical books. To apply this
rule to a particular case-"the first Epistle 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
12




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 Testament. 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 promiscuously, the books which we now receive, and others
which are now rejected as apocryphal. But this is not
correct, as has been shown by NYE, RICHARDSON, and
others. The true method of determining this matter,
is by a careful examination of all the passages in the
writings of the Fathers, where other books besides
those now in the Canon have been quoted. Some
progress was made in collecting the passages in the
writings of the Fathers, in which any reference is
made to the apocryphal books, by the learned Jeremiah 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, inr
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 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 Laodicea."
JUSTIN MARTYR explicitly testifies, that this was the
custom in the beginning of the second century. " On
the day," says he, "which is called Sunday, there is
a meeting of all (Christians) who live either in cities,
or country places, and the memoirs 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, " Reading the Scriptures, singing Psalms," &c.t
The same account is given by CYPRIAN,T 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 obtaining a place in the Canon, could not have been
devised. It afforded all the members of the church
an opportunity of knowing what books were acknow* Apol. ii. p. 93.    $ Tertull. De Anima.
t Cyp. Epist. 36, 39.  ~ Hierarch. Eco. c. 3.




136       THE CANONICAL BOOKS ALONE
ledged 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 Corinth, in the second
century, in a letter to the church of Rome, tells them,
" That they read in their assemblies, on the Lord's
day, Clement's Epistle."  And Eusebius declares,
" That in his, and the preceding times, it was almost
universally received, and read 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 THE CHURCHES.           137
Council of Laodicea. It would seem, therefore, at
first view, that the application of this rule would
exclude the book of Revelation from the Canon, and
take in "the Epistle of Clement," and "the Shepherd
of Hermas."  But the rule does not apply to everything which was read in the churches, but to such
books as were read as sacred Scripture. It has appeared 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 canonical 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 Revelation was not directed to be read publicly, shall be
assigned, when we come to treat particularly of the
canonical authority of that book.
A fourth argument to prove that our Canon of the
New Testament is substantially correct, may be derived from the early versions of this sacred book into
other languages.
Although the Greek language was extensively
known through the Roman empire, when the apostles
wrote, yet the Christian church was in a short time
extended into regions, where the common people, at
least, were not acquainted with it, nor with any language except their own vernacular tongue. While
the gift of tongues continued, the difficulty of making
known the Gospel, would in some measure be obviated; but when these miraculous powers ceased, the
12'




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 Syria,
Mesopotamia, and the various parts of Italy, would be
long left without having these precious books translated into a language which all the people could understand? But we are not left to our own reasonings
on this subject. We know, that at a very early period,
there existed Latin versions of the New Testament,
which had been so long in use before the time of
Jerome, as to have become considerably corrupt, on
which account he undertook a new version, which
soon superseded those that were more ancient. Now,
although nothing 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 profoundly examined this subject, was made before the
close of the first century.
The arguments for so early an origin, are not, indeed, 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 numerous 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 Syria was his native
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 Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of Paul
including that to the Hebrews, the First Epistle of
John, the First Epistle of Peter, and the Epistle of
James. Thus far, then, the evidence of the present
Canon is complete; and as to those books omitted in
this version, except Revelation, they are few, and




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 particular reason, consistent with their belief of its canonical 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 asserted, therefore, that the consent of the ancient
church, as to what books belonged to the Canon of the
New Testament, was complete. The sacred volume
was as accurately formed, and as clearly distinguished
from other books, in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries, as it has ever been since.
* On this whole subject consult Jones on the Canon, Michaelis's Introduction, Mill's Prolegornena.




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 residence in Palestine, had a full knowledge of all the
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 Jerusalem, Cesarsea, Carthage and
Hippo in Africa, Constantinople, Cyprus, Alexandria
in Egypt, Italy, and Asia Minor. Thus, it appears,
that the Canon was early agreed upon, and that it
was 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 considered as 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
claim the right to add other books to those handed




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 noway 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 affliction. 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 supplied 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.
O 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 EVANGELISTS.
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 Apostles, 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.
IRENIEUS, 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 Fourteen Epistles of Paul, and the Revelation.  The
ancient and celebrated Alexandrian Manuscript follows 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 Laodicea, is exactly the same as that of Cyril; the
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 Constantinople, 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 Rome,
is: The Four Gospels, Paul's Epistles, the Catholic
Epistles, the Acts, and Revelation,
13




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 following catalogue: The Four Gospels, Fourteen Epistles
of Paul, Seven Catholic Epistles, Two Epistles of Clement, 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. Irenseus, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius, the Council of
Laodicea, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius, the
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 arrangement 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 competent 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 knowledge 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 Irenceus was the disciple 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 a 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 THE 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 Jerusalem, visiting
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 Providence, they, not being allowed to confine
themselves to any one part of the earth, were conducted to remote countries. Peter went to Rome;
the others elsewhere. John took up his abode at
Ephesus, visiting, however, other parts of Asia....
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
Asia having brought these gospels to John, earnestly
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 Rome,
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 Rome before
the reign of Nero; perhaps not until Paul had returned a second time to that city, which must have
been as late as the year A. D. 63 or 64. Now, as
those," says he, "which must be numbered among the spurious
is, The Acts of Paul," " The Pastor," and "' The Revelation of
Peter."
13*




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 contains the predictions of our Lord respecting the destruction of Jerusalem, and there is no hint in any 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, I 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 Rome. Grotius thinks, that
when Paul left Rome Luke went into Greece, and
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 reference to it in this place. But the inference of Lardner
from this fact, that no authentic gospel had been written 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 Judea, and yet
not be known to Luke, whose labours and travels led
him, in company with Paul, to visit the Gentile countries 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 Judea, commonly called Hebrew. The writer of this gospel is
also called Levi, the son of Alpheus. He was a Galilean 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 immediately 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 Judea, seems to have been in
regions of which we possess very little accurate information to this day. But whether he had Parthia and
Persia, or Ethiopia, for the field of his apostolical
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 countries. The historian Socrates, in his distribution of
the apostles among the countries of the globe, assigns
Ethiopia to Matthew, Parthia to Thomas, and India
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 Asia, who having lived there a long
time, died at Ephesus. Peter preached to the dispersed Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia; at length, coming to Rome, he was
there crucified, with his head turned down towards the
earth, at his own request.  Paul also died a martyr at
Rome, as we are informed by Origen, in the third tome
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 Alexandria mentions a circumstance of
* Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 1.




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 character 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 intelligence 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, traditions in Ethiopia and the east, in regard to some of
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 OF PUBLICATION-LANGUAGE IN WHICH IT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPOSED.
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
Alexandria. An Epistle under his name is still extant,
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 Jerusalem,
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, therefore, 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 certainly 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 satisfactory 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 received 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 IHierapolis, who was acquainted
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 mentioning 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.*
IRENiEUS, bishop of Lyons, who was born in Asia,
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, transmitted 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 perfect 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 Rome and
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 published a gospel, while he dwelt at Ephesus, in Asia.
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."t
In another place Irenseus characterizes all the four
* Dialogue with Trypho. i 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 genuineness 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 Eusebius. 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 century. 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 reading 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.
14




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 language, the gospel written by himself; by that supplying the want of his presence with them, whom he
was about to leave."*
In the Synopsis, which has been ascribed to ATHANASIUS, it is said, "' Matthew wrote his gospel in the
Hebrew, and published it at Jerusalem."  CYRIL of
Jerusalem testifies, " That Matthew wrote in Hebrew."
EPIPIIANIUS says the same, and adds, "Matthew wrote
first, and Mark soon after him, being a follower of
Peter at Rome."  GREGORY NAZIANZEN says, " That
Matthew wrote for the Hebrews."   EBEDJESU, the
Syrian, "That Matthew, the first Evangelist, published his gospel in Palestine, written in Hebrew."
JEROME, in his Commentary on Matthew, testifies
that " The first Evangelist is Matthew, the publican,
surnamed Levi, who wrote his gospel in Judea, in the
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. Hist. 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 apostle, first of all wrote a gospel in the Hebrew language,
for the sake of those in Judea who believed. By whom
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 Antioch, lived in the latter
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 Antioch." In another place he says: " Theophilus,
the seventh bishop of Antioch after Peter, who collected into one the words of the four gospels."
It would be unnecessary to adduce any testimonies
from later writers; but as they mention some circumstances probably received by tradition, and not contained 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 believers entreated him to leave with them a written
instruction; with which request he complied."
Another author of this century, who wrote a discourse on Matthew, has left this testimony: " The
occasion of Matthew's writing is said to have been this
-there being a great persecution in Palestine, so that
there was danger lest the faithful should be dispersed;




160     TIME OF WRITING MATTHEW'S GOSPEL.
that they might not be without teaching, they requested 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 Hebrew 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
Mlatthew wrote his gospel. Ireneus refers it to the
period when Paul and Peter were preaching at Rome,
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 WETSTEIN. But TILLEMONT carries it up to the third
year after the crucifixion of our Saviour.*  LARDNER
* Tomline, 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 Judea to preach the gospel in foreign parts, and
as this event seems to have occurred after the persecution which was raised at Judea against the church,
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 Christian 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 accustomed to speak from their childhood.
Although the Greek language was understood by
all the learned in Judea at this time, and by many of
the people, yet it was not the vernacular language of
the Jews dwelling in Palestine. In a book composed
for the immediate use of the churches in Judea, it was
necessary that it should be in that language which they
14*




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 testimony 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 admission, that this gospel was originally composed in the
Hebrew language? Might there not have been a version 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 Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish 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 Jewish 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 Jewish Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in
a short time, and a large part of them became erroneous 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 reason 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 Fathers, 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 Hebrew, 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 apostolic 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, Grotius, Casaubon, Walton, Tomline, Cave, Hammond, Mill, Harwood, Owen, Campbell, A. Clarke, Simon, Tillemont, Pritius, Dupin, Calmet, Michaelis, and others. In favour of the Greek
origin of this gospel the names are not less numerous, nor less
respectable. Among these maybe mentioned, Erasmus, Parmus,
Calvin, Le Clerc, Fabricius, Pfeiffer, Lightfoot, Beausobre,
Basnage, Wetstein, Rumpmus, Whitby, Edelman, Hoffman,
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 difficulties 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. ii. p. 267.




