GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS ON THE ANTILEGOMENA.

387. We must first of all recollect once more, that if we suppose ‘the New Testament to be divided into twenty-six equal parts, all that we are going to say of the second canon relates only to one of these twenty-six parts. And another fact ought not to be forgotten, which marks that slow and silent process of examination by which a secret Providence designed to conduct at last all the churches of the East and West to that marvellous unity in which

we have seen them remain to this day for 1500 years. It is that, during this long and laborious exercise of the consciences of Christians, if there was a number greater or less of churches and of respectable teachers who, suspending their judgment, still harboured doubts of this or the other of the five short epistles; yet, at the same time, these same epistles never ceased to be regarded as canonical by a part, and most frequently by the greatest part, of the Christian churches.

388, It must be remarked, too, that, in the primitive churches, the books of the second canon never occupied the same position as the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The canonicity of the five epistles was at first, indeed, contested in several places; but it was never absolutely rejected, whilst it was quite otherwise with the apocryphal books. The latter, during the same period, instead of being objects of doubt, were resolutely rejected every where from the inspired collection; though they were often respected under the character of ecclesiastical books, that is to say they were classed, as by the Anglican Church in the present day, among writings useful to be read in certain assemblies of the Church. But to say then that such and such of our short epistles was an object of doubt, was to say that it was thought possible some day to see these researches satisfied and these doubts removed. And we know that in fact the doubts ceased, and that the five epistles, controverted for a time, were at last everywhere received.

We shall shew elsewhere how it has not been permitted to the churches, though divided so widely among themselves on every other subject, to be so on this, and how Divine Providence has here evidently displayed His all-powerful hand.

389. But it must be especially remarked here, and ought strongly to confirm our confidence in the final results of this long exercise of conscientious scruples, that this labour has always been pursued under a system of full independence and mutual support. This fact is very extraordinary; it impresses on the sacred collection a very remarkable character, and we shall have to examine it more closely under a most elevated point of view. Certainly, when we consider that the examination of the first Christians relative to the second canon lasted two centuries and a half, and that, nevertheless, it was always carried on with perfect liberty, every teacher having been able to continue his inquiries, and freely publish his doubts in reference to this or the other book of the second canon, without the churches having been seen to condemn one another on this important point; when we see these long and free investigations produce at last the unanimous agreement which all the churches in Christendom present on this point alone for 1500 years, we then receive a powerful impression of the secret and sovereign agency which has conducted this holy affair throughout. But we must abstain for the present from dwelling on this point of view, and speak here only of the powerful historical testimony rendered by so free an agreement to the canon of Scripture. How admirable it is that, in the very ages when so many acts of ecclesiastical violence were accomplished everywhere to obtain unity on every other point, yet without obtaining it, we can nowhere find that any act of authority ever interposed on this — no collective influence of bishops — no prescription of the civil power — no decrees of councils to impose on believers such or such a book, or to make them accept a complete collection, — of the Scriptures, before the time of personal conviction!

It was thus that Christians all over the world, satisfied by degrees, added to their sacred canon one after another those of the short late epistles about which some churches had hesitated, until at last their unanimous agreement came to give a reason to those among them who had never doubted.

390. We have already stated the reasons why some of the primitive churches delayed receiving into their collection the shorter epistles, and more particularly those of John and Jude; but we may still point out some others. For example, it must be considered that, if the epistles of Paul, addressed at first to certain persons or certain churches, owing to this one circumstance, would be accepted from the first moment, (the originals, for example, being preserved even to the days of Tertullian in the apostolic churches,)¹ it could not be thus with the three short letters of John and of Jude, which, not sent directly to any particular church, had not, to secure their general reception, either the authority of a writer still living, nor even the testimony of a depository pointed out by him.

