of the gospels as productions of the apostles. Irenæus, Contra Hæres. III. 11, cites the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as those which he knew to be genuine. The same was done by Clemens of Alexandria, and Tertullian. Vid. Storr, S. 12. Tatian, at the end of the second century, and Ammonius, at the beginning of the third, composed harmonies of the four gospels, and Origen wrote a copious commentary on Matthew and John. The gospels were, therefore, collected as early as the second century; and in the third and fourth centuries were regarded as of undoubted authority throughout the Christian church. They were prefixed to the other books of the New Testament; because the history of Jesus was considered, at that early period, as the basis of Christian truth, and was taught wherever the gospel was preached (John 20: 31); just as the historical books, especially the writings of Moses, were prefixed to the Old Testament, as the basis of the Mosaic economy.

(2) As to the epistles, a collection of them was commenced at a very early period, and was gradually enlarged and completed. It appears, indeed, to be of somewhat later origin, than the collection of the gospels; but both of them must have existed soon after the commencement of the second century: for Ignatius, Ep. ad. Philadelph. cap. 5, speaks of the gospels, and of the apostolical writings. The apostolical epistles were first sent to the churches, for which they were principally written. They were then communicated by these churches, either in the original or in transcript, to other connected churches (Col. 4: 16); and each church collected as many as it could obtain. From such small, imperfect beginnings, our present collection was formed. It is probable that some celebrated teacher, who possessed more epistles than any other man, or perhaps some distinguished church, first instituted this collection in the second century; and that it was afterwards adopted by others, in deference to this authority. The place where this collection was first made, is unknown. Mill supposes it was Rome; but without sufficient reason.

This collection of the epistles was designed to include only those which were most distinguished, and whose authenticity was universally allowed. The anoσrolixov, therefore, originally contained only the thirteen epistles of Paul, and the first epistles of Peter and John; since these only were considered by the oldest fathers, as belonging to the ἐνδιάθηκοι. But afterwards the ἀντιλεγόμενα were

PRINCIPLES ON WHICH IT WAS MADE.

91

gradually admitted into the canon. And as early as the third century, most of the copies of the collection contained all the books which now belong to it, the avrilɛyouɛva not excepted; as appears from the catalogue of Origen cited by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. VI. 25; and from that of Eusebius himself, Hist. Eccles. III. 25, where he appeals to ἐκκλησιαστικὴ παράδοσις, and excludes the Apocrypha from the vdiάonnoi. Vid. Griesbach, Hist. epp. Paull. Jenæ, 1777, 4to. The catalogues of Cyril of Jerusalem, and of Gregory Nazianzen agree with these, except that the Apocalypse is wholly omitted by the former, and is mentioned by the latter as doubtful.

II. The principles on which this collection was made, and the authority which it possesses. We discover these principles from the writings of the fathers of the early ages of the church.

1. It was a rule to admit only such books into the canon, as could be proved to be the productions of the apostles themselves, or of their first assistants in office. Those only, therefore, were allowed to be indianxo, which had credible testimony in their favor, from the earliest times. The gospels of Peter, Thomas, and others, were on this principle rejected by Origen and Eusebius.

2. The doctrines taught in a book were also examined, before it was admitted into the canon. If any book disagreed with the doctrines which the apostles taught, or with the regulations which the apostles established, it was excluded from the canon, as clearly spurious. This rule was needed even at that early period; for many books, written in support of error, had from the first been ascribed to the apostles, in order to procure more influence and currency.

3. The custom and example of other churches, which might reasonably be supposed to have judged on good and solid grounds, and which were free from the suspicion of credulity or carelessness, were in some cases referred to, in determining whether a book should be admitted into the canon. So Hieronymus (Catal. Script. Eccles.), when speaking of the book of Jude, says, that it had indeed been doubted and rejected by some, but auctoritatem jam vetustate et

usu meruit.

The question, upon what the canonical authority of the books of the New Testament depends, may now be easily answered. It depends principally upon the decision of the first Christian teachers

and churches; as the authority of the Greek classics depends upon the decision of the grammarians of Alexandria. Their decision, however, was not arbitrary; but founded on sober examination of the authenticity of these books. No public and universal law was ever passed in the ancient church, determining that all and each of the books of the New Testament should be adopted, without further examination and inquiry. The learned always were, and always must be, free to inquire on this subject. If we are convinced at all, it must be by reason, and not by authority. We should not, therefore, blindly credit the testimony of the ancients, whether given by particular churches, or by distinguished individuals; nor on the contrary should we blindly reject their testimony. We ought rather to examine the evidence upon which they decided, and then believe according to our own sincere conviction. The authenticity of some of the books (the avrilɛyouɛva) which stand in our present collection, was disputed even in ancient times; and the decision respecting them was very different, even in the ancient orthodox church.