GOSPEL OF MARK.             165
SECTION V.
GOSPEL OF MARK-ON WHAT OCCASION PUBLISHED-ASCRIBED TO THE 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'Jerusalem, who travelled for a
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 accompanying 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
Jerusalem. And when Paul and Barnabas were about
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 forsaken them on their first mission. This difference of
opinion gave rise to a sharp altercation, which terminated in the separation of these venerable colleagues.




166     GOSPEL OP 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 particularly mentioned by any ancient author, except that
it is said to have been after Peter came to Rome, which
could not be much earlier than A. D. 62 or 63. It is
stated, that Mark was requested by the brethren at
Rome to put down in writing the substance of Peter's
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 Rome;
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 testifies 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 Rome;" but this does
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 Matthew;" 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 Rome, but some think at Alexandria: the former
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 CLEMENT of Alexandria, relates, "That when Peter in
the reign of Claudius, had come to Rome, and had
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 according to his memory, he designing no more than to
omit nothing which he had heard, and to relate nothing
false. "t
Another testimony from CLEMENT of Alexandria
is given by Eusebius, in which it is said, "When
Peter was publicly preaching the gospel at Rome, by
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.  f Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 39.




MARK'S GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED. 169
to write down his discourses: that upon this he composed his gospel, and gave it to those who made this
request; which when Peter knew, he neither ob.
structed nor encouraged the work."*
IRENEUS says, " That after the death of Peter and
Paul who had been preaching at Rome, Mark the disciple 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 Rome, which when Peter knew, he approved 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 evidences 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 whether 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,
15




170 MARK'S GOSPEL CANONICAL AND INSPIRED.
the rules applicable to the case. It was always contained 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 abundance 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 Rome, and published by Mark, and preached
by him in Alexandria, Pentapolis and Libya."
The testimony of EPIPHANIUS is, " That Matthew
wrote first, and Mark soon after him, being a companion of Peter at Rome; that Mark was one of the
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 Egypt at the request of the believers
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 Rome he joined Peter. When he was obliged
to quit Rome, he was requested by the brethren to
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 Rome, by the dictation of Peter." (ECUMENIUS says, " This John who
also is called Mark, nephew to Barnabas, wrote the
gospel which goes by his name; and was also the disciple of Peter."
THEOPHYLACT informs us, "That the gospel according to Mark was written at Rome, ten years after the
ascension of Jesus Christ, at the request of the believers 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 Rome, or, as some say, in Egypt;
that Mark was, at first, much with his uncle Barnabas
and Paul, but afterwards went with Peter to Rome,
from whom he received the whole history of his gospel."  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 Alexandria, has the following words: "In the time of Nero,
Peter, the prince of the apostles, making use of Mark,
wrote a gospel at Rome, in the Roman language."
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 Selden is of opinion, that by the Roman language he meant the Greek, which was then in common 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 Selden.




GOSPEL OF LUKE.             173
SECTION       VI.
GOSPEL OF LUKE-TESTIMONIES OF THE FATHERS RESPECTING 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 Rome
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 beloved 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.
IREN3EUS 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
15 *




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 Alexandria
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 disciples 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 disciples 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 commonly received-" The third," says he,'is that according to Luke, the gospel commended by Paul, published 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 character, 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 concerning Luke the evangelist-" And Luke who was
of Antioch, and by profession a physician, for the most
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 professeth to have written, as they delivered it to him,
who from the beginning were eye-witnesses and ministers 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 Antioch, and by profession a physician, not unskilful in the Greek language,
a disciple of the apostle Paul, and the constant companion of his travels, wrote a gospel, and another excellent 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 countries of Achaia and Boeotia." In another place he
observes, " That some said that Luke had been a proselyte to Judaism, before his conversion to Christianity." 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 Italy; Luke, the
third, in Achaia; John, the last, in Asia."  And
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 gospel 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 seventy. 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 Antioch,
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."
EUTYCIIUS, patriarch of Constantinople, has handed
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 authority 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 believers.
MARCION, the heretic, it is true, had a gospel according 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, CONSIDERED 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 gospels, 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 Clement of Rome, and the writings of other apostolical
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 vouching 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 insensible degrees they acquired the character of being inspired.
On these reasonings and objections against the inspiration 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 learning, 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 informed men, and must have known that the committing 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 uninspired, or not under the immediate direction of apostles
who possessed plenary inspiration, it would have
argued great presumption in them, without any direction, 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 evidence that they believed themselves called to this
work.
And the objection to this argument, from the writings 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
16




182     MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
than the four were considered by the primitive
church as impious; because the writers were uninspired 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 inspiration. That they were thus universally received, I
think is manifest, from the testimonies which have
already been adduced. There is not in all the writings 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 universal 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 evidence 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 inspiration on the promise made by Christ to his apostles;
but while it is admitted that this is a weighty consideration, 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 confined 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 anything 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 productions, 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 subject. If this had been the fact, they would never
have been placed among the books universally acknowledged, but would have been doubted of, or disputed 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 distinction was not only broad, but great pains were taken to




184     MICHAELIS'S OBJECTIONS ANSWERED.
have it drawn accurately; and when the common opinion of the church respecting the gospels was formed,
there was no difficulty in coming to the certain knowledge 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 Testament, doubtless, should be attributed to the authority
of the apostles. If, then, these gospels had been mere
human productions they might have been read privately, 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 universal 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 concede 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 belonging 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, without their express approbation. Now let it be considered, 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 infallible by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It
should be remembered, however, that the only advan16 *




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 eyewitnesses 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 composition 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 testimony 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 inspired 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.      18T
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 undertake 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 discrepancies 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 consideration.
To harmonize the evangelists has always been found
a difficult task, but this does not prove that they contradict each other, or that their accounts are irreconcilable.  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 discrepancies are impartially considered, and all the circumstances 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 respects these two evangelists fall short of the others,
has never been shown; upon the most thorough examination and fair comparison of these inimitable productions, they appear to be all indited by the same
Spirit, and to possess the same superiority to all human
compositions.
Compare these gospels with those which are acknowledged 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 published during the lives of John, Peter, and Paul,
and was approved and sanctioned by them as inspired; and received as such by the churches, in conformity 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 Whitby-that
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 nations-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 Pentecost, 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 satisfied those who had much better means of judging,
should certainly satisfy us at this time."*
There is something reprehensible, not to say impious, in that bold spirit of modern criticism, which
has led many eminent Biblical scholars, especially in
Germany, first to attack the authority of particular
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 responsibilities, 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 hardihood 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 infallibility 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       VIIfi
THE GOSPEL OF JOHN-LIFE OF THIS EVANGELIST-OCCASION 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 Galilee, and brother of James; and, we may suppose, was the younger of the brothers, as he is generally mentioned last, and is commonly reported to
have been the youngest of all Christ's disciples. They
were plain uneducated men, as their occupation sufficiently 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 suppose 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 leng 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 evidence 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 temper,-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 disciples were excluded.
It is also certain that he was present at the crucifixion; 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 appearance to the eleven; and when he manifested himself
to his disciples at the sea of Tiberias. After Pentecost he was with Peter in the temple, when the lame
man was healed; he accompanied Peter also to Samaria, and was present at the council of Jerusalem.
From  the book of Revelation we learn, that this
evangelist was for a time an exile in the island of
Patmos,- for the testimony of Jesus, where he was
favoured with wonderful visions and communications
from the Lord.
It seems to have been intimated to him by his
Lord, at the sea of Tiberias, that he should survive
the destruction of Jerusalem; for when Peter askedy
17