In the second place, it must be expected during this long process of examination, that the churches, according to their very different circumstances, would arrive at different judgments. Some in a better position for being more readily satisfied, would be the first to receive the entire canon; others, at a greater distance, would suspend their judgment while waiting for fresh light; others, again, preoccupied by certain objections, (which they were not yet in a condition to resolve,) would retain their doubts, and allow themselves time for examination. We can understand, for example, that churches which spoke the Syriac language must have received the Epistle of James from the year 62; while their respectful attachment for their admirable Peshito version would dispose them to receive very slowly what was not included in it from the earliest times. It was in this way that one church arrived at conviction after another church, and that all were led by this patient and sure labour to receive at last the whole canon.

391. It is of importance to remark, that it was not even desirable that the five late epistles (we might almost call them post-humous) should obtain a very prompt acceptance.

If the twenty sacred books of the first canon, recommended by the ministry and presence of the apostles, were immediately received, it was expedient, on the contrary, as to the five epistles, that every teacher, and every church, before giving them a place in the canon, should attentively examine their origin, and inform themselves of all their claims, in order to guard with the greatest care against confounding the Scripture with those numerous forged books which were then in circulation under supposititious names. In the midst of this confusion it was needful, in order to decide, that they should arrive at the most entire certainty respecting their authenticity. Such a labour of examination was therefore necessary, which, for a part’ of the churches, demanded much patience and much time, and was carried on without partiality or precipitation, without human compulsion, and in the most perfect liberty.

392. Thus, then, these very doubts with which many churches began on the subject of the antilegomena, far from disquieting our faith, should go to confirm it. For they give us, in the first place, the assurance, that not only the first collection of our Scriptures, but that each of the books separately, with which it was to be enlarged, underwent, before its admittance, the jealous, free, and sacredly severe scrutiny of the universal Church, without any species of constraint being employed to enforce its acceptance.

Secondly, these very doubts of some churches on the subject of the second canon, if we compare them with the immediate unanimity of their agreement on the subject of the first, give us three valuable assurances respecting both canons.

And first, as to the twenty sacred books of which the first canon was composed, these hesitations shew us that no reason of doubt whatever presented itself to any of the primitive churches in the course of the three first centuries.

And as to the second canon, these very hesitations of some churches testify to us that those who, being better informed in the same age, did not hesitate, had found from the first sufficient reasons to receive our five small epistles on their first appearance.

Lastly, these very delays testify to us that when all these churches, at first hesitating, ended in agreeing with those who from their better position had never doubted, they must have had before their eyes most convincing proofs in order to give up their first opposition.

It is thus that they were led by the patient and sure action of Divine Providence to that striking agreement which we see them shew down to the present day for fifteen centuries; the admirable result of their researches and of their liberty.

393. To these sacred doubts of the primitive churches, to their jealousies and continual researches, we are indebted for another precious fact attested by history, namely, “that the Church has never received into the canon any book of which, at a later period, it has been obliged to acknowledge the illegitimacy.” I speak of the New Testament, the volume which is committed to us, and not of the Old, of which the Jews are the only true depositaries;² for we grant that, with respect to the latter, the priests of Rome have allowed themselves some late liberties, but without any consequence: late, we say, since it is only in the sixteenth century of Christianity, and without any logical consequence, we say again, (at least for the doctrine of the canon;) since we know with Athanasius, and we repeat with the whole Eastern church,³ that “the Christian Church of the New Testament receives from the Hebrew Church of the Old Testament the sacred books of that Testament,” because “to the Jews,” as St Paul has said, (Rom. iii. 2,) “have been committed the oracles of God.” When we say, that “the ancient Church has never received into its canon any book of which, at a later period, it has been obliged to acknowledge the illegitimacy,” some persons perhaps will be tempted to set in opposition to us that kind of approbation given in some churches during the second, third, and fourth centuries to certain authentic but not canonical writings, such as the letter of the Roman Clement to’ the Corinthians, or even to apocryphal or spurious books, (νόθα,) such as The Shepherd of Hermas and The Apocalypse of Peter.

