VULGAR PREJUDICES WHICH A GLANCE AT THESE FACTS OUGHT TO HAVE REMOVED.

95. In presenting a brief summary of these facts, it may be of importance to specify various erroneous notions and groundless fears that have too often been entertained within the Christian Church. The believer must be on his guard against the confused and delusive echoes that proceed from the schools of science, and which, from being repeated from mouth to mouth, finally obtain a usurped importance, and assume the dangerous semblances of scientific reality. Thus originate inveterate prejudices, laxity of principle, and pernicious doubts. When a smattering of science, with a tone of authority, has once diffused, in a Christian community, devious opinions and inaccurate assertions, unstable minds allow themselves to be led away. They come to imagine that such and such a science, in the recesses of her sanctuary, has, lying before her, unquestionable facts, unanswerable discoveries, to overturn such and such statements of Scripture. The dupes feel assured that none will be found rash enough fairly to enter the . lists with this irresistible opponent, but that all who possess even the slightest share of discretion, will keep as far as possible out of her way. The truth, however, is, that, if any one will but firmly meet this dreaded adversary face to face, and closely scrutinise her pretensions, the phantom will vanish. This has been exemplified, during the last two centuries, in the great question of various readings. It was formerly supposed by many that critical science had in her possession irresistible facts to combat Scripture, and completely overturn its authority. Yet, the result has been that earnest inquirers, by turning from superficial to accurate erudition, have speedily found that the fallacies of the opponents of sound Christianity will not stand the test, and that all attempts to shake the fabric of the faith by arguments from various readings, have but served to make it more firm than ever. The same will be the case in regard to the canon.

“We do not hesitate to maintain, without fearing the charge of presumption,” says Dr Thiersch,¹ “that, in the whole compass of historical inquiry, there is not a department in which a greater mass of prejudices and fallacies have been adopted than in this — to form a system which still exercises a tyranny over minds otherwise highly enlightened.”

There exist, then, in connexion with the canon, erroneous motives and pernicious prejudices, which it is of importance to — specify before we proceed further. The following are some of them: —

96. First, Many persons speak of the list of sacred Scriptures as if it had furnished nothing but uncertainty to Christians for three centuries, and as if the Divine authority of the books of the New Testament had never been distinctly recognised till the end of the fourth. It is, however, on the contrary, an incontestible fact, that the first canon was, at no time, anywhere an object of any uncertainty to the Churches of God, and that all the writings of which it consists, that is, eight-ninths of the New Testament, were, from the moment of their appearance, and through all succeeding ages have been, universally recognised by all the Churches of Christendom.

97. Second, Many persons speak of the antilegomena, or five short and later epistles, which we call the second canon, and which form only the thirty-sixth part of the New Testament, as if they had not been recognised in apostolic times. . This, too, is a mistake. They were not, it is true, universally recognised at first, (and we shall point out the cause;) but, from the very first, they were recognised by most churches (τοῖς πολλοῖς) and by most (τοῖς πλείστοις) ecclesiastical writers,

98, Third, People also speak of the second-first canon as if the two books of which it consists had not been universally received as canonical till a very late period, whereas, on the contrary, they were at first universally received both in the East and in the West; and it was only at a later period, the commencement of the third century, and on grounds of pure internal criticism, (never in reference to external evidence,) that one of these books, always regarded in the East as of Divine authority, was, for a time, questioned in the West; and the other, always viewed as of Divine authority in the West, was, for a time, questioned in the East.

99. Fourth, Many persons speak of this hesitation of a small number of churches, in reference to the antilegomena, as having been prolonged to an advanced period of the fourth century. This also is a mistake. It may be seen from all the catalogues of the fourth century that the discordance in question ceased in the churches as soon as they met by representatives in a general council.

100. Fifth, Many profess to regard the hesitation of a portion of the primitive churches on the second canon as a fact painful to Christian piety. This is a very gross mistake. We will shew that, on the contrary, the fact, far from tending to disturb our faith, is fitted to strengthen it, as it clearly proves, on the one hand, the firmness, the holy jealousy, and unceasing vigilance of the primitive Christians in reference to the canon, and, on the other, the perfect liberty with which they examined its claims, sifted its peculiarities, and, in certain cases, contested its authority. All these circumstances prove most forcibly that if, notwithstanding this constant jealousy of the primitive churches, and notwithstanding the entire liberty they exercised on this head, they shewed themselves always so unanimous in receiving the twenty books’ that form the first canon — it was not blindly, it was not without examination, it was not in obedience to human authorities, that they did so, but that, on the contrary, it was solely because they had before them solid, clear, and irresistibly-convincing evidence, which compelled them to adopt the general decision. This is the only explanation that can account for so full, prompt, and universal an assent on the part of men so vigilant, so jealous, and so free.