The canonical books were indeed, as we find, in some cases determined by formal decrees, which seem to cut off and discountenance all further inquiry; as in the Canones Apostolici, which however are spurious; also in can. 60, of the council at Laodicea, about the year 360, in which only the Apocalypse is omitted. But this council was composed of only a few bishops, and its determinations were not adopted by the other churches; besides, the sixtieth canon is probably spurious. Vid. Spittler, Kritische Untersuchung des sechzigsten Laodic. Canons, Bremen, 1777, 8vo. The council at Hippo, in the year 393, and at Carthage, in the year 397, also established similar catalogues. But neither of these councils was general. Many other enactments were made on the subject of the canon in the Romish church at a later period. But the council at Trent, in the sixteenth century, for the first time established the canon for the Romish church, by a general and formal decree.

But the Protestant church has never acquiesced in those decrees, which preclude or prohibit further investigation. Luther considered it allowable to call in question the authenticity of the Apocalypse, and the epistles of James; and he was followed in this opinion by many theologians of the sixteenth century. And other Pro

INTEGRITY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES.

93

testant theologians have doubted respecting other books of the aviλεγόμενα.

NOTE 1. Even if we should allow that the rideyouɛra are spurious, and cannot be relied upon in proof of the Christian system; we should not be compelled either to relinquish, or to alter a single doctrine. For the books whose genuineness is undisputed, contain all that is necessary for a complete knowledge of Christian faith and duty.

NOTE 2. If we examine the reasons which led some of the ancients to doubt the authenticity of the avrileyóuera, we shall find, that they were derived rather from the doctrines taught in these books, than from any historical evidence against them. Such were Luther's objections. But none of the objections of this nature, which are alleged, are, in my view, sufficiently weighty to justify us in considering any one of these books as doubtful; not even the Apocalypse, as most at present acknowledge. In the following work, therefore, the doctrines of the Christian religion will be supported by texts taken from the different books of the New Testament, without any reference to this distinction.

Works to be consulted. Gerh. de Mastricht, Canon SS. secundum seriem seculor. N. T. collectus et notis illustratus, Jenæ, 1725. This work contains the opinions of the fathers, catalogues of the canon extracted from their writings, and the decrees of the councils. Stosch, De librorum V. T. canone, Frankfort an dem Oder, 1755, 8vo. Semler, Abhandlungen von freyer Untersuchung des Canons, 4 Theile, Halle, 1771-75, 8vo. Weber, Beyträge zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Canons, Tübingen, 1791. Corrodi, Versuch einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte des judishen und christlichen Bibelcanons, 2 Bände, Halle, 1792. Other works are referred to in Jahn, and in the Elements of Storr and Flatt.

§ 6. On the unadulterated correctness and integrity of the Old and New Testament Scriptures.

The integrity of the Holy Scriptures implies, (1) that none of the books which formerly belonged to the canon are now wanting (integritas totalis); (2) that these Scriptures are transmitted to us in such a state, as still to promote the object for which they were originally written (integritas partium or partialis).

I. Integritas totalis.

If some of the Scriptures which formerly belonged to the canon had perished, the loss would not be very essential. If those that are left give us all the information which we need respecting the Jew

ish and Christian economy, no other books are necessary. That any books, however, have ever belonged to the canon of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures, which do not now belong to it, cannot be proved. It is true, indeed, that the apostles and prophets wrote many books, which have not come down to us,-books, too, which were inspired. For if inspiration is conceded to those books of theirs which were admitted into the canon of the Old and New Testament, and which are therefore preserved; it must also be conceded to those, which were not admitted into the canon, and have therefore perished. The oral discourses of Jesus and the apostles, were doubtless inspired; and yet many of these discourses are lost; and even of those which were committed to writing, only extracts of the more important parts, were in many cases preserved. There is nothing inconsistent, therefore, in the supposition, that God should suffer even an inspired book to be left out of this collection, and consequently, to be lost to posterity. But there is no evidence, that any of the books which are lost, ever belonged to the canon. Paul wrote, as we see from his epistles, at least one letter to the Corinthians, more than we have at present. Many memoirs of Jesus, as we find from Luke 1: 1, were written at a very early period. The historical books of the Old Testament were extracted from larger historical works, which are often cited in the books compiled from them, but which are now lost. Other collections of songs are mentioned; as, Joshua 10: 13. Writings of the prophets Gad, Nathan, Semaja, and Jehu, are mentioned in Chronicles. But none of these ever belonged to the collection of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. Cf. Jahn, Einleitung.

II. Integritas partialis.

The integrity of a book is not affected by variations of the text, and by false readings. These could not have been avoided, except by miracle, in the numerous transcripts which have been made of these ancient Scriptures. The integrity of a book requires only, that its text be in such a state, that the object for which the book was written is fully answered. When we assert the integrity of the Bible, therefore, we do not pretend that every letter, word, and expression, in our present copies, exactly answers to the original text ; but that the general contents, the doctrines of the Bible, are taught in it with uncorrupted correctness and certainty.