But it would be without foundation for any one to represent the partial use that certain churches may have made of these books for their public reading, as a recognition of their canonicity. On the contrary, this fact examined more closely, and taken in connexion with the general usages of the Church at that period, far from compromising the true canon, only serves to confirm it, as Dr Thiersch has very clearly shewn in his essay “on the Restoration of the Historical Stand-point for the Criticism of the New Testament.”⁴

394. “At the end of the first century,” he says, “the Church, henceforth deprived of the presence of the apostles, and penetrated with a spirit (sometimes excessive) of holy jealousy for them, redoubled their attachment for the scriptures of the first canon, and assumed a character eminently conservative, which would be on its guard against every innovation. The use of its first canon was already consecrated and unassailable. Towards the third part of the second century, the generation of those who had personally known the apostles began to be extinct. Some believers, such as Papias, devoted themselves to collect the last traditions of the disciples of the Lord, to save them from oblivion; but it was not till the reign of Antoninus Pius, during the second third of the century, that the first beginnings appeared of ecclesiastical science. Towards the end of the same century, in the time of Clement of Alexandria and Irenæus, there was a disposition to search out the very few and short writings composed after the appearance of the New Testament. Irenæus called to his aid against the Gnostics of his time, the letter (ἱκανωτάτην) of the Roman Clement to the Corinthians, that of Polycarp to the Philippians, and The Shepherd of Hermas. For to fill up this great void of literature and history, the pious teacher appeared to have possessed no other remains of primitive Christian antiquity but these three authors, and perhaps the letters of Ignatius. Yet these feeble relics appeared more precious in proportion to their fewness; so that, if God had not interposed, it might have happened that the extravagant lovers of antiquity would have attributed more value to them than they really possessed. But this was not the case with Irenæus. On the contrary, he shewed himself very prudent in this respect, and he is, of all the fathers, the most conformed to the Scriptures, as he is, at the same time, the most faithful representative of the true tradition of the primitive churches. While he was combating in Gaul the heresies of his age, his contemporary Clement, who, at Alexandria in Egypt, attempted to associate with Christianity an impure mixture of a stoical and mystic Platonism, was, on the contrary, the one among the fathers who was at the greatest distance from the spirit of the apostles, as well as from the true tradition; and he was also the father who occupied himself most with the apocryphal writings of his time. He is the first who mentions the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and the Preaching (κήρυγμα) of Peter, and who, citing the Gospel of the Egyptians to refute the heretics, endeavoured to affix a plausible sense to the mystic fancies of that book.

“And yet even with Clement of Alexandria the canon remained . intact, and you find in his writings the difference clearly expressed which the Church then placed between the Divine Scriptures and all other books, Even when he pays a literary attention to the Gospel of the Egyptians, he distinguishes it very clearly from the four canonical Gospels.

Towards the end of the second century, the anagnosis of a book gave it a sanction, and constituted it, in the eyes of the Church, an inspired scripture; for they then admitted to that honour of public reading no other books but those which were acknowledged as Divine and canonical. But it was not so after that epoch. The Church from that time was widely extended, and the worship having taken new development, the notion of mystery was introduced into it, in imitation of the mystery of the Gentiles; and as they distinguished carefully the penitents and the catechumens from the faithful and the consecrated, so they came to distinguish also different degrees in the use of the Scriptures, and in that of the other books which were read in public. Around the primitive canon the books of the second canon came to be placed in the first rank, which they did not dare to assimilate entirely to the first; then around these some other writings which were held to be edifying and deserving of respect, but which, though admitted to be read, (ἀναγιγνωσκόμενα,) and thereby δεδημοσιευμένα, (as Eusebius terms it,) — that is, set apart for public and popular use, — they were not ἐνδιαθήκα, included in the scriptures of the New Testament. Henceforward, then, the public reading being no longer a recognition of canonicity, a new class of books was formed, called ecclesiastical, which had not been used formerly in worship, but which came to take their place in the train of the books called canonical. In many churches The Shepherd of Hermas, and even other writings of an inferior rank, were read to the catechumens; but in doing this there was no intention of touching the canon of the primitive books, and the notion of the bounds of the canon remained complete and universal, as any one may be satisfied by reading Origen, Eusebius, and the various authors whom we have cited.”