194      CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF 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.
IRENJEUS, in two places of his work against Heretics, says, "That John lived to the time of Trajan,"
which will bring us down to A. D. 98. EUSEBIUS
understands CLEMENT of Alexandria to say the same
thing. ORIGEN also testifies, " That John having
lived long in Asia was buried at Ephesus."  POLYCRATES, who wrote in the second century, and was
bishop of Ephesus, asserts, " That John was buried in
that city."
JEROME, in his book of Illustrious Men, and in his
work against Jovinian, says, " That the apostle John
lived in Asia to the time of Trajan; and dying at a
great age, in the sixty-eighth year of our Lord's passion, was buried near the city of Ephesus." This
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.
IRENEUS tells us, " That the evangelist John designed, 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 another 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 Irenseus,
and says, " That when St. John was in Asia, where
there arose the heresies of Ebion and Cerinthus, and
others, who denied that Christ was come in the fleshthat is, denied his divine nature, whom he, in his
Epistle, calls Antichrists, and St. Paul frequently condemns in his Epistles-he was forced by almost all
the bishops of Asia, and the deputations of many
other churches, to write more plainly concerning the
divinity of our Saviour, and to soar aloft in a discourse 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 Asia,
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 nativity. Another reason of his writing is also mentioned, 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 opinion. TITMAN adopts the same opinion. But the probable 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 plausibility.
That CERINTHUS lived in the time of the apostle
John, and was known to him, is evident from another
testimony of IRENEUS, 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 Ephesus,




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 Irenveus see remarks on the
gospel of Matthew. To which we may here add the
fanciful reason given by Irenveus 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 support of the church, and the breath of life, in like manner 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 characteristics 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.' "t
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 Jerusalem. PAULINUS says, " It had been handed
down by tradition, that John survived all the other
apostles, and wrote the last of the four evangelists,
* Tren. Con. Her. lib. iii c. 11.  t Ibid.
17*




198  CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF JOHN'S GOSPEL.
and so as to confirm their most certain history.'9
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 Ephesus, there were delivered to him
by the faithful the writings of the other three evangelists. Receiving them, he said, that what they had
written was well written; but some things were omitted 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 Asia." THEOPHYLACT computed that John wrote
about two and thirty years after Christ's ascension.
EUTHYMIUS says, " That this gospel was not written
until long after the destruction of Jerusalem." NxCEPHORUS, " 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 CLERO, 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.
IBASNAGE and LAMPE are inclined to believe that it
was written before the destruction of Jerusalem.
WHISTON and LARDNER adopt the same opinion. The
gospel of John is cited by CLEMENT of Rome; by
BARNABAS; by IGNATIUS; by THEOPHILUS of Antioch; by IRENJEUS; and by CLEMENT of Alexandria,
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 centuries. 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 Fathers who have spoken of them; and especially from
the fanciful reason assigned by Irenseus to prove that
there could be no more nor fewer.  The same is manifest 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 eDiatessaron.*  In this, however, he left out
such things as did not suit his views. But the existence of such a book which is attested by Irenaeus, Eusebius, Jerome and Theodoret, shows that the number 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-CANONICAL AUTHORITY UNDISPUTED BY THE FATHERSREJECTED 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 gospel, 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 vindication of the inspiration and canonical authority of
Luke's gospel, is applicable to the Acts of the Apostles, 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 Testament: I will, therefore, bring forward the most important.
IRENIEUS 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 downwe 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 salvation." Again he says, "'Paul's account of his
going to Jerusalem exactly agrees with Luke's in
the Acts."
CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS citing Paul's speech at
Athens, introduces it thus, " So Luke in the Acts of
the Apostles relates."  TERTULLIAN cites several
passages out of the Acts of the Apostles which he calls,' Commentarius Luce, The Commentary of Liuke."
Origen ascribes the Acts of the Apostles to Luke.
EUSEBIUS says, "Luke has left us two inspired
volumes, The Gospel and The Acts."   JEROME expressly asserts, " That the Acts was the composition
of Luke."  The Syriac Version of the New Testament 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 Rome.
That the Acts of the Apostles is of canonical authority, 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 CLEMENT of Rome, the fellow-labourer of Paul. POLYCARP 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 IRENEUS more than thirty times,
in some of which instances it is expressly called Scripture; and the credit and authority of the book are
largely discussed in his work against heretics.
The citaticns 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 ignorant 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 this 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 indisputable 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.
PHIILASTRIUS 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 person; 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 established 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
18




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 Smyrna, who suffered martyrdom in extreme
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
IRENJEUS distinctly and frequently quotes thirteen of
Paul's epistles. He takes nothing, indeed, from the
short epistle to Philemon, which can easily be accounted for by the brevity of this letter, and the
special object which the apostle had in view in penning 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.' Rom.
i. 1. And again writing to the Romans concerning
Israel, he says,'Whose are the fathers and of whom
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 Ephesians,' 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 Thessalonians, 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 Irenseus, in
the work above mentioned.  Speaking of Linus bishop
of Rome, he says, " Of this Linus, Paul makes mention 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 IREN2EUS who lived in the age immediately 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 concise, and addressed to a friend on a particular subject
in which Paul felt deeply interested.
As to the epistle to the Hebrews, which is anonymous, there is ample evidence that IRENmUS 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 France, it is very
possible that he participated in the prejudice of the
western church on this point. EUSEBIUS informs us,
that he had seen a work of IRENAEUS 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 epistles; 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 dissipated 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 Alexandria, abounds in quotations
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.
18*




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, perfecting 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 Macedonians, 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 PROM 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 Hebrews, 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 hc
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, "According to the true testimony of the church, we suppose this epistle to have been sent to the Ephesians,
and not to the Laodiceans; but Marcion has endeavoured to alter this inscription, upon pretence of having 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 righteousness of God in the day of judgment, when our reward
shall be decided. Of which being in suspense, when
le 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, lBut of the times and the seasons, brethren,
ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves 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 profitably, in the business of your salvation, visit the apostolical churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles still preside, in which their very authentic letters
(authentiee litere) are recited, sending forth the
voice, and representing the countenance of each one of
them. Is Achaia near you? You have Corinth. If
you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi
-you have Thessalonica.    If you can go to Asia,
you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you
have Rome, from whence also we may be easily satisfied."
There are three opinions respecting the meaning of
this phrase authentiew literse; 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 epistles, 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 existed in Africa, where Tertullian lived. They need
not, however, have been directed to go to Rome, or
Corinth, or Ephesus, or Philippi, or Thessalonica, to
see the epistles of Paul in Greek. Neither was it necessary 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 diffused all over the Christian world.
From these considerations I conclude, that in Tertullian'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 occupied 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, he is singular.
THEOPHILUS of Antioch quotes the following passage 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 inspiration 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 Pantoenus he
was president of the Alexandrian school. Several of
his works have come down to us, from which the following citations from Paul's epistles are taken. " Behold, therefore," saith Paul, "the goodness and severity 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 Corinthians, calls the gospel "a savour of knowledge," 2
Cor. xi. 14. " Again, Paul says,' Having these promises, 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 following 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 Philipplans, these words, "Not as though I had already attained or were already perfect," Phil. iii. 12. He also
cites texts frequently from the epistles to the Colossians 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 Autolycum lib. ii. For other citations see Lardner, Vol. 1.




ORIGEN'S TESTIMONY.           217
which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane babblings, and oppositions of science, falsely so called."
Ie also refers to the second epistle to Timothy, and
the epistle to Titus he quotes several times. It is satisfactory 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 be the first principles of the oracles of God, and are
become such as have need of milk and not strong meat.'"
HIeb. v. 12.
ORImEN 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 mentions several of Paul's epistles together, in the following 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
19




218           CYPRIAN'S TESTIMONY.
be an epistle of Paul." In his citations of this epistle,
therefore, he constantly ascribes it to Paul in such expressions as these, "Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews," "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 hundred 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 mentions, that some ascribed it to Luke, and others to Clement of Rome.
CYPRIAN often quotes the epistles of Paul.  According," 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 fathers 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 manner, 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 woman.'" Gal. iv. 4.
CYPRIAN expressly quotes the epistle to the Ephesians under that title.  "But the apostle Paul, speaking 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 appointed 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,' Continue 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 philosophy, &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 distinctly, 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 admonition reject." Tit. iii. 10.
CYPRIAN nro where quotes the epistle to the Hebrews. 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 reason 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
Alexandria, also a contemporary of Origen, and a
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, expressly 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. NovAlus 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 earnestly 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 epistles 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 received 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
19*