Thus the temporary existence of these very doubts on the part of a minority of the primitive churches contributes in two ways to the confirmation of our belief. On the one hand, their existence proves to us that, in everywhere receiving the first twenty books of the New Testament, the churches had done so because they could not discover the slightest ground for hesitation, and, on the other, the universal disappearance of those same doubts on the subject, demonstrates in like manner that the churches were constrained by irresistible evidence when at length they universally received the second canon with the same unwavering conviction with which they had from the beginning received the first.

101. Sixth, Many, also, for the purpose of weakening the authority of the Scriptures, and exalting tradition, have often attempted to shew. that the Church, during her earliest and brightest period, proceeded without the written word, and lived solely on the spoken word and tradition. This, too, is a fallacy. No congregation in the primitive Church ever assembled without the reading of the oracles of the Old Testament, which formed the first and principal part of the service. It was always held that the Holy Scriptures are “able to make the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works, and wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus.”

After the example of Jesus and His apostles, the Church was always nourished with the written word, and by it was constantly strengthened in hope and faith. Those Scriptures never ceased to be a lamp unto the believer's feet. “Search them,” said Jesus, “for they testify of me.”

102. Seventh, Many, finally, speak of the canon as if the definitive fixing of it had been the work of councils, the act of the Church uttering her voice by decrees. This, too, is a fallacy, and entirely at variance with the facts of the case. It is of importance to establish the truth on this point here, though we propose to revert to it elsewhere, when we treat of the most essential grounds of our belief in the canon of Scripture.

No human authority interposed in this matter; the determination of it was simply and purely the offspring of conscience, inquiry, and liberty. The Churches of God, enlightened by mutual testimony, settled the canon from conviction, under the secret and omnipotent guidance which will ever watch over the written word. The first canon was universally determined by the Churches of Christ ere any council whatever was held; and the councils, when they began to be convoked, discussed every other point but the fixing of the canon. We shall afterwards demonstrate with greater precision that, for fourteen centuries, no general council ever pretended to fix the canon by a decree, as we have already shewn that even the two provincial councils of Laodicea and Carthage, too frequently appealed to as having established the canon by enactments, cannot be justly regarded as having come to an authoritative decision on the question that now occupies our attention.

The reader may be here referred to the works of Lardner, who proves, by long quotations from the Fathers, that the canon of the New Testament was never settled authoritatively.² Basnage may be consulted, who devotes three chapters to the same thesis in his History of the Church.³ Read Le Clerc, who, in his Ecclesiastical History, under the years 29 and 100, says, “There was no occasion for a council of grammarians to declare authoritatively which are the genuine works of Cicero or of Virgil, In like manner, the authenticity of the Gospels was established and maintained without any decree of the rulers of the Church. The same remark applies to the apostolic epistles. They owe all their authority, not to the decision of any ecclesiastical assembly, but to the concurrent testimony of all Christians, and to the tenor of their contents.”

Augustin said, thirteen centuries before Le Clere — “We know which are the writings of the apostles in the same way as we know which are the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Varro, and others; and as we know which are the writings of other ecclesiastical authors — from the testimony of their contemporaries, and of persons who lived in the ages that successively followed.”

Let it suffice here to say, that the ancient Fathers, in forming their decisions on the canon, appealed solely to the free and unvarying testimony of the churches; while, at the same time, they added a careful scrutiny of the books they were invited to receive. In giving in their catalogue, they never pretend to publish them either as results of their own discoveries, or of the decisions of any authority whatever. They record the mind of preceding ages — the unbiased testimony of the primitive Christians — the evidence they had received from their predecessors by continuous transmission from the days of the apostles.