395. Another kind of public readings, held on certain days of the year, was also introduced during the second century in some churches for the celebration of the anniversaries of the martyrs, (ἡμέραι τγενέθλιαι;) for on these days the narrative of their death was read over their graves⁵ as we see, for the first time, in the case of the epistle of the church at Smyrna on the death of Polycarp.⁶ It was by an analogous custom that at Corinth, even two or three centuries after, on a certain day of the year, the letter of Clement of Rome to the primitive church of that city was read over; and, besides, on account of its antiquity and the name of its author, this letter approached nearer than any other uncanonical writing to the authority attributed to the second canon, so that Eusebius tells us (vi. 12) that in many churches, _and in Caesarea among others, (καθ’ ἡμᾶς,) it had been long made a part of the public reading, (Sednuoorevpévnv.) But there was still a great difference between this use of it and the acknowledgment of it as belonging to the canon. So Eusebius, in his famous twenty-fifth chapter, (book iii,) takes great care not to put it, we do not say in the rank of the first canon, but even in that of the second; at the same time, he avoids placing it among the apocryphai or spurious books, (ἐν τοῖς νόθοις.) If he calls it uncontroverted, (ὁμολογουμένῃ) (iii, 38,) it is evidently in the sense of its authenticity, not of its canonicity. He esteems it very highly, (“a majestic and admirable epistle,” he calls it,) but does not make it a canonical book.

We find it placed, indeed, at the end of the fourth volume of the New Testament of the famous Alexandrian manuscript of Cyril Lucas. But this fact is of no weight as regards the canon, since we also find in the same manuscript, at the end of this epistle, the second pretended epistle of Clement, an epistle of Athanasius to Marcellinus, the apocryphal psalms attributed to Solomon, and fourteen hymns, of which the eleventh is in honour of the Virgin Mary, (τῆς θεοτόκου.)

396. There was yet another development which took place later in the readings of the Church, but not till the fourth century. We refer to the homilies. Justin Martyr⁷ tells us that, in the assemblies of his time, “after the reader (of the Scriptures) had finished, (παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος) the president (ὁ προεστως) delivers a discourse of admonition and exhortation, (διὰ, λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν . . . . ποιεῖται.)” But we do not learn that, till the second or third century, any of these discourses (λόγων) were committed to writing. Origen is the first father of whom any homilies are extant. It became the practice, in course of time, to read in some churches the homilies of the most celebrated teachers. Jerome informs us that was the case with the Syriac sermons of Ephrem.⁸ “He had acquired such renown,” he says, (ad tantam venit claritudinem,) “that his discourses, after the reading of the Scriptures, were publicly recited.” We know, also, that the same honour was shewn, at a later period, to those of Gregory, Chrysostom, and Augustin. But these recitations, as we have seen, only took place post lec tionem Scripturarum. They might be a substitute for preaching, but never for the Word of God.

397. Lastly, here and there, as far as we can gather from some very isolated facts, when the limits of the canon had been firmly established, it might happen that a bishop permitted in his church, after the reading of the Scriptures, that of some apocryphal or spurious (νόθου) book, if the book appeared to him orthodox in its doctrine, and pure in its morality. An example has been cited from Eusebius, (vi, 12,) which some persons might be disposed to abuse, but, which seems rather to confirm the doctrine of the canon. It relates to a pretended Gospel of Peter, which some members of the church at Rhosus (in Cilicia) desired to use, not as a canonical scripture, but as an edifying book. Serapion, then bishop, tells us, “that being come to them without knowing the book, and without having gone through it, (μὴ διελθωνζ) because he believed it conformable to the faith, he had said to them, ‘If it is only this that causes your disputes, let it be read.’ But now, (he writes,) after what has been told me, and taking into consideration that it has been used in favour of the Docetae, I have read it; and, having found, among many things that are conformable to the sound doctrine of the Saviour, teachings that differ from it, I have placed them under your inspection, hoping shortly to be with you.” He then makes an extract, with a refutation, exposing its falsehoods, (ἀπελέτγχων τὰ ψευδῶς ἐν αὐτῷ εἰρημένα.) “As to us, my brethren,” he adds, “we receive Peter, and the other. apostles, as Christ himself; but as to the writings which are given to us falsely under their name, (τὰ δὲ ὀνόματι αὐτῶν ψευδεπίγραφα,) we, as experienced persons, , (ἑμπειροι,) reject them, knowing that we have not received such from our predecessors, (ὅτι τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐ παρελάβομεν.)”