222      TESTIMONIES TO PAUL'S EPISTLES.
to be no modern writing. And hence it has, not
without reason, been reckoned among the other writings 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 translated 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 Eusebius received this epistle as Paul's, and that he manifested 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 acquainted, did generally receive the epistle to the Hebrews as the writing of Paul.
AMBROSE, bishop of Milan, received fourteen epistles
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 Clement."   He also says, "that it was daily read in the
churches; and if the Latins did not receive this epistle, as the Greeks rejected the Revelation of John, he
received both; not being so much influenced by present 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 Colossians, one; to the Thessalonians, two; to the Ephesians, one; to Timothy, two; to Titus, one; to Philemon, 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 Tertullian thought; or Luke's, according to some others;
or Clement's, who was afterwards bishop of Rome;
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 Laodiceans, 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 canonical 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 composed 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 during the long abode of this apostle at Corinth. Among
the advocates of this opinion, we find L'Enfant, Beausobre, Lardner, &c., while Grotius, Capel, Witsius, and
Wall, suppose that it was written at Ephesus. These
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 Antioch, after the Council of Jerusalem; and
offers in support of his opinions several plausible arguments, 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 OF 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
Corinth, about the year 51; and the second epistle
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, however, 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 Barrington, 57; and
according to Whitby, Pearson, and Paley, 65.
The epistle next in order is the first to the Corinthians, the date of which can be determined with
considerable precision from the epistle itself.  " I will
tarry at _EPhesus until Pentecost." 1 Cor. xvi. 8.
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 residence at Ephesus, from which place he departed
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,
Barrington, Michaelis, Doddridge, and others. But
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 Corinth, when the apostle was preparing
to take the contributions of the churches to Jerusalem.
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 Rome when they were written.    The
epistle to the Ephesians may, with much probability,
be referred to A. D. 61; the epistle to the Philipplans 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 imprisonment at Rome. Its date, therefore, may without 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 Testament, arranged in chronological and historical order.
Paul's second epistle to Timothy seems to have
been written during his second imprisonment at Rome,
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 nowhere 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. IREN US quotes the first
epistle of Peter expressly; " And Peter says, in his
epistle, Wzhom 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, "Wherefore 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 Alexandria often quotes 1 Peter, and sometimes 2 Peter.
The first epistle of John is often cited by him. Jude
also is quoted several times expressly, as, "Of these
and the like heretics, I think Jude spoke prophetically,
when he said,' Iwill that ye should know, that Cod having saved the people out of Egypt,'" &c. He has a
remark on Jude's modesty, that he did not style himself 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, expressly 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
20




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
Pontus.  He expressly ascribes it to "Peter the apostle," "the apostle of Christ," &c.
The second of Peter he never quotes. The first of
John is often quoted by Cyprian. " The apostle John,"
says he, "mindful of this command, writes in this epistle,'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 Cesaraea, respecting
the epistle of James, was, that it was written by one
of Christ's disciples by the name of James, but he
makes three of that name. Although he admits that
the writer of this epistle was the brother of our Lord,
who was made the first bishop of Jerusalem, yet he
will 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 ecclesiastical 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 undoubtedly 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 Scriptures."  And in another passage, he says, " That
called the first of John and the first of Peter are to
be esteemed authentic. Of the controverted, yet well
known or approved by the most, are, that called the
epistle of James, and that of Jude, and the second of
Peter, and the second and third of John, whether they
were written by the evangelist, or by another."
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 distinctly and expressly quoted: the third is not mentioned. 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 mother, mentioned by John in his gospel, (soon after our
Lord's passion ordained by the apostles bishop of
Jerusalem) wrote but one epistle, which is among the
seven Catholic epistles; which too has been said to
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 epistles, 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. 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 appellation of Catholic, various reasons have been assigned. 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 correct, for some of them were written to the Christians
of particular countries, and others to individuals.
A third opinion, advanced by Dr. Hammond, and
adopted by Dr. Macknight, and which has some probability, is, that the first of Peter, and first of John,
being received by all Christians, obtained the name
of Catholic, to distinguish them 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 Eusebius, and probably older, for Origen repeatedly called
John's first epistle Catholic; and the same is done by
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria.  The same appellation was given to the whole seven by Athanasius,
Epiphanius, and Jerome. Of these, it is probable,
that the epistle of James was first written, but at what
precise time, cannot be determined.
As there were two disciples of the name of James,
it has been much disputed to which of them this epistle should be attributed.  Lardner and Macknight
20*




234       THE SEVEN CATHOLIC EPISTLES.
have rendered it exceedingly probable that this epistle 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 Jerusalem; but Michaelis is of a different opinion,
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 probability, be referred to the year 62; for it is supposed
that James was put to death in the following year.
Its canonical authority and divine inspiration, although
called in question by some, in ancient as well as modern times, ought to be considered as undoubted.
One strong evidence that it was thus received by 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 Ephesians; and we have already shown that it was received 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 Antioch, Papias, Irenseus, Clement of Alexandria,
and Tertullian. The only matter of doubt respecting
it is, what place we are to understand by Babylon,




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 Egypt is signified; the second, that Babylon in Assyria, properly so called, is meant; and the
third, which is generally maintained by the Romanists,
and some Protestants, is, that Rome is here called
Babylon. Eusebius and Jerome understood that this
epistle was written from Rome. The time of its being
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 mention 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 inspiration than Paul's quoting Epimenides does against
his being an inspired man.
The three epistles of John were probably written
about the year 96 or 97. It has commonly been supposed that the Apocalypse was the last written book
of the New Testament, but Townsend insists that the
three epistles of John were last written.-See Townsend's New Testament, vol. ii.




236         CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF
SECTION      XIIo
CANONICAL AUTHORITY OF THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
HERMAS gives many indications of having read the
Revelation, for he often imitates John's description
of the New Jerusalem, and sometimes borrows his
very words. He speaks of the Book of Life and of
those whose names are written in it. He speaks also
of the saints whom he saw, being clothed in garments
white as snow. PAPIAS also, doubtless, had seen the
book of Revelation; for some of his opinions were
founded on a too literal interpretation of certain prophecies of this book. But neither Papias nor Hermas
expressly cites the Revelation.
JUSTIN MARTYR is the first who gives explicit testimony to the Apocalypse. His words are, "And a
man from among us by name John, one of the a-postles of Christ, in the Revelation made to him, has
prophesied that the believers in our Christ shall live
a thousand years in Jerusalem; and after that, shall
be the general and indeed eternal resurrection and
judgment of all men together." In the epistle of the
Church of Lyons and Vienne, in France, which was
written about the year of our Lord one hundred and
eighty, there is one passage cited from the book of
Revelation: "For he was indeed a genuine disciple of
Christ,'following the Lamb whithersoever he goes.'"




THE BOOK OF REVELATION.         237
IRENEus 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."
THEOPIIILUS 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 Dragon."
The Revelation of John is often quoted by CLEMENT of Alexandria. In one passage, he says, " Such
an one, though here on earth he be not honoured
with the first seat, shall sit upon the four and twenty
thrones, judging the people, as John says in the Revelation."  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 appear 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 twoedged 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 Revelation." Hippolytus was held in so high esteem, that
a noble monument was erected to him in the city of
Rome, which, after lying for a long time buried, was
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, " evangelist and apostle;" and, on account of the predictions which it contains, "prophet" also. In his book
against Celsus he mentions "John's Revelation, and
divers other books of Scripture." It was Origen's intention to write a commentary on this book, but
whether he ever carried his purpose into execution is
unknown.   Nothing of the kind has reached our
times.




THE BOOK OF REVELATION.          289
DIONYSIUS of Alexandria, who lived about the middle of the third century, and was one of the most
learned men of his time, has entered into a more particular discussion of the canonical authority of the
book of Revelation than any other ancient author.
From what has been said by him, we learn on what
account it was that this book, after having been universally received by the earlier Fathers, fell with some
into a certain degree of discredit. About this time
the Chiliasts, or Millennarians, who held that Christ
would reign visibly on earth with his saints for a thousand years, during which period all manner of earthly
and sensible pleasures would be enjoyed, made their
appearance. This opinion they derived from a literal
interpretation of some passages in the book of Revelation; and as their error was very repugnant to the
feelings of 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 Egypt, where one Nepos composed several works
in defence of their doctrine; particularly a book
iAgainst 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 AUT.HORITY 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 Lardner judiciously answers, that supposing this to be
the fact, it will not prove the point, for the style of
prophecy is very different from the epistolary or
historical style. But this laborious and learned collector of facts denies that there is such a difference
of style, as to lay a foundation for this opinion; and,
in confirmation of his own opinion, he descends to
particulars, and shows that there are some striking
points of resemblance between the language of the
Apocalypse and the acknowledged writings of the
apostle John.
The opinion of those persons who believed it to be
the work of 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 Carthage, received the book of Revelation as of canonical authority,
as appears by the manner in which he quotes it.
"Hear," says he, " in the Revelation, the voice of
thy Lord, reproving such men as these,'Thou sayest
I am rich and increased in goods, and have need of
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 encouragement which it was supposed to give to the
Chiliasts.  Therefore Eusebius of Cesarrea, after
giving a list of such books as were universally received, 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, different 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,
21




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 twentytwo 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 Patmos.
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 Ephesus, each inscribed
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 Revelation.  "Domitian," says he, "in the fourteenth year
of his reign, raising the second persecution after Nero,
John was banished into the isle of Patmos, where he
wrote the Revelation, which Justin Martyr and Irenaeus explain." AUGUSTINE, also, received the book
of Revelation, and quotes it very frequently. lie ascribes it to the same John who wrote the gospel and
the epistles.
From the view which has been taken of the testimonies 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 received 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, comparatively, few copies of this book. But the authenticity
and authority of the Apocalypse stand on ground
which can never be shaken; and the internal evidence 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 remarkable, that to many learned men who have attended
to this subject, the evidence from this source alone
is demonstrative of its divine origin. And there is
every reason to believe, that in the revolution of
events this book, which is now to many sealed with
seven seals, will be opened, and will be so explained,