Origen, who was born 142 years before the Council of Nice, does not, in putting forth his catalogue of the canonical Scriptures, (τῶν ἐνδιαθηκῶν τγραφῶυ,) confirm it by a reference to the decisions of any council, but merely to the testimony of the early Christians, (οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ἄνδρες) and to uninterrupted historical evidence, (ὡς ἐν παραδόσει μαθών). His words have been preserved to us by Eusebius, who adds, in quoting his testimony as to the Gospels: “Origen follows tradition and the ecclesiastical canon;⁴ and he testifies that only four Gospels have been unanimously received by all the churches under heaven.”⁵

Eusebius himself; in expressing his mind on the books of the New Testament, and on their division into books universally received and books controverted, makes no reference to any authority or any council, but presents his catalogue as resting on ecclesiastical tradition, (κατὰ τὴν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν παράδοσιν.)⁶ Athanasius, likewise, who was born in the year 296, puts forth his catalogue, identical with ours, as grounded on “testimony communicated to the Fathers by those who had been eye-witnesses and ministers of the word from the beginning.”⁷ But he does not refer to any council, and merely enumerates the books that were recognised as forming the canon, handed down and held as of Divine authority.⁸

Not one author, either of the fourth, or fifth, or sixth century, appeals, on the subject of the canon, to the decisions of any council, Thus, when Cyril, patriarch of Jerusalem, who was born (it is believed) twenty years after Athanasius, gives us his catalogue of inspired books,⁹ he refers to no council, and only appeals to “the apostles, and the ancient bishops who presided over the churches, and transmitted to us those books as inspired.”¹⁰

Likewise, when Augustin, about the end of the same century, or rather the beginning of the fifth, wrote an answer to certain persons who had inquired of him “which books were truly canonical,” he simply referred to the testimony of the various churches of Christendom, and not to any council whatever.¹¹

Likewise, when Rufinus, a presbyter of Aquileia, about the year 340, gives his catalogue, (also identical with ours,) he simply professes to present “the tradition of their ancestors, who had transmitted these books to the churches of Christ, as divinely inspired,” and he declares that he gives it just as he had copied it from the records of the Fathers.¹²

Lastly, when Cassiodorus, a Roman consul in the sixth century, gives us three catalogues of the books of the New Testament, (one from Jerome, another from Augustin, and another from an ancient version,) he, too, makes no reference to any decree or to any council.¹³

Let it, then, be no longer said that the authority of councils fixed the canons of Scripture. It was, indeed, fixed; but the authority of councils had nothing to do with it. It was the will of God that Christians individually, and Christian congregations, enlightened by the testimony of successive generations of believers, should form their opinions on the subject of the canon with entire liberty of judgment, that the authenticity of the sacred books might be rendered more manifest.

We shall afterwards examine this important fact under another point of view. But the evidence here given will suffice to shew how erroneous and how entirely at variance with facts it would be to persist in seeking for the origin or settlement of the canon in-any ecclesiastical decree,

1) In his interesting “Essay on the Canon.” “Versuch zur Vorstellung der historischen Standpunkte fiir die Kritik der neu-testamentlichen Schriften,”

2) Supplement, p. 50-52, Second Part, vol. i.; vol. vi., pp. 825, 881; vol. ii., pp. 395, 496, 529, 576; vol. viii, pp. 102, 225, 268; vol. x., pp. 193, 207, 208.

3) Book viii., chaps. v., vi, and vii.

4) Hist. Heel. vi. 25 — Τὸν ἐκκλησιαστικὸν φυλάττων κανόνα.

5) Ἃ καὶ μόνα ἀναντίξξηταῖ ἐν τῆ ὑπὸ τὸν οὗξανὸν ἐκκλησία τοῦ Θεοῦ.

6) Hist. Eccl, iii, 25 — οί ταῦτας παραδόντες.

7) Festive Epistle, xxxixi — Καθώς παρέδοσαν τοῖς πατράσιν.

8) Τά κανονιξύμενα καί παξαόοθὲντα πιστευθέντα τε θεῖα εἰναι βιβλία.

9) αἱ θεόπνευστοι γραφαί.

10) Catech., iv., 33.

11) De Doctrinâ Christianâ, lib, ii., vol. ili, Parti, p. 47. Edit. Paris, 1836. (He began this book in 397, and finished it in 407.) See also Lardner, vol. x., p. 207.

12) In Symb. Apost., p. 26 — “Que secundum majorum traditionem per ipsum Spiritum Sanctum inspirita creduntur et ecclesiis Christi tradita, competens videatur in hoc loco evidenti numero sicut ex Patrum monumentis accessimus designare.”

13) Lardner, vol. xi., p. 803, — Cassïod, De Institutione Divinar. Litterar., cap. xi.