It is thus that this accidental oversight of Serapion serves to shew the ordinary vigilance of the pastors of the second and third centuries, and “that the exception in this case, as often happens,” says Dr Thiersch, “serves only to confirm the rule.”

398. There exist, as we have said, among the seven catholic epistles, affinities and points of coincidence, each of them being a testimony to the authenticity of some others. We shall give some examples,

(1.) A modern author⁹ has noticed an interesting connexion between the First Epistle of Peter and the second of John.

The epistle of Peter, addressed from Babylon to the elect Jews scattered through the provinces of Asia Minor, ends with a salutation of that (church) “which is at Babylon, elected together with you and Mark.” The epistle of John, on the other hand, addressed on the part of “the elder to the elect lady (ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ) and her children,” ends with a salutation “from the children of her elect sister.” It has often been disputed whether the elect sister and the elect lady are two persons, as most moderns have thought, or two churches, as most of the ancients thought, and as Michaelis believes, according to which κυρίᾳ would be an ellipsis for κυρία ἐκκλησίᾳ, an expression which, among the ancient Greeks, and especially at Athens, meant a regular, fixed assembly of the people, and which, in St John, might design a church regularly assembled every Lord’s-day.

The First Epistle of John, according to the tradition of, the ancients,¹⁰ was addressed to the Parthians, among whom (as we know from Philo and Josephus)¹¹ there was an immense multitude of Jews. And thus in the same manner as Peter had written his first epistle to the Jewish Christians dispersed through Asia, (1 Pet. i. 1,) John might have addressed his first to the Jewish Christians scattered through Babylonia and the other provinces of the Parthians.

But Clement of Alexandria, in a work of which we have only a Latin translation,¹² has also said that the Second Epistle of John is addressed to the Parthians, and the Latin translator having mistaken Παρθίους for παρθένους, has translated it Secunda Johannis Epistola quae ad Virgines inscripta, while there is not a word in it that concerns virgins: And the same Clement has said elsewhere “that this Second Epistle of John was written to a certain elect Babylonian,” and thinks (like Jerome) that the word elect means, not an elect person, but an elect church.

Thus, then, the apostle of the circumcision addressed from Babylon his first epistle to the Jews of the Asiatic Dispersion — a province assigned to John — and ended it with this salutation, — Your co-elect sister who is at Babylon (ἡ ἐν βαβολῶνι σύνεκ λεκτὴ) salutes you, and so does Marcus my son; and on his side John, the apostle of the provinces of Asia, addressed his “to the elect Church,” and ends in his turn with the salutation — “The children of thy elect sister greet thee, who art at Babylon.”

We must here call to mind that triple dispersion of the Jews, as Luke has stated it, on the day of Pentecost, (Acts ii. 8.)

[1.] “Parthians, Medes, Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia.” This was the dispersion, subject: to the Parthians, with Babylon for the metropolis. [2.] “Those who inhabit Judea, Cappadocia, Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia.” This was the dispersion of Asia. [3.] “Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene.” This was the dispersion of Africa. These three dispersions which Peter had addressed at the Pentecost, and which formed his spiritual province, had been each the object of his apostolic care: that of Babylon, by the visit he made to it in person; that of Asia, by the letter which he wrote from Babylon; that of Africa, by the mission of his son Mark, the first bishop of Alexandria.¹³

These first relations between the catholic epistles, though founded on a disputable interpretation, have seemed to us worthy of notice; but we have others.