244        THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
that all men will see and acknowledge that it is indeed "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 PARTIALLY KNOWN AND REFERRED TO BY ENEMIES AS WELL
AS FRIENDS-CITATIONS-ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS-REMARKS 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 Christians 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 inspiration 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 imitation of this denomination they were called the New
Testament. The other names by which they were
distinguished, were such as these, the gospel;-the
21*




246            GENERAL REMARKS,
apostles;-the divine gospels;-the evangelical instrument;-the Scriptures of the Lord;-holy Scriptures;-evangelical voice;-divine Scriptures;-Oracles 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 assemblies of Christians, as appears by the explicit testimony of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Eusebius, Cyprian, 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 Montanists, 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 Christians in their times, for they refer to the matters contained in them, and some of them mention several
books by name; so that it appears from the accounts
which we have of these writings, that they were
acquainted with the volume of the New Testament.
CELSUS, who lived and wrote less than a hundred
years after the apostles, says, as is testified by Origen, who answered him, "I could say many things
concerning the affairs of Jesus, and those too different 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 although his work has shared the same fate as that of
Celsus, yet, from some fragments which have been
preserved, we can ascertain that he was well acquainted with the four gospels, for the things to
which he objects are still contained in them.
But the emperor JULIAN expressly mentions Matthew 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 Greece and Italy were
converted."  He alludes to the conversion of Cornelius and Sergius Paulus; to Peter's vision, and to the
circular letter sent by the apostles at Jerusalem to
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 regard to the book of Daniel.  Since then not one of
the early enemies of Christianity ever suggested a
doubt of the genuineness of the books of the New
Testament, we may rest assured that no ground of
doubt existed in their day; and that the fact of these
being the genuine writings of the men whose names
they bear, was too clearly established to admit any
doubt. The genuineness of the books of the New
Testament having been admitted by friends and enemies-by the orthodox and heretics, in those ages
when the fact could be ascertained easily, it is too
late in the day now for infidels to call this matter in
question.
5. But the testimony which we possess, is not only
sufficient to prove that the books of the New Testament 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 apparently quote from memory; and in that case, the
words of the sacred writer are a little changed or transposed, but the sense is accurately retained. In general, however, the quotations of Scripture, in the writings of the Fathers, are verbally exact; there being
no other variation, than what arises from the different
idiom of the language which they use.  I suppose
that almost every verse, in some books of the New
Testament, has 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 thousands 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 written on beautiful parchment, in what are called uncial, or capital letters.  Some of these manuscripts
contain all the books of the New Testament; others
only a part; and in some instances, a single book.
Some are in a state of good preservation, while others
are worn and mutilated, and the writing so obscure
as to be scarcely legible. And what is very remarkable, some copies of the New Testament on parchment have been found written over again with other
matter, after the original words had been as fully
obliterated as could easily be done. This seems a
very strange practice, considering that good copies
of the Bible must have been always too few; but the
scarcity of parchment was so great, that men who
were anxious to communicate their own lucubrations
to the public, would resort to any shift to procure
the materials for writing. And this is not more culpable or more wonderful than what has been known
to take place in our own land and times, where the
leaves of Walton's Polyglot Bible have been torn and
used 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 manuscripts 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 appropriate 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 successors, 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 individual, nor by the decree of any council, but by the
general consent of the whole and every part of the
Christian church. It is, indeed, a remarkable circumstance, that among the various disputes which
so early agitated the church, the 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 satisfactory one. Every one who is at all versed in Ecclesiastical History is aware of the continual intercourse which took place in the apostolical age between the various branches of the church universal.
This communication, as Mr. Nolan has well observed, arose out of the Jewish polity, under which
various synagogues of the Jews which were dispersed
throughout the gentile world, were all subjected to
the Sanhedrim at Jerusalem, and maintained a constant correspondence with it.  Whenever then an
epistle arrived at any particular church, it was first
authenticated; it was then read to all the holy brethren, and was subsequently transmitted to some other
neighbouring church. Thus we find that the authentication of the epistles of Paul was,'the salutation
with his own 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 acjuration 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 Laodicea.' 2 Thess. iii. 17; 1 Thess.
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 Rome, communicated with the church at Corinth;
Polycarp, the bishop of Smyrna, wrote an epistle to
the Philippians; Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, corresponded with the churches of Rome, of Magnesia,
of Ephesus, and others. These three bishops were
the companions and immediate successors of the apostles, and followed the system of correspondence and
intercourse which their masters had begun.  Considering all these circumstances, we shall be convinced
how utterly improbable it was, that any authentic
work of an apostle should have existed in one church
without being communicated to another. It is a very
mistaken notion of Dodwell, that the books of the
New Testament lay concealed in the coffers of particular churches and were not known to the rest of
the world until the late days of Trajan. This might
have been perfectly true, with respect to the originals,
which were doubtless guarded with peculiar care, in
the custody of the particular churches to which they
were respectively addressed.  But copies of these
originals, attested by the authority of the bishop,
were transmitted from one church to another with the
utmost freedom, and were thus 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
22




254         REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL.
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 inspiration of writing confined: out of these, six only
deemed it necessary to write; what they did write,
was authenticated with the greatest caution, and circulated with the utmost rapidity; what was received.
in any church as the writing of an apostle, was publicly 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 apostles' 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 rejection on the other. The case was too clear to require
any formal discussion, nor does it appear that there
was any material forgery that could render it necessary.
" The writings of the apostles, and of the apostles
alone, were received as the word of God, and were
separated from all others, by that most decisive species
of authority, the authority of a general, an immediate,
and an undisputed consent.   This will appear the
more 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 certain period. Since the publication of the last authen



REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL.          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 inquired, at what time, or by what authority the authentic letters were separated from the spurious, the answer will be, that such a separation never took place;
but that the Canon of Junius was immediately determined 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 consent of the whole British nation, and no man in his
senses would attempt to dispute it.
" Yet how much stronger is the case of the Scriptural Canon! The author of Junius was known to
none. He could not therefore of himself bear any testimony 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 proceeded from the apostles of Christ, was immediately
regarded as the offspring of an exclusive inspiration.
For the Canon of Junius we have no external evidence, 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 preserve 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 difficulties which might be adduced, the Canon of Junius is
established beyond controversy or dispute, by the tacit consent of all who live in the age in which it was
written, there can be no reason why the Canon of
Scripture, under circumstances infinitely stronger,
should not have been determined in a manner precisely 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 Scripture, because there were no competitors whose claims
it was expedient to examine; no forgeries, whose impostures it was necessary to detect. The first age of
the church was an age of too much vigilance, of too
much communication, of too much authority for any
fabrication of Scripture, to hope for success. If any
attempt was made it was instantly crushed. When
the authority of the apostles and of apostolic men had
lost its influence, and heresies and disputes had arisen,
then it was that forgeries began to appear....




REMARKS OF MR. RENNEL.          257
Nothing, indeed, but the general and long determined
consent of the whole Christian world, could have preserved the sacred volume in its integrity, unimpaired
by the mutilation of one set of heretics, and unincumbered by the forgeries of another."
22*




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 Romanists and Protestants at the time of the Reformation. 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, Theophylact, 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 inspired 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
*cripture 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, suppose 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
Macedonia, might not have reached them until Paul
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 Providence over the sacred Scriptures.
Now, to suppose that a book written by the inspiration 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 dispensations 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 preserve 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 existenee. And
if one canonical book might be lost through the negligence 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 censure 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 design 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 afterwards 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 repentance, 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 presume, 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 reference 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 beginning 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, reat, " Take again the gospel (Evayyswxov)
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 mentioning 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 youin an epistle." 1 Cor. v. 9, 11.
The words in the original are, Eypa4 vv s E  st1 o E x,
the literal version of which is, "I have written to you
in the epistle, or in this epistle;" that is, in the former 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,
Nvv& 8Es ypCaC. Viv "but now I have written unto you,"
require that we should understand the former clause
as relating to some former time; but a careful attention to the context will convince us that this reference 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 meaning might be misunderstood, by extending the prohibition too far, so as to decline all intercourse with the
world, therefore he repeats what he had said, and informs 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 shameful 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 adduce the old Syriac version, which having been
made soon after the days of the apostles, is good testimony in relation to this matter of fact. In this venerable 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 different 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 Canon; and also an epistle from the church of Corinth
to Paul. These epistles are in the Armenian language, but have been translated into Latin. The
epistle ascribed to Paul is very short, and undoubtedly 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 sojme unsound opinions concerning the speedy appearance of
Christ, which Paul, in some of his epistles, took pains
to contradict. The manner of salutation is very different 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 repeated solemn asseverations in several of his epistles.
In regard to the epistle under the name of the church
of Corinth, it does not properly fall under our consideration, 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 likewise read the epistle from Laodicea."
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.
23




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 Philemon, and to the Philippians.-And," says he, "he
takes in some part of that which is called'the epistle to the Laodiceans,' and this he styles the eleventh 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 epistle," 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 defended by several distinguished moderns, as Grotius,
Hammond, Whitby, and Paley.     They rely principally on internal evidence; for unless Marcion be accepted 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 Asia, can easily be explained.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, xat ev EX Aao8txs~a5 Iva
Xsca, V~KE5 CV0yVW. " And that ye likewise read the
epistle from Laodicea." Col. iv. 16. These words
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, almost universally have adopted this opinion. "Therefore," 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 Ephesians, 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 opinions 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 following 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 Laodicea. He certainly would have said, tpo; Aao8LxEtiv, 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 misconstruction.
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 acknowledge 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 Marcion; but as we have seen, Tertullian tells us a different story.  It is of little importance to decide