399. (2.) Peter, writing his first epistle after that of James, bears him an indirect but significant testimony, by adopting and incorporating, as we have already said, a great many of his peculiar traits.

(3.) Jude, whose epistle followed not only that of James, but. even the second of Peter, introduces himself as a brother of that James who was known to the churches by his ministry, by his epistle, and by his martyrdom, (in the year 62.) .

(4.) The same Jude adopts very freely, as we have said, the language of the Second Epistle of Peter, as Peter in his first adopted that of James.

(5.) Jude even goes so far as to declare that he cites one of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ (ver. 17) when he reports in its own terms a prophecy of the Second Epistle of Peter.

(6.) Peter, in his turn, in his second epistle, earnestly recommends all the epistles of Paul, his beloved brother, putting them on a level with the rest of the scriptures, and denouncing eternal destruction to those who wrest them.

(7.) The same Peter in his second epistle alludes to the first, (iii. 1.)

(8.) John blends and corroborates the fourfold testimony of his Gospel and his three epistles by employing in a striking manner the same thoughts and the same expressions.

(9.) As John in the fourth Gospel attests the authority of the three others by the very care he has taken to be silent on almost all the events already reported in them, so also we may say that in his three epistles the same apostle attests the authenticity ols, the epistles of Peter and Paul by the silence he preserves on the important doctrines already so abundantly expounded by these two great apostles. In dilating only on the precepts of Christian love, John silently informs us of the entire approbation he gives to these teachings. This is an observation of Dr Wordsworth.¹⁴

400. We leave these considerations, which may have their interest, but the importance of which disappears before thoughts of a more general and elevated order that are about to occupy our attention.

We believe that we have hitherto sufficiently demonstrated from history the incomparable authenticity of the New Testament; but we have indicated at the outset that to arrive at the same conclusions in reference to the two Testaments, there is a still more excellent way.

This is the way of Faith. It will be the subject of our Second Part.

1) De Praescriptione Haereticor., cap. xxxvi. “Come now, thou who wishest to exercise thy curiosity to better purpose in the business of thy salvation,” he writes in the year 207, “run through the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles are occupied, and where their authentic letters are recited, uttering their voice and representing their countenance, (apud quo ipsae authenticae litterae eorum recitantur, sonantes vecem et repraesentantes faciem uniuscujusque.) Is Achaia near thee? thou hast Corinth. If thou art not far from Macedon, thou hast Philippi — thou hast Thessalonica, If thou art able to reach Asia, thou hast Ephesus. If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome,” &c.

2) Rom. iii. 2.

3) These words are from the “Great Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, approved by the Holy Synod.” Moscow, 1839.

4) Versuch zur Wiederherstellung des historischen Standpuncts fiir die Critik des N. T., p. 866 and following, the beginning of his sixth chapter, &c.

5) Hence the term legends, (writings to be read.)

6) Ἐπιστὸλη ἐγκύκλιος, cap. xviii.

7) First Apology, ch. lxvii.

8) De Viris Illustr., cap. cv.

9) Dr Wordsworth in his eleventh discourse on the Canon, p. 277. London, 1848.

10) Estius, in Ep. 1 Joh. Praef., p. 201, (Rouen, 1709.) “Veterum traditio est ad Parthos scriptam esse Johannis epistolam. Hune titulum ei tribuunt Hyginus Papa... . et ipse Augustinus.” — Quaest. Evang., ii., 39.

11) Philo, De Legat. ad Caium, 36; Josephus, Antiq., xxiii, 12.

12) Adumbrat, pp. 10, 11.

13) Jerome, Catal. Scriptor, Eccl., viii.

14) On the Canon, p. 285.