OF THE NEW TESTAMENT LOST.          269
which of these testimonies is most credible: for Marcion's authority, at best, is worthless on such a subject.
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 Laodicea. Others have thought
that it was the epistle of Paul to Philemon. But it
seems safest, in such a case, where testimony is deficient, to follow the literal sense of the words, and
to believe that it was an epistle written by the Laodiceans, 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 candour requires that it be mentioned that they are contained 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, however, 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.
23*




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 generally fallen, were it not that, from time to time, persons 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 contains 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 anything 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 inwhich the author, 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 illustrated by particular examples. The book entitled,
"The Constitutions of the Apostles," speaks of the
controversy which arose in the third century, respecting 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 Constantinople, 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 Sixtus, "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 Jerome still, as a man knows his friend under all the
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 intimate 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 country to which the reputed author belonged.
The idiom and dialect of a language are very different 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 country. 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 cannot 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 authors. 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 almost 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, although 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 acquaintance 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 language, 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 Palestine at that time. When, therefore,
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 apostles, 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 principally of mere extracts from other books.
This is also so evident, that it requires no illustration.
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 apocryphal.
10. Those books which were expressly rejected by
the Fathers of the first ages as spurious, and attributed by them to heretics, are apocryphal.
By the application of the foregoing rules, it can be
shown, that every book which claims canonical authority, not included in our present Canon, is apocryphal. 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 ascribed 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 annexed, 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 confined to their own books, and that they did not reject
others, through ignorance of their contents. Remarkably to this purpose are the words of Origen. " The
church," says he, "receives only four gospels: heretics 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 acquainted with those things which are recorded in these
books."  To the same purpose speaks AMVBROSE; 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 passages out of these books, because they were acknowledged by those against whom they were writing; be



CITED BY THE FATHERS.          277
ing willing to dispute with them on their own principles 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 written 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 undoubtedly be handed down as low as to the second century,
and might find its way into some of the apocryphal gospels, and might be cited by persons who did not believe 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 according 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 HIermas," 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
24




278          CAUSES OF THE WRITING
Testament were very numerous, yet they did not appear in the age of the church next after the times of
the apostles. In the first century no books of this description 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 abounding of heresies. Almost all the spurious writings, under the names of the apostles, are the productions of
heretics, as we learn from the testimony of those Fathers 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 contribute 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 actions of Christ: thus adopting the pernicious maxim, so peremptorily denounced by Paul, " that we
may do evil that good may come;" or that the goodness of the end will sanctify the badness of the means.




OF APOCRYPHAL BOOKS.           279
Of this we have one remarkable example, in the spurious book still extant, entitled, " the Acts of Paul and
Thecla," 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 tradition; for, no doubt, a multitude of traditions respecting Christ and his apostles, with extravagant distortions 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 GELASIUS, in which at least twenty-five of these books are




280           DECREE OF GELASIUS.
named, and declared to be apocryphal. It is not certain, 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 council which met at Rome, A. D. 494. A translation of
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 EDESSA TO JESUS, AND HIS ANSWER-EPISTLE TO THE 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.
WE come now to consider those apocryphal books
which are still extant, and concerning which, therefore, we can speak more particularly.
The first of these is, "the letter of Abgarus, king
of Edessa, addressed to Jesus, and sent by his footman
Ananias."
EUSEBIUS is the first who makes mention of this
epistle, and the sum of his account is, that our Saviour's miraculous works drew innumerable persons
to him, from the most remote countries, to be healed
of their diseases;-that ABGARUS, a famous king beyond the Euphrates, wrote to him, because he was
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 intimation given him from heaven. For the truth of this
story, Eusebius appeals to the public records of the
city of Edessa, where, he says, all the transactions of
24*




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 relate that Thaddeus having come to Edessa wrought
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 Romans, to have made war with the Jews for crucifying 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 church of Edessa,
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 Edessa, which




LETTER OF ABGARTUS,           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 acknowledge 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, wherefore, 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 PnocoPIus, and confirms
the story that the city never should be taken by enemies, 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 letters, 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 confidently 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 Edessa in the
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 himself had taken them thence.  His words, however,
must not be too strictly interpreted, as though he had
himself been at Edessa, and had translated the epistle 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 translated and transmitted to him through an authentic
channel from Edessa.
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 received 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 explicitly 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 evidences 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 canonical, 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 simplicity of Christ, and has no parallel in anything recorded 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 MARCION the heretic. But there is good reason for thinking 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 epistle 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 Philastrius 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 Anneus Seneca, born at Corduba, a disciple of Sotio, a
* 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 determined 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 unacquainted 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 letters 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 probability 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 demonstrates 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 instructions." 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 Rome
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 consuls 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
25




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 declaring this to be contrary to Christianity? These letters, moreover, contain some things which are not true,
as "that the emperor Nero was delighted and surprised 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 language, which was brought from the east by Postell,
who asserts that it is held to be genuine by the oriental churches, and is publicly read in their assemblies
with the other Scriptures. This learned man, moreover, 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 Hagiographa. 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 apocryphal. 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 evidence 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 wanting, 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.t  The same
thing is proved by the fact, that Jerome in one place
speaks of a preface which he had written to the " Gospel 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.         f 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 Roman empire, to transmit to the emperors 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 Judaeus speaks of " the
daily memoirs which were transmitted to Caligula,
from Alexandria."
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 rendered certain, by the public appeal made to these
"Acts of Pilate," both by JUSTIN MARTYR and TERTULLIAN, in their Apologies; the one addressed to the
Roman emperor ANTONINUS PIUS, and the other probably 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
Jerusalem.  His testimony is remarkable in both
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 Palestine in Syria, that Jesus Christ had there
given manifest proof of the truth of his divinity,
25*




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.
Csesar 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 following Christ, transmitted to Tiberius Caesar; and even
the Coesars themselves had been Christians, if it haa
been consistent with their secular interests."  Both
Eusebius and Jerome, cite this testimony of Tertullian as authentic.  It seems therefore certain, that
some account of Christ and his actions was transmitted 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 Saviour-That Pilate did send such acts is evident, for
scarce any man, much less such a man as Justin Martyr, 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 judgment; 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 Tiberius, 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 emperors, Christians could have no access to the archives 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 Csesars, who
were converted to Christianity, and had opportunity
of searching the public records at Rome, gave this
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 malice 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 referred. 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 mistaken 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 contemptible to the public, by foul calumnies against
their Founder and his apostles. Of this fact, EUSEBIUS gives us express and particular information.
"From whence," says he, "the forgery of these is
manifestly detected, who have lately published certain Acts against our Saviour. In which, first, the
very time which is assigned to them discovers the
imposture; for those things which they have impudently 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 Judea, if any credit is
due to Josephus, who expressly says, that Pilate was




OF THESE ACTS.             297
not constituted governor of Judea until the twelfth
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, respecting this malicious forgery. " At length, (the
heathen) having forged certain Acts of Pilate, concerning 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 schoolmasters should put them into the hands of their children, 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. I. c. 9, 11.




298        ACTS OF PAUL AND THECLA.
it is said, " The emperor THEODOSIUS the great, found
at Jerusalem, in the hall of Pontius Pilate, among the
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 Nicodemus, of what happened after our Saviour's crucifixion." 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 mention, 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 Asia, who forged that book,
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 apocryphal 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."* AuGUSTINE 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 numerous 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.          801
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 assistants, 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 inspired 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 4
26




802           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 salvation 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 apocryphal 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 controversies 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 tradition. 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 herself. 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 whatever 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, before 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 implicit 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 obedience; 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



804           THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
iiminary observations, that it may be clearly understood 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 uttered the ten commandments on Mount Sinai, in the
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 generation, but by oral tradition, and such external memorials as aided in keeping up the remembrance of important 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 concession 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 notwithstanding 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 therefore the plausible opinion of some, that writing was
revealed from heaven, for the very purpose of avoiding the evil which had been experienced, and that
there might be a certain vehicle for all divine communications: and it is certain, that all that we know
of the history of alphabetical writing, leads us to connect its origin with the commencement of written revelations.
It is, therefore, not an improbable supposition, that
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 considered, 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 knowledge 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 assured that Christ instituted the eucharist as a memorial 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
26*




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 depend 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 established 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 satisfactory 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 acquiescence 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 necessary to have positive testimony; and in order that it
be satisfactory, it should be universal, and uncontradieted. 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 published, 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 genuineness seems to be as complete as the nature of the
case admits. Just such is the evidence of the genuineness of the books of the New Testament; or,
at least, of most of them. It is, however, the evidence of tradition; but of such a tradition as is abundantly 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 tradition 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 establish 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. Because 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.




808           THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
The very purpose of written records is to prevent
the necessity of trusting to the uncertainty of tradition; 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 assured 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 testimony on this point, is not because they were members of the church, but because they lived in times
and circumstances favourable to an accurate knowledge of the fact which they report. And accordingly 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 unexceptionable. 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 number 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.         809
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 Christianity, 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 apostolical 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 genuineness. 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 persons 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 testimony 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 artifice 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, provided 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 presumption 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 necessary 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 possession 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 pretending 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, communicated 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 gospels; 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 generation, 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 traditions 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 Romish church. But before any man can reasonably




812           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 Mount Sinai, intended to regulate the faith
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 conveying 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 commit 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 apostles. As they wish to claim for this rule an authority fully equal to that which is given to the Scriptures, 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, indeed, 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 article 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 assured 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 alteration 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 vicissitudes; 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 worship; and this accords with the prophecy of Paul,
who clearly intimates that a time would come,
27




814           THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
when there should be a falling away.  Now it may
have happened, that during this long period of adversity, heresy, darkness, and corruption, many things
may have crept in, and may have obtained an extensive 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 received and held to be important by the church of
Rome, of which there is no vestige in the Scriptures, and concerning which there is no early tradition. 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 ascertained which have come down from Christ and his
apostles? Perhaps we shall be told, that the infallible 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




OB UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.         315
the old system appealed to the authority of the Pope,
and the infallibility of the church, but as it was impossible 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 doctrine, 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, therefore, 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 accumulation of superstitious rites.
The council of Trent, therefore, early in their sessions, 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           TIIE ROMISII 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 Romanists 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 withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received
of us." *  Here Paul makes express mention of tradition.  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 derived from these and such like passages, where the
word traditions is used, is to observe, that Paul employs 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 disorderly 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 Thess. iii. 6, 7, 11 15.




OF UNWRITTEN TRADITION S.        317
commanded you." 1 Thess. iv. 11. And in the quotation from the second chapter, it is clear, that by
traditions, the apostle did not mean merely oral communications, 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 communicated, was omitted, when the books of the New Testament 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 important part was left to be handed down by tradition.
That the word tradition, as used by Paul, makes nothing 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 Scriptures. 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 Scriptures." 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4.
It is manifest, therefore, that the argument derived
from tne exhortation of Paul to obey tradition, is but
a shadow, and vanishes upon the slightest touch of fair
examination.
27*




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
Ireneus, 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 inscribed 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, (AUvta ivuwvX tatC ypCac5.") This sentence
of Irenseus is of great importance, for it teaches us
how the Fathers understood this subject. They received 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.
Irenseus insinuates, plainly enough, that if what he
had heard from Polycarp, had not been in accordance
with the Scriptures he would not have considered it
as deserving attention.
But the same Irenoeus 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.          819
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 institution many barbarous nations have submitted, havneither 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 received as preachers except those appointed to office
by him.    And as they preached what Christ revealed 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 tradition 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 sufficiency of the Scriptures will be found corroborative
of the opinions which we maintain.  They do not
appeal to tradition, let it be observed, for confirmation of articles of faith not contained in the Scriptures; 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 Scriptures may be established by tradition. But it may be
asked, if those doctrines concerning which they disputed 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 Irenseus and Tertullian, 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 controversy. These heretics either rejected the Scriptures 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 useless to appeal to them for proof; for testimonies derived from the genuine Scriptures they would not
admit. This is not conjecture; for Irenseus has explicitly stated the case.  "When," says he, "they
are confuted from the Scriptures themselves, they allege 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 detractions, 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 reveal all things plainly, for while they made known certain truths to all, there were others which they communicated secretly, and to a few persons, which they
say the apostle Paul meant by the depositum."
From these quotations, the reason why these Fathers 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 tradition, at so early a period of the church: but unfortunately 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 harmonious; and that if the apostles had written nothing, the consent of all the churches would be sufficient 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 Ireneus, 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 tradition. Very good. Just as heathen tribes now receive, 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 access 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 Irenseus actually referred, 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 creatures, submitted to be born of a virgin, by himself
uniting man to God; and having suffered under Pontius 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 perverters 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 prophets, predicted the good will of God; his advent;
his generation of a virgin; his passion, and resurrection 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 eternal 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 believes 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 languages 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 Germany believe differently from those in Italy, nor from those which
are in Egypt, or in Libya, or in the middle of the
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 doctrine, 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, fundamental 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 furnishes 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
28




326           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 restored. 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 recognized fully in every epistle. Thus far then, it does
not appear that anything was left to unwritten tradition, 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 advocates of tradition, is derived from the fact, that there
are some doctrines, not expressly mentioned in Scripture, 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 Praescriptionibus.




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 observance 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 inference; 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 essential 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 recorded 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 apostolical tradition, but frequently to the words of Scripture,
in which they believed that the practice was implicitly
authorized.  Irenmeus, 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 denied, however, that after some time an undue deference was paid to traditions. It will be shown hereafter, 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 Scriptures 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 opinion 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 doctrines 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
28 *




330           THE ROMISH DOCTRINE
which is utterly unattainable after the lapse of ages
of error and darkness. If it should be agreed, to receive as apostolical everything which the early Fathers 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 Alexandria, who lived in the second century. 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 impurity 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 disguise 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 increasing 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 testimonies of the Fathers of the second, third, and fourth
ages of the Christian church, to show that such ceremonies were then in use in some particular part of the
church; or even in the church universal. All know




832           THE ROMISH 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 discover. 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 contended 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 Trent
already cited is, "That traditions relating both to
faith and manners, are to be received with equal affection and reverence as the canonical Scriptures."
And lest we should be at any loss to know what articles 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 commencement 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 consecration 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 innumerable other things which are held sacred by the
Romish church which cannot be proved from Scripture, such as the mutilation of the Lord's Supper, the
celibacy of the clergy, the distinction of meats, purgatory, pilgrimages, indulgences, the worship of images 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 repugnance 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 themselves. And surely it is not a very convincing argument of the apostolical origin of doctrines or ceremonies, that we do not know when they took their
rise.
But the argument now under consideration relinquishes this ground, and goes back to the Scriptures as
the foundation of faith, but insists that the true inter



334          THE ROMISH 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 Romanists themselves; and again, they differ among them



OF UNWRITTEN TRADITIONS.          335
selves.  How then can it be known what that interpretation is, which was received from the apostles? Must I follow JUSTIN, or IRENEEUS, or CLEMENT of Alexandria? or must I believe in all the
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 predominant?  If there be such a,n 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 establish all the rest, and there is no need of apostolical




336           THEE ROMISH DOCTRINE
tradition: but if there is a distinction to be made between 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 Rome knows certainly what is apostolical, and
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 Rome to such extraordinary 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 cannot be any doubt, I answer, that many such traditions 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.         33T
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 Irenseus wrote. They appealed from
Scripture to tradition, and he answers them by showing that universal tradition was conformable to Scripture.
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 doctrine through a few hands from Peter; and Valentinus boasted of having been instructed by one who had
been a disciple of Paul."t  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 heresies. But not only have heretics availed themselves
of this corrupt fountain, but good men have been deceived by lending too credulous an ear to traditions.
PAPIAS one of the hearers of John the apostle, was
* Liber v. c. 28.            f Strom. xiii.
29




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 information 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,(2tpa8o&sEo aypapov)
and received certain strange parables of our Saviour,
mixed with fabulous things, among which was the
error of the Chiliasts; by which many other excellent 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 traditions, 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 Alexandria, too, than whom no man of
the ancient church was more celebrated, speaks of
certain persons who had taken much pains to preserve 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 traditions 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 esoteric; that the former was committed to writing, and
was in the hands of all; but the latter was commlni* 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 tradition 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 tradition 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 conclusion is clear that the Scriptures are complete without unwritten traditions; that no articles of faith, nor
institutions of worship, concerning which the Scriptures 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 originated 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 interpreting Scriptures; and finally, that tradition has been
the common refuge of heretics, and has greatly misled 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'l 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 propriety 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
afffords 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 distinctly, 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 shining 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 unceasing thanks for this precious deposit which he has
committed to his church, and which, by his Providence, 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 darkness is past in which there was a famine, not of bread,
29 *




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 tradition 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 cecumenical and general Council of Trent, legitimately 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 promulgated 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 traditions, 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, Deuteronomy. 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, Wisdom, 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. Of the New Testament, 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  illum considerationem  referamus, de quo disserere quod Dominus suggesserit atque tractare
instituimus. Erit igitur divinarum scripturarum solertissimus
indagator, qui primo totas legerit, notasque habuerit, etsi non
dum intellectu, jam tamen lectione, duntaxat eas qum appellantur canonicte. Nam cmteras securius leget fide veritatis instructus, ne preoccupent imbecillem  animum, et periculosis
mendaciis atque phantasmatibus eludentes prmjudicent aliquid
contra sanam intelligentian. In canonicis autem scripturis Ecclesiarum catholicarum quamplurium authoritatem sequatur, inter
quas sane ille sunt qum Apostolicas sedes habere et epistolas
accipere meruerunt. Tenebit igitur hunc modum in scripturis
canonicis, ut eas qum ab omnibus accipiuntur Ecclesiis catholicis, p.rponat eis quas quaedam non accipiunt. In eis vero quae
non accipiuntur ab omnibus, preponat eas quas plures gravioresque accipiunt, eis quas pauciores minorisque aulhoritatis Ecclesie tenent. Si autem alias invenerit a pluribus, alias a gravioribus haberi, quanquam hoc invenire non possit, oequalis tamen
authoritatis eas habendas puto. Totus autem canon scripturarum
in quo istam considerationem versandam dicimus, his libris continetur. Quinque Moyseos, id est Genesi, Exodo, Levitico, Numeris, Deuteronomio, et uno ]ibro lesu Nave, uno Judicum, uno
libello qui appellatur Ruth, qui magis ad regnorum principia videtur pertinere.  Deinde quatuor Regum  et duobus Paralipomenon, non consequentibus, sed quasi a latere adjunctis simulque pergentibus.  Haec est historia qume sibimet annexa
tempora continet, atque ordinem rerum. Sunt alia tanquam ex
diverso ordine, qume neque huic ordini, neque inter se connectuntur, sicut est Job et Tobias et Hester et Judith et Mac



APPENDIX.                     345
eabeorum libri duo, et Esdrae duo, qui magis subsequi videntur
ordinatam illam historiam, usque ad Regnorum vel Paralipomenon terminatam. Deinde Prophete, in quibus David unus liber
Psalmorum et Salomonis tres, Proverbiorum, Cantica canticorum, et Ecclesiastes. Nam illi duo libri, unus qui Sapientia,
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 Prophetse appellati sunt, duodecim Prophetarum  libri singuli; qui connexi sibimet, quoniam nunquam sejuncti sunt pro uno habentur. Quorum prophetarum nomina sunt haec, Osee, Joel, Amos, Abdias, Jonas, Michieas, Naum, Abacuk,Sophonias, Aggeus, Zacharias, Malachias.
Deinde quatuor Prophetu sunt majorum voluminum, Esaias,
Hieremias, Daniel, Ezechiel. His quadragintaquatuor libris veteris testamenti terminatur authoritas. Novi autem quatuor libris
Evangelii secundum Mattheum, secundum Marcum, secundum
Lucam, secundum Joannem; quatuordecim Epistolis Pauli Apostoli, 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 Jude, 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 voles curiositatem melius exercere in negotio salutis tuE percurre
Ecclesias apostolicas, apud quas ipss adhuc cathedre president.
apud quas ipse authenticce literce eorum recitantur, sonantes vocem, et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujuscunque. Proxima est
tibi Achaia? habes Corinthum. Si non longe es a Macedonia,
habes Philippos, habes Thessalonicenses. Si potes Asiam tendere,
habes Ephesum. Si autem Italise adjaces, habes Romam unde
nobis quoque auctoritas praesto est."-De Prcescrip. 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 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 throughout 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 mysterious matters that he might have communicated, as he had attained 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 disciples, Matthew and John are the only ones that have left us recorded 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, committed 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 wanting 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 delivered up, he returned from Judea into Galilee." Mark in like
manner writes: " But after John was delivered up, Jesus came into Galilee." And Luke, before he commenced the deeds of Jesus,
in much the same way designates the time, saying, " Herod thus
added yet this wickedness above all he had committed, that
he 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 tie 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
Qo the Baptist, in the midst of our Lord's deeds, as John was at




APPENDIX.                     347
that time "baptizing at ZEnon 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 before the Baptist was cast into prison, but the other three evangelists mention the circumstances after that event. One who attends 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 probable, 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 narrative, 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
ospel, he delivered the certain account of those things, that he
imself 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 endeavour 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 dispute, both by those of the present day, and also by the ancients.
The other two epistles, however, are disputed. The opinions respecting 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 Barnabas," and what are called "'the Institutions of the Apostles."
Moreover, as I said before, if it should appear right, " the Revelation 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, Thomas 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 condescended to make any mention in his works; and indeed the
character of the style itself is very different from that of the
apostles, and the sentiments, and the purport of those things that
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 Romanists, 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 different 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," &c.
It is the opinion of some that this is the gospel to which Paul
alludes, Gal. i. 6, where he speaks of " another gospel." However this may be5 if we credit Eusebius, 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."
* Ecc. Hist. lib. iv. p. 58.




APPENDIX.                     349
Clement of Alexandria* cites from it the following passage:
"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 mountain of Thabor.'" And in another
place, " It is written in a certain gospel, which is entitled according to the Hebrews, (if any one be pleased to receive it, not as of
authority, but only for illustration of the present question,)' A certain rich man said to Christ, What good thing shall I do that I
may inherit life? He said to him, O 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 prophets, seeing it is written in the law, Thou shalt love thy neighbour 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 tile
Hebrews, with which they of the Jews who profess Christianity
are very much delighted." And speaking of the Ebionites, he
says, 1 They made use only of that which is called the gospel according to the Hebrews, very little esteeming any others."I
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 published 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 Capernaum, he entered into the house of Simon called
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.      t Hom. in Jerem.: Ecc. Hist. lib. iii. c. 25, 27.
30




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 Israel.'.... The meat
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
saying,' This is my beloved Son,' &c., was repeated, it goes on to
say,' That hereupon John fell down before him, and said, O 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 Cerinthus and Carpocrates, 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 publican 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 Caesarea, which Pamphilus
the martyr with much diligence collected. The Nazarenes, who
live in Beroea, a city of Syria, and made use of this volume,
granted me the favour of writing it out. In which gospel there
is this observable, that wherever the evangelist either cites himself, 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 Egypt have I called my Son;' and,' He shall be
called a Nazarene.'" This testimony is found in Jerome's life
of Matthew. And in his life of James we find the following account. " The gospel also, which is called according to the Hebrews, and which I lately translated into Greek and Latin, and
which Origen often used relates,'That after our Saviour's resurrection, 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 according 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 Ctesarea, there is the following history:' Behold
* Epiph. Ileres.




APPENDIX.                     351
the mother and brethren of Christ spake to him; John the Baptist 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, perhaps, trom 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 disciple 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 Nazarenes, the whole fountain of the Holy Ghost descended upon him.
Besides, in that gospel just mentioned we find these things written.' 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 following: "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:' I was a mason, who got my livelihood by my hands; I beseech thee, Jesus, that thou wouldst restore 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 Barachiah, 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 cheerful, unless when you can see your brother in love.'"
Concerning this gospel according to the Hebrews, very different 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 foul
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 mannei
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 evident 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 contains-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 possession, and having departed from the true faith, mutilated the
gospel of Matthew, by striking out such things as were unfavourable 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.
Epiphanius expressly asserts, that the Ebionites used the gospel
of Matthew alone, and that in Hebrew, but not entire, but corrupted and adulterated; and that they had taken away the genealogy 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 Nativity 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 Laodicea. Grace be to you,
and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I
thank Christ in every prayer of mine, that ye continue and persevere 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 converts may attain to a perfect knowledge of the truth of the gospel, be beneficent, and doing good works, which accompany salvation. And now my bonds, which I suffer in Christ, are manifest, 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. The 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 Egypt,
in their flight from the cruelty of Herod, the girth of the saddle
on which Mary rode broke, and the great idol of Egypt fell down
at the approach of the infant Jesus.
30 *




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 frightened 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 arrived 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 assertion, that the question of the Canon is not a point of revelation, 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 revelation? 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 Jerusalem and all Judea,
and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.' The
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 revelation, 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 erudition. 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 investigate 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 Mount Sinai. Only one generation of the Jews witnessed
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 matter 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 question of the Canon be called a point of erudition, the gospel itself
must be 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 revelation? Erudition may be allowed its full value, without suspending on it the authority of the word of God.
" The assertion that the question of the Canon is a point of erudition, not of divine revelation, is subversive of the whole of revelation. 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 authenticity of the inspired books. As far as the genuineness and authenticity of any book are brought into suspicion, so far is everything contained in it brought into suspicion. For it should always
be remembered, that there is no greater absurdity than to question 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 revealed 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 contained 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 characteristics 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 revelation, they wished to have them attested to every age by revelation, which is, in fact, requiring the continuance of miraculous
interference, which it might easily be shown would be pernicious."-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 suspend 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 necessary 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 recognized 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 authenticated 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 instance, 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 Solomon, 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 instruction and edification which, as divine books, they must be
calculated to give. This questioning of the Canon, then, proceeds 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 fillest 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 rebellious in regard to that part of which they were not originally appointed the depositaries. The Jews always held the books of the
Old Testament in the highest veneration, and continued to preserve them, without addition or diminution, until the coming of
Him concerning whom they testify, and they have kept them entire to this day; yet they have altogether rejected the New Testament Scriptures. And while Christians have all agreed in preserving the Scriptures of the New Testament entire and uncorrupted, 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 be judged, should not be presented
to them as a matter of doubtful disputation.
" Were there no other evidence of the truth of divine revelation than the existence of the holy Scriptures, that alone would
be conclusive. The Bible is not a book compiled by a single author, 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 distant 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 hundred 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 instructions, 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, establishes 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 from the suspicion of imposture
than the unity that, in the midst of boundless variety, reigns in
that book which reveals the plan of redemption. Toforge tle
Bible is as impossible as to forge a world."-Pp. 156, 7.
THE END.